However with my current car I get about 450 miles per tank. at 66mph.
Now the issue is some times I need to drive for 8-10 hours. So I will need to fuel up mid way. The charge time for electric may still be an issue.
Remember this was kilometers, so you get 724km per tank. That's almost 50% more than the electric, one seater, made of tissue paper (euphemism, but not far off compared to a real road car) and riding on tires barely bigger than that for a children's bicycle.
As a comparison, the Tesla Model S weighs more than two tons (US or Metric) and gets 306 miles per charge (492 km). I am not impressed by this "record".
Actually, if you were a nerd like me you'd have memorized Pi out to at least 25 decimal places as a child. 3.14159265358979323846264338. It was in the back of my Geometry book as a freshman in high school. Geometry class was so boring I memorized Pi one day in class from the value in the glossary of the textbook that carried out 26 decimal places.
Suppose I rent an apartment in New York, and I setup an antenna to pick-up New York broadcasts. Then I stream those broadcasts to my TV at home. Have I illegally retransmitted the signal and I need to pay a licensing fee?
This is basically what the whole case is about. The decision will answer your question.
Does Aereo remove the advertisements those broadcasters placed into the stream? If not then how are they taking away a source of revenue?
They wouldn't have to. Because the ad rates are different based on delivery medium (newspaper, magazine, broadcast tv, radio, Internet) the broadcasters in this case could argue successfully that they are losing revenue because these Aereo streams would not get counted in their ad "impressions" for broadcast tv and therefore not be charged off at the higher broadcast rate, or even not at all. Since broadcast tv exists on ad revenues they could win that point, but the issue could be worked around by kicking back to the broadcasters based on stream/antenna numbers. That would get passed onto the consumer like Netflix's price hike due to bandwidth extortion by the ISPs, so if Aereo loses this point they could flounder. I will be watching this case closely as the outcomes affect some of my projects in the works. If Aereo loses this case it will be a long time before the broadcasters' cabal comes down, especially with the courts still backing the content providers and politicians are on the take even more with recent SCOTUS decisions.
experimenting with 15 inch golf holes the size of pizzas to stop people from quitting the game.
Why not make the entire green the hole? People would never be able to quit.
Spoken like someone who has never played golf. Even making the whole green the target/objective, it may still take most novices three to five strokes to get to the green, let alone land on it. It's why the 15" hole suggestion is laughable. Putting is only a part of the game that adds to your score, and it's typically not the hardest part to master, either.
I have a similar post farther down the thread but wanted to touch on something you said. The rules of golf (as is) can still apply in your suggested model. They are very adaptable to different course types as well as the differences in stroke and match play. I agree, more par-3 courses with less challenging designs would be the way to get more people golfing. I have seen this happen in small communities where a par-3 goes in. A larger demographic will frequent these courses because they can afford to play more often and they can work on their skills (especially short game). More inexpensive par-3s and finding ways to reduce equipment and greens fees would also help. I don't think it needs different rules nor a different name. It's still golf. Let's not start making different rules for different people or places, like American football and baseball. Golf is golf no matter who plays or where. The rules don't change and that adds integrity to the game at all levels.
Curtis Strange's quote is spot on. It's all a bunch of talk. There's no way the USGA nor the R&A would approve such a thing. Not only is putting just one aspect of the game, making the hole bigger won't make you better. Anyone that's played the game long enough to want to get better knows you putt at smaller objects to improve your putting, not larger objects. As I said, putting is also one of many aspects of the game. Driving, approach, chipping and pitching are all equally important as they add strokes to your game the same way putting does. I would argue that getting to the green is not only more difficult than putting once you're there, but requires more physical ability and mental challenge than putting. To have the swing consistency to hit every fairway and every green in regulation is more difficult to develop than reading a green and striking a putt. I have been golfing since I was 17 and still struggle with swing issues 25 years later. I can putt like a fiend, though. Sure, I know the "putt for dough, drive for show" saying, but every stroke counts. You can one and two putt all day, but if you can't get it to the green in three or less, your putting can only save so much. So, no, I really hope nothing comes of this bigger hole thing. It's counterproductive to their advertised ends, helping improve the game. What's next, a field width goal twenty feet high so more people will be better at football/soccer so they will be attracted to the game? I really don't like rule changes to appease people who want to apply less skill and practice to a game so they can compete with more skilled and practiced players. I thought that's what the handicap system in golf was for? We already give people 20+ strokes per round based on their lesser skills, why would they need anything else in a game where the lowest score wins? Bigger hole = dumb idea
Quite. Its amazing how many people today still think the internet = the web. Mention stuff like ftp, gopher, archie or WAIS and you just get blank looks.
