lumens are a weighted intensity based on human response curves. The 683 max lumens figure comes from degenerate case in which all of the spectral power is concentrated on the wavelength of peak luminous response. It's my understanding that such a lamp would be an intense, monochromatic green. But you'd really be able to see it!
The 10% efficiency figure, I believe, is found by comparing the radiant flux (total power emitted as light) to the total power input.
Lumens are a useful rating, if the spectrum of each lamp is comparable - it's a rough, relative comparison of the effectiveness of each lamp.
However non-blackbody sources have a chance to game the rating by adjusting their spectrum to concentrate on the most effective wavelengths. This may be one reason why some cfls are not living up to their equivalency claims - they're hitting the lumen target, but unscrupulous manufacturers could be using a set of phosphors that puts more energy in the peak response bands and not enough outside them.
I'm now curious as to whether there are independent spectrum analyses out there for consumers to review.
I suppose what we need is yet another unit of measure to include the fact that although humans can see one wavelength better than all the rest, we need light across the spectrum to be able to effectively and comfortably observe our surroundings.
That apparently terrorists are so lazy or unwilling to terror act that with a presence of thousands and an action rate equal to what we've see over the past 10 years, most of them will die of old age before committing a single terrorist act?
You weren't supposed to read that as an endorsement of bitcoin, but as an admonishment of paper money...
And the guy serving hot dogs on the street isn't required to accept dollars, either. If you buy the dogs on credit, I guess the lender might be, but the lender is probably a credit card company with a pre-existing relationship with the vender in which they pay dollars to him on your behalf. They're not going to try and work out an exchange rate from bartered mittens or wagon axles to dollars just for you.
If it becomes a stable currency, the street vendor would probably prefer crypto currency over dollars - with equipment little more complicated than a credit card reader, the vendor gets all of the benefits of credit cards - convenience for the customer, less cash on hand, etc, without the high transaction fees that the credit companies offer.
The major phone companies can sue the Indiana State Police for whatever the corpdne customers for violation of their civil rights. The cops may not go to jail, but their employers may face big financial settlements.
That's hardly a victory at all. You know who their employers are, right? Hint: they probably live in roughly the same area where the cops are active....
Eh.. why would Clapper need to lie to congress. Why couldn't he have instead, said, "I cannot answer that question in open session as it would be inappropriate and possibly illegal to answer the question as doing so would require me to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not be made available to our enemies."
Also, the answer to a question like, “Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” doesn't provide any operational intelligence to any of america's enemies. Further, its value as propaganda depends solely on whether the answer is what the American people actually want, and whether they had the opportunity to participate in the decision.
In other words, the postulated "enemy" that the lying about the answer to this question protects from is the american people themselves, which by definition are not an enemy of America.
All crypto currency needs to become a real currency is a government to declare it legal tender for all debts public and private. Then it would be just as valid as paper money with one major exception - it's extremely difficult to counterfeit.
And governments might do it, despite that limitation (from the point of view of the central banks, it's a limitation...), because it has an offsetting benefit of being traceable.
I'm really not sure what to root for, either. Un-counterfeitable money would be a great way to rein in the central banks that have been stealing wealth equivalent to 2% of everyone's savings, but traceable money is a great way to crack down on underground economies, which is a good thing if they're trafficking in murder but a potentially horrible thing if they're trafficking in politically unpopular goods and services that don't hurt anyone. I suppose this also depends on whether more perfect enforcement leads people to overturn the bad laws, or capricious enforcement leads to more corruption, oppression, and contempt for the law.
How can you design an algorithm that works better on GPUs than ASICs? The only explanation I can think of is that the expectation is that it will never be popular enough to make designing the ASICs worthwhile as too few people would buy them.
But that explanation implies that it will also not have the kind of trading volume that would make it stable enough to be worthwhile as a currency....
Why any programmer with more than two brain cells to rub together would want a weak password is beyond mysterious to me. Probably some ding-dong in marketing demanded it.
Because they're storing the password in plain text in the database and disk space was expensive in 1986.
This might not be the programmer's fault. It might be that the requirements were written in 1986 and whoever wrote them didn't understand the concept of password reset or hadn't heard of cryptographic hash functions.
That's not a scam, that's a perfectly legitimate pricing system. Not every kWh is worth the same, it depends on the demand when you're delivering it. Further, you're not paying 300 for -50 net kWh. You're paying 300 for the availability of the 150kWh that offset your needing to have your own storage to cover that amount.
Net metering is a subsidy to encourage people to install their own generating capacity, not a leveling of the playing field, and it's going to go away if people actually install their own power generation in significant portions of the population.
Also, the local commercials are often SD, even on the cable company's own HD channels (which appear to be OTA-HD channels that have been transcoded, poorly, to a lower bitrate...).
Not only SD, but also they don't even deign to let my TV do the up-conversion, they've converted it for me to the "higher resolution" of HD. And often double-letterboxed, too, because apparently it's too expensive to up-convert all the way from 480 to 1080...
