It will smell like money to them if you can generate hype for the technology before they even see it.
Try posting an Ask Slashdot question where you can tease the technology, spilling plenty of detail without giving away the maths. That will whet the appetites of the digerati general population and start up the hype engine.
. . . Oh, and once you have it legally protected, post some before and after videos showing how miraculous the new tech is. Post links back to Slashdot again, and Reddit, lining back to the original Ask Slashdot question as well. Bonus points for using a TED Presenter style narrative, or a Steve Jobs "stunning" reality field distortion effect... or show several magical-appearing comparisons off with some kickass trendy electronica like Peace Orchestra's "Whom Am I?"
The trouble starts when all mac address's activity gets logged into big data and stays there. Then later on, your mac address gets cross-referenced with your real name and phone number and personally identifying data some day (because, for example, you may frequent Starbucks or locations that feature free wifi).
Suddenly, without anyone really trying, your every movement throughout the day just became trackable and they know how to reach you.
You also lose quite a lot of heat when you breathe.
The bodyheat that is "lost" to the building is also trapped by the building walls and ceiling; it doesn't radiate into space very effectively. In fact, it's a part of our global warming problem that we give off so much heat into the atmosphere from our buildings and vehicles... faster than the heat can be radiated into space.
As long as the walls and ceiling remain a certain temperature, then the ambient temperature will remain stable. If the walls are cooled off though, they will absorb heat from the ambient at a faster rate, causing the ambient to decline in temperature. Then whatever is generating heat for the ambient will have to work harder just to maintain that same temperature, even if we're talking about barely detectable and highly distributed energy expenditures.
And so, my original point was basically academic and not specific to the building being discussed. The take-away I had hoped for is that this is not a solution that can just be applied as a mindless panacea around the world. There is no such thing as free energy and too many people assume that because one system is losing energy to another, that the solution is to trap that energy, which can have the perverse effect of simply forcing the first system to increase it's energy output.
In short, this idea can only ever be worthwhile if the building in question is well-insulated and too hot for the occupants. Only in those cases will you have excess heat that would have to be dumped or pumped outdoors, which would be energy wasted. Better to re-route that excess heat somewhere where it's needed.
And for those saying that people donning jackets makes this a self-regulating system: think! When you don a jacket you are insulating yourself and keeping your heat to yourself instead of radiating it to the ambient. That means less heat overall for the ambient, which is less heat for the building.
I of course agree wholeheartedly that if you have thousands of folk bustling about in parkas indoors somewhere, and they are sweating and too hot, then that certainly qualifies for the proposed solution. But consider this: why don't we just put the entire city under walls and ceilings then? Think of all the lost energy you could collect that is otherwise lost when people walk around in parkas outside. You might even make it so they don't need parkas.
The problem is that if you pump the thermal energy out of the building where the "hot bodies" are without somehow knowing when to stop, there's nothing to keep the system from turning that comfortable space into something less comfortable and more like the winter temperature outside. That defeats the purpose because you're not going to save energy when that happens.
At the extreme, it means the temperature in the space could become cold enough people want you to turn the heat on. A little less extreme and it means that people are less comfortable than normal and dress to avoid sharing their heat (making the space colder and making less heat available to the system).
At the most subtle level, even a degree change of -1 degrees means that people will expend more personal energy to maintain their preferred body temperature. Conservation of energy demands that this personal energy come from _somewhere_.
So, is it more carbon friendly to: - consume food and generate body heat?
- or to heat a space by using traditional means that depend on centralized power generators?
Not too far off considering that this concept is only worthwhile when bodies are generating excess heat that is unwanted in a space. But if you take away all the bodyheat being generated, then the people in that space will feel cold. To make up for it they will either dress warmer (insulate to keep their heat instead of sharing it) or they will expend more calories (which they must make up for by eating more) to generate more heat.
So yes, kinda Matrix-like, this could easily turn into essentially draining a person's precious energy from them without their consent.
Actually, as a web guy, I also care about logs that are free from false positives due to accidental clicks and redirects. A feature like this would help me verify that traffic to a page on the site is purposeful and desired by the end user.
