Nope. Because the generators of other types of power all get subsidies, and when the price is fixed to a wholesale price, we see Enron-style price games at the wholesale level.
I didn't make it up. Did you not read the quoted material in my last post. She admitted the bike they took was the one she rode, and that it had an electric motor in it. That's not the only site with that description of events. Why are you so set on claiming she didn't confess, when multiple places have reported her saying that the bike she rode had an electric motor in it?
"[The bike I was on] belongs to a friend of mine. [...] I never knew that that he had an electric motor fitted on his bike. He never told me. It is all a big mistake. "
So, the bike she was on had an electric motor fitted. She said so. She denied knowingly using the bike, denied knowing it had a motor, but clearly states that the bike she was on had an electric motor.
How do you know what I read? http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnie... That's not the same one I read, but was the first hit on Google. She admits riding the illegal bike, and claims she didn't know it was illegal, and thought it was her bike, as it was an exact match for her bike.
She confessed to the infraction and is asking for leniency. At least according to all the articles I've read that weren't linked in TFS.
The violation seems settled. The only question left is the punishment.
You didn't read the right stories. The change balanced the buy-back price. Before, it was subsidizing solar with the costs of other users. Now it's set to not fund solar, but doesn't "punish" solar in any way. Though the best solution is to have buy-back at peak time at retail, and other times to be wholesale. Because managing the peak power usage helps the grid the most. But it's in no way a "tax" or "penalty" on solar. It just reduced/eliminated a credit.
Aside from being easily caught when people weigh your competition bike and find it weight 3x everyone else's, it'd be easy to hide a motor where an inspection wouldn't find it. Put it in the frame, by the bottom bracket, and have the electric motor directly drive the crank. Fill every spare section of space in the frame with batteries. You'd be able to get 100W for the uphills for even long races.
If you want it to be undetectable, you need to hide the batteries in the water bottle, or on your body, with connections to the motor hidden (or possibly wireless). Easy to do, but nobody cares.
iTelevision is called Apple TV. It may not be what you want, but it's already out there. Buy your TV as a monitor, and plug in Apple TV. Make any television a display for Apple TV.
Apple doesn't care if you prefer Plasma for its better colors and blacks, or LCD for the higher resolution per cost. So no need to stock billions of options of TVs in Apple stores. Go to the other stores and get your TV, then come to Apple to get the device that makes it work better.
I kept mentioning PC and Mac. A full-on Intel PC. Worn on the body. The parts that normally go in the case around a belt. A full i7 processor, and all that. An iPad isn't a Mac. If it weren't that, then you have an iPhone in a pocket with a bluetooth headset monitor, and bluetooth keyboard. We can do that today. Maybe that would be second step. The iPod to the PC. But someone should be able to play Crysis 7 in 3D VR with a wearable PC, or whatever the benchmark PC game is.
Apple never wins from "open device". Sure, some customers prefer it. But Apple has proven most prefer usability over "open". The walled garden isn't for everyone, but it does work.
Like last time. Apple came first. Apple set the bench mark. Then came an open competitor. The open competitor sells lots, but doesn't make as much profit. The idea of a small, usable smartphone that's all screen wasn't first with Apple, but Apple made it popular, and opened it up for others to follow. If we didn't have Apple, we wouldn't have Android. Windows phones were everything the iPhone was, long before the iPhone, just done poorly. The Windows Pocket PC phone pre-dates the iPhone by about 7 years. And it wasn't until after iPhone when we got the first Android versions.
As for what I'd do, rather than Apple, I really want AR. Better than self-driving cars is a HUD built for driving. Put it in a AR headset and you can fix most traffic problems. Optimal speeds for coasting to the stopping cars. Visible traffic patterns analyzed to minimize braking and increase economy and decrease travel time. Warnings for the bad drivers. Highlight errors in driving to improve driving with real-time feedback. Adaptive driving AR designed in the bad driver to increase safety, and in the good driver to improve efficiency.
Now, that could be met with a PC in every car, or wearable computers.
