Yes this is obviously the fault of Tim Cook. Forcing the poor programmers to insert security holes is indeed his MO as should be obvious from this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
And here I thought people all over the US complain how they are limited to one Internet provider unless they themselves go into the business of being one. Yeah, I must have a really bad memory because that's not how it really it. Thanks for letting me know how wrong I was!
Or are you actually claiming that people provided with no choice shouldn't complain when their only possible Internet provider censors and manipulates how and what they can access as the provider isn't the government?
Now that's in top 10 of my "so stupid it can't be real" list this year. Hope you like sharing room with Trump, the North Korea news agency, "SJWs", anti-SJWs and misc. conspiracy theorists.
Price is a positive thing of course but not why it is used - the cost for OS software in a supercomputer would be a fraction of the hardware and infrastructure costs anyway.
The thing is that Linux have excellent scalability when it comes to I/O throughput, this is something that many companies and individuals have worked hard to achieve. So it is possible to adapt an OS installation to be suitable for extreme throughput.
The compute nodes themselves doesn't really need a proper operating system (and many supercomputers/clusters in the past had extremely limited systems) and in fact any OS overhead is processing power wasted. Userspace programs using the MPI to communicate is the norm. And again the adaptability of Linux is an advantage, customizing a small efficient kernel with the necessities and nothing else is easy.
But the most important thing is that people already have done the adaptions and that those are available for others to use. Sure there are system specific things that have to be changed anyway but that would be the case for any large cluster machine. The closest to plug and play one can come.
EA existed (and was hated) long before DLC and microtransactions were a thing.
Computer games designed and sold by corporations are an old thing, corporations isn't incompatible with fun. The idea is ridiculous - many old games that is still spoken about as innovative, fun by nostalgic geeks were in almost all cases designed by and distributed by specialized game development companies. Including EA.
And about franchises not being able to change: Fallout. Heard of it?
For those that doesn't understand why 0.15W/m^2 on a limited area would have no real effect do search for the levels of energy the same area would get from the sun (averaged over the year of course).
2. CO2 (It's carbon dioxide not cobalt gas) increases after warming from several sources, yes. But adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels also increases warming. Not really worth arguing but correlation is often an indication of causation. That is one can't just use this phrase to disprove causation unlike some idiots think.
3. Ice age argument again? Really. Learn to troll noob.
Nuclear power isn't exactly cheap. The systems we have now are more or less the result of countries wanting nuclear weapons and therefore developing infrastructure that can be used for civil reactors. But even so the civil nuclear industry have mostly survived on state financing. One of the costly things about nuclear reactors are when they get too old to economically use - dismounting and storing of radioactive parts is extremely expensive and takes a long time to do. With long time I'm talking of short-time storage of a huge amount of materials before they are considered safe to move to a long time (really long time here) storage. Do some search about it if interested.
Nuclear power is inefficient and have to be placed so that the problems of that inefficiency can be handled. Cooling. Lots of it. Direct access of a large body of water is a plus and the effects on the surrounding areas due to increased temperatures have to be taken into account. If cooling towers are used the normal temperatures and humidity have to be known - high humidity areas means worse heat exchange. For safety nuclear power plants are generally built in clusters with an external protective barrier containing plants and support buildings. This takes space and there are requirements for placement of the structures. The reactor buildings themselves have to (if being a modern type of plant) be resistant to an external attack or an internal accident. That means a multi-layered structure of reinforced concrete.
I hope I've shown that nuclear power plants can't be placed anywhere. They are expensive to build, there are many environmental requirements.
In comparison a wind generator is easy to build, can be placed almost everywhere and there are no extra expenses. They produce much less energy though but distributed power generators have several positive effects in e.g. crisis situations, war etc.
No. No. No, No. What, no real effect given the small amount of energy released. What?
If I light a match it will add to environmental heat both indirectly (release of contained greenhouse gases) and directly (energetic reaction releasing heat). But it doesn't matter. You typing the crap above contributes more both indirectly and directly. As does me replying to a crazy AC.
The only real connection to GW research is that this can help compensate measurements showing increased melting in this region - which is just another thing showing scientists trying to do science and continually refining their techniques in order to understand and predict how the world works.
How about this: polar bears often starve. That is well documented since people first saw one. The conditions where they live are generally pretty hard even for something so well-adapted. Polar bears also often seek out the edge of ice-fields in order to increase chances of getting some food. That means that they are prone to located on "LITTLE CHUNKS OF ICE". Most time they can swim back to solid ice - sometimes they can't.
The rest of your idiotic crap I'll not touch. Anybody that thinks Al Gore have anything to do with anything really should get their brain examined.
