The big problem with food in our country has never been the quantity of food, but often that the poor live in "food deserts". The problem is usually with logistics, not quantity of food, so any analysis based on the quantity of food production is flawed at best. UBI doesn't solve the food logistics issue, so it doesn't even scratch the problem. SNAP is already pretty ubiquitous, and because supplier side (aka, grocery store) fraud is rampant in SNAP is it is basically as good as cash in many locales and doesn't seem to have solved the food desert problem (other than creating more fast food joints as they are now allowed to accept benefits). Of course you could throw more money at the food problem (e.g., with UBI), but that doesn't get to the root of the problem at all.
Although you make a case for the "farming" communities never getting out of a cycle of poverty, it's more interesting to look at the numbers instead of simply the percentages. For example, in this map, as you might expect, LA, Miami, Chicago, NY, Houston, Dallas, Detroit already have many folks who are "poor" and those locals probably haven't even experience their first wave of automation based employment displacement (although they no doubt experienced the wave of offshored manufacturing jobs). The kids of these folks aren't moving *away* anytime soon for better life (because in your automated future, there's no point). We have to solve this problem in the large cities.
In my opinion, the problem isn't food, but housing. Housing in desirable areas (e.g., near cities with employment opportunities) has reached the critical point. If UBI can get people to move *out* of the cities, into the more rural areas where housing is less problematic, that would probably be the only good thing it could do. Maybe UBI should be a flat median rate regardless of local cost of living. Maybe that will get rid of the "slums" as people who are underemployed will simply take advantage of economic incentives to move out leaving the people that want to work in the city. Indexing UBI to the local cost of living (like many socialists have proposed) likely doesn't change anything.
As for training. If you've ever hired minimum wage employees (e.g, employees whose economic productivity is lower than the economic wage), you would know that retention is already a big problem. Reducing that wage (presumably because of UBI) to the economic productivity level isn't likely to help retention at all (because the business's economic productivity return rate is not related at all to the employees economic compensation return rate). Business that have jobs that aren't subsistence or temporary level have already had to provide higher wages (and training wages) to promote retention. Adding UBI won't make this go down, at all (but maybe will go up because the economic return from the employee is less that the wages are no longer zero based, but higher on the economic marginal value curve). Probably won't be a big effect, but it certainly won't make wages (even training wages), go down. Probably will go up a bit depending on the industry.
The real issue is what it does to inflation. I suspect that since the major driver of inflation is demand-pull, pumping all this extra money in the system will cause an increase in the systematic inflation rate. Since I suspect that UBI adjustment will lag (just like SS COLA lags), the overall effect is that it will make it harder for everyone to get past a UBI existence level. Maybe that is the goal: keep a bulk of the population on UBI. I think the Romans tried that during the Roman Empire. Not sure that worked out as well as they thought it would.
You also forgot the additional load of millions of unemployed government workers and community agency volunteers and employees that direct the current social welfare programs. People talk about reduced *administrative costs* as if there aren't employee that are currently relying on these *administrative costs* for their employment opportunities.
You only need to look at some small towns in the rust belt in the US to see that the govt job administering various welfare programs is one of the "good" jobs in the area and often one of the largest employers. Take that away (and the local job multiplier effect it creates), and well, it's hard to see how this will make things any better for those places even if they have UBI to fall back on.
You don't see too many rich people leaving for third world countries just because the taxes are lower.
But you *do* see individuals that renounce their US citizenships (e.g., Eduardo Saverin) and corporations move their headquarters (e.g., Burger King), or simply their money to subsidiaries (e.g., Apple) in other countries with lower tax rates. Of course, Singapore, Canada and Ireland aren't third world countries, but you put up a good straw man there...
I think you may be missing the biggest problem with taking time off of work: your ability to find/maintain a job is diminished...
You see this effect already in the long term unemployed. Not only do they not actually get income, but their ability to find and maintain a jobs is greatly reduced. Although UBI might fix the "income" part (although this was already handled by unemployment insurance), it does nothing to keep such a person employable.
Of course this is a generalization, an not everyone will lose their employablity, but if you talk to women who take extended leaves to raise a family or people who have been unemployed for greater than a couple years due to layoffs or maybe some incarceration (and I know several in all categories), they basically lose the ability to find meaningful work. Of course you might always be able to find a job as a walmart greeter, but even the local mc-d's would rather hire someone with a more continuous work history. Even to get a "job" at a volunteer agency, they like to have some extended history of showing up on a regular basis to work (training volunteers is hard, and they generally don't want to waste time with flakes).
Maybe at some point in time people won't need to work very much throughout their lives, but we are far from it today and it seems to me completely disastrous to knee cap a generation of young folks who may not need to work today (say living in their parents' basement smoking weed), but if they desire to say raise a family in the future, might want to be able to have work skills to provide better for their families.
