Sorry to butt in on this discussion, but this thread is obviously in need of internet etiquette guidance. Both of you appear to be very upset, apparently without understanding the long-standing tradition of saying the Magic Words:
"People like you are why Hitler came to power."
Using this phrase ensures your immediate victory and terminates the discussion. No need for thanks - I'll be here next time you need me.
Entering a building is extremely risky. The first guy through the door is virtually certain to get shot if there's resistance inside. That means that soldiers tend to throw grenades into rooms before entering them. That leads to innocent civilians getting killed.
This robot could enter a room without having to do that. If it gets blown up - well - it's not as bad as losing a man OR as bad as killing civilians. Furthermore, the operator can operate it calmly because his own life isn't on the line, so the shoot / don't shoot decision is a little easier to make.
If this becomes widely deployed it holds the prospect to make urban warfare a lot more humane to the unfortunate civilians that get caught up in the fighting. Like any tool it can undoubtedly be misused, but the fact is that if our guys over there wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't need a little robot to do it for them. If we weren't concerned about civilian casualties we could simply flatten entire cities with artillery like we did in World War 1 and 2. The reason that insurgent tactics work so well is because we're unwilling to do that - as we should be.
I don't hold out much hope for this war getting better, but I hope that in some small way robots like these could reduce the suffering caused.
I'm not saying that government intervention never benefits anyone, but people are obviously willing to pay for more ATMS, so why should the government intervene? It sounds like the government there destroyed an in-progress test of whether people were willing to use the free medium sized network or pay a premium for the larger network.
Do you really think that banks will build as many ATMs if they can't profit from them directly? They're in this for profit. You'd think that a non-profit credit union would have an advantage because of that - because they're not skimming profits off - but in fact they need a boost from the government just to compete.
It's not embezzling any more than any other markup. I use Wells Fargo, which is a notoriously fee-heavy and interest-light bank. They periodically ding me on things and I don't get nearly the interest I could at many other banks.
The reason I do it is that they have tons of ATMs in my area. Because of the convenience of their ATMs, I haven't paid other-bank ATM fees in around a year. I'm paying a premium for a service that I value, and they provide the service because of the opportunity to profit. Similarly, you probably sometimes pay a premium to buy things at convenience stores, even though Costco provides them less expensively.
Making a profit is okay. If you don't think the profit requested is worth it, find another seller. If none are available who charge less, decide how badly you want the service/item.
I live in Portland Oregon and recently saw someone leave a BMW 5-series running in front of a coffee shop while he went in to get something, with the driver's door left open, on a busy street.
Although I think you're correct in principle that the future is hard to plan for, there are some cases where you can certainly make upgrades easier. A simple example would be that modern buildings install ethernet/fibre in ducts to simplify the upgrade process. Similarly open file formats can simplify the process of upgrading software, and so on.
You're absolutely right that speculation about what'll be around in 50 years is no grounds for planning, but I think it's safe to assume that there will be significant change and it's possible to make the infrastructure easier to change.
If you're paranoid enough, there are cases available with intrusion-detection switches. I'm sure it's possible to defeat them but they're not always obvious.
If I had the figure of a muscle-bound warrior I'd be out partying at clubs and getting girls, not playing WoW. The point of online games is to experience a different reality.
Next step: if you don't actually know how to fight, your character can't either.
Some people who present ideas to VC firms make fortunes, or at least something while nobody who presents ideas to the Economist's Jamaican Beer Project can reasonably expect more than a subscription worth $50.
That's the difference. People play the lottery despite small odds, but wouldn't play if the odds were exactly zero.
Are you seriously advocating for many millions of dollars to be spent erecting cell towers in the middle of nowhere?
People have been driving long distances for 80 years now, and have a glorious tradition of cell-phone free long-distance travel going back to when we were monkeys.
It's not like you *have* to drive through the middle of nowhere. There are tons of cities to live in. If you want to live way out in the country, you're already assuming all sorts of problems. (no police response, ever, no emergency services, possibly no utilities, etc.)
That's not to say that city life is risk free either, but people are choosing which set of risks they want. I hardly think that the millions that would have to be spent putting up cell towers in Nowhereville are the most effective way to improve the quality of life out there.
