Let's see.. 1PB / 117.2Kb/s = 868,657 CPU days to compress.
That sounds reasonable. A server farm of 1,000 could knock that out in just under two and a half years.
You'd probably use gzip to save time though.. Of course you'll still need 1,000 CPUs to get it done in under two weeks, or triple that if you're only working in off-peak hours because you don't have a thousand servers sitting around doing nothing.
But I'm guessing anyone who has PBs of data to store is not working on a shoestring budget, and not particularly worried about saving a few grand on storage. Money is irrelevant without considering time. (The old accountant joke, "I'll give you $1,000,000 dollars, one dollar a year.") The computing (not to mention electrical) power isn't free, in either dollars or time, and you can't compare costs until you take that into account.
The problem with what you're suggesting is that with no limits, that branch would be the de facto head of government. They could lean on anybody they want or threaten to expose or "expose" wrongdoing. Anyway, most secrets will see the light of day eventually, because the only way to keep a secret is to tell no one.
What would be more useful, I think, would be to establish a method for ousting current officials, such as the no-confidence votes in other countries. There should be greater consequences for poor performance than the possibility of losing an upcoming election.
Right. The point is they're achieving their goal of gaining attention and we're playing right into their hand.
It's like training a dog not to bark.. the best way is to ignore the barking completely. When that's not possible, negative reinforcement should be indirect so the animal doesn't associate barking with attention. Silence should be rewarded. Unfortunately most people are compelled to hit the dog to "teach it a lesson."
I'm not calling anyone a dog, and it's obviously somewhat more complicated than that, but the basic principles still apply. The only complication is finding an effective means of applying the same strategy.
I'd say it's a bit more disingenuous to say that the writers of the Constitution meant the part about the right to bear arms, but not the part about why. Sort of like people who say "This part of the Bible is right, but this other part is metaphor, and this other part can be disregarded entirely."
I do think you're right, I just think it's ineffective and contradictory to argue against the same source document you used as justification for your position, in the same sentence no less.
As a small business owner that primarily sells via ecommerce, I am shuddering at the prospect of having to deal with government sales tax forms and coupon books for 30 or more states.
Is this because you do more than $5 million in "gross remote taxable sales" each year, or because you didn't even read the article you submitted?
I think it's time to implement moderation for summaries.
That's the number I get from adding up the number of casualties listed, although I ignored the couple dozen assassinations, because those are, well.. assassinations. Of course, it's not (and doesn't claim to be) an exhaustive list, and some of the numbers are "at least," so we'll generously double it and say ~14,000 people died worldwide as a result of terrorism from 1961-2003.
That's about 318 per year (at double the available statistics)
In an average year, in the US alone:
360 people are struck by lightning, about 90 fatally. 120 people die in airplane crashes 776 people die from the accidental discharge of firearms 3,840 people drown 12,760 people are poisoned 15,000 people are murdered 16,250 people are killed by a fall 40,000 die in car crashes 936,923 die from heart disease
That's not to say that we should ignore the threat of terrorism. However, the threat should be kept in perspective, and our response should be measured accordingly.
I don't let my children play them (ages 6, 3, and 1), and reserve those for my own use.
It's about time somebody took a stand and just said no to infants playing GTA. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Mr. Thompson has shown a view that's, well, crazy, for lack of a more polite word
Mr. Flanders? Is that you? Shame on you for using that kind of language....he's shown himself to be in the worst light of those who would deny any human joy for fear of corruption.
Right, or there's the off chance that he's just rabble-rousing and stirring up controversy for the publicity.
I know, I know.. it's a stretch to think that a bona-fide attorney might actually spout off about something without a) knowing what he's talking about or b) even believing what he's saying. It's just that I heard a mean-spirited rumor that the Bar is starting to admit people without regard to their moral fiber, and part of me can't help but wonder...
The problem is that some companies, such as Sony, have their hands in both cookie jars. Film companies are prohibited from owning movie theaters since the 1948 Paramount Pictures Antitrust Case. I think we need the same limitations on media companies owning both the content/production and the display devices.
"As I snoozed, something amazing happened," Firmage wrote. "A remarkable being, clothed in brilliant white light, appeared hovering over my bed in my room. He had dark hair and a beard, I believe.
Actually, it's not that either. Some articles will be written by subject experts, and some will be written by the general public, and each will be labeled accordingly.
Slow down cowboy! It's been 7 hours and 16 days.. since you gave your lovin' away.. (oooh oooh oooh oooh.. oooh)
I think everyone agrees this is little more than a rudimentary simulation of self-awareness. The $64,000 question, for any artificial life/intelligence, is: When, if ever, is a simulation no longer just a simulation? Is there a threshold, and if so, what is it?
Are we not, to a large extent, just mimicking what we see around us, with varying degrees of accuracy and quasi-random implementations which we call "our own?"
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see.. 1PB / 117.2Kb/s = 868,657 CPU days to compress.
That sounds reasonable. A server farm of 1,000 could knock that out in just under two and a half years.
You'd probably use gzip to save time though.. Of course you'll still need 1,000 CPUs to get it done in under two weeks, or triple that if you're only working in off-peak hours because you don't have a thousand servers sitting around doing nothing.
But I'm guessing anyone who has PBs of data to store is not working on a shoestring budget, and not particularly worried about saving a few grand on storage. Money is irrelevant without considering time. (The old accountant joke, "I'll give you $1,000,000 dollars, one dollar a year.") The computing (not to mention electrical) power isn't free, in either dollars or time, and you can't compare costs until you take that into account.