Reminds me how I've wished for a new http "undo" feature.
Basically, if I make a request of a page from a server and decide it was a mistake, I want to invoke "undo" and have my browser history go back, wipe any cookies or history or cache trace, plus delete anything downloaded... AND THEN ALSO send an "undo" header to Apache to request wiping my visit from the logs.
Of course that would be open to abuse. So servers should only honor such "undo" requests if they happen within X seconds (say, 120) after the last non-ajax bit was sent to the browser, and as long as no further requests are made by the browser after the first one. For example, click a link on the page, interact with a form widget, or invoke a new ajax request... and you'd totally kill the ability to "undo".
After all these millennia, we still use hammers and wedges and still apply thought to "paper" using ink. We like to use our hands to act on other things in order to produce an effect of our imaginations for the world. We like to do this at work benches and desks, etc.
I expect any tool worth exploiting effectively will continue to exist for the rest of humankind's existence as we know it.
Will it become Minority Report style? Perhaps. But that is still arguably a desktop. Could it just be your mobile device wirelessly projecting it's computing capacity onto some larger "desktop"-oriented ergonomically different interfaces? Perhaps, but that is still arguably a desktop.
In other words, it doesn't have to look like a box with a typewriter and a screen to be a desktop pc. The act of working on digital crap at a desk work station will live for a very long long time.
This is exactly how we get stuck with only a single company to choose from depending on our address. This is especially egregious when developers strike deals with cable companies to make them the exclusive provider to entire neighborhoods and tracts of land.
This is quite true. I've certainly believed the pros would outweigh the cons if we nationalized the telecom infrastructure and allowed any old company to come along and attempt to compete as a service provider on that infrastructure. Esp. the "last mile" could do to be excised from the cable companies.
However, the screams that would arise when the telecoms lose ownership of something into which they invested billions of dollars would be deafening.
While we're at it: no company selling connectivity should be allowed to sell content. Not even affiliated with a company that does. It's an inherent conflict of interest.
My original comment was a reply to this assertion:
You can't have a monopoly or a monopolistic cartel without government intervention. 'Free market monopolies' are a misnomer, as the company that has provided such a high quality, low cost product that no-one can compete with them must continue to provide such quality, or risk new competition arising.
That is not narrowly focused on the question of dolling out a limited resource. It is a general statement asserting as factual that monopolies are impossible sans a meddling government. That's a patently false assertion. That's the point of my counterargument.
Now the more on-topic nuance about my response, which I didn't give voice to, is that telecoms (A) have astronomically high barriers to entry because they require massive infrastructure that relies on land settled upon by other humans (whole cities, towns, and private residencies), and (B) any such massive infrastructure requires protection from other who would seek to reclaim the land for some other reason (save the spotted owl), or potential competitors.
Hence, even without a government, the barriers to entry are astronomical. If you wanted to run a telecom in a veritable unregulated libertarian wild west, you'd have to have a whole crew dedicated to enforcing that no one messed with your property; you'd have to make so a ridiculous number of deals with land owners costing a ridiculous amount of money. And once established, you could easily bully anyone else seeking to do the same... not that anyone else could really pull it off unless they were already rich on their own.
In the meantime, all the citizens of the land would be subjected to infrastructure wars between barons seeking to provide telecom service and the constant uprooting of land, cables strewn about the skies, and probably fractured service and abandoned equipment. Hence, society chooses to regulate such an industry. Two separate issues... yet regulation can help abate both.
I'm not saying government isn't corrupt. I'm not saying competition doesn't drive down costs. I'm not saying government will necessarily solve the problem. I'm just saying that to assert that the monopolies would not exist otherwise is absurd, delusional even, especially in the context of TFA. Finally, I am saying that a government COULD solve the problem.
"high barriers to entry are typically not an issue of acquiring sufficient capital "
Are you serious? You're telling me that politicians are the reason you can't just start an airplane manufacturing business overnight? Or launch satellites into orbit to provide global communications? Or an offshore oil drilling company... a mining company... a global logistics provider....?
