When something is said to be larger than something else, it is larger by a quantifiable amount. The question is: what is that amount? The amount by which it is larger is the difference between the two sizes.
So... if the amount the diameters differ (the amount it is "larger") is equivalent to 2.3 Earth diameters, then the total diameter must be 3.3.
However, 2.3 times (without the "larger") is unambiguous: 2.3.
Since you brought it up: if you were building a heavy-use machine for code development today, would you go with 6-or-more-core Xeon, or a newer Haswell 4-core chip and board?
Typically running a code editor, web browser, web / database server, video, and possibly file copies at the same time. Although the web and database severs are almost always single-user at any given time.
The thing is, it has to have good video capabilities as well as decent number-crunching. A pure server setup would not be appropriate.
This line is such crap, the original bar for 4G was set so high that even the first round of LTE-Advanced wouldn't have qualified in many instances due to a lack of sufficient spectrum. In the real world LTE offers a low latency all IP transport which is sufficiently different from 3G technology to warrant a new label and the logical label was 4G.
It isn't "crap", it's the simple truth.
The U.S. providers who adopted LTE were eventually allowed to call it 4G in order to differentiate it from 3G. But that doesn't make it 4G. They are different things.
I didn't claim 4G/LTE. I claimed it worked fine. No worse than in the US which is supposed to offer 4G, but forgets to actually attach it to the internet by anything faster than a damp piece of string.
Technical point:
LTE isn't 4G. But since industry was heavily leaning toward LTE, the board recently bent the rules and allowed LTE to be called 4G, even though it doesn't actually offer 4G standard of service.
Hasn't this tired car analogy run it's course by now? Every time I hear "Turbo!" I think of this guy. JFC.
It isn't a car analogy. It WAS... back in the late 80s.
IBM-compatible PC clones came out with a switch in the back to boost the clock speed higher than the "official" IBM speed. This was called "turbo" even though, in practice, people set it there and left it there. Think of it as an early form of overclocking.
Although, to be fair, Intel's CPU "turbo" is probably a bit more of a car analogy because it's a temporary speed boost, not a permanent one.
Perhaps it's an ad, but it's one that interests me.
I'd be more interested if they paused now in their efforts to make them faster, higher capacity, or cheaper (they're in the very practical range now), and instead started concentrating a lot more on making them last longer.
"2.3 times larger" is grossly ambiguous in at least 2 different ways:
Until we read further, we are left to guess whether that means 2.3 times the diameter, 2.3 times the volume, or what. A few sentences later they clarify a bit, but it's still sloppy writing.
Second, "times larger" is ambiguous in English. If Earth has diameter 1, then a diameter 2.3 times as large would be 2.3. Technically, a diameter 2.3 times larger would be 3.3 (1 + 2.3).
Call that nitpicking if you want, but it's still sloppy writing.
Much of what we see day to day in technically non-porn magazines, billboards, TV commercials, signage in department stores, etc. would have been considered to be porn at various times in our history.
in exchange for instant gratification of a primal nature?
Almost certainly.
Hahaha. But don't assume. OP left out something that is important to keep in mind here: most people in modern society watch pornography to some extent. They even admit to it in polls (which means the polls probably don't count everybody who really does).
Putting 2 and 2 together, that means that the people with the larger brain region are the abnormal ones. You should be asking what THEY "give up" in exchange for this deviance (from the norm, that is).
I would guess that they were NSL'd for their signing keys; that would make it less secure in the future so the correct option is to burn the brand now.
I know that it sometimes doesn't mean much given today's Federal government, but an NSL would not cover this eventuality. A NSL only gives the government authority to grab information without a warrant that would otherwise be grabbable with a warrant.
Their signing keys do not qualify. There is no law in this country authorizing the seizure of this kind of information. It is a "trade secret", nothing else. The ONLY thing the government could want signing keys for is nefarious purposes.
Literally give the source code and rights to continue development to anyone and everyone.
It's already underway. The auditors said they plan to fork the Truecrypt codebase if it passes the audit. Possibly even it if doesn't but any issues are fixable.
