True, but there's also a lot of muppets that think pay = experience = years on CV, some experience is of course necessary but perhaps say at 50 with 25 years of experience they want ridiculously much compared to a 35 year old with 10 years of experience. Of course you can say all experience even if it's now on obsolete technology or products is valuable, but I wouldn't add my Civilization playing experience as strategic and resource management either even though it's somewhat related. A lot of people just put on the cruise control too early, they've no longer got the big ambitions of career, they're just looking to float on their existing skill set into retirement.
I could point you to several examples, they got a lot of working knowledge of the organization and processes that they're at but if they have to apply for another job I'd probably hire someone half their age that wouldn't be grumbling because they're no longer a Senior Developer IV, their coding skills are rusty, their problem skills are to hit everything with the same hammer they've used since the 90s and they'd no longer have any particular insight in the product, the organization or the history behind it. That is obviously very important knowledge and maybe just as important as getting whiz-bang coder straight from university, but when you're first laid off it doesn't have much value to other employers.
It's a lot easier for patients that are of a sound mind but not body. I did see Terry Pratchett's "Choosing to die" and you have to confirm it again for the n'th time right before they give you the poison. And you have to ingest it yourself doing the killing yourself, a comatose person can do neither. Healthy me has after all never been sick and dying me, perhaps I'd like to fight for every inch of my life when we're actually there. If I got a head trauma and ended up mental age five, well most five year olds I know are happy. So if you're capable of taking that decision when you're there you should be able to go if you want, if you can't... well I feel it's tough.
It's like saying almost everybody use their computer for something out of the ordinary, but whatever that is it's not the same. For a lot of those people maybe their disability isn't relevant to your site, for the rest well maybe they need many entirely different solutions. I don't see a deaf person having a problem using 99% of the web, for example. Those with poor vision (not blind) maybe just need a font adjustment. What are you aiming for, 95%? 99%? 99.99999%? Designing a website a blind can read is basically a new site, start from scratch with a blindfold and a screen reader.
That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both.
Wasn't that really the true divide? Catholics claim salvation follows the "chain of command" from God to the Pope to the cardinals to the bishops to the priests of the Catholic church and that under ordinary circumstances they are the only way to get absolution from your sins. What power this gives the priesthood is left as an exercise to the reader. Protestants claim salvation comes directly from God to those who follow the Bible, priests are prayer leaders but neither priests nor churches are strictly speaking necessary. However from the Catholic point of view protestant priests weren't ordained by the Holy See so they were not part of the "chain of command" but rather false priests that pretended to speak on behalf of God. Commence bloodshed.
If you don't really trust anything you haven't personally verified yourself, you can't get very far in real life. Have you verified every line of code that runs on your computer or do you trust it enough to run it anyway? What about the compiler? Do you ever use results from your coworkers without digging through every calculation down to every assumption and verify them? Trust is a measure of confidence in your word, which is weighed against how important it is. If you have no confidence in it, you don't want to waste any time on it (assume false, test false). If you have a bit of confidence that it's might be worthwhile you verify it. (assume false, test true). If you think it's probably right, but you want to verify it that's stronger (assume true, test true). And if you trust it implicitly that's of course trust (assume true, test false).
Sounds like this could be a good thing to learn visual concepts, at least combined with Wikipedia. Like for example you have a rhino, but that's just one instance of rhino photographed from one angle under one set of lighting, camera settings and so on. If you can have a computer go through thousands of photos of rhinos you could maybe capture the variability and boundary to non-rhinos in some way. Rhinos standing, rhinos running, rhinos lying down, rhinos bathing, baby rhinos, old rhinos, male rhinos, female rhinos... computer don't natively "get" the concept of a rhino. Like us we might have to program a neural net where the answer is "I'll know it when I see it". If you could have a computer look at a photo and fairly accurately describe what's in it that'd be rather impressive. And it wouldn't mistake a rhino for an antelope, even if they shared a picture.
Are you a law abiding citizen that wants a job? GO PAY FOR EDUCATION!... oh you are not law abiding... let me pay for all the needed so you can get the job.
This applies for most European countries aswell
Everything except the non-criminals paying for it. Most tuition here is free, student loans typically come from cost of living. Granted you might say we're paying room and board, but as long as we intend to keep them prisoner we don't really have a choice about that. The greatest investment is really time and effort, if they're willing to spend their time in prison in a way that'll be productive when they get out that's great. I don't see how staring at the wall or pumping iron all day is going to help anyone, them or us.
If "I" lose that one, then even if I owe the plaintiff a million dollars, you're 100% liable to me, so really, it's you who loses. Hence why I could take a default judgement and not care.
But does the claim go through you or past you, that makes a huge difference if your "third party" can't pay or has hidden their assets or they're abroad or whatever. Will they then take your house, car and savings while you're stuck with a valid but useless claim against that third party? Like if your insurance company went bankrupt between the car accident and the payout you're not off the hook, the claim is against you as the driver first and your insurance company second. It's not a big deal with insurance companies, but the average person doesn't have a million dollars and most likely couldn't pay, which makes it very relevant.
Won't happen or it'd be illegal to forget to charge it or forget it at home. Assuming you want or need to be carrying it around most of the time it's more effective as a screening device, if you are going to a clandestine meeting and five others also happen to have their cell phones go dark at the same time that's a pattern, particularly if it repeats itself. If you're normally online it's probably better to leave it turned on at home, in which case they'd need to look for secondary clues you aren't actually there like number plate readers, CCTV, paying with plastic, facebook tagging, missed calls or collaborating data that you are there like power usage, internet traffic or whatever and start building statistics on how often you are where you appear to be.
