1) there's an adapter for airline seat jacks so you don't need that second battery 2) theres a Ethernet jack dongle for the USB so you can plug it to a hard line 3) there's a mini multiple USB hub so you can put in plenty of things 4) it has blue tooth (and wifi N) built in so your blue tooth mouse or pointer does not need a jack. 5) it's gotta honk'in large cache so the 4800 rpm disk is not going to be that big a drag (afterall the macbooks and mac mini are only 5400 rpm and have smaller caches)
It's not a supercharged photoshop engine given the slower disk and lower end graphics and 13.3 inch screen of course. That's what the8 cpu macpro is for.
But it's two pounds less than a macbook and you don't need an oversized breifcase or book bag to take it a along. I could see this as a lot easier to schlep around at conferences than may macbook pro. And with it's ultra-fast wifi it's gonna be a lot easier to keep synched than the usual cable clumsiness.
The 13.3 inch screen is also a much nicer form factor than the 15 or 17 for airplane seats. PLus it's a wide screen not a SVGA shaped screen to it's not as tall. And it has a back lit KB that the macbook lacks.
Basically the mac book is for college kids and teachers. The air is for bussinessmen and conference goers and people who like aesthitics in the house.
Apple offers the following 1) no subsciption fee, it's pay as you go 2) HD movies 3) Works with any TV not just the LG 4) works with your music collection too 5) But the big one is that apple could turn this into a peer to peer distribution model. The central point of distribution model works for a while but eventually it's going to saturate delivery (all those shared cable connections) and require massive server rooms. Peer to peer can work around the edges.
People were dissapointed with mac world cause the "air" seems kinda of a specialized offering for bussiness travelers with multiple computers. (no ethernet? just wi fi?) But the stealth big news was that appleTV which gained 1) HD 2) stand alone access to the Itunes store, 3) (soon) thousands of new releases available quickly. 4) priced less than tivo 5) as good as HBO/showtime/movie on demand but with no subscription fee.
Right now appleTV seems like "Less space than a nomad, LAme" like they said about the ipod, but a year from now people will be saying wow apple did it again my cracking a market that had stumped everyone with the right combination of hardware, software, and simplification. The only glitch I forsee is the studios may try to ask too high of a prices fearing an apple monopoly.
The statement of principles you make are all sound but you actually don't understand why they are not so relevant on a mac.
1) On macs you don't need root to install (most) applications, and applications don't (generally) run with root privledges.
2) Cosnequently, When you application does need root it must ask for it during install. Since this happens seldomly it is a much larger red flag than if this happened all the time.
3) Most applications don't require that you run an installer, and when they do run the installer, it's usually just an unpack operation, not an executable process. When it does need to run an executable to install, the installer asks first. Again being seldom it's a red flag.
Many (not all) Linux and Windows applications require root (or the equivalent) or make you know some archane flags if you don't want to installa s root. On linux if you try to go the route of not installing into root owned directories like/bin or the man pages or the libraries, or/etc, then generally you wind up in dependency hell, paths that break, man pages that can't be found, and no other user can run it. So in practice root only installs are prgamatically mandatory on Linux for any complex programs you want generally available. Same with Windows.
Also not only is there an apt-get port project, it's mature and in widspread use. Actaully there are at least three repositories for mac software. Ironically, because of their linux origins, they all have to be run as root and thus have all the dangers.
4) mac apps are self contained and thus are easy to uninstall. they don't spray pieces of themselves into special directories and possibly overwrite other simmilarly named libraries.
5) While open source is in theory examinable, linux apps drag in so many dependencies there's a lot of ground to cover. Package managers in some way make this worse since one draws from repositories that are spread geographically. If you work for government agencies there's some greater worry when pulling in some weird compression library from Russia than from say stanford. COnversely since mac apps are self contained it's one stop shopping, as long as you trust where you got it.
"Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
So, that would mean that the societies with the most surveillance were the most secure, right? As any one knows prisons and navy ships (i.e. the ultimate panopticon) have zero crime rates.
