I have ford SYNC (microsoft SYNC), and it's fucking brilliant.
I never touch my stereo, between the 4 steering wheel controls (volume,next/prev,voice command,hang up) and the frankly kick-ass voice control I just never need to.
I never have had it misdial, only very occasionally does it have trouble when I ask for a specific album (and then only when it's not a native language name) and generally just had it be all sorts of awesome all the time.
So no, Apple can sit this one out (and this is coming from someone who's entire computing existence is apple, I own the iphone/ipad/appletv/macbook/imac). Microsoft has done a great job already.
In fairness, DARPA isn't exactly about tomorrow's technology. They're about next decade's technology.
I see only two seriously hard parts to this (which makes it easy by DARPA standards)
1) capturing space debris tumbling and tossing about -- there was a recent contest announcement about just that, I forget if it was DARPA issued or not.
2) moving about in orbit without lugging the fuel to do it up with you. It sounds nigh impossible, but then that's what they *do*.
So you're absolutely right, and if it was any other department that was talking about developing this tech I'd call BS. But this sort of thing is right up their alley.
I wonder if someone at the table when the first satellites were being designed brought up the issue of (physical access) russian hacking once they were in orbit...
I imagine they probably did, huh? The paranoia at the time was incredible.
Well my point really was that it doesn't matter if it's happened.
People are forced to submit to the TSAs demands if they fly, and I know several people who specifically have stopped flying entirely and solely because of the TSA.
That in and of itself satisfies your condition that people refuse the TSAs authority. To actually go to the airport and try to run through security would be illegal and stupid since airports have the right to subject you to whatever they wish in order to let you on their planes.
You're so wrong it's incredible... But then your moral compass has to be pretty out of whack before you take such a job.
Violating people's "personal space" in this case is molesting them, including children. I don't know how fucked up you have to be in order to not see that as a rights violation, but it's a dangerous place to be mentally.
Why exactly would I shelter and feed a morally corrupt child molester? Moreover, how would doing so make me a better person morally?
I know of several people who no longer fly to/through/in the US because of the TSA.
While it's true that I don't know of anyone who's actually lined up and then left the airport when the TSA officer decided they wanted to molest a child I'm sure that's happened as well.
I agree I don't think there is any point in debating you. There are three reasons for this:
1) Appeal to authority skepticalscience.com 2) You've assumed (within the context of an argument) that you are coming from the correct position, instead of actually building your argument, which makes it impossible to have any debate. 3) The idea that you can stick to a single point of discussion on a topic which solely focuses on a chaotic system containing thousands of variables. According to your rule, I'd have to demonstrate why a model's assumptions are incorrect instead of being able to correctly point out that it's moot because the data is wrong.
I refuse to have a "debate" with someone who starts from the position of "assume everything ever said in my favour is correct".
However, none of what the IPCC or the other fear-mingering "science" outfits is happening or true. Therefore you see a lot of intelligent people denying that shit.
The latest models are built upon temperature records that have weather stations in the same *city* recording opposite sign deltas (one says the temperature has increased over the last 5 decades, one says it's decreased).
As long as data like that is the foundation of the incorrect models upon which the predictions are based there will *never* be agreement from intelligent people.
What most intelligent people do recognize, is that there are already dozens of great reasons to move to renewable power across the board. There's no fear mongering required to sway intelligent people, we've known for decades that clean, renewable power was a good plan.
Well that ultimately fixes the problem as well. A lot of public transit is already on/moving to hybrid or electric.
My point was that the issue of running your car at $7/gal (or natural gas equiv.) won't be an issue if you a) don't have one, or b) have a plug-in hybrid.
Most people who do buy cars currently are *not* put off by the increased cost of the hybrid, they're put off by the increased cost of the hybrid *which doesn't save you anything*
For me, to get a Prius with an equivalent set of features (saying nothing for the fact that it's ugly as hell) it'd have cost an extra $10,000. Lets say (generously) that it saves half of my fuel (it doesn't) and you're needing to save at least $1,000 a year in fuel. Given that I only *use* $1,200 or less fuel in a year that's a problem.
If the Prius would've actually saved the extra outlay (and wasn't ungodly hideous) I'd have bought one. But I'm not going to buy an underpowered ugly POS and pay extra to do it. A Smart is closer to sanity but still a pretty stupid choice.
This is not the first malware to infect macs*, not even remotely close. It *may* be the worst, but frankly I have serious doubts about that too.
