when people were excited to get a Solaris SPARC workstation.
They weren't excited because it was a SPARC workstation. They were excited because it was a Solaris workstation. For much of the 1990s, and even into the early 2000s, Solaris provided perhaps the best workstation OS experience around. It had the best desktop environments, it had the best userland software, it had excellent development tools, it had a lot of advanced functionality, and compared to its contemporaries it was very pleasant to use. Although Solaris workstations weren't exactly cheap, they were relatively affordable to serious users.
Yes, part of Solaris' appeal was due to its tight integration with the hardware, but the hardware itself was largely irrelevant to most users. It was the Solaris experience that they wanted and desired.
NeXT systems running NeXTSTEP were a real competitor to Solaris and SPARC workstations, but NeXT systems were prohibitively expensive for even many deep-pocketed business users
As I recall, Next machines were actually cheaper than contemporary Sparc Stations but Next was targeting users who were mostly unwilling to pay so much. With rare and mostly weird exceptions* Sparcstations were not used by nor priced for rank and file paper pushers. These were engineering workstations. They were use for tasks beyond the reach of contemporary PC's. In the beginning this was about raw computational power and 32-bit addressing when PC's were 16-bit. In the mid to late 90's, it was 64-bit addressing. PC's were catching up in raw power but they were still 32-bit. Unix wasn't given much thought. All engineering workstations ran some form of Unix. Sparc machines were never fully on top in either hardware or OS. Alphas were faster. IRIX had a better gui. Neither was a well supported by third parties. Then, as now, if too you need is only available for vendor A's systems, you buy vendor A's systems. It doesn't matter that vendor B's machines are faster or vendor C's machine have a nicer OS.
The big change was 64-bit PC's. x86's machines had already passed Sparc in performance in the push to 1 Ghz. But the lack of 64-bit addressing meant that couldn't be used for the big jobs that really needed the performance. Once that obstacle was removed, there was a huge push to move everything to PC's. Software vendors followed because their customers demanded it.
*In the mid-90's, Charles Schwab tried to replace all PC's with relatively cheap Sparc Classics. It was an attempt to reign in risky behavior by their employees by giving them computers that were not only locked down but physically incapable of running software they may have brought from home. It whole operation failed miserably.
While pivoting is not really new, it now happens more often (sometimes multiple times for the same company) and it no longer unusual for a pivot to have little at all to do with the original idea.
If it costs years and tens of millions of dollars to reach product, you don't generally see dramatic pivots. But when you can reach product in months with handful of employees and no capital equipment, the team becomes the most valuable asset. Preserve that in you pivot and you really haven't lost much. That's a far cry from specialized machinery, purpose built buildings, and years of non-transferable research. In the later case, you are likely to see product refinement in pursuit of a somewhat different market but not a full scale pivot where you throw almost everything out and start over.
My favorite restaurants already know all about me, because they are my favorites and I frequent them to a degree that I am known by the owners and staff. They already know what I like because they talk to me and because I tell them, not because of a bunch of numbers being crunched.
They don't need data mining for people who go to same restaurants all the time and order the same dishes. They need it for people like me who go mix up different restaurants and different dishes as a matter of course. There is predictability in there but you need to crunch a significant amount of data over a long period to find it.
Do people eat that much duck that this is a problem?
It actually works the other way around. Low volume dishes have more potential for volatility and that is problem when trying to balance between having too much (waste) and having too little (can't fill customer orders).
But what are they going to do about stupid people who think organic food is better and gluten is going to kill them?
Why would you need to do anything about them? As a retailer, their job is to exploit customer irrationality for profit.
Aside: the anti-gluten crusade actually has utility for anyone who needs to avoid wheat products. Wheat, especially wheat bran, gives me digestive difficulty. While I'm pretty sure the issue is not gluten, "gluten-free" is a good proxy for "does not contain wheat"
Alas, much "gluten-free" food contains copious amounts of dairy products, which is another food type I have trouble with.
Given the trend in phones, pretty soon there won't be electronic gear bigger than a mobile phone that still fits in the overhead bins. Problem solved. No more need for screening.
I know people who go to chiropractors because it is treatment they can afford. Regular doctors might get better result if you throw enough time and money at the problem but if your budget maxes out before you get any effective treatment, what are you left with?
Why wouldn't you be a failure of a human being if you couldn't work 70-80 hours a week? Realistically, unless you have other responsibilities, you should be able to easily work 100 hours a week. That's not even 16 hours every day!
