You're missing the main point about wind power, the fundamental law of physics that controls everything with wind power. The power of wind is the speed CUBED. Not squared, but CUBED.
If a 10 mph wind has 1,000 units of energy, a 20 mph wind has 8,000, and 40 mph has 64,000. That's right, 10 mph wind has less than 1.5% as much power as 40 mph. At 10 mph, it might, maybe have just enough power to overcome bearing friction, but there's no power left to harvest as electricity. You -might- see it turning, but it's freewheeling, there's no power generation occurring.
Use lighter components that spin more easily, you say? If 10 mph is 1,000 units, the cube power law means 60 mph imparts 216,000 units of force to that lightweight structure, destroying it.
The cube power law is a law of physics, it can't be repealed by your favorite politician, and it mercilessly ensures that wind power comes only when nature chooses, in the amount that nature chooses.
> the vast bulk of the cost of your choice to drive (as opposed to say - taking the train) is not paid by you but by other people (and that's without considering climate change costs). A lot gets amortized over everybody else who drives (they all take longer to get there - time has value)... > If you had to personally bare the full cost of driving, far fewer people would choose to drive
Suppose you're right that the cost of your choice to drive is spread amongst all drivers. We'll call the cost of one person driving X. Suppose one million people drive, so X is spread over one million people. Each driver pays X/million in lost time, cost of insurance, cost to build and maintain roads, etc. HOWEVER, according to your theory, because you drive, you also pay x/million for each of the million other drivers. There are a million other drivers, so in total you pay a million times x/million, which is of course X : precisely the cost of your driving.
In other words, if THEY share the cost of your driving, YOU also share the cost of their driving. For "cost per driver" X and "number of drivers" Y: X / Y * X = X Each driver pays the cost of one driver.
First I want to be clear - wind is a great supplemental power source in some areas. Having said that...
> they are spread around national grids so the wind is always blowing on some somewhere.
It would be nice if any of those three things were true. In fact, weather systems are generally larger than most countries. Here's the current weather map for a very large country, the United States: http://sirocco.accuweather.com...
You'll notice there's very little weather in the US today. Next week, a storm system may cover most of the population of the US.
Regarding "national electric grid" - you may recall a few years ago a blackout left the northeast without power for several days, while the nine other power regional grids including had plenty of power. The California grid had a chronic power shortage for decades, while the neighboring grid for Texas was fine. There are 10 regional power grids in the US. There's no such thing as "the national grid", and can't without save a complete redesign of the technology and replacing billions in infrastructure.
Lastly, wind farms are NOT spread evenly around the country. They are located in specific areas where it makes sense to have them. You need steady, predictable wind (the cube power law means high winds destroy them), near population centers, but with cheap real estate. The last two requirements are of course contradictory, so a limited number of locations fit all of the criteria.
In those places where it DOES make sense, wind power allows producers to reduce fuel usage on the natural gas generators whenever the wind happens to be right, and that's a good thing.
> The next thing you need to know is that renewable, whilst mostly very flexible
"Flexible" is an interesting word choice. Consider wind, for example. A 20 mph wind has 8 times as much power as a 10 mph wind, at 30 mph it's 27 times as much power. You can't control how much wind there is. Similarly, we might not realize it since our eyes measure brightness on logarithmic scale, but a cloudy day has 95% less solar energy than a sunny day. Most people would probably call this "unpredictable" or "unreliable" rather than "flexible".
On the other hand, the operators of a typical small natural gas plant with 4 generators can choose to run anywhere from full throttle on all four to just one at half throttle.
I'm going to simplify this a bit, but consider you download two things songlist.zip. You extract songlist.zip, which is a data. You don't execute anything in that download. You just extract it to your downloads folder and use notepad to open the resulting songlist.txt. You don't notice that it also included a file called netssl.ddl, which sits in your downloads folder.
Later, you download mcafee_setup.exe. You run macafee_setup.exe, which needs to run as admin. mcafee_setup.exe makes use of netssl.dll. It could use the hacked version which was part of songlist,zip, running code with full admin privileges that you never intended to run at all.
You would "hard code" using system variables like this:
%CSIDL_PROGRAM_FILESX86%\Avast\Sanner\foo.dll That would end up being "the right place" no matter which drive letter has your Program Files directory. It wouldn't load hacker\foo.dll from any location.
