Those 20k people were mostly dead weight they acquire from purchasing Nokia. It's not like they were laying off high end programmers. Even the 8k they laid off this year were almost all Windows Phone factory workers.
"Concrete" is just another way of saying easily relatable. If you cannot relate to an idea, you cannot critically think about it. The more versed you get with critical thinking, the more easily you can relate to hypothetical ideas.
Coding is language agnostic. If by "coding" you mean copy/paste from stackoverflow, then I agree with your statement. My favorite form of coding is with a whiteboard. I can quickly draw diagrams and write up pseudo-code.
Coding is only 20% of making a system that works well. The other 80% is understanding the problem, designing an elegant solution to the problem, and understanding the myriad of ways to implement the solution. As a programmer, I don't get paid to code. I spend most of my time researching, thinking, and discussing.
My first non-homework program ever was a threaded in C# 2.0 and was for my first job. Threading is pretty easy. With.Net 4 and even more so with 4.5, they took a lot of the boring parts and let me simply connect my parts together is pre-made legos.
I can understand how threading can be hard for systems that are very latency sensitive like 3D games, but anything that just needs scaling and throughput, threading is brain dead easy.
Bad idea. When CO2 levels get too high, water becomes more acidic. This reacts with minerals, causing CO2 to get sequestered faster than we could hope to do ourselves. Even worse is it would be very difficult to get the CO2 back out.
any decent radar can see them coming because their bottoms are flat and reflect well
I the radar is perfectly perpendicular with the jet. If your radar signal has any angle to it, it'll reflect off in another direction because of the flat surface, and you get very little signal reflected, now this is key, back at you. Round surfaces love to reflect signals from all directions back at the sender. Flat surfaces rarely reflect back at the sender.
When watching documentaries about radar tracking, many used the notion of a ball bearing of a given size for tracking and signal strength. Ball bearings are round and reflect signals from all directions, which makes them an idealized target. The bigger the bearing, the easier it is to track.
They "cat's out of the bag" for making ICMBs, yet many still find them hard to create. Knowing something only gets you so far. You also need to have practical experience.
Hyperthreading doesn't just benefit on memory stalls. Intel Haswell has 8 execution units and can retire 4 instructions per cycle. Any time there is a free execution unit and 4 instructions are not in flight, hyperthreading can schedule on the other thread. Intel put a lot of effort into increasing out of order execution performance, but not all work loads benefit a whole lot of OoO. This is where HT comes in. When a work load can not fully utilize OoO, much of the CPU core will be idle, and HT allows these idle parts to be utilized. Of course these situations are pathological and each thread has to split some shared resources, which reduces performance a bit. HT is very situation, but work great when it works.
A quick Google returns many people asking this question and others showing Make having a 20%-33% improvement with hyperthreading. That's a decent improvement.
If this were the reason, we would've seen sharp increases before WW2 as well. We did not. Fail.
You said "fail", which means you automagicaly win on teh intarwebs. Hospitals are saying this, teachers are saying this, insurance companies are saying this. Wait... Insurance companies are saying this? Why would a private insurance company argue that privatizing insurance is a bad idea.
That may be, because the government has unlimited pockets — if they run short, they can always take more money from taxpayers.
It doesn't really matter where the money comes from. If X consumes 5 man hours and Y consumes 2 man hours, Y is generally better for the economy as a whole.
Ah, so you are still under the influence of the Illiberalism— college professors are overwhelmingly Left and getting worse
Ahh, another person who can't think for themselves. Facts are facts. If they're not, then they're lies. I like to think for myself based on what facts are present. Show me some facts that conflict with their's and I'll reevaluate my stance.
As it stands, ER's are ethically and legally bound to service pretty much everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. They are also magnitudes more expensive to operate than a normal doctor's office. I've talked to nurses who claim to see regular ER visitors that cannot afford the bills, but come in once a year complaining of EVERYTHING. The ER is obligated to make sure the person is healthy and does not have any critical conditions. They get a $800 bill that they can't afford. Or for $80, they could have gone to a regular doctor and gotten the same treatment. Either way they can't pay.