Netflix streaming won't work on macs (or linux). It also requires you to watch from a computer. Most cheap PC computers--that is to say most computers--are not fit company for the living room. The idea of the media PC has always made me laugh. Too noisey. (in contrast all but the powermacs which sound like windtunnels, are very quiet and welcome in the living room). SO it's ironic that the computers that netflix is suited for are the ones it does not support.
Fink is a package manger based on debian aptget. there's thousands of free packages there. and because the mac environment is so homogeneous they build seamlessly without surprises, many downloadable in binary form. works great from the command line or from the gui. Easy to keep up-to-date
then there's darwin ports and a gnu-darwin if you want other package managers.
You can currently watch some netflix movies online and it streams them perfectly fine over my RoadRunner connection.
Let Apple make their locked down AppleTV, these guys can probably make a standalone device which does what the netflix movie stream on demand does... only they had better get more selections. You missed the point. Yes you can deliver reduced resolution movies over the web. Who is in a better position to do that, the cable companies or netflix? obviously the cable companies. In fact they already do it by a giant limited kludge on "digital tv". And they have a much faster connection between their caches and your internet connection than netflix can ever have (until they become an ISP. ) So no matter what the method of delivery, if it comes over the internet the cable companies can crush netflix for delivering on-demand low-resolution movies from a central server.
the only escape route is higher resolution which can't be served. Or distributed caching (managed bit torrrent), which beats the cable companies central caching.
What's Netflix's bussiness advantage over the cable companies? Simple, it's hard to push 7.6GB of dvd info over the wire. It's faster to mail it. And bule ray/HDDVD would play to netflix advantage.
The only way to beat this effect is to reduce the bandwidth--which the cable companies can do just fine without netflix-- and to distribute the serving (bit torrent versus central caches).
Unless the TV set is going to also do bit torrent style distrubuted serving they won't gain anything on the cable companies.
The real magic is going to happen when apple or microsoft or adobe flips a switch one day that lets everyone opt in as a paid bittorrent node for some movie distribution company. You would get paid in credits for movie rentals based on how much bandwidth you served. then all of a sudden you could have high quality movie distribution.
Flash is the web's single point of failure
on
Adobe Opens Up AMF Spec
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Exactly. Flash is more ubiquitous than anything on the web. More ubiquitous than internet explorer. It runs binaries in the host machine, not simply running the in the browser's sandbox. I don't know if it will load and run native binaries over the web (like active X) or if it has it's own sandboxed java-like pseudo code. But it's a single sourced point of failure rather than a diverse ecosystem like all the different java VMs. Plus the code is enormous. Who knows what's in there. (cringley has speculated ADOBE could leverage this ubiquity to role out all sorts of products deployable overnight just by activating them. e.g. imagine is tommorrow everyone with flash also had bit torrent, google desktop, and perhaps even some DRM system available. "flash" deployment of programs could make them instant industry standards. no more arguing over which DRM will be universal is everyone has it available.)
NEC's stock has been in the toilet for 5 years. Actually Going down by 50% while the rest of the market rose. They need a potentially huge marketable break through. But I wonder if phase change ram will eat it's lunch. It too is supposed to be fast and non volatile.
I'd second this but for a different reason. First an anecdote. Long ago when I was taking freshman physics lab, they gave us the worlds crappiest equipment to do classic physics experiments. Why? Not because they were cheap. On the contrary, keeping that crap working must have cost a lot. No the point was this was about education on how to do science not proving the results of those experiments.
There were two reasons. 1) we needed to learn how to do data analysis in the presence of noise. 2) the next big science experiment is always done on tools not quite right to do it.
So it depends on what you want to teach your kids. You might be interested in the graphic arts product. You might be interested in vocational training on current industrial standard tools. Or you might be interested in teaching them how to coax an application to do something it was not really meant to do. Or even you might want them to lift the hood and build the next great graphics art tool.
If it's either of the latter then open source. If it's the first then both. If it's the vocational training then go with the older but more standard tools.
read TFA. It's a receiver net. The receiver's kibbitz. If it were simply weighted then the odds of a message being spam would be something proportional to the number of people recieving the same message or a message with the same attributes, times their frequency of getting spam.
