You are absolutely right that you can do this but you may need to patch the hypervisor if you use a standard, retail nVidia card. Nvidia's drivers for "gamer" GPUs check to see whether they are running in a virtual environment and then shutdown if they think they are. There is a patch for KVM which hides the virtual environment from the nVidia driver so that it will run.
Alternatively if you need double precision or don't mind spending 5-10 times the cost of a gamer card you can purchase a Tesla GPU since the nVidia driver for these works fine in a VM without patching.
Since it is a spectrum surely a rainbow would be more appropriate and less discriminatory. It would also be cheaper because then you can use the same signs, projectors etc. for gay pride, autism and international unicorn day (yes apparently that is a thing). Plus it would be highly appropriate to have the White House look like the end of a rainbow since I'm sure the current occupant has probably got at least one pot of gold stashed there given his sense of taste.
So taking them off the endangered species list is premature. A population of 6000 is not exactly huge.
Perhaps not but perhaps it is worth relying on the experts who actually have some experience in managing endangered species and who have actually done the population studies rather than relying on a gut reaction that a population of 6,000 is too small? That is not how science is done and it's not like the experts have a vested interest in seeing the manatees die off. In fact I would argue they are strongly motivated to have them remain as endangered since they are going to look really incompetent if they have to put them back on the endangered list in a few years time.
Despite my quality work I did not pursue tailoring/fashion as my career.
The problem this study highlighted was that women thought they were no good at maths despite the objective skill test showing that they were good at it. Your post not only contains but actually is an example of the exact opposite situation.
So, if you force people who are not good at math to do more of it, they will eventually figure out that they are not good at it and avoid it?
Actually, bizarrely, that is not what happened. If you RTFA it seems that the extra course decreased the gap in the maths skills between the men and women i.e. the women benefitted from the course more than the men but still ranked lower on average. However it decreased the women's confidence in their maths skills whereas for the men it was unchanged. So paradoxically the course did a great job in better preparing women for STEM careers while simultaneously making them think that they were unsuited for a STEM career.
What is needed now is some psychological study to figure out why women developed such a gap between their actual maths skills and the perceived maths skills while the men did not. If someone could figure out that perhaps we can develop a better way of teaching maths and physics that imparts the required knowledge without the drop in confidence.
How about the mental health of the driver that now has to live with the fact that they killed someone? It might not be their fault at all but even so that sort of thing tends to weight heavily on people.
one possible solution that isn't being talked about is devo-max for England.
How would this help at all? The reason Scottish independence was rejected the first time around was because of the huge economic uncertainty it would cause plus being booted out the the EU and then being forced to rejoin. Well guess what that has now happened against their will and there already is a huge economic uncertainty. Giving England regional powers will do nothing for Scotland and there is already a huge politcal gulf between north and south in England alone.
If Scotland does decide to commit suicide, the UK would continue and benefit from its freedoms while Scotland would be alone...
If that were true I would agree but the case for Scottish independence only makes sense if the plan is to rejoin the EU. In this case Scotland would not be alone but part of the EU instead of the UK.
And then there's the EU commission. They write legislation....The representatives don't write legislation, they get the civil service to do it.
I hate the fact that the UK is leaving the EU and I wish we were staying but your rosy picture of EU democracy is not really correct. The EU commission is not at all like a civil service because they propose legislation. Civil servants have to follow the will of their political masters they do not get to propose the laws themselves mainly because they are unelected like the commission.
The EU really needs a simplified, clearly democratic structure where the power lies with those elected at the European, not national, level and the UK should have remained in and argued for this. Sadly though the national governments know that if they did this the EU government would have enough democratic authority to directly challenge them which is the reason behind the overly complex, and democratically dubious, structure we currently have.
This glosses over the reality of having your economy fall that far.
It's not just the economy falling though - if Scotland and Northern Ireland leave that too will shrink things, making the UK a smaller market and less interesting to the world.
Britain has survived far worse. What makes you think leaving the EU will be the death knell?
