I still use my MacBook Pro Mid-2012. Because it was not upgradable I purchased it with at the time 768GB of Solid State Disk, 16GB of Ram, and the higher end graphics options. It still runs El Capitan really well, and aside from generational CPU differences, there is nothing that makes me look at a 2015 MacBook Pro and makes me think it's worth me parting with $2500. There isn't the ability to add more ram that 16GB (which I use primarily for running various VMs I work on to develop), more internal storage (which is leaps and bounds more than 640k, which honestly should be enough for any body), and has the same display and form factor as the current one does. The battery has recently asked to be serviced, and it came in at 5:30 hours of Netflix at full display, still enough for me since I have multiple chargers and Displays as docks. There is nothing today that makes me think I want a newer one. What I would like to see is a MacBook Pro that has thunderbolt 3, a 4K display, MAYBE MAYBE a keyboard from the new MacBook, which I have tried but I'm still undecided on, and an A10 or A11 coprocessor for running apps on a low power mode sparing the big hunking desktop-class skylake CPU. 64GB of ram as a max would be nice, as would 2TB SSDs. I don't need it thinner, as I can comfortably tote this one around now as is. Just give me as much battery as can be.
For mass-transit, it really doesn't matter! There are plenty of advances and savings with not having a fuel system, starter system, throttle, ballast pumping system and all the rest that a dirty fuel burning plane needs, but all of them will never EVER equal the displacement in power-to-weight ratio that a hydrocarbon plane has over solar, for one simple reason:
The sun is just not bright enough from Earth
Even if we did manage to make solar cells 100% efficient, they just won't capture enough light from the sun to power a plane for a long period of time with that much weight.
There are only so many advances you can go before you start to hit physical limits and math limits. Takeoff weight, and power needed to fight gravity are concepts we understand pretty well (just ask NASA, the guys with huge R&D budgets). The sad fact is, we can only derive about 1KW/square meter of solar energy. One could say it's a design challenge to just make the plane bigger, but one would need ever increasing structures and weight to capture the increasing size of the solar power plant on top the craft. See here for NASA's explanation of a similar issue with rocket power. So, one would be wrong.
What might be the answer is: batteries. If you could make a battery 100X the density of a modern battery, then it would take 1/3 the weight and volume of the fuel modern aircraft expend during their journeys, making them equivalent to throwing out the fuel through the engines as planes do today. Charging them in flight is a silly notion because such a small amount of energy in the form of sunlight actually hits the plane vs. the total energy required to physically overcome gravity with the mass of a few hundred souls, luggage, and craft. You would need these batteries to charge very fast while on the ground, have long life-spans and cycle-count ratings for it to be economically worth it. Maybe when our ability to work with single-atom thick graphene sheets has advanced we could achieve this. There are probably things we need to do better to the electric motor to produce that kind of horsepower, but that seems like the next problem to solve, not the current one.
Really? What about an emergency that requires the plane to turn around and land? Citation please? Not that I think your lying, it's just that I can't image that's the case.
Angel-o-sphere,
I'm not sure as IANAE, but I believe plants (and their leaves) naturally can control the pore size which helps prevent moisture loss during the night and days where its cloudy, so its a naturally occurring function for pores to open as much as needed to obtain CO2, but only as much as needed.
I frequently work in one of the largest datacenter colocations in North America (www.supernap.com). I have access to multiple server room sectors, and can tell you without any shadow of a doubt, IBM is definitely one of the top 3 providers of server gear in there. I've worked in smaller datacenters as well where Dell and Supermicro reign supreme, but in these datacenters where Ebay, Sony N.A., and other 10,000 rack behemoths lurk, IBM is huge. Lots of IBM POWER, IBM Mainframe (still), and IBM Tape Backups. Some IBM Storage (though EMC and NetAPP take the cake there). The up-and-comming mega-supplier for servers though has to be cisco. I've seen so many of their blades installed recently, its amazing how fast they have entered that market.
I stand corrected:
From Wikipedia:
Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.
