Instead of harassing the customers, they could pay a couple armed guards to sit on every flight and things would go smoother all around. And actually have a chance at stopping the terrorists that get by.
"Police reports, court records, internal memos and e-mails indicate that air marshals have been convicted of bribery, bank fraud and abducting a hired escort while on layover. They've slept on planes and lost diplomatic documents on a whiskey-tasting trip in Scotland."
I have a son who, at 2, would bite his graham cracker into a vaguely gun shape and then shoot you with it. He also has two little toy dinosaurs. The bigger one is named "dinosaur" and the smaller one "lunch". Can you guess their relationship? The girls in the house just don't do this sort of thing. I can't quite quantify what it is they do, but they have personalities that just strike me as distinctly more girl-like, even at very young ages.
Another boy in the household wanted a 'bad-guy-toy' at age 2. He didn't even know what it was, yet, but he knew he wanted one and spent fifteen minutes trying to make his mom understand that it was a gun he was asking for. And he'd been raised on almost no TV, as well (at least to that point). This same boy, now 7, acts like a goofy showoff whenever any new female is in the house (his age or older). When a new male is in the house, he starts playing hitting and tackling games, like he's trying to assert dominance. He clearly has no idea why he's doing what he's doing, or even that he is doing it, but somewhere deep in the prehistoric part of his brain he's attracting mates and asserting dominance. Its cute, in a disturbing sort of way.
Since when have cows and sheep not been "grazing animals"? I can actually see them grazing, right now, by looking out of my window.
Since the overwhelmingly vast majority of the ones available for consumption in the US have been grown in factory farms where they get fed corn and grain from cultivated fields. I don't think we could possibly grow as much beef on the open range as we consume, today. If we were to ban factory farmed beef we'd have to seriously cut back on the amount of meat we consume, and I don't think most Americans would take kindly to that. The same is likely true of quite a few other first world nations, as well.
I tried getting around their poor stocking issues buy doing the buy it online, pick it up in-store thing when they started advertising that. (And, miraculously, had something at a price worth buying.) Unfortunately, that meant waiting in a customer service line because they never fleshed the policy out well. What was billed as 'walk in with your receipt, walk out with product' turned into an hour long ordeal of waiting at the counter and then explaining what the hell I'd bought as they had no clue about what I was trying to do. In the end, I'm guessing someone went into the back room, snuck into the store and grabbed the product off the shelf, and then came back in and handed it to me with an invoice taped to it. I think that was the last time I purchased anything there, and that was at least 5 or 6 years ago. I did get a good laugh reading their Black Friday "Sales" flyer last year, though.
I think the Republican Party needs to lay low for a few years, be an opposition party, and come up with a new plan and a new message. We've played all the old cards and its time to come up with the something new.
Maybe they could become the party of fiscal responsibility and small government again, it worked pretty well before they abandoned it a couple decades ago. They keep airing ads about "those tax and spend liberals," which are funny coming from what's now the party of tax and spend conservatives.
This person guessed the correct password, looked at the e-mail then posted screenshots. The wiretapping analogy is accurate up until the part where he posted screenshots. The person who changed the account is the whistleblower who alerted authorities, supposedly on the pretense of preventing "further damages". There is no reason for anon to CHANGE her password if the snooping was done for the lulz.
Anon made guesses to some of the questions in Yahoo's "Forgot my password" form, and was able to reset the password so he could get into the account. He didn't figure out the original password itself. The whistleblower changed the password a second time, so the original cracker couldn't get back in.
My thought was that while they might all pass the specified tests, the QC on the manufacturing equipment isn't all the same and defects not tested for might slip out in one fab and not another. Adds more variability to the product. Then again, you may be right, the competition from fab providers may mean they produce better product than the locked-in fully owned fab.
Unfortunately, the downside is that they probably won't be contracting to their spinoff for 100% of their manufacturing requirements, and as a result we can expect to see chips manufactured in a variety of locations with a variety of quality controls. The occasional complete failure of an entire run of hard drives comes to mind.
