82% unemployment rate? Only 41 million Americans employed? What stats are you looking at?
GPP was suggesting that replacing some jobs with robots would lead to a world of unemployment as all our jobs go away. I did the math starting at 1790 with all the jobs that went away, instead of looking at the real world. Problem?
You make a lot of assumptions there. You also made an unqualified statement that doesn't differentiate between current-term market forces and general-term technological growth--i.e. you talked about how electric cars don't save money, rather than about how the current market conditions don't save money.
I've never bought into a maintenance plan. I don't know a lot of people who have, but I know they're popular. They're notably popular among Volkswagen owners, since maintenance plans are pushed heavily by that manufacturer. In all cases, I see no reason to believe people will pay more for maintenance on a given class of car than on any other class; and, in the broad market, when people have to select between various vendors or against inflation, they'll become discouraged by the growing dollar cost (this is how prices become lower: $10 becomes $15, and a $10 good becomes a $12 good).
That is how economics have worked across all of history. There isn't just no reason to think it will change going forward; there is mathematically no way for it to operate any other way. We would come to a technological standstill and then collapse if these behaviors ceased.
Concerning the *current* market, the Chevy Volt is actually a lot cheaper than the Toyota Prius, and the Toyota Prius is a cheap car. A Toyota Prius C has a total-cost-per-year of $5,000 over a 5-year life, while a base-model Toyota Corolla has a cost of $5,250, and a Mazda 3 Hatchback at $7,000. Luxury hybrids tend to cost more than luxury cars, while the TCO of non-luxury Hybrids tends to be lower than their gasoline equivalents.
TCO for an Audi A7 3.0 BiDi Quattro over 3 years is around 46,000 british pounds, with a BMW 740d at 45,000 pounds; the Tesla 85D with sunroof comes in at 40,000 pounds. The Audi and BMW have cheaper purchase prices than the Tesla by a good 5000-7000 pounds, too. There are similar TCO estimates all over the place, some ridiculously comparing the Tesla Model S to SUVs and such.
Amusingly, the maintenance costs are always cited as cheaper.
Isn't it terrible? Since 1790, we've unemployed 82% of the workforce. Looking at the history of American agriculture, 90% of the labor force was farmers in 1790; by 1850, evil technical progress developing new farm techniques and diesel hardware dropped that to only 58%. In 1900, just 38% of Americans still had good, wholesome farm jobs; and by 1950 it was a staggeringly-low 12.2%. By 2000, farm workers only made up 1.9% of America's workforce, and today it's even lower.
Is it any wonder we now suffer from unemployment as high as 95% in many areas, with a national unemployment rate of 82% among the labor force? Only 41 million Americans have jobs, and their taxes support 300 million Americans on welfare. Our economy has collapsed due to the constant reduction of the workforce as farm jobs have been eliminated by newer technology, disenfranchising the worker with a long and constant stream of lay-offs.
But hey, at least the few of us with jobs are rich fat cats. Rather than spending 43% of the household money on food as in 1900, we only spent 30% in 1950, and 13% in 2000; today we spend under 11.5% of our income on food, and the rich among us can have things like smart phones and XBox video game consoles. Too bad about 89% of Americans being homeless and jobless and hungry.
The Tesla batteries are actually outlasting their estimates. At 8 years and 100,000 miles (the standard warranty), they still hold over 85% of their charge; and the Tesla Model S usually only allows an 80% charge, unless you tell it to fill up for a long trip. For commuters or a system with a high availability of Tesla's 20-minute super chargers, you'd still be going 100 miles between a charge (about an hour and a half) at 30% battery life, 37 years into the car's life; commuters particularly are doing under 50 miles per day and coming home to charge in between.
In the short-term, long trips are unfeasible on a new electric car due to lacking infrastructure and long charge times; in the long-term, severely-degraded cars 40 years and half a million miles into their life could still make cross-country trips on the original battery.
