I reckon it is more likely to motivate Chinese private businesses to host their mail outside China. Whatever else you might say about Chinese businessmen, they are very good at keeping their eye on the bottom line. The state sector might not be able to do that, but they are less export oriented anyway.
Actually, your title is an (admittedly exaggerated) example of how hyphens can assist readability. The hyphens make clear that you are using a compound adjective. In fact, a common error in writing is omitting hyphens when they are necessary. For example, someone writing I saw a man eating alligator probably meant I saw a man-eating alligator.
Your suggestion is difficult to disagree with, as long as there is no pleasanter solution. However, if a safe and effective "thin pill" can be developed, I (for one) would use it in preference to starving myself and depriving myself of favorite foods.
If you believe advances in lithography are no longer occurring, you are clearly unfamiliar with the huge investments attempting to bring EUVL (extreme ultra violet lithography) to production fabs. However, in another sense, you are correct that other technologies (such as plasmonics) are going to be more important in developing the future 3D chips. You have not convinced me that Intel's move is going to make it much easier for China to become leaders in these areas than Micron's R&D centers in Shanghai and Xiamen and its fab in Xian.
Perhaps. That is certainly a valid concern. However, the state of the art in this area is continually advancing very quickly. Just having an advanced fab in China does not mean that Chinese engineers are able to create the next generation chips and fabs. I think Intel's move is quite logical, and the danger of intellectual property theft not too serious in their case.
I have long respected both Samsung's commitment to R&D and the general quality of their hardware. Unfortunately, they have never quite managed to couple this with well thought out firmware and software. I hope they are intending to package best in class open source components with an intelligent framework. If so, I am sure the quality of their offerings will improve markedly.
I rather like the concept, if applied well. What usually happens now is an impatient server wanting you to order asap. This could be a boon to those who like to take their time ordering. No need for any human to be involved until the menu says your order is finalized.
It would be fascinating to know the infrastructure and methods used for storage and to process this volume of data. Presumably, they initially store everything, and then somehow process it to decide what is worth keeping as future potential blackmail material, or occasionally intelligence purposes. The scale of the task is mind boggling.
The singularity, where supercomputers can advance scientific knowledge unaided by humans, is still some way off. However, you are mistaken if you believe there have not been huge advances in scientific knowledge in the last 20 years, or if you believe the rapid pace of advancement would have been possible without the computing power that has become available to support that effort. In earth sciences, medicine, high energy physics, astronomy, meteorology and many other scientific areas, the simulation and information organization capabilities facilitated by state of the art supercomputers have been absolutely crucial.
Sometimes, availability really is critical. In that case I want to take the risk of an automatic restart before the cause is investigated. However, it is important to appreciate that the approach is risky. The restart can cause cascading errors that change a reasonably simple issue into a multi day recovery operation.
I was disappointed at how in claiming a never-ending increase in the pace of technological advancement, Kurzweil never dealt with the regulatory and consumer factors, and the whole notion of how humans perceive time in general. The wheels of government can only move so fast, and so mankind's access to radical new technology outside the lab (e.g. self-driving cars, new medical tech) must slow down to match the speed of regulatory agencies.
You make some good points. However, I believe the march towards the singularity will march inexorably forward for one (highly undesirable) reason: the insatiable appetite of the leaders of nations for power. The populations of those countries will not even be allowed to know much of what is being developed with hundreds of billions of their tax dollars, but technologies that leaders perceive could enhance their ability to dominate the world will be financed. There will be no regulation. If you want to know the state of the art in visual recognition, you should look at military applications: robot soldiers and autonomous drones. For applications of big data (especially its usefulness in widespread blackmailing activities) then, in spite of some initial missteps, look at the pervasive collection of data by the world's "intelligence agencies".
The laws against child pornography should be aimed at protecting children from exploitation, not in making morality statements. Cartoon drawings of children engaging in sex acts certainly indicate people with pretty sick imaginations, but no children are hurt in their creation or consumption. I have seen worse on walls in public washrooms.
I cannot find much detail on this, but it sounds suspiciously like well known techniques for avoiding congestion in complex systems that I learned in queuing theory over 40 years ago.
