Ah, so you're arguing semantics? An "exponential increase" in efficiency isn't a "breakthrough" to you?
If you made the statement about breakthroughs with the intent of meaning this, then your statement was even dumber that originally thought. Are you sure that you now want to redefine breakthrough as equal to "improvement" ?
My guess is that the chance that someone with even half a brain would get caught in any shoplifting instance is well below 5%.
Remember that shoplifters choose when and where to shoplift, so their chance of success is under their control.
..and for you file sharers out there.. you have the same sort of control. You can choose when and where to do it.
I think that most American nerds have stopped getting their music from P2P sites.. opting instead to rip music directly from otherwise legal high bitrate music streaming sites (grooveshark, last.fm, pandora...) where the distribution angle just wont apply to their "crime."
Your mistake is that you think it requires a breakthrough. This is caused by the mistaken belief in a linear '1 computational unit = x energy'
There hasnt been a major breakthrough in efficiency for a quite awhile now, yet there have been exponential increases in efficiency.
You want us to "give it a decade" and then "we're talking space age scifi computers that fill buildings".. the problem being, we already did give it a decade. No major breakthroughs...
Yet here we are. 2.5 watt machines that are significantly more powerful than the Pentium III's that Intel was peddling only 10 years ago.. and that 2.5 watts includes the display!
So what if Netflix ships out a "Balance The Equation" (BTE) application for its comcast customers which spams data at L3 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, even presenting the users with a graph of the target bandwidth goal and a users overall contribution?
They could even dish out free service to the top 100 BTE users, making it into a contest.
Hell... "Install this router firmware and you don't even have to leave the computer on!"
You are confusing channels (the analog signal on the wire) with channels (the digital stream the decoder "tunes" into... ie, the station)
The idea being that there is a small set of popular stations that there is always someone in the neighborhood tuning in 24/7 to.. so analog channels are assigned to each of the perhaps 20 "pop stations" and every user shares the same stream when watching that same station.
Then there is the set of unpopular stations and normally only 5 of the maybe 100 are tuned into by someone in the neighborhood.. so the provider would like to use only 5 of those analog channels to stream to those 5 instances of abnormal viewing, regardless of which of the 100 stations they may be viewing, rather than tie up 100 analog channels.
In this scenario.. only 25 analog channels would be required to handle 120 stations of digital programming, leaving the rest of the analog channels for regular analog cable as well as broadband internet.
First is your presumption that wattage needs are linearly related to computational capacity. They don't really seem to be because at the low end electric consumption is shrinking while computational capacity is greatly increasing.
Your bleeding edge desktop is an edge case and simply isn't representative of the majority of computation performed today.
Secondly, you are presuming that computational capacity must remain in the home. Companies like Google are doing a lot of computation on your behalf all day long in data centers and drawing so much power that in some areas they operate their own energy supply.
The key telling point tho is that first problem. In general, power needs have gone down greatly while simultaneously computational capacity has greatly increased. The iPad will run continuously streaming netflix on a 5V @ 500mA USB (2.5 watt) connection.
If you quoted me, you would see that I said could imply. You didnt quote me, but then ask if I meant could or does.
You are suggesting that I would limit myself only to could because I (a) believe the theory its wrong, or (b) believe it would make me sound like an idiot.
Such false dichotomy.
(c) I know that I do not know.
Apparently the idea that someone would know that they do not know, and for that reason alone will not claim that they do know for that very reason, is foreign to you.
Knowing that I do not know and speaking in a manner consistent with that knowledge is actually the sign of my honest, rational thinking on the matter. You not seeing this possibility is a sign of your tendency to dichotomize everything.
A) it is assuming that we will always have a technological breakthrough at the right moment to allow the doubling of computing power every 18 months. Maybe this is the case, but it's still a big assumption.
Intel and AMD are both doubling the width of their SIMD capabilities with AVX in the next year. This is simply a design decision, not a breakthrough. More cores is also a design decision, not a breakthrough.
