Video hosting costs money. Micropayments don't work. Nobody's signing up with a million different video hosts.
The solution was, is, and always will be for the foreseeable future... advertising.
All it'll take to make it work is to find a way to extract the evil from advertising people so they stop continually escalating from 'find where potential customers are and put information in front of them for our clients' to 'skull fuck the entire public to get an extra purchase, regardless of how much trouble it causes'.
Now tell me how to stop a friend or acquaintance from uploading something about me (video, image, or text) and having Facebook have the rights to that.
While I don't have a Facebook account, chances are pretty good they've built a shadow profile of me based on people I know, possibly photos I've been tagged in... and any other databases they've purchased.
Short of being a complete hermit who only occasionally goes outside (in hoodie and sunglasses) and pays only in cash... there's no way to get any corporate interest to respect your privacy. We ought to have stronger legislation on that front.
To practice resurrecting extinct species so we can rebuild biodiversity. To do so with an animal that catches the public's imagination so there is general enthusiasm for it.
Unfortunately, you just went outside the defined solution space. The idea is to have a single vessel with two distinct liquid layers, drawn from equally by one device.
I mean, the simplest solution (after just mixing the two drinks in the first place) is two glasses side by side with a straw in each.
>Why go to so much effort, expense and time to design a straw for such a crappy, stupid drink?
It's an advertising campaign, not an actual serious attempt at an engineering solution.
And a real engineer may never even have heard of this until the ad campaign was released - after all, there's no way that straw actually does what it's presented as having been designed to do.
It's actually very effective if you look at the real problem of 'how do we get people to pay attention to our ad campaign?', but that's not really an engineering challenge.
The more I think about it (BTW, thanks for adding 'gedanken experiment' to my vocabulary!), the more it seems like there's no practical solution to the problem of a straw that draws evenly from two distinct layers of liquid.
The design in this ad campaign, for instance, would simply draw from the bottom preferentially over the end. You might mitigate that by having the hole sizes increase as you go along the straw, but you're never going to have a simple object that will pull anywhere near evenly from two sources as the levels change.
But how complex would it need to be? As best I can figure without expending too much skull sweat, you're going to need a float moderating the position of a collapsing portion of a double straw to keep two distinct intake ports at the bottom of their liquid layers as the distance between the two layer floors decreases.
Or, if you're willing to involve the glass as part of your straw mechanism, you could have a non-tapering glass and put a physical barrier between the two layers, with the top straw attached to its upper side and the lower straw passing through. You're still left with uneven straw lengths, though.
Aw crap... I'm going to be up all night thinking about this stupid straw problem...
Ideally, enforcing copyright infringement shouldn't fall on a torrent indexing site. There is the possibility of legitimate torrents, after all. In fact, TPB could be looked at as a giant honeypot for catching 'pirates'.
But that's too difficult, which apparently is a justification for ignoring what's right.
I'd add that you need to know the loss, the growth, and the churn rate (the average duration of a position's existence).
A small number of jobs appearing and disappearing every year isn't as bad as ALL jobs only lasting a few years, unless you keep finding yourself getting those self-destructing positions of course.
Your memory is embarrassingly short, since it's not been that long since we've actually seen governments kill their Internet.
You can indulge in your 'information wants to be free' fantasies all you want, but the only thing stopping governments from effectively controlling their Internet is the cost of the required infrastructure and the negative effect it would bring to their economy.
Reducing the 'Information Superhighway' to a pedestrian path with a guard at the border crossing isn't impossible.
You can limit the bandwidth severely, and if you control the chokepoints for the trunks you can choose to only let through what you can scan and approve.
Yes, people can pass messages through steganography, or sneakernet, or radio links... but that's trivial to make illegal and while you can't easily enforce such laws they can be enforced well enough to reduce state-prohibited communications significantly.
So yes, the Internet can route around it... but when 'around it' means around the 'around the area containing the destination' that's not really a solution.
We already have nations cutting off Internet during times of unrest, and applying massive filtering and spying efforts against communications to and from their populations regardless.
If you're going to apply national laws to an international system, that system is going to need to be chopped up into pieces that fit the political borders.
That really sucks if your nation is surrounded by nations who disagree on what should be passed through their borders, so ultimately there needs to be some kind of Internet Treaty, where it is agreed that traffic is only to be interfered with if one of the end points is domestic, or by agreement with one of the governments with authority over an end point.
Let governments be responsible for the border filters (and, presumably, spying), and then private companies like Cogent will have no interest in taking actions like IP block blacklisting.
