How can work history and his current work responsibilities at the time of the incident NOT be relevent issues to this firing? The whole problem with having solitare up is the assumption that it means he was not getting his work done because he was OBVIOUSLY doing something not tied to his work. Thus if he WAS getting it done and has a history of doing so then the fact the program was up is moot. Promote him or give him more work (and PAY him more if he is responsible for producing more than others at the same level). But don't fire him just becasue he might have done something that interfered with him doing his job. If your going to cut someones job out from under them becasue they might not have been doing their job... at least have the decency to make sure they were in fact NOT getting their job done.
Rant on:
on a side note...
Why is it that everyone seems to think that the visit of a VIP should make for anything OTHER than a regular day of work? Providing a potempkin village for the VIPs only helps your bosses look better than they are. I am not saying that to do so isn't a wise choice in terms of reality. But the fact so many people here seem to take it for granted and to accept it surprises me. We bitch and moan and groan about clueless VIP PHBs and then merrily do everything in our power to act like everything is just peachy keen and running as smoothly as bad mexican diareah helped along by turbolax whenever they are around so that the LAST thing a VIP knows is what really happens on a regular basis and what REAL productivity looks like.
Perhaps the reason VIP decisions often seem to be based on a perception rooted in some kind of twisted manager fantasy land instead of reality is that they are often so protected from reality by everyone. I am sure most folks here are familiar with the term GIGO. Well if all you ever feed up the ladder is garbage in order to make everything look better than it is is then the cumulative pile of shit that rolls up stream is going to result in decisions based on that garbage. Thus I often feel that we all wallow in our own GIGO hell for which ultimate responsibility starts at the lowest level. The lower levels are responsible for providing it, and the upper levels are responsible for asking for it. All in all plenty of blame to go around for all involved. The fact that it is an established cultural norm does NOT make it right. These kinds of things can and do change.
This just puts Google's destiny in its own hands. Right now it is dependent on a largely open system to which they have unhindered access. The services they are attempting to provide, maps, mail etc on top o fthis are starting to hit realistic limits on what can be provided via a pot luck connection between the farthest reaches and access to their backbone.
The idea that they would use this as only a wireless last mile, VOIP backbone etc are silly if you ask me. The point is to catch as many people as possible. Thus you provide wirelss access directly into the backbone via a google provided portal, You make it as few hops as possible for any and all using other services to hop onto google via the original internet and you prioritize on the fly. VOIP usage is high and the net is lagging in zone x then route priority service through the google backbone to provide those services... else go through normal channles of communal resource like everything else.
Same for wirelss. They come in that way but you can then just as easily dump requests out of that network if possible.
But in the end what Google has gained is independence from net providers. And have set themselves up as a resource provider with all that bandwidth. IE if someone gets strapped for bandwith they could then negotiate with google to route it through their backbone in a pinch. Google has its own tiered option to persue. But instead of trying to chase down nickles and dimes from every tom dick and harry with a laptop they are sitting in a position to move their business dealings up strictly to the corporate level.
Sound far fetched ? Its the same model of Network TV. They do not deal with the masses.
sounds oh so familiar... oh yeah. I work for the same people. I swear most of what gets done in a NASA operation is in SPITE of policies and groups tasked to something. Seems like anything of note gets done sideways by people making do like that.
Ah well tis a potato battery after all. Got some copper pipe. Got some nails and got out the old multi meter.
Works as advertised. 1.2-1.5 volts at.002 amps or so. However I also got the same readings dipping the nail and copper into some salty water... lot higher amperage actually, about.3 amp. So galvanic it is.
Find it interesting though.. the nail in the tree and copper in the ground are seperated by a good bit. Granted there is moisture all the way down... which is why I guess it needs to be a tree instead of say a fence post. Interesting to see such an interaction at such a distance.
I was kind of suspicious after I read about potato batterys (knew about them but not how they worked) and they were specifying the same metals. If you were really tapping an electrical resevoir then all you would need would be something conductive.
Ah well... fun way to kill some time on a lazy day though.
By using the neighbors unsecured wireless via a wireless usb network adapter.... or they could just run an encrypted link through a proxy.
There are so may ways around this crap its not even funny and its always harder on the blocking/intercepting end.
What is the harm in ANYONE seeing/witnessing consensual acts between nekkid people?. I mean for crying out loud, what happend to kids before clothes, hell in those societies Natl Geo still loves to run stories on? When did sex become a harmfull un-natural act?
I rate this right up there with such cultural gems of misinformation as masturbating will make you go blind, grow hair on your palms etc.
If they are claiming.8 - 1.3 volts (higher in winter) and that they think they can honestly refine a single tap to 12 volts 1 amp then a milliamp range seems to blow them out of the water. Number of taps needed for any kind of real energy starts to go nutz. At 21 milliamps you could turn it into 12 volts at 1 milliamp with allowing for losses in the circut. But that means you need 1000 taps with something like 12,000 capacitors to get one amp of current... or 12 watts of power. A lot of Nails and A Lot of copper to do that. but if that is amps instead then wowsers. Thats huge.
And at least claiming to actually do some experiementing... I had put this on the 'list' of things to try. You got a name AC ?
Well if they are seeing ~15+ amps at.8 volts is it not reasonable to assume that you can turn that into a useable 12 volts at 1 amp? Obviously you can't make something from nothing... but if the amount of power they are seeing is fluctuating at or above that level then you can convert it into a useable source of power. And that would for all intents and purposes be a constant supply. Granted if they are not seeing the amps to run something like this on a useable duty cycle then its pointless.
Hell if memory serves a generator is pulsed during the rotation of the magnetic fields the result of which creates 'constant' stream of energy.
Again I did say IF what they are saying is true. I am not much on chemistry. I just found where they actually discused current and started working the numbers from there. If this process is like a potato battery which consumes the electrode then its useless... loosing cycle on generating the electrode material. However if the current numbers are right you could still generate that kind of energry. Its just that to maintain it you would have to continue to supply the sacrificial anode material.... or in other words, fuel.
