Initial reaction: "2GHz? What runs on that band? I thought all the normal unlicensed and WLAN stuff was on 2.4Ghz because that whole area of the spectrum was kinda junk and not good for transmitting very far..."
More likely they will have a small black hole (a few tons, perhaps) in their space lab circa the year 2525, and will watch it with a microscope while they spin it up.
I didn't say that, and no, I don't think it would, certainly not with the way oil politics are structured today. But that's the problem: it's the political climate that determines these things more than reality. We don't drill in the Gulf or in Alaska because it's a good idea or a bad idea in its own right, we drill because the politics make it more convenient.
You know what? The execs should volunteer. Heck, you know what else? Obama should go there and help with the cleanup - and not just for a quick PR stunt, either, but invest a little in it, do it for a whole day - or even two. People would really respect the guy for it.
(There's talk that people are seeing the Prez as powerless and ineffective, full of hot air over the issue, but I'm not sure whether that's broad-spectrum or mostly just conservative windbags. Either way, it would shut most of them up pretty fast.)
While Palin's pretty shamelessly rent-seeking (drill in Alaska? why, how convenient!) the idea that we've been avoiding one ecologically sensitive area (pristine Alaska wilderness) in favor of drilling in another, potentially more sensitive area which is also much much riskier to drill in (the Gulf) for whatever reason (perhaps it's easier for people to conceive of the former as wilderness-y?)... that part of her idea is not without merit. Regardless of our ultimate course of action, we should be sure that we are weighing the potential environmental impact a bit more dispassionately, and with an eye to overall impact - including the impact of the risks, so elusive and difficult to grasp until disaster strikes.
Not that I recommend blowing it up, mind you, but isn't there a lot of water in the Gulf of Mexico which will serve to starve it of oxygen? (and steal heat, and such).
I was under the impression the risks of trying to blow it up with an explosion were more along the lines of "it's still leaking a bunch, and the hole is much messier now and even harder to cap."
I dunno; "Never" is a pretty strong word. Google Apps are certainly fine for my little sister typing up her homework assignments and writing bad poetry. It's certainly a far cry from that to Business, though (including sensitive personal business).
Well, that's because when it's not a problem and no one cares about it and water is abundant, people find interesting things to do with it, like put gardens in the middle of the Nevada desert.
If it comes down to it, a nuke plant or two has enough power to desalinate a whole lot of water. People usually just don't bother because the regular stuff is almost laughably cheap - it falls from the sky, for free! - and shortages are usually more cheaply addressed by moving it around from one place to another. (In California, that's the whole "regulatory drought" affair, when the courts said they had to stop pumping water through one particular delta because of the endangered fish who might get killed by the pumps, and replacement infrastructure hasn't been built.)
They're asking the courts to prevent them from downloading their stuff again... How would you implement that? Ban the people from the Internets entirely? (Including at the local coffee shop?) Short of stuffing them in jail, I don't see how you could actually do that. So what do you think they have in mind here?
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
to control the flow of nonsense over the failed well, contractors will first pump T5000 cement into his mouth under pressure, then fit ankle weights, and send him to inspect the work personally in the Gulf.
Typical. There's a flippin' crisis going on in the Gulf and the CEO is out getting fitted for his new fancy concrete shoes. What's next? Some exotic underwater hotel where he can sleep with the fishes? That is, if there are any fish left.
Oh, good lord. "Freedom Fries" lasted about two weeks, maybe eight weeks in parts of Texas, and it was a harmless silly way to snub France and complain while they were being recalcitrant themselves. Most people, by this point, have forgotten 90% of the matter, except maybe for the fact that it's amusing to call the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (not because they are, or are not, but because they enjoy name-calling, and this is one name that lives in the archives.)
"they simply fail to properly advise the units that are making decisions of the cost and consequence of such a short-sighted approach."
In the defense of IT, those people they're trying to advise aren't always the best at taking advice. (But then again, neither are IT admins always the best at giving it.)
Arbitrage exploits inefficiencies, but it also reduces them. If there's a buy order in Market A for $50 and there's a seller in Market B who wants $49, then there's really nothing wrong about offering him $49.10 and then turning around and selling it in A and pocketing the $.90. (Real arbitrage usually would involve higher quantities and lower spreads.)
