When will it be possible to get a PCI-e board with a load of FPGAs to which I can download a T2 to run code on, when some code I download happens to be T2 opcodes? Or even anywhere close to that, like a wrapper on the FPGA that can use the T2 config as a starting point to emulate the T2?
You have just demonstrated beyond all doubt that you understand neither statistics, nor risk prioritization, nor how to either make or understand reasoned arguments.
Ah, a Climate Change denier squandering our money on asteroid paranoia. You just keep punching yourself in the face. Makes it so easy, I'm not going to bother even pointing at you anymore.
Ask people who lived along the Gulf Coast in 2005 whether the eye has to pass over for the storm to devastate. Or ask the rest of us who stood in 1985's Gloria.
Better yet, don't ask anyone. You'll just piss us off when you try to pretend that actual disasters that kill people are less real than your asteroid paranoia.
I get more spam than ever. And setting up spam filtering on Evolution is much harder than it should be. In fact, I couldn't even find a simple, clear, authoritave instruction for starting it. When it should just be on by default when I first install Evolution.
The Palm smartphones were well on their way to getting Linux running all their HW, even before they started running a version of Windows. Is it done yet?
I haven't heard about Blackberry/Linux. And though I'd guess there's no iPhone/Linux yet, it seems inevitable.
Is there somewhere to look that shows which of these top smartphone HW platforms are most fully exploited by running Linux on them, so we can do whatever we want with our phones?
No, in fact I designed the risk-governed development model at my own 30+ person international consulting firm that later showed up in the same form as the late 1990s "Microsoft Solution Framework" project management regime. I then led the development personnel of another such firm, Microsoft based, under that regime, for several of NYC's biggest insurance corps. During which time I produced several disaster-mitigated architectures that have run without fail through such events as the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, several blackouts, and some cracking attacks, among others I'm not at liberty to discuss.
So I can tell you with some authority that actuarial analysis requires a larger statistical population than one large asteroid every 50 million years to make any kind of prediction about any single such asteroid. And that any other kind of analysis is equally worthless.
Or would you care to predict precisely when the radioactive sample at Fort Collins/WWV will first decay after noon tomorrow? You've got a lot more data to work with, and the world already depends on its regularity. I'll bet you everything in those banks I secured, to make the motivations approximately equal. And just for fun, I'll require you to spend it on asteroid defense first, if you win.
No, the article perfectly supports my argument that we have higher priorities with greater probability of success than asteroid defense.
Considering events of all energies there is about 1 chance in 20,000 of being killed by an impact during the course of a human lifetime4, similar to the likelihood of being killed in an airplane accident.
Let's say that the two risks of damage are equal, measured by my chance of dying from the respective events. If I spend $100B (or any meaningful amount) on asteroid defense, I might possibly stop a few asteroids of all those that actually kill people. But if I spend that same money on making flying safer, I will certainly save more lives for my money.
But we're not spending more money to prevent plane crashes, even though it's a better deal. And the greater perception of plane crash risk is also causing other damage, by inhibiting economic growth in many ways, as well as all the unmeasurable loss from failing to stay connected by air travel. Real damage, steadily.
So before we spend any money on asteroid defense, we should spend it on air safety. Even if NASA wants us to spend the money on space programmes instead, without proper prioritization. Thanks for the perfect example.
A hurricane hit NYC 20 years ago. I was standing in it at the time. We're overdue.
Meanwhile, Climate Change is increasing those probabilities, and the size of the damage when they do hit.
Thanks for weighing in to demonstrate you don't even have the basic facts or logic to weigh in on this subject. Saves a lot of time humoring you in a boring, drawn out display.
Decision theory will tell you that the action priority cannot be called on a single rare event like a huge asteroid collision.
If you're going to be purely theoretical, then those other risks each would have a higher priority, because some of them (or their equivalent in identical defense actions) are nearly certain in our lifetimes, or that of people we'll actually meet, like our grandchildren.
The land surface of the Earth is still mostly unpopulated. 150M square Km for 7B people is 46 people per square kilometer, which is still pretty unpopulated. But billions are squeezed into the tiniest areas, like cities in India, China, West Africa, Western Europe and North America. Only about 13% of the land is habitable at all, which is less than 4% of the planet's surface. And I'd like to see a citation for the Tunguska event hitting the 70% that is water causing a wave that would kill lots of people. Enough people to justify spending $billions on defending from it.
