I'd say the most useful part would be to find correlative information from disparate fields.
The nice thing about a single repository with a single interface is that you can find ALL the data you may need to investigate an interesting hypothesis.
Like my current senior thesis on Economic activity and it's correlation with water usage.
It's attempting to bring two spatial data sets into a single framework.
All the information is out there, but it's rare to find any published papers about it, let alone any standardize set of data to go off of. So right now i'm sitting with a bare minimum of information of economic indicators, because all the other data out there doesn't seem to be easy to find, access or get to the bottom of.
I'm sick of finding PDF's, loaded with information, but no real way to get at it without alot of heavy lifting.
This is I imagine what google's trying to fix. Taking already available data, and placing it in an easy to use and format it in the way you need it for your GIS/EXCEL/DATABASE/SCIENCEGRAPHER.
Though, one should always note the correlative between knowledge and power, and absolute power and corruption.
When will people learn, they're responsible for their complex devices, and all the EULA's the come with them. When will they wake up and understand that the machine they own is their own.
It's a sad day when we have to advocate for other people to own our things, so we no longer have to bare the burden of taking accountability of it's use.
Welcome to the Internet's version of Moore's law.
Your contract with the ISP is just as extensive as the ISP's contracts with each other, and with the content providers.
As economics of the situation changes, those contracts come under pressure of being broken. Once broken, liability ensues.
The issue at hand is the bottleneck of an individual ISP, when all their costumer contracts say one thing, and then all these services blindly increase the amount of possible throughput to these individuals.
If you want to be able to access these new programs, someone has to pay.
Yes, and depending on the structure of your contract you might have unlimited bandwidth.
The argument is that if you extrapolate the figures of BW, somewhere theres a crunch in numbers, somewhere, someone, is going to not be able to have their contract with their provider fullfilled.
Based on whatever extrapolation it is, they're telling the BBC in this case, that it's going to cost extra dollars to put in an infrastructure that can handle the amount of traffic expected.
You wouldn't like it if even if your unlimited contract was in place, but regardless of the site, you got 3 KB/s download rates. Or that you're promised download rate suddenly dropped down because everyone around you was streaming BBC news as if the internet was their new television.
Someone has to pay.
The internet is expensive to run. Someone has to pay. That's all that's the concern. It's going to become much the same way television was turned into an Ad waste land. Someone has to pay.
Someone has to pay. Lemme repeat several times.
I understand the desire to expand humanity into space, but it's still not logical.
Theres 148,939,100 km2 land around.
London from 2001 is 11,500 people per Km2
Multiplication time!
Thats: 1,712,799,650,000 people! So, 1.7 trillion people could survive on our land surface.
Now before we forget, it's very likely that every single advancement that's required for survival in space or on another planet is equally valid technology to increase the density population of the earth.
Whats really going on with space nuts, and nuts in general, is they're trained in one area, specifically science.
When you're trained to use a hammer, every problem that's looked at is compared to a nail.
So why this fear of our over population? It's because the one thing we know from evolution, from sociology, from every aspect of the last 2000 years, is that as population gets larger, war, famine, hatred and indignity increases. This is of course the entropy of the universe.
So this talk of space is essentially giving up on trying to solve the more pressing matter of cohabitation and symbiosis with each other, putting warring parties further away from each other is hoped to solve this problem. In space, the distance between you and me is larger, and from this greater expanse, it's hoped that we can learn to get along.
Thats not to say space doesn't offer what we need to survive and create a population of 1.7 trillion people, of course to create that magnitude, we need an ample source of resources, and that definately is space.
Whats not sensible is that people need to live there, as all the technologies needed to live in a self sufficient space, are the same we need to live in an increasingly urbanized landscape.
What it comes down to is that our social structures are not utopian, and because of this, we need to expand into space, since there is yet to be found the holy trinity of social science.
So all you space nuts out there, ask yourselves why it seems so dire to conquor space with humanity, since our population isn't going to reach 9 billion till 2050, the earth certainly isn't running out of room. We may need space for the coming resource hungry technology that's certainly to be discovered as urban density increases and city density increases.
