Could it possibly be that the whole idea of calculating at what market share Apple users will get attacked is a tenuous theory and he was lucky to even be within 5%?
Statistics, damn lies... 41 percent sounds like a lot more than 8 percent, making it sound like people will choose music downloads over food, but the truth is most people don't download music.
What we call intelligence is actually a combination of things and is situation-dependent, so they're not going to find an intelligence gene. My understanding is that neuroscience points to working memory, speed of recall, and other factors as the true strengths. You can up your IQ by for example taking n-back tests to increase your working memory recall.
The Earth is going to be fine, of course, I'm not a Gaia spiritualist. The question is whether human beings are going to do well in the future. From what I understand, due to climate change, one thing is that we're going to see human migration, which means political disruption, at least historically. Destabilization will occur as some countries adapt to climate change well and others face catastrophic circumstances. I agree that it's all very uncertain, but what seems highly likely is that disruptive change is coming from several directions based on climate change. What is most uncertain is what actions to take about it. The best thing we can do is find a way to provide energy for ourselves without disrupting the climate. I don't know why this is controversial. We should pour money into alternative energy. It's a safe bet.
Those are good points and it's a great example of the problem with this debate. I think that the FACT of global climate change at the hands of humans is pretty indisputable but what to do about it and how much harm it will cause is the next step in the debate. The idea of one or more huge government programs to fix the problem does not appeal to me, even as I acknowledge that sea levels are rising, species are migrating, ice is melting, etc. I don't know what else to do, so we might be stuck with a solution, government intervention, that is bad but better than all the other bad alternatives.
I went there and it... does maps. Wow. Google maps does a lot more than just showing me a map. I do like that it is editable though when you find a mistake.
Engineering might be putting that a bit kindly. This isn't really engineering... What these guys did sounds like flailing around using educated guesses --- oh, wait.
Two points: first, the road's capacity is not set by a law of physics. It is a heuristic reached by observation, which is to say, which assumes nobody changes their behavior at all. In fact, if you increase the number of vehicles beyond what's possible to move through at a given speed, physics requires that everyone INCREASE their speed. Imagine a line of stopped cars with adequate space between them. It's not possible. They will be moving.
Next, there is a difference between an ideal recommendation (which I agree is safest) and a law. The law should be the legal minimum. 2-3 seconds is probably too large for such a legal limit, but I'd be happy with any law that ENFORCED a cushion between cars. Sorry for the screaming caps.
is to force people to always leave at least 3 car lengths between themselves and the car in front of them on the freeway, including onramps and exits. (metering lights effectively create this situation, and they do work). This way, people could always merge, change lanes, etc. Once a merge or lane change was accomplished, another merge or lane change by the same car should not be allowed until proper distance is established from the car in front again. If the police would simply enforce this one law ruthlessly, road conditions would improve dramatically. The preponderant reason for traffic jams is people not letting others merge or execute needed maneuvers, and people making sudden lane changes, both of which cause sudden braking, which is amplified backwards through traffic. Smooth driving, even under severely packed conditions, would alleviate almost all traffic jams.
Yes, there are a couple of major hurdles to overcome with solar, such as storage, and it's definitely not there yet. I guess I'm hearing from a biased source but LBL does have a national center focused on the effort and it's good science and they have a very reasonable path forward that is on the verge of making some huge breakthroughs. In particular, they intend to solve the storage problem by converting sunlight directly into fuel, like nature does, but much more effectively. They are well on their way to achieving this, it sounds like. Plants are not efficient enough, and then you have to utilize something like switchgrass using bugs, technically messy.
But nuclear, wind, geothermal, etc. none of them have the energy potential to solve the problem. I've always been a nuclear proponent, but you would have to build a nuclear fission plant every day for like 30 years to replace fossil fuels. I'm hopeful about fusion plants -- keep your fingers crossed. Geothermal is inexhaustible but woefully insufficient in terms of available energy, just not really worth doing IMO. The sun bathes the earth with a huge abundance of energy, far in excess of all our needs for the foreseeable future, as in for millennia. Building it out would be a huge project but at least it's feasible.
I recently became convinced by an argument made by Lawrence Berkeley Lab scientists that solar is the only power source that we have that really makes sense for powering human needs in the future. Check it out here http://www.lbl.gov/solar/
Now they have gone the way of all growth-oriented companies: they are chasing profits uber allen. Because of this, they see innovation as a way to profit, as opposed to a good thing in itself.
I agree that Google Voice voicemail transcription is pretty cool. Sometimes it's very hilariously wrong, but sometimes it's impressive and it's usually useful. If Apple's stuff is better, then I want to take a look.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, a flywheel in every home. Totally workable. Good idea, but I don't think it scales.
Yes, and your salary needs to be increased. Oh, and your wife should treat you better.
Could it possibly be that the whole idea of calculating at what market share Apple users will get attacked is a tenuous theory and he was lucky to even be within 5%?
Statistics, damn lies... 41 percent sounds like a lot more than 8 percent, making it sound like people will choose music downloads over food, but the truth is most people don't download music.
What we call intelligence is actually a combination of things and is situation-dependent, so they're not going to find an intelligence gene. My understanding is that neuroscience points to working memory, speed of recall, and other factors as the true strengths. You can up your IQ by for example taking n-back tests to increase your working memory recall.
