Well, 3DXP is random access so in a sense it is already RAM. It will be about 1/10th as fast as current RAM but it will be cheaper and more dense and non-volatile. So in some applications (in-memory apps in cloud servers) 3DXP may replace current RAM. An all-3DXP system might be faster than a combination of current RAM with SSD memory.
This comparison says nothing at all about 3DXP except that it is much faster than NAND. With NAND, it is the NAND memory itself that limits the speed. With 3DXP memory, it is the PCIe connection hardware that is the slowest component and therefore rate limiting for the entire retrieval speed.
When Intel/Micron says that the 3DXP is 1000 times faster than NAND, they mean that it has only 1/1000th of the latency. You will never see that speed in an SSD drive. The speed of 3DXP will only be realized as a DIMM module in a custom designed server with all the software modifications optimized for it. 3DXP is revolutionary for in-memory applications running in server farms. And once Intel includes 3DXP on the die with the processor, nothing currently envisioned will be able to compete with it.
BTW, although Intel will have a great advantage using this technology, from what I can tell it was actually Micron that invented (or developed from an early purchased prototype) this memory. I'm still waiting for Micron to start telling us what materials were used and how this memory actually works. That will tell us what its ultimate limits are.
I think this is basically correct. Another way to say it is that "simple" is not always clear. But good technical writers will make the text as simple as possible, consistent with clarity. I remember in my Chemistry 101 class I had written a description of an experiment. The grad student grading the work had written over my text "Make it sound more scientific!". and the professor who had checked the papers had written on top of that, "NO".
"Having made innovations, it will then pay for research into the principles behind them. Having invented the steam engine, it will pay for thermodynamics."
Oh, brother. That's just ridiculous. It was an understanding of thermodynamics (by the physicist Denis Papin) that led to the innovation of the steam engine. They imply that some guy messing around in his basement will "innovate" something and only later will the principles behind it be understood. But it is basic research and the building of mathematical models of the world that lead to inventions. And those steps in basic science are not profitable. Many blind alleys will be followed before a basic advance in science is made. Only a government dedicated to basic research will follow that path for long enough to see solid usable results.
And if occasionally a private company does advance the frontiers of real science, that's great. But I wouldn't count on that for the progress of mankind. I do agree however with the author's premise that patents are abused. Folks have forgotten why we have a patent system. It's not to make money, it's to advance the sciences. Don't believe me? Just read Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution.
When it was being claimed in the media that there had been NO effects of radiation on non-employees of the nuclear plant, we did not hear these disclaimers. But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
There is a difference between "post scarcity' and "no money". Post scarcity means that you have the basic needs of life met with no work requirement. We are quickly approaching the ability in the western world to provide that. There will always be crazy people who will eat every meal on fine china and then throw it away at the end of meal because they can get more at no cost. So that will never work.
People in a post scarcity economy will work because of the joy of working, the joy of being creative and of helping fellow citizens. The joy of designing circuits or the joy of writing poetry. I'm sure there will continue to be monetary reward for those activities that produce something of value which can't be made by machine. And the people who do it will have extra "buying power" to acquire things in excess of the universal income that is provided to everyone else.
We humans are incredibly bad at dealing with a low CHANCE of really really bad things happening. The problem is that, as shown in the discussions here, the idea of RISK is misunderstood. There is a CHANCE of something happening, yes. But that is not the same as the RISK of something happening. The RISK is the CHANCE multiplied by some metric of how bad the thing is. It is RISK that should guide policy, not the CHANCE. (I'm capitalizing these to indicate they are mathematical variables) . When it comes to nuclear plant meltdowns or asteroid collisions, people tend to look only at the CHANCE of it happening in their own lifetime. I that is low, the RISK is forgotten. The problem with this thinking is that eventually a species that guides policy this way will become extinct. If we are the "thinking species" it's high time we got on with some serious thinking. CHANCE X "DEGREE OF BADNESS" = RISK
If you have fired a pistol, you know that the "kick" of the gun is not even close to what would be required to knock you down. And of course people are shot in the chest all the time without being knocked down. But in the case described in the article, the bullet has even less kinetic energy because it has been intentionally slowed down by the plastic cap. If it has slowed by 80% as stated, there is no chance that the bullet could knock someone down.
