Cell phone services over here are just dreadful. Why you all pay so much for such mediocre service, I really don't know.
Do you know how to pay less for better service in the US?
I didn't think so.
There's your answer. In the US, you have the choice of high-priced, mediocre service or no service at all. To make matters worse, a cell phone has almost become an essential tool for most Americans. So if you want better and cheaper service, your only (unrealistic) choice is to leave the country.
Ideally, our capitalist economy should keep all the prices down, but the cellular giants collude to keep prices high and service poor. They also lobby the government to prevent any mandated change.
It's completely appalling, but very very hard to change as a voter choosing from an extremely limited subset of corrupt politicians. That said, no country is perfect. I am sure there are some things about the US that you find superior to Britain as well.
Silly? I don't see how that question makes me look bad in the eyes of an employer that I would want to be employed by. It only makes me look bad in the eyes of employers that I don't want to work for.
Better to find out the important things first with practical questions so that I don't waste the company's time and money, and they don't waste my time.
I don't need offers from many companies especially ones that are a poor match. I only need one offer from a company that I wouldn't mind working for.
Maybe if I'm really desperate I'd do that, but for now, I'm not.
Don't be snotty. It's a small world. Even if you realize in the interview that you *hate* the company and the boss, it is better to finish the interview with class and leave a positive impression. Word (and people) gets around, and you never know, you may come crawling back to that company a year later when the economy tanks.
I understand where you are coming from, but you have to remember that life is a series of constraints. What wasn't an appealing job when you were single and fresh out of school might seem more interesting when you have a wife, two kids and a mortgage to support.
Considering that Iranians were complaining about incredibly slow bandwidth rates and blocked websites during the same time periods that traffic dropped by 80%, it is safe to say that filtering is to blame for the traffic reduction.
80% is a massive drop in traffic from protesting alone. It isn't like these kids don't have cell phone data plans and the ability to setup wireless access points on the fly. For some of them, protesting involved trying to organize and network via the internet and they have stated that they were unable to do so.
Why do cops use horses for crowd control? They can make people move out of the way. It is probably similar with the Segway.
I thought they used them at public events because it raised them up above the crowd, making them more visible and giving them a better view of things. Plus, let's face it, cops look cool on horses and demand respect. This is because the other people who typically ride horses are knights and cowboys.
You know who rides Segways? Lazy rich bastards, snotty nerds, and fat mall security guards.
Would you rather be associated with a mall security guard or a cowboy?
Less than you'd think - the biggest damage is not caused by the impact, but by the supersonic shock wave of superheated air preceding the meteor. In a thin atmosphere like Mars, there's a much less pronounced shock wave.
What!?!?! Do you have any technical qualifications to make that statement? Because from a scientific standpoint, it is complete bullshit.
No way. I completely disagree with you. That's like saying that a bullet doesn't hurt you that much, but the shock it drives in the air ahead of it does all the damage. Think about the impedance mismatch between the shocked air and the solid ground... it makes no sense.
While you are correct that there is less of a shock in a thinner atmosphere, you have your damage reasoning completely wrong. The airblast does very little damage to solid rock where as the impact of a stone or metal meteorite will deliver massive damage. You need to consider the relative energy contained in the shock wave versus the kinetic energy of the moving solid object. The solid object driving the shock wins every time... and by a massive margin. That's why it is driving the shock wave in the atmosphere.
If anything, the thinness of the Martian atmosphere means that it would have hit the planet going much faster and remaining much more intact (prior to impact) than it would have on Earth or Venus. Thus, the thinness of the atmosphere would result in increased damage to the surface.
A more likely explanation is that this is a fragment from a cratering event that got blown away from the crater during the impact explosion.
Why not send astronauts on a one-way (or very long term) trip to the moon or Mars. Lets try to establish a permanent outpost there and do some science while they are sitting around. As they spend more time there, we can develop the return-capability for them to be able to eventually leave and also continually upgrade the structure for future inhabitants.
