So we ban routers? After all a big chunk of that botnet consisted of hacked DT routers, and those are "things" too. Instead of outlawing the IoT, we should refrain from casually using the term IoT. To some it means sensor networks, to some it means autonomous machine to machine interactions, to some it means connected smart home devices like toasters, light bulbs and IP cameras, but others would exclude the cameras from that list.
So when another bone-shatteringly ignorant reporter mentions "botnet of IoT devices", smack him around the head with a large trout until he mentions which devices were actually compromised. Types and brands of devices, devices running a certain kind of OS or firmware, or using a specific iOt platform / board / chip. And if you tell us that the IoT is a stupid idea, please enlighten us and let us know which "things" should be kept off the internet.
Now ask yourself why there aren't 1000ths of these reactors. The kind of reactor we want is the kind that have worst-case disasters on the level of a minor chemical plant accident, where if we have a tsunami, earthquake, terrorist sabotage and "shareholder value conscious" management fuckup at the same time, we are still only left with a very local contamination and easy cleanup, not with half a small country being inhabitable for the next 2 centuries. It is possible with Thorium, but we still do not know how to actually build those kind of plants.
And even when we can, building them will be a hard sale, because "nukular = scary"
Maybe in a couple of decades. Thorium is plentiful (and available from non-shithole countries), reactors can be made safe (as in: vastly reducing the severity and scope of the worst conceivable disaster, compared to existing nuclear), waste management is much less of an issue, and they can even "burn" existing radioactive waste down to something that is much less dangerous for a much shorter time span. That is the promise, at least. But it turns out that it's not easy building a viable Thorium reactor. There are a few ideas about how to build such a reactor, but there are still many engineering problems to overcome.
People are working on it. Both China and India have programmes to build Thorium plants, and I know a few universities around Europe where research into solving the engineering problems is taking place. But I don't expect the first plant to go online for a long, long time. By the time we can build these at scale, solar and wind might be so cheap that Thorium isn't going to replace them, though it would make a great replacement for coal, gas or conventional nuclear plants that provide baseload capacity.
I suspect ad agencies make shit ads on purpose because they work. And publishers aren't going to reject them because they need the income.
The best ads I've ever seen were from an insurance company, they were well made and really funny. Everybody loved them, and talked about them at the water cooler. "Did you see that ad?", yes of course, but if you asked people to name the insurance company, turns out they forgot.
In contrast, one of the worst ads was from a supermarket. It had a guy literally shout out the bargains: "THIS WEEK AT EDAH, CHOCOLATE DONUTS FROM €3.99 FOR €1.99". Everybody hated those ads: "Not this again, damnit, too loud, why do they even do that, they are the worst... though, €1.99 is a pretty good deal".
Everybody hates ads, but in the end, it is ads that drove the value of companies like Google and Facebook to ridiculous heights (in fact it drove the last Internet bubble), and is now encouraging criminals to go to ridiculous lengths to serve us their ads instead of legitimate ones. What is wrong with this world?
Islamisation is not an issue but a threat, just look at what is happening in Europe. Or, if you don't want to single out one particular religion, or want to recognize that islam might be a symptom or at best a catalyst rather than a cause, then call it "the rise of oppressive mediaeval groupthink". It's not just muslims going around blowing up people; there's only a few of those. It is also about regular muslims who might believe in democracy, but also still hold religious rules above secular ones, and would happily vote against LGBT rights, abortion, or booze. And no, they are not alone in wanting those things... that's precisely why the rise of this "we know what's good for you"-thinking is so dangerous; there are plenty of options for unholy coalitions to create greatly oppressive laws.
That is also why privacy is an important issue: it's one of the things that guarantee your freedom of speech not only in a public but also in private settings. So that backward and dangerous ideas can be countered.
This "dork with a thumbdrive" has actually worked on surveillance programmes and on projects to collect and make sense of our data. That should give his opinions some weight. In addition, in previous interviews he has shown good insight in matters of privacy. This is not some dimwit celebrity telling us how to vote or save the planet; but a knowledgable insider actually worth listening to.
A pizza is also not a savoury pie. Using "pie" to mean pizza is almost as bad as, say, using the word "deuce" to refer to anything other than the playing card.
It's hard not to be an introvert if you are one, but even as an introvert you can still work at being somewhat successful in the sort of things (networking, socializing) that come naturally to extroverts. Point is: as an introvert you won't only have to work at being "social" , it is likely something you won't enjoy doing all that much, and thus tempting to put off or ignore completely.
