When Apple switched from PowerPC to x86 for Macs, Steve Jobs said it was because Intel's energy efficiency was on a much better curve than IBM's. But the Power7 is 2x as fast at 1/4x the efficiency. I don't think Intel's performance:efficiency has improved as much, and indeed IBM might already be better MIPS:W.
Probably Jobs just wanted the scale economies and vendor diversity, and the Wall Street lemmings, that come with Intel CPUs. But why did he say it was performance:efficiency when he'd look wrong after a short while? Was it just a better excuse than admitting he'd been wrong to stay off Intel for so many years? Or maybe Intel just made him some kind of deal we don't know about?
These execs aren't being paid because they failed. Their failures are now irrelevant, because they're leaving and the company is being changed by the new owner.
They're being paid to leave. They have contracts and other leverage that could do damage to the new company if they didn't leave quietly. It's cheaper to pay them to leave than to let them stay, to fight them, or to let them do whatever they can do with their access or knowledge of the inner workings and the people who do stay.
This is also the reason the bankers who crashed the economy are getting paid, though their failures were epic.
You don't get paid for your work. You get paid for what it costs to get rid of you or to keep you, depending on what you do in return for getting paid.
Top execs take risks in their careers, not with their companies, except in the very few industries where risktaking is rewarded, like in technology. But they're all managing risk, even when avoiding risk to the company. Risktaking is a behavior more taught in male culture than in female culture.
Venture capitalists are risktakers. Tech top execs are risktakers. Overall execs are risktakers. Taking risks tends to send people to the extremes of their groups, bigger winners or bigger losers. Men tend to be at the top of professions, but also at the bottom, and in the lowest jobs, and without income at all. Men are much more likely to be injured by their jobs, to have risky jobs, and live shorter lives.
Women tend to take fewer and less extreme risks, and tend to be in the middle of achievement, but more reliably achieve minimum standards of living.
Biologically men are more expendable. Aggression gets more rewards, but it also takes more damage. The limiting factor on human population growth is the number of women, while even one man can produce an entire generation among all the women.
There are social conventions held over from less developed societies that work to hold women back. And the bias towards training men to take risks and be expendable is an unfair gender bias now that the biological value isn't what determines social value.
So long as risktaking is so different between men and women, rewardtaking is going to be similarly different. We could get closer to our inherent value regardless of gender's arbitrary constraints if we stopped ignoring the gender behavior that we are free to change, but don't, that affects success. And if we stopped ignoring the costs to either gender that come with either the achievement or the risktaking that underlies it.
I am replying to tell you I'm interested in those answers. And that your irritation means nothing to me, because you didn't answer the questions, but instead thought I'd care whether you were irritated by being wrong about what the questions meant.
Microsoft's Silverlight is supposed to compete with Flash. There's a FOSS implementation, Moonlight (just released stabe v2.0), that runs on Linux, and so probably fairly portable to iPhone and Android.
Can Silverlight offer "insanely great mobile experience"? Even if not, can Moonlight offer optimal Silverlight experience? "Suboptimal" has never stopped Microsoft tech from taking over, and if Silverlight content floods the mobile Web, could Moonlight become the runtime that kills Flash? Has it proven a proper Silverlight environment even on desktops?
I don't get your connection between Capone and convicted child porn consumers.
Capone actually committed lots of crimes. But getting evidence was difficult, because everyone involved was either scared Capone would kill their whole family etc, or was themself guilty of the crimes (and possibly getting rich from it), or both. Tax evasion required no witnesses, and only the evidence obtained in one raid of a double book accounting that showed Capone was earning lots of income - none of which was reported.
Child porn consumers are typically guilty of only consuming child porn.
I understand the general principle you're pointing at: making a big deal over one crime, because it's convictable, as a standin for conviction for a lot of other crimes, which determine the penalty at the judge's discretion. But tax evasion was a real crime, too, and child porn consumption doesn't catch "real criminals". The parallel isn't at all strong.
It's probably true that the FBI is using "catching child porn consumers" as a pretext for spying on everyone, regardless of how many of us are child porn consumers, regardless of the FBI's actual interest in child porn. But that has practically nothing to do with Capone.
BTW, you talk like child porn that's 70 years old is harmless to the subject, because they're old now. But it's not. Published pictures of someone being exploited while a child are harmful to that person for their whole life, and beyond. The exploitation when taking the pictures is damaging, and deriving value (entertainment) from the product of that damaging crime is wrong, according to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle underlying much justice.
