I don't use the finger print sensor, it's not that useful a sensor for other purposes (that I've seen). But this does sound promising if it can be used to get basic 3-d scans of objects.
Spot on. Your body sweats to get rid of heat which dosent work well at all in high humidity. Under 25% humidity the dew point is around 90F while at 90% it's 125F for a 139F temp. Basically your survival time is going to be going to be under 30 minutes at high humidity 90%+ and 129F. Luckily the heat was accompanied by low humidity in the case above, or there would be mass casualties.
Usage is likely to only increase. Electric cars will increase it about 1kwh for every 3 miles, converting from natural gas to electric heating consumes even more kWh. The average annual usage isn't what is needed, peak average seasonal usage is and things like air conditioning or heating often use several thousand to tens of thousands watts per dwelling which turns into added kWh.
Density is also an issue, for example in many urban areas people are stacked vertically and not in large expansive residential estates. Suddenly the rooftop of a building can't support more than the top few floors leaving the rest with no feasible solar solution. Walls won't help much either unless it's far taller than other structures, yet even that obstructs those around it. The density of urban areas hits 30k people per square mile today and is increasing (roughly 30M square feet or 30M watts peak radiated power) which works out to 1k sqft per human or less, you would need 50+ sqft at 100% efficiency, 250sqft today, that isn't likely enough to accommodate roadways, open areas, green spaces, walkways, or the general being able to see the sun that humans are used to. This will only get worse in the future as density goes up and the suns energy dosent.
Tl;dr while there is enough energy shining down on the world to provide all electrical needs, going off the grid or even small local grids isn't going to be a feasible stand alone option for high density urban areas under which a substantial part of the population lives.
Usage is likely to only increase. Electric cars will increase it about 1kwh for every 3 miles, converting from natural gas or oil to electric heating consumes even more kWh. The average usage isn't what is needed, peak average seasonal usage is and things like air conditioning or heating often use several thousand to tens of thousands watts.
Density is also an issue, for example in many urban areas people are stacked vertically and not in large expansive residential estates. Suddenly the rooftop of a building can't support more than the top few floors leaving the rest with no feasible solar solution.
Tl;dr while there is enough energy shining down on the world to provide all electricity, going off the grid isn't ever going to be a feasible option for high density urban areas under which a substantial part of the population lives.
While it is likely bad for the long term effects of the environment, we are not running out of space. The best scientific minds 130 years ago thought today's population was impossible, and they were right (using 1890s tech). More people means more geniuses who can solve problems. We will likely achieve fusion within 50 years, and have cheap automation driven by weak AI. In the long term nothing is stopping artificial farms from reaching a half mile depth around the globe, we stack nearly 30k people per square mile in cities already and just the land mass of earth has roughly 200 million sq miles. That's 6 trillion people considering we can up the current city density through nearly unlimited energy and cheap power. Further we could start using the oceans too, floating cities are already being planned. While I am in favor of expanding humanity, we need to realize that there is plenty of room right now if we take into account increases in technology. Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.
There are methods of sending information 'faster than light' but essentially the problem is you can only put your signal on top of random states. Untill you measure those and send them at classical light speed, you will have no idea what is sent and therefore sending information (or energy) instantly is by all understanding and experiment, not possible.
Getting ahold of the keys to encryption by a man in the middle attack approach is on a short list of 'easy' ways to defeat encryption. A 100% secure method of transmitting the keys globally would be a major advancement. You can then send your message classically with far less worry.
The attack was horrible yes, but we are talking about a couple of deaths per year in a country of 50 million. Automobile safety, antibiotic resistant bacteria/viruses, air pollution, and many more kill several orders of magnitude more people and are a far bigger real threat to human safety and well being - not even mentioning long term issues like the environment. This obviously about easily hyping up a tragedy so the government can stick its spyglass wayyyyyy up where the sun dosent shine.
But why, one might say, is this so important if it won't help terrorism? The answer is simple - when you have full access to every humans detail in your entire country, you can far more accurately hold snap elections at key times to grab PM seats, you can shut down activist groups by getting or planting dirt on them or creating an effective smear campaign targeted to the right people. You can do just about anything with that much information, no oversight, enough computational power and resources, and enough time. It's happening in the USA and Europe right now.
Not sure I approve of the clickbait title, but from my limited gaming experiences the overall game seems to be fairly original. Gotta give them some points for trying something new.
Even better without neutrality access to feedback can be blocked entirely, say if someone is trying to expand neutrality rights or has a pro-neutrality webpage. ISP can even lock users into specific pro company policy sites and deny access to others. Don't like that? Well without competition over high speed access you can just go to cellular or one choice of dsl, all of which likely have the same limitations.
The input from the public is just a joke, Pai was put in specifically to dismantle any rights the public had. Just wait till neutrality is removed, it will be legal to deny access to all customers if a new appointee tries to get net neutrality back. Oh you will complain on line in a forum or start your own website? It will be legal to block access to those too.
