At that point, you're almost invisible to anybody until their computer breaks. 10 seconds after you leave, they probably couldn't spot you in a police line-up. Then I'd pick out a wardrobe. Gray T-shirt, jeans. After that, I'd goof off a lot. Do enough to keep those good performance reviews coming, but not enough to threaten anybody by being too creative or innovative. Get a credit card and buy completely ordinary things. Put up a facebook page with equally ordinary things.
So I should replace it with Canuckaphobia? Look, I'm not suggesting that China, Pakistan, Iran, etc. are any worse than we are. I'm pointing out that this is an obvious attack vector they would be foolish to ignore and they are anything but foolish. If anything, we're fools for ignoring the possibility to appease a bunch of civilian contractors who contributed to the campaign of Congressperson X, Y or Z.
If you've ever called Seimen's Atos technical support in the Philippines, you'd know they're not just suicidal, but Kafkaesque (and of course, incompetent).
And what do you want to bet that the backdoor came from an unfriendly foreign power in the form of an intern or a contract programmer? Takers? Any takers on that action?
Note to Siemens and the US military: You are not magically protected from software sabotage, particularly when you farm out your software production overseas.
And likely to make me crabby. So, taken from seawater to light bulb. Is it energy positive or not? And what does it cost per watt? And why do I still start sentences with "And?"
Both candidates are pig-ignorant when it comes to scientific matters and so are their VPs.
It would, of course, have significant comedy value and so might be worthwhile, particularly if we bring up peak oil, global warming, nuclear waste disposal, NASA, and the long term implications of makerbots and artificial intelligence. Their deer-in-the-headlights expressions and stupid comments could provide months of comedy material.
and use a mesh network of small wireless switches with the capability of bypassing the main cell switches if necessary? Wouldn't that solve their capacity problem AND provide emergency networks as part of the bargain? Am I missing something or are they?
If it was a $20 issue, it lasted a year, and could be recycled, maybe. At $3000, or even $300, they can shove their nicely sealed hardware up their collective asses with a nice solid twist.
Great. Assuming fuel is abundant, available in politically stable regimes, and the overall endeavor is energy positive. Coupled with better batteries, this could actually be useful. If I were Gates, I've be focusing on batteries next.
The granite example was really meant to be a specific case that illustrated a class of problems with energy positive hydrocarbon extraction. A granite matrix, basalt matrix, or the moons of Jupiter. They're just examples of where an abundant quantity of hydrocarbons can be too energy negative to help us.
There have been a lot of those articles lately, mostly appearing in small town newspapers where feedback isn't possible, so you can't quickly get pointed to the sites that show what nonsense it is. They're meant to show up on Google and reassure investors and the public, not to convey actual information.
Behind the scenes the real problem is almost invisible. We're not mining hydrocarbons, per se. We're mining energy. In the 1960s, in West Texas, the energy in one barrel of oil got you 100 more. Fast forward to 2012. A ratio of 10:1 is considered very good - a 10-fold decrease in 50 years. We used to have enough slack in the system to provide enough energy so that we didn't even have to raise prices. That changed in 2005. Energetically speaking, we ran out of slack. Now, actual quantities matter. Shortages of product mean shortages of energy and immediate increases in price.
Energy return on hydrocarbons is still declining. The $64 billion question is, "How low can the energy return on hydrocarbons go and still produce enough energy to sustain itself AND run industrial civilization at present levels. The problem is, of course, that there's no simple easy answer to that question. The funny (not haha funny) thing is, that even if there are oceans of oil under the surface of the earth, it won't matter if we can't get at them in an energetically positive manner. A teacup of oil in a cubic yard of granite 7 miles down does us no good, no matter how many such teacups might exist.
1) Monetary collapse 2) Energy return from hydrocarbons dropping so close to 1:1 that they are no longer a viable energy source (*Not* the strawman "peak oil" arguments). 3) Nuclear war 4) Any disaster which stops nuclear plant maintenance on a large scale (See reasons above).
Strictly speaking, 1 and 2 are "just" the collapse of the interdependent web of "just-in-time" supply chains, however, once gone, they may not be repairable in the lifetime of any living human. 3 is supply chain collapse plus infrastructure damage and radiation. 4 is a side effect of any of the first three reasons.
Why you're right. Neither is teaching them about gravity, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or the fact that other countries exist. I mean, what can they do with that nonsense? Let's teach 'em reading, writing and shopkeeper's arithmetic and leave it at that.
Central planning isn't universally good or bad, despite the protests of the frantic ranters. Central planning brought us rural electrification, food safety standards, a national highway system and fairly strong, if recently misused military. Is central planning perfect? No. What is?
The nice thing about education system central planning on the federal level is that local education isn't entirely controlled by pig-ignorant local goobers who think evolution is liberal propaganda and are a little suspicious about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice versa. There are, at least, minimum standards of rationality. The not so great things are politically motivated nonsense like "no child left behind" or whatever other simplistic brainwave some policy wonk in Washington comes up with.
It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. So, I can slip my course on ethnic cleansing and home genocide techniques into next semester's curriculum, then? I understand it'll be quite popular in Kentucky.
Slashdot Mirror
Right?
Too big. You have to print them in sections and construct the pieces. Sort of goes against the spirit of having a makerbot in the first place.
I was gonna do this.
... and "military security risks" usually put in by offshore programmers.
