the total system cost for an advanced nuclear energy facility to be $108 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced, compared with solar energy at $144 per MWh; and offshore wind at $221 per MWh. Onshore wind is less costly, at $86 per MWh, but it’s also less efficient. The estimated total system cost for natural gas plants varied widely, depending on the type, from a low of $65 per MWh to a high of $130. The variable costs for a natural gas plant are highly sensitive to fluctuations in fuel price, since fuel accounts for nearly 90 percent of its production cost. Fuel represents just 31 percent of a nuclear energy facility’s production cost, and the price is relatively stable.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar, off-shore wind, and middle-cost natural gas. Fossil-fuel-based steam turbines actually cost 46% more to operate, maintain, and fuel than nuclear; the up-front capital cost is higher for nuclear, though. Coal-fired plants can range $65 to $150 per MWh, so advanced nuclear facilities are actually cheaper than most of those. Nuclear is probably next-generation's base power.
Because herding cattle across a wide area requires managing a wide area. That means more cattle-hands, more moving from place to place, more expending fuel, more maintaining machines, more trying to extinct wolves for eating your cattle (estimate total population in Washington is 90), and, essentially, more wages paid per pound of beef, meaning more cost and higher prices at the grocery store.
I'd rather pay those wages to buy another month of Spotify than employ 40 fewer engineers at Spotify and 40 more ranchers herding cattle and not have anything to replace Spotify.
Actually, with excess nuclear power, we can produce eDiesel. We've got new catalysts and high-pressure processes making eDiesel highly-efficient, about 70%; that means pipelines fed from eDiesel plants placed near nuclear and geothermal power plants would come in slightly less-efficient than electric cars at 15% transmission loss and 85% charging efficiency.
We can stockpile eDiesel; we can use it for airplanes (no way to make those battery-powered); we can generate eMethane or otherwise use eDiesel to run fuel cells, creating liquid fuel electric cars (possibly airplanes, but it's a tough job for an electric motor); we can use it to drive factories which need more power than the grid provides.
Newer tweaks to battery technology are targeting high-surface-area electrodes. Lithium ion batteries grow tin whiskers internally, creating more surface area for reaction, thus higher and longer power output; current research targets new structures and new battery chemistries to maximize this, essentially attempting to create an activated-carbon-style surface as the battery consumes itself. The processes in eDiesel similarly use catalyzed hydrolysis, and it's non-consuming: if we can manufacture high-surface-area electrodes using current or improved catalysts, we can raise eDiesel efficiency. The two efforts are semi-parallel, in that efforts in one give insight to the other, yet they're distinct in significant ways and so can't directly translate.
That means more-efficient batteries and more-efficient eDiesel generation in the future. If the overall efficiency exceeds 85%, eDiesel will beat any electric vehicle: transmission loss is 15%. At the same time, low-cost eDiesel will immediately replace more-expensive petroleum, as it's compatible with current, unmodified gas turbine technology; and eDiesel can feed or be modified to feed hydrogen fuel cells, which provide electricity, giving a method of feeding electric vehicles with a liquid or heavy gas (not hydrogen, which has storage and transport issues) fuel tank rather than a battery.
At the same time, plant and atmospheric petroleum (e.g. eDiesel) products such as polyester, rayon, plastic, and lubricating oil (PAO, Group-3) will sequester oil. Recycling carries costs and complexity; cheap atmospheric petroleum, once expended, can be incinerated for power or dumped into expended oil wells. Deep well dumping provides an attractive option: the expended liquid petroleum becomes a feed stock for later mining and refining, while effectively removing the carbon content from the atmosphere.
This is all stuff that will happen naturally, eventually. eDiesel will scale; a reduction in cost of nuclear, geothermal, and solar will outcompete oil; and refining waste oil into recycled stock will be less-efficient than producing new oil at the point where atmospheric petroleum has become cheaper than oil. The only question is when.
It's weird whenever a company expands, alters its technology, or merges, they have redundant employees, and so eliminate a small chunk of the workforce (I mean, 5,000 at Dell where they have 100,000 employees is only 5%), and Slashdot loses its shit and goes on about how we should all pay higher prices to keep these people in useless jobs instead of moving that money to buy other products supporting other jobs.
Twitter cuts 300 jobs in a desperate attempt to save money, with a statement of "We can't pay for this anymore" instead of "we don't need these people," and Slashdot is jumping up and down demanding to know why Twitter even has all these jobs in the first place.
People with high-meat-intake diets can, but rarely do, get deficiencies; people on vegan diets have to jump through hoops not to. That was the point: fruits and vegetables aren't the primary source of all nutrients, and aren't holding up your critically-deficient, mainly-meat diet; a cursory preponderance of evidence suggests the eggs consumed by ovolacto vegetarians are holding up their critically-deficient, mainly-vegetable diet. I've seen statistics stating between 75%-95% of vegetarians and vegans bail on the diet because of adverse health effects; and vegans themselves always have something to say about how you have to make sure you're eating the right vegan diet or else of course it will make you sick, which simply isn't a concern with modern incidental-vegetable-intake diets that get their main source of greens and yellows and reds from hamburger toppings and tacos.
For no fiber, reduced fiber and high fiber groups, respectively, symptoms of bloating were present in 0%, 31.3% and 100% (P
CONCLUSION: Idiopathic constipation and its associated symptoms can be effectively reduced by stopping or even lowering the intake of dietary fiber.
The medical term "idiopathic" means "we don't know why," as opposed to being caused by an observed deficiency, disease, genetic condition, stress, or anything else. It's a placeholder for "healthy adults" when the adults are experiencing a symptom making them not healthy.
The benefits of a high-fiber diet have been repeated again and again, but rarely actually researched. Don't look too closely, or you'll find out you're wrong.
Eh, truth be told, if you want to grow more cattle on less land, you need to grow alfalfa densely and feed it to them. On the other hand, alfalfa and vetch are cover crops, and we grow them on our existing farmland between uses; we do use them as feed, or as fertilizer (plowed under before reseeding).
Is this another attempt to push a fruits-and-vegetables diet based on old superstition and ignorant observation? 400 years ago, nobody knew what micronutrients were; they knew if you didn't eat your fruits and vegetables, you got pellagra and scurvy--and you got pellagra by eating too much corn, too, so you needed to eat something else.