A properly-maintained gasoline engine often can't make 250,000 miles without a rebuild; the car is considered old and dead after 100,000 miles, but that's kind of dumb. breaking 400,000 miles on a Tesla battery in the above scenario should be doable. My car, at 100,000 miles, is getting 78% of its original range; I'll probably have sunk around $7,000 total into maintenance (including transmission maintenance--Teslas don't have one) after I've had the engine's systems repaired to get it back to its full range of 320 miles on an 11 gallon tank. Mind you the car's 12 years old; it's been cheap to maintain. Just a 2004 Mazda 3, and that's still on the L-Series engine (a Ford make; Mazda switched to their own engine for the 3 series, which is superior in terms of early-life maintenance costs, and thus total lifespan).
Right now they're on rough par for lifespan; electric cars are doing better for fuel costs and maintenance in most use cases.
Presuming that by "reducing energy consumption" he really means "saving money",
They're related, and directly so. We manufacture energy by the application of labor; if you're going to store energy from solar, geothermal, wind, or other source into a different-source medium (i.e. not storing oil as fuel oil), you're going to spend more labor (and thus pay more wages, thus incur more cost) using a less-efficient one. That is to say: If you generate 5MWh of consumable hydrogen using 30MWh of electricity, you're going to spend more money than if you store 23MWh of usable electricity in a battery sourcing 30MWh of electricity.
For an electric car, if its amortized lifetime cost including maintenance is not greater than the lifetime cost of an ICE car plus the savings in energy production, then the electric car will save you money. This can occur if the electric car requires less-complex engineered parts (including batteries), if it requires fewer parts overall, it has lower maintenance cost, if its overall labor efficiency per output unit power is higher than the ICE, or some combination of these and other factors. In other words: if the car costs less over its lifetime, it costs less for the electricity it consumes, or both, then the car is cheaper.
Those factors are not unlikely. Electric cars have fewer and less-complex moving parts; electric motors deliver power from electricity at high efficiency (75% versus 25% for gasoline); and large engines are more efficient at converting feed fuels (oil, coal) into electricity (and may use cheaper feed fuels). In my case, I would spend under $10/month on the electricity to drive a Model S 85kW high-end model, and similar to drive one of the more-reasonable $35k Models 3 vehicles--making the Model 3 comparable to a Lexus or similar, but with 1/6 the fuel cost and likely-lower maintenance costs.
He's actually dead-on. People have this idea that they'll put hydrogen in their tank and still have hydrogen in their tank 2 weeks later when it's time to fill up again; that will never happen without some kind of super-alloy that's super-dense and super-inert.
Solid steel allows hydrogen to work its way between the atoms (this should horrify you if you know anything about how metal works), leaking out slowly and damaging the tank besides, so good luck finding that magical material that doesn't leak hydrogen. The only way to do it is to constantly use power to run a liquid-nitrogen cooling system, which involves compressing and cooling nitrogen gas in a continuous cycle; this reduces the energy in the hydrogen--basically stops it from brute-force pushing its way into tiny gaps between the atoms by virtue of making the hydrogen atoms slow down. That means you're going to have a *slower* leak, *plus* consumption; the leak gets even slower if you switch to a better refrigerant (liquid helium), with higher consumption to power the compressor.
So yeah. To get 1MJ of energy out of a hydrogen-oxygen reaction, you need to put 1MJ of energy *plus* work into an oxygen combustion product to tear it apart, plus more to separate it (purification of hydrogen), plus more to store it. Turning that around gets you only the 1MJ of energy, and not the energy lost to the work of splitting water into hydrogen, to bottling purified hydrogen, or to keeping it stored during its entire life from production to consumption.
Transportation is analogous to transporting another fuel (e.g. liquid gasoline), with the caveat that the storage container is relatively heavier: a truck pulling 100,000 gallons of diesel will get better miles per Kg diesel than a truck pulling 100,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen because the fully-loaded, much-heavier diesel truck only burns slightly more fuel in the whole trip than the same truck fully-empty, and the hydrogen is a lot lighter per volume. The energy density of hydrogen is much lower than diesel (at 700 atmospheres, it's 5.6MJ/L, versus 35.8MJ/L for diesel), so it's roughly 6.4 times as efficient to transport diesel fuel (remember: the energy cost of keeping it cooled--of storing it--is part of the energy cost of having it around, not specially part of the cost of transporting it; transported hydrogen is just hydrogen sitting in a tank like any other hydrogen not being immediately used, and the tank happens to have wheels).
