TLDR: Skip to the last paragraph for the best part. I didn't find it until I wrote all this up.
Since this is the 2nd Slashdot summary talking about this seemingly wacky procedure, I I decided to look into him a bit. Unfortunately the hard transplant stuff is 99.99% of what the search results return. He even gave a TED talk on the topic of human consciousness. It is possible this guy is just trolling to sell his recent philosophy book since he left his job as a neurosurgeon.
Dr Canavero believes that the brain does not generate consciousness, but only filters it. His goal is to open the filter and see what lies beyond.
Perhaps the fields of neurosurgery and chiropractic draw people who have a fascination with human consciousness, like how some chiropractors think that they can cure any disease by cracking your back?
He claims to be part of the "Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group" which is "a Think Tank for the advancement of neuromodulation." It looks like that group is just him, and perhaps one colleage named "Vincenzo Bonicalzi MD" who co-authored a book with him in 2007. Together they wrote "Central Pain Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management" But in 2014 Dr Canavero self published "Immortal: Why CONSCIOUSNESS is NOT in the BRAIN". If you read the summary, it looks like your metaphysical philosophy.
but the transmission and distribution cost are rolled into the cost of your generated power.
If that is how your state bills, then fix it. Other states have.
I live in Maryland, and long ago they separated the "power distribution" from the "power generation" and so you are charged for each one. I don't have a bill in front of me, but I believe there is (1) a fixed monthly fee for the power distribution, then (2) a fee per kilowatt-hour for the distribution, then (3) a separate charge that is for the power generation. This is all part of what has been incorrectly called power "deregulation" and amongst other things it also lets you pick your power provider.
It would be logical, in this scheme, to still charge a homeowner (1) and (2) even if they have solar panels.
To my knowledge ALL power companies are willing to pay for the power returned to the grid. However, they often want to pay utility rates for it, not retail.
There are many places where, not only is the power company unwilling to pay, they are unwilling to take it for free. For a while it was illegal to put power onto the grid, which necessitated inverters and batteries. At that time, home solar wasn't worth it for anyone at all.
due to net metering aren't paying the maintenance costs of the wire they're using, while still not being a significant contributor to the grid.
I believe that states that have net metering also have a fee for using the grid. I know Maryland does.
FYI: This varies by state. I live in Maryland, and they also do things as you suggest. I think some states still use the model where the "power company" and the "utility company" are the same, and they just charge per kilowatt-hour. Inevitably that will have to change everywhere.
They aren't paying for use of that battery, but the utility company is still expected to maintain it. If you're not buying electricity from them, then they are providing that service for no pay - and that's not a sustainable business model.
Oh no, that isn't the case.
Even in places that bill by net metering, the home owner still pays for the use of the grid during that time. Some states charge a fixed fee per month, others charge a "tax" per kilowatt-hour for the power that the homeowner puts back on the grid. Maybe both.
Please don't take offense, but I recommend against this. Those videos might be heart wrenching to watch after a while. Perhaps it would be better to sing with the child now, and take a video of that. Then the child has a memory of his/her father to look back on, rather than an expectation to watch a video every year.
Here's why I say this: Dispensing advice via video makes sense, because the child may not be ready to hear certain things. But who are the videos for? The living or the deceased? At some point, children need to move on. Holidays should be happy events surrounded by living people, looking forward to the future. I don't think I would want a reminder like this every year. Imagine seeing the same person, at the same age, with the same voice, singing the same birthday song every year. It would be a reminder of loss, of the unfairness of life and the detriments of aging. (Sorry if that got too philosphical.)
I fear it wound sound phony and disingenuous. It would also add pressure to do those things, and a moral quandry to play them or not if they decided not to do those things.
Why would this require opening a port? I skimmed through the bug and didn't even find a mention of opening ports. Is this part of the discovery protocol for Roku or Chromecast?
The article didn't mention a single item that could be counterfeited with a 3D printer. There was only a passing mention to guns, which is clearly not the main issue.
These things won't be secure until you type the PIN into the card. As long as you type it into a pin pad provided by a merchant, a malicious merchant, or the guy with a camera nearby, can nab the pin. Instead, the pin should be entered into the card, causing the card to generate a unique number.
