I will represent to you that when I typed my earlier reply to you, I was sitting next to a device that greatly reduces particulates in the air. It's known as a "HEPA filter" and doesn't cost $10 billion
Relevance?
Assume it costs $1/year per GW plant. Assume it costs $1000000000000/year per GW plant.
Either way what difference does it make to the issue at hand?
Therefore the EPA didn't have to wait for a court order before releasing their analysis of particulate removal (very helpful and also pretty cheap) and also release their analysis of mercury scrubbing (very expensive for limited benefit). No need to artificially combine the analysis of inexpensive particulate filters with the analysis of far more experience mercury scrubbers.
Relevance?
The issue is NOT what previous administrations did. The issue is NOT level of detail provided in supporting analysis.
The issue is ONLY whether it is rational policy to intentionally fail to consider all predictable impacts of a specific policy proposal.
If you have a competing proposal without mercury that is more cost effective don't let anyone stand in the way of you building consensus for it and having it judged fully on the merits. Don't judge it based on weighted bullshit with no purchase on objective reality.
Does your phone listen to your conversations? Probably.
I certainly hope so given wiretapping is a criminal felony offense it would be amazing to pursuit charges and see slime rounded up and carted off to jail.
Everything you do on that smartphone you are sending data to Google you cannot even download "apps" without giving them your name e-mail address and your phone number to go with it.
There are many downloader sites freely available on the web. You don't need Google play services and associated malware to download software from the Google play store.
The measures taken to decrease mercury by 90%, at a cost of $10 billion / year, are the exact same measures required to meet the other rule regarding particulates.
Therefore it's impossible to reduce particulates (as with a passive filter) without spending $10 billion / year and reducing mercury as a side effect.
I have no idea what the cost/benefit of different policy formulations that include or don't include mercury are.
Therefore the EPA *had* to combine the particulate analysis with the mercury analysis, because since you can't get rid of particulates without also getting rid of mercury.
They couldn't release their analysis of particulates, without first combining it with their mercury analysis, since you can't do one without the other.
I don't believe so. It's useful to have itemized and grouped costs and benefit estimates to inform policy decisions wherever possible. I suspect there are a number of practical challenges based on assumptions related to currently available technology.
I don't support hoarding analysis paid for by tax payers for political reasons to achieve political objectives.
I also don't support manifest bullshit like costing specific policy proposals based only on a specific criteria rather than real world aggregate effect it's predicted to have.
If you or industry goons running the EPA want to propose different competing policy formulations then I would hope each would be evaluated on the merits subject to appropriate political scrutiny with full consideration of ALL predicted outcomes NOT arbitrary primary vs incidental bullshit.
Thousands of lives would be saved every year if Waffle Monster stopped posting on Slashdot and everyone stopped smoking.
Is it really necessary to draw out the complete Venn diagram or can you for a second just stop and read my original response and make a good faith effort to understand its meaning. None of this is rocket science.
WaffleMonsters not posting is not related in any way to people choosing to smoke. Neither circle intersects.
Now a hypothetical WaffleMonster distracted by Slashdot could result in more people scarfing down Waffles than they otherwise would resulting in increased chance of Waffle related stomach aches. Here the chance of Waffle related stomach aches are somewhat related to whether WaffleMonster is distracted.
Mercury and other pollution (PM included) is contained within a larger circle describing scrubbers Obummer and crew worked to mandate. Not having the scrubbers means more pollution than just Mercury is being inhaled by US tax payers.
Scrubbers installed under Obummer did more than simply reduce Mercury emissions. The trick as far as I understand it seems to be EPA is only considering the impact of Mercury specifically in the cost benefit analysis when such a restriction is a political/legal one exclusively unmoored from physical reality for the simple fact the scrubbers don't just scrub Mercury.
It doesn't actually address the real world consequences and real world cost/benefit analysis of what has actually occurred. It appears to be nothing more than a cheap trick to confuse people and justify the unjustifiable.
You're guessing the benefits are several thousand times higher than what the EPA analysis predicted. Do you have any evidence, any reason to think that?
From EPAs own website:
In 2016, these proposed rules would avoid: 6,800 â" 17,000 premature deaths 4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis 11,000 nonfatal heart attacks 12,200 hospital and emergency room visits 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis 220,000 cases of respiratory symptoms 850,000 days when people miss work 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 5.1 million days when people must restrict their activities
EPA estimates the health benefits associated with reduced exposure to fine particles are $59 billion to $140 billion in 2016 (2007$).
I admit it doesn't say what topic says, but it might lead to less regulation to lighten them further, therefore it does actually allow for more mercury in the air.
Because math is for nerds and everyone knows that "greater" is the exact same thing as "lesser."
More TDS in action. When a nerd on a site for nerds can't even comprehend that "greater" is not the same thing as "lesser", it's one hell of a sizable cognitive dissonance.
The court ruled when the Obama EPA lumped totally unrelated things together in a deliberate effort to obscure the results their study, that was hiding the scientific facts. To me, that's what seems anti-intellectual.
