The Internet may have augmented people's minds with the ability to find solutions to problems people already found solutions for. It's also, through things like BOINC and other distributed computing schemes, able to complete repetitive tasks on enormous amounts of data. The Internet, though, still can't actually solve a problem that nobody else has solved. It still requires people to do the actual thinking.
You're right, though, that the Internet can't be killed, at least not without wiping out a significant amount of our technology (massive EMP would do it). Even if a bunch of governments got together to strictly control, or completely wipe out the Internet people would band together and, within a few months or years, there would be a more robust, more independent Internet. Perhaps instead of using wires it'd use HAM radio (this idea already exists as the Hinternet). The Internet, as an idea, can't be killed. Things ON the Internet are also hard to kill (they killed suprnova only to be replaced a few days later with ten or fifteen copies, which were killed and replaced by more)
The Internet is like a virus or bacteria. What doesn't kill it makes it stronger, and since nothing can kill it (besides the aforementioned world-wide EMP) it's always getting stronger.
I think you're getting electrical power and computing power confused. Computing power has increased exponentially without any kind of correlation in electrical power, either increase or decrease. In some cases the electrical requirements are increased, in many others it's decreased. My phone runs on a 3.7v Li-ion battery and is far more powerful than the building-sized computers of the early computing years which used incredible amounts of energy.
It's entirely plausible that we could increase computing power almost indefinitely without significantly increasing the energy requirements. At some point we'll reach a wall, then we'll need some new scientific discovery to push beyond it (faster than light communication would decrease the latency so much as to make computing speeds almost limitless, assuming such a thing is possible).
The problem with most of those "close this frame" or "view only main frame" or whatever links/buttons tend to just go to whatever the frame was originally. This doesn't work if you've navigated away from the original page. It also will be painful if there's a half-filled out form on the page.
What we need is the ability to remove frames without reloading the page.
Also, Firefox has a "view this frame only" option in the context menu (right click), this is usually better than the site-provided buttons since it stays on the same page if you've browsed around (though it still reloads the page).
I haven't RTFA, but I think they're talking about trace amounts already existing in the water supply, not additives. Though it does sound like something someone might do as a result of hearing about this study.
Oh, obviously there is a ton of physics laws they bent and broke. But you also have to look at it from the point of view of someone in 1987-1994 not someone in 2009.
Besides, they TRIED to make it more scientific. That alone skews it drastically towards sci-fi.
I am curious as to why you're implying space elevators are impossible.
A space elevator at ground level is most likely impossible with current technology, and would certainly be unfeasible (the center would have to be very large in order to keep the whole thing together). A space elevator that can be reached by standard aircraft, however, might just be possible, and with stronger material a ground level one might be as well.
Cell phones are a reality that did not exist when TOS aired, yet they imagined mobile, hand-held communication devices. Is that fantasy?
There are far more examples in TNG, especially when it comes to physics ideas. The fact that it explored how and why, or at the very least attempted to explain it makes it Science Fiction to me.
Star Wars, on the other hand, is about as far from Science Fiction as The Lord of The Rings.
Although I'll gladly admit that there is price-gouging going on, if the carriers offer unlimited cheap bandwidth, their networks will be quickly overwhelmed. As it currently stands, the carriers can utilize a large percentage of their capacity by charging high rates; what incentive is there for them to lower prices?
I hate you for making me say this as I'm usually a critic of the way corporations misuse capitalism. However I don't think this would be considered price gouging. There's a limited supply and a high demand, this means that higher prices are not only acceptable, they're required.
Now if they were artificially limiting supply (like what oil companies do) I might have a problem with it. Unfortunately it does cost a lot to deploy cellular systems. Now, if we could have an extremely high capacity satellite communication network we might be able to deploy high speed wireless Internet much cheaper and faster. Of course this would need a huge amount of initial investment, cellular networks, while expensive, can be deployed in tiny sections, satellites have a lower area/$ cost, but cover a much larger area. Also it would require a major change in technology. You probably couldn't use standard cell phones and would probably require higher powered handsets, causing more cancer causing brain frizzle.
Although, I was just thinking, wouldn't it be possible for the carbon to come from a source other than the atmosphere? Not CO2, but some carbon locked up in the soil or somesuch? Combined with oxygen and some chemical shenanigans you'll get brand new CO2 that hasn't been in the atmosphere for a while.