Today, somehow, people who eat diets with a lot of meat and don't overeat have few health problems. It's pretty simple: eat beef, eat chicken, eat fish, be healthy. There are a few micronutrients that are hard to get unless you're eating organ meats, certain fruits, or high-calorie shit like Hi-C fruit drinks--notably Vitamin C--but meat has a surprising amount of stuff like potassium and magnesium, so much so that you have to get into esoteric vegetables nobody eats to substantially beat the micronutrient profile of meat per calorie. There are only a few things an all-meat diet would leave you short on, and they're generally the things vegetables are actually pretty high in.
Has anyone noticed that meat-diets never produce deficiency diseases, yet someone is waiting in the wings to tell you you're doing vegan and vegetarian diets wrong because a lot of people get sick really fast on those diets? That's only counting malnutrition; things get weird when researchers do studies on constipated people and find out that a high- and moderate-fiber diet makes it worse, while a low-fiber diet improves things dramatically, and a no-fiber diet completely eliminates the issue--exactly what fiber isn't supposed to do.
So yeah, vegetarian diets are healthy--if you eat the right things, eat enough of them, eat massive amounts of them, and maybe take some supplements. Mainly-meat diets are healthy, if you don't eat too god damn much--honestly, Taco Bell and Burger King try to sell you 75% of a day's food as a so-called meal, so you're eating for two or three people by the end of the day, hence fast food making everyone fat (how did you think it happened?). They want us to go from the "you get fat if you eat too much" diet to the "you get pellagra and rickets if you don't diversify your nutrition correctly" diets (nobody gets scurvy; Vitamin C deficiency isn't a real thing anymore unless you try really, really hard).
Porting the drivers and such to a microkernel architecture in full (L4, Minix, Hurd) would isolate parts of the code and require strict API adherence (and ABI, but ABI amounts to your IPC protocol). That reduces the scope of bugs, in the long run; and it minimizes short-term porting bugs. The cost is essentially a large amount of man-power.
So you have the likelihood of finding a lot of bugs, eliminating a lot of bugs in the process, and creating new bugs, all at odds with each other, and each with different short- and long-term implications (you'll create new bugs in the short-term, but fewer than e.g. porting everything to BSD; and you'll eliminate and produce fewer bugs in the long-term); along with the enormous cost of simply organizing the change (everything has to be broken down and fixed around boundaries first).
The single short- and long-term advantage of keeping the Linux kernel architecture is it's a hell of a lot less work to not rearchitect an OS kernel.
Women are known to over-represent to PM. There was a phenomena for a while that women were shit for programming and other similar tasks, but always seemed to know everything that was going on around them--so they moved them out of their jobs and made them keep track of everyone else's jobs. When we started targeting formalized project management (PMI certifications and approaches), they only got better at it, somehow, for no reason known to me (I haven't looked too hard).
The end result is the big names in Project Management are Tres Roeder (Male, original proponent of Stakeholder Management) and Rita Mulcahy (female, dead, still considered the leader in PMI education); and many of the detailed books on project management processes and procedures are written by women. Men in project management have a large tendency to lean toward authority--they use older processes, repeat what's worked in the past (experience = authority), and bank on the understanding that they're in charge and that means something--while women seem to lean on processes and order, incorporating new ideas more-readily.
I have no idea why this happens, but it's a thing. There are flighty women who have no clue what's happening around them, and there are men who are actually serious about optimizing their approach to PM; but the general trend is women are more high-powered project managers, and men are largely sedentary and lean on processes they've used in the past coupled with the wielding of authority to demand people simply get shit done somehow.
It's ridiculously-hard to become a male nurse. In many cases, there are only a handful of male nurses on a medical campus--I've seen as low as two at one school. Somehow it was decided they didn't have girlfriends; none of the girls would date them, because they spent most of their time on-campus and didn't have many prospective young men to pick from.
Actually, if you're using a 94-element space (26 + 26 + 10 + 32), an 8-character password is on the same magnitude as a 26-element space (all lower-case letters) at 11 characters (7.2 x 10^15 vs 3.7 x 10^15). With a 1,000-element space, 5 characters (words) are on the same magnitude (1.0 x 10^15); although the 1,000-most-common words don't include conjugations and plurals, which takes you to several thousand. You have to breach a 5,700-element space for 4 characters to be on par (1.1 x 10^15).
So all-lower-case can actually be secure as the standard four-classes, eight-character password just by adding three characters. In all of these, we're looking at 50-53 bits (1.1 x 10^15 to 9.0 x 10^15) of entropy.
Seriously, the 8-character password with complexity requirements thing should have never come about. When they went from "8 characters" to "something more secure", it should have been 11 characters.
After Dirty COW, the self-protecting kernel people will end up porting all Linux interfaces and core functionality (e.g. iptables) to Minix services. Then they can replace the VM manager and just pass over the PTE data to the new server when there's a bug, instead of rebooting everything. Systemd will be stripped as core functionality makes more sense as a kernel service than as kernel capabilities managed by a user program.
No, it wouldn't. These notices are made on behalf of Samsung about an exclusive right to something about the Galaxy 7 which is allegedly being infringed. The assertion of infringement has no legal standing, but the assertion is made on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
A judge can find a load of other shit you're doing wrong if you're misusing the statute. Abuse of the legal system is frowned upon.
Actually, if you buy a house with an alarm service, the alarm stops functioning if you don't pay the service fee. You still have the hardware, but it doesn't do anything.
The simple mitigation is to not have local users who will hack your machine.
If you run a server, an exploit of the server software (nginx, PHP scripts, Ruby on Rails, etc.) will provide local non-root access, which you can then root.
If you run your server software in Docker, then the host system's binaries aren't exposed. That means an attacker can't modify the disk cache for/bin/su and then su to root; he can only modify the disk cache for/bin/su or glibc from e.g. the debian:jessie image that the Docker image the container used is based on. Elevation in the same container is useless: anything mounted read-write is likely already writable by the software the attacker exploited in the first place, so they have that access; and modifying the system is pointless, since you can just destroy and recreate the container in 10 seconds.
