Playing on some MMOs I run into players from Asia and Australia. They periodically have to drop out of the raid if we come across a boss that requires precise timing because they can't be sure a lag spike won't cause a raid wipe. Yes the US players also have to do that before players overseas already have higher than normal latency than US players. Any small lag adds to the problem.
There's data caps and then there's "network traffic optimization" or whatever the ISPS want to call it. Basically you're using some bandwidth or a certain type of bandwidth. The ISPs totally won't throttle that and offer you a package to make things more "smooth".
This is message I'm getting: "Hey, we know we screwed with the Xbox One in trying to destroy the used game market. Here's this new idea that doesn't have the exact same result. It will be rad, we swear!"
When LEDs were first used for stop lights, they were being covered by ice and snow in northern areas during winter under some conditions. Since that time, manufacturers have modified designs so that there are heaters that activate automatically. This guy talks about how the overall benefits of LED traffic lights far outweigh the disadvantages of them in their early deployment.
You're making assumptions on how the system works. It's actually beautifully simple, as the chemicals are mixed right into the jet fuel. Thus, you don't really need any special equipment on the airplane, as the chemicals are stored right in the fuel tanks and dispersed per the normal operation of the aircraft. Their is no separate tanks, and the ground crews and pilots have no need to know about the system at all.
You mean the extremely volatile jet fuel? What's the mix of fuel and chemicals? By you definition of "normal operation of the aircraft" you are asserting that dumping the fuel (which the plane needs to fly) is the only way to get the chemicals out. First of all, now you are further diluting the chemicals by mixing them in the fuel. Second the dumping of fuel is something that pilots and crew and passengers would tend to notice. Third, it doesn't reduce the need for fuel to carry extra weight but it complicates the ability of pilots and airlines to do the necessary calculations. Right now, the weight of the cargo and plane is factored against the weight of fuel for simplicity. If the fuel is diluted, that dramatically affects the calculations.
Admittedly, this did have one big snag, as it is a bit tricky to get the chemicals to survive the extreme heat of the engines. However, the breakthrough came with the newer, more fuel efficient engines that also happen to run a bit cooler, allowing the chemicals to pass through the engine and be dispersed. This is why, a few years back, all the airlines were quick to replace all their planes in the name of "fuel efficiency" and being green.
Oh, you're saying it comes through the combustion chamber. Well that's address your points: 1) combustion would destroy the chemicals. 2) More fuel efficient engines does not mean "cooler" combustions. Nowhere do I read that one way to make engines more efficient is to lower the combustion chamber temperature. Typically combustion chambers are at 2000C. Lowering that a few hundred C still would combust any other chemicals 3) the new designs bypass more air not fuel. 4) the airlines replaced their planes as they were retired because it saves them money in the long run. No airline went out and just replaced all their planes in a day.
If you crunch the actual numbers, you'll see that while the newer planes do use a bit less fuel and therefore are slightly cheaper to run, it doesn't really make economic sense to replace an aircraft that costs hundreds of millions of dollars and still has useful life in it for what amounts to rather meager fuel savings.
Again no airline just went out and replaced their airplanes in a day because the new models got better fuel economy. What they did was replace their one plane at a time when those plane were set to retire. What airlines would do is change their plans when it came to buying new aircraft. For example, an airline could convert some of their 757 orders to more 737s back in the day. Or an airline getting more Airbus 320s that are more fuel efficient than the 737 Next Gen and before the 737 Max was released.
Which is why, of course, the major cargo carriers (that don't disperse chemtrails) were more than happy to buy up all these "obselete" aircraft at bargain basement prices.
First of all what is your proof that major cargo carriers don't disperse chemtrails? This is a UPS plane with contrails. Second, whether airlines were spraying chemtrails or not would not affect the major cargo carriers decision to buy older aircraft. They buy older aircraft because they are cheaper and their requirements for a airplane are far less than a passenger commercial airline. Also the major cargo carrier buy new aircraft all the time to meet their needs. For example
How would London Heathrow have 10 runways if there was true capitalism? To expand the airport would require the removal of probably 6 or 7 parishes and 4 reservoirs by my count. If anything capitalism is the main reason why Heathrow can't expand as it would take far more than money to renovate the airport than these flight spots are worth.
The problem with many of these conspiracy theories is that they often ignore details like logistics which are required to make everything run every single day. Let's take the example of chemtrails.
The premise is that it is a wide conspiracy that commercial airliners are used to spray extremely potent chemicals into the air at 30,000+ ft. This is extremely unlikely given the many groups that are involved in just loading the chemicals in a plane.
Airline pilots because they have to not report the nozzles they find when they visually inspect their planes preflight and also doctor all the paperwork when an extra 1000+ lbs of chemicals is added to a flight.
Maintanence crew who have to ignore/hide the tanks, nozzles, etc that are attached to every plane when servicing planes.
