Still, there are processors which were introduced late and are out of production now, while older designs are still made and in use. Thus my point still stands, despite your nitpicking (and remember, not everything that gets obsolete was produced).
The time when you grew your own food or starved ended somewhen around 12,000 BC when the first differenced societies appeared. Since the advent of trade and towns, more and more people are no longer fully autarkic or self-sustained, but rely on others to provide addtional goods which then are traded.
Which are all newer than the motorola 68000 in the powerbook 100.
"Newer" has nothing to do with "less obsolete". There is a link in TFA, describing eight dropped architectures as "without active users". POWER4 was dropped because POWER4 support is broken since two years already and no fix or rework available (and apparently no urge to fix it).
So yes, a newer architecture can be obsolete when an older one is still alive and kicking.
That's not the discussion we are having. I just told you that ethics is not what you think it is. Ethics is actually debating what morals are, and why they are the way they are, which you denied.
I beg to differ. Ethics are the philosophy of morality (philosophia moralis). That's how Cicero once translated the greek term "ethike", literally meaning habit or custom.
No, that's ethics, the theory why morality is the way it is. Morality is a time honed collection of shortcuts for ethical decisions, which allows us to actually get things done without too much hassle. Sometimes, morality reaches its limits, and then it's time to get back to ethics and find out why moral rules were once set the way they are, and how to adapt them to the current problem.
Of course there are. Thus the claim "No wonder the UK is going down the tubes, if it thinks that 25 years is a sufficient prison term for someone who kills dozens of people." doesn't make any sense.
Interestingly though, the cases of someone killing dozens of people are much lower in the UK, even considering the much lower number of inhabitants, compared to the U.S.. Seems as if the UK does something right when it comes to punishing people.
No. It doesn't. Even the most heinous crimes will not pull more than 25 years in prison in the UK. Or are you suggesting that Lauri Love did anything more eggregious than killing dozens of people in a terror attack, running a child sex ring and being the Capo di tutti i capi of the largest mob in the UK at the same time? Extradicting someone facing 99 years in prison for not even destroying any property is thus totally out of proportion.
This is exactly the attitude that caused the extradition effort to fail, because it misses any adequacy between crime and punishment. Posturing with a threat of punishment of 99 years in prison didn't help the U.S.' case. Having no sufficient medical treatment of prisoners didn't help either. Having delinquents commiting suicide while being in U.S. custody or being confronted with completely out of propotion prison terms for petty crimes was of no help to the U.S. effort. And as long as the "ass-pounding prison" is a thing in the U.S., the UK will not extradite anyone after this verdict. If the U.S. is unable to protect people in their custody from crimes like rape committed by other people in U.S. custody, it is not fit for any successful extradition.
The UK never said that Mr. Love should go unpunished. It said that the condition for punishment the U.S. offered were unacceptable and in violation of basic human rights and basic decency.
And the XKCD also explains why the extradition request ultimatively failed: Being confronted with serving 99 years for tearing down a poster is simply wrong. The UK basicly told the U:S.: We would probably have agreed to the extradition, if your prisons were run better, if your penalties were more rational and if you knew how to handle suicidal tendencies in deliquents.
Aaron Schwartz is haunting the U.S. extradition effort from the grave.
By not believing anyone you can prove anything. Someone tells something not fitting your story? Just don't believe them. Problem solved. Proof delivered.
Talkradio as it is known in the U.S. barely exists here around. Nevertheless there are stations which mainly send magazines on political, cultural and scientific topics.
I never use the CD player in my car, I exclusively listen to radio stations. That's because I basicly don't listen to music, and I don't listen to audio books at all. So there is no reason for me to use something that can only play prerecorded stuff.
Lowered speed has more impact than you might imagine. It means that rails are occupied longer, that following trains have to wait longer, that they might miss time slots, which in turn means less trains and thus the ones running being more crowed, which in turn causes them to have longer waiting times at the stations. Time schedules on a highly occupied rail system are very finely tuned, and even a small lagging behind schedule ripples through the system and causes more lagging elsewhere.
The issue is that invariably you are delegating responsibility on others and not proving facts. Instead, you're leaning on trust for truth. You parrot things as facts when you verify nothing of the kind. Ie, you prove the researchers points because you really aren't going out of your way to prove things except in limited instances.
The issue here is that you simply don't have the time and the ability to prove much for yourself. Your time on Earth is limited, and so are your abiilities. You can't verify the mass of the Higgs boson to be 126 GeV, because you don't have the money and the time and the craftmanship to build an LHC for yourself. So you have to take CERN's word for it.
