Re: the tax man cometh.
I understand that corporate income tax is taxed based on net income, but has anyone done a study on the pros and cons of changing it to one based on gross income, removing or limiting the deduction for business expenses?
4026 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I understand that corporate income tax is taxed based on net income, but has anyone done a study on the pros and cons of changing it to one based on gross income, removing or limiting the deduction for business expenses?
I suspect the "further research is pointless" merely points to the fact that we won't be able to find a better error-correcting system overall than Reed-Solomon because they account for physical limitations. You can create something of equal performance, but never better performance. As you've noted, research instead has turned more toward adaptation (the Information Dispersal Algorithm) and specialization (Turbocodes). I sometimes wonder if someone can find a system equal in performance to Reed-Solomon but simpler to implement, but I'm not an expert in those matters.
That's assuming you can accurately read, write, and maintain 2^n different strengths of magnetism less expensively than just partitioning the space into n cells. The readers may be tiny, but they only have to detect on/off, which is a whole lot simpler than a reader that has to distinguish a spread of different strengths. Also consider, these larger cells may be larger but also more sensitive to changes because there are more ways a change can be registered, meaning neighboring fields may be MORE likely to introduce errors, not LESS.
The thing with your idea is that if you can alter polarities more precisely, it would be easier to just use smaller areas to represent the bits, which is what' has been happening steadily with hard drive technology: the surface area of the drive used as the "bit" gets smaller and smaller. Trouble is, we're reaching a point where physics really is getting in the way. Not in the sense that we're down to flipping single molecules but still at the point where the latent magnetic fields of adjacent "bits" could cause the bit you're on to naturally "rot" and spontaneously switch. That's why the current push is for HAMR: Heat-Assisted Magnetic Recording. If the bit can't be changed unless above a certaintemperature, then it's less prone to neighboring fields and can be made even smaller.
Cute. An advertising falsehood that actually UNDERSTATES the reality. That's something you don't see everyday.
The thing about household appliances is that they're typically built to last for some time. Sure, planned obsolescence exists to an extent, but the average homeowner expects things like refrigerators, washers, etc. to last for a decade or so at the least (my fridge is going on 20 and only the icemaker's broken). They won't replace the appliance until it breaks, which means if someone's only a few years into an otherwise-inefficient refrigerator, there may be a while before it's replaced with a more-efficient model.
Term limits wouldn't do a thing.
1. Experience counts, and if it's not the Congressmen themselves, then it'll be the congressional staff that sticks around after the congressman leaves.
2. People aware of term limits can plan for them by grooming proteges.
But then, who oversees the overseer? As for the budget, by Constitutional Law, only the House can set the budget, and what do you think they would do to any potential overseer? Nothing short of an Amendment could make this possible, plus even if you give this overseer the budget, who's going to pay for all this ON TOP of everything else Joe American has to pay now?
You'd be surprised. If the Google cars are any consideration, they'd actually be able to identify the debris on the road (and yes, from a few hundred feet away—only way it wouldn't see it was if it was against a bump, but then YOU couldn't see it, either), size it up, assess traffic to the side in question, and maneuver as needed.
As for dynamic range, computer sensors don't always have to use the visual light range to see. Radar wouldn't be affected by sunrises/sunsets, making them superior to the human eye.
Inclement weather? Again, the computer can see beyond visual light and can use ways to compensate for precipitation (differing radar systems) and road cover (thermal imaging). I'm not too knowledgeable about flooded roads, but I think the car would be able to detect a sizable body of water ahead of it and assume it to be unsafe, stopping the car in the normal manner and requiring manual intervention.
The problem with trains was that they had limited flexibility. It was the track or bust. Cars can shift from side to side, allowing the use of lanes which are impractical in trains with their rails. Also, if need be, cars can go off road.
As for the horse, I recall that they had minds of their own, really, which meant they weren't always reliable. For example, it may not be wise to drive a horse in a thunderstorm. Among the list of things that were the bane of any horse driver is the entry "Frightened Runaway Horse".
But the thing is, when Murphy intervenes, it's going to be from an angle that no one had even had the thought to cover.
For example, would an automated car be able to react well to a low-to-ground obstacle suddenly falling off the back of a truck? What about a child suddenly running out in front from between two cars (thus practically invisible beforehand)? Can the car detect small but significant patches of black ice? How will it react to an accident suddenly starting in front of them? And so on?
