but if it's an accelerating trend (7 years to 1/3 percent, 8 years to.4 percent), and it's not a proven tech, so it may spread to other countries, I bet they're watching it with some nervousness.
If it can handle buses, local delivery is next (Tesla truck for example).
growth 2016-2017 was.7%, so this in theory is hitting growth significantly.
Just try, if you can, to picture 100 million barrels of oil. Just how massive a quantity that is. It's a big deal.
That's why I hate with number figure, it doesn't give a good picture.
Sure it's a big number, but if it covered like 0.000001% of the world production, than no matter how big the number is it's irrelevant.
The actual percentage is 0.3%. At first, it does look irrelevent.
But an AC pointed out that the world consumption grow by 0.7% during the 2016-2017 period. So this could hinder about half of the "grow" of the oil industry. Considering the importance of grow in any company in this century, it is pretty major.
I must admit, while I was reading the headline I was quite sure it was clickbait materia. "Yeah right, no way in hell a few electric buses will hurt the oil industry" I told myself.
Well, look like I was wrong. I was very surprised to learn that China had 99% of the world electric bus but, when you think about it, it's not that surprising. They put the axe on many coal plants mega development because of the abysmal level of pollution in their cities so I can understand why they are the world leader on this. That "279 000 less barrel per day in the next year" is an impressive number.
Now, I wonder how it really "hurt" the oil industry. Does that 37% rise is to replace older gasoline type? How much is 279 000 compared to the world production? Probably less than 1% so I'm not sure "hurting" is appropriate. Maybe "make a dent on"?
Well, the speed of the water depend of the volume of water that can pass throught the drain. So, yeah the idea I had was a few dozen drain that cover roughly the half of the spool floor area and sides.
Honestly, I'm less than impressed by a flawed design that require the kid to wear something.
I'm surprised nobody made some sort of sensor (heat, light curtain, motion detection, sound recognition etc.) that will have a near perfect efficiency (or anything better than a fence around the pool). And why not coupling this to an emergency drain connected to the aqueduct to empty the pool in case the alarm isn't aknowledged in like 30 sec (to give the time in case of a false alarm in the middle of the night).
This comment, among others, makes me laugh. It's not the most common coarseness of salt? Why is a theme of this comment section that slashdotters, technologists, want to deny the legitimacy of technological advancement?
If you look for this pattern on here, you'll start to see it everywhere.
AC because I don't want a bunch of people telling me how Moore's Law is broken, daggamit.
Let's be clear,
It's an amazing technological advancements, there's no denying it. But I can't stand sensationalism.
They could have said ""IBM has created a computer smaller than a pea" and it would have been equally impressive.
The headline said "IBM has created a computer smaller than a grain of salt" but they compare it to Kosher Salt (Or another variety with the grain size if bigger).
If you want to use an headline like this at least make sure it's smaller than the most popular type of salt. I mean, I've worked in a salt mine where I could find salt rock bigger than your house.
- Falcon9 fairings have an estimated cost of about six million dollars. After a quick search, it's look like the advertised cost is 61.2 million maiking the fairing about 10% of the cost. Honestly, it's way more than I anticipaded.
- The new fairing will not only survive atmosphere reentry, but they will "reorient themselves" before the ewentry and then deploy a parachute. It's bery impressing and I'm very curious about how they did this.
- SpaceX is making a recovery boat with a big net to catch those new fairing that will come. For what I read, it's pretty similar to Of Course I Still Love You drone ship.
I fail to see what's the gain between launching a rocket with 1 ton of preassembled componned or 1 ton of materia used by a space 3D printer to build those component. And unless there's 0% loss during the 3D printer process, I would even say it's less efficient that way.
The only way I can see a real gain is if most of the materia weight come directly from space. For instance, asteriod mining.
It seems incredible to me that this was done without public comment and regulation. This is extremely dangerous. First, it's a potential vector for diseases to jump inter-species. Second, it's a way to grow more unquestioning trump supporters.
I fail to understand the logic behind your two assumptions.
