You've some how entirely missed the point - and even hints you're drinking the koolaid. Insurance companies and that 40% all say they can fix things without drastic changes. They have even said they will change. Given that insurance companies already have 90% of the power required to make sweeping changes and zero changes have been made to date, pretty well supports the insurance companies are enjoying their fleecing and have no intention, in any way, shape, or form, of doing anything other than screwing over idiots that refuse to support change.
And yet, what you're entirely missing is, the entire stated purpose of various bill efforts is to make it pay for it self by removing fraud and increasing efficiency. That's the entire thrust behind it. Insurance companies (and criminals - there is an intersection there) don't want this because the only way you can do that is to critically review what people are being billing and what insurance companies ARE and ARE NOT paying for.
Right now, the phrase, "health care insurance company" is just fancy words for "fraud". Companies who have a vested interest in fraud are not going to change the system. And when that 40% you speak of is basically bought and paid for by these same companies, how do you possibly believe things can improve any other way? So what other options exist?
Like many people, you seem to suffer from short tunnel vision. You need to have a long view on changes like this. Ultimately, it doesn't matter one bit if one of these bills, "rank[s] as one of the worst laws ever passed in the US". Not even a little. Not one bit. The reality is, regardless of the outcome it forces insurance companies to reform, compete, and stop fucking people every chance they get. The reality is, insurance companies ARE DEATH PANELS - but the vast majority of Americans are too stupid to understand; rather they simply repeat the lies FOX News has said.
The only way you're going to change things for the better is to stop supporting fraud - and that means tell the idiot, piece of shits, who has been bought and paid for by the insurance companies to straighten the fuck up and actually help rather than lying about everything while stealing from our pocket. That's the reality of today - and yet you seem happy to maintain that fraud at any cost.
And lets say you're right. Lets say its the worst bill ever passed. If it is, it will be updated or abolished and insurance companies will have been forced to change. There isn't a down side here. Not one.
People forget, if you're working against the good of the people, you're working against yourself. I didn't vote for Obama, but Obama's failure if still you're failure - assuming you're an American. You have a vested interest. Hoping he fails means you're hoping we all fail. And in this case, if he does fail, we absolutely all do fail; no ifs, ands, or buts.
At the end of the day, you continue your fear mongering, supporting of fraud, and paid-for politics, or you can actually try to help improve America. Sometimes things that sound like a cliches, really are true.
I didn't vote for for Obama but your statement is complete bullshit. Period.
That 40% you're talking about has refused to participate leaving Obama no choice but to carry on with the 60% that's interested in doing their job. The 40% you're standing behind has decided they don't want any solution that doesn't allow for massive fraud of the system and forcing people to pay at least 2x-4x as much as they should be paying for a healthy insurance system. And we know for this for a fact because these systems are already working around the world; contrary to the lies by the 40% you're working so hard to defend.
There is absolutely no shortage of things you can bash Obama on but bashing him for Republicans standing in line to abuse and defraud the American people isn't one of them.
It obviously wouldn't work for every app, but the "find a restaurant/movie theater near me" apps are essentially internet applications anyway with a little bit of native display logic.
You just answered the primary question for your self and didn't even realize it.
It obviously wouldn't work for every app
And that's entirely the point. Why learn yet another language and yet another framework and yet another set of libraries, plus the huge performance hit, to satisfy a small portion of potential applications when at the end of the day you'll still need to learn the native tools to address the other 70%-80% of the applications which are not suited as a browser app.
You're missing the point. The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone+blackberry app+htc touch app, etc.
You're missing the point. If that were going to happen, Palm would have had a smash success on their hands. As is, they've had just enough success to keep the wolves at bay. Developers AND users don't want browser apps. And from what I've read, Apple will remove the app at the first sign of success. Simply put, article's rant is nothing but a wet dream. It simply isn't going to happen - at least not any time soon.
Web browsers are not appropriate for everything, but they're becoming increasingly faster, and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.
Right - and that's only just barely started to happen on the desktop where enough power exists to allow for JIT of JS. Mobile devices are no where near powerful enough at this point to allow for those types of optimizations. Maybe sometime over the next decade... Until then, its not practical, and that's just from a CPU perspective. Broadband radios drain the holy crap out of the battery. Forcing basic functionality to the browser is simply going to make users even more unhappy in addition to the crappy interfaces.
You're point four is certainly a good one but that also means additional layers on layers. That's not going to fly and simply make it unusable for vast too many applications, given the limited nature mobile platforms.
Simply put, a wet dream is a wet dream, no matter now much you want to rationalize its real. In the end, your friends are still going to roll their eyes when you insist you nailed that super model last night. Even if everyone wanted to buy into your wet dream, the technology just isn't there yet.