It should be noted that while SLC flash is good for around 100,000 writes or so, TLC flash is only good for around 1,000. MLC is in in-between, about 30,000 writes. So the type of flash used in the drive very much matters.
I read your link and now I know exactly what you did.
> gallery_root="../galleries/What I Did/"
You're the guy who put spaces in file names in *nix, in order to make sure that all commands using "for each", *, or find -exec would get messed up. Thanks for that.
Kidding, of course. Actually your post was interesting.
If you work on that type of project, I'd be very interested in knowing about the work environment you've encountered. After 20 years programming, while constantly learning and improving my skills, I've grown wearisome of poor quality, of "duct tape and bailing wire" projects, and of people who just don't know what they're doing.
I think I might much more enjoy working in an environment in which things are done RIGHT, where there is no duct tape and bailing wire. On the other hand, a very much like getting things DONE (and done right), and can get frustrated when there is far more "process" mandated than is necessary to ensure that it's done right.
Do you have any experiences, advice, or thoughts to share with an experienced programmer considering going into life-safety applications like aviation or medical?
> on one side of he scale and bits and pieces that require just gluing
Some gluing together projects are useful. People did some good stuff with HyperCard and shell scripts. Shell scripts are a great way to glue pieces together.
What has changed is that now almost all software is on the internet, where they are attacked 1,000 times per day by script kiddies with tools that automatically looking for gluey buts. So shell scripts are now called "remote code execution vulnerabilities ". This is a real problem.
In many fields, including electronics, hardware, pyro, etc there are two classifications of materials and technicians: standard and "life safety". Standard equipment is labeled "not for life safety applications ". Sometimes I think software (and programmers) need a similar distinction: "can hack together some code" vs "internet exposed ".
Yes, just like you can make a cartoon with colored pencils. That's called drawing. That's a left- brain, artistic activity. At my last job we had two people who did that.
Those two people would then send the Flash file over to me, the right-brain guy who did the math-like process of programming (coding) those cartoons to do something useful. I couldn't do their job and they couldn't do mine because the two require fundamentally different ways of thinking. Not just different skills, but almost opposite skills.
As I did the coding, I would code to function interface appropriate to the frameworks each of those Flash objects were embedded in. I would code in the ActionScript language to pass data back amd forth with the larger framework project.
Designing those overall frameworks to hold any needed module and control the interactions between modules required some computer science understanding. The computer science part was language- neutral. A module could be written in any language. The computer science part was mostly about designing systems that are flexible, robust, expandable etc, totally unrelated to any specific language, whereas coding is all about expressing an idea in a particular language.
You bring up two important points. First, you said "we" want power efficiency. The article says Intel is going to provide efficient CPUs. It does not say that everyone will always prioritize efficiency over speed for all tasks. "We" (many people) will continue to want many tasks to run quickly. In many cases, speed will be more important than efficiency, and that's what this sub-thread is about. We're talking about what to do when you want speed.
Secondly, it just so happens that in the vast majority of cases, over 90% of CPU time is spent in a very small section of code called the "inner loop", which is the little chunk that runs many times.
Suppose you're adjusting a video in some way, maybe resizing it or changing the brightness. The video is a bunch of frames, each frame is a bunch of pixels, and each pixel is three color values, red green blue. There are 256 possible values for each of R, G, and B. The code looks like this:
for each of 200,000 frames
for each of 800,000 pixels
pixel.red=CalculatePixel(pixel.red) pixel.green=CalculatePixel(pixel.green) Pixel.blue=CalculatePixel(pixel.blue)
CalculatePixel() gets called 320,000,000,000 times. (320 billion times). Each time, it's passed a value from 0-255 and returns a value from 0-255. Which means that the value for CalculatePixel(0) gets recalculated about a million times. Compare this code:
For x in 0-255
Answer[x] = CalculatePixel(x)
for each of 200,000 frames
for each of 800,000 pixels
pixel.red = Answer[pixel.red]
pixel.green = Answer[pixel.green]
pixel.blue = Answer[pixel.blue]
If you're in the habit of speeding it up by calculating all possible values for your inner loop, you code to take advantage of that fact. Here we can see that it's much more efficient to do the calculation 256 times rather than 320 billion times. This concept is generally true for most programs- the bulk of the CPU time is spent doing whatever the program does repeatedly. I routinely make other people's software faster amd more efficient using this type of approach.
