I know if I was a trooper I would be questioning the use of "armor" that seems particularly vulnerable to small sticks and rocks as wielded by little teddy bears.
Are you trying to say that the speed in which electricity travels through a medium doesn't have anything to do with "capacitances and resistances"?
Because I was talking about speed, and you the other. I also believe I mentioned those very words when talking about heat, which as most are aware is the actual limiting factor. As melting your chip in the attempt for more speed (by trying to overcome resistance) isn't too helpful.
Or are you trying to say that that the "capacitances and resistances" will slow down light? Because that would be new to me that light shared those properties with electricity. I would think that interference and coherence would be more an issue with light but what the hell do I know.
Also considering you don't know when I was born, I find it unlikely you can come to any conclusion as to when light started to be experimented on for computer chip development. I would also say your wrong there again.
As for not going into great detail on microprocessor design and implantation I didn't feel it was all that necessary to the conversation when my point was that "small" isn't always "better", there are many more factors to consider, and that it also makes the big assumption that you are going to continue to do the exact same thing that you have been doing for decades, which I thought to be a foolish assumption.
Also I'm not sure the problem is so much a delay as it is with certainty of change. The smaller you get, and less current you use, the harder it is to tell if a gate is open or closed. It becomes fuzzy. If it becomes too fuzzy, it cannot be detected, and then unusable. You have to be able to clearly define when a gate is totally open or totally closed, and if you can't do that, the chip will not operate, or will not operate as quickly.
Architecture and memory, and type of memory, also play a role etc... but I was originally talking about the fundamentals (and how they might differ) of chip design without going into a great amount of detail.
Though I do remember hearing that rather than using Binary a whole new system would have to be used, or at least translated, as there was 0,1,2... On, Off, and Maybe or something along those lines...
making a smaller die size means you can fit more on a single chip, which in turn makes it go faster right? Well only if you keep to the same idea.
Why do we need so many? Well the speed in which electricity travels, and from which something can switch from + to - is pretty much constant. Our current technological method is simply making them small and cramming more and more and more onto a chip, which can then of course do more, because it has more stuff. All that stuff is still all working at the same "speed", just more of it is working.
While not very far along the development line, using "light" rather than current solves a lot of problems. A) it is a lot faster, and B) likely does not produce the amount of heat due to resistance along the material.
More exotic is quantum chips, which I don't know all that much about, so they may, or may not exist...:)
variables were letters in my day, but who knows what they learn in this brave new world!
"x" was the letter of choice in most cases, however where their might be more than one variable, other letters could also be used. a, b, c, were all common as I recall. When I starting programming they added "i" for some reason... perhaps it was roman numerals, i, ii, iii, or maybe it was supposed to be "integer", or just "interval", maybe "iterative"...
OK now that question is really bugging me, why the heck do we use "i" all the time as a variable? I guess I just accepted it, or was sleeping that day. Usually used as a counter in a loop.
Not to mention, if his face was in a local paper or some BS he can always move... FB is everywhere. Maybe if he looked for employment somewhere else and some principle goggles him and his face comes up as suspected child assault... well that can't be good. Particularly if eventuality proven innocent.
I only really knew one alcoholic in my life. Hardcore alcoholic. Was a the father of two friends of mine. He seemed like an OK guy but man would he drink. I am pretty sure he lost several jobs because of it, as well as got several DUI's.
I remember going over to visit my friends at their house, and noticing when I was walking up the driveway that the truck was still running. Their dad was passed out on the steering wheel, totally out. Apparently out drinking, managed *somehow* to make it home safe, once in the driveway threw it into park, head on steering wheel, asleep. Truck still running hours, and hours later. I wonder if it ran out of gas... I sure as hell wasn't about to wake him up!
Anyway I think I just want to point out that their are those that might get a DUI because they made a bad judgment call at a restaurant or bar had a couple too many and blew slightly over the limit and was unlucky enough to get caught (people can debate impairment all day). There are also those that will get absolutely fall down drunk, sloppy, very impaired and jump in their truck and drive where ever. One is a lot more dangerous than the other.
I think if that alcoholic guy I knew saw it (picture on facebook), he might say "nice picture" and get a laugh out of it and generally not care, as I said he had more than several DUI (He eventually lost his drivers licence). Where as some guy who had one too many beers at dinner with his wife might be absolutely horrified, particularly if anyone he knew found out. This without a conviction? Not cool in my books. I think it is a bit different if the picture is of a repeat DUI offender, then by all means. Anyway I think it is pretty common sense.
I think the word "terrorist" is just fine, though in recent years the term has become even more inflammatory.