Our true necessity as most of this dialog shows is that we have an imminent fear of eachother, and it's hoped that somewhere in space, no one can hear you scream.
Let me reiterate again, all the technology that will provide for a self sufficient space faring people are equally suffcient to provide for a urbanized earth.
And the last thing, we haven't even discussed living in the ocean, a place that's desire able because it's already got an ecosystem we can learn to use and manipulate much like we have done on the earth. Of course, theres that little crushing literal problem of living in the sea.
So how bout instead of investing everything we have in getting the fsck out of here, we invest in exploring the life we know existing on the ocean floor.
I like the abyss.
I'm still to afraid to RTFA. Everytime I see the link, it gives me shivers down the spine. How I wish I could find this cure, but my greatest fear seems to be confronting my greatest fear. I remember a time when I had no fear. I think they called it death.
Don't you ever get on the highway, speed up to 55 miles an hour, and get bored? Speed up to 65, then get bored? I think newton and einstein figured it out. You really only enjoy things when you're accelerating, it's pretty boring when you're not.
Perhaps they simply feel that the software assurance makes no sense when the actual software releases are steps behind the OS releases. The only thing keeping them instep is microsoft's cutting ties of backwards compatibility.
Bravos IT managers.
Psychology, sociology, the bible, and the rest of human's attempt to describe human's attempt to...ad infinitum, is all pseudo-science. Theres no singular template for how man will behave in an environment.
You have to gage epi-genesis of humanity, inside humanity, from birth to death and back to birth. You have to connect so many variables, from the air we breath, to the food we eat. Inside the womb, outside the womb, dna-defects turned affects, turned evolutionary steps.
While I have no clue about the science done to make the hypotheses. I can tell you that ignoring our biological nature, and imagining that every action is a conscious decision is a horrible idea to put forth.
If you want to evolve beyond all these biological biases, you have to first accept that those biases are there. Theres no way to avoid them, and you will only perpetuate them through denial.
So unless you actually learn about all the strange socially generated statistics, and how they're constructed, just brushing them off like a blank slate will make you inherently ignorant, and you will continue many of the behaviors you claim to find despicable.
For once in your life, please, accept that the hardware came before the software.
It's not exactly hard to imagine lasers and missles and ye olde Rod's of God's helping keep control of the population. Remember, the only way to expand our investment in space exploration is when it involves defending our country.
I think you'll find that the nuclear bomb has only existed for 50 years while religion has had a run at more than 10k, it's not exactly comparable. Add all the mechanized weapons, and you're not exactly going to make any cogent argument. An idea is what drives man to kill, not a technology. And according to Godel, no idea is safe from being co-opted.
I think the nuclear bomb would beg to differ. And your basis for empirical evidence seems to be 'things having been written down'. You have no evidence that the morality and other things posited in the bible did not come from empirical evidence. Lets see how many tribes you kill when you can't convince people eating rotten pig is bad for you.
I'd like to say none of this is new. Voting itself has never been all that secure anyways. The only security is that the number of people needed to pull of a rigged election was so large that the probability of someone or many someones spilling the beans kept the completion in check.
Now, with the automation of so many of life's crucial processes, fewer and fewer people are needed to rig any thing.
Everyone seems to be hyping the internet, but you're walking into a mindfield, where the truth will be subjugated beneath all the other junk.
The easiest way to hide a murder is to commit an atrocity. And now thanks to the internet and computers, it takes few like minds to do such.
Once they find the link between conscious thought and cellular manipulation, we'll finally understand the placebo effect eh? Theres obviously a large number of layers between the concious GUI and the hardware/data/software manipulation.
Shorting invovles flying American Airlines into WTC buildings and gaining money on the sudden drop in price of American Airlines stock. Thats shorting. Litterally perhaps.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a remotely detonated bomb.
