Where exactly are you hiding when I'm at home cooking and put my mom on speakerphone? Or when I'm in the car, driving, and trying to pay attention to the road? Or when me and my friends, sitting around the couch with some beers, speaker phone in the one person who was sick and couldn't come join us?
While there are idiots in the world who are rude and ignorant of other people, their existence does not mean everyone is. Banning speaker phone just because some people are morons makes about as much sense as legislating that we replace all glasses with plastic sippy cups because some idiots break them and hurt themselves.
Data becomes public if and only if it's introduced into evidence by the Law Firm. Is it really so onerous to say, if you have health data that is confidential, take steps so it will not be disclosed until such time as it becomes part of the public record? Otherwise you open the door to all kinds of corner cases where a law firm can effectively disclose this information.
Speaker phone isn't all bad. I use it all the time when multitasking, and I could see being able to click a button on your watch to activate as being quite nice.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of things have GPS these days, and you don't need a "bracelet" to be tracked. And every time my browser asks me to "allow x.com to use my location" I'm amazed how accurate it is as well. So if you really want to be "not tracked" you'll need to give up pretty much most of modern technology.
OTOH, modern technology is a blessing. I LOVE having a GPS and being able to always know where I'm going. I'd 100% agree we need to make sure the NSA isn't logging our every move (although I'd argue that's a civil issue with a civil solution). But there has to be a way to allow modern technology in a way that gives us the benefits, without the tracking.
While adding an extra core or two made big jumps in performance (because you are almost always running at least two applications) there comes a point where most users won't see a performance boost. While I may now be able to throw 36 processors at a problem, you have to program all those cores to work together. Right now that's a lot of effort, and until programming languages catch up and can optimize code by making it massively parallel, this is going to be a non-starter.
As I understand it, the key problem is rate of mutation. We can easily develop a cure for the common cold, for instance, but any cure we develop will be strain based, and the virus just mutates too fast for any "cure" to be effective for more than a few percentage of the population.
The same holds for HIV. If you give the right person a blood sample, he can come back with a cure for your particular virus. However by the time he comes back, your virus has mutated to something different.
Which is why such push from Elon is so interesting.
The fact of the matter is NASA is going to be very inefficient compared with a private enterprise. You know in NASA budgets they tack on all kinds of things not related to space exploration, and on top of that, they're probably inefficient at what they do.
The key is going to be recovery of cost. When we start doing space exploration seriously we'll begin to find trade based on space. If that pays back the cost of exploration, you'll see a feedback loop where people will explore more and more
I've seen people bike by and grab the phone out of people's hands while they're using it. Just try catching the thief on a bike.
But you know thieves are smart. Or at least they have specific targets. Nobody but business users own blackberries, and businesses don't buy on the black market, so there's going to be very little demand for blackberries. OTOH, if you have the shiny new Samsung Galaxy, worth almost a grand, people are going to try to take it if they are dishonest and see an opportunity.
The other thing to mention is in the US everyone's cell phone is subsidized by phone companies and locked. Here in Europe, most cell phones are unlocked, and when you have to pay 600 EUR for that iPhone, theft is much more common.
Except the early settlers didn't know nearly as much about America as we do about Mars.
They looked a map, said hey it's the same latitude as italy, it must be really warm and the reality was that the ocean currents bring arctic waters down south and make the land colder than it should be.
We have a clear advantage in that we have MUCH more knowledge about where we're colonizing. Granted, there will be surprises, but I think we have a better chance of surviving then the original colonists.
"It's going to cost a lot of money" is not really a good argument as to why we shouldn't do it.
It cost a lot of money to send out Columbus to find the new world. Would you say that was a bad investment?
The key is benefit vs money paid in, along with payment schedule. I would wager that once we start colonizing the stars, we'll find trade between earth and its new found colonies will cause the economy to grow.
Getting to that point will be expensive, but the return on investment is worth it.
Besides, total cost will be most likely amortized over a number of years.
Except you can get air from the dirt on the surface of Mars. It's mostly iron oxide, harvesting the Oxide you get Iron + Oxygen -- both two useful items. Water is available in frozen form, or you can make it by a) recycling your own waste and b) getting hydrogen from the soil. Methane can also be harvested from Mars. I forget the exact chemistry involved but I know it's possible.