Maybe that's a bit too paternalistic a view for a government policy, but if we are walking down the path of UBI, what is that but not paternalistic? Or are we simply taking the detached view of *experimenting* with peoples' lives in the name of science and potential societal well-being.
In my view, a better way to run things is you "qualify" for UBI by either working, volunteering or being sponsored. For example, you work 1 year, you get 1 year of UBI. Or your parents, uncle/aunt, sibling, cousin, friend works 1 year and their UBI credit can be assigned to whomever (any split they want) tax free, you can even allow something like "go-fund-me" for strangers. Or another ratio say 1 year work, 2 years of UBI, or whatever. That way someone *you-actually-know* will have worked or volunteered occasionally, so you don't have generations of folks that don't even know how to work even if they wanted to. You can even seed everyone's UBI credit with say 5-years and perhaps as jobs dry up, have some rate of UBI accrual.
Even in the US today social security requires 40-quarters (10 years) of work before you qualify for benefits. I don't see a compelling reason to have zero requirement for UBI.
The U.S. does. The EU is a big wall around the most lucrative market in the world, and there's no walking in and taking it as long as the walls are up. And of course it's very convenient to blame anything that happens on the Russians. Those evil Russians, who can hack into everything with a breeze just like in the movies, but at the same time are so bumbling and hilariously clumsy that they always leave a trove of clearly incriminating evidence behind. If you believe the U.S. outlets, that is.
The US made the EU in order to reduce the chance of them going to war with each other again. The US wanted an United States of Europe model to look at in the mirror. Dividing Europe again would be counter-productive to US policy.
No, Europe is undo-ing the EU all by themselves and it's just that the US isn't stopping them (not that we are trying as we have seemed to caught the nationalistic bug ourselves). Maybe you favor some sort of intervention policy? Sorry, that's not in the cards...
As to if Russia is behind the nationalistic bug that's going around? Don't know. But I suspect it has been festering for quite a while and this whole Syria event has some how created a snowball effect of this pent-up nationalistic energy. History has a way of working that way (see WWI as an example).
You can blame Russia for Syria, or maybe you can even blame the US for creating ISIL that triggered the situation in Syria. That might be fair, but as to some US conspiracy to break up the EU, hardly. The US isn't that smart about things. If the US proves to be ultimately responsible for the breakup of the EU, it was some unforeseen consequence of our intervention in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion of that country back in the '80s in a misguided attempt to regain some national pride after losing Vietnam, not some multi-national corporate conspiracy...
Desalinization plants aren't a panacea. You need energy (currently, the largest UAE desalinization plant Jebel Ali M-Station runs on natural gas), and a place to store the output brine (and sink for the thermal energy of hot water effluent assuming you aren't just dumping it back into the ocean and polluting it.
"Data creation is exploding. With all the selfies and useless files people refuse to delete on the cloud, was created in the last two years alone. At the current rate, the world's data storage capacity will be overtaken by next spring. It will be nothing short of a catastrophe. Data shortages, data rationing, data black markets. Someone's compression will save the world from data-geddon, and it sure as hell better be Nucleus and not goddamn Pied Piper! I don't know about you people, but I don't wanna live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do."
I think there must be a Mad Max parable in there somewhere... Mad Max: The data warrior?
It's kind of interesting how the Seven Sisters seem to have parallels to FAMGA (although there are only 5 in FAMGA, 3 of the seven sisters were Standard Oil)...
Chinese or Arabic-speaking people can look up phrases in a Latin alphabet using a phrase book. And nobody else is going to easily use theirs. So it is not even viable. It is not even 1% chance. Plus, other reasons.
Given the current trends in technology "phrase-books" are going the way of books (niche applications only). Even today, they have photo-translators (free apps available on Android anyhow, don't know about iOS) and they are only going to get better over time. Universal translators (good enough for identifying documents and traveling) are probably going to become ubiquitous in a few years.
English is a bastard language. look at common spellings of words that are pronounced differently (tough, bough) etc etc, rules with exceptions, words that sound the same but are different (there, their)
If that is your criteria for a "bastard" language, don't ever try to learn Chinese. There are hundreds of homophones (words that sound the same but have totally different meanings) and the writing is not related at all to the pronunciation (being a logosyllabic writing scheme)...
On the other hand if you combine all English and Chinese fluent (and semi-fluent) people in world they probably out number all other languages and the fact that millions of children successfully learn both languages all the time, it might be fair to ask what problem (if any) there might be with a
"bastard" language. French is after all kind of a "bastard" Celtic-Latin language...
If you have a speech on the importance of the EU and you want to direct it at a French population who are about to go to the polls, and the outcome of those polls could determine the future of the EU, what's more important? That you speak in English or in French?
Context, it fucking matters.
He is anything but a moron.
Well, another observation is that he might simply pandering to the increased sense of *nationalism* that every country seems to be experiencing these days.
