I say we ban the import of Fossil fuels into the city and disconnect them from the carbon powered Electrical grid... Let them make due with bio-fuel, solar panels and windmills.
We need to stop with all the half-measures, just blockade NYC so they can't take resources from the more productive parts of the world or flee to it with their filthy NYC ways, the problem will then solve itself and they will in the process contribute to lessening the Human strain on the planet. But of course that won't happen, because they're just hypocritical globalists who use global warming to hinder political and business adversaries.
I've never seen a good review for a good place on Yelp, and I've seen plenty of good places with bad reviews on Yelp. Yelp is beyond worthless, only the shit businesses pay Yelp to fluff up their image while the good one gets rated into looking like shit because they know they don't need to pay. As a rule of thumb I avoid Yelp, as the other rule of thumb I invert any rating I see on Yelp if I come across it and aim to evaluate it.
Cortana is stuck up, useless and spies on me so I do everything possible to disable it. Tay on the other hand was a foul-mouthed belligerent racist that I'd install if I could just for the amusement value.
I am pretty sure they are already in our heads. I hear them talking to me all the time.
Just tell your dentist to stop using metal fillings and studs (if you have crowns.) You should be able to scan your face with a metal detector and not get any hits, it's the only way to ensure the government isn't beaming messages into your brain.
I think they're going about solving the safety problem all wrong...What they really need to do, is give terrorists and the like, less reason to do harm to others.
+1, we need to carpet bomb any terrorists AND their families so we stop creating new ones. This is a lesson which was learned centuries ago, you don't leave children alive to avenge their parents, bad policy.
There are blockchain-based certification models which don't require centralization. Certificates are all about who you trust, do you really trust the cert providers approved by Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple - or do you trust what people tell you they trust, which happens to translate to "the little green lock in the browser" to most people?
People looking at local news, weather, menus for local restaurants, etc. You might be thinking of Facebook, but they would give that up easily - it's just a bunch of morons pretending to have a happy life to make up for their impression everyone they know is having a happy life which detracts from social interaction by satiating the desire to socialize anyway. Bait them with pirated videos and switch into quitting Facebook, it's a win-win (even for people too dumb to see it.)
When a currency can quickly gain or lose half it's value with no apparent reason and no apparent cause, many people won't want to take them for fear they will lose money on the deal.
The gain should be obvious: Bitcoin is the preferred currency for the black market, it has a fixed liquidity requirement to meet the demand of the userbase, and non-criminals started using it for normal transactions thereby artificially inflating demand. The loss should likewise be obvious: the traders to followed the non-criminals in got freaked out by the rapid rise, expecting a bubble to burst, and subsequently bailed (or may have outright caused it.)
The real issue with Bitcoin isn't the technology, that's a great concept for things like automated contracts. The issue is the same as its tax classification: it is a commodity with a limited quantity available. Coins/wallets get lost forever and there's only ~23 million which will ever be minted, it is inherently deflationary, meaning it not only has limited supply but that supply disappears over time.
Actual cryptocurrencies (as opposed to cryptocommodities like Bitcoin) like Ethereum with a built in inflation rate surpassing lost coins/wallets and accounting for new user adoption (still unfortunately treated as commodities per tax codes) would be the solution to the problem, and quell a lot of the bubble-looking effects of volatility.
I think you're looking at it a little off. People only need to connect to what they want to access. Social networks, restaurants, etc tend to connect people locally more often than not while popcorn sites like Wordpress and PHPBB allow anyone to spin up their own sites easily. This means people can very easily set up local networks for their town, with nerds and people with corporate-paid-internet paying for the outside connections (it would be slower for the outside world, but free is free.) When that reaches a critical mass ISPs will need to connect towns and cities, not individuals. When that happens wider internet access may well be included in local taxes, or just avoided for some areas, since people will be able to get all their browsing needs served locally anyway. I think it will take a decade or two, but I fully expect meshnets to take over, along with localized social networks, shops, etc where the only value lost will be in the eyes of the media, who won't be able to stop piracy on such networks across the country let alone the world (which will likely also be the main selling point to get normal people on such mesh networks.)
