For your information I have worked on AUV code (autonomous underwater vehicle), and sorry to say it is your understanding that is limited. There are many ways to code such things. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you seem to make allowance for.
As usual, it takes a Californian to torture logic beyond recognition. People, I give you Exhibit A in why California is a major disaster. No hard feelings.
The same way you always shred the constitution it: just pass a law that defies it. It's done all the time. Many such laws stand.
Be careful choosing what you wish for: the best government money can buy, or a government that can't be influenced. Door number one and door number two both lead to the hell of corrupt, evil government. Either they are enriched by filthy rich contributors, or the enrich themselves.
You bloody well BETTER be able to write multithreaded code correctly in C embedded code. And you can bet that is CAN be done and IS being done, else you wouldn't have any AUVs and UAVs and robotic spacecraft that work.
This. Handling concurrent code properly with a true understanding of the fundamental theory, not just throwing in a few "synchronized" keywords in a Java program, is DIFFICULT. It's the most difficult thing I had to deal with in 40 years of programming. When I picked it up many years ago, I asked the gurus how to do it. They just told me you have to figure it out. There is no cookbook.
I really don't get this POV. Businesses don't have the POWER to take your money, save for total monopolies with some product or service you can't do without - and these can't exist except at the pleasure of the government. They have to convince you to give it to them. If you let yourself be brainwashed, there is nobody else to blame.
Now, governments CAN actually take your money. That is a completely different situation.
None of this is to say that businesses do not engage in corrupt and evil practices just like governments - but they can't "take" your money.
If they can't sell iPhones and Galaxies for less than THREE times what it costs to make them, then yes, the greedy bastards are doing something wrong. If capitalism can't do better than this, it is wildly inefficient. The stockholder leaches are siphoning off way more from the people who do the actual productive work than any sane society should allow.
If this is NOT the best capitalism can do, then we better get busy adjusting regulations, because something is upsetting the invisible hand of the market MIGHTILY.
Gross margin of 38% is not in the greedy range on what planet? Of course you have to specify what kind of gross margin you are talking about. EBITDASG&A/Sales? EBITDA/Sales? EBIT/Sales? EBIT(1-t)/Sales?
Even if you are talking EBITDASG&A/Sales, 38% is high. Even the Aerospace/Defense industry who brought you the $500 hammer makes do with 21%. Electric Utilities, 30%. Electronics, 20%. Engineering & Construction, 11%. Steel, 19%. Trucking, 19%.
If instead you are talking about EBIT/Sales, 38% is just off the charts. The only industry higher is Financial Services.
EBITDASG&A is earnings before all costs - i.e., raw earnings. EBIT is earnings before interest and taxes.
(1) Scientific consensus is that there is NO safe increment in radiation; no lower limit of added radiation which does not add danger pf adverse health effects. You might not call that hard evidence, but it is scientific consensus. Now, try to tell me what "statistically dangerous" means. In precise terms, if you please. I know I cannot.
(2) Nobody has any way of measuring the number of person-years of life stolen from citizens due to a radiation disaster because cancer does not carry a label "this particular cancer was brought to you courtesy of factor X". Maybe it can be estimated. I have not seen evidence of any real effort to make such an estimation, other than to just dismiss the idea of it.
I understand, but what does it matter by what design you achieve viable controlled flight a specified ratio of engine+fuel mass to engine power?
I am also pretty sure you could match that 40 knot figure with some kind of radical super-super-light huge-and-slow airframe such as is used in solar aircraft. Not sure if I would rate that viable except for special missions.
Yes, at first it does indeed sound odd. I tend to doubt they are measuring the same thing. The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation thinks the typical range of annual dose is:
Public Health England thinks the "UK average annual radiation dose" is 2.7 mSv/y, just as you say. That probably corresponds to the "total natural" figure in the UNSCEAR tabulation. Presumably the measurement used in the Japan regulation corresponds to the delta above the "external natural" UNSCEAR tabulation, which is a different measurement.
That is my guess, anyway. BTW, the limit in the US is the same 1 mSv/y "from industrial ionizing radiation" as Japan used to be before Fukushima. After Fukushima, Japan changed their limit from 1 to 20. You be the judge on whether that change just "happened" to be justified after all kinds of figurative alarms suddenly went off based on the old limit, and also on whether either the 1 or 20 limit is a fair one, but they are the officially regulated limits.
"Bottom-dwelling fish in the Fukushima area show radioactivity levels above the limit of 100 becquerels per kilogram set by the Japanese government. Greenlings, for example, have been found to have levels as high as 25,000 becquerels per kilogram." That's more than just a little excess.
In concrete terms, losses to the fishing industry exceeding a billion dollars are mentioned, with "many fisheries" still closed as of November 2012.
