The practice of making smoothed wood 1/4 inch smaller than the nominal size started some time after 1870. The first national standard was set it 1924 and has been revised several times. https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf
If you want actual 2x4 dimensions, buy rough cut lumber. Often, that will require buying directly from a sawmill. Don't expect the dimensions to be exact. You will also probably get a slightly lower price than for smoothed lumber.
It isn't a question of AMD slacking off. Intel has always had a process advantage, but as physical limits are approached that advantage is diminishing. The only time AMD outperformed Intel was during Intel's netburst-RAMBUS blunder.
Intel has a financial advantage that allows it to outspend AMD 10:1 on research. As the process advantage slowly becomes history, the research advantage that gives Intel more cycles-per-clock is all that's going to be left. I think that also will diminish over time as X86 architecture becomes a solved problem with no general-purpose advances possible.
Assuming no breakthroughs or blunders, I think we'll see Intel and AMD at the same performance level in 10 to 15 years, and an end to X86-silicon progress. But I hope not.
Do you have a sports team you like? You want them to win, don't you?
Humanity is our team. We want humanity to do well, to win, and to keep on doing so.
--
Human life involves improving things, making life better for ourselves, and being proud that we've made the world better for ourselves and others. One such accomplishment to be proud of is contributing to a Mars colony. It's the human thing to do.
Living a great life is more than just doing what's useful. Be great. Reach for the stars.
Interplanetary war is difficult. What weapon do you have that is greatly different than a fighter jet in atmospheric warfare, and a spaceship is a vehicle that can't refuel - one strafing run and it's going to have to go back home.
Lasers, particle beams - to destroy a whole planet's population? Get real.
Nuclear weapons delivered by spaceship are a possibility, and could do great damage. But that still leaves the questions of "why?" and "what's to be gained?" Destroy a planet's surface and there's nothing left to rule over, and most conquerors are the sick minds that want to rule (Although there are exceptions, loonies like Kim Jong-un and jihadists.)
I'm not saying it's impossible, but tactical difficulties and persuading the population to tolerate such a war reduce the likelihood, especially for the next few centuries. Long term, perhaps we'll develop a way to prevent mental illness.
I don't like the idea of a large underground colony for survival of a really big asteroid impact. Big asteroid means big earthquakes and unpredictable lava flows. Collapse of underground structures is a real risk. You'd want multiple structures just to improve the odd of not being at ground zero.
Nothing survives any collision that's a significant fraction of the collision that created the moon. Maybe not even a moon colony.
Mars is a better bet, but much more difficult and expensive.
Exactly?
There's no long-term data, but I'd guess +/- 20% on gravity shouldn't be a problem.
For atmosphere, we're mostly interested in the partial pressure of oxygen. We need it not to be poisonous, not to have grossly too much nitrogen or other other mostly-inactive gasses (our plants do need enough to do nitrogen fixing). Denver's air pressure is only 80% of sea level, so that's not too critical.
We do have some ability to selectively absorb minerals in our diet. There are places on earth where iodine shortage is a real problem; that's not a no-go difficulty here or (likely) on other planets. A very serious problem would be a planet with high concentrations of arsenic everywhere.
Radiation - there's good evidence that the average radiation on earth is less than half optimum for maximum lifespan. On the other hand, low radiation probably isn't a terrible problem and getting additional synthetic radiation is not impossible.
Mars is a problem, but humans aren't as tender as you imagine.
Having children is already heavily government subsidized. There are tax deductions for people with children, and government spending on public education exceeds $10,000 / child-year in the US. Take away these and other subsidies and the birth rate will fall further (as more adults realize "Hey, we can't afford this.") No need for an even more draconian government.
Here's another upside for that plan. All those people complaining about losing their jobs to automation won't be able to afford professional teaching for their children, and will have to home-school them. Imagine being taught by someone who cares about you more than their salary or their next cigarette break.
The area of the Earth is 5.5 quadrillion square feet. For one trillion people, that's 5,500 square feet each. I don't want to live on a trillion-person Earth, especially if they're all poor at math.
Even the worst nuclear war that could be pulled off now wouldn't kill everyone ("We must not have a mine shaft gap!")
giant asteroids
Well, we have to look out for that one. Still, the odds are small for reasonable periods of time, and the technology to redirect or destroy a large asteroid may be less difficult than a sustaining off-earth civilization.