Meshnets are a viable technology. It will, like everything, get adopted first by nerds. Once the network is set up the normal people will want on. A meshnet routers is no more expensive than a cable modem, and you only have to pay for it once. There's no ongoing subscription, just buy the hardware and power it and you're set. It makes sense from every angle, the internet is already designed to work that way - you don't need to create a second internet, you just need to have people replacing their $70-$150/month low-bandwidth cable modems with gigabit mesh network routers - the lack of a monthly fee alone would drive that.
No, that's not even close to what that guy did. A "performant chip" at the scale of 1980's tech doesn't even work on a nanometer scale. Anyone can feasibly make a chip with micrometer scale (cutting edge for Moore's time was 3um) transistors, which won't be able to do dick by modern standards. When you talk about designing an open hardware spec you are implicitly speaking of a design which is interchangeable with modern hardware, which in this context means 12nm (at absolute most) or less scaled transistors. Just to test your prototype you need special machines to construct the mask, or a million dollars to give to a fab for them to make it for you (for every fucking prototype.) Unless you have a billion dollars laying around that you are willing to risk for the purpose you aren't going to be designing an open hardware chip that works. Keep in mind AMD and Intel recycle components in addition to all of that - e.g. from one chip to the next they might add a new module or replace an existing one or just try to scale down to smaller transistors and add more cores. If you took the complete R&D process leading up to that, even excluding everything that isn't "start from ground zero but with all the knowledge we currently have, so there's no iterative cycle," then you'd be looking at a billion minimum (and that only gets you about 1,000 tests - think about it this way - could you write an enterprise class piece of software applicable to literally every industry on Earth, get it right without the hope of ever patching it again, and do it without hitting the "debug" or "build" buttons more than 1,000 times? That's hardware design.)
I claimed that the IRS treats all cryptocurrencies as commodities for tax purposes, learn to read and stop buttraging over the fact you didn't buy any cryptocoins. This is a site for nerds, blockchain is a cool technology, regardless if you missed the initial mining (I did, but I'm not exactly crying over it or typing furiously at people on the internet out of envy and rage like yourself.)
No, NicknameUnavailable. Cryptocurrencies are not commodities.
Yes, ignorant-but-outspoken-CrankyOldEngineer. Cryptocurrencies are treated as commodities by the IRS. Everything I stated was based on the current and ideal legal definitions of the words used, not what you pulled out of your ass.
You mean IC manufacturing? I'm pretty sure design is largely independent.
Well, I'm pretty sure you're an idiot. I also know only one of us is right in our certainty. Chips average about a million dollars per prototype run. You can simulate things and have them work flawlessly, but you still have to manufacture a masks, run through the steps of chip fabrication, then do your tests to see if it even remotely works. On the scale of GHz with nanometers of precision things happen like inductive and capacitive effects you can't properly simulate but will utterly fuck over your design. All of hardware development is like that, and there is very little open source hardware (depending on your quality standards you might even argue there is none.) IC design is the apex of painfully-expensive-hardware-design.
Honestly the commodity regulations make less sense in some cases. Bitcoin is definitely a commodity - it has a planned limit, with deflation thereafter because of lost coins. Ethereum on the other hand is a currency with a planned inflation rate to make up for the lost coins and to grow with the user base. What we need for cryptocurrencies to actually take off are different regulations for different things (Bitcoin under the current commodity based taxation, Ethereum and the like under currency regulation, ICO/crowdfunding coins under securities/stock regulation, charities like Curecoin probably as currencies, maybe with some extra incentives tax-wise to get people to focus on computing projects with tangible value behind them, other donation coins meant to fund things like planting trees, etc.) Cryptocurrencies cover a very wide range of different things and should be evaluated independently if they are large enough to be taxed because lumping them all in one category damages their use, in the case of charities and public works projects it actually defies the nature of the tax codes meant to support projects in the public good to consider them commodities.