I certainly grant It's probably bunk. I imagine it is simple enough to test out. Afterall get a copper tube and a aluminium nail and close the circut with some kind of load.. like a light and take periodic measurments of the voltage. If after a couple of weeks when you pull out the copper tube or nail and find it is being consumed (voltage readings should also decrease as this happens) then it is nonsense. Sounds like a decent HS science experiement or spare time exploration if you ask me.
On the otherhand if they don't then this becomes pretty damned interesting.
What I don't get is... if its just a potato battery then why not drive the copper into the tree as well ? After all for the galvanic reaction you need either direct contact or immersion in the same electrolytic medium. I actually am somewhat surprised that such a seperation works.... though there should be a fairly uniform amount of water in either medium which may provide the conductive medium.
Ok clarification. They think a single tap can be refined to produce a useful 12 volts at 1 amp via capacitors wired in a circut. Doing some quick and dirty numbers this thing looks real if that number is accurate.
Aluminum nails are cheap, copper tubing is about a buck a foot, capacitors are pretty cheap. Just rough numbers it looks like you could wire up 1 kw worth of generating power with about 85 connections IF you had a circut capable of delivering 12 volts at one amp from a single tap. Round it to 100 for marigian of error and it looks like it is doable. Larger trees could probably stand 100 nails being driven into them if you spaced them out properly... certainly 25 per tree in a four tree setup.
This is constant power so that would be 24kw-hr's a day which is a good bit more than the average home use. Raw Materials cost would be under 1000 bucks... heck under 500. Catch would be the circut... inverter and a battery bank to deal with peak usuage, and some means of discharging of excess energy.... probably just a ground rod to sink it back into the ground.
But heck... they have already done a circut generating 2 volts. Single Tap generating around.8 volts run to 3 capacitors in parrallel which are switched to series when discharged generating 2.1 volts. They did not give an amp number on it. But if 12 volts at 1 amp is a reasonable refinement then they would have to be seeing roughly 6 amps from a 2 volt system... and they would need to be seeing roughly 15 amps from a single.8 volt connection.
Again they do state explicitly in their faq. (it is a PDF link)
" Q: Is the voltage potential between an electrode inserted in the tree and one grounded both having different electro-potential characteristics due to electro-chemical reactions e.g. Galvanic batteries?
A: In a Galvanic reaction there is metal to metal contact. Henceforth the word "galvanized". Validation and voltage measurement does not involve metal to metal contact. In addition, a chemical reaction requires a very elevated or very low PH level in order to create this alkaline or acidic condition. Impossibility of this concept is verified by the neutral PH levels of trees. A chemical reaction requires hours if not days to manifest. Voltage per our validation occurs instantaneously upon tree tapping. Consequently, a chemical reaction would result in breakdown of the electrode and thus resulting in loss of voltage. Data collected confirms no electrode breakdown and thus no loss in voltage. "
They also refute the possibility that the tree is simply an RF receiver due to the fact various sizes of trees used have no effect on the amount of power harnessed. This makes me wonder if you could simply drive a post into the ground and get a similar effect... or some other material with similar conductive properties to wood.
According to the faq and press release on the home page for the company they do talk wattage. They essentially wire multiple taps into a capacitor circut that cleans the power a bit and ups the voltage by swapping the capcitors from parrallel for collection to series for pulsing when full.
They think they can scale the basic idea to 12 volts and 1 amp. So 12 watts of energy.
Interesting to note the faq clearly states this is not a galvanic reaction. And there is no destructive anode/electrode errosion. There seems to be no practical limit to the number of taps per tree (other than damaging the tree itself) and that the tree size dosn't make any difference. Also the power harnessed goes up during winter.
In the end it looks like it is tapping into a store of energy held universally in the ground by using the tree spike as a positive pole while the ground spike is the negative.
What I don't get is... this seems to mean it is something independent of the trees and it seems you could create an more efficient element for tapping the energy. All in all this sounds a lot like the old work of Tesla. He found that that the ground did indeed carry a charge along with the atmosphere. Heck lightning itself is indeed proof enough of the atmosphere... same for ground lightning with respects to the ground. So this isn't really all that crazy. Cloud based lightning is a difficult potential energy source to tap. However ground lightning should result from charge potentials in the gound. If you can find a way to tap that potential and release it in a measured manner you could then tap lightning as a basic source of energy. Since those potentials are driven by forces of nature it is essentially limitless.... though I suppose there is the potential to tap the energy at a higher rate than it is stored.
True but a minimum wage requirement is a generalized change which affects all products produced by the affected labor. Thus the generalized statement of raised prices reducing demand for goods. He simply provided a single example to show the actual mechanics of how something like a minimum wage has an across the board affect on supply and demand. It isn't just milk... its EVERYTHING. So all companies face this issue. But you are quite correct to point out that changes in prices do not necesarrily affect how much of a specific product people will buy. You use milk but I would choose Gas as a better example.
This has an exacerbating effect on this principle. There are some things you HAVE to buy regardless of price and some things you LIKE to buy. Generally reffered to as necessities and luxuries. So in a less general statement of this principle the interaction of need for necessities and desires for luxuries means that demand decreases much more sharply for luxuries than for necessities as prices rise due to the minimum wage.
Individually the point at which we change our buying habits varies. But the trend for all buyers is down as prices rise. Thus the generalization is quite usefull when discussing macro economics.
ONe nit.. at temps and pressures found deep in the earth oil can't exist. Well acording to conventional knowledge niether can water and yet it was found by the Russians in their Kola hole at unthinkable depths, temps and pressures. That hole is some 40,000 feet deep and is the deepest hole yet dug by man. The Kola dig is a fascinating venture. It has found contradictions with standing theory at almost every point along the way and yet there has been no real move by science to update those theories to match with what has been found from an actual hole dug in the ground.
I think that is what the parent poster was really getting at. Some of these theories get to be dogmatic and the adherents to them are no more responsive to corrections in their thinking than Religious Fanatics clinging to their bibles.
Perhaps you should check into the meaning of the phrase "I'm Done". Because if you think it means you will not respond to anything more I say you just did. Kinda silly really. Besides just because you are done with me dosn't necesarrily mean I was ready to give up on trying to learn something from you.
