Or maybe the uncertainty will be like throwing sand into the engine oil (car analogy)?
I am all in favor of trying different things to disrupt the assholes on both the supply and particularly the demand side. All the effort and cost to make it biologically accurate is probably wasted. Put "some" counterfeit material into the pipeline and make sure it is discussed.
To be more nasty, just grind up cattle hooves and season liberally with castor bean.
Is anyone tracking the numbers of corps and megawatts claiming to be Green based on this wind project or even all alternative energy projects lumped together? The power companies certainly know the balance of power generated and used all the time since they have to make up the balance. It would be "interesting" to see the corresponding $benefits (tax breaks, refunds, etc.) to all the Green claims stacked against the renewable power actually provided.
In other words, is anyone checking to see that only 200MW of use is being claimed against this individual wind farm?
The 'risk' I was referencing is the consumer impression, not data-derived at all. More of an "everybody knows Li-polymer batteries are a ticking fire-bomb" emotional issue.
As for needing to be conspicuously better than what they are trying to replace: this is inertia, same for any other replacement technology. The hurdle is moving the buyer's emotional process, completely independent from cold, lifeless numbers and logic. Being a cold, lifeless number-cruncher myself, it took me decades to realize how thoroughly emotion trumps logic in human behavior.
If the automakers really want to sell more EVs, they need to remove the cost and risk of the battery pack from the purchase price. Leasing or renting the battery would replace the huge up-front lump with an on-going monthly cost more akin to fuel expenditures.
Removing the economic risk of losing the vehicle if the battery craps out would also enable a resale market for the vehicles.
Corporations can be more easily structured and financed for this kind of investment and risk than individuals and households. Still, the biggest benefit would be from reducing the pucker factor of battery cost and failure.
Why is no-one challenging the de facto theft of personal information? I don't care by who or how the data is recorded, it belongs to me and anyone who wants to use it needs my permission.
In some cases, such as a doctor ordering lab tests, I will give that permission gratis. In other cases, such as any of the Web page leeches, I will require payment.
It might be fun if a few tens of thousands of us start blasting out DMCA takedown notices whenever we see a tracking cookie on a Web page.
Ummm, you must not know any EOD types. A disrupter tries to disassemble an explosive device faster than it can detonate. It is typically the first choice for suspected IEDs and has been for decades.
Of course, it will also cheerfully disassemble non-explosive items too.
Sometimes when I do a search my intent is to consider buying something but that is fewer than 3% of my searches. I am continually annoyed by the barrage of sales-oriented items and pre-emptive ads when I really wanted a spec sheet.
I would cheerfully say "buy" as one of the keywords if that is my intent. That should be a more valuable click-through to boot.
I think we both want the same thing but are making different presumptions. Here are mine: The internet is a (social) failure unless everyone can use it. Corporations only care about targeting high-value customers. If the only form of $free internet access is corporate-advertising-backed, low-$ people will be left out.
In other words, we need a form of internet access that does not depend on corporations. Sounds rather like a utility. Not completely $free but with mandatory free outlets.
The problem with the "paid-by-advertising" model is the advertisers only want people with money. People who can't pay for internet access are "not in their demographic".
Anyone who prefers to view the internet as a wealth-enabling resource rather than a wealth-draining private hunting ground can see through this facade in an instant.
All the "suspected terrorist" lists are notorious for their unrestricted inclusion/non-existent removal policies, none more so than the No-Fly list.
It might not be glamorous to review a blank 'algorithm' but it would be a significant step for transparency in government. That is where the focus should be. We need to make a lot of noise to support this point of view. Otherwise all the usual race-baiters and niche-problem whiners will disperse and ruin what could have become a powerful tool.
So, in our post-manufacturing, robot-serviced future economy based on selling ad views, I want to be paid for access to my timeline. Why should the data warehouse get all the revenue? They are just another IT shop, no value added there, their costs should be ruthlessly minimized. (Same goes for other utility services: ISPs, cell phone operators. They never took any financial risks, the users guaranteed the entire investment.)
If the only recognized way to "create value" is to display possible interest in buying something, that value needs to be owned by the person who created it.
By any metric Yes! "Choice" was the old mantra, with the unspoken assumption that any of the alternatives actually worked. Now we have too many alternatives to track adequately, each one requiring too much fiddling and compromise to function at all. IMHO the underlying cause is there was too much karma for having your own fork of a project and not nearly enough karma for making the base project more elegant = simpler, cleaner, more robust, better documented. Just look at several key aspects of nearly any distribution: boot, audio, display, toolkits. They are all ridiculous. And the distributions themselves - have you looked at the chart on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... ? Again, ridiculous. That is not "choice", it is a quagmire.