Ground personnel who have to fill these tanks or ignore the personnel who are filling these tanks who btw are probably wearing full Hazmat suits to avoid poisoning and contamination.
Accountants at the airline who have to account for weight on every plane for fuel costs.
Of those four groups of people, ground personnel and maintenance may not even work for the airline and are mostly likely airport employees and some may be government workers and possibly union workers. So just to load an airplane with chemicals require multiple groups which are private and public employees and may be part of unions to turn a blind eye or outright hide the process.
It's already been done with another telescope. For those people that believe in the moon hoax, it doesn't matter. No amount of evidence would be good enough for them.
Things in the way isn't the main reason why space telescopes have an advantage. The ability to observe an object uninterrupted is a huge advantage. The Deep Field probably isn't possible with ground based telescopes due to Earth's rotation.
My opinion it was more that most people were ignoring the dangers of using it. When Spectre and Meltdown were first disclosed, some people had warned about the security dangers and were largely ignored. It reminds me of the DNS cache poisoning that Dan Kaminsky found. Daniel J. Bernstein warned about that issue about 6 years earlier but not many in the community heeded his warning until Kaminsky was able to create an easy exploit.
Yes but even if we accept your premise is true, users could opt out of this feature as a choice. With Spectre, users don't have much of a choice: Use less RAM and risk being hacked or use more RAM.
Also most automation is designed to handle a small number of faults because if a well tuned process produces only a small number. For large number of faults, it is hard to deal with automation or not. For example the famous Lucille Ball skit where she and her friend are working on a chocolate candy assembly line. At first she and her friend can deal with the mounting issues but as they start piling she resorts to eating the chocolate.
The problem is that automation works really well when the processes are established or the variance to an established process is minor. For example, automating the creation of Lego blocks for Lego is probably pretty easy. Automating a new sky blue variant of an existing block is even easier. A competitor automating a brand new line of toys that compete with Lego blocks is vastly more difficult.
Right To Work means that you don't have to join a union to get a job. It doesn't mean that noncompete clauses are illegal. Noncompete legality varies by state and in the majority of states, noncompetes are legal for certain reasons like trade secrets. In this case however I doubt that these companies could argue that these low level employees have trade secrets.
The Doctor will be female not because it makes any sense in the story, but because of Political Correctness.
And how can you possibly know that unless you were in the casting meetings? Peter Capaldi was leaving; they needed another Doctor Who. According to you they picked a female because of political correctness. Do you know what criteria was used? For sure the only criteria I can be certain is that Doctor Who should be from the UK. Do you know that the show didn't audition both male and female actors and Whittaker was the better actor?
And how would you know what I've watched and haven't watched? My point which you've seemed to miss is that when the show started in the 1960s, Doctor Who was male. Period. Even after the regeneration was devised as a way for multiple actors to play the part of Doctor Who when actors left the show, the Doctor must be male. Period. No other reason has ever been given as to why the Doctor couldn't be female. Over the years we've seen the companions drammatically change from the damsel in distress to companions that had much more autonomy. Male companions, gay/bisexual companions, companions who were not Caucassian. In ALL of those changes, the Doctor had to be male. Why?
Are you actually asking questions or are you trolling? No you can't really get dumb TVs over a certain size anymore. But connecting them to the Internet requires you to set them up that way. If you are like many people, you simply do not set them up. If you are paranoid, you can turn off connection on your TV. If you are ultra paranoid, you can block your TV from connecting to your home router.
Um are you going to equate fiction where the characters have been established with a particular trait with the main character of a show that changes every few years? It sounds like the same outrage when Rue in the Hunger Games was an African American: Nonsensical.
Except I don't recall that they say anything of which you allege. People have reacted that way, but it didn't come from the BBC or the show runners. The only thing I've seen is the big reveal video.
You mean the "Time of the Doctor" special Christmas episode the BBC released on Christmas Day 2013? [sarcasm] How dare they relate it to Christmas![/sarcasm]
Some would argue that keeping the doctor male would have been pandering to demographics that prefer women be inconsequential sidekicks that required rescuing all the time.
I've found that some of the skills are absorbed by bundled services for small businesses. For example my friend who is a masseuse is basically a 1 person business. In the past she might have had to hire multiple people for small jobs: A receptionist/admin assistant to book and confirm appointments , a web developer to manage her site, advertising/marketing person, and an accountant/cashier to handle the books. The problem is she should only need these jobs filled for a few hours a week maybe. So she uses Square software which basically takes care of all of those roles for her.
So on her website powered by Square you can look at her open schedule, book an appointment, and get text alerts when it is coming up. When you pay it is linked to your appt (whether you got a 30/60/90 massage) and whether you paid for a bundle of appts etc.
