While the mission will be run out of a control room in Monaco, a group of engineers will follow the plane around the globe. They have a mobile hangar to house the plane when it is not in the air.
I wonder how big the carbon footprint of the support team is. I bet it is at least a few times as big as the carbon saved by the aircraft.
I bet that every time the plane lands it is plugged into the grid to recharge. Saying "but it will only use solar energy from the grid" is just marketing spin.
All it can do it identify that a person entered at one point followed a certain path and exited at a certain point. It can not identify who that person is. It is useful to see where to place certain items for easier access to popular items. I knew the tinfoil had brigade would get it wrong.
Takeoff and landing are easy to the point where a computer can do it.
That is only done by fixed wing aircraft on ILS runways that guide to aircraft down a predetermined glide slope. It can not be done on most small airports. I also do not think it has ever been done in a helicopter. Flying cars would need to take off and land anywhere.
Lets spend hundreds of dollars on expensive fabric that that may be ruined in the wash instead of using a 49 cent battery, Lol. I guess fabric softener is out of the question.
The fact is, phones should be able to be wiped before travel and having a quick restore option that brings everything back 100% once you're past customs.
Go ahead and do that. You physical phone may still be inspected at the border.
So why should it apply to the physical phone?/quote I am repeating myself. It applies to the physical phone because physical inspection at the border applies to physical devices and not internet connections. Border Services do not deal with internet connection just physical border crossings.
If you had a coded paper letter in your suitcase, they can force you to open the case so they can look at it, but they can't force you to tell them what it means.
Sure the could block all robo-calls but then the next meme would be "FCC blocks political free speech" or "FCC blocks charity campaigns". Blocking robo-calls is easy but robo-calls in themselves are not illegal. Even in do not call lists there are exemptions such as charity/political calls.
Why is it fine to send a private email to your drug dealer while you're standing in line at customs, but as soon as you reach the agent, you have to decrypt the storage you're holding in your hand?
Because it is not the Border Services job to police the internet but it is the Border Services job to inspect all physical object to ensure they comply with the law. Decrypting storage on a device is the same as opening a lock on a case. The fact that the documents are electronic bits as opposed to paper is irrelevant. There is a huge difference between data sent over the internet and data physically stored on a device.
That type of logic is flawed. It basically comes down to "this is worse than that so why bother with that?". It is used in many instances such as comparing murders with traffic violations; Why is that cop pulling me over when he should be out catching murderers? Different departments have different priorities. In this case Border Services has nothing to do with internet traffic but they do have responsibility for who and what come physically across the border. The fact that everything on the internet is not searched has nothing to do with the investigation techniques at the border.
For a computer chess is a matter of tree building and branch trimming. Both are simple well known concepts. Interpreting what is happening in the world is a much more complex process.
That person at the curb doesn't wait for an opportunity to throw himself in front of your car and get killed.
They just accidentally throw himself in front of your car. With cell phones today people are very distracted and do very stupid things. Then there are children and animals who just do stupid things. Then there are other vehicles who might not follow the rules, emergency vehicles, traffic lights, flagmen, road issues, etc. Roads are much more complex by at least a few orders of magnitude than a chess board.
For example, there is a person on the side of the road with his hand up. It could be a friend waving hello or a police officer waving you over. At this point in the Google vehicle all it sees is a mass of moving blocks and can interpret no further.
We are not even sure how the brain interprets the world. So far we know it deals with neural nets but we have yet to get to the fine detail. It is very difficult to emulate something poorly known.
Because it is defaced it will be immediately destroyed upon returning to a central bank. So a bill that could have been re-issued if it had not been defaced is destroyed therefore the lifespan is decreased.
I wish it was that simple. What you describe is lane holding which is already implemented by a number of vehicle manufacturers and is an extremely small part of driving.
Every time a computer gets good at a task once thought to be outside of the realm of AI
Who ever said that?
Chess computers win by computing all the possible outcomes for a large number of moves ahead. The only limiting factor is computer speed. As computers get faster they can follow very similar algorithms aned get much better. At the base chess is not hard if you can calculate far enough in the future. People can not calculate far enough and therefore use other methods to win. By the way, we have had chess computers for 50 years.
The problem with real life is that it is not constrained by simple rules like chess. There are two many variables and too many situations that are non deterministic. For example, if you see a person standing near the curb. What do you think they might do. The prediction is based on many things; age, gender, which way they are facing, what they are doing, etc. They might just stand there or they might dart out into traffic. It is very hard for a computer to make predictions. The same goes for other vehicles.
Then something else will be "impossible" for a computer to do.
I never said impossible; just that driving a vehicle in the real world is very different than winning at chess. Compared to the real world chess is child's play. I don't think it will happen until our computing power increases by a few orders of magnitude. Never is a long time.
By the way, there is a big difference between a computer playing chess and a computer driving a vehicle. When a computer playing chess fails it loses a game. When a computer driving a vehicle fails people can die.
