Right off the bat; applications would have to be much much bigger than they currently are, since each application would have to include it's own drivers, garbage collection, etc etc. That in turn makes applications far more prone to bugs and exploits as well. Then there's the fact that a successful exploit would have far more reaching consequences. Instead of say a Windows 10 only exploit, you had an exploit that affects everybody who runs the exploited software. Which leads to the question "How would a anti-malware program even work in such an environment?" When you're allowing direct access to disk I/O, networking, system buffers and memory, how does a security program monitor all that and distinguish good from bad?
I'm no computer scientist by any means; but I do know that there were and still are good technical reasons why we evolved systems that handle all the common chores to support running applications. While software portability is desirable, there is a limit to that. There just isn't a need to run mainframe programs on your cellphone for example. If I understand the underlying theory correctly, any Turing complete machine can run any program intended for any other Turing complete machine. So, in theory your cellphone could run a mainframe application but it would do so in a painfully slow, so slow as to be useless, manner. The current digital universe is very roughly divided into broad areas of utility. You have your mainframes which overlap large servers, which overlap small servers. Then workstations which overlap desktops which overlap portable devices. I think it is those areas of overlap that prompt the posters question.
Mind you, one of the biggest markets for gold is actually the housewives of India, for whom buying actual gold (often as jewellery) and squirrelling it away is a time honoured practice against calamity. The smaller coins, bullion and ingots the normal consumer buys are the same thing.
I do note with some wry amusement that, in the event of a genuine calamity, all that digitally accessed money (gold, bitcoin, your chequeing account) is totally worthless until and unless things return to normal. Moreover, the value of gold would likely take a steep hit, as hungry people will happily pay obscene amounts of gold (in pre-calamity value) for a square meal, doubly so if they have hungry kids. The longer the calamity is expected to endure, the less value that physical gold has, up to a point. (a seller would become less and less willing to part with his food or medicine supplies for gold the longer he thinks his supplies have to last him. Meanwhile, hungry people suck at long term thinking...)
Of course, I don't care you who are, or how skilled of a driver you normally are. If you are three times the legal blood alcohol limit you cannot possibly handle any car properly. If the deceased driver had a car of lesser potential, she would have probably collided with the idiot going the wrong way instead.
As far as I'm concerned, the fault goes like this: A) The wrong way driver created an emergency situation, placing everyone else on that road that day in severe risk. B) Because of her asinine decision to drive drunk, the deceased was not capable of handling the emergency. She likely panicked and floored it to avoid the oncoming car. Thus, the wrong way driver caused the accident, the drunk driver's mistake(s) doubled down on the consequences of that accident. I'm pretty sure that even had she been in a more sedate vehicle, there still would have been an accident. If she had been sober behind the wheel of the Tesla, she might have been able to avoid the collision with the tree.
Reduced palette? : check
Too much white space? : check!
Awful font? : check
Reduced information? : check
Space wasted on unnecessary graphic art? : check
In my opinion; the new look for Slashdot looked altogether too much like an attempt to copy the look and feel of a glossy traditional print magazine. The overall effect made me think the (new) target demographic was people who didn't want details, people who wanted the web equivalent of a nice sound bite. The approach seemed like it was trying to give you an awareness of a news item, not an in-depth article for people who want to understand and debate the deeper aspects of it. Thankfully; the new look was not only disliked by a large majority of the Slashdot membership, but said members were also quite vocal in opposing it. More to the point; I believe the Slashdot membership did so in a more effective way than most websites would have experienced. I know of several of us, including myself, who took the time to go beyond the usual "the change sux and you suck for making the change!" that makes up the usual negative feedback any site experiences. In the comments appended to the article devoted to it, and again in many other articles, I and many others detailed each change from the previous look, why we disliked it and why we preferred the previous look. A LOT of it tied back to the idea of "who is your target demographic, what level of engagement/interaction are you expecting from them?"
In general, if you only give the bare bullet points of information and limit or obscure the users ability to customize things, you are planning for a one-way dialogue. For a news site, that is "sound bite journalism". For an application, that is promoting your concept of the desired workflow, not what the users might conceive as the best workflow for them. Contrariwise; if a news site gives the full story, links to supporting information and a full fledged forum for the readers to contribute, it is building a community and encouraging actual understanding of the news in question. It was that desire to understand, critique and debate that made and continues to make Slashdot special IMHO and was the detail I think the Slashdot staff at the time had overlooked.
