How many people do you know who never buy breakfast or lunch at work?
The place where I work doesn't sell food. Either I bring some home made lunch in a box, or I just skip it. At home we cook all our meals, except on birthdays when we go to a restaurant (where they sell healthy food)
> Really after robots all we need is some FTL drive and there wont be much to stop us from colonizing the galaxy.
Why bother ? If you're the 1% who controls the robots, you can simply order them to exterminate everybody else, and you'll have the whole planet to yourself.
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. -- Richard Feynman
Somebody needs to apply machine learning to quantum mechanics. I'm pretty sure an AI can be taught to understand it, without the baggage of normal physics.
All your analogies are bad. For instance, a physical wire has a fixed cost, no matter the bandwidth, but more bandwidth requires additional costs for the backbone. It makes sense to pay for both.
A scalable host can be shared by multiple people. If you want it all for yourself, you'll need to pay more.
Software has most of the development cost up-front, and very little in distribution, so it makes sense to distribute the software freely, and charge for licenses.
The battery pack, however, is a physical object. If it's cheaper to make a bigger pack than a smaller one, the bigger pack should be cheaper for the consumer.
It makes sense for software, where there is no additional cost. But if it's cheaper for the manufacturer to give someone a full pack rather than a smaller pack, then it makes no sense to even have two versions. If a customer decides to never upgrade, we're just wasting perfectly good battery cells.
It's no different than a hotel that says "sure, you can use the empty room next to you also, for a charge." Or an airline that says "sure you can use the unused seat next to you, for a charge."
If you use the room/seat, then the crew needs to come and clean/restock it. That's extra cost to them.
It was never global cooling in the '70s, despite one or two magazine covers. And they weren't wrong about ozone. And they aren't wrong about global warming. We have more than enough data to be sure of that.
If you oppose nuclear power based on the threat it poses to humanity then I must assume you are ignorant or believe global warming is no real threat.
Or you believe it's a threat, but you don't care. Or you think that renewables are better. Or you think that we'll end up burning all the easy carbon anyway, even if there's nuclear.
The video was a good attempt to get between those two extremes. For similar videos, check out Two Minute Papers on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channe...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad that for anything that scientist have thought of, there's always a slashdot expert who knows better.
How many people do you know who never buy breakfast or lunch at work?
The place where I work doesn't sell food. Either I bring some home made lunch in a box, or I just skip it. At home we cook all our meals, except on birthdays when we go to a restaurant (where they sell healthy food)
> Really after robots all we need is some FTL drive and there wont be much to stop us from colonizing the galaxy.
Why bother ? If you're the 1% who controls the robots, you can simply order them to exterminate everybody else, and you'll have the whole planet to yourself.
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. -- Richard Feynman
Somebody needs to apply machine learning to quantum mechanics. I'm pretty sure an AI can be taught to understand it, without the baggage of normal physics.
The worlds largest polluters is people.
The biggest radiation threat is with the transmitter on your phone next to your head
Except when you're not using a phone, then it's the tower.
He could give his employees decent salaries. That would help.
I agree master-slave is problematic, but what are you going to use in place?
Light and dark, perhaps ? That seems innocent enough.
I won't stop being offended until we're all coding in machine code
And of course, the branch-if-equal is always taken, because we're always equal.
Here's an example what you could with the camera:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If have an experiment that current theory can't explain, you most likely have made a mistake somewhere.
That sounds like a useful feature. Can the owner of a 75kWh pack set it to 60 kWh ?
All your analogies are bad. For instance, a physical wire has a fixed cost, no matter the bandwidth, but more bandwidth requires additional costs for the backbone. It makes sense to pay for both.
A scalable host can be shared by multiple people. If you want it all for yourself, you'll need to pay more.
Software has most of the development cost up-front, and very little in distribution, so it makes sense to distribute the software freely, and charge for licenses.
The battery pack, however, is a physical object. If it's cheaper to make a bigger pack than a smaller one, the bigger pack should be cheaper for the consumer.
You're not paying for the bar, you're paying for the drinks. Horrible analogy.
It makes sense for software, where there is no additional cost. But if it's cheaper for the manufacturer to give someone a full pack rather than a smaller pack, then it makes no sense to even have two versions. If a customer decides to never upgrade, we're just wasting perfectly good battery cells.
It's no different than a hotel that says "sure, you can use the empty room next to you also, for a charge." Or an airline that says "sure you can use the unused seat next to you, for a charge."
If you use the room/seat, then the crew needs to come and clean/restock it. That's extra cost to them.
I've stopped using caffeine on a couple of occasions. It was no big deal, so the addictive effect is very mild.
Maybe it counts as a "drug" ?
Tax even more, and you'll encourage people to smuggle.
Somebody else created this possibility, can't blame the CEO for taking advantage of the situation.
And you want to replace "the system" with some untested theory you've dreamed up which is going to change everything.
Worse. These theories have been tested, and they didn't work.
It was never global cooling in the '70s, despite one or two magazine covers. And they weren't wrong about ozone. And they aren't wrong about global warming. We have more than enough data to be sure of that.
If you oppose nuclear power based on the threat it poses to humanity then I must assume you are ignorant or believe global warming is no real threat.
Or you believe it's a threat, but you don't care. Or you think that renewables are better. Or you think that we'll end up burning all the easy carbon anyway, even if there's nuclear.
Human kids also need to be told to keep the cup upright for the first 10 years, so it's not a big deal.
The video was a good attempt to get between those two extremes. For similar videos, check out Two Minute Papers on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channe...
Since some of the ice is a million years old, I'd say it's not very accurate.