Thats fine for one person, but when we talk huge companies this keeping everything is a huge problem and storage that big isn't that cheap.
But, surely, it simply scales linearly. One person doesn't create exponentially more data just because they work in a company with 10,000 others rather than 10. They still only have 10 fingers and the same typing speed.
The cost of storage for the email and report etc. output of one person for a year is trivial compared to their sallary, tax, benefits, providing them with office space, admin overheads etc. etc.
would we really want to live in a world where we have to keep every single file forever?
I already do, more or less. I have email dating back a decade, and archived backups and as many things as possible kept under CVS to give acess to old versions.
So far as I can see, given the current cost of storage, keeping things is all win. The only reason that wouldn't be so would be if someone knows they have something to hide.
I'd be happy with 2D drives. So long as the storage capacity of one of them is >0, you could fit an infinite amout of storage into a single 3.5 inch bay. Of course, the wireing gets rather intricate.
I believe the main problem for small electric vehicles isn't the engine, but getting the electricity to the engine. Fast trains have it pumped in from outside, which clearly isn't practical for cars, and frieght units generate it onboard from diesel, which only gets efficiant for big kit.
Forget mousetraps, it's the man who invents a better electricity storage technology who will see the world beat a path to his door.
Oh yea, this makes sense, because we all know you get more energy by first compressing air with a battery and then using it to power a motor than you would by powering the motor with the batter directly.
But does it take more electricity to compress the air into the tank than it does to just run the car on electric power?
Obviously. ``You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't leave the game'.
But it may take noticably less than it would take to get the same performance from the car purely on electricity.
I wonder how compressing air compares with charging batteries for regenerative braking. If stopping at the lights charged the cylinder to give you the initial boost to get started again...
When you say that they need all of those things, you ARE saying they need more tech.
No, the technology isn't the problem. The resources are the problem. What is needed for more reliable water supply, for instance, is generally someone to come in and fit a low tech pump and show everyone how to maintain it.
But can they regulate just ordinary crazy whackjobs on the street yelling about politics?
If they get too anoying and spittle-spreading we lock them up in big institutions called parliament or congresses or similar euphamisms for loonie-bin.
I think it's cruel to televise their ravings though, however entertaining it is sometimes.
You can't be on the payroll of some politician or otherwise perform electioneering on his behalf without making it public that that's what you're doing.
The kicker is that `or otherwise'. More or less anything political I might write at the moment would effectively be electioneering for or against some candidate, since the Uk is in the middle of an (unnoficial until tomorrow) general election campagn. If I write that something needs to be done about the rail system, then that is support for candidates and parties who have that as a priority.
If you say that such speech doesn't require registration because it doesn't mention specific candidates, then those you imagine should be registered will just remove the names but write in such a way that everyone knows who they are electioneering for.
So, in effect, such a registration law becomes registration for all political speech, or none.
After all, slander, threats, libel, bribary, and verbal contracts are all "speech," yet they aren't free.
You need to distinguish between controling speech and holding people responsible for the results of their actions, even if the action in question was `speech'. The classic example of course is shouting `fire!'.
The problem with requiring registration before people are allowed to write about political issues is that it prevents the speech from happening. That is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than things like libel which only kick in after the speech has happened.
[...] without having to take into account their budget requirements.
Surely, if speeding tickets are a cash cow then there isn't a budget issue, they would be self funding or better and so the more they enforce the speeding laws the more money they have to spend catching murderers etc. Certainly better than getting the budget for murderer chasing by putting your taxes up isn't it?
if they [enforced the speed limit], there would be a rebellion,
The middle classes hate the idea that they might be subject to the law. The way things are donw at the moment is designed to allow the police to enforce the law only on people they choose. Try being a young black man in an expensive car and see how far abovethe speed limit they will let you get away with.
immense lost productivity due to the traffic slow down.
No need for any traffic slow down/ Set the speed limit at just above a sane speed for the road and enforce it rigorously. everyone wins except the idiots and corrupt police officers.
