"Open hardware" means that other people can quickly produce a fully compatible board. That's really useful for end users even if they are never going to make the board themselves.
Windows Mobile failed for other reasons too, reasons that are typical of Microsoft. Windows Mobile had good technology, but the user interface was iffy and software quality was spotty. APIs and strategies kept changing as different groups inside Microsoft jostled for dominance. Windows Mobile tried to tie people to the Microsoft "ecosystem" and integrate with their desktop, but that integration was poor. And third party developers could fix none of this for them because they kept large parts proprietary and closed. I think you even had to get special permission from Microsoft to sync with their devices. Even if you sacrificed your kids to Ballmer, gave up any sense of self-respect, and bought an all Microsoft solution (desktop, phone, Outlook), you still ended up with a slow and crappy solution. That's why Windows Mobile failed.
If you read my original post, I said median income, not average.
If you read my post, you'd see that I told you to go out and do some research before spouting the kind of nonsense that you did. I'm still telling you that; if you actually do, you'll find that your statements are ludicrous, median or mean.
in large part because the top 4% earn above $ 200,000 per year.
Yes, people like skilled software developers, biomedical researchers, entertainers, commercial artists, doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. make that kind of money. The US rewards success and contributions to the bottom line financially, which is probably why so many people choose to live here. A company like Apple makes $2M in revenue per employee, it stands to reason that at least a few thousand of their top employees should make more than $200k, and they do. Same for most other successful companies.
And after years of studying, making sacrifices, and becoming a kick-ass software developer in Norway, you'll have to accept the fact that you'll probably still be no better off than your plumber.
No, you don't understand. It uses a model that was trained weeks or months earlier somewhere and then is shipped as part of the software. The offline recognizer itself is completely offline and doesn't "use the server".
Where do you have that number from? The warm period before the previous cold period was way longer.
That's utter nonsense. Really, I'm not going to debate with you on such elementary facts. Go do some background reading yourself. If you're not completely blind, you can see that what I said is true just from the Vostok core.
However: if the CO2 concentration continues to increase we will tipple over the point when this happens. Just like a pot of water on a stove sooner or later cooks. It is only question of how much heat you give to the pot. No one would argue: oh well, but in this case, lets watch perhaps the pot won't start boiling this time. Sorry, physics dictate that it will.
Yes, there is such a tipping point, theoretically. But we can't reach it by releasing all the fossil fuel we can get at. How do we know? Because more carbon than that used to be in the atmosphere and things were fine. No runaway greenhouse effect, no dying out of mammals or ocean life. In fact, the opposite.
As I tried to express on/. several times: stuff that has yet not happen usually has no "evidence" or "proof".
But high atmospheric carbon concentrations have happened before, all the effects and mechanisms you gave went into effect, and there was still no runaway greenhouse effect. So your argument makes no sense.
As it turns out, there are many things we don't need to do, but that are nice to do nonetheless. Sharing one's life with one's friends via Facebook falls into that category.
Norway is doing quite well, of course, but Norway is a xenophobic oil- and resource-rich country of 5 million that stays out of the EU because it knows the EU would suck its wealth away in a heartbeat.
As for consumer rights, where do you think they came from? The Pope? Adorno (as if you'd know who that is)? The EU? Norwegian trolls like you? Find out some time.
Maybe you should go beyond your second rate public education and government sponsored nationalism and actually find out what's really going in the world. You'd be surprised.
Gérald Santucci – “We need new thinking and new concepts”“... What is at stake is the capability of the EU to integrate modern, adequate legal data protection into its socio-technical fabric, i.e. its hardware, software and the many associated protocols and standards that enable and constrain its affordances.”
Maybe "we" need more than platitudes. Maybe "we" need an original thought instead of bloated, vomit-inducing bureaucrat speak.
But "we" definitely need to find a new hair stylist, Mr. Santucci.
The previous one is just how long ago? 20k years? 15k years? If we assume there would be a regularity the next one would be due in something like 45k to 150k years or even 650k years.
