Actually carrying around the turds everywhere seems pretty impractical, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to just store them in a warehouse, and then transfer ownership of them back and forth? So for example when you want to pay with 10 turds at the gas station, instead of unloading them right there, you simply transfer ownership of 10 of your warehoused turds to the station, perhaps using tokens that represent them.
Cant have conservative, right wing, religious, pro capitalism or anti-socialist propaganda.
Fortunately for you, there are some wiki-based online encyclopedias that are based on exactly the opposite principle! Enjoy the god-fearing, American-flag-loving truth bombs at Conservapedia.
The average in Europe is that low mostly because of some Eastern European countries with big old Soviet power plants that sell power cheaply. The average would be considerably higher than 18,4 ct/kWh if you removed Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and the Baltic countries from the calculation.
In what year is it predicted that Germany will generate fewer kWh of power from coal than it did in, say, 2005? Will we have to wait until 2050 or something for this long-promised decrease?
Well my point is that the justification for the program is that there are areas of the U.S. economy where domestic workers just don't exist: you put out a call, it's alleged, and you get no qualified resumes. One response to that claim is to ask, "well, what are you offering?" If you're offering $60k, my first reaction is to be, well have you tried offering more? If no, then try that first, then if you still can't find anyone, come back and we can talk. A threshold is just a way of codifying that.
This is why it seems it'd be much less prone to gaming if it just had a minimum threshold, e.g. companies can sponsor an H1B for salary offers above $100k, but not for offers below that. That would automatically allocate them to areas of the economy that are actually in such high demand that salaries have been driven to high levels.
Copyright infringement actually can be a crime though. Copyright law includes both civil-law and criminal-law elements. Infringement of the civil-law portions is a tort but not a crime. On the other hand, infringement of the criminal-law portions is a crime.
Looking forward to when you'll be able to efficiently scan huge volumes of smartphone video for the interesting segments, using hardware-accelerated NOOP technology.
True, although the average person shouldn't be using that one. OneDrive for Business is, despite the name, not the same product at all, and mostly Enterprise-targeted. It's a rebranded version of Sharepoint, which is more of a full-on content-management/collaboration/etc. platform, rather than a synced drive. I'd guess that's the reason for the item limit also, since it's doing some more heavyweight import/management of each item vs. just storing them.
I tend to agree, but I'm just pointing out that you'd still have these problems even if traffic shaping were banned. If you want to avoid cases like the Comcast-Netflix one, afaict some kind of regulation of peering is needed, because otherwise companies like Comcast can just use selective peering denial as their strategy.
Outright traffic shaping part of the debate, but not the entire debate. Some of the higher-profile NN disputes have been over peering agreements, e.g. Comcast's refusal to increase its peering with Level 3, who is Netflix's provider, because of Comcast's claims that the benefit of the peering agreement is asymmetric.
The basic idea isn't new. What the paper is really claiming is new is their particular cache coherence scheme, which (to quote from the Conclusion) "supports global ordering of requests on a mesh network by decoupling the message delivery from the ordering", making it "able to address key coherence scalability concerns".
How novel and useful that is I don't know, because it's really a more specialist contribution than the headline claims, to be evaluated by people who are experts in multicore cache coherence schemes.
Yes, as usual, the MIT press release oversells the research, while the original paper [pdf] is a bit more careful in its claims. The paper makes clear that the novel contribution isn't the idea of putting "little internets" (as the press release calls them) on a chip, but acknowledges that there is already a lot of research in the area of on-chip routing between cores. The paper's contribution is to propose a new cache coherence scheme which they claim has scalability advantages over existing schemes.
Yes, despite the tech press's focus on the impact on software patents, imo this is really a case about business-method patents, and that's where it'll have the main impact. The test case in the decision is about someone who tried to patent the idea of intermediated financial settlement, by essentially adding the words "on a computer" to it. The court more or less just clarified that: 1) the basic idea of settling contracts through an intermediary is not patentable; and 2) merely doing it on a computer does not transform the nonpatentable idea into a "machine for intermediated financial settlement" that constitutes an invention.
What the court didn't comment on in this case is whether a patent making specific software-implementation claims would be valid. Their problem with this patent was precisely that it didn't claim any specific technical implementation as constituting the invention, only the really general idea of "this method... on a computer".
The "learn to code" initiatives, however, are precisely about teaching people to learn how to churn out code. They're not called "learn CS" initiatives for a reason. (And AP CS, despite the name, is more of a learn-to-code than a CS course.)
Are you sure we're both talking about high-school CS courses, here? I'm not talking about a university CS degree. I have one of those, from a very theory/math-focused school, and yes, there was virtually no programming in it. But the AP Computer Science courses in high school are not like that, and should probably be renamed to AP Programming. That's also how Google and others are promoting them (as part of these "learn to code" initiatives), which was the jumping-off point for this article.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually carrying around the turds everywhere seems pretty impractical, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to just store them in a warehouse, and then transfer ownership of them back and forth? So for example when you want to pay with 10 turds at the gas station, instead of unloading them right there, you simply transfer ownership of 10 of your warehoused turds to the station, perhaps using tokens that represent them.
