It's not just a form of unionization. It means the state has verified that this practitioner has completed certain education, in some professions has posted a bond, and in many professions must continue to complete ongoing annual education from... licensed teachers in the field.
You seem to not have much of a clue about taxi licenses.
You can complete that education, have the funds available to post that bond, and be willing to continue to complete annual education from "licensed teachers in the field" but you still arent going to get a fucking taxi license unless you buy a license from an existing license owner.
In the taxi world, licenses are PROPERTY. Welcome to reality.
The price for taxi medallions is based on supply and demand. The supply is artificially low precisely because thats what the medallion owners continually petition the regulators for.
So no, do not feel sorry for the fucking taxi owners. Feel sorry for every consumer thats been fucked by them so far, and every consumer that will be fucked by them in the future.
With the duck test. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. How about: "Any advertisement that would appear to a reasonable person to be an attempt to influence the outcome of an election shall be punishable by a fine of up to one milliion dollars and up to one year in prison."
So no problem until the wrong people are in charge of duck-detection, right?
This goes to the real problem. A powerful agency is wonderful when good and competent people are in charge of it, but leads to things even as terrible as a global great depression when the bad or the incompetent are in charge of it.
It is always just a matter of time until the wrong people are in charge of these powerful agencies.
Its easy to blame "outside influence" when government goes wrong, but thats something that doesnt go away. Its human nature to try to influence others and its human nature to be influenced by others. When human nature is the problem, looks-like-a-duck legislation wont make it go away. In fact, these powerful agencies always end up trying to exert their own influences on government.
Take the recent IRS tea-party-targeting scandal as an example. No matter which explanation you believe (that it was just a few rogue agents, or it was a top-down policy), people in government employ were trying to influence others with the force of government. Thats human nature, and the real fix is to limit the amount of force that they have to begin with because it is inevitable that the agency will be used in that manner. We can only minimize the resulting damage by minimizing the scope and power of the agency.
thank you for showing how deep the corruption goes.
I don't think the corruption here is any deeper than anywhere else on average. The problem is that the dollar amounts and resulting influence are so much larger, and thats because fucking idiots keep finding excuses to forgive politicians that make the government bigger (hell, some even see a larger government as something to strive for.. fucking retards)
When you allow a bigger government, you get corruption on a larger scale. Every. Single. Fucking. Time. Ever. In. All. Of. History.
Before WWII I'm sure you could have made many reasonable and credible arguments for why Germany would never attack France or why Japan would never attack the US that are equal or better to "globalization".
Really?
You seem to be completely uneducated about WWII.
Perhaps you think that the demands upon Germany for "reparations" after WWI, such as impossible amounts of coal being delivered to the French, was "globalization."
Perhaps you think that when the U.S. froze all Japanese assets in the U.S., and then threatened an oil embargo against them (which accounted for 80% of the oil they imported), that was "globalization" too.
Germany attacked France because the French were complete assholes after WWI.
Japan attacked the U.S. because they had to eliminate the U.S. fleet if they wanted to take the oil fields in the East Indies unchallenged (something they needed to do to nullify the threat of an oil embargo.)
WWII was just a continuation of WWI, because the countries continued to be complete assholes to each other. "Globalization" does not mean "one sided arrangements."
If you want to have 1000 times shorter cycles, you need a 1000 times smaller chip.
Lets examine this..
The 80386 used a 1500 nanometer process. We are now playing with 22 nanometer parts (transistors that are 68 times smaller in length.)
The most common speed of the 80386 was 33 MHz, and the most common speed of a modern computer (according to the admittedly biased Valve Hardware Survey) is ~2500 MHz.
~2500 / 33 = ~75
So in practice what you are saying is clearly within an acceptable margin of true, but is perhaps not clearly stated (you need a 1000 times smaller process, not a 1000 times smaller chip!)
This does also show that the diminishing returns of higher clock speeds are likely real. If you want higher clock speeds without a smaller process size then you need a longer pipeline and thus higher instruction latencies, defeating a large chunk of the benefit of the higher clock speed.
However, for special purpose architectures (perhaps GPU's) with different use cases (where a deep pipeline doesnt have as many downsides), then higher clock speeds could be a big benefit even without a smaller process size.