It's true that "child porn" that doesn't depict an actual underage person is not really "child", and there's a lot of trumped up arguments designed to abuse everyone's rights, to enforce morality that has nothing to do with children, or both. Cartoons and actors pretending to be children shouldn't be prohibited by the state.
But people are so irrational about sex, about media, about children, about defending our rights, about deferring to authority, that when they all come together into "crackdown on child porn" there's every kind of injustice in demand.
That doesn't mean we have to surrender to irrationality and injustice. But it's a lot to keep properly in order.
That's why we have to demand evidence. The more we let the police have power without evidence, the more our police state abuses our rights instead of protecting them. A faithy police state is precisely what the Qaeda wants. And exactly the opposite of the government our Constitution creates.
Will the FBI give us some evidence already that mandatory retained data has been essential to actually solving some significant fraction of crimes, or some convincing evidence that its lack is the only reason some significant fraction goes unsolved?
Without that evidence, their insistence on invading our privacy instead of protecting it as they're instructed by the Constitution that gives them their powers should just be laughed at.
It's days like these I'm glad I don't work on Wall Street
You mean days for which you get paid $100,000 each or more, if only you post investment advice according to the most minimal rules? You sound like a broker.
The compromise that Google made with China was agreeing to Chinese censorship in exchange for China's protection from privacy invasion beyond that allowed by the laws Google agreed to follow. Then Google saw that protection was either useless against Chinese hackers, or betrayed by the Chinese government itself (or both).
When you pay the mafia for "protection" but you get broken into anyway, you stop paying the mafia. If you can. We'll see whether Google is tougher than China's mafia government.
Black holes are so dense that not only matter, not only light, but even information cannot escape beyond an event horizon. If running the collider proves correct the model with extra compact dimensions by creating black holes at LHC energies, those black holes might consume the proof. And the Earth with them.
Actually I did, when I used to program the GIGI and VMS in DCL.
All the DEC docs might fit on the first few cm of these new IBM tapes. But since there's no call to read them, the bookshelves make for better trophy cases. "In the trophy case is an ancient parchment which appears to be a map."
That is in no way ironic. And I didn't dismiss that tech at all. I just pointed out that comparing these high density, machine-only readable digital storage media to books is nonsense.
But given your reading comprehension, maybe there really is no difference.
5 million CDs is about the CD collection of a city of 500,000, which is most of the second-tier cities in the US. 7778 DVDs is all the movies you'd see if you saw two a week for your entire life.
These are figures people can relate to. Saying it in miles of bookshelves communicates nothing. They might as well explain it in hogsheads per furlong, or "libraries of Congress" the way they used to.
Why bother explaining how many miles of bookshelves would be needed to hold some amount of digital data? We don't explain how long a bookshelf would have to be to hold all the data in an HDTV screenful, and 35TB data tapes are probably going to hold more graphics than text. Besides, how big is the type in the books filling that shelf? And who but a librarian is going to relate to miles of bookshelves as a meaningful comparison, anyway?
Why don't they say "a 35TB tape is enough to hold 5 million full CDs, or 7,778 full DVDs? That's a comparison that people could actually relate to, that is actually factual, and isn't just some kind of primitive awe at how efficient we've become now that we store data on something not made of mashed trees.
Privatizing the other aerospace operations of the government, mainly war, has become so economical and reliable that we now have $billions extra for space exploration. Aerospace contractor corporations like Lockheed Martin and Boeing never overcharge the government. Their aircraft are more reliable than the NASA vehicles that crash once or twice every several thousand launches at the cutting edge of engineering.
I don't believe that there's such a thing as "100%" of anything happening at atomic scale. "100%" is what "99.9999999999999%" looks like when things are big enough that you have to drop the precision due to statistical balancing.
I'd rather be wearing some display glasses that I can even forget I'm wearing than have to old something in my hands and look at its tiny screen. Add 3D and the vastly higher rez, the privacy, the overlays referring to what/who/where I'm looking, and I wish they'd put a smartphone in the glasses already. Even if I'm the only one who wants one.
Tree wood has about 2300 (kilo)calories per pound, while human meat has somewhere from 800-2000 (kilo)calories per pound. But bones have even more calories than wood. And I don't think the flesh-eating robots we've seen can eat wood (or bone), but rather leaves. Which have about 100 (kilo)calories per pound. Meat is a better fuel.
