I think the trick is to somehow make an incinerator that's the size of an office shredder, is very safe and can handle paper AND staples/paper clips without breaking.
The trouble is the safety bit especially when the device has to be small.
Anyone can make a big incinerator. I suppose in top secret places, you'd shred the documents first then send the results to be incinerated. So the documents are exposed in shredded form only within the premise.
You don't necessarily have to size them in flight time of the circuit.
What you can do is have huge buffers, but just drop packets that are older than say 50 milliseconds since the time they entered the device (if the link/hop is supposed to be fast and low latency).
If the link is slow and/or high latency, you may wish to use higher values - 100 milliseconds. But not too high. I'm no networking expert but I don't really see the purpose of adding hundreds of milliseconds to a hop just to save a few packets that are likely to be dropped anyway, or should be dropped as an indirect signal that whoever is sending those packets should slow down.
I think he named Blackwater and Xe. Go look up what they do, and you might understand why he named them and why he won't care that much about them and their "security contractors".
As for the military, I don't know how he feels about it, but in my opinion, assuming you're talking about the US war vs multiple countries, if you're a volunteer soldier and get killed in a very expensive tax-payer funded war, that is badly justified, that I disagree on, don't expect any great sympathy from me.
Even so, I'd probably give you more heartfelt sympathy than the politicians who sent you to die for their selfish purposes.
If soldiers are dying in those wars, the main blame belongs to the leaders who sent them there and the people trying to kick the soldiers out from their country. It certainly does not belong to Assange.
If Assange/Wikileaks sways public opinion so much that they stop the war, Wikileaks may actually save more lives. If a some soldiers have to die in the process, big fucking deal, that's what soldiers do.
Lastly, you need work on your guilt-trip technique. Hint: in your case try using "civilians", rather than "the military" or "security contractors".
Plagiarism is not stealing either, but it is a form of fraud and deception.
But I suspect in this case he/she will be happy if you keep repeating those two lines (unchanged and in context) to the whole world, even if they are unattributed.
I live at a place where the greens are delayed by about a second or two, and running red lights is common - especially amongst motorcyclists. I don't think an extra second causes it.
Call me cynical but in my opinion most people are NOT law abiding. There are the 5% bad people, and the 5% good people (not exact figures of course), but the rest just do what everyone else does. If there is a culture of ignoring red lights, most will do so. If there is a culture of following the laws, most will do so (that's why you have to "brainwash" aka "domesticate" aka "obedience train" people early).
In contrast a good person is someone who will do good and not be bad even if everyone else around him is doing bad stuff and trying to get him to do bad stuff.
Car analogy: just because you buy a car on hire-purchase doesn't mean the bank gets to do whatever they want with the car. Even if you don't pay up, there are still certain limitations to what they can do to repossess the car.
And even if you rent a car, the rental agency doesn't get to do whatever they like with the car once you've rented it out.
IANAL but I suspect recording conversations in the car and recording videos of the interior would generally not be legal unless you get permission from the court.
I'm just wondering whether it would actually make more sense to incinerate the garbage for energy (after extracting stuff like metals from it). It would seem simpler and more efficient for a city like NY.
From one of the links:
That knowledge comes from no small amount of experience. A series of experiments conducted in the 1990s found that, even when you can get New Yorkers to participate, collection is inefficient, impractical and very expensive â" so much so that sanitation officials concluded a centralized system probably wouldnâ(TM)t work in New York City.
I'm not sure why their finding is apparently different from your experience in Tokyo. AFAIK the Japanese stuff seems to have more wrapping and packaging, so wouldn't there be more garbage ?
On a related note, I'm wondering whether it would actually be more efficient for there to be restaurants geared for volume (think Walmart versions of restaurants). Instead of having individuals travelling to hypermarkets, buying groceries and each doing the storage (and storage management), cooking, cleaning, and garbage sorting and disposal; why not have it done by specialists and get some efficiencies of scale from it?
I guess for the hypermarket way you make just one trip per X days (depends on storage space) whereas you'd have to make a trip per meal for the "eat out" method. But if you have an efficient public transport system that might not be so bad?
