There is much room for improvement. For example some fruits are harvested by a vehicle that deploys nets under a tree and shakes the tree. A more robot device that has a visual system to identify fruits that are at the proper ripeness for harvest and then selective collects them with an arm may be an improvement. Now consider such a device that is autonomous. Such a system may also be used with fruits and vegetable that are still harvested by hand.
What's the advantage in being ASIC-proof?/quote>
The realistic answer is that GPU miners are angry that they have been driven out and want a new place to mine.
The theoretical answer is that ASIC based mining tends to be done on an industrial scale, more medium to larger scale ASiC farms controlled by a small number of groups, less individuals using their computer's idle time and hobbyists with small farms. Many argue that a coin is healthier and safer when its blockchain, which is generated by mining, is created by a large number of decentralized individuals and hobbyists rather than a small number of groups most likely interested in commercial mining and/or speculation.
At least that's how it was until very recently. Powerful ASICs designed for hobbyists are now available, so hopefully we will see a little more decentralization among ASIC users. The hobbyists who would a year ago build a headless mining rig with a PC motherboard and three or four video cards will probably just buy an ASIC today.
The thing that makes me skeptical about ASIC-proof algorithms is that the computational part of a GPU could be put into an ASIC but anything related to video output could be discarded. I would expect better densities and more chips on a blade. Then some number of blades go into a box with a controller and cooling. A low power raspberry pi could service dozens of such boxes. I have a hard time seeing how a PC motherboard with a few high end video cards can compete on a hash/watt basis.
Even if ASIC development halts miner manufactures might use actual ATI/NVidia GPUs on their blades. Pack them in a little denser than you could on a video card. It would probably still beat a PC motherboard with video cards.
If external RAM becomes a necessity it could go on blade. We're a little bit closer to a video card now but without video output we probably have a density and profitability edge. Production runs of the blades may be relatively low volume, but aren't the specific high end video cards that miners want also relatively low volume? The GPU chips themselves may be high volume but a particular make and model of a video card is not.
I think one of the 28nm ASIC designers said they will do about 80x better than a GPU. Certainly this will fall if ASICs have to replicate full GPU computational abilities, fall more if external RAM is needed, fall more if actual ATI/Nvidia GPU chips need to go on dedicated mining blades. But I tend to think dedicated mining hardware will always have an appreciable advantage over repurposed PC gear. I think the days of building a special headless mining rig with a PC motherboard and three or four video cards are over. Its going to be boxes with hardware specifically made for mining, at least for mining enthusiasts.
Now for non-mining enthusiasts, for a gamer that wants to do a little mining when the computer would otherwise be idle, we'll still see GPU mining there.
You would only need the computational part of the GPU, anything video output related could be ditched. So you can pack thing more densely on the ASIC. Now the ASIC chip without all the video stuff gets packed more densely onto a blade. The blades get packaged into a box with a controller and cooling. Dozens of these boxes need nothing more than a low power raspberry pi to control them.
I don't think a PC motherboard hosting a few video cards can compete, work/power. I think "not being worth it" has more to do with the nature of the coin than with mining.
... especially so for the alt-coins that were theoretically ASIC-resistant...
I have heard so much about the so-called "ASIC-resistant" alt-coins but have yet to meet one yet Can you kindly tell us which alt-coin(s) is/are truly ASIC-resistant ?? Thanks !!
Note my use of "were theoretically". The scrypt algorithm, which many current alt-coins are based on was chosen back in the day because the coin dev teams thought it ASIC resistant. However it was only theoretically resistant and that did not match reality. As I indicated before, it was designed to do things that the sha256 based ASICs (Bitcoin) could not, however when alt-coins became profitable enough ASICs were designed for scrypt.
This cycle will repeat. Even if some algorithm were found that uses every bit of a GPU's computational power an ASIC would be developed that had only the computational circuits, ditched the graphics output circuits, packed those circuits in a custom chip, packaged them in a unit by the hundreds with a controller and cooling and only needed a low power devices like a raspberry pi to control dozens of such units. The preceding would beat a PC motherboard hosting as many video cards as can fit.
There is another huge value in accepting bitcoins. You don't have to worry about charge-backs.
