What does compete mean. The US for many years had a high tariff economy and low trade and American workers enjoyed a high standard of living. Free trade is a net benefit to the economy. But if congress going to ensure that free trade only benefits the rich, it can go overboard.
Of course wealth is traded. Product X sells for $500.
Where that $500 goes is completely traded. How much goes to the store. Of that store amount how much goes to rent, to utilities, to employees in the store. How much goes the distributor. Of that amount how much gets spent on transportation costs? Does that money go to the truck drivers, the warehouse guys, or does it go to gas and truck prices...
If you had $500 constant everyone needs to take out of each other's pie.
What you are describing is you are using H1Bs to not pay the actual prevailing wage. If your demands require 100-150k a year, that what you should be paying.
Nope. Just a guy that would love to be able to buy and store more sensitive foods. Besides kenmore doesn't sell a fridge like that either. You can only get them for restaurants and even then with much worse technology.
Well first off many computations are possibly if we agree to do them slowly rather than quickly. People did master DVDs back in the mid 1990s even though it still can take a computer 1 hour or more to compute the menus and so forth. That's another example, I'd love to able to master DVD menus (for movies not data which is essentially instan) the way I do CD (music) menus, in real time where the write speed of the drive is the limiting factor.
The second poing is, we can't really do it because the APIs aren't in place yet. In theory we have the computational power to do it today with caching, absolutely. But we need a more stable environment to make writing those APIs and writing to those APIs a sensible investment. I agree 100% on the social bounds being a limiting factor as well, the big issue is how do companies get compensated for this level of interconnection.
No you probably need a computer with the power of a 286 to do that, maybe less. But the question was how much smarter do refrigerators need to be, and that was a useful example because that was a place where we aren't taking advantage of 20 year old technology that could today be implemented cheaply enough.
First off what you are describing is Microsoft's approach. This intermediate C-language sounds a lot like the p-code systems of the 1970s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-code_machine . Microsoft implemented that idea with the.NET compilers (CIL) which compile to an intermediate language which isn't hardware specific. The execution environment is, but Microsoft can jump environments easily. GCC has 3 intermediate languages. Java is an intermediate language. And finally the Parrot virtual machine does a lot of what you are asking.
Those ideas are out there. They have been for 2 generations.
Sure but the power used by computers today has gone down as we went from say 8" drives to, 5 1/4" to 3 1/2" to 2 1/2" inch drives. For laptops this is a problem. But lets say the average computer used as much electricity as the average room air conditioner how much of a problem would that really be? Especially if (given the cost) the system where sharing to dumb terminals all through the house so there was only one of them.
The end of CPU/GPU density is nowhere near the end of the computers "getting better". Your points about all the display technologies and wiring are a good one. We still aren't using the CPU technology we have today in most devices.
Right now its hard to get refrigerators that maintain proper temperature at different points. Having a system that can manipulate airflow based on what's inside it: i.e. is running a fluid dynamics program, is taking pictures and analyzing them of its internal contents, is offering an interface to your computer...
There is nothing like that on the market, and yes it would be a huge economic value. Keeping food at the right temperature allows people to store better foods which can lead to them buying more sensitive foods which taste better but aren't sold because they would be ruined by the cheap equipment in most houses.
Today's chips were perfect for most applications in the 1980s. Once WordPerfect could outrun a human in terms of spell check and could outrun even the fastest printers CPU upgrades didn't do much. Same with Lotus 1-2-3, once complex speadsheets with lots of macros could be processed faster than a human could read a spreadsheet....
But all that excess power led to the GUI. And then technologies like OLE. Which drove up requirements by orders of magnitude. But OLE hasn't really hit another generation because everything is so unstable. Imagine the next generation of applications that have data embedded from dozens of devices and hundreds of websites. I do a Quicken report which
a) contacts my banks internet connections and pulls in all the credit card transactions b) hits each of those vendors (100+) with the credit processing number and pulls up all the items for each transaction c) does an item lookup to figure out what sort of expenses they are and prorates out general costs, like sales tax. That's 1000s of web information requests for an annual report.