Sure, it's crazy and incredibly dangerous. Sure, some people will probably die before they would on earth. But I guarantee that NASA will have no problem finding qualified volunteers. And it's no less insane than it was to try to send people to the Moon in a tin can 40 years ago.
Robot missions have been useful and have been giving us reasonable science, but at an incredibly slow rate. We're ready for the next step. We need to start working at getting off this planet. We have the technology, we have the will, we just need to demonstrate the effort.
The problem is that NASA has undergone the two-fold operation that the government attempts to administer to all employees: they cut off your balls and then lobotomize you. They are no longer willing to accept any risk and will not tell the president when he is wrong. Russia has the balls, but limited funding and interest. China just wants to copy Russia and the US and the ESA has too many cooks in the kitchen.
But someone is going to have to sack up and do it if we are ever going to reach the next stage of exploration.
Each team member works almost 100 hours per week without pay? Suddenly my work schedule doesn't seem so bad. I'm guessing that most of them are taking a full load of classes as well. This sort of dedication must be the reason MIT has such a good reputation.
They are counting time playing video games together as a "team-building" exercise.
Seriously though, 100 hours for undergraduates? That's 14.3 hours a day if you work seven days. I call bullshit.
And if they are working that hard, they are missing out on all the other things you are supposed to learn in college. Then again, I guess we are talking about MIT students.
I would think the average time between bathroom breaks is shorter than the average time between food breaks. That should be the goal.
Not all of us stop pull off the highway for bathroom breaks when we are making good time. That's what empty water bottles or trees near the side of the road are for.
And if you have little kids onboard (or my mother), you never ever ever pull off the highway unless you are ready for an hour of waiting for everyone finishing buying crap and using the bathroom.
Am I the only one that didn't find that earthquake video very impressive? I would hope any building would survive that. Looks like a very tame earthquake.
Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed.
It does look weak, but I have participated in quake testing and real earthquakes. You can really feel the motion on the roof. And that "unimpressive motion" is pretty dramatic when you are in the 4th floor of building and you have to sit there and wait to see what happens while everything gets shaken off your desk and wall.
But I agree that siding and shingles might change the loading a bit. But remember, this is research. They are just proving a concept.
At $40K for a cloned-sniffer dog, you'd think it would be cheaper to just start a normal breeding program. Oh well, maybe they will get cheaper as they increase production.
I, for one, welcome our cloned drug-sniffing dog overlords.
As a bicycle commuter, I know for a fact that most people drive more than they need to. Including me.
As someone lives in New Mexico and drives 45 miles (one way) to work, I can assure you that I view driving as an unpleasant activity and restrict it as much as I possibly can. And I know that my 3 carpoolers feel the same way. Unfortunately, I am unable to move closer to my workplace due to economic considerations.
When I lived in LA I used to ride my bike into work, but that was 10 miles, not 45.
Have you looked at the gasoline prices in Europe? That's a large part of the reason why people take public transport.
Honestly, your argument that increased gasoline prices make absolutely no difference to distance travelled is pure bunk - if you'd studied even high-school economics, that'd be enough for you to know better.
Actually, I didn't mention increased gasoline prices, but thanks for bringing that up!
When gas prices went up dramatically last year, did you notice what most peoples' solution was? it was to buy smaller cars. It was not to take public transit.
This highlights my thesis, that America (outside of large cities) does not have an acceptably developed public transit system in place to support its populace. We did really good building highways back in the 1950's, but then we stopped developing our transportation infrastructure.
Personally, I can see why the government stopped trying. It's a really hard problem if you consider the size of the US and the amount of urban sprawl. People were happy with the highways and gas was cheap.
And in regards to your trollish finale (posting as AC for that weak comment? Honestly...), if you had studied anything past high-school economics, you would understand that people need to have alternative solutions to driving before driving taxes will do anything... you can't take public transit if it doesn't exist.
It's good to see that California isn't letting their impending bankruptcy hold back their socialist agenda.
