If there's one band everyone wants to see at the same time, then only a small number of people can actually do so. Economics is about one particular way of choosing those who can, and those who will miss out.
Is there some physical law that limits the number of bands? Didn't think so. Is there some physical law that prevents the building of new venues? Didn't think so. With more money available, more bands can be promoted, leading to more availability of concerts -- just not concerts of existing bands.
Taking this a little further, perhaps there would be *more* shows -- just not more by your favorite band, but rather more bands. Money would be available for more venues, etc..
In economic terms there would be more money available to the promoters of shows, concerts, etc., so they would increase capacity, instead of the extra funds either not being available or being siphoned off by the scalpers. By underpricing the tickets, promoters tend to prevent competition.
Sometimes threatening is not enough. Some years ago, I realized that my company was paying way too much for our web and email hosting, so I called the provider and threatened to move unless they reduced the price. The provider would not budge.
So, I spent some time configuring a replacement and called to cancel the service. Now, the provider wants to offer a discount! I told them where to shove it, because I had already invested the effort in replacing them.
Was this a smart move by the provider? I don't know how many people would just accept that the provider would not discount the service and continue to pay the rip-off rate.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly do they propose to "pull the plug" on WikiLeaks, or any foreign-hosted website? Unless they put in a government-operated Great Firewall (a la China) on all links coming into the USA, it's technically impossible to block foreign websites.
Simple: Comcast and AT&T and other major ISPs set their nameservers to resolve these domains to an alternative page. After all, everyone uses their ISP's nameservers don't they? Do you expect the MPAA, RIAA or our Senators to know that it is possible to run your own nameserver, or that there are alternative nameservers out there?
EIther that, or they block by IP address. What's that you say: collateral damage?... I can't hear you!
Honestly, what intelligent person would take that job? It's a guaranteed FAIL!
Either, you increase security so that the public is unhappy about it, or a terrorist even happens, or both. There is simply no positive upside to the job.
Taking it implies that your ambition exceeds your intelligence.
They are charging and fining anyone who submits to examination and then backs out. This is to keep terrorists from exploring the limits of the system by bringing contraband to the examination and then backing away at the last minute so they're not caught.
Nah, this is pure spite.
For years, they have allowed people to walk through metal detectors and, if it goes off, to walk back, remove some metal object and try again. Any terrorist with half a brain could have used this to accurately calibrate the metal detectors.
Heathrow, on the other hand, once you set off the detector, you are going to be "wand-ed" and get a pat down. No second chances.
Prices like consumer products? You can easily pay $1000 for an ECU which has, say, a ~30 MHz 32 bit microcontroller,
You may have to pay that much, but do you really think GM, Ford or any other automotive manufacturer pay anything like that? From the perspective of the OEM selling to GM, Ford, etc., prices are like consumer prices. Any part on a car is extremely price sensitive.
Microsoft's Bing, launched last year by a giant with $40 billion in cash on hand, has captured a mere 3.25% of query volume
Apparently, according to the author, MS's failure in search is purely down to Google's monopoly and completely unrelated to the fact that MS has in the past chosen to skew search results and hence proven itself to be an untrustworthy search provider? The "$40B cash on hand" number is meaningless, because MS hasn't chosen to spend $40B on entering the search market. Perhaps the difference is simply that Google has been able to develop and maintain a better product?
MS-Project.
Its like crack for Project Managers; it keeps them obsessively occupied without causing any real damage.
Early versions of MS-Project were full of FAIL when compared to SuperProject. Unfortunately CA managed to screw that up and hand the market to MS. MS Project was in no way innovative.
It makes little sense to me to waste so much hot air and lobbying effort to regulate what ISPs can and cannot do if non-ISP parties can accomplish the same evil means.
Clearly, you have little understanding of what Net Neutrality is and why it is important. Without net neutrality, real competition on the Internet won't exist -- because the cost of entry will be too high. Without net neutrality, there will not be real free speech -- free speech needs outlets and if money can not only gain prominence for its own speech but also block the outlets for others, free speech dies.
If websites don't want to serve some potential consumers, this is completely different. If a newspaper doesn't want to sell its papers in a certain area, who has lost? Free speech has not lost because alternative sources are still available.
If a wedsite doesn't want to serve all comers, that may be cause for concern, but don't confuse it with net neutrality.
Since wind speed is 0, there is no resistance, no force to counter the propellors force,
But how are the propellers powered? By the energy gathered at the wheels from the ground moving. This gathering of energy involves a backwards force applied to the car at the wheels. This force will be greater than any forwards force created by the propellers. Hence the car slows down (or in the altered frame of reference, it accelerates backwards).
When this happens, the speed of the wind relative to the vehicle is zero (as if there were no wind) and the propeller is rotating, just like in the first scenario. So, as long as wheel friction and internal friction are small enough, the vehicle will accelerate to go faster than the wind.
Congratulations, you just invented a perpetual motion machine!
In the example described in the article, the author overlooks one huge fact -- the treadmill is a source of energy, so assuming that a treadmill in a room with no wind is equivalent to traveling over a road with a wind from behind is fundamentally flawed.
To critique your explanation: why should the propeller continue to turn? There is no energy being gathered from the wind, so the only reason that it might turn is that the kinetic energy of the overall cart is converted into the turning the propeller. The propeller will not add forwards force equivalent to the rearwards force from the front wheels (as they extract kinetic energy), hence the cart slows down.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it does. Just because the Duratec engine did not have problems doesn't mean that other Ford V6s did not.
