It's never really a capacity issue. With enough money you can always build new fabs or you can have someone else produce for you. AMD spun off its manufacturing business into GlobalFoundries now, which aims to sell foundry capacity to anyone, so that changes the situation a bit.
That is half the problem actually. The other half is inferior designs. AMD had the shit when the 64 came out. The only way Intel could compete in benchmarks was to stick with 32bit software. Hector the Sector Director (as they allegedly called him at his previous employer) then focused on marketing and left fabrication and design underfunded. When things were already starting to look bad they borrowed a bunch of money to buy ATI. The failure to spend on manufacturing led to the situation where the only way to keep up was to spin-off and outsource fab. Unfortunately Intel is now a full process node ahead of everyone else on the planet which gives them both cost and power advantages. The failure to fund design was followed up with Bulldozer which was late and not as good as hoped. So now they have both inferior designs and manufacturing when compared to Intel.
That said, their designs are very good and should be able to compete with many others (just not Intel). But that would mean new markets for AMD, and many of the players use ARM. Even nVidia chose to use their nice gfx and license ARM to get into those markets.
If you have ISPs give everyone a fixed IP address, you get ID down to the house level. Have cell phones use fixed IP addresses too. That gets most of the world IDed fairly well and it doesn't require a fancy new API to allow a web site to pull some hardware ID from your computer - it's the same as the address they're sending data to.
Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job...
Precisely because:
... everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?
The company was asked why it shouldn't be fired. They suck and had no plan, but by firing someone they could appear to be "taking action". Buy why the guy who did something? I'm not really sure how that logic works. Probably claimed he should have found the intruders sooner - obviously it was his area to patrol since he found them (not obviously anyone else's problem). Yes yes, I'm remembering how a PHB thinks.
We know fossil fuel use is on the rise. We know the earth is getting warmer. So you HAVE to see the FACT that people are using more fuel to run their air conditioners precisely BECAUSE it's hotter these days. Warming causes increased energy usage. duh.
Your kid is alone in the kitchen. The cookie jar is (now) empty. Does his presence CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that he ate the cookies? Of course not, and a wise parent would find other evidence to draw a conclusion. But the correlation of their places in time and space, as well as a known predilection for cookies means that correlation strongly suggests an avenue of investigation (you're probably not going to start figuring out what happened by pursuing some other entirely different course).
The kid there at the time, when the cookie jar is empty implies NOTHING. Perhaps the kid is still standing around wondering what to snack on precisely BECAUSE the cookie jar is empty. You correctly identify and avenue of investigation only by pointing out that the kid has a predilection for cookies - if that were not the case, his presence in the kitchen would be irrelevant. If the other kid upstairs liked cookies and this one hates that kind of cookie, you would not say their presence together is supportive of the hypothesis that he ate them - you'd go see what the other kid is munching upstairs.
And this very nicely illustrates the point of why it's unintuitive.
By the way, in the Netherlands (where as you might now cycling is very common on the roads) the person driving the car is always liable in a car-bicycle collision. It doesn't matter if the cyclist was running a red light, it doesn't matter if it was on the wrong side of the road
So that's why people elsewhere in the discussion said the cyclists thought it was legal for them to run a red light. It seems stupid to take a risk because the other guy will be blamed, but I'm sure it has some influence on the thinking. Also, since the cars are going to be cautious you'll get in circular logic: You wonder if you should go, you look at the car - he can't tell WTF you're going to do but knows that cyclists often go in this case even though they're not supposed to, car slows down in case you're one of those guys, you see that as courtesy and go.
Seems like this rule goes too far in one direction.
Wow that sucks. I can totally see how that could happen. However, there are other solutions to your particular incident as well. The grate should have been turned 90 degrees so you would experience bumps instead of getting a wheel caught. There are other better grate designs too that might work from any direction. Biking at night is also not a great idea - it makes you less visible to drivers who typically overrun their headlights (i.e. by the time something slow or stationary comes into view it's too late). But no matter how many specific incidents we design solutions to prevent, the helmet could be helpful for all of them. That doesn't mean they need to be mandated though.
Here in Michigan they just revoked the helmet law for motorcycles...
I've lived in a few big cities in the US, and it was a common joke that you're not really a cyclist until you've been hit by a car (I went completely through a windshield).
Did you have a helmet going through that windshield?
He's not jailed for the film he's known for, so why are we hearing about it? Is he the new Lindsey Lohan? Are we going to follow him through the courts and rehab?
Quit bitching, cuz I'll bet 10:1 if you lose the tip of your finger, you'll likely not regrow it, and if you do, there will be a lot of scar tissue. If you lose a square inch of skin all at once, there WILL be extensive scarring.
