He means Bill Gates, though I don't his dig about 'monopoly'. Say what you will about Bill Gates the OS monopolist, but the Gates Foundation has done very good work. Comparing Gates' and Cameron's use of their fortunes is like comparing apples and oranges. Different, but both good in their own right.
Do you have an estimate for how much fusion will cost per kWh relative to today's technologies, like fission, coal, and natural gas?
I'm interested in knowing whether fusion will bring down the cost of electricity. A pet idea of mine for some time has been that commercial fusion power could bring down the cost of desalination enough that access to fresh water will no longer be a problem for countries that can afford to build the infrastructure in the first place.
His point had nothing to do with RF interference or terrorists - just that loose objects are hazardous in a crash situation. If a plane suddenly decelerates, that ipod at the back of the cabin can very well become a missile heading towards the front of the cabin.
For those who haven't seen it, Boards of Canada (an ambient music group from Scotland) put some footage of Kittiger's famous jump into one of their music videos. It's pretty neat:
These are embedded devices, they don't have PCI nor all the other nice stuff we have on PCs.
Why not? Shouldn't Google have thought of this and established some standards?
Call me an idiot all you want. I don't see why you can't have a basic set of standards for Android devices to follow that would make porting the OS something other than the 6-month custom-code fest it seems to be now.
The challenge is to port a stable copy of ICS to the Nexus S for OTA delivery?
I can only dream of the day when the challenge is to write Android in such a way that it runs any hardware that meets basic standards, a la Windows. As opposed to the current model, which seems to be lengthy OS re-writes for each individual handset.
3) If children are seen anywhere nearby, be really freaking careful and maintain location on said children.
Except, a) it's difficult to keep watch on a child behind you and get settled in / startup the car / start reversing. Not impossible, but still difficult; and b) what if there are two children? Or if you see one, and focus on that one, but another walks in from a different angle?
It really isn't completely preventable. Backup cameras don't solve the problem entirely, but they remove a lot of the risk from the equation.
And if the person behind you is shorter than the peak of your trunk? Children can and do put themselves right behind cars, and some of them do get killed because of that.
While there may be a way to avoid this by combining a walk around the car before entering the car, with near-constant use of the mirrors from the moment you get in the car to the moment you finish reversing, the plain fact is that it is not easy to know if someone less than 3 feet tall is right behind you. I suspect most drivers have avoided hitting kids while backing up more out of luck than out of assiduous mirror-usage.
Also, I think this is a good idea. I used a backup camera in a rented Ford once (the screen was in the rear-view mirror.. clever). It was very effective and made what is honestly one of the more nerve-wracking parts of driving far easier.
Er, scratch that previous comment. Should have read the article. The people are moving out because their share holdings are being taxed. So the French wealth tax does have a negative effect.
France has a wealth tax, and the net result of this is that while it has collected $2.6 billion (equivalent), it has resulted in $125 billion in capital flight since 1998.
And what effect has this massive capital flight had?
Money is stored in banks outside of France instead of inside of France?
Ceteris paribus, that seems about as important as the location of lost pirate gold - interesting, sure, but without any effect on the present-day economy.
... one's a colonial creation, the other is the core of an ancient and powerful civilization... I know, I know.
Relax, guy! It was a quote from the greatest South Park episode ever: Terrence and Phillip - Not Without My Anus.
That episode by itself is more insightful about the middle-east than 1,000 hours of network news, though for the life of me I can't recall what its insights were...
Does it depend on the intent of the politician? If so, the how can the statement ever be proven? Who, except maybe the politician themselves, can know the true intent?
Who are the people? Are "the people" everyone, or some subset of the population?
What is the 'worked' in "worked for"? All actions at the national level are brought about by many individuals and many groups. Who gets credit (or blame)? The politician in power at the time, the groups or individuals who lobbied the politician, the civil service people who managed the action, the civil service people who worked on the action, the private contractors who worked on it, or the individuals or groups who contributed to the ideas and concepts underlying the action in the first place?
What is the 'for' in "worked for"? What the people (or the group referred to as 'the people') need, or what they want? If it's what they need, then on what timescale? what they need now, or what they need 100 years in the future?
What is "worked for"? Can a politician still be said to have "worked for" one group when a given action helps two or more groups? What if it helps the politician, too? f an action helps some people, helps, some corporations, hurts other people, and hurts other corporations, who was that action done for?
