The problem is (as has happened in Canada) - it becomes a lot harder later to prove thing the government doesn't want proved, if the government can legitimately say 'there is no data to prove that' - when it's been thrown out. The problem isn't access to the raw data only - it's getting rid of that raw data.
And when your department gets sacked, and the data storage defunded, what good does that USB drive (neglecting the fact that it may be petabytes) do in your garage?
That's great - as long as people who take that approach face an additional insurance penalty, and possible additional criminal penalties for reckless driving if involved in any accident that wouldhave otherwise been prevented.
Practically speaking, there are very limited things that this can do that a camera pointed at the road can't, for a broadly equivalent amount of money - from a snooping point of view.
Being found to be subsidising, and actually subsidising is not always the same thing. Dumping investigations are often more careful works of fiction with little basis in reality. They are not careful forensic investigations of cost. Often they use rough guesses at what they think it would cost to make in an 'equivalent' open-market country. http://www.chinalawblog.com/20...
Except where it mentions actual cost per MWHr. ' It started with a contract in January to produce electricity for $64 per megawatt-hour in India; then a deal in August pegging $29.10 per megawatt hour in Chile. '
Every social media and other interaction added up to make a 'citizen score'. "In this world, anything from defaulting on a loan to criticising the ruling party, from running a red light to failing to care for your parents properly, could cause you to lose points. And in this world, your score becomes the ultimate truth of who you are – determining whether you can borrow money, get your children into the best schools or travel abroad; whether you get a room in a fancy hotel, a seat in a top restaurant – or even just get a date."
Of course, the flipside is that it enables companies to offer customers the choice of 30% more expensive ingredients for the same cost, or having a human to serve it.
This is almost certainly leading to 'civil forfeiture' - where you are not prosecuted for a crime. Your posessions are - and you have very limited opportunity to defend it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - last week tonight on civil forfeiture.
It is especially problematic because the siezing agency gets to keep the funds, which provides them a clear incentive to overreach. In general, if you can't prove to beyond a reasonable doubt where your money came from - in detail, and even if you can - your chances of getting it back are small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Much factory work - especially where you have a hundred workers doing the same thing - is very vulnerable to automation. This is a much, much more constrained problem (or often can be designed to be so) than a general cooking robot.
If you've got a hundred identical jobs being roboticised, you're not going to get remotely close to a hundred 'robot operator' jobs. China has a robust and growing industrial robot industry. They're not going to be buying from US vendors.
That way is problematic - because it means that your factories now can't compete at all and sell things outside the US. In principle, roboticised factories could. There is no good answer that results in repetitive manufacturing jobs coming back in massive numbers.
50000 jobs constructing the factory for a couple of years at which time it goes away. And foxcon is not paying market prices for robots, for the simple reason that it makes sense to build them themselves - if they're going to end up replacing pretty much every worker. Even if they weren't, if you bought 10000 of them, the price would come down very considerably.
Oh - no - they won't. The easy jobs are generally easy to automate. If you have 'put into box' type jobs, and are paying 300 people $10/hr - then it doesn't take much time at all to instead spend $5m designing robots and $5m installing them, and they then work 24*7. The 50000 jobs are a lie - they will perhaps be in constructing the factories.
50000 workers, at $25000 is 1.2 billion per year. These 'factories' are not going to be using employees at $10/hr to assemble PCBs. I note a story earlier this year "One factory has "reduced employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000 thanks to the introduction of robots", a government official told the South China Morning Post. ".
Most of the putative 50000 jobs are going to be construction work building the factories. The factories are then going to be - if not totally lights-out - reducing employees to the bare minimum. If you're building a new factory in the USA, and contemplating employing workers at $10/hr for 5 years (three shifts), that's $500K per station or so (probably more costing all costs of employees.
If you have even 100 employees constantly doing a very similar job, you can easily afford to spend 5 million developing a custom robotic solution, and deploying it for another $5m ($50K/station), and come very considerably out in front.
($10/h*24h*365*5 = 438k. Employers taxes and obligations add to this comfortably exceeding the 500k figure for three shifts)
In principle, something that can transmit text messages is doable. If you want a 'internet' that looks like the current one without centralised bodies, you need links between nodes that are many thousands of times faster than the desired peak per-user bandwidth. This is for the obvious reason that you'll need thousands of hops in order to get to the next state, never mind the next country. If those nodes all want to use the internet, then the amount of bandwidth you get per node is (simplistically) (1/number of nodes)*bandwidth. In real life, it's not as good as this, because the routing is a major problem, and some nodes will be bottlenecked. Unfortunately, latency, bandwidth, jamming are inherent in the actual physics of the situation.
