... was a good idea? 80+ years later after *Constitutional amendment* abandoning it?
Is it only because "your guy is in the Big Office" that you are so pro-law-enforcement?
In my book, you harm or defraud someone, you have to pay back, but if the "harmed" person actually wanted to use your product, get the government out of it, regardless of the current ruling party.
Yes, Prohibition and bootlegging *can be* controversial, if you give it a little bit of a though!
Copper plates between chips should take care of (most) of it as well!
Interference? Yes, if you are attempting a multi-GHz design, you better take care of your impedances and groundplanes, granted... You would have to do it in any case though.
Of course Intel and 3M can come up with something slick, but just making heat-transferring glue might (or might not!) be a deal-breaking situation. I just wanted to point this/. crowd to some prior art that I happened to know about, and that is out in the open. I bet someone liked the possibility, sorry if it were not you personally!;)
As to "titbit" -- yes, English is not my first language, but it is, indeed, tidbit... Sorry about you that you are still so fascinated with "tits" (you know, meaty appendages attached to the chests of someone of opposite sex, with "nipples" at the end!);) Just kidding, but I think you were wrong...
1) "Standard" solution is to interleave copper fins between chiplets to take heat out -- and yes, it has been major problem for 3D integration.
2) Of course it's Intel and 3M, but do not think that this is new at all -- at my previous place of employment (6 years ago) we have been working with these guys: http://www.irvine-sensors.com/r_and_d.html#Neo-Stack -- and they have this technology for quite some time before that.
Interesting tidbit I've heard from their CTO (I think): if you take a full height rack of electronics, total active volume of all transistors and metal wires on all the chips inside is about 1 cm^3...
Methinks that somewhere along the line a black/gray market will emerge where goods and services can be bought for eagles and bullion.
I am wondering if there is a black market equivalent of Rule 34?;) If not, can I be credited for that meme: "If someone think that there could be a black market in something, it's pretty probably that it already exists!".
Though, I am sure that it is happening right now, maybe more in silver coins than in gold for smaller transactions, even pre-60s quarters and such, taken at their weight, not face denomination.
Another related fascinating story: apparently even current US nickels (unlike all other regular coins!) are about 6 cents in base metal value, and it used to be way more than that within last five years (see bottom charts here: http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1946-2007-Jefferson-Nickel-Value.html).
And no, in case you ask, I am not in the habit of hoarding nickels!:)
First attempt to prosecute him resulted in testifying high-level IRS representative saying that he does not know if gold eagles should be reported at face value or market value for IRS purposes, would have to consult -- of course if he did not know, how defendant was supposed to know?;-)
But Ron Paul does not advocate return to pure gold standard, he advocates allowing competing currencies, some backed by gold, other by silver, third by "trust in US Government", and letting people/markets decide which one do they prefer.
And, as others have said, US was technically on the gold standard until 70s, this is how dollar became reserve currency of the world...
It is not the system that "greed-head airlines" put in place, it was put in place by Federal Government, namely DHS. If it were individual airlines putting the system together, we would probably have a wider range of options, and you could choose to fly the airline which offers screening on the level that you personally consider acceptable.
When this screening was first introduced (was not it in PATRIOT Act? And I though that more than half of/. HATED it, up until it was re-signed by the mechanical pen of their favorite President), I think it allowed for either DHS doing screening, or allowing individual *airports* make contracts with private security firms -- since then DHS fought that option, and is winning.
Canadians are trying to use "Canadian" issued credit cards for purchases in U.S., especially on-line.
I think it also has something to do with Canadian customs, as they are quite serious about requiring you to pay duties on most of the stuff that crosses into Canada, so many on-line merchants decided not to bother figuring out how they can clear their shipment.
See, we can have a reasonable and polite conversation supported by references, right?
Agreed, that is the just the first step, and stay tuned for more! But also, look at the dates of submission and publication of the Nature paper: Received 30 June 2010; Accepted 15 March 2011; Published online 11 May 2011
The paper that you cite is cool, agreed -- but note the "a spin qubit" in the title. While a great physics experiment, it was not designed to be part of a structure even in principle capable of performing any non-trivial computation, classically, or otherwise!
Of course, the goal of D-Wave's Nature paper was to show that quantum effects are there and persist, despite qubits being incredibly long (skinny loop about 700 um on the side, 1.4 mm round-trip -- still boggles my mind that they behave like a single spin!) and surrounded by all kinds of on-chip "stuff" necessary to control them. If one wants to look at the actual "computation" performed by the same (or very similar, we have a bunch of them running) chip, one needs to look here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1628
Thanks for kind words about my little rendering (you have not seen it in full resolution!;) )!