I lived in LA for 6 years. California is probably one of the worst places to try to implement this program as: (1) they have a massive amount of urban sprawl, (2) Los Angeles has incredibly inefficient public transportation, (3) and there are broad swaths of the state where driving is almost a necessity for people who can't afford to live in the communities that they work in.
Is this really such a problem that is needs to be addressed right now? As others have said, there are going to be no deals here. Insurance companies will make sure that they profit over this little experiment. Furthermore, the state officials may mean well, but the federal government has shown that they will not hesitate to violate our privacy. Why give them another mechanism to do so?
But what really puts the cherry on the cake are the little comments that this will reduce CO2 emissions. Newsflash: Most people don't drive more than they need to, and the ones that drive for fun are just going to pay the tax and keep driving. Why does every method for reducing CO2 emissions have to involve punishing people while giving money to industry for absolutely no innovation? Do you think I like sitting in traffic with 3 other carpoolers? Build some efficient public transportation that actually works and people will take it. Reduce urban sprawl by not allowing people to build homes anywhere they feel like. Those are the techniques to reduce driving. Look at NY city. Look at all of Europe.
Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.
Where is the electric power going to come from in this system? A nuclear reactor? Converted and stored combustion energy? The article doesn't seem to say.
They say this will reduce fuel use, but will it really save money? The energy needs to come from somewhere. Unless you are getting free energy from solar, regenerative braking, or stored excess energy, it seems like using electric is just wasting energy through battery conversion losses and such.
But Pandora is paying more per person. They pay a fee each time a song is played to a single user account. Regular radio stations do not pay a fee per person, they pay per song.
The 777 takes advantage of the economy of scale. With a larger plane, the airline can carry more people, but they use more fuel. But it works out that as the planes get bigger, the passenger profit increases faster than the fuel cost because a slightly bigger and efficient engine can carry a lot more people.
They record labels have managed to argue that since Pandora could reach more people, they should pay more per user. It's really quite ridiculous, but I guess the labels need to make up for lost profits somewhere.
Internet radio has a potential audience that spans the globe. Radio stations are typically limited by geography and signal power.
Why should passengers flying from New York to Tokyo pay more than flying from Seattle to Portland? Because the distance is longer.
Your logic would make sense, except that Pandora pays for every single song played for every single listener. So they access a larger audience and they pay disproportionally more per listener than regular radio stations.
In your airplane example, this would be like passengers flying from NY to Tokyo on a 777 paying more than if they flew on a 737. Same distance, same cramped seat, but you pay more because of the larger audience.
Seriously. Email/write/call your state representative about this bill and tell them how this bill is severely diminish the quality of all radios out there. Urge them to vote against it!!
I'd say that the quality of radio already was severely diminished when a few corporations started buying up every channel in the country so that they could ram their selected artists down the public's throat by playing their hit songs over and over every hour.
Whatever happened to the considerable R&D projects to replace the shuttle with a new model?
I'm sorry, we're just fresh out of cash! First we gave a lot of our money to Iraq/Afganistan in the form of bombs and bullets. Then we gave the rest to our incompetent banks and car companies.
Our government (both sides!) have decided it is better to pour money into losers instead of trying to innovate.
"When I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn't belong to them and then use it. That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn't mean it belongs to you."
Actually, posting it on the internet does make it free for the taking, Garcia. It's just not free to sell or distribute as ones own.
Personally, I think this is a bunch of crap. At the very most, the poster only looks like a drawing of Obama's head from the picture. Maybe it was stylized in Photoshop or maybe he very carefully sketched out a drawing of the photo, but there was also some additional details added by the poster author that are not in the picture, just as there are some details in the photo not in the poster.
Yes, someone made a sketch of a picture that you took of someone and posted on the internet. Deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Cell phone services over here are just dreadful. Why you all pay so much for such mediocre service, I really don't know.
Do you know how to pay less for better service in the US?
I didn't think so.
There's your answer. In the US, you have the choice of high-priced, mediocre service or no service at all. To make matters worse, a cell phone has almost become an essential tool for most Americans. So if you want better and cheaper service, your only (unrealistic) choice is to leave the country.
