You should always assume that secrets are leaked... Always.
No, you should always factor in the risk that secrets are leaked. It would be silly to assume that risk is 100%, because it isn't. Many successful closed-source projects prove that.
A true science based government would say "Science says A, therefore our response is B"
Only if science says that B is the only valid response. In most cases, science doesn't do that, and just says A. The step from A to B is usually political.
But feel free to change "science based" into "science inspired" if that makes you feel better.
Science is all about determining the absolute. Facts know no compromise.
Facts and compromise go hand in hand. For instance, science can provide a climate model, that can predict how much warmer the earth will get based on certain policies.
Government is the job of picking the policy that is best overall, and that may involve compromises. For instance, not reducing CO2 emissions, but deciding to move everybody close to the coast is a valid policy, and it may be cheaper than some of the alternatives. Of course, people living in such areas may not agree, but they may agree to move, in return for a suitable compensation. In other words, they can reach a compromise.
if you couldn't afford retirement, too bad, we'll notify your next of kin.
In that case, the next of kin would assume responsibility, and take care of the situation. Possibly using violent forms of protest. At least the situation would distract them so much that they'd become less productive in their normal job.
But we've collectively decided that our goal isn't simply to maximize productivity
Of course, "productivity" must be viewed in the widest possible sense of the word. It could be simply a matter of providing company to their family.
Both options do only one thing...put money in he coffers of the government.
No, the (sensible, science based) government would reduce taxes elsewhere so that the total tax income stays the same. People generating less CO2 would end up paying less taxes, and people generating more CO2 would end up paying more than currently.
The point is that the cost for being wrong can be weighed in the decision. The formula was just a rough example. By all means feel free to provide a more statistically sound calculation.
It makes little scientific sense to provide welfare to people who will never be productive citizens ever again.
It does make sense. Without welfare, they'll be more likely start criminal activities to support themselves. In the end, these have a higher cost to society than welfare.
Scientists also produce error bars with their data. As a politician, you should look at the data including the error margin.
For example, if a scientists says that 'A' is happening with a 95% confidence, the politician can then calculate the costs as 0.95 * cost(A) + 0.05 * cost(not A). All kinds of strategies to deal with 'A' can be calculated in a similar way. In the end, net costs for all policies can be listed, and the cheapest one can be implemented.
Besides, there is the INTENSE pleasure of seeing Windows in a small, well-behaved window on my desktop. That's how it SHOULD be. (Evil cackle...)
I do the same thing, but I prefer the full screen mode. Using some virtual desktops, and a couple of hot keys, I can switch back and forth between Linux and XP with a press of a key, and for most things, the experience is seamless.
On the other hand, the microcontroller offers many advantages over the FPGA. They use a single power supply, while an FPGA may use 3 different ones. They have more package options, including small ones, with 6 or 8 pins, and a variety of DIP packages. Flash/EEPROM memory is usually included for microcontrollers, and usually not for FPGAs. Analog interfaces, such as ADC/DAC/comparator and brown-out circuitry are typically integrated, as well as semi-analog stuff such as USB PHYs. In addition, the microcontroller is cheaper, easier to use, and has a wider selection of tools (including open ones such as GCC)
If you're just looking for plain old microcontroller functionality, nothing beats a microcontroller.
In that case, you don't need the FPGA either. Just use any microcontroller, and port your application to it. There are dozens of vendors to choose from, with thousands of different designs. Each of them just as open as the FPGA.
Exactly. Similar hardware that the Arduino uses has been available in different forms for decades. It just took a bit more effort by the user, but anybody skilled enough to reverse engineer existing hardware already has all the knowledge to build their own prototyping board.
It would be hard to demonstrate either way, since the differences in energy are so small, they'd be considered noise.
Despite that, we can agree that ultimately, this energy is provided by food calories, which are highly inefficient.
For each food calorie, we use about 10 fossil fuel calories for growing, processing, packaging and transporting the food. On top of that, muscles are only 25% efficient, and the electric tile probably doesn't exceed 50% efficiency in recovering the energy. All in all, it's a very inefficient design compared to putting a solar panel on the roof, and using that to power some LEDs.
The assumption that people will eat more because they walked around this mall is false
Got anything to back this up ?
rather than minute changes in the amount of food we cook for our meals
Or, maybe once a year, when you were already somewhat hungry, the small extra effort in the mall makes you decide to get a slice of pizza that you wouldn't eat otherwise.
On the other hand, if you're walking on regular tiles, and step on this flexing tile, without properly anticipating the different feeling, it may throw a person off-balance.
It's a bit of both. Of course, we're talking about very small amounts of energy robbed from the body, but we're also talking about an even smaller amount of energy that the tile produces.
The energy to produce the tile, plus the energy to produce, package, and distribute the extra food needed to power them will not be gained back by this "green" tile in its entire useful life.
Basically it's just a feel-good project with no tangible benefits.
Keep in mind that random physical destruction, even methods with apparent spectacular results like shotguns and hammers, will not reliably prevent a forensic laboratory from recovering data
Of course, forensic laboratories are not going to be interested in recovering some random old drive they found in the dumpster that appears to be all bashed up with a hammer.
