Odd. We've been rolling out dual and quad Opteron 6272 servers steadily for the past six months. No problems with supply, and they mop the floor with Intel systems on price/performance.
But we don't buy from Newegg; we go through three vendors Supermicro recommended.
So the fact that it's a unconscionable infringement on fundamental liberties doesn't worry you, but the possibility of the law being upheld consistently does?
It's not bureucracy gone wild, just common citizen doing things without finding out all required details and getting slapped by government for not getting permits to operate.
For 10k users? Piece of cake. One good programmer with some sysadmin experience, one business person, a nice redundant set of dedicated servers (say $5K/month), and you're set. Add another developer and a designer on contract for the first six months to get you up and running, and keep them if the business is successful.
You won't get rich, but if you can keep the user base, you'll have a comfortable little business. (Keeping the user base is obviously the hard part.)
The difficulties with a Twitter-like service come from scaling. A naive implementation off a system like Twitter leaves you with an O(N^2) workload, and you will die. There are lots of subtle tricks to making such a system work on a large scale, but for 10k or 20k users brute force is sufficient. The danger is that if you are successful you might grow yourself to death, as Twitter nearly did, but at $50/year that's probably not so much of an issue.
Star formation will end in about 100 trillion years (the last remaining hydrogen in dust clouds will be exhausted) and those last red dwarf stars will all be gone 20 trillion years after that. The Universe will be a cold and lonely place.
By then I should have gotten to at least page 2 of my to-do list.
It's not economically feasible now, but the energy balance works out. Even with the previous method that was only 1/5th as efficient, you got much more energy out of the uranium than was required to collect it.
Seawater moves around, and the process still isn't that efficient, so you wouldn't have any problems with decreased concentration.
The reason this is valuable is not so much that it's economical today, as that there's enough uranium in the ocean to provide all our electricity needs for millions of years.
If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?
You want the pixels to be smaller than the eye can resolve so that you can stop futzing around with anti-aliasing. That's why decent printers are 1200 dpi or more.
That's what I was thinking. I'm pretty happy programming in Python 90% of the time, but high-performance code and highly parallel code tends to end up as a sequence of hacks of varying degrees of cleverness. A similarly elegant language that runs 5 to 10 times faster could be very attractive.
New we just need to wait ten years for the standard library to evolve....
I wish all the best for the model, but it is risky as hell - it only needs one colossal failure and people will not donate again.
Except that you can't have a colossal failure with this model. Say a project fails completely and all we get is some art sketches and an unplayable demo. Oh no, I'm out $15. I still have a dozen other projects in the pipeline to keep me entertained.
I fully expect that I won't end up playing half the games I'm backing - either they'll never deliver, or they'll deliver but I won't like the result. And I'm perfectly fine with that. Look, people bought Dragon Age 2, and Bioware's offices are still standing. Gamers are much more forgiving that you seem to think.
That's the cost on the ground. The problem is, to get the aid where it's needed, you'd often have to shoot people. There are a lot of vested interested in keeping particular groups starving and miserable, whether it's national politics, tribal politics, or religion.
Starvation in Africa is not an agricultural problem; if it were we'd have solved it by now. It's a political problem.
Yes, and that's what's happening. Fertility rates are falling, and continue to fall, in almost every country on Earth. A number of western nations are already below replacement level.
Randi came up with a new chemistry protocol where no one person knew what they were doing with what samples. Basically it was a completely blind testing protocol
Which is precisely what you do in real science when experimenter or subject bias may skew the results.
The experiment came up inconclusive and could not prove that water had memory.
But the cool thing is this that both experiments have been recreated using both protocols several times and came up with the same data results.
Which proves Randi's point: The positive results are due to experimenter bias, and to provide valid data those studies must be blinded.
Standard protocol’s says water has memory, and Randi’s protocol was inconclusive suggesting that water does not have memory. Also Randi’s protocol has only been used to recreate this experiment.
"Randi's protocol", as you call it, is universally applied to medical trials.
So all other chemistry experiments still use the standard protocols today.
So my beef with Randi is that he butted in to a science lab experiment and never followed up with why the data was different and repeatable.
We know that. If you apply an additional control to your experiment and your positive results consistently disappear, then your positive results were due to the factor you controlled for. In this case, experimenter bias.
Although these experiments have been repeated a lot since then research in to why was dropped because of the journal bringing in Randi.
My belief is: The data would suggest that test results are subjective
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that America is populated with people?
Odd. We've been rolling out dual and quad Opteron 6272 servers steadily for the past six months. No problems with supply, and they mop the floor with Intel systems on price/performance.
But we don't buy from Newegg; we go through three vendors Supermicro recommended.
So the fact that it's a unconscionable infringement on fundamental liberties doesn't worry you, but the possibility of the law being upheld consistently does?
It's not bureucracy gone wild, just common citizen doing things without finding out all required details and getting slapped by government for not getting permits to operate.
So it's bureaucracy run wild, then?
