"It's easier to sell 100 items for $1 each, than 1 item for $100"
While true, many of the people buy the $1 item when they don't need / use it much and the overall use of finite (albeit currently abundant) resources increases. (Fresh water, landfill, electricity, transport, etc)
This approach increases the profit of the company but at a significantly larger burden on society as a whole. See "tragedy of the commons".
It's the name given to the code stored in the ROM on the motherboard.
What you are referring to is the setup utility, which is not an operating system as far as I am concerned, but might be under some strict defenition, which would apply to the software that runs a TV set's menu system.
Beautiful for a century? Think back to major transport infrastructure in 1903. A lot changes in a hundred years. Your reference to a cathederal confuses the functional with the spiritual, and perhaps speaks volumes about the USA's quasi-religious attitude to cars and petrol, but that's a them for another discussion.
Do you really think people will be using this tunnel to drive cars through in 2103?
It even says in the article that
"... the Central Artery [was] hailed as a modern "highway in the sky" when it opened in 1959... [and was] overwhelmed with more than double the number of cars it was designed to carry."
Preliminary design began in the '80s , so it seems that a decision was made that the Central Artery was a mistake only around twenty years after it was finished!
There's a line somewhere about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
14.6 Billion US Dollars. I'm sorry, but this is a good example of a waste of money, there's no two ways about it. If cars perist as the transport of choice, it too will eventually become "overwhelmed with more than double the number of cars it was designed to carry".
If cars are driven through in large numbers, close together at high speed to get the "throughput" required, you'll see horrific accidents within this long tunnel, it's only a matter of time.
I'd love to see what the health and education services of Boston reckon they could do for the twenty to fifty year economic future of the city with a cash injection like that and a free hand to work with...
Am I missing something?/--PC1
--ADSL--- eth0 - FWALL - eth1 ---HUB---PC2
\--PC3
So you don't need a NIC for each PC -- you just set it up as shown.
Total requirements: 1 old 486 PC, 2 old 10Mbit ISA cards (all from the dump) and Freesco. Add a HDD for IPCop or Smoothwall, and pref a pentium. You only need 10Mbit since your net connection is probably not more than that. Or just drop eth0 and the ADSL modem and replace with a regular 56k modem, the principle is the same.
It's really really easy -- trust me, I've done six freescos and I know stuff all about Linux....
From a previous post: It's not a big deal, but if someone wanted to be an ass about it they would have a good case.
I guess that makes you an ass. Instead of saying "what if I like my grass that length", what matters is whether you REALLY do or not, not a hypethetical what if....
Since victims are more likely to end up as perpertrators that non-victims, (I sure you can find many studies on this) perhaps we need a register of them?
The percentages maybe different, and granted they haven't done anything wrong, but if the lists are about preventing future crime as we are told, then surely this argument shows the problem with the idea.
Are we back to the "First they came for the kiddie fiddlers, and I did nothing because I wasn't a kiddie fiddler..." argument?
Purpose is to deter crime and rehabilitate the person. It's got nothing to do with punishment, revenge or safety, people easily get this confused.
The original idea was to convert the people from a nasty person to a nice one, but many people think that it is unfair that the criminal should get a hand up, even though it can reduce crime....
How do you think the telephone, cable, rail, and airport infrastructure got built?
In many parts of the world this is done by Government borrowing money to fund the construction, then maintaining it as a public asset, often raising profit from it either directly, or as a result of more economic activity enabled by the service. In the end you have a debt paid off and an additional public good.
For example, a phone system such as Australia's telecom (before it was sold) gave the government a big revenue intake without some of the practices that led to the breakup of the big US Telcos.
With something like a bus service that often loses money, there is still an advantage in the lower pollution, fewer car crashes and so on, but you'd need to crunch the numbers to estimate total loss/gain
Further, government funding of public infrastructure often allows society to function in a civilized manner -- the idea that poor people should simply be excluded from transport and so on will only create a subclass who never vote and hold no respect for their fellow citizens.
Of course, all this public investment in public infrastructure is only a good idea if you have honest, capable, well-meaning Government, which is why so many governments are selling their assets, and even the assets of other countries which aren't theirs to sell...
