Some gains in efficiency create wealt, other ones destroy it. On a free society of rational beings, there would be investiment on the first kind, and not on the second one. When you put the government on the midle, that "free" assumption goes away, and investiment on the second kind of efficiency happens, reducing wealth.
Of course, the "rational" assumption isn't also perfect, so there is a probability that the wealth reduction is overstated.
Global warming is to be expected, but I can't honestely say that there is unquestionable visual evidence of it, at least around where I live. Rain cycles didn't show any measurable change (nothing bigger than the usual changes), sea level at the nearest coasts are within historical values, wind patterns didn't change. If it wasn't for highter temperatures, there would be no local evidence at all, and if global warming wasn't expected, it would be quite easy to explain that by some local phenomena.
That said, there is lots of evidence from far away, mainly from polar regions (I live at the tropics). Also, the place you live can be on a completely different situation, as all that is local. Anyway, global measurements of temperature and its proxies are very important, since it isn't easy to accept the evidence you point as definitive.
On a different topic, the software in question had almost no relation to the evidences of global warming. Neither did the "hokey-stick" graph, but it is easier to convince people that your measurements are real when they fit your model (go figure). The "hokey-stick" was evidence of antropogenic warming, but even then, a weak one.
No, you got that wrong. There was supposed to be an Earth-sucking black-hole. No kaboom, but maybe some high tone noise (like what comes out of old CRTs) when things start cycling it.
"Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."
Yea, right, because not questioning people may cause a strong magnetic field around one's head... People are so fast to jump to conclusions based on correlation, why did the news report that it is just a correlation when there is no way* it can't imply causation? Looks like some uninformed journalist just read the wikipedia article on logic falacies.
* Except for a flawed study, but that possibility is always present, and not directly related to the measured correlation..
That is not completely fair, very few people complain that Windows is expensive, because it is the cheaper comercial alternative (most people don't even hear about the non-comercial ones), and almost nobody buys it on a box. A sane algorith could easily put a site asking why Macs are more expensive than Windows on the top result (unless you did put the quotation around the phrase).
I run that experiment on Google. On the fisrt page there are only 2 results complaining that Windows is expensive. Most results are about Bing, and a few are about people complaining that house windows are expensive. That result complaining of Macs is also there.
"bot-generated queries often outnumbered real ones"
Yes, that is usual. Even for intranet sites. AWStats can filter most bots (your own bots you'd have to configure manualy), but I guess you used that access based hell that MS recomends to unsuspecting parties.
For me it sounds more like bad management. They make a bad product (free driver), discover that people don't want it, and since that market isn't lucrative, they ditch it away instead of accepting that their quality is lacking.
The gamers market won't last for too long if the competitors are able to put high performance professional GPUs on the market. If nothing more, the gains of scale are on the side of the ones that can fill all the ninches.
That was caused by losing some market share, rest assured, but the change is a bit deeper than that. Just ask yourself what Microsoft gains publishing IE. The answer used to be that they wated to stop the Web from developing, but now that they are losing market share they aren't able to do that anymore. So why launch a new version?
IE is now the prefered front-end of all Microsoft web services (the ones for the cloud and the ones for the LAN), owning the front end gives them the oportunity to make a much better (if they do it right, of course) interface for those products. If Microsoft strategy is to explit IE that way, one'd expect them to make it a better browser, since they want people to use it, and want people to like the products they see on it more than the ones they see on the other ones.
"If MS had built a solid OS instead of focusing on short-term profits from office lock-in they'd be what they wanted, the core of every new device."
No great OS would be able to get a monopoly-like adoption on even PC desktops. The reason is that users have disparate needs, and only lock-in can make they agree on a pltaform. A great OS has no lock-in, by definition.
See how many different distros are used just on the ninche ocupied by Linux. One company would never be able to do all those tasks equaly well.
That isn't working very well since we entered the FOSS era. MS simply can't extinguish FOSS, they can at best reprime it. And a repressed competitor will be foverever a source of costs, an extict one will not.
Well, ok, that is not the kind of enviroment I complained about. Your people probably also have a highter minimum level of competence than the places I saw that process happening.
Well, that "the uneverse reflects math" sentence implies you never tried to use a screwdriver. And how would you? We only have a hammer.
