aside FrOm the above example, CUPS is nOw something that they own, so I guess that it Doesn't apply, but I was thinking of systeMs like that. you May also care to read this article that Mentions darwin being GLP/APSL but doesn't clarify issues.
I did not intend to imply that they were using it inappropriately. I was trying to say that they were using it appropriately, so there must be some way of doing it. Another user points out that a lot is based on BSD, which does not use GPL, so maybe I'm wrong that they use GPLed code at all.
And a Mac Pro 8-core can run at 80 Gigaflops (that's about $5.5k), or $68/Gflop. It stands to reason that a manufacturer could beet them, this project isn't that ambitious.
uh, except that I thought that the gpl license requires that when you make derivative works, it also must have a gpl license associated with it when it's distributed.
That said, Apple gets around this somehow with a lot of its software, probably by compartmentalizing successfully.
I've wondered about that. To make a bicycle go you need more food for the owner which requires tractors, shipping, et cetera. I wonder how much a gas a bicycle requires per mile.
You're right! The 601 is the first gen PPC, the 604 and low end version (603) was the second generation. My G3 and G4 systems definitely don't qualify. What I was thinking is that they are the oldest new-world Apples, but they aren't even in that group, that would be an original iMac... Sigh. Last time I try to change my subject.
I've got 10.4.9 running on a computer I bought in 2000, that makes it 7 years, not 2 for running the latest OS X. It is true though that there were 1998 computer that can not run OS X, and OS X was released in 2001--so that was a 3 year window. But at the time, 10.1 wasn't really ready for prime time, and OS 9 was still the main OS.
What, are you nuts? This means that in seven years you're computer won't be able to run a newer MS OS that's worse than Vista, but with MS games that lock out Vista. You'll be stuck with OS 10.8 with a dual boot to XP or Vista or any of a number of *nix OSs. A sad, sad computer it will be.
Actually, what I thought was crazy is that Apple customers aren't the only ones using the Core processors, why single them out? Is Apple even the largest customer of Intel 32-bit processors?
It may be that for any one fill-up, I'm off by as much as 1/2 gallon (I doubt it given that I always get the same calculated mpg) but it's not possible for the long run average to be botched because the total error remains the same. i.e. if I fill up 10 times, the total error on the amount of gas I've put it is still just one fill-up's error (say, 1/2 gallon again). Also, if you get a consistent result, then you know your doing it right.
This method would take into account how people who own the car like to drive too. Bad if you are a-typical or a manufacturer who sells cars to aggressive drivers. Good if you are a consumer and want to know what you might get conditional on the kind of car you are actually buying.
Also, a family member has a civic hybrid and said she got less than the EPA the first year and then better the second year and beyond (it taught her how to drive efficiently). Not sure how to capture that.
If you really are getting the best mileage around 80 miles per hour, you might want to consider not using the top gear. The simple fact is that wind resistance increases as the square of velocity while velocity only increases linearly in velocity (divide the two and you get that you have increasing wind resistance).
What makes you think that you are getting this kind of efficiency in a well controlled experiment. How did you test?
I'm afraid you've just described the insurance problem. The party has private information, the insurance company can only look at information it can reasonably gain access to. Think of car insurance. Most states don't report all tickets, or make some moving violations into parking violations to make people more likely to just pay (i.e. photo enforced tickets, red light running). This keeps driver info from the insurance companies. Also, the insurance companies should really be able to (by your argument) add sensors to your car to track how you drive, where, how often, where you park, et cetera. But that's not how it works.
Again, sometimes it is useful to disallow some information just to make people willing to get it--there will be more research into finding and treating these diseases if people will be actually helped by the tests. Social efficiency sometimes requires a government intermediary to push the market along to a better spot.
You might like the Massachusetts plan then where everyone has to be insured--the preventing a moral hazard for well people.
Also, just because someone has higher risk doesn't mean they can't buy insurance (or that "insurance" isn't the right name). Sure, they may be able to get better than actuarially fair insurance and you might not, but do you think they are the lucky ones? The fact of the matter is that people will buy less than actuarially fair insurance because they don't like to accept those kinds of risk--so the situation doesn't have to detoriate the way I think you're thinking it must.