It seems to me that you are reading more into what I said than what I actually said. My wikipedia citations say what I said, for instance "In the 1950s, Panama disease wiped out the Gros Michel banana, the dominant cultivar of bananas, inflicting enormous costs and forcing producers to switch to other, disease-resistant cultivars."
Perhaps you may not agree with the "wiped out" wording, but its the accepted wording in this case. Your agreement with it is not important to reality.
SATA SSD's dont need faster flash at this time because the SATA consortium was too short sighted to see the need for a much fatter pipe, and because thats the bulk of the desktop SSD market, nobody is developing faster flash intended for desktop use. Mobil devices on the other hand...
This will eventually bleed over into PCIe solutions, but its hard to imagine extensive assembly lines for the purpose.
It is about 0% faster for reads than just-released products, while about -50% faster for writes and -70% faster for IOPS.
That doesnt seem to be true. Those produces use many chips to attain their (essentially they are a RAID-0 of many flash chips) , while this is a single chip.
You might want to take a look at how much of your DNA you share with a banana before asking for examples of plants having animal and fish DNA
Funny that you mentioned banana's. Ever notice how banana flavoring tastes nothing like a banana that you can buy? Thats because the banana that tasted like that (the Gros Michel) were wiped out by Panama Disease. We now eat Cavendish bananas, which is also at risk from the same disease.
So are you saying that enforcing predictable and correct answers has a significant performance cost?
He said nothing about "correct."
And yes, enforcing predictable answers across toolchains and architectures has significant performance cost. Even ignoring optimizations, with the x87 FPU (which uses 80-bit registers) it means the compiler needs to emit a rounding operation after every single intermediate operation because the x87 uses 80-bit internal floats but IEEE754 specifies that all operations, even intermediate ones, are always to be performed as if rounded like 32-bit or 64-bit floats.
When you get into the effects of order-of-operations type optimizations even on hardware that only uses 64-bit floats, you find that in most cases (x + y + z) != (z + y + x) even when the same floating point precision is present in each step of the calculation. Even things like common-divisor optimizations (if z is used as a divisor many times, compute 1/z a single time and multiply because multiplication is much faster than division) destroy the chance of equal outcome between compilers that will do it and compilers that will not.
The best way to get insight into the issues is to become familiar with the single-digit-of-precision estimation technique.
I don't know where you get this. In my experiences, the Chinese like US people, and Korean dramas are popular in China.
He formed his opinion based on the U.S. media deception about China.
The Chinese people, just like everywhere else, want a better life. When they voluntarily use their money to buy Samsung devices instead of competing devices, its because that device is at least perceived to deliver better than the alternatives.
The idea that the Chinese people dont like Americans is rooted in the belief that they are stupid (as if they would have to be stupid not to want an Apple device) and bigoted (as if they don't want Apple devices simply because Apple is American.)
But it does. When given a choice, the people of Connecticut went with the guy that wasn't going to be impeached and sent to jail. A 3rd party choices, what is being discussed.
Exactly so. Weicker became governor by losing a highly publicized election to Lieberman as the incumbent Republican, giving him name recognition. Weicker also lied by claiming he wouldn't institute a state income tax, which he promptly implemented once he got elected.
You seem to be neglecting to mention that the Republican that Weicker beat eventually did become Governor, as Weicker did not run for a second term.
That man, John G Rowland, ended up being impeached and thrown in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxi owners do not want a free market.
Taxi drivers probably do, but not the owners.
It's not just a form of unionization. It means the state has verified that this practitioner has completed certain education, in some professions has posted a bond, and in many professions must continue to complete ongoing annual education from... licensed teachers in the field.
You seem to not have much of a clue about taxi licenses.
You can complete that education, have the funds available to post that bond, and be willing to continue to complete annual education from "licensed teachers in the field" but you still arent going to get a fucking taxi license unless you buy a license from an existing license owner.
In the taxi world, licenses are PROPERTY. Welcome to reality.
Taxi licenses cost big money
The price for taxi medallions is based on supply and demand. The supply is artificially low precisely because thats what the medallion owners continually petition the regulators for.
So no, do not feel sorry for the fucking taxi owners. Feel sorry for every consumer thats been fucked by them so far, and every consumer that will be fucked by them in the future.
Thats because energy hasnt been getting cheaper....
There is a reason that all the big food conglomerates are now also big shipping conglomerates.. its because thats where the profit is.