This only gets worse if you consider nodes trying to 'cheat' and get several times their fair share - which rapidly causes the above optimistic assumptions to fail. It also doesn't consider the case of actively interfering jamming nodes.
A more interesting question - were the conditions of storage outside the published storage temps, or operating ones. This could easily mean that it'll fail in use for some people.
P2P ad-hoc doesn't really work. Mesh has various spectral problems - there isn't enough free legal spectrum. In addition, without a central operator, everyone has the opportunity to cheat, and use more of the bandwidth for their traffic than is fair. This, and bottlenecking due to random distribution of nodes means it basically can't work unless the P2P/mesh is over a very short distance of a few nodes only and it then hops off to the 'proper' internet.
The term used 'relevant provider' - if you dig through the definitions is only defined as 'a person who provides a postal or telecommunications service' - which is broad enough to cover basically anything from someone running a wifi hotspot on to a massive ISP. It can also plausibly be read as software vendors - including open source ones resident in the UK (or for who it is considered reasonable to compel even though they are outside the uk). This is UK primary legislation - it has theoretically been scrutinised by both houses of parliament. The actual enabling secondary legislation - that specifies how all this works and lets us understand how bad it is will just go through on the nod.
The fun part is, two identical people, with different gut bacteria - exhibit different willpower. There is a whole emerging field about how bacteria communicate with the human and modify aspects of biochemistry and perhaps behaviour to favour their propagation.
The total amount of fossil fuels needed to produce one gallon of ethanol is (counting everything, like fertiliser, cultivation, water provision,...) is quite close indeed to one gallon. Increasing the amount of renewables without specifying total efficiency is simply and purely a subsidy giveaway to farmers and with only negative consequences to the environment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... - chinese paper.
'The impact of the crash disintegrated the car, leaving a debris field over 150 yards long.' - that is a very, very high speed impact. http://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/P... - is not clear as to numbers - perhaps around 10% of frontal impacts, and more high speed impacts - lead to fires in conventional vehicles.
Plus - you can't disconnect crash safety, and post crash performance. If I have a car that never catches fire, but always kills the occupants, it's not better than one that catches fire, and the occupants rarely die.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is (as has happened in Canada) - it becomes a lot harder later to prove thing the government doesn't want proved, if the government can legitimately say 'there is no data to prove that' - when it's been thrown out.
The problem isn't access to the raw data only - it's getting rid of that raw data.
It does.
The backups are however not free, and stored in government property.
If the funding for those goes away, then at some point, it gets deleted.
And when your department gets sacked, and the data storage defunded, what good does that USB drive (neglecting the fact that it may be petabytes) do in your garage?
That's great - as long as people who take that approach face an additional insurance penalty, and possible additional criminal penalties for reckless driving if involved in any accident that wouldhave otherwise been prevented.
Practically speaking, there are very limited things that this can do that a camera pointed at the road can't, for a broadly equivalent amount of money - from a snooping point of view.
In some ways - this can be enormously powerful - there is no reason motorbikes and cycles can't be in this network, and just as 'visible' as a car.
Being found to be subsidising, and actually subsidising is not always the same thing.
Dumping investigations are often more careful works of fiction with little basis in reality.
They are not careful forensic investigations of cost. Often they use rough guesses at what they think it would cost to make in an 'equivalent' open-market country.
http://www.chinalawblog.com/20...
Except where it mentions actual cost per MWHr. ' It started with a contract in January to produce electricity for $64 per megawatt-hour in India; then a deal in August pegging $29.10 per megawatt hour in Chile. '
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
Every social media and other interaction added up to make a 'citizen score'.
"In this world, anything from defaulting on a loan to criticising the ruling party, from running a red light to failing to care for your parents properly, could cause you to lose points. And in this world, your score becomes the ultimate truth of who you are – determining whether you can borrow money, get your children into the best schools or travel abroad; whether you get a room in a fancy hotel, a seat in a top restaurant – or even just get a date."
Of course, the flipside is that it enables companies to offer customers the choice of 30% more expensive ingredients for the same cost, or having a human to serve it.
This is almost certainly leading to 'civil forfeiture' - where you are not prosecuted for a crime. Your posessions are - and you have very limited opportunity to defend it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - last week tonight on civil forfeiture.
It is especially problematic because the siezing agency gets to keep the funds, which provides them a clear incentive to overreach.
In general, if you can't prove to beyond a reasonable doubt where your money came from - in detail, and even if you can - your chances of getting it back are small.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
To a degree, yes. Though other factories springing up to service them with raw materials will be facing exactly the same problem.
Much factory work - especially where you have a hundred workers doing the same thing - is very vulnerable to automation.
This is a much, much more constrained problem (or often can be designed to be so) than a general cooking robot.