Also, third world is dirt poor. If rural Africa can afford cell towers, I have a hard time imagining that a similar homebrew wireless network - and 802.11b Skype phones are easy to buy - is out of the question for rural America. If people aren't doing it, it's probably because they don't want it or don't care enough.
Where I live, one kWh costs about $0.08. So you get $0.006 per hour of exercise.
Assuming that you have 50 people at a gym doing this, that's $0.30/hr. Assuming that you have those 50 people going 10 hours a day all year long (probably way too high), you're looking at a total of about $1,100/yr power generation.
There's no way you're going to outfit 50 machines for $1100, and probably not for $11,000.
$111,000 on a 100 year loan might do it, but the $1,100/yr generated *might* pay interest on the money borrowed, but could hardly touch the principal, and it's virtually impossible that the machines would last for the centuries needed to pay it off at a few hundred a year. And good luck finding a hundred year loan.
Conclusion: you're better off spending the money on virtually anything else. Put solar panels on the gym and you'll break even in 20 years. Better yet, bike to the gym and back instead of driving and wasting a gallon of gas each direction.
For extra benefits, just bike to the gym and back without going inside. You get your hour of exercise, avoid using energy, and don't have to pay gym fees.
There's no way that the market is going to compete with a free government provided service. You're correct to say that the market will identify opportunities, but when the government currently gives money to researchers - and then *gives* the patents to for-profit companies, it's a no-go. There's no business that can compete with free tax dollars.
I don't think it's quite that clear-cut. From a business perspective, the end products that come out of basic science are both extremely rare and extremely valuable. Imagine for example how much money could be made on licensing if you owned key patents on fiber optics, atomic power, etc. Note that I'm not talking about patent trolling, but actual constructive licensing where I invent something valuable and you pay to use it.
Obviously most companies couldn't actually invest in more than one those fields, but if a research company could come up with one such patentable idea every 20 years, they could probably make a profit on even billions of investment.
Using financial tools coming from the insurance industry, the (massive) risk could be distributed among many investors and repackaged to the point where it might not exceed the risk of picking individual stocks.
I realize that it's entirely possible that the cost/risk/return ratios wouldn't work out - but I don't think that we can shoot down market-based research as easily as you suggest. I suspect that government subsidies would be necessary, but it might make more sense to fund research via tax breaks, long patents lives for basic research, and so on would be a more effective than funding research directly.
If I was artifically prevented from creating a brand new car at no cost to anyone, when my old one wore out, I'd be pretty pissed. The only reason that these old copies of music "wear out" is that it's illegal to update them.
Put another way, how would you feel if it was illegal to maintain your car? I mean, you can buy a new one when it wears out...
Look - I'm as much an open source fan as anyone, but the fact is that the $40,000 figure is misleading. Oracle's so-called Standard Edition One is basically the full thing - it just can't do clustering, and can't do more than two processors.
I'm sure someone will point out another nitpick that it can't do, but the practical fact is that you can buy Standard Edition One for $5000/processor and get a fully functional database.
For the price-aware, you can even buy a 1, 2, or 3 year license for something like $2-3K.
And, no, Oracle isn't paying me to shill for them. I just work for a company that uses Oracle, and I hate to see the "Oracle costs $40,000" meme repeated here.
For that matter, consider that neither two-way radios nor cell phones direct their radio broadcasts. It's all simple non-directional broadcast. Given that, it doesn't even matter what phone is talking with whom.
Given that Google doesn't seem to actually take things out of beta, it's no surprise.
If I use a beta from Microsoft/RedHat/anyone else, it's clearly pre-production. GMail, Google News, and so on are all called beta products, but they're clearly production systems.
Why should the beta label shield them from all complaints when they're using it like this?
Slashdot Mirror
Use tests based on American cultural references. Won't fix everything but sure will make it harder for them to use foreign labor.
The obvious solution is the time-honored geek technique for differentiating recently edited text files.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I propose we introduce seconds 59foo and 59bar.
Further seconds can be added in a similar format:
59foo-2
59bar-edit-2
59foobar-next
59foo_current
59newest!!!!
etc
Sorry to butt in on this discussion, but this thread is obviously in need of internet etiquette guidance. Both of you appear to be very upset, apparently without understanding the long-standing tradition of saying the Magic Words:
"People like you are why Hitler came to power."
