Actually, it would be "Ya quote the embedded spaces," "ya lazy moron". Which, of course, strongly supports your "hard to read" claim. I was being facetious.
eBay at its quietest times probably handles an order of magnitude more traffic than HP's site at its busiest. If eBay could cope with the iPad and iPhone releases, I'm pretty sure it can handle HP's barrel-scraping.
Trust me, being able to unsolder a bad cap and throw in a new one isn't a skill that's going away anytime soon.
{Rant} Don't get me started on all you young "Arduino = electronics" idiots that have no idea what a decoupling cap is, or how to properly wire up a fixed Vreg...{/Rant}
Now, get off my ground plane!
Well, if the terrorists blast us back to the 1970's, you should be all set.
I've got those skills you describe, too. Don't do me a bit of good when I'm confronted with an eight-layer board covered in BGAs and barely-discernible black flakes. And I have the distinct impression that the "bypassing rules" I learned from Don Lancaster's books have long since morphed into waveguide design...
True AI is at least 20 years away and has been so for about 50 years
Speech recognition was 10 years away for about 30 years (starting around 1960). Then it arrived.
I'm sure some people will argue that it still hasn't really arrived. But it's already better than humans in some domains, and it is continuing to improve. I expect the same thing from AI, subdomain by subdomain.
I expect to see the day when computers are better than humans in most areas of cognitive function. Most people will continue to insist that, in some vague but crucial way, humans are still superior. And most machines will humor them.
GW has nothing to fear for the time being as long as people are willing to pay them for good workmanship. Existing 3d technology just can't compete yet on that front.
In about 5 to 10 years, however.... maybe.
Indeed, although it might be more than 5 or 10 years. I remember when inkjet printers posed no threat to film-based photographic reproduction shops.
No, sorry. Ferrofluids are suspensions of nanoparticles, specially treated to keep them from clumping. Evaporate them, and you get pure solvent coming off, magnetic gunk left behind. Furthermore, you can't put them back together to make ferrofluid again; that would be like unscrambling (or, more precisely, uncooking) an egg.
Babies already have this, experiment: place a thick glass plate between two solid objects, making a bridge. Place child on one of the objects and encourage it to crawl over the glass bridge (height) to the other. Baby will be happy to do so, or drool, or poop (whipe, change and repeat). If it notices the drop below it, watch its reaction. It won't have one UNTIL it sees its mother. Mother looks happy? Baby happy. Mother looks scared? Baby is scared. Suddenly the height is something it must apparently fear, and it will.
That's a really cool story, but it's almost entirely false.
This experiment teaches us a lot about the development of perception, in both humans and animals. It doesn't say anything at all about looking to mommy for approval.
You're looking at it the wrong way. Adding more cores allows more work to be done in a given interval -- in this case, computing and displaying more frames.
The "other stuff" I was referring to is stuff external to the simulation, that doesn't have to be done repeatedly on other cores.
Since JS is normally single-threaded, I'm guessing that the one-core scenario is spending more than half its time on things other than the simulation. Additional cores can be dedicated entirely to the simulation. Under those circumstances, 15x speedup isn't the least bit surprising.
"...like the way our skin is repaired"? And I don't suppose constant bombardment from interstellar particles at relative velocity close to c could possibly induce malfunctions "like" our melanoma?
In general, if you're deeply involved with the implementation of a system, you think in terms of that implementation. This makes it much harder to think in terms of the user's view.
It's not about whether you can both write elegant code and draw attractive pictures. It's about whether you can see the system, its appearance, and its functionality from the user's perspective, even while your head is full of details about its internal structure. That's really, really hard, along a different dimension from the ones "great designers" or "great programmers" have mastered.
Please explain more carefully how using more trucks and truckers to haul the same amount of goods would save us all money. I get the part about decreased road damage, but I'm thinking increased wages, gas, and other externalized costs of increased traffic might substantially outweigh those savings.
16x9 panels have better manufacturability than 16x10 -- they tile more efficiently onto the raw glass sheets from which monitor glass is cut. You also get better economies of scale, since that's what everybody's demanding for consumer TVs. I do miss taller aspect ratios, though.