Having been both a squid and a robotics researcher in a previous century, this has issues. Shipboard fires truly are environments where no human wants to be, as anyone could easily believe. Somewhat fewer people know all of the factors involved: Navy ships are not stable platforms in anything but dead-calm water, which rarely occurs. Next, passageways are designed with 'walking through them' as an afterthought. You have to step over and duck under something every few feet belowdecks. While the ship is bucking and rolling, remember. Navy ships can be quite large and can have large interior structures that you need to go the long way around. Unless you pre-position an entire horde of walking robots all through the ship, they won't have time to get to the fire. As a way to send some money so a robotics program can build something physical it is admirable. It is not the future of shipboard firefighting.
It is good to see multiple posts challenging the idea of 'legitimate' news and to see the positive recognition of them. One aspect I've not seen mentioned is the idea of a 'terrorism expert'. Exactly how does anyone actually rate being considered a terrorism expert? When someone can make accurate and specific predictions or, even better, identify high-leverage actions to change terrorist behavior, they would rate being considered experts. Otherwise, they are no better than 'futurists'.
This, exactly. And well said Sir or Madame. (having known a nerdy girl with black belt) Political correctness is bullying, no less and no more, and bullies make such satisfying noises when they hit the ground.
This, in spades! The passive intake of information has, over the last few decades, grown from an occasional relaxation activity to a full-time pattern. Watching televised entertainment, watching training videos and sitting in long useless meetings all suppress mental activity. Then come the interruptions from phone calls, deleting 99% of emails, reading text messages and twits. Even if you are seriously trying to get into flow, too frequent interruptions leads to a kind of fatigue where you tend to just sit and wait for the next one to hit. Since so much of "work", both white and blue collar, is now done on computers this pattern is extremely common. You can't get away from the computer and still do what you want to focus on. Simple solution: control your own micro-climate. Kill all the interrupting processes, put the office phone on DND, hang a sign that says "Working", plug in noise-cancelling headphone and play pleasant, non-distracting music or continuous nature sounds to drown office noise. Some people will become annoyed that you don't instantly drop everything and respond to them. Too bad for them.
It isn't an either/or situation. Vaccines take time to develop, produce, and administer. Bodies are piling up right now. These roboticists want to Do Something and this is what they know how to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe the uncertainty will be like throwing sand into the engine oil (car analogy)?
I am all in favor of trying different things to disrupt the assholes on both the supply and particularly the demand side. All the effort and cost to make it biologically accurate is probably wasted. Put "some" counterfeit material into the pipeline and make sure it is discussed.
To be more nasty, just grind up cattle hooves and season liberally with castor bean.
Is anyone tracking the numbers of corps and megawatts claiming to be Green based on this wind project or even all alternative energy projects lumped together? The power companies certainly know the balance of power generated and used all the time since they have to make up the balance. It would be "interesting" to see the corresponding $benefits (tax breaks, refunds, etc.) to all the Green claims stacked against the renewable power actually provided.
In other words, is anyone checking to see that only 200MW of use is being claimed against this individual wind farm?
The 'risk' I was referencing is the consumer impression, not data-derived at all. More of an "everybody knows Li-polymer batteries are a ticking fire-bomb" emotional issue.
As for needing to be conspicuously better than what they are trying to replace: this is inertia, same for any other replacement technology. The hurdle is moving the buyer's emotional process, completely independent from cold, lifeless numbers and logic. Being a cold, lifeless number-cruncher myself, it took me decades to realize how thoroughly emotion trumps logic in human behavior.
If the automakers really want to sell more EVs, they need to remove the cost and risk of the battery pack from the purchase price. Leasing or renting the battery would replace the huge up-front lump with an on-going monthly cost more akin to fuel expenditures.
Removing the economic risk of losing the vehicle if the battery craps out would also enable a resale market for the vehicles.
Corporations can be more easily structured and financed for this kind of investment and risk than individuals and households. Still, the biggest benefit would be from reducing the pucker factor of battery cost and failure.
Exactly. This does NOT say that wiretaps are down, only that "reported wiretaps" are down.
Maybe some of the reports were from LEOs trying to do the right thing. I certainly hope so.
So I take it you are happy with this being the norm.
I am not.
Why is no-one challenging the de facto theft of personal information? I don't care by who or how the data is recorded, it belongs to me and anyone who wants to use it needs my permission.
In some cases, such as a doctor ordering lab tests, I will give that permission gratis. In other cases, such as any of the Web page leeches, I will require payment.
It might be fun if a few tens of thousands of us start blasting out DMCA takedown notices whenever we see a tracking cookie on a Web page.
Ummm, you must not know any EOD types. A disrupter tries to disassemble an explosive device faster than it can detonate. It is typically the first choice for suspected IEDs and has been for decades.
Of course, it will also cheerfully disassemble non-explosive items too.
re "to boot"
A colloquialism meaning roughly "for extra benefit".
Sometimes when I do a search my intent is to consider buying something but that is fewer than 3% of my searches. I am continually annoyed by the barrage of sales-oriented items and pre-emptive ads when I really wanted a spec sheet.