The missing qualifiers are "while doing quality work" and "having quality of life".
Most people don't even manage 40 hours per week of quality work. If working 70 hrs/week means your work quality suffers then your startup is almost certainly doomed. If your day job catches on to your declining work quality, you may lose that too.
Sacrifice quality of life for too long and you get burnout, which also degrades quality of work.
Sorry to bother you elders. But is it necessary now?
Yes, if you don't want to post from "Anonymous Coward" with starting score of zero.
For the first few years, Slashdot didn't have logins. You just entered whatever you wanted on the From: line. Then logins were available but not required. You could still enter whatever you wanted on the From: line. Finally, posts from non-logged in users became "Anonymous Coward" with zero starting score.
I moved pretty quickly to create a login after the Anonymous Coward change but I still ended up a five digit UID.
I had been posting for some time when logins were first implemented so I probably could have snagged a two digit UID. (The one digit UID's probably all went to staff) I just didn't want another login if I could avoid it.
If they have a slant it isn't really greased by the same powers here.
Except for the wars where the British follow the American lead. But, yes, I think the BBC is generally a good source. When looking for a news source that is relatively unbiased on a particular issue (the best you can reasonably get), look for someone who doesn't have a strong reason to care about the outcome. Thus, foreign media can provide impartiality (if not detail) on domestic news. International news is trickier since the US has it's fingers in so many pots.
The real disconnect is that Travelers want to buy a trip(airfare, car rental, hotel, attraction), Hoteliers want to sell a stay..
Really? I have the opposite experience. Travel sites keep trying to sell me a trip but their bundles are always overpriced, contain the wrong things, or both. I tell them to go away and let me book the pieces individually.
For corporate travel, it isn't really about what I want anyway. I am forced to use the corporate travel agency but it's not my money so I don't care so much. I still end up declining parts of the bundle and buying outside where it allowed and the bundle version is clearly inferior. I will probably book my hotel directly the next time because the perks are somewhat useful and it is easier than justifying another line on the expense report if I were to pay for them directly.
A typical yearly accrual is just barely enough for a reasonable vacation. Unfortunately, there is always a need to take off a day here and a day there throughout the year. In the end, there isn't enough time unless your idea of a vacation is a staycation or a long weekend. Thus, for those who really like to travel, it often necessary to accrue for a second year to get enough time to actually go someplace. This is especially true when starting a new job. Since you start at zero, there is virtually no chance for a vacation the first year. My last job only lasted two and a half years. I never did manage that vacation. Between unsteady contracts, short duration jobs and actual unemployment, I haven't had a real vacation in seven years. Since I only started the current job two months ago, it will be at least another year before that dry spell ends.
I could probably count the number of times I"ve used chrome on one hand.
So, in light of my anecdotal experience with it, might I ask those many of you that *do* use chrome as your primary browser.....why?
What benefits does it give over other browsers? I primarily use FF on my windows and Linux boxes...and mostly safari on my OS X boxes.
Supported Flash. I started using Chrome when Adobe stopped updating the Firefox plugin for Flash. It was already bad, causing many crashes and corruption but without updates, it was hopeless. Chrome had a plash plugin that was still maintained and was less prone to crash the browser. So I uninstalled the Firefox plugin and went to Chrome for those sites that still demanded flash. I still run two browsers but I'm about 2/3 Chrome now. When I can finally dump Flash, I might drift back.
How on earth could they not include any one of the Garmin devices? I guess they had costs involved but still seems like they'd include one of the (I assume) most popular fitness trackers available.
It doesn't really matter, other than less exposure for Garmin. None of the consumer devices, Garmin included, have the instrumentation to get reliable calorie estimates. GPS tracks and heart rate are not the rate data.
Rather surprisingly, Garmin units will give you a calorie estimate even when there is no heart rate data. It is just guess work based on knowing what activity you are doing and how long, along with user entered data like height, sex, and weight. Garbage, really. It gets even worse if you are doing an activity that is not running or cycling. I found that my Garmin 310xt would report much higher calorie numbers if recorded my skating sessions as "other" then if I used "cycling". I have no idea what sort of activity "other" is based on but I guessed that "cycling" was probably closest so I used that. With the 920xt, there are practical considerations that make it easier to record as "other" so that's what I use. I don't pay much attention to the number, though.
