I don't know if you happened to see my initial post in this thread. It included things like: -- Median household disposable income in the US in $47,000, in China $5,271.
OECD (2018), Household disposable income (indicator). doi: 10.1787/dd50eddd-en (Accessed on 03 August 2018 --
Just a friendly comment on that - I've noticed that when people puts APA format citations in their Slashdot posts, citing globally authorative sources such as OECD: a) They often know what they are talking about b) I better bring my A game of I intend to debate them:)
Yes, yes it is.:) Also a good reminder to check your sources, because it's embarrassing when that happens. It's happened to me.
>3) we're obviously both wrong, the truth would be interesting. I cited the World Trade Organization, China Daily, and Forbes. Do you have some reason to think they are all wrong, or did we both learn something about Shanghai today? I enjoy learning.
Shanghai, the neighborhood in Mattaponni, Virginia, isn't actually part of China. I guess the very first statistic on that page you looked at didn't top you off:
Total Population 658
$13K and change is what the China government reported to the World Trade Organization.
If you prefer to pull numbers from the popular press, China Daily reports Shanghai users of the career web site Zhaopin (think Monster.com) average 9,802 yuan per month, which is $17,218.68. Obviously fast food jobs and such aren't advertised there, so it skews high.
> Shanghai became one of the most expensive cities in the world.
Okay, you want to focus on Shanghai for a moment. Shanghai median income is $13,000 and like you said it's one of the most expensive cities in world in terms of housing and other necessities. Leaving a disposable of very near zero. Where I'm sitting in Dallas median income is $63,812 - almost five times as much as the great Shanghai. Apartments here also cost less than a fourth as much, leaving median disposable ten times as high as Shanghai.
Only 1% of Chinese households make more than $90,00. 80% of Americans do.
Being YOUNG and rich is even less common in China. Much more of US disposable income is young people who tend to buy video games. So around 0.5% of China is young people with significant disposable income, or about 6 million people.
China's Gini coefficient of.63 is indeed much, much higher than the US (.48). (Meaning income inequality is much higher than China).
Once you combine that with income, you find:
The US has very high incomes, fairly uniform in distribution (a large middle class, all of which are very wealthy by global standards). China has low income, and VERY high inequality, meaning a lot of very poor people and a very few rich people.
Only 1% of Chinese households make more than $90,00. 80% of Americans do.
True, fuzzing can sometimes tell you that the program crashes, or does certain other things. It can't tell you that the program never crashes. It can't tell you if the program operates correctly. See the test oracle problem.
Testing is a great thing. Unit tests typically can tell you that something seems to work under a particular set of conditions, with particular inputs, ignoring concurency and all those other annoying little real-life inconveniences. That's very useful.
Most commonly, unit tests let you confirm that given normal, anticipated inputs that are supposed to work, under the normal, anticipated conditions that the programmer had in mind when he wrote the code and tests, it more or less works. What we frequently fail to test is failure. What if the input is empty? What of it has multiple values? What if the person's name is a million characters long? You CAN write unit tests for such cases; most people don't.
A useful excercise is to make a table of all possible inputs to a small function, including empty or null inputs, with the expected result. Then test every possible set of inputs. Obviously, that's only feasible for functions with a small number of inputs, and ideally one output. That level.pf testing can guarantee correctness. Any less cannot. It can only ensure that what the programmer was thinking when they wrote the test matches with when they wrote the code.
As a big fan of software quality, who has long studied how to make better quality software, my experience is that they can be a pretty good indicator.
The smells don't always indicate a problem right there where the smell is (though they often do), they often tell you something about the skill and care with which the software was developed.
To stretch an analogy, the smell of rotting meat is largely due to the aptly named putrescine. That's the smell that tells you something is wrong. Putrescine isn't particularly toxic. Putrescine, the smell, is an indicator that something dangerous such as serratia is likely present.
> Nestle or the brokers will not have a very easy time convincing hundred's if not thousands of farms
If you're a farmer, who exactly do you think is going to buy your 3 million head of lettuce that are ready for harvest on a 100 acre farm, if not Dole, not the food processors like Nestle* or Unilever, and not the brokers? Do you think you're going to sell 3 million at head to consumers at the local farmers market this weekend?
