True that no matter which wins, there are going to be IBM chips in them. But they're all interesting chips -- meaning non-Intel. And IBM (and the other fabricators) will sell bizzillions of them, and that should drive the cost of them down.
So a few questions:
When will we see these chips getting cheap enough to use as PCs? (How many years of production will it take to make these $100 CPUs.)
Will people want that? They're optimized for games, and while there will be Linux ports for all of them, will they be good performers? I'm especially wondering about the Nintendo chip, as it looks like it'll be the cheapest soonest. There is already a Linux port for Gamecube -- so a cheap general purpose motherboard would be not absurdly hard to market with Linux. Are there reasons to do this?
Seems like Cell is unstoppable, if the PS3 takes off -- it's a pain in the butt to program, but CGI folks will put up with the pain to use its horsepower.
The Power chip in the Xbox must be a good general purpose CPU -- it's from a long line of such chips. Could cheap Power chips made in the bizzillions get us interested in Power desktops and Power commodity servers?
Is there ANY such path for the Broadway chips? Are they generally useful enough to run, say, Openoffice well?
We learn so much from damage. In this case it's not so much about cutting as decay, ok, but it's the same concept. You know, of course, that we learned a huge amount about brain modularity and function during the Russo-Japanese war (you know, the hundred-somethingth Japanese invasion of Korea) because bullets were getting smaller and starting to go through heads without killing people.
Emacs is the way to go. The debugger can be run as an X app, rather than running it within emacs. Avoid the X version of emacs. In the first few weeks, your productivity will be VERY low. In a few months, you'll wonder how you ever used the IDE.
Macros and incredible keyboard support mean being able to accomplish a huge amount very quickly. Not having the IDE do things for you mean you'll understand the code much better under Emacs.
Using Emacs make it possible for you to be a better programmer. But if you're happy in an IDE, you may not want to know your code and improve as a programmer. Honestly, there's a desired level of work/knowledge. You may not want to go beyond that -- if so, try myEclipse.
What made the original series good, and ALL the subsequent ones uneven to mediocre (and mostly starting off bad), was that Trek had a focus on characters, writing, conflict and human resolution of problems.
The spaceship was the least important part of Trek.
And on another theme, the knobs were made of WOOD. They didn't turn, or push or anything. Shatner is sitting in that chair pressing painted squares of WOOD.
So, they spend money making the outside shots of the Enterprise cool CGI. Great. Good idea. Fine.
As horrifying as this is for her, I don't disagree with the judgement.
But this never happens to big companies who do this sort of thing ALL the time. Obfuscation, evidence tampering/hiding, and perjury: it's never dealt with severely, and a judement like this would be (practically) unheard of.
With a small number of exceptions, the civil legal system works, today, for the rich and the encorporated. He who has the most money wins.
Not so sure. Microsoft has (at least in past) had it's eyes on media distribution ala Apple, and buying up content themselves. They make play nice with the media folk because they want to partner with them in future.
(And screw them, break the partnership, be found with suspiciously similar IP, get sued, and then just grind everyone down with lawyers and stalling -- they do that by reflex, I gather.)
Jerry Levy (one of my favorite psychologists) has an interesting theory about dolphins and how dumber they are then people expect. Intelligence tests do find that the big-brained dolphins are not anywhere near as clever as they ought to be judging by brain size.
Humans have a great big corpus collousum -- it keeps both hemispheres of the brain at the same activation level. When we sleep, both sides function in unison -- I think we're talking deep sleep, here, not REM, where the two hemispheres are both active.
Dolphins cannot sleep for long. They need to breath, which means coming up for air, and so the corpus callousum of the dolphin is small -- the two hemispheres do NOT have the same activation. One goes flat while the other stays active. Hence, the dolphin is only really effectively using about half his brain at any time.
And hence, the dolphin is only half as smart as you'd expect per the brain size.
If you make a lot of local money, and it's not a lot nationally, you will live well where you are but find your savings are not enough to allow you to MOVE. So low pay/high value locations are a trap -- not necessarily a bad one, but they make you vulnerable.