All the talk about "verifying for yourself" is nice and tandy, but totally ignorant of the reality. The reality is that there are so many things you take for granted without every doubting them, and you are not even aware of them. Most information you get is the result of a large collective effort of hundreds and thousands of people working together and building on each other's results. You as a single person have no chance to even replicate a minuscle part of that effort.
I remember that in the late 1990ies, there was a project of an artist to build a simple toaster all on his own, without using any other's product: Going out and mine the iron ore and the copper, melt them in selfbuilt ovens, using self burned charcoal, welding them with selfmade tools into sheets and wires etc.pp.. As far as I remember, after ten years, he wasn't even halfway into any results. It's the same with the information you get. You don't have 10 years time to hunt down all the facts that lead to that information. You have to rely on others to provide you with facts you will never have any chance to check for yourself.
So all that talk about "not trusting anyone and trying to verify all on your own" is just grand-standing. You simply don't do that. You take 99.9% of all information you get for granted. And you make a few steps of verification of some of the 0.1% remaining ones, but you virtually never follow through, especially not if your first steps seem to suggest the veracity of the information you were trying to verify.
Did you ever verify the timetable at a bus stop? Were you waiting for 24 h each on a work day and on a public holiday making notes of the bus coming? No. You just install an app that tells you when the next bus will arrive, and if that information seem to be ok within +/- 2 mins, you take the timetable for granted.
Also the pre-2018 is full of companys that made decent stuff. Don't get confused by the survivorship bias!
Only because all the shoddy companies with the shoddy products they sold pre-2000 are gone now you can see all the well made products that have survived. 2050 someone will claim that pre-2020, there were still companies that made decent stuff. And in 2100, someone will sing a hymn on all those pre-2050 companies building decent stuff.
And no, I can't give you a hint which companies are building decent stuff now, because all the shoddy stuff that breaks within a few years is still in use. Only time will tell which products survive.
You know that 75-80% of your example potato is water, while the bag of chips is nearly free of water?
A fair comparisation thus would be to compare 40 oz of potato to 8 oz of chips + 32 oz of water.
We will get a bot arms race, where bots are fighting bots, and we humans get left alone. So all back to normal, except for trillions of CPU cycles wasted.
Actually, it was Duroplast mixed with wood chavings to save on the expensive plastics and still being able to freely form it. The duroplast effectively worked as a malleable glue to keep the wood chavings together. (And yes, my father owned a Trabant.)
And even Karel apek wasn't the first to have artificial, programmed helpers in a story.
The Sefer Yetzirah, probably written between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century BE was studied by the Middle Age jewish scholars to gather information how to create a golem, and Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel is said to have created a Golem in the late 16th century.
Slashdot Mirror
It gives you a list of rich people easily persuaded to put money in risky enterprises, who will accept a total loss.
Still, there are processors which were introduced late and are out of production now, while older designs are still made and in use. Thus my point still stands, despite your nitpicking (and remember, not everything that gets obsolete was produced).
The time when you grew your own food or starved ended somewhen around 12,000 BC when the first differenced societies appeared. Since the advent of trade and towns, more and more people are no longer fully autarkic or self-sustained, but rely on others to provide addtional goods which then are traded.
things like Power4, Blackfin, M32R etc.
Which are all newer than the motorola 68000 in the powerbook 100.
"Newer" has nothing to do with "less obsolete". There is a link in TFA, describing eight dropped architectures as "without active users". POWER4 was dropped because POWER4 support is broken since two years already and no fix or rework available (and apparently no urge to fix it).
So yes, a newer architecture can be obsolete when an older one is still alive and kicking.
That's not the discussion we are having. I just told you that ethics is not what you think it is. Ethics is actually debating what morals are, and why they are the way they are, which you denied.
I beg to differ. Ethics are the philosophy of morality (philosophia moralis). That's how Cicero once translated the greek term "ethike", literally meaning habit or custom.
No, that's ethics, the theory why morality is the way it is. Morality is a time honed collection of shortcuts for ethical decisions, which allows us to actually get things done without too much hassle. Sometimes, morality reaches its limits, and then it's time to get back to ethics and find out why moral rules were once set the way they are, and how to adapt them to the current problem.
Of course there are. Thus the claim "No wonder the UK is going down the tubes, if it thinks that 25 years is a sufficient prison term for someone who kills dozens of people." doesn't make any sense.
Interestingly though, the cases of someone killing dozens of people are much lower in the UK, even considering the much lower number of inhabitants, compared to the U.S.. Seems as if the UK does something right when it comes to punishing people.