In politics, flattery will get you everywhere and tamping down any chance of a Frexit is probably Juncker's number one goal...
Of course he isn't a moron, he is a politician which requires the talent to be able to speak out of all sides of one's mouth...
The headline is a little misleading. The headline seems to be about the movie "The Circle", but the text about the tv show "Silicon Valley".
Although the summary is mostly about the TV show "Silicon Valley", the article is a movie review panning "The Circle" and offers up the TV show as a way to a better at
The headline is the same as the movie review title.
I'd find it hard to believe that you could do better than 2x performance of half decent fortran code.
They aren't really asking for basic code optimizations (although they will take them), they are hoping that someone might totally rework the code and do stuff like...
* Implement new algorithmic developments in such areas as grid adaptation, higher-order methods and efficient solution techniques for high performance computing hardware.
* Optimize inter-node processing in order to reduce overall model computation time and parallelization efficiency.
Actually, it is Fortran. Maybe it was FORTRAN when FUN3D was originally written, but now it's most certainly just Fortran.
Or FORTRAN because early keyboards couldn't do lowercase letters?
The problem with FORTRAN was the punch card formats popular for FORTRAN was BCDIC which has no encoding for lower case and the machine FORTRAN was designed for (IBM704) used a 6-bit BCD code (6 of which were packed into a 36-bit word).
The FORTRAN-77 language still required UPPERCASE keywords, but most compilers (including ratfor) accepted lower-case keywords, but by Fortran-90, lower-case keywords were officially supported and thus in tribute to that long awaited change, the official capitalization of the language changed.
Since the FUN3D project was started in the late '80s, it started in FORTRAN-77, but 2001 they converted to Fortran-90. The latest versions require a Fortran-2003 compiler
The original punch-key machines of the day for punch-card FORTRAN didn't have lower case because the early cards didn't support it. On the other hand computer keyboards being essentially retasked electric typewriter keyboards generally supported lower case from the get go...
Maybe they expect FUN3D to be parallelized for $55K. lol
Apparently, FUN3D is already paralyzed in performance (it is already parallelized)...
Actually, I think they expect someone to rework the numerical solving algorithm or distributed solver scheme for a mere chance at a $55K prize...
Basically, they are looking for some retired numerical solver guru with a lot of time on their hands and a chance for a few milliseconds in the spotlight (before being bribed and/or kidnapped by a foreign power and forced to give up the export controlled FUN3D source code)...
In principle, a large-scale boson-sampling machine would constitute an effective disproof against a foundational tenet in computer science: the Extended Church-Turing Thesis, which postulates that all realistic physical systems can be efficiently simulated with a (classical) probabilistic Turing machine.
The machine may not have any practical use, but it still is an interesting theoretical advance that might serve to challenge our understanding of computablity... Part of the theoretical importance of this area of research is the understanding of #P-complete problems.
The wikipedia articlenotes the theoretical significance of this...
A polynomial-time algorithm for solving a #P-complete problem, if it existed, would imply P = NP, and thus P = PH. No such algorithm is currently known.
I should have asked when you did your internship. $10 for an internship is slavery by any modern or semi modern standards. Hell I got paid $25 as an unskilled factory hand while at uni spending my nights studying and my daytime working with people who struggled to spell their own names but did have the technical capability of dragging a palette around. And even that was 10+ years ago.
Don't know about when the original poster did their internship, but I made $8.08/hour back in the early '80s (30+ years ago) working on an internship with a high-tech company... I thought that was great vs my other job waiting tables at minimum wage ($3.35/hour).
Once you get past your mid-fourties, you just don't have enough time or energy to begin retraining from the beginning. Generationally thing will work out. Your kids will get jobs in the new fields. But you may be left behind and that's hard.
I'm sorry to hear that you plan to remain stagnant for half of your life. I'd like to hope that I will continue to learn and improve until the day I die.
Regardless if you are stagnant or not, the unfortunate fact is that opportunities shrink when after you pass your mid-forties... Of course companies don't simply go Carrousel [sic] on their employees, but age discrimination is rampant in most industries (esp high-tech). The expected rate of return from retraining is certainly going to be much lower than someone who is younger (and of course the actual net return will be lower as you will have fewer years to accumulate whatever return you get).
I studied applied arts but left teaching to work for Ma Bell.
If I can infer from your invocation of "Ma Bell", you probably got your job back when there wasn't a horde of low-cost H1Bs with STEM degrees competing for jobs at high-tech companies...
Today, studying applied arts probably isn't going to give you the same opportunities as getting a STEM degree. Just say'n...
Full disclosure, I'm of the same vintage and they certainly didn't have a big computer scientist degree-ed hiring pool available back when "Ma Bell" existed. (not zero, but not big either). It probably isn't important technically, but getting past the HR filter w/o at least bootcamp-like credentials isn't as easy anymore....