Though I don't think that's very likely.
Barring that, which probably would not make up much of a plant's overall carbon intake, burning an entire field of corn or rape (canola) can't release any more CO2 than it absorbed originally. If you don't produce any more bio-fuel than you consume (or vice versa) the net CO2 impact is negligible.
Of course, there's still the problem of distribution. The place the emissions occur (cities) is usually far from the place the fuel is grown (farms). This means that farms will have a much lower level of ground level CO2 than cities. Not that that's particularly different from how it is now...
You mean, like, most of it? Absolute best staple: brown rice.
Really any whole grain will do, but brown rice has the nice added advantage of not making you fat. Plus it tastes so damn good and you can do almost anything with it. Cheese and rice is a good, if not particularly healthy, snack. Especially if you've been hitting the bong... speaking of...
I think a particular They Might Be Giants Song might fit here...
I'll take back my pinata, it's wasted on you Just spinning that pool cue all over the room And give back the blindfold that's under your shoe
Let's drink, drink, this town is so great Drink, drink, 'cause it's never too late To drink, drink, to no big surprise But what words rhyme with "buried alive"? What words rhyme with "buried alive"?
You could be a float for the Fourth of July Based on your theme of "Wallflowers Grown Wild" Look through your peephole, you've won every prize
Let's Drink, drink, this town is so great Drink, drink, 'cause it's never too late To drink, drink, to no big surprise But what words rhyme with "buried alive"? What words rhyme with "buried alive"?
In your monkey suit on a cigarette break The lunchtime crowd, they won't even blink But you'd be sad if they did But you'll be sad
Let's drink, drink, this town is so great Drink, drink, 'cause it's never too late To drink, drink, to no big surprise But what words rhyme with "buried alive"? What words rhyme with "buried alive"?
While I disagree on the reason I do think it reflects badly on Ellison. He needed to compromise more than he was willing to (he was willing to make quite a lot of changes, just not enough).
Unfortunately the producers, while maybe willing to compromise, were already annoyed that Ellison took so long to finish the script so they rewrote it a second time without his input (the first rewrite was by Ellison, IIRC).
So yeah, Ellison's an uncompromising jerk, but Roddenberry and the rest of the ST peoples were unappreciative of genius (understandable, when you consider the package it comes in).
The great thing is that Ellison really is a genius*, the problem is that he knows it.
* Go read his article on Superman, Lois Lane, and Kryptonite condoms if you don't believe me.
Two questions: why is this coming up now? Yeah, the Star Trek franchise always ripped off its writers. That's why the writing started out good in the first episode of the first series and went steadily downhill from there. But why this particular episode and why now? It's not like it's anything special. Yeah, it's a decent story, but I always have to fast-forward over the parts where Joan Collins preaches about space travel to the tramps in her soup kitchen.
Why now? It's not now, it's just continued from when he turned in the first draft. It really got heated after the first rewrite. I believe Ellison threw the first verbal punch but Roddenberry didn't hold back either.
Why this episode? Had you actually read the original you would not ask this question. When compared to the original script the aired version is like a bazooka bubble-gum comic version of A Midsummer's Night's Dream.
Military-issued surface-to-air missiles can't reach that height, what makes you think your home-made rocket can?
Even if it could, a plastic nose is unlikely to penetrate the radar-absorbent paint, let alone the super-light, super-strong skin that encloses the balloons, which, themselves aren't just your standard party balloon. Can you also carry some explosive payload?
It takes about two seconds per finger. So, assuming they want all ten fingers it takes 20 seconds per-person. Add the time to explain how it all works let's say it takes a minute per-person. Lets say that 857,191 international travelers come through a busy airport in a given month. Since it's December that's an average of 27,651.32 per-day which is 460.85 man-hours, just for finger-printing.
Do the same calculation for the year (11,486,547/60=191442.45). Then multiply that by the cost of each employee (wages, payroll taxes, benefits, worker's comp, insurance (for stuff other than worker's benefits), etc), it's a HUGE amount of money just for finger printing every year at one busy airport (granted it is the busiest airport, but I doubt it's the busiest in terms of international travelers). If a $100,000 computer system can automate that it's a bargain (pays for itself in less than a month, not counting running costs, which can't be much).
