You are right about the hardware/bios aspect, but arent on the right device.
(nearly) Every computer has a video device which has a loop running over the frame buffer, outputting pixels to the display output port. Even in the days of regular CGA 320x200 graphics on 60hz monitors that amounted to 3,840,000 iterations per second. We are talking over 3 decades of this going on, on nearly every desktop and laptop computer build during that time (vector displays worked differently) and even in those early days of CGA most of the time those machines were in a text mode with a pixel resolution of 720x240 and still putting out a 60hz of video signal (10,368,000 pixels per second.)
A single CGA desktop machine in text mode left on since January 1984 would have output 9,816,000,000,000,000 pixels to its display port so far. Thats nearly 10 quadrillion pixels. Even if the average number of running desktop computers over the period were only 1 million (a severe lowball) and used that shitty low resolution at only 60 hz, thats still over a sextillion iterations of that simple pixel outputting loop.
I would say the average number of running desktops over the period since 1984 is more like 50 million and the average resolution over the period was 1024x768, and the average monitor refresh is 70 hz. My guestimate is about 2.606E+24 iterations of the framebuffer loop, over 2 septillion iterations.
Seems to me that both the liberals and conservative pick and choose which humans have rights and which ones don't. The guy I am replying to is a flaming liberal (see his other posts in other stories) so therefore defends a womans right to terminate her unborn human child.
He will have a ready excuse for why a human in fetus form doesnt deserve rights: he will claim that the human in fetus form is less than human, but the "less than human" argument is the same that the conservatives make about murderers, and in history its the same argument that the Democrats used to support their need to own slaves (they very specifically defined black people as only 3/5th human, and therefore OK to do whatever you wanted to them.)
At least the conservatives, with their hypocritical stance, are on the side of defending innocent human life while throwing heinously guilty human life to the wolves. The liberals have no such high horse to ride upon in their own hypocrisy.
Its you that has it the wrong way. They "remove" the "non-US" data and then send what remains to other countries for analysis. No point sending the non-US data to other countries...
If I had my hands full of grocery bags and you were confronting me
Your story is shit because its you confronting me. Are you really this ignorant of the story we are talking about?
The man who was rudely texting later confronted the man who had went to find a manager. The dipshit texting man who is now causing a confrontation throws his popcorn at the man who went to find a manager, and then clears his fucking hands while his girl tried to hold him back.
I might shoot your ass dead too, because (a) you are causing the confrontation, (b) you are escalating the confrontation, and (c) you are actively readying up for physical violence.
The fact that installing new cables usually requires digging up a lot of roads
Digging up roads to run cables... happen in cities. Cities should already have easy access to underground infrastructure such as cables set up, else they are doing it wrong.
In the rest of America, cables are run on what are called telephone poles, which naturally offer easy access.
if it was the "victim" that threw the popcorn during an argument while his wife was holding him back, then I would view the throwing of the popcorn as an escalation.. he is clearing his hands so that he may use them.
If a man holding groceries is arguing with me in a threatening manner, and then throws said groceries at me or even just drops them, then I would believe at that moment that physical violence is almost certainly imminent due to those actions.
It's hardly self defense when you go out to your car to get a gun and come back.
True, but its also an ignorant thing to talk about considering that that didnt happen.
You didnt make it up.. but you are just faithfully repeating what others made up.. what others intentionally lied about.. like the good little cock sucking sheep with the same agenda that the liars had.
You hate guns, and you repeat lies regarding them. You haver zero worth in any conversation until you learn the difference between being a sheep and being a rational human being.
but I would expect a *real* conservative model to also attempt to create a true free market where ISPs are not guaranteed a monopoly by the government.
A libertarian model wouldnt need to "attempt to create a true free market" because the local government wouldnt have the right to restrict your choice of ISP's.
That is in fact the problem with the current model. Your local government has the power to restrict access to you and they go ahead and do it.
Now, some may claim that nobody would want to move into your area and offer a competing broadband. The current state of affairs in the country says differently, as companies like Google and Verizon are quite willing to lay down fiber in areas already covered by the copper and coax of both competing phone and cable ISP's.
br.
The facts are that there is big money in subscription services, more than enough for venture capitalists to raise the money needed to compete in your area. Just remove government from the equation and they will be knocking on your door offering more choices.