And yes, the transit fuel economy is roughly equivalent. A 10-tonne, 18-wheel truck with 20 tonnes of load (30 tonnes total) will burn more fuel to accelerate than the same truck with no load (10 tonnes); however, once they've gotten going, they burn the same amount of gas. That thing where heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter ones is general: Heavier objects don't magically lose their momentum; they have to burn it off by friction with the atmosphere. Being of the same size, a tanker carrying several tonnes of diesel won't slow down any faster than a tanker carrying the same volume (but much less mass) of hydrogen, and won't lose any more energy to drag. The last mile will eat more gas in the heavier truck; the journey will eat the same amount.
Some people are politically-invested in hydrogen. A lot of geek-chic is about putting yourself behind the next-hot-technology and swearing it's superior, so we have a lot of people on Slashdot and Reddit who hold onto a delusion of hydrogen efficiency. They're basically the same thing as Trump voters, but nerdier.
Hydrogen's advantage is that it is extremely light: you can react it with air, you don't have to carry the air around, and hydrogen is the lightest thing there is to react with air. Weight-wise, hydrogen is the best possible fuel.
Gasoline and diesel also react with air. The chemical energy density per kg of hydrogen is pretty high, though. The volumetric density is low: 35.8MJ/liter of diesel at 1 atmosphere, 5.6MJ/liter of hydrogen at 700 atmospheres.
Advantage and disadvantages. This is what makes an engineering trade off.
Hydrogen is used in space rocket launches because you can set up an empty booster, pump the first single-stage full of liquid hydrogen as a reactant, and then blast off a little while later. Cars sit around with fuel in the tank for weeks, and the tanks aren't meant for recovery and remanufacture after every drive.
Sometimes the trade-off isn't accepting a flaw, but making the flaw irrelevant. There is no hydrogen trade-off for cars: using hydrogen is simply unfeasible. For rocket engines, the things that make it unfeasible aren't simply less-relevant; they're not things we care about. We don't need a hydrogen fuel tank in a rocket; we need a glorified pipe that's getting one use.
Two or three generations down the line? Your estimate of technology progress is probably as good as mine.
Sans-technological-breakthrough, I would bias heavily against hydrogen. It requires powered storage or new materials. Even if we invent a hydrogen-entrapping superalloy, you would then have normal technical progress: we'd need to improve the process over reasonably-estimated timescales. It's like estimating HDD vs SSD[NAND] vs SSD[Phase-change] vs SSD[mram]: we know how all four of these things are going to progress and can say with reasonable certainty which are going to overtake the others and in what approximate time frame; we can't predict the discovery of ultra-high-density quantum storage which can store a hell of a lot more in less space for less power, and we'll have to wait for something like that to happen before we can work out how long before it becomes mainstream.
She wrote all her own stuff; the company she reviewed bitched about the bad review; someone in Pakistan copied it to his blog and backdated it several months; and then Google got a DMCA take-down.
In other words: the copyright claim is fraudulent.
Information like that is remarkably hard to keep secret, as it's necessarily distributed (at least partially) in scientific research papers. Beyond that, the value of free access is easy reach to examine the genome and rapidly build counterproteins to block the virus, if required; while the value of closed access is someone would have to start with a more common model virus and tweak it to make a bioweapon, in that scenario. The tweaked bioweapon is likely more effective.
In other words: secrecy doesn't help, but does harm. It gives an illusion of security, though, so people feel more comfortable when you pretend.
186,000 base pairs... full organic chemistry synthesis in test tubes starting with no live tissue or model DNA? $26. Creating the virus: insert the raw DNA into a human cell culture; it'll hijack the cell and start manufacturing enveloped viruses, which are infectious. The caveat is you need stock chemicals and equipment that cost way more than $26 to set up; once you have the lab, the actual running costs amortize out.
Technology is the study of improved of techniques to reduce human labor required to produce an output. That's why things get cheaper over time: 43% of the average family's income went to food in America in 1900; in 1950, 30%; and in 2003, 13%. Under 2% of American labor force is agricultural workers. The same has gone for clothes, houses (we buy bigger houses now), health care (it's gotten better, and we spend slightly more to buy more and better health care, since we don't need it for food and clothing), entertainment, communication ($4,000 cell phone in 1983; $350 smart phone in 2015), the works.
