proteomics is a very new field of study. It has only been very recently that we have been able to synthesize long dna and rna strands inexpensively, and even more recently that we could reliably induce quality insertion into a target organism for biosynthesis.
I was reading some interesting things earlier as a result of this story.
Apparently, you can run multiple instances of dosbox on a *nix OS, and with the right code patches compiled in, dosbox emulates NE2000 cards and properly does the system realtime clock. This would let you emulate a whole fleet of nodes on a virtual network that are able to communicate with each other, able to run original software. (Actual Wildcat!, for example) You can pipe the virtual serial from the dosbox instance to a serial device on the linux host, so if you REALLY wanted, there are all kinds of way you could attach real modems. Honestly though, connecting with telnet or ssh would be better. If you wanted the full experience though, using some kind of virtual modem over voip might be doable, so you dont need multiple physical lines, just a fat internet pipe.
The guy uses an ESXi server to do the virtual dosbox instances, but a linux box would work just as good.
4 or more such virtual systems could be run on something like a consumer grade NAS (400 to 800mhz ARM processor and 1 to 2gb RAM with a pretty big spinny disk running linux), and several of those could be stuck on a shelf next to each other without major issue, and link the virtual networks together over an actual ethernet backbone between the boxes. The whole thing could be on a private network and routed out behind an actual router.
These days, a typical person could host a pretty intense BBS farm on the cheap if they knew what they were doing.
I am just imagining the silliness of a DMCA takedown notice being sent against a system that requires somebody to actually dial in.
A BBS style public messaging system, coupled with PGP/GPG public key sharing, could be an interesting thing.
People just logging in see nothing but cypher text if they dont have the right keys. Meaning the conversation is private, even from the sysop. If they manage their keys properly, and have valid chains of trust, it would be a good holdout against the loss of privacy in the modern world.
Throw in a fully encrypted transport (like SSH), and there you go. Only other remaining thing would be decentralization of the service, but that would require much more thought.
No shit, fuckwad. What they have are metal frames, which is how you energize the fucking lenses when you put them on the healing cradle at night. (You know, because it supplies an electrical current to the glasses when you aren't wearing them, so the coating can do its thing?)
If you had read what I had written, you would have caught that, but instead you were too busy smoking a dick or something. But thanks anyway, and thanks for trying. Here is your millennial participation trophy. (Yes, it is gilded dogshit. Yes, it really does mean you are special.)
Apply this to glasses as an alternative scratch coating, and use 2-part metal frames. Supply a simple "healing" cradle to put the glasses on at night.
Never have scratched lenses again.
Fuck the damn iphone. This would be fantastic in eye-wear.
There is such a thing as an electric turbo fan.
Here, let me Google it for you.
The console outputs fewer pixels in handheld mode (720p) than in docked mode (1080P), so the system SHOULD generate less heat.
ABS, which is most likely what the shell is made of, has a melting point someplace around 220C, but gets kinda flexible/bendy much lower than that. The heat of the system running balls to the walls for extended periods could well be sufficient for things to get saggier than titties at a 5th wave bra burning convention.
Sounds like there is a market for aftermarket clip on turbofan coolers, like there was for original build XBOX 360s. (the ones that got so hot due to poor ventilation design that they would spontaneously delaminate their surface mount chips.)
Better get that Nintendo seal of approval though. They are about as bitchy about aftermarket devices as Apple is.
I was reading the oxford paper, and that does not seem to be the conclusion that their team reached, and cited work from several other groups that had similar findings.
One of the cornerstones of the "New jobs" argument is that demand for highly educated and skilled labor will increase, which they specifically address as not consistent with empirical findings of their peers:
as computerisation enters more cognitive domains this will become increasingly challenging
(Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011). Recent empirical findings
are therefore particularly concerning. For example, Beaudry,
et al. (2013) document a decline in the demand for skill over the past decade, even as the supply of workers with
higher education has continued to grow. They show that high-
skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder, taking on jobs traditionally performed by low-skilled workers, pushing low-skilled workers even further down
the occupational ladder and, to some extent, even out of the l
abour force. This raises questions about: (a) the ability of human labour to win the race against
technology by means of education; and (b) the potential extent of technological unemployment, as an increasing pace of technological progress will cause higher job turnover, resulting in a higher natural rate of unemployment (Lucas and Prescott, 1974; Davis and Haltiwanger, 1992; Pissarides, 2000). While the present study is limited to examining the destruction effect of technology, it nevertheless provides a useful indication of the job growth required to counter-balance the jobs at risk over the next decades.
So, is your attestation that this previous historical trend will hold actually well founded, or is it just a belief?
Precisely. The people with the robots have everything they could possibly want, and the other people have nothing that the robot owners want.
The robot owners stop interacting with the rest of the humans. The rest of the humans create an alternative market to deal with the lack of buying power or potential trade capacity with the robot owners (because the robot owners want nothing the other humans have), but the other humans may have, in aggregate, what they are looking for if they trade amongst themselves.
The robot owners will simply remove themselves from the market, and will have no incentive to join the newly created one.
Take for instance, this article on forbes. (Yes, I know. Have noscript ready.)
It is rather short on details, but makes the salient point about alpha-go creating a wholly original move, through machine "creativity."
It is not really that big of a change in tactics required to train similar AIs to do, for instance, market trading strateges-- which has already caused a mass exodus of humans from stock trade floors.
Further refinements of such methods could eventually lead to radical shifts in how things like aircraft are designed, or computer chips are laid out. Skilled human minds that rely on intuition can be replaced with purely logically founded iterative software agents, with billions of prior tested design strategies to work with behind them.
To get an idea of how quickly the fallout of a major paradigm shift can rattle through an economy, take a look at this Atlantic article from last year.
It also has the following gem in it:
In 2013, Oxford University researchers forecast that machines might be able to perform half of all U.S. jobs in the next two decades.
which is on par with my initial statement. Since it was called out specifically, let's see if we can find it.
And here it is. (warning, pdf)
Like I said, the linked story is not the only group that has looked at this issue. I am vaguely recalling at least 2 others that have reached similar conclusions to Oxford and PwC, and who have given a rough estimate of hitting the tipping point within the next 20 years, give or take.
I have no reason to argue against people better trained in trend analysis than myself.
The predictions you are seeking, are the subject of the story linked by the article. It is not the first of such predictions, nor the only group that has made them.
One can find said predictions if they want. Most cite a major tipping point in the next 20 years as being "highly probable."
The grim specter of reality, that if you DO NOT keep a sufficient number of them alive, you are making the gene pool too shallow.
You like variety, and vitality in your sexual partners, do you not?
That alone is reason to keep a sizable and diverse group of additional humans alive on what is otherwise a charitable basis.
Remember, every major experiment in eugenics has been a total failure. Social darwinism is NOT real.
Because there are things like tipping points in economics.
There are still buggywhip makers today, but they are not and will never be what they once were. Likewise, there will be a long period where only 90% of the current workforce is unemployable, and 10% are still employable, so not defacto 100% mechanized labor. But still sufficient that for all practical concerns, you will not have a job, statistically, and thus society needs to contemplate that reality.
You can't change systems like this when sudden changes allow radical shifts in the social dynamic. (see how quickly actuaries were fired after the spreadsheet was invented, for example.)
It is FOSS, and has been ported to more architectures than you can shake a stick at, including many posix based systems.
If you have a popular platform, it likely runs there.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth