Has anyone ever heard a convincing reason why the data is needed for even this long? I don't mean nebulous claims about "improving" the service for the "customer", but actual 2+2=4 reasons.
Re-impliment something at the same price from the ground up?
Historically that has been the herald of a platform of surpassing elegance and utility.
If the number of gates in a ten year old cpu were divided among the subsytems of a SoaC and manufactured with five year old technology could you hit $12 and would it run an internet stack and gui?
Then there's capital versus the sales volume required to break at least even.
This may not be available in your location/culture but just to add weight to the similar suggestions.
I went to the £1 shop and bought CD repair kit with two bottles and some cloths and sponges in it.
One bottle was a fine abrasive slurry which smelled exactly like brass polish, the other was to clean the slurry off.
Rubbed it for a while and it was fine. One disc was so bad I had to use a cotton buffing wheel (carefully) in a (variable speed) drill.
Has worked on gamecube games and video dvds, but didn't work on my friend's sims CDROM, though I think that was because the metallic recording substrate was damaged too (spots of light visible through it).
Detail looks good on the article, though the projected time frame has a ring of indefinite extension about it. I wonder how many "ready in ten years" developments have taken less than a decade.
I know what you mean about crackpots giving electrolysed water a bad name in the past, but it's MIT so...
But really, apart from the nitpicking bits, and the bit I already retracted, most of that seems to depend on how much you're willing to restrict your diet.
I'm biased in that when I wanted to lose a few stone I wasn't willing to eat less, so I ate differently and exercised.
Actually I'm pretty sure I ate more, though perhaps skewed towards proteins, which are less efficient to metabolise for energy.
Seemed to work for me, so you're probably right about the muscle building thing. The pilates actually seemed to build more muscle than the weights at first (judging by how hot and sore my trunk felt the next day).
By "oxygenating your tissue et cetera" I meant anything that isn't directly related to moving, like respiration and so on. Or did you mean what does et cetera mean?
A combination will give better results with less investment of time. Letxa and Nick, you're both partially right in different ways.
The most important thing is to increase BMR. This can be done by exercising at about three quarters of your maximum for 20 minutes every few days. Most of the calories you burn through exercise are usually burned while you aren't exercising because of raised BMR.
Hypertrophic (muscle building exercise) isn't as efficient at raising your BMR, but it has two very important added benefits. The first is raising lean body mass which means to use more energy moving , oxygenating your tissue et cetera (e.g. while doing the aerobic exercise or just resting). The second is the relatively large amount of energy it takes to metabolise dietary protein into muscle tissue. IIRC a gram of muscle takes more energy to make than a gram of fat, and that's even discounting the protein required.
Spending equal time on each (up to the point of diminishing returns for hypertrophic exercise) will lower your weight faster than spending all of the time on aerobic. Additionally, if aesthetics are an issue you may wish to replace the decreasing fat with something else so you don't end up a thin but saggy skin bag.
I'd recommend biking or similar for cardio. Plus pilates for all-over tone, strength and posture. Plus free weights for increasing muscle mass. If you had to pick one I'd say pilates as it gives both aerobic and hypertrophic in roughly equal amounts, and a decent video will show how to vary the exercises to make them more or less strenuous.
People aren't taught from birth to avoid questioning scientific theory on pain of eternal torment though, so comparing the two belief sets like equals may be a mistake.
The pivotal question here is whose money bought that law?
If it was a religious group who supports teaching creation myths along side science it's not too hard to guess which direction the focus of their next laws will be moving in.
On it's own it isn't too worrying, as real scientists will be able to use it just as much as the god botherers.
But when there are a hundred of these laws which all contradict apart from carefully selected loopholes which align to allow the rich and powerful through it may be different.
Oh, and the law is three pages.
If you didn't realize that you might not have read the part where "the parish" is given the right to create material to be taught in science classes.
Some science funding needs to go to a work group of political campaigners and marketers.
What science needs is a politically defined subset of teachings specifically designed to discredit and circumvent magic-based ideas.
Most of this will be defining terms like "theory", and teaching the structure, utility and history of the Method.
Anything which can't be successfully framed in the context of the Method (to scientists' advantage) should be lumped together and called magic. That should be the official term. There should be money spent to get people using it, get it into the textbooks, on the news etc.
All Creatitionist thought should be expressed by scientists in two parts;
i) the part which is framed in scientific terms (after those terms are taught) and can therefore be easily discounted through experiment and obsevation.
ii) the parts which are magic, which it should be noted cannot be analyzed by scientific method, and are incompatible with critical thought, and for further advice please consult the priesthood
In the interests of symmetry a campaign should also be undertaken to get a critical comparison of how different religious groups view those matters science wants to retain control over. Which should then demand a proportion of any school time relating to religious, "spiritual" or similar.
The evolution of religious doctrine should be taught, showing how the stories and ideas of current religious groups (including televangelical corporate christianity as one among several) descended from their ancestors.
They could call it "Evolutionary Theology" or something.