My credit card gave me that option years ago. It would generate a temporary CC number. Great idea, but terribly implemented. You would think it would just display a web page that said "This is you temporary CC#, pin, and expiration date - good for 1 hour." Instead, it opened a pop-up window that tried to monitor where I was browsing in the other tab. I think it was trying to fill-in the form for me, or verify the web site or something. It probably worked just fine on IE + Windows XP with all the security settings turned down and no HTTPS.
From another perspective, to someone who has had chip-and-pin for a decade this could sound like a terrible experience. With a more secure system, this would never have happened. No phone call, no new card, no need to go through 3 months of charges.
Node is fast supposedly because it uses low-overhead single-threaded asynchronous calls, instead of threading. So if that is such a fast paradigm, why don't we build a low-overhead single-threaded asynchronous Java or Python or C# engine? Eg: Node.java, Node.cs, and Node.py?
People love to praise the speed of Node.js. The data comes in and the answers come out like lightning. Node.js doesn't mess around with setting up separate threads with all of the locking headaches. There's no overhead to slow down anything. You write simple code and Node.js takes the right step as quickly as possible.
This toy is incredibly dangerous because uranium is toxic. While it is only 1/10th as toxic as something like arsenic, it is almost as toxic as aspirin. A child ingesting that uranium may very well die. On a completely unrelated note: uranium is radioactive too.
Data: LD50 of arsenic: 15mg/kg LD50 of uranium: 115mg/kg LD50 of aspirin: 200mg/kg
Since we are in a mostly "carbon economy" the carbon cost is usually proportional to monetary cost. So if a nuclear plant costs more money, it probably consumes more carbon too. I post this because I find it unlikely that a nuclear plant which takes a lot more time and money to build, would have the same carbon cost as a ubiquitous coal or oil plant.
There is enough in Canada to power much more than the whole country, but only a little over half currently is.
The CHA puts out a yearly report of potential hydroelectric expansion. The last report I read was a few years ago, and it indicated that they are really struggling to find more sources of hydro power. Much of them are in remote areas where it not be viable. That's part of why Canada is putting so much effort into developing CANDU reactors.
Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy) - tend to be low for fossil fuel power stations; high for wind turbines, solar PV; very high for waste to energy, wave and tidal, solar thermal, and nuclear.
Competent natural-language voice recognition is still too hard for a handheld or embedded device.
I disagree.
First, doesn't the XBox One do it without internet access?
But in general, we had competent natural-language voice recognition in 2002 on single-core x86 CPUs. Today's embedded ARMs are just as capable as those. I personally worked on a project where the software could recognize phrases such as "Patient presents with acute myocardial infarction caused by necrosis of myocardial tissue..." with very good accuracy. I know this is harder to do without context, so that same program might not get "Okay Google, show me pictures of Tom Cruise in his new car." But it sure as heck should be able to get "Samsung Play movie" and "Samsung volume up" every time.
We even had "dumb" phones in the 1990s that could recognize "Call Kathy Smith" where it could recognize a name from your contact list. That's not so different from "Play Game of Thrones."
Wow, you hit the heart of it there. If that study is true, I can't help but ask WTH??? Unfortunately, the two sentence summary makes it sound really badly done. But as usual, It may just be bad science reporting. Can someone find the original study?
The quick summary makes us ask: 1) Were there really two tests? If so, why? 2) Why would something as objective as a math test be graded subjectively? Were they giving partial credit or something like that? 3) Which scores were correct? The teachers, or the outsiders? 4) What were the results of outside graders when they didn't know the names?
One could not conclude gender bias on the part of the teachers based solely on what they printed. For all we know it was a handwriting issue, and when someone knew the children's gender they forgave the boys for bad handwriting. There's too many possibilities here. It is tough to blindly trust this since it violates our inherent sense of justice, and gender bias is so political that the studies themselves are sometimes gender biased.
We really can't judge the study without more details...
Slashdot Mirror
TLDR: Skip to the last paragraph for the best part. I didn't find it until I wrote all this up.
Since this is the 2nd Slashdot summary talking about this seemingly wacky procedure, I I decided to look into him a bit. Unfortunately the hard transplant stuff is 99.99% of what the search results return. He even gave a TED talk on the topic of human consciousness. It is possible this guy is just trolling to sell his recent philosophy book since he left his job as a neurosurgeon.
Dr Canavero believes that the brain does not generate consciousness, but only filters it. His goal is to open the filter and see what lies beyond.