They're more-or-less simulating that virtual person's commute in the sense of actually simulating the car he drives, it's position on the road, etc.
Thats O(n).. in other words, a modern computer could handle literally millions in real-time.
..and before you suggest that its an N-body problem.. it isn't. A hierarchical grid makes the types of interactions necessary here linear, so its still millions in real-time.
You figure if the "free handouts" would end, and the people taking the "free handouts" made enough money they didn't need the "free handouts" they would insist on them anyhow?
I dont know about him, but I certainly think it. The reason I think it is the rampant class warfare in spite of the average Americans basically being better off now than the average Americans has ever have been.
You see, its not a question of what a person has, its what a person doesnt have but that someone else does have. It wasn't always this way, but somewhere along the way low-brow jealousy became both fashionable, and with that also dishonest.
Lets take the classic "executives are paid too much" argument and apply it specifically. Walmarts executives were compensated at a high of $93 million/year in total (its less now) but if that money was spread out among all the workers of Walmart it would be less than $100/worker/year (Walmart employs over a million people.) This news is frying the brain cells of a few people right now and let me explain why: The Waltons are insanely rich.
What these petty jealous folks don't understand that the Waltons didn't get so insanely rich on executive pay or even on the profits of the company. They got rich because they own stock in a company that grew to dominate its sector. Its the value of their stock that makes them so rich. Clearly its not a zero sum game because the multi-billions in net worth that they hold did not come out of the pockets of other people, nor did that money come out of the economy.
So we learn that the "executive pay" argument is silly (less than $100/year/worker) and we also learn that the Waltons riches don't even come out of company revenue, so whats the real problem? The real problem is that some people are fashionably jealous of people that have more than they do.
It may be currently fashionable, but its still petty.
Grocery stores are a bit rare in the ghetto, and those few which exist usually charge exorbitant prices while providing very little in the way of variety (and don't ask about the produce.)
Why?
The reason why is obvious, of course. There is no inventive for the people on food stamps to spend less than their monthly allowance. The goal of the local market is to make that happen while not giving the food stamp recipients enough incentive to go elsewhere.
Its not that slashdot-ers can't do math, it is just that they don't have facts upon which to calculate these things.
The problem is that they wont google the facts needed to calculate those things if it might pop their bubble.
The government (Federal, State, and Local) currently spends more per household (~$56000/year) than the median income of households (~$53000/year)
The Social Liberals are right about specific things such as that some people need subsidies, but the Fiscal Conservatives are right about things in general such as that taxation and spending is well beyond beneficial amounts. Notice that I did not say Democrats nor did I say Republicans.
As to why the broadcasters are against Aereo I guess there could be concern about timeshifting, etc.
They are against Aereo because currently the broadcasters get paid by the cable companies that carry their local content, but if what Aereo is doing is legal then the cable companies may decide to do the same thing and stop those payments.
Effectively it puts in a cap on the amount that the local broadcasters can charge cable companies, and that cap will go down as technology gets progressively cheaper.
The US is just finally learning the very European art of hating other people flaunting their money.
An art not based on reason, tho.
It used to be when someone was driving a high end car down the road, the people behind them thought "well they seem to be doing well for themselves" but these days they think "another rich mother fucker" and then tweet about it on their $300 cell phone with the $100/mo contract before going home to watch the $150/mo cable television service that they subscribe to.
The reality is that, aside from recent recession issues, nearly all Americans have done very well for themselves even while making incredibly poor financial decisions such as paying $100/mo for a fucking phone or $150/mo for 500 channels of crap.
These things are so expensive because so many are doing well for themselves. Its really that simple, leading to the obvious conclusion that most people are jealous of people with more, and its a fucking petty jealousy.
You don't think my Google Voice contacts and my GMail contacts were naturally overlapping features?
I email lots of people that I never want to have an audio chat with, and there are people I want to have verbal chats with that I never want to be exchanging emails with.
Harm and benefit according to whose definition? Utilitarianism is incredibly subjective.
Exactly. I recognize full well that killing 1 will save 5, and in general I do not have a moral problem with choosing to alter fate to change the outcome to favor the 5, but I do not view any of the participants in the video cases as being faultless.
