What makes you think an educated vote is a wise vote? I've known many people who are not overly educated, but are wise, while I've also known many highly educated people who are far from wise.
Though I agree that voting is rather ineffective, but for different reasons. Namely that what a candidate campaigns on is not necessarily what they will actually do in office. These days, it would be a highly entropic event if they did follow through.
This is not so much about privacy as it's about reenforcing the bureaucracy of secrecy and control of the state/nation. I.e. you only want the right type of people running the system. Which is true for good or bad governments, but then this particular decree tills a little funny, doesn't it?
The military side of this is a little more delicate as it is a practical concern not to toss moral in the wrong direction. It can muck up a lot of investments; militarily and otherwise, no?
One of the most interesting comments that I've seen in regards to the wikileaks publications was along the lines: "Now western governments are concerned with privacy?!?"
Personally, I see this whole thing as an educational reminder of the true nature of our species as a whole. I mean, really, step back. This is not about Americans, it's about humans.
In the end I suspect the Buddhist's are right in believing that true compassion for one another will be our route to a better (human) world.
I think the problem is that everyone assumes that time is essential to processes within the universe. There's nothing that I've ever read or studied that suggests reasonably that this assumed correlation is actually real.
Consider that if time is real, and not fundamental to processes (i.e. the correlation is not causal) then it is entirely possible to travel back in time and kill your grandfather without self destructing. This is because in the stream of processing your existence, all the important stuff has already occurred in the process dimension.
But looking around this idea it seems more likely to me that time is an illusion as far a real dimension is concerned. It strikes me more as an analog to temperature; i.e. it's a statistical like reference. Do we really experience the passing of time or do we really just have a sense of passing of process?
How do we measure time? By change in processes. You can pull in relativity and still see that the effects on time are purely due to the real effects on the spacial dimensions. The relative dimensional changes in space lead to changes in the processes used to measure time.
I'm not sure if this is true, but if it were it eliminates the absurdity of the grandfather paradox.
Odd, I wouldn't have thought that my argument was so subtle as to be missed. Anyhow, I don't question the "standing on the shoulders of giants," what so ever. It's even easy to argue that such things exist within our own bodies; e.g. do any of us consciously know what all aspects of our immune system is doing at any moment?
My point is that effectively reducing the need for attention around something that potentially should have an aware eye present essentially MAY dumb SOME people down, not all, SOME (that's why I phrased it as "adds to the noise"). Net effect, could be null across the population, but that's statistical isn't it? Expecting to be able to put batteries in any old way when not all devices correct for that can cause serious problems; i.e. excess heat, burns, fires, explosions... etc.
Well, considering that the two are different in the level of intervention necessary, what's your point? Really we should be comparing turning on my computer to replacing batteries. Sure, I don't pay much attention to turning on or waking my computer, but then there's little risk in it. Our new battery polarity mechanism provides a similar reduced risk. At least until we try doing the same thing in a device that doesn't have it. Now what? High energy density battery gets put in backwards, smokes a diode, causes a short, explodes.
BTW, there is a reason that I stated this as, "adding to the noise, " in my original post.
My point is that it's another process that allows us not to pay attention to what we are doing. That lack of attention may dumb us down as we tend to be creatures of habit and laziness.
The flip side could be argued that it frees up time and energy to use towards more engaging activities, but I suspect that leads more to a scenario similar to that of "the rich get richer." I.e. someone popping batteries in their tv remote to go on and watch some "reality" tv isn't as likely to be benefitting from this.
Also, your example differs in that the task doers' are likely paying attention to their tasks with some intent on accomplishing them well.
"solves a real problem..." I wouldn't have gone out of my way to call this a real problem. I can see it as a risk mitigator in medical devices and emergency equipment, but beyond that it just adds to the noise that dumbs down the public.
And it won't be long before the "number of cores == speed" myth starts to show it's ugly head. Communications overhead eventually has a major impact on how much computing a processor/core can achieve; i.e. memory, I/O, inter-core. In more classical parallel implementations this is strongly felt around 8 processors/cores. However, today we have the benefit of shrinking high speed packet networks to the system and chip level, so I'm not sure where the knee in the performance curve is. If we're lucky the MHz myth/limit will help linearize performance/# of cores.
Very true. This technology may find it's way into making some of the things that are being done in computational photography practical and viable economically in real devices; e.g. single shot HDR photos, enabling depth of field changes in post processing, changing focus in post processing... etc.
