having an idiot select which type of DDR RAM they want won't be any easier just because now the RAM comes in an easy to plug in box.
Well, it could work if that particular type of easy-plug-in-box only supports one single type of RAM, then you can't go wrong; if you can physically plug it in, then you know it will work.
Of course the downside of that is that you'll never be able to use any new kinds of RAM that come out in the future; whether or not that is a problem for you depends on how much RAM technology will continue to evolve, and whether or not you ever feel the need for faster RAM at some point.
Conventional wisdom is that China props up the North Korean government because if it collapses, China will have 25 million starving refugees at their doorstep (not that they don't already, but for now at least they aren't China's problem).
What actions China considers the best ones to accomplish that goal, and whether they are correct about the efficacy of their approach, is way above my pay grade.
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
Not that it really matters anyway -- the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships, and launching a single nuclear missile (or even a few of them) makes no sense strategically; in a nuclear war you need to knock out your opponent's nuclear response capability or they're going to respond by nuking you to ashes in short order.
If North Korea did decide to nuke someone, they'd be much better served to smuggle the nuke aboard a ship and detonate it in a harbor somewhere; at least then they'd have some fig leaf of plausible deniability. An ICBM launch showing up on every nation's satellites/radar wouldn't leave any room for doubt at all.
As cyberpunk dystopias go, this one isn't so bad. Hell, they pay me six figures to sit in front of a computer and write programs, something that I like to do anyway. I'll take that over subsistence farming or menial labor any day of the week.
Server 2016 is going per core licencing which means less cores overclocked
Given the drive to eke every last bit of economy (both dollars and joules) out of commodity server hardware, I see two possible outcomes for that: either future versions of Windows will have to reduce their licensing costs in the multicore scenarios, or most software will get ported over to other operating systems whose licensing costs are lower. (I'd imagine the latter is more sensible, since paying to license a GUI-based OS seems silly when running server software on a headless machine in a data center, but far be it from me to second-guess the IT industry)
With 4096 otherwise idle cores, it can make sense to calculate 1,000 possible scenarios in parallel and then ignore the 999 options you didn't need.
Well, maybe from a strict minimize-time-to-result perspective, but if we're also trying to minimize power usage (and given the subject of this article, we presumably are), then I'm not sure you're going to get any kind of efficiency win by doing 1000 times the necessary number of computations and throwing away almost all of them.
And in *two whole years*, they should have been able to establish that it was validating malware.
Is the app in question actually malware, according to Apple's definition of the term?
Or to put it another way, how evil does an application have to be before it should be labelled as malware? Is there a formal policy on this posted anywhere?
I still keep a landline for emergency, it's never failed in 40 years.
Of course, the flip side of that is that you're likely paying a significant monthly bill to keep that reliable land line active.
My building's two front-door call boxes were each using a land line for their call-up function, and they were costing the HOA $65/month each. I switched them over to VOIP, now they cost the HOA about 25 cents per month each (not including the $23/month DSL service, since we had that set up anyway for unrelated reasons).
People are getting so distracted by the word "luddite" that they've neglected to ask the important question: to what extent does having all of the solar panels mounted vertically affect their efficiency?
Granted, it looks cool, but I presume that most solar arrays are mounted horizontally (or at an angle determined by their location's latitude) so that they are as close to perpendicular as possible to the sun. Unless this installation is *really* far from the equator, it seems like they will be generating less electricity than they might have this way.
I'll just chime in.... my iPhone 4 lasted 5 years with absolutely no problems other than the battery life gradually diminishing. When I finally decided to upgrade, I paid a college kid $35 to replace the battery and now it works like new again (I passed it on to a relative to use as an mp3/audiobook player). I could have replaced the battery myself for about half that price, but I was too lazy to bother.
we don't allow the "public" to get in the way of corporate profits.
If the technology works, then a corporate-owned solar roadway could be just as profitable as any other corporate-owned solar farm, of which we have many. And if it doesn't work, then there's no point in installing it anyway.
That was my first reaction as well, but a roof structure would run about $4-5/watt for the system, with panels about 35% of the cost.
I think "roof" might be overkill, how about just a series of poles along the median strip, with solar panels placed on top of them and/or between them? The added cost would just be the cost of the poles, plus some additional wiring.
Sure, the surface area per mile of highway would be much less, but it's not like there is a shortage of miles of highway available.
With solar 6x the cost of standard electricity, you're just shifting (and increasing) pollution further down the supply chain.
I think that logic only makes sense if you're looking at prices that include all of the externalized costs of the generated power, rather than just the direct costs. Otherwise, for example coal-based electricity seems cheaper but actually isn't, because the nominal price does not include the expenses incurred by the resulting pollution.