At that point, you're almost invisible to anybody until their computer breaks. 10 seconds after you leave, they probably couldn't spot you in a police line-up. Then I'd pick out a wardrobe. Gray T-shirt, jeans. After that, I'd goof off a lot. Do enough to keep those good performance reviews coming, but not enough to threaten anybody by being too creative or innovative. Get a credit card and buy completely ordinary things. Put up a facebook page with equally ordinary things.
No wait.....
So I should replace it with Canuckaphobia? Look, I'm not suggesting that China, Pakistan, Iran, etc. are any worse than we are. I'm pointing out that this is an obvious attack vector they would be foolish to ignore and they are anything but foolish. If anything, we're fools for ignoring the possibility to appease a bunch of civilian contractors who contributed to the campaign of Congressperson X, Y or Z.
If you've ever called Seimen's Atos technical support in the Philippines, you'd know they're not just suicidal, but Kafkaesque (and of course, incompetent).
And what do you want to bet that the backdoor came from an unfriendly foreign power in the form of an intern or a contract programmer? Takers? Any takers on that action?
Note to Siemens and the US military: You are not magically protected from software sabotage, particularly when you farm out your software production overseas.
And likely to make me crabby. So, taken from seawater to light bulb. Is it energy positive or not? And what does it cost per watt? And why do I still start sentences with "And?"
Both candidates are pig-ignorant when it comes to scientific matters and so are their VPs.
It would, of course, have significant comedy value and so might be worthwhile, particularly if we bring up peak oil, global warming, nuclear waste disposal, NASA, and the long term implications of makerbots and artificial intelligence. Their deer-in-the-headlights expressions and stupid comments could provide months of comedy material.
Particularly the "intoxicated" part.
The horror.... the horror.....
Well, they never said, "Don't watch evil, did they?
and use a mesh network of small wireless switches with the capability of bypassing the main cell switches if necessary? Wouldn't that solve their capacity problem AND provide emergency networks as part of the bargain? Am I missing something or are they?
If it was a $20 issue, it lasted a year, and could be recycled, maybe. At $3000, or even $300, they can shove their nicely sealed hardware up their collective asses with a nice solid twist.
E-cat = fraud. Hate to be the one to tell you.
Great. Assuming fuel is abundant, available in politically stable regimes, and the overall endeavor is energy positive. Coupled with better batteries, this could actually be useful. If I were Gates, I've be focusing on batteries next.
The granite example was really meant to be a specific case that illustrated a class of problems with energy positive hydrocarbon extraction. A granite matrix, basalt matrix, or the moons of Jupiter. They're just examples of where an abundant quantity of hydrocarbons can be too energy negative to help us.
There have been a lot of those articles lately, mostly appearing in small town newspapers where feedback isn't possible, so you can't quickly get pointed to the sites that show what nonsense it is. They're meant to show up on Google and reassure investors and the public, not to convey actual information.
Behind the scenes the real problem is almost invisible. We're not mining hydrocarbons, per se. We're mining energy. In the 1960s, in West Texas, the energy in one barrel of oil got you 100 more. Fast forward to 2012. A ratio of 10:1 is considered very good - a 10-fold decrease in 50 years. We used to have enough slack in the system to provide enough energy so that we didn't even have to raise prices. That changed in 2005. Energetically speaking, we ran out of slack. Now, actual quantities matter. Shortages of product mean shortages of energy and immediate increases in price.
Energy return on hydrocarbons is still declining. The $64 billion question is, "How low can the energy return on hydrocarbons go and still produce enough energy to sustain itself AND run industrial civilization at present levels. The problem is, of course, that there's no simple easy answer to that question. The funny (not haha funny) thing is, that even if there are oceans of oil under the surface of the earth, it won't matter if we can't get at them in an energetically positive manner. A teacup of oil in a cubic yard of granite 7 miles down does us no good, no matter how many such teacups might exist.
1) Monetary collapse
2) Energy return from hydrocarbons dropping so close to 1:1 that they are no longer a viable energy source (*Not* the strawman "peak oil" arguments).
3) Nuclear war
4) Any disaster which stops nuclear plant maintenance on a large scale (See reasons above).
Strictly speaking, 1 and 2 are "just" the collapse of the interdependent web of "just-in-time" supply chains, however, once gone, they may not be repairable in the lifetime of any living human. 3 is supply chain collapse plus infrastructure damage and radiation. 4 is a side effect of any of the first three reasons.
Cheers!
I'd have to say "Yes." Our entire testing system revolves around virtual machines and VMWare. No install. Not testing. No verification. No support.
And my plan to flood the world with magic would have worked if it weren't for you meddling kids at Ebay!
More seriously. If you're going to ban people for buying stupid useless things, you might as well shut down Ebay right now.
Why you're right. Neither is teaching them about gravity, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or the fact that other countries exist. I mean, what can they do with that nonsense? Let's teach 'em reading, writing and shopkeeper's arithmetic and leave it at that.
Central planning isn't universally good or bad, despite the protests of the frantic ranters. Central planning brought us rural electrification, food safety standards, a national highway system and fairly strong, if recently misused military. Is central planning perfect? No. What is?
The nice thing about education system central planning on the federal level is that local education isn't entirely controlled by pig-ignorant local goobers who think evolution is liberal propaganda and are a little suspicious about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice versa. There are, at least, minimum standards of rationality. The not so great things are politically motivated nonsense like "no child left behind" or whatever other simplistic brainwave some policy wonk in Washington comes up with.
It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy.
So, I can slip my course on ethnic cleansing and home genocide techniques into next semester's curriculum, then? I understand it'll be quite popular in Kentucky.