That's an easy one to answer: Scottish independence. Without Scotland we are no longer Great Britain and certainly not a United Kingdom. What happened today was that we shot ourselves. What remains to be seen is whether we shot ourselves in the head, the foot or the gut. My guess is the latter because unless we either reverse the decision or the EU itself collapses the UK is likely to suffer a long and lingering death both from Scottish and possibly Northern Irish independence as well as internal political conflicts in England and Wales. The latter is because leaving the EU is unlikely to fix any of the issues most of those who voted for it would like to see fixed and the 48% who voted against it are being utterly ignored in pursuit of a "hard" Brexit. This is a self-inflicted existential crisis and I see a good chance of it getting very ugly.
That's not a battery, that's a guaranteed to explode in the factory bomb. You'll need a bunch more mass...
You seem to be confusing the original question which was "Is it (theoretically) possible..." for is "Is it currently practically possible...". Indeed your argument about such a battery being a bomb applies equally well to fossil fuel the only difference being the size of the crater each will leave when the energy is released. Any battery with a sufficiently large energy storage is likely to be capable of exploding since it will contain lots of energy and must have a way to release it.
There is no way to estimate the mass of a shielding and containment system because we have no technology yet capable of storing, let alone creating, enough anti-matter to be useful. However the energy density of anti-matter so far exceeds that of fossil fuels (my guesstimate would be by about 9-10 orders of magnitude) that you have a lot of room to add shielding and containment before your energy density will drop below fossil fuels.
Is it (theoretically) possible for a battery to reach the same energy density as fossil fuel?
The theoretical maximum battery capacity is well in excess of fossil fuel. A battery made of 50% matter and 50% anti-matter could conceivably convert its mass into energy. That is the theoretical limit but we are a long way technologically from getting anywhere even vaguely close.
The person referred to is the indirect object of the sentence in both versions since the "hooray" is being sent to the person. There is no change of case.
I think you mean "That's to the one who decided this". English already has a perfectly good third person singular, gender-neutral pronoun, 'one', which you can use when referring to people as opposed to things.
This will not capture a significant percentage of the former drinkers who are non drinkers. So contrary to your assertion, the current study did not truly separate out the two categories.
It did the best that any survey can do - this is medicine not precision science. It will not capture those who were moderate drinkers and who then stopped since they would have no medical problems (indeed the study shows they would have less chance of a medical problem). However this would bias the non-drinkers to look more like the moderate drinkers i.e. it would make non-drinkers look healthier.
As for former heavy drinkers I see no reason to suspect that these would end up as non-drinkers over moderate drinkers unless given medical advice that they needed to stop - in which case there would be a record and they would be classed as former drinkers. So the only way you can achieve what you claim is if there are a lot of heavy drinkers who did not develop any medical problems related to their drinking and whom all stopped drinking completely without any medical advice to that effect. This seems highly unlikely.
So how many people use that as an excuse to knock back a couple wines every night, then continue to have a few more, then injure them selves or someone else because drunk? At least you will get slightly less heart disease eh.
The study showed that consuming more than ~2 glass of wine per day (less if you are a woman) is actually harmful for your health so the sort of people doing this cannot use the study to justify their drinking problem.
So is this another study that doesn't differentiate between 'never drink' and people who drank so much that they had to quit for health reasons and thus 'no longer drink'?
I know this is Slashdot so you are not expected to read the article but really you could not be more wrong if you tried. From the article:
The study's findings are particularly interesting because the researchers separated drinkers into categories that are typically lumped together in these kinds of studies. "Non-drinkers" often include people who have never drank, as well as those who quit drinking (who may have been heavy drinkers in the past, and so may have a higher risk of heart problems).
If you actually go further and click on the link to the BMJ article then they have "Non-drinker" and "Former drinker" categories with both of these showing statistically equivalent rates of cardiovascular and heart disease in the categories they looked at and in all cases both categories were statistically significantly higher than the rate for moderate drinkers.
