Splashtop requires a new motherboard. Motherboards aren't always expensive.
Since you need very specific ones they probably are and as someone else mentioned they won't work with older hardware. That's not counting whatever driver hell you may have with any peripherals.
And Splashtop is open source. If you go to their website and contact them, they will release source according to their site.
So you wouldn't even need a new motherboard then. Just install the Splashtop OS on your existing hardware.
Which will give you absolutely nothing, do you think it boots instantly by magic or something? Why in god's name do you think it requires specific motherboards or did you simply not think at all? Do you think that maybe those motherboard have some extra special hardware that let's splashtop do it's magic?
To quote wikipedia "Splashtop seems to work with a 512MB flash memory embedded on the PC motherboard.[6] A proprietary core engine starts at the BIOS boot and loads a specialized Linux distribution called a "Virtual Appliance Environment" (VAE). While running this VAE, the user can launch "Virtual Appliances" (VA). Skype is a VA, for instance.[7]"
We don't use them because they're not designed for it. There are no dual layers for micro-meteorite protection, no radiation protection, no structural soundness considerations and so on. Those are the smallest of the problems and not at all important.
The problem is that a space station is a lot more than a bunch of airless containers floating in space. You need airlocks, circuitry, pipes, life support equipment, docking equipment, general equipment, power coupling equipment, solar panels and so on. You need to get all of that into space and THEN you need to attach all of that into the bloody airless containers. Note that repairing a stuck solar panel on the ISS is a major problem right now and quite difficult, as is any EVA activity for that matter. Then you need to test everything, test again, test yet again, stress test, fix the problems, test again and so on. Most likely you'll miss something or need to take a short cut thus killing everyone on board within a year. In the end it's less expensive to build the thing on the ground as a single piece and then haul it up into space.
That's why NASA doesn't do it. Science fiction is not reality and just because something sounds easy on paper doesn't mean it's easy.
Build these things on the moon and the math gets a lot better. And I mean a *lot* better. Use a mass driver to get the raw materials into lunar orbit from the lunar surface and build the spacecraft there, and the math gets *crazy* better.
Until you factor in the absurd costs of getting heavy machinery there, designing heavy machine that works there, designing new manufacturing methods that work there, getting smelting equipment there, designing smelting equipment that works there, re-designing new manufacturing methods after your crew gets killed by a fluke failure, paying people to work there, getting specialized replacement parts there and so on.
The F-1A was tested back in the 60s and offers 1.7 million lbs of thrust and is man rated. It also offers a higher ISP than the SRBs and you can shut it off!
Isn't the SRB 2.6 million lbf, over 50% more than the F-1A?
Or you could simply dock with the bloody lander in moon orbit. After all the thing need to come down and up so you may as well just store it on the moon or simply in orbit itself. Realistically the things would need to be refueled and probably would suffer a lot of wear and tear. In other words they'd need to start taking landers with them around 3 months after the first one fails catastrophically and kills it's crew.
Everything can explode, the solution is to have an escape mechanism not to use more complex (ie: unsafe) engines to mitigate an edge case. Hell if your engines need to be shut down in flight then you'll be ejecting anyways because otherwise you die when the whole thing impacts the ground.
The Soyuz rocket I believe blew up twice without any casualties with one of them at least being a purely automatic ejection (ie: computer saw problem, capsule got ejected, rocket went boom shortly afterwards). Not pleasant on the crew (high Gs) but not exactly fatal either.
I doubt this would happen unless you can cite previous cases of such things happening. In other words actually prove your point or I'm going to say it's just random absurdities.
You're the one who's ignoring my questions and even the post I'm replying to does the same. Instead of answering my question you ignore it and accuse me of trying to change the argument. Since you're the one making the strong and original statement (ie: this is illegal) then ti falls upon you to back it up with something concrete. In other words all I asked was you to back up your points with something other than weak analogies and so far you have failed.
No there is a logical difference as a result of potential negative consequences. The world is not black and white. Even when it forced to be black and white the line is not drawn where you think it is drawn but where society (let's say the law in this case) says it is drawn.
By your logic there is no difference between pepper spraying or shooting someone to subdue them (let's say it was an unarmed thief) because in both cases the intent was to stop them. Of course society and the law disagree which is why we have the concept of "excessive force" and so on. Likewise you can have a hidden car alarm (thief may get distracted and crash car but not likely) but not a hidden car bomb (intent is to kill not to prevent theft).
