Slashdot Mirror

I totally agree and share your problem of trying to give away free citrus. I used to have two orange trees and got hundreds of gallons every year, ie, multiple 50 gallon garbage cans full of oranges. We got just as many lemons off of the single lemon tree. Also included were a tangelo , a tangerine, 3 peach, 2 apricot, a fig and pomegranate. We'd donate or throw away hundreds of pounds a year all on about a third of an acre, ut this was in AZ full sun an a lot of water. You're never going to economically get that much light in downtown of a city. Plants are only abut 4% efficient converting light to sugars (carbohydrates) which works out to ~60kwh/day for a 2,000kcal diet.

Going by the book definition of 10 TB. (conveniently bypassing the question of digital archives) According to Wolfram Alpha a microfortnight is 1.21 seconds. 57 GB/s is 68.97 GB/mFn. Divide by 10,000 and you have:

.006897 LoC/GB/mFn

Computer, how much would my house would be worth in 1790?

<majel-barrett>Your house would be worth two thousand three hundred forty one US dollars and three cents in 1790.</majel-barrett>

Holy shit. Marie could barely imagine owning a two bedroom home in flyover country?! I mean, sure, the indoor plumbing and forced air heating is nice, but at the same time if that's the only thing making me wealthier than her, I'll take my chances with chamber pots and fireplaces!

(Also replace the internetworked computer information system voiced by Majel Barrett with various personal servants to do the math and research for me.)

Yeah, looks pretty damn linear to me.

Wolfram knows.

Yes. One in a hundred million. Clearly.

Because that's literally the price anywhere in the world where hybrids could be used ...
Try 5 USD/Gallon

http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

It's kinda a tautology. You could fit 7 billion people in the states of Texas, California and Montana with a population density similar to Seattle.

I think he was thinking "boyishly", http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

If you know what I mean....

Also, remember that GPS positioning really depends on clocks sufficiently accurate to measure how far radio has travelled in a certain amount of time - which is of course, the speed of light. That means you need damn accurate time.

As such, it could be a 4.1 km / 2.6 mile error in your GPS location; or simple refusal for the GPS gear to get a fix.

That's right, a four kilometre error. Puts things in perspective.

What?

He can make it print "8008135" and graph (x^2+y^2)^2-2*(x^2-y^2)=0 too.

Maybe get him a book about Wolfarm Alpha?

It seems like he can explore an awful lot of maths there at his own pace.

Failing that, is there some kind of "advanced maths for the aspiring tween" book which exists? (Obviously if you knew that you wouldn't be asking)

I could see that it was less than 2, but doing arbitrary roots in your head can be tricky.

Wolfram Alpha is great when you're out and all's you got is your phone.

A cryptosystem that allows inferring the secret key (necessary for encryption/decryption) from plaintext+ciphertext with less-than-brute-force effort is considered broken. I'm guessing that successful cryptolockers use non-broken encryption. So no, having a plain and encrypted version of the same file is not enough to undo cryptolocker damage.

Usually symmetric ciphers use a block size between 128 and 256 bits, the amount of different blocks you can compose from those (and which your file would need to contain) is astronomical. Also, when used properly, the cipher output is also dependent on the cipher's internal state (initialized with a random vector, likely different for each file), so that repeated encryptions of the same block of plaintext in a different file (or different position in the same file) will be different.

Not a specialist, but I took the crypto 101 at school.

You're falling into the trap of assuming your opposition is naive rather than trying to actually understand their position.

That's not to say these programs are useless. They're essentially wealth redistribution, which can be handy to counter forces leading to income inequality

That's not a handy side benefit, that's the whole damned point. Some of the folks pushing mandatory minimum wage laws and basic income requirements have taken Econ 101, they know that transferring money to the poor will raise prices. But the net cost will be borne by the middle and upper classes. (A little too much the middle class for my taste, but Robin Hooding ain't easy.)

the only way for this to actually work, is if your average productivity is sufficiently high enough that a livable wage constitutes a small fraction of the mean productivity. considering the GDP per capita of the U.S. (one of the wealthier nations) is only around $55k/yr, a modest livable wage of say $20k/yr is a substantial fraction of that average. A 5:1 or 10:1 ratio is about where I think it would start to have a shot of working.

