Break it down, though. What is the cost of energy if robots are doing all the work for you?
What are the costs of energy now?
-You pay the construction company for building the plant. (Robots don't need money. They'll build the plant)
-You pay a mining company to mine the raw materials ( Robots will mine them for free. At first you'll still have to pay for the actual materials, but once the materials owners realize there's nowhere to spend their money except on raw materials, they'll give up on the idea)
-You pay your workers to run the power plant. (Robots will run it for free)
The remaining costs of a power plant are incidental and usually related to worker satisfaction - - insurance benefits, paying when a worker gets injured, paying for the company picnic. Well, robots don't need insurance, if it gets broken it either gets fixed by other robots, or junked, and robots don't care about picnics.
In short, the cost of energy WILL be near zero if we ever reach the point where robots are doing all the work.
I suspect that if that ever happens (and remember, we have to manage not to blow ourselves up or in some other way destroy civilization before we get there) money as we know it will be a footnote in history, and creativity or, dare I say it, reputation (whuffie? Perish the thought) will be the currency.
If all you want is a sex slave, that's what the robot is for;) By the time we have machines of the complexity we're discussing here, we'll have humanoid androids. To quip Ol' Yellow Eyes, they'll doubtless be fully functional and programmed in multiple techniques.
Because when we get to the point that the machines can do everything (including design and repair themselves) the free market will cease to exist. Once anyone can have anything he wants just by ordering a machine to make it happen, money will cease to have meaning.
iFans is derogatory now? Since when? My Apple-oriented friends call themselves that all the time.
And I've actually messed with Siri. I was underimpressed. I see the potential, but I certainly didn't see any reason for the rabid "Siri rocks/Android sucks!" crap that I'm seeing. Calling it polished while in the same breath calling Android (which has a voice command input system that does everything Siri does minus talking back to you (yet)) unpolished beta crap is just silly.
I don't think you read the whole thread. My point is that iFans have been slamming Android since it debuted for being unpolished, clunky, etc. The fact that it's in beta, as Google and others have told them, doesn't matter when they're busy denigrating non-Apple products.
And then when Apple released an unpolished, clunky product, they say it's OK that it's not finished because - yep, you guessed it. "It's in beta."
In other words, both Apple and Android are "in beta" (actually, Iris in in alpha) and therefore sitting there defending Apple for being in beta while slamming Android for being in beta is pretty stupid.
The same is going to be true on Windows PCs. If history is an indication, Apple will get there first, and Windows will toddle along behind at some point, and then outstrip Apple.
Considering Apple is pushing Siri but explaining away all it's faults by claiming "uh, well, it's uh. . Still in beta," I'd say your entire post is moot.
Siri is a gimick. It doesn't make the phone any more useful. Neither does Iris. Having a dick-measuring contest between the two is stupid, especially since they BOTH suck right now, and BOTH will presumably get better.
The point is that you don't know it will last til you get home at night, as for most people if you use the actual smartphone features the battery can drain at an alarming rate.
I'd say streaming 6 hours worth of data, in addition to web browsing, etc, is fairly heavy use.
I don't know what magic special battery you're using
I told you. The extended battery made for the Bionic. It's $25 including the new back cover.
but even so that's not an option for iPhone users
I know someone will mod me troll for this, but the solution to that seems obvious.;)
It's a good idea, but she likes those stupid little games from Big Fish etc, and they only run on Windows. There will be no prying her away from those games.
Wouldn't know. It never comes up. I never move files on my Android phone either (except for copying mp3s over from my home collection). On my old Droid I grabbed a file manager from the marketplace, and then deleted it a year later having never used it. I see it's integrated into the OS on my Bionic, but again, I never use it.
"you don't need to be a computer scientist to use a Windows Phone.'"
My mom plays with my android phone when I go visit. She's about the farthest thing from a computer scientist I know. I still occasionally have to remind her how to move a file between directories (on Windows). She finds the android OS to be very intuitive, and would get one herself if she had any need for a smart phone.