What about policies that are controversial? Is shrinking the size of government "for" or "against" the people?
Any simple counterexample can easily be dismissed by arguing on any of the above-listed tacks.
"FDR worked for the people when he led the USA through WW2" - No, he helped the corporations who profited by the war - No, he helped individuals in Europe and Asia; the people of the USA just did his work for him - No, FDR only did what he was forced to do, after being pressured by UK and attacked by Japan
"Chretien helped the people when he brought in the millenium scholarships" - No, he was working for himself, buying votes with the public purse - No, he just have his assent to a program developed by true forward-thinking people in academia and the civil service
"GWB worked for the people when he lowered income tax rates" - No, he only worked for his rich cronies - No, he only worked for himself
Cynicism like yours breeds apathy, which eases the path for the corrupt and self-interested. Simultaneously, you are letting yourself off the hook in terms of your responsibilities towards the general good.
Actually, the World Calendar failed because of those days:
The main opponents of The World Calendar in the 20th century were leaders of religions that worship according to a seven-day cycle. For Jews, Christians and Muslims, particular days of worship are ancient and fundamental elements of their faith. (wiki)
This is why they've used a leap week. They explicitly say so:... calendar reform has always failed before. The reason was that all the major proposals included breaking the seven day cycle of the week. That is completely unacceptable to humankind, and that will never happen. The HH Calendar does not break that cycle. (http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/calendar.html)
In other words, they've created a modified calendar that, if it is adopted, will be adopted for sentiments exactly opposed to the one you express.
Killing with drones is unethical the same way killing with a gun or with your bare hands is.
This is a subtle point with ethics, so I'm not surprised that you don't get it.
Killing is not unethical per se.
The crux of the GP's post was that, when it comes to remote-controlled drones, the moral responsibility hasn't moved one bit - like with a gun, it still rests with the soldier who wields it.
Truly novel questions of morality only come into play when the robots autonomously make the decision to kill (or destroy, or do anything, really)
using drones removes most of the social restraint we have against unethical killing. Unlike using a gun, no human "feels" the killing, there are no witnesses, and there is a diluted sense of responsibility.
I think you're somewhat right here, but recall that the people on the ground being bombed do see what happens, and they're pretty clear on what they think of the morality of it (just look at the popular outrage against drone attacks in Pakistan.)
As for the drone operators, I strongly suspect they have nightmares over what they do. They know what the grainy blips on the tv screen mean, and they hear feedback after their missions. In time, I think there will be a wider realization in the west of the reality of drone strikes.
Mining on Mars: - Mining underground gives 'free' protection from radiation - Technology of mining gives something interesting to talk about, once the spacefaring equipment has been discussed - Similarities between mining and space travel (seriously: both are artificial, hostile, tech-dependent environments) lets you draw parallels between what readers accept as pedestrian (yawn, a mine) and what readers see as amazing (wow, a spaceship!) - Dangers of mining give a realistic and easy way to introduce drama - The substance mined would have to be either very, very valuable on earth (basically, you'd need unobtanium), or, very valuable on Mars (basically, anything. Cost for transport from Earth = very high). -- So, the mine would need to operate in support of a colony. Any local metal or industrial mineral would be useful. -- By the same token, the mine would have to be small, because it would be supporting a new-ish (therefore small) colony
Mining metallic asteroids: - Very shallow gravity well - Massive quantities of very pure metal, if you find the right one: pays for itself - Should probably be coupled with in-orbit refinery around earth, linked to a shipyard, unless there's a feasible way to bring giant hunks of stuff through the atmosphere without it burning up or destroying cities. This pushes the time forwards a few decades, at least
Slashdot Mirror
He means Bill Gates, though I don't his dig about 'monopoly'. Say what you will about Bill Gates the OS monopolist, but the Gates Foundation has done very good work. Comparing Gates' and Cameron's use of their fortunes is like comparing apples and oranges. Different, but both good in their own right.
How do you suggest people print those? On card stock?
I'd love a set
Do you have an estimate for how much fusion will cost per kWh relative to today's technologies, like fission, coal, and natural gas?
I'm interested in knowing whether fusion will bring down the cost of electricity. A pet idea of mine for some time has been that commercial fusion power could bring down the cost of desalination enough that access to fresh water will no longer be a problem for countries that can afford to build the infrastructure in the first place.
