I mean that from the point of view that nobody on your airplane ride pays the same price for the same service.
Poor analogy. With an airline ticket, I at least know the price at the time of purchase. With most medical services, I don't know the cost until I receive the bill, often weeks after treatment.
Healthcare in America is likely the world's most dysfunctional market. Fixing it will not be easy, since that would threaten the livelihood of 11% of the workforce, although more of those people work in administration and billing than in patient care.
Routing is easier when most flights are direct, because you avoid the cascading delays common for "hub-and-spoke" routing.
Passenger routing and packet routing are not totally analogous, because packets don't get angry if they have to spend six hours in Atlanta.
Also, even for hub-to-hub flights, big twin engine planes like the 777 are cheaper to operate per passenger-mile, mostly because of better fuel efficiency. The 777 is now certified for trans-ocean flights, so it competes directly with the A380 everywhere.
So does it ever make sense to buy a new A380? I don't think so.
This is more evidence that Slashdot editors are non-neutral reporters pushing an anti-Cryptocurrency agenda
News sites tend to be more successful when they give people what they want. The "Slashdot consensus" is that Bitcoin is a scam and a bubble ready to burst, and has been ever since bitcoins were worth $1. So the editors pick articles that feed and support that cynicism.
War is supposed to be horrific. That's a big incentive to prevent it.
America participates in more wars that any other country. As an American, if a particular war is too horrific, I can just close my browser tab for that conflict, and read about something else instead.
Are you talking about pre-1990 before German Reunification?
No, he is just talking out his ass. California has never been #4. Even before unification, the West German economy was far bigger than California's, and in addition to America, Japan, UK, France, and Italy, back in 1990 there was this one other economy ahead of California as well: the Soviet Union.
Given a choice, which would you rather have come to your village:
1. A carefully designed, programmed and tested robot
2. A squad of soldiers that haven't slept in two days or eaten in 18 hours, and who just medevaced a comrade who had his leg blown off below the knee by a booby trap
Are you really sure you want a human decision maker "in the loop"?
A deployed soldier can be upwards of half a million a year in costs.
[Citation needed]
In the land of $100 hammers and $1000 toilet seats, you really need proof of this? Give me a fucking break.
Yes, we need a citation, because the $500k number is total bullcrap. It is implausible that a deployed combat soldier, at the far end of a 10,000 mile supply chain, costs so little.
Here is a citation that the actual cost is $850k to $1.4 million per soldier per year.
I'm pretty sure I was hearing the term in the late 1980's
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. In the 1980s the term used was "Free Software".
"Open source" was a term used by the intelligence community to refer to information gathered from public sources, such as newspapers. But it was not regularly used as a synonym for Free Software until the late 1990s.
A "swarm" of a dozen of these big beasts, as reported, should be pretty easy for modern radar systems to spot, no?
If they are low, slow, and mostly made out of plastic, then no, they would not be easy to pick out of ground clutter.
How are you going to use doppler radar to differentiate between a drone going 80 km/hr at 3 meters AGL, and a truck?
The attack was coordinated with a rocket attack, so your radar would be dealing with shrapnel, smoke, and debris which would add to ground clutter. If the attackers were smart, they would have loaded the rockets with some chaff.
TFS says they were "swarm-like", but TFA does not use the word "swarm" at all. They may have all come in together on a single vector, but only if the operators were morons. There is no way that a defender should expect that from a competent adversary.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, looks at the signature for anything. You can sign anything you want. You can just draw a horizontal line, or even just tap the pad. As long as at least one pixel is set, the card reader will accept the signature.
You are assuming, incorrectly, that it costs the same to bet in either direction. That is not how futures markets work. If someone makes a big bet in one direction, it becomes much cheaper to bet in the other direction.
I would point out that Bitcoin has popped, quite a few times by now.
Indeed. It peaked at $19.5k on Dec 18th, and it now trading at $14.1k. That is about a 28% drop. Bitcoin has dropped by more than that many many times, and has always recovered.
Many people, right here on Slashdot, were saying Bitcoin was in a bubble when it reached the "ridiculous" valuation of $1 back in 2011.
Also, I take issue with this statement from the summary: "looking out five years he'd gladly bet against all of the cryptocurrencies." Bitcoin is traded on futures markets, so it is absurd to say Buffet "would" bet against it. He either "is" or he "isn't". There is no "would". So has he actually taken a position against Bitcoin? I don't think so, since if he has, he would have every incentive to publicise his action.
If you're really in Shanghai you know it doesn't mean shit in Chinese
China has more than 50 million Muslims, and about 70 million Christians.
... or probably any Asian language.
Tagalog speakers are 90% Roman Catholic. There are more than 200 million Muslim Indonesian speakers. Hundreds of millions more Muslims and Christians speak Bengali, Hindi, and Urdu.