High barriers to entry are there because the resources necessary to set up shop are hugely expensive and often of a massive scale. High barriers to entry become even higher when there are already established players in a space because you will be utterly incapable of competing against them unless you can match their resources. Nothing at all to do with political influence.
And in the natural world, the biggest, strongest wolf gets to stay that way by eating first (and the most) while the runt of the litter eats last.
Collusion, oligopolies, and high barriers to entry for certain enterprises (once established by first-to-market types, or when invested in by rich types) mean a free market does indeed lead to monopolistic abuses.
Of course, all you have to do is look at human history and the natural world to see that this is the case. Mafias, gangs, cliques, pecking order, castes, nobility, feudalism, etc, etc... It's the nature of all social organizations that some will become strong and leverage that strength against others and some who ultimately become utterly dominant.
Establishing rules and enforcing them, (i.e., a regulated society that values more opportunity for more members of society and a more level playing field) is the ONLY way to circumvent this tendency.
Oddly heartwarming ending. It's awesome when people can take the high road and restrain themselves from lashing back at abusers, who do this stuff out of boredom, insecurity, and immaturity (or sometimes mental instability issues, alas). But recognizing that people do stupid regrettable crap, and that maybe their lives need not be ruined over it, and that maybe some good might come out of something bad... that's great strength and maturity. Kudos.
That would be a good suggestion to make to Apple. They should integrate it into Find Friends especially.
I've never faced that situation though, since the friend I speak with is normally giving me an ETA from their own GPS/nav solution and I trust what they say and don't bother looking in my map. The times when I do look in my map, if I want to know how far away in time something is, I just click on the pin and then select "get directions from/to" and then pick one of the routes it offers I like the best and see how much time it is.
Slashdot Mirror
It will smell like money to them if you can generate hype for the technology before they even see it.
Try posting an Ask Slashdot question where you can tease the technology, spilling plenty of detail without giving away the maths. That will whet the appetites of the digerati general population and start up the hype engine.
.
.
.
Oh, and once you have it legally protected, post some before and after videos showing how miraculous the new tech is. Post links back to Slashdot again, and Reddit, lining back to the original Ask Slashdot question as well. Bonus points for using a TED Presenter style narrative, or a Steve Jobs "stunning" reality field distortion effect... or show several magical-appearing comparisons off with some kickass trendy electronica like Peace Orchestra's "Whom Am I?"
The inverse problem with A for Effort is that it unfairly penalizes people who can ace things without putting in apparent effort.
The trouble starts when all mac address's activity gets logged into big data and stays there.
Then later on, your mac address gets cross-referenced with your real name and phone number and personally identifying data some day (because, for example, you may frequent Starbucks or locations that feature free wifi).
Suddenly, without anyone really trying, your every movement throughout the day just became trackable and they know how to reach you.
You also lose quite a lot of heat when you breathe.
The bodyheat that is "lost" to the building is also trapped by the building walls and ceiling; it doesn't radiate into space very effectively. In fact, it's a part of our global warming problem that we give off so much heat into the atmosphere from our buildings and vehicles... faster than the heat can be radiated into space.
As long as the walls and ceiling remain a certain temperature, then the ambient temperature will remain stable. If the walls are cooled off though, they will absorb heat from the ambient at a faster rate, causing the ambient to decline in temperature. Then whatever is generating heat for the ambient will have to work harder just to maintain that same temperature, even if we're talking about barely detectable and highly distributed energy expenditures.
And so, my original point was basically academic and not specific to the building being discussed. The take-away I had hoped for is that this is not a solution that can just be applied as a mindless panacea around the world. There is no such thing as free energy and too many people assume that because one system is losing energy to another, that the solution is to trap that energy, which can have the perverse effect of simply forcing the first system to increase it's energy output.
In short, this idea can only ever be worthwhile if the building in question is well-insulated and too hot for the occupants. Only in those cases will you have excess heat that would have to be dumped or pumped outdoors, which would be energy wasted. Better to re-route that excess heat somewhere where it's needed.
And for those saying that people donning jackets makes this a self-regulating system: think! When you don a jacket you are insulating yourself and keeping your heat to yourself instead of radiating it to the ambient. That means less heat overall for the ambient, which is less heat for the building.
