Sorry, you must be off.. it was $1000 (10000 NOK here) and I decided waiting years for a promised car was insane and cancelled. And I did get 10000 NOK back, maybe they earned a few bucks on interest but it wasn't much.
It's probably good to keep the spec a bit in front of what's realistic though.
So like IPv4 32bit addressing space then?
Actually IPv4 had kinda the opposite problem, they were so far ahead of the curve that nobody designed a good system to expand. I mean if somebody had started with 2^16 or 2^24 it would obviously have been too small and we'd have gone through several iterations or added some variable length encoding or something. But 2^32 bit is 4.3 billion set in 1981 when the world population was 4.5 billion and the IBM PC was first launched, just the idea that one person would have their own computer was in its infancy. And even then it looked like pretty much everyone in the whole world could have an IP, so the number was "ridiculous". It was really just picked because 2^16 = 65536 seemed low and four bytes was the next logical doubling.
Fast forward to 2018 and we're 7.6 billion - okay that was predictable, billions of people are actually online through mobile phones - that was eventually reasonable but it was hard to predict that poor people could afford or want a "PC" so soon - but we also need many IPs per person. Like home computer, work computer, smartphone, smart-TV, NAS, VMs, IoT and so on. I don't think anyone saw that one coming back in 1981, but the result is that 4 billion is actually way too little. We saw it around the dotcom boom, made IPv6 and the remaining problem is not the standard but adoption. If it's even a problem,/. had this big death watch countdown but it didn't implode when it ran out or anything.
I would just like to see prices fall on SSDs to the same level as regular hard drives. SSDs are still kind of expensive.
Depends on whether your glass is half full or half empty, SSDs are way cheaper than HDDs a few decades ago. I'm thinking if we could magically make SSDs 10x cheaper, why not HDDs too? Then instead of 512GB SSDs and 4TB HDDs we could have 4TB SSDs and 32TB HDDs. I mean there's always a market for cheap bulk storage as long as there's significant savings. It's pretty much perfect for a video library with 99% sequential access, putting it on an SSD doesn't really add any value at all.
That's like saying with 64-bit computers we'd get 16 exabyte (that's 2^32 * 4GB) of RAM. Sure there's addressing space but it won't happen now and quite possibly never. It's probably good to keep the spec a bit in front of what's realistic though.
Next question - how often do people use LOL without actually laughing out loud? I'd say about 99.99% of the time... today you'll probably have to upgrade to a ROTFLMAO just to get people to think you actually laughed and "OMG OMG stop I'm dying of laughter here" to signal a good one.
That information is not intended to be present. It would come from external context.
Well that's what language is all about, I can understand what you wrote because we have a common understanding of English. And that extends to expressions, euphemisms, allegories, slang, sarcastic and ironic usage that can't be taken literally or deconstructed into simpler terms. If "I had spaghetti and meatballs for dinner" means you ate them and that's the meaning most everybody agree on then you can quibble all you want about "to have" not implying "to eat", but that's just your opinion of how it should work. The meaning is conveyed by the sender, while dictionaries and grammar have a normative effect the real meaning is defined by everyone using it. Or TL;DR - if I spank the monkey, it's not corporal punishment of a primate. But I guess you'd need some external context to figure that out.
The current vehicles are totally unsuited for regular air travel, but I could certainly imagine a "ballistic" transport that would take you anywhere on Earth in less than 90 minutes*.
* (Of course, you still have two hours of getting through check-in security at the airport, and an hour getting through customs...)
Also rockets inevitably make sonic booms where they take off and land as they need to clear the atmosphere, they can't fly subsonic until they clear populated areas like the Concorde did. For the F9/FH the boom is 5.3/7.4 miles in radius @ 100 dBA which probably means restrictions on housing for >10 miles around a rocket base, probably 25 miles or more from the city center. So you can add travel time for that back and forth too. The bigger practical issue though is where you'd find that big a deserted area anywhere near any major metropolis. So maybe you could get a ride from Vandenberg to Cape Canaveral, but I don't see you taking a rocket out of New York or San Francisco.
