Actually redundancy can be exponential in this case, if some of the ships are always in route, then the data cannot be censored or destroyed by any single event or government, or abomb.
It creates a target the size of the ocean in effect, and that is very very difficult to destroy.
So long as it doesn't physically enter a jurisdiction, then it cannot be searched forensically, so deleted files stay deleted.
Since squatting is a real problem and domain names are a publicly-funded scarce resource, the laws should require repeat domain name holders to pay f^n where f is the usual fee of $3 or so, and n is the number of domain they are holding. This would ensure that domain names are democratic - that is available for the benefit of many people.
Renewable, Sustainable, and green all have soft meanings no?
Pro-nuke people tend to include nuclear energy in all three. Most countries no longer include hydropower dams as any of the above. Biofuels contribute to greenhouse gasses - even if carbon is captured during the growth - that carbon is already "priced-in" to the Carbon budget, so burning more of what the earth can naturally absorb isn't Green, and probably isn't sustainable, thought it may be "renewable". This "newable" terms seems feedstock-centric rather than lifecycle-complete -- externalities like GHG and asthma-inducing particulates may not be calculated in whether or not a feedstock is replaceable.
I would suggest that "Green Energy" is the most restrictive term and includes only energy which is socially, politically, and environmentally responsible. Nukes are not, Deep-Hydro is not, and burning anything including biofuels are not.
That leaves Efficiency, Geothermal, Wind, Solar, River, Waves, and Tidal resources for new green energy in ~order of declining ROI.
Our current Energy Bill/Policy subsidizes Gasoline, Coal, Nuclear, NG, Wind, Solar, Geothermal in rough order of effective subsidy.
Yup, it's the operating costs stupid. 4 minutes MTBF.
KGO morning Traffic report: "We've got quite a back up on 101 northbound, they've been chasing a leak in lane 3 for 2 weeks; hopefully they'll find it, and we can get back to using the road as a - um - road thingy."
Operating costs are often the unthunk Achilles heel. -almost as bad as opportunity cost, and cost of risk.
I find the Collaboration, and historic persistence of spreadsheets very attractive.
I would point out that Google Docs could become legally binding as there is a mechanism to certify their content and date, and perhaps if Google adds identity verification like amazon's realid or so, on-line documents could replace paper docs - in business filings, contracts, perhaps even court filings.
I would advise Google to look for paper-intensive markets and provide the full cycle of services of the paper-world. Proof of service, by snail-mail if necessary, shredding, archiving, redlining. I would advise "templates" for document-intensive transactions such as buying/selling a house, car, small business, in which filing the document with the state agencies is part of the process.
The strength of the web is integrated services, not speed for a solo user. Google Docs should target a very specific niche - Wordperfect is still a favorite for lawyers (IIRC), Google should target collaboration-intensive markets, like education, conventions etc...
I must say one problem seems to be an inability to link documents. One spreadsheet can't refer to another - can a powerpoint include a live graph linked to an online spreadsheet?
Differential GPS is not a "service", but a system - requiring the user to provide parts of the service in the form of a fixed transponder. If a new service could provide that accuracy without the additional piece, it would enable such operations in virgin territory. I stand by that application.
Trains, true, communicating the problem may be tricky, but certainly a solved problem, even peer to peer transponders can connect over the distances required with no infrastructure costs. I'm standing by this app, and "Differential" is probably not practical, as it would require a great many transponders.
I suspect that cell towers will/do rebroadcast GPS-synchronized signals which can penetrate buildings. Were they accurate within a human space-frame and ubiquitous without establishing a differential point, I think these applications kinds of localization applications might be candidates for their use.
You're right though - I've only used GPS on my cell, and my TomTom, so I couldn't possible have a clue. I still think you were overly dismissive of the technology, and more then necessarily dismissive in the reply.
Beg to differ immensely. The market for meaningfully accurate localization is astounding. 3 meters in real time is BS Crap when it comes to many if not most robotics or position logging applications. I could name many; track hospital workers to determine hand washing habits, move warehouse bins from place to place, drive farm equipment in long boring straight lines. Vacuum / mop floors. Deliver inter-office mail. Avoid head-on train collisions. Drive fuel delivery routes in combat zones.