Off topic, but if you reckon the cigarette makers aren't liable, why blame heroin dealers? Is your reasoning that companies should be immune from suits related to products because the buyer shouldn't have bought them?
They say that's the equivalent of all the plants on the planet for a year for our cars.
1) That's only for cars, not turbines and all the other things we use fossil fuels for.
2) Not all those plants actually get turned into fossil fuels. Note they said it's the equivalent of plants growing in a year, not plants turned into fossil fuels in a year. Only a (tiny?) small fraction gets turned into ff.
3) Not every year was appropriate to create any fossil fuels from exisitng plants (ice ages, asteroid winters, to recent etc)
4) Not every year produced significant amounts of plants (same reasons)
Yeah, fine, but the grass isn't grown naturally, it's grown using herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, and the phosphorus for the fertilizer is usually mined, which indicates that the consumption levels are not sustainable (everything mined is by defenition finite).
Someone mod this up it's more relevant than most other rubbish here.
All this is a SOLVED problem.
It's in production and it works.
It's called EVACS.
It was developed using XTUML which is also interesting in it's own right.
As I see it, the masterful approach is to take the multiglomerate meganational view.
You can carve a slice out of "paired" markets, say CCs and a major ISP. Your ISP charges a fee if you don't pay by CC, your CC co. charges a fee for having one.
THIS is the behaviour that will become more and more relevant as essential services like water (as opposed to internet access) are compulsorarily fully privatised.
Now there's nothing wrong on the face of it when fees are used primarily as a marketing mechanism, but if a company can develop a position on two generally opposed essentials, then there'll be no way to opt out of one without paying the other one, and the company can sit back and hike the prices. This also provides a way for the company to dictate social behaviour in a mathematically definable manner by forcing people to pay extra for "errant" conduct.
Personally, I think it should be illegal for a company to charge fess on each of the available options -- in banking for example, how can they get away with a counter fee, an ATM fee AND a not enough transaction fee??? It's bloody ridiculous. May as well charge a "not one of our customers" fee.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's easier to sell 100 items for $1 each, than 1 item for $100"
While true, many of the people buy the $1 item when they don't need / use it much and the overall use of finite (albeit currently abundant) resources increases. (Fresh water, landfill, electricity, transport, etc)
This approach increases the profit of the company but at a significantly larger burden on society as a whole. See "tragedy of the commons".
Output System.
Basic Input/Output System.
It's the name given to the code stored in the ROM on the motherboard.
What you are referring to is the setup utility, which is not an operating system as far as I am concerned, but might be under some strict defenition, which would apply to the software that runs a TV set's menu system.
Beautiful for a century? Think back to major transport infrastructure in 1903. A lot changes in a hundred years. Your reference to a cathederal confuses the functional with the spiritual, and perhaps speaks volumes about the USA's quasi-religious attitude to cars and petrol, but that's a them for another discussion.
... [and was] overwhelmed with more than double
Do you really think people will be using this tunnel to drive cars through in 2103?
It even says in the article that
"... the Central Artery [was] hailed as a modern "highway in the sky" when it opened in 1959
the number of cars it was designed to carry."
Preliminary design began in the '80s , so it seems that a decision was made that the Central Artery was a mistake only around twenty years after it was finished!
There's a line somewhere about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
14.6 Billion US Dollars. I'm sorry, but this is a good example of a waste of money, there's no two ways about it. If cars perist as the transport of choice, it too will eventually become "overwhelmed with more than double the number of cars it was designed to carry".
If cars are driven through in large numbers, close together at high speed to get the "throughput" required, you'll see horrific accidents within this long tunnel, it's only a matter of time.
I'd love to see what the health and education services of Boston reckon they could do for the twenty to fifty year economic future of the city with a cash injection like that and a free hand to work with...
Cheers!
Am I missing something? /--PC1
--ADSL--- eth0 - FWALL - eth1 ---HUB---PC2
\--PC3
So you don't need a NIC for each PC -- you just set it up as shown.
