If you work anywhere where hot-desking is standard practice, then "lots".
Also, when I visit my parents or any of my friends, I don't usually take a laptop with me. If I need a computer, I borrow one of theirs. I doubt that that is particularly unusual.
How so? Housing, banking, insurance and auto are all largely a privatized free-for-all at the moment, with only the most extreme behaviour regulated by the government.
Space flight is almost a complete government monopoly, with the biggest (and arguably only) real player in the industry a tax-funded government agency.
It seems to make sense that if Obama's administration has some vision of an ideal amount of government involvement, it would probably lie somewhere between the two. And so it would make sense that the former requires it's regulation tightening, the latter loosening.
I'm not saying he's got the right idea or not, just pointing out that he is showing internal consistency (which you imply he doesn't).
I'm sure they could be persuaded if there were a market for it. Once they've developed the thing it makes sense for them to find as many applications for it a possible.
That's not even mentioning the range. We fly drones in Afghanistan from Afghanistan. Where is somebody going to launch a drone attack on the United States from?
Mexico? Canada? Caribbean islands?
I'm sure there are a few targets inside the US that'd be reachable from non-US locations.
And there are middle grounds between "$100 RC planes" and "million dollar military hardware". I'm sure that, with access to a credit card with a good limit and commercially available / hobbyist parts you could put something useful together without too much heart-ache.
"Transferring consciousness", in practice, would just mean programming the robot so that it acts exactly like you would in every way. You still have the original- it's more like you've copied it than transferred it. Unless you destroy the original (good luck with that) then it's not really any different from creating a regular automated robot.
And then there's the problem of "transferring back" when the robot has finished it's tour. Basically, that'd mean overwriting your brain with the one in the robot- again, good luck finding volunteers for that one. Anything less (just transferring over a few images and videos, say) is no different from what we do now- just looking at the images and videos sent back by robots.
And anyhow, we still haven't got computers anywhere near the point of being able to rival a human brain. If we did, sending humans up wouldn't be necessary anyway. Hell, the best we can do at "humanoid robots" is Asimo- which can *just about* climb up stairs...
I'm interested- if I click "contact us" on Amazon, what will I see?
Will it be a "customerservice@amazon.co.uk", or something along those lines? Actually, you don't even get that, only an embedded comment system. I've just had a quick look and I can't find anywhere that says Amazon's office address, or phone number, and I also can't find any names of any executives, founders, board members, or anyone else. I presume I could find all that information elsewhere on the internet, but it isn't on their main website.
Only if the government cuts spending to exactly the same amount as the lost revenue.
So unless California is cutting the schools budget, say, by the $2million they've subsidised eBay with to build this system, then yes the other taxpayers are going to have to pay for it somewhere.
Erm, well there are lots of animals which have different numbers of legs (crustaceans and insects 6, arachnids and cephalopods 8, etc.). Over the course of billions of years, most designs have been given a chance at competing in most areas.
I don't think it can be a coincidence, completely outside of the mechanics of evolution, that more than 4 legs are prolific in small animals (crabs and large bugs at the largest) while most larger animals have gone for 4 or less. Arguing that this has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection would be a difficult standpoint.
Preventing illegal copying (which has always been illegal under copyright law) is an entirely different kettle of fish, politically speaking, to a group of rival companies unanimously raising prices at the same time so as to avoid being beaten by the competition.
One is an enforcement of existing legal rights, the other is trying to bypass the usual free-market system to make more money.
I'm not finding myself all that impressed, strangely. It's cool and all, and fiddly work too, but I'm not sure how ground breaking it is.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but all he's done is remove the console's case, stick all the internals down into a new thinner case, and attach to said case a hinged screen and keyboard. I mean I doubt I could do it, but I can't imagine you'd have to look too hard for someone who can (it certainly shouldn't be beyond the abilities of a lot of the Slashdot crowd).
I'm told they're a little short on internal storage though- even the bulkiest models struggle to contain more than a couple of thousand pages of text. Heavy too, and fragile. Completely DRM laden- the texts you buy are almost impossible to transfer to other devices, and if you lose the original you can't make a backup.
Using FON as an example- the FON network has got plenty of access points in UK these days thanks to the partnership with BT, and my town has got an AP maybe every hundred meters or so. That means I'd never be more than a few minutes walk from the nearest AP, but there are still blackspots. And if I go to a less densely populated are, or out of town, the blackspots would become more and more pervasive.
If you worked a mobile mesh into the equation then you a) cover the blackspots in town (with only one or two hops to the nearest broadband connection) and b) extend the network to a larger absolute boundary (with greater latency). Would work a treat for in and around urban environments, and you could always keep 3G as a backup for when you head out into the sticks.
