You rarely bleed from your eyes when you get salmonella.
Different strains have different effects, particularly an unfamiliar strain suddenly introduced to a naive population.
There's similar evidence that the same thing happened in reverse. IIRC there's some evidence a virulent strain of tuberculosis from the new world was the one that caused many of the big outbreaks in Europe.
There's a story from one of the SR-71 crews about being shot at with a Russian SAM. It missed, but came close. If the SR-71 hadn't been retired one would have been shot down eventually.
The efficiency of a turbofan (which is what those "jets" really are) is limited by how big you can make the fan part. This is a basic property, and applies to propellers too.
If you look on a modern airliner, they have "high bypass" turbofans, meaning the fan part is a lot bigger than the jet part. They've basically made the engines as big as they possibly can: most of them are mounted in front of the wings, not slung under them, so the intake and fan can actually extend up above the wing, and often the bottom of the cowling is flattened to give a bit extra ground clearance. Contrast that with older jets that had these long skinny little engine nacelles slung under the wing.
Your ideal design for an efficient jet would be one gigantic engine right in the middle, but unfortunately that's where you want to put the passengers. Your next best bet is to have two engines that are as big as you can get, to either side. A twinjet.
I've flown on some 747s that were basically empty. Luxury... three seats to spread out across on those transatlantic flights.
That was a long time ago though. I suspect routing and logistics software improved, but it seems all flights, from the twin prop dash-8 I flew to get home for Christmas to the widebodies are now packed.
The A380 may be a bit ahead of it's time. They expected airport congestion to be a critical problem and designed a plane for it. What they didn't anticipate was that the congestion problem would be delayed through better routing software. The problem is still approaching though.
I doubt it. There's strong association in management theory between financial compensation and performance. If you pay people more, they're more likely to do what you want.
That study suggests that's only true up to a point, that point being what you tend to pay your best non-upper management employees.
The logical implication of that is that paying upper-level managers more money will not correlate with better performance, which is certainly the opposite of what the MBA-types like to claim ("we have to pay the CEO millions otherwise we won't be able to attract a good one!")
Oddly, when you look at actual executive performance versus salary you find out this is not the case. Executive performance is correlated with salary... negatively.
One of the reasons for that is the presence of rich people. If there are lots of people with high incomes, they do things like buy up the best real estate and what's left is more expensive.
The actual numbers don't really matter (as should be expected, because they're made up anyway), just your position in the distribution.
I read it more along these lines: very high income doesn't really make you happier, and the happiest places are countries where income inequality is low. So not only do super rich people make a bunch of people unhappy and poor, they also don't make themselves happy.
As another poster pointed out, the actual number required to have an optimum income varies in different places, but that's in large part due to the amount of money other people have. If a bunch of rich people are buying up all the real estate, middle class people can't afford their own homes.
When you put those two things together, you find that even if the economy is technically not a zero-sum game, economic happiness may be (or even negative sum). The presence of super rich people might cause overall happiness to go down.
The poster I replied to expressed his belief that quantum computers would become ubiquitous because that's what happened with classical computers. I pointed out that analogy could be a poor guide because of fundamental differences between the two technologies. I don't think it's impossible, and chose my words carefully based on that belief.
Summaries frequently say stupid things.
It is interesting to note that classical computers are also becoming more centralized again.
True, but you could build drones that fly faster than jet fighters. You could make them so they home in on the fighter too. They'd have limited dwell time, so you'd probably want to only launch them when you saw some planes you want to destroy. Maybe have a few of them and a radar together in one place. Scatter units like those along your border and around your strategic locations like bases and cities.
Impulsivity is common in the young. When he leaked those documents, Bradley Manning still had a couple of years to go before he could legally rent a car in many parts of the US.
those 49 qbits can already do something that almost no traditional computer, even a supercomputer, can: solve a sorting problem that has up to 5.63 trillion possible outcomes.