Bullshit, I couldn't find the calories for.
Potatoes have some of the highest calories of any staple plant, which is why Europe went through a population explosion after bringing them back from the Western Hemisphere. But there aren't a lot of potatoes in battlefields. Not as many calories per acre as in human bodies. Especially in the camps around the battlefields.
And why bother sic'ing your ravenous robots on the enemy's potato fields, when they can chew through their troops instead?
I'm told INTERPOL didn't have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn't until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962. [...] So what does the counterterrorism official from the Bush years think of this?
He can't believe it's taken this long.
Interpol now has the kinds of diplomatic immunity that are an extension of its previous immunities, which allow it to do its work properly in the US. Like counterterrorism and against drug (and human) smuggling. The kinds of things teabaggers usually want, even though this teabagger is attacking the immunity because it was signed by Obama.
But for 8 solid nightmare years, while George Bush Jr ran the country and the world as his private police state, complete with torturing fake confessions for fake evidence to start a very real war he only faked an interest in winning, these teabaggers couldn't get enough of it.
These teabaggers are completely insane with bullshit. They're schizophrenic: living in their own bizarre, contradictory, hellish fantasy worlds. There's enough actually wrong with the country, and with Obama, to actually get riled up about without these teabaggers and their global apocalypse bullshit.
Except the robots designed to eat human flesh will be there only to eat the humans. And there will be plenty of human flesh to fuel their eating frenzy.
What kind of a war are you running where your robots scare the shit out of the bushes, not the enemy soldiers?
After the rumors started making their way around the Internet, EATR's designers stepped in to clarify: the "flesh-eating robot" will consume vegetable matter only, and it comes equipped with a suite of sensors and computers to help it determine whether the things it comes across are animal, vegetable or neither. After all, desecration of the dead is against the laws of war and plant matter is a much better fuel source anyway. There are a lot more bushes to feast upon than human bodies.
Human bodies are better fuel, because it has more energy available per bite. That's why top predators eat meat, though it costs so much energy to get. That mere assertion is no defense.
The laws of war are more broken than honored. Torture? Lies to invade Iraq? How are those laws stopping terrorists?
Nobody can be expected to believe those reasons why robots won't eat us. If that's all they've got to say they won't, we can expect these robots "to serve man" pretty soon.
Slashdot Mirror
When Apple switched from PowerPC to x86 for Macs, Steve Jobs said it was because Intel's energy efficiency was on a much better curve than IBM's. But the Power7 is 2x as fast at 1/4x the efficiency. I don't think Intel's performance:efficiency has improved as much, and indeed IBM might already be better MIPS:W.
Probably Jobs just wanted the scale economies and vendor diversity, and the Wall Street lemmings, that come with Intel CPUs. But why did he say it was performance:efficiency when he'd look wrong after a short while? Was it just a better excuse than admitting he'd been wrong to stay off Intel for so many years? Or maybe Intel just made him some kind of deal we don't know about?
These execs aren't being paid because they failed. Their failures are now irrelevant, because they're leaving and the company is being changed by the new owner.
They're being paid to leave. They have contracts and other leverage that could do damage to the new company if they didn't leave quietly. It's cheaper to pay them to leave than to let them stay, to fight them, or to let them do whatever they can do with their access or knowledge of the inner workings and the people who do stay.
This is also the reason the bankers who crashed the economy are getting paid, though their failures were epic.
You don't get paid for your work. You get paid for what it costs to get rid of you or to keep you, depending on what you do in return for getting paid.
Top execs take risks in their careers, not with their companies, except in the very few industries where risktaking is rewarded, like in technology. But they're all managing risk, even when avoiding risk to the company. Risktaking is a behavior more taught in male culture than in female culture.
Venture capitalists are risktakers. Tech top execs are risktakers. Overall execs are risktakers. Taking risks tends to send people to the extremes of their groups, bigger winners or bigger losers. Men tend to be at the top of professions, but also at the bottom, and in the lowest jobs, and without income at all. Men are much more likely to be injured by their jobs, to have risky jobs, and live shorter lives.
Women tend to take fewer and less extreme risks, and tend to be in the middle of achievement, but more reliably achieve minimum standards of living.
Biologically men are more expendable. Aggression gets more rewards, but it also takes more damage. The limiting factor on human population growth is the number of women, while even one man can produce an entire generation among all the women.