So your assertion is completely wrong: their data show that even if you have never drunk alcohol you will have a reduced risk of heart disease if you start drinking moderately with a sample size of ~136k people. To me this looks like extremely convincing evidence that moderate drinking increases heart health.
That's exactly how it works in other countries (e.g.: Switzerland).
There is a difference between local and national governments. If local governments receive the money they then have a vested interest in making sure that crimes are committed within their boundaries. Hence they can create dodgy local laws which many people will inadvertently break. National governments can't really do this because they set the laws for the entire nation which makes it a lot harder to do dodgy things like this because more people are watching them. In addition with their far larger budgets the income from fines is only a tiny fraction and not something which will make or break the bank.
Fines should go to national governments, not local ones which is not the case in the US, Canada or Switzerland but I think that does/might happen in the UK?
If your car is that fast, I think you will have more pressing matters to attend to, like staying on the planet.
Actually given the amount of air resistance and therefore friction at that speed the large plasma fireball which will surround you will make you very detectable, although not really identifiable, and your immediate problem will be avoiding instant cremation, not staying on the planet.
No - I am not trying to shift the blame at all. Governments are responsible for leaving the holes in the law. Indeed your analogy reinforces my point because, just like it is impossible to produce a perfect program with no security holes, it is impossible to produce the perfect tax law with no loop holes. So while governments may be to blame it is not a practical solution to just tell them to pass laws without loop holes - just like you can't solve computer security by telling everyone to write code without any security holes. You might be able to improve things but there will still be a persistent, ongoing problem.
However your analogy does suggest a different solution: perhaps we should treat international corporations who exploit loop holes in tax law the same way that we treat hackers who exploit security holes in software. Given the ridiculously long sentences handed out for hacking I expect this would be a great deterrent...although still open to abuses of power.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like Apple really cares about Macs anymore.
Agreed - Apple's latests offerings show that they are clearly lacking imagination and all this announcement does is make that official.
You are absolutely right that you can do this but you may need to patch the hypervisor if you use a standard, retail nVidia card. Nvidia's drivers for "gamer" GPUs check to see whether they are running in a virtual environment and then shutdown if they think they are. There is a patch for KVM which hides the virtual environment from the nVidia driver so that it will run.
Alternatively if you need double precision or don't mind spending 5-10 times the cost of a gamer card you can purchase a Tesla GPU since the nVidia driver for these works fine in a VM without patching.
Since it is a spectrum surely a rainbow would be more appropriate and less discriminatory. It would also be cheaper because then you can use the same signs, projectors etc. for gay pride, autism and international unicorn day (yes apparently that is a thing). Plus it would be highly appropriate to have the White House look like the end of a rainbow since I'm sure the current occupant has probably got at least one pot of gold stashed there given his sense of taste.
So taking them off the endangered species list is premature. A population of 6000 is not exactly huge.
Perhaps not but perhaps it is worth relying on the experts who actually have some experience in managing endangered species and who have actually done the population studies rather than relying on a gut reaction that a population of 6,000 is too small? That is not how science is done and it's not like the experts have a vested interest in seeing the manatees die off. In fact I would argue they are strongly motivated to have them remain as endangered since they are going to look really incompetent if they have to put them back on the endangered list in a few years time.
Despite my quality work I did not pursue tailoring/fashion as my career.
The problem this study highlighted was that women thought they were no good at maths despite the objective skill test showing that they were good at it. Your post not only contains but actually is an example of the exact opposite situation.
So, if you force people who are not good at math to do more of it, they will eventually figure out that they are not good at it and avoid it?
Actually, bizarrely, that is not what happened. If you RTFA it seems that the extra course decreased the gap in the maths skills between the men and women i.e. the women benefitted from the course more than the men but still ranked lower on average. However it decreased the women's confidence in their maths skills whereas for the men it was unchanged. So paradoxically the course did a great job in better preparing women for STEM careers while simultaneously making them think that they were unsuited for a STEM career.
What is needed now is some psychological study to figure out why women developed such a gap between their actual maths skills and the perceived maths skills while the men did not. If someone could figure out that perhaps we can develop a better way of teaching maths and physics that imparts the required knowledge without the drop in confidence.
