Sorry, pretty sure the (Microsoft supplied) solution you are looking for begins with the phrase "Have your IT Support upgrade your computer to Windows 10 Enterprise..."
The big issue with actual monorails, such as the one in Vegas, is that you can't switch tracks easily, can't have Ys, and all the other things that you can do with reasonably standard rail technology.
Oh, that's really informative. I was trying to figure out what were the advantages/disadvantages of monorails, and Wikipedia didn't help at all. I can't see any advantages, though.
Besides just sounding cool and futuristic, monorails, at least theoretically, were the solution to some issues that early trains had with high speed and banking on turns which have long sense been solved. So pretty much beyond being the topic of an old Popular Mechanics cover, they really were never better than a normal train for anything. They were the hyperloop of the past.
I can't understand why superhero movies are so popular? Who, over 12 years old, is going to see them? They come out with a new one every 3 months and they all look identical to me. They also make a ton of money, so they will continue make them. I only see art films myself.
Well, me, my girlfriend, and a large fraction of all my friends. Of course we all pretty much like science fiction films which super heroes could be considered a sub-genre of. The movies, at least the Marvel ones, are picking from the best characters and stories of the last fifty years which have stood the test of time and although usually indepedent stories, are mostly part of a larger overall story arc.
Only thing missing is other people being annoying - bumping the back of your seat; talking, texting, moving around in front of you, distracting you from the movie.
Man, you Canadians must all be rude assholes. You should drive South to the US. Although seriously, I keep hearing issues like this by people but haven't seen such behavior in a long time. Not that it hasn't ever happened, but certainly not in the last three+ years/dozen films, I've gone to. Chairs are all big and comfy now, each row is elevated so I don't have to worry about the person's hair in front of me, and I don't even experience the sticky popcorn encrusted floors I grew up with any more. I really wonder if most of this is just adverse conditioning from decades ago.
So when are we going to Mars? Apparently all it takes is a big rocket and some space factories and some asteroid dust to protect us from the radiation in transit.
About 30 years after somebody decides to start funding the most expensive engineering project in the history of man.
Yes, the ISS isn't set up to control such a large rotating object. You want a separate orbiting facility.
Well, what we need is an entire deep space, ie outside LEO, research station for effects of gravity, radiation, environmental containment, shielding, and all other sorts of stuff that will need to be developed for the Mars mission that everybody is talking about but not funding.
Would be useful if this were given some numerical context. How do the numbers of refugees due to climate compare to the numbers of refugees due to war and due to oppressive governments?
Probably not that easy as things are interrelated. Climate change causes drought. Drought causes poor food yield. Poor harvests cause higher prices and starvation. High food prices and starvation cause civil unrest. Civil unrest cause refugees.
There was another story, I forget the title, author, and where I read it, that assumed that interstellar travel was feasible with 1600s technology, as long as you had the right insight. Humanity, unlike most intelligent species, managed to miss it. Demonstrating superiority with a matchlock musket volley didn't quite work on 20th-century Earth.
"The Road Not Taken" by Harry Turtledove. Still, this was primarily about the technological differences between civilizations rather than the intelligence of species. In Pandora's planet, the emphasis was on intelligence. The space civilization had undisputibly higher tech, but were less capable to using it. The invaders and anti-grav flying vehicles with anti-matter direct fire weapons, only to discover that the humans had fossil fueled supersonic military craft that could fire self guided rockets at beyond visual range. WTF?!?! The aliens put their smartest people on advancing tech rather than making what they had more efficient because their average citizen probably couldn't maintain the manufacturing and infrastructure needed to put such into wide production. There were also issues with initiative as the alien's military was very top down, nobody was capable of acting without orders, while the humans could cut their soldiers free with general instructions. The humans had to capitulate in the end because although they won the ground war, the space civlization just threatened to nuke everything from orbit. Then it turns out that humans made great military leaders for the alien troops and were sent all over the galaxy as such. Book ends as the humans and aliens are finally coming to an workable long term arrangement when the aliens discover a new race that is as more intelligent than humans as humans are to the aliens indicating future hardship for them both.