A container exploit might give a cross-container exploit to all containers eventually descended from the same version of the same base image (e.g. everything ultimately built from that release of debian:jessie), but it's tricky. You can modify e.g./usr/sbin/nginx and send a reverse-shell to all nginx containers; or you can modify glibc and get it into everything using the same base image (because it's from the same disk blocks, thus the same disk cache). Either of those has to use the existing memory space (can't add empty memory pages or use anything outside the file), replace code in an existing function, and not outright crash (or the container terminates and all processes end immediately); and a glibc modification would make your reverse shell kind of useless (bash would just re-exploit and call a new reverse shell).
Escape to the host system is as impossible as it is without this exploit, so there's that.
So, for some server software configurations, this is diminished to the point of uselessness. For others, they get the www-data user and then su straight to root.
Well they could disable access to the travel data stream--a resource you're continuously using, maintained by them, at a cost of loads and loads of money per year diffused through thousands of consumers.
400 million copies of Windows XP sold. If they paid 270 programmers full-time for 10 years to develop and maintain XP, Microsoft would have made a profit selling it at $1. What's Tesla's incentive to keep up with firmware and data updates?
For what it's worth, the 2009 DVD to update the 2004 Mazda 3's in-dash navigation system costs $300. Yes, you have to pay $300 for the DVD, then install it into your car yourself, and then you have 2009's map data instead of 2004's. This was also true of the 2007 update.
The phone isn't copyrighted. Its existence and a representation of it as a material fact can't be copyrighted. You can't copyright the existence and form of your product in such a way that, for example, a novel writer can't mention that a person was using a Samsung Note 3 and describe the functionality he was using. Those are material facts.
The phone is a trademark--or at least its visual form and its name are potential trademarks. You may be able to patent the production of a phone in that form (design patent), and trademark a particular shape of a phone (like the Gibson and Fender headstocks--yes, their brand-identifiable shapes are trademarked); that applies only to actually making a phone.
Samsung is legally-required to protect its trademarks, else they lose them. That means a number of things. It means you can't make a DogRun Galaxy 7 phone (especially in substantially-similar design to the Samsung offering) because Galaxy and Galaxy 7 are Samsung trademarks. It means you can't use the Samsung name to brand your phone. If you do these things, Samsung must take action, or else the next guy to do the same thing can point out that Samsung hasn't protected their trademark.
A reference to a trademark isn't a trademark infringement.
A reference to a trademark in a book, in a TV show, in a video game, in literature about your own product, wherever it is, does not infringe trademark. Trademark distinguishes products. If you make a phone and, in the literature, identify that it is distinct from the Samsung Galaxy 7 by pointing out that it has similar or superior battery life to the Samsung Galaxy 7, you haven't infringed trademark because you haven't identified your phone as a Samsung Galaxy 7.
That video isn't parody, by law; it's non-infringing. It's a non-infringing reference to a trademark and to the existence of a product. Artistically, it's satire: it explores an existing material fact with humor and exaggeration. Even if it had no artistic defense, there's no standing for any intellectual property claim--copyright, trademark, patent, or otherwise. Samsung's phones blowing up is a material fact; it might be over-emphasized, but it's a thing that happened in the world, and the phones are a thing that exist in the world, and the thing in the game is a representation of that thing and not a counterfeit product.
It's something we need to move into, as a matter of social welfare. There's actually an argument (not very sound) that the United States is legally-required to implement something substantially-similar to the system I designed as soon as technically-feasible.
The ideal that we'll need some kind of UBI because of an upcoming crisis is rooted in a misunderstanding of economics. People think automation is a new thing and jobs go away forever; but it's just technical progress, the same as we've been doing for thousands of years. The threat comes when progress occurs too rapidly: if you create rapid unemployment, the slow replacement of jobs doesn't keep up, and you get high unemployment.
The only zero-job economy is a zero-labor utopia where humans do nothing. Flat out. As long as human hands are required somewhere in the process, there's no such thing as permanent job destruction. As well, new jobs range from highly-complex, heavily-specialized disciplines to pushing the buttons on the machines at the correct time; sometimes the sensors and probes aren't nearly as accurate as humans, or just cost a lot more. That's why things like injection-molded plastic forms are removed from the mold by hand and placed on a conveyor: a machine that can handle that job would be ridiculously-complex and unreliable; at the very least, it'd require thousands of hours of QA testing after retooling the IM to make a new form--or you just skip all that maintenance and extra QA and pay someone to do it by hand.
The nature of technology is also that it's invented as soon as it's envisioned in sufficient detail. It's in-production shortly after. People have romanticized about robots replacing 100% of all jobs since Karl Marx proposed it as an immediate, tomorrow-goal for society; then, they made machines and came up with new jobs doing the last bits of work finishing up after the machines--the robot does the job of a hundred men, and one man clears up their mistakes.
The corollary is we're constantly imagining all jobs will go away forever when we see a new technology (machines, trade, or materials--cotton is the bane of the sheep-shearers's union!). We can't imagine what new technology will appear tomorrow and how it will create jobs, because technology reduces labor requirements.
So what actually happens?
We reduce the labor involved, and the costs go down eventually--the relative cost of things is in constant turmoil, and the relative desirability of goods changes. Food has enormous competition. Every good competes with every other good--if you spend more of your money on food, you have less for iPads; if 2/3 of the price of iPads is actual costs and people are only willing-and-able to spend 3/4 of the price, then you need to lower the price (by 1/4, meaning the cost is now 8/9 of the price--an 11% margin instead of 33%). Instead of margins getting fatter and corporate profits soaring, corporate profits average the same marginal percent over the long term.
So people steadily get that spending power back. They then buy more stuff. That creates replacement jobs. If you've eliminated (over a wide time span) 50% of all required labor to make things, then costs are now only 50% as much; prices adjust in total to half of all income; and people now buy twice as many things. It takes half the working-hours to make the same, or the same working hours to make (and buy) twice as much.
Handwaving away all the economics bullshit, you can just state mathematically that a profit margin of X% implies paying wages of 100%-X%. Wages being what they are, the number of labor hours is mediated by how much money is spent. Reducing labor in one place means you have unspent money; you spend it elsewhere; suddenly there's labor there. This works over long timescales; your economy collapses if you replace a third of it with machines over the long weekend.