But assuming that everything is explained by math when we only have math to explain it isn't right. We still can't explain everything, have no idea on what the universe really reflects (if it does in fact reflect anything) and have several problems already with the tools we have.
And that is part of the poblem. If you make your best programmers code to the standard of the porest ones, they'll all have the same productivity. Since they have the same productivity, why do you pay more to the good programmers? Now, once you fire all but your worst programmers, things sudenly stop working and cost orders of magnitude more.
Ok, if you want to map it to the CRUD world, those optimizations could very easily save a farm of 5 $25,000 servers. And most of the time optimizations come for "free"*, one just needing to call the right function for the situation.
* That is not really free, since a developer that knows how to do that will earn a bit more. But there doesn't need to be any productivity lost, often it even increases, sometmes faster than the paying amount.
I see you understand algorithm complexity. Take a look around and count the number of people that don't fully grasp complexity but is able to count the number of loops and multiply by their complexity. Do you see any? I was never able to count more than 0.
You don't need to remember how to do all that fancy calculations you learned in undergrad, but if you didn't learn it, you wouldn't also be able to apply the simple stuf you use now.
The problem with that is that most math that is usefull for a programer won't come intuitively from physics. Of course, you can always map you favorite mechanics into information theory, or something like that, but you won't learn it at first.
"It has been found that the universe reflects math, and much discovery in the field of physics is driven by a previous understanding of mathematical principles."
Well, when you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
It's called "slashdot effect", you can search it on Wikipedia. The page is said to be "slashdoted". That happens because several people do RTFA, some of them even comment after reading (diferently from me, as I often comment before reading...)
I can see you are not a programmer. You need a course on algorithms complexity*. You'd need a helish big server.
* Or simply make the calculations on how many combinations of nearly 10k words you can fit on 15-40 pages. Make sure to calculate the log, you won't be able to deal with the full numbers. Oh, and make sure to get a scientific calculator, or you won't be able to get the full log.
Slashdot Mirror
Some gains in efficiency create wealt, other ones destroy it. On a free society of rational beings, there would be investiment on the first kind, and not on the second one. When you put the government on the midle, that "free" assumption goes away, and investiment on the second kind of efficiency happens, reducing wealth.
Of course, the "rational" assumption isn't also perfect, so there is a probability that the wealth reduction is overstated.
Global warming is to be expected, but I can't honestely say that there is unquestionable visual evidence of it, at least around where I live. Rain cycles didn't show any measurable change (nothing bigger than the usual changes), sea level at the nearest coasts are within historical values, wind patterns didn't change. If it wasn't for highter temperatures, there would be no local evidence at all, and if global warming wasn't expected, it would be quite easy to explain that by some local phenomena.
That said, there is lots of evidence from far away, mainly from polar regions (I live at the tropics). Also, the place you live can be on a completely different situation, as all that is local. Anyway, global measurements of temperature and its proxies are very important, since it isn't easy to accept the evidence you point as definitive.
On a different topic, the software in question had almost no relation to the evidences of global warming. Neither did the "hokey-stick" graph, but it is easier to convince people that your measurements are real when they fit your model (go figure). The "hokey-stick" was evidence of antropogenic warming, but even then, a weak one.
No, you got that wrong. There was supposed to be an Earth-sucking black-hole. No kaboom, but maybe some high tone noise (like what comes out of old CRTs) when things start cycling it.
Ok, but the multicamera one can work on any light.
Yea, right, because not questioning people may cause a strong magnetic field around one's head... People are so fast to jump to conclusions based on correlation, why did the news report that it is just a correlation when there is no way* it can't imply causation? Looks like some uninformed journalist just read the wikipedia article on logic falacies.
* Except for a flawed study, but that possibility is always present, and not directly related to the measured correlation..
Don't you love when most search results don't even have the word you are searching for? Google has also recently become guilt of that.
I find Google ads (the ones that show at google.com) quite usefull. Sometimes even more so than the search results. I guess more people would agree.
Microsoft!? Who would trust them to keep your information confidential?
Well, they are already Embracing the FOSS naming convention. Can't wait untill they come to the Extinguish phase!