Have you heard about "pig powder"? I'm still trying to figure out if it's for real, and how good it actually is. Also, from what I've been reading, it looks like scarring is a short-term patch that actually needs to be suppressed (or removed) as a prerequisite for regeneration.
Wooosh....
My comment about thinking in the shower was a way to agree with the premise of TFA. My comment about not wanting a waterproof phone for fear I'd use it in the shower was supposed to be funny due to the absurdity. However, with lots of people actually using phones on the toilet these days (WTF?) I suppose it's all too easy to think that was serious.
Somewhere between "many" and "most" innovations would happen within a decade if that person did not exist. It would be interesting speculate on which things may not have come to be - but that is another topic for another day.
The Intel Core i3 is a dual core chip. They're comparing that to an AMD Quad core chip. Sure, AMD graphics are better than Intel - you know since they bought ATI. They better look out, Intel is now a full process node ahead of the entire industry. They might catch up in graphics performance just by widening the process gap and throwing more transistors at it.
A classic example is the Kalman Filter. Devised by Kalman while he was waiting in a train station. We may not have that innovation today if he'd had an iPhone.
Looking at a magazine is outside your little closed world that you carry in your pocket. That said, I rarely see a magazine on those racks that I want to browse. But sometimes I do and read something new to me.
Just let them do whatever they want but don't provide any exemption of liability. When they are prepared to bet the company in lawsuits, then the cars is probably safe enough. Just remember, when 2 of them crash, there is not question who caused the accident/damage/death. When the company is willing to accept that responsibility I'd give them a shot.
And BTW, the reason this is easier to do today is because brake-by-wire, steer-by-wire, radar systems, etc have already been developed by the auto industry. We've had systems that can drive at highway speeds on winding dirt roads for years. Google did not lead the way - though they are now sharing the leading edge and pushing for legalization.
A compiler analogy. Until recently, register allocation was a hard problem better handled by human experts. Now there are polynomial time algorithms for handling it and compilers can do it optimally. I imagine the subtleties of layout make it a much harder problem to automate - similar to the difference between chess and go.
The proper syntax for that is (using x64 types) something like:
int a,b,z;
z = (int)(((long long)a * b) >> 32);
I'm assuming int is 32bit and long long is 64. Even though a is promoted to a larger type and also b, good compilers know that the upper half of those promoted variables are not relevant. They will then use the 32bit multiply, shift the 64bit result and store the part you need. I still do fixed point for control systems and find using 16bit signals and 32bit products is faster in C than floating point even on some embedded PPC chips - never mind the fixed point DSPs we use where the shifts cost nothing. Anyway, this syntax also worked on a HC12 compiler back in '98 or so. It's still hit or miss, but generally works on parts where this stuff is still common.
I guess we do have some indication of temperature going back a long way. But the question remains: Where do we want to go from here: Ice and Temperature data
1) We don't have temperature or arctic ice data going back even thousands of years. Never mind millions (that's CO2 data from ice cores).
2) My point was the models were predicting more floods and droughts due to warming, but just got revised LAST WEEK. i.e. we still don't know
3) Post 9-11 the spread of temperatures increased (high-low) which reveals jet contrails may be a primary cause of... something, possibly warming
4) Do you really want the glaciers to return?
5) What? Current thinking (as I understand it) is that coal is in fact dead biomass.
6) Plants grow faster with increased CO2 and IIRC die a little below 180ppm (which is where we would be without intervention).
7) Based on where we think coal came from. Oil is thought to form deep in the earth and seep upwards - hence they look for (and find) it under large geologic formations that trap it. Not sure why agreeing with the oil companies on its origin makes me a moron;-)
8) Point is, the earth was just find when it was substantially warmer.
9) Point was that less ice in the arctic has probably happened before and is therefore not a "planetary emergency" as TFA says.
10) Agreed.
11) Texas should be under water... no, just kidding. Your anecdote is no more valuable than mine;-) Perhaps you guys should plant trees instead of cattle.
1) We don't really have data over a very long time.
2) Just last week I read that climate models had been using positive feedback to predict moisture (rain and drought) where in fact negative would be more accurate.
3) We know air traffic has an immediate affect on weather but nobody talks about that. (including temperature variations)
4) We are in an inter-glacial period and no one knows exactly how far the ice is supposed to recede.
5) Had CO levels not been elevated by our actions, plant life would soon die - it's been decreasing for millions of years.
6) CO2 helps plants grow. Which will also take it out of the atmosphere.
7) Coal is essentially compressed biomass. Burning it will put it back in the biosphere where it was historically. (not true of oil).