Criticizing Android's faults is one thing, but descending into ridiculous hyperbole that no one in his right mind is going to believe is pretty stupid.
I use my Bionic pretty heavily. It's either got streaming radio or streaming scanner traffic (which is really the same thing) going at least 6 hours a day. I also surf, read news sites, play games, etc. It lasts from 8am when I unplug it until I plug it back in, usually at around 30% battery, sometime between 11pm and midnight. The stock battery would require a boost (I usually plugged it into my mouse's USB recharger while at my desk), but the extended battery (all of 25 bucks) pretty much means I'm good to go all day, and about 90% of that is on 4G.
I don't understand people bitching about having to plug the phone in at night. Really? This is a hardship? We have a device that fits in our hand that's more advanced than the portable computers depicted on Star Trek, and we're whining about batteries that only last 15 hours?
And their defense is that the data is anonymous. It's not a privacy violation if no one knows that it's *you* who was looking up the medical stuff.
And of course you can easily opt out.
As to the back door to allow the government to analyze the data without warrants. . Erm. . You know that's already been going on for years, secretly, right?
Verizon is your doctor? HIPPA laws only apply to healthcare providers. Verizon can collect your data as long as they tell you they're doing it and give you the option to tell them to quit.
The other problem with rotary engines is that they're rare and therefore a lot of mechanics don't know how to work on them. In some areas, you're pretty much limited to going to the dealership for service, which is usually a lot more expensive than an independent. So in a nutshell, they might make more power in a smaller space, but they cost more both in mileage and maintenance.
Their big advantage (at least, the big advantage I perceived back in the 80's when I was drooling at the RX-7) is that because the engine can be smaller, the whole car can be lower, because you don't have to have the hood as high as you would to cover an equivalent-power piston engine. That advantage has been negated by all the pedestrian safety laws which require the front end of a car to be high enough that if you hit someone, they won't cartwheel into the windshield. Since the hood has to be that high anyway, you don't get any stylistic advantage from a more compact engine.
Maybe. I know I was getting them about once every couple of weeks until I checked the "I don't want to moderate" box (because I find moderating a forum that encourages anarchical moderation to be a waste of time)
I'm not so concerned about the comments themselves - every form of communication has the inane formula-comments designed to make someone look worthy of whatever happens to be esteemed by that group.
I'm more annoyed that people who do that then get mod points and mod thoughtful, good posts to -1 because they disagree with the post. That's not the purpose of down-modding. There needs to at least be some way to filter out the idiots who make a habit of attacking posts that do not deserve to be attacked.
Yes, but we still have the problem that anyone and everyone can moderate as long as they manage to get enough karma. As has already been discussed, it's pretty formulaic if you want to get modded up. Find the right discussion, and plug in the right "thoughts" and you'll be +5 in no time. So with enough formulaic regurgitation posts under your belt, you start getting mod points, and then it's really a matter of luck whether or not you're worthy of them.
It is possible to have a conventional moderation system in which moderators are picked by the admins for their contributions to the community, and then given guidelines that they are expected to follow, lest they lose their moderator powers. The key is in writing good guidelines and then sticking to them.
Slashdot's system is too anarchical to be reliable. I've been modded down -flamebait for such infractions as saying the Italian justice system has problems. Well, it does have problems. And who am I flamebaiting? Italy? As I said in the survey (and my sigline) "Flamebait" and "Troll" are Slashdotisms for "I don't agree with you," and that was not their intended use.
I don't think so. As you said, the phone should not have been searched. DWI/driving on suspended are not crimes for which you are likely to gather evidence from a cell phone. All the evidence you need is gathered from the DMV and the breath test. So as you said, his phone should not have been searched.
