So going 1000 fasters would have to mean some major changes in how processors work i guess? since having your signal only travel 0.1 mm per clock pulse makes it rather hard to get the data around...
It seems like it would just change the design optimization criteria, making spatial distance dramatically between components dramatically more important than it is now. 3D chip design would become crucial, since it enables shorter paths. Of course, moving from flat or shallowly-layered designs to spherical construction would make heat dissipation an even bigger challenge than it is now, and would require completely new fabrication approaches.
Still "We have lots of really complex engineering problems to solve to make this work" is a better place to be than "Damn, we need to change the laws of physics".
You mistakenly assumed my stance. I stated that it would take a very long time to read everything. I have a pack from my closing. It's more than 100 pages. Reading for comprehension of a set of contracts that long would likely not be under an hour.
Maybe I read slower than you do, but it takes me about two hours. I warn the title company in advance that I am going to read everything and ask questions about anything I don't understand, so they schedule a two-hour block for my closing.
And the criteria for determining what is and is not art?
The key criterion is creativity and expressive/emotional content, and wherever that comes from, that's the source of the art.
In this case, some of the robot's paintings are quite artistic... but it's not the robot that selected the subject, captured the right feeling, chose a composition that accented it, etc. What happened here is that the robot reproduced some artistic images that were created by a human. Art? Sure. Robot art? Nope.
In the case of your hypothetical art Turing test, where only the end product is available, sure it's quite likely that we couldn't distinguish between the computer renderings and human work, and we'd call the computer renderings art... but the creator would be whoever provided the computer with the input -- code and/or data. Human-created art in the medium of computer-controlled paintbrush, for example.
He's not talking about root going away, he's talking about reducing the need for it, in order to have much of the freedom provided by a rooted phone without the associated security risks. Whether or not root is available is a separate, and orthogonal question, and he clearly never wants to lose the ability to root, just the need.
It's doubly odd because many contemporary phones and tablets can connect to TVs, though that isn't their primary use case.
I think you've got your answer right there.
From a technical perspective, of course, it's not an answer at all, but look at it from the perspective of big media companies: On general-purpose computing devices they have no real say other than deciding if they do or don't want to lock their content out of the devices. Making that choice lowers the value of the devices a little, but it's not like device makers will allow the media industry to drive all their decisions. With media devices, however, which have no value to consumers except to play media, the media companies can choose to render the device nearly useless which puts them in a much stronger bargaining position.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but I don't have any inside information on this issue and don't know anything more about it than any other random geek, and probably less than many. The above is just my idle speculation, and is probably completely wrong. Maybe Google really does want to lock down everything so they can obtain complete control over every computing device in the universe and collect all the data to auction off to the highest bidder while feeding a copy to the NSA in exchange for use of CIA wetwork teams to take out competitors' key employees who refused to be assimilated, as well as any users who complain too loudly about being monetized against their will, and they're just using TV devices as the thin edge of the Control The World wedge -- but suck at it so badly that all the protections can be blown past with a few minutes' tinkering. But I doubt it.)
Very good work of destroying the whole point of privacy. And who the fuck allowed him access to 70 million passwords? Yahoo? Shame on Yahoo then.
Fixed that for you.
Though, also, I disagree with your first sentence. The better we understand the use of passwords by larger numbers of real people, the better we can design systems that exploit the strengths of passwords which avoiding their weaknesses -- or perhaps it will motivate us to choose other approaches if it demonstrates that passwords simply do not provide sufficient security.
This is valuable information for people who want to build secure, privacy-preserving systems, which is the complete antithesis of "destroying the whole point of privacy."
IIRC, the 9x17mm (.380) was used in some earlier 3D printed pistol tests with limited success.
I'd say with good success, rather than "limited" success.
Also, it occurs to me that if you'd like a more powerful plastic gun, you should perhaps consider the.45 ACP, which has max pressures slightly lower than the.380. Even better might be a.44 special, which has max pressures of around 14,000 PSI.
The length of the rifle barrel is what'll kill it. A pistol dumps its internal pressures quickly - the short muzzle doesn't have to hold the pressure for more than a millisecond or two at most. A rifle on the other hand? The longer the barrel, the longer that period of time which the barrel has to hold the higher pressures. Most rifle cartridges also contain a slower-burning powder (to keep pressures at least somewhat constant as the bullet travels down the barrel), which only exacerbates things from a design perspective.
I think the duration of the high pressures is a second-order issue, behind the fact that most rifle rounds generate much higher pressures, period. A few examples:
I'm not aware of a single handgun round that is designed for more than 40,000 PSI, while most modern rifle rounds are in the 60,000+ PSI range. The lowest-pressure rifle round I'm aware of is the old.45-70 government, which still peaks at close to 30,000 PSI.