Cant have conservative, right wing, religious, pro capitalism or anti-socialist propaganda.
Fortunately for you, there are some wiki-based online encyclopedias that are based on exactly the opposite principle! Enjoy the god-fearing, American-flag-loving truth bombs at Conservapedia.
Then who erected those Lenin statutes?
That's because the U.S. makes no attempt at incentivizing energy conservation through the tax system.
As I said, ex-Soviet countries...
The average in Europe is that low mostly because of some Eastern European countries with big old Soviet power plants that sell power cheaply. The average would be considerably higher than 18,4 ct/kWh if you removed Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and the Baltic countries from the calculation.
In what year is it predicted that Germany will generate fewer kWh of power from coal than it did in, say, 2005? Will we have to wait until 2050 or something for this long-promised decrease?
Well my point is that the justification for the program is that there are areas of the U.S. economy where domestic workers just don't exist: you put out a call, it's alleged, and you get no qualified resumes. One response to that claim is to ask, "well, what are you offering?" If you're offering $60k, my first reaction is to be, well have you tried offering more? If no, then try that first, then if you still can't find anyone, come back and we can talk. A threshold is just a way of codifying that.
This is why it seems it'd be much less prone to gaming if it just had a minimum threshold, e.g. companies can sponsor an H1B for salary offers above $100k, but not for offers below that. That would automatically allocate them to areas of the economy that are actually in such high demand that salaries have been driven to high levels.
Copyright infringement actually can be a crime though. Copyright law includes both civil-law and criminal-law elements. Infringement of the civil-law portions is a tort but not a crime. On the other hand, infringement of the criminal-law portions is a crime.
Looking forward to when you'll be able to efficiently scan huge volumes of smartphone video for the interesting segments, using hardware-accelerated NOOP technology.
If Jesus was so in favor of the poor, why did he spend his considerable income building a large, ornate church in Salt Lake City?
It's pretty easy for Americans to move to Mexico. Many don't even learn Spanish, living in English-speaking expat enclaves.
what about Thetans?
No word on whether Slashdot is available, though.
True, although the average person shouldn't be using that one. OneDrive for Business is, despite the name, not the same product at all, and mostly Enterprise-targeted. It's a rebranded version of Sharepoint, which is more of a full-on content-management/collaboration/etc. platform, rather than a synced drive. I'd guess that's the reason for the item limit also, since it's doing some more heavyweight import/management of each item vs. just storing them.
The U.S. does make quite a bit of industrial machinery domestically, mostly higher-end stuff. I believe it's 2nd to Germany in that market.
I tend to agree, but I'm just pointing out that you'd still have these problems even if traffic shaping were banned. If you want to avoid cases like the Comcast-Netflix one, afaict some kind of regulation of peering is needed, because otherwise companies like Comcast can just use selective peering denial as their strategy.
Outright traffic shaping part of the debate, but not the entire debate. Some of the higher-profile NN disputes have been over peering agreements, e.g. Comcast's refusal to increase its peering with Level 3, who is Netflix's provider, because of Comcast's claims that the benefit of the peering agreement is asymmetric.
The basic idea isn't new. What the paper is really claiming is new is their particular cache coherence scheme, which (to quote from the Conclusion) "supports global ordering of requests on a mesh network by decoupling the message delivery from the ordering", making it "able to address key coherence scalability concerns".
How novel and useful that is I don't know, because it's really a more specialist contribution than the headline claims, to be evaluated by people who are experts in multicore cache coherence schemes.
Yes, as usual, the MIT press release oversells the research, while the original paper [pdf] is a bit more careful in its claims. The paper makes clear that the novel contribution isn't the idea of putting "little internets" (as the press release calls them) on a chip, but acknowledges that there is already a lot of research in the area of on-chip routing between cores. The paper's contribution is to propose a new cache coherence scheme which they claim has scalability advantages over existing schemes.
Huh, 1994? This is one of those old cancelled military experiments you expect to see with a date more like 1954.
Yes, despite the tech press's focus on the impact on software patents, imo this is really a case about business-method patents, and that's where it'll have the main impact. The test case in the decision is about someone who tried to patent the idea of intermediated financial settlement, by essentially adding the words "on a computer" to it. The court more or less just clarified that: 1) the basic idea of settling contracts through an intermediary is not patentable; and 2) merely doing it on a computer does not transform the nonpatentable idea into a "machine for intermediated financial settlement" that constitutes an invention.
What the court didn't comment on in this case is whether a patent making specific software-implementation claims would be valid. Their problem with this patent was precisely that it didn't claim any specific technical implementation as constituting the invention, only the really general idea of "this method... on a computer".
The "learn to code" initiatives, however, are precisely about teaching people to learn how to churn out code. They're not called "learn CS" initiatives for a reason. (And AP CS, despite the name, is more of a learn-to-code than a CS course.)
Are you sure we're both talking about high-school CS courses, here? I'm not talking about a university CS degree. I have one of those, from a very theory/math-focused school, and yes, there was virtually no programming in it. But the AP Computer Science courses in high school are not like that, and should probably be renamed to AP Programming. That's also how Google and others are promoting them (as part of these "learn to code" initiatives), which was the jumping-off point for this article.