It's a smoke and CO (as in carbon monoxide) alarm, not a "CO2 alarm". Most people don't need the CO alarm, it's for people who regularly heat by burning stuff in their homes: cabins, propane heaters in trailers, not exactly the Nest clientele. It can also be useful in the garage--if you are terminally stupid and drive a 70's car. And if you produce enough smoke to set off an alarm while cooking, you're doing something wrong and probably at least should have to go through the trouble of poking an alarm with a broom.
This thing really is a solution in search of a problem, and a bad solution at that. The Nest thermostat isn't much better (I tried it); it's overly complex, breaks the user interface people are used to, and requires far too much attention. Adding connectivity and smarts to these devices should be a small, simple, incremental step with a minimal increase in cost, not a total redesign. But, heck, like gold-plated iPhones and diamond encrusted Bluetooth headsets, someone's going to buy this too.
... selling people "internet-connected smart-gadgets for the home" will be a heck of a tough sell, especially in an "educated" market like Europe.
They will just sell them "ISDN connected intelligent appliances", and all spying activity will only be conducted by European spy agencies, in strictest compliance with European law. Then European consumers will feel safe, and the European computer industry finally makes a sale or two.
Here’s a great business idea: Cheap, rental smartphones at international airports. I’d put down a hundred bucks deposit and $10 a day for a local phone that doesn’t come with all the nickel-and-dime charges.
You can get those easily. The BestBuy kiosks at various airports even sell them.
DVR fees and cable modem fees
If you still subscribe to cable, they know they have a sucker, so they sell you this crap too.
Yet with landlines, we still have to pay attention to where we’re dialing
And you have a landline... because?
Yet, while Internet access is free in coffee shops, some public transit, and even campsites, as of 2009 15% of hotels charged guests for the privilege of checking their e-mail and catching up on watching cat videos.
They also charge as much for stale beer and cocktail peanuts as restaurants do for an entire dinner. In turn, though, they are also getting fleeced by cities with ridiculous taxes, fees, and regulations, so I guess it's only fair. Avoid all of it and go with AirBNB.
Often, all of this is just a case of "differential pricing": they simply want to extract from each person what they can easily afford to pay without feeling pain; think of it as a "progressive income tax". It's the same for many tech products, where you pay a steep increase in price for minor differences in features, or even just unlocking features. And if you're on a budget, it's probably better this way, because those excessive WiFi charges that other people pay are easy to avoid for you, but they are keeping overall prices down and allow you to stay in a hotel that you might otherwise not be able to afford.
Contributing to the profusion of these charges is that, for many people, those are business expenses anyway, so they are paid for by businesses or tax payer subsidized.
However, that may need to change now that physicists have worked out a formal way of distinguishing between systems that compute and those that don't.
Just because a bunch of physicists propose such a "formal way" doesn't mean that that formal way is actually correct or even meaningful. The history of science is littered with physicists proposing all sorts of things outside physics, almost all of which have turned out to be b.s.
Look, somewhere along this thread, someone suggested that we shouldn't have private security because we have police and we should simply raise taxes. I'm pointing out that anything you pay for with taxes is much less responsive to the needs of the people than something you pay for privately. Seems like you agree.
Therefore, a good balance is to reduce police to the absolute minimum. You observe correctly that we need police as the "enforcement arm of the court system". But patrolling our neighborhoods and making them more secure is a separate function from that, and a function that certainly can be privatized at least in principle.
The question is about the budgetary process. You're again conflating the process with the content. Nice try, but still irrelevant.
This isn't grade school where you get an A because you followed all the rules. The president is measured by the results he achieves.
Negotiations require two parties. I'm just wondering why you think the current president needs to follow the wishes of a small faction in the majority party of the House of Representatives
Obama chose to push through his health care law against enormous opposition by Republicans and has angered Republicans on many other issues. Now he has to deal with the fallout.
Obama has also failed to show leadership or initiative generally on achieving a balanced budget.
That wouldn't happen to be because that small faction happens to be your home team, would it?