It is my personal opinion that modern UI look and feel has its place, but that it is too often overused and largely because of the same error in thinking that Slashdot staff had been guilty of. The UI designers are going for something that looks pretty in presentations to management, is easy for the users to use as long as they are following the predicted workflow, on the predicted devices.
a) It isn't titanium dioxide, but actual titanium metal, in shapes that indicate the particles are swarf and debris from machining operations.
b) the x-ray spectroscopic data show that the particle tested isn't pure Ti but is pretty darn close to being so. No other elements approach 1% of the total spectra.
c) one fragment was found to have close association with aluminium crystals, which might indicate an alloy. (is there a metallurgist in the house?)
d) yet another particle showed 400 series stainless steel embedded in a fragment of titanium. The shape and texture of the bond between them suggests one tool was used to work both metals. One possible scenario, a drill bit was used to male a hole in SS and then make a hole in Ti, smearing a bit of SS debris onto the Ti swarf during the operation.
e) there were several spiral chips of 500 or 5000 series aluminium, which is an alloy with the principle alloying metal being magnesium. Not particularly strong until and unless heat treated, but with good machinable qualities and corrosion resistance.
The evidence seems pretty clear that the tie was worn in a machine shop environment where, for the time, some unusual materials were being worked with in conjunction with more common fabrication materials. Given the variety of the materials found, it is not unreasonable to suppose the tie was worn in such an area more than once, during different operations or stages where different materials would have been worked on. In addition, the tie had to have been worn by someone who would wear a tie in a machine shop. No machinist, tool and die maker or shop operator would wear a tie, even a clip on like the one D.B. Cooper left behind, while working because of the obvious safety hazards. The sleuths reasonably conclude that D.B. would have been an engineer or shop manager. (the tie being a clip-on, I lean towards the engineer option. back in '71, a clip on tie would have been seen as even more tacky than it is today. It's seems more likely to me that an engineer would wear a clip on in deference to what he sees as a silly dress code than a manager would, who might be a wee bit more style and status conscious than an engineer)
1) Don't put the switch, router etc in the same volume of space your desk is going to be in. You could do something like a soundproofed closet, with baffled vent for air flow. But, as you said, there is the risk of theft still to consider. I see no reason why your networking gear needs to be in what amounts to a small garage in your backyard. Sticking the gear in a closet goes a long way to protecting you from the white noise of the fans and protecting the machinery from dust, but a closet in the house is even better.
2) Look into using what's called in the trade a "split" air conditioner. You may have seen these installed in places like Hong Kong apartment buildings and retrofitted Russian buildings. Instead of having a big window with a large metal box that is easily removable, you can have small, high windows that are far more burglar deterring than a big window. You also get a unit that is permanently installed instead of a window unit that gets pulled out every winter. Splits are more efficient and available in bigger capacities than window units. As a bonus, you'd get larger expanses for that whiteboard of yours and lower heating/cooling bills.
3) Talk to your insurance broker about this. Investigate whether you need insurance for business interruption in the event of fire, theft, hurricane etc or if a simple rider on the existing house insurance will cover it. (another area where sticking your network gear in the house will help you.)
4) Don't forget your backup strategy! Your goal should be, in the event of any disaster, you can pick up a cheap laptop and go to a coffee shop and continue to work for at least a few days. Having one backup in the home office, another in the basement with the rest of the IT stuff *and* a copy on the cloud somewhere will be a lifesaver if you ever need it. For that matter, don't forget your free backup opportunities through your employer if appropriate. Your working data is absolutely something they should be backing up already. You may be able to get them to store a image of your laptop as well. Talk to your IT guys at work. (unless *you* are the IT guy, in which case why the hell are you asking us? )
China has been trying to expand it's zone of control in the area for a while now. They've been busy building artificial islands on reefs in the Spratly and Paracel Island chains. My guess (posted previously) is that China is trying to exploit the differences in how various maritime boundaries are determined, specifically the archipelagic rule, which establishes sovereignty based on the most outlying points of a nations territory. The construction efforts haven't won de jure sovereignty for China (international courts have ruled against them) but they still maintain de facto sovereignty over large areas of the South China Sea that they didn't have before they began all of this.
Meanwhile, it is well recognized that building artificial islands, even if based on reefs normally exposed at low tide, will change the local currents, thermocline layers and so on. This is critical information for the US Navy because these factors dramatically affect a submarines ability to navigate and hide from the enemy. The US Navy needs top quality data to hide their own subs as well as help find enemy subs. The data the drone collected was itself unclassified, but of utmost importance for creating charts that are classified. My guess is that China knew what the object was long before they grabbed it (even though they claim they were investigating a potential navigational hazard). They would have grabbed it in order to pull a data dump from it. That would give the Chinese navy clues to the charting and navigational capabilities of the US Navy.