Sorry but chess is a well defined game with simple rules. Playing chess needs excellent memory and fast computation. Computers are very good at that. Driving a vehicle is very different and requires much higher and different intelligence.
Not after a single use. The US $5 note has a lifespan of about 5 years. Cut that in half and you just doubled the cost of having a $5 bill. I was just pointing out how stupid the "you are going to replace it anyway" argument was.
- Reduced lifespan, so what? It is being replaced anyway.
Do you replace your car every time you use it? It is going to be replaced anyway, eventually. By reducing lifespan one is increasing the costs of to the government and wasting my taxes.
It might be rejected in a transaction. Lame, someone else will take it. Its only $5
If it is my last cash and the machine will not accept it that I would quite perturbed.
Source of national pride.
Canadian money has national leaders on it not actors.
Most power sold on the grid is consumed close to where it is produced. You are proposing something completely different. The grid does not carry electricity long distances well.
You are under the impression that, because the grid is connected, no matter where in the grid the electricity is injected it can be consumed somewhere else on the grid. That is patently not true.
The way the cycles tided work electricity production would start low and peak near high and low tide. From the article the installation can only produce electricity 14 hours a day. Much of that 14 hours is not at peak power. Do you think a 50% duty cycle is adequate?
In addition, when supply is high and local demand is low, they could always sell the excess.
In addition, when supply is high and local demand is low, they could always sell the excess.
How does this excess electricity get to non-local consumers? There is significant line loss over long distances and the grid has to have the capacity to carry it.
I never said anything about a conspiracy. All it takes is the one company that is designing and building the installation to hide the real issues and, because it is "green", the installation get built. No conspiracy necessary. When it is discovered that much of the production can not be used due to its uneven nature it is too late.
The main issue with many of these projects is that the people looking at them a too short sighted. Sure producing electricity from tidal is viable. The problem is that integrating large amounts into the grid is problematic. The engineers working on the projects sluff that issue off by saying "the grid will handle it". Well the grid is having enough trouble handing PV and wind generated electricity. Lets throw another variable into the grid balancing act. Engineers on individual production projects just don't care what issues they cause the grid and that is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Use the I am actually doing it to gain FCC priority.
2. Buy up more bandwidth than Spacex needs.
3. Keep others out of industry
4. Profit
or.
Realize that so many satellites are not profitable and blame lack of spectrum as the cause.
While the mission will be run out of a control room in Monaco, a group of engineers will follow the plane around the globe. They have a mobile hangar to house the plane when it is not in the air.
I wonder how big the carbon footprint of the support team is. I bet it is at least a few times as big as the carbon saved by the aircraft.
I bet that every time the plane lands it is plugged into the grid to recharge. Saying "but it will only use solar energy from the grid" is just marketing spin.
The jet stream goes east west. Get high enough and one get a boost in speed.
A system like this could be used to automatically track people who have shoplifted
That would require matching an image with an identity which this system does not do. All it does is track a person not identify them.
All it can do it identify that a person entered at one point followed a certain path and exited at a certain point. It can not identify who that person is. It is useful to see where to place certain items for easier access to popular items. I knew the tinfoil had brigade would get it wrong.
Takeoff and landing are easy to the point where a computer can do it.
That is only done by fixed wing aircraft on ILS runways that guide to aircraft down a predetermined glide slope. It can not be done on most small airports. I also do not think it has ever been done in a helicopter. Flying cars would need to take off and land anywhere.
Lets spend hundreds of dollars on expensive fabric that that may be ruined in the wash instead of using a 49 cent battery, Lol. I guess fabric softener is out of the question.
The fact is, phones should be able to be wiped before travel and having a quick restore option that brings everything back 100% once you're past customs.
Go ahead and do that. You physical phone may still be inspected at the border.
So why should it apply to the physical phone?/quote
I am repeating myself. It applies to the physical phone because physical inspection at the border applies to physical devices and not internet connections. Border Services do not deal with internet connection just physical border crossings.
If you had a coded paper letter in your suitcase, they can force you to open the case so they can look at it, but they can't force you to tell them what it means.
Just a bit different but more accurate.
Electronic bits aren't physical.
They are a physical state on a physical device.
But if you argue that they are, they are encrypted and that's the end of it.
Encrypted data and phone password are different things as well. The issue is the phone password and not a data encryption key.
Sure the could block all robo-calls but then the next meme would be "FCC blocks political free speech" or "FCC blocks charity campaigns". Blocking robo-calls is easy but robo-calls in themselves are not illegal. Even in do not call lists there are exemptions such as charity/political calls.
Why is it fine to send a private email to your drug dealer while you're standing in line at customs, but as soon as you reach the agent, you have to decrypt the storage you're holding in your hand?
Because it is not the Border Services job to police the internet but it is the Border Services job to inspect all physical object to ensure they comply with the law. Decrypting storage on a device is the same as opening a lock on a case. The fact that the documents are electronic bits as opposed to paper is irrelevant. There is a huge difference between data sent over the internet and data physically stored on a device.
