For all we know, it could be cheating -- after all, Intel has been known to do so in the past. I'm not saying it is, since I don't have the information to know. But neither do you, so you can't definitively say it isn't.
Okay, but are Rand Paul and Gary Johnson actually on the ballot in enough states' primary elections that they could win their respective parties' nomination? (I haven't been able to find a website listing which candidates are on the ballot in which states -- except for each state's website, and I'm not about to go look through 50 of them -- but I remember hearing that some of the less-popular Republicans were having trouble qualifying.)
Are there any candidates (where "candidate" is defined as someone who has actually gotten on the ballot in enough states for it to be possible to win, not a write-in) who would not support the compromise of encryption? I'm not talking about just from the major parties; I'm talking about literally any candidate that managed to get on the ballot.
IMO, the real issue is the lack of open protocols and standards. As much as cable (and broadcast) TV sucked, one nice feature was that everything was in one place and every channel worked the same way. In contrast, every streaming service has its own proprietary interface. If I want to watch show X, I don't want to have to go figure out whether it's on Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, or whatever and then navigate that particular website or app; I want it to be aggregated in a standardized way for me.
Let's not ignore the fact that cable companies should never have been allowed to get in a position to measure viewership to begin with! They should have been required by the FCC to continue simply piping the channels in via ClearQAM and letting the TVs' built-in tuner do the tuning instead of being allowed to monitor our habits and charge us extra per-TV fees for the privilege!
I'm currently DOING this, getting rich, and it IS working, just like it's always worked for other people who do it. It's not quick, but it works.
It can be quick; you just have to save more. I'm aiming for a 65% savings rate, so I can be done in a decade (shortly after I turn 40 -- what can I say; I spent a long time in college and then graduated into the recession).
If you are trying to imply that an average worker can become one of the wealthy elite by simply saving better than average you are: 1) a fucking moron
2) trolling
3)...
Or you are 3) this guy. Or this guy. Or this guy. Or any number of other people who executed similar plans, but didn't blog about it.
(These are all people who became millionaires simply by saving more than 50% of their middle-class salary, and retired in their 30s. If they wanted to be in the deca-millionaire range instead they could have just kept working and investing 100% of their salary for another couple of years. Considering that they live off withdrawals that are designed to be safe in the worst-case scenario, under most non-worst-case scenarios they'll end up with tens of millions eventually anyway.)
GE has for example 9.4 billion shares, each costing around $23 a piece, and each returning approximately 25 cents of interest. you would need to purchase, at minimum, around half a million shares before you realized even upper-middle class living standards from your investment.
This is one of the stupider things I've read lately. I will explain how and why you're wrong:
Having a 100% GE portfolio is stupidly un-diversified. Normal investors should be in something like VTI (an index fund, meaning a fund that holds a little bit of every stock in the market) instead.
Stocks produce dividends, not interest, and GE pays out dividends quarterly. That means each share pays out about a dollar a year, for a dividend yield of a little over 3%
And that's just the dividend: total return comes from dividends plus growth in the share price. The "rule of thumb" for the US stock market is that it has about 7% total return, on average.
Based on that and an assumption of 3% average inflation, a reasonable safe withdrawal rate for a diversified US stock portfolio is about 4%, which means your assets need to be about 25x whatever you want your income to be. If we assumed a middle-class income to be $50K/year, that could be achieved using a $1.25M total investment.
Leaving aside once again that a 100% GE portfolio would be moronic, $1.25M worth of GE shares would be about 50,000, not "millions."
In order to achieve that $50K in investment income, one only needs to invest about $1000/month for 30 years, which is easily accomplished on a middle-class salary (unless you're a dumbass who lives above your means).
Anyway, that's the math that applies if you're an idiot consumer sucker. If you instead choose to invest a reasonable fraction of your salary -- say, 50% -- you can start from $0 and be living off your investments in about 16 years (and if you can get your savings rate to 65%, you can shave that down to a decade).
I think AMD uses Hypertransport in its APUs, but yeah, I've been wishing for years for an AMD FX (or Phenom II) + discrete Radeon setup that used it (maybe with the GPU in a motherboard socket instead of a daughter card, although I guess the hard part of that is the lack of standards for slotted graphics RAM).
So would your GPU compute servers benefit from having an ARM instead of x86 CPU?
Clearly, there is some market where the workload favors ARM CPUs, and some market where the workload favors GPU computing (and therefore PCIe x16). Combining both in the same product only makes sense if there's some market that needs both at the same time. It's not as if AMD were discontinuing x86 Opterons, after all.
Unfortunately, this is one of the things that make Agile development and the cloud/IoT look bad.
No, cloud/IoT things are inherently bad because they're fundamentally designed to steal control from the owner and give it to a third-party. Incidents like this just expose the scheme.
