Supply and demand. Because if you don't like the job, you can leave, and they can replace you in a couple hours.
There are 500 CEOs in the Fortune 500, and I'm guessing millions who would be willing to take those jobs, yet that supply and demand gets paid much much more than the jobs people find less desirable.
I guess when you get to be so good people are willing to pay you that much, you will politely refuse it.
They aren't "good". I wager a good number of Slashdotters could do a better job than the average CEO. Even the CEOs that do horribly get paid lots, in many cases, the worse they do, the more they are paid.
Aren't there still companies on T1 Internet? a lot of money for 1.5 Mbps (as the uptime of the T1 is more important than the bandwidth from other connections). Then they do what they can to get the most from that T1. At least that's where I saw it used most. Well, that and so many routers/firewalls include that function (MITM and caching) and it's "free" to turn it on, so why not? It saves bandwidth and improves performance.
No. Unless they are a medical institution, and the information is available to unauthorized people, then there'd be no question that it's perfectly fine, and HIPAA compliant. It's not a violation of HIPAA to over hear your mother talking about her condition with someone else, then run around telling everyone else about it. There may be other issues with that, but HIPAA isn't on of them.
That and the last I looked, there were still zero fines for unauthorized sharing of information, just fines for failure to release records when required to do so. HIPAA was *more* about giving you access to your own records than blocking others from it, but they lumped them together because that made sense at the time.
If you are on a company computer, prove they don't have a keylogger on it? "trusted proxy" isn't a euphemism, it's a more accurate description. When the end cert is presented by an unknown party, it's a MITM. If they have bad intentions, it's an "attack". When it's a known activity, it's a "trusted proxy". If you don't trust them, don't use it. When it's done by the computer owner, under explicit ToS you agreed to, what's the complaint? You just don't like it, so you want to use inaccurate terms to make it look worse?
Secure connections are insecure (for the network). If you SSL into your (infected) home server, and download a virus, how is their AV firewall supposed to catch it? If 1000 people all go to BoA or some other site checking their checking balance every day, how are they supposed to save bandwidth with caching?
So they have valid reasons to do it. It's company computer, company network, why would you allow unsecured computers full access to your network and configure them to waste resources?
I only tried to made a smart comment about: "why did they use engines with half the HP then the original"
1. Cost.
2. safety.
The acceptable safety margins have changed over the years. Using an experimental race car engine to power a craft would have been much more acceptable. And the weight of the new engines is greatly reduced over the old ones, helping to keep the "fragile" airframe (by today's standards) from breaking apart.
Hahaha. You are still wrong. I've proved it a hundred times. Next time, before fighting with everyone, try reading the article. It'll save you looking like a giant ass when you make stupid statements then argue with everyone pointing out your idiotic errors.
Ah, the sounds of a loser giving up, and blaming the person who refuted their illogical and incorrect arguments at every turn. You started with
Meanwhile, automotive engines may be fine for a basic airplane, but I'm not so sure how they would work out on a plane like this. For example, how well would an automotive engine deal with being upside down for a while?
While the airplane in question was powered by an automotive engine. Bugatti thought it would deal with being upside down well enough. What makes you think Bugatti was wrong?
IT was (indirectly) in TFA. The Bugatti 50B engine was used.
http://bugatti100p.com/bugatti-100p.html Note the engine description in the top right corner of the graphic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Type_46#Type_50 It was a "regular" car engine, supercharged for racing, then lightened for aircraft use.
So we had in the 1930s a car engine with 1000hp,
Interesting.
Nope. We had two engines with 450 hp each. Two large 1930's V8s. Again the graphic makes it clear it is two separate engines, and the Wikipedia page lists power of the 50B as 470. I rounded to 500 each, or 1000 hp total for the airplane. The current Le Mans racing cars have over 1000 hp, and that's what I was referring to, and the fact that they pulled a race engine for an airplane before. These days, I expect you could get 1000 hp for less than 1/4 the weight needed in 1930, and with better economy and reliability as well.
I didn't realize that you didn't read the article and look up any terms you didn't understand (like 50c engine).
Racing engines (especially modified stock engines) might sacrifice reliability or durability to gain their power.
The engine in question was a "regular" engine modified to be a racing engine, then lightened to go in an airplane. It sacrificed durability for racing, then get put in an airplane anyway.
You seem to keep making an ass of yourself and then trying to change the question or redefine terms to squeek past. Are you in politics?
I've never changed the question or redefined terms. The 4.9l was from a street engine (which was modified for racing, so it's also a racing engine) then put in an airplane. You've argued that street engines won't work in planes (this one did) then argued that racing engines wouldn't. Reality proves you wrong, I'm just giving lots of reasons why you are wrong, not changing my base assertion that modern automotive engines are at least as suited for an airplane as this one.
