but that with increasing clock speed the size of your chip is limited (as electricity can only travel that far in a given amount of time) -> can't keep your chip synchronized -> need to think of new ways how to sync everything / if there are alternatives.
I don't see why anything new is required. With today's design, bits are shifted from one section to the next on each clock pulse (or some multiple of the clock pulse, which just means that the internal clock is faster than the external clock).
Sure, the timing might have to be adjusted here and there. But you're still just shifting electrons short distances from one pulse to the next. If your chip die is 1" across, electrons can travel the whole width at about 10GHz. Since they seldom go a tiny fraction of that distance in a single clock cycle, I don't see a lot of problem.
I do agree... there would have to be some adjustments made. But I don't think they're quite as harsh as you make them out to be.
But the knowledge that it existed did come from the commercial ad (at least you described it that way) so the commercial ad didn't influence you.
What I meant was that it didn't prompt me to buy. Sure, occasionally I see interesting things for sale. But the point was that I very seldom -- and I do mean VERY seldom -- buy things based on advertising alone. And those few I do buy that way tend to be inexpensive, commodity-type products.
I would really encourage you to take an introduction to marketing class at your local community college. One of the key elements of advertising is psychology of buying. You are trying to target not just the conscious part of people's mind, but also the SUBconscious part of people's mind when it comes to purchasing. The latter is much much more powerful (and profitable).
Yes, I am aware. While I don't claim to have studied marketing, per se, in college I did study it from the other end: the ethics and methods of subliminal advertising, from the perspective of the social sciences.
So I have more than just a rudimentary idea of how it works. And I also know that it does not work well on me.
The term is character set. The site itself is served as UTF-8, but the posts are interpreted as iso-8859-1 (more or less equivalent to ASCII). UTF-8 uses a variable-length encoding to represent characters, and iso-8859-1 is single-byte. While it is uncommon these days, it's hardly non-standard.
I have been a professional web developer for many years now and I have to deal with internationalization and different character sets quite frequently. So pardon my use of the word "formatting", but I do know how this works.
And complaining is perfectly fucking appropriate when people have been telling Slashdot for many years now that their character interpretation is messed up. Just recently I had to take more than 70,000 documents that were originally created using Microsoft products, and so were in Latin-1 (ISO 8859-1... ISO is properly capitalized), and convert them to UTF-8. And the whole point is... it's easy. Slashdot really doesn't have much in the way of excuse, after many years of complaints.
So, yeah. When easy improvements (and I know they're easy because I've done them, more than once) have been called for by multiple users, over a period of many years (as long as I have been on Slashdot), I do feel justified in opening my mouth.
wrong, they are not filtered out, instead a correction factor is applied
Steve S. Goddard has made it his career to track these "corrections" and missing data points for the USHCN (Historical Climatology Network). He has uncovered a lot of "corrections" where there should be none, and inappropriate "filling in" of missing data points. Not to mention that the "missing" data points have been overwhelmingly in areas of colder climate. He has easily 100 examples of deliberate distortion of the data in USHCN, and he has even tracked this progressive re-writing of history over the last couple of decades.
Steve has also found many historical records that directly contradict what modern "climate scientists" have been saying about the past 200 years. And make no mistake: these are scientific papers, and government's own data he has been collecting.
Not to mention that through May of this year, not only were large parts of the Northern hemisphere experiencing record cold (including the averaged United States temperatures), but the Antarctic sea ice in the Southern hemisphere was also setting records. That is hardly my only source... I have been following the climate reports because my own region was experiencing record weather.
And please don't give me this "weather vs climate" guff, because we are discussing a single month, which is by definition weather.
It hardly seems credible that with all that world record cold virtually everywhere (except for the Pacific El Nino event), that May could have ALSO been a "record warm" month. It just doesn't add up. Just like so many of NOAA's other figures.
GP: I meant it doesn't involve any third party "cloud service".
Parent: I didn't say I trusted it. I said I could sync with it. Regardless: keep in mind that whenever you use iCloud or Microsoft Azure or Google, you're trusting mysterious black box software. So let's keep things in perspective.
Either way it is great that SCOTUS is allowing the EPA to ignore Congress.
It didn't. Quite the contrary.
SCOTUS actually ruled pretty much the opposite: it said -- in so many words -- that the EPA can NOT write its own rules contrary to the laws explicitly laid down by Congress. Quotes from the actual ruling:
An agency has no power to âoetailorâ legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.