What are you talking about? A design has usefulness and therefore value just as utility patents do. If they didn't have value, there would be no reason for someone else to use it. By copying the car design, you see some value in it, and should compensate the designer appropriately, it's their design!
I would have to imagine being illegal has nothing to do with it, it would be a violation of the terms of service you signed up for Internet with, and I would imagine the ISPs who negotiate that with the various municipalities they operate in (Cable companies in particular who get exclusive access to residents of a city agree on TOS, packages, pricing for a particular city when agreeing to service said city). Municipal governments are locally controlled so it's easy to make sure agreeing to this sort of behavior is absolutely out of the question for the ISP anyway.
I think they plan to do this at the ISP level with a proxy or something, doesn't sound like they are inventing or installing anything. Sounds like they are man-in-the-middling your connection with a bad proxy.
Well,
To be an advocate for the devil:
Being a software developer myself, I'd imagine i would be pretty upset of my software was taken without concent and compensation for use elsewhere. The companies right haven have as clients do make intellectual property, and I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft. It's not like driving some else's car, since in this case the original owner retains a copy; it's like taking some else's car design and using it to build your own car without their consent.
Now, what I disagree with in this case is two private companies arranging a punishment based on someone's illegal activities. I believe whole-heartedly that punishment can only be at the hands of the justice system. That's what it's there for. If you believe someone stole your property, you should sue them in court. You should have to prove your case, and you should ask the justice system for damages and/or punishment of some kind. But as a society, we can not allow private enterprise to be judge, jury, and executioner because that amounts to vigilante justice. We can all agree that we'd be better off with the justice system, can't we? These content owners really should be hiring a law firm to sue these infringers in court, and should have to pay court fees to do so, and should seek damages, and should have to prove their case!
A law that would explicitly enable the revolutionaries to stand up to King George III would be a law that would help the colonies overthrow the King.
"We want guns and cannons and stuff!"
"Okay. Free guns and cannons for all colonists!"
"BOOM BOOM BOOM! We're FREE!"
--Yes! Thats why the second amendment was written. We have a right to bear arms, specifically so that we can overthrow an oppressive government. So that a "militia" can not be overruled and out-gunned by its government. In modern times, its unimaginable how a citizenry in the U.S could overthrow its government, but surely it would be easier with arms than without.
What about a law freeing the colonies of taxation?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. No taxes then."
"Yaaaay! This king RULES! No revolution!"
-- This isn't a good law. Taxation is a form of procurement we exercise as a nation. Eg. we can not procure national defense independently, or pay for a healthy system of courts independently. When the government purchases goods or services, we all collectively purchase them without a choice. Taxation and government procurement is under force, so it should be used sparingly. To put a point on it: No taxation would have hurt the revolutionaries, so no.
What about a law giving the colonies a voice in Parliament?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. You can have some seats."
"Cool. Sounds fair. No need for revolution."
A voice in parliament would have absolutely helped the revolutionaries, and with careful negotiation and a strong bargaining position, the war could have been shorter, or avoided entirely. This would have been a good law, and it would have helped the revolutionaries. Yes.
An overly oppressive law could also help the colonies to overthrow the king, by strengthening the resolve and numbers of the opposition.
"This king sucks!"
"Oh yeah! Well I claim primae noctis on all marriages in the colonies. You also have to pay your own way to England. You can't get married otherwise. We'll kill you if you don't comply."
"Let's kill him!"
This is a bad law for so many reasons. It would not have helped the revolutionaries because it would have strengthened ties to England due to the children, it would have drained the colony of females who could not afford the trip back, and (to humor you) would have resulted in many deaths due to the inability to pay for or survive the Atlantic crossing. Bad law, no.
Does timing matter? Couldn't the same law have different effects during different stages of the revolution? Consider something which, early on, would be non-controversial and "nip in the bud" revolutionary activities. However, if enacted after the colonies were already in revolt, this same law would be seen as oppressive and instead fuel rebellion?
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"Ben who?"
vs.
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"FUCK YOU!"
At no point would such a law have helped the colonies, No. This isn't a good law.
Is this really a good test? Wouldn't the most oppressive laws imaginable actually pass, because they would incite revolution? Should the gov't really pass crazy laws simply for the purpose of provoking the public?