Teaching facts results in people getting pissy when they refuse to accept facts because said facts interfere with their biased irrational systems of faith.
TFA indicates that if you get a pile of people that agree with you, then tell them why you agree with them, ~50% walk out disagreeing with you when you are done. That's the result of the study in TFA. People switched *from* "your side" after hearing you. Though exactly what was presented and how wasn't explained well.
Apparently you have problems with English as well as with math. Whether something is "hard" is independent of whether you want to do it or not.
Whether something is "easy" is independent of whether you want to do it or not.
I have no problems with English. It is harder to complete a task you don't want to do, and easier to complete a task you do want to do.
You are asserting that if something is "hard" for one person, they are wrong, unless you agree with their assessment.
So your usage of "hard" would include things that an 8 year old child could do in 10 minutes.
Some people find changing a tire hard, or other such "easy" tasks. Your response is that you and you alone manage the "hardness" scale, and you use the 8-year-old metric. Though does that apply to moving a piano? It's not hard to move one. You just lift it on a dolly, one leg at a time, and move the dolly. That's easy. So how's that 8-year old going with that?
So you are saying that's not "how it works"? Why do you need to know? Is this a test, are you wanting to know, or are you just harassing anyone unfortunate enough to reply to you?
They reduce the electric potential through "resisting" the flow of free electrons. Now, is that how they work, or why I need it? My 5 year old knows what a resistor is and does, as toys come with potentiometer-like variable resistors to get different effects, and daddy helps explain.
Debating them lends validity to their position. exposing the bad information repeats it for more to hear.
Same thing for anti-evolution too, BTW. One of the common anti-evolution myths is that evolution can't explain how the eye evolved, because there's no survival value in a partial eye.
But in repeating that, now someone will think you agree there is no value in a partial eye. But there is. Plants move to face the sun, and have no eyes. Blind people can tell sense of direction by the sun on their skin. A partial eye is anything that can detect radiation, IR warmth or visible light. My skin *is* a partial eye. They exist everywhere and are very useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Supply and demand. Because if you don't like the job, you can leave, and they can replace you in a couple hours.
There are 500 CEOs in the Fortune 500, and I'm guessing millions who would be willing to take those jobs, yet that supply and demand gets paid much much more than the jobs people find less desirable.
I guess when you get to be so good people are willing to pay you that much, you will politely refuse it.
They aren't "good". I wager a good number of Slashdotters could do a better job than the average CEO. Even the CEOs that do horribly get paid lots, in many cases, the worse they do, the more they are paid.
Aren't there still companies on T1 Internet? a lot of money for 1.5 Mbps (as the uptime of the T1 is more important than the bandwidth from other connections). Then they do what they can to get the most from that T1. At least that's where I saw it used most. Well, that and so many routers/firewalls include that function (MITM and caching) and it's "free" to turn it on, so why not? It saves bandwidth and improves performance.
How they work could be useful if it has knock-on concerns. Like heating in a resistor.
No. Unless they are a medical institution, and the information is available to unauthorized people, then there'd be no question that it's perfectly fine, and HIPAA compliant. It's not a violation of HIPAA to over hear your mother talking about her condition with someone else, then run around telling everyone else about it. There may be other issues with that, but HIPAA isn't on of them.
That and the last I looked, there were still zero fines for unauthorized sharing of information, just fines for failure to release records when required to do so. HIPAA was *more* about giving you access to your own records than blocking others from it, but they lumped them together because that made sense at the time.
If you are on a company computer, prove they don't have a keylogger on it? "trusted proxy" isn't a euphemism, it's a more accurate description. When the end cert is presented by an unknown party, it's a MITM. If they have bad intentions, it's an "attack". When it's a known activity, it's a "trusted proxy". If you don't trust them, don't use it. When it's done by the computer owner, under explicit ToS you agreed to, what's the complaint? You just don't like it, so you want to use inaccurate terms to make it look worse?
Then the answer to "by whom" is "you".
Secure connections are insecure (for the network). If you SSL into your (infected) home server, and download a virus, how is their AV firewall supposed to catch it? If 1000 people all go to BoA or some other site checking their checking balance every day, how are they supposed to save bandwidth with caching?
So they have valid reasons to do it. It's company computer, company network, why would you allow unsecured computers full access to your network and configure them to waste resources?
Most places that do it are doing it solely for the cache savings. They don't "inspect" the traffic, though they could.
Yes, and cheap BlueCoats do it too, and they are common.
Yup, most large corporations do this, I've worked for more that did this than didn't.