Even so, creating such a watering hole has value if it helps expand the networks of those entrepreneurs and connect them to investors. It's the one piece of advice I give young introverts (and would have given a younger me): network, because you'll find it useful in pretty much any white collar job, and if it doesn't come naturally, then you can learn with some effort.
But then: "a pedigree that virtually guarantees your ideas will be judged good, investors will take your call, and there will always be another job ahead even better than the one you have". This sounds extremely unhealthy; those investors are setting themselves up for another Theranos or (the way things are looking) Magic Leap.
The figures were for the Netherlands. By the way, the use of diesel is being discouraged here for a while now;l the tax on the fuel is low so as not to ruin farmers and truckers who depend on it, but the high road tax on non-business diesel vehicles makes them an unattractive choice for anyone not driving a ridiculous amount of kilometers every year.
Fireplaces are mostly being used as "decorative heating", not to actually heat the house all day, so the cost of the wood isn't a big factor. I pay €9 for a a bag of wood that lasts 2 evenings. The fact that fireplaces are only used to bring some cheer in winter, I sooner expect the government to ban their use than to subsidise better ones.
If things keep getting worse? Perhaps in developing countries. But such smog already was a common occurrence in large European cities in the early 20th century, and in some cities as early as the 1700s. This was mostly due to burning wood or coal for heating and cooking. The switch to natural gas for heating along with improvements in IC engine technology, and a shift from diesel to petrol (except some countries like France where diesel is still very popular), have made the air here a lot cleaner since the '60s. Things have gotten a lot better, and they are still improving.
People still keep going on about cars and pollution, but in truth it's a small contributor these days, especially to particulate matter. Last figures for PM2.5 particulate emissions in NL show a only 5% contribution from cars (not including trucks). In contrast, container vessels contribute 17%, and a whopping 26% comes from fireplaces. Not surprising then that people already managed to work up a smog in pre-industrial times.
If you want to help the environment and prevent smog, stop worrying about public transport, ditch your diesel and buy a modern car (in NL, maybe we ought to ditch the luxury tax on new cars that in some cases exceeds the factory price). And stop using the damn fireplace, or get an efficient closed fireplace or stove.
And we're focusing on creating new energy from renewable sources, so we only buy from projects that are funded by our purchases.
What exactly does that mean? Buying green power isn't really all that green: the renewable power you are consuming is power that is not going to be consumed by someone else. To be really green you need to work towards significantly increasing green energy [\production, not consumption. True, what they do does increase demand which may help drive investments in renewables. But I'd be more impressed if they would actually generate most of the power they need themselves. At the scale they use it, that should be economically feasible too.
One time when transfering to another flight, I had to go through security again due to a gate change, and got my bottle of duty free whisky confiscated. I was tempted to do as you did and drink it there and then.
Ford's innovation in business is that he saw the value of building an affordable car, one that his own employees could afford. But to achieve that he had to re-engineer the production process (rather than the business process). He did not reinvent the concept of a car, but he certainly had to redesign it so that it could be built efficiently on his production line.
You could say that Musk is following a similar path. He wants to get to Mars, needs to get launch costs down to make that feasible, so he (and his engineers) are trying to come up with a reusable rocket that allows them to drive down that cost. From vision to business model to engineering.
I suspect very few here will any any sort of sympathy for people who do low latency stock trading. Some even suggested to add time skew or random jitter to stock tickets precisely to prevent this sort of trading.
What do you mean, "your battery"? It's Apple's battery; you are just holding it for them. Holding it wrong, I might add...
Jokes aside, I've found Apple's hardware to be mostly reliable, but I too get ticked off by software updates that seem designed to make you get a new phone. Still, my wife is still happily using her 5s, and I have a 4s test phone that still works well. Even got a pair of 3GS phones doing duty as wall mounted control panels for home automation. The one time we got burned by a software update was when it fried the WiFi chip in a 4s (and Apple didn;t offer anything out of warranty on that one)
Exactly, and that's why the author of the article advocates testing and research: understand the nature of the beast before attempting to tame it. This is classic innovation management. What I missed from his article is another important aspect of innovation: knowing when to quit (and planning for an exit). Define success criteria, have regular evaluations, keep room for changing tack when your insight changes, and stop when your goals aren't being met. And of course to define those success criteria, you have to understand what your current challenges are to begin with. Basic stuff...
Slashdot Mirror
So we ban routers? After all a big chunk of that botnet consisted of hacked DT routers, and those are "things" too. Instead of outlawing the IoT, we should refrain from casually using the term IoT. To some it means sensor networks, to some it means autonomous machine to machine interactions, to some it means connected smart home devices like toasters, light bulbs and IP cameras, but others would exclude the cameras from that list.