No you don't. An infinitely fast computer can instantly try all possible permutations of logic, and output the simplest program that meets the spec.
That assumes a machine readable spec. That just moves the goal to writing and debugging that spec. Because specs often have errors, especially when they are machine readable. They are, after all, just higher level programming languages. High level languages like we use today were once described as executable specs.
So, we are still left the question of what this specification language will look like such it is expressive enough to define the problem, yet minimize the errors.
I don't know what this language will look like but I can say a few things:
1) It will not be natural language. Natural language is ambiguous. While the problem definition says the computer is infinitely fast, it does not way we have powerful AI that understands the context of the problem and knows how to ask questions when things are unclear. 2) The language will not have implementation shortcuts embedded in it. No requirement to define a variable in read order before use, for instance. If the "compiler" has to read the all the files a 1000 times to make sense of the program, that is what it will do. 3) It will not actually compile. Compilers make programs faster but making life more difficult for the programmer. There is no sense in that if the computer is infinitely fast. The language will be interpreted from the original input source every time. 4) It will always run with extensive debugging facilities turned on. 5) It will compress everything. Why? Because when execution time is not a factor, the next limit is storage
Overall, they took 4.7 percent fewer sick days over the period of the experiment
So, assuming a 24 hour day, they increased their base payroll cost by 33% while saving 4.7% on sick days. While I would certainly rather work fewer hours, this experiment actually shows that it doesn't come anywhere close to saving money for the facility or even breaking even.
Article summary: "DDR5 is coming and it is going to be faster than DDR4"
That's it. No technical details at all. Will it be point to point? If not, how many ranks? What voltage? What sort of termination? Will there even be DIMMs? You won't find answers to any of those questions in TFA or any page linked from the TFA. The only significant piece of information is confirmation that JEDEC has not given up on DDR.
I keep hearing this, but I've never experienced such a scenario. If you don't run your server from an ISP's dynamic IP pool and don't run an open relay, you're extremely unlikely to be blocked by these services (as shitty and unaccountable as they are). If you go a step further and set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, it's even less likely for mail to be binned as spam.
Are you sure you're not just sending spam or running an open relay?
Either you have been very lucky or have not been paying attention. I don't sent spam. I don't run an open relay. I've had SPF for a decade. I added DKIM and DEMARC about a month ago. It hasn't made a difference. When self hosted on Sonic, I had to check every few months for RBL's who misclassified my static IP as dynamic. Less frequently, there were bone headed operations like Earthlink to deal with.
Since moving the server to a VPS, it's been far worse. It took about a month to get minor mismanaged RBL's to report clean. Then I found that AT&T was blocking me. That took several months, countless requests, multiple support forum posts to get any action. Dealing with Outlook.com delivery lead me to discover that Symantec somehow thought I was sending Snow Shoe spam. The automated removal page worked for about a day, then I would once again have "negative reputation". Through a forum post I found an email address for getting properly removed Symantec's list. That worked. Didn't fix Outlook delivery though.
I'm still fighting Microsoft. They have a removal page for hard IP blocks but they don't even acknowledge that I have a list that sends mail to Junk, though they clearly do
And these are just the ones I know about. There could be more but even they just silently junk incoming email, I wouldn't necessarily know. I should probably check Earthlink again.
That's another huge advantage of email: businesses can run their own email servers, ensure that their internal communication never leaves the premises and isn't harvested by the likes of Google, be in control of account creation and naming, apply any other policies they deem necessary, while still ensuring that anyone in the world can contact them using their choice of email client or service.
Yes, but this is being undermined by a proliferation of private and public spam blocking services. Even if a server is blocked by mistake, it can take months and many many hours of effort to get through to the right people to get the block removed. We are headed toward a world where only large entities like Google can insure that their email actually gets delivered.
Moore's Law wasn't a goal someone set and then did.
It was merely an observation of a pace of technical advance.
That's not exactly true. Moore's Law started as an observation but it soon became an expectation: a required pace of advancement that every fab (IDM for foundry) had to match if they wanted to remain competitive. Over time, the amount of investment required to meet the target increased, and the number of competitors dwindled. Only four remain today in general logic. The economics and the definitions for advanced nodes have become dubious.
The idea that you would propose something like this, as if the proposal itself was actually accomplishing something, is asinine.
But your conclusion is spot on. Even when keeping Moore's Law going became difficult and not just a natural progression, there was still a lot of inertia and economic imperative behind it. Research enabled innovations which enabled products which became tools that enabled new research, etc.
