"... there was still a lot of mumbo-jumbo out there..."
Still is, if not more so. I'm not just talking about homeopathy or magical crystals or other new age clapp trap, lots of wild claims and other mumbo jumbo are made in the name of other fields of science without the hard evidence to back it up.
"All Amiga systems can display full-screen animated graphics with 32, 64 (EHB Mode) or 4096 colors (HAM Mode). Models with the AGA chipset (A1200 and A4000) also have 128, 256 and 262144 (HAM Mode) color modes and a palette expanded from 4096 to 16.8 million colors. The Amiga chipset can genlock -- adjust its own screen refresh timing to match an NTSC or PAL video signal. When combined with setting transparency, this allows an Amiga to overlay an external video source with graphics. This ability made the Amiga popular for many applications, and provides the ability to do character generation and CGI effects far more cheaply than earlier systems. Some frequent users of this ability included wedding videographers, TV stations and their weather forecasting divisions (for weather graphics and radar), advertising channels, music video production, and 'desktop video'. The NewTek Video Toaster was made possible by the genlock ability of the Amiga." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga#Graphics
Let's list the prior art. If you know of a patent that is prior art please list it here. If you know of a program or computer science paper or article that is prior art please list it here. Provide links if possible. If you review the patent and find a flaw please list it here with your explanation of what the flaw is. If you find any part "obvious" please indicate why. Good hunting.
Canada won't have the possibility of being a democracy till the Queen is excised from all Canadian institutions. It's no longer acceptable to have political structures dominated by fantasies of Monarchy from God, conquest or tyranny.
AWESOME, but it's not true, it's recovered much more since 2007 - the big scary alleged melt year - on the order of about 1 million sq. km. (that's kilometers, a unit of distance for you Americans, for you scifi fans that's klicks). We'll know more in a couple of months as the low point of the summer ends.
Oh, and the ice that broke off of Greenland fractured off, it didn't melt off. It's called calving and it's been going on as long as there have been glaciers. It's a normal process. For some it's spooky. For others it's just what is so.
..., No the GOURD, no the SHOW, no the PERIOD, no the SPACE, no the DOUBLE SPACE, no the GOURD, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk, no the PERIOD, no the SPACE, no the DOUBLE SPACE,..., no the EGG,...
Yikes, start packing for doomsday for the soothsayers are out and about using The Force to intensify propaganda after their self inflicted Climate Gate revelations of their Alarmist Scientist Core Cult members improprieties. Pack light though, it's going to be a scorcher, allegedly. Hawaii at the North Pole. I really am beginning to wonder if all these alarmist scientists are just rapture christians firing things up for the coming end times? Nostradamus still beats any climate scientist with soothsaying doomsday predictions. Hands down, and he's been dead a long time. Now how can that be? Let's explore the science that prevents predictions of complex systems.
It's not possible to predict the future with crummy or even excellent computer models. Do you really think that a chaotic system such as the weather is going to follow your computer model? Nature followers her own rules and it's the height of arrogance to think that we can model what is going to happen a 100 years from now. Besides Wolfram proved mathematically that simple systems (which weather and climate systems are) generate their own internal randomness that is impossible to predict, you must watch them unfold on the universal computer known as the objective reality of Nature where we actually exist. Wolfram shows in A New Kind of Science that these systems are highly complex, as complex as any complex system, and that in order to know what they will do next you have to observe them unfold in real time. No two ways around it.
Wolfram also shows that Natural systems are more like cellular automata than linear equations. Any climate scientists that fail to consider these and other facts is simply deluding himself and conning others with his belief stricken delusion that their climate models can be predictive.
At each decision point with a climate model all paths must be taken rather than just one. This leads to a combinatorial explosion of possible futures that are still an infinitesimal subset of all the actually possible futures that Nature could do. Oh, and many members of that infinitesimal subset are not actually possible in Nature since Nature doesn't follow the binary decisions of a climate scientists computer program. It's possible that this infinitesimal subset of simulated posisble futures generated by climate computer models actually contains zero elements that are actually possible in the objective reality of Nature.
Oh, and it's an extraordinary claim that computer climate models can accurately predict the future. It's up to the authors of these alleged climate models to provide hard evidence, extraordinary evidence, that their computer models in fact can predict anything accurately at all.
There's about 130 years of climate temperature data. Input the first 100 into any of the climate models and have them predict the next thirty years up to the present. If any of these climate models even come close to producing the same temperature patterns as recorded in the manipulated observed data then they might have a leg to stand on. Having talked with climate modelers directly they refuse to perform this test to validate their alleged climate models. It's no wonder why, you try to accurately predict the future of the weather and the climate 30 years out. Good luck with that.