What would be interesting to me is what the data would reveal about the course the drone took during its mission. As I said, the Chinese are trying to expand their control in the area. It would not surprise me if the drone took a course directly through what China regards as their territorial or exclusive economic zone waters, but that the rest of the world (incl the US Navy) still maintain are actually international waters.
Since China has de facto sovereignty over the Paracel Island, it's not much of a stretch to imagine them basing their territorial and economic zone boundaries on its inclusion. With an economic zone extending 200 *nautical miles* from Paracel Island, China *might* claim that the research vessel was trespassing. (which, I will stipulate, still violates the "innocent passage" requirements...)
And I am not claiming that China is in the right in all of this. I'm just making an inference of their likely motives and reasoning based on what they've done so far and what (little) I know about international maritime law. It seems likely to me that they are trying to play guardhouse lawyer here, using the differences between the definition of territorial, archipelagic and continental zones. Right now, they have de facto sovereignty over the artificial islands they've built so far. De facto sovereignty will remains until either
a) Someone big enough to provide a credible threat is willing to fight China for possession of the island(s) force China to cede the territory or
b) China accepts the existing de jure decisions and vacates the islands voluntarily. (some sanctions would be useful here, but I don't know if any of China's biggest trade partners have the political will to do so...)
As far as I know, International maritime law does not distinguish between natural and artificial islands. The catch here, and what I think the majority of international community is basing their objections on, is that natural or artificial, you can't just go and claim uninhabited land that exists beyond your existing boundaries. For example, if the island in the Spratly chain had been increased through vulcanism, it would have been unclaimed territory, but the Philippines would have arguably the best claim on it, since it falls within their economic zone. (similar reasoning would obtain for the Paracel chain and Vietnam, with the added argument that those waters have been fishing grounds for Vietnam for centuries)
First off, as far as I know, all measurements are determined from the low tide water line(s)
Second, most treaties and decisions are based on Nautical Miles, leading to much confusion on the part of laymen, especially if they are converting from metric kilometres to miles and neglect to distinguish between nautical and statute measurements.
Third; there are several basic levels of control over waters:
a) Internal waters (bays and rivers, no right of innocent passage by third parties)
b)Territorial waters (12 NM from low tide line, nation must allow innocent passage but all laws of nation are in effect)
c) archipelagic waters, (baseline drawn from outermost points of peninsulas and and islands. Nation is completely sovereign, but must allow innocent passage AND traditional fishing rights of neighbouring countries.
d) Contiguous zone (measured another 12 NM out beyond the territorial waters. (only customs, taxation, pollution and immigration laws are in effect)
e) Exclusive Economic zone. (TWO HUNDRED NM out from baseline, nation has exclusive rights to exploit all natural resources in the area except where already covered by Contiguous Zone.) and finally
f) Continental Shelf 200 miles from baseline OR to the natural edge of the geologic feature WHICHEVER IS GREATER, to a maximum of 350 NM. Nation has rights to resources attached to, or below, the sea bottom in this area.
What China appears to be doing is building artificial islands in what previously had been international waters. If it can get tacit or explicit acceptance from the international community that China is sovereign on those islands, that will allow China to dramatically expand its control in the region based on the archipelagic rule, which in turn will expand its exclusive economic zone. Remember that there is a clear difference between de facto and de jure sovereignty. The Permanent Court of Arbitration can only rule on de jure and historically, de jure sovereignty has always been secondary to de facto sovereignty. Thus, China does not need international acceptance in order to gain de facto sovereignty. By building the islands and providing military and border patrols, it already has that.
Thus, from the Chinese point of view, the drone was likely a) spying on their military bases being built on one of the islands they are expanding and b) doing so from within waters they claim as their own.
From the US point of view, a) they were operating in what is still internationally recognized as either international waters or waters controlled by their Philippine allies. and b) getting the closest possible look at the military installations a major power was building, which are responsible for a major change in the balance of tensions in the region. (One can easily argue that these efforts by the Chinese government are deliberately provocative)
As a final note; I do not believe for one moment that the drone deployed by the US navy only gathers such non-classified data the article mentions. Drones are primarily intelligence gathering platforms after all, not science research vessels. If I were developing, deploying and operating multi-million dollar drones in an area currently under a great deal of military and economic tensions, I'd be loading that drone with every type of sensor, (active and passive) that I could possibly fit in its hull. Given the current tensions, I'd be using only its passive sensors to be sure. I wouldn't want my drone getting caught. The best intelligence, after all, is the intelligence the opponent doesn't even know you have. But I'd be certainly doing more than measuring temperatures and salinity. My primary interest would probably be using passive sonar to *thoroughly* map the sea bottom and gps/ inertial tracking to chart how the Chinese construction was affecting the local currents and thermocline depths. Should hostilities ever break out, such detailed knowledge of the area would make finding and combating submarines much easier as well as giving my own subs the tools they need to maximise their own efforts at hiding.