More importantly, there would be no wheels on my car.
The problem with what you're suggesting is that with no limits, that branch would be the de facto head of government. They could lean on anybody they want or threaten to expose or "expose" wrongdoing. Anyway, most secrets will see the light of day eventually, because the only way to keep a secret is to tell no one.
What would be more useful, I think, would be to establish a method for ousting current officials, such as the no-confidence votes in other countries. There should be greater consequences for poor performance than the possibility of losing an upcoming election.
Next thing you know, people will be calling the phone company..
So the War on Birds has begun.
Right. The point is they're achieving their goal of gaining attention and we're playing right into their hand.
It's like training a dog not to bark.. the best way is to ignore the barking completely. When that's not possible, negative reinforcement should be indirect so the animal doesn't associate barking with attention. Silence should be rewarded. Unfortunately most people are compelled to hit the dog to "teach it a lesson."
I'm not calling anyone a dog, and it's obviously somewhat more complicated than that, but the basic principles still apply. The only complication is finding an effective means of applying the same strategy.
Or the third option -- the patent could just be invalidated and the suit will set no precedent whatsoever. My money's on that.
I'd say it's a bit more disingenuous to say that the writers of the Constitution meant the part about the right to bear arms, but not the part about why. Sort of like people who say "This part of the Bible is right, but this other part is metaphor, and this other part can be disregarded entirely."
I do think you're right, I just think it's ineffective and contradictory to argue against the same source document you used as justification for your position, in the same sentence no less.
Unlike, say, Chicago or L.A. or Washington, D.C. right?
But, you know.. don't let a reality interfere with your opinions. A good zealot never does.
Always nice to meet a fan.
I'm pretty sure the EU countries account for more than 2% of MS's sales, which is the equivalent gross income loss they'd incurr through the fine.
A horse in the stable is worth two bolted to the door?
Born with a silver horse in your mouth. Next to a bolted stable door.
Four horse and stable years ago, in order to bolt a more perfect door...
They who would sacrifice a little horse for stable deserve neither doors nor bolts. (How true! Pony murderers...)
As a small business owner that primarily sells via ecommerce, I am shuddering at the prospect of having to deal with government sales tax forms and coupon books for 30 or more states.
Is this because you do more than $5 million in "gross remote taxable sales" each year, or because you didn't even read the article you submitted?
I think it's time to implement moderation for summaries.
6873
m l)
That's the number I get from adding up the number of casualties listed, although I ignored the couple dozen assassinations, because those are, well.. assassinations. Of course, it's not (and doesn't claim to be) an exhaustive list, and some of the numbers are "at least," so we'll generously double it and say ~14,000 people died worldwide as a result of terrorism from 1961-2003.
That's about 318 per year (at double the available statistics)
In an average year, in the US alone:
360 people are struck by lightning, about 90 fatally.
120 people die in airplane crashes
776 people die from the accidental discharge of firearms
3,840 people drown
12,760 people are poisoned
15,000 people are murdered
16,250 people are killed by a fall
40,000 die in car crashes
936,923 die from heart disease
(Sources: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm, http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.ht
That's not to say that we should ignore the threat of terrorism. However, the threat should be kept in perspective, and our response should be measured accordingly.
I don't let my children play them (ages 6, 3, and 1), and reserve those for my own use.
...he's shown himself to be in the worst light of those who would deny any human joy for fear of corruption.
It's about time somebody took a stand and just said no to infants playing GTA. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Mr. Thompson has shown a view that's, well, crazy, for lack of a more polite word
Mr. Flanders? Is that you? Shame on you for using that kind of language.
Right, or there's the off chance that he's just rabble-rousing and stirring up controversy for the publicity.
I know, I know.. it's a stretch to think that a bona-fide attorney might actually spout off about something without a) knowing what he's talking about or b) even believing what he's saying. It's just that I heard a mean-spirited rumor that the Bar is starting to admit people without regard to their moral fiber, and part of me can't help but wonder...
It's not that we don't get it, it's just not funny anymore.
Now they just need Gigli.
The problem is that some companies, such as Sony, have their hands in both cookie jars. Film companies are prohibited from owning movie theaters since the 1948 Paramount Pictures Antitrust Case. I think we need the same limitations on media companies owning both the content/production and the display devices.
Wikipedia: ~$.60 per article.
Digital Universe: Even their cost per article remains undefined.
Wikipedia's strengths lie in the fact that it's editable by ninjas.
edit:
Wikipedia's strengths lie in the fact that it's editable by pirates, or ninjas at the discretion of pirates.
"As I snoozed, something amazing happened," Firmage wrote. "A remarkable being, clothed in brilliant white light, appeared hovering over my bed in my room. He had dark hair and a beard, I believe.
Ah, the alien formerly known as Jesus...
Well they got some funding to pay for it ($10M I think), so there might be some author compensation involved.
Komar?!? Stop this nonsense and return to your throne at once! Your people need you.
Actually, it's not that either. Some articles will be written by subject experts, and some will be written by the general public, and each will be labeled accordingly.
Slow down cowboy! It's been 7 hours and 16 days.. since you gave your lovin' away.. (oooh oooh oooh oooh.. oooh)
I think everyone agrees this is little more than a rudimentary simulation of self-awareness. The $64,000 question, for any artificial life/intelligence, is: When, if ever, is a simulation no longer just a simulation? Is there a threshold, and if so, what is it?
Are we not, to a large extent, just mimicking what we see around us, with varying degrees of accuracy and quasi-random implementations which we call "our own?"