Total requirements: 1 old 486 PC, 2 old 10Mbit ISA cards (all from the dump) and Freesco. Add a HDD for IPCop or Smoothwall, and pref a pentium. You only need 10Mbit since your net connection is probably not more than that. Or just drop eth0 and the ADSL modem and replace with a regular 56k modem, the principle is the same.
It's really really easy -- trust me, I've done six freescos and I know stuff all about Linux....
From a previous post:
It's not a big deal, but if someone wanted to be an ass about it they would have a good case.
I guess that makes you an ass. Instead of saying "what if I like my grass that length", what matters is whether you REALLY do or not, not a hypethetical what if....
Since victims are more likely to end up as perpertrators that non-victims, (I sure you can find many studies on this) perhaps we need a register of them?
The percentages maybe different, and granted they haven't done anything wrong, but if the lists are about preventing future crime as we are told, then surely this argument shows the problem with the idea.
Are we back to the "First they came for the kiddie fiddlers, and I did nothing because I wasn't a kiddie fiddler..." argument?
Purpose is to deter crime and rehabilitate the person. It's got nothing to do with punishment, revenge or safety, people easily get this confused.
The original idea was to convert the people from a nasty person to a nice one, but many people think that it is unfair that the criminal should get a hand up, even though it can reduce crime....
In many parts of the world this is done by Government borrowing money to fund the construction, then maintaining it as a public asset, often raising profit from it either directly, or as a result of more economic activity enabled by the service. In the end you have a debt paid off and an additional public good.
For example, a phone system such as Australia's telecom (before it was sold) gave the government a big revenue intake without some of the practices that led to the breakup of the big US Telcos.
With something like a bus service that often loses money, there is still an advantage in the lower pollution, fewer car crashes and so on, but you'd need to crunch the numbers to estimate total loss/gain
Further, government funding of public infrastructure often allows society to function in a civilized manner -- the idea that poor people should simply be excluded from transport and so on will only create a subclass who never vote and hold no respect for their fellow citizens.
Of course, all this public investment in public infrastructure is only a good idea if you have honest, capable, well-meaning Government, which is why so many governments are selling their assets, and even the assets of other countries which aren't theirs to sell...
Off topic, but if you reckon the cigarette makers aren't liable, why blame heroin dealers? Is your reasoning that companies should be immune from suits related to products because the buyer shouldn't have bought them?
It keeps the toxic chemicals from leaching into groundwater for a few more years.
They say that's the equivalent of all the plants on the planet for a year for our cars.
1) That's only for cars, not turbines and all the other things we use fossil fuels for.
2) Not all those plants actually get turned into fossil fuels. Note they said it's the equivalent of plants growing in a year, not plants turned into fossil fuels in a year. Only a (tiny?) small fraction gets turned into ff.
3) Not every year was appropriate to create any fossil fuels from exisitng plants (ice ages, asteroid winters, to recent etc)
4) Not every year produced significant amounts of plants (same reasons)
So you're wrong.
Yeah, fine, but the grass isn't grown naturally, it's grown using herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, and the phosphorus for the fertilizer is usually mined, which indicates that the consumption levels are not sustainable (everything mined is by defenition finite).
Someone mod this up it's more relevant than most other rubbish here. All this is a SOLVED problem. It's in production and it works. It's called EVACS. It was developed using XTUML which is also interesting in it's own right.
As I see it, the masterful approach is to take the multiglomerate meganational view. You can carve a slice out of "paired" markets, say CCs and a major ISP. Your ISP charges a fee if you don't pay by CC, your CC co. charges a fee for having one. THIS is the behaviour that will become more and more relevant as essential services like water (as opposed to internet access) are compulsorarily fully privatised. Now there's nothing wrong on the face of it when fees are used primarily as a marketing mechanism, but if a company can develop a position on two generally opposed essentials, then there'll be no way to opt out of one without paying the other one, and the company can sit back and hike the prices. This also provides a way for the company to dictate social behaviour in a mathematically definable manner by forcing people to pay extra for "errant" conduct. Personally, I think it should be illegal for a company to charge fess on each of the available options -- in banking for example, how can they get away with a counter fee, an ATM fee AND a not enough transaction fee??? It's bloody ridiculous. May as well charge a "not one of our customers" fee.