I don't see why it would. Same groceries are literally 2-3x the price there.
My guess, is that like restaurants, the top three answers are Location, Location, and Location. I noticed that all the Whole Foods where I live tend to be between downtown and the more well to do neighborhoods and suburbs, or on the way home and near those neighborhoods. Probably in locations that normal chains won't rent because of cost. People when driving home will probably stop to get groceries along the way. They could go someplace else for cheaper prices, but there is time and effort figured into that equation. Besides 2-3x price is just hyperbole. The others saying 30% more are probably closer to the truth.
Yep. They also assume that only the farthest far-right folks could possibly operate a firearm. They don't realize that there are some rather civilized sporting activity which involves firearms and that sometimes a non-far-right-person with a gun.
True. I know plenty of self identifying radical lefties that own plenty of guns. They just don't advertise it or form things like militias, because they figure it would just be putting their name on another list somewhere.
Except "the cloud" is actually a thing that is used and working pretty well for those that use it. Even if they fix the issues with transaction per unit of time, I'm not sure how much need there is for decentralized databases by people with money to make it pay off.
The things that are attracting Apple to there - the low taxes and so forth - are due to the conservatism.
Remove the conservatism, you remove what is attracting them to there.
I'm sure they could have found a place with even lower taxes. In today's economy, the important thing is having a large pool of skilled workers which I bet is why Apple is moving there. of course, Austin has those workers because of the University and also probably associated liberalism typically found in an college town which draws in people from not only the rest of Texas and the South, but makes it palitable to people from other parts of the nation.
Nope. Mostly I see older doctors and IT people using them, but then again, that's who I work with. They can demand the desk they get and opt for adjustable desks because they get a choice of what they get. Mostly for comfort, but now as one doctor has stated "Sitting is the new smoking" since the study showing that long term sitting was bad for you.
You talk about knowing these things, but they are pure speculation, and not even widely believed speculation. There are no observations of things with negative mass or anything like it.
Of course not. You certainly don't care because you're just a worthless AC troll, but there are possibly others that have the same idea because they don't know much about science, or at least physics. For the most part, theoretical physics has passed experimental physics because the cost of experimental observations on the edges of physics are complicated and expensive things. Particle physics must explore theoretical physics for the most part because nobody is building a surplus of larger particle colliders. The days of the gentleman experimenter doing observations in their garage have been pretty much over for quite some time. What we have is what we already know and mathematics. From that we can extrapolate possible new physics, and this will cut down the amount of experiments that need to happen as they will point the way to what is likely possible and what is not before we even have to set up an experiment. Many finds were possible or even discovered theoretically before they were experimentally. Most likely, the next couple of great leaps in physics could be derived from what we already know in hindsight, but making those leaps of logic takes some skill and luck.
Part of this is working out solutions to what we already know, even as just basic exercises. In an E&M course, you can work out what a magnetic monopole should look like by what we already know. We haven't found such, but we have probably looked at it and would now recognize one if we saw it. Likewise, it's pretty basic to wonder what would happen if there was a negative gravitational mass. By taking our current laws of gravitation, you can plug in a -m and find out which is pretty much what is going on here. From that, possible experiments usually come out pretty quickly and can often be applied against the observations we already have. This paper provides a model and doesn't fall apart immediately and even matches some of our observational data. Making these "toy models" fit observational data is not really an easy thing. MOND, the idea that dark matter can be explained with a correction to our already known laws of gravitation for example, seems like a simple solution, but nobody has yet to come up with a possible "toy model" of such that matches anything but the most simple of examples. In the case of MOND, I believe they have come up with something that will explain galactic rotation, but only in 2D. Once those new laws of gravitation are applied perpendicular to the plane of rotation, they fail to match what we see observationally.
MOND isn't a theory. It's an empirical fit to the data...a law, in other words, which is less than a theory.
Hardly. MOND is a theory, that the laws of gravitation just need to be tweaked to explain the effects attributed to dark matter, looking for an empirical fit to data. So far, it hasn't produced any math that can describe anything but the simplest case in only 2D.
because math allows it. But not everything is real what math allows. Just look at the epic failure of SUSY or read "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" from theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder.
True, but you can also look at anti-matter which was shown to exist mathematically but dismissed, only to be found later. I've skimmed over the original paper and it seems pretty good. The author admits that it is just a "toy model" based on the assumption that negative matter exists, but that several known constants can be derived from that model and several observations explained. They go on to list more than a half dozen experimental tests for the same model. Even if just a gedanken experiment that will later prove to be false, it seems they have done better than any of the MOND people with their theories or any of the string theorist people for that matter.
