I think an argument could be made that it would make more sense to buy fewer F35s and buy a larger fleet of dedicated aircraft for close ground support, long-range recon, etc.
The Canadian gov't is trying to use the F35 for many different roles. It may be a fantastic air superiority fighter, but I'm not convinced it'd be better than something like an A-10 for ground support.
From the book "Flash Boys", one of the HFT companies mentioned that they were only ever "down" one day in five years. That's not actually taking risk. That's skimming a more-or-less guaranteed tax off the top.
The main thrust of the book "Flash Boys" is that the HFTs get advance notice of your trade on one exchange, and then beat you to all the other exchanges to do the trade before you. This is not normal "first come first served", but rather a form of front-running.
I still consider it rechargeable due to the fact the the main input in remanufacturing is electricity, and that there are basically no toxic chemicals released during the remanufacturing process.
The fact that it can't be recharged *at home* doesn't change the fact that to a first approximation you put in electricity and get back a charged battery.
I lived and worked in Ottawa (Canada) for five years without owning a car. I rented a car fairly frequently on weekends, and when needed I rented a pickup truck, cargo van, cube van, etc.
It worked really well. I took the bike or bus to work and to downtown most of the time. When I needed a vehicle, I rented one. My rental costs were *far* less than it would have cost to license a vehicle and pay insurance on it, much less buying/leasing one.
Now I've got two kids and live in the prairies. Public transit sucks, so I own a smallish car. But I've still rented a van for a long trip with relatives.
I've seen pictures of firemen smashing the windows of cars parked in front of fire hydrants and running the hose right through. Basic revenge, I guess.
If you know that a new model is coming out in the very near future, then it might be best to wait. Either you get the new model, or else you can sometimes pick up the old model for cheaper.
If someone is considering offing themselves, it might be simpler to take their gun and blow their head off instead of trying to hang themselves, jump off a building/bridge, slice their wrists, etc.
To the person doing the act, shooting themselves in the head is probably going to seem less painful and more convenient then most other options.
If that's the case, then removing the gun might reduce the chances of actually carrying through on a suicide attempt.
Thus you have your choice: bad guys armed and good guys disarmed, or everybody armed. I'll take the latter, thank you. Statistics show that ordinary citizens are not likely to misuse firearms, and do in fact use them to stop crime (often without anyone being hurt; bad guys would rather surrender and have the police take them away, than be shot).
How would you propose to decide who is responsible enough to own a firearm? Can crazy people own them? What about clinically depressed people? What about people under psychological treatment generally? At what age should someone be able to carry a firearm? Should they be allowed in all buildings? Should businesses be allowed to deny entrance to people carrying weapons? What about on a plane/train/bus/etc.?
Assuming current OS behaviour, I'd be happier with a ~42-46" 4K screen. Just a bit higher pixel density than my current 24" 1920x1200 monitor, but almost 4x the number of pixels.
With current OS behaviour, a 32" 4K screen would have teeny-tiny text in some places.
The only advantage I can see would be that you could "fullscreen" the app within the virtual monitor area.
Some apps (media players, for example) behave differently when run fullscreen vs within a window. The "virtual monitor" window manager would let you trick the app into thinking it was running fullscreen.
Personally I'd love to have a 48" ultrawide 4K computer monitor, with a substantial curve. As it stands, people with multimonitor setups already curve them, so this would be no different.
By writing it in macros the code is moderately human-readable, while giving the performance benefits of actually being written in assembly. By doing it that way the compiler also has the opportunity to optimize the assembly somewhat.
And the legal opinion there was that to switch licenses would require the approval of every copyright holder.
By contributing to the codebase they did not actually assign you copyright...so each contributor holds copyright in the portion that they actually wrote.
The problem is that the physical DVD netflix service has a selection that is different from the streaming netflix service. If you want the increased selection, you have to forego the ability to download it.
There is no technical barrier preventing netflix from allowing you to download a DRM'd exact copy of a DVD. You could then play it, or transfer it to another device, or maybe even transcode it for smaller screens and transfer it to another device, all within their app. The only barrier is copyright. And by allowing in-advance downloads you could preload devices for use where there is no data connection.
The OP is suggesting that this copyright barrier doesn't make sense.
I would support a model that actually reflects the real costs involved...that is a fixed monthly cost for the physical connection, and a variable per-GB charge.
The reason why most people don't like bandwidth metering is that the ISPs charge way too much per GB at the retail level. And if you lump the connection costs in with the bandwidth costs then the high-usage people end up subsidizing the low-usage people. It's much more fair to break out the fees separately (the way my gas/electrical/etc bills do it).
I think if end-users were charged a per-GB rate that was more in line with the wholesale rate plus a reasonable amount of profit then there would be minimal complaints.
If it was only about equal traffic in both directions netflix could just have all their clients send random data back to their servers and then just drop all the data. That would increase the overall network load, but it would be "balanced".
Seriously, it makes no sense that increasing the overall network load would reduce the fees being paid. That's ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
I think an argument could be made that it would make more sense to buy fewer F35s and buy a larger fleet of dedicated aircraft for close ground support, long-range recon, etc.
The Canadian gov't is trying to use the F35 for many different roles. It may be a fantastic air superiority fighter, but I'm not convinced it'd be better than something like an A-10 for ground support.
I don't think the current CF-18 is the Super Hornet, just a modified regular Hornet.