Tis a true measure of my spare time to see how much I now seem to have wasted in an attempt to learn why you think I am so misguided in my thoughts regarding canine capacity for understanding human language. I have never claimed to be an expert on the subject, you on the other hand are claiming to have relevant academic knowledge and yet the best you can return with is learn to read, or spout a platitude about one source not being a solid foundation. So you don't like the study. Great. WHY? Obviously your opinion is that it is flawed. Is that all you have? Is there no greater depth of reasoning behind it? I should believe that the study is flawed on your say so? That is all you have given me thus far. Pardon me if I choose the peer reviewed study results that seem to jibe with my personal experience to your opinion.
I interupted your thread ? Gee I finally get to use that tired line "You must be new here". Do you even understand the concept of a communal blog? In fact unless you are the AC that I initially responded to, you don't even appear in this thread until your first response to me.
You know I should just toss you on the foe list and mod you out of my existence. But I must admit a morbid curiosity to see if you have anything further to say. Besides I have long held that you can learn something from anyone if you take the time and make the effort. So far you have proven the exception.... and yeah I know... try to learn on/. through intelligent exchange of idea... I must be new here.
Damn dude you asked me to post a link to a specific study so I did. And no, you did not give me any inclination that you had specifically looked up anything regarding that specific study involving a border collie other than to suggest I had made a statement based on only one study. You did not address the specifics of the study or state why my allusion to the story about the Border Collie was incorect as reasonable evidence for claiming that dogs are responsive to more than just tone of voice. You still have not.
In response I posted a link discussing a specific study, the one to which I had reffered to earlier and pointed out that hunters and herders have long used means other than tone with which to train dogs. Something you still have refused to address, or dare I say, look into. But perhaps you have. For all I know you are the author of the definitive work on the subject debunking the idea that herd dogs do not in fact respond to anything other than tone of voice. Yet you have presented precious little to that effect. I again offer you the chance to respond intelligently instead of with third grader insults.
You raise a good issue with respects to uniqueness and intelligence. The specific example of high levels of intelligence in an individual is a very poorly understood phenomenon. However, I was quite specifically reffering to the capacity for intelligence. The possibility that Rico is unique in his/its capacity for language processing is not very likely (again provided there was learning of language). However that Rico may be a unique example of a dog making good on that capacity or to such a level may well be the case. It is certainly not a common practice to try and teach a dog anything at all beyond stop, fetch, sit etc... At such levels of rudimentary communication it is of no matter whether the dog learns to respond to tone/body language or a specific word So long as they do learn to respond to something consistent in your request. On the other hand the idea that this is what Rico did is rather absurd if the results are valid. IE can return the right object out of 200 possible around 37/40 times and that the request is made from different people hidden from sight. The results, espeically the surprising ability to determine the value of an unknown word, are pretty strong that Rico did in fact learn words.
Obviously you have already questioned the significance of a single finding. There is deffinatly the possibility that the percentage of the canine population capable of such learning is vanishingly small. On par with say the percentage of humans with the ability to be 'Einstiens'. But then if that is the case you have to deal with the insane odds that this dog came along at the same time a study was seeking to find the extent of language learning capacity and that somehow the two collided. Deffinatly a possibility. Far more likely is that Rico is more of an average representation of Canine capacity for learning language, of the border collie breed in particular, and that similar results could be acheived if similar efforts were made with other dogs. Enter the possibility of follow up studies during which such a supposition can be tested or prooven false.
I am sure this is all elementary to you... yet by your responses you have left much to be desired. The best deffense you have presented so far has been a rather hypocritical one. You jump on me for pointing to other animals as examples as not relevant to dogs and then turn around and present me with the issue of the Counting Horse. The fact you too resorted to using examples with other animals aside, I take it to mean you imply that the experiment revolving around Rico the vocabularly learning dog is simply a variation on a theme of the "counting horse" or "clever hans" trick and that the study was not valid for some reason. So, what was wrong with it? How did they pull off the 'counting horse' deception in this study? (yes same study but at the bottom the have refferences to the actual study itself which one can hope has citations
Well then out of academic interest what is you response to the methods of hunters and herders. Which is what I was pointing to as more than one Data Point of dogs being trained to more than just tone of a persons voice.
As for the issue of a single study with a single data point, surely you know that uniqueness is a highly strange thing in nature. Thus the study of Rico is highly relevant because if Rico does indeed understand words and possesses the ability to work put the meaning of new words then either other dogs can or Rico is unique. And it is far more likely that Rico is not unique. However I certainly grant that Rico is only one dog. A rather extrodinary example actually. To dismiss that study like you just did, you either think it is fake, misunderstood or simply an isolated exception (unique). Care to Elaborate ?
Two, I would say that other animals are relevant though I grant not specificlly to dogs. I merely pointed that out because many try and use the arguement that only humans can learn words/language to proove that dogs cannot. I apologise if in my attempt to anticipate other arguments I unfairly lumped you in with such.
And please if you feel so steamed you have to respond as you just did then don't bother. I am willing to give you the benifit of the doubt and listen to your expertise. I wouldn't mind seeing at least one link to a study with at least one example suporting your claims. I am sure there are many and yet you havn't pointed to one thus far and I have. At least do as much before raking me over the coals like that else your the one who looks like a fucking idiot whether you are right or not.
Or perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up. Yes dogs respond to tone. So do people, go ask ten people to do something rudely, then ask another ten people politely. Compare your results. Just because they do does not suggest that is ALL they respond too. For instance hunters often train to hand signals, because the dog can see them from a distance where voice commands are impractical. Herders have long used a combination of hand signals and whistle sequences. This is not one data point. This is a tradition that dates back centuries.
As for words specificlly, the example of Pico and other similar research have shown that many animals (not just dogs) can develop vocabulary in the sense of understanding that a word refferes to a specific object.
