My guess is that it was just a capacitor that blew up.
There was probably a short from the water getting in, and the constant voltage / current built up the charge on the capacitor which eventually was too high for its design, arced across the insulator, and blew up... I used to do stuff like that in Electronics class in high school. Big puff of smoke and paper debris.
Hopefully it wasn't a battery... then you get into some nasty chemicals.
Did you RTF Subject? And thank you for the sun link, I had no idea sun made such processors...
The point was asking if the hybrid scaling and segmented word line techniques could be applied to other memory types, unless there's an inherent physical impossibility (hence the question... I know they made ROMs... again, hence the question) in which volitale memory can't be made using the same techniques. It's a manufacturing process...
Why am I asking? I assumed the process for making the memory was pretty much the same since the number of transistors is pretty much equal (DRAM, not SRAM), it's just the final etching is different for the fuses (again, I'm just assuming). So can the process be applied to volatile memory, or does everyone just have smart-ass remarks to make and no actual knowledge?
...but could this be used for CPU on-die caches, or is it too slow/consumes too much power? I couldn't imagine even having 8MB of cache let alone 8GB. (Which will come to haunt me later like the ol' 640K quote).
... the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator
Yet for some reason we fall back to this "theory" because we don't understand what's going on? Ridiculous...
Just because we don't fully understand an aspect of nature yet doesn't mean that a natural process is so complex and impossible that a higher power had to make it... it only means that we are flawed and must wait until we fully grasp what is going on.
I'm sick of people filling in the blanks with "god did it!" without thinking "well... maybe we just need to study it more." Before you call me atheist, realize that I am a roman catholic, yet I can easily conceive how our life came to be after the big bang (let's not debate that right now) without any nudge from a higher power.
You are quick to argue that life could not have been created in nature, but forget the fact that God created nature itself.
...will it have the same (or better) coefficient of friction than normal concrete? Sure it might not crack, but if your tires don't stick to the road, then you're going to have more problems...
Why is he so upset?
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The only reason MS has interest in Google's success is because of $$$$.
There is no "market share" or distributed software that comes from people searching through your website... the only problem is that since people are going to Google, MS is loosing money in advertising.
It's not even about software, it's about ad revenues.
But doesn't free will destroy that determination?... I'd say, looking out at the world, that things are random, but the randomness influences each other and thus causes "clumbs" on our scale, so it's not *perfectly* random. But any randomness at all would make it inevitable that the apple be eaten.
But I persist that any non-randomness (not perfectly random) could give way to an act being impossible by way of the pseudo-deterministic events as I stated in the previous post. As for destroying free will, that would only happen if everything were deterministic. This gives question as to what is and is not deterministic, which I can currently think that all physical matter interaction is determinstic, yet the underlying cause (such as thought... in which this would protect free will) is caused by some outside force that isn't bound by determinism.
But God's commandment carries no meaning if it becomes impossible to do the action, doesn't it? Does that not imply that things which prevent the consumption, in the long run, of the apple cannot occur? I think it would simplify your argument, without losing anything essential, if you simply had something destroy the apple and the means of making more, and yet that would also make God's specific command irrelevant, voiding the capacity for decision in the situation.
It could if there was a persistent outside force that made it impossible, but say the "deterministic" course of action was triggered by an event from Eve's free will. Then her will was the cause for the impossibility. This way, God's commands still have meaning, yet the choice can infact be permanent.
Over long periods of time, people's wills are influenced by factors that are not entirely outside their control. Perspectives change in response to outside events. If that can happen even slightly, and only rarely, then over infinity it fails, and it's not even necessary to know how it could happen.
If there are laws of physics (and therefore a level of hard determinism), people's wills are also influenced by outside events. There is also a possibility that all outside events effect one's will in such a way that it forces said person to not do a specific action. It is also possible that these events are caused by some outside, hard deterministic course of action that forever repeats itself. And furthermore, perhaps that deterministic coures of outside events prevents (on a hard level) a specific patterm of "random" events to happen within a given environment. That outside force will then always prevent eve from eating the apple.
The only way to get around it is to say that such free will or random events are not influenced by any deterministic force. So the real argument gets down to if the universe is purely random or determined, in which cannot be sucessfully argued either way for many reasons other than just good arguments. So then my own conclusion is that if the universe is determined, then it's possible that eve never eats the apple. If it's all random, then eventually she will.
