Yeah, I'm with you, this is clearly a fake. My point was only addressing whether or not we should throw away peer review in an alternate universe where this turned out to be true.
Even if this is real, there's no way he'll make it to a trillion dollars in less than 20 years. Nothing scales up that fast. The very biggest energy companies in the world are only making $50 or so billion per year, gross (and the net is less). To put them out of business he'd have to beat their prices by at least 10x, allowing him to make no more than around 20 billion or so, gross.
No, not really. The other AC is right. Even if it did miss this breakthrough, it's still the right process. If this guy is literally the only guy who can build these things, the breakthrough isn't going to do us much good, because he won't ever be able to assemble power plants fast enough by himself to make a dent in our energy needs.
It's not at all meaningless. Cutting $100 of waste is $100 of waste. Cut it regardless of whether or not you want that money to go into some other program. At worst, reduce the deficit.
No, they have an obligation to do whatever they must, at the cheapest price they can. Would you rather have the government do X for $100 or $200? Now X vs Y... that's a matter for the people/congress to decide. This is why government procurement programs are supposed to take bids. So that they can deliver the same service at the lowest price.
Well, they are spending the taxpayer dollar. Technically they have an obligation to do it as cheaply as possible. Netflix can just raise its rates, or split its service and demand more money for each, etc.
Ah, I interpreted it this way: hypercorrect: correct to a degree that makes you an ass as opposed to hypercorrect: correct to a degree that makes you wrong
I would have expected to use 'overcorrect' for the second. Like when you overcorrect a turn, you wind up going the wrong direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm with you, this is clearly a fake. My point was only addressing whether or not we should throw away peer review in an alternate universe where this turned out to be true.
Nvidia project denver:
http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/customrel.do?easyirid=A0D622CE9F579F09&version=live&releasejsp=release_157&xhtml=true&prid=705184
Mobile devices will soon need to pass the 4gb/process barrier, so yes, it's needed.
You can build a closed-loop geothermal system to eliminate that problem. A little more expensive, but not enough to matter to this kind of scam.
Even if this is real, there's no way he'll make it to a trillion dollars in less than 20 years. Nothing scales up that fast. The very biggest energy companies in the world are only making $50 or so billion per year, gross (and the net is less). To put them out of business he'd have to beat their prices by at least 10x, allowing him to make no more than around 20 billion or so, gross.
No, they'd clearly be stuff that dematters.
No, not really. The other AC is right. Even if it did miss this breakthrough, it's still the right process. If this guy is literally the only guy who can build these things, the breakthrough isn't going to do us much good, because he won't ever be able to assemble power plants fast enough by himself to make a dent in our energy needs.
Have you tried this:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/
Or for about a thousandth of the price, goggles for the pilots.
That's exactly why I prefaced my statement with 'technically'. :-)
It's not at all meaningless. Cutting $100 of waste is $100 of waste. Cut it regardless of whether or not you want that money to go into some other program. At worst, reduce the deficit.
No, they have an obligation to do whatever they must, at the cheapest price they can. Would you rather have the government do X for $100 or $200? Now X vs Y ... that's a matter for the people/congress to decide. This is why government procurement programs are supposed to take bids. So that they can deliver the same service at the lowest price.
Well, they are spending the taxpayer dollar. Technically they have an obligation to do it as cheaply as possible. Netflix can just raise its rates, or split its service and demand more money for each, etc.
Any adversary whose incineration chimney doesn't have a tight particle filter isn't much of an adversary.
That is the best reply I've had in days.
Yes, but the use of Hallowe'en appears to be an effort to be pretentious and that is worth calling out.
On the plus side, if you survive to arrive at a party, you're a shoe-in for scariest costume.
Well, I wouldn't consider ants 'meaty'. Plus, hunting 200 pounds of ants is way harder than hunting 200 pounds of humans.
Ah, I did assume the poster was in the USA, and slashdot is USA-centric.
Ah, I interpreted it this way:
hypercorrect: correct to a degree that makes you an ass
as opposed to
hypercorrect: correct to a degree that makes you wrong
I would have expected to use 'overcorrect' for the second. Like when you overcorrect a turn, you wind up going the wrong direction.
But that article itself distinguishes that from Halloween.
Share share: what country?
It's a common product name though.
http://www.google.com/search?q=espresso+beans
He's incapable of preventing it. That's why he has to hang himself to end it.
The worst part is it's not even correct, much less hypercorrect.