There are so many more applications for GPS if it could resolve at the resolution of human existence.
I think you'll find that Clinto's administration was headed towards tighten restrictions on coal plants. There were reasonable, scheduled improvements. Bush took us off the path to improvement, so basically yes - this is all Bush's fault. remember, a stronger presidency means more blame. Clinton shared power, and thus responsibility. AIK
The better defense of a dedicated line, is that long-haul lines are non-standard. High Voltage DC for example is not your average grid, and it makes sense to run long-haul transmission right next to local 60hz service because of the efficiency gains. Stanford may be proposing that HVDC interconnects between Windfarms are cost justified. Perhaps they also serve as seasonal load redistribution as well, so they are not exclusively "wind-only", but if the end points are say a wind farm in the north and south, then level power can be realized at both ends, perhaps with a degree of seasonal redirection as well. It is conceivable that such a plan may have a colorable economic argument.
Apple got Time's invention of the year nod-- not for the device but for the breaking of an anti-consumer technopoly.
This isn't about Google/choosing/ linux, its about the calvery finally showing up to address the crippling backwardness of a corrupted FCC/MEN/Telecom bloc. The Linux, apache, GPL, fork driven is hopelessly beside the point. This is a political seachange,far more than a technical one.
Say Gulliani has been paid by the Mexican government (for consulting on crime) and he is using his wealth to fund his campaign - is that Illegal because it amounts to foreign support for political candidates?
Apparently Stephen earns the money he makes by appearing as "Talent" on a show which sells advertising. The shows sponsors are paying him for attracting viewer - rather than advancing a political agenda. I don't know that Stephen's "Campaign" is directly funded by the people who pay him to do his job. Aik
My research suggests that solar is a rich's mans RE source, while wind is a poor's man's choice, or in less derogatory terms, where economic pressures are paramount, wind generally has the advantage, where portability, reliability, and aesthetic constraints dominant the considerations, solar has advantages which offset its price premium in common latitudes.
The equatorial and regions being somewhat of an exception with significantly less wind. And the polar regions for their lack of sun. India generally and Mumbai in particular are well above the dead zone of the equator.
I would be concerned about the economics of feeding a cow for non-economic purposes in a developing country. Are cows free and freely fed, is this a fully sunk cost already? Presumably wind energy is the cheapest approach here. It would be advisable to keep a few options open, the cow being one isn't a poor option, but wind beats all really for remote low-cost power applications. AIK
The fact remains that evolution continues to produce nut-jobs as you say of every stripe and color. I suspect that for evolution to optimize it must generate randomized "release candidates". And that what you describe as a nut-jobby, may just be evolutions way of trying something new.
There are other benefits to nut-jobbies in that they tend to be most willing to sacrifice themselves for the defense/promotion of others. Societies that produce a greater number of nutsos are more difficult to house-train. That may be a competitive advantage in some cases.
From my perspective, human are organized and cooperate by some level of immediate family, extended, then tribe, race/religion/party, nation/state, Language/Hemisphere/Treaty/League, Full Humanitarian - depending largely on intelligence. Carter, Gore, Gates, and Mother Theresa etc... have managed to demonstrate cooperation at the full extent of humanity, to some extent many of us cooperate at some lesser level, I would consider this to be a continuum of which "nepotism" is the extreme.
I would recommend apologizing to the illegitimate child of Rev. Jesse Jackson.
All I'm suggesting is that an argument positioning Microsoft as an uncaring and indifferent entity might be more persuasive if that argument wasn't uncaring and indifferent on its face. jist saying maybe.
Just pointing out that the word applies to real people, and using it as a surrogate for "nasty" demonstrates a certain insensitivity to children - merely/because/ they are defenseless by definition. I find it less than fully enlightened.
What has any bastard done to deserve being used as a derogative term.
how, for example, is this statement any different from "souless greedy ni**ers"?
While I might, as a bastard, have managed to move on, being a bastard brings more than enough burdens on the child by itself, such that it is hardly soul-ful for society to pile on, by using the term as a generic substitute for a derogative adjective.