Of course it'll be cheaper one day.
Releasing the complete genome seems to be a remarkable example of a lapse in judgement.
We analyzed the 186,102 base pairs (bp) that constitute the entire DNA genome of a highly virulent variola virus isolated from Bangladesh in 1975. The linear, double-stranded molecule has relatively small (725 bp) inverted terminal repeat (ITR) sequences containing three 69-bp direct repeat elements, a 54-bp partial repeat element, and a 105-base telomeric end-loop that can be maximally base-paired to contain 17 mismatches.
Analyzing Smallpox is easy. There's a paper on PubMed that's just about the differences in the DNA gene sequences between smallpox and related viruses.
Function signatures would be an ABI. An API is for the programmer.
You need to recompile your code to produce a Dalvik binary. In that way, it's possible to use a completely different ABI with different name mangling, but keep the same API.
Wait, you just said it's not a copy. So did they copy or not?
Google made a car that has 4 wheels and an engine. Oracle says it's basically a Chevrolet Cobalt, when Google actually built a Mazda 3. Both have four wheels, five seats, the same steering wheels and pedal layouts, and engines which run on gasoline; neither is a copy of the other.
No, that's MongoDB. MariaDB is a fork of MySQL with newer database engines, more standardized SQL behaviors, and improved performance; MongoDB is a document store. You use a relational database when you need a set of indexed CSV files; you use a document store if you're working with XML/YAML/JSON-style complex data. If appropriate, store some types of data in one, and other types in the other, and use foreign keys as usual (an ObjectId from MongoDB can store in an RDBMS just fine, or vice versa).
Slashdot Mirror
82% unemployment rate? Only 41 million Americans employed? What stats are you looking at?
GPP was suggesting that replacing some jobs with robots would lead to a world of unemployment as all our jobs go away. I did the math starting at 1790 with all the jobs that went away, instead of looking at the real world. Problem?
You make a lot of assumptions there. You also made an unqualified statement that doesn't differentiate between current-term market forces and general-term technological growth--i.e. you talked about how electric cars don't save money, rather than about how the current market conditions don't save money.
I've never bought into a maintenance plan. I don't know a lot of people who have, but I know they're popular. They're notably popular among Volkswagen owners, since maintenance plans are pushed heavily by that manufacturer. In all cases, I see no reason to believe people will pay more for maintenance on a given class of car than on any other class; and, in the broad market, when people have to select between various vendors or against inflation, they'll become discouraged by the growing dollar cost (this is how prices become lower: $10 becomes $15, and a $10 good becomes a $12 good).
That is how economics have worked across all of history. There isn't just no reason to think it will change going forward; there is mathematically no way for it to operate any other way. We would come to a technological standstill and then collapse if these behaviors ceased.
Concerning the *current* market, the Chevy Volt is actually a lot cheaper than the Toyota Prius, and the Toyota Prius is a cheap car. A Toyota Prius C has a total-cost-per-year of $5,000 over a 5-year life, while a base-model Toyota Corolla has a cost of $5,250, and a Mazda 3 Hatchback at $7,000. Luxury hybrids tend to cost more than luxury cars, while the TCO of non-luxury Hybrids tends to be lower than their gasoline equivalents.
TCO for an Audi A7 3.0 BiDi Quattro over 3 years is around 46,000 british pounds, with a BMW 740d at 45,000 pounds; the Tesla 85D with sunroof comes in at 40,000 pounds. The Audi and BMW have cheaper purchase prices than the Tesla by a good 5000-7000 pounds, too. There are similar TCO estimates all over the place, some ridiculously comparing the Tesla Model S to SUVs and such.
Amusingly, the maintenance costs are always cited as cheaper.
Isn't it terrible? Since 1790, we've unemployed 82% of the workforce. Looking at the history of American agriculture, 90% of the labor force was farmers in 1790; by 1850, evil technical progress developing new farm techniques and diesel hardware dropped that to only 58%. In 1900, just 38% of Americans still had good, wholesome farm jobs; and by 1950 it was a staggeringly-low 12.2%. By 2000, farm workers only made up 1.9% of America's workforce, and today it's even lower.
