I read as well as you do.
I was supporting your argument that putting logic in the database is a generally poor choice.
Even if you don't deliver to multiple targets initially, you will eventually deal with a customer's falling out with a given DB vendor and have to make the change.
That's funny, because I deliver the same platform to different customer sites on Oracle, SQL Server, Postgres and sometimes even HSQLDB. Here we go again with the 'I've never needed it so it's dumb and useless' routine.
1) We love Oracle's DB.
2) We hate dealing with Oracle, let's go to IBM DB2
3) We love IBM DB2
4) We hate dealing with IBM, let's go to MySQL
5) Wait, Oracle bought MySQL, and we hate dealing with Oracle.See 2
6) OK, let's try PosgreSQL then, it's the only database with a vendor we don't dislike doing business with.
Here in Montana, most of the Apartments already have parking spots with power to them - we have to plug our ICE vehicles in over night to make sure they start in the morning when it is -20F overnight.. so a lot of the (Level 1) charging infrastructure is in place, even for apartment dwellers.
Interestingly, this still won't make sure that the router's radios are in compliance.
Isn't the rule a certain level of ERP (effective radiated power), not raw wattage out of the radio.
How does the stock firmware know to reduce the output power to compensate for the 24dbi gain antenna you attached?
OTOH, keeping the consumers in their legally allocated spectrum sounds like a noble cause, but now it's more difficult to get "below" channel 1 and down into the relatively empty Part-90 allocation I'm authorized to use just below 2.4Ghz
MythTV backend - HDHomerun and a PCHDTV card for 3 OTA channels at once, plus a PVR250 fed by my Dish Network satellite box and a LIRC.
So that's 4 simultaneous recordings at once.
Front ends run the gamut - blueray players over UPNP, WesternDigital TV box, Fire TV Stick, Roku, PS3, several first gen Xboxes with XBMC - and then you have the Android tablets for TV-anywhere.
CMU has a project/site crowd-sourcing Potholes..
http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/co...
But then there's also a project that just uses vehicle mounted cameras to do the same.
http://triblive.com/news/alleg...
No need to barcode the potholes if you use a GPS and optical recognition instead..
Christoph Mertz, senior project scientist in CMU's Robotics Institute, is developing a computer program to detect potholes, cracks and other irregularities in roads. Mounted on the windshield of a car, a camera captures images of the street and measures the severity of potholes and cracks.
Read more: http://triblive.com/news/alleg...
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
IIRC the 40mm grenades can be found and purchased as well, the problem is the $200 tax-stamp for EACH round.
So every time you decide to go play, on top of whatever you paid to procure the equipment, there's that $200 transfer fee included in each projectile.
Maybe they have a more compelling argument than most, but I agree you can "see where this is heading" and how the rest of the manufacturers are following suit.
I want to know how driving any of these cars is legal any more?
A lot of states and/or municipalities have poorly written laws about using a two-way-communications device while driving.
Since these cars are more computer than machine, and with Onstar or Sync and so forth they may be constantly communicating, it would seem driving one of these vehicles is outlawed in many places.
Even more so if you consider the cars with anti-collision technology.
(Maybe this is what is really driving the autonomous car movement - we can't continue to sell cars that are computers, until/unless the car drives itself, without being in violation of these anti-driving-and-texting/communicating/electronic device laws)
I drove to work today in a 1973 IH Scout II. I doubt I need to worry about IHC sending me a take-down notice..
But from an airwaves perspective, I can sit across the street, point my beam directly at your house, and communicate with my friend on the next block.
You can stop me from erecting my antenna on your property, but you can't stop me from having my RF "trespass" on your property, since you can't regular the spectrum (you can, of course, do passive blocking)
So, in this case, they can ask you to remove the wifi device, just like they could ask you to turn off your phone, or check it at the door.
They can't, however, stop me from using my hotel room across the street to shoot a wifi signal into the park (unless the hotel chooses to evict me)
That means more than 6 million new guns were manufactured and stayed in the US in 2011 (and that doesn't count all of the ones manufactured abroad and imported).
6 million.
A couple of people a few quarts shy of a gallon shoot up a few people, it makes news.
What doesn't make news is the other 6 million NEW firearms NOT used in a crime, or the 270 million other (existing) firearms ALSO not used in a crime.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?print=go#Qn2
Doesn't address any Line-of-Sight issues.
Aside from the autonomous part, I just wanted to note that with an Amateur Radio license you can setup a remote control capable of beyond LOS, along with a video link.
Amateur TV transmitters in the 70cm or higher range are available and you can watch them on your old NTSC TV.