That tells more about you and your misconceptions rather than Go.
C was a simple language designed for one thing. The bloated C and C++ is actually pretty damn far away from the original ideas and use cases. The same applies to Unix (and indirectly Posix). Complicated systems where some parts no longer make sense and bloating of many kinds.
Plan 9 was one attempt of returning to the roots of the Unix idea, making it simpler but still compatible with the evolved world. If they succeeded? Matter of opinion. It used a new programming language Alef which was relatively clean design with C like syntax but with support for a CSP inspired programming model - channels sending data between co-operating processes.
A later OS design called Inferno used a virtual machine model with yet another C-inspired programming language directly supporting the CSP model - Limbo. Limbo also supported GC, one of the reasons Alef (which didn't) was ultimately replaced by C.
So a language with GC and direct CSP support was known to work and be a good design for a number of tasks. If it wasn't it would have been dropped earlier.
Go use GC and directly support CSP. It is a clean design and bears the mark of an experienced team.
While I don't like Go it isn't designed by "less talented".
I see that you haven't even looked at Go and what makes it different. Rust isn't the same type of language, doesn't have the same type of built-in support and would be a bad fit for the use-cases Go was designed for.
While I don't like the language it does fill a niche.
To be honest much of criticism of GMO isn't about gene manipulation per se but the type of manipulation and potential risks of it as used. But sure there are plenty of "natural" idiots too - IMO they should be fed 100% natural strychnine.
Using the definition of millennials as those born 1981-1997, the end of the bubble as 2001 and assuming a level birth-rate and sufficient understanding of the world to remember the bubble at 10 years:
Percentage of millennials remembering the bubble = percentage of millennials being 10 or older in 2001 = percentage being born in or before 1991
= (1991-1981)/(1997-1981) = 10/16 = 0.625
62.5 % should remember at least one bubble. Given the above assumptions hold of course - but those should be reasonable for this level of discussion.
Gold doesn't require the energy output of a small country to maintain it. It's not possible to plateau unless it can deliver value consistently above this maintenance cost, which I very much doubt it can do. Not when competing coins can do it cheaper.
The value of cryptocurrencies depends on the security. If you make it cheaper to maintain it, it will also be cheaper to attack it.
So you are saying that bitcoin gains its security from obscurity? You are wrong BTW. Security and computing power requirements aren't related.
With the growth of solar and wind, there will be plenty of cheap surplus energy, so I'm not worried about the "waste".
Yes because they are magically extracted from the ether. Even ignoring the production costs the use of that energy isn't free and will essentially waste resources that could be used for something useful instead.
Attack? Now I know that you like exaggerating and spinning things but isn't this over the top ? And how is it relevant to list who you (as you seem to be the SFC spokesperson) "represent"? How would that be relevant for instance if the reason for this conflict is that you (ridiculous example) misrepresent yourself as talking for SFLW without permission?
It's one thing to present ones perspective of something and another to begin listing irrelevant things, even if they are facts. So how about actually presenting your view instead?
Nope. It grew from symbolic processing into a hyped thing that would revolutionize everything. And then it failed.
Research shifted to less impressive goals but including (yes!) self driving vehicles. Military robots that is - due to DARPA sponsorships mostly. It didn't go anywhere. Some of the research tried to do important but less hard tasks - expert systems for instance. A lot of rules with either a yes/no tree or in some cases an inference engine. That worked but not to the extent the hype had claimed.
Neural nets is another thing that have been used for pattern matching as have misc. types of fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic have been in shipping consumer goods (e.g. washing machines). The problems with neural nets have been that they require much computational power, that they are almost impossible to debug and that they doesn't work well on a lot of problems. So there have been fixes for some problems but no general proof that they do what they are claimed to do. Neural nets aren't new and the only thing (unless I missed something really fundamental) different now is that there are more computational power available.
The difference between mere pattern matching and true AI is real understanding of the concepts the machine handles by the machine. While some AI proponents like to claim there's a sequence of goal-post moving (when AI can do X critics claim that a true AI must do Y too) I see it as being realistic. A pattern matcher isn't the same as something intelligent.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes this is obviously the fault of Tim Cook. Forcing the poor programmers to insert security holes is indeed his MO as should be obvious from this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
And here I thought people all over the US complain how they are limited to one Internet provider unless they themselves go into the business of being one. Yeah, I must have a really bad memory because that's not how it really it. Thanks for letting me know how wrong I was!
Or are you actually claiming that people provided with no choice shouldn't complain when their only possible Internet provider censors and manipulates how and what they can access as the provider isn't the government?
