Military spending, infrastructure, the economic competition-wars, "medical miracle" spending, rather than kicking back with a baguette and a glass of Bordeaux, Americans are inventing new ways to keep busy, "stay on top", keep up with the Joneses, satisfy their ancestor's work-ethics, and exploit what's left of the third world.
What will be interesting is when we run out of third world labor pools to exploit - if minimum wage keeps getting kicked up it may not happen, but if conservative forces hold it down for a couple more decades, Asia and Africa's standard of living will catch up with "the West," and we won't have any substance to support our superiority complex anymore.
Personally, I'd probably use my phone as the keyboard for as much keyboard interaction as I would plan to do with a mobile computer of this size. You could also use a projection keyboard (I doubt they're all that great to use, never been tempted to try one yet).
Other use cases for something like this include "secure screencast" where you plug it in as a general purpose display of something that most people don't have access to - basically an easy to use development platform to put your custom remote access software on - in short: a Smart TV where you control the software, and have a competent computer driving it.
Yes, you could use any "Surface like device" and just control the big display from that - but they're bulkier and pricier than this.
My personal first target for the Skylake ComputeStick is driving a wall mounted 4K 55" touch interactive display (SmartBoard) that's not conveniently located to any place to store something like a NUC - if this thing sucks too badly I could suck it up and stick a NUC on the wall instead, but if the implementation is what it promises to be, this will be a physically much cleaner installation. Looking at the craptacular selection of "Smart" TV implementations on the market right now, I would think anyone who wanted a new one would do well to either get a dumb display, or turn the "Smart" features off, and drive their TV with something like this, or a NUC, or an energy efficient full AT tower if they've got the space for it.
If the AI has any strategic thinking at all, it won't be accepting the challenge until it has its hooks into enough important things to win the challenge decisively - coup style. A failed attempt wouldn't be good for either side.
When traveling for business, no - just take what you know will work.
When traveling with family? 64GB = 8GB for OS + 56GB for movies, or about 100 hours of movies of your choosing, instead of cable TV. If it doesn't work out: cable won't kill us.
The ST Micros aren't exactly processing power barn-burners, but they do have lots and lots of ports - nice if you're going to integrate 10 axis sensors (baro, mag, gyro, accel) with GPS and other stuff like proximity sensors, etc. They're not quite up to image processing, but I think they're adequate to run control loops in floating point and handle all the route following, com traffic, etc.
Mostly, it's a useful lesson to future protocol designs - next iteration should protect against this by sending some standard length block (SHA3?) of the password so that all information about it is obscured.
Meh, would have to have read the article to know that - blame the summary...
Anyway, interesting, even still - blasting out long range EM interference for channels like 2.4GHz and whatever GPS operates on is normally grounds for arrest and fine. I suppose if you're running a licensed prison you are exempt from such peasant concerns.
(Well, OK, strong AI is a problem looking for a problem - since a silicon-based strong AI has the natural rights of a human.)
A bit optimistic for the AI - dolphins, apes, and any number of clearly sentient species may have "natural rights" of a human, but that's not been put into practice by any major government yet.
When a corporation sinks billions into development of strong AI, it will be treated as property - regardless of any "natural rights" that it may have.
Personally, I think a created AI should earn their rights, the way women, colored, peasants, and non-land owners have over the past centuries.
Commercial airliners can travel at speeds up to 9 miles per minute, though while at those speeds they aren't likely to be meeting any consumer class drones due to the thin air. Even on approach, they are still doing around 4 miles per minute - if they're not starting their signal jamming at 60 seconds out, they won't likely be able to get any control of the situation before intercept.
Not so long ago, playing a video game or using a cell phone could interfere with a commercial airliner's sensitive communication systems, endangering life and property, and therefore was banned for decades before slowly beginning to acknowledge that the threat wasn't very credible.
But now, a suspicious object over 5 miles away is reason to start sending deliberate jamming signals, likely on the GPS frequencies as well as all common command and control bands? Yeah, nothing could go wrong there.
Of course, but an accurate digital simulation of the chemical experiment might be interesting to try variations on the chemistry without having to synthesize it.
