More like "we can't make data transfers fast enough to supply moore's law, so your software will have to use less of them". Having more parallel algorithms means they can seem to respect Moore's Law(which is good, their shareholders are happy). When in fact, it was an approximation in the first place, and probably should have said "you will route twice as much information through the chip in the same amount of time every 18 months." The paraphrase is mine, because outside of specific problems, having more transistors might be good, but what you really care about is the amount of arbitrary, problem-specific data you can push through your chip. I posit that the new GPU fad is based at least in part on the attraction of having pipelines dedicated to processing vector-based data at high speeds, and related to this.
It depends on how you define privacy. In some places, the insurance company can charge extra for certain conditions... Provided they know about it! And they can't usually find out unless you get medical treatment for that condition or treatment for a related condition. In other words, they can't just hire a private investigator on you and find out. The privacy issue here is "what they are allowed by law to do to find out". TFA makes a note how we had less "privacy" before telecommunications occured, and I'll content that's not true. We had more, because anyone who had our information basically had to be in our vicinity and potentially "knowable" to us, and hence, could be made responsible in their use of our information. The main privacy problem right now is two fold: 1) leaks and abuses of the systems 2) even without leaks, how do you responsabilise someone about your data if you don't even know they have it in the first place.
Just how many "regular folx" would buy an experimental car anyways? Until it becomes more mainstream, it's automatically a 2nd-3rd-4th car for people anyways, so only the filthy rich can be "early adopters" of car technology... Until Joe Pop garage can service it etc... The real problem is that if their research has values, they should get subsidies(investments in their risk-taking) and not bailout. If they fail, let them fail. That they take out so many with them is part and parcel of the market. The market is designed for largely dependant parts of the market to fail, re-tool, adjust and try again. The pain involved is part of the process.
Hear hear about moving in the other direction. What interested me in the iPhone was that it was running a version of MacOS X just barely stripped down to fit in the user interface, memory and size constraints. I've since learned better, but I would consider a cell phone running a "full-fledged OS" an advantage to apps makers, encouraging third parties. Now that the app store guidelines are in, I'm having my doubts. Of course, full-fledged linux-based cellphones never did take off either, so either I don't understand the challenges well enough, or my tastes are different enough from the target markets to make me commercially irrelevant. But from my naive standpoint, It seems third parties only want a platform so well established, they basically get paid to write the apps to it, and don't care how "Free"(or for that matter, how "powerful", adapted to the device, or any other important feature) they are.
And Google is trying to make money off mapreduce(as an api of sorts), so now you're surprised they're using their massive resonance over the market, especially geeks, in order to heighten awareness of their product?
On the other hand, what they're trying to prove is mapreduce's worth, as a workload divider(how to break-up 20PB for sorting), not necessarily how optimal it is in the current situation. They have a better test/sample of mapreduce, but it's a trade secret to them(how it's used to index the pages for google search), so they can't release that. I imagine they'll try another test, until they get a big name signing up to use mapreduce as an api.
Hear hear, just because software "as a product" is going bad, doesn't mean software won't make money.
There's software-as-a-service, software-as-internal-infrastructure, shareware, and possibly quite a few I haven't heard of yet either. Let's not become the MPAA or RIAA here, just because one business model failed(and presumably, some businesses) doesn't mean the end of the world if you can adapt.
My gut feeling is that they're talking shareholderese, and it has no bearing whatsoever what technical merit their platform has... But how they can sell it to investors matters to them.
Just for the convenience of keeping borders "manageable", I doubt any place they occupy can be elsewhere but on a seashore. Who'd want to lock themselves in a country, only to have them embargo you over a trade dispute? I mean, being land-locked is bad enough, but being bad locked inside a country that's bigger than you, whose standing army outnumbers you and who doesn't like you anymore?
On the other hand, maybe New Zealand will offer a better deal.
And my whole point wasn't that they were making money or being profitable, but that the consumers do not band together to punish companies that do things they don't like.
If revenue is up, it only adds weight to my argument. Please wake me when their unsold inventory starts to worry them.
I think we can safely say that looking at for instance EA, their customer base is composed of sheep, who have no idea how to hurt any of these massive companies. If customers had the intolerance you think they do, EA would have been bankrupt, by 2001 or so.
It doesn't say he can't work, but it certainly makes me wonder if the goal of the non-compete clause was to protect trade secrets, or just to get to pick who he gets to work for if he leaves... Quite a few companies seem to think the latter... I can't wait to see them disabused, but I'm not holding my breath. If the trade secret, and not the contract, was the meat of the issue, the audience would show it neh?
Quite a few people who suggest removing DST suggest keeping the whole year on "daylight time", removing "standard" time, in effect. Then you'd not lose all that benefit. Where I am the dynamic is obviously different(Eastern Canada), the heaters started this year about 3 weeks before DST, but they're off now, go figure.