That is not completely fair, very few people complain that Windows is expensive, because it is the cheaper comercial alternative (most people don't even hear about the non-comercial ones), and almost nobody buys it on a box. A sane algorith could easily put a site asking why Macs are more expensive than Windows on the top result (unless you did put the quotation around the phrase).
I run that experiment on Google. On the fisrt page there are only 2 results complaining that Windows is expensive. Most results are about Bing, and a few are about people complaining that house windows are expensive. That result complaining of Macs is also there.
Yes, that is usual. Even for intranet sites. AWStats can filter most bots (your own bots you'd have to configure manualy), but I guess you used that access based hell that MS recomends to unsuspecting parties.
For me it sounds more like bad management. They make a bad product (free driver), discover that people don't want it, and since that market isn't lucrative, they ditch it away instead of accepting that their quality is lacking.
The gamers market won't last for too long if the competitors are able to put high performance professional GPUs on the market. If nothing more, the gains of scale are on the side of the ones that can fill all the ninches.
The catch is that they can't stop the web anymore, and they need a half decent IE to sell Exchange, Sharepoint and their cloud services.
That was caused by losing some market share, rest assured, but the change is a bit deeper than that. Just ask yourself what Microsoft gains publishing IE. The answer used to be that they wated to stop the Web from developing, but now that they are losing market share they aren't able to do that anymore. So why launch a new version?
IE is now the prefered front-end of all Microsoft web services (the ones for the cloud and the ones for the LAN), owning the front end gives them the oportunity to make a much better (if they do it right, of course) interface for those products. If Microsoft strategy is to explit IE that way, one'd expect them to make it a better browser, since they want people to use it, and want people to like the products they see on it more than the ones they see on the other ones.
No great OS would be able to get a monopoly-like adoption on even PC desktops. The reason is that users have disparate needs, and only lock-in can make they agree on a pltaform. A great OS has no lock-in, by definition.
See how many different distros are used just on the ninche ocupied by Linux. One company would never be able to do all those tasks equaly well.
That isn't working very well since we entered the FOSS era. MS simply can't extinguish FOSS, they can at best reprime it. And a repressed competitor will be foverever a source of costs, an extict one will not.
Well, ok, that is not the kind of enviroment I complained about. Your people probably also have a highter minimum level of competence than the places I saw that process happening.
Well, that "the uneverse reflects math" sentence implies you never tried to use a screwdriver. And how would you? We only have a hammer.
But assuming that everything is explained by math when we only have math to explain it isn't right. We still can't explain everything, have no idea on what the universe really reflects (if it does in fact reflect anything) and have several problems already with the tools we have.
And that is part of the poblem. If you make your best programmers code to the standard of the porest ones, they'll all have the same productivity. Since they have the same productivity, why do you pay more to the good programmers? Now, once you fire all but your worst programmers, things sudenly stop working and cost orders of magnitude more.
Ok, if you want to map it to the CRUD world, those optimizations could very easily save a farm of 5 $25,000 servers. And most of the time optimizations come for "free"*, one just needing to call the right function for the situation.
* That is not really free, since a developer that knows how to do that will earn a bit more. But there doesn't need to be any productivity lost, often it even increases, sometmes faster than the paying amount.
I see you understand algorithm complexity. Take a look around and count the number of people that don't fully grasp complexity but is able to count the number of loops and multiply by their complexity. Do you see any? I was never able to count more than 0.
You don't need to remember how to do all that fancy calculations you learned in undergrad, but if you didn't learn it, you wouldn't also be able to apply the simple stuf you use now.
The problem with that is that most math that is usefull for a programer won't come intuitively from physics. Of course, you can always map you favorite mechanics into information theory, or something like that, but you won't learn it at first.
Well, when you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
It's called "slashdot effect", you can search it on Wikipedia. The page is said to be "slashdoted". That happens because several people do RTFA, some of them even comment after reading (diferently from me, as I often comment before reading...)
I can see you are not a programmer. You need a course on algorithms complexity*. You'd need a helish big server.
* Or simply make the calculations on how many combinations of nearly 10k words you can fit on 15-40 pages. Make sure to calculate the log, you won't be able to deal with the full numbers. Oh, and make sure to get a scientific calculator, or you won't be able to get the full log.