No one excused him. That was made clear in both posts (mine & gp). That's a pretty crazy comment to start off with. No one and I mean NO ONE thinks what he did is okay. It's not. Period. Hopefully reading that for the third time allows it to sink into your head. As your opening statement is completely false, its pretty safe to bet your entire post is pointless and uninformed.
Most murder has some sort of mitigating circumstances attached: rape has precisely none.
So now you're excusing murderers? Reality check please. Complete and utter bullshit.
I'm curious to know how many rape victims you are sufficiently familiar with to make that judgement?
And how many murder victims are sufficiently familiar to know murder is bad. The subject is well documented. Perhaps you should become "sufficiently familiar" with books, documentaries, and a general education. Dip shit.
It certainly seems to me to be a bit of a leap to suggest that the most traumatic thing about being raped is the "societal stigma" (whatever that means).
Clearly you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Learn to fucking read and comprehend. You're the only one saying that. Idiot. Notice the distinctions I made in my statement. Notice you removed all such distinctions. Idiot. Don't put words in my mouth and then attack me for your own incompetence.
Lastly, can I point out that if you repeatedly murdered people over a number of years, you wouldn't be getting a typical 15-year murder sentence either.
Bu then again, sexual assault isn't murder either. Idiot.
Our society has chosen numbers arbitrarily as a dividing line between those who can have sex legally.
Some states allow thirteen year olds to have sex with other minors (some caveats) and still others allow sex with adults so long as parental consent is given (as in married).
I completely agree with your post. Its important for people to keep in mind that murders often receive far, far lighter sentences. Likewise, often the biggest trauma associated with this type of rape is that which is brought about by societal stigma; as it doesn't appear to be a crime of hate, range, violence, etc. True rape is more often than not a crime of hate, rage, and violent. This type of "rape" is not really rape at all but a crime of inappropriateness.
Like you, I'm not trying to defend him. But let's put this into perspective. Either this guy's sentence is far, far, far to much or ALL those convicted of murder and homicide need to be given the death penalty without question - if fairness is to be obtained.
Aluminum has zero stress endurance limit. That means that it WILL crack eventually.
This is true. This is why jets are periodically x-rayed to look for micro fractures and signs of fatigue. As I understand it, this is still a required procedure for composites because they too can fatigue.
Also, since there is no such thing as a standard composite, every composite is different. This means, unless they are actually using the same composite, which I seriously doubt, any history on one composite is completely meaningless on another composite. That FACT is, the life of composites are unknown and indeterminate according to the FAA and materials experts. Generally the certified life goes up as the fleet ages and can be supported by collected data; for example, see x-rays above.
Composites are much more reliable and have much lower maintenance costs.
Not sure where you got this information from as every manufacturer of composites will completely disagree with that statement. Composites are expensive. Did I mention they are expensive? They are also extremely labor intensive. Did I mention they are expensive and labor intensive? What can be a very minor repair on aluminum, resulting in little time to repair, can require complete assembly and/or sub-assembly replacement with composites. Why? Because composites can generally not be repaired. That means what was a cheap repair of a part is not a complete part, sub-assembly, or even an entire assembly replacement. With that replacement is corresponding labor.
Having said all that, by far, as you rightly pointed out, composites age much better in corrosive environments and because of aluminum's catastrophic failure, may be safer. Having said that, generally when aluminum is able to catastrophically fail, its because of lacking inspections. In this same vein, lacking inspections can still be a cause of catastrophic failure with composites too. So while salt isn't likely to be an issue, the jury is still out.
Also, unlike aluminum, composites have a much higher failure rate in hot environments. In fact, when composites become too hot, catastrophic failure normally follows because of extreme de-lamination which air-flow then makes worse. In fact, some planes becomes grounded when they become too hot. This means operating in places like Death Valley, etc, are actually detrimental to the health of composites. This is untrue for aluminum. So aluminum for Death Valley and Composites for Hawaii?
There are a lot of composite parts in the triple 7 and they are well documented to be more reliable than the aluminum ones in the 767.
That isn't so much an endorsement of composites as much as it is a failure of design and analysis.
In short, composites are by no means a panacea of aircraft materials. Like all materials, each comes with its own set of pros and cons.
Hate to burst your bubble but people can apply a little sense to the solution and solve it as I said for exactly the reason (stupid notion) you point out. Using the method I provide, loudness is always relative as volume is set by the TV owner; as it should be! That way, "loudness" is always per the owner's preference. Period. Solved. Done.
No need to confuse things with a stupid concept of "loudness", which is almost certain to always be wrong.
I agree, but the details are a little different here. The boss told employees their texts would be kept private. The employees now had legal reason to expect privacy so long as they maintained their legal obligation, which was to pay the overages. The boss then violated their privacy, contrary to the previous assertions.