As for the rest of it, the bad statistical correlation between CO2 and Temperature is just that, a bad statistical correlation. The Natural Null Hypothesis correlates much better ( http://tinyurl.com/NaturalNullHypothesis-pdf ), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) correlates even slightly better.
So while there is a slight upward warming trend with a 60 year sin wave oscillation in the temperature records from 130 years ago to the present coming out of the The Little Ice Age there hasn't been any change due to the small increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since WWII ~65 years ago. The Natural Null Hypothesis shows no deviation due to CO2 as would have been expected if CO2 impacts
Ah sigh, censored by those who can't handle valid criticism so they label my post above "flamebait" when it originally was labeled "+3 Interesting". Triple sigh.
'the tree ring data, seriously, you're using that?"
Dr. Micheal Mann keeps using the tree ring data even though it diverged downwards declining - that is the fraud he perpetuated by hiding the decline by REMOVING it from the famous hockey stick graph. It's blatant fraud. I would have failed science classes had I tried to pass that off as real data. Oh, he also bent it upwards to merge it back into a continuous line with the temperature data... another fraud! At least two frauds so far... oh wait there's more, he eliminated the Medieval Warm Period which was actually warmer than anytime in the last hundred years! Three frauds. The list goes on but they get much more technical. For more details see http://www.climateaudit.org/ where the hockey stick is slaughtered as are the three recent political whitewash inquiries.
"No it doesn't, your list of 3 is faulty to begin with, and yet you claim to be the one who is honestly reporting the situation."
Your opinion is irrelevant as the facts speak for themselves, fraudulent representations by Mann and Jones and others abound in climate science, if you don't dig you'll never learn the verifiable facts. If you only listen to the alarmists and fail to think for yourself you'll become an alarmist believer. So be it. I'm not here to change your mind or debate you just to make my points which I've done so above. If you want to learn then read and study but also study the critics and what they have to say from the point of view of what if the critics are right? If you're stuck in single perspective thinking (we're doomed, the end is near) then you'll never learn the facts, broaden your horizon and become an actual independently thinking scientist who relies up the facts and evidence not on political opinions.
Hey they got the Doomsday AGW Religion so there's not accounting for taste nor for thinking for themselves. Cults like alarmist AGW people don't care about the actual science as long as their political agenda is being put forward as the truth.
Plants love CO2. Commercial greenhouses operate at 900-1200ppm of CO2 and grow lots of awesome food for humans to eat. A peer reviewed scientific study shows that from 1980-1999 the amount of vegetation on the planet increased by 6% as CO2 increased. More CO2 = more food for humans. Inconvenient facts of biological science.
But if you actually read the critiques of these allegedly "independent panels" you see that they didn't study the facts but glossed over them or ignored them completely. They are just a political whitewash.
Being cleared by a political panel is irrelevant as they didn't address any of the actual science. If you only listen to the political crap your thinking will be polluted by the political crap. As they say Garbage In Garbage Out.
I'm just stating the facts that are obvious if you've read any of the Climategate emails or dug into the real criticisms of the alleged climate science.
The "conspiracy" is well documented in the Climategate emails: political interference in the peer review scientific method process, hiding declines in tree ring data is blatant fraud and deserves jail time for Mann and Jones, refusing information requests also deserves jail time for public data needs to be available to the public especially when it is being used to spend the public purse on public policy of governments,... the list goes on and on... Nasa GISS temperature data fabricates data with one temperature station being used for 1200km diameter up north in Canada - fabrication of data is fraud the last time I checked ethics... the list goes on and on and on....
So do your own homework. I don't have time to debate you or bring you up to speed.
Here are some sources with many excellent and informative articles (including one that shows that the Null Natural Hypothesis has better correlation coefficients than any of the Alleged AGW Hypothesis climate models).
The three inquiries into the fraudulent science by Phil Jones, Michael Mann and others have all been political whitewashes. The alleged climate scientists involved in Climategate need to spend some quality time behind bars for they have perpetrated a number of obvious frauds and continue to do so, they used political methods to silence other scientists who had different results, they pass off poor statistical correlations as settled science (no such thing) when the Natural Null Hypothesis has better statistical correlation, even worse they have unnecessarily scared the global population with their doomsday soothsaying all driven by their own political agenda to secure additional funding (which they succeed at quite well for fear works to extract money from politicians who don't think critically especially those who live life basking in the internal brain drugged up endarkened ignorance of faith based beliefs).