Was the evacuation necessary? Well, it's the government's decision to make, and they made it. Some 4,500 square miles – an area almost the size of Connecticut – was found to have radiation levels that exceeded Japan’s allowable exposure rate of 1 mSV (millisievert) per year. 310 square miles were declared "permanent" exclusion zones. Estimates of the lost economic value of these losses range from $250 to 500 billion.
Heh, you're easy to please. Very forgiving. But since some of these consequences affect a large area and many people, and we are not all that forgiving...
Is long term evacuation a large consequence? Contamination of groundwater? Contamination of the ocean food chain?
I don't think anyone can really quantify the number of "deaths caused" anyway, but the term itself is meaningless. Everybody dies. A better measure would be the number of person-years of life cut short. Number of person-years of added suffering and inconvenience weighted by degree would be an even better measurement, but that is completely impractical to quantify.
Total dollars wasted due to all consequences would be a good measure of consequences, but I haven't seen even a single attempt to quantify that.
Can somebody please pull Quinstreet's plug? With extreme prejudice. Any outfit that can't comprehensibly explain what they do is pretty bloody useless.
The HINDENBURG carried engines + fuel totaling about 150,000 lb. Cruise power was 3200 hp (2400 kW) at 68 knots, but she could go 40 knots on 500 kW. That's 300 lb/kW. Is that close enough?
An airship that could travel at 40 knots for YEARS without stopping sounds pretty viable to me.
So you don't think Fukushima had massively destructive consequences? Forced long term evacuation doesn't bother you? Contamination of groundwater? Contamination of the ocean food chain? Destruction isn't just junks of conrete and nuclear fuel being blown sky high. There are many forms of destruction.
There was a similar tsunami about 1000 years ago, yet the plant owners refused to consider the possibility of a recurrence.
They gambled that they personally would statistically be very likely dead and buried before such an event occurred. It wasn't a bad gamble. It's just that the consequences of losing the gamble - for the world, not their own sad hides - were enormous.
It's all anecdotal. Does the coward who posted between our posts think there is some impartial bureau who realistically life tests this stuff? The coward did make some excellent points. But actually if you read the Newegg feedback you do get some useful info. Examine all the single-star reviews and sift them. There will be a lot of idiots who don't know what they're doing and are usually easy to identify. The remaining failures reported with usable dtails are a pretty good measure. Calling it anecdotal and useless is silly.
Take my own anecdote. I have installed 22 Samsung HD204UI 2 TB 5400 rpm in my own equipment, most from before and some from after the Seagate takeover. They are not all from the same lot. It took me years buying them 1-2 at a time with my puny funds. A lot of them have run 24x7 for long periods. This group has from 15,000-18,000 POH. I have yet to lose a single byte of data from a single one of those 22 drives. There are no funny sounds from any of them. The SMART data is all still excellent.
What's wrong with the Greens when I investigated them was an insane high load cycle count. We are talking thousands of idiotic head parks every day. This is what kills drives. There is no excuse to EVER park the heads during operation just to save an erg or two of energy.
You used to have to track down a WD utility called WDIDLE3.EXE to change the cycle timer. You could change it from 30 seconds to 300 seconds, but you couldn't turn the idiotic behavior completely off.
Performance was never an issue for me, with the Greens or with anything else. When storing tens of terabytes of data, I couldn't care less if sequential data transfer is 180 MBps at 7200 rpm or 150 MBps at 5400 rpm (actual measured values I got in testing).
You think so, huh? Sorry, you're - tada - WRONG. Thank goodness I don't line in your world where carrying around some pebbles or even lead slugs makes me a felon who is sent to "jail" for years. You're welcome to that world. The rest of us spit on it.
Now, about your claim. "Metal detector" covers a lot of territory, but in general they detect, er, like METALS, not just ferrous metals.
" 3. What types of things will a metal detector help me find?
All metallic objects. Example: gold, silver, iron, nickel, copper, brass, aluminum, tin, lead, bronze. Metal detectors will not detect nonmetal items such as gemstones, diamonds, pearls, bone, paper, or stone figures."
It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.
It never ceases to amaze me how statist asshole pigs are quick to throw the constitution in the garbage to further their own fucking lust for power and oppression.
Well actually, it doesn't amaze me at all. This is just the same old millennia-old piggish agenda that is built into their rotten carcass.
$350 is a rocking storage budget. For $350 I can get a 3 TB top quality 7200 rpm HD plus a not so small 256 GB SSD. I would consider that an enormously better deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes they are processes and sometimes they are threads. Either way, you better damn well understand synchronization.
For your information I have worked on AUV code (autonomous underwater vehicle), and sorry to say it is your understanding that is limited. There are many ways to code such things. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you seem to make allowance for.