I am not so much worried that some Tamil is going to come to Canada to blow something up, as you say, that would not make any sense. I am more concerned about hosting folks that perhaps raise funds, recruit, and generally operate out of my Country to further their aims in another. That I would not like so much. If they simple want to come here to live and integrate and be free of oppression, then I say welcome! However if this as seen as simply a base of operations to promote terror elsewhere, well then I don't really want to be your neighbor.
Yes just like Canada now apparently has a boatload of Tamil Tiger Terrorists (although the triple alliteration is fun) headed for Vancouver looking for Asylum. I am sure they think of themselves as revolutionaries and freedom fighters, but of course the Sri Lanka government calls them terrorists. The high commissioner for Sri Lanka in Canada, basically wants us to turn hundreds away just like Australia did, or send them to Sri Lanka to face trial (or what the Tamils might argue as persecution).
It really is a matter of perspective. On one hand I don't really want "terrorists" moving to Canada, on the other I hope we are open to helping those that are in real need. I don't envy the immigration officials on this one. Given our current government, it will be interesting to see if this evolves into a political issue and if they take active steps to interfere with the normal process.
The phrase: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." comes to mind.
Also: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." as I am sure all the military brass were thinking that with all their advanced weaponry that this would now be a cake walk against such primitive savages. I wonder what they think about a determined foe with the ability to make simple IED's now?
Ya, one really has to assume an existing functioning government to actually have laws. We and many parts of the world are fortunate to have them, though some we might bitch about from time to time.
However when you government either A) Doesn't exist, B) Does exist but has no real authority or ways to enforce the rule of law, or C) is really just a puppet to foreign powers or internal warlords, then the term "illegal" and "law" no longer really have the same meaning. In some instances the have a more gray areas. You could really throw in a D) in there for corrupt government officials and the application of law, but it likely depends on how rampant it is as a definition of lawlessness.
One example I saw of this that starts to show the reverse is also true, particularly from a diplomatic perspective was Pakistan. While most would likely agree that Afghanistan is pretty messed up right now, and what control the government really has is pretty minimal, and that it can barely be called a government. However during the conflict the Taliban would simply slip across the border into Pakistan and hide. The allies would want to go after them, but could not, because that was the "sovereign" nation of Pakistan. It then raises the question, well if you cannot enforce the law in your own country (or at least in that physical area), just how "sovereign" are you. Eventually Pakistan HAD to do something, or risk in the eyes of the world to not have sovereign control of that particular area, so the sent in the army to exert that governmental control and prove their sovereign rights to the area.
Things like Wikileaks promote it, stuff like Obama's Admin trying to pressure other governments to suppress them try to destroy it.
I still remember from the Iraq War where American "friendly fire" killed a whole bunch of Canadian troops. Basically the bombed they crap out of the Canadians on the ground, apparently ignoring the friend or Foe electronics. I don't remember all the details as it was a while ago, but I got the impression that there was some sort of half asses investigation, to which the final result was a big bunch of nothing. Something along the lines of "Oopsie, war is hell!".
I would have loved to see the Wikileaks video of that engagement, to see how it really went down. However all we have to go on is what they determine and considering its their ass and face on the line, they may have a little "bias" in any sort of investigation of say, themselves.
I mean its not like he a has a war to worry about, or a crashed economy, or building health care, or environmental disasters.
I am sure he has time to pressure allies, to press charges against a WEBSITE that they do not like.
I mean that makes perfect sense.
Though seriously the title is misleading. Bad Editors, Bad! It makes it sound like Obama himself is saying this, when really its just his staff.
All of that said, I hope when they approach Canadian officials that they tell them to "take a hike hoser!". If sending troops as allies to your stupid wars and having our troops killed for your stupid mistakes, you have the audacity to try and pressure us to enforce your stupid laws? Ya right. Though considering our current glorious leader "the harper" is such a douchebag USA love puppy he will likely hand everything over and the kitchen sink, and break our own laws in a frenzied attempt to placate the all seeing Obama.
Seriously I hope I am not the only one that sees so many things wrong with this message on so many levels.
So exactly how does your car get its internet connection then? Or does it connect to other hot spots and then provide that signal to your devices? Or is this supposed to use one of the new wireless protocols like WiMAX or something? I didn't think those were all that operational yet? Will this be a subscription based service offered by Audi, like OnStar or something? Article seemed a bit light on details.
I remember fighting over monopoly with an old friend of mine when we were kids. I caught him stealing money from the bank (he was banker) when I would get up. At the time he actually said that he was "taking interest free bank loans".
I bought a Nissan, so bring on the tentacles! Though I am pretty sure it was built in Mexico, so maybe that is all going to a drug Cartel...
Of course Canada is by FAR the largest importer of Oil to the USA. Only the USA contributes more. So as far as foreign oil dependency goes, take a hike hosers!
To draw a full circle, likely China is the largest importer or Oil from the Saudis (or will be soon), to which the USA gives its hard currency debt to... so good luck with that.
