"I hate to break it to you, but having 65 as a retirement age has ALREADY made the economy totally unbalanced."
I don't know about most people, but I bring in over double of what they pay me.
I have a 401k and some of my money goes into Social Security. If I retired at 65 and lived until 100, my existence would have been a positive economic advantage.
We don't need to raise retirement, we need to be more efficient with our money.
When my grandpa died about 85 due to asbestos, the year before he died, he was still building buildings, fixing up his house, and making his own trenches for lines/etc.
When he went in for his cancer check-ups, the Doctor said his heart was healthier than most 20 year olds. His son(my uncle) is almost 70, and he goes for 14 mile jogs 2-3 times per week. And he's FAST.
I have a few relatives near 100(95+), who still live on their own and drive their own cars. They are very active people and seemingly smarter than most random people I meet.
It's just a matter of taking care of yourself. The human body is quite resilient.
Well, I have a 3 year old computer that was a bargain bin computer at the time. I really need to upgrade it because it doesn't support certain features, but my CPU actually outperforms the highest end BD according to most benchmarks.
Why would I "upgrade" to a computer that is slower?
Hopefully the problem is a single point of failure, like needing to beef up the decoder, which they should be able to do with a revision. I have to upgrade in a few months, and they'll lose my sale if they can't provide something faster than my 3 year old cpu.
Ignore AMD vs Intel for a second. There are several single and threaded benchmarks showing the Phenom II x6 3.4ghz out performing the BD 3.6ghz.... WTF?! Even the older AMD chips use less power and are faster.
Intel spanked the BD in almost every benchmark, both single and multi-threaded.
The APU works just like a GPU, the only real difference is the 1-2 magnitudes lower communications latency(shared L3 does that), which allows for smaller matrices of data to effectively be computed.
APU = super low latency, but mediocre throughput GPU
huge potential, but still has the basic limitations of a GPU for the type of work, but not the amount of work.
When you drop $60k on a server and another $20k of licensing fees, one really doesn't care about shaving $2-3k from the price through a slower processor, causing you to order more servers. Give me the fastest CPU.
One of the reasons for Lightpeak was that USB is about at its max speed. It may have a few revisions left, but from what I've read, USB won't be able to get much further without breaking backwards compatibility. Once you lose backwards compatibility, you lose its greatest advantage. Or even if it does keep it, USB will have to trade some benefit for backwards compatibility, as nothing is "free".
Once you level the playing field by saying neither USB4 nor TB work with USB1-3, then which one do you choose? I'd say it's a choice weighted combination of versatility, cost, and performance. As it sits right now, TB is the underdog because of it's lack of install base and not much can make full use of it.. yet.. but if it is true that USB won't scale much further without breaking its greatest asset, then which will take over?
Also, lightpeak is meant to replace PCIe physical interfaces for Intel. We may start to see motherboards with no slots, but a cluster of fiber ports, then you just mount your cards(video/network/raid/etc) in the chassis. If intel pushes for this style, we may eventually see lightpeak in every computer anyway, then it's not a question of either/or. I'm sure we'll see both ports as fab processes will push the cost down to almost free in no time.
We'll have the BluRay vs HD-DVD for USB vs TB soon enough, except it'll be affordable and fairly convenient to own both, unlike two expensive optical disc formats.
Again, I'm not sure if it's true, so only time will tell.
Benchmarks of TB with both single and multiple streams showed it doing 10Gb/sec effective, both ways at the same time. That 10gb/sec *doesn't* include overhead. (20Gb/sec combined)
So, assuming maximum frame size, you will see an aggregate payload bandwidth of 10Gb/sec per direction.
Also, for other posts, TB isn't PCIe, it tunnels the PCIe protocol over it. PCIe slots are both a layer1 and layer2, but TB has its own layer 1 protocol, but implements the PCIe layer 2 protocol.
At least Google doesn't make make your private info public, like FB loves to do.
" people joining who require privacy put themselves at risk to uncontrolled exposure at the hands of the company running the site" OMG, the risk of better targeted ads and better search results.. THE HORROR!
