Large cement structures in deep water? No, that's totally unproven tech. Troll, Oseberg and the other ConDeep oil platforms in the North Sea are all government hoaxes.
I'm not arguing with the articles you posted, but the argument "India/Morocco/Nepal has less cancer, so we must be doing something to cause cancer" has a significant weakness: many people in those countries die before they have the time to get cancer.
Yeah, those are all made by a Swedish company with Scandinavia as the main market, so high temperature is not their main concern. Besides, if you need lots of vents, you're travelling too slow;)
But I guess you want something more like this: http://www.bellhelmets.com/cycling/helmets/pavement/gage , which is used by several Tour de France-teams.
If you can't find cool bike helmets you're looking in the wrong place. See e.g. http://www.pocsports.com/en/14/wheels-helmets . Granted, they cost more than ugly helmets, but design (and in this case rock solid engineering) tend to cost money.
Agreed. I have a $5 Chinese-brand fountain pen and a $45 Lamy-brand fountain pen. It depends on the paper type, but on most paper I actually prefer the Chinese one.
You miss the point. For some people, notetaking is the most efficient way of absorbing information. I've attended plenty lectures myself (incl. 6 years at university), and I will still take notes. I don't even have to re-read my notes at a later time for the note-taking to have a positive effect.
Anectode on electronic note taking: I once typed up notes from a 45min Quantum Field Theory lecture in LaTeX. It was a bet with a friend, and the lecturer looked at me like I was crazy. So I'd say that electronic note taking is possible for almost any lecture, but it may not be very practical.
They're doing it wrong, though. I gave this some thought a couple of years back, when smart cars were first being touted. I believe that a good system would implement the following rules:
1. No car may ask another car about anything. All communication is one-way and voluntary.
2. Participating cars transmit a randomly chosen IPv6 address as a unique identifier. It is changed every morning when you start the car.
3. In addition to this address, cars transmit their intended destination.
4. Your car only knows the destination of other cars it has seen. By the law of large numbers, this should be sufficient.
5. All cars have a fast computer (i.e. a standard laptop) which stores where everyone else is going, and does all the computation.
6. All other communications (i.e. "there has been an accident/flood/construction work on Route 231") comes from a central dispatch manned by people.
Well, I don't think people keep a "my-cc-numbers.txt" on their desktop.
The babysitter wouldn't be able to steal my
money by looking at Documents/Kitten photos/
This is really very simple: If the attacker has access to your session, you have lost.
The problem with this approach is that you assume "attacker" == "black hat hacker". How about when "attacker" == "disgruntled babysitter who borrows you computer"? Is that not a valid threat which is actually more plausible than a black hat hacker?
They're not in "early adopter phase" by any means. My university has had a similar device for almost ten years. They are, however, in the "holy shit that is insanely expensive" phase, and will likely continue to be so in the foreseeable future.
Remember how Tom Cruise had to wear gloves in that movie? That was probably to give haptic feedback, you know, feeling when you interact successfully (or not) with something. This thing is missing that, and that would be a killer feature.
Indeed, yesterday I read multiple summaries which had spelling errors that a fifth grader would catch when reading through. One can only surmise that Slashdot editors now need to spend less than three minutes writing a summary.
This. With free shipping on everything, and a shower curtain including 12 rings costing $10, an iPhone case costing $3.50, I think the 3D printer would take a long time to break even.
I think you are confusing mathematicians with engineers. Any mathematician worth his/her salt should know that the Pythagorean Theorem comes straight from the 2-norm in a Euclidean space, which is what most people mean when they say "the distance between two things". You can of course get philosophical and say, "why the 2-norm"?, but this is easily answered by an application of d'Alembert's principle. Now, you see what I did there? Yet another thing to figure out "why is it so", and indeed, you have to work fairly hard to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.
I see all sorts of complaints by the Entitled Generation that "there aren't any jobs any more, and no one should work cheap" - makes me wonder.
I would hazard a guess here: the Entitled Generation, as you refer to them (us? I'm not sure what age you are referring to), have such feelings of entitlement because that was how society told them it was going to be when they were in school (pre-financial-crisis). Where I live in Scandinavia, where "the party is still on", you can go to university getting C's and D's all the way through your B.S. and M.Sc. in Engineering, and still end up with $80k* job offers before you graduate. And your student loan only totals $50k, assuming you don't have rich parents, in which case it is less than that.