There are a number of benefits to 64-bit support on Intel-compatible hardware besides the extra available memory:
1. More effective ASLR = better security
2. More and larger registers = better performance, although this does depend on what the compiler can do with your code
3. Guaranteed NX support = better security and/or less platform segmentation (depending on whether or not you used it in 32-bit code)
4. Guaranteed RIP and SSE/SSE2 support = greater performance and/or fewer code branches due to modern features always being present (aka, finally dump some of that legacy crap)
Hmm, we are talking about upgrading a 32-bit app already running on a 64-bit OS (which has all the goodness you mention). The only issue would be helped by ASLR would be something exploiting a JIT bug or a bug in a 32-bit browser plug-in.
The real reason they want to move to 64-bit is that it is easier to do effective heap-partitioning in a 64-bit address space. This technique is used to mitigate heap-grooming/buffer-extension and use-after-free exploits (the most common browser initiated exploits). In a 32-bit address space when web-pages can require 2GB just to render mean you can't afford the overhead to do heap-partitioning, so they don't use this mitigation technique in the 32-bit version of the browser.
The perf is of course marginally better too for 64-bit executable code (more orthogonal register set, more registers, process more data per instruction, etc..) than legacy 32-bit executable code, but that is secondary to the heap-partitioning issue.
On the other hand, you might argue that forcing a move to a browser that doesn't support the old risky plug-in architecture is the best security upgrade, but you don't *have* to move to 64-bit to stop supporting that plug-in architecture (use by flash). It was just a choice that Chrome made to continue to support it and it's not inherently a 32/64 bit question.
I am a big fan of the idea of the H1B program and believe immigrants are the primary thing which has made and continues to make our country great
The H1B program is specifically designed to prevent the workers from staying any longer than the particular employer needs them. I'd be all for a program that allows skilled works to immigrate, but H1B is about making them indentured servants for a company with no negotiating leverage -- not making them citizens.
Of course the US *already* has a program that allows skilled workers to immigrate w/o bein indentured servants. It's called a green card. Green cards even have different preferences for highly skilled employees (e.g., EB1, EB2), and even not-so skilled ones (EB-3).
The "problem" is that green cards are geographically constrained. If you are from any country but China, India, and the Philippines, you don't even need to mess with an H1b, just apply for a green card immediately. The "problem" is only experienced if you are from one of the aforementioned countries and aren't a rock-star. There are so many applicants for employment based green cards from these countries that they exceed the immigration quota and potential immigrants are encouraged by immigration advocates to get a *temporary* H1b to work whilst they wait for a green card. For India, they are currently processing green card applications with a priority date of June 2008 for (EB-2) and March 2005 (for EB-3), where if you are rockstar (EB-1), the wait time for a green card from India is similar to that of other countries (about 6-8 months).
The political problem with simply removing any per country cap is that it doesn't meet the diversity requirements of the immigration program at large (remember the total immigration is not simply skilled employment based, but also has family preferences, and other factors). There is no political will/desire to remove the geographic diversity requirements, any time soon as most USA-an would probably agree we want a limit on immigration and we want that immigration not to to be biased from one specific country...
Your comment got rated funny, but that's exactly what happened to cotton and corn. Of course the machines started low tech, but now they've got GPS self driving harvesters that use computer vision systems to sort the product as it's picked.
Of course the machine will be heavily DRM w/o the right for farmers to repair (but that's another problem),
Out of one fire, into another. Gotta feel for those farmers. It's a tough line of work. Foreign price pressure constantly threatens offshoring, Global warming threatening their water supply. Agri-chemical companies creating sterile seeds and pesticide dependency...
I agree in terms of Qualcomm turning the screws. That's ridiculous on their part. I was just saying that it's not like Apple has no other options in terms of looking for a chip manufacturer they can partner with. Although I am ignorant as to contractual obligations and admittedly didn't RTFA...
Well if you believe Qualcomm's position: you pay the same royalty rate *regardless* of who you buy your modem chip from.
*If you buy a modem chip from Qualcomm, in addition to paying qualcomm for the chip, you need to pay royalties on the total wholesale price of your handset. *If instead you buy your modem chip from another vendor that does 3G/4G or CDMA (say intel), you need to pay Qualcomm the same royalties.
So basically Qualcomm wants royalties based on the total wholesale price of the handset even if they didn't sell you a single chip in that handset because they believe you cannot implement device that interfaces to a 3G/4G or CDMA cell-tower without licencing their wireless patents. Although nobody likes this situation, only Apple has decided not to pay (other than a few chinese companies that use the proprietary chinese TD-CDMA scheme and only sell handsets to the internal chinese market).
