A doubling of clock speed (all else equal) gives you better performance than adding an extra core.
But does it give you better performance per watt? That's the metric they care about, because it's the metric their high-power computing customers care about. And doubling clock speed, all else equal, does not give you more performance per watt than adding an extra core.
Take a look at really high-end CPUs (say, $2000+) and you'll see that almost none of them reach 3 GHz, and many are below 2.5 GHz. But they have a dozen-plus cores, and are designed to be used in two or four-processor motherboards. That's where the high-performance market is, because that's where you get the best performance per watt.
Exactly, the Tesla wasn't rear ended. Either was an other Tesla behind it or a mere human that did the same as the Tesla infront of it or the human kept an acceptable distance instead of tailgating.
Or the Tesla autopilot gauged the distance to the trailing car and moderated its braking to ensure that the human behind had sufficient time to slow. That's exactly what I'd do in that position; any experienced heavy-traffic freeway driver knows that the first thing you do when you start braking to avoid something in front of you is check the rearview mirror so you can adjust your braking appropriately to avoid getting yourself rear-ended -- or to decide if you need to swerve into the emergency lane. Of course, the autopilot system has the advantage that it already knows the position and speed of the vehicle behind, because it looks in all directions at once.
In this case the investment is slightly larger than just a fiber cable and a few days of work.
It just happens that the person already had covered the cost of the tools involved with the farm business.
If you don't have the tools needed the cost of the fiber will be insignificant compared to your other costs.
You can rent the tools. A backhoe costs about $200 per day or $30 per hour, and you'd need it for one day to dig the trench and one hour to fill it in.
is it legal to sell one thing to two different people?
It depends. If you read the fine print on the back of your airline ticket (or on the website if you buy online) it specifically says that you may get bumped, and it also says that a refund or replacement ticket is your only legal recourse. You agreed to those terms when you bought the ticket. So in this case, yes it is legal.
That makes it sound worse than it is. If you have a confirmed reservation on a given flight and you get bumped the airline is required by federal law to get you on the next available flight on any airline as well as give you a cash payment. In many years of travel, I've only been "involuntarily refused boarding" (the FAA's terminology) once. The airline gave me a check for $500 and a first class seat on a different airline 30 minutes later. And I think it's also a black mark on some FAA record for the airline and there may be additional fines or consequences if it happens too often.
What actually happens is that except in very, very rare circumstances airlines don't refuse anyone. Instead they make a series of offers to buy passengers off of the plane. This starts with relatively low-value vouchers, but can escalate to free tickets or even cash. It basically always works. My involuntary refusal was due to a last-minute mixup after the plane was boarded, when there was no time to buy someone off.
But I just can't grasp why a significant number of people who've paid good money for airline tickets simply don't show up. If I spend several hundred dollars on something, I'm going to make sure I get what I paid for...
Autocratic governments don't need a specific law, they just tell people/corporations what they want. It's like when the US government discovered they can ignore the Constitution if they tell a corporation to do the job and give them the intelligence instead of doing the spying directly.
It's a good thing the United States doesn't work like that. Not yet, at least.
Google would presumably reveal that they are doing so for a given country, though.
Funny man. You really think that Google would tell you if an all writs or security court order compelled them to assist the US government and not disclose it to anyone? And that they aren't already doing this?
I don't think there is, at present, any sort of standard legal mechanism that could compel disclosure of message content coupled with a gag order. A National Security Letter has the gag order, but can't compel disclosure of content, and other mechanisms don't have the gag order. I suppose a judge could issue an order that does both, but it's hard to see what sort of situation would motivate a judge to do that... and which wouldn't get rejected by the appellate court.
You mean they won't worry about running out of reaction mass to eject when they need to accelerate/decelerate. They still need fuel to create the EM field.
No, you only need electricity to create the EM field, and you can generate that from sunlight. No need for fuel.
Did you know, every time you exhale, you increase the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is adding to global climate change and the decimation of the planet?
Nonsense. Unless you're consuming food obtained from far under the ground, where it was out of the carbon cycle, your net contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is zero. The food you eat contains carbon that was removed from the atmosphere. Now, your methane production is a somewhat different situation. It's also constructed of carbon and hydrogen that's part of the cycle, but you've converted it to a form that's a much more effective greenhouse gas than before you, er, processed it.
So, kindly recast your argument in terms of the rational value of allowing people to fart.
I've been programming security-related systems for 20 years. There's no chance I'd ever roll my own crypto. Tools to crack crypto? Yeah I do those. Write an IPSec / IKE implementation from scratch? I did that last week. You bet your ass it uses standard crypto libraries; I'm not writing those.
These tools are still useful, to detect bugs in the libraries. Daniel and Thai have found a lot of those, and getting the fixes upstreamed is surprisingly hard.