Using this phrase ensures your immediate victory and terminates the discussion. No need for thanks - I'll be here next time you need me.
Entering a building is extremely risky. The first guy through the door is virtually certain to get shot if there's resistance inside. That means that soldiers tend to throw grenades into rooms before entering them. That leads to innocent civilians getting killed.
This robot could enter a room without having to do that. If it gets blown up - well - it's not as bad as losing a man OR as bad as killing civilians. Furthermore, the operator can operate it calmly because his own life isn't on the line, so the shoot / don't shoot decision is a little easier to make.
If this becomes widely deployed it holds the prospect to make urban warfare a lot more humane to the unfortunate civilians that get caught up in the fighting. Like any tool it can undoubtedly be misused, but the fact is that if our guys over there wanted to kill civilians they wouldn't need a little robot to do it for them. If we weren't concerned about civilian casualties we could simply flatten entire cities with artillery like we did in World War 1 and 2. The reason that insurgent tactics work so well is because we're unwilling to do that - as we should be.
I don't hold out much hope for this war getting better, but I hope that in some small way robots like these could reduce the suffering caused.
I'm not saying that government intervention never benefits anyone, but people are obviously willing to pay for more ATMS, so why should the government intervene? It sounds like the government there destroyed an in-progress test of whether people were willing to use the free medium sized network or pay a premium for the larger network.
Do you really think that banks will build as many ATMs if they can't profit from them directly? They're in this for profit. You'd think that a non-profit credit union would have an advantage because of that - because they're not skimming profits off - but in fact they need a boost from the government just to compete.
Yes, let us build such a camp, and exclude atheists, homosexuals, and non-autists from it...
It's not embezzling any more than any other markup. I use Wells Fargo, which is a notoriously fee-heavy and interest-light bank. They periodically ding me on things and I don't get nearly the interest I could at many other banks.
The reason I do it is that they have tons of ATMs in my area. Because of the convenience of their ATMs, I haven't paid other-bank ATM fees in around a year. I'm paying a premium for a service that I value, and they provide the service because of the opportunity to profit. Similarly, you probably sometimes pay a premium to buy things at convenience stores, even though Costco provides them less expensively.
Making a profit is okay. If you don't think the profit requested is worth it, find another seller. If none are available who charge less, decide how badly you want the service/item.
I live in Portland Oregon and recently saw someone leave a BMW 5-series running in front of a coffee shop while he went in to get something, with the driver's door left open, on a busy street.
Although I think you're correct in principle that the future is hard to plan for, there are some cases where you can certainly make upgrades easier. A simple example would be that modern buildings install ethernet/fibre in ducts to simplify the upgrade process. Similarly open file formats can simplify the process of upgrading software, and so on.
You're absolutely right that speculation about what'll be around in 50 years is no grounds for planning, but I think it's safe to assume that there will be significant change and it's possible to make the infrastructure easier to change.
If you're paranoid enough, there are cases available with intrusion-detection switches. I'm sure it's possible to defeat them but they're not always obvious.
watch out people... this doesn't work and it turns out acetone damages your screen...
If I had the figure of a muscle-bound warrior I'd be out partying at clubs and getting girls, not playing WoW. The point of online games is to experience a different reality.
Next step: if you don't actually know how to fight, your character can't either.
Some people who present ideas to VC firms make fortunes, or at least something while nobody who presents ideas to the Economist's Jamaican Beer Project can reasonably expect more than a subscription worth $50.
That's the difference. People play the lottery despite small odds, but wouldn't play if the odds were exactly zero.
Are you seriously advocating for many millions of dollars to be spent erecting cell towers in the middle of nowhere?
People have been driving long distances for 80 years now, and have a glorious tradition of cell-phone free long-distance travel going back to when we were monkeys.
It's not like you *have* to drive through the middle of nowhere. There are tons of cities to live in. If you want to live way out in the country, you're already assuming all sorts of problems. (no police response, ever, no emergency services, possibly no utilities, etc.)
That's not to say that city life is risk free either, but people are choosing which set of risks they want. I hardly think that the millions that would have to be spent putting up cell towers in Nowhereville are the most effective way to improve the quality of life out there.
Also, third world is dirt poor. If rural Africa can afford cell towers, I have a hard time imagining that a similar homebrew wireless network - and 802.11b Skype phones are easy to buy - is out of the question for rural America. If people aren't doing it, it's probably because they don't want it or don't care enough.
