What you don't know about fusion
Could fill a shelf of books
You are the type of man who looks
For new miraculous advances
But overestimates the chances
Of breaking-even on the power flow
You only have to open up your mouth to show
What you don't know
What you don't know about fusion
Keep in mind, a cheap solution would be a threat for most the worlds farmers, who are not high tech like the ones in the 1st world nations.
The world's small farmers are already being driven out of business by automated mass-production farming that their labor-intensive, small-scale methods can't compete with, and that they can't afford to replicate. Cheap, easy-to-use small-scale automation could allow them to grow food more cheaply, making them more competitive, not less. I doubt that any of them enjoy doing back-breaking field labor for 10 hours a day for very little compensation; why wouldn't they want a robot that could do the tedious labor for them?
It seems like that would cut down so heavily on demand for labor, that not many people would find it worth trying to cross.
Not to mention that anyone with a sufficiently capable farm-bot could use it raise their own crops to eat, and would therefore no longer need to go searching for a menial job in order to feed their family. Win-win!
There is no "FarmBot".
If you watch the video at the bottom of the article, you'll see photos of several prototype FarmBots that do, in fact, exist.
And thus this is likely yet another solution without a problem.
I think there's definitely a market for this. For example, I'd like to have a nice vegetable garden in my back yard, but I don't have the expertise or the free time to do the work necessary to keep it healthy and happy. If I could buy a FarmBot at the local Home Depot, set it up, press "Go", and not worry about it until harvest time, that would be a pretty tempting prospect. And once the technology got cheap enough and reliable enough for most people to afford and install, anyone with some land could easily grow their own organic produce, exactly to their own specifications. For people who don't have their own land, neighborhoods could do slightly larger-scale versions of the same thing in the community gardens. Peoples' ability to feed themselves (rather than rely on buying food from large corporations) would increase, which can only be a good thing.
I agree that Chrome browser has a generally pleasant interface (to the point that other browsers feel cluttered, to me). However, look at everything else Google touches. It's always cluttered, clunky, and misleading. G+, youtube, youtube mobile clients, youtube clients on consoles and roku and other devices. Google Docs. Even Gmail to a degree. Google has two things that are pleasing as interfaces: Chrome and Google.com's main page. Everything else feels like an engineer tossed it together in a day after working on the backend for two years.
Granted, this is but one man's opinion. Maybe everyone else loves these interfaces...?
I'm fine with subscriptions. I would rather pay $5/mo to RDIO for access to their massive library than buy music. What could that $60/yr get me? Four CDs? No thanks.
On the other hand, they're all missing a lot of content, too. It's frustrating to really want one chunk of music and simply not be able to get it. And, of course, no subscription service gives you Led Zep or Beatles and AC/DC and so on, it seems.
I just don't know that I'd give Youtube $10/mo. Double the price.. for what is probably a weaker selection (and one that is probably geared more toward Gaga, Bieber, PewDiePie fans).
Plus, Youtube means Youtube/Google interface. Fuck that. RDIO isn't great, but at least it wasn't designed by Google's interface guys. *shudder*
Geoengineering has effectively caused this problem, even though it wasn't necessarily planned geoengineering. Simply burning less fossil fuels isn't going to fix the problem. The ship of climate change has already sailed. Completely halting the release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today will not turn the problem back in anything less than geologic time.
I like that you mentioned that we won't know if we don't do the research. However, the question that seems to elude many is "what if we don't?". So far, much of the discourse revolves around reducing carbon output...which isn't entirely unhelpful. It's just not entirely practical. Questions about "how do we deal with the projected changes" are pretty practical. And again, when discussing geoengineering, it's not so much what happens if we do...it's what happens if we don't.
Of course, I've always had this sense that there is an attitude from those who consider themselves environmental activists of this dogma that everything that humans do is inherently evil. I don't share this worldview...but this sense will certainly bring any efforts (or perhaps even discussion) of geoengineering to a halt.
Microsoft doesn't have many fans on Slashdot but even the most die-hard of fans must now see that they're in a real bad position.
The used to be invincible in the consumer space but now the computing device of choice is either the tablet or the smart phone. Precious few of these are Windows based.
The used to be invincible in the business user space but the move to mobile computing means business people are using iPhone and iPads, not Windows Phones and Surface.
Then there's Bing, who's only claim to fame is being the world's greatest search engine. For. Porn.
Then there's Azure. We actually looked at Azure and discovered that the same hardware in EC2 was half the price. If you going to twice as much you might as well give up and go home.
Then there was the own goal of the latest generation XBox. They managed to piss everyone off for no discernible gain.
The only area their grip is still strong is PC gaming. For how long, who knows?
Microsoft is a spent force. They're out of ideas. In a few short years they've gone from being the 800lb gorilla to just struggling just to remain relevant.
It reminds me of Brazil versus Germany at this year's world cup. I'm not celebrating any more; it's just sad at this point.
That would make sense, but for 4 dimensions, experience suggests that a four-sided cube works well. It's certainly not trivial.
Exhibit 153B. Sociopaths in natural habitat.
Why not just bump the signage by that much, and make the signs themselves the hard limit?
To avoid arguments. If the cops say 11 km/h over an artificially 10 km/h low limit then you weren't speeding just a little, if they said 1 km/h over the limit people go all "waaaaaaa it was only 1 km/h" and "waaaaaaaa your equipment must be off I went 1km/h under". "I wasn't speeding that much" holds a lot less sway than "I wasn't speeding".
Integer overflow has absolutely nothing to do with security
Integer overflow has been in the top five causes of CVEs for several years running. Buffer overflows, sadly, are still at the top.
I want all of my digital stuff to be destroyed when I die. I really don't want my family combing through all my personal shit when I'm dead.
Unless you take strong measures on your own, there's zero chance that any of your "digital stuff" will be destroyed when you die.
Your choices, if any really exist, are having your family comb through it, setting up a dead-man switch, or having a corporation use it for their own profit. Because once they're sure you're dead, the zaibatsus would sell your toes to foot fetishists if they could get away with it. Their sole purpose for existence is to maximize profit within the law. And some of them interpret that last bit to mean "anything I can get away with is effectively legal".