The current warm period is called the Holocene, and it has been at least 11000 years long. Warm periods usually last at most 12000 years. So, absent anthropogenic warming or other unusual effects, we'd be entering a new glacial period right now, with steadily decreasing temperatures. Even small decreases in temperature are devastating to agriculture, while even significant increases tend not to be.
Earth has been through dozens of these over the past few million years,and anatomically modern humans through at least one cycle. Temperatures, ecologies, precipitation, and sea levels during each cycle have changed much more dramatically than anything projected (or even plausible) from anthropogenic warming. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the projected changes from anthropogenic warming will be particularly harmful to life on earth, in particular since warmer temperatures (on these scales) are generally not as harmful to life as colder temperatures.
The worst case scenario is: all is released. If we run into a "runaway" feedback we obviously can't stop it.
There is no evidence for runaway feedback, no proven mechanism by which it could happen if we released "all carbon", and no precedent in earth's history. Furthermore, each warm period has ended on its own based on some unknown negative feedback mechanism that no model takes into account. So while there is no evidence for an effective positive feedback mechanism, we know there is a global and effective negative feedback mechanism.
But what we know is: if we continue to produce so much CO2: it will happen.
No, we don't know any such thing. In fact, what likely would happen if we released "all" carbon is that we returned to the kind of temperatures when all that stuff was in the atmosphere, probably about the same as the Eocene. There would be some economic costs (depending on how fast that would happen), but there is no evidence supporting the idea that it would be a global catastrophe.
But... but... I thought European privacy protections were supposed to be so strong. Wasn't that why Google was demonized in Europe so much for their (rather innocent) WiFi capture?
The speech sent to the data center is obviously used to train both server-based and phone-based speech recognition, so neither system has an advantage there.
No, the phone software isn't using "magic", but it seems to be using newer and more efficient techniques than Apple is getting from Nuance (both based on what is known about Nuance software and what has been published about Google's recent efforts).
There was an article about it recently. Apparently, the phone software uses newer, more efficient technology than the server software, so the difference isn't as big as you might think.
Short term demand spikes create short term shortages. Long term, an increase in demand will be met by an increase in production, more efficient production methods, and lower prices. That's a good thing.
There are lots of uses for RTGs (including medical devices), but they have been hamstrung by anti-nuclear hysteria. If Pu 238 was more widely adopted commercially, these shortages would disappear.
but why do it this way rather than enabling simultaneous client-side speech recognition a la Google Now (even in the Google app on iOS)?
Google can do that because they have developed two separate speech recognition engines themselves, one for phones and another for servers. Apple is simply licensing Nuance speech recognition, and they get whatever Nuance can give them.
The Windows update mechanism is a huge backdoor: any code can be introduced onto your machine at any time. And pushing a compromise as a "special" update is far better than distributing it to everyone, since it makes detection much less likely.
both lead to more methane which also leads to more heating (melting of perma frost areas, release from the oceans etc.)
And whether global warming is dangerous depends on the magnitude and speed of those releases. Mathematics doesn't tell you that. In fact, there is little experimental data or observation to make any clear predictions about that, just a lot of wild guesswork and FUD.
Nevertheless exactly that will happen if we can not stabalize the CO2 level.
Yes, some CO2 will get released from permafrost, and some clathrates will melt. There is no reason to believe that that's going to be more than a negligible blip.
And we can never "stabilize" the CO2 level because they naturally undergo wide swings. If it weren't going up rapidly now due to human activity, it would likely start going down:
Creationism/ID takes a few scientific facts out of context and then constructs an elaborate and implausible theory out of them. That's the same with climate change "science".
The point is that we're not making snap judgements about "non-problems".
No, that is not the point. The point is that Dryriver argued that assuming our judgment actually had been wrong, it still wouldn't be so bad because we got all this great stuff out of it. But, in fact, the opportunity costs we have already paid for trying to counteract climate change are already staggering, and it is only getting worse the longer we persist. Even if some of the worst case scenarios of the IPCC were true, they wouldn't justify the enormous losses we are accumulating by wasting resources on trying to counteract climate change.