I think SpaceX has got the reliability but why would they want that business? They seem to have a pretty full manifest and nobody's going to remember the JWST for the low launch cost. So worst case it blows up and SpaceX gets the blame for setting astronomy back a decade. Best case they get a few bucks and a passing grade. And it's trivial to spin as a "money is no object" launch where they just didn't care what was the most cost-effective option. I mean they got national security payloads and are in the process of becoming man-rated, they don't need any poster child missions. And to be cruel if someone else's rocket fails it could be a fatal blow to a higher priced competitor, like what are we really paying for. So if I was SpaceX I'd feign interest but make sure not to win the bid...
Why not both? It certainly isn't "pointless" to want to expand the human condition and strive to create a backup for earth and all life as we know it. (...) starting with Mars.
It's easy to confuse presence with progress though. It's been 45 years since a man walked on the moon but science and technology has not been standing still, would we have been better off if the US had kept pouring billions and billions of dollars into Saturn Vs instead? Maybe, but maybe those resources were also well spent here on Earth. I mean a working backup that could exist fully independent of Earth is probably centuries away and it's not immediately obvious that time will solve anything. I mean you've had McMurdo in Antarctica for 60 years but it's not like they make it more habitable, a Mars outpost would be the same unless you found some kind of terraforming project they could do. Of course maybe a research outpost would be nice too, but it's not like one automatically leads to the other.
None is better than the other, they simply spend their money on whatever floats their boat.
Yeah, though I feel like a lot of people let their wallet dictate how fancy it gets rather than whether it actually gives them more pleasure, as if spending the money was the ends and not the means. I could afford to go to a Michelin star restaurant, but honestly I'd be just as happy at a good steakhouse or eating spicy Thai food. Just because I'm currently running a surplus doesn't mean I have to find a way to spend more money. It's nice to have the freedom if I want it and I realize there's like a base cost to have a particular hobby or interest, but I really don't get the people who grossly overshoot on equipment, accessories and support elements when they're clearly just run-of-the-mill amateurs. Or just intensity/attitude, like even though I'm way, way down in the global ranking lists they act like going from 12543436th to 12564343th in the world is a matter of life and death. I can understand if you're a pro eSports player, but if not... chill.
Isn't Tor supposed to be still uncrackable? And if not, can't the resistance use the Telegram app, which so far has held up against the Iranian religious police?
Uncrackable != unblockable, just >/dev/null the traffic. Of course to be effective you have to ban all general traffic redirects like proxies, VPNs, TOR etc. but if you're a censoring nation you'll claim that's a good thing protecting the people from all the nasty stuff on the outside. Same way quasi-fascists think implementing a real name policy everywhere is good for open debate.
I worked 55-60 hours a week for most of a year, mainly due to two senior people leaving with a month's difference and a third knocked his head pretty bad leaving me and a few juniors to sort it out. That was as an IT consultant though so I had a billing bonus that gave me pretty good kickback. If I recall correctly it kicked in at about 2/3rd = 67% billable time and the company average was 75-80% somewhere, so your average consultant would get bonus for like 10% while I could hit 50%+. Normally they wouldn't have let anyone rack up that many bonus hours but they were desperate to deliver so they paid me well to get out of a tight spot.
Why does this conjure up images of hordes of inhumanely fast robots swarming cities and taking out citizens and soldiers with ease... How long until there forms an upperclass completely immune to revolution or the conscience of its human military?
I think that's quite a ways off. But to Godwin the question, how many hardcore Nazis did it take to run Nazi Germany? Yesterday it might have taken 50% or 10% of the population to support you. Tomorrow it could be 1% or 0.1% because they keep tabs on everyone else.
You seem to think Big Business and Big Government won't get in bed together voluntarily... I bet AT&T has gotten plenty out of this in kickbacks and recommendations for national security projects. Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex between the military and the defense industry but there's an equally obvious one between the intelligence/surveillance branches and the telecom industry.
When children play role-playing games, they aren't learning about real life. Most children don't have fully competent parents, apparently. So there is no one to teach them.