You can, however, find those who would like to legislate a measure of protection for other people's bodies (even if those bodies happen to temporarily be inside other people's bodies).
At what point in the gestation are you assuming the word "people" begins to apply.
It sounded a bit like you were saying the rights of the barely conceived need to be protected or you will harm the person they once might have become.
One step away from every sperm is sacred.
As far as foreseeing the consequences, you mean like nature doesn't?
The danger will come from it working exactly how we want.
Brute force and ignorance is built into US society at many levels. Bigger=better, might=right etc.
SUV will appeal to US proles' world views.
I don't know if it's because of left over frontier spirit, or weeding the gene pool of those not robust and belligerent enough to survive that period.
People (by which I mean dumb people, by which I mean people) like their cars to be extensions of their personalities (or other parts of themselves in the case of red sports cars).
As "Tim the tool man Taylor" famously says; "I'm obsessed with the illusion of control, even if that illusion negates having actual control, and certainly don't want to have to have control over my own behaviour." Or something like that.
I'm hoping NASA involvement will help produce spinoffs for the domestic user eventually. We're all probably familiar with this happening in the past. Military interest might be nice for research too.
This could address some of the things that bother me about the most common modern architecture paradigms.
Such as when you're performing one type of task the hardware for other types can remain un[der]utilised. Like my graphics card is sitting on it's ass when the cpu is running emulation or ray-tracing. I expect other examples suggest themselves from your own experience.
This specific inefficiency is a subset of the general case that the best way to perform a particular function is to design hardware especially for it.
There are several ways that a reconfigurable parallel machine could be better. And maybe a few ways that they could do things our pcs can't today.
Whether FPGA type technology can be made fast enough and manufactured cheap enough without having to spend as much R&D money as non-reconfigurable chips have taken, I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone ever heard a convincing reason why the data is needed for even this long? I don't mean nebulous claims about "improving" the service for the "customer", but actual 2+2=4 reasons.
Like any other company, google will roll over if the price is right or the US government is turning the screws.
Re-impliment something at the same price from the ground up?
Historically that has been the herald of a platform of surpassing elegance and utility.
If the number of gates in a ten year old cpu were divided among the subsytems of a SoaC and manufactured with five year old technology could you hit $12 and would it run an internet stack and gui?
Then there's capital versus the sales volume required to break at least even.
This may not be available in your location/culture but just to add weight to the similar suggestions.
I went to the £1 shop and bought CD repair kit with two bottles and some cloths and sponges in it.
One bottle was a fine abrasive slurry which smelled exactly like brass polish, the other was to clean the slurry off.
Rubbed it for a while and it was fine. One disc was so bad I had to use a cotton buffing wheel (carefully) in a (variable speed) drill.
Has worked on gamecube games and video dvds, but didn't work on my friend's sims CDROM, though I think that was because the metallic recording substrate was damaged too (spots of light visible through it).
Worth a try. Brasso or something.
Does it? Bugger.
Wait a minute. Hydrogen mines? Shitting me.
Well if everything was true yes.
Trouble is it's hard to tell in advance. We can be sure some (more) of it will happen though.
I'll have you know every member of my family except me were sucked dry by mutated nuclear vampire bats at night. (Insensitive clod.)
Any idea how efficient a compressed gas engine (turbine?) is with hydrogen as a working fluid?
I haven't, but maybe the pressure is reclaimable. Though compressors heat up don't they, so I suppose that's loss.
If the current efficiency is better than a tenth it doesn't make sense for an order of magnitude improvement does it?
Good point.
I'm guessing they have a something in principle but there's a catch that will take 20 years to beat.
Detail looks good on the article, though the projected time frame has a ring of indefinite extension about it. I wonder how many "ready in ten years" developments have taken less than a decade.
I know what you mean about crackpots giving electrolysed water a bad name in the past, but it's MIT so...
doveryai, no proveryai
Um, yeah.
But really, apart from the nitpicking bits, and the bit I already retracted, most of that seems to depend on how much you're willing to restrict your diet.
I'm biased in that when I wanted to lose a few stone I wasn't willing to eat less, so I ate differently and exercised.
Actually I'm pretty sure I ate more, though perhaps skewed towards proteins, which are less efficient to metabolise for energy.
Seemed to work for me, so you're probably right about the muscle building thing. The pilates actually seemed to build more muscle than the weights at first (judging by how hot and sore my trunk felt the next day).
By "oxygenating your tissue et cetera" I meant anything that isn't directly related to moving, like respiration and so on. Or did you mean what does et cetera mean?
Replying to myself.
Quick literature review indicates hypertrophic more (not less) efficient at raising BMR.
So I lied, sorry.
That's interesting. I thought that cardio was just as good at raising BMR, but it looks like you're right.
My trainer has been bullshitting me, and part of my previous post is rubbish.
Congratulations, this may be the first time I learned something true on slashdot.
A combination will give better results with less investment of time. Letxa and Nick, you're both partially right in different ways.
The most important thing is to increase BMR. This can be done by exercising at about three quarters of your maximum for 20 minutes every few days. Most of the calories you burn through exercise are usually burned while you aren't exercising because of raised BMR.