* If you're an American, you might associate the Nestle name with chocolate. Nestle also owns over 2,000 other brands. Here are just a few of their frozen food brands:
Buitoni California Pizza Kitchen Delissio Pizza DiGiorno Pizza Hot Pockets Jack's Pizza La Cocinera Lean Cuisine Lean Pockets Papa Giuseppe Stouffer's Sweet Earth Foods Tombstone Pizza Wagner Pizza
They aren't just frozen food, either. They produce everything from Purina to most of the yogurt brands to Gerber and shredded wheat cereal.
Walmart, Nestle, Dole, Unilever and the other companies who started this project buy over $500 billion of food every year. If you want to sell food, you just might want these companies as customers.
Then there are network effects. Suppose a broker sells avocados to both Nestle and Kraft. Because they sell to Nestle, they and their growers use the block chain. So Kraft is buying from a participating broker, even though Kraft doesn't care. After the next horsemeat scandal or e coli incident, Walmart says to Kraft "we'd really like you to participate in the chain. BTW we're about to place an order for 250,000 cases of pizzas. If we get them from Nestle, they'll already be in the block chain. If we buy from you, tracing an outbreak could take weeks, right?" So Kraft joins. Which in turn encourages anyone doing business with Kraft to join.
For two comparisons, consider the UPC codes which are now on almost all products. When I was a little kid, most stores didn't have bar code scanners. They were really expensive. Most products didn't bother asking UPC codes. Several large players insisted on bar codes and through that it became an industry standard, which now saves everyone money and makes checkout go much faster.
UL listing is an example that is expensive for manufacturers. But if manufacturers don't have their electrical products UL tested, Walmart won't buy them. Therefore, manufacturers pay the expense of having their products tested, because they want to sell to Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc.
An individual farmer takes their celery to a local company or co-op, who has contracts with a nationwide or regional distributor.
The local company hands the shipment over to a shipping company, which brings them to a distributor.
The distributor sells them to Nestle/Gerber, through another shipping company.
Nestle sends some of it to their Gerber plant across town, some of it to their Maggi soup factory, etc.
After making the food from the ingredients, Nestle sells the baby stew to a grocery wholesaler. Another shipper.
The grocery wholesaler sells it to a small local store chain.
The store chain sends some of it to the store on Broadway.
The customer purchases it.
There are two big advantages of a block chain vs a traditional database here. That's a lot of different companies involved, in including a few trucking companies. They don't all use the same Oracle database, especially not the local farmer. Block chain is designed for many different people to be able to use it, adding entries, without conflicting with other in any way.
Nestle, and the customer, want to know that the local produce buyer isn't being lazy and making up records at the end of each week or each month. Everyone, including purchasers, can see that the local produce buyer added their first entry shortly after farmer adds "sold lot #74728 to Des Moines Produce Buyers".
That's true. I mentioned that "investors, speculators, and fans" can push up the stock price, based on potential future growth (and other reasons).
Part of Steve Jobs great success is that he made people fans of Apple. He turned customers into fans. Fans do things that aren't necessarily mathematically sound, so they drive the stock price higher than logic would justify.
An additonal important reason that I didn't clearly state is that the "future growth" thing can end up compounded by fans and speculators. Many people invest in a trendy company because they anticipate future growth. They think "I think the company will do well, so I'll buy the stock." What they often forget is that "many people invest in a trendy company because they anticipate future growth" - other people have already done the same thing. The going price for the stock ALREADY factors in the growth that other buyers anticipate. The correct question for these kinds of speculative purchases therefore is not "do I think this company is going to do well?" You should buy only if you think everyone else is underestimating the company (or at very least, not overestimating).
Additionally, you shouldn't buy at that price if you think other people have forgotten to compensate for the non-rational purchases by others. In other words:
Investor C is considering a purchase. Investor B already bought because the think the company will grow. Investor C takes into account that the purchase by B pushed the price up. That's good so far.
BUT: Fan A bought before investor B did. The purchase by fan A pushed up the price that B paid. B forgot to consider the effect of A, therefore, B overpaid. C forgot to consider that B didn't consider A, therefore C also overpaid.
Because Apple has a lot of fans, they have a lot of people buying without into consideration that the expected future profits are already built into the stock price. That means that even investors who DO recognize that can often overpay for Apple stock, if they forget to consider that other buyers didn't consider that.
One way an investor can avoid these traps is to buy based on the fundamentals, rather than assuming that future changes to the stock price will have any relationship to the company's performance. That assumes that the CURRENT stock price, the basis, is related to company performance. In the case of trendy companies, there may be little relation.
