People would get sick and die (typical age would be 70-80 - assuming one survived the first four years of life). That's it. You would get sick. You wouldn't have "cancer" or "parkinsons" or "diabetes" or whatever fancy name is given nowadays, you would just very simply get sick and die.
Tobacco would be as much a killer as it is now, maybe even more so, they just didn't know it was the tobacco that killed them. The reason we have many people dying from tobacco, or too much saturated fats, or things like that is that nowadays we know that this is the cause of death.
This is also a key problem for say cancer rate detections due to power lines. People sometimes blame a new power line for more cancer deaths in their community - however you can not compare modern cancer rates with rates from say 30 years ago as detection is so much better, that we simply see more cases.
Overall userfriendlyness is quite OK for Potlatch2 but I'd be happy not to have to deal with all those crashes, and stupidity like not properly reacting to shift-click (to start branch) and stuff like that. And the new version (haven't tried it yet) must be quicker than the Flash version!
The mere fact that it's not Flash based is an improvement in itself.
In my case I actually used WinXP in VirtualBox (the non-free version for USB support) to get my USB dongle to work under Linux. It only came with Windows drivers. By now using other system so I have really no need any more for Windows. That setup worked fine. Never got it to work on my parent's computer though: that was a regular Win XP installation...
That's a totally stupid argument. It'd never happen because owning six houses and twelve cars is no way ever going to be average. Not many families have a need for twelve cars. If more people are rich enough to try to go after a second house, the housing market will go up to compensate for that. After all, there is roughly one home per family in most countries (if that many). I wouldn't even want six houses, of which five are empty most of the time (renting out is in such a scenario of course not an option, as everyone else also has several houses already).
Yet the average person nowadays doesn't think twice about taking a plane to go on holiday. Or to go for a second holiday in a year. Driving is so cheap no-one will think twice about cost of fuel before turning the key and driving that 500m to the nearest supermarket. The average family has a huge flat screen TV - as a child I went to the neighbour's because they had a colour TV that was twice the size of our black/white TV. The cost of all those things compared to average income is just so much lower than it used to be, just a few decades ago.
Profits are at an all-time high, but don't forget to count in inflation: just to stay level in real value, profits have to go up by the same rate as overall inflation.
Then there's that neat trick called virtualisation. You may have heard about it, it's all the rage these days. That'll keep the old stuff running for easily a few more decades. It even works for more mundane tasks, such as getting e-banking to work on Linux.
One of the many stupid comments of someone who doesn't understand economics. And that seems to account for most people here.
Where the savings really went? To YOU, the customer. Yes, really. Why do you think the quality of life has improved so much over the past decades? It's because productivity has increased so much. A single person can produce much more value than they could a few decades ago - and the computer and other parts of automation are a great part of that.
Previously a company had to employ those hundreds of typists, they have been replaced by computers, that do the work faster (especially the revisions that don't need to be typed out completely again, and copies, thanks to the photo copy machine). That saved a lot of money, which meant a company could lower the prices of their goods and/or services, to gain a competitive edge over the other companies that still used the typists.
Soon enough of course either companies automated and cut costs (and prices), or went out of business. Those that are still in business are not necessarily making a whole lot more money: they have to lower prices to stay competitive, margins will remain roughly the same. That's what an open market does for you.
Thinking that businesses still have all that money to employ the typists, but stuff it somewhere else, that's just not true. That money isn't there. They now make enough money to support their current, automated infrastructure - and are still always trying to lower the cost of that infrastructure. Continuing to use software that works, instead of pouring money into creating software that might work, is just one example. Many, especially larger, companies will also try to standardise their computers: making support easier, and making replacement easier when one breaks down (computer broken? Drop in another one, employee can continue their work, broken computer can be checked out later).
Trying to move your business critical piece of software that works just fine in IE6 to a newer platform is a costly risk. It may involve complete rewriting of the application - good luck making it work exactly the same, and as reliable as the current software. It means replacing a well tested, well understood platform with something you don't know all the quirks so well of. It means spending a lot of money, with the risk of it not working in the end, or worse: thinking that it works, moving your business to the new platform, and seeing it break costing you multiples in lost business.
You don't understand the word "broken", obviously. Or you misapply it.
