I don't remember reading any stipulation about the nature of where the cars are placed.
I guess my point is that with ideal conditions, i.e. an infinitely wide and straight track (plus no mechanical failures, infinite tyres, come on we all understand the meaning of the words "ideal conditions"), then collectively 1000 cars cover the same distance as one car going 1000 times the speed.
Similarly with ideal conditions, i.e. perfect data parallelism, then collectively 1000 processors can process the same amount of data as one processor which is 1000 times as fast.
So I don't think it's a completely meaningless statistic provided you understand that there are other limits imposed upon what you can and can't do than sheer processing grunt.
Here's a (somewhat dumb) analogy. Let's say a Formula 1 race car can do a nominal 250 MPH. (The real number doesn't matter.) If you had 1000 F1 cars lined up, side by side, then how fast can you go? You're not going 250,000 MPH, that's for sure.
No... but collectively you cover the same distance, right?
I don't think population reduction is a specific goal here. Why would the Indian government want to reduce it's major competitive advantage? A huge inexpensive workforce covering a lot of manual and service industries.
Taxis? Not really. There are a few kicking around, mainly operated for hotels and corporate. Now auto-rickshaws are a different matter. You can get a decent used one for Rs 1 lakh (around $2K) and they run on LPG. I suspect that's not the market these guys are after.
(Minor Spoiler) There is one plot point from The System of the World which is critical to the narrative, but IMHO unfilmable. Specifically around the character of Sean Partry. I've been racking my brains and I can't see how you'd do it.
The public ridicule of the prime minister is more-or-less unthinkable, and would be widely condemned, possibly in a very ugly manner.
If that's the case, then why make such laws?
If someone tries to ridicule authority figures, they'll feel the backlash from the public itself, without the need for the government to be authoritarian.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with the concept. It's ridiculous and it wont work. I'm just saying that it's a mistake to assume that the general population here wouldn't support such a move.
I live in Karnataka and it's illegal to have drinking and dancing in the same place here. Plus all the bars and clubs shut at 11:30. The younger more affluent people here think that's ridiculous but they are very much in the minority. On a practical level this is difficult to enforce, but the reality is that the police use this as a blunt instrument to elicit bribes. It's difficult to overstate the level of endemic corruption in the system.
They also ban the sale of alcohol on election day in case one of the candidates decides to set up shop outside a polling station and hand out free booze to anyone voting for him. Never mind that a smart politician could simply buy up a load of beers the day before. This is not a state that runs on the practicality of it's legislation.
Besides which, when was this kind of political grandstanding ever about actually achieving anything? It's more about banging a drum and painting yourself in a particular light. This is no different to the west. How many politicians in the US campaign on the pro-life issue, despite the fact that short of the Supreme Court overruling itself that is never going to change? It doesn't matter that the policy is unrealistic and unworkable, it's an emotionally loaded issue and automagically gains you the support of a lot of voters.
Mr. Sibal also said there were images of Congress party personnel that were ‘ex facie objectionable.’”
Unfortunately a politician's view of "objectionable" is usually what the general population of their countries calls "political satire" or a "joke".
Which isn't surprising, seeing as these kind of censorship attempts are a joke in and of themselves.
Context: I am a British national living in India.
I once showed an episode of UK panel show "Have I got News for You" to some of my Indian friends. They found it hilarious, but at the same time were also a little uncomfortable with - if not genuinely shocked by - the content.
When I asked about their reaction they explained that Indian culture, for better or worse, revolves around respect for authority figures. Whether that's your parents, your boss, your elders or political leaders, it is what is expected. The public ridicule of the prime minister is more-or-less unthinkable, and would be widely condemned, possibly in a very ugly manner.
There is a lot of progress here, and a steadily growing middle class that may one day turn some of the more ridiculous polocies of the government around, but we're not quite there yet.
Remember that this is a country of 1.3 billion people, the vast majority of which live very traditional, religous lives - mainly in remote rural areas - well below any western notion of a poverty line, with very long standing ideas about their culture and society. It's a mistake to ascribe western notions of what is reasonable or sensibe to the "general population".
The thing is, it becoems suspicious when new science supports the pre-existing policy positions of those who are claiming that the science demands that we adopt those policy positions, especially when that new science arrives on the scene right at the point when their previous argument as to why we "must" adopt those policies has been proven wrong.
Only if you believe that those people who benefit more from a preservation of the status quo aren't pouring millions into research designed to prove the opposite.
Do you think that the academic left have vastly superior resources to the entire petro-checmical industry?
Apologies if I'm misreading you, but you seem to be suggesting that most people can't differentiate between empirically observed data and the political reaction to that data.
I don't disagree, but I like to think that it's not completely beyond the mental faculties of the population to make the distinction. Otherwise that's profoundly depressing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they will do a complete U-Turn on this shortly.
You need to enter a passcode to get the OTP. Something you have (the card) plus something you know (the code).
Masturbating is not a crime.
In most readily acknowledged forms I broadly agree, but that's a bit of a narrow concept for what god could actually be, no?
The Harkonnens must be nervous.
No... wait...
You don't have to be British to appreciate the phrase cheese-eating surrender monkeys. (But it helps).
PATIENT: Doctor! Doctor! It hurts when I do this...
DOCTOR: Well stop doing that then.
Ah, the old ones...
