a lot of people and businesses will like the idea that they don't have to pay for an additional data connection.
seems smart to me. You have a phone with a data contract. Why would you want to shell out another $15ish/month for another device to connect to the web when you are away from home/office wifi.
It's a much less intrusive form of communication. I can send you a small bit of info (e.g. meet at xxx at y) without interrupting whatever you are doing at the moment.
A phone call generally takes me 30-60 seconds, plus some waiting for the call to connect. A text is much faster (and can be sent to multiple recipients)
It's much more discreet for the sender (can send text from meeting/class/dinner)
It is a lot like email - but generally more available on phones, and with approximately real-time delivery to the recipient's attention. By comparison, a lot of people might not check their email for hours (or even days) at a time.
For a lot of plans, it is also a lot cheaper than voice calling. (in the uk at least, lots of pretty cheap plans come with effectively unlimited texting)
Intel will cut the cost of the chip - knowing that they'll get the extra $50 in a good proportion of cases.
The vendor gets to produce a computer that is at a lower price point (customers are generally stupid and will buy an item with a lower initial cost and higher TCO which is why people buy phone contracts with 'free' phones).
My guess is this won't appear in the higher end systems, but it will be used a lot in low end systems where it is all about getting the total cost below some magic number like $300.
Plus, the vendor gets to say that the chip is 'Cache Upgradeable' (or some much more compelling marketing tag).
My guess is that the economics are something like this:
extra cost to make the more capable chip $5 discount to vendor for using 'upgradeable chip' $10 50% upgrade chip $25 (average), which just about covers the admin cost (calls, processing, customer support) and the $15 additional cost
Intel breaks even approximately, but gains by selling more volume to delighted low-end manufacturers
1) I suspect people go into the music business because they want to get paid for making music (with a side order of possible fame)
2) Most jobs, if you want to protect your loved ones, you take some of what you were paid and put it in life insurance. Why should music be different?
besides - if the period was 15 years after the creation, then it doesn't matter whether you die or not. The money goes to your heirs for any remainder of the 15 years.
I took a jar of pickled pumpkin through the security at Hamburg airport. I only had handbagage and forgot that this would be a problem.
They spotted it, took it out, asked me about it, decided that it was clearly against the rules, and clearly a glass jar containing pickled pumpkin which posed no threat to anybody.
jesus (or at least many incarnations of the idea) is a lovely idea. Be nice to folks, join a church community, talk your problems over in a quiet place (pray)
Nothing wrong with those things. I just don't believe in the son of god coming down on a suicide mission business.
If you are going to believe in god just because you argue that he can be everywhere and has the power to bypass my experiments, then I ask you to believe in my pink elephant-faries.
They're invisible, undetectable and everywhere. They cry when you spill tea on electronic equipment. They like it when you wear a pink tutu.
I was fairly careful to define 'god' as an involved creator.
If by 'creator', you just mean 'the next level of physics that we hope to eventually discover which explains things a bit better', then I'm quite happy to agree that a creator exists.
I'm not going to pray to it though, or expect it to take any personal interest in my life.
---"atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation"
not true at all. allow me to present myself as someone who has studied the synoptic gospels in far more detail than (and I'm guessing now) 98% of people who call themselves christian.
Re stating 'I Know', Richard Dawkins has a great thought experiment on this.
-Statement: There is a perfect Victorian china tea set orbiting the sun in an orbit about half way between the sun and the earth.
My position: I'm willing to say that I know this statement is false.
Nope, I haven't been to look and I don't think any rockets have gone to check. However from my understanding of the field, I am willing to take a position.
I could say 'I don't know'. It's possible that the Russians set this up as an elaborate joke. However at some point, saying 'I don't know' just becomes fetishism. It is useful to take a position when the opposing one is vanishingly unlikely.
The same applies to god. If you show me some evidence, then I'll change my mind. But from an examination of current evidence, I say that the existence of some involved creator is vanishingly unlikely.