From the article: "but it will transfer enough kinetic energy across a wide surface to knock a suspect down"
Nope. If the bullet had enough kinetic energy to knock down the suspect, the gun would have enough kinetic energy to knock down the shooter. But of course it doesn't. Equal and opposite reaction. Conservation of momentum. Sir Isaac is rolling over in his grave. And I'm sure the coffin is counter-rotating.:)
"there are PLENTY of other jobs out there that don't have UBER in the name of the employer. Work somewhere else maybe?"
If Uber and other "share services" get away with their violation of labor laws, there won't be other kinds of jobs. Uber and similar companies are very efficient at extracting money from both their clients and their employees. If they get away with this "contractor" fraud, then every other company will be forced to play the same game. We will be an economy of serfs, all taking "bids" for piecework.
Prior to labor laws, many people did try to subsist on this kind of piecework. Many of them suffered and starved in the process. So what kind of country do you want to live in?
This is a dodge. All the "bids" come from Uber itself, not directly from clients. No negotiation takes place on the individual "bids"... it's take it or leave it. This is the typical management/employee tension. Management tries to keep all the authority and pass all the responsibility to the employee. In this case, the filter for doing that is called an app, but it's the same raw deal for the employee.
Uber will be moving to self-driving cars as soon as they can. They are just trying to string out the "contractor" subterfuge until the technology is ready.
Of course they have a gun held to their head. It's called hunger. It's called being able to pay the rent. Many of the drivers for Uber are in the business of converting equity in their cars into payments from Uber. That is not necessarily a profitable exchange and many drivers don't realize that until their car breaks down. Uber drivers are not paid for the time they spend sitting in their car waiting for the next gig. And if you include that time, they are paid below minimum wage in many cases. That is what the labor laws are designed to prohibit.
There are many reasons why drivers should be classified as employees rather than as contractors. The most obvious is that drivers don't price their own services. The labor laws were specifically written to protect people who are working for much more powerful companies which will treat them as serfs if they can get away with it.
of Gnome 2 or the older standard desktops.... without being particularly slick and pretty. Xfce has the most customizable desktop because you can easily create launchers for apps, files, and urls. And you can define panels and dock those launchers into the panels..... something that Gnome never really offered.
Cinnamon is prettier and Unity is more "space-age" in its appearance. But when it comes to functionality, Xfce gives me what I need.
We already have a huge controlled fusion reactor with (on a human time scale) an unlimited fuel supply. And on top of that, this reactor has a distribution system that reaches most of the earth with abundant supplies of usable energy. The reactor has been nicknamed "the sun" and why don't we call the distribution network "sunshine"? So rather than "re-inventing the wheel" why don't we, for a small fraction of the cost of building a dangerous earth-bound version of the sun, just use what we already have?
I see two obvious errors in logic in this analysis. 1. Rising total employment of Americans does not mean that other Americans were not replaced by H1B holders. If there were no H1Bs, employment of Americans would have been even higher. What sloppy logic!
2. From the article: "If H-1Bs were primarily cheaper substitutes for American labor, the pace of H-1B requests...should rise when unemployment rises, as employers look to cut labor costs by laying off workers." In what universe does this logic make sense? If unemployment is higher, cheaper labor can be obtained by hiring more Americans since they are having a harder time finding a job. The actual results are completely consistent with H1Bs being a cheaper replacement for American workers.
Torvalds is a Swedish speaking Finn. That's why he says "planning 10 years ahead is not sane". The Swedish word is "klok" which can be translated as "sane" or, more reasonably.... "sensible."
Sure... because Israel is rich. And it's rich because it steals the land (and water) of Palestinians. And because it bombs them and then forces them to work for low wages serving Israelis. And because the US gives them massive amounts of money.
I was pro-Israeli for most of my life. Until I saw Israeli bulldozers tearing down houses in Gaza before they pulled out and built the wall. Why did they do that? For "internal security"? No, this was not on Israeli land. They did it for reasons of hate and vengeance. Why should I (or the US) support that?
Israel has become a state sponsor of terrorism. Instead of explosive vests, they use jets and missiles.