The U.S.'s GDP per *capita* is $55k/yr, but we're not paying basic income to children, and retirees already have one. What matters is the U.S.'s GDP per *worker*, which is $115k per person -- that's above the 5:1 ratio you think might be feasible. So according to your criterion (which, I should mention, is entirely pulled out of your ass), it's worth giving basic income a shot.

You want to talk joules(energy), not watts. And the energy requirement is ~33MJ/kg

And if so, by how much?

Using one of my favourite rules from mathematics, L'Hôpital's rule, the lower bound is the cost of energy. Which is about $0.67/kg

The main reason for population growth right now is medicine and longer lifespans. If everyone would just die at 30 from an ingrown toenail infection, population wouldn't be growing. Also, there is a lot of unused space on Earth. You could fit 7 billion people in less than a quarter the area of the US with the same population density of Seattle. Africa alone has enough arable land to feed 7 billion people. Considering most people don't live in the US, this would seem like a lot of growing space.

I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'.

How come? Consider the source of the word "television," tele meaning from a distance, and vision being to view something. The show is still being presented to a large audience over a great geographic distance, you're still viewing something remotely from where it's produced. Only the technology behind it has changed, moving from radio frequencies over the air to radio frequencies over a coaxial cable, and now to pulses of light over fiber.

Yes, but the model up until now has mostly been either free (OTA) or paying for an entire service (cable, minus the odd premium channels). This is streaming, which inherently limits the available quality to whatever CBS feels like providing and whatever your available bandwidth can handle; with ATSC OTA there's little reason to made content look worse on purpose, though cable/satellite is a mixed bag (cue up the stories of Comcast squeezing more and more channels into smaller space).

I love Trek, but I hope this flops so CBS will know their service is lame.

In what way is it "lame"? Shows cost money to produce, and that money has to come from somewhere. Consider that a lot of scripted prime time shows cost in the $3-4 million range to produce. You'd need 3-4 million people to chip in a buck to cover the cost of a show, but consider how many shows CBS is running and how many shows people watch. Scorpion, The Big Bang Theory, 2 Broke Girls, NCIS and its two spin-offs, Blue Bloods, The Good Wife, Code Black, CSI and CSI: Cyber, Extant, Limitless, Hawaii Five-O, Madam Secretary, Elementary, The Mentalist, Mom, The Odd Couple, Person of Interest, Stalker, Supergirl, Life in Pieces, Criminal Minds, and the pending Angel from Hell, plus a few more. That's a lot of money, and considering that ads on the web don't snatch nearly the same kind of value as ads from OTA/MSO grab they have to make up the deficit somewhere.

So that's $6/mo to cover the production of more than twenty five different scripted television shows (not to mention the cost of licensing NCAA games, game shows, news programs, and reality shows). Assuming an average run of 25 episodes per season for each show, and a 12 month run, that's 12 per episode that CBS is getting to cover the cost of production of everything, advertising/promotion, and bandwidth for streaming. Even if you only watch three shows, you're paying 96 per episode which is cheaper than the going rate on iTunes, Amazon Prime or Google Play.

The money they make off of television advertising (OTA/cable) is pretty big, IIRC. Also, FWIW, CBS made a profit of $1.4 billion last year... hardly sounds like they're hurting. I guess what I'm getting at is... they appear to be forcing people into a specific service using a name brand they know will get at least some people to bite. You have a loyal fanbase, why potentially ruin that by forcing them on to your platform? To make it so you have to pay for it AND can't skip ads?

I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'.

How come? Consider the source of the word "television," tele meaning from a distance, and vision being to view something. The show is still being presented to a large audience over a great geographic distance, you're still viewing something remotely from where it's produced. Only the technology behind it has changed, moving from radio frequencies over the air to radio frequencies over a coaxial cable, and now to pulses of light over fiber.

Yes, but the model up until now has mostly been either free (OTA) or paying for an entire service (cable, minus the odd premium channels). This is streaming, which inherently limits the available quality to whatever CBS feels like providing and whatever your available bandwidth can handle; with ATSC OTA there's little reason to made content look worse on purpose, though cable/satellite is a mixed bag (cue up the stories of Comcast squeezing more and more channels into smaller space).

I love Trek, but I hope this flops so CBS will know their service is lame.