Is it any wonder we now suffer from unemployment as high as 95% in many areas, with a national unemployment rate of 82% among the labor force? Only 41 million Americans have jobs, and their taxes support 300 million Americans on welfare. Our economy has collapsed due to the constant reduction of the workforce as farm jobs have been eliminated by newer technology, disenfranchising the worker with a long and constant stream of lay-offs.
But hey, at least the few of us with jobs are rich fat cats. Rather than spending 43% of the household money on food as in 1900, we only spent 30% in 1950, and 13% in 2000; today we spend under 11.5% of our income on food, and the rich among us can have things like smart phones and XBox video game consoles. Too bad about 89% of Americans being homeless and jobless and hungry.
Who uses solid rocket boosters anymore? I thought they've gone full-liquid.
Hydrogen has more energy per mass if reacted to oxygen, but less energy per volume than something like diesel or alox.
The Tesla batteries are actually outlasting their estimates. At 8 years and 100,000 miles (the standard warranty), they still hold over 85% of their charge; and the Tesla Model S usually only allows an 80% charge, unless you tell it to fill up for a long trip. For commuters or a system with a high availability of Tesla's 20-minute super chargers, you'd still be going 100 miles between a charge (about an hour and a half) at 30% battery life, 37 years into the car's life; commuters particularly are doing under 50 miles per day and coming home to charge in between.
In the short-term, long trips are unfeasible on a new electric car due to lacking infrastructure and long charge times; in the long-term, severely-degraded cars 40 years and half a million miles into their life could still make cross-country trips on the original battery.
A properly-maintained gasoline engine often can't make 250,000 miles without a rebuild; the car is considered old and dead after 100,000 miles, but that's kind of dumb. breaking 400,000 miles on a Tesla battery in the above scenario should be doable. My car, at 100,000 miles, is getting 78% of its original range; I'll probably have sunk around $7,000 total into maintenance (including transmission maintenance--Teslas don't have one) after I've had the engine's systems repaired to get it back to its full range of 320 miles on an 11 gallon tank. Mind you the car's 12 years old; it's been cheap to maintain. Just a 2004 Mazda 3, and that's still on the L-Series engine (a Ford make; Mazda switched to their own engine for the 3 series, which is superior in terms of early-life maintenance costs, and thus total lifespan).
Right now they're on rough par for lifespan; electric cars are doing better for fuel costs and maintenance in most use cases.
Presuming that by "reducing energy consumption" he really means "saving money",
They're related, and directly so. We manufacture energy by the application of labor; if you're going to store energy from solar, geothermal, wind, or other source into a different-source medium (i.e. not storing oil as fuel oil), you're going to spend more labor (and thus pay more wages, thus incur more cost) using a less-efficient one. That is to say: If you generate 5MWh of consumable hydrogen using 30MWh of electricity, you're going to spend more money than if you store 23MWh of usable electricity in a battery sourcing 30MWh of electricity.
For an electric car, if its amortized lifetime cost including maintenance is not greater than the lifetime cost of an ICE car plus the savings in energy production, then the electric car will save you money. This can occur if the electric car requires less-complex engineered parts (including batteries), if it requires fewer parts overall, it has lower maintenance cost, if its overall labor efficiency per output unit power is higher than the ICE, or some combination of these and other factors. In other words: if the car costs less over its lifetime, it costs less for the electricity it consumes, or both, then the car is cheaper.
Those factors are not unlikely. Electric cars have fewer and less-complex moving parts; electric motors deliver power from electricity at high efficiency (75% versus 25% for gasoline); and large engines are more efficient at converting feed fuels (oil, coal) into electricity (and may use cheaper feed fuels). In my case, I would spend under $10/month on the electricity to drive a Model S 85kW high-end model, and similar to drive one of the more-reasonable $35k Models 3 vehicles--making the Model 3 comparable to a Lexus or similar, but with 1/6 the fuel cost and likely-lower maintenance costs.
He's actually dead-on. People have this idea that they'll put hydrogen in their tank and still have hydrogen in their tank 2 weeks later when it's time to fill up again; that will never happen without some kind of super-alloy that's super-dense and super-inert.