Unless the blockchain forks again. Admittedly that would only occur in drastic circumstances and those effected confined to a very narrow time window. However the risk is not zero, but it is very very low. In 2013 a coding bug in the BTC mining software -- this is where the blockchain, the public ledger we all use, comes from -- necessitating a fork. Assuming no disappearing payments, no double spends, would require no future coding bugs by the BTC dev team.
I understand what an ASiC is, admittedly I was trying to be simple for a non-technical audience.
There is no such thing as an 'ASIC proof algorithm' because you simply design the ASIC to handle that situation.
And that is pretty much what I said earlier:
"ASIC-proof algorithms attempt to leverage the fact that ASICs are specialized. They try to incorporate things found in CPUs and GPUs but not in ASICs.... The problem is that the things missing from the previous generation of ASICs used to design the ASIC-proof algorithm have been finding their way into newer generation ASICs."
What I'm trying to convey is that the designers of ASIC-proof algorithms can only defeat yesterday's ASICs, not tomorrows. And by tomorrow I'm talking months not years. Apologies if I was somehow unclear.
The power difference between ASIC and GPU is not "a tiny bit", especially so for the alt-coins that were theoretically ASIC-resistant. ASICs are a huge win on power consumption.
But not enough credibility for merchants to hold/keep the bitcoins they receive from customers.
I think you're confusing credibility with volatility because their business is making a profit on margins, not playing with currency speculation.
The merchants that are selling thing to customers, they are not playing volatility. They are completely avoiding volatility by using a system that pays them the exact dollar (or whatever fiat currency) amount they expect from a customer paying in dollars. These merchants who accept bitcoins from customers have no faith in bitcoins. And thanks to exchanges the merchants accepting bitcoins need no faith at all in bitcoins.
Clearly Bitcoin has enough credibility for people to value it at hundreds of dollars...
But not enough credibility for merchants to hold/keep the bitcoins they receive from customers.
Merchants tend to use merchant services offered by various bitcoin exchanges. Basically the merchant does all their pricing and accounting as normal in whatever fiat currency they use, dollars, euros, etc. When a customer indicates they wish to pay in bitcoins the merchant sends sale info to the exchange, the exchange converts the price from fiat to bitcoin and provides a payment address to send bitcoins to. This payment address is the exchange's, the merchant never touches a bitcoin -- lucky for them if they are subject to IRS jurisdiction but that's another story. When the merchant receives the coins they credit the merchant's account with the original fiat amount specified regardless of any particular fluctuation that may have occurred in bitcoin's price.
In short. The merchant prices and does accounting in fiat currency and receives fiat currency in payment. The only thing new is that their payment processor is a bitcoin exchange rather than VISA or Mastercard.
ASICs (Application-specific integrated circuits) represent specialized hardware specifically designed for a particular task, in this context the ASICs are designed to mine coins. ASICs outperform (both in speed and power consumption) CPUs and GPUs making ASICs far more profitable.
Coin proof-of-work algorithms have some sort of difficulty setting to control the number of coins being awarded during a time period. The more mining horsepower there is the higher the difficulty goes. This rising difficulty level makes the mining calculations take longer. So as the total capability to do work (all the CPUs+GPUs+ASICs) goes up the difficulty goes up. An individual CPU, GPU or ASIC earns fewer coins per hour as difficulty rises but the total number of coins generated remain roughly constant over time.
ASIC-proof algorithms attempt to leverage the fact that ASICs are specialized. They try to incorporate things found in CPUs and GPUs but not in ASICs. The motivation is to allow CPUs and GPUs to profitably mine something. The problem is that the things missing from the previous generation of ASICs used to design the ASIC-proof algorithm have been finding their way into newer generation ASICs.
So the short story is that some alt-coins were partially motivated by CPU/GPU miner that were driven out of bitcoin mining. Newer generations ASICs are now taking over alt-coins and CPU/GPU miners are once again being driven out.
Those great deals you find on ebay for a used high end GPU. It very well may be a GPU that was over clocked and run just below the point of spontaneous combustion:-) 24/7 mining some coin.