Georgia Power will give you a "free" Nest thermostat if you sign up for the "smart usage" plan (which means paying more for peak usage, and paying based on the peak power usage rather than only the total power usage).
If detonated at optimal height, the B-41 would generate a fireball approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) in diameter, it would have been able to destroy reinforced concrete buildings 8 miles (13 km) from ground zero, and it would have been able to destroy most residential structures 15 miles (24 km) from ground zero, while producing third degree burns 32 miles (51 km) from ground zero.
Apparently, Wikipedia disagrees with itself. Which article is right? Who knows! (And I can't be bothered to follow the citations to check.)
Based on the figures from the article I quoted and a cursory glance at Google Maps, it looks like a B41 targeting Sydney could destroy everything between Sydney Olympic Park and the coast, a large portion of the metro area. It looks like the actual city limits of Sydney are only a tiny fraction of that, less than a mile in diameter.
It would be nice to have a "secure wipe these pages now" function in the command set.
If there were, I'd be worried that it would be implemented as a "flag this data as sensitive, to be uploaded to [insert TLA or manufacturer corporate espionage department] at the earliest opportunity" command instead.
we have tried all three general policies: diplomacy only, limited engagement and full regime change.
Not true. There are several other policies we could have tried, such as abandoning support for Israel or ignoring the region entirely. (Or, to the other extreme, massive genocide.) I'm not saying those would have been anything even slightly similar to good ideas, but they still count as options.
As far as nuclear weapons go, the Hiroshima bomb was pretty darn small. (Not as small as "tactical nukes," but small.) Hydrogen bombs such as the B83, which is at 1.2 megatons the most powerful US nuclear bomb in active service (let alone discontinued or experimental weapons such as the 25-megaton B41 or the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba) are perfectly capable of completely destroying even large cities. For example, Wikipedia says the B41 could destroy reinforced structures in an 8-mile radius and houses in a 15-mile radius. For perspective, if such a weapon were targeted at Lower Manhattan, it would totally destroy everything from Newark to Queens (and houses all the way to Yonkers and Hempstead)... before considering things like fires. Admittedly, you might need more than one if you were targeting a really spread-out area like greater LA.
Organic farming basically mandates that we go back to 1950's style agriculture
Not even slightly. Organic farming is perfectly compatible with all sorts of intensive farming techniques, such as hydro- and aero-ponics, permaculture, etc. as well as conventional row-cropping. I could even achieve 100% subsistence, organically, using only what I grow on my 0.2 acre (including buildings) urban lot, if I wanted to put in the effort.
In other words, land is not the barrier to sustainable agriculture. The problem is that unsustainable agriculture is too cheap (in the short term) because its negative externalities aren't being properly accounted for.
And by the way, paper and lumber are produced on tree farms these days; that is, they come from trees bread specifically for that purpose because you get better paper and better lumber from them
You don't get "better lumber," you get more lumber, faster and therefore cheaper. Most people in the construction industry agree that the lumber used in houses a century ago was stronger than the stuff we use today (mostly because slower-growing trees tend to have denser wood).
Slashdot Mirror
For all we know, it could be cheating -- after all, Intel has been known to do so in the past. I'm not saying it is, since I don't have the information to know. But neither do you, so you can't definitively say it isn't.
Okay, but are Rand Paul and Gary Johnson actually on the ballot in enough states' primary elections that they could win their respective parties' nomination? (I haven't been able to find a website listing which candidates are on the ballot in which states -- except for each state's website, and I'm not about to go look through 50 of them -- but I remember hearing that some of the less-popular Republicans were having trouble qualifying.)
Are there any candidates (where "candidate" is defined as someone who has actually gotten on the ballot in enough states for it to be possible to win, not a write-in) who would not support the compromise of encryption? I'm not talking about just from the major parties; I'm talking about literally any candidate that managed to get on the ballot.
The polls show otherwise, especially for Sanders (and especially especially if the two wind up running against each other!).
IMO, the real issue is the lack of open protocols and standards. As much as cable (and broadcast) TV sucked, one nice feature was that everything was in one place and every channel worked the same way. In contrast, every streaming service has its own proprietary interface. If I want to watch show X, I don't want to have to go figure out whether it's on Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, or whatever and then navigate that particular website or app; I want it to be aggregated in a standardized way for me.
Let's not ignore the fact that cable companies should never have been allowed to get in a position to measure viewership to begin with! They should have been required by the FCC to continue simply piping the channels in via ClearQAM and letting the TVs' built-in tuner do the tuning instead of being allowed to monitor our habits and charge us extra per-TV fees for the privilege!
Where can I get quick and consistent updates and a removable battery and micro-SD slot at the same time?