When the first vector processors hit super-computing, it became plainly obvious that computational capacity could always be doubled.
Remember that capacity is not velocity, or in more geeky terms.. MIPS is not MHz.. bandwidth is not latency...
There hasnt been a breakthrough in many years now, yet computational capacity continues to grow exponentially.
it happened to other people. whether it happened to germans is irrelevant.
You specifically said torture happened to the specific Germans kidnapped specifically by the CIA. Now you are saying that well, it wasnt Germans, or the CIA, but damn the CIA because there was torture done somewhere in the world, performed by someone, to someone?
How do you not see the problem? You really need to self-evaluate, because now you are deparately rationalizing your imagination. Almost as if it is you that is self-centered as you claimed I was, that you think that you are so amazingly important that your imagination trumps reality not only for yourself, but that your imagination also trumps reality for others as well.
Are you saying Obama is doing a worse job than Bush, or just implying it, so you don't look like a total fool?
I'm saying that greater numbers of death threats could imply that he is doing a worse job.
Sometimes groups assess situations better than individuals. Such a statistic would be a sampling of society as a whole, and it could certainly be argued that it carries more weight than individual opinion.
As for me personally.. I think the democrat monopoly of house, senate, and oval office combined has not done as good a job as any period in history where there wasnt such a one-sided monopoly.
You are justifying imagining the most damning information possible because it might have happened to those germans? Really?
They might have sent them on a space shuttle ride, fed them like kings, presented them with daily hookers and blow...
Imaginations do not bare witness to reality, and the fact that you are unwilling to entertain the notion that your imagination has run away with you means that you are currently a lost cause. You no longer interpret reality as it is, but only as you imagine it to be.
Iraq admitted to growing 19,000 liters of botulism, 8,000 liters of anthrax, and and 2,000 liters of aflatoxins during the period after the first Gulf war, but only when presented with pretty much concrete evidence by UNSCOM that they did so.
This was all during repeated endless obstructions to the search teams, which did not find these WMD's.
You sir, like to revise history. If you want to live in a dishonest view of reality that is your business. The rest of the world believed that Iraq had WMD's because Saddam gave the world every reason to believe so. Not only did they manufacturer WMD's after the first Gulf War, at least some of it was eventually admitted to, presented, and destroyed.. but only when faced with irresistible proof that they existed.
Let me repeat.. the search teams failed to find those WMD's that did exist, that were manufactured after the first gulf war, that were hidden by the obstructions of Iraq, but eventually admitted to.
if, exposing the above filth was an 'attack on international community' what the fuck was going and grabbing german citizens in germany and torturing them abroad ?
Nowhere in the page you linked to is torture mentioned. Not even once.
That you somehow jumped to this conclusion is evidence that you currently are not thinking straight and need to self-evaluate. Something is wrong with your thinking process and you need to figure out why you completely imagined pretty much the most damning information possible within the link, and how long you have been doing this to your perspective.
I guess you missed the part where the rest of the world also thought that Iraq had WMD.. convinced enough to keep sending inspectors there, for an entire decade, looking for them.
The stand-up comedian Emo Philips had a nice joke about the church and it was voted The Best God Joke Ever
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Well, as you try so hard to convince us that Obama has had more death threats than Bush.. I can't help but think "maybe thats because he is doing a worse job?"
Just some food for thought.. right?
As far as your comments about things people write on signs...
Idiot writes stupid thing on a sign.. news at 11.. only on MSNBC.
MSNBC likes showing that stuff, but its not news and it certainly isnt informative in the way you want it to be. It speaks more to the quality of MSNBC as an actual source for news than anything about the group of people you want to paint.
The reason they deregulated was that in 1996, the state tax payers had to bail out the energy companies to the tune of 27 billion dollars.
The entire problem started with price fixing, and the "deregulation" as they called it, didn't do anything to solve that problem.