As for excessive billing... have you ever been billed for healthcare? Regulations have little to do if it. An uninsured person will get billed 4-5x the rate of an In Network insured patient. This was true before Obamacare. The insurance companies negotiated low rates but the end effect was to just raise prices on those without insurance.... the ones who can not afford the lower rate in the first place.
I work at a hospital. I'll recount what our billing people have told our management people in meetings. Insurance pays out a percentage based on the hospital's MCR (Master Charge Record) which is what they charge the patient. Medicare/Caid pay about 33% along with most others and even the best insurance (from the hospital side) pay only 66%. So, of course, the hospital has to up the stated charge for care, and what is charged to those without insurance, so they can actually make the real cost of care at 33%. Hospitals can't lower costs because then they would get less, and the insurance companies won't negotiate other methods of payment with them.
However, they will negotiate other methods with clinics and imaging centers by offering set amounts for certain procedures. This allows for them to undercut the hospitals for treatment. This is causing issues for the hospitals because not only are they missing out on the procedure costs, but diagnosis is often treated as a loss leader because they are expecting to do the procedure. Now hospitals are having to up their diagnosis costs because the procedure centers are using the hospitals as free diagnosis centers and then getting insurance companies to route patients to them for treatment.
What part of scanning everybody are you having problems with?
Personally, that this is supposed to be a simple solution to a complicated problem that will probably have less to do with catching people than funneling money into somebodies pocket.
The main question is why: why in the world would you want to wear your computer?
For about everybody I know that has a smart watch, it's so they can see their texts and phone calls while driving or at meetings without having to pull out their phones, because 90% of them can wait till later, and the other 10% can't.
I've used Uber once or twice and I struggle to see much of a difference between their business model and that of private hire companies (private hire taxis being similarly licensed by authorities, but different than 'official' taxis).
Private hire / radio cabs:
In some localities, they did operate under those rules although they were usually meant for town cars and limos but made no actual distinction between car models. What happened in Seattle anyway is that the localities made new laws that said such businesses could not have a fleet of more than 300 cars, which prevented Uber/Lyft/etc from operating as normal.
perhaps there was a miscommunication... No-one has even hinted at aliens being dumber than us... but now that you have mentioned it I surmise that it could be possible. You do however bring up some very interesting thoughts about civilization, and especially the thought about keeping some planets at a lower technological era for a given species... intriguing!
Certainly people have. There is a science fiction story called Pandora's Planet that put forth just that, mankind is much smarter than the large galactic civilization. The trimmed story is better IMHO than the full one which is more humorous. In the end, it hints at something else that other stories have brought up, which is that intelligence is not been shown to be an important trait to the survivability of a species and may even be detrimental.
So I'll bite, why would there be enough advantage to a space-based solar array to offset the problems that a space-based solar array would have over a terrestrial solar array?
When your manufacturing and infrastructure is in space.
What would be far more effective is banning guns. Makes committing crimes significantly harder and drastically reduces prison population.
I'd like to see where you are getting your information. Banning guns tends to drop the number of gun related deaths but does not affect actual number of homicides. Crime rates, if anything, tend to go up. After all, the criminal now knows that the other guy probably doesn't have a gun. The last big study on gun control showed a slight reduction in successful suicides, but that's about it.
Better yet, repurposed to send the following email to Intel's CEO every 10 minutes.
"Hi, this is an automated message sent from a hijacked Intel Management Engine to remind you of what you enabled by adding me to the design of your chips. The owner of the computer is unable to stop this, and in fact is completely unaware that it's happening! Currently the computer is turned [on/off]. I strongly recommend you rethink adding this to the next line of cpu chips as a botnet is currently being formed to send these reminders to you!"