The current software works, and as such is not broken. Changing parts to incompatible parts breaks it - but that doesn't mean the software itself is broken. It just means the parts are incompatible. You can't always just swap out parts for different parts, they don't always work nicely together.
If the company has a system that works on IE6 but not on IE10, then they should not try to change IE6 for IE10 for that system. They should stick to that. It works, it will continue to work.
Oh but IE6 is so insecure, you will say. Yes it's insecure when you're using it for web browsing. That is just not a good idea (plus that it can't render most modern sites properly). Of course you don't use it for general web browsing, but that doesn't mean you can't use it for your internal applications any more. How old it is, is irrelevant. That it works, is relevant. That it works well, reliably, and predictably, that's relevant too: and I'm sure a 10 year old platform is more predictable than a 10 month old platform, simply thanks to the long term experience.
This is what cloud computing is all about. It's not about providing a service to customers that's better than what they can get at their own desktops. It's about returning us to the mainframe days when computing was a service and time on the machine was rented out to users.
Not really. The cloud part here is only about storage - and you have the relatively slow ISP link in between. Mainframes were doing the actual computing work. And in the meantime, data requirements growth have outstipped network speed growth.
We're now thinking of 20 GB as a smallish amount of data. Some 20-25 years ago, 20 MB was a smallish amount. My current download is 8 Mb/s, about 4,000 times the 2.4 kb modem back then. However my upload is a mere 640 kb/s- just 30 times modem speed. So sending data to the cloud takes longer for modern upload speeds, and modern data needs, compared to the mainframe era.
Also most of those mainframes were accessed over LANs, which were much faster of course than modems. Not as fast as modern LAN but again data demand growth has outstripped network speed growth there as well.
How are you going to get someone to pay for it? (direct cash payment doesn't seem to work so well in the Internet world, and injecting ads in the final product is pretty much a death sentence).
NOx, SOx, dioxines, ash, etc can all be caught quite well by scrubbers.
You still have your pollutants, but much more concentrated (less overall material to handle), and many of the heavier elements are molten into slag, and rendered safe that way.
It is more expensive than landfill, but when done well it's the better option. Now the remaining ash and slag often goes to landfill again (alternatively it's used in construction) but the volume is a tiny fraction of the original.
If it is the attacker that presents the dialog, they have full control. It's probably not a real UAC dialog (i.e. produced by the UAC process) of course, just an exact copy of it. So they can have it look just like the "digital signed" version or the "unsigned" version or whatever version.
Option 1: burn the garbage, use it as fuel for heat/electricity generation. Needs serious scrubbers to clean the fumes.
Option 2: burn natural gas (methane), and dump the garbage in a landfill where it can rot (release methane, amongst other gases) and leech pollutants to the ground water.
I think Option 1 is the overall less damaging one. And it saves a lot of space.
If I'd have set off such a thing on my secondary school (and that would've been in Europe, 20-something years ago), you bet they'd have done something. Likely a serious talk with me and my parents, possibly some suspension. And rightfully so.
But then I'd be smart enough to not do it in school, but instead take it out in the woods, away from people that may get upset by the results.
That said, a single-use cartridge of Camping Gaz on a campfire gives a much more interesting effect.
I also wonder how it is even possible to charge a 16yo as an adult. Those age limits are put in place for a reason - arbitrarily lifting them because some kid did something "exceptionally stupid" makes them worthless.
And this is really not something that should be punished at all. Other than for doing it on school grounds, presumably without proper supervision and safety measures.
Taking all that garden and kitchen waste out is certainly a good thing: that's why they do it in the first place.
Some power plants may be hybrids, for most heat is waste. The problem of heat is the transportation - and it has a relatively low economic value. You can only reuse heat if you have someone that needs the heat close by. With power plants far from the cities, heating homes with waste heat is often not practical. And in summer you don't need to heat your homes, while the power plants still have this heat to get rid of.
Absolutely. Reduce, reuse, recycle. And if that all fails: recover the energy out of it.
Stuff like medical waste and hazardous waste are burned in special incinerators using lots of oil or gas, as these wastes (that often won't burn well by themselves, if at all) must be burned at really high temperatures to render them harmless. That will always continue, and recovering that heat and putting it to some other use is just an economically sound thing to do.
First step was to keep compostables out of the trash (kitchen and garden wastes). Direct result: the rest of the trash, including lots of plastic and some paper, burned much hotter than it used to with all the wet stuff inside. And that caused problems for the ovens that were built for a different kind of fuel mix.
