Point is, winning by a tiny fraction does not mean everyone wants radical "change". 90% might indicate that, but 50.7% doesn't.
no that is not true- your statement should read: winning by a fraction does not mean everyone radically wants change. it says nothing about how much change is desired by the people, only how much they want that type of change. [e.g. the difference between having a large desire for a steak, and have a desire for a large steak]
If they wanted their writings available for free, then why would they bother to publish in the first place?
Content creators deserve some rights to their works.
just because its free for us to use does not necessarily mean the authors are not getting compensated-- TV is an example of this business model.
i dont think they ever lose their rights on their work - that is to say if the book becomes a movie, they will need to be contacted for permissions.
im not a writer but i do freelance photography - when i get my stuff published im pretty much just happy that its getting to the public. regardless of how little i might compensated. declaimer: i did not RTFA
i think it would be completely fair to simply throttle users a bit - say your first 50gig is at top speed (e.g. 16megabit), the next 50 gig's speed is reduced to, say, 10 megabit.
i think there is a basic logic error here in that the ISPs are using a total gigabyte usage as a metric but bandwidth is a byte per second measurement.
and i agree with the guy above- the tags on the article leave a lot to be desired "comcast & uksucks" are irrelevant
Re:MPG is an obsolete measurement
on
1000-mph Car Planned
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
it become obsolete when we stop using gasoline -- gallon of what? in the future we might be seeing measurements like miles per kilowatt
the last person i heard of strapping a rocket to a car to see how fast they could go ended up driving into a mountain because he couldnt stop - and this was in the salt flats of utah (at least thats where he started, clearly it wasnt so flat where he ended up)
couldnt i just use quantum mechanics / Heisenberg uncertainty principle as my defense in court?
but more seriously - i believe there are other bits that make it difficult for this to hold up in court - like: were you driving the whole time or maybe your wife / son thats in the passenger seat as seen by the cameras? did you change lanes a lot? did the ez-pass / i-pass malfunction? does it have a semi unique identifier like a MAC address? (i dont believe they do - which might be why they tie it to your vehicle?)
i believe the same way that DRM on CDs worked- - we had to rip the disc (i dont believe we ever could just copy over the raw data)
i think the point they are driving at is that there are acceptable ways to use the product and when you use it like this you will never notice the DRM. But when we want to deviate from that usage we encounter the DRM. i guess it come down to how/what they consider fair usage
It IS a (the) metric of project size and can also give you estimates on the number of bugs in the code. Maybe you should finish your classes before talking about them?
if that is the case - how do you account for complex code? i mean you said 'project size' so i would equate that to man hours, which is surely a function of code complexity. see my post below, regarding what i think is an appropriate measure of the items you mention - project size & bug estimation.
why the attack on character at the end of your post? seems quite unnecessary
Intel isn't arbitrarily going, "man, we could make chips that run ok 5 degrees hotter, but we're gonna piss everyone off by demanding more cooling. Just because we can."
this actually just the way the manufacturing process works. if the chips get binned at the top end - it gets the Extreme moniker. my personal processor is a xeon quad core - same exact chip as the q6600 - only my chip as a
spec of 85*C while the consumer chips have a spec of 71*C in other words - my friend who bought the Q6600 - is the person intel is 'pissing' off because he has great cooling needs than i do.
It's a zero-sum game. The total load on the planet is the same. The same total bunch of chips exits Intel's fabs. On the total, no energy was conserved.
So Google's "going green" is at the cost of making everyone else less "green". They can willy-wave about how energy efficient they are, by simply dumping the difference on someone else.
the total load on the planet is not the same. it is much cheaper to not cool an object than it is to cool it. other people's chips are not going to cost more 'green' points (or whatever is used to measure green friendliness [dont think carbon credits works here]). this is the functional equivalent of google saying 'i want only extreme processors' i simply do not understand your point of google dumping the eco burden on other people.
lets not confuse hot CPUs with an affect on global warming or anything like that, because its is much cheaper (for the environment) to deal with the heat, then the heat + energy cost of the alternative. and when i say much cheaper, i mean order of magnitudes cheaper.
