Are people really this poor? Can't you afford a Walmart $10 antenna instead of a $5 homebrew one with half the performance? Really? I mean, seriously? How? What? Why?
Get a job, or move away, or SOMETHING! Don't you like the flavor of food? Why would you live in place like that? Obviously you are literate. That's how you posted this. By reading words, and then writing them. Where I'm from that means $15/hr automatically unless you're a crack addict. Crack addicts only get $12/hr, and that means it's slightly more minutes per antenna of labor. They can still afford antennas for their squats and hovels.
Just tell your mom you're sorry, find a real job, and fly her out once you get your first paycheck.
HD quality is shit. We live in a 4k/UHD world now, and I wouldn't pay a nickel for old-timey DVD/HD quality garbage. Most phones are capable of so much more, but our providers think the "good old days" are "good enough." Paying for DVD quality is like paying to watch a Charlie Chaplin film projected through a potato camera. No thanks.
The internet is as good as books are. Sure, sometimes they're Mein Kampf and that get's a lot of attention...but the rest of the library is pretty neat too.
Frankly, I would have expected it to be there years ago... meh.
I also would have expected it before now, but draconian copyright laws and other factors prohibited it. Shouldn't we celebrate the dawning of an era in which those without the means can appreciate the work of a Grand Master in his peak?
Seeing, and being influenced by this simple thing, may be the root cause of the next Van Gogh's emergence. It is a good thing, and more publicity only makes it a better thing.
No one's claiming that the digitized images are "substitutes for the real thing." But thanks for restating the obvious.
Aren't they claiming that? Are you sure? Have you ever actually met an "average" person? Have you been to Walmart, or worked in a place where people labor with heavy tools and sweat all day? When men used shovels and hammers to build the place where you live where were you?
Many people would say that seeing a photo is as good as seeing the actual painting. I know those people, personally. I like them, they're nice. The author was warning them, not people like you. Trust me, it's for the best that they be taught. It's far more important that they learn new things, than it is that you never read a sentence you consider obvious. The lives of those people directly affect yours, whether you're aware of it or not. In fact, they're changing the face of the world by virtue of being numerous and loud.
The entire anti-intelligentsia movement is a response to posts like this, and it's killing the world. People who aren't as bright, wordy, or worldy as you are are not less important than you are. The very idea that they aren't worthy of mention, or even a simple explanation is a shameful thing. I hope that you feel bad about having done it and learn, before they come to tear down the house they built you.
So you think it's less expensive to house the brains for an army of these robots in some giant datafarm than in people's homes?
Yes, because it is. Shared resources make things like machine learning, speech recognition, and image recognition much cheaper at scale. There are a ton of products doing it this way already. Additionally, the average person can't afford and does not want, a rack full of servers in their home, and even if they did... they couldn't afford it. However, by sharing that rack full of servers with other users many more people can effectively share the same hardware and bring prices down to a reasonable level.
The network connections to these datafarms add a huge latency, and if the CPU needs are non-trivial, it is just not practical to offload the load to the server farm.
The latency is not a big deal. We're talking a few hundred milliseconds, or less, if you've got a proper CDN and a decent pipe. I stream games through my Nvidia Shield all the time and seldom notice any delay between the button being pressed and the screen updating. Or when I speak to Alexa, Ok Google, or Siri. That tiny delay is certainly better than human reaction time, and certainly less time then it would take for a single weak local CPU to perform the task that just occupied dozens of cores with TB's of memory in the cloud for a fraction of a millisecond.
AWS works because it allows small numbers of people to burst use thousands of CPUs for a short period of time. If instead you have huge numbers of people using relatively few CPUs each, it's cheaper to have the CPUs locally. And this idiotic push for cloud apps focuses on apps that leave your CPU idle 99.99% of the time like MS Word. If you really need CPU power, you can't load it in the cloud.
This just isn't true. It's more cost effective to host resource-intensive tasks in data centers and stream the results in most or many cases. That's why Google, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, and a ton of other people are both offering the services and using them in their own products.
And do you think self-drive cars will offload CPU load to the cloud?
Yes. Eventually, the car will have a local CPU as failback, and will operate with reduced functionality when a connection is unavailable or unsuitable.
It would be too computationally expensive to house the 'brains' inside the robot. Far cheaper to stream it's interactions to the cloud.
Most people will gladly trade their privacy for a robot that can wash the dishes, or do the laundry though. People trade it now just to play Farmville.
There is a difference between a "target" and a "subject" in legal terms. Muellers team was using the legal meaning of "target" here.
Specifically, what this means is that Trump is suspected of a crime but that they do not yet have enough evidence to bring a case. Any case they bring must be airtight, since he's the President. So, there may actually be a ton of evidence... just not enough to bring a case against him yet. Clearly there is enough to keep investigating though, or he would no longer be a subject either.