Note however there is one very important point missed in all the rhetoric... That of changing specification coupled with muddied/stratified change management. This issue sits squarely on CMSs shoulders and is absolute poison to any IT project of any significance...
It was the politicians more than CMS. Not that CMS didn't have its share of problem generation but folks in the administration doing political recalculations on what the user interface and functionality should be like probably made this problem far worse than your normal federal project.
Wasn't there some last minute change ordered by the administration not to show the unsubsidized policy price, so now the site had to integrate with various other agencies and exchange a lot of personal information to calculate an accurate subsidized price? Note that the subsidized price is absolutely unnecessary for comparison shopping. A person's subsidy is a constant, it does not change the price difference between policy A and policy B. If A cost $X more than B before subsidy it will still cost $X more after subsidy. It was purely a politically motivated change to avoid sticker shock on pricing.
Moderation would work better if you could hear both sides. Let developers respond to a review like on Google Play.
Many people seem to use reviews as an alternative to contacting customer support. For legit problems there is some fairness in doing so. However there are times when a user is confused and the develop has no way to contact that user. It would also be useful for developers to respond indicating when a real problem is fixed.
Letting the developers worry about it seems like the only fair solution. Should there really be a market for apps that recreate other apps just a tiny bit better/shinier? If an app is really noteworthy, some venue outside the app store (blogs, tech news outlets, etc) will take notice and promote it.
There really is no such venue. For years I've been asking people that I run into where they learn about new apps. The answers are almost always the same. First is the App Store best seller lists. Second is friends mention it. Rarely, hardly ever actually, is some online source other than the app store mentioned.
Personally when I'm looking for an app for some task on Google Play I find the developer comments useful. When looking for an app on the Apple App Store I often wish I could see a developer's comment. Such comments are not valuable only to the developer, they are also valuable to the person looking for an app.
Lets ask the readers a question. Where, other than the App Store lists and friends, do you learn about new apps?
Moderation would work better if you could hear both sides. Let developers respond to a review like on Google Play.
Many people seem to use reviews as an alternative to contacting customer support. For legit problems there is some fairness in doing so. However there are times when a user is confused and the develop has no way to contact that user. It would also be useful for developers to respond indicating when a real problem is fixed.
"It describes a backdoor mechanism based on the fact that people only review source (human-written) code, and not compiled machine code. A program called a compiler is used to create the second from the first, and the compiler is usually trusted to do an honest job.
Thompson's paper describes a modified version of the Unix C compiler that would:
Put an invisible backdoor in the Unix login command when it noticed that the login program was being compiled, and as a twist
Also add this feature undetectably to future compiler versions upon their compilation as well." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I explain it as what people want and need aren't always the same. People want the big UI change. They want to see the new thing that'll make life easier. And then they'll get frustrated and want it back the way it was.
Actually many changes have more to do with the developer's wants and little to do with the user's needs.
California does go overboard on regulations. I'm saying this based on conversations with a friend who has an environmental remediation business cleaning up other people's industrial messes or preventing the messes in the first place. He's quite the environmentalist, an environmentalist of the scientific school of thought not the political school of thought. The State Legislature is more of the later. If it "sounds" pro-environment "pass it" is their approach. If its useless or counterproductive it doesn't matter, it just has to sound like a good thing.
If Tesla is only getting breaks on the sillier stuff it may be a good idea.
Now on the legal side, California is a nightmare. The State Legislature is bought and paid for by the trial lawyers.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes,...
Two days ago I booted up my 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X. It offered me various patches. Old versions of Mac OS X are supported.
I think you're confusing the continued availability of old patches for a particular version of OS X versus continued provision of current support. Sure, you can download updates you haven't already applied, but that doesn't mean they're still providing new patches for more recent issues...
That is exactly what the patches were, recent patches. I boot my old Mac every two or three weeks, occasionally there are patches, still.
... Given Apple doesn't have any kind of public information on support lifecycles, it kind of clouds the discussion (which may be part of their intent). It's also hard to comment further when you don't say what version of OS X you're running. Certainly 10.5 and 10.6 are no longer supported by Apple.
