Not that you haven't already been fed plenty today, however you're being flat out pedantic with semantics.
Are you within the Starbucks corporation whenever you go for coffee? No. You are neither an employee nor shareholder, and derive no direct benefit from it's continued existence other than a place that you can go for coffee.
Even assuming i was employed at starbucks and used a personal laptop to browse the web during a break, this would not constitute a breach in the agreement as the usage was personal and in no way benefited the company.
By your logic I would be unable to connect to municipal wifi because it could be constituted as belonging to an organization, though I believe you agree that I could connect via a router an individual owned. We see where the access point you use is irrelevant, unless AVG has some underlying goal of getting everyone to connect through cable/DSL and not wifi. (You will concede that i can connect to the internet, otherwise AVGs auto-updates attempt to use a feature they themselves deem illegal)
It makes far more sense that AVG disallows organizations to use it because they typically use a package and this would be a revenue killer if they sold something that could be gotten for free with a few more clicks.
As to your last point, I'm running vista and I have to say I've spent more time replying to this post than I have maintaining anti-virus/spyware software, and I'd spend more time on a mac wondering why the apple key isn't in the same location as 'crtl' since it does the same thing 97% of the time. I'd be willing to bet most people on this site don't have too many problems with any operating system and viruses. You're welcome to like apple as much as you like, but hopefully you aren't that insecure about your secure operating system that you need to lie about the competition.
I find it an interesting commentary on humanity that we see something that would in theory allow us to become paragons as probably more harmful than good, especially since the vast majority of individuals want what benefits could be had, i.e. near perfect health, beauty, physique and intelligence. I believe this is an example of crabs in a bucket - No one can have it unless I can, and first.
From a futurist standpoint, I see the probable inability to retroactively apply genetically engineered DNA to an individual as a good reason why a less organic approach will be taken and we will choose to augment with machines over biology.
I think there are far greater things to worry about than the scenario you present.
First, computers are getting exceptionally cheap. The notion that we'd ever have to lease a computer in the future is fairly bogus (it wouldn't be tolerated by many, especially the/. crowd); Even then there would have to be a huge number of changes (all of which go against what the consumer wants to an extreme degree) to accomplish this; it would have to be impossible to assemble your own computer. This is slightly different in the case of game consoles since they aren't designed to be customizable.
Concerning computers I don't see Linux going away anytime soon, and it is realistically impossible to place DRM into the OS - most people who use linux do so for the freedom and flexibility it offers. If one distro did it, you can be certain it would die quite quickly. (This also ignores the legal issues with incorporating DRM, almost always proprietary, with linux.)
Even having said that, I've got a nice monitor and I have no desire to go to HD. Perhaps in the future when 50" plasma screens are the standard I'll reconsider, but most movies aren't make or break based on being HD. Given the popularity of Mp3s you can be even more certain this holds for music.
Finally, if the environment is such that the consumer silently sits by while this happens, we'll have far greater things to worry about, such as the government.
My understanding is that firefox is generally considered to be a poor browser on a mac. I use it whenever I'm on a mac just so that I can use *some* of the keyboard shortcuts I'm used to, but I believe Safari is better in many regards.
As for 3.0, I'm using the beta and I'd have to say that render times do seem to be improved. Memory usage doesn't seem to be much better than previous versions; After leaving it running for about 14 hours (mostly overnight) I'm at 200 mb memory usage with two tabs open, one being this page. I know 2.x would get up to about 370 mb, however this would be after several days with 10+ tabs, and 200 mb seems about right for where it would be now. I don't care too much since my machine can handle that, but it matters to most people on slashdot.
I think I can counter your point by the fact that the individual under anesthesia was capable of these things before going under, while a human embryo has never had experiences, nor does it have anyone attached to it's personality (this is not to discount those who have had miscarriages)
As for humans having a desire to live versus all living things, I'd submit that all living things do indeed have a desire to live, but humans (and perhaps a few other species, to an extent) have a conscious ability to not live, i.e. it is possible for an individual who is physically fully functioning to choose to end their life, and we tend to honor the idea that someone might die so that someone else could live, even someone not related to them.
While it is true that some animals will do this for the herd or for their offspring, this is true of all animals of that same species and type. Humans differ in that they can choose to sacrifice or not. I also know of no animal who can choose death (suicide) when otherwise healthy. From this perspective humans have a unique desire to live, or at least a far more nuanced one.
We can also justify our choices by looking at the natural cycle of the world which involves death, usually more painful than what humans deem inhumane. The main difference between humans and other animals is that we're too good at what we do. Our killing of things is a near absolute certainty, and it is rare that we have take on much risk to ourselves in doing so.
For discussion's sake, I'd say there's two separate reasons that are both necessary for that argument and if you only have one you can wind up on a morally slippery slope (or more so than this issue already is.)
