It's a switch-mode (Buck) regulator. You can tell from the efficiency curve and the fact that it requires an inductor. It is more efficient than a linear regulator and less efficient than a good external Buck regulator. However, being on-chip it will regulate the voltage better because there won't be significant I*R drop between the regulator output and the load. And as they mention, the cooling fan will be right on top of it, so it is more effectively cooled than an external regulator typically is.
There's also this: If the protection can be cracked by the manufacturer, it can be cracked by criminals using the same methods.
Everything they might do has an upside and a downside. If it's convenient, it can't be secure. If it's inconvenient and highly secure, you stand a chance of permanently losing your data and the government can't get it no matter how good their reasons are.
If the manufacturer holds back-door passwords, you have zero protection from a police state. If they don't but rely on brute force to crack it, criminals can do the same.
I would propose that the best method is to use multi-layer encryption. The manufacturer would hold keys to only one layer. Without decrypting that layer, you'd take say, 100 years to crack it. With that layer out of the way, it only takes a couple weeks on dedicated hardware.
That seems likely, and cracking the encryption in 7 weeks with the massive resources Apple has would mean the encryption is secure enough for most users' data. On the other hand, maybe they crack it in five minutes but they only assign one guy to do it part time because they know if the eliminated the backlog they would be flooded with too many decrypt requests.
He's president of an ad optimization company. They deal in programming. Of course he thinks he needs people who understand programming. If he were selling cars he would think differently.
The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
How do you know that our brains are not highly deterministic too? At the moment computers and robots have very limited inputs so we can easily tell that they are deterministic because it is easy to give them identical inputs and identical programming and observe the identical response.
You've never done any software testing, have you? No, it is NOT easy to determine by measurement that computing results even for a single moderately complex program are deterministic and do not contain random interactions (i.e. dependencies on something other than the intended inputs and program state).
We know digital computers are deterministic by design. Every effort is made to keep them that way. A computer that has any random element not put there by the intention of engineers is defective and is either repaired or scrapped.
The system being completely deterministic doesn't prevent it from exceeding the problem solving and every other capability of that dog, unless you value a truly random element in where exactly said dog pees on your carpet.
I agree with that. I was thinking in terms of models of intelligent behavior as opposed to "understanding how the brain works" at a low level. Both kinds of knowledge are useful Understanding how to build intelligent systems, for instance, might not help us understand abnormal psychology and impairments, whereas brain modeling would. But then it might require actually modeling neurons on a detailed level, which is a couple layers more complex than neural network systems are now at the cellular level, and would need to encompass a whole brain with simulated sensory inputs.
The way I heard it, cars would cost a nickel, travel around the world on a teaspoon of gas, have a top speed of 30 trillion miles per second (never mind the speed of light) and spontaneously lock up their controls while driving at highway speeds.
Based on Moore's law type expansion of capabilities over a century.
That presumes that the approach you take is going to be using the same kind of models you have now and just running them on bigger, faster hardware. If our models lead us to *understanding* of how brains work, we could get there a good deal faster and find that present day computers are plenty complex to handle cognition on a human-equivalent level.
Take Google self-driving cars for example. Driving a car is definitely an AI task, and it can be handled by present day computers. It's a subset of the tasks humans can learn. Google didn't do it by modeling the part of your brain that drives a car. Hell, we don't even know what subset of our brain is sufficient to drive a car. They did it by understanding how to drive a car.
What I'm proposing is that human-level AI won't be created first by modeling a whole brain. It will more likely be created by scientists by studying the brain come to understand what the big-picture behavior of brain subsystems and modeling those subsystems at a behavioral level rather than at a neural-network level.
In more metropolitan areas, you can get same day shipping from Amazon already. Order it at work at noon and it's sitting on your doorstep at home when you get there. It's pretty crazy!
For example, although about 50% of French and English words derive from a common ancestor (like "mere" and "mother," for example), with English and German the rate is closer to 70%—indicating that while all three languages are related, English and German have a more recent common ancestor.
This ignores historical reality. In England, a Germanic language was spoken before French-speaking people invaded, bringing their Latin-derived and other words with them. The Germanic "ancestry" came first, and a minority of French words were injected more recently.