Since the source is completely unclear, most posters will blindly assume it is the fault of whichever group is their bête noire. Some favorites will likely be China, North Korea and Russia, but use your imagination folks. There is just as much evidence that it is caused by evil bankers, genetically modified foods, pedophiles or US militarism.
Considering the request to rewrite the record also required the falsification to be secret, how would we know how many times this has been done in the past. We only know that this is the first time such a request has been rejected. I personally suspect it might only have been rejected because of the large number of witnesses of the original hearing.
The knee jerk reaction, of course, is to look for a catch in anything Homeland Security is doing. However, this seems like a really good idea. Finally, they are contributing in a positive way to public safety.
Believe it or not, using 2260 terminals connected to an IBM 360 mainframe running MVT/ASP, I was able to rerun commands anywhere on the screen back in 1973!
A lot of what is in the example reminds me of a 4GL I worked with in the 1980s that had a feature called "computed fields". The idea is extremely nice conceptually, and seems to nest nicely, as well as be easily integrated with other functionality. The main problem is performance. Some pretty smart people worked on the tools, but (with the complexity of real life systems) you tend to end up with the same values being continually recalculated. It turns out that (because of the generality of the functionality, and the inability to predict when values will be updated or queried) it is extremely difficult to suppress these duplicate calculations. A typical application developer will create code that results in values being recalculated thousands of times in a single transaction. The problem is both worse and more intractable than is experienced with computed columns in spreadsheets.
They need plausible deniability, so I doubt it. There have probably been some staged accidents, and it is worth remembering that the US did bomb the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. The considered attack on the Al Jazeera world headquarters in Qatar was probably only rejected because there was no good way to make it look like an accident.
There is an assumption here that due process will be followed against those "guilty" of talking to journalists. That is naive. In US government agencies (whatever the written regulations or law might specify) only those specifically cleared to speak with the media are allowed to do so. Once it is known by the heads of those agencies that someone has broken this unwritten rule, they will get him, legal niceties be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
I reckon it is more likely to motivate Chinese private businesses to host their mail outside China. Whatever else you might say about Chinese businessmen, they are very good at keeping their eye on the bottom line. The state sector might not be able to do that, but they are less export oriented anyway.
Actually, your title is an (admittedly exaggerated) example of how hyphens can assist readability. The hyphens make clear that you are using a compound adjective. In fact, a common error in writing is omitting hyphens when they are necessary. For example, someone writing I saw a man eating alligator probably meant I saw a man-eating alligator .
From the summary:
(emphasis mine)
Your suggestion is difficult to disagree with, as long as there is no pleasanter solution. However, if a safe and effective "thin pill" can be developed, I (for one) would use it in preference to starving myself and depriving myself of favorite foods.
If you believe advances in lithography are no longer occurring, you are clearly unfamiliar with the huge investments attempting to bring EUVL (extreme ultra violet lithography) to production fabs. However, in another sense, you are correct that other technologies (such as plasmonics) are going to be more important in developing the future 3D chips. You have not convinced me that Intel's move is going to make it much easier for China to become leaders in these areas than Micron's R&D centers in Shanghai and Xiamen and its fab in Xian.
Perhaps. That is certainly a valid concern. However, the state of the art in this area is continually advancing very quickly. Just having an advanced fab in China does not mean that Chinese engineers are able to create the next generation chips and fabs. I think Intel's move is quite logical, and the danger of intellectual property theft not too serious in their case.
I have long respected both Samsung's commitment to R&D and the general quality of their hardware. Unfortunately, they have never quite managed to couple this with well thought out firmware and software. I hope they are intending to package best in class open source components with an intelligent framework. If so, I am sure the quality of their offerings will improve markedly.
I rather like the concept, if applied well. What usually happens now is an impatient server wanting you to order asap. This could be a boon to those who like to take their time ordering. No need for any human to be involved until the menu says your order is finalized.
Ummm, how many Olympic sized swimming pools is that?
It would be fascinating to know the infrastructure and methods used for storage and to process this volume of data. Presumably, they initially store everything, and then somehow process it to decide what is worth keeping as future potential blackmail material, or occasionally intelligence purposes. The scale of the task is mind boggling.
