all reasonable answers except for "small UPS". this isn't an information network. Shoving 2 meters of Spam® brand luncheon meat to the Piggly Wiggly will use more electricty per second than your company's network uses in a week. Power outages will mean total downtime, so the plan for dealing with that will have to be a significant portion of the development process. And, as I said previously, should included inducing local utilities to install a smart-grid power routing system to reduce the possibility of a power outage to infinitesimal.
this isn't a network system. it's a physical distribution system. physical routing in a private network doesn't have issues of noise, and won't deal with collision by dropping the packet and requesting the sender repeat it at a later time. it will enqueue the objects and wait until there is bandwidth available, then send them. you can't "drop packets" and lose the contents forever here. if something happens to the routing, you just find the original packet and route it properly. all this takes is a network management system that's capable of identifying and locating every container at all times and reporting that to the routing center; something you'll implement for the sake of basic security anyway. the container may get there later than originally scheduled, but it's not like food has to be delivered in any particular order.
1. trivial for experienced right-of-way obtainers. any telco or cable company is lousy with them. 2. there's nothing simpler than a modular design for a linear induction motor and a re-place-before-repair policy (why does slashdot still have a problem with the word spelled "r-e-p-l-a-c-e"?). 3. so build it so it can't get jammed. 4. any segment of the motor that's 2 meters long has to be able to handle a 2-meter container, so the system could be completely full and still work. 5. the containers will have to have some identification, the system will have to be in control of routing, the containers could have active transponders. if one goes to a place it's not scheduled for, send in the cops. 6. lock the hatches. 7. power outages will be a thing of the past if we ever get a smart grid.
your concerns are very basic. to the point that i doubt anyone actually involved in the project is still saddled with them.
There's a difference between promoting transparency and engaging in criminal behavior. Assange and wikileaks have crossed a line both ethically and legally, and the good they may have done does not justify the bad they've done.
We've always ignored the chances of life on extraterrestrial bodies with significant levels of arsenic on the empirically founded theory that arsenic doesn't work in place of phosporus in living systems.
So while this is a lifeform we already knew about, it's a different form of life from what we understood.
The question remains, is it possible for DNA to have evolved in an environment rich in arsenic, or would it have had to evolve in an arsenic-free environment, and just happen to have enough integrity once it's formed to tolerate the replacement of phosphorus atoms with arsenic atoms?
"It was cemented in. That's odd," [Denver Police Spokesman Matt] Murray said.
That is odd. It probably should justify the involvement of the police.
However,
Murray said that a citizen called police at 3:27 p.m. to report the presence of the plastic white toy robot cemented to the base of a pillar supporting a footbridge near the intersection of 20th and Wazee streets.
How did the citizen know it was cemented in? Did he manipulate it enough to know it couldn't be removed? And if he did, how did that affect the likelihood that the object was a danger to anyone? And would the police have cared if someone hadn't been freaked-out by it?
That's why I talked about multiplexing with colors and phases.
But here's a question: while it's true that the light has a much higher frequency and can support faster modulation, is there a transistor capable of switching it that fast?
Strawman. You're trying to paint "copyright infringement is not theft" as "intangible things can never be stolen".
It's not a strawman because I didn't invent the argument used by those who argue "copyright infringement is not theft." Just plug that term into google and you'll find people doing it just the way I said. And the argument boils down to either "intangible things can never be stolen" or "only tangible things can be stolen", because if they ever say "intangible things can be stolen" they admit copyright infringement is stealing, ergo theft. Or else they have to argue that the right to make or possess a copy is not an intangible thing. Go right ahead. I'll make popcorn.
I'm doing it on purpose because it's the truth. You know I'm mentally competent to refute the actual position because I did it. And their logic is either sloppy or deliberately incorrect.
I'm not sure how to respond to being accused of using Shakespeare as an authority. He is an authority on matters of diction.
If you take something without paying for it you are depriving the true owner of the money you should have paid him, whether the thing is tangible (a cd) or intangible (the music on the cd). Laws use many specific terms for specific kinds of theft because the law spells out different conditions and remedies for each, but outside a court they're all still theft. The "copyright infringement is not theft" arguments all depend on creating a false dichotomy between the kinds of theft, then implying that copyright infringement is not similar to stealing tangible things, then omitting comparison to stealing intangible things. Whether this is deliberate prevarication or merely sloppy logic committed by people who are thinking harder than they're used to in a milieu they're unfamiliar with is uncertain and irrelevant. You just did it yourself by omitting the "tangible or intangible" part of that definition, then including the "depriving" part that can only apply to the tangible part.
