Although this is another question, and not an answer to the original post, I believe it is still on-topic:
What would be the advantages and/or disadvantages of setting up a model where the first time you call to a person's house to fix their PC you give them the option of paying XX dollars for 6-month's remote support. You then give yourself an account on VNC/Terminal Services on the customer's machine, and for the next six months provide support in that manner (if possible - a house call may always be necessary, in which case you charge for a house-call).
Is such a system feasible? Would you get swamped in trivial calls because people say to themselves "Well I've paid for 6 months so I'm going to get my money's worth!"?
To summarise:
"The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient lightbulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential."
Slashdotters are correct when they point out that some people have an irrational fear of technology, and this is undoubtedly what drives some people's fear of nuclear power. But has it ever dawned on you that people who frequest "News for nerds" may have just as irrational a love for technology, that may, I don't know, be affecting their own judgement?
It's the height of arrogance to assume that you've got it all figured out - with your only problem being all the idiots in the world (I think someone actually used the term "teeming millions") not realising how clever you are and how clear-cut this all is. I mean, the multi-billion dollar nuclear industry would never have enough resources to lead you on, now would they? Only those other idiots get led, not you. You're much too clever.
Does anyone remember that weird British science-fiction show called Sapphire & Steel? I seem to remember that at end of the series the main characters encounter some not-so-nice living/robot hybrid. An amalgamation of the brain tissue of various animals hooked up to hardware. Not very pleasant if my childhood memories are correct.
Your hall of mirrors definition also fails the operative test: using this definition, how do you recognize self-awareness in others ? You can't know if they're actually aware, or if they just claim so.
And how, pray tell, do you yourself recognize self-awareness in others? Invasive brain surgery?
Just because it's mainstream doesn't mean it's actually correct.
Thinking that biotech-curing-aging and man-merging-with-machine- will happen before flying cars or table-top fusion is more a by-product of where the 'hot' topics are (and therefore the media attention), rather than which is actually more probable.
Which, I guess, could just be another definition of mainstream.
Instead of the device applying the brakes or cutting out the car if it exceeds the limit (which may be dangerous, there are times when you may have to exceed the limit to avoid an accident), why not have it emit a high-pithced, very annoying alarm inside the car? That way there's nothing to stop you physically exceeding the limit when you really have to (or really really want to) but you sure as hell ain't going to want to do it for too long...
If the war on terrorism is to continue (say, in the same way that the war on drugs has continued, and continuted, and continued), then the very last thing we want to do is decrease our reliance on oil.
I realise that this view is sacrilege to many here on slashdot, but whatever the answer to our impending (current?) energy crisis is, it is not nuclear power.
At 1994 consumption levels assured resources of uranium will last for 54 years. [NEA/OECD, Red Book, 1995] The use of breeder reactors, reprocessing and the possible inclusion of thorium must be weighed against the increased demand since 1994 and the present proposed explosion of the use of nuclear power.
It also creates hazardous waste which will be a burden for future generations. The total volume of radioactive waste produced from reprocessing 4 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel is 642 cubic metres. This waste is 100 million times more radioactive than uranium ore. The whole process is vulnerable to human error and to political violence.
The use of nuclear fuel is not sustainable. It is a problem, not an answer to anything.
Let's get this straight. You think that the work you do for a defence contractor "is more likely to be a benefit to society". Do you realise how oxymoronic that is?
Please, just be honest with yourself and us and admit you couldn't care less about what uses your work is put to. That's what your post actually says, despite all your hand-waving.
I thought I had a reasonable grasp on basic physics, but obviously not.
The plane's two pilots reported that the Boeing 737 had been five miles from the airport when they saw a laser beam inside the cockpit
1. The pilots saw the beam? Was the cockpit full of smoke? Or did they see a red dot jumping around the cockpit?
2. Also, from what I know of airliners, the windows are more or less pointing forward as opposed to down - and I'm guessing at five miles out from the airport the plane was still high enough that no-one was going to be able to shine a laser in from a source at the same level as the place itself. So given the angles, the red dot must have been jumping around the ceiling of the cockpit, if anywhere at all. That's some shot.