You could say the exact same thing about TV, most series and shows aren't exactly realistic and deadbeat parents certainly isn't new so I don't see how this generation is worse off than the last. If you're gaming you're at least thinking a bit for yourself rather than mindlessly watching a show, so I think you're slightly better off than before even though playing Overwatch isn't exactly important life skills. The problem is more that through modern gaming metrics it's a finely tuned addiction machine with levels, gear, achievements, daily challenges, special events, loot boxes, XP bonuses and various tricks to poke and prod you into playing more. And now I'm old enough to see through it that I'm being manipulated, but not at 15 and probably not in my 20s either. One more round, one more level, one more trinket. We are kinda simple beings though when they tickle the brain's reward centers.
Google Chrome is said to have made it easy for an extension to do total snooping on the user's browsing, and many of them do so. Chrome includes a module that activates microphones and transmits audio to its servers, and Chrome contains a key logger that sends Google every URL typed in, one key at a time. Google Chrome does a good job securing access to a user's data without telling the user what's really going on or giving the user a chance to stop the behavior they likely don't agree with.
You're nuts. The first was a bug that a malicious hacker could use to make Chrome think an extension is corrupted and is long closed. The second is an opt-in extension to enable voice search that was downloaded but never enabled by default. And the third is just Google's autocomplete, which it obviously can't do unless it sends partially typed addresses to Google. Maybe it's not behavior you want - in which case it's possible to disable from the UI - but it's easy to see the moment you type something. If anybody thinks those suggestions appear by magic then it's a PEBCAK problem. Basically you're the kind of tin foil hatter who makes people think they should stay away from Firefox and crazy town.
You do realize that the desktop market is much smaller than the laptop market right? And unless your laptop has a TB3 port and you're using it with a docking station, RAID enclosure or something similar that actually speaks PCIe then nobody cares what goes on internally. Users just care that the external ports work, primarily the screen (HDMI/DP) and all things USB. Heck many business desktops probably don't have a single expansion card either and the AIOs are usually laptops in drag. If I'm generous I'd say max 1/3rd of the PC market cares. And if you made a GPU-specific port again I doubt more than a few percent care about the rest.
So aside from the fact your idea probably just won't work, is incredibly expensive to build and maintain, and we already have vast amounts of nuclear weapons already built that are way more efficient in terms of energy deliverable, your idea isn't a bad one. I give you full points for a creative solution to the problem.
I think he missed the fact that we don't have any process to create fuel on the moon so we have to ship it from Earth. TLI -> LLO: 0.82 km/s, LLO -> moon: 1.87 km/s and the same in reverse to launch and break orbit, if you plug 2.69 km/s into the rocket equation you get ~50% fuel. So you can send 4 kg fuel, land 2 kg of it and use that to launch 1 kg Lunar dirt. But it would make a lot more sense to just launch 4 kg Earth dirt.
If Musk realizes the BFR with full refueling it's pretty much the perfect asteroid defense, it should fit 5x Tsar Bomba and have roughly a 500MT yield while having the delta-v to actually deliver it. Maybe even more with a modern design, that one was just a rush job of many smaller bomb designs going off at once. Of course the power of 500 * 10^9 kg TNT isn't much against a dino killer estimated at 10^15 kg. That's one kilo of TNT to 2000 kg of rock, but should be enough to give it a nudge.
Let's say a company has 1 PB of data they need to store. Depending on the type of storage they need, that will cost between $25,000 and $125,000 per month. A 1% reduction in that cost could save them over $1000 per month, which is definitely meaningful.
Except 1PB is a lot of data. Walmart for example have 40 PB in their data cloud, so they could save ~$40,000 on a $500,000,000,000 business. CERN has 200 PB so that'd save ~$200,000 compared to the $9,000,000,000 budget of the LHC. It's a rounding error and I think if you're working with that kind of data you've already worked on much more specific ways to compress it that won't leave much value in a general compression algorithm. Like Google working on a new video compression algorithm for YouTube makes sense. But there's little point in making yet another compression format for 1%, unless it's transparent like in a LTO tape drive or something.
Are they going to let SpaceX make the payload adapter this time? The Northrop Grumman one on Zuma resulted in mission failure.
Does it really matter? Somebody else is building the satellite, if that doesn't work the mission is a failure too. So it's just shifting responsibility a bit from "We got you to the intended orbit, the rest is up to you" to "We got you to the intended orbit and detached the payload, the rest is up to you". As long as SpaceX is performing whatever part of the job they should be doing they'll get more business, I don't think they care who makes the adapter. Even though it was a classified mission blame was pretty quickly placed where it belonged. Of course SpaceX will need to have an adapter/launcher for all launches including Dragon and Starlink so maybe it's good business to use theirs, but to them it must be like somebody wanting custom tires on the car. Sure go ahead just don't blame us if you get a flat tire.