No the real issue is whether the dog is responding in particular to the command or to the person. It has been well established that dogs can understand vocabulary. IE a word as an abstract meaning. Thus they do not need a person to understand that fetch *object* only means fetch it if a certain person asks it in a certain way. If you doubt this go look into it. There was a story about a border collie not to long ago that recognised dozens of objects... that is in a room full of these objects if you asked the dog to fetch a specific one it would find it and bring it back, and bring back nothing if it was not to be found.
As for recognising a voice on the phone. Hell some people can't do that and just like you wouldn't necesarrily do something some unrecogniseable person asks you to do niether will a dog. On the otherhand a dog may be more willing if they are trained to do more. Also they may recognise (perhaps even mistakenly identify) the voice and then be willing to do anything they would normally. Also the dog may be unwilling to seperate the voice from the presence of the person. Same thing happend to people with the invention of the phone in the first place. But we deal with abstraction better than dogs.
I always find it funny when people insist that a dog does not understand a command given by someone they don't know. They seem to be unable to understand that the dog is quite capable of deciding they are not someone they have to obey. Some will respond to any attention just like some people. And some are loyal to one person.
Ahh thats the rub isn't it. If they opt out of being indexed by the major search engines then they are no longer esay to find. No, I think everyone has been arguing this whole mess from the wrong angle. They are not upset google is making money off of indexing them. They are upset cause they can't take a slice of it.
This whole silly mess reminds me of Blazing Saddles when the guys are riding across the plains and go through a toll booth. The content providers are trying to do the same thing for real and hopefully it is laughed out of court the way it people laughed at it in the movie.
Do not confuse the right sell to anyone with the ability to actually sell. Just because a company could be free to do so does not mean they would be succesfull in doing so. With the single exception of porn, stores and movies theaters self regulate the distribution of their content based on age.
I for one argue Porn should also fall into the category of self regulation if any. The restriction of Porn, much like the restriction of alchohol, creates a taboo atmosphere and makes it a strong target for practicing rebellion. And where Alchohol actually has very strong documentation of developmental harm on an adolescent there is no such proof pictures of naked people in any configuration do the same. Many people claim their is such evidence but there simply is not for one very simple reason. You can't legally show the stuff to kids. Therefore you cannot do a true study of the effects of exposure to porn.
I really never have understood the issue of children viewing porn being bad. You know if it were actually so damaging then a kid couldn't even look at themseleves naked without causing harm... especially those overdeveloped 13-14 year olds, not to mention the horror of them actually stimulating themselves. Nope all this effort to hide sex from kids has just created parents that are often reluctant/embarrased to actually talk to their kids about one of the single most important aspects of being human until long after they have been forced to learn and form notions about it on their own with little or no informed guidence.
We think nothing of correcting and guiding a child through just about any other subject. But Not Sex... anything but that. It is silly and it needs to stop.
Having said that.... I just read the steaming pile of marketese the link leads to and have to say, flawed reasoning or not, you deffinatly have them pinned.
I don't think there was one single substantial piece of information in that entire story.
If they were in one of those areas and running windows I might buy what you are saying. But the very fact they are not in an established techie area would largely de-couple them from that kind of preconception if you ask me. After all, when in Rome do as the Romans do.... But what about when you are not in Rome ?
Not saying some guys in Nevada just stumbled into the big Ai breakthrough. But I think your logic is a bit flawed. Your judging them by a standard that just may not apply in their specific community.
To boot, I say a solution out of left field for AI makes a bit of sense. Its a problem thats needs some serious sideways thinking. Academic crowd seems to be in a rut... and its getting to sound like dogma.
Well last I looked there were no ads on cached pages either. Personally I am puzzled as to why this is a problem anyway. After all, a google search is a return of key words with snippets of surrounding context mixed in with keyword advertisements. Not sure why this is any different than say searching for news stories anyway.
/. has you write the blurb with a link. Google News takes the lead paragraphs whole cloth. Yes some people do the same for/. submission but then that falls somewhat under fair use. For just systematically scrapping initial paragraph and repackaging it the water is murkey.
Fine its a non-literal refference. Then you are saying you would hire someone with insuficient knowledge based on superficial indicators because it is 'all' you had. Again that is NEVER a basis for an informed decision.
I don't have a problem when it really is the only choice. I do have a problem when people try to justify it as a legitimate means of determination. We as a race are highly unwilling to say 'we don't know', I pick you because the coin came up heads or you got my dick hard or you just felt right. When we don't know we make something up and claim it for fact. Slashdot arguments, my own included, are one long running case in point.
You say you won't play dice with your success and yet admit you are often forced to choose in the face of insufficient evidence. How is that not playing dice again? Why can't you simply say that is what it is rather than trying to justify it? The harm is not in making a choice with imperfect knowledge. That is how the world works. The harm is in then trying to justify it based on irrelevant information. At best its harmless bias in lieu of a real means for deciding, a random element you use to make your choices. At worst it is discrimination. The line is fine and damned easy to cross.
And what does any of that have to do with most places of work? You speak of courtesey to you, respect for what others have to see and that aesthetics are important. Short of asthetics there are plenty of ways for someone to show these to you that have nothing to do with clothing. When you pay someone to deliver web content then the aesthetics of their work is important. The aesthetics of the person an unrelated issue.
You think I am down on looking good or anything which has no utility. Wrong. I don't care if you like looking good. I don't care if someone else is clueless or not interested in looking good. I care when we use these things to judge people for something other than whether or not they look good. I judge peoples apearances all the time, and make the effort for those to judge well of me as well. But I do not judge the quality of that person by the cut of their clothing, or choice of fashion any more than I would by the color of their skin.
As for my personal choice vis a vie my wedding. I don't invite people based on how they will dress or how I expect them to. I invite people that are important to me and who I want to share that special day. They are not special to me because of how they dress. Will they come dressed nice... more than likely. Would I think less of them if they did not ? Not a chance in hell. My ties with them are far more important than articles of clothing they choose or don't choose to wear. But hey thats me. I don't ask you to be me. I only ask that you not expect me to be you.
