Could you refer to any non-military mass-shootings in the 1920's, or even any mass shootings prior to the 2000's outside of war zones and colonies? I'm not talking about gangsters moving down a few people. That happens all the time. I'm talking about civilians/terrorists murdering 50+ civilians with guns.
You know, educated people are not necessarily more clever or inventive than uneducated people.
If terrorism happened because of this lack of opportunity that you describe we would be facing a massive wave of Roma terrorism here in Europe. Terrorism is always, without exception, caused by fanatical political or religious beliefs. It usually boils down to the idea that your homeland is under occupation by an illegitimate force, government or people and the idea that you will be a martyr if you die fighting it.
They are already using drones in Syria with explosives. So your theory is garbage.
That is bad bad news then, since it probably means they'll do the same in Europe and the US within the next few years.
The fact remains that terrorists tool a long time to realise that they could simple use guns. This terrorist attack seems to have been the first in history where upwards of 100 people were trapped in an enclosed space and gunned down by terrorists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Terrorists are actually fairly slow at coming up with novel ideas. It literally took terrorists something like 100 years from the advent of automatic firearms to come up with and popularise the idea that you can simple grab a gun and spray bullets at a crowd in an enclosed space.
Let's not help these people by posting clever ideas online.
I doubt the tanks will be the root cause of any future payload losses now that they have identified them as a vulnerability. They probably have a vastly better understanding of the envelope of that system now.
SpaceX has basically said that the voids are fine as long as the oxygen does not freeze. If that is true then the "nitroglycerine" in your analogy would be the incredibly low temperatures combined with the fast loading times that they were using. (They were obviously loading helium that was cold enough to freeze oxygen... Yeah. Seriously.)
Now that SpaceX has the most economical launcher on the market I think their strategy is going to change from "launch often - fail quickly", to something like "test often - fail quickly on the testbench". Now that they have a rocket that can do work and make money, a rocket that was funded partly with tax money to carry people for NASA, their focus will naturally shift towards making it more reliable.
pump water into reservoirs. energy stored. (half joking)
It might actually make sense for sparsely populated regions that have sufficient energy storage capacity in their existing dams to last them through winter. It could be a niche solution for Scandinavia and some other regions.
Given what? "Renewables" do not provide base load.
The "battery advances" are exciting for cars, but not for letting a 3 GW wind farm act like a 1 GW base-load power plant. That would take a million PowerWalls. literally.
Yeah and that's not eve the big problem. The big problem is getting a solar farm on high (or low) latitudes to deliver power in late winter. Forget about batteries. We're going to need something like a huge underground lake filled with diesel. One of those for each solar farm.
Intermittent power sources really call for a global electric grid with near-zero power loss. Anything short of that will probably never be good enough to completely replace fossil and nuclear power at high latitudes.
It's 2016. Where is my affordable room temperature superconducting wire?
Yeah, but those "secure backpacks" will not present much trouble once the thief/robber has made it back home to their tools. They'll cut open that bag in a minute or two.
My advice would be to use a cheap or heavily worn bag or backpack to falsely signal that the computer is cheap or old.
Since I need to add more to satisfy the/. posting god, my point is that 1) paper is portable and readable in all circumstances. I don't need to fire up a reader, connect to wifi, turn on laptop, whatever: here's your piece of paper, read it. 2) paper is durable and fixed-format: if I put a paper in a file and come back 10 or even 100 years later, barring catastrophe, it'll still be there. The vagaries of non-cloud storage, and (for the cloud) the evolution of estorage and edoc formats means that even if I HAVE the file, i might not be able to read/open it. Shit, I have enough trouble opening now 25 year old docs from my college days plunking on a MacSE. 3) it's harder to edit paper: simply put, edocs are easier to fake, generally.
There are a host of things that paper isn't: searchable, stored effortlessly taking no space, easily (instantly) sent to someone else not present, backed up in case of loss, there are probably a ton of others. But the fact is that for what paper does, and what's important in a business/legal context, it's pretty irreplaceable.