I was never really a party line liberal, and don't blame Obama 100% for the ACA failures - he was far to conciliatory and compromised too much. Overall I didn't like Obama and am now more of an independent voter despite my family earning in the top 5% every year.
My whole point is there wasn't a sane choice on either side (sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hillary), and the two party system is currently screwing the working class. Instead of only voting for the RNC or DNC candidate, vote for who you actually want like I did. If enough people do this maybe both parties will pull their heads outta their behinds.
Just because a politician doesn't espouse policies you support doesn't make him stupid, nor you smart.
If anything, it shows you're close-minded and not as smart as you believe you are - you can't even conceive the notion that you just might be wrong.
I assume you are one of the working class that neither party represents, or a traditional republican. I'm sorry there was no viable candidate for you vote on in the election, but only an uninformed idiot would think trump is representing your interests. He is a RINO, is massively cutting popular republican programs like Medicare against his promises (not making it better), kicking 20 million off insurance including elderly republicans, massively gutting the regulations protecting everyday people, and giving trillions in tax breaks to the top.1% of the richest people while shafting everyone else. I could fill up pages with the stupid crap he does, he is an embarrassment to our nation and is alienating our nation's allies making it less safe. Republicans control the house, senate, and executive branch but still very little forward progress is being made.
Blindly defending your party line president when you are so obviously getting the shaft makes you gullible and him malicious.
Sounds promising but do we really need an AI that takes in garbage, hides in the darkest cramped spaces, efficiently drustributes viruses, and is a plague to humankind?
In order to be informed one must digest many news sources- even when their bias is not your bias. Even foreign sources.
Then... you ruminate. Let the information sink in. And make the best call you can about what is true.
At the moment much of journalism has lost it's value. But in my opinion, the bright spots are easy to spot when you ignore your own ideology and start matching facts against stories.
Just make sure you have a real understanding about what a "fact" actually is.
Exactly. I am not at all conservative and like watching Fox News occasionally for the lols. Even conservative talk radio. Rush made me laugh harder than any stand up comic with
I don't understand how pollution is even possible. It comes from the earth, and goes back to the earth.
...watching MSNBC & Al Jazeera and splitting the difference.
That's half facetious, but the reality is that if you get all your news from a single source, you're guaranteed to get a biased view of reality, no matter what the source. The best thing you can do is to get information from as many different sources as possible, and when there are differences, do a little digging through meta-analysis sites to try to figure out where the truth lies.
If you don't have time to do that, your only choice is to accept that you will always be at least to some degree uninformed, hope that it doesn't matter, and don't worry about it.
And if you like those, try TYT on YouTube instead of MSNBC. Basically anything with Cenk is pretty decent.
If you can make a charge that can get past security and is only the size of a laptop battery, there are an almost infinite number of things you could hide it in. And laptops would probably be the LAST thing to bother with because they are oddly-shaped, have to work, are often separate in scanning, etc.
At that point, you could just put it in a small statue and carry it in your overhead luggage.
Again, security through "imaginary" scenarios.
If someone can get an bomb through security onto a plane disguised as a laptop, the problem is not the laptop. It's the bomb. Because the second you crack-down on laptops, they can make ANYTHING ELSE to disguise that bomb too.
Try getting better scanning that doesn't let you put bombs through it. If you can't distinguish between explosive and lithium-ion batteries (although flammable, it's hard to take down a plane with one of laptop size), I suggest you employ a proper scientist rather than a "security consultant" who's being paid by the hour.
I'd agree that a specific threat is blown out of proportion. You can't just make it fit anything though, only larger devices with a battery and lots of metal and internal parts to confuse the "less apt" agents would be easiest. Therefore a laptop is the best bet because it is the most common device to satisfy these requirements.
Maybe if it was actual security and not theater we wouldn't have this problem.
What else are they supposed to do? Any effective effort is blocked by activists.
The monthly terror attacks in the Western world are being perpetrated by people from the same few countries. Yet any effort to more closely look at who we let into our countries or reducing the amount of people we let in unchecked is being brigaded by a hysterical media and liberals who throw around -isms all day.
The countries perpetuating the attacks weren't the ones in trumps travel ban. Let's scrutinize the actual threats, not ones from a bigots imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use the finger print sensor, it's not that useful a sensor for other purposes (that I've seen). But this does sound promising if it can be used to get basic 3-d scans of objects.
Spot on. Your body sweats to get rid of heat which dosent work well at all in high humidity. Under 25% humidity the dew point is around 90F while at 90% it's 125F for a 139F temp. Basically your survival time is going to be going to be under 30 minutes at high humidity 90%+ and 129F. Luckily the heat was accompanied by low humidity in the case above, or there would be mass casualties.