In this case it's the difference between getting the minimal information needed to track the laptop successfully and uploading everything you can find on the network (or taking down the network).
As such, the intent seems to be to secretly obtain and divulge information that is NOT publically available. I see a big problem with that.
The question was not if you see a problem with this but if you have any evidence that this is illegal, so far you have failed to show anything besides analogies.
As such, the intent seems to be to secretly obtain and divulge information that is NOT publically available. I see a big problem with that.
You are assuming that the public IP of a company, or rather a specific router used by it, is public information while in fact it may not be.
No, go to the police or a licensed investigator with the outside IP address and time stamp. The network owner can then discover and disclose the needed information without disclosing his internal network topography.
What information can they disclose? If they have 10k machines with internal ips and you tell them the outside ip and a timestamp they'll give you a blank stare if you're lucky. If you have the mac address they may be able to track that but possibly not.
The owner of that network, which may not be the thief, most certainly has cause of grief if your system was designed to clandestinely do damage or steal inside information. The thief would have no reason to expect that it would do so.
I doubt this would happen unless you can cite previous cases of such things happening. In other words actually prove your point or I'm going to say it's just random absurdities. The system isn't designed per-say to steal information but rather to provide tracking information. Intent is generally important in such things as I understand.
This is slashdot; a car anology is in order. If you equip your car with a hidden gun that randomly fires on average every 30 minutes, and someone steals your car, you are responsible for whoever gets shot, not the thief. Cause the thief had no rational reason to believe it would do such a thing -- it's not within the normal operational parameters of a car.
Laws on devices that cause injury are stronger and in many places lethal booby traps are in fact specifically illegal. In other words that's a weak analogy.
There are cars with gps tracking, remote disabling (imagine the economic loss that could cause) and so on.
USA may not be the majority, but certainly a hugely disproportionate share, when you consider that the USA only has about 5% of world's population.
The same can eb said of Europe and probably Japan in the last 50 years.
If you wanted to be honest at all (and clearly you do not) then you would admit that the USA has way more than it's share of inventions, and innovation.
Sure it does which doesn't mean it will always have it since: the difference in population is so vast, the differences between nations are disappearing and there is a much more global economy now.
You indicated that is all about population, i.e. the US can not compete with the world in innovation because the USA only has a small percentage of the world's population. My point is that population has little to do with it.
I never said it's all about population, I said the difference is so massive that the US most likely can't compete with the rest of the world on it's own. Also I still say population has a lot to do with it and the US has taken advantage of that using immigration.
With your argument of 6 billion people, then the level of technology will be about the same all over the world but it is not.
I never said that nor need it. There is more than enough advanced education and technology outside the US right now to rival that inside the US (Europe, Japan, ex-soviet union, etc.). The third world is also advancing and in a couple decades the US will be dwarfed.
West is more advanced. Why is that ?
It had historical advantages and the US had even more of them.
Could it be that out of 6 billion people, not everyone can make an invention, that you need a certain level of education ?
Of course you need education however at the same time nothing inherently stops people from gaining one (ie: see advancement of India, China, Japan and so on).
If you outsource your jobs, is there a need for your higher educated people?
Sure there is, generally lower level jobs are outsourced. Likewise outsourcing has a point at which it fails to function properly. A much bigger problem is that the US doesn't manufacture much which is causing a trade deficit and a money drain.
In a country where everyone works in McDonalds and everything is outsourced, what do you think will be produced.
We don't produce much as it is but rather we have China do it for us. Like I said things do even out in the long run. If it effects you too much then you can just move to another nation without such problems in the future.
There has been billions of people in the world for centuries. Yet, that 300 million has advanced farther.
300 million? Ah yes the American ego which ignores Europe, Japan and so on. Those alone can rival the US and like I said there is another 5 billion people out there. Thirty years ago we wouldn't even have thought of India or China however now they are major powers.
Moreover, everytime someone buys an Asian product, the Asians are not recycling that money back to their economies. It strengthens the dollar artificially. They buy treasuries or mortgage debt.
They are recycling the money back however they need to keep some of their money in a stable form. Historically the US dollar has been that form although as I understand it a number of nations are moving towards the eruo.
It makes things expensive here.