Slashdot Mirror
The Internet may have augmented people's minds with the ability to find solutions to problems people already found solutions for. It's also, through things like BOINC and other distributed computing schemes, able to complete repetitive tasks on enormous amounts of data. The Internet, though, still can't actually solve a problem that nobody else has solved. It still requires people to do the actual thinking.
You're right, though, that the Internet can't be killed, at least not without wiping out a significant amount of our technology (massive EMP would do it). Even if a bunch of governments got together to strictly control, or completely wipe out the Internet people would band together and, within a few months or years, there would be a more robust, more independent Internet. Perhaps instead of using wires it'd use HAM radio (this idea already exists as the Hinternet). The Internet, as an idea, can't be killed. Things ON the Internet are also hard to kill (they killed suprnova only to be replaced a few days later with ten or fifteen copies, which were killed and replaced by more)
The Internet is like a virus or bacteria. What doesn't kill it makes it stronger, and since nothing can kill it (besides the aforementioned world-wide EMP) it's always getting stronger.
I think you're getting electrical power and computing power confused. Computing power has increased exponentially without any kind of correlation in electrical power, either increase or decrease. In some cases the electrical requirements are increased, in many others it's decreased. My phone runs on a 3.7v Li-ion battery and is far more powerful than the building-sized computers of the early computing years which used incredible amounts of energy.
It's entirely plausible that we could increase computing power almost indefinitely without significantly increasing the energy requirements. At some point we'll reach a wall, then we'll need some new scientific discovery to push beyond it (faster than light communication would decrease the latency so much as to make computing speeds almost limitless, assuming such a thing is possible).
The problem with most of those "close this frame" or "view only main frame" or whatever links/buttons tend to just go to whatever the frame was originally. This doesn't work if you've navigated away from the original page. It also will be painful if there's a half-filled out form on the page.
What we need is the ability to remove frames without reloading the page.
Also, Firefox has a "view this frame only" option in the context menu (right click), this is usually better than the site-provided buttons since it stays on the same page if you've browsed around (though it still reloads the page).
I haven't RTFA, but I think they're talking about trace amounts already existing in the water supply, not additives. Though it does sound like something someone might do as a result of hearing about this study.
That's where lithium comes in. Life will still suck, but you won't notice because you're a mindless drone with no memory.
Insects are easier to kill than dinosaurs. Or, so I assume as I've never actually tried to kill a dinosaur by smacking it with a newspaper.
Dewd, ur carma jst run ovr mai dawgma.
I know you're joking, but just ask Woody, he knows what to be scared of.
Myan calendar needs a new digit in 2012, not 2018.
Hey now, Dr. Who was reversing polarity years before Star Trek! Besides Jon Pertwee pronounced it better, also his ship was a small box made of wood.
Oh, obviously there is a ton of physics laws they bent and broke. But you also have to look at it from the point of view of someone in 1987-1994 not someone in 2009.
Besides, they TRIED to make it more scientific. That alone skews it drastically towards sci-fi.
I am curious as to why you're implying space elevators are impossible.
A space elevator at ground level is most likely impossible with current technology, and would certainly be unfeasible (the center would have to be very large in order to keep the whole thing together). A space elevator that can be reached by standard aircraft, however, might just be possible, and with stronger material a ground level one might be as well.
Why would you say Star Trek is fantasy?
Cell phones are a reality that did not exist when TOS aired, yet they imagined mobile, hand-held communication devices. Is that fantasy?
There are far more examples in TNG, especially when it comes to physics ideas. The fact that it explored how and why, or at the very least attempted to explain it makes it Science Fiction to me.
Star Wars, on the other hand, is about as far from Science Fiction as The Lord of The Rings.
Only on slashdot would such a post be modded insightful. Not that I disagree.
Although I'll gladly admit that there is price-gouging going on, if the carriers offer unlimited cheap bandwidth, their networks will be quickly overwhelmed. As it currently stands, the carriers can utilize a large percentage of their capacity by charging high rates; what incentive is there for them to lower prices?
I hate you for making me say this as I'm usually a critic of the way corporations misuse capitalism. However I don't think this would be considered price gouging. There's a limited supply and a high demand, this means that higher prices are not only acceptable, they're required.
