And victim. The only thing more prejudicial to justice than combining those roles is allowing the person who feels wronged and is out for vengeance to play all of them.
The point is that they're saying they're the ones who have been victimized by the evil "thieves" of their property. And it's an important point... while it's clearly a bad idea to allow one person/organization to act as judge, jury and executioner -- those roles are separated for very good reasons -- it's utterly ludicrous to allow the victim (or supposed victim), the entity with a personal interest and even a revenge motive, to play any of those roles.
If he wanted to solve the power issues, he'd be probably better off working on Thorium reactors than wind generation, given that one of the Diablo Canyon reactors puts out more energy than if all the windmills in California were simultaneously operating at 100% capacity, but for all I know he's building one somewhere, or there are anti-nuclear regulatory issues standing in the way.
Or maybe he's bought into the anti-nuclear hype. Sergei's a bright guy but smart people can have blinders like anyone else. Still, having more solutions is better, so if Google X can make this into a viable wind power approach, I think it's great. Though I hope someone does the research on next generation reactors and fuels, because we'll need that, too.
Of course, it could be that Google simply feels these citizens represent a huge market for targeted advertisements for tablet PCs and Lexus vehicles.
Or it could be that Google believes that everyone in the world should have access to information, with all of the benefits it brings, and is looking for ways to make that possible, in sustainable, self-funding ways.
Nah, couldn't be. We all know corporations are utterly incapable of doing anything beneficial for humanity.
And you can't realistically legislate against it with privacy laws, that can do no more than say "now be nice with that valuable sensitive personally identifying information, y'hear?!?"
Sure you can. Just put some teeth behind privacy policy violation. If a company says it will do one thing and does something else, penalize it. Defining appropriate (and scalable) penalties would require some thought; you need to make sure that it will hurt no matter how big the company is, and you also need to ensure that companies don't get slammed for the actions of one malicious or negligent employee, but that they do get smacked if there's evidence of a pattern of encouraging or even tolerating such employees. But I think that could be defined with some time and some thought.
Further, it would be a good idea to direct legislatively that the policies covering a given piece of information are the policies that were in place at the time the data was collected. No retroactive policy changes, not without specific, positive permission from users.
I think that approach would strike the right balance, assuring that individuals have the right to trade their personal information for services if they so choose, but ensuring that companies can't arbitrarily change the deal.
If only the UK could be as safe as Switzerland where every home is required to keep at least one military-grade weapon.
What good would that do? The Swiss no longer issue ammo to keep at home. I guess you could club someone to death with your rifle, but there are better tools for that.
Ammunition is readily available in Switzerland, including for the military calibers. They no longer issue the sealed ammunition package to be kept with the rifle, but that's no obstacle. Actually, if you go to a government-sponsored gun range you can buy ammunition with a government subsidy, and without any paperwork. Technically you're supposed to use fire all of the ammunition at the range, but no one checks. Or you can buy it at a gun store, where you'll have to do some paperwork which includes a background check, but it's not at all difficult.
I'm also expecting to see some hybrid designs that use cheap, readily-available steel parts that require little to no modification plus 3D-printed plastic components for the more intricate bits. With that approach, you can fashion something that has the strength to be safe but is considerably more sophisticated than could be constructed out of metal without the services of a good metal shop and significant gunsmithing skill.
Suppose, for example, that you used a steel pipe for a barrel and maybe a block of metal for a bolt face, then were able to print a reliable fully-automatic action and a high-capacity magazine. You could easily assemble the rough equivalent of a machine pistol. It would be less reliable, less durable, bigger and in many other ways not as good as a manufactured gun, but could be created at home with minimal skill and expense (other than the printer... but those are going to get much cheaper) and would be reasonably safe to operate.
You experience is very different from mine. I wonder if something is wrong with your car.
You say you get 4.9 mi/kwh -- with a 24 kwh battery that means you should get 118 miles on a full charge. If you're only getting 70 then your battery is only holding 14 kwh, 60% of its rated capacity.
Personally, I routinely get 120 miles out of a charge when I stay off the freeway and don't need climate control. Just yesterday, for example, I made an 80-mile round trip to the airport using just over half of the battery, driving on surface streets, averaging about 45 mph. The car says I averaged 5.4 mi/kwh which should get me nearly 130 miles.