It is a sad era for science. Richard Feynman would be rocking in his grave if he knew about this (and if dead people could rock in their graves but unfortunately biology tells us that dead parrots stay dead, oh wait that was monty python that tells us that, anyway I digress so back to the colorful expression of dead scientists rocking in their graves at a political white wash).
Richard Feynman had this to say on the topic of integrity of scientists:
"But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves-of having utter scientific integrity-is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.
I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish it at all. That's
"There's a difference between abandoning and postponing. But that would not be catchy anymore"
Right on target.
Now maybe Intel will cancel or abandon the Larrabee after all is said and done... or not... their failure so far was in the ring bus that limited their first chips to about 1 teraflops or so... unfortunately NVidia had already beat that target... so if Intel is to continue they need to be able to leap frog NVidia and ATI on performance.
From a chip perspective the Larrabee rocks. Maybe like the Itanium we won't see it happen...
Let's cross our fingers for it's a cool tech for us programmers to get our hands on and for product makers to produce cool stuff with.
"A new ruling by the Supreme Court in Canada will allow journalists and bloggers greater protection from defamation lawsuits, establishing the new defence of responsible journalism.
If sued for defamation, journalists will be able to defend themselves by proving that they acted in the public interest and that they acted in a responsible way to gather the information. This rule will still apply even if particular facts are found to be false." - Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Press Freedom"
Could it be that the Linux Kernel isn't state of the art anymore? Linux is boring... it's bloated... it's no wonder that young blood aren't interested in developing it, they want to do something really cool and cutting edge to light their careers on fire!
Slashdot Mirror
"... there was still a lot of mumbo-jumbo out there ..."
Still is, if not more so. I'm not just talking about homeopathy or magical crystals or other new age clapp trap, lots of wild claims and other mumbo jumbo are made in the name of other fields of science without the hard evidence to back it up.
"All Amiga systems can display full-screen animated graphics with 32, 64 (EHB Mode) or 4096 colors (HAM Mode). Models with the AGA chipset (A1200 and A4000) also have 128, 256 and 262144 (HAM Mode) color modes and a palette expanded from 4096 to 16.8 million colors. The Amiga chipset can genlock -- adjust its own screen refresh timing to match an NTSC or PAL video signal. When combined with setting transparency, this allows an Amiga to overlay an external video source with graphics. This ability made the Amiga popular for many applications, and provides the ability to do character generation and CGI effects far more cheaply than earlier systems. Some frequent users of this ability included wedding videographers, TV stations and their weather forecasting divisions (for weather graphics and radar), advertising channels, music video production, and 'desktop video'. The NewTek Video Toaster was made possible by the genlock ability of the Amiga."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga#Graphics
Video Toaster 1990
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyGCYoZ5Nlk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErU-cs1S0Kw
Please provide a link to a web page with further details. Thanks.
Crowd sourced obliteration of this patent.
Let's list the prior art. If you know of a patent that is prior art please list it here. If you know of a program or computer science paper or article that is prior art please list it here. Provide links if possible. If you review the patent and find a flaw please list it here with your explanation of what the flaw is. If you find any part "obvious" please indicate why. Good hunting.
Canada won't have the possibility of being a democracy till the Queen is excised from all Canadian institutions. It's no longer acceptable to have political structures dominated by fantasies of Monarchy from God, conquest or tyranny.
How the monarchy came to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
http://tinyurl.com/linuxbad. Reason for http://openbsd.org/ and http://freebsd.org./
http://tinyurl.com/TMTOWTDI
AWESOME, but it's not true, it's recovered much more since 2007 - the big scary alleged melt year - on the order of about 1 million sq. km. (that's kilometers, a unit of distance for you Americans, for you scifi fans that's klicks). We'll know more in a couple of months as the low point of the summer ends.
Don't believe me?
Here is the data. Note that it's really cold up there this year so it's bound to be another low melt year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/sea-ice-page
Oh, and the ice that broke off of Greenland fractured off, it didn't melt off. It's called calving and it's been going on as long as there have been glaciers. It's a normal process. For some it's spooky. For others it's just what is so.
..., No the GOURD, no the SHOW, no the PERIOD, no the SPACE, no the DOUBLE SPACE, no the GOURD, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk, no the PERIOD, no the SPACE, no the DOUBLE SPACE, ..., no the EGG, ...