We have official word that he is not the target of a criminal investigation.
This is all a little confusing, but actually, you are technically correct. Though it's misleading to phrase it that way.
He is not the target of a criminal investigation. He is the subject of a criminal investigation. The two terms have specific legal meanings, which is what Mueller meant when he used them... since he happens to be an officer of the law.
The press on both sides ran with it and took Mueller's statement that Trump isn't a target to mean what it would have meant in a non-legal situation. They were mistaken to do that. Trump's PR flacky's went with it because it made for nice optics.
Make no mistake, Trumps still under investigation. he just isn't a "target" yet.
Whether Trump won or not isn't the question. The question is "Did he criminally collude with the Russians to interfere in a United States presidential election?" It's an important question, because that basically undermines the entire electoral process of the nation, and makes Trump an enemy of the state.
Neither of us knows the answer to that question though. If anyone can find out though, Robert Mueller can.
He's the Republican, war veteran, investigator who took down Sammy the Bull and Teflon Don. He's also very tricky. For instance, the thing where he subpoenaed a bunch of emails that were already in his posession, just to see which ones they would leave out was brilliant. It worked. They tried to hide evidence by omitting the ones that made them look guilty and saved Mueller the hassle of reading through thousands of emails. They pled guilty not long after they realized they'd been duped.
If Trumps guilty Mueller will prove it. If he's innocent then Mueller will prove that. Until he closes the investigation though there is zero chance that either of us know what the evidence actually says.
None of us know if they've found anything saying Trump colluded, including the Democrats. That part of the investigation isn't finished, and so they're unlikely to talk about it for fear of damaging the investigation.
That's probably what this is about. The Dems are getting impatient too.
The bits and pieces that have come out about the underlings who were charged (and pled guilty in some cases), do strongly imply that there is at least some evidence that something criminal has happened and that Trump was involved.
This lawsuit is likely a fishing expedition by the dems, who want access to whatever Mueller is sitting on. The lawsuit will give them a way to gain access to more of Mueller's intel.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be proposing the novel idea that competition is possible in the current climate, or am I mistaken?
You are aware that it's not legally permissible to actually compete with the current monopolists as things stand, right?
The only difference with Net Neutrality is that the monopolists can't screw us on a per domain basis.
The game is over, they won. The only question now is WHAT they won.
Where do you live?
It surprises me. Local news is a cesspool of local criminal influence where I live.
Are people really this poor? Can't you afford a Walmart $10 antenna instead of a $5 homebrew one with half the performance? Really? I mean, seriously? How? What? Why?
Get a job, or move away, or SOMETHING! Don't you like the flavor of food? Why would you live in place like that? Obviously you are literate. That's how you posted this. By reading words, and then writing them. Where I'm from that means $15/hr automatically unless you're a crack addict. Crack addicts only get $12/hr, and that means it's slightly more minutes per antenna of labor. They can still afford antennas for their squats and hovels.
Just tell your mom you're sorry, find a real job, and fly her out once you get your first paycheck.
HD quality is shit. We live in a 4k/UHD world now, and I wouldn't pay a nickel for old-timey DVD/HD quality garbage. Most phones are capable of so much more, but our providers think the "good old days" are "good enough." Paying for DVD quality is like paying to watch a Charlie Chaplin film projected through a potato camera. No thanks.
This was sarcasm, right?
The internet is as good as books are. Sure, sometimes they're Mein Kampf and that get's a lot of attention...but the rest of the library is pretty neat too.
Frankly, I would have expected it to be there years ago... meh.
I also would have expected it before now, but draconian copyright laws and other factors prohibited it. Shouldn't we celebrate the dawning of an era in which those without the means can appreciate the work of a Grand Master in his peak?
Seeing, and being influenced by this simple thing, may be the root cause of the next Van Gogh's emergence. It is a good thing, and more publicity only makes it a better thing.
No one's claiming that the digitized images are "substitutes for the real thing." But thanks for restating the obvious.
Aren't they claiming that? Are you sure? Have you ever actually met an "average" person? Have you been to Walmart, or worked in a place where people labor with heavy tools and sweat all day? When men used shovels and hammers to build the place where you live where were you?
Many people would say that seeing a photo is as good as seeing the actual painting. I know those people, personally. I like them, they're nice. The author was warning them, not people like you. Trust me, it's for the best that they be taught. It's far more important that they learn new things, than it is that you never read a sentence you consider obvious. The lives of those people directly affect yours, whether you're aware of it or not. In fact, they're changing the face of the world by virtue of being numerous and loud.
The entire anti-intelligentsia movement is a response to posts like this, and it's killing the world. People who aren't as bright, wordy, or worldy as you are are not less important than you are. The very idea that they aren't worthy of mention, or even a simple explanation is a shameful thing. I hope that you feel bad about having done it and learn, before they come to tear down the house they built you.