As usual, it takes a Californian to torture logic beyond recognition. People, I give you Exhibit A in why California is a major disaster. No hard feelings.
The same way you always shred the constitution it: just pass a law that defies it. It's done all the time. Many such laws stand.
Be careful choosing what you wish for: the best government money can buy, or a government that can't be influenced. Door number one and door number two both lead to the hell of corrupt, evil government. Either they are enriched by filthy rich contributors, or the enrich themselves.
You bloody well BETTER be able to write multithreaded code correctly in C embedded code. And you can bet that is CAN be done and IS being done, else you wouldn't have any AUVs and UAVs and robotic spacecraft that work.
This. Handling concurrent code properly with a true understanding of the fundamental theory, not just throwing in a few "synchronized" keywords in a Java program, is DIFFICULT. It's the most difficult thing I had to deal with in 40 years of programming. When I picked it up many years ago, I asked the gurus how to do it. They just told me you have to figure it out. There is no cookbook.
I really don't get this POV. Businesses don't have the POWER to take your money, save for total monopolies with some product or service you can't do without - and these can't exist except at the pleasure of the government. They have to convince you to give it to them. If you let yourself be brainwashed, there is nobody else to blame.
Now, governments CAN actually take your money. That is a completely different situation.
None of this is to say that businesses do not engage in corrupt and evil practices just like governments - but they can't "take" your money.
If they can't sell iPhones and Galaxies for less than THREE times what it costs to make them, then yes, the greedy bastards are doing something wrong. If capitalism can't do better than this, it is wildly inefficient. The stockholder leaches are siphoning off way more from the people who do the actual productive work than any sane society should allow.
If this is NOT the best capitalism can do, then we better get busy adjusting regulations, because something is upsetting the invisible hand of the market MIGHTILY.
Gross margin of 38% is not in the greedy range on what planet? Of course you have to specify what kind of gross margin you are talking about. EBITDASG&A/Sales? EBITDA/Sales? EBIT/Sales? EBIT(1-t)/Sales?
Even if you are talking EBITDASG&A/Sales, 38% is high. Even the Aerospace/Defense industry who brought you the $500 hammer makes do with 21%. Electric Utilities, 30%. Electronics, 20%. Engineering & Construction, 11%. Steel, 19%. Trucking, 19%.
If instead you are talking about EBIT/Sales, 38% is just off the charts. The only industry higher is Financial Services.
EBITDASG&A is earnings before all costs - i.e., raw earnings.
EBIT is earnings before interest and taxes.
I absolutely agree that a measured evaluation of all factors and all alternative courses of action is necessary.
Minus the "so what" part.
(1) Scientific consensus is that there is NO safe increment in radiation; no lower limit of added radiation which does not add danger pf adverse health effects. You might not call that hard evidence, but it is scientific consensus. Now, try to tell me what "statistically dangerous" means. In precise terms, if you please. I know I cannot.
(2) Nobody has any way of measuring the number of person-years of life stolen from citizens due to a radiation disaster because cancer does not carry a label "this particular cancer was brought to you courtesy of factor X". Maybe it can be estimated. I have not seen evidence of any real effort to make such an estimation, other than to just dismiss the idea of it.
I understand, but what does it matter by what design you achieve viable controlled flight a specified ratio of engine+fuel mass to engine power?
I am also pretty sure you could match that 40 knot figure with some kind of radical super-super-light huge-and-slow airframe such as is used in solar aircraft. Not sure if I would rate that viable except for special missions.
Yes, at first it does indeed sound odd. I tend to doubt they are measuring the same thing. The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation thinks the typical range of annual dose is:
inhalation (radon): 0.2-10 mSv
"external terrestrial": 0.3-1
ingestion: 0.2-1
cosmic radiation 0.3-1
total natural: 1-13
Public Health England thinks the "UK average annual radiation dose" is 2.7 mSv/y, just as you say. That probably corresponds to the "total natural" figure in the UNSCEAR tabulation. Presumably the measurement used in the Japan regulation corresponds to the delta above the "external natural" UNSCEAR tabulation, which is a different measurement.
That is my guess, anyway. BTW, the limit in the US is the same 1 mSv/y "from industrial ionizing radiation" as Japan used to be before Fukushima. After Fukushima, Japan changed their limit from 1 to 20. You be the judge on whether that change just "happened" to be justified after all kinds of figurative alarms suddenly went off based on the old limit, and also on whether either the 1 or 20 limit is a fair one, but they are the officially regulated limits.
All good questions. Some investigations are yielding some some answers.