That sort of data processing we don't yet have and certainly not on cellphones. Another area is AI where systems are underpowered. Imagine a news search engine that knows my entire browsing history. Like a Pandora across all my news choices for the last year. I search for a story and because the system knows my preferences on dozens of dimensions its able to feed me the stories that most fit my preferences. Analyzing every article every day to do simple word counts is about the limits of a massive datacenter of google. Analyzing every article every day to determine: how much scientific background is this assuming in biology, in chemistry, in mathematics; what sort of editorial biases does it have, how human interest heavy is the presentation, how respected is in the journal.... that's way beyond what we can do today.
Just read the article, haven't read the comments yet.
Moore's law as far as CPUs and GPUs has already slowed down considerably this entire decade. As far as memory, so far as memory the chips aren't that thin yet. What this means is what everyone has been saying for a long time: more cores, more ram. More cores means applications need to be parallelizable. That's at least a one time overhaul of most of the world's code base.
Lets assume hardware improvements in general slow down. This leads to a hardware situation closer to what we had in the 1980s:
a) Because hardware is stable operating systems and applications can be written more efficiently to take greater advantage of the hardware. That means refactoring high level code into lower level code to get speed ups. The popularity of Java is basically based on rapidly changing underlying platforms, make platforms stable and we have language revolution with much less hardware abstraction. Compilers will get faster as well.
b) Because hardware is stable computers don't seem like as much of a disposable item. Getting a good quality system to keep for many years makes economic sense. So we can get a one time boost as people move back from $700 computers to $3000 computers, where they expect to get 10 years+ out of their computer.
c) In the area of cell phones we could see the same thing. While cell phones are too breakable to ever become extremely expensive (though there are people who get expensive cell phones now: https://store.vertu.com/en/) if the platform were to stabilize we could see much richer client applications. If you expect to be on the same cell phone (with just hardware replacements) for a decade your willingness to buy expensive software goes up.
So lets say I don't agree with 2020, because around 2020 is when you start to see everyone upgrading. Which of course leads to software with much higher system requirements which drives more upgrades.... But maybe 2040 we have a stagnant computer technology industry if nothing interesting happens. I guess that could happen but I dont think its likel. However even if it did, this creates another advantage. You now have stagnant hardware, stagnant operating systems, stagnant languages, stagnant applications. An environment where corporate computing and custom code becomes a great value. And that is a huge and ever growing code base. So now we are out around 2060, where the industry is in maintenance mode. So the question is: between 2010 and 2060 do you think no one is going to come up with a really good idea?
They can't censor speech under the new law. And they already have the ability to punish for speech. This proposal doesn't create the ability for principles to go after people for off school grounds activities it merely mandates it in some particular cases.
The reason I don't believe its possible is because we have done plenty of research on this. The advertising industry is a great example. Every year we watch huge numbers of voters swayed by ads, double the advertising budget sway another percentage point. Clear as day, lots of statistical evidence. We've had 2500 years of military propaganda and its effects are well documented.
We've done studies on individuals and operant conditioning. We've done studies of the effect of beliefs and theories on behaviors.
People just aren't that different. Think about your opinions about a wide range of topics from most politics: should we have a monarchy, are women property? religion: are their gods for each rock or just a god or rocks? food: which foods you like to eat. attraction: why do you find thin and not fat women attractive?
On most areas you disagree with the vast majority of humans over history and agree with your peers. Why? Because you just so happened to reason in the same way they did? Or are you rationalizing your conformity to mass opinion.
Assume someone claimed they could jump off buildings flap their wings and fly.
And then came back with your answers Really? Where is your evidence of this? You keep stating absolutes and seemingly refuse to accept any possibility that I may be what I claim to be (which is what I believe myself to be). Why must you try to make everyone out to be the same?... Which data? Does this data include everyone in existence and everyone that will come into existence in the future? If not, how can you be 100% certain?
So how would you answer him that he cannot in fact fly by flapping his arms?