No, it's not my "home team"; I'm an independent. I was as critical of Bush as I am of Obama. I think both suck(ed) as presidents, but I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that Obama is even more incompetent than Bush. I may not have agreed with every position Clinton took, but he was much more competent than either, and, unlike Obama, he was unfairly hounded by Republicans.
Not at all. Submitting a budget that has no chance of passing means the president dropped the ball.
"and come up with a budget that satisfies both him and the House." Impossible. The Republican-led has made the decision to obstruct and chastise the president for every decision made.
Obama has decided again and again to push through decisions against Republican objection, with the justification that his win entitles him to that. Well, he is learning that that's not the way it works.
Absolutely. Question: what's a sensible budget?... I'll settle for "a balanced budget."
A balanced budget without tax increases.
Finally, I'm just wondering: do you judge every president by whether he has presented a timely budget?
No, only if the country ends up at the brink of default due to a breakdown in negotiations.
Evidence and logic is what your conspiracy theory lacks.
There is no evidence that companies are suppressing technologies that would make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels, and it defies logic. There is simply no way oil companies could do that.
You point to patent encumbrances on using NiMH batteries in cars. NiMH batteries are not efficient. If patent encumbrances were the mechanism by which clean energy is suppressed, show the patents and the evidence that those patents are on something that works. Patents also expire after 20 years, so they are at most a temporary encumbrance.
I can fire a security firm protecting my house. A dozen other home owners can fire the security protecting a private development. Firing the local police force and replacing it is much, much harder than either choice. That's why police forces have so many problems: they get paid pretty much no matter what.
Yes, but now they are widely accepted as a necessary public good. If the present police force is not up to the task, the solution isn't for everyone to start hiring their own private guards, but rather to force the local government and police force to do better. If that means that it raises taxes on some or all, then so be it.
And how are you going to "force them" to do better? The ballot box isn't working, in part because towns and cities have become too big. The solution most people have come up with is private communities with their own rules and their own security, and it seems like a pretty good solution to me.
It used to be that most roads were toll roads, too, in some cases solely in private hands. Is the solution to poorly maintained roads for everyone to start laying their own pavement? No
No, but privately owned and maintained toll roads seem like a pretty good idea to me.
The submission by the president of a budget to Congress has become much less important than what Congress decides to do with the budget.
Nevertheless, it's the procedure. And since Obama seems to have very particular ideas of what the budget should be like, it's his job to articulate them clearly and come up with a budget that satisfies both him and the House.
Furthermore, when Obama was a senator, he himself considered getting a balanced and sensible budget the responsibility of the president. We should hold him to that now that he is president.
They were saying the same thing as I predicted the "AI winter" blowback years before it happened.
We're not talking about whether 80's style symbolic AI works or is a good idea (it isn't).
We're talking about your ludicrous statement that machine learning and page ranking are "post-90's AI techniques" and that "voice recognition [sic] [...] borrows more from 80's AI". Those statements are bullshit. All these techniques go back to long before the 1980's; they are not new techniques.
what keeps us from using it, according to you, is the **false** perception that 19th Century energy methods are somehow 'cheaper'!!!
No, it's not a "false perception", it's economic fact.
blame the R&D decisions of those Oligarch companies...R&D choices made with a goal of sustaining revenue channels, NOT improving things
There are tens of thousands of people working on better batteries and clean energies, and most of them have nothing to do with big energy companies. There isn't anything better because nobody has been able to come with anything better. And it's not like things haven't been happening either: there has been pretty steady progress in batteries, solar cells, etc., but there are physical and technological limits to what's possible. Sorry, no conspiracy theory at work here.
Machine learning today has very little to do with the "intelligence in the machines" hot air of the 80's AI.
That is correct. But it has a lot to do with the pre-80's AI, instead of being newly developed in the 90's as you claim.
In addition, the "hot air of the 80's AI" wasn't just hot air either, but instead has made its way into just about every major part of the computer industry. It didn't deliver human intelligence, but it certainly has made computers a lot more intelligent.
Says the guy who uses a Computer World article as a reference.
I didn't use Computer World for anything. Pay attention: there are three people in this thread telling you now that you are full of shit.