1) This is really only an issue if you're out of range of WiFi and Cellular. Who turns off their computer anyway? 2) That's great for documents that are relevant a year after they were printed, but most documents probably become irrelevant within days of being printed. 3) That's a minus for most documents and use cases.
I think the main reason why paper is still widely used is that UI:s aren't good enough, software and hardware.
The one thing I still need paper for on a daily basis is for scribbling out throwaway notes, diagrams, drawings, etc. Maybe an iPad Pro or a Surface 4 pro could do the job hardware wise, but I doubt that the software is good enough yet.
The problem is those groups of people are no longer a small "minority" anymore. We are pretty close to parity...
And what comes after parity, do you think? I doubt Trump will be able to throw out black and brown people nearly fast enough to counteract their higher birth rates compared to white people.
The racial identity political paradigm is not going to be fun at all for white people once they are in the minority.
No it won't. I'll never own a Samsung product again, phone or otherwise.
I bought a Pixel and I'm not looking back.
Yeah, the good thing about Android is that you have plenty of phones to chose from if a manufacturer messes up.
I for one find Samsung's efforts acceptable for now. I expect they'll keep me and other Samsung customers updated until they've figured out what went wrong with the Note 7.
I don't think I will ever again buy a Samsung phone in the first 6 months or so after release. (I bought the S6 a few months after it came out. I did not buy the Note 7.)
It's good that they are able to track things down to a reproducable root cause.
There might be room for improvement if the root cause is something that the rest of the industry figured out decades ago.
The deeper root cause question is should/could they have forseen this failure mode if they had used lessons already learned from prefious industry failures.
If the answer is yes, then the corrective action should be to figure out a creative way to add the necessary information path while still staying nimble.
The ultimate root cause seems to have been a lack of understanding of how some of their systems function during the fuelling phase, which lead SpaceX operators to fill a tank with super-cooled fluid at a dangerous rate. The solution seems to be to change their filling procedures until they have a better tank design in place.
You can bet that SpaceX has learned a lot about how fuel tanks work at extreme temperatures and pressures during this investigation.
I look forward to seeing the F9 fly again once they've finished the investigation.
I want a battery that can be replaced by mere mortals.
Why? No seriously why? I'm interested in the use case, especially since longevity doesn't seem to come into it since you're so keen to replace the device.
He could be planning on selling or gifting the phone after he's used it for a year himself. It's not an uncommon use case. Niche maybe, but not unheard of.
There is probably a good niche out there for a high end phone with a user-replaceable battery, but I don't think Samsung is interested in it. They won't do it unless Apple does it and apple is never, ever even going to consider doing it. The wear and tear is pretty much the only thing that will keep Apple's customers upgrading their iPhones. A replaceable battery would probably cut Apple's future iPhone profits in half by allowing customers to keep their phones for twice as long.
Production of food is not the problem. The problem is getting it to where it's needed. Often the worst famines have nothing to do with not enough but with inadequate distribution, often due to war. Many times food that is delivered by charities is taken over by warlords who then profit on it.
Yeah, but there is something to be said for sending food when there is a drought or some other disaster that has caused an actual shortage of food.
Some of the food that we send will end up in the hands of the people after the government officials have stolen their share of the food and the local warlord has taken his toll and what not.
Sorry, that should read "Europe would not be able to increase its production of food and other goods by anywhere near 0.04% if we stopped spending money on space."
My typo where I wrote 0.004% might also be true, but that's hard to say.
How much did all of this mission cost? Does anyone realize how much food that money could have provided to those in need ON THIS PLANET?! We have no business looking off-planet until we learn to live in harmony with THIS planet.. and with each other.
If you take the budget of ESA and divide that number by the GDP of the EU (a slightly misleading calculation, but not grossly so) you find that the EU spends less than 0.04% of its GDP on space.
You also have to keep in mine that the European economy has a tremendous amount of over-capacity in terms of unemployed people and under-utilised infrastructure and machinery. Europe would not be able to increase its production of food and other goods by anywhere near 0.004% if we stopped spending money on space. We'd just have more unemployed scientists, engineers and factory workers.
