Nope, I've got to go with sound primarily, followed by movements faster than a typical zombie. This conclusion is the result of many hours of studying documentary footage of zombies hunting in their natural habitat.
This is one killer application I have yet to see gain traction, but I think it's inevitable. Personally, the only considerable use I'd give to a tablet myself would be for quick and easy access to reference material. The ease of accessing information from digital documentation is on par or superior to print in almost every respect. The only downside of note is the ability to flip-browse through a large bound printed volume to find a place cue, and the benefits of digital searching alone far outweigh that drawback on balance.
I see cheap(er) tablets beginning to gain a prevalence in applications where quick access to otherwise cumbersome reference documentation would be a serious boon. They could have an absolutely staggering effect on productivity if equipped and deployed sanely.
Won't matter once CALEA is amended to include non-voice public networks. It'll happen eventually.
This isn't to say I support the extension; I think those proposing it should be shot. That doesn't change the reality that it will eventually be enacted, whether it requires sneaking it into a broad authorization bill or actually getting the support to pass it on its own.
Most of the western US has the potential to use natural gas for hot water. Even in those places where natural gas is available though, there is a potentially significant portion of the population still using electricity to heat water (in my anecdotal experience in new and remodel construction, anyway).
I would be quite interested to see usage numbers for areas serviced by natural gas providers, since I don't know what the actual breakdown is. If you've got sources you trust, I would love to read through them.
In most places, those people don't actually run the grid. They run the companies that invest in those who run the grid.
Enron itself didn't actually own or operate non-plant electrical infrastructure in the USA, with the exception of about 3/4 million users in Oregon under PGE (which amounted to 1/3 of their worldwide retail electrical operations by customer count).
The real problem is that there simply isn't enough money anywhere to take care of the largest power grids (USA, India, and Russia), which are aging at an average rate which far exceeds the cost of incremental upgrades and critical infrastructure maintenance.
India's problem is also compounded by a bureaucracy which makes utility regulation in the USA look like anarchy, which is funny because the result at the transmission level is exactly the opposite.
This article again makes me mourn the loss of Logitech's corded trackball lines. Over the years I've had to progressively downgrade my trackballs as they died and were no longer available. I avoid wireless desktop peripherals because batteries are absolutely unnecessary waste in a fixed installation which doesn't need backup power. The only wireless desktop devices I'll use are Wacom mice and pens, since they work via induction rather than batteries.
Since the only corded Logitech trackball still being manufactured is the (to me) eminently uncomfortable Trackman Marble, I think I'm going to have to break down and model a Marble FX case which will fit the Marble electronics then have it 3D printed somewhere. You'd think it might be worthwhile for Logitech to revisit their discontinued trackballs, since they typically sell for 2-3x used what they ever did new. A 15-year-old FX in terrible condition will still sell for what it cost new.
The TI-85 comment made me laugh, mostly because I've got one sitting in my desk drawer because it's so much faster. I'd routinely drive myself up a wall if I had to rely on any of the "quick" software calculators for short* calculations (especially those which are easier broken into a couple steps, as "Ans" isn't available on quick software calculators). And forget using software (short of Maxima, Mathematica, or whatnot) for anything but basic trigonometry.
*Up to a half-dozen or so parenthetical expressions.
Potentially, yes. You may own the parts with a broad range of FFLs. However, only FFL holders with a Type 07 (with Class 2 or 3 yearly Special Occupational Tax payment) or Type 10 license may legally manufacture controlled components (specifically automatic trigger groups; others lower receiver parts so long as the contents amount to 80% or less of those necessary to construct a lower receiver with selective or automatic fire capabilities).
Even then, none of these items are transferable between civilians legally, except between those with appropriate FFL classifications.
Additionally, individual manufacturer is also subject to all State laws, which can be draconian depending on the jurisdiction (so this won't go so well for anyone in New York, Illinois, or California, among others).
As a one-off, yes, it's insignificant. As a yearly prize it becomes a much more significant sum of money. Most importantly, it's small enough to be sustainable barring bad investments and/or another market meltdown.
Yeah, the latter point was my immediate thought. People don't go into hard sciences because they love money, they go into hard sciences because they love the science (or the difficulty of the work in general; for the point the difference doesn't matter).
Those who reach the point where they no longer have the practical worry of where their next paycheck is coming from aren't going to stop working. That's simply not how most people tick, the stereotypical foolish lottery winner aside.