That's another idea. Forget the idea of the PC. Move to the SC. Shared computers. You walk into the McDonalds, and you don't join your computer (or handheld) to their WiFi, but you walk into the McDonalds with your Open Computer headset and keyboard, and McDonalds spins up a personal VM (PVM)locked down to web browsing. And you connect your KVM to PCs, rather than connecting your PC to networks. Walk into work, and your worn KVM connects to the "desktop computer" at work. You do work. Done there, go home. Hop in your car or the bus, and get a PVM on there. Do what you want, and leave when done. You'll have some local storage, and some cloud storage to choose from for things that persist beyond the PVM session.
There, that's the seed for what I'd do. At your work computer, you wouldn't use a PVM, but an AVM (application virtual machine). Want to run Word? It spins up in its own AVM. The VMM (vitrual machine manager) would manage the VMs much the way we manage windows of apps now. Work, being work, wouldn't limit you to a single browsing PVM, like McDonalds would. Compute is cheap. VM management is easy. We just don't have anyone bringing it all together.
They tried for the watch. It didn't do as well as they'd hoped. The next step is glasses (VR or AR), or a wearable Mac (belt power and CPU, glasses for monitor, and glove or other finger sensors for input).
If I were them, I'd be going for the wearable PC. Not a gimmick for fitness, as so many watches/wearables are, but a full computer, just distributed around the body and worn. The main reason phones have taken off for computing devices is that they are convenient. So imagine something more convenient and 100 times as powerful. But, like the phone was not just the phone, but the development power behind it, and the usability of it, the wearable Mac isn't just the device, but the usability of it. And that's what Apple can spend a few billion getting right before they bring it out. That and AR apps. VR is lame. AR is cool. People don't want immersive gaming that removes them from reality, but AR. The world, but better. Real time face recognition, so you'll never forget a name again. Live compass, sonar/radar, and movement overlay to show a game-like HUD over the world. What for? Ask Apple. If they put me in charge of the division and gave me $10B to fund it, I'll guarantee them 95%+ of the share of wearable tech profit for 10-20 years. But that'd never happen.
I've seen VGA run much farther than that. Over 30 feet, it usually gets artifacts, shadows, ghosts, and such, but you can run high-quality cables from servers to a KVM on the other side of the room. Can't do that with HDMI or Displayport. There is no length specified in VGA, so you can't exceed it. And boosters were cheap and plentiful last I looked (a long time ago), so you could run it across a factory, with appropriately placed boosters.
And Giga should not be capitalized, "G" as the prefix should be capitalized, but when spelling it all out, it should be used in lower case. For someone who was complaining about the capitalization of Calories, one would expect him to be paying attention to capitalization.
What's important is using it as a reference value. If you eat a 2000 Calorie diet and can't lose weight, cut back to 1500. It doesn't matter how big a calorie is. You know that 1500 is 3/4 of 2000. It doesn't matter what the efficiency of your digestive system is, cutting intake by 25% is still cutting intake by 25%.
But that's not how it works. I may digest that 1500 Calories at 100% efficiency, but the 2000 Calories are digested at 50% efficiency, so cutting calories may increase weight gain. The body can go into "starvation" mode and slows down the metabolism and increases efficiency as calories drop. And the "Calorie" is about the energy content of the food, and isn't strictly nutritional energy, though some use that, especially diet foods designed to mimic tastes while being undigestible.
There are many reasons why a person could cut caloric intake, and still end up gaining weight.
If you are panicking because of the additional possibility of cross site scripting then imagine what will happen when web sites starts to serve ads under their own domain name to avoid sneaky ad-blockers.
In the old days, *all* ads were served locally. You'd make your banner, and email it to the site, and they'd approve it, and put it up. It wasn't for years (closer to the boom around 2000) that there was the move to externally hosted ads. At least if the site is hosting the malware locally, they may get infected by it themselves and take down their own site.
Are you 3 years old, or just pretending you are? Because that's the only way someone would hold your naive (or malicious) opinion.
I also do not understand what are you doing on a website like Slashdot which is full with user generated content.
