Pepe is associated with a troll who convinced out-of-touch leftists that he was actually a symbol of the Alt-Right, then everyone else trolled the leftists with Pepe because they never wised up and it was hilarious to expose them as clueless. Also, a very confused Hillary Clinton campaign.
So let's say I pay taxes. And I have to pay Amazon prices straight. And my tax dollars go to some people who can now get Amazon Prime for cheap? Talk about rewarding failure and punishing success.
Also, what are they buying, that's so time-sensitive, if they're that impoverished?
Does anyone use graphing calcs from Casio? I've noticed them, and always wondered why no one ever seemed to use them. Even Sharp makes one, and it's cool looking.
Based on your UID (plus I know you've been hanging around these parts for a long while) I would wager you are not a student in a US math class. This story isn't about you, so maybe hover your finger over the submit button before clicking to decide whether you are contributing to the conversation.
If you are a student, or (more precisely, because we pay for these devices) a parent of a student in the school system, this story has some relevance, because it's about what the bureaucracy requires whether you like it or not. This is good news for those people.
You, Mr. Frosty Piss, can use whatever calculator you want. Have fun with that.
I don't see how a calculator with no physical buttons is superior to one that is a tactile object, and as the calculator is "embedded" into the test itself, that means switching back and forth between the two apps. This is a bad kludge that sounds painful to use.
The issue isn't net neutrality per se, it's that the FCC has illegally declared large swaths of the internet public utilities in order to impose net neutrality. Net neutrality can occur without doing this.
Any college course, any professional school, listening to professors drone on about what you could learn from printed matter, and taking time away from printed matter, while having confused, often dumb students asking questions that you aren't having problems with is certainly sub-optimal.
Yes, the 32-bit Windows 2000 Alpha RC did leak. The work on the 64-bit Windows for Alpha somehow helped with the development of Windows on x64, although don't know how myself.
They got Itanic workstations for $10 each, they were all HP employees, and got Doom to run on it.
Consumer surplus relates to marginal utility, where the consumer surplus is the difference between the purchase of the product or service and the subjective value, i.e. utility, to the consumer. When consumer surplus reaches zero, i.e. the value of the product or service is equal to the purchase price, the consumer ceases purchasing the product or service. Source: Alfred Marshall.
In 1982, Woz saw the future as having portable laptops; they duly came out several years later. He was deeply involved in the microcomputing field, and the ever constant miniaturization was readily apparent to any observer. Not to mention adults during 1982 would have likely experience the transition from desk calculators to handheld calculators. Woz's prediction may have been a rarer one (I don't know on this), but it was in the very-near-future and rather obvious to anyone with a hint of imagination. Accurately predicting fifty-eight years into the future? Yeah, no, I don't think so.
The article, accurately summarized and absent any clickbait titles: "They have a faster supercomputer than we do. That means they are ranked higher, and are faster than ours. We want the fastest supercomputers. Whoever has the fastest supercomputer can solve all our problems, but that person only. It should be us, so we need the fastest supercomputer."
I do think things like Skylake and K10 are different microarchs, even if using the same or almost identical IA. Otherwise, you're getting close to saying the P5 and P6 were the same microarchs.
I work with the data that is presented. There are externalities with everything, solar included; I don't have the data or stats training to do my own study on that. Based on the data the OP is presenting, and the conclusions made, I proved that it was sloppy, omitted necessary information, and generally misleading. I did the calculations with the given facts, and pointed out qualifications. If someone can build on that, that's good too.
In 2016, natural gas alone produced 28,000G GWh. Solar utilities have the *capacity* of 28,081 GWh; how much was actually generated is left unsaid. To be nice, let's also add the 16,974 from non-utility generation; actual amount of energy generated is also left unstated. The natural gas industry employed 392,869 people to generate 28,000 GWh of power. Solar takes 373,807 employees, plus a sketchy 260,077 (this is worse, you'll see why in a sec), for a total of 633,884 employees to produce, with optimal conditions, 28,081 GWh of power. Now, less inputs for greater outputs is the definition of efficiency, and with greater efficiency you consume less resources to produce the same amount of product. This is how wealth is created and waste is minimized. Under an optimal scenario, natural gas production, in terms of employees, is 62% more efficient than solar energy production. Natural gas takes one employee per 14 GWh of energy generated. Solar takes one employee to produce 22.6 GWh of energy; under optimal conditions that *do not exist.* Solar is consuming energy and resources to create unnecessary, make-work jobs, which also removes employees that could be better utilized in productive endeavors. Solar may create jobs, but it's destroying resources to do so. And isn't that counter to what environmentalists claim to want?
This is going to be thrown out if and as soon as this judge doesn't do it herself. They're alleging extremely speculative harm, and the stated harm is extremely tenuously related to its alleged cause. You cannot sue essentially the entire world for something that hasn't happened yet, it is unclear if it will happen, and even if it did, that it would have any bearing on their Constitutional rights. And I can't think of any that would be infringed in any case. Judge has gone off the deep end, and that's not good no matter what their personal ideologies are.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm the WSJ. I'd get the NYT, but it's not required for a job or any interests, so not shelling all that cash for it.
Because:
1) A tendency to be of higher quality, and less hyper-partisan and out-of-touch;
2) A strong tendency for more serious consideration of issues and ideas; and
3) Reading a screen sucks and good luck remembering what you have in your records with a short glance.
