If you are still buying incandescents at this point. . . I doubt you will ever switch from incandescents or trade-in your horse and buggy, for that matter. . .
In addition to cost effectiveness, decentralized technologies are having the opposite impact as the Resource Curse in Africa.
Centralized systems lead to power and wealth concentrations which sabotage the economic development of the overall population. Decentralized systems result in more competition, lower costs, fairer wealth distribution, faster technological progress. . . basically the types of things you would want to inject into a region in great need of economic development.
In all these debates I'm always amazed how the simple "big picture" of the economics involved is disregarded. . .
The nature of some technologies result in centralized and monopolistic markets. In contrast, some technologies are conducive to decentralized and competitive markets. In the end, commoditization wins through rapid advancements and by pricing everything else out of the market. For instance, look at all the centralized land phone lines NOT being installed in Africa, yet phone usage is booming.
I know/.ers likes to fantasize a world not run by businessmen, and that is fine as long you realize that is just a fantasy. The current world is driven by business and the economic environment that shapes business decisions (though, this may not apply to the basement dwellers that frequent this site . ..).
Perhaps, but I feel like Trump's past success was due to a high $/BS ratio. People found him eccentric, but he had SO much money that they still were willing to look past his quirks.
His candidacy appears to have exploded the denominator in that ratio, so I am really interested see to what extent that impacts his ability to "get his way."
They just suddenly started drilling under people's driveways (appeared to accidentally cut through an electrical line across my street). I think after a week of construction they actually notified people by putting a flyer on their front door knobs. . .
Another characteristic of my neighborhood is that it seems to be a logical location to be the next batch of Google fiberhood sign-up areas. . .
Looks like ATT is moving at "chicken with head cut-off" speed these days. . . (at least from my perspective)
Right. . .
It is not like there are tons of new discoveries every day , right? Sorry, but your assertion is absurd. Knowing how CRISPR, itself, works in no way reduces the risk when we use it on all the stuff (you know, life on planet Earth) we barely understand.
How about we perform an experiment. ..you and I both get into fully automated cars. I allow you to randomly change binary bits of my car's programming (much like natural mutation). You allow me to randomly change source code functions, configuration values, etc. . . of your car (much like the genetic script kiddie activities you are asserting are complete harmless). Let's see who lives longest. . . : )
So what? LEDs have been around for over a century. People usually measure the "arrival" (aka "newness") of a technology when it starts having the biggest impact to society as a whole. Under that definition, both LEDs and CRISPR are very, very new, and we are only just starting to see their impacts.
Even the people who *really* know what they are doing . ..
I guess the "million monkeys with typewriters" was completely lost on you. . . The point is that not only do we have to worry about natural mutations causing a pandemic strain, but now we will have a new type of "script kiddie" form of mutation class. Just like natural mutations, most will be harmless, but all it takes is one harmful strain that has been played with in a completely unexpected way to wreck havoc.
To give you some perspective, the economics are such that I still go to the doctor today with some illness and they give me antibiotics no matter what because it is too costly to diagnose whether I have a viral or bacterial infection (let alone, diagnose what actual strain I am infected with). So in THIS level of medical sophistication, you think allowing a bunch of genetic script kiddies start releasing a bunch of script kiddied strains into the wild is close to 0 risk? If so, you should be indifferent to being my guinea pig, right?
I don't think you realize how new and upcoming CRISPR is. . . before we just had a million monkeys. . . now we are about to give those monkeys typewriters. . .
You do realize that EVs are orders of magnitude less complicated than ICE cars, right? Reading your post is like reading the post of a telecom exec about landlines, just as smartphones are starting to take off. More nostalgic than enlightening. . .
Not saying it NEVER happens. Just saying that I, personally, have never seen it.
I work for a start up. We have ideas that we probably could sell to a big company. After talking around to quite a lot of knowledgable people in the biz, the consensus was:
Approach a big company without customers = get ready to be destroyed
Approach a big company with customers = you just might have a positive experience
Yeah, but if you approach a big company without having your own customers, your only negotiation angle is stealing THEIR customers. Many big companies are programmed to destroy when approached like this.
If you have customers, the negotiation is likely to remain more positive, and the big company is less likely to try to destroy you. . . since they may anger potential customers (your customers).
Just some observational evidence, but big companies do not seem to buy ideas or technologies. . . they do seem to buy customers, though. Of course, you probably are wanting to sell the idea so that you do not have to worry about the annoying customer part of product development. . . Interested to see what stories of such an elusive thing will pop up here. . .
However, if I were you, I would just go ahead and hit up kickstarter at this point. . .
