You can already see the shape of that future in Google's Chrome OS. This is a very much "locked down" combination of operating system, browser, cloud applications, and storage. Security updates are automatic and (eventually) involuntary. You are limited to running the software that Google allows you to run, most of which is executed on Google servers. No website Java programs are allowed at all.

Such an architecture provides for maximum security and has the advantage of minimum hardware requirements for ram memory and on-machine storage. It allows for encryption of all communications between your computer and the outside world with mimimum involvement or decison making by the user. And from Google's point of view it represents the perfect vehicle for advertizing in a controlled enviornment. In a sense, your computer has already been hacked (by Google) when you buy it. And they will make sure it stays hacked to their preferences.

The next step will be integration of the computer operating system with the phone operating environment. The two will merge with more software coming from "app stores" and not from the wild. At the same time, the services on the computer will become more integrated with each other so that social media, calendar, voice calls, texting, and social media work togerther and don't work at all with outside software. It becomes a secure walled garden with enough internal features and flexibility to be tolerable to the mass users who are not or can not be responsible for their own security.

"I propose that the United States delivers its astronauts to the ISS with the help of a trampoline." Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin
http://bit.ly/1BSlzlo
That's why the US can't trust the Russians to be part of a future joint space project. As soon as they have some leverage, they will use it.

My thoughts exactly!

If an industry has a 45% turnover rate, as is cited for call centers, the problem is not the "talent and dedication" of the employees. The problem is that the job is structured in such a way that it is mind numbing, repetitive, and unsatisfying to the workers. And BTW, if you really want workers who can perform under such conditions, you are NOT looking for someone who wants control over their circumstances as indicated by the selection of a non-default browser.

I'm not sure what you mean. I've lived and worked in Sweden and the US. And I have collaborated in the US and Sweden with many researchers from Sweden, Finland, China, Holland, Japan, Czech Republic, India, Iran, Pakistan, England and probably several more. The most meticulous in my experience are the Finns but it's a small sample size. The Japanese tend to be hamstrung by hierarchy and status issues, the Chinese are befuddled by having to deal in English. Of course it's always dangerous to generalize because it's hard to tell what is an individual trait and what is a national cultural trait. I do know for sure that Swedes are reticent to tell you about their strong points and are embarrased by Americans who honestly describe their own good work. I think Swedes view many American researchers as "grand-standing" and skipping the hard work.

Then you are modest in giving yourself a 0 score. Of course I did occasionally repeat work (or parts of work) while doing research in the US. But I never saw anyone in the US repeat an entire experimental protocol. In Sweden this was common, and it did not affect your ability to get funding. Also, in Sweden negative results were accorded the same standing as postive ones. In the US it was common to see researchers come up with a wild idea and give it a try, skipping many intermediate steps. In Sweden, all those intermediate steps would be exhuastively evaluated before moving on the the next level. I worked with several folks in the US who were publishing in Science Magazine and they were absolutely going for a Nobel.

I think the difference has to do with the social standing and security felt by Swedish University professors. They have guaranteed funding unless they really screw up. In the US you may have academic tenure but if you lose your funding from outside sources, you are not going to keep your labs. One can argue about which is the better system. Most American labs I saw were more productive in the sense of the data they turned out. But I would trust the work done in a Swedish lab over that done in an American lab/... as a general rule.

I've done biomedical research in the US and Sweden. The incentive structure is totally different. Swedish scientiests take baby steps and reproduce results repeatedly before moving on. American scientists are all trying to win the Nobel prize. They shoot for the big result and nobody gets a grant in the US for repeating results of someone else. Is it a surprise that people respond to the incentives before them?

Hillary should offer up her private emails as soon as the Republicans in Congress release all of their private emails. Because how can we know that those "private" Republican emails don't contain official content?

Currently, every public servant must decide which email system to use at the time each email is sent. Is it official or private? Do we trust a Secretary of State to make that distinction? If so, Hillary is in the clear. If not, then all personal emails of all public servants must be made public. What difference does it make (TM) if the division between private and official is made at the time the email is sent or later?

