Long Beach loading March 12, arrival Sydney Apr 4. 23 days ocean transit, plus a couple of days screwing around at both ends, easily from origin to destination 30d.
...is that the more complicated and involved the rules are, the more they invite (require) someone to WRITE THE PASSWORD DOWN somewhere.
I can't count the number of times I've sat at someone's desk and their password(s) were either taped to their monitor, their deskpad, or under their deskpad/keyboard.
...with Trump's ego driven presidency, this news might be *just* what we needed to see substantial actual presidential pressure to advance the US space program.
...I think the revelation that they've appropriated other security services hacking tools so they can attack a system and leave false footprints would be a bit of a bombshell.
FORBID any 'special rules' that benefit women.....then you'll have companies go "OK, now this staff person is worth investing in, because I can be reasonably certain she won't vanish because her gestational clock is ticking, or her womb-fruit need caring for."
Women have the ability to CREATE LIFE. I love how that's pretty much 'set aside' when we're talking about which gender has inherent advantages.
"Take a look at the board game industry or card game industry and see how well it's been doing since the advent of video games. " Just to take one of your many examples, the boardgame and especially card game industry has EXPLODED particularly in the last 10 years.
What's the only country that's put people on the moon, again?
What country is the dominant space power on the planet? (Trying like hell to lose it, but still...) What country has put more probes onto/around more planets than any other? What country has the only (barely) interstellar probes?
We should use whatever units they used, don't you think?
I'd still assert that it WOULD be in the longer-term interests of a power capable of doing so to claim/occupy the north and/or south lunar poles. In the same sense that the Hawaiian Islands, Diego Garcia, etc have proved 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' and critical to the projection of power in those regions, there are precisely 2 points on the moon that get both nearly-uninterrupted sunlight AND enjoy also nearly-uninterrupted line-of-sight to earth.
Still not having anything to do with that nutcake, FWIW.
Just because some jobs were replaced by the internet, doesn't obviate the vast number of jobs (I'd more likely call them occupations) CREATED by the internet.
Web designers/coders, for one. How about the legions of people making money from online streaming of games? Or online gamers themselves? Anyone employed in the MMO industry? The list goes on.
"we have plenty of examples of it all over the place."
Really?
definition of artificial intelligence (FROM THE GODDAMN DICTIONARY) 1 : a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers 2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
Please, provide an example of a computer system which is able to imitate intelligent human behavior. Maybe...one that actually passed a Turing Test?
We hear this sort of statistic a lot but I have to ask, did they REALLY?
Anyone with experience with this sort of thing understand how fluffy these numbers are, based on statistics, some WAG, etc.
For example: We processed $1 million orders per hour. We were down for 3 hours. Ergo we "lost" $3 million.
In fact, no such thing is true. At least, not like someone poured $3 million in cash into a furnace and actually LOST the money.
First, there's the missed opportunity sales. What you're talking about in fact is purchases that didn't take place because the seller wasn't available. This has everything to do with flexibility of supply and time-sensitivity of delivery. If in fact John Smith wanted to order shoes from Amazon, and Amazon was down, so he went to company XYZ and bought those shoes or decided not to buy at all, then in fact is is reasonably a "lost sale" for Amazon. HOWEVER, if John couldn't reach XYZ (not unlikely with the broad infrastructure hit that the outage caused), or they didn't have his brand, or he just said "ok, I'll just buy them tomorrow" it WASN'T a lost sale at all. And it's HIGHLY unlikely that the consultants throwing together these figures rationalized any later excess demand back into the 'missing' hours.
Secondly, even if there are actual lost sales, that is NOT the same as lost money. Lost sales are lost margin. If Amazon is selling a shoe for $100, they have to BUY it somewhere, say for $70. So if John didn't buy that shoe, Amazon didn't have to buy that shoe either. Therefore Amazon wasn't out $100, they were out only their margin, or $30. In the interest of fluffing numbers and getting the result quickly (and because the actual result would take hard work as well as involving some proprietary info like margins that you might never get), I've almost never seen "loss" statistics like this reported as anything but gross numbers. Depending on the margins of sale involved, this can easily be 10x what the actual lost margin was. (Plus, the point of course is to show how impactful something is in the first place....)
