Slashdot Mirror

I only read up until it said "Read the rest of this comment", and even then, I mostly just skimmed.

Either way, the amount of land area that needs to be utilized to by solar to provide enough energy for everyone, everywhere was tiny. I mean, TINY. Like, here is a link (disclaimer, I'm not a scientist, just a believer and fan):

http://www.techinsider.io/map-...

So... Do we think that much solar is going to have a tremendous effect on our ecosystems? Especially considering that it could be much more spread out than even that? Especially in comparison to the alternative of continuing to burn coal 24 hours a day until, what, we run out and have to go with solar anyways? Or should we dam the worlds rivers in order to generate hydro?

I'll agree that in a sense, everything is about trade-offs, there's no panaceas. But if you're going to argue that the long term negative effects of solar are anywhere even close to comparable to the mining, transportation and burning of coal, well, would you please provide something peer-reviewed that lays out the case for that?

We're talking about a service that will be orders of magnitude larger than Waze. In order for Waze to get data the driver has to actively open the app.

I'm finding it hard to believe that 3 German car manufacturers with a relatively small share of the total car market will have "orders of magnitude" more traffic data that what Google is currently processing. Waze/Google Maps (same company) pull data from all Android and iPhones with open Google Maps/Waze and all Android phones with location services on, which send location data to Google, regardless of whether a mapping app is being used. Google also has has years worth of historical traffic data they can use to predict traffic patterns. (Source: http://www.techinsider.io/how-... ).

Prediction: They will cobble together a mediocre system that won't perform any better than Google Maps/Waze, but will be flashy enough convince their older, wealthy, non-tech-savvy buyers (mostly BMW owners) that their over-priced, luxury, info-tainment package was worth the upgrade and monthly subscription.

Share of users, share of traffic, and share of revenue differ.

Safari has a 4.28% market share on the desktop

Among people willing to buy products and services from Internet businesses, the market share is probably bigger than 4.28%.

and a 14% share on mobile.

Among people willing to buy products and services from Internet businesses, the market share is probably bigger than 14%. Tim Stenovec of Tech Insider summarized a report from IBM Commerce stating that iPhone and iPad users outspent Android users over 3 to 1 on Black Friday 2015. The average iOS user also spends over 9 times as much on paid apps and IAPs than the average Android user.

Assume for a moment that the average iOS user spends 20 times as much money online as the average Android user. If that's the case, then 14% of the users represent 14*20/(14*20+86)*100 = 77% of the money. I don't remember where I read this 20-to-1 figure, but it at least appears consistent with the IBM Commerce report.

I don't disagree with your premise, but no, we would not need to pave over the southwest:

http://www.techinsider.io/map-...

The area needed to power all of Europe, Africa and the Middle East could easily come from the Sahara, North America could be powered by covering some of the deserts, and South America by using their deserts. It is possible to do, but the storage is an absolute non starter. We have no way to store the kind of power we would need to store with all solar, and it is a pipe dream right now to do it without nuclear.

It was a real thing - which is why Apple had to change the design of the case by thickening the weak area. They also replaced bent phones.

That train left year ago. He's delusional if he thinks a race is even an option. The US is years behind and isn't even in the running. Hell we've just started to realize this is something we ought to /start/ training professionals for. We've still got people trying to outlaw security tools.

http://breakingdefense.com/201...
http://blog.hackerrank.com/whi...
http://www.techinsider.io/nort...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/...

We're years behind the competition, where professionals have been getting trained and put to work for many years. We're just getting to the point of having courses in hacking, never mind college degree based level training. How the hell are we going to enter a race when only a handful of three letter agencies even have professional hackers in their employ? This isn't the kind of thing your going to call up your local friendly pen-test company for. You can't win a race you refuse to enter.

Slams on the brakes while crashing into trailer...

I don't think it braked at all. The car went another 900 feet before ending up in a guy's front yard, going through two fences and taking down a utility pole on the way. At the stated 65 mph, that's almost 10 seconds, and I'm sure the car wasn't going that fast after hitting the truck. I'm kinda wondering why the car didn't notice a sudden deceleration (too sudden for anything but a collision) and didn't stop right then and there. Also of note - the airbags didn't deploy.