8) The prehistoric record shows significant vegetation (rainforest?) at higher latitudes - like Montana.
9) There is evidence that the northwest passage has been clear at some points in the last 1000 years. So this may not be new.
10) Alarmist articles bring eyeballs and ad-click revenue.
Besides, last winter was mild in Michigan, and I liked it that way. OTOH, I predict a much colder one this year.
Slashdot Mirror
That is half the problem actually. The other half is inferior designs. AMD had the shit when the 64 came out. The only way Intel could compete in benchmarks was to stick with 32bit software. Hector the Sector Director (as they allegedly called him at his previous employer) then focused on marketing and left fabrication and design underfunded. When things were already starting to look bad they borrowed a bunch of money to buy ATI. The failure to spend on manufacturing led to the situation where the only way to keep up was to spin-off and outsource fab. Unfortunately Intel is now a full process node ahead of everyone else on the planet which gives them both cost and power advantages. The failure to fund design was followed up with Bulldozer which was late and not as good as hoped. So now they have both inferior designs and manufacturing when compared to Intel.
That said, their designs are very good and should be able to compete with many others (just not Intel). But that would mean new markets for AMD, and many of the players use ARM. Even nVidia chose to use their nice gfx and license ARM to get into those markets.
It's simpler than trying to associate you with your graphics card.
If you have ISPs give everyone a fixed IP address, you get ID down to the house level. Have cell phones use fixed IP addresses too. That gets most of the world IDed fairly well and it doesn't require a fancy new API to allow a web site to pull some hardware ID from your computer - it's the same as the address they're sending data to.
Precisely because:
The company was asked why it shouldn't be fired. They suck and had no plan, but by firing someone they could appear to be "taking action". Buy why the guy who did something? I'm not really sure how that logic works. Probably claimed he should have found the intruders sooner - obviously it was his area to patrol since he found them (not obviously anyone else's problem). Yes yes, I'm remembering how a PHB thinks.
We know fossil fuel use is on the rise. We know the earth is getting warmer. So you HAVE to see the FACT that people are using more fuel to run their air conditioners precisely BECAUSE it's hotter these days. Warming causes increased energy usage. duh.
That was a joke son, I'm not trolling....
The kid there at the time, when the cookie jar is empty implies NOTHING. Perhaps the kid is still standing around wondering what to snack on precisely BECAUSE the cookie jar is empty. You correctly identify and avenue of investigation only by pointing out that the kid has a predilection for cookies - if that were not the case, his presence in the kitchen would be irrelevant. If the other kid upstairs liked cookies and this one hates that kind of cookie, you would not say their presence together is supportive of the hypothesis that he ate them - you'd go see what the other kid is munching upstairs.
And this very nicely illustrates the point of why it's unintuitive.
Except there is so much of a 3d printer that it can't print. A CNC can make circuit boards, motor parts, frame pieces and some others.
IMHO CNC is more likely to be self replicating - you can cut motor laminations ;-)
So that's why people elsewhere in the discussion said the cyclists thought it was legal for them to run a red light. It seems stupid to take a risk because the other guy will be blamed, but I'm sure it has some influence on the thinking. Also, since the cars are going to be cautious you'll get in circular logic: You wonder if you should go, you look at the car - he can't tell WTF you're going to do but knows that cyclists often go in this case even though they're not supposed to, car slows down in case you're one of those guys, you see that as courtesy and go.
Seems like this rule goes too far in one direction.
Wow that sucks. I can totally see how that could happen. However, there are other solutions to your particular incident as well. The grate should have been turned 90 degrees so you would experience bumps instead of getting a wheel caught. There are other better grate designs too that might work from any direction. Biking at night is also not a great idea - it makes you less visible to drivers who typically overrun their headlights (i.e. by the time something slow or stationary comes into view it's too late). But no matter how many specific incidents we design solutions to prevent, the helmet could be helpful for all of them. That doesn't mean they need to be mandated though.
Here in Michigan they just revoked the helmet law for motorcycles...
Did you have a helmet going through that windshield?
He's not jailed for the film he's known for, so why are we hearing about it? Is he the new Lindsey Lohan? Are we going to follow him through the courts and rehab?
Have you heard about "pig powder"? I'm still trying to figure out if it's for real, and how good it actually is. Also, from what I've been reading, it looks like scarring is a short-term patch that actually needs to be suppressed (or removed) as a prerequisite for regeneration.
Wooosh....
My comment about thinking in the shower was a way to agree with the premise of TFA. My comment about not wanting a waterproof phone for fear I'd use it in the shower was supposed to be funny due to the absurdity. However, with lots of people actually using phones on the toilet these days (WTF?) I suppose it's all too easy to think that was serious.
