Cell networks keep track of "inactive" users. So they don't need to estimate how many users where effected in most cases they have a list of who was effected.
If your looking for a counter example to the churn a burn read up on the history of Gillette. It was nearly bout out and sold for parts, but over time it's large R&D budget paid off. Many suppose that much of the economic problems in the 80's where a direct result of the churn as undervalued company's where being chopped up and sold off.
As to employee retention that's a more complex issue, but clearly hiring a new staff every week is just as bad an idea as paying janitors 200k/year.
The programmer needs to find some use for 7 SPE's but the compiler let's you use each SPE to it's fullest.
Basically, the Cell is an 8way chip designed around having smart programmers and smart compilers that optimise for it. You can't make a desktop CPU based like this because you need to run old software fast but when starting over you can go for it.
When pressed I would have to say I am agnostic. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)
However, as a rational person I am aware that most religions contradict them selves on many levels. And as logical person whenever a system contradicts it's self it's based on incorrect assumptions.
(aka you can't have "Nothing can move this rock" and "Bob can move any rock" be true in the same world but either statement can be true in their own world.) While most people are willing to overlook such things / take them an faith etc so at a deep level I think doing so is foolish.
I find most extremist atheist's just take this a little further. Most of them will not react strongly to someone saying this universe was created by an evil entity so it would watch people suffer. But they will react to "An all powerful loving god created this world so all it's suffering must be part of his plain and thus it's good." I don't think it's belief in some god that set's them off so much a belief in a Christian god.
Basically, they react to people directly in opposition to their belief system. It's like placing a Neo-Nazi and a Jewish Rabi in the same room sparks are going to fly.
The reason we are falling behind has little to do with the US education system. The problem is people don't want to become scientists. In the 50 the classic geek heroes where scientists now days it's people like Larry Page and Sergey Brin. (Google) Why tinker away in some government lab making ~80k a year when can make millions via a web startup etc.
When you start paying scientists 500+k/year more smart people will want to go that route, until then whine about something else.
The problem is your dealing with sales guys. The margin on high-end systems is much better so they try and sell you that.
If you want really high uptime go with several cheep redundant systems. At less than 3k a pop you could have a low end server with ~2TB of disk space (5 x 500 GB disks in a raid 5) and reasonable levels of processing power and ram. A single system with off the shelf components you should be able to operate at ~99% uptime. But by getting 3 independent systems you should be at ~99.9999% uptime at the cost of ~9k + software.
Note: To really get those levels of uptime you need to use independent software systems and independent locations but you get the idea.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as you might suggest. Think of it this way the US represents ~1/2 of the world military budget. Assuming we decimate the world's ability to transport troops it becomes a question of air power and it would take a while before the rest of the world could destroy the US air force.
Over time it becomes and issue of production capacity but I think the US could last for at least 6 months in such a situation. And considering the amount of food the US exports I think we could disrupt things enough that simply holding our own for a few years would spread chaos thought the rest of the world.
PS: Feel free to look at the numbers and think though these issues.
There are many dumb and dangerous ideas out there, including ones that sound good but aren't.
How would you suggest separating the good ideas from those that sound good but aren't. While I agree there are a bunch of ideas that are less useful than they sound I can't think of a good way to test new ideas that works better over time than careful implementation after careful consideration.
PS: Over time societies that experiment with new ideas tend to do better than those that don't because they adapt to changing situations. EX: Some people would like to build society's based on ideas from nomadic herders but as the world drifts further from those foundations maintaining such ideas become ever more costly.
First off 10degF would cause a lot of economic damage. So you can't hand wave and say it's not a big deal.
2nd your using different models your non CO2 model which explains things using more solar input vs. your CO2 assumptions (10 deg increase from 100% absorption) your saying increasing the temperature will have will be exaggerated by H2O unless that increase if from CO2.
3rd other green house gasses like methane contribute to the problem.
4th weather events like hurricanes cool the earth. So dumping more H2O into the atmosphere has both a worming and cooling effect.
Finally Venus demonstrates the green house effect more so than earth because of the huge difference in the size of its atmosphere. So trying to understand the magnitude and limitations of green house gasses on earth by extrapolating from Venus is next to impossible. You can look at the solar system right now and understand how the greenhouse effect works but it's hard to develop a model based on other planets.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
FYI: Oil is not the primary source for global worming. So it's not just about oil.