There is also the question of how a negative mass fluid would react with other n/mass fluid particles around it. If positive masses attract each other, and a positive-negative mass interaction results in repulsion, how would two negative-mass particles interact with each other?
If you did the math or read the original paper, you'd know that positive masses attract, positive-negative masses accelerate in the same direction, and negative masses repulse.
That's probably not a reasonable request at this time. I think the best right now are the mid-sized turbo-diesel trucks at around 25 mpg. By 2025 we'll probably see lots of 50 mpg+ hybrid trucks, if you're willing to wait several years. Expect to pay through the nose for one.
Go engineer and build a 50mpg truck and you'll end up with something that looks like a Yaris hatchback. The trouble is that people who say they want that won't really want it. Realistically, we already have 50 mpg truck with Cushmans, but nobody is buying those either.
So yes, there's pretty darned good data on the radiation environment of deep space.
Yep. What will show progress towards a trip to mars will be testing of shielding on some such mission. There's a variety of things that will need to be protected again: X and gamma rays, ions and solar wind, cosmic rays in the form of fast neutrons, etc. All are blocked by different materials and will likely need a composite shielding to protect the human crew and one that will fit into the allowable mass. Some of that could be made up of the water that will needed for the mission anyway, but not all.
My wife and I are currently fighting a denied health insurance claim. The reason it was denied was that the insurance company sent a fax to the wrong phone number at the hospital, and didn't check for a confirmation. Some companies are barely in the 1990's technology-wise.
Not really a tech issue. Either they sent it to a regular phone, in which case their fax machine told them it did not succeed in sending the fax, or they sent it to the wrong fax machine. Better than email, as with fax, you get back a confirmation they received the message or not before it finishes.
I just turned 50. I have no clue how to send a fax. I've never gotten one to come out right. Either the paper jams or it came out unreadable.
No thanks - I'll take e-mail any day over fax.
If most places are anything like my work, most faxes are just server to server these days. Our main application uses fax, and perhaps a document has to be scanned in or it's generated by the application, then you click the document, you click the destination and click send. Fax servers use encrypted tunnels to communicate with configured destinations. One thing that the fax "protocol" has over email, is receipt of arrival showing that not only did you send it but they successfully received it. Our main admin printer/copier also has fax capabilities where you have to put in a phone number, but it hardly gets use these days.
I read somewhere that in Europe during WW II there was an unwritten rule that we didn't shoot at their medics and they didn't shoot at ours. Maybe it's kind of the same thing. We don't shoot at your parachutes, and you don't shoot at ours. Maybe the Nazi commander was thinking to himself that maybe someday HE would be the one in the parachute.
That, plus, from Goering on down was this sense that the Luftwaffe and pilots were some sort of modern day knights bound by honor. Held to a higher code and worthy of it and even in some sort of Brotherhood with other pilots as part of a heroic self image. Goering even got better treatment for captured allied pilots than normal allied POWs got.
If by "gamification" you mean using awards to instill performance,...
I would not agree. I've been in jobs with such programs. Variety of shifts alone can mean a great deal of variance between what are technically the same job, giving one better metrics than the other although both are doing all the work given to them. Then the management tend to give such shifts to those they like even if they can't do all the work given to them, and give poor shift to those they don't like even if they are better workers. then there are simply the people who learn how to game the system, which usually means getting better metrics but being less productive.
Lots of people are telling us how much they hate telemarketers. But how many people on slashdot have been called by a telemarketer in the last year? More specifically, how many people have been called by a telemarketer that you did not - intentionally or otherwise - solicit yourself? Telemarketers are great punching bags and all, but it's easy to overstate the magnitude of the problem here.
Checking my phone records, about two or three a week.
Leaving aside the response you already got about the ford fusion... what the heck is wrong with "jump drive"? I honestly can't figure out what your objection is to that one...
We are an apex species, and evolution is not kind to apex species. There is literally an entire planet full of creatures evolving to kill us. It doesn't have to be that either. A giant meteor, nuclear despot, major tectonic event, biological weapon, or an as-yet unknown thing could pound off a big chunk of the population and we are back in the stone age finishing each other off with rocks and sticks.
If not Mars, where?
Thing is that there is not really a scenario where fixing the Earth would not be easier than making Mars habitable that wouldn't wipe out both planets and everybody in space too.