Therefore I say that god does not exist and declare myself an atheist.
meh - your argument that 'fulfill' means end is somewhat contradicted by the context.
let's try your line
'I did not come to abolish, but to bring to an end'
and then
'not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished [the coming of the kingdom of god]'
we can all use a dictionary to substitute edge meanings to twist sentences, but the context gives all here (and of course we should really go back to earlier translations)
of course, the real reason for this line is that Matthew goes out of his way to write a gospel which will appeal to the existing jewish population.
For one small example of this, have a look at the transfiguration in Mark & Matthew. Matthew copies the text exactly, but transposes the order of Elija and Moses (putting the law before the prophets). (For more analysis/explanation on this, google 'source criticism Synoptic Gospels'. It's essentially a great way to see what the author was doing by diffing his sources.)
now of course, the new laws are quite contradictory with the old ones - so the easy way out is to try to twist the word of Matthew. Nonetheless, that's what Matthew says. The old law stands.
and really - if you can't accept multiple contradictory statements you are going to have bigger problems with religion and the bible.
How about turning ground zero into a giant multi-faith area. Invite every religion that is interested to build a church/temple/mosque/whatever
It's also going to be a freedom and tolerance area. On a regular basis, there will be a ceremony to burn the holy book of every religion we can think of.
I think that would be a great monument to American freedoms.
Freedom of religion - yes Freedom to offend religious people - yes Freedom to commit violence towards someone who offends your religious beliefs - no.
'"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Matthew 5:17-18
In Matthew, Jesus seems to be pretty clear that all the old law stands.
I think this book burning is making a pretty dramatic point about the realities of islam and politics.
1) How we see muslims The president of the USA (and many others) tell us that Americans will be killed by muslims in retailation for some pastor burning the quran.
2) How western muslims react I have a heard a lot of muslim leaders calling for this chap to not burn the book. This has generated international political statements, condemnations, requests for interventions, etc. I haven't heard many muslim leaders saying something along the lines of 'go ahead, we're not going to get wound up about this, god will punish you'.
3) How the west responds to threats / requests from muslim groups Everyone seems pretty clear that what this chap is proposing to do is 100% legal. However there is huge call for him to not do it. Even the president of the USA is calling on him to not do this.
4) How we value freedom of speech Lots of voices saying 'this guy shouldn't burn the book'. Not many voices saying 'It is important that we stand up for the right of this guy to burn the book' (even if it is offensive to many).
Seems to me that a bright light has been shone on some important thinking.
Or you could say that Denver knew the plane (or should have), and should certainly have considered what would happen if he needed to switch tanks and trained himself to be able to do that.
this comes down to who takes responsibility.
In a consumer item a drive-on lawnmower, it is appropriate to assume that your driver is an idiot, and the engineer should do everything possible to make it hard for them to mess up.
In an aircraft, we are talking about trained pilots who get type-rated on particular planes. It is more reasonable to say that sometimes you take design decisions which will require the operator to know what he/she is doing and deal with some inconvenient kit.
this wasn't a hidden flaw - it was an entirely open flaw which the pilot chose to accept.
When I flew, part of the checklist for every flight was to check the fuel selector - I'm assuming the same would have applied here, So Denver knew (or should have known) that the fuel selector was not user-friendly and should have planned/trained accordingly.
There may have been no good reason for this selector to be where it was, but I think it is a dangerous path if you argue that all equipment has to be easy to use. Perhaps putting the selector where it was makes the plane cheaper to build, or allows a safer routing of the fuel pipes, or allows other controls to be put in safer positions.