You and others are walking down the train tracks, a train is coming, and none of you move. Why arent you moving? Maybe that lone guy on the side track knows that the train isnt going to run down his track, which full well makes me a murderer if I divert the train to his track. The larger group has to take responsibility for their own damn actions.
I'ts not that we aren't listening, it's that you don't understand macro economics and let your ignorance and ego create a nonsense.
The difference between micro economists and macro economists is that micro economists are wrong about specific things while macro economists are wrong about things in general.
How is getting money from new investors in order to pay off old investors different from a Ponzi scheme? The realty is that its not different at all, that it is in fact exactly what a Ponzi scheme is.
Every other currency is also vulnerable to govt manipulation - What exactly is it you don't understand about this Federal Reserve printing money to buy assets with, which convinces you the fiat currency call The US Dollar isn't being manipulated like a hand puppet?
...and as a point of fact, the Federal Reserve is currently involved in what is by far the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever seen, namely the U.S. Federal Debt.
Anyone that doesnt think that this is true hasn't been listening. "If we don't raise the debt ceiling then we will default on our debt" -- which translates directly to "If we cannot get money from new investors then we wont be able to pay the old investors" -- So the federal government is actively Ponzi -- The FED's involvement is in the buying up all of the governments treasury bills (using magically appearing money, no less) that cannot be sold on the open market at artificially low interest rates.
I will defend your right to own guns but the concealed carry laws that all the 2nd Amendment defenders seem to favor are just a bit out there IMO.
Most 2nd Amendment defenders support OPEN CARRY laws, not CONCEALED CARRY.
It is the liberal anti-gun folks that first pushed for concealed carry laws, with the bizarre idea that people are somehow safer if nobody knows who is carrying. They justified their beliefs with the idea that an open display of a firearm might "incite."
Slashdot Mirror
You are right about the hardware/bios aspect, but arent on the right device.
(nearly) Every computer has a video device which has a loop running over the frame buffer, outputting pixels to the display output port. Even in the days of regular CGA 320x200 graphics on 60hz monitors that amounted to 3,840,000 iterations per second. We are talking over 3 decades of this going on, on nearly every desktop and laptop computer build during that time (vector displays worked differently) and even in those early days of CGA most of the time those machines were in a text mode with a pixel resolution of 720x240 and still putting out a 60hz of video signal (10,368,000 pixels per second.)
A single CGA desktop machine in text mode left on since January 1984 would have output 9,816,000,000,000,000 pixels to its display port so far. Thats nearly 10 quadrillion pixels. Even if the average number of running desktop computers over the period were only 1 million (a severe lowball) and used that shitty low resolution at only 60 hz, thats still over a sextillion iterations of that simple pixel outputting loop.
I would say the average number of running desktops over the period since 1984 is more like 50 million and the average resolution over the period was 1024x768, and the average monitor refresh is 70 hz. My guestimate is about 2.606E+24 iterations of the framebuffer loop, over 2 septillion iterations.
So whats your take on abortion?
Seems to me that both the liberals and conservative pick and choose which humans have rights and which ones don't. The guy I am replying to is a flaming liberal (see his other posts in other stories) so therefore defends a womans right to terminate her unborn human child.
He will have a ready excuse for why a human in fetus form doesnt deserve rights: he will claim that the human in fetus form is less than human, but the "less than human" argument is the same that the conservatives make about murderers, and in history its the same argument that the Democrats used to support their need to own slaves (they very specifically defined black people as only 3/5th human, and therefore OK to do whatever you wanted to them.)
At least the conservatives, with their hypocritical stance, are on the side of defending innocent human life while throwing heinously guilty human life to the wolves. The liberals have no such high horse to ride upon in their own hypocrisy.
If everyone drives 80 in a 65 zone, maybe the zone is marked incorrectly.
Its marked perfectly to maximize revenue. The traffic police never have downtime waiting for a violation.
Its you that has it the wrong way. They "remove" the "non-US" data and then send what remains to other countries for analysis. No point sending the non-US data to other countries...
If I had my hands full of grocery bags and you were confronting me
Your story is shit because its you confronting me. Are you really this ignorant of the story we are talking about?
The man who was rudely texting later confronted the man who had went to find a manager. The dipshit texting man who is now causing a confrontation throws his popcorn at the man who went to find a manager, and then clears his fucking hands while his girl tried to hold him back.
