"A Texas startup called Baryonyx plans to build data centers powered entirely by renewable energy. [... ] it will use [the local utility] as a backup when the wind dies down."
If it's powered of the grid when it isn't windy out, and it's powered entirely by renewable energy, wouldn't it be powered entirely by renewable energy if it used the grid all the time?
Or are they just trying to say that it's net-positive? Or what? The linked article doesn't seem to claim that the data center will be "powered entirely by renewable energy", so it isn't much help.
So, you happily pay the license fee for Arial, but are appalled at the idea of paying the difference for Helvetica? Remember that Arial isn't free, it's included.
I don't know what Microsoft pays for Arial, but Leopard retails for $130 and includes Arial and Helvetica.
Huh. I guess my point was lost on the moderator. It was that whether or not they have put a man on the moon is not a very useful general metric for the success of government organizations.
Does it not seem silly to anyone else to point out that the only organization whose purpose is to achieve some goal was the only organization to achieve that goal?
Was that really not obvious? Is that really trolling?
Frankly, anyone remotely familiar with how the Internet works should know that your ISP *could* completely and arbitrarily control any nonauthenticated protocol, including DNS.
This is a great point, and really gets to the heart of the matter. There is a certain way that DNS is supposed to work. And there's a certain amount of trust vested in an ISP by their customers. This "service" violates that trust.
The story is incorrectly tagged miniusb. It's actually micro USB (which is an inferior connector, in my opinion) which is slightly smaller and lacks the "ears" of mini USB, which is what the Blackberry uses.
From the summary, "On prime-time TV that same ad will cost somewhere between $20 and $40 per thousand viewers."
I read this as telling me that they make half as much per spot, but that fails to account for the fact that they run fourteen times the ads!
We can neglect the number of users when comparing, because it is constant between the two senarios. We can't neglect the number of seconds, because advertising is sold in timed units!
Also, get a user ID. They're free, and the allow, you know, conversations.
That season wasn't all bad. Jon Lovitz's bit about dogs being boys and cats being girls was pretty funny. Also, I think Joe's bit about having made the parts to make the spy gear was in that season as well.
Okay, I actually forgot to include the fact that the rate is about double.
9*60/37/2~=7.29.
So, the inventory of a showing of The Simpsons on Hulu is 37 seconds. A showing on Fox is 9 minues = 540 seconds. If you halve that number to account for the difference in rate you get 37/540 which is about seven.
To plug in dollars it's 540 * $30 = $16,200 vs. 37 * $60 = $2,220, which clearly belies the statement "The Simpsons Worth More Per Viewer On Hulu Than On Fox".
Fuck. No one can do Math anymore. An episode of The Simpsons absolutely isn't worth more by the numbers in the summary. In fact, it's worth about 1/15th as much. Doh!
Maybe the article is worth something, but the summary is so bad I can't bring myself to click.
Several are considerably less easy to answer in terms of what applying the maxim "privacy for individuals, transparency for the State" would mean in terms of the specific cases, and some of the ones that are easy to answer in those terms (particularly with the amplification offered that the latter means that "public officials" have no privacy in terms of what they do in the course of that role) would seem to fly in the face of what I would think the people suggesting the maximum would want in that specific case.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Could you give an example of a case where you suspect the rule gives the "wrong" result? (I'm poised to be persuaded!)
You can't really be that obtuse. The government is made up of individuals, but they are easily identifiable, and the distinction between their private lives and their official actions is quite clear.
So, why can't we have both personal privacy and governmental transparency?
Slashdot Mirror
That's all great. But I don't see how it adds up to "powered entirely by renewable energy."
-Peter
"A Texas startup called Baryonyx plans to build data centers powered entirely by renewable energy. [... ] it will use [the local utility] as a backup when the wind dies down."
If it's powered of the grid when it isn't windy out, and it's powered entirely by renewable energy, wouldn't it be powered entirely by renewable energy if it used the grid all the time?
Or are they just trying to say that it's net-positive? Or what? The linked article doesn't seem to claim that the data center will be "powered entirely by renewable energy", so it isn't much help.
-Peter
Fine. Where do I send $26?