It looked good enough when it works but I really wonder what the prep/clean/maintenance work will be. And how much downtime you'll have because when the machine isn't working it doesn't look like humans can fill in easily. But hey, it's cool that they're finally moving out of prototyping and actually opening up a restaurant. Though I have a feeling that if it's a success you'll see McD and BK rolling out their own system soon, it looks a bit easy to copy and I doubt there's much you can patent there.
Back in the 90s, hundreds of Sun Microsystems were caught by this trap in which they exercised stock at their low "purchase price" of say $10/share while its fair market value was an order of magnitude greater. The taxes they owed on pieces of paper became the fair market price at time of exercise minus exercise price * number of shares. Then quite suddenly the stock crashed, the IRS came for their taxes the following April, and people who had briefly been theoretical millionaires were instead taxed like millionaires but in fact held nothing of value.
1) If you know the tax bill is coming at least sell enough to pay it off while you're still a "theoretical millionaire" even if you want to speculate on the rest. 2) They could have bailed out any time in the same year and have an equally big deductible loss.
I'll admit that once you put yourself in that hole though you got a problem. The IRS will want money on your imaginary profit and you can't effectively use your unrealized loss to cover it.
I think you're very confused and failing some basic economics. If you do $10 worth of work you can pay 10% income tax = $1 and have $9 to buy the product or you can buy the product for $10 and pay 10% sales tax = $1 it works out exactly the same. The only difference comes from having different tax brackets, deductibles, capital gains and import/export. Assuming the government want the same total tax income the first three are easy to deduce, if you pay above average tax you want more sales tax, if you pay below average you want less as the sales tax is a flat percentage for all. As for the last the ideal would obviously to work in a state with no income tax and buy your stuff in a state with no sales tax, so all other things being equal one encourages employment and the other consumption and tourism. Though trade leaks will typically force an alignment so that it's not worth it to most people most of the time.
There was no evil AI here. It was that firing a contractor was marked as opt-in instead of opt-out. This was obviously a poor choice.
No it isn't. There are no obvious clues or warning flags that people who shouldn't have access to the system still have access. People who should have access but don't have it complain, the only WTF here is that this took weeks to sort out and not a few hours. I mean if you're a contractor and suddenly locked out of the system my first suspicion would be a missing renewal. This is the part where it starts getting crazy:
His boss was confused but helpless as Mr Diallo recalls: "I was fired. There was nothing my manager could do about it. There was nothing the director could do about it. (...) From time-to-time, they would attach a system email. "It was soulless and written in red as it gave orders that dictated my fate. Disable this, disable that, revoke access here, revoke access there, escort out of premises, etc.
It looks like they built a system that would give orders but completely fail to record who and why the order was given. I mean if somewhere it had said "Source: Contract management system. Cause: Expired contract (automatic)" this would probably have been resolved in no time. There's lots of bad automation like that, you can see the result but it's impossible to work yourself back to the rules and input that caused the result. The requirements are only written forward-looking, when a person is terminated you should send notices here and there and revoke permissions and so on. Tracing bad input back to the source isn't an issue until shit hits the fan.
You people are having all your very personal data scraped, surveiled, logged, analyzed, categorized, profiled, and sold to whoever can pay Zuckerberg for it, and on top of that you're going to pay for access to parts of Facebook?
You're looking at it wrong. Facebook is giving "everyone" the chance to set up their own little pay-walled content. If you're the NYT you can set up your own site and your own paywall, but it's a pretty big leap for your typical Facebook group owner. It's expenses you can't recover if your premium content out to not be very popular. And you don't get Facebook's group functionality out of the box either. If you're a content creator it looks like a pretty sweet deal, Facebook is giving away a lot for "free". Their reasons are obvious. The users? I think they could get access to a "long tail" of niche content that wouldn't otherwise be made. Of course it'd only be for Facebook members, which could be really bad if you don't want to be one and this catches on. But I guess that describes Facebook in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you must be off.. it was $1000 (10000 NOK here) and I decided waiting years for a promised car was insane and cancelled. And I did get 10000 NOK back, maybe they earned a few bucks on interest but it wasn't much.