A recent case was a security scanner, which did this: For each IP 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.255
For each port
For each vulnerability
CheckPortForVulnerablity()
You can see that CheckPortForVulnerablity() was called over a billion times.
If you have 1024 cores, you can easily run CalculatePayment() in parallel with the line before it. You run it for both the true and false case simultaneously with IsMoreThan80. Then when the three threads complete, HasPMI tells you which of the two results to use.
That can also be EVERY IF STATEMENT, every switch-case, etc. On any branch, go ahead and precompute the value for the branch while deciding which branch you'll take. As things move in this direction, functional programming and similar disciplines start to become more valueable, so they will be used more.
A lot of things that wouldn't make sense to run parallel on two cores or four cores suddenly make sense of you have hundreds or thousands of cores laying around. With 4096 otherwise idle cores, it can make sense to calculate 1,000 possible scenarios in parallel and then ignore the 999 options you didn't need. Our way of thinking about problems will change, as will the tools we use to take advantage of the strengths of new systems.
Rubio didn't say that. Here's what he said is a fundamental lesson to be learned:
-- Quote- - Syria, Yemen, and Libya are all examples of our failure to learn one of the fundamental lessons of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- that failed and failing states breed instability and are potential safe havens for terrorists who will eventually turn their attention toward us. --
Also, now that the mass surveillance of metadata is no longer legal and has theoretically stopped , Rubio also supports keeping the currently-legal intelligence programs. I disagree with him, but I'm not a liar so I'll be honest about where we disagree. The summary posted to Slashdot is a lie misquoting some spin.
Here's a clue. Clinton gets to the twice as much Wall Street money. Wall Street firms have always been the Clinton's largest contributors. Now you have a clue.
Bonus: Wall Street hasn't bought Cruz. The largest sector backing Cruz is real estate.
I sometimes think "with that name, this is going nowhere - the imagery, the branding, is just all wrong." Then, three really bad things were in the news: Iraq Hussein Osama We elected: Barak Hussein Obama
One could imagine that US voters are too sophisticated and informed to be put off by an unfortunate name. In fact, many (most?) Obama voters didn't know which party he was running as, nor did they know the VP candidate's name. So it's not attributable to be voters being sophisticated and well-informed.
Same here, when I see rkt, that reads "rootkit" to me. However, I work in information security and have for many years, so everything makes me thing of something security-related.
> Being in the global one percent doesn't cut it when you're in a country where not many fall within the global poor 99%.
Yeah beng rich isn't enough when you're neighbors are rich too - anything other than being the richest of the rich just won't cut it. You can see that too in Orange County - when all the neighbors have BMWs, the brats whine that they don't have a Maserati. In Texas, we call that "spoiled" .
In California and New York you'll find a lot of people who are really, really blind because although they are rich live in a country where most people are rich (richer than 95% globally) they are unhappy SO THEY DEMAND THAT THE RICH COUNTRY STOP DOING RICH THINGS AND BECOME MORE LIKE THE BROKE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE POORER. In Texas, we call that "dumb as a box of rocks".
If your whole country is rich, maybe it would make sense to find out why, and do MORE of the stuff that made you rich. If America makes people rich (and as you said, it does), then maybe be MORE of the American way, not less.
Hint- we got rich mainly in the 1950s - 1960s, then leveled off. We did well in the 1800s too, minus the civil war.
That same green "play button" image is displayed millions of times per day, linking to the same URL. They only need to check it once to discover that it's bogus. Then Chrome can block it for all Chrome users who see that image linked to that URL.
That does involve communicating something about the block list between Chrome and Google's blacklist server. Hopefully they get that part right. The right way will probably involve communicating a strong hash of the two URLs rather than the URLs themselves.
See the story posted yesterday (or Tuesday?) about averages. You can't, generally, do math with averages of different measurements and expect to come out with a meaningful average of something else.
As people said yesterday, 99.99% of people have more than the average number of eyes. Also, the average person has one testicle.