None of the laws you have proposed would have helped the colonials, save for the voice in parliament which would have been a great law at the time. Yes, this is a good test. The goal isn't to incite revolution, the goal is that the will of the governed reign over the will of their government. Laws should enact the peoples choices and beliefs. The colonists wanted freedom and liberties, their government didn't want to give it to them.
People who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. An overzealous government with unlimited reach and power is what so many have died for, paying their lives as the cost of liberty for their children.
A free-thinking libertarian once gave me a great acid test for weather or not laws should exist: Would the existence of such a law have helped the colonies overthrow King George III or would such a law have helped King George III keep hold of the colonies?
In my opinion, there are really three things here that have to be considered: 1. What you have 2. What you know 3. What you are What you have is the information on the phone. This information on an iPhone is encrypted, and would take unimaginable amounts of time to reverse, but it is reversible. What you know is the key to reverse the information. What you are includes the thumbprint that can also be used to "mimic" what you know (the key).
The government through a warrant has the absolute right to search and seize what you have: The encrypted data. The government does NOT have the right to what you know (5th Amendment). The third one: "what you are" is tricky. It only works in this case of the phone has been left ON, and has been unlocked in the past 48 hours using the key. From what I believe: due to the 13th amendment, the government can not force you to enter your fingerprint, because of a catch 22. You have not been found guilty (yet) of a crime, and doing so would constitute "involuntary servitude".
I don't think it would serve us well either to have all of our information readily accessible without any privacy protections either. What happens when China wants this information to find out who has been preaching Christianity in China, or Saudi Arabia wants to know who has gay thoughts? Our iPhones have such intimate details about our lives and so much information, I wonder if it would not server us well to classify that information as an extension of "what you know".
Glass is hundreds of times more scratch resistant than the extremely delicate magnetic media they install in hard drives (ok it really isn't, but the sensitivity is just as crazy because of the nano-meter tolerances required). Of course, this technology could be used in a protective case, like a hard drive, especially if the density/aging rates are as stated.
They rule encryption is a form of a weapon, with restrictions on export. Then they want to ban encryption. Pray-tell, how is the govt going to certify anything as secure without the most robust encryption technologies and practices currently available? Or does it mean, certified backdoored?
The HBM2 memory is manufactured by Samsung and likely to be used in both GPU boards. Even the summary states "In the example of NVIDIA's next gen GPU technology, code named Pascal, the new GPU will utilize HBM2 for its frame buffer memory. High-end consumer-grade Pascal boards will ship with 16GB of HBM2 memory (in four, 4GB packages), offering effective memory bandwidth of 1TB/sec (256GB/sec from each HMB2 package).".
As far as AMD vs. NVIDIA... competition breeds innovation, I'm happy they complete and make better packages to fight for the GPU crown.
I think he does have a half-starter of an idea, one that really can benefit America. Apple has $170,000,000,000 in foreign accounts and securities that bringing states-side would cost 39.6%.
That money should ABSOLUTELY come back to the US, and be re-invested in acquisitions, capital expenses, and payroll, further distributing the money around. It would also bolster the dollar since the flow would be inbound, making foreign goods cheaper in the process (many other companies are also in the same position).
SOLUTION:
Give a tax break to companies that repatriate their funds and in the same year use said funds to construct manufacturing operations in the U.S. watch how fast the U.S. matches China's supply chain for IT when $1.7 trillion is spent on US construction and education of workers capable of building that supply chain. There are no current loop-holes that make this a rotten deal, and there are tangible benefits down the road for the consumer (cheaper foreign goods), the producer (extra-tax-free foreign sales when producing exportable goods domestically), and the Fed in terms of domestic spending which will trickle down and generate tax revenue from suppliers, jobs, and better trade balance.
