And how long do you think that law can last when every tourist has a selfie drone? You're really going to arrest all of them for flying a one-ounce drone with a range of a hundred feet?
Yeah, because someone who's determined to kill a politician will be scared off by the idea of being jailed for flying a drone near them. Meanwhile, in ten years, every tourist in DC will have a selfie drone, and companies will be renting drones so people can 'visit' remotely over the Internet. How many of those do you plan to lock up?
The real solution is simple and obvious. In future, politicos will just have to live in sealed, underground bunkers.
Why does this shit get spewed forth every fucking time.
Because the left hate humans, because most humans won't do what they're told just because the left are convinced they know what's best for them. Also, humans typically move further to the right politically as they grow older, so a population whose average age is measured in centuries won't have much time for SJWs.
We really don't need many manual controls anymore in most vehicles. When you can simply say things like, "OK Google, navigate to the nearest costco" or "Hey Siri, get me lost with Apple Maps", you don't need to touch the screen or type in stuff.
That would be true, if the voice recognition actually worked. I typically have to try at least a dozen times to get my car to dial the right number on my Bluetooth phone, and even saying 'Redial' to dial the last number can take four or five tries before it does the right thing.
You maximize profit. the amount of tax you pay on profit is irrelevant to the process of maximizing it.
Since corporate taxes don't affect corporate profits, we should clearly raise them to 99%. You know it makes sense, because, unlike gas taxes or alcohol taxes or cigarette taxes, corporate taxes apparently don't have any effect on human behaviour.
When an acquaintance ran a small, private business he intentionally made as little profit as possible, to keep taxes as low as possible. Why pay lots of money to the government if he could buy a new Jaguar instead? Bezos seems to have adopted the same idea with Amazon, re-investing as much money as possible so the company makes as little profit as possible. I'm sure he's happy to see companies forced to pay tax in the UK for UK sales, because he doesn't have to make a profit, while most of his competitors do. This will harm them far more than it harms him.
The British government, of course, will just take the money and buy bombs to drop on random brown people, or give it to rich landowners for 'wind subsidies'.
If they can't raise prices, they'll either see lower profits--which will result in your pension fund making less money--or cut costs. The latter means they'll offer lower wages and less benefits to employees, automate them away, or demand price cuts from suppliers.
Then all the 'EVIL CORPORATIONS SHOULD PAY MORE TAX!' whiners will be complaining that 'EVIL CORPORATIONS ARE CUTTING WAGES AND AUTOMATING JOBS AWAY! WAH! WAH!' because they're completely clueless about the real world.
So if they can introduce a 25% penalty tax for companies deemed not to be paying enough tax, why the hell can't they fix the rules that these companies are using to avoid paying the existing tax?
Because they're based on international agreements on where taxes should be paid. If a US company sells products to customers in Britain, why should they have to pay tax in Britain? Do you really want to have to pay tax on sales in Fukbutistan because you sold a few things to someone there over the Internet?
Many Western nations have fat, centralized, industrial-era governments facing a networked, post-industrial world. Obviously they're going to fight as long and hard as possible to limit technologies that will make them obsolete.
This is why the future is increasingly being made outside Luddite states like America and the EU; places that don't have an entrenched industrial-era political class who can stop it.
Probably just less money spent on the roads. When I drive to my girlfriend's parents house, I can see the difference in the roads the instant I cross the border, even though the traffic is pretty much the same on both sides. And we have big ruts in the roads where the big trucks drive, even though few people use studded tires in the winter.
The left encourages us to get Hybrid Cars and increased fuel economy, and then when the tax base falls, they get upset at hybrids and fuel efficient cars and want to raise taxes!
Hint: those ruts aren't caused by studded tires, they're primarily caused by poor road design and big freaking trucks.
Besides which, modern studded tires are increasingly designed to reduce noise and road damage. New Nokians, for example, have studs that retract into the tire when driven on dry asphalt, and they're testing a future design with studs that can be electrically retracted and extended.
The tax burden shifts from low MPG vehicles to high MPG vehicles. Sounds like an environmentally friendly idea to me...
Governments only care about money and power. Taxing low MPG vehicles more was just a way to justify increasing taxes because SUVs kill kittens, and nothing to do with 'the environment'.
That's fine, if you want to live in a third-world nation where you can't rely on having power. You know, the kind of place where you can't run a modern, high-tech economy that depends on reliable supplies of electricity.
But then it's pointless, because we do what other third worlders do, and buy a diesel generator.
So confused. GPU memory bandwidth really hasn't been an issue.
Uh, yes, it has. That's why GPU manufacturers often made mid-range cards by putting the same chip on a board with a half-wide memory bus; saves money on RAM, and is significantly slower.
GPUs tend to be more bandwidth-constrained than latency-constrained, as they typically have long pipelines that can hide much of the latency. Though I'm sure you could make them really latency-constrained if you wrote shaders badly.
Slashdot Mirror
And how long do you think that law can last when every tourist has a selfie drone? You're really going to arrest all of them for flying a one-ounce drone with a range of a hundred feet?
Yeah, because someone who's determined to kill a politician will be scared off by the idea of being jailed for flying a drone near them. Meanwhile, in ten years, every tourist in DC will have a selfie drone, and companies will be renting drones so people can 'visit' remotely over the Internet. How many of those do you plan to lock up?
The real solution is simple and obvious. In future, politicos will just have to live in sealed, underground bunkers.
Unless you're the richest man on earth, what's the point?
Given an infinite lifespan, everyone would get to be the richest man on Earth for a while. And the poorest.
Why does this shit get spewed forth every fucking time.