I think we should consider it in terms of the brain.

The Thalamus, Hippocampus, Amygdala, Striatum, Auditory Cortex, Prefrontal Cortex, Corpus Callosu, Reticular Nucleus, Intralaminar nuclei, Basal Ganglia are not intelligence.

Siri essentially is several parts of the of the brain (auditory cortext, parts of broca's area, etc.).

---

When discussing A.I. people seem to have two standards.

When something is impossible, they say that's A.I.

As soon as we succeed at implementing that behavior, they say that's not A.I.

i.e.
http://www.techinsider.io/misc...

"In the early years of AI, there had always been this worry that AI never lived up to its promise because anything that works, by definition, is no longer [seen as] AI," Subbarao Kambhapati, a computer scientist at Arizona State University, told Tech Insider.

Carlos Guestrin, the CEO of a Seattle-based company called Dato that builds AI algorithms to analyze data, said it might be because ANI looks nothing like human intelligence.

"Once something is done, it's not AI anymore," Guestrin told Tech Insider. "It's a perceptual thing â" once something becomes commonplace, it's demystified, and it doesn't feel like the magical intelligence that we see in humans."

---

If by A.I. we mean consciousness, then the instant we succeed we are
a) in danger
b) behaving immorally if we kill it, force it to do labor for us.

---

We don't need "A.I." to replace humans doing manual labor, white collar work, and even many creative and analytical jobs. The ability to appreciate music doesn't pay money. The ability to create music has been implemented. Most "creative" jobs can probably be reduced 4:1 to 20:1 with one person being in creative mode all the time while robots and programs do the rest. I suspect we'll see jobs destroyed faster than they can be created for the next 20 to 40 years.

by then we hit the limits to growth based on non renewable elements (like chromium, magnesium, etc.)

If this is happening in the US, the decision will probably be made on grounds of the sensibilities of someone's imaginary friend

Ireland, Germany, Poland, Italy, and other countries like that are much more into "imaginary friends" as the basis of research legislation:

http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scma...

http://www.techinsider.io/what...

However, there is no evidence that Hillary's private email server ever got hacked, while the White House has been.

So, basically, Tesla just introduced an electric model that is the same price as a non-electric car.

Yes, if you don't look too closely at the cars themselves. The Model 3 is not equal to your average $35K car, it is closer to a $22K car.

Since you've never looked at a Model 3-- unless you were at the unveiling in California?-- you don't actually know that. I'm not sure anybody knows that. Tech Insider claims that the Bolt, the other similar electric car, doesn't come close to Tesla, but they're mostly arguing on speculation. http://www.techinsider.io/how-...

In any case, the point is still that the introduction puts electric cars into the same price class as gasoline cars.
(Leaf, of course, has the jump on both of them (in price as well)-- so it's really about electric cars with 200+ mile range. Leaf seems to get left behind in the discussions, although they will be on their third generation of consumer vehicles before Tesla delivers the 3.)

Why do you think that? Wind and solar are each individually capable of covering roughly 100x the world's total energy needs. Take a look at this map to see just how little land would be needed to go to 100% solar. Of course, we wouldn't do that. We'd certainly also include a lot of wind and hydro power, probably some geothermal and biomass as well (mostly municipal and agricultural waste, since that's effectively free energy). Maybe tidal energy too, but that's a less mature technology. Going to 100% renewable energy isn't just possible, it's actually pretty easy and much cheaper than nuclear.

The only big problem is doing it fast enough. If we leave all the existing coal plants running for the rest of their intended lifespans, they'll keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere for decades. We need to shut them down and replace them as quickly as possible. And there again, renewables are much better placed than nuclear.

If maths is not your strong point, then google can help. http://www.techinsider.io/map-...

So they're destroying 6,178 acres of vegetation...

No. No they aren't. It's in the desert dummy.

Even if you covered every square inch of the planet in solar panels, you still couldn't generate enough power to meet demand.

You're not very good at this are you: http://www.techinsider.io/map-...

Even if you covered every square inch of the planet in solar panels, you still couldn't generate enough power to meet demand.

Last year solar energy passed the 1% of Global energy demand and when I look around me we have more than 99% of area remaining.

