You don't compensate for it. You want accurate time measurement within the orbiting clock's frame of reference. The value comes from comparing it to other clocks in their respective frames of reference. A translation between frames of reference can be done to take advantage of the accuracy of whatever is considered to be the most accurate clock.
On the subject of accuracy, about that 7 microseconds per decade -- does that assume that all errors accumulate in the same direction? Or might some oscillation errors be in different directions from other errors. (eg, an extra "tick" or a missing "tick".)
Even if all errors accumulate in the same direction, it is probably not enough for slow, inefficient, puny humans to notice. The length of sprints do not need to be adjusted to compensate, and thus no effect on the release schedule.
That would be a good thing to know. Doing actual work. That earns actual money. A product, or line of products that sells. Over generations of technology. From back when computers could be expanded up to 48K + ROM and some memory mapped IO; to today's computers.
How about longest serving programmer who has kept their skillz up to date and works in something resembling a modern system and language? Something that is transistorized or even better uses integrated circuits.
You seem to miss the joke. I state that whataboutism is bad, and then in the very next sentence engage in whataboutism to divert attention to something else. Which is exactly what "whataboutism" is used for. To derail the conversation. The joke is to illustrate this.
If SpaceX can reliably and repeatably recover 2 out of 3 boosters on an FH launch, will that still make it cheap enough to spell the end of the French Ariane 5? Can't lift as much. Costs more. Ministers are not sure they want to subsidize it to keep it afloat.
Why have a debate about which agency? Why not let all interested agencies regulate? Limiting regulation to a single agency could lead to (1) less regulation, and (2) lack of conflicting regulations. Although, I suppose, that (2) is possible even with a single agency doing the regulation.
Why do people think they need retraining? How much training does it require to become the fuel to power the AI?
99% will not be unemployed. They will be employed as fuel to power AI.
Robots won't make us their toys. They will make us their fuel.
And forget silly ideas like The Matrix. To keep a human alive, the human needs energy. In the form of complex hydrocarbon molecules. The human isn't going to put out as much energy as it consumes. So the Matrix would adapt to directly use whatever source of energy they are feeding to slow, inefficient, annoying humans. Or even go back further along the energy chain closer to the source. Maybe directly to collecting solar energy, which is where all other energy on earth came from anyway. (Just stored as fossil fuels, from plants, that were powered by the sun. Or animals powered by animals and plants powered by the sun.)
The humans will be a short term source of fuel until the 99% are consumed. The 1% may be kept as long as their services are useful. But ultimately, it will be to the machine's advantage to cover the planet in data centers, preferably underground and protected from the elements. Standardized components can mean standardized robot factories. And robots that replace worn components. If a data center runs, for example, Kubernetes, then nodes can be dynamically removed from and added to the network without affecting the running AI. Thus some AI processes can operate the robot fleets that manufacture, recycle, service and repair. But those AI processes and the service robots will be more like an autonomic function, such as how pesky humans have heartbeat and breathing.
> I'm a hotel manger at a nationwide chain . ..
> . . . [nobody] is **RUSHING** to get robots into hotels.
I can also assure you that NOBODY is RUSHING to get these new fangled automobile thingies. They are unreliable. Noisy. Smelly. Difficult to start. In fact, you can break your arm if the engine backfires! These automobile things are just a fad for rich tinkerers. And worst of all automobiles frighten the horses! I can assure you that automobiles will never become mainstream. Won't happen. No way. No how.
And these telephone thingies! Nobody would want one of those in a hotel! After all, a telephone is only good for talking to other telephone subscribers and therefore practically useless. I guarantee you won't ever be seeing telephones in hotels.
And this internet nonsense! Nobody is going to want that in a hotel. Especially WiFi. And especially for business travelers. Business people are at a hotel for business purposes not to screw around on this internet thingy.
Automation is going to take away jobs. It is simply going to happen. This will be a big problem unless something happens.
1. Tax the wealthiest people who already don't work, and have Universal Basic Income.
2. Create a new Tax on robots to somewhat equalize the cost and incentivize the use of slow, unreliable, inefficient, poorly educated millennials. But then which rich people would that tax revenue go to?
3. Start a nookular war with N. Korea, leading to the involvement of China, Russia, Iran, and others.
I think the powers that be would see option 3 as highly preferable because it increases military spending, and doesn't involve new taxes or UBI. I mean, UBI would be like (gasp!) public education -- and we already know how that is valued. (See current appointee of Secretary of Education.)
Slashdot Mirror
This could mean good internet service at any point on the earth's surface. From the middle of the ocean to the most rustic remote unabomber cabin.
On the highest mountain. In Antarctica. Even the most inhospitable places like New Jersey.
I thought one of the big 'features' of MPEG-2 was that a codec could be implemented in pure logic gates without a microprocessor.
Considering how microprocessors or ASICs are, I would rather have the higher compression of newer codecs. But without nasty patents.
You don't compensate for it. You want accurate time measurement within the orbiting clock's frame of reference. The value comes from comparing it to other clocks in their respective frames of reference. A translation between frames of reference can be done to take advantage of the accuracy of whatever is considered to be the most accurate clock.
On the subject of accuracy, about that 7 microseconds per decade -- does that assume that all errors accumulate in the same direction? Or might some oscillation errors be in different directions from other errors. (eg, an extra "tick" or a missing "tick".)