You're ignoring the possibility of externalities here.
With these tests not useful for insurance, researchers will start to do research in these areas that could help all of us know what sort of diseases we should be concerned about, and what we might be able to do about it. Without this sort of legislation, very few researchers want to essentially pour their lives into helping insurance companies do screening.
My question is, why does the average house use 4 kW? I think that's my peak (fridge plus 3 A/Cs plus computer= 4 kW) While it's true that I'm almost straight CFL bulbs so those don't add up that much (all on is about 0.2 kW vs about 1 kW for traditional, which compounds into an additional circa 0.25 kW saved on A/C). Where are these people using 4 kW?
I agree. My reading of the above writeup appears to be, "evidence: Vista is better than XP in some ways and not as good as OS X in some ways. Conclusion: Tie between OS X and Vista." Am I missing something?
The "six times" calculation is correct, but we have no references, so we can't tell if the numbers are correct. The point is that as a fraction of income, the bottom 90% pay more.
Also, your claim that taxes are graduated assumes that (a) the 12% social security tax doesn't exist and (b) high income individuals are earning their money as wages and not as gains on investments, which are taxed at a lower fixed rate.
You were actually right that it's Fisher's exact test that you want, it's similar to doing a complete permutation test which is exact. Because this is a 2x2 table, there's no reason not to use the exact test. The actual result has a p-value of 1.0 in a two-tailed test (whoops!) and even 4,12 and 17,19 has a p-value of 0.22 in the two-tailed test. In deed, it would have to go all the way to 4,12 and 21,15 to be significant at the 5 percent level for the two-tailed test. The two-tailed test is the right one because you had better believe that they would have made a big stink if it had come out the other way!
But all this aside, I'm not sure I like the experiment. Why bore people? Why have so many in the room. the 4,12 number is way too high, I'd say the were better off looking at narrow time slices and natural yawns (i.e. do yawns happen at random or do they set off avalanches). Then there is only one group and you're just testing the Poisson process assumption of uncorrelatedness.
Thanks for all the info. I'm floored by the high cost per page by the inexpensive lasers (3-5 cents/page) and I think even adding in the color for the 4000, I'm still doing about as well at worst. This is the first ink jet that I've thought was great, but it's also the first time I've been buying reams every few months--the thing sees almost no inactivity of lengths of three days and probably one week only once a year. If I were the kind of person for whom a 2000 page toner cartridge took 2-3 years to use, I'd probably be much happier with a laser. All that said, I do miss waterproof.
I'm quite embarased by this, but it's actually an PIXMA IP 4000. I realized this when you said there is no photo black (which I do have). In fact, I just replaced it for the first time, so that's in the mix on the duplex too (I've printed maybe 3 photos). I was wondering why I was going through so much colored ink when I print in color almost never. Now I'm going to have to observe thing thing anew to calculate my cost per page. Thanks for all the info!
So just to be sure I understand (1) If I printed with manual duplex, I'd get just black (or mainly black) (2) When I print with auto duplex I get colors mixed in with black.
Do you know about non-oem ink that is water proof?
But, at current prices (about $60) and with 2000 pages output, the cartridge for the MF4150 is 3 cents per page before paper! This is countered by the below post that my PIXMA is actually using color ink that I didn't include in my calculation.
Thanks a lot for the tip. cnet however found very high cost per page for this one (about 4 cents/page) which is odd. But otherwise, it looks like a great model.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone cares, the above poster disagrees with the National Academies of Science.
aside FrOm the above example, CUPS is nOw something that they own, so I guess that it Doesn't apply, but I was thinking of systeMs like that. you May also care to read this article that Mentions darwin being GLP/APSL but doesn't clarify issues.
I did not intend to imply that they were using it inappropriately. I was trying to say that they were using it appropriately, so there must be some way of doing it. Another user points out that a lot is based on BSD, which does not use GPL, so maybe I'm wrong that they use GPLed code at all.
And a Mac Pro 8-core can run at 80 Gigaflops (that's about $5.5k), or $68/Gflop. It stands to reason that a manufacturer could beet them, this project isn't that ambitious.
That said, Apple gets around this somehow with a lot of its software, probably by compartmentalizing successfully.