That's a good point. There may be some readers who, for whatever reasons, aren't familiar with what exactly "market capitalization" and "gross domestic product" are.
Gross domestic product, or GDP, is basically the amount of stuff the country produces *in one year*. Apple sold about $22 billion of products in the America's last year. If they made all of those products in the US, that would contribute $22 billion to the US GDP. Most of what Apple sells is made elsewhere, though, so they account for only about $2 billion of US GDP. Remember that's a per-year number, and it's what they produce, not their profit.
Market capitalization, or market cap, is what people refer to as the "size" of a company. It's called size because for mature companies, it roughly represents all of the value that has been built up over the entire life of the company - all the equipment the company owns, etc. It's basically how much people would have to pay to buy the entire company. Contrast GDP, which is how much is added per year. The computation of market cap is simply how many shares there are multiplied by how much each share costs. That's the total value of the company, based on how much investors pay to buy a percentage of the company.
So if I buy a factory for $10 million, and each year it produces $2 million of stuff, minus $1 million for materials brought in, "size" of the factory is $10 million, the GDP of it is $1 million.
I mentioned market cap represents the size for *mature*. companies. For trendy new companies, investors, speculators, and fans buy the stock bases how big the company *might* become in the future. The best current example is Tesla. It's market cap, how much people pay for Tesla shares, make it the "largest" car company in the world. In terms of actual production, the company is insignificant in the auto market. Shanghai GM alone produced about 2 million cars last year, Volkswagen 11 million, Tesla 0.1 million. So their market cap (stock price) is ahead of the actual size of the company by a factor of 100X.
Ancient libraries were very often (nearly always?) private. They would either serve a particular institution, such as a government body, or some were only open to members who paid the high membership fees (compare a country club). For example, the vast majority of the holdings of Library of Congress aren't available of the public.
The article indicates they think it was a public library because it was located near the center of town, next.to a church, and there were public buildings nearby. Again, the Library of Congress is at the center of Washington, near public buildings, across the street from the capitol, the Supreme Court building, and a church. It's not a public library.
The wording added to the TOS isn't about Facebook doesn't want to keep getting money from companies who abuse users' data in all sorts of ways. They aren't removing any *active* apps, apps they get paid from. The clause in the TOS is about Facebook being able to point to that and say "we told them not do that" the next time one of the apps is in the news. Alternatively, in a class action suit, Facebook can again say "our TOS said that's not allowed". The TOS isn't for Facebook to enforce, it's their excuse.
> sounds quite reasonable. Surely a metal barrel or firing pin would fare better than a plastic one, right?
That's already existing federal law. It's called the Undetectable Firearms Act. Passing the same law again is theater for the uninformed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(p) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm (A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or (B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
> can't guess how the Republicans will feel about it. On the one hand "omg gubernment's tryin a take mah gunz"
I vote Republican (#nevertrump). Perhaps now that you see the "one metal part" thing has already been law for several years, you might be able to better guess how I feel about it. Most gun laws proposed by the left are jokes, silly theater pandering for those in their base who know nothing about guns, because they are scared of them. The "assault weapons" ban is a good example. Guess what an "assault weapon" is, how it's defined under the law? An assault weapon is legally defined as a rifle that looks scary. Seriously, it's based on mostly cosmetic features of the firearm. So I laugh and shake my head.
There is a trick the politician is trying to play with this bill, though. He says it requires "one metal part - because metal detectors". But we know that's ALREADY law, so we know he's full of shit there. Let's look more closely at the bill. Ah, "one metal part with a registered serial number". This shyster is trying to pass a national gun registration law, while pretending that it has something to do with metal detectors, but we caught him on his bullshit. We know one metal part is already required, he's just trying to create national gun registration while lying about it.
As a general rule, I oppose lying bastards passing laws doing one thing while pretending they are doing something different. If you can't even tell us honestly what you're proposing, my assumption is that I shouldn't support your bullshit lies. Also, history has shown us over and over again, in many countries, that registration is always followed by confiscation. The only reason the government ever wants a list of who all has guns is so they can later come and take them. That pattern has played out too many times to fall for it AGAIN.
> If the blueprints are already easy to create and readily available why doesn't everyone 3D print guns yet
I posted the instructions here on Slashdot two days ago. Why didn't you build one?
Here are some reasons I don't build one for use with regular, lethal ammunition: The ones I can buy are much better than what I'd build. Same reason I don't build a toaster, or a bicycle.