All labor can be automated given enough time. The solution is not to require labor to survive. Star Trek economy is the eventual end-state of where we're going.
Over here, Day 1 coverage for insurance, and while in the past decade they did change providers mid-year, our premiums were kept the same, the coverage was kept the same, and even the deductibles transferred. The next year the premiums were cut in half and coverage remained roughly the same. This was right after the Obamacare stuff kicked in a year or two ago. Losing track of time.
Healthcare costs increase are mainly due to a lack of universal coverage and high administrative overhead of working with a complicated mess of insurance companies. Preventative costs are much cheaper than paying for an ER bill and lost time. If someone can't afford the cost of preventative doctor visits, they'e not going to be able to afford the 10x+ more expensive ER trip. That's a pure loss to the hospital that gets passed on to those who can afford it. Prices go up.
About $0.50 on the dollar goes to administrative overhead to pay someone to work with insurance companies to get money from them. I've not only learned this in class, but I've also talked to the owner of a clinic. Both my teacher and the clinic had ballpark similar figures for these costs. The clinic owner did give an additional figure. He also added that while private insurance has about a 100% additional overhead, social security only had about a 25% overhead. Working with the government is much simpler, which saves time, which saves money. He was also willing to cut your bill in half if you paid yourself.
Our complicated private insurance healthcare system is extremely wasteful.
I also live in the midwest. 40 hour weeks are the norm. I've only recently started to have to work weekends. About 2 hours on Saturday or Sunday, then I get a full day floating paid vacation time. I have to work another 2 hours next Saturday, so I'm taking a work day off before the Christmas holiday.
There are different types of bandwidth with different issues.
Datacenter bandwidth: Because of internal limitations of computers, servers only have so much IO bandwidth. Couple this with power usage to process IO, energy density gets higher. This makes datacenters expensive to expand once you're near max capacity.
Wireless bandwidth: Spectrum is limited and more devices mean more interference and more bandwidth means more sensitivity to noise. It has poor scaling.
Residential fixed line: Trenching the cables and sending someone to the home to hook everything up is the most expensive part. It is also a mostly one time fixed cost and doesn't care if you're running 1Mb DSL or 10Tb fiber optics. Datacenters have issues because they need to process data in servers. ISPs do not have this issue. Routers and switches are extremely efficient for the amount of data they shuffle. They also tend to consume roughly the same amount of power all the time, making them almost none more expensive to make full use.
Non-shared fiber to the house: $600. Good for 50-100 years, $0.50/m through $1/m. Assume 10 years. $5/month.
Network hardware about $200 per customer every 8 years or so.
Customer calls and complains, about $30 just in phone time. Tier 1 call support is on average $1/minute and up to $9/minute for higher end support
Truck roll in response to customer's complaint. About $300.
My internet is still having issues. Call again. This time I get on a phone with some higher up people and complaining. $60
Now they give me a free month for my issues. $60
A few months later, I have issues again. We up to about $700 now in less than a year?
It adds up very quickly.
If an ISP really wants to save money, they just need to keep their customers happy. This is why my ISP does 100% dedicated bandwidth. It is so much cheaper. Faster speeds, no jitter, high quality, cheaper. No hold customer service. How? Because they don't have a backlog of people constantly calling and complaining about problems all day and night. Every time I called Charter, I waited at least 30 minutes and as long as several hours. They eventually added a call-back feature. That's a lot of money in support.
Charter is dying over here. The only reason they even have customers is people don't like change and there are a few TV packages that my ISP does not offer or doesn't offer in an optimal pricing range. How is Charter supposed to compete with $20 for 20/20 dedicated? No extra fees either. $20 advertising price means $20 + sales tax, nothing else.
20Mb/s 1080p@30fps H.264 IPTV here. Looks pretty nice actually. $15/m for about 20 channels, every local channel plus state wide local channels, and additional channels like ABC Family, ABC, NBC, FOX, TNT, USA, a bunch of free VoD of popular kids movies, and 24 time shifting on most channels.