Enron was just the final symptom of the problem, and certainly does not bare the responsibility for it. The "good intentions" of the legislature are what fucked California over, not Enron.
You want a villain. Its not Enron. Its the California politicians.
Crisis as in that in 1996 the entire point of "deregulation" was because the state found itself in a position where it had to bail out the three Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to the tune of $27 billion.
You might not call that a crisis, but the California legislature certainly did, and moved to try to fix the problem. They failed because they kept doing the thing that caused the problem... price fixing.
You are incorrect. The first California energy crisis led directly to that "deregulation", which then led to the second (popularized by Enron/etc) California energy crisis.
California was in trouble before the deregulation, which is why they "deregulated."
Here is the scenario in a nut-shell. California began full-on price fixing because they decided energy prices were too high, causing a long term shortage of supply (nobody wanted to build new power plants in california, nor sell power at below market prices to california's distributors.)
In response to this shortage, they deregulated energy production in the hopes that this would spur more in-state production, which it did. The problem was that they continued to price-fix the distributors, so the old and new in-state energy producers sold to out-of-state markets first..
The shortages grew worse and worse because of this. The in-state distributors, forced to buy at market prices but sell at lower fixed prices, began losing money hand-over-fist. The state then responded by heavily subsidizing the distributors through taxes but even that wasnt enough to save some of the them from bankruptcy.
This is the same old "manage from the top" good-intentions failure we often see.
They arent out-of-state taxes. The laws are simply applied to out-of-state businesses. Sales taxes in California are levied on consumers in California.
The idea that the Connecticut business wouldn't have to follow California's tax code is counter to the articles argument as a whole, that a Connecticut business *should* be following California's tax code and be collecting sales taxes on California's behalf.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so you're arguing semantics? An "exponential increase" in efficiency isn't a "breakthrough" to you?
If you made the statement about breakthroughs with the intent of meaning this, then your statement was even dumber that originally thought. Are you sure that you now want to redefine breakthrough as equal to "improvement" ?
My guess is that the chance that someone with even half a brain would get caught in any shoplifting instance is well below 5%.
..and for you file sharers out there.. you have the same sort of control. You can choose when and where to do it.
.. opting instead to rip music directly from otherwise legal high bitrate music streaming sites (grooveshark, last.fm, pandora...) where the distribution angle just wont apply to their "crime."
Remember that shoplifters choose when and where to shoplift, so their chance of success is under their control.
I think that most American nerds have stopped getting their music from P2P sites
Your mistake is that you think it requires a breakthrough. This is caused by the mistaken belief in a linear '1 computational unit = x energy'
.. the problem being, we already did give it a decade. No major breakthroughs...
.. and that 2.5 watts includes the display!
There hasnt been a major breakthrough in efficiency for a quite awhile now, yet there have been exponential increases in efficiency.
You want us to "give it a decade" and then "we're talking space age scifi computers that fill buildings"
Yet here we are. 2.5 watt machines that are significantly more powerful than the Pentium III's that Intel was peddling only 10 years ago
So what if Netflix ships out a "Balance The Equation" (BTE) application for its comcast customers which spams data at L3 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, even presenting the users with a graph of the target bandwidth goal and a users overall contribution?
They could even dish out free service to the top 100 BTE users, making it into a contest.
Hell... "Install this router firmware and you don't even have to leave the computer on!"
You are confusing channels (the analog signal on the wire) with channels (the digital stream the decoder "tunes" into... ie, the station)
.. so analog channels are assigned to each of the perhaps 20 "pop stations" and every user shares the same stream when watching that same station.
The idea being that there is a small set of popular stations that there is always someone in the neighborhood tuning in 24/7 to
Then there is the set of unpopular stations and normally only 5 of the maybe 100 are tuned into by someone in the neighborhood.. so the provider would like to use only 5 of those analog channels to stream to those 5 instances of abnormal viewing, regardless of which of the 100 stations they may be viewing, rather than tie up 100 analog channels.