Slashdot Mirror
How can work history and his current work responsibilities at the time of the incident NOT be relevent issues to this firing? The whole problem with having solitare up is the assumption that it means he was not getting his work done because he was OBVIOUSLY doing something not tied to his work. Thus if he WAS getting it done and has a history of doing so then the fact the program was up is moot. Promote him or give him more work (and PAY him more if he is responsible for producing more than others at the same level). But don't fire him just becasue he might have done something that interfered with him doing his job. If your going to cut someones job out from under them becasue they might not have been doing their job... at least have the decency to make sure they were in fact NOT getting their job done.
Rant on:
on a side note...
Why is it that everyone seems to think that the visit of a VIP should make for anything OTHER than a regular day of work? Providing a potempkin village for the VIPs only helps your bosses look better than they are. I am not saying that to do so isn't a wise choice in terms of reality. But the fact so many people here seem to take it for granted and to accept it surprises me. We bitch and moan and groan about clueless VIP PHBs and then merrily do everything in our power to act like everything is just peachy keen and running as smoothly as bad mexican diareah helped along by turbolax whenever they are around so that the LAST thing a VIP knows is what really happens on a regular basis and what REAL productivity looks like.
Perhaps the reason VIP decisions often seem to be based on a perception rooted in some kind of twisted manager fantasy land instead of reality is that they are often so protected from reality by everyone. I am sure most folks here are familiar with the term GIGO. Well if all you ever feed up the ladder is garbage in order to make everything look better than it is is then the cumulative pile of shit that rolls up stream is going to result in decisions based on that garbage. Thus I often feel that we all wallow in our own GIGO hell for which ultimate responsibility starts at the lowest level. The lower levels are responsible for providing it, and the upper levels are responsible for asking for it. All in all plenty of blame to go around for all involved. The fact that it is an established cultural norm does NOT make it right. These kinds of things can and do change.
Rant off:
This just puts Google's destiny in its own hands. Right now it is dependent on a largely open system to which they have unhindered access. The services they are attempting to provide, maps, mail etc on top o fthis are starting to hit realistic limits on what can be provided via a pot luck connection between the farthest reaches and access to their backbone.
The idea that they would use this as only a wireless last mile, VOIP backbone etc are silly if you ask me. The point is to catch as many people as possible. Thus you provide wirelss access directly into the backbone via a google provided portal, You make it as few hops as possible for any and all using other services to hop onto google via the original internet and you prioritize on the fly. VOIP usage is high and the net is lagging in zone x then route priority service through the google backbone to provide those services... else go through normal channles of communal resource like everything else.
Same for wirelss. They come in that way but you can then just as easily dump requests out of that network if possible.
But in the end what Google has gained is independence from net providers. And have set themselves up as a resource provider with all that bandwidth. IE if someone gets strapped for bandwith they could then negotiate with google to route it through their backbone in a pinch. Google has its own tiered option to persue. But instead of trying to chase down nickles and dimes from every tom dick and harry with a laptop they are sitting in a position to move their business dealings up strictly to the corporate level.
Sound far fetched ? Its the same model of Network TV. They do not deal with the masses.
sounds oh so familiar... oh yeah. I work for the same people. I swear most of what gets done in a NASA operation is in SPITE of policies and groups tasked to something. Seems like anything of note gets done sideways by people making do like that.
Ah well tis a potato battery after all. Got some copper pipe. Got some nails and got out the old multi meter.
.002 amps or so. However I also got the same readings dipping the nail and copper into some salty water... lot higher amperage actually, about .3 amp. So galvanic it is.
Works as advertised. 1.2-1.5 volts at
Find it interesting though.. the nail in the tree and copper in the ground are seperated by a good bit. Granted there is moisture all the way down... which is why I guess it needs to be a tree instead of say a fence post. Interesting to see such an interaction at such a distance.
I was kind of suspicious after I read about potato batterys (knew about them but not how they worked) and they were specifying the same metals. If you were really tapping an electrical resevoir then all you would need would be something conductive.
Ah well... fun way to kill some time on a lazy day though.
By using the neighbors unsecured wireless via a wireless usb network adapter.... or they could just run an encrypted link through a proxy.
There are so may ways around this crap its not even funny and its always harder on the blocking/intercepting end.
What is the harm in ANYONE seeing/witnessing consensual acts between nekkid people?. I mean for crying out loud, what happend to kids before clothes, hell in those societies Natl Geo still loves to run stories on? When did sex become a harmfull un-natural act?
I rate this right up there with such cultural gems of misinformation as masturbating will make you go blind, grow hair on your palms etc.
milliamps or amps ?
.8 - 1.3 volts (higher in winter) and that they think they can honestly refine a single tap to 12 volts 1 amp then a milliamp range seems to blow them out of the water. Number of taps needed for any kind of real energy starts to go nutz. At 21 milliamps you could turn it into 12 volts at 1 milliamp with allowing for losses in the circut. But that means you need 1000 taps with something like 12,000 capacitors to get one amp of current... or 12 watts of power. A lot of Nails and A Lot of copper to do that. but if that is amps instead then wowsers. Thats huge.
If they are claiming
And at least claiming to actually do some experiementing... I had put this on the 'list' of things to try. You got a name AC ?
Well if they are seeing ~15+ amps at .8 volts is it not reasonable to assume that you can turn that into a useable 12 volts at 1 amp? Obviously you can't make something from nothing... but if the amount of power they are seeing is fluctuating at or above that level then you can convert it into a useable source of power. And that would for all intents and purposes be a constant supply. Granted if they are not seeing the amps to run something like this on a useable duty cycle then its pointless.
Hell if memory serves a generator is pulsed during the rotation of the magnetic fields the result of which creates 'constant' stream of energy.
Again I did say IF what they are saying is true. I am not much on chemistry. I just found where they actually discused current and started working the numbers from there. If this process is like a potato battery which consumes the electrode then its useless... loosing cycle on generating the electrode material. However if the current numbers are right you could still generate that kind of energry. Its just that to maintain it you would have to continue to supply the sacrificial anode material.... or in other words, fuel.