When the head gasket failure results in large quantities of coolant going into the oil followed by rapid failure of the main bearings, yes. You will see from the linked page that the repair bills from these failed head gaskets could be up to $4000. It was a common problem on Ford V6s built during the '90s.
or V6 engines that die prematurely due to head gasket failure?
Is there some physical law that limits the number of bands? Didn't think so. Is there some physical law that prevents the building of new venues? Didn't think so. With more money available, more bands can be promoted, leading to more availability of concerts -- just not concerts of existing bands.
Taking this a little further, perhaps there would be *more* shows -- just not more by your favorite band, but rather more bands. Money would be available for more venues, etc..
In economic terms there would be more money available to the promoters of shows, concerts, etc., so they would increase capacity, instead of the extra funds either not being available or being siphoned off by the scalpers. By underpricing the tickets, promoters tend to prevent competition.
More importantly he is a paid consultant for Microsoft.
Sometimes threatening is not enough. Some years ago, I realized that my company was paying way too much for our web and email hosting, so I called the provider and threatened to move unless they reduced the price. The provider would not budge.
So, I spent some time configuring a replacement and called to cancel the service. Now, the provider wants to offer a discount! I told them where to shove it, because I had already invested the effort in replacing them.
Was this a smart move by the provider? I don't know how many people would just accept that the provider would not discount the service and continue to pay the rip-off rate.
I believe the correct for for this type of action is extortion and they should face criminal charges.
Simple: Comcast and AT&T and other major ISPs set their nameservers to resolve these domains to an alternative page. After all, everyone uses their ISP's nameservers don't they? Do you expect the MPAA, RIAA or our Senators to know that it is possible to run your own nameserver, or that there are alternative nameservers out there?
... I can't hear you!
EIther that, or they block by IP address. What's that you say: collateral damage?
GPS navigation devices can download live traffic info using cellphones. How is this supposed to work if all cellphones are jammed?
OnStar can give directions using the cellphone network. How is this supposed to work if all cellphones are jammed?
You are in an accident and you need your onstar system to call for help. Can you be sure the jammer was disabled?
etc.....
There are too many uses for cellphones other than just making calls, many of which improve safety. The cat is out of the bag and it is too late.
Really? Are you sure about that that?
Second paragraph of the article:
The parent is not insightful, it is merely a troll.
You might want to read this page.
Honestly, what intelligent person would take that job? It's a guaranteed FAIL!
Either, you increase security so that the public is unhappy about it, or a terrorist even happens, or both. There is simply no positive upside to the job.
Taking it implies that your ambition exceeds your intelligence.
Nah, this is pure spite.
For years, they have allowed people to walk through metal detectors and, if it goes off, to walk back, remove some metal object and try again. Any terrorist with half a brain could have used this to accurately calibrate the metal detectors.
Heathrow, on the other hand, once you set off the detector, you are going to be "wand-ed" and get a pat down. No second chances.
You may have to pay that much, but do you really think GM, Ford or any other automotive manufacturer pay anything like that? From the perspective of the OEM selling to GM, Ford, etc., prices are like consumer prices. Any part on a car is extremely price sensitive.
Environment similar to mil spec, durability like industrial, prices like consumer products.
Apparently, according to the author, MS's failure in search is purely down to Google's monopoly and completely unrelated to the fact that MS has in the past chosen to skew search results and hence proven itself to be an untrustworthy search provider? The "$40B cash on hand" number is meaningless, because MS hasn't chosen to spend $40B on entering the search market. Perhaps the difference is simply that Google has been able to develop and maintain a better product?
Can you convert that into a car analogy please? This is /. and we don't understand sexual analogies.
Early versions of MS-Project were full of FAIL when compared to SuperProject. Unfortunately CA managed to screw that up and hand the market to MS. MS Project was in no way innovative.
..... or just buy a cheap knock-off of the Kinect.
... like the islands of San Serriff?
You missed at least one factor -- your parents' and grandparents' environments.
Clearly, you have little understanding of what Net Neutrality is and why it is important. Without net neutrality, real competition on the Internet won't exist -- because the cost of entry will be too high. Without net neutrality, there will not be real free speech -- free speech needs outlets and if money can not only gain prominence for its own speech but also block the outlets for others, free speech dies.
If websites don't want to serve some potential consumers, this is completely different. If a newspaper doesn't want to sell its papers in a certain area, who has lost? Free speech has not lost because alternative sources are still available.
If a wedsite doesn't want to serve all comers, that may be cause for concern, but don't confuse it with net neutrality.
But how are the propellers powered? By the energy gathered at the wheels from the ground moving. This gathering of energy involves a backwards force applied to the car at the wheels. This force will be greater than any forwards force created by the propellers. Hence the car slows down (or in the altered frame of reference, it accelerates backwards).
Congratulations, you just invented a perpetual motion machine!
In the example described in the article, the author overlooks one huge fact -- the treadmill is a source of energy, so assuming that a treadmill in a room with no wind is equivalent to traveling over a road with a wind from behind is fundamentally flawed.
To critique your explanation: why should the propeller continue to turn? There is no energy being gathered from the wind, so the only reason that it might turn is that the kinetic energy of the overall cart is converted into the turning the propeller. The propeller will not add forwards force equivalent to the rearwards force from the front wheels (as they extract kinetic energy), hence the cart slows down.