So, all of that. Yeah. Point?
I don't believe we're going to need to face up to a UBI in the future, in the
The thing is both positions are surprisingly mature. Zuckerberg is probably just being a loud-mouth and trying to prevent a public incident from screwing with his company; but it's still an important point if you exclude his viewpoint. The highest-developed psychological defense mechanisms include suppression and tolerance--delaying an emotional response until you can deal with it safely, and allowing behaviors of others which aren't harmful to you even if you disagree with them. Trump supporters are their own problem, by and large because they want to support a celebrity or a political party (a lot of Republicans are blind to their own candidate and only want to be saved from socialism or something); and people who object to Trump have the right to declare that their particular organization has strong objections to Trump's message.
That means YC can declare it wants nothing to do with Trump or its supporters; and Facebook can declare itself not the steward of people's opinions; and both are essentially-correct behaviors.
Sure, in the same way it's not hard to just order the cheap dextromethorphin powder, measure it on a mg scale, and sift it into empty capsule shells. People still buy Robitussum.
Part of the point is that the storage has gotten so cheap there's no excuse, even if you seal the device and just permanently install a 128GB or larger microHD card in one of these devices.
So one of the things I argued was the control circuitry for a storage card costs about as much or more than a large (32GB+) amount of storage, if you use those NAND chips instead of (or in addition to) the NAND chips you used anyway. You just suggested a more-expensive way to achieve the same goal; and it's also slower than just integrating the storage directly.
I also described that the "so cheap there's no excuse" part is essentially making you buy things you won't use if you don't have a use for it--essentially everybody these days, because the cost of adequate storage for near-100% of use cases is nearly-undifferentiated from the cost of smaller storage (i.e. the process for X gigabyte chips is so efficient it's no more costly than using the same package but only etching in less than X gigabytes, where the cost of more-than-X gigabytes is higher because it requires a more-expensive process or the same process with more chips). To be clear about this: wasting a few pennies that way can have disastrous impacts on the economy, making everyone strikingly poorer.
In the case of fast food as an example, fast food joints serve 240 billion sales per year at an average $8 per sale. If we bump that to $8.14, who cares? Well, 14 cents times 240 billion is $33.6 billion. The money spent in a given year comes from incomes, which comes from revenues, which comes from sales: if you spend $8 more on some other thing, then that's $8 that isn't spent on a fast food value meal in that time frame. $33.6 billion translates to 2,371,241 full-time minimum wages--or a maximum of 2.37 million jobs lost. (The jobs are lost only if you remove their buying power--by taking a bigger corporate profit margin or raising wages so that the same money concentrates into fewer hands).
What you're describing--putting something approximately-nobody needs into the product at an arbitrary "small" cost because the producer thinks it would be nice and is cheap--is technically called "gold plating". More importantly, it wastes labor time (purchasing power and the work done to make what is purchased) producing a thing that nobody is going to use, and thus prevents people from having what that labor time would have made instead. In this case, that's an estimated $10 times 43.7 million Kindles sold per year to equip them with additional storage approximately 0% of the population will actually use--or a waste of $437 million.
That's fractionally-small compared to a few penny's increase in fast food costs. There are also cell phones, computers, watches, shoes, jackets, televisions, lamps, blenders, refrigerators, cars, keyboards, pens, tea pots, and all manner of things people buy which we could gold-plate for pennies on the dollar (because making a $120 device $130 is about 8 cents on the dollar). The end result would be a purchasing power 8% smaller--you might have the same income, but you'll buy 8% less stuff, mainly because all that stuff has a marketing bullet-point that sounds awesome but that you never use (but hey, your car DOES have a hardware Monkey's Audio decoder IC and can directly play.APE files from USB with hardware acceleration!).
I actually used to argue the exact opposite, but then I sat down and reasoned it out trying to generate a supporting argument and shot myself straight in the foot. Attempting to use logic can backfire now and then. I had to change my stance to align with objective reality.
If it were the top 3% of users, it would reach an equilibrium well-below the top 3% of typical user demand.
If it were the top 3% of volume, it would reach an equilibrium at the maximum volume possible at the throttled speed, as that is eventually the amount of use below which you cannot reduce by throttling, and any use above that would eventually push you into the top 3% as the top users are drawn downward.
They're throttling customers in the top 3% of data usage, rather than data users. Supposedly the mean data usage is around 2GB currently, so 17GB at less than 3 standard deviations out seems ludicrous.
My point was having two SD cards is rocket surgery--or at least is often more-complex than would be obvious. The UX to easily know what data is on what is difficult. People who aren't obsessive nerds who organize their $HOME directories essentially want "Space": they want things to download and magically end up where they belong. They don't want to spend 40 minutes sorting through 6,000 files, picking out what's what, tagging them, inspecting them when they don't remember, and then individually setting each one's storage location.
Almost 100% of people who put an SD card in a device are adding permanent storage. They put a card in their phone or tablet or whatever, and that's the end of that. It's not an organization tool to most people; it's a bulk commodity.
That's why Android phones stopped having SD cards, and then started having them again, and then started letting users replace their internal storage with SD card (your photos get copied onto the card, and the internal storage space is replaced with the SD card entirely). People see two things with storage: "I can't install an app because my phone is full" or "Now I can take more pictures!" They don't know or even care where it goes.
The solution, then, is more internal storage. External storage is an expensive added complexity that almost all users will use by putting exactly one card into the slot and never removing it unless, somehow, they have the phone 5 years later, the 32gb card is full, and new 1tb cards are available cheap--all the while wanting it to behave as more internal storage.
If you're in the top 3 percent of data volume, then throttling reduces your data volume, moving your span downward. Thus the top 3 percent of data volume becomes lower.
If you're in the top 3 percent of users, then throttling moves reduces your data volume, moving your span downward. Thus others would fall into the usage range of the top 3 percent of users, and the spot group of top-3%-users would become volatile. This would bring more users's use downward, increasing this effect until they cluster together enough to not drag down further.