Slashdot Mirror
The big problem with food in our country has never been the quantity of food, but often that the poor live in "food deserts". The problem is usually with logistics, not quantity of food, so any analysis based on the quantity of food production is flawed at best. UBI doesn't solve the food logistics issue, so it doesn't even scratch the problem. SNAP is already pretty ubiquitous, and because supplier side (aka, grocery store) fraud is rampant in SNAP is it is basically as good as cash in many locales and doesn't seem to have solved the food desert problem (other than creating more fast food joints as they are now allowed to accept benefits). Of course you could throw more money at the food problem (e.g., with UBI), but that doesn't get to the root of the problem at all.
Although you make a case for the "farming" communities never getting out of a cycle of poverty, it's more interesting to look at the numbers instead of simply the percentages. For example, in this map, as you might expect, LA, Miami, Chicago, NY, Houston, Dallas, Detroit already have many folks who are "poor" and those locals probably haven't even experience their first wave of automation based employment displacement (although they no doubt experienced the wave of offshored manufacturing jobs). The kids of these folks aren't moving *away* anytime soon for better life (because in your automated future, there's no point). We have to solve this problem in the large cities.
In my opinion, the problem isn't food, but housing. Housing in desirable areas (e.g., near cities with employment opportunities) has reached the critical point. If UBI can get people to move *out* of the cities, into the more rural areas where housing is less problematic, that would probably be the only good thing it could do. Maybe UBI should be a flat median rate regardless of local cost of living. Maybe that will get rid of the "slums" as people who are underemployed will simply take advantage of economic incentives to move out leaving the people that want to work in the city. Indexing UBI to the local cost of living (like many socialists have proposed) likely doesn't change anything.
As for training. If you've ever hired minimum wage employees (e.g, employees whose economic productivity is lower than the economic wage), you would know that retention is already a big problem. Reducing that wage (presumably because of UBI) to the economic productivity level isn't likely to help retention at all (because the business's economic productivity return rate is not related at all to the employees economic compensation return rate). Business that have jobs that aren't subsistence or temporary level have already had to provide higher wages (and training wages) to promote retention. Adding UBI won't make this go down, at all (but maybe will go up because the economic return from the employee is less that the wages are no longer zero based, but higher on the economic marginal value curve). Probably won't be a big effect, but it certainly won't make wages (even training wages), go down. Probably will go up a bit depending on the industry.
The real issue is what it does to inflation. I suspect that since the major driver of inflation is demand-pull, pumping all this extra money in the system will cause an increase in the systematic inflation rate. Since I suspect that UBI adjustment will lag (just like SS COLA lags), the overall effect is that it will make it harder for everyone to get past a UBI existence level. Maybe that is the goal: keep a bulk of the population on UBI. I think the Romans tried that during the Roman Empire. Not sure that worked out as well as they thought it would.
You also forgot the additional load of millions of unemployed government workers and community agency volunteers and employees that direct the current social welfare programs. People talk about reduced *administrative costs* as if there aren't employee that are currently relying on these *administrative costs* for their employment opportunities.
You only need to look at some small towns in the rust belt in the US to see that the govt job administering various welfare programs is one of the "good" jobs in the area and often one of the largest employers. Take that away (and the local job multiplier effect it creates), and well, it's hard to see how this will make things any better for those places even if they have UBI to fall back on.
You don't see too many rich people leaving for third world countries just because the taxes are lower.
But you *do* see individuals that renounce their US citizenships (e.g., Eduardo Saverin) and corporations move their headquarters (e.g., Burger King), or simply their money to subsidiaries (e.g., Apple) in other countries with lower tax rates. Of course, Singapore, Canada and Ireland aren't third world countries, but you put up a good straw man there...
I think you may be missing the biggest problem with taking time off of work: your ability to find/maintain a job is diminished...
You see this effect already in the long term unemployed. Not only do they not actually get income, but their ability to find and maintain a jobs is greatly reduced. Although UBI might fix the "income" part (although this was already handled by unemployment insurance), it does nothing to keep such a person employable.
Of course this is a generalization, an not everyone will lose their employablity, but if you talk to women who take extended leaves to raise a family or people who have been unemployed for greater than a couple years due to layoffs or maybe some incarceration (and I know several in all categories), they basically lose the ability to find meaningful work. Of course you might always be able to find a job as a walmart greeter, but even the local mc-d's would rather hire someone with a more continuous work history. Even to get a "job" at a volunteer agency, they like to have some extended history of showing up on a regular basis to work (training volunteers is hard, and they generally don't want to waste time with flakes).
Maybe at some point in time people won't need to work very much throughout their lives, but we are far from it today and it seems to me completely disastrous to knee cap a generation of young folks who may not need to work today (say living in their parents' basement smoking weed), but if they desire to say raise a family in the future, might want to be able to have work skills to provide better for their families.
Maybe that's a bit too paternalistic a view for a government policy, but if we are walking down the path of UBI, what is that but not paternalistic? Or are we simply taking the detached view of *experimenting* with peoples' lives in the name of science and potential societal well-being.
