Is flash really in a position to fill the "slower and cheaper than disk" slot, as well as the well-known "faster and more expensive than disk" slot? That's very interesting if true. Even considering power costs, I didn't think we were there yet.
Or is this some sort of near-line "flash jukebox", where most units are completely powered down most of the time?
It's actually a fairly common theme. I immediately think of the Eschaton from Stross' Singularity Sky. As a counterpoint, there's Niven's "Schumann computer", which merely got smart enough to satisfy its own curiosity.
Wonder how much this has to do with this morning's 2% drop in stock price? I'd think this would be reducing uncertainty, tending to drive the price up...
I was remembering an SF short-short that had someone asking the first intelligent computer, "Is there a God"? The computer, after checking that its power supply was secure, replied: "NOW there is".
We get it already -- there was water there, and apparently there still is water under the surface. If Mars One actually goes through, I hope they take lots of shovels, and do lots of digging.
I... think I'd rather not be wrapped in layers of materials storing large amounts of electric potential, configured in such a way that any damaging impact is likely to short-circuit them.
I love the idea of "storing electricity in something that you'd have to carry around anyhow", but this seems like a spectacularly bad idea.
I certainly understand the thermodynamic tragedy of the internal-combustion power train. It's a crying shame to burn petroleum derivatives, at 15% efficiency if we're lucky, instead of saving them for chemical feedstocks.
But until electric cars offer adequate range on a single charge, even with the heater or A/C operating, and until we have either ubiquitous quick-charge stations or ubiquitous charge-where-you're-parked (or both), they aren't going to render the IC vehicle obsolete. Again, this does not contradict the linked article.
Okay, compare a contemporary battery -- say, the battery system of a Nissan Leaf -- to a fuel tank that weighs 200kg, but holds only 4 liters of fuel, and can only accept fuel at 120 ml/minute. That's if you can find a "fast pump"; the "standard pump" you have at home can only feed it about 15 ml/minute.
I do expect battery technology to improve, and I do expect it to displace fossil fuel -- in decades, not years or centuries. My initial comment contradicts neither this expectation nor the points in the article.
High-density ultracapacitors also have their own issues with lifespan. I see shelf-life figures of 3-4 years, service life of 10 years at cool temps (25 C), degrading to 1500 hours at 65 C. In a possibly hot, possibly even self-heating regime like automotive operation, I'm not sure they would last as long as even today's batteries.
When comparing batteries to capacitors, it's tempting to think of an ideal capacitor -- no internal resistance, unlimited charge/discharge rate and cycles, unlimited shelf life. Real ultracapacitors are still far from that ideal.
It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet...
It seems a bit more like "assault standards", where brushing against someone as you pass in a narrow hallway isn't prosecutable, but knocking them unconscious is.
I'm sorry. I had hoped my last sentence would serve as a "sarcasm" flag.
Inkjet and xerographic technology have massively changed the face of printing, even though presses are still used for large-scale runs (and probably will be for the foreseeable future). Arguing that "3D Printing doesn't scale" is probably exactly as silly as arguing that inkjet or xerographic printing doesn't scale. If the manufacturing and operating costs of the printers drop by orders of magnitude, and the quality of output rises by orders of magnitude, who cares that large-scale mass-production will still be cheaper with conventional technologies? There's plenty of room for the world to change below that threshold.
3D Printing doesn't scale. It will never be a viable manufacturing technology. It doesn't matter if you make one or one million pieces, the per-unit cost never goes down because the raw materials for 3D printing have a static price.
That's right, we have perfected the first manufacturing process since the pyramids that has no economies of scale.
Oh, come now. It's not the only such manufacturing process. For example, xerographic and ink-jet printing are both the same way, and that's why neither of them have ever become viable for "manufacturing".
That's why all the large-format photographic film suppliers are still thriving -- if inkjet or xerographic printing weren't so slow and expensive, print shops would probably have moved over to that technology long since. In fact, in an alternate reality I like to call "ours", that's exactly what happened.
I'm trying to figure out why this was even developed at Google, and then it came to me. (this is pure speculation, please don't get all pissed off...)
Someone at the top of the Google food chain either has Diabetes, or has a loved one with Diabetes.
Considering the prevalence of diabetes in the US, that seems like a remarkably safe bet.
Maybe that did motivate someone at the top of Google. Or maybe they want to do some good in the world. Or maybe they want big bucks from health-care. Or all of the above.
This is a lot more realistic than the ever-repeating "display integrated into a contact lens" stories. Continuous, non-invasive monitoring of blood sugar will be an enormous boon, especially if it can be integrated with insulin-pump control.
Having said that, though, wearing a contact lens actually is kind of invasive. I wore them happily for many years, but there were also periods where it wasn't a very happy experience. Contacts do increase certain risks to your eyes, and diabetics already face significant risks to their vision. (As far as I know, the cornea-related risks from contacts are independent of the retina-related risks from diabetes.) I can imagine many diabetics wouldn't be very enthusiastic about wearing a contact lens, especially if they don't need it for vision correction.
This is still open to hardware hacks (someone with access to the phone could hardwire the microphone on without the LED illuminating), but the same is true with a physical switch.