I can't find it now, but about 5-10 years ago I saw a talk on youtube where a guy suggested that we should demonstrate to the public how safe driverless cars are by having volunteers run out in front of them on a closed stretch of road... As if the laws of inertia and friction don't apply to driverless cars.
Around the same time I watched an information video published by the Swedish road authority where they claimed that they will be able to make roads in Sweden a third narrower once all cars are driverless. I guess that would work, were it not for winter and rain, and again those pesky laws of inertia and friction.
The thing that I think a lot of people overlook is that human drivers are actually pretty good at not getting killed or seriously injured while driving. Look at the statistics. Look at vehicle between deaths and vehicle miles between serious injuries in the US. It's not going to be easy to build driverless cars that can match those numbers. I highly doubt that Google or Tesla is anywhere near that level of safety.
I don't doubt that driverless cars will become an order of magnitude safer than manual cars unless they get banned (or effectively banned through draconian regulation), but it's going to take many years to get to that level. In the meantime a lot of people will die. Some of them will die in accidents that a human driver could easily have avoided. I think it's going to be tempting for politicians to step in and demand extreme regulation.
You'll have to write the timeline yourself, but I think I that if you compare and contrast how the nuclear industry and the mobile phone industry have handled concerns about potential dangers with their respective technologies, you'll see that the nuclear industry consistently dismissed the concerns, while the mobile phone industry consistently responded to concerns by publishing data and funding studies that attempt (but of course fail) to show that phones cause cancer.
The global anti nuclear movement managed to kill off nuclear power in the ten years following the TMI accident. The anti-cellular and anti-wifi people have never really been able to organise as a movement.
I claim it's because the industry itself is constantly playing a game of "Maybe out tech is a bit dangerous. Maybe it's not. Look at these studies and make up your own mind." I think it's a clever way to make people feel complicit and perhaps even a tiny bit rebellious when they're holding their phone to their ear, ignoring the advice about using a headset.
Elon Musk should just probably make blunt estimates (preferably over-estimates) about how many people he expects to die while driving on Autopilot.
The proponents boldly claim how the new technology is going to be completely safe and how it'll be available for everyone everywhere at virtually no cost.
Then mistakes are made and there is a minor accident. Nothing too bad in the big scheme of things, but a serious accident nonetheless.
Then the accident is followed by attempts to cover it up by lying to the public about minor details about the accident, followed by more bold claims about how the technology is so absurdly safe that the opponents can only be evil. The media has field day after field day exposing the lies. Soon, there is a public outcry, which causes the government to step in with draconian regulation.
And then it's all over. The regulations make it impossible to build and operate the technology at a reasonable cost.
So we're talking about 250 new installations per year. I'm assuming that's for the whole industrial world. That's something like 2 new plants per year per industrialised country. That is not a lot if you compare it with what the industrial world built built back in the 1950's and 1960's after WW2. Sounds reasonable in terms of volume of work.
I mean it sounds reasonable when you first think about it. But I don't know...
I mean it would take work. It would take actual investment in actual projects, and actual political decisions about actual things. You know, those old-fashioned secondary sector of the economy things that we're not suppose to have to bother with in the modern world. We'd even have to hire actual workers to do actual work. Like, physically do work. Like, non-office work.
And you'd have to train people to do it too! I you think about it, you'd have to train unemployed people so that they could take these construction and planning jobs.
Seriously? There ought to be a way to solve global climate change in some reasonable way. Like by inventing a new financial scheme, or by making a new smartphone app. Or at least by having drones or self-driving cars do all the work. I'm sure someone will think of something.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you refer to any non-military mass-shootings in the 1920's, or even any mass shootings prior to the 2000's outside of war zones and colonies? I'm not talking about gangsters moving down a few people. That happens all the time. I'm talking about civilians/terrorists murdering 50+ civilians with guns.
You know, educated people are not necessarily more clever or inventive than uneducated people.