Perhaps the fields of neurosurgery and chiropractic draw people who have a fascination with human consciousness, like how some chiropractors think that they can cure any disease by cracking your back?
He claims to be part of the "Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group" which is "a Think Tank for the advancement of neuromodulation." It looks like that group is just him, and perhaps one colleage named "Vincenzo Bonicalzi MD" who co-authored a book with him in 2007. Together they wrote "Central Pain Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management" But in 2014 Dr Canavero self published "Immortal: Why CONSCIOUSNESS is NOT in the BRAIN". If you read the summary, it looks like your metaphysical philosophy.
The best part: Doctor Canavero and his "group" believe that through a combination of electrical stimulation and head transplants that he can create a society of perfect immortal beings.
but the transmission and distribution cost are rolled into the cost of your generated power.
If that is how your state bills, then fix it. Other states have.
I live in Maryland, and long ago they separated the "power distribution" from the "power generation" and so you are charged for each one. I don't have a bill in front of me, but I believe there is (1) a fixed monthly fee for the power distribution, then (2) a fee per kilowatt-hour for the distribution, then (3) a separate charge that is for the power generation. This is all part of what has been incorrectly called power "deregulation" and amongst other things it also lets you pick your power provider.
It would be logical, in this scheme, to still charge a homeowner (1) and (2) even if they have solar panels.
To my knowledge ALL power companies are willing to pay for the power returned to the grid. However, they often want to pay utility rates for it, not retail.
There are many places where, not only is the power company unwilling to pay, they are unwilling to take it for free. For a while it was illegal to put power onto the grid, which necessitated inverters and batteries. At that time, home solar wasn't worth it for anyone at all.
due to net metering aren't paying the maintenance costs of the wire they're using, while still not being a significant contributor to the grid.
I believe that states that have net metering also have a fee for using the grid. I know Maryland does.
FYI: This varies by state. I live in Maryland, and they also do things as you suggest. I think some states still use the model where the "power company" and the "utility company" are the same, and they just charge per kilowatt-hour. Inevitably that will have to change everywhere.
(Maybe one day internet will be the same way.)
They aren't paying for use of that battery, but the utility company is still expected to maintain it. If you're not buying electricity from them, then they are providing that service for no pay - and that's not a sustainable business model.
Oh no, that isn't the case.
Even in places that bill by net metering, the home owner still pays for the use of the grid during that time. Some states charge a fixed fee per month, others charge a "tax" per kilowatt-hour for the power that the homeowner puts back on the grid. Maybe both.
In 15 years, could a video of your deceased parent dispensing advice as though it was the present day, actually be creepy?
Please don't take offense, but I recommend against this. Those videos might be heart wrenching to watch after a while. Perhaps it would be better to sing with the child now, and take a video of that. Then the child has a memory of his/her father to look back on, rather than an expectation to watch a video every year.
Here's why I say this: Dispensing advice via video makes sense, because the child may not be ready to hear certain things. But who are the videos for? The living or the deceased? At some point, children need to move on. Holidays should be happy events surrounded by living people, looking forward to the future. I don't think I would want a reminder like this every year. Imagine seeing the same person, at the same age, with the same voice, singing the same birthday song every year. It would be a reminder of loss, of the unfairness of life and the detriments of aging. (Sorry if that got too philosphical.)
I fear it wound sound phony and disingenuous. It would also add pressure to do those things, and a moral quandry to play them or not if they decided not to do those things.
Why would this require opening a port? I skimmed through the bug and didn't even find a mention of opening ports. Is this part of the discovery protocol for Roku or Chromecast?
Awesome! How long before I can get a lock of hair from someone, then auto-generate an avatar of them?
The article didn't mention a single item that could be counterfeited with a 3D printer. There was only a passing mention to guns, which is clearly not the main issue.
Sorry! Yes, I see you said that in your post. Interesting.
These things won't be secure until you type the PIN into the card. As long as you type it into a pin pad provided by a merchant, a malicious merchant, or the guy with a camera nearby, can nab the pin. Instead, the pin should be entered into the card, causing the card to generate a unique number.
My credit card gave me that option years ago. It would generate a temporary CC number. Great idea, but terribly implemented. You would think it would just display a web page that said "This is you temporary CC#, pin, and expiration date - good for 1 hour." Instead, it opened a pop-up window that tried to monitor where I was browsing in the other tab. I think it was trying to fill-in the form for me, or verify the web site or something. It probably worked just fine on IE + Windows XP with all the security settings turned down and no HTTPS.