Strangely enough the humidity may drastically increase in North Africa and the Middle East
Usage is likely to only increase. Electric cars will increase it about 1kwh for every 3 miles, converting from natural gas to electric heating consumes even more kWh. The average annual usage isn't what is needed, peak average seasonal usage is and things like air conditioning or heating often use several thousand to tens of thousands watts per dwelling which turns into added kWh.
Density is also an issue, for example in many urban areas people are stacked vertically and not in large expansive residential estates. Suddenly the rooftop of a building can't support more than the top few floors leaving the rest with no feasible solar solution. Walls won't help much either unless it's far taller than other structures, yet even that obstructs those around it. The density of urban areas hits 30k people per square mile today and is increasing (roughly 30M square feet or 30M watts peak radiated power) which works out to 1k sqft per human or less, you would need 50+ sqft at 100% efficiency, 250sqft today, that isn't likely enough to accommodate roadways, open areas, green spaces, walkways, or the general being able to see the sun that humans are used to. This will only get worse in the future as density goes up and the suns energy dosent.
Tl;dr while there is enough energy shining down on the world to provide all electrical needs, going off the grid or even small local grids isn't going to be a feasible stand alone option for high density urban areas under which a substantial part of the population lives.
Usage is likely to only increase. Electric cars will increase it about 1kwh for every 3 miles, converting from natural gas or oil to electric heating consumes even more kWh. The average usage isn't what is needed, peak average seasonal usage is and things like air conditioning or heating often use several thousand to tens of thousands watts.
Density is also an issue, for example in many urban areas people are stacked vertically and not in large expansive residential estates. Suddenly the rooftop of a building can't support more than the top few floors leaving the rest with no feasible solar solution.
Tl;dr while there is enough energy shining down on the world to provide all electricity, going off the grid isn't ever going to be a feasible option for high density urban areas under which a substantial part of the population lives.
On the top level, essentially the rooftop of a 3/4 mile deep city. Doubt it would be done this way but the design is possible.
Sounds like you are opting for space colonization.
While it is likely bad for the long term effects of the environment, we are not running out of space. The best scientific minds 130 years ago thought today's population was impossible, and they were right (using 1890s tech). More people means more geniuses who can solve problems. We will likely achieve fusion within 50 years, and have cheap automation driven by weak AI. In the long term nothing is stopping artificial farms from reaching a half mile depth around the globe, we stack nearly 30k people per square mile in cities already and just the land mass of earth has roughly 200 million sq miles. That's 6 trillion people considering we can up the current city density through nearly unlimited energy and cheap power. Further we could start using the oceans too, floating cities are already being planned. While I am in favor of expanding humanity, we need to realize that there is plenty of room right now if we take into account increases in technology. Within 500 years we may see the planet support over one trillion people, it seems likely to me at least.
There are methods of sending information 'faster than light' but essentially the problem is you can only put your signal on top of random states. Untill you measure those and send them at classical light speed, you will have no idea what is sent and therefore sending information (or energy) instantly is by all understanding and experiment, not possible.
Getting ahold of the keys to encryption by a man in the middle attack approach is on a short list of 'easy' ways to defeat encryption. A 100% secure method of transmitting the keys globally would be a major advancement. You can then send your message classically with far less worry.
Step 1: Short major tech stocks to the tune of billions with accounts obfuscated through a beach of shell companies.
Step 2: Your analyst "Has a press release noting that they are overvalued"
Step 3: Wipe with thousand dollar bills for the rest of your days.
The attack was horrible yes, but we are talking about a couple of deaths per year in a country of 50 million. Automobile safety, antibiotic resistant bacteria/viruses, air pollution, and many more kill several orders of magnitude more people and are a far bigger real threat to human safety and well being - not even mentioning long term issues like the environment. This obviously about easily hyping up a tragedy so the government can stick its spyglass wayyyyyy up where the sun dosent shine.
But why, one might say, is this so important if it won't help terrorism? The answer is simple - when you have full access to every humans detail in your entire country, you can far more accurately hold snap elections at key times to grab PM seats, you can shut down activist groups by getting or planting dirt on them or creating an effective smear campaign targeted to the right people. You can do just about anything with that much information, no oversight, enough computational power and resources, and enough time. It's happening in the USA and Europe right now.
Not sure I approve of the clickbait title, but from my limited gaming experiences the overall game seems to be fairly original. Gotta give them some points for trying something new.
Actually, they're mostly pissed off, because no matter how outrageous a scenario they dream up, Trump keeps topping them.
I think you are referring to house of cards.
100% of late night comedians think he tweets just the right amount or not enough.
Even better without neutrality access to feedback can be blocked entirely, say if someone is trying to expand neutrality rights or has a pro-neutrality webpage. ISP can even lock users into specific pro company policy sites and deny access to others. Don't like that? Well without competition over high speed access you can just go to cellular or one choice of dsl, all of which likely have the same limitations.
