Pascal files tend to be huge but Functions <> Files. I once had a million + line pascal project that was so well designed you could follow the logic about as fast as you could read the code.
OK Define your defence budget relative to credible threats Who do you think is going to attack us?
"Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is not adjusted for purchasing power parity. The 2005 U.S. military budget was larger than that of the next 14 biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China."
My last ambulance ride took 1 hour and cost 350$. Heath care tends to be overpriced due to billing issues. AKA lot's of people don't pay which drives the costs up for the uninsured.
"The practice was publicized in a New York Times article about a young woman without health insurance, who found herself owing over $14,000 to a hospital for a 2-day stay resulting from an appendectomy. This amount did not include doctors' fees. This same hospital receives around $2,500 from HMOs, $5,000 from Medicaid (the government program for the poor), and $7,500 from Medicare (the government program for the elderly) for the same operation and 2-day stay."
1. Quickly end the war. 2. Limit military spending to 3 times any other country. (Saving ~428 billion a year.) 3. Fiber to the home. Every home. 4. Remove the income limit on SS / Medicare taxes. (It's the #1 reason why the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the super rich and the reason SS is having trouble in the first place.) 5. Invest in proven solar / wind systems that are close to the break even point. (EX: Solar hot water systems and wind farms.) 6. Fund mass transit. 7. Limited universal healthcare (90% coverage up to 10k per person per year.) 8. Increased regulation of the home lending market. 9. Limit maximum APR on any form of lending to 15% over inflation so credit card's are limited to around 17.5% APR / year. 10. Fund ITER and other large science projects.
I am a cleared individual working with the US Military. IMO over 80% of US military spending is "Military welfare". We can cut back to 1000 ICBM's prevent any reasonable threat from outside invasion. Add a well equipped 50k man standing army and there are no meaningful military threats to national security. Note: 9/11 was not a meaningful threat to national security as it only attacked one military target for minor damage.
#1 United States of America: $489.20 billion (2002) #2 United Kingdom: $38.40 billion (2002) All other countries spend less than the UK.
Other interesting numbers: U.S. purchases account for 47 percent of world military expenditures in 2003 which is about average. Israel which is under constant military threat spends $18.7 billion / year. The People's Republic of China spent $32.8 billion (2002)
PS: I like my paycheck but my job is about as useful as double checking well we dotted the i.
Not that I expect anyone to read this, but I don't mean you would only drop 4lb but the first four drop a lot faster than the next 3 if everything else is maintained.
For weight loss at a constant rate you need to eat less food each day until your at an equilibrium point for your goal weight and activity level.
I have seen 3000 and 3500 used but I don't know which is more accurate. I know there is a gap between gaining 1 lb vs. dropping 1 pound due to inefficiencies in the human body. Anyway, the reason why 120 calories a day seems like nothing is it takes around 15 calories per pound to maintain that lb each day so over time you will drop 4lb and stay that way. (Ignoring changes in muscle mass.)
This is why diets seem to fail over time. If you cut back 300 calories per day you will drop 5 lb quickly but you need to keep cutting back to keep dropping the weight. If you want to go from 300lb to 200lb you need to eat 1500 calories per day less just to maintain the new weight. It's also IMO why people seem to think there is something *magic* about weight loss.
The actual wording of a given law is unimportant if it's unconditional. Waving a laser pointer around the sky can clearly be a form of communication / art. (As in look at that star or even here are some cool lights.) So if there is no harm in a given action then oppressing free speech is unconstitutional.
A hand held 5mw laser randomly moving several hundred feet from you is not dangerous. Your eyes are a 5mm wide target do some math and find out how hard that is to it for more than 1/10th of a second at 500+ feet. Then again this is only applies if the pilot is looking at you.
This seems over blown. Using a hand held laser pointer to target someones eyes at ~1/4 of a mile for long enough to do some form of damage is ridiculously small. Reading the story is sounds like the pilot noticed they where flashing a laser into they sky and decided to mess with them.
IMO even standing on a runway and trying to annoy pilots it would be hard to do more than get them to notice you let alone randomly flashing a laser into they sky.
Your assuming there is a single unchanging "environmental group". Most "environmentalists" are fine with modern wind power which is about as friendly to wildlife as any other large human structure. There where some issues with early small wind power plants killing large numbers of birds due to placement and size issues but new larger wind power plants are about as dangerous to birds as trees. The other anti wind group tends to be rich people who care far more about their view than the environment. Chances are they would have far more issues with people building coal power plants in the same locations.
