Bad analogy. Everyone opens their trunk from time to time. Very few people write their own video drivers. A better analogy would be a car manufacturer who does not allow you to reprogram the Anti-lock Braking System.
I don't know, maybe because most super computers on the fucking planet use GPUs?
Still a very small market. Lets see, they can spend resources working on the next card that can make them million or spend the same resources suppoting a small market that may make a few $100K. If you ran the company which would you choose?
Why would scientists want a GPU manufacturer to support the operating system...
It is not NVIDIA's job to support scientists. Their job is to make money for their stockholders.
Nor could I possibly use shaders for anything outside of gaming.
How is a private company obliged to support your project?
Sorry but "they re not allowing me to do what I want" just sounds very entitled to me.
PS. Using profanity just makes you appear to be an illiterate idiot.
How many of those linux machines that were required to post this comment also requires a high end GPU. I would venture to guess close to zero. Why sould a GPU manufacturer spend a lot of time supporting such a small user base?
Inertia meaning things at rest tend to stay at rest and things in motion tend to stay in motion.
Yes, preferentially hiring women for a while would result in a brief surge of female majority in the middle rungs of the institution a few decades
Who is to say that it will be brief? Who is to say that the preferential treatment for women will not last a few decades and when the female majority get to middle/upper management they do not continue the discrimination?
it's arguably less wrong than allowing another several generation of women to grow up in a world that's severely stacked against them.
In this instance the world is not currently stacked against them. According to the article it is actually stacked with them. Equality in hiring is even less wrong that using discrimination to make up for past errors.
No, I want one of a thousand drones deployed as a wall in front of the aircraft to get sucked into the intake and break a couple of fins which will lead to catastrophic failure.
The problem with conventional missiles is that if they miss, and they miss a lot, they are expended. A drone can hang around and attack the next aircraft coming by.
But I think you're taking the pendulum metaphor a little to literally - backlash to social change is stronger the faster it happens.
I thought about that but the more I thought the more I realized the pendulum analogy fits. For example say now the ration of men to women is 80/20. That is bad and needs to be fixed. Say in the next generation the hiring is 34/66. While both generations are around the ratio will be 57/43. It looks like it is going in the right direction. Now the first generation retires and we have a 33/66 ratio. The pendulum has now sung too far because they tried to change the ratio too fast.
Why should women?
I never said they should. Men and women should be equally considered based on qualifications and not gender. Men entering the workforce should not be made to suffer for their fathers' sins. Discriminating against men is just as bad as discriminating against women.
On one hand preference toward men is wrong. On the other hand preference toward women to make up for past preference toward men is right. I can not reconcile those to statements. Taken together those statements sound hypocritical to me.
that we should move slowly and thus *definitely* subject more generations of women to the same sexist disadvantages that you're afraid men *might* suffer if we move quickly.
The current men entering the workforce are definitely suffering sexist disadvantages. There is a continuum between hiring all men and hiring all women. We just need to find the happy medium between the two. I think that hiring women two for one is too far. Sure there should be some bias but lets not go too far.
Trying to fix historic issues in one generation is not reasonable.
I too fear the pendulum may swing too far, in fact it seems almost inevitable
How far the pendulum swings is based on how fast it swings. Swing too fast and it will go too far.
well, let's just say that I know way too many women who would be quite happy to establish a matriarchy instead to be comfortable with that scenario.
There is a good possibility that moving too fast will itself establish a matriarchy.
Oversimplified - give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
You are not asking for that. You are asking for superiority in hiring for an undetermined period to bring overall equality. There are no safeguards to prevent the equality from becoming female superiority. Who says when there is enough equality?
Why should the men entering the workforce be penalized for things they have no control over.
which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires.
There is a danger to the quick fix. The following things could happen; 1. During the "correction" period few men may be hired. This could create a generation of employees that are mostly women making the discrimination against men very visible. This could create a rift between the male and females in the organization and cause more damage than good. 2. There may be a generation of males that due to past issues, issues they did not cause, may be kept out of industry. 3. When the current male generation retires the pendulum may have swung so far as to create the opposite problem that we have today. Sometimes moving slowly is a better idea than trying to fix past mistakes by making another mistake.
