I'd like to know which factors have allowed (forced?) the disk storage industry to continue to advance at such a steady pace. I am well aware of Moore's Law and Kryder's Law, but these are just observations, not explanations.
Why haven't we seen similar improvements in fuel efficiency or internet bandwidth (in the US at least)? It is profitable to replace old computer hardware every 18 months. It is not profitable to reduce the demand for fuel, on any timeline.
The real conspiracy isn't that they keep finding ways to increase storage capacity or decrease die size for semiconductors. The real conspiracy is that they gently walk us through an upgrade curve when they have radically more advanced processes perfected in the labs. In this respect, laws such as Moore's law could be considered to be business guidelines for how quickly new technology should be released in the private sector to maximize corporate profits. It has nothing to do with technology. This is called a profit curve and it is business related. Sucks to have your ideals squashed, but that is the world we live in.
Want to see how far storage and semiconductors have actually advanced? Go work in military black-op research and development.
They're compatible in a limited way, but not absolutely. The second statement would seem to apply to hypocrites, but the first one excludes them. For instance, if Joe is racist against blacks, should he still fight against the injustice of people who are racist towards Mexicans? Your second statement says yes, your first statement says no. I think my first statement actually says, or at least was intended to get across, "Their ideology may look filled with hate. But so does yours. Understand that relationship, because you are attacking something that is not so different than what you have", while my second statement says, "Don't sit idly by and watch injustice."
More to the point, I think it is an injustice for people to make a blanket claim about the moral character of millions (or billions) of other people based on what is printed in some books, especially when the one being critical has books underlying their ideologies that are no different.
Are you satisfied with this or do you want to tell me that I really meant something different?
You have good points, but are you aware of how this statement:
I am not defending Islam by any means. But there is this story about throwing stones and something about glass houses. Are you familiar with it? conflicts with your sig:
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving I can't see how. In the first sentence, I am saying that you shouldn't be a hypocrite. I was saying that all of our religions are full of hateful crap, and before we start insulting someone else's religion, we should consider our own.
My sig is a call for people to act, to tell people to stop allowing injustice. These two claims are perfectly compatible. You can act without being a hypocrite. In fact, I would suggest it.
I am terrified that WWIII could start over the delusional fantasies surrounding the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary: What you should be terrified of is that we have leaders who will use biblical themes in a variety of religions as a cover for consolidation of power and forming monopolies of natural resources. You should be worried that these fanatical monopolists are interested in starting wars to drive up profits, depopulate the earth and achieve many other goals.
The Qu'ran, far from being "the unaltered word of God", is actually an horrific and savage compilation of distilled hatred. This sounds very familiar. Are you sure that the Qu'ran is the only book that is like this?
Islam is not simply a religion; it is a design guidebook for the creation of a totalitarian state in which the "supreme leader" (Caliph) and his stooges get to use religion as an excuse to be really crappy to everyone else. And it's a lot easier to keep your population under control if they're too stupid to know better and terrified that a revolt might stop them from reaching "heaven." This sounds very familiar. Are you sure Islam is the only religion to do this?
And Mohammed, far from being a prophet, was an opportunist who figured like Akenaten, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard that he could use religion as a tool and scam. Look at the various things he was "exempted" from. He "limited" other men to only 4 wives (already a mysoginistic bastard but we'll move on), but he himself got at least an even dozen, plus he fucked a 5 year old (Aisha) just because he got bored with adults. He raped a girl who had just seen her entire family slaughtered (Safiya) and then retroactively declared it a "marriage" the next day when his troops started complaining. This also sounds very familiar. Aren't there some mystical figures out of the Old Testament that are similar, such as King Solomon?
I am not defending Islam by any means. But there is this story about throwing stones and something about glass houses. Are you familiar with it?
This would make a great tool in the hiring process. Is the candidate stressed out or calm? What is his mindset?
What do you all think?
My god, there are lots of great uses for this technology. You could put it into the rear-view mirror of new cars and project the brain-bloodflow patterns by something like RFID to police. They would then have a good indication if you have been drinking or using drugs. How liberating!
Let's put this technology into new television sets and send the interaction between cable tv viewing habits and brain-bloodflow back to the cable companies, the MPAA and other interested organizations. Incredible potential there!
Maybe we could put it into cellphones. Combined with GPS and other positioning technologies, built-in cameras and microphones, 3G+ networking and the anti-terrorist ad-hoc wiretaps, the FBI could pull up your conversations, a video of what you are doing, your exact location AND the condition and dynamics of how your frigging brain is operating! I think that would be a great tool to fight terrorism. We would definitely catch Osama, finally, if we had that.