Or... Great for the rest of us, their lower costs will fight margin compression for a time, but their competitors will follow suit to remain competitive and while 3 million Americans lose out on high wages, 300 million Americans gain in lower consumption costs (after all, we are a consumption economy), and India will gain 9 million jobs. For the American and Indian economies, this is a plus. The whole world gets more economic expansion as the cheapest possible costs are applied to work, and consumption increases. Don't let the lobbies and unions bogg the rest of consumers down. Just as steel workers fought to keep the cost of construction and cars up, the IT workers are fighting to keep the cost of software and IT up, at the expense of the rest of the economy.
Bullshit. If the sea wall prevents the destruction of property at any occurance which costs more than the sea wall, then it was a profitable endeavor to build it. ROI is calculated by how long it takes to save its own worth in propert that would have otherwise been damaged or destroyed. Profit in the economic sense means you are better off for having done it, not the accounting sense of hard dollars flowing into your pockets.
It doesn't work if you think of the sphere as a solid sphere such as a basket ball. It does work if you think of it as a series of pretty wide rings each spinning about itself. That way, all the light of the host star can be absorbed while requiring little interior support. You could do the same around a planet, the international space station doesn't orbit the equator exactly either, because all orbits cause centrifugal pull/angular momentum.
The industry was created to cover the cost of production and distribution. Both of which today are much cheaper and can me made by individuals who have not "made it" yet.
I don't think these beads are toxic to us. Especially if they have been put in toothpaste. PE plastic is not digestible by our guts and our gut bacteria. Maybe they are broken down into something nasty by oceanic zooplankton? I know some small fish eat them, and achieve no nutritional value of them, expending energy to catch up with them in water and therefore starving as a result.
I also read an article about a company experimenting with the idea of using microbeads to lower the caloric levels of food, basically serving us flavor/food colored blended beads that would taste like cake but slide right through? I don't think these beads should be let into the oceans, but so many things we put down the drain shouldn't either. So sewage treatment should already fix this.
Slashdot Mirror
I still use my MacBook Pro Mid-2012. Because it was not upgradable I purchased it with at the time 768GB of Solid State Disk, 16GB of Ram, and the higher end graphics options. It still runs El Capitan really well, and aside from generational CPU differences, there is nothing that makes me look at a 2015 MacBook Pro and makes me think it's worth me parting with $2500. There isn't the ability to add more ram that 16GB (which I use primarily for running various VMs I work on to develop), more internal storage (which is leaps and bounds more than 640k, which honestly should be enough for any body), and has the same display and form factor as the current one does. The battery has recently asked to be serviced, and it came in at 5:30 hours of Netflix at full display, still enough for me since I have multiple chargers and Displays as docks. There is nothing today that makes me think I want a newer one.
What I would like to see is a MacBook Pro that has thunderbolt 3, a 4K display, MAYBE MAYBE a keyboard from the new MacBook, which I have tried but I'm still undecided on, and an A10 or A11 coprocessor for running apps on a low power mode sparing the big hunking desktop-class skylake CPU. 64GB of ram as a max would be nice, as would 2TB SSDs. I don't need it thinner, as I can comfortably tote this one around now as is. Just give me as much battery as can be.
Thanks, thats my thing learned for today!
For mass-transit, it really doesn't matter!
There are plenty of advances and savings with not having a fuel system, starter system, throttle, ballast pumping system and all the rest that a dirty fuel burning plane needs, but all of them will never EVER equal the displacement in power-to-weight ratio that a hydrocarbon plane has over solar, for one simple reason:
The sun is just not bright enough from Earth
Even if we did manage to make solar cells 100% efficient, they just won't capture enough light from the sun to power a plane for a long period of time with that much weight.
There are only so many advances you can go before you start to hit physical limits and math limits. Takeoff weight, and power needed to fight gravity are concepts we understand pretty well (just ask NASA, the guys with huge R&D budgets). The sad fact is, we can only derive about 1KW/square meter of solar energy. One could say it's a design challenge to just make the plane bigger, but one would need ever increasing structures and weight to capture the increasing size of the solar power plant on top the craft. See here for NASA's explanation of a similar issue with rocket power. So, one would be wrong.