Yes, most humans are. This is the behavior that I am speaking out against.
No all humans are you included. And most people believe they shouldn't be influenced by advertising, and most people believe they aren't. And the data shows they are dead wrong. There is no such thing as "a strong mind" your mind in only strong, that is resistent, in a small subset of areas.
The analogy would be if your revoke your consent to be talked to not talked around. And yes you can withdrawal consent to be talked to, ignoring that among adults is considered harassment. If the harassment is threatening in any way, it becomes assault among adults.
What can they say on Facebook that isn't illegal but incites "grave psychological damage" (please)?
Just about anything highly negative that is likely to be reinforced by others. Calling a slightly overweight girl fat, and thus starting a trend of others thinking of her as fat and treating her as fat. Calling a mediocre student stupid and thus starting a trend of people thinking of him and treating him as stupid. Etc... The evidence on social psychology is pretty clear.
And the kids don't own property but their parents do, and they're their responsbility and have liability for their actions
Not meaningfully. We know that bullying often creates lifetime problems. Parents of bullies are not fined the hundreds of thousands of dollars that represents the real cost of: increased incarceration, sexual dysfunction, depression, drug addiction.... that result from psychological abuse. Even in cases of physical abuse parents are treated much leniently than they would be if they did harm themselves. Have a 35 year old punch an 8 year old and imagine the size the settlement.
Giving a school administrator the power to police students speech off school property and outside school hours is, aggregately, a far worse abuse.
What do you see them doing with it that they can't do now?
I understand what happened. So what? If a heterosexual couple is going to have sex in a bathroom one or the other is going to be in the wrong sex bathroom. And while it was inevitable that some people know about it, facebook is much more public. Maybe a dozen people had to know there was no reason that hundreds or thousands did.
We under reacted to bullying as a society. Then we started checking the statistics. A raft of bullying induced suicides. Then we started having bullying induced shootings.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I see, the laws of supply and demand don't apply to labor like they do to every other good.
What does compete mean. The US for many years had a high tariff economy and low trade and American workers enjoyed a high standard of living. Free trade is a net benefit to the economy. But if congress going to ensure that free trade only benefits the rich, it can go overboard.
Of course wealth is traded. Product X sells for $500.
Where that $500 goes is completely traded.
How much goes to the store. Of that store amount how much goes to rent, to utilities, to employees in the store.
How much goes the distributor. Of that amount how much gets spent on transportation costs? Does that money go to the truck drivers, the warehouse guys, or does it go to gas and truck prices...
If you had $500 constant everyone needs to take out of each other's pie.
What you are describing is you are using H1Bs to not pay the actual prevailing wage. If your demands require 100-150k a year, that what you should be paying.
Excellent correction. You are right of course OLE over the internet is DCOM.
Nope. Just a guy that would love to be able to buy and store more sensitive foods. Besides kenmore doesn't sell a fridge like that either. You can only get them for restaurants and even then with much worse technology.
Well first off many computations are possibly if we agree to do them slowly rather than quickly. People did master DVDs back in the mid 1990s even though it still can take a computer 1 hour or more to compute the menus and so forth. That's another example, I'd love to able to master DVD menus (for movies not data which is essentially instan) the way I do CD (music) menus, in real time where the write speed of the drive is the limiting factor.
The second poing is, we can't really do it because the APIs aren't in place yet. In theory we have the computational power to do it today with caching, absolutely. But we need a more stable environment to make writing those APIs and writing to those APIs a sensible investment. I agree 100% on the social bounds being a limiting factor as well, the big issue is how do companies get compensated for this level of interconnection.
Well you change that by searching for other news. Otherwise you would get a daily version of AVN http://www.avn.com/
No you probably need a computer with the power of a 286 to do that, maybe less. But the question was how much smarter do refrigerators need to be, and that was a useful example because that was a place where we aren't taking advantage of 20 year old technology that could today be implemented cheaply enough.
