I'm a little puzzled by the anti-net-neutrality stance on slashdot. So many of you are libertarian "marketplace will solve anything" types,
No. They're a vocal minority, but that's all. I could make a list of 5 users who post around 90% of the pro-libertarian arguments on/.
(I could also probably go through my comment history and list dozens of times that I've ripped their arguments apart, only to see them put their head in the sand, and spout off on the exact same things next time). What amazes me is that it continues to get modded up. I can't count how many times I've seen a +5 post about flat tax being the solution to every problem, with 5 comments, that get modded down, pointing out the obvious fallacies.
Microshaft has guaranteed victory over the majority of computer buyers who just don't know any better. (Including corporations.)
That's just nonsense. It doesn't matter what OS comes preinstalled on the hardware, a corporation isn't going to use it, no matter what. Even if it costs them $500 more for a single license, they'll do it, rather than have one system that may be trivially different than all the rest.
Go to any reasonably large business, and they'll have a site license from Microsoft for sure, even though every single system they buy already comes preloaded with something.
Unless you can get millions of people to do this en masse,
Every time one person does it, it makes it easier for the next. I say, aim for millions... One customer at a time. It certainly doesn't matter if it's a group effort or a bunch of individual efforts.
After all, Microsoft can afford the price of millions of returned copies. It's the story, not the money that's going to really hurt them.
It gives Dell and Microsoft a perfect opportunity to say:
"Anyone can return Windows for a refund.
"Say"? "Say" to whom? Where?
The antitrust trial is over, and the lack of returned copies of Windows didn't hurt them one dammed bit. Better to get them to pay as much as you can, and build a movement a piece at a time, rather than the vague hope of building up an excuse for use in some unknown distant future senario where it won't help, anyhow.
What a wonderful life will be when a computer will contain NO MOVABLE mechanical components.
Why? Hard drives are more reliable than many solid-state items in a computer. Power supplies and motherboards come to mind.
It can't be the noise. Modern hard drives are damn-near silent... Quiet enough that only those who spend a lot of time selecting near-silent fans can even hear them, and quieting them further is fairly easy...
This is actually the real bottleneck in modern machines and not processor power as many people think.
No. You can't just say X is the bottleneck in computers. Sometimes it's the hard drive, sometimes it's the network, sometimes it's the CPU, sometimes it's the memory bandwidth, sometimes it's the GPU, etc.
And I wouldn't get my hopes up about performance. Even though Flash is solid state, whereas hard drives are not, Flash is still rarely faster than hard drives (throughput), and I certainly wouldn't expect it to be very fast at a price of ~$10/GB.
You won't have to pay for a gym membership anymore, either, what with the two hard drives and power adapter you'll have to carry everywhere to use your computer for more than 10 minutes.
Hard drives are a very tiny power drain, and extremely light.
You wouldn't even NOTICE the difference in all but the most incredibly featherweight and unimaginably power-effecient notebooks.
Hard drives fail all the time. They fail more than any other part on a computer.
Not a chance in hell...
Either you are buying absolutely top-notch parts for the rest of the system, and dirt cheap hard drives, or your (desktop) case keeps the hard drives in a tiny enclosed space with no airflow. Cheap hard drive caddies and shock-mounted hard drives have that problem, but you very rarely see it in a normal system.
I lose many power supplies before the first hard drive fails. I lose many more motherboards than hard drives (yes, name-brands with 2+ year warranties like Asus, MSI, etc).
Hard drives (and DVD-ROM drives, too) suck a LOT of power on a laptop.
No. No they don't.
Your backlight sucks a lot of power. Your hard drive is a barely noticable load next to the display. Your hard drive is probably near the bottom of power consumption for the whole system.
(Note all the portable MP3 players with 1.8" HDDs, that last 30+ hours on one tiny battery.)
Performance and reliability are the reasons to consider flash based storage in notebooks, NOT battery life.
For example, why not mount the root and user partition on a small 2GB flash card, which in eBay goes for less than 40$, and then mount the/home partition on a regular HD?
Because you still have the hard drive in there?
I'm not sure you'd get any power advantage out of it. Sure, your programs would be on the CF card, but every time Firefox launches, it will need to read a couple MBs of configuration information, and possibly 50MBs of cache from your hard drive. Even trivial applications like aumix will be hitting your hard drive, checking $HOME to see if there is a config file.