Combining the two? I'd guess that the actual financial impact is barely 1% of the number stated.
Considering we don't have a single actual AI anywhere, this seems pointless.
This is akin to "let's game out what would happen if we all have psionics" - so much depends on what you imagine the capabilities of the simulated thing are, that far overshadows whatever you might learn from the exercise.
What's funny for me is that this conversation is taking place on the internet - something that didn't even faintly exist in the minds of most people 30 years ago (and wasn't really even widely commercialized until the spread of ubiquitous broadband about 15 years ago).
For all the people whose jobs depend on the internet - those jobs didn't exist 30 years ago. Not at all.
1) "the tech vertical of the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK" - sorry, I guess I'm meme-impaired. WTF is a 'tech vertical'?
2) It might not be politically correct, but I'm just going to say it anyway: the primary reason their discussion was cogent and reasonable probably had everything to do with them all being Norwegian. Not to say that Scandinavians can't be as big of assholes as other people on occasion, but their culture is pretty unique in their level of open-mindedness, consensus, and reasonability generally. I don't care how many quizzes you offer, a similar conversation amongst other cultures wouldn't be likely as constructive as ANY conversation amongst Scandinavians. Even within the US, there are regions where I'd expect the conversation to be more productive (NH/VT/ME) or less so (New Yorkers or San Franciscans)
"it might have drastic impacts on the drake equation if there was some requirement for life that has to happen as the planet forms."
I'd have gone the opposite direction, actually. I'd say it would have drastic impact on the Drake Equation if life could form in an environment as hostile as the earth 3.87 bn years ago - iirc that was only very shortly after (we believe) water oceans formed.
"Small space rocks can indeed do nuclear-weapons-scale damage if hitting the Earth at orbital speeds. But launching one from the moon, even setting aside issues of aiming, would still require escaping the satellite's gravitational field, a task that requires the power and thrust contained in a huge rocket." I think she's a kook and a nutter, but she's not as wrong as presented by the poster.
IANARS, but... Pretty sure it's 10+kg rocket to put 1kg payload in LEO, where doing the same on the moon is what, maybe 1/6 of that? The Saturn V had 2400 tons of fuel to put 15 tons of LEM on the moon, or a ratio of about 150:1. Going the other way, though, all you have to do is escape the moon's gravity well and it's 'downhill' to earth, so more like 3:1. Meaning to drop a 300kg (earth mass) rock would 'only' take 1000kg (earth mass) of fuel...but of course to do meaningful damage (let's use Tunguska as a bottom-limit) would require a rock of 20-100m diameter, ie 9800 TONS (needing 30,000 tons of propellant, even from the MOON).
So, no: not realistic anytime soon. Even Heinlein IIRC postulated mass-drivers pushing essentially lunar GRAVEL off the surface of the moon, not giant rocks at a single go.
...doesn't really understand how commercial radio has worked since, well, forever.
It's never (except for the smallest enthusiast-stations) been "about the music". The 'customers' of radio (and TV, for that matter) aren't the consumers. THEY ARE THE PRODUCT BEING SOLD. The customers are the businesses that are paying for ad time.
He's a dumb shit, is that any surprise? How's Tidal doing, dude? (answer: lost $28 million last year) http://www.esquire.com/enterta... First year: 540k subs, lost $11 million Last year 3 million subs, lost $28 million.
"The passengers will travel beyond the moon and loop back to Earth, spanning roughly 300,000 to 400,000 miles. "
The distance to the moon is 238,900 miles. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and postulate that a trip AROUND the moon is going to be something more than 477,000 miles.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.anl.com.au/ebusine...
Long Beach loading March 12, arrival Sydney Apr 4.
23 days ocean transit, plus a couple of days screwing around at both ends, easily from origin to destination 30d.
...is that the more complicated and involved the rules are, the more they invite (require) someone to WRITE THE PASSWORD DOWN somewhere.
I can't count the number of times I've sat at someone's desk and their password(s) were either taped to their monitor, their deskpad, or under their deskpad/keyboard.
So what, precisely, is THAT protecting against?
...with Trump's ego driven presidency, this news might be *just* what we needed to see substantial actual presidential pressure to advance the US space program.
Sometimes the cards just fall right.
...I think the revelation that they've appropriated other security services hacking tools so they can attack a system and leave false footprints would be a bit of a bombshell.