Any computer can sort 49 bit numbers, no problem. Classical computers can do it faster than Intel's quantum computer too. *Even if they simulate how the quantum computer does it.*
That might change in the future, when quantum computers advance to the point where they can actually do things classical computers can't. That's called "quantum supremacy" it it explicitly is not achieved by this processor. The truth is, Intel's 49 bit quantum computer can't even sort 49 bit numbers, at least not very well. Without using most of those bits for error correction, you just get random answers.
Uh, no. My computer has no problem sorting lists of 64-bit values, which are bigger than that. Also, a 49 bit quantum computer is going to be really terrible at sorting anything that big. Five or six bits plus error correction maybe.
There were no fundamental physical barriers to scaling down classical circuits to make a modern microprocessor, although you did have to have some imagination to see the possibilities.
There are very good reasons to think that it may not be possible to make quantum circuits that operate high temperatures.
Possibly 30 fully error corrected and connected quibits would be interesting. On the other hand, IIRC there are already simulators that can do that many reasonably.
It's unlikely that these quibits are fully connected or error corrected.
Yeah, it does make a difference. First of all, your "edit" to the OP's post was nonsense. Secondly, the computer doesn't have to be perfect to be a net benefit, it just has to be better than the people, and people are far from perfect.
Google and Tesla have both said that their autonomous car stats indicate the car is a better driver than a human driver. There's also evidence that the automated flight systems are better than human pilots. The airlines and manufacturers are both pushing for autonomous planes.
Ice and snow seem to be the favourite human conceit. I just came back from my home town, a place that makes the OP's -14 look like the tropics. Dunning-Kruger is even stronger in the winter.
There are pilots there, but very rarely does anything go wrong. I remember reading an article several years ago about new requirements for a certain number of manual landings per year because pilots were getting out of practice.
Slashdot Mirror
You rarely bleed from your eyes when you get salmonella.
Different strains have different effects, particularly an unfamiliar strain suddenly introduced to a naive population.
There's similar evidence that the same thing happened in reverse. IIRC there's some evidence a virulent strain of tuberculosis from the new world was the one that caused many of the big outbreaks in Europe.
There's a story from one of the SR-71 crews about being shot at with a Russian SAM. It missed, but came close. If the SR-71 hadn't been retired one would have been shot down eventually.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i...
The efficiency of a turbofan (which is what those "jets" really are) is limited by how big you can make the fan part. This is a basic property, and applies to propellers too.
If you look on a modern airliner, they have "high bypass" turbofans, meaning the fan part is a lot bigger than the jet part. They've basically made the engines as big as they possibly can: most of them are mounted in front of the wings, not slung under them, so the intake and fan can actually extend up above the wing, and often the bottom of the cowling is flattened to give a bit extra ground clearance. Contrast that with older jets that had these long skinny little engine nacelles slung under the wing.
Your ideal design for an efficient jet would be one gigantic engine right in the middle, but unfortunately that's where you want to put the passengers. Your next best bet is to have two engines that are as big as you can get, to either side. A twinjet.
I've flown on some 747s that were basically empty. Luxury... three seats to spread out across on those transatlantic flights.
That was a long time ago though. I suspect routing and logistics software improved, but it seems all flights, from the twin prop dash-8 I flew to get home for Christmas to the widebodies are now packed.
IIRC correctly the tax break Boeing got from South Carolina for their second 787 production line was a record at the time.
The A380 may be a bit ahead of it's time. They expected airport congestion to be a critical problem and designed a plane for it. What they didn't anticipate was that the congestion problem would be delayed through better routing software. The problem is still approaching though.
I doubt it. There's strong association in management theory between financial compensation and performance. If you pay people more, they're more likely to do what you want.
That study suggests that's only true up to a point, that point being what you tend to pay your best non-upper management employees.
The logical implication of that is that paying upper-level managers more money will not correlate with better performance, which is certainly the opposite of what the MBA-types like to claim ("we have to pay the CEO millions otherwise we won't be able to attract a good one!")
Oddly, when you look at actual executive performance versus salary you find out this is not the case. Executive performance is correlated with salary... negatively.