> few million people skip on $2 all Keanu Reeves needed to do was take a 1% pay cut for the Matrix and that cost would be recouped.
Your math is off by a few orders of magnitude. Not to worry, that's normal with big numbers. Psychologically, "million", "billion", and "trillion" are all just big numbers, we KNOW the difference, but it's completely unintuitive to think about big large numbers.
"A few million people" at $2 each is $60 MILLION. 1% of Reeves salary for The Matrix is $100 THOUSAND. In fact, $60 million (a few million people at $2 each) is more than 100% of Reeves salary - you'd need him to pay millions for the privilege of being allowed to work.
Speaking of Reeves Matrix money, did you know he gave most of it away?
Indeed, they are almost in the top 1% highest earners in the world. To be the 1%, one must earn about $33K. (Different sources range between $32-$34K). http://www.investopedia.com/ar...
It's funny, it was understanding that which made me realize the "your mom's basement" meme must actually be true for the majority of Slashdot commenters. I had thought we were mostly IT professionals and the like, but if so we'd all be earning twice as much as the 1%. In which case we wouldn't see all this hostility toward college grads (the 1%) that exists on Slashdot. So I guess most Slashdotters are indeed eating cheese puffs in their mom's basement, and resent those of us who aren't.
That should read: because the US government is NOT designed with efficiency as a top priority.
Bi-cameral legislature isn't efficient, it would be more efficient to have one body. In fact, debate isn't efficient, it would be more efficient to have all the decisions made by Kim Jong Obama. Public hearings certainly aren't efficient. It's not efficient to have courts examine the Constitutionality of federal laws. Obama once taught a course on the Constitution, it would be more efficient to just assume he knows what he's doing and all of his decisions are constitutional. But we've decided that when it comes to the federal government, some things are more important than efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the main point about wind power, the fundamental law of physics that controls everything with wind power. The power of wind is the speed CUBED. Not squared, but CUBED.
If a 10 mph wind has 1,000 units of energy, a 20 mph wind has 8,000, and 40 mph has 64,000. That's right, 10 mph wind has less than 1.5% as much power as 40 mph. At 10 mph, it might, maybe have just enough power to overcome bearing friction, but there's no power left to harvest as electricity. You -might- see it turning, but it's freewheeling, there's no power generation occurring.
Use lighter components that spin more easily, you say? If 10 mph is 1,000 units, the cube power law means 60 mph imparts 216,000 units of force to that lightweight structure, destroying it.
The cube power law is a law of physics, it can't be repealed by your favorite politician, and it mercilessly ensures that wind power comes only when nature chooses, in the amount that nature chooses.
> the vast bulk of the cost of your choice to drive (as opposed to say - taking the train) is not paid by you but by other people (and that's without considering climate change costs). A lot gets amortized over everybody else who drives (they all take longer to get there - time has value) ...
> If you had to personally bare the full cost of driving, far fewer people would choose to drive
Suppose you're right that the cost of your choice to drive is spread amongst all drivers. We'll call the cost of one person driving X.
Suppose one million people drive, so X is spread over one million people. Each driver pays X/million in lost time, cost of insurance, cost to build and maintain roads, etc.
HOWEVER, according to your theory, because you drive, you also pay x/million for each of the million other drivers. There are a million other drivers, so in total you pay a million times x/million, which is of course X : precisely the cost of your driving.
In other words, if THEY share the cost of your driving, YOU also share the cost of their driving. For "cost per driver" X and "number of drivers" Y:
X / Y * X = X
Each driver pays the cost of one driver.
First I want to be clear - wind is a great supplemental power source in some areas. Having said that ...
> they are spread around national grids so the wind is always blowing on some somewhere.
It would be nice if any of those three things were true. In fact, weather systems are generally larger than most countries. Here's the current weather map for a very large country, the United States:
http://sirocco.accuweather.com...
You'll notice there's very little weather in the US today. Next week, a storm system may cover most of the population of the US.
Regarding "national electric grid" - you may recall a few years ago a blackout left the northeast without power for several days, while the nine other power regional grids including had plenty of power. The California grid had a chronic power shortage for decades, while the neighboring grid for Texas was fine. There are 10 regional power grids in the US. There's no such thing as "the national grid", and can't without save a complete redesign of the technology and replacing billions in infrastructure.