Technically she doesn't need to know anything about HTML or database integration or mobile APIs or billing . All of that is seamless to her and she can focus on massages and not on the many tiny things she would have had to do as a business.
Slashdot Mirror
Playing on some MMOs I run into players from Asia and Australia. They periodically have to drop out of the raid if we come across a boss that requires precise timing because they can't be sure a lag spike won't cause a raid wipe. Yes the US players also have to do that before players overseas already have higher than normal latency than US players. Any small lag adds to the problem.
Also high bandwidth is also a presumption. Not every can get 100+ Mbps pipes even if they wanted to pay for it.
There's data caps and then there's "network traffic optimization" or whatever the ISPS want to call it. Basically you're using some bandwidth or a certain type of bandwidth. The ISPs totally won't throttle that and offer you a package to make things more "smooth".
This is message I'm getting: "Hey, we know we screwed with the Xbox One in trying to destroy the used game market. Here's this new idea that doesn't have the exact same result. It will be rad, we swear!"
When LEDs were first used for stop lights, they were being covered by ice and snow in northern areas during winter under some conditions. Since that time, manufacturers have modified designs so that there are heaters that activate automatically. This guy talks about how the overall benefits of LED traffic lights far outweigh the disadvantages of them in their early deployment.
You're making assumptions on how the system works. It's actually beautifully simple, as the chemicals are mixed right into the jet fuel. Thus, you don't really need any special equipment on the airplane, as the chemicals are stored right in the fuel tanks and dispersed per the normal operation of the aircraft. Their is no separate tanks, and the ground crews and pilots have no need to know about the system at all.
You mean the extremely volatile jet fuel? What's the mix of fuel and chemicals? By you definition of "normal operation of the aircraft" you are asserting that dumping the fuel (which the plane needs to fly) is the only way to get the chemicals out. First of all, now you are further diluting the chemicals by mixing them in the fuel. Second the dumping of fuel is something that pilots and crew and passengers would tend to notice. Third, it doesn't reduce the need for fuel to carry extra weight but it complicates the ability of pilots and airlines to do the necessary calculations. Right now, the weight of the cargo and plane is factored against the weight of fuel for simplicity. If the fuel is diluted, that dramatically affects the calculations.
Admittedly, this did have one big snag, as it is a bit tricky to get the chemicals to survive the extreme heat of the engines. However, the breakthrough came with the newer, more fuel efficient engines that also happen to run a bit cooler, allowing the chemicals to pass through the engine and be dispersed. This is why, a few years back, all the airlines were quick to replace all their planes in the name of "fuel efficiency" and being green.
Oh, you're saying it comes through the combustion chamber. Well that's address your points: 1) combustion would destroy the chemicals. 2) More fuel efficient engines does not mean "cooler" combustions. Nowhere do I read that one way to make engines more efficient is to lower the combustion chamber temperature. Typically combustion chambers are at 2000C. Lowering that a few hundred C still would combust any other chemicals 3) the new designs bypass more air not fuel. 4) the airlines replaced their planes as they were retired because it saves them money in the long run. No airline went out and just replaced all their planes in a day.
If you crunch the actual numbers, you'll see that while the newer planes do use a bit less fuel and therefore are slightly cheaper to run, it doesn't really make economic sense to replace an aircraft that costs hundreds of millions of dollars and still has useful life in it for what amounts to rather meager fuel savings.
Again no airline just went out and replaced their airplanes in a day because the new models got better fuel economy. What they did was replace their one plane at a time when those plane were set to retire. What airlines would do is change their plans when it came to buying new aircraft. For example, an airline could convert some of their 757 orders to more 737s back in the day. Or an airline getting more Airbus 320s that are more fuel efficient than the 737 Next Gen and before the 737 Max was released.
Which is why, of course, the major cargo carriers (that don't disperse chemtrails) were more than happy to buy up all these "obselete" aircraft at bargain basement prices.
First of all what is your proof that major cargo carriers don't disperse chemtrails? This is a UPS plane with contrails. Second, whether airlines were spraying chemtrails or not would not affect the major cargo carriers decision to buy older aircraft. They buy older aircraft because they are cheaper and their requirements for a airplane are far less than a passenger commercial airline. Also the major cargo carrier buy new aircraft all the time to meet their needs. For example
How would London Heathrow have 10 runways if there was true capitalism? To expand the airport would require the removal of probably 6 or 7 parishes and 4 reservoirs by my count. If anything capitalism is the main reason why Heathrow can't expand as it would take far more than money to renovate the airport than these flight spots are worth.
The problem with many of these conspiracy theories is that they often ignore details like logistics which are required to make everything run every single day. Let's take the example of chemtrails.
The premise is that it is a wide conspiracy that commercial airliners are used to spray extremely potent chemicals into the air at 30,000+ ft. This is extremely unlikely given the many groups that are involved in just loading the chemicals in a plane.