The lack of pain makes it far more civil than it would be. This should be a goal for all but the most basic of creatures; most people have a problem with tearing the wings off a fly, and so it makes reasonable sense to not cause any more pain than necessary, and if the pain is too extreme for the benefit received then the action shouldn't be taken at all.
Another area we should define is self-awareness, which is why it is usually considered bad to kill another human, because we also destroy the unique personality that was them. We have awareness and a desire to live, to achieve things for another day beyond that of most other animals. This is probably why although most people object to tearing the wings off a fly, most advocate swatting or zapping them. This is the tacit point which puts a dent in your reasoning.
Beyond this we have the issue of potential, which is where most religious issues come into play; is it right to kill something that has the potential to one day have the same rights, freedoms and thoughts as the rest of us. It's not the most morally clear area, and I don't know people who advocate it simply for it's own sake, however when not done chaotically, but done for a reason it becomes a much harder point to define. My opinion is that an established life has a far greater weight than the potential for life; the established life already is important to many.
I tend to believe that an individual should be able to decide their own fate (and support euthanasia for terminally ill patients.) For larger issues I believe the populace should decide what is right and wrong to the extent that popular opinion does not impede unduly on the minority.
So you not only take issue with human stem cells, but animal stem cells as well. You have concern for the small number (say 10,000) of animals which may die to provide the embryos.
Somehow you seem more horrified that those 10,000 die to provide embryos (which you so clearly point out can be used to ease human suffering) than the millions upon millions of animals that die every year to feed us (inefficiently, from a calorie viewpoint), or the thousands of animals which get tested on.
Why people care so much about things which are never self-aware, let alone capable of feeling pain, yet turn a blind eye to the suffering of people (and animals) that is very real astounds me. Darfur? No, you're more outraged about stem cell research.
You can have moral issues with both, but please get your priorities straight. Hundreds of thousands dying and starving for NO good reason compared to cells with hundreds of deaths that were going to happen anyway (abortion isn't going away, even if made illegal) that may alleviate the suffering of millions.
One would think that this wouldn't be too hard to stop, seeing just how 'ingenious' current spam e-mails are. I rarely get e-mail spam that gets by spamassassin, and I don't think i've ever gotten a spam message in my g-mail account.
Still I suppose this would open up the avenue of attack that you could communicate in 'spam' code, trying to make your e-mails look like random spam generated, or you could send out a massive spam e-mail that actually contained information in it...
All said and done though, I don't believe there is much of a problem getting secure e-mail IF one has the knowledge to do so. Once again, one would think the terrorists who could plan an attack on the US would be able to figure some way of safe communication.
It is interesting to note that on one hand many people think we have a government that can't handle some fairly simple tasks, and yet on the other hand those same people expect the government to be able to effectively execute a more complex task. I'm not quite sure what word I'd use to describe it... it's almost like double thinking.
* Prohibits Federal, State, and local governments from displaying SSNs, or any derivative thereof, on drivers' licenses, motor vehicle registrations, or other identification documents issued by State departments of motor vehicles. "
It is also surprising to note that there is no mandatory requirement to have a SSN, however in practice this is like saying there is no mandatory requirement to have a driver's license; it is next to impossible to do anything without one. It is also worth noting that many of the forms which ask for a SSN can be skipped; particularly those which are government oriented and not directly related to the uses authorized for the number. Doing so simply may mean that your forms don't get processed in a timely manner.
I'm reasonably certain that has happened (or is in the works.) It wasn't in the US if I remember correctly, but Germany I believe. Unfortunately I'm a bit busy at the moment to find the actual article.
I agree. However I don't need a smart phone that can take a picture of a piece of clothing and then put it on me in 3d; either it'll look like crap (and be useless) or the technology is very good (at which point there are far better uses than visualizing me in the latest fashions.)
Also as the article talked about being able to turn on or shut off appliances over the internet. I want some semblance of intelligence so that the AC can set itself to different temperatures depending on the outside temp, the day and the time. Yes being able to manually control things over the internet would be an improvement, but in general people would rather have it done automatically, as your post implies.
I have no doubt that some of these things will come to pass, but within 5 years? Nope, sorry.
1. We'll be able to track produce, and every detail of it of where it's been, etc. - This would require a database and some ID tag (likely RFID) or an Read/Write tag and no database. Currently these are too expensive to have seen widespread use in larger goods, and despite predictions that they're just around the corner, they've been unable to lower the price past a certain point. RFID will happen, but it won't happen this fast.
2. Smart Networks - This requires a significant investment in infrastructure, and it would seem, smart cars. This is something that may start within 5 years, but only cars made past a certain date will actually be 'smart', and until a certain percentage is 'smart' there's not much use for the system (possibly reducing the motivation for investment in the non-car infrastructure, though GPS/Onstar type services may provide enough incentive. Still it won't be here in 5 years.