And no, the meaning/doesn't/ change over time, merely because its secondary uses are more prevalent.
Just consider perhaps in future choosing words which are not intended constitutionally to harm or devalue innocent children.
on the contrary - I suggest that a UAV-intensive airspace will introduce a gps-intensive solution to self-coordination - and that this will/increase/ the opportunities for pilots as weather ceases to be a factor, and instrument flight rules are as easy to purchase and use as a car navigator. At that point, densities can go up exponentially, and on that I have experience having simulated a self-coordinating network.
I think we labor under an archaic system which is preventing the US from being competative in newly developing areas.
My obsession with ground collisions matches yours inre uav collisions, both are substantially rare, but real risks. I think that the FAA sould be taxed with providing the greatest amount of benefit to cost ration, not in merely reducing in-air collisions.
If, in reducing a low threat of collisions to an even lower level, while decreasing the availability of helivacs, or other life-saving services - including I might add, persistent video recording and shot triangulation over crime-laden neighborhoods, it seems we will not have/saved/ lives, but rather lost more than we would have with more liberal policies.
Anti-collision isn't an end in itself. Risk-to-benefit is a better metric I suggest.
for example, very small devices could participate in "transmit GPS and avoid", or some machine-oriented form of collision avoidance.
My point is that "seeing" doesn't work out so well. Bad weather, confused or drunk pilots etc...
as to people on the ground, the point is that there is a non-zero risk to third parties under the current system, the risks of small light soft uav would LOWER the overall risk by providing much more of the benefits of flight without the risks to people on the ground - and that perhaps the risks to the rest of us should count at least as much as the risks to other pilots.
Here the bottom line. Europe is developing this technology faster than we are - and that is a competitive problem. If the US doesn't participate in new technologies, and it sends its old economy jobs to 3rd worlds, how exactly are we going to earn a living?
BTW Europe doesn't seem to be having a spat of in-air collisions, notwithstanding a more tolerant stance of "See and avoid".
BTW - Thanks for the dialog - and best regards, differences notwithstanding. AIK
To your points, The summation of my argument is that the optimal cost to benefit ratio exists at some point in the continuum of permitting the liberal development of thus-far non dangerous technology - and that quite likely the optimal point includes more benefits from UAV than we currently permit.
Model RC planes exist, and have existed, in large numbers and appear thus far to be far more safe than private pilots.
Your argument about collision avoidance was countered by the point that people on the ground (who are subject to collisions with disabled planes) do not have see and avoid technology - but that hasn't shut down the private air program. Its about balancing interests, not monopolizing resources, and I feel that your position amounts to the monopolization of a potentially life-saving resource.
1. Private Pilots don't contribute very much to the welfare of society in general. They don't reduce crime, they don't contribute in proportion to their costs to airports, they are largely ineffective at finding lost people - in no small part because of the high costs of operation. Small airplanes are simply too expensive for society to reap much benefit from their use. Sure, a few people get subsidized to live in high style, but that is a social cost - not a benefit.
2. Small, soft uav's like cropcam, on the other hand, could reduce crime, provide auto-defibrillators to 911 callers in time, monitor pollution, reduce consumption of water resources in crops, target insects instead of prophylactic pesticides, etc...
There are far more benefits which could be provided by low-cost air presence, than are being provided by high-cost private pilots.
There are more people dead on the ground from collisions with planes, then there are dead pilots from collisions with uavs.
People in homes have no collision avoidance opportunities when heavy aircraft come crashing down.
Give small safe UAV's an altitude - say 200-400 feet to operate in, and there should be no collisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually redundancy can be exponential in this case, if some of the ships are always in route, then the data cannot be censored or destroyed by any single event or government, or abomb.
It creates a target the size of the ocean in effect, and that is very very difficult to destroy.
So long as it doesn't physically enter a jurisdiction, then it cannot be searched forensically, so deleted files stay deleted.
AIK
'cause under Marshall law the US Torturer-in-chief has no power to detain ships within it territorial waters??