Well, criminal justice majors should not be parole or probation officers either.:) For the same reasons. My point is that we need police officers better trained in human behavior. And that is not going to happen inside a police station. Get folks who understand and care about people. Then worry about job specific training. That job specific training is better done at the local level anyway because of differences in the law in different jurisdictions. And I think a college education is a good idea for the police because it exposes them to a wider view of the world and a wider variety of citizens. College is not really about job training and never has been.
I think part of the problem is that police forces hire "criminal justice" majors. These are folks who were attracted to police work BEFORE they went to college. I think they tend to be those to whom authority over others is attractive. They don't necessarily like people but they do like power over people. And they think that a badge will guarantee them respect. The low salary should be a clue that this is not true. But they demand respect from citizens they interact with. Look at the Sandra Bland cop who decided to arrest her because she would not put out her cigarette in her own car. Something she was under no obligation to do. But he did not like her "tone" because she was not respecting him.
So instead, hire cops from among graduates in sociology and anthropology. These are folks who want to understand behavior. And that's the most important training there is for a cop. Training in "law enforcement" and weapons can happen after they are hired. First get the right people in the job.
The best cop is a sociologist who knows the law and how to use a gun. Not a gun slinger who may or may not understand people and the law.
The whole anti-F35 argument rests on the report that one (1) F117 was shot down by Serbian forces using VHF technology. Otherwise, they are only talking about the possibility of long range tracking... not fire control radar. And in the case of that F117, there was no mention of the effective RCS.
The arguments about dependency on forward bases is destroyed by VTOL capability, a fact that was not even touched on in the discussion. Similarly, while it was mentioned that the F18 could drop external fuel tanks in combat, no mention was made of the fact that the F35 could drop (or fire) external munitions in a similar situation.
Overall, the review seems shallow and slanted against the F35. Personally, I think the military has far too many toys and their budget should be cut in half. But that does not make me blind to the sloppy arguments of this review.
The bartender looks at the cartoonist and says "is this some kind of joke?". The cartoonist looks at the AI and says to the bartender and says, "Give him a minute."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, 3DXP is random access so in a sense it is already RAM. It will be about 1/10th as fast as current RAM but it will be cheaper and more dense and non-volatile. So in some applications (in-memory apps in cloud servers) 3DXP may replace current RAM. An all-3DXP system might be faster than a combination of current RAM with SSD memory.
This comparison says nothing at all about 3DXP except that it is much faster than NAND. With NAND, it is the NAND memory itself that limits the speed. With 3DXP memory, it is the PCIe connection hardware that is the slowest component and therefore rate limiting for the entire retrieval speed.
When Intel/Micron says that the 3DXP is 1000 times faster than NAND, they mean that it has only 1/1000th of the latency. You will never see that speed in an SSD drive. The speed of 3DXP will only be realized as a DIMM module in a custom designed server with all the software modifications optimized for it. 3DXP is revolutionary for in-memory applications running in server farms. And once Intel includes 3DXP on the die with the processor, nothing currently envisioned will be able to compete with it.
BTW, although Intel will have a great advantage using this technology, from what I can tell it was actually Micron that invented (or developed from an early purchased prototype) this memory. I'm still waiting for Micron to start telling us what materials were used and how this memory actually works. That will tell us what its ultimate limits are.
on the planet you have, criticize Linus can you.
I think this is basically correct. Another way to say it is that "simple" is not always clear. But good technical writers will make the text as simple as possible, consistent with clarity. I remember in my Chemistry 101 class I had written a description of an experiment. The grad student grading the work had written over my text "Make it sound more scientific!". and the professor who had checked the papers had written on top of that, "NO".
"Having made innovations, it will then pay for research into the principles behind them. Having invented the steam engine, it will pay for thermodynamics."
Oh, brother. That's just ridiculous. It was an understanding of thermodynamics (by the physicist Denis Papin) that led to the innovation of the steam engine. They imply that some guy messing around in his basement will "innovate" something and only later will the principles behind it be understood. But it is basic research and the building of mathematical models of the world that lead to inventions. And those steps in basic science are not profitable. Many blind alleys will be followed before a basic advance in science is made. Only a government dedicated to basic research will follow that path for long enough to see solid usable results.