In my view, a better way to run things is you "qualify" for UBI by either working, volunteering or being sponsored. For example, you work 1 year, you get 1 year of UBI. Or your parents, uncle/aunt, sibling, cousin, friend works 1 year and their UBI credit can be assigned to whomever (any split they want) tax free, you can even allow something like "go-fund-me" for strangers. Or another ratio say 1 year work, 2 years of UBI, or whatever. That way someone *you-actually-know* will have worked or volunteered occasionally, so you don't have generations of folks that don't even know how to work even if they wanted to. You can even seed everyone's UBI credit with say 5-years and perhaps as jobs dry up, have some rate of UBI accrual.
Even in the US today social security requires 40-quarters (10 years) of work before you qualify for benefits. I don't see a compelling reason to have zero requirement for UBI.
The U.S. does. The EU is a big wall around the most lucrative market in the world, and there's no walking in and taking it as long as the walls are up. And of course it's very convenient to blame anything that happens on the Russians. Those evil Russians, who can hack into everything with a breeze just like in the movies, but at the same time are so bumbling and hilariously clumsy that they always leave a trove of clearly incriminating evidence behind. If you believe the U.S. outlets, that is.
The US made the EU in order to reduce the chance of them going to war with each other again. The US wanted an United States of Europe model to look at in the mirror. Dividing Europe again would be counter-productive to US policy.
No, Europe is undo-ing the EU all by themselves and it's just that the US isn't stopping them (not that we are trying as we have seemed to caught the nationalistic bug ourselves). Maybe you favor some sort of intervention policy? Sorry, that's not in the cards...
As to if Russia is behind the nationalistic bug that's going around? Don't know. But I suspect it has been festering for quite a while and this whole Syria event has some how created a snowball effect of this pent-up nationalistic energy. History has a way of working that way (see WWI as an example).
You can blame Russia for Syria, or maybe you can even blame the US for creating ISIL that triggered the situation in Syria. That might be fair, but as to some US conspiracy to break up the EU, hardly. The US isn't that smart about things. If the US proves to be ultimately responsible for the breakup of the EU, it was some unforeseen consequence of our intervention in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion of that country back in the '80s in a misguided attempt to regain some national pride after losing Vietnam, not some multi-national corporate conspiracy...
Desalinization plants aren't a panacea. You need energy (currently, the largest UAE desalinization plant Jebel Ali M-Station runs on natural gas), and a place to store the output brine (and sink for the thermal energy of hot water effluent assuming you aren't just dumping it back into the ocean and polluting it.
Like everything, it's a tradeoff.
"Data creation is exploding. With all the selfies and useless files people refuse to delete on the cloud, was created in the last two years alone. At the current rate, the world's data storage capacity will be overtaken by next spring. It will be nothing short of a catastrophe. Data shortages, data rationing, data black markets. Someone's compression will save the world from data-geddon, and it sure as hell better be Nucleus and not goddamn Pied Piper! I don't know about you people, but I don't wanna live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do."
I think there must be a Mad Max parable in there somewhere... Mad Max: The data warrior?
It's kind of interesting how the Seven Sisters seem to have parallels to FAMGA (although there are only 5 in FAMGA, 3 of the seven sisters were Standard Oil)...
Chinese or Arabic-speaking people can look up phrases in a Latin alphabet using a phrase book. And nobody else is going to easily use theirs. So it is not even viable. It is not even 1% chance. Plus, other reasons.
Given the current trends in technology "phrase-books" are going the way of books (niche applications only). Even today, they have photo-translators (free apps available on Android anyhow, don't know about iOS) and they are only going to get better over time. Universal translators (good enough for identifying documents and traveling) are probably going to become ubiquitous in a few years.
English is a bastard language. look at common spellings of words that are pronounced differently (tough, bough) etc etc, rules with exceptions, words that sound the same but are different (there, their)
If that is your criteria for a "bastard" language, don't ever try to learn Chinese. There are hundreds of homophones (words that sound the same but have totally different meanings) and the writing is not related at all to the pronunciation (being a logosyllabic writing scheme)...
On the other hand if you combine all English and Chinese fluent (and semi-fluent) people in world they probably out number all other languages and the fact that millions of children successfully learn both languages all the time, it might be fair to ask what problem (if any) there might be with a
"bastard" language. French is after all kind of a "bastard" Celtic-Latin language...
If you have a speech on the importance of the EU and you want to direct it at a French population who are about to go to the polls, and the outcome of those polls could determine the future of the EU, what's more important? That you speak in English or in French?
Context, it fucking matters.
He is anything but a moron.
Well, another observation is that he might simply pandering to the increased sense of *nationalism* that every country seems to be experiencing these days.
In politics, flattery will get you everywhere and tamping down any chance of a Frexit is probably Juncker's number one goal...