Well, except that the first link is almost a year and half old; and the second one is not a peer-reviewed paper published in Science, but an opinion piece; maybe with a bit of sour grapes flavour that D-Wave's actually peer reviewedpaper was published in Nature!
But, hey, they credited me on the PovRay rendering of the actual chip, so it's all cool! And yes, I do have a "conflict of interest" statement to make ("designed the chip", from the link above); but I also do get tired of people waving old IEEE Spectrum opinion piece and saying: "See, all Electronic Engineers agree that there is nothing to see, move along!";)
If I were cynical (which I am!), I would say that both parties ensured passage of the PATRIOT act just to keep things "the way they are". Democrats, being more vulnerable in the next election cycle, had to cut their losses by having some of the most vulnerable ones splitting from the main party line.
So, in some way, I think that I respect the tiny minority of 4 republicans who voted against it way more than 18 democrats. If only that I can think that they voted for their principles, and not political considerations.
And then we see people still thinking that there is some major difference between people wearing 'D' or 'R' labels, rather than between honest people and liars, and true "public servants" (as in, *Representatives* of *Us, the People*) and ones who pretend to be, to advance their agenda and get rich in the process...
And, before you start protesting, saying that all he wanted to do is to amend it with some additional "gun rights" language, it was only one of his several proposed amendments (picked by Media for obvious reasons of further polarization of us). I guess it was quite a brilliant move to provoke at least some discomfort of cognitive dissonance in the minds of mainstream NRA-supporting republicans, who *also* see absolutely no harm in PATRIOT act!
Added you to my friends a couple of your posts back, and reading this reply made me grin that I was right!
People do not seem to have any distinction between law and morals anymore, and think that the former is a sure-proof replacement for the latter. And it is sad... Was it you who said that it was the matter of the girls and his classmates (whom, I suppose, still wanted to be friends with the girls!;) ) making him a pariah, rather than State's police and courts dealing with his transgressions?
I guess someone have not watched that movie recently...;)
It seems to be (IANAL) a precedent that one can make personal attacks on individuals who are "public figures" of enough importance for the targeted audience of the speech (stretching it a little bit) -- in the context of this article, would you agree with him ranking three most-popular girls in his class, but not with continuing all the way down to the bottom?;-)
As long as they are outside of my front door, and I am allowed to make it sound-proof (good fences make good neighbours, or how does that saying go?) -- well, they are welcome!
I, personally, would enjoy a bit of abuse attempts and heated discussions (though I have been criticized for that too, go figure!).
I totally accept non-aggression principle as the best idea humankind came up with to deal with differences in people's wants and opinions, but I would like to distinguish between actual bodily harm and politically incorrect "verbal assault" (of the kind not constituting an actual threat, if there is, I'm all for finding it moral to stop the perpetrator by all means necessary!).
That been said, of course the guy seems to be a total jerk, but this is why it's an important case to think about and examine your own views on the limits of state violence (and I do count being charged with a crime as violence, sometimes necessary and often justified, but still!); slippery slope, you know...
I guess his crime was more like crying "FRIGID" in (less than crowded) "theatre" of his remaining friends (judged from the fact that he has to resort to things like this to get attention from his buddies, and, I'd suspect, rather unwelcome attention from the girls).
Is it because this fuel packs more bang for the buck than traditional one, or is it because everyone wants to "feel" being green, even when trying to fly to other planets (and using all of 0.0000001% of world's "non-green" emissions of "whatever")?;)
... made me think that you have picked it from The Anthem by Ayn Rand, Unity 100 -- but no, there was no Unity, there was Equality 7-2521 and Liberty 5-3000, but what was the name of Equality's scared friend, was not it Unity?;)
... except that we arrived to it in different ways!;)
I doubt that real conservatives were running the country for 60+ years, I think that what you mean were what we call now neocons. Same confusion as with the 'liberals' of the older generation, who are now proclaimed to be "far right", and only occasionally allowed to be called by their since-assumed 'libertarian' name.
I hate stupid govt. bureaucracy as much as one can (originally coming from the Soviet Russia!;) ), so, what about voting in someone who would rather slash the whole federal departments than expand them, for a "Change"?
And actually bringing those who break their promises to "uphold the Constitution" -- literally -- to justice?
Also, I am not sure if I have heard of THEM ignoring no air strikes orders early on in this administration, but from what I have seen is that administration itself was more than happy to order some more no-fly/air-strikes orders quite recently, in different country, but why would it matter?
