Which basically means that the UI for all platforms are dumbed down to the least capable device.
Wrong. What they are claiming is exactly what you asked for:
a tailored experience for all hardware across a single platform family.... Windows 10 will deliver the right experience on the right device at the right time.
I think this is a good vision - you shouldn't need a different technology to target each platform (now that smartphones are fairly powerful); you want consistency in the UI between devices where possible, but that doesn't mean they can or should appear just the same, either. It is a tall order, and one has to question whether it is actually worth it, since switching between Windows and Android (or iOS and OSX) doesn't seem to have caused users' heads to explode, nor have developers been slow to discard PC code and re-implement everything for mobile.
Dunno about latency, but it doesn't matter because the power requirement would be astronomical. 2500 miles in (at most) 500 meters per hop is about 10,000 hops, so 10,000x the battery power, total.
Granted that's without agglomerating any messages, but it's also assuming zero overhead for routing or reliability.
Of course short of nuclear holocaust, power outages are local so you only need to get out of the impacted zone before you hit the backbone.
Now, in defense of perl, symbolic references (which is what those are called in perl) are disabled if you "use strict" which is certainly a recommended practice for anything network-connected!
Which can easily result in the business streamlining itself out of existence:
Clayton Christensen explains why the basic thinking taught in business schools and promulgated by consultants is killing innovation and the US economy:
Christensen retells the story of how Dell progressively lopped off low-value segments of its PC operation to the Taiwan-based firm ASUSTek - the motherboard, the assembly of the computer, the management of the supply chain and finally the design of the computer. In each case Dell accepted the proposal because in each case its profitability improved: its costs declined and its revenues stayed the same. At the end of the process, however, Dell was little more than a brand, while ASUSTeK can-and does-now offer a cheaper, better computer to Best Buy at lower cost.
Why is this happening? According to Christensen, the phenomenon is being
"driven by the pursuit of profit. That's the causal mechanism for these things... The problem lies with the business schools which are at fault. What we've done in America is to define profitability in terms of percentages. So if you can get the percentage up, it feels like we are more profitable. It causes us to do things to manipulate the percentage....
Thus when a firm calculates the rate of return on a proposal to outsource manufacturing overseas, it typically does not include:
The cost of the knowledge that is being lost, possibly forever.
The cost of being unable to innovate in future, because critical knowledge has been lost.
The consequent cost of its current business being destroyed by competitors emerging who can make a better product at lower cost.
The missed opportunity of profits that could be made from innovations based on that knowledge that is being lost.
"Relatively small" is subjective, but solar production in Germany is what I would call "surprisingly significant":
Germany generated over half its electricity demand from solar for the first time ever on 9 June, and the UK, basking in the sunniest weather of summer during the longest days of the year, nearly doubled its 2013 peak solar power output at the solstice weekend.
Our over-reliance on credit card numbers as "keys to the kingdom" is indeed bad, but what does it have to do with SSL?
15 years ago I had an MBNA credit card. On their website you could generate a one-time credit card number that was only good for the stated amount. That was a big improvement. I guess not enough people bothered to use it though.
Give the article some credit, that is largely what it is about:
To evaluate both legal and technological solutions, an understanding of the economic incentives of the stakeholders in the HTTPS ecosystem, most notably the CAs, is essential. This article outlines the systemic vulnerabilities of HTTPS, maps the thriving market for certificates, and analyzes the suggested regulatory and technological solutions on both sides of the Atlantic. The findings show existing yet surprising market patterns and perverse incentives: not unlike the financial sector, the HTTPS market is full of information asymmetries and negative externalities, as a handful of CAs dominate the market and have become "too big to fail." Unfortunately, the proposed E.U. legislation will reinforce systemic vulnerabilities, and the proposed technological solutions are far from being adopted at scale. The systemic vulnerabilities in this crucial technology are likely to persist for years to come.
Most all the responses I see to this story so far are kneejerk response to the summary, not very relevant.
I know, and I largely agree with you, too. But you're comparing the National Forest land with an ideal that it never was in the first place.