It's akin to me willy-waving that I'm so green and produce less garbage than you... by dumping some of my garbage in random other people's garbage bins across the town. Yay, I'm so green now, you all can start worshipping me. Well, no, on the total the same amount of garbage being produced
to be clear on what i mean, and to use your metaphor - it is not the same amount of garbage being produced since the air conditioners are being turn down. heat != pollution
i think forwarding the field of AI, is a question of abstraction. basically being the difference between teaching to the test, and actual intelligence.
i am reminded of an article (sorry cant find it) that i read 4 or 5 years ago. IIRC - there was a research group that made a simple robot, with 'AI'. they then told it to increase altitude (fly). the robot did lots of funny things, like climb on boxes, and jump up and down. but it eventually started flapping its appendages (not sure it had wings, but i think it did). the point is that this AI taught itself the concepts of lift and gravity by observing the world and drawing its own conclusions.
this would be similar to the auto fill function in excel - if only the computer could abstract the concept and try to apply it elsewhere, where it would be helpful (for example a mass file renaming)
IMHO - once an intelligence can abstract concepts, package, and re-apply them, it can think for itself.
i would have loved to see this hardware render the 10 second coke bottle clip in 'a bugs life'. IIRC that scene cost as much (in render time) as the rest of the movie on account of it being ray-traced.
how many millions might Pixar save by moving to this?
Slashdot Mirror
Point is, winning by a tiny fraction does not mean everyone wants radical "change". 90% might indicate that, but 50.7% doesn't.
no that is not true- your statement should read: winning by a fraction does not mean everyone radically wants change. it says nothing about how much change is desired by the people, only how much they want that type of change. [e.g. the difference between having a large desire for a steak, and have a desire for a large steak]
did i just become a grammar nazi?
it would be beneficial to those reading your post to know who the hell you are referring to.
it also helps to put in a link to lend credence to your claims
If they wanted their writings available for free, then why would they bother to publish in the first place?
Content creators deserve some rights to their works.
just because its free for us to use does not necessarily mean the authors are not getting compensated-- TV is an example of this business model.
i dont think they ever lose their rights on their work - that is to say if the book becomes a movie, they will need to be contacted for permissions.
im not a writer but i do freelance photography - when i get my stuff published im pretty much just happy that its getting to the public. regardless of how little i might compensated. declaimer: i did not RTFA
science never sucks, it can only blow.
unless you work for Dyson - in which case science never loses its sucking power
I would like to buy a wavebubble from you, will you sell me one? No
I will pay you $500!!! No
Do you sell a kit? No
Will you build me one? No
Why not? It's illegal & I'm not keen on getting fined by the FCC so that you can impress your friends
http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/faq.html
i think it would be completely fair to simply throttle users a bit - say your first 50gig is at top speed (e.g. 16megabit), the next 50 gig's speed is reduced to, say, 10 megabit.
i think there is a basic logic error here in that the ISPs are using a total gigabyte usage as a metric but bandwidth is a byte per second measurement.
and i agree with the guy above- the tags on the article leave a lot to be desired "comcast & uksucks" are irrelevant
it become obsolete when we stop using gasoline -- gallon of what? in the future we might be seeing measurements like miles per kilowatt
uhh.. yes, yes it was.
the last person i heard of strapping a rocket to a car to see how fast they could go ended up driving into a mountain because he couldnt stop - and this was in the salt flats of utah (at least thats where he started, clearly it wasnt so flat where he ended up)
couldnt i just use quantum mechanics / Heisenberg uncertainty principle as my defense in court?
but more seriously - i believe there are other bits that make it difficult for this to hold up in court - like: were you driving the whole time or maybe your wife / son thats in the passenger seat as seen by the cameras? did you change lanes a lot? did the ez-pass / i-pass malfunction? does it have a semi unique identifier like a MAC address? (i dont believe they do - which might be why they tie it to your vehicle?)
i believe the same way that DRM on CDs worked- - we had to rip the disc (i dont believe we ever could just copy over the raw data)
i think the point they are driving at is that there are acceptable ways to use the product and when you use it like this you will never notice the DRM. But when we want to deviate from that usage we encounter the DRM. i guess it come down to how/what they consider fair usage
This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.