If you want to omit intangible forms of theft, you're going to have to revise Shakespeare:
Whilst I alone did call upon thy aid, My verse alone had all thy gentle grace; But now my gracious numbers are decayed, And my sick Muse doth give an other place. I grant, sweet love, thy lovely argument Deserves the travail of a worthier pen; Yet what of thee thy poet doth invent He robs thee of, and pays it thee again. He lends thee virtue, and he stole that word From thy behaviour; beauty doth he give, And found it in thy cheek: he can afford No praise to thee, but what in thee doth live. Then thank him not for that which he doth say, Since what he owes thee, thou thyself dost pay. - Sonnet LXXIX
He's sped up links between chips from something like one-third c to c.
Architecturally that reduces inter-chip latency by 66%, which does indeed open up a new overall speed range for applications that are bandwidth-limited by interconnects. But in no sense does it imply a 1000-fold increase in overall performance. It's only a 3X improvement in bandwidth of the physical layer of the interconnect to which the speedup applies.
It may allow architectures that pack in more computing units, since light beams don't interfere physically or electrically the way wires do. And light can carry multiple channels in the same beam if multiple frequency or phase or polarization accesses can be added. Those will further improve bandwidth and possibly allow a further increase in the number of computing units, which could help get to the 1000X number.
BTW, didn't Intel have an announcement on optical interconnects just a while ago? Yes. They did.
No, I didn't. I came back to the thread several days later to find several inane responses, none of which needed to be refuted because they were all ridiculous on their faces.
If I tweet that I killed Princess Di will the Paris plod come crashing through my door?
No, because they already solved that case. But if you tweet that you want to destroy an airport you will probably get a visit from someone interested in prosecuting you no matter how serious you were. Same deal for death threats against leadership figures.
And they get to use your tweet against you in court, and ask "were you lying then or are you lying now", which inexorably paints you as a liar, which heavily biases a jury against you.
Slashdot Mirror
all reasonable answers except for "small UPS". this isn't an information network. Shoving 2 meters of Spam® brand luncheon meat to the Piggly Wiggly will use more electricty per second than your company's network uses in a week. Power outages will mean total downtime, so the plan for dealing with that will have to be a significant portion of the development process. And, as I said previously, should included inducing local utilities to install a smart-grid power routing system to reduce the possibility of a power outage to infinitesimal.
this isn't a network system. it's a physical distribution system. physical routing in a private network doesn't have issues of noise, and won't deal with collision by dropping the packet and requesting the sender repeat it at a later time. it will enqueue the objects and wait until there is bandwidth available, then send them. you can't "drop packets" and lose the contents forever here. if something happens to the routing, you just find the original packet and route it properly. all this takes is a network management system that's capable of identifying and locating every container at all times and reporting that to the routing center; something you'll implement for the sake of basic security anyway. the container may get there later than originally scheduled, but it's not like food has to be delivered in any particular order.
I could write the software for this in a weekend. Oh, wait, i mean, in three years with a team of fifty (reaches for project proposal).
1. trivial for experienced right-of-way obtainers. any telco or cable company is lousy with them.
2. there's nothing simpler than a modular design for a linear induction motor and a re-place-before-repair policy (why does slashdot still have a problem with the word spelled "r-e-p-l-a-c-e"?).
3. so build it so it can't get jammed.
4. any segment of the motor that's 2 meters long has to be able to handle a 2-meter container, so the system could be completely full and still work.
5. the containers will have to have some identification, the system will have to be in control of routing, the containers could have active transponders. if one goes to a place it's not scheduled for, send in the cops.
6. lock the hatches.
7. power outages will be a thing of the past if we ever get a smart grid.
your concerns are very basic. to the point that i doubt anyone actually involved in the project is still saddled with them.
There's a difference between promoting transparency and engaging in criminal behavior. Assange and wikileaks have crossed a line both ethically and legally, and the good they may have done does not justify the bad they've done.
Wow. Did you ever fall asleep on the floor and get covered in Sharpie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/quotes?qt0470412
The English police are about to give the Swedish police another shot at justifying it.
Wait. Corn could be tastier?
Putting a piezoelectric footpad under the visitors would generate a lot more energy output with a lot less carbon output.
(If you ever think I'm missing the point, you're missing the big picture. I'm talking fucking Guernica, here.)
Yup. The Arsenide-based-Phosphorus lifeforms will be found sitting on a rock next to the Silicon-based lifeforms.
There is none.
Scientists will ask for grant money based on expanding the search for life in outer space.
It will keep a few scientists employed, and maybe in the future we'll be able to do something with the information we learn from their research.
Nothing of value will come of it for any currently living layperson who does not see the value in science as an intellectual pursuit.
Oops. There's a lack of arsenic there, too.
But it sort of is.
We've always ignored the chances of life on extraterrestrial bodies with significant levels of arsenic on the empirically founded theory that arsenic doesn't work in place of phosporus in living systems.
So while this is a lifeform we already knew about, it's a different form of life from what we understood.
The question remains, is it possible for DNA to have evolved in an environment rich in arsenic, or would it have had to evolve in an arsenic-free environment, and just happen to have enough integrity once it's formed to tolerate the replacement of phosphorus atoms with arsenic atoms?
