Now if you have a real reason it won't work aside from angry "if we aren't doing it now then clearly it doesn't work" kind of quackery, I'd love to hear it. Really, I'd hate to have my hopes up for no reason. But I'm not going to roll over at such a stupid post with no real information in it.
Are you being serious? Capacitance is NOT inherent to transistor design. Anybody who has taken even their first circuits lab knows this. I still have printouts from the oscilloscope for the lab in quesiton. CMOS the power usage increased exponentially with frequency we switched it at, and heated up rapidly, but BJT had constant power draw all the way from 1 Hz to 100 THz with no change in power draw. Course, beyond 1 THz it couldn't switch fully before switching again, so our readout of the signal was less square, but those were both large transistors.
Both BJT and CMOS can be integrated at the same scale on modern chips. We could easily replace CMOS with BJT and ramp up the speed by a factor of a thousand. When I asked the professor why we used CMOS, his only answer was that in the early days of computing at very low frequencies the BJT used more power, and had higher leakage, but we are clearly in the opposite situation today
And it isn't exactly unreasonable, TTL based on BJT used to do all of our logic circuits, so it isn't as though it is unsuitable for the task.
Theoretically the maximum we tap out at is around 10 THz before raising the speed is just not practically doable. Even at 1 THz you need a clock for every core at a small scale. The big problem is power/heat that comes from capacitors. Since their power draw is theoretically infinite the first second and gradually falls, the shorter you run them as switches, the more time they spend at this peak theoretical power, the hotter they get. With non-capacitive transistors, there is no power increase with frequency, so 1Hz and 1 THz use the same power, generate the same heat. It is an experiment every junior in EE does themselves, if not sooner in their academic career.
But not all transistors are capacitive. We can put TTL non-capacitive transistors onto silicon even at 14 nm technology level on regular silicon, which means that with the appropriate clocks, virtually all modern computers could be as much as 1000x faster than they presently run while using as much power as if we ran them at 250 MHz. There is no practical reason in any textbook I've found or any chip architecture designer or physicist I've talked to why we can't have processors running at least 500x faster than we currently run them at lower power usage.
It is purely to drip feed the market small improvements to keep making tons of money overcharging people for marginally improved hardware, if you give them that much more than they need, there would be no demand for new improvements in architecture and structure, functionality, core design, not in consumer markets anyways, so they would have to get by on a much lower budget, and they wouldn't be able to get away with as many tiers of products. If somebody had a fat wad of cash, hired some good hackers to steal the chip designs from nVidia, AMD, Intel, and hired some timing architecture engineers to get the chips to still communicate at those speeds, they could flatten the computer hardware market for a very long time.
I can't negotiate: staffing firms do not allow it, and communicate your present wages. There is no other option. I know a lot of skilled engineers and worked with several high ranking engineers at major US companies (including Boeing) with my inventions, which they all said were amazing quality and good work, and I worked with them extensively on those projects, I have a huge network of people in all walks of life from all over the country in a wide variety of industries.
Things might have been different 20 years ago, but the staffing firm revolution in professional jobs is under 15 years old and now it is the only choice until you've had at least 5+ years in the field.
Maybe things are different for flashy computer science fields, but it sure as hell isn't in many fields.
Adjusted for inflation minimum wage is at it's lowest estimate in 1980 equivalent to about $16.50 in today's dollars, the highest estimates put it at $28 an hour, and the average, most sensible estimate is around $22 an hour. I'm making $16 an hour, I have less purchasing power than a burger flipper did in 1980.
Hell, when I looked up entry level starting wage for engineers out of college in middle school in 2005 the median starting pay was 56k a year predicted to be 62k per year by the time I got there. Now they are hiring through staffing firms paying 38-42k per year and nobody is hiring direct anymore.
Since Obama's negotiations with India, the currency peg they had has been gradually unwinding and now it costs almost as much to outsource as to do it here, and doing it here is less hassle, which is why comp programmer wages have been rising again the past 5 years after the desperation people were facing for a while with the huge amounts of outsourcing we were trying to engage in. Obama claims similar measures in the TPP, and if that is true, you can say goodbye to outsourcing fears, currency markets form a natural barrier to an imbalanced import/export imbalance.
I haven't gotten a chance to negotiate my pay at any of the interviews, offers I've been to or my current job, thanks to the magical power of monopsony staffing firms.