*Not adjusted for purchasing power. If we do that, it's around $48k (using the OECD comparative price levels), but still.
The reality is that the original code was not portable between supercomputers and already comes up with incorrect answers but yet people didn't realize it until now!
Ah, jeez. If you think this is the first time someone noticed that different computers give different results, I would like to introduce you to Edward Lorenz, a prominent physicist in the 1960s, and the field of science called Chaos Theory which he fathered. There is nothing new about the fact that this happens. It is taught in Computational Physics 101. The novelty of the study reported is that it quantifies the variation on different supercomputers in a comprehensive way.
And you may want to look up the definition of portable. If you take "portable" to mean "gives exactly the same results on all computers evar", then there are no portable programs in the entire world. By Boost not being portable, I mean that it doesn't even run on your new SGI Altix where there is no GCC compiler available.
You're trying to extrapolate from the Model-T to a Ferrari supercar.
Slight nitpick: Ferrari generally doesn't make supercars. The last road-legal one was the Enzo back in 2002. Lamborghini or Pagani would have been a better choice of car manufacturers.
You don't understand why your proposed solution is bad when it has a negative impact on performance and is not portable between different supercomputers? Where do I even begin...
Let's put it this way: your university/research organization will eventually buy a new supercomputer. It may have a different architecture from the old one. Do you then rewrite your 20,000 SLOC code which is using ? Do you really imagine anyone is going to pay you for that?
Remembering that supercomputers span a large range of architectures and compilers, in particular when accelerators are employed, we quote the Patriarch Torvalds:
Anyone who claims Boost is stable and portable is so full of BS it's not even funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Large cement structures in deep water? No, that's totally unproven tech. Troll, Oseberg and the other ConDeep oil platforms in the North Sea are all government hoaxes.
I'm not arguing with the articles you posted, but the argument "India/Morocco/Nepal has less cancer, so we must be doing something to cause cancer" has a significant weakness: many people in those countries die before they have the time to get cancer.
Yeah, those are all made by a Swedish company with Scandinavia as the main market, so high temperature is not their main concern. Besides, if you need lots of vents, you're travelling too slow ;)
But I guess you want something more like this: http://www.bellhelmets.com/cycling/helmets/pavement/gage , which is used by several Tour de France-teams.
Is it just me that thinks it looks like a weapon holster? I'd hesitate to wear that to e.g. an airport.
design bicycle helmets
If you can't find cool bike helmets you're looking in the wrong place. See e.g. http://www.pocsports.com/en/14/wheels-helmets . Granted, they cost more than ugly helmets, but design (and in this case rock solid engineering) tend to cost money.
Agreed. I have a $5 Chinese-brand fountain pen and a $45 Lamy-brand fountain pen. It depends on the paper type, but on most paper I actually prefer the Chinese one.
Nothing that needs to be archived.
You miss the point. For some people, notetaking is the most efficient way of absorbing information. I've attended plenty lectures myself (incl. 6 years at university), and I will still take notes. I don't even have to re-read my notes at a later time for the note-taking to have a positive effect.
Anectode on electronic note taking: I once typed up notes from a 45min Quantum Field Theory lecture in LaTeX. It was a bet with a friend, and the lecturer looked at me like I was crazy. So I'd say that electronic note taking is possible for almost any lecture, but it may not be very practical.
They're doing it wrong, though. I gave this some thought a couple of years back, when smart cars were first being touted. I believe that a good system would implement the following rules:
1. No car may ask another car about anything. All communication is one-way and voluntary.
2. Participating cars transmit a randomly chosen IPv6 address as a unique identifier. It is changed every morning when you start the car.
3. In addition to this address, cars transmit their intended destination.
4. Your car only knows the destination of other cars it has seen. By the law of large numbers, this should be sufficient.
5. All cars have a fast computer (i.e. a standard laptop) which stores where everyone else is going, and does all the computation.
6. All other communications (i.e. "there has been an accident/flood/construction work on Route 231") comes from a central dispatch manned by people.