But it sounds so much better when you say it like this: An absolute zero temperature vacuum is certainty impossible due to the uncertainty principle.
i love a good paradox
It isn't since the only heat dissipation in space is by radiation.
what about solar winds?
and as a follow up -- most air fighters do not get PTSD because the dont see the people they are killing-- just as you said
here is an study [from National Institute of Health] on the factors that cause PTSD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226287
It IS a (the) metric of project size and can also give you estimates on the number of bugs in the code. Maybe you should finish your classes before talking about them?
if that is the case - how do you account for complex code? i mean you said 'project size' so i would equate that to man hours, which is surely a function of code complexity. see my post below, regarding what i think is an appropriate measure of the items you mention - project size & bug estimation.
why the attack on character at the end of your post? seems quite unnecessary
i believe a more appropriate measure of the 'bloat' (i.e. useless functions) or the size of any software package is through function point analysis--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_point
http://www.softwaremetrics.com/fpafund.html
the lines of code metric has long been considered an inadequate measure of software cost, complexity, or size - here is an article on why:
http://www.creativyst.com/Doc/Articles/Mgt/LOCMonster/LOCMonster.htm
but LOC is without question one of the easiest measurement (aside from total package size in bytes, which is nearly as uninformative)
this is how it is fixed: watts = volts * amperes
its that simple. less voltage = less power consumption
From Apple's Macbook mini-site:
the following sentence will be engineered to language standards that dont even exist yet either:
fl;fae09353=][;cvsl./m][o=-o
now isnt that nice?
someone mod parent up. finally something more than M$ whinging.
Yes, but way I see this is:
Intel isn't arbitrarily going, "man, we could make chips that run ok 5 degrees hotter, but we're gonna piss everyone off by demanding more cooling. Just because we can."
this actually just the way the manufacturing process works. if the chips get binned at the top end - it gets the Extreme moniker. my personal processor is a xeon quad core - same exact chip as the q6600 - only my chip as a spec of 85*C while the consumer chips have a spec of 71*C in other words - my friend who bought the Q6600 - is the person intel is 'pissing' off because he has great cooling needs than i do.
It's a zero-sum game. The total load on the planet is the same. The same total bunch of chips exits Intel's fabs. On the total, no energy was conserved.
So Google's "going green" is at the cost of making everyone else less "green". They can willy-wave about how energy efficient they are, by simply dumping the difference on someone else.
the total load on the planet is not the same. it is much cheaper to not cool an object than it is to cool it. other people's chips are not going to cost more 'green' points (or whatever is used to measure green friendliness [dont think carbon credits works here]). this is the functional equivalent of google saying 'i want only extreme processors' i simply do not understand your point of google dumping the eco burden on other people.
lets not confuse hot CPUs with an affect on global warming or anything like that, because its is much cheaper (for the environment) to deal with the heat, then the heat + energy cost of the alternative. and when i say much cheaper, i mean order of magnitudes cheaper.
It's akin to me willy-waving that I'm so green and produce less garbage than you... by dumping some of my garbage in random other people's garbage bins across the town. Yay, I'm so green now, you all can start worshipping me. Well, no, on the total the same amount of garbage being produced
to be clear on what i mean, and to use your metaphor - it is not the same amount of garbage being produced since the air conditioners are being turn down. heat != pollution
Under-clocking them a bit can't be that hard to do.
Under-volting them a bit cant be that hard to do.
there fixed that for you (always wanted to say that)
i think forwarding the field of AI, is a question of abstraction. basically being the difference between teaching to the test, and actual intelligence. i am reminded of an article (sorry cant find it) that i read 4 or 5 years ago. IIRC - there was a research group that made a simple robot, with 'AI'. they then told it to increase altitude (fly). the robot did lots of funny things, like climb on boxes, and jump up and down. but it eventually started flapping its appendages (not sure it had wings, but i think it did). the point is that this AI taught itself the concepts of lift and gravity by observing the world and drawing its own conclusions. this would be similar to the auto fill function in excel - if only the computer could abstract the concept and try to apply it elsewhere, where it would be helpful (for example a mass file renaming) IMHO - once an intelligence can abstract concepts, package, and re-apply them, it can think for itself.
First they laugh at you ... then they ignore you ... then they fight you ... then you win ...
thank you for quoting Gandhi http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gandhi#Quotes_about_Gandhi but you really should have included the source
i would have loved to see this hardware render the 10 second coke bottle clip in 'a bugs life'. IIRC that scene cost as much (in render time) as the rest of the movie on account of it being ray-traced. how many millions might Pixar save by moving to this?