First off what you are describing is Microsoft's approach. This intermediate C-language sounds a lot like the p-code systems of the 1970s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-code_machine . Microsoft implemented that idea with the .NET compilers (CIL) which compile to an intermediate language which isn't hardware specific. The execution environment is, but Microsoft can jump environments easily. GCC has 3 intermediate languages. Java is an intermediate language. And finally the Parrot virtual machine does a lot of what you are asking.
Those ideas are out there. They have been for 2 generations.
Sure but the power used by computers today has gone down as we went from say 8" drives to, 5 1/4" to 3 1/2" to 2 1/2" inch drives. For laptops this is a problem. But lets say the average computer used as much electricity as the average room air conditioner how much of a problem would that really be? Especially if (given the cost) the system where sharing to dumb terminals all through the house so there was only one of them.
Excellent agree. I said a similar thing: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2045520&cid=35549980
The end of CPU/GPU density is nowhere near the end of the computers "getting better". Your points about all the display technologies and wiring are a good one. We still aren't using the CPU technology we have today in most devices.
Right now its hard to get refrigerators that maintain proper temperature at different points. Having a system that can manipulate airflow based on what's inside it: i.e. is running a fluid dynamics program, is taking pictures and analyzing them of its internal contents, is offering an interface to your computer...
There is nothing like that on the market, and yes it would be a huge economic value. Keeping food at the right temperature allows people to store better foods which can lead to them buying more sensitive foods which taste better but aren't sold because they would be ruined by the cheap equipment in most houses.
Today's chips were perfect for most applications in the 1980s. Once WordPerfect could outrun a human in terms of spell check and could outrun even the fastest printers CPU upgrades didn't do much. Same with Lotus 1-2-3, once complex speadsheets with lots of macros could be processed faster than a human could read a spreadsheet....
But all that excess power led to the GUI. And then technologies like OLE. Which drove up requirements by orders of magnitude. But OLE hasn't really hit another generation because everything is so unstable. Imagine the next generation of applications that have data embedded from dozens of devices and hundreds of websites. I do a Quicken report which
a) contacts my banks internet connections and pulls in all the credit card transactions
b) hits each of those vendors (100+) with the credit processing number and pulls up all the items for each transaction
c) does an item lookup to figure out what sort of expenses they are and prorates out general costs, like sales tax. That's 1000s of web information requests for an annual report.
That sort of data processing we don't yet have and certainly not on cellphones. Another area is AI where systems are underpowered.
Imagine a news search engine that knows my entire browsing history. Like a Pandora across all my news choices for the last year. I search for a story and because the system knows my preferences on dozens of dimensions its able to feed me the stories that most fit my preferences. Analyzing every article every day to do simple word counts is about the limits of a massive datacenter of google. Analyzing every article every day to determine: how much scientific background is this assuming in biology, in chemistry, in mathematics; what sort of editorial biases does it have, how human interest heavy is the presentation, how respected is in the journal.... that's way beyond what we can do today.
Just read the article, haven't read the comments yet.
Moore's law as far as CPUs and GPUs has already slowed down considerably this entire decade. As far as memory, so far as memory the chips aren't that thin yet. What this means is what everyone has been saying for a long time: more cores, more ram. More cores means applications need to be parallelizable. That's at least a one time overhaul of most of the world's code base.
Lets assume hardware improvements in general slow down. This leads to a hardware situation closer to what we had in the 1980s:
a) Because hardware is stable operating systems and applications can be written more efficiently to take greater advantage of the hardware. That means refactoring high level code into lower level code to get speed ups. The popularity of Java is basically based on rapidly changing underlying platforms, make platforms stable and we have language revolution with much less hardware abstraction. Compilers will get faster as well.
b) Because hardware is stable computers don't seem like as much of a disposable item. Getting a good quality system to keep for many years makes economic sense. So we can get a one time boost as people move back from $700 computers to $3000 computers, where they expect to get 10 years+ out of their computer.
c) In the area of cell phones we could see the same thing. While cell phones are too breakable to ever become extremely expensive (though there are people who get expensive cell phones now: https://store.vertu.com/en/) if the platform were to stabilize we could see much richer client applications. If you expect to be on the same cell phone (with just hardware replacements) for a decade your willingness to buy expensive software goes up.