In this scenario.. only 25 analog channels would be required to handle 120 stations of digital programming, leaving the rest of the analog channels for regular analog cable as well as broadband internet.
A few problems with all that.
First is your presumption that wattage needs are linearly related to computational capacity. They don't really seem to be because at the low end electric consumption is shrinking while computational capacity is greatly increasing.
Your bleeding edge desktop is an edge case and simply isn't representative of the majority of computation performed today.
Secondly, you are presuming that computational capacity must remain in the home. Companies like Google are doing a lot of computation on your behalf all day long in data centers and drawing so much power that in some areas they operate their own energy supply.
The key telling point tho is that first problem. In general, power needs have gone down greatly while simultaneously computational capacity has greatly increased. The iPad will run continuously streaming netflix on a 5V @ 500mA USB (2.5 watt) connection.
If you quoted me, you would see that I said could imply. You didnt quote me, but then ask if I meant could or does.
You are suggesting that I would limit myself only to could because I (a) believe the theory its wrong, or (b) believe it would make me sound like an idiot.
Such false dichotomy.
(c) I know that I do not know.
Apparently the idea that someone would know that they do not know, and for that reason alone will not claim that they do know for that very reason, is foreign to you.
Knowing that I do not know and speaking in a manner consistent with that knowledge is actually the sign of my honest, rational thinking on the matter. You not seeing this possibility is a sign of your tendency to dichotomize everything.
A) it is assuming that we will always have a technological breakthrough at the right moment to allow the doubling of computing power every 18 months. Maybe this is the case, but it's still a big assumption.
Intel and AMD are both doubling the width of their SIMD capabilities with AVX in the next year. This is simply a design decision, not a breakthrough. More cores is also a design decision, not a breakthrough.
When the first vector processors hit super-computing, it became plainly obvious that computational capacity could always be doubled.
Remember that capacity is not velocity, or in more geeky terms.. MIPS is not MHz.. bandwidth is not latency...
There hasnt been a breakthrough in many years now, yet computational capacity continues to grow exponentially.
it happened to other people. whether it happened to germans is irrelevant.
You specifically said torture happened to the specific Germans kidnapped specifically by the CIA. Now you are saying that well, it wasnt Germans, or the CIA, but damn the CIA because there was torture done somewhere in the world, performed by someone, to someone?
How do you not see the problem? You really need to self-evaluate, because now you are deparately rationalizing your imagination. Almost as if it is you that is self-centered as you claimed I was, that you think that you are so amazingly important that your imagination trumps reality not only for yourself, but that your imagination also trumps reality for others as well.
Are you saying Obama is doing a worse job than Bush, or just implying it, so you don't look like a total fool?
I'm saying that greater numbers of death threats could imply that he is doing a worse job.
Sometimes groups assess situations better than individuals. Such a statistic would be a sampling of society as a whole, and it could certainly be argued that it carries more weight than individual opinion.
As for me personally.. I think the democrat monopoly of house, senate, and oval office combined has not done as good a job as any period in history where there wasnt such a one-sided monopoly.
You are justifying imagining the most damning information possible because it might have happened to those germans? Really?
They might have sent them on a space shuttle ride, fed them like kings, presented them with daily hookers and blow...
Imaginations do not bare witness to reality, and the fact that you are unwilling to entertain the notion that your imagination has run away with you means that you are currently a lost cause. You no longer interpret reality as it is, but only as you imagine it to be.
Why dont you know this?
Iraq admitted to growing 19,000 liters of botulism, 8,000 liters of anthrax, and and 2,000 liters of aflatoxins during the period after the first Gulf war, but only when presented with pretty much concrete evidence by UNSCOM that they did so.
This was all during repeated endless obstructions to the search teams, which did not find these WMD's.
