Well yeah, they've also got thermal depolymerization, which takes natural organic products and turns them into hydrocarbons, which I'm sure will replace drilled oil before we find an alternative source. My point was simply that oil is not special as a fuel commodity, whatever replaces it will replace much of the economic aspects also.
Of course I was being particularly dense, is the OP was joking...
Naturally I was making the reasonable assumption that by "oxygen" we were talking about O2 not O, since O alone is of no use to combustion whatsoever, whereas O2 IS used in combustion, and is also released by plants.
Also, I didn't catch that you were making a joke. My mistake.
yeah, because it's not like more oxygen isn't made every day...
Our economic infrastructure is dependent on *fuel* consumption, it doesn't much matter what fuel that happens to be. Oil won't be replaced by some magical happy juice that nobody has to pay for, it'll be replaced by some other fuel commodity that will perform the same function both physically and economically.
Who doesn't support that idea? Hell, it's not even an idea, it's a fact. Different architechtures process in different ways, what I'm saying is that it's compeletely irrellevant.
Apple wouldn't release a chip that was 1 GHz in the currect G5 architecture, because it wouldn't be up to current technology. The point is that whatever the latest architecture and technology is (I can't believe I'm having to type this again), because of moores law and the commodification of computer hardware THAT is likely going to offer the best price/performance ratio. Comparing one companies latest to anothers year old tech is deceptive, because they're apples and oranges. It's EXPECTED that the latest is going to beat something thats more than a year old, no matter who puts it out or what the architecture is. When Intels next gen chips are used, that will probably offer the best P/P, when when apple releases their G6, that will, and so on and so on. Each generation will steal the P/P edge, simply because the technology keeps progressing while the prices remain somewhat fixed.
It has nothing to do with MHz, nothing. We're talking about PERFORMANCE, not ratings.
Let's see, a person who is suitably skilled in precision engraving of all of these types of materials (and can match the precision of a printer) would probably cost about $40-$50 thousand a year to employ. This printer costs $10,000 and may very well work for many years.
No, the issue has nothing to do with MHz at all, it has to do with price/performance... WHATEVER the latest consumer chip is, it will likely offer the best price/performance ratio. Because of that, comparing the latest Apple to what intel had to offer more than a year ago is very deceptive. It implies an analogous situation that doesn't exist.
It has nothing to do with clock speed or the MHz myth, it has to do with the economics of the computer industry.
You're forgetting the AC costs... If you've ever worked in a DC you know that the room itself can get mighty toasty, and toasty air leads to cooked systems.
Each processor, drive, and switch generates heat which is dissipated into the air. Untouched that heat accumulates and will kill the entire thing.
With 1100 dual processor nodes running (and you can be they'll each be running at pretty close to full tilt) constantly that's a hell of a lot of heat that needs to be removed from the air.
Ever been in a packed datacenter? Simple ventilation is nowhere near enough. The datacenter that I work in frequently doesn't have anywhere near 1100 nodes with two processors each, and even it needs serious AC to keep from cooking machines.
Now sometimes, like in the winter, simple ventilation would be enough (since it's the same as AC almost), but the rest of the year Virginia can be downright oppressive, and ventilated air just wouldn't cut it.
That's not the point at all... the point is that "the best bang for your buck" in the bleeding edge of supercomputing will always be had with the latest technology. Prices on the top of the market pretty much stay the same, while performance increases. This means that each generation of computer technology will cost similar to the last, but will bring vasly increased performance, and therefore the best price/performance ratio.
It also means that comparing the price/performance with the latest from Apple and more than a year old technology from intel is deceptive to say the least.
They don't grow? So I suppose when they split the two resulting single celled organisms are each half the size of the original, and the four that come from each of those splitting are a quarter of the size then?
You're assuming of course, that this AI will have the ability to reprogram itself at will... I think that's a pretty steep assumption.
And how much of a "home-court" advantage would AI *really* have. It would only know as much about computers as it's told. Being human doesn't give you any spontaneous knowledge about the workings of the human brain, why would being a computer give an AI any spontaneous knowledge about the workings of computers?
Actually that's not true. In some places it differentiates, but it specifically says that nobody can be denied their rights on the basis of citizenship.
The way I figure it, eventually Sony *has* to start putting a phone into their Clie lines. I'm waiting until that, because a higher end Clie with a cell phone in it would be heaven.
really, bluetooth was all hype?
I know it didn't catch on very fast, but it seems like everything these days has it.
I've never used it, so you may very well be right. I had just assumed that the market wasn't quite ready to provide the type of interoperability that bluetooth enabled.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I was born into the part of the bell curve that earns less, and I'm still on that part of the bell curve. I live in a ghetto and earn so little yearly that most years I get a full refund on taxes (though within a few more years that should start changing). I don't like the system because it's inequitable and allows, even promotes rampant social irresponsibility. The people just keep voting themselves bread and circuses... (if you don't know what that's from, take a look into roman history)
How would it be "fair" for someone to not be able to pass on their accumulated wealth however they see fit when they die? It's their wealth, they should be able to do whatever they want with it! And how is it fair if gifts are limited? These things aren't fair at all... Fair is allowing peoples private property to be left unmolested by the state. Would you think it "fair" if your neighbors decided that upon your fathers death they were going to take the family house from you?