And if occasionally a private company does advance the frontiers of real science, that's great. But I wouldn't count on that for the progress of mankind. I do agree however with the author's premise that patents are abused. Folks have forgotten why we have a patent system. It's not to make money, it's to advance the sciences. Don't believe me? Just read Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution.
When it was being claimed in the media that there had been NO effects of radiation on non-employees of the nuclear plant, we did not hear these disclaimers. But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
There is a difference between "post scarcity' and "no money". Post scarcity means that you have the basic needs of life met with no work requirement. We are quickly approaching the ability in the western world to provide that. There will always be crazy people who will eat every meal on fine china and then throw it away at the end of meal because they can get more at no cost. So that will never work.
People in a post scarcity economy will work because of the joy of working, the joy of being creative and of helping fellow citizens. The joy of designing circuits or the joy of writing poetry. I'm sure there will continue to be monetary reward for those activities that produce something of value which can't be made by machine. And the people who do it will have extra "buying power" to acquire things in excess of the universal income that is provided to everyone else.
I agree with absolutely everything you said.
We humans are incredibly bad at dealing with a low CHANCE of really really bad things happening. The problem is that, as shown in the discussions here, the idea of RISK is misunderstood. There is a CHANCE of something happening, yes. But that is not the same as the RISK of something happening. The RISK is the CHANCE multiplied by some metric of how bad the thing is. It is RISK that should guide policy, not the CHANCE. (I'm capitalizing these to indicate they are mathematical variables) . When it comes to nuclear plant meltdowns or asteroid collisions, people tend to look only at the CHANCE of it happening in their own lifetime. I that is low, the RISK is forgotten. The problem with this thinking is that eventually a species that guides policy this way will become extinct. If we are the "thinking species" it's high time we got on with some serious thinking. CHANCE X "DEGREE OF BADNESS" = RISK
If you have fired a pistol, you know that the "kick" of the gun is not even close to what would be required to knock you down. And of course people are shot in the chest all the time without being knocked down. But in the case described in the article, the bullet has even less kinetic energy because it has been intentionally slowed down by the plastic cap. If it has slowed by 80% as stated, there is no chance that the bullet could knock someone down.
From the article: "but it will transfer enough kinetic energy across a wide surface to knock a suspect down"
Nope. If the bullet had enough kinetic energy to knock down the suspect, the gun would have enough kinetic energy to knock down the shooter. But of course it doesn't. Equal and opposite reaction. Conservation of momentum. Sir Isaac is rolling over in his grave. And I'm sure the coffin is counter-rotating. :)
"there are PLENTY of other jobs out there that don't have UBER in the name of the employer. Work somewhere else maybe?"
If Uber and other "share services" get away with their violation of labor laws, there won't be other kinds of jobs. Uber and similar companies are very efficient at extracting money from both their clients and their employees. If they get away with this "contractor" fraud, then every other company will be forced to play the same game. We will be an economy of serfs, all taking "bids" for piecework.
Prior to labor laws, many people did try to subsist on this kind of piecework. Many of them suffered and starved in the process. So what kind of country do you want to live in?
This is a dodge. All the "bids" come from Uber itself, not directly from clients. No negotiation takes place on the individual "bids"... it's take it or leave it. This is the typical management/employee tension. Management tries to keep all the authority and pass all the responsibility to the employee. In this case, the filter for doing that is called an app, but it's the same raw deal for the employee.
Uber will be moving to self-driving cars as soon as they can. They are just trying to string out the "contractor" subterfuge until the technology is ready.
Of course they have a gun held to their head. It's called hunger. It's called being able to pay the rent. Many of the drivers for Uber are in the business of converting equity in their cars into payments from Uber. That is not necessarily a profitable exchange and many drivers don't realize that until their car breaks down. Uber drivers are not paid for the time they spend sitting in their car waiting for the next gig. And if you include that time, they are paid below minimum wage in many cases. That is what the labor laws are designed to prohibit.