It's worth pointing out the Defense Distributed's Liberator fires the.380, a low-pressure round. The.45 would also be a good choice. Perhaps even better would be the.38 special and.44 special, which have max pressures around 14,000 PSI. Best of all would be some hybrid round which is loaded for low-pressure but is fired out of a casing designed for a high-pressure round. That would allow the casing to take more of the load and demand less of the plastic chamber.
You couldn't know it, but my calculus includes a family home with teenagers (themselves a risk group IMO) as well as one adult diagnosed and medicated as a depressive (not me).
Unfortunately, mine includes the same (teenagers plus one suicidal person). It just means that I keep my guns locked up.
Note that I'm not criticizing your decision, and wasn't to begin with. I just wanted to make sure you weren't basing it on incorrect information.
although I've never owned a gun as I don't see the value exceeds the absolute increase in danger.
You are aware that the old studies that purported to show that gun owners are more likely to get shot than non gun-owners have been completely and thoroughly debunked, aren't you? Your statistical likelihood of being a victim of gun violence has everything to do with your lifestyle.
if I'm sitting in your car, plugged in to the canbus, I can control things on the canbus
No.
If I ever gain access to your car, for the 20 seconds it takes me to plug a controller into the canbus, I can control things on the canbus.
Also, remember the central maxim of computer security: Attacks always get better. And these targets are very hard to patch -- it's expensive, time-consuming and hit-or-miss, because the automakers haven't planned for software upgrades, so defenses will not get better, or will at best improve only rarely.
Interesting point. I suppose the difference arises because with a monarch someone is responsible in a fairly undeniable way. The king may be an ass, but only a true sociopath is willing to be solely responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. In more democratic structures there are ways to spread the blame, and especially to pin it on ideology and the "good of the people" (not including those killed, presumably).
I do see it as a failing of the perception in that endless growth just isn't possible in the long term.
I don't see that such a perception exists. Investors fully understand that growth stocks aren't growth stocks forever. At some point growth declines and they become something else. Those that continue being reliable generators of income, often by diversifying, become blue chip stocks. Some decline. Some become cyclical.
Of course, once it becomes clear that a company is no longer in its growth phase, investors looking for growth stocks will leave, and those looking for income or wealth preservation will come in, depending on the characteristics of the company. This isn't because those growth investors believe that perpetual growth is possible, but it is because they're looking for ways to grow their money. At 40 years old, that's certainly what I want my retirement investment portfolio to be doing, growing! Isn't that what you want?
Most of today's investors don't see their dollars as a building block to better companies with long term goals and good public relations
Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My investment goal isn't to build better companies. My investment goal is to get a good return so that I can live comfortably when I can no longer work. Other investors have other goals, but none of them are focused on benefiting the companies.
they see their dollars are something they need to "flip" fast to make it worth their time
Nonsense. Well, certainly there are some who are focused on flipping. HFT, day trading, etc. But long-term buy-and-hold investors who are looking for growth are also going to buy companies who are growing and get out of them when the growth slows. Not because the investors are stupid, but because they're smart and want their money in stocks that match their goals.
How does somebody get over the arbitrary "5-7 years work experience" hurdle if they are trying to get their first development gig?
Go to work for a place that pays peanuts and treats you like crap. They're always hiring, and have pretty low standards because people don't stay long. You don't have to stay long, either.
Small exploitive companies hire people with no experience to pay the crap and abuse them till they wise up and leave (hey, you gotta start somewhere).
This is how I got started. It's not so bad. You only have to work for the really crappy place for a few months, maybe a year. Then you can step up to the semi-crappy place. After a couple more moves up the scale you should be able to get a good job if you're decent.
The guy's brainwashed. Giving himself up completely to the company. Of course he's going to say nice things about their ideas/products. If he didn't like them, he wouldn't have posted as it would have been career suicide (if he could be identified of course).
Bah, I have no problem being critical of Google products that I dislike, and there would be no repercussions whatsoever. Google isn't that kind of company, there's no blowback for criticizing -- in fact good criticism is more likely to garner kudos. And identifying me is trivial.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm fine with them waiting while I read. They're making enough for it :)
So going 1000 fasters would have to mean some major changes in how processors work i guess? since having your signal only travel 0.1 mm per clock pulse makes it rather hard to get the data around...
It seems like it would just change the design optimization criteria, making spatial distance dramatically between components dramatically more important than it is now. 3D chip design would become crucial, since it enables shorter paths. Of course, moving from flat or shallowly-layered designs to spherical construction would make heat dissipation an even bigger challenge than it is now, and would require completely new fabrication approaches.
Still "We have lots of really complex engineering problems to solve to make this work" is a better place to be than "Damn, we need to change the laws of physics".
You mistakenly assumed my stance. I stated that it would take a very long time to read everything. I have a pack from my closing. It's more than 100 pages. Reading for comprehension of a set of contracts that long would likely not be under an hour.