My guess is that you have been restricting your reading materials in a pseudo-skeptical manner. I recommend that you read what is being said before discounting it. That would certainly reduce the amount of garbage that people have to wade through on these forums to get to actual discussion. That's a pretty impressive retort to being called pseudo-scientific.
There was a time when learned men actively sought out phenomena that didn't agree with understood scientific theory so that they may have new material from which to work from. Today, it has been programmed into our pseudo-intellectuals that they shouldn't even bother looking at something that doesn't fit with well understood theory. I can't honestly see how someone could call themselves a scientist if all they do is read about and study phenomena that agrees with what they learned in school. But this does appear to be the world we find ourselves in. It's a shame.
Science is not a democracy, by the way. We do not vote on ideas based upon who is saying them, contrary to the increasing belief that this is how it works. Instead, we should attempt to understand the arguments that are being made and discuss the logic behind both sides in the argument. The unfortunate reality is that science can be very threatening to established business interests. Most naive young scientists and engineers have an idealistic model in their minds of how science operates, completely ignoring politics, power, business and capitalism. But the world can be a very hostile place for brilliance, when that brilliance touches on any of the following subjects:
Energy production or consumption, especially when ideas threaten profit streams of oil or power generation utilities
Pharmaceutical or other cures, especially when they potentially eliminate entire business sectors of the medical industry
Anything that can be weaponized or provide strategic military advantage
Many less contentious subjects are nonetheless victims of the same problem...
If you have not read the story of Halton Arp, then you are limiting your exposure to observations to those which you agree with. In truth, there is no good reason for why Arp's observations are not correct. Arp has been obstructed from sharing his findings at every step of the way, oftentimes by the very people whose research is threatened by his observations. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one. There are many very real conspiracies of science and physics in particular. Of the list items, above, physics is threatening both to energy industrialists and to military industrialists. This is a subject that is highly controlled by an "in" crowd.
There appears to be no burden that can be met by the EU Theorists that would satisfy him, and the ethical problems associated with his being both a wikipedia referee and a player involved in influencing the publication of the theory appears to escape him. Sounds to me like he is doing exactly what he intends to do. Perhaps the Electronic Universe theories have some merit, and it is not believed to be in the interest of various powerful parties for this knowledge to be widely known. I'm sorry to have to break your innocence, but this is the real world.
Despite your good intentions, you may in fact be causing harm. You can't possibly know until you *read* what the theory says and talk to people about it, right? Whether that particular individual is doing it on purpose or not is not known, but I guarantee you that many are. Trying to reason with people about what is right and wrong from the point of view of the philosophy of science, when their objection is to censor science that is considered dangerous to powerful interests is paramount to trying to debate a hungry lion into living a vegetarian lifestyle. You can't do it. Instead, you must wake up to the reality of the problem and find new ways to fight for the advancement of science. They will try to make you look crazy, to discredit you; That is their job. Remember that. It's their job.
A thief by definition poses a threat to your property. It does not follow that the same thief poses a threat to your physical safety or your life. That's for one distinction. Quite the contrary, once someone has been deemed a threat through the nature of their actions (e.g. their trespasses against you), one has inalienable rights of self defense and survival, including the complete elimination of that threat.
I agree that if one is perceiving a thief from a safe vantage point where safety of you and your family are not at issue, any action that would cause physical harm would be wrong, unless it is to protect an asset required for the survival of you or your family (something we don't encounter that often in the 21st century). Vengeance is wrong. I don't disagree with you about that. But we aren't really discussing the scenario where you see a thief sneak into your vacation home on your webcam, are we? We are discussing physical confrontation with a thief who was in the process of taking away your means for survival.
Speaking as someone whose moral code is at least slightly more advanced than Ghegis Khan's, I can safely say that yes I certainly would convict someone who murdered a thief who posed no threat. Your mistake is in using the phrase, "thief who posed no threat". That would appear to be an oxymoron, to me.
Wrong! Even the fucking article says the Apollo astronots were subjected to 10 days exposure to solar radiation. Kinda strange how the astronauts are still walking around healthy after that, isn't it?
Its both. Do evil to combat evil. Thats the American way now, didn't you get the memo? That is only one step away from "Doing evil to combat perceived evil". Or is that even one step?
At any rate, since human perception is highly flawed, the practice of "Doing evil to combat perceived evil" can really be reduced to "Doing evil and hoping it limits the evil that others do". However, "Doing evil and hoping it limits the evil that others do" is really the same thing as simply "Doing evil." in fact, it is even worse, because it is really "Doing evil while competing with other evil in the hopes that you are the only one left".
Naturally, once we have truly followed the diabolical nature of this new approach, we are simply left with "Doing evil in the hopes of having a monopoly on doing evil."
