Um, you want government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell?
Stop and think about that, and why that is an awful idea.
Stop and think about the opposite awful idea: Lets have private companies sell whatever they want, however they want, and answer to no law.
Frankly I'd rather have Governments in control that Corporations, ultimately governments [are meant to] answer to the people since democracy [is supposed ro] puts them in power, corporations answer to money and can never put anything else other than profit as priority number one: else they will fail.
I'll be supporting used downloads. It's about time someone started recycling electrons. They are a non renewable resource and clearly this one-use culture has to end. The universe only has 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 electrons to begin with!
I'm in NZ and when the law changed a lot of my friends rapidly got up to speed on how to hide their activity, there was plenty of advice to go around and trivial methods of staying off the radar.
There is a marked increase in sharing by USB sticks and portable hard drives, especially in schools and university. In my office there was Swap Club for a while where a couple of 2TB drives got whored around.
So piracy would appear to fall, at least by the usual data collection methods (being precisely what anonymity methods target
!).
We always used to pirate like crazy here because nobody ever got caught... ever, and even now I personally have not met or heard of anyone getting an infringement notice. Also as the US dollar plummets and our dollar gets high, a lot of retail prices for the genuine stuff fall, I wonder what impact that had.
So its questionable if the law has had any effect at all.
Legit music services like Spotify and Rdio have started up down here to huge success. So maybe none!
one word: VACUUM.
Two words: fire triangle
Two words containing a difficult one: fire tetrahedron
Before one will burst into flames one needs oxygen first. In a vacuum there is no hazard of bursting into flames. Remember this, and when you get your first physics lesson on combustion at school you will be mister smartypants!
If there is no oxygen, how on earth do you think the occupants of that vehicle are going to breath? You bet that such a train will need to carry oxygen, one way or the other. And in the event of a crash, that oxygen could be released into the vacuum, and there is your fire triangle, complete.
Oxygen would be the least of all problems in a crash at 4000mph. Also I doubt any such design would carry combustible fuel. Such a train would need the output of whole external powerstations. I doubt there is any need to carry pure oxygen either, there would be trace air in the conduit (perfect vacuum: impossible) and at 4000mph you'd have no problems capturing and compressing it. Finally what exactly is a vacuum train going to hit? A train coming the other way? In power loss a trains own mommentum could keep mag lev functioning while an emergency stop is performed. If reserve compressed air and CO2 scrubbing runs out, the tube can just be opened to atmosphere and people can literally walk to an exit hatch. It seems that it really isn't so dangerous compared to an airline flight after all.
Evidence please? The end users that matter, the ones with the spending power in the consumer electronics industry, are the ones that don't mind learning a new interface. Because that's what they've recently had to do with smartphones, tablets and consoles. Windows 8 just won't bomb because of the reason you cite. It'll just an oddity of computing history that it was once dominated by a single paradigm from a single company, that no one was used to adapting to a new interface. That was the state of things until 2000s. Kids these days spend hours a day using computing devices, but might go a long time without ever sitting behind a PC. Aging mom n pop users and neckbearded IT relics will complain but Microsoft will inevitably sell millions of new tablets, laptops and touch enabled PCs with it to a market now conditioned to upgrading shiny handheld toys every 12 months or less.
Microsoft, if anything, is making necessary minimum changes if they want to remain relevant and keep hardware vendors happy.
Lets not use the term blocking. The website isn't really blocked as such. It's not possible to "Block" a website on the internet. It's only possible to disable a means of resolving and reaching a URL within a system that you can control.
You dont understand. Google does not really care about Android being more popular. What they do care about is whether Google gets to define what a smartphone is and can hence get Apple to offer their services on iPhones. They might make more money out of iPhones, but it is often because of Android, they get to make money of iPhones.