This is actually pretty cut and dry. The employees were assured of privacy. The employer lied. The employee was fired as a result of the employer's lie. Had the employer not lied, its doubtful the situation which gave rise to the firing as its unlikely it would have ever occurred. The employer is clearly at fault and in violation of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Having said all that - best everyone remember the advise you offered in the first place.
Hate to burst your bubble, but dB has existed for a very, very long time. So in absolute terms, "loudness", as in a measure of pressure (pressure changes is what your ears detect), has a technical definition. Its trivial for broadcasters to measure the average and peak dB and ensure the commercials don't exceed the average and peak dB of the associated show. There is absolutely no reason this can't be done - and done so reasonably with minimal cost to broadcasters.
Step 1, measure show to be broadcast. Step 2, filter commercials and adjust volume based on data obtained from step 1 Step 3, broadcast both
Wow, that was hard.
Or,
Step 1, filter commercials such that they never exceed a reasonable dB on a standardized instrument from a given distance. Step 2, broadcast both
Gizmo is not GV. I did not say SIP options were not available. But the fact remains, GV is not VoIP and it does not change the equation without other software.
Then you've been mislead. Google Voice does not do VoIP. It still requires a voice plan. So unless that changes, whoever told you that is terribly confused.
Being denied employment for something trivial isn't "taking responsibility for one's actions," it's being screwed over.
Welcome to the US legal system. The US' legal system is not intended to rehabilitate or allow for simple "time served", or whatever punishment was dealt, to wipe the slate clean. Nope! Rather, you are to be punished for the rest of your lift such that it encourages you to become a repeat offender as you will excluded from most legal opportunities to make a living. This system is in place as it encourages growth in the largest growing government service - prisons and law enforcement.
AT&T has moved closer to charging special usage fees to heavy data users, including those with iPhones and other smartphones
What I want to know is, what the fuck is that $35.00/mo ($420/yr) up charge paying for if not "heavy data use" by those very same iPhone/smartphone users? Its pretty clear they are already charging a "speacial usage fee" - and now they want to charge people even more for using what they already paid for? WTF?!?!
With all of AT&T's iPhone and smart phone users, they are making billions of dollars per year in just the data up charge, which by their own admission, 97% of their users are not using their share. Seems to me they are already screwing 97% of their customers and not properly re-investing their cash cow earnings into expanding infrastructure. How can they possibly believe they can justify yet higher rates when they are already charging 97% well in excess of actual use.
Well, that explains the dropped calls. I guess they assume no one will actually use what they paid for and when 4% actually do use what they pay for, it causes problems for the other 97% of their customers because of poor management and poor re-investiment into their own infrastructure. That poor investment is pretty clear when you compare AT&T's 3G coverage with Verizon's - a fact AT&T is clearly pretty pissed about, when made widely known in recent Android commercials.
Lets put this into perspective. How many TV commercials, all across the US, can you pay for with $33.00 million dollars over ten years? Not many. Now consider how many of those commercials are primarily targeting the very people who you want to entice? Not many. Figure $100,000 per 30-seconds of national airtime. That same money spent on national commercials would have only purchased 330, 30-second, national commercials. Or, thirty three commercials per year. In reality, its likely it would be even fewer than that as $100,000 per slot is likely the minimum. Had they wanted placement during something like American Idol finales (ya, likely bad example), the slot price is likely to be 30% to 50% higher; or more. And even then, the number of people who are actually effectively targeted would be very limited. Especially when you consider with a game the same people they are targeted become inundated with the concept of actually joining the military, versus as most, 165 minutes (2.75 hours) of exposure with the concept - assuming those same people see every commercial, which simply isn't likely.
Simply put, this is clearly one of the most cost effective advertising campaigns ever produced by the military, let alone government, and is likely providing a huge bang for the buck! Especially when you consider the same game is then used as a direct recruiting tool at public events - as it allows would be recruiters to directly talk to potential recruits at said events. This in turn significantly improves the bang for the buck ratio.
I'm sure the EA lawyers didn't go into court calling their copyright infringement theft either. I would really like to see the press (at least the technical press) conditioned to call the PR assholes on their use of "theft" as a synonym for copyright infringement.
You're very, very confused in your attempt to push your theft's agenda. The fact is, it is stealing. Period. Its just the law has very specific verbiage which legally classifies it as "copyright infringement." Its legal classification does not change the actions of the criminal. When a thief steals stocks, we legally call that "fraud". When a thief steals money by cooking the books, we call that "embezzlement". When a thief steals copyrighted works, we call that "copyright infringement."
Please stop trying to manipulate mind share by trying to illogically justify theft.