Bah! They glaze over at telephone modem. They would think a BBS was an early Facebook. Of course, they'd be right, but Zuck probably doesn't know about the BBS days, either.
Actually, in 1981 the internet existed, you could FTP and use email, as long as you knew the bang path routing.
It wasn't for 2 more years after 1981 that I learned of it, but I knew people that were using it in the late 70's even. Contrary to what seems to be the popular public belief, the internet didn't start in the 1990's. That's just when the masses became aware of it, largely due to the influx of AOLers.
Granted it was much smaller then as far as number of connected machines.
Well, it was also a DARPA (ARPnet) project back then and only participating universities, govt contractors and govt agencies could get on. It was not publicly available. What was publicly available then was modem Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs). Those had chat forums, localized email and file sharing. If you were lucky and "knew a guy" or a guy who knew a guy, you could get on a networked BBS that exchanged files with other boards around the world via nightly sync or even luckier if you had someone from one of those universities or other running a board that also bridged to ARPAnet. That's where a lot of old usenet content got started. Those were the good ole days of social media. BBS meet and greets were fun. A lot less scary than now, fore sure and for a lot of new and different reasons.
"it's also a smart visual explanation of why the future of technology so often bears so little resemblance to anyone's predictions"
No, it's not an explanation at all. It was intended as a metaphor for miniaturization of electronics. Noone in their right mind would take a full QWERTY keyboard with keys the size of pin heads literally.
Arthur C. Clarke probably had the most "hits" with future tech of any sci-fi author I know of. He and a Russian predicted satellites in 1945.He's had a few others, and there are more if you google him and "predictions". He was not only a writer but a bit of a scientist and avid scuba diver til the day he died. Wish I could have met him.
A real nerd would know how to calculate Pi from scratch, no shotgun required...
Pi = (4/1) - (4/3) + (4/5) - (4/7) + (4/9) - (4/11) + (4/13) - (4/15)... (keep going until you get the number of decimal places you need.)
Gaaaa! What? How about 22 / 7 . Way closer, less painful. Nerds do it more efficiently and more accurately. That was about as bad as the shotgun method, maybe worse. I stopped doing the math at (4/15) when the result was 3.01[something] and adding (4/17) was 3.25[something]... Not even close.
Not only are they Canadian, they're French Canadian. Calling them American is worse than calling them Canadian as the Québecers would rather be their own country all together. I just think they're smoking something to not use simple long division to calculate Pi, especially as a university research mathematician. I mean, really! 22 / 7 = closer to Pi than their stupid shotgun embarrassment.
":...being a mathematician, they turn to you."
You're not much of a mathematician if you don't already know the value of Pi out to several decimal places without the need to expel valuable ammo in an experiment./john
Yeah, and how hard is it to divide 22 by 7 with a twig in the dirt, "Mr. Mathematician"? That's also an acceptable approximation of Pi that is 4.0249943477E-2 percent off the "true value". I think the colder climate and/or recreational hallucinogens has slowed those Canadians' brains a might. Maybe that's the way to avoid zombies, after all.
I always found the strap was annoying when letting my wrists rest near a keyboard.
Watches also interfere with your sleeves when wearing a dress shirt.
Watches were fun for a while when I was young, but I never missed them after I started using my phone as a watch and it would take quite a bit of compelling reasons beyond what I see now to get me to wear a watch again.