You sir, like to revise history. If you want to live in a dishonest view of reality that is your business. The rest of the world believed that Iraq had WMD's because Saddam gave the world every reason to believe so. Not only did they manufacturer WMD's after the first Gulf War, at least some of it was eventually admitted to, presented, and destroyed.. but only when faced with irresistible proof that they existed.
Let me repeat.. the search teams failed to find those WMD's that did exist, that were manufactured after the first gulf war, that were hidden by the obstructions of Iraq, but eventually admitted to.
It is normally named mDNSResponder.exe, because thats the way apple rolls with its Bonjour! service.
if, exposing the above filth was an 'attack on international community' what the fuck was going and grabbing german citizens in germany and torturing them abroad ?
Nowhere in the page you linked to is torture mentioned. Not even once.
That you somehow jumped to this conclusion is evidence that you currently are not thinking straight and need to self-evaluate. Something is wrong with your thinking process and you need to figure out why you completely imagined pretty much the most damning information possible within the link, and how long you have been doing this to your perspective.
I guess you missed the part where the rest of the world also thought that Iraq had WMD .. convinced enough to keep sending inspectors there, for an entire decade, looking for them.
The stand-up comedian Emo Philips had a nice joke about the church and it was voted The Best God Joke Ever
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Well, as you try so hard to convince us that Obama has had more death threats than Bush.. I can't help but think "maybe thats because he is doing a worse job?"
Just some food for thought.. right?
As far as your comments about things people write on signs...
Idiot writes stupid thing on a sign.. news at 11.. only on MSNBC.
MSNBC likes showing that stuff, but its not news and it certainly isnt informative in the way you want it to be. It speaks more to the quality of MSNBC as an actual source for news than anything about the group of people you want to paint.
Dont forget that all Apple software stealthily installs "Bonjour!" on windows.
The reason they deregulated was that in 1996, the state tax payers had to bail out the energy companies to the tune of 27 billion dollars.
The entire problem started with price fixing, and the "deregulation" as they called it, didn't do anything to solve that problem.
Enron was just the final symptom of the problem, and certainly does not bare the responsibility for it. The "good intentions" of the legislature are what fucked California over, not Enron.
You want a villain. Its not Enron. Its the California politicians.
Crisis as in that in 1996 the entire point of "deregulation" was because the state found itself in a position where it had to bail out the three Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to the tune of $27 billion.
You might not call that a crisis, but the California legislature certainly did, and moved to try to fix the problem. They failed because they kept doing the thing that caused the problem... price fixing.
You are incorrect. The first California energy crisis led directly to that "deregulation", which then led to the second (popularized by Enron/etc) California energy crisis.
California was in trouble before the deregulation, which is why they "deregulated."
You are incorrect.
Here is the scenario in a nut-shell. California began full-on price fixing because they decided energy prices were too high, causing a long term shortage of supply (nobody wanted to build new power plants in california, nor sell power at below market prices to california's distributors.)
In response to this shortage, they deregulated energy production in the hopes that this would spur more in-state production, which it did. The problem was that they continued to price-fix the distributors, so the old and new in-state energy producers sold to out-of-state markets first..
The shortages grew worse and worse because of this. The in-state distributors, forced to buy at market prices but sell at lower fixed prices, began losing money hand-over-fist. The state then responded by heavily subsidizing the distributors through taxes but even that wasnt enough to save some of the them from bankruptcy.
This is the same old "manage from the top" good-intentions failure we often see.
The brownouts in CA were caused by the lack of supply.
The Pandora One client is written with Adobe Air.. pretty simplistic UI, but I guess its extremely cross platform.
They arent out-of-state taxes. The laws are simply applied to out-of-state businesses. Sales taxes in California are levied on consumers in California.
The idea that the Connecticut business wouldn't have to follow California's tax code is counter to the articles argument as a whole, that a Connecticut business *should* be following California's tax code and be collecting sales taxes on California's behalf.