...to turn into a cash cow... speeding ticket in the mail
You have some problem with the law being enforced?
I see no problem with extracting money from people who vlunteer to pay, as in the case of people speeding.
So, if he did it the way you wanted it, where the heck was he going to put the choroid?
Why would it need to be anywhere but where it is? IIRC suid have their eye the right way around (having evolved it independently) and so have no blind spot.
people mock it for being a bad design, yet nobody's built a better one.
I really don't know why I bother having to point this out to a left-wing asslicker,
Tell me, in your world is everyone who believes in the usefulness of the scientific method a `left wing asslicker', or is it just those of us who can put together a sentence without expletives and figure out how to log in on/.?
As a side note: I have not seen that many articles by Lomborg in the scientific literature.
Unsuprising, he's not a scientist. IIRC his education and career before becoming a media whore was all in political science -- sociology without the accademic rigor.
if someone designed us, why did they screw up so badly on so many things?
Give the poor deity a break.
So, he wired the retina up inside out so the wiring is in front of the sensors. Ok, so then he had to poke a hole to put the wires through and leave us with a blind spot. And those below-spec corneas he picked up cheap which go cloudy over time and at their best block some wavelengths the sensors could otherwise deal with were probably a mistake, and let's not even talk about using sensors which stop registering if the input stops changing...
Why can't both the THEORY of evolution and the THEORY of intelligent design both be taught in schools?
No reason. One can be taught in science classes and one in religious education classes in a review of the creation myths of religions around the world across the millena.
both of the arguments above are THEORIES.
Of course, one of them is a `theory' in the sense that my prediction that the coffee I just made is still warm is a theory until I take a sip, while the other is a `theory' in the sense of the theory that the world is run by giant shape changing lizards.
Until `intelligent design' makes a prediction which is verified by later observation or experiments, it is in the shape changing lizard category. It is also a good example of the depressing tendency of people who are embarassed about their religion to throw away all the important things and hang on to the trivia the hope that that will gain them acceptance.
BTW. The coffee was warm, but I'm not rushing out
to buy anti-lizard spray ahead of the G8 summit which is happening up the road in July.
At what point does the political beliefs of the editors affect Scientific American?
The same point as for every other publication.
You quote The Economist. As it happens I read TE every week, and one of the reasons for that is that they wear their politics on their sleeve. The publications to be wary of are the ones which pretend they have no politics, that they are somehow objective.
Slashdot Mirror
But, surely, it simply scales linearly. One person doesn't create exponentially more data just because they work in a company with 10,000 others rather than 10. They still only have 10 fingers and the same typing speed.
The cost of storage for the email and report etc. output of one person for a year is trivial compared to their sallary, tax, benefits, providing them with office space, admin overheads etc. etc.
``[...] like a passenger car would.''.
Compared to a Hitachi press releas and some guy trying to get people to reqd his unfinished course-work, this is the high news of the day.
I already do, more or less. I have email dating back a decade, and archived backups and as many things as possible kept under CVS to give acess to old versions.
So far as I can see, given the current cost of storage, keeping things is all win. The only reason that wouldn't be so would be if someone knows they have something to hide.
Nothing obvious says a car miust have just one engine and a complex transmission, rather than an engine per wheel.
I'd be happy with 2D drives. So long as the storage capacity of one of them is >0, you could fit an infinite amout of storage into a single 3.5 inch bay. Of course, the wireing gets rather intricate.
Forget mousetraps, it's the man who invents a better electricity storage technology who will see the world beat a path to his door.
It's not about energy, it's about power.
I had one of those. Reading the same location at different times gave different results. It's not really very useful.
That must explain why electic motors are the standard way of driving both high-speed passenger and high-mass freight trains.
Obviously. ``You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't leave the game'.
But it may take noticably less than it would take to get the same performance from the car purely on electricity.