It can be better (financially) to work in New York, make scads of money, pay 90% of it on rent, and stockpile savings. This allows you to things: savings for mobility and the ability to buy mail-order.
'Cause remember: if you live in the cheapest place in the world, Larry's Online Computer World is going to charge you the same thing for that monitor as he charges some poor person making five times what you do in New York City.
From the article, I have to both agree with what you say and disagree -- yes, they're trying and testing (I agree) but that's absurd in this context, because no test you ever do will tell you what shape this little fella was. (Short of cloning, growing up and looking.)
What they're doing is showing what a neat little design their model is. The question is A and they're testing B. No matter how interesting B is, it's A you need to look at, and that's almost pointless, because there's no way to test B. Testing A nicely doesn't make it relevant.
A famous (I'll leave off her name, but her work appears in most basic psychology texts) was in a talk once where a a linguist was proposing a theory about the cognitive functions of languange. When she asked what made him think this theory was correct, he responded that the theory was elegant. Her response: "I can come up with eight theories to explain this while sitting on the toilet. How do you KNOW?" He had no aspects which could be tested. His theory had no less nor no more value than "God works us like puppets."
Neither do these folks. They know that the shape they came up with is cool, and it's possible that the thing was shaped this way. But they'll never know. They have no tests. This ain't science -- it's a computational exercise, with cool pictures.
Stop. Really. Don't keep asking "Is he right? Will we need them? Will we never need them?", because he's wrong.
Not because they're technically necessary to do what we need now, but because the SECOND he says this, the Crow Dinner Machine engges and slowly starts to turn. He'll be wrong. Spectacularly wrong. And not in the far distant future.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
etc.
He's toast. Look for machines with 37 and a hlaf cores in a few years. And they'll be AMD or Cell, with Intel playing catch-up. Not for reasonable technical reasons, but because that's just how such look-at-the-world-now-and-expect-things-to-stay-th e-same statements always work. Once we get 4 cores, we'll do things that are new and weird and 8 cores will do them better.
You're asking Slashdot, which means you're a geek. Which means you probably need paragraph one. If for some strange reason, you don't need paragraph one, ignore it and go to two. The reason for both paragraphs is that money is valueless: you make it have value by using it, and your ultimate aim is always (sometimes indirectly) your happiness.
1. You don't have a girlfriend. Buy one, and buy the ability to get another, so you have confidence because you can replace her if she goes. If you have confidence, she's more likely to stay, anyhow. That is, spend money on DANCING LESSONS and CLOTHES. Get some female friends to help you with this (not just one) -- learn how to dress. You can afford it. But the cheaper things which the girls advise you to. Note that girls don't understand what they want much better than you do, but they know what they like to see. You'll have to learn to behave on your own, but nice cloths and dancing will get you the positive interactions you need so that you can learn. You'd get all this anyhow, later in life, but you'll be happier if you learn this stuff earlier, and you can afford to.
2. OK, #1 was optional but this is not. There are transaction costs associated with all investments. You don't understand them. For instance buying a small amount of stock is usually nuts, as the transaction costs of buying and selling eat any profit. This one's obvious, but there are lots of little thigns to learn. SO: allocate a small amount of money to learn with. Play with it. The skills you learn now will help you later. Put some of it in something you can get out of at a reasonable place. For instance, half in a one-year CD, half in something shorter term, depending on what you think you'll need. (You'll screw up on that -- don't worry, it's the learning process.) The rest of it, the stuff you know you don't need ever (as much or as little of that as there is), buy into a mutual fund and forget about it. The deal is that you want to put this money away and forget about it for 40 years -- you won't though. Whatever fund you pick, you'll kick yourself, and after a few years of watching it and considering, you'll know much better where to put it. But invest SOME now. You're gaining a doubling by starting now, and not when you're established.
(BTW allocate $10k for when you have a child. Put that $10k in a fund for the child's retirement when it's born. You'll never have to worry about it ending up poor.)
If I draw a picture of a squished thing which is different from previous pictures of a squished thing -- you know, something no one will ever be able to verify -- can I get an article about my pretty picture, too? It'd look good on my grant applications.
It's possible to say everything siad in this article -- vaugely, as it is said in this article -- and be right, and yet still dance around the reality.