So now you have a source of energy, a source of air, and something to drink. Bring along some seeds for your new vegetable garden and you're set for basic needs.
Will you need shipments from Earth from time to time? Sure, but most of what you need can either come with you or be sent quite infrequently.
And each time more people come, or more supplies, you can add to your manufacturing ability on Mars. Maybe shipment #2 brings a blast furnace and people are now able to melt sand to glass. Maybe shipment #3 brings actual animals from earth so you can now breed your own farm animals.
Of course, you're right, all this does assume a sort of organic growth. If we just send two people, and no more, or no more supplies, at some point they'll die prematurely. But why would you just send a few people to Mars? You should build up a colony a few people at a time, until you have a city producing everything you need.
For the same reason Leveraged Buy outs Work. Public companies are accountable to shareholders, who tend to be very short term focused (as in, give me money soon!). They do this even at the expense of longer term vision (as in, give me much more barrels of money mañana). A completely private enterprise allows you to ignore short term whims, and focus on making money, long term.
There's plenty of minerals on Mars. Maybe the first few years you'll have to stick to the imported habitat module, but if you send some geologists / chemists / minerologists in your first wave you'll likely figure out in quick order what you can mine / smelt into building materials.
It doesn't have to hasten it though. While it may be incredibly romantic to go somewhere to do science for a couple of years, and die gloriously in the service of the goddess Knowledge, if we do colonization right, it's more like committing not to go home for a couple decades.
Sure, the first 10-20 years building up Mars City will take a lot of time, but if you pick young people (under 30) then you have maybe 30-40 years to build up the Mars-Earth Express bus line. You just have to ensure that once they get there they can be mostly self sufficient.
Film makes you much more disciplined. If you take a thousand shots with your digital camera you may have a much shorter "feedback loop" but you'll end up with a thousand shots to go through after every trip, and you'll waste a lot of money in hard drive storage. With film, you've got 36 shots, and that's it, so you learn to really frame things in your mind. You can learn the same thing by playing games with digital, but it's more tempting to cheat.
You can still have a shorter feedback loop with film. I remember setting up a line of beer bottles, and taking shots with tripod + flash at a range of f-stops from f 1.4 to f 22 just so I could see how f-stop changed things. You're right though, it is a bit of a pain in the ass.
Really, film and digital both should have their place in teaching. We'd be smoking crack if we only trained photographers of tomorrow with film in a digital world. On the other hand, we'd also be smoking crack if we threw out techniques of the past. I'd go so far as say, in a serious photography study, you should also make some cyanotypes and wet plates....
Actually (and IAAP I Am A Photographer), I disagree, not because digital isn't a film replacement, film is great for learning, full stop.. I see this all the time when people ask me for help in how to take pictures.
What happens when you give a newbie a digital camera that can shoot noiseless 30MP pics at ISO 64,000? You end up with a thousand snaps of a thousand angles of their dog they took last night.
So now someone I'm teaching photo skills to someone going broke because every day they're buying another hard drive.
Solution? Give 'em a film camera. You can get a Pentax K1000 for $50 these days, with 1 50mm lens (no zooming!).
Now that they only have 36 shots, and each one costs maybe $0.40 when you factor in film + developing costs. And at this point people learn some discipline. Before you click the shutter, you should see in your head what the photo will be. And take just one (awesome) picture.
On top of that, playing in the dark room gives you a much better feel for concepts like contrast. Do you know why that dark red filter adds contrast, mr. digital camera man? Bet you didn't learn that from your Nikon D800...
Have you ever used a monitor? Big bulky and uncomfortable. If the gym of the future can tell me how hard I was exercising and give me a custom tailored experience without having to use a monitor, it could be nice.
While OpenBSD is certainly more secure than most operating systems, running it is not a cure all.
Just look at Heartbleed. The bug affected still affected OpenBSD.
And if you didn't patch your system, you'd still have issues to this day.
The fact of the matter is good security is hard, and requires a lot of work. Using OpenBSD may get you closer to your end goal, but you still will have to do some leg work yourself
Slashdot Mirror
Where exactly are you hiding when I'm at home cooking and put my mom on speakerphone? Or when I'm in the car, driving, and trying to pay attention to the road? Or when me and my friends, sitting around the couch with some beers, speaker phone in the one person who was sick and couldn't come join us?