Thus messages that mainly go to a lot of known spam recipients are marked spam for everyone.
But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable. I agree. The closest analog here I think is the issue of anonymous Pamphleteering. As I recall the common law is that you can do so anonymously. But there's also no right to that anonymity. That is, the Government or whom ever is not prevented from piercing your anonymity if they can.
Additionally there's the common law of prior restraint. With few exceptions, the government cannot act to prevent you from saying something that would be illegal or uncivil for you to say.
Thus the desire to prevent you from speaking something can't be ground for the government to require non-anonymous speech.
On the other hand the soapboxes we use to connect to the web are all owned by entitites. Those entitities can set up their own rules and policies. And one of those could be non anaoymous free speech.
I suppose other countries--not the USA-- may have different rules. Things may be different in china and stockholm.
I'm a non expert too, so I'll debate your core assertions:
1) stuff from below is bad. Well better tell that to the volcanos and under sea islands that spew crap into the air and ocean.
2) Salt water is corrosive and bad for power plants. Better tell that to the navy--they have ships floating in it! and they pump it through their nuclear reactors.
If you look at the pictures on the site it sure does not look like a football field sized parasail. And the recovery system is proportionally small too.
I don't know how atmospheric winds work but I assume they mostly blow in one direction. How high against downwind can a kite be made to fly. I assume these wing kites can sail a bit off directly down wind but unless they can fly more than 90 degrees off downwind like a sailboat then it's hard to see how this helps for the return journey.
Thus this 50% efficiency figure seems to me to only apply to one direction of travel. Overall, if one uses the same amount of energy in both direction then that's only a 25% savings. Not bad perhaps. But then do these winds exist at all lattitudes (e.g. through the newly opening northwest passage)?
Perhaps this may encourage deadheading ships empty on the return journey to keep down fuel costs on the unassisted leg. It would be an unanticpated consequence if this increased imbalance of trade between upwind and downwind countries.
More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation's entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that "you'd save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year." Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year. these are interesting points. I'm curious about why they are so when it's not obvious. Why does beef production use more water? Why does hamburger production cause topsoil loss? I suspect, given the deforestation argument, that this is being applied selectively here to the worst practices of beef production in say amazon countries and not in say the US or other countries. Afterall You can deforest for Agricultrue too and indeed that has happened. In much of the US cattle graze in forested areas without deforestation. So are these effects obligate or as I suspect cherry picked examples of bad practices?
For years people on slashdot made fun of Macs because the Mac-like kernel and message passing Objective C were arguably slower than more direct connection. Microsoft argued Active-X was better than java because it ran more natively to the OS and processor, and thus was faster and more capable. Flash can make similar arguments.
And indeed the market does prefer flash and active-X to Java and Windows to OS-X, so perhaps those arguments matter.
But Objective C and Mach message passing make it easier to isolate parts of the system from each other making potentially more robust and secure. As processor speeds increase that overhead means less and less. But the benefits keep paying off to users.
Faster is not neccessarly better if the trades are getting you something that is more secure or easier to program.
I don't know what benefits the Vista Architecture brings so I can't argue this is why Vista is slower than XP.
While your comment was intended as a joke, off shoring data centers in other countires (i.e. US data in the FSU or chinese data in the US) has some interesting possibilities besides exiling employees. Do they have to abide by US laws for that data? Do they have to hand it over to the Siberian state police on demand or reveal the accounts of dissidents putin is trying to crush? Can they encrypt data or will that run afoul of ITAR laws in both host and owner companies?
Additionally, recall that last year Russia and Georgia withheld Gas to western europe in an after the fact, gun to the head, negotiation to raise prices. There are no so abundant gas resources that it is so fungible that one can switch suppliers. The same is true of data centers. Will some future event cause Siberia to turn off the Internet router and demand more money?
Bad news. You are a simulation on a playstation 9, not a real human.
No really. it's overwhelmingly probable you are a simulation.