3. It was an even better shot to hit the pilot in the eye with the thing. Presumably that's hitting a moving target the size of a dime from hundreds of yards.
4. And another thing, I always learned that lasers were beams of coherent light. Can a laser pass through regular glass and come out the other side still coherent enough to do damage? Especially that thick glass you get on airliners?
Does anyone else think that the cutting edge of physics is starting to resemble Ptolemy's system of astronomy? With all this 'dark' energy, and 'dark' matter, it's beginning to look like a lot of hand-waving.
Increasingly complex adjustments (e.g. epicycles) were made to Ptolemy's system to explain the observed motions of the heavenly bodies. Then along comes Copernicus and tells us that we've been looking at it inside out all along, things are simple after all, we just have to adjust our viewpoint.
I think physics is overdue another Copernicus.
Re:Self Healing Minefield
on
Robocones
·
· Score: 1
Isn't there something disgustingly twisted about calling a mine-field 'self-healing'?
I would have thought 'healing' was a more appropriate word for what the poor souls who encounter such a mine-field would need.
Slashdot Mirror
The story was actually called "The Third Wave", very much worth reading:
Info on the story
The story itself
Although this is another question, and not an answer to the original post, I believe it is still on-topic: What would be the advantages and/or disadvantages of setting up a model where the first time you call to a person's house to fix their PC you give them the option of paying XX dollars for 6-month's remote support. You then give yourself an account on VNC/Terminal Services on the customer's machine, and for the next six months provide support in that manner (if possible - a house call may always be necessary, in which case you charge for a house-call).
Is such a system feasible? Would you get swamped in trivial calls because people say to themselves "Well I've paid for 6 months so I'm going to get my money's worth!"?
How timely
You have already lost to terrorism, time to stop pretending you still care about those constitutional protections and just roll over.
Surely you meant bend over?
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Important coastal cities.
Unfortunately, there are too many companies in the market that could care less about their customers
So if they could care less it means that they do care a little, right? Except I don't think that's what the summary writer was trying to get at.
The phrase is couldn't care less. I.e. they care so little it is impossible to care even less than they do.
Bewilders me that a phrase that means the opposite of what is intended is coming into common usage.
Interesting article pointing out the economic argument against new nuclear plants
To summarise: "The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient lightbulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential."
Slashdotters are correct when they point out that some people have an irrational fear of technology, and this is undoubtedly what drives some people's fear of nuclear power. But has it ever dawned on you that people who frequest "News for nerds" may have just as irrational a love for technology, that may, I don't know, be affecting their own judgement?
It's the height of arrogance to assume that you've got it all figured out - with your only problem being all the idiots in the world (I think someone actually used the term "teeming millions") not realising how clever you are and how clear-cut this all is. I mean, the multi-billion dollar nuclear industry would never have enough resources to lead you on, now would they? Only those other idiots get led, not you. You're much too clever.
Sheesh.
Does anyone remember that weird British science-fiction show called Sapphire & Steel? I seem to remember that at end of the series the main characters encounter some not-so-nice living/robot hybrid. An amalgamation of the brain tissue of various animals hooked up to hardware. Not very pleasant if my childhood memories are correct.
Sounds like another one of those catastrophic successes to me.
Your hall of mirrors definition also fails the operative test: using this definition, how do you recognize self-awareness in others ? You can't know if they're actually aware, or if they just claim so.
And how, pray tell, do you yourself recognize self-awareness in others? Invasive brain surgery?
Attributed to Socrates by Plato
...or maybe not.
You mis-spelled consumers. What is this 'citizen' thing of which you speak?
Just because it's mainstream doesn't mean it's actually correct.