The idea of colonizing other planets (or moons) is so that if something happens to earth , whether our fault (global warming, nuclear war) or a natural event (another large asteroid impact or supervolcano ) , mankind can still survive elsewhere.
We will eventually have to move out of this solar system.
The point you are missing that it will be easier to fix the earth or alter the direction of an asteroid that colonizing Mars. I'd bet it would be easier to deal with a supervolcano that colonizing Mars. Sure, we'll hopefully eventually colonize Mars or other systems, but any reasonable timetable, centuries, is long enough that it is essentially science fiction. Terraforming is even farther out.
Moving 1,000 comets seems not too far off from our capabilities today.
This is pretty much the same amount to give Mars a survivable atmosphere also. Trust me, we are no where near having the capabilities of moving 1,000 comets. I've done the math and even getting the needed ices from the moons of Jupiter or Ceres, which would be cheaper, would still require minimum amounts of energy that is best described in units of Daily Total Output of the Sun. Just building the infrastructure to even begin to think about terraforming the moon or Mars will mean that space is already colonized.
The international pound has been defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg.
That's interesting. Since the pound is a weight and the kilogram a mass unless they also fixed the gravitational field in that definition it's open to abuse.
Just to make things even more complicated, the pound is used for both weight and mass.
How does one company launching and running 7000+ satellites grab you? In rockets that they can fly again and again basically just by refueling like a car?
That sounds pretty space-age to me.
I very much agree. Especially since this will quadruple the total number of satellites in orbit and be over ten times the number of working satellites currently in orbit.
That's pretty amazing too! 7000 satellites! 8000 would be even more amazinger! What if you could launch 10,000 satellites? That would be truly impressive. And reusable rockets? Who knew that was even possible? We truly live in a golden age where we can launch 7000 satellites. Just what we need.
Then you'll be happy to know that actual number is 11,943 satellites. This 7000+ was just an addition to what had already been approved.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why it would. Same groceries are literally 2-3x the price there.
My guess, is that like restaurants, the top three answers are Location, Location, and Location. I noticed that all the Whole Foods where I live tend to be between downtown and the more well to do neighborhoods and suburbs, or on the way home and near those neighborhoods. Probably in locations that normal chains won't rent because of cost. People when driving home will probably stop to get groceries along the way. They could go someplace else for cheaper prices, but there is time and effort figured into that equation. Besides 2-3x price is just hyperbole. The others saying 30% more are probably closer to the truth.
Yep. They also assume that only the farthest far-right folks could possibly operate a firearm. They don't realize that there are some rather civilized sporting activity which involves firearms and that sometimes a non-far-right-person with a gun.
True. I know plenty of self identifying radical lefties that own plenty of guns. They just don't advertise it or form things like militias, because they figure it would just be putting their name on another list somewhere.
Has anything changed from 6 months ago when we saw this story?
Following user request, they are trying to bring back the feel of the old Slashdot.
Blockchain is new in the cloud.
Except "the cloud" is actually a thing that is used and working pretty well for those that use it. Even if they fix the issues with transaction per unit of time, I'm not sure how much need there is for decentralized databases by people with money to make it pay off.
The things that are attracting Apple to there - the low taxes and so forth - are due to the conservatism.
Remove the conservatism, you remove what is attracting them to there.
I'm sure they could have found a place with even lower taxes. In today's economy, the important thing is having a large pool of skilled workers which I bet is why Apple is moving there. of course, Austin has those workers because of the University and also probably associated liberalism typically found in an college town which draws in people from not only the rest of Texas and the South, but makes it palitable to people from other parts of the nation.
Ever notice only hipsters use standing desks?
Nope. Mostly I see older doctors and IT people using them, but then again, that's who I work with. They can demand the desk they get and opt for adjustable desks because they get a choice of what they get. Mostly for comfort, but now as one doctor has stated "Sitting is the new smoking" since the study showing that long term sitting was bad for you.
You talk about knowing these things, but they are pure speculation, and not even widely believed speculation. There are no observations of things with negative mass or anything like it.
