Consider this: what if new net neutrality rules says all traffic has to be treated equality, but there are bottlenecks in the network that cause certain streams to suffer.
This is not what sensible net neutrality proponents want. Bit torrent, FTP, and other mass transfers can be given a high bandwidth, high latency, high jitter connection. Streaming protocols can be given high bandwidth, high latency, low jitter. VOIP can be given low bandwidth, low latency, low jitter. No one (sensible) is saying you can't discriminate based on data type. What matters is not discriminating on source/destination. Comcast can't choke Netflix's connection to drive customers to the Comcast owned (or patnered, or sponsored, etc) VOD provider. They can't mess with VOIP packets to ruin Skype quality to force people to buy landlines. That is what net neutrality is about.
obsolete adjective
1. no longer produced or used; out of date.
"the disposal of old and obsolete machinery"
synonyms: outdated, out of date, outmoded, old-fashioned, démodé, passé, out of fashion;
You missed the last point of my post. All it takes is a single dedicated person to crack the DRM and it will be available on streaming, downloading, and torrenting sites all around the web in a matter of days. Anything even moderately popular (and therefore able to be monetized) can be found. DRM at the stream level is like going after people recording radio onto cassette tapes; even if we agree that pirating is a real problem, those particular pirates are not part of it.
Even if you had the most 100% rock solid DRM, mathematically proven to be unbreakable and cryptographically secured, you cannot stop pirated content. If absolutely nothing else, people will use screen capture software and grab it that way. If things really go to shit and there's watchdog software on every PC preventing screen capture from happening while DRM content is playing, they'll pipe it over to a separate PC and capture it there. If you manage to block that they'll take apart a monitor and grab the data stream from the internals of the monitor itself. If you somehow find a way to block that, they'll point a camera at the damned things and capture it that way. The analog hole cannot be plugged and once it's broken and posted the DRM is effectively broken for everyone.
This just isn't true any more and Tesla has proven it. That's not to say the infrastructure is there today, but it's possible to have charging stops that are barely more inconvenient than fill ups. As much as I hate the idea, automated battery swaps could also eliminate the issue entirely.
I think you'd be surprised. In urban driving, some some typical numbers would be engines about 40% efficient in terms of extracting energy from fuel, which sounds pretty good on the surface. The problem is you lose another 17% to idling. Another 6% in the drive train. Another 2-3% in powering the accessories. And you lose about 6% of the energy in the fuel just from braking. An electric car doesn't have to idle. The drive train is massively simplified, reducing losses there. Accessories are directly powered without the losses of an alternator. And you can recoup some energy with regenerative breaking.
Those numbers are for urban driving, they are slightly better for highway cruising but you have more losses inside the engine as RPMs increase, so the difference ends up being only a few percentage points. Obviously hybrids can address some of those issues as well, by getting rid of the idle, through regenerative braking, and evening out some of the power surges needed to accelerate.
And yet, a Tesla can get 270 miles on a charge, that's not as good as my car gets on a full tank (quick math says I should get about 380), but it's not so far off that the numbers aren't comparable. Is a 50% increase with Li-Polymer possible? I don't know, that's probably getting pretty close to the practical maximum. But there are other battery techs in the research phases now with better energy density, and who knows what we'll find if we keep looking.
A) Done properly no one beside the bank will ever have access to my payment details (however, this is not the case with current systems as far as I know) B) Secured by PIN and/or password C) Can be remotely wiped if lost or stolen without having cards reissued D) Single interface to all your payment options; no multiple cards E) I'm much more likely to lose or forget a credit card than my phone
Oh, I'm not defending it, merely pointing out that the parent's concern has been addressed. I don't have any particular side in this generation's fight, haven't yet found the time to play through more than a couple games from last generation. If I did have a preference it would reluctantly be for the PS4 because they managed to have reasonable policies from day one; reluctant because of all the crap Sony has pulled over the years.
A large part of this is that people's instinct when they see the flash is to go to the window to see what it was. The flash and the shockwave can arrive anywhere from seconds to minutes apart, and people all gather round the windows to see what's going on.
One of the primary reasons given is that space exploration (in particular the highly speculative Mars mission SpaceX continues to look into) are high risk long term ventures and they don't want to be beholden to investors to meet quarterly numbers. To which I say put it in the company bylaws, mission statement, and investment prospectus and let the investors decide. I would love the chance to invest in a high risk, high reward, long term thinking company. There are so incredibly few of them out there, it would be a refreshing change of pace to force investors to look 10 years a head instead of 10 weeks.