Both parties are volatile, fragile coalitions. In countries with proportional-representation parliamentary democracy, the coalitions are formed by elected officials after each election. In countries with first past the post elections (regardless of whether you call the resulting body a "congress" or "parliament"), you inevitably end up with 2 strong parties that shuffle back & forth, with a third group that occasionally coalesces into a stable third party, and the coalitions are effectively formed BEFORE the election.
I really like that interpretation. Too bad you're an AC. It makes me wonder what the flaw in your statement is and who you are trying to troll. it also upsets me that a Russian like yourself has such a better grasp of US politics than most Americans.
I don't know, of course, but I do know this: I don't know a single person, either socially or professionally, who uses Edge.
Of course not, the professional world is still on Win7 so if they use a MS browser, it will be IE. However, new hardware isn't accepting win7 and older hardware is getting too long in the tooth. Win10 is looming and dreading the retraining of the workplace proletariat in an abortion of a UI we don't want to use ourselves.
Some day this world will be come uninhabitable (asteroid? zombies?) and it would be nice for the sake of our species to be able to move at least some of us to a new place and stay alive there. Why not work on this technology and prepare now?
Because quite honestly, the task of moving at least some people to Mars to stay alive there is a such a huge task that a little extra hurry now really won't make a difference. It would take 30 years and the largest engineering project done by mankind to get people there to plant a flag and get them back. The effort to establish any sort of sustainable colony there will be orders of magnitude higher. Never mind daydreams like terraforming Mars. Last time I ran the numbers, just getting Mars an atmosphere with pressure a person could exist in, with most favorable estimates of materials already on Mars, by either getting resources from nearby comets or even from the moons of Jupiter, in a century, requires energy best listing in units of daily total output of the sun. It will take a century or two to build the infrastructure to do that, and probably a century or two before that just to get the tech to attempt it. I'm all for more space exploration, but don't kid yourself that you'd see any sort of habitation in space in your lifetime even if there was the money and political will.
There is an old joke about how the Matrix sequels are so bad, true fans refuse to recognize that they exist. If we all believe hard enough, maybe they'll go away. You can safely assume that people talking about the Matrix having no sequels are a part of the effort to forget. If they aren't why would you be so cruel as to inflict the sequels on the blissfully ignorant? https://xkcd.com/566/
Sotrywise, the sequels were about up to the original. IMHO, the real fail of the second and even the third is that the Wachowskis state that Matrix wasn't about the story but about the effects they brought to the screen, but the next movies didn't do much in that regard, second one in particular. There was the fight on the semi. Perfect chance to really flex some SFX muscles and make it appear as one long take on an actual moving semi. Instead, there are way to many convenient cuts, cropped shots, and other corner cutting cinematography that in now way made it feel like it was actually filmed on top of a moving semi, let alone as a single take which would have been impressive. There was simply nothing cinematographically new or even interesting in the movie. At least in teh third movie, I looked at the battle between Smith and Neo and could think to myself, we are seeing the groundwork for superhero movies here.
The worst off would have been institutionalized, but in the 60s and 70s there was an anti-psychiatry movement, centered around something called the Laing-Szaz hypothesis: "mental illness" doesn't exist; what we call mental illness is just a reaction to the irrationality of society.
People were already kicked out of mental institutions by that time. I doubt it had much effect. It has more to do with constant fighting between state and federal governments as to whose responsibility it was to pay for metal health care, and that there was a 1967 bill that said that made it harder for people to be institutionalized without their consent.
Russian public school isn't that bad. Maybe California or Illinois public school
Well, of course not, they obviously are able to speak a second language conversationally and have enough knowledge of the US government to troll about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The most "hackable personal devices" are people's brains, and there is no way of spam filtering or securing them.
The staff will just have to be morons somewhere else.
According to the book in question, the main leak is the guy in charge who keeps telling things to his corporate buddies but blaming his staff.
windows 10 home.