And, as GP stated, a physical shutter is not open to the same kind of trickery. You'd need to come up with something that looks like an opaque shutter, but actually doesn't block the camera's view. This is still possible, but it's not as trivial as putting a jumper across an LED's legs (or bridging a physical switch).
On the other hand, it's harder to "shutter" a microphone.
That's not the only failure. As the second (anonymous) poster said, the author seems not to understand the difference between "total compensation" and "salary". He quotes figures from Glassdoor showing the range of salary, bonus, stock, and total compensation, with the total-compensation figures clearly corresponding to salary + bonus + stock. Then, in the very next paragraph, he adds stock and bonus figures to total compensation, counting them twice.
Looks like our buddy Phil isn't a good fit for one of those $1M/year Google positions. He's maybe not looking so good for the entry-level positions, either.
If you are still battling sleep problems, try reducing your exposure to light (especially blue light) in the evening. Most particularly, pull yourself away from the computer or the big-screen TV. Use dimmed incandescent bulbs (less blue light) to illuminate the paper you're working with. If you must use a computer, set your monitor for the warmest color balance you can select, and turn it down as far as you can without eyestrain.
Avoiding mentally taxing activities late at night is also helpful, but probably incompatible with college.
Try melatonin, available OTC at least here in the US. Your body uses it as a signal for sleep. It's effective orally, and it's essentially impossible to overdose, but you should try to stick with the smallest amount that's effective.
This reads just like the last five or ten reviews I've read on various "how to build winning Web sites" books. I was actually chuckling by the time I got to the end. I felt like I'd just won a game of O'Reilly Bingo. What makes this book better than previously available books? Or are the books coming so thick and fast at this point that there's no time for any of them to become "standard references", and no motivation to compare them?
I must be having some rendering issue in my browser. No matter how many articles I read mentioning "Target Chairman and CEO Gregg Steinhafel", I can never make out the word "outgoing" in front of the title. Not even "embattled". It must be a browser problem. I can imagine some weird bug that would cause such words to be rendered as hidden text; I can't imagine a world where a CEO would emerge unscathed from a screw-up of this magnitude. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
Is flash really in a position to fill the "slower and cheaper than disk" slot, as well as the well-known "faster and more expensive than disk" slot? That's very interesting if true. Even considering power costs, I didn't think we were there yet.
Or is this some sort of near-line "flash jukebox", where most units are completely powered down most of the time?
Yeah, Dice apparently accidentally the whole editorial staff.
It's actually a fairly common theme. I immediately think of the Eschaton from Stross' Singularity Sky. As a counterpoint, there's Niven's "Schumann computer", which merely got smart enough to satisfy its own curiosity.
Wonder how much this has to do with this morning's 2% drop in stock price? I'd think this would be reducing uncertainty, tending to drive the price up...
I was remembering an SF short-short that had someone asking the first intelligent computer, "Is there a God"? The computer, after checking that its power supply was secure, replied: "NOW there is".
Apparently, though, it was a second-hand misquote of this Frederic Brown story.
Okay, that's not what I was expecting to see this morning. Or ever, come to think about it.
I guess it's good to know that I can respect a well-crafted response, even when it comes from a source I don't respect.
We get it already -- there was water there, and apparently there still is water under the surface. If Mars One actually goes through, I hope they take lots of shovels, and do lots of digging.
I... think I'd rather not be wrapped in layers of materials storing large amounts of electric potential, configured in such a way that any damaging impact is likely to short-circuit them.
I love the idea of "storing electricity in something that you'd have to carry around anyhow", but this seems like a spectacularly bad idea.
I certainly understand the thermodynamic tragedy of the internal-combustion power train. It's a crying shame to burn petroleum derivatives, at 15% efficiency if we're lucky, instead of saving them for chemical feedstocks.
But until electric cars offer adequate range on a single charge, even with the heater or A/C operating, and until we have either ubiquitous quick-charge stations or ubiquitous charge-where-you're-parked (or both), they aren't going to render the IC vehicle obsolete. Again, this does not contradict the linked article.
Okay, compare a contemporary battery -- say, the battery system of a Nissan Leaf -- to a fuel tank that weighs 200kg, but holds only 4 liters of fuel, and can only accept fuel at 120 ml/minute. That's if you can find a "fast pump"; the "standard pump" you have at home can only feed it about 15 ml/minute.
I do expect battery technology to improve, and I do expect it to displace fossil fuel -- in decades, not years or centuries. My initial comment contradicts neither this expectation nor the points in the article.
High-density ultracapacitors also have their own issues with lifespan. I see shelf-life figures of 3-4 years, service life of 10 years at cool temps (25 C), degrading to 1500 hours at 65 C. In a possibly hot, possibly even self-heating regime like automotive operation, I'm not sure they would last as long as even today's batteries.
When comparing batteries to capacitors, it's tempting to think of an ideal capacitor -- no internal resistance, unlimited charge/discharge rate and cycles, unlimited shelf life. Real ultracapacitors are still far from that ideal.