OMG not one but THREE papers claiming global cooling!? Why... the existence of those three 50 year old papers completely invalidates every other paper on climate change in the past 60 years, even the ones written about global warning in the 60s and early 70s.
Actually, part of the purpose of the 3 laws stories was to show that even if you built robots from the ground up to not harm humans, you can still end up in situations where robots are dangerous to humans. Almost every 3 laws story revolves around trying to determine why the three laws failed. This becomes more and more true as the robots become more and more sophisticated; primitive robots cause minor hassles, more advanced robots risk death and serious injury, more advanced yet take over the planet to reduce the total harm to humanity in general (yes, the stupid movie plot is, in fact, based (loosely) on one Asimov's stories, though in Asimov's story the takeover was completely non-violent).
What will happen is that the defense contractors will develop autonomous less-lethal robots that can scout, identify targets, and engage with less lethal weapons. But you know... for flexibility purposes... we'll just make sure the weapon hardpoints are as modular as possible. Hey! I know! We'll make them be adaptable to any standard infantry fir... errrrr, less-lethal weapon.
You jest, but communicating to farmers that "over/misuse of this pesticide may cause collapse of nearby bee colonies resulting in greatly reduced yields" wouldn't be a terrible idea.
The problem is that taxonomy isn't a science, it's a tool. It shows how different species are related morphologically and chemically and more recently genetically. It's a tool to used by other branches of biology to further their research, and now the tool has become too accurate for it's own good. Not really, but that's the perception. Part of the problem is that the dividing lines between species are artificial constructs, there's no line in the sand that says "everything on this side is a red bottle nose guppy and everything on this side is a red trumpet nose guppy", that's not how evolution works. But if you want to study the differences between the two you need a dividing line, and that's really the primary purpose of taxonomy.
Your numbers are saying the person of average intillegence in 1930 would be in the bottom one or two percent today. While there have been increases in IQ, they have not been anywhere near that extreme. One or two points per decade, and the rate has been slowing for the past 30 years. Still significant, but nothing like what you are describing.
I'm beginning to suspect you haven't read the article... I know, I know... but still.
"Since then, the two groups have been working to develop a resource that will provide staff and advocates with the base level of technological know-how required to address casework with a digital abuse component."
"The Tor Browser Bundle is free software that works like most ordinary browsers but comes configured to make it harder for individuals to be tracked, obscuring or deleting things like a browser’s history, location, and IP address from both the website the user is browsing as well as erasing traces from the computer the browser is hosted on."
It's not about facebook, it's about secure communications between an abuse victim and their caseworker or even the police. It's about teaching them how to make travel arrangements without the confirmation emails spelling out where they're going and when. It's about teaching them what's possible if someone has unlimited access to your phone.
What you say is true, but ignores reality. Yes, there is no technological solution, that's probably why part of what they're doing is educating the people who need help. You know, teaching them to throw the deadbolt in your door analogy. Also, a smashed down door is still preferable to a simply opened and shut one. A smashed down door attracts attention, both inside and outside the house. A smashed down door takes time. It takes effort. It takes a certain amount of physical skill.
Why insist on not improving just because the improvement won't be perfect?
I've been out camping and seen several shooting stars in a matter of minutes. That being said, a shooting star is just that, a tiny pin prick of light flying across the sky in less than a second, it's not anything spectacular to look at (except of course, if you know what it is and what it means). I have, however, seen a single fireball meteor, which as far as I understand is a very rare experience. It was bright enough to light up the ground for a couple seconds, like someone igniting some lighter fluid a couple dozen meters away.
You're 52 years old, with enough of an interest in astronomy to have a telescope, and you couldn't manage to pick Hale-Bopp out of the night sky? The damn thing was the size of a full moon in rural light conditions. It was by far the brightest thing in the sky other than the moon.
The SRB's were hard landed into salt water, were solid engines (where a good portion of the cost and complexity is laying the fuel correctly), and were designed 40 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider this: what if new net neutrality rules says all traffic has to be treated equality, but there are bottlenecks in the network that cause certain streams to suffer.