I wonder how compressing air compares with charging batteries for regenerative braking. If stopping at the lights charged the cylinder to give you the initial boost to get started again...
No, the technology isn't the problem. The resources are the problem. What is needed for more reliable water supply, for instance, is generally someone to come in and fit a low tech pump and show everyone how to maintain it.
If they get too anoying and spittle-spreading we lock them up in big institutions called parliament or congresses or similar euphamisms for loonie-bin.
I think it's cruel to televise their ravings though, however entertaining it is sometimes.
The kicker is that `or otherwise'. More or less anything political I might write at the moment would effectively be electioneering for or against some candidate, since the Uk is in the middle of an (unnoficial until tomorrow) general election campagn. If I write that something needs to be done about the rail system, then that is support for candidates and parties who have that as a priority.
If you say that such speech doesn't require registration because it doesn't mention specific candidates, then those you imagine should be registered will just remove the names but write in such a way that everyone knows who they are electioneering for.
So, in effect, such a registration law becomes registration for all political speech, or none.
You need to distinguish between controling speech and holding people responsible for the results of their actions, even if the action in question was `speech'. The classic example of course is shouting `fire!'.
The problem with requiring registration before people are allowed to write about political issues is that it prevents the speech from happening. That is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than things like libel which only kick in after the speech has happened.
Surely, if speeding tickets are a cash cow then there isn't a budget issue, they would be self funding or better and so the more they enforce the speeding laws the more money they have to spend catching murderers etc. Certainly better than getting the budget for murderer chasing by putting your taxes up isn't it?
The middle classes hate the idea that they might be subject to the law. The way things are donw at the moment is designed to allow the police to enforce the law only on people they choose. Try being a young black man in an expensive car and see how far abovethe speed limit they will let you get away with.
immense lost productivity due to the traffic slow down.
No need for any traffic slow down/ Set the speed limit at just above a sane speed for the road and enforce it rigorously. everyone wins except the idiots and corrupt police officers.
You have some problem with the law being enforced? I see no problem with extracting money from people who vlunteer to pay, as in the case of people speeding.
Why would it need to be anywhere but where it is? IIRC suid have their eye the right way around (having evolved it independently) and so have no blind spot.
people mock it for being a bad design, yet nobody's built a better one.
Any cheap digital camera?
Tell me, in your world is everyone who believes in the usefulness of the scientific method a `left wing asslicker', or is it just those of us who can put together a sentence without expletives and figure out how to log in on /.?
Unsuprising, he's not a scientist. IIRC his education and career before becoming a media whore was all in political science -- sociology without the accademic rigor.
Give the poor deity a break.
So, he wired the retina up inside out so the wiring is in front of the sensors. Ok, so then he had to poke a hole to put the wires through and leave us with a blind spot. And those below-spec corneas he picked up cheap which go cloudy over time and at their best block some wavelengths the sensors could otherwise deal with were probably a mistake, and let's not even talk about using sensors which stop registering if the input stops changing...
Haven't you ever had one of those days?
No reason. One can be taught in science classes and one in religious education classes in a review of the creation myths of religions around the world across the millena.
both of the arguments above are THEORIES.
Of course, one of them is a `theory' in the sense that my prediction that the coffee I just made is still warm is a theory until I take a sip, while the other is a `theory' in the sense of the theory that the world is run by giant shape changing lizards.
Until `intelligent design' makes a prediction which is verified by later observation or experiments, it is in the shape changing lizard category. It is also a good example of the depressing tendency of people who are embarassed about their religion to throw away all the important things and hang on to the trivia the hope that that will gain them acceptance.
BTW. The coffee was warm, but I'm not rushing out to buy anti-lizard spray ahead of the G8 summit which is happening up the road in July.
The same point as for every other publication.
You quote The Economist. As it happens I read TE every week, and one of the reasons for that is that they wear their politics on their sleeve. The publications to be wary of are the ones which pretend they have no politics, that they are somehow objective.