I so wish I had mod points to move this up. What is even more absurd is when they believe *everybody* can get ahead of average if *everybody* works harder, as though hard work at the bottom will move everybody up in society. It is almost as though they don't understand even the most basic, fundamental realities of the world in which we live.
I'm a highly skilled CAD drafter capable of extremely rapid work in several software packs with an engineering degree and solid experience in materials engineering, selection, and design, with C++, basic, java, matlab experience and skills, as well as several inventions which explicitely demonstrate those skills in large project formats. I'm making less than the minimum wage adjusted for inflation in 1980.
In programming, if you are obscenely skilled, perhaps that is possible. But in the rest of the working world, everybody is worthless and replaceable with something cheaper. There is absolutely a light year long queue to get shit on your face for even a halfway decent job in this country in every field, and if a company isn't a fortune 100 company, they aren't putting out those competitive offers, and those companies only do to the top few thousand in the field, if that.
And what about out west where all the tech jobs are? Living close to where you work might me rents that take up 60+% of your income. There is a reason people commute long distances in the land of horrific sprawl. And since well paid jobs don't typically get paid overtime hours, and most new skills take years to pay off, that 723 hours may well be much less a cost than living closer to work.
Or maybe the loss of close friends and people you care about, places you enjoy going for entertainment is too high a cost. There are reasons to work from home, I'm not exaclty an advocate, but if you are doing most of your work directly on the computer, I don't see what the big issue is.
I'm not an expert on this topic, but reading that article I notice it claims that the paper does not provide an alternate method of encoding information when the article does exactly that and provides a digital means of handling it. I don't know if their claim is plausible, but this "refutation" seems weak at best, given everything it ignores.
Bitcoin is deflationary in the long term. It produces coins at a constant rate that declines over time and when it reaches a specific number of coins no more will be generated. It was designed to be and structured to be deflationary, the point of finality being in a couple decades. Any inflation within bitcoin is temporary and fleeting. Any good currency normally has inflation at 2-5% annually to encourage spending of currency, discourage hoarding, and make debts less valuable over time to prevent a buildup of crippling debt within economic sectors. Bitcoin's gradual increase in price over time is part of that deflation, and what makes it an investment product like gold. Unless production is tied to demand for the currency, you have a deflationary currency.
Austerity has *always* hurt more than it helps, as causing demand crisis/spiral lowers gov't revenues substantially and the increased poverty puts more pressure on it. The Euro eliminated currency market barriers to trade deficits (in order to import more than you export with fair currency markets between countries without prices growing exponentially on imports is to have a negative import like investment, similar to the US), and Germany capitalized on this with enormous trade imbalances that helped create and expand poverty in Greece.
Yes the country was corrupt and deep in debt beforehand, yes it had made a great many mistakes, but you don't understand currency, bitcoin, or the effects of deflation.
The historical evidence shows that Austerity causes demand contraction and often demand spiral, it has never in global history solved a budget crisis. The Euro eliminated currency barriers to unequal trade relationships which substantially hurt the Greece economy. Debts on a national level will only rise as long as there is demand for that debt and confidence in it, or banks out to make money by selling people shit and betting against it.
If I had modpoints I'd give you all of them. I've been screaming this for years but for some reason people are obsessed with horrible, ineffective, dangerous deflationary currencies.
I tested 50 pictures just now and found it extremely shitty with a VERY high false negative score. Near nudity, toplessness that is still not nudity was claimed nudity. Any position where the legs are in front of the body (like hugging knees) will come through as nude even if they are fully clothed, shoes are not counted as clothing, so it has a VERY high false positive rate. If one of the fascist bastard places like Facebook or Instagram were to use it they would end up punishing a lot of people who didn't even violate terms. You need a very low false positive rate (under 0.1%) otherwise the amount of false positives will be higher than the total number of results, creating a huge headache for the humans tasked with moderating.
Prime land is fundamentally scarce and it is niether created or destroyed. Virtually every ownership of a location is a monopoly over the rights to do what you please with that location, allowing this sort of behavior. The iron law of rents, a historically accurate and causally well reasoned law states that rents will always be maximized to as much as the market can possibly bear, eating up all disposable income because of this market structure, and in fact it does.
But even worse, the ultramobility of modern times and real estate as investment means that the wealthy are spending huge amounts of money on property they will never live in which simply sits empty. The market builds to these investors but fundamentally those units are only worth anything because the wealthy tolerate having large numbers of empty apartments and houses under their ownership.