If terrorism happened because of this lack of opportunity that you describe we would be facing a massive wave of Roma terrorism here in Europe. Terrorism is always, without exception, caused by fanatical political or religious beliefs. It usually boils down to the idea that your homeland is under occupation by an illegitimate force, government or people and the idea that you will be a martyr if you die fighting it.
The obvious solution is to use self-driving road vehicles instead. The infrastructure is already in place in all developed countries.
They are already using drones in Syria with explosives. So your theory is garbage.
That is bad bad news then, since it probably means they'll do the same in Europe and the US within the next few years.
The fact remains that terrorists tool a long time to realise that they could simple use guns. This terrorist attack seems to have been the first in history where upwards of 100 people were trapped in an enclosed space and gunned down by terrorists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Terrorists are actually fairly slow at coming up with novel ideas. It literally took terrorists something like 100 years from the advent of automatic firearms to come up with and popularise the idea that you can simple grab a gun and spray bullets at a crowd in an enclosed space.
Let's not help these people by posting clever ideas online.
Brace for earthquakes!
I predict there will be dozens of earthquakes recorded worldwide on each day that they experiment with HAARP.
There's even a list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I doubt the tanks will be the root cause of any future payload losses now that they have identified them as a vulnerability. They probably have a vastly better understanding of the envelope of that system now.
SpaceX has basically said that the voids are fine as long as the oxygen does not freeze. If that is true then the "nitroglycerine" in your analogy would be the incredibly low temperatures combined with the fast loading times that they were using. (They were obviously loading helium that was cold enough to freeze oxygen... Yeah. Seriously.)
Now that SpaceX has the most economical launcher on the market I think their strategy is going to change from "launch often - fail quickly", to something like "test often - fail quickly on the testbench". Now that they have a rocket that can do work and make money, a rocket that was funded partly with tax money to carry people for NASA, their focus will naturally shift towards making it more reliable.
pump water into reservoirs. energy stored. (half joking)
It might actually make sense for sparsely populated regions that have sufficient energy storage capacity in their existing dams to last them through winter. It could be a niche solution for Scandinavia and some other regions.
Given what? "Renewables" do not provide base load.
The "battery advances" are exciting for cars, but not for letting a 3 GW wind farm act like a 1 GW base-load power plant. That would take a million PowerWalls. literally.
Yeah and that's not eve the big problem. The big problem is getting a solar farm on high (or low) latitudes to deliver power in late winter. Forget about batteries. We're going to need something like a huge underground lake filled with diesel. One of those for each solar farm.
Intermittent power sources really call for a global electric grid with near-zero power loss. Anything short of that will probably never be good enough to completely replace fossil and nuclear power at high latitudes.
It's 2016. Where is my affordable room temperature superconducting wire?
Yeah, but those "secure backpacks" will not present much trouble once the thief/robber has made it back home to their tools. They'll cut open that bag in a minute or two.
My advice would be to use a cheap or heavily worn bag or backpack to falsely signal that the computer is cheap or old.
Protip: If you don't want people to think you're some Indian scam tech support outfit, you might try using correct grammar.
Oh, you mean an outfit that provides tech support to Indian scammers?
TSIA.
Since I need to add more to satisfy the /. posting god, my point is that
1) paper is portable and readable in all circumstances. I don't need to fire up a reader, connect to wifi, turn on laptop, whatever: here's your piece of paper, read it.
2) paper is durable and fixed-format: if I put a paper in a file and come back 10 or even 100 years later, barring catastrophe, it'll still be there. The vagaries of non-cloud storage, and (for the cloud) the evolution of estorage and edoc formats means that even if I HAVE the file, i might not be able to read/open it. Shit, I have enough trouble opening now 25 year old docs from my college days plunking on a MacSE.
3) it's harder to edit paper: simply put, edocs are easier to fake, generally.
There are a host of things that paper isn't: searchable, stored effortlessly taking no space, easily (instantly) sent to someone else not present, backed up in case of loss, there are probably a ton of others. But the fact is that for what paper does, and what's important in a business/legal context, it's pretty irreplaceable.