You could use 6m/50mhz for the control link which has capability beyond LOS, or through the use of a repeater station you could expand that range further (heck, use a balloon mounted repeater over your operation position to increase your LOS distance and you could use all sorts of LOS frequencies and equipment)
Or, I guess you could go the other way, and build some high end optics and get them aboard the next AMSAT bird and send the photos back via SSTV or ATV.:D
There is some difference between a full-duplex cell phone and half-duplex CB or ham operation.
I like how there's always an exclusion for "emergency use" - but when there is an emergency, that's when you're LEAST capable of doing two things at once, and thus the very last moment I want someone talking on their phone while driving.
We'll also need to get the on-board computers in police cars to disable themselves while in motion, right?
A lot of places are trying to ban "two way communication devices" and in many cases, this would outlaw any car with Onstar from being operated..
I appreciate that you're willing to postulate that lowering access to health care would increase mortality and other negative health care outcomes. Most commentators aren't willing to do that.
It only stands to reason. And it would most likely do something to curb the population growth, which should be something the more aggressive environmentalists sign on for.
But what if you told an insurance company they had to cover everybody but we'd guarantee the healthy would participate. Now you have the young low cost healthy people subsidizing the older high cost people. As long as everybody participates more people pay in than take out and so it works financially, no suckers required. And yes, this is exactly what ACA does.
Right, if you get everyone to participate, the unhealthy benefit, and the healthy suffer.
But but, everybody gets old! Yes they do. But not every young person gets old. So more pay in than pay out. You also price things based on average life expectancy so that costs even out. More young people paying a higher amount means you can cover more old people.
At the same time, aren't the young the people most likely to ill afford higher (or any) insurance premiums? You've already stated that the poor or less likely to afford a $15k (car or care?) item than the rich. Would you not agree that, on average, the young earn less than the old, thus making a higher proportion of young people "poorer" than older people?
So shouldn't the "richer' older people pay more in insurance than the poor young people (in good health)?
Yes I am saying exactly that. Lets say you make $20000 and have to buy a car. Is your $15000 worth more to you than $15000 for a $100,000 earner? You better believe it is. Because buying that care means you no longer have enough for rent. The rich person still has plenty left over.
Isn't that why the rich buy $65,000 SUVs, to maintain parity?:D
If we say we implement a flat tax of 15%. Is it really reasonable to make a homeless guy on the street pay $0.15 of that $1 handout he got? If you say yes you're a wonderful heartless bastard. If not, then there is a income floor below which we don't tax because it's not feasible or productive to the people in question. This latter condition means there is a progressive tax; i.e. the poor pay less because they have less to pay and basic life expenses hit them harder.
My fear is that a "progressive tax" ends up being manipulated so that the net result is everyone is on an equal footing.
You would have the $100k earner maintain a similar standard of living to the $50k earner to the $10k earner, which drives away all incentive to excel and become a $100k earner.
I the minimum wage is $5/hr and I make $10/hr, I'm earning double the minimum wage, which allows me to enjoy a higher standard of living. I most likely got that $10/hr by being a better-than-average employee. Now they increase the minimum wage to $7.50/hr, a 50% "raise" for everyone at the bottom. Did I get a 50% raise to go with it? No, what I got was income evaporation. My "good job, star employee" wage of $10/hr is no longer double the "warm body" rate, and so the purchasing advantage I used to enjoy has disappeared.
Worse, if I had worked my way up to $7/hr, and now everyone around me, including me, gets bumped to $7.50, I'm even more upset, since the other guy got the 50% increase, and I didn't.
I realize I've wandered off here.. but now apply that to the tax code.
$10k person pays $1k in taxes. $20k income pays $5k in taxes. $100k income pays $70k in taxes. The margin of difference keeps dropping, and the incentive to work to better myself is less desirable. Why go for that raise, when it's just going to put me into a higher tax bracket and lower my net income?
My sister just had a co-worker quit her job, because s
If we eliminated Medicare and health insurance in totality, our health care costs would plummet, because we would have far less people utilizing them.
Would our mortality rate climb with it? Perhaps.
So many people think they should put $100 into their Health Insurance and get $10,000 in benefits out. If we all thought that, it wouldn't be sustainable - kind of like Social Security or Medicare.
If you're healthy, why have health insurance?
If you're not healthy, who is fool enough to offer you "insurance" when it's pretty certain you're going to cost more than they bring in? Just us tax payers.
BTW, don't the rich already pay more in taxes than the poor?
When you look at the tax brackets, it doesn't start at 25% for the poorest and drop to 5% for the richest, does it?
