IMO being a software engineer does not make you a successful person. As long as you are a wage slave you're still just another cog in the wheel. Basically success is the point at which you can retire and live your chosen lifestyle in comfort for the rest of your life until that point you are bad accident away from living in the gutter.
PS: I am a software engineer with student loans etc so feel free to take that as you will.
To clarify underwater cave diving is insanely risky on a per hour basis. However, people spend several orders of magnitude more time at home than underwater cave diving.
So, where more people die at home going underwater cave diving still increases your risk.
PS: You can see the reduction in accident related deaths on the first link's chart.
"And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease."
Hmm, what about accidents? It seems like extremely overweight people tend to spend more time at home which probably lowers their risks from car / skydiving / whatever accidents. My guess is the low weight stay at home people probably live longer than fat stay at home people. Wonder if I could get a grant to study this...
I agree that most "Web people are no more engineers than are MCSEs." but building something like Google's search takes a lot of high end math and extremely advanced architecture. Like most forms of engineering it's the extreme cases that are hard. Any idiot can build a gazebo or static website but writing good drivers for a geforce 8800 is at least as hard as designing a good transmission.
Where does it say that? I am not trying to be pedantic wikipedia could use this info. "It is highly essential to the definition that the OS be Unix-like, and be free and open source.[citation needed]"
It was my understanding that the primary definition revolved around not containing any custom hardware components and trivially reproducible. Granted the first reference was from the Linux world but it's DragonFly BSD is also generally accepted so I don't think it's OS specific. So I don't think windows or OS X is out the window.
Beowulf clusters are designed to maximize the performance of hardware as a distributed system. Windows consumes more resources, which makes windows a poor choice in those environments. So why waste time supporting them?
PS: You could hack together a Beowulf cluster using Cygwin it's going to be slower and well pointless, but feel free.
If you want to call a PDP-11 a mini computer that's fine with me.
Let's go with IBM (http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_profiles.html > 3032 Processor Complex) Announced October 6, 1977 "The 3032 processor complex includes the 3032 Processor with six channels, the 3036 console and the 3027 power and coolant distribution unit."
Now the CPU was a 32bit system at a beastly 12.5 Mhz. "One group of six channels is standard on the 3032 Processors. The total number of channels can be expanded to twelve on the 3032 with the addition of an optional channel group. Each group consists of one byte multiplexer channel and five block multiplexer channels. Channels are physically integrated within the processor and operate independently of other processor functions.
The byte multiplexer channels operate in the range of 40-75 thousand bytes per second, and each block multiplexer is capable of a data transfer rate up to 1.5 million bytes per second."
A 486's PCI bus is 32-bit at 33MHz tack on ISA which is 1056Mbits/s or 132 million bytes per second which is a lost faster. Granted it's harder to talk about a cellphones total bandwdith as there are several types of IO but USB2.0 is even faster than that.
If you want to talk about bandwidth: A PDP11's UNIBUS had a total bandwidth of ~13.6mbits/s (1.7Mbytes/s). Cell phones are well into the GBits/s range. Mainframes could have large user loads but 600,000 users is way outside the limits on any 1970's mainframe.
However, on the software side of things PDP-11's where far more optimized. Back then computer time was expensive enough that people wrote in assembler or languages vary close to it. Users accepted slowly updating text only interfaces etc.
PS: A decent 486 had as much processing power, RAM, and bandwidth as a 1970's mainframe and a good cell phone is well past that.
Nope. This is where you're wrong. This would cause deflation in the rest of the economy were the supply of money to actually remain at zero and the level of money to remain constant (with for example a gold backed currency).
Now take Google stock it's "worth" around 600$ per share if it drops to 200$ the amount of money in the economy does not change. If you don't understand back to wikipedia and see how M0, M1, M2, or M3 are calculated.
Total cash is not the same as total value of goods in the economy ex: US money supply around 11 trillion now what do you think the total assets in the US is? It's over 100 trillion.
