He's talking about power requirements to charge in 10-20 minutes. Why would you ever need to do that at home? A standard outlet would do fine for charging overnight. Remember, with an electric, you're basically starting every day with full tank of gas. How often do you need to get gas more than once a day? I only do that on long trips, where you'd stop at a commercial charging station that could handle that kind of load.
That said, it would be an interesting idea to have high-current connections from the car to the grid. You could essentially use the millions of high-capacity car batteries for grid load leveling and/or use the car(s) as whole-house UPS batteries.
Actually, the whole "subscription" thing is the problem for me.
I wouldn't mind paying a few cents per article on all the sites I read news on, because I usually only read one here, one there, another two over there, etc. BUT, I can't afford to pay a yearly subscription to every single site I look at.
And either way, it means I need YET ANOTHER set of log in credentials, and another place collecting personal info.
It's not the manufacturer's liability insurance that causes those high prices, it's the patients' medical insurance. The only reason they can set the price that high is because it just gets billed to the insurance. Then they inflate the MSRP even more so that they can still bilk the insurance companies even after a "discount."
When my mom was shopping for hearing aids, a particularly honest sales droid told her that the "MSRP" (which no one ever pays) was $12k for a certain model. They discounted it to $8k when they billed insurance companies, but if you didn't have insurance, they'd sell it to you for $3k. So basically they get an extra $5k profit if you happen to have insurance.
But WHY? The books are far better than any movie of them would be. I'd rather just re-read the book. I think the only non-completely-disappointing movie-from-a-book I've seen was the LotR extended edition trilogy, and even that left big chunks of story out.
Some people just like messing around with technology. Is a hobby "unnecessary technology?"
I certainly wouldn't toss a resume because they *didn't* have their own domain, but (for a tech job) I would probably be more likely to pay attention to those that did (especially if they're hosting their own, too). So, while I'm not necessarily ditching resumes because they don't have vanity domains, the end result is likely to be nearly the same as if I was.
Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand. If a game becomes less popular, the VMs timeout and shutdown. If it's very popular more instances get spawned. I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day & age.
No, no... Some fancy automated system would be too expensive. A *REAL* bonus-hungry EA exec would just release, "SimServerFarm," where the object is to increase your SimGamer population as much as possible by optimizing your Madden/NBA/NCAA zoning and building an efficient cabling system between them. Of course, it would be online-only, and hooked into the VM management console...
If I want to run multiple computers accessible over SSH or VNC, I have to run them on separate ports. If I want to run multiple web servers, I again have to run on different ports, or otherwise proxy them all through a single external server. SIP and other protocols that embed the address in the protocol are outright broken by NAT. Like XanC said, it is a necessary evil that should be dumped with extreme prejudice.
It sounds like you're talking about PAT (many-to-one), not NAT (one-to-one). PAT is almost never used for servers, just stuff like user VLANs that have no inbound connectivity (unless your public space is so limited you have to double up with static PAT). On the other hand, almost every single server (thousands) that go through our firewalls, is NATed onto the public network. Even some whose true IPs are routable still have public NATs. That's because NAT *is* a security tool; it just shouldn't be the *only* security tool. It's like security through obscurity: obscurity in itself isn't bad, because it increases the work that attackers have to do to profile your internal network, but it had better not be the only thing standing between them and your boxen.
Yes. The three "main" lights always have to be separate and in the same position to accommodate red/green color blindness. Sometimes LED lights will combine the green and amber turn arrows, but that will always be the fourth light.
The exception would be the funky left turn signals that sometimes go red/amber/arrow or red/red/amber arrow/green arrow, or whatever. Those usually (at least in TX) have an adjacent sign that says "Left turn signal." Of course, in the situation at hand, that would probably be covered in snow and illegible, also.
It's not so much that they don't understand reality, but they seem to make decisions based on emotion instead of logic/reality.