Basicly heat radiates as the cube of the temperature change in kelven so going from 60 degrees f (288.7 in kelvin) to 65 degrees f (291.48 in kelvin) = (290.37 ^ 4) / (288.7 ^ 4) = 1.039 or 3.9% more incoming energy. Or ~3.9% increase in insulation.
Now increasing CO2 will provide more insulation and drive up the temperature. The question is only complex when you try to find how important CO2 is. Afterall painting roads black also increases the temperature.
PS: Venus hotter than Mercury even though it get's ~1/4 the heat from the sun. Note: The pressure of Venus' atmosphere at the surface is 90 atmospheres and it is composed mostly of carbon dioxide.
I do think it's a good idea to focus on a wide variety of languages. My point is there are a huge number of vary similar languages out there. If I where to design I CS program I would go something like this:
C in CIS 201 (Into to programming) C in CIS 202 (Data structures) AKA fun with pointers / linked lists etc. Java in CIS 301 (OOP) ASM in CIS 310 (Operating Systems) Lisp in CIS 350 (Programming languages)
With this background you should be able to pick up any new language on your own. This is not to say there is no point to using other languages but students should be able to pick up something like C# or JavaScript with little help.
PS: I do think you should go over HTML, XML and SQL but I don't really think of them as "computer languages" and I don't think they need to be taught in class. Students should be able to pick them up outside of class with a little reading and an assignment or two.
It's "biased" in that it assumes a single study is correct.
"Stem cells core of more cancers" vs. "Stem cells possible core of more cancers"
The results seem plausible but no competent scientist puts much weight on a single small study. It also uses emotion to boost the validity of the research
"A lot is known about the genetics of colon cancer, but despite all our knowledge, too many people keep relapsing and dying,"
A non biased article should use a neutral tone to convey information not drum up support for a relatively untested theory.
IMO spending class time to teach more than 4 languages is a waste of time. On three separate occasions I have been asked to fix bugs in languages I did not know at the time. (Java, Cold Fusion, and Perl) and I have yet to spend more than 1/2 an hour figuring out the basics on any of those locations. In fact the average time less than 3 hours between first exposure and first simple bug fix.
Think of it this way when you ask someone if they know ASM your not asking them if they know x86 but rather if they understand how to think on that level. You can teach someone C++ syntax over a few weeks. IMO the point of a 4 year degree is more about how to approach solving problems than how to use a specific tool.
IMO once you learn how to program a complex (multi threaded) real time system you can handle any other programming task. Now it might take a month of ramp up time to pick up something off the wall but if you can program a physics engine from scratch learning how Databases work is easy.
PS: I have a CS degree and I have worked with real time systems and databases and IMO the most complex complex stored procedure is simple in comparison to fixing undocumented, low level, and buggy networking code. Mac OS 8 I am looking at you...
Dimensions are also defined as degrees of freedom. You can't define location and rotation with a single point in 3d space you can define them by using two points in 3d space or one point in 6d space.
Think of it this way you have a front and rear bumper on your car. When you're doing donuts your rear license plate is moving differently than the front license plate. So if you want to be able to do donuts in a game you need to be able to move two points in 3d space or one point in 6d space.
Apple bought HDD's that had a virus from another company that happened to use windows boxes. How are they supposed to change what OS is running at that company? It simply never occurred to Apple that there could be viruses on those HDD.
PS: Does the average teck check a new shrink-wrapped HDD for viruses before installing software? Should they?
If you do Fourier Transforms on sources A and B to get X and Y, you can then combine X, and Y to get N. However if you combined sources A and B first and then did your Fourier Transform you would also get N. (Within some margin for error.) N is at most as complex as X and Y but it is simpler if X and Y share any frequencies.
1) Exit polling is not affected by demographics, only by those who vote.
Exit polling uses demographic data to determine which locations to do exit polls. AKA Historicaly A, was 50/50 B, was 40/60 and C, was 60/40 so you to a poll at B, and C and use that data to guess A's value.
You then find the number of people that vote at each location and multiply out based on your estimated ratio's.
PS: Sorry for the poor moderation. Sometime the truth aka 2,3 bothers people.
Another business trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete.
Is clear but:
Another business whose primary "value added" is their distribution channel (record labels come to mind) trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete.
is less clear. Record labels also promote the music they distribute through direct advertising, image management, ect. They still make money off of itunes even if they don't itunes all that much.
PS: Linking Record labels with napster world have worked.
FYI: A basic form of "net neutrality" already exists in the US because of regulation. Some groups want to destroy this legislation and are willing to lie / misinform people to get this to happen. But only a fool thinks market forces would prevent companies from exercising rights they are spending money to gain.