Aâ(TM)s interpretation would also bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPAâ(TM)s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
In effect, but not in so many words, what SCOTUS ruled is that EPA cannot effectively regulate greenhouse gases, today. Because by law, it must require the polluters to use the "Best Available Current Technology" (BACT) which applies to their current or proposed operations. AND it cannot require unreasonable measures to do so, such as re-engineering or rebuilding existing OR proposed operations. AND they ruled that if it is going to regulate it must -- by law -- regulate ALL those businesses that produce more than 250 tons a year.
And the fact is that there is no practical way to do that today. It's that simple.
Exactly. Certainly it does work on certain people, or they wouldn't still be spending money on it after so many years. But other people -- many, many other people -- are not so easily influenced.
Don't try to tell me what influences me and what doesn't. I am very familiar with my own buying habits, and advertising has very little to do with them. Advertising might clue me in to the existence of a product that I otherwise did not know about, but before buying I get my information from other sources.
Most of the time, advertising influences me negatively! I often (usually, in fact) say to myself, "Looks like an over-priced POS". I've been fooled that way, too, and later decided (after I learned more) that it was a decent product after all and might be worth having. But that didn't come from the commercial ad. More often, I buy something because I saw one that someone else had and I see that it's well-made or works well.
Nothing wrong with Tesla, if you can afford the price. And the price is directly attributable to manufacturing costs (high battery cost, for example). You can do a lot worse in Detroit and Tokyo.
But I agree with the rest of your comment. Lots of it is crap. Sturgeon's Law applies here.
People learned to "tune out" ads on the radio more than 100 years ago. Then TV. Then (sadly) cable TV, which got its start by selling itself as "ad-free subscription television". Then internet.
Why business seem to keep thinking they can force people to pay attention to their ads is beyond my understanding. They have 100 years of practice NOT paying attention.
I just have to wonder, honestly, how they're still in business.
They must have a hardcore, resistant-to-change, corporate user base keeping them afloat. Because frankly I don't know anyone in the industry anymore who likes Oracle or wants to do business with them.
(Even the hosting companies I deal with replaced MySQL with MariaDB, behind the scenes. No issues with the changeovers, and better performance.)
Don't misunderstand me: for enterprise-scale users they might have something to offer. But for just about everybody else, they pretended they were going to offer and just dropped the ball. How many times now?
I have a "server" machine on my home network, with some big hard drives (inexpensive today). It is set up so on local network I can simply access the drives as though they were in my work machine, other than network latency of course. When away from home, I can use SSH and SFTP. (In fact I use SSH forwarding so I can access both the server and my regular work machine.)
Very simple. Easy to set up. Probably more secure than Microsoft anything. And no third parties involved.
I don't need "streaming" anything. I don't need DLNA or other kinds of streaming services. If I am away from home, I just download the file and view or play it locally. Disadvantage: that can take a while. Advantage: no blips or burps or freezes in my media, because IT'S LOCAL, not streaming.
I can also sync folders, if I want, via BitTorrent Sync. Again, no third party involved.
So, really: I don't need "cloud services". They offer me nothing I don't already do myself, and they add unreliability, privacy risks, and so many other things I really don't need to dick around with.
I would also like to find an NAS that doesn't have all those fancy bells and whistles, and doesn't make me pay for them. I just want it to "look like" a local drive on my home network. That is all. I will take care of the rest.
I committed an error in my earlier comment. You mentioned Arrhenius, but I was thinking of de Saussure, whose apparatus was what gave Fourier the "trapping radiation" idea.
But as we now know, de Saussure's apparatus was in effect a real greenhouse, and "radiative trapping" was not what caused it to warm.
So Fourier's whole idea about "atmospheric trapping of radiation" was pure speculation, based on his mistaken assumptions about how de Saussure's device worked.
Wrong. The current climate change is man-driven. If climate change caused them to change locations in the past, then the argument for the penguins relocating due to man-driven climate change is strengthened, not weakened. The exact opposite of what you claim.
This is just plain a silly thing to say. Logic 101:
Person 1: "We think X causes Y because: we have not observed Y before now, and X is a recent phenomenon, so it is reasonable to suppose that X may be causing Y."
Person 2: "Um... my recent research shows that Y has been happening continually since time immemorial."
It's because it fits the myth that humans are bad. The mechanics of the rationalizations and what is actually considered good and evil change from generation to generation, but the myth never does. I think people have psychological needs for such myths, perhaps to cope with the unpleasant aspects of reality.
It also gives government excuses for draconian legislation which gives them orders of magnitude more control over parts of the economy than it ever had before.