Lies, lies, lies. Perhaps what pirates do best is manipulate others in hopes of finding acceptance of their illegal behavior. Some of the lies which pirates tell are: o My theft actually helps the game and company. o I don't like x, so I'm justified in stealing. o I'm entitled. o I'm poor - and entitled. o Artists deserve compensation - just not from me - I'm a hypocrite because I like to get paid for my work, but hope my obfuscation of the terminology helps keep that fact quiet. o Theft only hurts multi-billion dollar companies - companies smaller than that don't exist. o The amount of money a companies makes justifies my theft.
So please, if you need acceptance of those around you to do something, chances are you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. It really is that simple. Along those lines, stop trying to convince people that theft is somehow okay. Its not. Its wrong.
At this point I'm sure I'll be modded down or attacked by some illogical fallacy in hopes to further justify theft. Before you respond, unless you can explain why stock/bond theft isn't illegal, you're full of shit. Period. Keep in mind, every illegal theft dilutes the value. In doing so you are directly harming those who have a financial interest in the copyrighted work. What to say bullshit? Then the world is wrong and somehow you're right. Go figure.
The simple fact is, piracy is a form of theft and is directly harming the copyright owners. Period. Disagree? Then you need to learn how the world's economy and even the stock markets work. Like I said, until you can prove the entire basis of most of the world is wrong, you're completely full of shit. Until that time, piracy is theft. Period.
Nonetheless, there is constant FUD claiming that "pirating" music and movies is illegal and will get you jailed (there are some pretty ridiculous advertising campaigns by the SGAE)
I'd say it cuts both ways. Every time this subject comes up the only real FUD I constantly read is how evil people are for wanting to be compensated for their work. They then turn around and complain about not being fairly compensated by their employer. Pot, kettle, pirates. Go figure.
Ultimately, piracy translates into loss of income for someone. And contrary to pirate's popular myth, its not always multinational, multi billion dollar companies. Many photographers, artists, writers, and developers are as small as one man shops. At the end of the day, piracy is literally preventing a profit or putting companies (as in people) out of business.
If you pirate anything, I also presume you never accept payment for *any* work you do - otherwise you'd be a huge jackass and hypocrite. And of course, stealing stocks and bonds is also okay in your book, as is counterfeiting. Until people realize piracy is hurting businesses (that's people people!), they are forcing the creation of the only option businesses have - to raise the bar by making theft more painful. I'm not saying I agree with the bill - I don't - but what do you expect when you steal more than a mugger in Time Square. Get it through your thick heads, stealing is not helping anyone but you, the pirate, and it hurts everyone else that matters. Just like insurance fraud and shop lifting, we all pay higher prices because of piracy.
During WWII, radar operators would sometimes stand in front of them to warm themselves. Obviously this was before the general population understood the risks associated with some forms and levels of radiation.
Actually the two are not comparable in the least. Copyright prevents someone from directly taking your work and either releasing it as their own or creating a derived work based on your work. Copyright does not prevent a re-implementation of your work. See Linux vs Unix for more information.
Patents, on the other hand, actually prevent the re-implementation without some form of agreement and/or compensation to the original author.
Contrary to some of the assertions here, the problem with patents are real simple - shit that is completely fucking obvious is constantly being granted patents. Discoveries are not patentable yet they are granted patents on a regular basis; see biomedical.
Frankly, if patents were being rewarded properly, only a very tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of existing patents would still be valid. The true woe comes when an obvious patent is re-implemented and someone sues. Suddenly, the bigger company generally wins. Ironically, the entire purpose of patents was to allow small innovators to compete with large companies. The current patent system completely shits on that.
Furthermore, the USPO's has publicly gone on record stating their their completely fucked up system, which is known to be completely fucked world wide, is functioning as intended. If you want to fix patents, first order of business is to completely nuke the USPO and string up those who are purposely feeding inventors to become lawyer cannon fodder. Only then with all patents have a chance to actually be used properly.
No ifs, ands, or buts, the only cure for the USPO, is to completely replace it with very strict rules, guidelines, and laws. The next step is to properly hire the required manpower. Patents represent trillions of dollars, and likely billions in legal fees, in the US yet they can only afford two guys and a seeing eye dog to review them? Bullshit!
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.
A larger wing always means increased drag. Given two wings with the same aspect ratio, one being larger, the larger has more drag. If this were not true, all planes would have massive wings as there would be no penalty for doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
You've some how entirely missed the point - and even hints you're drinking the koolaid. Insurance companies and that 40% all say they can fix things without drastic changes. They have even said they will change. Given that insurance companies already have 90% of the power required to make sweeping changes and zero changes have been made to date, pretty well supports the insurance companies are enjoying their fleecing and have no intention, in any way, shape, or form, of doing anything other than screwing over idiots that refuse to support change.