Not to mention that personal electronics are becoming more and more prolific, so expecting pilots and passengers not to use them is begging for trouble.
The smart thing to do is to use this in concert with RADAR as each side improves the reliability of the other's information (Kalman filtering anyone?).
Perhaps this has more to do with the state of language than theft or not giving due credit? The "author" claims or more likely believes, that they are "sampling." That might suggest that they're trying to express something that they themselves can't quite come up with in words.
I seem to recall in John Ralston Saul's, "Voltaire's Bastards," that he presented a thesis where language was becoming so specialized that it became difficult to impossible to express ideas unless one was a specialist in that particular area.
Re:Errr - NO! Hom,ebrew not already possible.
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 1
I compile and run some computational codes under Linux on my PS3 and I for one would be much happier if disk and network access didn't have to go through the hypervisor. I strongly suspect that performance would increase.
There's lots of reasons to ENGINEER these parts: e.g. vibrational dampening may well impact the reliability of the drive over it's life time.
I would assume that if you're paying a good dollar for a RELIABLE drive, then you would want the manufacturer to consider everything possible to meet that goal.
Stop thinking where the memory is and start thinking in Streams.
Not to suggest that implementing something well on the cell is simple. Multiprocessor/Multicore, DSP, and managing memory transfers efficiently takes a bit of work and diligence. But then, when has this not been true?
Hmmmm, what sort of blind insults should lay way at you with???? Well, lets skip that, but really, grow up. NetBSD has a very import role in supporting non-homogenios arrays of systems. I would note that for me, that has been the central strenght amonstg many other that have kept me on the netbsd trail. Twat.
I would also add that Linux may actually have a higher maintenance cost. I base that statement on noticing that Linux seems to have more security notices against it than say an RTOS like VxWorks. Granted this isn't seriously studied observation, but Linux being open source does have a greater potential to be updated in a way that is pretty much required.
Slashdot Mirror
There's always a choice, and there's always an alternative...
What makes you think an educated vote is a wise vote? I've known many people who are not overly educated, but are wise, while I've also known many highly educated people who are far from wise.
Though I agree that voting is rather ineffective, but for different reasons. Namely that what a candidate campaigns on is not necessarily what they will actually do in office. These days, it would be a highly entropic event if they did follow through.
Engineer and facebook are the last two words that I would EVER associate with one another.
You can't, but someone else can. My wife updated the firmware for her new dance game, killing my ability to run my Cell code under Linux.
Memory is an arrangement of matter.
You might want to read Seth LLoyd's, "Programming The Universe."
Crap. I discovered that my wife had updated the firmware for her dance game. Now I have to ensure my CBE simulation codes get ported to OpenCL.
Thanks Sony, ya bunch of tossers!
This is not so much about privacy as it's about reenforcing the bureaucracy of secrecy and control of the state/nation. I.e. you only want the right type of people running the system. Which is true for good or bad governments, but then this particular decree tills a little funny, doesn't it?
The military side of this is a little more delicate as it is a practical concern not to toss moral in the wrong direction. It can muck up a lot of investments; militarily and otherwise, no?
One of the most interesting comments that I've seen in regards to the wikileaks publications was along the lines: "Now western governments are concerned with privacy?!?"
Personally, I see this whole thing as an educational reminder of the true nature of our species as a whole. I mean, really, step back. This is not about Americans, it's about humans.
In the end I suspect the Buddhist's are right in believing that true compassion for one another will be our route to a better (human) world.
Who cares, I've gone OpenCL and a GPU, the Cell/CBE is dead.
I think the problem is that everyone assumes that time is essential to processes within the universe. There's nothing that I've ever read or studied that suggests reasonably that this assumed correlation is actually real.
Consider that if time is real, and not fundamental to processes (i.e. the correlation is not causal) then it is entirely possible to travel back in time and kill your grandfather without self destructing. This is because in the stream of processing your existence, all the important stuff has already occurred in the process dimension.
But looking around this idea it seems more likely to me that time is an illusion as far a real dimension is concerned. It strikes me more as an analog to temperature; i.e. it's a statistical like reference. Do we really experience the passing of time or do we really just have a sense of passing of process?
How do we measure time? By change in processes. You can pull in relativity and still see that the effects on time are purely due to the real effects on the spacial dimensions. The relative dimensional changes in space lead to changes in the processes used to measure time.
I'm not sure if this is true, but if it were it eliminates the absurdity of the grandfather paradox.