Technically it makes foreign good less expensive. Well at least it makes foreign goods less expensive till the whole thing implodes.
The USA had for historical reasons a favorable position (WW2 left it alone for example) however the gap is shrinking. Japan may be an example of what can happen in the span of a few decades.
You may also want to add up Nobel prizes.
The US has 304 out of 777. The US isn't the majority despite having many advantages since WW2.
In particular, consider India, India has 4X the population of the USA - compare technology innovations between the countries.
India was historically backwards however as I said before the gap is closing.
As for major technologies you listed:
light bulbs
Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans were Candians who worked on it in 1874 then sold their patent to Thomas Edison. Joseph Wilson Swan was an english man who worked on it since the 1850s and was producing them commercially by the early 1880s.
nuclear energy
Developed in multiple countries around the same time with the theoretical foundations developed in various nations. Much of the US work was done by immigrants who were escaping their home countries.
airplanes
I think something like half a dozen countries claim that a person from their country developed the airplane. Most of their claims hold much better than the one from the US.
Yeah, call me protectionist, and queue all the rebuttals, but it's time to just knock this offshoring stuff off. I honestly think it should be made illegal at this point. Banned. For good.
The rebuttal is trivial actually, there are 6 billion people in the world and 300 million Americans. 6 billion will almost always innovate and progress better than 300 million, and protectionism goes both ways. In other words in 50 years the US would be a backwards nation running on outdated technology and subject to, for example, disease the rest of the world had cured decades ago. The same argument then extends to natural resources or rather their lack of for certain resources (ie: diamonds from Africa, oil from the middle east and so on). Remember that if you ban outsourcing then you need to logically ban foreign companies that outsource (unfair competition) so you essentially need to close off the US from the rest of the world.
We are gutting good jobs from our economy at a time when we truly can't afford it.
Sure we can afford it, we're in a mild recession at worst and are generally doing quite well.
We are watching CEOs and other greedy executives make off with literally millions of dollars by making these decisions that take food off the table for countless US families. The people who lose their jobs to crap like this then cannot buy goods and services in America. Guess what that does to the economy? But hey, those CEOs have their mansions and BMWs! They definitely have the mansions and BMWs!
What about the poor Indian who'd be ecstatic if they could eat as much as a homeless person in the US? Are their lives worth less than that american family you mention?
My cell phone company uses an offshore support center. Recently, I spent 50 minutes trying to get two simple questions answered about my calling plan..... This experience, by the way, has happened repeatedly with this provider's customer service. Note that my cell provider didn't lose anything - I'm locked into my plan, just like most other people who suffer from the cellphone cartels.
You're not locked into anything, you CHOSE to get yoruself locked into it because you're greedy. You and only you chose to take the cheaper option to save some bucks instead of considering the long term problems. I, for example, am paying more for my dsl access than my neighbor but unlike him I made sure beforehand that my provider isn't a stingy ass pos company.
I wish I could have spoken to someone in the US - someone who would then have money to buy stuff here, and who would have answered my question in perhaps only 10 minutes.
Why do you assume that they'd be as stupid as you and buy products from their own obviously stingy and inferior company?
Some people here would love to have those call center jobs (or those programming jobs, or whatever). Trust me, some people would really like to have them, especially now.
I doubt anyone would want a call center job unless they were masochistic or desperate beyond measure.
Darn it! Companies that made their fortunes on US ingenuity turn their backs on the US for a quick buck, and we continue to allow it to happen. It makes me sick and enough is enough. We are stupid, especially in the face of growing trade deficits, to send good jobs somewhere else. Wait, we peons are not stupid, it's the bigwig decision makers who AREN'T ACTUALLY HURT by the decisions. We should stop them. Congress should stop them. Which would be easy, if Congress wasn't attached to them at their wallet.
Interesting, yet you continue to buy services from companies that engage in these behaviors. It seems you're want lots of things as long as you don't have to spend a penny more as a result. Typical.
If outsoursing won't work then it won't work however quite often it does work decently well. It seems to me like what you're really afraid of is that it is working and that soon you won't be able to fight it off with FUD.
Generally, when looking for software engineers or system administrators, I try to find the people who enjoy what they do enough that they don't mind doing it when they get off of work. If you haven't written anything interesting outside of work, and you're completely uninterested in doing so, then this automatically drops you down a notch among those that I would hire.