The claim that we're likely to run out of resources in the next hundred years is just plain silly. Do you realize just how much iron-aluminum-silicon-whatever there is in the earth? Do you understand that the energy output of the sun is in principle capable of being used to form any fuel we might decide to use? The technology to make such transformations, the methods of spaceship propulsion, and all underlying technology can be reasonably assumed to be better in 100 years than it is now.
Rushing this job will look as silly in 100 years as those people who bought home bomb shelters in 1960.
I can't say that this species should now, or ever, be allowed to contaminate any other planet. It's bad enough that it infests this one.
So you are the benevolent mastermind who knows how everything should be, who knows what constitutes contamination and infestation? You are a living being, aren't you? You need to eat and eliminate waste products.
No living creature can exist without using resources and creating byproducts that are in some way toxic. However, I encourage you to try to do so. Until you do, STFU.
About 1968, Isaac Asimov stated that at the then present rate of growth the mass of humanity would exceed the mass of the universe in 6000 years. That puts a very definite hard limit on population growth,
If you're looking for visionaries, we've had science fiction authors who have done hard thinking about space for about a century. Many of them have done their hard thinking and decided not to try to panic the general public, unlike Hawking.
There are many such groups, Muslims, Mormons, and Amish among them. Overall, religious belief is falling and even among those who claim to believe such belief is more nominal than it used to be.
Interesting comment, although I've never seen the branding claim before. Kinda stupid, given that 1) there's no definition of genetic perfection and if there were, 2) there would be at most one person in the world not genetically defective. Puts a real limit on the future of humanity.
Almost all diseases are more easily defeated with a higher vitamin C intake than can be achieved by diet alone. I think you are exaggerating his claims for vitamin C.
All conventional non-trivial definitions of god are either self-contradictory or contradict known and demonstrable facts. Contradictions do not exist in reality, therefor god is not real.
If the claims are true, there also should be a criminal trial and jail time. This is deliberate destruction of a productive enterprise for financial gain, far worse than getting drunk and smashing a few windows, or burglary, each of which would result in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Your claim is ignorant, irresponsible, and wrong.
The practice of making smoothed wood 1/4 inch smaller than the nominal size started some time after 1870. The first national standard was set it 1924 and has been revised several times. https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf
If you want actual 2x4 dimensions, buy rough cut lumber. Often, that will require buying directly from a sawmill. Don't expect the dimensions to be exact. You will also probably get a slightly lower price than for smoothed lumber.
400 x 250 = 100,000.
It isn't a question of AMD slacking off. Intel has always had a process advantage, but as physical limits are approached that advantage is diminishing. The only time AMD outperformed Intel was during Intel's netburst-RAMBUS blunder.
Intel has a financial advantage that allows it to outspend AMD 10:1 on research. As the process advantage slowly becomes history, the research advantage that gives Intel more cycles-per-clock is all that's going to be left. I think that also will diminish over time as X86 architecture becomes a solved problem with no general-purpose advances possible.
Assuming no breakthroughs or blunders, I think we'll see Intel and AMD at the same performance level in 10 to 15 years, and an end to X86-silicon progress. But I hope not.
Do you have a sports team you like? You want them to win, don't you?
Humanity is our team. We want humanity to do well, to win, and to keep on doing so.
--
Human life involves improving things, making life better for ourselves, and being proud that we've made the world better for ourselves and others. One such accomplishment to be proud of is contributing to a Mars colony. It's the human thing to do.
Living a great life is more than just doing what's useful. Be great. Reach for the stars.
Interplanetary war is difficult. What weapon do you have that is greatly different than a fighter jet in atmospheric warfare, and a spaceship is a vehicle that can't refuel - one strafing run and it's going to have to go back home.
Lasers, particle beams - to destroy a whole planet's population? Get real.
Nuclear weapons delivered by spaceship are a possibility, and could do great damage. But that still leaves the questions of "why?" and "what's to be gained?" Destroy a planet's surface and there's nothing left to rule over, and most conquerors are the sick minds that want to rule (Although there are exceptions, loonies like Kim Jong-un and jihadists.)
I'm not saying it's impossible, but tactical difficulties and persuading the population to tolerate such a war reduce the likelihood, especially for the next few centuries. Long term, perhaps we'll develop a way to prevent mental illness.
I don't like the idea of a large underground colony for survival of a really big asteroid impact. Big asteroid means big earthquakes and unpredictable lava flows. Collapse of underground structures is a real risk. You'd want multiple structures just to improve the odd of not being at ground zero.
