The "Constitution" is not the only source of law. This isn't a problem with "wanting an "activist judiciary." No one is claiming they personally "have the right" to face an ISP to "work a certain way". A free market isn't the solution to every problem nor is the ISP market a free one. It is not remotely rare that people don't have a choice in ISPs, and when they do it's absurd to think that they will have choices that "work a certain way". Yes, it would be outrageous for the government to censor, but that doesn't mean they can't enforce the opposite, and yes, we can have one without the other and none of this remotely suggests that the government control content as an alternative.
I would suggest that freedom looks like dumb@sses like you posting tripe like this.
In other words, you think heuristics could do a better job than software that understands the specific properties of the underlying sensor. About as interesting as your other insights.
"For example the emission control code in automobiles, which it turns out multiple manufacturers have defrauded."
Nonsense. Without public disclosure of the entire hardware platform publicly-disclosed source code would be meaningless. Furthermore, there would be no reward to programmers for reviewing this code, even if they could, so there would be no benefit to public disclosure of such code. Auto manufacturers are not going to fully expose their engineering nor would be reasonable to expect them to.
As for the rest, no doubt it's easier to find bugs with full source but that doesn't mean more bugs are found. With sufficient motivation people will do just about anything, with no motivation those people won't contribute at all.
I'm sure some will fall for your propaganda, Bruce, as they always have. Not everyone is so easily fooled.
Irrelevant as this is not a case of "plagiarizing yourself". Furthermore, "plagiarizing yourself" is certainly possible even if Fogerty eventually won in his case. Musicians fail to own the rights to works they author all the time.
"anybody who actually knows what RISC actually means would tell you that any and all SIMD units violate RISC's principles."
No, SIMD units do not "violate RISC's principles" and your saying so only demonstrates your own shallow understanding of what these principles are. RISC may mean "reduced instruction set computing" but that doesn't mean the end game is the smallest instruction set.
RISC is about making an architecture that is easy to implement by eliminating instructions that aren't needed for good performance. In doing this, designers can spend their gates on performance wins rather than on logic that can just as easily be reproduced in software. RISC is about putting gates where they count and not wasting them where they don't.
When you view RISC by it's actual principles, and not just by what the letters stand for, it's quite easy to see how SIMD units are entirely compatible. Of course, RISC as a differentiator has been obsolete for decades now and only exists as a point of argument for people who don't understand. RISC was an interesting topic...in 1988. You're 30 years behind.
That's because it's not a "knee-jerk-get-off-my-lawn attitude", it's a "these a-holes are exploiting a resource they don't pay for and creating an eyesore attitude". It's not that they are on your lawn, it's that they are taking a dump on your lawn and you have to clean it up. It's not just San Jose either, it's happening in my city too. Scooters are discarded literally anywhere like a kid dropping his bicycle the moment it suits him.
A transportation revolution is likely to happen in some form, but it's not going to include junk strewn literally everywhere, including streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, parks, and private property. Companies can make money renting scooters if they like but they aren't entitled to free storage of their property wherever it gets dropped. They can pay for their real estate too, and if that contradicts their business model then good riddance. It's the worst, most wasteful form of the tragedy of the commons.
You fail to consider the source of these images. There is no such thing as "non-retouched" when the image starts out as raw data from a Bayer sensor. Detection of global manipulations is not the goal nor can it be.
This is a very predictable result of crowdfunding. No need to demonstrate competence or experience in a market since your funders are even more ignorant.
Working to get venture capital serves are real purpose, now we see the result when that is bypassed.
Anyone who considers such fundamental concepts of C++ as useful to "way less than 1% of the code in typical projects" "has not understood the language" either.
Interesting that the summary devoted ¾ of its space to comments from Bruce Perens. Is this really about Tesla short sellers or is it pushing a narrative?
How absurd. First off, what's with the "one-horsepower" nonsense? That's 750 watts, quite a bit for a cooling solution but well within what a single wall outlet provides and really not surprising. Second, what does "industrial" mean here? What would be "industrial" about any cooling equipment able to be powered off a residential wall outlet? Third, why call it a "water chiller"? They know what it is, down to the exact model, and it's not called that. It's not "industrial" either, it's a PC-class product used for its intended purpose.
I wonder how much power they think an active cooling solution would use for a system whose power supply is 1300 watts. They state "That means it took an incredibly expensive (not to mention extreme) setup to pull off the demo. You definitely won't find this type of setup on a normal desktop PC." Well no, it doesn't mean "incredibly extensive" or "extreme" and so what? What they used to demonstrate is not a statement of minimum requirements, nor is a 28-core 5GHz processor something you'd find in a "normal desktop PC" anyway. This is standard overclocking stuff and has been for many, many years.