Since it's probably the number of hits to the hard drive, requiring it to spin-up again, that uses the most power, I'm not sure your configuration will reduce power consumption at all...
Add to that the CF card using power as well, and your configuration may use up more power than just a hard drive. And with all your important data on the hard drive, you don't get any more reliability either.
Yes...most installs default to the system drive. That's exactly the problem. If you want your apps to be one a driver other than the boot drive, you've got to manually tell all installs to put them there.
No, what you have to do is change the %ProgramFiles% path, either in the System control panel, or in the registry. Then damn near everything will default to that install path.
I've been doing that since NT4 first came out (boot partitions were effectively limited to 2GBs).
It is illegal to ask some questions in an interview. Age related questions are one of them.
It's a shame a company like Google doesn't have some way to scour the internet, to turn up info on a specific person they are interested in finding more info about...
If you vote for a tax increase to pay for teacher salaries, then administrators will not need to take that money out of the budget. In the future, they will not give teachers raises out of the budget. They will wait for the voters to pay for it.
To a select few, this is a crunch time akin to the Y2K fiasco,
Uhh, no.
For newer servers, this usually means just install a patch and reboot (which is slightly more than mildly inconvenient).
It's not inconvenient at all, unless you really think 2+ years of lead time isn't enough, and your systems really won't be rebooting even once in that entire period of time... Not likely.
For older servers, this is basically an 'End of Life' declaration. Servers running software for which no patch is available will be unable to update their own clocks.
Darn.
This isn't year 00.. Clocks aren't going to loop around, causing problems with linearity. Localtime being an hour off will mostly range from completely unnoticed, to mildly inconvient as people manually workaround the issue...
Microsoft is only offering patches for Windows XP and beyond, and Sun will not be supporting Solaris 7 and older.
For Windows, you just need a minor change in the registry. For Unix systems, a quick generation of a zoneinfo file should do it.
There's the vague possibility that some embedded systems with really time-critical functions will need to be thrown away, but I can't see that happening with any kinds of (real) servers.
The next time a pay raise for your local teachers is on the ballot, vote for it. Even if it's a sales tax increase. Your kids will thank you for it. Civilization will thank you for it.
That would be attacking the symptom instead of the problem. The school administrators will just take that as an opportunity to continue spending all of their money on unnecessary equipment, and leave future pay raises up to another tax hike as well.
Schools get a lot of funding. It's just all too often spend on completely unnecessary crap that has little to nothing to do with education. But hey, so long as the football team has new uniforms, who cares?
We were mischevous little boys and girls. But we never shot each other in cold blood.
I'm sure there were plenty of minors responsible for murders 50 years ago. Probably fewer, for various reasons from population to access to weapons and drugs, but that's besides the point.
Just as YOU weren't dangerous, so too are the vast majority of kids today. Your comment just reeks of cantankerous old man syndrome, nothing more.
Turbines can today achieve 40+% electrical efficiency @ full output (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/ 02/Hybrid/Hybrids2Treece.PDF
That PDF is just a slide show presentation. It says 40% indeed, but I have absolutely no way of knowing 40% of WHAT. There's no relevant data to support the claim, of course. That is likely just marketing bullshit numbers.
We've discussed the reasons batteries aren't practical; I'm moving on.
No we haven't. You've dismissed them out-of-hand without justification of any kind.
Your proposal to use multiple flywheels means there are several moving parts
I fail to see any reasoning here. There's nothing about "multiple" moving parts that poses any kind of issue.
Flywheels have major repercussions for crash safety.
Much less so than an ultra-high compression, 2,000C degree turbine engine for certain... And I'm not talking about the danger of the fuels, just the kinetic energy of the spinning turbine itself...
Higher speed means more drag and more loss in the bearings per RPM.
There is no drag other than the berings themselves, and they suffer much more loss by higher weight than by speed.
Regardless, it doesn't take me any 15 minutes to take a crap and a leak and grab a burger in a bag.
Perhaps not, but close enough to it. The extra 5 minutes you may be waiting is certainly less time than it would take to leave, find a gas station, fill up, and continue on.
If the flywheel is already too heavy, then adding more weight for a safe enclosure just makes it more too heavy.
Flywheels are extremely light. They wouldn't be using them on the space station if that wasn't the case.
A very high capacity bank of flywheels will easily be lighter than even just a tank of gasoline, never mind the engine (or turbine+burner+generator+heat exchanger) et al.