It's safer not to.
Some cops might not know it's legal, so I could go to jail until my lawyer handles it.
As for "would require weapons to include at least one metal component", that's already existing federal law. Passing the same law again is theater for the uninformed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(p) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearmâ" (A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or (B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
GP may indeed want to get a new job, or may keep the same job and switch employer's - working directly for the employer rather than for the agency.
That won't solve his or her problem, though. The problem is that they think they are a victim, blown by the winds of fate and the whims of "the man". So long as they keep that manner of thinking and don't plan their own career, or take any responsibility, they'll never win. You can't win a game when you refuse to acknowledge that you're even a player in the game.
>> Further to the point, leaving caches aside, what does that do for AVX state?
> Who cares?
Anyone who understands how Spectre, Meltdown, etc attacks work cares. The "problem" is that what one process does can affect the state of the hardware implementation - caches, how full the pipeline is, etc - and the state of the hardware can effect the timing or other things in a different process. Therefore, by measuring rates in the affected process many times, you can infer some things about the process which caused the state. Until you get a CPU so simple that PID 1 doesn't affect any caches, AVX etc, you have the same issue - PID 2 can statistically measure those effects, and therefore know what PID 1 is doing. Likely the only way to not have PID 1 affect the state of any of this hardware is to not have the hardware.
You're posting this in comments to an article about yet another Spectre-class attack which affects AMD - one that is network accessible and has nothing whatsoever to do with any JIT.
You're focusing on just one of the seven Spectre related CVEs currently known.
And how exactly will performing those access control chicks affect the contents of the L1 and L2 caches, and therefore their hit rate? Further to the point, leaving caches aside, what does that do for AVX state?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you happened to see my initial post in this thread. It included things like:
--
Median household disposable income in the US in $47,000, in China $5,271.
OECD (2018), Household disposable income (indicator). doi: 10.1787/dd50eddd-en (Accessed on 03 August 2018
--
Just a friendly comment on that - :)
I've noticed that when people puts APA format citations in their Slashdot posts, citing globally authorative sources such as OECD:
a) They often know what they are talking about
b) I better bring my A game of I intend to debate them
> My Shanghai mistake is just plain funny
Yes, yes it is. :)
Also a good reminder to check your sources, because it's embarrassing when that happens. It's happened to me.
>3) we're obviously both wrong, the truth would be interesting.
I cited the World Trade Organization, China Daily, and Forbes. Do you have some reason to think they are all wrong, or did we both learn something about Shanghai today? I enjoy learning.
Shanghai, the neighborhood in Mattaponni, Virginia, isn't actually part of China. I guess the very first statistic on that page you looked at didn't top you off:
Total Population 658
$13K and change is what the China government reported to the World Trade Organization.
If you prefer to pull numbers from the popular press, China Daily reports Shanghai users of the career web site Zhaopin (think Monster.com) average 9,802 yuan per month, which is $17,218.68. Obviously fast food jobs and such aren't advertised there, so it skews high.
Forbes reports $13,620
https://www.forbes.com/sites/k...
> Posting wrong numbers to Slashdot isn't going to do a lot. If
Yeah, it just makes you look silly when you confuse a neighborhood of 658 people with a city of 24 million.
Tell you what, if you stay away from the ad hominems and aggressive attitude, I'll try not to make you look like a complete moron. Deal?
> Shanghai became one of the most expensive cities in the world.
Okay, you want to focus on Shanghai for a moment. Shanghai median income is $13,000 and like you said it's one of the most expensive cities in world in terms of housing and other necessities. Leaving a disposable of very near zero. Where I'm sitting in Dallas median income is $63,812 - almost five times as much as the great Shanghai. Apartments here also cost less than a fourth as much, leaving median disposable ten times as high as Shanghai.
I meant $90,000. I copy and pasted that sentence from one post to the other.
Only 1% of Chinese households make more than $90,00. 80% of Americans do.
Being YOUNG and rich is even less common in China. Much more of US disposable income is young people who tend to buy video games. So around 0.5% of China is young people with significant disposable income, or about 6 million people.
.
China's Gini coefficient of .63 is indeed much, much higher than the US (.48). (Meaning income inequality is much higher than China).
Once you combine that with income, you find:
The US has very high incomes, fairly uniform in distribution (a large middle class, all of which are very wealthy by global standards).