C's faster than Java. It will probably always generally be so, unless you're trying to run C code on a hardware Java box.
This article says Java, for example, CAN be faster. But it doesn't say "C is almost always faster than Java or Fortran, usually faster than ADA, and C can be mangled (in the form of D Digital Mars, for instance) to be faster than C usually is. Often, Java is a pig, compared to C, BUT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT ISN'T. Really. There are times, few and far between, when it's actually, get this, FASTER. It's fun to look for those few times. And if you write programs which do that, that'd be cool. And as processors get wackier and wackier, there will be more and more times where this is true. Meanwhile, if your developers write good code, Java's easier to develop in and debug." Which would be more completely correct.
Excuse, me, now. I have to go back to my perl programming.
No, what they SAY is "The proof is in the pudding" --
From google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 326,000 for "the proof is in the pudding". (0.47 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 118,000 for "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" [definition]. (0.30 seconds)
They're not right, of course, but then, sadly, you're not either, since what people say has changed. It's changed to something nonsensical, which people quote without understanding, which is annoying, like "I could care less!":
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,180,000 for "I could care less". (0.28 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 776,000 for "I couldn't care less". (0.22 seconds)
But "the proof is in the pudding" kind of rolls off the tongue better... like a pudding which tastes nasty and you are therefore gently, but suavely, spitting out.
Buy all this crap that you're seeing mentioned -- some of it will be good, I'm sure. But start by getting her a good chair -- one with back support and NO ARMS. A stenno chair. A strong, well made one (Hint: You CANNOT find one at Office Max) will cost about $200-$250.
At the same time, measure her desk. Her arms should be at 90 degree angles. It's very possible she's typing at a writing height desk. That means her shoulders are up, and her arms are stretched out. The solution is not jacking up her cahir or giving her a box for her feet, it's getting her the right desk for the job. Spend some money on her. Get on with a corner facing her which is well rounded, and with supports that let you set the desk height for her.
Work on that stuff at the same time as all the nifty gadgets.
Meanwhile, unless she's allergic to it, she should start taking ibuprofen in reasonable quantities.
Remember how RSI's work. Every day you do damage to yourself. Every night you heal. When the damage exceeds the healing, you get worse and worse. When the healing exceeds the damage, you get better and better. You don't need to fix things in a day. Making things somewhat better will (over time) make the problem go away.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make it MUCH better, very quickly. Just that ultimately, things are going to be ok, and she need not worry that this is going to happen for a long time, so long as the trend, after all the two of you do to help the situation, is always toward less pain. If that's the trend, then soon there will be no pain.
We've had so many stories about the PS3, and I'm excited because of the Cell chips, but with all this chatter, HAS ANYONE SEEN A DEMO?
Does the thing work, yet? Are there any games people have seen running? Are the graphics or the smarts or the complexity really beyond the 360? Is it all simulation for design, still, or is there a PS3 that basically works that people have seen, and is it stunning?
The problem isn't that he thinks of the Internet as tubes. It's not as bad an analogy as I've heard before. And he's right that the tubes do get clogged.
What's wrong here is that they DIDN'T get clogged such that the slowed down that email of his. And he misunderstands what keeps those tubes wide and flowing.
These problems go together. The internet has a lot of capactity, and works pretty darn well (unlike his the mail/dns/anti-virus servers that delayed his email). It got that way because providing a good pipe was profitable to the companies involved. Allowing them to double bill makes it unnecessary for them to maintain this capacity for anyone but double paying customers. It takes the profit away from providing a good service and puts it into... well, a protection scheme, really, but let's come up with a better word. How about "a monopolistic pricing scheme."
His email (if it really had been delayed in clogged tubes) will take longer to arrive, in the future.
Darn. At first I thought this thing was "Super Models Compute Corona's Sun Dynamics" which would, of course, have looked a lot like the gasoline fight from Zoolander, but with less clothing and without as much of a fireball.
I object to this strongly. AT&T was a knight in shining armour compared to SBC, who is now the real company behind the AT&T name. This is nothing but pure greed and a feeling that neither social concience nor obligations of promises apply to them on the part of _SBC_. AT&T behaved better than these horrible vermin even on their worst days.