I think the answer to this is that NASA would still be a customer (as would many other scientific organizations).
I imagine this would be the idealized "privatization" situation: a group of scientists at a research organization (be it NASA, ESA, a group of universities, whatever) have a project in mind that would involve space flight of some sort, and a budget to fund it. They would put the contract up for bids ("One space probe to Jupiter needed, $500m ONO") and have lots of jolly private corporations offer to do the job cheaper / better than their rivals. They pick one, have said space probe delivered, fork over the cash.
In other words, the cash will still have to come from the same places (NASA , universities, etc.), but they won't have to be wasting lots of extra cash designing and building the flipping things themselves. Theoretically, the miracles of privatization should mean big money savings. In practice, who knows.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just what we call "tethering"? That is, where your phone acts as a modem for your computer?
I'm not aware of anyone doing it with WiFi as you describe, but I'm fairly sure many phones can do it via BlueTooth. That is to say, they can use their 3G connection to hook up to the internet, and then serve that data via BlueTooth to your laptop. USB cables are an option too.
Assuming the cell mesh had a broad enough coverage, 3G would also be unnecessary- as long as you've got some physical broadband routers signed up to the service too, everyone's mobile phone would only be a finite number of hops from the nearest physical internet connection.
Imagine if this service were partnered with something like FON- a service which allows members to share their internet connections with other members who are out and about. In my town there are hundreds of FON access points; a mobile phone mesh would have no problem hooking up to the nearest ones.
Copying ideas isn't considered shameful, IF you tell people you've done it.
If a scientist reads somebody's paper, it gives him a blinding flash of inspiration and he applies their ideas to his own work, that's fine. But he's expected to credit the original thinker in his study so that people know who came up with what.
Similarly, if a musician wants to use another artist's work in their music then that's fine- but they're expected to ask permission first, and they're expected to credit the original.
If the author in TFA wanted to make a "novel of samples" then that's probably pretty legitimate. But she should have attributed her sources (an introduction / appendix would have done the trick) at the very least. Only admitting to it after you've been caught reeks of just trying to leech other people's work, and making excuses for something you know you shouldn't have done.
What will probably, really happen though: Google will be looked into by the Justice Department for attempting to monopolize the market (which, to be honest, isn't too far off when you consider phone, Chrome OS, email, search, and now the ISP itself would be owned by Google), and the other ISPs will claim that the market is being entered unfairly and litigate instead of innovate. After all, this is the market that wants to tell everyone 25 GB is enough for a month. How could they claim that, while giving users enough bandwidth to exceed that amount in less than 4 minutes? I hope it happens, but with litigation proving to be more powerful that freedom (what if people used this for copyright infringement!?!!! Clearly, there is no other benefit!!...), I cannot really see it happening.
Not that I'm saying you're not completely right, there are a few points to remember.
1) It's not illegal to become a monopoly organically (that is through normal growth and moving into new market areas). There are rules about fast-tracking your way to a monopoly (through buying out competitors for example) and lots and lots of rules about not abusing a monopoly position once you're there. But just naturally growing into a powerful company is not actually against the rules.
2) It's not against the rules to enter a market and beat the incumbents with low prices and superior products. That's sorta how capitalism is supposed to go. Unless they're taking a massive loss for the express purpose of putting rivals out of business (that'd be illegal), there's nothing stopping them setting up their own telecoms network and selling bandwidth at a low price, as long as they're making a profit out of it.
The telecoms market is so impenetrable because it has such a massive initial cost of entry (to lay all those cables or buy radio spectrum). But as long as the new entrant has cash to burn (and Google does) then there's nothing standing in their way.
They want to use it as a test-bed for programmes and services under ultra-high-speed conditions. That's why they're only planning a relatively small roll our (what, less than 1/500 of the US population?).
There's a difference between being a monopoly and just being an influential player. There's no law against using your influence, if you're a company of any size- except if you're in a monopoly position.
The fact that Amazon isn't a monopoly should be thoroughly highlighted by the fact that Macmillan beat them on this one- Amazon caved because their competitors were offering better terms. If they were a monopoly, that wouldn't have happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone else remember "Typing of the Dead"? Best typing tutor ever.
I wonder idly if it's still in print, in any of the mega-budget software ranges. I'd pay a fiver for it, no question.
If you work anywhere where hot-desking is standard practice, then "lots".
Also, when I visit my parents or any of my friends, I don't usually take a laptop with me. If I need a computer, I borrow one of theirs. I doubt that that is particularly unusual.
How so? Housing, banking, insurance and auto are all largely a privatized free-for-all at the moment, with only the most extreme behaviour regulated by the government.