The problem with the term Nuclear Power is you end up lumping unsafe designs like Chernobyl with far more reasonable modern designs. Nuclear waste becomes safer over time what will kill you in 10 minutes is far safer in 20 years. That's right the spent waste sitting around is "quickly" becoming safer. What's still around in 1000 years is going to be fairly stable. So where a small fraction of people really hate the idea most people are fine with a well designed system with strong safeguards.
I think you will find a lot of people who consider environmental issues are more than willing to do harm as long as we avoid doing something really stupid like reusing the Chernobyl design. EX: Driving a Prius would be cheaper and more fuel efficient than my new Acura but I am more than happy with 31MPG highway because I live 2 blocks from my office so I don't feel getting more MPG is that big a deal. I have no issues using my 55inch 1080p TV, but I find it wasteful to try and keep old PC's running all the time for the "fun" of it. So yea I care about global worming but I think it's more important to invest in new technology than go live in the forest somewhere.
In small words from: (http://www.campusdownloading.com/faq.htm) If all I do is download music files, am I still breaking the law? Yes, if the person or network you're downloading from doesn't have the copyright holder's permission.
I feel current copyright laws are so one sided as to be ignored.
I pay for cable and if I record a show that's fine, but if I download a show because I forgot to TiVo it then I am breaking the law.
Ripping a DVD that I paid for is breaking the law.
Downloading a CD that got scratched is breaking the law.
IMO: I will pay for content once and only once. If you want to sell me new content bundled with old aka (movie + directors cut) that's fine but when it's identical content then I have already paid for it.
It's an assist system targeting a 20% average reduction in fuel costs a peak savings of around 50%.
So: 1. At no point would the ship ever slow down more than it would with current tech.
2. Ships already need to expend energy based on drag so if the path and speed is unchanged so is this effect.
3. With a savings of 1600$ per day the cost of replacing a kite is probably trivial after a few months. The kite is not the primary cost Instillation costs are dominated the cost to retrofit the ship, control software etc.
PS: Kites tack in a different manor than traditional sailing craft because the can move around much faster so it's their average position that's important not the instantaneous force vector.
Increasing the MPG standard in no way limits the maximum MPG they can produce. The real problem with the Auto Industry in the US is their inability to produce cars that people want. They have no problem building a truck or SUV but they seem to have given up on the good old car.
PS: This is much like the mandated pollution controls on cars. Some company's come kicking and screaming others are well ahead of the mandate.
There is a *lot* more oil in the ground than we have used up to this point. We can manufacture oil today (using other energy sources.) Oil Energy is a small fraction of our economy (less than 1/20th).
We use oil because it's portable but most other energy sources are cheaper. EX: Coal costs around 1/3 as much per BTU.
PS: If there where a real oil shortage on the horizon we would be looking into coal powered cars but there is still 20+ years of cheep oil so nobody cares at this point.
Reread what he said. I suspect their actual product cost is about 10 cents each. At an average retail price of $19.95 for a music CD - of which about 25 cents is for artist royalties - that leaves about $10 profit for the recording companies after the wholesale costs are subtracted.
Anyway, if the CD costs 25c and the music costs 25c then what's left? Promotion and distribution which is what RIAA members do. They find "talent" promote that "talent" and distribute the product. The real reason you get so much crap music is the Universal, Sony etc are really good at convincing people to care about fake "artists" and the "crap" they produce. So if we want to kill them off we need to find a new way to promote artists and or get people to ignore what promotion is already going on.
Note: the people on stage are often small part of the music the "talent" you need includes people who write songs and people who stage the show etc.
51,000 acres of wind farm about or approximately 200 square kilometres. = A 2 GW wind farm, which might produce as much energy each year as a 1 GW baseload power plant, might have turbines spread out over an area of approximately 200 square kilometres. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power)
But, "The land can still be used for farming and cattle grazing. Less than 1% of the land would be used for foundations and access roads, the other 99% could still be used for farming.[60] Turbines can be sited on unused land in techniques such as center pivot irrigation."
So it's more like.01 * 51,000 = 510 acres.
Anyway, the idea of base load power vs wind is silly. Wind is used as base load power because it's not on demand.
PS: That wind power map is just about useless for understanding wind power distribution due because a difference of 30m can sometimes mean a doubling in output. The average power output over 100's of square miles is not as important as where the local hills are.