That's a fancy way of saying Google doesn't not want Apple to have absolute power of the mobile search universe. Google did something great for us all when they made Android. This is precisely why. It's also precisely why they made it open (not fully open source). Android is not a money making excercise it's about holding off an onslaught of the Apple. (Ironically Android has one and Apple is being marginalised to it's niche again, deja vu!?)
I have been told their enterprise version, at least with Norton, isn't like that so i have to say WTF?
One of my (Fortune 100) clients has McAfee enterprise and I can vouch for the fact that it's horrible there too.
Just an example; what they call "Wasted Wednesday" has nothing to do with substance abuse, and everything to do with mandatory virus scans that make computers unusable for hours.
How fucking hard is it just to make this shit run at a low background priority, like gee I dunno a dozen other things a OS does often? It impacting performance on a modern PC is lazy programming. You have to wonder how useful these things actually are.
A nice "what if" novel was written by Gibson and Sterling, based on a posited successful adoption of the difference engine in Victorian times. It's classed as Sci Fi, but is more of a novel set in an alternative history. Definitely worth reading.
Somewhere in an alternate steampunk universe there is a nice "What if?" novel about the inventors of silicon transistor computers, in a alternate history where babbage's machine was never built. They call us silipunks.
Add to that it just needs to fly once. This massively lowers the cost and requirements of being able to do this. Discovery probably even got given one, and they probably didn't bank roll the entire thing on their own either, there's a lot of interest parties that would front up cash for such an opportunity to gather data.
I understand that relatively "good condition" planes get scrapped because it would be too expensive to refurbish them (fatigued metal to the point it can't be repaired). A junkyard car that runs but is dangerous/illegal on the road is different to a junkyard plane that flies and is danerous/illegal in the air.
Actually what it sounds like is they are referring to are polyunsaturated fats since Omega 3 is hardly found in seeds. Generally are lower to non-existent in farmed meat and much higher in seeds and grains, and very concentrated in some seafoods. Polyunsaturated fats include Omega 3, 6, and 9. 6 is an inflamation promoting PUFA that is eaten in far too higher proportion in the western diet.
Omega 3s (DHA etc) are pretty sparse in plants, and the types of it in plants are poorly absorbed and metabolized. Which is why seafood is such a great source and we'd all do well to eat some now and then. We may really be adapted to eat seafood even, or perhaps at least the species of animals we eat now just don't have the right balance of fatty acids we evolved to eat - for instance grass-fed ruminants have better levels of healthy fats than grain-fed animals.
Polys are actually unhealthy, if you were just to bump up the proportion of them in your diet. Since we don't really need very much and ultimate eat them in entirely the wrong proportion in the western diet. Monounsaturated fat is fairly neutral and not thought to be problematic. Saturated fat isn't even actually bad for us since it's rather a metabolically clean source of energy too. Those in excess alone aren't actually the cause of cardiovascular disease and other things, there's too much new science not finding any link at all on the saturated fat issue. What turns out to be the problem is the ratios of these fats, and specifically the ratios of the different types of polyunsaturated fats.
So I would say their product won't actually have the benefits they think, at least not without demonstrating usefully high levels of EPA, DHA, and the other fats in balance. Especially since some studies seem to point to excess consumption of PUFAs to be positively associated with heart disease, in the face of dwindling evidence for saturated fat being a problem. It would be interesting if an animal farmed for meat could be engineered to produce high levels of the good long-chain Omega 3s which are typically missing from land-based farming.
Why does the bulk of humanity always have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future?
Your "future" seems to be somewhere around 1970. Today's challenge is not how to find and use ever more resources, it is how to use and re-use the existing ones without making the planet unliveable. Given the current context of impending climatic and ecosystem breakdown, mining asteroids is nothing but an outrageous red herring.
I continue to be astounded by the number of "technologists" in this forum who appear stuck in an almost Soviet mindset of science, where the future is all mining and flying cars and space exploration. It's as if you haven't noticed the last 30 years of scientific advance and all the new constraints that humanity must now work within.