4) You're right, but we'd have to raise the driving age in America to 25 to accomplish it because too many people here are dumb-asses. IMO, 16 is way too young for someone to be driving.
No good. Anecdotally (I know, I know, anecdotes are not good data, but no data exists here) everyone I know who's gotten their license in their mid 20's or later has been a very unobservant driver. For some reason, it seems that if you don't have basic driving skills incorporated into you while you're still developing you'll just never get them. I wouldn't be averse to making the age 18, but 25 is too much.
Actually, I'm beginning to think that driving, voting, drinking, smoking, military service, and all the other 'rights and privileges' that you earn between 16 and 21 should be consolidated to one single age, maybe 19, with provisional/learning licenses (fully licensed driver must be present) starting a year earlier for those that are relevant (i.e., driving). (Follows from the "if you have a right to X then you should have the right to Y" type arguments.) Basically state that you become a legal adult on your 19th birthday and have all the rights, privileges, and obligations attendant thereto. (The only exception being sex, because teens will be teens, a restriction such as sex with a minor (remember, minor includes 18 year olds in this scheme) is statutory rape if you're more than 4 years older than the other person, 2 years if they're under 16.)
No, it isn't, the initial condition said there were only 6 more cars to pass. If one lets me in early, great, if not, so be it. I'm not going to add 10mph to my own speed just to please someone who's already shown disregard for the life and property of myself and others.
As for the ambulance comparison, if you're delivering someone to the hospital yourself odds are good that the extra minute you spend behind some guy who can't reasonably change lanes isn't going to make that much difference.
Being stuck behind a pileup is nothing, it means you weren't part of the pileup. And if you left a couple seconds between, you were probably able to brake at a reasonable rate of deceleration. If the guy behind you hits you he was probably also trying to brake, so what you have is a relatively low speed collision. And you've been rear-ended as well, so not only are you not going to take the lion's share of the insurance hit, you're going to fare better in the collision because you're being pressed into your seat, not the windshield. Far better alternative than being one of the two cars actually causing the collision in the first place.
Apply my right turn indicator and continue to proceed at my current speed while watching for a sufficiently large opening in traffic to my right. Perhaps add 1 or 2 mph to my speed, if there's only 6 more cars to pass.
He'll live. (And if he's on his way to the hospital, and someone won't live, he should've called for an ambulance, which has lights & sirens for just this sort of situation.)
At 40%, you're talking about 400W when in direct sunlight. With eight hours of sunlight per day the average house needs less than four square metres. Now, of course, you aren't going to be using the most power at the times when these are generating, but it can definitely put a significant dent in your electricity bills.
Your math reads, to me: 400W * 4 * 8 hours * 365 days = 4,672kWh/yr
Unfortunately, both the 8 hours per day and the average usage per year are incorrect.
Average electricity use in 2001 was 11,965kWh/yr [ US EPA ]. Average solar power insolation in the US is around 4.8kWh/day [ Solar Insolation for U.S. Major Cities ] (caveat: I took the average of the listed cities averages, so it'll be skewed towards more populous regions in the US)
Therefore, 11965/(365*4.8*400 = 17m^2 of this material, just to generate enough energy over the course of the year to net zero over the power company's input. If you want to be grid free, you need to size for the worst case (winter), which is 3.75kWh/day, or 22m^2. That does sound like a lot, but then again, 22m^2, is only about 5m by 5m (15ft x 15ft). Even a single story 1000 square foot home has at least twice that on each side of its roof.
I'll note, though, that this average probably includes air conditioning and electric heat, which are huge energy sinks. But then again, if they're what people want, then they'll need to be able to support them in their system.
$75k is barely making it in most markets (especially California). Rent in most places in California is 1 bed room for $1k+.
Which is then, what -- 16% of your income? At that rate you can live quite comfortably on $75K.