There is a difference between not minding something and actually doing it. I enjoy programming however I get enough of it at work to fulfill my needs. Since I can pretty much code in any way I want at work and choose a lot of what I work on I have no need to code something "more interesting" at home. There is of course also a lack of time as there are other hobbies and interests that I have. As a result which while I've coded as a hobby in college (open source, etc.) I simply don't have much desire to do so now.
The final nail in the coffin is that I simply don't like dealing with all the tedious aspects of coding/project management which makes me horrid for maintaining long term projects. This makes it very difficult to create any decent hobby projects (that others can use) since I can pretty much get bored after a while.
A server can't make your machine do jack shit. Your machine is the one that pulls an old version and downgrades to it. If your package manager silently downgrades packages then that's a flaw in all cases. What if a mirror just happens to be out of date?
Population growth is slowing, last I checked the worst case was a plateau at 15 billion given current rates. It basically boils down to the fact that people in developed nations inherently have fewer kids and that the world is quickly becoming developed. Granted long term evolution would ensure a population increase (ie: genes that make people have more kids get passed on more often) baring outside factors (ie: starvation) but that's a different issue (and way too far off to care much about given technological increase). It's also likely that an immortality drug, if we found one, would throw a serious wrench into the works.
If you want to lower populations even faster than I believe there are some examples of how to do. If I remember Singpore did it so well (with incentives, propaganda, etc.) they had to reverse their stance once they found themselves heading towards a population decline.
Well the amount of data leaks would suddenly drop since companies would suddenly overlook it when data goes missing. After all they thought it was an empty hard drive and they'd be just as confused as everyone else when it turned out differently. In other words they'd simply not report them because reporting them would automatically give them a fine. So consumers get screwed in the end because they don't even get alerted when their data is stolen.
As I understand it a swamp cooler does not pump any heat outside. When a liquid evaporates it cools itself and the surrounding substances. Thus a swamp cooler pumps dry outside air through wet surfaces. The moist air that comes out is cooler than the dry air that comes in. This cool air is then sent into the house.
No, you're not. I'm a little bit shocked myself that that product was advanced as a scam. Sure the marketing hype is a bit over the top, but the device is fairly similar to the swamp coolers which many have used for decades in the US. Back when my dad was a kid, movie theaters would use a similar device for cooling.
No, it's not. A swamp cooler works by letting water evaporate and requires no energy expenditure on that water beforehand. This device requires you to freeze the water beforehand which results in a net increase in the room temperature unless you do things creatively.
The problem with AC is that it's trying to do so in real time and doesn't get the advantage that a typical stand alone freezer does. You can potentially stock up most of an entire days worth of ice in the evening when things often times cool down and then shift those ice cubes to the part of the day where it's hotter. The only real question is how much energy is really saved over AC.
You may be using more energy in the end depending on the day/night temperature differences of the room in question. Efficiency is dependent on the difference between the hot and cold sides of a room and the temperature you want your cool side to be (and practical losses). An AC only needs to cool things to say 25C while a freezer needs to cool things to 0C.
It's a bit better than a swamp cooler, because it doesn't depend upon humidity to work.
Not really. A swamp cooler requires no heat pump at all and as a result only requires as much energy as it takes to power a fan (and supply the water).
The main reason you'd keep your curtains closed on a sunny day is to keep your house from warming up. Solar panels, unlike curtains, do not reflect sunlight so your house is going to heat up quite nicely (ie: they convert most of it into heat). Well at least that's what I understand of how solar panels work.
I understand that perfectly well, I also understand that sperm has and eggs have every single gene a normal human has (well mitochondrial genes possibly excluded in sperm and X chromosmoses excluded in Y-carrying cells). The main difference is that they only have a single copy of each gene while a full human has two (potentially slightly different) copies. You could theoretically duplicate the genes in an X carrying egg or sperm (easier with the former) and make a human (granted recessive harmful traits would pretty much guarantee the human wouldn't survive long). There are in fact humans with more than normal numbers of certain chromosomes, specifically the X and 21st chromosome.
It's also interesting how you utterly avoid the point of my post and instead focus on details. I threw out various examples so that you could understand that biology is non-trivial however you apparently ignored everything except a minor one. So I'm going to assume you're incapable of answering my post properly (where do you draw the line) and that you've lost this debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Splashtop requires a new motherboard. Motherboards aren't always expensive.