But THAT has been talked about since the 1970s also, it also isn't working out. We have a lot of the science we need to live comfortable sustanable lives, hell the engineering application of that science is largely there too. Politics, well that's what needs to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the future.
Why wouldn't there be a vein of iron ore on the Moon? There are veins of it on the Earth.
The moon doesn't have veins of iron ore because it doesn't have an atmosphere that contains oxygen and never experienced the Great Oxygen Catastrophe, and thus does not have the banded iron formations which is the source of almost all the minable iron on the earth's surface.
The lack of oxygen bound to bloody every useful metal, as we find on our wet oxygenated planet, must be a huge benefit to mining moons and asteroids.
Some said commercial satellites would never been economically viable based on the same kind of math. The cost of doing anything tends to fall once it has been done.
Nope. You'd have to pull out a number of safety features (likely illegal to sell, and possibly illegal to drive). Airbags that don't help belted passengers, bumpers designed to resist damage in 5 mph and slower crashes (yes, bumpers have damage resistance as a feature equal to or greater than safety), and loads of heavy and mostly ineffective sound deadening are burdening the modern car. The old ones had poor suspension, overly heavy bodies and such, but you could strip out almost everything (and even replace the frame with a light-weight tubular design), and have something lighter than today's cars.
The only thing you get from today's cars is a smaller package with better aerodynamics. But the available improvements are smaller, so it's hard to get the same level of improvements. Intake/exhaust and computer change will get most non-turbo cars 10% to power and efficiency, but beyond that, it's harder to get more. I left out turbos because it's easier to trade efficiency for power or vice versa, and the percentages depend on the vehicles (you won't get much more efficiency out of Audis and Saabs with efficiency tuned turbos, but Chevy's turbo-Diesel trucks have loads of capabilities from things like a DuraMaximizer).
Some ugly-ass backyard Aerodynamic modifications can get 45% improvement in fuel economy http://www.aerocivic.com/ Also modifying a engine computer will get you much more than 10%. Properly done lean-burn might get you 25% or more.
Intake/exhaust will net you effectively zero efficiency improvement under economy driving conditions. This is much debated and the verdict is MPG improvement of such mods is marketting BS. You might seem some benefit if you have a turbo diesel or some unusual high-load application.
As for weight, yes that's a tough one to beat without compromising safety etc.
The cost difference between a regular gas sedan and a hybrid of the same size is generally not offset by the savings in fuel costs for driving it. Why do it again if it didn't work the first time?
Maybe not in the US which enjoys unusually cheap prices. But about 80% of Taxis in my area are hybrids with a few companies going exclusively "green" vehicles and being able to offer cheaper rates due to the fuel savings. Taxi drivers kind of look at you blankly if you question their choice, for them it pays for itself in a year or less it's a complete no-brainer. My neighbour who's a taxi driver is on to his second Prius and you'd have to prise it from his cold dead hands. Many of the remainder are LPG or Diesel.
Personally I am pro-diesel or pro-electric. Hybrid is a cop out by the auto industry.
Surveillance of non-US Persons has never required a warrant, and never will. It has nothing to do with whether it's a group someone "hates" or "likes".
Everyone spies on each other, but not their own, but don't they all share intelligence information? No laws broken.
Great dissertation. Old school idea, though, of Illuminati / Freemasonry / Mormonism.
But to what end? So you have control of everything, to argue hypothetically. Then what? You've established the worldwide government, religious or not, run by elitists, who just happen to still have to drop their drawers to poop, unless they are descendent's of Cuthulu. What is the master plan of the New World Order past conquering everything? If it's the same old bullshit, then they just wasted our collective time.
Or is their plan to implement the Georgia Guide Stones? What is really the master plan? I'd humbly advise the "great ones" who wish to implement the plan of the New World Order that they should pay heed to and meditate upon Puma Punku and what it says if you're open to reading between the lines.