" Problems can range from stalkers" Stalkers? ohh. You mean how you decided to make your G+ profile public and posted a ton of public info?....... If you don't want a stalker to find you, make your profile private and only invite people you know. really, how hard is that? Strawman often?
You make it sound as if Google is digging into your background and posting info for everyone to see. No.. The only thing people can see is what you post and you have FULL control over who gets to see what.
The more money people have to spend, the more jobs area created. More jobs means less money spent on welfare and more money gained from Income Tax. As people accumulate wealth, land value goes up, more taxes are made from that.
The more money moves, the more value it has. The government does need money to work with, but they already have tons of money and tons of waste. They can remove the waste. And by waste, I don't mean excess projects. Many projects are good ideas, but are covered in so much "red tape", that they take too long, cost too much, and are done incorrectly.
Example. Where I lived, we had really good roads. And I complained about how much money was wasted on maintaining the roads, their argument was that I wanted poor roads... NO. There were several long roads that hundreds of thousands were spent every year, tearing up and rebuilding. The roads were fine. They didn't have cracks, no lumps, smooth rides. But it was scheduled to rebuild it EVERY F'N YEAR.. WTF?! Why where they scheduled to be replaced every year?.. Well, back a decade or two, roads didn't last as long, but now they have better materials and engineering, so the roads last longer. But it was red tape on the books that said to have those roads replaced every year and no one cared to change it.
The majority of the average person's income is spent locally to pay bills and the majority on of the rest is spent on monthly stuff like detergent/toothpaste/etc. There is already property taxes.
Does the local county need money that bad that they want to collect a sales tax on the small amount of money spent for online orders? I guess this would make a decent difference when people have lots of free money.
Ever have a customer that purchased your $30k services, you spend 2 weeks discussing how everything works and everything you'll need with them, you sign all the contracts/etc, then when you're ready to go you contact their tech admin to get Remote Desktop to set things up, and they strait out refuse to give you access.
Now, the customer also says that the only reason they are willing to get our services is because we told them we can have it running in under 1 week. From a legal standpoint, we would be fine, but from the customer's standpoint, we couldn't get the job done. No matter how much your try to tell them it's their admin's fault, the customer will still point fingers at you. Word of mouth is HUGE for us getting new customers.
Remote desktop via web browser.. I hate it, but sometimes it's the only way. This is quite common at my job.
There are several other web services that do just this via IE. Very popular with customers since you don't need to ask a network admin to open ports/etc.
If they sold at cost, we'd be paying closer to $15/month.
I was reading an interview with one of the top consultants for ISPs. He said the average broadband ISP pays under $1/month/customer in bandwidth costs and about $8/month/customer in infrastructure and support costs. The rest is profit.
ohh, and bandwidth costs drop about 33%-50% each year(for Teir1) because supply keeps increasing.
"comparing a home pricing to business pricing is deceptive"
Residential Cable Internet: $60 for 18/2 250GB cap Business Cable Internet: $100 for 18/2 no cap, uses separate fiber routes that have dedicated bandwidth(only shared bandwidth is on the cable infrastructure), ToS claims you get dedicated bandwidth 24/7, personal representative, no wait tech-support queue, 1 business day guaranteed service
That $40 sure gets you A LOT. I'm eventually upgrading, but it is an extra $40/month that I must come up with.
There is a T1 global back-bone that sells dedicated internet bandwidth at a flat rate of $1/mbit/month in 10gbit increments. That's about $1 for 316GB(bytes)/month. I'm sure a T1 ISP gets it cheaper than that.
Outside of of infrastructure costs, bandwidth is nearly free.
"CDMA does require more power to operate during peak usage times."
depends on if you're talking about the radio or the processing. CDMA is very process intensive, but the radio is very low.
CDMA phone Power: 0.001watt-1watt(avg 0.2watt) Practical Range Limit: 75KM(no logical limit) - Noise almost doesn't matter and is moderately influenced by structures.