According to the article above that are 100 trillion neurons to simulate. Even if they were multi-state that's approaching trivial by computational standards. And if you are willing to run the simulation at sub real time you could do it now.
So according to the anthropic principle, either 1) the human race goes extinct in the near future before this level of simmulation is possible at the level of a wrist watch computer 2) or there eventually must be more simulated humans than real ones. And of course once you start simulating humans the future time to have simulations grossly exceeds all human history.
So since we can now forsee this is just down to the details, it seems unlikely you exist.
Also when you consider that the biggest entertainment industry, bigger than hollywood by some measures, is the MPORG human role playing simmulations there ample reason that once it becomes possible to do so, people will be simmulating humans.
You are most likely a nintendo pet human.
As is often remarked after religiously incongruous tragedy happing to good people,"god works in mysterious ways". Apparently this is actually true..since god is a 7 year old boy pushing the "smite" button.
Therefore your best stategy is to look around for the obvious "real" humans playing the avatars in the game and get to know them. That is, be a groupie to the stars or post on slashdot. Everything else is waste of life apparently.
Do you really think any beef you eat nowadays ate grass only for a couple of years? Those days are long over. Better check your facts. A pure corn will kill a cow in less than a year. The typical cow spends less than a fraction one season on a feedlot. It costs way more to feedlot a cow than to let it eat grass for most of it's life. Only in the final stages of fattening up is it productive. No sane person would grain feed anything over most of it's life. So if you base your conclusions on what you believed was a fact you need to reassess them.
Beef requires 25 kilocalories fodder input for 1 calorie meat output, _that's_ wasteful. Instead of producing beef fodder, you could feed 25 times more people with vegetables and they would live decades longer on top. I'd like to see your facts. It takes prodigious amounts of water and energy to raise a vegetable and deliver it to you. Moreover, cows eat grass on rangelands where the land can't support growing crops and if it could there's no water. So every calorie you get from that is one you never could get from a vegetable. None of the cow is wasted, while most of the vegetable is. Moreover, where do you think they get the fertilizer to grow the crops? It's not the slightest bit wasteful.
Slashdot Mirror
1) there's an adapter for airline seat jacks so you don't need that second battery
2) theres a Ethernet jack dongle for the USB so you can plug it to a hard line
3) there's a mini multiple USB hub so you can put in plenty of things
4) it has blue tooth (and wifi N) built in so your blue tooth mouse or pointer does not need a jack.
5) it's gotta honk'in large cache so the 4800 rpm disk is not going to be that big a drag (afterall the macbooks and mac mini are only 5400 rpm and have smaller caches)
It's not a supercharged photoshop engine given the slower disk and lower end graphics and 13.3 inch screen of course. That's what the8 cpu macpro is for.
But it's two pounds less than a macbook and you don't need an oversized breifcase or book bag to take it a along. I could see this as a lot easier to schlep around at conferences than may macbook pro. And with it's ultra-fast wifi it's gonna be a lot easier to keep synched than the usual cable clumsiness.
The 13.3 inch screen is also a much nicer form factor than the 15 or 17 for airplane seats. PLus it's a wide screen not a SVGA shaped screen to it's not as tall. And it has a back lit KB that the macbook lacks.
Basically the mac book is for college kids and teachers. The air is for bussinessmen and conference goers and people who like aesthitics in the house.
the PS3, Xbox are noisey, expensive, don't share with your computer, or ipod, and don't have the slick apple store.
Apple offers the following
1) no subsciption fee, it's pay as you go
2) HD movies
3) Works with any TV not just the LG
4) works with your music collection too
5) But the big one is that apple could turn this into a peer to peer distribution model. The central point of distribution model works for a while but eventually it's going to saturate delivery (all those shared cable connections) and require massive server rooms. Peer to peer can work around the edges.
People were dissapointed with mac world cause the "air" seems kinda of a specialized offering for bussiness travelers with multiple computers. (no ethernet? just wi fi?) But the stealth big news was that appleTV which gained 1) HD 2) stand alone access to the Itunes store, 3) (soon) thousands of new releases available quickly. 4) priced less than tivo 5) as good as HBO/showtime/movie on demand but with no subscription fee.