Over the recent years more and more plastics are being taken out from the trash. First the PET bottles, nowadays in large parts of Europe all kinds of plastic packing material has to be kept separate.
Most of the stuff that burns well (paper, plastics, organic wastes) is being recycled now, and kept out of the incinerators. What remains: not much, really. Some glass, stone, metals. Not much that burns well. Some wood will burn, some plastic that's attached to something else or otherwise ended up in the wrong bin. Baby diapers will burn quite well, too, as that's mostly paper and plastics. Rags that are so worn they're not offered to some charity.
Now indeed the volume of trash is decreasing (anything that's taken out to recycle is not trash), and the trash that's there won't burn as well as it used to. So no surprise really that it's causing problems for the operators of waste incinerators.
A counter-suit to reclaim defense expenses would be the appropriate measure in my opinion, not that my opinion regarding legal issues is worth event 2 cents...
They'd first have to win the current case conclusively. And if they win, well sure they'd sue for cost.
"standard control buttons" implies "those available to the player/public". I doubt you can completely control the innards of an ATM through the keypad on the outside. If so, it'd be a major insecurity.
And next you'd have to successfully argue that a software bug causes the machine to be defective.
And if i's indeed found to be defective: how about payouts to all other winners that have used the same machine over the same period of time? Do they also all have to hand back their winnings?
Lengthy charge time is key indeed. The lack of infrastructure must have been the same, or even worse (gasoline was a new energy source while electricity is already pretty much all over the place), compared to when the gas powered car was brought to market. And I recall many of the earlier cars were actually electrical powered.
I think hybrid is the way to go. Small efficient engine that can be made to run at optimal speed all the time, battery only in the cities or short trips, use the existing fuel supply chain. That, until we have solved the issue of fast charging, and got the electricity power network up to the task of delivering the huge amounts of power needed for all those cars.
Slashdot Mirror
People would get sick and die (typical age would be 70-80 - assuming one survived the first four years of life). That's it. You would get sick. You wouldn't have "cancer" or "parkinsons" or "diabetes" or whatever fancy name is given nowadays, you would just very simply get sick and die.
Tobacco would be as much a killer as it is now, maybe even more so, they just didn't know it was the tobacco that killed them. The reason we have many people dying from tobacco, or too much saturated fats, or things like that is that nowadays we know that this is the cause of death.
This is also a key problem for say cancer rate detections due to power lines. People sometimes blame a new power line for more cancer deaths in their community - however you can not compare modern cancer rates with rates from say 30 years ago as detection is so much better, that we simply see more cases.
Overall userfriendlyness is quite OK for Potlatch2 but I'd be happy not to have to deal with all those crashes, and stupidity like not properly reacting to shift-click (to start branch) and stuff like that. And the new version (haven't tried it yet) must be quicker than the Flash version!
The mere fact that it's not Flash based is an improvement in itself.
In my case I actually used WinXP in VirtualBox (the non-free version for USB support) to get my USB dongle to work under Linux. It only came with Windows drivers. By now using other system so I have really no need any more for Windows. That setup worked fine. Never got it to work on my parent's computer though: that was a regular Win XP installation...
They're engineered to be fail safe.
That's a totally stupid argument. It'd never happen because owning six houses and twelve cars is no way ever going to be average. Not many families have a need for twelve cars. If more people are rich enough to try to go after a second house, the housing market will go up to compensate for that. After all, there is roughly one home per family in most countries (if that many). I wouldn't even want six houses, of which five are empty most of the time (renting out is in such a scenario of course not an option, as everyone else also has several houses already).
Yet the average person nowadays doesn't think twice about taking a plane to go on holiday. Or to go for a second holiday in a year. Driving is so cheap no-one will think twice about cost of fuel before turning the key and driving that 500m to the nearest supermarket. The average family has a huge flat screen TV - as a child I went to the neighbour's because they had a colour TV that was twice the size of our black/white TV. The cost of all those things compared to average income is just so much lower than it used to be, just a few decades ago.
Profits are at an all-time high, but don't forget to count in inflation: just to stay level in real value, profits have to go up by the same rate as overall inflation.