Slashdot Mirror
Hundreds and thousands. 12,000 would be thousands.
the total system cost for an advanced nuclear energy facility to be $108 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced, compared with solar energy at $144 per MWh; and offshore wind at $221 per MWh. Onshore wind is less costly, at $86 per MWh, but it’s also less efficient. The estimated total system cost for natural gas plants varied widely, depending on the type, from a low of $65 per MWh to a high of $130. The variable costs for a natural gas plant are highly sensitive to fluctuations in fuel price, since fuel accounts for nearly 90 percent of its production cost. Fuel represents just 31 percent of a nuclear energy facility’s production cost, and the price is relatively stable.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar, off-shore wind, and middle-cost natural gas. Fossil-fuel-based steam turbines actually cost 46% more to operate, maintain, and fuel than nuclear; the up-front capital cost is higher for nuclear, though. Coal-fired plants can range $65 to $150 per MWh, so advanced nuclear facilities are actually cheaper than most of those. Nuclear is probably next-generation's base power.
Because herding cattle across a wide area requires managing a wide area. That means more cattle-hands, more moving from place to place, more expending fuel, more maintaining machines, more trying to extinct wolves for eating your cattle (estimate total population in Washington is 90), and, essentially, more wages paid per pound of beef, meaning more cost and higher prices at the grocery store.
I'd rather pay those wages to buy another month of Spotify than employ 40 fewer engineers at Spotify and 40 more ranchers herding cattle and not have anything to replace Spotify.
Actually, with excess nuclear power, we can produce eDiesel. We've got new catalysts and high-pressure processes making eDiesel highly-efficient, about 70%; that means pipelines fed from eDiesel plants placed near nuclear and geothermal power plants would come in slightly less-efficient than electric cars at 15% transmission loss and 85% charging efficiency.
We can stockpile eDiesel; we can use it for airplanes (no way to make those battery-powered); we can generate eMethane or otherwise use eDiesel to run fuel cells, creating liquid fuel electric cars (possibly airplanes, but it's a tough job for an electric motor); we can use it to drive factories which need more power than the grid provides.
Newer tweaks to battery technology are targeting high-surface-area electrodes. Lithium ion batteries grow tin whiskers internally, creating more surface area for reaction, thus higher and longer power output; current research targets new structures and new battery chemistries to maximize this, essentially attempting to create an activated-carbon-style surface as the battery consumes itself. The processes in eDiesel similarly use catalyzed hydrolysis, and it's non-consuming: if we can manufacture high-surface-area electrodes using current or improved catalysts, we can raise eDiesel efficiency. The two efforts are semi-parallel, in that efforts in one give insight to the other, yet they're distinct in significant ways and so can't directly translate.
That means more-efficient batteries and more-efficient eDiesel generation in the future. If the overall efficiency exceeds 85%, eDiesel will beat any electric vehicle: transmission loss is 15%. At the same time, low-cost eDiesel will immediately replace more-expensive petroleum, as it's compatible with current, unmodified gas turbine technology; and eDiesel can feed or be modified to feed hydrogen fuel cells, which provide electricity, giving a method of feeding electric vehicles with a liquid or heavy gas (not hydrogen, which has storage and transport issues) fuel tank rather than a battery.
At the same time, plant and atmospheric petroleum (e.g. eDiesel) products such as polyester, rayon, plastic, and lubricating oil (PAO, Group-3) will sequester oil. Recycling carries costs and complexity; cheap atmospheric petroleum, once expended, can be incinerated for power or dumped into expended oil wells. Deep well dumping provides an attractive option: the expended liquid petroleum becomes a feed stock for later mining and refining, while effectively removing the carbon content from the atmosphere.
This is all stuff that will happen naturally, eventually. eDiesel will scale; a reduction in cost of nuclear, geothermal, and solar will outcompete oil; and refining waste oil into recycled stock will be less-efficient than producing new oil at the point where atmospheric petroleum has become cheaper than oil. The only question is when.
It's weird whenever a company expands, alters its technology, or merges, they have redundant employees, and so eliminate a small chunk of the workforce (I mean, 5,000 at Dell where they have 100,000 employees is only 5%), and Slashdot loses its shit and goes on about how we should all pay higher prices to keep these people in useless jobs instead of moving that money to buy other products supporting other jobs.
Twitter cuts 300 jobs in a desperate attempt to save money, with a statement of "We can't pay for this anymore" instead of "we don't need these people," and Slashdot is jumping up and down demanding to know why Twitter even has all these jobs in the first place.
What?
People with high-meat-intake diets can, but rarely do, get deficiencies; people on vegan diets have to jump through hoops not to. That was the point: fruits and vegetables aren't the primary source of all nutrients, and aren't holding up your critically-deficient, mainly-meat diet; a cursory preponderance of evidence suggests the eggs consumed by ovolacto vegetarians are holding up their critically-deficient, mainly-vegetable diet. I've seen statistics stating between 75%-95% of vegetarians and vegans bail on the diet because of adverse health effects; and vegans themselves always have something to say about how you have to make sure you're eating the right vegan diet or else of course it will make you sick, which simply isn't a concern with modern incidental-vegetable-intake diets that get their main source of greens and yellows and reds from hamburger toppings and tacos.
As for fiber, Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms.
For no fiber, reduced fiber and high fiber groups, respectively, symptoms of bloating were present in 0%, 31.3% and 100% (P
CONCLUSION: Idiopathic constipation and its associated symptoms can be effectively reduced by stopping or even lowering the intake of dietary fiber.
The medical term "idiopathic" means "we don't know why," as opposed to being caused by an observed deficiency, disease, genetic condition, stress, or anything else. It's a placeholder for "healthy adults" when the adults are experiencing a symptom making them not healthy.
The benefits of a high-fiber diet have been repeated again and again, but rarely actually researched. Don't look too closely, or you'll find out you're wrong.
Eh, truth be told, if you want to grow more cattle on less land, you need to grow alfalfa densely and feed it to them. On the other hand, alfalfa and vetch are cover crops, and we grow them on our existing farmland between uses; we do use them as feed, or as fertilizer (plowed under before reseeding).
Is this another attempt to push a fruits-and-vegetables diet based on old superstition and ignorant observation? 400 years ago, nobody knew what micronutrients were; they knew if you didn't eat your fruits and vegetables, you got pellagra and scurvy--and you got pellagra by eating too much corn, too, so you needed to eat something else.