China has low income, and VERY high inequality, meaning a lot of very poor people and a very few rich people.
Only 1% of Chinese households make more than $90,00. 80% of Americans do.
.
Median household income is about EIGHT TIMES higher in the US that in China.
Median household disposable income in the US in $47,000, in China $5,271.
OECD (2018), Household disposable income (indicator). doi: 10.1787/dd50eddd-en (Accessed on 03 August 2018)
In other words, the US is the rich people, who can spend hundreds of dollars on games.
98% of the world's population makes less than $25,000/year, so when you're selling expensive toys not all countries are equally important markets.
True, fuzzing can sometimes tell you that the program crashes, or does certain other things. It can't tell you that the program never crashes. It can't tell you if the program operates correctly. See the test oracle problem.
Testing is a great thing. Unit tests typically can tell you that something seems to work under a particular set of conditions, with particular inputs, ignoring concurency and all those other annoying little real-life inconveniences. That's very useful.
Most commonly, unit tests let you confirm that given normal, anticipated inputs that are supposed to work, under the normal, anticipated conditions that the programmer had in mind when he wrote the code and tests, it more or less works. What we frequently fail to test is failure. What if the input is empty? What of it has multiple values? What if the person's name is a million characters long? You CAN write unit tests for such cases; most people don't.
A useful excercise is to make a table of all possible inputs to a small function, including empty or null inputs, with the expected result. Then test every possible set of inputs. Obviously, that's only feasible for functions with a small number of inputs, and ideally one output. That level.pf testing can guarantee correctness. Any less cannot. It can only ensure that what the programmer was thinking when they wrote the test matches with when they wrote the code.
As a big fan of software quality, who has long studied how to make better quality software, my experience is that they can be a pretty good indicator.
The smells don't always indicate a problem right there where the smell is (though they often do), they often tell you something about the skill and care with which the software was developed.
To stretch an analogy, the smell of rotting meat is largely due to the aptly named putrescine. That's the smell that tells you something is wrong. Putrescine isn't particularly toxic. Putrescine, the smell, is an indicator that something dangerous such as serratia is likely present.
> Nestle or the brokers will not have a very easy time convincing hundred's if not thousands of farms
If you're a farmer, who exactly do you think is going to buy your 3 million head of lettuce that are ready for harvest on a 100 acre farm, if not Dole, not the food processors like Nestle* or Unilever, and not the brokers? Do you think you're going to sell 3 million at head to consumers at the local farmers market this weekend?
* If you're an American, you might associate the Nestle name with chocolate. Nestle also owns over 2,000 other brands. Here are just a few of their frozen food brands:
Buitoni
California Pizza Kitchen
Delissio Pizza
DiGiorno Pizza
Hot Pockets
Jack's Pizza
La Cocinera
Lean Cuisine
Lean Pockets
Papa Giuseppe
Stouffer's
Sweet Earth Foods
Tombstone Pizza
Wagner Pizza
They aren't just frozen food, either. They produce everything from Purina to most of the yogurt brands to Gerber and shredded wheat cereal.
Walmart, Nestle, Dole, Unilever and the other companies who started this project buy over $500 billion of food every year. If you want to sell food, you just might want these companies as customers.
Then there are network effects. Suppose a broker sells avocados to both Nestle and Kraft. Because they sell to Nestle, they and their growers use the block chain. So Kraft is buying from a participating broker, even though Kraft doesn't care. After the next horsemeat scandal or e coli incident, Walmart says to Kraft "we'd really like you to participate in the chain. BTW we're about to place an order for 250,000 cases of pizzas. If we get them from Nestle, they'll already be in the block chain. If we buy from you, tracing an outbreak could take weeks, right?" So Kraft joins. Which in turn encourages anyone doing business with Kraft to join.
For two comparisons, consider the UPC codes which are now on almost all products. When I was a little kid, most stores didn't have bar code scanners. They were really expensive. Most products didn't bother asking UPC codes. Several large players insisted on bar codes and through that it became an industry standard, which now saves everyone money and makes checkout go much faster.
UL listing is an example that is expensive for manufacturers. But if manufacturers don't have their electrical products UL tested, Walmart won't buy them. Therefore, manufacturers pay the expense of having their products tested, because they want to sell to Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc.
An individual farmer takes their celery to a local company or co-op, who has contracts with a nationwide or regional distributor.
The local company hands the shipment over to a shipping company, which brings them to a distributor.