Thinking that biotech-curing-aging and man-merging-with-machine- will happen before flying cars or table-top fusion is more a by-product of where the 'hot' topics are (and therefore the media attention), rather than which is actually more probable.
Which, I guess, could just be another definition of mainstream.
Instead of the device applying the brakes or cutting out the car if it exceeds the limit (which may be dangerous, there are times when you may have to exceed the limit to avoid an accident), why not have it emit a high-pithced, very annoying alarm inside the car? That way there's nothing to stop you physically exceeding the limit when you really have to (or really really want to) but you sure as hell ain't going to want to do it for too long...
People abroad (and a lot of people here) don't realize that the decentralized system is what makes America's economy strong.
Strange.... I could have sworn you used the words "America's economy" and "strong" in the same sentence. Gotta get more sleep...
It will be "buying", unless the US gets really good at manufacturing wind-up F-16s.
No no NO!
If the war on terrorism is to continue (say, in the same way that the war on drugs has continued, and continuted, and continued), then the very last thing we want to do is decrease our reliance on oil.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
I realise that this view is sacrilege to many here on slashdot, but whatever the answer to our impending (current?) energy crisis is, it is not nuclear power.
At 1994 consumption levels assured resources of uranium will last for 54 years. [NEA/OECD, Red Book, 1995] The use of breeder reactors, reprocessing and the possible inclusion of thorium must be weighed against the increased demand since 1994 and the present proposed explosion of the use of nuclear power.
It also creates hazardous waste which will be a burden for future generations. The total volume of radioactive waste produced from reprocessing 4 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel is 642 cubic metres. This waste is 100 million times more radioactive than uranium ore. The whole process is vulnerable to human error and to political violence.
The use of nuclear fuel is not sustainable. It is a problem, not an answer to anything.
(Quoted from Friends of the Irish Environment
Let's get this straight. You think that the work you do for a defence contractor "is more likely to be a benefit to society". Do you realise how oxymoronic that is?
Please, just be honest with yourself and us and admit you couldn't care less about what uses your work is put to. That's what your post actually says, despite all your hand-waving.
'Finally something both nerdy AND sexy engineers can do.'
There may be plenty of nerdy engineers out there, but everybody knows there's no such thing as a sexy one...
I thought I had a reasonable grasp on basic physics, but obviously not. The plane's two pilots reported that the Boeing 737 had been five miles from the airport when they saw a laser beam inside the cockpit
1. The pilots saw the beam? Was the cockpit full of smoke? Or did they see a red dot jumping around the cockpit?
2. Also, from what I know of airliners, the windows are more or less pointing forward as opposed to down - and I'm guessing at five miles out from the airport the plane was still high enough that no-one was going to be able to shine a laser in from a source at the same level as the place itself. So given the angles, the red dot must have been jumping around the ceiling of the cockpit, if anywhere at all. That's some shot.
3. It was an even better shot to hit the pilot in the eye with the thing. Presumably that's hitting a moving target the size of a dime from hundreds of yards.
4. And another thing, I always learned that lasers were beams of coherent light. Can a laser pass through regular glass and come out the other side still coherent enough to do damage? Especially that thick glass you get on airliners?
Somebody please explain. I'm confused.
Would you have the balls to attack a woman with the arms to row across the Atlantic?
If you attacked a woman with the arms to row across the Atlantic would you have the balls?
Does anyone else think that the cutting edge of physics is starting to resemble Ptolemy's system of astronomy? With all this 'dark' energy, and 'dark' matter, it's beginning to look like a lot of hand-waving.
Increasingly complex adjustments (e.g. epicycles) were made to Ptolemy's system to explain the observed motions of the heavenly bodies. Then along comes Copernicus and tells us that we've been looking at it inside out all along, things are simple after all, we just have to adjust our viewpoint.
I think physics is overdue another Copernicus.
Isn't there something disgustingly twisted about calling a mine-field 'self-healing'?
I would have thought 'healing' was a more appropriate word for what the poor souls who encounter such a mine-field would need.