There is also "confirmation" that the developers are simply tired of the project and don't want anyone else to work on it:
https://www.grc.com/misc/truec...
Gibson is generally a reliable source. He was very much right back in the day when he built the "Shields Up!" site and everybody else called him paranoid.
And his explanation also makes sense: they did change the license, and they did take the time and trouble to build 7.2 before the "sudden" announcement on their page.
Why would they want to kill the project? Who knows? People sometimes do perverse things.
But if that were actually their intent, they won't succeed. The group doing the audit said that if it passes, they plan to offer a fork build and continue the project.
WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is notsecure as it may contain unfixed security issues
But this raises many questions.
(1) If Truecrypt were secure in the first place, a National Security Letter would have been of no use: the developers would be no more help de-crypting something than anyone else. So in the usual context, a NSL has no point whatever.
(2) A demand for other records, say about the developers, would also not invalidate the CODE of Truecrypt in any way.
So that only leaves a couple of possibilities as legitimate reason for a canary:
(3) Possible coercion by the government to somehow weaken their crypto.
(4) Discovery of some prior "backdoor" that had somehow been inserted in the past.
(5) Maybe some of the developers wanted to remain strictly anonymous and so any overtures made by the government at all created panic.
Since the people doing the security audit have announced that it will continue, if it turned out to be (4) it will be discovered soon. Which it seems to me leaves only (3) and (5) as any kind of government "threats" that make any sense.
Pardon me. Editing problem. I meant to delete the "sales tax" part. It wasn't sales taxes I was referring to, but other business taxes like income taxes, licensing fees, etc.
What they actually want to do is secretly up the rent by externalising the cost. By establishing artificial internet access monopolies who will have to charge their tenants extra for the goods provided, they can pay the artificial monopoly costs. Basically their intent is to stick it too their tenants and hide the extra costs.
That's true. But they're trying to stick it to their tenants two different ways. By charging outside services to access their tenants, they're making their tenants pay even more than before. Because those services will pas the higher operating costs on to their customers.
It's very much like a sales tax. My parents used to own a retail store. My mother used to get very exasperated about when the state an local municipality increased business taxes or fees that were supposed to tax the "rich business owners". She said "This doesn't tax us more at all. Businesses just pass the cost on to the customers. I know because we DO. It hurts everybody by driving prices up. The consumer ends up paying for it anyway, not those 'rich' business owners."
Besides, what people say in an opinion poll is not indicative of what they actually want.
Again, you contradict yourself within just a couple of sentences. First you say that polls didn't show what I claim, then you say that polls don't show what people want.
But even if I was completely wrong about public support, this is all beside the central point here.
No. Plenty of people called for a replacement, and many even had working designs. NASA couldn't fund them because its budget was limited and all of it was spent on the shuttle and NASA. Again, you fail to understand my point.
I didn't fail to understand your point. You failed to understand mine. I wasn't pointing fingers at NASA alone, but NASA plus the rest of the Federal government. I have little doubt NASA would have done it IF it had the funds, but it didn't. A short-sided Congress and executive didn't plan properly or allow funding for plans that did exist.
NONE of that changes the point I made: that NASA and government, together, failed to get a replacement designed and built in time.
And I will add: NASA did not have plans and designs done in advance. Because when they WERE given funding for a replacement, they had to start-re-designing from scratch, and the design they did come up with -- after that -- was built around inferior lower tech, slower to build, and more expensive than the SpaceX Dragon program.
This is the simple fact: NASA still does some things well. Manned space flight is no longer one of them. BECAUSE (several Congressional inquiries have found): it has become a typical bloated government bureaucracy, in that bad decisions are made top-down, projects go grossly over-budget and take too long due to greedy contractors and bad government spending practices, and more.
Maybe that will change. But before it will, it will take a re-structuring of NASA. After the Challenger disaster, investigations found rampant government-style bureaucratic bungling NASA. It was ordered by the President to clean house and get its act together. When a similar series of foulups caused the Columbia to break up around 17 years later, guess what investigators found?
