A paper record is good. So is a plaintext file well organized and placed on a USB flash drive. Both can be mailed and locked in a safety deposit box, which is about as secure as you can get. Both require physical access, which means any other encryption or security is more likely to confound your subjects than actually secure your data.
There's a reason I don't have 13 desks in my office, and a reason I have a three-wide monitor configuration. I want to see everything at once, not have to sift or "wander" through some 3D space to find what I'm looking for.
Screw that. The government is out of money and over extended. Even the Chinese would be hard pressed to raise the capital to do this governmental style. There's a reason a private operation can do things faster and easier than a government when it comes to research/exploration: less red tape and less concern for human life. It makes impossible tasks nearly improbably difficult.
If Elon Musk wants to spend all his own money and profits chasing this fantasy, I say to let him. It could be he just doesn't want an IPO now, and this is his way of scaring off the greedy investors that want a piece of the pie. Or maybe he means it. Either way, it's no money out of my pocket, and if he succeeds it would be pretty cool. And then we can slap him with regulations - hopefully before he tears up the red planet and leaves it for scrap.
I don't see SpaceX or Tesla (or this nascent solar venture) being set aside; the first two seem to be gaining speed by the quarter. I don't think he'll make it to mars by 2029, but having a goal - even a lofty one is the first part of any plan. Since the work/research the other companies are doing are pretty crucial to the mission, I suspect they will continue.
And the men you mention were not famous for a single (or even two) major accomplishments (okay, maybe not Ford), but for a lifetime of achievement.
I agree. He never should have abandoned the Telsa and SpaceX ventures. Said he was going to do stuff and then *poof* he just dropped them and they rotted on the vine. Oh, wait...
If the terrestrial cable had unlimited bandwidth, we wouldn't be worried about net neutrality because there would be room for everyone. It's just amplified over wireless.
The one place they could have a point is for VoLTE, where the voice network probably should have priority over other traffic. But, slippery slopes and such...
The sustainability of solar panels is tied to the end-user cost per kWh. Here's how I see it: every dollar spent at the consumer end is a dollar in non-renewable energy cost. Why? Every material in this world is free. What is not free is the energy it takes to extract, refine, and manufacture. And no matter how you slice it, that dollar is going to end up in energy - as fuel for an agricultural tractor, or as fuel to smelt ore, or as fuel to drive a boring machine to extract materials, or as fuel to power a ship, a plane, or a truck to deliver your raw and processed goods. Even the money you pay to Musk will get burned in jet fuel for his plane or yacht, or in his employees cars to get to work - even the ones who drive Teslas who recharge using oil, gas, or coal fired plants (which is the majority).
So look at your MSRP, and divide it through by the life of the panel and the average output. Until we break about 12c/watt we're just "storing" fossil fuel energy in batteries which only work when the sun is shining. It is getting closer. Right now a typical installation (complete, by a contractor, not DIY) is $7/watt for residential, and sunny places like LA get 5-5.5 hours/day, or 1800-1900h/year, with most panels warrantied for 20 years. That's 37000Wh life per panel watt, or 37kWh. At 8c/kWh, that $7 panel is worth $4.50 in energy. (note that the panel costs are down to the $2-3/W range, so they're positive on the panels, but negative on the system). That's not break even on small installed systems, but large systems are getting efficiencies greater than their cost to built. Hopefully it will trickle down, and more solar power will be used to assist manufacturing, which will tilt the balance in favor of solar even more.
Did you know that each one of those artists has a monopoly on their music? If they say you can't play it, you're fucked. There is no appeal, no court, no power that allows you to play their music unless they agree to it. It's all in the copyright law.
Yes, this is the same distribution channel which Google develops and maintains - at significant expense I should point out, including the monitoring and servicing of DMCA take down notices. They use advertising to make money, which covers the cost of operations plus a profit. Youtube was purchased for $1.6 Billion 8 years ago and took more than 4 years to make a profit, pouring - conservatively - $8 Billion into the operation to get it profitable, and costing Google $4.5 Billion per year to run and maintain.
Remind me again how Google is providing no value in this equation?
If the music is not licensed, it is ILLEGAL for Google to store and transmit it. The indie's could sue for copyright infringement, and may or may not win depending on the judge and the conditions.
The musicians seem to want this exposure, but get paid for it at the same time. And get paid far more than if they were getting OTA radio play (radio play makes Pandora and Spotify royalties look like a king's ransom).
Would it be less evil if Google said, "Look, our lawyers told us that if we didn't have a licencing agreement, we couldn't host your music. All you need to do is sign this waiver of rights so we can legally transmit and we'll host your videos for free," or is it better to offer a one-size-fits-all value-per-play deal?
If you think non-standardization is not useful, you're just on the wrong side of the line where money changes hands.
The entire industry is designed to keep out people who aren't paying, and to extract as much as possible (what the companies call a "fair share") from those who do.
You could look at it another way: Why should a single person with one TV pay as much as a family of 4 with as many TVs? A boarding house with 8 room mates, each with their own room and TV? Just be lucky they haven't decided to charge extra when you have company over. Yet.