There are many reasons why drivers should be classified as employees rather than as contractors. The most obvious is that drivers don't price their own services. The labor laws were specifically written to protect people who are working for much more powerful companies which will treat them as serfs if they can get away with it.
of Gnome 2 or the older standard desktops.... without being particularly slick and pretty. Xfce has the most customizable desktop because you can easily create launchers for apps, files, and urls. And you can define panels and dock those launchers into the panels..... something that Gnome never really offered.
Cinnamon is prettier and Unity is more "space-age" in its appearance. But when it comes to functionality, Xfce gives me what I need.
We already have a huge controlled fusion reactor with (on a human time scale) an unlimited fuel supply. And on top of that, this reactor has a distribution system that reaches most of the earth with abundant supplies of usable energy. The reactor has been nicknamed "the sun" and why don't we call the distribution network "sunshine"? So rather than "re-inventing the wheel" why don't we, for a small fraction of the cost of building a dangerous earth-bound version of the sun, just use what we already have?
I see two obvious errors in logic in this analysis.
1. Rising total employment of Americans does not mean that other Americans were not replaced by H1B holders. If there were no H1Bs, employment of Americans would have been even higher. What sloppy logic!
2. From the article: "If H-1Bs were primarily cheaper substitutes for American labor, the pace of H-1B requests...should rise when unemployment rises, as employers look to cut labor costs by laying off workers." In what universe does this logic make sense? If unemployment is higher, cheaper labor can be obtained by hiring more Americans since they are having a harder time finding a job. The actual results are completely consistent with H1Bs being a cheaper replacement for American workers.
Torvalds is a Swedish speaking Finn. That's why he says "planning 10 years ahead is not sane". The Swedish word is "klok" which can be translated as "sane" or, more reasonably.... "sensible."
Sure... because Israel is rich. And it's rich because it steals the land (and water) of Palestinians. And because it bombs them and then forces them to work for low wages serving Israelis. And because the US gives them massive amounts of money.
I was pro-Israeli for most of my life. Until I saw Israeli bulldozers tearing down houses in Gaza before they pulled out and built the wall. Why did they do that? For "internal security"? No, this was not on Israeli land. They did it for reasons of hate and vengeance. Why should I (or the US) support that?
Israel has become a state sponsor of terrorism. Instead of explosive vests, they use jets and missiles.
Well, criminal justice majors should not be parole or probation officers either. :) For the same reasons. My point is that we need police officers better trained in human behavior. And that is not going to happen inside a police station. Get folks who understand and care about people. Then worry about job specific training. That job specific training is better done at the local level anyway because of differences in the law in different jurisdictions. And I think a college education is a good idea for the police because it exposes them to a wider view of the world and a wider variety of citizens. College is not really about job training and never has been.
I think part of the problem is that police forces hire "criminal justice" majors. These are folks who were attracted to police work BEFORE they went to college. I think they tend to be those to whom authority over others is attractive. They don't necessarily like people but they do like power over people. And they think that a badge will guarantee them respect. The low salary should be a clue that this is not true. But they demand respect from citizens they interact with. Look at the Sandra Bland cop who decided to arrest her because she would not put out her cigarette in her own car. Something she was under no obligation to do. But he did not like her "tone" because she was not respecting him.
So instead, hire cops from among graduates in sociology and anthropology. These are folks who want to understand behavior. And that's the most important training there is for a cop. Training in "law enforcement" and weapons can happen after they are hired. First get the right people in the job.
The best cop is a sociologist who knows the law and how to use a gun. Not a gun slinger who may or may not understand people and the law.
The whole anti-F35 argument rests on the report that one (1) F117 was shot down by Serbian forces using VHF technology. Otherwise, they are only talking about the possibility of long range tracking... not fire control radar. And in the case of that F117, there was no mention of the effective RCS.
The arguments about dependency on forward bases is destroyed by VTOL capability, a fact that was not even touched on in the discussion. Similarly, while it was mentioned that the F18 could drop external fuel tanks in combat, no mention was made of the fact that the F35 could drop (or fire) external munitions in a similar situation.
Overall, the review seems shallow and slanted against the F35. Personally, I think the military has far too many toys and their budget should be cut in half. But that does not make me blind to the sloppy arguments of this review.
The bartender looks at the cartoonist and says "is this some kind of joke?". The cartoonist looks at the AI and says to the bartender and says, "Give him a minute."