They found that NASA was still infested with the same kind of bureaucratic bungling and mismanagement that had caused the Challenger to explode all those years earlier. Nothing had changed.
Yes, this is relevant. It all comes back to the same point: NASA and government, together (after all, NASA is part of government) failed to adequately plan and budget for the time when the shuttles retired... which they knew was coming.
It's not a matter of dispute. It's history.
2. Pour money into private companies to do the same. The public would never go for it, and it would also be too risky.
If you actually read my point 2, I specifically used the word 'the same' i.e. a crash development program alongside the shuttle. Reading comprehension sometimes comes in handy.
The only point you're making here is that I was referring to private projects after the shuttle was retired, while your point 2 was about when the shuttles were still operational.
But I didn't misunderstand that. YOU misunderstood that it was the point I was making: (2) is what they ended up doing anyway when the shuttles retired, rather than doing it earlier. So what's the difference? And they didn't ask the public's permission when they decided to do it.
Dragon and those other commercial projects are "crash" projects, by NASA standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Who at BMW thought the knob to control iDrive was a good idea?
I remember that being announced on the 'net when it was just being released. Pictures and everything. It was being touted as very cool.
My reaction was: "WTF? How is THIS supposed to be a good interface for THAT?"
Look... let me qualify that last comment:
It isn't about the math. It's about the English.
When something is said to be larger than something else, it is larger by a quantifiable amount. The question is: what is that amount? The amount by which it is larger is the difference between the two sizes.
So... if the amount the diameters differ (the amount it is "larger") is equivalent to 2.3 Earth diameters, then the total diameter must be 3.3.
However, 2.3 times (without the "larger") is unambiguous: 2.3.
I didn't invent English. Other people did.
X is 2 times larger is X=2*Y
I know how it works and I understand your logic.
It's just shitty English.
By that logic, if something is the same size as something else it must then be one times larger, which is just silly.
This.
Thank you.
By the way: OP says the i7-4790 was announced today but it has been for sale on Newegg for at least a week.
Since you brought it up: if you were building a heavy-use machine for code development today, would you go with 6-or-more-core Xeon, or a newer Haswell 4-core chip and board?
Typically running a code editor, web browser, web / database server, video, and possibly file copies at the same time. Although the web and database severs are almost always single-user at any given time.
The thing is, it has to have good video capabilities as well as decent number-crunching. A pure server setup would not be appropriate.
This line is such crap, the original bar for 4G was set so high that even the first round of LTE-Advanced wouldn't have qualified in many instances due to a lack of sufficient spectrum. In the real world LTE offers a low latency all IP transport which is sufficiently different from 3G technology to warrant a new label and the logical label was 4G.
It isn't "crap", it's the simple truth.
The U.S. providers who adopted LTE were eventually allowed to call it 4G in order to differentiate it from 3G. But that doesn't make it 4G. They are different things.
Pretty sure you mean "designers", with a healthy dose of scare quotes.
I don't use "scare quotes". I just use quotes.
It seems like the US carriers pretty much hated 3G and invested more heavily in 4G when it became available.
No, they invested mostly in LTE. They aren't the same things.
However, since industry strongly favored LTE, they are now allowed to call it 4G to differentiate it from 3G.
Forthcoming updates to LTE will actually meet 4G standards. But unless I am mistaken, current LTE still falls short of actual 4G.
I didn't claim 4G/LTE. I claimed it worked fine. No worse than in the US which is supposed to offer 4G, but forgets to actually attach it to the internet by anything faster than a damp piece of string.
Technical point:
LTE isn't 4G. But since industry was heavily leaning toward LTE, the board recently bent the rules and allowed LTE to be called 4G, even though it doesn't actually offer 4G standard of service.
Hasn't this tired car analogy run it's course by now? Every time I hear "Turbo!" I think of this guy. JFC.
It isn't a car analogy. It WAS... back in the late 80s.
IBM-compatible PC clones came out with a switch in the back to boost the clock speed higher than the "official" IBM speed. This was called "turbo" even though, in practice, people set it there and left it there. Think of it as an early form of overclocking.