From another perspective, to someone who has had chip-and-pin for a decade this could sound like a terrible experience. With a more secure system, this would never have happened. No phone call, no new card, no need to go through 3 months of charges.
One clarification: Threads get 1MB of "virtual" stack memory, not physical stack memory. This minor oversimplification leads developers to conclude that threads are orders of magnitude more expensive than they actually are.
Node is fast supposedly because it uses low-overhead single-threaded asynchronous calls, instead of threading. So if that is such a fast paradigm, why don't we build a low-overhead single-threaded asynchronous Java or Python or C# engine? Eg: Node.java, Node.cs, and Node.py?
People love to praise the speed of Node.js. The data comes in and the answers come out like lightning. Node.js doesn't mess around with setting up separate threads with all of the locking headaches. There's no overhead to slow down anything. You write simple code and Node.js takes the right step as quickly as possible.
This toy is incredibly dangerous because uranium is toxic. While it is only 1/10th as toxic as something like arsenic, it is almost as toxic as aspirin. A child ingesting that uranium may very well die. On a completely unrelated note: uranium is radioactive too.
Data:
LD50 of arsenic: 15mg/kg
LD50 of uranium: 115mg/kg
LD50 of aspirin: 200mg/kg
Sources:
http://whs.rocklinusd.org/docu...
http://www.who.int/ionizing_ra...
Ahh, ScentCone posted the answer. Prior to these laws, all commercial drone use was prohibited. Wow... how silly...
Isn't this what the rules say now? How does this differ from what is already in place?
Oh, I see, yes. Hmmm.
Since we are in a mostly "carbon economy" the carbon cost is usually proportional to monetary cost. So if a nuclear plant costs more money, it probably consumes more carbon too. I post this because I find it unlikely that a nuclear plant which takes a lot more time and money to build, would have the same carbon cost as a ubiquitous coal or oil plant.
There is enough in Canada to power much more than the whole country, but only a little over half currently is.
The CHA puts out a yearly report of potential hydroelectric expansion. The last report I read was a few years ago, and it indicated that they are really struggling to find more sources of hydro power. Much of them are in remote areas where it not be viable. That's part of why Canada is putting so much effort into developing CANDU reactors.
Construction "costs" are probably similar to building a coal or natural gas plant of similar capacity.
No, nuclear plants cost a lot more up-front to build, even if you figure per GWh. It really only pays-off in the long term.
Quick cheesy reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy) - tend to be low for fossil fuel power stations; high for wind turbines, solar PV; very high for waste to energy, wave and tidal, solar thermal, and nuclear.
Competent natural-language voice recognition is still too hard for a handheld or embedded device.
I disagree.
First, doesn't the XBox One do it without internet access?
But in general, we had competent natural-language voice recognition in 2002 on single-core x86 CPUs. Today's embedded ARMs are just as capable as those. I personally worked on a project where the software could recognize phrases such as "Patient presents with acute myocardial infarction caused by necrosis of myocardial tissue..." with very good accuracy. I know this is harder to do without context, so that same program might not get "Okay Google, show me pictures of Tom Cruise in his new car." But it sure as heck should be able to get "Samsung Play movie" and "Samsung volume up" every time.
We even had "dumb" phones in the 1990s that could recognize "Call Kathy Smith" where it could recognize a name from your contact list. That's not so different from "Play Game of Thrones."
Wow, you hit the heart of it there. If that study is true, I can't help but ask WTH??? Unfortunately, the two sentence summary makes it sound really badly done. But as usual, It may just be bad science reporting. Can someone find the original study?
The quick summary makes us ask:
1) Were there really two tests? If so, why?
2) Why would something as objective as a math test be graded subjectively? Were they giving partial credit or something like that?
3) Which scores were correct? The teachers, or the outsiders?
4) What were the results of outside graders when they didn't know the names?
One could not conclude gender bias on the part of the teachers based solely on what they printed. For all we know it was a handwriting issue, and when someone knew the children's gender they forgave the boys for bad handwriting. There's too many possibilities here. It is tough to blindly trust this since it violates our inherent sense of justice, and gender bias is so political that the studies themselves are sometimes gender biased.
We really can't judge the study without more details...