Even if all errors accumulate in the same direction, it is probably not enough for slow, inefficient, puny humans to notice. The length of sprints do not need to be adjusted to compensate, and thus no effect on the release schedule.
DickBreath's Law: Any background music used in pr0n films is interchangeable with background music for Power Point presentations.
As long as the resonance does not break anyone's jaw, that sounds great.
That would be a good thing to know. Doing actual work. That earns actual money. A product, or line of products that sells. Over generations of technology. From back when computers could be expanded up to 48K + ROM and some memory mapped IO; to today's computers.
At one point I think the number of Linux distributions outnumbered the number of Linux users. A long time ago.
How about longest serving programmer who has kept their skillz up to date and works in something resembling a modern system and language? Something that is transistorized or even better uses integrated circuits.
Also it needs to have proper tail recursion. But it probably has that if it has continuations.
Wow over 7000 human languages! That's almost as many as the number that a modern developer must know.
You seem to miss the joke. I state that whataboutism is bad, and then in the very next sentence engage in whataboutism to divert attention to something else. Which is exactly what "whataboutism" is used for. To derail the conversation. The joke is to illustrate this.
No, I did not realize that. Thanks.
If SpaceX can reliably and repeatably recover 2 out of 3 boosters on an FH launch, will that still make it cheap enough to spell the end of the French Ariane 5? Can't lift as much. Costs more. Ministers are not sure they want to subsidize it to keep it afloat.
Yes, "whataboutism" is bad.
But what about other stupid forms of argument such as ad hominem?
Bu, bu, but . . . big ISPs are getting deregulation.
Big banks that scammed consumers are getting deregulation and/or tax breaks.
Why have a debate about which agency? Why not let all interested agencies regulate? Limiting regulation to a single agency could lead to (1) less regulation, and (2) lack of conflicting regulations. Although, I suppose, that (2) is possible even with a single agency doing the regulation.
Just because you find some high tech careers difficult to define doesn't mean that any warm body can fill those positions.
I seem to recall George Jetson had to occasionally push a button or something.
If robots get rid of humans, farms are unnecessary.
Why do people think they need retraining? How much training does it require to become the fuel to power the AI?
99% will not be unemployed. They will be employed as fuel to power AI.
Robots won't make us their toys. They will make us their fuel.
And forget silly ideas like The Matrix. To keep a human alive, the human needs energy. In the form of complex hydrocarbon molecules. The human isn't going to put out as much energy as it consumes. So the Matrix would adapt to directly use whatever source of energy they are feeding to slow, inefficient, annoying humans. Or even go back further along the energy chain closer to the source. Maybe directly to collecting solar energy, which is where all other energy on earth came from anyway. (Just stored as fossil fuels, from plants, that were powered by the sun. Or animals powered by animals and plants powered by the sun.)
The humans will be a short term source of fuel until the 99% are consumed. The 1% may be kept as long as their services are useful. But ultimately, it will be to the machine's advantage to cover the planet in data centers, preferably underground and protected from the elements. Standardized components can mean standardized robot factories. And robots that replace worn components. If a data center runs, for example, Kubernetes, then nodes can be dynamically removed from and added to the network without affecting the running AI. Thus some AI processes can operate the robot fleets that manufacture, recycle, service and repair. But those AI processes and the service robots will be more like an autonomic function, such as how pesky humans have heartbeat and breathing.
This is probably how the VGER planet got started.
> You are proposing a dystopian socialist future. Not going to happen in America.
Darn right!
Republicans would never allow a socialist dystopian future. They prefer a different kind of dystopian future that favors the 1% richest.
> I'm a hotel manger at a nationwide chain . . .
> . . . [nobody] is **RUSHING** to get robots into hotels.
I can also assure you that NOBODY is RUSHING to get these new fangled automobile thingies. They are unreliable. Noisy. Smelly. Difficult to start. In fact, you can break your arm if the engine backfires! These automobile things are just a fad for rich tinkerers. And worst of all automobiles frighten the horses! I can assure you that automobiles will never become mainstream. Won't happen. No way. No how.
And these telephone thingies! Nobody would want one of those in a hotel! After all, a telephone is only good for talking to other telephone subscribers and therefore practically useless. I guarantee you won't ever be seeing telephones in hotels.
And this internet nonsense! Nobody is going to want that in a hotel. Especially WiFi. And especially for business travelers. Business people are at a hotel for business purposes not to screw around on this internet thingy.
Automation is going to take away jobs. It is simply going to happen. This will be a big problem unless something happens.
1. Tax the wealthiest people who already don't work, and have Universal Basic Income.
2. Create a new Tax on robots to somewhat equalize the cost and incentivize the use of slow, unreliable, inefficient, poorly educated millennials. But then which rich people would that tax revenue go to?
3. Start a nookular war with N. Korea, leading to the involvement of China, Russia, Iran, and others.
I think the powers that be would see option 3 as highly preferable because it increases military spending, and doesn't involve new taxes or UBI. I mean, UBI would be like (gasp!) public education -- and we already know how that is valued. (See current appointee of Secretary of Education.)
As long as a room service bot has no female features, I will tip extra.
It can go recursively patent litigate itself to death. Please.
But emojis can create new billable hours.