Ideally, our capitalist economy should keep all the prices down, but the cellular giants collude to keep prices high and service poor. They also lobby the government to prevent any mandated change.
It's completely appalling, but very very hard to change as a voter choosing from an extremely limited subset of corrupt politicians. That said, no country is perfect. I am sure there are some things about the US that you find superior to Britain as well.
Silly? I don't see how that question makes me look bad in the eyes of an employer that I would want to be employed by. It only makes me look bad in the eyes of employers that I don't want to work for. Better to find out the important things first with practical questions so that I don't waste the company's time and money, and they don't waste my time. I don't need offers from many companies especially ones that are a poor match. I only need one offer from a company that I wouldn't mind working for. Maybe if I'm really desperate I'd do that, but for now, I'm not.
Don't be snotty. It's a small world. Even if you realize in the interview that you *hate* the company and the boss, it is better to finish the interview with class and leave a positive impression. Word (and people) gets around, and you never know, you may come crawling back to that company a year later when the economy tanks.
I understand where you are coming from, but you have to remember that life is a series of constraints. What wasn't an appealing job when you were single and fresh out of school might seem more interesting when you have a wife, two kids and a mortgage to support.
I think if you knew what is actually allowed to be in your food, you would never eat again.
That's pretty funny, because I always hear people say that when the skin their first animal or gut their first fish too.
Considering that Iranians were complaining about incredibly slow bandwidth rates and blocked websites during the same time periods that traffic dropped by 80%, it is safe to say that filtering is to blame for the traffic reduction.
80% is a massive drop in traffic from protesting alone. It isn't like these kids don't have cell phone data plans and the ability to setup wireless access points on the fly. For some of them, protesting involved trying to organize and network via the internet and they have stated that they were unable to do so.
Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4
...student's expectations do not match with reality. Story at 11...
An education is a necessary but not sufficient requirement to get a job. The lawyer who she hired should also be disbarred for preying on the stupid.
Why do cops use horses for crowd control? They can make people move out of the way. It is probably similar with the Segway.
I thought they used them at public events because it raised them up above the crowd, making them more visible and giving them a better view of things. Plus, let's face it, cops look cool on horses and demand respect. This is because the other people who typically ride horses are knights and cowboys.
You know who rides Segways? Lazy rich bastards, snotty nerds, and fat mall security guards.
Would you rather be associated with a mall security guard or a cowboy?
Less than you'd think - the biggest damage is not caused by the impact, but by the supersonic shock wave of superheated air preceding the meteor. In a thin atmosphere like Mars, there's a much less pronounced shock wave.
What!?!?! Do you have any technical qualifications to make that statement? Because from a scientific standpoint, it is complete bullshit.
No way. I completely disagree with you. That's like saying that a bullet doesn't hurt you that much, but the shock it drives in the air ahead of it does all the damage. Think about the impedance mismatch between the shocked air and the solid ground... it makes no sense.
While you are correct that there is less of a shock in a thinner atmosphere, you have your damage reasoning completely wrong. The airblast does very little damage to solid rock where as the impact of a stone or metal meteorite will deliver massive damage. You need to consider the relative energy contained in the shock wave versus the kinetic energy of the moving solid object. The solid object driving the shock wins every time... and by a massive margin. That's why it is driving the shock wave in the atmosphere.
If anything, the thinness of the Martian atmosphere means that it would have hit the planet going much faster and remaining much more intact (prior to impact) than it would have on Earth or Venus. Thus, the thinness of the atmosphere would result in increased damage to the surface.
A more likely explanation is that this is a fragment from a cratering event that got blown away from the crater during the impact explosion.
Want a scientifically useful stunt?
Why not send astronauts on a one-way (or very long term) trip to the moon or Mars. Lets try to establish a permanent outpost there and do some science while they are sitting around. As they spend more time there, we can develop the return-capability for them to be able to eventually leave and also continually upgrade the structure for future inhabitants.