And how exactly do you envision that being useful? To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the ocean is big. Really big. Really really really big. Etc.
Well, I don't think people keep a "my-cc-numbers.txt" on their desktop. The babysitter wouldn't be able to steal my money by looking at Documents/Kitten photos/
The best sign of bad coffe is that it gets bitter as it gets colder. And I mean that in the non-metaphorical sense.
if the power supply demands can be met
Yeah, for navy applications, the LM2500 gas turbine or the A4W nuclear reactor are usually able to do that.
This is really very simple: If the attacker has access to your session, you have lost.
The problem with this approach is that you assume "attacker" == "black hat hacker". How about when "attacker" == "disgruntled babysitter who borrows you computer"? Is that not a valid threat which is actually more plausible than a black hat hacker?
Obligatory pop-cultural reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDpvkwBBu6U
They're not in "early adopter phase" by any means. My university has had a similar device for almost ten years. They are, however, in the "holy shit that is insanely expensive" phase, and will likely continue to be so in the foreseeable future.
Remember how Tom Cruise had to wear gloves in that movie? That was probably to give haptic feedback, you know, feeling when you interact successfully (or not) with something. This thing is missing that, and that would be a killer feature.
Indeed, yesterday I read multiple summaries which had spelling errors that a fifth grader would catch when reading through. One can only surmise that Slashdot editors now need to spend less than three minutes writing a summary.
No doubt. But the post I replied to was talking about "most mathematicians", not Joe Plumber.
This. With free shipping on everything, and a shower curtain including 12 rings costing $10, an iPhone case costing $3.50, I think the 3D printer would take a long time to break even.
I think you are confusing mathematicians with engineers. Any mathematician worth his/her salt should know that the Pythagorean Theorem comes straight from the 2-norm in a Euclidean space, which is what most people mean when they say "the distance between two things". You can of course get philosophical and say, "why the 2-norm"?, but this is easily answered by an application of d'Alembert's principle. Now, you see what I did there? Yet another thing to figure out "why is it so", and indeed, you have to work fairly hard to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.
I see all sorts of complaints by the Entitled Generation that "there aren't any jobs any more, and no one should work cheap" - makes me wonder.
I would hazard a guess here: the Entitled Generation, as you refer to them (us? I'm not sure what age you are referring to), have such feelings of entitlement because that was how society told them it was going to be when they were in school (pre-financial-crisis). Where I live in Scandinavia, where "the party is still on", you can go to university getting C's and D's all the way through your B.S. and M.Sc. in Engineering, and still end up with $80k* job offers before you graduate. And your student loan only totals $50k, assuming you don't have rich parents, in which case it is less than that.
*Not adjusted for purchasing power. If we do that, it's around $48k (using the OECD comparative price levels), but still.
The reality is that the original code was not portable between supercomputers and already comes up with incorrect answers but yet people didn't realize it until now!
Ah, jeez. If you think this is the first time someone noticed that different computers give different results, I would like to introduce you to Edward Lorenz, a prominent physicist in the 1960s, and the field of science called Chaos Theory which he fathered. There is nothing new about the fact that this happens. It is taught in Computational Physics 101. The novelty of the study reported is that it quantifies the variation on different supercomputers in a comprehensive way.
And you may want to look up the definition of portable. If you take "portable" to mean "gives exactly the same results on all computers evar", then there are no portable programs in the entire world. By Boost not being portable, I mean that it doesn't even run on your new SGI Altix where there is no GCC compiler available.
You're trying to extrapolate from the Model-T to a Ferrari supercar.
Slight nitpick: Ferrari generally doesn't make supercars. The last road-legal one was the Enzo back in 2002. Lamborghini or Pagani would have been a better choice of car manufacturers.
You don't understand why your proposed solution is bad when it has a negative impact on performance and is not portable between different supercomputers? Where do I even begin...
Let's put it this way: your university/research organization will eventually buy a new supercomputer. It may have a different architecture from the old one. Do you then rewrite your 20,000 SLOC code which is using ? Do you really imagine anyone is going to pay you for that?
Anyone who claims Boost is stable and portable is so full of BS it's not even funny.