One final morsel for thought: If I were a galactic civilization, I would keep the human race safely contained on the planet like a nasty plague by whatever means necessary, including sending them back to the stone age. Just because of the way we roll...
We might very well turn to be a self-containing disease, we've stumbled with manned spaceflight lately, now we're quite simply killing our host before we can replicate and infect others.
As far as AR goes, the demo looks a little meh. Good AR makes better use of positional awareness (location & attitude), and takes visual cues from a camera to figure out just what you are looking at. The result is AR that actually augments reality, rather than just displays a few amusing overlays on top of it.
For example, instead of the annoying popup that says "Turn left at XYZ street", this thing ought to give you directions by overlaying a subtle line over the sidewalk... then you just follow the Yellow Brick Road. The popups would even be more annoying (and perhaps dangerous) while driving, while displaying a line on the road would be ok (perhaps also highlighting exit signs you need to be aware of). Or imagine AR-enabled instructions (posted on Youtube perhaps), that don't just explain you how to replace your iPhone's battery for example, but highlights the actual parts as you work on them, showing you what goes where etc.
That would take a lot of processing power/battery. Give it a decade and that's exactly how it'll work. Right now Googles AR glasses are the equivalent of the Palm Pilot from 1996 or the Apple Newton from 1998 but what you are saying that it "should" be doing is colour and multimedia playback. That wasn't fully feasible for another 5 years, and pretty much a decade until the smartphone explosion. Things happen faster now. Give it 5-7 years and what power can be packed in to a set of google glasses will be able to do more advanced image processing.
It would be feasible right now if the heavy lifting was done server-side your visual and audio feeds being streamed to Google's data centres.
That scares the shit out of me - Google can gather data on everything you do, see and hear in the real world too.
I nearly actually applied for a job with a company that was trying to get social networking credentials from it's candidates including passwords for cloud storage.
It was really just to take them down in the interview. Which would have been a delight. I would explain that I would flatly refuse to hand over the credentials (they literaly had a piece of paper that you would write the details all down on) and because of this they should hire me, and they should not hire any candidate. This is because as a IT professional I walk the talk on security, privacy and confidentiality.
Ironically this was for a IT job with a certain level of security clearance, but they still had zero justification for invading anyone's private life.
I would say, sure I'd give you access but:
1. I cannot hand over any credentials where it would explicitly violate the ToS for the service in question.
2. I cannot hand over credentials where a credit card is linked to the service, as it would violate the T&Cs for having a credit card and make me liable for any fraud.
3. I will not hand over credentials for a system that would create a security risk for the service , should those credentials be improperly protected.
4. Friends of mine are music producers and have sent me their copyrighted works, the employer listening to or retrieving these from my account would be copyright violation and furthermore a leaked work could be devastating.
5. I have my own copyrighted work, it's a bit shitty TBH but the principal in #4 applies.
6. They are not going to look at my private family photos.
7. They don't need to snoop on the private conversations I have with my Wife, the babysitter, my mistress, my old flame from high school, my therapist, my AA sponsor, my CIA handler and the drug dealer(s) I haven't paid.
8. Writing down passwords on paper is rule one of passwords... do not give them out let alone do not write them down.
9. I would insist the company would seek written permission from anyone who's shared information with me on these services, as the company does not have a right to invade their privacy.
10. Doing this would expose a company to an epic legal shitstorm if it all went wrong, see 1, 2, 4, 9
Or else I'd make them sign something that they are explicitly liable for any fraud or legal consequences as a result of any mishandling of my credentials I provide. Assuming all criteria above are met.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, you want government legislating what a private company can and cannot sell?
Stop and think about that, and why that is an awful idea.
Stop and think about the opposite awful idea: Lets have private companies sell whatever they want, however they want, and answer to no law.
Frankly I'd rather have Governments in control that Corporations, ultimately governments [are meant to] answer to the people since democracy [is supposed ro] puts them in power, corporations answer to money and can never put anything else other than profit as priority number one: else they will fail.
