Given my experiece with Best Try, it might be "Betta" testing. They dunk the tablets in fishbowls and see how the fish handle it. Honestly, I'd probably trust the technical opinions of a Siamese Fighting Fish over that of a Geek Squad member.
Well, "set a thief to catch a thief."
One of the reasons for the dysfunction we have in Washington is that all the rules that are supposed to protect the public interest have become so complicated that they actually promote crony capitalism. You need someone who knows how to hack the system to catch people hacking the system.
Those are for when you are driving and it is so much easier to just leave a VM. Also, when the background noise in the car makes a dictated e-mail look like it written by a drunk, illiterate wombat.
Damn straight. They're out to fuck you blind.
Dealers try to mystify and generally complicate the process of buying a car by offering to arrange financing, making you a trade-in "deal" and obfuscating the true cost of the car. Fortunately you can get a detailed break down of the dealer's costs (including factory to dealer incentives) from Consumer Reports. Then you arrange financing elsewhere (or pay cash), sell your existing car yourself, decide on how much markup you'll pay, and resolve not to buy any additional services or warranties through the dealer. If you do those things you won't be walking into the dealership like a lamb to slaughter. They might as well try to fuck the Rock of Gibraltar. Some of them will try, but you just walk out the door and find a dealership that will sell you a car on your terms.
The last car I bought I walked into the dealer; the salesman saw I had the printouts and said, "I'm not stupid. How much are you going to pay?" I named a price 5% over the dealer's true cost. I could have opened with 3%, but I appreciated not having to go through the whole ridiculous ritual. It was a reasonable offer and the salesman immediately accepted. Half an hour later we finished up the paperwork; I dropped off a cashier's check the following day and drove my car off the day after that. It was all low-key and civilized, and by executing the deal quickly the dealership earned a fair paycheck for a couple hours of work.
This is the way buying a car should be: you tell the dealer which model you want, hand over a check and drive off. Letting the dealer do anything else "for you" is asking to be screwed over. Despite what the salesman claims, there is nothing the dealer can do to make your life simpler, except maybe fetching your plates from the motor vehicle registry. Do everything else yourself, including determining the price you'll pay for the car.
Based on what you're saying, it seems very possible to me that there are ranges at which the transponder signal can be receive but the skin paint has not.
Signals in both directions will attenuate according to the normal square-of-distance law. Suppose that the aircraft is at a distance from the radar such that the signal is attenuated to just below the detection threshold. That is the radar can not get a skin paint -- but barely. However, the strength of the radar signal that strikes the aircraft at that range is 4X (in an ideal world; in reality its probably even higher) the strength of the signal that arrives back at the radar receiver. This is because doubling the distance (which assumes perfect reflection; in reality it's not quite that good) will quarter the power.
Therefore, the transponder can very likely detect the incoming radar signal -- and respond to it -- at ranges beyond which the radar can get a skin paint, since it receives 4X as much power.
The question, then, is whether the transponder replies with greater energy than the reflection at those long ranges. If so, then there is a zone in which the transponder signal can be detected but the skin paint cannot. Turning off the transponder in that zone would make the plane instantly and completely disappear from radar.
It would seem to me that you underestimate how complex weather systems are.
A farmer who says "when this happened last, the weather did this next" is more likely to be right than the guy who tries to model atmospheric pressure changes in a chaotic system.
Sure, some people rely entirely on models, but good weather forecasting often involves both. How do we know what a strong north-west pressure system will do? The best answer is "what did it do last time" not "lets model it to death."
PS, this is also how medicine works, which has a lot more science in it than weather forcasting -- historical comparison is an incredibly valuable insight in chaotic complex systems.
Probably still be required to buy it through a dealer though...
Can someone explain why that is the way it is?
It is a joke relevant to some of the political hijinks that car dealerships have been pulling lately to subvert Tesla. There are several states that now require any car sales to go through a dealer, specifically to prevent direct sales by Tesla.
Sick citizens cost a state, not in on-the-book expenditures, but in lost productivity and higher hospitalization costs -- especially because of the large number of very sick people covered by hospitals' indigent care pools. This directly translates into higher dollar costs in health care and insurance.
The same insurance that would cost my family $8811/year in Massachusetts would cost an unbelievable $12576 in Mississippi, even though everything else is much more expensive here. Mississippi has the lowest cost of living in the country; Massachusetts is among the highest. Yet they pay 40% more for the same health insurance, when all things being equal you'd expect them to pay 30% less. Why? Is medical care cheaper here? Absolutely not. We're chock full of very expensive, high tech teaching hospitals where the cost of an aspirin would give you a stroke. We have the most expensive cost for medical procedures in the country of any state but Alaska.
So why is health insurance such a relative bargain here? Because we have by far the lowest rate of uninsured people in the country (4.0%) thanks to Mitt Romney's implementation of what later came to be called "Obamacare". Yes, our medical care is more expensive here but because we get preventive care and screening we use less of it.
Mississippi's uninsured rate is 15%, and consequently it's full of poor, unnecessarily sick people. the number of unnecessarily sick people. Here in Massachusetts when you hit 65 you can expect to enjoy 15 years of *healthy* life before your health fails. In Mississippi it's 10.8 years. Mississippi has a shocking infant mortality rate -- a total of 1% of live births. And all those unnecessarily sick babies who didn't get prenatal care cost people living in Mississippi a fortune.