Today, somehow, people who eat diets with a lot of meat and don't overeat have few health problems. It's pretty simple: eat beef, eat chicken, eat fish, be healthy. There are a few micronutrients that are hard to get unless you're eating organ meats, certain fruits, or high-calorie shit like Hi-C fruit drinks--notably Vitamin C--but meat has a surprising amount of stuff like potassium and magnesium, so much so that you have to get into esoteric vegetables nobody eats to substantially beat the micronutrient profile of meat per calorie. There are only a few things an all-meat diet would leave you short on, and they're generally the things vegetables are actually pretty high in.
Has anyone noticed that meat-diets never produce deficiency diseases, yet someone is waiting in the wings to tell you you're doing vegan and vegetarian diets wrong because a lot of people get sick really fast on those diets? That's only counting malnutrition; things get weird when researchers do studies on constipated people and find out that a high- and moderate-fiber diet makes it worse, while a low-fiber diet improves things dramatically, and a no-fiber diet completely eliminates the issue--exactly what fiber isn't supposed to do.
So yeah, vegetarian diets are healthy--if you eat the right things, eat enough of them, eat massive amounts of them, and maybe take some supplements. Mainly-meat diets are healthy, if you don't eat too god damn much--honestly, Taco Bell and Burger King try to sell you 75% of a day's food as a so-called meal, so you're eating for two or three people by the end of the day, hence fast food making everyone fat (how did you think it happened?). They want us to go from the "you get fat if you eat too much" diet to the "you get pellagra and rickets if you don't diversify your nutrition correctly" diets (nobody gets scurvy; Vitamin C deficiency isn't a real thing anymore unless you try really, really hard).
Amateurs.
That's actually a pretty complex argument.
Porting the drivers and such to a microkernel architecture in full (L4, Minix, Hurd) would isolate parts of the code and require strict API adherence (and ABI, but ABI amounts to your IPC protocol). That reduces the scope of bugs, in the long run; and it minimizes short-term porting bugs. The cost is essentially a large amount of man-power.
So you have the likelihood of finding a lot of bugs, eliminating a lot of bugs in the process, and creating new bugs, all at odds with each other, and each with different short- and long-term implications (you'll create new bugs in the short-term, but fewer than e.g. porting everything to BSD; and you'll eliminate and produce fewer bugs in the long-term); along with the enormous cost of simply organizing the change (everything has to be broken down and fixed around boundaries first).
The single short- and long-term advantage of keeping the Linux kernel architecture is it's a hell of a lot less work to not rearchitect an OS kernel.
Women are known to over-represent to PM. There was a phenomena for a while that women were shit for programming and other similar tasks, but always seemed to know everything that was going on around them--so they moved them out of their jobs and made them keep track of everyone else's jobs. When we started targeting formalized project management (PMI certifications and approaches), they only got better at it, somehow, for no reason known to me (I haven't looked too hard).
The end result is the big names in Project Management are Tres Roeder (Male, original proponent of Stakeholder Management) and Rita Mulcahy (female, dead, still considered the leader in PMI education); and many of the detailed books on project management processes and procedures are written by women. Men in project management have a large tendency to lean toward authority--they use older processes, repeat what's worked in the past (experience = authority), and bank on the understanding that they're in charge and that means something--while women seem to lean on processes and order, incorporating new ideas more-readily.
I have no idea why this happens, but it's a thing. There are flighty women who have no clue what's happening around them, and there are men who are actually serious about optimizing their approach to PM; but the general trend is women are more high-powered project managers, and men are largely sedentary and lean on processes they've used in the past coupled with the wielding of authority to demand people simply get shit done somehow.
It's ridiculously-hard to become a male nurse. In many cases, there are only a handful of male nurses on a medical campus--I've seen as low as two at one school. Somehow it was decided they didn't have girlfriends; none of the girls would date them, because they spent most of their time on-campus and didn't have many prospective young men to pick from.
You can imagine the demands on time.
Actually, if you're using a 94-element space (26 + 26 + 10 + 32), an 8-character password is on the same magnitude as a 26-element space (all lower-case letters) at 11 characters (7.2 x 10^15 vs 3.7 x 10^15). With a 1,000-element space, 5 characters (words) are on the same magnitude (1.0 x 10^15); although the 1,000-most-common words don't include conjugations and plurals, which takes you to several thousand. You have to breach a 5,700-element space for 4 characters to be on par (1.1 x 10^15).
So all-lower-case can actually be secure as the standard four-classes, eight-character password just by adding three characters. In all of these, we're looking at 50-53 bits (1.1 x 10^15 to 9.0 x 10^15) of entropy.
Seriously, the 8-character password with complexity requirements thing should have never come about. When they went from "8 characters" to "something more secure", it should have been 11 characters.
Where are BFQ and BFS? I've been waiting for these to land as standard for months!
After Dirty COW, the self-protecting kernel people will end up porting all Linux interfaces and core functionality (e.g. iptables) to Minix services. Then they can replace the VM manager and just pass over the PTE data to the new server when there's a bug, instead of rebooting everything. Systemd will be stripped as core functionality makes more sense as a kernel service than as kernel capabilities managed by a user program.
No, it wouldn't. These notices are made on behalf of Samsung about an exclusive right to something about the Galaxy 7 which is allegedly being infringed. The assertion of infringement has no legal standing, but the assertion is made on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
A judge can find a load of other shit you're doing wrong if you're misusing the statute. Abuse of the legal system is frowned upon.
Actually, if you buy a house with an alarm service, the alarm stops functioning if you don't pay the service fee. You still have the hardware, but it doesn't do anything.
The simple mitigation is to not have local users who will hack your machine.
If you run a server, an exploit of the server software (nginx, PHP scripts, Ruby on Rails, etc.) will provide local non-root access, which you can then root.
If you run your server software in Docker, then the host system's binaries aren't exposed. That means an attacker can't modify the disk cache for /bin/su and then su to root; he can only modify the disk cache for /bin/su or glibc from e.g. the debian:jessie image that the Docker image the container used is based on. Elevation in the same container is useless: anything mounted read-write is likely already writable by the software the attacker exploited in the first place, so they have that access; and modifying the system is pointless, since you can just destroy and recreate the container in 10 seconds.