While there are idiots in the world who are rude and ignorant of other people, their existence does not mean everyone is. Banning speaker phone just because some people are morons makes about as much sense as legislating that we replace all glasses with plastic sippy cups because some idiots break them and hurt themselves.
Data becomes public if and only if it's introduced into evidence by the Law Firm. Is it really so onerous to say, if you have health data that is confidential, take steps so it will not be disclosed until such time as it becomes part of the public record? Otherwise you open the door to all kinds of corner cases where a law firm can effectively disclose this information.
Speaker phone isn't all bad. I use it all the time when multitasking, and I could see being able to click a button on your watch to activate as being quite nice.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of things have GPS these days, and you don't need a "bracelet" to be tracked. And every time my browser asks me to "allow x.com to use my location" I'm amazed how accurate it is as well. So if you really want to be "not tracked" you'll need to give up pretty much most of modern technology.
OTOH, modern technology is a blessing. I LOVE having a GPS and being able to always know where I'm going. I'd 100% agree we need to make sure the NSA isn't logging our every move (although I'd argue that's a civil issue with a civil solution). But there has to be a way to allow modern technology in a way that gives us the benefits, without the tracking.
Just because you encrypted your data doesn't mean it's safe.
While adding an extra core or two made big jumps in performance (because you are almost always running at least two applications) there comes a point where most users won't see a performance boost. While I may now be able to throw 36 processors at a problem, you have to program all those cores to work together. Right now that's a lot of effort, and until programming languages catch up and can optimize code by making it massively parallel, this is going to be a non-starter.
Intriguing thought.
As I understand it, the key problem is rate of mutation. We can easily develop a cure for the common cold, for instance, but any cure we develop will be strain based, and the virus just mutates too fast for any "cure" to be effective for more than a few percentage of the population.
The same holds for HIV. If you give the right person a blood sample, he can come back with a cure for your particular virus. However by the time he comes back, your virus has mutated to something different.
Which is why such push from Elon is so interesting.
The fact of the matter is NASA is going to be very inefficient compared with a private enterprise. You know in NASA budgets they tack on all kinds of things not related to space exploration, and on top of that, they're probably inefficient at what they do.
The key is going to be recovery of cost. When we start doing space exploration seriously we'll begin to find trade based on space. If that pays back the cost of exploration, you'll see a feedback loop where people will explore more and more
Just because there are a number of as yet unsolved problems does not mean something is not worth investigating, or trying to do.
I've seen people bike by and grab the phone out of people's hands while they're using it. Just try catching the thief on a bike.
But you know thieves are smart. Or at least they have specific targets. Nobody but business users own blackberries, and businesses don't buy on the black market, so there's going to be very little demand for blackberries. OTOH, if you have the shiny new Samsung Galaxy, worth almost a grand, people are going to try to take it if they are dishonest and see an opportunity.
The other thing to mention is in the US everyone's cell phone is subsidized by phone companies and locked. Here in Europe, most cell phones are unlocked, and when you have to pay 600 EUR for that iPhone, theft is much more common.
Yes but some applications, like High Frequency Trading focus solely on speed.
If this proves faster than GPU programming, I can see a lot of people heading in that direction...
Except the early settlers didn't know nearly as much about America as we do about Mars.
They looked a map, said hey it's the same latitude as italy, it must be really warm and the reality was that the ocean currents bring arctic waters down south and make the land colder than it should be.
We have a clear advantage in that we have MUCH more knowledge about where we're colonizing. Granted, there will be surprises, but I think we have a better chance of surviving then the original colonists.
"It's going to cost a lot of money" is not really a good argument as to why we shouldn't do it.
It cost a lot of money to send out Columbus to find the new world. Would you say that was a bad investment?
The key is benefit vs money paid in, along with payment schedule. I would wager that once we start colonizing the stars, we'll find trade between earth and its new found colonies will cause the economy to grow.
Getting to that point will be expensive, but the return on investment is worth it.
Besides, total cost will be most likely amortized over a number of years.
Except you can get air from the dirt on the surface of Mars. It's mostly iron oxide, harvesting the Oxide you get Iron + Oxygen -- both two useful items. Water is available in frozen form, or you can make it by a) recycling your own waste and b) getting hydrogen from the soil. Methane can also be harvested from Mars. I forget the exact chemistry involved but I know it's possible.