The fact that it can just disable the firewall with a root shell. Even system apps are vulnerable to a root shell. That's why SU apps prompt you before they're given the OK. It's all up to you to make sure what you're allowing does what it's supposed to do because once they get the shell, it's all "caveat utilitor".
Nope. It worked live, but once installed it died...every time. And the live is too slow and unreliable to use on a regular basis (the CD drive is crapping out and the USB support is 1.1 only with no boot support).
" The idea of tying things to the hardware is quite frankly a childish way of thinking that belongs back in the 80s with things like the Atari ST."
Until they rediscovered the simple fact that, when it comes to serious number crunching like 3D graphics, nothing beats dedicated hardware chips, and if you're gonna keep the beast fed, you want as few obstructions between the GPU and the rest of the system. So high-performance 3D drivers strive to be lean and mean and close to the metal: out of necessity. It's like hand-tuned code; sometimes, when speed matters, there's really no substitute.
And while Linux may be a multi-user operating system, a group of 1 is still a group AND the system must recognize that physical displays play by different rules to remote ones.
You want to make a buck in Linux applications? Just sell them commercially. Some companies actually do that, and nothing in the Linux license prevents this, as they're only interested in keeping the KERNEL free. If integral parts of the distro want to be free as well, that's up to them, but binary blobs sold commercially? Entirely possible. Otherwise, Valve wouldn't have dared to try to migrate Steam to Linux. Now, granted, you need a market for your software, but that's more a matter of market research rather than development.
Meanwhile, trying to do the same on an old Dell laptop with Xubuntu has the opposite effect: I need an external monitor just to see the screen because installing it causes the laptop screen to go dark: using both free AND non-free drivers. A check at the logs shows neither driver can recognize the chipset/screen combination and basically falls out. Finally gave up on the whole mess and put XP back on (thanks to the OEM sticker), so depending on your hardware it CAN be hit or miss.
Part of the problem with X is conflicting goals. X was designed to be useable remotely. That's why it has a client/server architecture and is network-transparent. Which is a problem when you need to optimize performance because the best way to do THAT is to get close to the metal. A network layer is an obstruction in that scenario.
"Here's a thought. You've already got millions of users who want a nice desktop and laptop operating system. How about keeping them happy?"
Because in his mind (and Microsoft's, mind) they're a dying breed. Soon they'll be niched and the big money will be in phones and tablets. He obviously is unwilling to concede the market to Google and Apple, so for him it's "adapt or die" time.
Well, provided it's in a language you understand, dead tree books are remarkably simple and require no external power or artificial illumination if used in daylight, so they're pretty good when you're away from civilization. They also handle getting wet better, so they're better for beach and poolside reading.
That said, in the balance of things, I prefer the compact e-reader to paper books, especially in traveling where weight and volume must be considered. I deal with the ownership issues by obtaining books from legal suppliers that don't lock their books too tightly.
Actually, there still IS a compatibility issue with the printed word: LANGUAGE. I imagine the literacy boom of the 12th century wouldn't have turned out so well if there weren't people around able to translate all the Spanish books from Arabic to Latin. One nasty thing about the printed work: they're more difficult in that sense to convert.
Um, you know Amazon's an American company, too.
There's another issue, too. Corporations are multiple people. What if the completely-innocent actions of multiple people result in a gestalt-like violation. In this case, the violation is worse than the sum of the individual actions that caused it, yet no one person is aware of the whole, probably not even the board or CEO (too micro). So who gets the blame in this instance if no one action was bad but taken unknowingly as a whole it is?
I think the judge made a salient point about Apple's "argument" of breaking Amazon's monopoly. If Amazon was leveraging its monopoly power, why didn't they charge Amazon with dumping (which IS considered an unfair trade practice--using loss leading to undercut new competition)?
The thing is, while all of us us probably agree with Torvalds' REASONS, many of us have a beef about his TONE. If one is competent but lazy, it shouldn't take much more than a, "This code isn't up to snuff. Show us what you can REALLY do." to motivate them: a good punch in their pride. If the contributor really can't cut it, a firm, "Come back when you can really bring something to the project." can put a firm end to the conversation. Tirades can take you over a precipice and actually cause a BACKFIRE. People might take tirades the wrong way and, instead of hunkering down or leaving, decide to declare war on you and start slinging mud BACK. I would think that's the LAST thing you want in a mailing list: lots of off-topic sniping.