(By the way: there were numerous problems with Arrhenius' apparatus. Not the least of which is that it was, in effect, a real greenhouse... and the "greenhouse effect" is a different effect than the one that actually warms greenhouses.)
Yes, it does. The argument was thus: the Emporer Penguins are changing locations, and they were not known to do that before. Therefore a possible cause is "climate change".
However, this research says that they did, in fact, do it before. Therefore the explanation of man-driven climate change as a probable cause IS weakened, because it has occurred in the past due to other causes. Q.E.D.
This particular change is projected to be more severe than prior changes which these penguins have been through, which is why it's interesting.
Projected by whom? Please be specific. History says otherwise. It has been both warmer and colder before, in the Antarctic. In recorded history, even. In fact, even in just the last century. Look up 1937.
Yet again you demonstrate your limited knowledge of the US government.
Really? Would you care to have a contest?
The president can't do whatever he wants. - repeat until you get it.
Again: really? Let's see: he has personally pushed EPA rules without Congressional input, which is arguable illegal. He has engaged troops and materiel in wartime activities, again without approval of Congress, which is definitely illegal. He has engaged in killing American citizens without trial or conviction, which is illegal about 100 different ways, both domestically and internationally.
But more to the point: Obama personally approved expansions of NSA surveillance, and weakening of Constitutional protections. We know this from leaked documents. His "plausible deniability" is so full of holes you could use it for a screen door.
Slashdot Mirror
They will use recovery procedures down to the platter level.
If there was ever a good case for full-disk encryption, this is it.
but that with increasing clock speed the size of your chip is limited (as electricity can only travel that far in a given amount of time) -> can't keep your chip synchronized -> need to think of new ways how to sync everything / if there are alternatives.
I don't see why anything new is required. With today's design, bits are shifted from one section to the next on each clock pulse (or some multiple of the clock pulse, which just means that the internal clock is faster than the external clock).
Sure, the timing might have to be adjusted here and there. But you're still just shifting electrons short distances from one pulse to the next. If your chip die is 1" across, electrons can travel the whole width at about 10GHz. Since they seldom go a tiny fraction of that distance in a single clock cycle, I don't see a lot of problem.
I do agree... there would have to be some adjustments made. But I don't think they're quite as harsh as you make them out to be.
But the knowledge that it existed did come from the commercial ad (at least you described it that way) so the commercial ad didn't influence you.
What I meant was that it didn't prompt me to buy. Sure, occasionally I see interesting things for sale. But the point was that I very seldom -- and I do mean VERY seldom -- buy things based on advertising alone. And those few I do buy that way tend to be inexpensive, commodity-type products.
I would really encourage you to take an introduction to marketing class at your local community college. One of the key elements of advertising is psychology of buying. You are trying to target not just the conscious part of people's mind, but also the SUBconscious part of people's mind when it comes to purchasing. The latter is much much more powerful (and profitable).
Yes, I am aware. While I don't claim to have studied marketing, per se, in college I did study it from the other end: the ethics and methods of subliminal advertising, from the perspective of the social sciences.
So I have more than just a rudimentary idea of how it works. And I also know that it does not work well on me.
The term is character set. The site itself is served as UTF-8, but the posts are interpreted as iso-8859-1 (more or less equivalent to ASCII). UTF-8 uses a variable-length encoding to represent characters, and iso-8859-1 is single-byte. While it is uncommon these days, it's hardly non-standard.
I have been a professional web developer for many years now and I have to deal with internationalization and different character sets quite frequently. So pardon my use of the word "formatting", but I do know how this works.
And complaining is perfectly fucking appropriate when people have been telling Slashdot for many years now that their character interpretation is messed up. Just recently I had to take more than 70,000 documents that were originally created using Microsoft products, and so were in Latin-1 (ISO 8859-1... ISO is properly capitalized), and convert them to UTF-8. And the whole point is... it's easy. Slashdot really doesn't have much in the way of excuse, after many years of complaints.
So, yeah. When easy improvements (and I know they're easy because I've done them, more than once) have been called for by multiple users, over a period of many years (as long as I have been on Slashdot), I do feel justified in opening my mouth.
wrong, they are not filtered out, instead a correction factor is applied
Steve S. Goddard has made it his career to track these "corrections" and missing data points for the USHCN (Historical Climatology Network). He has uncovered a lot of "corrections" where there should be none, and inappropriate "filling in" of missing data points. Not to mention that the "missing" data points have been overwhelmingly in areas of colder climate. He has easily 100 examples of deliberate distortion of the data in USHCN, and he has even tracked this progressive re-writing of history over the last couple of decades.