CDMA tower: Peak Radio power: 15watt
GSM phone Power: 0.01watt-3watt(avg 1watt) Range: 60KM max(timing limitation of TDMA) - Range is heavily influenced by noise and structures GSM tower: Peak Radio power: 90watt
This is what I got last time I researched on CDMA vs GSM
Also, GSM has a limit on how many users it can handle because of the limitation of available channels(FDMA) and how many users it can multiplex via TDMA per channel.
CDMA has no realistic limit(something near a trillion) on how many users it can handle other than signal clarity and processing power. CDMA is EXTREMELY resilient to noise. CDMA also has a cool thing called a soft hand-off. A phone can talk to multiple towers at the same time, so even if the primary tower loses signal, the call doesn't get interrupted.
GSM can't do this because each tower has a difference frequency/channel, which means it has to completely drop contact with its primary tower before switching. With CDMA, all users and all towers are on the same channel, no drop is required until the phone decides. CDMA specs for a phone to be able to communicate with up to 7 towers at once, but typically 3 is the implemented limit for a phone.
Another cool thing is CDMA actually runs *at* background level. The signal strength at the receiver is approximately the same as background noise. I reiterate, CDMA is built around the idea that noise doesn't really matter.
Upgrading is also easier. GSM, you need to allocate more channels and make sure there isn't much noise on those channels. Eventually, you run out of channels and no more users can be supported in a given area for all carriers.
CDMA, you just put up more towers or add more processing power to an existing tower. Since everyone uses the same channel, there is no frequency considerations. New carrier comes in town, just slap up a tower.
Slashdot Mirror
"I hate to break it to you, but having 65 as a retirement age has ALREADY made the economy totally unbalanced."
I don't know about most people, but I bring in over double of what they pay me.
I have a 401k and some of my money goes into Social Security. If I retired at 65 and lived until 100, my existence would have been a positive economic advantage.
We don't need to raise retirement, we need to be more efficient with our money.
"During fetal life, there are about 6 million to 7 million eggs. From this time, no new eggs are produced."
Yes, it is fixed, but for all practical reasons, limitless.
"Our hearts arent made for 150 years of use"
When my grandpa died about 85 due to asbestos, the year before he died, he was still building buildings, fixing up his house, and making his own trenches for lines/etc.
When he went in for his cancer check-ups, the Doctor said his heart was healthier than most 20 year olds. His son(my uncle) is almost 70, and he goes for 14 mile jogs 2-3 times per week. And he's FAST.
I have a few relatives near 100(95+), who still live on their own and drive their own cars. They are very active people and seemingly smarter than most random people I meet.
It's just a matter of taking care of yourself. The human body is quite resilient.
or even their own bodies.
New law, it's illegal to be under 18.
Well, I have a 3 year old computer that was a bargain bin computer at the time. I really need to upgrade it because it doesn't support certain features, but my CPU actually outperforms the highest end BD according to most benchmarks.
Why would I "upgrade" to a computer that is slower?
Hopefully the problem is a single point of failure, like needing to beef up the decoder, which they should be able to do with a revision. I have to upgrade in a few months, and they'll lose my sale if they can't provide something faster than my 3 year old cpu.
The Kernel and Win32API is C, not C++.
Ignore AMD vs Intel for a second. There are several single and threaded benchmarks showing the Phenom II x6 3.4ghz out performing the BD 3.6ghz.... WTF?! Even the older AMD chips use less power and are faster.
Intel spanked the BD in almost every benchmark, both single and multi-threaded.
Intel Gulftown 6core(12 HT) 1.17 billion transistors
AMD BD 4module(8 core) 2 billion transistors
Intel's chip is not only 1/2 the transistors, but it's also faster per thread. AMD needs to fix something, and fast
APU != FPU.. not directly anyway
The APU works just like a GPU, the only real difference is the 1-2 magnitudes lower communications latency(shared L3 does that), which allows for smaller matrices of data to effectively be computed.
APU = super low latency, but mediocre throughput GPU
huge potential, but still has the basic limitations of a GPU for the type of work, but not the amount of work.
When you drop $60k on a server and another $20k of licensing fees, one really doesn't care about shaving $2-3k from the price through a slower processor, causing you to order more servers. Give me the fastest CPU.