1) landfill conditions aren't so friendly to the composting organisms (and for some methods you actually put in worms to help). 2) The result of composting is supposed to be fertilizer that can be used by farmers, but if you mix everything and bury it in a landfill, it's harder to dig out and separate what you want later.
In the US they don't get a lot of things you get "free" e.g. healthcare. They have sales taxes too. They have federal, and often have state and city taxes. http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay-calculator.html If you use California (since others have used it to compare it with Sweden): http://map.ais.ucla.edu/go/1002763 that's probably a state tax of about 10% and city tax of 0%.
Add expensive medical insurance (unless covered by employer). Add it all up and what's left might not be that much more compared to Sweden.
You'd be unlikely to get 100Mbps broadband for cheap. But cars and fuel are cheap. I suspect beer and food is cheaper too.
In my opinion the path Sweden has chosen seems better assuming technology improves and we get more automation - robots etc. After a while, you'd just have a growing percentage of people who are just not competitive compared to AIs and robots. What then do you do with them?
In Sweden you'd keep them fed, sheltered and entertained using some of the stuff (and profits) produced by the robots. It's easy enough to do given a socialist welfare state.
That doesn't work so well when you have a "winner takes all" society, there will be a lot of unhappy losers. They may have stupidly voted for that unhappy result, but that may not stop social unrest and other unpleasantness.
Whatever it is, it's ridiculous that anyone (including Google) can get patents for such stuff.
I had a similar idea long time ago - I'm not sure if I posted it on Slashdot or elsewhere.
Basically the idea is to allow everyone to mod/review whatever they want - that includes posts, urls, items and even other users. Then you do a lot of crunching (based on math created by long dead people;) ) to come up with a smaller number of groups that are modding in different ways/directions (but similar within the group). Much like how you figure out "others that like A also like B and hate C" belong in one group, and those that hate A, but like C belong in another group.
Using the results you create public "Points of Views" (POVs). Any user can choose to use (aka "see the world" using) any of these public POVs.
Users can also make public their own POVs for other users to use.
The POVs themselves can also be modded up and down depending on which POV you pick to view them:).
Once you have that, people can gradually find a POV or two that they are OK with. It doesn't have to be Google Blessed POV.
Of course the biggest problem with this is that people may be so comfy with a POV that they may be unlikely to see ever see an opposing though correct/insightful post/user. But hey, I think you can make money by giving people what they want even if it's bad for them;).
The other problem is I might have overestimated the capability of modern computing power and known math:).
But if it works, at least you might be able to shop for gifts using someone else's POV (not necessarily the actual recipient's POV - if you want to give a gift that the person would like, but doesn't know they like;) ).
employs some 5,600 miners. The mine is a dangerous place to work and an average of five miners die in accidents each year.
So have 35000 nonminer people (typical capacity of the Burj Khalifa) going in and out the mine every day and let's see how many start dying per year.
Secondly it's a mine where you make money by digging and continuing to dig, that's not true for this earthscraper
How long will it take and how much will it cost to dig a Burj Khalifa capacity hole 830m deep in the ground, and fill it with a building similar in function and capacity? You really think it'll be cheaper?
The Burj Khalifa took 7 years and 1.5 billion dollars.
I'm no civil engineer but AFAIK it usually is a lot more expensive to build down than to build up.
Try digging a 1 cubic metre hole in the ground. Now try to build a 1 cubic metre structure above the ground. Which is easier?
If it were cheaper, they'd do it more often - there are advantages - thermal insulation etc (and even then it's easier to build something low and pile earth over it, than dig).
The other thing is you never see a program about those who still haven't succeeded after going bankrupt a few times... And that certainly does happen - just doesn't make for a good show I guess;).
I've eaten at restaurants that have failed, and sometimes I have no idea why they aren't a success. Price reasonable, food is good, location is about the same as the successful ones, but no customers.
I'm sure you've seen those books where one rich guy says he succeeded by not giving up. Then you have another book where a rich guy says he succeeded by knowing when to quit. Then you have another rich guy saying he succeeded by starting many different businesses at the same time and closing down the ones that don't succeed. Then you have yet another rich guy saying he succeeded by focusing on one thing... Another rich guy says "buy property", but if you bought the wrong property < 2008, you'd now be stuck paying off a loan that's a lot more than your property. So good luck figuring out what the real secret to success is.