PS: The value of a stock is based on how much people expect it to be worth in the future. If a company has 10million in assets, 10million in net profit and zero growth it's going to be worth around 10 + 10/.1 = 110 million. But if it's growing at 5% a year it's going to be worth more than that.
All the money in existence represents all the buy able "stuff" in the economy. (Wrong) In macroeconomics, money supply ("monetary aggregates", "money stock") is the quantity of currency and money in bank accounts in the hands of the non-bank public available within the economy to purchase goods, services, and securities.
It's best to think of money as just another good in the economy. Let's say there are 100billion$ in the world. Now someone discovers a new oil field.
What happened to the money supply? Well nothing. What happened to the price of oil today? Well Nothing.
But wait the guy who found all that oil just got rich right? Where does that money come from? Well at some point people with money is going to want to buy oil so someone is going to pay money to extract that oil so they will pay for the land.
Note: At no point in this process does the amount of money change. And the price of all other goods in the economy stay the say it's the price of the land that increases to represent it's new value.
Each and every year people transform some things of lower value to things with more value. At the same time decay reduces the value of other things like unmaintained roads. Ideas like inflation are talk about how the value of money changes vs a group of goods. Over the last 40 years the price of oil has increased but the price of a computer has decreased. 2000 years ago salt and gold where worth about the same amount now salt is much much cheaper than gold. It's best to think of money as economic grease I would much rather have 10million in cash from 1990 than 10million in computers from 1990 because I can turn 10million in cash to more gold, salt, or whatever than 10 million in 1990 PC's.
Now back to stock. Owning a stock is not the same thing as owning cash. It's value tends to increase because that's what companies do. On average the economy might grow 3% a year and inflation might increase 3% a year but stocks tend to increase 3% faster than both of them put together. But at the end of the day I only care about what other goods I can buy with my stock you use inflation to figure out how many goods I can buy now vs when I bout the stock to see if it was a good investment. I don't really care if the economy grows and 100 people are now billionaires I only care how much salt, gold, oil, doctors time etc I can get with my stock not how my relative place in the economy changes. After all if everyone becomes 100x as rich that's fine with me.
Ok, I know there is inflation etc, but I am up 60% over the last 4 years (~12.5% / year ignoring inflation). I think my grandfathers historical average is about the same ~9% / year adjusted for inflation over 60 years. WTF funny money investments have you been using.
US lotteries are a state funding source. Now if you look at the services state governments provide vs. their cash flow you might realize they are extremely efficient for their size. Show me a large effective charitable organization that does not waste tons of cash on fund raising and or advertising.
From a pure efficiency standpoint the average state government is much more efficient that the average charitable organization. Note: There are bad examples but look at the totals wasting 100 million out of a 100billion budget is a 1/1000 of overall funding.
PS: For real insight look into less flashy services like the DMV.
~3MB / song / (~1Mbit/s upload) = 24 seconds a song. And 30 * 24 * 60 * 60 / 24
108,000 songs * 1$ / month = $108,000 at worst but a little chat with your ISP based on your actual upload rate will reduce this even more. (Note: 108,000 is still less than 10 Million and it is independent on the number of songs you could upload.)
IMO: The size of your catalog does not matter if you don't have the bandwidth to transmit it. Which is why the MPAA does not care about movie downloads as much as the RIAA cares about music downloads.
Break even would be around 87.6million /.06 = ~1.46 Billion for the military assuming they spend that much per MW 24/7 for several years. (The $/MWh is probably not that far off transporting fuel around battle fields is costly at they don't get to use high efficiency power plants. But they probably don't need 10MW in one location 24/7)
IMO if they have reasonably efficient microwave transmission (85%) they should setup 3 relay stations so they can beam power up from the US to any point as needed.
That's nice. You misunderstand an accurate and gramaticly correct sentince and after all this time you still think it's funny.
Please go to some other corner of the internet and share your stupidity with someone who cares.