Anyway just trying to point out in our global economy it is pretty hard to be a conscious spender...
That was one thing I always thought "interesting", of the 18 or whatever 9/11 jerks, I seem to recall like 15 of 'em were Saudis. Yet the US invaded IRAQ and the Afghanistan? Heck good 'ole Bin Ladin was a Saudi. I know the USA does a lot of business with the Saudi's but come on! That seems like a pretty big deal to me.
The same thought occurred to me after years in Afghanistan with the Taliban simply going across the boarder into Pakistan to hide. Though to Pakistan's credit after a lot of pressure was put on them, they at least tried to do something about it, and paid for it as well.
The RIAA wants Pirates I say we give 'em pirates! Just imagine the fast sloop Datahawk closing on the large and unwieldy Datastore, just watch out for the HCMS Defender. (I have no idea what I went with all "D's" there). Anyway Heave to and have at her! Full broadsides, get that connection going!
Dress Code for the Sys Admin includes a eye patch and a peg leg. As you were for personal hygiene.
Pentagon: We demand you take down those documents! We can't have those on the internet! Me: Good Luck with that...
Clearly the Pentagon has little understanding how this "internet" thing works. I mean they did kind of build it. You know, as a redundant communication system in the event of a nuke attack, that you know, is resistant to attack at a single node.
I mean it's out there in the wild. Do they really think it will be gone if they take if off their website? That's like deleting a shortcut off your desktop thinking you just uninstalled a program. Unless they are just being bitter and spiteful I don't see the point.
Slashdot Mirror
I know if I was a trooper I would be questioning the use of "armor" that seems particularly vulnerable to small sticks and rocks as wielded by little teddy bears.
Why not award 12 Kajillion dollars? It has about the same chances of actually getting paid.
Decisions like this are stupid.
Pffft. That's just what the tinfoil industry wants you to think. Quit being such a puppet!
Everyone is trying to steal my air. I know if I just breath faster I can get my full amount!
Not to be rude, but you are arguing semantics.
Are you trying to say that the speed in which electricity travels through a medium doesn't have anything to do with "capacitances and resistances"?
Because I was talking about speed, and you the other. I also believe I mentioned those very words when talking about heat, which as most are aware is the actual limiting factor. As melting your chip in the attempt for more speed (by trying to overcome resistance) isn't too helpful.
Or are you trying to say that that the "capacitances and resistances" will slow down light? Because that would be new to me that light shared those properties with electricity. I would think that interference and coherence would be more an issue with light but what the hell do I know.
Also considering you don't know when I was born, I find it unlikely you can come to any conclusion as to when light started to be experimented on for computer chip development. I would also say your wrong there again.
As for not going into great detail on microprocessor design and implantation I didn't feel it was all that necessary to the conversation when my point was that "small" isn't always "better", there are many more factors to consider, and that it also makes the big assumption that you are going to continue to do the exact same thing that you have been doing for decades, which I thought to be a foolish assumption.
Also I'm not sure the problem is so much a delay as it is with certainty of change. The smaller you get, and less current you use, the harder it is to tell if a gate is open or closed. It becomes fuzzy. If it becomes too fuzzy, it cannot be detected, and then unusable. You have to be able to clearly define when a gate is totally open or totally closed, and if you can't do that, the chip will not operate, or will not operate as quickly.
Architecture and memory, and type of memory, also play a role etc... but I was originally talking about the fundamentals (and how they might differ) of chip design without going into a great amount of detail.
Though I do remember hearing that rather than using Binary a whole new system would have to be used, or at least translated, as there was 0,1,2... On, Off, and Maybe or something along those lines...
making a smaller die size means you can fit more on a single chip, which in turn makes it go faster right? Well only if you keep to the same idea.
Why do we need so many? Well the speed in which electricity travels, and from which something can switch from + to - is pretty much constant. Our current technological method is simply making them small and cramming more and more and more onto a chip, which can then of course do more, because it has more stuff. All that stuff is still all working at the same "speed", just more of it is working.
While not very far along the development line, using "light" rather than current solves a lot of problems. A) it is a lot faster, and B) likely does not produce the amount of heat due to resistance along the material.
More exotic is quantum chips, which I don't know all that much about, so they may, or may not exist... :)
variables were letters in my day, but who knows what they learn in this brave new world!
"x" was the letter of choice in most cases, however where their might be more than one variable, other letters could also be used. a, b, c, were all common as I recall. When I starting programming they added "i" for some reason... perhaps it was roman numerals, i, ii, iii, or maybe it was supposed to be "integer", or just "interval", maybe "iterative"...
OK now that question is really bugging me, why the heck do we use "i" all the time as a variable? I guess I just accepted it, or was sleeping that day. Usually used as a counter in a loop.