Yeah, some time back I was thinking that perhaps while creatures like amoebas and ants might not be smart, they might not actually be that stupid.
But how are they going to show their intelligence given their limitations? You're not going to be able to communicate an IQ quiz to them.
Same goes for humour - they might find things funny, but what do you expect them to say to you?
I do know that at least some dogs have a sense of humour. I believe other animals have too. Especially animals that play. Even rats play, and some think they even laugh when tickled: http://www.livescience.com/6946-joke-animals-laugh.html
In particular, hard-core religious people seem to have none whatsoever.
Try walking into a Christian bookstore and asking for their humour section (often there isn't one, or it's pretty sparse, or it's in the children's section). If there isn't one, you can make remarks like "What? Christians have no sense of humour?".
Seriously though, it may be because those "hard core" ultrareligious sorts live in fear (which IMO is suboptimal). It's not funny if you feel unsafe.
Safe and secure. That's why good guy friends can slap each other on the back, throw insults and do all sorts of other stuff - they know they are safe, genuinely no harm is ever intended. And that's why children are laughing if daddy throws them up in the air, and of course catches them. That's often the difference between a funny prank and a malicious act. If the victim feels safe and is safe, it's funny. If it's not, it's not funny.
maniacal giggling whilst ripping your still-living victims organs out can be considered humorous.
They say beauty is only skin deep, but I love you from the bottom of your heart. Hey be thankful I didn't I "love" you from the heart of your bottom... What's the matter, cat got your tongue? Ooops, looks like she did.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the trick is to somehow make an incinerator that's the size of an office shredder, is very safe and can handle paper AND staples/paper clips without breaking.
The trouble is the safety bit especially when the device has to be small.
Anyone can make a big incinerator. I suppose in top secret places, you'd shred the documents first then send the results to be incinerated. So the documents are exposed in shredded form only within the premise.
Wow, this post reminds me of a site I used to know.
;).
I think the name of the site was Slashdot
You don't necessarily have to size them in flight time of the circuit.
What you can do is have huge buffers, but just drop packets that are older than say 50 milliseconds since the time they entered the device (if the link/hop is supposed to be fast and low latency).
If the link is slow and/or high latency, you may wish to use higher values - 100 milliseconds. But not too high. I'm no networking expert but I don't really see the purpose of adding hundreds of milliseconds to a hop just to save a few packets that are likely to be dropped anyway, or should be dropped as an indirect signal that whoever is sending those packets should slow down.
I think he named Blackwater and Xe. Go look up what they do, and you might understand why he named them and why he won't care that much about them and their "security contractors".
As for the military, I don't know how he feels about it, but in my opinion, assuming you're talking about the US war vs multiple countries, if you're a volunteer soldier and get killed in a very expensive tax-payer funded war, that is badly justified, that I disagree on, don't expect any great sympathy from me.
Even so, I'd probably give you more heartfelt sympathy than the politicians who sent you to die for their selfish purposes.
If soldiers are dying in those wars, the main blame belongs to the leaders who sent them there and the people trying to kick the soldiers out from their country. It certainly does not belong to Assange.
If Assange/Wikileaks sways public opinion so much that they stop the war, Wikileaks may actually save more lives. If a some soldiers have to die in the process, big fucking deal, that's what soldiers do.
Lastly, you need work on your guilt-trip technique.
Hint: in your case try using "civilians", rather than "the military" or "security contractors".
Plagiarism is not stealing either, but it is a form of fraud and deception.
But I suspect in this case he/she will be happy if you keep repeating those two lines (unchanged and in context) to the whole world, even if they are unattributed.
I live at a place where the greens are delayed by about a second or two, and running red lights is common - especially amongst motorcyclists. I don't think an extra second causes it.
Call me cynical but in my opinion most people are NOT law abiding. There are the 5% bad people, and the 5% good people (not exact figures of course), but the rest just do what everyone else does. If there is a culture of ignoring red lights, most will do so. If there is a culture of following the laws, most will do so (that's why you have to "brainwash" aka "domesticate" aka "obedience train" people early).
In contrast a good person is someone who will do good and not be bad even if everyone else around him is doing bad stuff and trying to get him to do bad stuff.
