The problem is our current social security and medicare/medicaid system are systematically flawed. They are pyramid schemes that depend on an exponential population growth that hasn't been happening because people just aren't fucking like they used to.
No, you are mistaken.
Social Security is basically solvent in the medium term; and a small increase in the retirement age, raising or eliminating the cap on SS taxes, or means-testing the benefit each could theoretically make Social Security solvent into the foreseeable future. The problem is that the general government budget has been borrowing from the SS "trust" fund, so we basically owe money for the money we've "saved". That is what Al Gore was talking about when he was made fun of for calling for a "lock box" on Social Security funds during his campaign.
Medicare/Medicaid basically suffers the same problem as all medical insurance or payment systems in the US- the costs are rising far faster than can possibly be sustained. At the current rate, soon even Bill Gates could have trouble buying insurance in his old age. (Ok, I'm exaggerating a little)
Actually, we were slowly coming out of the depression when the congress decided they had to reduce the deficit, and as a result the economy slumped back down. It was only when we raised deficits like crazy on WWII that the economy rebounded, and then when the sacrifices of war were over, the economy took off.
This deficit reduction crap is only going to get us in trouble. You're supposed to run a surplus in good times to carry you through the bad - we keep seeming intent on trying the opposite.
Too long, too many people have been unwilling to make any meaningful changes to a system everybody agrees isn't going to hold up forever.
You're completely mistaken. Every chance they get for the past decade or 2, the Republicans have been quite willing to make meaningful tax cuts that would prevent any deficit reduction. They've also sponsored quite a few meaningful spending increases over those years.
Now companies don't want to hire except when the person is perfect.
That's a symptom of oversupply of labor, not a structural change.
It's true that high unemployment allows companies to be more picky. But even when the economy was booming, companies did not want to hire anyone they had to train. When I first started my career (1980) they were much more willing to train, thankfully, even though unemployment was higher then than now. Apparently since companies have been more willing to lay people off and workers more willing to switch jobs, companies have made concerted efforts to hire people already trained.
Not true. If you add a definition of the true 3D position of each point in the 2D images and the direction from which they receive light (corrected for lens effects, if necessary) two 2D images will define the 3D position of every point visible to both images. (they, of course, won't define the unseen backside of the scene) If you don't add those definitions, you have to derive estimates of them from the information in the images themselves, or else you just have two, or three, or an infinite number of unrelated images.
P.S.: a 2D plane has the same number of points as a 3D space.
Yes it's 3D, it has 3 dimensions. It's not virtual reality, and doesn't claim to be. You can't wander around it and see it from the back. What you can do is infer the depth based on the stereoscopic effect, just like you can infer height and width based on surrounding objects.
By that argument, you can infer depth based on cues present in regular 2-D movies, so should they be called 3D?
You don't need to be able to walk around the movie and view it from the back for it to be true 3D, but in true 3D you would focus your eyes to the same depth as the apparent stereoscopic depth, and movement of your eyes would change your perspective. Neither of those things are present in the current crop of "3D" movies, which is why they are uncomfortable to watch.
I was around in the '60s, when the Monsanto video was made. And plastic was regarded as cheap and ugly back then, more so than it is now. Don't confuse a marketing message with an opinion poll.
Kitchens were for a time in the back, separated from the rest of the house, because they were hot and potentially messy. You entertained guests in the parlor and ate in the dining room. Now with air conditioning, modern appliances, and the desire of the cook to be not so isolated, kitchens are often open to the rest of the house.
And here, in the USA, groceries are usually brought in through the back door or the garage, not the front door.
I'm not sure about the '60s, but as early as 1980 (when I started my engineering career) it was not uncommon for commercial enterprises to automatically shut down equipment in order of priority when their electrical demand got high. Equipment was shut off by the customer, rather than directly by the electric company; however it was done because rate structures were created by the electric companies that included peak demand charges and time-of-day rates added specifically to encourage lowering of the demand and so reduce the need for more power infrastucture. So, I would say, that it would not "have been unthinkable to predict that we'd not have enough cheap power to do everything we'd want to do, when we wanted to do it."
If you expose matter to anti-matter you get (a huge amount) of energy. Nothing is lost in the process.
If you expose a tank to an anti-tank shell, you get a huge amount of energyh. Nothing is lost in the process.?
Rather, by anyone's proper understanding of the word destroyed the tank and the anti-tank shell are both destroyed, even if the conservation of energy/matter holds.
White will make the roof marginally cooler in the winter. But the temperature difference between roof and the environment is greater in the winter, so the heat of the sun is lost quicker and the roof temperature cannot rise as much in the winter as it will in the summer. Of course, YYMV depending on the local climate. Also, as other poster have pointed out, there are fewer hours of sun in the winter, so the heating available from the sun is less in the winter.