Perfect example is liberals trying to ban guns (because they make them uncomfortable) even though there's pretty clear evidence that armed, law abiding citizens reduce crime instead of perpetrating it.
Those who read that the solution was taxes were more likely to doubt the validity of the science than those conservatives who read the article with no mention of increased taxes but instead read about Nuclear power.
Anyone with half a brain would probably do that. Obviously I haven't read the documents, but here's how I would translate them: 1. yada yada: GIVE US MONEY (that will probably be used on pork projects, rather than anything useful) 2. yada yada: here's a possible SOLUTION
Presenting a specific solution and mentioning that it might require XYZ funding is one thing, but just saying, "we'll have to raise taxes to pay for 'a solution'" is purely political and throws the whole thing into doubt (because "taxes" by themselves aren't a solution to anything, and anyone trying to say they are probably has some other agenda).
How is "if you want to use our network, your network client must be up to X standard" (QoS, or whatever) any different from "if you want to drive on the public roadway, your car must be up to X standard" (working brake lights, etc.)?
In W7 (and prob. vista), one of the compatibility options is to run as an admin. Then there's the old "right click->Run as administrator."
This is really only a problem when running software like this in an environment where the users can't have the admin credentials (like a school lab, or something).
You're talking about small time criminals that are operating opportunistically. Any mistakes and they might walk in on me when I'm home (and they'll very likely have to be carried out with a few newly installed.4in or 5.56mm holes).
This information allows burglars to do their casing safely and anonymously from home, and they can operate in a much larger area. Who cares if they have to drive 70mi, if they know with a high degree of confidence that a certain house will be unoccupied for a few hours, and they know there's $XX,000 of easily stealable stuff.
Get a box truck, paint it up like a yard service (hell, have one guy mowing the front lawn while you're at it; it'll cover the breaking glass), and you'll be invisible in plain sight in any nice neighborhood.
It will, however, be quite funny when more than one gang of competing burglars start showing up at the same time:)
And now that I think about this for a little longer, if the merchant ship doesn't let go of their end of the rope (and it's strong enough), any small pirate vessel would probably be quickly sunk by being dragged backwards. Either that, or they'd sink due to the large hole in the hull after having the prop/shaft/motor/etc. pulled right off the boat.
With a little creativity and effort, this system could be just as lethal as conventional weapons.
I'm guessing this kind of air cannon would be a lot easier to enter international ports with. I think politics, not prudence, is why most merchant ships essentially have to be disarmed.
I don't buy that it's necessarily the government's fault for not specifying backups.
The customer should only have to say "we need a system that does X, it needs to be up Y% of the time, with an MTTR of no more than Z." They don't know, and shouldn't have to specify technical details. It's up to the provider to design a system that does that.
As another poster mentioned, though, it's quite likely that NG came back and said here's a system that will do that, and it will cost X, and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA. I'm in that business, and this happens all the time.
So, have an independent organization figure what the worst possible environmental disaster would cost to clean up, and require any such company to put up a bond of that value before they can do anything. Once/if everything's cleaned up, you get it back.
You might be right, but memorization could also have the opposite effect. The more experiences you can recall, the faster and more accurately you can identify potentially dangerous situations and begin mitigation before they become a problem.
"This corner looks a lot like that dangerous blind corner at X. I'd better be careful" "90% of the time I've seen a driver do X, they followed it up by doing Y. The driver next to me just did X, and if he does Y, I'll be in a bad/dangerous situation."
Plus, your example of remembering "There are never any cars around this corner" could just as easily be "There are often slippery leaves in the road at this corner"
Slashdot Mirror
No, it just means that in a few years we'll reach peak seawater and start funding all the corrupt regimes that have still have good beach reserves.
He's talking about power requirements to charge in 10-20 minutes. Why would you ever need to do that at home? A standard outlet would do fine for charging overnight. Remember, with an electric, you're basically starting every day with full tank of gas. How often do you need to get gas more than once a day? I only do that on long trips, where you'd stop at a commercial charging station that could handle that kind of load.
