Comment Global framework of laws (Score 4, Interesting) 258
This global framework of laws will render the nation state useless. Corporations will have ALL of the power nation states used to have. And you will have none.
This global framework of laws will render the nation state useless. Corporations will have ALL of the power nation states used to have. And you will have none.
But PUE isn't that a good thing there either. It speaks to some overhead, but does not speak to how that power is sourced or how efficient it is put to use. A horribly inefficient processor that sucks down power can have really good PUE through a complex cooling system and in a region powered by coal, even if you can do the same work with a tenth of the power, but that part is not available in a design without a fan, and installed in a place where solar power provides a good chunk of the power. The more sustainable answer in that made hypothetical would be the fan cooled efficient processor getting a lot from solar, but PUE does not care about that.
I think the big issues is that to do a true economy is really really really hard. X3 was single threaded and if you had a lot of ships you could bring the whole system to its knees. It was one of the reasons so many were hanging out for X-Rebirth. All people really wanted was a rewrite of the original engine to handle multiple threads so that they could actually run a full economy. Lets not even talk about what we got instead....
The other challenge is you need other active actors and these are also incredibly hard to do in something like X. It's painful enough watching the AI in civilisation. I can't image how rubbish the AI of X would have been if they had tried to include growing territory or trade empires.
Agreed. One point though is that the price of an input is no determiner as the the price/value of a final product. Price of a final product is a function of supply vs demand. Of course if your final product is worth less than the inputs you will go broke, but that too is reality.
X3 came close to making it work. Particularly if you played albion prelude and ran a few of the balancing mods. It was far from perfect, but it is the best space one I played.
The real issue was that you were the only active player in the universe. If a sector had no energy cells the AI would never build a solar station anywhere near it. If there were crystal shortages no one would build crystal mines. In fact if you destroyed a station all that would happen is that a ship would turn up and try to build an identical one in the same spot. It was how you managed to get some of the terran stations which had no wider equivalent. Blow up one of their stations, wait for the cargo ship with the replacement on board to arrive and then capture it.
It doesn't matter what industry segment you look at, the "leaders" always take the credit for other's work. Some guy on the shop floor saved $2 million a year in manufacturing costs? The shop floor manager gets the bonus.
Leaders dont take all the credit.
Bosses take all the credit. People like Jobs were bosses.
Leaders ensure that everyone gets rewarded for their work. When you're good at your job you can choose to work for leaders, instead of bosses.
Also remember that a lot of engineers dont want fame, so they're happy for the leader to be the front man and despite this, a leader will still make sure his team is thanked, both publicly and monetary. To be honest, if give the choice between money and fame or just money, I'd take the money and run. I'm not a narcissist and too much ill can come from fame.
No, it was a Kim Dotcom reference. He got the GUILTY license plate. That and similar "rub their nose it" actions didn't help his relationship with law enforcement and the courts.
I WAS not saying that using Tor indicates that one might be doing something shady, but I'll say it now. People using the internet in the clear, not using Tor , are doing something shady maybe 1% of the time. On Tor, maybe 80% of the traffic is shady. So arithmetic tells us that Tor traffic is 80 times more likely to be shady than non-Tor traffic.
Which is why if I were the NSA, FBI, or ONI, I'd run most of the Tor nodes or otherwise ensure that I could map all Tor traffic. That's the fundamental weakness of Tor - it protects against ONE node spying on you, by assuming that MOST nodes are friendly.
If I were a bad guy, I'd stay far away from Tor and instead send coded messages via Facebook, Youtube, or some other channel in which 99.99% of the bytes are completely uninteresting, cat videos and such. It's easy to hide 128 bytes of coded message when it's buried within 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of inanity. "Hiding " your shady dealings in a pile of shady, illegal stuff that the feds want to look at seems like a less optimal strategy.
If you and I are given the same resources as Jobs, could we have created a Mac or iPhone? Jobs' greatness is not because he was a great inventor (though media simplifies it to that). But it is the ability to put all the resource available to him to realize a dream. I say this even though I am not a fan of Jobs or Apple. Quite the opposite.
You've got to remember that Jobs was a credit stealer. He didn't invent most of the stuff he put his name to.
So yes, give me the same talent that Jobs had working under him and yes, I could do the same. In fact I think I could do better as I dont have the same ideological bend as Jobs so I'd spend my time trying to find the best solutions, not the one that fit in with my Dogma.
I prefer to follow better leaders in business. Bill Gates recognised that all his success came from the fact he had some very talented and very competent people working for him and made sure that they were properly rewarded for it, same with Brin and Page from Google. For all bad things we can say about Gates, we cant say he was a bad businessman or even a bad person. The thing about Gates, Page and Brin is that they didn't make cults of personality around themselves.
Every successful businessman has told me that in business, you need to be dispassionate about your decisions. Jobs was anything but dispassionate so he's an oddity, he didn't get success through skill, he got it through sheer luck and the fact the people working for him were good enough to compensate for his ego.
