Hawaii has some of the highest electricity prices in the world (42c / kwh).
If the electricity company there had generation, distribution and other costs coming up to even half of that I would shed a little tear for them instead of saying it serves the monopolistic gougers right if they are having trouble providing supply at 7pm.
Yes but I wanted to avoid someone asking for an exact figure or dismissing me out of hand so I lowballed the number to something that still justifies it.
Yes it is more difficult but why did you bother to go to school or otherwise learn how to do your job if not to be able to do more than the uneducated and inexperienced? Sometimes, especially with embarassingly parallel things like processing multiple images, it pays off many times over and in those situations there are depressingly few applications that take advantage of extra CPUs that have typically been in PCs for well over a decade. Even the original Nintendo DS has two cores.
This thread started with "They believe their right to walk into traffic" so OF COURSE it's about people being run over. Please try to keep up with the thread you are posting into before writing.
One thing that doesn't help is people with a blatant personal agenda of greed and putting barriers in the way of others, such as Koch, calling themselves "libertarian" and paying a lot of other people to call them "libertarian".
All of the insults are true if you pick and choose from enough people who call themselves "libertarian", even if they miss the middle by a mile. If you want to see if they are actually considering a philosophy or just greedy pricks ask questions about what rights people employed by them have - many who call themselves "libertarian" are not and only believe in rights for the rich up to and including something very hard to distinguish from slaveowning.
Believe me, as a libertarian I love questioning the wisdom of all laws
I thought the ones about what people get up to in the bedroom and women's reproduction were off limits to questioning by "libertarians", but what would I know.
The word "driver" is in the above post several times that should be a bit of a clue about what the post is about. The pedestrian may end up dead but the driver is supposed to attempt to yield to pedestrian in their path if they can.
Why are we even discussing something so obvious? Are there really people here who want to pretend they have a right to run people down just because those people broke a road rule?
Practical beats technical any day even in court. For instance, telling a Judge you didn't stop because you had right of way would lead to hard time if you ran over a pedestrian while some attempt to stop, even though the pedestrian is not supposed to be there, would not. So legally (let alone morally) you are fucked if you did not attempt to yield to the pedestrian and they died so it's as if they legally had right of way no matter what they are doing.
It's a bit strange that we even need to have this discussion given that most taking part would be old enough to drive.
Yes, that too. The hardware has progressed at a fantastic rate but we still have plenty of software with interfaces that confuse people and plenty of software that is needlessly slow or otherwise not taking advantage of the hardware. Most developers seem to have got the idea of 64 bit by now (only three decades late), but the concepts of being on a network, having multiple cpus and possibly multiple users seem to have still escaped them. The MSDOS mindset still thrives and the vast amount of malware infesting many machines is a consequence of that.
That is why they have right of way once they are on the road. Even an idiot (or a child or animal who doesn't know any better) does not deserve death just for being on the road. Telling a dead kid's mother that the kid that you were there first isn't going to go down well.
If a driver is not capable of preparing to deal with kids or animals that have no way of knowing the road rules then they should not be on the road. Adults acting like such kids or animals is an annoying thing, but if that's how they act in that area then you have to drive accordingly. There's plenty of drunks at night walking along some of the roads I drive along, and while it is true they should know better than staggering onto the road or running in front of cars thinking they are taxis, it's still the duty of the driver to take care not to hit them.
Fault does not matter. It's the driver's responsibility to do their best to avoid a collision with a pedestrian no matter who is at fault.
If you don't hit them fault doesn't matter. When you've got a dead kid on the road blaming them just sounds petty no matter what they did.
The toilet thing is an amusing example of total design failure. Some idiot looked at low water use toilets in other countries and only copied the cistern, despite the bowl being the only bit of the design that got the job done.
That's connecting to the old stuff. The details for the new service are not out yet so when the service starts next year we'll be able to see if it has IPv6 or not - but I'd be astonished if it didn't.
Because it has not been announced yet. There has only been a mention that there will be a range of prices to discourage a few users hogging all of the bandwidth.
I would have serious doubts that this is cheaper than running some fibre
The distances are staggering and the population density is low. It would be like running fibre to tiny settlements on the north coast of Alaska for an almost direct comparison.
So, if your choice is "no internet at all", or "expensive satellite coverage... which are you going to take?
There is already expensive satellite coverage - the plan with these two satellites is cheap and much higher capacity than linking to a satellite over Dubai that charges a lot more per kb and could never handle the volume of customers that is planned. Some people may notice that the angle to a satellite over Dubai is getting close to the horizon (~20 degrees?) for the east coast of Australia, but most of Australia is very flat. This new one will be pretty close to overhead (in comparison, it's still over the equator), but the more important thing is the volume of traffic it can commit to Australian customers.
The other alternative is lots of satellites in a low earth orbit, with one coming into a range as another one leaves and some kind of data relay mechanism for sending data to a base station
That's ideal, but the problem (as seen with Iridium doing that) is getting enough people around the planet to agree to pay for it. It's a management/diplomacy problem that gets in the way of an ideal technical solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that sucks over Kobo and all the others.
