Their data survives a global nuclear war but your customers do not. What is the point of that? Are there people out there who care that after they and EVERYONE THEY KNOW are vaporized that their blog and bank records are still accessible online? Is that something you look for in a data storage center when shopping for that service?
That real estate could be put to much better use by storing things which could help mankind rebuild civilization after a global catastrophe. Nuclear war, global pandemic, impact event, etc. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that kind of thing and prepare for it. It might not be cold enough for a seed bank but surely there are other things which people would need in calamitous circumstances which could be stored there.
The current upgrade is the result of an addition of 200 cabinets of the Cray XT5 to the existing 84 cabinets of the XT4 Jaguar system.
That sounds like Cray engineered this to aggregate components across product generations. For short product life cycles that seems like a great idea, not throwing out the old system when you get the new one but combining the two systems instead. Though obviously for long product life cycles it would be a losing proposition; The space and power requirements of inefficient older components would be greater than the space and power savings of upgrading to the latest model + the expense of the upgrade.
Regardless of the position one takes on the question of to what degree warming and cooling trends are influenced by humans, climate is naturally variable and so the question persits: Should humankind artificially manipulate climate to impose an artificial stasis on naturally variable climate trends?
Significant natural warming or cooling of the earth is bound to cause extinctions and human suffering. I think most people would regard those outcomes as "bad". So why not change the natural environment to suite our own desires? Natural is not necessarily better.
A catastrophic impact event would be natural. Saying that we should leave the climate alone because ice ages are natural is like saying that we should leave bolides alone because human extinction would be natural.
It's crazy-fast. It handles like a jet fighter. It gets the equivalent of about 140 mpg. It has no gears. It requires almost no maintenance.e It's gorgeous. It's whisper-quiet. And, in Seattle, runs off hydro power.
Any justifiable limit on freedom will be adapted to unjustifiable purposes for which it was not originally intended.
There is a legitimate justification for denying developers unrestricted freedom to publish iPhone apps: It keeps consumers safe from malicious applications.
Now that after the policy of denying freedom to publish has been established, for that legitimate purpose, it is adapted to the illegitimate purposes of restraining competition and playing favorites.
Ok, +5 insightful for you. Though I do find absurd the implicit belief that the interests of CEOs and the public are intrinsically opposed, I agree that it is the key to making sense of the analogy.
That is a sufficient amount to compel attemps at prediction over merely wishful thinking. You seem surprised by that. Ok. But you need to learn that just because a fact is surprising to you that does not make it untrue.
You realize that another explanation is just as likely? The people making those markets work look at MULTIPLE polls and use their critical thinking to see which seem reasonable, what sorts of biases there may be, etc.
So your claim is that when money is at stake in a futures market people favor a rational strategy of prediction, specifically a poll of polls corrected for bias. That is consistent with my claim that when money is at stake people respond to surveys about future events by attempting to predict outcomes instead of by expressing their own wishes.
Otherwise, where do you think they are getting their information?
Clearly opinion polls are not the only source of information used to make predications. Historical trends or models are other sources of information used for predication.
The Scott Adams commentary contained this provocative remark:
Some of you will wonder how reliable a bunch of academics are when it comes to answering real life questions about the economy. You might prefer to know what CEOs think. But remember that CEOs are paid to be advocates for their stockholders, not advocates for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals for legal advice.
Presumably criminals stand to benefit by giving others bad legal advice, and as criminals they could not be trusted to forgo personal gain for the principle of honesty. Likewise, CEOs stand to benefit by harming the economy and could not be trusted to forgo personal gain for the sake of improving the economic welfare of the nation.
Do CEOs benefit from a bad economy? "Yay! business is looking up because the economy is failing!". It is a more daft than deft analogy.
This kind of survey is a horrible predictor of actual outcomes because it confounds the political biases of the respondents with their expectations.
There is a good way to tease those motives apart and force respondents into the domain of prediction: grant financial rewards and penalties according to the accuracy of predictions. When there is reward or penalty for getting the answer wrong or right people are more inclined to tell you what they expect to happen than what they want to happen. That is why markets, such as the IEM outperform surveys
" I asked her if she had been listening to a word I had said, or if she was just picking up keywords and throwing back responses she thought fit best."
Microsoft increasingly has the problem with advertising that their is no actual reason to choose their products over the competition, therefore they have difficulty promoting their products in advertising by making any rational appeal.
If the purpose of advertising is to increase brand awareness, what is the purpose of advertising if you are Microsoft, you own the market, and everyone is already aware of your brand?
Maybe that Microsoft is a monopoly explains the new strategy of not mentioning their product in advertisements. Some sharp advertising executive realized that Microsoft did not need to mention their own products in commercials because everyone has already heard of them. Then he sold that idea to Balmer.
Though while Microsoft is in the enviable position having already achieved near 100% global product awareness, they face a new challenge that in addition to the public being aware of their products it is increasingly aware that those products suck.
