Problem with this approach is that there are few if any chemical processes that would not have extremely toxic by-products in rare earths mining. Environmentalists like to claim that they exist, but they usually either simply do not work at all, or have severe caveats attached that environmentalists tend to just ignore because they're not in line with ideology.
Also, when you "put things back in", what exactly do you do when these things seep into ground water and poison the area? I have barely any knowledge on geology, but what I can recall of it, your suggestion is borderline absurd. I do have enough understanding of chemistry to understand that most processes that are used in separating rare earths from ore usually involve things like acids and toxic solutions which end up bonding with ore in ways that make by-products extremely toxic. Which would be extremely stupid to "put back in". Admittedly I could be wrong, as I'm not a geologist.
If you want to put "something else" back in, that means something else needs to be mined for it, and that "something else" needs to be transported and planted. That is pretty much an antithesis of environmental action there. Not to mention that this isn't a solution for the actual problem, the toxic by-products created during refining process.
In many ways, your focus on mining process over refining process shows this very problematic environmentalist behaviour. It's not digging things out of the ground that's the big problem. It's the refining of the ore, the tech process used in it and its by-products that is the problem.
Not just prices. Mining and refining rare earths is exceptionally toxic and polluting process. Like most such processes, it has been largely outsourced to poorer countries, in this case China.
If we REALLY needed rare earths, there's a lot of them across the world. We just don't want the toxicity and pollution that goes with mining these in our back yards.
They may however need wide subnets for some administrative reason. IPs are rarely assigned on single basis inside a large corporate network. Usually they're split in blocks of various sizes which are given to various parts of the corporation.
In this case, corporation probably grew out of the old system at some point, and instead of having to reconfigure everything they just added a public block as a private one on their own intranet. It's not impossible, but it's definitely not the wisest approach.
Most of the modern "intellectual property" related legislation sucks at this point for one simple reason: it went from "give creative people more incentive to be creative" to "how can big conglomerates maximize profits by exploiting both authors and consumers as much as possible".
Because authors and artists get screwed under modern legislation almost as badly as consumers do.
Nokia has been in phone business and phone related software business since the start. One could argue that they started the business in the first place and would be at least partially right.
They most definitely hold at least some patents that came to be before google was formed. And a whole lot more from time after google was formed but before it purchased android.
The problem is how they are choosing to use them. Normally you'd just negociate a licensing agreement and be done with it. But here, they're actually patent trolling. "We don't share the vision and do not want to help". So we sue to block. Ouch.
That's not the way nokia of old got to be on top. Elop and his microsoftism shines through.
And one of the bigger reasons for the massive exits and bankruptcies in the sector that shook it in the last year or two is the fact that fund-strapped Western governments no longer support solar initiatives as much.
Many blame Chinese cheap producers to save face, but Chinese are having the exact same problem.
True, because USA is generally viewed as the centre of Western world.
However I can quote you one pretty clear cut example. Here in Finland, we had arguably the best relationship with USSR of all countries that fell under "Western" umbrella, to the point where USSR classified us as "Finland and Warsaw Pact countries" for its trading policies, all while remaining firmly outside all the political wrangling going between NATO and Warsaw Pact.
In recent parliament election, our Left alliance party (Vasemmistoliitto) leader had to answer in the following way when accused of being a communist by the right wing parties due to his rather extreme political past as a youth: "I'm not a communist, I'm a socialist".
Because everyone here understands that if he got labelled as a communist, even his left wing voters would abandon him. Notably he's a very popular politician. His party is on the left edge of the political spectrum in the parliament.
In most of Western Europe, "communists" are the "extreme leftist crazies who liked USSR". Communism itself is often considered a hostile ideology of the enemy. In most of Eastern Europe, "communists" are "scumbags who helped USSR oppress their country". Of course, much of Eastern Europe isn't generally considered part of the "West". In most of Asia that falls under "Western" umbrella, "communists" are the crazies who had to be suppressed so they didn't start shooting wars. Communism itself is often considered a hostile ideology of the enemy.
