Tablets and ebook readers already do everything the so called "netbook" does. What exactly are you going to get rid of to reduce the cost further?
About the only way I can think of to reduce the price that can't be applied to a tablet/ebook reader is to:
1) Remove the touch screen and add back in a mouse 2) Increase the thickness of the hardware, to allow for cheaper parts.
I can't see that working. The touch screen is worth the extra cost, and no one wants a thicker, heavier tablet, unless it is less than $40. I can't see it working.
This device does not stop the worst of the USB issues the Capacitor killer that draws in electricity, charges a capacitor, then releases it all back into the PC at high voltage and capacity, frying the computer.
3-5% per what? the 3-5% power loss is after we take huge steps to keep power supply close to the use. If we could put all the nuke power plants in say, Nevada, and transmit it thousands of miles away with just 5% loss, we would do so.
First, that pressure is extremely important. As per Mythbusters episode, it can take a human and crush it inside an underwater pressurized suit when the suit breaks.
More important, water pumped up hill has multiple issues you are not considering. Evaporation, rain, land use areas, pollution, danger of dams breaking, are all major issues.
But the most important issue is simple power transmission is expensive. We lose more power moving it around than you would believe.
If you are inland, with natural hills, then pumping water up hill makes sense.
But if you are near a shore line, where beach front property is prime real estate, then finding a way to store energy OFFSHORE makes a lot more sense, as all the land near the ocean is to valuable.
If you want real innovation, you need to have the person who is really doing the asking do the vetting directly, or hire an outside consultant to do it.
Lets say you come up with a great idea. It will cut your work load in half, effectively letting half the people do the same work. Assume that means your department is given slightly more work - but not double. So your boss changes his plans to hire two more people to instead fire one person. But he won't get the credit for saving the money, you do. And your boss's salary and power are based on how much money his department spends.
Best case senario, you get promoted. You are now directly competeing with your old boss. After he lost one of his best employee (as you came up with this great idea).
Worst case scenario, the idea fails.
Why would your boss promote your innovation? No incentive.
Different kinds of averages: Mean = what you did. Median = the guy in the exact middle. Mode = the rank that has the most people.
In your example, Bill gates + 999 homeless, the Mean = muilti-millionaire, Median = homeless, and Mode = homeless.
In other words, your problem is caused entirely by choice of the type of average. The Median average is the kind we need to use for this type of problem.
If you actually read my post you would see that credit cards would let you purchase tickets in advanced. In other words, the solution you "thought up" and wrote about (i.e. ID) was already in my post.
My solution was superior to yours as it still allowed for cash sales.
1) Not that hard to show how many tickets are left 2) What part of hand stamped did you not understand? 3) What part of "credit card" allows you to buy the ticket in advance do you not understand?
1) People refuse to let the free market set prices. Some events are worth more than the ticket price, otherwise no one would ever buy via a scalper. Instead they insist on a communist "Let everyone watch for the same price" method.
2) The people running the system do not suffer from the scalping, so they do not bother to institute simple methods to stop it.
For example, simply set it up so that you can only buy tickets either a) an hour before the show using cash abd getting your hand stamped, or b) with a credit card - that must be shown to pick up the tickets upto an hour before the show.
So take your pick of solution - either make let the free market price the tickets (with time affecting the price today's tickets are more expensive than ones for next year). Or use real security to ensure that the purchaser watches the show.
Then you find out that by cutting left turns they increase distance per package, but reduce time per package. By reducing time per package, they managed to put more packages on each truck. Miles per truck goes up, but the number of trucks goes down far more.
This reduction in total trucks also creates a slight reduction in distance traveled whenever two pickups are close to each other. So while miles per package goes up, total miles travelled drops tremendously.
They are not telling you that news industry has really gone down hill, losing all the competent writers, doing without any real copy-editors, and basically letting any idiot with internet access write the news.
If he didn't give or sell the information away ('hoarded"), then it sounds to me like he was simply lazy about proper security procedures, rather than criminal. I know lots of people that take work home with them and it sounds like that is what he did.
Yes, it was a potential problem, yes it was a violation of the rules. But I bet his boss was simply more concerned with results than with security and created a culture of "get it done and don't talk to me about problems." The boss was probably too stupid to realize that 'problems' included national security leaks.
Two major issues with the 'robots will steal our jobs'. sillyness.
1) Jobs do NOT depend on work that needs to be done, but on work we WANT to do. All we really need are 3 hots and a cot, 1 person can make that for 1,000, so less than 0.1% percent need to be employed. But there is no limit to what human's WANT. As I have said before, give all humans a sex robot and we will demand a second so we can have a threesome.
2) The real problem caused by industrialization/robotization is the requirements for re-training. When it comes to jobs, the demand will always be ahead of the supply, with the main limitation being training. When you look for work, the jobs that are not being filled always require training.