I'm not in the cloak-and-dagger business but I have worked on risk assessments on whether you can dig out of personal information out of statistical information and you need to be very careful on how you do that, subtracting a baseline often reveals a surprising amount about the rest. Like say you have a small town with 1000 people and you put in lots of safeguards if the numbers drop to <5 individuals. But if you can get numbers for New York + small town - that will all be big, then subtract New York you'll find that 102-100 = 2 people in that small town belong in that category. Imagine you started combining cell phone data with other data, okay there's your tax records on your work so that's you going to and from work. We have birth and marriage certificates on file, so that's you visiting relatives. That's a friend on Facebook, old classmate.
And then there's something "left over", which is where you can start putting in the effort. Of course you can avoid that by meeting in public where there's lots of people, but you probably wouldn't want to hold a very private conversation nobody should hear there either. And if you keep your cell phones on because you are in public anyway, you can do clustering to find that the same people are meeting in the same place despite there being many other random signals there as well. Give people enough seemingly innocent data and they will dig up something you thought wasn't in there, I'm sure of it. At least I've seen people underestimate it time and time again, only to have to demonstrate it.
The only thing I hate about this episode is that Doctor Who is turning into a miracle worker that can fix anything, anywhere, any time. Where's all that anguish between doing something bad and letting something horrible happen going to go? No more the burden of having killed billions of children to save the universe on your conscience. Time paradoxes, crossing your own time stream, going to your own grave, time locked has ceased to mean anything. Now it was just "the time streams are out of sync, we just won't remember". At the end of every episode, he could essentially go back to the beginning and make it null and void, no more you made a decision and you're stuck with it. Hell, they more than hinted in this episode that they're going to rewrite Trenselor, no more of this future:
Dr. Simeon: It was a minor skirmish by the Doctor's blood-soaked standards. Not exactly the Time War, but enough to finish him. In the end it was too much for the old man. Jenny: Blood soaked? Vastra: The Doctor has been many things, but never blood-soaked. Dr. Simeon: Tell that to the leader of the Sycorax. Or Solomon the Trader. Or the Cybermen, or the Daleks. The Doctor lives his life in darker hues, day upon day. And he will have other names before the end. Storm. The Beast. The Valeyard.
The doctor needs a setback, some kind of limitations, something he can't fix. But I think you have pretty much thrown that out the window by fixing the Time War.
You sound like one of those doomsayers that always says that if we do anything for the workers, community or the environment like health and safety, working hours, overtime pay, minimum wage, vacation, sick leave, notice periods, regulations, taxes and so on the capitalists will always move to some third world hellhole that has none of these things. The economy would collapse, the jobs would disappear and we'd end up a third world country. So the solution is instead of fighting the race to the bottom or even trying to go uphill and fail, we should just race towards the bottom to get there first. You should probably get rid of the 13th amendment too as long as the slave contracts were entered into willingly.
Once employees are totally free from all protection from abuse they'll be much equipped to negotiate a fair deal with the megacorporations that they seek employment at since it's all voluntary and nobody's going to be forced into anything because they got rent to pay, kids to feed or something like that. Or if they do, it's their own choice/fault so we shouldn't intervene. If the corporations put abusive terms in their employment contracts, people will simply refuse to work for them and another company that hires better people from the full pool will take over, run the other company into bankruptcy and the invisible hand of the market will fix everything. It's almost like Santa Claus, except more adults believe in it.
Maybe it works for you if you're well above average good and it's not a matter of whether you'd be employed or not, it's only a matter of shopping around for the highest bidder. When it's a worker's market and companies are struggling to find enough qualified workers, all is well. It's when it's an employer's market that the thumbscrews come out and people are caught in a game of chicken, accept less favorable work conditions or be out of a job. Oh and almost everyone is now in a hiring freeze, unless you're the CEO's nephew. So would you voluntarily like to sign this revised employee agreement or would you like to voluntarily pick up your two weeks pay check and be on the dole?
Businesses operate on those terms we allow them to operate, sure they can choose not to do business here then but as long as we can find enough jobs that do want to treat their employees decently it's not necessary to bend over and lube up so they'll set up sweatshops here. P.S. Unlike the US, in Switzerland the democracy is not defective. The people actually make the decisions, much to the frustration of both corporations and politicians alike. I consider their model a fantastic democratic achievement that I wish more countries would adopt, but much like the US "two-party" system it'd require the politicians in power to rescind power. That's not going to happen without a revolution.
Apple could buy Intel, at least in theory. They have cash reserves of $147 Billion - Intel's market cap is only $118 Billion.
They could, but it'd be pointless for the same reason nobody wants to gobble up AMD for 2-3 billion. All those cross licensing deals would become invalid (like for example x86-64 that AMD invented) and they'd have a nightmare trying to relicense it.
Broadwell represents a miniaturization step from 22 to 14 nm structures. Why do they keep the capacity of the Crystalwell L4 cache at 128 MB? They could put twice that memory onto a die with the same area as the 22 nm Crystalwell version. Is the Crystalwell die for the Haswell CPUs so large and expensive that they have to reduce its size?