But we're not talking about one person, the problem comes with people that have families to support.
Presume an average family of 4. First, account for taxes, health insurance, worker's comp, etc fees. From $75k/yr, you're left with $50k/yr. Next, you're probably going to want a 3 bedroom home (2 adults, 2 kids). In areas with IT jobs, that's going to run you about $2,500/month, or $30k/yr, subtract auto insurance ($1500-$2000/yr for one vehicle), commuting fuel ($2500/yr with a reasonably fuel efficient vehicle and a commute of only 30 miles each way, or train/parking fees, remember that's only $10/working day), utilities - gas, power, water ($2000/yr - I'm not sure how energy rates in CA are at the moment, this is probably very conservative), food ($10,000 for a family of 4, based on national average food spent per person per year), vehicle ownership/maintenance costs ($4000/yr in payments and/or repairs). We've now gone into the red by $500/year, and that's just the obvious big ticket items off the top of my head. No savings, no movies, no recreation for a single-worker family of four in this scenario.
A big portion of this is the obscene housing rates right now in CA, dropping them from $2,500 to $2,000/month would save $6,000 a year, making $75k/yr for a middle class standard of living manageable again, if you're ok with only having one vehicle. Unfortunately, the numbers mean that today, in most cases a family of four will end up requiring both parents to work just to make ends meet.
Now don't forget, the second parent probably isn't going to take home as much as the first (honestly, in most 2 adult families, one adult has higher earning potential than the other, simply by virtue of different interests and training, even ignoring gender issues) and taxes will go up if you have 2 people working because you're in a higher tax bracket now. So presume the second earner makes $50,000, now your family brings in $80,000 take home pay (after taxes, insurance, fees, etc). That's an extra $30,000/yr, but now we have daycare ($10,000/yr, presuming one's of school age), another vehicle ($4000 maintenance/payment + $2500 fuel + $1500 insurance) leaving us $11,500/year (just under $1000/month) including the -$500 from the previous paragraph. Still barely enough for any substantial savings, but at least its manageable. Incidentally, this means that the minimum the second wage-earner can make is $30,000/year ($15/hr) for the second job to cover its own costs.
I'm assuming that the military would not have to release source code in UAV's because they tend to get those products back and therefore it would be an internal product or application. They'd have to release the source for any bombs or missiles though because they are delivering that product to the public.
No, you're mistaken. The source for bombs or missles is part of the delivery system, much like the source code in a UPS driver's tablet computer, it is not intended to be consumed by the public. The applicable software is effectively removed from the system upon successful delivery.
Out of 10 million passengers per day, it will, on a daily basis, flag 2.2 million passengers as possible terrorists. (You lost a decimal place.)
Plus, most days there really just aren't any terrorists trying to blow up planes. In a bad scenario, such as 9/11, we may have 20 terrorists trying to get through the system. This system will flag 16 of them as terrorists and let the other 4 through (on average), but those 16 flagged will be put into the same category as 2.2 million other passengers. So what if we can detect actual terrorists with 78% accuracy, if our false positive rate is 22% the system is utterly useless.
Most of the sunlight converted to electricity in a PV comes in from a single point source, effectively, which is the sun. Making a 3d object instead of 2d doesn't change the fraction of the plane of light that's being used. The 3d in this case seems to be in sending light that isn't the right wavelength down to other layers capable of handling that wavelength. The improvement here is, theoretically, absorption of greater spectrum. If he can increase the useful spectrum of wavelengths being converted to 500 times what we can convert now, then this might be useful, but I don't think there's quite that much useful energy outside the spectrum of light.
That said, I'm betting he believes his theoretical efficiency increase is 500%, which is 5 times the current rate, and the number got misreported because a reporter didn't understand that 500% is not 500 times, but just 5 times.