3. Cell phones - Stupid example. I don't need to know what clothing will look like on me in 3d, and this seems like an application that would be horrible on cell phones, even with advances in computer technology. It MIGHT happen in Asian countries, as they tend to have more advanced cell phones and seem to enjoy odd tech things that don't catch on well in the US (vending machines, etc)
4. Smart Devices are over-rated. Until you can easily access your computer from your cell phone, this won't be down the road 5 years. Yes I'm sure you can do it, but it's not common, certainly not on non-smart phones.
5. Doctors - It'll happen, medicine will advance, but i don't think we'll see any amazing changes. Admittedly I know little about this field, but I haven't heard anything huge inventions lately that will revolutionize the field.
I'm not sure what state you're living in, but based on your headline I'd say denial, or you've been living under a rock. Common sense has lost numerous times to law, from the burglar who sues for millions from an injury he received breaking into someone's house to the corporate CEO who pays the same tax rate as his secretary to bills like the patriot act.
I'd say laws for which there is an exceptional demand for the product/activity VS the risk (probability of getting caught * consequences), the law will generally lose, but that's one of the few cases - see prohibition, the lack of success in the drug war, and this.
Pity we want the latest single from group X over liberty.
Something tells me 2^8388608 is a bit higher than 524 TB. At that point I think you could individually address atoms in the known universe. (your number is > than 1 followed by 2,000,000 zeros.)
A 64 bit processor already has a theoretical address space of 16 Exabytes.
If i remember right, the power consumed by the clock speed is something like x * I^2, where I is current. x is changeable, but since we're assuming the same prescott core, it wouldn't matter.
If my math and everything is right, the prescott would take up 7.35 times more power than you predicted, probably within the margin of error given numerous people's fuzzy remembering of math and the original poster not being sure about 25 gHz.
Regardless there are several fundamental problems with increasing the speed, heat is just one. The fact that the speed of light is only so fast means that eventually the signal can only travel so far before the next clock cycle, so the surface are of the chip has to get increasingly smaller, complicating heat problems.
Multi-core, specialized processing units, or a different technology is the only way we'd get around the fact that clock speed gets harder and harder to push the higher it gets.
Other than using the massive amount of cash available to them from their desktop business to run at a loss indefinitely until they achieved a profit, the x-box and 360 have been successful; They've had hiccups, but Microsoft certainly isn't in an undesirable position in the gaming market.
The Zune is also showing *some* success, and I believe the 2nd generation line has actually seen some shortages in availability. I don't doubt that Microsoft will remain a competitor in this market for at least a few more years, and while I don't see them overcoming apple's lead anytime soon, I do see them doing to the iPod what the mac has done to the PC in recent years. The Zune (from my understanding) isn't overly reliant on their windows platform (or rather if some other platform took hold over the next 2 years they'd be able to adapt the Zune just fine.)
Now for other Microsoft offerings, this seems to be at least partially true - Most of their consulting software business is heavily tied into making windows work well (with some support for Unix/Linux - making PCs talk to linux servers for example, but likely nothing for linux on the desktop.) Personally I don't see the traditional desktop/laptop going obsolete in the near future. Not everything a corporation does needs to be mobile, and there's a long way to go until mobile is able to overcome certain flaws. Desktop based software is still far more capable than even dedicated web-based solutions. True for basic word editing it's about the same, but no one will argue that any web-based solution comes close to excel or powerpoint.
The desktop will remain relevant for the foreseeable future, due to it's inherent speed and functional advantages. It's also cheap, and a mobile solution will require significant investment in hardware to run the servers and software changes to make everything work as it should.
It's a real pity she was stuck doing such meticulous tasks. If only there was a machine that could perform the same simple tasks endlessly, adjusting slightly based on inputs...
And I happen to think you're completely right. When dealing with relatively large numbers (compared to the time taken to track down and individually target) of activity (usually illegal) by a mobile enemy, you need a blanket approach. Ideally one that targets the individuals precisely. It'd be like stopping an infestation of insects one at a time, vs fogging the whole house, vs learning to keep food away.
Targeting economic and social factors are the only way that certain wars will be won. On drugs, on terror... you can only stop these things with other ideas or taking away any incentive to follow those ideas in the first place.
I'm not entirely sure what you're signing up for using your e-mail address, but I honestly don't think I've had a single spam e-mail in the spam folder (or inbox) since I opened my account. It's somewhat disappointing; the gibberish they include to try to get past spam filters is usually interesting (especially when they use phrases from famous books) and I enjoy just how important they make me feel for having a penis (albeit one that's too small, is pre-mature, and isn't able to be gotten up the 20 times per day my woman apparently wants it (which is news to me.)