There are plenty of other people who would be willing to arbitrage the same thing as you are and give the guy on the other end a slightly better deal. So you'd expect that the profits that come from it are reasonable, and in line with the profits you could make by taking the money and effort of building a high-frequency trading system (programmers, fast computers, the risk of losing money on a bad trade, etc) and applying it elsewhere. It's really not a big deal.
As for a look at an extreme version of what the market would be like without people playing high-frequency trading games and the like, go look up your favorite small- or mid-cap stock on E*Trade during extended hours trading some time. Right now, my company stock can be bought for $12.30, or sold for $11.80. That's like a 4% fee to buying the stock. Yow! (The annualized real rate of return of the stock market is about 4%. That's like a year's profit, just gone, if you have to take those prices.) If big trading outfits can reduce that spread, they're welcome to whatever profits they can make off my money.
ING Direct is really crabby about letting individuals access their information through services such as Mint.com. They're also heavier on the security-theater than actual security, and their website keeps getting worse every year. Meh. They do have a pretty decent savings account rate, though.
The relative-spinny-speeds component seems pretty small in comparison to the mechanical force transferred for the actual drive; you could probably achieve it with a couple of batteries if you weren't able to come up with a cute little mechanical widget. I'd mostly be concerned about the bulk of the mechanism and how it would fit onto the bicycle.
By "frictionless" I assume they're talking about something to do with the clutch, where you have two plates that you can jam against each other to transmit power via friction (and if you take them a little distance apart you they have a little bit of slip to them, so that during a gear change can the engine's speed will be smoothly met by the friction until it matches the drive-shaft's speed without any terrible lurch which would damage everything). This thing still has normal mechanical friction, as any set of gears would, but doesn't have any component explicitly designed for friction.
Slashdot Mirror
Initial reaction: "2GHz? What runs on that band? I thought all the normal unlicensed and WLAN stuff was on 2.4Ghz because that whole area of the spectrum was kinda junk and not good for transmitting very far..."
ah, the joys of telecommunications.
More likely they will have a small black hole (a few tons, perhaps) in their space lab circa the year 2525, and will watch it with a microscope while they spin it up.
No, the big floods are officially off since the Noah incident. Fire from heaven, on the other hand... now we're cookin'.
I didn't say that, and no, I don't think it would, certainly not with the way oil politics are structured today. But that's the problem: it's the political climate that determines these things more than reality. We don't drill in the Gulf or in Alaska because it's a good idea or a bad idea in its own right, we drill because the politics make it more convenient.
That, and realistic overage rates would be nice. If I use 10GB on my 5GB-for-$40 plan, I should pay something like $40-$60 extra, not $300.
You know what? The execs should volunteer. Heck, you know what else? Obama should go there and help with the cleanup - and not just for a quick PR stunt, either, but invest a little in it, do it for a whole day - or even two. People would really respect the guy for it.
(There's talk that people are seeing the Prez as powerless and ineffective, full of hot air over the issue, but I'm not sure whether that's broad-spectrum or mostly just conservative windbags. Either way, it would shut most of them up pretty fast.)
While Palin's pretty shamelessly rent-seeking (drill in Alaska? why, how convenient!) the idea that we've been avoiding one ecologically sensitive area (pristine Alaska wilderness) in favor of drilling in another, potentially more sensitive area which is also much much riskier to drill in (the Gulf) for whatever reason (perhaps it's easier for people to conceive of the former as wilderness-y?)... that part of her idea is not without merit. Regardless of our ultimate course of action, we should be sure that we are weighing the potential environmental impact a bit more dispassionately, and with an eye to overall impact - including the impact of the risks, so elusive and difficult to grasp until disaster strikes.
Not that I recommend blowing it up, mind you, but isn't there a lot of water in the Gulf of Mexico which will serve to starve it of oxygen? (and steal heat, and such).
I was under the impression the risks of trying to blow it up with an explosion were more along the lines of "it's still leaking a bunch, and the hole is much messier now and even harder to cap."
The computers are drinking beer now? We're certainly doomed.