But there's more than one way to get your point across. So what if the Internet doesn't do subtle? Whatever happened to "civil but firm"? Torvalds' rant could easily have been rephrased on the lines of:
"You committed bug-ridden code to the project such that others mistakenly assume it to be stable. In future, warn us beforehand when submitting unstable code. Otherwise, do not submit the code until it is in a stable state."
See? No profanity at all, and no "fake politeness" either. But also pretty cut-and-dry in what's being mentioned and requested: no subtlety at all.
Wonder if the note writer considered his sleep cycles (which means dealing with days--considerably shorter than seasons) when writing the note?
Just for the record, against the most precise clocks known to man, how far are we still from the theoretical limit of Planck time?
Redundancy adds weight, and rockets are VERY weight-sensitive, meaning you run the risk of it being too heavy to fly.
Except you forget the adage about the foolproof: never underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Even if you design it with one-way connectors, some complete buffoon who managed to slip through the cracks will find SOME way to jam it in the wrong way.
The average driver may be crap at anticipation but machines are crap at the unexpected. We can break from script if the need arises, such as someone or something suddenly appearing in front of us. How well could an automated system interact to such an event without false alarming?
You assume the capitalist who saved the money will actually DO something with the money that will employ people. The thing is, there are fewer and fewer chances for the capitalist to invest where people are involved. If he buys a new machine, that machines was built by OTHER machines, with few if any people needed to oversee them. If he invests in markets or commodities, are they not managed by computers?
Look at this way. What happened to leather makers when leather demand tanked? They couldn't switch jobs because (1) their trade was too specialized and (2) the other industries that could take them in were already fully employed. They were blocked from adapting, so they just dropped off the map.
Meanwhile, even as fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, the number of people has continued to climb. What we're seeing is something of a "tipping point" where it's starting to dawn on the labor force that they're on the cusp of being made redundant. Even the service sector (a bastion of human labor due to the desire for face-to-face interaction) is slowly being assaulted by such concepts as automated loaders and self-service stations.
The thing is, the price of that freedom has gone way up, to the point that it's practically unaffordable for most. Unless people are SO desperate for their own car that they'll pay in blood, personal car ownership may be a fading trend. Besides, do we really, REALLY need to be able to go anywhere on a moment's notice?
As for the automotive industry, consider that cars will sill be bought and maintained: just not by people, and cars will still need petrol on a regular basis. Given that their paths can be unpredictable, there will still be a need for petrol stations scattered throughout. Also, as for privacy in a car, even that's going away due to the insurance companies (trust me, pretty soon it's put a GPS tracker in your car or you can't get insurance, period).
But the thing is that personal attachment frays when the driver has to sit in traffic jams twice a day. As noted, at least when one is a passenger, they can engage in other things besides keeping their eyes on the road.
Young kids? Try drunks when the bars close for the night. They HAVE to get rides because of their condition, yet their condition leaves them likely to leave some of the worst messes you can imagine in a vehicle.
Not so much. Buses travel on predetermined routes. The idea being proposed is like a cross between it and a taxi, which unlike the bus has the capability to go anywhere a car can go. Another possible cross would be a lift, where software has to carefully schedule the routes of the cars so as to gather the most people in the quickest amount of time. Imagine a server that keeps track of the cars in service. As it fields calls with pickups and destinations, it can search for the car that can field that request most efficiently, using already-existing trip-planning systems. It's a dynamic routing system, made possible because the system always knows where each car in the fleet is located at all times yet has the flexibility to change the routes as needed.
We'll answer as soon as the city folk are willing to answer the same question. After all, it's from the rural areas that the food, clean water, etc. originate. Many power plants are away from cities, too, due to NIMBY issues.
"the wall will show a cold patch if the cold water is directly hitting and cooling the wall."
Unless there's another fire between you and the wall you're actually trying to hit. Firefighters trying to attempt a rescue will want to focus their water efforts on creating a rescue lane to allow them to reach people trapped inside (to firefighters, people come before property). The further in you go, the less one can rely on direct line of sight, which is there having an eye further inside may be of use (you can throw it in before it's deemed safe for actual people to go in). This also has an advantage over a quadcopter in that it has no trouble with confined spaces.