A 500% improvement over standard commercial cells is reasonable, especially if he's dramatically widening the convertible spectrum. 9% better than 40% efficiency is 43.6%, 43.6% is 500% better than 8.7% efficiency . 9x better than 40% efficiency is 360%, 360% is 500x better than.72% efficiency. In the former case, the numbers work out to be very close to real, current technology. The latter case is obviously nonsensical, even if you grant that it could be 360% efficient in comparison to current cells by virtue of some vast increase in available spectrum.
This isn't the first time linking has been addressed in the courts. Deep linking, in particular, was addressed in Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com (USDistCt - 2000 Aug 10 - FDQ4 371774), though I expect that was in a different district. That case referred to deep linking, and this case refers to linking right to the homepage. I think it'd be obvious that the city would have no cause to issue a cease and desist against her, and such an instrument could be construed, by itself, as an attack. That's likely what she's responding to, and if she can prove that they initiated a police investigation and used it to tarnish her reputation, then she might have a case against the city.
Though, it also sounds like she's bearing a grudge against the city for something, so I'm not sure how much I can believe her. I think this is a non-story until the court comes back with something, or something comes out in discovery.
Well, they chose it as word of the year, but didn't actually add it to the dictionary. "Word of the year" is like that sometimes, its a word that's on everyone's lips but isn't necessarily what academics would consider a "real" word.
But words like truthiness, wassup, and so forth do end up in the dictionary at times. Most dictionaries specifically indicate "slang" in their word definitions, however, so you should be safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Also to limit time. Life of the author plus 70 years, or 95 years for a work of corporate authorship, is just obscene.
You mean like air marshals?
No, I think the gender norms aren't entirely social constructs.
Yep, sorry, I read it and my brain skipped that part.
I have a son who, at 2, would bite his graham cracker into a vaguely gun shape and then shoot you with it. He also has two little toy dinosaurs. The bigger one is named "dinosaur" and the smaller one "lunch". Can you guess their relationship? The girls in the house just don't do this sort of thing. I can't quite quantify what it is they do, but they have personalities that just strike me as distinctly more girl-like, even at very young ages.
Another boy in the household wanted a 'bad-guy-toy' at age 2. He didn't even know what it was, yet, but he knew he wanted one and spent fifteen minutes trying to make his mom understand that it was a gun he was asking for. And he'd been raised on almost no TV, as well (at least to that point). This same boy, now 7, acts like a goofy showoff whenever any new female is in the house (his age or older). When a new male is in the house, he starts playing hitting and tackling games, like he's trying to assert dominance. He clearly has no idea why he's doing what he's doing, or even that he is doing it, but somewhere deep in the prehistoric part of his brain he's attracting mates and asserting dominance. Its cute, in a disturbing sort of way.
Does the law say they have to be valid?
Since the overwhelmingly vast majority of the ones available for consumption in the US have been grown in factory farms where they get fed corn and grain from cultivated fields. I don't think we could possibly grow as much beef on the open range as we consume, today. If we were to ban factory farmed beef we'd have to seriously cut back on the amount of meat we consume, and I don't think most Americans would take kindly to that. The same is likely true of quite a few other first world nations, as well.
Now that he's a Space Ace he has to rescue a princess he goes time travelling. He's just cleaning up some loose ends first.
I tried getting around their poor stocking issues buy doing the buy it online, pick it up in-store thing when they started advertising that. (And, miraculously, had something at a price worth buying.) Unfortunately, that meant waiting in a customer service line because they never fleshed the policy out well. What was billed as 'walk in with your receipt, walk out with product' turned into an hour long ordeal of waiting at the counter and then explaining what the hell I'd bought as they had no clue about what I was trying to do. In the end, I'm guessing someone went into the back room, snuck into the store and grabbed the product off the shelf, and then came back in and handed it to me with an invoice taped to it. I think that was the last time I purchased anything there, and that was at least 5 or 6 years ago. I did get a good laugh reading their Black Friday "Sales" flyer last year, though.
Maybe they could become the party of fiscal responsibility and small government again, it worked pretty well before they abandoned it a couple decades ago. They keep airing ads about "those tax and spend liberals," which are funny coming from what's now the party of tax and spend conservatives.