People seem to assume an "us versus them" when talking about "bandwidth hogs". It's a non-trivial symbiotic relationship. Soon they'll start taking antibiotics to get rid of those freeloading bacteria in their gut.
A better solution (for the users anyway) is to use traffic shaping on a per stream and per user IP basis. Low bandwidth connections can then be promoted to have low latency. High bandwidth connections can be throttled to a level sufficient to maintain low latency for other traffic. Of course doing this does not allow the provider to make money through penalties.
An ISP could also just provide the bandwidth. Modern telcom grade networking equipment can handle upwards of 500,000 customers in a flat network with fully dedicated bandwidth. Effective a 500,000 port non-blocking switch, except it's a router. An example of equipment. WDM-GPON chassis with 125 ports, each capable of 32 customers and technically 40Gb of full-duplex bandwidth which is 1.25Gb/s per customer. Couple this with 4Tb/s uplinks on the chassis, and you have exactly 1Gb/s per customer the entire way through the chassis.
Of course that uplink needs to go somewhere. That somewhere is a core router. The fastest core router is a 1Pb/s fully non-blocking router that will support up to 1Tb/s ports in the future and dual 500Gb/s ports right now. Take your 4Tb/s of uplink from the chassis and hook that into the core router. Now do that again for up to 125 more chassis, giving you a maximum of 500,000 customers, each with 1Gb/s of dedicated bandwidth. If you didn't notice, I've only allocated 500Tb/s of the 1Pb/s of bandwidth. This allows you to have 500Tb/s of trunk bandwidth to the Internet or peering, not only giving your customers 1Gb/s of core dedicated bandwidth but also upstream dedicated bandwidth, which is crazy overkill.
The actual cost of this setup is cheaper per customer than DOCSIS3.0 or DSL.
Slashdot Mirror
You just cant produce the volume of content that constitutes a modern product without it.
Content can be scaled up, design cannot. Programming is more about design then throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.
Those 20k people were mostly dead weight they acquire from purchasing Nokia. It's not like they were laying off high end programmers. Even the 8k they laid off this year were almost all Windows Phone factory workers.
"Concrete" is just another way of saying easily relatable. If you cannot relate to an idea, you cannot critically think about it. The more versed you get with critical thinking, the more easily you can relate to hypothetical ideas.
The parent and GP both have valid points. This issue really needs to be addressed from both directions, abstract and concrete.
Coding is language agnostic. If by "coding" you mean copy/paste from stackoverflow, then I agree with your statement. My favorite form of coding is with a whiteboard. I can quickly draw diagrams and write up pseudo-code.
Coding is only 20% of making a system that works well. The other 80% is understanding the problem, designing an elegant solution to the problem, and understanding the myriad of ways to implement the solution. As a programmer, I don't get paid to code. I spend most of my time researching, thinking, and discussing.
You solidified what I was thinking a bit better. The first thing that came to mind was the infinite coastline paradox.
Doesn't matter, it'll be back next year http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
My first non-homework program ever was a threaded in C# 2.0 and was for my first job. Threading is pretty easy. With .Net 4 and even more so with 4.5, they took a lot of the boring parts and let me simply connect my parts together is pre-made legos.
I can understand how threading can be hard for systems that are very latency sensitive like 3D games, but anything that just needs scaling and throughput, threading is brain dead easy.
Bad idea. When CO2 levels get too high, water becomes more acidic. This reacts with minerals, causing CO2 to get sequestered faster than we could hope to do ourselves. Even worse is it would be very difficult to get the CO2 back out.
any decent radar can see them coming because their bottoms are flat and reflect well
I the radar is perfectly perpendicular with the jet. If your radar signal has any angle to it, it'll reflect off in another direction because of the flat surface, and you get very little signal reflected, now this is key, back at you. Round surfaces love to reflect signals from all directions back at the sender. Flat surfaces rarely reflect back at the sender.
When watching documentaries about radar tracking, many used the notion of a ball bearing of a given size for tracking and signal strength. Ball bearings are round and reflect signals from all directions, which makes them an idealized target. The bigger the bearing, the easier it is to track.