Right now appleTV seems like "Less space than a nomad, LAme" like they said about the ipod, but a year from now people will be saying wow apple did it again my cracking a market that had stumped everyone with the right combination of hardware, software, and simplification. The only glitch I forsee is the studios may try to ask too high of a prices fearing an apple monopoly.
The statement of principles you make are all sound but you actually don't understand why they are not so relevant on a mac.
/bin or the man pages or the libraries, or /etc, then generally you wind up in dependency hell, paths that break, man pages that can't be found, and no other user can run it. So in practice root only installs are prgamatically mandatory on Linux for any complex programs you want generally available. Same with Windows.
1) On macs you don't need root to install (most) applications, and applications don't (generally) run with root privledges.
2) Cosnequently, When you application does need root it must ask for it during install. Since this happens seldomly it is a much larger red flag than if this happened all the time.
3) Most applications don't require that you run an installer, and when they do run the installer, it's usually just an unpack operation, not an executable process. When it does need to run an executable to install, the installer asks first. Again being seldom it's a red flag.
Many (not all) Linux and Windows applications require root (or the equivalent) or make you know some archane flags if you don't want to installa s root. On linux if you try to go the route of not installing into root owned directories like
Also not only is there an apt-get port project, it's mature and in widspread use. Actaully there are at least three repositories for mac software. Ironically, because of their linux origins, they all have to be run as root and thus have all the dangers.
4) mac apps are self contained and thus are easy to uninstall. they don't spray pieces of themselves into special directories and possibly overwrite other simmilarly named libraries.
5) While open source is in theory examinable, linux apps drag in so many dependencies there's a lot of ground to cover. Package managers in some way make this worse since one draws from repositories that are spread geographically. If you work for government agencies there's some greater worry when pulling in some weird compression library from Russia than from say stanford. COnversely since mac apps are self contained it's one stop shopping, as long as you trust where you got it.
So, that would mean that the societies with the most surveillance were the most secure, right?
As any one knows prisons and navy ships (i.e. the ultimate panopticon) have zero crime rates.
Netflix streaming won't work on macs (or linux). It also requires you to watch from a computer. Most cheap PC computers--that is to say most computers--are not fit company for the living room. The idea of the media PC has always made me laugh. Too noisey. (in contrast all but the powermacs which sound like windtunnels, are very quiet and welcome in the living room). SO it's ironic that the computers that netflix is suited for are the ones it does not support.
Fink is a package manger based on debian aptget. there's thousands of free packages there. and because the mac environment is so homogeneous they build seamlessly without surprises, many downloadable in binary form. works great from the command line or from the gui. Easy to keep up-to-date
then there's darwin ports and a gnu-darwin if you want other package managers.
You can currently watch some netflix movies online and it streams them perfectly fine over my RoadRunner connection.
Let Apple make their locked down AppleTV, these guys can probably make a standalone device which does what the netflix movie stream on demand does... only they had better get more selections. You missed the point. Yes you can deliver reduced resolution movies over the web. Who is in a better position to do that, the cable companies or netflix? obviously the cable companies. In fact they already do it by a giant limited kludge on "digital tv". And they have a much faster connection between their caches and your internet connection than netflix can ever have (until they become an ISP. ) So no matter what the method of delivery, if it comes over the internet the cable companies can crush netflix for delivering on-demand low-resolution movies from a central server.
the only escape route is higher resolution which can't be served. Or distributed caching (managed bit torrrent), which beats the cable companies central caching.
What's Netflix's bussiness advantage over the cable companies? Simple, it's hard to push 7.6GB of dvd info over the wire. It's faster to mail it. And bule ray/HDDVD would play to netflix advantage.
The only way to beat this effect is to reduce the bandwidth--which the cable companies can do just fine without netflix-- and to distribute the serving (bit torrent versus central caches).
Unless the TV set is going to also do bit torrent style distrubuted serving they won't gain anything on the cable companies.