Now that we've established that the courts are fine with searching phones that should not be searched, and that indeed phones are apparently not subject to the requirement that officers obtain a warrant prior to searching a phone, it's really not a stretch at all to conclude that any time a cop pulls you over, he might decide to riffle through your phone. After all, he doesn't need a warrant. The distinction between a custodial arrest and a detention arrest is very small - in fact the only distinction is that in the former you are locked into confinement (cop car / jail cell) and in the latter you are not. Any encounter with a cop where you are not free to leave - such as a traffic stop - is an arrest, and so any search on a traffic stop is also incidental to an arrest.
That's great, but as I said above, this particular court decision shows that the court either is not terribly concerned about precedent, the law, and the Constitution, or that the court does not comprehend the notion that your cell phone and by extension the data on it is your private property. In other words, legal opinions, including correct ones, don't mean squat as far as this court is concerned.
Remember that we are not talking about a reasonable search-on-legitimate-suspicion-of-a-crime here. We're talking about getting stopped for minor traffic infractions and as a result being compelled to turn everything on your phone over to the police for scrutiny. It's rather like being forced to submit to a search of your house because you were caught jaywalking.
Additionally, you would have a hard time convincing the court that you did not know the password to a device that you use multiple times a day, and therefore it could be argued (and again, especially with this particular "Constitution? What Constitution?" court, likely successfully argued) that as it is already common knowledge that you know the password to the device you use multiple times a day, turning over the password is not an admission of that anything, any more than showing up for an interrogation is an admission of your hair color.
And so has warrantless searching of personal property. My point is that the Cali. court doesn't seem to give much of a damn about what is and is not sacrosanct.
Of course with the Legislature passing the mobile phone privacy law, this discussion is all academic, but I don't think so. The Fifth lets you refuse to *testify* against yourself. It does not say anything about letting you refuse to give the government the key to a locked box that they want to legally search (which would be the 18th century analogue to a password-protected phone). Especially in light of the court finding (wrongly, IMO) that phones don't count as far as illegal search and seizure goes, it's highly unlikely that they would find that the 5th means anything at all, much less that it means you can withhold the key.
Slashdot Mirror
Break it down, though. What is the cost of energy if robots are doing all the work for you?
What are the costs of energy now?
-You pay the construction company for building the plant. (Robots don't need money. They'll build the plant)
-You pay a mining company to mine the raw materials ( Robots will mine them for free. At first you'll still have to pay for the actual materials, but once the materials owners realize there's nowhere to spend their money except on raw materials, they'll give up on the idea)
-You pay your workers to run the power plant. (Robots will run it for free)
The remaining costs of a power plant are incidental and usually related to worker satisfaction - - insurance benefits, paying when a worker gets injured, paying for the company picnic. Well, robots don't need insurance, if it gets broken it either gets fixed by other robots, or junked, and robots don't care about picnics.
In short, the cost of energy WILL be near zero if we ever reach the point where robots are doing all the work.
I suspect that if that ever happens (and remember, we have to manage not to blow ourselves up or in some other way destroy civilization before we get there) money as we know it will be a footnote in history, and creativity or, dare I say it, reputation (whuffie? Perish the thought) will be the currency.
If all you want is a sex slave, that's what the robot is for ;) By the time we have machines of the complexity we're discussing here, we'll have humanoid androids. To quip Ol' Yellow Eyes, they'll doubtless be fully functional and programmed in multiple techniques.
Because when we get to the point that the machines can do everything (including design and repair themselves) the free market will cease to exist. Once anyone can have anything he wants just by ordering a machine to make it happen, money will cease to have meaning.
iFans is derogatory now? Since when? My Apple-oriented friends call themselves that all the time.
And I've actually messed with Siri. I was underimpressed. I see the potential, but I certainly didn't see any reason for the rabid "Siri rocks/Android sucks!" crap that I'm seeing. Calling it polished while in the same breath calling Android (which has a voice command input system that does everything Siri does minus talking back to you (yet)) unpolished beta crap is just silly.
I don't think you read the whole thread. My point is that iFans have been slamming Android since it debuted for being unpolished, clunky, etc. The fact that it's in beta, as Google and others have told them, doesn't matter when they're busy denigrating non-Apple products.