Their userbase. Start reporting anyone who reports am American expressing their right to free speech to DHS and other assorted agencies for attempted treason or as foreign agents attempting to usurp the most sacred American right, whichever is applicable to the individual. The one fuckup the founding fathers made was not to require a minimum of execution of the person and immediate family members for anyone attempting to silence another person.
This is not an Intel only problem; It's a fundamental design flaw (or oversight) that affects most modern processors.
Meltdown is the Intel-specific bug (it's different and can be patched, at a 70% performance hit.) Spectre is an architectural issue in all modern chips that can't be fixed without redesigning them from the ground up. Intel is taking the heat for Meltdown because it reeks of extraordinarily sloppy design and/or an attempt to cheat and have the best benchmarks by making an insecure chip. I'm sure to them it wasn't even that big of a deal, they know their chips are all backdoored with Intel ME, so what's one little security flaw for a 333% performance boost capable of making them competitive with AMD?
Yep, that sounds like Intel (at least after you add in the fact they're trying to spin it as a ~30% speed reduction, which would still amount to about $210 per processor to make for a fair rebate.)
It's a way of optimizing things by sharing memory in a way that puts security expectations in the software which were never implemented (from my understanding of it thus far.) It seems like the chip architecture equivalent of locking down user data based on calculated permissions for users logged into a website, as opposed to encrypting each user's data and ensuring only their key can decrypt it - except for what memory things have access to instead of what data is actually feasible to obtain. That may be way off though, I've only been getting information on it from headlines and secondary definitions, not whitepapers or anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I say we ban the import of Fossil fuels into the city and disconnect them from the carbon powered Electrical grid... Let them make due with bio-fuel, solar panels and windmills.
We need to stop with all the half-measures, just blockade NYC so they can't take resources from the more productive parts of the world or flee to it with their filthy NYC ways, the problem will then solve itself and they will in the process contribute to lessening the Human strain on the planet. But of course that won't happen, because they're just hypocritical globalists who use global warming to hinder political and business adversaries.
I've never seen a good review for a good place on Yelp, and I've seen plenty of good places with bad reviews on Yelp. Yelp is beyond worthless, only the shit businesses pay Yelp to fluff up their image while the good one gets rated into looking like shit because they know they don't need to pay. As a rule of thumb I avoid Yelp, as the other rule of thumb I invert any rating I see on Yelp if I come across it and aim to evaluate it.
Cortana is stuck up, useless and spies on me so I do everything possible to disable it. Tay on the other hand was a foul-mouthed belligerent racist that I'd install if I could just for the amusement value.
We have more nukes.
I am pretty sure they are already in our heads. I hear them talking to me all the time.
Just tell your dentist to stop using metal fillings and studs (if you have crowns.) You should be able to scan your face with a metal detector and not get any hits, it's the only way to ensure the government isn't beaming messages into your brain.
I think they're going about solving the safety problem all wrong...What they really need to do, is give terrorists and the like, less reason to do harm to others.
+1, we need to carpet bomb any terrorists AND their families so we stop creating new ones. This is a lesson which was learned centuries ago, you don't leave children alive to avenge their parents, bad policy.
There are blockchain-based certification models which don't require centralization. Certificates are all about who you trust, do you really trust the cert providers approved by Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple - or do you trust what people tell you they trust, which happens to translate to "the little green lock in the browser" to most people?
People looking at local news, weather, menus for local restaurants, etc. You might be thinking of Facebook, but they would give that up easily - it's just a bunch of morons pretending to have a happy life to make up for their impression everyone they know is having a happy life which detracts from social interaction by satiating the desire to socialize anyway. Bait them with pirated videos and switch into quitting Facebook, it's a win-win (even for people too dumb to see it.)