PS: invent means:
1. To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.
And yes he is one of the key figures in creating and shaping the internet.
Re:Sure it is possible to search 10^60
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
NM, he is talking about a 19x19 board.
Re:Sure it is possible to search 10^60
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
A go board is 80x80 so the search space should be ~(blank,white, black)^(80*80) = 3^1600 or 2.5 * 10 ^ 763. But past positions matter so it's much worse than that. Granted there is some symmetry which cancels the black vs. white turn issue and there are a lot of non valid positions. But, as a basic guess 3^1600 is still bad.
Anyway, (2^(1/18))^28.6 ~= 3 so ~28.6 months / 12years * 1600 = ~3814 years. (Personally I don't think mores law is going to last anywhere near that long.)
Note: after each step you need to validate the board aka flip some black and or white pieces. You also need to find cycles by searching the preceding positions as you can't make a move just based on what it looks like you also need to look at past positions. And it's harder to find when the end takes place as you need to look at when a player passes. So it's a much harder problem than most people think.
Reduce is not the same as Prevent. By locking car doors you can help reduce the amount of grand theft auto but as people can and will steal cars with locked doors it's a reduction.
Lock all the doors you want there will still be theft. Make any drug you want illegal there will still be some users. Trade all the freedom you want there will still be terrorism.
Anyway, it's all smoke and mirrors cars kill far more people than terrorist's and most people don't seem to care that much. IMO the reason people care has more to due with movies than any real threat. IMO the fastest way to render them meaningless is to ignore them. (Aka remove them from political speeches, TV, video games, and movies.)
The goal should be to balance risks and the effort you expend reducing them. You should not assume any one solution is going to work all the time.
PS: The same thing happens in software. Most programmers assume RAM is going to work etc but sometimes that machine calculates 2+2 and gives you 18.
That's nice, but you forget that over time the tools change. My space users are also building websites. A few years ago they would have need HTML but that's not and issue anymore. A few years before that building a computer meant building a mother board using someone an off the shelf design but now soldering guns are a dieing skill. A few years before that you needed to design a CPU so someone could build a computer. Hmm, I guess the good old days where less than hot.
In time sites like http://www.clutterme.com/ is going to change how most people build websites. Hand crafting HTML is a dieing skill because off the self system make it useless unless your building that tool. I like having a car that can go 100k miles with little issue and I like using a good editor to build web pages.
Sorry, but Lao Tzu said "Give A Man A Fish, Feed Him For A Day. Teach A Man To Fish, Feed Him For A Lifetime". So it's not a Christian saying just something Christians stole from a culture and now think of as theirs; like Christmas.
Anyway, more money (total value of goods) comes out of Africa than goes into it. Basically the west's farm subsidies destroyed the value of local farm economies and we now extract a lot of raw materials from the ruins of their economies. Food aid makes this process somewhat worse by preventing mass death that would adjust the local population size to something the local ecosystem is able to support.
PS: If Africa's population was 10% what it is now their would be far fewer problems. For an example of this look at how the black death boosted the standard of living of those left alive. The problem is going from A to B without mass death. Granted, there are significant political issues related to the random political borders etc but that landscape is way to complex for such simple analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many laws it's unconstitutional, but who knows what's going to happen in the court system.
IMO being a software engineer does not make you a successful person. As long as you are a wage slave you're still just another cog in the wheel. Basically success is the point at which you can retire and live your chosen lifestyle in comfort for the rest of your life until that point you are bad accident away from living in the gutter.
PS: I am a software engineer with student loans etc so feel free to take that as you will.
To clarify underwater cave diving is insanely risky on a per hour basis. However, people spend several orders of magnitude more time at home than underwater cave diving.
So, where more people die at home going underwater cave diving still increases your risk.
PS: You can see the reduction in accident related deaths on the first link's chart.
"And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease."
