Google is losing access to older talent they might recruit. Even if their hypothesis that on average younger is better was true their is older talent out their and they won't get that.
Google isnâ(TM)t doing you a favor. Mining allows sites to pay for their operations without ads. Google wants to sell ad metrics and placement targeting to advertisers.
I donâ(TM)t care if someone mines when I visit their site. Why not? Itâ(TM)s a free resource for me. I need to hear my house anyway. I can control when it happens. I like it.
Faster than a macbook air 13" with intel's ultra slow high efficiency processor or faster than the high end mac book pro with the hex core, and 2 graphics cards. NOT. Even the new Iphone from apple is faster than the slow mac book (not making that up). On the other hand MS tablet actually weighs more than the entire laptop from apple.
Currently all four VirnetX patents in the suit have been invalidated by the Patent and Trademark Office, or its Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or both. This, confusingly, doesn’t actually halt the pace of VirnetX’s patent case: the invalidation is not legally binding until all appeals have been exhausted (and separately that case appears to still be ongoing).
It seems like the $79 model is very similar to a Raspberry pi plus a typical canakit or similar (i.e, case, power supply, sd card, cables-- typically about $60 with the pi included) Of the two I'd lean towards a Raspi for it's versatility and ubiquity making packages available for it. Just having Wolfram, Scratch, and Minecraft in the Raspberry pi in working form is arguably more important than having Wikipedia, which you could just get on a USB stick. At least it's a push in terms of value and transformative impact.
I can't really say what apple is or isn't doing but I'm quite sure you can't either. There's huge distance between a firmaware driven device with serial communication protocols of incredible complexity and a coffee filter. I don't think it's reasonable to expect apple to support every possible emulation of it's API. I can't think of any cas ein the history of modern community where a clean room emulation had 100% bit compatibility with the original. WHy would you expect a non compatible screen to maintain it's compatibility as the OS changed.
But does "fuel efficiency" really matter for an electric car. It's more a matter of how long your battery lasts than the cost or envionmental impact or blood-for-oil that is a consequence for fossil fule cars needing to have better gas milage.
For many people, they take lots of short trips and every once in a while a long trip. FOr short trips and an electric car, one can just keep topping off the car while parked since it's mostly not in use. And for long trips on highways maybe you need to drive it yourself. It used to be people preferred manual transmissions too because they got better gas milage (not true these days).
Eventually self driving cars will be able to drive themselves with no driver at all. So while you are at work or shopping they can go off to find a charging station after they drop you off at the front door. indeed eventually you wont want to own a car, just call one to you when you need it.
It seems pretty reasonable to me, especially if they let you know they are doing it. Many people would love to donate their cpu cycles to worthy causes like protein structure prediction. In winter at least, it's just creating heat which you were going to pay for anyhow.
story links to an article about Loon in puerto rico not to the Space Data Lawsuit.
"Space Data pulled off something big: It convinced the US Patent and Trademark Office to cancel most of one of Project Loon’s foundational patents, and say that Space Data came up with the idea first. Loon’s patent for changing a balloon’s direction by adjusting its altitude—a core feature of both systems—is now legally back in Space Data’s hands."
Whenever I get a new 3D printer I smear down a layer of coconut oil on the desk underneath the whole unit. It doesn't take much, just a tablespoon is enough. That way after you print your first plastic tugboat and it looks like the same crap you got from the last one you can just slide the whole printer into the trashcan and haul it away. No human needs to remove the tugboat.
Even my flip phone had a screen with more than 2 pixels. I don't care if they are XL sized pixels. You can;t even write an ascii charcter with that. let me know when they reach VGA quality
Cheaper phones can be excellent or not. Paying a few hundred dollars more doesnâ(TM)t by you features worth that much more but it does by you no surprises and complete satisfaction that no other purchase would have been more satisfying.
It used to be a saying that nobody was ever fired for buying IBM. Sure that Wang or Digital or Prime computer might possible have had better specs for less saving the company a bunch of money but then the VP wanted to add inventory tracking to the payroll function and wang didnâ(TM)t have an integrated mag stripe reader for the warehouse. You are fired. Should bought IBM.
Peace of mind brings satisfaction.
For many people, perhaps not you , $1000 isnâ(TM)t a lot for a device you will touch 500 times a day. Why not just buy the best ?
Currently stock holders just lose their investments. They should be informed that if they invest in a company that holds data they will be held personally liable for injuries of the company beyond their stock ownership.