Somewhere between "many" and "most" innovations would happen within a decade if that person did not exist. It would be interesting speculate on which things may not have come to be - but that is another topic for another day.
The Intel Core i3 is a dual core chip. They're comparing that to an AMD Quad core chip. Sure, AMD graphics are better than Intel - you know since they bought ATI. They better look out, Intel is now a full process node ahead of the entire industry. They might catch up in graphics performance just by widening the process gap and throwing more transistors at it.
A classic example is the Kalman Filter. Devised by Kalman while he was waiting in a train station. We may not have that innovation today if he'd had an iPhone.
I get a lot of my most useful ideas in the shower. So lets hope they don't make a waterproof phone or I will stop innovating all together.
Looking at a magazine is outside your little closed world that you carry in your pocket. That said, I rarely see a magazine on those racks that I want to browse. But sometimes I do and read something new to me.
Just let them do whatever they want but don't provide any exemption of liability. When they are prepared to bet the company in lawsuits, then the cars is probably safe enough. Just remember, when 2 of them crash, there is not question who caused the accident/damage/death. When the company is willing to accept that responsibility I'd give them a shot.
And BTW, the reason this is easier to do today is because brake-by-wire, steer-by-wire, radar systems, etc have already been developed by the auto industry. We've had systems that can drive at highway speeds on winding dirt roads for years. Google did not lead the way - though they are now sharing the leading edge and pushing for legalization.
A compiler analogy. Until recently, register allocation was a hard problem better handled by human experts. Now there are polynomial time algorithms for handling it and compilers can do it optimally. I imagine the subtleties of layout make it a much harder problem to automate - similar to the difference between chess and go.
The proper syntax for that is (using x64 types) something like:
int a,b,z;
z = (int)(((long long)a * b) >> 32);
I'm assuming int is 32bit and long long is 64. Even though a is promoted to a larger type and also b, good compilers know that the upper half of those promoted variables are not relevant. They will then use the 32bit multiply, shift the 64bit result and store the part you need. I still do fixed point for control systems and find using 16bit signals and 32bit products is faster in C than floating point even on some embedded PPC chips - never mind the fixed point DSPs we use where the shifts cost nothing. Anyway, this syntax also worked on a HC12 compiler back in '98 or so. It's still hit or miss, but generally works on parts where this stuff is still common.
I guess we do have some indication of temperature going back a long way. But the question remains: Where do we want to go from here:
Ice and Temperature data
1) We don't have temperature or arctic ice data going back even thousands of years. Never mind millions (that's CO2 data from ice cores). ;-) ;-) Perhaps you guys should plant trees instead of cattle.
2) My point was the models were predicting more floods and droughts due to warming, but just got revised LAST WEEK. i.e. we still don't know
3) Post 9-11 the spread of temperatures increased (high-low) which reveals jet contrails may be a primary cause of... something, possibly warming
4) Do you really want the glaciers to return?
5) What? Current thinking (as I understand it) is that coal is in fact dead biomass.
6) Plants grow faster with increased CO2 and IIRC die a little below 180ppm (which is where we would be without intervention).
7) Based on where we think coal came from. Oil is thought to form deep in the earth and seep upwards - hence they look for (and find) it under large geologic formations that trap it. Not sure why agreeing with the oil companies on its origin makes me a moron
8) Point is, the earth was just find when it was substantially warmer.
9) Point was that less ice in the arctic has probably happened before and is therefore not a "planetary emergency" as TFA says.
10) Agreed.
11) Texas should be under water... no, just kidding. Your anecdote is no more valuable than mine
1) We don't really have data over a very long time.
2) Just last week I read that climate models had been using positive feedback to predict moisture (rain and drought) where in fact negative would be more accurate.
3) We know air traffic has an immediate affect on weather but nobody talks about that. (including temperature variations)
4) We are in an inter-glacial period and no one knows exactly how far the ice is supposed to recede.
5) Had CO levels not been elevated by our actions, plant life would soon die - it's been decreasing for millions of years.
6) CO2 helps plants grow. Which will also take it out of the atmosphere.
7) Coal is essentially compressed biomass. Burning it will put it back in the biosphere where it was historically. (not true of oil).
8) The prehistoric record shows significant vegetation (rainforest?) at higher latitudes - like Montana.
9) There is evidence that the northwest passage has been clear at some points in the last 1000 years. So this may not be new.
10) Alarmist articles bring eyeballs and ad-click revenue.
Besides, last winter was mild in Michigan, and I liked it that way. OTOH, I predict a much colder one this year.