Sure, it's crazy and incredibly dangerous. Sure, some people will probably die before they would on earth. But I guarantee that NASA will have no problem finding qualified volunteers. And it's no less insane than it was to try to send people to the Moon in a tin can 40 years ago.
Robot missions have been useful and have been giving us reasonable science, but at an incredibly slow rate. We're ready for the next step. We need to start working at getting off this planet. We have the technology, we have the will, we just need to demonstrate the effort.
The problem is that NASA has undergone the two-fold operation that the government attempts to administer to all employees: they cut off your balls and then lobotomize you. They are no longer willing to accept any risk and will not tell the president when he is wrong. Russia has the balls, but limited funding and interest. China just wants to copy Russia and the US and the ESA has too many cooks in the kitchen.
But someone is going to have to sack up and do it if we are ever going to reach the next stage of exploration.
I thought that the F-22 was a Decepticon?
That's why the program got canceled.
Each team member works almost 100 hours per week without pay? Suddenly my work schedule doesn't seem so bad. I'm guessing that most of them are taking a full load of classes as well. This sort of dedication must be the reason MIT has such a good reputation.
They are counting time playing video games together as a "team-building" exercise.
Seriously though, 100 hours for undergraduates? That's 14.3 hours a day if you work seven days. I call bullshit.
And if they are working that hard, they are missing out on all the other things you are supposed to learn in college. Then again, I guess we are talking about MIT students.
I would think the average time between bathroom breaks is shorter than the average time between food breaks. That should be the goal.
Not all of us stop pull off the highway for bathroom breaks when we are making good time. That's what empty water bottles or trees near the side of the road are for.
And if you have little kids onboard (or my mother), you never ever ever pull off the highway unless you are ready for an hour of waiting for everyone finishing buying crap and using the bathroom.
Am I the only one that didn't find that earthquake video very impressive? I would hope any building would survive that. Looks like a very tame earthquake.
Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed.
It does look weak, but I have participated in quake testing and real earthquakes. You can really feel the motion on the roof. And that "unimpressive motion" is pretty dramatic when you are in the 4th floor of building and you have to sit there and wait to see what happens while everything gets shaken off your desk and wall.
But I agree that siding and shingles might change the loading a bit. But remember, this is research. They are just proving a concept.
At $40K for a cloned-sniffer dog, you'd think it would be cheaper to just start a normal breeding program. Oh well, maybe they will get cheaper as they increase production.
I, for one, welcome our cloned drug-sniffing dog overlords.
As a bicycle commuter, I know for a fact that most people drive more than they need to. Including me.
As someone lives in New Mexico and drives 45 miles (one way) to work, I can assure you that I view driving as an unpleasant activity and restrict it as much as I possibly can. And I know that my 3 carpoolers feel the same way. Unfortunately, I am unable to move closer to my workplace due to economic considerations.
When I lived in LA I used to ride my bike into work, but that was 10 miles, not 45.
Look at all of Europe.
Have you looked at the gasoline prices in Europe? That's a large part of the reason why people take public transport.
Honestly, your argument that increased gasoline prices make absolutely no difference to distance travelled is pure bunk - if you'd studied even high-school economics, that'd be enough for you to know better.
Actually, I didn't mention increased gasoline prices, but thanks for bringing that up!
When gas prices went up dramatically last year, did you notice what most peoples' solution was? it was to buy smaller cars. It was not to take public transit.
This highlights my thesis, that America (outside of large cities) does not have an acceptably developed public transit system in place to support its populace. We did really good building highways back in the 1950's, but then we stopped developing our transportation infrastructure.
Personally, I can see why the government stopped trying. It's a really hard problem if you consider the size of the US and the amount of urban sprawl. People were happy with the highways and gas was cheap.
And in regards to your trollish finale (posting as AC for that weak comment? Honestly...), if you had studied anything past high-school economics, you would understand that people need to have alternative solutions to driving before driving taxes will do anything... you can't take public transit if it doesn't exist.
It's good to see that California isn't letting their impending bankruptcy hold back their socialist agenda.