One of the reasons for that is the presence of rich people. If there are lots of people with high incomes, they do things like buy up the best real estate and what's left is more expensive.
The actual numbers don't really matter (as should be expected, because they're made up anyway), just your position in the distribution.
That's an interesting take on that observation.
I read it more along these lines: very high income doesn't really make you happier, and the happiest places are countries where income inequality is low. So not only do super rich people make a bunch of people unhappy and poor, they also don't make themselves happy.
As another poster pointed out, the actual number required to have an optimum income varies in different places, but that's in large part due to the amount of money other people have. If a bunch of rich people are buying up all the real estate, middle class people can't afford their own homes.
When you put those two things together, you find that even if the economy is technically not a zero-sum game, economic happiness may be (or even negative sum). The presence of super rich people might cause overall happiness to go down.
And the Winklevoss twins alone own something like $1 billion worth. They could be manipulating it just trading each other coins.
The poster I replied to expressed his belief that quantum computers would become ubiquitous because that's what happened with classical computers. I pointed out that analogy could be a poor guide because of fundamental differences between the two technologies. I don't think it's impossible, and chose my words carefully based on that belief.
Summaries frequently say stupid things.
It is interesting to note that classical computers are also becoming more centralized again.
That's okay, they've got lasers now.
And if you mistake an actual flock of birds for drones, you've got dinner.
True, but you could build drones that fly faster than jet fighters. You could make them so they home in on the fighter too. They'd have limited dwell time, so you'd probably want to only launch them when you saw some planes you want to destroy. Maybe have a few of them and a radar together in one place. Scatter units like those along your border and around your strategic locations like bases and cities.
Wait, this sounds familiar....
"I suppose being convicted and imprisoned will at least make Manning unfriendly to the government - although then: why become part of it?"
In a democracy, when you disagree with the government and there isn't anyone you want to vote for, you're supposed to run for office to effect change.
Impulsivity is common in the young. When he leaked those documents, Bradley Manning still had a couple of years to go before he could legally rent a car in many parts of the US.
I understand fine thanks.
The claim in the article is this:
Any computer can sort 49 bit numbers, no problem. Classical computers can do it faster than Intel's quantum computer too. *Even if they simulate how the quantum computer does it.*
That might change in the future, when quantum computers advance to the point where they can actually do things classical computers can't. That's called "quantum supremacy" it it explicitly is not achieved by this processor. The truth is, Intel's 49 bit quantum computer can't even sort 49 bit numbers, at least not very well. Without using most of those bits for error correction, you just get random answers.
Uh, no. My computer has no problem sorting lists of 64-bit values, which are bigger than that. Also, a 49 bit quantum computer is going to be really terrible at sorting anything that big. Five or six bits plus error correction maybe.
There were no fundamental physical barriers to scaling down classical circuits to make a modern microprocessor, although you did have to have some imagination to see the possibilities.
There are very good reasons to think that it may not be possible to make quantum circuits that operate high temperatures.
Possibly 30 fully error corrected and connected quibits would be interesting. On the other hand, IIRC there are already simulators that can do that many reasonably.
It's unlikely that these quibits are fully connected or error corrected.
Yeah, it does make a difference. First of all, your "edit" to the OP's post was nonsense. Secondly, the computer doesn't have to be perfect to be a net benefit, it just has to be better than the people, and people are far from perfect.
Google and Tesla have both said that their autonomous car stats indicate the car is a better driver than a human driver. There's also evidence that the automated flight systems are better than human pilots. The airlines and manufacturers are both pushing for autonomous planes.
Ice and snow seem to be the favourite human conceit. I just came back from my home town, a place that makes the OP's -14 look like the tropics. Dunning-Kruger is even stronger in the winter.
There are pilots there, but very rarely does anything go wrong. I remember reading an article several years ago about new requirements for a certain number of manual landings per year because pilots were getting out of practice.
Nope, I think we have exactly the same thing in mind as the guidance system.
True, but so was jaywalking.