Did they? Save for stuff in safe deposit boxes (I can't remember what happens to that when you die), everything was likely to be in your home somewhere, pretty trivially accessible unless you use a safe or secret compartments or something.
No the sheer disrespect shown by companies for their customers data and the fact that it is a lot easier to loose digital data than anything else have increased the problem.
This could end up being just another one of those dark ages in history where very little can be found since everything was digital and most of it was just deleted in an effort to reuse space or discarded by companies who went bankrupt or got bought out.
I don't buy the "dark ages" thing. Even if 99.99% of the digital data about you disappears, you'll still leave a much, much bigger footprint than even your recent ancestors did. I know a lot about my parents, a few bits and pieces about my grandparents, and nothing further back except a name and maybe a photo.
If you have enough on the ball to do something like that, instead of operating on pure emotion, you're not going to fall for a lot of these scams anyway.
And you will be competing for resources and attention with all the politely racist elderly that lived in that place since forever. Does not sound like a retirement plan for me.
> And you will be competing for resources and attention with all the politely racist elderly that lived in that place since forever. Does not sound like a retirement plan for me.
The currently-elderly might not be there by the time mistermann wants to move there.
I think it is all about location. East German concrete slab highrisers[0] are being renovated into fashionable lofts, despite their unfashionable image and continuous deterioration - where they are placed in the city centers that is.
It is a negotiating problem, and I think that that is an issue (be it gender-related or not). It rewards competitive thinking over cooperative thinking - people who'd rather work in a fair and equal environment are more likely to accept the same salary they perceive others will get - i.e. usually the proposed salary. Competitive minds have less qualms about claiming higher rewards.
Mechanisms like publishing salaries allows for a fairer salary whether you are cooperative or competitive. If you earn more, you probably can justify it in front of colleagues and bosses.
Some say cooperation over competition is a 'female' trait, but personally, I feel the same. I am successful at negotiation, but I'd rather know that my colleagues earn the same when they work the same, which is why I try to encourage talk about salaries.
We need to get out of this mindset that competitiveness is wrong. Competitiveness is a creative force. It's a way of seeking and incentivizing value.
The problem with open salaries is that it spurs continual second-guessing. And if anyone thinks that open salaries are less susceptible to popularity contests, they're wrong.
Assessing value is hard. We'll always get it wrong somehow. Encouraging people to become better negotiators may be the best way to handle salaries. When people make a case for their value and are rewarded in money for it there is at least an extremely grounded avenue for correction. The company will continually look at whether a person is worth that amount of money.
I think it's not necessarily an edge if you are competitive instead of cooperative when negotiating. Both styles can work at least according to the theories I've read.
The problem is of course some people are generally less likely to negotiate and they are the ones that are shafted.
Not sure that I buy into the argument that negotiating salary is "competitive thinking". The goal is to reach a compromise that everyone is happy with, which, to me, seems rather cooperative.
It is perfectly possible to stand on it if it is powered. The same you can stand on a Segway: As long as it moves itself under your center of gravity when tilting. That would then also be the steering.
The problem is, there's no friction (as the article states) for the board. What would the board push against to adjust itself? In the Segway, the wheels touch the ground and provide something for the motors to act against. This is more like an astronaut in space (if I'm understanding the situation correctly).
I like the idea (my kids would love it). It certainly has marketing value and calls up dreams of an amazing future, but there do seem to be some real practical problems (as the parent alludes to). Stopping seems particularly exciting.
Dynamic instability? E.g., give the board some extra electromagnets near the edge, which "balance" the same way humans to, by constantly pulsing back and forth. When you want to move, you exaggerate one half of the pulse cycle.
I think you're on to something. There's enough magnetic field there to levitate a couple hundred pounds. It you can shape that field electronically, or even by interposing the right kind of material, it might be possible to create some lateral force.
Now, I have close to no knowledge in super conductivity and how those puck manage to somehow stick to the rails centimeters away from the surface, but could we create some sort of directional friction? Sort of like a snowboard would work, so you could at least rely on one axis to balance yourself properly?
From what I gather, the board would apply a single linear resistance (vertical) aswell as resistance from every rotation axis. So theoretically, we enough skill, you could balance yourself on the board purely by using rotational resistance, even without the directional friction I just mentioned. You couldn't jerk your legs forward and backward, but you could push on the ball of your feet to shift backward, and push on your right foot to shift to your left.
The board is pushing against the ground (and the load!). If you adjust that force depending on the tilt of the board, you can move it (up to a certain point) to stay under the load.
As others have pointed out, it depends a bit on how much lateral force you can achieve through tilting and reaction forces, but if you can balance a quadcopter, you can balance a hoverboard. It gets a lot easier if your load is attached to the platform.
> The problem is, there's no friction (as the article states) for the board.
Where'd you read that? All I read was that they are working on a friction-free car.
It uses super-conductivity to facilitate levitation. Flux pinning creates an 'on-rails' movement between the two components (the superconductor and the magnetics on the ground).
Defects in the magnets and gaps would create areas of resistance, much like they do in toy-scale versions of this same concept, but you'll still be pinned to the magnetics as long as that superconductor stays cold.
There will be no 'astronaut-in-space' movement, because the board will only be able to achieve quantum levitation over a bed of magnetics, which will be many pieces and not defect-free.
See, there is an air intake in your mouth - and trying to talk under water does not exactly result in the noises you expect when you're talking into air.
The sign used by divers to alert others is banging your knife against the air tank. There are actual hand signs for 'I'm in trouble' or 'I'm out of air'.
Fair enough, like I say I'm not familiar with the subject but curious. I was more picturing the masks that look a bit like gas masks that have radios in them. My extent of diving knowledge is limited to movies and Mythbusters, I'll admit.