Did you come to that conclusion in a scientific way, or are you being just as unscientific as you claim people with GMO concerns are?
Yes, some people are satisfied with 2 sentences on wiki and others want to see the underlying code (I will let you guess which group is being more scientific).
Most stockholders do not read financial statements, most OSS users do no read source code, and most citizens do no read through laws. Can you "scientifically" prove these things being open to the public have no significant utility (2 sentences from wiki will not do. ..)?
Maybe there would be more progress in this debate if you spent less time insulting the intelligence of the "other side" and more time thinking of intelligent things to contribute to the debate?
Agree 100%. Why not just post the sequenced DNA online? Cheap DNA sequencing will be coming to consumers soon, anyway. Why not preemptively win some PR points? Give consumers something that non-GM food providers cannot easily provide.
I think it encompasses the entire point of my original post. . . Bill Nye bashing NASCAR fans because they are not focusing on NASA just seems strange and ineffectual. If NASCAR were shutdown, would those fans flock to NASA? Hell no! They would spend more time watching monster trucks and professional wrestling.
The earlier (perhaps, same as you) poster's reply complains about car sounds and other "non scientific" aspects of the Formula E race, completely missing the point that it is not about which is a better "formula" (whatever that means when electricity is being used. ..), but which race is more applicable to the argument Bill Nye is making.
Hey, I am totally in the area of computational automation myself, but I would not kid myself for a minute that the writing is not on the wall. . . perhaps we are using a different tool stack, but I am constantly automating myself out of a job. . . just a matter of time before there are no jobs left to automate. . .
Plus, I don't care about my wealth over the next couple of centuries.. just the next couple of decades
I see, so you basically glazed over the entire article and the context of this entire thread that I started and saw an opportunity to score a political point. "Next couple of decades" does not equate as "immortality" so. . . I guess you can just move along on your own merry way then?
Greed alone is not enough. You must also have power concentrations to be able to act on that greed with any measurable impact. The fastest growing technologies are decentralized and are eroding away power concentrations.
It is alright, we can remedy the problem by boosting the glass economy and all go out and break some windows. . . Seriously, though, not reducing human suffering and wasteful use of scarce resources to "protect jobs" is banana republic economics.
Economics and the best interest of the human race only conflict for people who do not understand one or both.
Slashdot Mirror
LEDs are now $3.40/bulb.
If you are still buying incandescents at this point. . . I doubt you will ever switch from incandescents or trade-in your horse and buggy, for that matter. . .
Yes, another great example.
In addition to cost effectiveness, decentralized technologies are having the opposite impact as the Resource Curse in Africa.
Centralized systems lead to power and wealth concentrations which sabotage the economic development of the overall population. Decentralized systems result in more competition, lower costs, fairer wealth distribution, faster technological progress. . . basically the types of things you would want to inject into a region in great need of economic development.
In all these debates I'm always amazed how the simple "big picture" of the economics involved is disregarded. . .
/.ers likes to fantasize a world not run by businessmen, and that is fine as long you realize that is just a fantasy. The current world is driven by business and the economic environment that shapes business decisions (though, this may not apply to the basement dwellers that frequent this site . . .).
The nature of some technologies result in centralized and monopolistic markets. In contrast, some technologies are conducive to decentralized and competitive markets. In the end, commoditization wins through rapid advancements and by pricing everything else out of the market. For instance, look at all the centralized land phone lines NOT being installed in Africa, yet phone usage is booming.
I know
Perhaps, but I feel like Trump's past success was due to a high $/BS ratio. People found him eccentric, but he had SO much money that they still were willing to look past his quirks.
His candidacy appears to have exploded the denominator in that ratio, so I am really interested see to what extent that impacts his ability to "get his way."
he was trumped. . .
They just suddenly started drilling under people's driveways (appeared to accidentally cut through an electrical line across my street). I think after a week of construction they actually notified people by putting a flyer on their front door knobs. . .
Another characteristic of my neighborhood is that it seems to be a logical location to be the next batch of Google fiberhood sign-up areas. . .
Looks like ATT is moving at "chicken with head cut-off" speed these days. . . (at least from my perspective)
I think only happy people have that problem. . .
Will certainly make it seem like your life is longer. . .
It's a known quantity.
Right. . . It is not like there are tons of new discoveries every day , right? Sorry, but your assertion is absurd. Knowing how CRISPR, itself, works in no way reduces the risk when we use it on all the stuff (you know, life on planet Earth) we barely understand.
.you and I both get into fully automated cars. I allow you to randomly change binary bits of my car's programming (much like natural mutation). You allow me to randomly change source code functions, configuration values, etc. . . of your car (much like the genetic script kiddie activities you are asserting are complete harmless). Let's see who lives longest. . . : )
How about we perform an experiment. .