The word that is the same in the most languages is "amen". It has basically the same pronunciation and meaning in all Indo-European languages, all Semitic languages, all Sinic languages, and nearly every other language as well.
There may also be a factor on where it lies in the uncanny valley curve.
I don't think so. If you ask a human to shut your car door, or close the trunk, or turn off the headlights, you will likely thank them for it. But if you use the remote to make the car do these things itself, would you thank it for completing the task? When you arrive home from work, do you say to your car "Thanks for the ride"?
Instead of asking "Will Capetown be the first city to run out of water?" they could just as well ask "Is Capetown the first city to misprice water?" It appears to have been written by someone who has never heard of a "market".
Just raise the price so supply equals demand. This will incentivize people to conserve, and you will quickly see lawns replaced by xeriscapes. It will also incentivize entrepreneurs to produce more water and provide innovative conservation equipment.
If they are worried about "the poor" then a simple measure is to use tiered pricing, and provide the first 10 or 20 liters per person at low cost, or even free.
Markets can't solve every problem, but they can certainly solve this one. This is just a classic mismatch of supply and demand.
10 gallons??? Listen sonny boy, back in my day we'd get NJP for wasting that much water. Here is a "real" navy shower: 1. Turn water on and get wet 2. Turn off the water, and then soap up face, hands, and groin. 3. Turn water on and rinse. 4. Turn off the water and dry off. 5. Wait a week for your next shower rotation. Even when the water was on, it wasn't much more than a trickle. We'd use 3 gallons, tops. And this was on a gator. Submariners have it much worse. They can do it with one gallon, and would consider 3 gallons to be a "Hollywood shower".
Slashdot Mirror
I mean that from the point of view that nobody on your airplane ride pays the same price for the same service.
Poor analogy. With an airline ticket, I at least know the price at the time of purchase. With most medical services, I don't know the cost until I receive the bill, often weeks after treatment.
Healthcare in America is likely the world's most dysfunctional market. Fixing it will not be easy, since that would threaten the livelihood of 11% of the workforce, although more of those people work in administration and billing than in patient care.
Routing is easier when most flights are direct, because you avoid the cascading delays common for "hub-and-spoke" routing.
Passenger routing and packet routing are not totally analogous, because packets don't get angry if they have to spend six hours in Atlanta.
Also, even for hub-to-hub flights, big twin engine planes like the 777 are cheaper to operate per passenger-mile, mostly because of better fuel efficiency. The 777 is now certified for trans-ocean flights, so it competes directly with the A380 everywhere.
So does it ever make sense to buy a new A380? I don't think so.
This is more evidence that Slashdot editors are non-neutral reporters pushing an anti-Cryptocurrency agenda
News sites tend to be more successful when they give people what they want. The "Slashdot consensus" is that Bitcoin is a scam and a bubble ready to burst, and has been ever since bitcoins were worth $1. So the editors pick articles that feed and support that cynicism.
dealing with growth and more demand between now and 2025?
Population growth in California is slowing, and electricity demand per household is falling.
War is supposed to be horrific. That's a big incentive to prevent it.
America participates in more wars that any other country. As an American, if a particular war is too horrific, I can just close my browser tab for that conflict, and read about something else instead.
Are you talking about pre-1990 before German Reunification?
No, he is just talking out his ass. California has never been #4. Even before unification, the West German economy was far bigger than California's, and in addition to America, Japan, UK, France, and Italy, back in 1990 there was this one other economy ahead of California as well: the Soviet Union.
Given a choice, which would you rather have come to your village:
1. A carefully designed, programmed and tested robot
2. A squad of soldiers that haven't slept in two days or eaten in 18 hours, and who just medevaced a comrade who had his leg blown off below the knee by a booby trap
Are you really sure you want a human decision maker "in the loop"?
A deployed soldier can be upwards of half a million a year in costs.
[Citation needed]
In the land of $100 hammers and $1000 toilet seats, you really need proof of this? Give me a fucking break.
Yes, we need a citation, because the $500k number is total bullcrap. It is implausible that a deployed combat soldier, at the far end of a 10,000 mile supply chain, costs so little.
Here is a citation that the actual cost is $850k to $1.4 million per soldier per year.
War ain't cheap.
Lol it USED to be the 4th largest economy.
Nope. It used to be #7, but moved up one to pass Italy.
The 4th largest economy is Germany.
No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.
California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.
I'm pretty sure I was hearing the term in the late 1980's
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. In the 1980s the term used was "Free Software".
"Open source" was a term used by the intelligence community to refer to information gathered from public sources, such as newspapers. But it was not regularly used as a synonym for Free Software until the late 1990s.
A "swarm" of a dozen of these big beasts, as reported, should be pretty easy for modern radar systems to spot, no?