It can be quick; you just have to save more. I'm aiming for a 65% savings rate, so I can be done in a decade (shortly after I turn 40 -- what can I say; I spent a long time in college and then graduated into the recession).
Or you are 3) this guy. Or this guy. Or this guy. Or any number of other people who executed similar plans, but didn't blog about it.
(These are all people who became millionaires simply by saving more than 50% of their middle-class salary, and retired in their 30s. If they wanted to be in the deca-millionaire range instead they could have just kept working and investing 100% of their salary for another couple of years. Considering that they live off withdrawals that are designed to be safe in the worst-case scenario, under most non-worst-case scenarios they'll end up with tens of millions eventually anyway.)
This is one of the stupider things I've read lately. I will explain how and why you're wrong:
Anyway, that's the math that applies if you're an idiot consumer sucker. If you instead choose to invest a reasonable fraction of your salary -- say, 50% -- you can start from $0 and be living off your investments in about 16 years (and if you can get your savings rate to 65%, you can shave that down to a decade).
I think AMD uses Hypertransport in its APUs, but yeah, I've been wishing for years for an AMD FX (or Phenom II) + discrete Radeon setup that used it (maybe with the GPU in a motherboard socket instead of a daughter card, although I guess the hard part of that is the lack of standards for slotted graphics RAM).
NV-Link just sounds like an Nvidia copy of Hypertransport.
So would your GPU compute servers benefit from having an ARM instead of x86 CPU?
Clearly, there is some market where the workload favors ARM CPUs, and some market where the workload favors GPU computing (and therefore PCIe x16). Combining both in the same product only makes sense if there's some market that needs both at the same time. It's not as if AMD were discontinuing x86 Opterons, after all.
No, cloud/IoT things are inherently bad because they're fundamentally designed to steal control from the owner and give it to a third-party. Incidents like this just expose the scheme.
Georgia Power will give you a "free" Nest thermostat if you sign up for the "smart usage" plan (which means paying more for peak usage, and paying based on the peak power usage rather than only the total power usage).
FYI, "millennial" is not a synonym for "dumbass." There's plenty of us who know better than to buy into "IoT" and "Cloud" shit.
Fun fact: Arabs are just as Semitic as Jews, so describing anti-Jewish bias by Arabs as "anti-Semitism" makes very little sense.
My source was the Wikipedia article for the specific B41 device I linked to before:
Apparently, Wikipedia disagrees with itself. Which article is right? Who knows! (And I can't be bothered to follow the citations to check.)
Based on the figures from the article I quoted and a cursory glance at Google Maps, it looks like a B41 targeting Sydney could destroy everything between Sydney Olympic Park and the coast, a large portion of the metro area. It looks like the actual city limits of Sydney are only a tiny fraction of that, less than a mile in diameter.
I'd happily join any shareholder lawsuit filed against them for capitulating to such an asinine law.
If there were, I'd be worried that it would be implemented as a "flag this data as sensitive, to be uploaded to [insert TLA or manufacturer corporate espionage department] at the earliest opportunity" command instead.
Nah, there aren't any worthwhile targets in most of Africa, so the humans there would survive.
Not true. There are several other policies we could have tried, such as abandoning support for Israel or ignoring the region entirely. (Or, to the other extreme, massive genocide.) I'm not saying those would have been anything even slightly similar to good ideas, but they still count as options.
As far as nuclear weapons go, the Hiroshima bomb was pretty darn small. (Not as small as "tactical nukes," but small.) Hydrogen bombs such as the B83, which is at 1.2 megatons the most powerful US nuclear bomb in active service (let alone discontinued or experimental weapons such as the 25-megaton B41 or the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba) are perfectly capable of completely destroying even large cities. For example, Wikipedia says the B41 could destroy reinforced structures in an 8-mile radius and houses in a 15-mile radius. For perspective, if such a weapon were targeted at Lower Manhattan, it would totally destroy everything from Newark to Queens (and houses all the way to Yonkers and Hempstead)... before considering things like fires. Admittedly, you might need more than one if you were targeting a really spread-out area like greater LA.
Not even slightly. Organic farming is perfectly compatible with all sorts of intensive farming techniques, such as hydro- and aero-ponics, permaculture, etc. as well as conventional row-cropping. I could even achieve 100% subsistence, organically, using only what I grow on my 0.2 acre (including buildings) urban lot, if I wanted to put in the effort.
In other words, land is not the barrier to sustainable agriculture. The problem is that unsustainable agriculture is too cheap (in the short term) because its negative externalities aren't being properly accounted for.
You don't get "better lumber," you get more lumber, faster and therefore cheaper. Most people in the construction industry agree that the lumber used in houses a century ago was stronger than the stuff we use today (mostly because slower-growing trees tend to have denser wood).
That's because the government didn't discontinue the dollar bill. Do that, and the coin will become popular immediately.