The distributor sells them to Nestle/Gerber, through another shipping company.
Nestle sends some of it to their Gerber plant across town, some of it to their Maggi soup factory, etc.
After making the food from the ingredients, Nestle sells the baby stew to a grocery wholesaler. Another shipper.
The grocery wholesaler sells it to a small local store chain.
The store chain sends some of it to the store on Broadway.
The customer purchases it.
There are two big advantages of a block chain vs a traditional database here. That's a lot of different companies involved, in including a few trucking companies. They don't all use the same Oracle database, especially not the local farmer. Block chain is designed for many different people to be able to use it, adding entries, without conflicting with other in any way.
Nestle, and the customer, want to know that the local produce buyer isn't being lazy and making up records at the end of each week or each month. Everyone, including purchasers, can see that the local produce buyer added their first entry shortly after farmer adds "sold lot #74728 to Des Moines Produce Buyers".
That's true. I mentioned that "investors, speculators, and fans" can push up the stock price, based on potential future growth (and other reasons).
Part of Steve Jobs great success is that he made people fans of Apple. He turned customers into fans. Fans do things that aren't necessarily mathematically sound, so they drive the stock price higher than logic would justify.
An additonal important reason that I didn't clearly state is that the "future growth" thing can end up compounded by fans and speculators. Many people invest in a trendy company because they anticipate future growth. They think "I think the company will do well, so I'll buy the stock." What they often forget is that "many people invest in a trendy company because they anticipate future growth" - other people have already done the same thing. The going price for the stock ALREADY factors in the growth that other buyers anticipate. The correct question for these kinds of speculative purchases therefore is not "do I think this company is going to do well?" You should buy only if you think everyone else is underestimating the company (or at very least, not overestimating).
Additionally, you shouldn't buy at that price if you think other people have forgotten to compensate for the non-rational purchases by others. In other words:
Investor C is considering a purchase.
Investor B already bought because the think the company will grow.
Investor C takes into account that the purchase by B pushed the price up.
That's good so far.
BUT:
Fan A bought before investor B did.
The purchase by fan A pushed up the price that B paid.
B forgot to consider the effect of A, therefore, B overpaid.
C forgot to consider that B didn't consider A, therefore C also overpaid.
Because Apple has a lot of fans, they have a lot of people buying without into consideration that the expected future profits are already built into the stock price. That means that even investors who DO recognize that can often overpay for Apple stock, if they forget to consider that other buyers didn't consider that.
One way an investor can avoid these traps is to buy based on the fundamentals, rather than assuming that future changes to the stock price will have any relationship to the company's performance. That assumes that the CURRENT stock price, the basis, is related to company performance. In the case of trendy companies, there may be little relation.
That's a good point. There may be some readers who, for whatever reasons, aren't familiar with what exactly "market capitalization" and "gross domestic product" are.
Gross domestic product, or GDP, is basically the amount of stuff the country produces *in one year*. Apple sold about $22 billion of products in the America's last year. If they made all of those products in the US, that would contribute $22 billion to the US GDP. Most of what Apple sells is made elsewhere, though, so they account for only about $2 billion of US GDP. Remember that's a per-year number, and it's what they produce, not their profit.
Market capitalization, or market cap, is what people refer to as the "size" of a company. It's called size because for mature companies, it roughly represents all of the value that has been built up over the entire life of the company - all the equipment the company owns, etc. It's basically how much people would have to pay to buy the entire company. Contrast GDP, which is how much is added per year. The computation of market cap is simply how many shares there are multiplied by how much each share costs. That's the total value of the company, based on how much investors pay to buy a percentage of the company.
So if I buy a factory for $10 million, and each year it produces $2 million of stuff, minus $1 million for materials brought in, "size" of the factory is $10 million, the GDP of it is $1 million.
I mentioned market cap represents the size for *mature*. companies. For trendy new companies, investors, speculators, and fans buy the stock bases how big the company *might* become in the future. The best current example is Tesla. It's market cap, how much people pay for Tesla shares, make it the "largest" car company in the world. In terms of actual production, the company is insignificant in the auto market. Shanghai GM alone produced about 2 million cars last year, Volkswagen 11 million, Tesla 0.1 million. So their market cap (stock price) is ahead of the actual size of the company by a factor of 100X.
Ancient libraries were very often (nearly always?) private. They would either serve a particular institution, such as a government body, or some were only open to members who paid the high membership fees (compare a country club). For example, the vast majority of the holdings of Library of Congress aren't available of the public.