The attempt here is to suggest that abnormally massive cooling equipment is required when that is not supported by the facts. OK, so it was overclocked and had active cooling, no need to lie about it.
"This is why the rumor about Apple making their own Mac CPUs is believable "
No it isn't. Apple doesn't even bother updating its product lines with current Intel offerings so it's hard to believe that Intel lagging behind is even a small problem for Apple.
That's not to say Apple's interest in making their own CPU's isn't believable, just that Apple wouldn't do it for this reason.
This is true, but legacy compatibility also meant hardware support. Peripheral hardware would frequently not work at higher speeds either, including hardware supported in the BIOS.
"People over 40 have some other interesting personal habits too that help them to dismiss the 'disadvantages' of tablets... such as women carrying purses and men with briefcases, which they don't lose track of."
Since when is "over 40" an indicator of "women carrying purses" and "men with briefcases"? If anything, over 40 means less likely to use a tablet.
Most people don't have need for "8" tablet for flights, known long waits (i.e., the DMV)", and for that matter "17" laptop for work on the go". Few people use a computer for "work on the go" and fewer still live a life of standing in long lines and continual flying.
Agreed. Furthermore, subsidies are NOT to give people something that don't need it, it's to accelerate the creation of a market. Subsidies help overcome impediments to technologies that benefit society. Subsidize EVs AND build out charging infrastructure, there is nothing more obviously beneficial to society today than doing that.
What is the lowest price realistic gasoline powered car given the same extemely low volumes that EV faces today? Asking the wrong question.
Don't agree with the claim that there is "very little to go wrong" with a used EV. They are still cars. Used EVs are cheap because there's no resale demand for them. All that would change with broad adoption. New prices would come down, resale value would improve.
Slashdot Mirror
A patent is not a product plan, it's speculation on valuable future technology. Patents cannot be interpreted as a plan to do anything.
what complete horse*t.
The "Constitution" is not the only source of law. This isn't a problem with "wanting an "activist judiciary." No one is claiming they personally "have the right" to face an ISP to "work a certain way". A free market isn't the solution to every problem nor is the ISP market a free one. It is not remotely rare that people don't have a choice in ISPs, and when they do it's absurd to think that they will have choices that "work a certain way". Yes, it would be outrageous for the government to censor, but that doesn't mean they can't enforce the opposite, and yes, we can have one without the other and none of this remotely suggests that the government control content as an alternative.
I would suggest that freedom looks like dumb@sses like you posting tripe like this.
In other words, you think heuristics could do a better job than software that understands the specific properties of the underlying sensor. About as interesting as your other insights.
"For example the emission control code in automobiles, which it turns out multiple manufacturers have defrauded."
Nonsense. Without public disclosure of the entire hardware platform publicly-disclosed source code would be meaningless. Furthermore, there would be no reward to programmers for reviewing this code, even if they could, so there would be no benefit to public disclosure of such code. Auto manufacturers are not going to fully expose their engineering nor would be reasonable to expect them to.
As for the rest, no doubt it's easier to find bugs with full source but that doesn't mean more bugs are found. With sufficient motivation people will do just about anything, with no motivation those people won't contribute at all.
I'm sure some will fall for your propaganda, Bruce, as they always have. Not everyone is so easily fooled.
Capitalism doesn't result in a "realy free market", that's why government controls are needed.
Sad how things have changed.
Irrelevant as this is not a case of "plagiarizing yourself". Furthermore, "plagiarizing yourself" is certainly possible even if Fogerty eventually won in his case. Musicians fail to own the rights to works they author all the time.
The discussion is moot when it involves inherited codebases. You are compelled to use the tools already selected whether you like them or not.
"anybody who actually knows what RISC actually means would tell you that any and all SIMD units violate RISC's principles."
No, SIMD units do not "violate RISC's principles" and your saying so only demonstrates your own shallow understanding of what these principles are. RISC may mean "reduced instruction set computing" but that doesn't mean the end game is the smallest instruction set.
RISC is about making an architecture that is easy to implement by eliminating instructions that aren't needed for good performance. In doing this, designers can spend their gates on performance wins rather than on logic that can just as easily be reproduced in software. RISC is about putting gates where they count and not wasting them where they don't.
When you view RISC by it's actual principles, and not just by what the letters stand for, it's quite easy to see how SIMD units are entirely compatible. Of course, RISC as a differentiator has been obsolete for decades now and only exists as a point of argument for people who don't understand. RISC was an interesting topic...in 1988. You're 30 years behind.
A work-around IS a solution, by definition. You don't have to like it.