The energy is already there- it just currently dissipates as wasted energy, and does nothing
Uh, no, in order to tap energy from pedestrians, the tile needs to give or flex a bit when you step on it. This takes more energy than walking on a perfectly rigid tile. When walking on rigid tiles, the body stores some of the landing energy in muscles and tendons by stretching them out. When the leg is lifted, the stored energy is released.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you should always factor in the risk that secrets are leaked. It would be silly to assume that risk is 100%, because it isn't. Many successful closed-source projects prove that.
Only if science says that B is the only valid response. In most cases, science doesn't do that, and just says A. The step from A to B is usually political.
But feel free to change "science based" into "science inspired" if that makes you feel better.
Facts and compromise go hand in hand. For instance, science can provide a climate model, that can predict how much warmer the earth will get based on certain policies.
Government is the job of picking the policy that is best overall, and that may involve compromises. For instance, not reducing CO2 emissions, but deciding to move everybody close to the coast is a valid policy, and it may be cheaper than some of the alternatives. Of course, people living in such areas may not agree, but they may agree to move, in return for a suitable compensation. In other words, they can reach a compromise.
In that case, the next of kin would assume responsibility, and take care of the situation. Possibly using violent forms of protest. At least the situation would distract them so much that they'd become less productive in their normal job.
Of course, "productivity" must be viewed in the widest possible sense of the word. It could be simply a matter of providing company to their family.
No, the (sensible, science based) government would reduce taxes elsewhere so that the total tax income stays the same. People generating less CO2 would end up paying less taxes, and people generating more CO2 would end up paying more than currently.
The point is that the cost for being wrong can be weighed in the decision. The formula was just a rough example. By all means feel free to provide a more statistically sound calculation.
It does make sense. Without welfare, they'll be more likely start criminal activities to support themselves. In the end, these have a higher cost to society than welfare.
Scientists also produce error bars with their data. As a politician, you should look at the data including the error margin.
For example, if a scientists says that 'A' is happening with a 95% confidence, the politician can then calculate the costs as 0.95 * cost(A) + 0.05 * cost(not A). All kinds of strategies to deal with 'A' can be calculated in a similar way. In the end, net costs for all policies can be listed, and the cheapest one can be implemented.
Oh, there is electricity alright. It's just 5 floors up from the parking lot, which is on the other side of the building.
Sorry. Grandma's apartment building doesn't have a place to charge it.
I do the same thing, but I prefer the full screen mode. Using some virtual desktops, and a couple of hot keys, I can switch back and forth between Linux and XP with a press of a key, and for most things, the experience is seamless.
On the other hand, the microcontroller offers many advantages over the FPGA. They use a single power supply, while an FPGA may use 3 different ones. They have more package options, including small ones, with 6 or 8 pins, and a variety of DIP packages. Flash/EEPROM memory is usually included for microcontrollers, and usually not for FPGAs. Analog interfaces, such as ADC/DAC/comparator and brown-out circuitry are typically integrated, as well as semi-analog stuff such as USB PHYs. In addition, the microcontroller is cheaper, easier to use, and has a wider selection of tools (including open ones such as GCC)
If you're just looking for plain old microcontroller functionality, nothing beats a microcontroller.
In that case, you don't need the FPGA either. Just use any microcontroller, and port your application to it. There are dozens of vendors to choose from, with thousands of different designs. Each of them just as open as the FPGA.
Exactly. Similar hardware that the Arduino uses has been available in different forms for decades. It just took a bit more effort by the user, but anybody skilled enough to reverse engineer existing hardware already has all the knowledge to build their own prototyping board.
They are selling you.
It would be hard to demonstrate either way, since the differences in energy are so small, they'd be considered noise.
Despite that, we can agree that ultimately, this energy is provided by food calories, which are highly inefficient.
For each food calorie, we use about 10 fossil fuel calories for growing, processing, packaging and transporting the food. On top of that, muscles are only 25% efficient, and the electric tile probably doesn't exceed 50% efficiency in recovering the energy. All in all, it's a very inefficient design compared to putting a solar panel on the roof, and using that to power some LEDs.
Got anything to back this up ?
Or, maybe once a year, when you were already somewhat hungry, the small extra effort in the mall makes you decide to get a slice of pizza that you wouldn't eat otherwise.
You mean that on one test flight, one leg will fail to deploy, the rocket will land, tip over and explode, and Musk will cancel the project ?
Only if people aren't compensating the extra energy by eating more.
On the other hand, if you're walking on regular tiles, and step on this flexing tile, without properly anticipating the different feeling, it may throw a person off-balance.
It's a bit of both. Of course, we're talking about very small amounts of energy robbed from the body, but we're also talking about an even smaller amount of energy that the tile produces.
The energy to produce the tile, plus the energy to produce, package, and distribute the extra food needed to power them will not be gained back by this "green" tile in its entire useful life.
Basically it's just a feel-good project with no tangible benefits.
Of course, forensic laboratories are not going to be interested in recovering some random old drive they found in the dumpster that appears to be all bashed up with a hammer.
Make a separate entrance for fat people. Problem solved.
Uh, no, in order to tap energy from pedestrians, the tile needs to give or flex a bit when you step on it. This takes more energy than walking on a perfectly rigid tile. When walking on rigid tiles, the body stores some of the landing energy in muscles and tendons by stretching them out. When the leg is lifted, the stored energy is released.
The MRI field is always on, so you could just walk in (hold drives very tightly), and keep them in the machine for a while.