And yet, what you're entirely missing is, the entire stated purpose of various bill efforts is to make it pay for it self by removing fraud and increasing efficiency. That's the entire thrust behind it. Insurance companies (and criminals - there is an intersection there) don't want this because the only way you can do that is to critically review what people are being billing and what insurance companies ARE and ARE NOT paying for.
Right now, the phrase, "health care insurance company" is just fancy words for "fraud". Companies who have a vested interest in fraud are not going to change the system. And when that 40% you speak of is basically bought and paid for by these same companies, how do you possibly believe things can improve any other way? So what other options exist?
Like many people, you seem to suffer from short tunnel vision. You need to have a long view on changes like this. Ultimately, it doesn't matter one bit if one of these bills, "rank[s] as one of the worst laws ever passed in the US". Not even a little. Not one bit. The reality is, regardless of the outcome it forces insurance companies to reform, compete, and stop fucking people every chance they get. The reality is, insurance companies ARE DEATH PANELS - but the vast majority of Americans are too stupid to understand; rather they simply repeat the lies FOX News has said.
The only way you're going to change things for the better is to stop supporting fraud - and that means tell the idiot, piece of shits, who has been bought and paid for by the insurance companies to straighten the fuck up and actually help rather than lying about everything while stealing from our pocket. That's the reality of today - and yet you seem happy to maintain that fraud at any cost.
And lets say you're right. Lets say its the worst bill ever passed. If it is, it will be updated or abolished and insurance companies will have been forced to change. There isn't a down side here. Not one.
People forget, if you're working against the good of the people, you're working against yourself. I didn't vote for Obama, but Obama's failure if still you're failure - assuming you're an American. You have a vested interest. Hoping he fails means you're hoping we all fail. And in this case, if he does fail, we absolutely all do fail; no ifs, ands, or buts.
At the end of the day, you continue your fear mongering, supporting of fraud, and paid-for politics, or you can actually try to help improve America. Sometimes things that sound like a cliches, really are true.
I didn't vote for for Obama but your statement is complete bullshit. Period.
That 40% you're talking about has refused to participate leaving Obama no choice but to carry on with the 60% that's interested in doing their job. The 40% you're standing behind has decided they don't want any solution that doesn't allow for massive fraud of the system and forcing people to pay at least 2x-4x as much as they should be paying for a healthy insurance system. And we know for this for a fact because these systems are already working around the world; contrary to the lies by the 40% you're working so hard to defend.
There is absolutely no shortage of things you can bash Obama on but bashing him for Republicans standing in line to abuse and defraud the American people isn't one of them.
It obviously wouldn't work for every app, but the "find a restaurant/movie theater near me" apps are essentially internet applications anyway with a little bit of native display logic.
You just answered the primary question for your self and didn't even realize it.
It obviously wouldn't work for every app
And that's entirely the point. Why learn yet another language and yet another framework and yet another set of libraries, plus the huge performance hit, to satisfy a small portion of potential applications when at the end of the day you'll still need to learn the native tools to address the other 70%-80% of the applications which are not suited as a browser app.
You're missing the point. The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone+blackberry app+htc touch app, etc.
You're missing the point. If that were going to happen, Palm would have had a smash success on their hands. As is, they've had just enough success to keep the wolves at bay. Developers AND users don't want browser apps. And from what I've read, Apple will remove the app at the first sign of success. Simply put, article's rant is nothing but a wet dream. It simply isn't going to happen - at least not any time soon.
Web browsers are not appropriate for everything, but they're becoming increasingly faster, and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.
Right - and that's only just barely started to happen on the desktop where enough power exists to allow for JIT of JS. Mobile devices are no where near powerful enough at this point to allow for those types of optimizations. Maybe sometime over the next decade... Until then, its not practical, and that's just from a CPU perspective. Broadband radios drain the holy crap out of the battery. Forcing basic functionality to the browser is simply going to make users even more unhappy in addition to the crappy interfaces.
You're point four is certainly a good one but that also means additional layers on layers. That's not going to fly and simply make it unusable for vast too many applications, given the limited nature mobile platforms.
Simply put, a wet dream is a wet dream, no matter now much you want to rationalize its real. In the end, your friends are still going to roll their eyes when you insist you nailed that super model last night. Even if everyone wanted to buy into your wet dream, the technology just isn't there yet.
No one excused him. That was made clear in both posts (mine & gp). That's a pretty crazy comment to start off with. No one and I mean NO ONE thinks what he did is okay. It's not. Period. Hopefully reading that for the third time allows it to sink into your head. As your opening statement is completely false, its pretty safe to bet your entire post is pointless and uninformed.
Most murder has some sort of mitigating circumstances attached: rape has precisely none.