The singularity, where supercomputers can advance scientific knowledge unaided by humans, is still some way off. However, you are mistaken if you believe there have not been huge advances in scientific knowledge in the last 20 years, or if you believe the rapid pace of advancement would have been possible without the computing power that has become available to support that effort. In earth sciences, medicine, high energy physics, astronomy, meteorology and many other scientific areas, the simulation and information organization capabilities facilitated by state of the art supercomputers have been absolutely crucial.
Sometimes, availability really is critical. In that case I want to take the risk of an automatic restart before the cause is investigated. However, it is important to appreciate that the approach is risky . The restart can cause cascading errors that change a reasonably simple issue into a multi day recovery operation.
I was disappointed at how in claiming a never-ending increase in the pace of technological advancement, Kurzweil never dealt with the regulatory and consumer factors, and the whole notion of how humans perceive time in general. The wheels of government can only move so fast, and so mankind's access to radical new technology outside the lab (e.g. self-driving cars, new medical tech) must slow down to match the speed of regulatory agencies.
You make some good points. However, I believe the march towards the singularity will march inexorably forward for one (highly undesirable) reason: the insatiable appetite of the leaders of nations for power. The populations of those countries will not even be allowed to know much of what is being developed with hundreds of billions of their tax dollars, but technologies that leaders perceive could enhance their ability to dominate the world will be financed. There will be no regulation. If you want to know the state of the art in visual recognition, you should look at military applications: robot soldiers and autonomous drones. For applications of big data (especially its usefulness in widespread blackmailing activities) then, in spite of some initial missteps, look at the pervasive collection of data by the world's "intelligence agencies".
The laws against child pornography should be aimed at protecting children from exploitation, not in making morality statements. Cartoon drawings of children engaging in sex acts certainly indicate people with pretty sick imaginations, but no children are hurt in their creation or consumption. I have seen worse on walls in public washrooms.
I cannot find much detail on this, but it sounds suspiciously like well known techniques for avoiding congestion in complex systems that I learned in queuing theory over 40 years ago.
I guess the website's testing process failed to catch the edge case where someone wanted to navigate past the home page.
Since the source is completely unclear, most posters will blindly assume it is the fault of whichever group is their bête noire. Some favorites will likely be China, North Korea and Russia, but use your imagination folks. There is just as much evidence that it is caused by evil bankers, genetically modified foods, pedophiles or US militarism.
Presumably, someone has been using the infinite improbability drive.
Considering the request to rewrite the record also required the falsification to be secret, how would we know how many times this has been done in the past. We only know that this is the first time such a request has been rejected. I personally suspect it might only have been rejected because of the large number of witnesses of the original hearing.
The knee jerk reaction, of course, is to look for a catch in anything Homeland Security is doing. However, this seems like a really good idea. Finally, they are contributing in a positive way to public safety.
No they're not!
Believe it or not, using 2260 terminals connected to an IBM 360 mainframe running MVT/ASP, I was able to rerun commands anywhere on the screen back in 1973!
A lot of what is in the example reminds me of a 4GL I worked with in the 1980s that had a feature called "computed fields". The idea is extremely nice conceptually, and seems to nest nicely, as well as be easily integrated with other functionality. The main problem is performance. Some pretty smart people worked on the tools, but (with the complexity of real life systems) you tend to end up with the same values being continually recalculated. It turns out that (because of the generality of the functionality, and the inability to predict when values will be updated or queried) it is extremely difficult to suppress these duplicate calculations. A typical application developer will create code that results in values being recalculated thousands of times in a single transaction. The problem is both worse and more intractable than is experienced with computed columns in spreadsheets.
They need plausible deniability, so I doubt it. There have probably been some staged accidents, and it is worth remembering that the US did bomb the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. The considered attack on the Al Jazeera world headquarters in Qatar was probably only rejected because there was no good way to make it look like an accident.
There is an assumption here that due process will be followed against those "guilty" of talking to journalists. That is naive. In US government agencies (whatever the written regulations or law might specify) only those specifically cleared to speak with the media are allowed to do so. Once it is known by the heads of those agencies that someone has broken this unwritten rule, they will get him, legal niceties be damned.