With the duck test. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. How about: "Any advertisement that would appear to a reasonable person to be an attempt to influence the outcome of an election shall be punishable by a fine of up to one milliion dollars and up to one year in prison."
So no problem until the wrong people are in charge of duck-detection, right?
This goes to the real problem. A powerful agency is wonderful when good and competent people are in charge of it, but leads to things even as terrible as a global great depression when the bad or the incompetent are in charge of it.
It is always just a matter of time until the wrong people are in charge of these powerful agencies.
Its easy to blame "outside influence" when government goes wrong, but thats something that doesnt go away. Its human nature to try to influence others and its human nature to be influenced by others. When human nature is the problem, looks-like-a-duck legislation wont make it go away. In fact, these powerful agencies always end up trying to exert their own influences on government.
Take the recent IRS tea-party-targeting scandal as an example. No matter which explanation you believe (that it was just a few rogue agents, or it was a top-down policy), people in government employ were trying to influence others with the force of government. Thats human nature, and the real fix is to limit the amount of force that they have to begin with because it is inevitable that the agency will be used in that manner. We can only minimize the resulting damage by minimizing the scope and power of the agency.
So a large, for-profit, private sector is less corrupt then the government?
Of course. A lot less corrupt.
I believe you need to check a dictionary for the definition of the word "corrupt."
I think its you that needs to check it. It does not mean "it does things that arent in my own interests"
thank you for showing how deep the corruption goes.
I don't think the corruption here is any deeper than anywhere else on average. The problem is that the dollar amounts and resulting influence are so much larger, and thats because fucking idiots keep finding excuses to forgive politicians that make the government bigger (hell, some even see a larger government as something to strive for.. fucking retards)
When you allow a bigger government, you get corruption on a larger scale. Every. Single. Fucking. Time. Ever. In. All. Of. History.
SI units have no business in science, either, and I live in the US too.
Don't mod this guy up, since its outdated, and incorrect.
Lets compare the States he mentioned to Massachusetts
Taxes paid per capita in Massachusetts is almost twice that of Louisiana, yet he is saying Louisiana has higher taxes.
His willingness to ignorance is completely astonishing.
Copying things even just 100 years ago was very difficult and time-consuming.
So what you are saying is that the copyright laws are from a time when things were radically different...
Now explain to us why they should still be in effect since things are now radically different.
Re: Japan invasion of Manchuria
Japan called it a liberation, and installed the former emperor of China to run the country.
Meanwhile China was embroiled in a civil war between the Nationalists and the Communists, a civil war that was still ongoing when Japan invaded China.
Not so clear cut now, is it?
Now if you make 1/1000 of 22 nanometers, you get 22 picometers. That's about 1/5 of the size of an atom. Good luck with structures of that size.
Yet atoms are not the fundamental building blocks of the universe... atoms are composites of smaller particles.
Its called Taxachusetts for a reason.
Before WWII I'm sure you could have made many reasonable and credible arguments for why Germany would never attack France or why Japan would never attack the US that are equal or better to "globalization".
Really?
You seem to be completely uneducated about WWII.
Perhaps you think that the demands upon Germany for "reparations" after WWI, such as impossible amounts of coal being delivered to the French, was "globalization."
Perhaps you think that when the U.S. froze all Japanese assets in the U.S., and then threatened an oil embargo against them (which accounted for 80% of the oil they imported), that was "globalization" too.
Germany attacked France because the French were complete assholes after WWI.
Japan attacked the U.S. because they had to eliminate the U.S. fleet if they wanted to take the oil fields in the East Indies unchallenged (something they needed to do to nullify the threat of an oil embargo.)
WWII was just a continuation of WWI, because the countries continued to be complete assholes to each other. "Globalization" does not mean "one sided arrangements."
If you want to have 1000 times shorter cycles, you need a 1000 times smaller chip.
Lets examine this..
The 80386 used a 1500 nanometer process. We are now playing with 22 nanometer parts (transistors that are 68 times smaller in length.)
The most common speed of the 80386 was 33 MHz, and the most common speed of a modern computer (according to the admittedly biased Valve Hardware Survey) is ~2500 MHz.
~2500 / 33 = ~75
So in practice what you are saying is clearly within an acceptable margin of true, but is perhaps not clearly stated (you need a 1000 times smaller process, not a 1000 times smaller chip!)