And, can we drop the stupid conservative/liberal labels, just for now? Last time we were talking politics at lunch table with a bunch of somewhat peculiar US liberals and quite liberal Canadian guys (not that in Canada 'liberal' means not 'Liberal', you original P.S. taken into account!:) ), someone said "Why not those Red States would just form their own country and let us not participate in their stupid politics!?" -- my reply was that it actually *was* the original intent of the U.S., for them to be able to do things they like to do the way they want them to be done, and Blue states doing thing the other way! People seemed to be stunned by the idea, but did not want to go into the whole States Rights thing, subconsciously. And why not?
And there's anyone in Congress or the White House, who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, who will express even a shred of remorse about this?
Ron and Rand, maybe?;)
Anyone in the military, since those guys swore a similar oath? Perhaps we could get a copy of this secret constitution you fuckers are working off, so we can know what we can expect in the future.
OathKeepers.org, maybe?
But I do know that your questions are rhetorical in nature, you seem to be on this side, and all we need is to convert others, Liberals and Conservatives alike, to our cause...
... talk about people "vote[ing] conservative morons into power"?
Or, did they draft the policy that our current "progressive" President could not justify and scraped? Then why do we learn about this via WikiLeaks and not White House Press Conference?
Paul B.
P.S. To put a bit of a positive spin on the whole "conservative morons"/"bleeding heart liberals" thing, good news for me for today is that "RON PAUL: HE'S IN!" -- and it is the main headline on Drudge!;-D So looking forward to support someone who actually can be a real Commander-in-Chief, in addition to all other things!
Slashdot Mirror
... was a good idea? 80+ years later after *Constitutional amendment* abandoning it?
Is it only because "your guy is in the Big Office" that you are so pro-law-enforcement?
In my book, you harm or defraud someone, you have to pay back, but if the "harmed" person actually wanted to use your product, get the government out of it, regardless of the current ruling party.
Yes, Prohibition and bootlegging *can be* controversial, if you give it a little bit of a though!
Sincerely,
Paul B.
Copper plates between chips should take care of (most) of it as well!
Interference? Yes, if you are attempting a multi-GHz design, you better take care of your impedances and groundplanes, granted... You would have to do it in any case though.
Of course Intel and 3M can come up with something slick, but just making heat-transferring glue might (or might not!) be a deal-breaking situation. I just wanted to point this /. crowd to some prior art that I happened to know about, and that is out in the open. I bet someone liked the possibility, sorry if it were not you personally! ;)
As to "titbit" -- yes, English is not my first language, but it is, indeed, tidbit... Sorry about you that you are still so fascinated with "tits" (you know, meaty appendages attached to the chests of someone of opposite sex, with "nipples" at the end!) ;) Just kidding, but I think you were wrong...
Paul B.
... covered with High-Tc superconductor film, epitaxially grown. So yes, it would work.
Much better info about this R&D for /. crowd : http://www.rdmag.com/RD100-Awards-Rounding-The-Edges-On-Superconductor-Wires/
Paul B.
1) "Standard" solution is to interleave copper fins between chiplets to take heat out -- and yes, it has been major problem for 3D integration.
2) Of course it's Intel and 3M, but do not think that this is new at all -- at my previous place of employment (6 years ago) we have been working with these guys: http://www.irvine-sensors.com/r_and_d.html#Neo-Stack -- and they have this technology for quite some time before that.
Interesting tidbit I've heard from their CTO (I think): if you take a full height rack of electronics, total active volume of all transistors and metal wires on all the chips inside is about 1 cm^3...
But yes, taking heat out is a problem.
Paul B.
Yeah, interesting story, is not it?
Methinks that somewhere along the line a black/gray market will emerge where goods and services can be bought for eagles and bullion.
I am wondering if there is a black market equivalent of Rule 34? ;) If not, can I be credited for that meme: "If someone think that there could be a black market in something, it's pretty probably that it already exists!".
Though, I am sure that it is happening right now, maybe more in silver coins than in gold for smaller transactions, even pre-60s quarters and such, taken at their weight, not face denomination.
Another related fascinating story: apparently even current US nickels (unlike all other regular coins!) are about 6 cents in base metal value, and it used to be way more than that within last five years (see bottom charts here: http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1946-2007-Jefferson-Nickel-Value.html).
And no, in case you ask, I am not in the habit of hoarding nickels! :)
Paul B.
Google for Robert Kahre legal saga.
First attempt to prosecute him resulted in testifying high-level IRS representative saying that he does not know if gold eagles should be reported at face value or market value for IRS purposes, would have to consult -- of course if he did not know, how defendant was supposed to know? ;-)
They finally got him ( http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=23766 ) -- on reporting his income selectively depending on what he wanted to achieve!