You eat at the restaurant. You don't buy their food in the frozen food section of the supermarket, bring it home, store it, cook it, clean etc.
If you do this you better make sure you catch enough of the red light runners.
Otherwise more people might start running the red light because they know the green would be delayed...
Car analogy: just because you buy a car on hire-purchase doesn't mean the bank gets to do whatever they want with the car. Even if you don't pay up, there are still certain limitations to what they can do to repossess the car.
And even if you rent a car, the rental agency doesn't get to do whatever they like with the car once you've rented it out.
IANAL but I suspect recording conversations in the car and recording videos of the interior would generally not be legal unless you get permission from the court.
I'm just wondering whether it would actually make more sense to incinerate the garbage for energy (after extracting stuff like metals from it). It would seem simpler and more efficient for a city like NY.
From one of the links:
That knowledge comes from no small amount of experience. A series of experiments conducted in the 1990s found that, even when you can get New Yorkers to participate, collection is inefficient, impractical and very expensive â" so much so that sanitation officials concluded a centralized system probably wouldnâ(TM)t work in New York City.
I'm not sure why their finding is apparently different from your experience in Tokyo. AFAIK the Japanese stuff seems to have more wrapping and packaging, so wouldn't there be more garbage ?
On a related note, I'm wondering whether it would actually be more efficient for there to be restaurants geared for volume (think Walmart versions of restaurants). Instead of having individuals travelling to hypermarkets, buying groceries and each doing the storage (and storage management), cooking, cleaning, and garbage sorting and disposal; why not have it done by specialists and get some efficiencies of scale from it?
I guess for the hypermarket way you make just one trip per X days (depends on storage space) whereas you'd have to make a trip per meal for the "eat out" method. But if you have an efficient public transport system that might not be so bad?
1) landfill conditions aren't so friendly to the composting organisms (and for some methods you actually put in worms to help).
2) The result of composting is supposed to be fertilizer that can be used by farmers, but if you mix everything and bury it in a landfill, it's harder to dig out and separate what you want later.
In the US they don't get a lot of things you get "free" e.g. healthcare. They have sales taxes too. They have federal, and often have state and city taxes. http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay-calculator.html
If you use California (since others have used it to compare it with Sweden): http://map.ais.ucla.edu/go/1002763 that's probably a state tax of about 10% and city tax of 0%.
Add expensive medical insurance (unless covered by employer). Add it all up and what's left might not be that much more compared to Sweden.
You'd be unlikely to get 100Mbps broadband for cheap. But cars and fuel are cheap. I suspect beer and food is cheaper too.
In my opinion the path Sweden has chosen seems better assuming technology improves and we get more automation - robots etc. After a while, you'd just have a growing percentage of people who are just not competitive compared to AIs and robots. What then do you do with them?
In Sweden you'd keep them fed, sheltered and entertained using some of the stuff (and profits) produced by the robots. It's easy enough to do given a socialist welfare state.
That doesn't work so well when you have a "winner takes all" society, there will be a lot of unhappy losers. They may have stupidly voted for that unhappy result, but that may not stop social unrest and other unpleasantness.
Whatever it is, it's ridiculous that anyone (including Google) can get patents for such stuff.
;) ) to come up with a smaller number of groups that are modding in different ways/directions (but similar within the group). Much like how you figure out "others that like A also like B and hate C" belong in one group, and those that hate A, but like C belong in another group.
:).
;).
:).
;) ).
I had a similar idea long time ago - I'm not sure if I posted it on Slashdot or elsewhere.
Basically the idea is to allow everyone to mod/review whatever they want - that includes posts, urls, items and even other users. Then you do a lot of crunching (based on math created by long dead people
Using the results you create public "Points of Views" (POVs). Any user can choose to use (aka "see the world" using) any of these public POVs.
Users can also make public their own POVs for other users to use.
The POVs themselves can also be modded up and down depending on which POV you pick to view them
Once you have that, people can gradually find a POV or two that they are OK with. It doesn't have to be Google Blessed POV.