Yikes, start packing for doomsday for the soothsayers are out and about using The Force to intensify propaganda after their self inflicted Climate Gate revelations of their Alarmist Scientist Core Cult members improprieties. Pack light though, it's going to be a scorcher, allegedly. Hawaii at the North Pole. I really am beginning to wonder if all these alarmist scientists are just rapture christians firing things up for the coming end times? Nostradamus still beats any climate scientist with soothsaying doomsday predictions. Hands down, and he's been dead a long time. Now how can that be? Let's explore the science that prevents predictions of complex systems.
It's not possible to predict the future with crummy or even excellent computer models. Do you really think that a chaotic system such as the weather is going to follow your computer model? Nature followers her own rules and it's the height of arrogance to think that we can model what is going to happen a 100 years from now. Besides Wolfram proved mathematically that simple systems (which weather and climate systems are) generate their own internal randomness that is impossible to predict, you must watch them unfold on the universal computer known as the objective reality of Nature where we actually exist. Wolfram shows in A New Kind of Science that these systems are highly complex, as complex as any complex system, and that in order to know what they will do next you have to observe them unfold in real time. No two ways around it.
Wolfram also shows that Natural systems are more like cellular automata than linear equations. Any climate scientists that fail to consider these and other facts is simply deluding himself and conning others with his belief stricken delusion that their climate models can be predictive.
At each decision point with a climate model all paths must be taken rather than just one. This leads to a combinatorial explosion of possible futures that are still an infinitesimal subset of all the actually possible futures that Nature could do. Oh, and many members of that infinitesimal subset are not actually possible in Nature since Nature doesn't follow the binary decisions of a climate scientists computer program. It's possible that this infinitesimal subset of simulated posisble futures generated by climate computer models actually contains zero elements that are actually possible in the objective reality of Nature.
Oh, and it's an extraordinary claim that computer climate models can accurately predict the future. It's up to the authors of these alleged climate models to provide hard evidence, extraordinary evidence, that their computer models in fact can predict anything accurately at all.
There's about 130 years of climate temperature data. Input the first 100 into any of the climate models and have them predict the next thirty years up to the present. If any of these climate models even come close to producing the same temperature patterns as recorded in the manipulated observed data then they might have a leg to stand on. Having talked with climate modelers directly they refuse to perform this test to validate their alleged climate models. It's no wonder why, you try to accurately predict the future of the weather and the climate 30 years out. Good luck with that.
As for the rest of it, the bad statistical correlation between CO2 and Temperature is just that, a bad statistical correlation. The Natural Null Hypothesis correlates much better ( http://tinyurl.com/NaturalNullHypothesis-pdf ), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) correlates even slightly better.
So while there is a slight upward warming trend with a 60 year sin wave oscillation in the temperature records from 130 years ago to the present coming out of the The Little Ice Age there hasn't been any change due to the small increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since WWII ~65 years ago. The Natural Null Hypothesis shows no deviation due to CO2 as would have been expected if CO2 impacts
All Glory To the HYPNO-TOAD! http://r33b.net/
All Glory To the HYPNO-TOAD!
Ah sigh, censored by those who can't handle valid criticism so they label my post above "flamebait" when it originally was labeled "+3 Interesting". Triple sigh.
'the tree ring data, seriously, you're using that?"
Dr. Micheal Mann keeps using the tree ring data even though it diverged downwards declining - that is the fraud he perpetuated by hiding the decline by REMOVING it from the famous hockey stick graph. It's blatant fraud. I would have failed science classes had I tried to pass that off as real data. Oh, he also bent it upwards to merge it back into a continuous line with the temperature data... another fraud! At least two frauds so far... oh wait there's more, he eliminated the Medieval Warm Period which was actually warmer than anytime in the last hundred years! Three frauds. The list goes on but they get much more technical. For more details see http://www.climateaudit.org/ where the hockey stick is slaughtered as are the three recent political whitewash inquiries.
"No it doesn't, your list of 3 is faulty to begin with, and yet you claim to be the one who is honestly reporting the situation."
Your opinion is irrelevant as the facts speak for themselves, fraudulent representations by Mann and Jones and others abound in climate science, if you don't dig you'll never learn the verifiable facts. If you only listen to the alarmists and fail to think for yourself you'll become an alarmist believer. So be it. I'm not here to change your mind or debate you just to make my points which I've done so above. If you want to learn then read and study but also study the critics and what they have to say from the point of view of what if the critics are right? If you're stuck in single perspective thinking (we're doomed, the end is near) then you'll never learn the facts, broaden your horizon and become an actual independently thinking scientist who relies up the facts and evidence not on political opinions.
