I've worked on some of the most cutting-edge GPU designs on the planet, from the low-level software stack down to the design changes needed to accomodate die shrinks. After looking at the HD 6870's design, one thing is clear. It needs more cowbell.
Even though the false-birther myth has been reiterated time and time again by conspiracy theorists and infortainment 'pundits', and that it's been proven false time and time again by reliable news media.
Actually, I haven't followed this closely, so maybe you can bring me up to speed. The most serious point I've heard from the birthers is that Hawaii has refused to show Obama's original birth certificate.
My impression is that in most cases, consolidation can reduce apparent IT costs, but produces a not just centralized computers but a centralized bureaucracy.
And when you have a centralized bureaucracy, the individual agencies will be subject to data centers that act on their "requests" more slowly if at all. (Note that when you lose control over your data center, what used to be an order now becomes a request.)
In general, it seems like centralizing things can help with some issues, but creates a boatload of other issues.
I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but there are a lot of warning flags in what you wrote.
It's pretty common for us to have ideas that seem great and innovative, but because of our lack of expertise in a given field, we don't realize that the idea is either flawed, or has already been refined and applied. I expect this is especially true with difficult math problems, such as large-number factorization.
All I'm saying is that before you start hiring employees, you should probably invest a lot more effort in vetting your idea.
And regarding big numbers, you might want to look at the Gnu Multiple Precision library. It's meant for efficiently handling numbers bigger than 64 bits.
Beamforming is only possible where you have as many microphones as sources.
As many mikes as actual sources, or as many mikes as there are sources of interest?
I think when you have very many sources of non-interest, approaches like this rely on the uninteresting sources partially cancelling each other out into background noise.
If there was ever a situation that deserved writing scripts that control a video player, this is it.
Script #1: Fill in the customer survery with bogus-but-valid-looking info.
Script #2: During commercials, cut off the video player's access to the screen and audio output, and instead have the computer present either silence or some alternative form of entertainment (music, etc.)
If corporations have personal rights, is that always the case, or only when the law in question fails to specifically distinguish between real people and companies?
For example, my understanding is that McCain-Feingold was struck down becuase it limited the "free speech" of corporations.
On the other hand, there are other laws I think, perhaps pertaining to voting, that absolutely must never treat corporations as identical to real people.
I sometimes wrestle with th question of whether or not dangerous behaviors should be punishable at whatever level it takes to make people stop doing them.
For example, we know texting while driving is dangerous, based on stastics. It significantly risks other people's lives. Also, any sane person should know it's just a dumb idea.
So would it be just, or a good idea, to simply have a thre strikes rule for this? First strike - no driver's license for 6 months. Second strike - a public caning. Third strike - execution or banishment to Wasilla, AK (offender's choice).
Similarly for dealing dangerous drugs, or drunk driving.
Why is it that when the repeat offenders play a game of chicken with the law, it's always the non-offenders that blink and let the offender get off with light punishment? (I'm thinking of drunk drivers with many, many offenses.) Why can't these repeat offenders be given threats of penalties so serious that it actually curbs their behaviors that endanger others?
Slashdot Mirror
Until Microsoft permanently ceases asserting software patent rights, sharing their source code is of very limited value.
Or...
Under-the-skin indicator for blood sugar levels in diabetics.
I've worked on some of the most cutting-edge GPU designs on the planet, from the low-level software stack down to the design changes needed to accomodate die shrinks. After looking at the HD 6870's design, one thing is clear. It needs more cowbell.
Actually, I haven't followed this closely, so maybe you can bring me up to speed. The most serious point I've heard from the birthers is that Hawaii has refused to show Obama's original birth certificate.
How did that accusation get resolved?
You're thinking of men.
My impression is that in most cases, consolidation can reduce apparent IT costs, but produces a not just centralized computers but a centralized bureaucracy.
And when you have a centralized bureaucracy, the individual agencies will be subject to data centers that act on their "requests" more slowly if at all. (Note that when you lose control over your data center, what used to be an order now becomes a request.)
In general, it seems like centralizing things can help with some issues, but creates a boatload of other issues.
I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but there are a lot of warning flags in what you wrote.
It's pretty common for us to have ideas that seem great and innovative, but because of our lack of expertise in a given field, we don't realize that the idea is either flawed, or has already been refined and applied. I expect this is especially true with difficult math problems, such as large-number factorization.
All I'm saying is that before you start hiring employees, you should probably invest a lot more effort in vetting your idea.
And regarding big numbers, you might want to look at the Gnu Multiple Precision library. It's meant for efficiently handling numbers bigger than 64 bits.
As many mikes as actual sources, or as many mikes as there are sources of interest?
I think when you have very many sources of non-interest, approaches like this rely on the uninteresting sources partially cancelling each other out into background noise.
This sounds like beamforming. Submarines do this. Works great.
Employers wish that were true. Parts of your cost beyond mere salary include:
Workers in industrialized countries are expesnsive.
What makes you believe this happens "often"? I've never seen this after working for a variety of employers large and small.
I can't wait for the poor bastards to try outsourcing development to India.
WINE doesn't stand for "Wine is not a complete, Windows-compatible operating system sans the security vulnerabilities".
I've heard it said that much of the Chinese government's restrictions on free speech, protest, etc. are to maintain social stability.
Is that an ideal that's especially resonant with the Chinese culture for some reason? If so, why?
Or is it a transparent attempt to maintain power (stability = keeping the same people/party in power)? Or is it both?
"Las Vegas Review-Journal endorses garden-variety thief for office!"
If there was ever a situation that deserved writing scripts that control a video player, this is it.
Script #1: Fill in the customer survery with bogus-but-valid-looking info.
Script #2: During commercials, cut off the video player's access to the screen and audio output, and instead have the computer present either silence or some alternative form of entertainment (music, etc.)
If corporations have personal rights, is that always the case, or only when the law in question fails to specifically distinguish between real people and companies?
For example, my understanding is that McCain-Feingold was struck down becuase it limited the "free speech" of corporations.
On the other hand, there are other laws I think, perhaps pertaining to voting, that absolutely must never treat corporations as identical to real people.
What lies in Vegas, fries in Vegas.
I sometimes wrestle with th question of whether or not dangerous behaviors should be punishable at whatever level it takes to make people stop doing them.
For example, we know texting while driving is dangerous, based on stastics. It significantly risks other people's lives. Also, any sane person should know it's just a dumb idea.
So would it be just, or a good idea, to simply have a thre strikes rule for this? First strike - no driver's license for 6 months. Second strike - a public caning. Third strike - execution or banishment to Wasilla, AK (offender's choice).
Similarly for dealing dangerous drugs, or drunk driving.
Why is it that when the repeat offenders play a game of chicken with the law, it's always the non-offenders that blink and let the offender get off with light punishment? (I'm thinking of drunk drivers with many, many offenses.) Why can't these repeat offenders be given threats of penalties so serious that it actually curbs their behaviors that endanger others?
And I thought Wharfe was a pussy...
Of all the countries where I wouldn't want having my eye in my head as the only barrier to someone else's quick cash...
That's true. But just becuase the Palestinians aren't being killed outright, doesn't remotely justify what Israel continues to do to them.
Perhaps, but rounding them up into a massive concentration camp because they wanted some lebensraum isn't so swell, either.
You mean the Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?
If you think I was implying that it's okay for Israel to stop Iran's nuke problem, that wasn't my point at all.
My point was much more generic and simple: all things being equal, I'd rather computers get viruses than that people die in an airstrike.
I meant "than for people to die..."
Muscle-memory is a bitch.