I do agree that at 90 mph you're not going to get 70 miles. I didn't mean to imply that, though I can see that's a reasonable conclusion from what I wrote. One of these days I should test my range at 80 mph (freeway speed around here). Rarely do I drive more than a few miles on freeways, though, so it's not all that relevant to me.
Anyway, I think you've suffered some really serious battery degradation, and you should get it looked at.
Anyone who wants to pay $30K for a car is not going to be too concerned about gas costs.
I am, and gas costs made me decide to pay $30K for my Nissan LEAF.
I analyzed TCO (excluding maintenance costs, which are much lower for electrics, but I couldn't quantify that so I just ignored it) for about 20 different vehicles, including EVs, hybrids and pure ICE vehicles,. My model assumed that the new vehicle was going to be an additional vehicle, and that the other (gas-burning) vehicle would be available for trips beyond the range of the EV. I assumed very conservative ranges for the EVs, for example I estimated the LEAF's range at 60 miles (it's really more like 80-120, depending on conditions). Finally, I created a statistical model of my driving habits and calculated the total cost over 8 years.
The result was that the three EVs I looked at had the top three spots... they were the cheapest to drive overall, in spite of being by far the most expensive up front. Even better, thanks to tax credits the break-even point was at 2-3 years. Without the tax credits it was about 6 years. The vehicle immediately behind the EVs was the 18K Honda Insight hybrid, then a mix of other hybrids and more-efficient gas vehicles and finally a long tail of gas vehicles trailing the pack.
Of course, your driving patterns may be different, your electricity costs may be higher or gas prices lower (oh, I assumed that gas prices would continue increasing at the same rate they've increased over the last 8 years), etc., etc, etc., but I've walked several other people through applying my model to their situations and in every single case the EVs have been extremely competitive -- and usually the very cheapest.
In practice, what I've found -- for me -- is that my model was very conservative. In fact, the LEAF is even cheaper than I expected. Partly that's because I was able to get a better deal on the car than I had assumed, and partly it's because I do most of my charging at work, so my actual energy costs are dramatically lower than my model had anticipated.
Oh, and it's a very nice car, not a "tin can" that can't keep me as warm or cool as I like. It's a 3000-pound vehicle that accelerates 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, will do 90+ mph and can easily keep the cab at 60 degrees or 90 degrees or anywhere in between, regardless of outside temperature. It also has power everything, a nice stereo, GPS navigation, XM radio, bluetooth, backup camera, and computer or smartphone-based remote control... it's loaded. Of course, stomping on the gas pedal, driving 90 mph and blasting the heat (the AC doesn't use so much, plus it doesn't have to work against the heat generated by an ICE) will drop my range from 120 miles down to about 70 -- but my model only assumed a 60 mile range. It's a compact, but the alternatives I compared it against were also compacts.
EVs are very real, and very practical, today. And it's only going to get better. If Tesla can produce a $30K car with a 200-mile range, it'll be a huge hit with cost-conscious people, because that's enough range that for most people it can be a primary car -- no need for another ICE vehicle except on the rare long-distance trips, and it's cost-effective to rent for those.
It's at the other end of the college curriculum, but I had a somewhat similar experience. I arrived at college having passed AP Calculus but without having taken any trigonometry. After a couple of semesters I realized I really needed to address my lack of trig knowledge, so I enrolled in a course. The prof who was teaching it recognized my name and asked me to come talk to her. She suggested that I drop the course and instead spend the semester grading papers for the class, rather than taking it.
I did as she suggested, and I think I learned more trigonometry than any of the students in the class.
even with fast charging, you aren't gonna want to charge ten times a day
Maybe.
Fast charging + wireless charging + ubiquitous charging stations might make it very practical. For my lifestyle a two-hour battery life with 20-second recharges from just putting my phone on a certain region of my desk, nightstand, car console, etc. would work just fine.
As I recall, the paper from Google said something slightly different. It said they found no increase in failure rate. As a result, Google data centers do run warm: 80F. The employees in data centers wear shorts and t-shirts all the time.
The problem with printed firearms is that they're plastic. We have no means to detect them. They instantly obsolete our security infrastructure. You can walk onto an airplane with one. You could walk into a courtroom with one. You could walk into the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court with one. That is a major problem.
And banning them will do exactly nothing to address that problem.