There's only a single size of eDRAM offered this generation: 128MB. Since it's a cache and not a buffer (and a giant one at that), Intel found that hit rate rarely dropped below 95%. It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didn't see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof. Intel doubled the size to deal with any increases in game complexity, and doubled it again just to be sure. I believe the exact wording Intel's Tom Piazza used during his explanation of why 128MB was "go big or go home". It's very rare that we see Intel be so liberal with die area, which makes me think this 128MB design is going to stick around for a while.
I get the impression that the plan might be to keep the eDRAM on a n-1 process going forward. When Intel moves to 14nm with Broadwell, it's entirely possible that Crystalwell will remain at 22nm. Doing so would help Intel put older fabs to use, especially if there's no need for a near term increase in eDRAM size. I asked about the potential to integrate eDRAM on-die, but was told that it's far too early for that discussion. Given the size of the 128MB eDRAM on 22nm (~84mm^2), I can understand why. Intel did float an interesting idea by me though. In the future it could integrate 16 - 32MB of eDRAM on-die for specific use cases (e.g. storing the frame buffer).
"The electric car challenge is what insiders call "getting butts in seats" â" and a lot of butts today still belong to humans who are not yet buying electric cars. The big question is: Why? Surveys show drivers are interested in electric cars--and that they love them once they drive them.
Perhaps simply because people buy what works for them and won't buy what won't work for them? It's silly to extrapolate that because your current users are happy that everybody would be happy with it.
For a one person, single car household you'd either have to keep two cars or go pure EV. The first is very expensive (depreciation, parking spot - very expensive in inner city, insurance, maintenance) and environmentally questionable anyway because of all the resources that go into production even if you drive cleaner. The other alternative is to go pure EV, which means I'd almost certainly push the limits and end up in "Can I get home with 2km of range, I really don't want to wait half an hour at a charging station" situations because the threshold to rent a ICE car would be rather high. And I couldn't go on a weekend cabin trip without buying a Tesla. Which is an excellent car I'm sure, if you're looking to spend that much money on a car but I don't.
For a two person, two car household a mixed pair works better because you have an ICE car for when one or both need it, unless you both happen to need it at the same time going to different things. Here I think it's more about people being possessive, it usually ends up being "his" and "her" car. One gets the big, comfy road trip car and the other the small commute EV and they don't like having to borrow or lending it away. They'd rather get two ICEs, one each and that's that unless one is in for repairs or if they need to swap for other reasons it feels like a more equal trade. Not to mention there's a ton of competition for small, cheap cars for inner city driving.
Hybrids are somewhat interesting but they're often the worst of both worlds as you get far more complexity, much less electric range and a tiny ICE for when you run out. Jack of all trades, king of none. And even my new apartment building (2013) doesn't have chargers for hybrids/EVs, so I'd have to go out of my way to get a charger at home. Meanwhile I pass three gas stations on the way to work, it's simple, it's flexible and it works. But give me a Tesla at half the price and I'd buy that, no problem.
At the time, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer in the world with special purpose chess chips, a regular desktop today would be strong but not that ridiculously much stronger. I read an article recently from the creator where he guessed seven losses and three draws in ten games. But if you really wanted to you could always build a similar supercomputer (168.1 TFlops vs 11.38 GFlops) that'd be 10000 times more powerful just to make really, really sure.
Meh, if you want to apply that logic then the first thing we should do away with is hygiene and medicine. People used to have lots of children, why didn't it turn into a population boom until the 20th century? Because lots of those children died, their mothers died in labor, people in general died from pests and plagues and infections and diseases. Culture changed and currently we're only producing enough children to sustain a small growth in population, in fact if birth rates continue to decline the world population will peak at 9-10 billion. There's a fill-up effect but we're not in a boom anymore, if we don't run into other issues like resource exhaustion, global warming or whatever it looks like we won't have any problems feeding the whole world population. The roughly 0,1% of the world population that will starve to death this year do so because of civil war and chaos, not because we can't increase food production another 0,1%. If it was possible to safely deliver aid nobody would need to starve.
Mozilla was not always getting most of its revenue from Google, Google isn't "giving" them the money, it's from ads, and Google's disappearance tomorrow would not make Mozilla "implode". They'd just have to advertise elsewhere.
You're right, up to 2005 Mozilla got most their money from their AOL sugar daddy, but ever since they've had to make money on their own it's been overwhelmingly Google, it was 85% in 2006 and 90% now in 2013. They've never had any significant non-Google revenue. It's not ads, it's overwhelmingly search engine referrals which means that if Google ended their business relationship with Mozilla they'd have to change their default search engine to either Bing or Yahoo (same thing really) to get referral royalties from Microsoft instead. If users rejected it and kept using Google (hint: Google's market share is much higher than Chrome+Mozilla, meaning many IE users also favor Google) then Mozilla wouldn't see a cent.
It's open source so I'm sure it'd never die as such but the reason Mozilla exists as a major company is because it's better for Google to have an arm's length partner that can attack Microsoft/IE from different angles appealing to different crowds and acting as two voices in the development of standards rather than slim it down to a near-duopoly Chrome/IE marketplace. A lot of people will back Mozilla because it's open source and "neutral" but wouldn't get behind Google or Microsoft to push their browser. But the money to keep developing it comes pretty much exclusively from Google and the only real alternative would be Microsoft, which I'm quite sure neither Mozilla nor Microsoft would want. Otherwise it'd just be the "other" 10-15% of Mozilla's revenue left.