So now you're excusing murderers? Reality check please. Complete and utter bullshit.
I'm curious to know how many rape victims you are sufficiently familiar with to make that judgement?
And how many murder victims are sufficiently familiar to know murder is bad. The subject is well documented. Perhaps you should become "sufficiently familiar" with books, documentaries, and a general education. Dip shit.
It certainly seems to me to be a bit of a leap to suggest that the most traumatic thing about being raped is the "societal stigma" (whatever that means).
Clearly you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Learn to fucking read and comprehend. You're the only one saying that. Idiot. Notice the distinctions I made in my statement. Notice you removed all such distinctions. Idiot. Don't put words in my mouth and then attack me for your own incompetence.
Lastly, can I point out that if you repeatedly murdered people over a number of years, you wouldn't be getting a typical 15-year murder sentence either.
Bu then again, sexual assault isn't murder either. Idiot.
As to my assertion at the top: yep!
Our society has chosen numbers arbitrarily as a dividing line between those who can have sex legally.
Some states allow thirteen year olds to have sex with other minors (some caveats) and still others allow sex with adults so long as parental consent is given (as in married).
I completely agree with your post. Its important for people to keep in mind that murders often receive far, far lighter sentences. Likewise, often the biggest trauma associated with this type of rape is that which is brought about by societal stigma; as it doesn't appear to be a crime of hate, range, violence, etc. True rape is more often than not a crime of hate, rage, and violent. This type of "rape" is not really rape at all but a crime of inappropriateness.
Like you, I'm not trying to defend him. But let's put this into perspective. Either this guy's sentence is far, far, far to much or ALL those convicted of murder and homicide need to be given the death penalty without question - if fairness is to be obtained.
AMD is actually in the lead... Intel has no GPU. HAHA
Ya, but at the end of the day, AMD still only has ATI GPUs. Thanks but no thanks. I've been burned far too many times by ATI over the years.
Wow. If this gets support and passes, companies like Bioware and Atari will be out of business.
Aluminum has zero stress endurance limit. That means that it WILL crack eventually.
This is true. This is why jets are periodically x-rayed to look for micro fractures and signs of fatigue. As I understand it, this is still a required procedure for composites because they too can fatigue.
Also, since there is no such thing as a standard composite, every composite is different. This means, unless they are actually using the same composite, which I seriously doubt, any history on one composite is completely meaningless on another composite. That FACT is, the life of composites are unknown and indeterminate according to the FAA and materials experts. Generally the certified life goes up as the fleet ages and can be supported by collected data; for example, see x-rays above.
Composites are much more reliable and have much lower maintenance costs.
Not sure where you got this information from as every manufacturer of composites will completely disagree with that statement. Composites are expensive. Did I mention they are expensive? They are also extremely labor intensive. Did I mention they are expensive and labor intensive? What can be a very minor repair on aluminum, resulting in little time to repair, can require complete assembly and/or sub-assembly replacement with composites. Why? Because composites can generally not be repaired. That means what was a cheap repair of a part is not a complete part, sub-assembly, or even an entire assembly replacement. With that replacement is corresponding labor.
Having said all that, by far, as you rightly pointed out, composites age much better in corrosive environments and because of aluminum's catastrophic failure, may be safer. Having said that, generally when aluminum is able to catastrophically fail, its because of lacking inspections. In this same vein, lacking inspections can still be a cause of catastrophic failure with composites too. So while salt isn't likely to be an issue, the jury is still out.
Also, unlike aluminum, composites have a much higher failure rate in hot environments. In fact, when composites become too hot, catastrophic failure normally follows because of extreme de-lamination which air-flow then makes worse. In fact, some planes becomes grounded when they become too hot. This means operating in places like Death Valley, etc, are actually detrimental to the health of composites. This is untrue for aluminum. So aluminum for Death Valley and Composites for Hawaii?
There are a lot of composite parts in the triple 7 and they are well documented to be more reliable than the aluminum ones in the 767.
That isn't so much an endorsement of composites as much as it is a failure of design and analysis.
In short, composites are by no means a panacea of aircraft materials. Like all materials, each comes with its own set of pros and cons.
Hate to burst your bubble but people can apply a little sense to the solution and solve it as I said for exactly the reason (stupid notion) you point out. Using the method I provide, loudness is always relative as volume is set by the TV owner; as it should be! That way, "loudness" is always per the owner's preference. Period. Solved. Done.
No need to confuse things with a stupid concept of "loudness", which is almost certain to always be wrong.
I agree, but the details are a little different here. The boss told employees their texts would be kept private. The employees now had legal reason to expect privacy so long as they maintained their legal obligation, which was to pay the overages. The boss then violated their privacy, contrary to the previous assertions.