I dunno; "Never" is a pretty strong word. Google Apps are certainly fine for my little sister typing up her homework assignments and writing bad poetry. It's certainly a far cry from that to Business, though (including sensitive personal business).
Oh. I just wanted an argument.
Because it's cute and fuzzy, obviously. Also, I like pretty butterflies. ./~ <3
Not even something like this? and that's just with a 10 second search.
Well, that's because when it's not a problem and no one cares about it and water is abundant, people find interesting things to do with it, like put gardens in the middle of the Nevada desert.
If it comes down to it, a nuke plant or two has enough power to desalinate a whole lot of water. People usually just don't bother because the regular stuff is almost laughably cheap - it falls from the sky, for free! - and shortages are usually more cheaply addressed by moving it around from one place to another. (In California, that's the whole "regulatory drought" affair, when the courts said they had to stop pumping water through one particular delta because of the endangered fish who might get killed by the pumps, and replacement infrastructure hasn't been built.)
They're asking the courts to prevent them from downloading their stuff again... How would you implement that? Ban the people from the Internets entirely? (Including at the local coffee shop?) Short of stuffing them in jail, I don't see how you could actually do that. So what do you think they have in mind here?
Typical. There's a flippin' crisis going on in the Gulf and the CEO is out getting fitted for his new fancy concrete shoes. What's next? Some exotic underwater hotel where he can sleep with the fishes? That is, if there are any fish left.
Oh, good lord. "Freedom Fries" lasted about two weeks, maybe eight weeks in parts of Texas, and it was a harmless silly way to snub France and complain while they were being recalcitrant themselves. Most people, by this point, have forgotten 90% of the matter, except maybe for the fact that it's amusing to call the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (not because they are, or are not, but because they enjoy name-calling, and this is one name that lives in the archives.)
There's Windows ports of Perl, both Cygwin and ActiveState, last I checked.
I'll accept that quality ink is expensive. I'll then point out that 91% of the time, you don't really need quality ink.
In the defense of IT, those people they're trying to advise aren't always the best at taking advice. (But then again, neither are IT admins always the best at giving it.)
Arbitrage exploits inefficiencies, but it also reduces them. If there's a buy order in Market A for $50 and there's a seller in Market B who wants $49, then there's really nothing wrong about offering him $49.10 and then turning around and selling it in A and pocketing the $.90. (Real arbitrage usually would involve higher quantities and lower spreads.)
There are plenty of other people who would be willing to arbitrage the same thing as you are and give the guy on the other end a slightly better deal. So you'd expect that the profits that come from it are reasonable, and in line with the profits you could make by taking the money and effort of building a high-frequency trading system (programmers, fast computers, the risk of losing money on a bad trade, etc) and applying it elsewhere. It's really not a big deal.
As for a look at an extreme version of what the market would be like without people playing high-frequency trading games and the like, go look up your favorite small- or mid-cap stock on E*Trade during extended hours trading some time. Right now, my company stock can be bought for $12.30, or sold for $11.80. That's like a 4% fee to buying the stock. Yow! (The annualized real rate of return of the stock market is about 4%. That's like a year's profit, just gone, if you have to take those prices.) If big trading outfits can reduce that spread, they're welcome to whatever profits they can make off my money.
ING Direct is really crabby about letting individuals access their information through services such as Mint.com. They're also heavier on the security-theater than actual security, and their website keeps getting worse every year. Meh. They do have a pretty decent savings account rate, though.
The relative-spinny-speeds component seems pretty small in comparison to the mechanical force transferred for the actual drive; you could probably achieve it with a couple of batteries if you weren't able to come up with a cute little mechanical widget. I'd mostly be concerned about the bulk of the mechanism and how it would fit onto the bicycle.
By "frictionless" I assume they're talking about something to do with the clutch, where you have two plates that you can jam against each other to transmit power via friction (and if you take them a little distance apart you they have a little bit of slip to them, so that during a gear change can the engine's speed will be smoothly met by the friction until it matches the drive-shaft's speed without any terrible lurch which would damage everything). This thing still has normal mechanical friction, as any set of gears would, but doesn't have any component explicitly designed for friction.