Words of language do not spread like genes in a population.
They were obligated to under state laws already. It's just that the states had no way to enforce their laws on businesses with no physical presence in their borders. (There was nobody to arrest for tax evasion and no property to seize within their jurisdictions.) However, you will see an immediate legal challenge if this law passes. Not sure on what basis, but there's too much money at stake businesses to not try to kill it with a lawsuit.
Let's be clear - legally it's a National Sales Tax - "Internet" is just the wrapping paper it's in. Only a fool would expect it to not be expanded in the future, should it become Law (and survive the Constitutional challenge filed the next day).
If a State does not want to enforce its own sales tax laws, that's not the burden of people in other States, nor do the Feds have the authority to impose it. Well, assuming the US Constitution still has any validity.
The slippery slope argument doesn't really apply when ENTIRELY NEW LEGISLATION would be required for each and every step. The slope just isn't slippery.
How hard would be for those large companies to just offshore the sales to avoid paying this tax? I mean they are already doing it to dodge other taxes anyway. Wouldn't this just affect smaller shops that do not have an army of lawyers and "tax optimization" specialists.
Fortunately this is US only (for now) but it's a very bad example for other goverments. I can already see other country politicians smiling and thinking: "Hey - we can do that too, right?"
They'll be just asking for imposition of tariffs if they do that.
If local retailers go out of business, you will regret it because sometimes you need that new gooseneck or pair of shoes right now. Two day delivery doesn't cut it when you have an immediate need. It's fine for stuff that you DON'T need. It also doesn't work at all well for the kinds of thing where you need hands and eyes on the product to decide whether it's the thing you want.
The kinds of sales where online works well are when you either know exactly what you want (down to the model number) or don't particularly care because a wide variety of items fit the bill.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a switch-mode (Buck) regulator. You can tell from the efficiency curve and the fact that it requires an inductor. It is more efficient than a linear regulator and less efficient than a good external Buck regulator. However, being on-chip it will regulate the voltage better because there won't be significant I*R drop between the regulator output and the load. And as they mention, the cooling fan will be right on top of it, so it is more effectively cooled than an external regulator typically is.
There's also this: If the protection can be cracked by the manufacturer, it can be cracked by criminals using the same methods.
Everything they might do has an upside and a downside. If it's convenient, it can't be secure. If it's inconvenient and highly secure, you stand a chance of permanently losing your data and the government can't get it no matter how good their reasons are.
If the manufacturer holds back-door passwords, you have zero protection from a police state. If they don't but rely on brute force to crack it, criminals can do the same.
I would propose that the best method is to use multi-layer encryption. The manufacturer would hold keys to only one layer. Without decrypting that layer, you'd take say, 100 years to crack it. With that layer out of the way, it only takes a couple weeks on dedicated hardware.
That seems likely, and cracking the encryption in 7 weeks with the massive resources Apple has would mean the encryption is secure enough for most users' data. On the other hand, maybe they crack it in five minutes but they only assign one guy to do it part time because they know if the eliminated the backlog they would be flooded with too many decrypt requests.
He's president of an ad optimization company. They deal in programming. Of course he thinks he needs people who understand programming. If he were selling cars he would think differently.
Did you receive documentation that said otherwise?
You understand that in this case the police HAD a warrant. What's your complaint?
That's a simple computational problem.
What evidence do you have that our brains are not deterministic systems...
The fact that they're made of unreliable components that fire at random when given no stimulus.
You have not given sufficient thought to the prospect of introducing malware into intelligent automatons.
The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
How do you know that our brains are not highly deterministic too? At the moment computers and robots have very limited inputs so we can easily tell that they are deterministic because it is easy to give them identical inputs and identical programming and observe the identical response.
You've never done any software testing, have you? No, it is NOT easy to determine by measurement that computing results even for a single moderately complex program are deterministic and do not contain random interactions (i.e. dependencies on something other than the intended inputs and program state).
We know digital computers are deterministic by design. Every effort is made to keep them that way. A computer that has any random element not put there by the intention of engineers is defective and is either repaired or scrapped.
If true randomness is your goal, it's only an amplifier and an ADC away.
The system being completely deterministic doesn't prevent it from exceeding the problem solving and every other capability of that dog, unless you value a truly random element in where exactly said dog pees on your carpet.