As near as I can tell the real world implication of what Obummer did saves way more in aggregate healthcare costs borne by OTHERS even when applying a generous 100% discount on intangible cost of human suffering far in excess of some 10 billion spent on scrubbers.
Those arguing against reality seem to be making an entirely pedantic process argument asserting only benefits related specifically to mercury reduction should matter therefore actual reality reflecting actual implications of Obummers changes should be ignored because politically motivated accounting bullshit trumps reality?
Is this your argument?
Is it intellectually sound to hold political characterizations above actual reality?
(3) provide research experiences and training for additional undergraduate and graduate students in quantum information science, including in the fields ofâ"
(A) quantum information theory; (B) quantum physics; (C) quantum computational science; (D) applied mathematics and algorithm development; (E) quantum networking; (F) quantum sensing and detection; and (G) materials science and engineering;
(4) coordinate research efforts funded through existing programs across the Department of Energy, includingâ"
(A) the Nanoscale Science Research Centers; (B) the Energy Frontier Research Centers; (C) the Energy Innovation Hubs; (D) the National Laboratories; (E) the Advanced Research Projects Agency; and (F) the National Quantum Information Science Research Centers; and
Hard to argue with that. Literally everything boils down to quantum processes. Deliberately understanding and exploiting quantum world has been at the very heart of progression of modern technology.
Other services can provide greater precision than the US wishes civilians to have, or remove other restrictions like the maximum altitude and speed limits.
These are generally intentional artificial export restrictions necessary for US companies to make chips with GPS capabilities available outside the US.
It's perfectly legal to get GPS receivers without the restrictions in country. It costs too much to differentiate just for US market so most everyone ends up with lowest common denominator crap in their cell phones and computers.
Hows that gov control with waste in the streets and people living in RV working for decades?
Need another city and state tax to support the poor?
CA's racist corrupt government *IS* the primary problem. Government is actively standing in the way of the free market solving an acute housing problem.
When city planning cant plan for long term housing and normal people have to live in an RV they are poor. The problem is the "older and richer neighbors living in a nearly identical house". Stop trying to shape a city with demographics.
Free up land use and let the free market move in.
This is all rather rich... free markets to the rescue....
People who don't want to live in an illegal parked RV will then find homes as that demand for low cost housing exists.
Oh what... so not free markets but actually rich convincing the state to wield its monopoly on violence to artificially protect the rich by keeping the poor down so rich are not inconvenienced by undesirables. Make up your fucking mind.
Enforce parking laws. No more RV camps on streets.
No more tent cities on roads and paths.
Get caught placing trash and waste in the streets? Police get to enforce the law.
Open drug use in the streets? Police.
Crime in the streets? Police and lots of new CCTV to track criminals.
A person is living on the streets? Get them support, medical help, find them another city with the support they need.
That removes the crime, waste, trash, drug use and blocked road problems.
Change zoning rules in poor parts of a city so investment and gentrification can move crime and poverty out of the nice city areas.
New clean, safe buildings near the nice new tech job centres.
Allow more gated communities to ensure investors are safe.
Stop making new building accept a percentage of poor people as part of their approval to build a new building.
Need more housing for the working poor, poor? Set aside areas of the city for poor people and their needs. Offer tax credits and consider changes to permits to build low cost housing for poor people in city approved areas. Have the city help poor US citizens with rent but only in approved low cost areas.
The world would be a way better place if people like you were aborted prior to birth.
The LCD screen is what spares you from having to remember that {some function you might use once in three years} is mapped to {non-obvious button}. It enables you to use the main, logically-arranged buttons for functions you use every day, and still have LCD-labeled buttons for the obscure, little-used functions close at hand (so you don't have to go digging out the original remote, find working batteries, etc) every few months.
I still don't understand the value proposition for "once in three years" outliers you claim exist. In that case why wouldn't you just use local on device controls to adjust configuration? Labels or magic marker are free. Keeping non-replaceable rechargeable batteries charged vs throwing some lithium's in a normal remote and being set for years don't strike me as a better experience.
It does take a few minutes up-front to program buttons vs picking what you got from a database and having a map created for you.
As for CEC... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA(...)HAHAHAHA. That's a good one. Especially insofar as interoperability goes. If the extent of your "Home Theater" system is a TV from Walmart, a crap soundbar, and a Blu-Ray player, CEC might be adequate... if all three are from the same manufacturer, the same product line, and are fairly new.
Now try setting up a 4K TV with multiple media sources, a receiver made by someone else with surround-sound speaker setup, and throw in a few "legacy" video sources for good measure.
What difference does it make if it's a soundbar or an AVR? It all works exactly the same.. you plug in ARC out from TV to your AVR and TV fully controls the receiver. All codecs from anything appearing on the display is pass-thru to AVR automatically same as cheap sound bar. 4k TVs have better CEC than older pre-4k sets.
The thing about CEC that makes it superior to anything else is presentation of a coherent unified interface. TV state and source control are always perfectly synchronized.
If the display is turned off pressing next track button wakes up the display before commands are passed on to underlying source. You can't accidentally secretly control other devices in the background. You can't unpause a DVR, or Blu-ray or change track on an HTPC because the controls only work on source you are actually seeing on the display and in the context on the display where commands are able to be accepted. If you are in a configuration screen or using software on TV then accidentally pressing a media control button does nothing. Way better experience way less complexity way less to screw up.