I lived in LA for 6 years. California is probably one of the worst places to try to implement this program as: (1) they have a massive amount of urban sprawl, (2) Los Angeles has incredibly inefficient public transportation, (3) and there are broad swaths of the state where driving is almost a necessity for people who can't afford to live in the communities that they work in.
Is this really such a problem that is needs to be addressed right now? As others have said, there are going to be no deals here. Insurance companies will make sure that they profit over this little experiment. Furthermore, the state officials may mean well, but the federal government has shown that they will not hesitate to violate our privacy. Why give them another mechanism to do so?
But what really puts the cherry on the cake are the little comments that this will reduce CO2 emissions. Newsflash: Most people don't drive more than they need to, and the ones that drive for fun are just going to pay the tax and keep driving. Why does every method for reducing CO2 emissions have to involve punishing people while giving money to industry for absolutely no innovation? Do you think I like sitting in traffic with 3 other carpoolers? Build some efficient public transportation that actually works and people will take it. Reduce urban sprawl by not allowing people to build homes anywhere they feel like. Those are the techniques to reduce driving. Look at NY city. Look at all of Europe.
I wonder if they told the artists one set of numbers and need more time to make sure what they give to the court matches that set.
Exactly. They are probably trying to figure out how many music downloads they need to buy in order to get to the number they quoted the artists!
Ah, thanks. That was a very good explanation.
Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way.
Where is the electric power going to come from in this system? A nuclear reactor? Converted and stored combustion energy? The article doesn't seem to say.
They say this will reduce fuel use, but will it really save money? The energy needs to come from somewhere. Unless you are getting free energy from solar, regenerative braking, or stored excess energy, it seems like using electric is just wasting energy through battery conversion losses and such.
But Pandora is paying more per person. They pay a fee each time a song is played to a single user account. Regular radio stations do not pay a fee per person, they pay per song.
The 777 takes advantage of the economy of scale. With a larger plane, the airline can carry more people, but they use more fuel. But it works out that as the planes get bigger, the passenger profit increases faster than the fuel cost because a slightly bigger and efficient engine can carry a lot more people.
They record labels have managed to argue that since Pandora could reach more people, they should pay more per user. It's really quite ridiculous, but I guess the labels need to make up for lost profits somewhere.
Internet radio has a potential audience that spans the globe. Radio stations are typically limited by geography and signal power.
Why should passengers flying from New York to Tokyo pay more than flying from Seattle to Portland? Because the distance is longer.
Your logic would make sense, except that Pandora pays for every single song played for every single listener. So they access a larger audience and they pay disproportionally more per listener than regular radio stations.
In your airplane example, this would be like passengers flying from NY to Tokyo on a 777 paying more than if they flew on a 737. Same distance, same cramped seat, but you pay more because of the larger audience.
Seriously. Email/write/call your state representative about this bill and tell them how this bill is severely diminish the quality of all radios out there. Urge them to vote against it!!
I'd say that the quality of radio already was severely diminished when a few corporations started buying up every channel in the country so that they could ram their selected artists down the public's throat by playing their hit songs over and over every hour.
Whatever happened to the considerable R&D projects to replace the shuttle with a new model?
I'm sorry, we're just fresh out of cash! First we gave a lot of our money to Iraq/Afganistan in the form of bombs and bullets. Then we gave the rest to our incompetent banks and car companies.
Our government (both sides!) have decided it is better to pour money into losers instead of trying to innovate.
"When I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn't belong to them and then use it. That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn't mean it belongs to you."
Actually, posting it on the internet does make it free for the taking, Garcia. It's just not free to sell or distribute as ones own.
Personally, I think this is a bunch of crap. At the very most, the poster only looks like a drawing of Obama's head from the picture. Maybe it was stylized in Photoshop or maybe he very carefully sketched out a drawing of the photo, but there was also some additional details added by the poster author that are not in the picture, just as there are some details in the photo not in the poster.
Yes, someone made a sketch of a picture that you took of someone and posted on the internet. Deal with it.
That's why I run my computer off a car battery!