High end home therater does use RCA cables. I guess if your idea of a good "home theater" is a $200 receiver and a $399 "HTIB" speaker set, then a single cable works. But go check out a real high end theater - you'll find RCA cables, dedicated amplifiers, dedicated processors, and dedicated equalizers - all connected with either RCA or XLR connections.
You do know that MFi allows for 100 mA draw from the Lightning port, don't you? Most - probably more than 99% - of those Lightning headphones will NOT have batteries, they'll pull power from your phone to run THEIR circuitry to do the D/A and amplification - most of which STILL has to exist inside the iPhone because it still has speakers internally. That's what happens now with the few Lightning-equipped headphones on the market - the iDevice provides power to run everything.
It will quickly become an 3rd world problem, though, as billions of electronics devices with 3.5mm jacks are scrapped as everyone rushes to the new Lightning/USB enabled headphones, and the 3rd world sits and disassembles, sorts, and burns all that trash...
From something I posted long ago, but it's still relevant...
Recently, as I prepared for another jaunt to my second home in Shanghai, China, a friend of mine asked about the population of that nation. I answered it was somewhere beyond 1.4 billion people at the time, and that China, India, and Southeast Asia together combine for just over 3.5 billion people.
This was apocalyptic and frightening, my friend replied, for clearly there is no way the Earth can support 3 billion people, let alone the nearly 7 billion living and breathing on the face of planet today. So I sat down and - as a good engineer is led to do by some inate, twisted drive buried deep within, whipping our minds unmercilessly - plunged into the straightforward facts of the situation.
According to the US Census Department, the World population is just over 7 billion; for purposes of this post and to keep the math a little easier, we'll just round it to 7 billion. What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole? Well, New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of about 10,500 people per square kilometer. Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that billions of people around the world live in, and tens of millions accept in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.
So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density? Well, we would need 666,265 square kilometers. A big area, no? Well, let's look further...
Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely. In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is 671,877.17 square kilometers! Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities. Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.
The other 49 states: empty. Canada? A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut. Europe? Empty. Asia? Nobody home. Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands? None left. The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.
But how realistic is that? Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it? Well, let's find out... It is recommended that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking. That works out to 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated. That's a lot of water! Given there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day. Yes, a large volume! But is it really?
Take the Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon. The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second. How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water? Well, it would take 46,667 seconds. Or 777.8 minutes. Or just under 13 hours.
With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population. Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!
To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 boroughs). And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.
But what about food? Clearly that is of concern! Well, apparently 300 square meters will feed one person for one year. Since a kilometer is 1000 meters square, we could feed 3333 people per square kilometer. We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things e
I get that. And dredging a single harbor to a deeper depth would probably have LESS environmental impact as compared to more ports, more docks, more ships overall.
Hull speed and the Froude number. A longer, larger vessel is faster for a given amount of energy - it can move more efficiently through the water at full displacement. Cutting a few days off a trans-Pacific route offers many benefits including stocking flexibility, lowered financing of inventory, fresher produce, etc.
Check the specifications of a 777 and a 747. You can fit about the same number of passengers on both - but the 777 has a longer range AND uses less fuel. What did in the 747 was the replacement 777. The 777 is often called a mid-size widebody, but with up to 550 passenger capability and 2500 km more range whilst consuming 25% less fuel - it's a no brainer. Move the same number of people, access more airport pairings, and do so while saving fuel.
Rather than peaked at the 747, it was replaced with an even better, longer range, more efficient, same-number-passenger carrying aircraft. More flexibility for long-haul flights, less need for feeder flights (because of the extended range), and lower operating costs all for the same number of people.
And we won't even begin to talk about the A380 (which I've flown several times on the 2 hour flight from Shanghai Pudong to Guangzhou Baiyun - yes, a 2 hour "commuter" flight that uses an A380 because of the number of daily passengers).
As economies grow and advance, efficiency usually takes a bigger and bigger chunk of the improvements. Witness the efficiency increases in production. The fact we can realistically replace millions of workers with robots and automation. We can do that because it's more efficient and consumes LESS resources to do so (because you have to pay for resources - smarter use of them lowers costs). The big challenge facing us isn't growth, it's what to do with hundreds of millions if under-and-unemployed people because of efficiencies that have arisen as we've grown.
If I could run the numbers and prove to you that we could sustain every single person on the world with just the resources in the US and housed within the geographic confines of Texas, would you change your stance about overpopulation?
How is dredging a port a "race to the bottom"? Most times, it is more efficient to centralize most heavy production, which means you need to have freight terminals and the like. And bigger ships are also more efficient, using less power and less cost per TEU shipped. If anything, it's a race towards the top as costs are reduced, environmental impact is reduced (it's better to have one large factory than 10 small ones), and disruptions to the populace minimized (one freight terminal means one rail yard, one truck yard, etc. rather than 10 or more).