Since you need very specific ones they probably are and as someone else mentioned they won't work with older hardware. That's not counting whatever driver hell you may have with any peripherals.
And Splashtop is open source. If you go to their website and contact them, they will release source according to their site.
So you wouldn't even need a new motherboard then. Just install the Splashtop OS on your existing hardware.
Which will give you absolutely nothing, do you think it boots instantly by magic or something? Why in god's name do you think it requires specific motherboards or did you simply not think at all? Do you think that maybe those motherboard have some extra special hardware that let's splashtop do it's magic?
To quote wikipedia "Splashtop seems to work with a 512MB flash memory embedded on the PC motherboard.[6] A proprietary core engine starts at the BIOS boot and loads a specialized Linux distribution called a "Virtual Appliance Environment" (VAE). While running this VAE, the user can launch "Virtual Appliances" (VA). Skype is a VA, for instance.[7]"
We don't use them because they're not designed for it. There are no dual layers for micro-meteorite protection, no radiation protection, no structural soundness considerations and so on. Those are the smallest of the problems and not at all important.
The problem is that a space station is a lot more than a bunch of airless containers floating in space. You need airlocks, circuitry, pipes, life support equipment, docking equipment, general equipment, power coupling equipment, solar panels and so on. You need to get all of that into space and THEN you need to attach all of that into the bloody airless containers. Note that repairing a stuck solar panel on the ISS is a major problem right now and quite difficult, as is any EVA activity for that matter. Then you need to test everything, test again, test yet again, stress test, fix the problems, test again and so on. Most likely you'll miss something or need to take a short cut thus killing everyone on board within a year. In the end it's less expensive to build the thing on the ground as a single piece and then haul it up into space.
That's why NASA doesn't do it. Science fiction is not reality and just because something sounds easy on paper doesn't mean it's easy.
Build these things on the moon and the math gets a lot better. And I mean a *lot* better. Use a mass driver to get the raw materials into lunar orbit from the lunar surface and build the spacecraft there, and the math gets *crazy* better.
Until you factor in the absurd costs of getting heavy machinery there, designing heavy machine that works there, designing new manufacturing methods that work there, getting smelting equipment there, designing smelting equipment that works there, re-designing new manufacturing methods after your crew gets killed by a fluke failure, paying people to work there, getting specialized replacement parts there and so on.
The F-1A was tested back in the 60s and offers 1.7 million lbs of thrust and is man rated. It also offers a higher ISP than the SRBs and you can shut it off!
Isn't the SRB 2.6 million lbf, over 50% more than the F-1A?
Or you could simply dock with the bloody lander in moon orbit. After all the thing need to come down and up so you may as well just store it on the moon or simply in orbit itself. Realistically the things would need to be refueled and probably would suffer a lot of wear and tear. In other words they'd need to start taking landers with them around 3 months after the first one fails catastrophically and kills it's crew.
Everything can explode, the solution is to have an escape mechanism not to use more complex (ie: unsafe) engines to mitigate an edge case. Hell if your engines need to be shut down in flight then you'll be ejecting anyways because otherwise you die when the whole thing impacts the ground.
The Soyuz rocket I believe blew up twice without any casualties with one of them at least being a purely automatic ejection (ie: computer saw problem, capsule got ejected, rocket went boom shortly afterwards). Not pleasant on the crew (high Gs) but not exactly fatal either.
To quote my original post:
I doubt this would happen unless you can cite previous cases of such things happening. In other words actually prove your point or I'm going to say it's just random absurdities.
You're the one who's ignoring my questions and even the post I'm replying to does the same. Instead of answering my question you ignore it and accuse me of trying to change the argument. Since you're the one making the strong and original statement (ie: this is illegal) then ti falls upon you to back it up with something concrete. In other words all I asked was you to back up your points with something other than weak analogies and so far you have failed.
No there is a logical difference as a result of potential negative consequences. The world is not black and white. Even when it forced to be black and white the line is not drawn where you think it is drawn but where society (let's say the law in this case) says it is drawn.
By your logic there is no difference between pepper spraying or shooting someone to subdue them (let's say it was an unarmed thief) because in both cases the intent was to stop them. Of course society and the law disagree which is why we have the concept of "excessive force" and so on. Likewise you can have a hidden car alarm (thief may get distracted and crash car but not likely) but not a hidden car bomb (intent is to kill not to prevent theft).