I'll be supporting used downloads. It's about time someone started recycling electrons. They are a non renewable resource and clearly this one-use culture has to end. The universe only has 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 electrons to begin with!
I'm in NZ and when the law changed a lot of my friends rapidly got up to speed on how to hide their activity, there was plenty of advice to go around and trivial methods of staying off the radar.
There is a marked increase in sharing by USB sticks and portable hard drives, especially in schools and university. In my office there was Swap Club for a while where a couple of 2TB drives got whored around.
So piracy would appear to fall, at least by the usual data collection methods (being precisely what anonymity methods target !).
We always used to pirate like crazy here because nobody ever got caught... ever, and even now I personally have not met or heard of anyone getting an infringement notice. Also as the US dollar plummets and our dollar gets high, a lot of retail prices for the genuine stuff fall, I wonder what impact that had.
So its questionable if the law has had any effect at all. Legit music services like Spotify and Rdio have started up down here to huge success. So maybe none!
So infringement dropped. But did purchases of music and movies increase? That seems like a much more better question to ask.
That has been on the increase anyway, even before any law changes. It will make for a convenient statistic.
one word: VACUUM. Two words: fire triangle Two words containing a difficult one: fire tetrahedron Before one will burst into flames one needs oxygen first. In a vacuum there is no hazard of bursting into flames. Remember this, and when you get your first physics lesson on combustion at school you will be mister smartypants!
If there is no oxygen, how on earth do you think the occupants of that vehicle are going to breath? You bet that such a train will need to carry oxygen, one way or the other. And in the event of a crash, that oxygen could be released into the vacuum, and there is your fire triangle, complete.
Oxygen would be the least of all problems in a crash at 4000mph. Also I doubt any such design would carry combustible fuel. Such a train would need the output of whole external powerstations. I doubt there is any need to carry pure oxygen either, there would be trace air in the conduit (perfect vacuum: impossible) and at 4000mph you'd have no problems capturing and compressing it. Finally what exactly is a vacuum train going to hit? A train coming the other way? In power loss a trains own mommentum could keep mag lev functioning while an emergency stop is performed. If reserve compressed air and CO2 scrubbing runs out, the tube can just be opened to atmosphere and people can literally walk to an exit hatch. It seems that it really isn't so dangerous compared to an airline flight after all.
Evidence please? The end users that matter, the ones with the spending power in the consumer electronics industry, are the ones that don't mind learning a new interface. Because that's what they've recently had to do with smartphones, tablets and consoles. Windows 8 just won't bomb because of the reason you cite. It'll just an oddity of computing history that it was once dominated by a single paradigm from a single company, that no one was used to adapting to a new interface. That was the state of things until 2000s. Kids these days spend hours a day using computing devices, but might go a long time without ever sitting behind a PC. Aging mom n pop users and neckbearded IT relics will complain but Microsoft will inevitably sell millions of new tablets, laptops and touch enabled PCs with it to a market now conditioned to upgrading shiny handheld toys every 12 months or less.
Microsoft, if anything, is making necessary minimum changes if they want to remain relevant and keep hardware vendors happy.
Lets not use the term blocking. The website isn't really blocked as such. It's not possible to "Block" a website on the internet. It's only possible to disable a means of resolving and reaching a URL within a system that you can control.
Someone please tell the authorities this.
Would like to see a comparison to Androids security model. Anyone care to analyse?
You dont understand. Google does not really care about Android being more popular. What they do care about is whether Google gets to define what a smartphone is and can hence get Apple to offer their services on iPhones. They might make more money out of iPhones, but it is often because of Android, they get to make money of iPhones.
That's a fancy way of saying Google doesn't not want Apple to have absolute power of the mobile search universe. Google did something great for us all when they made Android. This is precisely why. It's also precisely why they made it open (not fully open source). Android is not a money making excercise it's about holding off an onslaught of the Apple. (Ironically Android has one and Apple is being marginalised to it's niche again, deja vu!?)