Ok, that would pretty much kill investment. M
You could make the same argument that by not allowing Nuclear and chemical companies to dump their waste into streams and landfills we would kill their investment. What I'm proposing is that companies be required to purchase a bond (an insurance policy) if they wish to engage in data retention. This would immuninze the shareholders against these reachthrough losses yet drive up the cost of doing bussiness. That is to say they would be paying for the externalities of the socail risks they create.
It's holding data. If a company wants to risk my security by profiting from amassing data on me I should be able to have some finiacial recourse when they injur me with their breach. If they can't secure my data then they should not hold it. If one really feels that all companies will be breached then that person should actually know what they are doing is going to cause an injury and therefore should be liable for it.
liability is the key here. Until companies have a dear cost associated with lack of security there will be no security.
But that's not enough. we can't have companies who are good citizens, paying money to protect others, masking data so it is stored more anonymously, and so forth incurring higher costs that some jackass comapny willing to pay fast and lose. Those risk taking companies will have lower costs of operation and put the conscientious companies out of bussiness. When they fail sometimes we respond by crippling the whole industry rather than punishing the shareholders of the bad companies.
So we need not just damages but 10 fold punative damages that reach to the stock holders that invest. Currently stock holders just lose their investments. They should be informed that if they invest in a company that holds data they will be held personally liable for injuries of the company beyond their stock ownership.
then we'd see some good data practices. We'd see companies clamoring to be regulated. we'd see a lot less naked storage of raw data behind single passwords.
it's not the breach. It's the gathering of data without direct consequences for it's loss.
It's very likely that this is just a one time drain as spotlight re-indexes and the OS re-optimizes all the apps. happens with every new OS release then it goes away.
The answer is obvious that for identical code strong typing will reduce bugs. And yet does typing force people to write in ways that lead creating bugs?
More importantly why isn't there some gray scale on typing that I could slowly turn on as my program design matures? THis is what I would dearly love. Let me abuse polymorphism to add calling arguments during my exploratory phase but then don't make me switch to a different language when I want to tighten the screws.
What I'd like for example is an option in a dynamically typed language to be able to say that whatever duck I'm calling this argument with it's going to always be the same duck. If the first call used and int, then every other call had better use an int. Sure I could put in a lot of asserts but I'd rather just have this be a global debug setting.
I'd like to be able to optionally declare types in the function definition and have it enforce static typing.
Finally I'd combine these and have an option to have the code re-write the source to insert the static typing based on whatever the type of the calling args I'm using is.
It's actually hard to see why this will actually kill bitcoin, but it will. This is surprising because normally a future's market allows arbitraging price fluctuations and thus dampens fluctuations and Bit coin seems to need that. But bit coin is built on a subtle principle that no other method of exchange has, and this depends critically on their not existing a side channel for selling and buying bit coin.
Huh? you ask. Let me explain. The price of gold is not actually tied to the price of mining gold. We already have a lot of gold. It's price just depends on what someone is willing to offer a seller. Bit coin is the only currency in existence who's value is tethered to it's cost of production. THe reason is that the price of bitcoin depends not just on what a buyer is willing to pay, but also that a miner is willing to mine it at that price. If you can't find a miner willing to mine when bitcoin has a value of ten cents but the cost of a mining operation is $300 then the miner doesn't mine. So the offer of ten cents never can be completed. No transaction occurs. You can't sell your bit coins for ten cents.
If there's a future's market you can buy and sell bit coin at any price, just like you can with gold. So this tether is erased. Bit coin is just like a tulip bulb at that point, just like it's critics say it is. It isn't due to the mining requirement but take that away and it is indeed a tulip.
THe second problem with Futures markets is that they allow shorting. Shorting when done at scale doesn't merely arbitrage risks it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It's actually worse for bit coin because there's no reserve requirement and no margin requirment. So someone who shorts, sells the bit coin they borrow but the person who loaned the bitcoin has a promisary note from the buyer to repay. That's an asset that they can also sell, effectively doubling the amonut of bitcoin in circulation. Which drives the price down. Leading to more shorting.
It's death for bitcoin.
Now one of the arguments I just made here about the tethering effect is becomeing slightly flawed. A bitcoin depends more and more on paying miners fees and les and less on mining new coins then the tether between price and the cost of mining goes away. My own feeling it this is why bit coins valuation is fluctuating so much. I think few people realize how important and unique that tether was to setting the value of bitcoin intrisically rather than letting it simply be another fiat currency.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? power is ten cents a KiloWatt Hour. and my computer uses at most 80 watts. If I stayed on the site for 10 hours that would be ten cents.
Google is losing access to older talent they might recruit. Even if their hypothesis that on average younger is better was true their is older talent out their and they won't get that.
Google isnâ(TM)t doing you a favor. Mining allows sites to pay for their operations without ads. Google wants to sell ad metrics and placement targeting to advertisers.