In this case it's the difference between getting the minimal information needed to track the laptop successfully and uploading everything you can find on the network (or taking down the network).
As such, the intent seems to be to secretly obtain and divulge information that is NOT publically available. I see a big problem with that.
The question was not if you see a problem with this but if you have any evidence that this is illegal, so far you have failed to show anything besides analogies.
As such, the intent seems to be to secretly obtain and divulge information that is NOT publically available. I see a big problem with that.
You are assuming that the public IP of a company, or rather a specific router used by it, is public information while in fact it may not be.
No, go to the police or a licensed investigator with the outside IP address and time stamp. The network owner can then discover and disclose the needed information without disclosing his internal network topography.
What information can they disclose? If they have 10k machines with internal ips and you tell them the outside ip and a timestamp they'll give you a blank stare if you're lucky. If you have the mac address they may be able to track that but possibly not.
The owner of that network, which may not be the thief, most certainly has cause of grief if your system was designed to clandestinely do damage or steal inside information. The thief would have no reason to expect that it would do so.
I doubt this would happen unless you can cite previous cases of such things happening. In other words actually prove your point or I'm going to say it's just random absurdities. The system isn't designed per-say to steal information but rather to provide tracking information. Intent is generally important in such things as I understand.
This is slashdot; a car anology is in order.
If you equip your car with a hidden gun that randomly fires on average every 30 minutes, and someone steals your car, you are responsible for whoever gets shot, not the thief. Cause the thief had no rational reason to believe it would do such a thing -- it's not within the normal operational parameters of a car.
Laws on devices that cause injury are stronger and in many places lethal booby traps are in fact specifically illegal. In other words that's a weak analogy.
There are cars with gps tracking, remote disabling (imagine the economic loss that could cause) and so on.
USA may not be the majority, but certainly a hugely disproportionate share, when you consider that the USA only has about 5% of world's population.
The same can eb said of Europe and probably Japan in the last 50 years.
If you wanted to be honest at all (and clearly you do not) then you would admit that the USA has way more than it's share of inventions, and innovation.
Sure it does which doesn't mean it will always have it since: the difference in population is so vast, the differences between nations are disappearing and there is a much more global economy now.
You indicated that is all about population, i.e. the US can not compete with the world in innovation because the USA only has a small percentage of the world's population. My point is that population has little to do with it.
I never said it's all about population, I said the difference is so massive that the US most likely can't compete with the rest of the world on it's own. Also I still say population has a lot to do with it and the US has taken advantage of that using immigration.
With your argument of 6 billion people, then the level of technology will be about the same all over the world but it is not.
I never said that nor need it. There is more than enough advanced education and technology outside the US right now to rival that inside the US (Europe, Japan, ex-soviet union, etc.). The third world is also advancing and in a couple decades the US will be dwarfed.
West is more advanced. Why is that ?
It had historical advantages and the US had even more of them.
Could it be that out of 6 billion people, not everyone can make an invention, that you need a certain level of education ?
Of course you need education however at the same time nothing inherently stops people from gaining one (ie: see advancement of India, China, Japan and so on).
If you outsource your jobs, is there a need for your higher educated people?
Sure there is, generally lower level jobs are outsourced. Likewise outsourcing has a point at which it fails to function properly. A much bigger problem is that the US doesn't manufacture much which is causing a trade deficit and a money drain.
In a country where everyone works in McDonalds and everything is outsourced, what do you think will be produced.
We don't produce much as it is but rather we have China do it for us. Like I said things do even out in the long run. If it effects you too much then you can just move to another nation without such problems in the future.
There has been billions of people in the world for centuries. Yet, that 300 million has advanced farther.
300 million? Ah yes the American ego which ignores Europe, Japan and so on. Those alone can rival the US and like I said there is another 5 billion people out there. Thirty years ago we wouldn't even have thought of India or China however now they are major powers.
Moreover, everytime someone buys an Asian product, the Asians are not recycling that money back to their economies. It strengthens the dollar artificially. They buy treasuries or mortgage debt.
They are recycling the money back however they need to keep some of their money in a stable form. Historically the US dollar has been that form although as I understand it a number of nations are moving towards the eruo.
It makes things expensive here.
Technically it makes foreign good less expensive. Well at least it makes foreign goods less expensive till the whole thing implodes.