Space flight is almost a complete government monopoly, with the biggest (and arguably only) real player in the industry a tax-funded government agency.
It seems to make sense that if Obama's administration has some vision of an ideal amount of government involvement, it would probably lie somewhere between the two. And so it would make sense that the former requires it's regulation tightening, the latter loosening.
I'm not saying he's got the right idea or not, just pointing out that he is showing internal consistency (which you imply he doesn't).
I'm sure they could be persuaded if there were a market for it. Once they've developed the thing it makes sense for them to find as many applications for it a possible.
I didn't vote either- because I happen to be one of the 6 billion people or so who don't live in the US.
It's my internet too though.
Being a registered American voter isn't a prerequisite for entering into this debate, you know.
That's not even mentioning the range. We fly drones in Afghanistan from Afghanistan. Where is somebody going to launch a drone attack on the United States from?
Mexico? Canada? Caribbean islands?
I'm sure there are a few targets inside the US that'd be reachable from non-US locations.
And there are middle grounds between "$100 RC planes" and "million dollar military hardware". I'm sure that, with access to a credit card with a good limit and commercially available / hobbyist parts you could put something useful together without too much heart-ache.
They should send up Boston Dynamics' BigDog.
Seriously. A guy kicked it and it just, like, carried on. 4 legs clearly > 2 legs which is totally > wheels.
Also, I want one. Walking around the park would never be dull again.
No-one ever thinks that all the way through.
"Transferring consciousness", in practice, would just mean programming the robot so that it acts exactly like you would in every way. You still have the original- it's more like you've copied it than transferred it. Unless you destroy the original (good luck with that) then it's not really any different from creating a regular automated robot.
And then there's the problem of "transferring back" when the robot has finished it's tour. Basically, that'd mean overwriting your brain with the one in the robot- again, good luck finding volunteers for that one. Anything less (just transferring over a few images and videos, say) is no different from what we do now- just looking at the images and videos sent back by robots.
And anyhow, we still haven't got computers anywhere near the point of being able to rival a human brain. If we did, sending humans up wouldn't be necessary anyway. Hell, the best we can do at "humanoid robots" is Asimo- which can *just about* climb up stairs...
I'm interested- if I click "contact us" on Amazon, what will I see?
Will it be a "customerservice@amazon.co.uk", or something along those lines? Actually, you don't even get that, only an embedded comment system. I've just had a quick look and I can't find anywhere that says Amazon's office address, or phone number, and I also can't find any names of any executives, founders, board members, or anyone else. I presume I could find all that information elsewhere on the internet, but it isn't on their main website.
What, basically, is your point?
Only if the government cuts spending to exactly the same amount as the lost revenue.
So unless California is cutting the schools budget, say, by the $2million they've subsidised eBay with to build this system, then yes the other taxpayers are going to have to pay for it somewhere.
Erm, well there are lots of animals which have different numbers of legs (crustaceans and insects 6, arachnids and cephalopods 8, etc.). Over the course of billions of years, most designs have been given a chance at competing in most areas.
I don't think it can be a coincidence, completely outside of the mechanics of evolution, that more than 4 legs are prolific in small animals (crabs and large bugs at the largest) while most larger animals have gone for 4 or less. Arguing that this has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection would be a difficult standpoint.
Absolutely they do. Everyone has the right to charge whatever they like for what they sell.
That's not the illegal part. Colluding with your competitors to simultaneously raise your prices is very illegal.
Preventing illegal copying (which has always been illegal under copyright law) is an entirely different kettle of fish, politically speaking, to a group of rival companies unanimously raising prices at the same time so as to avoid being beaten by the competition.
One is an enforcement of existing legal rights, the other is trying to bypass the usual free-market system to make more money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed
I'm not finding myself all that impressed, strangely. It's cool and all, and fiddly work too, but I'm not sure how ground breaking it is.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but all he's done is remove the console's case, stick all the internals down into a new thinner case, and attach to said case a hinged screen and keyboard. I mean I doubt I could do it, but I can't imagine you'd have to look too hard for someone who can (it certainly shouldn't be beyond the abilities of a lot of the Slashdot crowd).
I'm told they're a little short on internal storage though- even the bulkiest models struggle to contain more than a couple of thousand pages of text. Heavy too, and fragile. Completely DRM laden- the texts you buy are almost impossible to transfer to other devices, and if you lose the original you can't make a backup.
Did I mention how expensive each volume is?
Not waterproof?
No backlight?
Search feature?
I'll hang on for Book 2.0...
True, but it'd be a great backup.