I was involved in doing dental research on NIH grants starting in 1976 (39 years ago). There was absolutely no indication that we should not persue the effect of sugar on dental health. OTOH, I did see the tobacco industry funding reseach trying to disprove that smoking stunts your growth.

There was a major change in the leadership of the National Insitute of Dental Research about 40 years ago so maybe it got cleaned up.

Marketing gibberish aside, the Chrome browser is not the OS. The OS also happens to be called Chrome but it is just a variant of Linux. And the Chrome browser is a browser, not an operating system. Google wants to limit your applications to those that run in the browser to sort of simulate the "browser is the OS" look and feel, but that's not really what's going on. The confusion is intentional.

Do I "want it to get hotter"? In the long run....no... but I'm sure it is getting hotter. So now we have the frog in a pot analogy. We are being heated slowly and are not reacting... not jumping out of the pot. And by the time the skeptics are convinced, it will be too late to jump.

I do not "want" the TCS to be 3C but my wishes have nothing to do with what the actual case is. So yes, I would like to see extreme warming for the next 10 years so that we will jump to a new energy infrastruture not based on fossil fuels. And I would particularly like to see it get very hot and dry in Oklahoma so that something will shut Mr Inhoff up. And if we jump and it turns out that the TCS is 1C? That's fine because the move to non-fossil fuels has many other benefits like less pollution, less susceptibility to terrorism (distributed source energy), and a move away from cars and toward mass transit, bikes and walking whcih makes for a more compact and heathly way of living. It's also fine becasue, even with TCS of 1C, we will still have to make the jump sometime. An early move gives us more time to get it right.

It's easier because when you schedule that call to China, there will be no confusion about what time is agreed upon. And it won't be dinner at 2AM. It will be dinner at 14 (Centons).

Me: Ok Sally, where shall we meet?
Sally: Let's meet at the plaza at 52.
Me: How long do you think it will take?
Sally: Well, Harry likes to talk a lot so probably about 2 Cs.
Me: Great. I have another appointment at 57 so I'll have time for a quick lunch.
Sally: I've seen you wolf down a burger in 2 Mills so I don't think there will be a problem. (Laughs sweetly)
Me: Ok, but if I go to Space Burger I'll have to wait in line for a C just to get my order in.
Sally: Chill Cowboy. You have plenty of time.

The easiest solution is to have one time worldwide. Essentially, use the military Zulu time (Greenwich Mean Time) for everything. Then there is no confusion about what time it is and international (and coast to coast) communication would be simplified.

And while we are at it, let's eliminate the 24 hr day and 60 minute hour which are based on Sumerian arithmetic. Let's use digital (base 10) time. The primary unit would be the Centon (1/100th of a planetary rotation) which would mean there would be 100 Centons in a day and each would be equal to about 15 of your puny Earthling minutes. Millons would then be equivalent to 1.5 minutes and the new second (.001 Centons) would be about the same as the existing second. Easy to deal with.

The issue of daylight would be dealt with locally. Shops and offices would open at whatever time they choose (just like they do now) but it would probably be the equivalent of the old 8AM or 9AM.

There. I've solved it for you, so no further discussion is necessary. :)

The point that is misunderstood by many people is that CO2 released today contributes to the greenhouse effect for hundreds of years. That means that even if we stopped releasing any fossil fuel carbon today (not going to happen), the temperature of the earth would continue to rise for a long time on the time scale of a human civilization. And that will do damage to the biosphere that will be permanent (i.e. last for millions of years). Massive loss of species has already begun and will get worse no matter what we do. The question is whether we destroy much of the genetic diversity of the earth or all of it.

I'm sure that as soon as the science deniers realize their folly they will call for SCIENCE to save them. They will call for massive atmospheric engineering projects to reverse the effects they have caused. But it will be too late and the "projects" will cause more harm to the complicated climate system than they will alleviate.