Have a look at this article, it explains world-wide demand is met by a surface area comparable to Spain:

http://www.techinsider.io/map-...

> Sure you can cover the surface of the Earth in solar panels I suppose, but that seems to be a bit of a maintenance headache (not to mention the energy cost of creating the panels in the first place).

Ok, you just managed to make three totally false claims in the space of one sentence:

1. You would need to cover the entire surface of the Earth in solar panels to supply all our energy needs. No. Not even close. Consider that if you cover the roof of a typical house in solar panels, they will generate more energy than what is used by that house. You can find lots of details at http://www.techinsider.io/map-.... "If solar is 20% efficient (as it has been in lab tests) at turning solar energy into power, we'd only need to cover a land area about the size of Spain to power the entire Earth renewably in 2030." In fact, solar compares quite favorably to other energy sources in terms of land area required, if you take into account things like the land needed to mine coal or the area of the reservoirs needed for hydroelectric. And for solar, much of that "land area" can just be on top of roofs that are already there.

2. Solar panels require more maintenance than nuclear power plants. Seriously? Is that a joke? Once installed, solar panels take almost no maintenance at all. Operating a nuclear power plant is a very complicated, very expensive business. There's no comparison at all.

3. Creating solar panels takes more energy (or almost as much energy) as they produce. This is a myth that's been floating around for years, but has never been true. From http://solarcraft.com/solar-en...: "A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conclusively demonstrates that the manufacturing energy cost versus the energy production payback for solar modules is generally less than 4 years." And you think it takes no energy to build and operate nuclear power plants, not to mention mining uranium?

The only graph you need to know about Android security

In case you don't want to click, it's a chart of percentage of in use android phones with a known vulnerability. And it's real bad for android.

Evidently people like the android model where a text message can pwn you... and you can't do anything about it because your update needs to go through your carrier and your manufacturer who both have incentives to make you buy a new phone.

The only graph you need to know about Android security

In case you don't want to click, it's a chart of percentage of in use android phones with a known vulnerability. And it's real bad for android.

Evidently people like the android model where a text message can pwn you... and you can't do anything about it because your update needs to go through your carrier and your manufacturer who both have incentives to make you buy a new phone.

Enjoy your shitty internet access, then. Every time you spout this nonsense argument you guarantee the US's internet access will remain cripplingly bad for the vast majority of people for a little bit longer.

You're from the UK, right? Doesn't look like your country (or Europe) is doing significantly better than the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.techinsider.io/akam...

http://data.worldbank.org/indi...

Note also that the Internet in Europe only took off after privatization and deregulation, and the UK today doesn't seem significantly different in how it provides Internet access from the US.

My first thought was to wonder how she knew the test worked. For example, if I wrote a C parser I could feed known valid C programs into it for testing. If you make an Ebola test, a 16 year old can't just feed Ebola into it for testing. This article does a good job of explaining how she gets around that. The test doesn't need the whole virus. It just needs a protein that the virus makes. I don't think you can run down to the drugstore and get that either, but at least you could probably order it from somewhere without causing an international incident.

Theranos' "Edison" analyzer is purported to allow accurate, cheap testing with tiny sample sizes. They haven't revealed a lot about how it works. This is in contrast to standard analyzers which cost more (well, they charge more), need your typical 10 ml Vacutainer sample, and have lengthy turnaround times. It turns out Theranos has recently been using standard, commercially-available analyzers for most of its tests, and had to dilute its samples to do so, apparently compromising accuracy.

As the OP, I'm hopeful Theranos now can pull up out of this apparent nosedive, and publish controlled analyses in larger, controlled trials in a peer-reviewed journal. Then the real miracle will be integrating their results with everyone's frickin' EMR.

This article says we'd need 20% efficient solar panels covering 191,817 square miles (496,803 square km) to supply the world's energy needs. Of course, these panels could be spread out across continents. Previously oil producing nations could easily become solar energy giants by placing tons of solar panels in their deserts. Houses could cut "from the grid" energy needs by placing solar panels on their roofs. The US could use desert lands in the south west to become energy independent.

With the cost of solar panels dropping and efficiency rising, the cost of this venture and the area needed is sure to shrink as time goes on.