It used to be that comments here were 'smarter' on average, but that's long since gone. Now the user base is just as ignorant and childish on average as everywhere else... but still slightly less toxic than other sites.
That's why I am here, anyway. I don't need or want a site tailored to encourage group think or hate posting because those things tend to keep eyeballs near the ads longer.
Catching day-old reposts and dealing with a clunky posting and comment system is an acceptable price to pay.
I would be against that provision of this legislation, yes.
I'm against companies doing things like using the DMCA to prevent you from doing your own repairs, or suing people who manufacture replacement parts or provide repair services (including repair manuals reverse engineered from teardowns), etc.
I'd be fine with, "Manufacturers can prohibit personal and 3rd-party repair of devices sold for the advertised lifetime of the device, if and only if they provide free repair parts and services for that same period".
2) You're being alarmist, this isn't worth spending 500 billion on.
3) The environmental impact of attempting this could be worse than allowing things to progress naturally.
4) Too expensive, nobody goes there anyway, and we don't need polar bears to survive. Shame, though.
5) Well, now it's too late anyway.
I'm actually kind of on board with #3, but I think we really ought to be getting our asses in gear and looking at the impact of mitigation strategies at the 'global environmental engineering' scale, and maybe doing a few local-scale tests to help build better models to aid in the assessments.
If you SELL me something, it's mine. You don't have to sell me documentation, you don't have to make replacement parts available, but there's only one reason to stop me from repairing it myself and that's so you can squeeze more money out of me.
Try renting instead of selling, then you can do whatever the hell you want, otherwise all you get to do is void any remaining warranty and refuse responsibility for damage caused by end-user repair.
It's about time consumers started lynching CEOs over shit like this.
In terms of animal models (that we're sadly still not sophisticated enough to understand), I find dogs' ability to identify other animals interesting.
My dog can tell on sight whether another animal is a dog or not. This is remarkable because dog vision is actually slightly worse than human vision, he can do it from upwind, and there is a LOT of variation in dog breeds.
Perhaps he's just seeing 'animal on a leash held by a human', but there does seem to be a slight pause of observation before he decides whether or not to bark, and a lot of owners in my area don't have any respect for leash laws.
>keep the basic premise and characters largely intact.
What, the basic premise of fleeing robots bent on killing all humans... by visiting a series of planets populated by humans the robots aren't interested in killing?
A universe in which humans evolved on the planet Kobol, then spread to the 13 colonies, 12 of which were obliterated and the 13th of which was Earth, lost and presumed haven for those fleeing, so there shouldn't have been any other human-populated worlds anyway?
I think that would need a bit of work.
I'm not sure I agree with the recent adaptation's route of making 'our' humans the only ones. I think it might have been better to have the 12 colonies humans be marked as different so there would still be the option of stopping off at human-inhabited worlds... where no safe haven could be found with the Cylons on their heels and the locals either too afraid or too callous to care to help.
Until we're all replaced by robots anyway, we require a certain amount of autonomy, freedom, or 'slack'.
Apparently that's going to need to be codified in law before we can accept all these monitoring devices watching us 24/7, because we don't trust the people who own the systems... and experience shows we are right not to trust them.
Knowing which areas need heat, which doors see the most traffic, whether a meeting room is wasted space or not, or even how many times a day the toilets are flushed - each of those things provides useful information for something other than tracking the minutia of an individual's day so you can go 'Big Brother' on them in an attempt to squeeze out a little more productivity at the expense of morale.
>having 4 motors where one failure is catastrophic.
Solution: add a ballistic chute that fires off in the event of emergency.
Even with just four rotors you can lose one rotor and go into a slow descent with the rotor opposite the failed one dedicated to maintaining balance and the other two remaining rotors at near-maximum thrust.
Slashdot Mirror
Video hosting costs money. Micropayments don't work. Nobody's signing up with a million different video hosts.
The solution was, is, and always will be for the foreseeable future... advertising.
All it'll take to make it work is to find a way to extract the evil from advertising people so they stop continually escalating from 'find where potential customers are and put information in front of them for our clients' to 'skull fuck the entire public to get an extra purchase, regardless of how much trouble it causes'.
Now tell me how to stop a friend or acquaintance from uploading something about me (video, image, or text) and having Facebook have the rights to that.
While I don't have a Facebook account, chances are pretty good they've built a shadow profile of me based on people I know, possibly photos I've been tagged in... and any other databases they've purchased.