I happen to be a structural engineer. I do buildings now, but started in aerospace - dealing with materials at elevated temperatures and harsh environments - and I can tell you that most architectural engineers can't find their asses with both hands when it comes to complex material science (and half of them can't figure out simple material science). I didn't read the whole report, but I was not surprised by the outcome.
You've never worked with $1500/hr corporate tax lawyers, I see. You'd be surprised the kind of time that gets taken and the conditions which are glossed over or agreed to in a final settlement.
They do. Everybody gets scrutinized. In this case there were a rash of new organizations (mostly political, and mostly part of the TEA party movement) and they were looking for a way to do a top level sort to reduce paperwork and speed the process along. By picking out common words used by the new political groups, they could more easily sort them. Anyone accidentally caught could appeal or update their forms. This particular part of the IRS code is full of bullshit (and I say that as a recent board member of no less than 3 non-profits).
Actually, that's not a bad idea. True charities which spend all of their money on their causes can whittle their taxes to near zero. And the lack of 501c3s would eliminate a massive tax dodge used by everyone and their brother to reduce their taxable income.
All the NSA has to do is request that the congressman file a brief detailing the national security issue which is under investigation and they will provide their recommendation as to the veracity or connections to the appropriate department in charge of that security area. Or they can submit a request to the executive branch, which will pass it on as it deems appropriate for the NSAs mission.
The NSA is not the personal investigative arm of the congress. Any provision of data from the NSA storehouse for domestic or political purposes would, indeed, be the smoking gun that the libertarians want to show that the database is not legal. By keeping it secret, they draw a line which reinforces that purpose of the data collection is for national security only.
More beach time, fresh oceanfront property to sell and develop, Government grants to try and fix global warming! Every disaster is a business opportunity! What's not to love?
Except the waste of scrapping the engine and transmission (or having a poorly matched transmission) along with the inability to effeciently and safely mount the batteries and the complete lace of efficiencies of scale for doing a one-off project?
If you have enough time and money you can do anything that doesn't violate physics.
Never mind that, here in the USSA, despite the cries of "Double Taxation!" and "Highest Tax Rates Evar! Death Taxes!!!", if a decent size multinational is paying taxes, they probably just need to fire their accountants.
Slashdot Mirror
A paper record is good. So is a plaintext file well organized and placed on a USB flash drive. Both can be mailed and locked in a safety deposit box, which is about as secure as you can get. Both require physical access, which means any other encryption or security is more likely to confound your subjects than actually secure your data.
There's a reason I don't have 13 desks in my office, and a reason I have a three-wide monitor configuration. I want to see everything at once, not have to sift or "wander" through some 3D space to find what I'm looking for.
Screw that. The government is out of money and over extended. Even the Chinese would be hard pressed to raise the capital to do this governmental style. There's a reason a private operation can do things faster and easier than a government when it comes to research/exploration: less red tape and less concern for human life. It makes impossible tasks nearly improbably difficult.
If Elon Musk wants to spend all his own money and profits chasing this fantasy, I say to let him. It could be he just doesn't want an IPO now, and this is his way of scaring off the greedy investors that want a piece of the pie. Or maybe he means it. Either way, it's no money out of my pocket, and if he succeeds it would be pretty cool. And then we can slap him with regulations - hopefully before he tears up the red planet and leaves it for scrap.
I don't see SpaceX or Tesla (or this nascent solar venture) being set aside; the first two seem to be gaining speed by the quarter. I don't think he'll make it to mars by 2029, but having a goal - even a lofty one is the first part of any plan. Since the work/research the other companies are doing are pretty crucial to the mission, I suspect they will continue.
And the men you mention were not famous for a single (or even two) major accomplishments (okay, maybe not Ford), but for a lifetime of achievement.
I agree. He never should have abandoned the Telsa and SpaceX ventures. Said he was going to do stuff and then *poof* he just dropped them and they rotted on the vine. Oh, wait...
Every read any American history? Pretty much the same thing.
Better to clone his money. 'Cause it's going to take a lot more than he currently has to do what he wants to do.
If the terrestrial cable had unlimited bandwidth, we wouldn't be worried about net neutrality because there would be room for everyone. It's just amplified over wireless.
The one place they could have a point is for VoLTE, where the voice network probably should have priority over other traffic. But, slippery slopes and such...
The sustainability of solar panels is tied to the end-user cost per kWh. Here's how I see it: every dollar spent at the consumer end is a dollar in non-renewable energy cost. Why? Every material in this world is free. What is not free is the energy it takes to extract, refine, and manufacture. And no matter how you slice it, that dollar is going to end up in energy - as fuel for an agricultural tractor, or as fuel to smelt ore, or as fuel to drive a boring machine to extract materials, or as fuel to power a ship, a plane, or a truck to deliver your raw and processed goods. Even the money you pay to Musk will get burned in jet fuel for his plane or yacht, or in his employees cars to get to work - even the ones who drive Teslas who recharge using oil, gas, or coal fired plants (which is the majority).