I donâ(TM)t care if someone mines when I visit their site. Why not? Itâ(TM)s a free resource for me. I need to hear my house anyway. I can control when it happens. I like it.
Google is afraid
Faster than a macbook air 13" with intel's ultra slow high efficiency processor or faster than the high end mac book pro with the hex core, and 2 graphics cards. NOT. Even the new Iphone from apple is faster than the slow mac book (not making that up). On the other hand MS tablet actually weighs more than the entire laptop from apple.
From the article:
Currently all four VirnetX patents in the suit have been invalidated by the Patent and Trademark Office, or its Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or both. This, confusingly, doesn’t actually halt the pace of VirnetX’s patent case: the invalidation is not legally binding until all appeals have been exhausted (and separately that case appears to still be ongoing).
It seems like the $79 model is very similar to a Raspberry pi plus a typical canakit or similar (i.e, case, power supply, sd card, cables-- typically about $60 with the pi included) Of the two I'd lean towards a Raspi for it's versatility and ubiquity making packages available for it. Just having Wolfram, Scratch, and Minecraft in the Raspberry pi in working form is arguably more important than having Wikipedia, which you could just get on a USB stick. At least it's a push in terms of value and transformative impact.
I can't really say what apple is or isn't doing but I'm quite sure you can't either. There's huge distance between a firmaware driven device with serial communication protocols of incredible complexity and a coffee filter. I don't think it's reasonable to expect apple to support every possible emulation of it's API. I can't think of any cas ein the history of modern community where a clean room emulation had 100% bit compatibility with the original. WHy would you expect a non compatible screen to maintain it's compatibility as the OS changed.
But does "fuel efficiency" really matter for an electric car. It's more a matter of how long your battery lasts than the cost or envionmental impact or blood-for-oil that is a consequence for fossil fule cars needing to have better gas milage.
For many people, they take lots of short trips and every once in a while a long trip. FOr short trips and an electric car, one can just keep topping off the car while parked since it's mostly not in use. And for long trips on highways maybe you need to drive it yourself. It used to be people preferred manual transmissions too because they got better gas milage (not true these days).
Eventually self driving cars will be able to drive themselves with no driver at all. So while you are at work or shopping they can go off to find a charging station after they drop you off at the front door. indeed eventually you wont want to own a car, just call one to you when you need it.
It seems pretty reasonable to me, especially if they let you know they are doing it. Many people would love to donate their cpu cycles to worthy causes like protein structure prediction. In winter at least, it's just creating heat which you were going to pay for anyhow.
https://www.wired.com/story/th...
story links to an article about Loon in puerto rico not to the Space Data Lawsuit.
"Space Data pulled off something big: It convinced the US Patent and Trademark Office to cancel most of one of Project Loon’s foundational patents, and say that Space Data came up with the idea first. Loon’s patent for changing a balloon’s direction by adjusting its altitude—a core feature of both systems—is now legally back in Space Data’s hands."
Whenever I get a new 3D printer I smear down a layer of coconut oil on the desk underneath the whole unit. It doesn't take much, just a tablespoon is enough. That way after you print your first plastic tugboat and it looks like the same crap you got from the last one you can just slide the whole printer into the trashcan and haul it away. No human needs to remove the tugboat.
Even my flip phone had a screen with more than 2 pixels. I don't care if they are XL sized pixels. You can;t even write an ascii charcter with that. let me know when they reach VGA quality
Not entirely but they make more money on the parts for the iPhone than they make on all their other phones.
So really Samsung is the only choice weighted by $$$
Cheaper phones can be excellent or not. Paying a few hundred dollars more doesnâ(TM)t by you features worth that much more but it does by you no surprises and complete satisfaction that no other purchase would have been more satisfying.
It used to be a saying that nobody was ever fired for buying IBM. Sure that Wang or Digital or Prime computer might possible have had better specs for less saving the company a bunch of money but then the VP wanted to add inventory tracking to the payroll function and wang didnâ(TM)t have an integrated mag stripe reader for the warehouse. You are fired. Should bought IBM.
Peace of mind brings satisfaction.
For many people, perhaps not you , $1000 isnâ(TM)t a lot for a device you will touch 500 times a day. Why not just buy the best ?
Currently stock holders just lose their investments. They should be informed that if they invest in a company that holds data they will be held personally liable for injuries of the company beyond their stock ownership.
Ok, that would pretty much kill investment. M
You could make the same argument that by not allowing Nuclear and chemical companies to dump their waste into streams and landfills we would kill their investment. What I'm proposing is that companies be required to purchase a bond (an insurance policy) if they wish to engage in data retention. This would immuninze the shareholders against these reachthrough losses yet drive up the cost of doing bussiness. That is to say they would be paying for the externalities of the socail risks they create.