Once again, batteries have poor energy density - lower than liquid fuels literally by at least three times today
Energy density would matter a lot if we were talking about airplanes, hot air balloons, or perhaps even bicycles. We're not.
You aren't going to see a 500 lbs car, no matter what. With a modern car, you can convert it to battery-electricity, end up with the same curb weight, and a 300 mile range. Add to that the vastly lower price for electricity vs gasoline per unit of work done (your liquid fuels are much more effecient at the power plant than they are in your car), and the advantages are obvious TODAY. Not in some theoretical future.
I know the media coverage made it seem bigger, but that's ok with me. It made the smack-down look bigger and left a big neon warning to anyone who tries again.
The problem is... the media has a long memory for "new-speak".
For the next 20 years, whenever anything remotely related to evolution is mentioned, there's going to be a mention of "controversy" in there to avoid offending anyone.
It's the new form of political correctness. We aren't pretending that women are exactly identically to men anymore, so we spend all that energy making sure no one can be offended by anything anyone says, even if they're a completely irrational idiot with a single-digit IQ, and a subscription to Rush Limbaugh or Jesse Jackson's newsletter.
Well, if it were treated as an individual, "Slashdot" could be an expert on a great many topics,
Problem is, an individual can't say numerous contradictory things at once. You'd need something much better than the moderation system to decide which comment on each topic is most accurate. Right now, a self-assured idiot can act like an expert just as easily as a real expert can.
Problem is they're either all too smart to post, or sit at +2 for eternity because they took too long to post,
It seems to be an inherent limitation with slashdot in general.
The 30+ people who post their knee-jerk reactions within 5 minutes of the story being posted will be seen by a much larger pool of moderators. All too often they get tricked, and mod-up complete crap.
Meanwhile, reading every detail in the article, and piecing together a verified and accurate response with citations, takes so long, your comment ends up at the very bottom of the page, where it's unlikely to be seen by any number of people.
Setting/. to display "Newest Comments First" by default would help significantly. Automatically randomizing the order of comments for those with mod points would help even more.
However, even if comment moderation was improved in that manner, you'd still be left with the fact that a large number of people browsed through the thread (never to return) before your comment was even posted, let alone seen by moderators and given points...
It seems an inherent limitation, unless you are willing to re-post every story, including the same comments, on the front page.
You need extremely high compression ratios, and ridiculously high tempuratures entering the turbine.
Show me a 50% effecient turbine which can fit in a car without a ton of casing.
"Fuel cell vehicles running on compressed hydrogen [...]
Since I've never even mentioned fuel cells, this is 100% straw man.
damned near anything that will burn under compression can be burned in a turbine engine.
The same goes for a diesel engine... It's the conversion that makes it impractical. So what's the advantage now?
Higher speeds also mean more inefficiency due to loss.
Higher speed is no less effecient than more weight. It's also no more dangerous. So I fail to see your point. Energy==Danger
If you don't have self-destructing flywheels then you need a much bulkier enclosure, adding still more weight.
Not significantly so. The flywheel is still the majority of the weight.
I want to get in the car, go to where I'm going, and get out.
It doesn't sound like you've done much long-distance driving. The human bladder and stomache can't go nearly as far as a vehicle, or be refueled as quickly.
Make no mistake, you are going to be stopping, anyways. It's just a question of whether you refuel while you are stopped, or have to make a second stop at a seperate gas station (which necessarily has to be seperate for traffic and safety reasons). After 4 hours of non-stop driving, you'll barely notice a 15 minute break.
If fuel cells actually get to the point where they're more efficient than a turbine, then you'll have a point.
Once again... My comment was about battery/electric + a gas/electrical generator. No mention of hydrogen or fuel cells at all. Your discussion of it, as if it's pivitol (rather than completely irrelevant) makes no sense at all.
High speed clients prefer to talk among themselves, and low speed peers will be starved.
That's only possible if ALL the high speed clients have absolutely no spare bandwidth while downloading, and ALL disconnect the instant their download has finished.
Possibly geographically segmentates the network, as local peers usually have higher bandwidth.
That can only be a good thing. Long distance links are generally more expensive, less reliable, more congested, etc. Alice in France downloading from Bob in New Zeland, who is downloading from Charles in Germany, is a brutally ineffecient use of network resources.
Low speed peers might never be able to get all the chunks.
Perhaps less likely than the chances of that happening in the current configuration...
It seems like this is just a scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
That's far too simple a way to look at it. The analogy just doesn't hold up.