People who dupe or force others to give them money already are punished, for fraud and theft. So what was your point?
The highest income earners pay less proportionate to WHAT? Their income? So what, that's not a reasonable method for determining someones tax burden...
Taxes are taken to fund government services, services that are implemented at the behest of the people, through their representatives. Why should a majority vote enable the populace to enact measures that they themselves won't have to pay for? What sense does that make? Should I be able to add an addition to my house and make my neighbors pay for it?
"Punishing people for producing wealth? People are taxed for the money they take from others, not for the wealth they produce. Much more money is taken because we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value."
That doesn't even make sense to me. "we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value" huh?
and what do you mean people aren't taxed on the wealth they produce, they certainly are. Can you show how they're not?
"and you want to justify your outrage at having some of it taken away to support the people who put you there (or whose ancestors helped put your ancestors there). That doesn't sound very bloody fair to me."
Unless we're talking about slavery, people are paid for their work. If 100 people work for someone who gets rich, unless he defrauds them in some way, how is it that he should owe them anything but the agreed upon wage? Sounds more like it's fraud the other way around to me... You're saying "you paid these people for work that got you rich, and even though you paid them just as much as you agreed to, they're going to take more by way of government intervention". Gee, sounds like someone wants to renegotiate the contract after the work has been done to me...
Re:You have no idea how it works
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
Gee, I only work on political campaigns year round... I suppose I wouldn't know how they work.
But I guess that's what I should expect from someone who doesn't even understand the word representative.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics
on
Pirate Hunter
·
· Score: 1
and they don't actually get to vote for the president either. But you don't seem to understand what the term "representative" means.
Congressmen and Senators are voting *for* their constituency. It's not perfect, but claiming "oh, it's just the representatives voting not the population" is bunk. If the representatives don't vote according to the wishes of the public they're representing they don't get reelected.
It's the voting public that tells the representatives how to vote, and if they don't follow that lead they get fired. A vote from a representative represents the vote of those people.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious about that too, seeing as how it's a two man craft and only has life support capable of supporting two people for 30 hours.
Ummmm, they specifically *threatened* to do just that not too long ago.
Well yeah, they've also got thermal depolymerization, which takes natural organic products and turns them into hydrocarbons, which I'm sure will replace drilled oil before we find an alternative source. My point was simply that oil is not special as a fuel commodity, whatever replaces it will replace much of the economic aspects also.
Of course I was being particularly dense, is the OP was joking...
Naturally I was making the reasonable assumption that by "oxygen" we were talking about O2 not O, since O alone is of no use to combustion whatsoever, whereas O2 IS used in combustion, and is also released by plants.
Also, I didn't catch that you were making a joke. My mistake.
yeah, because it's not like more oxygen isn't made every day...
Our economic infrastructure is dependent on *fuel* consumption, it doesn't much matter what fuel that happens to be.
Oil won't be replaced by some magical happy juice that nobody has to pay for, it'll be replaced by some other fuel commodity that will perform the same function both physically and economically.
But only you and I really count, Bobs an idiot.
Who doesn't support that idea? Hell, it's not even an idea, it's a fact. Different architechtures process in different ways, what I'm saying is that it's compeletely irrellevant.
Apple wouldn't release a chip that was 1 GHz in the currect G5 architecture, because it wouldn't be up to current technology. The point is that whatever the latest architecture and technology is (I can't believe I'm having to type this again), because of moores law and the commodification of computer hardware THAT is likely going to offer the best price/performance ratio. Comparing one companies latest to anothers year old tech is deceptive, because they're apples and oranges. It's EXPECTED that the latest is going to beat something thats more than a year old, no matter who puts it out or what the architecture is. When Intels next gen chips are used, that will probably offer the best P/P, when when apple releases their G6, that will, and so on and so on. Each generation will steal the P/P edge, simply because the technology keeps progressing while the prices remain somewhat fixed.
It has nothing to do with MHz, nothing. We're talking about PERFORMANCE, not ratings.
or simply some way to make two lasers intersecting in air to be visible...
then you could create 3D moving pictures with proper depth in empty space.
perhaps some compination of frequencies that when combined produced a visible color?
But how many thought that Wal-mart was behind the 9/11 attacks?
Let's see, a person who is suitably skilled in precision engraving of all of these types of materials (and can match the precision of a printer) would probably cost about $40-$50 thousand a year to employ. This printer costs $10,000 and may very well work for many years.
you do the math.
No, the issue has nothing to do with MHz at all, it has to do with price/performance... WHATEVER the latest consumer chip is, it will likely offer the best price/performance ratio. Because of that, comparing the latest Apple to what intel had to offer more than a year ago is very deceptive. It implies an analogous situation that doesn't exist.
It has nothing to do with clock speed or the MHz myth, it has to do with the economics of the computer industry.
You're forgetting the AC costs... If you've ever worked in a DC you know that the room itself can get mighty toasty, and toasty air leads to cooked systems.