I might shoot your ass dead too, because (a) you are causing the confrontation, (b) you are escalating the confrontation, and (c) you are actively readying up for physical violence.
The fact that installing new cables usually requires digging up a lot of roads
Digging up roads to run cables... happen in cities. Cities should already have easy access to underground infrastructure such as cables set up, else they are doing it wrong.
In the rest of America, cables are run on what are called telephone poles, which naturally offer easy access.
hmmm
.. he is clearing his hands so that he may use them.
if it was the "victim" that threw the popcorn during an argument while his wife was holding him back, then I would view the throwing of the popcorn as an escalation
If a man holding groceries is arguing with me in a threatening manner, and then throws said groceries at me or even just drops them, then I would believe at that moment that physical violence is almost certainly imminent due to those actions.
It's hardly self defense when you go out to your car to get a gun and come back.
True, but its also an ignorant thing to talk about considering that that didnt happen.
You didnt make it up.. but you are just faithfully repeating what others made up.. what others intentionally lied about.. like the good little cock sucking sheep with the same agenda that the liars had.
You hate guns, and you repeat lies regarding them. You haver zero worth in any conversation until you learn the difference between being a sheep and being a rational human being.
So what level of rudeness deserves the death penalty?
Its undefined. Thats the beauty of it.
An armed society is a polite society.
but I would expect a *real* conservative model to also attempt to create a true free market where ISPs are not guaranteed a monopoly by the government.
A libertarian model wouldnt need to "attempt to create a true free market" because the local government wouldnt have the right to restrict your choice of ISP's.
That is in fact the problem with the current model. Your local government has the power to restrict access to you and they go ahead and do it.
Now, some may claim that nobody would want to move into your area and offer a competing broadband. The current state of affairs in the country says differently, as companies like Google and Verizon are quite willing to lay down fiber in areas already covered by the copper and coax of both competing phone and cable ISP's.
br. The facts are that there is big money in subscription services, more than enough for venture capitalists to raise the money needed to compete in your area. Just remove government from the equation and they will be knocking on your door offering more choices.
They're more-or-less simulating that virtual person's commute in the sense of actually simulating the car he drives, it's position on the road, etc.
Thats O(n) .. in other words, a modern computer could handle literally millions in real-time.
..and before you suggest that its an N-body problem.. it isn't. A hierarchical grid makes the types of interactions necessary here linear, so its still millions in real-time.
You figure if the "free handouts" would end, and the people taking the "free handouts" made enough money they didn't need the "free handouts" they would insist on them anyhow?
I dont know about him, but I certainly think it. The reason I think it is the rampant class warfare in spite of the average Americans basically being better off now than the average Americans has ever have been.
You see, its not a question of what a person has, its what a person doesnt have but that someone else does have. It wasn't always this way, but somewhere along the way low-brow jealousy became both fashionable, and with that also dishonest.
Lets take the classic "executives are paid too much" argument and apply it specifically. Walmarts executives were compensated at a high of $93 million/year in total (its less now) but if that money was spread out among all the workers of Walmart it would be less than $100/worker/year (Walmart employs over a million people.) This news is frying the brain cells of a few people right now and let me explain why: The Waltons are insanely rich.
What these petty jealous folks don't understand that the Waltons didn't get so insanely rich on executive pay or even on the profits of the company. They got rich because they own stock in a company that grew to dominate its sector. Its the value of their stock that makes them so rich. Clearly its not a zero sum game because the multi-billions in net worth that they hold did not come out of the pockets of other people, nor did that money come out of the economy.
So we learn that the "executive pay" argument is silly (less than $100/year/worker) and we also learn that the Waltons riches don't even come out of company revenue, so whats the real problem? The real problem is that some people are fashionably jealous of people that have more than they do.
It may be currently fashionable, but its still petty.
Grocery stores are a bit rare in the ghetto, and those few which exist usually charge exorbitant prices while providing very little in the way of variety (and don't ask about the produce.)
Why?
The reason why is obvious, of course. There is no inventive for the people on food stamps to spend less than their monthly allowance. The goal of the local market is to make that happen while not giving the food stamp recipients enough incentive to go elsewhere.