There are some exceptions like Greece, but in general that's just the way it works. I still remember how in our latest election here in Finland, leader of the Left party (Vasemmisto) who currently sits in the government as minister of culture had to state that "he's a socialist, not a communist" when right wing parties tried to label him as such. Because even here, country which traditionally had the best relations with USSR of all Western European countries, communism is still viewed as enemy ideology by most people.
Because "communism" is what people commonly associate with "enemy" in much of the Western world.
The actual meaning of the word has been lost long ago in case of general populace, just like other similar politically loaded words such as "freedom", "democracy" and so on.
As of typing this, html5 standard is significantly more "shit" then silverlight or flash. Html is a living standard, with varying degrees of support across various browsers and no end to properly functional and cross-platform version in sight.
Both flash and silverlight are standardised and generally work in the say way across available platforms. They're annoying as hell to some degree due to need to install plug-ins, but at least they work as advertised across pretty much anything that can install the plug-in. Mega.co.nz is a great example, it's html5 implementation is still dysfunctional as fuck and only properly works on latest versions of chrome. Every other browser, yeah you need flash. Because for all the whining, flash actually works.
Finally, I'd rather put up with less DRM then more. Standardising DRM will mean easier implementation of DRM. Which will mean MORE DRM.
Your question basically hinges on the fact that we did not possess understanding of how genes work, or even their existence while we mapped many of species on our planet. Essentially your argument is akin (note: another comparison, do not take this literally either please) saying that blood is generated in liver and consumed by the body, which was the common belief in medical science until very recently.
Same thing happened to definition of species. We used to define them based on how they looked instead of genealogical definition, just like we defined our blood system as "generation and consumption" rather then "circulation". Both changed when better understanding became available.
Problem is that unlike medical science which requires immediate change to our understanding regardless of opposition due to very lethal outcome for many people if such change is not implemented, genealogy like many modern sciences tends to be "up to belief". Some people still believe that earth is flat. Some believe that species should be defined by how they look.
Both claims are absurd, because they are based on prioritising what we can observe with our immediate sensory organs over understanding how the system actually works. It's not different then rejecting concept of blood circulation in favour of blood creation and consumption because we can't easily observe circulation.
On a final note, if species are genealogically significantly different, but can cross-breed and produce viable offspring, the offspring are typically considered a new species. Such species may not be evolutionarily viable as it would not be able to compete with its parent species. As a result, it's likely that there are built-in fail safes in our mating procedures (just like there is a certain natural revulsion to mating with ones parents and brothers/sisters as well as breeding with individuals who look very different in most species) which make such breeding fairly rare.
Start reading the thread from beginning. You went so far off topic, that you ended up concluding that our conclusions on a completely different topic were in fact wrong.
Specifically, we were talking about interbreeding and its results in short (hundreds of generations or so). You're talking about genealogical divergence, which takes many orders of magnitude more generations.
The idea seems to be more of "nvidia shield" style of remote rendering for most cases I think. Your powerful nvidia-based home PC renders the game and you can play it anywhere within your house over ethernet at latencies of 1-2ms.
The GRID solution for a lot of virtual systems could be used in netcafes and big tournaments I suppose. I agree that it's hard to imagine remote gaming at all (not just near future) simply because latency cannot be pushed low enough once you leave the immediate vicinity in terms of network topography.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem with this approach is that there are few if any chemical processes that would not have extremely toxic by-products in rare earths mining. Environmentalists like to claim that they exist, but they usually either simply do not work at all, or have severe caveats attached that environmentalists tend to just ignore because they're not in line with ideology.
Also, when you "put things back in", what exactly do you do when these things seep into ground water and poison the area? I have barely any knowledge on geology, but what I can recall of it, your suggestion is borderline absurd. I do have enough understanding of chemistry to understand that most processes that are used in separating rare earths from ore usually involve things like acids and toxic solutions which end up bonding with ore in ways that make by-products extremely toxic. Which would be extremely stupid to "put back in". Admittedly I could be wrong, as I'm not a geologist.