His point had nothing to do with RF interference or terrorists - just that loose objects are hazardous in a crash situation. If a plane suddenly decelerates, that ipod at the back of the cabin can very well become a missile heading towards the front of the cabin.
For those who haven't seen it, Boards of Canada (an ambient music group from Scotland) put some footage of Kittiger's famous jump into one of their music videos. It's pretty neat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lEsLcGB7Vo
These are embedded devices, they don't have PCI nor all the other nice stuff we have on PCs.
Why not? Shouldn't Google have thought of this and established some standards?
Call me an idiot all you want. I don't see why you can't have a basic set of standards for Android devices to follow that would make porting the OS something other than the 6-month custom-code fest it seems to be now.
The challenge is to port a stable copy of ICS to the Nexus S for OTA delivery?
I can only dream of the day when the challenge is to write Android in such a way that it runs any hardware that meets basic standards, a la Windows. As opposed to the current model, which seems to be lengthy OS re-writes for each individual handset.
3) If children are seen anywhere nearby, be really freaking careful and maintain location on said children.
Except,
a) it's difficult to keep watch on a child behind you and get settled in / startup the car / start reversing. Not impossible, but still difficult; and
b) what if there are two children? Or if you see one, and focus on that one, but another walks in from a different angle?
It really isn't completely preventable. Backup cameras don't solve the problem entirely, but they remove a lot of the risk from the equation.
And if the person behind you is shorter than the peak of your trunk? Children can and do put themselves right behind cars, and some of them do get killed because of that.
While there may be a way to avoid this by combining a walk around the car before entering the car, with near-constant use of the mirrors from the moment you get in the car to the moment you finish reversing, the plain fact is that it is not easy to know if someone less than 3 feet tall is right behind you. I suspect most drivers have avoided hitting kids while backing up more out of luck than out of assiduous mirror-usage.
I don't often say it, but: think of the children!
Dupe: http://www.tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/05/0115234/Rear-View-Cameras-On-Cars-Could-Become-Mandatory-In-the-US
Also, I think this is a good idea. I used a backup camera in a rented Ford once (the screen was in the rear-view mirror.. clever). It was very effective and made what is honestly one of the more nerve-wracking parts of driving far easier.
I was always a fan of Home Soil; to my eyes, it was a pretty solid sci-fi story.
Voyager: These are the voyages of the Flying Toilet Seat.
Its swirling mission: to explore strange new soils, to seek out new clogs and new encrustations, to boldly flush what no one has flushed before!
Er, scratch that previous comment. Should have read the article. The people are moving out because their share holdings are being taxed. So the French wealth tax does have a negative effect.
France has a wealth tax, and the net result of this is that while it has collected $2.6 billion (equivalent), it has resulted in $125 billion in capital flight since 1998.
And what effect has this massive capital flight had?
Money is stored in banks outside of France instead of inside of France?
Ceteris paribus, that seems about as important as the location of lost pirate gold - interesting, sure, but without any effect on the present-day economy.
... one's a colonial creation, the other is the core of an ancient and powerful civilization... I know, I know.
Relax, guy! It was a quote from the greatest South Park episode ever: Terrence and Phillip - Not Without My Anus.
That episode by itself is more insightful about the middle-east than 1,000 hours of network news, though for the life of me I can't recall what its insights were...
:%s/iraq/iran/g
Iran, Iraq, what the hell's the difference?
youtube videos are limited to 10 minutes?
I think you'll find it's 10 hours now, buddy. Changed a few months ago.
There is no simple counterexample.
"Politicians have never worked for the people"
Does it depend on the intent of the politician? If so, the how can the statement ever be proven? Who, except maybe the politician themselves, can know the true intent?
Who are the people?
Are "the people" everyone, or some subset of the population?
What is the 'worked' in "worked for"? All actions at the national level are brought about by many individuals and many groups. Who gets credit (or blame)? The politician in power at the time, the groups or individuals who lobbied the politician, the civil service people who managed the action, the civil service people who worked on the action, the private contractors who worked on it, or the individuals or groups who contributed to the ideas and concepts underlying the action in the first place?
What is the 'for' in "worked for"? What the people (or the group referred to as 'the people') need, or what they want? If it's what they need, then on what timescale? what they need now, or what they need 100 years in the future?