I would be divorced if I were him.
I don't remember reading any stipulation about the nature of where the cars are placed.
I guess my point is that with ideal conditions, i.e. an infinitely wide and straight track (plus no mechanical failures, infinite tyres, come on we all understand the meaning of the words "ideal conditions"), then collectively 1000 cars cover the same distance as one car going 1000 times the speed.
Similarly with ideal conditions, i.e. perfect data parallelism, then collectively 1000 processors can process the same amount of data as one processor which is 1000 times as fast.
So I don't think it's a completely meaningless statistic provided you understand that there are other limits imposed upon what you can and can't do than sheer processing grunt.
Here's a (somewhat dumb) analogy. Let's say a Formula 1 race car can do a nominal 250 MPH. (The real number doesn't matter.) If you had 1000 F1 cars lined up, side by side, then how fast can you go? You're not going 250,000 MPH, that's for sure.
No... but collectively you cover the same distance, right?
I don't think population reduction is a specific goal here. Why would the Indian government want to reduce it's major competitive advantage? A huge inexpensive workforce covering a lot of manual and service industries.
Isn't the point more that as the population grows we need more land for agriculture?
They are going to have to massively increase the ground clearance on that for Indian cities.
Taxis? Not really. There are a few kicking around, mainly operated for hotels and corporate. Now auto-rickshaws are a different matter. You can get a decent used one for Rs 1 lakh (around $2K) and they run on LPG. I suspect that's not the market these guys are after.
(Minor Spoiler) There is one plot point from The System of the World which is critical to the narrative, but IMHO unfilmable. Specifically around the character of Sean Partry. I've been racking my brains and I can't see how you'd do it.
that's what happens when you outsource your programmers to India.
The Indian military outsources to India? Impressive.
The public ridicule of the prime minister is more-or-less unthinkable, and would be widely condemned, possibly in a very ugly manner.
If that's the case, then why make such laws? If someone tries to ridicule authority figures, they'll feel the backlash from the public itself, without the need for the government to be authoritarian.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with the concept. It's ridiculous and it wont work. I'm just saying that it's a mistake to assume that the general population here wouldn't support such a move.
I live in Karnataka and it's illegal to have drinking and dancing in the same place here. Plus all the bars and clubs shut at 11:30. The younger more affluent people here think that's ridiculous but they are very much in the minority. On a practical level this is difficult to enforce, but the reality is that the police use this as a blunt instrument to elicit bribes. It's difficult to overstate the level of endemic corruption in the system.
They also ban the sale of alcohol on election day in case one of the candidates decides to set up shop outside a polling station and hand out free booze to anyone voting for him. Never mind that a smart politician could simply buy up a load of beers the day before. This is not a state that runs on the practicality of it's legislation.
Besides which, when was this kind of political grandstanding ever about actually achieving anything? It's more about banging a drum and painting yourself in a particular light. This is no different to the west. How many politicians in the US campaign on the pro-life issue, despite the fact that short of the Supreme Court overruling itself that is never going to change? It doesn't matter that the policy is unrealistic and unworkable, it's an emotionally loaded issue and automagically gains you the support of a lot of voters.
Unfortunately a politician's view of "objectionable" is usually what the general population of their countries calls "political satire" or a "joke".
Which isn't surprising, seeing as these kind of censorship attempts are a joke in and of themselves.
Context: I am a British national living in India.
I once showed an episode of UK panel show "Have I got News for You" to some of my Indian friends. They found it hilarious, but at the same time were also a little uncomfortable with - if not genuinely shocked by - the content.
When I asked about their reaction they explained that Indian culture, for better or worse, revolves around respect for authority figures. Whether that's your parents, your boss, your elders or political leaders, it is what is expected. The public ridicule of the prime minister is more-or-less unthinkable, and would be widely condemned, possibly in a very ugly manner.
There is a lot of progress here, and a steadily growing middle class that may one day turn some of the more ridiculous polocies of the government around, but we're not quite there yet.
Remember that this is a country of 1.3 billion people, the vast majority of which live very traditional, religous lives - mainly in remote rural areas - well below any western notion of a poverty line, with very long standing ideas about their culture and society. It's a mistake to ascribe western notions of what is reasonable or sensibe to the "general population".
Selected Ambient Works II. Point proven.
Do you think that the academic left have vastly superior resources to the entire petro-checmical industry?
No, but politicians do.
Broadly disagree, but there you go.
The thing is, it becoems suspicious when new science supports the pre-existing policy positions of those who are claiming that the science demands that we adopt those policy positions, especially when that new science arrives on the scene right at the point when their previous argument as to why we "must" adopt those policies has been proven wrong.
Only if you believe that those people who benefit more from a preservation of the status quo aren't pouring millions into research designed to prove the opposite. Do you think that the academic left have vastly superior resources to the entire petro-checmical industry?
(Not that any of this is relevant, only a clown would imagine that 10 years were statisticaly significant).
Ten years is a long time in the circus.
Apologies if I'm misreading you, but you seem to be suggesting that most people can't differentiate between empirically observed data and the political reaction to that data. I don't disagree, but I like to think that it's not completely beyond the mental faculties of the population to make the distinction. Otherwise that's profoundly depressing.
Quick, we better send up Cillian Murphy with a nuke.
May I be the first to wish the Syrians the best of luck with that.