What might be the answer is: batteries. If you could make a battery 100X the density of a modern battery, then it would take 1/3 the weight and volume of the fuel modern aircraft expend during their journeys, making them equivalent to throwing out the fuel through the engines as planes do today. Charging them in flight is a silly notion because such a small amount of energy in the form of sunlight actually hits the plane vs. the total energy required to physically overcome gravity with the mass of a few hundred souls, luggage, and craft. You would need these batteries to charge very fast while on the ground, have long life-spans and cycle-count ratings for it to be economically worth it. Maybe when our ability to work with single-atom thick graphene sheets has advanced we could achieve this. There are probably things we need to do better to the electric motor to produce that kind of horsepower, but that seems like the next problem to solve, not the current one.
Really? What about an emergency that requires the plane to turn around and land? Citation please? Not that I think your lying, it's just that I can't image that's the case.
Angel-o-sphere, I'm not sure as IANAE, but I believe plants (and their leaves) naturally can control the pore size which helps prevent moisture loss during the night and days where its cloudy, so its a naturally occurring function for pores to open as much as needed to obtain CO2, but only as much as needed.
open the damn pod bay doors when I want it to?
No.
H + 1 = I A + 1 = B L + 1 = M
Thought everyone knew that...
Someone didn't learn maths in school: H + 1 = (H+1) A + 1 = (I+1) L + 1 = (L+1) You can't solve for H A or L give the functions above ;)
I frequently work in one of the largest datacenter colocations in North America (www.supernap.com). I have access to multiple server room sectors, and can tell you without any shadow of a doubt, IBM is definitely one of the top 3 providers of server gear in there. I've worked in smaller datacenters as well where Dell and Supermicro reign supreme, but in these datacenters where Ebay, Sony N.A., and other 10,000 rack behemoths lurk, IBM is huge. Lots of IBM POWER, IBM Mainframe (still), and IBM Tape Backups. Some IBM Storage (though EMC and NetAPP take the cake there). The up-and-comming mega-supplier for servers though has to be cisco. I've seen so many of their blades installed recently, its amazing how fast they have entered that market.
I stand corrected: From Wikipedia: Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.
What are you talking about? A design has usefulness and therefore value just as utility patents do. If they didn't have value, there would be no reason for someone else to use it. By copying the car design, you see some value in it, and should compensate the designer appropriately, it's their design!
I would have to imagine being illegal has nothing to do with it, it would be a violation of the terms of service you signed up for Internet with, and I would imagine the ISPs who negotiate that with the various municipalities they operate in (Cable companies in particular who get exclusive access to residents of a city agree on TOS, packages, pricing for a particular city when agreeing to service said city). Municipal governments are locally controlled so it's easy to make sure agreeing to this sort of behavior is absolutely out of the question for the ISP anyway.
I think they plan to do this at the ISP level with a proxy or something, doesn't sound like they are inventing or installing anything. Sounds like they are man-in-the-middling your connection with a bad proxy.
Well, To be an advocate for the devil: Being a software developer myself, I'd imagine i would be pretty upset of my software was taken without concent and compensation for use elsewhere. The companies right haven have as clients do make intellectual property, and I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft. It's not like driving some else's car, since in this case the original owner retains a copy; it's like taking some else's car design and using it to build your own car without their consent. Now, what I disagree with in this case is two private companies arranging a punishment based on someone's illegal activities. I believe whole-heartedly that punishment can only be at the hands of the justice system. That's what it's there for. If you believe someone stole your property, you should sue them in court. You should have to prove your case, and you should ask the justice system for damages and/or punishment of some kind. But as a society, we can not allow private enterprise to be judge, jury, and executioner because that amounts to vigilante justice. We can all agree that we'd be better off with the justice system, can't we? These content owners really should be hiring a law firm to sue these infringers in court, and should have to pay court fees to do so, and should seek damages, and should have to prove their case!
if you read the story or comment on it!
You missed the point of the test:
A law that would explicitly enable the revolutionaries to stand up to King George III would be a law that would help the colonies overthrow the King.
"We want guns and cannons and stuff!"
"Okay. Free guns and cannons for all colonists!"
"BOOM BOOM BOOM! We're FREE!"