The economist Henry George, and many of the more intelligent economists of modern times advocate a Land Value Tax, which captures the rents charged on a location from the private sphere to the public sphere, thus removing the most horrible source of profiteering and allowing rentiers to earn profit only on the renting of the improvements buildings) upon that land.
LVT also reduces the purchase cost of land, as it removes the rental income from the land, so the cost of acquiring property becomes equal to that of the improvements on the land, lowering the barriers to property ownership entry and thus lowering the demand for rentals.
LVT makes holding abandoned or empty properties expensive and makes holding properties off the market to capture the increase in value of the community and location provided by the public an impossibility, all public infrastructure investments gains are captured by the tax (incentive's smart spending) and preventing private capture of government investment. Property holders will have a very high incentive to maximize the improvements on land in order to charge rents on those improvements enough to pay for the land rent they pay to the government which depends on the value of that land. Thus more apartments get built and all of that improves for renters.
Charging rent on land privately is a theft from the common resources of our nation, it allows people to become landless and their very existence to be illegal and unjustified unless they meet whatever infinite demands the rentiers make. Several conservative commenters above reinforce exactly that set of ideals that people owe their lives to the rich and should meet whatever demands are made of them, that they must justify their existence while the great land owners have no need to produce anything for society whatsoever and are justified in existening just by existing, the ultimate and most horrific of hypocrisies.
If nothing is done, if we do not impliment an LVT, if we do not fight wealth inequality, I don't think America can last without major political upheaval.
Great, maybe it means they are trying to ensure the games are quality and actually finished when released instead of the half assed unfinished shit that has been being released the past several years.
The majority of people who switch car insurance also save money, and many who convert to Christianity in 1st world nations are converts from atheism.
Such statements say literally nothing because they don't go both ways, I'm sure as many people who leave Progressive for Allstate leave Allstate for Progressive, and I bet both groups save comparable amounts. And since when is how profitable an OS is the primary metric of it's performance? What about system efficiency? What about compatibility, usefulness, etc? Junk news articles are annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
It was one of the labs we did in this course, so I've seen it first hand: http://classes.engineering.wus...
Now if you have a real reason it won't work aside from angry "if we aren't doing it now then clearly it doesn't work" kind of quackery, I'd love to hear it. Really, I'd hate to have my hopes up for no reason. But I'm not going to roll over at such a stupid post with no real information in it.
Are you being serious? Capacitance is NOT inherent to transistor design. Anybody who has taken even their first circuits lab knows this. I still have printouts from the oscilloscope for the lab in quesiton. CMOS the power usage increased exponentially with frequency we switched it at, and heated up rapidly, but BJT had constant power draw all the way from 1 Hz to 100 THz with no change in power draw. Course, beyond 1 THz it couldn't switch fully before switching again, so our readout of the signal was less square, but those were both large transistors. Both BJT and CMOS can be integrated at the same scale on modern chips. We could easily replace CMOS with BJT and ramp up the speed by a factor of a thousand. When I asked the professor why we used CMOS, his only answer was that in the early days of computing at very low frequencies the BJT used more power, and had higher leakage, but we are clearly in the opposite situation today And it isn't exactly unreasonable, TTL based on BJT used to do all of our logic circuits, so it isn't as though it is unsuitable for the task.
Theoretically the maximum we tap out at is around 10 THz before raising the speed is just not practically doable. Even at 1 THz you need a clock for every core at a small scale. The big problem is power/heat that comes from capacitors. Since their power draw is theoretically infinite the first second and gradually falls, the shorter you run them as switches, the more time they spend at this peak theoretical power, the hotter they get. With non-capacitive transistors, there is no power increase with frequency, so 1Hz and 1 THz use the same power, generate the same heat. It is an experiment every junior in EE does themselves, if not sooner in their academic career. But not all transistors are capacitive. We can put TTL non-capacitive transistors onto silicon even at 14 nm technology level on regular silicon, which means that with the appropriate clocks, virtually all modern computers could be as much as 1000x faster than they presently run while using as much power as if we ran them at 250 MHz. There is no practical reason in any textbook I've found or any chip architecture designer or physicist I've talked to why we can't have processors running at least 500x faster than we currently run them at lower power usage. It is purely to drip feed the market small improvements to keep making tons of money overcharging people for marginally improved hardware, if you give them that much more than they need, there would be no demand for new improvements in architecture and structure, functionality, core design, not in consumer markets anyways, so they would have to get by on a much lower budget, and they wouldn't be able to get away with as many tiers of products. If somebody had a fat wad of cash, hired some good hackers to steal the chip designs from nVidia, AMD, Intel, and hired some timing architecture engineers to get the chips to still communicate at those speeds, they could flatten the computer hardware market for a very long time.