Anon made guesses to some of the questions in Yahoo's "Forgot my password" form, and was able to reset the password so he could get into the account. He didn't figure out the original password itself. The whistleblower changed the password a second time, so the original cracker couldn't get back in.
My thought was that while they might all pass the specified tests, the QC on the manufacturing equipment isn't all the same and defects not tested for might slip out in one fab and not another. Adds more variability to the product. Then again, you may be right, the competition from fab providers may mean they produce better product than the locked-in fully owned fab.
Unfortunately, the downside is that they probably won't be contracting to their spinoff for 100% of their manufacturing requirements, and as a result we can expect to see chips manufactured in a variety of locations with a variety of quality controls. The occasional complete failure of an entire run of hard drives comes to mind.
No good. Anecdotally (I know, I know, anecdotes are not good data, but no data exists here) everyone I know who's gotten their license in their mid 20's or later has been a very unobservant driver. For some reason, it seems that if you don't have basic driving skills incorporated into you while you're still developing you'll just never get them. I wouldn't be averse to making the age 18, but 25 is too much.
Actually, I'm beginning to think that driving, voting, drinking, smoking, military service, and all the other 'rights and privileges' that you earn between 16 and 21 should be consolidated to one single age, maybe 19, with provisional/learning licenses (fully licensed driver must be present) starting a year earlier for those that are relevant (i.e., driving). (Follows from the "if you have a right to X then you should have the right to Y" type arguments.) Basically state that you become a legal adult on your 19th birthday and have all the rights, privileges, and obligations attendant thereto. (The only exception being sex, because teens will be teens, a restriction such as sex with a minor (remember, minor includes 18 year olds in this scheme) is statutory rape if you're more than 4 years older than the other person, 2 years if they're under 16.)
As for the ambulance comparison, if you're delivering someone to the hospital yourself odds are good that the extra minute you spend behind some guy who can't reasonably change lanes isn't going to make that much difference.
Being stuck behind a pileup is nothing, it means you weren't part of the pileup. And if you left a couple seconds between, you were probably able to brake at a reasonable rate of deceleration. If the guy behind you hits you he was probably also trying to brake, so what you have is a relatively low speed collision. And you've been rear-ended as well, so not only are you not going to take the lion's share of the insurance hit, you're going to fare better in the collision because you're being pressed into your seat, not the windshield. Far better alternative than being one of the two cars actually causing the collision in the first place.
He'll live. (And if he's on his way to the hospital, and someone won't live, he should've called for an ambulance, which has lights & sirens for just this sort of situation.)
It is when you're trying to convince a voter who's voting in the right state that he's registered in a different state.
Your math reads, to me: 400W * 4 * 8 hours * 365 days = 4,672kWh/yr
Unfortunately, both the 8 hours per day and the average usage per year are incorrect.
Average electricity use in 2001 was 11,965kWh/yr [ US EPA ]. Average solar power insolation in the US is around 4.8kWh/day [ Solar Insolation for U.S. Major Cities ] (caveat: I took the average of the listed cities averages, so it'll be skewed towards more populous regions in the US)
Therefore, 11965/(365*4.8*400 = 17m^2 of this material, just to generate enough energy over the course of the year to net zero over the power company's input. If you want to be grid free, you need to size for the worst case (winter), which is 3.75kWh/day, or 22m^2. That does sound like a lot, but then again, 22m^2, is only about 5m by 5m (15ft x 15ft). Even a single story 1000 square foot home has at least twice that on each side of its roof.
I'll note, though, that this average probably includes air conditioning and electric heat, which are huge energy sinks. But then again, if they're what people want, then they'll need to be able to support them in their system.
But we're not talking about one person, the problem comes with people that have families to support.