Personally never had any issues with CEC that couldn't be fixed with configuration either in the TV or the source. I'm sure plenty of interop issues exist yet I've never experienced anything that couldn't be addressed with configuration. Things are getting better every day.
About 30 years ago the city of New York used to pile trash up on barges and dump them into the ocean. What better place to HQ?
This could be a scam (like those calls your grandma gets about the police ball) built on the plastic straw hype.
Could be... my money is still on Hanlon's razor.
Not so say there is not plenty of scam to go around. We have US recycling outfits shipping recyclables to poor countries who recycle the material into diamonds and gold which is generously donated to Arial, Flounder and Sebastian.
more people would have their own personal site. Those Raspberry Pis are perfect for it. But I believe most contracts prohibit you from operating a server. This is yet another reason we must demand that ISPs be given common carrier status.
No fan of XMPP myself due to numerous crummy design choices yet to be fair "Just use TLS" has been a part of the original XMPP protocol since initial RFC some 14 years ago. It's just as secure as anything else so removing XMPP on those grounds is absolutely BS to say the least.
Never much understood the market for systems like Harmony. Remotes always struck me as way overpriced and underwhelming considering programmable remotes where every last button can be customized cost like $15 and batteries last years.
These days more bits integrate seamlessly via CEC. Plop a disc into player or turn on a console AVR and TV comes on by themselves and switch inputs automatically. I'm sure there is a lot of crap that can't be managed via CEC or where fancy programmable macros come in handy but I have to believe it's less needed today than it has in the past and the people who invest in systems like these are not the type to take kindly to Logitech's bullshit.
That is obvious, but also only a problem on constrained networks. QUIC may not be the solution to my parent's ADSL, but what about my gigabit fibre to the home?
No difference of substance between TCP and QUIC on loss free unconstrained networks so no affirmative reason to use QUIC in this instance.
Much of the world is stuck with wireless and assorted low bandwidth morbidly oversubscribed last mile. Gigabit to the home with a reasonable oversubscription ratio to actually support using it is currently very much an outlier. Of course the Internet itself isn't just limited by last mile.. tier-2 and tier-1 networks and associated long haul links are often constantly saturated as well. Best achievable performance is dictated by weakest link not last mile.
To put it into perspective people who use the Internet for bulk data transfers often use a "trick" to move data. They don't move it all at once from point a to point b. What they do is move it regionally during times of low local utilization when everyone is sleeping and in doing so are able to transfer way more data in the aggregate per unit time than would be possible directly copying data across the Internet in one step.
Interesting comparison. There is a well researched phenomenon (that we even covered on Slashdot about 10ish years ago) that to make optimum use of infrastructure and flow the maximum number of people you need 30%-60% of people to drive aggressively depending on town planning and road designs of different countries.
Only intent was to convey an example of the idea of aggression leading to suboptimal outcomes.
Dynamics of road networks at this level of detail don't map to the Internet which is way better engineered than road networks. The goal is to keep it that way. To prevent devolution of the Internet where road dynamics become applicable.
In real life anyone can drive anywhere at any time regardless of capacity of road network. You can't delete cars from existence if there are too many drivers on the road. Unless you live in a dictatorship you can't do much to control when people chose to drive. It's chaos day in and day out with very little in the way substantively of usable congestion avoidance leading to predictable outcomes: millions stuck in daily rush hour bumper to bumper traffic.
The Internet is way different. Each packet travels at the same speed. Number of packets on the road is dynamically controlled by the originator based on continuous feedback acting as proxy for current capacity of the network. Each node of the network performs some manner of queue management deleting packets from existence as thresholds are exceeded. As a result generally only the repercussions of having insufficient capacity to meet demand are felt rather than more dire outcome of congestion precipitating reduction of usable capacity.
When you take away congestion avoidance or in this case eat into it with aggression and evolutions between competing actors to gain advantage the Internet not only devolves into uncontrolled, unmanaged roadways. The attempts to make up for data loss with aggressive policies can when taken too far create even more packets driving loss even further creating a feedback loop known as congestive collapse.
What we should be doing is improving the network by creating mechanisms to provide better more unambiguous feedback so senders can make better estimations not participating in power grab evolutions that don't actually help anyone.
Indeed it does, but from what I've read on IETF presentations on the topic it relies on proper routing and handling of traffic between server and client and a there's a significant portion of TCP connections that despite attempting to be negotiated as fast open proceed to fall back due to network support. It's one fo the key benefits QUIC pr
You might think pushing congestion control out to user space where Google has intentionally given themselves a 2x advantage over TCP is "excellent". When I look at that it's nothing more than a pure power grab for self-serving reasons actively harmful to everyone else.
There is nothing substantive HTTP3 brings to the table TFO+TLS 1.3 does not already provide.
Make up your mind, is it 2x faster, or just the same?
This is a common misunderstanding that I try and clear up below. Personally I don't think most people really have a handle on the scope of the problem QUIC presents.