I think it's because there is no subpoena power for email servers on a ship.
AIK
Since squatting is a real problem and domain names are a publicly-funded scarce resource, the laws should require repeat domain name holders to pay f^n where f is the usual fee of $3 or so, and n is the number of domain they are holding. This would ensure that domain names are democratic - that is available for the benefit of many people.
Renewable, Sustainable, and green all have soft meanings no?
Pro-nuke people tend to include nuclear energy in all three. Most countries no longer include hydropower dams as any of the above. Biofuels contribute to greenhouse gasses - even if carbon is captured during the growth - that carbon is already "priced-in" to the Carbon budget, so burning more of what the earth can naturally absorb isn't Green, and probably isn't sustainable, thought it may be "renewable". This "newable" terms seems feedstock-centric rather than lifecycle-complete -- externalities like GHG and asthma-inducing particulates may not be calculated in whether or not a feedstock is replaceable.
I would suggest that "Green Energy" is the most restrictive term and includes only energy which is socially, politically, and environmentally responsible. Nukes are not, Deep-Hydro is not, and burning anything including biofuels are not.
That leaves Efficiency, Geothermal, Wind, Solar, River, Waves, and Tidal resources for new green energy in ~order of declining ROI.
Our current Energy Bill/Policy subsidizes Gasoline, Coal, Nuclear, NG, Wind, Solar, Geothermal in rough order of effective subsidy.
Thank God for Southern Baby Boomers...
AIK
Yup, it's the operating costs stupid.
4 minutes MTBF.
KGO morning Traffic report: "We've got quite a back up on 101 northbound, they've been chasing a leak in lane 3 for 2 weeks; hopefully they'll find it, and we can get back to using the road as a - um - road thingy."
Operating costs are often the unthunk Achilles heel. -almost as bad as opportunity cost, and cost of risk.
AIK
I find the Collaboration, and historic persistence of spreadsheets very attractive.
...
I would point out that Google Docs could become legally binding as there is a mechanism to certify their content and date, and perhaps if Google adds identity verification like amazon's realid or so, on-line documents could replace paper docs - in business filings, contracts, perhaps even court filings.
I would advise Google to look for paper-intensive markets and provide the full cycle of services of the paper-world. Proof of service, by snail-mail if necessary, shredding, archiving, redlining. I would advise "templates" for document-intensive transactions such as buying/selling a house, car, small business, in which filing the document with the state agencies is part of the process.
The strength of the web is integrated services, not speed for a solo user. Google Docs should target a very specific niche - Wordperfect is still a favorite for lawyers (IIRC), Google should target collaboration-intensive markets, like education, conventions etc
I must say one problem seems to be an inability to link documents. One spreadsheet can't refer to another - can a powerpoint include a live graph linked to an online spreadsheet?
AIK
Ok, that was rough but fair.
Differential GPS is not a "service", but a system - requiring the user to provide parts of the service in the form of a fixed transponder. If a new service could provide that accuracy without the additional piece, it would enable such operations in virgin territory. I stand by that application.
Trains, true, communicating the problem may be tricky, but certainly a solved problem, even peer to peer transponders can connect over the distances required with no infrastructure costs. I'm standing by this app, and "Differential" is probably not practical, as it would require a great many transponders.
I suspect that cell towers will/do rebroadcast GPS-synchronized signals which can penetrate buildings. Were they accurate within a human space-frame and ubiquitous without establishing a differential point, I think these applications kinds of localization applications might be candidates for their use.
You're right though - I've only used GPS on my cell, and my TomTom, so I couldn't possible have a clue. I still think you were overly dismissive of the technology, and more then necessarily dismissive in the reply.
Best
AIK
Beg to differ immensely.
The market for meaningfully accurate localization is astounding. 3 meters in real time is BS Crap when it comes to many if not most robotics or position logging applications. I could name many; track hospital workers to determine hand washing habits, move warehouse bins from place to place, drive farm equipment in long boring straight lines. Vacuum / mop floors. Deliver inter-office mail. Avoid head-on train collisions. Drive fuel delivery routes in combat zones.