No. It doesn't. Even the most heinous crimes will not pull more than 25 years in prison in the UK. Or are you suggesting that Lauri Love did anything more eggregious than killing dozens of people in a terror attack, running a child sex ring and being the Capo di tutti i capi of the largest mob in the UK at the same time? Extradicting someone facing 99 years in prison for not even destroying any property is thus totally out of proportion.
The UK never said that Mr. Love should go unpunished. It said that the condition for punishment the U.S. offered were unacceptable and in violation of basic human rights and basic decency.
Aaron Schwartz is haunting the U.S. extradition effort from the grave.
By not believing anyone you can prove anything. Someone tells something not fitting your story? Just don't believe them. Problem solved. Proof delivered.
Talkradio as it is known in the U.S. barely exists here around. Nevertheless there are stations which mainly send magazines on political, cultural and scientific topics.
I never use the CD player in my car, I exclusively listen to radio stations. That's because I basicly don't listen to music, and I don't listen to audio books at all. So there is no reason for me to use something that can only play prerecorded stuff.
Lowered speed has more impact than you might imagine. It means that rails are occupied longer, that following trains have to wait longer, that they might miss time slots, which in turn means less trains and thus the ones running being more crowed, which in turn causes them to have longer waiting times at the stations. Time schedules on a highly occupied rail system are very finely tuned, and even a small lagging behind schedule ripples through the system and causes more lagging elsewhere.
The issue is that invariably you are delegating responsibility on others and not proving facts. Instead, you're leaning on trust for truth. You parrot things as facts when you verify nothing of the kind. Ie, you prove the researchers points because you really aren't going out of your way to prove things except in limited instances.
The issue here is that you simply don't have the time and the ability to prove much for yourself. Your time on Earth is limited, and so are your abiilities. You can't verify the mass of the Higgs boson to be 126 GeV, because you don't have the money and the time and the craftmanship to build an LHC for yourself. So you have to take CERN's word for it.
All the talk about "verifying for yourself" is nice and tandy, but totally ignorant of the reality. The reality is that there are so many things you take for granted without every doubting them, and you are not even aware of them. Most information you get is the result of a large collective effort of hundreds and thousands of people working together and building on each other's results. You as a single person have no chance to even replicate a minuscle part of that effort.
I remember that in the late 1990ies, there was a project of an artist to build a simple toaster all on his own, without using any other's product: Going out and mine the iron ore and the copper, melt them in selfbuilt ovens, using self burned charcoal, welding them with selfmade tools into sheets and wires etc.pp.. As far as I remember, after ten years, he wasn't even halfway into any results. It's the same with the information you get. You don't have 10 years time to hunt down all the facts that lead to that information. You have to rely on others to provide you with facts you will never have any chance to check for yourself.
So all that talk about "not trusting anyone and trying to verify all on your own" is just grand-standing. You simply don't do that. You take 99.9% of all information you get for granted. And you make a few steps of verification of some of the 0.1% remaining ones, but you virtually never follow through, especially not if your first steps seem to suggest the veracity of the information you were trying to verify.
Did you ever verify the timetable at a bus stop? Were you waiting for 24 h each on a work day and on a public holiday making notes of the bus coming? No. You just install an app that tells you when the next bus will arrive, and if that information seem to be ok within +/- 2 mins, you take the timetable for granted.
Only because all the shoddy companies with the shoddy products they sold pre-2000 are gone now you can see all the well made products that have survived. 2050 someone will claim that pre-2020, there were still companies that made decent stuff. And in 2100, someone will sing a hymn on all those pre-2050 companies building decent stuff.
And no, I can't give you a hint which companies are building decent stuff now, because all the shoddy stuff that breaks within a few years is still in use. Only time will tell which products survive.
You know that 75-80% of your example potato is water, while the bag of chips is nearly free of water? A fair comparisation thus would be to compare 40 oz of potato to 8 oz of chips + 32 oz of water.
If you affect a computer in the EU in a way that is illegal in the EU, then you commit a crime in the EU. End of story.
Luckily taxes on gas in Germany guarantee that buying and driving a gas guzzling sports car is at first a pain inflicted on yourself.
And someone else posted a follow-up NASA paper which comes to a different conclusion.
We will get a bot arms race, where bots are fighting bots, and we humans get left alone. So all back to normal, except for trillions of CPU cycles wasted.
Actually, it was Duroplast mixed with wood chavings to save on the expensive plastics and still being able to freely form it. The duroplast effectively worked as a malleable glue to keep the wood chavings together. (And yes, my father owned a Trabant.)
The Sefer Yetzirah, probably written between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century BE was studied by the Middle Age jewish scholars to gather information how to create a golem, and Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel is said to have created a Golem in the late 16th century.