I had to explain "cross the Rubicon" to my wife just yesterday, in fact. (Her English is good, but it's mostly everyday/around-the-house English
Is that just an English idiom? I'd assumed it would be known in most places where Roman influence was strong.
You would assume correctly. Has to do with our common Roman/European roots. It's not an original English idiom, nor is it an English idiom at all, really. Since modern English is a hodge-podge of borrowed words from several different cultures and root languages, and some ridiculous meldings ("television" for instance-half Greek, half-Latin) one could see how some could get confused. The great 20th century philologist, J.R.R. Tolkien, saw Icelandic as the closest thing to what Old English was. Modern English is a mess. It's ok, most people don't know what the words they're saying mean anyway so what difference does it make. I had some idiot the other day in a meeting try to make themselves look cool by using "bifurcated" to describe something that was split in three parts. [facepalm]
The problem is the people outside of town. It's easy to have a cell tower or 2 in the centre of town but to have multiple towers will mean eating into their profits.
One other thing to note is that cell towers have limited range, dependent on a myriad of factors it can be as little as several hundred yards to 10 miles. Do you know how many towers would be needed to cover, say, rural Nevada or Utah? It's completely unfeasible from a cost stand point. If they tried, everyone's basic cell service would cost over $500/month, nationwide. Besides, they would still need the cables in the ground to get the signal from place to place because wireless interconnects would only be line-of-sight.
Actually, if you look at most long running series television shows, the third season is usually the best. The writers, actors and directors seem to hit a stride and it's shades of season three or a downward slide from there on, with few exceptions. My personal feeling is that series shows should not go beyond four seasons. After 100 episodes they tend to take a dive and everyone wants to do something else.
I think that was one where they were thinking of taking the story line in a certain direction, got the reviews and changed their mind. The Borg went over better as an arch enemy rather than some parasitic race trying to take over the Federation.
How old are you? Are you still hung up on your DVD collection?
Wow, how naive are you? That show blows away most sci-fi screenwriting done since. Maybe when you grow up you might realize that good stories aren't just written and portrayed within your limited lifetime or experience.
I liked the first episode and I liked the last episode. There was very little of redeeming value in between.
Wow, just wow. How can you dismiss episodes like "The Measure of a Man," where Data's sentience is on trial? One of Picard's best lines in the whole series (start about 38 minutes into the episode to get to), "Your honor, the courtroom is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth--for all time." Those court proceedings speak to how we as a species treat other life forms, and how "racist" and narrow minded we can be. Science fiction, Star Trek in particular, is mostly made up of morality tales. If you haven't realized that then you've missed a lot. There are many amazingly well told morality tales in those in between episodes. It's a shame you missed them.
See some of my posts above. Yes, language is based on referents, most of which require a great deal of cultural context and why there is no such thing as a literal translation between any language, even those based on the same roots, i.e. the Romance languages. I am sad that so many disliked the Darmok episode. It is actually one of my top 20. I can only hope that you learn more about different languages and cultures and to appreciate how interesting that episode really is.
As somebody who studies language - I agree. You can't make analogies in the first place without a functional language. And if you have a functional language, why make up analogies? And seriously, how can the communicate complex ideas? Can you imagine them trying to write a book explaining microprocessor design?
Ok, as an armchair philologist I am going to say that spoken language and the ability to design microprocessors are not mutually essential. Mathematics is more important to processor design than spoken language. If their society's understanding and expression of mathematics is advanced the spoken language is almost irrelevant. We don't express processor designs, nor computer code in spoken language. We use mathematics or an abstraction (insert your favorite programming language here).
Slashdot Mirror
However with my current car I get about 450 miles per tank. at 66mph.
Now the issue is some times I need to drive for 8-10 hours. So I will need to fuel up mid way. The charge time for electric may still be an issue.
Remember this was kilometers, so you get 724km per tank. That's almost 50% more than the electric, one seater, made of tissue paper (euphemism, but not far off compared to a real road car) and riding on tires barely bigger than that for a children's bicycle.
As a comparison, the Tesla Model S weighs more than two tons (US or Metric) and gets 306 miles per charge (492 km). I am not impressed by this "record".