Pepe is associated with a troll who convinced out-of-touch leftists that he was actually a symbol of the Alt-Right, then everyone else trolled the leftists with Pepe because they never wised up and it was hilarious to expose them as clueless. Also, a very confused Hillary Clinton campaign.
Also, what are they buying, that's so time-sensitive, if they're that impoverished?
I'm not sure if your question is serious or not. And no, Comcast, nor anyone else that I know of, has been blocking sites.
Does anyone use graphing calcs from Casio? I've noticed them, and always wondered why no one ever seemed to use them. Even Sharp makes one, and it's cool looking.
What are you doing that needs more RAM and CPU power? I'm seriously asking, I just used it in some of HS.
I both sketched and used graphing calculators. I don't know why.
Based on your UID (plus I know you've been hanging around these parts for a long while) I would wager you are not a student in a US math class. This story isn't about you, so maybe hover your finger over the submit button before clicking to decide whether you are contributing to the conversation.
If you are a student, or (more precisely, because we pay for these devices) a parent of a student in the school system, this story has some relevance, because it's about what the bureaucracy requires whether you like it or not. This is good news for those people.
You, Mr. Frosty Piss, can use whatever calculator you want. Have fun with that.
Kind of dickish.
I don't see how a calculator with no physical buttons is superior to one that is a tactile object, and as the calculator is "embedded" into the test itself, that means switching back and forth between the two apps. This is a bad kludge that sounds painful to use.
The issue isn't net neutrality per se, it's that the FCC has illegally declared large swaths of the internet public utilities in order to impose net neutrality. Net neutrality can occur without doing this.
Any college course, any professional school, listening to professors drone on about what you could learn from printed matter, and taking time away from printed matter, while having confused, often dumb students asking questions that you aren't having problems with is certainly sub-optimal.
They got Itanic workstations for $10 each, they were all HP employees, and got Doom to run on it.
No, Windows NT-line on Alpha was always running in 32-bit. Which is why I never saw it installed on very much, probably. What was the point?
Self-evident.
Consumer surplus relates to marginal utility, where the consumer surplus is the difference between the purchase of the product or service and the subjective value, i.e. utility, to the consumer. When consumer surplus reaches zero, i.e. the value of the product or service is equal to the purchase price, the consumer ceases purchasing the product or service. Source: Alfred Marshall.
Hyperloop *cough*
In 1982, Woz saw the future as having portable laptops; they duly came out several years later. He was deeply involved in the microcomputing field, and the ever constant miniaturization was readily apparent to any observer. Not to mention adults during 1982 would have likely experience the transition from desk calculators to handheld calculators. Woz's prediction may have been a rarer one (I don't know on this), but it was in the very-near-future and rather obvious to anyone with a hint of imagination. Accurately predicting fifty-eight years into the future? Yeah, no, I don't think so.
The article, accurately summarized and absent any clickbait titles: "They have a faster supercomputer than we do. That means they are ranked higher, and are faster than ours. We want the fastest supercomputers. Whoever has the fastest supercomputer can solve all our problems, but that person only. It should be us, so we need the fastest supercomputer."
I do think things like Skylake and K10 are different microarchs, even if using the same or almost identical IA. Otherwise, you're getting close to saying the P5 and P6 were the same microarchs.
I work with the data that is presented. There are externalities with everything, solar included; I don't have the data or stats training to do my own study on that. Based on the data the OP is presenting, and the conclusions made, I proved that it was sloppy, omitted necessary information, and generally misleading. I did the calculations with the given facts, and pointed out qualifications. If someone can build on that, that's good too.
You are confusing people working in the gas production and maintenance sector with people installing solar.
What do you mean?
In 2016, natural gas alone produced 28,000G GWh. Solar utilities have the *capacity* of 28,081 GWh; how much was actually generated is left unsaid. To be nice, let's also add the 16,974 from non-utility generation; actual amount of energy generated is also left unstated. The natural gas industry employed 392,869 people to generate 28,000 GWh of power. Solar takes 373,807 employees, plus a sketchy 260,077 (this is worse, you'll see why in a sec), for a total of 633,884 employees to produce, with optimal conditions, 28,081 GWh of power. Now, less inputs for greater outputs is the definition of efficiency, and with greater efficiency you consume less resources to produce the same amount of product. This is how wealth is created and waste is minimized. Under an optimal scenario, natural gas production, in terms of employees, is 62% more efficient than solar energy production. Natural gas takes one employee per 14 GWh of energy generated. Solar takes one employee to produce 22.6 GWh of energy; under optimal conditions that *do not exist.* Solar is consuming energy and resources to create unnecessary, make-work jobs, which also removes employees that could be better utilized in productive endeavors. Solar may create jobs, but it's destroying resources to do so. And isn't that counter to what environmentalists claim to want?
Not all cavities are 0.13mm or smaller. I'm not a dentist, but aren't most cavities larger than that?
This is going to be thrown out if and as soon as this judge doesn't do it herself. They're alleging extremely speculative harm, and the stated harm is extremely tenuously related to its alleged cause. You cannot sue essentially the entire world for something that hasn't happened yet, it is unclear if it will happen, and even if it did, that it would have any bearing on their Constitutional rights. And I can't think of any that would be infringed in any case. Judge has gone off the deep end, and that's not good no matter what their personal ideologies are.