It's probably good to keep the spec a bit in front of what's realistic though.
So like IPv4 32bit addressing space then?
Actually IPv4 had kinda the opposite problem, they were so far ahead of the curve that nobody designed a good system to expand. I mean if somebody had started with 2^16 or 2^24 it would obviously have been too small and we'd have gone through several iterations or added some variable length encoding or something. But 2^32 bit is 4.3 billion set in 1981 when the world population was 4.5 billion and the IBM PC was first launched, just the idea that one person would have their own computer was in its infancy. And even then it looked like pretty much everyone in the whole world could have an IP, so the number was "ridiculous". It was really just picked because 2^16 = 65536 seemed low and four bytes was the next logical doubling.
Fast forward to 2018 and we're 7.6 billion - okay that was predictable, billions of people are actually online through mobile phones - that was eventually reasonable but it was hard to predict that poor people could afford or want a "PC" so soon - but we also need many IPs per person. Like home computer, work computer, smartphone, smart-TV, NAS, VMs, IoT and so on. I don't think anyone saw that one coming back in 1981, but the result is that 4 billion is actually way too little. We saw it around the dotcom boom, made IPv6 and the remaining problem is not the standard but adoption. If it's even a problem, /. had this big death watch countdown but it didn't implode when it ran out or anything.
I would just like to see prices fall on SSDs to the same level as regular hard drives. SSDs are still kind of expensive.
Depends on whether your glass is half full or half empty, SSDs are way cheaper than HDDs a few decades ago. I'm thinking if we could magically make SSDs 10x cheaper, why not HDDs too? Then instead of 512GB SSDs and 4TB HDDs we could have 4TB SSDs and 32TB HDDs. I mean there's always a market for cheap bulk storage as long as there's significant savings. It's pretty much perfect for a video library with 99% sequential access, putting it on an SSD doesn't really add any value at all.
That's like saying with 64-bit computers we'd get 16 exabyte (that's 2^32 * 4GB) of RAM. Sure there's addressing space but it won't happen now and quite possibly never. It's probably good to keep the spec a bit in front of what's realistic though.
LOL!!!
Next question - how often do people use LOL without actually laughing out loud? I'd say about 99.99% of the time... today you'll probably have to upgrade to a ROTFLMAO just to get people to think you actually laughed and "OMG OMG stop I'm dying of laughter here" to signal a good one.
That information is not intended to be present. It would come from external context.
Well that's what language is all about, I can understand what you wrote because we have a common understanding of English. And that extends to expressions, euphemisms, allegories, slang, sarcastic and ironic usage that can't be taken literally or deconstructed into simpler terms. If "I had spaghetti and meatballs for dinner" means you ate them and that's the meaning most everybody agree on then you can quibble all you want about "to have" not implying "to eat", but that's just your opinion of how it should work. The meaning is conveyed by the sender, while dictionaries and grammar have a normative effect the real meaning is defined by everyone using it. Or TL;DR - if I spank the monkey, it's not corporal punishment of a primate. But I guess you'd need some external context to figure that out.
The current vehicles are totally unsuited for regular air travel, but I could certainly imagine a "ballistic" transport that would take you anywhere on Earth in less than 90 minutes*.
* (Of course, you still have two hours of getting through check-in security at the airport, and an hour getting through customs...)
Also rockets inevitably make sonic booms where they take off and land as they need to clear the atmosphere, they can't fly subsonic until they clear populated areas like the Concorde did. For the F9/FH the boom is 5.3/7.4 miles in radius @ 100 dBA which probably means restrictions on housing for >10 miles around a rocket base, probably 25 miles or more from the city center. So you can add travel time for that back and forth too. The bigger practical issue though is where you'd find that big a deserted area anywhere near any major metropolis. So maybe you could get a ride from Vandenberg to Cape Canaveral, but I don't see you taking a rocket out of New York or San Francisco.