When 1gb/s of traffic goes down a 2gb/s pipe, we're all happy. If it's Qwest's pipe, then they'd like more traffic, or may think this is over-engineered, but there's no outage.
If we start paying a premium for some bandwidth, then a 2gb/s pipe may have 1gb/s of premium paying traffic on it, and all the receivers of that traffic will be happy. But there also might be 100gb/s of non-premium paying traffic. From the carrier's standpoint, that's not a problem. Who cares if other traffic can't get through? The traffic which makes money can, so there's no reason to upgrade.
Like your Internet the way it is now? Good, because without network neutrality, it's not going to change AT ALL. It'll never get upgraded, unless someone is willing to pay for more premium traffic on it.
I wrote Illinois Senator Dick Durbin about this and got a message back, which I'll include below. Take a look at how he fairly carefully doesn't say what his real stand is.
Durbin has taken $37,000 in the past 6 years from telco PACs. Not a fortune, but might cause him to vote to favor Bill Daley, brother to the mayor of Chicago and shill for SBC ne AT&T.
- - -
Durbin's Office Wrote:
Thank you for contacting me about taxing Internet access and regulating Internet content delivery. I appreciate hearing from you.
The Senate Commerce Committee is currently considering the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S. 2686). This measure would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to report annually to Congress on whether consumer use of the Internet is being affected by changes in how Internet traffic is processed and in the relationships between Internet service providers and content providers. If the FCC finds significant problems, it would be required to recommend appropriate legislation.
This language is one small step toward net neutrality, a principle holding that Internet access providers should not be permitted to engage in favoritism when configuring their networks and delivering Internet content. Such favoritism could occur if a provider transmitted its own offerings at faster speeds than those of its competitors or if a provider charged digital content and application companies a fee for equally fast delivery.
This issue has gained attention recently as several telecommunications company executives have made statements raising concerns that delivery may be impaired for content providers unwilling to pay additional fees for fast transmission. Many of these executives later clarified that they have no intention of degrading or blocking other traffic, particularly if it might prompt customers to switch to other providers, but merely wish to offer video delivery to their own customer base at a premium service level unavailable to non-paying competitors. Some in the industry have favorably compared additional network performance tiers to airlines selling coach and business class tickets or package delivery companies offering ground and air service. Other observers have expressed concern about the impact of such steps on consumers.
Proponents of network neutrality - including major Internet content providers, hardware and software companies, and consumer groups - point to the money that operators already receive from end user and content provider access fees, the technological innovation that network neutrality may encourage, and the lack of high-speed Internet access marketplace competition, which leaves consumers in much of the country with little opportunity to switch providers if their current provider were to engage in "bit discrimination" against the services or applications preferred by consumers.
Opponents of network neutrality argue that a regime prohibiting bit discrimination would deny network operators the opportunity to differentiate their services from other providers, thereby stifling the incentive to create innovative content for their customers. They also argue that network operators may face greater difficulties in raising the funding necessary for planned infrastructure upgrades if the improved network speeds would benefit their competitors as much as themselves.
S. 2686 would also change federal law so that the government's Universal Service Fund is supported by every "communications service provider" in the United States instead of every "telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services," as is currently the case. The bill would establish a "Broadband for Unserved Areas Account" within the Universal Service Fund to help pay for the deployment of broadband Internet service in areas that currently do not have broadband service.
Since Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1934, the federal government has sought to ensure acc
I'm very glad you posted this. Here we actually get some numbers.
Whether they hit the targets or not is unknown, but they're looking for "three orders of mgnitude greater than batteries" (that's 1000 times) in the power density area.
Which means way more than replacing batteries with capacitors. It means tiny little capacitors replacing big batteries. Electric cars are HEAVY because of those batteries. These would be much lighter. Electric cars would go from the putzing around power level to a sports car power level by default.
It would change our assumptions about a lot of things.
Slashdot Mirror
True that no matter which wins, there are going to be IBM chips in them. But they're all interesting chips -- meaning non-Intel. And IBM (and the other fabricators) will sell bizzillions of them, and that should drive the cost of them down.