If you want to put "something else" back in, that means something else needs to be mined for it, and that "something else" needs to be transported and planted. That is pretty much an antithesis of environmental action there. Not to mention that this isn't a solution for the actual problem, the toxic by-products created during refining process.
In many ways, your focus on mining process over refining process shows this very problematic environmentalist behaviour. It's not digging things out of the ground that's the big problem. It's the refining of the ore, the tech process used in it and its by-products that is the problem.
Thank you captain obvious! :D
I'm not the one making these decisions. I'm merely trying to figure out WHY someone would do something describe in the article.
Not just prices. Mining and refining rare earths is exceptionally toxic and polluting process. Like most such processes, it has been largely outsourced to poorer countries, in this case China.
If we REALLY needed rare earths, there's a lot of them across the world. We just don't want the toxicity and pollution that goes with mining these in our back yards.
Well, they mapped non-private addresses to intranet machines. So I think we're past the question "were they doing something wrong" here.
They may however need wide subnets for some administrative reason. IPs are rarely assigned on single basis inside a large corporate network. Usually they're split in blocks of various sizes which are given to various parts of the corporation.
In this case, corporation probably grew out of the old system at some point, and instead of having to reconfigure everything they just added a public block as a private one on their own intranet. It's not impossible, but it's definitely not the wisest approach.
Why, are you into peeping too now?
I'm guessing you also think that women that coyly flirt with other women on internet are all lesbians.
And that you have a very big lesbian porn fetish.
So I won't burst your bubble :D
Most of the modern "intellectual property" related legislation sucks at this point for one simple reason: it went from "give creative people more incentive to be creative" to "how can big conglomerates maximize profits by exploiting both authors and consumers as much as possible".
Because authors and artists get screwed under modern legislation almost as badly as consumers do.
Nokia has been in phone business and phone related software business since the start. One could argue that they started the business in the first place and would be at least partially right.
They most definitely hold at least some patents that came to be before google was formed. And a whole lot more from time after google was formed but before it purchased android.
The problem is how they are choosing to use them. Normally you'd just negociate a licensing agreement and be done with it. But here, they're actually patent trolling. "We don't share the vision and do not want to help". So we sue to block. Ouch.
That's not the way nokia of old got to be on top. Elop and his microsoftism shines through.
Considering the direction of the interest, you're turning the question on its head.
Why, are you interested?
And one of the bigger reasons for the massive exits and bankruptcies in the sector that shook it in the last year or two is the fact that fund-strapped Western governments no longer support solar initiatives as much.
Many blame Chinese cheap producers to save face, but Chinese are having the exact same problem.
"It's better because of this random arbitrary reason that I claim to be all that matters".
Okay. In the real world on the other hand, what matters is that it's widely available and that it works.
True, because USA is generally viewed as the centre of Western world.
However I can quote you one pretty clear cut example. Here in Finland, we had arguably the best relationship with USSR of all countries that fell under "Western" umbrella, to the point where USSR classified us as "Finland and Warsaw Pact countries" for its trading policies, all while remaining firmly outside all the political wrangling going between NATO and Warsaw Pact.
In recent parliament election, our Left alliance party (Vasemmistoliitto) leader had to answer in the following way when accused of being a communist by the right wing parties due to his rather extreme political past as a youth:
"I'm not a communist, I'm a socialist".
Because everyone here understands that if he got labelled as a communist, even his left wing voters would abandon him. Notably he's a very popular politician. His party is on the left edge of the political spectrum in the parliament.
In most of Western Europe, "communists" are the "extreme leftist crazies who liked USSR". Communism itself is often considered a hostile ideology of the enemy.
In most of Eastern Europe, "communists" are "scumbags who helped USSR oppress their country". Of course, much of Eastern Europe isn't generally considered part of the "West".
