Because most users don't care about power - they care about cost and performance. The reviewers are comparing to cards of similar cost.
The cost is only comparable if you don't factor in having to buy a new power supply or whatever.
I had a video card die, and a decent portion of the costs to replace it went into a power supply because the best bang-for-buck GPU was just not going to work on the power supply I had in the system (which could only supply a single PCI-E connector - and didn't really have much headroom to use an adapter). I had half-considered downgrading just for that reason.
By all means make the comparisons, but pointing out the power angle would be useful in a review.
They already did. Silicon Valley is basically one giant suburb. There's no skyscrapers there. The only urban Google location I know of is the one in NYC across the street from the Chelsea Market.
Everything I've heard about Silicon Valley suggests that it is a complete zoo traffic-wise, with most having to live an hour away due to costs/etc. If anything it seems worse than a city, like half of New Jersey.
By suburb I mean someplace where you don't have to drive more than 10min to get to a fully operational farm, but where residences and medium-sized businesses are plentiful.
Making the top of the list is an achievement, but when a company falls as far as HP did under the last regime, I think it would take a while for even an excellent CEO to turn things around.
The idea that a CEO can turn things around in a few quarters is the same kind of short-term thinking that causes companies to need turning-around in the first place.
I think another big distinction is between city and suburb. If you live in the NYC metro area things are far different than if you live outside of Albany or in the middle of New Hampshire or Vermont.
We need to focus less on trying to get more then the 60% to vote and focus much more on getting that 60% to show up for Primaries.
Sounds nice in theory. In the party I was registered to all the candidates save one had conceded when the primary came along in my state. Primaries put a great deal of election influence on the states that happen to hold their primaries early in the year.
The idea of distributing the wealth created by the machines without some form of easily arguable moral reason seems quite dangerous.
Sure, so what moral reason do we come up with then? The jobs will go away whether or not we distribute the wealth, so it isn't like we have much choice unless watching the poor starve to death is considered morally superior to giving them welfare.
I say this as someone who lives on roughly $1000/month and supports someone else on that as well. I live in a decent-sized city, eat well, and don't really want for much. I could live like a king on minimum wage.
And how much of that $1k/mo goes towards housing? Rent on a two bedroom apartment in most cities would consume the vast majority of that income.
If you own a house, well, income isn't nearly as much of a problem when you have wealth.
That owner is gonna want some food. Hope he knows how to grow it...because the guys growing it are going to milk him for every penny they can.
The owner is the one growing the food. Nobody else owns any land to grow it on. In its ideal form capitalism awards 100% of price of a product to the owner of the capital used to produce it. That's why they call it capitalism.
The guys who own the farms don't have any incentive to sell their robot-harvested crops to anybody who doesn't have something to sell back.
What happens when the majority of economic activity requires no workers at all? Then the owner gets a pile of profits, pays no workers at all, and only owners can afford anything because everyone else is unemployed and unemployable...
Good for the owner. If someone is unemployed and unemployable, then they are contributing nothing to society at that point. It is everyones responsibility to find someway to contribute. They get to set a price or their contributions, and if others agree on that price, they get paid. If you can't do anything that you can get paid for, what good are you to the rest of us?
No good at all. Are you suggesting that the penalty for non-productivity should be death?
What happens when the majority of economic activity requires no workers at all? Then the owner gets a pile of profits, pays no workers at all, and only owners can afford anything because everyone else is unemployed and unemployable...
So, who is the Owner selling things to to make that "pile of profits", if there are no customers because they're "unemployed and unemployable"?
Other owners. The fact that 99% of the population doesn't have money doesn't mean that nobody has money.
Actually $81M is low - I didn't factor in time-value of money. If the money were sunk into retiring the national debt you'd save considerably more than that. So, the actual cost is probably close to double that.
Just how do you propose building a cheap space station for less than that? The ISS did cost $150B. Launching payload to orbit is expensive - tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram. And that is the cost for an unmanned mission, which of course would be adequate for lifting the station components themselves. The support costs to put people in space are, well, astronomical.:)
This isn't going for a bus ride to the museum. We're talking about putting people into space. Nobody has figured out how to make it cheap.
As far as accounting goes - I don't see anything controversial in how I did the math. If you ignore up-front costs you can lower the per-kid cost, but that is just playing a shell game.
I don't know what military spending has to do with any of this. If the military is wasting money it should be stopped. That doesn't mean that you go waste the money on something else. You take spending decisions on their own merits.