I think SpaceX has got the reliability but why would they want that business? They seem to have a pretty full manifest and nobody's going to remember the JWST for the low launch cost. So worst case it blows up and SpaceX gets the blame for setting astronomy back a decade. Best case they get a few bucks and a passing grade. And it's trivial to spin as a "money is no object" launch where they just didn't care what was the most cost-effective option. I mean they got national security payloads and are in the process of becoming man-rated, they don't need any poster child missions. And to be cruel if someone else's rocket fails it could be a fatal blow to a higher priced competitor, like what are we really paying for. So if I was SpaceX I'd feign interest but make sure not to win the bid...
Why not both? It certainly isn't "pointless" to want to expand the human condition and strive to create a backup for earth and all life as we know it. (...) starting with Mars.
It's easy to confuse presence with progress though. It's been 45 years since a man walked on the moon but science and technology has not been standing still, would we have been better off if the US had kept pouring billions and billions of dollars into Saturn Vs instead? Maybe, but maybe those resources were also well spent here on Earth. I mean a working backup that could exist fully independent of Earth is probably centuries away and it's not immediately obvious that time will solve anything. I mean you've had McMurdo in Antarctica for 60 years but it's not like they make it more habitable, a Mars outpost would be the same unless you found some kind of terraforming project they could do. Of course maybe a research outpost would be nice too, but it's not like one automatically leads to the other.
None is better than the other, they simply spend their money on whatever floats their boat.
Yeah, though I feel like a lot of people let their wallet dictate how fancy it gets rather than whether it actually gives them more pleasure, as if spending the money was the ends and not the means. I could afford to go to a Michelin star restaurant, but honestly I'd be just as happy at a good steakhouse or eating spicy Thai food. Just because I'm currently running a surplus doesn't mean I have to find a way to spend more money. It's nice to have the freedom if I want it and I realize there's like a base cost to have a particular hobby or interest, but I really don't get the people who grossly overshoot on equipment, accessories and support elements when they're clearly just run-of-the-mill amateurs. Or just intensity/attitude, like even though I'm way, way down in the global ranking lists they act like going from 12543436th to 12564343th in the world is a matter of life and death. I can understand if you're a pro eSports player, but if not... chill.
Isn't Tor supposed to be still uncrackable? And if not, can't the resistance use the Telegram app, which so far has held up against the Iranian religious police?
Uncrackable != unblockable, just > /dev/null the traffic. Of course to be effective you have to ban all general traffic redirects like proxies, VPNs, TOR etc. but if you're a censoring nation you'll claim that's a good thing protecting the people from all the nasty stuff on the outside. Same way quasi-fascists think implementing a real name policy everywhere is good for open debate.
I worked 55-60 hours a week for most of a year, mainly due to two senior people leaving with a month's difference and a third knocked his head pretty bad leaving me and a few juniors to sort it out. That was as an IT consultant though so I had a billing bonus that gave me pretty good kickback. If I recall correctly it kicked in at about 2/3rd = 67% billable time and the company average was 75-80% somewhere, so your average consultant would get bonus for like 10% while I could hit 50%+. Normally they wouldn't have let anyone rack up that many bonus hours but they were desperate to deliver so they paid me well to get out of a tight spot.
Why does this conjure up images of hordes of inhumanely fast robots swarming cities and taking out citizens and soldiers with ease... How long until there forms an upperclass completely immune to revolution or the conscience of its human military?
I think that's quite a ways off. But to Godwin the question, how many hardcore Nazis did it take to run Nazi Germany? Yesterday it might have taken 50% or 10% of the population to support you. Tomorrow it could be 1% or 0.1% because they keep tabs on everyone else.
Translation: AT&T is the NSA bitch...
You seem to think Big Business and Big Government won't get in bed together voluntarily... I bet AT&T has gotten plenty out of this in kickbacks and recommendations for national security projects. Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex between the military and the defense industry but there's an equally obvious one between the intelligence/surveillance branches and the telecom industry.
When children play role-playing games, they aren't learning about real life. Most children don't have fully competent parents, apparently. So there is no one to teach them.