I want engineers to have a free rein in what they build for an expert market like this. That means the pilot has to make an informed decision on whether to accept the plane.
pilot error yes, but accidents almost always have a combination of factors
e.g. -unexpected weather -pilot distracted by some other event (perhaps fuel is a bit low) -co pilot doesn't speak up despite misgivings -something bad happens and isn't handled properly
the 'something bad' might be an equipment failure that would normally be something the pilot could handle, or an unexpected event like another plane coming dangerously close.
now in the case of flying, we can normally say 'the pilot should have been able to deal with all these things, and probably shouldn't have been in this situation' - so it is appropriate to blame pilot error
however there is almost always a chain of events where a conservative action at an early stage could have headed off disaster.
the same applies to outdoor sports
-attempting a climb that is challenging -unexpected bad weather -torch battery runs out -pair decide to push on rather than tie themselves to the ledge and call for help -something bad happens
the only really useful lesson as an indvidual is to try to identify when stress-factors are building up, and take conservative action to get out of the situation.
the vital lesson when designing something like an oil rig is that there will be multiple pressures (drilling running late, exceeding budget, operators tired due to heavy drinking night, weather bad, concrete casing not as good as it could have been)*** - and that there will be multiple failures. You have to try to design a system that is safe even when people f**k up.
***I'm not suggesting these applied to the BP case, just making up some examples
just because it sits loosely on the base so you simply place the phone on the dock, rather than having to slot carefully into the receptor on the dock. (which essentially guides the device into the plug connector)
Slashdot Mirror
thing is, the aircraft are also broadcasting their position in a totally unencrypted range of the EM spectrum commonly known as 'visible light'.
Wallmart even sells devices which can be used to pick up these signals at long range.
Let's ban telescopes and binoculars (for teh kids)
a lot of people and businesses will like the idea that they don't have to pay for an additional data connection.
seems smart to me. You have a phone with a data contract. Why would you want to shell out another $15ish/month for another device to connect to the web when you are away from home/office wifi.
Are you serious?
Do you really not want to fly in a one-man flapping wing aircraft?
Can you really watch that video without getting tingles down your spine?
It's a much less intrusive form of communication. I can send you a small bit of info (e.g. meet at xxx at y) without interrupting whatever you are doing at the moment.
A phone call generally takes me 30-60 seconds, plus some waiting for the call to connect. A text is much faster (and can be sent to multiple recipients)
It's much more discreet for the sender (can send text from meeting/class/dinner)
It is a lot like email - but generally more available on phones, and with approximately real-time delivery to the recipient's attention. By comparison, a lot of people might not check their email for hours (or even days) at a time.
For a lot of plans, it is also a lot cheaper than voice calling. (in the uk at least, lots of pretty cheap plans come with effectively unlimited texting)
did you read my post?
I suggested that the vendor might save $10.
They keep some of that, and after markup perhaps $10 is reduced from the end price allowing the product to edge below some important price point.
Of course I made the numbers up - but I never suggested for a moment that the non-unlocked version would be $50 cheaper.
Vendors will _Love_ it.
Intel will cut the cost of the chip - knowing that they'll get the extra $50 in a good proportion of cases.
The vendor gets to produce a computer that is at a lower price point (customers are generally stupid and will buy an item with a lower initial cost and higher TCO which is why people buy phone contracts with 'free' phones).
My guess is this won't appear in the higher end systems, but it will be used a lot in low end systems where it is all about getting the total cost below some magic number like $300.
Plus, the vendor gets to say that the chip is 'Cache Upgradeable' (or some much more compelling marketing tag).
My guess is that the economics are something like this:
extra cost to make the more capable chip
$5
discount to vendor for using 'upgradeable chip'
$10
50% upgrade chip
$25 (average), which just about covers the admin cost (calls, processing, customer support) and the $15 additional cost
Intel breaks even approximately, but gains by selling more volume to delighted low-end manufacturers
I went to a lecture from one of the chief scientists behind HP's memrister tech the other day.
He's very convincing too.
So, we have both been convinced by people who are themselves convinced.
Anyone have the expertise to compare and contrast the the two technologies?
How does this make any sense?
1) I suspect people go into the music business because they want to get paid for making music (with a side order of possible fame)
2) Most jobs, if you want to protect your loved ones, you take some of what you were paid and put it in life insurance. Why should music be different?
besides - if the period was 15 years after the creation, then it doesn't matter whether you die or not. The money goes to your heirs for any remainder of the 15 years.
I took a jar of pickled pumpkin through the security at Hamburg airport. I only had handbagage and forgot that this would be a problem.