Then there's that neat trick called virtualisation. You may have heard about it, it's all the rage these days. That'll keep the old stuff running for easily a few more decades. It even works for more mundane tasks, such as getting e-banking to work on Linux.
One of the many stupid comments of someone who doesn't understand economics. And that seems to account for most people here.
Where the savings really went? To YOU, the customer. Yes, really. Why do you think the quality of life has improved so much over the past decades? It's because productivity has increased so much. A single person can produce much more value than they could a few decades ago - and the computer and other parts of automation are a great part of that.
Previously a company had to employ those hundreds of typists, they have been replaced by computers, that do the work faster (especially the revisions that don't need to be typed out completely again, and copies, thanks to the photo copy machine). That saved a lot of money, which meant a company could lower the prices of their goods and/or services, to gain a competitive edge over the other companies that still used the typists.
Soon enough of course either companies automated and cut costs (and prices), or went out of business. Those that are still in business are not necessarily making a whole lot more money: they have to lower prices to stay competitive, margins will remain roughly the same. That's what an open market does for you.
Thinking that businesses still have all that money to employ the typists, but stuff it somewhere else, that's just not true. That money isn't there. They now make enough money to support their current, automated infrastructure - and are still always trying to lower the cost of that infrastructure. Continuing to use software that works, instead of pouring money into creating software that might work, is just one example. Many, especially larger, companies will also try to standardise their computers: making support easier, and making replacement easier when one breaks down (computer broken? Drop in another one, employee can continue their work, broken computer can be checked out later).
Trying to move your business critical piece of software that works just fine in IE6 to a newer platform is a costly risk. It may involve complete rewriting of the application - good luck making it work exactly the same, and as reliable as the current software. It means replacing a well tested, well understood platform with something you don't know all the quirks so well of. It means spending a lot of money, with the risk of it not working in the end, or worse: thinking that it works, moving your business to the new platform, and seeing it break costing you multiples in lost business.
You don't understand the word "broken", obviously. Or you misapply it.
The current software works, and as such is not broken. Changing parts to incompatible parts breaks it - but that doesn't mean the software itself is broken. It just means the parts are incompatible. You can't always just swap out parts for different parts, they don't always work nicely together.
If the company has a system that works on IE6 but not on IE10, then they should not try to change IE6 for IE10 for that system. They should stick to that. It works, it will continue to work.
Oh but IE6 is so insecure, you will say. Yes it's insecure when you're using it for web browsing. That is just not a good idea (plus that it can't render most modern sites properly). Of course you don't use it for general web browsing, but that doesn't mean you can't use it for your internal applications any more. How old it is, is irrelevant. That it works, is relevant. That it works well, reliably, and predictably, that's relevant too: and I'm sure a 10 year old platform is more predictable than a 10 month old platform, simply thanks to the long term experience.
This is what cloud computing is all about. It's not about providing a service to customers that's better than what they can get at their own desktops. It's about returning us to the mainframe days when computing was a service and time on the machine was rented out to users.
Not really. The cloud part here is only about storage - and you have the relatively slow ISP link in between. Mainframes were doing the actual computing work. And in the meantime, data requirements growth have outstipped network speed growth.
We're now thinking of 20 GB as a smallish amount of data. Some 20-25 years ago, 20 MB was a smallish amount. My current download is 8 Mb/s, about 4,000 times the 2.4 kb modem back then. However my upload is a mere 640 kb/s- just 30 times modem speed. So sending data to the cloud takes longer for modern upload speeds, and modern data needs, compared to the mainframe era.
Also most of those mainframes were accessed over LANs, which were much faster of course than modems. Not as fast as modern LAN but again data demand growth has outstripped network speed growth there as well.
Just make sure that those QR frames ARE your data. Who cares if someone else reads it, too? It's encrypted, after all.
How are you going to get someone to pay for it? (direct cash payment doesn't seem to work so well in the Internet world, and injecting ads in the final product is pretty much a death sentence).
NOx, SOx, dioxines, ash, etc can all be caught quite well by scrubbers.
You still have your pollutants, but much more concentrated (less overall material to handle), and many of the heavier elements are molten into slag, and rendered safe that way.
It is more expensive than landfill, but when done well it's the better option. Now the remaining ash and slag often goes to landfill again (alternatively it's used in construction) but the volume is a tiny fraction of the original.