You could say the exact same thing about TV, most series and shows aren't exactly realistic and deadbeat parents certainly isn't new so I don't see how this generation is worse off than the last. If you're gaming you're at least thinking a bit for yourself rather than mindlessly watching a show, so I think you're slightly better off than before even though playing Overwatch isn't exactly important life skills. The problem is more that through modern gaming metrics it's a finely tuned addiction machine with levels, gear, achievements, daily challenges, special events, loot boxes, XP bonuses and various tricks to poke and prod you into playing more. And now I'm old enough to see through it that I'm being manipulated, but not at 15 and probably not in my 20s either. One more round, one more level, one more trinket. We are kinda simple beings though when they tickle the brain's reward centers.
Google Chrome is said to have made it easy for an extension to do total snooping on the user's browsing, and many of them do so. Chrome includes a module that activates microphones and transmits audio to its servers, and Chrome contains a key logger that sends Google every URL typed in, one key at a time. Google Chrome does a good job securing access to a user's data without telling the user what's really going on or giving the user a chance to stop the behavior they likely don't agree with.
You're nuts. The first was a bug that a malicious hacker could use to make Chrome think an extension is corrupted and is long closed. The second is an opt-in extension to enable voice search that was downloaded but never enabled by default. And the third is just Google's autocomplete, which it obviously can't do unless it sends partially typed addresses to Google. Maybe it's not behavior you want - in which case it's possible to disable from the UI - but it's easy to see the moment you type something. If anybody thinks those suggestions appear by magic then it's a PEBCAK problem. Basically you're the kind of tin foil hatter who makes people think they should stay away from Firefox and crazy town.
You do realize that the desktop market is much smaller than the laptop market right? And unless your laptop has a TB3 port and you're using it with a docking station, RAID enclosure or something similar that actually speaks PCIe then nobody cares what goes on internally. Users just care that the external ports work, primarily the screen (HDMI/DP) and all things USB. Heck many business desktops probably don't have a single expansion card either and the AIOs are usually laptops in drag. If I'm generous I'd say max 1/3rd of the PC market cares. And if you made a GPU-specific port again I doubt more than a few percent care about the rest.
So aside from the fact your idea probably just won't work, is incredibly expensive to build and maintain, and we already have vast amounts of nuclear weapons already built that are way more efficient in terms of energy deliverable, your idea isn't a bad one. I give you full points for a creative solution to the problem.
I think he missed the fact that we don't have any process to create fuel on the moon so we have to ship it from Earth. TLI -> LLO: 0.82 km/s, LLO -> moon: 1.87 km/s and the same in reverse to launch and break orbit, if you plug 2.69 km/s into the rocket equation you get ~50% fuel. So you can send 4 kg fuel, land 2 kg of it and use that to launch 1 kg Lunar dirt. But it would make a lot more sense to just launch 4 kg Earth dirt.
If Musk realizes the BFR with full refueling it's pretty much the perfect asteroid defense, it should fit 5x Tsar Bomba and have roughly a 500MT yield while having the delta-v to actually deliver it. Maybe even more with a modern design, that one was just a rush job of many smaller bomb designs going off at once. Of course the power of 500 * 10^9 kg TNT isn't much against a dino killer estimated at 10^15 kg. That's one kilo of TNT to 2000 kg of rock, but should be enough to give it a nudge.
Let's say a company has 1 PB of data they need to store. Depending on the type of storage they need, that will cost between $25,000 and $125,000 per month. A 1% reduction in that cost could save them over $1000 per month, which is definitely meaningful.
Except 1PB is a lot of data. Walmart for example have 40 PB in their data cloud, so they could save ~$40,000 on a $500,000,000,000 business. CERN has 200 PB so that'd save ~$200,000 compared to the $9,000,000,000 budget of the LHC. It's a rounding error and I think if you're working with that kind of data you've already worked on much more specific ways to compress it that won't leave much value in a general compression algorithm. Like Google working on a new video compression algorithm for YouTube makes sense. But there's little point in making yet another compression format for 1%, unless it's transparent like in a LTO tape drive or something.
Are they going to let SpaceX make the payload adapter this time? The Northrop Grumman one on Zuma resulted in mission failure.
Does it really matter? Somebody else is building the satellite, if that doesn't work the mission is a failure too. So it's just shifting responsibility a bit from "We got you to the intended orbit, the rest is up to you" to "We got you to the intended orbit and detached the payload, the rest is up to you". As long as SpaceX is performing whatever part of the job they should be doing they'll get more business, I don't think they care who makes the adapter. Even though it was a classified mission blame was pretty quickly placed where it belonged. Of course SpaceX will need to have an adapter/launcher for all launches including Dragon and Starlink so maybe it's good business to use theirs, but to them it must be like somebody wanting custom tires on the car. Sure go ahead just don't blame us if you get a flat tire.