2x faster is not the same as 2x congestion advantage which is actually very much on the conservative side. Papers I've read where people have run simulations show over a bandwidth constrained link a single QUIC flow is able to consume twice the bandwidth of sum total of any number of concurrent TCP flows. For example a single QUIC stream downloading something runs at 2x the rate of the sum total of 4 TCP streams downloading other things on the same bandwidth constrained channel. That 1 QUIC download is 8x faster than the 1 TCP download. Some are confusing this result to understand that QUIC is 2x or 8x faster than TCP when this is a dangerously false assumption.
Obviously this is a zero sum game. You ultimately can't go any faster than the underlying capacity of the communications channel no matter what you do. The ultimate goal is FAIR use of available channel capacity while maximizing throughput and minimizing latency between everything communicating.
What you can do is be more aggressive than everyone else and drown them out in an evolution of war that serves no productive purpose and is actively harmful to users and the network broadly. War doesn't provide fair use of channel capacity it simply selfishly monopolizes it. This is the key difference. The ability for QUIC to drown out TCP doesn't make it better it just creates an evolution of war that doesn't need to exist in the first place. It doesn't increase capacity or help more people transmit more information.
Unnecessary aggression is not actually an improvement in the same way aggressive driving rarely gets one to their destination in any meaningfully faster way. What it does do is significantly increase accident rates.
Modern TCP is well designed and efficient. TFO addresses the major performance issue on the web today which is round trip latency from unnecessary round trips. All other issues are effectively rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. They too (e.g. tail loss) and more adaptive/predictive parameters can and have been addressed via improvements to implementations and TCP extensions. The daylight between QUIC and TCP over an unconstrained loss free channel without competition is rounding error.
How is creating an open, patent and licence free standard, with free and open implementation (BSD) and presenting it to the W3 for ratification "wrestling control"?
By that logic then half the technologies that have been powering the web for decades are just a power grab. Javascript worked out really well for Netscape.
You are making an argument on procedural grounds and using it to make assumptions about outcomes. If x was created via y then x must be good or bad. What matters is the effect x has on the real world.
Buy-in from other stakeholders (OS vendors) who own stream protocols and associated IETF standards are being bypassed entirely to enable a single company with end to end control over a huge percentage of clients, servers and now transport to push out any change they want without attaining permission or having to coordinate with other stakeholders. If Google wants to turn the screws even more on ICW, CUBIC like parameters they now have the power to do it unilaterally and nobody can do shit about it.
And how is putting congestion control in the client a power grab? Surely it allows other browsers to implement their own even better schemes and creates the competition and innovation that will drive everyone forward.
It's a blatant and obvious conflict of Interest. Google measures milliseconds in terms of millions of dollars in revenue. You don't give someone this kind of power and expect them to behave themselves. It's piss poor governance with an obvious predictable outcome we have already seen materialize. It's not like they invented some new better congestion algorithm. They are using the same exact algorithm found in most TCP stacks.. just with tweaked parameters to be twice as aggressive because THEY CAN.
If you need another example of piss poor governance in action. Just look at what Google is doing to Firefox. They intentionally sabotage search interface on mobile versions of Firefox. You have to install an extension to change the user agent for search to be usable. Alphabet's objective function is to make money. They have demonstrated themselves to not be beyond unfairly leveraging their market position to achieve their aims.
Congestion avoidance is like insurance. Nobody wants to pay premiums but everyone wants the benefits. Everyone would choose to pay less if they were able to. What Google is doing is doing is paying 2x less for insurance and not only expecting the same benefits as everyone else but getting priority service to boot as QUIC drowns TCP in a congested environment.
Fix what issue? Should Google stop developing new technology? A lot of the improvements to the standards have come from Google and other doing this kind of work. HTTP3 is based on Google technology that was pioneered with Chrome and Google sites, and it's excellent.
HTTP3 is Google wrestling control over the remaining part of the stack Google doesn't have full ownership over.
You might think pushing congestion control out to user space where Google has intentionally given themselves a 2x advantage over TCP is "excellent". When I look at that it's nothing more than a pure power grab for self-serving reasons actively harmful to everyone else.
There is nothing substantive HTTP3 brings to the table TFO+TLS 1.3 does not already provide.
Microsoft's stuff was closed source proprietary bug-ridden crap. Lack of support broke sites, while Google is careful to ensure that sites work fine in other browsers. Remember when you couldn't download stuff from Microsoft.com because it needed IE?
How is memory lane at all relevant to the issue at hand? Microsoft sucks or sucked or whatever therefore... what? Google gets a pass?
What exactly has Google done wrong here?
*IF* the assertions are true Google intentionally leveraged it's monopoly position to intentionally sabotage other browsers to get more people to switch to Chrome.
Slashdot Mirror
I will represent to you that when I typed my earlier reply to you, I was sitting next to a device that greatly reduces particulates in the air. It's known as a "HEPA filter" and doesn't cost $10 billion
Relevance?
Assume it costs $1/year per GW plant.
Assume it costs $1000000000000/year per GW plant.
Either way what difference does it make to the issue at hand?