So a few questions:
When will we see these chips getting cheap enough to use as PCs? (How many years of production will it take to make these $100 CPUs.)
Will people want that? They're optimized for games, and while there will be Linux ports for all of them, will they be good performers? I'm especially wondering about the Nintendo chip, as it looks like it'll be the cheapest soonest. There is already a Linux port for Gamecube -- so a cheap general purpose motherboard would be not absurdly hard to market with Linux. Are there reasons to do this?
Seems like Cell is unstoppable, if the PS3 takes off -- it's a pain in the butt to program, but CGI folks will put up with the pain to use its horsepower.
The Power chip in the Xbox must be a good general purpose CPU -- it's from a long line of such chips. Could cheap Power chips made in the bizzillions get us interested in Power desktops and Power commodity servers?
Is there ANY such path for the Broadway chips? Are they generally useful enough to run, say, Openoffice well?
We learn so much from damage. In this case it's not so much about cutting as decay, ok, but it's the same concept. You know, of course, that we learned a huge amount about brain modularity and function during the Russo-Japanese war (you know, the hundred-somethingth Japanese invasion of Korea) because bullets were getting smaller and starting to go through heads without killing people.
... a GUESS.
And this is peer review? How many copies of this do their peers have?
Emacs is the way to go. The debugger can be run as an X app, rather than running it within emacs. Avoid the X version of emacs. In the first few weeks, your productivity will be VERY low. In a few months, you'll wonder how you ever used the IDE.
Macros and incredible keyboard support mean being able to accomplish a huge amount very quickly. Not having the IDE do things for you mean you'll understand the code much better under Emacs.
Using Emacs make it possible for you to be a better programmer. But if you're happy in an IDE, you may not want to know your code and improve as a programmer. Honestly, there's a desired level of work/knowledge. You may not want to go beyond that -- if so, try myEclipse.
What made the original series good, and ALL the subsequent ones uneven to mediocre (and mostly starting off bad), was that Trek had a focus on characters, writing, conflict and human resolution of problems.
The spaceship was the least important part of Trek.
And on another theme, the knobs were made of WOOD. They didn't turn, or push or anything. Shatner is sitting in that chair pressing painted squares of WOOD.
So, they spend money making the outside shots of the Enterprise cool CGI. Great. Good idea. Fine.
As horrifying as this is for her, I don't disagree with the judgement.
But this never happens to big companies who do this sort of thing ALL the time. Obfuscation, evidence tampering/hiding, and perjury: it's never dealt with severely, and a judement like this would be (practically) unheard of.
With a small number of exceptions, the civil legal system works, today, for the rich and the encorporated. He who has the most money wins.
(And screw them, break the partnership, be found with suspiciously similar IP, get sued, and then just grind everyone down with lawyers and stalling -- they do that by reflex, I gather.)
Jerry Levy (one of my favorite psychologists) has an interesting theory about dolphins and how dumber they are then people expect. Intelligence tests do find that the big-brained dolphins are not anywhere near as clever as they ought to be judging by brain size.
Humans have a great big corpus collousum -- it keeps both hemispheres of the brain at the same activation level. When we sleep, both sides function in unison -- I think we're talking deep sleep, here, not REM, where the two hemispheres are both active.
Dolphins cannot sleep for long. They need to breath, which means coming up for air, and so the corpus callousum of the dolphin is small -- the two hemispheres do NOT have the same activation. One goes flat while the other stays active. Hence, the dolphin is only really effectively using about half his brain at any time.
And hence, the dolphin is only half as smart as you'd expect per the brain size.
I'm a little reminded of the Judge from Buffy. Pieces scattered around the world. For security. This seems like a better application of the technique.
If you make a lot of local money, and it's not a lot nationally, you will live well where you are but find your savings are not enough to allow you to MOVE. So low pay/high value locations are a trap -- not necessarily a bad one, but they make you vulnerable.
It can be better (financially) to work in New York, make scads of money, pay 90% of it on rent, and stockpile savings. This allows you to things: savings for mobility and the ability to buy mail-order.