A single silicon lattice is about 0.55nm across, so at 32nm like we had at the start of this decade you're talking about 58 lattices wide. At 5nm (what Intel's roadmap predicts in 2019) you're down to 9 wide, keep that up to 2030 and you're down to 1.5 lattices wide. I guess the theoretical limit is a single lattice, but then you need perfect purity and perfect alignment of every atom of that processors or true nanotechnology in other words. We will probably run into problems earlier with quantum effects and current leakage, but either way by the end of the next decade we're definitively done.
So basically if a girl shows her boyfriend her boobies and he covertly snaps a photo and posts it on the Internet linked to her name for all to see it's the same thing? After all if you showed one, you showed the world right? Or someone accidentally walked in on her because she forgot to lock the door or she had a wardrobe malfunction or whatever, same thing right? One accidental exposure to one person and you're just supposed to accept it being posted all over the Internet? And I guess you think it's perfectly okay if the sex toy store to tell everyone what you bought, after all they know so why not the world? You're creating a completely ridiculous standard of privacy where the only thing that's private are secrets, which don't need any protection because nobody knows about them. You reduce the "right to privacy" to "right to try keeping a secret, and if you fail tough luck".
Don't worry, the MBA has read this and feels exactly the same about you. It goes so well with the law degree most/.ers have, you do know they call it the soft and hard sciences, not easy and hard sciences right? I'd call it the corollary to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the more you excel in one narrow field the more you think you could wing it in everything else. It's why professors are pretty obnoxious to relate to and a lot of IT people are the same just because they know how to command a machine around but couldn't train a dog if their life depended on it. Like it or not big corporations tend to do a lot of stupid things and without MBAs running around trying to find what the ROI on projects are we'd see a lot more stillborn projects. I've been on far more idiotic projects without a proper business plan than with a business plan, it of course doesn't guarantee that it won't be idiotic but some of it wouldn't pass the giggle test if you tried asking how this would ever be profitable. Because engineers just like to solve problems, they don't like to ask if there's a market of people willing to pay to have this problem solved.
Of course these people are using talking about supercomputers and the relevance to supercomputers, but you have to be pretty daft to not see the implications for everything else. In the last years almost all the improvement have been in power states and frequency/voltage scaling, if you're doing something at 100% CPU load (and isn't a corner case to benefit from a new instruction) the power efficiency has been almost unchanged. Top of the line graphics cards have gone constantly upwards and are pushing 250-300W, even Intel's got Xeons pushing 150W not to mention AMD's 220W beast, though that's a special oddity. The point is that we need more power to do more and for hardware running 24x7 that's a non-trivial part of the cost that's not going down.
We know CMOS scaling is coming to an end, maybe not at 14nm or 10nm but at the end of this decade we're approaching the size of silicon atoms and lattices. There's no way we can sustain the current rate of scaling in the 2020s. And it wouldn't be the end of the world, computers would go roughly the same speed they did ten or twenty years ago like cars and jet planes do. Your phone would never become as fast as your computer which would never become as fast as a supercomputer again. We could get smarter at using that power of course, but fundamentally hard problems that require a lot of processing power would go nowhere and it won't be terahertz processors, terabytes of RAM and petabytes of storage for the average man. It was a good run while it lasted.
Ah, the eternal war: User A: The old works for me and I don't care about your "faddy crap" User B: The new works much better for me and I don't care about your "legacy crap"
Heck, I'm probably both A and B depending on whose side I want to be on. Kill IE6 with fire so we don't have to support that old shit, I don't care about your legacy enterprise intraweb crapware. Noooo don't take away my menus and replace it with a ribbon, I want it just the way it was. It really comes down to if you think the change is for better or worse and if the change itself is worth the effort. Change for change's sake is just annoying, you need some compelling benefits to want change not just that you can roughly get back to where you were.
No, the maximum distance grows without bounds. What this proves is that you can always find two more primes that are less than 600 apart, so the minimum distance does not grow without bounds. It has absolutely nothing to do with the distance between one pair of primes and another pair.
Was it just me or did anyone else have a hard time following that summary? At first I thought it was Yitang Zhang who settled "a long-standing open question". But the first sentence is actually talking about the eight - James Maynard.
No. Before May 2013 there was no proof on an infinite pair of primes being a finite bound apart. - May 2013: Zhang, bound 70 million - End of May 2013: Others, bound <60 million - July 2013: Terence Tao & Polymath project: bound 4680 - Now: James Maynard, bound 600 - Twin conjencture: still unproven, bound 2
So the "big" discovery was Zhang, for managing to put a bound on it in the first place. The rest are improvements on that proof, but not very fundamental ones. Proving the twin conjencture would be huge, but nobody's done that yet. The Polymath project and probably many others are working on it. The conjencture is almost certainly true, but notoriously hard to prove. Probably the easiest "feel" to get for it is the Sieve of Eratosthenes, make a long list of odd numbers then strike out the multiples of primes. Once you strike out the 3s it'll be obvious you don't get triplets since 3, 9, 15, 21, 27 and so on are all multiples of 3 so the "candidates" are (5,7) (11,13), (17,19), (23,25) and so on. As you add more primes like 25 = 5*5 it'll get fewer and fewer pairs but they keep occuring rather randomly. It feels like that with infinite primes they'll randomly end up being next to each other an infinite number of times, but proving it is another matter. For example if you take the Fibonacci sequence (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21...) it's obvious it's an infinite series but the distance between numbers also grows to infinity. Not so with primes, by these proofs.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but there's also a lot of muppets that think pay = experience = years on CV, some experience is of course necessary but perhaps say at 50 with 25 years of experience they want ridiculously much compared to a 35 year old with 10 years of experience. Of course you can say all experience even if it's now on obsolete technology or products is valuable, but I wouldn't add my Civilization playing experience as strategic and resource management either even though it's somewhat related. A lot of people just put on the cruise control too early, they've no longer got the big ambitions of career, they're just looking to float on their existing skill set into retirement.