The sales tax was to cover services that B&M retailers needed from the state, county, and city. Amazon, being a net business, uses none of those services.
Of course, Amazon does use some of those services, even if they have no brick and mortar in the state.
More to the point,. though, there customers use most of the state and local services, and in reality and intent, those taxes are being paid by those citizens. The real question is whether Amazon can be required to be the collector of such taxes.
Except that now you have a very thin boundary layer between the CPU's stationary plate and the rotating heatsink/fan, and you still have the boundary layer between the rotating heatsink/fan and the air being drawn into it. I think the key is the 5,000 RPM at which they rotate the heatsink/fan combo, reducing that boundary layer thickness. That high speed could also be the problem, though, as that may be too fast for comfort.
They might be on to something, but both TFA and the.pdf are full of hype. like saying the boundary layer "problem" has never been solved before, as if over 100 years of scientific investigation into fluid dynamics and heat transfer has never figured out to cope with boundary layers. (Hints: make the surface area bigger; increase the velocities; use non-continuous surfaces; add turbulence and eddies with rough surfaces, twists, turns and transitions.)
According to the.pdf you linked to, it depends on where the trash was at the time. It might belong to the trash collecting company, the owner of the property, or it might be considered abandoned. Also, much of that.pdf dealt with the expectation of the right of privacy (or lack thereof) which does not imply ownership (or lack thereof).
While I agree that Anderson should be commended for saving the moon rock, according to TFA he wasn't sued, rather he is the one that initiated the suit.
Still, it may not be a clear cut case, as putting something in the trash doesn't mean it belongs to someone who takes it out of the trash. (IANAL, YMMV)
They used to sell sewage treatment plant "sludge" around here, but there was a problem because the municipal waste system can't really control what is dumped into the sewers. The sludge was found to be contaminated with heavy metals and other toxic wastes and was determined to be not suitable for use in farming or private gardens.
Alternatively, let's put our technological well-being in the hands of a country that has shown little compunction in using its dominance to screw with any other country that gets in its way.
TFA stated that:
China's apparent monopoly of rare earth production enabled it to restrain supply last year during a territorial dispute with Japan.
but omitted the fact that that "monopoly" had been created and sustained by undercutting the prices of other sources, not by being the only possible source. There are plenty of sources for rare earth elements with proven production capacities that will be available when China inevitably restricts exports or raises prices. The ocean floor is just another possibility, but one where the costs are not yet known.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are mistaken.
Social Security is basically solvent in the medium term; and a small increase in the retirement age, raising or eliminating the cap on SS taxes, or means-testing the benefit each could theoretically make Social Security solvent into the foreseeable future. The problem is that the general government budget has been borrowing from the SS "trust" fund, so we basically owe money for the money we've "saved". That is what Al Gore was talking about when he was made fun of for calling for a "lock box" on Social Security funds during his campaign.
Medicare/Medicaid basically suffers the same problem as all medical insurance or payment systems in the US- the costs are rising far faster than can possibly be sustained. At the current rate, soon even Bill Gates could have trouble buying insurance in his old age. (Ok, I'm exaggerating a little)
Actually, we were slowly coming out of the depression when the congress decided they had to reduce the deficit, and as a result the economy slumped back down. It was only when we raised deficits like crazy on WWII that the economy rebounded, and then when the sacrifices of war were over, the economy took off.
This deficit reduction crap is only going to get us in trouble.
You're supposed to run a surplus in good times to carry you through the bad - we keep seeming intent on trying the opposite.
You're completely mistaken. Every chance they get for the past decade or 2, the Republicans have been quite willing to make meaningful tax cuts that would prevent any deficit reduction. They've also sponsored quite a few meaningful spending increases over those years.
Green
And the clouds all seem to look like dead presidents.
That's a symptom of oversupply of labor, not a structural change.
It's true that high unemployment allows companies to be more picky. But even when the economy was booming, companies did not want to hire anyone they had to train. When I first started my career (1980) they were much more willing to train, thankfully, even though unemployment was higher then than now. Apparently since companies have been more willing to lay people off and workers more willing to switch jobs, companies have made concerted efforts to hire people already trained.
Not true. If you add a definition of the true 3D position of each point in the 2D images and the direction from which they receive light (corrected for lens effects, if necessary) two 2D images will define the 3D position of every point visible to both images. (they, of course, won't define the unseen backside of the scene) If you don't add those definitions, you have to derive estimates of them from the information in the images themselves, or else you just have two, or three, or an infinite number of unrelated images.
P.S.: a 2D plane has the same number of points as a 3D space.