If you've got a hundred identical jobs being roboticised, you're not going to get remotely close to a hundred 'robot operator' jobs.
China has a robust and growing industrial robot industry. They're not going to be buying from US vendors.
That way is problematic - because it means that your factories now can't compete at all and sell things outside the US.
In principle, roboticised factories could.
There is no good answer that results in repetitive manufacturing jobs coming back in massive numbers.
50000 jobs constructing the factory for a couple of years at which time it goes away.
And foxcon is not paying market prices for robots, for the simple reason that it makes sense to build them themselves - if they're going to end up replacing pretty much every worker. Even if they weren't, if you bought 10000 of them, the price would come down very considerably.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech... was the initial 'robots replace workers' story I was quoting earlier.
Oh - no - they won't.
The easy jobs are generally easy to automate.
If you have 'put into box' type jobs, and are paying 300 people $10/hr - then it doesn't take much time at all to instead spend $5m designing robots and $5m installing them, and they then work 24*7.
The 50000 jobs are a lie - they will perhaps be in constructing the factories.
50000 workers, at $25000 is 1.2 billion per year.
These 'factories' are not going to be using employees at $10/hr to assemble PCBs.
I note a story earlier this year "One factory has "reduced employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000 thanks to the introduction of robots", a government official told the South China Morning Post. ".
Most of the putative 50000 jobs are going to be construction work building the factories.
The factories are then going to be - if not totally lights-out - reducing employees to the bare minimum.
If you're building a new factory in the USA, and contemplating employing workers at $10/hr for 5 years (three shifts), that's $500K per station or so (probably more costing all costs of employees.
If you have even 100 employees constantly doing a very similar job, you can easily afford to spend 5 million developing a custom robotic solution, and deploying it for another $5m ($50K/station), and come very considerably out in front.
($10/h*24h*365*5 = 438k. Employers taxes and obligations add to this comfortably exceeding the 500k figure for three shifts)
In principle, something that can transmit text messages is doable.
If you want a 'internet' that looks like the current one without centralised bodies, you need links between nodes that are many thousands of times faster than the desired peak per-user bandwidth.
This is for the obvious reason that you'll need thousands of hops in order to get to the next state, never mind the next country.
If those nodes all want to use the internet, then the amount of bandwidth you get per node is (simplistically) (1/number of nodes)*bandwidth.
In real life, it's not as good as this, because the routing is a major problem, and some nodes will be bottlenecked.
Unfortunately, latency, bandwidth, jamming are inherent in the actual physics of the situation.
This only gets worse if you consider nodes trying to 'cheat' and get several times their fair share - which rapidly causes the above optimistic assumptions to fail.
It also doesn't consider the case of actively interfering jamming nodes.
A more interesting question - were the conditions of storage outside the published storage temps, or operating ones. This could easily mean that it'll fail in use for some people.
P2P ad-hoc doesn't really work. Mesh has various spectral problems - there isn't enough free legal spectrum.
In addition, without a central operator, everyone has the opportunity to cheat, and use more of the bandwidth for their traffic than is fair.
This, and bottlenecking due to random distribution of nodes means it basically can't work unless the P2P/mesh is over a very short distance of a few nodes only and it then hops off to the 'proper' internet.
The term used 'relevant provider' - if you dig through the definitions is only defined as 'a person who provides a postal or telecommunications service' - which is broad enough to cover basically anything from someone running a wifi hotspot on to a massive ISP.
It can also plausibly be read as software vendors - including open source ones resident in the UK (or for who it is considered reasonable to compel even though they are outside the uk).
This is UK primary legislation - it has theoretically been scrutinised by both houses of parliament.
The actual enabling secondary legislation - that specifies how all this works and lets us understand how bad it is will just go through on the nod.
The fun part is, two identical people, with different gut bacteria - exhibit different willpower.
There is a whole emerging field about how bacteria communicate with the human and modify aspects of biochemistry and perhaps behaviour to favour their propagation.
The total amount of fossil fuels needed to produce one gallon of ethanol is (counting everything, like fertiliser, cultivation, water provision, ...) is quite close indeed to one gallon. Increasing the amount of renewables without specifying total efficiency is simply and purely a subsidy giveaway to farmers and with only negative consequences to the environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... - chinese paper.
'The impact of the crash disintegrated the car, leaving a debris field over 150 yards long.' - that is a very, very high speed impact.
http://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/P... - is not clear as to numbers - perhaps around 10% of frontal impacts, and more high speed impacts - lead to fires in conventional vehicles.
Plus - you can't disconnect crash safety, and post crash performance. If I have a car that never catches fire, but always kills the occupants, it's not better than one that catches fire, and the occupants rarely die.