I certainly grant It's probably bunk. I imagine it is simple enough to test out. Afterall get a copper tube and a aluminium nail and close the circut with some kind of load.. like a light and take periodic measurments of the voltage. If after a couple of weeks when you pull out the copper tube or nail and find it is being consumed (voltage readings should also decrease as this happens) then it is nonsense. Sounds like a decent HS science experiement or spare time exploration if you ask me.
On the otherhand if they don't then this becomes pretty damned interesting.
What I don't get is... if its just a potato battery then why not drive the copper into the tree as well ? After all for the galvanic reaction you need either direct contact or immersion in the same electrolytic medium. I actually am somewhat surprised that such a seperation works.... though there should be a fairly uniform amount of water in either medium which may provide the conductive medium.
Ok clarification. They think a single tap can be refined to produce a useful 12 volts at 1 amp via capacitors wired in a circut. Doing some quick and dirty numbers this thing looks real if that number is accurate.
.8 volts run to 3 capacitors in parrallel which are switched to series when discharged generating 2.1 volts. They did not give an amp number on it. But if 12 volts at 1 amp is a reasonable refinement then they would have to be seeing roughly 6 amps from a 2 volt system... and they would need to be seeing roughly 15 amps from a single .8 volt connection.
Aluminum nails are cheap, copper tubing is about a buck a foot, capacitors are pretty cheap. Just rough numbers it looks like you could wire up 1 kw worth of generating power with about 85 connections IF you had a circut capable of delivering 12 volts at one amp from a single tap. Round it to 100 for marigian of error and it looks like it is doable. Larger trees could probably stand 100 nails being driven into them if you spaced them out properly... certainly 25 per tree in a four tree setup.
This is constant power so that would be 24kw-hr's a day which is a good bit more than the average home use. Raw Materials cost would be under 1000 bucks... heck under 500. Catch would be the circut... inverter and a battery bank to deal with peak usuage, and some means of discharging of excess energy.... probably just a ground rod to sink it back into the ground.
But heck... they have already done a circut generating 2 volts. Single Tap generating around
Again they do state explicitly in their faq. (it is a PDF link)
http://www.magcap.com/pdf/faq.pdf
"
Q: Is the voltage potential between an electrode inserted in the tree and one grounded both having different electro-potential characteristics due to electro-chemical reactions e.g. Galvanic batteries?
A: In a Galvanic reaction there is metal to metal contact. Henceforth the word "galvanized". Validation and voltage measurement does not involve metal to metal contact. In addition, a chemical reaction requires a very elevated or very low PH level in order to create this alkaline or acidic condition. Impossibility of this concept is verified by the neutral PH levels of trees. A chemical reaction requires hours if not days to manifest. Voltage per our validation occurs instantaneously upon tree tapping. Consequently, a chemical reaction would result in breakdown of the electrode and thus resulting in loss of voltage. Data collected confirms no electrode breakdown and thus no loss in voltage.
"
They also refute the possibility that the tree is simply an RF receiver due to the fact various sizes of trees used have no effect on the amount of power harnessed. This makes me wonder if you could simply drive a post into the ground and get a similar effect... or some other material with similar conductive properties to wood.
Can read the companies press release here
http://www.magcap.com/pdf/press_release.pdf
Also a PDF. Much more coherent than the linked to article.
According to the faq and press release on the home page for the company they do talk wattage. They essentially wire multiple taps into a capacitor circut that cleans the power a bit and ups the voltage by swapping the capcitors from parrallel for collection to series for pulsing when full.
They think they can scale the basic idea to 12 volts and 1 amp. So 12 watts of energy.
Interesting to note the faq clearly states this is not a galvanic reaction. And there is no destructive anode/electrode errosion. There seems to be no practical limit to the number of taps per tree (other than damaging the tree itself) and that the tree size dosn't make any difference. Also the power harnessed goes up during winter.
In the end it looks like it is tapping into a store of energy held universally in the ground by using the tree spike as a positive pole while the ground spike is the negative.
What I don't get is... this seems to mean it is something independent of the trees and it seems you could create an more efficient element for tapping the energy. All in all this sounds a lot like the old work of Tesla. He found that that the ground did indeed carry a charge along with the atmosphere. Heck lightning itself is indeed proof enough of the atmosphere... same for ground lightning with respects to the ground. So this isn't really all that crazy. Cloud based lightning is a difficult potential energy source to tap. However ground lightning should result from charge potentials in the gound. If you can find a way to tap that potential and release it in a measured manner you could then tap lightning as a basic source of energy. Since those potentials are driven by forces of nature it is essentially limitless.... though I suppose there is the potential to tap the energy at a higher rate than it is stored.
True but a minimum wage requirement is a generalized change which affects all products produced by the affected labor. Thus the generalized statement of raised prices reducing demand for goods. He simply provided a single example to show the actual mechanics of how something like a minimum wage has an across the board affect on supply and demand. It isn't just milk... its EVERYTHING. So all companies face this issue. But you are quite correct to point out that changes in prices do not necesarrily affect how much of a specific product people will buy. You use milk but I would choose Gas as a better example.
This has an exacerbating effect on this principle. There are some things you HAVE to buy regardless of price and some things you LIKE to buy. Generally reffered to as necessities and luxuries. So in a less general statement of this principle the interaction of need for necessities and desires for luxuries means that demand decreases much more sharply for luxuries than for necessities as prices rise due to the minimum wage.
Individually the point at which we change our buying habits varies. But the trend for all buyers is down as prices rise. Thus the generalization is quite usefull when discussing macro economics.
ONe nit.. at temps and pressures found deep in the earth oil can't exist. Well acording to conventional knowledge niether can water and yet it was found by the Russians in their Kola hole at unthinkable depths, temps and pressures. That hole is some 40,000 feet deep and is the deepest hole yet dug by man. The Kola dig is a fascinating venture. It has found contradictions with standing theory at almost every point along the way and yet there has been no real move by science to update those theories to match with what has been found from an actual hole dug in the ground.
I think that is what the parent poster was really getting at. Some of these theories get to be dogmatic and the adherents to them are no more responsive to corrections in their thinking than Religious Fanatics clinging to their bibles.