The USA had for historical reasons a favorable position (WW2 left it alone for example) however the gap is shrinking. Japan may be an example of what can happen in the span of a few decades.
You may also want to add up Nobel prizes.
The US has 304 out of 777. The US isn't the majority despite having many advantages since WW2.
In particular, consider India, India has 4X the population of the USA - compare technology innovations between the countries.
India was historically backwards however as I said before the gap is closing.
As for major technologies you listed:
light bulbs
Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans were Candians who worked on it in 1874 then sold their patent to Thomas Edison. Joseph Wilson Swan was an english man who worked on it since the 1850s and was producing them commercially by the early 1880s.
nuclear energy
Developed in multiple countries around the same time with the theoretical foundations developed in various nations. Much of the US work was done by immigrants who were escaping their home countries.
airplanes
I think something like half a dozen countries claim that a person from their country developed the airplane. Most of their claims hold much better than the one from the US.
Yeah, call me protectionist, and queue all the rebuttals, but it's time to just knock this offshoring stuff off. I honestly think it should be made illegal at this point. Banned. For good.
The rebuttal is trivial actually, there are 6 billion people in the world and 300 million Americans. 6 billion will almost always innovate and progress better than 300 million, and protectionism goes both ways. In other words in 50 years the US would be a backwards nation running on outdated technology and subject to, for example, disease the rest of the world had cured decades ago. The same argument then extends to natural resources or rather their lack of for certain resources (ie: diamonds from Africa, oil from the middle east and so on). Remember that if you ban outsourcing then you need to logically ban foreign companies that outsource (unfair competition) so you essentially need to close off the US from the rest of the world.
We are gutting good jobs from our economy at a time when we truly can't afford it.
Sure we can afford it, we're in a mild recession at worst and are generally doing quite well.
We are watching CEOs and other greedy executives make off with literally millions of dollars by making these decisions that take food off the table for countless US families. The people who lose their jobs to crap like this then cannot buy goods and services in America. Guess what that does to the economy? But hey, those CEOs have their mansions and BMWs! They definitely have the mansions and BMWs!
What about the poor Indian who'd be ecstatic if they could eat as much as a homeless person in the US? Are their lives worth less than that american family you mention?
My cell phone company uses an offshore support center. Recently, I spent 50 minutes trying to get two simple questions answered about my calling plan. .... This experience, by the way, has happened repeatedly with this provider's customer service. Note that my cell provider didn't lose anything - I'm locked into my plan, just like most other people who suffer from the cellphone cartels.
You're not locked into anything, you CHOSE to get yoruself locked into it because you're greedy. You and only you chose to take the cheaper option to save some bucks instead of considering the long term problems. I, for example, am paying more for my dsl access than my neighbor but unlike him I made sure beforehand that my provider isn't a stingy ass pos company.
I wish I could have spoken to someone in the US - someone who would then have money to buy stuff here, and who would have answered my question in perhaps only 10 minutes.
Why do you assume that they'd be as stupid as you and buy products from their own obviously stingy and inferior company?
Some people here would love to have those call center jobs (or those programming jobs, or whatever). Trust me, some people would really like to have them, especially now.
I doubt anyone would want a call center job unless they were masochistic or desperate beyond measure.
Darn it! Companies that made their fortunes on US ingenuity turn their backs on the US for a quick buck, and we continue to allow it to happen. It makes me sick and enough is enough. We are stupid, especially in the face of growing trade deficits, to send good jobs somewhere else. Wait, we peons are not stupid, it's the bigwig decision makers who AREN'T ACTUALLY HURT by the decisions. We should stop them. Congress should stop them. Which would be easy, if Congress wasn't attached to them at their wallet.
Interesting, yet you continue to buy services from companies that engage in these behaviors. It seems you're want lots of things as long as you don't have to spend a penny more as a result. Typical.
If outsoursing won't work then it won't work however quite often it does work decently well. It seems to me like what you're really afraid of is that it is working and that soon you won't be able to fight it off with FUD.
Generally, when looking for software engineers or system administrators, I try to find the people who enjoy what they do enough that they don't mind doing it when they get off of work. If you haven't written anything interesting outside of work, and you're completely uninterested in doing so, then this automatically drops you down a notch among those that I would hire.
