Outlet covers are a safety risk. Babies less than one year old have managed to remove them, and slightly older ones can use them to defeat the safety features of modern child-proof sockets, Euro and UK.
Your arguments make sense, but empiric testing shows that you are wrong. Common "Satnav" or phone GPS's are vastly better at getting lateral position right than at getting altitude right.
Because some software is under really strange inscrutable licenses that cannot be reliably determined to be free or open source. That doesn't guarantee that they aren't free or open source, it just means we can't be sure until courts get involved.
And since it is generally really obscure software, it is highly unlikely that the courts will get involved.
Visible modulating light would also be annoying as hell
I hate to tell you this, but your LEDs are likely to be awfully flickering in the 100kHz range. Some as low as 10kHz (and some just dispense with that part of the driver circuit and flicker at 100Hz or 120Hz, but let us disregard those).
It would be tricky to get more than one bit per flicker out of light that just shines around without being in a proper fiber, so to get e.g. 1Gbps out of it you'd need to flicker at 1GHz. Good luck telling that apart from the 100kHz flicker you are already dealing with.
The question going forward is: What happens when the future generations of robots arrive?
Right now productivity growth in the first world is less than 3%. Much less, in many places. The answer to the above question is "very, very little".
That is a sad thing, because it means we will not be significantly richer in the future. Economists right now are assuming that the future will be much richer, and therefore better able to deal with climate change and other pollution -- which means we do not need to worry as much about that now.
So bring on the robots! We need humans to stop doing trivial jobs and start really improving the lives of everyone.
I have no idea where you get the "they have to be able to ramp down at night" spiel from.
I don't have a reference because that's basic logic. If you supply 100% of electricity with nuclear, you have to size the plants for peak load, which means you turn them down at night. This is uneconomical, but luckily Sweden has hydro to store it.
Reliability is great. Now look at the operational history of the Swedish nuclear power plants. Like in 2007, when only the power cables to other countries prevented blackouts when almost half the nuclear reactors were down simultaneously.
But really, even if nuclear power plants WERE reliable, that is useless when they reliably produce power at the wrong time. Nuclear needs energy storage, otherwise it is WAY too expensive.
If we only had a way to store energy then by all means. I'd be the first to vote for nuclear removal.
You live in Sweden. Sweden has the capacity to store something like 2 months full supply of electricity for more than six months. You have a way to store energy, that is why nuclear is working for you. Most countries aren't that lucky.
You pay a third to a quarter because of differences in electricity tax. And yes, of course Danes piggyback on the Swedish and Norwegian hydro. We supply power in winter from the wind turbines (wind is stronger in winter at Scandinavian latitudes) when water level is low behind the dams, and we buy it in late spring and summer when water is plentiful. It is very much a win/win situation. Nuclear can almost do the same, except it does not have the advantage of automatically supplying more in winter when demand is highest, and it is massively more expensive than wind.
Solar is not of much use in the Scandinavian region so far, since it supplies in summer when the dams are full. Once airconditioning becomes more common, it will start making sense.
France only works because it can dump its nighttime excess of electricity on the European market, and because it is willing to run the nuclear plants below full capacity (effectively throwing free electricity away). No new modern nuclear power plant can compete in Europe even when running 100% at all times, running it load-following would turn it into a complete joke.
It's great to be so smug when you have mountains. Of course you can do cheap and environmentally friendly electricity if you have hydro available. Without hydro or links to other places, the only thing that works is to have natural gas backup capacity that is a bit larger than peak demand.
There is nothing else affordable that does load-following. (And outside the US, natural gas is not all that affordable for power production).
More dangerous than SOME other forms of power generation.
Probably not more dangerous than coal, which kills at least thousands every year before accidents. And probably not more dangerous than hydro, which unfortunately has had some really nasty accidents.
But yes, of course a nuclear reactor will hurt people every few decades at least. If nuclear power was cheap, we would have learned to accept that.
Even wind and solar kills people, but they cannot kill lots of people in one go.
If we learned so much about handling stuff that needs constant cooling, why did that chemical factory explode in Houston?