I like that approach; something as simple as driving a fan to move the air around might be a simple way of avoiding more air conditioning.
Correct me if my math is wrong, but:
75 watts * 1 hour = 0.075 kWh
Where I live, one kWh costs about $0.08. So you get $0.006 per hour of exercise.
Assuming that you have 50 people at a gym doing this, that's $0.30/hr. Assuming that you have those 50 people going 10 hours a day all year long (probably way too high), you're looking at a total of about $1,100/yr power generation.
There's no way you're going to outfit 50 machines for $1100, and probably not for $11,000.
$111,000 on a 100 year loan might do it, but the $1,100/yr generated *might* pay interest on the money borrowed, but could hardly touch the principal, and it's virtually impossible that the machines would last for the centuries needed to pay it off at a few hundred a year. And good luck finding a hundred year loan.
Conclusion: you're better off spending the money on virtually anything else. Put solar panels on the gym and you'll break even in 20 years. Better yet, bike to the gym and back instead of driving and wasting a gallon of gas each direction.
For extra benefits, just bike to the gym and back without going inside. You get your hour of exercise, avoid using energy, and don't have to pay gym fees.
Err - flames for the sloppy math now please.
There's no way that the market is going to compete with a free government provided service. You're correct to say that the market will identify opportunities, but when the government currently gives money to researchers - and then *gives* the patents to for-profit companies, it's a no-go. There's no business that can compete with free tax dollars.
You lose.
I don't think it's quite that clear-cut. From a business perspective, the end products that come out of basic science are both extremely rare and extremely valuable. Imagine for example how much money could be made on licensing if you owned key patents on fiber optics, atomic power, etc. Note that I'm not talking about patent trolling, but actual constructive licensing where I invent something valuable and you pay to use it.
Obviously most companies couldn't actually invest in more than one those fields, but if a research company could come up with one such patentable idea every 20 years, they could probably make a profit on even billions of investment.
Using financial tools coming from the insurance industry, the (massive) risk could be distributed among many investors and repackaged to the point where it might not exceed the risk of picking individual stocks.
I realize that it's entirely possible that the cost/risk/return ratios wouldn't work out - but I don't think that we can shoot down market-based research as easily as you suggest. I suspect that government subsidies would be necessary, but it might make more sense to fund research via tax breaks, long patents lives for basic research, and so on would be a more effective than funding research directly.
Thanks a lot. Now adwords offers me nothing but "Find Terrorist Bombs on eBay."
Or were you expecting something more serious to happen?
If I was artifically prevented from creating a brand new car at no cost to anyone, when my old one wore out, I'd be pretty pissed. The only reason that these old copies of music "wear out" is that it's illegal to update them.
Put another way, how would you feel if it was illegal to maintain your car? I mean, you can buy a new one when it wears out...
Look - I'm as much an open source fan as anyone, but the fact is that the $40,000 figure is misleading. Oracle's so-called Standard Edition One is basically the full thing - it just can't do clustering, and can't do more than two processors.
I'm sure someone will point out another nitpick that it can't do, but the practical fact is that you can buy Standard Edition One for $5000/processor and get a fully functional database.
For the price-aware, you can even buy a 1, 2, or 3 year license for something like $2-3K.
And, no, Oracle isn't paying me to shill for them. I just work for a company that uses Oracle, and I hate to see the "Oracle costs $40,000" meme repeated here.
- Abu Grahib
- Michael Jackson
- Lewinsky Scandal
- Kate Moss Cocaine Video
- Olympic Doping Scandal
- Dan Quayle's "Potatoe" incident
I'm sure you can think of more.
The only group for whom all news is good news - is the media.
Unless you're the New York times, and Jayson Blair just got revealed.
For that matter, consider that neither two-way radios nor cell phones direct their radio broadcasts. It's all simple non-directional broadcast. Given that, it doesn't even matter what phone is talking with whom.
Given that Google doesn't seem to actually take things out of beta, it's no surprise.
If I use a beta from Microsoft/RedHat/anyone else, it's clearly pre-production. GMail, Google News, and so on are all called beta products, but they're clearly production systems.
Why should the beta label shield them from all complaints when they're using it like this?