Why is there even a debate? If the article is generating such a controversy, then OBVIOUSLY it's notable enough to stay there? Where the hell is common sense when you need it?
So you'd rather listen to the FOX news shills, the anti-nuclear shills, the oil shills, the donation scammers and the govt shills?
I'm sorry but what he's saying sounds about right. People have some kind of paranoia when nuclear is mentioned - you only need to look at the current situation! A quake of incredible magnitude quickly followed by a massive tsunami will probably kill tens of thousands leave the entire countryside ravaged for years, but the news are all focused on a handful of nuclear power plants that are having some problems. Even Chernobyl only killed 50 people! If you want to account for cancer diseases and such, bring that up to 500 or even 1000 if you want, but it's an unrealistically high estimate. And that's Chernobyl; it is absolutely impossible to end up with this result in the current situation.
Benchmarks that Microsoft use are inherently favoring Microsoft and benchmarks that Mozilla use are inherently favoring Mozilla. That's surprising isn't it?
At least I commend the investigative work done here and the fixes applied to FF4. I hope we can see those before the final release!
Most of the.NET spec has been published under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise... which is irrevocable. The only unclear parts are ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms. Microsoft has no way of backing off that promise now, so Mono is safe.
AMD's offerings usually have lower power consumption and heat generation. While I'm sure nVidia could come up with something, they'd probably have a hard time using the 580 as a basis, because it runs so hot already. I mean, the 6970 consumes a whole ~140W less than the 580 (!), yet they still had to notch it down so it fit in the standard and add that clever switch. AMD's current offerings are just far more power efficient than nVidia's, which means they'd need to underclock their dual-GPU card more than AMD had to. Heat would also be a concern requiring underclocking.
Big players like Samsung must stop playing catch up, now. Stop looking at Apple and monkeying them, that'll get you nowhere. Nobody wants a copycat. Branch out in your own directions or *gasp* outpace Apple. Pour money into research. Raise the quality of your products. Release more timely updates for longer. Yes, it can be risky, but look where that got Apple. They literally created the tablet market.
You can innovate, but not if you're doing your best to be a follower.
Have you seen the situation? Villages are getting assaulted by the army, tanks and all! People are reporting air raids and need to find AA guns to defend their homes. Children and teenagers are killed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Civilians are forced to take arms and carry AK-47s, use rocket launchers and man defensive batteries to stop the extermination of whatever resistance there is.
Winning people's hearts and minds is too late now. This is war. You don't win wars by tweeting "Hey guys I'm being shot at right n---"!
Wiretapping is generally defined with an intent. You can't "accidentally" wiretap. You do it because you want to spy on the victim. If the law isn't phrased like so, then the law is wrong, to put it simply.
As always, I find AnandTech's coverage to have a few nuggets of information that most other publications don't. It's well worth a read, particularly for those curious about TRIM performance and degradation over time. There's also a nice page on average reliability around different SSD manufacturers.
Anand concludes by saying that the 510 is one of the fastest drives around today, but only worthwhile on a 6Gbps interface. He points out that they've swapped excellent random performance in the older X-25 for excellent sequential performance in the 510. The Vertex 3 still comes out on top, but the 510 should be more reliable. If OCZ can make their new drives more reliable, Intel will have an uphill battle to fight.
Then there's also the other SSDs, since we've only heard from OCZ and Intel thus far.
This is market trade we're speaking of. It's global. They're speaking of transactional processes on the level of a picosecond, but just reaching the central server HAS to take them at least a few miliseconds (it's the law!), excluding any possible processing.
It's a load of bull, seriously. Any scale below what it takes for light to travel a few dozens of kilometers is physically unfeasible unless we suddenly invent time travel or FTL micro jumps
The situation is fairly simple, from my point of view: the music and film execs, mostly Americans, know a fair bit about DRM and digital media. If the execs don't themselves, they have experts who do and tell them what to do. On the other hand, the Canadian government is entirely clueless about all of this. It isn't the first time you see ministers trying to make laws and look absurdly ignorant of the subject matter. Thus, you get one side manipulating the other by saying half-truths and hiding facts.
I don't think the ministers are all clueless, but a good proportion is. The rest are sold to the money.
You'd be surprised by how many lone hackers there are still, mostly dumb teenagers. They might not be dangerous to large sites independently, but they can quite effectively disrupt normal activity for smaller sites. Furthermore, many joining together can be problematic. Ever heard of Anonymous?