What I wonder is how much soup they are cooking, digital simulations - even on machines with 128GB of RAM tend to be pretty limited in their quantity of elements simulated. 100GB of RAM might simulate a couple of drops full of replicating chemicals.
In the digital simulations I've done, fragmentation of the world into varying environments seemed to keep the evolution ticking along better (less stagnation), if the chemical simulation fills a 10 gallon fish tank with hot spots, cold spots, currents, stagnant zones, etc. they might get some interesting things happening relatively quickly.
Which is why I wrote, if you want rights... "you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid."
and that is the point that I disagree with... if you really have rights, you shouldn't have to pay unregulated agents to get those rights.
Montesquieu, a lawyer himself, believed that under a just government no man should live in fear of another - which was progressive thinking for its time, and we've made great progress in this direction. I think, after more than two centuries of universal education, that we may be ready for every man to know their (true) rights and how to obtain them, on equal footing, without having to buy the most talented and expensive agents to enjoy their rights through arcane tricks and manipulations.
Similarly, everyone should be their own car mechanic, doctor, architect, IT expert, carpenter, accountant, plasterer, electrician, chef, tailor and plumber.
In reality, no one can be equally good at every single thing, whatever the rugged individualist fantasies of the wild west types here.
However, we should not allow the car manufacturers to make automobiles that are deliberately difficult for the owner to fix, nor medical devices that needlessly restrict access to care just so doctors can line their pockets, I'm o.k. with architects being specialized - unless we start passing laws that require specific architects to sign off on plans for every structure built and the cost of the signoff is higher than (or an unreasonable percentage of) the cost of the structure or any reasonably foreseeable additional liability incurred from a bad design, IT experts who hoard "secret knowledge" just to attempt to improve their job security, carpenters who do shoddy work so they will have more business in the future, tax laws that are needlessly complicated making work for accountants, plasterers electricians and especially plumbers: see carpenters, chefs - meh - if you don't like your chef cook your own food - they don't seem to be out of hand yet - but if they went the way of so many other industries you wouldn't be permitted to cook your own food, or given access to purchase the ingredients without membership in the guild - how much fun would that be? - tailors are pretty out of hand, not the custom ones, but the whole retail market where a $0.73 T shirt gets marked up to $27.50 before the consumer is allowed to purchase it, unless you get it on sale, with a coupon, at an outlet store...
In short, we should have transparency, and some capacity to call bullshit on groups who are excessively lining their pockets in the name of "serving you better." But, you can't call bullshit when the other side can stand back and say "prove it, you can't can you? because we're hiding the proof."
You want secrets? Fine, have your secrets, but your right to have secrets should end when those secrets unavoidably and significantly impact the lives of others.
I'm coming at this from a U.S. perspective, and our lawyers are regulated, but not as to the fees they charge. My personal experience in legal wrangling was a little twisted in that I was sued in small claims court by someone who hired the only small claims lawyer in the county - it makes for a very unfair situation when there's only one lawyer who's willing to represent in a certain court. The plaintiff knew about this from her frequent experience being sued in the local court for debts she defaulted on, frequently being on the opposite side from the lawyer she hired to sue us. We ultimately "shut it off" by finding a lawyer who represented our interests pro bono to obtain an out of court settlement, without that we would have likely been more than five times as screwed over as we were. Our lawyer never said she would work for free, but when it was settled she never returned my phone calls seeking to settle with her for her time, and she never billed us, so...
The truth of the matter is as you say "hopefully not" when it comes to legal issues - but, to me, this makes the whole system somewhat of a farce, it's irrelevant unless you're willing to pay a very steep cost of entry. It's a complete joke for small claims, and takes a heavy tariff on larger issues. As you say, you can devote all your time to it so you don't have to hire someone, but that's an even higher price than money in most cases. I feel like a heavy dose of increased transparency and simplicity in the system is what is needed, but the lawyers (and lawyers who go on to become legislators and judges) are stretching the system in the opposite direction (obfuscation, complexity) as hard as they can.
Which is why I wrote, if you want rights... "you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid."
and that is the point that I disagree with... if you really have rights, you shouldn't have to pay unregulated agents to get those rights.