I have been told their enterprise version, at least with Norton, isn't like that so i have to say WTF?
One of my (Fortune 100) clients has McAfee enterprise and I can vouch for the fact that it's horrible there too.
Just an example; what they call "Wasted Wednesday" has nothing to do with substance abuse, and everything to do with mandatory virus scans that make computers unusable for hours.
How fucking hard is it just to make this shit run at a low background priority, like gee I dunno a dozen other things a OS does often? It impacting performance on a modern PC is lazy programming. You have to wonder how useful these things actually are.
A nice "what if" novel was written by Gibson and Sterling, based on a posited successful adoption of the difference engine in Victorian times. It's classed as Sci Fi, but is more of a novel set in an alternative history. Definitely worth reading.
Somewhere in an alternate steampunk universe there is a nice "What if?" novel about the inventors of silicon transistor computers, in a alternate history where babbage's machine was never built. They call us silipunks.
Add to that it just needs to fly once. This massively lowers the cost and requirements of being able to do this. Discovery probably even got given one, and they probably didn't bank roll the entire thing on their own either, there's a lot of interest parties that would front up cash for such an opportunity to gather data.
I understand that relatively "good condition" planes get scrapped because it would be too expensive to refurbish them (fatigued metal to the point it can't be repaired). A junkyard car that runs but is dangerous/illegal on the road is different to a junkyard plane that flies and is danerous/illegal in the air.
Actually what it sounds like is they are referring to are polyunsaturated fats since Omega 3 is hardly found in seeds. Generally are lower to non-existent in farmed meat and much higher in seeds and grains, and very concentrated in some seafoods. Polyunsaturated fats include Omega 3, 6, and 9. 6 is an inflamation promoting PUFA that is eaten in far too higher proportion in the western diet.
Omega 3s (DHA etc) are pretty sparse in plants, and the types of it in plants are poorly absorbed and metabolized. Which is why seafood is such a great source and we'd all do well to eat some now and then. We may really be adapted to eat seafood even, or perhaps at least the species of animals we eat now just don't have the right balance of fatty acids we evolved to eat - for instance grass-fed ruminants have better levels of healthy fats than grain-fed animals.
Polys are actually unhealthy, if you were just to bump up the proportion of them in your diet. Since we don't really need very much and ultimate eat them in entirely the wrong proportion in the western diet. Monounsaturated fat is fairly neutral and not thought to be problematic. Saturated fat isn't even actually bad for us since it's rather a metabolically clean source of energy too. Those in excess alone aren't actually the cause of cardiovascular disease and other things, there's too much new science not finding any link at all on the saturated fat issue. What turns out to be the problem is the ratios of these fats, and specifically the ratios of the different types of polyunsaturated fats.
So I would say their product won't actually have the benefits they think, at least not without demonstrating usefully high levels of EPA, DHA, and the other fats in balance. Especially since some studies seem to point to excess consumption of PUFAs to be positively associated with heart disease, in the face of dwindling evidence for saturated fat being a problem. It would be interesting if an animal farmed for meat could be engineered to produce high levels of the good long-chain Omega 3s which are typically missing from land-based farming.
Given humanity's past, there is no reason to believe that we can't rise to the current environmental challenge.
When was the last time we had to face such problems on the scale of an entire species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
That would be extraordinarily unpleasant in our current world. We don't even want to risk anything that threatens even a fraction of humanity.
Your "future" seems to be somewhere around 1970. Today's challenge is not how to find and use ever more resources, it is how to use and re-use the existing ones without making the planet unliveable. Given the current context of impending climatic and ecosystem breakdown, mining asteroids is nothing but an outrageous red herring.
