My fantasy is to see a law that says a) all fines, confiscations, etc. go to the general fund, not any law enforcement agency, and b) the tax rates for year N+1 have to be adjusted down so that the net revenue collected from fines in year N is zero. That way maybe they'd be more inclined to enforce the law for the sake of public safety instead of revenue.
It's like calling having one drink per hour for 4 hours "binge drinking" even tho a person my size (262 lb) wouldn't even be blowing.02 unless I slammed the drink.
What's your complaint, since the legal limit is based on blood alcohol level?
I actually RTFA'ed (both articles). All they say is crap like "in Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped". That's a sound bite, not a statistic from a study. What other variables were controlled for? Changing age distribution and other demographics of drivers? Stricter DWI enforcement (aside from the lower limit)? Changing hours in bars? There are endless possibilities. Moreover, what are the penalties imposed for 0.05% and higher thresholds? I know there is a 100 page NTSB report I could read, but I'd hope that a newspaper article could give at least a halfway intelligent summary.
Around here the law is still.08 but if you're caught at.05 or above, they will suspend your license for 24 hours but not charge you with DUI.
Something like that sounds reasonable. In fact, make 0.05% a serious ticket too, but full-blown DUI (at least here in NYS) is a misdemeanor, and a second one in 10 years is a felony. The law should scale according to the severity of the offense.
Then you should also agree with raising the driving age to 22, and taking away driving privileges of those over 60. Either of these would save many more lives.
Perhaps you have some evidence or calculations to back up that assertion?
If you want to talk about the really big systems... There are only a handful of guys that will actually make really good use of those systems and scores of folks that would otherwise be perfectly fine running on significantly smaller ones.
That's what they all say. Don't worry, that's plenty for me! (until next year). Five computers are enough for the world. 640k ought to be enough for anybody. Of course I suppose a logical progression would be to get an Exaflop machine running before figuring out how to make one for the high school science lab.
If Intel can cut the power to its 'big iron' cpu's (the 4/6/8 core chips), then just increasing the number of processors in supercomputers from 10,000 to 100,000 will give you an 10x increase in speed while using the same or less power.... An 80x increase at the same size/power as what we have now puts us into exaflops range.
RTFA. Flops are easy. The scaling problem is data links between nodes.
I'm pretty sure at one point, someone stood up in a meeting and said "No one will ever make a 1MB memory chip" or "No one will ever achieve a 64 bit processor", so how about sit down and just wait.
The author of the presentation didn't say we'd never get to Exaflops, just that it might take longer than anticipated. Second, the fact that some technologies have scaled incredibly well doesn't mean that all technologies do or that there are no limits. Chips are perhaps history's greatest example of a technology that scales well. However, we were also supposed to have flying cars and visit Jupiter by 2001. Sometimes the limits are practical rather than strictly technical. SST's were built designed in the 60's (Concorde) and more were being designed in the 70's, but they turned out not to be worth the cost. I'm anything but a technology pessimist, but I'm old enough to have seen lots of predictions not materialize, or just take much longer than expected (in the 60's they said we'd have flat screen TV's by the 70's).
Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.
Especially since parties often don't even bother to run a serious candidate or campaign in a district where there is a well entrenched incumbent (of either major party). They throw all the money into the "competitive" races. It's pathetic - I'd at least like to pretend I have a choice.
Are you suggesting that having people that understand the law making laws is a bad thing?
Lawyers deal with the details of laws, but congress deals with something much more critical: policy. Having people who know about economics, science, technology, agriculture, education, foreign relations, etc. is much more important than having people who can regurgitate a little bad Latin.
BTW, the bills that get passed around congress are generally not written in legalese. They're written in "plain" English. Congressional staffs later translate it into legal gibberish.
You made a roundabout, indirect criticism of Apple, that makes you a hater.
Not to mention a blasphemer and a heretic. I even got modded down from 2 to 0 for my original "who cares" post. Can I atone by flagellating myself while walking on my knees through the streets of Cupertino?
14th Amendment, due process and equal protection. The government is barred from abridging privileges, taking property, etc. of citizens without due process.
Yes, I'm familiar with those terms. Now what you have to do is turn them into an actual argument for why corporations can't be banned from farming.
From a switchmode supply point of view, they are shitty. 75% at 10A
See here for _MUCH_ better parts from their analog competitors http://www.linear.com/product/LTM4620
LTM4620 - Dual 13A or Single 26A DC/DC Module Regulator with integrated magnetics
At 10A output, you get close to 90% efficiency and they take 5V or 12V input directly.
Yeah, and the Intel thing will need a double conversion (12V to 2.4V external, then 2.4V to 0.9V? on-chip) so the total efficiency will be even lower. Not an efficiency improvement for the overall system.
You make some good points, but the input voltage is 2.4V, not 12V. No way a semi process like this could take 12V. Also, the caps are external, so there will be some resistive losses with the ripple currents.
Slashdot Mirror
My fantasy is to see a law that says a) all fines, confiscations, etc. go to the general fund, not any law enforcement agency, and b) the tax rates for year N+1 have to be adjusted down so that the net revenue collected from fines in year N is zero. That way maybe they'd be more inclined to enforce the law for the sake of public safety instead of revenue.
Anyone who decides to drink, with the intent of driving later is guilty of attempted murder if they get behind the wheel after that first drink.
You should start by raving to the folks at MADD. Even they're not endorsing the reduction to 0.05.
It's like calling having one drink per hour for 4 hours "binge drinking" even tho a person my size (262 lb) wouldn't even be blowing .02 unless I slammed the drink.