Sorry, pretty sure the (Microsoft supplied) solution you are looking for begins with the phrase "Have your IT Support upgrade your computer to Windows 10 Enterprise..."
The big issue with actual monorails, such as the one in Vegas, is that you can't switch tracks easily, can't have Ys, and all the other things that you can do with reasonably standard rail technology.
Oh, that's really informative. I was trying to figure out what were the advantages/disadvantages of monorails, and Wikipedia didn't help at all. I can't see any advantages, though.
Besides just sounding cool and futuristic, monorails, at least theoretically, were the solution to some issues that early trains had with high speed and banking on turns which have long sense been solved. So pretty much beyond being the topic of an old Popular Mechanics cover, they really were never better than a normal train for anything. They were the hyperloop of the past.
I can't understand why superhero movies are so popular? Who, over 12 years old, is going to see them? They come out with a new one every 3 months and they all look identical to me. They also make a ton of money, so they will continue make them. I only see art films myself.
Well, me, my girlfriend, and a large fraction of all my friends. Of course we all pretty much like science fiction films which super heroes could be considered a sub-genre of. The movies, at least the Marvel ones, are picking from the best characters and stories of the last fifty years which have stood the test of time and although usually indepedent stories, are mostly part of a larger overall story arc.
Only thing missing is other people being annoying - bumping the back of your seat; talking, texting, moving around in front of you, distracting you from the movie.
Man, you Canadians must all be rude assholes. You should drive South to the US. Although seriously, I keep hearing issues like this by people but haven't seen such behavior in a long time. Not that it hasn't ever happened, but certainly not in the last three+ years/dozen films, I've gone to. Chairs are all big and comfy now, each row is elevated so I don't have to worry about the person's hair in front of me, and I don't even experience the sticky popcorn encrusted floors I grew up with any more. I really wonder if most of this is just adverse conditioning from decades ago.
So when are we going to Mars? Apparently all it takes is a big rocket and some space factories and some asteroid dust to protect us from the radiation in transit.
About 30 years after somebody decides to start funding the most expensive engineering project in the history of man.
Yes, the ISS isn't set up to control such a large rotating object. You want a separate orbiting facility.
Well, what we need is an entire deep space, ie outside LEO, research station for effects of gravity, radiation, environmental containment, shielding, and all other sorts of stuff that will need to be developed for the Mars mission that everybody is talking about but not funding.
If you ever figure this out, please let the rest of know.
I'm pretty sure the solution you are looking for begins with the phrase: "Contact your domain's Active Directory administrator..."
Would be useful if this were given some numerical context. How do the numbers of refugees due to climate compare to the numbers of refugees due to war and due to oppressive governments?
Probably not that easy as things are interrelated. Climate change causes drought. Drought causes poor food yield. Poor harvests cause higher prices and starvation. High food prices and starvation cause civil unrest. Civil unrest cause refugees.
There was another story, I forget the title, author, and where I read it, that assumed that interstellar travel was feasible with 1600s technology, as long as you had the right insight. Humanity, unlike most intelligent species, managed to miss it. Demonstrating superiority with a matchlock musket volley didn't quite work on 20th-century Earth.
"The Road Not Taken" by Harry Turtledove. Still, this was primarily about the technological differences between civilizations rather than the intelligence of species. In Pandora's planet, the emphasis was on intelligence. The space civilization had undisputibly higher tech, but were less capable to using it. The invaders and anti-grav flying vehicles with anti-matter direct fire weapons, only to discover that the humans had fossil fueled supersonic military craft that could fire self guided rockets at beyond visual range. WTF?!?! The aliens put their smartest people on advancing tech rather than making what they had more efficient because their average citizen probably couldn't maintain the manufacturing and infrastructure needed to put such into wide production. There were also issues with initiative as the alien's military was very top down, nobody was capable of acting without orders, while the humans could cut their soldiers free with general instructions. The humans had to capitulate in the end because although they won the ground war, the space civlization just threatened to nuke everything from orbit. Then it turns out that humans made great military leaders for the alien troops and were sent all over the galaxy as such. Book ends as the humans and aliens are finally coming to an workable long term arrangement when the aliens discover a new race that is as more intelligent than humans as humans are to the aliens indicating future hardship for them both.