I don't either. Either this road proves workable, in which case the world now has access to a new, proven technology -- or it turns out not to be workable, in which case the technology is a failure but all the costs will be paid by the French.
It's not quite win/win, but at least it's win/neutral.
Imagine plunking down your iPhone anywhere on your desk and knowing that it'll top up.
I'm imagining sitting down at my desk with my iPhone in my pocket, and having my balls microwaved. I think I'm not going to be a beta-tester for this one.
I foresee problems using this proposed truck for towing. One of the things that makes the Model S successful is it's form. It has very low aerodynamic drag, and a somewhat fixed mass. Towing a trailer completely disrupts that system. Mass will increase dramatically, and most trailers have the aerodynamics of a brick.
The Model X seems to do okay at towing; I don't know why a purpose-built vehicle would be any worse.
Do you know what the specs for a typical trash truck(3mpg) are and the battery you would need to run such a platform? How would you charge 15 or 20 of these monsters at night? (if you are lucky enough for battery to last during the day) The up front costs would be astronomical.
THAT is something I'd definitely be in the market for....why won't they do this again as the 'flagship' car to use to see their other more boring/pedestrian looking cars....?
That would be cool, and IIRC they have talked about bringing back an updated version of the Roadster.
As for why they (probably) won't do that in the near future -- they already have their low-volume "halo" car that proves their credentials, and what they want to do now is sell in high volume so they can benefit more from economies of scale. To do that, they need to sell something that is (relatively) cheap and popular, not another high-priced niche vehicle.
On top of being a showman, Musk seems to have a real need to keep people talking about and listening to him.
Perhaps, but that goes both ways -- the media also have a real desire to keep talking about Musk, for the obvious reasons -- he's doing interesting things, and therefore talking about him sells copy.
Slashdot Mirror
having an idiot select which type of DDR RAM they want won't be any easier just because now the RAM comes in an easy to plug in box.
Well, it could work if that particular type of easy-plug-in-box only supports one single type of RAM, then you can't go wrong; if you can physically plug it in, then you know it will work.
Of course the downside of that is that you'll never be able to use any new kinds of RAM that come out in the future; whether or not that is a problem for you depends on how much RAM technology will continue to evolve, and whether or not you ever feel the need for faster RAM at some point.
Sure, but it was Texas Instruments that really pushed this design to its full potential.
How do you know he didn't care about climate change?
[On Global Warming, in response to Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General James Milkey's correction of Scalia's reference to the stratosphere]
Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.
Massachusetts vs. EPA, 05-1120 (30 November 2006).
More info here
[...] is for moderate -- or reasonable -- Republicans
Do such creatures still exist? I thought they all got primary'd out...
Conventional wisdom is that China props up the North Korean government because if it collapses, China will have 25 million starving refugees at their doorstep (not that they don't already, but for now at least they aren't China's problem).
What actions China considers the best ones to accomplish that goal, and whether they are correct about the efficacy of their approach, is way above my pay grade.
If you have 1.7 million people and they need 700MW of power and you're still only producing 500MW of power, you have a problem.
It's not a big problem, though. Just add 200MW more power generation, if you feel the need to do so.
If they want to launch it at us, they've pretty much got to get it small enough to fit in a car.
Not that it really matters anyway -- the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships, and launching a single nuclear missile (or even a few of them) makes no sense strategically; in a nuclear war you need to knock out your opponent's nuclear response capability or they're going to respond by nuking you to ashes in short order.
If North Korea did decide to nuke someone, they'd be much better served to smuggle the nuke aboard a ship and detonate it in a harbor somewhere; at least then they'd have some fig leaf of plausible deniability. An ICBM launch showing up on every nation's satellites/radar wouldn't leave any room for doubt at all.
As cyberpunk dystopias go, this one isn't so bad. Hell, they pay me six figures to sit in front of a computer and write programs, something that I like to do anyway. I'll take that over subsistence farming or menial labor any day of the week.
Server 2016 is going per core licencing which means less cores overclocked
Given the drive to eke every last bit of economy (both dollars and joules) out of commodity server hardware, I see two possible outcomes for that: either future versions of Windows will have to reduce their licensing costs in the multicore scenarios, or most software will get ported over to other operating systems whose licensing costs are lower. (I'd imagine the latter is more sensible, since paying to license a GUI-based OS seems silly when running server software on a headless machine in a data center, but far be it from me to second-guess the IT industry)
With 4096 otherwise idle cores, it can make sense to calculate 1,000 possible scenarios in parallel and then ignore the 999 options you didn't need.
Well, maybe from a strict minimize-time-to-result perspective, but if we're also trying to minimize power usage (and given the subject of this article, we presumably are), then I'm not sure you're going to get any kind of efficiency win by doing 1000 times the necessary number of computations and throwing away almost all of them.