QM let's you know the velocity and position of a particle at the same time with a few limitations.
It's not hard to pin an electron's speed to within a few KeV. It's vector +/- 90 degrees. And it's position to within 1 AU.
The first limit is a product of the uncertainty in velocity and position so you can know a lot about one, but the more you learn about one the less you can know about the other.
The second problem is an apparent limit on how much you can know about velocity and position period.
I don't think most drug users are trying to "make the pain go away."
Doing drugs can be fun. Plenty of "users" are not trying to "make the pain go away" they are simply having fun. Doing heroin is much safer than underwater cave diving (per use for a regular user). Pot is safer than sky diving(per use for a regular user). Now I don't do drugs. Granted, I think I may have gotten a little extra something by eating a brownie at a party once (think spiked brownie not intentional use), but that's about it. So, my only drug use (to get "high") is cigarettes (under 100 over lifetime) and alcohol average ~1 bear a week over last 10 years. So I can only talk about people I know.
How about an engineer with 30 ish patents, 4 kids, several 100k in savings, who owns his own home. Now do you think such a person would be a recreational drug user for 30 years? Some people can not drive safely drive a car, others can not safely use drugs.
I don't think trying anything once is a good idea. I also think speeding is a bad idea. Sending someone to jail for 5 years because they where doing 70 in a 55 seems over kill. Sending someone to jail for five years from doing pot also seems over kill. I think charging someone 1000$ each and every time they are found with an illegal drug would be about as effective as prison and much cheaper. However, I think killing anyone found with 1lb of heroin, unless they give up their supplier at which point they get 20 years and the manufacture has a nice public torture session followed by an execution might work.
IMO the war on drugs is not working. We need a sensible drug policy that realities that drugs are dangerous but also realities that prison is expensive and ineffective.
Slashdot Mirror
Cell networks keep track of "inactive" users. So they don't need to estimate how many users where effected in most cases they have a list of who was effected.
Math proves noting in the real world.
If your looking for a counter example to the churn a burn read up on the history of Gillette. It was nearly bout out and sold for parts, but over time it's large R&D budget paid off. Many suppose that much of the economic problems in the 80's where a direct result of the churn as undervalued company's where being chopped up and sold off.
As to employee retention that's a more complex issue, but clearly hiring a new staff every week is just as bad an idea as paying janitors 200k/year.
The programmer needs to find some use for 7 SPE's but the compiler let's you use each SPE to it's fullest.
Basically, the Cell is an 8way chip designed around having smart programmers and smart compilers that optimise for it. You can't make a desktop CPU based like this because you need to run old software fast but when starting over you can go for it.
When pressed I would have to say I am agnostic. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)
However, as a rational person I am aware that most religions contradict them selves on many levels. And as logical person whenever a system contradicts it's self it's based on incorrect assumptions.
(aka you can't have "Nothing can move this rock" and "Bob can move any rock" be true in the same world but either statement can be true in their own world.) While most people are willing to overlook such things / take them an faith etc so at a deep level I think doing so is foolish.
I find most extremist atheist's just take this a little further. Most of them will not react strongly to someone saying this universe was created by an evil entity so it would watch people suffer. But they will react to "An all powerful loving god created this world so all it's suffering must be part of his plain and thus it's good." I don't think it's belief in some god that set's them off so much a belief in a Christian god.
Basically, they react to people directly in opposition to their belief system. It's like placing a Neo-Nazi and a Jewish Rabi in the same room sparks are going to fly.
Your thoughts?
The reason we are falling behind has little to do with the US education system. The problem is people don't want to become scientists. In the 50 the classic geek heroes where scientists now days it's people like Larry Page and Sergey Brin. (Google) Why tinker away in some government lab making ~80k a year when can make millions via a web startup etc. When you start paying scientists 500+k/year more smart people will want to go that route, until then whine about something else.
The problem is your dealing with sales guys. The margin on high-end systems is much better so they try and sell you that.
If you want really high uptime go with several cheep redundant systems. At less than 3k a pop you could have a low end server with ~2TB of disk space (5 x 500 GB disks in a raid 5) and reasonable levels of processing power and ram. A single system with off the shelf components you should be able to operate at ~99% uptime. But by getting 3 independent systems you should be at ~99.9999% uptime at the cost of ~9k + software.
Note: To really get those levels of uptime you need to use independent software systems and independent locations but you get the idea.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as you might suggest. Think of it this way the US represents ~1/2 of the world military budget. Assuming we decimate the world's ability to transport troops it becomes a question of air power and it would take a while before the rest of the world could destroy the US air force.