The main reason I'd avoid Vista is the price and the loss in performance, though no new OS generally increases performance on the same hardware Apple's OS X operating system performs better with each iteration, on the same hardware. The rumor is that Apple achieves this remarkable result through a little known, and apparently forgotten, exercise called "optimization". Apparently, this activity is something that ancient computer-scientists used to do, according to some archeologists, but the ancient art of optimization was abandoned sometime during the Microsoft dark-ages.
Many people dismiss this topic of optimization as a conspiracy theory, but I must admit that I am starting to believe that such techniques exist.
I can download all the movies, TV, or music that I could want right now for free, including end-user created videos on youtube or tv shows, movies, or other "unapproved" content. It's all available for free right now.
Hey, I heard your neighbors car is available for free also. You can walk outside right now and take it. He left his keys in the ignition.
For that matter, you have 4 other neighbors on your street that regularly leave their doors unlocked. Lots of free stuff to be had.
Think before you post. You have an exponential number of nodes.
I thought alot before I posted this, but I just couldn't figure out what "an exponential number of nodes" means. Exponential relative to what?
I suppose you probably meant to say something like "the solution space has a number of possible solutions that is exponential relative to the size of the soduku puzzle and therefore, any depth-first-search of that solution space will opererate at polynomial time relative to the puzzle size."
Think before you post. You have an exponential number of nodes. Worst case is you have to visit them all. How is that possibly linear?
You should be thinking before you post.
If you don't define the problem differently, then everyone will asume that the problem is the textbook style DFS. In a textbook DFS, you have n=number of nodes and a traversal algorithm that is O(n). Typically, the graph or tree will be in a database or memory datastructures.
Clearly, in a suduko solver, the tree is not already generated into a database or memory datastructures and the DFS is actually a 'possible solution' generator rather than a graph traversal algorithm. It shouldn't really be called a DFS, because it is a different beast that just shares a theoretical path exploration model (but the solver isn't really traversing a structure, is it?). In this scenario, you can calculate the number of nodes (which is exponential w/relation to the size of the puzzle), and that number (n) is the total possible solutions. If we do a DFS through this theoretical solution space, it is still an O(n) algorithm. But you have to define the terms correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
Why haven't we seen similar improvements in fuel efficiency or internet bandwidth (in the US at least)? It is profitable to replace old computer hardware every 18 months. It is not profitable to reduce the demand for fuel, on any timeline.
The real conspiracy isn't that they keep finding ways to increase storage capacity or decrease die size for semiconductors. The real conspiracy is that they gently walk us through an upgrade curve when they have radically more advanced processes perfected in the labs. In this respect, laws such as Moore's law could be considered to be business guidelines for how quickly new technology should be released in the private sector to maximize corporate profits. It has nothing to do with technology. This is called a profit curve and it is business related. Sucks to have your ideals squashed, but that is the world we live in.
Want to see how far storage and semiconductors have actually advanced? Go work in military black-op research and development.
The sad part of the story is that it probably was her 11 year old daughter that was playing on Kaza
More to the point, I think it is an injustice for people to make a blanket claim about the moral character of millions (or billions) of other people based on what is printed in some books, especially when the one being critical has books underlying their ideologies that are no different.
Are you satisfied with this or do you want to tell me that I really meant something different?
I've been waiting forever for this announcement!
My sig is a call for people to act, to tell people to stop allowing injustice. These two claims are perfectly compatible. You can act without being a hypocrite. In fact, I would suggest it.
I am not defending Islam by any means. But there is this story about throwing stones and something about glass houses. Are you familiar with it?
This would make a great tool in the hiring process. Is the candidate stressed out or calm? What is his mindset?
What do you all think?
My god, there are lots of great uses for this technology. You could put it into the rear-view mirror of new cars and project the brain-bloodflow patterns by something like RFID to police. They would then have a good indication if you have been drinking or using drugs. How liberating!
Let's put this technology into new television sets and send the interaction between cable tv viewing habits and brain-bloodflow back to the cable companies, the MPAA and other interested organizations. Incredible potential there!
Maybe we could put it into cellphones. Combined with GPS and other positioning technologies, built-in cameras and microphones, 3G+ networking and the anti-terrorist ad-hoc wiretaps, the FBI could pull up your conversations, a video of what you are doing, your exact location AND the condition and dynamics of how your frigging brain is operating! I think that would be a great tool to fight terrorism. We would definitely catch Osama, finally, if we had that.