Yea, my main argument wasn't that great... that just pointed out that the main problem with arguing "if it is possible, it will happen" is an assumption that an event actually is possible. But besides that... In saying that eve had free will, it does not follow that eve will eventually take the apple, because her own free will isn't random (if it were, then it wouldn't be free will, but simply a collection of random or determined events, depending on who you talk to).
As for the apple, you will eat it eventually, given an infinite time frame, unless there's something that specifically gives the act a zero probability over infinity.
Ah ha... but unless the probability that act is 1, then there is also the possibility that it will *not* happen. Both have a probability, but saying that one has to happen over the other is illogical because that would go to say that X event has the probability of 1, which begs the question.
According to what you are saying, an event will occur over an infinite amount of time if the probability of that event is not zero, but that would also mean the probability of the negation of that event is also non zero (if the original event is not 1), and therefore both outcomes are possible and both must occur over the infinite amount of time, which is impossible since you can only have one outcome. But if the original event's probability is 1, then it is in the essence of that event to occur, and there is no way around it, and therefore no free will.
Hence, if eve had free will, she didn't have to take the apple, even over an infinite amount of time.
Which, after exciting other atoms, release another photon, and that photon in turn does the same, with some loss to heat (that amount depends on the atoms it hits). Eventually from the expansion of the universe everything will seem to cool down, so we really don't have to worry about this heat issue, and global warming is just a myth.
So go ahead and compute all you want... in the end it's all going to be a brick of ice.
But it *would* have happened eventually, because in infinity, all possible things happen.
No, no, no, no... no.
That is logically flawed.
If you have time, events occur. If you have an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of events occur.
That is true, but the problem is that infinity does not mean ALL things (continual infinity v discrete). If you take a number system, and count all EVEN numbers, you can count on for infinity, but NEVER count an ODD number.
Though not phrased very well, I say that calls for a Q.E.D. You can spend infinity looking at an apple and never eat it... there's nothing to say that you have to.
How about, comments for some, no comments for others!
But seriously, only comment what's complicated... anything easy (to other programmers, not just you) doesn't need to be.
I knew a guy who did pre-comments, where he would write out the steps for the loops, showing nesting and such before actually writing the code. It worked pretty good because you had an overall idea before you started digging through code.
They wouldn't be, say, announcing one feature plan at a time for the next 30 day to steal some of Apple's thunder while rolling out OS X Tiger would they?
Well duh... it's business after all.
Who in their right mind would consciously let a competitor get the spotlight if you couldn't step in? It's nothing to get all pissy about, it's just how competition works.
You could avoid this by pulling from THE root DNS servers, but if everyone did that it would put undue strain on the root servers
That's not how DNS works.
The root servers simply point you into the direction of the authorative DNS server for a given domain name. That is why you have to register who is going to be the DNS server for any given domain so the root servers can point people to it. Your own DNS then caches the response from the DNS server (not the root) locally, only updating it after the TTL is expired (which isn't always happening with the provider's DNS, hence the problem).
The root servers are reliable... they have to be. Sure there have been DoS attacks and the like on them before, but they only need to update themselves for new domain name server registrations (which last I heard is every 5 minutes? So that's a much better "ttl").
...don't buy off-brands. I've only had bad luck with any no name CD/DVD drive that I've ever had.
Right now I have a creative 6x DVD drive in my computer that's about 5 or more years old, and my normal DVD player for my TV is 4-5 (can't really remember, but more than 4 years for sure).
The ones that have died? One was by "JustLink", and the other one didn't have any markings at all as to the brand. Right now I have another burner made by Sony and it's going strong.
You have no social contract to listen to anybody's ranting. I never remembered signing my name by an X to anything of the like.
Some people get this problem confused with freedom of speech. Though it IS true you can say anything you want (sorta), it does NOT mean I have to listen to you. -- I have the freedom to filter anything that goes into our out of my sensory perception. --
Slashdot Mirror
H2O2? That's for girls...
I use H2OSO4... 5x the oxigination power of normal water. It's a great antiseptic and gargle!
My guess is that it was just a capacitor that blew up.
There was probably a short from the water getting in, and the constant voltage / current built up the charge on the capacitor which eventually was too high for its design, arced across the insulator, and blew up... I used to do stuff like that in Electronics class in high school. Big puff of smoke and paper debris.
Hopefully it wasn't a battery... then you get into some nasty chemicals.
Did you RTF Subject? And thank you for the sun link, I had no idea sun made such processors...