10.7, the final version that supports that early 2008 MacBook. Apple tends to support a final OS version of a particular hardware generation for a while, at least with respect to security related patches. I noticed when a key exploit had been discovered they patched iOS 6 on some old devices I have that are not supported by iOS 7.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes,...
Two days ago I booted up my 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X. It offered me various patches. Old versions of Mac OS X are supported.
... I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again...
Xcode is a special case because it is a developer tool. There is an assumption that developers have the latest OS for testing purposes. Somewhat fair for Mac developers, less so for iOS developers.
... and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.
Its not quite arbitrary. My 2008 Mac Book does not have a complete set of 64-bit drivers. The video chipset is an older Intel model that is a little slow. Its a little more than just the boot loader.
When Apple draws a line for OS support it tends to be based on hardware characteristics, not arbitrarily based upon age.
4th generation is much more expensive than once through and nuclear power is in decline so the wait will be forever.
Nuclear power is in decline partly due to politics and partly due to inexpensive fossil fuels. Neither of these are constants.
Was there ever a 1st or 2nd gen reactor that wasn't more expensive than originally thought? They were still largely profitable.
Plus a 4th gen reactor could be justified on remediation alone, converting the long lived waste into short lived waste, literally eliminating thousands of years of storage costs.
They're also stuck storing the fuel on site until the federal government comes up with a spent fuel storage solution.
Or until there is a 4th gen reactor available to consume the old waste as its fuel. The waste of a 4th gen is only dangerous for a few centuries rather than tens of thousands of years. In other words 4th gen converts a 10,000 year problem into a 300 year problem, while generating power from "fuel" that has already been mined, processed, and paid for.
Let me be clear. He did not omit the state approved curriculum. He added to it, especially so with respect to showing us how the topic being studied was used in the real world. I think the result was improving our interest and appreciation of the topic, and we performed a little better at it than we would have otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
There is much room for improvement. For example some fruits are harvested by a vehicle that deploys nets under a tree and shakes the tree. A more robot device that has a visual system to identify fruits that are at the proper ripeness for harvest and then selective collects them with an arm may be an improvement. Now consider such a device that is autonomous. Such a system may also be used with fruits and vegetable that are still harvested by hand.
What's the advantage in being ASIC-proof?/quote> The realistic answer is that GPU miners are angry that they have been driven out and want a new place to mine.
The theoretical answer is that ASIC based mining tends to be done on an industrial scale, more medium to larger scale ASiC farms controlled by a small number of groups, less individuals using their computer's idle time and hobbyists with small farms. Many argue that a coin is healthier and safer when its blockchain, which is generated by mining, is created by a large number of decentralized individuals and hobbyists rather than a small number of groups most likely interested in commercial mining and/or speculation.
At least that's how it was until very recently. Powerful ASICs designed for hobbyists are now available, so hopefully we will see a little more decentralization among ASIC users. The hobbyists who would a year ago build a headless mining rig with a PC motherboard and three or four video cards will probably just buy an ASIC today.
The thing that makes me skeptical about ASIC-proof algorithms is that the computational part of a GPU could be put into an ASIC but anything related to video output could be discarded. I would expect better densities and more chips on a blade. Then some number of blades go into a box with a controller and cooling. A low power raspberry pi could service dozens of such boxes. I have a hard time seeing how a PC motherboard with a few high end video cards can compete on a hash/watt basis.
Even if ASIC development halts miner manufactures might use actual ATI/NVidia GPUs on their blades. Pack them in a little denser than you could on a video card. It would probably still beat a PC motherboard with video cards.
If external RAM becomes a necessity it could go on blade. We're a little bit closer to a video card now but without video output we probably have a density and profitability edge. Production runs of the blades may be relatively low volume, but aren't the specific high end video cards that miners want also relatively low volume? The GPU chips themselves may be high volume but a particular make and model of a video card is not.
I think one of the 28nm ASIC designers said they will do about 80x better than a GPU. Certainly this will fall if ASICs have to replicate full GPU computational abilities, fall more if external RAM is needed, fall more if actual ATI/Nvidia GPU chips need to go on dedicated mining blades. But I tend to think dedicated mining hardware will always have an appreciable advantage over repurposed PC gear. I think the days of building a special headless mining rig with a PC motherboard and three or four video cards are over. Its going to be boxes with hardware specifically made for mining, at least for mining enthusiasts.
