Unforeseen events tend to average out. So taxi company just adds a couple of percents to the price to compensate for it.
But they don't average out for a particular journey.
Unforeseen events are accounted for in the current system, whether it's unexpected congestion, or unexpected lack of congestion. Customers pay for their actual trip.
With the fixed-price system, some are overcharged and others are undercharged. And this does not average out nicely. Drivers who have shifts covering peak congestion periods would get screwed, while those rostered for less-congested hours would make extra profits.
Doubt its a minority, truthfully for every two who state it, possibly fourty keep it to themselves.
So, forty former astronauts are choosing to keep it a secret that they think the current space program is "catastrophic"? What kind of patriots are they, they they would not speak up, when the program is doomed to catastrophe?
I guess, on the other hand, it could be that these two former astronauts are engaging in hyperbole when they use the term "catastrophic."
And now it's the driver's problem to chose the shortest and fastest route. If we get stuck in a jam - I'm not paying more.
That's hardly fair to the driver, as being stuck in a traffic jam costs them more - and there are plenty of unforeseen events, such as detours for construction work or accidents.
Drivers ripping off customers is not acceptable, but tilting it the other way to take money from the pockets of drivers is not the solution either.
Yes, some former Astronauts call this catastrophic. All two of them. I think the headline was worded specifically to make it sound as if this was a widespread belief among astronauts, rather than a minority one.
I'm one of many server administrators for LUTX, the (US) Federal Government IT "swat team" that was put in place during the Clinton Administration. One day I was working on a code-blue 456 system using the X-K-Red-27 technique and suddenly a bunch of drunken Canadian's broke in and try to SSH the HTTPS server.
What a load of bullshit. We all know that Canada doesn't actually exist.
Bullshit. Many musicians make full albums and difficult, long tracks. Why would iTunes cause musicians to limit their music to a few minutes? If anything, digital distribution removes the limitations of physical media - so artists are now free to create albums that run much longer than 20 to 45 minutes, because there is no plastic to run out of.
Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.
Who the hell cares what music marketers think? I listen to musicians, not marketers.
Would Thick as a Brick, Tommy, Sgt. Pepper, The Who Sell Out, Brain Salad Surgery, 2112, Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new "single" only model?
An interview rather than a scientific article, I admit,
Well, yeah. It's complete rubbish. The subject of the interview is highly biased, and doesn't provide any source for his claims. How about some actual data? This one is old, and shows digital cameras that are seven years old outperforming a quality film stock: link.
Color accuracy is generally considered better (with the right film)
By who?
and I've heard resolution figures of 30 or 40 MP for 35mm film.
That's absolute horseshit, even with a drum scanner. 35mm film doesn't even approach the resolution of a 12 megapixel digital camera. It's closer to 6 megapixels.
I shoot digital myself, but I'm planning to get a hold of a film body to do some comparisons. I don't have a scanner, nor can I develop, so then it becomes a question of how good is my local photo shop.
I've shot 35mm film for years, and it's not even close. Digital wins in every metric. Those who say that film is superior are either victims of nostalgia, or haven't picked up a digital camera in the last 5 years.
I don't know if you want color information or not but honestly either way I would shoot film, then scan the result.
For B&W, shoot Technical Pan film as an ISO of 6, develop in technidol developer (enlist advanced photo class people at a UNI to help with this). For color use Fuji Velvia at 50.
Why would you do that, when shooting with a modern digital camera would give superior results?
And the folks a World of Warcraft, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, etc. don't miss you at all.
Really? I thought that they would want more customers.
Buying was fine for single-player games, but MMORPGs (which are much more entertaining due to the social aspect) need a different business model.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that I don't play MMORPGs. I wasn't aware that the OnLive business model was exclusively tied to MMORPGs.
Also, not all multiplayer online games are MMORPGs. I mostly play single-player games, but I do occasionally play multiplayer online games. But I play them erratically - I'm not going to pay every month for something I'm not going to use. I can't predict when I'm going to have the spare time and inclination to devote time to a game.