"Fiat" is by its very nature a pedantic term, and very specifically means "by decree." You could make anything intrinsically valuable a fiat currency by legislating a specific value, and even then it still wouldn't actually be truly a fiat currency. Those laws were ignored where possible when the actual value of silver was different than what was decreed. Your example also clearly shows the difference between a fiat currency and one which is not: people do not value a fiat currency outside of the decreed value. The concept of attempting to circumvent the legislated value of a fiat currency is almost always not even a consideration, it's usually a complete non sequitur (with the exception of pegged currencies and forex, but that's metagaming fiat currencies).
Gold (and silver, other precious metals, gems, etc) does actually have intrinsic value because it (and they) have never needed the prodding of a government to be considered valuable generally.
Yes, philosophically the value of all things is at the mercy of the agreement of people, but that's why we have words to differentiate the various contexts where the mere reliance on "agreement" is too general to be useful as an every-day definition.
I don't think codified restrictions in general would end up working correctly (barring, perhaps, some general guidelines of "absolutely do not engage in"), but the regulation of interstate commerce should be limited to a Federal body which exists to mediate disputes involving more than one State jurisdiction. Laws could be drafted to codify the results of particular outcomes, to prevent the need to revisit substantially similar cases (essentially how case law is used today, though in a somewhat different venue), but the Federal government should be prevented from using that power absent a dispute.
The States would never agree to the latter, as every State with a sales tax* has import duties on items and services purchased in States without sales tax (and they far outnumber those States in voting power) or from any jurisdiction outside the country regardless of whether taxes were paid on it. I've never bothered to dig to see if that's the result of explicit Federal approval or if they've simply never weighed in on the matter. I'm assuming the former though.
so why in hell is one protected and not the other?
I hope this is rhetorical. If not, it's because nobody has convinced 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and somewhere between 50%+1 and 66%+1 of 3/4 of the State legislatures (depending on the State and their internal ratification threshold laws) that they're more dangerous than they're worth in civilian hands.
If that bothers you*, get out and do something about it. If you're* one who would rather ignore the process, don't come crying about arbitrary and capricious "enforcement" of whatever does or does not pass for "law" whenever the process is ignored for expediency.
*Just to be clear, this is a general "you," meaning anyone and everyone who reads the comment.
As someone who has been involved in the construction or remodel process of many houses in a number of different jurisdictions, this is frighteningly more common than you might realize.
I think the thrust of the article is more in regard to a disappearance of most all avenues to learning the processes necessary to produce quality manufactured works. Whether that's true or not I can't say, as I've always had access to the tools necessary for almost any conceivable job in the residential space (outside of a full machine shop, but including a full cabinet shop).
Alright, then my original impression appears to have been fairly close to the mark. We'll simply have to agree to disagree. It would be trivial to formulate laws which would be both reasonable and destructive, and one need only again look at the Amish to see the truth in that statement. Were your standard used judicially the Amish would no longer exist as a religious group, at least not in anything resembling the same form they exist today. The advent of laws which are, in general, pragmatic to modern society would have, as an unintended side effect, destroyed their way of life despite it being simple, non-aggressive, and eminently honorable and admirable. I would consider their extinction as a mere side effect of zealous enforcement of the law to be one of the greatest crimes against the right of conscience to have ever occurred.
When laws conflict with conscience, I fully support those who choose to act based on their conscience. I would be interested to see what primary sources you'd rely on to argue there was even sizable minority, let alone widespread, support amongst the founders of the Republic for the opposite belief. Both Federalist and Anti-Federalist authors wrote about the expansiveness of rights retained by the people. Their difference of opinion on the topic of individual rights lay almost exclusively in which path they believed less likely to be perverted and/or co-opted by a corrupted national government.
It only makes no sense if you use the term to mean both the physical layer and the content layer everywhere you use it. As content becomes increasingly divorced from a specific physical transport medium, it makes less sense to combine the two definitions. It's no different than someone saying they've gotten rid of their phone service when they have a DSL line. They still have a subscription to what is traditionally considered a "telephone" company, even though they can't plug a telephone into the wall and use it for phone service. Likewise, you don't have "cable as in content" just because you have "cable as in data transport." The extra terminology should not be necessary to differentiate the two when the difference is already completely obvious from the context of the discussion. It's pedantry at its very worst.
I'm pretty sure the cable companies would, in fact, not be happy to eliminate their content delivery services, because the content delivery portion of their business is what provides the bulk of their net profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, I've got to go with sound primarily, followed by movements faster than a typical zombie. This conclusion is the result of many hours of studying documentary footage of zombies hunting in their natural habitat.
The major drawback to capacitative input is the lack of precision, but then I'm spoiled by my access to real stylus input hardware from Wacom.
