You could fly from San Francisco (SFO) to Orlando (MCO) That's a pretty big search radius, if this story is true.
I don't want anything for free. I don't trust anything that's being offered to me for free or for cheap. It just means the true price is hidden and that's creepy.
You can't trust the encryption they're offering you for money, either. You're going to have to handle encryption on your end.
Unless worker pay is determined by supply and demand, as in, say, a capitalist economy.
When workers become commodities, we call that slavery.
Half a billion dollars has been stolen. Where's the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department? This is their job. It's embarassing that they haven't made any arrests.
That doesn't bother me.
What bothers me is that Google is constantly changing things and if you don't like it, tough.
Your "outdated socio-economic system" is someone else's "reality".
The reality is that as worker productivity has increased by orders of magnitude, worker pay adjusted for inflation has decreased sharply. There's no defense for that.
How common? On the other hand, perhaps there is a profitable niche there, sort of like how space tourist lies somewhere in between commoner and astronaut. There's a bunch of money involved and a lot of it covers training.
In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.
Statistically nobody would even understand what they were on about unless they devoted an entire episode to the concept. Which might be reasonable, of course.
Silly you, after mergers things downsize
and then executives cut themselves big bonuses
In other words: Welcome to the grind fest, where if it doesn't consume your entire life then you lose.
Or, by losing you win, but feel you didn't win, so keep trying and keep losing, until you are good enough to win and thus lose.
After much reflection, and even making some other posts in this discussion, I figured out what the insightful comment would look like — thanks to your subject.
The real winners in the gold rush, with few exceptions, were not prospectors. They were shopkeepers who sold equipment to prospectors, and saloon owners who ran gambling establishments.
Have you priced restoration parts recently? Yowza.
And that point will be reached when all emissions are accounted for. There's no good reason why that can't be the case, heat aside. And even heat emissions should be managed.
Please inform me of how you intent to break several laws of physics. It is impossible to make a power station without having a heat sink and dumping the heat somewhere.
Please inform me if you intend to study English. Your intent is unclear.
I never said it must be eliminated, I said it must be managed. It is not generally a significant concern in any case, so far as we know. But there's no reason to simply ignore it.
Using solar power is a nifty way to have the heating go on elsewhere, yet still "somewhere". Ye olde solar power satellite concept rears its head again.
If you are thinking about carbon capture- don't.
If you are thinking about issuing me any more ignorant imperatives- blow them our your arse.
Nobody has proved it on a large scale. The largest projects I have heard of divert a tiny (~1-5) percentage of the exhaust gas from a test (small) power station.
Hello, the USDoE is calling you from the 1980s. You are woefully underinformed at best.
Likewise, capturing ALL the emissions would require more energy than the power station creates!
I'm happy if all the emissions are simply accounted for. For example, via carbon fixing schemes, like tree planting.
Carbon capture carries a huge parasitic loss, an inefficiency which if applied on a large scale would wastefully use up even more fossil fuels.
If you read the report I linked above, which has been around for quite some time now and cited all over teh interwebs and read by every person genuinely interested in this sort of thing and not just in it for the trollz, you will see that it actually helps produce fossil fuel substitutes. But I understand that you simply think you know what's best for me, and would like me to get on board.
In summary, get a dictionary and blow me.
Read the whole article. It's quite good.
It's not "youth" that's the problem. It's banality. "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks." - Jeff Hammerbacher, Facebook. Most of the "app" companies are not "tech" companies. They're fad publishers. The technology for doing routine web apps and phone apps is pretty much standardized now.
The engineering that goes into phone hardware is just awe-inspiring. Electronic design today is brutal. You barely get to use any power, the budget for each function is tiny, the size has to be very small, you have to operate multiple radios without interference right next to each other, and there's a new product to get out every six months. Most of that engineering is not done in the US. That's a big concern. The US probably doesn't have the technology to build a cell phone any more.
It's not as bad as the first dot-com boom. This time, there's usually revenue. Income, even. Even Twitter claims to be profitable (although they're not, really. Look at the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles results, not the ones excluding "one-time expenses".)
What we've learned so far from Bitcoin:
- The distributed, eventually-consistent blockchain anchored by mining works and is quite robust against attack. Nobody has yet successfully attacked the basic Bitcoin system and stolen money. So the low level technology appears to be secure.
- Irrevocable, remote, anonymous transactions are the con man's dream. Especially when they're assocated with a whole community of suckers who think anonymous anarchy is a good idea. The scam level in the Bitcoin world is huge. Over half the exchanges have gone under, and that was before Mt. Gox. Bitcoin-oriented "stocks" and "Ponzis" have an even worse record.
- Personal computers are not secure enough to store money. "Bitcoin wallet stealers" are a major problem. Many "online wallet" services turned out to be scams. Storing Bitcoins safely while still being able to use them is quite hard.
- Volatility is far too high for Bitcoin to be a useful currency. Since last October, Bitcoin has gone from $100/BTC to $1100/BTC to $600/BTC. Daily variation often exceeds 10%. The companies that accept Bitcoin for real products have to reprice every few minutes. Bitcoin behaves like a pink sheet stock. Too many speculators, not enough real customers.
- There are scaling problems. Currently, every user has to have a complete copy of the entire transaction journal back to the first Bitcoin, and has to keep up with all the transactions as they happen. The confirmation process has a 7 transaction per second limit. Confirmations take about half an hour before they can be trusted; longer during busy periods.
- "Mining" is more centralized than expected. The original idea was that "mining" would be a spare-time activity of each user's computer. In practice, "mining" is done in large data centers with custom water-cooled ASIC chips. Two mining pools control more than half of Bitcoin's mining capacity, and they have the power to set fees and change the rules.