Therefore the EPA didn't have to wait for a court order before releasing their analysis of particulate removal (very helpful and also pretty cheap) and also release their analysis of mercury scrubbing (very expensive for limited benefit). No need to artificially combine the analysis of inexpensive particulate filters with the analysis of far more experience mercury scrubbers.
Relevance?
The issue is NOT what previous administrations did.
The issue is NOT level of detail provided in supporting analysis.
The issue is ONLY whether it is rational policy to intentionally fail to consider all predictable impacts of a specific policy proposal.
If you have a competing proposal without mercury that is more cost effective don't let anyone stand in the way of you building consensus for it and having it judged fully on the merits. Don't judge it based on weighted bullshit with no purchase on objective reality.
Candy Crush is a respected game series.
Candy Crush is a product of Zynga.
Does your phone listen to your conversations? Probably.
I certainly hope so given wiretapping is a criminal felony offense it would be amazing to pursuit charges and see slime rounded up and carted off to jail.
Everything you do on that smartphone you are sending data to Google you cannot even download "apps" without giving them your name e-mail address and your phone number to go with it.
There are many downloader sites freely available on the web. You don't need Google play services and associated malware to download software from the Google play store.
speedtest? really? fuck you ookla.
Speedtest has been malware for a number of years now.
The measures taken to decrease mercury by 90%, at a cost of $10 billion / year, are the exact same measures required to meet the other rule regarding particulates.
Therefore it's impossible to reduce particulates (as with a passive filter) without spending $10 billion / year and reducing mercury as a side effect.
I have no idea what the cost/benefit of different policy formulations that include or don't include mercury are.
Therefore the EPA *had* to combine the particulate analysis with the mercury analysis, because since you can't get rid of particulates without also getting rid of mercury.
They couldn't release their analysis of particulates, without first combining it with their mercury analysis, since you can't do one without the other.
I don't believe so. It's useful to have itemized and grouped costs and benefit estimates to inform policy decisions wherever possible. I suspect there are a number of practical challenges based on assumptions related to currently available technology.
I don't support hoarding analysis paid for by tax payers for political reasons to achieve political objectives.
I also don't support manifest bullshit like costing specific policy proposals based only on a specific criteria rather than real world aggregate effect it's predicted to have.
If you or industry goons running the EPA want to propose different competing policy formulations then I would hope each would be evaluated on the merits subject to appropriate political scrutiny with full consideration of ALL predicted outcomes NOT arbitrary primary vs incidental bullshit.
Mercury is not a particulate. That's the problem.
Thousands of lives would be saved every year if Waffle Monster stopped posting on Slashdot and everyone stopped smoking.
Is it really necessary to draw out the complete Venn diagram or can you for a second just stop and read my original response and make a good faith effort to understand its meaning. None of this is rocket science.
WaffleMonsters not posting is not related in any way to people choosing to smoke. Neither circle intersects.
Now a hypothetical WaffleMonster distracted by Slashdot could result in more people scarfing down Waffles than they otherwise would resulting in increased chance of Waffle related stomach aches. Here the chance of Waffle related stomach aches are somewhat related to whether WaffleMonster is distracted.
Mercury and other pollution (PM included) is contained within a larger circle describing scrubbers Obummer and crew worked to mandate. Not having the scrubbers means more pollution than just Mercury is being inhaled by US tax payers.
Scrubbers installed under Obummer did more than simply reduce Mercury emissions. The trick as far as I understand it seems to be EPA is only considering the impact of Mercury specifically in the cost benefit analysis when such a restriction is a political/legal one exclusively unmoored from physical reality for the simple fact the scrubbers don't just scrub Mercury.
It doesn't actually address the real world consequences and real world cost/benefit analysis of what has actually occurred. It appears to be nothing more than a cheap trick to confuse people and justify the unjustifiable.
You're guessing the benefits are several thousand times higher than what the EPA analysis predicted. Do you have any evidence, any reason to think that?
From EPAs own website:
In 2016, these proposed rules would avoid:
6,800 â" 17,000 premature deaths
4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis
11,000 nonfatal heart attacks
12,200 hospital and emergency room visits
11,000 cases of acute bronchitis
220,000 cases of respiratory symptoms
850,000 days when people miss work
120,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 5.1 million days when people must restrict their activities
EPA estimates the health benefits associated with reduced exposure to fine particles are $59 billion to $140 billion in 2016 (2007$).
Source:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/prod...
Not specific to Chrome, but - why does "mobile first" generally seem to consistently result in "crappy everywhere"?
Mobile first literally means f*** desktop users.
I admit it doesn't say what topic says, but it might lead to less regulation to lighten them further, therefore it does actually allow for more mercury in the air.
Because math is for nerds and everyone knows that "greater" is the exact same thing as "lesser."
More TDS in action. When a nerd on a site for nerds can't even comprehend that "greater" is not the same thing as "lesser", it's one hell of a sizable cognitive dissonance.
You're one crazy motherfucker.
The court ruled when the Obama EPA lumped totally unrelated things together in a deliberate effort to obscure the results their study, that was hiding the scientific facts. To me, that's what seems anti-intellectual.