So when another bone-shatteringly ignorant reporter mentions "botnet of IoT devices", smack him around the head with a large trout until he mentions which devices were actually compromised. Types and brands of devices, devices running a certain kind of OS or firmware, or using a specific iOt platform / board / chip. And if you tell us that the IoT is a stupid idea, please enlighten us and let us know which "things" should be kept off the internet.
Now ask yourself why there aren't 1000ths of these reactors. The kind of reactor we want is the kind that have worst-case disasters on the level of a minor chemical plant accident, where if we have a tsunami, earthquake, terrorist sabotage and "shareholder value conscious" management fuckup at the same time, we are still only left with a very local contamination and easy cleanup, not with half a small country being inhabitable for the next 2 centuries. It is possible with Thorium, but we still do not know how to actually build those kind of plants.
And even when we can, building them will be a hard sale, because "nukular = scary"
Maybe in a couple of decades. Thorium is plentiful (and available from non-shithole countries), reactors can be made safe (as in: vastly reducing the severity and scope of the worst conceivable disaster, compared to existing nuclear), waste management is much less of an issue, and they can even "burn" existing radioactive waste down to something that is much less dangerous for a much shorter time span. That is the promise, at least. But it turns out that it's not easy building a viable Thorium reactor. There are a few ideas about how to build such a reactor, but there are still many engineering problems to overcome.
People are working on it. Both China and India have programmes to build Thorium plants, and I know a few universities around Europe where research into solving the engineering problems is taking place. But I don't expect the first plant to go online for a long, long time. By the time we can build these at scale, solar and wind might be so cheap that Thorium isn't going to replace them, though it would make a great replacement for coal, gas or conventional nuclear plants that provide baseload capacity.
I suspect ad agencies make shit ads on purpose because they work. And publishers aren't going to reject them because they need the income.
The best ads I've ever seen were from an insurance company, they were well made and really funny. Everybody loved them, and talked about them at the water cooler. "Did you see that ad?", yes of course, but if you asked people to name the insurance company, turns out they forgot.
In contrast, one of the worst ads was from a supermarket. It had a guy literally shout out the bargains: "THIS WEEK AT EDAH, CHOCOLATE DONUTS FROM €3.99 FOR €1.99". Everybody hated those ads: "Not this again, damnit, too loud, why do they even do that, they are the worst... though, €1.99 is a pretty good deal".
Everybody hates ads, but in the end, it is ads that drove the value of companies like Google and Facebook to ridiculous heights (in fact it drove the last Internet bubble), and is now encouraging criminals to go to ridiculous lengths to serve us their ads instead of legitimate ones. What is wrong with this world?
Islamisation is not an issue but a threat, just look at what is happening in Europe. Or, if you don't want to single out one particular religion, or want to recognize that islam might be a symptom or at best a catalyst rather than a cause, then call it "the rise of oppressive mediaeval groupthink". It's not just muslims going around blowing up people; there's only a few of those. It is also about regular muslims who might believe in democracy, but also still hold religious rules above secular ones, and would happily vote against LGBT rights, abortion, or booze. And no, they are not alone in wanting those things... that's precisely why the rise of this "we know what's good for you"-thinking is so dangerous; there are plenty of options for unholy coalitions to create greatly oppressive laws.
That is also why privacy is an important issue: it's one of the things that guarantee your freedom of speech not only in a public but also in private settings. So that backward and dangerous ideas can be countered.
This "dork with a thumbdrive" has actually worked on surveillance programmes and on projects to collect and make sense of our data. That should give his opinions some weight. In addition, in previous interviews he has shown good insight in matters of privacy. This is not some dimwit celebrity telling us how to vote or save the planet; but a knowledgable insider actually worth listening to.
Windmills don't work that way! Goodnight!!
Unless your nightly backup process replaced the backups of all your files with the encrypted versions.
A pizza is also not a savoury pie. Using "pie" to mean pizza is almost as bad as, say, using the word "deuce" to refer to anything other than the playing card.
i.e.: don't be an introvert
It's hard not to be an introvert if you are one, but even as an introvert you can still work at being somewhat successful in the sort of things (networking, socializing) that come naturally to extroverts. Point is: as an introvert you won't only have to work at being "social" , it is likely something you won't enjoy doing all that much, and thus tempting to put off or ignore completely.