I'd say the most useful part would be to find correlative information from disparate fields. The nice thing about a single repository with a single interface is that you can find ALL the data you may need to investigate an interesting hypothesis. Like my current senior thesis on Economic activity and it's correlation with water usage. It's attempting to bring two spatial data sets into a single framework. All the information is out there, but it's rare to find any published papers about it, let alone any standardize set of data to go off of. So right now i'm sitting with a bare minimum of information of economic indicators, because all the other data out there doesn't seem to be easy to find, access or get to the bottom of. I'm sick of finding PDF's, loaded with information, but no real way to get at it without alot of heavy lifting. This is I imagine what google's trying to fix. Taking already available data, and placing it in an easy to use and format it in the way you need it for your GIS/EXCEL/DATABASE/SCIENCEGRAPHER. Though, one should always note the correlative between knowledge and power, and absolute power and corruption.
This sounds literally like Vaporware.
Shouldn't the government be hiding their own ineptitude? Lou dobbs should be rolling in his..oh..he's alive ain't he.
Can we build a quantum computer to decrypt illogical ramblings as cryptic omens?
When will people learn, they're responsible for their complex devices, and all the EULA's the come with them. When will they wake up and understand that the machine they own is their own. It's a sad day when we have to advocate for other people to own our things, so we no longer have to bare the burden of taking accountability of it's use.
Welcome to the Internet's version of Moore's law. Your contract with the ISP is just as extensive as the ISP's contracts with each other, and with the content providers. As economics of the situation changes, those contracts come under pressure of being broken. Once broken, liability ensues. The issue at hand is the bottleneck of an individual ISP, when all their costumer contracts say one thing, and then all these services blindly increase the amount of possible throughput to these individuals. If you want to be able to access these new programs, someone has to pay.
Yes, and depending on the structure of your contract you might have unlimited bandwidth. The argument is that if you extrapolate the figures of BW, somewhere theres a crunch in numbers, somewhere, someone, is going to not be able to have their contract with their provider fullfilled. Based on whatever extrapolation it is, they're telling the BBC in this case, that it's going to cost extra dollars to put in an infrastructure that can handle the amount of traffic expected. You wouldn't like it if even if your unlimited contract was in place, but regardless of the site, you got 3 KB/s download rates. Or that you're promised download rate suddenly dropped down because everyone around you was streaming BBC news as if the internet was their new television. Someone has to pay.
Then it sounds like a warning to the BBC: "If you make this service live, then we will have to charge you more." Simple economics?
The internet is expensive to run. Someone has to pay. That's all that's the concern. It's going to become much the same way television was turned into an Ad waste land. Someone has to pay. Someone has to pay. Lemme repeat several times.
I understand the desire to expand humanity into space, but it's still not logical. Theres 148,939,100 km2 land around. London from 2001 is 11,500 people per Km2 Multiplication time! Thats: 1,712,799,650,000 people! So, 1.7 trillion people could survive on our land surface. Now before we forget, it's very likely that every single advancement that's required for survival in space or on another planet is equally valid technology to increase the density population of the earth. Whats really going on with space nuts, and nuts in general, is they're trained in one area, specifically science. When you're trained to use a hammer, every problem that's looked at is compared to a nail. So why this fear of our over population? It's because the one thing we know from evolution, from sociology, from every aspect of the last 2000 years, is that as population gets larger, war, famine, hatred and indignity increases. This is of course the entropy of the universe. So this talk of space is essentially giving up on trying to solve the more pressing matter of cohabitation and symbiosis with each other, putting warring parties further away from each other is hoped to solve this problem. In space, the distance between you and me is larger, and from this greater expanse, it's hoped that we can learn to get along. Thats not to say space doesn't offer what we need to survive and create a population of 1.7 trillion people, of course to create that magnitude, we need an ample source of resources, and that definately is space. Whats not sensible is that people need to live there, as all the technologies needed to live in a self sufficient space, are the same we need to live in an increasingly urbanized landscape. What it comes down to is that our social structures are not utopian, and because of this, we need to expand into space, since there is yet to be found the holy trinity of social science. So all you space nuts out there, ask yourselves why it seems so dire to conquor space with humanity, since our population isn't going to reach 9 billion till 2050, the earth certainly isn't running out of room. We may need space for the coming resource hungry technology that's certainly to be discovered as urban density increases and city density increases. Our true necessity as most of this dialog shows is that we have an imminent fear of eachother, and it's hoped that somewhere in space, no one can hear you scream. Let me reiterate again, all the technology that will provide for a self sufficient space faring people are equally suffcient to provide for a urbanized earth. And the last thing, we haven't even discussed living in the ocean, a place that's desire able because it's already got an ecosystem we can learn to use and manipulate much like we have done on the earth. Of course, theres that little crushing literal problem of living in the sea. So how bout instead of investing everything we have in getting the fsck out of here, we invest in exploring the life we know existing on the ocean floor. I like the abyss.