--Yes! Thats why the second amendment was written. We have a right to bear arms, specifically so that we can overthrow an oppressive government. So that a "militia" can not be overruled and out-gunned by its government. In modern times, its unimaginable how a citizenry in the U.S could overthrow its government, but surely it would be easier with arms than without.
What about a law freeing the colonies of taxation?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. No taxes then."
"Yaaaay! This king RULES! No revolution!"
-- This isn't a good law. Taxation is a form of procurement we exercise as a nation. Eg. we can not procure national defense independently, or pay for a healthy system of courts independently. When the government purchases goods or services, we all collectively purchase them without a choice. Taxation and government procurement is under force, so it should be used sparingly. To put a point on it: No taxation would have hurt the revolutionaries, so no.
What about a law giving the colonies a voice in Parliament?
"No taxation without representation!"
"Okay. You can have some seats."
"Cool. Sounds fair. No need for revolution."
A voice in parliament would have absolutely helped the revolutionaries, and with careful negotiation and a strong bargaining position, the war could have been shorter, or avoided entirely. This would have been a good law, and it would have helped the revolutionaries. Yes.
An overly oppressive law could also help the colonies to overthrow the king, by strengthening the resolve and numbers of the opposition.
"This king sucks!"
"Oh yeah! Well I claim primae noctis on all marriages in the colonies. You also have to pay your own way to England. You can't get married otherwise. We'll kill you if you don't comply."
"Let's kill him!"
This is a bad law for so many reasons. It would not have helped the revolutionaries because it would have strengthened ties to England due to the children, it would have drained the colony of females who could not afford the trip back, and (to humor you) would have resulted in many deaths due to the inability to pay for or survive the Atlantic crossing. Bad law, no.
Does timing matter? Couldn't the same law have different effects during different stages of the revolution? Consider something which, early on, would be non-controversial and "nip in the bud" revolutionary activities. However, if enacted after the colonies were already in revolt, this same law would be seen as oppressive and instead fuel rebellion?
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"Ben who?"
vs.
"Don't talk to Ben Franklin!"
"FUCK YOU!"
At no point would such a law have helped the colonies, No. This isn't a good law.
Is this really a good test? Wouldn't the most oppressive laws imaginable actually pass, because they would incite revolution? Should the gov't really pass crazy laws simply for the purpose of provoking the public?
None of the laws you have proposed would have helped the colonials, save for the voice in parliament which would have been a great law at the time. Yes, this is a good test. The goal isn't to incite revolution, the goal is that the will of the governed reign over the will of their government. Laws should enact the peoples choices and beliefs. The colonists wanted freedom and liberties, their government didn't want to give it to them.
People who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. An overzealous government with unlimited reach and power is what so many have died for, paying their lives as the cost of liberty for their children.
A free-thinking libertarian once gave me a great acid test for weather or not laws should exist: Would the existence of such a law have helped the colonies overthrow King George III or would such a law have helped King George III keep hold of the colonies?
In my opinion, there are really three things here that have to be considered:
1. What you have
2. What you know
3. What you are
What you have is the information on the phone. This information on an iPhone is encrypted, and would take unimaginable amounts of time to reverse, but it is reversible.
What you know is the key to reverse the information. What you are includes the thumbprint that can also be used to "mimic" what you know (the key).
The government through a warrant has the absolute right to search and seize what you have: The encrypted data.
The government does NOT have the right to what you know (5th Amendment).
The third one: "what you are" is tricky. It only works in this case of the phone has been left ON, and has been unlocked in the past 48 hours using the key. From what I believe: due to the 13th amendment, the government can not force you to enter your fingerprint, because of a catch 22. You have not been found guilty (yet) of a crime, and doing so would constitute "involuntary servitude".
I don't think it would serve us well either to have all of our information readily accessible without any privacy protections either. What happens when China wants this information to find out who has been preaching Christianity in China, or Saudi Arabia wants to know who has gay thoughts?
Our iPhones have such intimate details about our lives and so much information, I wonder if it would not server us well to classify that information as an extension of "what you know".