Maybe I read slower than you do, but it takes me about two hours. I warn the title company in advance that I am going to read everything and ask questions about anything I don't understand, so they schedule a two-hour block for my closing.
The key criterion is creativity and expressive/emotional content, and wherever that comes from, that's the source of the art.
The flaw in this thinking is that it's not possible to actually detect creativity in a painting.
The flaw in your thinking is that the ability to detect creativity matters.
And the criteria for determining what is and is not art?
The key criterion is creativity and expressive/emotional content, and wherever that comes from, that's the source of the art.
In this case, some of the robot's paintings are quite artistic... but it's not the robot that selected the subject, captured the right feeling, chose a composition that accented it, etc. What happened here is that the robot reproduced some artistic images that were created by a human. Art? Sure. Robot art? Nope.
In the case of your hypothetical art Turing test, where only the end product is available, sure it's quite likely that we couldn't distinguish between the computer renderings and human work, and we'd call the computer renderings art... but the creator would be whoever provided the computer with the input -- code and/or data. Human-created art in the medium of computer-controlled paintbrush, for example.
He's not talking about root going away, he's talking about reducing the need for it, in order to have much of the freedom provided by a rooted phone without the associated security risks. Whether or not root is available is a separate, and orthogonal question, and he clearly never wants to lose the ability to root, just the need.
454 Casull operates at high pressures.
Yeah, probably not a good choice for a plastic gun.
How do you tell google analytics to buzz off if it's embedded into practically every website?
https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout
It's doubly odd because many contemporary phones and tablets can connect to TVs, though that isn't their primary use case.
I think you've got your answer right there.
From a technical perspective, of course, it's not an answer at all, but look at it from the perspective of big media companies: On general-purpose computing devices they have no real say other than deciding if they do or don't want to lock their content out of the devices. Making that choice lowers the value of the devices a little, but it's not like device makers will allow the media industry to drive all their decisions. With media devices, however, which have no value to consumers except to play media, the media companies can choose to render the device nearly useless which puts them in a much stronger bargaining position.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but I don't have any inside information on this issue and don't know anything more about it than any other random geek, and probably less than many. The above is just my idle speculation, and is probably completely wrong. Maybe Google really does want to lock down everything so they can obtain complete control over every computing device in the universe and collect all the data to auction off to the highest bidder while feeding a copy to the NSA in exchange for use of CIA wetwork teams to take out competitors' key employees who refused to be assimilated, as well as any users who complain too loudly about being monetized against their will, and they're just using TV devices as the thin edge of the Control The World wedge -- but suck at it so badly that all the protections can be blown past with a few minutes' tinkering. But I doubt it.)
Very good work of destroying the whole point of privacy. And who the fuck allowed him access to 70 million passwords? Yahoo? Shame on Yahoo then.
Fixed that for you.
Though, also, I disagree with your first sentence. The better we understand the use of passwords by larger numbers of real people, the better we can design systems that exploit the strengths of passwords which avoiding their weaknesses -- or perhaps it will motivate us to choose other approaches if it demonstrates that passwords simply do not provide sufficient security.
This is valuable information for people who want to build secure, privacy-preserving systems, which is the complete antithesis of "destroying the whole point of privacy."
IIRC, the 9x17mm (.380) was used in some earlier 3D printed pistol tests with limited success.
I'd say with good success, rather than "limited" success.
Also, it occurs to me that if you'd like a more powerful plastic gun, you should perhaps consider the .45 ACP, which has max pressures slightly lower than the .380. Even better might be a .44 special, which has max pressures of around 14,000 PSI.
The length of the rifle barrel is what'll kill it. A pistol dumps its internal pressures quickly - the short muzzle doesn't have to hold the pressure for more than a millisecond or two at most. A rifle on the other hand? The longer the barrel, the longer that period of time which the barrel has to hold the higher pressures. Most rifle cartridges also contain a slower-burning powder (to keep pressures at least somewhat constant as the bullet travels down the barrel), which only exacerbates things from a design perspective.
I think the duration of the high pressures is a second-order issue, behind the fact that most rifle rounds generate much higher pressures, period. A few examples:
Handgun rounds:
.380 ACP: 21,500 PSI
.357 magnum: 35,000 PSI
.40: 35,000 PSI
.45 ACP: 21,000 PSI
9mm: 34,800 PSI
Rifle rounds:
5.56mm: 62,366 PSI
.270: 65,000 PSI
.308: 62,000 PSI
.30-05: 60,200 PSI
I'm not aware of a single handgun round that is designed for more than 40,000 PSI, while most modern rifle rounds are in the 60,000+ PSI range. The lowest-pressure rifle round I'm aware of is the old .45-70 government, which still peaks at close to 30,000 PSI.