How is that in any way related to the topic of adblockers? Because I think ads sometimes contain malicious code, I should refuse to go anywhere on the Internet? Slashdot gets insulted daily for restrictive code in comments, but it has a good effect of limiting exploits one could possibly put in user generated content.
I don't have a problem with 3rd party content. It's just that one uses basic risk analysis. It costs nothing to block all ads? Then you'd be STUPID to not do it. There are enough malicious ads out there that it's stupid to not block them.
And by the way, I also do not understand how did you come to the great idea that I am completely unaware of cross site scripting.
That's one of the first, and still popular attacks in ads. And you keep defending ads, like they are all harmless static GIFs or something. So obviously, you are a lying piece of shit, or not clear on the risks.
I apologize for not properly identifying you as a lying piece of shit. I'll try not to do it, you lying piece of shit. You understand the risks and want everyone to be exposed to them for your profit, and you'll lie here about the risks in order to push your incorrect opinion as fact. I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
There was lots of market for it. He was a little early. In 1990 or so, the Dodge Viper and Stealth, 300 ZX turbo, Miata, RX-7 twin turbo, Supra TT, and others managed to move plenty of units. Lots of people wanted fun cars. There were just not many choices for sporty cars that were priced within 2x the average car price. Had he been able to make it for a reasonable price, he'd have sold lots. But with the horrible Volvo V6 in it, he was way too under-speced for a luxury sports car against the Porsceh 911s of the era, who, with a smaller engine, were faster and much better handling.
Had he gotten the Lotus 2.0 from the Esprit, it would still have been under-powered, but would have been cheaper and with more power. The time was such that Lotus was using the turbo before the DMC was done, so the Lotus turbo 4-cyl would have been a much better choice.
The price and the powerless Volvo V6 were what killed it. Other similar cars, like the aforementioned Lotus, sold and survived.
But saying that ads are somehow inherently immoral just makes you sound crazy.
Ads are the crazy guy in the mall shouting about God is Here and The End is Neigh. It doesn't matter if he's right. He gets removed by security/police, and nobody sheds a tear. Ads are that guy. The guys quietly walking around with a shirt or posterboard saying the same thing aren't bothered. Ads made themselves immoral (pop-ups, pop-under, XSS attacks, tracking, etc.). We are just pointing it out. And you think we are the problem pointing to reality?
I am a web application developer. In addition to that I maintain 50+ servers. Including web application servers, HTTP servers, proxies, DNS servers.
And yet are completely unaware of the vulnerabilities of cross site scripting and the various other security holes that often happen with 3rd party ads?
You must be a horribly shitty application developer, if you aren't aware of basic security practices.
And there's a difference between a TV comercial that uses unused airtime, and forcing me to download all of Moby Dick every time I want to check the spelling of Ishmael. You forget that it's downloading unknown, insecure, and bloated code to get that ad.
Your analogy is that I'm not allowed to visit the supermarket to buy bread without giving permission for the supermarket employees to come into my home at their convenience and shout the daily specials at me. They may want to do it, but I should be under no oblication to allow something I don't want to enter my home. Why do you hate personal rights and worship corporate rights?
Most bank robbers used shoes. So, do you blame the robbers or the shoes? Personal responsibility means you blame the person who made the decision, not the tools. In that case, the person opted in to the ad block. Then left the "trusted ads" on. The person did it, not the tool.
So, most of the people hate the companies the mafia is shaking down, and many people opt in to the mafia, to support the mafia shaking down people?
It's not even close. And the people being shaken down by the mafia can say "no" and the mafia won't do anything to them.
The shakedown analogy is that the mafia would place baseball bats outside the business. So, who's fault is it, the mafia who put baseball bats by a business, or the millions of people who follow the mafia and damage the business?
Slashdot Mirror
My Win7 laptop (about 5 years old now) ran 10 without a single warning or issue. How old was his laptop?
I had a 10 year old desktop that failed the upgrade, but it was on the "upgrade or discard" list already.
Nope. Because the generators of other types of power all get subsidies, and when the price is fixed to a wholesale price, we see Enron-style price games at the wholesale level.