It looked good enough when it works but I really wonder what the prep/clean/maintenance work will be. And how much downtime you'll have because when the machine isn't working it doesn't look like humans can fill in easily. But hey, it's cool that they're finally moving out of prototyping and actually opening up a restaurant. Though I have a feeling that if it's a success you'll see McD and BK rolling out their own system soon, it looks a bit easy to copy and I doubt there's much you can patent there.
Back in the 90s, hundreds of Sun Microsystems were caught by this trap in which they exercised stock at their low "purchase price" of say $10/share while its fair market value was an order of magnitude greater. The taxes they owed on pieces of paper became the fair market price at time of exercise minus exercise price * number of shares. Then quite suddenly the stock crashed, the IRS came for their taxes the following April, and people who had briefly been theoretical millionaires were instead taxed like millionaires but in fact held nothing of value.
1) If you know the tax bill is coming at least sell enough to pay it off while you're still a "theoretical millionaire" even if you want to speculate on the rest.
2) They could have bailed out any time in the same year and have an equally big deductible loss.
I'll admit that once you put yourself in that hole though you got a problem. The IRS will want money on your imaginary profit and you can't effectively use your unrealized loss to cover it.
I think you're very confused and failing some basic economics. If you do $10 worth of work you can pay 10% income tax = $1 and have $9 to buy the product or you can buy the product for $10 and pay 10% sales tax = $1 it works out exactly the same. The only difference comes from having different tax brackets, deductibles, capital gains and import/export. Assuming the government want the same total tax income the first three are easy to deduce, if you pay above average tax you want more sales tax, if you pay below average you want less as the sales tax is a flat percentage for all. As for the last the ideal would obviously to work in a state with no income tax and buy your stuff in a state with no sales tax, so all other things being equal one encourages employment and the other consumption and tourism. Though trade leaks will typically force an alignment so that it's not worth it to most people most of the time.
There was no evil AI here. It was that firing a contractor was marked as opt-in instead of opt-out. This was obviously a poor choice.
No it isn't. There are no obvious clues or warning flags that people who shouldn't have access to the system still have access. People who should have access but don't have it complain, the only WTF here is that this took weeks to sort out and not a few hours. I mean if you're a contractor and suddenly locked out of the system my first suspicion would be a missing renewal. This is the part where it starts getting crazy:
His boss was confused but helpless as Mr Diallo recalls: "I was fired. There was nothing my manager could do about it. There was nothing the director could do about it. (...) From time-to-time, they would attach a system email. "It was soulless and written in red as it gave orders that dictated my fate. Disable this, disable that, revoke access here, revoke access there, escort out of premises, etc.
It looks like they built a system that would give orders but completely fail to record who and why the order was given. I mean if somewhere it had said "Source: Contract management system. Cause: Expired contract (automatic)" this would probably have been resolved in no time. There's lots of bad automation like that, you can see the result but it's impossible to work yourself back to the rules and input that caused the result. The requirements are only written forward-looking, when a person is terminated you should send notices here and there and revoke permissions and so on. Tracing bad input back to the source isn't an issue until shit hits the fan.
You people are having all your very personal data scraped, surveiled, logged, analyzed, categorized, profiled, and sold to whoever can pay Zuckerberg for it, and on top of that you're going to pay for access to parts of Facebook?
You're looking at it wrong. Facebook is giving "everyone" the chance to set up their own little pay-walled content. If you're the NYT you can set up your own site and your own paywall, but it's a pretty big leap for your typical Facebook group owner. It's expenses you can't recover if your premium content out to not be very popular. And you don't get Facebook's group functionality out of the box either. If you're a content creator it looks like a pretty sweet deal, Facebook is giving away a lot for "free". Their reasons are obvious. The users? I think they could get access to a "long tail" of niche content that wouldn't otherwise be made. Of course it'd only be for Facebook members, which could be really bad if you don't want to be one and this catches on. But I guess that describes Facebook in the first place...