Instead of projecting your ideas onto what somebody has written, try reading what they have written. What you are arguing against is not a varied dist.
You do not seem to have understood the comment that you have replied to. If people are eating a varied diet then they are spreading their calorie intake across different food types - not overeating carbs/sugar.
That’s quite a naive assumption. There are no proofs that it is hard to unscramble. There was a paper last year showing it is not as hard as it should be.
It will be competitive, but only on different metrics. Manual layout will win on size, performance, power efficiency etc, but the new approach will end up winning on design time. This has a larger effect on product cost and time to market for applications they are targetting.
Thanks for this - the most interesting thing I've read on slashdot in over a decade. The only point that I don't think that you covered is that as society moves further into specialized roles there are many people who simply do not rise above the threshold in any particular specialty - the statistics behind this are quite simple. Yet we need to maintain these "unproductive" people specifically so that we have a broad enough pool to avoid over-fitting what we focus on.
Just because it is possible to write good or bad code in any language does not mean that it is equally as easy to do. Some languages make it easier to write good code and some languages make it harder. This is why you should care if you use the software - choosing a language that makes it harder will make the work harder. For any project beyond a simple toy that will result in worse code and lower quality software.
In particular: * Static guarantees rule out classes of bug. * A well defined platform makes robust code possible. * Simple language semantics make it easier to reason about behaviour.
Hmm I see that you are discussing a topic completely unrelated to the agenda that I want to push. ”It generally turns out” that I can shoehorn illegal immigration into unrelated discussions.
His overall message has not changed: the rate of progress will continue at an exponential rate of increase - when one technology hits its limit and flattens out into an s-curve another will appear that allows us to jump. Hence the ”curve jumping” terminology. But silicon has hit its limit, and there is nothing far enough through its adoption cycle to act as a replacement. The overall rate of progress for processors is hitting the top of its curve rather continuing using another technology.
If we see a shift in the rate of overall progress from exponential then it blows Kurzweils predictions out of the water, they all rely on the continuation of this same trend for several more decades.
No it doesn't. You should take a look at what is happening in the fab world, but transistors have stopped getting smaller. It looks like 7nm may be the last node for silicon and it will not be working any time soon.
It's a game machine - I don't expect it to be secure, it runs Windows. Doesn't affect my point though - 4 generations later and a 55% performance increase if you're lucky in ideal circumstances, assuming that you don't patch for Spectre/Meltdown otherwise it will get slower. Yay for Moore's Law.
Remember ”curve jumping” and the continuation of Moore’s law out to the 2050s? Nah, me neither but they are classic Kurzweil. He should come round explain them to my four-year old 4770s that it is still not worth upgrading because performance has gone sideways.
If you know a backdoor to a service its value is inversely proportional to its popularity. If the service is heavily used then finding interesting information is a needle in a haystack problem. It's a pain in the ass to hire a bunch of people to go through the pile to hunt for the interesting messages.
If you ban it: the only people using it in Russia are people who believe you can't read their messages and don't want you to. Traffic analysis + backdoor is a lot easier than looking for the signal among the noise.
Dark matter was theorized to account for missing mass. If it pushes rather than pulls then it is not the missing mass. You may be thinking of dark energy...
No - I do not think that: you keep claiming that. A couple of messages ago you admitted it was something you inferred from what I actually said. So it is your claim. I do not agree that it is a reasonable inference from my claim.
But works that are put online are freely available: DRM cannot work and will be broken. My argument was that they should accept this natural state of affairs instead of trying to pretend otherwise.
I am not trying to tell people to work for me for free - this is your misunderstanding of what I have said. You've repeated it many times but you have not yet argued why you think it is valid to infer it from what I have said.
Freely available results != working for free. You keep trying to drive the same point home, but it will not fit because you are wrong. Here are some counter-examples for you:
1. Academics - freely available results, paid a salary for their work. 2. Streamers - freely available output, paid a slice of ad revenue. 3. Patreon-supported artists - have not got a clue how this works but it seems to. 4. Open-source programmers - freely available output, paid for services around it.
In each of these cases people are paid to create something that is made freely available. Your repeated assertion that making results freely available is the same as working for free is clearly wrong.
As I've already said in response to this point: you keep trying to bend my point into what you want to say. It's an interesting, though ineffective, strategy for arguing.
* I say that once people make what they have chosen to work upon available it is freely copyable. * You keep saying that people should not be able to chose what to work on, that it should be chosen for them.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding the difference? Or perhaps you do understand the difference, but it is the only way to try to make your weak line of argument work. Have you got anything else?
Slashdot Mirror
You’re confusing Vint Cerf with Al Gore. It’s easy to do, but try to remember: Al was the real inventor.
You’re not so good at reading are you?
Instead of projecting your ideas onto what somebody has written, try reading what they have written. What you are arguing against is not a varied dist.
Again, you seem to have missed the meaning of words.
“If people are eating a varied diet then they are spreading their calorie intake across different food types - not overeating carbs/sugar.”