Hey they got the Doomsday AGW Religion so there's not accounting for taste nor for thinking for themselves. Cults like alarmist AGW people don't care about the actual science as long as their political agenda is being put forward as the truth.
Plants love CO2. Commercial greenhouses operate at 900-1200ppm of CO2 and grow lots of awesome food for humans to eat. A peer reviewed scientific study shows that from 1980-1999 the amount of vegetation on the planet increased by 6% as CO2 increased. More CO2 = more food for humans. Inconvenient facts of biological science.
But if you actually read the critiques of these allegedly "independent panels" you see that they didn't study the facts but glossed over them or ignored them completely. They are just a political whitewash.
Being cleared by a political panel is irrelevant as they didn't address any of the actual science. If you only listen to the political crap your thinking will be polluted by the political crap. As they say Garbage In Garbage Out.
I'm just stating the facts that are obvious if you've read any of the Climategate emails or dug into the real criticisms of the alleged climate science.
If you'd like to hear from a climate scientist on the topic read this and the many other supporting articles. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/10/fred-singer-on-the-muir-russel-report
The "conspiracy" is well documented in the Climategate emails: political interference in the peer review scientific method process, hiding declines in tree ring data is blatant fraud and deserves jail time for Mann and Jones, refusing information requests also deserves jail time for public data needs to be available to the public especially when it is being used to spend the public purse on public policy of governments, ... the list goes on and on... Nasa GISS temperature data fabricates data with one temperature station being used for 1200km diameter up north in Canada - fabrication of data is fraud the last time I checked ethics... the list goes on and on and on....
So do your own homework. I don't have time to debate you or bring you up to speed.
Here are some sources with many excellent and informative articles (including one that shows that the Null Natural Hypothesis has better correlation coefficients than any of the Alleged AGW Hypothesis climate models).
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/
You might think that challenging someone for references is being scientific smidget2k4 but really do your own research. I'm not here to mother you.
Where have you been the last few years? Sheesh.
The three inquiries into the fraudulent science by Phil Jones, Michael Mann and others have all been political whitewashes. The alleged climate scientists involved in Climategate need to spend some quality time behind bars for they have perpetrated a number of obvious frauds and continue to do so, they used political methods to silence other scientists who had different results, they pass off poor statistical correlations as settled science (no such thing) when the Natural Null Hypothesis has better statistical correlation, even worse they have unnecessarily scared the global population with their doomsday soothsaying all driven by their own political agenda to secure additional funding (which they succeed at quite well for fear works to extract money from politicians who don't think critically especially those who live life basking in the internal brain drugged up endarkened ignorance of faith based beliefs).
It is a sad era for science. Richard Feynman would be rocking in his grave if he knew about this (and if dead people could rock in their graves but unfortunately biology tells us that dead parrots stay dead, oh wait that was monty python that tells us that, anyway I digress so back to the colorful expression of dead scientists rocking in their graves at a political white wash).
Richard Feynman had this to say on the topic of integrity of scientists:
"But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves-of having utter scientific integrity-is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.
I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish it at all. That's
Subject line says it all. C is the best subset of C++ there is or ever will be.
"There's a difference between abandoning and postponing. But that would not be catchy anymore"
Right on target.
Now maybe Intel will cancel or abandon the Larrabee after all is said and done... or not... their failure so far was in the ring bus that limited their first chips to about 1 teraflops or so... unfortunately NVidia had already beat that target... so if Intel is to continue they need to be able to leap frog NVidia and ATI on performance.
From a chip perspective the Larrabee rocks. Maybe like the Itanium we won't see it happen...
Let's cross our fingers for it's a cool tech for us programmers to get our hands on and for product makers to produce cool stuff with.
Big deal, Google still knows... use a blocker such as https://www.snoopblocker.com/ instead. They don't keep logs and google won't know who you are!
"A new ruling by the Supreme Court in Canada will allow journalists and bloggers greater protection from defamation lawsuits, establishing the new defence of responsible journalism.
If sued for defamation, journalists will be able to defend themselves by proving that they acted in the public interest and that they acted in a responsible way to gather the information. This rule will still apply even if particular facts are found to be false." - Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Press Freedom"
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/09/the-new-defense-of-responsible-journalism
Could it be that the Linux Kernel isn't state of the art anymore? Linux is boring... it's bloated... it's no wonder that young blood aren't interested in developing it, they want to do something really cool and cutting edge to light their careers on fire!