Montesquieu, a lawyer himself, believed that under a just government no man should live in fear of another - which was progressive thinking for its time, and we've made great progress in this direction. I think, after more than two centuries of universal education, that we may be ready for every man to know their (true) rights and how to obtain them, on equal footing, without having to buy the most talented and expensive agents to enjoy their rights through arcane tricks and manipulations.
My personal lawyer experience was being sued in small claims court, over a $100 difference of opinion, by a person who was afraid of what they had done to charge me the money in the first place and so used a lawyer to try to scare me away from the situation. Loooong story short, I ended up paying $600 to settle, would have had to front over $3000 to mount a defense with a chance of succeeding, zero chance of recovery of those monies even if I pursued a more expensive strategy that included winning judgement for payment of my expenses (plaintiff had a long list of creditors in line in front of me to collect on them), in short: bad on us for trusting a friend who recommended engaging with this service provider and not investigating them (personally) more deeply before signing up for service. I did investigate the company they appeared to work for, and they appeared reputable - and they also ended up letting this person go after the dust settled, but they couldn't risk being "judged in the wrong" so they stood solidly by them until it was over.
In my view, small claims court should forbid professional legal representation (and it does in many states, but not mine.)
See another reply re: New Zealand and how they are stumbling toward lawyer free nirvana.
It's not the concept of the law that is a problem, it is the manifestation of its agents - similar to the problems with religion and the church in the middle ages.
Slashdot Mirror
Military spending, infrastructure, the economic competition-wars, "medical miracle" spending, rather than kicking back with a baguette and a glass of Bordeaux, Americans are inventing new ways to keep busy, "stay on top", keep up with the Joneses, satisfy their ancestor's work-ethics, and exploit what's left of the third world.
What will be interesting is when we run out of third world labor pools to exploit - if minimum wage keeps getting kicked up it may not happen, but if conservative forces hold it down for a couple more decades, Asia and Africa's standard of living will catch up with "the West," and we won't have any substance to support our superiority complex anymore.
Drones can't reach the same sky that a Firefly can.
Personally, I'd probably use my phone as the keyboard for as much keyboard interaction as I would plan to do with a mobile computer of this size. You could also use a projection keyboard (I doubt they're all that great to use, never been tempted to try one yet).
Other use cases for something like this include "secure screencast" where you plug it in as a general purpose display of something that most people don't have access to - basically an easy to use development platform to put your custom remote access software on - in short: a Smart TV where you control the software, and have a competent computer driving it.
Yes, you could use any "Surface like device" and just control the big display from that - but they're bulkier and pricier than this.
My personal first target for the Skylake ComputeStick is driving a wall mounted 4K 55" touch interactive display (SmartBoard) that's not conveniently located to any place to store something like a NUC - if this thing sucks too badly I could suck it up and stick a NUC on the wall instead, but if the implementation is what it promises to be, this will be a physically much cleaner installation. Looking at the craptacular selection of "Smart" TV implementations on the market right now, I would think anyone who wanted a new one would do well to either get a dumb display, or turn the "Smart" features off, and drive their TV with something like this, or a NUC, or an energy efficient full AT tower if they've got the space for it.
If the AI has any strategic thinking at all, it won't be accepting the challenge until it has its hooks into enough important things to win the challenge decisively - coup style. A failed attempt wouldn't be good for either side.
When traveling for business, no - just take what you know will work.
When traveling with family? 64GB = 8GB for OS + 56GB for movies, or about 100 hours of movies of your choosing, instead of cable TV. If it doesn't work out: cable won't kill us.
Many hotel televisions have HDMI in ports these days - you can travel with this and a keyboard/mouse.
The ST Micros aren't exactly processing power barn-burners, but they do have lots and lots of ports - nice if you're going to integrate 10 axis sensors (baro, mag, gyro, accel) with GPS and other stuff like proximity sensors, etc. They're not quite up to image processing, but I think they're adequate to run control loops in floating point and handle all the route following, com traffic, etc.
Greece has the benefit of following, rather than leading, so they might not need quite so much development as you are guessing.
If they leverage the private sector space companies, then all they really need is money.
