Your mobile phone of today is actually much more powerful in many respects than a mainframe of the 70's or 80's.
That's why I was careful to say "the mainframe computers of the future".
The reason that a mainframe of today is still more powerful than a cellphone is because mainframes have been advancing at the same time.
So, if you think that's a bad analogy, presumably you think the silicon guys are just going to give up now that graphene is on the scene?
In addition, your analogy is also a stupid straw man: a graphene transistor is designed to to the exact same job a silicon transistor does, while a cellphone was never intended to replace a mainframe (duh to you).
The reason a cellphone doesn't replace a mainframe is because it can't: if we could have mainframe processing capability in our pockets, we would. Intention doesn't come into it: when cellphones were invented, they were for making voice calls, but now look at what they can do.
Do you have any reason to believe that the lessons learned from silicon-based circuitry will be any less relevant to graphene-based circuitry than the lessons of mainframe computing are to mobile computing, or are you just throwing the word "straw man" around in ignorance?
Imagine my surprise when I searched for the "earthburp" tag and found no other stories whatsoever! What's happened to all those earthburp stories, eh?!
But it's not bad for a new kid on the block. It took silicon 40 years to get this far. By contrast, the first graphene transistor was built only last year.
Though mobile phones are not as powerful as mainframe computers, they're not doing badly considering they've only been a relatively short time.
Therefore it stands to reason that the mobile phones of the future will doubtless be more powerful than the mainframe computers of the future!
I am comforted by the fact that it does not consider the profitability of the organization when considering a food preparation method or release of a new prescription drug.
Aye, just like the government does not consider the profitability of the lobbyist when considering a new law.
The common man I'm speaking of does indeed fit most of those stereotypes. (Of course I would only ever recognize stereotypes; never perpetuate them;] I would expect more intelligence of PhD students, so I wouldn't expect them to be as homophobic.) I have met many (hundreds of) PhD students too, and no two are ever exactly alike. Yet insofar as that stereotypes are meaningful, the (even out-from-under-the-grind) antisocial bookworm stereotype is somewhat better fitted by the PhD student than the common man. I do, however, agree that PhD students are generally more creative, and that given a proper audience, they can be as wildly exuberant as anyone. It's just that high school often teaches people with high intelligence to fear audiences:)
(By the bye, I went into industry for five years before going back to university, and found the sampling to be geographically wider at the latter, though socially narrower).
/. is rife with science and engineering types - but just look at the post counts for any topic dealing with: music, DRM, films and YRO.
I do look at them. Most of them boil down to "information wants to be free", and most of them consider this patently obvious and are incredulous that not everyone "gets it". As a PhD student myself, I very much recognise the completely-out-of-touch-with-the-common-man stereotype.
In truth, the time taken to complete the tasks is somewhere between what Apple showed in the advert and what PC Pro showed in their recreation.
In my tests, it's much closer to the Apple version of events.
Ask yourself of the PC Pro version:
1) Why did they start with the phone locked? 2) Why did they not start with the page they wanted to view as the starting page in Safari? 3) Why did they not use timesonline.co.uk for a like-for-like comparison? 4) How large was the PDF they downloaded?
In other words, why did they choose to be deliberately misleading in the other direction?
Which part of the past tense in "well, I know we used to say" did you not understand? My entire point is that you don't cling to the stuff that science has disproven, but for some reason known only to yourself, you still think that the rest of it has credibility.
Right. And no matter how advanced "spirituality" gets, it will also never be able to disprove -- or prove, for that matter -- the existence of a God or gods.
The difference is, science admits it. Science says, "we have no idea about anything before a few tiny fractions of a second after the big bang. But what I can tell you is that the universe isn't 6000 years old." Whereas religion says, "well, I know we used to say that the universe is 6000 years old, but obviously we didn't mean it; that part of our scripture is supposed to be taken figuratively. But *this* part is the literal, Gospel truth."
Quite! And what's with everyone taking it literally that Christ is the son of God? People have this ridiculous inclination to take a perfectly good moral story too far.
The coincidence is often said to be the co-existence of (a) life and (b) the conditions for life. It's a bit like someone saying "Wow! What are the chances of that? Not only did I win the lottery, but I also entered it!"
All science can't prove that god does or doesn't exist.
Science can't prove anything: all it can do is tell you what the most likely explanations are according to the evidence.
It turns out that an old chap with a beard who lives in the sky isn't exactly the best fit for what we observe.
Religion and Science provide exactly the same answer to the question of origin; which is to say, no answer whatsoever. Religion just characterises "we have no idea" as "God moves in mysterious ways".
Slashdot Mirror
At least you live in a country where it's possible to join and vote for a party that understands these issues!
Indeed: Gandhi really lorded it over the peasants once he was in charge!
Skylights might be a good compromise.
Your mobile phone of today is actually much more powerful in many respects than a mainframe of the 70's or 80's.
That's why I was careful to say "the mainframe computers of the future".
The reason that a mainframe of today is still more powerful than a cellphone is because mainframes have been advancing at the same time.
So, if you think that's a bad analogy, presumably you think the silicon guys are just going to give up now that graphene is on the scene?