Machine learning goes back to the 1950's, and it has been a part of AI ever since. The techniques used in speech recognition are standard machine learning techniques (hidden Markov models, Gaussian mixtures, neural networks, Bayesian networks). What you call "1980's style AI" may be symbolic, non-probabilistic AI: rule-based systems, inference engines, logic, etc.. And even that is in day-to-day use, in everything from databases to compilers, graphics programs, and games.
(In different words, you have no idea what you're talking about.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's a smoke and CO (as in carbon monoxide) alarm, not a "CO2 alarm". Most people don't need the CO alarm, it's for people who regularly heat by burning stuff in their homes: cabins, propane heaters in trailers, not exactly the Nest clientele. It can also be useful in the garage--if you are terminally stupid and drive a 70's car. And if you produce enough smoke to set off an alarm while cooking, you're doing something wrong and probably at least should have to go through the trouble of poking an alarm with a broom.
This thing really is a solution in search of a problem, and a bad solution at that. The Nest thermostat isn't much better (I tried it); it's overly complex, breaks the user interface people are used to, and requires far too much attention. Adding connectivity and smarts to these devices should be a small, simple, incremental step with a minimal increase in cost, not a total redesign. But, heck, like gold-plated iPhones and diamond encrusted Bluetooth headsets, someone's going to buy this too.
They will just sell them "ISDN connected intelligent appliances", and all spying activity will only be conducted by European spy agencies, in strictest compliance with European law. Then European consumers will feel safe, and the European computer industry finally makes a sale or two.
Let me rephrase it, since it obviously was a little too ambiguous for you:
"You use a landline for anything but emergencies/for long distance... because?"
And if you really worry about emergencies, you're better off getting an amateur radio license.
OK, I've "had" a landline in that sense as well; it comes with DSL. But you don't have to use it for anything, certainly not long distance.
You can get those easily. The BestBuy kiosks at various airports even sell them.
If you still subscribe to cable, they know they have a sucker, so they sell you this crap too.
And you have a landline ... because?
They also charge as much for stale beer and cocktail peanuts as restaurants do for an entire dinner. In turn, though, they are also getting fleeced by cities with ridiculous taxes, fees, and regulations, so I guess it's only fair. Avoid all of it and go with AirBNB.
Often, all of this is just a case of "differential pricing": they simply want to extract from each person what they can easily afford to pay without feeling pain; think of it as a "progressive income tax". It's the same for many tech products, where you pay a steep increase in price for minor differences in features, or even just unlocking features. And if you're on a budget, it's probably better this way, because those excessive WiFi charges that other people pay are easy to avoid for you, but they are keeping overall prices down and allow you to stay in a hotel that you might otherwise not be able to afford.
Contributing to the profusion of these charges is that, for many people, those are business expenses anyway, so they are paid for by businesses or tax payer subsidized.
Just because a bunch of physicists propose such a "formal way" doesn't mean that that formal way is actually correct or even meaningful. The history of science is littered with physicists proposing all sorts of things outside physics, almost all of which have turned out to be b.s.
to a nicer data center...
Look, somewhere along this thread, someone suggested that we shouldn't have private security because we have police and we should simply raise taxes. I'm pointing out that anything you pay for with taxes is much less responsive to the needs of the people than something you pay for privately. Seems like you agree.
Therefore, a good balance is to reduce police to the absolute minimum. You observe correctly that we need police as the "enforcement arm of the court system". But patrolling our neighborhoods and making them more secure is a separate function from that, and a function that certainly can be privatized at least in principle.
This isn't grade school where you get an A because you followed all the rules. The president is measured by the results he achieves.
Obama chose to push through his health care law against enormous opposition by Republicans and has angered Republicans on many other issues. Now he has to deal with the fallout.
Obama has also failed to show leadership or initiative generally on achieving a balanced budget.
No, it's not my "home team"; I'm an independent. I was as critical of Bush as I am of Obama. I think both suck(ed) as presidents, but I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that Obama is even more incompetent than Bush. I may not have agreed with every position Clinton took, but he was much more competent than either, and, unlike Obama, he was unfairly hounded by Republicans.