It allows them to report a hello world at the same level as each link in a link-chained list of xml streams each at 200k... in other words, reporting them in bytes, would be much less impressive
I interpret this more like this: We won't be profitable building this network, so we won't without subsidies from the city. But the city figured building their own network would be cheaper. Now they're suing for the privilege of keeping their prices up.
It's so obvious, it reminded me why we used to have "internets" that could be or not, connected to the "Internet". The main reason the latter was capitalised, was that it had no one body to rule over it, while the others were little fiefs.
Except for sprint customers, usually. Which advertised the peered routes, and which usually take quite a bit of time to get updated routing... I'm afraid that's the whole point. Quite a few depeerings in the past were politically motivated, well not quite politically, but market-share-driven. I thought the MCI/Uunet fiasco would have ended such practices.
Just how much of the difference is the increase in attempts, and how much is the fact that with an election year, some departments have to arrest perpetrators to get funding? I mean it's not like we have an independant verified count of attempted illegal exports...
The fine article also mentions specifically "game related courses" not generic programming classes. The comments from the industry about "entry level positions" makes me think that these are NOT game programming classes at all, since game developer is not an entry level position except if you own the company yourself...
This is a submarine type of remark about how MS was a convicted monopolist at one point, right?
Associating with a known criminal... while they are committing a crime might be a problem.
But it tells nothing about before and/or after. Otherwise, you'd have to bankrupt companies the moment they commit a crime, sell their assets, except for their trademarks, and go back from scratch for whatever is image, etc... Is MCI still legally allowed to use its own trademark in the states? I thought it was...
On that note, you'd have to establish that Microsoft is still a monopolist(maybe not that hard, or at least, disputable).
As for the Mongols... They've already been convicted? Are all the known criminals accounted for? If not, that's that's certainly prosecuting attorney-fodder.
I think you failed to notice their entire medical records were also being released(and as I read only the summary) there is no mention of any anonymizing...
On that note though, except as a publicity stunt, what does science get out of knowing which one is which?
Or is it just a case of so much being known from a person's medical records, they don't have any privacy anymore, so there's no point in anonymizing them?
Slashdot Mirror
More like "we can't make data transfers fast enough to supply moore's law, so your software will have to use less of them". Having more parallel algorithms means they can seem to respect Moore's Law(which is good, their shareholders are happy). When in fact, it was an approximation in the first place, and probably should have said "you will route twice as much information through the chip in the same amount of time every 18 months." The paraphrase is mine, because outside of specific problems, having more transistors might be good, but what you really care about is the amount of arbitrary, problem-specific data you can push through your chip. I posit that the new GPU fad is based at least in part on the attraction of having pipelines dedicated to processing vector-based data at high speeds, and related to this.
It depends on how you define privacy. In some places, the insurance company can charge extra for certain conditions... Provided they know about it! And they can't usually find out unless you get medical treatment for that condition or treatment for a related condition. In other words, they can't just hire a private investigator on you and find out. The privacy issue here is "what they are allowed by law to do to find out". TFA makes a note how we had less "privacy" before telecommunications occured, and I'll content that's not true. We had more, because anyone who had our information basically had to be in our vicinity and potentially "knowable" to us, and hence, could be made responsible in their use of our information. The main privacy problem right now is two fold:
1) leaks and abuses of the systems
2) even without leaks, how do you responsabilise someone about your data if you don't even know they have it in the first place.
Just how many "regular folx" would buy an experimental car anyways? Until it becomes more mainstream, it's automatically a 2nd-3rd-4th car for people anyways, so only the filthy rich can be "early adopters" of car technology... Until Joe Pop garage can service it etc... The real problem is that if their research has values, they should get subsidies(investments in their risk-taking) and not bailout. If they fail, let them fail. That they take out so many with them is part and parcel of the market. The market is designed for largely dependant parts of the market to fail, re-tool, adjust and try again. The pain involved is part of the process.
Hear hear about moving in the other direction. What interested me in the iPhone was that it was running a version of MacOS X just barely stripped down to fit in the user interface, memory and size constraints. I've since learned better, but I would consider a cell phone running a "full-fledged OS" an advantage to apps makers, encouraging third parties. Now that the app store guidelines are in, I'm having my doubts. Of course, full-fledged linux-based cellphones never did take off either, so either I don't understand the challenges well enough, or my tastes are different enough from the target markets to make me commercially irrelevant. But from my naive standpoint,
It seems third parties only want a platform so well established, they basically get paid to write the apps to it, and don't care how "Free"(or for that matter, how "powerful", adapted to the device, or any other important feature) they are.
And Google is trying to make money off mapreduce(as an api of sorts), so now you're surprised they're using their massive resonance over the market, especially geeks, in order to heighten awareness of their product?