Paul B.
But Ron Paul does not advocate return to pure gold standard, he advocates allowing competing currencies, some backed by gold, other by silver, third by "trust in US Government", and letting people/markets decide which one do they prefer.
And, as others have said, US was technically on the gold standard until 70s, this is how dollar became reserve currency of the world...
Paul B.
It is not the system that "greed-head airlines" put in place, it was put in place by Federal Government, namely DHS. If it were individual airlines putting the system together, we would probably have a wider range of options, and you could choose to fly the airline which offers screening on the level that you personally consider acceptable.
When this screening was first introduced (was not it in PATRIOT Act? And I though that more than half of /. HATED it, up until it was re-signed by the mechanical pen of their favorite President), I think it allowed for either DHS doing screening, or allowing individual *airports* make contracts with private security firms -- since then DHS fought that option, and is winning.
Paul B.
... into resistant strains?
Paul B.
Canadians are trying to use "Canadian" issued credit cards for purchases in U.S., especially on-line.
I think it also has something to do with Canadian customs, as they are quite serious about requiring you to pay duties on most of the stuff that crosses into Canada, so many on-line merchants decided not to bother figuring out how they can clear their shipment.
Before I joined a Canadian company, I've never heard phrases like "Oh, it should clear Customs Brokers in a day or two"... ;) See, e.g., http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/customs/a/shopshipcanada_2.htm
Paul B.
See, we can have a reasonable and polite conversation supported by references, right?
Agreed, that is the just the first step, and stay tuned for more! But also, look at the dates of submission and publication of the Nature paper:
Received 30 June 2010; Accepted 15 March 2011; Published online 11 May 2011
The paper that you cite is cool, agreed -- but note the "a spin qubit" in the title. While a great physics experiment, it was not designed to be part of a structure even in principle capable of performing any non-trivial computation, classically, or otherwise!
Of course, the goal of D-Wave's Nature paper was to show that quantum effects are there and persist, despite qubits being incredibly long (skinny loop about 700 um on the side, 1.4 mm round-trip -- still boggles my mind that they behave like a single spin!) and surrounded by all kinds of on-chip "stuff" necessary to control them. If one wants to look at the actual "computation" performed by the same (or very similar, we have a bunch of them running) chip, one needs to look here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1628
Thanks for kind words about my little rendering (you have not seen it in full resolution! ;) )!
Paul B.
Well, except that the first link is almost a year and half old; and the second one is not a peer-reviewed paper published in Science, but an opinion piece; maybe with a bit of sour grapes flavour that D-Wave's actually peer reviewed paper was published in Nature!
But, hey, they credited me on the PovRay rendering of the actual chip, so it's all cool! And yes, I do have a "conflict of interest" statement to make ("designed the chip", from the link above); but I also do get tired of people waving old IEEE Spectrum opinion piece and saying: "See, all Electronic Engineers agree that there is nothing to see, move along!" ;)
Speaking for myself though,
Paul B.
10 years belated "Welcome!", Steppenwolf! ;)
Funny how some people's signatures are alike...
Paul B.
... Right??? (as someone asked above)
If I were cynical (which I am!), I would say that both parties ensured passage of the PATRIOT act just to keep things "the way they are". Democrats, being more vulnerable in the next election cycle, had to cut their losses by having some of the most vulnerable ones splitting from the main party line.
So, in some way, I think that I respect the tiny minority of 4 republicans who voted against it way more than 18 democrats. If only that I can think that they voted for their principles, and not political considerations.
Paul B.
Actually, Rand Paul was filibustering this for 7 hours, just asking for a (promised by Reid last time it was extended) full week of discussion!
(I liked this title: http://www.unelected.org/democrat-harry-reid-blocks-rand-pauls-filibuster-of-the-patriot-act but you are welcome to google your own!).
And then we see people still thinking that there is some major difference between people wearing 'D' or 'R' labels, rather than between honest people and liars, and true "public servants" (as in, *Representatives* of *Us, the People*) and ones who pretend to be, to advance their agenda and get rich in the process...
And, before you start protesting, saying that all he wanted to do is to amend it with some additional "gun rights" language, it was only one of his several proposed amendments (picked by Media for obvious reasons of further polarization of us). I guess it was quite a brilliant move to provoke at least some discomfort of cognitive dissonance in the minds of mainstream NRA-supporting republicans, who *also* see absolutely no harm in PATRIOT act!
Well done, "Aqua Buddha"! ;)
Paul B.
Added you to my friends a couple of your posts back, and reading this reply made me grin that I was right!