The problem could easily be solved by, instead of regulating the volume levels, regulating that the media companies cannot own the DVR companies.
The DVR companies would then compete on features, one of which being commercial skip. If the commercials are kind enough to make themselves easily identifiable by noticeably higher volume, the commercial skip feature of your typical DVR will be happy to use that data to accurately slice them out.
The war ends with commercials being better integrated with the content, either through product placement or through matching the style of the content they are inserted in.
That is, as long as the DVR producers are ideologically and financially separate from the companies selling the ads....
Is citation an option, though? It is spelled out in the law for traffic violations, but is there any provision for anything like that in the law for other areas?
Maybe there should be. Maybe this case should shine the light on the need.
What makes the ISPs think that the money will flow from Netflix to them?
I can envision a scenario where some ISPs start charging, netflix doesn't pay, and people start dropping to very basic plans because netflix was most of what they used. Plus, if netflix really does account for that much of the data, I can't imagine they're not considering branching out into being an ISP themselves...
Not necessarily. There would certainly be an initial bump, but if the demand was consistent, then production would roll out to match. Maybe more fields (people buying more "pure" chocolate might require more plants to supply it), re-tooling, or whatever. Eventually the price would stabilize, and might even be lower, if the new demand levels allow for economies of scale and competition is cutthroat.
This is a Wall Street recovery, not a Working Man recovery. Keynesian is an epithet nowadays, so instead of going the 1930s route and investing in infrastructure and public works to put working stiffs back in the field, we elected to dump money on Wall Street until the investors felt happy enough to start diversifying out of their tortoise shells.
Actually both are Keynsian policies, and they should be an epithet. Both produce paper recoveries.
If you want a real recovery, you can't look at the stock market as your signal. It doesn't measure "economic health" at all. If it measures anything, it's "dollar weakness." Printing counterfeit dollars for any purpose will make the stock market numbers go up - by robbing savers of the value of their savings.
It is noteworthy that the Great depression is the one where Keynsian policies were applied most vigorously up to that point. There were depressions before it that we came out of much more quickly. Turning a year or two of pain into a decade of misery doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of keynsianism. Still, the bankers love it....
Slashdot Mirror
lumens are a weighted intensity based on human response curves. The 683 max lumens figure comes from degenerate case in which all of the spectral power is concentrated on the wavelength of peak luminous response. It's my understanding that such a lamp would be an intense, monochromatic green. But you'd really be able to see it!
The 10% efficiency figure, I believe, is found by comparing the radiant flux (total power emitted as light) to the total power input.
Lumens are a useful rating, if the spectrum of each lamp is comparable - it's a rough, relative comparison of the effectiveness of each lamp.
However non-blackbody sources have a chance to game the rating by adjusting their spectrum to concentrate on the most effective wavelengths. This may be one reason why some cfls are not living up to their equivalency claims - they're hitting the lumen target, but unscrupulous manufacturers could be using a set of phosphors that puts more energy in the peak response bands and not enough outside them.
I'm now curious as to whether there are independent spectrum analyses out there for consumers to review.
I suppose what we need is yet another unit of measure to include the fact that although humans can see one wavelength better than all the rest, we need light across the spectrum to be able to effectively and comfortably observe our surroundings.
It is impossible for a bulb purchased a year ago to have "come close" to its rated life expectancy if the life expectancy is 5-10 years....
Indeed it is by definition 0% efficient. 0% of the energy is converted to work.
That apparently terrorists are so lazy or unwilling to terror act that with a presence of thousands and an action rate equal to what we've see over the past 10 years, most of them will die of old age before committing a single terrorist act?
Got a cite on that?
You weren't supposed to read that as an endorsement of bitcoin, but as an admonishment of paper money...
And the guy serving hot dogs on the street isn't required to accept dollars, either. If you buy the dogs on credit, I guess the lender might be, but the lender is probably a credit card company with a pre-existing relationship with the vender in which they pay dollars to him on your behalf. They're not going to try and work out an exchange rate from bartered mittens or wagon axles to dollars just for you.
If it becomes a stable currency, the street vendor would probably prefer crypto currency over dollars - with equipment little more complicated than a credit card reader, the vendor gets all of the benefits of credit cards - convenience for the customer, less cash on hand, etc, without the high transaction fees that the credit companies offer.
The major phone companies can sue the Indiana State Police for whatever the corpdne customers for violation of their civil rights. The cops may not go to jail, but their employers may face big financial settlements.
That's hardly a victory at all. You know who their employers are, right? Hint: they probably live in roughly the same area where the cops are active....
If you have nothing to hide, gathering this data about you is a waste of time and effort.
Eh.. why would Clapper need to lie to congress. Why couldn't he have instead, said, "I cannot answer that question in open session as it would be inappropriate and possibly illegal to answer the question as doing so would require me to publicly reveal highly classified information that ought not be made available to our enemies."
Also, the answer to a question like, “Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” doesn't provide any operational intelligence to any of america's enemies. Further, its value as propaganda depends solely on whether the answer is what the American people actually want, and whether they had the opportunity to participate in the decision.