Re:Google keeping patents on this?
on
Google Goes Green
·
· Score: 1
Call BS all you want. I have common sense on my side. Let's say you make barely enough money to get by... your kids or you go hungry some nights, the house is cold during winter, etc. In this situation you don't care much about clean air or the local environment (assuming you live in a city and don't rely on rivers or streams to fish)
Now let's say you make a good living. You can afford 2 cars, everyone has food, your house is of decent size, etc. This is grand... your kids would be healthy, except that one of them has asthma from the pollution, and you or your wife feels somewhat chronically sick. Maybe it's the local factory dumping into the nearby stream, or maybe it's the powerplant releasing soot and heavy metals into the air. You care a lot more about the environment now.
It's the same example as university educated people statistically putting a higher value on life (engaging in less risky activities), or that at a given wage X, there is a possibility that if they raise your wage you'll actually work less, simply because you have enough money that you now want to actually be able to enjoy the things it can buy.
That's not at all to say that a growing middle class has a problem with dumping pollution somewhere that doesn't affect them, simply that they care about it when it does.
I want to say there was an article about a week ago on Slashdot debating this issue (of the return of nuclear power plants.) I wouldn't swear on it, but I believe the capital outlay for a new nuclear plant is 3-5 times that of a coal plant for similar production (in addition to needing to be located near a body of water.) The cost for the fuel is less (although as demand would rise this could change).
Factoring in the long run cost of running the plant and the externalities of said plant, nuclear is likely the better route. However you may remember that people are somewhat myopic, though there are apparently plans for 28 new reactors as of 2007.
If Google will own the rights to this means of energy production (or producing the equipment to do so, such as solar panels), it'd be a good time to buy Google stock. Owning something that makes energy cheaper than coal and doesn't pollute is something that will be required, not only by our country as we're strapped over the 100$ barrel of oil, but by China, who's growing middle class will desire a cleaner environment rather than simply more stuff.
Anyone who has a patent on this stuff... there's no place it can go but up, so long as cold fusion doesn't come out.
Seeing as how they can do this on standard fiber optics, this is about as economical as you can get. If all they need to change are the end points, there isn't an issue of re-laying fiber, which is a large portion of the costs involved. If the backbones get a boost in capacity by a factor of 10-100, in theory end line uses should see speed increases as well as it would become much harder to saturate these new backbones. I don't think this would help much for DSL users (because it uses a common broadcast channel), but for cable this should mean that they should be able to open up the taps on anyone with a cable connection. There is still a limit to the speed on cable, but 95% of cable users are well below this speed in the US, and anything that helps them get it is good. 20-25 Mbps? I'd take it.
No one cares about being able to get a terabit connection to your house; the only bus issue is the computers at either end of the fiber (which other users have addressed).
If we'll see any benefits from this technology... I'd like to have faith in economics that the benefit will get passed down to the consumer, but so far...
Let me start off by saying that while a better approach than some, this isn't a great approach. In general if the cost of doing two things is the same it's better to halve consumption rather than double production. The costs of producing more efficient products is generally a fixed cost of R&D, with little environmental cost. Power generation usually has a fixed and variable cost as well as an environmental cost.
Regarding your point of just burying it in the earth... Uranium is (typically) the input, plutonium, curium and uranium are the outputs; plutonium being in general the worst of the three. Although it is possible to use plutonium in a mixture with uranium to be fissioned again, it isn't done that frequently.
Problems with disposal...
1) The material must be transported to the disposal site. 2) The material will be dangerous until we find a way to permanently dispose of it, or are no longer around to care. (ie. many thousands of years) 3) The material must be guarded or somehow prevented from being stolen. 4) NIMBY. 5) The area it is buried in should be pretty much free of water (corrosion, contamination) or seismic activity.
As for fuel sources? Electric is somewhat viable for transportation, hydrogen isn't (at least not as a sole source). In general we could go about this smartly and... 1) Not drive around cars that weigh twice as much as they need to in order to be safe in a crash (provided the cars being crashed into aren't big as well.) If everyone drove smaller cars, with advances in alloys/composites and better CAD/simulations, everyone would probably be safer and fuel economy would increase hugely. 2) Focus on diesel/electric. Advances in diesel production and engines have significantly reduced many of the arguments against diesel, in a similar way that new nuclear power plants are much safer and more efficient.
It's best to push for practical solutions to problems. Reducing car weight, creating more efficient engines, recapturing motion from stops are the low hanging fruit. A 60 mpg average is obtainable within 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that you haven't already been fed plenty today, however you're being flat out pedantic with semantics.
Are you within the Starbucks corporation whenever you go for coffee? No. You are neither an employee nor shareholder, and derive no direct benefit from it's continued existence other than a place that you can go for coffee.