As long as the business keeps the lawful minimum records, the FBI cannot shut down their legal business, without a court order.
Sure, which is why the FBI always obtains court orders.
If every bitcoin user is generating a new Bitcoin ID to receive every spend, then the money never touches a "known" ID; since every ID it arrives at is "brand new".
Generating an account number used to store bitcoin is free. Generating bitcoins are expensive, and moving a bitcoin from one account to another costs a token amount (today - that is subject to market forces). Every bitcoin has a history of every account number it has ever belonged to. So, if a bitcoin is ever in a particular account, then it can be followed to every other account it touches. The FBI just needs to hand the criminal enterprise some bitcoins and they can follow that money anyplace it goes (they know which bitcoins they spent there).
It's very possible the BTC could be used to obtain virtual goods or online services, without a "real world known ID" ever involved.
What kinds of services are you thinking of? And what is the point of being a drug kingpin if you can't even afford a car? Are you going to run the entire enterprise just so that you can put your code name up in banner ads and such? Also, very few services operate anonymously.
The virtual goods or online services might be convertible to real cash indirectly; for example.... use BTC to buy Facebook/Twitter followers, other methods of using BTC indirectly to get cash by generating business, instead of selling BTC for cash.
As soon as you start buying banner ads for your bitcoins, the FBI will ask the ad agency what ads are being bought. If they don't have records they'll just get an order requiring them to collect records on all your future transactions. Most companies will just help out without an order - most companies don't exist to further the libertarian paradise you seem to want.
Presumably: the illicit user will buy all services using BTC, and only buy products/services that are virtual, that they can get without revealing their identity to the seller.
Just what are these virtual services that criminals are flocking to buy but lack the money to obtain? When I watch movies about gangsters I see guys with guns, cars, fancy houses, etc. I don't see guys hiding in their basements accumulating a fortune in domain names/etc.
You need to consider why people take up crime in the first place. They don't do it just for the satisfaction of having done it.
So, are you proposing that we should maintain a military without shoelaces in order to send one lucky kid to the ISS.
I can't argue that we spend way too much on the military, but sending kids to the ISS isn't really an effective way to educate them. Sending 1 kid per year to the ISS costs WAY more than $20M if you ever want to scale it up. The $20M figure probably assumes that there is a free spot on an otherwise-funded launch, and that there is a free spot on an otherwise-built ISS for them to stay in. That works when you just want to send 1-2 kids/yr up. If you actually want a space station full of 20 kids then you need to completely fund the construction of the space station (the current ISS only holds 6 and cost $150B, and is showing its age at 14 yrs). Let's assume that a station for 20 kids goes sparse on other equipment and only costs $200B and lasts 20 years. That is $10M per kid-week if you keep it full 24x7. The US pays $71M for a seat on a Soyuz, which is likely somewhere near the actual cost. So, sending kids to space camp in space costs $81M per kid, assuming the space station lasts 20 years after it is fully constructed (which is a stretch).
So, who do you intend to send up there? Is it just a lucky few, or do you intend to send half the kids in the country up to a fleet of space stations? And what else could you be doing with $81M to improve education/etc in the country, rather than spending it so that a kid can spend a week experiencing space?
When basic research is under attack at all levels, from the National Institutes down, from companies outward, I don't see a favorable outcome. Policy makers and purse holders have forgotten that applied- science, research, engineering, all stem from pure, and that basic research itself stems often as not from whimsy and speculation.
This is the tragedy of the commons. If the US spends the money on basic research, it is just as likely that a company somewhere else in the world will be the one to capitalize on it. If the US does nothing and Europe funds basic research, a US-based company can still sell the new widgets based on the results of that research. As a result, nobody wants to spend money on it.
That's the problem that patents were intended to solve (whether they work is a separate argument). However, nobody really thinks that patents really work for basic research, only for the more applied research needed to productize something.
National competition is the force that kills basic research. Funding it is somebody else's problem.
Guess what band aircraft use on intercontinental flights? HF.
They actually use text-based communication over satellite now, for the most part. HF is only used as a backup to that. They do check in via HF all the same to confirm that they're able to communicate, but all transmissions tend to be via satellite other than tests. The HF is muted unless the aircraft receives a transmission coded to the aircraft which sounds an alarm to alert the crew that they should unmute the radio.