If it is the attacker that presents the dialog, they have full control. It's probably not a real UAC dialog (i.e. produced by the UAC process) of course, just an exact copy of it. So they can have it look just like the "digital signed" version or the "unsigned" version or whatever version.
Not everything that burns, is recyclable.
And the story is not about trash having no caloric value; it's about the total quantity that's available.
Option 1: burn the garbage, use it as fuel for heat/electricity generation. Needs serious scrubbers to clean the fumes.
Option 2: burn natural gas (methane), and dump the garbage in a landfill where it can rot (release methane, amongst other gases) and leech pollutants to the ground water.
I think Option 1 is the overall less damaging one. And it saves a lot of space.
If I'd have set off such a thing on my secondary school (and that would've been in Europe, 20-something years ago), you bet they'd have done something. Likely a serious talk with me and my parents, possibly some suspension. And rightfully so.
But then I'd be smart enough to not do it in school, but instead take it out in the woods, away from people that may get upset by the results.
That said, a single-use cartridge of Camping Gaz on a campfire gives a much more interesting effect.
I also wonder how it is even possible to charge a 16yo as an adult. Those age limits are put in place for a reason - arbitrarily lifting them because some kid did something "exceptionally stupid" makes them worthless.
And this is really not something that should be punished at all. Other than for doing it on school grounds, presumably without proper supervision and safety measures.
Many places in the world (like most of Europe) only need heating in winter, no cooling in summer (other than large shopping malls and so).
Taking all that garden and kitchen waste out is certainly a good thing: that's why they do it in the first place.
Some power plants may be hybrids, for most heat is waste. The problem of heat is the transportation - and it has a relatively low economic value. You can only reuse heat if you have someone that needs the heat close by. With power plants far from the cities, heating homes with waste heat is often not practical. And in summer you don't need to heat your homes, while the power plants still have this heat to get rid of.
Absolutely. Reduce, reuse, recycle. And if that all fails: recover the energy out of it.
Stuff like medical waste and hazardous waste are burned in special incinerators using lots of oil or gas, as these wastes (that often won't burn well by themselves, if at all) must be burned at really high temperatures to render them harmless. That will always continue, and recovering that heat and putting it to some other use is just an economically sound thing to do.
This started decades ago already.
First step was to keep compostables out of the trash (kitchen and garden wastes). Direct result: the rest of the trash, including lots of plastic and some paper, burned much hotter than it used to with all the wet stuff inside. And that caused problems for the ovens that were built for a different kind of fuel mix.
Over the recent years more and more plastics are being taken out from the trash. First the PET bottles, nowadays in large parts of Europe all kinds of plastic packing material has to be kept separate.
Most of the stuff that burns well (paper, plastics, organic wastes) is being recycled now, and kept out of the incinerators. What remains: not much, really. Some glass, stone, metals. Not much that burns well. Some wood will burn, some plastic that's attached to something else or otherwise ended up in the wrong bin. Baby diapers will burn quite well, too, as that's mostly paper and plastics. Rags that are so worn they're not offered to some charity.
Now indeed the volume of trash is decreasing (anything that's taken out to recycle is not trash), and the trash that's there won't burn as well as it used to. So no surprise really that it's causing problems for the operators of waste incinerators.
A counter-suit to reclaim defense expenses would be the appropriate measure in my opinion, not that my opinion regarding legal issues is worth event 2 cents...
They'd first have to win the current case conclusively. And if they win, well sure they'd sue for cost.
"standard control buttons" implies "those available to the player/public". I doubt you can completely control the innards of an ATM through the keypad on the outside. If so, it'd be a major insecurity.
And next you'd have to successfully argue that a software bug causes the machine to be defective.
And if i's indeed found to be defective: how about payouts to all other winners that have used the same machine over the same period of time? Do they also all have to hand back their winnings?
Lengthy charge time is key indeed. The lack of infrastructure must have been the same, or even worse (gasoline was a new energy source while electricity is already pretty much all over the place), compared to when the gas powered car was brought to market. And I recall many of the earlier cars were actually electrical powered.
I think hybrid is the way to go. Small efficient engine that can be made to run at optimal speed all the time, battery only in the cities or short trips, use the existing fuel supply chain. That, until we have solved the issue of fast charging, and got the electricity power network up to the task of delivering the huge amounts of power needed for all those cars.