As near as I can tell the real world implication of what Obummer did saves way more in aggregate healthcare costs borne by OTHERS even when applying a generous 100% discount on intangible cost of human suffering far in excess of some 10 billion spent on scrubbers.
Those arguing against reality seem to be making an entirely pedantic process argument asserting only benefits related specifically to mercury reduction should matter therefore actual reality reflecting actual implications of Obummers changes should be ignored because politically motivated accounting bullshit trumps reality?
Is this your argument?
Is it intellectually sound to hold political characterizations above actual reality?
(3) provide research experiences and training for additional undergraduate and graduate students in quantum information science, including in the fields ofâ"
(A) quantum information theory;
(B) quantum physics;
(C) quantum computational science;
(D) applied mathematics and algorithm development;
(E) quantum networking;
(F) quantum sensing and detection; and
(G) materials science and engineering;
(4) coordinate research efforts funded through existing programs across the Department of Energy, includingâ"
(A) the Nanoscale Science Research Centers;
(B) the Energy Frontier Research Centers;
(C) the Energy Innovation Hubs;
(D) the National Laboratories;
(E) the Advanced Research Projects Agency; and
(F) the National Quantum Information Science Research Centers; and
Hard to argue with that. Literally everything boils down to quantum processes. Deliberately understanding and exploiting quantum world has been at the very heart of progression of modern technology.
Other services can provide greater precision than the US wishes civilians to have, or remove other restrictions like the maximum altitude and speed limits.
These are generally intentional artificial export restrictions necessary for US companies to make chips with GPS capabilities available outside the US.
It's perfectly legal to get GPS receivers without the restrictions in country. It costs too much to differentiate just for US market so most everyone ends up with lowest common denominator crap in their cell phones and computers.
Hows that gov control with waste in the streets and people living in RV working for decades?
Need another city and state tax to support the poor?
CA's racist corrupt government *IS* the primary problem. Government is actively standing in the way of the free market solving an acute housing problem.
When city planning cant plan for long term housing and normal people have to live in an RV they are poor. The problem is the "older and richer neighbors living in a nearly identical house". Stop trying to shape a city with demographics.
Free up land use and let the free market move in.
This is all rather rich... free markets to the rescue....
People who don't want to live in an illegal parked RV will then find homes as that demand for low cost housing exists.
Oh what... so not free markets but actually rich convincing the state to wield its monopoly on violence to artificially protect the rich by keeping the poor down so rich are not inconvenienced by undesirables. Make up your fucking mind.
Enforce parking laws. No more RV camps on streets.
No more tent cities on roads and paths.
Get caught placing trash and waste in the streets? Police get to enforce the law.
Open drug use in the streets? Police.
Crime in the streets? Police and lots of new CCTV to track criminals.
A person is living on the streets? Get them support, medical help, find them another city with the support they need.
That removes the crime, waste, trash, drug use and blocked road problems.
Change zoning rules in poor parts of a city so investment and gentrification can move crime and poverty out of the nice city areas.
New clean, safe buildings near the nice new tech job centres.
Allow more gated communities to ensure investors are safe.
Stop making new building accept a percentage of poor people as part of their approval to build a new building.
Need more housing for the working poor, poor? Set aside areas of the city for poor people and their needs.
Offer tax credits and consider changes to permits to build low cost housing for poor people in city approved areas. Have the city help poor US citizens with rent but only in approved low cost areas.
The world would be a way better place if people like you were aborted prior to birth.
The LCD screen is what spares you from having to remember that {some function you might use once in three years} is mapped to {non-obvious button}. It enables you to use the main, logically-arranged buttons for functions you use every day, and still have LCD-labeled buttons for the obscure, little-used functions close at hand (so you don't have to go digging out the original remote, find working batteries, etc) every few months.
I still don't understand the value proposition for "once in three years" outliers you claim exist. In that case why wouldn't you just use local on device controls to adjust configuration? Labels or magic marker are free. Keeping non-replaceable rechargeable batteries charged vs throwing some lithium's in a normal remote and being set for years don't strike me as a better experience.
It does take a few minutes up-front to program buttons vs picking what you got from a database and having a map created for you.
As for CEC... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA(...)HAHAHAHA. That's a good one. Especially insofar as interoperability goes. If the extent of your "Home Theater" system is a TV from Walmart, a crap soundbar, and a Blu-Ray player, CEC might be adequate... if all three are from the same manufacturer, the same product line, and are fairly new.
Now try setting up a 4K TV with multiple media sources, a receiver made by someone else with surround-sound speaker setup, and throw in a few "legacy" video sources for good measure.
What difference does it make if it's a soundbar or an AVR? It all works exactly the same .. you plug in ARC out from TV to your AVR and TV fully controls the receiver. All codecs from anything appearing on the display is pass-thru to AVR automatically same as cheap sound bar. 4k TVs have better CEC than older pre-4k sets.
The thing about CEC that makes it superior to anything else is presentation of a coherent unified interface. TV state and source control are always perfectly synchronized.