FORBID them taking time off for their children.
FORBID maternity leave.
FORBID any 'special rules' that benefit women. ....then you'll have companies go "OK, now this staff person is worth investing in, because I can be reasonably certain she won't vanish because her gestational clock is ticking, or her womb-fruit need caring for."
Women have the ability to CREATE LIFE. I love how that's pretty much 'set aside' when we're talking about which gender has inherent advantages.
What you're describing, then, is that social media is to actual contact as junk food is to actual food.
....so you're saying that I can actually get something for my perfectly-functional (beautiful picture) Rasterops 20"+ monitor? I think it's a 21"?
"Take a look at the board game industry or card game industry and see how well it's been doing since the advent of video games. "
Just to take one of your many examples, the boardgame and especially card game industry has EXPLODED particularly in the last 10 years.
http://www.economist.com/news/...
Seriously, you think card games were doing better before pokemon, mtg, etc.?
Now THAT is a fuckin' rocket scientist reply.
Thank you.
I miss the old slashdot tremendously.
Hilarious that you say this.
What's the only country that's put people on the moon, again?
What country is the dominant space power on the planet? (Trying like hell to lose it, but still...)
What country has put more probes onto/around more planets than any other?
What country has the only (barely) interstellar probes?
We should use whatever units they used, don't you think?
I'd still assert that it WOULD be in the longer-term interests of a power capable of doing so to claim/occupy the north and/or south lunar poles. In the same sense that the Hawaiian Islands, Diego Garcia, etc have proved 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' and critical to the projection of power in those regions, there are precisely 2 points on the moon that get both nearly-uninterrupted sunlight AND enjoy also nearly-uninterrupted line-of-sight to earth.
Still not having anything to do with that nutcake, FWIW.
Just because some jobs were replaced by the internet, doesn't obviate the vast number of jobs (I'd more likely call them occupations) CREATED by the internet.
Web designers/coders, for one.
How about the legions of people making money from online streaming of games?
Or online gamers themselves?
Anyone employed in the MMO industry?
The list goes on.
"we have plenty of examples of it all over the place."
Really?
definition of artificial intelligence (FROM THE GODDAMN DICTIONARY)
1 : a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers
2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
Please, provide an example of a computer system which is able to imitate intelligent human behavior. Maybe...one that actually passed a Turing Test?
Oh, before you answer, you might want to read https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
http://isturingtestpassed.gith...
Maybe you could provide some goddamned examples? Should be easy, if they're all over the place?
We hear this sort of statistic a lot but I have to ask, did they REALLY?
Anyone with experience with this sort of thing understand how fluffy these numbers are, based on statistics, some WAG, etc.
For example:
We processed $1 million orders per hour.
We were down for 3 hours.
Ergo we "lost" $3 million.
In fact, no such thing is true. At least, not like someone poured $3 million in cash into a furnace and actually LOST the money.
First, there's the missed opportunity sales. What you're talking about in fact is purchases that didn't take place because the seller wasn't available. This has everything to do with flexibility of supply and time-sensitivity of delivery. If in fact John Smith wanted to order shoes from Amazon, and Amazon was down, so he went to company XYZ and bought those shoes or decided not to buy at all, then in fact is is reasonably a "lost sale" for Amazon. HOWEVER, if John couldn't reach XYZ (not unlikely with the broad infrastructure hit that the outage caused), or they didn't have his brand, or he just said "ok, I'll just buy them tomorrow" it WASN'T a lost sale at all. And it's HIGHLY unlikely that the consultants throwing together these figures rationalized any later excess demand back into the 'missing' hours.
Secondly, even if there are actual lost sales, that is NOT the same as lost money. Lost sales are lost margin. If Amazon is selling a shoe for $100, they have to BUY it somewhere, say for $70. So if John didn't buy that shoe, Amazon didn't have to buy that shoe either. Therefore Amazon wasn't out $100, they were out only their margin, or $30. In the interest of fluffing numbers and getting the result quickly (and because the actual result would take hard work as well as involving some proprietary info like margins that you might never get), I've almost never seen "loss" statistics like this reported as anything but gross numbers. Depending on the margins of sale involved, this can easily be 10x what the actual lost margin was. (Plus, the point of course is to show how impactful something is in the first place....)