This is actually pretty cut and dry. The employees were assured of privacy. The employer lied. The employee was fired as a result of the employer's lie. Had the employer not lied, its doubtful the situation which gave rise to the firing as its unlikely it would have ever occurred. The employer is clearly at fault and in violation of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Having said all that - best everyone remember the advise you offered in the first place.
is no technical definition for "loudness".
Hate to burst your bubble, but dB has existed for a very, very long time. So in absolute terms, "loudness", as in a measure of pressure (pressure changes is what your ears detect), has a technical definition. Its trivial for broadcasters to measure the average and peak dB and ensure the commercials don't exceed the average and peak dB of the associated show. There is absolutely no reason this can't be done - and done so reasonably with minimal cost to broadcasters.
Step 1, measure show to be broadcast.
Step 2, filter commercials and adjust volume based on data obtained from step 1
Step 3, broadcast both
Wow, that was hard.
Or,
Step 1, filter commercials such that they never exceed a reasonable dB on a standardized instrument from a given distance.
Step 2, broadcast both
Wow, that was hard.
Gizmo is not GV. I did not say SIP options were not available. But the fact remains, GV is not VoIP and it does not change the equation without other software.
Then you've been mislead. Google Voice does not do VoIP. It still requires a voice plan. So unless that changes, whoever told you that is terribly confused.
Being denied employment for something trivial isn't "taking responsibility for one's actions," it's being screwed over.
Welcome to the US legal system. The US' legal system is not intended to rehabilitate or allow for simple "time served", or whatever punishment was dealt, to wipe the slate clean. Nope! Rather, you are to be punished for the rest of your lift such that it encourages you to become a repeat offender as you will excluded from most legal opportunities to make a living. This system is in place as it encourages growth in the largest growing government service - prisons and law enforcement.
AT&T has moved closer to charging special usage fees to heavy data users, including those with iPhones and other smartphones
What I want to know is, what the fuck is that $35.00/mo ($420/yr) up charge paying for if not "heavy data use" by those very same iPhone/smartphone users? Its pretty clear they are already charging a "speacial usage fee" - and now they want to charge people even more for using what they already paid for? WTF?!?!
With all of AT&T's iPhone and smart phone users, they are making billions of dollars per year in just the data up charge, which by their own admission, 97% of their users are not using their share. Seems to me they are already screwing 97% of their customers and not properly re-investing their cash cow earnings into expanding infrastructure. How can they possibly believe they can justify yet higher rates when they are already charging 97% well in excess of actual use.
Well, that explains the dropped calls. I guess they assume no one will actually use what they paid for and when 4% actually do use what they pay for, it causes problems for the other 97% of their customers because of poor management and poor re-investiment into their own infrastructure. That poor investment is pretty clear when you compare AT&T's 3G coverage with Verizon's - a fact AT&T is clearly pretty pissed about, when made widely known in recent Android commercials.
Bingo.
Lets put this into perspective. How many TV commercials, all across the US, can you pay for with $33.00 million dollars over ten years? Not many. Now consider how many of those commercials are primarily targeting the very people who you want to entice? Not many. Figure $100,000 per 30-seconds of national airtime. That same money spent on national commercials would have only purchased 330, 30-second, national commercials. Or, thirty three commercials per year. In reality, its likely it would be even fewer than that as $100,000 per slot is likely the minimum. Had they wanted placement during something like American Idol finales (ya, likely bad example), the slot price is likely to be 30% to 50% higher; or more. And even then, the number of people who are actually effectively targeted would be very limited. Especially when you consider with a game the same people they are targeted become inundated with the concept of actually joining the military, versus as most, 165 minutes (2.75 hours) of exposure with the concept - assuming those same people see every commercial, which simply isn't likely.
Simply put, this is clearly one of the most cost effective advertising campaigns ever produced by the military, let alone government, and is likely providing a huge bang for the buck! Especially when you consider the same game is then used as a direct recruiting tool at public events - as it allows would be recruiters to directly talk to potential recruits at said events. This in turn significantly improves the bang for the buck ratio.
I don't have a problem with this at all.
I'm sure the EA lawyers didn't go into court calling their copyright infringement theft either. I would really like to see the press (at least the technical press) conditioned to call the PR assholes on their use of "theft" as a synonym for copyright infringement.
You're very, very confused in your attempt to push your theft's agenda. The fact is, it is stealing. Period. Its just the law has very specific verbiage which legally classifies it as "copyright infringement." Its legal classification does not change the actions of the criminal. When a thief steals stocks, we legally call that "fraud". When a thief steals money by cooking the books, we call that "embezzlement". When a thief steals copyrighted works, we call that "copyright infringement."
Please stop trying to manipulate mind share by trying to illogically justify theft.
