Ruthlessly extrapolating the current rate of nuclear accidents contaminating their surroundings (3 incidents in 63 years of commercial nuclear energy contaminating about 4000 square kilometers) we'd make the entire land surface of the planet an exclusion zone in less than 8 million years. That may sound like a long time to you, but our future offspring may think otherwise. They don't really give a shit about how many people we kill today, though. Dead people only fertilize the earth so they're just great.
However, this discussion is moot. Building new nuclear power plants that adhere to modern safety regulations has become prohibitively expensive the past few decades. They are simply not economic.
I don't think that's a good comparison. They used many different telescopes at different times and later stitched the result together. If you really must compare this to photo technology, I think panorama stitching, focus stacking or "dynamic pixel shifting" come much closer.
The government continuously sends me tax assessments for things I don't own, like non existent houses. Yet I have to pay end up in jail. If they can do it, why can't this guy?:p
Due to the inefficient conversion, using hydrogen as storage is not too good idea. We have plenty of great energy storage solutions in use now, all of which are better than storing hydrogen. Pumped hydro and compressed air are used at very large scales and are significantly more efficient than converting electricity into hydrogen.
I repeat: hydrogen is a waste of energy and money UNLESS you can produce it directly from available energy in the environment more efficiently than you can use that energy to produce electricity or other directly and efficiently applicable forms of energy. The technology this article is about is a first in that.
Currently, from an energy ROI POV, hydrogen as a fuel is just about useless; it can either be produced from fossil fuels, which is exactly what we do not want, or we can make it through electrolysis, but this approach is wildly inefficient compared to just using the electricity directly, like we do now.
Just about the only chance to make hydrogen as a fuel worthwhile (compared to electricity production) is if we can use availably energy _directly_ for electrolysis or thermal decomposition in a way that's more efficient than making electricity. Since PV panels are wildly inefficient (albeit significantly more efficient than photosynthesis), a solution like this might turn out to be a game changer, making a hydrogen economy feasible instead of a subsidy-fueled wildly inefficient pipe-dream.
Also, for production of rocket fuel on other planets or the moon, this thing might be turn out to be big.
This all comes down to the definition of AI; these days, people tend to think the term is synonymous with machine learning, but it isn't nor has it ever been; AI is just about a system that's somehow "artificially intelligent". Rule-based systems and statistical analysis can be AI just as well. Us computer people that understand that simply following some rules is not "intelligent" may think otherwise, but the vast majority of humanity considers these things "intelligent". Any automated system that appears "intelligent" to its users or buyers is AI. By definition.
I didn't RTFA but my assumption on this was that climate change warmed up the ice a bit, but not enough for it to reach the melting point. However, it has made it warm enough for geothermal energy to warm up the underside beyond the melting point. Geothermal energy always warms up the underside of glaciers, obviously, but whether that causes melting depends on the temperature of the glacier (and it's capacity to transfer heat to the atmosphere and beyond, but that capacity probably that has not changed).
Transforming CO2 in something else requires an amount of energy comparable to the creation of that CO2. So unless this device gets its energy from an otherwise inaccessible (or not efficiently accessible) source, this is not a solution for anything as long as we're still producing CO2 for energy because obviously, it's a better idea to not turn on this device and in turn shut down a CO2 source. Only once we have eradicated all fossil fuel use, using energy to take CO2 out of the system begins to make sense.
That is: unless the energy powering this thing (the energy making metallic sodium if I understand correctly) is obtained in an otherwise not (efficiently) accessible means. I don't know how metallic sodium is created, but if we could use concentrated solar power for that, which is potentially way more efficient than PV, this might actually make some sense. But other than that, in general, there's no free lunch.
That's not true. There's a proper official white list (The BIG register) for all medical people in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere too) that is specifically meant as a public register for these kinds of things; if you search for her, you will find a clear annotation describing what happened. She's not restricting people from accessing that information at all, she's merely requesting a doctor-shaming black list from removing her. What she's doing in this case is perfectly right, just and legal.
Also note that she has made _one_ mistake. She does not seem to be an incompetent doctor with a history of incidents. Everybody makes mistakes. That's not sufficient to end up on such a list for the rest of your live at all. We'd probably not have any doctors left if that's how we did things...