Exhibit A is the the idiotic Mojave Experiment campaign which confronted that problem directly. Mistake 1: It was a public acknowledgment by Microsoft of widespread public discontentment with Vista and Mistake 2: It was an unconvincing attempt at persuasion using the pseudoscience of pop psychology. The argument goes like "you all think Vista sucks and we are going prove scientifically in a laboratory that you do not really think that Vista sucks as much as you think it sucks.
The Mojave campaign had the problem that it was about how people thought that Vista sucks and that is not a fact that you want to be advertising to your customers. By being about nothing, the Seinfeld+Gates campaign does not make the same mistake. But it still fails to overcome the problem which is that Vista is a bad product and their is growing public perception of that. Their are subtle and indirect forms of promotion. Consumers are irrational. Based on the advertisements which I see, I am pretty sure that male brains actually work in way which makes "Wow, the woman in that photo holding that bottle has great tits, therefore I will drink Budweiser." An argument to purchase a product can be both convincing and irrational, but Microsoft's new ads are not in any way convincing.
If you say "We have a problem, this is how other people solve it, and this is what I will need to solve it. Give me the budget and I'll solve the problem."
That approach is nicely encapsulated by the motto "Do not fix problems, pursue opportunities," which (I think) is attributed to W. Edwards Deming. The parent post offers excellent advice.
There are many things users
do that waste time, most of which are trivial and do not actively cost the company money. You mean like reading Slashdot at work?
We don't know the people in Gitmo are terrorists, as no charges against them have been presented, and no evidence has been put before a judge. By that standard, Osama bin Laden is not a terrorist.
The "speed" of a single CPU is a commercially useless measure of performance.
We care about performance per dollar, not performance per CPU. And that dollar includes the cost of of energy required to operate the CPU associated cooling.
Maybe the rarity of intelligent life in the universe does not owe to infrequent arisal. What if the structure of the universe contains a built-in pitfall: the scientific understanding required to build large colliders is far less than that required to anticipate the lethal consequences their operation. Thus, progression of scientific understanding among all technically advanced species leads to self-extermination.
Slashdot Mirror
Their data survives a global nuclear war but your customers do not. What is the point of that? Are there people out there who care that after they and EVERYONE THEY KNOW are vaporized that their blog and bank records are still accessible online? Is that something you look for in a data storage center when shopping for that service?
That real estate could be put to much better use by storing things which could help mankind rebuild civilization after a global catastrophe. Nuclear war, global pandemic, impact event, etc. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that kind of thing and prepare for it. It might not be cold enough for a seed bank but surely there are other things which people would need in calamitous circumstances which could be stored there.
The current upgrade is the result of an addition of 200 cabinets of the Cray XT5 to the existing 84 cabinets of the XT4 Jaguar system.
That sounds like Cray engineered this to aggregate components across product generations. For short product life cycles that seems like a great idea, not throwing out the old system when you get the new one but combining the two systems instead. Though obviously for long product life cycles it would be a losing proposition; The space and power requirements of inefficient older components would be greater than the space and power savings of upgrading to the latest model + the expense of the upgrade.
Regardless of the position one takes on the question of to what degree warming and cooling trends are influenced by humans, climate is naturally variable and so the question persits: Should humankind artificially manipulate climate to impose an artificial stasis on naturally variable climate trends?
Significant natural warming or cooling of the earth is bound to cause extinctions and human suffering. I think most people would regard those outcomes as "bad". So why not change the natural environment to suite our own desires? Natural is not necessarily better.
A catastrophic impact event would be natural. Saying that we should leave the climate alone because ice ages are natural is like saying that we should leave bolides alone because human extinction would be natural.
fword wrote:
And how would this fix things? It would only make the companies that own A.*.*.* keep those addresses instead of releasing them to the public.
Raising prices means that those who hold an IP addresses in the future would pay more to hold that IP address than they pay now.
Your objection reveals that you do not understand the concept of an increased price.
assguard wrote:
Sure, yes, reward those who got lucky and got large blocks in early days, and make pay those who actually use them.
Raising prices means that those who hold an IP addresses in the future would pay more to hold that IP address than they pay now.
Your objective reveals that you do not understand the concept of an increased price.
Wil Shipley of Delicious Monster test drove a Tesla and wrote about it in his blog.
Here is part of what he had to say about:
It's crazy-fast. It handles like a jet fighter. It gets the equivalent of about 140 mpg. It has no gears. It requires almost no maintenance.e It's gorgeous. It's whisper-quiet. And, in Seattle, runs off hydro power.
Raise prices.
Raising the price of an IP address increases the incentive to not to waste the IP address.
McCain was a senator when the DMCA was enacted. Did he vote for it?
Seriously, does this guy look like he could count to seven?
Any justifiable limit on freedom will be adapted to unjustifiable purposes for which it was not originally intended.
There is a legitimate justification for denying developers unrestricted freedom to publish iPhone apps: It keeps consumers safe from malicious applications.
Now that after the policy of denying freedom to publish has been established, for that legitimate purpose, it is adapted to the illegitimate purposes of restraining competition and playing favorites.