If the display is turned off pressing next track button wakes up the display before commands are passed on to underlying source. You can't accidentally secretly control other devices in the background. You can't unpause a DVR, or Blu-ray or change track on an HTPC because the controls only work on source you are actually seeing on the display and in the context on the display where commands are able to be accepted. If you are in a configuration screen or using software on TV then accidentally pressing a media control button does nothing. Way better experience way less complexity way less to screw up.
Personally never had any issues with CEC that couldn't be fixed with configuration either in the TV or the source. I'm sure plenty of interop issues exist yet I've never experienced anything that couldn't be addressed with configuration. Things are getting better every day.
Ocean Cleanup appears to be HQ'ed in NYC
About 30 years ago the city of New York used to pile trash up on barges and dump them into the ocean. What better place to HQ?
This could be a scam (like those calls your grandma gets about the police ball) built on the plastic straw hype.
Could be... my money is still on Hanlon's razor.
Not so say there is not plenty of scam to go around. We have US recycling outfits shipping recyclables to poor countries who recycle the material into diamonds and gold which is generously donated to Arial, Flounder and Sebastian.
more people would have their own personal site. Those Raspberry Pis are perfect for it. But I believe most contracts prohibit you from operating a server. This is yet another reason we must demand that ISPs be given common carrier status.
Who cares? What are they going to do about it?
No fan of XMPP myself due to numerous crummy design choices yet to be fair "Just use TLS" has been a part of the original XMPP protocol since initial RFC some 14 years ago. It's just as secure as anything else so removing XMPP on those grounds is absolutely BS to say the least.
Never much understood the market for systems like Harmony. Remotes always struck me as way overpriced and underwhelming considering programmable remotes where every last button can be customized cost like $15 and batteries last years.
These days more bits integrate seamlessly via CEC. Plop a disc into player or turn on a console AVR and TV comes on by themselves and switch inputs automatically. I'm sure there is a lot of crap that can't be managed via CEC or where fancy programmable macros come in handy but I have to believe it's less needed today than it has in the past and the people who invest in systems like these are not the type to take kindly to Logitech's bullshit.
That is obvious, but also only a problem on constrained networks. QUIC may not be the solution to my parent's ADSL, but what about my gigabit fibre to the home?
No difference of substance between TCP and QUIC on loss free unconstrained networks so no affirmative reason to use QUIC in this instance.
Much of the world is stuck with wireless and assorted low bandwidth morbidly oversubscribed last mile. Gigabit to the home with a reasonable oversubscription ratio to actually support using it is currently very much an outlier. Of course the Internet itself isn't just limited by last mile.. tier-2 and tier-1 networks and associated long haul links are often constantly saturated as well. Best achievable performance is dictated by weakest link not last mile.
To put it into perspective people who use the Internet for bulk data transfers often use a "trick" to move data. They don't move it all at once from point a to point b. What they do is move it regionally during times of low local utilization when everyone is sleeping and in doing so are able to transfer way more data in the aggregate per unit time than would be possible directly copying data across the Internet in one step.
https://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/k...
Interesting comparison. There is a well researched phenomenon (that we even covered on Slashdot about 10ish years ago) that to make optimum use of infrastructure and flow the maximum number of people you need 30%-60% of people to drive aggressively depending on town planning and road designs of different countries.
Only intent was to convey an example of the idea of aggression leading to suboptimal outcomes.
Dynamics of road networks at this level of detail don't map to the Internet which is way better engineered than road networks. The goal is to keep it that way. To prevent devolution of the Internet where road dynamics become applicable.
In real life anyone can drive anywhere at any time regardless of capacity of road network. You can't delete cars from existence if there are too many drivers on the road. Unless you live in a dictatorship you can't do much to control when people chose to drive. It's chaos day in and day out with very little in the way substantively of usable congestion avoidance leading to predictable outcomes: millions stuck in daily rush hour bumper to bumper traffic.
The Internet is way different. Each packet travels at the same speed. Number of packets on the road is dynamically controlled by the originator based on continuous feedback acting as proxy for current capacity of the network. Each node of the network performs some manner of queue management deleting packets from existence as thresholds are exceeded. As a result generally only the repercussions of having insufficient capacity to meet demand are felt rather than more dire outcome of congestion precipitating reduction of usable capacity.
When you take away congestion avoidance or in this case eat into it with aggression and evolutions between competing actors to gain advantage the Internet not only devolves into uncontrolled, unmanaged roadways. The attempts to make up for data loss with aggressive policies can when taken too far create even more packets driving loss even further creating a feedback loop known as congestive collapse.
What we should be doing is improving the network by creating mechanisms to provide better more unambiguous feedback so senders can make better estimations not participating in power grab evolutions that don't actually help anyone.
Indeed it does, but from what I've read on IETF presentations on the topic it relies on proper routing and handling of traffic between server and client and a there's a significant portion of TCP connections that despite attempting to be negotiated as fast open proceed to fall back due to network support. It's one fo the key benefits QUIC pr
The Machine
IBM
I'm pretty sure there's a lot more examples of prototypes and concepts, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You might think pushing congestion control out to user space where Google has intentionally given themselves a 2x advantage over TCP is "excellent". When I look at that it's nothing more than a pure power grab for self-serving reasons actively harmful to everyone else.