Over time it becomes and issue of production capacity but I think the US could last for at least 6 months in such a situation. And considering the amount of food the US exports I think we could disrupt things enough that simply holding our own for a few years would spread chaos thought the rest of the world.
PS: Feel free to look at the numbers and think though these issues.
There are many dumb and dangerous ideas out there, including ones that sound good but aren't.
How would you suggest separating the good ideas from those that sound good but aren't. While I agree there are a bunch of ideas that are less useful than they sound I can't think of a good way to test new ideas that works better over time than careful implementation after careful consideration.
PS: Over time societies that experiment with new ideas tend to do better than those that don't because they adapt to changing situations. EX: Some people would like to build society's based on ideas from nomadic herders but as the world drifts further from those foundations maintaining such ideas become ever more costly.
You're making a several bad assumptions.
First off 10degF would cause a lot of economic damage. So you can't hand wave and say it's not a big deal.
2nd your using different models your non CO2 model which explains things using more solar input vs. your CO2 assumptions (10 deg increase from 100% absorption) your saying increasing the temperature will have will be exaggerated by H2O unless that increase if from CO2.
3rd other green house gasses like methane contribute to the problem.
4th weather events like hurricanes cool the earth. So dumping more H2O into the atmosphere has both a worming and cooling effect.
Finally Venus demonstrates the green house effect more so than earth because of the huge difference in the size of its atmosphere. So trying to understand the magnitude and limitations of green house gasses on earth by extrapolating from Venus is next to impossible. You can look at the solar system right now and understand how the greenhouse effect works but it's hard to develop a model based on other planets.
FYI: Oil is not the primary source for global worming. So it's not just about oil.
Next look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Basicly heat radiates as the cube of the temperature change in kelven so going from 60 degrees f (288.7 in kelvin) to 65 degrees f (291.48 in kelvin) = (290.37 ^ 4) / (288.7 ^ 4) = 1.039 or 3.9% more incoming energy. Or ~3.9% increase in insulation.
Now increasing CO2 will provide more insulation and drive up the temperature. The question is only complex when you try to find how important CO2 is. Afterall painting roads black also increases the temperature.
PS: Venus hotter than Mercury even though it get's ~1/4 the heat from the sun.
Note: The pressure of Venus' atmosphere at the surface is 90 atmospheres and it is composed mostly of carbon dioxide.
I do think it's a good idea to focus on a wide variety of languages. My point is there are a huge number of vary similar languages out there. If I where to design I CS program I would go something like this:
C in CIS 201 (Into to programming)
C in CIS 202 (Data structures) AKA fun with pointers / linked lists etc.
Java in CIS 301 (OOP)
ASM in CIS 310 (Operating Systems)
Lisp in CIS 350 (Programming languages)
With this background you should be able to pick up any new language on your own. This is not to say there is no point to using other languages but students should be able to pick up something like C# or JavaScript with little help.
PS: I do think you should go over HTML, XML and SQL but I don't really think of them as "computer languages" and I don't think they need to be taught in class. Students should be able to pick them up outside of class with a little reading and an assignment or two.
It's "biased" in that it assumes a single study is correct.
"Stem cells core of more cancers"
vs.
"Stem cells possible core of more cancers"
The results seem plausible but no competent scientist puts much weight on a single small study. It also uses emotion to boost the validity of the research
"A lot is known about the genetics of colon cancer, but despite all our knowledge, too many people keep relapsing and dying,"
A non biased article should use a neutral tone to convey information not drum up support for a relatively untested theory.
IMO spending class time to teach more than 4 languages is a waste of time. On three separate occasions I have been asked to fix bugs in languages I did not know at the time. (Java, Cold Fusion, and Perl) and I have yet to spend more than 1/2 an hour figuring out the basics on any of those locations. In fact the average time less than 3 hours between first exposure and first simple bug fix.
Think of it this way when you ask someone if they know ASM your not asking them if they know x86 but rather if they understand how to think on that level. You can teach someone C++ syntax over a few weeks. IMO the point of a 4 year degree is more about how to approach solving problems than how to use a specific tool.
IMO once you learn how to program a complex (multi threaded) real time system you can handle any other programming task. Now it might take a month of ramp up time to pick up something off the wall but if you can program a physics engine from scratch learning how Databases work is easy.