This does also show that the diminishing returns of higher clock speeds are likely real. If you want higher clock speeds without a smaller process size then you need a longer pipeline and thus higher instruction latencies, defeating a large chunk of the benefit of the higher clock speed.
However, for special purpose architectures (perhaps GPU's) with different use cases (where a deep pipeline doesnt have as many downsides), then higher clock speeds could be a big benefit even without a smaller process size.
Which lie is that?
It seems to me that you are reading more into what I said than what I actually said. My wikipedia citations say what I said, for instance "In the 1950s, Panama disease wiped out the Gros Michel banana, the dominant cultivar of bananas, inflicting enormous costs and forcing producers to switch to other, disease-resistant cultivars."
Perhaps you may not agree with the "wiped out" wording, but its the accepted wording in this case. Your agreement with it is not important to reality.
SATA SSD's dont need faster flash at this time because the SATA consortium was too short sighted to see the need for a much fatter pipe, and because thats the bulk of the desktop SSD market, nobody is developing faster flash intended for desktop use. Mobil devices on the other hand...
This will eventually bleed over into PCIe solutions, but its hard to imagine extensive assembly lines for the purpose.
It is about 0% faster for reads than just-released products, while about -50% faster for writes and -70% faster for IOPS.
That doesnt seem to be true. Those produces use many chips to attain their (essentially they are a RAID-0 of many flash chips) , while this is a single chip.
It won't provide for faster anything I do on my computer, because I already have faster chips in my desktop.
I'm pretty sure that you do not have faster flash chips in your desktop.
What you have is a faster array of flash chips, a combination that only exceeds the performance here when they operate in parallel.
Now imagine these 10nm chips in an array....
You might want to take a look at how much of your DNA you share with a banana before asking for examples of plants having animal and fish DNA
Funny that you mentioned banana's. Ever notice how banana flavoring tastes nothing like a banana that you can buy? Thats because the banana that tasted like that (the Gros Michel) were wiped out by Panama Disease. We now eat Cavendish bananas, which is also at risk from the same disease.
Gros Michel
Cavendish
Panama Disease
So are you saying that enforcing predictable and correct answers has a significant performance cost?
He said nothing about "correct."
And yes, enforcing predictable answers across toolchains and architectures has significant performance cost. Even ignoring optimizations, with the x87 FPU (which uses 80-bit registers) it means the compiler needs to emit a rounding operation after every single intermediate operation because the x87 uses 80-bit internal floats but IEEE754 specifies that all operations, even intermediate ones, are always to be performed as if rounded like 32-bit or 64-bit floats.
When you get into the effects of order-of-operations type optimizations even on hardware that only uses 64-bit floats, you find that in most cases (x + y + z) != (z + y + x) even when the same floating point precision is present in each step of the calculation. Even things like common-divisor optimizations (if z is used as a divisor many times, compute 1/z a single time and multiply because multiplication is much faster than division) destroy the chance of equal outcome between compilers that will do it and compilers that will not.
The best way to get insight into the issues is to become familiar with the single-digit-of-precision estimation technique.
Make as good a product as they can, and let profit follow.
Marketshare is not a concern to Apple.
Apple tried this before, and it nearly destroyed them. When market share is not a concern, it soon plummets to 0%.
I don't know where you get this. In my experiences, the Chinese like US people, and Korean dramas are popular in China.
He formed his opinion based on the U.S. media deception about China.
The Chinese people, just like everywhere else, want a better life. When they voluntarily use their money to buy Samsung devices instead of competing devices, its because that device is at least perceived to deliver better than the alternatives.
The idea that the Chinese people dont like Americans is rooted in the belief that they are stupid (as if they would have to be stupid not to want an Apple device) and bigoted (as if they don't want Apple devices simply because Apple is American.)
The free market rocks.
But it does. When given a choice, the people of Connecticut went with the guy that wasn't going to be impeached and sent to jail. A 3rd party choices, what is being discussed.
Exactly so. Weicker became governor by losing a highly publicized election to Lieberman as the incumbent Republican, giving him name recognition. Weicker also lied by claiming he wouldn't institute a state income tax, which he promptly implemented once he got elected.
You seem to be neglecting to mention that the Republican that Weicker beat eventually did become Governor, as Weicker did not run for a second term.
That man, John G Rowland, ended up being impeached and thrown in jail.