Of course not. You certainly don't care because you're just a worthless AC troll, but there are possibly others that have the same idea because they don't know much about science, or at least physics. For the most part, theoretical physics has passed experimental physics because the cost of experimental observations on the edges of physics are complicated and expensive things. Particle physics must explore theoretical physics for the most part because nobody is building a surplus of larger particle colliders. The days of the gentleman experimenter doing observations in their garage have been pretty much over for quite some time. What we have is what we already know and mathematics. From that we can extrapolate possible new physics, and this will cut down the amount of experiments that need to happen as they will point the way to what is likely possible and what is not before we even have to set up an experiment. Many finds were possible or even discovered theoretically before they were experimentally. Most likely, the next couple of great leaps in physics could be derived from what we already know in hindsight, but making those leaps of logic takes some skill and luck.
Part of this is working out solutions to what we already know, even as just basic exercises. In an E&M course, you can work out what a magnetic monopole should look like by what we already know. We haven't found such, but we have probably looked at it and would now recognize one if we saw it. Likewise, it's pretty basic to wonder what would happen if there was a negative gravitational mass. By taking our current laws of gravitation, you can plug in a -m and find out which is pretty much what is going on here. From that, possible experiments usually come out pretty quickly and can often be applied against the observations we already have. This paper provides a model and doesn't fall apart immediately and even matches some of our observational data. Making these "toy models" fit observational data is not really an easy thing. MOND, the idea that dark matter can be explained with a correction to our already known laws of gravitation for example, seems like a simple solution, but nobody has yet to come up with a possible "toy model" of such that matches anything but the most simple of examples. In the case of MOND, I believe they have come up with something that will explain galactic rotation, but only in 2D. Once those new laws of gravitation are applied perpendicular to the plane of rotation, they fail to match what we see observationally.
MOND isn't a theory. It's an empirical fit to the data...a law, in other words, which is less than a theory.
Hardly. MOND is a theory, that the laws of gravitation just need to be tweaked to explain the effects attributed to dark matter, looking for an empirical fit to data. So far, it hasn't produced any math that can describe anything but the simplest case in only 2D.
because math allows it. But not everything is real what math allows. Just look at the epic failure of SUSY or read "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" from theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder.
True, but you can also look at anti-matter which was shown to exist mathematically but dismissed, only to be found later. I've skimmed over the original paper and it seems pretty good. The author admits that it is just a "toy model" based on the assumption that negative matter exists, but that several known constants can be derived from that model and several observations explained. They go on to list more than a half dozen experimental tests for the same model. Even if just a gedanken experiment that will later prove to be false, it seems they have done better than any of the MOND people with their theories or any of the string theorist people for that matter.
There is also the question of how a negative mass fluid would react with other n/mass fluid particles around it. If positive masses attract each other, and a positive-negative mass interaction results in repulsion, how would two negative-mass particles interact with each other?
If you did the math or read the original paper, you'd know that positive masses attract, positive-negative masses accelerate in the same direction, and negative masses repulse.
If it made sense to spin it off, it would have been done by now. Spinning off AWS is nothing more than an investment banker's wet dream.
Perhaps they're waiting for the new AWS headquarters to be ready and moved into.
I want a 50mpg truck.
That's probably not a reasonable request at this time. I think the best right now are the mid-sized turbo-diesel trucks at around 25 mpg. By 2025 we'll probably see lots of 50 mpg+ hybrid trucks, if you're willing to wait several years. Expect to pay through the nose for one.
Go engineer and build a 50mpg truck and you'll end up with something that looks like a Yaris hatchback. The trouble is that people who say they want that won't really want it. Realistically, we already have 50 mpg truck with Cushmans, but nobody is buying those either.
So yes, there's pretty darned good data on the radiation environment of deep space.
Yep. What will show progress towards a trip to mars will be testing of shielding on some such mission. There's a variety of things that will need to be protected again: X and gamma rays, ions and solar wind, cosmic rays in the form of fast neutrons, etc. All are blocked by different materials and will likely need a composite shielding to protect the human crew and one that will fit into the allowable mass. Some of that could be made up of the water that will needed for the mission anyway, but not all.
My wife and I are currently fighting a denied health insurance claim. The reason it was denied was that the insurance company sent a fax to the wrong phone number at the hospital, and didn't check for a confirmation. Some companies are barely in the 1990's technology-wise.
Not really a tech issue. Either they sent it to a regular phone, in which case their fax machine told them it did not succeed in sending the fax, or they sent it to the wrong fax machine. Better than email, as with fax, you get back a confirmation they received the message or not before it finishes.
I just turned 50. I have no clue how to send a fax. I've never gotten one to come out right. Either the paper jams or it came out unreadable.
No thanks - I'll take e-mail any day over fax.