1. Cost.
2. safety.
The acceptable safety margins have changed over the years. Using an experimental race car engine to power a craft would have been much more acceptable. And the weight of the new engines is greatly reduced over the old ones, helping to keep the "fragile" airframe (by today's standards) from breaking apart.
Hahaha. You are still wrong. I've proved it a hundred times. Next time, before fighting with everyone, try reading the article. It'll save you looking like a giant ass when you make stupid statements then argue with everyone pointing out your idiotic errors.
Meanwhile, automotive engines may be fine for a basic airplane, but I'm not so sure how they would work out on a plane like this. For example, how well would an automotive engine deal with being upside down for a while?
While the airplane in question was powered by an automotive engine. Bugatti thought it would deal with being upside down well enough. What makes you think Bugatti was wrong?
http://bugatti100p.com/bugatti-100p.html
Note the engine description in the top right corner of the graphic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Type_46#Type_50
It was a "regular" car engine, supercharged for racing, then lightened for aircraft use.
So we had in the 1930s a car engine with 1000hp, Interesting.
Nope. We had two engines with 450 hp each. Two large 1930's V8s. Again the graphic makes it clear it is two separate engines, and the Wikipedia page lists power of the 50B as 470. I rounded to 500 each, or 1000 hp total for the airplane. The current Le Mans racing cars have over 1000 hp, and that's what I was referring to, and the fact that they pulled a race engine for an airplane before. These days, I expect you could get 1000 hp for less than 1/4 the weight needed in 1930, and with better economy and reliability as well.
I didn't realize that you didn't read the article and look up any terms you didn't understand (like 50c engine).
Racing engines (especially modified stock engines) might sacrifice reliability or durability to gain their power.
The engine in question was a "regular" engine modified to be a racing engine, then lightened to go in an airplane. It sacrificed durability for racing, then get put in an airplane anyway.
You seem to keep making an ass of yourself and then trying to change the question or redefine terms to squeek past. Are you in politics?
I've never changed the question or redefined terms. The 4.9l was from a street engine (which was modified for racing, so it's also a racing engine) then put in an airplane. You've argued that street engines won't work in planes (this one did) then argued that racing engines wouldn't. Reality proves you wrong, I'm just giving lots of reasons why you are wrong, not changing my base assertion that modern automotive engines are at least as suited for an airplane as this one.
Teaching facts results in people getting pissy when they refuse to accept facts because said facts interfere with their biased irrational systems of faith.
TFA indicates that if you get a pile of people that agree with you, then tell them why you agree with them, ~50% walk out disagreeing with you when you are done. That's the result of the study in TFA. People switched *from* "your side" after hearing you. Though exactly what was presented and how wasn't explained well.
Apparently you have problems with English as well as with math. Whether something is "hard" is independent of whether you want to do it or not.
Whether something is "easy" is independent of whether you want to do it or not.
I have no problems with English. It is harder to complete a task you don't want to do, and easier to complete a task you do want to do.
You are asserting that if something is "hard" for one person, they are wrong, unless you agree with their assessment.
So your usage of "hard" would include things that an 8 year old child could do in 10 minutes.
Some people find changing a tire hard, or other such "easy" tasks. Your response is that you and you alone manage the "hardness" scale, and you use the 8-year-old metric. Though does that apply to moving a piano? It's not hard to move one. You just lift it on a dolly, one leg at a time, and move the dolly. That's easy. So how's that 8-year old going with that?
So you are saying that's not "how it works"? Why do you need to know? Is this a test, are you wanting to know, or are you just harassing anyone unfortunate enough to reply to you?
It's a private performance, delayed.
Or are you asserting that placing your TV where someone on the street can see it is a illegal?
It's not that it is "hard" it is that you do not want to do it.
So prison is "easy" it's just that you don't want to do the time? Not wanting to do it *does* make it "hard".
They reduce the electric potential through "resisting" the flow of free electrons. Now, is that how they work, or why I need it? My 5 year old knows what a resistor is and does, as toys come with potentiometer-like variable resistors to get different effects, and daddy helps explain.
Same thing for anti-evolution too, BTW. One of the common anti-evolution myths is that evolution can't explain how the eye evolved, because there's no survival value in a partial eye.
But in repeating that, now someone will think you agree there is no value in a partial eye. But there is. Plants move to face the sun, and have no eyes. Blind people can tell sense of direction by the sun on their skin. A partial eye is anything that can detect radiation, IR warmth or visible light. My skin *is* a partial eye. They exist everywhere and are very useful.
With freedom comes responsibility.
The same part that lets them set the national drinking age, and national speed limits.