By contrast, there is no pipeline of innovation for reducing carbon emissions. There is a lot of work going but there is little connecting it all. A better wind turbine might not do much to help build the wind turbine after that much less better solar cells or biofuels. There is no reason to expect that progress will follow any particular pace or even be consistent.
Aren't "Ultrabooks" the Netbooks we all really wanted? We have 12-13" laptops now that probably have less volume than the 9-12" Netbooks they replaced.
Not really. Ultrabooks are thin and stylish at the expensive of practicality and generally not cheap. They are Intel's response to the Macbook Air. Netbooks are small, utilitarian, and cheap. They aren't for everyone or every application but the need for such machines still exists.
I kinda have the same reaction as if the headline said "For the First Time, More US Households Have Netflix Than a FishTank".
Putting aside that put are (usually) connected to a TV, how exactly are those two related? Especially when one is complementary to the other (and not exclusive).
Netflix has no commercials and you can watch anything in the catalogue at any time. If what you want to watch is on Netflix, it is just as good as having a DVR but less trouble.
They've been doing everything possible to make DVR usage as miserable as possible. Third party DVR's are mostly blocked so you are left with expensive and buggy captive DVRs that you can't take with you if change providers. (So you lose all your existing recordings) Broadcast flags block some shows from being recorded at all. But people don't like commercials or watching on the broadcasters schedule so they dump the whole cable/satellite package and go Netflix.
Of course, the qualify of Netflix's offering continues to decline, so I don't know how permanent this trend is. Further, the trend in recent streaming offerings is services that look remarkably like cable packages. Cost like them too with often with commercials that can't be skipped, a "broadcast" schedule and no DVR.
That struck me as odd too. If the colours in digital photos or movies don't look right, I would try to display them with different software. It's more likely that the software that displays is reading and interpreting the format of the file differently than bit-rot would only affect the colour pallette and not make the whole file unreadable.
Or the OP is using a different monitor. It doesn't matter if the new monitor better or worse than the old one. If it is different and the photos are adjusted for the old monitor, it will look "off".
Slashdot Mirror
They weren't excited because it was a SPARC workstation. They were excited because it was a Solaris workstation. For much of the 1990s, and even into the early 2000s, Solaris provided perhaps the best workstation OS experience around. It had the best desktop environments, it had the best userland software, it had excellent development tools, it had a lot of advanced functionality, and compared to its contemporaries it was very pleasant to use. Although Solaris workstations weren't exactly cheap, they were relatively affordable to serious users.
Yes, part of Solaris' appeal was due to its tight integration with the hardware, but the hardware itself was largely irrelevant to most users. It was the Solaris experience that they wanted and desired.
NeXT systems running NeXTSTEP were a real competitor to Solaris and SPARC workstations, but NeXT systems were prohibitively expensive for even many deep-pocketed business users
As I recall, Next machines were actually cheaper than contemporary Sparc Stations but Next was targeting users who were mostly unwilling to pay so much. With rare and mostly weird exceptions* Sparcstations were not used by nor priced for rank and file paper pushers. These were engineering workstations. They were use for tasks beyond the reach of contemporary PC's. In the beginning this was about raw computational power and 32-bit addressing when PC's were 16-bit. In the mid to late 90's, it was 64-bit addressing. PC's were catching up in raw power but they were still 32-bit. Unix wasn't given much thought. All engineering workstations ran some form of Unix. Sparc machines were never fully on top in either hardware or OS. Alphas were faster. IRIX had a better gui. Neither was a well supported by third parties. Then, as now, if too you need is only available for vendor A's systems, you buy vendor A's systems. It doesn't matter that vendor B's machines are faster or vendor C's machine have a nicer OS.
The big change was 64-bit PC's. x86's machines had already passed Sparc in performance in the push to 1 Ghz. But the lack of 64-bit addressing meant that couldn't be used for the big jobs that really needed the performance. Once that obstacle was removed, there was a huge push to move everything to PC's. Software vendors followed because their customers demanded it.
*In the mid-90's, Charles Schwab tried to replace all PC's with relatively cheap Sparc Classics. It was an attempt to reign in risky behavior by their employees by giving them computers that were not only locked down but physically incapable of running software they may have brought from home. It whole operation failed miserably.
While pivoting is not really new, it now happens more often (sometimes multiple times for the same company) and it no longer unusual for a pivot to have little at all to do with the original idea.