Or are you saying that a poor person's $1,000 taxes on $20,000 in income is "more" than a rich person's (even in a parity situation) $5,000 on $100,000?
As I see it, $5k is more than $1k, and 5% of income is equal to 5% of income, so where is it that rich pay "less" taxes than the poor?
Because you can get a non-consumption license from BATF for next to nothing, and begin brewing your own alcohol fuel from waste products you already have in your home-still.
And then you can skip the $24/gal or $120/gal fuel habit, and run it on... moonshine!
You can actually get federal subsidies for manufacturing alky-fuel.
OTOH, this is nothing new. Alky powered vehicles have been around for ages. You can buy 55gal drums of race alcohol right next to the 112 octane leaded race fuel at your local speed shop.
I have a friend running an alcohol injected blown 460 in a mud-rail with good results. Has been for more than a decade.
But why does having a backup == piracy?
I have a library of 20 PS3 games. I can leave them next to the PS3, waiting for my kids to open them up and smear fingers all over them, or I can backup the disk to the hard drive of the PS3, and put the game disk away in a safe place, yet still play my game whenever I want.
All without pirating the game, and instead paying $10-$60 a pop for them.
I believe that falls under the "backup" clause, right?
So how do you prove that my backed up copy of the game is pirated, vs a legitimate backup that loads faster than waiting on the BluRay disk?
At wifi (2.4Ghz or higher) frequencies, getting the two antennas to be close enough to each other, and far enough from reflective sources (or parasitic couplers) is easy to achieve.
If we were talking HF, that's a whole new issue.. but a microwaves, it's not so bad.
As a bonus, they should see some forward gain from the antenna, too.
>They should all sit down together and get drunk and forget about the whole thing.
Perhaps Obama can reach out across the northern border and have another Beer Summit to smooth things over.
What's the current prognosis on whether or not the ionosphere would be scorched out of the sky by a nuclear war?
I was reading somewhere that at least at one time the prevailing thought was that a nuclear exchange would wind up burning the ionosphere such that "skip" on the HF bands would be destroyed (or maybe 160 would open up more?) and we'd be stuck with ground wave propagation.
Slashdot Mirror
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Says otherwise.. Hunt family murders in 2014 is an easy one to see..
I read as well as you do. I was supporting your argument that putting logic in the database is a generally poor choice. Even if you don't deliver to multiple targets initially, you will eventually deal with a customer's falling out with a given DB vendor and have to make the change.
That's funny, because I deliver the same platform to different customer sites on Oracle, SQL Server, Postgres and sometimes even HSQLDB. Here we go again with the 'I've never needed it so it's dumb and useless' routine.
1) We love Oracle's DB.
2) We hate dealing with Oracle, let's go to IBM DB2
3) We love IBM DB2
4) We hate dealing with IBM, let's go to MySQL
5) Wait, Oracle bought MySQL, and we hate dealing with Oracle.See 2
6) OK, let's try PosgreSQL then, it's the only database with a vendor we don't dislike doing business with.
7) Goto 1
Here in Montana, most of the Apartments already have parking spots with power to them - we have to plug our ICE vehicles in over night to make sure they start in the morning when it is -20F overnight.. so a lot of the (Level 1) charging infrastructure is in place, even for apartment dwellers.
7 is a Prime number. 13 is a Prime number.
12? Meh.
Amazon could have done so much better if they'd had Prime day on prime numbers.
What next? Pi Day on 3/13 next year?
Isn't the rule a certain level of ERP (effective radiated power), not raw wattage out of the radio.
How does the stock firmware know to reduce the output power to compensate for the 24dbi gain antenna you attached?
OTOH, keeping the consumers in their legally allocated spectrum sounds like a noble cause, but now it's more difficult to get "below" channel 1 and down into the relatively empty Part-90 allocation I'm authorized to use just below 2.4Ghz
If more kids walked to school, we'd have less obese kids.
But let's ban 32oz sodas instead..
MythTV backend - HDHomerun and a PCHDTV card for 3 OTA channels at once, plus a PVR250 fed by my Dish Network satellite box and a LIRC. So that's 4 simultaneous recordings at once. Front ends run the gamut - blueray players over UPNP, WesternDigital TV box, Fire TV Stick, Roku, PS3, several first gen Xboxes with XBMC - and then you have the Android tablets for TV-anywhere.