I know various sites and servers which have been the target of those lone hackers. They have access to a moderately-sized botnet and have absolutely nothing to fear, being small fish to the authorities. I'd much rather we start getting rid of those first.
So what you're saying is?.. He still has that connection and good luck finding such a thing, even if you had the money, in the US, for a residential consumer.
So then, you must be saying that he's got less overall revenue because of hidden fees and such? Funny, then, that quality of life is higher on average.
You're basically coming up with random statistics and numbers and making up that in fact he's paying huge sums, but the fact still stands: he can easily pay for this AND get a comfortable life that is equivalent to what you'd find in the US for the same bracket of revenue.
Considering they've let Verizon lock some of their Android phones to exclusively use Bing as their default search engine, with no way of removing said app without tinkering and/or rooting, I'd say they've been staying far from anything that could put them in trouble in that regard.
At least this way you avoid the obnoxious SIX pages layout for what could fit in a single page easily. I know, I know... The submitter is always an InfoWorld employee and/. editors don't know the meaning of the word "edit", but hey, I can still ask? Beg, maybe?
See it this way: either we do something or we don't. If we don't, what can happen? A) Nothing. Global warming disappears or stays within acceptable limits. B) Cooling. We start thinking about dumping more greenhouse gases in hope of stopping a new ice age. C) Heating. As many models predict, the Earth heats up even further. Catastrophes arise as the climate spins out of control, flooding coasts and destroying cities.
(A) is of no worry. (B) is very unlikely to happen within any short timespan. If we do get signs of it, we'll get them decades ahead of any significant effect. A global cooling of similar proportions to the current global heating would give us plenty of time to react, especially since the solution is simple: burn stuff. That leaves (C), which has the potential of affecting millions, if not billions, of people. It could be a mess for the generations ahead. Yes, COULD. That doesn't mean it will happen, but it's a possibility.
So why exactly take the risk? If we do it, the worst we stand to lose is money. Some might say this is horrible, but I disagree. Lives should not be counted in terms of dollar bills. Furthermore, and that's the argument I usually bring up when speaking about AGW: stopping what produces greenhouse gases will also solve other problems! Coal plants are filthy things, for example. We speak about their CO2 emissions, but there's far more nasty stuff in there. The same can be said about petroleum (Deepwater Horizon anyone?). If we severe our dependency from most of these things, then we reduce our usage of what amounts to a lot of bad chemicals in favor of renewable and cleaner energy.
Oh also, I'd just like to point out that we don't actually want a warmer climate. Warmer climates are bad. That would mean flooding of all coasts because of the ice caps melting. Do you think it's really harder to change how we extract and use energy than it is to move at least a billion people? It also means much easier infection spreading, since mosquitoes and others have a much easier time spreading in hot climates. It means more droughts in already hot parts of the world.
As you said, there are a lot of variables. I've just added a few more of them to consider...
The cost benefit analysis is that those making the decisions and spending the cash will have passed out long ago when/if things get bad and don't give a shit about what happens after that. To them, the cost is trillions and the benefit is negligible.
I know I'm describing psychopaths, but they're also called corporations.
No, the GP is referring to Blizzard's "when it's done" release mentality. They're one of the very few game devs that take as long as they think necessary to make a product. Whether you think it sucks or not is besides the point.
However, Blizzard is in the extremely rare situation of being developer and publisher with boatloads of money to sit on. They also have somewhat of an Apple effect in that whatever they do will get eaten up whole by legions of rabid fans, whether the game is good or not.
To make an apt comparison, the chance of getting struck by lightning is 1:750,000... Even with four times the number of bad ads, you'd still just have about equal chance.
1) Blu-Ray players will soon shut off people from using component video to play 1080p content, downscaling to 540p. I'd call that "ruining your ability to watch it". 2) Many DRM schemes backfire and give users a lot of trouble (see StarForce for a good example). 3) YouTube videos can be quite easily scraped off the site and downloaded, so Flash doesn't implement a whole lot of DRM either.
There's no need to push HTML video adoption. With the craze over the iStuff and Jobs' anti-Adobe stand, it will naturally become popular with video content producers on the basis of being able to tap into the iPad, iPhone and iPod market.