But the real problem here is not what geeks like us would prefer. The problem is that the certainty of other real problems that need funding and science to solve them right now shows that asteroid defense isn't driving this programme. What's driving it is expansion of the existing Star Wars programme, which has always been mostly covert (though not unknown), and often illegal. If we could reform the system to actually shut down Star Wars with some new oversight system that keeps it shut down (unlike past shutdowns), I'd be happy to spend my tax money on tracking solar system objects, because it wouldn't be a pretext for Star Wars science - which would corrupt the research by dragging it into tracking powered missiles rather than momentous asteroids.
Because tracking solar system objects is an investment in (nonmilitary) space industry. And would have the byproduct of generating real data about asteroid collision risks. If real data showed a real risk soon enough to compel investing in a defense, then that's a different argument. The paranoia and retarded statistics argued in this thread, the predicted result of the cover story smokescreening Star Wars, is no justification whatsoever for ignoring real problems in favor of SF paranoia.
Yeah, because suppressing the logic is the way to win the argument. Wouldn't want anyone else to have your chance to be wrong arguing poorly about ignorance.
We also don't know that there's a flying spaghetti monster at the Earth's core about to get us. Better get on those anti-FSM depth charges right away. It's mathematically inevitable!
Just because I mildly mocked you doesn't make my mockery hostile. You want hostile, look at some of my responses to actually obnoxious posts in this thread that are also wrong.
You have a faithy approach to SF. And just because you'd rather spend money on frivolous asteroid mining doesn't make this programme get us there. It gets us Star Wars boondoggles, actually deployed in space and on Earth. And your SF faith helps us get that, instead of either asteroid mining or any other solution to our real problems.
Let's see the citation of those who know more than you (I'll be the judge of whether they know more than I do) calculating the equal asteroid/planecrash death likelihood.
Meanwhile, you should play the lottery every day. Because that's the statistical logic you're using.
Anonymous dinosaur Coward, you just admitted that you spend all your money on the lottery. You are innumerate. Since you're clearly generally pseudointellectual, I'll explain that "innumerate" means that you're not good at math. Which means you don't know enough about statistics to be dangerous, but evidently enough about posting on Slashdot to reinforce the dangerous innumeracy rampant in this thread.
You aren't really "Lord Ender". But you do live in a SF fantasy.
The chances of an asteroid destroying all life in the next 100-1000 years are negligible. The chances of energy dependence destroying all life is closer to 100% than than to 0. When the nuclear countries are fighting over the gasping energy markets, when terrorists have nukes to grab oil or other energy producing territory, as is already starting in Russia, India/Pakistan, East Africa, Iraq...
Wake up. Reality is scary enough without dreaming of _Sudden Impact_. And we've got the money to do something about reality. Which will incidentally produce all kinds of fun toys for people like you. Maybe not collectible figurines, but alternative energy is cool enough if you're not a child.
The answer to the question of "when" is "not bloody likely in the next 100, 1000 years". The chances of having to use the money on that defense on something else instead are 100%, like the foreign energy dependence I cited - or a thousand other real threats.
And of course the government economists and budget hagglers know that. Which is why they're banking on the real payoff: Star Wars contractor bribes. Just like they have for over a quarter century for that fool's programme that produces nothing but pork, never even any missile defense.
Show me the trajectory. You can't, because it's imaginary.
You've got nothing but paranoia. I've got a record of covert Star Wars budgets getting paid continuously, despite Congressional shutdowns and worthless results.
Leave a note for your descendants describing the deliciously warm feeling your blinders gave you when you had the luxury to squander investing in real defense of their future on your favorite SF paranoia. Be sure to sing the praises of knowing nothing about statistical probability and comparative risk. Feels so good, so free!
Our energy crisis is an undeniably real problem right now that obviously will be getting excruciatingly worse over time. By the time your imaginary asteroid finally arrives to satisfy your paranoia, we will have damaged ourselves beyond our ability to respond to it, even if we have built the weapons to fire at it. Among other problems (like the civilization has collapsed from billions of refugees), there won't be energy left to fire the weapons.
But since your paranoia about big sky rocks overwhelms rational fear of real problems, you're likely to get just that Mad Max scenario you dream about.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes Stephenson a "crypto-conservative"?
And what's so great about Stross?
And what do you think of Greg Egan?