In addition, your analogy is also a stupid straw man: a graphene transistor is designed to to the exact same job a silicon transistor does, while a cellphone was never intended to replace a mainframe (duh to you).
The reason a cellphone doesn't replace a mainframe is because it can't: if we could have mainframe processing capability in our pockets, we would. Intention doesn't come into it: when cellphones were invented, they were for making voice calls, but now look at what they can do.
Thanks for the replies; I stand corrected!
Do you have any reason to believe that the lessons learned from silicon-based circuitry will be any less relevant to graphene-based circuitry than the lessons of mainframe computing are to mobile computing, or are you just throwing the word "straw man" around in ignorance?
Imagine my surprise when I searched for the "earthburp" tag and found no other stories whatsoever! What's happened to all those earthburp stories, eh?!
Dude, the European definition of billion is a thousand million, just like in the USA.
You might be thinking of the UK, which used to call that a milliard, but even the UK has been with the program since the 1970s.
But it's not bad for a new kid on the block. It took silicon 40 years to get this far. By contrast, the first graphene transistor was built only last year.
Though mobile phones are not as powerful as mainframe computers, they're not doing badly considering they've only been a relatively short time.
Therefore it stands to reason that the mobile phones of the future will doubtless be more powerful than the mainframe computers of the future!
30% is not an unreasonable rate. But saying that it is my only choice and I am not allowed to bypass it is unreasonable.
And Mummy saying that I am not allowed ponies is also unreasonable!
Not being comfortable with gayness for yourself, though, is perfectly acceptable.
Specifically, it's the only acceptable form of homophobia.
True, true.
I am comforted by the fact that it does not consider the profitability of the organization when considering a food preparation method or release of a new prescription drug.
Aye, just like the government does not consider the profitability of the lobbyist when considering a new law.
The common man I'm speaking of does indeed fit most of those stereotypes. (Of course I would only ever recognize stereotypes; never perpetuate them ;] I would expect more intelligence of PhD students, so I wouldn't expect them to be as homophobic.) I have met many (hundreds of) PhD students too, and no two are ever exactly alike. Yet insofar as that stereotypes are meaningful, the (even out-from-under-the-grind) antisocial bookworm stereotype is somewhat better fitted by the PhD student than the common man. I do, however, agree that PhD students are generally more creative, and that given a proper audience, they can be as wildly exuberant as anyone. It's just that high school often teaches people with high intelligence to fear audiences :)
(By the bye, I went into industry for five years before going back to university, and found the sampling to be geographically wider at the latter, though socially narrower).
/. is rife with science and engineering types - but just look at the post counts for any topic dealing with: music, DRM, films and YRO.
I do look at them. Most of them boil down to "information wants to be free", and most of them consider this patently obvious and are incredulous that not everyone "gets it". As a PhD student myself, I very much recognise the completely-out-of-touch-with-the-common-man stereotype.
In truth, the time taken to complete the tasks is somewhere between what Apple showed in the advert and what PC Pro showed in their recreation.
In my tests, it's much closer to the Apple version of events.
Ask yourself of the PC Pro version:
1) Why did they start with the phone locked?
2) Why did they not start with the page they wanted to view as the starting page in Safari?
3) Why did they not use timesonline.co.uk for a like-for-like comparison?
4) How large was the PDF they downloaded?
In other words, why did they choose to be deliberately misleading in the other direction?
That's covered by the word "too".
At least recognize that they have no clue what he's like, and never claimed differently
I take it you have completely missed the irony of using a gendered personal pronoun in a sentence like this.
Which part of the past tense in "well, I know we used to say" did you not understand? My entire point is that you don't cling to the stuff that science has disproven, but for some reason known only to yourself, you still think that the rest of it has credibility.
Right. And no matter how advanced "spirituality" gets, it will also never be able to disprove -- or prove, for that matter -- the existence of a God or gods.
The difference is, science admits it. Science says, "we have no idea about anything before a few tiny fractions of a second after the big bang. But what I can tell you is that the universe isn't 6000 years old." Whereas religion says, "well, I know we used to say that the universe is 6000 years old, but obviously we didn't mean it; that part of our scripture is supposed to be taken figuratively. But *this* part is the literal, Gospel truth."
Quite! And what's with everyone taking it literally that Christ is the son of God? People have this ridiculous inclination to take a perfectly good moral story too far.
The coincidence is often said to be the co-existence of (a) life and (b) the conditions for life. It's a bit like someone saying "Wow! What are the chances of that? Not only did I win the lottery, but I also entered it!"
Unfortunately it is not possible to discern the true nature of God. He is much too clever with his noodly appendages for that.
All science can't prove that god does or doesn't exist.
Science can't prove anything: all it can do is tell you what the most likely explanations are according to the evidence.
It turns out that an old chap with a beard who lives in the sky isn't exactly the best fit for what we observe.
Religion and Science provide exactly the same answer to the question of origin; which is to say, no answer whatsoever. Religion just characterises "we have no idea" as "God moves in mysterious ways".
So it would seem: sometimes insightful, sometimes trollish, completely unaccountable and impossible to get answers from.