Hmm, what about accidents? It seems like extremely overweight people tend to spend more time at home which probably lowers their risks from car / skydiving / whatever accidents. My guess is the low weight stay at home people probably live longer than fat stay at home people. Wonder if I could get a grant to study this...
I agree that most "Web people are no more engineers than are MCSEs." but building something like Google's search takes a lot of high end math and extremely advanced architecture. Like most forms of engineering it's the extreme cases that are hard. Any idiot can build a gazebo or static website but writing good drivers for a geforce 8800 is at least as hard as designing a good transmission.
Where does it say that? I am not trying to be pedantic wikipedia could use this info. "It is highly essential to the definition that the OS be Unix-like, and be free and open source.[citation needed]"
It was my understanding that the primary definition revolved around not containing any custom hardware components and trivially reproducible. Granted the first reference was from the Linux world but it's DragonFly BSD is also generally accepted so I don't think it's OS specific. So I don't think windows or OS X is out the window.
Beowulf clusters are designed to maximize the performance of hardware as a distributed system. Windows consumes more resources, which makes windows a poor choice in those environments. So why waste time supporting them?
PS: You could hack together a Beowulf cluster using Cygwin it's going to be slower and well pointless, but feel free.
If you want to call a PDP-11 a mini computer that's fine with me.
Let's go with IBM (http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_profiles.html > 3032 Processor Complex) Announced October 6, 1977 "The 3032 processor complex includes the 3032 Processor with six channels, the 3036 console and the 3027 power and coolant distribution unit."
Now the CPU was a 32bit system at a beastly 12.5 Mhz. "One group of six channels is standard on the 3032 Processors. The total number of channels can be expanded to twelve on the 3032 with the addition of an optional channel group. Each group consists of one byte multiplexer channel and five block multiplexer channels. Channels are physically integrated within the processor and operate independently of other processor functions.
The byte multiplexer channels operate in the range of 40-75 thousand bytes per second, and each block multiplexer is capable of a data transfer rate up to 1.5 million bytes per second."
A 486's PCI bus is 32-bit at 33MHz tack on ISA which is 1056Mbits/s or 132 million bytes per second which is a lost faster. Granted it's harder to talk about a cellphones total bandwdith as there are several types of IO but USB2.0 is even faster than that.
If you want to talk about bandwidth: A PDP11's UNIBUS had a total bandwidth of ~13.6mbits/s (1.7Mbytes/s). Cell phones are well into the GBits/s range. Mainframes could have large user loads but 600,000 users is way outside the limits on any 1970's mainframe.
However, on the software side of things PDP-11's where far more optimized. Back then computer time was expensive enough that people wrote in assembler or languages vary close to it. Users accepted slowly updating text only interfaces etc.
PS: A decent 486 had as much processing power, RAM, and bandwidth as a 1970's mainframe and a good cell phone is well past that.
This basically comes down to a GeForce 8800 GTX vs. GeForce 8800 GT. The problem is the 8800 was a high end part a year ago and the GT just came out.
So if you want to build/upgrade to a cheep gaming system pick up an 8800GT if not wait till the next high end chip hit's the market or buy 2 8800GT's.
Nope. This is where you're wrong. This would cause deflation in the rest of the economy were the supply of money to actually remain at zero and the level of money to remain constant (with for example a gold backed currency).
You don't understand the terms you are using read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
Now take Google stock it's "worth" around 600$ per share if it drops to 200$ the amount of money in the economy does not change. If you don't understand back to wikipedia and see how M0, M1, M2, or M3 are calculated.
Total cash is not the same as total value of goods in the economy ex: US money supply around 11 trillion now what do you think the total assets in the US is? It's over 100 trillion.
PS: The value of a stock is based on how much people expect it to be worth in the future. If a company has 10million in assets, 10million in net profit and zero growth it's going to be worth around 10 + 10/.1 = 110 million. But if it's growing at 5% a year it's going to be worth more than that.
