If the database fits into that amount of RAM, then wouldn't that mean I/O is not a limiting factor?
Depends on whether you still need the database around if the power ever goes off.
In some applications the DBs are just read-only or temporary and you copy/build them from permanent storage so it doesn't matter.
But in many other DB applications you do need to write and it needs to actually be permanently written (within monetary and physical constraints). And it often has to be written when you tell the user it's written. Bad stuff happens if you tell the users/customers "transaction succeeded", delay writing the transactions till later but then the power/battery fails and there's completely no record for thousands of transactions.
After marvelling, compare with a housefly (or similar) to see how far behind we are in terms of technology.
"AI" (including basic prediction), navigation, collision avoidance, flight performance (including flight time, speed and range, acceleration/"gees"), location of fuel and raw fuel conversion tech, self-manufacture (including autonomous miner bot aka maggot and fly-factory - pupae), etc. All in a 12 milligram package (typical).
So my question is: what roughly is the maximum theoretical distance an unpowered flying object can be thrown by a top athlete? Assuming no wind, level ground and the usual stuff for a record.
If I were allowed one more question I'd ask what might be the optimum shape of that object, but nevermind:).
My advice is if you want to avoid (not evade) tax in a big way you should consult a real pro.
I don't know much about tax stuff but if I understand correctly the Tax arms of many governments are able to use the "guilty till proven innocent" approach.
e.g. if one day your undisclosed profits amount to something significant and you have a more lavish lifestyle, more expensive house and car than explainable by your tax filings the Tax Dept may require you to prove yourself innocent or get in big trouble.
I don't know whether this is also true for Norway.
That's why I find it worrying when people do research into human-animal hybrids, etc. The technology may be ready long before human society is ready for the results.
Would the benefits be worth it? And what would the "benefits" be - a new class of slaves?
More and more we should start considering whether we should do research on stuff based on the long term consequences than merely it can now be done, or "someone else will do it if I don't" (that someone may only do it much later).
But how can anyone be sure that "sensitive" information won't be planted on his devices? Can I trust someone who steals my stuff to not frame me?
Encrypting everything might make it harder to plant something on the laptop in a convincing manner, but it might increase the odds of your stuff being stolen by them.
But if you really believe their is a chance that drones are going to be dropping packages off at you doorstep in under 10 - 15 years, you neither understand the logistics and you are both delusional and naive. Set down the Adderal and the Code Red. Maybe light some incense and listen to some Tibetan singing bowls or something.
Not saying it's a good idea. Just pointing out that drones may be dropping packages off sooner than you think, depending on where your doorstep is. quote from the last link:
Currently several major Chinese couriers like S.F.Express have expanded to counties or even villages. But there are still areas that are more remote or with poor transport infrastructure. It is expected the drones will be useful for delivering online shopping goods to those places.
I find it funny people can have so much faith and certainty there's no God and use simple trite logic to prove it when the same simple trite logic proves that our universe is stranger than most think.
For example, scientists can't even explain one of the first observations each and every one of them makes - consciousness - self awareness in the way we experience it. By the same logic of Russell's teapot and Occam's razor wouldn't the "consciousness" phenomenon not exist, other than we personally observing it? Couldn't you in theory have a machine or a human being that behaved exactly as if it was self aware, but didn't experience what we experience? If not, why not? Prove it. Or conclusively prove that other people do or do not experience this consciousness you do. In short, explain your invisible little friend that is yourself and why others do or do not have their own little friends that is themselves.
I have no proof that others experience this consciousness, I have faith that they do because I experience it myself and don't believe that I am so special. But I find no way to prove it conclusively.
In line with the weirdness of our universe perhaps there both is and is not a God. Just like we've shown that stuff can be in a superposition. And each of us is also in a superposition, and what happens in the end for each of us depends on whether we interfere constructively or destructively.
And why wouldn't.Net stuff that works on XP not work on an XP compatible OS?
I'm not saying ReactOS is fully XP compatible, it's far from it at the moment. But perhaps with enough resources it would become compatible enough? Then maybe Microsoft will think twice before shoving stuff like Vista and Windows 8 to customers.
For example, I don't see how you can decide what rights a human/animal hybrid has without first knowing what the cognitive capabilities of the hybrid are (is it more human or more animal in it's ability to understand itself and the world?
Doh. It's obvious. You know the upper bound of some future hybrid will at least be human (if not higher). And for others they won't be.
So why'd you need to create the problem first before working out the solution? And if you figure out there is no good solution to a theoretical problem why work towards making the theoretical problem a real problem? What's the benefit to the world that would make it worth it? So you can get a grant? Or because the benefit to everyone would be worth it?
The problem is, if we don't do it, someone else will.