A container exploit might give a cross-container exploit to all containers eventually descended from the same version of the same base image (e.g. everything ultimately built from that release of debian:jessie), but it's tricky. You can modify e.g. /usr/sbin/nginx and send a reverse-shell to all nginx containers; or you can modify glibc and get it into everything using the same base image (because it's from the same disk blocks, thus the same disk cache). Either of those has to use the existing memory space (can't add empty memory pages or use anything outside the file), replace code in an existing function, and not outright crash (or the container terminates and all processes end immediately); and a glibc modification would make your reverse shell kind of useless (bash would just re-exploit and call a new reverse shell).
Escape to the host system is as impossible as it is without this exploit, so there's that.
So, for some server software configurations, this is diminished to the point of uselessness. For others, they get the www-data user and then su straight to root.
Well they could disable access to the travel data stream--a resource you're continuously using, maintained by them, at a cost of loads and loads of money per year diffused through thousands of consumers.
400 million copies of Windows XP sold. If they paid 270 programmers full-time for 10 years to develop and maintain XP, Microsoft would have made a profit selling it at $1. What's Tesla's incentive to keep up with firmware and data updates?
For what it's worth, the 2009 DVD to update the 2004 Mazda 3's in-dash navigation system costs $300. Yes, you have to pay $300 for the DVD, then install it into your car yourself, and then you have 2009's map data instead of 2004's. This was also true of the 2007 update.
Not even.
The phone isn't copyrighted. Its existence and a representation of it as a material fact can't be copyrighted. You can't copyright the existence and form of your product in such a way that, for example, a novel writer can't mention that a person was using a Samsung Note 3 and describe the functionality he was using. Those are material facts.
The phone is a trademark--or at least its visual form and its name are potential trademarks. You may be able to patent the production of a phone in that form (design patent), and trademark a particular shape of a phone (like the Gibson and Fender headstocks--yes, their brand-identifiable shapes are trademarked); that applies only to actually making a phone.
Samsung is legally-required to protect its trademarks, else they lose them. That means a number of things. It means you can't make a DogRun Galaxy 7 phone (especially in substantially-similar design to the Samsung offering) because Galaxy and Galaxy 7 are Samsung trademarks. It means you can't use the Samsung name to brand your phone. If you do these things, Samsung must take action, or else the next guy to do the same thing can point out that Samsung hasn't protected their trademark.
A reference to a trademark isn't a trademark infringement.
A reference to a trademark in a book, in a TV show, in a video game, in literature about your own product, wherever it is, does not infringe trademark. Trademark distinguishes products. If you make a phone and, in the literature, identify that it is distinct from the Samsung Galaxy 7 by pointing out that it has similar or superior battery life to the Samsung Galaxy 7, you haven't infringed trademark because you haven't identified your phone as a Samsung Galaxy 7.
That video isn't parody, by law; it's non-infringing. It's a non-infringing reference to a trademark and to the existence of a product. Artistically, it's satire: it explores an existing material fact with humor and exaggeration. Even if it had no artistic defense, there's no standing for any intellectual property claim--copyright, trademark, patent, or otherwise. Samsung's phones blowing up is a material fact; it might be over-emphasized, but it's a thing that happened in the world, and the phones are a thing that exist in the world, and the thing in the game is a representation of that thing and not a counterfeit product.
It's something we need to move into, as a matter of social welfare. There's actually an argument (not very sound) that the United States is legally-required to implement something substantially-similar to the system I designed as soon as technically-feasible.
The ideal that we'll need some kind of UBI because of an upcoming crisis is rooted in a misunderstanding of economics. People think automation is a new thing and jobs go away forever; but it's just technical progress, the same as we've been doing for thousands of years. The threat comes when progress occurs too rapidly: if you create rapid unemployment, the slow replacement of jobs doesn't keep up, and you get high unemployment.
The only zero-job economy is a zero-labor utopia where humans do nothing. Flat out. As long as human hands are required somewhere in the process, there's no such thing as permanent job destruction. As well, new jobs range from highly-complex, heavily-specialized disciplines to pushing the buttons on the machines at the correct time; sometimes the sensors and probes aren't nearly as accurate as humans, or just cost a lot more. That's why things like injection-molded plastic forms are removed from the mold by hand and placed on a conveyor: a machine that can handle that job would be ridiculously-complex and unreliable; at the very least, it'd require thousands of hours of QA testing after retooling the IM to make a new form--or you just skip all that maintenance and extra QA and pay someone to do it by hand.
The nature of technology is also that it's invented as soon as it's envisioned in sufficient detail. It's in-production shortly after. People have romanticized about robots replacing 100% of all jobs since Karl Marx proposed it as an immediate, tomorrow-goal for society; then, they made machines and came up with new jobs doing the last bits of work finishing up after the machines--the robot does the job of a hundred men, and one man clears up their mistakes.
The corollary is we're constantly imagining all jobs will go away forever when we see a new technology (machines, trade, or materials--cotton is the bane of the sheep-shearers's union!). We can't imagine what new technology will appear tomorrow and how it will create jobs, because technology reduces labor requirements.
So what actually happens?
We reduce the labor involved, and the costs go down eventually--the relative cost of things is in constant turmoil, and the relative desirability of goods changes. Food has enormous competition. Every good competes with every other good--if you spend more of your money on food, you have less for iPads; if 2/3 of the price of iPads is actual costs and people are only willing-and-able to spend 3/4 of the price, then you need to lower the price (by 1/4, meaning the cost is now 8/9 of the price--an 11% margin instead of 33%). Instead of margins getting fatter and corporate profits soaring, corporate profits average the same marginal percent over the long term.
So people steadily get that spending power back. They then buy more stuff. That creates replacement jobs. If you've eliminated (over a wide time span) 50% of all required labor to make things, then costs are now only 50% as much; prices adjust in total to half of all income; and people now buy twice as many things. It takes half the working-hours to make the same, or the same working hours to make (and buy) twice as much.