I would cheerfully say "buy" as one of the keywords if that is my intent. That should be a more valuable click-through to boot.
I think we both want the same thing but are making different presumptions. Here are mine:
The internet is a (social) failure unless everyone can use it.
Corporations only care about targeting high-value customers.
If the only form of $free internet access is corporate-advertising-backed, low-$ people will be left out.
In other words, we need a form of internet access that does not depend on corporations. Sounds rather like a utility. Not completely $free but with mandatory free outlets.
The problem with the "paid-by-advertising" model is the advertisers only want people with money. People who can't pay for internet access are "not in their demographic".
Anyone who prefers to view the internet as a wealth-enabling resource rather than a wealth-draining private hunting ground can see through this facade in an instant.
All the "suspected terrorist" lists are notorious for their unrestricted inclusion/non-existent removal policies, none more so than the No-Fly list.
It might not be glamorous to review a blank 'algorithm' but it would be a significant step for transparency in government. That is where the focus should be. We need to make a lot of noise to support this point of view. Otherwise all the usual race-baiters and niche-problem whiners will disperse and ruin what could have become a powerful tool.
1. Only $25M for that egregious violation??
2. And that is the *LARGEST* penalty ever????
Token penalties like that are equivalent to declaring a free-for-all-big-corps.
So, in our post-manufacturing, robot-serviced future economy based on selling ad views, I want to be paid for access to my timeline. Why should the data warehouse get all the revenue? They are just another IT shop, no value added there, their costs should be ruthlessly minimized. (Same goes for other utility services: ISPs, cell phone operators. They never took any financial risks, the users guaranteed the entire investment.)
If the only recognized way to "create value" is to display possible interest in buying something, that value needs to be owned by the person who created it.
By any metric Yes! "Choice" was the old mantra, with the unspoken assumption that any of the alternatives actually worked. Now we have too many alternatives to track adequately, each one requiring too much fiddling and compromise to function at all.
IMHO the underlying cause is there was too much karma for having your own fork of a project and not nearly enough karma for making the base project more elegant = simpler, cleaner, more robust, better documented. Just look at several key aspects of nearly any distribution: boot, audio, display, toolkits. They are all ridiculous.
And the distributions themselves - have you looked at the chart on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... ? Again, ridiculous. That is not "choice", it is a quagmire.
Not good but better than wading through leech-infested mud in south-east Asia, which was my other option.
Having been both a squid and a robotics researcher in a previous century, this has issues. Shipboard fires truly are environments where no human wants to be, as anyone could easily believe. Somewhat fewer people know all of the factors involved: Navy ships are not stable platforms in anything but dead-calm water, which rarely occurs. Next, passageways are designed with 'walking through them' as an afterthought. You have to step over and duck under something every few feet belowdecks. While the ship is bucking and rolling, remember.
Navy ships can be quite large and can have large interior structures that you need to go the long way around. Unless you pre-position an entire horde of walking robots all through the ship, they won't have time to get to the fire.
As a way to send some money so a robotics program can build something physical it is admirable. It is not the future of shipboard firefighting.
It is good to see multiple posts challenging the idea of 'legitimate' news and to see the positive recognition of them. One aspect I've not seen mentioned is the idea of a 'terrorism expert'. Exactly how does anyone actually rate being considered a terrorism expert?
When someone can make accurate and specific predictions or, even better, identify high-leverage actions to change terrorist behavior, they would rate being considered experts. Otherwise, they are no better than 'futurists'.
Distributed deserializers and switches on Ludicrous-Density displays?
millimeter wave
Yes, Carroll Touch Technology who later renamed themselves to ELO.
This, exactly. And well said Sir or Madame. (having known a nerdy girl with black belt) Political correctness is bullying, no less and no more, and bullies make such satisfying noises when they hit the ground.
This, in spades! The passive intake of information has, over the last few decades, grown from an occasional relaxation activity to a full-time pattern. Watching televised entertainment, watching training videos and sitting in long useless meetings all suppress mental activity. Then come the interruptions from phone calls, deleting 99% of emails, reading text messages and twits. Even if you are seriously trying to get into flow, too frequent interruptions leads to a kind of fatigue where you tend to just sit and wait for the next one to hit.
Since so much of "work", both white and blue collar, is now done on computers this pattern is extremely common. You can't get away from the computer and still do what you want to focus on. Simple solution: control your own micro-climate. Kill all the interrupting processes, put the office phone on DND, hang a sign that says "Working", plug in noise-cancelling headphone and play pleasant, non-distracting music or continuous nature sounds to drown office noise.
Some people will become annoyed that you don't instantly drop everything and respond to them. Too bad for them.
It isn't an either/or situation.
Vaccines take time to develop, produce, and administer.
Bodies are piling up right now.
These roboticists want to Do Something and this is what they know how to do.