When a currency can quickly gain or lose half it's value with no apparent reason and no apparent cause, many people won't want to take them for fear they will lose money on the deal.
The gain should be obvious: Bitcoin is the preferred currency for the black market, it has a fixed liquidity requirement to meet the demand of the userbase, and non-criminals started using it for normal transactions thereby artificially inflating demand. The loss should likewise be obvious: the traders to followed the non-criminals in got freaked out by the rapid rise, expecting a bubble to burst, and subsequently bailed (or may have outright caused it.)
The real issue with Bitcoin isn't the technology, that's a great concept for things like automated contracts. The issue is the same as its tax classification: it is a commodity with a limited quantity available. Coins/wallets get lost forever and there's only ~23 million which will ever be minted, it is inherently deflationary, meaning it not only has limited supply but that supply disappears over time.
Actual cryptocurrencies (as opposed to cryptocommodities like Bitcoin) like Ethereum with a built in inflation rate surpassing lost coins/wallets and accounting for new user adoption (still unfortunately treated as commodities per tax codes) would be the solution to the problem, and quell a lot of the bubble-looking effects of volatility.
I think you're looking at it a little off. People only need to connect to what they want to access. Social networks, restaurants, etc tend to connect people locally more often than not while popcorn sites like Wordpress and PHPBB allow anyone to spin up their own sites easily. This means people can very easily set up local networks for their town, with nerds and people with corporate-paid-internet paying for the outside connections (it would be slower for the outside world, but free is free.) When that reaches a critical mass ISPs will need to connect towns and cities, not individuals. When that happens wider internet access may well be included in local taxes, or just avoided for some areas, since people will be able to get all their browsing needs served locally anyway. I think it will take a decade or two, but I fully expect meshnets to take over, along with localized social networks, shops, etc where the only value lost will be in the eyes of the media, who won't be able to stop piracy on such networks across the country let alone the world (which will likely also be the main selling point to get normal people on such mesh networks.)
This is a site for nerds. Get back over the border.
Meshnets are a viable technology. It will, like everything, get adopted first by nerds. Once the network is set up the normal people will want on. A meshnet routers is no more expensive than a cable modem, and you only have to pay for it once. There's no ongoing subscription, just buy the hardware and power it and you're set. It makes sense from every angle, the internet is already designed to work that way - you don't need to create a second internet, you just need to have people replacing their $70-$150/month low-bandwidth cable modems with gigabit mesh network routers - the lack of a monthly fee alone would drive that.
No, that's not even close to what that guy did. A "performant chip" at the scale of 1980's tech doesn't even work on a nanometer scale. Anyone can feasibly make a chip with micrometer scale (cutting edge for Moore's time was 3um) transistors, which won't be able to do dick by modern standards. When you talk about designing an open hardware spec you are implicitly speaking of a design which is interchangeable with modern hardware, which in this context means 12nm (at absolute most) or less scaled transistors. Just to test your prototype you need special machines to construct the mask, or a million dollars to give to a fab for them to make it for you (for every fucking prototype.) Unless you have a billion dollars laying around that you are willing to risk for the purpose you aren't going to be designing an open hardware chip that works. Keep in mind AMD and Intel recycle components in addition to all of that - e.g. from one chip to the next they might add a new module or replace an existing one or just try to scale down to smaller transistors and add more cores. If you took the complete R&D process leading up to that, even excluding everything that isn't "start from ground zero but with all the knowledge we currently have, so there's no iterative cycle," then you'd be looking at a billion minimum (and that only gets you about 1,000 tests - think about it this way - could you write an enterprise class piece of software applicable to literally every industry on Earth, get it right without the hope of ever patching it again, and do it without hitting the "debug" or "build" buttons more than 1,000 times? That's hardware design.)