Of course he isn't a moron, he is a politician which requires the talent to be able to speak out of all sides of one's mouth...
There we go again...
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
An classic observation by a former governor of California...
The headline is a little misleading. The headline seems to be about the movie "The Circle", but the text about the tv show "Silicon Valley".
Although the summary is mostly about the TV show "Silicon Valley", the article is a movie review panning "The Circle" and offers up the TV show as a way to a better at
The headline is the same as the movie review title.
I'd find it hard to believe that you could do better than 2x performance of half decent fortran code.
They aren't really asking for basic code optimizations (although they will take them), they are hoping that someone might totally rework the code and do stuff like...
* Implement new algorithmic developments in such areas as grid adaptation, higher-order methods and efficient solution techniques for high performance computing hardware.
* Optimize inter-node processing in order to reduce overall model computation time and parallelization efficiency.
Not $55k, half of that. You have to share it with someone else.
Actually, you have to share it with several someone elses....
A prize purse of up to $55,000 will be distributed among first and second finishers in two categories.
and the US treasury (they always share in the wealth)...
Actually, it is Fortran. Maybe it was FORTRAN when FUN3D was originally written, but now it's most certainly just Fortran.
Or FORTRAN because early keyboards couldn't do lowercase letters?
The problem with FORTRAN was the punch card formats popular for FORTRAN was BCDIC which has no encoding for lower case and the machine FORTRAN was designed for (IBM704) used a 6-bit BCD code (6 of which were packed into a 36-bit word).
The FORTRAN-77 language still required UPPERCASE keywords, but most compilers (including ratfor) accepted lower-case keywords, but by Fortran-90, lower-case keywords were officially supported and thus in tribute to that long awaited change, the official capitalization of the language changed.
Since the FUN3D project was started in the late '80s, it started in FORTRAN-77, but 2001 they converted to Fortran-90. The latest versions require a Fortran-2003 compiler
The original punch-key machines of the day for punch-card FORTRAN didn't have lower case because the early cards didn't support it. On the other hand computer keyboards being essentially retasked electric typewriter keyboards generally supported lower case from the get go...
or something parallel like this
Maybe they expect FUN3D to be parallelized for $55K. lol
Apparently, FUN3D is already paralyzed in performance (it is already parallelized)...
Actually, I think they expect someone to rework the numerical solving algorithm or distributed solver scheme for a mere chance at a $55K prize...
Basically, they are looking for some retired numerical solver guru with a lot of time on their hands and a chance for a few milliseconds in the spotlight (before being bribed and/or kidnapped by a foreign power and forced to give up the export controlled FUN3D source code)...
Paper preprint...
Wikipage about boson sampling...
In principle, a large-scale boson-sampling machine would constitute an effective disproof against a foundational tenet in computer science: the Extended Church-Turing Thesis, which postulates that all realistic physical systems can be efficiently simulated with a (classical) probabilistic Turing machine.
The machine may not have any practical use, but it still is an interesting theoretical advance that might serve to challenge our understanding of computablity... Part of the theoretical importance of this area of research is the understanding of #P-complete problems.
The wikipedia articlenotes the theoretical significance of this...
A polynomial-time algorithm for solving a #P-complete problem, if it existed, would imply P = NP, and thus P = PH. No such algorithm is currently known.
Slavery, what slavery?
I should have asked when you did your internship. $10 for an internship is slavery by any modern or semi modern standards. Hell I got paid $25 as an unskilled factory hand while at uni spending my nights studying and my daytime working with people who struggled to spell their own names but did have the technical capability of dragging a palette around. And even that was 10+ years ago.
Don't know about when the original poster did their internship, but I made $8.08/hour back in the early '80s (30+ years ago) working on an internship with a high-tech company... I thought that was great vs my other job waiting tables at minimum wage ($3.35/hour).
Once you get past your mid-fourties, you just don't have enough time or energy to begin retraining from the beginning. Generationally thing will work out. Your kids will get jobs in the new fields. But you may be left behind and that's hard.
I'm sorry to hear that you plan to remain stagnant for half of your life. I'd like to hope that I will continue to learn and improve until the day I die.
Regardless if you are stagnant or not, the unfortunate fact is that opportunities shrink when after you pass your mid-forties... Of course companies don't simply go Carrousel [sic] on their employees, but age discrimination is rampant in most industries (esp high-tech). The expected rate of return from retraining is certainly going to be much lower than someone who is younger (and of course the actual net return will be lower as you will have fewer years to accumulate whatever return you get).
I studied applied arts but left teaching to work for Ma Bell.
If I can infer from your invocation of "Ma Bell", you probably got your job back when there wasn't a horde of low-cost H1Bs with STEM degrees competing for jobs at high-tech companies...
Today, studying applied arts probably isn't going to give you the same opportunities as getting a STEM degree. Just say'n...