There is nothing substantive HTTP3 brings to the table TFO+TLS 1.3 does not already provide.
Make up your mind, is it 2x faster, or just the same?
This is a common misunderstanding that I try and clear up below. Personally I don't think most people really have a handle on the scope of the problem QUIC presents.
2x faster is not the same as 2x congestion advantage which is actually very much on the conservative side. Papers I've read where people have run simulations show over a bandwidth constrained link a single QUIC flow is able to consume twice the bandwidth of sum total of any number of concurrent TCP flows. For example a single QUIC stream downloading something runs at 2x the rate of the sum total of 4 TCP streams downloading other things on the same bandwidth constrained channel. That 1 QUIC download is 8x faster than the 1 TCP download. Some are confusing this result to understand that QUIC is 2x or 8x faster than TCP when this is a dangerously false assumption.
Obviously this is a zero sum game. You ultimately can't go any faster than the underlying capacity of the communications channel no matter what you do. The ultimate goal is FAIR use of available channel capacity while maximizing throughput and minimizing latency between everything communicating.
What you can do is be more aggressive than everyone else and drown them out in an evolution of war that serves no productive purpose and is actively harmful to users and the network broadly. War doesn't provide fair use of channel capacity it simply selfishly monopolizes it. This is the key difference. The ability for QUIC to drown out TCP doesn't make it better it just creates an evolution of war that doesn't need to exist in the first place. It doesn't increase capacity or help more people transmit more information.
Unnecessary aggression is not actually an improvement in the same way aggressive driving rarely gets one to their destination in any meaningfully faster way. What it does do is significantly increase accident rates.
Modern TCP is well designed and efficient. TFO addresses the major performance issue on the web today which is round trip latency from unnecessary round trips. All other issues are effectively rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. They too (e.g. tail loss) and more adaptive/predictive parameters can and have been addressed via improvements to implementations and TCP extensions. The daylight between QUIC and TCP over an unconstrained loss free channel without competition is rounding error.
How is creating an open, patent and licence free standard, with free and open implementation (BSD) and presenting it to the W3 for ratification "wrestling control"?
By that logic then half the technologies that have been powering the web for decades are just a power grab. Javascript worked out really well for Netscape.
You are making an argument on procedural grounds and using it to make assumptions about outcomes. If x was created via y then x must be good or bad. What matters is the effect x has on the real world.
Buy-in from other stakeholders (OS vendors) who own stream protocols and associated IETF standards are being bypassed entirely to enable a single company with end to end control over a huge percentage of clients, servers and now transport to push out any change they want without attaining permission or having to coordinate with other stakeholders. If Google wants to turn the screws even more on ICW, CUBIC like parameters they now have the power to do it unilaterally and nobody can do shit about it.
And how is putting congestion control in the client a power grab? Surely it allows other browsers to implement their own even better schemes and creates the competition and innovation that will drive everyone forward.
It's a blatant and obvious conflict of Interest. Google measures milliseconds in terms of millions of dollars in revenue. You don't give someone this kind of power and expect them to behave themselves. It's piss poor governance with an obvious predictable outcome we have already seen materialize. It's not like they invented some new better congestion algorithm. They are using the same exact algorithm found in most TCP stacks.. just with tweaked parameters to be twice as aggressive because THEY CAN.
If you need another example of piss poor governance in action. Just look at what Google is doing to Firefox. They intentionally sabotage search interface on mobile versions of Firefox. You have to install an extension to change the user agent for search to be usable. Alphabet's objective function is to make money. They have demonstrated themselves to not be beyond unfairly leveraging their market position to achieve their aims.
Congestion avoidance is like insurance. Nobody wants to pay premiums but everyone wants the benefits. Everyone would choose to pay less if they were able to. What Google is doing is doing is paying 2x less for insurance and not only expecting the same benefits as everyone else but getting priority service to boot as QUIC drowns TCP in a congested environment.
Fix what issue? Should Google stop developing new technology? A lot of the improvements to the standards have come from Google and other doing this kind of work. HTTP3 is based on Google technology that was pioneered with Chrome and Google sites, and it's excellent.
HTTP3 is Google wrestling control over the remaining part of the stack Google doesn't have full ownership over.
You might think pushing congestion control out to user space where Google has intentionally given themselves a 2x advantage over TCP is "excellent". When I look at that it's nothing more than a pure power grab for self-serving reasons actively harmful to everyone else.
There is nothing substantive HTTP3 brings to the table TFO+TLS 1.3 does not already provide.
Microsoft's stuff was closed source proprietary bug-ridden crap. Lack of support broke sites, while Google is careful to ensure that sites work fine in other browsers. Remember when you couldn't download stuff from Microsoft.com because it needed IE?
How is memory lane at all relevant to the issue at hand? Microsoft sucks or sucked or whatever therefore ... what? Google gets a pass?
What exactly has Google done wrong here?
*IF* the assertions are true Google intentionally leveraged it's monopoly position to intentionally sabotage other browsers to get more people to switch to Chrome.