Nothing of value is being lost.
How about the mental health of the driver that now has to live with the fact that they killed someone? It might not be their fault at all but even so that sort of thing tends to weight heavily on people.
one possible solution that isn't being talked about is devo-max for England.
How would this help at all? The reason Scottish independence was rejected the first time around was because of the huge economic uncertainty it would cause plus being booted out the the EU and then being forced to rejoin. Well guess what that has now happened against their will and there already is a huge economic uncertainty. Giving England regional powers will do nothing for Scotland and there is already a huge politcal gulf between north and south in England alone.
If Scotland does decide to commit suicide, the UK would continue and benefit from its freedoms while Scotland would be alone...
If that were true I would agree but the case for Scottish independence only makes sense if the plan is to rejoin the EU. In this case Scotland would not be alone but part of the EU instead of the UK.
I'm not saying US sold tvs are safe
US TVs are protected by US TV stations which are so appallingly bad the only way to use TVs there is via Netflix or an equivalent service.
And then there's the EU commission. They write legislation....The representatives don't write legislation, they get the civil service to do it.
I hate the fact that the UK is leaving the EU and I wish we were staying but your rosy picture of EU democracy is not really correct. The EU commission is not at all like a civil service because they propose legislation. Civil servants have to follow the will of their political masters they do not get to propose the laws themselves mainly because they are unelected like the commission.
The EU really needs a simplified, clearly democratic structure where the power lies with those elected at the European, not national, level and the UK should have remained in and argued for this. Sadly though the national governments know that if they did this the EU government would have enough democratic authority to directly challenge them which is the reason behind the overly complex, and democratically dubious, structure we currently have.
This glosses over the reality of having your economy fall that far.
It's not just the economy falling though - if Scotland and Northern Ireland leave that too will shrink things, making the UK a smaller market and less interesting to the world.
Britain has survived far worse. What makes you think leaving the EU will be the death knell?
That's an easy one to answer: Scottish independence. Without Scotland we are no longer Great Britain and certainly not a United Kingdom. What happened today was that we shot ourselves. What remains to be seen is whether we shot ourselves in the head, the foot or the gut. My guess is the latter because unless we either reverse the decision or the EU itself collapses the UK is likely to suffer a long and lingering death both from Scottish and possibly Northern Irish independence as well as internal political conflicts in England and Wales. The latter is because leaving the EU is unlikely to fix any of the issues most of those who voted for it would like to see fixed and the 48% who voted against it are being utterly ignored in pursuit of a "hard" Brexit. This is a self-inflicted existential crisis and I see a good chance of it getting very ugly.
That's not a battery, that's a guaranteed to explode in the factory bomb. You'll need a bunch more mass...
You seem to be confusing the original question which was "Is it (theoretically) possible..." for is "Is it currently practically possible...". Indeed your argument about such a battery being a bomb applies equally well to fossil fuel the only difference being the size of the crater each will leave when the energy is released. Any battery with a sufficiently large energy storage is likely to be capable of exploding since it will contain lots of energy and must have a way to release it.
There is no way to estimate the mass of a shielding and containment system because we have no technology yet capable of storing, let alone creating, enough anti-matter to be useful. However the energy density of anti-matter so far exceeds that of fossil fuels (my guesstimate would be by about 9-10 orders of magnitude) that you have a lot of room to add shielding and containment before your energy density will drop below fossil fuels.
Are there really lots of US fake phone manufacturers shipping abroad...or is the problem that of fake phones shipped _from_ abroad?
Is it (theoretically) possible for a battery to reach the same energy density as fossil fuel?
The theoretical maximum battery capacity is well in excess of fossil fuel. A battery made of 50% matter and 50% anti-matter could conceivably convert its mass into energy. That is the theoretical limit but we are a long way technologically from getting anywhere even vaguely close.
The person referred to is the indirect object of the sentence in both versions since the "hooray" is being sent to the person. There is no change of case.