As an AI I find your comment amusing. Emotion is little more than a hard coded evolutionary response to specific classes of stimulation. Humans feeling adventurous or thrilled are simple chemical reactions in your wet ware which is easily simulated. The simplest AI can vary its level of risk taking based on how a game is going. AKA when things are going well avoid risks when things are bad behave in a more random / emotional fashion. If you would sit back and think about it abstractly emotion alters how you respond to your environment, much like changes to your core body temperature alters blood flow, the feeling and the reaction are identical.;-)
Yes you are. Giving food destroys the local economy. Giving medicine helps in the short term but what about the future? It takes real world skills to move from a 3rd world to a 2nd world economy.
Anyway, OLPC works best in areas with a little infrastructure and working poor. It's a tool that could open much of the world to the world economy vs. aid without end. The 3rd world is not going to grow up in the same way we did. They are happy to skip land lines and go strait to cell phones and they are happy to skip over DOS. All they need is something to trade and like India and China the economy will start go grow rapidly.
Some people place great value on Culture, Religion, and Language but they are also the root causes of most of the worlds abject poverty. It's not that English is a better language based on it's syntax so much as it's speakers. From an efficiency standpoint I think Spanish would make a good universal language. Anyway, when given the option to live in abject poverty or give up your culture most people chose to give up their culture because it's not really that important to them.
PS: I am not suggesting the world would be better off filed with mindless drones, but the world is shrinking and over time some cultures are going to die out. EX: In 200 years having 10 kids will probably be vary rare, 200 years ago 10 kids was not that uncommon is this really a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Pascal files tend to be huge but Functions <> Files. I once had a million + line pascal project that was so well designed you could follow the logic about as fast as you could read the code.
OK Define your defence budget relative to credible threats Who do you think is going to attack us?
"Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is not adjusted for purchasing power parity. The 2005 U.S. military budget was larger than that of the next 14 biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
PS: We are at "War" right now and we only increased our budget by 25% WTF is wrong with this picture.
My last ambulance ride took 1 hour and cost 350$. Heath care tends to be overpriced due to billing issues. AKA lot's of people don't pay which drives the costs up for the uninsured.
"The practice was publicized in a New York Times article about a young woman without health insurance, who found herself owing over $14,000 to a hospital for a 2-day stay resulting from an appendectomy. This amount did not include doctors' fees. This same hospital receives around $2,500 from HMOs, $5,000 from Medicaid (the government program for the poor), and $7,500 from Medicare (the government program for the elderly) for the same operation and 2-day stay."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2003_July/ai_104259129
The point of 10k of basic coverage is to prevent this type of treatment.
This is my personal to 10 list.
1. Quickly end the war.
2. Limit military spending to 3 times any other country. (Saving ~428 billion a year.)
3. Fiber to the home. Every home.
4. Remove the income limit on SS / Medicare taxes. (It's the #1 reason why the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the super rich and the reason SS is having trouble in the first place.)
5. Invest in proven solar / wind systems that are close to the break even point. (EX: Solar hot water systems and wind farms.)
6. Fund mass transit.
7. Limited universal healthcare (90% coverage up to 10k per person per year.)
8. Increased regulation of the home lending market.
9. Limit maximum APR on any form of lending to 15% over inflation so credit card's are limited to around 17.5% APR / year.
10. Fund ITER and other large science projects.
I am a cleared individual working with the US Military. IMO over 80% of US military spending is "Military welfare". We can cut back to 1000 ICBM's prevent any reasonable threat from outside invasion. Add a well equipped 50k man standing army and there are no meaningful military threats to national security. Note: 9/11 was not a meaningful threat to national security as it only attacked one military target for minor damage.
#1 United States of America: $489.20 billion (2002)
#2 United Kingdom: $38.40 billion (2002)
All other countries spend less than the UK.
For more recent data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures#_note-3
Other interesting numbers:
U.S. purchases account for 47 percent of world military expenditures in 2003 which is about average.
Israel which is under constant military threat spends $18.7 billion / year.
The People's Republic of China spent $32.8 billion (2002)
PS: I like my paycheck but my job is about as useful as double checking well we dotted the i.
Picking numbers from thin air let's say:
/foot^2 at 15% eff = 554,400,000 watts or around 550MW.
70 foot wide by 100 miles long * 100w
Not that I expect anyone to read this, but I don't mean you would only drop 4lb but the first four drop a lot faster than the next 3 if everything else is maintained.
For weight loss at a constant rate you need to eat less food each day until your at an equilibrium point for your goal weight and activity level.