Christoph Mertz, senior project scientist in CMU's Robotics Institute, is developing a computer program to detect potholes, cracks and other irregularities in roads. Mounted on the windshield of a car, a camera captures images of the street and measures the severity of potholes and cracks. Read more: http://triblive.com/news/alleg... Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
IIRC the 40mm grenades can be found and purchased as well, the problem is the $200 tax-stamp for EACH round. So every time you decide to go play, on top of whatever you paid to procure the equipment, there's that $200 transfer fee included in each projectile.
https://transportevolved.com/2...
Maybe they have a more compelling argument than most, but I agree you can "see where this is heading" and how the rest of the manufacturers are following suit.
I want to know how driving any of these cars is legal any more?
A lot of states and/or municipalities have poorly written laws about using a two-way-communications device while driving.
Since these cars are more computer than machine, and with Onstar or Sync and so forth they may be constantly communicating, it would seem driving one of these vehicles is outlawed in many places.
Even more so if you consider the cars with anti-collision technology.
(Maybe this is what is really driving the autonomous car movement - we can't continue to sell cars that are computers, until/unless the car drives itself, without being in violation of these anti-driving-and-texting/communicating/electronic device laws)
I drove to work today in a 1973 IH Scout II. I doubt I need to worry about IHC sending me a take-down notice..
You can stop me from erecting my antenna on your property, but you can't stop me from having my RF "trespass" on your property, since you can't regular the spectrum (you can, of course, do passive blocking)
So, in this case, they can ask you to remove the wifi device, just like they could ask you to turn off your phone, or check it at the door.
They can't, however, stop me from using my hotel room across the street to shoot a wifi signal into the park (unless the hotel chooses to evict me)
More to the point, however please see the Interim 2011 numbers - http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2011-interim-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf - that shows almost 6.4 million firearms manufactured in the US in 2011. Only 290k were exported.
That means more than 6 million new guns were manufactured and stayed in the US in 2011 (and that doesn't count all of the ones manufactured abroad and imported).
6 million.
A couple of people a few quarts shy of a gallon shoot up a few people, it makes news.
What doesn't make news is the other 6 million NEW firearms NOT used in a crime, or the 270 million other (existing) firearms ALSO not used in a crime.
Seems to me, guns must be pretty safe.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?print=go#Qn2 Doesn't address any Line-of-Sight issues. Aside from the autonomous part, I just wanted to note that with an Amateur Radio license you can setup a remote control capable of beyond LOS, along with a video link. Amateur TV transmitters in the 70cm or higher range are available and you can watch them on your old NTSC TV. You could use 6m/50mhz for the control link which has capability beyond LOS, or through the use of a repeater station you could expand that range further (heck, use a balloon mounted repeater over your operation position to increase your LOS distance and you could use all sorts of LOS frequencies and equipment) Or, I guess you could go the other way, and build some high end optics and get them aboard the next AMSAT bird and send the photos back via SSTV or ATV. :D
How do you think people got around US cities before the 1950's?
We walked around the smaller cities, and we used horses and horse drawn carriages in the larger ones.
Regular people are lazy. As an engineer, I'm efficient.
There is some difference between a full-duplex cell phone and half-duplex CB or ham operation. I like how there's always an exclusion for "emergency use" - but when there is an emergency, that's when you're LEAST capable of doing two things at once, and thus the very last moment I want someone talking on their phone while driving. We'll also need to get the on-board computers in police cars to disable themselves while in motion, right? A lot of places are trying to ban "two way communication devices" and in many cases, this would outlaw any car with Onstar from being operated..
I appreciate that you're willing to postulate that lowering access to health care would increase mortality and other negative health care outcomes. Most commentators aren't willing to do that.
It only stands to reason. And it would most likely do something to curb the population growth, which should be something the more aggressive environmentalists sign on for.
But what if you told an insurance company they had to cover everybody but we'd guarantee the healthy would participate. Now you have the young low cost healthy people subsidizing the older high cost people. As long as everybody participates more people pay in than take out and so it works financially, no suckers required. And yes, this is exactly what ACA does.
Right, if you get everyone to participate, the unhealthy benefit, and the healthy suffer.
But but, everybody gets old! Yes they do. But not every young person gets old. So more pay in than pay out. You also price things based on average life expectancy so that costs even out. More young people paying a higher amount means you can cover more old people.
At the same time, aren't the young the people most likely to ill afford higher (or any) insurance premiums? You've already stated that the poor or less likely to afford a $15k (car or care?) item than the rich. Would you not agree that, on average, the young earn less than the old, thus making a higher proportion of young people "poorer" than older people?
So shouldn't the "richer' older people pay more in insurance than the poor young people (in good health)?