Perhaps you should check into the meaning of the phrase "I'm Done". Because if you think it means you will not respond to anything more I say you just did. Kinda silly really. Besides just because you are done with me dosn't necesarrily mean I was ready to give up on trying to learn something from you.
/. through intelligent exchange of idea... I must be new here.
Tis a true measure of my spare time to see how much I now seem to have wasted in an attempt to learn why you think I am so misguided in my thoughts regarding canine capacity for understanding human language. I have never claimed to be an expert on the subject, you on the other hand are claiming to have relevant academic knowledge and yet the best you can return with is learn to read, or spout a platitude about one source not being a solid foundation. So you don't like the study. Great. WHY? Obviously your opinion is that it is flawed. Is that all you have? Is there no greater depth of reasoning behind it? I should believe that the study is flawed on your say so? That is all you have given me thus far. Pardon me if I choose the peer reviewed study results that seem to jibe with my personal experience to your opinion.
I interupted your thread ? Gee I finally get to use that tired line "You must be new here". Do you even understand the concept of a communal blog? In fact unless you are the AC that I initially responded to, you don't even appear in this thread until your first response to me.
You know I should just toss you on the foe list and mod you out of my existence. But I must admit a morbid curiosity to see if you have anything further to say. Besides I have long held that you can learn something from anyone if you take the time and make the effort. So far you have proven the exception.... and yeah I know... try to learn on
Damn dude you asked me to post a link to a specific study so I did. And no, you did not give me any inclination that you had specifically looked up anything regarding that specific study involving a border collie other than to suggest I had made a statement based on only one study. You did not address the specifics of the study or state why my allusion to the story about the Border Collie was incorect as reasonable evidence for claiming that dogs are responsive to more than just tone of voice. You still have not.
In response I posted a link discussing a specific study, the one to which I had reffered to earlier and pointed out that hunters and herders have long used means other than tone with which to train dogs. Something you still have refused to address, or dare I say, look into. But perhaps you have. For all I know you are the author of the definitive work on the subject debunking the idea that herd dogs do not in fact respond to anything other than tone of voice. Yet you have presented precious little to that effect. I again offer you the chance to respond intelligently instead of with third grader insults.
You raise a good issue with respects to uniqueness and intelligence. The specific example of high levels of intelligence in an individual is a very poorly understood phenomenon. However, I was quite specifically reffering to the capacity for intelligence. The possibility that Rico is unique in his/its capacity for language processing is not very likely (again provided there was learning of language). However that Rico may be a unique example of a dog making good on that capacity or to such a level may well be the case. It is certainly not a common practice to try and teach a dog anything at all beyond stop, fetch, sit etc... At such levels of rudimentary communication it is of no matter whether the dog learns to respond to tone/body language or a specific word So long as they do learn to respond to something consistent in your request. On the other hand the idea that this is what Rico did is rather absurd if the results are valid. IE can return the right object out of 200 possible around 37/40 times and that the request is made from different people hidden from sight. The results, espeically the surprising ability to determine the value of an unknown word, are pretty strong that Rico did in fact learn words.
Obviously you have already questioned the significance of a single finding. There is deffinatly the possibility that the percentage of the canine population capable of such learning is vanishingly small. On par with say the percentage of humans with the ability to be 'Einstiens'. But then if that is the case you have to deal with the insane odds that this dog came along at the same time a study was seeking to find the extent of language learning capacity and that somehow the two collided. Deffinatly a possibility. Far more likely is that Rico is more of an average representation of Canine capacity for learning language, of the border collie breed in particular, and that similar results could be acheived if similar efforts were made with other dogs. Enter the possibility of follow up studies during which such a supposition can be tested or prooven false.
I am sure this is all elementary to you... yet by your responses you have left much to be desired. The best deffense you have presented so far has been a rather hypocritical one. You jump on me for pointing to other animals as examples as not relevant to dogs and then turn around and present me with the issue of the Counting Horse. The fact you too resorted to using examples with other animals aside, I take it to mean you imply that the experiment revolving around Rico the vocabularly learning dog is simply a variation on a theme of the "counting horse" or "clever hans" trick and that the study was not valid for some reason. So, what was wrong with it? How did they pull off the 'counting horse' deception in this study? (yes same study but at the bottom the have refferences to the actual study itself which one can hope has citations
Well then out of academic interest what is you response to the methods of hunters and herders. Which is what I was pointing to as more than one Data Point of dogs being trained to more than just tone of a persons voice.
As for the issue of a single study with a single data point, surely you know that uniqueness is a highly strange thing in nature. Thus the study of Rico is highly relevant because if Rico does indeed understand words and possesses the ability to work put the meaning of new words then either other dogs can or Rico is unique. And it is far more likely that Rico is not unique. However I certainly grant that Rico is only one dog. A rather extrodinary example actually. To dismiss that study like you just did, you either think it is fake, misunderstood or simply an isolated exception (unique). Care to Elaborate ?
Two, I would say that other animals are relevant though I grant not specificlly to dogs. I merely pointed that out because many try and use the arguement that only humans can learn words/language to proove that dogs cannot. I apologise if in my attempt to anticipate other arguments I unfairly lumped you in with such.
And please if you feel so steamed you have to respond as you just did then don't bother. I am willing to give you the benifit of the doubt and listen to your expertise. I wouldn't mind seeing at least one link to a study with at least one example suporting your claims. I am sure there are many and yet you havn't pointed to one thus far and I have. At least do as much before raking me over the coals like that else your the one who looks like a fucking idiot whether you are right or not.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/06/11/MNGTL73SSM28.DTL
Or perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up. Yes dogs respond to tone. So do people, go ask ten people to do something rudely, then ask another ten people politely. Compare your results. Just because they do does not suggest that is ALL they respond too. For instance hunters often train to hand signals, because the dog can see them from a distance where voice commands are impractical. Herders have long used a combination of hand signals and whistle sequences. This is not one data point. This is a tradition that dates back centuries.
As for words specificlly, the example of Pico and other similar research have shown that many animals (not just dogs) can develop vocabulary in the sense of understanding that a word refferes to a specific object.