That said, it would be an interesting idea to have high-current connections from the car to the grid. You could essentially use the millions of high-capacity car batteries for grid load leveling and/or use the car(s) as whole-house UPS batteries.
Actually, the whole "subscription" thing is the problem for me.
I wouldn't mind paying a few cents per article on all the sites I read news on, because I usually only read one here, one there, another two over there, etc. BUT, I can't afford to pay a yearly subscription to every single site I look at.
And either way, it means I need YET ANOTHER set of log in credentials, and another place collecting personal info.
It's not the manufacturer's liability insurance that causes those high prices, it's the patients' medical insurance. The only reason they can set the price that high is because it just gets billed to the insurance. Then they inflate the MSRP even more so that they can still bilk the insurance companies even after a "discount."
When my mom was shopping for hearing aids, a particularly honest sales droid told her that the "MSRP" (which no one ever pays) was $12k for a certain model. They discounted it to $8k when they billed insurance companies, but if you didn't have insurance, they'd sell it to you for $3k. So basically they get an extra $5k profit if you happen to have insurance.
the worst part is - he isn't alone - the rest of us poor suckers would do it too.
Not me. I would have just told my wife that the contractors used special anti-EM gypsum board.
But WHY? The books are far better than any movie of them would be. I'd rather just re-read the book. I think the only non-completely-disappointing movie-from-a-book I've seen was the LotR extended edition trilogy, and even that left big chunks of story out.
Not to mention that plumbing already essentially IS a "pneumatic" tube system. It just happens that the payload and the propellant are the same thing.
Some people just like messing around with technology. Is a hobby "unnecessary technology?"
I certainly wouldn't toss a resume because they *didn't* have their own domain, but (for a tech job) I would probably be more likely to pay attention to those that did (especially if they're hosting their own, too). So, while I'm not necessarily ditching resumes because they don't have vanity domains, the end result is likely to be nearly the same as if I was.
Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand. If a game becomes less popular, the VMs timeout and shutdown. If it's very popular more instances get spawned. I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day & age.
No, no... Some fancy automated system would be too expensive. A *REAL* bonus-hungry EA exec would just release, "SimServerFarm," where the object is to increase your SimGamer population as much as possible by optimizing your Madden/NBA/NCAA zoning and building an efficient cabling system between them. Of course, it would be online-only, and hooked into the VM management console...
IAAFWA (I am a FW admin)...
If I want to run multiple computers accessible over SSH or VNC, I have to run them on separate ports. If I want to run multiple web servers, I again have to run on different ports, or otherwise proxy them all through a single external server. SIP and other protocols that embed the address in the protocol are outright broken by NAT. Like XanC said, it is a necessary evil that should be dumped with extreme prejudice.
It sounds like you're talking about PAT (many-to-one), not NAT (one-to-one). PAT is almost never used for servers, just stuff like user VLANs that have no inbound connectivity (unless your public space is so limited you have to double up with static PAT). On the other hand, almost every single server (thousands) that go through our firewalls, is NATed onto the public network. Even some whose true IPs are routable still have public NATs. That's because NAT *is* a security tool; it just shouldn't be the *only* security tool. It's like security through obscurity: obscurity in itself isn't bad, because it increases the work that attackers have to do to profile your internal network, but it had better not be the only thing standing between them and your boxen.
Yes. The three "main" lights always have to be separate and in the same position to accommodate red/green color blindness. Sometimes LED lights will combine the green and amber turn arrows, but that will always be the fourth light.
The exception would be the funky left turn signals that sometimes go red/amber/arrow or red/red/amber arrow/green arrow, or whatever. Those usually (at least in TX) have an adjacent sign that says "Left turn signal." Of course, in the situation at hand, that would probably be covered in snow and illegible, also.
The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes. The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes.
Can't remember who said it:
Anyone can build a cipher that they themselves can't break!
octopuses (octopi?)
octopussies
It's not so much that they don't understand reality, but they seem to make decisions based on emotion instead of logic/reality.