One of the reasons for Lightpeak was that USB is about at its max speed. It may have a few revisions left, but from what I've read, USB won't be able to get much further without breaking backwards compatibility. Once you lose backwards compatibility, you lose its greatest advantage. Or even if it does keep it, USB will have to trade some benefit for backwards compatibility, as nothing is "free".
Once you level the playing field by saying neither USB4 nor TB work with USB1-3, then which one do you choose? I'd say it's a choice weighted combination of versatility, cost, and performance. As it sits right now, TB is the underdog because of it's lack of install base and not much can make full use of it.. yet.. but if it is true that USB won't scale much further without breaking its greatest asset, then which will take over?
Also, lightpeak is meant to replace PCIe physical interfaces for Intel. We may start to see motherboards with no slots, but a cluster of fiber ports, then you just mount your cards(video/network/raid/etc) in the chassis. If intel pushes for this style, we may eventually see lightpeak in every computer anyway, then it's not a question of either/or. I'm sure we'll see both ports as fab processes will push the cost down to almost free in no time.
We'll have the BluRay vs HD-DVD for USB vs TB soon enough, except it'll be affordable and fairly convenient to own both, unlike two expensive optical disc formats.
Again, I'm not sure if it's true, so only time will tell.
Benchmarks of TB with both single and multiple streams showed it doing 10Gb/sec effective, both ways at the same time. That 10gb/sec *doesn't* include overhead. (20Gb/sec combined)
So, assuming maximum frame size, you will see an aggregate payload bandwidth of 10Gb/sec per direction.
Also, for other posts, TB isn't PCIe, it tunnels the PCIe protocol over it. PCIe slots are both a layer1 and layer2, but TB has its own layer 1 protocol, but implements the PCIe layer 2 protocol.
I don't know what my wife will eventually do, and she has a LOT more control and private info than Google.
What's your point again?
At least Google doesn't make make your private info public, like FB loves to do.
" people joining who require privacy put themselves at risk to uncontrolled exposure at the hands of the company running the site" OMG, the risk of better targeted ads and better search results.. THE HORROR!
" Problems can range from stalkers" Stalkers? ohh. You mean how you decided to make your G+ profile public and posted a ton of public info? ....... If you don't want a stalker to find you, make your profile private and only invite people you know. really, how hard is that? Strawman often?
You make it sound as if Google is digging into your background and posting info for everyone to see. No.. The only thing people can see is what you post and you have FULL control over who gets to see what.
I agree with this.
The more money people have to spend, the more jobs area created. More jobs means less money spent on welfare and more money gained from Income Tax.
As people accumulate wealth, land value goes up, more taxes are made from that.
The more money moves, the more value it has. The government does need money to work with, but they already have tons of money and tons of waste. They can remove the waste. And by waste, I don't mean excess projects. Many projects are good ideas, but are covered in so much "red tape", that they take too long, cost too much, and are done incorrectly.
Example. Where I lived, we had really good roads. And I complained about how much money was wasted on maintaining the roads, their argument was that I wanted poor roads... NO. There were several long roads that hundreds of thousands were spent every year, tearing up and rebuilding. The roads were fine. They didn't have cracks, no lumps, smooth rides. But it was scheduled to rebuild it EVERY F'N YEAR.. WTF?! Why where they scheduled to be replaced every year?.. Well, back a decade or two, roads didn't last as long, but now they have better materials and engineering, so the roads last longer. But it was red tape on the books that said to have those roads replaced every year and no one cared to change it.
The majority of the average person's income is spent locally to pay bills and the majority on of the rest is spent on monthly stuff like detergent/toothpaste/etc. There is already property taxes.
Does the local county need money that bad that they want to collect a sales tax on the small amount of money spent for online orders? I guess this would make a decent difference when people have lots of free money.
If schools has an achievement reward system similar to World of Warcraft, kids would be addicted to school.
May be no one is posting jobs yet because Win8 won't until late next year. There is effectively zero demand.