The point was asking if the hybrid scaling and segmented word line techniques could be applied to other memory types, unless there's an inherent physical impossibility (hence the question... I know they made ROMs... again, hence the question) in which volitale memory can't be made using the same techniques. It's a manufacturing process...
Why am I asking? I assumed the process for making the memory was pretty much the same since the number of transistors is pretty much equal (DRAM, not SRAM), it's just the final etching is different for the fuses (again, I'm just assuming). So can the process be applied to volatile memory, or does everyone just have smart-ass remarks to make and no actual knowledge?
...but could this be used for CPU on-die caches, or is it too slow/consumes too much power? I couldn't imagine even having 8MB of cache let alone 8GB. (Which will come to haunt me later like the ol' 640K quote).
... the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator
Yet for some reason we fall back to this "theory" because we don't understand what's going on? Ridiculous...
Just because we don't fully understand an aspect of nature yet doesn't mean that a natural process is so complex and impossible that a higher power had to make it... it only means that we are flawed and must wait until we fully grasp what is going on.
I'm sick of people filling in the blanks with "god did it!" without thinking "well... maybe we just need to study it more." Before you call me atheist, realize that I am a roman catholic, yet I can easily conceive how our life came to be after the big bang (let's not debate that right now) without any nudge from a higher power.
You are quick to argue that life could not have been created in nature, but forget the fact that God created nature itself.
...will it have the same (or better) coefficient of friction than normal concrete? Sure it might not crack, but if your tires don't stick to the road, then you're going to have more problems...
The only reason MS has interest in Google's success is because of $$$$.
There is no "market share" or distributed software that comes from people searching through your website... the only problem is that since people are going to Google, MS is loosing money in advertising.
It's not even about software, it's about ad revenues.
But doesn't free will destroy that determination? ... I'd say, looking out at the world, that things are random, but the randomness influences each other and thus causes "clumbs" on our scale, so it's not *perfectly* random. But any randomness at all would make it inevitable that the apple be eaten.
But I persist that any non-randomness (not perfectly random) could give way to an act being impossible by way of the pseudo-deterministic events as I stated in the previous post. As for destroying free will, that would only happen if everything were deterministic. This gives question as to what is and is not deterministic, which I can currently think that all physical matter interaction is determinstic, yet the underlying cause (such as thought... in which this would protect free will) is caused by some outside force that isn't bound by determinism.
But God's commandment carries no meaning if it becomes impossible to do the action, doesn't it? Does that not imply that things which prevent the consumption, in the long run, of the apple cannot occur? I think it would simplify your argument, without losing anything essential, if you simply had something destroy the apple and the means of making more, and yet that would also make God's specific command irrelevant, voiding the capacity for decision in the situation.
It could if there was a persistent outside force that made it impossible, but say the "deterministic" course of action was triggered by an event from Eve's free will. Then her will was the cause for the impossibility. This way, God's commands still have meaning, yet the choice can infact be permanent.
Over long periods of time, people's wills are influenced by factors that are not entirely outside their control. Perspectives change in response to outside events. If that can happen even slightly, and only rarely, then over infinity it fails, and it's not even necessary to know how it could happen.
If there are laws of physics (and therefore a level of hard determinism), people's wills are also influenced by outside events. There is also a possibility that all outside events effect one's will in such a way that it forces said person to not do a specific action. It is also possible that these events are caused by some outside, hard deterministic course of action that forever repeats itself. And furthermore, perhaps that deterministic coures of outside events prevents (on a hard level) a specific patterm of "random" events to happen within a given environment. That outside force will then always prevent eve from eating the apple.
The only way to get around it is to say that such free will or random events are not influenced by any deterministic force. So the real argument gets down to if the universe is purely random or determined, in which cannot be sucessfully argued either way for many reasons other than just good arguments. So then my own conclusion is that if the universe is determined, then it's possible that eve never eats the apple. If it's all random, then eventually she will.
Yea, my main argument wasn't that great... that just pointed out that the main problem with arguing "if it is possible, it will happen" is an assumption that an event actually is possible. But besides that... In saying that eve had free will, it does not follow that eve will eventually take the apple, because her own free will isn't random (if it were, then it wouldn't be free will, but simply a collection of random or determined events, depending on who you talk to).
As for the apple, you will eat it eventually, given an infinite time frame, unless there's something that specifically gives the act a zero probability over infinity.