I continue to be astounded by the number of "technologists" in this forum who appear stuck in an almost Soviet mindset of science, where the future is all mining and flying cars and space exploration. It's as if you haven't noticed the last 30 years of scientific advance and all the new constraints that humanity must now work within.
But THAT has been talked about since the 1970s also, it also isn't working out. We have a lot of the science we need to live comfortable sustanable lives, hell the engineering application of that science is largely there too. Politics, well that's what needs to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the future.
Why wouldn't there be a vein of iron ore on the Moon? There are veins of it on the Earth.
The moon doesn't have veins of iron ore because it doesn't have an atmosphere that contains oxygen and never experienced the Great Oxygen Catastrophe, and thus does not have the banded iron formations which is the source of almost all the minable iron on the earth's surface.
The lack of oxygen bound to bloody every useful metal, as we find on our wet oxygenated planet, must be a huge benefit to mining moons and asteroids.
Some said commercial satellites would never been economically viable based on the same kind of math. The cost of doing anything tends to fall once it has been done.
Nope. You'd have to pull out a number of safety features (likely illegal to sell, and possibly illegal to drive). Airbags that don't help belted passengers, bumpers designed to resist damage in 5 mph and slower crashes (yes, bumpers have damage resistance as a feature equal to or greater than safety), and loads of heavy and mostly ineffective sound deadening are burdening the modern car. The old ones had poor suspension, overly heavy bodies and such, but you could strip out almost everything (and even replace the frame with a light-weight tubular design), and have something lighter than today's cars. The only thing you get from today's cars is a smaller package with better aerodynamics. But the available improvements are smaller, so it's hard to get the same level of improvements. Intake/exhaust and computer change will get most non-turbo cars 10% to power and efficiency, but beyond that, it's harder to get more. I left out turbos because it's easier to trade efficiency for power or vice versa, and the percentages depend on the vehicles (you won't get much more efficiency out of Audis and Saabs with efficiency tuned turbos, but Chevy's turbo-Diesel trucks have loads of capabilities from things like a DuraMaximizer).
Some ugly-ass backyard Aerodynamic modifications can get 45% improvement in fuel economy http://www.aerocivic.com/ Also modifying a engine computer will get you much more than 10%. Properly done lean-burn might get you 25% or more.
Intake/exhaust will net you effectively zero efficiency improvement under economy driving conditions. This is much debated and the verdict is MPG improvement of such mods is marketting BS. You might seem some benefit if you have a turbo diesel or some unusual high-load application.
As for weight, yes that's a tough one to beat without compromising safety etc.
The cost difference between a regular gas sedan and a hybrid of the same size is generally not offset by the savings in fuel costs for driving it. Why do it again if it didn't work the first time?
Maybe not in the US which enjoys unusually cheap prices. But about 80% of Taxis in my area are hybrids with a few companies going exclusively "green" vehicles and being able to offer cheaper rates due to the fuel savings. Taxi drivers kind of look at you blankly if you question their choice, for them it pays for itself in a year or less it's a complete no-brainer. My neighbour who's a taxi driver is on to his second Prius and you'd have to prise it from his cold dead hands. Many of the remainder are LPG or Diesel.
Personally I am pro-diesel or pro-electric. Hybrid is a cop out by the auto industry.
Surveillance of non-US Persons has never required a warrant, and never will. It has nothing to do with whether it's a group someone "hates" or "likes".
Everyone spies on each other, but not their own, but don't they all share intelligence information? No laws broken.
Great dissertation. Old school idea, though, of Illuminati / Freemasonry / Mormonism. But to what end? So you have control of everything, to argue hypothetically. Then what? You've established the worldwide government, religious or not, run by elitists, who just happen to still have to drop their drawers to poop, unless they are descendent's of Cuthulu. What is the master plan of the New World Order past conquering everything? If it's the same old bullshit, then they just wasted our collective time. Or is their plan to implement the Georgia Guide Stones? What is really the master plan? I'd humbly advise the "great ones" who wish to implement the plan of the New World Order that they should pay heed to and meditate upon Puma Punku and what it says if you're open to reading between the lines. One final morsel for thought: If I were a galactic civilization, I would keep the human race safely contained on the planet like a nasty plague by whatever means necessary, including sending them back to the stone age. Just because of the way we roll...