Here is just one of a great many examples.
Steve has also found many historical records that directly contradict what modern "climate scientists" have been saying about the past 200 years. And make no mistake: these are scientific papers, and government's own data he has been collecting.
Not to mention that through May of this year, not only were large parts of the Northern hemisphere experiencing record cold (including the averaged United States temperatures), but the Antarctic sea ice in the Southern hemisphere was also setting records. That is hardly my only source... I have been following the climate reports because my own region was experiencing record weather.
And please don't give me this "weather vs climate" guff, because we are discussing a single month, which is by definition weather.
It hardly seems credible that with all that world record cold virtually everywhere (except for the Pacific El Nino event), that May could have ALSO been a "record warm" month. It just doesn't add up. Just like so many of NOAA's other figures.
GP: I meant it doesn't involve any third party "cloud service".
Parent: I didn't say I trusted it. I said I could sync with it. Regardless: keep in mind that whenever you use iCloud or Microsoft Azure or Google, you're trusting mysterious black box software. So let's keep things in perspective.
Damn Slashdot's non-standard character formatting. I copied and pasted from the ruling itself.
Ãoetailorà = tailor
AÃ(TM)s and EPAÃ(TM)s = EPA's
And even THAT didn't come out right, because Slashdot will not even accept as input many characters that it will display.
Meh. Years of complaints by many people never prompted them to fix that, so I'm not even going to bother.
Either way it is great that SCOTUS is allowing the EPA to ignore Congress.
It didn't. Quite the contrary.
SCOTUS actually ruled pretty much the opposite: it said -- in so many words -- that the EPA can NOT write its own rules contrary to the laws explicitly laid down by Congress. Quotes from the actual ruling:
An agency has no power to âoetailorâ legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.
Aâ(TM)s interpretation would also bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPAâ(TM)s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
In effect, but not in so many words, what SCOTUS ruled is that EPA cannot effectively regulate greenhouse gases, today. Because by law, it must require the polluters to use the "Best Available Current Technology" (BACT) which applies to their current or proposed operations. AND it cannot require unreasonable measures to do so, such as re-engineering or rebuilding existing OR proposed operations. AND they ruled that if it is going to regulate it must -- by law -- regulate ALL those businesses that produce more than 250 tons a year.
And the fact is that there is no practical way to do that today. It's that simple.
Advertising works quite well.
On certain people.
Exactly. Certainly it does work on certain people, or they wouldn't still be spending money on it after so many years. But other people -- many, many other people -- are not so easily influenced.
Don't try to tell me what influences me and what doesn't. I am very familiar with my own buying habits, and advertising has very little to do with them. Advertising might clue me in to the existence of a product that I otherwise did not know about, but before buying I get my information from other sources.
Most of the time, advertising influences me negatively! I often (usually, in fact) say to myself, "Looks like an over-priced POS". I've been fooled that way, too, and later decided (after I learned more) that it was a decent product after all and might be worth having. But that didn't come from the commercial ad. More often, I buy something because I saw one that someone else had and I see that it's well-made or works well.
Nothing wrong with Tesla, if you can afford the price. And the price is directly attributable to manufacturing costs (high battery cost, for example). You can do a lot worse in Detroit and Tokyo.
But I agree with the rest of your comment. Lots of it is crap. Sturgeon's Law applies here.
People learned to "tune out" ads on the radio more than 100 years ago. Then TV. Then (sadly) cable TV, which got its start by selling itself as "ad-free subscription television". Then internet.
Why business seem to keep thinking they can force people to pay attention to their ads is beyond my understanding. They have 100 years of practice NOT paying attention.
This.
I just have to wonder, honestly, how they're still in business.
They must have a hardcore, resistant-to-change, corporate user base keeping them afloat. Because frankly I don't know anyone in the industry anymore who likes Oracle or wants to do business with them.
(Even the hosting companies I deal with replaced MySQL with MariaDB, behind the scenes. No issues with the changeovers, and better performance.)
Don't misunderstand me: for enterprise-scale users they might have something to offer. But for just about everybody else, they pretended they were going to offer and just dropped the ball. How many times now?
Have you tried the Synology boxes? They're not the cheapest, but we have three of them at home.
No, I was not familiar with them. But I am taking a good look at them now. Thanks.
I have a "server" machine on my home network, with some big hard drives (inexpensive today). It is set up so on local network I can simply access the drives as though they were in my work machine, other than network latency of course. When away from home, I can use SSH and SFTP. (In fact I use SSH forwarding so I can access both the server and my regular work machine.)