Actually, if you were a nerd like me you'd have memorized Pi out to at least 25 decimal places as a child. 3.14159265358979323846264338. It was in the back of my Geometry book as a freshman in high school. Geometry class was so boring I memorized Pi one day in class from the value in the glossary of the textbook that carried out 26 decimal places.
Again, compared to the shotgun method, 22/7 is more accurate.
Compared to the shotgun method (you know, the post we're commenting on), 22/7 is much more precise and doesn't waste ammo!
Suppose I rent an apartment in New York, and I setup an antenna to pick-up New York broadcasts. Then I stream those broadcasts to my TV at home. Have I illegally retransmitted the signal and I need to pay a licensing fee?
This is basically what the whole case is about. The decision will answer your question.
Does Aereo remove the advertisements those broadcasters placed into the stream? If not then how are they taking away a source of revenue?
They wouldn't have to. Because the ad rates are different based on delivery medium (newspaper, magazine, broadcast tv, radio, Internet) the broadcasters in this case could argue successfully that they are losing revenue because these Aereo streams would not get counted in their ad "impressions" for broadcast tv and therefore not be charged off at the higher broadcast rate, or even not at all. Since broadcast tv exists on ad revenues they could win that point, but the issue could be worked around by kicking back to the broadcasters based on stream/antenna numbers. That would get passed onto the consumer like Netflix's price hike due to bandwidth extortion by the ISPs, so if Aereo loses this point they could flounder. I will be watching this case closely as the outcomes affect some of my projects in the works. If Aereo loses this case it will be a long time before the broadcasters' cabal comes down, especially with the courts still backing the content providers and politicians are on the take even more with recent SCOTUS decisions.
experimenting with 15 inch golf holes the size of pizzas to stop people from quitting the game.
Why not make the entire green the hole? People would never be able to quit.
Spoken like someone who has never played golf. Even making the whole green the target/objective, it may still take most novices three to five strokes to get to the green, let alone land on it. It's why the 15" hole suggestion is laughable. Putting is only a part of the game that adds to your score, and it's typically not the hardest part to master, either.
I have a similar post farther down the thread but wanted to touch on something you said. The rules of golf (as is) can still apply in your suggested model. They are very adaptable to different course types as well as the differences in stroke and match play. I agree, more par-3 courses with less challenging designs would be the way to get more people golfing. I have seen this happen in small communities where a par-3 goes in. A larger demographic will frequent these courses because they can afford to play more often and they can work on their skills (especially short game). More inexpensive par-3s and finding ways to reduce equipment and greens fees would also help. I don't think it needs different rules nor a different name. It's still golf. Let's not start making different rules for different people or places, like American football and baseball. Golf is golf no matter who plays or where. The rules don't change and that adds integrity to the game at all levels.
Curtis Strange's quote is spot on. It's all a bunch of talk. There's no way the USGA nor the R&A would approve such a thing. Not only is putting just one aspect of the game, making the hole bigger won't make you better. Anyone that's played the game long enough to want to get better knows you putt at smaller objects to improve your putting, not larger objects. As I said, putting is also one of many aspects of the game. Driving, approach, chipping and pitching are all equally important as they add strokes to your game the same way putting does. I would argue that getting to the green is not only more difficult than putting once you're there, but requires more physical ability and mental challenge than putting. To have the swing consistency to hit every fairway and every green in regulation is more difficult to develop than reading a green and striking a putt. I have been golfing since I was 17 and still struggle with swing issues 25 years later. I can putt like a fiend, though. Sure, I know the "putt for dough, drive for show" saying, but every stroke counts. You can one and two putt all day, but if you can't get it to the green in three or less, your putting can only save so much. So, no, I really hope nothing comes of this bigger hole thing. It's counterproductive to their advertised ends, helping improve the game. What's next, a field width goal twenty feet high so more people will be better at football/soccer so they will be attracted to the game? I really don't like rule changes to appease people who want to apply less skill and practice to a game so they can compete with more skilled and practiced players. I thought that's what the handicap system in golf was for? We already give people 20+ strokes per round based on their lesser skills, why would they need anything else in a game where the lowest score wins? Bigger hole = dumb idea
Quite. Its amazing how many people today still think the internet = the web. Mention stuff like ftp, gopher, archie or WAIS and you just get blank looks.