There was a time when learned men actively sought out phenomena that didn't agree with understood scientific theory so that they may have new material from which to work from. Today, it has been programmed into our pseudo-intellectuals that they shouldn't even bother looking at something that doesn't fit with well understood theory. I can't honestly see how someone could call themselves a scientist if all they do is read about and study phenomena that agrees with what they learned in school. But this does appear to be the world we find ourselves in. It's a shame.
- Energy production or consumption, especially when ideas threaten profit streams of oil or power generation utilities
- Pharmaceutical or other cures, especially when they potentially eliminate entire business sectors of the medical industry
- Anything that can be weaponized or provide strategic military advantage
- Many less contentious subjects are nonetheless victims of the same problem...
If you have not read the story of Halton Arp, then you are limiting your exposure to observations to those which you agree with. In truth, there is no good reason for why Arp's observations are not correct. Arp has been obstructed from sharing his findings at every step of the way, oftentimes by the very people whose research is threatened by his observations. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the correct one. There are many very real conspiracies of science and physics in particular. Of the list items, above, physics is threatening both to energy industrialists and to military industrialists. This is a subject that is highly controlled by an "in" crowd. There appears to be no burden that can be met by the EU Theorists that would satisfy him, and the ethical problems associated with his being both a wikipedia referee and a player involved in influencing the publication of the theory appears to escape him. Sounds to me like he is doing exactly what he intends to do. Perhaps the Electronic Universe theories have some merit, and it is not believed to be in the interest of various powerful parties for this knowledge to be widely known. I'm sorry to have to break your innocence, but this is the real world. Despite your good intentions, you may in fact be causing harm. You can't possibly know until you *read* what the theory says and talk to people about it, right? Whether that particular individual is doing it on purpose or not is not known, but I guarantee you that many are. Trying to reason with people about what is right and wrong from the point of view of the philosophy of science, when their objection is to censor science that is considered dangerous to powerful interests is paramount to trying to debate a hungry lion into living a vegetarian lifestyle. You can't do it. Instead, you must wake up to the reality of the problem and find new ways to fight for the advancement of science. They will try to make you look crazy, to discredit you; That is their job. Remember that. It's their job.I agree that if one is perceiving a thief from a safe vantage point where safety of you and your family are not at issue, any action that would cause physical harm would be wrong, unless it is to protect an asset required for the survival of you or your family (something we don't encounter that often in the 21st century). Vengeance is wrong. I don't disagree with you about that. But we aren't really discussing the scenario where you see a thief sneak into your vacation home on your webcam, are we? We are discussing physical confrontation with a thief who was in the process of taking away your means for survival.
The right to defend oneself is a natural one.
If stores can unlock the disks, so can hackers. When will they learn?
yea, we all love to examine word and excell files on our cell phones...
With this technology, we can finally send humans safely out of the Van Allen belt!
This means that we can finally go to the moon!
I tried this and it told me that I was an 87 year old, divorced Jewish woman living in Florida.
Dude...
At any rate, since human perception is highly flawed, the practice of "Doing evil to combat perceived evil" can really be reduced to "Doing evil and hoping it limits the evil that others do". However, "Doing evil and hoping it limits the evil that others do" is really the same thing as simply "Doing evil." in fact, it is even worse, because it is really "Doing evil while competing with other evil in the hopes that you are the only one left".
Naturally, once we have truly followed the diabolical nature of this new approach, we are simply left with "Doing evil in the hopes of having a monopoly on doing evil."
Shame on you, google.
Many people dismiss this topic of optimization as a conspiracy theory, but I must admit that I am starting to believe that such techniques exist.
Funny, but quite a big letdown.
For that matter, you have 4 other neighbors on your street that regularly leave their doors unlocked. Lots of free stuff to be had.
I suppose you probably meant to say something like "the solution space has a number of possible solutions that is exponential relative to the size of the soduku puzzle and therefore, any depth-first-search of that solution space will opererate at polynomial time relative to the puzzle size."
But that isn't what you said, is it?
If you don't define the problem differently, then everyone will asume that the problem is the textbook style DFS. In a textbook DFS, you have n=number of nodes and a traversal algorithm that is O(n). Typically, the graph or tree will be in a database or memory datastructures.
Clearly, in a suduko solver, the tree is not already generated into a database or memory datastructures and the DFS is actually a 'possible solution' generator rather than a graph traversal algorithm. It shouldn't really be called a DFS, because it is a different beast that just shares a theoretical path exploration model (but the solver isn't really traversing a structure, is it?). In this scenario, you can calculate the number of nodes (which is exponential w/relation to the size of the puzzle), and that number (n) is the total possible solutions. If we do a DFS through this theoretical solution space, it is still an O(n) algorithm. But you have to define the terms correctly.
I agree with you. Think before you post.