Dozens - from the Boox (ten inch screen) down. I think e-reader news would be the place to start.
If the electricity company there had generation, distribution and other costs coming up to even half of that I would shed a little tear for them instead of saying it serves the monopolistic gougers right if they are having trouble providing supply at 7pm.
Take a look around on the comments and you'll see a few that look exactly like that.
Yes but I wanted to avoid someone asking for an exact figure or dismissing me out of hand so I lowballed the number to something that still justifies it.
Yes it is more difficult but why did you bother to go to school or otherwise learn how to do your job if not to be able to do more than the uneducated and inexperienced? Sometimes, especially with embarassingly parallel things like processing multiple images, it pays off many times over and in those situations there are depressingly few applications that take advantage of extra CPUs that have typically been in PCs for well over a decade. Even the original Nintendo DS has two cores.
This thread started with "They believe their right to walk into traffic" so OF COURSE it's about people being run over. Please try to keep up with the thread you are posting into before writing.
what rights people employed by them should have
One thing that doesn't help is people with a blatant personal agenda of greed and putting barriers in the way of others, such as Koch, calling themselves "libertarian" and paying a lot of other people to call them "libertarian".
All of the insults are true if you pick and choose from enough people who call themselves "libertarian", even if they miss the middle by a mile.
If you want to see if they are actually considering a philosophy or just greedy pricks ask questions about what rights people employed by them have - many who call themselves "libertarian" are not and only believe in rights for the rich up to and including something very hard to distinguish from slaveowning.
I thought the ones about what people get up to in the bedroom and women's reproduction were off limits to questioning by "libertarians", but what would I know.
The word "driver" is in the above post several times that should be a bit of a clue about what the post is about. The pedestrian may end up dead but the driver is supposed to attempt to yield to pedestrian in their path if they can.
Why are we even discussing something so obvious? Are there really people here who want to pretend they have a right to run people down just because those people broke a road rule?
Practical beats technical any day even in court.
For instance, telling a Judge you didn't stop because you had right of way would lead to hard time if you ran over a pedestrian while some attempt to stop, even though the pedestrian is not supposed to be there, would not. So legally (let alone morally) you are fucked if you did not attempt to yield to the pedestrian and they died so it's as if they legally had right of way no matter what they are doing.
It's a bit strange that we even need to have this discussion given that most taking part would be old enough to drive.
Better log out before Daddy comes home and sees what you've written in his name.
Yes, that too. The hardware has progressed at a fantastic rate but we still have plenty of software with interfaces that confuse people and plenty of software that is needlessly slow or otherwise not taking advantage of the hardware. Most developers seem to have got the idea of 64 bit by now (only three decades late), but the concepts of being on a network, having multiple cpus and possibly multiple users seem to have still escaped them. The MSDOS mindset still thrives and the vast amount of malware infesting many machines is a consequence of that.
Have you SEEN the shit we are using and how little it has progressed since the 1990s? Even the iPhone only got multi-tasking a couple of years ago.
That is why they have right of way once they are on the road. Even an idiot (or a child or animal who doesn't know any better) does not deserve death just for being on the road. Telling a dead kid's mother that the kid that you were there first isn't going to go down well.
If a driver is not capable of preparing to deal with kids or animals that have no way of knowing the road rules then they should not be on the road. Adults acting like such kids or animals is an annoying thing, but if that's how they act in that area then you have to drive accordingly. There's plenty of drunks at night walking along some of the roads I drive along, and while it is true they should know better than staggering onto the road or running in front of cars thinking they are taxis, it's still the duty of the driver to take care not to hit them.
Fault does not matter. It's the driver's responsibility to do their best to avoid a collision with a pedestrian no matter who is at fault.
If you don't hit them fault doesn't matter.
When you've got a dead kid on the road blaming them just sounds petty no matter what they did.
The toilet thing is an amusing example of total design failure. Some idiot looked at low water use toilets in other countries and only copied the cistern, despite the bowl being the only bit of the design that got the job done.
That's connecting to the old stuff. The details for the new service are not out yet so when the service starts next year we'll be able to see if it has IPv6 or not - but I'd be astonished if it didn't.
They already have such a connection and it's nowhere near good enough for current traffic.
Because it has not been announced yet. There has only been a mention that there will be a range of prices to discourage a few users hogging all of the bandwidth.
Not when you are measuring it in tens of thousands of kilometres once you work out the paths.
The distances are staggering and the population density is low. It would be like running fibre to tiny settlements on the north coast of Alaska for an almost direct comparison.
There is already expensive satellite coverage - the plan with these two satellites is cheap and much higher capacity than linking to a satellite over Dubai that charges a lot more per kb and could never handle the volume of customers that is planned.
Some people may notice that the angle to a satellite over Dubai is getting close to the horizon (~20 degrees?) for the east coast of Australia, but most of Australia is very flat. This new one will be pretty close to overhead (in comparison, it's still over the equator), but the more important thing is the volume of traffic it can commit to Australian customers.
That's ideal, but the problem (as seen with Iridium doing that) is getting enough people around the planet to agree to pay for it. It's a management/diplomacy problem that gets in the way of an ideal technical solution.