The fact that is is increasingly looking like climate change isn't going to be as severe anyway pales in comparison to these other economic facts.
Slashdot Mirror
"Open hardware" means that other people can quickly produce a fully compatible board. That's really useful for end users even if they are never going to make the board themselves.
Why so windy? Why not
"and expressed regret over his own incompetence"
Windows Mobile failed for other reasons too, reasons that are typical of Microsoft. Windows Mobile had good technology, but the user interface was iffy and software quality was spotty. APIs and strategies kept changing as different groups inside Microsoft jostled for dominance. Windows Mobile tried to tie people to the Microsoft "ecosystem" and integrate with their desktop, but that integration was poor. And third party developers could fix none of this for them because they kept large parts proprietary and closed. I think you even had to get special permission from Microsoft to sync with their devices. Even if you sacrificed your kids to Ballmer, gave up any sense of self-respect, and bought an all Microsoft solution (desktop, phone, Outlook), you still ended up with a slow and crappy solution. That's why Windows Mobile failed.
If you read my post, you'd see that I told you to go out and do some research before spouting the kind of nonsense that you did. I'm still telling you that; if you actually do, you'll find that your statements are ludicrous, median or mean.
Yes, people like skilled software developers, biomedical researchers, entertainers, commercial artists, doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. make that kind of money. The US rewards success and contributions to the bottom line financially, which is probably why so many people choose to live here. A company like Apple makes $2M in revenue per employee, it stands to reason that at least a few thousand of their top employees should make more than $200k, and they do. Same for most other successful companies.
Norwegians, on the other hand, just seem to be making money from extractive industries, redistributing the revenue, and having a party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Norway_treemap.png
And after years of studying, making sacrifices, and becoming a kick-ass software developer in Norway, you'll have to accept the fact that you'll probably still be no better off than your plumber.
No, you don't understand. It uses a model that was trained weeks or months earlier somewhere and then is shipped as part of the software. The offline recognizer itself is completely offline and doesn't "use the server".
That's utter nonsense. Really, I'm not going to debate with you on such elementary facts. Go do some background reading yourself. If you're not completely blind, you can see that what I said is true just from the Vostok core.
Yes, there is such a tipping point, theoretically. But we can't reach it by releasing all the fossil fuel we can get at. How do we know? Because more carbon than that used to be in the atmosphere and things were fine. No runaway greenhouse effect, no dying out of mammals or ocean life. In fact, the opposite.
But high atmospheric carbon concentrations have happened before, all the effects and mechanisms you gave went into effect, and there was still no runaway greenhouse effect. So your argument makes no sense.
As it turns out, there are many things we don't need to do, but that are nice to do nonetheless. Sharing one's life with one's friends via Facebook falls into that category.
Here's one set of income data, but you can check plenty of others if you like:
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
Norway is doing quite well, of course, but Norway is a xenophobic oil- and resource-rich country of 5 million that stays out of the EU because it knows the EU would suck its wealth away in a heartbeat.
As for consumer rights, where do you think they came from? The Pope? Adorno (as if you'd know who that is)? The EU? Norwegian trolls like you? Find out some time.
Maybe you should go beyond your second rate public education and government sponsored nationalism and actually find out what's really going in the world. You'd be surprised.
Maybe "we" need more than platitudes. Maybe "we" need an original thought instead of bloated, vomit-inducing bureaucrat speak.
But "we" definitely need to find a new hair stylist, Mr. Santucci.
The current warm period is called the Holocene, and it has been at least 11000 years long. Warm periods usually last at most 12000 years. So, absent anthropogenic warming or other unusual effects, we'd be entering a new glacial period right now, with steadily decreasing temperatures. Even small decreases in temperature are devastating to agriculture, while even significant increases tend not to be.