If it costs years and tens of millions of dollars to reach product, you don't generally see dramatic pivots. But when you can reach product in months with handful of employees and no capital equipment, the team becomes the most valuable asset. Preserve that in you pivot and you really haven't lost much. That's a far cry from specialized machinery, purpose built buildings, and years of non-transferable research. In the later case, you are likely to see product refinement in pursuit of a somewhat different market but not a full scale pivot where you throw almost everything out and start over.
My favorite restaurants already know all about me, because they are my favorites and I frequent them to a degree that I am known by the owners and staff. They already know what I like because they talk to me and because I tell them, not because of a bunch of numbers being crunched.
They don't need data mining for people who go to same restaurants all the time and order the same dishes. They need it for people like me who go mix up different restaurants and different dishes as a matter of course. There is predictability in there but you need to crunch a significant amount of data over a long period to find it.
Do people eat that much duck that this is a problem?
It actually works the other way around. Low volume dishes have more potential for volatility and that is problem when trying to balance between having too much (waste) and having too little (can't fill customer orders).
But what are they going to do about stupid people who think organic food is better and gluten is going to kill them?
Why would you need to do anything about them? As a retailer, their job is to exploit customer irrationality for profit.
Aside: the anti-gluten crusade actually has utility for anyone who needs to avoid wheat products. Wheat, especially wheat bran, gives me digestive difficulty. While I'm pretty sure the issue is not gluten, "gluten-free" is a good proxy for "does not contain wheat"
Alas, much "gluten-free" food contains copious amounts of dairy products, which is another food type I have trouble with.
Given the trend in phones, pretty soon there won't be electronic gear bigger than a mobile phone that still fits in the overhead bins. Problem solved. No more need for screening.
I know people who go to chiropractors because it is treatment they can afford. Regular doctors might get better result if you throw enough time and money at the problem but if your budget maxes out before you get any effective treatment, what are you left with?
Why wouldn't you be a failure of a human being if you couldn't work 70-80 hours a week? Realistically, unless you have other responsibilities, you should be able to easily work 100 hours a week. That's not even 16 hours every day!
The missing qualifiers are "while doing quality work" and "having quality of life".
Most people don't even manage 40 hours per week of quality work. If working 70 hrs/week means your work quality suffers then your startup is almost certainly doomed. If your day job catches on to your declining work quality, you may lose that too.
Sacrifice quality of life for too long and you get burnout, which also degrades quality of work.
Sorry to bother you elders. But is it necessary now?
Yes, if you don't want to post from "Anonymous Coward" with starting score of zero.
For the first few years, Slashdot didn't have logins. You just entered whatever you wanted on the From: line.
Then logins were available but not required. You could still enter whatever you wanted on the From: line.
Finally, posts from non-logged in users became "Anonymous Coward" with zero starting score.
I moved pretty quickly to create a login after the Anonymous Coward change but I still ended up a five digit UID.
I had been posting for some time when logins were first implemented so I probably could have snagged a two digit UID. (The one digit UID's probably all went to staff) I just didn't want another login if I could avoid it.
If they have a slant it isn't really greased by the same powers here.
Except for the wars where the British follow the American lead. But, yes, I think the BBC is generally a good source. When looking for a news source that is relatively unbiased on a particular issue (the best you can reasonably get), look for someone who doesn't have a strong reason to care about the outcome. Thus, foreign media can provide impartiality (if not detail) on domestic news. International news is trickier since the US has it's fingers in so many pots.
The real disconnect is that Travelers want to buy a trip(airfare, car rental, hotel, attraction), Hoteliers want to sell a stay..
Really? I have the opposite experience. Travel sites keep trying to sell me a trip but their bundles are always overpriced, contain the wrong things, or both. I tell them to go away and let me book the pieces individually.
For corporate travel, it isn't really about what I want anyway. I am forced to use the corporate travel agency but it's not my money so I don't care so much. I still end up declining parts of the bundle and buying outside where it allowed and the bundle version is clearly inferior. I will probably book my hotel directly the next time because the perks are somewhat useful and it is easier than justifying another line on the expense report if I were to pay for them directly.
I think there's something to be said for low UIDs :-)
Yes. Below a certain point, they indicate those who gave into the call to create logins before it was necessary.