If so you are a fucking idiot and shouldn't post.
Now that's in top 10 of my "so stupid it can't be real" list this year. Hope you like sharing room with Trump, the North Korea news agency, "SJWs", anti-SJWs and misc. conspiracy theorists.
So you know that it isn't the anonymous person that is the asshole and should be smacked down?
People post false reviews all the time and that influences public perception of the reviewed company/product (negative or positive).
Price is a positive thing of course but not why it is used - the cost for OS software in a supercomputer would be a fraction of the hardware and infrastructure costs anyway.
The thing is that Linux have excellent scalability when it comes to I/O throughput, this is something that many companies and individuals have worked hard to achieve. So it is possible to adapt an OS installation to be suitable for extreme throughput.
The compute nodes themselves doesn't really need a proper operating system (and many supercomputers/clusters in the past had extremely limited systems) and in fact any OS overhead is processing power wasted. Userspace programs using the MPI to communicate is the norm. And again the adaptability of Linux is an advantage, customizing a small efficient kernel with the necessities and nothing else is easy.
But the most important thing is that people already have done the adaptions and that those are available for others to use. Sure there are system specific things that have to be changed anyway but that would be the case for any large cluster machine. The closest to plug and play one can come.
EA existed (and was hated) long before DLC and microtransactions were a thing.
Computer games designed and sold by corporations are an old thing, corporations isn't incompatible with fun. The idea is ridiculous - many old games that is still spoken about as innovative, fun by nostalgic geeks were in almost all cases designed by and distributed by specialized game development companies. Including EA.
And about franchises not being able to change: Fallout. Heard of it?
For those that doesn't understand why 0.15W/m^2 on a limited area would have no real effect do search for the levels of energy the same area would get from the sun (averaged over the year of course).
1. Not really.
2. CO2 (It's carbon dioxide not cobalt gas) increases after warming from several sources, yes. But adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels also increases warming.
Not really worth arguing but correlation is often an indication of causation. That is one can't just use this phrase to disprove causation unlike some idiots think.
3. Ice age argument again? Really. Learn to troll noob.
Nuclear power isn't exactly cheap. The systems we have now are more or less the result of countries wanting nuclear weapons and therefore developing infrastructure that can be used for civil reactors. But even so the civil nuclear industry have mostly survived on state financing.
One of the costly things about nuclear reactors are when they get too old to economically use - dismounting and storing of radioactive parts is extremely expensive and takes a long time to do. With long time I'm talking of short-time storage of a huge amount of materials before they are considered safe to move to a long time (really long time here) storage. Do some search about it if interested.
Nuclear power is inefficient and have to be placed so that the problems of that inefficiency can be handled. Cooling. Lots of it. Direct access of a large body of water is a plus and the effects on the surrounding areas due to increased temperatures have to be taken into account. If cooling towers are used the normal temperatures and humidity have to be known - high humidity areas means worse heat exchange.
For safety nuclear power plants are generally built in clusters with an external protective barrier containing plants and support buildings. This takes space and there are requirements for placement of the structures.
The reactor buildings themselves have to (if being a modern type of plant) be resistant to an external attack or an internal accident. That means a multi-layered structure of reinforced concrete.
I hope I've shown that nuclear power plants can't be placed anywhere. They are expensive to build, there are many environmental requirements.
In comparison a wind generator is easy to build, can be placed almost everywhere and there are no extra expenses. They produce much less energy though but distributed power generators have several positive effects in e.g. crisis situations, war etc.
No. No.
No, No. What, no real effect given the small amount of energy released. What?
If I light a match it will add to environmental heat both indirectly (release of contained greenhouse gases) and directly (energetic reaction releasing heat). But it doesn't matter. You typing the crap above contributes more both indirectly and directly. As does me replying to a crazy AC.
The only real connection to GW research is that this can help compensate measurements showing increased melting in this region - which is just another thing showing scientists trying to do science and continually refining their techniques in order to understand and predict how the world works.
...
You know.... No, you obviously doesn't...
How about this: polar bears often starve. That is well documented since people first saw one. The conditions where they live are generally pretty hard even for something so well-adapted. Polar bears also often seek out the edge of ice-fields in order to increase chances of getting some food. That means that they are prone to located on "LITTLE CHUNKS OF ICE". Most time they can swim back to solid ice - sometimes they can't.
The rest of your idiotic crap I'll not touch. Anybody that thinks Al Gore have anything to do with anything really should get their brain examined.
Actually that was what Niklaus Wirth said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
With Wirth in mind I hereby propose the new version to be named Goberon. Can't find any harmful in that.