It's worth pointing out the Defense Distributed's Liberator fires the .380, a low-pressure round. The .45 would also be a good choice. Perhaps even better would be the .38 special and .44 special, which have max pressures around 14,000 PSI. Best of all would be some hybrid round which is loaded for low-pressure but is fired out of a casing designed for a high-pressure round. That would allow the casing to take more of the load and demand less of the plastic chamber.
You couldn't know it, but my calculus includes a family home with teenagers (themselves a risk group IMO) as well as one adult diagnosed and medicated as a depressive (not me).
Unfortunately, mine includes the same (teenagers plus one suicidal person). It just means that I keep my guns locked up.
Note that I'm not criticizing your decision, and wasn't to begin with. I just wanted to make sure you weren't basing it on incorrect information.
although I've never owned a gun as I don't see the value exceeds the absolute increase in danger.
You are aware that the old studies that purported to show that gun owners are more likely to get shot than non gun-owners have been completely and thoroughly debunked, aren't you? Your statistical likelihood of being a victim of gun violence has everything to do with your lifestyle.
if I'm sitting in your car, plugged in to the canbus, I can control things on the canbus
No.
If I ever gain access to your car, for the 20 seconds it takes me to plug a controller into the canbus, I can control things on the canbus.
Also, remember the central maxim of computer security: Attacks always get better. And these targets are very hard to patch -- it's expensive, time-consuming and hit-or-miss, because the automakers haven't planned for software upgrades, so defenses will not get better, or will at best improve only rarely.
Hmmm... Right. If only Stalin knew!
I think Stalin was able to shift the blame to ideology and the "good of the people". A king might find that more difficult.
The average US household consumes about 14,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year.
If you want to look at it in kWh, a 640 kW reactor running 24/7 will produce 640 * 24 * 365 = 5,606,400 kWh per year.
Rumor has it the new thorium reactors will put out 640 kW, which oughta be enough for everybody.
640 kW from my Personal Reactor? That's enough for me.
Interesting point. I suppose the difference arises because with a monarch someone is responsible in a fairly undeniable way. The king may be an ass, but only a true sociopath is willing to be solely responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. In more democratic structures there are ways to spread the blame, and especially to pin it on ideology and the "good of the people" (not including those killed, presumably).
I do see it as a failing of the perception in that endless growth just isn't possible in the long term.
I don't see that such a perception exists. Investors fully understand that growth stocks aren't growth stocks forever. At some point growth declines and they become something else. Those that continue being reliable generators of income, often by diversifying, become blue chip stocks. Some decline. Some become cyclical.
Of course, once it becomes clear that a company is no longer in its growth phase, investors looking for growth stocks will leave, and those looking for income or wealth preservation will come in, depending on the characteristics of the company. This isn't because those growth investors believe that perpetual growth is possible, but it is because they're looking for ways to grow their money. At 40 years old, that's certainly what I want my retirement investment portfolio to be doing, growing! Isn't that what you want?
Most of today's investors don't see their dollars as a building block to better companies with long term goals and good public relations
Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My investment goal isn't to build better companies. My investment goal is to get a good return so that I can live comfortably when I can no longer work. Other investors have other goals, but none of them are focused on benefiting the companies.
they see their dollars are something they need to "flip" fast to make it worth their time
Nonsense. Well, certainly there are some who are focused on flipping. HFT, day trading, etc. But long-term buy-and-hold investors who are looking for growth are also going to buy companies who are growing and get out of them when the growth slows. Not because the investors are stupid, but because they're smart and want their money in stocks that match their goals.
Apple will take a hit because of this.
Apple is up 5% today.
How does somebody get over the arbitrary "5-7 years work experience" hurdle if they are trying to get their first development gig?
Go to work for a place that pays peanuts and treats you like crap. They're always hiring, and have pretty low standards because people don't stay long. You don't have to stay long, either.
Small exploitive companies hire people with no experience to pay the crap and abuse them till they wise up and leave (hey, you gotta start somewhere).
This is how I got started. It's not so bad. You only have to work for the really crappy place for a few months, maybe a year. Then you can step up to the semi-crappy place. After a couple more moves up the scale you should be able to get a good job if you're decent.
The guy's brainwashed. Giving himself up completely to the company. Of course he's going to say nice things about their ideas/products. If he didn't like them, he wouldn't have posted as it would have been career suicide (if he could be identified of course).
Bah, I have no problem being critical of Google products that I dislike, and there would be no repercussions whatsoever. Google isn't that kind of company, there's no blowback for criticizing -- in fact good criticism is more likely to garner kudos. And identifying me is trivial.
I do find cloud print to be really convenient
I'm happy for you. Have you thought of starting a club?
I'm glad you're entertained.
Which is why I said "What do I know?". But, regardless, I do find cloud print to be really convenient.