Notice how some people will try to make everything an example for/against their preferred/other political party, despite the fact that the POTUS wasn't involved.
Sprint will renew their offer to buy T-Mobile, and possibly sell some spectrum to AT&T and/or Verizon in markets where Sprint + T-Mobile has more spectrum than they need. That would make almost everyone happy (maybe not some T-Mobile customers). AT&T will complain, but that's just because they don't want anything that might make Sprint a stronger competitor. Verizon probably won't object. Just my $0.02 of speculation.
Re:next we'll hear that Dell is in trouble...
on
Dell Ditches Netbooks
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
For new distributions, you're correct. However, disabling/removing them from existing installations with the express consent of the user is "malware-like behavior".
Tax credits don't actually lower the cost, they just hide it (and distribute it across all tax payers), so no, it's not $0.12/KWh. It's $0.17/KWh, and that's before you count the cost of interest on $40k over 20 years. Even if you have $40k in savings so you don't have to borrow the money, you're still losing the interest you could earn on that money. $40k @ 5% for 20 years is $63,356, so that cost will be ~ $0.25/KWh. And that's assuming you have no maintenance costs on the panels or interconnect components over 20 years. $0.30/KWh might be a little high, but it's pretty close.
Since a 9KW system will produce an average of 1620 KWh/month (~ 25% net efficiency yearly average in US), you might be selling about 600 KWh/mo back to the utility, but you'll be selling it at wholesale prices of $0.06-$0.09/KWh so you'll might make $35-$55/mo to offset some of those costs. It's still not going to be $0.17/KWh net, and definitely nowhere near $0.12/KWh, at best, it'll be near $0.20/KWh average net cost. In sunnier areas, you'll produce more electricity, but you'll use more for air conditioning. In the northeast, you'll produce and use less electricity (unless you have electric heat, in which case you'll use more).
The bottom line is that PV panel costs (production and installation) and efficiencies still need to improve significantly.
I was in the math club in HS, and I took "number sense" tests where you're not permitted to use a calculator or write anything other than the answer (no scratch paper either), everything must be done in your head. Shortcuts such as the one you described are exactly how we worked out such problems. Number sense tests are also timed, so you have to do it in your head very quickly and accurately (all answers must be given accurate to 3 decimal places if decimals are necessary). There are many such shortcuts, and they're extremely handy in everyday life, much more so than formal, long-hand operations.
False. They don't need Pu to start up, they need a small amount of fissile material (e.g. 235U) to get them through the first 45 days. Once in operation, they breed their own fissile fuel.
That's a false interpretation. A machine purchased 6 days before the release of 3.21 firmware would still be under warranty.
It's bait and switch, and Sony must be held accountable.
P.S. I'm not even a gamer and I don't own a PS3 (or an Xbox or Wii), so I have no personal stake in this. But as an outside observer, this is wrong, ethically and legally.
1. Anyone who send a failed machine to Sony for repair received a replacement unit with OtherOS removed. 2. PSN and some new games require the firmware update, therefore, a non-updated PS3 is crippled and can't play games that are designed and market for updated PS3's. Since the PS3 is primarily marketed as a game console, the inability to play new games designed for the PS3 is contrary to the primary purpose of the machine, thus "crippling" it.
Removing it after purchase is still bait and switch. And "you don't have to update" is not a valid defense for several reasons:
1. Some newer games require the update, therefore, the device is impaired if you don't apply the update. 2. If it fails and you have to send it to Sony for repair, it will be returned with the update and you have no way to revert to the previous firmware, so you can no longer use another OS.
It's bait and switch, they need to refile the suit or appeal the decision.
You can only insult those who choose to be insulted. It's a lesson many people fail to learn from the old nursery rhyme "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
CarrierIQ claiming the responsibility is all on the carriers is a bit of a stretch. It's like a lock manufacturer giving your home builder (or mortgage company) a key to your house, then trying to claim they have no responsibility for how the home builder (or mortgage company) uses that key. Claiming "we didn't know they were going to rob or rape you" doesn't really absolve them of responsibility or liability.
Well, if it's that important that you get you mail every day, it'll be worth the trip. If not, you can wait 24 hours. Your argument is based upon you personal convenience, not one of need or practicality. Still doesn't justify having 6 day a week delivery to every address.
A religious rant, condemning other theories as inadequate, antiquated, and conforming to orthodoxy. On the internet too. Wow, who would have anticipated that?