You pay taxes on your lease payments and down payment. Sales tax still applies. Sure, maybe you only pay for 1/4th the value of that $400K Bentley over a 3 year lease, that means you've only paid a little more than twice the median household income in the US for your car. So your consumption tax on that single vehicle would still outweigh most people (all but the top 10% in terms of income).
Correct. $400K puts you into the 1%. Have a decent mid-high level tech position (or middle management position), and you can easily earn $150-$180K a year with bonuses, etc. figured in. Exercise some options (say a private stock sale like at SONOS or Bose) and for that 1 year - you're in the 1%. In reality, it does not take much at all to get there...
The top 1% pay an average of 27% in income taxes, well above capital gains. Those who do live strictly on capital gains are few and far between. The overwhelming majority of the top 1% pay quite a bit in Federal income taxes - especially when you look at their share of income relative to all income.
Yes, it would require a Constitutional amendment, given Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and the 9th and 10th Amendments. Not that such issues have restricted the Federal Government in the past, but that's no reason to excuse the future.
Second, a federal consumption tax. Now normally a consumption tax is regressive: if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax.
You mean you have a higher tax rate - not pay a greater share of the tax. One purchase of a Bentley by a rich person would cover the consumption taxes of 10 average families...
The first one I can kind of see - dangerous product. Cars are also dangerous, as are motorcycles, wood chippers and chainsaws. Which is why we restrict their purchase to those over the age of 18. High expectation of causing harm? How many of the SIC MCX firearms have caused harm? One so far - out of what, tens of thousands made? That's a high expectation of harm? The Kia Rio car has 149 confirmed deaths per 1 million owners - that's a higher rate of harm (death!) per vehicle. Should they also be sued for high expectation of harm?
So which one of your rules or lines would have stopped Omar from getting his rifle? he had a background check, was a trained security armed guard and had gone through basic police academy traingin - so he was trained. His firearms were registered. So he could have gotten them according to your rules. It wouldn't stop that lone wolf. That's the problem with just passing laws - they don't work to prevent, only to penalize.
Slashdot Mirror
High end home therater does use RCA cables. I guess if your idea of a good "home theater" is a $200 receiver and a $399 "HTIB" speaker set, then a single cable works. But go check out a real high end theater - you'll find RCA cables, dedicated amplifiers, dedicated processors, and dedicated equalizers - all connected with either RCA or XLR connections.
You do know that MFi allows for 100 mA draw from the Lightning port, don't you? Most - probably more than 99% - of those Lightning headphones will NOT have batteries, they'll pull power from your phone to run THEIR circuitry to do the D/A and amplification - most of which STILL has to exist inside the iPhone because it still has speakers internally. That's what happens now with the few Lightning-equipped headphones on the market - the iDevice provides power to run everything.
It will quickly become an 3rd world problem, though, as billions of electronics devices with 3.5mm jacks are scrapped as everyone rushes to the new Lightning/USB enabled headphones, and the 3rd world sits and disassembles, sorts, and burns all that trash...
From something I posted long ago, but it's still relevant...
Recently, as I prepared for another jaunt to my second home in Shanghai, China, a friend of mine asked about the population of that nation. I answered it was somewhere beyond 1.4 billion people at the time, and that China, India, and Southeast Asia together combine for just over 3.5 billion people.
This was apocalyptic and frightening, my friend replied, for clearly there is no way the Earth can support 3 billion people, let alone the nearly 7 billion living and breathing on the face of planet today. So I sat down and - as a good engineer is led to do by some inate, twisted drive buried deep within, whipping our minds unmercilessly - plunged into the straightforward facts of the situation.
According to the US Census Department, the World population is just over 7 billion; for purposes of this post and to keep the math a little easier, we'll just round it to 7 billion. What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole? Well, New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of about 10,500 people per square kilometer. Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that billions of people around the world live in, and tens of millions accept in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.
So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density? Well, we would need 666,265 square kilometers. A big area, no? Well, let's look further...
Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely. In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is 671,877.17 square kilometers! Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities. Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.
The other 49 states: empty. Canada? A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut. Europe? Empty. Asia? Nobody home. Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands? None left. The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.
But how realistic is that? Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it? Well, let's find out... It is recommended that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking. That works out to 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated. That's a lot of water! Given there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day. Yes, a large volume! But is it really?
Take the Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon. The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second. How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water? Well, it would take 46,667 seconds. Or 777.8 minutes. Or just under 13 hours.
With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population. Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!
To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 boroughs). And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.
But what about food? Clearly that is of concern! Well, apparently 300 square meters will feed one person for one year. Since a kilometer is 1000 meters square, we could feed 3333 people per square kilometer. We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things e
I get that. And dredging a single harbor to a deeper depth would probably have LESS environmental impact as compared to more ports, more docks, more ships overall.