I've wondered about that. To make a bicycle go you need more food for the owner which requires tractors, shipping, et cetera. I wonder how much a gas a bicycle requires per mile.
You're right! The 601 is the first gen PPC, the 604 and low end version (603) was the second generation. My G3 and G4 systems definitely don't qualify. What I was thinking is that they are the oldest new-world Apples, but they aren't even in that group, that would be an original iMac... Sigh. Last time I try to change my subject.
I've got 10.4.9 running on a computer I bought in 2000, that makes it 7 years, not 2 for running the latest OS X. It is true though that there were 1998 computer that can not run OS X, and OS X was released in 2001--so that was a 3 year window. But at the time, 10.1 wasn't really ready for prime time, and OS 9 was still the main OS.
Actually, what I thought was crazy is that Apple customers aren't the only ones using the Core processors, why single them out? Is Apple even the largest customer of Intel 32-bit processors?
It may be that for any one fill-up, I'm off by as much as 1/2 gallon (I doubt it given that I always get the same calculated mpg) but it's not possible for the long run average to be botched because the total error remains the same. i.e. if I fill up 10 times, the total error on the amount of gas I've put it is still just one fill-up's error (say, 1/2 gallon again). Also, if you get a consistent result, then you know your doing it right.
Also, a family member has a civic hybrid and said she got less than the EPA the first year and then better the second year and beyond (it taught her how to drive efficiently). Not sure how to capture that.
What makes you think that you are getting this kind of efficiency in a well controlled experiment. How did you test?
Again, sometimes it is useful to disallow some information just to make people willing to get it--there will be more research into finding and treating these diseases if people will be actually helped by the tests. Social efficiency sometimes requires a government intermediary to push the market along to a better spot.
Also, just because someone has higher risk doesn't mean they can't buy insurance (or that "insurance" isn't the right name). Sure, they may be able to get better than actuarially fair insurance and you might not, but do you think they are the lucky ones? The fact of the matter is that people will buy less than actuarially fair insurance because they don't like to accept those kinds of risk--so the situation doesn't have to detoriate the way I think you're thinking it must.
With these tests not useful for insurance, researchers will start to do research in these areas that could help all of us know what sort of diseases we should be concerned about, and what we might be able to do about it. Without this sort of legislation, very few researchers want to essentially pour their lives into helping insurance companies do screening.
My question is, why does the average house use 4 kW? I think that's my peak (fridge plus 3 A/Cs plus computer= 4 kW) While it's true that I'm almost straight CFL bulbs so those don't add up that much (all on is about 0.2 kW vs about 1 kW for traditional, which compounds into an additional circa 0.25 kW saved on A/C). Where are these people using 4 kW?
I agree. My reading of the above writeup appears to be, "evidence: Vista is better than XP in some ways and not as good as OS X in some ways. Conclusion: Tie between OS X and Vista." Am I missing something?
So wait, The Ohio Supper Computer Center didn't have the bandwidth? Really?
Also, your claim that taxes are graduated assumes that (a) the 12% social security tax doesn't exist and (b) high income individuals are earning their money as wages and not as gains on investments, which are taxed at a lower fixed rate.
But all this aside, I'm not sure I like the experiment. Why bore people? Why have so many in the room. the 4,12 number is way too high, I'd say the were better off looking at narrow time slices and natural yawns (i.e. do yawns happen at random or do they set off avalanches). Then there is only one group and you're just testing the Poisson process assumption of uncorrelatedness.
Thanks again.
I'm quite embarased by this, but it's actually an PIXMA IP 4000. I realized this when you said there is no photo black (which I do have). In fact, I just replaced it for the first time, so that's in the mix on the duplex too (I've printed maybe 3 photos). I was wondering why I was going through so much colored ink when I print in color almost never. Now I'm going to have to observe thing thing anew to calculate my cost per page. Thanks for all the info!
Do you know about non-oem ink that is water proof?
But, at current prices (about $60) and with 2000 pages output, the cartridge for the MF4150 is 3 cents per page before paper! This is countered by the below post that my PIXMA is actually using color ink that I didn't include in my calculation.
Thanks a lot for the tip. cnet however found very high cost per page for this one (about 4 cents/page) which is odd. But otherwise, it looks like a great model.