I could point you to several examples, they got a lot of working knowledge of the organization and processes that they're at but if they have to apply for another job I'd probably hire someone half their age that wouldn't be grumbling because they're no longer a Senior Developer IV, their coding skills are rusty, their problem skills are to hit everything with the same hammer they've used since the 90s and they'd no longer have any particular insight in the product, the organization or the history behind it. That is obviously very important knowledge and maybe just as important as getting whiz-bang coder straight from university, but when you're first laid off it doesn't have much value to other employers.
It's a lot easier for patients that are of a sound mind but not body. I did see Terry Pratchett's "Choosing to die" and you have to confirm it again for the n'th time right before they give you the poison. And you have to ingest it yourself doing the killing yourself, a comatose person can do neither. Healthy me has after all never been sick and dying me, perhaps I'd like to fight for every inch of my life when we're actually there. If I got a head trauma and ended up mental age five, well most five year olds I know are happy. So if you're capable of taking that decision when you're there you should be able to go if you want, if you can't... well I feel it's tough.
It's like saying almost everybody use their computer for something out of the ordinary, but whatever that is it's not the same. For a lot of those people maybe their disability isn't relevant to your site, for the rest well maybe they need many entirely different solutions. I don't see a deaf person having a problem using 99% of the web, for example. Those with poor vision (not blind) maybe just need a font adjustment. What are you aiming for, 95%? 99%? 99.99999%? Designing a website a blind can read is basically a new site, start from scratch with a blindfold and a screen reader.
That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both.
Wasn't that really the true divide? Catholics claim salvation follows the "chain of command" from God to the Pope to the cardinals to the bishops to the priests of the Catholic church and that under ordinary circumstances they are the only way to get absolution from your sins. What power this gives the priesthood is left as an exercise to the reader. Protestants claim salvation comes directly from God to those who follow the Bible, priests are prayer leaders but neither priests nor churches are strictly speaking necessary. However from the Catholic point of view protestant priests weren't ordained by the Holy See so they were not part of the "chain of command" but rather false priests that pretended to speak on behalf of God. Commence bloodshed.
they've been circling the big black hole for three years already, they don't need a C-level to glide in.
FTFY ;)
If you don't really trust anything you haven't personally verified yourself, you can't get very far in real life. Have you verified every line of code that runs on your computer or do you trust it enough to run it anyway? What about the compiler? Do you ever use results from your coworkers without digging through every calculation down to every assumption and verify them? Trust is a measure of confidence in your word, which is weighed against how important it is. If you have no confidence in it, you don't want to waste any time on it (assume false, test false). If you have a bit of confidence that it's might be worthwhile you verify it. (assume false, test true). If you think it's probably right, but you want to verify it that's stronger (assume true, test true). And if you trust it implicitly that's of course trust (assume true, test false).
Sounds like this could be a good thing to learn visual concepts, at least combined with Wikipedia. Like for example you have a rhino, but that's just one instance of rhino photographed from one angle under one set of lighting, camera settings and so on. If you can have a computer go through thousands of photos of rhinos you could maybe capture the variability and boundary to non-rhinos in some way. Rhinos standing, rhinos running, rhinos lying down, rhinos bathing, baby rhinos, old rhinos, male rhinos, female rhinos... computer don't natively "get" the concept of a rhino. Like us we might have to program a neural net where the answer is "I'll know it when I see it". If you could have a computer look at a photo and fairly accurately describe what's in it that'd be rather impressive. And it wouldn't mistake a rhino for an antelope, even if they shared a picture.
Are you a law abiding citizen that wants a job? GO PAY FOR EDUCATION!... oh you are not law abiding... let me pay for all the needed so you can get the job.
This applies for most European countries aswell
Everything except the non-criminals paying for it. Most tuition here is free, student loans typically come from cost of living. Granted you might say we're paying room and board, but as long as we intend to keep them prisoner we don't really have a choice about that. The greatest investment is really time and effort, if they're willing to spend their time in prison in a way that'll be productive when they get out that's great. I don't see how staring at the wall or pumping iron all day is going to help anyone, them or us.
If "I" lose that one, then even if I owe the plaintiff a million dollars, you're 100% liable to me, so really, it's you who loses. Hence why I could take a default judgement and not care.
But does the claim go through you or past you, that makes a huge difference if your "third party" can't pay or has hidden their assets or they're abroad or whatever. Will they then take your house, car and savings while you're stuck with a valid but useless claim against that third party? Like if your insurance company went bankrupt between the car accident and the payout you're not off the hook, the claim is against you as the driver first and your insurance company second. It's not a big deal with insurance companies, but the average person doesn't have a million dollars and most likely couldn't pay, which makes it very relevant.
Won't happen or it'd be illegal to forget to charge it or forget it at home. Assuming you want or need to be carrying it around most of the time it's more effective as a screening device, if you are going to a clandestine meeting and five others also happen to have their cell phones go dark at the same time that's a pattern, particularly if it repeats itself. If you're normally online it's probably better to leave it turned on at home, in which case they'd need to look for secondary clues you aren't actually there like number plate readers, CCTV, paying with plastic, facebook tagging, missed calls or collaborating data that you are there like power usage, internet traffic or whatever and start building statistics on how often you are where you appear to be.