I code MIDI quite a bit. The spec could use some more modern updates, but at the same time it simply suffices because it is quite flexible. A much bigger problem is the lack of device specific documentation; most MIDI controller vendors fail to publish details on how to configure their products over MIDI and simply refer to OS-specific configuration software or don't even bother to do that and just rely on DAW vendors to fix it. That includes some big players like Korg, Novation and M-Audio (the latter being the company that's been selling a broken MIDI interface for years without even bothering to fix some major but easy to fix bugs).
Sony does not have a good security track record so this does not come as a surprise to me.
OWASP Secure Coding Practices Checklist section 1 about input validation was clearly not applied at all. Specifically, they failed to implement "Validate data range":p
AI is still doing many good things. However, they're ran by self-proclaimed victims these days while what they really need are people that understand statistics, which would fit in pretty well since they appear to be a minority:p
1. It's not about what goes on in the heads of the project people, but about those feeling harassed. 2. The title says this is about the name of the package so it does not really matter what the package is about.
All words are just arbitrary combinations of letters that convey meanings.
Yes. And the meaning here is "boob". What on earth is wrong with boob or boobs?!
This is not about all combinations of letters conveying things. It is about people responding irrationally to those things. We should not name packages that rationally affect people. Things like swear words, insults or hateful language. A boob is no such thing. In fact, it is one of the kindest body parts in existence.
And if we absolutely must remove something that's named after a body part, I suggest we start by removing all appendices.
(...) likely inappropriate in most professional/corporate environments (...)
That may well be but it's also completely irrational. The only thing "wrong" with the name is that people probably associate it with boobs, which is all in their heads. Even worse, they apparently fear boobs. Which is also in their heads.
So Debian has now banned a package because its combination of letters triggers irrational things in peoples heads. They've gone mad.
Also, on top of that, there's nothing wrong with boobs. On the contrary: they are what feed our babies and they are the most defining body part of our the class of mammals. They are beautiful and shall be honored, for example by naming software after them.
It depends on the cost. And what we view as thrash and how we measure it.
One example is the banning of plastic bags in Europe. Now, paper bags are routinely handed out by more luxury shops. It costs a zillion times more energy and water to produce a paper bag than a plastic one.
Food packaged in plastic is another example. "But this cucumber comes with its own packaging!". Yeah, well, the plastic one is much better and makes us throw away significantly less food.
Less thrash should not be a goal in itself. We should look at the environmental impact of our actions as a whole.
That is true and all but it is also wildly inconvenient. Some satellites sometimes dip below 100km during transfer to a higher orbit. Do they momentarily leave space? And what do we call that place were you can occasionally encounter a non-crashing satellite?
Also, unlike the KÃrmÃn line, the 80km line stays nicely put while the real KÃrmÃn line dances around all the time.
It's inevitable. As the open runtime of the web becomes better and better, it will take over everything else. MSIE, Real video, ActiveX, Flash, they all died because of this unstoppable train. And everything else will die too, including all native apps. Native apps used to have a performance edge, but that pretty much only remains for hard realtime stuff and it's just a matter of time before this web runtime takes that over too. It's a pity we ended up with JavaScript, but it's still a million times better than writing your app twice only to have it run on a fraction of platforms. The last major hurdle we need to take, are the platform specific app stores that still provide their owners with a reason to keep favoring their platform specific solutions over a more open approach, but eventually those will die too. It's inevitable.
This is not true. We transplant eye parts, skin, faces, arms, legs, fingers, penises and many other parts. None of those are critical to life. They just help restore some bodily function, just like a womb transplant does.
We're No Longer in Smartphone Plateau. We're in the Smartphone Decline.
We're not. We may be in the Smartphone Sales Decline because we're effectively in a Smartphone Feature Plateau, but we definitely are not in a Smartphone Decline.
Slashdot Mirror
Ruthlessly extrapolating the current rate of nuclear accidents contaminating their surroundings (3 incidents in 63 years of commercial nuclear energy contaminating about 4000 square kilometers) we'd make the entire land surface of the planet an exclusion zone in less than 8 million years. That may sound like a long time to you, but our future offspring may think otherwise. They don't really give a shit about how many people we kill today, though. Dead people only fertilize the earth so they're just great.