Never heard of them either. Though they sound like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (the guy who claims ownership of "stealth").
She admitted riding a bike with a motor in it. Your objections can't change reality.
I didn't make it up. Did you not read the quoted material in my last post. She admitted the bike they took was the one she rode, and that it had an electric motor in it. That's not the only site with that description of events. Why are you so set on claiming she didn't confess, when multiple places have reported her saying that the bike she rode had an electric motor in it?
"[The bike I was on] belongs to a friend of mine. [...] I never knew that that he had an electric motor fitted on his bike. He never told me. It is all a big mistake. "
So, the bike she was on had an electric motor fitted. She said so. She denied knowingly using the bike, denied knowing it had a motor, but clearly states that the bike she was on had an electric motor.
Seriously, read the article.
How do you know what I read? http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnie... That's not the same one I read, but was the first hit on Google. She admits riding the illegal bike, and claims she didn't know it was illegal, and thought it was her bike, as it was an exact match for her bike.
She confessed to the infraction and is asking for leniency. At least according to all the articles I've read that weren't linked in TFS.
The violation seems settled. The only question left is the punishment.
You didn't read the right stories. The change balanced the buy-back price. Before, it was subsidizing solar with the costs of other users. Now it's set to not fund solar, but doesn't "punish" solar in any way. Though the best solution is to have buy-back at peak time at retail, and other times to be wholesale. Because managing the peak power usage helps the grid the most. But it's in no way a "tax" or "penalty" on solar. It just reduced/eliminated a credit.
I read one of the reports where the rider confessed. I consider that confirmed.
Aside from being easily caught when people weigh your competition bike and find it weight 3x everyone else's, it'd be easy to hide a motor where an inspection wouldn't find it. Put it in the frame, by the bottom bracket, and have the electric motor directly drive the crank. Fill every spare section of space in the frame with batteries. You'd be able to get 100W for the uphills for even long races.
If you want it to be undetectable, you need to hide the batteries in the water bottle, or on your body, with connections to the motor hidden (or possibly wireless). Easy to do, but nobody cares.
iTelevision is called Apple TV. It may not be what you want, but it's already out there. Buy your TV as a monitor, and plug in Apple TV. Make any television a display for Apple TV.
Apple doesn't care if you prefer Plasma for its better colors and blacks, or LCD for the higher resolution per cost. So no need to stock billions of options of TVs in Apple stores. Go to the other stores and get your TV, then come to Apple to get the device that makes it work better.
I kept mentioning PC and Mac. A full-on Intel PC. Worn on the body. The parts that normally go in the case around a belt. A full i7 processor, and all that. An iPad isn't a Mac. If it weren't that, then you have an iPhone in a pocket with a bluetooth headset monitor, and bluetooth keyboard. We can do that today. Maybe that would be second step. The iPod to the PC. But someone should be able to play Crysis 7 in 3D VR with a wearable PC, or whatever the benchmark PC game is.
Apple never wins from "open device". Sure, some customers prefer it. But Apple has proven most prefer usability over "open". The walled garden isn't for everyone, but it does work.
Like last time. Apple came first. Apple set the bench mark. Then came an open competitor. The open competitor sells lots, but doesn't make as much profit. The idea of a small, usable smartphone that's all screen wasn't first with Apple, but Apple made it popular, and opened it up for others to follow. If we didn't have Apple, we wouldn't have Android. Windows phones were everything the iPhone was, long before the iPhone, just done poorly. The Windows Pocket PC phone pre-dates the iPhone by about 7 years. And it wasn't until after iPhone when we got the first Android versions.
As for what I'd do, rather than Apple, I really want AR. Better than self-driving cars is a HUD built for driving. Put it in a AR headset and you can fix most traffic problems. Optimal speeds for coasting to the stopping cars. Visible traffic patterns analyzed to minimize braking and increase economy and decrease travel time. Warnings for the bad drivers. Highlight errors in driving to improve driving with real-time feedback. Adaptive driving AR designed in the bad driver to increase safety, and in the good driver to improve efficiency.