In what way is it "lame"? Shows cost money to produce, and that money has to come from somewhere. Consider that a lot of scripted prime time shows cost in the $3-4 million range to produce. You'd need 3-4 million people to chip in a buck to cover the cost of a show, but consider how many shows CBS is running and how many shows people watch. Scorpion, The Big Bang Theory, 2 Broke Girls, NCIS and its two spin-offs, Blue Bloods, The Good Wife, Code Black, CSI and CSI: Cyber, Extant, Limitless, Hawaii Five-O, Madam Secretary, Elementary, The Mentalist, Mom, The Odd Couple, Person of Interest, Stalker, Supergirl, Life in Pieces, Criminal Minds, and the pending Angel from Hell, plus a few more. That's a lot of money, and considering that ads on the web don't snatch nearly the same kind of value as ads from OTA/MSO grab they have to make up the deficit somewhere.

So that's $6/mo to cover the production of more than twenty five different scripted television shows (not to mention the cost of licensing NCAA games, game shows, news programs, and reality shows). Assuming an average run of 25 episodes per season for each show, and a 12 month run, that's 12 per episode that CBS is getting to cover the cost of production of everything, advertising/promotion, and bandwidth for streaming. Even if you only watch three shows, you're paying 96 per episode which is cheaper than the going rate on iTunes, Amazon Prime or Google Play.

The money they make off of television advertising (OTA/cable) is pretty big, IIRC. Also, FWIW, CBS made a profit of $1.4 billion last year... hardly sounds like they're hurting. I guess what I'm getting at is... they appear to be forcing people into a specific service using a name brand they know will get at least some people to bite. You have a loyal fanbase, why potentially ruin that by forcing them on to your platform? To make it so you have to pay for it AND can't skip ads?

I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'.

How come? Consider the source of the word "television," tele meaning from a distance, and vision being to view something. The show is still being presented to a large audience over a great geographic distance, you're still viewing something remotely from where it's produced. Only the technology behind it has changed, moving from radio frequencies over the air to radio frequencies over a coaxial cable, and now to pulses of light over fiber.

I love Trek, but I hope this flops so CBS will know their service is lame.

In what way is it "lame"? Shows cost money to produce, and that money has to come from somewhere. Consider that a lot of scripted prime time shows cost in the $3-4 million range to produce. You'd need 3-4 million people to chip in a buck to cover the cost of a show, but consider how many shows CBS is running and how many shows people watch. Scorpion, The Big Bang Theory, 2 Broke Girls, NCIS and its two spin-offs, Blue Bloods, The Good Wife, Code Black, CSI and CSI: Cyber, Extant, Limitless, Hawaii Five-O, Madam Secretary, Elementary, The Mentalist, Mom, The Odd Couple, Person of Interest, Stalker, Supergirl, Life in Pieces, Criminal Minds, and the pending Angel from Hell, plus a few more. That's a lot of money, and considering that ads on the web don't snatch nearly the same kind of value as ads from OTA/MSO grab they have to make up the deficit somewhere.

So that's $6/mo to cover the production of more than twenty five different scripted television shows (not to mention the cost of licensing NCAA games, game shows, news programs, and reality shows). Assuming an average run of 25 episodes per season for each show, and a 12 month run, that's 12 per episode that CBS is getting to cover the cost of production of everything, advertising/promotion, and bandwidth for streaming. Even if you only watch three shows, you're paying 96 per episode which is cheaper than the going rate on iTunes, Amazon Prime or Google Play.

I think it loses the ability to call itself a "TV series" when it refuses to air over a conventional method for getting television into your home... Just sayin'.

How come? Consider the source of the word "television," tele meaning from a distance, and vision being to view something. The show is still being presented to a large audience over a great geographic distance, you're still viewing something remotely from where it's produced. Only the technology behind it has changed, moving from radio frequencies over the air to radio frequencies over a coaxial cable, and now to pulses of light over fiber.

I love Trek, but I hope this flops so CBS will know their service is lame.

In what way is it "lame"? Shows cost money to produce, and that money has to come from somewhere. Consider that a lot of scripted prime time shows cost in the $3-4 million range to produce. You'd need 3-4 million people to chip in a buck to cover the cost of a show, but consider how many shows CBS is running and how many shows people watch. Scorpion, The Big Bang Theory, 2 Broke Girls, NCIS and its two spin-offs, Blue Bloods, The Good Wife, Code Black, CSI and CSI: Cyber, Extant, Limitless, Hawaii Five-O, Madam Secretary, Elementary, The Mentalist, Mom, The Odd Couple, Person of Interest, Stalker, Supergirl, Life in Pieces, Criminal Minds, and the pending Angel from Hell, plus a few more. That's a lot of money, and considering that ads on the web don't snatch nearly the same kind of value as ads from OTA/MSO grab they have to make up the deficit somewhere.