Glass is hundreds of times more scratch resistant than the extremely delicate magnetic media they install in hard drives (ok it really isn't, but the sensitivity is just as crazy because of the nano-meter tolerances required). Of course, this technology could be used in a protective case, like a hard drive, especially if the density/aging rates are as stated.
They rule encryption is a form of a weapon, with restrictions on export. Then they want to ban encryption. Pray-tell, how is the govt going to certify anything as secure without the most robust encryption technologies and practices currently available? Or does it mean, certified backdoored?
The HBM2 memory is manufactured by Samsung and likely to be used in both GPU boards. Even the summary states "In the example of NVIDIA's next gen GPU technology, code named Pascal, the new GPU will utilize HBM2 for its frame buffer memory. High-end consumer-grade Pascal boards will ship with 16GB of HBM2 memory (in four, 4GB packages), offering effective memory bandwidth of 1TB/sec (256GB/sec from each HMB2 package).".
As far as AMD vs. NVIDIA... competition breeds innovation, I'm happy they complete and make better packages to fight for the GPU crown.
I think he does have a half-starter of an idea, one that really can benefit America. Apple has $170,000,000,000 in foreign accounts and securities that bringing states-side would cost 39.6%. That money should ABSOLUTELY come back to the US, and be re-invested in acquisitions, capital expenses, and payroll, further distributing the money around. It would also bolster the dollar since the flow would be inbound, making foreign goods cheaper in the process (many other companies are also in the same position). SOLUTION: Give a tax break to companies that repatriate their funds and in the same year use said funds to construct manufacturing operations in the U.S. watch how fast the U.S. matches China's supply chain for IT when $1.7 trillion is spent on US construction and education of workers capable of building that supply chain. There are no current loop-holes that make this a rotten deal, and there are tangible benefits down the road for the consumer (cheaper foreign goods), the producer (extra-tax-free foreign sales when producing exportable goods domestically), and the Fed in terms of domestic spending which will trickle down and generate tax revenue from suppliers, jobs, and better trade balance.
Or... Great for the rest of us, their lower costs will fight margin compression for a time, but their competitors will follow suit to remain competitive and while 3 million Americans lose out on high wages, 300 million Americans gain in lower consumption costs (after all, we are a consumption economy), and India will gain 9 million jobs. For the American and Indian economies, this is a plus. The whole world gets more economic expansion as the cheapest possible costs are applied to work, and consumption increases. Don't let the lobbies and unions bogg the rest of consumers down. Just as steel workers fought to keep the cost of construction and cars up, the IT workers are fighting to keep the cost of software and IT up, at the expense of the rest of the economy.
Bullshit. If the sea wall prevents the destruction of property at any occurance which costs more than the sea wall, then it was a profitable endeavor to build it. ROI is calculated by how long it takes to save its own worth in propert that would have otherwise been damaged or destroyed. Profit in the economic sense means you are better off for having done it, not the accounting sense of hard dollars flowing into your pockets.
It doesn't work if you think of the sphere as a solid sphere such as a basket ball. It does work if you think of it as a series of pretty wide rings each spinning about itself. That way, all the light of the host star can be absorbed while requiring little interior support. You could do the same around a planet, the international space station doesn't orbit the equator exactly either, because all orbits cause centrifugal pull/angular momentum.
The PDF rendered fine on OS X, not sure if that means its cleanly constructed, but it's readable, and not corrupt to the PDF previewer.
The industry was created to cover the cost of production and distribution. Both of which today are much cheaper and can me made by individuals who have not "made it" yet.
I don't think these beads are toxic to us. Especially if they have been put in toothpaste. PE plastic is not digestible by our guts and our gut bacteria.
Maybe they are broken down into something nasty by oceanic zooplankton? I know some small fish eat them, and achieve no nutritional value of them, expending energy to catch up with them in water and therefore starving as a result.
I also read an article about a company experimenting with the idea of using microbeads to lower the caloric levels of food, basically serving us flavor/food colored blended beads that would taste like cake but slide right through? I don't think these beads should be let into the oceans, but so many things we put down the drain shouldn't either. So sewage treatment should already fix this.