Solid steel allows hydrogen to work its way between the atoms (this should horrify you if you know anything about how metal works), leaking out slowly and damaging the tank besides, so good luck finding that magical material that doesn't leak hydrogen. The only way to do it is to constantly use power to run a liquid-nitrogen cooling system, which involves compressing and cooling nitrogen gas in a continuous cycle; this reduces the energy in the hydrogen--basically stops it from brute-force pushing its way into tiny gaps between the atoms by virtue of making the hydrogen atoms slow down. That means you're going to have a *slower* leak, *plus* consumption; the leak gets even slower if you switch to a better refrigerant (liquid helium), with higher consumption to power the compressor.
So yeah. To get 1MJ of energy out of a hydrogen-oxygen reaction, you need to put 1MJ of energy *plus* work into an oxygen combustion product to tear it apart, plus more to separate it (purification of hydrogen), plus more to store it. Turning that around gets you only the 1MJ of energy, and not the energy lost to the work of splitting water into hydrogen, to bottling purified hydrogen, or to keeping it stored during its entire life from production to consumption.
Transportation is analogous to transporting another fuel (e.g. liquid gasoline), with the caveat that the storage container is relatively heavier: a truck pulling 100,000 gallons of diesel will get better miles per Kg diesel than a truck pulling 100,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen because the fully-loaded, much-heavier diesel truck only burns slightly more fuel in the whole trip than the same truck fully-empty, and the hydrogen is a lot lighter per volume. The energy density of hydrogen is much lower than diesel (at 700 atmospheres, it's 5.6MJ/L, versus 35.8MJ/L for diesel), so it's roughly 6.4 times as efficient to transport diesel fuel (remember: the energy cost of keeping it cooled--of storing it--is part of the energy cost of having it around, not specially part of the cost of transporting it; transported hydrogen is just hydrogen sitting in a tank like any other hydrogen not being immediately used, and the tank happens to have wheels).
And yes, the transit fuel economy is roughly equivalent. A 10-tonne, 18-wheel truck with 20 tonnes of load (30 tonnes total) will burn more fuel to accelerate than the same truck with no load (10 tonnes); however, once they've gotten going, they burn the same amount of gas. That thing where heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter ones is general: Heavier objects don't magically lose their momentum; they have to burn it off by friction with the atmosphere. Being of the same size, a tanker carrying several tonnes of diesel won't slow down any faster than a tanker carrying the same volume (but much less mass) of hydrogen, and won't lose any more energy to drag. The last mile will eat more gas in the heavier truck; the journey will eat the same amount.
Some people are politically-invested in hydrogen. A lot of geek-chic is about putting yourself behind the next-hot-technology and swearing it's superior, so we have a lot of people on Slashdot and Reddit who hold onto a delusion of hydrogen efficiency. They're basically the same thing as Trump voters, but nerdier.
If you live on a gas giant which is largely inert gas and hydrogen, the hydrogen wouldn't be very reactive with anything on the planet.
Presumably, those massive solar farms could more efficiently convert atmospheric CO2 to diesel fuel.
Hydrogen's advantage is that it is extremely light: you can react it with air, you don't have to carry the air around, and hydrogen is the lightest thing there is to react with air. Weight-wise, hydrogen is the best possible fuel.
Gasoline and diesel also react with air. The chemical energy density per kg of hydrogen is pretty high, though. The volumetric density is low: 35.8MJ/liter of diesel at 1 atmosphere, 5.6MJ/liter of hydrogen at 700 atmospheres.
Advantage and disadvantages. This is what makes an engineering trade off.
Hydrogen is used in space rocket launches because you can set up an empty booster, pump the first single-stage full of liquid hydrogen as a reactant, and then blast off a little while later. Cars sit around with fuel in the tank for weeks, and the tanks aren't meant for recovery and remanufacture after every drive.
Sometimes the trade-off isn't accepting a flaw, but making the flaw irrelevant. There is no hydrogen trade-off for cars: using hydrogen is simply unfeasible. For rocket engines, the things that make it unfeasible aren't simply less-relevant; they're not things we care about. We don't need a hydrogen fuel tank in a rocket; we need a glorified pipe that's getting one use.
Two or three generations down the line? Your estimate of technology progress is probably as good as mine.