Furthermore, Mozilla's already said it many times. They're not in it to get the biggest marketshare ever, they're there to push the open web and open source movements. They want standards, they want open content. Their existence single-handedly overturned IE's once seemingly invulnerable dominance, hence they've already somewhat accomplished their mission. I regard Mozilla as a watchdog that tries to keep the web in line with the open source community's values. They produce a browser because it is the best way to achieve their goals, but I don't see them turning their backs on any of their core values on the grounds of gaining marketshare.
That's the thing, don't you see? That their agenda is not incredibly obvious, that they're not spouting hate and misinformation every 10 microseconds. The US govt can't help but think they're hiding something. Any self-respecting news outlet should be biased and trollish on the edges!
Which is why the patent system should, honestly, be amended to require usage. If you patent something, you have to use this patent in a commercial product within the next X years, with X being a small fraction of the full length of the patent.
Thus, if oil companies (and any other company, for that matters) really do use the stuff they patent, they won't see a difference. If, however, they're just trolling, then they'll get their patents revoked. Likewise, trying to sue for a patent violation should be extremely hard if you have not commercialized said patent in any meaningful way (be it announced a product that takes advantage of it or something). This would have avoided so many useless and idiotic patent lawsuits and would make these discussions moot.
Lasers are unavoidable and impossible to counter - the best you can do is get more hull plating everywhere. They just about never miss, either, especially on large targets.
81% of petroleum goes into fuel production, in the US. If we remove that percentage from common use, we go from approximately 90,000 bbl a day to under 20,000. That's about the production of just the US and Russia combined. Alternatively, the US, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Brazil and the UK would do the same job. That still leaves many other countries whose smaller production can add up to something not all that negligible, and it assumes current levels of production for all countries listed. On top of that, this is only if we don't reduce our petroleum usage in the remaining 19%, which is something we could also do.
In other words, yes the OPEC is a large organization comprising many of the largest producers, but we don't need them if we remove fuel from our petroleum consumption.
He's defining it to be hyperspherical. Not the same thing at all. The hypersphere, or 3-sphere, is the mathematical step up of a sphere from 3D space into 4D space. It's to a sphere what a sphere is to a circle.
A hypersphere would seem infinite by our measurements, despite being finite if you move into a higher dimension.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is there even a debate? If the article is generating such a controversy, then OBVIOUSLY it's notable enough to stay there? Where the hell is common sense when you need it?
So you'd rather listen to the FOX news shills, the anti-nuclear shills, the oil shills, the donation scammers and the govt shills?
I'm sorry but what he's saying sounds about right. People have some kind of paranoia when nuclear is mentioned - you only need to look at the current situation! A quake of incredible magnitude quickly followed by a massive tsunami will probably kill tens of thousands leave the entire countryside ravaged for years, but the news are all focused on a handful of nuclear power plants that are having some problems. Even Chernobyl only killed 50 people! If you want to account for cancer diseases and such, bring that up to 500 or even 1000 if you want, but it's an unrealistically high estimate. And that's Chernobyl; it is absolutely impossible to end up with this result in the current situation.
Benchmarks that Microsoft use are inherently favoring Microsoft and benchmarks that Mozilla use are inherently favoring Mozilla. That's surprising isn't it?
At least I commend the investigative work done here and the fixes applied to FF4. I hope we can see those before the final release!
Most of the .NET spec has been published under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise... which is irrevocable. The only unclear parts are ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms. Microsoft has no way of backing off that promise now, so Mono is safe.
Thank you for informing yourself before posting.
AMD's offerings usually have lower power consumption and heat generation. While I'm sure nVidia could come up with something, they'd probably have a hard time using the 580 as a basis, because it runs so hot already. I mean, the 6970 consumes a whole ~140W less than the 580 (!), yet they still had to notch it down so it fit in the standard and add that clever switch. AMD's current offerings are just far more power efficient than nVidia's, which means they'd need to underclock their dual-GPU card more than AMD had to. Heat would also be a concern requiring underclocking.
Big players like Samsung must stop playing catch up, now. Stop looking at Apple and monkeying them, that'll get you nowhere. Nobody wants a copycat. Branch out in your own directions or *gasp* outpace Apple. Pour money into research. Raise the quality of your products. Release more timely updates for longer. Yes, it can be risky, but look where that got Apple. They literally created the tablet market.
You can innovate, but not if you're doing your best to be a follower.