Yes I am saying exactly that. Lets say you make $20000 and have to buy a car. Is your $15000 worth more to you than $15000 for a $100,000 earner? You better believe it is. Because buying that care means you no longer have enough for rent. The rich person still has plenty left over.
Isn't that why the rich buy $65,000 SUVs, to maintain parity? :D
If we say we implement a flat tax of 15%. Is it really reasonable to make a homeless guy on the street pay $0.15 of that $1 handout he got? If you say yes you're a wonderful heartless bastard. If not, then there is a income floor below which we don't tax because it's not feasible or productive to the people in question. This latter condition means there is a progressive tax; i.e. the poor pay less because they have less to pay and basic life expenses hit them harder.
My fear is that a "progressive tax" ends up being manipulated so that the net result is everyone is on an equal footing.
You would have the $100k earner maintain a similar standard of living to the $50k earner to the $10k earner, which drives away all incentive to excel and become a $100k earner.
I the minimum wage is $5/hr and I make $10/hr, I'm earning double the minimum wage, which allows me to enjoy a higher standard of living. I most likely got that $10/hr by being a better-than-average employee. Now they increase the minimum wage to $7.50/hr, a 50% "raise" for everyone at the bottom. Did I get a 50% raise to go with it? No, what I got was income evaporation. My "good job, star employee" wage of $10/hr is no longer double the "warm body" rate, and so the purchasing advantage I used to enjoy has disappeared.
Worse, if I had worked my way up to $7/hr, and now everyone around me, including me, gets bumped to $7.50, I'm even more upset, since the other guy got the 50% increase, and I didn't.
I realize I've wandered off here.. but now apply that to the tax code.
$10k person pays $1k in taxes. $20k income pays $5k in taxes. $100k income pays $70k in taxes. The margin of difference keeps dropping, and the incentive to work to better myself is less desirable. Why go for that raise, when it's just going to put me into a higher tax bracket and lower my net income?
My sister just had a co-worker quit her job, because s
Would our mortality rate climb with it? Perhaps.
So many people think they should put $100 into their Health Insurance and get $10,000 in benefits out. If we all thought that, it wouldn't be sustainable - kind of like Social Security or Medicare.
If you're healthy, why have health insurance?
If you're not healthy, who is fool enough to offer you "insurance" when it's pretty certain you're going to cost more than they bring in? Just us tax payers.
BTW, don't the rich already pay more in taxes than the poor?
When you look at the tax brackets, it doesn't start at 25% for the poorest and drop to 5% for the richest, does it?
Or are you saying that a poor person's $1,000 taxes on $20,000 in income is "more" than a rich person's (even in a parity situation) $5,000 on $100,000?
As I see it, $5k is more than $1k, and 5% of income is equal to 5% of income, so where is it that rich pay "less" taxes than the poor?
Because you can get a non-consumption license from BATF for next to nothing, and begin brewing your own alcohol fuel from waste products you already have in your home-still. And then you can skip the $24/gal or $120/gal fuel habit, and run it on... moonshine! You can actually get federal subsidies for manufacturing alky-fuel. OTOH, this is nothing new. Alky powered vehicles have been around for ages. You can buy 55gal drums of race alcohol right next to the 112 octane leaded race fuel at your local speed shop. I have a friend running an alcohol injected blown 460 in a mud-rail with good results. Has been for more than a decade.
But why does having a backup == piracy? I have a library of 20 PS3 games. I can leave them next to the PS3, waiting for my kids to open them up and smear fingers all over them, or I can backup the disk to the hard drive of the PS3, and put the game disk away in a safe place, yet still play my game whenever I want. All without pirating the game, and instead paying $10-$60 a pop for them. I believe that falls under the "backup" clause, right? So how do you prove that my backed up copy of the game is pirated, vs a legitimate backup that loads faster than waiting on the BluRay disk?
At wifi (2.4Ghz or higher) frequencies, getting the two antennas to be close enough to each other, and far enough from reflective sources (or parasitic couplers) is easy to achieve. If we were talking HF, that's a whole new issue.. but a microwaves, it's not so bad. As a bonus, they should see some forward gain from the antenna, too.
>They should all sit down together and get drunk and forget about the whole thing. Perhaps Obama can reach out across the northern border and have another Beer Summit to smooth things over.
Sounds like you need a 2.4Ghz transverter to go with it then..
What's the current prognosis on whether or not the ionosphere would be scorched out of the sky by a nuclear war?
I was reading somewhere that at least at one time the prevailing thought was that a nuclear exchange would wind up burning the ionosphere such that "skip" on the HF bands would be destroyed (or maybe 160 would open up more?) and we'd be stuck with ground wave propagation.