I'm not in the cloak-and-dagger business but I have worked on risk assessments on whether you can dig out of personal information out of statistical information and you need to be very careful on how you do that, subtracting a baseline often reveals a surprising amount about the rest. Like say you have a small town with 1000 people and you put in lots of safeguards if the numbers drop to <5 individuals. But if you can get numbers for New York + small town - that will all be big, then subtract New York you'll find that 102-100 = 2 people in that small town belong in that category. Imagine you started combining cell phone data with other data, okay there's your tax records on your work so that's you going to and from work. We have birth and marriage certificates on file, so that's you visiting relatives. That's a friend on Facebook, old classmate.
And then there's something "left over", which is where you can start putting in the effort. Of course you can avoid that by meeting in public where there's lots of people, but you probably wouldn't want to hold a very private conversation nobody should hear there either. And if you keep your cell phones on because you are in public anyway, you can do clustering to find that the same people are meeting in the same place despite there being many other random signals there as well. Give people enough seemingly innocent data and they will dig up something you thought wasn't in there, I'm sure of it. At least I've seen people underestimate it time and time again, only to have to demonstrate it.
The only thing I hate about this episode is that Doctor Who is turning into a miracle worker that can fix anything, anywhere, any time. Where's all that anguish between doing something bad and letting something horrible happen going to go? No more the burden of having killed billions of children to save the universe on your conscience. Time paradoxes, crossing your own time stream, going to your own grave, time locked has ceased to mean anything. Now it was just "the time streams are out of sync, we just won't remember". At the end of every episode, he could essentially go back to the beginning and make it null and void, no more you made a decision and you're stuck with it. Hell, they more than hinted in this episode that they're going to rewrite Trenselor, no more of this future:
Dr. Simeon: It was a minor skirmish by the Doctor's blood-soaked standards. Not exactly the Time War, but enough to finish him. In the end it was too much for the old man.
Jenny: Blood soaked?
Vastra: The Doctor has been many things, but never blood-soaked.
Dr. Simeon: Tell that to the leader of the Sycorax. Or Solomon the Trader. Or the Cybermen, or the Daleks. The Doctor lives his life in darker hues, day upon day. And he will have other names before the end. Storm. The Beast. The Valeyard.
The doctor needs a setback, some kind of limitations, something he can't fix. But I think you have pretty much thrown that out the window by fixing the Time War.
You sound like one of those doomsayers that always says that if we do anything for the workers, community or the environment like health and safety, working hours, overtime pay, minimum wage, vacation, sick leave, notice periods, regulations, taxes and so on the capitalists will always move to some third world hellhole that has none of these things. The economy would collapse, the jobs would disappear and we'd end up a third world country. So the solution is instead of fighting the race to the bottom or even trying to go uphill and fail, we should just race towards the bottom to get there first. You should probably get rid of the 13th amendment too as long as the slave contracts were entered into willingly.
Once employees are totally free from all protection from abuse they'll be much equipped to negotiate a fair deal with the megacorporations that they seek employment at since it's all voluntary and nobody's going to be forced into anything because they got rent to pay, kids to feed or something like that. Or if they do, it's their own choice/fault so we shouldn't intervene. If the corporations put abusive terms in their employment contracts, people will simply refuse to work for them and another company that hires better people from the full pool will take over, run the other company into bankruptcy and the invisible hand of the market will fix everything. It's almost like Santa Claus, except more adults believe in it.
Maybe it works for you if you're well above average good and it's not a matter of whether you'd be employed or not, it's only a matter of shopping around for the highest bidder. When it's a worker's market and companies are struggling to find enough qualified workers, all is well. It's when it's an employer's market that the thumbscrews come out and people are caught in a game of chicken, accept less favorable work conditions or be out of a job. Oh and almost everyone is now in a hiring freeze, unless you're the CEO's nephew. So would you voluntarily like to sign this revised employee agreement or would you like to voluntarily pick up your two weeks pay check and be on the dole?
Businesses operate on those terms we allow them to operate, sure they can choose not to do business here then but as long as we can find enough jobs that do want to treat their employees decently it's not necessary to bend over and lube up so they'll set up sweatshops here. P.S. Unlike the US, in Switzerland the democracy is not defective. The people actually make the decisions, much to the frustration of both corporations and politicians alike. I consider their model a fantastic democratic achievement that I wish more countries would adopt, but much like the US "two-party" system it'd require the politicians in power to rescind power. That's not going to happen without a revolution.
Apple could buy Intel, at least in theory. They have cash reserves of $147 Billion - Intel's market cap is only $118 Billion.
They could, but it'd be pointless for the same reason nobody wants to gobble up AMD for 2-3 billion. All those cross licensing deals would become invalid (like for example x86-64 that AMD invented) and they'd have a nightmare trying to relicense it.
Broadwell represents a miniaturization step from 22 to 14 nm structures. Why do they keep the capacity of the Crystalwell L4 cache at 128 MB? They could put twice that memory onto a die with the same area as the 22 nm Crystalwell version. Is the Crystalwell die for the Haswell CPUs so large and expensive that they have to reduce its size?