Although, to be fair, Intel's CPU "turbo" is probably a bit more of a car analogy because it's a temporary speed boost, not a permanent one.
That, and the fact that OS X is hated the world over by designers for it's awful handling of fonts.
As a programmer, I can tell you that designers are hated the world over for their awful handling of fonts.
Perhaps it's an ad, but it's one that interests me.
I'd be more interested if they paused now in their efforts to make them faster, higher capacity, or cheaper (they're in the very practical range now), and instead started concentrating a lot more on making them last longer.
The second one is not at all ambiguous.
If it's not ambiguous, then it's just wrong.
1 + 1.3 = 2.3. Thus 2.3 is 1.3 more (or larger) than 1.
Similarly, 1 + 2.3 = 3.3. I.e., 3.3 is 2.3 larger than 1.
2.3 is 2.3 times 1. But not "times larger". That confuses addition and multiplation.
If the article had said "2.3 times", and left out "larger", it would have been correct.
"2.3 times larger" is grossly ambiguous in at least 2 different ways:
Until we read further, we are left to guess whether that means 2.3 times the diameter, 2.3 times the volume, or what. A few sentences later they clarify a bit, but it's still sloppy writing.
Second, "times larger" is ambiguous in English. If Earth has diameter 1, then a diameter 2.3 times as large would be 2.3. Technically, a diameter 2.3 times larger would be 3.3 (1 + 2.3).
Call that nitpicking if you want, but it's still sloppy writing.
Much of what we see day to day in technically non-porn magazines, billboards, TV commercials, signage in department stores, etc. would have been considered to be porn at various times in our history.
Ha! I knew it! Advertising causes smaller brains!
in exchange for instant gratification of a primal nature?
Almost certainly.
Hahaha. But don't assume. OP left out something that is important to keep in mind here: most people in modern society watch pornography to some extent. They even admit to it in polls (which means the polls probably don't count everybody who really does).
Putting 2 and 2 together, that means that the people with the larger brain region are the abnormal ones. You should be asking what THEY "give up" in exchange for this deviance (from the norm, that is).
I would guess that they were NSL'd for their signing keys; that would make it less secure in the future so the correct option is to burn the brand now.
I know that it sometimes doesn't mean much given today's Federal government, but an NSL would not cover this eventuality. A NSL only gives the government authority to grab information without a warrant that would otherwise be grabbable with a warrant.
Their signing keys do not qualify. There is no law in this country authorizing the seizure of this kind of information. It is a "trade secret", nothing else. The ONLY thing the government could want signing keys for is nefarious purposes.
Literally give the source code and rights to continue development to anyone and everyone.
It's already underway. The auditors said they plan to fork the Truecrypt codebase if it passes the audit. Possibly even it if doesn't but any issues are fixable.
U.S. changed to "United States" - "use bitlocker," "use any crypto package in Linux," when setting up an OS X disk image no encryption...
The "no encryption on OS X" is clearly FUD. The picture did not show encryption, but the instructions clearly tell you to select an encryption scheme.
There are real questions about this... no need to go off into la-la land.
There is also "confirmation" that the developers are simply tired of the project and don't want anyone else to work on it:
https://www.grc.com/misc/truec...
Gibson is generally a reliable source. He was very much right back in the day when he built the "Shields Up!" site and everybody else called him paranoid.
And his explanation also makes sense: they did change the license, and they did take the time and trouble to build 7.2 before the "sudden" announcement on their page.
Why would they want to kill the project? Who knows? People sometimes do perverse things.
But if that were actually their intent, they won't succeed. The group doing the audit said that if it passes, they plan to offer a fork build and continue the project.
WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is notsecure as it may contain unfixed security issues
But this raises many questions.
(1) If Truecrypt were secure in the first place, a National Security Letter would have been of no use: the developers would be no more help de-crypting something than anyone else. So in the usual context, a NSL has no point whatever.
(2) A demand for other records, say about the developers, would also not invalidate the CODE of Truecrypt in any way.
So that only leaves a couple of possibilities as legitimate reason for a canary: (3) Possible coercion by the government to somehow weaken their crypto.