Very simple. Easy to set up. Probably more secure than Microsoft anything. And no third parties involved.
I don't need "streaming" anything. I don't need DLNA or other kinds of streaming services. If I am away from home, I just download the file and view or play it locally. Disadvantage: that can take a while. Advantage: no blips or burps or freezes in my media, because IT'S LOCAL, not streaming.
I can also sync folders, if I want, via BitTorrent Sync. Again, no third party involved.
So, really: I don't need "cloud services". They offer me nothing I don't already do myself, and they add unreliability, privacy risks, and so many other things I really don't need to dick around with.
I would also like to find an NAS that doesn't have all those fancy bells and whistles, and doesn't make me pay for them. I just want it to "look like" a local drive on my home network. That is all. I will take care of the rest.
I committed an error in my earlier comment. You mentioned Arrhenius, but I was thinking of de Saussure, whose apparatus was what gave Fourier the "trapping radiation" idea.
But as we now know, de Saussure's apparatus was in effect a real greenhouse, and "radiative trapping" was not what caused it to warm.
So Fourier's whole idea about "atmospheric trapping of radiation" was pure speculation, based on his mistaken assumptions about how de Saussure's device worked.
He's either right or he's wrong. But the popularity of the other opinion doesn't affect this. Only the actual facts.
Except that it isn't a matter of actual fact. McMillen is offering an opinion.
They are under-regulated with more regulations. It's only a contradiction if you choose to be an idiot.
And you'd only think I said it was a "contradiction" if you didn't read what I wrote.
I wrote that BOTH were going on. Under-regulation, and over-regulation. Adding up to MIS-regulation.
Wrong. The current climate change is man-driven. If climate change caused them to change locations in the past, then the argument for the penguins relocating due to man-driven climate change is strengthened, not weakened. The exact opposite of what you claim.
This is just plain a silly thing to say. Logic 101:
Person 1: "We think X causes Y because: we have not observed Y before now, and X is a recent phenomenon, so it is reasonable to suppose that X may be causing Y."
Person 2: "Um... my recent research shows that Y has been happening continually since time immemorial."
Person 1: "Shit."
It's because it fits the myth that humans are bad. The mechanics of the rationalizations and what is actually considered good and evil change from generation to generation, but the myth never does. I think people have psychological needs for such myths, perhaps to cope with the unpleasant aspects of reality.
It also gives government excuses for draconian legislation which gives them orders of magnitude more control over parts of the economy than it ever had before.
(By the way: there were numerous problems with Arrhenius' apparatus. Not the least of which is that it was, in effect, a real greenhouse... and the "greenhouse effect" is a different effect than the one that actually warms greenhouses.)
Pointedly saying we will be monitoring, but not the break-room increases good will.
Huh? Since when?
I don't care if it's the cubes or the break room. Pointedly saying "we will be monitoring" kills good will every time.
I did read the article and the original article from which the linked article got its information.
You are making the same point I was, in different words. But my comment was about OP, in particular.
The original article does not even contain the word "climate", much less "climate change".
It does no such thing.
Yes, it does. The argument was thus: the Emporer Penguins are changing locations, and they were not known to do that before. Therefore a possible cause is "climate change".
However, this research says that they did, in fact, do it before. Therefore the explanation of man-driven climate change as a probable cause IS weakened, because it has occurred in the past due to other causes. Q.E.D.
This particular change is projected to be more severe than prior changes which these penguins have been through, which is why it's interesting.
Projected by whom? Please be specific. History says otherwise. It has been both warmer and colder before, in the Antarctic. In recorded history, even. In fact, even in just the last century. Look up 1937.
Yet again you demonstrate your limited knowledge of the US government.
Really? Would you care to have a contest?
The president can't do whatever he wants. - repeat until you get it.
Again: really? Let's see: he has personally pushed EPA rules without Congressional input, which is arguable illegal. He has engaged troops and materiel in wartime activities, again without approval of Congress, which is definitely illegal. He has engaged in killing American citizens without trial or conviction, which is illegal about 100 different ways, both domestically and internationally.
But more to the point: Obama personally approved expansions of NSA surveillance, and weakening of Constitutional protections. We know this from leaked documents. His "plausible deniability" is so full of holes you could use it for a screen door.
Obama is not behind the solution, this is pesticide producers buying a distraction.
He mmay be more of an accomplice than a patsy but blame them.
I wasn't trying to suggest it was Obama's idea. But it's the one he has been pushing.