On the other hand, what they're trying to prove is mapreduce's worth, as a workload divider(how to break-up 20PB for sorting), not necessarily how optimal it is in the current situation. They have a better test/sample of mapreduce, but it's a trade secret to them(how it's used to index the pages for google search), so they can't release that. I imagine they'll try another test, until they get a big name signing up to use mapreduce as an api.
Hear hear, just because software "as a product" is going bad, doesn't mean software won't make money.
There's software-as-a-service, software-as-internal-infrastructure, shareware, and possibly quite a few I haven't heard of yet either. Let's not become the MPAA or RIAA here, just because one business model failed(and presumably, some businesses) doesn't mean the end of the world if you can adapt.
It's an ex-business model.
My gut feeling is that they're talking shareholderese, and it has no bearing whatsoever what technical merit their platform has... But how they can sell it to investors matters to them.
Just for the convenience of keeping borders "manageable", I doubt any place they occupy can be elsewhere but on a seashore. Who'd want to lock themselves in a country, only to have them embargo you over a trade dispute? I mean, being land-locked is bad enough, but being bad locked inside a country that's bigger than you, whose standing army outnumbers you and who doesn't like you anymore?
On the other hand, maybe New Zealand will offer a better deal.
And my whole point wasn't that they were making money or being profitable, but that the consumers do not band together to punish companies that do things they don't like.
If revenue is up, it only adds weight to my argument. Please wake me when their unsold inventory starts to worry them.
We also got to put people to jail for selling games they can't use to their friends. Yeehaw.
I think we can safely say that looking at for instance EA, their customer base is composed of sheep, who have no idea how to hurt any of these massive companies. If customers had the intolerance you think they do, EA would have been bankrupt, by 2001 or so.
Guess that makes them a tragedy of the commons.
It doesn't say he can't work, but it certainly makes me wonder if the goal of the non-compete clause was to protect trade secrets, or just to get to pick who he gets to work for if he leaves... Quite a few companies seem to think the latter... I can't wait to see them disabused, but I'm not holding my breath. If the trade secret, and not the contract, was the meat of the issue, the audience would show it neh?
Depends if you can isolate outside noise as well. If you live like a hermit, certainly(no neighbours making noise while testing, etc...
Good headphones do that for you, and isolate ambient noise better. You can't noise-cancel on speakers either, not practically.
Quite a few people who suggest removing DST suggest keeping the whole year on "daylight time", removing "standard" time, in effect. Then you'd not lose all that benefit. Where I am the dynamic is obviously different(Eastern Canada), the heaters started this year about 3 weeks before DST, but they're off now, go figure.
It allows them to report a hello world at the same level as each link in a link-chained list of xml streams each at 200k... in other words, reporting them in bytes, would be much less impressive
And telco-controlled lines are never snooped on? With a government line, you might actually get a say on what/when/where snooping occurs.
I interpret this more like this:
We won't be profitable building this network, so we won't without subsidies from the city. But the city figured building their own network would be cheaper. Now they're suing for the privilege of keeping their prices up.
It's so obvious, it reminded me why we used to have "internets" that could be or not, connected to the "Internet". The main reason the latter was capitalised, was that it had no one body to rule over it, while the others were little fiefs.
Except for sprint customers, usually. Which advertised the peered routes, and which usually take quite a bit of time to get updated routing... I'm afraid that's the whole point. Quite a few depeerings in the past were politically motivated, well not quite politically, but market-share-driven. I thought the MCI/Uunet fiasco would have ended such practices.
Just how much of the difference is the increase in attempts, and how much is the fact that with an election year, some departments have to arrest perpetrators to get funding? I mean it's not like we have an independant verified count of attempted illegal exports...
The fine article also mentions specifically "game related courses" not generic programming classes. The comments from the industry about "entry level positions" makes me think that these are NOT game programming classes at all, since game developer is not an entry level position except if you own the company yourself...
This is a submarine type of remark about how MS was a convicted monopolist at one point, right?
Associating with a known criminal... while they are committing a crime might be a problem.
But it tells nothing about before and/or after. Otherwise, you'd have to bankrupt companies the moment they commit a crime, sell their assets, except for their trademarks, and go back from scratch for whatever is image, etc... Is MCI still legally allowed to use its own trademark in the states? I thought it was...
On that note, you'd have to establish that Microsoft is still a monopolist(maybe not that hard, or at least, disputable).
As for the Mongols... They've already been convicted? Are all the known criminals accounted for? If not, that's that's certainly prosecuting attorney-fodder.
I think you failed to notice their entire medical records were also being released(and as I read only the summary) there is no mention of any anonymizing...
On that note though, except as a publicity stunt, what does science get out of knowing which one is which?
Or is it just a case of so much being known from a person's medical records, they don't have any privacy anymore, so there's no point in anonymizing them?