Its not that slashdot-ers can't do math, it is just that they don't have facts upon which to calculate these things.
The problem is that they wont google the facts needed to calculate those things if it might pop their bubble.
The government (Federal, State, and Local) currently spends more per household (~$56000/year) than the median income of households (~$53000/year)
The Social Liberals are right about specific things such as that some people need subsidies, but the Fiscal Conservatives are right about things in general such as that taxation and spending is well beyond beneficial amounts. Notice that I did not say Democrats nor did I say Republicans.
(I refuse to believe that we've wasted our time on the alternate solution, which is nothing)
Clearly both P and N are 1.0
As to why the broadcasters are against Aereo I guess there could be concern about timeshifting, etc.
They are against Aereo because currently the broadcasters get paid by the cable companies that carry their local content, but if what Aereo is doing is legal then the cable companies may decide to do the same thing and stop those payments.
Effectively it puts in a cap on the amount that the local broadcasters can charge cable companies, and that cap will go down as technology gets progressively cheaper.
The US is just finally learning the very European art of hating other people flaunting their money.
An art not based on reason, tho.
It used to be when someone was driving a high end car down the road, the people behind them thought "well they seem to be doing well for themselves" but these days they think "another rich mother fucker" and then tweet about it on their $300 cell phone with the $100/mo contract before going home to watch the $150/mo cable television service that they subscribe to.
The reality is that, aside from recent recession issues, nearly all Americans have done very well for themselves even while making incredibly poor financial decisions such as paying $100/mo for a fucking phone or $150/mo for 500 channels of crap.
These things are so expensive because so many are doing well for themselves. Its really that simple, leading to the obvious conclusion that most people are jealous of people with more, and its a fucking petty jealousy.
You don't think my Google Voice contacts and my GMail contacts were naturally overlapping features?
I email lots of people that I never want to have an audio chat with, and there are people I want to have verbal chats with that I never want to be exchanging emails with.
Period. End of the fucking story. You are wrong.
Tthey already created a g+ account for your gmail account. It just hasnt been linked yet.
But it's working as a way of consolidating overlapping aspects of their various services.
Overlapping aspects?
They overlap because they, through "integration", made them overlap. They did not overlap until then.
Consolidation? Sure. Overlapping? Only in the sense of a snake choosing to eat its own tail...
Harm and benefit according to whose definition? Utilitarianism is incredibly subjective.
Exactly. I recognize full well that killing 1 will save 5, and in general I do not have a moral problem with choosing to alter fate to change the outcome to favor the 5, but I do not view any of the participants in the video cases as being faultless.
You and others are walking down the train tracks, a train is coming, and none of you move. Why arent you moving? Maybe that lone guy on the side track knows that the train isnt going to run down his track, which full well makes me a murderer if I divert the train to his track. The larger group has to take responsibility for their own damn actions.
That, my friend, is utilitarian in my eyes.
I'ts not that we aren't listening, it's that you don't understand macro economics and let your ignorance and ego create a nonsense.
The difference between micro economists and macro economists is that micro economists are wrong about specific things while macro economists are wrong about things in general.
How is getting money from new investors in order to pay off old investors different from a Ponzi scheme? The realty is that its not different at all, that it is in fact exactly what a Ponzi scheme is.
Every other currency is also vulnerable to govt manipulation - What exactly is it you don't understand about this Federal Reserve printing money to buy assets with, which convinces you the fiat currency call The US Dollar isn't being manipulated like a hand puppet?
Anyone that doesnt think that this is true hasn't been listening. "If we don't raise the debt ceiling then we will default on our debt" -- which translates directly to "If we cannot get money from new investors then we wont be able to pay the old investors" -- So the federal government is actively Ponzi -- The FED's involvement is in the buying up all of the governments treasury bills (using magically appearing money, no less) that cannot be sold on the open market at artificially low interest rates.
I will defend your right to own guns but the concealed carry laws that all the 2nd Amendment defenders seem to favor are just a bit out there IMO.
Most 2nd Amendment defenders support OPEN CARRY laws, not CONCEALED CARRY.
It is the liberal anti-gun folks that first pushed for concealed carry laws, with the bizarre idea that people are somehow safer if nobody knows who is carrying. They justified their beliefs with the idea that an open display of a firearm might "incite."