As for excessive billing... have you ever been billed for healthcare? Regulations have little to do if it. An uninsured person will get billed 4-5x the rate of an In Network insured patient. This was true before Obamacare. The insurance companies negotiated low rates but the end effect was to just raise prices on those without insurance.... the ones who can not afford the lower rate in the first place.
I work at a hospital. I'll recount what our billing people have told our management people in meetings. Insurance pays out a percentage based on the hospital's MCR (Master Charge Record) which is what they charge the patient. Medicare/Caid pay about 33% along with most others and even the best insurance (from the hospital side) pay only 66%. So, of course, the hospital has to up the stated charge for care, and what is charged to those without insurance, so they can actually make the real cost of care at 33%. Hospitals can't lower costs because then they would get less, and the insurance companies won't negotiate other methods of payment with them.
However, they will negotiate other methods with clinics and imaging centers by offering set amounts for certain procedures. This allows for them to undercut the hospitals for treatment. This is causing issues for the hospitals because not only are they missing out on the procedure costs, but diagnosis is often treated as a loss leader because they are expecting to do the procedure. Now hospitals are having to up their diagnosis costs because the procedure centers are using the hospitals as free diagnosis centers and then getting insurance companies to route patients to them for treatment.
What part of scanning everybody are you having problems with?
Personally, that this is supposed to be a simple solution to a complicated problem that will probably have less to do with catching people than funneling money into somebodies pocket.
The main question is why: why in the world would you want to wear your computer?
For about everybody I know that has a smart watch, it's so they can see their texts and phone calls while driving or at meetings without having to pull out their phones, because 90% of them can wait till later, and the other 10% can't.
Are they actually catching on any faster anywhere else in the world? Does Europe or China actually care about wearables?
I've used Uber once or twice and I struggle to see much of a difference between their business model and that of private hire companies (private hire taxis being similarly licensed by authorities, but different than 'official' taxis).
Private hire / radio cabs:
In some localities, they did operate under those rules although they were usually meant for town cars and limos but made no actual distinction between car models. What happened in Seattle anyway is that the localities made new laws that said such businesses could not have a fleet of more than 300 cars, which prevented Uber/Lyft/etc from operating as normal.
perhaps there was a miscommunication... No-one has even hinted at aliens being dumber than us... but now that you have mentioned it I surmise that it could be possible. You do however bring up some very interesting thoughts about civilization, and especially the thought about keeping some planets at a lower technological era for a given species... intriguing!
Certainly people have. There is a science fiction story called Pandora's Planet that put forth just that, mankind is much smarter than the large galactic civilization. The trimmed story is better IMHO than the full one which is more humorous. In the end, it hints at something else that other stories have brought up, which is that intelligence is not been shown to be an important trait to the survivability of a species and may even be detrimental.
So I'll bite, why would there be enough advantage to a space-based solar array to offset the problems that a space-based solar array would have over a terrestrial solar array?
When your manufacturing and infrastructure is in space.
What would be far more effective is banning guns. Makes committing crimes significantly harder and drastically reduces prison population.
I'd like to see where you are getting your information. Banning guns tends to drop the number of gun related deaths but does not affect actual number of homicides. Crime rates, if anything, tend to go up. After all, the criminal now knows that the other guy probably doesn't have a gun. The last big study on gun control showed a slight reduction in successful suicides, but that's about it.
Better yet, repurposed to send the following email to Intel's CEO every 10 minutes.