The American West was first stolen from native americans, then gifted to the barons of railroads, mining, logging, and ranching, because they owned the government - Federal to a large degree but state to a huge degree. It was an incredible battle for Teddy Roosevelt to establish federal control of the lands and the US Forest Service at all, and would never happen again today, who would even dare try? The land was already being exploited and it took decades to reign it in even to the point where it is now. Setting aside all that land as wilderness was never in the cards. Look at the entrance signs - "Land of Many Uses." It is a compromise. Europe has nothing like it. Don't get me wrong, we should absolutely keep bitching about sweetheard deals and encroachment, but I also run trails in the national forest near my home every morning before breakfast, and I feel very lucky to do so.
The odds of them actually fining a reporter doing anything like reporting are nil. That is clearly not the intent of it, as it has an exception for reporting news. I guess the problem is writing the law in a way that disallows shooting commercials or movies, without creating some objectionable corner cases.
Unless there has actually been any issue with this, it's just another trumped up nonstory that will be inflated to cartoonish proportions in the comments to follow.
The AI itself seems alright, although Atari-era graphics and gameplay is extremely simplified compared the imagery and real-world dynamics that robotics struggles with routinely. So, for example, the AI doesn't seem necessarily very advanced compared to a self-driving car.
What I would like to know how to do is to get $500M for so little track record, intellectual property, or even publications. I don't get it.
I disagree, because the word "drone" is increasingly associated with taking video, which raises a lot of concerns with people, and is in fact NOT part of the mission of delivering Internet access.
And, yes, I realize that is not how the word was used in the military for decades.
Wikipedia says: "Semiconductor properties allow solar cells to operate more efficiently in concentrated light, as long as the cell Junction temperature is kept cool by suitable heat sinks. Efficiency of multijunction photovoltaic cells developed in research is upward of 44% today, with the potential to approach 50% in the coming years.[4]"
Then if you can focus 20 times the light on it you're generating slightly less than 20X the power
No, actually more like 80X! Because it converts the light to electricity at 80% efficiency instead of 15%-20% for un-concentrated. This is due to the extremely steep temperature gradient between the super-heated front-face diode receiving the sunlight and the water-cooled electrode behind it. (I'm sure somebody else can explain the physics better).
The point being, say you have a rooftop in a city and want to make power - in that case, density matters.
And if this were stupid-expensive, it would be a research project and not a product.
No, I don't mean it in such a partisan way. For example, if one candidate in the democratic party primaries said, "let's let the science tell us what we need to do to prevent global warming, and then figure out what it will cost, and do it" - I predict they would lose the democratic primary race to another democrat who would take a more convenient "centrist" position (thus playing the role of Reagan). What I am saying is, the American public for the most part subscribes to the Bush 41 position - willing to look for ways to improve so long as it's painless, but not to interfere with our "way of life." (Carter was an anomaly, elected during a moment of national contrition - and that didn't last long!)
"THE American way of life is not up for negotiation." That was the stance struck by the elder George Bush at the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
While I think it is inaccurate to equate the two parties on environmental policy, I think this quote from Bush 41 best summarizes what we Americans as a whole really think about the environment: it's nice to have around for postcards and stuff, and ought to be the beneficiary of a few feel-good measures, so long as they're painless - but anything that costs real money or jobs is simply inconceivable. Any President who asks us to sacrifice for the future will simply be playing Carter to the inevitable Reagan who will come along to tell us that nothing we could ever do is bad, and everything will work to the greater good so long as we simply help ourselves and feel great about it. And that man will win the next election, in a landslide, every time.
It's not even that ridiculous of a proposition. Florida was just a swamp before air conditioning - in 1900 the entire population of the state was only 500K. Likewise phoenix was just a desert (state population, 122K). By nature, these places are hardly habitable.
That's an interesting story, do you know what he was thinking? For example was he trying to rationalize all his purchases as business expenses? Or what?
But the goal of interrogation is not simply "terminating" people, it is to get something from the prisoner. If what the prisoner says makes no difference, then they have no incentive to reveal information. The prisoner has to believe there is some way to stop the pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. What they are claiming is exactly what you asked for:
I think this is a good vision - you shouldn't need a different technology to target each platform (now that smartphones are fairly powerful); you want consistency in the UI between devices where possible, but that doesn't mean they can or should appear just the same, either. It is a tall order, and one has to question whether it is actually worth it, since switching between Windows and Android (or iOS and OSX) doesn't seem to have caused users' heads to explode, nor have developers been slow to discard PC code and re-implement everything for mobile.
