simpleTruth

That assumes you have unlimited physical access. 5 minutes per machine * 80 in a rack * 1,000+ racks is a real world limitation.

PS: The NSA has a vary different approach to security than the average firm. To put this in perspective they have been known to refer to their computing power not by computer or rack but by the Acre.

PS: Renting an airplane is still a better option if you fly less than 10 hours a month, but IMO there is a nitch for a crappy flying car.

Basically, you can't prove 1 person did not read it. But, you can be positive 100 people did not read it. Now clearly this depends on the number of people working on the problem. So, while 100 is excessive in most fields, somewhere around 3-10 is probably a good lower bound.

PS: how much longer it takes might be less important than how much cheaper it is per weld. If I can pay someone 12$ an hour for 8 hours to do the same work that someone making 50$ an hour does in 4 it's normally a huge net win. On to of that, it will probably become faster fairly soon.

"Facebook’s closest competitor is Yahoo’s network of sites, which claimed 10.1% of the market. Google, which is still relatively new to the display business, had 2.5%."

Or in a more down to earth example, if we stop building ever higher energy particle accelerators there are things we simply don't get to know.

Thinking about problems don't provide new information. It's the same basic fallacy as assuming a really really powerful AI could deduce QM from a few minutes of webcam footage.

I could see a changed "Manhattan skyline" as a significant impact for many people. For a while I could see the section of the pentagon hit by the airplane outside my window, but there is little lasting visible impact on the structure. Internally, they did a fair amount of renovation for example added some glow strips on the floor pointing to the exits which seems like a good idea, and gas makes which seems less useful (and more creepy). You can even go on tours of the pentagon which seems risky, but I suspect the benefits outweighs the risks.

However, that's all fairly long term effects. As to being up close and personal, a coworker of mine was in a conference room when 1/2 the people at the table where taken yet he had no problem going back to work at the pentagon. Sure, it's a target, but numbers suggest being a truck driver to be a far more dangerous profession.

When it comes down to it terrorism is simply not that effective. Several paces have had sustained terrorist attacks for long periods of time and people don't react that much.

PS: I watched it live on TV missed the first attack, but saw the other two get reported and personally I was never really that strongly impacted. More WTF? than run for the hills.

To put things into perspective, 1kg (~2.2lb) of antimater + 1kg of matter = 2* (9×10^16 J/kg) of energy, TNT = 4.2×10^6 J/kg so that works out to 42,000,000,000 kg of TNT or a 100 mega ton bomb which is larger than the largest H bomb ever tested.

PS: The other issue is unlike gas which is fairly stable, any sort of containment failure = detonation.

PS: If you want to get fancy you can set up a bootable partition on your HDD and then backup the SSD to that partition.

PS: The human body can cope with horrible diets for reasonably long periods of time. Also, trying to balance everything correctly every day is vary hard and probably less useful than focusing on what you eat over a week/month.

Take an existing project find all the places that link to each section of code and you have some idea how reusable things are. Tell people your doing this ahead of time and you promote spaghetti code. Ask people how difficult an objective is and you get a wide range of biases based on how you use the information etc.

The secret is not how to get the most reliable data, it's how to get the best outcomes including they way people try to game the system.

So, to fool a machine you might need to exactly match all the individual wavelengths relative intensity but with a human you get to ignore most of that and just look at 3 numbers per pixel.

PS: A small number of people can detect 4 colors but the net effect of this is almost meaningless for various reasons.

PS: For a huge ISP peaking 10mb for 2.4 hours at the worse time of the day is much more costly than a constant 1mb connection 24/7. But, you are not going to see this inter the debate.

Once again, the best programers write as little code as possible which allows them to focus on quality over quantity. It's easy to turn 10 lines of code into 20 classes and gain nothing, it's much harder to see those 10 lines of code once someone has written the 20 classes.

The government builds new roads to lower transportation costs.

NASA spent a less than 1 shuttle mission worth of funding to research scram jets over 7 years. Resulting in the X-43 which hit Mach 9.68 using an air breathing engine. , NASA Dryden engineers said that they expected all of their efforts to culminate in the production of a two-stage-to-orbit crewed Vehicle in about 20 years. However, the program was canceled, so, in the end you could be right

Still, scramjet's are one of the few technology's to be able to reduce the cost to orbit to 1/10th - 1/100th of current costs and instead people want to wast billions trying to build a moon base?

PS: The whole point of infrastructure is to lower prices. People could drive across the country before the interstate system, but it suddenly became cheaper and faster in large part because you could avoid stoplights and pedestrians etc.

Have you even been in heavy Traffic congestion? The Texas Transportation Institute estimated that, in 2000, the 75 largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of delay, resulting in 5.7 billion U.S. gallons (21.6 billion liters) in wasted fuel and $67.5 billion in lost productivity, or about 0.7% of the nation's GDP. Note: That cost is significantly larger than NASA's ~$19B budget.

PS: Simply building more or wider roads does not automatically remove congestion in the long term. However, mass transit really does help. Just look at how much more people are willing to pay to live near a subway station.

In 2008 it's 0.6% of Fed Budget which is still a lot of roads. But more importantly: The NASA budget is larger than the National Science Foundation budget,[2] but only 61% of the National Institutes of Health budget. NASA does some interesting science but the focus is clearly on keeping the public entertained and not say lowering the cost to orbit which would be of great value.

PS: Many bubbles are simply money looking for somewhere to hide. Assume the US cut it's military budget by 80% and paid of the debt in 20 years, where do you think that money would end up?

There is also plenty of blame to spread around. EX: Irish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_property_bubble burst 2008. UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_property_bubble burst 2008. Australian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_property_bubble (yet to burst) etc.

What is really interesting is how little the price could increase before market forces brought things back to reality. Housing is such a large percentage of the worlds wealth that we never saw the sort crazy multiples over value that other bubbles get to. EX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble

"Our goal is for no single employee acting alone is able to access your files. However, there is a procedure where multiple people working in concert can recover your files and provide them to law enforcement. Unfortunately, it is possible for a hacker / programmer to create a backdoor and there is nothing we can do about this."

This works with Housing, at a fundamental level if people decided to more houses one year the price increases, and if people buy fewer houses one year the value of your house decreases which can quickly cycle though to dramatic shifts. However, if fewer people decided to get a degree the value of your degree increases.

What people seem to miss is unlike the housing or gold bubble tuition costs don't really feed off each other. The high end is really just a luxury in another form and nothing is stopping Breitling from selling 300,000$ watches any time soon. And the low end is a direct government subsidy (like corn farming) which will continue as long as the government feels the need to waste money.

PS: As long as demand is unlimited and wages elastic Technology can't really destroy jobs in the long term even as it disrupts industry after industry. Still, people will always look for the best workers, so even if a degree might not mean an increase in pay the unemployment rate for people with a BS is 1/2 that of those without one for a reason.

At this point it's a question of how cheaply they can scale it up and how much you can improve the efficiency. Looking at some of their numbers they block ~30+% of the light to gain ~1.3% of the energy you are better off with smaller windows and a high efficiency solar cell around the window. AKA 10% smaller windows block 10% of the light + a 20% efficient solar cell = 2% efficiency. Granted, there is probably a market even in it's current state.