Its still "reassuringly expensive", and only really makes sense as a "if you need to ask the price..." Macbook Pro companion, but it could represent the first example of the sort of things that Thunderbolt can do that USB3 can't.
It costs $999, which, based on a quick Google price check, is actually toward the low end for this size. There aren't that many out there; Dell's run $975 and up, and NEC's start at $1200. I don't know about DoubleSight; they claim to start just over $800, but I didn't find any reviews on the first pass.
A new Apple product with a competitive price? That annoying noise you hear is the sound of expectations being violated.
You know, you can't have "eye contact" with someone unless you're staring at them, too. I suppose you'll respond with some comment to the effect of "but they started it!"
You don't like for people to look at you. You don't like phone calls. You don't like to have other people around. That's fine. But when you turn "I don't like to be around people very much" into "everyone is watching me and talking about me behind my back", you start to sound, well, paranoid.
I've got a surplus ureteroscope that uses a fiber bundle. It was surplussed because it got crimped, splitting the rubber sheath, damaging the steering on the flexible part, and breaking a few of the fibers. I haven't counted precisely, but I have the impression that the resolution is about 80 pixels across the diameter -- far lower than the camera in TFA, but still enough to be useful, particularly with moving images. (Your brain seamlessly integrates information from the stream of low-resolution images, giving you a reasonably high-res impression of what you're seeing.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it would be "Ya quote the embedded spaces," "ya lazy moron". Which, of course, strongly supports your "hard to read" claim. I was being facetious.
eBay at its quietest times probably handles an order of magnitude more traffic than HP's site at its busiest. If eBay could cope with the iPad and iPhone releases, I'm pretty sure it can handle HP's barrel-scraping.
I wouldn't want spaces in my commands. How do you tell where the command ends and the arguments begin?
Ya\ quote\ the\ embedded\ spaces, ya\ lazy\ moron.
Trust me, being able to unsolder a bad cap and throw in a new one isn't a skill that's going away anytime soon.
{Rant} Don't get me started on all you young "Arduino = electronics" idiots that have no idea what a decoupling cap is, or how to properly wire up a fixed Vreg...{/Rant}
Now, get off my ground plane!
Well, if the terrorists blast us back to the 1970's, you should be all set.
I've got those skills you describe, too. Don't do me a bit of good when I'm confronted with an eight-layer board covered in BGAs and barely-discernible black flakes. And I have the distinct impression that the "bypassing rules" I learned from Don Lancaster's books have long since morphed into waveguide design...
True AI is at least 20 years away and has been so for about 50 years
Speech recognition was 10 years away for about 30 years (starting around 1960). Then it arrived.
I'm sure some people will argue that it still hasn't really arrived. But it's already better than humans in some domains, and it is continuing to improve. I expect the same thing from AI, subdomain by subdomain.
I expect to see the day when computers are better than humans in most areas of cognitive function. Most people will continue to insist that, in some vague but crucial way, humans are still superior. And most machines will humor them.
GW has nothing to fear for the time being as long as people are willing to pay them for good workmanship. Existing 3d technology just can't compete yet on that front.
In about 5 to 10 years, however.... maybe.
Indeed, although it might be more than 5 or 10 years. I remember when inkjet printers posed no threat to film-based photographic reproduction shops.
No, sorry. Ferrofluids are suspensions of nanoparticles, specially treated to keep them from clumping. Evaporate them, and you get pure solvent coming off, magnetic gunk left behind. Furthermore, you can't put them back together to make ferrofluid again; that would be like unscrambling (or, more precisely, uncooking) an egg.
Babies already have this, experiment: place a thick glass plate between two solid objects, making a bridge. Place child on one of the objects and encourage it to crawl over the glass bridge (height) to the other. Baby will be happy to do so, or drool, or poop (whipe, change and repeat). If it notices the drop below it, watch its reaction. It won't have one UNTIL it sees its mother. Mother looks happy? Baby happy. Mother looks scared? Baby is scared. Suddenly the height is something it must apparently fear, and it will.