1) Real noise from robot, = no way to tell as it is real noise.
2) Recording of real noise = good till they update the software to ignore that specific pattern of noise.
3) Artificially generated noise (fake noise) based on multiple real noise samples = good till they detect a pattern in the fake noise, and then pattern is ignored. Basically you are now both building noise detection systems and the winner is the guy that is better.
It makes more sense to just use the real noise. Why get into a noise detection war.
The detection software basically looks for perfection. The robotic intereface provides multiple places for imperfections. Rough mouse pads, electrical resistance, slightly off motors, all contribute small mistakes.
It is these mistakes that fool the detection software, not the measured, identical commands.
While you are correct, you are ignoring the current political conversation, which often tries to claim that we need oil pipelines, tax breaks for oil companies, etc. etc. all in the name of "jobs".
More jobs should equal more political influence. The government should recognize that a) we can make a profit off of clean energy, and b) doing so takes more local jobs than using fossil fuels.
This kills the moronic crap that fossil fuel lobbies push, such as 'drill baby drill'.
Perpetual motion machines are allowed by the laws of physics. The galaxy is one for example, it perpetually rotates effectively forever, and by definition beyond what we can measure.
What IS impossible, is to remove energy from the system. If you do that, any machine stops, eventually, unless you add it back in somehow.
Also, there is the unfortunate locking of useless title crap on pages.
People with poor vision, i.e. those older than 40, tend to use large fonts. When you do this with many pages, the banner title page ends up taking 20% of the screen. Throw in all the other stuff that takes up vertical space and you get a useable viewing area that is smaller than banner on top.
If you must use a banner on top, it should be set to NEVER increase in size, regardless of the zoom/font of the main frame.
Slashdot Mirror
You have made a false assumption - that they will add back in the extra features they cut out to make it thin.
If they did that, it would up the cost, and people would rather just get the tablet.
Note, I do agree that the idea of killing a microphone port is incredibly stupid - wireless has way too high losses.
But they won't put it back in just because they made things thicker.
Tablets and ebook readers already do everything the so called "netbook" does. What exactly are you going to get rid of to reduce the cost further?
About the only way I can think of to reduce the price that can't be applied to a tablet/ebook reader is to:
1) Remove the touch screen and add back in a mouse
2) Increase the thickness of the hardware, to allow for cheaper parts.
I can't see that working. The touch screen is worth the extra cost, and no one wants a thicker, heavier tablet, unless it is less than $40. I can't see it working.
This device does not stop the worst of the USB issues the Capacitor killer that draws in electricity, charges a capacitor, then releases it all back into the PC at high voltage and capacity, frying the computer.
3-5% per what? the 3-5% power loss is after we take huge steps to keep power supply close to the use. If we could put all the nuke power plants in say, Nevada, and transmit it thousands of miles away with just 5% loss, we would do so.
First, that pressure is extremely important. As per Mythbusters episode, it can take a human and crush it inside an underwater pressurized suit when the suit breaks.
More important, water pumped up hill has multiple issues you are not considering. Evaporation, rain, land use areas, pollution, danger of dams breaking, are all major issues.
But the most important issue is simple power transmission is expensive. We lose more power moving it around than you would believe.
If you are inland, with natural hills, then pumping water up hill makes sense.
But if you are near a shore line, where beach front property is prime real estate, then finding a way to store energy OFFSHORE makes a lot more sense, as all the land near the ocean is to valuable.
If you want real innovation, you need to have the person who is really doing the asking do the vetting directly, or hire an outside consultant to do it.
Lets say you come up with a great idea. It will cut your work load in half, effectively letting half the people do the same work. Assume that means your department is given slightly more work - but not double. So your boss changes his plans to hire two more people to instead fire one person. But he won't get the credit for saving the money, you do. And your boss's salary and power are based on how much money his department spends.
Best case senario, you get promoted. You are now directly competeing with your old boss. After he lost one of his best employee (as you came up with this great idea).
Worst case scenario, the idea fails.
Why would your boss promote your innovation? No incentive.
Different kinds of averages: Mean = what you did. Median = the guy in the exact middle. Mode = the rank that has the most people.
In your example, Bill gates + 999 homeless, the Mean = muilti-millionaire, Median = homeless, and Mode = homeless.
In other words, your problem is caused entirely by choice of the type of average. The Median average is the kind we need to use for this type of problem.
If you are taking a trip to somewhere your phone requires roaming charges you should not take your phone with you.
I gave ONE solution with multiple parts. (A) as an all cash option for those not using credit cards.
I also required hands to be stamped, something that would prevent the obvious abuses you mentioned.
If you actually read my post you would see that credit cards would let you purchase tickets in advanced. In other words, the solution you "thought up" and wrote about (i.e. ID) was already in my post.
My solution was superior to yours as it still allowed for cash sales.