Now for non-mining enthusiasts, for a gamer that wants to do a little mining when the computer would otherwise be idle, we'll still see GPU mining there.
I think the key date is when discontinued not launched. The 4s is still being sold.
ASIC proof could also mean: it not is profitable to create an ASIC to compete with the large factories building GPUs.
Some BTC ASICs are using a 28nm process. I think they are able to buy some time at real fabs.
You would only need the computational part of the GPU, anything video output related could be ditched. So you can pack thing more densely on the ASIC. Now the ASIC chip without all the video stuff gets packed more densely onto a blade. The blades get packaged into a box with a controller and cooling. Dozens of these boxes need nothing more than a low power raspberry pi to control them.
I don't think a PC motherboard hosting a few video cards can compete, work/power. I think "not being worth it" has more to do with the nature of the coin than with mining.
I have heard so much about the so-called "ASIC-resistant" alt-coins but have yet to meet one yet Can you kindly tell us which alt-coin(s) is/are truly ASIC-resistant ?? Thanks !!
Note my use of "were theoretically". The scrypt algorithm, which many current alt-coins are based on was chosen back in the day because the coin dev teams thought it ASIC resistant. However it was only theoretically resistant and that did not match reality. As I indicated before, it was designed to do things that the sha256 based ASICs (Bitcoin) could not, however when alt-coins became profitable enough ASICs were designed for scrypt.
This cycle will repeat. Even if some algorithm were found that uses every bit of a GPU's computational power an ASIC would be developed that had only the computational circuits, ditched the graphics output circuits, packed those circuits in a custom chip, packaged them in a unit by the hundreds with a controller and cooling and only needed a low power devices like a raspberry pi to control dozens of such units. The preceding would beat a PC motherboard hosting as many video cards as can fit.
There is another huge value in accepting bitcoins. You don't have to worry about charge-backs.
Unless the blockchain forks again. Admittedly that would only occur in drastic circumstances and those effected confined to a very narrow time window. However the risk is not zero, but it is very very low. In 2013 a coding bug in the BTC mining software -- this is where the blockchain, the public ledger we all use, comes from -- necessitating a fork. Assuming no disappearing payments, no double spends, would require no future coding bugs by the BTC dev team.
There is no such thing as an 'ASIC proof algorithm' because you simply design the ASIC to handle that situation.
And that is pretty much what I said earlier: ... The problem is that the things missing from the previous generation of ASICs used to design the ASIC-proof algorithm have been finding their way into newer generation ASICs."
"ASIC-proof algorithms attempt to leverage the fact that ASICs are specialized. They try to incorporate things found in CPUs and GPUs but not in ASICs.
What I'm trying to convey is that the designers of ASIC-proof algorithms can only defeat yesterday's ASICs, not tomorrows. And by tomorrow I'm talking months not years. Apologies if I was somehow unclear.
The power difference between ASIC and GPU is not "a tiny bit", especially so for the alt-coins that were theoretically ASIC-resistant. ASICs are a huge win on power consumption.
But not enough credibility for merchants to hold/keep the bitcoins they receive from customers.
I think you're confusing credibility with volatility because their business is making a profit on margins, not playing with currency speculation.
The merchants that are selling thing to customers, they are not playing volatility. They are completely avoiding volatility by using a system that pays them the exact dollar (or whatever fiat currency) amount they expect from a customer paying in dollars. These merchants who accept bitcoins from customers have no faith in bitcoins. And thanks to exchanges the merchants accepting bitcoins need no faith at all in bitcoins.
Clearly Bitcoin has enough credibility for people to value it at hundreds of dollars ...
But not enough credibility for merchants to hold/keep the bitcoins they receive from customers.
Merchants tend to use merchant services offered by various bitcoin exchanges. Basically the merchant does all their pricing and accounting as normal in whatever fiat currency they use, dollars, euros, etc. When a customer indicates they wish to pay in bitcoins the merchant sends sale info to the exchange, the exchange converts the price from fiat to bitcoin and provides a payment address to send bitcoins to. This payment address is the exchange's, the merchant never touches a bitcoin -- lucky for them if they are subject to IRS jurisdiction but that's another story. When the merchant receives the coins they credit the merchant's account with the original fiat amount specified regardless of any particular fluctuation that may have occurred in bitcoin's price.