Bah! They glaze over at telephone modem. They would think a BBS was an early Facebook. Of course, they'd be right, but Zuck probably doesn't know about the BBS days, either.
instant access to computers around the world
Actually, in 1981 the internet existed, you could FTP and use email, as long as you knew the bang path routing.
It wasn't for 2 more years after 1981 that I learned of it, but I knew people that were using it in the late 70's even. Contrary to what seems to be the popular public belief, the internet didn't start in the 1990's. That's just when the masses became aware of it, largely due to the influx of AOLers.
Granted it was much smaller then as far as number of connected machines.
Well, it was also a DARPA (ARPnet) project back then and only participating universities, govt contractors and govt agencies could get on. It was not publicly available. What was publicly available then was modem Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs). Those had chat forums, localized email and file sharing. If you were lucky and "knew a guy" or a guy who knew a guy, you could get on a networked BBS that exchanged files with other boards around the world via nightly sync or even luckier if you had someone from one of those universities or other running a board that also bridged to ARPAnet. That's where a lot of old usenet content got started. Those were the good ole days of social media. BBS meet and greets were fun. A lot less scary than now, fore sure and for a lot of new and different reasons.
FTFA:
No, it's not an explanation at all. It was intended as a metaphor for miniaturization of electronics. Noone in their right mind would take a full QWERTY keyboard with keys the size of pin heads literally.
Except for the pinheads!
Arthur C. Clarke probably had the most "hits" with future tech of any sci-fi author I know of. He and a Russian predicted satellites in 1945. He's had a few others, and there are more if you google him and "predictions". He was not only a writer but a bit of a scientist and avid scuba diver til the day he died. Wish I could have met him.
A real nerd would know how to calculate Pi from scratch, no shotgun required...
Pi = (4/1) - (4/3) + (4/5) - (4/7) + (4/9) - (4/11) + (4/13) - (4/15) ... (keep going until you get the number of decimal places you need.)
Gaaaa! What? How about 22 / 7 . Way closer, less painful. Nerds do it more efficiently and more accurately. That was about as bad as the shotgun method, maybe worse. I stopped doing the math at (4/15) when the result was 3.01[something] and adding (4/17) was 3.25[something] ... Not even close.
a gun to calculate Pi value...
Not only are they Canadian, they're French Canadian. Calling them American is worse than calling them Canadian as the Québecers would rather be their own country all together. I just think they're smoking something to not use simple long division to calculate Pi, especially as a university research mathematician. I mean, really! 22 / 7 = closer to Pi than their stupid shotgun embarrassment.
":...being a mathematician, they turn to you." You're not much of a mathematician if you don't already know the value of Pi out to several decimal places without the need to expel valuable ammo in an experiment. /john
Yeah, and how hard is it to divide 22 by 7 with a twig in the dirt, "Mr. Mathematician"? That's also an acceptable approximation of Pi that is 4.0249943477E-2 percent off the "true value". I think the colder climate and/or recreational hallucinogens has slowed those Canadians' brains a might. Maybe that's the way to avoid zombies, after all.
Maybe watches work for desk jockeys?
I always found the strap was annoying when letting my wrists rest near a keyboard.
Watches also interfere with your sleeves when wearing a dress shirt.
Watches were fun for a while when I was young, but I never missed them after I started using my phone as a watch and it would take quite a bit of compelling reasons beyond what I see now to get me to wear a watch again.