They "cat's out of the bag" for making ICMBs, yet many still find them hard to create. Knowing something only gets you so far. You also need to have practical experience.
Hyperthreading doesn't just benefit on memory stalls. Intel Haswell has 8 execution units and can retire 4 instructions per cycle. Any time there is a free execution unit and 4 instructions are not in flight, hyperthreading can schedule on the other thread. Intel put a lot of effort into increasing out of order execution performance, but not all work loads benefit a whole lot of OoO. This is where HT comes in. When a work load can not fully utilize OoO, much of the CPU core will be idle, and HT allows these idle parts to be utilized. Of course these situations are pathological and each thread has to split some shared resources, which reduces performance a bit. HT is very situation, but work great when it works.
A quick Google returns many people asking this question and others showing Make having a 20%-33% improvement with hyperthreading. That's a decent improvement.
If this were the reason, we would've seen sharp increases before WW2 as well. We did not. Fail.
You said "fail", which means you automagicaly win on teh intarwebs. Hospitals are saying this, teachers are saying this, insurance companies are saying this. Wait... Insurance companies are saying this? Why would a private insurance company argue that privatizing insurance is a bad idea.
That may be, because the government has unlimited pockets — if they run short, they can always take more money from taxpayers.
It doesn't really matter where the money comes from. If X consumes 5 man hours and Y consumes 2 man hours, Y is generally better for the economy as a whole.
Ah, so you are still under the influence of the Illiberalism— college professors are overwhelmingly Left and getting worse
Ahh, another person who can't think for themselves. Facts are facts. If they're not, then they're lies. I like to think for myself based on what facts are present. Show me some facts that conflict with their's and I'll reevaluate my stance.
As it stands, ER's are ethically and legally bound to service pretty much everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. They are also magnitudes more expensive to operate than a normal doctor's office. I've talked to nurses who claim to see regular ER visitors that cannot afford the bills, but come in once a year complaining of EVERYTHING. The ER is obligated to make sure the person is healthy and does not have any critical conditions. They get a $800 bill that they can't afford. Or for $80, they could have gone to a regular doctor and gotten the same treatment. Either way they can't pay.
All labor can be automated given enough time. The solution is not to require labor to survive. Star Trek economy is the eventual end-state of where we're going.
Over here, Day 1 coverage for insurance, and while in the past decade they did change providers mid-year, our premiums were kept the same, the coverage was kept the same, and even the deductibles transferred. The next year the premiums were cut in half and coverage remained roughly the same. This was right after the Obamacare stuff kicked in a year or two ago. Losing track of time.
Healthcare costs increase are mainly due to a lack of universal coverage and high administrative overhead of working with a complicated mess of insurance companies. Preventative costs are much cheaper than paying for an ER bill and lost time. If someone can't afford the cost of preventative doctor visits, they'e not going to be able to afford the 10x+ more expensive ER trip. That's a pure loss to the hospital that gets passed on to those who can afford it. Prices go up.
About $0.50 on the dollar goes to administrative overhead to pay someone to work with insurance companies to get money from them. I've not only learned this in class, but I've also talked to the owner of a clinic. Both my teacher and the clinic had ballpark similar figures for these costs. The clinic owner did give an additional figure. He also added that while private insurance has about a 100% additional overhead, social security only had about a 25% overhead. Working with the government is much simpler, which saves time, which saves money. He was also willing to cut your bill in half if you paid yourself.
Our complicated private insurance healthcare system is extremely wasteful.
I also live in the midwest. 40 hour weeks are the norm. I've only recently started to have to work weekends. About 2 hours on Saturday or Sunday, then I get a full day floating paid vacation time. I have to work another 2 hours next Saturday, so I'm taking a work day off before the Christmas holiday.
There are different types of bandwidth with different issues.
Datacenter bandwidth: Because of internal limitations of computers, servers only have so much IO bandwidth. Couple this with power usage to process IO, energy density gets higher. This makes datacenters expensive to expand once you're near max capacity.