A person who would make a gun with the intention of committing murder with it isn't likely to be deterred by a law banning his gun. Actually, that law already exists... the Defense Distributed guy was careful to epoxy a six ounce block of metal to his before fully assembling it into an operable gun, because it's a federal felony to manufacture an undetectable gun.
However, not everyone who uses guns irresponsibly are punished. For example it is legal to have an accessible gun in your house and leave your teenager alone with it.
Is that irresponsible? Depends on the kid. There are many examples of kids using guns to defend themselves and their siblings against home intruders.
All of the commentary here completely misunderstands what Page said.
He wasn't suggesting that we ought to give up on medical privacy. He was saying that we'd be better off if we could do so -- if we chose to -- without fear of repercussions. He said that in some cases being more open might be beneficial... but he clearly chose to keep his condition secret for quite a long time, even though it was obvious to everyone that something was wrong, and he didn't say anything to imply that we shouldn't have the right to privacy.
Yep. And there comes a point when you're scaling up that quantitative differences become qualitative differences that demand completely different solutions to the old problems.
Translation: Firmware Is Magic.
No, firmware is static, and the code it contains must fit in limited capacity storage devices and run on low-end CPUs, unless you want to pay big money for your switches. Much better to make the switch firmware simple and the switches cheap, and put your logic in a few much more powerful machines with visibility into the bigger picture.
On the range.... give it a few years. The Tesla already has a 200+-mile range (though not when racing, obviously), but it'll get better. It's also worth pointing out that the Tesla Model S in that video is not a sports car. It's a nearly 5000-pound luxury road sedan. The fact that it's even remotely competitive with a Viper which weighs 2000 pounds less, and has a monstrous engine, is very impressive.
As for sound... in the real world I really like the utter silence of my LEAF.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
So they want to be judge, jury, and executioner.
And victim. The only thing more prejudicial to justice than combining those roles is allowing the person who feels wronged and is out for vengeance to play all of them.
They're not the victims. We are.
The point is that they're saying they're the ones who have been victimized by the evil "thieves" of their property. And it's an important point... while it's clearly a bad idea to allow one person/organization to act as judge, jury and executioner -- those roles are separated for very good reasons -- it's utterly ludicrous to allow the victim (or supposed victim), the entity with a personal interest and even a revenge motive, to play any of those roles.
There is something about Steam that requires the lowest level of memmory access in the Linux kernel.
What is that? mmap? Do you have a link?
If he wanted to solve the power issues, he'd be probably better off working on Thorium reactors than wind generation, given that one of the Diablo Canyon reactors puts out more energy than if all the windmills in California were simultaneously operating at 100% capacity, but for all I know he's building one somewhere, or there are anti-nuclear regulatory issues standing in the way.
Or maybe he's bought into the anti-nuclear hype. Sergei's a bright guy but smart people can have blinders like anyone else. Still, having more solutions is better, so if Google X can make this into a viable wind power approach, I think it's great. Though I hope someone does the research on next generation reactors and fuels, because we'll need that, too.
Of course, it could be that Google simply feels these citizens represent a huge market for targeted advertisements for tablet PCs and Lexus vehicles.
Or it could be that Google believes that everyone in the world should have access to information, with all of the benefits it brings, and is looking for ways to make that possible, in sustainable, self-funding ways.
Nah, couldn't be. We all know corporations are utterly incapable of doing anything beneficial for humanity.
Yeah, and it's a huge amount of work, and requires substantial skill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHAO8oxwioU
And you can't realistically legislate against it with privacy laws, that can do no more than say "now be nice with that valuable sensitive personally identifying information, y'hear?!?"
Sure you can. Just put some teeth behind privacy policy violation. If a company says it will do one thing and does something else, penalize it. Defining appropriate (and scalable) penalties would require some thought; you need to make sure that it will hurt no matter how big the company is, and you also need to ensure that companies don't get slammed for the actions of one malicious or negligent employee, but that they do get smacked if there's evidence of a pattern of encouraging or even tolerating such employees. But I think that could be defined with some time and some thought.
Further, it would be a good idea to direct legislatively that the policies covering a given piece of information are the policies that were in place at the time the data was collected. No retroactive policy changes, not without specific, positive permission from users.
I think that approach would strike the right balance, assuring that individuals have the right to trade their personal information for services if they so choose, but ensuring that companies can't arbitrarily change the deal.