A typical yearly accrual is just barely enough for a reasonable vacation. Unfortunately, there is always a need to take off a day here and a day there throughout the year. In the end, there isn't enough time unless your idea of a vacation is a staycation or a long weekend. Thus, for those who really like to travel, it often necessary to accrue for a second year to get enough time to actually go someplace. This is especially true when starting a new job. Since you start at zero, there is virtually no chance for a vacation the first year. My last job only lasted two and a half years. I never did manage that vacation. Between unsteady contracts, short duration jobs and actual unemployment, I haven't had a real vacation in seven years. Since I only started the current job two months ago, it will be at least another year before that dry spell ends.
This is interesting.
I could probably count the number of times I"ve used chrome on one hand.
So, in light of my anecdotal experience with it, might I ask those many of you that *do* use chrome as your primary browser.....why?
What benefits does it give over other browsers? I primarily use FF on my windows and Linux boxes...and mostly safari on my OS X boxes.
Supported Flash. I started using Chrome when Adobe stopped updating the Firefox plugin for Flash. It was already bad, causing many crashes and corruption but without updates, it was hopeless. Chrome had a plash plugin that was still maintained and was less prone to crash the browser. So I uninstalled the Firefox plugin and went to Chrome for those sites that still demanded flash. I still run two browsers but I'm about 2/3 Chrome now. When I can finally dump Flash, I might drift back.
How on earth could they not include any one of the Garmin devices? I guess they had costs involved but still seems like they'd include one of the (I assume) most popular fitness trackers available.
It doesn't really matter, other than less exposure for Garmin. None of the consumer devices, Garmin included, have the instrumentation to get reliable calorie estimates. GPS tracks and heart rate are not the rate data.
Rather surprisingly, Garmin units will give you a calorie estimate even when there is no heart rate data. It is just guess work based on knowing what activity you are doing and how long, along with user entered data like height, sex, and weight. Garbage, really. It gets even worse if you are doing an activity that is not running or cycling. I found that my Garmin 310xt would report much higher calorie numbers if recorded my skating sessions as "other" then if I used "cycling". I have no idea what sort of activity "other" is based on but I guessed that "cycling" was probably closest so I used that. With the 920xt, there are practical considerations that make it easier to record as "other" so that's what I use. I don't pay much attention to the number, though.
You still have to write the correct logic.
No you don't. An infinitely fast computer can instantly try all possible permutations of logic, and output the simplest program that meets the spec.
That assumes a machine readable spec. That just moves the goal to writing and debugging that spec. Because specs often have errors, especially when they are machine readable. They are, after all, just higher level programming languages. High level languages like we use today were once described as executable specs.
So, we are still left the question of what this specification language will look like such it is expressive enough to define the problem, yet minimize the errors.
I don't know what this language will look like but I can say a few things:
1) It will not be natural language. Natural language is ambiguous. While the problem definition says the computer is infinitely fast, it does not way we have powerful AI that understands the context of the problem and knows how to ask questions when things are unclear.
2) The language will not have implementation shortcuts embedded in it. No requirement to define a variable in read order before use, for instance. If the "compiler" has to read the all the files a 1000 times to make sense of the program, that is what it will do.
3) It will not actually compile. Compilers make programs faster but making life more difficult for the programmer. There is no sense in that if the computer is infinitely fast. The language will be interpreted from the original input source every time.
4) It will always run with extensive debugging facilities turned on.
5) It will compress everything. Why? Because when execution time is not a factor, the next limit is storage
From TFA:
Overall, they took 4.7 percent fewer sick days over the period of the experiment
So, assuming a 24 hour day, they increased their base payroll cost by 33% while saving 4.7% on sick days. While I would certainly rather work fewer hours, this experiment actually shows that it doesn't come anywhere close to saving money for the facility or even breaking even.
Article summary: "DDR5 is coming and it is going to be faster than DDR4"
That's it. No technical details at all. Will it be point to point? If not, how many ranks? What voltage? What sort of termination? Will there even be DIMMs?
You won't find answers to any of those questions in TFA or any page linked from the TFA. The only significant piece of information is confirmation that JEDEC has not given up on DDR.
I keep hearing this, but I've never experienced such a scenario. If you don't run your server from an ISP's dynamic IP pool and don't run an open relay, you're extremely unlikely to be blocked by these services (as shitty and unaccountable as they are). If you go a step further and set up SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, it's even less likely for mail to be binned as spam.
Are you sure you're not just sending spam or running an open relay?