Earth has been through dozens of these over the past few million years,and anatomically modern humans through at least one cycle. Temperatures, ecologies, precipitation, and sea levels during each cycle have changed much more dramatically than anything projected (or even plausible) from anthropogenic warming. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the projected changes from anthropogenic warming will be particularly harmful to life on earth, in particular since warmer temperatures (on these scales) are generally not as harmful to life as colder temperatures.
There is no evidence for runaway feedback, no proven mechanism by which it could happen if we released "all carbon", and no precedent in earth's history. Furthermore, each warm period has ended on its own based on some unknown negative feedback mechanism that no model takes into account. So while there is no evidence for an effective positive feedback mechanism, we know there is a global and effective negative feedback mechanism.
No, we don't know any such thing. In fact, what likely would happen if we released "all" carbon is that we returned to the kind of temperatures when all that stuff was in the atmosphere, probably about the same as the Eocene. There would be some economic costs (depending on how fast that would happen), but there is no evidence supporting the idea that it would be a global catastrophe.
But... but... I thought European privacy protections were supposed to be so strong. Wasn't that why Google was demonized in Europe so much for their (rather innocent) WiFi capture?
The speech sent to the data center is obviously used to train both server-based and phone-based speech recognition, so neither system has an advantage there.
No, the phone software isn't using "magic", but it seems to be using newer and more efficient techniques than Apple is getting from Nuance (both based on what is known about Nuance software and what has been published about Google's recent efforts).
There was an article about it recently. Apparently, the phone software uses newer, more efficient technology than the server software, so the difference isn't as big as you might think.
Short term demand spikes create short term shortages. Long term, an increase in demand will be met by an increase in production, more efficient production methods, and lower prices. That's a good thing.
Huh? How can "driving up titanium production" stall anything?
In any case, over the last ten years, titanium has become cheaper than copper or brass.
No, rather a complete waste of supercomputing, since there are already better algorithms for doing the same thing.
There are lots of uses for RTGs (including medical devices), but they have been hamstrung by anti-nuclear hysteria. If Pu 238 was more widely adopted commercially, these shortages would disappear.
Android got offline speech recognition a while ago:
http://www.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows-third-party-developers-use-offline-speech-recognition
Google can do that because they have developed two separate speech recognition engines themselves, one for phones and another for servers. Apple is simply licensing Nuance speech recognition, and they get whatever Nuance can give them.
The Windows update mechanism is a huge backdoor: any code can be introduced onto your machine at any time. And pushing a compromise as a "special" update is far better than distributing it to everyone, since it makes detection much less likely.
And whether global warming is dangerous depends on the magnitude and speed of those releases. Mathematics doesn't tell you that. In fact, there is little experimental data or observation to make any clear predictions about that, just a lot of wild guesswork and FUD.
Yes, some CO2 will get released from permafrost, and some clathrates will melt. There is no reason to believe that that's going to be more than a negligible blip.
And we can never "stabilize" the CO2 level because they naturally undergo wide swings. If it weren't going up rapidly now due to human activity, it would likely start going down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
We do know what our pre-industrial climatic fate would have been, and, frankly, I prefer that we seem to be avoiding that:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm
Creationism/ID takes a few scientific facts out of context and then constructs an elaborate and implausible theory out of them. That's the same with climate change "science".
You should tell that to Maritz; I was only throwing his unfounded accusation back at him.
I have done so, as have others: the science on which recommendations for action on climate change are based is extremely weak.
Since they haven't started yet, there is no evidence for them yet. They are based on guesswork.
Care to explain what the positive feedback mechanisms that have been postulated as part of climate change have to do with mathematics?
No, that is not the point. The point is that Dryriver argued that assuming our judgment actually had been wrong, it still wouldn't be so bad because we got all this great stuff out of it. But, in fact, the opportunity costs we have already paid for trying to counteract climate change are already staggering, and it is only getting worse the longer we persist. Even if some of the worst case scenarios of the IPCC were true, they wouldn't justify the enormous losses we are accumulating by wasting resources on trying to counteract climate change.
The fact that is is increasingly looking like climate change isn't going to be as severe anyway pales in comparison to these other economic facts.