Now if they were artificially limiting supply (like what oil companies do) I might have a problem with it. Unfortunately it does cost a lot to deploy cellular systems. Now, if we could have an extremely high capacity satellite communication network we might be able to deploy high speed wireless Internet much cheaper and faster. Of course this would need a huge amount of initial investment, cellular networks, while expensive, can be deployed in tiny sections, satellites have a lower area/$ cost, but cover a much larger area. Also it would require a major change in technology. You probably couldn't use standard cell phones and would probably require higher powered handsets, causing more cancer causing brain frizzle.
Hear hear!
Although, I was just thinking, wouldn't it be possible for the carbon to come from a source other than the atmosphere? Not CO2, but some carbon locked up in the soil or somesuch? Combined with oxygen and some chemical shenanigans you'll get brand new CO2 that hasn't been in the atmosphere for a while.
Though I don't think that's very likely.
Barring that, which probably would not make up much of a plant's overall carbon intake, burning an entire field of corn or rape (canola) can't release any more CO2 than it absorbed originally. If you don't produce any more bio-fuel than you consume (or vice versa) the net CO2 impact is negligible.
Of course, there's still the problem of distribution. The place the emissions occur (cities) is usually far from the place the fuel is grown (farms). This means that farms will have a much lower level of ground level CO2 than cities. Not that that's particularly different from how it is now...
You mean, like, most of it? Absolute best staple: brown rice.
Really any whole grain will do, but brown rice has the nice added advantage of not making you fat. Plus it tastes so damn good and you can do almost anything with it. Cheese and rice is a good, if not particularly healthy, snack. Especially if you've been hitting the bong... speaking of...
I think a particular They Might Be Giants Song might fit here...
Why is it that worms and viruses have better security than legitimate programs?
Oh dang, you're right. Still, despite not being able to think of any real examples off the top of my head, the point stands.
While I disagree on the reason I do think it reflects badly on Ellison. He needed to compromise more than he was willing to (he was willing to make quite a lot of changes, just not enough).
Unfortunately the producers, while maybe willing to compromise, were already annoyed that Ellison took so long to finish the script so they rewrote it a second time without his input (the first rewrite was by Ellison, IIRC).
So yeah, Ellison's an uncompromising jerk, but Roddenberry and the rest of the ST peoples were unappreciative of genius (understandable, when you consider the package it comes in).
The great thing is that Ellison really is a genius*, the problem is that he knows it.
* Go read his article on Superman, Lois Lane, and Kryptonite condoms if you don't believe me.
s/midsummer's/midsummer
Two questions: why is this coming up now? Yeah, the Star Trek franchise always ripped off its writers. That's why the writing started out good in the first episode of the first series and went steadily downhill from there. But why this particular episode and why now? It's not like it's anything special. Yeah, it's a decent story, but I always have to fast-forward over the parts where Joan Collins preaches about space travel to the tramps in her soup kitchen.
Why now? It's not now, it's just continued from when he turned in the first draft. It really got heated after the first rewrite. I believe Ellison threw the first verbal punch but Roddenberry didn't hold back either.
Why this episode? Had you actually read the original you would not ask this question. When compared to the original script the aired version is like a bazooka bubble-gum comic version of A Midsummer's Night's Dream.
Military-issued surface-to-air missiles can't reach that height, what makes you think your home-made rocket can?
Even if it could, a plastic nose is unlikely to penetrate the radar-absorbent paint, let alone the super-light, super-strong skin that encloses the balloons, which, themselves aren't just your standard party balloon. Can you also carry some explosive payload?
It takes about two seconds per finger. So, assuming they want all ten fingers it takes 20 seconds per-person. Add the time to explain how it all works let's say it takes a minute per-person. Lets say that 857,191 international travelers come through a busy airport in a given month. Since it's December that's an average of 27,651.32 per-day which is 460.85 man-hours, just for finger-printing.
Do the same calculation for the year (11,486,547/60=191442.45). Then multiply that by the cost of each employee (wages, payroll taxes, benefits, worker's comp, insurance (for stuff other than worker's benefits), etc), it's a HUGE amount of money just for finger printing every year at one busy airport (granted it is the busiest airport, but I doubt it's the busiest in terms of international travelers). If a $100,000 computer system can automate that it's a bargain (pays for itself in less than a month, not counting running costs, which can't be much).