That isn't to say that losing HF is by any means acceptable. It just isn't as essential as it used to be. For the most part its primary purpose is position reporting so that if an aircraft doesn't report in they know where to start looking. As ADS-B becomes the norm even that won't be very important.
Right. They'd never be given access to the cockpit. But nutcases can still do some damage with them. Including killing people.
I guess aircraft are just higher-profile targets, but if a nutcase wants to kill people, there really isn't anything that can be done to stop it. Kid shoots up other kids at school, and now every school buys metal detectors. Next thing you know kid shoots up other kids on the bus - do we now screen kids before they get on the bus? Then what happens when they shoot everybody at their bus stop? At some point you need to stop focusing on how you deny anybody the ability to kill anybody else and start addressing the problem that so many people are inclined to do so in the first place.
This reminds me of an interesting point, that most airlines are issuing tablets to their pilots instead of flight manuals. So the pilots of the shelf ipads etc are not interfering but passenger devices are?
The argument would be that the airline presumably tests the equipment they issue, but cannot test the equipment that they do not issue. Plus, the pilot can always switch off his tablet if he runs into problems with it.
I don't buy the whole argument though. An aircraft needs to be able to be operated safely not only in an environment of consumer electronics, but even when under deliberate jamming. If a few Kindles could cause problems with the GPS, what happens when a terrorist brings a GPS jammer/etc in their carry-on?
If electronic devices were a real danger to aircraft safety they would be confiscated at the security line, just like anything else that is a real danger to aircraft safety. You don't hear the flight attendant announce, "the cabin door has been closed, please stow your hand grenades and leave them stowed for the duration of the flight."
Slashdot Mirror
Because most users don't care about power - they care about cost and performance. The reviewers are comparing to cards of similar cost.
The cost is only comparable if you don't factor in having to buy a new power supply or whatever.
I had a video card die, and a decent portion of the costs to replace it went into a power supply because the best bang-for-buck GPU was just not going to work on the power supply I had in the system (which could only supply a single PCI-E connector - and didn't really have much headroom to use an adapter). I had half-considered downgrading just for that reason.
By all means make the comparisons, but pointing out the power angle would be useful in a review.
They already did. Silicon Valley is basically one giant suburb. There's no skyscrapers there. The only urban Google location I know of is the one in NYC across the street from the Chelsea Market.
Everything I've heard about Silicon Valley suggests that it is a complete zoo traffic-wise, with most having to live an hour away due to costs/etc. If anything it seems worse than a city, like half of New Jersey.
By suburb I mean someplace where you don't have to drive more than 10min to get to a fully operational farm, but where residences and medium-sized businesses are plentiful.
Making the top of the list is an achievement, but when a company falls as far as HP did under the last regime, I think it would take a while for even an excellent CEO to turn things around.
The idea that a CEO can turn things around in a few quarters is the same kind of short-term thinking that causes companies to need turning-around in the first place.
Just a few more reasons I'll probably never work for Google, much as I might otherwise like to. Maybe if they build an office in a suburb somewhere...
I think another big distinction is between city and suburb. If you live in the NYC metro area things are far different than if you live outside of Albany or in the middle of New Hampshire or Vermont.
This this this this this...
We need to focus less on trying to get more then the 60% to vote and focus much more on getting that 60% to show up for Primaries.
Sounds nice in theory. In the party I was registered to all the candidates save one had conceded when the primary came along in my state. Primaries put a great deal of election influence on the states that happen to hold their primaries early in the year.
Everybody? Not just Republicans and Democrats?
I live in a civilised country. I have no idea what a payroll card is.
As you can see from the other replies, the former is the reason for the latter.
"Let's not go with the solution that works...let's try the one that failed repeatedly!" "OK!" You see how dumb that sounds?
About as dumb as not investing in real estate in 2007.
The idea of distributing the wealth created by the machines without some form of easily arguable moral reason seems quite dangerous.
Sure, so what moral reason do we come up with then? The jobs will go away whether or not we distribute the wealth, so it isn't like we have much choice unless watching the poor starve to death is considered morally superior to giving them welfare.
I say this as someone who lives on roughly $1000/month and supports someone else on that as well. I live in a decent-sized city, eat well, and don't really want for much. I could live like a king on minimum wage.
And how much of that $1k/mo goes towards housing? Rent on a two bedroom apartment in most cities would consume the vast majority of that income.
If you own a house, well, income isn't nearly as much of a problem when you have wealth.
That owner is gonna want some food. Hope he knows how to grow it...because the guys growing it are going to milk him for every penny they can.