Wireless bandwidth: Spectrum is limited and more devices mean more interference and more bandwidth means more sensitivity to noise. It has poor scaling.
Residential fixed line: Trenching the cables and sending someone to the home to hook everything up is the most expensive part. It is also a mostly one time fixed cost and doesn't care if you're running 1Mb DSL or 10Tb fiber optics. Datacenters have issues because they need to process data in servers. ISPs do not have this issue. Routers and switches are extremely efficient for the amount of data they shuffle. They also tend to consume roughly the same amount of power all the time, making them almost none more expensive to make full use.
Non-shared fiber to the house: $600. Good for 50-100 years, $0.50/m through $1/m. Assume 10 years. $5/month.
Network hardware about $200 per customer every 8 years or so.
Customer calls and complains, about $30 just in phone time. Tier 1 call support is on average $1/minute and up to $9/minute for higher end support
Truck roll in response to customer's complaint. About $300.
My internet is still having issues. Call again. This time I get on a phone with some higher up people and complaining. $60
Now they give me a free month for my issues. $60
A few months later, I have issues again. We up to about $700 now in less than a year?
It adds up very quickly.
If an ISP really wants to save money, they just need to keep their customers happy. This is why my ISP does 100% dedicated bandwidth. It is so much cheaper. Faster speeds, no jitter, high quality, cheaper. No hold customer service. How? Because they don't have a backlog of people constantly calling and complaining about problems all day and night. Every time I called Charter, I waited at least 30 minutes and as long as several hours. They eventually added a call-back feature. That's a lot of money in support.
Charter is dying over here. The only reason they even have customers is people don't like change and there are a few TV packages that my ISP does not offer or doesn't offer in an optimal pricing range. How is Charter supposed to compete with $20 for 20/20 dedicated? No extra fees either. $20 advertising price means $20 + sales tax, nothing else.
20Mb/s 1080p@30fps H.264 IPTV here. Looks pretty nice actually. $15/m for about 20 channels, every local channel plus state wide local channels, and additional channels like ABC Family, ABC, NBC, FOX, TNT, USA, a bunch of free VoD of popular kids movies, and 24 time shifting on most channels.
People seem to assume an "us versus them" when talking about "bandwidth hogs". It's a non-trivial symbiotic relationship. Soon they'll start taking antibiotics to get rid of those freeloading bacteria in their gut.
A better solution (for the users anyway) is to use traffic shaping on a per stream and per user IP basis. Low bandwidth connections can then be promoted to have low latency. High bandwidth connections can be throttled to a level sufficient to maintain low latency for other traffic. Of course doing this does not allow the provider to make money through penalties.
You'll love this stateless AQM that does just that. http://www.bufferbloat.net/pro...
An ISP could also just provide the bandwidth. Modern telcom grade networking equipment can handle upwards of 500,000 customers in a flat network with fully dedicated bandwidth. Effective a 500,000 port non-blocking switch, except it's a router. An example of equipment. WDM-GPON chassis with 125 ports, each capable of 32 customers and technically 40Gb of full-duplex bandwidth which is 1.25Gb/s per customer. Couple this with 4Tb/s uplinks on the chassis, and you have exactly 1Gb/s per customer the entire way through the chassis.
Of course that uplink needs to go somewhere. That somewhere is a core router. The fastest core router is a 1Pb/s fully non-blocking router that will support up to 1Tb/s ports in the future and dual 500Gb/s ports right now. Take your 4Tb/s of uplink from the chassis and hook that into the core router. Now do that again for up to 125 more chassis, giving you a maximum of 500,000 customers, each with 1Gb/s of dedicated bandwidth. If you didn't notice, I've only allocated 500Tb/s of the 1Pb/s of bandwidth. This allows you to have 500Tb/s of trunk bandwidth to the Internet or peering, not only giving your customers 1Gb/s of core dedicated bandwidth but also upstream dedicated bandwidth, which is crazy overkill.
The actual cost of this setup is cheaper per customer than DOCSIS3.0 or DSL.
Xen is about 10x larger than bhyve. Talk about bloatware.