From Anandtech's article on Crystalwell:
There's only a single size of eDRAM offered this generation: 128MB. Since it's a cache and not a buffer (and a giant one at that), Intel found that hit rate rarely dropped below 95%. It turns out that for current workloads, Intel didn't see much benefit beyond a 32MB eDRAM however it wanted the design to be future proof. Intel doubled the size to deal with any increases in game complexity, and doubled it again just to be sure. I believe the exact wording Intel's Tom Piazza used during his explanation of why 128MB was "go big or go home". It's very rare that we see Intel be so liberal with die area, which makes me think this 128MB design is going to stick around for a while.
I get the impression that the plan might be to keep the eDRAM on a n-1 process going forward. When Intel moves to 14nm with Broadwell, it's entirely possible that Crystalwell will remain at 22nm. Doing so would help Intel put older fabs to use, especially if there's no need for a near term increase in eDRAM size. I asked about the potential to integrate eDRAM on-die, but was told that it's far too early for that discussion. Given the size of the 128MB eDRAM on 22nm (~84mm^2), I can understand why. Intel did float an interesting idea by me though. In the future it could integrate 16 - 32MB of eDRAM on-die for specific use cases (e.g. storing the frame buffer).
"The electric car challenge is what insiders call "getting butts in seats" â" and a lot of butts today still belong to humans who are not yet buying electric cars. The big question is: Why? Surveys show drivers are interested in electric cars--and that they love them once they drive them.
Perhaps simply because people buy what works for them and won't buy what won't work for them? It's silly to extrapolate that because your current users are happy that everybody would be happy with it.
For a one person, single car household you'd either have to keep two cars or go pure EV. The first is very expensive (depreciation, parking spot - very expensive in inner city, insurance, maintenance) and environmentally questionable anyway because of all the resources that go into production even if you drive cleaner. The other alternative is to go pure EV, which means I'd almost certainly push the limits and end up in "Can I get home with 2km of range, I really don't want to wait half an hour at a charging station" situations because the threshold to rent a ICE car would be rather high. And I couldn't go on a weekend cabin trip without buying a Tesla. Which is an excellent car I'm sure, if you're looking to spend that much money on a car but I don't.
For a two person, two car household a mixed pair works better because you have an ICE car for when one or both need it, unless you both happen to need it at the same time going to different things. Here I think it's more about people being possessive, it usually ends up being "his" and "her" car. One gets the big, comfy road trip car and the other the small commute EV and they don't like having to borrow or lending it away. They'd rather get two ICEs, one each and that's that unless one is in for repairs or if they need to swap for other reasons it feels like a more equal trade. Not to mention there's a ton of competition for small, cheap cars for inner city driving.
Hybrids are somewhat interesting but they're often the worst of both worlds as you get far more complexity, much less electric range and a tiny ICE for when you run out. Jack of all trades, king of none. And even my new apartment building (2013) doesn't have chargers for hybrids/EVs, so I'd have to go out of my way to get a charger at home. Meanwhile I pass three gas stations on the way to work, it's simple, it's flexible and it works. But give me a Tesla at half the price and I'd buy that, no problem.
At the time, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer in the world with special purpose chess chips, a regular desktop today would be strong but not that ridiculously much stronger. I read an article recently from the creator where he guessed seven losses and three draws in ten games. But if you really wanted to you could always build a similar supercomputer (168.1 TFlops vs 11.38 GFlops) that'd be 10000 times more powerful just to make really, really sure.
Meh, if you want to apply that logic then the first thing we should do away with is hygiene and medicine. People used to have lots of children, why didn't it turn into a population boom until the 20th century? Because lots of those children died, their mothers died in labor, people in general died from pests and plagues and infections and diseases. Culture changed and currently we're only producing enough children to sustain a small growth in population, in fact if birth rates continue to decline the world population will peak at 9-10 billion. There's a fill-up effect but we're not in a boom anymore, if we don't run into other issues like resource exhaustion, global warming or whatever it looks like we won't have any problems feeding the whole world population. The roughly 0,1% of the world population that will starve to death this year do so because of civil war and chaos, not because we can't increase food production another 0,1%. If it was possible to safely deliver aid nobody would need to starve.
Mozilla was not always getting most of its revenue from Google, Google isn't "giving" them the money, it's from ads, and Google's disappearance tomorrow would not make Mozilla "implode". They'd just have to advertise elsewhere.
You're right, up to 2005 Mozilla got most their money from their AOL sugar daddy, but ever since they've had to make money on their own it's been overwhelmingly Google, it was 85% in 2006 and 90% now in 2013. They've never had any significant non-Google revenue. It's not ads, it's overwhelmingly search engine referrals which means that if Google ended their business relationship with Mozilla they'd have to change their default search engine to either Bing or Yahoo (same thing really) to get referral royalties from Microsoft instead. If users rejected it and kept using Google (hint: Google's market share is much higher than Chrome+Mozilla, meaning many IE users also favor Google) then Mozilla wouldn't see a cent.
It's open source so I'm sure it'd never die as such but the reason Mozilla exists as a major company is because it's better for Google to have an arm's length partner that can attack Microsoft/IE from different angles appealing to different crowds and acting as two voices in the development of standards rather than slim it down to a near-duopoly Chrome/IE marketplace. A lot of people will back Mozilla because it's open source and "neutral" but wouldn't get behind Google or Microsoft to push their browser. But the money to keep developing it comes pretty much exclusively from Google and the only real alternative would be Microsoft, which I'm quite sure neither Mozilla nor Microsoft would want. Otherwise it'd just be the "other" 10-15% of Mozilla's revenue left.