The input from the public is just a joke, Pai was put in specifically to dismantle any rights the public had. Just wait till neutrality is removed, it will be legal to deny access to all customers if a new appointee tries to get net neutrality back. Oh you will complain on line in a forum or start your own website? It will be legal to block access to those too.
I was thinking of actual rats, but that works too.
I was never really a party line liberal, and don't blame Obama 100% for the ACA failures - he was far to conciliatory and compromised too much. Overall I didn't like Obama and am now more of an independent voter despite my family earning in the top 5% every year.
My whole point is there wasn't a sane choice on either side (sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hillary), and the two party system is currently screwing the working class. Instead of only voting for the RNC or DNC candidate, vote for who you actually want like I did. If enough people do this maybe both parties will pull their heads outta their behinds.
Just because a politician doesn't espouse policies you support doesn't make him stupid, nor you smart.
If anything, it shows you're close-minded and not as smart as you believe you are - you can't even conceive the notion that you just might be wrong.
I assume you are one of the working class that neither party represents, or a traditional republican. I'm sorry there was no viable candidate for you vote on in the election, but only an uninformed idiot would think trump is representing your interests. He is a RINO, is massively cutting popular republican programs like Medicare against his promises (not making it better), kicking 20 million off insurance including elderly republicans, massively gutting the regulations protecting everyday people, and giving trillions in tax breaks to the top .1% of the richest people while shafting everyone else. I could fill up pages with the stupid crap he does, he is an embarrassment to our nation and is alienating our nation's allies making it less safe. Republicans control the house, senate, and executive branch but still very little forward progress is being made.
Blindly defending your party line president when you are so obviously getting the shaft makes you gullible and him malicious.
Sounds promising but do we really need an AI that takes in garbage, hides in the darkest cramped spaces, efficiently drustributes viruses, and is a plague to humankind?
In order to be informed one must digest many news sources- even when their bias is not your bias. Even foreign sources.
Then... you ruminate. Let the information sink in. And make the best call you can about what is true.
At the moment much of journalism has lost it's value. But in my opinion, the bright spots are easy to spot when you ignore your own ideology and start matching facts against stories.
Just make sure you have a real understanding about what a "fact" actually is.
Exactly. I am not at all conservative and like watching Fox News occasionally for the lols. Even conservative talk radio. Rush made me laugh harder than any stand up comic with
I don't understand how pollution is even possible. It comes from the earth, and goes back to the earth.
...watching MSNBC & Al Jazeera and splitting the difference.
That's half facetious, but the reality is that if you get all your news from a single source, you're guaranteed to get a biased view of reality, no matter what the source. The best thing you can do is to get information from as many different sources as possible, and when there are differences, do a little digging through meta-analysis sites to try to figure out where the truth lies.
If you don't have time to do that, your only choice is to accept that you will always be at least to some degree uninformed, hope that it doesn't matter, and don't worry about it.
And if you like those, try TYT on YouTube instead of MSNBC. Basically anything with Cenk is pretty decent.
If you can make a charge that can get past security and is only the size of a laptop battery, there are an almost infinite number of things you could hide it in. And laptops would probably be the LAST thing to bother with because they are oddly-shaped, have to work, are often separate in scanning, etc.
At that point, you could just put it in a small statue and carry it in your overhead luggage.
Again, security through "imaginary" scenarios.
If someone can get an bomb through security onto a plane disguised as a laptop, the problem is not the laptop. It's the bomb. Because the second you crack-down on laptops, they can make ANYTHING ELSE to disguise that bomb too.
Try getting better scanning that doesn't let you put bombs through it. If you can't distinguish between explosive and lithium-ion batteries (although flammable, it's hard to take down a plane with one of laptop size), I suggest you employ a proper scientist rather than a "security consultant" who's being paid by the hour.
I'd agree that a specific threat is blown out of proportion. You can't just make it fit anything though, only larger devices with a battery and lots of metal and internal parts to confuse the "less apt" agents would be easiest. Therefore a laptop is the best bet because it is the most common device to satisfy these requirements.
Maybe if it was actual security and not theater we wouldn't have this problem.
What else are they supposed to do? Any effective effort is blocked by activists.
The monthly terror attacks in the Western world are being perpetrated by people from the same few countries. Yet any effort to more closely look at who we let into our countries or reducing the amount of people we let in unchecked is being brigaded by a hysterical media and liberals who throw around -isms all day.
The countries perpetuating the attacks weren't the ones in trumps travel ban. Let's scrutinize the actual threats, not ones from a bigots imagination.
Why not create a book shaped explosive and then put a book cover around it?
Maybe because books don't come with a battery, wire, and lots of metal? After laptops are banned they will probably move to modding kindle fire.