-Peter
So, you happily pay the license fee for Arial, but are appalled at the idea of paying the difference for Helvetica? Remember that Arial isn't free, it's included.
I don't know what Microsoft pays for Arial, but Leopard retails for $130 and includes Arial and Helvetica.
-Peter
How about Helvetica instead of the cheap Microsoft* knock-off?
-Peter
*Okay, yes, it's Monotype, but popularized by Microsoft's inclusion as a TTF.
Surely you don't write gigs of code daily. VPN + SCM and you don't have to carry any code with you. (You might need an RSA ID at home, though.)
-Peter
Huh. I guess my point was lost on the moderator. It was that whether or not they have put a man on the moon is not a very useful general metric for the success of government organizations.
Does it not seem silly to anyone else to point out that the only organization whose purpose is to achieve some goal was the only organization to achieve that goal?
Was that really not obvious? Is that really trolling?
-Peter
Yes, but NASA wasn't much help during Katrina. And it never saved a single farm. And they have utterly failed to implement auto safety standards.
-Peter
This is a great point, and really gets to the heart of the matter. There is a certain way that DNS is supposed to work. And there's a certain amount of trust vested in an ISP by their customers. This "service" violates that trust.
-Peter
John Galt.
-Peter
That's very interesting (and persuasive). I had a media player that used Micro-USB and I didn't care for it at the time.
According to the Wikipedia article on USB the cycle life of Mini-USB (and USB A) is only 500, but they agree with your 10k figure for Micro-USB.
Anyway, I no longer have any Micro-USB devices, but I'll look for 'em in the future!
-Peter
The story is incorrectly tagged miniusb. It's actually micro USB (which is an inferior connector, in my opinion) which is slightly smaller and lacks the "ears" of mini USB, which is what the Blackberry uses.
-Peter
From the summary, "On prime-time TV that same ad will cost somewhere between $20 and $40 per thousand viewers."
I read this as telling me that they make half as much per spot, but that fails to account for the fact that they run fourteen times the ads!
We can neglect the number of users when comparing, because it is constant between the two senarios. We can't neglect the number of seconds, because advertising is sold in timed units!
Also, get a user ID. They're free, and the allow, you know, conversations.
-Peter
That season wasn't all bad. Jon Lovitz's bit about dogs being boys and cats being girls was pretty funny. Also, I think Joe's bit about having made the parts to make the spy gear was in that season as well.
So, you know, two jokes worked that season . . .
-Peter
Gotcha! It's about 1/7th.
Okay, I actually forgot to include the fact that the rate is about double.
9*60/37/2~=7.29.
So, the inventory of a showing of The Simpsons on Hulu is 37 seconds. A showing on Fox is 9 minues = 540 seconds. If you halve that number to account for the difference in rate you get 37/540 which is about seven.
To plug in dollars it's 540 * $30 = $16,200 vs. 37 * $60 = $2,220, which clearly belies the statement "The Simpsons Worth More Per Viewer On Hulu Than On Fox".
-Peter
Fuck. No one can do Math anymore. An episode of The Simpsons absolutely isn't worth more by the numbers in the summary. In fact, it's worth about 1/15th as much. Doh!
Maybe the article is worth something, but the summary is so bad I can't bring myself to click.
-Peter
Weird. Most of the geeks I know are far from defenseless.
-Peter
Everybody look at me, 'cause I'm sailing on a boat!
-Peter
Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Could you give an example of a case where you suspect the rule gives the "wrong" result? (I'm poised to be persuaded!)
-Peter
I can't tell if your questions are rhetorical. Do any of them actually seem difficult to answer to you?
-Peter
You can't really be that obtuse. The government is made up of individuals, but they are easily identifiable, and the distinction between their private lives and their official actions is quite clear.
So, why can't we have both personal privacy and governmental transparency?
-Peter
Now that I like.
-Peter
"Quad bike"? Come on! You people invented the language.
-Peter
It's weird. I could swear that someone testified that removing Internet Explorer from Windows was "impossible".
There must be some geographical factor I haven't considered.
-Peter
How does Sharepoint address his problem? It uses the exact same folder/file paradigm that is failing in his existing solution.
-Peter