In other words, the postulated "enemy" that the lying about the answer to this question protects from is the american people themselves, which by definition are not an enemy of America.
All crypto currency needs to become a real currency is a government to declare it legal tender for all debts public and private. Then it would be just as valid as paper money with one major exception - it's extremely difficult to counterfeit.
And governments might do it, despite that limitation (from the point of view of the central banks, it's a limitation...), because it has an offsetting benefit of being traceable.
I'm really not sure what to root for, either. Un-counterfeitable money would be a great way to rein in the central banks that have been stealing wealth equivalent to 2% of everyone's savings, but traceable money is a great way to crack down on underground economies, which is a good thing if they're trafficking in murder but a potentially horrible thing if they're trafficking in politically unpopular goods and services that don't hurt anyone. I suppose this also depends on whether more perfect enforcement leads people to overturn the bad laws, or capricious enforcement leads to more corruption, oppression, and contempt for the law.
How can you design an algorithm that works better on GPUs than ASICs? The only explanation I can think of is that the expectation is that it will never be popular enough to make designing the ASICs worthwhile as too few people would buy them.
But that explanation implies that it will also not have the kind of trading volume that would make it stable enough to be worthwhile as a currency....
Why any programmer with more than two brain cells to rub together would want a weak password is beyond mysterious to me. Probably some ding-dong in marketing demanded it.
Because they're storing the password in plain text in the database and disk space was expensive in 1986.
This might not be the programmer's fault. It might be that the requirements were written in 1986 and whoever wrote them didn't understand the concept of password reset or hadn't heard of cryptographic hash functions.
The problem is that they can apparently issue their own warrants, in secret.
That's not a scam, that's a perfectly legitimate pricing system. Not every kWh is worth the same, it depends on the demand when you're delivering it. Further, you're not paying 300 for -50 net kWh. You're paying 300 for the availability of the 150kWh that offset your needing to have your own storage to cover that amount.
Net metering is a subsidy to encourage people to install their own generating capacity, not a leveling of the playing field, and it's going to go away if people actually install their own power generation in significant portions of the population.
Also, the local commercials are often SD, even on the cable company's own HD channels (which appear to be OTA-HD channels that have been transcoded, poorly, to a lower bitrate...).
Not only SD, but also they don't even deign to let my TV do the up-conversion, they've converted it for me to the "higher resolution" of HD. And often double-letterboxed, too, because apparently it's too expensive to up-convert all the way from 480 to 1080...
The problem could easily be solved by, instead of regulating the volume levels, regulating that the media companies cannot own the DVR companies.
The DVR companies would then compete on features, one of which being commercial skip. If the commercials are kind enough to make themselves easily identifiable by noticeably higher volume, the commercial skip feature of your typical DVR will be happy to use that data to accurately slice them out.
The war ends with commercials being better integrated with the content, either through product placement or through matching the style of the content they are inserted in.
That is, as long as the DVR producers are ideologically and financially separate from the companies selling the ads....
How do you know who is who?
Nice statistics there. A word problem and a number. What percentage is "almost all?" Is 90% close enough, or what?
Is citation an option, though? It is spelled out in the law for traffic violations, but is there any provision for anything like that in the law for other areas?
Maybe there should be. Maybe this case should shine the light on the need.
Which brings to mind an important question.
What makes the ISPs think that the money will flow from Netflix to them?
I can envision a scenario where some ISPs start charging, netflix doesn't pay, and people start dropping to very basic plans because netflix was most of what they used. Plus, if netflix really does account for that much of the data, I can't imagine they're not considering branching out into being an ISP themselves...
Searching for text using the built-in text search feature in ebooks has been more productive for me than flipping pages in real books.
Not necessarily. There would certainly be an initial bump, but if the demand was consistent, then production would roll out to match. Maybe more fields (people buying more "pure" chocolate might require more plants to supply it), re-tooling, or whatever. Eventually the price would stabilize, and might even be lower, if the new demand levels allow for economies of scale and competition is cutthroat.
This is a Wall Street recovery, not a Working Man recovery. Keynesian is an epithet nowadays, so instead of going the 1930s route and investing in infrastructure and public works to put working stiffs back in the field, we elected to dump money on Wall Street until the investors felt happy enough to start diversifying out of their tortoise shells.
Actually both are Keynsian policies, and they should be an epithet. Both produce paper recoveries.
If you want a real recovery, you can't look at the stock market as your signal. It doesn't measure "economic health" at all. If it measures anything, it's "dollar weakness." Printing counterfeit dollars for any purpose will make the stock market numbers go up - by robbing savers of the value of their savings.
It is noteworthy that the Great depression is the one where Keynsian policies were applied most vigorously up to that point. There were depressions before it that we came out of much more quickly. Turning a year or two of pain into a decade of misery doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of keynsianism. Still, the bankers love it....
Yeah, but inflation back then was also much higher...
It might have won an award, once. Where do you think it gets its name?