All the money in existence represents all the buy able "stuff" in the economy. (Wrong) In macroeconomics, money supply ("monetary aggregates", "money stock") is the quantity of currency and money in bank accounts in the hands of the non-bank public available within the economy to purchase goods, services, and securities.
It's best to think of money as just another good in the economy. Let's say there are 100billion$ in the world. Now someone discovers a new oil field.
What happened to the money supply? Well nothing.
What happened to the price of oil today? Well Nothing.
But wait the guy who found all that oil just got rich right? Where does that money come from? Well at some point people with money is going to want to buy oil so someone is going to pay money to extract that oil so they will pay for the land.
Note: At no point in this process does the amount of money change. And the price of all other goods in the economy stay the say it's the price of the land that increases to represent it's new value.
Each and every year people transform some things of lower value to things with more value. At the same time decay reduces the value of other things like unmaintained roads. Ideas like inflation are talk about how the value of money changes vs a group of goods. Over the last 40 years the price of oil has increased but the price of a computer has decreased. 2000 years ago salt and gold where worth about the same amount now salt is much much cheaper than gold. It's best to think of money as economic grease I would much rather have 10million in cash from 1990 than 10million in computers from 1990 because I can turn 10million in cash to more gold, salt, or whatever than 10 million in 1990 PC's.
Now back to stock. Owning a stock is not the same thing as owning cash. It's value tends to increase because that's what companies do. On average the economy might grow 3% a year and inflation might increase 3% a year but stocks tend to increase 3% faster than both of them put together. But at the end of the day I only care about what other goods I can buy with my stock you use inflation to figure out how many goods I can buy now vs when I bout the stock to see if it was a good investment. I don't really care if the economy grows and 100 people are now billionaires I only care how much salt, gold, oil, doctors time etc I can get with my stock not how my relative place in the economy changes. After all if everyone becomes 100x as rich that's fine with me.
Ok, I know there is inflation etc, but I am up 60% over the last 4 years (~12.5% / year ignoring inflation). I think my grandfathers historical average is about the same ~9% / year adjusted for inflation over 60 years. WTF funny money investments have you been using.
It's a fairly complex problem you need to find the odds based on the numbers of players to find the odds of 0,1,2,...10 other winners.
Factor in smaller winning amounts like 3$, 7$, 500$, or whatever.
Factor in taxes on amounts over ~100$.
I think break even for a single ticket is around 2:1 listed payout amount vs odds of winning for Mega Millions but I don't really know.
US lotteries are a state funding source. Now if you look at the services state governments provide vs. their cash flow you might realize they are extremely efficient for their size. Show me a large effective charitable organization that does not waste tons of cash on fund raising and or advertising.
From a pure efficiency standpoint the average state government is much more efficient that the average charitable organization. Note: There are bad examples but look at the totals wasting 100 million out of a 100billion budget is a 1/1000 of overall funding.
PS: For real insight look into less flashy services like the DMV.
Q: So what makes these beliefs impossible, illogical and absolutely and unquestionably false?
A: Hope does not alter the world.
In any case if any part of a system is wrong then the system is wrong.
PS: A and not A can only be true if A is meaningless. EX: If you propose a God that does nothing then your term "God" has no meaning.
~3MB / song / (~1Mbit/s upload) = 24 seconds a song. And 30 * 24 * 60 * 60 / 24
108,000 songs * 1$ / month = $108,000 at worst but a little chat with your ISP based on your actual upload rate will reduce this even more. (Note: 108,000 is still less than 10 Million and it is independent on the number of songs you could upload.)
IMO: The size of your catalog does not matter if you don't have the bandwidth to transmit it. Which is why the MPAA does not care about movie downloads as much as the RIAA cares about music downloads.