If only the UK could be as safe as Switzerland where every home is required to keep at least one military-grade weapon.
What good would that do? The Swiss no longer issue ammo to keep at home. I guess you could club someone to death with your rifle, but there are better tools for that.
Ammunition is readily available in Switzerland, including for the military calibers. They no longer issue the sealed ammunition package to be kept with the rifle, but that's no obstacle. Actually, if you go to a government-sponsored gun range you can buy ammunition with a government subsidy, and without any paperwork. Technically you're supposed to use fire all of the ammunition at the range, but no one checks. Or you can buy it at a gun store, where you'll have to do some paperwork which includes a background check, but it's not at all difficult.
I'm also expecting to see some hybrid designs that use cheap, readily-available steel parts that require little to no modification plus 3D-printed plastic components for the more intricate bits. With that approach, you can fashion something that has the strength to be safe but is considerably more sophisticated than could be constructed out of metal without the services of a good metal shop and significant gunsmithing skill.
Suppose, for example, that you used a steel pipe for a barrel and maybe a block of metal for a bolt face, then were able to print a reliable fully-automatic action and a high-capacity magazine. You could easily assemble the rough equivalent of a machine pistol. It would be less reliable, less durable, bigger and in many other ways not as good as a manufactured gun, but could be created at home with minimal skill and expense (other than the printer... but those are going to get much cheaper) and would be reasonably safe to operate.
You experience is very different from mine. I wonder if something is wrong with your car.
You say you get 4.9 mi/kwh -- with a 24 kwh battery that means you should get 118 miles on a full charge. If you're only getting 70 then your battery is only holding 14 kwh, 60% of its rated capacity.
Personally, I routinely get 120 miles out of a charge when I stay off the freeway and don't need climate control. Just yesterday, for example, I made an 80-mile round trip to the airport using just over half of the battery, driving on surface streets, averaging about 45 mph. The car says I averaged 5.4 mi/kwh which should get me nearly 130 miles.
I do agree that at 90 mph you're not going to get 70 miles. I didn't mean to imply that, though I can see that's a reasonable conclusion from what I wrote. One of these days I should test my range at 80 mph (freeway speed around here). Rarely do I drive more than a few miles on freeways, though, so it's not all that relevant to me.
Anyway, I think you've suffered some really serious battery degradation, and you should get it looked at.
Anyone who wants to pay $30K for a car is not going to be too concerned about gas costs.
I am, and gas costs made me decide to pay $30K for my Nissan LEAF.
I analyzed TCO (excluding maintenance costs, which are much lower for electrics, but I couldn't quantify that so I just ignored it) for about 20 different vehicles, including EVs, hybrids and pure ICE vehicles,. My model assumed that the new vehicle was going to be an additional vehicle, and that the other (gas-burning) vehicle would be available for trips beyond the range of the EV. I assumed very conservative ranges for the EVs, for example I estimated the LEAF's range at 60 miles (it's really more like 80-120, depending on conditions). Finally, I created a statistical model of my driving habits and calculated the total cost over 8 years.
The result was that the three EVs I looked at had the top three spots... they were the cheapest to drive overall, in spite of being by far the most expensive up front. Even better, thanks to tax credits the break-even point was at 2-3 years. Without the tax credits it was about 6 years. The vehicle immediately behind the EVs was the 18K Honda Insight hybrid, then a mix of other hybrids and more-efficient gas vehicles and finally a long tail of gas vehicles trailing the pack.
Of course, your driving patterns may be different, your electricity costs may be higher or gas prices lower (oh, I assumed that gas prices would continue increasing at the same rate they've increased over the last 8 years), etc., etc, etc., but I've walked several other people through applying my model to their situations and in every single case the EVs have been extremely competitive -- and usually the very cheapest.
In practice, what I've found -- for me -- is that my model was very conservative. In fact, the LEAF is even cheaper than I expected. Partly that's because I was able to get a better deal on the car than I had assumed, and partly it's because I do most of my charging at work, so my actual energy costs are dramatically lower than my model had anticipated.