So look at your MSRP, and divide it through by the life of the panel and the average output. Until we break about 12c/watt we're just "storing" fossil fuel energy in batteries which only work when the sun is shining. It is getting closer. Right now a typical installation (complete, by a contractor, not DIY) is $7/watt for residential, and sunny places like LA get 5-5.5 hours/day, or 1800-1900h/year, with most panels warrantied for 20 years. That's 37000Wh life per panel watt, or 37kWh. At 8c/kWh, that $7 panel is worth $4.50 in energy. (note that the panel costs are down to the $2-3/W range, so they're positive on the panels, but negative on the system). That's not break even on small installed systems, but large systems are getting efficiencies greater than their cost to built. Hopefully it will trickle down, and more solar power will be used to assist manufacturing, which will tilt the balance in favor of solar even more.
Did you know that each one of those artists has a monopoly on their music? If they say you can't play it, you're fucked. There is no appeal, no court, no power that allows you to play their music unless they agree to it. It's all in the copyright law.
Yes, this is the same distribution channel which Google develops and maintains - at significant expense I should point out, including the monitoring and servicing of DMCA take down notices. They use advertising to make money, which covers the cost of operations plus a profit. Youtube was purchased for $1.6 Billion 8 years ago and took more than 4 years to make a profit, pouring - conservatively - $8 Billion into the operation to get it profitable, and costing Google $4.5 Billion per year to run and maintain.
Remind me again how Google is providing no value in this equation?
If the music is not licensed, it is ILLEGAL for Google to store and transmit it. The indie's could sue for copyright infringement, and may or may not win depending on the judge and the conditions.
The musicians seem to want this exposure, but get paid for it at the same time. And get paid far more than if they were getting OTA radio play (radio play makes Pandora and Spotify royalties look like a king's ransom).
Would it be less evil if Google said, "Look, our lawyers told us that if we didn't have a licencing agreement, we couldn't host your music. All you need to do is sign this waiver of rights so we can legally transmit and we'll host your videos for free," or is it better to offer a one-size-fits-all value-per-play deal?
If you think non-standardization is not useful, you're just on the wrong side of the line where money changes hands.
The entire industry is designed to keep out people who aren't paying, and to extract as much as possible (what the companies call a "fair share") from those who do.
You could look at it another way: Why should a single person with one TV pay as much as a family of 4 with as many TVs? A boarding house with 8 room mates, each with their own room and TV? Just be lucky they haven't decided to charge extra when you have company over. Yet.
don't worry, the article is false and nearly every architect is an idiot
That sums it up better
I happen to be a structural engineer. I do buildings now, but started in aerospace - dealing with materials at elevated temperatures and harsh environments - and I can tell you that most architectural engineers can't find their asses with both hands when it comes to complex material science (and half of them can't figure out simple material science). I didn't read the whole report, but I was not surprised by the outcome.
You've never worked with $1500/hr corporate tax lawyers, I see. You'd be surprised the kind of time that gets taken and the conditions which are glossed over or agreed to in a final settlement.
They do. Everybody gets scrutinized. In this case there were a rash of new organizations (mostly political, and mostly part of the TEA party movement) and they were looking for a way to do a top level sort to reduce paperwork and speed the process along. By picking out common words used by the new political groups, they could more easily sort them. Anyone accidentally caught could appeal or update their forms. This particular part of the IRS code is full of bullshit (and I say that as a recent board member of no less than 3 non-profits).
Actually, that's not a bad idea. True charities which spend all of their money on their causes can whittle their taxes to near zero. And the lack of 501c3s would eliminate a massive tax dodge used by everyone and their brother to reduce their taxable income.
All the NSA has to do is request that the congressman file a brief detailing the national security issue which is under investigation and they will provide their recommendation as to the veracity or connections to the appropriate department in charge of that security area. Or they can submit a request to the executive branch, which will pass it on as it deems appropriate for the NSAs mission.
The NSA is not the personal investigative arm of the congress. Any provision of data from the NSA storehouse for domestic or political purposes would, indeed, be the smoking gun that the libertarians want to show that the database is not legal. By keeping it secret, they draw a line which reinforces that purpose of the data collection is for national security only.
Wait...you read the article? WTF are you doing hanging around here?
Or a really rich charity. Never underestimate the greed of "non-profits."
More beach time, fresh oceanfront property to sell and develop, Government grants to try and fix global warming! Every disaster is a business opportunity! What's not to love?
Because ghash is actually controlled by the NSA for tracking currency.
Oh, dear...I may have said too much.
Except the waste of scrapping the engine and transmission (or having a poorly matched transmission) along with the inability to effeciently and safely mount the batteries and the complete lace of efficiencies of scale for doing a one-off project?
If you have enough time and money you can do anything that doesn't violate physics.
Never mind that, here in the USSA, despite the cries of "Double Taxation!" and "Highest Tax Rates Evar! Death Taxes!!!", if a decent size multinational is paying taxes, they probably just need to fire their accountants.
FTFY