It's PR, and it's cheap.
It means someone will cover the event instead of the event being covered by anyone who happened to be sleeping in the press room when the event began.
Not doing it this way is a gig against the past PR people.
"It was cemented in. That's odd," [Denver Police Spokesman Matt] Murray said.
That is odd. It probably should justify the involvement of the police.
However,
Murray said that a citizen called police at 3:27 p.m. to report the presence of the plastic white toy robot cemented to the base of a pillar supporting a footbridge near the intersection of 20th and Wazee streets.
How did the citizen know it was cemented in? Did he manipulate it enough to know it couldn't be removed? And if he did, how did that affect the likelihood that the object was a danger to anyone? And would the police have cared if someone hadn't been freaked-out by it?
How much power does it take to keep an eel alive in a tank 24/7 so that visitors can see some lights flicker a few hours a day?
And if the notoriety attracts more visitors, don't they just end up causing more resources to be used in the building?
I bet this thing has a carbon footprint like a Hummer.
You have to wonder if Mr. Borker is familiar with that phrase.
That's why I talked about multiplexing with colors and phases.
But here's a question: while it's true that the light has a much higher frequency and can support faster modulation, is there a transistor capable of switching it that fast?
That's a good point, but it means he's done even less to improve computing performance.
Strawman. You're trying to paint "copyright infringement is not theft" as "intangible things can never be stolen".
It's not a strawman because I didn't invent the argument used by those who argue "copyright infringement is not theft." Just plug that term into google and you'll find people doing it just the way I said. And the argument boils down to either "intangible things can never be stolen" or "only tangible things can be stolen", because if they ever say "intangible things can be stolen" they admit copyright infringement is stealing, ergo theft. Or else they have to argue that the right to make or possess a copy is not an intangible thing. Go right ahead. I'll make popcorn.
I'm doing it on purpose because it's the truth. You know I'm mentally competent to refute the actual position because I did it. And their logic is either sloppy or deliberately incorrect.
I'm not sure how to respond to being accused of using Shakespeare as an authority. He is an authority on matters of diction.
Copyright infringement is theft. Get over it.
Put up an image for a few seconds then take it down.
Or buy a banner ad along the side like normal spammers.
If you take something without paying for it you are depriving the true owner of the money you should have paid him, whether the thing is tangible (a cd) or intangible (the music on the cd). Laws use many specific terms for specific kinds of theft because the law spells out different conditions and remedies for each, but outside a court they're all still theft. The "copyright infringement is not theft" arguments all depend on creating a false dichotomy between the kinds of theft, then implying that copyright infringement is not similar to stealing tangible things, then omitting comparison to stealing intangible things. Whether this is deliberate prevarication or merely sloppy logic committed by people who are thinking harder than they're used to in a milieu they're unfamiliar with is uncertain and irrelevant. You just did it yourself by omitting the "tangible or intangible" part of that definition, then including the "depriving" part that can only apply to the tangible part.
If you want to omit intangible forms of theft, you're going to have to revise Shakespeare:
Whilst I alone did call upon thy aid,
My verse alone had all thy gentle grace;
But now my gracious numbers are decayed,
And my sick Muse doth give an other place.
I grant, sweet love, thy lovely argument
Deserves the travail of a worthier pen;
Yet what of thee thy poet doth invent
He robs thee of, and pays it thee again.
He lends thee virtue, and he stole that word
From thy behaviour; beauty doth he give,
And found it in thy cheek: he can afford
No praise to thee, but what in thee doth live.
Then thank him not for that which he doth say,
Since what he owes thee, thou thyself dost pay.
- Sonnet LXXIX
He's sped up links between chips from something like one-third c to c.
Architecturally that reduces inter-chip latency by 66%, which does indeed open up a new overall speed range for applications that are bandwidth-limited by interconnects. But in no sense does it imply a 1000-fold increase in overall performance. It's only a 3X improvement in bandwidth of the physical layer of the interconnect to which the speedup applies.
It may allow architectures that pack in more computing units, since light beams don't interfere physically or electrically the way wires do. And light can carry multiple channels in the same beam if multiple frequency or phase or polarization accesses can be added. Those will further improve bandwidth and possibly allow a further increase in the number of computing units, which could help get to the 1000X number.
BTW, didn't Intel have an announcement on optical interconnects just a while ago? Yes. They did.
No, I didn't. I came back to the thread several days later to find several inane responses, none of which needed to be refuted because they were all ridiculous on their faces.
Copyright infringement is theft. Get over it.
If I tweet that I killed Princess Di will the Paris plod come crashing through my door?
No, because they already solved that case. But if you tweet that you want to destroy an airport you will probably get a visit from someone interested in prosecuting you no matter how serious you were. Same deal for death threats against leadership figures.
And they get to use your tweet against you in court, and ask "were you lying then or are you lying now", which inexorably paints you as a liar, which heavily biases a jury against you.