26% of IT Pros don't have enough work to keep them busy. In their spare time, the snoop confidential information. Fire half of that 26% and see what happens.
And right there is the fundamental flaw. Most people don't make rational decisions, even if they have all the necessary information (which they almost never do). It is for that reason that "free markets" as espoused by most proponents of free markets are unrealistic. Free markets are an ideal that should guide your regulation of the markets, but the markets can never really be free.
The point is that there is no need for 6 day-a-week deliveries for residential (and many business) customers. "Most local delivery" is not overnight currently, some arrives overnight, but not most. The fact that not everyone waits until the last minute to mail a bill if irrelevant to my point. Mail gets delayed for a variety of reasons, and reducing commercial deliveries to every other day increases the odds that a payment mailed will be received a day later, which could result in late charges. It's one valid reason to "give commercial interests preferential treatment".
My comparison is a direct response to your post. It's not unfair at all, it's a simple acknowledgement of the market forces. You'll also note that I in my original post I suggested that even commercial routes might also be reduced to 3 day a week service with only PO Boxes receiving daily delivery. If you're willing to pay extra for the PO Box to receive daily delivery, you should get preferential treatment as saves the USPS gasoline and delivery time vs home/business delivery and you're paying extra to rent the box. Nothing unfair about it.
6 day a week delivery is simply unnecessary, and it's impractical to delivery that often to every address. 3 day a week delivery would save significantly on carrier time and fuel costs for those deliveries. It may still be necessary to increase the cost of postage and/or decrease the amount of "air mail", but 3 day a week delivery is still the single best cost saving measure for the USPS.
Do you want your bills to be posted 1 day late (and you encounter a late fee) because the mail delivery was delayed a day? "Commercial interests" are often also consumer's interests. Besides, those "commercial interests" already send the vast majority of mail via USPS, so they're the one's paying the vast majority of the USPS revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Notice how some people will try to make everything an example for/against their preferred/other political party, despite the fact that the POTUS wasn't involved.
Sprint will renew their offer to buy T-Mobile, and possibly sell some spectrum to AT&T and/or Verizon in markets where Sprint + T-Mobile has more spectrum than they need. That would make almost everyone happy (maybe not some T-Mobile customers). AT&T will complain, but that's just because they don't want anything that might make Sprint a stronger competitor. Verizon probably won't object. Just my $0.02 of speculation.
Compared to a netbook with an Atom, it's a steal.
Of course, I meant "...without express consent..."
For new distributions, you're correct. However, disabling/removing them from existing installations with the express consent of the user is "malware-like behavior".
No one sold a comparable machine 10 years ago, not at any price. It wasn't possible to make a comparable machine 10 years ago.
Tax credits don't actually lower the cost, they just hide it (and distribute it across all tax payers), so no, it's not $0.12/KWh. It's $0.17/KWh, and that's before you count the cost of interest on $40k over 20 years. Even if you have $40k in savings so you don't have to borrow the money, you're still losing the interest you could earn on that money. $40k @ 5% for 20 years is $63,356, so that cost will be ~ $0.25/KWh. And that's assuming you have no maintenance costs on the panels or interconnect components over 20 years. $0.30/KWh might be a little high, but it's pretty close.
Since a 9KW system will produce an average of 1620 KWh/month (~ 25% net efficiency yearly average in US), you might be selling about 600 KWh/mo back to the utility, but you'll be selling it at wholesale prices of $0.06-$0.09/KWh so you'll might make $35-$55/mo to offset some of those costs. It's still not going to be $0.17/KWh net, and definitely nowhere near $0.12/KWh, at best, it'll be near $0.20/KWh average net cost. In sunnier areas, you'll produce more electricity, but you'll use more for air conditioning. In the northeast, you'll produce and use less electricity (unless you have electric heat, in which case you'll use more).
The bottom line is that PV panel costs (production and installation) and efficiencies still need to improve significantly.
I was in the math club in HS, and I took "number sense" tests where you're not permitted to use a calculator or write anything other than the answer (no scratch paper either), everything must be done in your head. Shortcuts such as the one you described are exactly how we worked out such problems. Number sense tests are also timed, so you have to do it in your head very quickly and accurately (all answers must be given accurate to 3 decimal places if decimals are necessary). There are many such shortcuts, and they're extremely handy in everyday life, much more so than formal, long-hand operations.