And then when Apple released an unpolished, clunky product, they say it's OK that it's not finished because - yep, you guessed it. "It's in beta."
In other words, both Apple and Android are "in beta" (actually, Iris in in alpha) and therefore sitting there defending Apple for being in beta while slamming Android for being in beta is pretty stupid.
I hope you're right.
The same is going to be true on Windows PCs. If history is an indication, Apple will get there first, and Windows will toddle along behind at some point, and then outstrip Apple.
Considering Apple is pushing Siri but explaining away all it's faults by claiming "uh, well, it's uh. . Still in beta," I'd say your entire post is moot.
Siri is a gimick. It doesn't make the phone any more useful. Neither does Iris. Having a dick-measuring contest between the two is stupid, especially since they BOTH suck right now, and BOTH will presumably get better.
The point is that you don't know it will last til you get home at night, as for most people if you use the actual smartphone features the battery can drain at an alarming rate.
I'd say streaming 6 hours worth of data, in addition to web browsing, etc, is fairly heavy use.
I don't know what magic special battery you're using
I told you. The extended battery made for the Bionic. It's $25 including the new back cover.
but even so that's not an option for iPhone users
I know someone will mod me troll for this, but the solution to that seems obvious. ;)
It's a good idea, but she likes those stupid little games from Big Fish etc, and they only run on Windows. There will be no prying her away from those games.
Wouldn't know. It never comes up. I never move files on my Android phone either (except for copying mp3s over from my home collection). On my old Droid I grabbed a file manager from the marketplace, and then deleted it a year later having never used it. I see it's integrated into the OS on my Bionic, but again, I never use it.
"you don't need to be a computer scientist to use a Windows Phone.'"
My mom plays with my android phone when I go visit. She's about the farthest thing from a computer scientist I know. I still occasionally have to remind her how to move a file between directories (on Windows). She finds the android OS to be very intuitive, and would get one herself if she had any need for a smart phone.
Criticizing Android's faults is one thing, but descending into ridiculous hyperbole that no one in his right mind is going to believe is pretty stupid.
I use my Bionic pretty heavily. It's either got streaming radio or streaming scanner traffic (which is really the same thing) going at least 6 hours a day. I also surf, read news sites, play games, etc. It lasts from 8am when I unplug it until I plug it back in, usually at around 30% battery, sometime between 11pm and midnight. The stock battery would require a boost (I usually plugged it into my mouse's USB recharger while at my desk), but the extended battery (all of 25 bucks) pretty much means I'm good to go all day, and about 90% of that is on 4G.
I don't understand people bitching about having to plug the phone in at night. Really? This is a hardship? We have a device that fits in our hand that's more advanced than the portable computers depicted on Star Trek, and we're whining about batteries that only last 15 hours?
Yes.
And their defense is that the data is anonymous. It's not a privacy violation if no one knows that it's *you* who was looking up the medical stuff.
And of course you can easily opt out.
As to the back door to allow the government to analyze the data without warrants. . Erm. . You know that's already been going on for years, secretly, right?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/06/att-whistleblow/
Verizon is your doctor? HIPPA laws only apply to healthcare providers. Verizon can collect your data as long as they tell you they're doing it and give you the option to tell them to quit.
That's a good explanation.
The other problem with rotary engines is that they're rare and therefore a lot of mechanics don't know how to work on them. In some areas, you're pretty much limited to going to the dealership for service, which is usually a lot more expensive than an independent. So in a nutshell, they might make more power in a smaller space, but they cost more both in mileage and maintenance.
Their big advantage (at least, the big advantage I perceived back in the 80's when I was drooling at the RX-7) is that because the engine can be smaller, the whole car can be lower, because you don't have to have the hood as high as you would to cover an equivalent-power piston engine. That advantage has been negated by all the pedestrian safety laws which require the front end of a car to be high enough that if you hit someone, they won't cartwheel into the windshield. Since the hood has to be that high anyway, you don't get any stylistic advantage from a more compact engine.