In most of Asia that falls under "Western" umbrella, "communists" are the crazies who had to be suppressed so they didn't start shooting wars. Communism itself is often considered a hostile ideology of the enemy.
There are some exceptions like Greece, but in general that's just the way it works. I still remember how in our latest election here in Finland, leader of the Left party (Vasemmisto) who currently sits in the government as minister of culture had to state that "he's a socialist, not a communist" when right wing parties tried to label him as such. Because even here, country which traditionally had the best relations with USSR of all Western European countries, communism is still viewed as enemy ideology by most people.
Because "communism" is what people commonly associate with "enemy" in much of the Western world.
The actual meaning of the word has been lost long ago in case of general populace, just like other similar politically loaded words such as "freedom", "democracy" and so on.
As of typing this, html5 standard is significantly more "shit" then silverlight or flash. Html is a living standard, with varying degrees of support across various browsers and no end to properly functional and cross-platform version in sight.
Both flash and silverlight are standardised and generally work in the say way across available platforms. They're annoying as hell to some degree due to need to install plug-ins, but at least they work as advertised across pretty much anything that can install the plug-in. Mega.co.nz is a great example, it's html5 implementation is still dysfunctional as fuck and only properly works on latest versions of chrome. Every other browser, yeah you need flash. Because for all the whining, flash actually works.
Finally, I'd rather put up with less DRM then more. Standardising DRM will mean easier implementation of DRM. Which will mean MORE DRM.
Which is a good thing, because it will mean less DRM due to compatibility issues. Any argument for easier to build DRM is an argument for more DRM.
I'm quite certain that loopholes on servers do not come with welcoming signs. More like he went into the home he had the spare keys to to steal food.
Can we have such return of democracy in the USA next then?
If no, then why? Surely, with such resounding success in Iraq, it would be a perfect solution to problems that USA is facing today!
Your question basically hinges on the fact that we did not possess understanding of how genes work, or even their existence while we mapped many of species on our planet. Essentially your argument is akin (note: another comparison, do not take this literally either please) saying that blood is generated in liver and consumed by the body, which was the common belief in medical science until very recently.
Same thing happened to definition of species. We used to define them based on how they looked instead of genealogical definition, just like we defined our blood system as "generation and consumption" rather then "circulation". Both changed when better understanding became available.
Problem is that unlike medical science which requires immediate change to our understanding regardless of opposition due to very lethal outcome for many people if such change is not implemented, genealogy like many modern sciences tends to be "up to belief". Some people still believe that earth is flat. Some believe that species should be defined by how they look.
Both claims are absurd, because they are based on prioritising what we can observe with our immediate sensory organs over understanding how the system actually works. It's not different then rejecting concept of blood circulation in favour of blood creation and consumption because we can't easily observe circulation.
On a final note, if species are genealogically significantly different, but can cross-breed and produce viable offspring, the offspring are typically considered a new species. Such species may not be evolutionarily viable as it would not be able to compete with its parent species. As a result, it's likely that there are built-in fail safes in our mating procedures (just like there is a certain natural revulsion to mating with ones parents and brothers/sisters as well as breeding with individuals who look very different in most species) which make such breeding fairly rare.
Start reading the thread from beginning. You went so far off topic, that you ended up concluding that our conclusions on a completely different topic were in fact wrong.
Specifically, we were talking about interbreeding and its results in short (hundreds of generations or so). You're talking about genealogical divergence, which takes many orders of magnitude more generations.
Solving social problem through purely technological means is doomed to failure.
I suppose being a "guru" makes one too spiritual to understand that.
The idea seems to be more of "nvidia shield" style of remote rendering for most cases I think. Your powerful nvidia-based home PC renders the game and you can play it anywhere within your house over ethernet at latencies of 1-2ms.
The GRID solution for a lot of virtual systems could be used in netcafes and big tournaments I suppose. I agree that it's hard to imagine remote gaming at all (not just near future) simply because latency cannot be pushed low enough once you leave the immediate vicinity in terms of network topography.