The article indicates they think it was a public library because it was located near the center of town, next.to a church, and there were public buildings nearby. Again, the Library of Congress is at the center of Washington, near public buildings, across the street from the capitol, the Supreme Court building, and a church. It's not a public library.
The wording added to the TOS isn't about Facebook doesn't want to keep getting money from companies who abuse users' data in all sorts of ways. They aren't removing any *active* apps, apps they get paid from. The clause in the TOS is about Facebook being able to point to that and say "we told them not do that" the next time one of the apps is in the news. Alternatively, in a class action suit, Facebook can again say "our TOS said that's not allowed". The TOS isn't for Facebook to enforce, it's their excuse.
That one makes me chuckle.
> sounds quite reasonable. Surely a metal barrel or firing pin would fare better than a plastic one, right?
That's already existing federal law. It's called the Undetectable Firearms Act. Passing the same law again is theater for the uninformed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(p)
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm
(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or
(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
> can't guess how the Republicans will feel about it. On the one hand "omg gubernment's tryin a take mah gunz"
I vote Republican (#nevertrump). Perhaps now that you see the "one metal part" thing has already been law for several years, you might be able to better guess how I feel about it. Most gun laws proposed by the left are jokes, silly theater pandering for those in their base who know nothing about guns, because they are scared of them. The "assault weapons" ban is a good example. Guess what an "assault weapon" is, how it's defined under the law? An assault weapon is legally defined as a rifle that looks scary. Seriously, it's based on mostly cosmetic features of the firearm. So I laugh and shake my head.
There is a trick the politician is trying to play with this bill, though. He says it requires "one metal part - because metal detectors". But we know that's ALREADY law, so we know he's full of shit there. Let's look more closely at the bill. Ah, "one metal part with a registered serial number". This shyster is trying to pass a national gun registration law, while pretending that it has something to do with metal detectors, but we caught him on his bullshit. We know one metal part is already required, he's just trying to create national gun registration while lying about it.
As a general rule, I oppose lying bastards passing laws doing one thing while pretending they are doing something different. If you can't even tell us honestly what you're proposing, my assumption is that I shouldn't support your bullshit lies. Also, history has shown us over and over again, in many countries, that registration is always followed by confiscation. The only reason the government ever wants a list of who all has guns is so they can later come and take them. That pattern has played out too many times to fall for it AGAIN.
> If the blueprints are already easy to create and readily available why doesn't everyone 3D print guns yet
I posted the instructions here on Slashdot two days ago. Why didn't you build one?
Here are some reasons I don't build one for use with regular, lethal ammunition:
The ones I can buy are much better than what I'd build. Same reason I don't build a toaster, or a bicycle.
It's safer not to.
Some cops might not know it's legal, so I could go to jail until my lawyer handles it.
As for "would require weapons to include at least one metal component", that's already existing federal law. Passing the same law again is theater for the uninformed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(p)
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearmâ"
(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or
(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
GP may indeed want to get a new job, or may keep the same job and switch employer's - working directly for the employer rather than for the agency.
That won't solve his or her problem, though. The problem is that they think they are a victim, blown by the winds of fate and the whims of "the man". So long as they keep that manner of thinking and don't plan their own career, or take any responsibility, they'll never win. You can't win a game when you refuse to acknowledge that you're even a player in the game.
>> Further to the point, leaving caches aside, what does that do for AVX state?
> Who cares?
Anyone who understands how Spectre, Meltdown, etc attacks work cares. The "problem" is that what one process does can affect the state of the hardware implementation - caches, how full the pipeline is, etc - and the state of the hardware can effect the timing or other things in a different process. Therefore, by measuring rates in the affected process many times, you can infer some things about the process which caused the state. Until you get a CPU so simple that PID 1 doesn't affect any caches, AVX etc, you have the same issue - PID 2 can statistically measure those effects, and therefore know what PID 1 is doing. Likely the only way to not have PID 1 affect the state of any of this hardware is to not have the hardware.
You're posting this in comments to an article about yet another Spectre-class attack which affects AMD - one that is network accessible and has nothing whatsoever to do with any JIT.
You're focusing on just one of the seven Spectre related CVEs currently known.
And how exactly will performing those access control chicks affect the contents of the L1 and L2 caches, and therefore their hit rate? Further to the point, leaving caches aside, what does that do for AVX state?