Your post, like all your previous ones, is still full of ad hominems and devoid of facts or arguments.
We're talking about providing security for local neighborhoods, not abolishing the legal and police system entirely.
(And if you think that public cops treat people equally, you're naive.)
Vertebrates would seem to be a sensible line.
It's starting to happen, that's the point of all these articles about companies moving to Google and other cloud apps.
Not at all. Submitting a budget that has no chance of passing means the president dropped the ball.
"and come up with a budget that satisfies both him and the House." Impossible. The Republican-led has made the decision to obstruct and chastise the president for every decision made.
Obama has decided again and again to push through decisions against Republican objection, with the justification that his win entitles him to that. Well, he is learning that that's not the way it works.
A balanced budget without tax increases.
No, only if the country ends up at the brink of default due to a breakdown in negotiations.
Evidence and logic is what your conspiracy theory lacks.
There is no evidence that companies are suppressing technologies that would make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels, and it defies logic. There is simply no way oil companies could do that.
You point to patent encumbrances on using NiMH batteries in cars. NiMH batteries are not efficient. If patent encumbrances were the mechanism by which clean energy is suppressed, show the patents and the evidence that those patents are on something that works. Patents also expire after 20 years, so they are at most a temporary encumbrance.
I can fire a security firm protecting my house. A dozen other home owners can fire the security protecting a private development. Firing the local police force and replacing it is much, much harder than either choice. That's why police forces have so many problems: they get paid pretty much no matter what.
Well, then at least pay lip service to the problems with current candidates.
Both the unquestioning adoration of Bush and the adoration of Obama by their respective constituencies are probably part of the problem.
And how are you going to "force them" to do better? The ballot box isn't working, in part because towns and cities have become too big. The solution most people have come up with is private communities with their own rules and their own security, and it seems like a pretty good solution to me.
No, but privately owned and maintained toll roads seem like a pretty good idea to me.
Yes, they were late and were a joke at that.
Nevertheless, it's the procedure. And since Obama seems to have very particular ideas of what the budget should be like, it's his job to articulate them clearly and come up with a budget that satisfies both him and the House.
Furthermore, when Obama was a senator, he himself considered getting a balanced and sensible budget the responsibility of the president. We should hold him to that now that he is president.
We're not talking about whether 80's style symbolic AI works or is a good idea (it isn't).
We're talking about your ludicrous statement that machine learning and page ranking are "post-90's AI techniques" and that "voice recognition [sic] [...] borrows more from 80's AI". Those statements are bullshit. All these techniques go back to long before the 1980's; they are not new techniques.
Try supporting their opponents or running against them.
Maybe we need a Peace and Disarmament PAC.
No, it's not a "false perception", it's economic fact.
There are tens of thousands of people working on better batteries and clean energies, and most of them have nothing to do with big energy companies. There isn't anything better because nobody has been able to come with anything better. And it's not like things haven't been happening either: there has been pretty steady progress in batteries, solar cells, etc., but there are physical and technological limits to what's possible. Sorry, no conspiracy theory at work here.
Take a mid-size business using Chromebooks with Google Apps (or an equivalent offering from Microsoft). What do they need a sys admin for?
That is correct. But it has a lot to do with the pre-80's AI, instead of being newly developed in the 90's as you claim.
In addition, the "hot air of the 80's AI" wasn't just hot air either, but instead has made its way into just about every major part of the computer industry. It didn't deliver human intelligence, but it certainly has made computers a lot more intelligent.
I didn't use Computer World for anything. Pay attention: there are three people in this thread telling you now that you are full of shit.
Machine learning goes back to the 1950's, and it has been a part of AI ever since. The techniques used in speech recognition are standard machine learning techniques (hidden Markov models, Gaussian mixtures, neural networks, Bayesian networks). What you call "1980's style AI" may be symbolic, non-probabilistic AI: rule-based systems, inference engines, logic, etc.. And even that is in day-to-day use, in everything from databases to compilers, graphics programs, and games.
(In different words, you have no idea what you're talking about.)