Even assuming i was employed at starbucks and used a personal laptop to browse the web during a break, this would not constitute a breach in the agreement as the usage was personal and in no way benefited the company.
By your logic I would be unable to connect to municipal wifi because it could be constituted as belonging to an organization, though I believe you agree that I could connect via a router an individual owned. We see where the access point you use is irrelevant, unless AVG has some underlying goal of getting everyone to connect through cable/DSL and not wifi. (You will concede that i can connect to the internet, otherwise AVGs auto-updates attempt to use a feature they themselves deem illegal)
It makes far more sense that AVG disallows organizations to use it because they typically use a package and this would be a revenue killer if they sold something that could be gotten for free with a few more clicks.
As to your last point, I'm running vista and I have to say I've spent more time replying to this post than I have maintaining anti-virus/spyware software, and I'd spend more time on a mac wondering why the apple key isn't in the same location as 'crtl' since it does the same thing 97% of the time. I'd be willing to bet most people on this site don't have too many problems with any operating system and viruses. You're welcome to like apple as much as you like, but hopefully you aren't that insecure about your secure operating system that you need to lie about the competition.
I find it an interesting commentary on humanity that we see something that would in theory allow us to become paragons as probably more harmful than good, especially since the vast majority of individuals want what benefits could be had, i.e. near perfect health, beauty, physique and intelligence. I believe this is an example of crabs in a bucket - No one can have it unless I can, and first.
From a futurist standpoint, I see the probable inability to retroactively apply genetically engineered DNA to an individual as a good reason why a less organic approach will be taken and we will choose to augment with machines over biology.
I think there are far greater things to worry about than the scenario you present.
/. crowd); Even then there would have to be a huge number of changes (all of which go against what the consumer wants to an extreme degree) to accomplish this; it would have to be impossible to assemble your own computer. This is slightly different in the case of game consoles since they aren't designed to be customizable.
First, computers are getting exceptionally cheap. The notion that we'd ever have to lease a computer in the future is fairly bogus (it wouldn't be tolerated by many, especially the
Concerning computers I don't see Linux going away anytime soon, and it is realistically impossible to place DRM into the OS - most people who use linux do so for the freedom and flexibility it offers. If one distro did it, you can be certain it would die quite quickly. (This also ignores the legal issues with incorporating DRM, almost always proprietary, with linux.)
Even having said that, I've got a nice monitor and I have no desire to go to HD. Perhaps in the future when 50" plasma screens are the standard I'll reconsider, but most movies aren't make or break based on being HD. Given the popularity of Mp3s you can be even more certain this holds for music.
Finally, if the environment is such that the consumer silently sits by while this happens, we'll have far greater things to worry about, such as the government.
My understanding is that firefox is generally considered to be a poor browser on a mac. I use it whenever I'm on a mac just so that I can use *some* of the keyboard shortcuts I'm used to, but I believe Safari is better in many regards.
As for 3.0, I'm using the beta and I'd have to say that render times do seem to be improved. Memory usage doesn't seem to be much better than previous versions; After leaving it running for about 14 hours (mostly overnight) I'm at 200 mb memory usage with two tabs open, one being this page. I know 2.x would get up to about 370 mb, however this would be after several days with 10+ tabs, and 200 mb seems about right for where it would be now. I don't care too much since my machine can handle that, but it matters to most people on slashdot.
I'm glad you found it somewhat enlightening.
I think I can counter your point by the fact that the individual under anesthesia was capable of these things before going under, while a human embryo has never had experiences, nor does it have anyone attached to it's personality (this is not to discount those who have had miscarriages)
As for humans having a desire to live versus all living things, I'd submit that all living things do indeed have a desire to live, but humans (and perhaps a few other species, to an extent) have a conscious ability to not live, i.e. it is possible for an individual who is physically fully functioning to choose to end their life, and we tend to honor the idea that someone might die so that someone else could live, even someone not related to them.
While it is true that some animals will do this for the herd or for their offspring, this is true of all animals of that same species and type. Humans differ in that they can choose to sacrifice or not. I also know of no animal who can choose death (suicide) when otherwise healthy. From this perspective humans have a unique desire to live, or at least a far more nuanced one.
We can also justify our choices by looking at the natural cycle of the world which involves death, usually more painful than what humans deem inhumane. The main difference between humans and other animals is that we're too good at what we do. Our killing of things is a near absolute certainty, and it is rare that we have take on much risk to ourselves in doing so.
For discussion's sake, I'd say there's two separate reasons that are both necessary for that argument and if you only have one you can wind up on a morally slippery slope (or more so than this issue already is.)
The lack of pain makes it far more civil than it would be. This should be a goal for all but the most basic of creatures; most people have a problem with tearing the wings off a fly, and so it makes reasonable sense to not cause any more pain than necessary, and if the pain is too extreme for the benefit received then the action shouldn't be taken at all.