'Cause remember: if you live in the cheapest place in the world, Larry's Online Computer World is going to charge you the same thing for that monitor as he charges some poor person making five times what you do in New York City.
From the article, I have to both agree with what you say and disagree -- yes, they're trying and testing (I agree) but that's absurd in this context, because no test you ever do will tell you what shape this little fella was. (Short of cloning, growing up and looking.)
What they're doing is showing what a neat little design their model is. The question is A and they're testing B. No matter how interesting B is, it's A you need to look at, and that's almost pointless, because there's no way to test B. Testing A nicely doesn't make it relevant.
A famous (I'll leave off her name, but her work appears in most basic psychology texts) was in a talk once where a a linguist was proposing a theory about the cognitive functions of languange. When she asked what made him think this theory was correct, he responded that the theory was elegant. Her response: "I can come up with eight theories to explain this while sitting on the toilet. How do you KNOW?" He had no aspects which could be tested. His theory had no less nor no more value than "God works us like puppets."
Neither do these folks. They know that the shape they came up with is cool, and it's possible that the thing was shaped this way. But they'll never know. They have no tests. This ain't science -- it's a computational exercise, with cool pictures.
Stop. Really. Don't keep asking "Is he right? Will we need them? Will we never need them?", because he's wrong.
h e-same statements always work. Once we get 4 cores, we'll do things that are new and weird and 8 cores will do them better.
Not because they're technically necessary to do what we need now, but because the SECOND he says this, the Crow Dinner Machine engges and slowly starts to turn. He'll be wrong. Spectacularly wrong. And not in the far distant future.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
etc.
He's toast. Look for machines with 37 and a hlaf cores in a few years. And they'll be AMD or Cell, with Intel playing catch-up. Not for reasonable technical reasons, but because that's just how such look-at-the-world-now-and-expect-things-to-stay-t
He. Is. Wrong.
By defnition.
You're asking Slashdot, which means you're a geek. Which means you probably need paragraph one. If for some strange reason, you don't need paragraph one, ignore it and go to two. The reason for both paragraphs is that money is valueless: you make it have value by using it, and your ultimate aim is always (sometimes indirectly) your happiness.
1. You don't have a girlfriend. Buy one, and buy the ability to get another, so you have confidence because you can replace her if she goes. If you have confidence, she's more likely to stay, anyhow. That is, spend money on DANCING LESSONS and CLOTHES. Get some female friends to help you with this (not just one) -- learn how to dress. You can afford it. But the cheaper things which the girls advise you to. Note that girls don't understand what they want much better than you do, but they know what they like to see. You'll have to learn to behave on your own, but nice cloths and dancing will get you the positive interactions you need so that you can learn. You'd get all this anyhow, later in life, but you'll be happier if you learn this stuff earlier, and you can afford to.
2. OK, #1 was optional but this is not. There are transaction costs associated with all investments. You don't understand them. For instance buying a small amount of stock is usually nuts, as the transaction costs of buying and selling eat any profit. This one's obvious, but there are lots of little thigns to learn. SO: allocate a small amount of money to learn with. Play with it. The skills you learn now will help you later. Put some of it in something you can get out of at a reasonable place. For instance, half in a one-year CD, half in something shorter term, depending on what you think you'll need. (You'll screw up on that -- don't worry, it's the learning process.) The rest of it, the stuff you know you don't need ever (as much or as little of that as there is), buy into a mutual fund and forget about it. The deal is that you want to put this money away and forget about it for 40 years -- you won't though. Whatever fund you pick, you'll kick yourself, and after a few years of watching it and considering, you'll know much better where to put it. But invest SOME now. You're gaining a doubling by starting now, and not when you're established.
(BTW allocate $10k for when you have a child. Put that $10k in a fund for the child's retirement when it's born. You'll never have to worry about it ending up poor.)
If I draw a picture of a squished thing which is different from previous pictures of a squished thing -- you know, something no one will ever be able to verify -- can I get an article about my pretty picture, too? It'd look good on my grant applications.
It's possible to say everything siad in this article -- vaugely, as it is said in this article -- and be right, and yet still dance around the reality.