1) This is really only an issue if you're out of range of WiFi and Cellular. Who turns off their computer anyway?
2) That's great for documents that are relevant a year after they were printed, but most documents probably become irrelevant within days of being printed.
3) That's a minus for most documents and use cases.
I think the main reason why paper is still widely used is that UI:s aren't good enough, software and hardware.
The one thing I still need paper for on a daily basis is for scribbling out throwaway notes, diagrams, drawings, etc. Maybe an iPad Pro or a Surface 4 pro could do the job hardware wise, but I doubt that the software is good enough yet.
The problem is those groups of people are no longer a small "minority" anymore. We are pretty close to parity...
And what comes after parity, do you think? I doubt Trump will be able to throw out black and brown people nearly fast enough to counteract their higher birth rates compared to white people.
The racial identity political paradigm is not going to be fun at all for white people once they are in the minority.
No it won't. I'll never own a Samsung product again, phone or otherwise.
I bought a Pixel and I'm not looking back.
Yeah, the good thing about Android is that you have plenty of phones to chose from if a manufacturer messes up.
I for one find Samsung's efforts acceptable for now. I expect they'll keep me and other Samsung customers updated until they've figured out what went wrong with the Note 7.
I don't think I will ever again buy a Samsung phone in the first 6 months or so after release. (I bought the S6 a few months after it came out. I did not buy the Note 7.)
Actually, I just realised the helium is nowhere near cold enough to be liquid. They're filling the tank with gas, not fluid.
It's good that they are able to track things down to a reproducable root cause.
There might be room for improvement if the root cause is something that the rest of the industry figured out decades ago.
The deeper root cause question is should/could they have forseen this failure mode if they had used lessons already learned from prefious industry failures.
If the answer is yes, then the corrective action should be to figure out a creative way to add the necessary information path while still staying nimble.
The ultimate root cause seems to have been a lack of understanding of how some of their systems function during the fuelling phase, which lead SpaceX operators to fill a tank with super-cooled fluid at a dangerous rate. The solution seems to be to change their filling procedures until they have a better tank design in place.
You can bet that SpaceX has learned a lot about how fuel tanks work at extreme temperatures and pressures during this investigation.
I look forward to seeing the F9 fly again once they've finished the investigation.
Who would have guessed that high speed internet in the home would end up being used to transfer images of female anatomy.
I want a battery that can be replaced by mere mortals.
Why? No seriously why? I'm interested in the use case, especially since longevity doesn't seem to come into it since you're so keen to replace the device.
He could be planning on selling or gifting the phone after he's used it for a year himself. It's not an uncommon use case. Niche maybe, but not unheard of.
There is probably a good niche out there for a high end phone with a user-replaceable battery, but I don't think Samsung is interested in it. They won't do it unless Apple does it and apple is never, ever even going to consider doing it. The wear and tear is pretty much the only thing that will keep Apple's customers upgrading their iPhones. A replaceable battery would probably cut Apple's future iPhone profits in half by allowing customers to keep their phones for twice as long.
Production of food is not the problem. The problem is getting it to where it's needed. Often the worst famines have nothing to do with not enough but with inadequate distribution, often due to war. Many times food that is delivered by charities is taken over by warlords who then profit on it.
Yeah, but there is something to be said for sending food when there is a drought or some other disaster that has caused an actual shortage of food.
Some of the food that we send will end up in the hands of the people after the government officials have stolen their share of the food and the local warlord has taken his toll and what not.
Sorry, that should read "Europe would not be able to increase its production of food and other goods by anywhere near 0.04% if we stopped spending money on space."
My typo where I wrote 0.004% might also be true, but that's hard to say.
How much did all of this mission cost? Does anyone realize how much food that money could have provided to those in need ON THIS PLANET?! We have no business looking off-planet until we learn to live in harmony with THIS planet.. and with each other.