Short of being a complete hermit who only occasionally goes outside (in hoodie and sunglasses) and pays only in cash... there's no way to get any corporate interest to respect your privacy. We ought to have stronger legislation on that front.
>Why do this, so we can make it extinct again?
To practice resurrecting extinct species so we can rebuild biodiversity. To do so with an animal that catches the public's imagination so there is general enthusiasm for it.
And finally, so we can all have mammoth burgers.
Well, at least you're smart enough to post your stupidity as AC so it doesn't stick to you.
>You put each ingredient in a beer bong.
Unfortunately, you just went outside the defined solution space. The idea is to have a single vessel with two distinct liquid layers, drawn from equally by one device.
I mean, the simplest solution (after just mixing the two drinks in the first place) is two glasses side by side with a straw in each.
Just chasing eyeballs to sell to advertisers, exactly like he was.
>Why go to so much effort, expense and time to design a straw for such a crappy, stupid drink?
It's an advertising campaign, not an actual serious attempt at an engineering solution.
And a real engineer may never even have heard of this until the ad campaign was released - after all, there's no way that straw actually does what it's presented as having been designed to do.
It's actually very effective if you look at the real problem of 'how do we get people to pay attention to our ad campaign?', but that's not really an engineering challenge.
The more I think about it (BTW, thanks for adding 'gedanken experiment' to my vocabulary!), the more it seems like there's no practical solution to the problem of a straw that draws evenly from two distinct layers of liquid.
The design in this ad campaign, for instance, would simply draw from the bottom preferentially over the end. You might mitigate that by having the hole sizes increase as you go along the straw, but you're never going to have a simple object that will pull anywhere near evenly from two sources as the levels change.
But how complex would it need to be? As best I can figure without expending too much skull sweat, you're going to need a float moderating the position of a collapsing portion of a double straw to keep two distinct intake ports at the bottom of their liquid layers as the distance between the two layer floors decreases.
Or, if you're willing to involve the glass as part of your straw mechanism, you could have a non-tapering glass and put a physical barrier between the two layers, with the top straw attached to its upper side and the lower straw passing through. You're still left with uneven straw lengths, though.
Aw crap... I'm going to be up all night thinking about this stupid straw problem...
First: That's incredibly stupid.
Second: Oh, wait, they actually came up with a clever engineering solution to the problem presented to them.
Third: Which would be far more efficiently dealt with by just blending the two drinks together from the start.
Still, the design of the straw is kind of neat even if the reason for developing it is stupid.
Ideally, enforcing copyright infringement shouldn't fall on a torrent indexing site. There is the possibility of legitimate torrents, after all. In fact, TPB could be looked at as a giant honeypot for catching 'pirates'.
But that's too difficult, which apparently is a justification for ignoring what's right.
I'd add that you need to know the loss, the growth, and the churn rate (the average duration of a position's existence).
A small number of jobs appearing and disappearing every year isn't as bad as ALL jobs only lasting a few years, unless you keep finding yourself getting those self-destructing positions of course.
Your memory is embarrassingly short, since it's not been that long since we've actually seen governments kill their Internet.
You can indulge in your 'information wants to be free' fantasies all you want, but the only thing stopping governments from effectively controlling their Internet is the cost of the required infrastructure and the negative effect it would bring to their economy.
Reducing the 'Information Superhighway' to a pedestrian path with a guard at the border crossing isn't impossible.
You can limit the bandwidth severely, and if you control the chokepoints for the trunks you can choose to only let through what you can scan and approve.
Yes, people can pass messages through steganography, or sneakernet, or radio links... but that's trivial to make illegal and while you can't easily enforce such laws they can be enforced well enough to reduce state-prohibited communications significantly.
So yes, the Internet can route around it... but when 'around it' means around the 'around the area containing the destination' that's not really a solution.
We already have nations cutting off Internet during times of unrest, and applying massive filtering and spying efforts against communications to and from their populations regardless.
If you're going to apply national laws to an international system, that system is going to need to be chopped up into pieces that fit the political borders.
That really sucks if your nation is surrounded by nations who disagree on what should be passed through their borders, so ultimately there needs to be some kind of Internet Treaty, where it is agreed that traffic is only to be interfered with if one of the end points is domestic, or by agreement with one of the governments with authority over an end point.
Let governments be responsible for the border filters (and, presumably, spying), and then private companies like Cogent will have no interest in taking actions like IP block blacklisting.