I of course agree wholeheartedly that if you have thousands of folk bustling about in parkas indoors somewhere, and they are sweating and too hot, then that certainly qualifies for the proposed solution. But consider this: why don't we just put the entire city under walls and ceilings then? Think of all the lost energy you could collect that is otherwise lost when people walk around in parkas outside. You might even make it so they don't need parkas.
Yes, I said that up front.
As long as you are doing this to avoid having to cool a space that you'd have to otherwise cool, then yes, it's a net win.
The problem is that if you pump the thermal energy out of the building where the "hot bodies" are without somehow knowing when to stop, there's nothing to keep the system from turning that comfortable space into something less comfortable and more like the winter temperature outside. That defeats the purpose because you're not going to save energy when that happens.
At the extreme, it means the temperature in the space could become cold enough people want you to turn the heat on. A little less extreme and it means that people are less comfortable than normal and dress to avoid sharing their heat (making the space colder and making less heat available to the system).
At the most subtle level, even a degree change of -1 degrees means that people will expend more personal energy to maintain their preferred body temperature. Conservation of energy demands that this personal energy come from _somewhere_.
So, is it more carbon friendly to:
- consume food and generate body heat?
- or to heat a space by using traditional means that depend on centralized power generators?
Not too far off considering that this concept is only worthwhile when bodies are generating excess heat that is unwanted in a space. But if you take away all the bodyheat being generated, then the people in that space will feel cold. To make up for it they will either dress warmer (insulate to keep their heat instead of sharing it) or they will expend more calories (which they must make up for by eating more) to generate more heat.
So yes, kinda Matrix-like, this could easily turn into essentially draining a person's precious energy from them without their consent.
Why female skin is a more apt question.
Does it not work for guys or is it an assumption that guys aren't interested in looking younger?
EXACTLY
midranges (the low mids at least) are always muddy
Come to think of it, news has always been pretty much free (especially if you're willing to wait for the next issue to come out).
Actually, as a web guy, I also care about logs that are free from false positives due to accidental clicks and redirects. A feature like this would help me verify that traffic to a page on the site is purposeful and desired by the end user.
Reminds me how I've wished for a new http "undo" feature.
Basically, if I make a request of a page from a server and decide it was a mistake, I want to invoke "undo" and have my browser history go back, wipe any cookies or history or cache trace, plus delete anything downloaded... AND THEN ALSO send an "undo" header to Apache to request wiping my visit from the logs.
Of course that would be open to abuse. So servers should only honor such "undo" requests if they happen within X seconds (say, 120) after the last non-ajax bit was sent to the browser, and as long as no further requests are made by the browser after the first one. For example, click a link on the page, interact with a form widget, or invoke a new ajax request... and you'd totally kill the ability to "undo".
Your kingdom?
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I think I have a spare comma I could sell you. Can you tell me more about the size and location of your kingdom?
Or perhaps a better approach would be to just fine people their kingdom any time they neglect to use punctuation properly.
After all these millennia, we still use hammers and wedges and still apply thought to "paper" using ink. We like to use our hands to act on other things in order to produce an effect of our imaginations for the world. We like to do this at work benches and desks, etc.
I expect any tool worth exploiting effectively will continue to exist for the rest of humankind's existence as we know it.
Will it become Minority Report style? Perhaps. But that is still arguably a desktop. Could it just be your mobile device wirelessly projecting it's computing capacity onto some larger "desktop"-oriented ergonomically different interfaces? Perhaps, but that is still arguably a desktop.
In other words, it doesn't have to look like a box with a typewriter and a screen to be a desktop pc. The act of working on digital crap at a desk work station will live for a very long long time.
Actually, the point was less about the song and more about the topic the song is about:
Gangnam is a district in Seoul, South Korea : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangnam_District
And for what it's worth, the song IS satire
GangNAM Style
Privatized Last mile is a horrible idea.