This is not what sensible net neutrality proponents want. Bit torrent, FTP, and other mass transfers can be given a high bandwidth, high latency, high jitter connection. Streaming protocols can be given high bandwidth, high latency, low jitter. VOIP can be given low bandwidth, low latency, low jitter. No one (sensible) is saying you can't discriminate based on data type. What matters is not discriminating on source/destination. Comcast can't choke Netflix's connection to drive customers to the Comcast owned (or patnered, or sponsored, etc) VOD provider. They can't mess with VOIP packets to ruin Skype quality to force people to buy landlines. That is what net neutrality is about.
obsolete
adjective
1. no longer produced or used; out of date.
"the disposal of old and obsolete machinery"
synonyms: outdated, out of date, outmoded, old-fashioned, démodé, passé, out of fashion;
I think you might have had a pedantism fail.
You missed the last point of my post. All it takes is a single dedicated person to crack the DRM and it will be available on streaming, downloading, and torrenting sites all around the web in a matter of days. Anything even moderately popular (and therefore able to be monetized) can be found. DRM at the stream level is like going after people recording radio onto cassette tapes; even if we agree that pirating is a real problem, those particular pirates are not part of it.
Even if you had the most 100% rock solid DRM, mathematically proven to be unbreakable and cryptographically secured, you cannot stop pirated content. If absolutely nothing else, people will use screen capture software and grab it that way. If things really go to shit and there's watchdog software on every PC preventing screen capture from happening while DRM content is playing, they'll pipe it over to a separate PC and capture it there. If you manage to block that they'll take apart a monitor and grab the data stream from the internals of the monitor itself. If you somehow find a way to block that, they'll point a camera at the damned things and capture it that way. The analog hole cannot be plugged and once it's broken and posted the DRM is effectively broken for everyone.
Compare that with hours to charge a battery.
This just isn't true any more and Tesla has proven it. That's not to say the infrastructure is there today, but it's possible to have charging stops that are barely more inconvenient than fill ups. As much as I hate the idea, automated battery swaps could also eliminate the issue entirely.
I think you'd be surprised. In urban driving, some some typical numbers would be engines about 40% efficient in terms of extracting energy from fuel, which sounds pretty good on the surface. The problem is you lose another 17% to idling. Another 6% in the drive train. Another 2-3% in powering the accessories. And you lose about 6% of the energy in the fuel just from braking. An electric car doesn't have to idle. The drive train is massively simplified, reducing losses there. Accessories are directly powered without the losses of an alternator. And you can recoup some energy with regenerative breaking.
Those numbers are for urban driving, they are slightly better for highway cruising but you have more losses inside the engine as RPMs increase, so the difference ends up being only a few percentage points. Obviously hybrids can address some of those issues as well, by getting rid of the idle, through regenerative braking, and evening out some of the power surges needed to accelerate.
And yet, a Tesla can get 270 miles on a charge, that's not as good as my car gets on a full tank (quick math says I should get about 380), but it's not so far off that the numbers aren't comparable. Is a 50% increase with Li-Polymer possible? I don't know, that's probably getting pretty close to the practical maximum. But there are other battery techs in the research phases now with better energy density, and who knows what we'll find if we keep looking.
A) Done properly no one beside the bank will ever have access to my payment details (however, this is not the case with current systems as far as I know)
B) Secured by PIN and/or password
C) Can be remotely wiped if lost or stolen without having cards reissued
D) Single interface to all your payment options; no multiple cards
E) I'm much more likely to lose or forget a credit card than my phone
Oh, I'm not defending it, merely pointing out that the parent's concern has been addressed. I don't have any particular side in this generation's fight, haven't yet found the time to play through more than a couple games from last generation. If I did have a preference it would reluctantly be for the PS4 because they managed to have reasonable policies from day one; reluctant because of all the crap Sony has pulled over the years.
The very same announcement also announced that a Gold membership will no longer be required for streaming services.
A large part of this is that people's instinct when they see the flash is to go to the window to see what it was. The flash and the shockwave can arrive anywhere from seconds to minutes apart, and people all gather round the windows to see what's going on.
One of the primary reasons given is that space exploration (in particular the highly speculative Mars mission SpaceX continues to look into) are high risk long term ventures and they don't want to be beholden to investors to meet quarterly numbers. To which I say put it in the company bylaws, mission statement, and investment prospectus and let the investors decide. I would love the chance to invest in a high risk, high reward, long term thinking company. There are so incredibly few of them out there, it would be a refreshing change of pace to force investors to look 10 years a head instead of 10 weeks.