By that argument, you can infer depth based on cues present in regular 2-D movies, so should they be called 3D?
You don't need to be able to walk around the movie and view it from the back for it to be true 3D, but in true 3D you would focus your eyes to the same depth as the apparent stereoscopic depth, and movement of your eyes would change your perspective. Neither of those things are present in the current crop of "3D" movies, which is why they are uncomfortable to watch.
I always thought fewer walls was to make the spaces seem larger, but mostly to eliminate the cost of building the walls.
I was around in the '60s, when the Monsanto video was made. And plastic was regarded as cheap and ugly back then, more so than it is now. Don't confuse a marketing message with an opinion poll.
Kitchens were for a time in the back, separated from the rest of the house, because they were hot and potentially messy. You entertained guests in the parlor and ate in the dining room. Now with air conditioning, modern appliances, and the desire of the cook to be not so isolated, kitchens are often open to the rest of the house.
And here, in the USA, groceries are usually brought in through the back door or the garage, not the front door.
I'm not sure about the '60s, but as early as 1980 (when I started my engineering career) it was not uncommon for commercial enterprises to automatically shut down equipment in order of priority when their electrical demand got high. Equipment was shut off by the customer, rather than directly by the electric company; however it was done because rate structures were created by the electric companies that included peak demand charges and time-of-day rates added specifically to encourage lowering of the demand and so reduce the need for more power infrastucture. So, I would say, that it would not "have been unthinkable to predict that we'd not have enough cheap power to do everything we'd want to do, when we wanted to do it."
Then I challenge you to a sword fight. You can take a lump of steel. I'll take one made of damascus steel by an expert swordmaker. Winner take all.
If you expose a tank to an anti-tank shell, you get a huge amount of energyh. Nothing is lost in the process.?
Rather, by anyone's proper understanding of the word destroyed the tank and the anti-tank shell are both destroyed, even if the conservation of energy/matter holds.
White will make the roof marginally cooler in the winter. But the temperature difference between roof and the environment is greater in the winter, so the heat of the sun is lost quicker and the roof temperature cannot rise as much in the winter as it will in the summer. Of course, YYMV depending on the local climate. Also, as other poster have pointed out, there are fewer hours of sun in the winter, so the heating available from the sun is less in the winter.
Of course, Amazon does use some of those services, even if they have no brick and mortar in the state.
More to the point,. though, there customers use most of the state and local services, and in reality and intent, those taxes are being paid by those citizens. The real question is whether Amazon can be required to be the collector of such taxes.
Except that now you have a very thin boundary layer between the CPU's stationary plate and the rotating heatsink/fan, and you still have the boundary layer between the rotating heatsink/fan and the air being drawn into it. I think the key is the 5,000 RPM at which they rotate the heatsink/fan combo, reducing that boundary layer thickness. That high speed could also be the problem, though, as that may be too fast for comfort. .pdf are full of hype. like saying the boundary layer "problem" has never been solved before, as if over 100 years of scientific investigation into fluid dynamics and heat transfer has never figured out to cope with boundary layers. (Hints: make the surface area bigger; increase the velocities; use non-continuous surfaces; add turbulence and eddies with rough surfaces, twists, turns and transitions.)
They might be on to something, but both TFA and the
According to the .pdf you linked to, it depends on where the trash was at the time. It might belong to the trash collecting company, the owner of the property, or it might be considered abandoned. Also, much of that .pdf dealt with the expectation of the right of privacy (or lack thereof) which does not imply ownership (or lack thereof).
While I agree that Anderson should be commended for saving the moon rock, according to TFA he wasn't sued, rather he is the one that initiated the suit. Still, it may not be a clear cut case, as putting something in the trash doesn't mean it belongs to someone who takes it out of the trash. (IANAL, YMMV)
Contradict yourself much?
They used to sell sewage treatment plant "sludge" around here, but there was a problem because the municipal waste system can't really control what is dumped into the sewers. The sludge was found to be contaminated with heavy metals and other toxic wastes and was determined to be not suitable for use in farming or private gardens.
Sorry for being pedantic, but it's Continuously Variable Transmission.
The population is aging. That's the biggest reason the crime rate has gone down.
Ground source coupling can be your friend
That's backwards. If anything, you should be forced to pay triple if your attempted patent is not valid.
TFA stated that:
China's apparent monopoly of rare earth production enabled it to restrain supply last year during a territorial dispute with Japan.
but omitted the fact that that "monopoly" had been created and sustained by undercutting the prices of other sources, not by being the only possible source. There are plenty of sources for rare earth elements with proven production capacities that will be available when China inevitably restricts exports or raises prices. The ocean floor is just another possibility, but one where the costs are not yet known.