It's holding data. If a company wants to risk my security by profiting from amassing data on me I should be able to have some finiacial recourse when they injur me with their breach. If they can't secure my data then they should not hold it. If one really feels that all companies will be breached then that person should actually know what they are doing is going to cause an injury and therefore should be liable for it.
liability is the key here. Until companies have a dear cost associated with lack of security there will be no security.
But that's not enough. we can't have companies who are good citizens, paying money to protect others, masking data so it is stored more anonymously, and so forth incurring higher costs that some jackass comapny willing to pay fast and lose. Those risk taking companies will have lower costs of operation and put the conscientious companies out of bussiness. When they fail sometimes we respond by crippling the whole industry rather than punishing the shareholders of the bad companies.
So we need not just damages but 10 fold punative damages that reach to the stock holders that invest. Currently stock holders just lose their investments. They should be informed that if they invest in a company that holds data they will be held personally liable for injuries of the company beyond their stock ownership.
then we'd see some good data practices. We'd see companies clamoring to be regulated. we'd see a lot less naked storage of raw data behind single passwords.
it's not the breach. It's the gathering of data without direct consequences for it's loss.
THere is a linux desktop, it's called chromium and it's in widespread use, especially in schools
It's very likely that this is just a one time drain as spotlight re-indexes and the OS re-optimizes all the apps. happens with every new OS release then it goes away.
and even I think AI is overhyped.
The answer is obvious that for identical code strong typing will reduce bugs. And yet does typing force people to write in ways that lead creating bugs?
More importantly why isn't there some gray scale on typing that I could slowly turn on as my program design matures? THis is what I would dearly love. Let me abuse polymorphism to add calling arguments during my exploratory phase but then don't make me switch to a different language when I want to tighten the screws.
What I'd like for example is an option in a dynamically typed language to be able to say that whatever duck I'm calling this argument with it's going to always be the same duck. If the first call used and int, then every other call had better use an int. Sure I could put in a lot of asserts but I'd rather just have this be a global debug setting.
I'd like to be able to optionally declare types in the function definition and have it enforce static typing.
Finally I'd combine these and have an option to have the code re-write the source to insert the static typing based on whatever the type of the calling args I'm using is.
and what does your turtle rest on?
It's actually hard to see why this will actually kill bitcoin, but it will. This is surprising because normally a future's market allows arbitraging price fluctuations and thus dampens fluctuations and Bit coin seems to need that. But bit coin is built on a subtle principle that no other method of exchange has, and this depends critically on their not existing a side channel for selling and buying bit coin.
Huh? you ask. Let me explain. The price of gold is not actually tied to the price of mining gold. We already have a lot of gold. It's price just depends on what someone is willing to offer a seller. Bit coin is the only currency in existence who's value is tethered to it's cost of production. THe reason is that the price of bitcoin depends not just on what a buyer is willing to pay, but also that a miner is willing to mine it at that price. If you can't find a miner willing to mine when bitcoin has a value of ten cents but the cost of a mining operation is $300 then the miner doesn't mine. So the offer of ten cents never can be completed. No transaction occurs. You can't sell your bit coins for ten cents.
If there's a future's market you can buy and sell bit coin at any price, just like you can with gold. So this tether is erased. Bit coin is just like a tulip bulb at that point, just like it's critics say it is. It isn't due to the mining requirement but take that away and it is indeed a tulip.
THe second problem with Futures markets is that they allow shorting. Shorting when done at scale doesn't merely arbitrage risks it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It's actually worse for bit coin because there's no reserve requirement and no margin requirment. So someone who shorts, sells the bit coin they borrow but the person who loaned the bitcoin has a promisary note from the buyer to repay. That's an asset that they can also sell, effectively doubling the amonut of bitcoin in circulation. Which drives the price down. Leading to more shorting.
It's death for bitcoin.
Now one of the arguments I just made here about the tethering effect is becomeing slightly flawed. A bitcoin depends more and more on paying miners fees and les and less on mining new coins then the tether between price and the cost of mining goes away. My own feeling it this is why bit coins valuation is fluctuating so much. I think few people realize how important and unique that tether was to setting the value of bitcoin intrisically rather than letting it simply be another fiat currency.
If you never read this essay here it is
https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~gange...
Malware is slowly moving up the software chain to where this is becoming increasingly plausible.
I just put a piece of duct tape over my old Iphone 6 so everyone will think it's an iphone X
Wait till the navy finds out they come from china.