When will it be possible to get a PCI-e board with a load of FPGAs to which I can download a T2 to run code on, when some code I download happens to be T2 opcodes? Or even anywhere close to that, like a wrapper on the FPGA that can use the T2 config as a starting point to emulate the T2?
You have just demonstrated beyond all doubt that you understand neither statistics, nor risk prioritization, nor how to either make or understand reasoned arguments.
Goodbye.
If that's all you've got, I'd say it's negligible.
Ah, a Climate Change denier squandering our money on asteroid paranoia. You just keep punching yourself in the face. Makes it so easy, I'm not going to bother even pointing at you anymore.
Ask people who lived along the Gulf Coast in 2005 whether the eye has to pass over for the storm to devastate. Or ask the rest of us who stood in 1985's Gloria.
Better yet, don't ask anyone. You'll just piss us off when you try to pretend that actual disasters that kill people are less real than your asteroid paranoia.
You coincidence theorists always get there first.
What do you propose to do about our galaxy colliding with another, or even just resurging ancient infections? Instead of spending that money on the certainty that thousands of Americans will die from our oil addiction over the next few years.
I get more spam than ever. And setting up spam filtering on Evolution is much harder than it should be. In fact, I couldn't even find a simple, clear, authoritave instruction for starting it. When it should just be on by default when I first install Evolution.
The Palm smartphones were well on their way to getting Linux running all their HW, even before they started running a version of Windows. Is it done yet?
I haven't heard about Blackberry/Linux. And though I'd guess there's no iPhone/Linux yet, it seems inevitable.
Is there somewhere to look that shows which of these top smartphone HW platforms are most fully exploited by running Linux on them, so we can do whatever we want with our phones?
No, in fact I designed the risk-governed development model at my own 30+ person international consulting firm that later showed up in the same form as the late 1990s "Microsoft Solution Framework" project management regime. I then led the development personnel of another such firm, Microsoft based, under that regime, for several of NYC's biggest insurance corps. During which time I produced several disaster-mitigated architectures that have run without fail through such events as the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, several blackouts, and some cracking attacks, among others I'm not at liberty to discuss.
So I can tell you with some authority that actuarial analysis requires a larger statistical population than one large asteroid every 50 million years to make any kind of prediction about any single such asteroid. And that any other kind of analysis is equally worthless.
Or would you care to predict precisely when the radioactive sample at Fort Collins/WWV will first decay after noon tomorrow? You've got a lot more data to work with, and the world already depends on its regularity. I'll bet you everything in those banks I secured, to make the motivations approximately equal. And just for fun, I'll require you to spend it on asteroid defense first, if you win.
Let's say that the two risks of damage are equal, measured by my chance of dying from the respective events. If I spend $100B (or any meaningful amount) on asteroid defense, I might possibly stop a few asteroids of all those that actually kill people. But if I spend that same money on making flying safer, I will certainly save more lives for my money.
But we're not spending more money to prevent plane crashes, even though it's a better deal. And the greater perception of plane crash risk is also causing other damage, by inhibiting economic growth in many ways, as well as all the unmeasurable loss from failing to stay connected by air travel. Real damage, steadily.
So before we spend any money on asteroid defense, we should spend it on air safety. Even if NASA wants us to spend the money on space programmes instead, without proper prioritization. Thanks for the perfect example.
No, I leave Tunguska as fodder for coincidence theorists like you.
Kinda. I'm really a Chazrach slave posting disinfo to shut down these Star Wars programmes before they stop our invasion.
A hurricane hit NYC 20 years ago. I was standing in it at the time. We're overdue.
Meanwhile, Climate Change is increasing those probabilities, and the size of the damage when they do hit.
Thanks for weighing in to demonstrate you don't even have the basic facts or logic to weigh in on this subject. Saves a lot of time humoring you in a boring, drawn out display.
Decision theory will tell you that the action priority cannot be called on a single rare event like a huge asteroid collision.
If you're going to be purely theoretical, then those other risks each would have a higher priority, because some of them (or their equivalent in identical defense actions) are nearly certain in our lifetimes, or that of people we'll actually meet, like our grandchildren.
The land surface of the Earth is still mostly unpopulated. 150M square Km for 7B people is 46 people per square kilometer, which is still pretty unpopulated. But billions are squeezed into the tiniest areas, like cities in India, China, West Africa, Western Europe and North America. Only about 13% of the land is habitable at all, which is less than 4% of the planet's surface. And I'd like to see a citation for the Tunguska event hitting the 70% that is water causing a wave that would kill lots of people. Enough people to justify spending $billions on defending from it.