There are social conventions held over from less developed societies that work to hold women back. And the bias towards training men to take risks and be expendable is an unfair gender bias now that the biological value isn't what determines social value.
So long as risktaking is so different between men and women, rewardtaking is going to be similarly different. We could get closer to our inherent value regardless of gender's arbitrary constraints if we stopped ignoring the gender behavior that we are free to change, but don't, that affects success. And if we stopped ignoring the costs to either gender that come with either the achievement or the risktaking that underlies it.
Aren't all the functional techniques in F# being pulled into C#? Like DryadLINQ, and other components from Microsoft?
I am replying to tell you I'm interested in those answers. And that your irritation means nothing to me, because you didn't answer the questions, but instead thought I'd care whether you were irritated by being wrong about what the questions meant.
Microsoft's Silverlight is supposed to compete with Flash. There's a FOSS implementation, Moonlight (just released stabe v2.0), that runs on Linux, and so probably fairly portable to iPhone and Android.
Can Silverlight offer "insanely great mobile experience"? Even if not, can Moonlight offer optimal Silverlight experience? "Suboptimal" has never stopped Microsoft tech from taking over, and if Silverlight content floods the mobile Web, could Moonlight become the runtime that kills Flash? Has it proven a proper Silverlight environment even on desktops?
I don't get your connection between Capone and convicted child porn consumers.
Capone actually committed lots of crimes. But getting evidence was difficult, because everyone involved was either scared Capone would kill their whole family etc, or was themself guilty of the crimes (and possibly getting rich from it), or both. Tax evasion required no witnesses, and only the evidence obtained in one raid of a double book accounting that showed Capone was earning lots of income - none of which was reported.
Child porn consumers are typically guilty of only consuming child porn.
I understand the general principle you're pointing at: making a big deal over one crime, because it's convictable, as a standin for conviction for a lot of other crimes, which determine the penalty at the judge's discretion. But tax evasion was a real crime, too, and child porn consumption doesn't catch "real criminals". The parallel isn't at all strong.
It's probably true that the FBI is using "catching child porn consumers" as a pretext for spying on everyone, regardless of how many of us are child porn consumers, regardless of the FBI's actual interest in child porn. But that has practically nothing to do with Capone.
BTW, you talk like child porn that's 70 years old is harmless to the subject, because they're old now. But it's not. Published pictures of someone being exploited while a child are harmful to that person for their whole life, and beyond. The exploitation when taking the pictures is damaging, and deriving value (entertainment) from the product of that damaging crime is wrong, according to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle underlying much justice.
It's true that "child porn" that doesn't depict an actual underage person is not really "child", and there's a lot of trumped up arguments designed to abuse everyone's rights, to enforce morality that has nothing to do with children, or both. Cartoons and actors pretending to be children shouldn't be prohibited by the state.
But people are so irrational about sex, about media, about children, about defending our rights, about deferring to authority, that when they all come together into "crackdown on child porn" there's every kind of injustice in demand.
That doesn't mean we have to surrender to irrationality and injustice. But it's a lot to keep properly in order.
That isn't an argument. That's a contradiction.
That's why we have to demand evidence. The more we let the police have power without evidence, the more our police state abuses our rights instead of protecting them. A faithy police state is precisely what the Qaeda wants. And exactly the opposite of the government our Constitution creates.
Will the FBI give us some evidence already that mandatory retained data has been essential to actually solving some significant fraction of crimes, or some convincing evidence that its lack is the only reason some significant fraction goes unsolved?
Without that evidence, their insistence on invading our privacy instead of protecting it as they're instructed by the Constitution that gives them their powers should just be laughed at.
You mean days for which you get paid $100,000 each or more, if only you post investment advice according to the most minimal rules? You sound like a broker.
The compromise that Google made with China was agreeing to Chinese censorship in exchange for China's protection from privacy invasion beyond that allowed by the laws Google agreed to follow. Then Google saw that protection was either useless against Chinese hackers, or betrayed by the Chinese government itself (or both).
When you pay the mafia for "protection" but you get broken into anyway, you stop paying the mafia. If you can. We'll see whether Google is tougher than China's mafia government.
Black holes are so dense that not only matter, not only light, but even information cannot escape beyond an event horizon. If running the collider proves correct the model with extra compact dimensions by creating black holes at LHC energies, those black holes might consume the proof. And the Earth with them.