Even so, creating such a watering hole has value if it helps expand the networks of those entrepreneurs and connect them to investors. It's the one piece of advice I give young introverts (and would have given a younger me): network, because you'll find it useful in pretty much any white collar job, and if it doesn't come naturally, then you can learn with some effort.
But then: "a pedigree that virtually guarantees your ideas will be judged good, investors will take your call, and there will always be another job ahead even better than the one you have". This sounds extremely unhealthy; those investors are setting themselves up for another Theranos or (the way things are looking) Magic Leap.
The figures were for the Netherlands. By the way, the use of diesel is being discouraged here for a while now;l the tax on the fuel is low so as not to ruin farmers and truckers who depend on it, but the high road tax on non-business diesel vehicles makes them an unattractive choice for anyone not driving a ridiculous amount of kilometers every year.
Fireplaces are mostly being used as "decorative heating", not to actually heat the house all day, so the cost of the wood isn't a big factor. I pay €9 for a a bag of wood that lasts 2 evenings. The fact that fireplaces are only used to bring some cheer in winter, I sooner expect the government to ban their use than to subsidise better ones.
If things keep getting worse? Perhaps in developing countries. But such smog already was a common occurrence in large European cities in the early 20th century, and in some cities as early as the 1700s. This was mostly due to burning wood or coal for heating and cooking. The switch to natural gas for heating along with improvements in IC engine technology, and a shift from diesel to petrol (except some countries like France where diesel is still very popular), have made the air here a lot cleaner since the '60s. Things have gotten a lot better, and they are still improving.
People still keep going on about cars and pollution, but in truth it's a small contributor these days, especially to particulate matter. Last figures for PM2.5 particulate emissions in NL show a only 5% contribution from cars (not including trucks). In contrast, container vessels contribute 17%, and a whopping 26% comes from fireplaces. Not surprising then that people already managed to work up a smog in pre-industrial times.
If you want to help the environment and prevent smog, stop worrying about public transport, ditch your diesel and buy a modern car (in NL, maybe we ought to ditch the luxury tax on new cars that in some cases exceeds the factory price). And stop using the damn fireplace, or get an efficient closed fireplace or stove.
And we're focusing on creating new energy from renewable sources, so we only buy from projects that are funded by our purchases.
What exactly does that mean? Buying green power isn't really all that green: the renewable power you are consuming is power that is not going to be consumed by someone else. To be really green you need to work towards significantly increasing green energy [\production, not consumption. True, what they do does increase demand which may help drive investments in renewables. But I'd be more impressed if they would actually generate most of the power they need themselves. At the scale they use it, that should be economically feasible too.
Schiphol airport is installing new scanners that will allow you to just leave everything in your bag. Hopefully that will speed up the process.
One time when transfering to another flight, I had to go through security again due to a gate change, and got my bottle of duty free whisky confiscated. I was tempted to do as you did and drink it there and then.
Ford's innovation in business is that he saw the value of building an affordable car, one that his own employees could afford. But to achieve that he had to re-engineer the production process (rather than the business process). He did not reinvent the concept of a car, but he certainly had to redesign it so that it could be built efficiently on his production line.
You could say that Musk is following a similar path. He wants to get to Mars, needs to get launch costs down to make that feasible, so he (and his engineers) are trying to come up with a reusable rocket that allows them to drive down that cost. From vision to business model to engineering.
We'll just build a wall. And make them pay for it?
I suspect very few here will any any sort of sympathy for people who do low latency stock trading. Some even suggested to add time skew or random jitter to stock tickets precisely to prevent this sort of trading.
Across for attention, along for results.
Eyeballs, my friend. They are back.
What do you mean, "your battery"? It's Apple's battery; you are just holding it for them. Holding it wrong, I might add...
Jokes aside, I've found Apple's hardware to be mostly reliable, but I too get ticked off by software updates that seem designed to make you get a new phone. Still, my wife is still happily using her 5s, and I have a 4s test phone that still works well. Even got a pair of 3GS phones doing duty as wall mounted control panels for home automation. The one time we got burned by a software update was when it fried the WiFi chip in a 4s (and Apple didn;t offer anything out of warranty on that one)
Exactly, and that's why the author of the article advocates testing and research: understand the nature of the beast before attempting to tame it. This is classic innovation management. What I missed from his article is another important aspect of innovation: knowing when to quit (and planning for an exit). Define success criteria, have regular evaluations, keep room for changing tack when your insight changes, and stop when your goals aren't being met. And of course to define those success criteria, you have to understand what your current challenges are to begin with. Basic stuff...
Also, on infinite web pages it's scroll scroll scroll and YOINK, you have lost your place.