Why? And they're not 'taking over', they're 'forming competition'.
Competition would be if both companies were working with the same constraints. As I have shown the government backed company would have many advantages. It is not a level playing field.
In areas that they have done so they tend to kill the competitor,
It could also be that due to all the advantages the government company has that private companies can not compete.
How can any private company compete with another company that has a lower cost of capitol, shorter approval times, more access to right of ways, etc?
Basically, you're arguing against something which is already proven.
Proven under a set of very controlled and restricted conditions. 1. Only on roads pre-scanned frequently and gone over by a person to gather enough information to allow the car to function. 2. Only in good weather. Google themselves admit that their car does not work in snow or heavy rain. 3. Only with a driver to take over when the computer gets overwhelmed. Google does not publicize how often this happens.
Google car goes far towards autonomous vehicles but it is still far from a complete solution.
The customer who does not have the ability to use PVs will pay. They would be businesses and apartment dwellers. Those who use PV will see no difference as their net zero bill will still be zero.
I have to ask - what do you have against cooperatives?
Lets get this back to the original point. I have nothing against cooperatives. I do have something against government agencies with advantages in finance pretending to "compete". Again I will state that if a government agency wants to take over they need to compensate the current public companies.
Exactly. Who pays for the distribution grid? Who pays for the "storage". That "storage" is in fact dispatchable generators that are used when needed and still need to be maintained.
The Shuttle and DreamChaser addressed this problem quite well.
Did you forget the solid rocket boosters and the huge fuel tank on the Shuttle that does not fly itself down? The SRB casing and engines were reused but only after extensive and expensive rebuilds. The Dreamchaser gets launched on top of a huge rocket. A better comparison would be between the Shuttle, Dreamchaser and Dragon module. All 3 still use much bigger rockets to get to orbit.
We're talking about things like 100mbit service for $40/month where the phone company was offering 1mbit for $100.
Have you looked into why this is happening? Maybe it is due to attempting to recoup investment in current infrastructure built when the technology was more expensive.
Both would be set up by the same funding source - municipal bonds,
Bonds which would have a lower interest rate due to a better rating. That is an advantage.
With it being a cooperative, if the initiative fails, you can dissolve it and the incurred debts(mostly) don't fall back on the local government.
The municipality is on the hook for the bonds.
That doesn't mean that the government can't offer it 'sweetheart deals' as part of the start up,
Advantage coop.
Generally speaking, as a 'not for profit' cooperative it's not going to have any profits to be taxed via corporate income tax
Advantage coop.
But even then, the local government has various options to 'forgive' those
Advantage coop.
Do you see how those and other advantages make competition by private companies difficult if not impossible? Even in your example of the NG coop there is no competition as the current supplier has a monopoly in the current service area.
Continuing to support the company through tax revenues would be highly unusual, and probably require continuing votes to keep the funding going.
Private companies have to save money from profits to expand and upgrade systems. In this model all the coop has to do is go back and float another bond. It is pretty easy to do when it is coached like "Support this bond or your internet access will fail".
Health care is very different than internet service. People who can afford it will be willing to pay thousands of dollars to get well sooner. They are not willing to pay that much to spend less time with customer service. Tell someone with a bum hip that it will cost them $30k to fix it and the will if they can. Tell someone it will be $30K to run a line to their house and the will say "Hell no".
In another thread an interesting separation was put forward. Infrastructure separated from service. Having a monopoly on infrastructure decreases costs and duplication of effort. Here is the catch though. The infrastructure provider must sell to any service provider at the same price and service level.
In that case the business was given the opportunity to come to a reasonable agreement and failed. This is far different than government coming in, building a replacement on tax dollars without giving the current businesses the opportunity to recoup their investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad analogy. Everyone opens their trunk from time to time. Very few people write their own video drivers. A better analogy would be a car manufacturer who does not allow you to reprogram the Anti-lock Braking System.
I don't know, maybe because most super computers on the fucking planet use GPUs?
Still a very small market. Lets see, they can spend resources working on the next card that can make them million or spend the same resources suppoting a small market that may make a few $100K. If you ran the company which would you choose?