So you think it's less expensive to house the brains for an army of these robots in some giant datafarm than in people's homes?
Yes, because it is. Shared resources make things like machine learning, speech recognition, and image recognition much cheaper at scale. There are a ton of products doing it this way already. Additionally, the average person can't afford and does not want, a rack full of servers in their home, and even if they did... they couldn't afford it. However, by sharing that rack full of servers with other users many more people can effectively share the same hardware and bring prices down to a reasonable level.
The network connections to these datafarms add a huge latency, and if the CPU needs are non-trivial, it is just not practical to offload the load to the server farm.
The latency is not a big deal. We're talking a few hundred milliseconds, or less, if you've got a proper CDN and a decent pipe. I stream games through my Nvidia Shield all the time and seldom notice any delay between the button being pressed and the screen updating. Or when I speak to Alexa, Ok Google, or Siri. That tiny delay is certainly better than human reaction time, and certainly less time then it would take for a single weak local CPU to perform the task that just occupied dozens of cores with TB's of memory in the cloud for a fraction of a millisecond.
AWS works because it allows small numbers of people to burst use thousands of CPUs for a short period of time. If instead you have huge numbers of people using relatively few CPUs each, it's cheaper to have the CPUs locally. And this idiotic push for cloud apps focuses on apps that leave your CPU idle 99.99% of the time like MS Word. If you really need CPU power, you can't load it in the cloud.
This just isn't true. It's more cost effective to host resource-intensive tasks in data centers and stream the results in most or many cases. That's why Google, Amazon, Apple, Nvidia, and a ton of other people are both offering the services and using them in their own products.
And do you think self-drive cars will offload CPU load to the cloud?
Yes. Eventually, the car will have a local CPU as failback, and will operate with reduced functionality when a connection is unavailable or unsuitable.
It would be too computationally expensive to house the 'brains' inside the robot. Far cheaper to stream it's interactions to the cloud. Most people will gladly trade their privacy for a robot that can wash the dishes, or do the laundry though. People trade it now just to play Farmville.
Is there anyone left on the internet who doesn't work for Russia?
None of that matters if betrayed America's ideals to achieve it.
A bit under half the country voted for him, and a lot of them post on forums.
Only about 15% even voted. The percentage that voted for Trump was closer to 5% than 50%.
So it's a conspiracy of... Republicans that Trump appointed? Damn deep state.
Specifically, what this means is that Trump is suspected of a crime but that they do not yet have enough evidence to bring a case. Any case they bring must be airtight, since he's the President. So, there may actually be a ton of evidence... just not enough to bring a case against him yet. Clearly there is enough to keep investigating though, or he would no longer be a subject either.
We have official word that he is not the target of a criminal investigation.
This is all a little confusing, but actually, you are technically correct. Though it's misleading to phrase it that way.
He is not the target of a criminal investigation. He is the subject of a criminal investigation. The two terms have specific legal meanings, which is what Mueller meant when he used them... since he happens to be an officer of the law.
The press on both sides ran with it and took Mueller's statement that Trump isn't a target to mean what it would have meant in a non-legal situation. They were mistaken to do that. Trump's PR flacky's went with it because it made for nice optics.
Make no mistake, Trumps still under investigation. he just isn't a "target" yet.
The guy won. Move on.
Whether Trump won or not isn't the question. The question is "Did he criminally collude with the Russians to interfere in a United States presidential election?" It's an important question, because that basically undermines the entire electoral process of the nation, and makes Trump an enemy of the state.
Neither of us knows the answer to that question though. If anyone can find out though, Robert Mueller can.
He's the Republican, war veteran, investigator who took down Sammy the Bull and Teflon Don. He's also very tricky. For instance, the thing where he subpoenaed a bunch of emails that were already in his posession, just to see which ones they would leave out was brilliant. It worked. They tried to hide evidence by omitting the ones that made them look guilty and saved Mueller the hassle of reading through thousands of emails. They pled guilty not long after they realized they'd been duped.
If Trumps guilty Mueller will prove it. If he's innocent then Mueller will prove that. Until he closes the investigation though there is zero chance that either of us know what the evidence actually says.
Trump has a lot of investigations going, so it's easy to miss, but that wasn't the Mueller Russia probe. It was a whole different can of worms.
None of us know if they've found anything saying Trump colluded, including the Democrats. That part of the investigation isn't finished, and so they're unlikely to talk about it for fear of damaging the investigation.
That's probably what this is about. The Dems are getting impatient too.
The bits and pieces that have come out about the underlings who were charged (and pled guilty in some cases), do strongly imply that there is at least some evidence that something criminal has happened and that Trump was involved.
This lawsuit is likely a fishing expedition by the dems, who want access to whatever Mueller is sitting on. The lawsuit will give them a way to gain access to more of Mueller's intel.