Of those four groups of people, ground personnel and maintenance may not even work for the airline and are mostly likely airport employees and some may be government workers and possibly union workers. So just to load an airplane with chemicals require multiple groups which are private and public employees and may be part of unions to turn a blind eye or outright hide the process.
It's already been done with another telescope. For those people that believe in the moon hoax, it doesn't matter. No amount of evidence would be good enough for them.
Things in the way isn't the main reason why space telescopes have an advantage. The ability to observe an object uninterrupted is a huge advantage. The Deep Field probably isn't possible with ground based telescopes due to Earth's rotation.
My opinion it was more that most people were ignoring the dangers of using it. When Spectre and Meltdown were first disclosed, some people had warned about the security dangers and were largely ignored. It reminds me of the DNS cache poisoning that Dan Kaminsky found. Daniel J. Bernstein warned about that issue about 6 years earlier but not many in the community heeded his warning until Kaminsky was able to create an easy exploit.
Yes but even if we accept your premise is true, users could opt out of this feature as a choice. With Spectre, users don't have much of a choice: Use less RAM and risk being hacked or use more RAM.
Also most automation is designed to handle a small number of faults because if a well tuned process produces only a small number. For large number of faults, it is hard to deal with automation or not. For example the famous Lucille Ball skit where she and her friend are working on a chocolate candy assembly line. At first she and her friend can deal with the mounting issues but as they start piling she resorts to eating the chocolate.
The problem is that automation works really well when the processes are established or the variance to an established process is minor. For example, automating the creation of Lego blocks for Lego is probably pretty easy. Automating a new sky blue variant of an existing block is even easier. A competitor automating a brand new line of toys that compete with Lego blocks is vastly more difficult.
Right To Work means that you don't have to join a union to get a job. It doesn't mean that noncompete clauses are illegal. Noncompete legality varies by state and in the majority of states, noncompetes are legal for certain reasons like trade secrets. In this case however I doubt that these companies could argue that these low level employees have trade secrets.
The Doctor will be female not because it makes any sense in the story, but because of Political Correctness.
And how can you possibly know that unless you were in the casting meetings? Peter Capaldi was leaving; they needed another Doctor Who. According to you they picked a female because of political correctness. Do you know what criteria was used? For sure the only criteria I can be certain is that Doctor Who should be from the UK. Do you know that the show didn't audition both male and female actors and Whittaker was the better actor?
And how would you know what I've watched and haven't watched? My point which you've seemed to miss is that when the show started in the 1960s, Doctor Who was male. Period. Even after the regeneration was devised as a way for multiple actors to play the part of Doctor Who when actors left the show, the Doctor must be male. Period. No other reason has ever been given as to why the Doctor couldn't be female. Over the years we've seen the companions drammatically change from the damsel in distress to companions that had much more autonomy. Male companions, gay/bisexual companions, companions who were not Caucassian. In ALL of those changes, the Doctor had to be male. Why?
Other than the higher price for existing monitors ($900 for a 38" monitor vs $200 for 40" TV) and the lack of monitors above 49"?
Are you actually asking questions or are you trolling? No you can't really get dumb TVs over a certain size anymore. But connecting them to the Internet requires you to set them up that way. If you are like many people, you simply do not set them up. If you are paranoid, you can turn off connection on your TV. If you are ultra paranoid, you can block your TV from connecting to your home router.
Um are you going to equate fiction where the characters have been established with a particular trait with the main character of a show that changes every few years? It sounds like the same outrage when Rue in the Hunger Games was an African American: Nonsensical.
Except I don't recall that they say anything of which you allege. People have reacted that way, but it didn't come from the BBC or the show runners. The only thing I've seen is the big reveal video.
You mean the "Time of the Doctor" special Christmas episode the BBC released on Christmas Day 2013? [sarcasm] How dare they relate it to Christmas![/sarcasm]
Some would argue that keeping the doctor male would have been pandering to demographics that prefer women be inconsequential sidekicks that required rescuing all the time.
The same way your mom would. Oh, snap!
I've found that some of the skills are absorbed by bundled services for small businesses. For example my friend who is a masseuse is basically a 1 person business. In the past she might have had to hire multiple people for small jobs: A receptionist/admin assistant to book and confirm appointments , a web developer to manage her site, advertising/marketing person, and an accountant/cashier to handle the books. The problem is she should only need these jobs filled for a few hours a week maybe. So she uses Square software which basically takes care of all of those roles for her.
So on her website powered by Square you can look at her open schedule, book an appointment, and get text alerts when it is coming up. When you pay it is linked to your appt (whether you got a 30/60/90 massage) and whether you paid for a bundle of appts etc.
Technically she doesn't need to know anything about HTML or database integration or mobile APIs or billing . All of that is seamless to her and she can focus on massages and not on the many tiny things she would have had to do as a business.