Do you understand what varied means?
You do not seem to have understood the comment that you have replied to. If people are eating a varied diet then they are spreading their calorie intake across different food types - not overeating carbs/sugar.
You’ve never understood why the experience of being close to death is called a Near Death Experience?
That’s quite a naive assumption. There are no proofs that it is hard to unscramble. There was a paper last year showing it is not as hard as it should be.
I was not agreeing with you as you seem to assume - read it again. Duh
It will be competitive, but only on different metrics. Manual layout will win on size, performance, power efficiency etc, but the new approach will end up winning on design time. This has a larger effect on product cost and time to market for applications they are targetting.
Thanks for this - the most interesting thing I've read on slashdot in over a decade. The only point that I don't think that you covered is that as society moves further into specialized roles there are many people who simply do not rise above the threshold in any particular specialty - the statistics behind this are quite simple. Yet we need to maintain these "unproductive" people specifically so that we have a broad enough pool to avoid over-fitting what we focus on.
Just because it is possible to write good or bad code in any language does not mean that it is equally as easy to do. Some languages make it easier to write good code and some languages make it harder. This is why you should care if you use the software - choosing a language that makes it harder will make the work harder. For any project beyond a simple toy that will result in worse code and lower quality software.
In particular:
* Static guarantees rule out classes of bug.
* A well defined platform makes robust code possible.
* Simple language semantics make it easier to reason about behaviour.
How would you try and replicate the measurement over a period of time that has already passed?
Hmm I see that you are discussing a topic completely unrelated to the agenda that I want to push. ”It generally turns out” that I can shoehorn illegal immigration into unrelated discussions.
His overall message has not changed: the rate of progress will continue at an exponential rate of increase - when one technology hits its limit and flattens out into an s-curve another will appear that allows us to jump. Hence the ”curve jumping” terminology. But silicon has hit its limit, and there is nothing far enough through its adoption cycle to act as a replacement. The overall rate of progress for processors is hitting the top of its curve rather continuing using another technology.
If we see a shift in the rate of overall progress from exponential then it blows Kurzweils predictions out of the water, they all rely on the continuation of this same trend for several more decades.
No it doesn't. You should take a look at what is happening in the fab world, but transistors have stopped getting smaller. It looks like 7nm may be the last node for silicon and it will not be working any time soon.
It's a game machine - I don't expect it to be secure, it runs Windows. Doesn't affect my point though - 4 generations later and a 55% performance increase if you're lucky in ideal circumstances, assuming that you don't patch for Spectre/Meltdown otherwise it will get slower. Yay for Moore's Law.
Remember ”curve jumping” and the continuation of Moore’s law out to the 2050s? Nah, me neither but they are classic Kurzweil. He should come round explain them to my four-year old 4770s that it is still not worth upgrading because performance has gone sideways.
It depends on their motivation.
If you know a backdoor to a service its value is inversely proportional to its popularity. If the service is heavily used then finding interesting information is a needle in a haystack problem. It's a pain in the ass to hire a bunch of people to go through the pile to hunt for the interesting messages.
If you ban it: the only people using it in Russia are people who believe you can't read their messages and don't want you to. Traffic analysis + backdoor is a lot easier than looking for the signal among the noise.
Jesus, that shit spreads like a virii.
Sö yöo såy
Dark matter was theorized to account for missing mass. If it pushes rather than pulls then it is not the missing mass. You may be thinking of dark energy...
No - I do not think that: you keep claiming that. A couple of messages ago you admitted it was something you inferred from what I actually said. So it is your claim. I do not agree that it is a reasonable inference from my claim.
But works that are put online are freely available: DRM cannot work and will be broken. My argument was that they should accept this natural state of affairs instead of trying to pretend otherwise.
I am not trying to tell people to work for me for free - this is your misunderstanding of what I have said. You've repeated it many times but you have not yet argued why you think it is valid to infer it from what I have said.
Freely available results != working for free. You keep trying to drive the same point home, but it will not fit because you are wrong. Here are some counter-examples for you:
1. Academics - freely available results, paid a salary for their work.
2. Streamers - freely available output, paid a slice of ad revenue.
3. Patreon-supported artists - have not got a clue how this works but it seems to.
4. Open-source programmers - freely available output, paid for services around it.
In each of these cases people are paid to create something that is made freely available. Your repeated assertion that making results freely available is the same as working for free is clearly wrong.
You are claiming that freely available results = working for free. Why are you claiming that?
Why do you claim that you should direct my work?
It's not a claim that I've made, it is one that you have made. Why do you believe this?
As I've already said in response to this point: you keep trying to bend my point into what you want to say. It's an interesting, though ineffective, strategy for arguing.
* I say that once people make what they have chosen to work upon available it is freely copyable.
* You keep saying that people should not be able to chose what to work on, that it should be chosen for them.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding the difference? Or perhaps you do understand the difference, but it is the only way to try to make your weak line of argument work. Have you got anything else?
Exactly as explained in previous post. Are you really having trouble understanding?