Presume an average family of 4. First, account for taxes, health insurance, worker's comp, etc fees. From $75k/yr, you're left with $50k/yr. Next, you're probably going to want a 3 bedroom home (2 adults, 2 kids). In areas with IT jobs, that's going to run you about $2,500/month, or $30k/yr, subtract auto insurance ($1500-$2000/yr for one vehicle), commuting fuel ($2500/yr with a reasonably fuel efficient vehicle and a commute of only 30 miles each way, or train/parking fees, remember that's only $10/working day), utilities - gas, power, water ($2000/yr - I'm not sure how energy rates in CA are at the moment, this is probably very conservative), food ($10,000 for a family of 4, based on national average food spent per person per year), vehicle ownership/maintenance costs ($4000/yr in payments and/or repairs). We've now gone into the red by $500/year, and that's just the obvious big ticket items off the top of my head. No savings, no movies, no recreation for a single-worker family of four in this scenario.
A big portion of this is the obscene housing rates right now in CA, dropping them from $2,500 to $2,000/month would save $6,000 a year, making $75k/yr for a middle class standard of living manageable again, if you're ok with only having one vehicle. Unfortunately, the numbers mean that today, in most cases a family of four will end up requiring both parents to work just to make ends meet.
Now don't forget, the second parent probably isn't going to take home as much as the first (honestly, in most 2 adult families, one adult has higher earning potential than the other, simply by virtue of different interests and training, even ignoring gender issues) and taxes will go up if you have 2 people working because you're in a higher tax bracket now. So presume the second earner makes $50,000, now your family brings in $80,000 take home pay (after taxes, insurance, fees, etc). That's an extra $30,000/yr, but now we have daycare ($10,000/yr, presuming one's of school age), another vehicle ($4000 maintenance/payment + $2500 fuel + $1500 insurance) leaving us $11,500/year (just under $1000/month) including the -$500 from the previous paragraph. Still barely enough for any substantial savings, but at least its manageable. Incidentally, this means that the minimum the second wage-earner can make is $30,000/year ($15/hr) for the second job to cover its own costs.
No, you're mistaken. The source for bombs or missles is part of the delivery system, much like the source code in a UPS driver's tablet computer, it is not intended to be consumed by the public. The applicable software is effectively removed from the system upon successful delivery.
You're being pretty generous there.
Out of 10 million passengers per day, it will, on a daily basis, flag 2.2 million passengers as possible terrorists. (You lost a decimal place.)
Plus, most days there really just aren't any terrorists trying to blow up planes. In a bad scenario, such as 9/11, we may have 20 terrorists trying to get through the system. This system will flag 16 of them as terrorists and let the other 4 through (on average), but those 16 flagged will be put into the same category as 2.2 million other passengers. So what if we can detect actual terrorists with 78% accuracy, if our false positive rate is 22% the system is utterly useless.
That said, I'm betting he believes his theoretical efficiency increase is 500%, which is 5 times the current rate, and the number got misreported because a reporter didn't understand that 500% is not 500 times, but just 5 times.
A 500% improvement over standard commercial cells is reasonable, especially if he's dramatically widening the convertible spectrum. 9% better than 40% efficiency is 43.6%, 43.6% is 500% better than 8.7% efficiency . 9x better than 40% efficiency is 360%, 360% is 500x better than .72% efficiency. In the former case, the numbers work out to be very close to real, current technology. The latter case is obviously nonsensical, even if you grant that it could be 360% efficient in comparison to current cells by virtue of some vast increase in available spectrum.
Though, it also sounds like she's bearing a grudge against the city for something, so I'm not sure how much I can believe her. I think this is a non-story until the court comes back with something, or something comes out in discovery.
Well, they chose it as word of the year, but didn't actually add it to the dictionary. "Word of the year" is like that sometimes, its a word that's on everyone's lips but isn't necessarily what academics would consider a "real" word. But words like truthiness, wassup, and so forth do end up in the dictionary at times. Most dictionaries specifically indicate "slang" in their word definitions, however, so you should be safe.