Handwaving away all the economics bullshit, you can just state mathematically that a profit margin of X% implies paying wages of 100%-X%. Wages being what they are, the number of labor hours is mediated by how much money is spent. Reducing labor in one place means you have unspent money; you spend it elsewhere; suddenly there's labor there. This works over long timescales; your economy collapses if you replace a third of it with machines over the long weekend.
So, all of that. Yeah. Point?
I don't believe we're going to need to face up to a UBI in the future, in the
True, and that's their prerogative.
The thing is both positions are surprisingly mature. Zuckerberg is probably just being a loud-mouth and trying to prevent a public incident from screwing with his company; but it's still an important point if you exclude his viewpoint. The highest-developed psychological defense mechanisms include suppression and tolerance--delaying an emotional response until you can deal with it safely, and allowing behaviors of others which aren't harmful to you even if you disagree with them. Trump supporters are their own problem, by and large because they want to support a celebrity or a political party (a lot of Republicans are blind to their own candidate and only want to be saved from socialism or something); and people who object to Trump have the right to declare that their particular organization has strong objections to Trump's message.
That means YC can declare it wants nothing to do with Trump or its supporters; and Facebook can declare itself not the steward of people's opinions; and both are essentially-correct behaviors.
Sure, in the same way it's not hard to just order the cheap dextromethorphin powder, measure it on a mg scale, and sift it into empty capsule shells. People still buy Robitussum.
Part of the point is that the storage has gotten so cheap there's no excuse, even if you seal the device and just permanently install a 128GB or larger microHD card in one of these devices.
So one of the things I argued was the control circuitry for a storage card costs about as much or more than a large (32GB+) amount of storage, if you use those NAND chips instead of (or in addition to) the NAND chips you used anyway. You just suggested a more-expensive way to achieve the same goal; and it's also slower than just integrating the storage directly.
I also described that the "so cheap there's no excuse" part is essentially making you buy things you won't use if you don't have a use for it--essentially everybody these days, because the cost of adequate storage for near-100% of use cases is nearly-undifferentiated from the cost of smaller storage (i.e. the process for X gigabyte chips is so efficient it's no more costly than using the same package but only etching in less than X gigabytes, where the cost of more-than-X gigabytes is higher because it requires a more-expensive process or the same process with more chips). To be clear about this: wasting a few pennies that way can have disastrous impacts on the economy, making everyone strikingly poorer.
In the case of fast food as an example, fast food joints serve 240 billion sales per year at an average $8 per sale. If we bump that to $8.14, who cares? Well, 14 cents times 240 billion is $33.6 billion. The money spent in a given year comes from incomes, which comes from revenues, which comes from sales: if you spend $8 more on some other thing, then that's $8 that isn't spent on a fast food value meal in that time frame. $33.6 billion translates to 2,371,241 full-time minimum wages--or a maximum of 2.37 million jobs lost. (The jobs are lost only if you remove their buying power--by taking a bigger corporate profit margin or raising wages so that the same money concentrates into fewer hands).
What you're describing--putting something approximately-nobody needs into the product at an arbitrary "small" cost because the producer thinks it would be nice and is cheap--is technically called "gold plating". More importantly, it wastes labor time (purchasing power and the work done to make what is purchased) producing a thing that nobody is going to use, and thus prevents people from having what that labor time would have made instead. In this case, that's an estimated $10 times 43.7 million Kindles sold per year to equip them with additional storage approximately 0% of the population will actually use--or a waste of $437 million.
That's fractionally-small compared to a few penny's increase in fast food costs. There are also cell phones, computers, watches, shoes, jackets, televisions, lamps, blenders, refrigerators, cars, keyboards, pens, tea pots, and all manner of things people buy which we could gold-plate for pennies on the dollar (because making a $120 device $130 is about 8 cents on the dollar). The end result would be a purchasing power 8% smaller--you might have the same income, but you'll buy 8% less stuff, mainly because all that stuff has a marketing bullet-point that sounds awesome but that you never use (but hey, your car DOES have a hardware Monkey's Audio decoder IC and can directly play .APE files from USB with hardware acceleration!).
I actually used to argue the exact opposite, but then I sat down and reasoned it out trying to generate a supporting argument and shot myself straight in the foot. Attempting to use logic can backfire now and then. I had to change my stance to align with objective reality.
If it were the top 3% of users, it would reach an equilibrium well-below the top 3% of typical user demand.
If it were the top 3% of volume, it would reach an equilibrium at the maximum volume possible at the throttled speed, as that is eventually the amount of use below which you cannot reduce by throttling, and any use above that would eventually push you into the top 3% as the top users are drawn downward.
They're throttling customers in the top 3% of data usage, rather than data users. Supposedly the mean data usage is around 2GB currently, so 17GB at less than 3 standard deviations out seems ludicrous.
My point was having two SD cards is rocket surgery--or at least is often more-complex than would be obvious. The UX to easily know what data is on what is difficult. People who aren't obsessive nerds who organize their $HOME directories essentially want "Space": they want things to download and magically end up where they belong. They don't want to spend 40 minutes sorting through 6,000 files, picking out what's what, tagging them, inspecting them when they don't remember, and then individually setting each one's storage location.
Almost 100% of people who put an SD card in a device are adding permanent storage. They put a card in their phone or tablet or whatever, and that's the end of that. It's not an organization tool to most people; it's a bulk commodity.
That's why Android phones stopped having SD cards, and then started having them again, and then started letting users replace their internal storage with SD card (your photos get copied onto the card, and the internal storage space is replaced with the SD card entirely). People see two things with storage: "I can't install an app because my phone is full" or "Now I can take more pictures!" They don't know or even care where it goes.
The solution, then, is more internal storage. External storage is an expensive added complexity that almost all users will use by putting exactly one card into the slot and never removing it unless, somehow, they have the phone 5 years later, the 32gb card is full, and new 1tb cards are available cheap--all the while wanting it to behave as more internal storage.
If you're in the top 3 percent of data volume, then throttling reduces your data volume, moving your span downward. Thus the top 3 percent of data volume becomes lower.
If you're in the top 3 percent of users, then throttling moves reduces your data volume, moving your span downward. Thus others would fall into the usage range of the top 3 percent of users, and the spot group of top-3%-users would become volatile. This would bring more users's use downward, increasing this effect until they cluster together enough to not drag down further.