The owner is the one growing the food. Nobody else owns any land to grow it on. In its ideal form capitalism awards 100% of price of a product to the owner of the capital used to produce it. That's why they call it capitalism.
The guys who own the farms don't have any incentive to sell their robot-harvested crops to anybody who doesn't have something to sell back.
But Capitalism has been proven to lift millions of people out of poverty. I question what school you went to that didn't teach this plain fact.
You're talking about the past. Past performance does not guarantee future results. What MBA program did you attend that didn't teach that plain fact?
Just because capitalism worked well for the masses before the invention of the computer doesn't mean that it will work fine forever.
What happens when the majority of economic activity requires no workers at all? Then the owner gets a pile of profits, pays no workers at all, and only owners can afford anything because everyone else is unemployed and unemployable...
Good for the owner. If someone is unemployed and unemployable, then they are contributing nothing to society at that point. It is everyones responsibility to find someway to contribute. They get to set a price or their contributions, and if others agree on that price, they get paid. If you can't do anything that you can get paid for, what good are you to the rest of us?
No good at all. Are you suggesting that the penalty for non-productivity should be death?
So, who is the Owner selling things to to make that "pile of profits", if there are no customers because they're "unemployed and unemployable"?
Other owners. The fact that 99% of the population doesn't have money doesn't mean that nobody has money.
There's a fallacy here: where do the owner's profits come from if not from the workers buying the goods manufactured by the owner's company?
They are purchased by other owners. Maybe I make computers using robots, and you grow food using robots. We can trade.
You own half the planet, I own the other half. We're both happy. Everybody else can starve.
I can't really see any reason why capitalism wouldn't break down under such conditions. Just look at real estate in Hawaii as an example of that.
Instead, give them something better to do with their lives..
I don't think you understand how mental disorders work.
Who says that people with mental disorders can't be given something better to do with their lives?
Actually $81M is low - I didn't factor in time-value of money. If the money were sunk into retiring the national debt you'd save considerably more than that. So, the actual cost is probably close to double that.
Just how do you propose building a cheap space station for less than that? The ISS did cost $150B. Launching payload to orbit is expensive - tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram. And that is the cost for an unmanned mission, which of course would be adequate for lifting the station components themselves. The support costs to put people in space are, well, astronomical. :)
This isn't going for a bus ride to the museum. We're talking about putting people into space. Nobody has figured out how to make it cheap.
As far as accounting goes - I don't see anything controversial in how I did the math. If you ignore up-front costs you can lower the per-kid cost, but that is just playing a shell game.
I don't know what military spending has to do with any of this. If the military is wasting money it should be stopped. That doesn't mean that you go waste the money on something else. You take spending decisions on their own merits.
As long as the business keeps the lawful minimum records, the FBI cannot shut down their legal business, without a court order.
Sure, which is why the FBI always obtains court orders.
If every bitcoin user is generating a new Bitcoin ID to receive every spend, then the money never touches a "known" ID; since every ID it arrives at is "brand new".
Generating an account number used to store bitcoin is free. Generating bitcoins are expensive, and moving a bitcoin from one account to another costs a token amount (today - that is subject to market forces). Every bitcoin has a history of every account number it has ever belonged to. So, if a bitcoin is ever in a particular account, then it can be followed to every other account it touches. The FBI just needs to hand the criminal enterprise some bitcoins and they can follow that money anyplace it goes (they know which bitcoins they spent there).
It's very possible the BTC could be used to obtain virtual goods or online services, without a "real world known ID" ever involved.
What kinds of services are you thinking of? And what is the point of being a drug kingpin if you can't even afford a car? Are you going to run the entire enterprise just so that you can put your code name up in banner ads and such? Also, very few services operate anonymously.
The virtual goods or online services might be convertible to real cash indirectly; for example.... use BTC to buy Facebook/Twitter followers, other methods of using BTC indirectly to get cash by generating business, instead of selling BTC for cash.
As soon as you start buying banner ads for your bitcoins, the FBI will ask the ad agency what ads are being bought. If they don't have records they'll just get an order requiring them to collect records on all your future transactions. Most companies will just help out without an order - most companies don't exist to further the libertarian paradise you seem to want.
Presumably: the illicit user will buy all services using BTC, and only buy products/services that are virtual, that they can get without revealing their identity to the seller.