But the real problem here is not what geeks like us would prefer. The problem is that the certainty of other real problems that need funding and science to solve them right now shows that asteroid defense isn't driving this programme. What's driving it is expansion of the existing Star Wars programme, which has always been mostly covert (though not unknown), and often illegal. If we could reform the system to actually shut down Star Wars with some new oversight system that keeps it shut down (unlike past shutdowns), I'd be happy to spend my tax money on tracking solar system objects, because it wouldn't be a pretext for Star Wars science - which would corrupt the research by dragging it into tracking powered missiles rather than momentous asteroids.
Because tracking solar system objects is an investment in (nonmilitary) space industry. And would have the byproduct of generating real data about asteroid collision risks. If real data showed a real risk soon enough to compel investing in a defense, then that's a different argument. The paranoia and retarded statistics argued in this thread, the predicted result of the cover story smokescreening Star Wars, is no justification whatsoever for ignoring real problems in favor of SF paranoia.
Yeah, because suppressing the logic is the way to win the argument. Wouldn't want anyone else to have your chance to be wrong arguing poorly about ignorance.
We also don't know that there's a flying spaghetti monster at the Earth's core about to get us. Better get on those anti-FSM depth charges right away. It's mathematically inevitable!
Just because I mildly mocked you doesn't make my mockery hostile. You want hostile, look at some of my responses to actually obnoxious posts in this thread that are also wrong.
You have a faithy approach to SF. And just because you'd rather spend money on frivolous asteroid mining doesn't make this programme get us there. It gets us Star Wars boondoggles, actually deployed in space and on Earth. And your SF faith helps us get that, instead of either asteroid mining or any other solution to our real problems.
Let's see the citation of those who know more than you (I'll be the judge of whether they know more than I do) calculating the equal asteroid/planecrash death likelihood.
Meanwhile, you should play the lottery every day. Because that's the statistical logic you're using.
Anonymous dinosaur Coward, you just admitted that you spend all your money on the lottery. You are innumerate. Since you're clearly generally pseudointellectual, I'll explain that "innumerate" means that you're not good at math. Which means you don't know enough about statistics to be dangerous, but evidently enough about posting on Slashdot to reinforce the dangerous innumeracy rampant in this thread.
You aren't really "Lord Ender". But you do live in a SF fantasy.
The chances of an asteroid destroying all life in the next 100-1000 years are negligible. The chances of energy dependence destroying all life is closer to 100% than than to 0. When the nuclear countries are fighting over the gasping energy markets, when terrorists have nukes to grab oil or other energy producing territory, as is already starting in Russia, India/Pakistan, East Africa, Iraq...
Wake up. Reality is scary enough without dreaming of _Sudden Impact_. And we've got the money to do something about reality. Which will incidentally produce all kinds of fun toys for people like you. Maybe not collectible figurines, but alternative energy is cool enough if you're not a child.
The answer to the question of "when" is "not bloody likely in the next 100, 1000 years". The chances of having to use the money on that defense on something else instead are 100%, like the foreign energy dependence I cited - or a thousand other real threats.
And of course the government economists and budget hagglers know that. Which is why they're banking on the real payoff: Star Wars contractor bribes. Just like they have for over a quarter century for that fool's programme that produces nothing but pork, never even any missile defense.
Show me the trajectory. You can't, because it's imaginary.
You've got nothing but paranoia. I've got a record of covert Star Wars budgets getting paid continuously, despite Congressional shutdowns and worthless results.
Leave a note for your descendants describing the deliciously warm feeling your blinders gave you when you had the luxury to squander investing in real defense of their future on your favorite SF paranoia. Be sure to sing the praises of knowing nothing about statistical probability and comparative risk. Feels so good, so free!
Our energy crisis is an undeniably real problem right now that obviously will be getting excruciatingly worse over time. By the time your imaginary asteroid finally arrives to satisfy your paranoia, we will have damaged ourselves beyond our ability to respond to it, even if we have built the weapons to fire at it. Among other problems (like the civilization has collapsed from billions of refugees), there won't be energy left to fire the weapons.
But since your paranoia about big sky rocks overwhelms rational fear of real problems, you're likely to get just that Mad Max scenario you dream about.