In my experience dealing with tech dullards mac users have no more false security than windows users running Norton (and lets face it, at least the mac users have SOME protection).
*This, as with the adobe vulnerabilities and java malware of the past has nothing to do with macs and could infect linux or windows equally.
Well even as early as next year decent plug-in hybrids are coming on the market with many more to come.
I'd say the concern is more bridging the central production problem until people either stop being scared of fission/they get fusion sorted/we fix the storage issue with renewables.
For the central production problem, large reserves of natural gas (even comparably hard to retrieve) would solve the issue by giving some extra time.
I don't think any of this is a good thing, because an *actual* energy crisis is what we need to spur proper innovation and reform... But it is the truth, with new reserves being found there's no real pressure to change quickly.
From NASA's site it looks like the majority of power comes from an on-site fuel cell.
That's a bit like me building a big garage, installing a big-ass natural gas generator and saying my building returns power to the grid.
Now yes, fuel cells are better than natural gas, but it's still not the building producing it's own power. It's a small power plant on the same lot as the building
- It applies to blank media only, every attempt to extend that was shot down. - Only a small portion goes to the record labels - It has not even managed to get extended to the current generation of discs (blu-rays)
There are far better examples from other countries you should have used, but even they are irrelevant. The record labels cannot exist in a profitable state without a product to sell. The government will not add taxes to media for a corporation whose only income is taxes on media.
Slashdot Mirror
I have ford SYNC (microsoft SYNC), and it's fucking brilliant.
I never touch my stereo, between the 4 steering wheel controls (volume,next/prev,voice command,hang up) and the frankly kick-ass voice control I just never need to.
I never have had it misdial, only very occasionally does it have trouble when I ask for a specific album (and then only when it's not a native language name) and generally just had it be all sorts of awesome all the time.
So no, Apple can sit this one out (and this is coming from someone who's entire computing existence is apple, I own the iphone/ipad/appletv/macbook/imac). Microsoft has done a great job already.
In fairness, DARPA isn't exactly about tomorrow's technology. They're about next decade's technology.
I see only two seriously hard parts to this (which makes it easy by DARPA standards)
1) capturing space debris tumbling and tossing about -- there was a recent contest announcement about just that, I forget if it was DARPA issued or not.
2) moving about in orbit without lugging the fuel to do it up with you. It sounds nigh impossible, but then that's what they *do*.
So you're absolutely right, and if it was any other department that was talking about developing this tech I'd call BS. But this sort of thing is right up their alley.
You're confusing "necessary test-bed for materials" and "money hole".
But as you clearly know nothing about the field I understand the confusion.
There are startups doing exactly that.
Jeff Bezos (of amazon) funded a Canadian one just this year to the tune of $20million
I wonder if someone at the table when the first satellites were being designed brought up the issue of (physical access) russian hacking once they were in orbit...
I imagine they probably did, huh? The paranoia at the time was incredible.
Well my point really was that it doesn't matter if it's happened.
People are forced to submit to the TSAs demands if they fly, and I know several people who specifically have stopped flying entirely and solely because of the TSA.
That in and of itself satisfies your condition that people refuse the TSAs authority. To actually go to the airport and try to run through security would be illegal and stupid since airports have the right to subject you to whatever they wish in order to let you on their planes.
You're exceptionally high and mighty for the scum of the earth... I find that fascinating.
I do plenty to help those who deserve it, thanks.
You're so wrong it's incredible... But then your moral compass has to be pretty out of whack before you take such a job.
Violating people's "personal space" in this case is molesting them, including children. I don't know how fucked up you have to be in order to not see that as a rights violation, but it's a dangerous place to be mentally.
Why exactly would I shelter and feed a morally corrupt child molester? Moreover, how would doing so make me a better person morally?
Wow...
You're a moron.
Generally speaking, you're talking sensibly... but you open with saying "they're just following orders"
Are there still actually people that think that's a reason to abandon basic ethics?
The actual question is why weren't you a responsible parent and with your son?
If you'd been with your son they'd have sent him through with you and there'd have been no problem.
Well that's not really true at all is it?
I know of several people who no longer fly to/through/in the US because of the TSA.
While it's true that I don't know of anyone who's actually lined up and then left the airport when the TSA officer decided they wanted to molest a child I'm sure that's happened as well.
I agree I don't think there is any point in debating you. There are three reasons for this:
1) Appeal to authority skepticalscience.com
2) You've assumed (within the context of an argument) that you are coming from the correct position, instead of actually building your argument, which makes it impossible to have any debate.