Actually I did, when I used to program the GIGI and VMS in DCL.
All the DEC docs might fit on the first few cm of these new IBM tapes. But since there's no call to read them, the bookshelves make for better trophy cases. "In the trophy case is an ancient parchment which appears to be a map."
That is in no way ironic. And I didn't dismiss that tech at all. I just pointed out that comparing these high density, machine-only readable digital storage media to books is nonsense.
But given your reading comprehension, maybe there really is no difference.
5 million CDs is about the CD collection of a city of 500,000, which is most of the second-tier cities in the US. 7778 DVDs is all the movies you'd see if you saw two a week for your entire life.
These are figures people can relate to. Saying it in miles of bookshelves communicates nothing. They might as well explain it in hogsheads per furlong, or "libraries of Congress" the way they used to.
Why bother explaining how many miles of bookshelves would be needed to hold some amount of digital data? We don't explain how long a bookshelf would have to be to hold all the data in an HDTV screenful, and 35TB data tapes are probably going to hold more graphics than text. Besides, how big is the type in the books filling that shelf? And who but a librarian is going to relate to miles of bookshelves as a meaningful comparison, anyway?
Why don't they say "a 35TB tape is enough to hold 5 million full CDs, or 7,778 full DVDs? That's a comparison that people could actually relate to, that is actually factual, and isn't just some kind of primitive awe at how efficient we've become now that we store data on something not made of mashed trees.
Privatizing the other aerospace operations of the government, mainly war, has become so economical and reliable that we now have $billions extra for space exploration. Aerospace contractor corporations like Lockheed Martin and Boeing never overcharge the government. Their aircraft are more reliable than the NASA vehicles that crash once or twice every several thousand launches at the cutting edge of engineering.
What could possibly go wrong?
I don't believe that there's such a thing as "100%" of anything happening at atomic scale. "100%" is what "99.9999999999999%" looks like when things are big enough that you have to drop the precision due to statistical balancing.
I'd rather be wearing some display glasses that I can even forget I'm wearing than have to old something in my hands and look at its tiny screen. Add 3D and the vastly higher rez, the privacy, the overlays referring to what/who/where I'm looking, and I wish they'd put a smartphone in the glasses already. Even if I'm the only one who wants one.
Tree wood has about 2300 (kilo)calories per pound, while human meat has somewhere from 800-2000 (kilo)calories per pound. But bones have even more calories than wood. And I don't think the flesh-eating robots we've seen can eat wood (or bone), but rather leaves. Which have about 100 (kilo)calories per pound. Meat is a better fuel.
Bullshit, I couldn't find the calories for.
Potatoes have some of the highest calories of any staple plant, which is why Europe went through a population explosion after bringing them back from the Western Hemisphere. But there aren't a lot of potatoes in battlefields. Not as many calories per acre as in human bodies. Especially in the camps around the battlefields.
And why bother sic'ing your ravenous robots on the enemy's potato fields, when they can chew through their troops instead?
From TFA:
Interpol now has the kinds of diplomatic immunity that are an extension of its previous immunities, which allow it to do its work properly in the US. Like counterterrorism and against drug (and human) smuggling. The kinds of things teabaggers usually want, even though this teabagger is attacking the immunity because it was signed by Obama.
But for 8 solid nightmare years, while George Bush Jr ran the country and the world as his private police state, complete with torturing fake confessions for fake evidence to start a very real war he only faked an interest in winning, these teabaggers couldn't get enough of it.
These teabaggers are completely insane with bullshit. They're schizophrenic: living in their own bizarre, contradictory, hellish fantasy worlds. There's enough actually wrong with the country, and with Obama, to actually get riled up about without these teabaggers and their global apocalypse bullshit.
Except the robots designed to eat human flesh will be there only to eat the humans. And there will be plenty of human flesh to fuel their eating frenzy.
What kind of a war are you running where your robots scare the shit out of the bushes, not the enemy soldiers?
Yes, killer robots will eat us. And I posted that specifically so that you would panic. Thanks for playing.
Human bodies are better fuel, because it has more energy available per bite. That's why top predators eat meat, though it costs so much energy to get. That mere assertion is no defense.
The laws of war are more broken than honored. Torture? Lies to invade Iraq? How are those laws stopping terrorists?
Nobody can be expected to believe those reasons why robots won't eat us. If that's all they've got to say they won't, we can expect these robots "to serve man" pretty soon.