Even the people who *really* know what they are doing . . .
I guess the "million monkeys with typewriters" was completely lost on you. . . The point is that not only do we have to worry about natural mutations causing a pandemic strain, but now we will have a new type of "script kiddie" form of mutation class. Just like natural mutations, most will be harmless, but all it takes is one harmful strain that has been played with in a completely unexpected way to wreck havoc.
To give you some perspective, the economics are such that I still go to the doctor today with some illness and they give me antibiotics no matter what because it is too costly to diagnose whether I have a viral or bacterial infection (let alone, diagnose what actual strain I am infected with). So in THIS level of medical sophistication, you think allowing a bunch of genetic script kiddies start releasing a bunch of script kiddied strains into the wild is close to 0 risk? If so, you should be indifferent to being my guinea pig, right?
I don't think you realize how new and upcoming CRISPR is. . . before we just had a million monkeys. . . now we are about to give those monkeys typewriters. . .
automobile manufacturer is far more difficult. . .
You do realize that EVs are orders of magnitude less complicated than ICE cars, right? Reading your post is like reading the post of a telecom exec about landlines, just as smartphones are starting to take off. More nostalgic than enlightening. . .
Not saying it NEVER happens. Just saying that I, personally, have never seen it.
I work for a start up. We have ideas that we probably could sell to a big company. After talking around to quite a lot of knowledgable people in the biz, the consensus was:
Approach a big company without customers = get ready to be destroyed
Approach a big company with customers = you just might have a positive experience
Yeah, but if you approach a big company without having your own customers, your only negotiation angle is stealing THEIR customers. Many big companies are programmed to destroy when approached like this.
If you have customers, the negotiation is likely to remain more positive, and the big company is less likely to try to destroy you. . . since they may anger potential customers (your customers).
Just some observational evidence, but big companies do not seem to buy ideas or technologies. . . they do seem to buy customers, though. Of course, you probably are wanting to sell the idea so that you do not have to worry about the annoying customer part of product development. . . Interested to see what stories of such an elusive thing will pop up here. . .
However, if I were you, I would just go ahead and hit up kickstarter at this point. . .
Hey, remember that time I posted that Bill Nye should praise Formula E instead of bashing NASCAR and then people just started bitching about how stupid Formula E was?
. . . Suck it!
Did you come to that conclusion in a scientific way, or are you being just as unscientific as you claim people with GMO concerns are?
.)?
Yes, some people are satisfied with 2 sentences on wiki and others want to see the underlying code (I will let you guess which group is being more scientific).
Most stockholders do not read financial statements, most OSS users do no read source code, and most citizens do no read through laws. Can you "scientifically" prove these things being open to the public have no significant utility (2 sentences from wiki will not do. .
Maybe there would be more progress in this debate if you spent less time insulting the intelligence of the "other side" and more time thinking of intelligent things to contribute to the debate?
Agree 100%. Why not just post the sequenced DNA online? Cheap DNA sequencing will be coming to consumers soon, anyway. Why not preemptively win some PR points? Give consumers something that non-GM food providers cannot easily provide.
I think it encompasses the entire point of my original post. . . Bill Nye bashing NASCAR fans because they are not focusing on NASA just seems strange and ineffectual. If NASCAR were shutdown, would those fans flock to NASA? Hell no! They would spend more time watching monster trucks and professional wrestling.
.), but which race is more applicable to the argument Bill Nye is making.
The earlier (perhaps, same as you) poster's reply complains about car sounds and other "non scientific" aspects of the Formula E race, completely missing the point that it is not about which is a better "formula" (whatever that means when electricity is being used. .
NASCAR fan, I presume?
Why not praise Formula E?
Yeah, imagine all the High Frequency Trading systems being used to make the grid more efficient. . .
All the cool technology of HFT without the social stigma of HFT . . .
Plus, I don't care about my wealth over the next couple of centuries.. just the next couple of decades
I see, so you basically glazed over the entire article and the context of this entire thread that I started and saw an opportunity to score a political point. "Next couple of decades" does not equate as "immortality" so. . . I guess you can just move along on your own merry way then?
Greed alone is not enough. You must also have power concentrations to be able to act on that greed with any measurable impact. The fastest growing technologies are decentralized and are eroding away power concentrations.
It is alright, we can remedy the problem by boosting the glass economy and all go out and break some windows. . . Seriously, though, not reducing human suffering and wasteful use of scarce resources to "protect jobs" is banana republic economics.
Economics and the best interest of the human race only conflict for people who do not understand one or both.