Wealthy executives losing share value isn't the same universe as people who will now have trouble paying rent/mortgage, bills, and kids tuition if they can't find a new job within a month or two (and the lowest level of employees even sooner). That you'd even make a comment like that shows you're disturbingly out of touch. Garbage like that is why people put the wealthy's heads on pikes come revolution time. "Oh no, poor CEO, he had to downgrade from a Bugatti to a Lambo." Who cares they lost more real dollars, drawing an equivalence like that is grotesque.
Well this isn't Facebook, it's Slashdot. Sentimental fantasy created by teenagers movies where 1% are the evil man isn't welcome, only facts matters here.
Let's start with a scoop, most president have families too (especially president from little companies) and bankruptcy isn't a downgrade to a Lambo, it's a downgrade to nothing at all. And I know that I'll will survive way more easily than my boss if my company had a controversy like that and goes bankrupt (in fact, I just changed job after my old company filled from bankruptcy after a bad merge. Most employees were quickly contacted by the competitors).
As for the actual case, yeah the employee will have to pay because of the stupid mistake from the CEO and I'm not dismissing this. But the OP's point is that the real loser are the employee and I brought my point of view that this CEO will suffer from harsher consequences than the.. Am I more sorry for him than the employee's that lose their job because of a stupid decision he made? No and I never say that I was. But I'm sure he will suffer more from this than most of the others. After all, who will hire him as a CEO after this? If you think company does a lot of background (aka Facebook) check when hiring people like me and you check what the hiring process of a several hundred K$ CEO look like. His career is probably finished.
and it would likely burn up as it entered the atmosphere.
I'm no expert, but since asteroid usually need to be over 25 meter to reach ground (Look at Asteroid Fast Facts NASA on google), could be remove the "likely" out of the sentence?
So you leave a review, and a disclaimer. No different than a reviewer of a game from a magazine should reveal he's wined and dined before writing a review, or if they own stock, etc. Reveal your bias and give your review - let the reader adjust accordingly. Expecting honest and unbiased reviews from other purchasers means jack all - I known people to savage reviews on games they had enjoyed, simply because of a new dlc, another game by the same company, or a company's president's tweeted opinion.
Works is you write a review in a magasine, doesn't in Steam where the review summary matters.
When you buy an item on amazon, do you go throught the +200 review or you just look at the summary?
The real loser here are the employees of the company. They got an email from their boss manipulating them into leaving fake reviews (essentially threatening to shut down jobs if they didn't), and now they're virtually guaranteed to lose their jobs.
I won't be so sure about that.
On top of their job, CEO and President usually have shares and other asset linked to their company. So, in a way, I find that they will lose a lot more if the company is to goes bankrupt. And this little controversy will follow them for a while.
On the others hands, employes lose their revenu and will need to see another job. For some it will be harsh, for other it may bring them to new horizon. I don't feel like Insel Games had much of a future anyway.
Well, at least one employee seems to think that is fine.
Seriously, if you work for a game company - why wouldn't you leave an honest review for the game if you like it? Also, companies pay for review copies all the time. This should have been a nothing-burger; but anytime something is posted online it gets blown out of proportion, context is lost and everyone jumps to the worst possible conclusions.
Are you seriously suggesting that employees leaving positive review of game made by their company is perfectly fine?
This is wrong on so many level. Do you even understand the purpose of a review?
When I'm reaching out a review of a product before I buy it, I'm looking for honest, unbiaised opinion of other buyers.
This is the equivalent "professoinnal review writters" that plague Amazon and the likes.
If our field, we consider "Robot" machine that have been created to replace human manual labor independently (so an excavator isn't a robot). As for a printer, it's a machine since it doesn't replace manual labor. It replace a task, not a worker.
The best example of robot are "Industrial Robot" and this article talk about those robot.
Do you distinguish between a robot and an automated tool? What's you're definition? I often see the term robot used in a context where telefactor would be more appropriate. What distinction do you make between a robot and a numerically controlled tool?