1MW /year @.05$/kw = .05$/kwh * 24h/d * 365d/y * 1000 MW/kw = 438,000$ /year @1$/kw = 1$/kwh * 24h/d * 365d/y * 1000 MW/kw = 8,760,000$
.06 = ~1.46 Billion for the military assuming they spend that much per MW 24/7 for several years. (The $/MWh is probably not that far off transporting fuel around battle fields is costly at they don't get to use high efficiency power plants. But they probably don't need 10MW in one location 24/7)
.065$/kw hour
1MW
10MW/year @1$/kw = 87.6million
Break even would be around 87.6million /
IMO if they have reasonably efficient microwave transmission (85%) they should setup 3 relay stations so they can beam power up from the US to any point as needed.
PS: 65$/MW is per hour as it's
That's nice. You misunderstand an accurate and gramaticly correct sentince and after all this time you still think it's funny.
Please go to some other corner of the internet and share your stupidity with someone who cares.
PS: invent means:
1. To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.
And yes he is one of the key figures in creating and shaping the internet.
NM, he is talking about a 19x19 board.
A go board is 80x80 so the search space should be ~(blank ,white, black)^(80*80) = 3^1600 or 2.5 * 10 ^ 763. But past positions matter so it's much worse than that. Granted there is some symmetry which cancels the black vs. white turn issue and there are a lot of non valid positions. But, as a basic guess 3^1600 is still bad.
Anyway, (2^(1/18))^28.6 ~= 3 so ~28.6 months / 12years * 1600 = ~3814 years. (Personally I don't think mores law is going to last anywhere near that long.)
Note: after each step you need to validate the board aka flip some black and or white pieces. You also need to find cycles by searching the preceding positions as you can't make a move just based on what it looks like you also need to look at past positions. And it's harder to find when the end takes place as you need to look at when a player passes. So it's a much harder problem than most people think.
Reduce is not the same as Prevent. By locking car doors you can help reduce the amount of grand theft auto but as people can and will steal cars with locked doors it's a reduction.
Lock all the doors you want there will still be theft.
Make any drug you want illegal there will still be some users.
Trade all the freedom you want there will still be terrorism.
Anyway, it's all smoke and mirrors cars kill far more people than terrorist's and most people don't seem to care that much. IMO the reason people care has more to due with movies than any real threat. IMO the fastest way to render them meaningless is to ignore them. (Aka remove them from political speeches, TV, video games, and movies.)
The goal should be to balance risks and the effort you expend reducing them. You should not assume any one solution is going to work all the time.
PS: The same thing happens in software. Most programmers assume RAM is going to work etc but sometimes that machine calculates 2+2 and gives you 18.
That's nice, but you forget that over time the tools change. My space users are also building websites. A few years ago they would have need HTML but that's not and issue anymore. A few years before that building a computer meant building a mother board using someone an off the shelf design but now soldering guns are a dieing skill. A few years before that you needed to design a CPU so someone could build a computer. Hmm, I guess the good old days where less than hot.
In time sites like http://www.clutterme.com/ is going to change how most people build websites. Hand crafting HTML is a dieing skill because off the self system make it useless unless your building that tool. I like having a car that can go 100k miles with little issue and I like using a good editor to build web pages.
Sorry, but Lao Tzu said "Give A Man A Fish, Feed Him For A Day. Teach A Man To Fish, Feed Him For A Lifetime". So it's not a Christian saying just something Christians stole from a culture and now think of as theirs; like Christmas.
Anyway, more money (total value of goods) comes out of Africa than goes into it. Basically the west's farm subsidies destroyed the value of local farm economies and we now extract a lot of raw materials from the ruins of their economies. Food aid makes this process somewhat worse by preventing mass death that would adjust the local population size to something the local ecosystem is able to support.
PS: If Africa's population was 10% what it is now their would be far fewer problems. For an example of this look at how the black death boosted the standard of living of those left alive. The problem is going from A to B without mass death. Granted, there are significant political issues related to the random political borders etc but that landscape is way to complex for such simple analysis.
That's just fluff look at:
fuseaction = user.viewprofile & friendID = 108370887