Sure. Just show me the batteries that match gasoline in terms of energy per unit weight/volume, cycle life, and charge speed.
It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet...
It seems a bit more like "assault standards", where brushing against someone as you pass in a narrow hallway isn't prosecutable, but knocking them unconscious is.
I'm sorry. I had hoped my last sentence would serve as a "sarcasm" flag.
Inkjet and xerographic technology have massively changed the face of printing, even though presses are still used for large-scale runs (and probably will be for the foreseeable future). Arguing that "3D Printing doesn't scale" is probably exactly as silly as arguing that inkjet or xerographic printing doesn't scale. If the manufacturing and operating costs of the printers drop by orders of magnitude, and the quality of output rises by orders of magnitude, who cares that large-scale mass-production will still be cheaper with conventional technologies? There's plenty of room for the world to change below that threshold.
3D Printing doesn't scale. It will never be a viable manufacturing technology. It doesn't matter if you make one or one million pieces, the per-unit cost never goes down because the raw materials for 3D printing have a static price.
That's right, we have perfected the first manufacturing process since the pyramids that has no economies of scale.
Oh, come now. It's not the only such manufacturing process. For example, xerographic and ink-jet printing are both the same way, and that's why neither of them have ever become viable for "manufacturing".
That's why all the large-format photographic film suppliers are still thriving -- if inkjet or xerographic printing weren't so slow and expensive, print shops would probably have moved over to that technology long since. In fact, in an alternate reality I like to call "ours", that's exactly what happened.
Yes -- luck that bored Martian teenagers don't have very good aim.
I'm trying to figure out why this was even developed at Google, and then it came to me. (this is pure speculation, please don't get all pissed off...)
Someone at the top of the Google food chain either has Diabetes, or has a loved one with Diabetes.
Considering the prevalence of diabetes in the US, that seems like a remarkably safe bet.
Maybe that did motivate someone at the top of Google. Or maybe they want to do some good in the world. Or maybe they want big bucks from health-care. Or all of the above.
This is a lot more realistic than the ever-repeating "display integrated into a contact lens" stories. Continuous, non-invasive monitoring of blood sugar will be an enormous boon, especially if it can be integrated with insulin-pump control.
Having said that, though, wearing a contact lens actually is kind of invasive. I wore them happily for many years, but there were also periods where it wasn't a very happy experience. Contacts do increase certain risks to your eyes, and diabetics already face significant risks to their vision. (As far as I know, the cornea-related risks from contacts are independent of the retina-related risks from diabetes.) I can imagine many diabetics wouldn't be very enthusiastic about wearing a contact lens, especially if they don't need it for vision correction.
This is still open to hardware hacks (someone with access to the phone could hardwire the microphone on without the LED illuminating), but the same is true with a physical switch.
And, as GP stated, a physical shutter is not open to the same kind of trickery. You'd need to come up with something that looks like an opaque shutter, but actually doesn't block the camera's view. This is still possible, but it's not as trivial as putting a jumper across an LED's legs (or bridging a physical switch).
On the other hand, it's harder to "shutter" a microphone.
That's not the only failure. As the second (anonymous) poster said, the author seems not to understand the difference between "total compensation" and "salary". He quotes figures from Glassdoor showing the range of salary, bonus, stock, and total compensation, with the total-compensation figures clearly corresponding to salary + bonus + stock. Then, in the very next paragraph, he adds stock and bonus figures to total compensation, counting them twice.
Looks like our buddy Phil isn't a good fit for one of those $1M/year Google positions. He's maybe not looking so good for the entry-level positions, either.
If you are still battling sleep problems, try reducing your exposure to light (especially blue light) in the evening. Most particularly, pull yourself away from the computer or the big-screen TV. Use dimmed incandescent bulbs (less blue light) to illuminate the paper you're working with. If you must use a computer, set your monitor for the warmest color balance you can select, and turn it down as far as you can without eyestrain.
Avoiding mentally taxing activities late at night is also helpful, but probably incompatible with college.
Try melatonin, available OTC at least here in the US. Your body uses it as a signal for sleep. It's effective orally, and it's essentially impossible to overdose, but you should try to stick with the smallest amount that's effective.
If not all electrons have the same charge, we have much bigger problems than our standard for measuring current.
As fundamental assumptions in physics go, you can't get much more fundamental than that.
To be fair, the summary got it exactly backward:
In a double-blind study, participants were shown a series of images soon after taking either a caffeine pill or a placebo;
This reads just like the last five or ten reviews I've read on various "how to build winning Web sites" books. I was actually chuckling by the time I got to the end. I felt like I'd just won a game of O'Reilly Bingo. What makes this book better than previously available books? Or are the books coming so thick and fast at this point that there's no time for any of them to become "standard references", and no motivation to compare them?
I must be having some rendering issue in my browser. No matter how many articles I read mentioning "Target Chairman and CEO Gregg Steinhafel", I can never make out the word "outgoing" in front of the title. Not even "embattled". It must be a browser problem. I can imagine some weird bug that would cause such words to be rendered as hidden text; I can't imagine a world where a CEO would emerge unscathed from a screw-up of this magnitude. Right?