Ok, +5 insightful for you. Though I do find absurd the implicit belief that the interests of CEOs and the public are intrinsically opposed, I agree that it is the key to making sense of the analogy.
Right, because $5-10 is a huge motivator.
That is a sufficient amount to compel attemps at prediction over merely wishful thinking. You seem surprised by that. Ok. But you need to learn that just because a fact is surprising to you that does not make it untrue.
You realize that another explanation is just as likely? The people making those markets work look at MULTIPLE polls and use their critical thinking to see which seem reasonable, what sorts of biases there may be, etc.
So your claim is that when money is at stake in a futures market people favor a rational strategy of prediction, specifically a poll of polls corrected for bias. That is consistent with my claim that when money is at stake people respond to surveys about future events by attempting to predict outcomes instead of by expressing their own wishes.
Otherwise, where do you think they are getting their information?
Clearly opinion polls are not the only source of information used to make predications. Historical trends or models are other sources of information used for predication.
The Scott Adams commentary contained this provocative remark:
Some of you will wonder how reliable a bunch of academics are when it comes to answering real life questions about the economy. You might prefer to know what CEOs think. But remember that CEOs are paid to be advocates for their stockholders, not advocates for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals for legal advice.
Presumably criminals stand to benefit by giving others bad legal advice, and as criminals they could not be trusted to forgo personal gain for the principle of honesty. Likewise, CEOs stand to benefit by harming the economy and could not be trusted to forgo personal gain for the sake of improving the economic welfare of the nation.
Do CEOs benefit from a bad economy? "Yay! business is looking up because the economy is failing!". It is a more daft than deft analogy.
This kind of survey is a horrible predictor of actual outcomes because it confounds the political biases of the respondents with their expectations.
There is a good way to tease those motives apart and force respondents into the domain of prediction: grant financial rewards and penalties according to the accuracy of predictions. When there is reward or penalty for getting the answer wrong or right people are more inclined to tell you what they expect to happen than what they want to happen. That is why markets, such as the IEM outperform surveys
" I asked her if she had been listening to a word I had said, or if she was just picking up keywords and throwing back responses she thought fit best."
Was her name Eliza?
Microsoft increasingly has the problem with advertising that their is no actual reason to choose their products over the competition, therefore they have difficulty promoting their products in advertising by making any rational appeal.
If the purpose of advertising is to increase brand awareness, what is the purpose of advertising if you are Microsoft, you own the market, and everyone is already aware of your brand?
Maybe that Microsoft is a monopoly explains the new strategy of not mentioning their product in advertisements. Some sharp advertising executive realized that Microsoft did not need to mention their own products in commercials because everyone has already heard of them. Then he sold that idea to Balmer.
Though while Microsoft is in the enviable position having already achieved near 100% global product awareness, they face a new challenge that in addition to the public being aware of their products it is increasingly aware that those products suck.
Exhibit A is the the idiotic Mojave Experiment campaign which confronted that problem directly. Mistake 1: It was a public acknowledgment by Microsoft of widespread public discontentment with Vista and Mistake 2: It was an unconvincing attempt at persuasion using the pseudoscience of pop psychology. The argument goes like "you all think Vista sucks and we are going prove scientifically in a laboratory that you do not really think that Vista sucks as much as you think it sucks.
The Mojave campaign had the problem that it was about how people thought that Vista sucks and that is not a fact that you want to be advertising to your customers. By being about nothing, the Seinfeld+Gates campaign does not make the same mistake. But it still fails to overcome the problem which is that Vista is a bad product and their is growing public perception of that. Their are subtle and indirect forms of promotion. Consumers are irrational. Based on the advertisements which I see, I am pretty sure that male brains actually work in way which makes "Wow, the woman in that photo holding that bottle has great tits, therefore I will drink Budweiser." An argument to purchase a product can be both convincing and irrational, but Microsoft's new ads are not in any way convincing.
If you say "We have a problem, this is how other people solve it, and this is what I will need to solve it. Give me the budget and I'll solve the problem."
That approach is nicely encapsulated by the motto "Do not fix problems, pursue opportunities," which (I think) is attributed to W. Edwards Deming. The parent post offers excellent advice.
As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Even if climate is unchanging records will still increase. Citing increasing records as evidence of global warming is an example of a classic fallacy.
"action figures.. like Baby Jabba Hutt and Jabba the Hutt's Gay Uncle may have taken the franchise a bridge too far."
Yes, a bridge too far over a tank of sharks.
Not just awesome, dam awesome.
What's wrong with thermal depolymerization?
The "speed" of a single CPU is a commercially useless measure of performance. We care about performance per dollar, not performance per CPU. And that dollar includes the cost of of energy required to operate the CPU associated cooling.
Maybe the rarity of intelligent life in the universe does not owe to infrequent arisal. What if the structure of the universe contains a built-in pitfall: the scientific understanding required to build large colliders is far less than that required to anticipate the lethal consequences their operation. Thus, progression of scientific understanding among all technically advanced species leads to self-extermination.