Sans-technological-breakthrough, I would bias heavily against hydrogen. It requires powered storage or new materials. Even if we invent a hydrogen-entrapping superalloy, you would then have normal technical progress: we'd need to improve the process over reasonably-estimated timescales. It's like estimating HDD vs SSD[NAND] vs SSD[Phase-change] vs SSD[mram]: we know how all four of these things are going to progress and can say with reasonable certainty which are going to overtake the others and in what approximate time frame; we can't predict the discovery of ultra-high-density quantum storage which can store a hell of a lot more in less space for less power, and we'll have to wait for something like that to happen before we can work out how long before it becomes mainstream.
She didn't operate the original Web site that got the take-down order.
She wrote all her own stuff; the company she reviewed bitched about the bad review; someone in Pakistan copied it to his blog and backdated it several months; and then Google got a DMCA take-down.
In other words: the copyright claim is fraudulent.
It's like nobody understands this actually makes their country poorer.
Information like that is remarkably hard to keep secret, as it's necessarily distributed (at least partially) in scientific research papers. Beyond that, the value of free access is easy reach to examine the genome and rapidly build counterproteins to block the virus, if required; while the value of closed access is someone would have to start with a more common model virus and tweak it to make a bioweapon, in that scenario. The tweaked bioweapon is likely more effective.
In other words: secrecy doesn't help, but does harm. It gives an illusion of security, though, so people feel more comfortable when you pretend.
186,000 base pairs... full organic chemistry synthesis in test tubes starting with no live tissue or model DNA? $26. Creating the virus: insert the raw DNA into a human cell culture; it'll hijack the cell and start manufacturing enveloped viruses, which are infectious. The caveat is you need stock chemicals and equipment that cost way more than $26 to set up; once you have the lab, the actual running costs amortize out.
Technology is the study of improved of techniques to reduce human labor required to produce an output. That's why things get cheaper over time: 43% of the average family's income went to food in America in 1900; in 1950, 30%; and in 2003, 13%. Under 2% of American labor force is agricultural workers. The same has gone for clothes, houses (we buy bigger houses now), health care (it's gotten better, and we spend slightly more to buy more and better health care, since we don't need it for food and clothing), entertainment, communication ($4,000 cell phone in 1983; $350 smart phone in 2015), the works.
Of course it'll be cheaper one day.
Releasing the complete genome seems to be a remarkable example of a lapse in judgement.
Here you go.
Complete genetic sequence of smallpox.
Manufacturing smallpox is hard.
We analyzed the 186,102 base pairs (bp) that constitute the entire DNA genome of a highly virulent variola virus isolated from Bangladesh in 1975. The linear, double-stranded molecule has relatively small (725 bp) inverted terminal repeat (ITR) sequences containing three 69-bp direct repeat elements, a 54-bp partial repeat element, and a 105-base telomeric end-loop that can be maximally base-paired to contain 17 mismatches.
Analyzing Smallpox is easy. There's a paper on PubMed that's just about the differences in the DNA gene sequences between smallpox and related viruses.
This isn't exactly secret information.
That argument isn't as fun as saying stupid shit like "it is not hyperbolic to call this mass-censorship".
Function signatures would be an ABI. An API is for the programmer.
You need to recompile your code to produce a Dalvik binary. In that way, it's possible to use a completely different ABI with different name mangling, but keep the same API.
So Dalvik is a different arrangements of elements than Java, and thus isn't Java. Google wins, let's all get pizza.
Wait, you just said it's not a copy. So did they copy or not?
Google made a car that has 4 wheels and an engine. Oracle says it's basically a Chevrolet Cobalt, when Google actually built a Mazda 3. Both have four wheels, five seats, the same steering wheels and pedal layouts, and engines which run on gasoline; neither is a copy of the other.
No, that's MongoDB. MariaDB is a fork of MySQL with newer database engines, more standardized SQL behaviors, and improved performance; MongoDB is a document store. You use a relational database when you need a set of indexed CSV files; you use a document store if you're working with XML/YAML/JSON-style complex data. If appropriate, store some types of data in one, and other types in the other, and use foreign keys as usual (an ObjectId from MongoDB can store in an RDBMS just fine, or vice versa).
The solution is to admit a social dichotomy between men and women and separate reviews by gender.
Socrates made the argument about written language; Plato wrote down the knowledge of Socrates after he died because Socrates wouldn't allow it.
Think of the pornography!