For the sake of illustration, suppose we develop a better plastic that allows classic, well understood flooded lead-acid batteries to use a stronger solution of sulphuric acid and combine that with a way of making a reticulated lead foam. What you get is a lead-acid cell that can be up to half the size of the existing product, perhaps with a slightly better initial voltage or better cold cranking amps.
Only now: a) the risk of hydrogen build up explosions is higher b) the damage done by a leaking battery/acid spill is greater. c. Because a smaller form factor means closer terminal spacing, it is even easier for a mechanic to get a wrench or screwdriver caused short, shocking him and potentially welding the tool in place. d) Any hypothetical plastic that is resistant to very strong concentrations of sulphuric acid across a wide range of temperatures and internal pressures is likely going to be next to impossible to recycle.
Similarly, a kinetic system like a flywheel holds the potential to fail in entertaining (from a distance) ways if the bearings fail or if the base materials fail under load.
If you're a thief and want to steal a McLaren or other million dollar car, how do you find one that isn't alarmed, indoors, under CCTV monitoring and possibly guarded as well? Whereas, if you're in the market for a hot Camry, Accord or what have you, any public parking lot is sure to have a few to choose from.
Also, if *I* owned a million dollar car, I'd definitely invest in Lo-Jack or similar GPS recovery system so that even if some hoodlum drags me out of the car at gunpoint while at a traffic light, he'd only have a few hours to find and disable the Lo-Jack before promptly re-locating the car to where it will actually be stripped or shipped out.
sociopathic, genocidal murderers and their heirs will be all that is left
Even IF such a thing were technically feasible or to become so. There are still two really big problems that the hate groups never seem to even realize, let alone admit to anyone.
1) Who decides who is desirable vs undesirable? White supremacists would chose blacks, browns and yellows, pretty much in that order. There are elements in militant ethnic or religious groups who would happily eliminate whites from the world in turn. What you end up with is a MAD situation, with everyone (hopefully!!) being too sane to be the first to pull the trigger and making side deals with others in the room to gang up on the first one who does so.
2) There are many post apocalyptic stories and movies out there which can give us at least a passing notion of what a truly depopulated world would look like. None of the bigoted nutjobs seem to really think that through. At best, some seem to think this means law and order collapse and they get to take what they please at the point of the gun they've been hugging and whispering to. More likely, it means the utter collapse and likely extinction of the human race. ONE PLAGUE wiped out as much as 50% of the human race. We survived because a) People tended not to travel as much or as far/fast as they do today. The disease spread slower than it would today. b) Something like 80% of the population was involved in food production and nobody utterly relied on preserved and/or widely transported foodstuffs. c) The disease struck mainly the poorest and the ones living in the most crowded conditions the hardest. Most monasteries, for example, were almost or completely unscathed. Which also meant that the accumulated knowledge of the human race also survived. (and even if the librarian monk dies, the books are still on the shelves. If our electrical grid goes down permanently, everything stored electronically will be essentially GONE.) Because our civilization is so interconnected and interdependent, what *I* think the result would be:
A) Death tolls easily matching the First, Second and Third pandemics put together. It will happen within weeks, perhaps even days, compared to the months and years of the earlier plagues. That would eliminate 80+% of the human race.
B)There will be warfare as nations blame each other. Warfare that is quite likely to include nuclear weapons. That right there accounts of ~80-90 % of the human race. FOLLOWED BY
C) Wide spread and immediate Great Famine which accounts for 50-60% of who ever is left. FOLLOWED BY
D) Rampant dysentery and other diseases, caused by being surrounded by seemingly endless dead bodies and no access to clean drinking water. (many people in the west don't even know where their water comes from, let alone have the means to get there and extract it without power during a pandemic. FOLLOWED BY
E) A loss of human knowledge and know-how akin to the Viking sacks of the Irish monasteries, but occurring WORLD-WIDE. FOLLOWED BY
F) A drastic crash in world wide climate, perhaps even another Little Ice Age as we had in the medieval period. This may well account for the 5-10% of humanity that is left, huddling and starving in the dark. If the Little Ice Age had any help from Nuclear winter, it could easily be the tipping point to another Snowball Earth which would wipe out 95+% of ALL LIFE on the planet.
no, any sane individual, regardless of race, colour, creed or condition should be utterly terrified of the possibility of ANY wide spread bioweapon.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.