To me a robot must have significant intelligence. Not just internal logic, but actual situational evaluation. Behavior that has been called "Sphexish" (like that of a particular wasp) doesn't qualify as intelligence, as it appears to be all preprogrammed responses to situational cues. (In another place I argue that this kind of thing is minimally intelligent, and I'll stand by that, but the emphasis is on minimal.)
If a robot need to have significant intelligence (ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) as you said, then robot haven't been created yet.
If our field, we consider "Robot" machine that have been created to replace human manual labor independently (so an excavator isn't a robot). That also mean that, in my opinion, most android aren't robot.
The best example of robot are "Industrial Robot" or "Robot Arm" and this article talk about those robot.
The population of humans continues to grow, but the work isn't there for them to do. Ergo, without massive redistribution of wealth from the wealthiest individuals with something like basic income, we end up with an ever-growing underclass of penniless and powerless.
Tell that to the japanese. They population continue to decline years after years.
Most western countrie population grow because of immigrantion. But if all the countries in the world were developped with a birth rate around 1.5, the world population will decline at an alarming rate.
As for the basic income, it will eventually be needed since, historically, civil wars start when unemployment reach ~10%. But looking at the employment rate of the most automated countries, I think we have many decades ahead of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm an automation engineer so I'm making those machines. I should be safe.
96 million/day
so about a third of a percent.
but if it's an accelerating trend (7 years to 1/3 percent, 8 years to .4 percent), and it's not a proven tech, so it may spread to other countries, I bet they're watching it with some nervousness.
If it can handle buses, local delivery is next (Tesla truck for example).
growth 2016-2017 was .7%, so this in theory is hitting growth significantly.
(growth sourced here, daily use 2016 on a google search)
https://www.eia.gov/beta/inter...
Great point! Would mod you up if I could.
Given the importance of grow in this century, it is big.
That's 279,000 barrels *per day*.
That's over 100 million barrels *per year*.
Just try, if you can, to picture 100 million barrels of oil. Just how massive a quantity that is. It's a big deal.
That's why I hate with number figure, it doesn't give a good picture.
Sure it's a big number, but if it covered like 0.000001% of the world production, than no matter how big the number is it's irrelevant.
The actual percentage is 0.3%. At first, it does look irrelevent.
But an AC pointed out that the world consumption grow by 0.7% during the 2016-2017 period. So this could hinder about half of the "grow" of the oil industry. Considering the importance of grow in any company in this century, it is pretty major.
I must admit, while I was reading the headline I was quite sure it was clickbait materia. "Yeah right, no way in hell a few electric buses will hurt the oil industry" I told myself.
Well, look like I was wrong. I was very surprised to learn that China had 99% of the world electric bus but, when you think about it, it's not that surprising. They put the axe on many coal plants mega development because of the abysmal level of pollution in their cities so I can understand why they are the world leader on this. That "279 000 less barrel per day in the next year" is an impressive number.
Now, I wonder how it really "hurt" the oil industry. Does that 37% rise is to replace older gasoline type? How much is 279 000 compared to the world production? Probably less than 1% so I'm not sure "hurting" is appropriate. Maybe "make a dent on"?
Tesla doesn't scare any auto maker.
Then why is everyone is suddently making EV car?
Of course there would be a bottleneck, but could water flow faster there?
As for elevating floor, I don't think the one in the video are strong enough to lift one person though, but it's a matter fitting stronger valve.
Well, the speed of the water depend of the volume of water that can pass throught the drain. So, yeah the idea I had was a few dozen drain that cover roughly the half of the spool floor area and sides.
Another alternative could be an elevator floor that would work even better : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
All are expensive options of course.
Honestly, I'm less than impressed by a flawed design that require the kid to wear something.
I'm surprised nobody made some sort of sensor (heat, light curtain, motion detection, sound recognition etc.) that will have a near perfect efficiency (or anything better than a fence around the pool). And why not coupling this to an emergency drain connected to the aqueduct to empty the pool in case the alarm isn't aknowledged in like 30 sec (to give the time in case of a false alarm in the middle of the night).