However, this discussion is moot. Building new nuclear power plants that adhere to modern safety regulations has become prohibitively expensive the past few decades. They are simply not economic.
I don't think that's a good comparison. They used many different telescopes at different times and later stitched the result together. If you really must compare this to photo technology, I think panorama stitching, focus stacking or "dynamic pixel shifting" come much closer.
If you can recover the costs within its lifetime compared to using fossil electricity, it's not more expensive, it's cheaper.
The government continuously sends me tax assessments for things I don't own, like non existent houses. Yet I have to pay end up in jail. If they can do it, why can't this guy? :p
Due to the inefficient conversion, using hydrogen as storage is not too good idea. We have plenty of great energy storage solutions in use now, all of which are better than storing hydrogen. Pumped hydro and compressed air are used at very large scales and are significantly more efficient than converting electricity into hydrogen.
I repeat: hydrogen is a waste of energy and money UNLESS you can produce it directly from available energy in the environment more efficiently than you can use that energy to produce electricity or other directly and efficiently applicable forms of energy. The technology this article is about is a first in that.
Currently, from an energy ROI POV, hydrogen as a fuel is just about useless; it can either be produced from fossil fuels, which is exactly what we do not want, or we can make it through electrolysis, but this approach is wildly inefficient compared to just using the electricity directly, like we do now.
Just about the only chance to make hydrogen as a fuel worthwhile (compared to electricity production) is if we can use availably energy _directly_ for electrolysis or thermal decomposition in a way that's more efficient than making electricity. Since PV panels are wildly inefficient (albeit significantly more efficient than photosynthesis), a solution like this might turn out to be a game changer, making a hydrogen economy feasible instead of a subsidy-fueled wildly inefficient pipe-dream.
Also, for production of rocket fuel on other planets or the moon, this thing might be turn out to be big.
Nope. Have never encountered them. But then again, I'm in the Netherlands where everybody can swim so only foreigners drown :p
This all comes down to the definition of AI; these days, people tend to think the term is synonymous with machine learning, but it isn't nor has it ever been; AI is just about a system that's somehow "artificially intelligent". Rule-based systems and statistical analysis can be AI just as well. Us computer people that understand that simply following some rules is not "intelligent" may think otherwise, but the vast majority of humanity considers these things "intelligent". Any automated system that appears "intelligent" to its users or buyers is AI. By definition.
This article was posted right before "Missing Out On Deep Sleep Causes Alzheimer's Plaques to Build Up". It is not a mistake. It is a cry for help.
Of course it is rude. So is sending me an email.
I didn't RTFA but my assumption on this was that climate change warmed up the ice a bit, but not enough for it to reach the melting point. However, it has made it warm enough for geothermal energy to warm up the underside beyond the melting point. Geothermal energy always warms up the underside of glaciers, obviously, but whether that causes melting depends on the temperature of the glacier (and it's capacity to transfer heat to the atmosphere and beyond, but that capacity probably that has not changed).
Transforming CO2 in something else requires an amount of energy comparable to the creation of that CO2. So unless this device gets its energy from an otherwise inaccessible (or not efficiently accessible) source, this is not a solution for anything as long as we're still producing CO2 for energy because obviously, it's a better idea to not turn on this device and in turn shut down a CO2 source. Only once we have eradicated all fossil fuel use, using energy to take CO2 out of the system begins to make sense.
That is: unless the energy powering this thing (the energy making metallic sodium if I understand correctly) is obtained in an otherwise not (efficiently) accessible means. I don't know how metallic sodium is created, but if we could use concentrated solar power for that, which is potentially way more efficient than PV, this might actually make some sense. But other than that, in general, there's no free lunch.
That's not true. There's a proper official white list (The BIG register) for all medical people in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere too) that is specifically meant as a public register for these kinds of things; if you search for her, you will find a clear annotation describing what happened. She's not restricting people from accessing that information at all, she's merely requesting a doctor-shaming black list from removing her. What she's doing in this case is perfectly right, just and legal.