Unions are not tax-exempt.
The tea party also supports candidates which is a taxable activity. If you do that, your group is not tax exempt.
If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.
Not to mention that
political parties cannot be tax exempt organizations
. So using "party" in your group's name or any of its application documents in any sense that suggests politics ought to evoke particular scrutiny.
I agree with that. I was thinking in terms of models of intelligent behavior as opposed to "understanding how the brain works" at a low level. Both kinds of knowledge are useful Understanding how to build intelligent systems, for instance, might not help us understand abnormal psychology and impairments, whereas brain modeling would. But then it might require actually modeling neurons on a detailed level, which is a couple layers more complex than neural network systems are now at the cellular level, and would need to encompass a whole brain with simulated sensory inputs.
The way I heard it, cars would cost a nickel, travel around the world on a teaspoon of gas, have a top speed of 30 trillion miles per second (never mind the speed of light) and spontaneously lock up their controls while driving at highway speeds.
Based on Moore's law type expansion of capabilities over a century.
That presumes that the approach you take is going to be using the same kind of models you have now and just running them on bigger, faster hardware. If our models lead us to *understanding* of how brains work, we could get there a good deal faster and find that present day computers are plenty complex to handle cognition on a human-equivalent level.
Take Google self-driving cars for example. Driving a car is definitely an AI task, and it can be handled by present day computers. It's a subset of the tasks humans can learn. Google didn't do it by modeling the part of your brain that drives a car. Hell, we don't even know what subset of our brain is sufficient to drive a car. They did it by understanding how to drive a car.
What I'm proposing is that human-level AI won't be created first by modeling a whole brain. It will more likely be created by scientists by studying the brain come to understand what the big-picture behavior of brain subsystems and modeling those subsystems at a behavioral level rather than at a neural-network level.
In more metropolitan areas, you can get same day shipping from Amazon already. Order it at work at noon and it's sitting on your doorstep at home when you get there. It's pretty crazy!
Never seen that. How much does it cost?
For example, although about 50% of French and English words derive from a common ancestor (like "mere" and "mother," for example), with English and German the rate is closer to 70%—indicating that while all three languages are related, English and German have a more recent common ancestor.
This ignores historical reality. In England, a Germanic language was spoken before French-speaking people invaded, bringing their Latin-derived and other words with them. The Germanic "ancestry" came first, and a minority of French words were injected more recently.
Words of language do not spread like genes in a population.
They were obligated to under state laws already. It's just that the states had no way to enforce their laws on businesses with no physical presence in their borders. (There was nobody to arrest for tax evasion and no property to seize within their jurisdictions.) However, you will see an immediate legal challenge if this law passes. Not sure on what basis, but there's too much money at stake businesses to not try to kill it with a lawsuit.
Let's be clear - legally it's a National Sales Tax - "Internet" is just the wrapping paper it's in. Only a fool would expect it to not be expanded in the future, should it become Law (and survive the Constitutional challenge filed the next day).
If a State does not want to enforce its own sales tax laws, that's not the burden of people in other States, nor do the Feds have the authority to impose it. Well, assuming the US Constitution still has any validity.
The slippery slope argument doesn't really apply when ENTIRELY NEW LEGISLATION would be required for each and every step. The slope just isn't slippery.
How hard would be for those large companies to just offshore the sales to avoid paying this tax? I mean they are already doing it to dodge other taxes anyway. Wouldn't this just affect smaller shops that do not have an army of lawyers and "tax optimization" specialists. Fortunately this is US only (for now) but it's a very bad example for other goverments. I can already see other country politicians smiling and thinking: "Hey - we can do that too, right?"
They'll be just asking for imposition of tariffs if they do that.
If local retailers go out of business, you will regret it because sometimes you need that new gooseneck or pair of shoes right now. Two day delivery doesn't cut it when you have an immediate need. It's fine for stuff that you DON'T need. It also doesn't work at all well for the kinds of thing where you need hands and eyes on the product to decide whether it's the thing you want.
The kinds of sales where online works well are when you either know exactly what you want (down to the model number) or don't particularly care because a wide variety of items fit the bill.
Misanthrope any?