In short. The merchant prices and does accounting in fiat currency and receives fiat currency in payment. The only thing new is that their payment processor is a bitcoin exchange rather than VISA or Mastercard.
What does this even mean? Asic proof?
ASICs (Application-specific integrated circuits) represent specialized hardware specifically designed for a particular task, in this context the ASICs are designed to mine coins. ASICs outperform (both in speed and power consumption) CPUs and GPUs making ASICs far more profitable.
:-) 24/7 mining some coin.
Coin proof-of-work algorithms have some sort of difficulty setting to control the number of coins being awarded during a time period. The more mining horsepower there is the higher the difficulty goes. This rising difficulty level makes the mining calculations take longer. So as the total capability to do work (all the CPUs+GPUs+ASICs) goes up the difficulty goes up. An individual CPU, GPU or ASIC earns fewer coins per hour as difficulty rises but the total number of coins generated remain roughly constant over time.
ASIC-proof algorithms attempt to leverage the fact that ASICs are specialized. They try to incorporate things found in CPUs and GPUs but not in ASICs. The motivation is to allow CPUs and GPUs to profitably mine something. The problem is that the things missing from the previous generation of ASICs used to design the ASIC-proof algorithm have been finding their way into newer generation ASICs.
So the short story is that some alt-coins were partially motivated by CPU/GPU miner that were driven out of bitcoin mining. Newer generations ASICs are now taking over alt-coins and CPU/GPU miners are once again being driven out.
Those great deals you find on ebay for a used high end GPU. It very well may be a GPU that was over clocked and run just below the point of spontaneous combustion
Note however there is one very important point missed in all the rhetoric... That of changing specification coupled with muddied/stratified change management. This issue sits squarely on CMSs shoulders and is absolute poison to any IT project of any significance...
It was the politicians more than CMS. Not that CMS didn't have its share of problem generation but folks in the administration doing political recalculations on what the user interface and functionality should be like probably made this problem far worse than your normal federal project.
Wasn't there some last minute change ordered by the administration not to show the unsubsidized policy price, so now the site had to integrate with various other agencies and exchange a lot of personal information to calculate an accurate subsidized price? Note that the subsidized price is absolutely unnecessary for comparison shopping. A person's subsidy is a constant, it does not change the price difference between policy A and policy B. If A cost $X more than B before subsidy it will still cost $X more after subsidy. It was purely a politically motivated change to avoid sticker shock on pricing.
Not that it isn't appalling that it's appearing on a page in production ...
Well the site is not complete, its still under heavy development. Remember that the only part that got "finished" was the sign-up portion.
Moderation would work better if you could hear both sides. Let developers respond to a review like on Google Play.
Many people seem to use reviews as an alternative to contacting customer support. For legit problems there is some fairness in doing so. However there are times when a user is confused and the develop has no way to contact that user. It would also be useful for developers to respond indicating when a real problem is fixed.
Letting the developers worry about it seems like the only fair solution. Should there really be a market for apps that recreate other apps just a tiny bit better/shinier? If an app is really noteworthy, some venue outside the app store (blogs, tech news outlets, etc) will take notice and promote it.
There really is no such venue. For years I've been asking people that I run into where they learn about new apps. The answers are almost always the same. First is the App Store best seller lists. Second is friends mention it. Rarely, hardly ever actually, is some online source other than the app store mentioned.
Personally when I'm looking for an app for some task on Google Play I find the developer comments useful. When looking for an app on the Apple App Store I often wish I could see a developer's comment. Such comments are not valuable only to the developer, they are also valuable to the person looking for an app.
Lets ask the readers a question. Where, other than the App Store lists and friends, do you learn about new apps?
Moderation would work better if you could hear both sides. Let developers respond to a review like on Google Play.
Many people seem to use reviews as an alternative to contacting customer support. For legit problems there is some fairness in doing so. However there are times when a user is confused and the develop has no way to contact that user. It would also be useful for developers to respond indicating when a real problem is fixed.
int main() {
return 0;
}
exploit THAT.