That's a really stupid excuse to do stuff. Yes, if you don't jump off a cliff now, someone else may eventually do so. But if you don't do it now, it means it's more likely to happen later than earlier. And that buys the rest of us some time. There have been inventions and discoveries that were lost and took a long time to be reinvented/rediscovered again - so it's not like the "someone else will" is necessarily soon.
As for who is this "we", it's everyone. The more people who start thinking about whether it is really a good idea to do something from a long term and "big picture" perspective, the more likely things will be better for us. And that's why I posted about it.
But on a related topic I think we really should start seriously considering whether we should postpone certain paths of research instead of just doing things because we can. Too often we are doing things just because the technology is ready. Whether society and laws are ready, doesn't even get a consideration.
For example: the creation of viable human-animal[1] hybrids may be possible in the future. Same goes for certain mixtures of human, cyborg, animals, AIs etc. But if we are not ready to decide whether to give such entities (and which entities) the same rights AND responsibilities AND penalties as humans then we really shouldn't go down these paths yet. e.g. how do we decide that some entity is legally human or not?
There are other nonrelated paths of research but with similar problems of whether we really should do them yet. In many cases the benefit to harm ratio would still be rather low.
It's not like we have infinite resources, and there are plenty of more useful things to do research on. So why not do those first then do the other stuff later once we've figured out how to deal with the issues. It's not like some game where if we screw up, we can restore from a savepoint and do other research/tech paths first.
Researching into giving everyone a tool that could kill everyone else in an instant may be a bad idea if we haven't got to the stage where none of us will use it to kill whether on purpose or by accident. That of course is a big stretch, but supposedly it doesn't take very much money and resources to create a deadly virus that will kill many millions of people.
[1] Yes I know humans are animals too, so if you don't know what I mean by "animal" then you should realize the problem even more.
Say by 2016 ReactOS is perfect. That still doesn't solve.NET applications. Say that takes 2 more years and gets them to.NET 2. By 2018 we are talking.NET 6 applications are standard in business, while they can now run 2005's software well.
.NET 6? Uh are we talking about the same thing here? I thought we were talking about people who are still stuck on Windows XP. The sort who are likely to also be stuck on IE6 and using old active X controls. The sort who might still be using.Net 2.0. And the sort who certainly wouldn't be using.NET6 in 2018.
So it does not matter that ReactOS may never catch up with Microsoft, as long as ReactOS can catch up with the current businesses and organizations that are also having difficulty keeping up with Microsoft's changes.
If the Chinese Gov cares that much maybe they should start throwing some resources at ReactOS or similar.
People might have laughed at Red Flag Linux. But if they produce a working XP compatible OS I bet a number of large corporations would be sorely tempted.
Microsoft might even start listening a bit better;).
She is an avid supporter of UMNO - a RACIST ORGANIZATION which is still practicing APARTHEID in the country that it rules over (Malaysia, in this case).
Citation please?
She is an active player in an organization which supports the global jihadist movement.
Plus even if she is an UMNO member you'd have to show she is "an active player".
Otherwise you could tar all Democrat and Republican members with a similar brush.
If they can crack a website's passwords at GPU speeds it means the site is already been compromised.
That's why I don't bother making really strong passwords for most websites. It's a waste of my time - the site is more likely to get hacked then my password bruteforced over network connections. Every few months there's a web service getting pwned.
It's silly to waste time making your password much stronger than a typical website's admin password.
FWIW I've encountered at least one online bank that actually limits passwords to 8 characters for some unknown stupid reason.
If we're going to have technology to improve delivery what would be good is a special receiving container/room.
The container will receive packages and help automatically sign for stuff (e.g. generate a digital signature). It will not verify actual receipt of the desired goods anymore than you signing for it means you received desired stuff in good working order. But it would at least verify that something was delivered and prevent it from easily being stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
If the database fits into that amount of RAM, then wouldn't that mean I/O is not a limiting factor?
Depends on whether you still need the database around if the power ever goes off.
In some applications the DBs are just read-only or temporary and you copy/build them from permanent storage so it doesn't matter.
But in many other DB applications you do need to write and it needs to actually be permanently written (within monetary and physical constraints). And it often has to be written when you tell the user it's written. Bad stuff happens if you tell the users/customers "transaction succeeded", delay writing the transactions till later but then the power/battery fails and there's completely no record for thousands of transactions.
After marvelling, compare with a housefly (or similar) to see how far behind we are in terms of technology.
"AI" (including basic prediction), navigation, collision avoidance, flight performance (including flight time, speed and range, acceleration/"gees"), location of fuel and raw fuel conversion tech, self-manufacture (including autonomous miner bot aka maggot and fly-factory - pupae), etc. All in a 12 milligram package (typical).
An unladen honeybee is about 80mg.