Because the left hate humans, because most humans won't do what they're told just because the left are convinced they know what's best for them. Also, humans typically move further to the right politically as they grow older, so a population whose average age is measured in centuries won't have much time for SJWs.
People who think touchscreen controls are a good idea in cars have never tried driving one at forty below zero.
We really don't need many manual controls anymore in most vehicles. When you can simply say things like, "OK Google, navigate to the nearest costco" or "Hey Siri, get me lost with Apple Maps", you don't need to touch the screen or type in stuff.
That would be true, if the voice recognition actually worked. I typically have to try at least a dozen times to get my car to dial the right number on my Bluetooth phone, and even saying 'Redial' to dial the last number can take four or five tries before it does the right thing.
And your problem is?
Why should poor people be funding scientists to carry out research that costs more than the benefits?
The state, which was formerly the institution from the people for the people
When was that?
Now that Ballmer is gone, maybe we can be a little more optimistic for once, eh?
Hey, babe, I know I used to beat you, but trust me. I've changed.
You maximize profit. the amount of tax you pay on profit is irrelevant to the process of maximizing it.
Since corporate taxes don't affect corporate profits, we should clearly raise them to 99%. You know it makes sense, because, unlike gas taxes or alcohol taxes or cigarette taxes, corporate taxes apparently don't have any effect on human behaviour.
When an acquaintance ran a small, private business he intentionally made as little profit as possible, to keep taxes as low as possible. Why pay lots of money to the government if he could buy a new Jaguar instead? Bezos seems to have adopted the same idea with Amazon, re-investing as much money as possible so the company makes as little profit as possible. I'm sure he's happy to see companies forced to pay tax in the UK for UK sales, because he doesn't have to make a profit, while most of his competitors do. This will harm them far more than it harms him.
The British government, of course, will just take the money and buy bombs to drop on random brown people, or give it to rich landowners for 'wind subsidies'.
If they can't raise prices, they'll either see lower profits--which will result in your pension fund making less money--or cut costs. The latter means they'll offer lower wages and less benefits to employees, automate them away, or demand price cuts from suppliers.
Then all the 'EVIL CORPORATIONS SHOULD PAY MORE TAX!' whiners will be complaining that 'EVIL CORPORATIONS ARE CUTTING WAGES AND AUTOMATING JOBS AWAY! WAH! WAH!' because they're completely clueless about the real world.
So if they can introduce a 25% penalty tax for companies deemed not to be paying enough tax, why the hell can't they fix the rules that these companies are using to avoid paying the existing tax?
Because they're based on international agreements on where taxes should be paid. If a US company sells products to customers in Britain, why should they have to pay tax in Britain? Do you really want to have to pay tax on sales in Fukbutistan because you sold a few things to someone there over the Internet?
There's nothing immoral about tax avoidance. Tax evasion, maybe.
The law has simply changed such that past avoidance schemes are no longer legal.
Many Western nations have fat, centralized, industrial-era governments facing a networked, post-industrial world. Obviously they're going to fight as long and hard as possible to limit technologies that will make them obsolete.
This is why the future is increasingly being made outside Luddite states like America and the EU; places that don't have an entrenched industrial-era political class who can stop it.
It actually does not. You can even get faster performance with garbage collection.
Yes, you can.... everywhere except in the real world. Garbage collection is one of the reasons iOS is much faster than Android on the same hardware.
Probably just less money spent on the roads. When I drive to my girlfriend's parents house, I can see the difference in the roads the instant I cross the border, even though the traffic is pretty much the same on both sides. And we have big ruts in the roads where the big trucks drive, even though few people use studded tires in the winter.
How about just a tire tax? Jack the price of tires up, but that would be fair to everyone. It would make a black market for tires sadly.
Because encouraging people to drive on bald tires until they explode would just be such a good idea...
The left encourages us to get Hybrid Cars and increased fuel economy, and then when the tax base falls, they get upset at hybrids and fuel efficient cars and want to raise taxes!
And who could possibly have predicted that?
how is that unfair? heavier vehicles cause more road damage.
Because puppies and unicorns. It's just NOT FAIR that my $100,000 Tesla should have to pay tax to fund the roads it drives on!
Hint: those ruts aren't caused by studded tires, they're primarily caused by poor road design and big freaking trucks.
Besides which, modern studded tires are increasingly designed to reduce noise and road damage. New Nokians, for example, have studs that retract into the tire when driven on dry asphalt, and they're testing a future design with studs that can be electrically retracted and extended.
The tax burden shifts from low MPG vehicles to high MPG vehicles. Sounds like an environmentally friendly idea to me...
Governments only care about money and power. Taxing low MPG vehicles more was just a way to justify increasing taxes because SUVs kill kittens, and nothing to do with 'the environment'.
That's fine, if you want to live in a third-world nation where you can't rely on having power. You know, the kind of place where you can't run a modern, high-tech economy that depends on reliable supplies of electricity.
But then it's pointless, because we do what other third worlders do, and buy a diesel generator.
meanwhile the government keeps paying for the meals of walmart employees
Maybe, if it stopped, Walmart would have to pay their employees enough to eat.
Just a thought.
So confused. GPU memory bandwidth really hasn't been an issue.
Uh, yes, it has. That's why GPU manufacturers often made mid-range cards by putting the same chip on a board with a half-wide memory bus; saves money on RAM, and is significantly slower.
GPUs tend to be more bandwidth-constrained than latency-constrained, as they typically have long pipelines that can hide much of the latency. Though I'm sure you could make them really latency-constrained if you wrote shaders badly.