The real magic is going to happen when apple or microsoft or adobe flips a switch one day that lets everyone opt in as a paid bittorrent node for some movie distribution company. You would get paid in credits for movie rentals based on how much bandwidth you served. then all of a sudden you could have high quality movie distribution.
Exactly. Flash is more ubiquitous than anything on the web. More ubiquitous than internet explorer. It runs binaries in the host machine, not simply running the in the browser's sandbox. I don't know if it will load and run native binaries over the web (like active X) or if it has it's own sandboxed java-like pseudo code. But it's a single sourced point of failure rather than a diverse ecosystem like all the different java VMs. Plus the code is enormous. Who knows what's in there. (cringley has speculated ADOBE could leverage this ubiquity to role out all sorts of products deployable overnight just by activating them. e.g. imagine is tommorrow everyone with flash also had bit torrent, google desktop, and perhaps even some DRM system available. "flash" deployment of programs could make them instant industry standards. no more arguing over which DRM will be universal is everyone has it available.)
NEC's stock has been in the toilet for 5 years. Actually Going down by 50% while the rest of the market rose. They need a potentially huge marketable break through. But I wonder if phase change ram will eat it's lunch. It too is supposed to be fast and non volatile.
I'd second this but for a different reason. First an anecdote. Long ago when I was taking freshman physics lab, they gave us the worlds crappiest equipment to do classic physics experiments. Why? Not because they were cheap. On the contrary, keeping that crap working must have cost a lot. No the point was this was about education on how to do science not proving the results of those experiments.
There were two reasons. 1) we needed to learn how to do data analysis in the presence of noise. 2) the next big science experiment is always done on tools not quite right to do it.
So it depends on what you want to teach your kids. You might be interested in the graphic arts product. You might be interested in vocational training on current industrial standard tools. Or you might be interested in teaching them how to coax an application to do something it was not really meant to do. Or even you might want them to lift the hood and build the next great graphics art tool.
If it's either of the latter then open source. If it's the first then both. If it's the vocational training then go with the older but more standard tools.
read TFA. It's a receiver net. The receiver's kibbitz. If it were simply weighted then the odds of a message being spam would be something proportional to the number of people recieving the same message or a message with the same attributes, times their frequency of getting spam. Thus messages that mainly go to a lot of known spam recipients are marked spam for everyone.
The closest analog here I think is the issue of anonymous Pamphleteering. As I recall the common law is that you can do so anonymously. But there's also no right to that anonymity. That is, the Government or whom ever is not prevented from piercing your anonymity if they can.
Additionally there's the common law of prior restraint. With few exceptions, the government cannot act to prevent you from saying something that would be illegal or uncivil for you to say.
Thus the desire to prevent you from speaking something can't be ground for the government to require non-anonymous speech.
On the other hand the soapboxes we use to connect to the web are all owned by entitites. Those entitities can set up their own rules and policies. And one of those could be non anaoymous free speech.
I suppose other countries--not the USA-- may have different rules. Things may be different in china and stockholm.
Gentlemen there's no fighting in here. This is the war room.
I imagine a bunker outfitted with state of the are iLoo's and binders labeled "targets in megadeath". Purity of essence!
I'm a non expert too, so I'll debate your core assertions:
1) stuff from below is bad.
Well better tell that to the volcanos and under sea islands that spew crap into the air and ocean.
2) Salt water is corrosive and bad for power plants.
Better tell that to the navy--they have ships floating in it! and they pump it through their nuclear reactors.
Should have preferred Python or Parrot. I mean c'mon. nudge nudge know what I mean... She's a goer.
MSFT market cap: 315 Billion dollars
GOOG market cap: 218 Billion Dollars
Google is not being thwarted by microsoft.
Someone please write a C++ YAML parser/emitter library and document it. It's a painful omission.
If you look at the pictures on the site it sure does not look like a football field sized parasail. And the recovery system is proportionally small too.
I don't know how atmospheric winds work but I assume they mostly blow in one direction. How high against downwind can a kite be made to fly. I assume these wing kites can sail a bit off directly down wind but unless they can fly more than 90 degrees off downwind like a sailboat then it's hard to see how this helps for the return journey.