Also compare with the smallest bird in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_Hummingbird
Weighs about 2 grams (for the US folk that's less than half a nickel).
Doesn't seem geeky to me. How about programming games:
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_(video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_War
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Programming_games
How much geekier can it get than writing programs as a game?
I think a boomerang was thrown further.
:).
So my question is: what roughly is the maximum theoretical distance an unpowered flying object can be thrown by a top athlete? Assuming no wind, level ground and the usual stuff for a record.
If I were allowed one more question I'd ask what might be the optimum shape of that object, but nevermind
Hope they treat accidental shoplifters in your country just as nicely then.
Because some favoured corporation is doing it?
My advice is if you want to avoid (not evade) tax in a big way you should consult a real pro.
I don't know much about tax stuff but if I understand correctly the Tax arms of many governments are able to use the "guilty till proven innocent" approach.
e.g. if one day your undisclosed profits amount to something significant and you have a more lavish lifestyle, more expensive house and car than explainable by your tax filings the Tax Dept may require you to prove yourself innocent or get in big trouble.
I don't know whether this is also true for Norway.
That's why I find it worrying when people do research into human-animal hybrids, etc. The technology may be ready long before human society is ready for the results.
Would the benefits be worth it? And what would the "benefits" be - a new class of slaves?
More and more we should start considering whether we should do research on stuff based on the long term consequences than merely it can now be done, or "someone else will do it if I don't" (that someone may only do it much later).
But how can anyone be sure that "sensitive" information won't be planted on his devices? Can I trust someone who steals my stuff to not frame me?
Encrypting everything might make it harder to plant something on the laptop in a convincing manner, but it might increase the odds of your stuff being stolen by them.
But if you really believe their is a chance that drones are going to be dropping packages off at you doorstep in under 10 - 15 years, you neither understand the logistics and you are both delusional and naive. Set down the Adderal and the Code Red. Maybe light some incense and listen to some Tibetan singing bowls or something.
Speaking of Tibetan singing bowls and doorsteps if your doorstep is in the USA maybe not. But if Tibet is near your doorstep maybe...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57601531-76/drones-in-china-deliver-packages-even-a-birthday-cake/
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/02/amazon-is-joining-not-starting-the-drone-delivery-revolution/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/tech/2013-09/03/content_16941199.htm
Not saying it's a good idea. Just pointing out that drones may be dropping packages off sooner than you think, depending on where your doorstep is.
quote from the last link:
Currently several major Chinese couriers like S.F.Express have expanded to counties or even villages. But there are still areas that are more remote or with poor transport infrastructure. It is expected the drones will be useful for delivering online shopping goods to those places.
Really? Citation please. Why is there this observer phenomenon that I experience?
Or maybe you're someone who doesn't experience it and hence don't know what I'm talking about.
I find it funny people can have so much faith and certainty there's no God and use simple trite logic to prove it when the same simple trite logic proves that our universe is stranger than most think.
For example, scientists can't even explain one of the first observations each and every one of them makes - consciousness - self awareness in the way we experience it. By the same logic of Russell's teapot and Occam's razor wouldn't the "consciousness" phenomenon not exist, other than we personally observing it? Couldn't you in theory have a machine or a human being that behaved exactly as if it was self aware, but didn't experience what we experience? If not, why not? Prove it. Or conclusively prove that other people do or do not experience this consciousness you do. In short, explain your invisible little friend that is yourself and why others do or do not have their own little friends that is themselves.
I have no proof that others experience this consciousness, I have faith that they do because I experience it myself and don't believe that I am so special. But I find no way to prove it conclusively.
In line with the weirdness of our universe perhaps there both is and is not a God. Just like we've shown that stuff can be in a superposition. And each of us is also in a superposition, and what happens in the end for each of us depends on whether we interfere constructively or destructively.
And why wouldn't .Net stuff that works on XP not work on an XP compatible OS?
I'm not saying ReactOS is fully XP compatible, it's far from it at the moment. But perhaps with enough resources it would become compatible enough? Then maybe Microsoft will think twice before shoving stuff like Vista and Windows 8 to customers.
As it is you can already install the .Net 2.0 redistributable package on it. http://www.reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.3.15 ;).
Whether it works or not is another thing
Doesn't refute my point at all. In this case the benefit of developing nuclear weapons outweighs the cost/danger of not developing nuclear weapons.
For example, I don't see how you can decide what rights a human/animal hybrid has without first knowing what the cognitive capabilities of the hybrid are (is it more human or more animal in it's ability to understand itself and the world?
Doh. It's obvious. You know the upper bound of some future hybrid will at least be human (if not higher). And for others they won't be.