So that's $6/mo to cover the production of more than twenty five different scripted television shows (not to mention the cost of licensing NCAA games, game shows, news programs, and reality shows). Assuming an average run of 25 episodes per season for each show, and a 12 month run, that's 12 per episode that CBS is getting to cover the cost of production of everything, advertising/promotion, and bandwidth for streaming. Even if you only watch three shows, you're paying 96 per episode which is cheaper than the going rate on iTunes, Amazon Prime or Google Play.

Wolfram Alpha says otherwise - over two and a half times the number of accidents per person in America (0.00625) vs the number of accidents per person in Europe (0.0024).

Wolfram Alpha says otherwise - over two and a half times the number of accidents per person in America (0.00625) vs the number of accidents per person in Europe (0.0024).

It's about half a food calorie.

It is estimated the cost of deploying the officers outside the Embassy in London all day for the past three years has cost the British taxpayer more than $18m.

So dollars, then? Six million a year for 24 hour surveillance. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

$684.93 per hour. Thank you Wolfram Alpha. This has the smell of one of those 1000 kilo drug busts that calculates the value of the seizure by multiplying by the gram price.

It's not very often that you actually run into someone foreign to the concept of government waste.

I mean that's the only logical explanation here.

And one million or eighteen. $100/hr or $700/hr. What the fuck does it matter? Waste is waste, and this is a perfect example considering the end result was jack shit.

It is estimated the cost of deploying the officers outside the Embassy in London all day for the past three years has cost the British taxpayer more than $18m.

So dollars, then? Six million a year for 24 hour surveillance. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

$684.93 per hour. Thank you Wolfram Alpha. This has the smell of one of those 1000 kilo drug busts that calculates the value of the seizure by multiplying by the gram price.

Maybe, just maybe this could have worked before the era of ISP data caps, but now there is no way.

For the sake of argument, lets assume you're using the minimum requirement of 12Mb/s. Lets also assume you're on the high end of the average american household ISP data cap at around 300GB/month. This means you're getting 0.9132Mb/s of sustained usage rate all month long to fit beneath your data cap.

If you take that 300GB cap and divide it out at a rate of 12Mb/s, that means you can use their service for 2 days 7 hours 33 minutes and 20 seconds of solid gameplay. This also assumes you have zero other internet traffic the entire month and the measurements being used are 100% accurate.

If you take the lower average cap at 150 GB per month, and 1080p service plan that changes reduces your usage amount down to 6 hours and 40 minutes. I would hope that their service will default to the lowest setting possible (unlike most video streaming services), or many people will suddenly find themselves over their caps with a hefty bill.

Maybe, just maybe this could have worked before the era of ISP data caps, but now there is no way.

For the sake of argument, lets assume you're using the minimum requirement of 12Mb/s. Lets also assume you're on the high end of the average american household ISP data cap at around 300GB/month. This means you're getting 0.9132Mb/s of sustained usage rate all month long to fit beneath your data cap.

If you take that 300GB cap and divide it out at a rate of 12Mb/s, that means you can use their service for 2 days 7 hours 33 minutes and 20 seconds of solid gameplay. This also assumes you have zero other internet traffic the entire month and the measurements being used are 100% accurate.

If you take the lower average cap at 150 GB per month, and 1080p service plan that changes reduces your usage amount down to 6 hours and 40 minutes. I would hope that their service will default to the lowest setting possible (unlike most video streaming services), or many people will suddenly find themselves over their caps with a hefty bill.

Maybe, just maybe this could have worked before the era of ISP data caps, but now there is no way.

For the sake of argument, lets assume you're using the minimum requirement of 12Mb/s. Lets also assume you're on the high end of the average american household ISP data cap at around 300GB/month. This means you're getting 0.9132Mb/s of sustained usage rate all month long to fit beneath your data cap.

If you take that 300GB cap and divide it out at a rate of 12Mb/s, that means you can use their service for 2 days 7 hours 33 minutes and 20 seconds of solid gameplay. This also assumes you have zero other internet traffic the entire month and the measurements being used are 100% accurate.