Using FON as an example- the FON network has got plenty of access points in UK these days thanks to the partnership with BT, and my town has got an AP maybe every hundred meters or so. That means I'd never be more than a few minutes walk from the nearest AP, but there are still blackspots. And if I go to a less densely populated are, or out of town, the blackspots would become more and more pervasive.
If you worked a mobile mesh into the equation then you a) cover the blackspots in town (with only one or two hops to the nearest broadband connection) and b) extend the network to a larger absolute boundary (with greater latency). Would work a treat for in and around urban environments, and you could always keep 3G as a backup for when you head out into the sticks.
I think the answer to this is that NASA would still be a customer (as would many other scientific organizations).
I imagine this would be the idealized "privatization" situation: a group of scientists at a research organization (be it NASA, ESA, a group of universities, whatever) have a project in mind that would involve space flight of some sort, and a budget to fund it. They would put the contract up for bids ("One space probe to Jupiter needed, $500m ONO") and have lots of jolly private corporations offer to do the job cheaper / better than their rivals. They pick one, have said space probe delivered, fork over the cash.
In other words, the cash will still have to come from the same places (NASA , universities, etc.), but they won't have to be wasting lots of extra cash designing and building the flipping things themselves. Theoretically, the miracles of privatization should mean big money savings. In practice, who knows.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just what we call "tethering"? That is, where your phone acts as a modem for your computer?
I'm not aware of anyone doing it with WiFi as you describe, but I'm fairly sure many phones can do it via BlueTooth. That is to say, they can use their 3G connection to hook up to the internet, and then serve that data via BlueTooth to your laptop. USB cables are an option too.
Assuming the cell mesh had a broad enough coverage, 3G would also be unnecessary- as long as you've got some physical broadband routers signed up to the service too, everyone's mobile phone would only be a finite number of hops from the nearest physical internet connection.
Imagine if this service were partnered with something like FON- a service which allows members to share their internet connections with other members who are out and about. In my town there are hundreds of FON access points; a mobile phone mesh would have no problem hooking up to the nearest ones.
Copying ideas isn't considered shameful, IF you tell people you've done it.
If a scientist reads somebody's paper, it gives him a blinding flash of inspiration and he applies their ideas to his own work, that's fine. But he's expected to credit the original thinker in his study so that people know who came up with what.
Similarly, if a musician wants to use another artist's work in their music then that's fine- but they're expected to ask permission first, and they're expected to credit the original.
If the author in TFA wanted to make a "novel of samples" then that's probably pretty legitimate. But she should have attributed her sources (an introduction / appendix would have done the trick) at the very least. Only admitting to it after you've been caught reeks of just trying to leech other people's work, and making excuses for something you know you shouldn't have done.
What will probably, really happen though: Google will be looked into by the Justice Department for attempting to monopolize the market (which, to be honest, isn't too far off when you consider phone, Chrome OS, email, search, and now the ISP itself would be owned by Google), and the other ISPs will claim that the market is being entered unfairly and litigate instead of innovate. After all, this is the market that wants to tell everyone 25 GB is enough for a month. How could they claim that, while giving users enough bandwidth to exceed that amount in less than 4 minutes? I hope it happens, but with litigation proving to be more powerful that freedom (what if people used this for copyright infringement!?!!! Clearly, there is no other benefit!!...), I cannot really see it happening.
Not that I'm saying you're not completely right, there are a few points to remember.
1) It's not illegal to become a monopoly organically (that is through normal growth and moving into new market areas). There are rules about fast-tracking your way to a monopoly (through buying out competitors for example) and lots and lots of rules about not abusing a monopoly position once you're there. But just naturally growing into a powerful company is not actually against the rules.
2) It's not against the rules to enter a market and beat the incumbents with low prices and superior products. That's sorta how capitalism is supposed to go. Unless they're taking a massive loss for the express purpose of putting rivals out of business (that'd be illegal), there's nothing stopping them setting up their own telecoms network and selling bandwidth at a low price, as long as they're making a profit out of it.
The telecoms market is so impenetrable because it has such a massive initial cost of entry (to lay all those cables or buy radio spectrum). But as long as the new entrant has cash to burn (and Google does) then there's nothing standing in their way.
RTFS?
They want to use it as a test-bed for programmes and services under ultra-high-speed conditions. That's why they're only planning a relatively small roll our (what, less than 1/500 of the US population?).
Move to a country with free healthcare?
Seriously, paying for medicine is so 19th century.
There's a difference between being a monopoly and just being an influential player. There's no law against using your influence, if you're a company of any size- except if you're in a monopoly position.
The fact that Amazon isn't a monopoly should be thoroughly highlighted by the fact that Macmillan beat them on this one- Amazon caved because their competitors were offering better terms. If they were a monopoly, that wouldn't have happened.