Ah ha... but unless the probability that act is 1, then there is also the possibility that it will *not* happen. Both have a probability, but saying that one has to happen over the other is illogical because that would go to say that X event has the probability of 1, which begs the question.
According to what you are saying, an event will occur over an infinite amount of time if the probability of that event is not zero, but that would also mean the probability of the negation of that event is also non zero (if the original event is not 1), and therefore both outcomes are possible and both must occur over the infinite amount of time, which is impossible since you can only have one outcome. But if the original event's probability is 1, then it is in the essence of that event to occur, and there is no way around it, and therefore no free will.
Hence, if eve had free will, she didn't have to take the apple, even over an infinite amount of time.
Which, after exciting other atoms, release another photon, and that photon in turn does the same, with some loss to heat (that amount depends on the atoms it hits). Eventually from the expansion of the universe everything will seem to cool down, so we really don't have to worry about this heat issue, and global warming is just a myth.
So go ahead and compute all you want... in the end it's all going to be a brick of ice.
But it *would* have happened eventually, because in infinity, all possible things happen.
No, no, no, no... no.
That is logically flawed.
If you have time, events occur.
If you have an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of events occur.
That is true, but the problem is that infinity does not mean ALL things (continual infinity v discrete). If you take a number system, and count all EVEN numbers, you can count on for infinity, but NEVER count an ODD number.
Though not phrased very well, I say that calls for a Q.E.D. You can spend infinity looking at an apple and never eat it... there's nothing to say that you have to.
The document was released as unclassified, therefor you are free to download it.
The original *unclassified* document contained all the information. There's nothing illegal about it.
Considering the Martian soil is practially all sand (at least where they like to land) wouldn't it be better to use hovercrafts there?
Nothing like shitting on your scientific project by blasting sand at it at 50mph.
Seriously, the point is to make observations, not speed around the planet.
Just because the messenger is suspect doesn't meant that the message isn't true.
No, but the message is most definately suspect...
"Suspect" and "true" are not exclusive.
I found the middle ground between EE and CS the most enjoyable... CE - Computer Engineering.
It's pretty much EE with a focus on low level programming and communication, along with a few CS classes such as datastructures.
...what's more annoying than a site being slashdotted? It being slashdotted when a trailer download is 3/4 done...
How about, comments for some, no comments for others!
But seriously, only comment what's complicated... anything easy (to other programmers, not just you) doesn't need to be.
I knew a guy who did pre-comments, where he would write out the steps for the loops, showing nesting and such before actually writing the code. It worked pretty good because you had an overall idea before you started digging through code.
...he'll do what he did with all his other characters. Replace himself with a CG model.
"This is how I always intended to look, but I didn't have the technology back then to make myself 7ft tall and partially translucent."
They wouldn't be, say, announcing one feature plan at a time for the next 30 day to steal some of Apple's thunder while rolling out OS X Tiger would they?
Well duh... it's business after all.
Who in their right mind would consciously let a competitor get the spotlight if you couldn't step in? It's nothing to get all pissy about, it's just how competition works.
That was implied.
You could avoid this by pulling from THE root DNS servers, but if everyone did that it would put undue strain on the root servers
That's not how DNS works.
The root servers simply point you into the direction of the authorative DNS server for a given domain name. That is why you have to register who is going to be the DNS server for any given domain so the root servers can point people to it. Your own DNS then caches the response from the DNS server (not the root) locally, only updating it after the TTL is expired (which isn't always happening with the provider's DNS, hence the problem).
The root servers are reliable... they have to be. Sure there have been DoS attacks and the like on them before, but they only need to update themselves for new domain name server registrations (which last I heard is every 5 minutes? So that's a much better "ttl").
Now we'll never see DreamWeaver on Linux.
;)
<flame>
It's called "vi".
</flame>
...don't buy off-brands. I've only had bad luck with any no name CD/DVD drive that I've ever had.
Right now I have a creative 6x DVD drive in my computer that's about 5 or more years old, and my normal DVD player for my TV is 4-5 (can't really remember, but more than 4 years for sure).
The ones that have died? One was by "JustLink", and the other one didn't have any markings at all as to the brand. Right now I have another burner made by Sony and it's going strong.
Buy cheap brands, get cheap products.
You have no social contract to listen to anybody's ranting. I never remembered signing my name by an X to anything of the like.
Some people get this problem confused with freedom of speech. Though it IS true you can say anything you want (sorta), it does NOT mean I have to listen to you. -- I have the freedom to filter anything that goes into our out of my sensory perception. --