How about the fact that the raised limits are approximately the same as the limits in the USA. The original limits in Japan were absurdly low.
People say "theft" and "stealing" only because there isn't a word for "duplicating without permission something someone else worked hard to make".
Sure there is, Copyright infringement.
False. They don't need Pu to start up, they need a small amount of fissile material (e.g. 235U) to get them through the first 45 days. Once in operation, they breed their own fissile fuel.
That's a false interpretation. A machine purchased 6 days before the release of 3.21 firmware would still be under warranty.
It's bait and switch, and Sony must be held accountable.
P.S. I'm not even a gamer and I don't own a PS3 (or an Xbox or Wii), so I have no personal stake in this. But as an outside observer, this is wrong, ethically and legally.
Wrong.
1. Anyone who send a failed machine to Sony for repair received a replacement unit with OtherOS removed.
2. PSN and some new games require the firmware update, therefore, a non-updated PS3 is crippled and can't play games that are designed and market for updated PS3's. Since the PS3 is primarily marketed as a game console, the inability to play new games designed for the PS3 is contrary to the primary purpose of the machine, thus "crippling" it.
Removing it after purchase is still bait and switch. And "you don't have to update" is not a valid defense for several reasons:
1. Some newer games require the update, therefore, the device is impaired if you don't apply the update.
2. If it fails and you have to send it to Sony for repair, it will be returned with the update and you have no way to revert to the previous firmware, so you can no longer use another OS.
It's bait and switch, they need to refile the suit or appeal the decision.
This weapon will be ineffective against Dark Helmet.
You can only insult those who choose to be insulted. It's a lesson many people fail to learn from the old nursery rhyme "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
CarrierIQ claiming the responsibility is all on the carriers is a bit of a stretch. It's like a lock manufacturer giving your home builder (or mortgage company) a key to your house, then trying to claim they have no responsibility for how the home builder (or mortgage company) uses that key. Claiming "we didn't know they were going to rob or rape you" doesn't really absolve them of responsibility or liability.
Well, if it's that important that you get you mail every day, it'll be worth the trip. If not, you can wait 24 hours. Your argument is based upon you personal convenience, not one of need or practicality. Still doesn't justify having 6 day a week delivery to every address.
You mean Mathematical models like the theory of gravity? Yup, sounds pretty reasonable.
A religious rant, condemning other theories as inadequate, antiquated, and conforming to orthodoxy. On the internet too. Wow, who would have anticipated that?
Maybe it's the start of the another renaissance.
26% of IT Pros don't have enough work to keep them busy. In their spare time, the snoop confidential information. Fire half of that 26% and see what happens.
And right there is the fundamental flaw. Most people don't make rational decisions, even if they have all the necessary information (which they almost never do). It is for that reason that "free markets" as espoused by most proponents of free markets are unrealistic. Free markets are an ideal that should guide your regulation of the markets, but the markets can never really be free.
The point is that there is no need for 6 day-a-week deliveries for residential (and many business) customers. "Most local delivery" is not overnight currently, some arrives overnight, but not most. The fact that not everyone waits until the last minute to mail a bill if irrelevant to my point. Mail gets delayed for a variety of reasons, and reducing commercial deliveries to every other day increases the odds that a payment mailed will be received a day later, which could result in late charges. It's one valid reason to "give commercial interests preferential treatment".
My comparison is a direct response to your post. It's not unfair at all, it's a simple acknowledgement of the market forces. You'll also note that I in my original post I suggested that even commercial routes might also be reduced to 3 day a week service with only PO Boxes receiving daily delivery. If you're willing to pay extra for the PO Box to receive daily delivery, you should get preferential treatment as saves the USPS gasoline and delivery time vs home/business delivery and you're paying extra to rent the box. Nothing unfair about it.
6 day a week delivery is simply unnecessary, and it's impractical to delivery that often to every address. 3 day a week delivery would save significantly on carrier time and fuel costs for those deliveries. It may still be necessary to increase the cost of postage and/or decrease the amount of "air mail", but 3 day a week delivery is still the single best cost saving measure for the USPS.
Do you want your bills to be posted 1 day late (and you encounter a late fee) because the mail delivery was delayed a day? "Commercial interests" are often also consumer's interests. Besides, those "commercial interests" already send the vast majority of mail via USPS, so they're the one's paying the vast majority of the USPS revenue.