It's giving less of an advantage to those with slow upload speeds (leeches), and high download speeds, but those with low speeds stand to benefit nearly as much as those with high-speed connections. It will take less time to have more full copies of a torrent shared, on higher speed hosts, with lots of bandwidth to spare.
The only senario in which the low-speed clients lose out, is at the very beginning, when only one peer has a full copy, and the high-speeds are actively sharing among each other and competing for access. After that inital rush, the low speed connections should have full-speed access, and more peers with full copies to chose from. The only way that wouldn't work is if ALL the high speed connections disconnect instantly afterwards.
It really should make bittorrent better all-around. The potential for abuse is only marginally higher. And the low-speed (leeches) only lose a little bit in certain senarios, but stand to gain even more in the end, bring them past the break-even point as well.
It would be upwards of 5 years before many people heard of 'Google'. Before then, it was a ridiculously labor intensive hassle to find what you wanted on the WWW.
Why should technology benefit only "the people" and not "the government"?
It doesn't. In this senario, the government gets exactly the same benefits from the technology as the people do.
"Ordinary people" can't set-up a network of cameras across an entire city.
Why should law enforcement/government be artificially hindered or prohibited from using technology in certain ways?
Because "ordinary people" can't imprision anyone, can't excercise deadly force in most senarios, etc.
The simplest senario, IMHO, is the theoretical device that can look through walls. These already exist in some form, like infrared cameras and tempest. Should the police be restricted from using this tecnology to search private homes and building, without recieving a warrant? Should they be able to use it all the time, on absolutely anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
No. They're a vocal minority, but that's all. I could make a list of 5 users who post around 90% of the pro-libertarian arguments on
(I could also probably go through my comment history and list dozens of times that I've ripped their arguments apart, only to see them put their head in the sand, and spout off on the exact same things next time). What amazes me is that it continues to get modded up. I can't count how many times I've seen a +5 post about flat tax being the solution to every problem, with 5 comments, that get modded down, pointing out the obvious fallacies.
...
ditto for every other argument he makes, from changing internet protocols to theoretical networks that only serve low-latency content...
I half expected him to say next that the internet was a big truck...
Yeah, you couldn't go to the "Notebooks - No OS" section of Pricewatch and buy one of the thousands they list: http://www.pricewatch.com/notebooks_no_os/
That's just nonsense. It doesn't matter what OS comes preinstalled on the hardware, a corporation isn't going to use it, no matter what. Even if it costs them $500 more for a single license, they'll do it, rather than have one system that may be trivially different than all the rest.
Go to any reasonably large business, and they'll have a site license from Microsoft for sure, even though every single system they buy already comes preloaded with something.
Every time one person does it, it makes it easier for the next. I say, aim for millions... One customer at a time. It certainly doesn't matter if it's a group effort or a bunch of individual efforts.
After all, Microsoft can afford the price of millions of returned copies. It's the story, not the money that's going to really hurt them.
"Say"? "Say" to whom? Where?
The antitrust trial is over, and the lack of returned copies of Windows didn't hurt them one dammed bit. Better to get them to pay as much as you can, and build a movement a piece at a time, rather than the vague hope of building up an excuse for use in some unknown distant future senario where it won't help, anyhow.
No, the CPU is still the overall bottle neck for a modern computer.
Why? Hard drives are more reliable than many solid-state items in a computer. Power supplies and motherboards come to mind.
It can't be the noise. Modern hard drives are damn-near silent... Quiet enough that only those who spend a lot of time selecting near-silent fans can even hear them, and quieting them further is fairly easy...
No. You can't just say X is the bottleneck in computers. Sometimes it's the hard drive, sometimes it's the network, sometimes it's the CPU, sometimes it's the memory bandwidth, sometimes it's the GPU, etc.
And I wouldn't get my hopes up about performance. Even though Flash is solid state, whereas hard drives are not, Flash is still rarely faster than hard drives (throughput), and I certainly wouldn't expect it to be very fast at a price of ~$10/GB.
Hard drives are a very tiny power drain, and extremely light.
You wouldn't even NOTICE the difference in all but the most incredibly featherweight and unimaginably power-effecient notebooks.
Not a chance in hell...
Either you are buying absolutely top-notch parts for the rest of the system, and dirt cheap hard drives, or your (desktop) case keeps the hard drives in a tiny enclosed space with no airflow. Cheap hard drive caddies and shock-mounted hard drives have that problem, but you very rarely see it in a normal system.