Odd, I wouldn't have thought that my argument was so subtle as to be missed. Anyhow, I don't question the "standing on the shoulders of giants," what so ever. It's even easy to argue that such things exist within our own bodies; e.g. do any of us consciously know what all aspects of our immune system is doing at any moment?
My point is that effectively reducing the need for attention around something that potentially should have an aware eye present essentially MAY dumb SOME people down, not all, SOME (that's why I phrased it as "adds to the noise"). Net effect, could be null across the population, but that's statistical isn't it? Expecting to be able to put batteries in any old way when not all devices correct for that can cause serious problems; i.e. excess heat, burns, fires, explosions ... etc.
Well, considering that the two are different in the level of intervention necessary, what's your point? Really we should be comparing turning on my computer to replacing batteries. Sure, I don't pay much attention to turning on or waking my computer, but then there's little risk in it. Our new battery polarity mechanism provides a similar reduced risk. At least until we try doing the same thing in a device that doesn't have it. Now what? High energy density battery gets put in backwards, smokes a diode, causes a short, explodes.
BTW, there is a reason that I stated this as, "adding to the noise, " in my original post.
My point is that it's another process that allows us not to pay attention to what we are doing. That lack of attention may dumb us down as we tend to be creatures of habit and laziness.
The flip side could be argued that it frees up time and energy to use towards more engaging activities, but I suspect that leads more to a scenario similar to that of "the rich get richer." I.e. someone popping batteries in their tv remote to go on and watch some "reality" tv isn't as likely to be benefitting from this.
Also, your example differs in that the task doers' are likely paying attention to their tasks with some intent on accomplishing them well.
"solves a real problem ..." I wouldn't have gone out of my way to call this a real problem. I can see it as a risk mitigator in medical devices and emergency equipment, but beyond that it just adds to the noise that dumbs down the public.
And it won't be long before the "number of cores == speed" myth starts to show it's ugly head. Communications overhead eventually has a major impact on how much computing a processor/core can achieve; i.e. memory, I/O, inter-core. In more classical parallel implementations this is strongly felt around 8 processors/cores. However, today we have the benefit of shrinking high speed packet networks to the system and chip level, so I'm not sure where the knee in the performance curve is. If we're lucky the MHz myth/limit will help linearize performance/# of cores.
Very true. This technology may find it's way into making some of the things that are being done in computational photography practical and viable economically in real devices; e.g. single shot HDR photos, enabling depth of field changes in post processing, changing focus in post processing ... etc.
Not to mention that personal electronics are becoming more and more prolific, so expecting pilots and passengers not to use them is begging for trouble.
The smart thing to do is to use this in concert with RADAR as each side improves the reliability of the other's information (Kalman filtering anyone?).
Timing over a packet network is not trivial for voice or video...
Perhaps this has more to do with the state of language than theft or not giving due credit? The "author" claims or more likely believes, that they are "sampling." That might suggest that they're trying to express something that they themselves can't quite come up with in words.
I seem to recall in John Ralston Saul's, "Voltaire's Bastards," that he presented a thesis where language was becoming so specialized that it became difficult to impossible to express ideas unless one was a specialist in that particular area.
I compile and run some computational codes under Linux on my PS3 and I for one would be much happier if disk and network access didn't have to go through the hypervisor. I strongly suspect that performance would increase.
Right... and just how many photoshop books can you count?
With regards to the grommet thing...
There's lots of reasons to ENGINEER these parts: e.g. vibrational dampening may well impact the reliability of the drive over it's life time.
I would assume that if you're paying a good dollar for a RELIABLE drive, then you would want the manufacturer to consider everything possible to meet that goal.
Stop thinking where the memory is and start thinking in Streams.
Not to suggest that implementing something well on the cell is simple. Multiprocessor/Multicore, DSP, and managing memory transfers efficiently takes a bit of work and diligence. But then, when has this not been true?
Hmmmm, what sort of blind insults should lay way at you with???? Well, lets skip that, but really, grow up. NetBSD has a very import role in supporting non-homogenios arrays of systems. I would note that for me, that has been the central strenght amonstg many other that have kept me on the netbsd trail. Twat.
I would also add that Linux may actually have a higher maintenance cost. I base that statement on noticing that Linux seems to have more security notices against it than say an RTOS like VxWorks. Granted this isn't seriously studied observation, but Linux being open source does have a greater potential to be updated in a way that is pretty much required.