So lets say I don't agree with 2020, because around 2020 is when you start to see everyone upgrading. Which of course leads to software with much higher system requirements which drives more upgrades.... But maybe 2040 we have a stagnant computer technology industry if nothing interesting happens. I guess that could happen but I dont think its likel. However even if it did, this creates another advantage. You now have stagnant hardware, stagnant operating systems, stagnant languages, stagnant applications. An environment where corporate computing and custom code becomes a great value. And that is a huge and ever growing code base. So now we are out around 2060, where the industry is in maintenance mode. So the question is: between 2010 and 2060 do you think no one is going to come up with a really good idea?
They can't censor speech under the new law. And they already have the ability to punish for speech. This proposal doesn't create the ability for principles to go after people for off school grounds activities it merely mandates it in some particular cases.
The reason I don't believe its possible is because we have done plenty of research on this. The advertising industry is a great example. Every year we watch huge numbers of voters swayed by ads, double the advertising budget sway another percentage point. Clear as day, lots of statistical evidence. We've had 2500 years of military propaganda and its effects are well documented.
We've done studies on individuals and operant conditioning. We've done studies of the effect of beliefs and theories on behaviors.
People just aren't that different. Think about your opinions about a wide range of topics from most
politics: should we have a monarchy, are women property?
religion: are their gods for each rock or just a god or rocks?
food: which foods you like to eat.
attraction: why do you find thin and not fat women attractive?
On most areas you disagree with the vast majority of humans over history and agree with your peers. Why? Because you just so happened to reason in the same way they did? Or are you rationalizing your conformity to mass opinion.
Assume someone claimed they could jump off buildings flap their wings and fly.
And then came back with your answers Really? Where is your evidence of this? You keep stating absolutes and seemingly refuse to accept any possibility that I may be what I claim to be (which is what I believe myself to be). Why must you try to make everyone out to be the same?... Which data? Does this data include everyone in existence and everyone that will come into existence in the future? If not, how can you be 100% certain?
So how would you answer him that he cannot in fact fly by flapping his arms?
No all humans are you included. And most people believe they shouldn't be influenced by advertising, and most people believe they aren't. And the data shows they are dead wrong. There is no such thing as "a strong mind" your mind in only strong, that is resistent, in a small subset of areas.
Of course they will. As soon as it gets disruptive there is likely to be action taken. Moderately disruptive and someone gets fired.
The analogy would be if your revoke your consent to be talked to not talked around. And yes you can withdrawal consent to be talked to, ignoring that among adults is considered harassment. If the harassment is threatening in any way, it becomes assault among adults.
Just about anything highly negative that is likely to be reinforced by others. Calling a slightly overweight girl fat, and thus starting a trend of others thinking of her as fat and treating her as fat. Calling a mediocre student stupid and thus starting a trend of people thinking of him and treating him as stupid. Etc... The evidence on social psychology is pretty clear.
Not meaningfully. We know that bullying often creates lifetime problems. Parents of bullies are not fined the hundreds of thousands of dollars that represents the real cost of: increased incarceration, sexual dysfunction, depression, drug addiction.... that result from psychological abuse. Even in cases of physical abuse parents are treated much leniently than they would be if they did harm themselves. Have a 35 year old punch an 8 year old and imagine the size the settlement.
What do you see them doing with it that they can't do now?
I understand what happened. So what? If a heterosexual couple is going to have sex in a bathroom one or the other is going to be in the wrong sex bathroom. And while it was inevitable that some people know about it, facebook is much more public. Maybe a dozen people had to know there was no reason that hundreds or thousands did.
We under reacted to bullying as a society. Then we started checking the statistics. A raft of bullying induced suicides. Then we started having bullying induced shootings.
Maybe we aren't under reacting.
Kids can already be effectively punished for griping. Teachers can punish kids already. This in no way enhances that.