Have you seen the situation? Villages are getting assaulted by the army, tanks and all! People are reporting air raids and need to find AA guns to defend their homes. Children and teenagers are killed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Civilians are forced to take arms and carry AK-47s, use rocket launchers and man defensive batteries to stop the extermination of whatever resistance there is.
Winning people's hearts and minds is too late now. This is war. You don't win wars by tweeting "Hey guys I'm being shot at right n---"!
Wiretapping is generally defined with an intent. You can't "accidentally" wiretap. You do it because you want to spy on the victim. If the law isn't phrased like so, then the law is wrong, to put it simply.
As always, I find AnandTech's coverage to have a few nuggets of information that most other publications don't. It's well worth a read, particularly for those curious about TRIM performance and degradation over time. There's also a nice page on average reliability around different SSD manufacturers.
Anand concludes by saying that the 510 is one of the fastest drives around today, but only worthwhile on a 6Gbps interface. He points out that they've swapped excellent random performance in the older X-25 for excellent sequential performance in the 510. The Vertex 3 still comes out on top, but the 510 should be more reliable. If OCZ can make their new drives more reliable, Intel will have an uphill battle to fight.
Then there's also the other SSDs, since we've only heard from OCZ and Intel thus far.
This is market trade we're speaking of. It's global. They're speaking of transactional processes on the level of a picosecond, but just reaching the central server HAS to take them at least a few miliseconds (it's the law!), excluding any possible processing.
It's a load of bull, seriously. Any scale below what it takes for light to travel a few dozens of kilometers is physically unfeasible unless we suddenly invent time travel or FTL micro jumps
The situation is fairly simple, from my point of view: the music and film execs, mostly Americans, know a fair bit about DRM and digital media. If the execs don't themselves, they have experts who do and tell them what to do. On the other hand, the Canadian government is entirely clueless about all of this. It isn't the first time you see ministers trying to make laws and look absurdly ignorant of the subject matter. Thus, you get one side manipulating the other by saying half-truths and hiding facts.
I don't think the ministers are all clueless, but a good proportion is. The rest are sold to the money.
You'd be surprised by how many lone hackers there are still, mostly dumb teenagers. They might not be dangerous to large sites independently, but they can quite effectively disrupt normal activity for smaller sites. Furthermore, many joining together can be problematic. Ever heard of Anonymous?
I know various sites and servers which have been the target of those lone hackers. They have access to a moderately-sized botnet and have absolutely nothing to fear, being small fish to the authorities. I'd much rather we start getting rid of those first.
So what you're saying is?.. He still has that connection and good luck finding such a thing, even if you had the money, in the US, for a residential consumer.
So then, you must be saying that he's got less overall revenue because of hidden fees and such? Funny, then, that quality of life is higher on average.
You're basically coming up with random statistics and numbers and making up that in fact he's paying huge sums, but the fact still stands: he can easily pay for this AND get a comfortable life that is equivalent to what you'd find in the US for the same bracket of revenue.
Considering they've let Verizon lock some of their Android phones to exclusively use Bing as their default search engine, with no way of removing said app without tinkering and/or rooting, I'd say they've been staying far from anything that could put them in trouble in that regard.
I wish they'd link to the print page: http://infoworld.com/print/151021
At least this way you avoid the obnoxious SIX pages layout for what could fit in a single page easily. I know, I know... The submitter is always an InfoWorld employee and /. editors don't know the meaning of the word "edit", but hey, I can still ask? Beg, maybe?
See it this way: either we do something or we don't. If we don't, what can happen?
A) Nothing. Global warming disappears or stays within acceptable limits.
B) Cooling. We start thinking about dumping more greenhouse gases in hope of stopping a new ice age.
C) Heating. As many models predict, the Earth heats up even further. Catastrophes arise as the climate spins out of control, flooding coasts and destroying cities.
(A) is of no worry. (B) is very unlikely to happen within any short timespan. If we do get signs of it, we'll get them decades ahead of any significant effect. A global cooling of similar proportions to the current global heating would give us plenty of time to react, especially since the solution is simple: burn stuff. That leaves (C), which has the potential of affecting millions, if not billions, of people. It could be a mess for the generations ahead. Yes, COULD. That doesn't mean it will happen, but it's a possibility.