Or, if you want to move up the processor power food chain a little bit to ST Micros with PC/Tablet ground stations, you could choose http://www.librepilot.org/ / https://www.openpilot.org/
...never forget anything.
Why would I want anything different?
Frat party.
the old blurays are once again the only copy.
I'd guess they are one of probably 10 copies, stored at diverse locations on various continents.
Think carefully before uploading anything, anywhere.
Mostly, it's a useful lesson to future protocol designs - next iteration should protect against this by sending some standard length block (SHA3?) of the password so that all information about it is obscured.
Meh, would have to have read the article to know that - blame the summary...
Anyway, interesting, even still - blasting out long range EM interference for channels like 2.4GHz and whatever GPS operates on is normally grounds for arrest and fine. I suppose if you're running a licensed prison you are exempt from such peasant concerns.
(Well, OK, strong AI is a problem looking for a problem - since a silicon-based strong AI has the natural rights of a human.)
A bit optimistic for the AI - dolphins, apes, and any number of clearly sentient species may have "natural rights" of a human, but that's not been put into practice by any major government yet.
When a corporation sinks billions into development of strong AI, it will be treated as property - regardless of any "natural rights" that it may have.
Personally, I think a created AI should earn their rights, the way women, colored, peasants, and non-land owners have over the past centuries.
Commercial airliners can travel at speeds up to 9 miles per minute, though while at those speeds they aren't likely to be meeting any consumer class drones due to the thin air. Even on approach, they are still doing around 4 miles per minute - if they're not starting their signal jamming at 60 seconds out, they won't likely be able to get any control of the situation before intercept.
Not so long ago, playing a video game or using a cell phone could interfere with a commercial airliner's sensitive communication systems, endangering life and property, and therefore was banned for decades before slowly beginning to acknowledge that the threat wasn't very credible.
But now, a suspicious object over 5 miles away is reason to start sending deliberate jamming signals, likely on the GPS frequencies as well as all common command and control bands? Yeah, nothing could go wrong there.
Of course, but an accurate digital simulation of the chemical experiment might be interesting to try variations on the chemistry without having to synthesize it.
What I wonder is how much soup they are cooking, digital simulations - even on machines with 128GB of RAM tend to be pretty limited in their quantity of elements simulated. 100GB of RAM might simulate a couple of drops full of replicating chemicals.
In the digital simulations I've done, fragmentation of the world into varying environments seemed to keep the evolution ticking along better (less stagnation), if the chemical simulation fills a 10 gallon fish tank with hot spots, cold spots, currents, stagnant zones, etc. they might get some interesting things happening relatively quickly.
sould do, yes - then the remaining orrbiting stuff orbits a little faster.
Which is why I wrote, if you want rights ... "you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid."
and that is the point that I disagree with... if you really have rights, you shouldn't have to pay unregulated agents to get those rights.
Montesquieu, a lawyer himself, believed that under a just government no man should live in fear of another - which was progressive thinking for its time, and we've made great progress in this direction. I think, after more than two centuries of universal education, that we may be ready for every man to know their (true) rights and how to obtain them, on equal footing, without having to buy the most talented and expensive agents to enjoy their rights through arcane tricks and manipulations.
Similarly, everyone should be their own car mechanic, doctor, architect, IT expert, carpenter, accountant, plasterer, electrician, chef, tailor and plumber.
In reality, no one can be equally good at every single thing, whatever the rugged individualist fantasies of the wild west types here.
However, we should not allow the car manufacturers to make automobiles that are deliberately difficult for the owner to fix, nor medical devices that needlessly restrict access to care just so doctors can line their pockets, I'm o.k. with architects being specialized - unless we start passing laws that require specific architects to sign off on plans for every structure built and the cost of the signoff is higher than (or an unreasonable percentage of) the cost of the structure or any reasonably foreseeable additional liability incurred from a bad design, IT experts who hoard "secret knowledge" just to attempt to improve their job security, carpenters who do shoddy work so they will have more business in the future, tax laws that are needlessly complicated making work for accountants, plasterers electricians and especially plumbers: see carpenters, chefs - meh - if you don't like your chef cook your own food - they don't seem to be out of hand yet - but if they went the way of so many other industries you wouldn't be permitted to cook your own food, or given access to purchase the ingredients without membership in the guild - how much fun would that be? - tailors are pretty out of hand, not the custom ones, but the whole retail market where a $0.73 T shirt gets marked up to $27.50 before the consumer is allowed to purchase it, unless you get it on sale, with a coupon, at an outlet store...