Maybe. I know I was getting them about once every couple of weeks until I checked the "I don't want to moderate" box (because I find moderating a forum that encourages anarchical moderation to be a waste of time)
I'm not so concerned about the comments themselves - every form of communication has the inane formula-comments designed to make someone look worthy of whatever happens to be esteemed by that group.
I'm more annoyed that people who do that then get mod points and mod thoughtful, good posts to -1 because they disagree with the post. That's not the purpose of down-modding. There needs to at least be some way to filter out the idiots who make a habit of attacking posts that do not deserve to be attacked.
Yes, but we still have the problem that anyone and everyone can moderate as long as they manage to get enough karma. As has already been discussed, it's pretty formulaic if you want to get modded up. Find the right discussion, and plug in the right "thoughts" and you'll be +5 in no time. So with enough formulaic regurgitation posts under your belt, you start getting mod points, and then it's really a matter of luck whether or not you're worthy of them.
It is possible to have a conventional moderation system in which moderators are picked by the admins for their contributions to the community, and then given guidelines that they are expected to follow, lest they lose their moderator powers. The key is in writing good guidelines and then sticking to them.
Slashdot's system is too anarchical to be reliable. I've been modded down -flamebait for such infractions as saying the Italian justice system has problems. Well, it does have problems. And who am I flamebaiting? Italy? As I said in the survey (and my sigline) "Flamebait" and "Troll" are Slashdotisms for "I don't agree with you," and that was not their intended use.
I don't think so. As you said, the phone should not have been searched. DWI/driving on suspended are not crimes for which you are likely to gather evidence from a cell phone. All the evidence you need is gathered from the DMV and the breath test. So as you said, his phone should not have been searched.
Now that we've established that the courts are fine with searching phones that should not be searched, and that indeed phones are apparently not subject to the requirement that officers obtain a warrant prior to searching a phone, it's really not a stretch at all to conclude that any time a cop pulls you over, he might decide to riffle through your phone. After all, he doesn't need a warrant. The distinction between a custodial arrest and a detention arrest is very small - in fact the only distinction is that in the former you are locked into confinement (cop car / jail cell) and in the latter you are not. Any encounter with a cop where you are not free to leave - such as a traffic stop - is an arrest, and so any search on a traffic stop is also incidental to an arrest.
That's great, but as I said above, this particular court decision shows that the court either is not terribly concerned about precedent, the law, and the Constitution, or that the court does not comprehend the notion that your cell phone and by extension the data on it is your private property. In other words, legal opinions, including correct ones, don't mean squat as far as this court is concerned.
Remember that we are not talking about a reasonable search-on-legitimate-suspicion-of-a-crime here. We're talking about getting stopped for minor traffic infractions and as a result being compelled to turn everything on your phone over to the police for scrutiny. It's rather like being forced to submit to a search of your house because you were caught jaywalking.
Additionally, you would have a hard time convincing the court that you did not know the password to a device that you use multiple times a day, and therefore it could be argued (and again, especially with this particular "Constitution? What Constitution?" court, likely successfully argued) that as it is already common knowledge that you know the password to the device you use multiple times a day, turning over the password is not an admission of that anything, any more than showing up for an interrogation is an admission of your hair color.
And so has warrantless searching of personal property. My point is that the Cali. court doesn't seem to give much of a damn about what is and is not sacrosanct.
Of course with the Legislature passing the mobile phone privacy law, this discussion is all academic, but I don't think so. The Fifth lets you refuse to *testify* against yourself. It does not say anything about letting you refuse to give the government the key to a locked box that they want to legally search (which would be the 18th century analogue to a password-protected phone). Especially in light of the court finding (wrongly, IMO) that phones don't count as far as illegal search and seizure goes, it's highly unlikely that they would find that the 5th means anything at all, much less that it means you can withhold the key.
That's a good point, though where I live hardly anyone pays cash anymore. You get a discount if you buy the pass ahead of time.
And you should expect privacy on a public bus that's driving down a public street in public because... ?