If most places are anything like my work, most faxes are just server to server these days. Our main application uses fax, and perhaps a document has to be scanned in or it's generated by the application, then you click the document, you click the destination and click send. Fax servers use encrypted tunnels to communicate with configured destinations. One thing that the fax "protocol" has over email, is receipt of arrival showing that not only did you send it but they successfully received it. Our main admin printer/copier also has fax capabilities where you have to put in a phone number, but it hardly gets use these days.
I read somewhere that in Europe during WW II there was an unwritten rule that we didn't shoot at their medics and they didn't shoot at ours. Maybe it's kind of the same thing. We don't shoot at your parachutes, and you don't shoot at ours. Maybe the Nazi commander was thinking to himself that maybe someday HE would be the one in the parachute.
That, plus, from Goering on down was this sense that the Luftwaffe and pilots were some sort of modern day knights bound by honor. Held to a higher code and worthy of it and even in some sort of Brotherhood with other pilots as part of a heroic self image. Goering even got better treatment for captured allied pilots than normal allied POWs got.
Mod parent up. This can be a very good thing.
If by "gamification" you mean using awards to instill performance,...
I would not agree. I've been in jobs with such programs. Variety of shifts alone can mean a great deal of variance between what are technically the same job, giving one better metrics than the other although both are doing all the work given to them. Then the management tend to give such shifts to those they like even if they can't do all the work given to them, and give poor shift to those they don't like even if they are better workers. then there are simply the people who learn how to game the system, which usually means getting better metrics but being less productive.
Lots of people are telling us how much they hate telemarketers. But how many people on slashdot have been called by a telemarketer in the last year? More specifically, how many people have been called by a telemarketer that you did not - intentionally or otherwise - solicit yourself? Telemarketers are great punching bags and all, but it's easy to overstate the magnitude of the problem here.
Checking my phone records, about two or three a week.
Leaving aside the response you already got about the ford fusion ... what the heck is wrong with "jump drive"? I honestly can't figure out what your objection is to that one ...
You've obviously never played Traveller.
We are an apex species, and evolution is not kind to apex species. There is literally an entire planet full of creatures evolving to kill us. It doesn't have to be that either. A giant meteor, nuclear despot, major tectonic event, biological weapon, or an as-yet unknown thing could pound off a big chunk of the population and we are back in the stone age finishing each other off with rocks and sticks.
If not Mars, where?
Thing is that there is not really a scenario where fixing the Earth would not be easier than making Mars habitable that wouldn't wipe out both planets and everybody in space too.
You are missing the point.
The idea of colonizing other planets (or moons) is so that if something happens to earth , whether our fault (global warming, nuclear war) or a natural event (another large asteroid impact or supervolcano ) , mankind can still survive elsewhere.
We will eventually have to move out of this solar system.
The point you are missing that it will be easier to fix the earth or alter the direction of an asteroid that colonizing Mars. I'd bet it would be easier to deal with a supervolcano that colonizing Mars. Sure, we'll hopefully eventually colonize Mars or other systems, but any reasonable timetable, centuries, is long enough that it is essentially science fiction. Terraforming is even farther out.
Moving 1,000 comets seems not too far off from our capabilities today.
This is pretty much the same amount to give Mars a survivable atmosphere also. Trust me, we are no where near having the capabilities of moving 1,000 comets. I've done the math and even getting the needed ices from the moons of Jupiter or Ceres, which would be cheaper, would still require minimum amounts of energy that is best described in units of Daily Total Output of the Sun. Just building the infrastructure to even begin to think about terraforming the moon or Mars will mean that space is already colonized.
The international pound has been defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg.
That's interesting. Since the pound is a weight and the kilogram a mass unless they also fixed the gravitational field in that definition it's open to abuse.
Just to make things even more complicated, the pound is used for both weight and mass.
How does one company launching and running 7000+ satellites grab you? In rockets that they can fly again and again basically just by refueling like a car?
That sounds pretty space-age to me.
I very much agree. Especially since this will quadruple the total number of satellites in orbit and be over ten times the number of working satellites currently in orbit.
That's pretty amazing too! 7000 satellites! 8000 would be even more amazinger! What if you could launch 10,000 satellites? That would be truly impressive. And reusable rockets? Who knew that was even possible? We truly live in a golden age where we can launch 7000 satellites. Just what we need.
Then you'll be happy to know that actual number is 11,943 satellites. This 7000+ was just an addition to what had already been approved.