That's a really cool story, but it's almost entirely false.
The Visual Cliff experiment, by its original developers
This experiment teaches us a lot about the development of perception, in both humans and animals. It doesn't say anything at all about looking to mommy for approval.
You're looking at it the wrong way. Adding more cores allows more work to be done in a given interval -- in this case, computing and displaying more frames.
The "other stuff" I was referring to is stuff external to the simulation, that doesn't have to be done repeatedly on other cores.
Since JS is normally single-threaded, I'm guessing that the one-core scenario is spending more than half its time on things other than the simulation. Additional cores can be dedicated entirely to the simulation. Under those circumstances, 15x speedup isn't the least bit surprising.
...could use a bit of multicore speedup itself.
"...like the way our skin is repaired"? And I don't suppose constant bombardment from interstellar particles at relative velocity close to c could possibly induce malfunctions "like" our melanoma?
In general, if you're deeply involved with the implementation of a system, you think in terms of that implementation. This makes it much harder to think in terms of the user's view.
It's not about whether you can both write elegant code and draw attractive pictures. It's about whether you can see the system, its appearance, and its functionality from the user's perspective, even while your head is full of details about its internal structure. That's really, really hard, along a different dimension from the ones "great designers" or "great programmers" have mastered.
And because a 22,400-lb axle load causes 6.4 times as much road cracking as an 18,000-lb load, making truckers pay their fair share of the road wear would encourage them to haul lighter loads to save money. In the end, it would save us all money.
Please explain more carefully how using more trucks and truckers to haul the same amount of goods would save us all money. I get the part about decreased road damage, but I'm thinking increased wages, gas, and other externalized costs of increased traffic might substantially outweigh those savings.
16x9 panels have better manufacturability than 16x10 -- they tile more efficiently onto the raw glass sheets from which monitor glass is cut. You also get better economies of scale, since that's what everybody's demanding for consumer TVs. I do miss taller aspect ratios, though.
Its still "reassuringly expensive", and only really makes sense as a "if you need to ask the price..." Macbook Pro companion, but it could represent the first example of the sort of things that Thunderbolt can do that USB3 can't.
It costs $999, which, based on a quick Google price check, is actually toward the low end for this size. There aren't that many out there; Dell's run $975 and up, and NEC's start at $1200. I don't know about DoubleSight; they claim to start just over $800, but I didn't find any reviews on the first pass.
A new Apple product with a competitive price? That annoying noise you hear is the sound of expectations being violated.
You know, you can't have "eye contact" with someone unless you're staring at them, too. I suppose you'll respond with some comment to the effect of "but they started it!"
You don't like for people to look at you. You don't like phone calls. You don't like to have other people around. That's fine. But when you turn "I don't like to be around people very much" into "everyone is watching me and talking about me behind my back", you start to sound, well, paranoid.
You can dedicate hundreds of threads to high-volume malware, while freeing up your CPU to maintain a smooth phishing experience!
Don't be such an ice-world chauvinist.
I've got a surplus ureteroscope that uses a fiber bundle. It was surplussed because it got crimped, splitting the rubber sheath, damaging the steering on the flexible part, and breaking a few of the fibers. I haven't counted precisely, but I have the impression that the resolution is about 80 pixels across the diameter -- far lower than the camera in TFA, but still enough to be useful, particularly with moving images. (Your brain seamlessly integrates information from the stream of low-resolution images, giving you a reasonably high-res impression of what you're seeing.)
Paging Ravna Bergsndot, Ravna Bergsndot to the red courtesy ultrawave...
The base 15-inch unit ($1799) is quad-core. It's right there in the specs.
Ah, I see that mine is not a minority opinion.
IE6 in all its horror is supported by most frameworks BECAUSE corporate desktops and mindless consumers stayed on it for so very long.
BTW, does anyone remember the OpenVMS/Alpha based laptop? It did exist - developed by a third party.
Wow! How long did it run on one charge of refrigerant?