OMG not one but THREE papers claiming global cooling!? Why... the existence of those three 50 year old papers completely invalidates every other paper on climate change in the past 60 years, even the ones written about global warning in the 60s and early 70s.
All the cool kids these days are buying amphibious demilitarized "ducks".
Actually, part of the purpose of the 3 laws stories was to show that even if you built robots from the ground up to not harm humans, you can still end up in situations where robots are dangerous to humans. Almost every 3 laws story revolves around trying to determine why the three laws failed. This becomes more and more true as the robots become more and more sophisticated; primitive robots cause minor hassles, more advanced robots risk death and serious injury, more advanced yet take over the planet to reduce the total harm to humanity in general (yes, the stupid movie plot is, in fact, based (loosely) on one Asimov's stories, though in Asimov's story the takeover was completely non-violent).
What will happen is that the defense contractors will develop autonomous less-lethal robots that can scout, identify targets, and engage with less lethal weapons. But you know... for flexibility purposes... we'll just make sure the weapon hardpoints are as modular as possible. Hey! I know! We'll make them be adaptable to any standard infantry fir... errrrr, less-lethal weapon.
You jest, but communicating to farmers that "over/misuse of this pesticide may cause collapse of nearby bee colonies resulting in greatly reduced yields" wouldn't be a terrible idea.
The problem is that taxonomy isn't a science, it's a tool. It shows how different species are related morphologically and chemically and more recently genetically. It's a tool to used by other branches of biology to further their research, and now the tool has become too accurate for it's own good. Not really, but that's the perception. Part of the problem is that the dividing lines between species are artificial constructs, there's no line in the sand that says "everything on this side is a red bottle nose guppy and everything on this side is a red trumpet nose guppy", that's not how evolution works. But if you want to study the differences between the two you need a dividing line, and that's really the primary purpose of taxonomy.
Your numbers are saying the person of average intillegence in 1930 would be in the bottom one or two percent today. While there have been increases in IQ, they have not been anywhere near that extreme. One or two points per decade, and the rate has been slowing for the past 30 years. Still significant, but nothing like what you are describing.
Because there's no border security, customs, or bloody great big oceans between Chicago and areas where guns aren't outlawed?
I'm beginning to suspect you haven't read the article... I know, I know... but still.
"Since then, the two groups have been working to develop a resource that will provide staff and advocates with the base level of technological know-how required to address casework with a digital abuse component."
"The Tor Browser Bundle is free software that works like most ordinary browsers but comes configured to make it harder for individuals to be tracked, obscuring or deleting things like a browser’s history, location, and IP address from both the website the user is browsing as well as erasing traces from the computer the browser is hosted on."
It's not about facebook, it's about secure communications between an abuse victim and their caseworker or even the police. It's about teaching them how to make travel arrangements without the confirmation emails spelling out where they're going and when. It's about teaching them what's possible if someone has unlimited access to your phone.
What you say is true, but ignores reality. Yes, there is no technological solution, that's probably why part of what they're doing is educating the people who need help. You know, teaching them to throw the deadbolt in your door analogy. Also, a smashed down door is still preferable to a simply opened and shut one. A smashed down door attracts attention, both inside and outside the house. A smashed down door takes time. It takes effort. It takes a certain amount of physical skill.
Why insist on not improving just because the improvement won't be perfect?
I've been out camping and seen several shooting stars in a matter of minutes. That being said, a shooting star is just that, a tiny pin prick of light flying across the sky in less than a second, it's not anything spectacular to look at (except of course, if you know what it is and what it means). I have, however, seen a single fireball meteor, which as far as I understand is a very rare experience. It was bright enough to light up the ground for a couple seconds, like someone igniting some lighter fluid a couple dozen meters away.
You're 52 years old, with enough of an interest in astronomy to have a telescope, and you couldn't manage to pick Hale-Bopp out of the night sky? The damn thing was the size of a full moon in rural light conditions. It was by far the brightest thing in the sky other than the moon.
The SRB's were hard landed into salt water, were solid engines (where a good portion of the cost and complexity is laying the fuel correctly), and were designed 40 years ago.