Full disclosure, I'm of the same vintage and they certainly didn't have a big computer scientist degree-ed hiring pool available back when "Ma Bell" existed. (not zero, but not big either). It probably isn't important technically, but getting past the HR filter w/o at least bootcamp-like credentials isn't as easy anymore....
Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"
As always, be careful what you wish for as this posting reminds us...
There are a number of benefits to 64-bit support on Intel-compatible hardware besides the extra available memory:
1. More effective ASLR = better security
2. More and larger registers = better performance, although this does depend on what the compiler can do with your code
3. Guaranteed NX support = better security and/or less platform segmentation (depending on whether or not you used it in 32-bit code)
4. Guaranteed RIP and SSE/SSE2 support = greater performance and/or fewer code branches due to modern features always being present (aka, finally dump some of that legacy crap)
Hmm, we are talking about upgrading a 32-bit app already running on a 64-bit OS (which has all the goodness you mention). The only issue would be helped by ASLR would be something exploiting a JIT bug or a bug in a 32-bit browser plug-in.
The real reason they want to move to 64-bit is that it is easier to do effective heap-partitioning in a 64-bit address space. This technique is used to mitigate heap-grooming/buffer-extension and use-after-free exploits (the most common browser initiated exploits). In a 32-bit address space when web-pages can require 2GB just to render mean you can't afford the overhead to do heap-partitioning, so they don't use this mitigation technique in the 32-bit version of the browser.
The perf is of course marginally better too for 64-bit executable code (more orthogonal register set, more registers, process more data per instruction, etc..) than legacy 32-bit executable code, but that is secondary to the heap-partitioning issue.
On the other hand, you might argue that forcing a move to a browser that doesn't support the old risky plug-in architecture is the best security upgrade, but you don't *have* to move to 64-bit to stop supporting that plug-in architecture (use by flash). It was just a choice that Chrome made to continue to support it and it's not inherently a 32/64 bit question.
The H1B program is specifically designed to prevent the workers from staying any longer than the particular employer needs them. I'd be all for a program that allows skilled works to immigrate, but H1B is about making them indentured servants for a company with no negotiating leverage -- not making them citizens.
Of course the US *already* has a program that allows skilled workers to immigrate w/o bein indentured servants. It's called a green card. Green cards even have different preferences for highly skilled employees (e.g., EB1, EB2), and even not-so skilled ones (EB-3).
The "problem" is that green cards are geographically constrained. If you are from any country but China, India, and the Philippines, you don't even need to mess with an H1b, just apply for a green card immediately. The "problem" is only experienced if you are from one of the aforementioned countries and aren't a rock-star. There are so many applicants for employment based green cards from these countries that they exceed the immigration quota and potential immigrants are encouraged by immigration advocates to get a *temporary* H1b to work whilst they wait for a green card. For India, they are currently processing green card applications with a priority date of June 2008 for (EB-2) and March 2005 (for EB-3), where if you are rockstar (EB-1), the wait time for a green card from India is similar to that of other countries (about 6-8 months).
The political problem with simply removing any per country cap is that it doesn't meet the diversity requirements of the immigration program at large (remember the total immigration is not simply skilled employment based, but also has family preferences, and other factors). There is no political will/desire to remove the geographic diversity requirements, any time soon as most USA-an would probably agree we want a limit on immigration and we want that immigration not to to be biased from one specific country...
Your comment got rated funny, but that's exactly what happened to cotton and corn. Of course the machines started low tech, but now they've got GPS self driving harvesters that use computer vision systems to sort the product as it's picked.
Of course the machine will be heavily DRM w/o the right for farmers to repair (but that's another problem),
Out of one fire, into another. Gotta feel for those farmers. It's a tough line of work. Foreign price pressure constantly threatens offshoring, Global warming threatening their water supply. Agri-chemical companies creating sterile seeds and pesticide dependency...
I agree in terms of Qualcomm turning the screws. That's ridiculous on their part. I was just saying that it's not like Apple has no other options in terms of looking for a chip manufacturer they can partner with. Although I am ignorant as to contractual obligations and admittedly didn't RTFA...
Well if you believe Qualcomm's position: you pay the same royalty rate *regardless* of who you buy your modem chip from.
*If you buy a modem chip from Qualcomm, in addition to paying qualcomm for the chip, you need to pay royalties on the total wholesale price of your handset.
*If instead you buy your modem chip from another vendor that does 3G/4G or CDMA (say intel), you need to pay Qualcomm the same royalties.
So basically Qualcomm wants royalties based on the total wholesale price of the handset even if they didn't sell you a single chip in that handset because they believe you cannot implement device that interfaces to a 3G/4G or CDMA cell-tower without licencing their wireless patents. Although nobody likes this situation, only Apple has decided not to pay (other than a few chinese companies that use the proprietary chinese TD-CDMA scheme and only sell handsets to the internal chinese market).