Lastly, wind farms are NOT spread evenly around the country. They are located in specific areas where it makes sense to have them. You need steady, predictable wind (the cube power law means high winds destroy them), near population centers, but with cheap real estate. The last two requirements are of course contradictory, so a limited number of locations fit all of the criteria.
In those places where it DOES make sense, wind power allows producers to reduce fuel usage on the natural gas generators whenever the wind happens to be right, and that's a good thing.
> The next thing you need to know is that renewable, whilst mostly very flexible
"Flexible" is an interesting word choice. Consider wind, for example. A 20 mph wind has 8 times as much power as a 10 mph wind, at 30 mph it's 27 times as much power. You can't control how much wind there is. Similarly, we might not realize it since our eyes measure brightness on logarithmic scale, but a cloudy day has 95% less solar energy than a sunny day. Most people would probably call this "unpredictable" or "unreliable" rather than "flexible".
On the other hand, the operators of a typical small natural gas plant with 4 generators can choose to run anywhere from full throttle on all four to just one at half throttle.
I'm going to simplify this a bit, but consider you download two things songlist.zip. You extract songlist.zip, which is a data. You don't execute anything in that download. You just extract it to your downloads folder and use notepad to open the resulting songlist.txt. You don't notice that it also included a file called netssl.ddl, which sits in your downloads folder.
Later, you download mcafee_setup.exe. You run macafee_setup.exe, which needs to run as admin. mcafee_setup.exe makes use of netssl.dll. It could use the hacked version which was part of songlist,zip, running code with full admin privileges that you never intended to run at all.
You would "hard code" using system variables like this:
%CSIDL_PROGRAM_FILESX86%\Avast\Sanner\foo.dll
That would end up being "the right place" no matter which drive letter has your Program Files directory. It wouldn't load hacker\foo.dll from any location.
It should be noted that while SLC flash is good for around 100,000 writes or so, TLC flash is only good for around 1,000. MLC is in in-between, about 30,000 writes. So the type of flash used in the drive very much matters.
I read your link and now I know exactly what you did.
> gallery_root="../galleries/What I Did/"
You're the guy who put spaces in file names in *nix, in order to make sure that all commands using "for each", *, or find -exec would get messed up. Thanks for that.
Kidding, of course. Actually your post was interesting.
If you work on that type of project, I'd be very interested in knowing about the work environment you've encountered. After 20 years programming, while constantly learning and improving my skills, I've grown wearisome of poor quality, of "duct tape and bailing wire" projects, and of people who just don't know what they're doing.
I think I might much more enjoy working in an environment in which things are done RIGHT, where there is no duct tape and bailing wire. On the other hand, a very much like getting things DONE (and done right), and can get frustrated when there is far more "process" mandated than is necessary to ensure that it's done right.
Do you have any experiences, advice, or thoughts to share with an experienced programmer considering going into life-safety applications like aviation or medical?
> on one side of he scale and bits and pieces that require just gluing
Some gluing together projects are useful. People did some good stuff with HyperCard and shell scripts. Shell scripts are a great way to glue pieces together.
What has changed is that now almost all software is on the internet, where they are attacked 1,000 times per day by script kiddies with tools that automatically looking for gluey buts. So shell scripts are now called "remote code execution vulnerabilities ". This is a real problem.
In many fields, including electronics, hardware, pyro, etc there are two classifications of materials and technicians: standard and "life safety". Standard equipment is labeled "not for life safety applications ". Sometimes I think software (and programmers) need a similar distinction: "can hack together some code" vs "internet exposed ".
> In Flash you can make a cartoon
Yes, just like you can make a cartoon with colored pencils. That's called drawing. That's a left- brain, artistic activity. At my last job we had two people who did that.
Those two people would then send the Flash file over to me, the right-brain guy who did the math-like process of programming (coding) those cartoons to do something useful. I couldn't do their job and they couldn't do mine because the two require fundamentally different ways of thinking. Not just different skills, but almost opposite skills.
As I did the coding, I would code to function interface appropriate to the frameworks each of those Flash objects were embedded in. I would code in the ActionScript language to pass data back amd forth with the larger framework project.