Combining the two? I'd guess that the actual financial impact is barely 1% of the number stated.
Considering we don't have a single actual AI anywhere, this seems pointless.
This is akin to "let's game out what would happen if we all have psionics" - so much depends on what you imagine the capabilities of the simulated thing are, that far overshadows whatever you might learn from the exercise.
What's funny for me is that this conversation is taking place on the internet - something that didn't even faintly exist in the minds of most people 30 years ago (and wasn't really even widely commercialized until the spread of ubiquitous broadband about 15 years ago).
For all the people whose jobs depend on the internet - those jobs didn't exist 30 years ago. Not at all.
1) "the tech vertical of the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK" - sorry, I guess I'm meme-impaired. WTF is a 'tech vertical'?
2) It might not be politically correct, but I'm just going to say it anyway: the primary reason their discussion was cogent and reasonable probably had everything to do with them all being Norwegian. Not to say that Scandinavians can't be as big of assholes as other people on occasion, but their culture is pretty unique in their level of open-mindedness, consensus, and reasonability generally. I don't care how many quizzes you offer, a similar conversation amongst other cultures wouldn't be likely as constructive as ANY conversation amongst Scandinavians. Even within the US, there are regions where I'd expect the conversation to be more productive (NH/VT/ME) or less so (New Yorkers or San Franciscans)
"it might have drastic impacts on the drake equation if there was some requirement for life that has to happen as the planet forms."
I'd have gone the opposite direction, actually. I'd say it would have drastic impact on the Drake Equation if life could form in an environment as hostile as the earth 3.87 bn years ago - iirc that was only very shortly after (we believe) water oceans formed.
"Small space rocks can indeed do nuclear-weapons-scale damage if hitting the Earth at orbital speeds. But launching one from the moon, even setting aside issues of aiming, would still require escaping the satellite's gravitational field, a task that requires the power and thrust contained in a huge rocket."
I think she's a kook and a nutter, but she's not as wrong as presented by the poster.
IANARS, but...
Pretty sure it's 10+kg rocket to put 1kg payload in LEO, where doing the same on the moon is what, maybe 1/6 of that?
The Saturn V had 2400 tons of fuel to put 15 tons of LEM on the moon, or a ratio of about 150:1.
Going the other way, though, all you have to do is escape the moon's gravity well and it's 'downhill' to earth, so more like 3:1.
Meaning to drop a 300kg (earth mass) rock would 'only' take 1000kg (earth mass) of fuel...but of course to do meaningful damage (let's use Tunguska as a bottom-limit) would require a rock of 20-100m diameter, ie 9800 TONS (needing 30,000 tons of propellant, even from the MOON).
So, no: not realistic anytime soon. Even Heinlein IIRC postulated mass-drivers pushing essentially lunar GRAVEL off the surface of the moon, not giant rocks at a single go.
I don't think Wu would be that interested in Dick.
...doesn't really understand how commercial radio has worked since, well, forever.
It's never (except for the smallest enthusiast-stations) been "about the music". The 'customers' of radio (and TV, for that matter) aren't the consumers. THEY ARE THE PRODUCT BEING SOLD. The customers are the businesses that are paying for ad time.
He's a dumb shit, is that any surprise?
How's Tidal doing, dude? (answer: lost $28 million last year) http://www.esquire.com/enterta...
First year: 540k subs, lost $11 million
Last year 3 million subs, lost $28 million.
LOL.
" where she was paid less than male engineers whose work she directly took over, according to her complaint."
So why accept/keep the job if she's unhappy with the compensation?
"Using OLED displays would allow Apple to introduce a phone with a new look to fuel sales"
Note it's not to improve anything substantial in terms of usability or quality or crazy stuff like that. It's just to improve their bottom line.
I think it's rather honest of them to embrace and admit that, is "iCandor" trademarked yet?
Of course, *I* won't buy one and the legions of iZealots won't care.
"something more than 477,000 miles"
You DO understand what "something more than.." means, yes?
"The passengers will travel beyond the moon and loop back to Earth, spanning roughly 300,000 to 400,000 miles. "
The distance to the moon is 238,900 miles.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and postulate that a trip AROUND the moon is going to be something more than 477,000 miles.