The Earth is going to be fine, of course, I'm not a Gaia spiritualist. The question is whether human beings are going to do well in the future. From what I understand, due to climate change, one thing is that we're going to see human migration, which means political disruption, at least historically. Destabilization will occur as some countries adapt to climate change well and others face catastrophic circumstances. I agree that it's all very uncertain, but what seems highly likely is that disruptive change is coming from several directions based on climate change. What is most uncertain is what actions to take about it. The best thing we can do is find a way to provide energy for ourselves without disrupting the climate. I don't know why this is controversial. We should pour money into alternative energy. It's a safe bet.
Those are good points and it's a great example of the problem with this debate. I think that the FACT of global climate change at the hands of humans is pretty indisputable but what to do about it and how much harm it will cause is the next step in the debate. The idea of one or more huge government programs to fix the problem does not appeal to me, even as I acknowledge that sea levels are rising, species are migrating, ice is melting, etc. I don't know what else to do, so we might be stuck with a solution, government intervention, that is bad but better than all the other bad alternatives.
I went there and it... does maps. Wow. Google maps does a lot more than just showing me a map. I do like that it is editable though when you find a mistake.
Engineering might be putting that a bit kindly. This isn't really engineering... What these guys did sounds like flailing around using educated guesses --- oh, wait.
404 Video not found when clicking on video link.
Yes, walking past the sign that says "anyone passing this point is subject to search" is waiving his fourth amendment rights.
If I put a sign on my lawn that says "anyone passing this sign can be detained indefinitely" does that make it so?
.. he wasn't trafficking in pirated movies, or the judge would have been merciless.
this court won't do to rob ordinary citizens of property?
In Korean, "Salsa" means diarrhea.
Two points: first, the road's capacity is not set by a law of physics. It is a heuristic reached by observation, which is to say, which assumes nobody changes their behavior at all. In fact, if you increase the number of vehicles beyond what's possible to move through at a given speed, physics requires that everyone INCREASE their speed. Imagine a line of stopped cars with adequate space between them. It's not possible. They will be moving.
Next, there is a difference between an ideal recommendation (which I agree is safest) and a law. The law should be the legal minimum. 2-3 seconds is probably too large for such a legal limit, but I'd be happy with any law that ENFORCED a cushion between cars. Sorry for the screaming caps.
is to force people to always leave at least 3 car lengths between themselves and the car in front of them on the freeway, including onramps and exits. (metering lights effectively create this situation, and they do work). This way, people could always merge, change lanes, etc. Once a merge or lane change was accomplished, another merge or lane change by the same car should not be allowed until proper distance is established from the car in front again. If the police would simply enforce this one law ruthlessly, road conditions would improve dramatically. The preponderant reason for traffic jams is people not letting others merge or execute needed maneuvers, and people making sudden lane changes, both of which cause sudden braking, which is amplified backwards through traffic. Smooth driving, even under severely packed conditions, would alleviate almost all traffic jams.
Baby, I always thrill the monkeys with my sweet love.
Sorry for the repeat, but here is a better link, very informative: http://www.lbl.gov/solar/ipfiles/plenary/chu_Solar_to_Chem_Energy_3-28-05.ppt
Here you go: http://www.lbl.gov/solar/ipfiles/plenary/chu_Solar_to_Chem_Energy_3-28-05.ppt
I see your point. I don't understand why what I wrote is somehow a contradiction. If we build a nuclear plant every day there will be a huge nuclear waste and proliferation problem. This is unsolved.
Yes, there are a couple of major hurdles to overcome with solar, such as storage, and it's definitely not there yet. I guess I'm hearing from a biased source but LBL does have a national center focused on the effort and it's good science and they have a very reasonable path forward that is on the verge of making some huge breakthroughs. In particular, they intend to solve the storage problem by converting sunlight directly into fuel, like nature does, but much more effectively. They are well on their way to achieving this, it sounds like. Plants are not efficient enough, and then you have to utilize something like switchgrass using bugs, technically messy.
But nuclear, wind, geothermal, etc. none of them have the energy potential to solve the problem. I've always been a nuclear proponent, but you would have to build a nuclear fission plant every day for like 30 years to replace fossil fuels. I'm hopeful about fusion plants -- keep your fingers crossed. Geothermal is inexhaustible but woefully insufficient in terms of available energy, just not really worth doing IMO. The sun bathes the earth with a huge abundance of energy, far in excess of all our needs for the foreseeable future, as in for millennia. Building it out would be a huge project but at least it's feasible.
I recently became convinced by an argument made by Lawrence Berkeley Lab scientists that solar is the only power source that we have that really makes sense for powering human needs in the future. Check it out here http://www.lbl.gov/solar/
Now they have gone the way of all growth-oriented companies: they are chasing profits uber allen. Because of this, they see innovation as a way to profit, as opposed to a good thing in itself.
Neither of those citations show anything about the US Government's income from sales tax and export duty on weapons sales, do they?
The U.S. Government's biggest income not counting income tax is sales tax and export duty on weapons sales.
Wh-wh-wha? Citation needed! It doesn't show up here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
I agree that Google Voice voicemail transcription is pretty cool. Sometimes it's very hilariously wrong, but sometimes it's impressive and it's usually useful. If Apple's stuff is better, then I want to take a look.