A single silicon lattice is about 0.55nm across, so at 32nm like we had at the start of this decade you're talking about 58 lattices wide. At 5nm (what Intel's roadmap predicts in 2019) you're down to 9 wide, keep that up to 2030 and you're down to 1.5 lattices wide. I guess the theoretical limit is a single lattice, but then you need perfect purity and perfect alignment of every atom of that processors or true nanotechnology in other words. We will probably run into problems earlier with quantum effects and current leakage, but either way by the end of the next decade we're definitively done.
So basically if a girl shows her boyfriend her boobies and he covertly snaps a photo and posts it on the Internet linked to her name for all to see it's the same thing? After all if you showed one, you showed the world right? Or someone accidentally walked in on her because she forgot to lock the door or she had a wardrobe malfunction or whatever, same thing right? One accidental exposure to one person and you're just supposed to accept it being posted all over the Internet? And I guess you think it's perfectly okay if the sex toy store to tell everyone what you bought, after all they know so why not the world? You're creating a completely ridiculous standard of privacy where the only thing that's private are secrets, which don't need any protection because nobody knows about them. You reduce the "right to privacy" to "right to try keeping a secret, and if you fail tough luck".
Don't worry, the MBA has read this and feels exactly the same about you. It goes so well with the law degree most /.ers have, you do know they call it the soft and hard sciences, not easy and hard sciences right? I'd call it the corollary to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the more you excel in one narrow field the more you think you could wing it in everything else. It's why professors are pretty obnoxious to relate to and a lot of IT people are the same just because they know how to command a machine around but couldn't train a dog if their life depended on it. Like it or not big corporations tend to do a lot of stupid things and without MBAs running around trying to find what the ROI on projects are we'd see a lot more stillborn projects. I've been on far more idiotic projects without a proper business plan than with a business plan, it of course doesn't guarantee that it won't be idiotic but some of it wouldn't pass the giggle test if you tried asking how this would ever be profitable. Because engineers just like to solve problems, they don't like to ask if there's a market of people willing to pay to have this problem solved.
Of course these people are using talking about supercomputers and the relevance to supercomputers, but you have to be pretty daft to not see the implications for everything else. In the last years almost all the improvement have been in power states and frequency/voltage scaling, if you're doing something at 100% CPU load (and isn't a corner case to benefit from a new instruction) the power efficiency has been almost unchanged. Top of the line graphics cards have gone constantly upwards and are pushing 250-300W, even Intel's got Xeons pushing 150W not to mention AMD's 220W beast, though that's a special oddity. The point is that we need more power to do more and for hardware running 24x7 that's a non-trivial part of the cost that's not going down.
We know CMOS scaling is coming to an end, maybe not at 14nm or 10nm but at the end of this decade we're approaching the size of silicon atoms and lattices. There's no way we can sustain the current rate of scaling in the 2020s. And it wouldn't be the end of the world, computers would go roughly the same speed they did ten or twenty years ago like cars and jet planes do. Your phone would never become as fast as your computer which would never become as fast as a supercomputer again. We could get smarter at using that power of course, but fundamentally hard problems that require a lot of processing power would go nowhere and it won't be terahertz processors, terabytes of RAM and petabytes of storage for the average man. It was a good run while it lasted.
Ah, the eternal war:
User A: The old works for me and I don't care about your "faddy crap"
User B: The new works much better for me and I don't care about your "legacy crap"
Heck, I'm probably both A and B depending on whose side I want to be on. Kill IE6 with fire so we don't have to support that old shit, I don't care about your legacy enterprise intraweb crapware. Noooo don't take away my menus and replace it with a ribbon, I want it just the way it was. It really comes down to if you think the change is for better or worse and if the change itself is worth the effort. Change for change's sake is just annoying, you need some compelling benefits to want change not just that you can roughly get back to where you were.
No, the maximum distance grows without bounds. What this proves is that you can always find two more primes that are less than 600 apart, so the minimum distance does not grow without bounds. It has absolutely nothing to do with the distance between one pair of primes and another pair.
Was it just me or did anyone else have a hard time following that summary? At first I thought it was Yitang Zhang who settled "a long-standing open question". But the first sentence is actually talking about the eight - James Maynard.
No. Before May 2013 there was no proof on an infinite pair of primes being a finite bound apart.
- May 2013: Zhang, bound 70 million
- End of May 2013: Others, bound <60 million
- July 2013: Terence Tao & Polymath project: bound 4680
- Now: James Maynard, bound 600
- Twin conjencture: still unproven, bound 2
So the "big" discovery was Zhang, for managing to put a bound on it in the first place. The rest are improvements on that proof, but not very fundamental ones. Proving the twin conjencture would be huge, but nobody's done that yet. The Polymath project and probably many others are working on it. The conjencture is almost certainly true, but notoriously hard to prove. Probably the easiest "feel" to get for it is the Sieve of Eratosthenes, make a long list of odd numbers then strike out the multiples of primes. Once you strike out the 3s it'll be obvious you don't get triplets since 3, 9, 15, 21, 27 and so on are all multiples of 3 so the "candidates" are (5,7) (11,13), (17,19), (23,25) and so on. As you add more primes like 25 = 5*5 it'll get fewer and fewer pairs but they keep occuring rather randomly. It feels like that with infinite primes they'll randomly end up being next to each other an infinite number of times, but proving it is another matter. For example if you take the Fibonacci sequence (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21...) it's obvious it's an infinite series but the distance between numbers also grows to infinity. Not so with primes, by these proofs.