This is one killer application I have yet to see gain traction, but I think it's inevitable. Personally, the only considerable use I'd give to a tablet myself would be for quick and easy access to reference material. The ease of accessing information from digital documentation is on par or superior to print in almost every respect. The only downside of note is the ability to flip-browse through a large bound printed volume to find a place cue, and the benefits of digital searching alone far outweigh that drawback on balance.
I see cheap(er) tablets beginning to gain a prevalence in applications where quick access to otherwise cumbersome reference documentation would be a serious boon. They could have an absolutely staggering effect on productivity if equipped and deployed sanely.
That means you got the supermodel for $50 to begin with. Where are you finding your deals? Dammit man, share the info!
Won't matter once CALEA is amended to include non-voice public networks. It'll happen eventually.
This isn't to say I support the extension; I think those proposing it should be shot. That doesn't change the reality that it will eventually be enacted, whether it requires sneaking it into a broad authorization bill or actually getting the support to pass it on its own.
Most of the western US has the potential to use natural gas for hot water. Even in those places where natural gas is available though, there is a potentially significant portion of the population still using electricity to heat water (in my anecdotal experience in new and remodel construction, anyway).
I would be quite interested to see usage numbers for areas serviced by natural gas providers, since I don't know what the actual breakdown is. If you've got sources you trust, I would love to read through them.
In most places, those people don't actually run the grid. They run the companies that invest in those who run the grid.
Enron itself didn't actually own or operate non-plant electrical infrastructure in the USA, with the exception of about 3/4 million users in Oregon under PGE (which amounted to 1/3 of their worldwide retail electrical operations by customer count).
The real problem is that there simply isn't enough money anywhere to take care of the largest power grids (USA, India, and Russia), which are aging at an average rate which far exceeds the cost of incremental upgrades and critical infrastructure maintenance.
India's problem is also compounded by a bureaucracy which makes utility regulation in the USA look like anarchy, which is funny because the result at the transmission level is exactly the opposite.
Unfortunately, my mod points expired last night and I haven't gotten more yet.
Fortunately, your post is at 3 and long enough to stand out, so even without further mods it won't get lost. :)
This article again makes me mourn the loss of Logitech's corded trackball lines. Over the years I've had to progressively downgrade my trackballs as they died and were no longer available. I avoid wireless desktop peripherals because batteries are absolutely unnecessary waste in a fixed installation which doesn't need backup power. The only wireless desktop devices I'll use are Wacom mice and pens, since they work via induction rather than batteries.
Since the only corded Logitech trackball still being manufactured is the (to me) eminently uncomfortable Trackman Marble, I think I'm going to have to break down and model a Marble FX case which will fit the Marble electronics then have it 3D printed somewhere. You'd think it might be worthwhile for Logitech to revisit their discontinued trackballs, since they typically sell for 2-3x used what they ever did new. A 15-year-old FX in terrible condition will still sell for what it cost new.
The TI-85 comment made me laugh, mostly because I've got one sitting in my desk drawer because it's so much faster. I'd routinely drive myself up a wall if I had to rely on any of the "quick" software calculators for short* calculations (especially those which are easier broken into a couple steps, as "Ans" isn't available on quick software calculators). And forget using software (short of Maxima, Mathematica, or whatnot) for anything but basic trigonometry.
*Up to a half-dozen or so parenthetical expressions.
Potentially, yes. You may own the parts with a broad range of FFLs. However, only FFL holders with a Type 07 (with Class 2 or 3 yearly Special Occupational Tax payment) or Type 10 license may legally manufacture controlled components (specifically automatic trigger groups; others lower receiver parts so long as the contents amount to 80% or less of those necessary to construct a lower receiver with selective or automatic fire capabilities).
Even then, none of these items are transferable between civilians legally, except between those with appropriate FFL classifications.
Additionally, individual manufacturer is also subject to all State laws, which can be draconian depending on the jurisdiction (so this won't go so well for anyone in New York, Illinois, or California, among others).
As a one-off, yes, it's insignificant. As a yearly prize it becomes a much more significant sum of money. Most importantly, it's small enough to be sustainable barring bad investments and/or another market meltdown.
Yeah, the latter point was my immediate thought. People don't go into hard sciences because they love money, they go into hard sciences because they love the science (or the difficulty of the work in general; for the point the difference doesn't matter).
Those who reach the point where they no longer have the practical worry of where their next paycheck is coming from aren't going to stop working. That's simply not how most people tick, the stereotypical foolish lottery winner aside.
The question is, which god to buy? There are so many choices...