Well, if you learned to keyboard properly and wore shirts that fit properly you may still be wearing a watch. You're not supposed to rest your wrists on something while typing. It's like playing the piano. Your wrists are supposed to be elevated with you hands flat, parallel to the floor and fingers naturally angling down to the keys. Dress shirt sleeve cuffs should terminate just behind the opposing joint of the thumb and not constrict around your wrist so jewelry (watches, bracelets) doesn't get caught easily. Might want to try French cuff shirts. Sounds like the boat may have already sailed for you though. I don't wear watches often these days either, unless I am getting dressed up, but the right clothing does help the getting caught problem. As for they keyboarding, you may want to work on your technique to prevent any long term injuries, or to mitigate any existing ones. I learned piano before typing so I had a bit of a head start on proper wrist-hand posture when I did finally start typing.
I had to explain "cross the Rubicon" to my wife just yesterday, in fact. (Her English is good, but it's mostly everyday/around-the-house English
Is that just an English idiom? I'd assumed it would be known in most places where Roman influence was strong.
You would assume correctly. Has to do with our common Roman/European roots. It's not an original English idiom, nor is it an English idiom at all, really. Since modern English is a hodge-podge of borrowed words from several different cultures and root languages, and some ridiculous meldings ("television" for instance-half Greek, half-Latin) one could see how some could get confused. The great 20th century philologist, J.R.R. Tolkien, saw Icelandic as the closest thing to what Old English was. Modern English is a mess. It's ok, most people don't know what the words they're saying mean anyway so what difference does it make. I had some idiot the other day in a meeting try to make themselves look cool by using "bifurcated" to describe something that was split in three parts. [facepalm]
The problem is the people outside of town. It's easy to have a cell tower or 2 in the centre of town but to have multiple towers will mean eating into their profits.
One other thing to note is that cell towers have limited range, dependent on a myriad of factors it can be as little as several hundred yards to 10 miles. Do you know how many towers would be needed to cover, say, rural Nevada or Utah? It's completely unfeasible from a cost stand point. If they tried, everyone's basic cell service would cost over $500/month, nationwide. Besides, they would still need the cables in the ground to get the signal from place to place because wireless interconnects would only be line-of-sight.
I hated pretty much all of seasons one and two.
Actually, if you look at most long running series television shows, the third season is usually the best. The writers, actors and directors seem to hit a stride and it's shades of season three or a downward slide from there on, with few exceptions. My personal feeling is that series shows should not go beyond four seasons. After 100 episodes they tend to take a dive and everyone wants to do something else.
I think that was one where they were thinking of taking the story line in a certain direction, got the reviews and changed their mind. The Borg went over better as an arch enemy rather than some parasitic race trying to take over the Federation.
How old are you? Are you still hung up on your DVD collection?
Wow, how naive are you? That show blows away most sci-fi screenwriting done since. Maybe when you grow up you might realize that good stories aren't just written and portrayed within your limited lifetime or experience.
I liked the first episode and I liked the last episode. There was very little of redeeming value in between.
Wow, just wow. How can you dismiss episodes like "The Measure of a Man," where Data's sentience is on trial? One of Picard's best lines in the whole series (start about 38 minutes into the episode to get to), "Your honor, the courtroom is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth--for all time." Those court proceedings speak to how we as a species treat other life forms, and how "racist" and narrow minded we can be. Science fiction, Star Trek in particular, is mostly made up of morality tales. If you haven't realized that then you've missed a lot. There are many amazingly well told morality tales in those in between episodes. It's a shame you missed them.
See some of my posts above. Yes, language is based on referents, most of which require a great deal of cultural context and why there is no such thing as a literal translation between any language, even those based on the same roots, i.e. the Romance languages. I am sad that so many disliked the Darmok episode. It is actually one of my top 20. I can only hope that you learn more about different languages and cultures and to appreciate how interesting that episode really is.
As somebody who studies language - I agree. You can't make analogies in the first place without a functional language. And if you have a functional language, why make up analogies? And seriously, how can the communicate complex ideas? Can you imagine them trying to write a book explaining microprocessor design?
Ok, as an armchair philologist I am going to say that spoken language and the ability to design microprocessors are not mutually essential. Mathematics is more important to processor design than spoken language. If their society's understanding and expression of mathematics is advanced the spoken language is almost irrelevant. We don't express processor designs, nor computer code in spoken language. We use mathematics or an abstraction (insert your favorite programming language here).