For the fire scenario, you're forgetting the rest of the blaze going on which can cause incidental heating of the surrounding area. Also, the fire itself is usually at temperature beyond the useable range of IR systems (think over 1000 degrees when its high end is in the 500s). This would mean that most of the house is in the high end of the scale if not beyond it, even when you start getting the water down, so IR may not get you a quick-enough reaction. Plus, infrared has one nasty quirk—it doesn't transmit well through glass.
IR is used in rescue scenarios that don't involve fire because the buildings in the other cases are cool, making human body heat stand out on the person and whatever they touch. They're also handy for people lost in wooded areas or around water (or in inclement weather). I'd be curious to know its utility in avalanches.
What about a NONtrivial addition of software?
"The idea that someone passionate about music wouldn't want anyone to hear their compositions if there were no copyright law could only be promulgated by someone who doesn't understand music."
Oh? If I'm not mistaken, most of what we would consider the greatest works of art in the world weren't made out of the goodness of the artists' hearts. They were commissions, for the most part, meaning they were in it for the money just like everyone else. Even a starving artist has gotta eat.
Patents and copyrights are, by definition, a government intervention meant to provide an incentive to invent and create, respectively. Without them, content creators and inventors might balk and releasing their works for fear of being immediately copycatted without recourse.
This raises a few questions for people still fond of dead trees. I admit to being a ebook lover, but I tend to find other ways to put material in them, keeping the dead tree versions as backup.
The thing is that we're talking Barnes & Noble, the #1 bookstore comapny in America. If the #1 bookstore company in America is struggling (after seeing former #2 Borders just up and vanish a few years ago), one has to wonder about the overall health of the book business in general, though I haven't heard a peep as of yet from current #2 Books-A-Million.
There's also the matter of recoil (railguns DO NOT make any attempt at bypassing Newtonian physics). Like it or not, you're going to need some mass to absorb all that kick or a broadside shot is going to seriously list (if not capsize) the platform on which it's mounted.
"Catchers also have to develop enough strength and accuracy to "gun down" a runner trying to steal second, from a standstill at home plate, throwing the ball almost twice the distance from the pitcher's mound to home."
It's more challenging than that. They're actually starting from a SQUAT, so they have to jump to their feet to make their throws to second. Not only that, they also have to wait on the actual pitch, so they really don't have a lot of time unless the catcher anticipates a steal and calls for an intentional high throw which they take AS they jump to their feet (however, that's an intentional ball so can't be used when there are already three balls—that's why a runner is likely to try a steal on three balls).
"But then; so was aiming a ball at the batsman's face."
I assume you mean aiming for the face with a full toss. It's still considered OK to do it with a bouncer. That's why cricket's adopted the term "chin music" from the Americans for such deliveries (in both sports, chin music is usually strategic: meant to unnerve the batter/batsman and force him out of his comfort zone).
Many Americans would feel the other way, preferring the sharp "crack" of a solid hit with a Louisville Slugger or other ash baseball bat vs. the relatively tame "thump" of willow on a cricket ball. I've personally listened to many home run hits vs. hits for six and feel the same way, though I suspect it's more a matter of what you grew up hearing.
"However fans of Who will no doubt remember the 30th anniversary special which was broadcast, along with a few other shows at the time, in a form of 3D that relied on the Pulfrich effect. That sank without trace."
I suspect the Pulfrich effect was the best they could come up with without resorting to anaglyphs. The trick with the Pulfrich effect was you needed constant motion (the effect depends on differing perceptions of motion thanks to a single tinted lens). There were a few attempts at the idea in both television and video games, but the fad soon faded.
But perhaps science fiction has jaded us, leading to disappointment with the current "3D" push. We grew up expecting volumetric television, and we haven't quite gotten there yet. For one thing, we'd have to come up with an actual means of "recording" like volumetric scenes. We can already cook them out with computers, but a live volumetric recording is a whole other kettle of fish.
Or someone on the sofa looking at the TV sideways?
"Lightfield displays* have been invented for true 3d images, they're just beyond realistic mass-market manufacture and there's no content whatsoever."
I believe you're referring to integral displays. There are two problems with them. First, the microlenses require too high a precision for mass production (the effect is lost with imperfections). Second, it has a very narrow effective viewing angle.
What's to say Mike isn't planning the same thing? Both claim to have plans to restructure the company and keep it a going concern, but can you trust either side?