If you take the lower average cap at 150 GB per month, and 1080p service plan that changes reduces your usage amount down to 6 hours and 40 minutes. I would hope that their service will default to the lowest setting possible (unlike most video streaming services), or many people will suddenly find themselves over their caps with a hefty bill.

Damn, their uptime this year will be less than 99,94%!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

Damn, their uptime this year will be less than 99,94%!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

They increased the number of trees by 0.17%.

I don't know about that. A couple of back-of-the-envelope computations make me think that 10 years is not a long enough timeframe to make such a camera anywhere near common. Consider, for instance, the 3 ton weight. Suppose that technology develops such that an equivalent sensor halves in weight every year. Ten years then represents halving the weight 10 times, giving a weight of approximately 6 lbs. That definitely isn't iPhone weight, and comes from a pretty optimistic assumption about how quickly the technology will develop. The computation, for completeness: (3 tons) / 2^10) ~= 5.9 lbs

Or we could look at pixel counts. The summary claims that the camera will capture 3.2 gigapixel images. Apple claims that the iPhone 6 has a 8 mega pixel camera. So the telescope camera will capture 400 times as much data. Assuming that the iPhone camera doubles its pixel count every year, it would take almost 9 years to get to 3.2 gigapixels. Even if we assume that the iPhone is used to take panoramas, where a panorama can have up to about 2^3 the pixel count of a non-panorama (again, see Apple's claims), this represents 6 years of doubling every year, which is, again, pretty optimistic.

Long story short: yes, technology marches forward, but this is likely to be a pretty impressive instrument even 10-15 years in the future.

Yes.

834.5 KB/s if sustained over a 30.5 day average month, +/- 14 KB/s.

That presumes that the device is able to:
* overcome environmental issues that would affect its operation
* maintain connectivity long enough to keep up with that standard
* does not run into technical issues related to extended throughput via tethered devices.

...at the very least.

The 2TB mark is very hard to believe, since it requires an minimum sustained throughput of 834.5 KB/s for an average month of 30.5 days, to the device itself.

I sure would like to know what kind of device T-Mobile found that was delivering that absurd throughput. That sounds like a testament to the quality of the phone since it's taking unrealistic loads.

Greenland alone is adding 0.8mm / year

Clearly the United Nations needs to impose severe sanctions against Greenland for negligently discarding their ice shelves and endangering world peace and prosperity. Such arrogance!

Greenland alone is adding 0.8mm / year

9 year payback time.

I prefer wolfram alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

Basic thermodynamics puts absolute limits though which is what people are talking about here. You can't gain weight by expending more calories than you consume without violating known physical laws. A calorie (kcal for practicality) is 4184J is 1.162 wh. If you expend 1wh of energy and absorb 2wh of energy, that extra 1wh of energy has to be accounted for. How your body deals with it from person to person may vary, but you can't alter that fact.

As with most things, Internet can help.

--
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment

Pretty useless.

Try this:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solar+irradiance+of+Pluto+vs+Earth

There's a roughly three-order-of-magnitude difference between Earth and Pluto. What that'd actually look like, I can only guess...twilight in the middle of the day, perhaps?

http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

wolframalpha has some more interesting numbers for "2k Cal per day in watts":
~~ (1 to 5) × typical laptop power consumption ( 20 to 60 W )
~~ (1 to 1.1) × human daily average power ( 85 to 100 W )
~~ 0.81 × power output from a 1 square meter solar panel in full sunlight at 12% efficiency at sea level (~~ 120 W )
~~ 0.75 × peak power consumption of a Pentium 4 CPU (central processing unit) (~~ 130 W )

GP said calories (implying kilocalories) and did the conversion right. It's 96.9 watts according to Wolfram Alpha.

The world is a big place. Hard to know everything. America is a big country, hard enough to know everything that goes on here. The population of the entire country of Switzerland is 1/3rd of Southern California and only 1/4 the size.
Southern CA is 1/3 of California and doesn't include Stanford, Silicon Valley and all of the high tech research facilities there. And not all the research facilities in the US are in California Most states have high tech hubs.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

The world is a big place. Hard to know everything. America is a big country, hard enough to know everything that goes on here. The population of the entire country of Switzerland is 1/3rd of Southern California and only 1/4 the size.
Southern CA is 1/3 of California and doesn't include Stanford, Silicon Valley and all of the high tech research facilities there. And not all the research facilities in the US are in California Most states have high tech hubs.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...