It used to be that comments here were 'smarter' on average, but that's long since gone. Now the user base is just as ignorant and childish on average as everywhere else... but still slightly less toxic than other sites.
That's why I am here, anyway. I don't need or want a site tailored to encourage group think or hate posting because those things tend to keep eyeballs near the ads longer.
Catching day-old reposts and dealing with a clunky posting and comment system is an acceptable price to pay.
I would be against that provision of this legislation, yes.
I'm against companies doing things like using the DMCA to prevent you from doing your own repairs, or suing people who manufacture replacement parts or provide repair services (including repair manuals reverse engineered from teardowns), etc.
I'd be fine with, "Manufacturers can prohibit personal and 3rd-party repair of devices sold for the advertised lifetime of the device, if and only if they provide free repair parts and services for that same period".
Here's the chronology:
1) You're being alarmist, there's no issue.
2) You're being alarmist, this isn't worth spending 500 billion on.
3) The environmental impact of attempting this could be worse than allowing things to progress naturally.
4) Too expensive, nobody goes there anyway, and we don't need polar bears to survive. Shame, though.
5) Well, now it's too late anyway.
I'm actually kind of on board with #3, but I think we really ought to be getting our asses in gear and looking at the impact of mitigation strategies at the 'global environmental engineering' scale, and maybe doing a few local-scale tests to help build better models to aid in the assessments.
If you SELL me something, it's mine. You don't have to sell me documentation, you don't have to make replacement parts available, but there's only one reason to stop me from repairing it myself and that's so you can squeeze more money out of me.
Try renting instead of selling, then you can do whatever the hell you want, otherwise all you get to do is void any remaining warranty and refuse responsibility for damage caused by end-user repair.
It's about time consumers started lynching CEOs over shit like this.
Well, I can see why you posted that crap as AC, I wouldn't want my online reputation tied to that post full of easily-disproven bullshit either.
In terms of animal models (that we're sadly still not sophisticated enough to understand), I find dogs' ability to identify other animals interesting.
My dog can tell on sight whether another animal is a dog or not. This is remarkable because dog vision is actually slightly worse than human vision, he can do it from upwind, and there is a LOT of variation in dog breeds.
Perhaps he's just seeing 'animal on a leash held by a human', but there does seem to be a slight pause of observation before he decides whether or not to bark, and a lot of owners in my area don't have any respect for leash laws.
>keep the basic premise and characters largely intact.
What, the basic premise of fleeing robots bent on killing all humans... by visiting a series of planets populated by humans the robots aren't interested in killing?
A universe in which humans evolved on the planet Kobol, then spread to the 13 colonies, 12 of which were obliterated and the 13th of which was Earth, lost and presumed haven for those fleeing, so there shouldn't have been any other human-populated worlds anyway?
I think that would need a bit of work.
I'm not sure I agree with the recent adaptation's route of making 'our' humans the only ones. I think it might have been better to have the 12 colonies humans be marked as different so there would still be the option of stopping off at human-inhabited worlds... where no safe haven could be found with the Cylons on their heels and the locals either too afraid or too callous to care to help.
It's not possible at a decent price (either cost or risk):
* Hovering will always require more energy than driving.
* Hovering will always be more sensitive to weather conditions than driving.
* Hovering will always have more dangerous consequences to equipment failure or operator error than driving.
* Hovering won't solve end-point congestion, since we're all rushing to the same places. (Check out your average parking lot!)
Until we're all replaced by robots anyway, we require a certain amount of autonomy, freedom, or 'slack'.
Apparently that's going to need to be codified in law before we can accept all these monitoring devices watching us 24/7, because we don't trust the people who own the systems... and experience shows we are right not to trust them.
Knowing which areas need heat, which doors see the most traffic, whether a meeting room is wasted space or not, or even how many times a day the toilets are flushed - each of those things provides useful information for something other than tracking the minutia of an individual's day so you can go 'Big Brother' on them in an attempt to squeeze out a little more productivity at the expense of morale.
>having 4 motors where one failure is catastrophic.
Solution: add a ballistic chute that fires off in the event of emergency.
Even with just four rotors you can lose one rotor and go into a slow descent with the rotor opposite the failed one dedicated to maintaining balance and the other two remaining rotors at near-maximum thrust.
>>and over the pod instead of below it.
>That doesn't really matter. It's not that relevant to stability even where you put the battery on say a 250 size quad.
Well, it's easier to duck under something that's 5' off the ground than something 2' off the ground...