So now you have a source of energy, a source of air, and something to drink. Bring along some seeds for your new vegetable garden and you're set for basic needs.
Will you need shipments from Earth from time to time? Sure, but most of what you need can either come with you or be sent quite infrequently.
And each time more people come, or more supplies, you can add to your manufacturing ability on Mars. Maybe shipment #2 brings a blast furnace and people are now able to melt sand to glass. Maybe shipment #3 brings actual animals from earth so you can now breed your own farm animals.
Of course, you're right, all this does assume a sort of organic growth. If we just send two people, and no more, or no more supplies, at some point they'll die prematurely. But why would you just send a few people to Mars? You should build up a colony a few people at a time, until you have a city producing everything you need.
For the same reason Leveraged Buy outs Work. Public companies are accountable to shareholders, who tend to be very short term focused (as in, give me money soon!). They do this even at the expense of longer term vision (as in, give me much more barrels of money mañana). A completely private enterprise allows you to ignore short term whims, and focus on making money, long term.
There's plenty of minerals on Mars. Maybe the first few years you'll have to stick to the imported habitat module, but if you send some geologists / chemists / minerologists in your first wave you'll likely figure out in quick order what you can mine / smelt into building materials.
It doesn't have to hasten it though. While it may be incredibly romantic to go somewhere to do science for a couple of years, and die gloriously in the service of the goddess Knowledge, if we do colonization right, it's more like committing not to go home for a couple decades.
Sure, the first 10-20 years building up Mars City will take a lot of time, but if you pick young people (under 30) then you have maybe 30-40 years to build up the Mars-Earth Express bus line. You just have to ensure that once they get there they can be mostly self sufficient.
What will we do without the telephone headset sanitizers when the plague breaks out?
I see a lot of K1000s available at the local flea market. Not so manuy MXs, but I do agree they're a better camera
Film makes you much more disciplined. If you take a thousand shots with your digital camera you may have a much shorter "feedback loop" but you'll end up with a thousand shots to go through after every trip, and you'll waste a lot of money in hard drive storage. With film, you've got 36 shots, and that's it, so you learn to really frame things in your mind. You can learn the same thing by playing games with digital, but it's more tempting to cheat.
You can still have a shorter feedback loop with film. I remember setting up a line of beer bottles, and taking shots with tripod + flash at a range of f-stops from f 1.4 to f 22 just so I could see how f-stop changed things. You're right though, it is a bit of a pain in the ass.
Really, film and digital both should have their place in teaching. We'd be smoking crack if we only trained photographers of tomorrow with film in a digital world. On the other hand, we'd also be smoking crack if we threw out techniques of the past. I'd go so far as say, in a serious photography study, you should also make some cyanotypes and wet plates....
That's not a particularly good reproduction of his work.
Actually (and IAAP I Am A Photographer), I disagree, not because digital isn't a film replacement, film is great for learning, full stop.. I see this all the time when people ask me for help in how to take pictures.
What happens when you give a newbie a digital camera that can shoot noiseless 30MP pics at ISO 64,000? You end up with a thousand snaps of a thousand angles of their dog they took last night.
So now someone I'm teaching photo skills to someone going broke because every day they're buying another hard drive.
Solution? Give 'em a film camera. You can get a Pentax K1000 for $50 these days, with 1 50mm lens (no zooming!).
Now that they only have 36 shots, and each one costs maybe $0.40 when you factor in film + developing costs. And at this point people learn some discipline. Before you click the shutter, you should see in your head what the photo will be. And take just one (awesome) picture.
On top of that, playing in the dark room gives you a much better feel for concepts like contrast. Do you know why that dark red filter adds contrast, mr. digital camera man? Bet you didn't learn that from your Nikon D800...
Have you ever used a monitor? Big bulky and uncomfortable. If the gym of the future can tell me how hard I was exercising and give me a custom tailored experience without having to use a monitor, it could be nice.
While OpenBSD is certainly more secure than most operating systems, running it is not a cure all.
Just look at Heartbleed. The bug affected still affected OpenBSD.
And if you didn't patch your system, you'd still have issues to this day.
The fact of the matter is good security is hard, and requires a lot of work. Using OpenBSD may get you closer to your end goal, but you still will have to do some leg work yourself