This is how we keep the economy afloat.
I'm still to afraid to RTFA. Everytime I see the link, it gives me shivers down the spine. How I wish I could find this cure, but my greatest fear seems to be confronting my greatest fear. I remember a time when I had no fear. I think they called it death.
Don't you ever get on the highway, speed up to 55 miles an hour, and get bored? Speed up to 65, then get bored? I think newton and einstein figured it out. You really only enjoy things when you're accelerating, it's pretty boring when you're not.
I no longer fear science. I must feel better.
Perhaps they simply feel that the software assurance makes no sense when the actual software releases are steps behind the OS releases. The only thing keeping them instep is microsoft's cutting ties of backwards compatibility. Bravos IT managers.
Psychology, sociology, the bible, and the rest of human's attempt to describe human's attempt to...ad infinitum, is all pseudo-science. Theres no singular template for how man will behave in an environment. You have to gage epi-genesis of humanity, inside humanity, from birth to death and back to birth. You have to connect so many variables, from the air we breath, to the food we eat. Inside the womb, outside the womb, dna-defects turned affects, turned evolutionary steps. While I have no clue about the science done to make the hypotheses. I can tell you that ignoring our biological nature, and imagining that every action is a conscious decision is a horrible idea to put forth. If you want to evolve beyond all these biological biases, you have to first accept that those biases are there. Theres no way to avoid them, and you will only perpetuate them through denial. So unless you actually learn about all the strange socially generated statistics, and how they're constructed, just brushing them off like a blank slate will make you inherently ignorant, and you will continue many of the behaviors you claim to find despicable. For once in your life, please, accept that the hardware came before the software.
It's not exactly hard to imagine lasers and missles and ye olde Rod's of God's helping keep control of the population. Remember, the only way to expand our investment in space exploration is when it involves defending our country.
First they came for my ID, and I didn't have to say anything, they just banged my head against technology and took it.
I think you'll find that the nuclear bomb has only existed for 50 years while religion has had a run at more than 10k, it's not exactly comparable. Add all the mechanized weapons, and you're not exactly going to make any cogent argument. An idea is what drives man to kill, not a technology. And according to Godel, no idea is safe from being co-opted.
I think the nuclear bomb would beg to differ. And your basis for empirical evidence seems to be 'things having been written down'. You have no evidence that the morality and other things posited in the bible did not come from empirical evidence. Lets see how many tribes you kill when you can't convince people eating rotten pig is bad for you.
One or the other will save you, but paradoxically, the other will destroy you.
I'd like to say none of this is new. Voting itself has never been all that secure anyways. The only security is that the number of people needed to pull of a rigged election was so large that the probability of someone or many someones spilling the beans kept the completion in check.
Now, with the automation of so many of life's crucial processes, fewer and fewer people are needed to rig any thing.
Everyone seems to be hyping the internet, but you're walking into a mindfield, where the truth will be subjugated beneath all the other junk.
The easiest way to hide a murder is to commit an atrocity. And now thanks to the internet and computers, it takes few like minds to do such.
Once they find the link between conscious thought and cellular manipulation, we'll finally understand the placebo effect eh? Theres obviously a large number of layers between the concious GUI and the hardware/data/software manipulation.
Shorting invovles flying American Airlines into WTC buildings and gaining money on the sudden drop in price of American Airlines stock. Thats shorting. Litterally perhaps.