I claimed that the IRS treats all cryptocurrencies as commodities for tax purposes, learn to read and stop buttraging over the fact you didn't buy any cryptocoins. This is a site for nerds, blockchain is a cool technology, regardless if you missed the initial mining (I did, but I'm not exactly crying over it or typing furiously at people on the internet out of envy and rage like yourself.)
No, NicknameUnavailable. Cryptocurrencies are not commodities.
Yes, ignorant-but-outspoken-CrankyOldEngineer. Cryptocurrencies are treated as commodities by the IRS. Everything I stated was based on the current and ideal legal definitions of the words used, not what you pulled out of your ass.
You mean IC manufacturing? I'm pretty sure design is largely independent.
Well, I'm pretty sure you're an idiot. I also know only one of us is right in our certainty. Chips average about a million dollars per prototype run. You can simulate things and have them work flawlessly, but you still have to manufacture a masks, run through the steps of chip fabrication, then do your tests to see if it even remotely works. On the scale of GHz with nanometers of precision things happen like inductive and capacitive effects you can't properly simulate but will utterly fuck over your design. All of hardware development is like that, and there is very little open source hardware (depending on your quality standards you might even argue there is none.) IC design is the apex of painfully-expensive-hardware-design.
Honestly the commodity regulations make less sense in some cases. Bitcoin is definitely a commodity - it has a planned limit, with deflation thereafter because of lost coins. Ethereum on the other hand is a currency with a planned inflation rate to make up for the lost coins and to grow with the user base. What we need for cryptocurrencies to actually take off are different regulations for different things (Bitcoin under the current commodity based taxation, Ethereum and the like under currency regulation, ICO/crowdfunding coins under securities/stock regulation, charities like Curecoin probably as currencies, maybe with some extra incentives tax-wise to get people to focus on computing projects with tangible value behind them, other donation coins meant to fund things like planting trees, etc.) Cryptocurrencies cover a very wide range of different things and should be evaluated independently if they are large enough to be taxed because lumping them all in one category damages their use, in the case of charities and public works projects it actually defies the nature of the tax codes meant to support projects in the public good to consider them commodities.
Their userbase. Start reporting anyone who reports am American expressing their right to free speech to DHS and other assorted agencies for attempted treason or as foreign agents attempting to usurp the most sacred American right, whichever is applicable to the individual. The one fuckup the founding fathers made was not to require a minimum of execution of the person and immediate family members for anyone attempting to silence another person.
What does a limit order have to do with anything?
You technically have to schedule them.
This is not an Intel only problem; It's a fundamental design flaw (or oversight) that affects most modern processors.
Meltdown is the Intel-specific bug (it's different and can be patched, at a 70% performance hit.) Spectre is an architectural issue in all modern chips that can't be fixed without redesigning them from the ground up. Intel is taking the heat for Meltdown because it reeks of extraordinarily sloppy design and/or an attempt to cheat and have the best benchmarks by making an insecure chip. I'm sure to them it wasn't even that big of a deal, they know their chips are all backdoored with Intel ME, so what's one little security flaw for a 333% performance boost capable of making them competitive with AMD?
The "scheduled sale" is a lie. No CEO dumps ALL of his stock.
If he puts an a limit order that's totally a scheduled sale, those things can take days to complete.
Found the Intel PR shill. Protip: be less obvious next time.
Yep, that sounds like Intel (at least after you add in the fact they're trying to spin it as a ~30% speed reduction, which would still amount to about $210 per processor to make for a fair rebate.)
This is incorrect. It is a hardware architecture issue which cannot be patched with software. Spectre is here to stay until we replace all the chips.
It's a way of optimizing things by sharing memory in a way that puts security expectations in the software which were never implemented (from my understanding of it thus far.) It seems like the chip architecture equivalent of locking down user data based on calculated permissions for users logged into a website, as opposed to encrypting each user's data and ensuring only their key can decrypt it - except for what memory things have access to instead of what data is actually feasible to obtain. That may be way off though, I've only been getting information on it from headlines and secondary definitions, not whitepapers or anything.