I live on a residential block behind a few bars. If they had less parking, there would be more people parking in our neighborhood. We got the city to create a residential parking zone, with towing for non-residents, but it's only for one block; drunks could just park deeper into the neighborhood and walk a little further. And the thing about drunks walking home at 1 AM from a bar is that they are obnoxiously loud, like to urinate on whatever they happen to be near, and occasionally toss a brick through a car window just for grins.
So no thanks, I'd rather have mandatory parking on site. If you want to stop drunks from driving, catch them as they pull out of the parking lot. Or build cities to better support public transportation, and have that transportation run late enough into the night to service the evening crowd. Or legalize Uber and let their drivers///suckers deal with puke in their cars.
You can do what Australia does, give every police officer a breathalyser and training on how to use it. If you blow over the limit you have the option of accepting the punishment or requesting a blood test that will be more accurate.
High range drink driving is so rare over here that anyone blowing 0.10 or over (twice the legal limit) is national news.
Also make the punishment fit the crime. Not just fines, revoke their license or impound their car if they keep driving on a suspended license.
As for parking at bars, there's plenty of reasons why you should have it. I could be the designated driver, drinking soft drinks whilst shuttling my drunk mates about, I could have just popped in for 1 beer with colleagues after work or I might be there for a meal with family or friends and not consume enough alcohol to put me over the legal limit (or any alcohol at all).
If you want to reduce drink driving, you need to target the culture that permits it, not the means. If you take away the car parks all the drink drivers will do is park on the street. If they're willing to risk a DUI charge, do you honestly think a parking ticket is going to stop them?
And with that, you then just call the cops.... if someone is actually capable of hurting your wife and children if you don't do what they say, they are also capable of doing so even if you do...
But, as an organised criminal, why go to all that trouble?
People put under pressure react in strange and unpredictable ways. Why do all of that when you dont need to. You just set up the drone and let it work automatically. Not as if there aren't enough people who have the knowledge and lack of scruples who wont set all of this up for money. Hell, they've probably got a few who are part of the organisation.
As for payment, the people on the inside have already paid for it, some with money, others with services (erm. as in cell block strongman, not escort).
Quite simply, it's not going to happen. While some people are comfortable sharing their stuff, the vast majority are rather possessive. They don't want to sit in someone else's filth. They don't want their car to drive off, pick up someone who has sex in it or their kid vomits or a pet shits, etc. Efficiency is all well and good but reality is people are disgusting and we generally want to keep to ourselves because of it.
Guess that is why Uber never took off.
Yeah I'm not super keen on renting out my Toyota Corolla or VW whatever car, but I would be willing to buy a car designed and maintained by uber, but I could take on road trips/extended whatever simply by turning "off" the taxi mode an hour or two ahead of when I need to use it, like going camping for the weekend or whatever.
Hi, it sounds like you dont understand Uber's business model. Would you like some help.
Well stiff, you're getting some.
Uber's business model consists of taking the profits whilst shifting as many costs as possible onto the vehicle owner as possible. So if you buy a car for Uber, you'll be paying the maintenance costs, some other manufacturer (Toyota, Renault, Tata, whoever) will pay the development costs. Ubers entire business model relies on them being the middleman for minimal cost to them.
But you dont need to worry about that. By the time autonomous cars are good enough to do what you imagine, Uber will be nothing but a joke you say when you dont have enough wind to pass.
Yep, they forgot to set a date on the calendar to kill the rich all over again once they got snooty.
But think about other changes as well.
Autonomous cars can be parked a lot closer than any cars that need to open doors to let people out. So think about a few parking garages advertising "robot rates" and cutting the parking stalls down to car-size+3-inches-on-three-sides. The cars drop off their human passengers and then pack themselves into the robot garages.
Again, I doubt it's going to happen as people dont want to have to wait in a line for 10 minutes at a designated pickup zone for their car to come when they can walk 2 minutes to go straight to their car.
Alternatively, if you're worried about someone soiling your pristine car, then charge enough to have it professionally cleaned before you want it back. And insist that the customers pay electronically so that you know EXACTLY who the offender was.
In the model they're talking about, you wont own the car. This another reason why their utopian vision will never come true. Personal car ownership is considered a right and necessity in many places.
Autonomous cars will never be the traffic messiah people think they are. They wont be doing 200 MPH bumper to bumper because they'll be programmed to follow the road rules. They'll keep a 3 second gap, they'll never exceed the speed limit, they'll slow down for heavy traffic, pedestrians and inclement weather, they'll stop on an amber light, they'll let people in.
A lot of people will retain manual control because they're used to breaking all these rules. Imagine the average driver with a "litte richard" fuming that their car just let some jerk into THEIR lane.
PUE (power usage effectiveness)
WEE (water equivalent energy)
and somewhere at datacenter dynamics magazine theres a giggling intern that needs to be shown the door.
In correct English, PUE is not pronounced Poo. The U sound is emphasised and the e is de-emphasised. It will sound closer to "pew" than "poo" in your simple parlance.
Pronouncing the U sound as a double O is Spanish, not English.
I was aware what WEE means, I was wondering what PUE means.
Well, or so I thought. Now I noticed that WEE ain't what it used to be either...
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