LOL! Thanks! Needed that.
Wild guess: you aren't a programmer?
That tells more about you and your misconceptions rather than Go.
C was a simple language designed for one thing. The bloated C and C++ is actually pretty damn far away from the original ideas and use cases.
The same applies to Unix (and indirectly Posix). Complicated systems where some parts no longer make sense and bloating of many kinds.
Plan 9 was one attempt of returning to the roots of the Unix idea, making it simpler but still compatible with the evolved world. If they succeeded? Matter of opinion.
It used a new programming language Alef which was relatively clean design with C like syntax but with support for a CSP inspired programming model - channels sending data between co-operating processes.
A later OS design called Inferno used a virtual machine model with yet another C-inspired programming language directly supporting the CSP model - Limbo.
Limbo also supported GC, one of the reasons Alef (which didn't) was ultimately replaced by C.
So a language with GC and direct CSP support was known to work and be a good design for a number of tasks. If it wasn't it would have been dropped earlier.
Go use GC and directly support CSP. It is a clean design and bears the mark of an experienced team.
While I don't like Go it isn't designed by "less talented".
I see that you haven't even looked at Go and what makes it different. Rust isn't the same type of language, doesn't have the same type of built-in support and would be a bad fit for the use-cases Go was designed for.
While I don't like the language it does fill a niche.
Yeah but is that because they don't have access to weapons or because it is against their culture?
I admit I'm trolling. Still relevant.
Let's hope there will be no regressions...
To be honest much of criticism of GMO isn't about gene manipulation per se but the type of manipulation and potential risks of it as used. But sure there are plenty of "natural" idiots too - IMO they should be fed 100% natural strychnine.
Given that it's his normal skin I don't see why it wouldn't. But why are you thinking about the penis of a 7yo?
How do you define news? And do you understand that your definition isn't the same as the rest of the world?
Most would remember the dot-com bubble at least.
Using the definition of millennials as those born 1981-1997, the end of the bubble as 2001 and assuming a level birth-rate and sufficient understanding of the world to remember the bubble at 10 years:
Percentage of millennials remembering the bubble = percentage of millennials being 10 or older in 2001 = percentage being born in or before 1991
= (1991-1981)/(1997-1981) = 10/16 = 0.625
62.5 % should remember at least one bubble. Given the above assumptions hold of course - but those should be reasonable for this level of discussion.
62.5% > 50% QED ;p
Gold doesn't require the energy output of a small country to maintain it. It's not possible to plateau unless it can deliver value consistently above this maintenance cost, which I very much doubt it can do. Not when competing coins can do it cheaper.
The value of cryptocurrencies depends on the security. If you make it cheaper to maintain it, it will also be cheaper to attack it.
So you are saying that bitcoin gains its security from obscurity?
You are wrong BTW. Security and computing power requirements aren't related.
With the growth of solar and wind, there will be plenty of cheap surplus energy, so I'm not worried about the "waste".
Yes because they are magically extracted from the ether. Even ignoring the production costs the use of that energy isn't free and will essentially waste resources that could be used for something useful instead.
The (silent) majority don't.
Attack? Now I know that you like exaggerating and spinning things but isn't this over the top ? And how is it relevant to list who you (as you seem to be the SFC spokesperson) "represent"? How would that be relevant for instance if the reason for this conflict is that you (ridiculous example) misrepresent yourself as talking for SFLW without permission?
It's one thing to present ones perspective of something and another to begin listing irrelevant things, even if they are facts. So how about actually presenting your view instead?
Nope. It grew from symbolic processing into a hyped thing that would revolutionize everything. And then it failed.
Research shifted to less impressive goals but including (yes!) self driving vehicles. Military robots that is - due to DARPA sponsorships mostly. It didn't go anywhere. Some of the research tried to do important but less hard tasks - expert systems for instance. A lot of rules with either a yes/no tree or in some cases an inference engine. That worked but not to the extent the hype had claimed.
Neural nets is another thing that have been used for pattern matching as have misc. types of fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic have been in shipping consumer goods (e.g. washing machines). The problems with neural nets have been that they require much computational power, that they are almost impossible to debug and that they doesn't work well on a lot of problems. So there have been fixes for some problems but no general proof that they do what they are claimed to do. Neural nets aren't new and the only thing (unless I missed something really fundamental) different now is that there are more computational power available.
The difference between mere pattern matching and true AI is real understanding of the concepts the machine handles by the machine. While some AI proponents like to claim there's a sequence of goal-post moving (when AI can do X critics claim that a true AI must do Y too) I see it as being realistic. A pattern matcher isn't the same as something intelligent.