Oh, and it's a very nice car, not a "tin can" that can't keep me as warm or cool as I like. It's a 3000-pound vehicle that accelerates 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, will do 90+ mph and can easily keep the cab at 60 degrees or 90 degrees or anywhere in between, regardless of outside temperature. It also has power everything, a nice stereo, GPS navigation, XM radio, bluetooth, backup camera, and computer or smartphone-based remote control... it's loaded. Of course, stomping on the gas pedal, driving 90 mph and blasting the heat (the AC doesn't use so much, plus it doesn't have to work against the heat generated by an ICE) will drop my range from 120 miles down to about 70 -- but my model only assumed a 60 mile range. It's a compact, but the alternatives I compared it against were also compacts.
EVs are very real, and very practical, today. And it's only going to get better. If Tesla can produce a $30K car with a 200-mile range, it'll be a huge hit with cost-conscious people, because that's enough range that for most people it can be a primary car -- no need for another ICE vehicle except on the rare long-distance trips, and it's cost-effective to rent for those.
Heh.
It's at the other end of the college curriculum, but I had a somewhat similar experience. I arrived at college having passed AP Calculus but without having taken any trigonometry. After a couple of semesters I realized I really needed to address my lack of trig knowledge, so I enrolled in a course. The prof who was teaching it recognized my name and asked me to come talk to her. She suggested that I drop the course and instead spend the semester grading papers for the class, rather than taking it.
I did as she suggested, and I think I learned more trigonometry than any of the students in the class.
even with fast charging, you aren't gonna want to charge ten times a day
Maybe.
Fast charging + wireless charging + ubiquitous charging stations might make it very practical. For my lifestyle a two-hour battery life with 20-second recharges from just putting my phone on a certain region of my desk, nightstand, car console, etc. would work just fine.
As I recall, the paper from Google said something slightly different. It said they found no increase in failure rate. As a result, Google data centers do run warm: 80F. The employees in data centers wear shorts and t-shirts all the time.
http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/efficiency/internal/#temperature
The problem with printed firearms is that they're plastic. We have no means to detect them. They instantly obsolete our security infrastructure. You can walk onto an airplane with one. You could walk into a courtroom with one. You could walk into the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court with one. That is a major problem.
And banning them will do exactly nothing to address that problem.
A person who would make a gun with the intention of committing murder with it isn't likely to be deterred by a law banning his gun. Actually, that law already exists... the Defense Distributed guy was careful to epoxy a six ounce block of metal to his before fully assembling it into an operable gun, because it's a federal felony to manufacture an undetectable gun.
However, not everyone who uses guns irresponsibly are punished. For example it is legal to have an accessible gun in your house and leave your teenager alone with it.
Is that irresponsible? Depends on the kid. There are many examples of kids using guns to defend themselves and their siblings against home intruders.
All of the commentary here completely misunderstands what Page said.
He wasn't suggesting that we ought to give up on medical privacy. He was saying that we'd be better off if we could do so -- if we chose to -- without fear of repercussions. He said that in some cases being more open might be beneficial... but he clearly chose to keep his condition secret for quite a long time, even though it was obvious to everyone that something was wrong, and he didn't say anything to imply that we shouldn't have the right to privacy.
Got erectile dysfunction? I bet Larry would love to sell that information to a drug company.
Google doesn't sell user information.
Sounds like a bug. I'm sure it will get fixed.
Yes, Google has bugs.
Translation: Google Big.
Yep. And there comes a point when you're scaling up that quantitative differences become qualitative differences that demand completely different solutions to the old problems.
Translation: Firmware Is Magic.
No, firmware is static, and the code it contains must fit in limited capacity storage devices and run on low-end CPUs, unless you want to pay big money for your switches. Much better to make the switch firmware simple and the switches cheap, and put your logic in a few much more powerful machines with visibility into the bigger picture.
Which doesn't mean the garbage man has the same value as the scientist.
I think that would depend who you ask.
On the range.... give it a few years. The Tesla already has a 200+-mile range (though not when racing, obviously), but it'll get better. It's also worth pointing out that the Tesla Model S in that video is not a sports car. It's a nearly 5000-pound luxury road sedan. The fact that it's even remotely competitive with a Viper which weighs 2000 pounds less, and has a monstrous engine, is very impressive.
As for sound... in the real world I really like the utter silence of my LEAF.
I'm not giving up my Buick for some sissy electric car that doesn't even have exhaust pipes.
Sissy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLCdP6sMN9k
:=)
I know this is a joke, but I don't think Larry Page has ever yelled at a person in his life. It's just not in his character.
+1
It's certainly not in his management style.