Other times, an uncommon opinion is actually better than the accepted one. If search engines, amongst other information sources, actively suppress them, then we'll enter an era of intellectual conservatism.
I'm not talking about suppression of fringe viewpoints, I'm talking about giving them an accurate level of representation, correctly representing the world's information. A search for "holocaust denial" or "evidence that communism is better" should absolutely return relevant articles because it's clear that the searcher is looking for that viewpoint -- especially on the latter where it is not, in fact, accepted worldwide that it is not. However, more neutral searches on a topic should reflect the actual world consensus.
Of course, there is a good argument that "did the Holocaust happen?" is not a neutral question, because the only people asking that question answer it in the negative. But the text of the question appears neutral, so search engines should probably treat it as such. I notice that if you just search for "holocaust" you get exactly the sort of thing I'd expect. Lots of links to in-depth holocaust history, research, museums, etc. On the second page of results is a link to an article entitled "Is the Holocaust a Hoax?" (adjacent to a YouTube video of a Holocaust survivor), and of course the first page of results includes a highlighted sidebar link to the Wikipedia article on the topic, which includes a "Holocaust Denial" link in the "See also" section. That seems to me like an appropriate place to put Holocaust denialism in the results, not highlighted at all, but pretty accessible (two clicks away, by two paths).
Obviously, if a search engine could identify which ideas are good and which are pure fantasy, then this wouldn't be a problem. But that's not the case. In fact, I doubt even highly educated humans could accurately distinguish them.
The key is that the search engine shouldn't try to distinguish fact from fantasy, it should just reflect the levels of belief as evidenced by all knowledge on the web, including the "implicit" knowledge of articles which assume a position without stating it because it's the one that everyone assumes. Unfortunately, to do that requires that the system be able to understand, recognize and appropriately weight all of that implicit knowledge. That's very hard.
Google isn't harming the world any more than a knife catalog is harming the world by advertising knives
Bad analogy. People understand knives, they don't understand search engines.
You are saying that for the collective safety of the world, Google must protect the uneducated masses by applying a truth filter to their search algorithm.
No, I'm saying that the search engine should prioritize results reflecting widespread beliefs over fringe ones, accurately reflecting the state of information in the world rather than biasing it towards fringe ideas as they do (though not intentionally) now.
Arbitrarily raising the exposure of crackpots is harming the world.
None of the articles that come up from that Breitbart search say that conservatives were racist for opposing the stimulus, as far as I can tell.
You're really having a tough time with substantiating this claim, aren't you? FWIW, I expect that if you dig hard enough and long enough you will be able to find *some* article that says it, but that's hardly the same as "the media".
You the reader must take responsibility for deciding what is real and what isn't on the internets. Do not require that anyone do that for you otherwise they eventually will when you don't want them to. If you need a warning label to avoid suffocating yourself on the plastic bag that is the world wide web then just turn around and walk away from whatever device you're using to access it.
I disagree, strongly.
The problem is that the nature of search engines is that they tend to seriously overrate fringe viewpoints (because hardly anyone bothers to write articles supporting mainstream perspectives), but the average search engine user has no idea that this is the case. In addition, human psychology weights frequency of observation heavily when deciding what is true. This tendency can be overcome, but (a) it's really hard, (b) it requires people to train themselves to value statistical and other forms of complex and non-local evidence over "common sense". Few people without advanced degrees learn to subsume common sense in the weight of evidence, and most people don't get advanced degrees. Please note that I said "few", not "none".
This means that unless search engines focus on trying to provide rankings that are based on some notion of truth, rather than just the loudest topical voice on the web, search engines will in fact cause more and more people to believe crackpot theories, or at least to lend them significant undeserved consideration. This is a problem that search engines need to solve. Unfortunately, it's also a really hard one.
Slashdot Mirror
A doubling of clock speed (all else equal) gives you better performance than adding an extra core.
But does it give you better performance per watt? That's the metric they care about, because it's the metric their high-power computing customers care about. And doubling clock speed, all else equal, does not give you more performance per watt than adding an extra core.
Take a look at really high-end CPUs (say, $2000+) and you'll see that almost none of them reach 3 GHz, and many are below 2.5 GHz. But they have a dozen-plus cores, and are designed to be used in two or four-processor motherboards. That's where the high-performance market is, because that's where you get the best performance per watt.
Exactly, the Tesla wasn't rear ended. Either was an other Tesla behind it or a mere human that did the same as the Tesla infront of it or the human kept an acceptable distance instead of tailgating.