Perfect example is liberals trying to ban guns (because they make them uncomfortable) even though there's pretty clear evidence that armed, law abiding citizens reduce crime instead of perpetrating it.
Those who read that the solution was taxes were more likely to doubt the validity of the science than those conservatives who read the article with no mention of increased taxes but instead read about Nuclear power.
Anyone with half a brain would probably do that. Obviously I haven't read the documents, but here's how I would translate them:
1. yada yada: GIVE US MONEY (that will probably be used on pork projects, rather than anything useful)
2. yada yada: here's a possible SOLUTION
Presenting a specific solution and mentioning that it might require XYZ funding is one thing, but just saying, "we'll have to raise taxes to pay for 'a solution'" is purely political and throws the whole thing into doubt (because "taxes" by themselves aren't a solution to anything, and anyone trying to say they are probably has some other agenda).
How is "if you want to use our network, your network client must be up to X standard" (QoS, or whatever) any different from "if you want to drive on the public roadway, your car must be up to X standard" (working brake lights, etc.)?
In W7 (and prob. vista), one of the compatibility options is to run as an admin. Then there's the old "right click->Run as administrator."
This is really only a problem when running software like this in an environment where the users can't have the admin credentials (like a school lab, or something).
You're talking about small time criminals that are operating opportunistically. Any mistakes and they might walk in on me when I'm home (and they'll very likely have to be carried out with a few newly installed .4in or 5.56mm holes).
This information allows burglars to do their casing safely and anonymously from home, and they can operate in a much larger area. Who cares if they have to drive 70mi, if they know with a high degree of confidence that a certain house will be unoccupied for a few hours, and they know there's $XX,000 of easily stealable stuff.
Get a box truck, paint it up like a yard service (hell, have one guy mowing the front lawn while you're at it; it'll cover the breaking glass), and you'll be invisible in plain sight in any nice neighborhood.
It will, however, be quite funny when more than one gang of competing burglars start showing up at the same time :)
And now that I think about this for a little longer, if the merchant ship doesn't let go of their end of the rope (and it's strong enough), any small pirate vessel would probably be quickly sunk by being dragged backwards. Either that, or they'd sink due to the large hole in the hull after having the prop/shaft/motor/etc. pulled right off the boat.
With a little creativity and effort, this system could be just as lethal as conventional weapons.
I'm guessing this kind of air cannon would be a lot easier to enter international ports with. I think politics, not prudence, is why most merchant ships essentially have to be disarmed.
I don't buy that it's necessarily the government's fault for not specifying backups.
The customer should only have to say "we need a system that does X, it needs to be up Y% of the time, with an MTTR of no more than Z." They don't know, and shouldn't have to specify technical details. It's up to the provider to design a system that does that.
As another poster mentioned, though, it's quite likely that NG came back and said here's a system that will do that, and it will cost X, and the customer got sticker shock and decided to drop a few 9s from the SLA. I'm in that business, and this happens all the time.
Pouring coffee on your Mac is legal, but it would void the warranty. How is gumming it up with smoke and tar to the point of failure any different?
So, have an independent organization figure what the worst possible environmental disaster would cost to clean up, and require any such company to put up a bond of that value before they can do anything. Once/if everything's cleaned up, you get it back.
You might be right, but memorization could also have the opposite effect. The more experiences you can recall, the faster and more accurately you can identify potentially dangerous situations and begin mitigation before they become a problem.
"This corner looks a lot like that dangerous blind corner at X. I'd better be careful"
"90% of the time I've seen a driver do X, they followed it up by doing Y. The driver next to me just did X, and if he does Y, I'll be in a bad/dangerous situation."
Plus, your example of remembering "There are never any cars around this corner" could just as easily be "There are often slippery leaves in the road at this corner"
...I can sue Amazon for damages when my "Hamlet" paper is docked points for inaccurate direct quotations.