Another area we should define is self-awareness, which is why it is usually considered bad to kill another human, because we also destroy the unique personality that was them. We have awareness and a desire to live, to achieve things for another day beyond that of most other animals. This is probably why although most people object to tearing the wings off a fly, most advocate swatting or zapping them. This is the tacit point which puts a dent in your reasoning.
Beyond this we have the issue of potential, which is where most religious issues come into play; is it right to kill something that has the potential to one day have the same rights, freedoms and thoughts as the rest of us. It's not the most morally clear area, and I don't know people who advocate it simply for it's own sake, however when not done chaotically, but done for a reason it becomes a much harder point to define. My opinion is that an established life has a far greater weight than the potential for life; the established life already is important to many.
I tend to believe that an individual should be able to decide their own fate (and support euthanasia for terminally ill patients.) For larger issues I believe the populace should decide what is right and wrong to the extent that popular opinion does not impede unduly on the minority.
So you not only take issue with human stem cells, but animal stem cells as well. You have concern for the small number (say 10,000) of animals which may die to provide the embryos.
Somehow you seem more horrified that those 10,000 die to provide embryos (which you so clearly point out can be used to ease human suffering) than the millions upon millions of animals that die every year to feed us (inefficiently, from a calorie viewpoint), or the thousands of animals which get tested on.
Why people care so much about things which are never self-aware, let alone capable of feeling pain, yet turn a blind eye to the suffering of people (and animals) that is very real astounds me. Darfur? No, you're more outraged about stem cell research.
You can have moral issues with both, but please get your priorities straight. Hundreds of thousands dying and starving for NO good reason compared to cells with hundreds of deaths that were going to happen anyway (abortion isn't going away, even if made illegal) that may alleviate the suffering of millions.
One would think that this wouldn't be too hard to stop, seeing just how 'ingenious' current spam e-mails are. I rarely get e-mail spam that gets by spamassassin, and I don't think i've ever gotten a spam message in my g-mail account.
Still I suppose this would open up the avenue of attack that you could communicate in 'spam' code, trying to make your e-mails look like random spam generated, or you could send out a massive spam e-mail that actually contained information in it...
All said and done though, I don't believe there is much of a problem getting secure e-mail IF one has the knowledge to do so. Once again, one would think the terrorists who could plan an attack on the US would be able to figure some way of safe communication.
It is interesting to note that on one hand many people think we have a government that can't handle some fairly simple tasks, and yet on the other hand those same people expect the government to be able to effectively execute a more complex task. I'm not quite sure what word I'd use to describe it... it's almost like double thinking.
If your information is right it seems to fly in the face of several acts and laws...
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_010705.html
"Section 7214. Prohibition of the Display of Social Security Account Numbers on Drivers' Licenses or Motor Vehicle Registrations
* Prohibits Federal, State, and local governments from displaying SSNs, or any derivative thereof, on drivers' licenses, motor vehicle registrations, or other identification documents issued by State departments of motor vehicles. "
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051016t.pdf
Regarding many uses of your SSN
https://www.smartwebmove.navsup.navy.mil/swm/documents/SWM1Authority9397.pdf
The executive order regarding SSNs as use for identification
It is also surprising to note that there is no mandatory requirement to have a SSN, however in practice this is like saying there is no mandatory requirement to have a driver's license; it is next to impossible to do anything without one. It is also worth noting that many of the forms which ask for a SSN can be skipped; particularly those which are government oriented and not directly related to the uses authorized for the number. Doing so simply may mean that your forms don't get processed in a timely manner.
I'm reasonably certain that has happened (or is in the works.) It wasn't in the US if I remember correctly, but Germany I believe. Unfortunately I'm a bit busy at the moment to find the actual article.
I agree. However I don't need a smart phone that can take a picture of a piece of clothing and then put it on me in 3d; either it'll look like crap (and be useless) or the technology is very good (at which point there are far better uses than visualizing me in the latest fashions.)
Also as the article talked about being able to turn on or shut off appliances over the internet. I want some semblance of intelligence so that the AC can set itself to different temperatures depending on the outside temp, the day and the time. Yes being able to manually control things over the internet would be an improvement, but in general people would rather have it done automatically, as your post implies.
I have no doubt that some of these things will come to pass, but within 5 years? Nope, sorry.
1. We'll be able to track produce, and every detail of it of where it's been, etc. - This would require a database and some ID tag (likely RFID) or an Read/Write tag and no database. Currently these are too expensive to have seen widespread use in larger goods, and despite predictions that they're just around the corner, they've been unable to lower the price past a certain point. RFID will happen, but it won't happen this fast.