Thus this 50% efficiency figure seems to me to only apply to one direction of travel. Overall, if one uses the same amount of energy in both direction then that's only a 25% savings. Not bad perhaps. But then do these winds exist at all lattitudes (e.g. through the newly opening northwest passage)?
Perhaps this may encourage deadheading ships empty on the return journey to keep down fuel costs on the unassisted leg. It would be an unanticpated consequence if this increased imbalance of trade between upwind and downwind countries.
For years people on slashdot made fun of Macs because the Mac-like kernel and message passing Objective C were arguably slower than more direct connection. Microsoft argued Active-X was better than java because it ran more natively to the OS and processor, and thus was faster and more capable. Flash can make similar arguments.
And indeed the market does prefer flash and active-X to Java and Windows to OS-X, so perhaps those arguments matter.
But Objective C and Mach message passing make it easier to isolate parts of the system from each other making potentially more robust and secure. As processor speeds increase that overhead means less and less. But the benefits keep paying off to users.
Faster is not neccessarly better if the trades are getting you something that is more secure or easier to program.
I don't know what benefits the Vista Architecture brings so I can't argue this is why Vista is slower than XP.
But I'm pretty sure DOS would be faster than XP.
While your comment was intended as a joke, off shoring data centers in other countires (i.e. US data in the FSU or chinese data in the US) has some interesting possibilities besides exiling employees. Do they have to abide by US laws for that data? Do they have to hand it over to the Siberian state police on demand or reveal the accounts of dissidents putin is trying to crush? Can they encrypt data or will that run afoul of ITAR laws in both host and owner companies?
Additionally, recall that last year Russia and Georgia withheld Gas to western europe in an after the fact, gun to the head, negotiation to raise prices. There are no so abundant gas resources that it is so fungible that one can switch suppliers. The same is true of data centers. Will some future event cause Siberia to turn off the Internet router and demand more money?
Bad news. You are a simulation on a playstation 9, not a real human.
,"god works in mysterious ways". Apparently this is actually true..since god is a 7 year old boy pushing the "smite" button.
No really. it's overwhelmingly probable you are a simulation.
According to the article above that are 100 trillion neurons to simulate. Even if they were multi-state that's approaching trivial by computational standards. And if you are willing to run the simulation at sub real time you could do it now.
So according to the anthropic principle, either 1) the human race goes extinct in the near future before this level of simmulation is possible at the level of a wrist watch computer 2) or there eventually must be more simulated humans than real ones. And of course once you start simulating humans the future time to have simulations grossly exceeds all human history.
So since we can now forsee this is just down to the details, it seems unlikely you exist.
Also when you consider that the biggest entertainment industry, bigger than hollywood by some measures, is the MPORG human role playing simmulations there ample reason that once it becomes possible to do so, people will be simmulating humans.
You are most likely a nintendo pet human.
As is often remarked after religiously incongruous tragedy happing to good people
Therefore your best stategy is to look around for the obvious "real" humans playing the avatars in the game and get to know them. That is, be a groupie to the stars or post on slashdot. Everything else is waste of life apparently.
Better check your facts. A pure corn will kill a cow in less than a year. The typical cow spends less than a fraction one season on a feedlot. It costs way more to feedlot a cow than to let it eat grass for most of it's life. Only in the final stages of fattening up is it productive. No sane person would grain feed anything over most of it's life. So if you base your conclusions on what you believed was a fact you need to reassess them. Beef requires 25 kilocalories fodder input for 1 calorie meat output, _that's_ wasteful. Instead of producing beef fodder, you could feed 25 times more people with vegetables and they would live decades longer on top.
I'd like to see your facts. It takes prodigious amounts of water and energy to raise a vegetable and deliver it to you. Moreover, cows eat grass on rangelands where the land can't support growing crops and if it could there's no water. So every calorie you get from that is one you never could get from a vegetable. None of the cow is wasted, while most of the vegetable is. Moreover, where do you think they get the fertilizer to grow the crops? It's not the slightest bit wasteful.