So, who is the target group? Gamers won't go for this, because of performance issues and the fact that they already have gaming platforms. Non-gamers won't go for this because they don't play games. Casual gamers won't want to pay the monthly fee, and have plenty of cheap alternatives.
Games should be distributed for free, and gamers should pay a monthly fee for each game to access the servers.
Why, because you say so? I'd much rather buy games and not have to pay monthly fees. In fact, that's what I do. I don't go near any games that require monthly fees to play online.
nevermind the fact that there were several opinion pieces relating how Microsoft used Apple to help leverage the DOJ to get off their backs.
If the aim of this settlement was to get the DOJ off their backs, then why did it include an agreement for Apple to make Internet Explorer the default browser on Mac OS? Surely, that would have the opposite effect - and the DOJ would see it as MS extending their monopoly to the Mac, which was the only commercially viable desktop OS aside from Windows.
I don't see how extending IE's presence to practically 100% of consumer personal computers would help Microsoft's case with the DOJ. Previously, the default Mac browser was Netscape. How does eliminating Netscape on the Mac indicate a desire for competition?
Slashdot Mirror
How is pushing the costs of unforeseen events onto the rider any more fair?
Because they are paying for the additional cost of providing the service. Just like any other service.
Furthermore, traffic jams are hardly unforeseen events - they are much more likely at particular hours of the day.
Unforeseen events tend to average out. So taxi company just adds a couple of percents to the price to compensate for it.
But they don't average out for a particular journey.
Unforeseen events are accounted for in the current system, whether it's unexpected congestion, or unexpected lack of congestion. Customers pay for their actual trip.
With the fixed-price system, some are overcharged and others are undercharged. And this does not average out nicely. Drivers who have shifts covering peak congestion periods would get screwed, while those rostered for less-congested hours would make extra profits.
Doubt its a minority, truthfully for every two who state it, possibly fourty keep it to themselves.
So, forty former astronauts are choosing to keep it a secret that they think the current space program is "catastrophic"? What kind of patriots are they, they they would not speak up, when the program is doomed to catastrophe?
I guess, on the other hand, it could be that these two former astronauts are engaging in hyperbole when they use the term "catastrophic."
And now it's the driver's problem to chose the shortest and fastest route. If we get stuck in a jam - I'm not paying more.
That's hardly fair to the driver, as being stuck in a traffic jam costs them more - and there are plenty of unforeseen events, such as detours for construction work or accidents.
Drivers ripping off customers is not acceptable, but tilting it the other way to take money from the pockets of drivers is not the solution either.
Yes, some former Astronauts call this catastrophic. All two of them. I think the headline was worded specifically to make it sound as if this was a widespread belief among astronauts, rather than a minority one.
I'm one of many server administrators for LUTX, the (US) Federal Government IT "swat team" that was put in place during the Clinton Administration. One day I was working on a code-blue 456 system using the X-K-Red-27 technique and suddenly a bunch of drunken Canadian's broke in and try to SSH the HTTPS server.
What a load of bullshit. We all know that Canada doesn't actually exist.
The advent of itunes killed this.
Bullshit. Many musicians make full albums and difficult, long tracks. Why would iTunes cause musicians to limit their music to a few minutes? If anything, digital distribution removes the limitations of physical media - so artists are now free to create albums that run much longer than 20 to 45 minutes, because there is no plastic to run out of.
Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.
Who the hell cares what music marketers think? I listen to musicians, not marketers.
Would Thick as a Brick, Tommy, Sgt. Pepper, The Who Sell Out, Brain Salad Surgery, 2112, Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new "single" only model?
Yes. Why wouldn't they be?
Sometimes we do both in the same room and/or both at the same time....
How do you fuck in both the bedroom and the kitchen at the same time, unless your bed is in the kitchen?
Is her name Lisa?
An interview rather than a scientific article, I admit,
Well, yeah. It's complete rubbish. The subject of the interview is highly biased, and doesn't provide any source for his claims. How about some actual data? This one is old, and shows digital cameras that are seven years old outperforming a quality film stock: link.