And in *two whole years*, they should have been able to establish that it was validating malware.
Is the app in question actually malware, according to Apple's definition of the term?
Or to put it another way, how evil does an application have to be before it should be labelled as malware? Is there a formal policy on this posted anywhere?
I still keep a landline for emergency, it's never failed in 40 years.
Of course, the flip side of that is that you're likely paying a significant monthly bill to keep that reliable land line active.
My building's two front-door call boxes were each using a land line for their call-up function, and they were costing the HOA $65/month each. I switched them over to VOIP, now they cost the HOA about 25 cents per month each (not including the $23/month DSL service, since we had that set up anyway for unrelated reasons).
And SD is not worth watching.
I don't get that logic -- if it's a good movie, it will still be a good movie in SD. If it's a bad movie, it will suck even more in HD.
The subset of movies that are worth watching in HD but not worth watching in SD must be very small -- Avatar, maybe?
Junk making the front page that talks to me like I don't already work in IT or understand how common household technologies work.
Who are you? I didn't understand how DSL worked until I read the article, now I do. (Well, probably not, but now I know more than I did)
People are getting so distracted by the word "luddite" that they've neglected to ask the important question: to what extent does having all of the solar panels mounted vertically affect their efficiency?
Granted, it looks cool, but I presume that most solar arrays are mounted horizontally (or at an angle determined by their location's latitude) so that they are as close to perpendicular as possible to the sun. Unless this installation is *really* far from the equator, it seems like they will be generating less electricity than they might have this way.
I'll just chime in.... my iPhone 4 lasted 5 years with absolutely no problems other than the battery life gradually diminishing. When I finally decided to upgrade, I paid a college kid $35 to replace the battery and now it works like new again (I passed it on to a relative to use as an mp3/audiobook player). I could have replaced the battery myself for about half that price, but I was too lazy to bother.
we don't allow the "public" to get in the way of corporate profits.
If the technology works, then a corporate-owned solar roadway could be just as profitable as any other corporate-owned solar farm, of which we have many. And if it doesn't work, then there's no point in installing it anyway.
That was my first reaction as well, but a roof structure would run about $4-5/watt for the system, with panels about 35% of the cost.
I think "roof" might be overkill, how about just a series of poles along the median strip, with solar panels placed on top of them and/or between them? The added cost would just be the cost of the poles, plus some additional wiring.
Sure, the surface area per mile of highway would be much less, but it's not like there is a shortage of miles of highway available.
With solar 6x the cost of standard electricity, you're just shifting (and increasing) pollution further down the supply chain.
I think that logic only makes sense if you're looking at prices that include all of the externalized costs of the generated power, rather than just the direct costs. Otherwise, for example coal-based electricity seems cheaper but actually isn't, because the nominal price does not include the expenses incurred by the resulting pollution.
I see no possible problem with any of this.
I don't either. Either this road proves workable, in which case the world now has access to a new, proven technology -- or it turns out not to be workable, in which case the technology is a failure but all the costs will be paid by the French.
It's not quite win/win, but at least it's win/neutral.
Imagine plunking down your iPhone anywhere on your desk and knowing that it'll top up.
I'm imagining sitting down at my desk with my iPhone in my pocket, and having my balls microwaved. I think I'm not going to be a beta-tester for this one.
I foresee problems using this proposed truck for towing. One of the things that makes the Model S successful is it's form. It has very low aerodynamic drag, and a somewhat fixed mass. Towing a trailer completely disrupts that system. Mass will increase dramatically, and most trailers have the aerodynamics of a brick.
The Model X seems to do okay at towing; I don't know why a purpose-built vehicle would be any worse.
Do you know what the specs for a typical trash truck(3mpg) are and the battery you would need to run such a platform? How would you charge 15 or 20 of these monsters at night? (if you are lucky enough for battery to last during the day) The up front costs would be astronomical.
No need to imagine hypotheticals, you could just ask the guys who are doing it.
They seem pretty bullish on the idea and they've put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.
THAT is something I'd definitely be in the market for....why won't they do this again as the 'flagship' car to use to see their other more boring/pedestrian looking cars....?
That would be cool, and IIRC they have talked about bringing back an updated version of the Roadster.
As for why they (probably) won't do that in the near future -- they already have their low-volume "halo" car that proves their credentials, and what they want to do now is sell in high volume so they can benefit more from economies of scale. To do that, they need to sell something that is (relatively) cheap and popular, not another high-priced niche vehicle.
On top of being a showman, Musk seems to have a real need to keep people talking about and listening to him.
Perhaps, but that goes both ways -- the media also have a real desire to keep talking about Musk, for the obvious reasons -- he's doing interesting things, and therefore talking about him sells copy.