In short, we should have transparency, and some capacity to call bullshit on groups who are excessively lining their pockets in the name of "serving you better." But, you can't call bullshit when the other side can stand back and say "prove it, you can't can you? because we're hiding the proof."
You want secrets? Fine, have your secrets, but your right to have secrets should end when those secrets unavoidably and significantly impact the lives of others.
I'm coming at this from a U.S. perspective, and our lawyers are regulated, but not as to the fees they charge. My personal experience in legal wrangling was a little twisted in that I was sued in small claims court by someone who hired the only small claims lawyer in the county - it makes for a very unfair situation when there's only one lawyer who's willing to represent in a certain court. The plaintiff knew about this from her frequent experience being sued in the local court for debts she defaulted on, frequently being on the opposite side from the lawyer she hired to sue us. We ultimately "shut it off" by finding a lawyer who represented our interests pro bono to obtain an out of court settlement, without that we would have likely been more than five times as screwed over as we were. Our lawyer never said she would work for free, but when it was settled she never returned my phone calls seeking to settle with her for her time, and she never billed us, so...
The truth of the matter is as you say "hopefully not" when it comes to legal issues - but, to me, this makes the whole system somewhat of a farce, it's irrelevant unless you're willing to pay a very steep cost of entry. It's a complete joke for small claims, and takes a heavy tariff on larger issues. As you say, you can devote all your time to it so you don't have to hire someone, but that's an even higher price than money in most cases. I feel like a heavy dose of increased transparency and simplicity in the system is what is needed, but the lawyers (and lawyers who go on to become legislators and judges) are stretching the system in the opposite direction (obfuscation, complexity) as hard as they can.
Which is why I wrote, if you want rights ... "you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid."
and that is the point that I disagree with... if you really have rights, you shouldn't have to pay unregulated agents to get those rights.
Montesquieu, a lawyer himself, believed that under a just government no man should live in fear of another - which was progressive thinking for its time, and we've made great progress in this direction. I think, after more than two centuries of universal education, that we may be ready for every man to know their (true) rights and how to obtain them, on equal footing, without having to buy the most talented and expensive agents to enjoy their rights through arcane tricks and manipulations.
Point being, telemedicine to Mars has value, and will never have 1ms latency (unless we do rewrite the laws of physics.)
My personal lawyer experience was being sued in small claims court, over a $100 difference of opinion, by a person who was afraid of what they had done to charge me the money in the first place and so used a lawyer to try to scare me away from the situation. Loooong story short, I ended up paying $600 to settle, would have had to front over $3000 to mount a defense with a chance of succeeding, zero chance of recovery of those monies even if I pursued a more expensive strategy that included winning judgement for payment of my expenses (plaintiff had a long list of creditors in line in front of me to collect on them), in short: bad on us for trusting a friend who recommended engaging with this service provider and not investigating them (personally) more deeply before signing up for service. I did investigate the company they appeared to work for, and they appeared reputable - and they also ended up letting this person go after the dust settled, but they couldn't risk being "judged in the wrong" so they stood solidly by them until it was over.
In my view, small claims court should forbid professional legal representation (and it does in many states, but not mine.)
See another reply re: New Zealand and how they are stumbling toward lawyer free nirvana.
It's not the concept of the law that is a problem, it is the manifestation of its agents - similar to the problems with religion and the church in the middle ages.
Can you name a country where revolution has reduced the number of lawyers longterm ? Not that I am adverse to the idea of a periodic bloodletting.
You got me there, in the current environment they seem to repopulate, like cockroaches.
Maybe if we had enough transparency, simplification, and AI in the system a coup would be enough to finish them off for good.
I heard an ex-Surinamese once describe their revolution of 1982 as "all they had to do was kill a few lawyers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...