There are so many more applications for GPS if it could resolve at the resolution of human existence.
AIK
I think you'll find that Clinto's administration was headed towards tighten restrictions on coal plants. There were reasonable, scheduled improvements. Bush took us off the path to improvement, so basically yes - this is all Bush's fault. remember, a stronger presidency means more blame. Clinton shared power, and thus responsibility.
AIK
Mostly You're right of course.
The better defense of a dedicated line, is that long-haul lines are non-standard. High Voltage DC for example is not your average grid, and it makes sense to run long-haul transmission right next to local 60hz service because of the efficiency gains. Stanford may be proposing that HVDC interconnects between Windfarms are cost justified. Perhaps they also serve as seasonal load redistribution as well, so they are not exclusively "wind-only", but if the end points are say a wind farm in the north and south, then level power can be realized at both ends, perhaps with a degree of seasonal redirection as well. It is conceivable that such a plan may have a colorable economic argument.
AIK
Right (ATTN MODDERS see parent)
/choosing/ linux, its about the calvery finally showing up to address the crippling backwardness of a corrupted FCC/MEN/Telecom bloc. The Linux, apache, GPL, fork driven is hopelessly beside the point. This is a political seachange,far more than a technical one.
Apple got Time's invention of the year nod-- not for the device but for the breaking of an anti-consumer technopoly.
This isn't about Google
AIK
Say Gulliani has been paid by the Mexican government (for consulting on crime) and he is using his wealth to fund his campaign - is that Illegal because it amounts to foreign support for political candidates?
Apparently Stephen earns the money he makes by appearing as "Talent" on a show which sells advertising. The shows sponsors are paying him for attracting viewer - rather than advancing a political agenda. I don't know that Stephen's "Campaign" is directly funded by the people who pay him to do his job.
Aik
My research suggests that solar is a rich's mans RE source, while wind is a poor's man's choice, or in less derogatory terms, where economic pressures are paramount, wind generally has the advantage, where portability, reliability, and aesthetic constraints dominant the considerations, solar has advantages which offset its price premium in common latitudes.
The equatorial and regions being somewhat of an exception with significantly less wind. And the polar regions for their lack of sun.
India generally and Mumbai in particular are well above the dead zone of the equator.
AIK
I would be concerned about the economics of feeding a cow for non-economic purposes in a developing country. Are cows free and freely fed, is this a fully sunk cost already? Presumably wind energy is the cheapest approach here. It would be advisable to keep a few options open, the cow being one isn't a poor option, but wind beats all really for remote low-cost power applications.
AIK
The fact remains that evolution continues to produce nut-jobs as you say of every stripe and color.
I suspect that for evolution to optimize it must generate randomized "release candidates". And that what you describe as a nut-jobby, may just be evolutions way of trying something new.
There are other benefits to nut-jobbies in that they tend to be most willing to sacrifice themselves for the defense/promotion of others. Societies that produce a greater number of nutsos are more difficult to house-train. That may be a competitive advantage in some cases.
AIK
From my perspective, human are organized and cooperate by some level of immediate family, extended, then tribe, race/religion/party, nation/state, Language/Hemisphere/Treaty/League, Full Humanitarian - depending largely on intelligence. Carter, Gore, Gates, and Mother Theresa etc ... have managed to demonstrate cooperation at the full extent of humanity, to some extent many of us cooperate at some lesser level, I would consider this to be a continuum of which "nepotism" is the extreme.
But I take your point.
AIK
Yeah, I agree.
Wikipedia encourages censorship and deals with conflicts in a Nepotistic fashion - at least in my experience.
AIK
Integration can solve a key point which is data integrity during an abrupt power event.
(see above).
AIK
I would recommend apologizing to the illegitimate child of Rev. Jesse Jackson.
All I'm suggesting is that an argument positioning Microsoft as an uncaring and indifferent entity might be more persuasive if that argument wasn't uncaring and indifferent on its face. jist saying maybe.
AIK
Just pointing out that the word applies to real people, and using it as a surrogate for "nasty" demonstrates a certain insensitivity to children - merely /because/ they are defenseless by definition. I find it less than fully enlightened.