So why exactly take the risk? If we do it, the worst we stand to lose is money. Some might say this is horrible, but I disagree. Lives should not be counted in terms of dollar bills. Furthermore, and that's the argument I usually bring up when speaking about AGW: stopping what produces greenhouse gases will also solve other problems! Coal plants are filthy things, for example. We speak about their CO2 emissions, but there's far more nasty stuff in there. The same can be said about petroleum (Deepwater Horizon anyone?). If we severe our dependency from most of these things, then we reduce our usage of what amounts to a lot of bad chemicals in favor of renewable and cleaner energy.
Oh also, I'd just like to point out that we don't actually want a warmer climate. Warmer climates are bad. That would mean flooding of all coasts because of the ice caps melting. Do you think it's really harder to change how we extract and use energy than it is to move at least a billion people? It also means much easier infection spreading, since mosquitoes and others have a much easier time spreading in hot climates. It means more droughts in already hot parts of the world.
As you said, there are a lot of variables. I've just added a few more of them to consider...
The cost benefit analysis is that those making the decisions and spending the cash will have passed out long ago when/if things get bad and don't give a shit about what happens after that. To them, the cost is trillions and the benefit is negligible.
I know I'm describing psychopaths, but they're also called corporations.
No, the GP is referring to Blizzard's "when it's done" release mentality. They're one of the very few game devs that take as long as they think necessary to make a product. Whether you think it sucks or not is besides the point.
However, Blizzard is in the extremely rare situation of being developer and publisher with boatloads of money to sit on. They also have somewhat of an Apple effect in that whatever they do will get eaten up whole by legions of rabid fans, whether the game is good or not.
To make an apt comparison, the chance of getting struck by lightning is 1:750,000... Even with four times the number of bad ads, you'd still just have about equal chance.
1) Blu-Ray players will soon shut off people from using component video to play 1080p content, downscaling to 540p. I'd call that "ruining your ability to watch it".
2) Many DRM schemes backfire and give users a lot of trouble (see StarForce for a good example).
3) YouTube videos can be quite easily scraped off the site and downloaded, so Flash doesn't implement a whole lot of DRM either.
There's no need to push HTML video adoption. With the craze over the iStuff and Jobs' anti-Adobe stand, it will naturally become popular with video content producers on the basis of being able to tap into the iPad, iPhone and iPod market.
Furthermore, Mozilla's already said it many times. They're not in it to get the biggest marketshare ever, they're there to push the open web and open source movements. They want standards, they want open content. Their existence single-handedly overturned IE's once seemingly invulnerable dominance, hence they've already somewhat accomplished their mission. I regard Mozilla as a watchdog that tries to keep the web in line with the open source community's values. They produce a browser because it is the best way to achieve their goals, but I don't see them turning their backs on any of their core values on the grounds of gaining marketshare.
That's the thing, don't you see? That their agenda is not incredibly obvious, that they're not spouting hate and misinformation every 10 microseconds. The US govt can't help but think they're hiding something. Any self-respecting news outlet should be biased and trollish on the edges!
Which is why the patent system should, honestly, be amended to require usage. If you patent something, you have to use this patent in a commercial product within the next X years, with X being a small fraction of the full length of the patent.
Thus, if oil companies (and any other company, for that matters) really do use the stuff they patent, they won't see a difference. If, however, they're just trolling, then they'll get their patents revoked. Likewise, trying to sue for a patent violation should be extremely hard if you have not commercialized said patent in any meaningful way (be it announced a product that takes advantage of it or something). This would have avoided so many useless and idiotic patent lawsuits and would make these discussions moot.
Lasers are unavoidable and impossible to counter - the best you can do is get more hull plating everywhere. They just about never miss, either, especially on large targets.
81% of petroleum goes into fuel production, in the US. If we remove that percentage from common use, we go from approximately 90,000 bbl a day to under 20,000. That's about the production of just the US and Russia combined. Alternatively, the US, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Brazil and the UK would do the same job. That still leaves many other countries whose smaller production can add up to something not all that negligible, and it assumes current levels of production for all countries listed. On top of that, this is only if we don't reduce our petroleum usage in the remaining 19%, which is something we could also do.
In other words, yes the OPEC is a large organization comprising many of the largest producers, but we don't need them if we remove fuel from our petroleum consumption.
He's defining it to be hyperspherical. Not the same thing at all. The hypersphere, or 3-sphere, is the mathematical step up of a sphere from 3D space into 4D space. It's to a sphere what a sphere is to a circle.
A hypersphere would seem infinite by our measurements, despite being finite if you move into a higher dimension.