Either you have been very lucky or have not been paying attention. I don't sent spam. I don't run an open relay. I've had SPF for a decade. I added DKIM and DEMARC about a month ago. It hasn't made a difference. When self hosted on Sonic, I had to check every few months for RBL's who misclassified my static IP as dynamic. Less frequently, there were bone headed operations like Earthlink to deal with.
Since moving the server to a VPS, it's been far worse. It took about a month to get minor mismanaged RBL's to report clean. Then I found that AT&T was blocking me. That took several months, countless requests, multiple support forum posts to get any action. Dealing with Outlook.com delivery lead me to discover that Symantec somehow thought I was sending Snow Shoe spam. The automated removal page worked for about a day, then I would once again have "negative reputation". Through a forum post I found an email address for getting properly removed Symantec's list. That worked. Didn't fix Outlook delivery though.
I'm still fighting Microsoft. They have a removal page for hard IP blocks but they don't even acknowledge that I have a list that sends mail to Junk, though they clearly do
And these are just the ones I know about. There could be more but even they just silently junk incoming email, I wouldn't necessarily know. I should probably check Earthlink again.
That's another huge advantage of email: businesses can run their own email servers, ensure that their internal communication never leaves the premises and isn't harvested by the likes of Google, be in control of account creation and naming, apply any other policies they deem necessary, while still ensuring that anyone in the world can contact them using their choice of email client or service.
Yes, but this is being undermined by a proliferation of private and public spam blocking services. Even if a server is blocked by mistake, it can take months and many many hours of effort to get through to the right people to get the block removed. We are headed toward a world where only large entities like Google can insure that their email actually gets delivered.
Moore's Law wasn't a goal someone set and then did.
It was merely an observation of a pace of technical advance.
That's not exactly true. Moore's Law started as an observation but it soon became an expectation: a required pace of advancement that every fab (IDM for foundry) had to match if they wanted to remain competitive. Over time, the amount of investment required to meet the target increased, and the number of competitors dwindled. Only four remain today in general logic. The economics and the definitions for advanced nodes have become dubious.
The idea that you would propose something like this, as if the proposal itself was actually accomplishing something, is asinine.
But your conclusion is spot on. Even when keeping Moore's Law going became difficult and not just a natural progression, there was still a lot of inertia and economic imperative behind it. Research enabled innovations which enabled products which became tools that enabled new research, etc.
By contrast, there is no pipeline of innovation for reducing carbon emissions. There is a lot of work going but there is little connecting it all. A better wind turbine might not do much to help build the wind turbine after that much less better solar cells or biofuels. There is no reason to expect that progress will follow any particular pace or even be consistent.
Aren't "Ultrabooks" the Netbooks we all really wanted? We have 12-13" laptops now that probably have less volume than the 9-12" Netbooks they replaced.
Not really. Ultrabooks are thin and stylish at the expensive of practicality and generally not cheap. They are Intel's response to the Macbook Air. Netbooks are small, utilitarian, and cheap. They aren't for everyone or every application but the need for such machines still exists.
I kinda have the same reaction as if the headline said "For the First Time, More US Households Have Netflix Than a FishTank".
Putting aside that put are (usually) connected to a TV, how exactly are those two related? Especially when one is complementary to the other (and not exclusive).
Netflix has no commercials and you can watch anything in the catalogue at any time. If what you want to watch is on Netflix, it is just as good as having a DVR but less trouble.
They've been doing everything possible to make DVR usage as miserable as possible. Third party DVR's are mostly blocked so you are left with expensive and buggy captive DVRs that you can't take with you if change providers. (So you lose all your existing recordings) Broadcast flags block some shows from being recorded at all. But people don't like commercials or watching on the broadcasters schedule so they dump the whole cable/satellite package and go Netflix.
Of course, the qualify of Netflix's offering continues to decline, so I don't know how permanent this trend is. Further, the trend in recent streaming offerings is services that look remarkably like cable packages. Cost like them too with often with commercials that can't be skipped, a "broadcast" schedule and no DVR.
That struck me as odd too. If the colours in digital photos or movies don't look right, I would try to display them with different software. It's more likely that the software that displays is reading and interpreting the format of the file differently than bit-rot would only affect the colour pallette and not make the whole file unreadable.
Or the OP is using a different monitor. It doesn't matter if the new monitor better or worse than the old one. If it is different and the photos are adjusted for the old monitor, it will look "off".