Hull speed and the Froude number. A longer, larger vessel is faster for a given amount of energy - it can move more efficiently through the water at full displacement. Cutting a few days off a trans-Pacific route offers many benefits including stocking flexibility, lowered financing of inventory, fresher produce, etc.
Check the specifications of a 777 and a 747. You can fit about the same number of passengers on both - but the 777 has a longer range AND uses less fuel. What did in the 747 was the replacement 777. The 777 is often called a mid-size widebody, but with up to 550 passenger capability and 2500 km more range whilst consuming 25% less fuel - it's a no brainer. Move the same number of people, access more airport pairings, and do so while saving fuel.
Rather than peaked at the 747, it was replaced with an even better, longer range, more efficient, same-number-passenger carrying aircraft. More flexibility for long-haul flights, less need for feeder flights (because of the extended range), and lower operating costs all for the same number of people.
And we won't even begin to talk about the A380 (which I've flown several times on the 2 hour flight from Shanghai Pudong to Guangzhou Baiyun - yes, a 2 hour "commuter" flight that uses an A380 because of the number of daily passengers).
As economies grow and advance, efficiency usually takes a bigger and bigger chunk of the improvements. Witness the efficiency increases in production. The fact we can realistically replace millions of workers with robots and automation. We can do that because it's more efficient and consumes LESS resources to do so (because you have to pay for resources - smarter use of them lowers costs). The big challenge facing us isn't growth, it's what to do with hundreds of millions if under-and-unemployed people because of efficiencies that have arisen as we've grown.
If I could run the numbers and prove to you that we could sustain every single person on the world with just the resources in the US and housed within the geographic confines of Texas, would you change your stance about overpopulation?
How is dredging a port a "race to the bottom"? Most times, it is more efficient to centralize most heavy production, which means you need to have freight terminals and the like. And bigger ships are also more efficient, using less power and less cost per TEU shipped. If anything, it's a race towards the top as costs are reduced, environmental impact is reduced (it's better to have one large factory than 10 small ones), and disruptions to the populace minimized (one freight terminal means one rail yard, one truck yard, etc. rather than 10 or more).
How does one measure "wisdom" objectively?
It's usually on the player's character sheet, sandwiched between Intelligence and Charisma.
I'll still need to get insurance for my primary mode of transportation...
You pay taxes on your lease payments and down payment. Sales tax still applies. Sure, maybe you only pay for 1/4th the value of that $400K Bentley over a 3 year lease, that means you've only paid a little more than twice the median household income in the US for your car. So your consumption tax on that single vehicle would still outweigh most people (all but the top 10% in terms of income).
Correct. $400K puts you into the 1%. Have a decent mid-high level tech position (or middle management position), and you can easily earn $150-$180K a year with bonuses, etc. figured in. Exercise some options (say a private stock sale like at SONOS or Bose) and for that 1 year - you're in the 1%. In reality, it does not take much at all to get there...
Hunting? Pretty much the same things you'd use a fishing rod for, or a bow and arrow...
But that is how works in Sweden, and functionally how it works in Ireland. Wrong countries, but still shows the concept works.
The top 1% pay an average of 27% in income taxes, well above capital gains. Those who do live strictly on capital gains are few and far between. The overwhelming majority of the top 1% pay quite a bit in Federal income taxes - especially when you look at their share of income relative to all income.
And damnit, Abe Vigoda is finally dead, too...
Rifles do as well. But since that's probably not acceptable to you, there will be no common ground.
Yes, it would require a Constitutional amendment, given Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and the 9th and 10th Amendments. Not that such issues have restricted the Federal Government in the past, but that's no reason to excuse the future.
I'll wager $10,000 that Trump gets more votes that Johnson. I'll even give you 10:1 odds - my $10,000 versus your $1,000. You want to take that wager?
Second, a federal consumption tax. Now normally a consumption tax is regressive: if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax.
You mean you have a higher tax rate - not pay a greater share of the tax. One purchase of a Bentley by a rich person would cover the consumption taxes of 10 average families...
The first one I can kind of see - dangerous product. Cars are also dangerous, as are motorcycles, wood chippers and chainsaws. Which is why we restrict their purchase to those over the age of 18. High expectation of causing harm? How many of the SIC MCX firearms have caused harm? One so far - out of what, tens of thousands made? That's a high expectation of harm? The Kia Rio car has 149 confirmed deaths per 1 million owners - that's a higher rate of harm (death!) per vehicle. Should they also be sued for high expectation of harm?
So in this most recent shooting, how was SIG liable for the actions of Omar? (NOTE: it wasn't an AR-15; it was a SIG MCX).
So which one of your rules or lines would have stopped Omar from getting his rifle? he had a background check, was a trained security armed guard and had gone through basic police academy traingin - so he was trained. His firearms were registered. So he could have gotten them according to your rules. It wouldn't stop that lone wolf. That's the problem with just passing laws - they don't work to prevent, only to penalize.