I lose many power supplies before the first hard drive fails. I lose many more motherboards than hard drives (yes, name-brands with 2+ year warranties like Asus, MSI, etc).
No. No they don't.
Your backlight sucks a lot of power. Your hard drive is a barely noticable load next to the display. Your hard drive is probably near the bottom of power consumption for the whole system.
(Note all the portable MP3 players with 1.8" HDDs, that last 30+ hours on one tiny battery.)
Performance and reliability are the reasons to consider flash based storage in notebooks, NOT battery life.
Because you still have the hard drive in there?
I'm not sure you'd get any power advantage out of it. Sure, your programs would be on the CF card, but every time Firefox launches, it will need to read a couple MBs of configuration information, and possibly 50MBs of cache from your hard drive. Even trivial applications like aumix will be hitting your hard drive, checking $HOME to see if there is a config file.
Since it's probably the number of hits to the hard drive, requiring it to spin-up again, that uses the most power, I'm not sure your configuration will reduce power consumption at all...
Add to that the CF card using power as well, and your configuration may use up more power than just a hard drive. And with all your important data on the hard drive, you don't get any more reliability either.
No, what you have to do is change the %ProgramFiles% path, either in the System control panel, or in the registry. Then damn near everything will default to that install path.
I've been doing that since NT4 first came out (boot partitions were effectively limited to 2GBs).
It's a shame a company like Google doesn't have some way to scour the internet, to turn up info on a specific person they are interested in finding more info about...
That sure would be nifty.
You've completely missed my point.
If you vote for a tax increase to pay for teacher salaries, then administrators will not need to take that money out of the budget. In the future, they will not give teachers raises out of the budget. They will wait for the voters to pay for it.
Uhh, no.
It's not inconvenient at all, unless you really think 2+ years of lead time isn't enough, and your systems really won't be rebooting even once in that entire period of time... Not likely.
Darn.
This isn't year 00.. Clocks aren't going to loop around, causing problems with linearity. Localtime being an hour off will mostly range from completely unnoticed, to mildly inconvient as people manually workaround the issue...
For Windows, you just need a minor change in the registry. For Unix systems, a quick generation of a zoneinfo file should do it.
There's the vague possibility that some embedded systems with really time-critical functions will need to be thrown away, but I can't see that happening with any kinds of (real) servers.
That would be attacking the symptom instead of the problem. The school administrators will just take that as an opportunity to continue spending all of their money on unnecessary equipment, and leave future pay raises up to another tax hike as well.
Schools get a lot of funding. It's just all too often spend on completely unnecessary crap that has little to nothing to do with education. But hey, so long as the football team has new uniforms, who cares?
I'm sure there were plenty of minors responsible for murders 50 years ago. Probably fewer, for various reasons from population to access to weapons and drugs, but that's besides the point.
Just as YOU weren't dangerous, so too are the vast majority of kids today. Your comment just reeks of cantankerous old man syndrome, nothing more.
That PDF is just a slide show presentation. It says 40% indeed, but I have absolutely no way of knowing 40% of WHAT. There's no relevant data to support the claim, of course. That is likely just marketing bullshit numbers.
No we haven't. You've dismissed them out-of-hand without justification of any kind.
I fail to see any reasoning here. There's nothing about "multiple" moving parts that poses any kind of issue.
Much less so than an ultra-high compression, 2,000C degree turbine engine for certain... And I'm not talking about the danger of the fuels, just the kinetic energy of the spinning turbine itself...
There is no drag other than the berings themselves, and they suffer much more loss by higher weight than by speed.
Perhaps not, but close enough to it. The extra 5 minutes you may be waiting is certainly less time than it would take to leave, find a gas station, fill up, and continue on.
Flywheels are extremely light. They wouldn't be using them on the space station if that wasn't the case.
A very high capacity bank of flywheels will easily be lighter than even just a tank of gasoline, never mind the engine (or turbine+burner+generator+heat exchanger) et al.
Energy density would matter a lot if we were talking about airplanes, hot air balloons, or perhaps even bicycles. We're not.
You aren't going to see a 500 lbs car, no matter what. With a modern car, you can convert it to battery-electricity, end up with the same curb weight, and a 300 mile range. Add to that the vastly lower price for electricity vs gasoline per unit of work done (your liquid fuels are much more effecient at the power plant than they are in your car), and the advantages are obvious TODAY. Not in some theoretical future.