This is exactly how we get stuck with only a single company to choose from depending on our address. This is especially egregious when developers strike deals with cable companies to make them the exclusive provider to entire neighborhoods and tracts of land.
bingo
This is quite true. I've certainly believed the pros would outweigh the cons if we nationalized the telecom infrastructure and allowed any old company to come along and attempt to compete as a service provider on that infrastructure. Esp. the "last mile" could do to be excised from the cable companies.
However, the screams that would arise when the telecoms lose ownership of something into which they invested billions of dollars would be deafening.
While we're at it: no company selling connectivity should be allowed to sell content. Not even affiliated with a company that does. It's an inherent conflict of interest.
My original comment was a reply to this assertion:
That is not narrowly focused on the question of dolling out a limited resource. It is a general statement asserting as factual that monopolies are impossible sans a meddling government. That's a patently false assertion. That's the point of my counterargument.
Now the more on-topic nuance about my response, which I didn't give voice to, is that telecoms (A) have astronomically high barriers to entry because they require massive infrastructure that relies on land settled upon by other humans (whole cities, towns, and private residencies), and (B) any such massive infrastructure requires protection from other who would seek to reclaim the land for some other reason (save the spotted owl), or potential competitors.
Hence, even without a government, the barriers to entry are astronomical. If you wanted to run a telecom in a veritable unregulated libertarian wild west, you'd have to have a whole crew dedicated to enforcing that no one messed with your property; you'd have to make so a ridiculous number of deals with land owners costing a ridiculous amount of money. And once established, you could easily bully anyone else seeking to do the same... not that anyone else could really pull it off unless they were already rich on their own.
In the meantime, all the citizens of the land would be subjected to infrastructure wars between barons seeking to provide telecom service and the constant uprooting of land, cables strewn about the skies, and probably fractured service and abandoned equipment. Hence, society chooses to regulate such an industry. Two separate issues... yet regulation can help abate both.
I'm not saying government isn't corrupt. I'm not saying competition doesn't drive down costs. I'm not saying government will necessarily solve the problem. I'm just saying that to assert that the monopolies would not exist otherwise is absurd, delusional even, especially in the context of TFA. Finally, I am saying that a government COULD solve the problem.
"high barriers to entry are typically not an issue of acquiring sufficient capital "
Are you serious? You're telling me that politicians are the reason you can't just start an airplane manufacturing business overnight? Or launch satellites into orbit to provide global communications? Or an offshore oil drilling company... a mining company... a global logistics provider....?
High barriers to entry are there because the resources necessary to set up shop are hugely expensive and often of a massive scale. High barriers to entry become even higher when there are already established players in a space because you will be utterly incapable of competing against them unless you can match their resources. Nothing at all to do with political influence.
And in the natural world, the biggest, strongest wolf gets to stay that way by eating first (and the most) while the runt of the litter eats last.
Collusion, oligopolies, and high barriers to entry for certain enterprises (once established by first-to-market types, or when invested in by rich types) mean a free market does indeed lead to monopolistic abuses.
Of course, all you have to do is look at human history and the natural world to see that this is the case. Mafias, gangs, cliques, pecking order, castes, nobility, feudalism, etc, etc... It's the nature of all social organizations that some will become strong and leverage that strength against others and some who ultimately become utterly dominant.
Establishing rules and enforcing them, (i.e., a regulated society that values more opportunity for more members of society and a more level playing field) is the ONLY way to circumvent this tendency.
Oddly heartwarming ending. It's awesome when people can take the high road and restrain themselves from lashing back at abusers, who do this stuff out of boredom, insecurity, and immaturity (or sometimes mental instability issues, alas). But recognizing that people do stupid regrettable crap, and that maybe their lives need not be ruined over it, and that maybe some good might come out of something bad... that's great strength and maturity. Kudos.
Interesting.
That would be a good suggestion to make to Apple. They should integrate it into Find Friends especially.
I've never faced that situation though, since the friend I speak with is normally giving me an ETA from their own GPS/nav solution and I trust what they say and don't bother looking in my map. The times when I do look in my map, if I want to know how far away in time something is, I just click on the pin and then select "get directions from/to" and then pick one of the routes it offers I like the best and see how much time it is.