Nothing survives any collision that's a significant fraction of the collision that created the moon. Maybe not even a moon colony.
Mars is a better bet, but much more difficult and expensive.
The name of the place is "I Like It Like That".
Come on, let me show you where it's at.
There's no long-term data, but I'd guess +/- 20% on gravity shouldn't be a problem.
For atmosphere, we're mostly interested in the partial pressure of oxygen. We need it not to be poisonous, not to have grossly too much nitrogen or other other mostly-inactive gasses (our plants do need enough to do nitrogen fixing). Denver's air pressure is only 80% of sea level, so that's not too critical.
We do have some ability to selectively absorb minerals in our diet. There are places on earth where iodine shortage is a real problem; that's not a no-go difficulty here or (likely) on other planets. A very serious problem would be a planet with high concentrations of arsenic everywhere.
Radiation - there's good evidence that the average radiation on earth is less than half optimum for maximum lifespan. On the other hand, low radiation probably isn't a terrible problem and getting additional synthetic radiation is not impossible.
Mars is a problem, but humans aren't as tender as you imagine.
How about sending Justin Bieber to Stephen Hawking?
'scuse me, Adolf, that's not a decision you get to make.
Having children is already heavily government subsidized. There are tax deductions for people with children, and government spending on public education exceeds $10,000 / child-year in the US. Take away these and other subsidies and the birth rate will fall further (as more adults realize "Hey, we can't afford this.") No need for an even more draconian government.
Here's another upside for that plan. All those people complaining about losing their jobs to automation won't be able to afford professional teaching for their children, and will have to home-school them. Imagine being taught by someone who cares about you more than their salary or their next cigarette break.
The area of the Earth is 5.5 quadrillion square feet. For one trillion people, that's 5,500 square feet each. I don't want to live on a trillion-person Earth, especially if they're all poor at math.
don't have the capability to wipe out humanity.
Even the worst nuclear war that could be pulled off now wouldn't kill everyone ("We must not have a mine shaft gap!")
Well, we have to look out for that one. Still, the odds are small for reasonable periods of time, and the technology to redirect or destroy a large asteroid may be less difficult than a sustaining off-earth civilization.
The claim that we're likely to run out of resources in the next hundred years is just plain silly. Do you realize just how much iron-aluminum-silicon-whatever there is in the earth? Do you understand that the energy output of the sun is in principle capable of being used to form any fuel we might decide to use? The technology to make such transformations, the methods of spaceship propulsion, and all underlying technology can be reasonably assumed to be better in 100 years than it is now.
Rushing this job will look as silly in 100 years as those people who bought home bomb shelters in 1960.
Life is what you make it.
One part of wisdom is balancing the concerns of today with the concerns of the future.
So you are the benevolent mastermind who knows how everything should be, who knows what constitutes contamination and infestation? You are a living being, aren't you? You need to eat and eliminate waste products.
No living creature can exist without using resources and creating byproducts that are in some way toxic. However, I encourage you to try to do so. Until you do, STFU.
About 1968, Isaac Asimov stated that at the then present rate of growth the mass of humanity would exceed the mass of the universe in 6000 years. That puts a very definite hard limit on population growth,
If you're looking for visionaries, we've had science fiction authors who have done hard thinking about space for about a century. Many of them have done their hard thinking and decided not to try to panic the general public, unlike Hawking.
There are many such groups, Muslims, Mormons, and Amish among them. Overall, religious belief is falling and even among those who claim to believe such belief is more nominal than it used to be.
Interesting comment, although I've never seen the branding claim before. Kinda stupid, given that 1) there's no definition of genetic perfection and if there were, 2) there would be at most one person in the world not genetically defective. Puts a real limit on the future of humanity.
Almost all diseases are more easily defeated with a higher vitamin C intake than can be achieved by diet alone. I think you are exaggerating his claims for vitamin C.
All conventional non-trivial definitions of god are either self-contradictory or contradict known and demonstrable facts. Contradictions do not exist in reality, therefor god is not real.
The pinball wizard reached his Peter point.
If the claims are true, there also should be a criminal trial and jail time. This is deliberate destruction of a productive enterprise for financial gain, far worse than getting drunk and smashing a few windows, or burglary, each of which would result in jail.
How happy would you be if you paid $50 per ticket for a concert, only to see a boom box and a pile of CDs on the stage?