They spotted it, took it out, asked me about it, decided that it was clearly against the rules, and clearly a glass jar containing pickled pumpkin which posed no threat to anybody.
They handed it back to me and sent me on through.
A thoroughly refreshing bit of common sense.
the article mentions that most areas have a duopoly of providers with no threats of new entrants.
Can someone explain why the US has this system?
I though you were all about market competition..
If those astronauts show me a photograph, I'll change my view.
They can also mark the exact place where the teapot appears in orbit and we'll be able to send rockets/astronauts to go see it whenever we want.
that kind of evidence is conspicuously lacking in religious experiences.
Take the latest miracle which the pope has decided to recognise (by beatifying Cardinal John Newman)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/13/god-miracles-vatican
people have their lives changed by
-placebo drugs
-friendships
-books
jesus (or at least many incarnations of the idea) is a lovely idea. Be nice to folks, join a church community, talk your problems over in a quiet place (pray)
Nothing wrong with those things. I just don't believe in the son of god coming down on a suicide mission business.
I stand corrected.
If you are going to believe in god just because you argue that he can be everywhere and has the power to bypass my experiments, then I ask you to believe in my pink elephant-faries.
They're invisible, undetectable and everywhere.
They cry when you spill tea on electronic equipment.
They like it when you wear a pink tutu.
Oh - and they created the universe.
your god model is only consistent because you
a) define it to explain the things that worry you
b) ignore the things that contradict it
I was fairly careful to define 'god' as an involved creator.
If by 'creator', you just mean 'the next level of physics that we hope to eventually discover which explains things a bit better', then I'm quite happy to agree that a creator exists.
I'm not going to pray to it though, or expect it to take any personal interest in my life.
---"atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation"
not true at all. allow me to present myself as someone who has studied the synoptic gospels in far more detail than (and I'm guessing now) 98% of people who call themselves christian.
Re stating 'I Know', Richard Dawkins has a great thought experiment on this.
-Statement: There is a perfect Victorian china tea set orbiting the sun in an orbit about half way between the sun and the earth.
My position: I'm willing to say that I know this statement is false.
Nope, I haven't been to look and I don't think any rockets have gone to check. However from my understanding of the field, I am willing to take a position.
I could say 'I don't know'. It's possible that the Russians set this up as an elaborate joke. However at some point, saying 'I don't know' just becomes fetishism. It is useful to take a position when the opposing one is vanishingly unlikely.
The same applies to god. If you show me some evidence, then I'll change my mind. But from an examination of current evidence, I say that the existence of some involved creator is vanishingly unlikely.
Therefore I say that god does not exist and declare myself an atheist.
meh - your argument that 'fulfill' means end is somewhat contradicted by the context.
let's try your line
'I did not come to abolish, but to bring to an end'
and then
'not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished [the coming of the kingdom of god]'
we can all use a dictionary to substitute edge meanings to twist sentences, but the context gives all here (and of course we should really go back to earlier translations)
of course, the real reason for this line is that Matthew goes out of his way to write a gospel which will appeal to the existing jewish population.
For one small example of this, have a look at the transfiguration in Mark & Matthew. Matthew copies the text exactly, but transposes the order of Elija and Moses (putting the law before the prophets).
(For more analysis/explanation on this, google 'source criticism Synoptic Gospels'. It's essentially a great way to see what the author was doing by diffing his sources.)
now of course, the new laws are quite contradictory with the old ones - so the easy way out is to try to twist the word of Matthew. Nonetheless, that's what Matthew says. The old law stands.
and really - if you can't accept multiple contradictory statements you are going to have bigger problems with religion and the bible.
here's an idea
How about turning ground zero into a giant multi-faith area.
Invite every religion that is interested to build a church/temple/mosque/whatever
It's also going to be a freedom and tolerance area.
On a regular basis, there will be a ceremony to burn the holy book of every religion we can think of.
I think that would be a great monument to American freedoms.
Freedom of religion - yes
Freedom to offend religious people - yes
Freedom to commit violence towards someone who offends your religious beliefs - no.