Designing those overall frameworks to hold any needed module and control the interactions between modules required some computer science understanding. The computer science part was language- neutral. A module could be written in any language. The computer science part was mostly about designing systems that are flexible, robust, expandable etc, totally unrelated to any specific language, whereas coding is all about expressing an idea in a particular language.
You bring up two important points. First, you said "we" want power efficiency. The article says Intel is going to provide efficient CPUs. It does not say that everyone will always prioritize efficiency over speed for all tasks. "We" (many people) will continue to want many tasks to run quickly. In many cases, speed will be more important than efficiency, and that's what this sub-thread is about. We're talking about what to do when you want speed.
Secondly, it just so happens that in the vast majority of cases, over 90% of CPU time is spent in a very small section of code called the "inner loop", which is the little chunk that runs many times.
Suppose you're adjusting a video in some way, maybe resizing it or changing the brightness. The video is a bunch of frames, each frame is a bunch of pixels, and each pixel is three color values, red green blue. There are 256 possible values for each of R, G, and B. The code looks like this:
for each of 200,000 frames
for each of 800,000 pixels
pixel.red=CalculatePixel(pixel.red)
pixel.green=CalculatePixel(pixel.green)
Pixel.blue=CalculatePixel(pixel.blue)
CalculatePixel() gets called 320,000,000,000 times. (320 billion times). Each time, it's passed a value from 0-255 and returns a value from 0-255. Which means that the value for CalculatePixel(0) gets recalculated about a million times. Compare this code:
For x in 0-255
Answer[x] = CalculatePixel(x)
for each of 200,000 frames
for each of 800,000 pixels
pixel.red = Answer[pixel.red]
pixel.green = Answer[pixel.green]
pixel.blue = Answer[pixel.blue]
If you're in the habit of speeding it up by calculating all possible values for your inner loop, you code to take advantage of that fact. Here we can see that it's much more efficient to do the calculation 256 times rather than 320 billion times. This concept is generally true for most programs- the bulk of the CPU time is spent doing whatever the program does repeatedly. I routinely make other people's software faster amd more efficient using this type of approach.
A recent case was a security scanner, which did this:
For each IP 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.255
For each port
For each vulnerability
CheckPortForVulnerablity()
You can see that CheckPortForVulnerablity() was called over a billion times.
> consider, as a thought experiment, any task where the outcome of the first "step" determines the parameters for the next.
> There is no way to complete this overall task in parallel
In fact it's sometimes trivial. Consider this code, in which 'the outcome of the first step determines the parameters for the next':
HasPMI = IsMoreThan80()
PaymentAmount = CalculatePayment (Balance, HasPMI)
If you have 1024 cores, you can easily run CalculatePayment() in parallel with the line before it. You run it for both the true and false case simultaneously with IsMoreThan80. Then when the three threads complete, HasPMI tells you which of the two results to use.
That can also be EVERY IF STATEMENT, every switch-case, etc. On any branch, go ahead and precompute the value for the branch while deciding which branch you'll take. As things move in this direction, functional programming and similar disciplines start to become more valueable, so they will be used more.
A lot of things that wouldn't make sense to run parallel on two cores or four cores suddenly make sense of you have hundreds or thousands of cores laying around. With 4096 otherwise idle cores, it can make sense to calculate 1,000 possible scenarios in parallel and then ignore the 999 options you didn't need. Our way of thinking about problems will change, as will the tools we use to take advantage of the strengths of new systems.
Reality is that we have five candidates to choose from. If one is twice as bad as another, yes that's worth knowing.
Rubio didn't say that. Here's what he said is a fundamental lesson to be learned:
-- Quote- -
Syria, Yemen, and Libya are all examples of our failure to learn one of the fundamental lessons of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- that failed and failing states breed instability and are potential safe havens for terrorists who will eventually turn their attention toward us.
--
Also, now that the mass surveillance of metadata is no longer legal and has theoretically stopped , Rubio also supports keeping the currently-legal intelligence programs. I disagree with him, but I'm not a liar so I'll be honest about where we disagree. The summary posted to Slashdot is a lie misquoting some spin.