Now, that could be met with a PC in every car, or wearable computers.
That's another idea. Forget the idea of the PC. Move to the SC. Shared computers. You walk into the McDonalds, and you don't join your computer (or handheld) to their WiFi, but you walk into the McDonalds with your Open Computer headset and keyboard, and McDonalds spins up a personal VM (PVM)locked down to web browsing. And you connect your KVM to PCs, rather than connecting your PC to networks. Walk into work, and your worn KVM connects to the "desktop computer" at work. You do work. Done there, go home. Hop in your car or the bus, and get a PVM on there. Do what you want, and leave when done. You'll have some local storage, and some cloud storage to choose from for things that persist beyond the PVM session.
There, that's the seed for what I'd do. At your work computer, you wouldn't use a PVM, but an AVM (application virtual machine). Want to run Word? It spins up in its own AVM. The VMM (vitrual machine manager) would manage the VMs much the way we manage windows of apps now. Work, being work, wouldn't limit you to a single browsing PVM, like McDonalds would. Compute is cheap. VM management is easy. We just don't have anyone bringing it all together.
They tried for the watch. It didn't do as well as they'd hoped. The next step is glasses (VR or AR), or a wearable Mac (belt power and CPU, glasses for monitor, and glove or other finger sensors for input).
If I were them, I'd be going for the wearable PC. Not a gimmick for fitness, as so many watches/wearables are, but a full computer, just distributed around the body and worn. The main reason phones have taken off for computing devices is that they are convenient. So imagine something more convenient and 100 times as powerful. But, like the phone was not just the phone, but the development power behind it, and the usability of it, the wearable Mac isn't just the device, but the usability of it. And that's what Apple can spend a few billion getting right before they bring it out. That and AR apps. VR is lame. AR is cool. People don't want immersive gaming that removes them from reality, but AR. The world, but better. Real time face recognition, so you'll never forget a name again. Live compass, sonar/radar, and movement overlay to show a game-like HUD over the world. What for? Ask Apple. If they put me in charge of the division and gave me $10B to fund it, I'll guarantee them 95%+ of the share of wearable tech profit for 10-20 years. But that'd never happen.
I've seen VGA run much farther than that. Over 30 feet, it usually gets artifacts, shadows, ghosts, and such, but you can run high-quality cables from servers to a KVM on the other side of the room. Can't do that with HDMI or Displayport. There is no length specified in VGA, so you can't exceed it. And boosters were cheap and plentiful last I looked (a long time ago), so you could run it across a factory, with appropriately placed boosters.
It's not an adapter. And it's included in every motherboard I've bought that supported it.
And Giga should not be capitalized, "G" as the prefix should be capitalized, but when spelling it all out, it should be used in lower case. For someone who was complaining about the capitalization of Calories, one would expect him to be paying attention to capitalization.
What's important is using it as a reference value. If you eat a 2000 Calorie diet and can't lose weight, cut back to 1500. It doesn't matter how big a calorie is. You know that 1500 is 3/4 of 2000. It doesn't matter what the efficiency of your digestive system is, cutting intake by 25% is still cutting intake by 25%.
But that's not how it works. I may digest that 1500 Calories at 100% efficiency, but the 2000 Calories are digested at 50% efficiency, so cutting calories may increase weight gain. The body can go into "starvation" mode and slows down the metabolism and increases efficiency as calories drop. And the "Calorie" is about the energy content of the food, and isn't strictly nutritional energy, though some use that, especially diet foods designed to mimic tastes while being undigestible.
There are many reasons why a person could cut caloric intake, and still end up gaining weight.
If you are panicking because of the additional possibility of cross site scripting then imagine what will happen when web sites starts to serve ads under their own domain name to avoid sneaky ad-blockers.
In the old days, *all* ads were served locally. You'd make your banner, and email it to the site, and they'd approve it, and put it up. It wasn't for years (closer to the boom around 2000) that there was the move to externally hosted ads. At least if the site is hosting the malware locally, they may get infected by it themselves and take down their own site.