What is "worked for"? Can a politician still be said to have "worked for" one group when a given action helps two or more groups? What if it helps the politician, too? f an action helps some people, helps, some corporations, hurts other people, and hurts other corporations, who was that action done for?
What about policies that are controversial? Is shrinking the size of government "for" or "against" the people?
Any simple counterexample can easily be dismissed by arguing on any of the above-listed tacks.
"FDR worked for the people when he led the USA through WW2"
- No, he helped the corporations who profited by the war
- No, he helped individuals in Europe and Asia; the people of the USA just did his work for him
- No, FDR only did what he was forced to do, after being pressured by UK and attacked by Japan
"Chretien helped the people when he brought in the millenium scholarships"
- No, he was working for himself, buying votes with the public purse
- No, he just have his assent to a program developed by true forward-thinking people in academia and the civil service
"GWB worked for the people when he lowered income tax rates"
- No, he only worked for his rich cronies
- No, he only worked for himself
etc.
Really?
Really?
How much history have you read, CrimsonAvenger?
Cynicism like yours breeds apathy, which eases the path for the corrupt and self-interested. Simultaneously, you are letting yourself off the hook in terms of your responsibilities towards the general good.
Shame on you.
Actually, the World Calendar failed because of those days:
The main opponents of The World Calendar in the 20th century were leaders of religions that worship according to a seven-day cycle. For Jews, Christians and Muslims, particular days of worship are ancient and fundamental elements of their faith. (wiki)
This is why they've used a leap week. They explicitly say so: ... calendar reform has always failed before. The reason was that all the major proposals included breaking the seven day cycle of the week. That is completely unacceptable to humankind, and that will never happen. The HH Calendar does not break that cycle. (http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/calendar.html)
In other words, they've created a modified calendar that, if it is adopted, will be adopted for sentiments exactly opposed to the one you express.
Sadly, the Keplarians suffer near-endless civil war and discrimination, even of their own kind.
Killing with drones is unethical the same way killing with a gun or with your bare hands is.
This is a subtle point with ethics, so I'm not surprised that you don't get it.
Killing is not unethical per se.
The crux of the GP's post was that, when it comes to remote-controlled drones, the moral responsibility hasn't moved one bit - like with a gun, it still rests with the soldier who wields it.
Truly novel questions of morality only come into play when the robots autonomously make the decision to kill (or destroy, or do anything, really)
using drones removes most of the social restraint we have against unethical killing. Unlike using a gun, no human "feels" the killing, there are no witnesses, and there is a diluted sense of responsibility.
I think you're somewhat right here, but recall that the people on the ground being bombed do see what happens, and they're pretty clear on what they think of the morality of it (just look at the popular outrage against drone attacks in Pakistan.)
As for the drone operators, I strongly suspect they have nightmares over what they do. They know what the grainy blips on the tv screen mean, and they hear feedback after their missions. In time, I think there will be a wider realization in the west of the reality of drone strikes.
Mining on Mars:
- Mining underground gives 'free' protection from radiation
- Technology of mining gives something interesting to talk about, once the spacefaring equipment has been discussed
- Similarities between mining and space travel (seriously: both are artificial, hostile, tech-dependent environments) lets you draw parallels between what readers accept as pedestrian (yawn, a mine) and what readers see as amazing (wow, a spaceship!)
- Dangers of mining give a realistic and easy way to introduce drama
- The substance mined would have to be either very, very valuable on earth (basically, you'd need unobtanium), or, very valuable on Mars (basically, anything. Cost for transport from Earth = very high).
-- So, the mine would need to operate in support of a colony. Any local metal or industrial mineral would be useful.
-- By the same token, the mine would have to be small, because it would be supporting a new-ish (therefore small) colony
Mining metallic asteroids:
- Very shallow gravity well
- Massive quantities of very pure metal, if you find the right one: pays for itself
- Should probably be coupled with in-orbit refinery around earth, linked to a shipyard, unless there's a feasible way to bring giant hunks of stuff through the atmosphere without it burning up or destroying cities. This pushes the time forwards a few decades, at least
He probably meant nation-state. Or sovereign state. We often use 'state' to describe independent countries.
In fact, afaik using 'state' to refer to a sub-national political entity is unusual; most countries have 'provinces' or some other local terminology.
Either way, English is a funny language.
I don't know, he sounds like a fun guy...