So why'd you need to create the problem first before working out the solution? And if you figure out there is no good solution to a theoretical problem why work towards making the theoretical problem a real problem? What's the benefit to the world that would make it worth it? So you can get a grant? Or because the benefit to everyone would be worth it?
The problem is, if we don't do it, someone else will.
That's a really stupid excuse to do stuff. Yes, if you don't jump off a cliff now, someone else may eventually do so. But if you don't do it now, it means it's more likely to happen later than earlier. And that buys the rest of us some time. There have been inventions and discoveries that were lost and took a long time to be reinvented/rediscovered again - so it's not like the "someone else will" is necessarily soon.
As for who is this "we", it's everyone. The more people who start thinking about whether it is really a good idea to do something from a long term and "big picture" perspective, the more likely things will be better for us. And that's why I posted about it.
And how'd that make a difference? I was talking about those who are still stuck on Windows XP whoever they are.
It should be obvious that a Windows XP compatible OS is not for the sort who keep up with Microsoft's latest stuff.
But on a related topic I think we really should start seriously considering whether we should postpone certain paths of research instead of just doing things because we can. Too often we are doing things just because the technology is ready. Whether society and laws are ready, doesn't even get a consideration.
For example: the creation of viable human-animal[1] hybrids may be possible in the future. Same goes for certain mixtures of human, cyborg, animals, AIs etc. But if we are not ready to decide whether to give such entities (and which entities) the same rights AND responsibilities AND penalties as humans then we really shouldn't go down these paths yet. e.g. how do we decide that some entity is legally human or not?
There are other nonrelated paths of research but with similar problems of whether we really should do them yet. In many cases the benefit to harm ratio would still be rather low.
It's not like we have infinite resources, and there are plenty of more useful things to do research on. So why not do those first then do the other stuff later once we've figured out how to deal with the issues. It's not like some game where if we screw up, we can restore from a savepoint and do other research/tech paths first.
Researching into giving everyone a tool that could kill everyone else in an instant may be a bad idea if we haven't got to the stage where none of us will use it to kill whether on purpose or by accident. That of course is a big stretch, but supposedly it doesn't take very much money and resources to create a deadly virus that will kill many millions of people.
[1] Yes I know humans are animals too, so if you don't know what I mean by "animal" then you should realize the problem even more.
Why not? I thought the whole point of having an XP compatible OS was to run the same apps that would run on Windows XP?
So why wouldn't a pirated copy of Office run on an XP compatible OS?
Say by 2016 ReactOS is perfect. That still doesn't solve .NET applications. Say that takes 2 more years and gets them to .NET 2. By 2018 we are talking .NET 6 applications are standard in business, while they can now run 2005's software well.
.NET 6? Uh are we talking about the same thing here? I thought we were talking about people who are still stuck on Windows XP. The sort who are likely to also be stuck on IE6 and using old active X controls. The sort who might still be using .Net 2.0. And the sort who certainly wouldn't be using .NET6 in 2018.
So it does not matter that ReactOS may never catch up with Microsoft, as long as ReactOS can catch up with the current businesses and organizations that are also having difficulty keeping up with Microsoft's changes.
If the Chinese Gov cares that much maybe they should start throwing some resources at ReactOS or similar.
;).
People might have laughed at Red Flag Linux. But if they produce a working XP compatible OS I bet a number of large corporations would be sorely tempted.
Microsoft might even start listening a bit better
She is an avid supporter of UMNO - a RACIST ORGANIZATION which is still practicing APARTHEID in the country that it rules over (Malaysia, in this case).
Citation please?
She is an active player in an organization which supports the global jihadist movement.
Plus even if she is an UMNO member you'd have to show she is "an active player".
Otherwise you could tar all Democrat and Republican members with a similar brush.
Plus the last I checked the US was still friendly with the leader of UMNO.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/02/readout-president-s-call-prime-minister-najib-malaysia
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/10/11/John-Kerry-US-Secretary-of-State-Najib-Tun-Razak.aspx
Is Najib on the no-fly list too?
If they can crack a website's passwords at GPU speeds it means the site is already been compromised.
That's why I don't bother making really strong passwords for most websites. It's a waste of my time - the site is more likely to get hacked then my password bruteforced over network connections. Every few months there's a web service getting pwned.
It's silly to waste time making your password much stronger than a typical website's admin password.
FWIW I've encountered at least one online bank that actually limits passwords to 8 characters for some unknown stupid reason.
If we're going to have technology to improve delivery what would be good is a special receiving container/room.
The container will receive packages and help automatically sign for stuff (e.g. generate a digital signature). It will not verify actual receipt of the desired goods anymore than you signing for it means you received desired stuff in good working order. But it would at least verify that something was delivered and prevent it from easily being stolen.
OK I realize my mistake. What will happen is it will end going in a different shaped orbit.