People do not seem to have any distinction between law and morals anymore, and think that the former is a sure-proof replacement for the latter. And it is sad... Was it you who said that it was the matter of the girls and his classmates (whom, I suppose, still wanted to be friends with the girls! ;) ) making him a pariah, rather than State's police and courts dealing with his transgressions?
Paul B.
I guess someone have not watched that movie recently... ;)
It seems to be (IANAL) a precedent that one can make personal attacks on individuals who are "public figures" of enough importance for the targeted audience of the speech (stretching it a little bit) -- in the context of this article, would you agree with him ranking three most-popular girls in his class, but not with continuing all the way down to the bottom? ;-)
And yes, I do find him to be a jerk!
Paul B.
As long as they are outside of my front door, and I am allowed to make it sound-proof (good fences make good neighbours, or how does that saying go?) -- well, they are welcome!
I, personally, would enjoy a bit of abuse attempts and heated discussions (though I have been criticized for that too, go figure!).
I totally accept non-aggression principle as the best idea humankind came up with to deal with differences in people's wants and opinions, but I would like to distinguish between actual bodily harm and politically incorrect "verbal assault" (of the kind not constituting an actual threat, if there is, I'm all for finding it moral to stop the perpetrator by all means necessary!).
That been said, of course the guy seems to be a total jerk, but this is why it's an important case to think about and examine your own views on the limits of state violence (and I do count being charged with a crime as violence, sometimes necessary and often justified, but still!); slippery slope, you know...
Paul B.
I guess his crime was more like crying "FRIGID" in (less than crowded) "theatre" of his remaining friends (judged from the fact that he has to resort to things like this to get attention from his buddies, and, I'd suspect, rather unwelcome attention from the girls).
Paul B.
Is it because this fuel packs more bang for the buck than traditional one, or is it because everyone wants to "feel" being green, even when trying to fly to other planets (and using all of 0.0000001% of world's "non-green" emissions of "whatever")? ;)
Just curious,
Paul B.
... made me think that you have picked it from The Anthem by Ayn Rand, Unity 100 -- but no, there was no Unity, there was Equality 7-2521 and Liberty 5-3000, but what was the name of Equality's scared friend, was not it Unity? ;)
Just a friendly jab,
Paul B.
... except that we arrived to it in different ways! ;)
I doubt that real conservatives were running the country for 60+ years, I think that what you mean were what we call now neocons. Same confusion as with the 'liberals' of the older generation, who are now proclaimed to be "far right", and only occasionally allowed to be called by their since-assumed 'libertarian' name.
I hate stupid govt. bureaucracy as much as one can (originally coming from the Soviet Russia! ;) ), so, what about voting in someone who would rather slash the whole federal departments than expand them, for a "Change"?
And actually bringing those who break their promises to "uphold the Constitution" -- literally -- to justice?
Also, I am not sure if I have heard of THEM ignoring no air strikes orders early on in this administration, but from what I have seen is that administration itself was more than happy to order some more no-fly/air-strikes orders quite recently, in different country, but why would it matter?
And, can we drop the stupid conservative/liberal labels, just for now? Last time we were talking politics at lunch table with a bunch of somewhat peculiar US liberals and quite liberal Canadian guys (not that in Canada 'liberal' means not 'Liberal', you original P.S. taken into account! :) ), someone said "Why not those Red States would just form their own country and let us not participate in their stupid politics!?" -- my reply was that it actually *was* the original intent of the U.S., for them to be able to do things they like to do the way they want them to be done, and Blue states doing thing the other way! People seemed to be stunned by the idea, but did not want to go into the whole States Rights thing, subconsciously. And why not?
Just something to think about,
Paul B.
And there's anyone in Congress or the White House, who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, who will express even a shred of remorse about this?
Ron and Rand, maybe? ;)
Anyone in the military, since those guys swore a similar oath? Perhaps we could get a copy of this secret constitution you fuckers are working off, so we can know what we can expect in the future.
OathKeepers.org, maybe?
But I do know that your questions are rhetorical in nature, you seem to be on this side, and all we need is to convert others, Liberals and Conservatives alike, to our cause...
Paul B.
Well said, Sir!
Paul B.
... talk about people "vote[ing] conservative morons into power"?
Or, did they draft the policy that our current "progressive" President could not justify and scraped? Then why do we learn about this via WikiLeaks and not White House Press Conference?
Paul B.
P.S. To put a bit of a positive spin on the whole "conservative morons"/"bleeding heart liberals" thing, good news for me for today is that "RON PAUL: HE'S IN!" -- and it is the main headline on Drudge! ;-D So looking forward to support someone who actually can be a real Commander-in-Chief, in addition to all other things!