Granted that's without agglomerating any messages, but it's also assuming zero overhead for routing or reliability.
Of course short of nuclear holocaust, power outages are local so you only need to get out of the impacted zone before you hit the backbone.
Now, in defense of perl, symbolic references (which is what those are called in perl) are disabled if you "use strict" which is certainly a recommended practice for anything network-connected!
cite
cite
Germany is really leading the way.
15 years ago I had an MBNA credit card. On their website you could generate a one-time credit card number that was only good for the stated amount. That was a big improvement. I guess not enough people bothered to use it though.
Most all the responses I see to this story so far are kneejerk response to the summary, not very relevant.
The American West was first stolen from native americans, then gifted to the barons of railroads, mining, logging, and ranching, because they owned the government - Federal to a large degree but state to a huge degree. It was an incredible battle for Teddy Roosevelt to establish federal control of the lands and the US Forest Service at all, and would never happen again today, who would even dare try? The land was already being exploited and it took decades to reign it in even to the point where it is now. Setting aside all that land as wilderness was never in the cards. Look at the entrance signs - "Land of Many Uses." It is a compromise. Europe has nothing like it. Don't get me wrong, we should absolutely keep bitching about sweetheard deals and encroachment, but I also run trails in the national forest near my home every morning before breakfast, and I feel very lucky to do so.
Unless there has actually been any issue with this, it's just another trumped up nonstory that will be inflated to cartoonish proportions in the comments to follow.
Typical RC planes can only be flown within a short distance of the field, otherwise you can't see what direction you're flying and you lose the plane.
And how many of these cars come from Title Loans in the first place?
An ambulance ride costs around $1000. For the working poor (those without Medicaid) that is one tough call to make.
What I would like to know how to do is to get $500M for so little track record, intellectual property, or even publications. I don't get it.
And, yes, I realize that is not how the word was used in the military for decades.
So not 4x efficiency like I said, but still 2x.
No, actually more like 80X! Because it converts the light to electricity at 80% efficiency instead of 15%-20% for un-concentrated. This is due to the extremely steep temperature gradient between the super-heated front-face diode receiving the sunlight and the water-cooled electrode behind it. (I'm sure somebody else can explain the physics better).
The point being, say you have a rooftop in a city and want to make power - in that case, density matters.
And if this were stupid-expensive, it would be a research project and not a product.
No, I don't mean it in such a partisan way. For example, if one candidate in the democratic party primaries said, "let's let the science tell us what we need to do to prevent global warming, and then figure out what it will cost, and do it" - I predict they would lose the democratic primary race to another democrat who would take a more convenient "centrist" position (thus playing the role of Reagan). What I am saying is, the American public for the most part subscribes to the Bush 41 position - willing to look for ways to improve so long as it's painless, but not to interfere with our "way of life." (Carter was an anomaly, elected during a moment of national contrition - and that didn't last long!)
While I think it is inaccurate to equate the two parties on environmental policy, I think this quote from Bush 41 best summarizes what we Americans as a whole really think about the environment: it's nice to have around for postcards and stuff, and ought to be the beneficiary of a few feel-good measures, so long as they're painless - but anything that costs real money or jobs is simply inconceivable. Any President who asks us to sacrifice for the future will simply be playing Carter to the inevitable Reagan who will come along to tell us that nothing we could ever do is bad, and everything will work to the greater good so long as we simply help ourselves and feel great about it. And that man will win the next election, in a landslide, every time.
It's not even that ridiculous of a proposition. Florida was just a swamp before air conditioning - in 1900 the entire population of the state was only 500K. Likewise phoenix was just a desert (state population, 122K). By nature, these places are hardly habitable.
That's an interesting story, do you know what he was thinking? For example was he trying to rationalize all his purchases as business expenses? Or what?
But the goal of interrogation is not simply "terminating" people, it is to get something from the prisoner. If what the prisoner says makes no difference, then they have no incentive to reveal information. The prisoner has to believe there is some way to stop the pain.
Initially, but (sad to say) facebook's revenue - and growth - are actually enormous.
The science is settled. What remains is to rally people to action en masse - more like "putting bums on seats" than proving theorems.
Humbug! Let Apple recommend whatever it likes, but let me make the final call. It's still my device, remember?