2. Smart Networks - This requires a significant investment in infrastructure, and it would seem, smart cars. This is something that may start within 5 years, but only cars made past a certain date will actually be 'smart', and until a certain percentage is 'smart' there's not much use for the system (possibly reducing the motivation for investment in the non-car infrastructure, though GPS/Onstar type services may provide enough incentive. Still it won't be here in 5 years.
3. Cell phones - Stupid example. I don't need to know what clothing will look like on me in 3d, and this seems like an application that would be horrible on cell phones, even with advances in computer technology. It MIGHT happen in Asian countries, as they tend to have more advanced cell phones and seem to enjoy odd tech things that don't catch on well in the US (vending machines, etc)
4. Smart Devices are over-rated. Until you can easily access your computer from your cell phone, this won't be down the road 5 years. Yes I'm sure you can do it, but it's not common, certainly not on non-smart phones.
5. Doctors - It'll happen, medicine will advance, but i don't think we'll see any amazing changes. Admittedly I know little about this field, but I haven't heard anything huge inventions lately that will revolutionize the field.
You are somewhat correct. You can be sued for excessive force in defending, however.
http://www.hawaiisenatemajority.com/2007/12/05/burglars-should-not-have-right-to-sue-their-victims/
I'm not sure what state you're living in, but based on your headline I'd say denial, or you've been living under a rock. Common sense has lost numerous times to law, from the burglar who sues for millions from an injury he received breaking into someone's house to the corporate CEO who pays the same tax rate as his secretary to bills like the patriot act.
I'd say laws for which there is an exceptional demand for the product/activity VS the risk (probability of getting caught * consequences), the law will generally lose, but that's one of the few cases - see prohibition, the lack of success in the drug war, and this.
Pity we want the latest single from group X over liberty.
Something tells me 2^8388608 is a bit higher than 524 TB. At that point I think you could individually address atoms in the known universe. (your number is > than 1 followed by 2,000,000 zeros.)
A 64 bit processor already has a theoretical address space of 16 Exabytes.
If i remember right, the power consumed by the clock speed is something like x * I^2, where I is current. x is changeable, but since we're assuming the same prescott core, it wouldn't matter.
If my math and everything is right, the prescott would take up 7.35 times more power than you predicted, probably within the margin of error given numerous people's fuzzy remembering of math and the original poster not being sure about 25 gHz.
Regardless there are several fundamental problems with increasing the speed, heat is just one. The fact that the speed of light is only so fast means that eventually the signal can only travel so far before the next clock cycle, so the surface are of the chip has to get increasingly smaller, complicating heat problems.
Multi-core, specialized processing units, or a different technology is the only way we'd get around the fact that clock speed gets harder and harder to push the higher it gets.
Other than using the massive amount of cash available to them from their desktop business to run at a loss indefinitely until they achieved a profit, the x-box and 360 have been successful; They've had hiccups, but Microsoft certainly isn't in an undesirable position in the gaming market.
The Zune is also showing *some* success, and I believe the 2nd generation line has actually seen some shortages in availability. I don't doubt that Microsoft will remain a competitor in this market for at least a few more years, and while I don't see them overcoming apple's lead anytime soon, I do see them doing to the iPod what the mac has done to the PC in recent years. The Zune (from my understanding) isn't overly reliant on their windows platform (or rather if some other platform took hold over the next 2 years they'd be able to adapt the Zune just fine.)
Now for other Microsoft offerings, this seems to be at least partially true - Most of their consulting software business is heavily tied into making windows work well (with some support for Unix/Linux - making PCs talk to linux servers for example, but likely nothing for linux on the desktop.) Personally I don't see the traditional desktop/laptop going obsolete in the near future. Not everything a corporation does needs to be mobile, and there's a long way to go until mobile is able to overcome certain flaws. Desktop based software is still far more capable than even dedicated web-based solutions. True for basic word editing it's about the same, but no one will argue that any web-based solution comes close to excel or powerpoint.
The desktop will remain relevant for the foreseeable future, due to it's inherent speed and functional advantages. It's also cheap, and a mobile solution will require significant investment in hardware to run the servers and software changes to make everything work as it should.
It's a real pity she was stuck doing such meticulous tasks. If only there was a machine that could perform the same simple tasks endlessly, adjusting slightly based on inputs...
And I happen to think you're completely right. When dealing with relatively large numbers (compared to the time taken to track down and individually target) of activity (usually illegal) by a mobile enemy, you need a blanket approach. Ideally one that targets the individuals precisely. It'd be like stopping an infestation of insects one at a time, vs fogging the whole house, vs learning to keep food away.
Targeting economic and social factors are the only way that certain wars will be won. On drugs, on terror... you can only stop these things with other ideas or taking away any incentive to follow those ideas in the first place.