I can't negotiate: staffing firms do not allow it, and communicate your present wages. There is no other option. I know a lot of skilled engineers and worked with several high ranking engineers at major US companies (including Boeing) with my inventions, which they all said were amazing quality and good work, and I worked with them extensively on those projects, I have a huge network of people in all walks of life from all over the country in a wide variety of industries. Things might have been different 20 years ago, but the staffing firm revolution in professional jobs is under 15 years old and now it is the only choice until you've had at least 5+ years in the field. Maybe things are different for flashy computer science fields, but it sure as hell isn't in many fields.
Adjusted for inflation minimum wage is at it's lowest estimate in 1980 equivalent to about $16.50 in today's dollars, the highest estimates put it at $28 an hour, and the average, most sensible estimate is around $22 an hour. I'm making $16 an hour, I have less purchasing power than a burger flipper did in 1980. Hell, when I looked up entry level starting wage for engineers out of college in middle school in 2005 the median starting pay was 56k a year predicted to be 62k per year by the time I got there. Now they are hiring through staffing firms paying 38-42k per year and nobody is hiring direct anymore.
Since Obama's negotiations with India, the currency peg they had has been gradually unwinding and now it costs almost as much to outsource as to do it here, and doing it here is less hassle, which is why comp programmer wages have been rising again the past 5 years after the desperation people were facing for a while with the huge amounts of outsourcing we were trying to engage in. Obama claims similar measures in the TPP, and if that is true, you can say goodbye to outsourcing fears, currency markets form a natural barrier to an imbalanced import/export imbalance.
I haven't gotten a chance to negotiate my pay at any of the interviews, offers I've been to or my current job, thanks to the magical power of monopsony staffing firms.
I so wish I had mod points to move this up. What is even more absurd is when they believe *everybody* can get ahead of average if *everybody* works harder, as though hard work at the bottom will move everybody up in society. It is almost as though they don't understand even the most basic, fundamental realities of the world in which we live.
I'm a highly skilled CAD drafter capable of extremely rapid work in several software packs with an engineering degree and solid experience in materials engineering, selection, and design, with C++, basic, java, matlab experience and skills, as well as several inventions which explicitely demonstrate those skills in large project formats. I'm making less than the minimum wage adjusted for inflation in 1980. In programming, if you are obscenely skilled, perhaps that is possible. But in the rest of the working world, everybody is worthless and replaceable with something cheaper. There is absolutely a light year long queue to get shit on your face for even a halfway decent job in this country in every field, and if a company isn't a fortune 100 company, they aren't putting out those competitive offers, and those companies only do to the top few thousand in the field, if that.
And what about out west where all the tech jobs are? Living close to where you work might me rents that take up 60+% of your income. There is a reason people commute long distances in the land of horrific sprawl. And since well paid jobs don't typically get paid overtime hours, and most new skills take years to pay off, that 723 hours may well be much less a cost than living closer to work. Or maybe the loss of close friends and people you care about, places you enjoy going for entertainment is too high a cost. There are reasons to work from home, I'm not exaclty an advocate, but if you are doing most of your work directly on the computer, I don't see what the big issue is.
I'm not an expert on this topic, but reading that article I notice it claims that the paper does not provide an alternate method of encoding information when the article does exactly that and provides a digital means of handling it. I don't know if their claim is plausible, but this "refutation" seems weak at best, given everything it ignores.