What's your complaint, since the legal limit is based on blood alcohol level?
in 90% of all accidents with injuiries the main cause is that at least one party involved was driving too fast
Evidence?
I actually RTFA'ed (both articles). All they say is crap like "in Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped". That's a sound bite, not a statistic from a study. What other variables were controlled for? Changing age distribution and other demographics of drivers? Stricter DWI enforcement (aside from the lower limit)? Changing hours in bars? There are endless possibilities. Moreover, what are the penalties imposed for 0.05% and higher thresholds? I know there is a 100 page NTSB report I could read, but I'd hope that a newspaper article could give at least a halfway intelligent summary.
"We need random stops/checkpoints/whatever because we can't catch the people between .08 and .1."
No problem. In NYC you can get stopped for any reason if your skin is brown.
Around here the law is still .08 but if you're caught at .05 or above, they will suspend your license for 24 hours but not charge you with DUI.
Something like that sounds reasonable. In fact, make 0.05% a serious ticket too, but full-blown DUI (at least here in NYS) is a misdemeanor, and a second one in 10 years is a felony. The law should scale according to the severity of the offense.
BTW, where is "around here"?
Australian gun ban
All guns are banned? What happens if you run into a rabid sheep in the outback?
the decline is about what you'd have expected in the absence of the ban
I'll bite. Why would they have declined at all in the absence of a ban?
Then you should also agree with raising the driving age to 22, and taking away driving privileges of those over 60. Either of these would save many more lives.
Perhaps you have some evidence or calculations to back up that assertion?
It's a particular nuisance because the speed of light is pretty strictly enforced...
Obviously most physicists have a police state mentality, but the anarchist physicists say we should use wormholes!
At Moore's faux Law,
RTFA. His point is that flops keep getting cheaper, but data links will be the bottleneck.
If you want to talk about the really big systems ... There are only a handful of guys that will actually make really good use of those systems and scores of folks that would otherwise be perfectly fine running on significantly smaller ones.
That's what they all say. Don't worry, that's plenty for me! (until next year). Five computers are enough for the world. 640k ought to be enough for anybody. Of course I suppose a logical progression would be to get an Exaflop machine running before figuring out how to make one for the high school science lab.
If Intel can cut the power to its 'big iron' cpu's (the 4/6/8 core chips), then just increasing the number of processors in supercomputers from 10,000 to 100,000 will give you an 10x increase in speed while using the same or less power. ... An 80x increase at the same size/power as what we have now puts us into exaflops range.
RTFA. Flops are easy. The scaling problem is data links between nodes.
I'm pretty sure at one point, someone stood up in a meeting and said "No one will ever make a 1MB memory chip" or "No one will ever achieve a 64 bit processor", so how about sit down and just wait.
The author of the presentation didn't say we'd never get to Exaflops, just that it might take longer than anticipated. Second, the fact that some technologies have scaled incredibly well doesn't mean that all technologies do or that there are no limits. Chips are perhaps history's greatest example of a technology that scales well. However, we were also supposed to have flying cars and visit Jupiter by 2001. Sometimes the limits are practical rather than strictly technical. SST's were built designed in the 60's (Concorde) and more were being designed in the 70's, but they turned out not to be worth the cost. I'm anything but a technology pessimist, but I'm old enough to have seen lots of predictions not materialize, or just take much longer than expected (in the 60's they said we'd have flat screen TV's by the 70's).
Public funding could not possibly make this situation significantly worse than it already is.
Especially since parties often don't even bother to run a serious candidate or campaign in a district where there is a well entrenched incumbent (of either major party). They throw all the money into the "competitive" races. It's pathetic - I'd at least like to pretend I have a choice.
Are you suggesting that having people that understand the law making laws is a bad thing?
Lawyers deal with the details of laws, but congress deals with something much more critical: policy. Having people who know about economics, science, technology, agriculture, education, foreign relations, etc. is much more important than having people who can regurgitate a little bad Latin.
BTW, the bills that get passed around congress are generally not written in legalese. They're written in "plain" English. Congressional staffs later translate it into legal gibberish.
Someone mentions Louisiana and you talk about New Orleans? I don't think they have much to do with each other.
You made a roundabout, indirect criticism of Apple, that makes you a hater.
Not to mention a blasphemer and a heretic. I even got modded down from 2 to 0 for my original "who cares" post. Can I atone by flagellating myself while walking on my knees through the streets of Cupertino?
14th Amendment, due process and equal protection. The government is barred from abridging privileges, taking property, etc. of citizens without due process.
Yes, I'm familiar with those terms. Now what you have to do is turn them into an actual argument for why corporations can't be banned from farming.
It says 90nm for test devices. It's not clear how the production device works.
From a switchmode supply point of view, they are shitty. 75% at 10A
See here for _MUCH_ better parts from their analog competitors http://www.linear.com/product/LTM4620 LTM4620 - Dual 13A or Single 26A DC/DC Module Regulator with integrated magnetics At 10A output, you get close to 90% efficiency and they take 5V or 12V input directly.
Yeah, and the Intel thing will need a double conversion (12V to 2.4V external, then 2.4V to 0.9V? on-chip) so the total efficiency will be even lower. Not an efficiency improvement for the overall system.
If only Intel had some proper engineers like you who could think of clever things like that
If only other companies had engineers like Intel, who never make mistakes.
you can't escape Ohm's Law
In all the hoopla about on-die inductors, they forgot to mention the detail about room temperature superconductors.
You make some good points, but the input voltage is 2.4V, not 12V. No way a semi process like this could take 12V. Also, the caps are external, so there will be some resistive losses with the ripple currents.
The discreets (cap and inductor) will be external.
The inductors are on-chip, which is what makes this so interesting.