Also, Metro is just an API. In the same way you can make a .Net Console or WinForm or WPF or Service, .Net can also target Metro
Ever have a customer that purchased your $30k services, you spend 2 weeks discussing how everything works and everything you'll need with them, you sign all the contracts/etc, then when you're ready to go you contact their tech admin to get Remote Desktop to set things up, and they strait out refuse to give you access.
Now, the customer also says that the only reason they are willing to get our services is because we told them we can have it running in under 1 week. From a legal standpoint, we would be fine, but from the customer's standpoint, we couldn't get the job done. No matter how much your try to tell them it's their admin's fault, the customer will still point fingers at you. Word of mouth is HUGE for us getting new customers.
Remote desktop via web browser.. I hate it, but sometimes it's the only way. This is quite common at my job.
There are several other web services that do just this via IE. Very popular with customers since you don't need to ask a network admin to open ports/etc.
"I knew plenty of kids who didn't give a shit about school and would take entire weeks or months off."
Over here, if your kids skip school too often, you get fined some like like $200.
Internet protocol is meant to be P2P, but routing tables aren't. They work best with a hierarchy.
If they sold at cost, we'd be paying closer to $15/month.
I was reading an interview with one of the top consultants for ISPs. He said the average broadband ISP pays under $1/month/customer in bandwidth costs and about $8/month/customer in infrastructure and support costs. The rest is profit.
ohh, and bandwidth costs drop about 33%-50% each year(for Teir1) because supply keeps increasing.
"comparing a home pricing to business pricing is deceptive"
Residential Cable Internet: $60 for 18/2 250GB cap
Business Cable Internet: $100 for 18/2 no cap, uses separate fiber routes that have dedicated bandwidth(only shared bandwidth is on the cable infrastructure), ToS claims you get dedicated bandwidth 24/7, personal representative, no wait tech-support queue, 1 business day guaranteed service
That $40 sure gets you A LOT. I'm eventually upgrading, but it is an extra $40/month that I must come up with.
There is a T1 global back-bone that sells dedicated internet bandwidth at a flat rate of $1/mbit/month in 10gbit increments. That's about $1 for 316GB(bytes)/month. I'm sure a T1 ISP gets it cheaper than that.
Outside of of infrastructure costs, bandwidth is nearly free.
"CDMA does require more power to operate during peak usage times."
depends on if you're talking about the radio or the processing. CDMA is very process intensive, but the radio is very low.
CDMA phone Power: 0.001watt-1watt(avg 0.2watt) Practical Range Limit: 75KM(no logical limit) - Noise almost doesn't matter and is moderately influenced by structures.
CDMA tower: Peak Radio power: 15watt
GSM phone Power: 0.01watt-3watt(avg 1watt) Range: 60KM max(timing limitation of TDMA) - Range is heavily influenced by noise and structures
GSM tower: Peak Radio power: 90watt
This is what I got last time I researched on CDMA vs GSM
Also, GSM has a limit on how many users it can handle because of the limitation of available channels(FDMA) and how many users it can multiplex via TDMA per channel.
CDMA has no realistic limit(something near a trillion) on how many users it can handle other than signal clarity and processing power. CDMA is EXTREMELY resilient to noise. CDMA also has a cool thing called a soft hand-off. A phone can talk to multiple towers at the same time, so even if the primary tower loses signal, the call doesn't get interrupted.
GSM can't do this because each tower has a difference frequency/channel, which means it has to completely drop contact with its primary tower before switching. With CDMA, all users and all towers are on the same channel, no drop is required until the phone decides. CDMA specs for a phone to be able to communicate with up to 7 towers at once, but typically 3 is the implemented limit for a phone.
Another cool thing is CDMA actually runs *at* background level. The signal strength at the receiver is approximately the same as background noise. I reiterate, CDMA is built around the idea that noise doesn't really matter.
Upgrading is also easier. GSM, you need to allocate more channels and make sure there isn't much noise on those channels. Eventually, you run out of channels and no more users can be supported in a given area for all carriers.
CDMA, you just put up more towers or add more processing power to an existing tower. Since everyone uses the same channel, there is no frequency considerations. New carrier comes in town, just slap up a tower.