(4) Discovery of some prior "backdoor" that had somehow been inserted in the past.
(5) Maybe some of the developers wanted to remain strictly anonymous and so any overtures made by the government at all created panic.
Since the people doing the security audit have announced that it will continue, if it turned out to be (4) it will be discovered soon. Which it seems to me leaves only (3) and (5) as any kind of government "threats" that make any sense.
Any other ideas?
Pardon me. Editing problem. I meant to delete the "sales tax" part. It wasn't sales taxes I was referring to, but other business taxes like income taxes, licensing fees, etc.
What they actually want to do is secretly up the rent by externalising the cost. By establishing artificial internet access monopolies who will have to charge their tenants extra for the goods provided, they can pay the artificial monopoly costs. Basically their intent is to stick it too their tenants and hide the extra costs.
That's true. But they're trying to stick it to their tenants two different ways. By charging outside services to access their tenants, they're making their tenants pay even more than before. Because those services will pas the higher operating costs on to their customers.
It's very much like a sales tax. My parents used to own a retail store. My mother used to get very exasperated about when the state an local municipality increased business taxes or fees that were supposed to tax the "rich business owners". She said "This doesn't tax us more at all. Businesses just pass the cost on to the customers. I know because we DO. It hurts everybody by driving prices up. The consumer ends up paying for it anyway, not those 'rich' business owners."
Besides, what people say in an opinion poll is not indicative of what they actually want.
Again, you contradict yourself within just a couple of sentences. First you say that polls didn't show what I claim, then you say that polls don't show what people want.
But even if I was completely wrong about public support, this is all beside the central point here.
No. Plenty of people called for a replacement, and many even had working designs. NASA couldn't fund them because its budget was limited and all of it was spent on the shuttle and NASA. Again, you fail to understand my point.
I didn't fail to understand your point. You failed to understand mine. I wasn't pointing fingers at NASA alone, but NASA plus the rest of the Federal government. I have little doubt NASA would have done it IF it had the funds, but it didn't. A short-sided Congress and executive didn't plan properly or allow funding for plans that did exist.
NONE of that changes the point I made: that NASA and government, together, failed to get a replacement designed and built in time.
And I will add: NASA did not have plans and designs done in advance. Because when they WERE given funding for a replacement, they had to start-re-designing from scratch, and the design they did come up with -- after that -- was built around inferior lower tech, slower to build, and more expensive than the SpaceX Dragon program.
This is the simple fact: NASA still does some things well. Manned space flight is no longer one of them. BECAUSE (several Congressional inquiries have found): it has become a typical bloated government bureaucracy, in that bad decisions are made top-down, projects go grossly over-budget and take too long due to greedy contractors and bad government spending practices, and more.
Maybe that will change. But before it will, it will take a re-structuring of NASA. After the Challenger disaster, investigations found rampant government-style bureaucratic bungling NASA. It was ordered by the President to clean house and get its act together. When a similar series of foulups caused the Columbia to break up around 17 years later, guess what investigators found?
They found that NASA was still infested with the same kind of bureaucratic bungling and mismanagement that had caused the Challenger to explode all those years earlier. Nothing had changed.
Yes, this is relevant. It all comes back to the same point: NASA and government, together (after all, NASA is part of government) failed to adequately plan and budget for the time when the shuttles retired... which they knew was coming.
It's not a matter of dispute. It's history.
2. Pour money into private companies to do the same. The public would never go for it, and it would also be too risky.
If you actually read my point 2, I specifically used the word 'the same' i.e. a crash development program alongside the shuttle. Reading comprehension sometimes comes in handy.
The only point you're making here is that I was referring to private projects after the shuttle was retired, while your point 2 was about when the shuttles were still operational.
But I didn't misunderstand that. YOU misunderstood that it was the point I was making: (2) is what they ended up doing anyway when the shuttles retired, rather than doing it earlier. So what's the difference? And they didn't ask the public's permission when they decided to do it.
Dragon and those other commercial projects are "crash" projects, by NASA standards.