Or the Tesla autopilot gauged the distance to the trailing car and moderated its braking to ensure that the human behind had sufficient time to slow. That's exactly what I'd do in that position; any experienced heavy-traffic freeway driver knows that the first thing you do when you start braking to avoid something in front of you is check the rearview mirror so you can adjust your braking appropriately to avoid getting yourself rear-ended -- or to decide if you need to swerve into the emergency lane. Of course, the autopilot system has the advantage that it already knows the position and speed of the vehicle behind, because it looks in all directions at once.
re is no good reasons 'apps' should be allowed to run unmanned code
What is unmanned code?
Er, I meant a redundant "g". My fingers inserted the '/' without my permission.
%s/SPQR/Amazon/g
There, FIFY.
Ick, I'd never use vi. My expression was a sed command.
For vi, yours has a redundant /g on the end.
Is there anything stopping open organization SPQR from creating
SPQR App Services for Android
and offering equivalents to the Google-branded services?
s/SPQR/Amazon/g
you can have universal US phones. The Nexus 6 is and example I still use. It works on any US carrier.
The same is true of the Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P, Pixel and Pixel XL, FWIW.
In this case the investment is slightly larger than just a fiber cable and a few days of work. It just happens that the person already had covered the cost of the tools involved with the farm business. If you don't have the tools needed the cost of the fiber will be insignificant compared to your other costs.
You can rent the tools. A backhoe costs about $200 per day or $30 per hour, and you'd need it for one day to dig the trench and one hour to fill it in.
is it legal to sell one thing to two different people?
It depends. If you read the fine print on the back of your airline ticket (or on the website if you buy online) it specifically says that you may get bumped, and it also says that a refund or replacement ticket is your only legal recourse. You agreed to those terms when you bought the ticket. So in this case, yes it is legal.
That makes it sound worse than it is. If you have a confirmed reservation on a given flight and you get bumped the airline is required by federal law to get you on the next available flight on any airline as well as give you a cash payment. In many years of travel, I've only been "involuntarily refused boarding" (the FAA's terminology) once. The airline gave me a check for $500 and a first class seat on a different airline 30 minutes later. And I think it's also a black mark on some FAA record for the airline and there may be additional fines or consequences if it happens too often.
What actually happens is that except in very, very rare circumstances airlines don't refuse anyone. Instead they make a series of offers to buy passengers off of the plane. This starts with relatively low-value vouchers, but can escalate to free tickets or even cash. It basically always works. My involuntary refusal was due to a last-minute mixup after the plane was boarded, when there was no time to buy someone off.
But I just can't grasp why a significant number of people who've paid good money for airline tickets simply don't show up. If I spend several hundred dollars on something, I'm going to make sure I get what I paid for...
I see you don't fly much.
Autocratic governments don't need a specific law, they just tell people/corporations what they want. It's like when the US government discovered they can ignore the Constitution if they tell a corporation to do the job and give them the intelligence instead of doing the spying directly.
It's a good thing the United States doesn't work like that. Not yet, at least.
Google would presumably reveal that they are doing so for a given country, though.
Funny man. You really think that Google would tell you if an all writs or security court order compelled them to assist the US government and not disclose it to anyone? And that they aren't already doing this?
I don't think there is, at present, any sort of standard legal mechanism that could compel disclosure of message content coupled with a gag order. A National Security Letter has the gag order, but can't compel disclosure of content, and other mechanisms don't have the gag order. I suppose a judge could issue an order that does both, but it's hard to see what sort of situation would motivate a judge to do that... and which wouldn't get rejected by the appellate court.
No, you only need electricity to create the EM field, and you can generate that from sunlight. No need for fuel.
Sunlight is generated from fuel.
Not fuel carried by the spacecraft.
You mean they won't worry about running out of reaction mass to eject when they need to accelerate/decelerate. They still need fuel to create the EM field.
No, you only need electricity to create the EM field, and you can generate that from sunlight. No need for fuel.
Nonsense.
Are you saying that a clearly observable fact is "stupid"?
No, I said it's not a fact that your exhalations add to the net carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Your farts, however, do add to the net methane.
Did you know, every time you exhale, you increase the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is adding to global climate change and the decimation of the planet?
Nonsense. Unless you're consuming food obtained from far under the ground, where it was out of the carbon cycle, your net contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is zero. The food you eat contains carbon that was removed from the atmosphere. Now, your methane production is a somewhat different situation. It's also constructed of carbon and hydrogen that's part of the cycle, but you've converted it to a form that's a much more effective greenhouse gas than before you, er, processed it.
So, kindly recast your argument in terms of the rational value of allowing people to fart.
I've been programming security-related systems for 20 years. There's no chance I'd ever roll my own crypto. Tools to crack crypto? Yeah I do those. Write an IPSec / IKE implementation from scratch? I did that last week. You bet your ass it uses standard crypto libraries; I'm not writing those.