Take a look yourself on http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
C's faster than Java. It will probably always generally be so, unless you're trying to run C code on a hardware Java box.
This article says Java, for example, CAN be faster. But it doesn't say "C is almost always faster than Java or Fortran, usually faster than ADA, and C can be mangled (in the form of D Digital Mars, for instance) to be faster than C usually is. Often, Java is a pig, compared to C, BUT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT ISN'T. Really. There are times, few and far between, when it's actually, get this, FASTER. It's fun to look for those few times. And if you write programs which do that, that'd be cool. And as processors get wackier and wackier, there will be more and more times where this is true. Meanwhile, if your developers write good code, Java's easier to develop in and debug." Which would be more completely correct.
Excuse, me, now. I have to go back to my perl programming.
No, what they SAY is "The proof is in the pudding" --
From google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 326,000 for "the proof is in the pudding". (0.47 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 118,000 for "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" [definition]. (0.30 seconds)
They're not right, of course, but then, sadly, you're not either, since what people say has changed. It's changed to something nonsensical, which people quote without understanding, which is annoying, like "I could care less!":
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,180,000 for "I could care less". (0.28 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 776,000 for "I couldn't care less". (0.22 seconds)
But "the proof is in the pudding" kind of rolls off the tongue better... like a pudding which tastes nasty and you are therefore gently, but suavely, spitting out.
Buy all this crap that you're seeing mentioned -- some of it will be good, I'm sure. But start by getting her a good chair -- one with back support and NO ARMS. A stenno chair. A strong, well made one (Hint: You CANNOT find one at Office Max) will cost about $200-$250.
At the same time, measure her desk. Her arms should be at 90 degree angles. It's very possible she's typing at a writing height desk. That means her shoulders are up, and her arms are stretched out. The solution is not jacking up her cahir or giving her a box for her feet, it's getting her the right desk for the job. Spend some money on her. Get on with a corner facing her which is well rounded, and with supports that let you set the desk height for her.
Work on that stuff at the same time as all the nifty gadgets.
Meanwhile, unless she's allergic to it, she should start taking ibuprofen in reasonable quantities.
Remember how RSI's work. Every day you do damage to yourself. Every night you heal. When the damage exceeds the healing, you get worse and worse. When the healing exceeds the damage, you get better and better. You don't need to fix things in a day. Making things somewhat better will (over time) make the problem go away.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make it MUCH better, very quickly. Just that ultimately, things are going to be ok, and she need not worry that this is going to happen for a long time, so long as the trend, after all the two of you do to help the situation, is always toward less pain. If that's the trend, then soon there will be no pain.
Here's the datasheet link: http://www.freescale.com/files/microcontrollers/do c/data_sheet/MR2A16A.pdf
We've had so many stories about the PS3, and I'm excited because of the Cell chips, but with all this chatter, HAS ANYONE SEEN A DEMO?
Does the thing work, yet? Are there any games people have seen running? Are the graphics or the smarts or the complexity really beyond the 360? Is it all simulation for design, still, or is there a PS3 that basically works that people have seen, and is it stunning?
The problem isn't that he thinks of the Internet as tubes. It's not as bad an analogy as I've heard before. And he's right that the tubes do get clogged.
What's wrong here is that they DIDN'T get clogged such that the slowed down that email of his. And he misunderstands what keeps those tubes wide and flowing.
These problems go together. The internet has a lot of capactity, and works pretty darn well (unlike his the mail/dns/anti-virus servers that delayed his email). It got that way because providing a good pipe was profitable to the companies involved. Allowing them to double bill makes it unnecessary for them to maintain this capacity for anyone but double paying customers. It takes the profit away from providing a good service and puts it into... well, a protection scheme, really, but let's come up with a better word. How about "a monopolistic pricing scheme."
His email (if it really had been delayed in clogged tubes) will take longer to arrive, in the future.
So this is either bad thinking or newspeak.
Darn. At first I thought this thing was "Super Models Compute Corona's Sun Dynamics" which would, of course, have looked a lot like the gasoline fight from Zoolander, but with less clothing and without as much of a fireball.