That's because it's not a "knee-jerk-get-off-my-lawn attitude", it's a "these a-holes are exploiting a resource they don't pay for and creating an eyesore attitude". It's not that they are on your lawn, it's that they are taking a dump on your lawn and you have to clean it up. It's not just San Jose either, it's happening in my city too. Scooters are discarded literally anywhere like a kid dropping his bicycle the moment it suits him.
A transportation revolution is likely to happen in some form, but it's not going to include junk strewn literally everywhere, including streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, parks, and private property. Companies can make money renting scooters if they like but they aren't entitled to free storage of their property wherever it gets dropped. They can pay for their real estate too, and if that contradicts their business model then good riddance. It's the worst, most wasteful form of the tragedy of the commons.
You fail to consider the source of these images. There is no such thing as "non-retouched" when the image starts out as raw data from a Bayer sensor. Detection of global manipulations is not the goal nor can it be.
This is a very predictable result of crowdfunding. No need to demonstrate competence or experience in a market since your funders are even more ignorant.
Working to get venture capital serves are real purpose, now we see the result when that is bypassed.
Anyone who considers such fundamental concepts of C++ as useful to "way less than 1% of the code in typical projects" "has not understood the language" either.
Sad that the idiotic GP is modded Insightful and this is not.
Also, what "job site" that would require access to this kind of data set would not have "useful cell or wifi"?
Yes, this is it. If the order in which people are assigned their "random" numbers is random, then the issue is moot.
"So a super-lightweight quasi real-time IoT Linux OS beats macOS on it's native hardware 60% of the time? Give me an effing break, will ya?"
As if those features explain the test results. Give me an effing break, will ya?
Interesting that the summary devoted ¾ of its space to comments from Bruce Perens. Is this really about Tesla short sellers or is it pushing a narrative?
How absurd. First off, what's with the "one-horsepower" nonsense? That's 750 watts, quite a bit for a cooling solution but well within what a single wall outlet provides and really not surprising. Second, what does "industrial" mean here? What would be "industrial" about any cooling equipment able to be powered off a residential wall outlet? Third, why call it a "water chiller"? They know what it is, down to the exact model, and it's not called that. It's not "industrial" either, it's a PC-class product used for its intended purpose.
I wonder how much power they think an active cooling solution would use for a system whose power supply is 1300 watts. They state "That means it took an incredibly expensive (not to mention extreme) setup to pull off the demo. You definitely won't find this type of setup on a normal desktop PC." Well no, it doesn't mean "incredibly extensive" or "extreme" and so what? What they used to demonstrate is not a statement of minimum requirements, nor is a 28-core 5GHz processor something you'd find in a "normal desktop PC" anyway. This is standard overclocking stuff and has been for many, many years.
The attempt here is to suggest that abnormally massive cooling equipment is required when that is not supported by the facts. OK, so it was overclocked and had active cooling, no need to lie about it.
"This is why the rumor about Apple making their own Mac CPUs is believable "
No it isn't. Apple doesn't even bother updating its product lines with current Intel offerings so it's hard to believe that Intel lagging behind is even a small problem for Apple.
That's not to say Apple's interest in making their own CPU's isn't believable, just that Apple wouldn't do it for this reason.
This is true, but legacy compatibility also meant hardware support. Peripheral hardware would frequently not work at higher speeds either, including hardware supported in the BIOS.
"People over 40 have some other interesting personal habits too that help them to dismiss the 'disadvantages' of tablets... such as women carrying purses and men with briefcases, which they don't lose track of."
Since when is "over 40" an indicator of "women carrying purses" and "men with briefcases"? If anything, over 40 means less likely to use a tablet.
"(real speaker, low distortion, loud, anyone? Anyone?)"
No one. Mobile devices shouldn't be blasting, especially for those over 40...you know, those savvy people that have developed tablet-friendly habits.
"Which is one of the reasons the elderly are starting prefer basic phones now. "
Not one of the reasons. The elderly that prefer basic phones ALWAYS preferred basic phones.
"They have the smarts to use them but not the vision to see them..."
Older people use reading glasses. Once you get there you'll understand how wrong you are.
Most people don't have need for "8" tablet for flights, known long waits (i.e., the DMV)", and for that matter "17" laptop for work on the go". Few people use a computer for "work on the go" and fewer still live a life of standing in long lines and continual flying.
Agreed. Furthermore, subsidies are NOT to give people something that don't need it, it's to accelerate the creation of a market. Subsidies help overcome impediments to technologies that benefit society. Subsidize EVs AND build out charging infrastructure, there is nothing more obviously beneficial to society today than doing that.
What is the lowest price realistic gasoline powered car given the same extemely low volumes that EV faces today? Asking the wrong question.
Don't agree with the claim that there is "very little to go wrong" with a used EV. They are still cars. Used EVs are cheap because there's no resale demand for them. All that would change with broad adoption. New prices would come down, resale value would improve.