PS: I have a CS degree and I have worked with real time systems and databases and IMO the most complex complex stored procedure is simple in comparison to fixing undocumented, low level, and buggy networking code. Mac OS 8 I am looking at you...
Dimensions are also defined as degrees of freedom. You can't define location and rotation with a single point in 3d space you can define them by using two points in 3d space or one point in 6d space.
Think of it this way you have a front and rear bumper on your car. When you're doing donuts your rear license plate is moving differently than the front license plate. So if you want to be able to do donuts in a game you need to be able to move two points in 3d space or one point in 6d space.
Apple bought HDD's that had a virus from another company that happened to use windows boxes. How are they supposed to change what OS is running at that company? It simply never occurred to Apple that there could be viruses on those HDD.
PS: Does the average teck check a new shrink-wrapped HDD for viruses before installing software? Should they?
If you do Fourier Transforms on sources A and B to get X and Y, you can then combine X, and Y to get N.
However if you combined sources A and B first and then did your Fourier Transform you would also get N. (Within some margin for error.)
N is at most as complex as X and Y but it is simpler if X and Y share any frequencies.
You don't understand what a finite state machine is. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_state_machine
...
Then look at this a finite state machine which takes a binary number and counts down.
Aka
11111 =
11110 =
11101 =
11100 =
11011 =
00000
Starting with a set of N binary digits counting down with this finite state machine takes at worst (N^2)-1 steps.
The are several things that a finite state machine can do faster than linear time and several that will take longer than linear time.
AKA find index of Y in a sorted set X vs sort set X.
1) Exit polling is not affected by demographics, only by those who vote.
Exit polling uses demographic data to determine which locations to do exit polls. AKA Historicaly A, was 50/50 B, was 40/60 and C, was 60/40 so you to a poll at B, and C and use that data to guess A's value.
You then find the number of people that vote at each location and multiply out based on your estimated ratio's.
PS: Sorry for the poor moderation. Sometime the truth aka 2,3 bothers people.
They sell advertising to bands. AKA give us X% of your income and we will promote your music and / or simply send a bill for studio time ect.
Grand parent post was saying:
Another business trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete.
Is clear but:
Another business whose primary "value added" is their distribution channel (record labels come to mind) trying to fight technological changes that make their business model obsolete.
is less clear. Record labels also promote the music they distribute through direct advertising, image management, ect. They still make money off of itunes even if they don't itunes all that much.
PS: Linking Record labels with napster world have worked.
FYI:
A basic form of "net neutrality" already exists in the US because of regulation. Some groups want to destroy this legislation and are willing to lie / misinform people to get this to happen. But only a fool thinks market forces would prevent companies from exercising rights they are spending money to gain.
QM let's you know the velocity and position of a particle at the same time with a few limitations.
It's not hard to pin an electron's speed to within a few KeV.
It's vector +/- 90 degrees.
And it's position to within 1 AU.
The first limit is a product of the uncertainty in velocity and position so you can know a lot about one, but the more you learn about one the less you can know about the other.
The second problem is an apparent limit on how much you can know about velocity and position period.
Outside of these limits Relativity seems to rule.
I don't think most drug users are trying to "make the pain go away."
Doing drugs can be fun. Plenty of "users" are not trying to "make the pain go away" they are simply having fun. Doing heroin is much safer than underwater cave diving (per use for a regular user). Pot is safer than sky diving(per use for a regular user). Now I don't do drugs. Granted, I think I may have gotten a little extra something by eating a brownie at a party once (think spiked brownie not intentional use), but that's about it. So, my only drug use (to get "high") is cigarettes (under 100 over lifetime) and alcohol average ~1 bear a week over last 10 years. So I can only talk about people I know.
How about an engineer with 30 ish patents, 4 kids, several 100k in savings, who owns his own home. Now do you think such a person would be a recreational drug user for 30 years? Some people can not drive safely drive a car, others can not safely use drugs.
I don't think trying anything once is a good idea. I also think speeding is a bad idea. Sending someone to jail for 5 years because they where doing 70 in a 55 seems over kill. Sending someone to jail for five years from doing pot also seems over kill. I think charging someone 1000$ each and every time they are found with an illegal drug would be about as effective as prison and much cheaper. However, I think killing anyone found with 1lb of heroin, unless they give up their supplier at which point they get 20 years and the manufacture has a nice public torture session followed by an execution might work.
IMO the war on drugs is not working. We need a sensible drug policy that realities that drugs are dangerous but also realities that prison is expensive and ineffective.
PS: I think it's exempli gratia.