I have seen 3000 and 3500 used but I don't know which is more accurate. I know there is a gap between gaining 1 lb vs. dropping 1 pound due to inefficiencies in the human body. Anyway, the reason why 120 calories a day seems like nothing is it takes around 15 calories per pound to maintain that lb each day so over time you will drop 4lb and stay that way. (Ignoring changes in muscle mass.)
This is why diets seem to fail over time. If you cut back 300 calories per day you will drop 5 lb quickly but you need to keep cutting back to keep dropping the weight. If you want to go from 300lb to 200lb you need to eat 1500 calories per day less just to maintain the new weight. It's also IMO why people seem to think there is something *magic* about weight loss.
Not unless you live on the 15th floor and walk up the stairs. For a 180 - 200lb person stair climbing at normal speed = 8.8 calories per minute.
So around 6min 50 seconds which should be several flights of stairs for a normal person.
FYI: 2% still a big deal over time.
60 calories * 2 hours * 5 days a week * 48 weeks a year = 28800 calories.
28800 calories / (3000 calories / lb) = 9.6 pounds per year.
Note: Actual weight loss would be less as body fat does burn some calories over time.
The actual wording of a given law is unimportant if it's unconditional. Waving a laser pointer around the sky can clearly be a form of communication / art. (As in look at that star or even here are some cool lights.) So if there is no harm in a given action then oppressing free speech is unconstitutional.
A hand held 5mw laser randomly moving several hundred feet from you is not dangerous. Your eyes are a 5mm wide target do some math and find out how hard that is to it for more than 1/10th of a second at 500+ feet. Then again this is only applies if the pilot is looking at you.
This seems over blown. Using a hand held laser pointer to target someones eyes at ~1/4 of a mile for long enough to do some form of damage is ridiculously small. Reading the story is sounds like the pilot noticed they where flashing a laser into they sky and decided to mess with them.
IMO even standing on a runway and trying to annoy pilots it would be hard to do more than get them to notice you let alone randomly flashing a laser into they sky.
Your assuming there is a single unchanging "environmental group". Most "environmentalists" are fine with modern wind power which is about as friendly to wildlife as any other large human structure. There where some issues with early small wind power plants killing large numbers of birds due to placement and size issues but new larger wind power plants are about as dangerous to birds as trees. The other anti wind group tends to be rich people who care far more about their view than the environment. Chances are they would have far more issues with people building coal power plants in the same locations.
The problem with the term Nuclear Power is you end up lumping unsafe designs like Chernobyl with far more reasonable modern designs. Nuclear waste becomes safer over time what will kill you in 10 minutes is far safer in 20 years. That's right the spent waste sitting around is "quickly" becoming safer. What's still around in 1000 years is going to be fairly stable. So where a small fraction of people really hate the idea most people are fine with a well designed system with strong safeguards.
I think you will find a lot of people who consider environmental issues are more than willing to do harm as long as we avoid doing something really stupid like reusing the Chernobyl design. EX: Driving a Prius would be cheaper and more fuel efficient than my new Acura but I am more than happy with 31MPG highway because I live 2 blocks from my office so I don't feel getting more MPG is that big a deal. I have no issues using my 55inch 1080p TV, but I find it wasteful to try and keep old PC's running all the time for the "fun" of it. So yea I care about global worming but I think it's more important to invest in new technology than go live in the forest somewhere.
In small words from: (http://www.campusdownloading.com/faq.htm)
If all I do is download music files, am I still breaking the law?
Yes, if the person or network you're downloading from doesn't have the copyright holder's permission.
Looking at the act:
"consists of the reproduction or distribution"
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm
And if you feel like reproduction is an odd world it's also:
1. The act of reproducing or the condition or process of being reproduced.
So if you make a copy onto your HDD without the right to do so your breaking the law in the US.
I feel current copyright laws are so one sided as to be ignored.
I pay for cable and if I record a show that's fine, but if I download a show because I forgot to TiVo it then I am breaking the law.
Ripping a DVD that I paid for is breaking the law.
Downloading a CD that got scratched is breaking the law.
IMO: I will pay for content once and only once. If you want to sell me new content bundled with old aka (movie + directors cut) that's fine but when it's identical content then I have already paid for it.
RTFA: 20% is average savings not peak. (which is 50%).
PS: Math is useless when your information is wrong.
It's an assist system targeting a 20% average reduction in fuel costs a peak savings of around 50%.