I constantly read two things from nuclear proponents:
1) The nuclear industry is vastly ahead of other industries in safety thinking 2) The ridiculous cost of nuclear is due to extreme overregulation and safety requirements
Now, personally the nuclear power accidents don't bother me so much. If you add up the cost of having a Fukushima once a decade and spread it out over the total electricity produced, it will only add a few cents per kWh. Nuclear power could be required to pay into a huge global fund to cover that kind of thing. There are a bunch of practical problems with that, but in theory it's viable -- nuclear accidents have killed very few people, so we are mostly dealing with economic costs and distress.
But please don't pretend that there will never be accidents again. Of course there will. Especially if we e.g. decide that global warming is so much of a problem that it's worth trying to fix it by reducing the cost of nuclear regulation.
Because all they need to do is send a malicious RDS message through the FM network to a vulnerable car radio. Many radios are on the CANBUS these days, and it is highly unlikely that the developers of the radio software care about security or that secure channels for expedient software updates were designed in.
However, there are much more exciting things that you can do once you're on the CANBUS, instead of just shutting down ABS.
Back then it took tens of thousands of years to get rid of lots of the coal. Today we're managing it over a few centuries. As you say, the rate isn't even close, but the difference is in the opposite direction of what you imagine.
The more appropriate extinction event to compare with is the End-Permian Extinction. That was caused by essentially burning fossil fuels, because lava got in contact with much of the then-existing seams of coal.
Right now we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a faster pace than the volcanism did back then, and we are less likely to accidentally leave rich coal seams untouched.
Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases
From what I have seen of the spec sheets, those games didn't start until the last couple of generations. i3's basically don't support anything remotely modern these days.
The rest of your information is very, well, informative. Thank you!
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung advertised TVs with an "Evolution Kit" slot, making it possible to upgrade the smart functions of the TV year after year.
Certain TVs had upgrades come out for two years, but most only managed one. Then they cancelled the whole thing.
Luckily upgrading through plugging in various devices in the HDMI slots works absolutely fine, of course.
Outlet covers are a safety risk. Babies less than one year old have managed to remove them, and slightly older ones can use them to defeat the safety features of modern child-proof sockets, Euro and UK.
Don't use them!
Altitude resolution is the same.
Your arguments make sense, but empiric testing shows that you are wrong. Common "Satnav" or phone GPS's are vastly better at getting lateral position right than at getting altitude right.
Luckily copyright is only 14 years unless the author registers it for another 14, so we can probably get full access in little over a decade.
Oh wait, I'm in the wrong country and the wrong century.
Promissory estoppel. It isn't iron clad, but it's good enough for most.
Because some software is under really strange inscrutable licenses that cannot be reliably determined to be free or open source. That doesn't guarantee that they aren't free or open source, it just means we can't be sure until courts get involved.
And since it is generally really obscure software, it is highly unlikely that the courts will get involved.
Undoing wrong moderation. Nothing to see here, move along.
Yes the technology only works when the office lights are on. In a lot of offices, that is the majority of the time.
Visible modulating light would also be annoying as hell
I hate to tell you this, but your LEDs are likely to be awfully flickering in the 100kHz range. Some as low as 10kHz (and some just dispense with that part of the driver circuit and flicker at 100Hz or 120Hz, but let us disregard those).
It would be tricky to get more than one bit per flicker out of light that just shines around without being in a proper fiber, so to get e.g. 1Gbps out of it you'd need to flicker at 1GHz. Good luck telling that apart from the 100kHz flicker you are already dealing with.
The question going forward is: What happens when the future generations of robots arrive?
Right now productivity growth in the first world is less than 3%. Much less, in many places. The answer to the above question is "very, very little".
That is a sad thing, because it means we will not be significantly richer in the future. Economists right now are assuming that the future will be much richer, and therefore better able to deal with climate change and other pollution -- which means we do not need to worry as much about that now.
So bring on the robots! We need humans to stop doing trivial jobs and start really improving the lives of everyone.
You can install Lineage, but then you can't pay with your phone, and certain games assume you cheat.
I have no idea where you get the "they have to be able to ramp down at night" spiel from.
I don't have a reference because that's basic logic. If you supply 100% of electricity with nuclear, you have to size the plants for peak load, which means you turn them down at night. This is uneconomical, but luckily Sweden has hydro to store it.
Reliability is great. Now look at the operational history of the Swedish nuclear power plants. Like in 2007, when only the power cables to other countries prevented blackouts when almost half the nuclear reactors were down simultaneously.