"this is nothing more than pure greed from AT&T"
I object to this strongly. AT&T was a knight in shining armour compared to SBC, who is now the real company behind the AT&T name. This is nothing but pure greed and a feeling that neither social concience nor obligations of promises apply to them on the part of _SBC_. AT&T behaved better than these horrible vermin even on their worst days.
When 1gb/s of traffic goes down a 2gb/s pipe, we're all happy. If it's Qwest's pipe, then they'd like more traffic, or may think this is over-engineered, but there's no outage.
If we start paying a premium for some bandwidth, then a 2gb/s pipe may have 1gb/s of premium paying traffic on it, and all the receivers of that traffic will be happy. But there also might be 100gb/s of non-premium paying traffic. From the carrier's standpoint, that's not a problem. Who cares if other traffic can't get through? The traffic which makes money can, so there's no reason to upgrade.
Like your Internet the way it is now? Good, because without network neutrality, it's not going to change AT ALL. It'll never get upgraded, unless someone is willing to pay for more premium traffic on it.
I wrote Illinois Senator Dick Durbin about this and got a message back, which I'll include below. Take a look at how he fairly carefully doesn't say what his real stand is.
Durbin has taken $37,000 in the past 6 years from telco PACs. Not a fortune, but might cause him to vote to favor Bill Daley, brother to the mayor of Chicago and shill for SBC ne AT&T.
- - -
Durbin's Office Wrote:
Thank you for contacting me about taxing Internet access and regulating Internet content delivery. I appreciate hearing from you.
The Senate Commerce Committee is currently considering the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S. 2686). This measure would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to report annually to Congress on whether consumer use of the Internet is being affected by changes in how Internet traffic is processed and in the relationships between Internet service providers and content providers. If the FCC finds significant problems, it would be required to recommend appropriate legislation.
This language is one small step toward net neutrality, a principle holding that Internet access providers should not be permitted to engage in favoritism when configuring their networks and delivering Internet content. Such favoritism could occur if a provider transmitted its own offerings at faster speeds than those of its competitors or if a provider charged digital content and application companies a fee for equally fast delivery.
This issue has gained attention recently as several telecommunications company executives have made statements raising concerns that delivery may be impaired for content providers unwilling to pay additional fees for fast transmission. Many of these executives later clarified that they have no intention of degrading or blocking other traffic, particularly if it might prompt customers to switch to other providers, but merely wish to offer video delivery to their own customer base at a premium service level unavailable to non-paying competitors. Some in the industry have favorably compared additional network performance tiers to airlines selling coach and business class tickets or package delivery companies offering ground and air service. Other observers have expressed concern about the impact of such steps on consumers.
Proponents of network neutrality - including major Internet content providers, hardware and software companies, and consumer groups - point to the money that operators already receive from end user and content provider access fees, the technological innovation that network neutrality may encourage, and the lack of high-speed Internet access marketplace competition, which leaves consumers in much of the
country with little opportunity to switch providers if their current provider were to engage in "bit discrimination" against the services or applications preferred by consumers.
Opponents of network neutrality argue that a regime prohibiting bit discrimination would deny network operators the opportunity to differentiate their services from other providers, thereby stifling the incentive to create innovative content for their customers. They also argue that network operators may face greater difficulties in raising the funding necessary for planned infrastructure upgrades if the improved network speeds would benefit their competitors as much as themselves.
S. 2686 would also change federal law so that the government's Universal Service Fund is supported by every "communications service provider" in the United States instead of every "telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services," as is currently the case. The bill would establish a "Broadband for Unserved Areas Account" within the Universal Service Fund to help pay
for the deployment of broadband Internet service in areas that currently do not have broadband service.
Since Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1934, the federal government has sought to ensure acc
I'm very glad you posted this. Here we actually get some numbers.
Whether they hit the targets or not is unknown, but they're looking for "three orders of mgnitude greater than batteries" (that's 1000 times) in the power density area.
Which means way more than replacing batteries with capacitors. It means tiny little capacitors replacing big batteries. Electric cars are HEAVY because of those batteries. These would be much lighter. Electric cars would go from the putzing around power level to a sports car power level by default.
It would change our assumptions about a lot of things.
Now, how long would these things retain a charge?