Are you 3 years old, or just pretending you are? Because that's the only way someone would hold your naive (or malicious) opinion.
I also do not understand what are you doing on a website like Slashdot which is full with user generated content.
How is that in any way related to the topic of adblockers? Because I think ads sometimes contain malicious code, I should refuse to go anywhere on the Internet? Slashdot gets insulted daily for restrictive code in comments, but it has a good effect of limiting exploits one could possibly put in user generated content.
I don't have a problem with 3rd party content. It's just that one uses basic risk analysis. It costs nothing to block all ads? Then you'd be STUPID to not do it. There are enough malicious ads out there that it's stupid to not block them.
And by the way, I also do not understand how did you come to the great idea that I am completely unaware of cross site scripting.
That's one of the first, and still popular attacks in ads. And you keep defending ads, like they are all harmless static GIFs or something. So obviously, you are a lying piece of shit, or not clear on the risks.
I apologize for not properly identifying you as a lying piece of shit. I'll try not to do it, you lying piece of shit. You understand the risks and want everyone to be exposed to them for your profit, and you'll lie here about the risks in order to push your incorrect opinion as fact. I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Ads are not immoral.
Not inherently, just in practice. I'll take reality over your fictional hallucination with well behaved advertisers.
There was lots of market for it. He was a little early. In 1990 or so, the Dodge Viper and Stealth, 300 ZX turbo, Miata, RX-7 twin turbo, Supra TT, and others managed to move plenty of units. Lots of people wanted fun cars. There were just not many choices for sporty cars that were priced within 2x the average car price. Had he been able to make it for a reasonable price, he'd have sold lots. But with the horrible Volvo V6 in it, he was way too under-speced for a luxury sports car against the Porsceh 911s of the era, who, with a smaller engine, were faster and much better handling.
Had he gotten the Lotus 2.0 from the Esprit, it would still have been under-powered, but would have been cheaper and with more power. The time was such that Lotus was using the turbo before the DMC was done, so the Lotus turbo 4-cyl would have been a much better choice.
The price and the powerless Volvo V6 were what killed it. Other similar cars, like the aforementioned Lotus, sold and survived.
But saying that ads are somehow inherently immoral just makes you sound crazy.
Ads are the crazy guy in the mall shouting about God is Here and The End is Neigh. It doesn't matter if he's right. He gets removed by security/police, and nobody sheds a tear. Ads are that guy. The guys quietly walking around with a shirt or posterboard saying the same thing aren't bothered. Ads made themselves immoral (pop-ups, pop-under, XSS attacks, tracking, etc.). We are just pointing it out. And you think we are the problem pointing to reality?
I am a web application developer. In addition to that I maintain 50+ servers. Including web application servers, HTTP servers, proxies, DNS servers.
And yet are completely unaware of the vulnerabilities of cross site scripting and the various other security holes that often happen with 3rd party ads?
You must be a horribly shitty application developer, if you aren't aware of basic security practices.
And there's a difference between a TV comercial that uses unused airtime, and forcing me to download all of Moby Dick every time I want to check the spelling of Ishmael. You forget that it's downloading unknown, insecure, and bloated code to get that ad.
Your analogy is that I'm not allowed to visit the supermarket to buy bread without giving permission for the supermarket employees to come into my home at their convenience and shout the daily specials at me. They may want to do it, but I should be under no oblication to allow something I don't want to enter my home. Why do you hate personal rights and worship corporate rights?
Most people will not do this.
Most bank robbers used shoes. So, do you blame the robbers or the shoes? Personal responsibility means you blame the person who made the decision, not the tools. In that case, the person opted in to the ad block. Then left the "trusted ads" on. The person did it, not the tool.
So, most of the people hate the companies the mafia is shaking down, and many people opt in to the mafia, to support the mafia shaking down people?
It's not even close. And the people being shaken down by the mafia can say "no" and the mafia won't do anything to them.
The shakedown analogy is that the mafia would place baseball bats outside the business. So, who's fault is it, the mafia who put baseball bats by a business, or the millions of people who follow the mafia and damage the business?