I have a feeling the vacuum requirement is going to be a bigger problem than the article implies. It is not just a matter of manufacturing the device in a vacuum, it is keeping the materials from sublimating due to a dissociation constant of the hydrogen embedded in the substrate. The amount would be microscopic, but that is a lot when you are taking nanoscale. And gas would not need to flood the device, just a small amount could render it unreliable, depending upon the application. I'm sure some would suggest fault tolerant design, as is typical in current chip processes. That might do it, but I doubt if the legacy methods would easily port to the new paradigm. This is not to say it will not happen, just that the smallest of things tend to delay commercialization the most.
Have written a few things, not including all the crap I spew here, I can tell you that any judgements beyond syntax, grammar, and semantics are purely emotional. That is because all human reasoning boils down to feelings. If that bothers you or intrigues you or bores you, then there you go.
When machines are used to judge people's essays in subjective ways, either their state machines will be unemotional and miss much of the contextual meaning of writing, or they will be patterned after some designers' emotional criteria or sets of emotion-like heuristics and largely be non-evolving until their algorithms improve to adapt as we do. The latter would probably violate at least one of Asimov's three laws, if not all of them.
. . . plenty of time to figure out how they are going to fly a plane into it. At that height, they might not need to do it themselves. Remember July 28, 1945 -- http://www.archive.org/details/Pa2107Empire. The risks of standing out in a crowd.
. . . and bisexual but also may be asexual because (s)he is conflicted, bi-polar, ADDH, and has seventeen personalizes (one for each major racial/ethnic/religious group). Of course, (s)he must be a Democrat, too, because most villains are Republican.
I think the government is immune from most retaliations. The Supreme Court recently ruled that a state prosecutor could essentially act with impunity (see http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf), and the California Supreme Court upheld similar coverage by a 1992 anti-SLAPP statute (see http://www.yeelaw.com/1.pdf). Like it or not, these people are not to be crossed. Pity the poor fools who happen to get in their way.
Interesting, but what what about when two different groups make up 10% each in an unshakeable belief?
If they have the same belief about the same thing, then a faster consensus is built. If they have two opposing, unshakeable beliefs about the same thing, then there is war . . . or politics as usual.
Bada Bing! -- bad connotations. I'm sure the Crosby family would agree. They shoulda called it 'Bling' 'cause it's got so much glitter. That's also why it loads so slooooow. It almost seems like you should hafta pay for it and then feel like ya didn't get yer money's worth, ya kno? Ain't prayin', just sayin'.
RTFA, the point is that at least 10% must have an "unshakeable belief" to grow the idea to a majority. That means there will be at least one in ten who are committed to advocating the idea regardless of the consequences. The implication is that an idea will die even it 100% accept it but nobody has an unshakable belief in it. For example, at one point in the past, almost everyone believed the earth was flat. At some point, less than 10% remained faithful and more than 10% firmly believed the round earth idea. The point is that things change but only when a significant minority is willing to stick their necks out to change it. That would seem logical. Now the trick is to get 10% of/. to have an unshakeable belief. Start by chuckling at my comment.
I am sure there is absolutely no correlation between 3D and visually-related discomfort or fatigue, just like there is no correlation between the constant viewing of computer monitors and TVs at close distance with myopia, or the lack of exercise and constant consumption of fast food with obesity, or the smoking of cigarettes with lung disease, or the shortage of doctors with rising medical costs, or the debt funded government with rising federal deficit, or lastly, reality with things being real.
Corporations are not individuals, do not behave like them, and, most importantly, are not governed like them. Corporations can get away with things that would send away individuals permanently. This case is mice nuts compare to other corporate actions (e.g. News Corp.) and will not even be a footnote once corporations are automated. We are still in the early stages, but software that manages schedules, meetings, agendas, and corporate policies will eventually create a corporate consciousness that will be self preserving. Imagine you could create a new being that is not governed by the same rules as humans. Frankenstein was a novice by comparison.
I have relatives who will never use the streaming (they are still getting used to DVDs). For them, it is now cheaper. I am moving strictly to streaming, but the selection is thinner than their DVD collection. So, I will take a hit. Since I dropped cable in favor of Netflix and free OTA HDTV (50+ channels), I am still ahead.
Strong typed and object oriented, only bots and web crawlers can join, but there are BILLIONS of them. You know, the Internet of Things, so farsighted of them.
$6 is a lotta money, $72/year, or about the monthly cable bill for many folks (but not me; I went OTA). When you figure that Netflix must lose money to any $9.99/month customer who gets more than eight movies per month by mail (postage alone would be $7.04), then they had to do something, right? Perhaps, they should have raised DVD pricing and lowered streaming.
It is amazing how much money we spend to idly pass the time.
2015 - All IBM employees replaced by Watsons, $30B in healthcare, salary, and retirement costs saved
2020 - Slashdotters replaced by Watsons, witty repartee and pithy comments get all Watsons Super Karma ratings
2025 - U.S. politicians replaced by Watsons, budget balanced and deficit reduced by eliminating pork (a.k.a. sex scandals)
2030 - IBM customers replaced by Watsons, better customer decisions send sales to HP and put IBM out of business, oops!
Slashdot Mirror
Too much engineering testosterone and not enough PR estrogen. Very bad.
This is not the first time -- http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/06/11/lightning-strike-triggers-amazon-ec2-outage/ .
I have a feeling the vacuum requirement is going to be a bigger problem than the article implies. It is not just a matter of manufacturing the device in a vacuum, it is keeping the materials from sublimating due to a dissociation constant of the hydrogen embedded in the substrate. The amount would be microscopic, but that is a lot when you are taking nanoscale. And gas would not need to flood the device, just a small amount could render it unreliable, depending upon the application. I'm sure some would suggest fault tolerant design, as is typical in current chip processes. That might do it, but I doubt if the legacy methods would easily port to the new paradigm. This is not to say it will not happen, just that the smallest of things tend to delay commercialization the most.