But really, even if nuclear power plants WERE reliable, that is useless when they reliably produce power at the wrong time. Nuclear needs energy storage, otherwise it is WAY too expensive.
If we only had a way to store energy then by all means. I'd be the first to vote for nuclear removal.
You live in Sweden. Sweden has the capacity to store something like 2 months full supply of electricity for more than six months. You have a way to store energy, that is why nuclear is working for you. Most countries aren't that lucky.
You pay a third to a quarter because of differences in electricity tax. And yes, of course Danes piggyback on the Swedish and Norwegian hydro. We supply power in winter from the wind turbines (wind is stronger in winter at Scandinavian latitudes) when water level is low behind the dams, and we buy it in late spring and summer when water is plentiful. It is very much a win/win situation. Nuclear can almost do the same, except it does not have the advantage of automatically supplying more in winter when demand is highest, and it is massively more expensive than wind.
Solar is not of much use in the Scandinavian region so far, since it supplies in summer when the dams are full. Once airconditioning becomes more common, it will start making sense.
France only works because it can dump its nighttime excess of electricity on the European market, and because it is willing to run the nuclear plants below full capacity (effectively throwing free electricity away). No new modern nuclear power plant can compete in Europe even when running 100% at all times, running it load-following would turn it into a complete joke.
It's great to be so smug when you have mountains. Of course you can do cheap and environmentally friendly electricity if you have hydro available. Without hydro or links to other places, the only thing that works is to have natural gas backup capacity that is a bit larger than peak demand.
There is nothing else affordable that does load-following. (And outside the US, natural gas is not all that affordable for power production).
More dangerous than SOME other forms of power generation.
Probably not more dangerous than coal, which kills at least thousands every year before accidents. And probably not more dangerous than hydro, which unfortunately has had some really nasty accidents.
But yes, of course a nuclear reactor will hurt people every few decades at least. If nuclear power was cheap, we would have learned to accept that.
Even wind and solar kills people, but they cannot kill lots of people in one go.
If we learned so much about handling stuff that needs constant cooling, why did that chemical factory explode in Houston?
I constantly read two things from nuclear proponents:
1) The nuclear industry is vastly ahead of other industries in safety thinking
2) The ridiculous cost of nuclear is due to extreme overregulation and safety requirements
Now, personally the nuclear power accidents don't bother me so much. If you add up the cost of having a Fukushima once a decade and spread it out over the total electricity produced, it will only add a few cents per kWh. Nuclear power could be required to pay into a huge global fund to cover that kind of thing. There are a bunch of practical problems with that, but in theory it's viable -- nuclear accidents have killed very few people, so we are mostly dealing with economic costs and distress.
But please don't pretend that there will never be accidents again. Of course there will. Especially if we e.g. decide that global warming is so much of a problem that it's worth trying to fix it by reducing the cost of nuclear regulation.
So, dissolve the US, make the states into nations, and every problem is tiny and a lot easier to solve?
James Liang was a manager. The fact that he happened to have an engineering degree makes all the media outlets report him as being an engineer.
He was not some guy who just acted under orders.
Because all they need to do is send a malicious RDS message through the FM network to a vulnerable car radio. Many radios are on the CANBUS these days, and it is highly unlikely that the developers of the radio software care about security or that secure channels for expedient software updates were designed in.
However, there are much more exciting things that you can do once you're on the CANBUS, instead of just shutting down ABS.
Back then it took tens of thousands of years to get rid of lots of the coal. Today we're managing it over a few centuries. As you say, the rate isn't even close, but the difference is in the opposite direction of what you imagine.
The more appropriate extinction event to compare with is the End-Permian Extinction. That was caused by essentially burning fossil fuels, because lava got in contact with much of the then-existing seams of coal.
Right now we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a faster pace than the volcanism did back then, and we are less likely to accidentally leave rich coal seams untouched.
if you are sufficiently smart, it criminalizes looking at a bunch of data and thinking about it hard.
The set of sufficiently smart people is likely to be empty in most cases, but I don't think there's a lower bound on the quality of the anonymization.
Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases
From what I have seen of the spec sheets, those games didn't start until the last couple of generations. i3's basically don't support anything remotely modern these days.
The rest of your information is very, well, informative. Thank you!