'"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Matthew 5:17-18
In Matthew, Jesus seems to be pretty clear that all the old law stands.
I think this book burning is making a pretty dramatic point about the realities of islam and politics.
1) How we see muslims
The president of the USA (and many others) tell us that Americans will be killed by muslims in retailation for some pastor burning the quran.
2) How western muslims react
I have a heard a lot of muslim leaders calling for this chap to not burn the book. This has generated international political statements, condemnations, requests for interventions, etc.
I haven't heard many muslim leaders saying something along the lines of 'go ahead, we're not going to get wound up about this, god will punish you'.
3) How the west responds to threats / requests from muslim groups
Everyone seems pretty clear that what this chap is proposing to do is 100% legal. However there is huge call for him to not do it. Even the president of the USA is calling on him to not do this.
4) How we value freedom of speech
Lots of voices saying 'this guy shouldn't burn the book'. Not many voices saying 'It is important that we stand up for the right of this guy to burn the book' (even if it is offensive to many).
Seems to me that a bright light has been shone on some important thinking.
Or you could say that Denver knew the plane (or should have), and should certainly have considered what would happen if he needed to switch tanks and trained himself to be able to do that.
this comes down to who takes responsibility.
In a consumer item a drive-on lawnmower, it is appropriate to assume that your driver is an idiot, and the engineer should do everything possible to make it hard for them to mess up.
In an aircraft, we are talking about trained pilots who get type-rated on particular planes. It is more reasonable to say that sometimes you take design decisions which will require the operator to know what he/she is doing and deal with some inconvenient kit.
this wasn't a hidden flaw - it was an entirely open flaw which the pilot chose to accept.
When I flew, part of the checklist for every flight was to check the fuel selector - I'm assuming the same would have applied here, So Denver knew (or should have known) that the fuel selector was not user-friendly and should have planned/trained accordingly.
There may have been no good reason for this selector to be where it was, but I think it is a dangerous path if you argue that all equipment has to be easy to use. Perhaps putting the selector where it was makes the plane cheaper to build, or allows a safer routing of the fuel pipes, or allows other controls to be put in safer positions.
I want engineers to have a free rein in what they build for an expert market like this. That means the pilot has to make an informed decision on whether to accept the plane.
pilot error yes, but accidents almost always have a combination of factors
e.g.
-unexpected weather
-pilot distracted by some other event (perhaps fuel is a bit low)
-co pilot doesn't speak up despite misgivings
-something bad happens and isn't handled properly
the 'something bad' might be an equipment failure that would normally be something the pilot could handle, or an unexpected event like another plane coming dangerously close.
now in the case of flying, we can normally say 'the pilot should have been able to deal with all these things, and probably shouldn't have been in this situation' - so it is appropriate to blame pilot error
however there is almost always a chain of events where a conservative action at an early stage could have headed off disaster.
the same applies to outdoor sports
-attempting a climb that is challenging
-unexpected bad weather
-torch battery runs out
-pair decide to push on rather than tie themselves to the ledge and call for help
-something bad happens
the only really useful lesson as an indvidual is to try to identify when stress-factors are building up, and take conservative action to get out of the situation.
the vital lesson when designing something like an oil rig is that there will be multiple pressures (drilling running late, exceeding budget, operators tired due to heavy drinking night, weather bad, concrete casing not as good as it could have been)*** - and that there will be multiple failures. You have to try to design a system that is safe even when people f**k up.
***I'm not suggesting these applied to the BP case, just making up some examples
just because it sits loosely on the base so you simply place the phone on the dock, rather than having to slot carefully into the receptor on the dock. (which essentially guides the device into the plug connector)
as I said, not a huge difference, but a nice one.
well - they pretty much are now.
the EU threatened the phone companies with compulsory standardisation if they didn't play nice, so they all agreed to standardise on usb chargers.
ok, so there are a bunch of USB plug formats, and yes Apple exempted themselves, but nonetheless we are pretty close to a standard charger now.