"Fiat" is by its very nature a pedantic term, and very specifically means "by decree." You could make anything intrinsically valuable a fiat currency by legislating a specific value, and even then it still wouldn't actually be truly a fiat currency. Those laws were ignored where possible when the actual value of silver was different than what was decreed. Your example also clearly shows the difference between a fiat currency and one which is not: people do not value a fiat currency outside of the decreed value. The concept of attempting to circumvent the legislated value of a fiat currency is almost always not even a consideration, it's usually a complete non sequitur (with the exception of pegged currencies and forex, but that's metagaming fiat currencies).
Gold (and silver, other precious metals, gems, etc) does actually have intrinsic value because it (and they) have never needed the prodding of a government to be considered valuable generally.
Yes, philosophically the value of all things is at the mercy of the agreement of people, but that's why we have words to differentiate the various contexts where the mere reliance on "agreement" is too general to be useful as an every-day definition.
Good to ask the submitter directly, but given the post my first guess would be a translation issue rather than a blatant contradiction.
I don't think codified restrictions in general would end up working correctly (barring, perhaps, some general guidelines of "absolutely do not engage in"), but the regulation of interstate commerce should be limited to a Federal body which exists to mediate disputes involving more than one State jurisdiction. Laws could be drafted to codify the results of particular outcomes, to prevent the need to revisit substantially similar cases (essentially how case law is used today, though in a somewhat different venue), but the Federal government should be prevented from using that power absent a dispute.
The States would never agree to the latter, as every State with a sales tax* has import duties on items and services purchased in States without sales tax (and they far outnumber those States in voting power) or from any jurisdiction outside the country regardless of whether taxes were paid on it. I've never bothered to dig to see if that's the result of explicit Federal approval or if they've simply never weighed in on the matter. I'm assuming the former though.
*Every one I'm aware of, anyway.
so why in hell is one protected and not the other?
I hope this is rhetorical.
If not, it's because nobody has convinced 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and somewhere between 50%+1 and 66%+1 of 3/4 of the State legislatures (depending on the State and their internal ratification threshold laws) that they're more dangerous than they're worth in civilian hands.
If that bothers you*, get out and do something about it. If you're* one who would rather ignore the process, don't come crying about arbitrary and capricious "enforcement" of whatever does or does not pass for "law" whenever the process is ignored for expediency.
*Just to be clear, this is a general "you," meaning anyone and everyone who reads the comment.
Sadly, those who would improve society the most by using it aren't the ones who typically use it.
In my experience, those who know how to do this sort of thing are also the guys with the most ammo.
Just sayin'...
As someone who has been involved in the construction or remodel process of many houses in a number of different jurisdictions, this is frighteningly more common than you might realize.
I think the thrust of the article is more in regard to a disappearance of most all avenues to learning the processes necessary to produce quality manufactured works. Whether that's true or not I can't say, as I've always had access to the tools necessary for almost any conceivable job in the residential space (outside of a full machine shop, but including a full cabinet shop).
Alright, then my original impression appears to have been fairly close to the mark. We'll simply have to agree to disagree. It would be trivial to formulate laws which would be both reasonable and destructive, and one need only again look at the Amish to see the truth in that statement. Were your standard used judicially the Amish would no longer exist as a religious group, at least not in anything resembling the same form they exist today. The advent of laws which are, in general, pragmatic to modern society would have, as an unintended side effect, destroyed their way of life despite it being simple, non-aggressive, and eminently honorable and admirable. I would consider their extinction as a mere side effect of zealous enforcement of the law to be one of the greatest crimes against the right of conscience to have ever occurred.
When laws conflict with conscience, I fully support those who choose to act based on their conscience. I would be interested to see what primary sources you'd rely on to argue there was even sizable minority, let alone widespread, support amongst the founders of the Republic for the opposite belief. Both Federalist and Anti-Federalist authors wrote about the expansiveness of rights retained by the people. Their difference of opinion on the topic of individual rights lay almost exclusively in which path they believed less likely to be perverted and/or co-opted by a corrupted national government.
I should say, "provides the bulk of their net profits from residential services."
It only makes no sense if you use the term to mean both the physical layer and the content layer everywhere you use it. As content becomes increasingly divorced from a specific physical transport medium, it makes less sense to combine the two definitions. It's no different than someone saying they've gotten rid of their phone service when they have a DSL line. They still have a subscription to what is traditionally considered a "telephone" company, even though they can't plug a telephone into the wall and use it for phone service. Likewise, you don't have "cable as in content" just because you have "cable as in data transport." The extra terminology should not be necessary to differentiate the two when the difference is already completely obvious from the context of the discussion. It's pedantry at its very worst.
I'm pretty sure the cable companies would, in fact, not be happy to eliminate their content delivery services, because the content delivery portion of their business is what provides the bulk of their net profits.