HAHAHAHAH.
Its been done. Seriously, it has.
"It describes a backdoor mechanism based on the fact that people only review source (human-written) code, and not compiled machine code. A program called a compiler is used to create the second from the first, and the compiler is usually trusted to do an honest job.
Thompson's paper describes a modified version of the Unix C compiler that would:
Put an invisible backdoor in the Unix login command when it noticed that the login program was being compiled, and as a twist
Also add this feature undetectably to future compiler versions upon their compilation as well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I explain it as what people want and need aren't always the same. People want the big UI change. They want to see the new thing that'll make life easier. And then they'll get frustrated and want it back the way it was.
Actually many changes have more to do with the developer's wants and little to do with the user's needs.
Is California stepping out of bounds here?
Maybe, maybe not ... the devil is in the details.
California does go overboard on regulations. I'm saying this based on conversations with a friend who has an environmental remediation business cleaning up other people's industrial messes or preventing the messes in the first place. He's quite the environmentalist, an environmentalist of the scientific school of thought not the political school of thought. The State Legislature is more of the later. If it "sounds" pro-environment "pass it" is their approach. If its useless or counterproductive it doesn't matter, it just has to sound like a good thing.
If Tesla is only getting breaks on the sillier stuff it may be a good idea.
Now on the legal side, California is a nightmare. The State Legislature is bought and paid for by the trial lawyers.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, ...
Two days ago I booted up my 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X. It offered me various patches. Old versions of Mac OS X are supported.
I think you're confusing the continued availability of old patches for a particular version of OS X versus continued provision of current support. Sure, you can download updates you haven't already applied, but that doesn't mean they're still providing new patches for more recent issues ...
That is exactly what the patches were, recent patches. I boot my old Mac every two or three weeks, occasionally there are patches, still.
... Given Apple doesn't have any kind of public information on support lifecycles, it kind of clouds the discussion (which may be part of their intent). It's also hard to comment further when you don't say what version of OS X you're running. Certainly 10.5 and 10.6 are no longer supported by Apple.
10.7, the final version that supports that early 2008 MacBook. Apple tends to support a final OS version of a particular hardware generation for a while, at least with respect to security related patches. I noticed when a key exploit had been discovered they patched iOS 6 on some old devices I have that are not supported by iOS 7.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, ...
Two days ago I booted up my 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X. It offered me various patches. Old versions of Mac OS X are supported.
... I have to upgrade my Mac to a more often than not crappier OS just to get things like Xcode running again ...
Xcode is a special case because it is a developer tool. There is an assumption that developers have the latest OS for testing purposes. Somewhat fair for Mac developers, less so for iOS developers.
... and sometimes I even have to buy a new Mac because the old one is arbitrarily locked out from a software upgrade.
Its not quite arbitrary. My 2008 Mac Book does not have a complete set of 64-bit drivers. The video chipset is an older Intel model that is a little slow. Its a little more than just the boot loader.
When Apple draws a line for OS support it tends to be based on hardware characteristics, not arbitrarily based upon age.
4th generation is much more expensive than once through and nuclear power is in decline so the wait will be forever.
Nuclear power is in decline partly due to politics and partly due to inexpensive fossil fuels. Neither of these are constants.
Was there ever a 1st or 2nd gen reactor that wasn't more expensive than originally thought? They were still largely profitable.
Plus a 4th gen reactor could be justified on remediation alone, converting the long lived waste into short lived waste, literally eliminating thousands of years of storage costs.
They're also stuck storing the fuel on site until the federal government comes up with a spent fuel storage solution.
Or until there is a 4th gen reactor available to consume the old waste as its fuel. The waste of a 4th gen is only dangerous for a few centuries rather than tens of thousands of years. In other words 4th gen converts a 10,000 year problem into a 300 year problem, while generating power from "fuel" that has already been mined, processed, and paid for.
Let me be clear. He did not omit the state approved curriculum. He added to it, especially so with respect to showing us how the topic being studied was used in the real world. I think the result was improving our interest and appreciation of the topic, and we performed a little better at it than we would have otherwise.