3) The idea that you can stick to a single point of discussion on a topic which solely focuses on a chaotic system containing thousands of variables. According to your rule, I'd have to demonstrate why a model's assumptions are incorrect instead of being able to correctly point out that it's moot because the data is wrong.
I refuse to have a "debate" with someone who starts from the position of "assume everything ever said in my favour is correct".
By using the royal "we" you claim that you're a scientist.
In that case, I'd just love to explain to you why you're wrong about AGW if you'd care to have a debate in reasonable, measured tone.
Because you see, I'm a scientist too... and the evidence is overwhelmingly *against* AGW
No physicists deny what is happening.
However, none of what the IPCC or the other fear-mingering "science" outfits is happening or true. Therefore you see a lot of intelligent people denying that shit.
The latest models are built upon temperature records that have weather stations in the same *city* recording opposite sign deltas (one says the temperature has increased over the last 5 decades, one says it's decreased).
As long as data like that is the foundation of the incorrect models upon which the predictions are based there will *never* be agreement from intelligent people.
What most intelligent people do recognize, is that there are already dozens of great reasons to move to renewable power across the board. There's no fear mongering required to sway intelligent people, we've known for decades that clean, renewable power was a good plan.
Well that ultimately fixes the problem as well. A lot of public transit is already on/moving to hybrid or electric.
My point was that the issue of running your car at $7/gal (or natural gas equiv.) won't be an issue if you a) don't have one, or b) have a plug-in hybrid.
Most people who do buy cars currently are *not* put off by the increased cost of the hybrid, they're put off by the increased cost of the hybrid *which doesn't save you anything*
For me, to get a Prius with an equivalent set of features (saying nothing for the fact that it's ugly as hell) it'd have cost an extra $10,000. Lets say (generously) that it saves half of my fuel (it doesn't) and you're needing to save at least $1,000 a year in fuel. Given that I only *use* $1,200 or less fuel in a year that's a problem.
If the Prius would've actually saved the extra outlay (and wasn't ungodly hideous) I'd have bought one. But I'm not going to buy an underpowered ugly POS and pay extra to do it. A Smart is closer to sanity but still a pretty stupid choice.
That's interesting... the comment my reply was added to was not the one I replied to and in fact didn't even exist when I clicked reply.
Comments like your's really bother me.
This is not the first malware to infect macs*, not even remotely close. It *may* be the worst, but frankly I have serious doubts about that too.
In my experience dealing with tech dullards mac users have no more false security than windows users running Norton (and lets face it, at least the mac users have SOME protection).
*This, as with the adobe vulnerabilities and java malware of the past has nothing to do with macs and could infect linux or windows equally.
Well even as early as next year decent plug-in hybrids are coming on the market with many more to come.
I'd say the concern is more bridging the central production problem until people either stop being scared of fission/they get fusion sorted/we fix the storage issue with renewables.
For the central production problem, large reserves of natural gas (even comparably hard to retrieve) would solve the issue by giving some extra time.
I don't think any of this is a good thing, because an *actual* energy crisis is what we need to spur proper innovation and reform... But it is the truth, with new reserves being found there's no real pressure to change quickly.
From NASA's site it looks like the majority of power comes from an on-site fuel cell.
That's a bit like me building a big garage, installing a big-ass natural gas generator and saying my building returns power to the grid.
Now yes, fuel cells are better than natural gas, but it's still not the building producing it's own power. It's a small power plant on the same lot as the building
You *really* should have ordered that soup
Don't forget those irrational blac... Klingons that they had to keep at bay.
I'm surprised sometimes that people don't see the staggering hypocrisy of star trek & ST:TNG. Still great shows though.
There's a few issues with that:
- It applies to blank media only, every attempt to extend that was shot down.
- Only a small portion goes to the record labels
- It has not even managed to get extended to the current generation of discs (blu-rays)
There are far better examples from other countries you should have used, but even they are irrelevant. The record labels cannot exist in a profitable state without a product to sell. The government will not add taxes to media for a corporation whose only income is taxes on media.
You've been trolling against big media so long you don't even know you're doing it anymore.
There is no law that they would succeed in buying that would allow them to persist with 0 income on a long-term basis.
As long as people continue buying the stuff, and a large contingent continue stealing the stuff, they aren't going anywhere.
I salute him for risking prison, he's doing the right thing. Censorship is evil, research perhaps most of all.