These tools are still useful, to detect bugs in the libraries. Daniel and Thai have found a lot of those, and getting the fixes upstreamed is surprisingly hard.
Other times, an uncommon opinion is actually better than the accepted one. If search engines, amongst other information sources, actively suppress them, then we'll enter an era of intellectual conservatism.
I'm not talking about suppression of fringe viewpoints, I'm talking about giving them an accurate level of representation, correctly representing the world's information. A search for "holocaust denial" or "evidence that communism is better" should absolutely return relevant articles because it's clear that the searcher is looking for that viewpoint -- especially on the latter where it is not, in fact, accepted worldwide that it is not. However, more neutral searches on a topic should reflect the actual world consensus.
Of course, there is a good argument that "did the Holocaust happen?" is not a neutral question, because the only people asking that question answer it in the negative. But the text of the question appears neutral, so search engines should probably treat it as such. I notice that if you just search for "holocaust" you get exactly the sort of thing I'd expect. Lots of links to in-depth holocaust history, research, museums, etc. On the second page of results is a link to an article entitled "Is the Holocaust a Hoax?" (adjacent to a YouTube video of a Holocaust survivor), and of course the first page of results includes a highlighted sidebar link to the Wikipedia article on the topic, which includes a "Holocaust Denial" link in the "See also" section. That seems to me like an appropriate place to put Holocaust denialism in the results, not highlighted at all, but pretty accessible (two clicks away, by two paths).
Obviously, if a search engine could identify which ideas are good and which are pure fantasy, then this wouldn't be a problem. But that's not the case. In fact, I doubt even highly educated humans could accurately distinguish them.
The key is that the search engine shouldn't try to distinguish fact from fantasy, it should just reflect the levels of belief as evidenced by all knowledge on the web, including the "implicit" knowledge of articles which assume a position without stating it because it's the one that everyone assumes. Unfortunately, to do that requires that the system be able to understand, recognize and appropriately weight all of that implicit knowledge. That's very hard.
San Francisco, if it's government had any balls, would start booting all Uber self-driving cabs based on the risk to society.
Then, start fining the Uber cab company $10K per day it's in violation.
What law, regulation or ordinance gives them the authority to do such things?
independently but is the software independent? or does that become an recall issue and the manufacturers must fix safety issues for free.
The maker of the self-driving system should be fully liable for all damages caused by the system. I don't see who else could be liable.
Google isn't harming the world any more than a knife catalog is harming the world by advertising knives
Bad analogy. People understand knives, they don't understand search engines.
You are saying that for the collective safety of the world, Google must protect the uneducated masses by applying a truth filter to their search algorithm.
No, I'm saying that the search engine should prioritize results reflecting widespread beliefs over fringe ones, accurately reflecting the state of information in the world rather than biasing it towards fringe ideas as they do (though not intentionally) now.
Arbitrarily raising the exposure of crackpots is harming the world.
Your signature disagrees with your entire post.
No, it doesn't. My signature in no way implies that organizations don't have a responsibility to avoid harming the world.
Wait, the former editor of one of the best selling national print newspapers isn't part of the news media?
No, he isn't. If he were the current editors, maybe. But as it is he's just a pundit.
Plus there's the point that even he didn't call conservatives racists for opposing stimulus.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/07/valerie-jarrett-was-gop-opposition-to-the-stimulus-race-politics-or-power/
None of the articles that come up from that Breitbart search say that conservatives were racist for opposing the stimulus, as far as I can tell.
You're really having a tough time with substantiating this claim, aren't you? FWIW, I expect that if you dig hard enough and long enough you will be able to find *some* article that says it, but that's hardly the same as "the media".
You the reader must take responsibility for deciding what is real and what isn't on the internets. Do not require that anyone do that for you otherwise they eventually will when you don't want them to. If you need a warning label to avoid suffocating yourself on the plastic bag that is the world wide web then just turn around and walk away from whatever device you're using to access it.
I disagree, strongly.
The problem is that the nature of search engines is that they tend to seriously overrate fringe viewpoints (because hardly anyone bothers to write articles supporting mainstream perspectives), but the average search engine user has no idea that this is the case. In addition, human psychology weights frequency of observation heavily when deciding what is true. This tendency can be overcome, but (a) it's really hard, (b) it requires people to train themselves to value statistical and other forms of complex and non-local evidence over "common sense". Few people without advanced degrees learn to subsume common sense in the weight of evidence, and most people don't get advanced degrees. Please note that I said "few", not "none".
This means that unless search engines focus on trying to provide rankings that are based on some notion of truth, rather than just the loudest topical voice on the web, search engines will in fact cause more and more people to believe crackpot theories, or at least to lend them significant undeserved consideration. This is a problem that search engines need to solve. Unfortunately, it's also a really hard one.