I asked myself the same thing: isn't the better question with a third part?
Who loses: Google, China, or the Chinese people?
Then the answer is obvious (to us enlightened Western Capitalists at least), but more frustratingly unsolvable - just how does one dismantle a massive, successful, Communist regime?
I keep thinking about the parallels of this with the older digital media of hand-copied books. Computers are much better than humans at copying data exactly, but much worse at understanding data once a small part of it has been corrupted.
We don't have to trust one neurotic monk anymore, but it's still possible for small corruptions to leak in. I wonder which has better data integrity: paintings inside a dark, windless cave, or a bunch of computers yelling ON and OFF at each other.
Apparently he judges phones by different standards than I do. It sounds like he wanted a traveling internet connection with a good interface. I personally prefer my tiny little Zoolander phone which plays music, calls people good and has a mediocre interface for checking email.
The really magical part of the brain is its ability to selectively throw away massive amounts of incoming data before it even begins processing it. We develop a system by which to determine what portions of incoming data are worth considering, and the rest goes into really shoddy temporary storage for a few seconds (just in case) before being destroyed forever. We shouldn't try to get computers to process as much information as we pretend we do, we should train them to recognize what can bear to be ignored based on an overall feeling of the incoming sample.
Imagine looking at a really pixelly jpeg that has a flesh colored blob in it with two darker blobs at the center and a darker area circling around the top. Based on the hundreds of thousands of times you've seen that type of information, I'll bet you could very effectively decide which portion you'd want to increase clarity on. I'll bet we could get a computer to decide, too. And maybe you're wrong about it being a face, and it's actually a satellite photo of Hawaii in inverted colors. Then all you get is the bad stuff in temp storage or a chance to re-scan.
Are the Feds allowed to search your house if you have worthless locks? If I live in a shanty on rented property with a door that has no mechanism, is anyone allowed to see it? No, it's illegal, but you're still an idiot if you put anything valuable in there. Fortunately, the government usually has to follow the law, so I would hope they couldn't search your shanty.
I would hope the same would apply to the very poor security of private data on facebook.
When I click on an RSS link to a sensational title like this I kind of expect to see something worth my time, even if it is kind of off the wall. Instead it's a link to some guy who thinks the sky is falling because of an acorn. I'd rather not see guys like this get any press unless it's about a new government program to stamp out asshattery.
Everyone who knows something about what the Intel switch means has discussed this issue at great length. We don't need some Johnny-come-lately to come and tell us what we already know.
I agree with you, but not with the possible application. First wouldn't you need to capture the leaking liquids in a balloon? That seems like it would be more difficult than releasing the water without rupturing the enormous droplet.
These experiments might reveal some of the default behaviors of liquids which might in turn reveal something about their behavior in gravity. Without gravity (or G - whatever), water and oil might mix. This is kind of the basis for the perfect metal crystals experiments they did a while back and are probably still doing. (I looked for a link, but I gotta split soon.) Sub-freeze-point water flash frozen like with the metal probably doesn't behave like normal water.
All you guys are forgetting that you're not normal. Solutions like "I'd ssh to my home computer and..." are definitely not possible solutions for the average bear.
I think this would be a pretty effective idea in many offices, if completely morale-crushing. It wouldn't work, certainly for programmers and other people whose jobs require internet access all the time.
Sounds to me like it would work, but it would only make the heat dissipation problem worse than it already is. My guess is 3-D chips will be used for low-power devices initially.
Now, I know absolutely nothing about microscopic electronics, but couldn't they put teensy-weensy holes through the core of the chip and run little bitty ribbons of heat-sink through the body? Maybe little liquid-cooling bite-sized tubettes.
I mean, I understand that adding another dimension adds problems, but I'm sure it adds possibilities for more solutions as well.
I thought it was kinda silly. Besides, I've never read a slashdot post that actually made me laugh. They're mostly just humorous in theory, like when you giggle at a joke that others don't understand just so they know you're smarter than them. "That's funny because if I don't find it amusing, it means I'm not l33t."
Weighing the internet based on the number of people using it. Isn't that like weighing all ideas based on the the number of physical stimulants in the human environment, or the weight of health based on the number of insurance cards people carry around?
Basically I see these posts boiling down to Spotlight being really inconsistent.
I'm running a 800MHz iMac G4 that's really feeling its age in other places, but spotlight is neither noticeably sprightly nor decrepit. I've seen people with slow computers posting good and bad and people with fast computers doing the same.
My guess is that faster computers tend to belong people with more ancient junk to search through, but whatever it is, Apple really ought to figure out a way to get some consistency out of their revolutionary, folder-ending idea. I wouldn't mind giving up some features in it to speed it up. Call me old fashioned, but I really don't need to remember an email I wrote a few years ago about the world's ugliest dog, and if I decide to find it, I can search for it with Mail.
Now, I was slightly interested in reading this article, but I always read a few posts before clicking anything.