How about other aspects of image quality? Digital beats film hands-down when it comes to signal-to-noise ratio (grain).
But of course, film has a greater dynamic range than digital, doesn't it? Nope. Another myth.
you obviously have never shot techpan have you.
I certainly have.
I think digitals are great, but there is no comparison to the higher end films.
Yes there is. Have you even seen the images from a modern professional DSLR?
Unwater? So, is that a solid, a gas, or plasma?
His point is that it won't
Say what??
Color accuracy is generally considered better (with the right film)
By who?
and I've heard resolution figures of 30 or 40 MP for 35mm film.
That's absolute horseshit, even with a drum scanner. 35mm film doesn't even approach the resolution of a 12 megapixel digital camera. It's closer to 6 megapixels.
I shoot digital myself, but I'm planning to get a hold of a film body to do some comparisons. I don't have a scanner, nor can I develop, so then it becomes a question of how good is my local photo shop.
I've shot 35mm film for years, and it's not even close. Digital wins in every metric. Those who say that film is superior are either victims of nostalgia, or haven't picked up a digital camera in the last 5 years.
You don't want to ask for Google's advice. They have some of the worst scans possible.
I don't know if you want color information or not but honestly either way I would shoot film, then scan the result. For B&W, shoot Technical Pan film as an ISO of 6, develop in technidol developer (enlist advanced photo class people at a UNI to help with this). For color use Fuji Velvia at 50.
Why would you do that, when shooting with a modern digital camera would give superior results?
The Cerberus Network Card ships with every copy of Mass Effect 2.
Even if it does (which it apparently does not) - how does not having the Cerberus card prevent one from playing the game?
And the folks a World of Warcraft, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, etc. don't miss you at all.
Really? I thought that they would want more customers.
Buying was fine for single-player games, but MMORPGs (which are much more entertaining due to the social aspect) need a different business model.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that I don't play MMORPGs. I wasn't aware that the OnLive business model was exclusively tied to MMORPGs.
Also, not all multiplayer online games are MMORPGs. I mostly play single-player games, but I do occasionally play multiplayer online games. But I play them erratically - I'm not going to pay every month for something I'm not going to use. I can't predict when I'm going to have the spare time and inclination to devote time to a game.
Say you are a CAD designer.
If you are a CAD designer, wouldn't you just design your own CAD package, instead of running somebody else's?
So, who is the target group? Gamers won't go for this, because of performance issues and the fact that they already have gaming platforms. Non-gamers won't go for this because they don't play games. Casual gamers won't want to pay the monthly fee, and have plenty of cheap alternatives.
I assume you're referring to the Cerberus Network card.
Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post or something? I see no mention of a network card in the post you replied to.
Games should be distributed for free, and gamers should pay a monthly fee for each game to access the servers.
Why, because you say so? I'd much rather buy games and not have to pay monthly fees. In fact, that's what I do. I don't go near any games that require monthly fees to play online.
Why can't we anglophones just keep calling that sensation the same as we have for hundreds of years: "savory." I just think it's funny is all :)
Because "savory" is not a direct equivalent to "umami."
... and — who could forget? — Whoopi Goldberg's Flooz.
Myself, for one. I didn't think this would be memorable to anyone, let alone unforgettable.
P.S:
nevermind the fact that there were several opinion pieces relating how Microsoft used Apple to help leverage the DOJ to get off their backs.
If the aim of this settlement was to get the DOJ off their backs, then why did it include an agreement for Apple to make Internet Explorer the default browser on Mac OS? Surely, that would have the opposite effect - and the DOJ would see it as MS extending their monopoly to the Mac, which was the only commercially viable desktop OS aside from Windows.
I don't see how extending IE's presence to practically 100% of consumer personal computers would help Microsoft's case with the DOJ. Previously, the default Mac browser was Netscape. How does eliminating Netscape on the Mac indicate a desire for competition?
Well, those articles would be wrong. That wouldn't be unusual, the tech media is full of inaccurate articles constructed from pure bullshit.