Here's a clue. Clinton gets to the twice as much Wall Street money. Wall Street firms have always been the Clinton's largest contributors. Now you have a clue.
Bonus:
Wall Street hasn't bought Cruz. The largest sector backing Cruz is real estate.
I sometimes think "with that name, this is going nowhere - the imagery, the branding, is just all wrong."
Then, three really bad things were in the news:
Iraq Hussein Osama
We elected:
Barak Hussein Obama
One could imagine that US voters are too sophisticated and informed to be put off by an unfortunate name. In fact, many (most?) Obama voters didn't know which party he was running as, nor did they know the VP candidate's name. So it's not attributable to be voters being sophisticated and well-informed.
Same here, when I see rkt, that reads "rootkit" to me. However, I work in information security and have for many years, so everything makes me thing of something security-related.
> Being in the global one percent doesn't cut it when you're in a country where not many fall within the global poor 99%.
Yeah beng rich isn't enough when you're neighbors are rich too - anything other than being the richest of the rich just won't cut it. You can see that too in Orange County - when all the neighbors have BMWs, the brats whine that they don't have a Maserati. In Texas, we call that "spoiled" .
In California and New York you'll find a lot of people who are really, really blind because although they are rich live in a country where most people are rich (richer than 95% globally) they are unhappy SO THEY DEMAND THAT THE RICH COUNTRY STOP DOING RICH THINGS AND BECOME MORE LIKE THE BROKE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE POORER. In Texas, we call that "dumb as a box of rocks".
If your whole country is rich, maybe it would make sense to find out why, and do MORE of the stuff that made you rich. If America makes people rich (and as you said, it does), then maybe be MORE of the American way, not less.
Hint- we got rich mainly in the 1950s - 1960s, then leveled off. We did well in the 1800s too, minus the civil war.
That same green "play button" image is displayed millions of times per day, linking to the same URL. They only need to check it once to discover that it's bogus. Then Chrome can block it for all Chrome users who see that image linked to that URL.
That does involve communicating something about the block list between Chrome and Google's blacklist server. Hopefully they get that part right. The right way will probably involve communicating a strong hash of the two URLs rather than the URLs themselves.
See the story posted yesterday (or Tuesday?) about averages. You can't, generally, do math with averages of different measurements and expect to come out with a meaningful average of something else.
As people said yesterday, 99.99% of people have more than the average number of eyes. Also, the average person has one testicle.
> few million people skip on $2 all Keanu Reeves needed to do was take a 1% pay cut for the Matrix and that cost would be recouped.
Your math is off by a few orders of magnitude. Not to worry, that's normal with big numbers. Psychologically, "million", "billion", and "trillion" are all just big numbers, we KNOW the difference, but it's completely unintuitive to think about big large numbers.
"A few million people" at $2 each is $60 MILLION.
1% of Reeves salary for The Matrix is $100 THOUSAND.
In fact, $60 million (a few million people at $2 each) is more than 100% of Reeves salary - you'd need him to pay millions for the privilege of being allowed to work.
Speaking of Reeves Matrix money, did you know he gave most of it away?
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertai...
I of course meant NOT designed with efficiency as a top priority- and for good reason. See also http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Indeed, they are almost in the top 1% highest earners in the world. To be the 1%, one must earn about $33K. (Different sources range between $32-$34K).
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...
It's funny, it was understanding that which made me realize the "your mom's basement" meme must actually be true for the majority of Slashdot commenters. I had thought we were mostly IT professionals and the like, but if so we'd all be earning twice as much as the 1%. In which case we wouldn't see all this hostility toward college grads (the 1%) that exists on Slashdot. So I guess most Slashdotters are indeed eating cheese puffs in their mom's basement, and resent those of us who aren't.
That should read:
because the US government is NOT designed with efficiency as a top priority.
Bi-cameral legislature isn't efficient, it would be more efficient to have one body. In fact, debate isn't efficient, it would be more efficient to have all the decisions made by Kim Jong Obama. Public hearings certainly aren't efficient. It's not efficient to have courts examine the Constitutionality of federal laws. Obama once taught a course on the Constitution, it would be more efficient to just assume he knows what he's doing and all of his decisions are constitutional. But we've decided that when it comes to the federal government, some things are more important than efficiency.