So while Mississippi saves immediate cash outlay by not expanding Medicaid, that's penny wise and pound foolish. People carrying insurance end up spending so much more they could expand Medicaid for a fraction of the costs, and if you're a Mississippian you can expect to get more sick and die younger than any other state in the country. Some deal.
Mississippi has one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the country -- a shocking 1% (10 per 1000 live births) of newborns in Mississippi don't make it. Sick, uninsured babies are very expensive.
>> few hundred bucks a month for health care
You don't have a family with kids..who occasionally get sick and broken bones, do you?
I have a family with kids. Under ACA my cost for a silver level plan, after my tax credit, works out to $712/month. That's a lot: almost as much as we pay for food. But considering how much we use the doctor and even the hospital, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
How high is "insanely high"?
For a family with two 40 year-old non-smokers and two children under 21, making the median household income of $50,054/year, the average annual silver plan premium, nation-wide would be $9700/year. That's a lot, but not unreasonable given what a silver plan covers. But here's the kicker: Uncle Sam cuts your taxes to the tune 65% of your premium, so effectively you only pay $3373/year. If you were getting anything close to silver plan coverage for much less than $281/month, I'd be very surprised. You can do this calculation for yourself at http://kff.org/interactive/sub... if you like. If you have a reasonably profitable consultancy, the prospect of paying $9/day to insure four people shouldn't be that daunting.
But some small businesses don't generate much income at first, and the tax breaks in Obamacare don't help you because you aren't paying much federal income tax yet. That's what the Obamacare Medcaid expansion is for. It covers *all* your health care expenses if you make 138% of the poverty line or less. Unfortunately about half of the states have opted not to expand Medicaid, even though the expansion woulds be entirely funded by the federal government. If you live and work in one of these states and make less than 138% of the poverty line, you need to get coverage at work or you're screwed. Even a bronze plan, at $249/month, is more than people who are supposed to be covered by Medicaid expansion can pay. Blocking Medicaid expansion at the state level is a key tactic in ensuring that working people experience Obamacare as ruinously expensive.
Finally, it's important to remember that Obamacare doesn't set insurance premiums. What you pay *for* is regulated, but the *amount* you pay for it is determined by the market. Increases in premiums, or too-good-to-be-true plans that are dropped, result from outlawing practices like dropping you from your insurance when you get sick, or raising the premiums so much when you get sick that you're forced to drop your coverage. So the increased premiums under ACA are simply the market price for insurance that actually works the way people expect it to (i.e., when you get sick, it pays for care until you are no longer sick).
If you are one of those people who pre-ACA had awesome health insurance for your entire family below $100/month, your old insurance was almost certainly too good to be true. Insurance companies dropped those policies when the ACA outlawed the deceptive practices that made them profitable.
Consequences? Those are for poor people.
It has been "in progress" for so long that stationary might be a better term.
Did you look at the link? The last update was in January, and described the current status as depending only on one other piece to be ready for launch.
I see. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the root of the problem. They have conflated a web-browser with an OS. No good will come from it except an unfocussed bloated browser and an anaemic OS.
I can see you've never used it.
I still don't see how your edge case changes that pushing all that current knowledge into a massive wiki instead of millions of individual papers in journals wouldn't help for almost all other cases.
Good job on the thesis though.
i) They don't fix the appalling font rendering issues on Windows promptly and as a priority. Most of Google's own web fonts are unusable in production because of this.
I haven't used Windows since about 2000, so I have no comment on this. I will point out that it appears work is in progress: https://code.google.com/p/chro...
ii) They don't follow standard most-recently-used order when ctrl-tab between tabs and they don't see the problem and close any bug report as won't fix.
I disagree with this one. The Chrome tab ordering is better. most-recently-used sucks when you have 20 tabs and have bounced around between them somewhat randomly (as is normal). It makes ctrl-tab completely unpredictable unless you're just jumping back one or two levels. The Chrome way is better.
iii) They start adding animations to html elements you can't restyle with CSS e.g. the zoom ease-in they added to select elements in a recent Chrome.
Got a link to more information? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
There were wide-spread issues on their recent releases. You can only auto-update if you are rock-solid.
Link? I certainly never noticed any issues, but perhaps that's -- again -- because I don't use Windows.
v) They fork from the web-kit project, a once high-point in cross company collaboration for the betterment of the web. Now... beginning of the end.
Nonsense. There is still cross-collaboration between Blink and Webkit, and Google isn't the only company working on Blink.
I also fundamentally disagree with the common
I think the "we should all work on one implementation" theory has basically the same merits as the old Soviet one-gigantic-factory model for production of goods. On the face of it one would think that producing many different designs for one type of product and then building all of them in separate production facilities, distributed through different distribution networks, etc., is very inefficient. One design, one huge factory to maximize economies of scale should be better, right? But history showed that the opposite is true, that a competitive market produces more goods, better goods and does it at a lower cost. The issues in software are different, but at a high level the emergent properties are similar.
vi) And now they are going to spend their time re-implementing a cross-platform widget toolkit.
They already implemented it. It's been used in ChromeOS for a while. My guess is that they've decided it will take less engineer effort to port and maintain Aura than to keep up with Gtk+. I also wouldn't be surprised if a goal isn't to remove some unused cruft from Chrome on platforms (like Windows) that don't tend to have Gtk+ libs lying around. I doubt Chrome uses more than a tiny fraction of the Gtk+ functionality.