No the real issue is whether the dog is responding in particular to the command or to the person. It has been well established that dogs can understand vocabulary. IE a word as an abstract meaning. Thus they do not need a person to understand that fetch *object* only means fetch it if a certain person asks it in a certain way. If you doubt this go look into it. There was a story about a border collie not to long ago that recognised dozens of objects... that is in a room full of these objects if you asked the dog to fetch a specific one it would find it and bring it back, and bring back nothing if it was not to be found.
As for recognising a voice on the phone. Hell some people can't do that and just like you wouldn't necesarrily do something some unrecogniseable person asks you to do niether will a dog. On the otherhand a dog may be more willing if they are trained to do more. Also they may recognise (perhaps even mistakenly identify) the voice and then be willing to do anything they would normally. Also the dog may be unwilling to seperate the voice from the presence of the person. Same thing happend to people with the invention of the phone in the first place. But we deal with abstraction better than dogs.
I always find it funny when people insist that a dog does not understand a command given by someone they don't know. They seem to be unable to understand that the dog is quite capable of deciding they are not someone they have to obey. Some will respond to any attention just like some people. And some are loyal to one person.
"maybe someone should tell them about robots.txt"
Ahh thats the rub isn't it. If they opt out of being indexed by the major search engines then they are no longer esay to find. No, I think everyone has been arguing this whole mess from the wrong angle. They are not upset google is making money off of indexing them. They are upset cause they can't take a slice of it.
This whole silly mess reminds me of Blazing Saddles when the guys are riding across the plains and go through a toll booth. The content providers are trying to do the same thing for real and hopefully it is laughed out of court the way it people laughed at it in the movie.
Do not confuse the right sell to anyone with the ability to actually sell. Just because a company could be free to do so does not mean they would be succesfull in doing so. With the single exception of porn, stores and movies theaters self regulate the distribution of their content based on age.
I for one argue Porn should also fall into the category of self regulation if any. The restriction of Porn, much like the restriction of alchohol, creates a taboo atmosphere and makes it a strong target for practicing rebellion. And where Alchohol actually has very strong documentation of developmental harm on an adolescent there is no such proof pictures of naked people in any configuration do the same. Many people claim their is such evidence but there simply is not for one very simple reason. You can't legally show the stuff to kids. Therefore you cannot do a true study of the effects of exposure to porn.
I really never have understood the issue of children viewing porn being bad. You know if it were actually so damaging then a kid couldn't even look at themseleves naked without causing harm... especially those overdeveloped 13-14 year olds, not to mention the horror of them actually stimulating themselves. Nope all this effort to hide sex from kids has just created parents that are often reluctant/embarrased to actually talk to their kids about one of the single most important aspects of being human until long after they have been forced to learn and form notions about it on their own with little or no informed guidence.
We think nothing of correcting and guiding a child through just about any other subject. But Not Sex... anything but that. It is silly and it needs to stop.
Having said that.... I just read the steaming pile of marketese the link leads to and have to say, flawed reasoning or not, you deffinatly have them pinned.
I don't think there was one single substantial piece of information in that entire story.
If they were in one of those areas and running windows I might buy what you are saying. But the very fact they are not in an established techie area would largely de-couple them from that kind of preconception if you ask me. After all, when in Rome do as the Romans do.... But what about when you are not in Rome ?
Not saying some guys in Nevada just stumbled into the big Ai breakthrough. But I think your logic is a bit flawed. Your judging them by a standard that just may not apply in their specific community.
To boot, I say a solution out of left field for AI makes a bit of sense. Its a problem thats needs some serious sideways thinking. Academic crowd seems to be in a rut... and its getting to sound like dogma.
Well last I looked there were no ads on cached pages either. Personally I am puzzled as to why this is a problem anyway. After all, a google search is a return of key words with snippets of surrounding context mixed in with keyword advertisements. Not sure why this is any different than say searching for news stories anyway.
/. has you write the blurb with a link. Google News takes the lead paragraphs whole cloth. Yes some people do the same for /. submission but then that falls somewhat under fair use. For just systematically scrapping initial paragraph and repackaging it the water is murkey.
Fine its a non-literal refference. Then you are saying you would hire someone with insuficient knowledge based on superficial indicators because it is 'all' you had. Again that is NEVER a basis for an informed decision.
I don't have a problem when it really is the only choice. I do have a problem when people try to justify it as a legitimate means of determination. We as a race are highly unwilling to say 'we don't know', I pick you because the coin came up heads or you got my dick hard or you just felt right. When we don't know we make something up and claim it for fact. Slashdot arguments, my own included, are one long running case in point.
You say you won't play dice with your success and yet admit you are often forced to choose in the face of insufficient evidence. How is that not playing dice again? Why can't you simply say that is what it is rather than trying to justify it? The harm is not in making a choice with imperfect knowledge. That is how the world works. The harm is in then trying to justify it based on irrelevant information. At best its harmless bias in lieu of a real means for deciding, a random element you use to make your choices. At worst it is discrimination. The line is fine and damned easy to cross.
And what does any of that have to do with most places of work? You speak of courtesey to you, respect for what others have to see and that aesthetics are important. Short of asthetics there are plenty of ways for someone to show these to you that have nothing to do with clothing. When you pay someone to deliver web content then the aesthetics of their work is important. The aesthetics of the person an unrelated issue.
You think I am down on looking good or anything which has no utility. Wrong. I don't care if you like looking good. I don't care if someone else is clueless or not interested in looking good. I care when we use these things to judge people for something other than whether or not they look good. I judge peoples apearances all the time, and make the effort for those to judge well of me as well. But I do not judge the quality of that person by the cut of their clothing, or choice of fashion any more than I would by the color of their skin.
As for my personal choice vis a vie my wedding. I don't invite people based on how they will dress or how I expect them to. I invite people that are important to me and who I want to share that special day. They are not special to me because of how they dress. Will they come dressed nice... more than likely. Would I think less of them if they did not ? Not a chance in hell. My ties with them are far more important than articles of clothing they choose or don't choose to wear. But hey thats me. I don't ask you to be me. I only ask that you not expect me to be you.