I know their orbit must be stable, but I'm wondering why it stay that stable.
Couldn't one of the black hole suck something big one time, gain a lot of gravity pull of collapse the whole thing?
This comment, among others, makes me laugh. It's not the most common coarseness of salt? Why is a theme of this comment section that slashdotters, technologists, want to deny the legitimacy of technological advancement?
If you look for this pattern on here, you'll start to see it everywhere.
AC because I don't want a bunch of people telling me how Moore's Law is broken, daggamit.
Let's be clear,
It's an amazing technological advancements, there's no denying it. But I can't stand sensationalism.
They could have said ""IBM has created a computer smaller than a pea" and it would have been equally impressive.
The headline said "IBM has created a computer smaller than a grain of salt" but they compare it to Kosher Salt (Or another variety with the grain size if bigger).
If you want to use an headline like this at least make sure it's smaller than the most popular type of salt. I mean, I've worked in a salt mine where I could find salt rock bigger than your house.
...the ewentry ... It's bery impressing ...
I hope you get over that cold.
Funny coincidence, I do have a cold right now. ...but I think my new keyboard is the real culprit. I missed a few keys.
Thanks, I was unaware of the new fairing.
A few interestings points in the linked article :
- Falcon9 fairings have an estimated cost of about six million dollars. After a quick search, it's look like the advertised cost is 61.2 million maiking the fairing about 10% of the cost. Honestly, it's way more than I anticipaded.
- The new fairing will not only survive atmosphere reentry, but they will "reorient themselves" before the ewentry and then deploy a parachute. It's bery impressing and I'm very curious about how they did this.
- SpaceX is making a recovery boat with a big net to catch those new fairing that will come. For what I read, it's pretty similar to Of Course I Still Love You drone ship.
Can't wait to see if they succeded.
Dude's French. Globalism = mondialisation in le french.
Guilty as charged.
Yes I am and I'm still learning.
Don't hesitate to correct me! I want to get better.
I fail to see what's the gain between launching a rocket with 1 ton of preassembled componned or 1 ton of materia used by a space 3D printer to build those component. And unless there's 0% loss during the 3D printer process, I would even say it's less efficient that way.
The only way I can see a real gain is if most of the materia weight come directly from space. For instance, asteriod mining.
It seems incredible to me that this was done without public comment and regulation.
This is extremely dangerous. First, it's a potential vector for diseases to jump inter-species.
Second, it's a way to grow more unquestioning trump supporters.
I fail to understand the logic behind your two assumptions.
Please, entertain us and explain yourself.
Wealthy executives losing share value isn't the same universe as people who will now have trouble paying rent/mortgage, bills, and kids tuition if they can't find a new job within a month or two (and the lowest level of employees even sooner). That you'd even make a comment like that shows you're disturbingly out of touch. Garbage like that is why people put the wealthy's heads on pikes come revolution time. "Oh no, poor CEO, he had to downgrade from a Bugatti to a Lambo." Who cares they lost more real dollars, drawing an equivalence like that is grotesque.
Well this isn't Facebook, it's Slashdot. Sentimental fantasy created by teenagers movies where 1% are the evil man isn't welcome, only facts matters here.
Let's start with a scoop, most president have families too (especially president from little companies) and bankruptcy isn't a downgrade to a Lambo, it's a downgrade to nothing at all. And I know that I'll will survive way more easily than my boss if my company had a controversy like that and goes bankrupt (in fact, I just changed job after my old company filled from bankruptcy after a bad merge. Most employees were quickly contacted by the competitors).
As for the actual case, yeah the employee will have to pay because of the stupid mistake from the CEO and I'm not dismissing this. But the OP's point is that the real loser are the employee and I brought my point of view that this CEO will suffer from harsher consequences than the.. Am I more sorry for him than the employee's that lose their job because of a stupid decision he made? No and I never say that I was. But I'm sure he will suffer more from this than most of the others. After all, who will hire him as a CEO after this? If you think company does a lot of background (aka Facebook) check when hiring people like me and you check what the hiring process of a several hundred K$ CEO look like. His career is probably finished.
and it would likely burn up as it entered the atmosphere.