That type of logic is flawed. It basically comes down to "this is worse than that so why bother with that?". It is used in many instances such as comparing murders with traffic violations; Why is that cop pulling me over when he should be out catching murderers? Different departments have different priorities. In this case Border Services has nothing to do with internet traffic but they do have responsibility for who and what come physically across the border. The fact that everything on the internet is not searched has nothing to do with the investigation techniques at the border.
For a computer chess is a matter of tree building and branch trimming. Both are simple well known concepts. Interpreting what is happening in the world is a much more complex process.
That person at the curb doesn't wait for an opportunity to throw himself in front of your car and get killed.
They just accidentally throw himself in front of your car. With cell phones today people are very distracted and do very stupid things. Then there are children and animals who just do stupid things. Then there are other vehicles who might not follow the rules, emergency vehicles, traffic lights, flagmen, road issues, etc. Roads are much more complex by at least a few orders of magnitude than a chess board.
For example, there is a person on the side of the road with his hand up. It could be a friend waving hello or a police officer waving you over. At this point in the Google vehicle all it sees is a mass of moving blocks and can interpret no further.
We are not even sure how the brain interprets the world. So far we know it deals with neural nets but we have yet to get to the fine detail. It is very difficult to emulate something poorly known.
How does drawing on a bill reduce it's lifespan?
Because it is defaced it will be immediately destroyed upon returning to a central bank. So a bill that could have been re-issued if it had not been defaced is destroyed therefore the lifespan is decreased.
I wish it was that simple. What you describe is lane holding which is already implemented by a number of vehicle manufacturers and is an extremely small part of driving.
Every time a computer gets good at a task once thought to be outside of the realm of AI
Who ever said that?
Chess computers win by computing all the possible outcomes for a large number of moves ahead. The only limiting factor is computer speed. As computers get faster they can follow very similar algorithms aned get much better. At the base chess is not hard if you can calculate far enough in the future. People can not calculate far enough and therefore use other methods to win. By the way, we have had chess computers for 50 years.
The problem with real life is that it is not constrained by simple rules like chess. There are two many variables and too many situations that are non deterministic. For example, if you see a person standing near the curb. What do you think they might do. The prediction is based on many things; age, gender, which way they are facing, what they are doing, etc. They might just stand there or they might dart out into traffic. It is very hard for a computer to make predictions. The same goes for other vehicles.
Then something else will be "impossible" for a computer to do.
I never said impossible; just that driving a vehicle in the real world is very different than winning at chess. Compared to the real world chess is child's play. I don't think it will happen until our computing power increases by a few orders of magnitude. Never is a long time.
By the way, there is a big difference between a computer playing chess and a computer driving a vehicle. When a computer playing chess fails it loses a game. When a computer driving a vehicle fails people can die.
Sorry but chess is a well defined game with simple rules. Playing chess needs excellent memory and fast computation. Computers are very good at that. Driving a vehicle is very different and requires much higher and different intelligence.
Not after a single use. The US $5 note has a lifespan of about 5 years. Cut that in half and you just doubled the cost of having a $5 bill. I was just pointing out how stupid the "you are going to replace it anyway" argument was.
- Reduced lifespan, so what? It is being replaced anyway.
Do you replace your car every time you use it? It is going to be replaced anyway, eventually. By reducing lifespan one is increasing the costs of to the government and wasting my taxes.
It might be rejected in a transaction. Lame, someone else will take it. Its only $5
If it is my last cash and the machine will not accept it that I would quite perturbed.
Source of national pride.
Canadian money has national leaders on it not actors.
Not sure I see the harm.
Try to use a "Spocked" bill in a machine. There is a high probability that it will not work.
Most power sold on the grid is consumed close to where it is produced. You are proposing something completely different. The grid does not carry electricity long distances well.
You are under the impression that, because the grid is connected, no matter where in the grid the electricity is injected it can be consumed somewhere else on the grid. That is patently not true.
The way the cycles tided work electricity production would start low and peak near high and low tide. From the article the installation can only produce electricity 14 hours a day. Much of that 14 hours is not at peak power. Do you think a 50% duty cycle is adequate?
In addition, when supply is high and local demand is low, they could always sell the excess.
In addition, when supply is high and local demand is low, they could always sell the excess.
How does this excess electricity get to non-local consumers? There is significant line loss over long distances and the grid has to have the capacity to carry it.
I never said anything about a conspiracy. All it takes is the one company that is designing and building the installation to hide the real issues and, because it is "green", the installation get built. No conspiracy necessary. When it is discovered that much of the production can not be used due to its uneven nature it is too late.
The main issue with many of these projects is that the people looking at them a too short sighted. Sure producing electricity from tidal is viable. The problem is that integrating large amounts into the grid is problematic. The engineers working on the projects sluff that issue off by saying "the grid will handle it". Well the grid is having enough trouble handing PV and wind generated electricity. Lets throw another variable into the grid balancing act. Engineers on individual production projects just don't care what issues they cause the grid and that is a problem.