Also note that she has made _one_ mistake. She does not seem to be an incompetent doctor with a history of incidents. Everybody makes mistakes. That's not sufficient to end up on such a list for the rest of your live at all. We'd probably not have any doctors left if that's how we did things...
I code MIDI quite a bit. The spec could use some more modern updates, but at the same time it simply suffices because it is quite flexible. A much bigger problem is the lack of device specific documentation; most MIDI controller vendors fail to publish details on how to configure their products over MIDI and simply refer to OS-specific configuration software or don't even bother to do that and just rely on DAW vendors to fix it. That includes some big players like Korg, Novation and M-Audio (the latter being the company that's been selling a broken MIDI interface for years without even bothering to fix some major but easy to fix bugs).
It's easier so send in a real doctor. But which one do you send? With remote surgery, you get to choose.
Sony does not have a good security track record so this does not come as a surprise to me.
OWASP Secure Coding Practices Checklist section 1 about input validation was clearly not applied at all. Specifically, they failed to implement "Validate data range" :p
AI is still doing many good things. However, they're ran by self-proclaimed victims these days while what they really need are people that understand statistics, which would fit in pretty well since they appear to be a minority:p
1. It's not about what goes on in the heads of the project people, but about those feeling harassed.
2. The title says this is about the name of the package so it does not really matter what the package is about.
All words are just arbitrary combinations of letters that convey meanings.
Yes. And the meaning here is "boob". What on earth is wrong with boob or boobs?!
This is not about all combinations of letters conveying things. It is about people responding irrationally to those things. We should not name packages that rationally affect people. Things like swear words, insults or hateful language. A boob is no such thing. In fact, it is one of the kindest body parts in existence.
And if we absolutely must remove something that's named after a body part, I suggest we start by removing all appendices.
(...) likely inappropriate in most professional/corporate environments (...)
That may well be but it's also completely irrational. The only thing "wrong" with the name is that people probably associate it with boobs, which is all in their heads. Even worse, they apparently fear boobs. Which is also in their heads.
So Debian has now banned a package because its combination of letters triggers irrational things in peoples heads. They've gone mad.
Also, on top of that, there's nothing wrong with boobs. On the contrary: they are what feed our babies and they are the most defining body part of our the class of mammals. They are beautiful and shall be honored, for example by naming software after them.
Boobs.
It depends on the cost. And what we view as thrash and how we measure it.
One example is the banning of plastic bags in Europe. Now, paper bags are routinely handed out by more luxury shops. It costs a zillion times more energy and water to produce a paper bag than a plastic one.
Food packaged in plastic is another example. "But this cucumber comes with its own packaging!". Yeah, well, the plastic one is much better and makes us throw away significantly less food.
Less thrash should not be a goal in itself. We should look at the environmental impact of our actions as a whole.
That is true and all but it is also wildly inconvenient. Some satellites sometimes dip below 100km during transfer to a higher orbit. Do they momentarily leave space? And what do we call that place were you can occasionally encounter a non-crashing satellite?
Also, unlike the KÃrmÃn line, the 80km line stays nicely put while the real KÃrmÃn line dances around all the time.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
It's inevitable. As the open runtime of the web becomes better and better, it will take over everything else. MSIE, Real video, ActiveX, Flash, they all died because of this unstoppable train. And everything else will die too, including all native apps. Native apps used to have a performance edge, but that pretty much only remains for hard realtime stuff and it's just a matter of time before this web runtime takes that over too. It's a pity we ended up with JavaScript, but it's still a million times better than writing your app twice only to have it run on a fraction of platforms. The last major hurdle we need to take, are the platform specific app stores that still provide their owners with a reason to keep favoring their platform specific solutions over a more open approach, but eventually those will die too. It's inevitable.
This is not true. We transplant eye parts, skin, faces, arms, legs, fingers, penises and many other parts. None of those are critical to life. They just help restore some bodily function, just like a womb transplant does.
We're No Longer in Smartphone Plateau. We're in the Smartphone Decline.
We're not. We may be in the Smartphone Sales Decline because we're effectively in a Smartphone Feature Plateau, but we definitely are not in a Smartphone Decline.