"Bottom-dwelling fish in the Fukushima area show radioactivity levels above the limit of 100 becquerels per kilogram set by the Japanese government. Greenlings, for example, have been found to have levels as high as 25,000 becquerels per kilogram." That's more than just a little excess.
In concrete terms, losses to the fishing industry exceeding a billion dollars are mentioned, with "many fisheries" still closed as of November 2012.
Was the evacuation necessary? Well, it's the government's decision to make, and they made it. Some 4,500 square miles – an area almost the size of Connecticut – was found to have radiation levels that exceeded Japan’s allowable exposure rate of 1 mSV (millisievert) per year. 310 square miles were declared "permanent" exclusion zones. Estimates of the lost economic value of these losses range from $250 to 500 billion.
Heh, you're easy to please. Very forgiving. But since some of these consequences affect a large area and many people, and we are not all that forgiving ...
Is long term evacuation a large consequence? Contamination of groundwater? Contamination of the ocean food chain?
I don't think anyone can really quantify the number of "deaths caused" anyway, but the term itself is meaningless. Everybody dies. A better measure would be the number of person-years of life cut short. Number of person-years of added suffering and inconvenience weighted by degree would be an even better measurement, but that is completely impractical to quantify.
Total dollars wasted due to all consequences would be a good measure of consequences, but I haven't seen even a single attempt to quantify that.
Can somebody please pull Quinstreet's plug? With extreme prejudice. Any outfit that can't comprehensibly explain what they do is pretty bloody useless.
The HINDENBURG carried engines + fuel totaling about 150,000 lb. Cruise power was 3200 hp (2400 kW) at 68 knots, but she could go 40 knots on 500 kW. That's 300 lb/kW. Is that close enough?
An airship that could travel at 40 knots for YEARS without stopping sounds pretty viable to me.
So you don't think Fukushima had massively destructive consequences? Forced long term evacuation doesn't bother you? Contamination of groundwater? Contamination of the ocean food chain? Destruction isn't just junks of conrete and nuclear fuel being blown sky high. There are many forms of destruction.
They gambled that they personally would statistically be very likely dead and buried before such an event occurred. It wasn't a bad gamble. It's just that the consequences of losing the gamble - for the world, not their own sad hides - were enormous.
It's all anecdotal. Does the coward who posted between our posts think there is some impartial bureau who realistically life tests this stuff? The coward did make some excellent points. But actually if you read the Newegg feedback you do get some useful info. Examine all the single-star reviews and sift them. There will be a lot of idiots who don't know what they're doing and are usually easy to identify. The remaining failures reported with usable dtails are a pretty good measure. Calling it anecdotal and useless is silly.
Take my own anecdote. I have installed 22 Samsung HD204UI 2 TB 5400 rpm in my own equipment, most from before and some from after the Seagate takeover. They are not all from the same lot. It took me years buying them 1-2 at a time with my puny funds. A lot of them have run 24x7 for long periods. This group has from 15,000-18,000 POH. I have yet to lose a single byte of data from a single one of those 22 drives. There are no funny sounds from any of them. The SMART data is all still excellent.
What's wrong with the Greens when I investigated them was an insane high load cycle count. We are talking thousands of idiotic head parks every day. This is what kills drives. There is no excuse to EVER park the heads during operation just to save an erg or two of energy.
You used to have to track down a WD utility called WDIDLE3.EXE to change the cycle timer. You could change it from 30 seconds to 300 seconds, but you couldn't turn the idiotic behavior completely off.
Performance was never an issue for me, with the Greens or with anything else. When storing tens of terabytes of data, I couldn't care less if sequential data transfer is 180 MBps at 7200 rpm or 150 MBps at 5400 rpm (actual measured values I got in testing).
You think so, huh? Sorry, you're - tada - WRONG. Thank goodness I don't line in your world where carrying around some pebbles or even lead slugs makes me a felon who is sent to "jail" for years. You're welcome to that world. The rest of us spit on it.
Now, about your claim. "Metal detector" covers a lot of territory, but in general they detect, er, like METALS, not just ferrous metals.
http://whiteselectronics.com/info/faqs.html#3
" 3. What types of things will a metal detector help me find?
All metallic objects. Example: gold, silver, iron, nickel, copper, brass, aluminum, tin, lead, bronze. Metal detectors will not detect nonmetal items such as gemstones, diamonds, pearls, bone, paper, or stone figures."
It never ceases to amaze me how statist asshole pigs are quick to throw the constitution in the garbage to further their own fucking lust for power and oppression.
Well actually, it doesn't amaze me at all. This is just the same old millennia-old piggish agenda that is built into their rotten carcass.
$350 is a rocking storage budget. For $350 I can get a 3 TB top quality 7200 rpm HD plus a not so small 256 GB SSD. I would consider that an enormously better deal.