Each processor, drive, and switch generates heat which is dissipated into the air. Untouched that heat accumulates and will kill the entire thing. With 1100 dual processor nodes running (and you can be they'll each be running at pretty close to full tilt) constantly that's a hell of a lot of heat that needs to be removed from the air.
Ever been in a packed datacenter? Simple ventilation is nowhere near enough. The datacenter that I work in frequently doesn't have anywhere near 1100 nodes with two processors each, and even it needs serious AC to keep from cooking machines.
Now sometimes, like in the winter, simple ventilation would be enough (since it's the same as AC almost), but the rest of the year Virginia can be downright oppressive, and ventilated air just wouldn't cut it.
That's not the point at all... the point is that "the best bang for your buck" in the bleeding edge of supercomputing will always be had with the latest technology. Prices on the top of the market pretty much stay the same, while performance increases. This means that each generation of computer technology will cost similar to the last, but will bring vasly increased performance, and therefore the best price/performance ratio.
It also means that comparing the price/performance with the latest from Apple and more than a year old technology from intel is deceptive to say the least.
How would I be a stupid shopper if I sold a $300 computer for 5.3 million? I'd say I was pretty damned sharp to do that!
So if someone buys my used Athalon 1Ghz system for 5.3 million dollars (obviously someone very stupid) it automatically becomes a SuperComputer?
Is that retail, wholesale, or production cost?
metabolism is the conversion of food/fuel into energy and waste, not the use/expending of the resulting energy.
They don't grow? So I suppose when they split the two resulting single celled organisms are each half the size of the original, and the four that come from each of those splitting are a quarter of the size then?
You're assuming of course, that this AI will have the ability to reprogram itself at will... I think that's a pretty steep assumption.
And how much of a "home-court" advantage would AI *really* have. It would only know as much about computers as it's told. Being human doesn't give you any spontaneous knowledge about the workings of the human brain, why would being a computer give an AI any spontaneous knowledge about the workings of computers?
Actually that's not true. In some places it differentiates, but it specifically says that nobody can be denied their rights on the basis of citizenship.
The way I figure it, eventually Sony *has* to start putting a phone into their Clie lines. I'm waiting until that, because a higher end Clie with a cell phone in it would be heaven.
really, bluetooth was all hype?
I know it didn't catch on very fast, but it seems like everything these days has it.
I've never used it, so you may very well be right. I had just assumed that the market wasn't quite ready to provide the type of interoperability that bluetooth enabled.
Actually, I was born into the part of the bell curve that earns less, and I'm still on that part of the bell curve. I live in a ghetto and earn so little yearly that most years I get a full refund on taxes (though within a few more years that should start changing). I don't like the system because it's inequitable and allows, even promotes rampant social irresponsibility. The people just keep voting themselves bread and circuses... (if you don't know what that's from, take a look into roman history)
How would it be "fair" for someone to not be able to pass on their accumulated wealth however they see fit when they die? It's their wealth, they should be able to do whatever they want with it! And how is it fair if gifts are limited? These things aren't fair at all... Fair is allowing peoples private property to be left unmolested by the state. Would you think it "fair" if your neighbors decided that upon your fathers death they were going to take the family house from you? People who dupe or force others to give them money already are punished, for fraud and theft. So what was your point?
The highest income earners pay less proportionate to WHAT? Their income? So what, that's not a reasonable method for determining someones tax burden...
Taxes are taken to fund government services, services that are implemented at the behest of the people, through their representatives. Why should a majority vote enable the populace to enact measures that they themselves won't have to pay for? What sense does that make? Should I be able to add an addition to my house and make my neighbors pay for it?
"Punishing people for producing wealth? People are taxed for the money they take from others, not for the wealth they produce. Much more money is taken because we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value."
That doesn't even make sense to me. "we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value" huh?
and what do you mean people aren't taxed on the wealth they produce, they certainly are. Can you show how they're not?
"and you want to justify your outrage at having some of it taken away to support the people who put you there (or whose ancestors helped put your ancestors there). That doesn't sound very bloody fair to me."
Unless we're talking about slavery, people are paid for their work. If 100 people work for someone who gets rich, unless he defrauds them in some way, how is it that he should owe them anything but the agreed upon wage? Sounds more like it's fraud the other way around to me... You're saying "you paid these people for work that got you rich, and even though you paid them just as much as you agreed to, they're going to take more by way of government intervention". Gee, sounds like someone wants to renegotiate the contract after the work has been done to me...
Gee, I only work on political campaigns year round... I suppose I wouldn't know how they work.
But I guess that's what I should expect from someone who doesn't even understand the word representative.
and they don't actually get to vote for the president either. But you don't seem to understand what the term "representative" means. Congressmen and Senators are voting *for* their constituency. It's not perfect, but claiming "oh, it's just the representatives voting not the population" is bunk. If the representatives don't vote according to the wishes of the public they're representing they don't get reelected. It's the voting public that tells the representatives how to vote, and if they don't follow that lead they get fired. A vote from a representative represents the vote of those people.