The posts here have actually chased me away. I want nothing to do with this article. I'm well aware of the irony of the previous sentence.
I thought most computers couldn't even support gigabit ethernet. Personally, I'd rather have wireless everywhere at my school. It probably wouldn't cost $27 million either.
Slashdot Mirror
I asked myself the same thing: isn't the better question with a third part?
Who loses: Google, China, or the Chinese people?
Then the answer is obvious (to us enlightened Western Capitalists at least), but more frustratingly unsolvable - just how does one dismantle a massive, successful, Communist regime?
I keep thinking about the parallels of this with the older digital media of hand-copied books. Computers are much better than humans at copying data exactly, but much worse at understanding data once a small part of it has been corrupted.
We don't have to trust one neurotic monk anymore, but it's still possible for small corruptions to leak in. I wonder which has better data integrity: paintings inside a dark, windless cave, or a bunch of computers yelling ON and OFF at each other.
Apparently he judges phones by different standards than I do. It sounds like he wanted a traveling internet connection with a good interface. I personally prefer my tiny little Zoolander phone which plays music, calls people good and has a mediocre interface for checking email.
The really magical part of the brain is its ability to selectively throw away massive amounts of incoming data before it even begins processing it. We develop a system by which to determine what portions of incoming data are worth considering, and the rest goes into really shoddy temporary storage for a few seconds (just in case) before being destroyed forever. We shouldn't try to get computers to process as much information as we pretend we do, we should train them to recognize what can bear to be ignored based on an overall feeling of the incoming sample.
Imagine looking at a really pixelly jpeg that has a flesh colored blob in it with two darker blobs at the center and a darker area circling around the top. Based on the hundreds of thousands of times you've seen that type of information, I'll bet you could very effectively decide which portion you'd want to increase clarity on. I'll bet we could get a computer to decide, too. And maybe you're wrong about it being a face, and it's actually a satellite photo of Hawaii in inverted colors. Then all you get is the bad stuff in temp storage or a chance to re-scan.
Are the Feds allowed to search your house if you have worthless locks? If I live in a shanty on rented property with a door that has no mechanism, is anyone allowed to see it? No, it's illegal, but you're still an idiot if you put anything valuable in there. Fortunately, the government usually has to follow the law, so I would hope they couldn't search your shanty.
I would hope the same would apply to the very poor security of private data on facebook.
I'm speculating on both counts, obviously.
This kind of thing is pretty terrifying to me and it serves as a reminder of how desperately we need good, free, public education.
Why should we believe they won't be responding to this as they respond to all the lawyers who flex at them from across the sea?
Everyone who knows something about what the Intel switch means has discussed this issue at great length. We don't need some Johnny-come-lately to come and tell us what we already know.
Michael Robertson: Search before posting!
These experiments might reveal some of the default behaviors of liquids which might in turn reveal something about their behavior in gravity. Without gravity (or G - whatever), water and oil might mix. This is kind of the basis for the perfect metal crystals experiments they did a while back and are probably still doing. (I looked for a link, but I gotta split soon.) Sub-freeze-point water flash frozen like with the metal probably doesn't behave like normal water.
I think this would be a pretty effective idea in many offices, if completely morale-crushing. It wouldn't work, certainly for programmers and other people whose jobs require internet access all the time.
Now, I know absolutely nothing about microscopic electronics, but couldn't they put teensy-weensy holes through the core of the chip and run little bitty ribbons of heat-sink through the body? Maybe little liquid-cooling bite-sized tubettes.
I mean, I understand that adding another dimension adds problems, but I'm sure it adds possibilities for more solutions as well.
I thought it was kinda silly. Besides, I've never read a slashdot post that actually made me laugh. They're mostly just humorous in theory, like when you giggle at a joke that others don't understand just so they know you're smarter than them. "That's funny because if I don't find it amusing, it means I'm not l33t."
Weighing the internet based on the number of people using it. Isn't that like weighing all ideas based on the the number of physical stimulants in the human environment, or the weight of health based on the number of insurance cards people carry around?
I'm running a 800MHz iMac G4 that's really feeling its age in other places, but spotlight is neither noticeably sprightly nor decrepit. I've seen people with slow computers posting good and bad and people with fast computers doing the same.
My guess is that faster computers tend to belong people with more ancient junk to search through, but whatever it is, Apple really ought to figure out a way to get some consistency out of their revolutionary, folder-ending idea. I wouldn't mind giving up some features in it to speed it up. Call me old fashioned, but I really don't need to remember an email I wrote a few years ago about the world's ugliest dog, and if I decide to find it, I can search for it with Mail.
Now, I was slightly interested in reading this article, but I always read a few posts before clicking anything. The posts here have actually chased me away. I want nothing to do with this article. I'm well aware of the irony of the previous sentence.
I thought most computers couldn't even support gigabit ethernet. Personally, I'd rather have wireless everywhere at my school. It probably wouldn't cost $27 million either.