Hypertrophic (muscle building exercise) isn't as efficient at raising your BMR, but it has two very important added benefits. The first is raising lean body mass which means to use more energy moving , oxygenating your tissue et cetera (e.g. while doing the aerobic exercise or just resting). The second is the relatively large amount of energy it takes to metabolise dietary protein into muscle tissue. IIRC a gram of muscle takes more energy to make than a gram of fat, and that's even discounting the protein required.
Spending equal time on each (up to the point of diminishing returns for hypertrophic exercise) will lower your weight faster than spending all of the time on aerobic. Additionally, if aesthetics are an issue you may wish to replace the decreasing fat with something else so you don't end up a thin but saggy skin bag.
I'd recommend biking or similar for cardio. Plus pilates for all-over tone, strength and posture. Plus free weights for increasing muscle mass.
If you had to pick one I'd say pilates as it gives both aerobic and hypertrophic in roughly equal amounts, and a decent video will show how to vary the exercises to make them more or less strenuous.
That wasn't clear, what I meant was religion is evil kill it kill it kill itkillitkillitKILLIT.
People aren't taught from birth to avoid questioning scientific theory on pain of eternal torment though, so comparing the two belief sets like equals may be a mistake.
The pivotal question here is whose money bought that law?
If it was a religious group who supports teaching creation myths along side science it's not too hard to guess which direction the focus of their next laws will be moving in.
On it's own it isn't too worrying, as real scientists will be able to use it just as much as the god botherers.
But when there are a hundred of these laws which all contradict apart from carefully selected loopholes which align to allow the rich and powerful through it may be different.
Oh, and the law is three pages.
If you didn't realize that you might not have read the part where "the parish" is given the right to create material to be taught in science classes.
Some science funding needs to go to a work group of political campaigners and marketers.
What science needs is a politically defined subset of teachings specifically designed to discredit and circumvent magic-based ideas.
Most of this will be defining terms like "theory", and teaching the structure, utility and history of the Method.
Anything which can't be successfully framed in the context of the Method (to scientists' advantage) should be lumped together and called magic. That should be the official term. There should be money spent to get people using it, get it into the textbooks, on the news etc.
All Creatitionist thought should be expressed by scientists in two parts;
i) the part which is framed in scientific terms (after those terms are taught) and can therefore be easily discounted through experiment and obsevation.
ii) the parts which are magic, which it should be noted cannot be analyzed by scientific method, and are incompatible with critical thought, and for further advice please consult the priesthood
In the interests of symmetry a campaign should also be undertaken to get a critical comparison of how different religious groups view those matters science wants to retain control over. Which should then demand a proportion of any school time relating to religious, "spiritual" or similar.
The evolution of religious doctrine should be taught, showing how the stories and ideas of current religious groups (including televangelical corporate christianity as one among several) descended from their ancestors.
They could call it "Evolutionary Theology" or something.
You can, however, find those who would like to legislate a measure of protection for other people's bodies (even if those bodies happen to temporarily be inside other people's bodies).
At what point in the gestation are you assuming the word "people" begins to apply.
It sounded a bit like you were saying the rights of the barely conceived need to be protected or you will harm the person they once might have become.
One step away from every sperm is sacred.
As far as foreseeing the consequences, you mean like nature doesn't?
The danger will come from it working exactly how we want.
This is eugenics after all isn't it?
IFOWO genetically perfect overlords.
That what this is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAdku9YhSCI
Certainly many do, and they will buy comfortable cars instead of SUVs.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=voted+%22most+comfortable+car%22&btnG=Search&meta=
Brute force and ignorance is built into US society at many levels. Bigger=better, might=right etc.
SUV will appeal to US proles' world views.
I don't know if it's because of left over frontier spirit, or weeding the gene pool of those not robust and belligerent enough to survive that period.
People (by which I mean dumb people, by which I mean people) like their cars to be extensions of their personalities (or other parts of themselves in the case of red sports cars).
As "Tim the tool man Taylor" famously says; "I'm obsessed with the illusion of control, even if that illusion negates having actual control, and certainly don't want to have to have control over my own behaviour." Or something like that.
All else being equal that would approach accuracy.
I like this.
I'm hoping NASA involvement will help produce spinoffs for the domestic user eventually. We're all probably familiar with this happening in the past. Military interest might be nice for research too.
This could address some of the things that bother me about the most common modern architecture paradigms.
Such as when you're performing one type of task the hardware for other types can remain un[der]utilised. Like my graphics card is sitting on it's ass when the cpu is running emulation or ray-tracing. I expect other examples suggest themselves from your own experience.
This specific inefficiency is a subset of the general case that the best way to perform a particular function is to design hardware especially for it.
There are several ways that a reconfigurable parallel machine could be better. And maybe a few ways that they could do things our pcs can't today.
Whether FPGA type technology can be made fast enough and manufactured cheap enough without having to spend as much R&D money as non-reconfigurable chips have taken, I don't know.