We might very well turn to be a self-containing disease, we've stumbled with manned spaceflight lately, now we're quite simply killing our host before we can replicate and infect others.
As far as AR goes, the demo looks a little meh. Good AR makes better use of positional awareness (location & attitude), and takes visual cues from a camera to figure out just what you are looking at. The result is AR that actually augments reality, rather than just displays a few amusing overlays on top of it. For example, instead of the annoying popup that says "Turn left at XYZ street", this thing ought to give you directions by overlaying a subtle line over the sidewalk... then you just follow the Yellow Brick Road. The popups would even be more annoying (and perhaps dangerous) while driving, while displaying a line on the road would be ok (perhaps also highlighting exit signs you need to be aware of). Or imagine AR-enabled instructions (posted on Youtube perhaps), that don't just explain you how to replace your iPhone's battery for example, but highlights the actual parts as you work on them, showing you what goes where etc.
That would take a lot of processing power/battery. Give it a decade and that's exactly how it'll work. Right now Googles AR glasses are the equivalent of the Palm Pilot from 1996 or the Apple Newton from 1998 but what you are saying that it "should" be doing is colour and multimedia playback. That wasn't fully feasible for another 5 years, and pretty much a decade until the smartphone explosion. Things happen faster now. Give it 5-7 years and what power can be packed in to a set of google glasses will be able to do more advanced image processing.
It would be feasible right now if the heavy lifting was done server-side your visual and audio feeds being streamed to Google's data centres.
That scares the shit out of me - Google can gather data on everything you do, see and hear in the real world too.
Please wake me up when the quotation marks aren't needed.
is an equally upscaled trebuchet.
What would you do with such a thing, fling container-ship across the English channel?
I'd I donate to the kickstarter fund.
I nearly actually applied for a job with a company that was trying to get social networking credentials from it's candidates including passwords for cloud storage.
... do not give them out let alone do not write them down.
It was really just to take them down in the interview. Which would have been a delight. I would explain that I would flatly refuse to hand over the credentials (they literaly had a piece of paper that you would write the details all down on) and because of this they should hire me, and they should not hire any candidate. This is because as a IT professional I walk the talk on security, privacy and confidentiality.
Ironically this was for a IT job with a certain level of security clearance, but they still had zero justification for invading anyone's private life.
I would say, sure I'd give you access but:
1. I cannot hand over any credentials where it would explicitly violate the ToS for the service in question.
2. I cannot hand over credentials where a credit card is linked to the service, as it would violate the T&Cs for having a credit card and make me liable for any fraud.
3. I will not hand over credentials for a system that would create a security risk for the service , should those credentials be improperly protected.
4. Friends of mine are music producers and have sent me their copyrighted works, the employer listening to or retrieving these from my account would be copyright violation and furthermore a leaked work could be devastating.
5. I have my own copyrighted work, it's a bit shitty TBH but the principal in #4 applies.
6. They are not going to look at my private family photos.
7. They don't need to snoop on the private conversations I have with my Wife, the babysitter, my mistress, my old flame from high school, my therapist, my AA sponsor, my CIA handler and the drug dealer(s) I haven't paid.
8. Writing down passwords on paper is rule one of passwords
9. I would insist the company would seek written permission from anyone who's shared information with me on these services, as the company does not have a right to invade their privacy.
10. Doing this would expose a company to an epic legal shitstorm if it all went wrong, see 1, 2, 4, 9
Or else I'd make them sign something that they are explicitly liable for any fraud or legal consequences as a result of any mishandling of my credentials I provide. Assuming all criteria above are met.