I'm not entirely sure what you're signing up for using your e-mail address, but I honestly don't think I've had a single spam e-mail in the spam folder (or inbox) since I opened my account. It's somewhat disappointing; the gibberish they include to try to get past spam filters is usually interesting (especially when they use phrases from famous books) and I enjoy just how important they make me feel for having a penis (albeit one that's too small, is pre-mature, and isn't able to be gotten up the 20 times per day my woman apparently wants it (which is news to me.)
Call BS all you want. I have common sense on my side. Let's say you make barely enough money to get by... your kids or you go hungry some nights, the house is cold during winter, etc. In this situation you don't care much about clean air or the local environment (assuming you live in a city and don't rely on rivers or streams to fish)
Now let's say you make a good living. You can afford 2 cars, everyone has food, your house is of decent size, etc. This is grand... your kids would be healthy, except that one of them has asthma from the pollution, and you or your wife feels somewhat chronically sick. Maybe it's the local factory dumping into the nearby stream, or maybe it's the powerplant releasing soot and heavy metals into the air. You care a lot more about the environment now.
It's the same example as university educated people statistically putting a higher value on life (engaging in less risky activities), or that at a given wage X, there is a possibility that if they raise your wage you'll actually work less, simply because you have enough money that you now want to actually be able to enjoy the things it can buy.
That's not at all to say that a growing middle class has a problem with dumping pollution somewhere that doesn't affect them, simply that they care about it when it does.
I want to say there was an article about a week ago on Slashdot debating this issue (of the return of nuclear power plants.) I wouldn't swear on it, but I believe the capital outlay for a new nuclear plant is 3-5 times that of a coal plant for similar production (in addition to needing to be located near a body of water.) The cost for the fuel is less (although as demand would rise this could change).
Factoring in the long run cost of running the plant and the externalities of said plant, nuclear is likely the better route. However you may remember that people are somewhat myopic, though there are apparently plans for 28 new reactors as of 2007.
The obligatory wikipedia link is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
If Google will own the rights to this means of energy production (or producing the equipment to do so, such as solar panels), it'd be a good time to buy Google stock. Owning something that makes energy cheaper than coal and doesn't pollute is something that will be required, not only by our country as we're strapped over the 100$ barrel of oil, but by China, who's growing middle class will desire a cleaner environment rather than simply more stuff.
Anyone who has a patent on this stuff... there's no place it can go but up, so long as cold fusion doesn't come out.
Seeing as how they can do this on standard fiber optics, this is about as economical as you can get. If all they need to change are the end points, there isn't an issue of re-laying fiber, which is a large portion of the costs involved. If the backbones get a boost in capacity by a factor of 10-100, in theory end line uses should see speed increases as well as it would become much harder to saturate these new backbones. I don't think this would help much for DSL users (because it uses a common broadcast channel), but for cable this should mean that they should be able to open up the taps on anyone with a cable connection. There is still a limit to the speed on cable, but 95% of cable users are well below this speed in the US, and anything that helps them get it is good. 20-25 Mbps? I'd take it.
No one cares about being able to get a terabit connection to your house; the only bus issue is the computers at either end of the fiber (which other users have addressed).
If we'll see any benefits from this technology... I'd like to have faith in economics that the benefit will get passed down to the consumer, but so far...
Let me start off by saying that while a better approach than some, this isn't a great approach. In general if the cost of doing two things is the same it's better to halve consumption rather than double production. The costs of producing more efficient products is generally a fixed cost of R&D, with little environmental cost. Power generation usually has a fixed and variable cost as well as an environmental cost.
Regarding your point of just burying it in the earth... Uranium is (typically) the input, plutonium, curium and uranium are the outputs; plutonium being in general the worst of the three. Although it is possible to use plutonium in a mixture with uranium to be fissioned again, it isn't done that frequently.
Problems with disposal...
1) The material must be transported to the disposal site.
2) The material will be dangerous until we find a way to permanently dispose of it, or are no longer around to care. (ie. many thousands of years)
3) The material must be guarded or somehow prevented from being stolen.
4) NIMBY.
5) The area it is buried in should be pretty much free of water (corrosion, contamination) or seismic activity.
As for fuel sources? Electric is somewhat viable for transportation, hydrogen isn't (at least not as a sole source). In general we could go about this smartly and...
1) Not drive around cars that weigh twice as much as they need to in order to be safe in a crash (provided the cars being crashed into aren't big as well.) If everyone drove smaller cars, with advances in alloys/composites and better CAD/simulations, everyone would probably be safer and fuel economy would increase hugely.
2) Focus on diesel/electric. Advances in diesel production and engines have significantly reduced many of the arguments against diesel, in a similar way that new nuclear power plants are much safer and more efficient.
It's best to push for practical solutions to problems. Reducing car weight, creating more efficient engines, recapturing motion from stops are the low hanging fruit. A 60 mpg average is obtainable within 20 years.