AIK
What has any bastard done to deserve being used as a derogative term.
/doesn't/ change over time, merely because its secondary uses are more prevalent.
how, for example, is this statement any different from "souless greedy ni**ers"?
While I might, as a bastard, have managed to move on, being a bastard brings more than enough burdens on the child by itself, such that it is hardly soul-ful for society to pile on, by using the term as a generic substitute for a derogative adjective.
And no, the meaning
Just consider perhaps in future choosing words which are not intended constitutionally to harm or devalue innocent children.
AIK
I don't see gliders getting edged out,
/increase/ the opportunities for pilots as weather ceases to be a factor, and instrument flight rules are as easy to purchase and use as a car navigator. At that point, densities can go up exponentially, and on that I have experience having simulated a self-coordinating network.
/saved/ lives, but rather lost more than we would have with more liberal policies.
on the contrary - I suggest that a UAV-intensive airspace will introduce a gps-intensive solution to self-coordination - and that this will
I think we labor under an archaic system which is preventing the US from being competative in newly developing areas.
My obsession with ground collisions matches yours inre uav collisions, both are substantially rare, but real risks. I think that the FAA sould be taxed with providing the greatest amount of benefit to cost ration, not in merely reducing in-air collisions.
If, in reducing a low threat of collisions to an even lower level, while decreasing the availability of helivacs, or other life-saving services - including I might add, persistent video recording and shot triangulation over crime-laden neighborhoods, it seems we will not have
Anti-collision isn't an end in itself. Risk-to-benefit is a better metric I suggest.
Cheers.
AIK
I think the problem is the term "see and avoid"
for example, very small devices could participate in "transmit GPS and avoid", or some machine-oriented form of collision avoidance.
My point is that "seeing" doesn't work out so well.
Bad weather, confused or drunk pilots etc...
as to people on the ground, the point is that there is a non-zero risk to third parties under the current system, the risks of small light soft uav would LOWER the overall risk by providing much more of the benefits of flight without the risks to people on the ground - and that perhaps the risks to the rest of us should count at least as much as the risks to other pilots.
Here the bottom line. Europe is developing this technology faster than we are - and that is a competitive problem. If the US doesn't participate in new technologies, and it sends its old economy jobs to 3rd worlds, how exactly are we going to earn a living?
BTW Europe doesn't seem to be having a spat of in-air collisions, notwithstanding a more tolerant stance of "See and avoid".
BTW - Thanks for the dialog - and best regards, differences notwithstanding.
AIK
To your points,
The summation of my argument is that the optimal cost to benefit ratio exists at some point in the continuum of permitting the liberal development of thus-far non dangerous technology - and that quite likely the optimal point includes more benefits from UAV than we currently permit.
Model RC planes exist, and have existed, in large numbers and appear thus far to be far more safe than private pilots.
Your argument about collision avoidance was countered by the point that people on the ground (who are subject to collisions with disabled planes) do not have see and avoid technology - but that hasn't shut down the private air program. Its about balancing interests, not monopolizing resources, and I feel that your position amounts to the monopolization of a potentially life-saving resource.
AIK
1. Private Pilots don't contribute very much to the welfare of society in general. They don't reduce crime, they don't contribute in proportion to their costs to airports, they are largely ineffective at finding lost people - in no small part because of the high costs of operation. Small airplanes are simply too expensive for society to reap much benefit from their use. Sure, a few people get subsidized to live in high style, but that is a social cost - not a benefit.
2. Small, soft uav's like cropcam, on the other hand, could reduce crime, provide auto-defibrillators to 911 callers in time, monitor pollution, reduce consumption of water resources in crops, target insects instead of prophylactic pesticides, etc...
There are far more benefits which could be provided by low-cost air presence, than are being provided by high-cost private pilots.
There are more people dead on the ground from collisions with planes, then there are dead pilots from collisions with uavs.
People in homes have no collision avoidance opportunities when heavy aircraft come crashing down.
Give small safe UAV's an altitude - say 200-400 feet to operate in, and there should be no collisions.
AIK