Lies, lies, lies. Perhaps what pirates do best is manipulate others in hopes of finding acceptance of their illegal behavior. Some of the lies which pirates tell are:
o My theft actually helps the game and company.
o I don't like x, so I'm justified in stealing.
o I'm entitled.
o I'm poor - and entitled.
o Artists deserve compensation - just not from me - I'm a hypocrite because I like to get paid for my work, but hope my obfuscation of the terminology helps keep that fact quiet.
o Theft only hurts multi-billion dollar companies - companies smaller than that don't exist.
o The amount of money a companies makes justifies my theft.
So please, if you need acceptance of those around you to do something, chances are you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. It really is that simple. Along those lines, stop trying to convince people that theft is somehow okay. Its not. Its wrong.
At this point I'm sure I'll be modded down or attacked by some illogical fallacy in hopes to further justify theft. Before you respond, unless you can explain why stock/bond theft isn't illegal, you're full of shit. Period. Keep in mind, every illegal theft dilutes the value. In doing so you are directly harming those who have a financial interest in the copyrighted work. What to say bullshit? Then the world is wrong and somehow you're right. Go figure.
The simple fact is, piracy is a form of theft and is directly harming the copyright owners. Period. Disagree? Then you need to learn how the world's economy and even the stock markets work. Like I said, until you can prove the entire basis of most of the world is wrong, you're completely full of shit. Until that time, piracy is theft. Period.
Nonetheless, there is constant FUD claiming that "pirating" music and movies is illegal and will get you jailed (there are some pretty ridiculous advertising campaigns by the SGAE)
I'd say it cuts both ways. Every time this subject comes up the only real FUD I constantly read is how evil people are for wanting to be compensated for their work. They then turn around and complain about not being fairly compensated by their employer. Pot, kettle, pirates. Go figure.
Ultimately, piracy translates into loss of income for someone. And contrary to pirate's popular myth, its not always multinational, multi billion dollar companies. Many photographers, artists, writers, and developers are as small as one man shops. At the end of the day, piracy is literally preventing a profit or putting companies (as in people) out of business.
If you pirate anything, I also presume you never accept payment for *any* work you do - otherwise you'd be a huge jackass and hypocrite. And of course, stealing stocks and bonds is also okay in your book, as is counterfeiting. Until people realize piracy is hurting businesses (that's people people!), they are forcing the creation of the only option businesses have - to raise the bar by making theft more painful. I'm not saying I agree with the bill - I don't - but what do you expect when you steal more than a mugger in Time Square. Get it through your thick heads, stealing is not helping anyone but you, the pirate, and it hurts everyone else that matters. Just like insurance fraud and shop lifting, we all pay higher prices because of piracy.
During WWII, radar operators would sometimes stand in front of them to warm themselves. Obviously this was before the general population understood the risks associated with some forms and levels of radiation.
I agree. You read too much into my statement. We're saying the same thing.
Software is already protected by copyright
Actually the two are not comparable in the least. Copyright prevents someone from directly taking your work and either releasing it as their own or creating a derived work based on your work. Copyright does not prevent a re-implementation of your work. See Linux vs Unix for more information.
Patents, on the other hand, actually prevent the re-implementation without some form of agreement and/or compensation to the original author.
Contrary to some of the assertions here, the problem with patents are real simple - shit that is completely fucking obvious is constantly being granted patents. Discoveries are not patentable yet they are granted patents on a regular basis; see biomedical.
Frankly, if patents were being rewarded properly, only a very tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of existing patents would still be valid. The true woe comes when an obvious patent is re-implemented and someone sues. Suddenly, the bigger company generally wins. Ironically, the entire purpose of patents was to allow small innovators to compete with large companies. The current patent system completely shits on that.
Furthermore, the USPO's has publicly gone on record stating their their completely fucked up system, which is known to be completely fucked world wide, is functioning as intended. If you want to fix patents, first order of business is to completely nuke the USPO and string up those who are purposely feeding inventors to become lawyer cannon fodder. Only then with all patents have a chance to actually be used properly.
No ifs, ands, or buts, the only cure for the USPO, is to completely replace it with very strict rules, guidelines, and laws. The next step is to properly hire the required manpower. Patents represent trillions of dollars, and likely billions in legal fees, in the US yet they can only afford two guys and a seeing eye dog to review them? Bullshit!
by means of any independently unlawful act
Doesn't apply.
Wrong. Failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer is, by definition, "independently unlawful", within the great context.
Something tells me there was a whooshing sound which you ignored.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.
A larger wing always means increased drag. Given two wings with the same aspect ratio, one being larger, the larger has more drag. If this were not true, all planes would have massive wings as there would be no penalty for doing so.
WTF is right.