I'm no expert, but since asteroid usually need to be over 25 meter to reach ground (Look at Asteroid Fast Facts NASA on google), could be remove the "likely" out of the sentence?
So you leave a review, and a disclaimer. No different than a reviewer of a game from a magazine should reveal he's wined and dined before writing a review, or if they own stock, etc. Reveal your bias and give your review - let the reader adjust accordingly. Expecting honest and unbiased reviews from other purchasers means jack all - I known people to savage reviews on games they had enjoyed, simply because of a new dlc, another game by the same company, or a company's president's tweeted opinion.
Works is you write a review in a magasine, doesn't in Steam where the review summary matters.
When you buy an item on amazon, do you go throught the +200 review or you just look at the summary?
The real loser here are the employees of the company. They got an email from their boss manipulating them into leaving fake reviews (essentially threatening to shut down jobs if they didn't), and now they're virtually guaranteed to lose their jobs.
I won't be so sure about that.
On top of their job, CEO and President usually have shares and other asset linked to their company. So, in a way, I find that they will lose a lot more if the company is to goes bankrupt. And this little controversy will follow them for a while.
On the others hands, employes lose their revenu and will need to see another job. For some it will be harsh, for other it may bring them to new horizon. I don't feel like Insel Games had much of a future anyway.
Well, at least one employee seems to think that is fine.
Seriously, if you work for a game company - why wouldn't you leave an honest review for the game if you like it? Also, companies pay for review copies all the time. This should have been a nothing-burger; but anytime something is posted online it gets blown out of proportion, context is lost and everyone jumps to the worst possible conclusions.
Are you seriously suggesting that employees leaving positive review of game made by their company is perfectly fine?
This is wrong on so many level. Do you even understand the purpose of a review?
When I'm reaching out a review of a product before I buy it, I'm looking for honest, unbiaised opinion of other buyers.
This is the equivalent "professoinnal review writters" that plague Amazon and the likes.
If our field, we consider "Robot" machine that have been created to replace human manual labor independently (so an excavator isn't a robot). As for a printer, it's a machine since it doesn't replace manual labor. It replace a task, not a worker.
The best example of robot are "Industrial Robot" and this article talk about those robot.
Do you distinguish between a robot and an automated tool?
What's you're definition? I often see the term robot used in a context where telefactor would be more appropriate.
What distinction do you make between a robot and a numerically controlled tool?
To me a robot must have significant intelligence. Not just internal logic, but actual situational evaluation. Behavior that has been called "Sphexish" (like that of a particular wasp) doesn't qualify as intelligence, as it appears to be all preprogrammed responses to situational cues. (In another place I argue that this kind of thing is minimally intelligent, and I'll stand by that, but the emphasis is on minimal.)
If a robot need to have significant intelligence (ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) as you said, then robot haven't been created yet.
If our field, we consider "Robot" machine that have been created to replace human manual labor independently (so an excavator isn't a robot). That also mean that, in my opinion, most android aren't robot.
The best example of robot are "Industrial Robot" or "Robot Arm" and this article talk about those robot.
The population of humans continues to grow, but the work isn't there for them to do. Ergo, without massive redistribution of wealth from the wealthiest individuals with something like basic income, we end up with an ever-growing underclass of penniless and powerless.
Tell that to the japanese. They population continue to decline years after years.
Most western countrie population grow because of immigrantion. But if all the countries in the world were developped with a birth rate around 1.5, the world population will decline at an alarming rate.
As for the basic income, it will eventually be needed since, historically, civil wars start when unemployment reach ~10%. But looking at the employment rate of the most automated countries, I think we have many decades ahead of us.
Is one robot worth 100 workers? If so the 631 to 10,000 number seems significant.
My field is robotic and in the few dozen robot I've installed, none goes even near that 100 worker equivalent.
At best, at very best a robot barely replace 9 workers (3 worker, 3 shift a day). But it's usually more 1-2.