If you take the budget of ESA and divide that number by the GDP of the EU (a slightly misleading calculation, but not grossly so) you find that the EU spends less than 0.04% of its GDP on space.
You also have to keep in mine that the European economy has a tremendous amount of over-capacity in terms of unemployed people and under-utilised infrastructure and machinery. Europe would not be able to increase its production of food and other goods by anywhere near 0.004% if we stopped spending money on space. We'd just have more unemployed scientists, engineers and factory workers.
I can't find it now, but about 5-10 years ago I saw a talk on youtube where a guy suggested that we should demonstrate to the public how safe driverless cars are by having volunteers run out in front of them on a closed stretch of road... As if the laws of inertia and friction don't apply to driverless cars.
Around the same time I watched an information video published by the Swedish road authority where they claimed that they will be able to make roads in Sweden a third narrower once all cars are driverless. I guess that would work, were it not for winter and rain, and again those pesky laws of inertia and friction.
The thing that I think a lot of people overlook is that human drivers are actually pretty good at not getting killed or seriously injured while driving. Look at the statistics. Look at vehicle between deaths and vehicle miles between serious injuries in the US. It's not going to be easy to build driverless cars that can match those numbers. I highly doubt that Google or Tesla is anywhere near that level of safety.
I don't doubt that driverless cars will become an order of magnitude safer than manual cars unless they get banned (or effectively banned through draconian regulation), but it's going to take many years to get to that level. In the meantime a lot of people will die. Some of them will die in accidents that a human driver could easily have avoided. I think it's going to be tempting for politicians to step in and demand extreme regulation.
You'll have to write the timeline yourself, but I think I that if you compare and contrast how the nuclear industry and the mobile phone industry have handled concerns about potential dangers with their respective technologies, you'll see that the nuclear industry consistently dismissed the concerns, while the mobile phone industry consistently responded to concerns by publishing data and funding studies that attempt (but of course fail) to show that phones cause cancer.
The global anti nuclear movement managed to kill off nuclear power in the ten years following the TMI accident. The anti-cellular and anti-wifi people have never really been able to organise as a movement.
I claim it's because the industry itself is constantly playing a game of "Maybe out tech is a bit dangerous. Maybe it's not. Look at these studies and make up your own mind." I think it's a clever way to make people feel complicit and perhaps even a tiny bit rebellious when they're holding their phone to their ear, ignoring the advice about using a headset.
Elon Musk should just probably make blunt estimates (preferably over-estimates) about how many people he expects to die while driving on Autopilot.
The proponents boldly claim how the new technology is going to be completely safe and how it'll be available for everyone everywhere at virtually no cost.
Then mistakes are made and there is a minor accident. Nothing too bad in the big scheme of things, but a serious accident nonetheless.
Then the accident is followed by attempts to cover it up by lying to the public about minor details about the accident, followed by more bold claims about how the technology is so absurdly safe that the opponents can only be evil. The media has field day after field day exposing the lies. Soon, there is a public outcry, which causes the government to step in with draconian regulation.
And then it's all over. The regulations make it impossible to build and operate the technology at a reasonable cost.
So we're talking about 250 new installations per year. I'm assuming that's for the whole industrial world. That's something like 2 new plants per year per industrialised country. That is not a lot if you compare it with what the industrial world built built back in the 1950's and 1960's after WW2. Sounds reasonable in terms of volume of work.
I mean it sounds reasonable when you first think about it. But I don't know...
I mean it would take work. It would take actual investment in actual projects, and actual political decisions about actual things. You know, those old-fashioned secondary sector of the economy things that we're not suppose to have to bother with in the modern world. We'd even have to hire actual workers to do actual work. Like, physically do work. Like, non-office work.
And you'd have to train people to do it too! I you think about it, you'd have to train unemployed people so that they could take these construction and planning jobs.
Seriously? There ought to be a way to solve global climate change in some reasonable way. Like by inventing a new financial scheme, or by making a new smartphone app. Or at least by having drones or self-driving cars do all the work. I'm sure someone will think of something.