There have been quite a few people suggesting that the Super Hornet (or maybe the Advanced version) would be a better fit for the RCAF than the F-35.
Why are you allowing unlimited instances to be created?
From the book "Flash Boys", one of the HFT companies mentioned that they were only ever "down" one day in five years. That's not actually taking risk. That's skimming a more-or-less guaranteed tax off the top.
The main thrust of the book "Flash Boys" is that the HFTs get advance notice of your trade on one exchange, and then beat you to all the other exchanges to do the trade before you. This is not normal "first come first served", but rather a form of front-running.
I still consider it rechargeable due to the fact the the main input in remanufacturing is electricity, and that there are basically no toxic chemicals released during the remanufacturing process.
The fact that it can't be recharged *at home* doesn't change the fact that to a first approximation you put in electricity and get back a charged battery.
I lived and worked in Ottawa (Canada) for five years without owning a car. I rented a car fairly frequently on weekends, and when needed I rented a pickup truck, cargo van, cube van, etc.
It worked really well. I took the bike or bus to work and to downtown most of the time. When I needed a vehicle, I rented one. My rental costs were *far* less than it would have cost to license a vehicle and pay insurance on it, much less buying/leasing one.
Now I've got two kids and live in the prairies. Public transit sucks, so I own a smallish car. But I've still rented a van for a long trip with relatives.
Technically it's rechargeable since the only input is electricity. The fact that it's not rechargeable *at home* doesn't change that.
I've seen pictures of firemen smashing the windows of cars parked in front of fire hydrants and running the hose right through. Basic revenge, I guess.
If you know that a new model is coming out in the very near future, then it might be best to wait. Either you get the new model, or else you can sometimes pick up the old model for cheaper.
If someone is considering offing themselves, it might be simpler to take their gun and blow their head off instead of trying to hang themselves, jump off a building/bridge, slice their wrists, etc.
To the person doing the act, shooting themselves in the head is probably going to seem less painful and more convenient then most other options.
If that's the case, then removing the gun might reduce the chances of actually carrying through on a suicide attempt.
Thus you have your choice: bad guys armed and good guys disarmed, or everybody armed. I'll take the latter, thank you. Statistics show that ordinary citizens are not likely to misuse firearms, and do in fact use them to stop crime (often without anyone being hurt; bad guys would rather surrender and have the police take them away, than be shot).
How would you propose to decide who is responsible enough to own a firearm? Can crazy people own them? What about clinically depressed people? What about people under psychological treatment generally? At what age should someone be able to carry a firearm? Should they be allowed in all buildings? Should businesses be allowed to deny entrance to people carrying weapons? What about on a plane/train/bus/etc.?
Assuming current OS behaviour, I'd be happier with a ~42-46" 4K screen. Just a bit higher pixel density than my current 24" 1920x1200 monitor, but almost 4x the number of pixels.
With current OS behaviour, a 32" 4K screen would have teeny-tiny text in some places.
The only advantage I can see would be that you could "fullscreen" the app within the virtual monitor area.
Some apps (media players, for example) behave differently when run fullscreen vs within a window. The "virtual monitor" window manager would let you trick the app into thinking it was running fullscreen.
It's just the ubiquitous crappy ones that don't.
Presumably it would be just a hollow shell, and thus vastly lighter in weight than the pyramid of giza.
I don't see that in the Sears catalogue anymore...
Personally I'd love to have a 48" ultrawide 4K computer monitor, with a substantial curve. As it stands, people with multimonitor setups already curve them, so this would be no different.
By writing it in macros the code is moderately human-readable, while giving the performance benefits of actually being written in assembly. By doing it that way the compiler also has the opportunity to optimize the assembly somewhat.
And the legal opinion there was that to switch licenses would require the approval of every copyright holder.
By contributing to the codebase they did not actually assign you copyright...so each contributor holds copyright in the portion that they actually wrote.
Even now it's possible to just make a good product, treat your employees right, and sell it for a fair price.
Some personal examples in the woodworking tools category: Lie-Nielsen Toolworks, Veritas Tools.
The problem is that the physical DVD netflix service has a selection that is different from the streaming netflix service. If you want the increased selection, you have to forego the ability to download it.
There is no technical barrier preventing netflix from allowing you to download a DRM'd exact copy of a DVD. You could then play it, or transfer it to another device, or maybe even transcode it for smaller screens and transfer it to another device, all within their app. The only barrier is copyright. And by allowing in-advance downloads you could preload devices for use where there is no data connection.
The OP is suggesting that this copyright barrier doesn't make sense.
The streaming library is currently different from the physical DVD library. Not everything is in both.
I would support a model that actually reflects the real costs involved...that is a fixed monthly cost for the physical connection, and a variable per-GB charge.
The reason why most people don't like bandwidth metering is that the ISPs charge way too much per GB at the retail level. And if you lump the connection costs in with the bandwidth costs then the high-usage people end up subsidizing the low-usage people. It's much more fair to break out the fees separately (the way my gas/electrical/etc bills do it).
I think if end-users were charged a per-GB rate that was more in line with the wholesale rate plus a reasonable amount of profit then there would be minimal complaints.
If it was only about equal traffic in both directions netflix could just have all their clients send random data back to their servers and then just drop all the data. That would increase the overall network load, but it would be "balanced".
Seriously, it makes no sense that increasing the overall network load would reduce the fees being paid. That's ridiculous.