Bitcoin is deflationary in the long term. It produces coins at a constant rate that declines over time and when it reaches a specific number of coins no more will be generated. It was designed to be and structured to be deflationary, the point of finality being in a couple decades. Any inflation within bitcoin is temporary and fleeting. Any good currency normally has inflation at 2-5% annually to encourage spending of currency, discourage hoarding, and make debts less valuable over time to prevent a buildup of crippling debt within economic sectors. Bitcoin's gradual increase in price over time is part of that deflation, and what makes it an investment product like gold. Unless production is tied to demand for the currency, you have a deflationary currency. Austerity has *always* hurt more than it helps, as causing demand crisis/spiral lowers gov't revenues substantially and the increased poverty puts more pressure on it. The Euro eliminated currency market barriers to trade deficits (in order to import more than you export with fair currency markets between countries without prices growing exponentially on imports is to have a negative import like investment, similar to the US), and Germany capitalized on this with enormous trade imbalances that helped create and expand poverty in Greece. Yes the country was corrupt and deep in debt beforehand, yes it had made a great many mistakes, but you don't understand currency, bitcoin, or the effects of deflation.
The historical evidence shows that Austerity causes demand contraction and often demand spiral, it has never in global history solved a budget crisis. The Euro eliminated currency barriers to unequal trade relationships which substantially hurt the Greece economy. Debts on a national level will only rise as long as there is demand for that debt and confidence in it, or banks out to make money by selling people shit and betting against it.
If I had modpoints I'd give you all of them. I've been screaming this for years but for some reason people are obsessed with horrible, ineffective, dangerous deflationary currencies.
I tested 50 pictures just now and found it extremely shitty with a VERY high false negative score. Near nudity, toplessness that is still not nudity was claimed nudity. Any position where the legs are in front of the body (like hugging knees) will come through as nude even if they are fully clothed, shoes are not counted as clothing, so it has a VERY high false positive rate. If one of the fascist bastard places like Facebook or Instagram were to use it they would end up punishing a lot of people who didn't even violate terms. You need a very low false positive rate (under 0.1%) otherwise the amount of false positives will be higher than the total number of results, creating a huge headache for the humans tasked with moderating.
At the expense of political free speech globally? Donations and bitcoin are financial transactions as well. I'm completely against this.
Prime land is fundamentally scarce and it is niether created or destroyed. Virtually every ownership of a location is a monopoly over the rights to do what you please with that location, allowing this sort of behavior. The iron law of rents, a historically accurate and causally well reasoned law states that rents will always be maximized to as much as the market can possibly bear, eating up all disposable income because of this market structure, and in fact it does. But even worse, the ultramobility of modern times and real estate as investment means that the wealthy are spending huge amounts of money on property they will never live in which simply sits empty. The market builds to these investors but fundamentally those units are only worth anything because the wealthy tolerate having large numbers of empty apartments and houses under their ownership. The economist Henry George, and many of the more intelligent economists of modern times advocate a Land Value Tax, which captures the rents charged on a location from the private sphere to the public sphere, thus removing the most horrible source of profiteering and allowing rentiers to earn profit only on the renting of the improvements buildings) upon that land. LVT also reduces the purchase cost of land, as it removes the rental income from the land, so the cost of acquiring property becomes equal to that of the improvements on the land, lowering the barriers to property ownership entry and thus lowering the demand for rentals. LVT makes holding abandoned or empty properties expensive and makes holding properties off the market to capture the increase in value of the community and location provided by the public an impossibility, all public infrastructure investments gains are captured by the tax (incentive's smart spending) and preventing private capture of government investment. Property holders will have a very high incentive to maximize the improvements on land in order to charge rents on those improvements enough to pay for the land rent they pay to the government which depends on the value of that land. Thus more apartments get built and all of that improves for renters. Charging rent on land privately is a theft from the common resources of our nation, it allows people to become landless and their very existence to be illegal and unjustified unless they meet whatever infinite demands the rentiers make. Several conservative commenters above reinforce exactly that set of ideals that people owe their lives to the rich and should meet whatever demands are made of them, that they must justify their existence while the great land owners have no need to produce anything for society whatsoever and are justified in existening just by existing, the ultimate and most horrific of hypocrisies. If nothing is done, if we do not impliment an LVT, if we do not fight wealth inequality, I don't think America can last without major political upheaval.
Great, maybe it means they are trying to ensure the games are quality and actually finished when released instead of the half assed unfinished shit that has been being released the past several years.
The majority of people who switch car insurance also save money, and many who convert to Christianity in 1st world nations are converts from atheism. Such statements say literally nothing because they don't go both ways, I'm sure as many people who leave Progressive for Allstate leave Allstate for Progressive, and I bet both groups save comparable amounts. And since when is how profitable an OS is the primary metric of it's performance? What about system efficiency? What about compatibility, usefulness, etc? Junk news articles are annoying.