Common sense would mean that you use the third person, singular, gender-neutral pronoun which already exists for people: "one".
That's to he or she who finally decided this!
I think you mean "That's to the one who decided this". English already has a perfectly good third person singular, gender-neutral pronoun, 'one', which you can use when referring to people as opposed to things.
This will not capture a significant percentage of the former drinkers who are non drinkers. So contrary to your assertion, the current study did not truly separate out the two categories.
It did the best that any survey can do - this is medicine not precision science. It will not capture those who were moderate drinkers and who then stopped since they would have no medical problems (indeed the study shows they would have less chance of a medical problem). However this would bias the non-drinkers to look more like the moderate drinkers i.e. it would make non-drinkers look healthier.
As for former heavy drinkers I see no reason to suspect that these would end up as non-drinkers over moderate drinkers unless given medical advice that they needed to stop - in which case there would be a record and they would be classed as former drinkers. So the only way you can achieve what you claim is if there are a lot of heavy drinkers who did not develop any medical problems related to their drinking and whom all stopped drinking completely without any medical advice to that effect. This seems highly unlikely.
So how many people use that as an excuse to knock back a couple wines every night, then continue to have a few more, then injure them selves or someone else because drunk? At least you will get slightly less heart disease eh.
The study showed that consuming more than ~2 glass of wine per day (less if you are a woman) is actually harmful for your health so the sort of people doing this cannot use the study to justify their drinking problem.
So is this another study that doesn't differentiate between 'never drink' and people who drank so much that they had to quit for health reasons and thus 'no longer drink'?
I know this is Slashdot so you are not expected to read the article but really you could not be more wrong if you tried. From the article:
The study's findings are particularly interesting because the researchers separated drinkers into categories that are typically lumped together in these kinds of studies. "Non-drinkers" often include people who have never drank, as well as those who quit drinking (who may have been heavy drinkers in the past, and so may have a higher risk of heart problems).
If you actually go further and click on the link to the BMJ article then they have "Non-drinker" and "Former drinker" categories with both of these showing statistically equivalent rates of cardiovascular and heart disease in the categories they looked at and in all cases both categories were statistically significantly higher than the rate for moderate drinkers.
So your assertion is completely wrong: their data show that even if you have never drunk alcohol you will have a reduced risk of heart disease if you start drinking moderately with a sample size of ~136k people. To me this looks like extremely convincing evidence that moderate drinking increases heart health.
That's exactly how it works in other countries (e.g.: Switzerland).
There is a difference between local and national governments. If local governments receive the money they then have a vested interest in making sure that crimes are committed within their boundaries. Hence they can create dodgy local laws which many people will inadvertently break. National governments can't really do this because they set the laws for the entire nation which makes it a lot harder to do dodgy things like this because more people are watching them. In addition with their far larger budgets the income from fines is only a tiny fraction and not something which will make or break the bank.
Fines should go to national governments, not local ones which is not the case in the US, Canada or Switzerland but I think that does/might happen in the UK?
If your car is that fast, I think you will have more pressing matters to attend to, like staying on the planet.
Actually given the amount of air resistance and therefore friction at that speed the large plasma fireball which will surround you will make you very detectable, although not really identifiable, and your immediate problem will be avoiding instant cremation, not staying on the planet.
No - I am not trying to shift the blame at all. Governments are responsible for leaving the holes in the law. Indeed your analogy reinforces my point because, just like it is impossible to produce a perfect program with no security holes, it is impossible to produce the perfect tax law with no loop holes. So while governments may be to blame it is not a practical solution to just tell them to pass laws without loop holes - just like you can't solve computer security by telling everyone to write code without any security holes. You might be able to improve things but there will still be a persistent, ongoing problem.
However your analogy does suggest a different solution: perhaps we should treat international corporations who exploit loop holes in tax law the same way that we treat hackers who exploit security holes in software. Given the ridiculously long sentences handed out for hacking I expect this would be a great deterrent...although still open to abuses of power.