1) Not that hard to show how many tickets are left
2) What part of hand stamped did you not understand?
3) What part of "credit card" allows you to buy the ticket in advance do you not understand?
The state of New Jersey has multiple roundabouts on their highways.
Not so much in the cities, but their highways use them a lot.
No. You got scalpers and bots because:
1) People refuse to let the free market set prices. Some events are worth more than the ticket price, otherwise no one would ever buy via a scalper. Instead they insist on a communist "Let everyone watch for the same price" method.
2) The people running the system do not suffer from the scalping, so they do not bother to institute simple methods to stop it.
For example, simply set it up so that you can only buy tickets either a) an hour before the show using cash abd getting your hand stamped, or b) with a credit card - that must be shown to pick up the tickets upto an hour before the show.
So take your pick of solution - either make let the free market price the tickets (with time affecting the price today's tickets are more expensive than ones for next year). Or use real security to ensure that the purchaser watches the show.
If you ignore the first article (Gadget 360) and click through the report hyperlink to
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Then you find out that by cutting left turns they increase distance per package, but reduce time per package. By reducing time per package, they managed to put more packages on each truck. Miles per truck goes up, but the number of trucks goes down far more.
This reduction in total trucks also creates a slight reduction in distance traveled whenever two pickups are close to each other. So while miles per package goes up, total miles travelled drops tremendously.
They are not telling you that news industry has really gone down hill, losing all the competent writers, doing without any real copy-editors, and basically letting any idiot with internet access write the news.
If he didn't give or sell the information away ('hoarded"), then it sounds to me like he was simply lazy about proper security procedures, rather than criminal. I know lots of people that take work home with them and it sounds like that is what he did.
Yes, it was a potential problem, yes it was a violation of the rules. But I bet his boss was simply more concerned with results than with security and created a culture of "get it done and don't talk to me about problems." The boss was probably too stupid to realize that 'problems' included national security leaks.
Two major issues with the 'robots will steal our jobs'. sillyness.
1) Jobs do NOT depend on work that needs to be done, but on work we WANT to do. All we really need are 3 hots and a cot, 1 person can make that for 1,000, so less than 0.1% percent need to be employed. But there is no limit to what human's WANT. As I have said before, give all humans a sex robot and we will demand a second so we can have a threesome.
2) The real problem caused by industrialization/robotization is the requirements for re-training. When it comes to jobs, the demand will always be ahead of the supply, with the main limitation being training. When you look for work, the jobs that are not being filled always require training.
I can think of at least 5 reasons for sleep off the top of my head, and several have nothing to do with the brain:
1) Eliminate unwanted memories, like this study suggested.
2) Reduce consumption during periods of low resources, enabling longer life. I.E. Consume fewer calories in winter.
3) Rest the body giving it time to repair minor every day issue without constant strain.
4) Time for the unconcious brain to do deep thinking and solve long term problems
5) To allow the body to expand all it's resources to fix major illnesses, such as Small Pox, because it literally takes EVERYTHING we got.
Until they have a peer reviewed article, this is just vaporware almost identical to the product claimed by failed Theranos.
ELU's are not contracts and can be fought in court.
Three choices:
1) Real noise from robot, = no way to tell as it is real noise.
2) Recording of real noise = good till they update the software to ignore that specific pattern of noise.
3) Artificially generated noise (fake noise) based on multiple real noise samples = good till they detect a pattern in the fake noise, and then pattern is ignored. Basically you are now both building noise detection systems and the winner is the guy that is better.
It makes more sense to just use the real noise. Why get into a noise detection war.
The detection software basically looks for perfection. The robotic intereface provides multiple places for imperfections. Rough mouse pads, electrical resistance, slightly off motors, all contribute small mistakes.
It is these mistakes that fool the detection software, not the measured, identical commands.
While you are correct, you are ignoring the current political conversation, which often tries to claim that we need oil pipelines, tax breaks for oil companies, etc. etc. all in the name of "jobs".
More jobs should equal more political influence. The government should recognize that a) we can make a profit off of clean energy, and b) doing so takes more local jobs than using fossil fuels.
This kills the moronic crap that fossil fuel lobbies push, such as 'drill baby drill'.
Perpetual motion machines are allowed by the laws of physics. The galaxy is one for example, it perpetually rotates effectively forever, and by definition beyond what we can measure.
What IS impossible, is to remove energy from the system. If you do that, any machine stops, eventually, unless you add it back in somehow.
Also, there is the unfortunate locking of useless title crap on pages.
People with poor vision, i.e. those older than 40, tend to use large fonts. When you do this with many pages, the banner title page ends up taking 20% of the screen. Throw in all the other stuff that takes up vertical space and you get a useable viewing area that is smaller than banner on top.
If you must use a banner on top, it should be set to NEVER increase in size, regardless of the zoom/font of the main frame.