The problem is... the media has a long memory for "new-speak".
For the next 20 years, whenever anything remotely related to evolution is mentioned, there's going to be a mention of "controversy" in there to avoid offending anyone.
It's the new form of political correctness. We aren't pretending that women are exactly identically to men anymore, so we spend all that energy making sure no one can be offended by anything anyone says, even if they're a completely irrational idiot with a single-digit IQ, and a subscription to Rush Limbaugh or Jesse Jackson's newsletter.
Problem is, an individual can't say numerous contradictory things at once. You'd need something much better than the moderation system to decide which comment on each topic is most accurate. Right now, a self-assured idiot can act like an expert just as easily as a real expert can.
It seems to be an inherent limitation with slashdot in general.
The 30+ people who post their knee-jerk reactions within 5 minutes of the story being posted will be seen by a much larger pool of moderators. All too often they get tricked, and mod-up complete crap.
Meanwhile, reading every detail in the article, and piecing together a verified and accurate response with citations, takes so long, your comment ends up at the very bottom of the page, where it's unlikely to be seen by any number of people.
Setting
However, even if comment moderation was improved in that manner, you'd still be left with the fact that a large number of people browsed through the thread (never to return) before your comment was even posted, let alone seen by moderators and given points...
It seems an inherent limitation, unless you are willing to re-post every story, including the same comments, on the front page.
You need extremely high compression ratios, and ridiculously high tempuratures entering the turbine.
Show me a 50% effecient turbine which can fit in a car without a ton of casing.
Since I've never even mentioned fuel cells, this is 100% straw man.
The same goes for a diesel engine... It's the conversion that makes it impractical. So what's the advantage now?
Higher speed is no less effecient than more weight. It's also no more dangerous. So I fail to see your point. Energy==Danger
Not significantly so. The flywheel is still the majority of the weight.
It doesn't sound like you've done much long-distance driving. The human bladder and stomache can't go nearly as far as a vehicle, or be refueled as quickly.
Make no mistake, you are going to be stopping, anyways. It's just a question of whether you refuel while you are stopped, or have to make a second stop at a seperate gas station (which necessarily has to be seperate for traffic and safety reasons). After 4 hours of non-stop driving, you'll barely notice a 15 minute break.
Once again... My comment was about battery/electric + a gas/electrical generator. No mention of hydrogen or fuel cells at all. Your discussion of it, as if it's pivitol (rather than completely irrelevant) makes no sense at all.
That's only possible if ALL the high speed clients have absolutely no spare bandwidth while downloading, and ALL disconnect the instant their download has finished.
That can only be a good thing. Long distance links are generally more expensive, less reliable, more congested, etc. Alice in France downloading from Bob in New Zeland, who is downloading from Charles in Germany, is a brutally ineffecient use of network resources.
Perhaps less likely than the chances of that happening in the current configuration...
That's far too simple a way to look at it. The analogy just doesn't hold up.
It's giving less of an advantage to those with slow upload speeds (leeches), and high download speeds, but those with low speeds stand to benefit nearly as much as those with high-speed connections. It will take less time to have more full copies of a torrent shared, on higher speed hosts, with lots of bandwidth to spare.
The only senario in which the low-speed clients lose out, is at the very beginning, when only one peer has a full copy, and the high-speeds are actively sharing among each other and competing for access. After that inital rush, the low speed connections should have full-speed access, and more peers with full copies to chose from. The only way that wouldn't work is if ALL the high speed connections disconnect instantly afterwards.
It really should make bittorrent better all-around. The potential for abuse is only marginally higher. And the low-speed (leeches) only lose a little bit in certain senarios, but stand to gain even more in the end, bring them past the break-even point as well.
Actually, he was right-on.
It would be upwards of 5 years before many people heard of 'Google'. Before then, it was a ridiculously labor intensive hassle to find what you wanted on the WWW.
It doesn't. In this senario, the government gets exactly the same benefits from the technology as the people do.
"Ordinary people" can't set-up a network of cameras across an entire city.
Because "ordinary people" can't imprision anyone, can't excercise deadly force in most senarios, etc.
The simplest senario, IMHO, is the theoretical device that can look through walls. These already exist in some form, like infrared cameras and tempest. Should the police be restricted from using this tecnology to search private homes and building, without recieving a warrant? Should they be able to use it all the time, on absolutely anyone?