Just what are these virtual services that criminals are flocking to buy but lack the money to obtain? When I watch movies about gangsters I see guys with guns, cars, fancy houses, etc. I don't see guys hiding in their basements accumulating a fortune in domain names/etc.
You need to consider why people take up crime in the first place. They don't do it just for the satisfaction of having done it.
I don't know how you go about sorting through the people who might go nuts and kill. I mean without trampling all over everyone's individual rights.
You can't, so you don't bother to try.
Instead, give them something better to do with their lives...
So, are you proposing that we should maintain a military without shoelaces in order to send one lucky kid to the ISS.
I can't argue that we spend way too much on the military, but sending kids to the ISS isn't really an effective way to educate them. Sending 1 kid per year to the ISS costs WAY more than $20M if you ever want to scale it up. The $20M figure probably assumes that there is a free spot on an otherwise-funded launch, and that there is a free spot on an otherwise-built ISS for them to stay in. That works when you just want to send 1-2 kids/yr up. If you actually want a space station full of 20 kids then you need to completely fund the construction of the space station (the current ISS only holds 6 and cost $150B, and is showing its age at 14 yrs). Let's assume that a station for 20 kids goes sparse on other equipment and only costs $200B and lasts 20 years. That is $10M per kid-week if you keep it full 24x7. The US pays $71M for a seat on a Soyuz, which is likely somewhere near the actual cost. So, sending kids to space camp in space costs $81M per kid, assuming the space station lasts 20 years after it is fully constructed (which is a stretch).
So, who do you intend to send up there? Is it just a lucky few, or do you intend to send half the kids in the country up to a fleet of space stations? And what else could you be doing with $81M to improve education/etc in the country, rather than spending it so that a kid can spend a week experiencing space?
When basic research is under attack at all levels, from the National Institutes down, from companies outward, I don't see a favorable outcome. Policy makers and purse holders have forgotten that applied- science, research, engineering, all stem from pure, and that basic research itself stems often as not from whimsy and speculation.
This is the tragedy of the commons. If the US spends the money on basic research, it is just as likely that a company somewhere else in the world will be the one to capitalize on it. If the US does nothing and Europe funds basic research, a US-based company can still sell the new widgets based on the results of that research. As a result, nobody wants to spend money on it.
That's the problem that patents were intended to solve (whether they work is a separate argument). However, nobody really thinks that patents really work for basic research, only for the more applied research needed to productize something.
National competition is the force that kills basic research. Funding it is somebody else's problem.
Guess what band aircraft use on intercontinental flights? HF.
They actually use text-based communication over satellite now, for the most part. HF is only used as a backup to that. They do check in via HF all the same to confirm that they're able to communicate, but all transmissions tend to be via satellite other than tests. The HF is muted unless the aircraft receives a transmission coded to the aircraft which sounds an alarm to alert the crew that they should unmute the radio.
That isn't to say that losing HF is by any means acceptable. It just isn't as essential as it used to be. For the most part its primary purpose is position reporting so that if an aircraft doesn't report in they know where to start looking. As ADS-B becomes the norm even that won't be very important.
Right. They'd never be given access to the cockpit. But nutcases can still do some damage with them. Including killing people.
I guess aircraft are just higher-profile targets, but if a nutcase wants to kill people, there really isn't anything that can be done to stop it. Kid shoots up other kids at school, and now every school buys metal detectors. Next thing you know kid shoots up other kids on the bus - do we now screen kids before they get on the bus? Then what happens when they shoot everybody at their bus stop? At some point you need to stop focusing on how you deny anybody the ability to kill anybody else and start addressing the problem that so many people are inclined to do so in the first place.
This reminds me of an interesting point, that most airlines are issuing tablets to their pilots instead of flight manuals. So the pilots of the shelf ipads etc are not interfering but passenger devices are?
The argument would be that the airline presumably tests the equipment they issue, but cannot test the equipment that they do not issue. Plus, the pilot can always switch off his tablet if he runs into problems with it.
I don't buy the whole argument though. An aircraft needs to be able to be operated safely not only in an environment of consumer electronics, but even when under deliberate jamming. If a few Kindles could cause problems with the GPS, what happens when a terrorist brings a GPS jammer/etc in their carry-on?
If electronic devices were a real danger to aircraft safety they would be confiscated at the security line, just like anything else that is a real danger to aircraft safety. You don't hear the flight attendant announce, "the cabin door has been closed, please stow your hand grenades and leave them stowed for the duration of the flight."