Of course the biggest problem with this is that people may be so comfy with a POV that they may be unlikely to see ever see an opposing though correct/insightful post/user. But hey, I think you can make money by giving people what they want even if it's bad for them
The other problem is I might have overestimated the capability of modern computing power and known math
But if it works, at least you might be able to shop for gifts using someone else's POV (not necessarily the actual recipient's POV - if you want to give a gift that the person would like, but doesn't know they like
From the pics the ham is green too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lp0_on_fire
So policies with short email retention periods should make you suspect that the organization is sleazy or even doing illegal stuff?
Uh, mines are not suitable places for "normal" people to work/stay in.
Assuming you're talking about the TauTona Mine, from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TauTona_Mine
employs some 5,600 miners. The mine is a dangerous place to work and an average of five miners die in accidents each year.
So have 35000 nonminer people (typical capacity of the Burj Khalifa) going in and out the mine every day and let's see how many start dying per year.
Secondly it's a mine where you make money by digging and continuing to dig, that's not true for this earthscraper
How long will it take and how much will it cost to dig a Burj Khalifa capacity hole 830m deep in the ground, and fill it with a building similar in function and capacity? You really think it'll be cheaper?
The Burj Khalifa took 7 years and 1.5 billion dollars.
Yes, it is utterly irresponsible to expose unprepared and untrained people to the unspeakable horrors of O***le, M**QL or S** Server...
Speak not their names lightly.
I'm no civil engineer but AFAIK it usually is a lot more expensive to build down than to build up.
Try digging a 1 cubic metre hole in the ground. Now try to build a 1 cubic metre structure above the ground. Which is easier?
If it were cheaper, they'd do it more often - there are advantages - thermal insulation etc (and even then it's easier to build something low and pile earth over it, than dig).
The other thing is you never see a program about those who still haven't succeeded after going bankrupt a few times... And that certainly does happen - just doesn't make for a good show I guess ;).
I've eaten at restaurants that have failed, and sometimes I have no idea why they aren't a success. Price reasonable, food is good, location is about the same as the successful ones, but no customers.
I'm sure you've seen those books where one rich guy says he succeeded by not giving up. Then you have another book where a rich guy says he succeeded by knowing when to quit. Then you have another rich guy saying he succeeded by starting many different businesses at the same time and closing down the ones that don't succeed. Then you have yet another rich guy saying he succeeded by focusing on one thing... Another rich guy says "buy property", but if you bought the wrong property < 2008, you'd now be stuck paying off a loan that's a lot more than your property. So good luck figuring out what the real secret to success is.
Can't you just write a script or cron job to reboot 30-40 servers?
I haven't bothered reading the ads. If they go bust it'll be inconvenient for a while but perhaps it would be a good thing in the long run.
But would you eat them in a box?
Yeah, some time back I was thinking that perhaps while creatures like amoebas and ants might not be smart, they might not actually be that stupid.
But how are they going to show their intelligence given their limitations? You're not going to be able to communicate an IQ quiz to them.
Same goes for humour - they might find things funny, but what do you expect them to say to you?
I do know that at least some dogs have a sense of humour. I believe other animals have too. Especially animals that play. Even rats play, and some think they even laugh when tickled: http://www.livescience.com/6946-joke-animals-laugh.html
In particular, hard-core religious people seem to have none whatsoever.
Try walking into a Christian bookstore and asking for their humour section (often there isn't one, or it's pretty sparse, or it's in the children's section). If there isn't one, you can make remarks like "What? Christians have no sense of humour?".
FWIW, I'm a Christian, and I was actually looking for this book: http://www.amazon.com/Fearfully-Wonderfully-Weird-Screwball-Wittenburg/dp/0310287316
Seriously though, it may be because those "hard core" ultrareligious sorts live in fear (which IMO is suboptimal). It's not funny if you feel unsafe.
Safe and secure. That's why good guy friends can slap each other on the back, throw insults and do all sorts of other stuff - they know they are safe, genuinely no harm is ever intended. And that's why children are laughing if daddy throws them up in the air, and of course catches them. That's often the difference between a funny prank and a malicious act. If the victim feels safe and is safe, it's funny. If it's not, it's not funny.
maniacal giggling whilst ripping your still-living victims organs out can be considered humorous.
They say beauty is only skin deep, but I love you from the bottom of your heart. Hey be thankful I didn't I "love" you from the heart of your bottom... What's the matter, cat got your tongue? Ooops, looks like she did.
Bwahahaha.