Have written a few things, not including all the crap I spew here, I can tell you that any judgements beyond syntax, grammar, and semantics are purely emotional. That is because all human reasoning boils down to feelings. If that bothers you or intrigues you or bores you, then there you go.
When machines are used to judge people's essays in subjective ways, either their state machines will be unemotional and miss much of the contextual meaning of writing, or they will be patterned after some designers' emotional criteria or sets of emotion-like heuristics and largely be non-evolving until their algorithms improve to adapt as we do. The latter would probably violate at least one of Asimov's three laws, if not all of them.
. . . plenty of time to figure out how they are going to fly a plane into it. At that height, they might not need to do it themselves. Remember July 28, 1945 -- http://www.archive.org/details/Pa2107Empire. The risks of standing out in a crowd.
. . . and bisexual but also may be asexual because (s)he is conflicted, bi-polar, ADDH, and has seventeen personalizes (one for each major racial/ethnic/religious group). Of course, (s)he must be a Democrat, too, because most villains are Republican.
. . . become completely open and honest in everything they say and do, then it will be time for the rest of us, too.
I think the government is immune from most retaliations. The Supreme Court recently ruled that a state prosecutor could essentially act with impunity (see http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf), and the California Supreme Court upheld similar coverage by a 1992 anti-SLAPP statute (see http://www.yeelaw.com/1.pdf). Like it or not, these people are not to be crossed. Pity the poor fools who happen to get in their way.
One issue with OEM licenses - they are not transferable. If you buy an expensive retail license, you can move (not copy) it to another machine. FWIW
Interesting, but what what about when two different groups make up 10% each in an unshakeable belief?
If they have the same belief about the same thing, then a faster consensus is built. If they have two opposing, unshakeable beliefs about the same thing, then there is war . . . or politics as usual.
Bada Bing! -- bad connotations. I'm sure the Crosby family would agree. They shoulda called it 'Bling' 'cause it's got so much glitter. That's also why it loads so slooooow. It almost seems like you should hafta pay for it and then feel like ya didn't get yer money's worth, ya kno? Ain't prayin', just sayin'.
RTFA, the point is that at least 10% must have an "unshakeable belief" to grow the idea to a majority. That means there will be at least one in ten who are committed to advocating the idea regardless of the consequences. The implication is that an idea will die even it 100% accept it but nobody has an unshakable belief in it. For example, at one point in the past, almost everyone believed the earth was flat. At some point, less than 10% remained faithful and more than 10% firmly believed the round earth idea. The point is that things change but only when a significant minority is willing to stick their necks out to change it. That would seem logical. Now the trick is to get 10% of /. to have an unshakeable belief. Start by chuckling at my comment.
I am sure there is absolutely no correlation between 3D and visually-related discomfort or fatigue, just like there is no correlation between the constant viewing of computer monitors and TVs at close distance with myopia, or the lack of exercise and constant consumption of fast food with obesity, or the smoking of cigarettes with lung disease, or the shortage of doctors with rising medical costs, or the debt funded government with rising federal deficit, or lastly, reality with things being real.
Corporations are not individuals, do not behave like them, and, most importantly, are not governed like them. Corporations can get away with things that would send away individuals permanently. This case is mice nuts compare to other corporate actions (e.g. News Corp.) and will not even be a footnote once corporations are automated. We are still in the early stages, but software that manages schedules, meetings, agendas, and corporate policies will eventually create a corporate consciousness that will be self preserving. Imagine you could create a new being that is not governed by the same rules as humans. Frankenstein was a novice by comparison.
(1) device support. For example. LiveCD does not support certain wireless adapters. (2) virtualization. Can you be sure you are not booting into a VM?
Just don't drop it
I have relatives who will never use the streaming (they are still getting used to DVDs). For them, it is now cheaper. I am moving strictly to streaming, but the selection is thinner than their DVD collection. So, I will take a hit. Since I dropped cable in favor of Netflix and free OTA HDTV (50+ channels), I am still ahead.
No wonder most apps don't make money.
Strong typed and object oriented, only bots and web crawlers can join, but there are BILLIONS of them. You know, the Internet of Things, so farsighted of them.
They will really have something when they can program a robot to be your dance partner.
From TFA:
Of course, you should still stick with 4.3.3 if you don't want to bother with re-jailbreaking anytime your phone shuts off.
Or you should not buy an iPhone in the first place. Give your money to a vendor who deserves it.
Yes, why not buy a Samsung Android phone and send $15 to Microsoft - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/motorola_samsung_patent_shakedown/ .
The power network, 60Hz at 120VAC, it has been around much longer.
It has more bandwidth running through it than Hawaii. Is that for the world's largest K-Mart?
$6 is a lotta money, $72/year, or about the monthly cable bill for many folks (but not me; I went OTA). When you figure that Netflix must lose money to any $9.99/month customer who gets more than eight movies per month by mail (postage alone would be $7.04), then they had to do something, right? Perhaps, they should have raised DVD pricing and lowered streaming.
It is amazing how much money we spend to idly pass the time.
2015 - All IBM employees replaced by Watsons, $30B in healthcare, salary, and retirement costs saved
2020 - Slashdotters replaced by Watsons, witty repartee and pithy comments get all Watsons Super Karma ratings
2025 - U.S. politicians replaced by Watsons, budget balanced and deficit reduced by eliminating pork (a.k.a. sex scandals)
2030 - IBM customers replaced by Watsons, better customer decisions send sales to HP and put IBM out of business, oops!