"Hi, this is an automated message sent from a hijacked Intel Management Engine to remind you of what you enabled by adding me to the design of your chips. The owner of the computer is unable to stop this, and in fact is completely unaware that it's happening! Currently the computer is turned [on/off]. I strongly recommend you rethink adding this to the next line of cpu chips as a botnet is currently being formed to send these reminders to you!"
I think I'm mostly joking.
I'd help Kickstart that project.
Both parties are volatile, fragile coalitions. In countries with proportional-representation parliamentary democracy, the coalitions are formed by elected officials after each election. In countries with first past the post elections (regardless of whether you call the resulting body a "congress" or "parliament"), you inevitably end up with 2 strong parties that shuffle back & forth, with a third group that occasionally coalesces into a stable third party, and the coalitions are effectively formed BEFORE the election.
I really like that interpretation. Too bad you're an AC. It makes me wonder what the flaw in your statement is and who you are trying to troll. it also upsets me that a Russian like yourself has such a better grasp of US politics than most Americans.
I don't know, of course, but I do know this: I don't know a single person, either socially or professionally, who uses Edge.
Of course not, the professional world is still on Win7 so if they use a MS browser, it will be IE. However, new hardware isn't accepting win7 and older hardware is getting too long in the tooth. Win10 is looming and dreading the retraining of the workplace proletariat in an abortion of a UI we don't want to use ourselves.
Some day this world will be come uninhabitable (asteroid? zombies?) and it would be nice for the sake of our species to be able to move at least some of us to a new place and stay alive there. Why not work on this technology and prepare now?
Because quite honestly, the task of moving at least some people to Mars to stay alive there is a such a huge task that a little extra hurry now really won't make a difference. It would take 30 years and the largest engineering project done by mankind to get people there to plant a flag and get them back. The effort to establish any sort of sustainable colony there will be orders of magnitude higher. Never mind daydreams like terraforming Mars. Last time I ran the numbers, just getting Mars an atmosphere with pressure a person could exist in, with most favorable estimates of materials already on Mars, by either getting resources from nearby comets or even from the moons of Jupiter, in a century, requires energy best listing in units of daily total output of the sun. It will take a century or two to build the infrastructure to do that, and probably a century or two before that just to get the tech to attempt it. I'm all for more space exploration, but don't kid yourself that you'd see any sort of habitation in space in your lifetime even if there was the money and political will.
There is an old joke about how the Matrix sequels are so bad, true fans refuse to recognize that they exist. If we all believe hard enough, maybe they'll go away. You can safely assume that people talking about the Matrix having no sequels are a part of the effort to forget. If they aren't why would you be so cruel as to inflict the sequels on the blissfully ignorant? https://xkcd.com/566/
Sotrywise, the sequels were about up to the original. IMHO, the real fail of the second and even the third is that the Wachowskis state that Matrix wasn't about the story but about the effects they brought to the screen, but the next movies didn't do much in that regard, second one in particular. There was the fight on the semi. Perfect chance to really flex some SFX muscles and make it appear as one long take on an actual moving semi. Instead, there are way to many convenient cuts, cropped shots, and other corner cutting cinematography that in now way made it feel like it was actually filmed on top of a moving semi, let alone as a single take which would have been impressive. There was simply nothing cinematographically new or even interesting in the movie. At least in teh third movie, I looked at the battle between Smith and Neo and could think to myself, we are seeing the groundwork for superhero movies here.
The worst off would have been institutionalized, but in the 60s and 70s there was an anti-psychiatry movement, centered around something called the Laing-Szaz hypothesis: "mental illness" doesn't exist; what we call mental illness is just a reaction to the irrationality of society.
People were already kicked out of mental institutions by that time. I doubt it had much effect. It has more to do with constant fighting between state and federal governments as to whose responsibility it was to pay for metal health care, and that there was a 1967 bill that said that made it harder for people to be institutionalized without their consent.
Russian public school isn't that bad. Maybe California or Illinois public school
Well, of course not, they obviously are able to speak a second language conversationally and have enough knowledge of the US government to troll about it.