For 10k users? Piece of cake. One good programmer with some sysadmin experience, one business person, a nice redundant set of dedicated servers (say $5K/month), and you're set. Add another developer and a designer on contract for the first six months to get you up and running, and keep them if the business is successful.
You won't get rich, but if you can keep the user base, you'll have a comfortable little business. (Keeping the user base is obviously the hard part.)
The difficulties with a Twitter-like service come from scaling. A naive implementation off a system like Twitter leaves you with an O(N^2) workload, and you will die. There are lots of subtle tricks to making such a system work on a large scale, but for 10k or 20k users brute force is sufficient. The danger is that if you are successful you might grow yourself to death, as Twitter nearly did, but at $50/year that's probably not so much of an issue.
Star formation will end in about 100 trillion years (the last remaining hydrogen in dust clouds will be exhausted) and those last red dwarf stars will all be gone 20 trillion years after that. The Universe will be a cold and lonely place.
By then I should have gotten to at least page 2 of my to-do list.
30 to 150 million cubic metres per second. So 12 minutes of Gulf Stream flow would contain enough uranium to supply our present needs for a year.
Though if you could tap the entire Gulf Stream you'd have another source of energy at hand...
It's not economically feasible now, but the energy balance works out. Even with the previous method that was only 1/5th as efficient, you got much more energy out of the uranium than was required to collect it.
Seawater moves around, and the process still isn't that efficient, so you wouldn't have any problems with decreased concentration.
The reason this is valuable is not so much that it's economical today, as that there's enough uranium in the ocean to provide all our electricity needs for millions of years.
If we see anything like the recent Queensland state election there'll barely be a Labor Party left.
After a lot of messing around with USB drives, we bought half a dozen Synology DS1812+s. Backup problems solved.
Don't use the cloud for national security and emergency response functions.
Problem solved.
We already have fixed versions of PHP the language. They're called Python and Ruby.
We just need to work on the deployment.
Our database is 300TB. So.... Yeah.
But really, what's a hundred million corpses here and there, when it's done with the very best intentions?
If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?
You want the pixels to be smaller than the eye can resolve so that you can stop futzing around with anti-aliasing. That's why decent printers are 1200 dpi or more.
Kibitoaster.
That's what I was thinking. I'm pretty happy programming in Python 90% of the time, but high-performance code and highly parallel code tends to end up as a sequence of hacks of varying degrees of cleverness. A similarly elegant language that runs 5 to 10 times faster could be very attractive.
New we just need to wait ten years for the standard library to evolve....
It even looks vaguely like JavaScript, so why bother?
Because JavaScript.
I wish all the best for the model, but it is risky as hell - it only needs one colossal failure and people will not donate again.
Except that you can't have a colossal failure with this model. Say a project fails completely and all we get is some art sketches and an unplayable demo. Oh no, I'm out $15. I still have a dozen other projects in the pipeline to keep me entertained.
I fully expect that I won't end up playing half the games I'm backing - either they'll never deliver, or they'll deliver but I won't like the result. And I'm perfectly fine with that. Look, people bought Dragon Age 2, and Bioware's offices are still standing. Gamers are much more forgiving that you seem to think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
That's the cost on the ground. The problem is, to get the aid where it's needed, you'd often have to shoot people. There are a lot of vested interested in keeping particular groups starving and miserable, whether it's national politics, tribal politics, or religion.
Starvation in Africa is not an agricultural problem; if it were we'd have solved it by now. It's a political problem.
Yes, and that's what's happening. Fertility rates are falling, and continue to fall, in almost every country on Earth. A number of western nations are already below replacement level.
Step 1: Shoot goats on sight. Goats can survive on land that can't carry cattle or sheep, but they prevent the land from ever recovering.
Remember Randi is not a PHD or a chemist.
Randi came up with a new chemistry protocol where no one person knew what they were doing with what samples. Basically it was a completely blind testing protocol
Which is precisely what you do in real science when experimenter or subject bias may skew the results.
The experiment came up inconclusive and could not prove that water had memory.
But the cool thing is this that both experiments have been recreated using both protocols several times and came up with the same data results.
Which proves Randi's point: The positive results are due to experimenter bias, and to provide valid data those studies must be blinded.
Standard protocol’s says water has memory, and Randi’s protocol was inconclusive suggesting that water does not have memory.
Also Randi’s protocol has only been used to recreate this experiment.
"Randi's protocol", as you call it, is universally applied to medical trials.
So all other chemistry experiments still use the standard protocols today.
So my beef with Randi is that he butted in to a science lab experiment and never followed up with why the data was different and repeatable.
We know that. If you apply an additional control to your experiment and your positive results consistently disappear, then your positive results were due to the factor you controlled for. In this case, experimenter bias.
Although these experiments have been repeated a lot since then research in to why was dropped because of the journal bringing in Randi.
My belief is:
The data would suggest that test results are subjective
Subjective, yes. Not real.
And that is why you are doctor or geneticist and not a personal injury lawyer.
Fixed that for you.