If they are low, slow, and mostly made out of plastic, then no, they would not be easy to pick out of ground clutter.
How are you going to use doppler radar to differentiate between a drone going 80 km/hr at 3 meters AGL, and a truck?
The attack was coordinated with a rocket attack, so your radar would be dealing with shrapnel, smoke, and debris which would add to ground clutter. If the attackers were smart, they would have loaded the rockets with some chaff.
TFS says they were "swarm-like", but TFA does not use the word "swarm" at all. They may have all come in together on a single vector, but only if the operators were morons. There is no way that a defender should expect that from a competent adversary.
Europe has this right: Any in-person transaction requires you to enter your chosen PIN.
How can I use an American credit card in Europe?
Nobody, absolutely nobody, looks at the signature for anything. You can sign anything you want. You can just draw a horizontal line, or even just tap the pad. As long as at least one pixel is set, the card reader will accept the signature.
...is there a single crypto where I can buy a stick of gum with it, and not incur a $30 transaction fee? No? Then these things are worthless.
Is there any way to buy a stick of gum with gold bullion, and not incur a hefty transaction fee? No? Then gold is worthless.
You are assuming, incorrectly, that it costs the same to bet in either direction. That is not how futures markets work. If someone makes a big bet in one direction, it becomes much cheaper to bet in the other direction.
Just because you have an idiot willing to pay $1000 for something doesn't mean it's not overvalued at $1.
Just because you predicted a bubble when it was at $1, doesn't mean you get to say "I told you so" because now it is worth "only" $14,000.
This is the exact characteristic of a bubble.
It is also the characteristic of every market for every commodity ever. Markets fluctuate.
I would point out that Bitcoin has popped, quite a few times by now.
Indeed. It peaked at $19.5k on Dec 18th, and it now trading at $14.1k. That is about a 28% drop. Bitcoin has dropped by more than that many many times, and has always recovered.
Many people, right here on Slashdot, were saying Bitcoin was in a bubble when it reached the "ridiculous" valuation of $1 back in 2011.
Also, I take issue with this statement from the summary: "looking out five years he'd gladly bet against all of the cryptocurrencies." Bitcoin is traded on futures markets, so it is absurd to say Buffet "would" bet against it. He either "is" or he "isn't". There is no "would". So has he actually taken a position against Bitcoin? I don't think so, since if he has, he would have every incentive to publicise his action.
If you're really in Shanghai you know it doesn't mean shit in Chinese
China has more than 50 million Muslims, and about 70 million Christians.
... or probably any Asian language.
Tagalog speakers are 90% Roman Catholic.
There are more than 200 million Muslim Indonesian speakers.
Hundreds of millions more Muslims and Christians speak Bengali, Hindi, and Urdu.
The reason the USA bundles elections is because more people get out and vote
Serious question: Is there any evidence that higher voter turnout is correlated with "better" government?
Higher turnout may just dilute the vote of people that took time and effort to understand the issues.
Voting is mandatory, and thus very high, in Greece, Argentina, Turkey. I don't think many people would consider any of these to be "well governed".
Compulsory voting
The word that is the same in the most languages is "amen". It has basically the same pronunciation and meaning in all Indo-European languages, all Semitic languages, all Sinic languages, and nearly every other language as well.
I was told this by a Unitarian.
There may also be a factor on where it lies in the uncanny valley curve.
I don't think so. If you ask a human to shut your car door, or close the trunk, or turn off the headlights, you will likely thank them for it. But if you use the remote to make the car do these things itself, would you thank it for completing the task? When you arrive home from work, do you say to your car "Thanks for the ride"?
Instead of asking "Will Capetown be the first city to run out of water?" they could just as well ask "Is Capetown the first city to misprice water?" It appears to have been written by someone who has never heard of a "market".
Just raise the price so supply equals demand. This will incentivize people to conserve, and you will quickly see lawns replaced by xeriscapes. It will also incentivize entrepreneurs to produce more water and provide innovative conservation equipment.
If they are worried about "the poor" then a simple measure is to use tiered pricing, and provide the first 10 or 20 liters per person at low cost, or even free.
Markets can't solve every problem, but they can certainly solve this one. This is just a classic mismatch of supply and demand.
Or 10 gallons if it's a Navy Shower.
10 gallons??? Listen sonny boy, back in my day we'd get NJP for wasting that much water.
Here is a "real" navy shower:
1. Turn water on and get wet
2. Turn off the water, and then soap up face, hands, and groin.
3. Turn water on and rinse.
4. Turn off the water and dry off.
5. Wait a week for your next shower rotation.
Even when the water was on, it wasn't much more than a trickle.
We'd use 3 gallons, tops. And this was on a gator. Submariners have it much worse. They can do it with one gallon, and would consider 3 gallons to be a "Hollywood shower".
Semper Fi.