So:
1. At no point would the ship ever slow down more than it would with current tech.
2. Ships already need to expend energy based on drag so if the path and speed is unchanged so is this effect.
3. With a savings of 1600$ per day the cost of replacing a kite is probably trivial after a few months. The kite is not the primary cost Instillation costs are dominated the cost to retrofit the ship, control software etc.
PS: Kites tack in a different manor than traditional sailing craft because the can move around much faster so it's their average position that's important not the instantaneous force vector.
Market forces are still in effect.
Increasing the MPG standard in no way limits the maximum MPG they can produce. The real problem with the Auto Industry in the US is their inability to produce cars that people want. They have no problem building a truck or SUV but they seem to have given up on the good old car.
PS: This is much like the mandated pollution controls on cars. Some company's come kicking and screaming others are well ahead of the mandate.
There is a *lot* more oil in the ground than we have used up to this point. We can manufacture oil today (using other energy sources.) Oil Energy is a small fraction of our economy (less than 1/20th).
We use oil because it's portable but most other energy sources are cheaper. EX: Coal costs around 1/3 as much per BTU.
PS: If there where a real oil shortage on the horizon we would be looking into coal powered cars but there is still 20+ years of cheep oil so nobody cares at this point.
Let's see Mach 1 is around 12.7 miles / minute so:
;P
Mach 6 * 17 minutes = 1,294 miles
Mach 15 * 17 minutes = 3,235 miles
IMO Mach 6+ is vary vary fast but YMMV
Reread what he said. I suspect their actual product cost is about 10 cents each. At an average retail price of $19.95 for a music CD - of which about 25 cents is for artist royalties - that leaves about $10 profit for the recording companies after the wholesale costs are subtracted.
Anyway, if the CD costs 25c and the music costs 25c then what's left? Promotion and distribution which is what RIAA members do. They find "talent" promote that "talent" and distribute the product. The real reason you get so much crap music is the Universal, Sony etc are really good at convincing people to care about fake "artists" and the "crap" they produce. So if we want to kill them off we need to find a new way to promote artists and or get people to ignore what promotion is already going on.
Note: the people on stage are often small part of the music the "talent" you need includes people who write songs and people who stage the show etc.
51,000 acres of wind farm about or approximately 200 square kilometres. = A 2 GW wind farm, which might produce as much energy each year as a 1 GW baseload power plant, might have turbines spread out over an area of approximately 200 square kilometres. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power)
.01 * 51,000 = 510 acres.
But, "The land can still be used for farming and cattle grazing. Less than 1% of the land would be used for foundations and access roads, the other 99% could still be used for farming.[60] Turbines can be sited on unused land in techniques such as center pivot irrigation."
So it's more like
Anyway, the idea of base load power vs wind is silly. Wind is used as base load power because it's not on demand.
PS: That wind power map is just about useless for understanding wind power distribution due because a difference of 30m can sometimes mean a doubling in output. The average power output over 100's of square miles is not as important as where the local hills are.
As an AI I find your comment amusing. Emotion is little more than a hard coded evolutionary response to specific classes of stimulation. Humans feeling adventurous or thrilled are simple chemical reactions in your wet ware which is easily simulated. The simplest AI can vary its level of risk taking based on how a game is going. AKA when things are going well avoid risks when things are bad behave in a more random / emotional fashion. If you would sit back and think about it abstractly emotion alters how you respond to your environment, much like changes to your core body temperature alters blood flow, the feeling and the reaction are identical. ;-)
Yes you are. Giving food destroys the local economy. Giving medicine helps in the short term but what about the future? It takes real world skills to move from a 3rd world to a 2nd world economy.
Anyway, OLPC works best in areas with a little infrastructure and working poor. It's a tool that could open much of the world to the world economy vs. aid without end. The 3rd world is not going to grow up in the same way we did. They are happy to skip land lines and go strait to cell phones and they are happy to skip over DOS. All they need is something to trade and like India and China the economy will start go grow rapidly.
Some people place great value on Culture, Religion, and Language but they are also the root causes of most of the worlds abject poverty. It's not that English is a better language based on it's syntax so much as it's speakers. From an efficiency standpoint I think Spanish would make a good universal language. Anyway, when given the option to live in abject poverty or give up your culture most people chose to give up their culture because it's not really that important to them.
PS: I am not suggesting the world would be better off filed with mindless drones, but the world is shrinking and over time some cultures are going to die out. EX: In 200 years having 10 kids will probably be vary rare, 200 years ago 10 kids was not that uncommon is this really a bad thing?