Why would scientists want a GPU manufacturer to support the operating system...
It is not NVIDIA's job to support scientists. Their job is to make money for their stockholders.
Nor could I possibly use shaders for anything outside of gaming.
How is a private company obliged to support your project?
Sorry but "they re not allowing me to do what I want" just sounds very entitled to me.
PS. Using profanity just makes you appear to be an illiterate idiot.
How many of those linux machines that were required to post this comment also requires a high end GPU. I would venture to guess close to zero. Why sould a GPU manufacturer spend a lot of time supporting such a small user base?
To carry 10 pounds and a proximity fuse would require a 20 pound drone. That would make it large, easily seen and easily avoided.
You are assuming a lack of cultural inertia.
Inertia meaning things at rest tend to stay at rest and things in motion tend to stay in motion.
Yes, preferentially hiring women for a while would result in a brief surge of female majority in the middle rungs of the institution a few decades
Who is to say that it will be brief? Who is to say that the preferential treatment for women will not last a few decades and when the female majority get to middle/upper management they do not continue the discrimination?
it's arguably less wrong than allowing another several generation of women to grow up in a world that's severely stacked against them.
In this instance the world is not currently stacked against them. According to the article it is actually stacked with them. Equality in hiring is even less wrong that using discrimination to make up for past errors.
No, I want one of a thousand drones deployed as a wall in front of the aircraft to get sucked into the intake and break a couple of fins which will lead to catastrophic failure.
The problem with conventional missiles is that if they miss, and they miss a lot, they are expended. A drone can hang around and attack the next aircraft coming by.
Citation needed.
But I think you're taking the pendulum metaphor a little to literally - backlash to social change is stronger the faster it happens.
I thought about that but the more I thought the more I realized the pendulum analogy fits. For example say now the ration of men to women is 80/20. That is bad and needs to be fixed. Say in the next generation the hiring is 34/66. While both generations are around the ratio will be 57/43. It looks like it is going in the right direction. Now the first generation retires and we have a 33/66 ratio. The pendulum has now sung too far because they tried to change the ratio too fast.
Why should women?
I never said they should. Men and women should be equally considered based on qualifications and not gender. Men entering the workforce should not be made to suffer for their fathers' sins. Discriminating against men is just as bad as discriminating against women.
On one hand preference toward men is wrong. On the other hand preference toward women to make up for past preference toward men is right. I can not reconcile those to statements. Taken together those statements sound hypocritical to me.
that we should move slowly and thus *definitely* subject more generations of women to the same sexist disadvantages that you're afraid men *might* suffer if we move quickly.
The current men entering the workforce are definitely suffering sexist disadvantages. There is a continuum between hiring all men and hiring all women. We just need to find the happy medium between the two. I think that hiring women two for one is too far. Sure there should be some bias but lets not go too far.
Trying to fix historic issues in one generation is not reasonable.
I too fear the pendulum may swing too far, in fact it seems almost inevitable
How far the pendulum swings is based on how fast it swings. Swing too fast and it will go too far.
well, let's just say that I know way too many women who would be quite happy to establish a matriarchy instead to be comfortable with that scenario.
There is a good possibility that moving too fast will itself establish a matriarchy.
Oversimplified - give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
You are not asking for that. You are asking for superiority in hiring for an undetermined period to bring overall equality. There are no safeguards to prevent the equality from becoming female superiority. Who says when there is enough equality?
Why should the men entering the workforce be penalized for things they have no control over.
which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires.
There is a danger to the quick fix. The following things could happen;
1. During the "correction" period few men may be hired. This could create a generation of employees that are mostly women making the discrimination against men very visible. This could create a rift between the male and females in the organization and cause more damage than good.
2. There may be a generation of males that due to past issues, issues they did not cause, may be kept out of industry.
3. When the current male generation retires the pendulum may have swung so far as to create the opposite problem that we have today.
Sometimes moving slowly is a better idea than trying to fix past mistakes by making another mistake.
Why? And they're not 'taking over', they're 'forming competition'.
Competition would be if both companies were working with the same constraints. As I have shown the government backed company would have many advantages. It is not a level playing field.