There is a difference between not minding something and actually doing it. I enjoy programming however I get enough of it at work to fulfill my needs. Since I can pretty much code in any way I want at work and choose a lot of what I work on I have no need to code something "more interesting" at home. There is of course also a lack of time as there are other hobbies and interests that I have. As a result which while I've coded as a hobby in college (open source, etc.) I simply don't have much desire to do so now.
The final nail in the coffin is that I simply don't like dealing with all the tedious aspects of coding/project management which makes me horrid for maintaining long term projects. This makes it very difficult to create any decent hobby projects (that others can use) since I can pretty much get bored after a while.
A server can't make your machine do jack shit. Your machine is the one that pulls an old version and downgrades to it. If your package manager silently downgrades packages then that's a flaw in all cases. What if a mirror just happens to be out of date?
Population growth is slowing, last I checked the worst case was a plateau at 15 billion given current rates. It basically boils down to the fact that people in developed nations inherently have fewer kids and that the world is quickly becoming developed. Granted long term evolution would ensure a population increase (ie: genes that make people have more kids get passed on more often) baring outside factors (ie: starvation) but that's a different issue (and way too far off to care much about given technological increase). It's also likely that an immortality drug, if we found one, would throw a serious wrench into the works.
If you want to lower populations even faster than I believe there are some examples of how to do. If I remember Singpore did it so well (with incentives, propaganda, etc.) they had to reverse their stance once they found themselves heading towards a population decline.
Well the amount of data leaks would suddenly drop since companies would suddenly overlook it when data goes missing. After all they thought it was an empty hard drive and they'd be just as confused as everyone else when it turned out differently. In other words they'd simply not report them because reporting them would automatically give them a fine. So consumers get screwed in the end because they don't even get alerted when their data is stolen.
As I understand it a swamp cooler does not pump any heat outside. When a liquid evaporates it cools itself and the surrounding substances. Thus a swamp cooler pumps dry outside air through wet surfaces. The moist air that comes out is cooler than the dry air that comes in. This cool air is then sent into the house.
No, you're not. I'm a little bit shocked myself that that product was advanced as a scam. Sure the marketing hype is a bit over the top, but the device is fairly similar to the swamp coolers which many have used for decades in the US. Back when my dad was a kid, movie theaters would use a similar device for cooling.
No, it's not. A swamp cooler works by letting water evaporate and requires no energy expenditure on that water beforehand. This device requires you to freeze the water beforehand which results in a net increase in the room temperature unless you do things creatively.
The problem with AC is that it's trying to do so in real time and doesn't get the advantage that a typical stand alone freezer does. You can potentially stock up most of an entire days worth of ice in the evening when things often times cool down and then shift those ice cubes to the part of the day where it's hotter.
The only real question is how much energy is really saved over AC.
You may be using more energy in the end depending on the day/night temperature differences of the room in question. Efficiency is dependent on the difference between the hot and cold sides of a room and the temperature you want your cool side to be (and practical losses). An AC only needs to cool things to say 25C while a freezer needs to cool things to 0C.
It's a bit better than a swamp cooler, because it doesn't depend upon humidity to work.
Not really. A swamp cooler requires no heat pump at all and as a result only requires as much energy as it takes to power a fan (and supply the water).
The current method as I understand it for large scale energy storage is water. Specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage
Compressed air probably less efficient but potentially cheaper to implement.
The main reason you'd keep your curtains closed on a sunny day is to keep your house from warming up. Solar panels, unlike curtains, do not reflect sunlight so your house is going to heat up quite nicely (ie: they convert most of it into heat). Well at least that's what I understand of how solar panels work.
I understand that perfectly well, I also understand that sperm has and eggs have every single gene a normal human has (well mitochondrial genes possibly excluded in sperm and X chromosmoses excluded in Y-carrying cells). The main difference is that they only have a single copy of each gene while a full human has two (potentially slightly different) copies. You could theoretically duplicate the genes in an X carrying egg or sperm (easier with the former) and make a human (granted recessive harmful traits would pretty much guarantee the human wouldn't survive long). There are in fact humans with more than normal numbers of certain chromosomes, specifically the X and 21st chromosome.
It's also interesting how you utterly avoid the point of my post and instead focus on details. I threw out various examples so that you could understand that biology is non-trivial however you apparently ignored everything except a minor one. So I'm going to assume you're incapable of answering my post properly (where do you draw the line) and that you've lost this debate.