LOL. Microprocessors were developed by Intel for use in calculators. And the consumer market has driven technological deployment much more than any research program ever has.
What do you think you're talking about? The Internet - that was DARPA, not NASA. WWW? That was CERN. Integrated circuits? Nope. Microprocessors? Nope. LDCs? Nope. LEDs? Nope.
And exactly what technology would that be? Tang or Velcro? Seriously, name a single technology (useful for other than NASA purposes) which wouldn't have appeared within a few years anyway.
Whoosh. Schools aren't buying tablets to replace calculators, they're buying them for things like textbook replacement, note taking, research via the web, etc. Also using them in place of programmable calculators can be done with low, or zero, incremental cost.
I mentioned iPads only because that's what the summary was about. And pointing to an Apple ][ emulator just seemed to fit with that. The point, which you missed entirely on your way to making a political criticism, is that one can do programming on a tablet without having to do programming for the tablet.
Caesium clocks, upon which the second is defined, differ in frequency, due to gravity, electromagnetic fields, etc. (the definition of the second is based on a Cs atom at 0K, at rest, which isn't realizable in practice). Because of this, official time is only known after the fact, based on a weighted average of about 400 Cs clocks.
If changes in the environment have less effect on a Y clock, or the physical processes upon which it's based have less random variation, then in might be more stable. Stability can be determined relatively quickly, using the 3-cornered hat method. But with the scales at issue, it may take a considerable length of time comparing the Y clock to the official realization of time in order to determine its accuracy (or perhaps more properly, calibrate it to be accurate).
If you have a clock that's exactly, and consistently, 1 minute per day slow, you have a precise, but inaccurate clock. If you have a clock that might be off +- 1 minute per day, but the average makes it never deviate more than 1 minute from correct time, you have an accurate, but imprecise one.
I suspect it's very much more than the billion $ figure I was responding to, given the investments being made in new fiber to shave microseconds, to hire $1M programmers and quants, etc.
You claim of causality based on correlation rings hollow. There have been other significant changes which increase liquidity, which you're ignoring. Common investors being able to make near-immediate trades via the Internet rather than with a phone call to a broker. Changes from fractional dollar to penny (or finer) valuations. Ready access to real time quotes for common investors. $5 or $10 flat priced trades, rather than $xx + % (+ more for odd lots).
HF traders are leeches. They're not altruists, there for the good of the market, they're there to suck blood.
Which means there is also $1B+/year in losses to someone, caused by HFT. Guess what? If it's the HFT traders making a profit, it's the investors taking the hit.
Slashdot Mirror
Gigawatts. "jigga" is the correct pronunciation of the SI prefix, despite the widespread use of gigg-a (hard g).
What BS. They claim things like freeze dried foods, which existed long before NASA. It's just self-serving, rationalizing, hype.
Just wait until the new titanium-graphite (TiGr) and beryllium-argon (BeAr) batteries reach the market.
Writing "square mm" is perfectly correct.
"a die size of approximately 257mm square."
I suspect that should be 257 square mm. A 257 mm square die couldn't even be covered by a standard sheet of paper (US:letter, EU:A4)
Well, there you go. Thanks for proving that NASA is one big propaganda machine.
LOL. Microprocessors were developed by Intel for use in calculators. And the consumer market has driven technological deployment much more than any research program ever has.
What do you think you're talking about? The Internet - that was DARPA, not NASA. WWW? That was CERN. Integrated circuits? Nope. Microprocessors? Nope. LDCs? Nope. LEDs? Nope.
And exactly what technology would that be? Tang or Velcro? Seriously, name a single technology (useful for other than NASA purposes) which wouldn't have appeared within a few years anyway.
So, your argument is that cutting someone's arm off is OK, because you're not killing them.
It's worth spending $280 million taxpayer dollars to see if the moon is dusty?
Troll.
Whoosh. Schools aren't buying tablets to replace calculators, they're buying them for things like textbook replacement, note taking, research via the web, etc. Also using them in place of programmable calculators can be done with low, or zero, incremental cost.
I mentioned iPads only because that's what the summary was about. And pointing to an Apple ][ emulator just seemed to fit with that. The point, which you missed entirely on your way to making a political criticism, is that one can do programming on a tablet without having to do programming for the tablet.
I understand this works on iPads:
Apple ][ emulator
Tesla received a loan from the government, not aid. And they've since paid it back, with interest, 9 years early.
One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison.
This isn't sailing, it's a contest of technology and money.
The goal for a good analogy should always be to score points and win the game.
"One can't honk the horn, flash light, vent the sunroof or unlock/lock the car while it is moving."
What good's a horn or sunroof, if you can't use it while moving?
Yep. If you go to the source, they say "NIST scientists plan to measure the accuracy of the ytterbium clocks in the near future..."
A stopped clock is no longer a clock.
Caesium clocks, upon which the second is defined, differ in frequency, due to gravity, electromagnetic fields, etc. (the definition of the second is based on a Cs atom at 0K, at rest, which isn't realizable in practice). Because of this, official time is only known after the fact, based on a weighted average of about 400 Cs clocks.
If changes in the environment have less effect on a Y clock, or the physical processes upon which it's based have less random variation, then in might be more stable. Stability can be determined relatively quickly, using the 3-cornered hat method. But with the scales at issue, it may take a considerable length of time comparing the Y clock to the official realization of time in order to determine its accuracy (or perhaps more properly, calibrate it to be accurate).
If you have a clock that's exactly, and consistently, 1 minute per day slow, you have a precise, but inaccurate clock. If you have a clock that might be off +- 1 minute per day, but the average makes it never deviate more than 1 minute from correct time, you have an accurate, but imprecise one.
I suspect it's very much more than the billion $ figure I was responding to, given the investments being made in new fiber to shave microseconds, to hire $1M programmers and quants, etc.
You claim of causality based on correlation rings hollow. There have been other significant changes which increase liquidity, which you're ignoring. Common investors being able to make near-immediate trades via the Internet rather than with a phone call to a broker. Changes from fractional dollar to penny (or finer) valuations. Ready access to real time quotes for common investors. $5 or $10 flat priced trades, rather than $xx + % (+ more for odd lots).
HF traders are leeches. They're not altruists, there for the good of the market, they're there to suck blood.
You use toothpaste which makes your teeth glow in the dark?
"There is $1B+/year in HFT profits"
Which means there is also $1B+/year in losses to someone, caused by HFT. Guess what? If it's the HFT traders making a profit, it's the investors taking the hit.