In areas that they have done so they tend to kill the competitor,
It could also be that due to all the advantages the government company has that private companies can not compete.
How can any private company compete with another company that has a lower cost of capitol, shorter approval times, more access to right of ways, etc?
Basically, you're arguing against something which is already proven.
Proven under a set of very controlled and restricted conditions.
1. Only on roads pre-scanned frequently and gone over by a person to gather enough information to allow the car to function.
2. Only in good weather. Google themselves admit that their car does not work in snow or heavy rain.
3. Only with a driver to take over when the computer gets overwhelmed. Google does not publicize how often this happens.
Google car goes far towards autonomous vehicles but it is still far from a complete solution.
The customer who does not have the ability to use PVs will pay. They would be businesses and apartment dwellers. Those who use PV will see no difference as their net zero bill will still be zero.
I have to ask - what do you have against cooperatives?
Lets get this back to the original point. I have nothing against cooperatives. I do have something against government agencies with advantages in finance pretending to "compete".
Again I will state that if a government agency wants to take over they need to compensate the current public companies.
None the less our electric bill is down at least 80% from pre-PV days.
Does that include the cost of the system?
Exactly. Who pays for the distribution grid? Who pays for the "storage". That "storage" is in fact dispatchable generators that are used when needed and still need to be maintained.
Why not use the grid as a reservoir..like a battery or capacitor?
Because that is not how the grid actually works.
When your local production exceeds your demand..push the rest into the reservoir
What actually happens is the dispatchable grid producers generate less electricity. There is very little storage.
When you have a deficit..draw from it
What actually happens is that the grid producers generate more electricity from their dispatachable plants.
The Shuttle and DreamChaser addressed this problem quite well.
Did you forget the solid rocket boosters and the huge fuel tank on the Shuttle that does not fly itself down? The SRB casing and engines were reused but only after extensive and expensive rebuilds. The Dreamchaser gets launched on top of a huge rocket. A better comparison would be between the Shuttle, Dreamchaser and Dragon module. All 3 still use much bigger rockets to get to orbit.
We're talking about things like 100mbit service for $40/month where the phone company was offering 1mbit for $100.
Have you looked into why this is happening? Maybe it is due to attempting to recoup investment in current infrastructure built when the technology was more expensive.
Both would be set up by the same funding source - municipal bonds,
Bonds which would have a lower interest rate due to a better rating. That is an advantage.
With it being a cooperative, if the initiative fails, you can dissolve it and the incurred debts(mostly) don't fall back on the local government.
The municipality is on the hook for the bonds.
That doesn't mean that the government can't offer it 'sweetheart deals' as part of the start up,
Advantage coop.
Generally speaking, as a 'not for profit' cooperative it's not going to have any profits to be taxed via corporate income tax
Advantage coop.
But even then, the local government has various options to 'forgive' those
Advantage coop.
Do you see how those and other advantages make competition by private companies difficult if not impossible? Even in your example of the NG coop there is no competition as the current supplier has a monopoly in the current service area.
Continuing to support the company through tax revenues would be highly unusual, and probably require continuing votes to keep the funding going.
Private companies have to save money from profits to expand and upgrade systems. In this model all the coop has to do is go back and float another bond. It is pretty easy to do when it is coached like "Support this bond or your internet access will fail".
Doesn't apply to new build -- if people want to differentiate on service, they can build their own fibre optic network.
That would be great but we are talking about government building in the same places as existing private services.
Health care is very different than internet service. People who can afford it will be willing to pay thousands of dollars to get well sooner. They are not willing to pay that much to spend less time with customer service. Tell someone with a bum hip that it will cost them $30k to fix it and the will if they can. Tell someone it will be $30K to run a line to their house and the will say "Hell no".
In another thread an interesting separation was put forward. Infrastructure separated from service. Having a monopoly on infrastructure decreases costs and duplication of effort. Here is the catch though. The infrastructure provider must sell to any service provider at the same price and service level.
In that case the business was given the opportunity to come to a reasonable agreement and failed. This is far different than government coming in, building a replacement on tax dollars without giving the current businesses the opportunity to recoup their investment.
It is still an issue of regulators allowing themselves to be captured.