Not to mention, if his face was in a local paper or some BS he can always move... FB is everywhere. Maybe if he looked for employment somewhere else and some principle goggles him and his face comes up as suspected child assault... well that can't be good. Particularly if eventuality proven innocent.
I only really knew one alcoholic in my life. Hardcore alcoholic. Was a the father of two friends of mine. He seemed like an OK guy but man would he drink. I am pretty sure he lost several jobs because of it, as well as got several DUI's.
I remember going over to visit my friends at their house, and noticing when I was walking up the driveway that the truck was still running. Their dad was passed out on the steering wheel, totally out. Apparently out drinking, managed *somehow* to make it home safe, once in the driveway threw it into park, head on steering wheel, asleep. Truck still running hours, and hours later. I wonder if it ran out of gas... I sure as hell wasn't about to wake him up!
Anyway I think I just want to point out that their are those that might get a DUI because they made a bad judgment call at a restaurant or bar had a couple too many and blew slightly over the limit and was unlucky enough to get caught (people can debate impairment all day). There are also those that will get absolutely fall down drunk, sloppy, very impaired and jump in their truck and drive where ever. One is a lot more dangerous than the other.
I think if that alcoholic guy I knew saw it (picture on facebook), he might say "nice picture" and get a laugh out of it and generally not care, as I said he had more than several DUI (He eventually lost his drivers licence). Where as some guy who had one too many beers at dinner with his wife might be absolutely horrified, particularly if anyone he knew found out. This without a conviction? Not cool in my books. I think it is a bit different if the picture is of a repeat DUI offender, then by all means. Anyway I think it is pretty common sense.
I think the word "terrorist" is just fine, though in recent years the term has become even more inflammatory.
I am not so much worried that some Tamil is going to come to Canada to blow something up, as you say, that would not make any sense. I am more concerned about hosting folks that perhaps raise funds, recruit, and generally operate out of my Country to further their aims in another. That I would not like so much. If they simple want to come here to live and integrate and be free of oppression, then I say welcome! However if this as seen as simply a base of operations to promote terror elsewhere, well then I don't really want to be your neighbor.
Anyway that was all I was getting at really.
Yes just like Canada now apparently has a boatload of Tamil Tiger Terrorists (although the triple alliteration is fun) headed for Vancouver looking for Asylum. I am sure they think of themselves as revolutionaries and freedom fighters, but of course the Sri Lanka government calls them terrorists. The high commissioner for Sri Lanka in Canada, basically wants us to turn hundreds away just like Australia did, or send them to Sri Lanka to face trial (or what the Tamils might argue as persecution).
It really is a matter of perspective. On one hand I don't really want "terrorists" moving to Canada, on the other I hope we are open to helping those that are in real need. I don't envy the immigration officials on this one. Given our current government, it will be interesting to see if this evolves into a political issue and if they take active steps to interfere with the normal process.
Just watched "9th Company" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417397/
The phrase: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." comes to mind.
Also: "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." as I am sure all the military brass were thinking that with all their advanced weaponry that this would now be a cake walk against such primitive savages. I wonder what they think about a determined foe with the ability to make simple IED's now?
Ya, one really has to assume an existing functioning government to actually have laws. We and many parts of the world are fortunate to have them, though some we might bitch about from time to time.
However when you government either A) Doesn't exist, B) Does exist but has no real authority or ways to enforce the rule of law, or C) is really just a puppet to foreign powers or internal warlords, then the term "illegal" and "law" no longer really have the same meaning. In some instances the have a more gray areas. You could really throw in a D) in there for corrupt government officials and the application of law, but it likely depends on how rampant it is as a definition of lawlessness.
One example I saw of this that starts to show the reverse is also true, particularly from a diplomatic perspective was Pakistan. While most would likely agree that Afghanistan is pretty messed up right now, and what control the government really has is pretty minimal, and that it can barely be called a government. However during the conflict the Taliban would simply slip across the border into Pakistan and hide. The allies would want to go after them, but could not, because that was the "sovereign" nation of Pakistan. It then raises the question, well if you cannot enforce the law in your own country (or at least in that physical area), just how "sovereign" are you. Eventually Pakistan HAD to do something, or risk in the eyes of the world to not have sovereign control of that particular area, so the sent in the army to exert that governmental control and prove their sovereign rights to the area.
Things like Wikileaks promote it, stuff like Obama's Admin trying to pressure other governments to suppress them try to destroy it.
I still remember from the Iraq War where American "friendly fire" killed a whole bunch of Canadian troops. Basically the bombed they crap out of the Canadians on the ground, apparently ignoring the friend or Foe electronics. I don't remember all the details as it was a while ago, but I got the impression that there was some sort of half asses investigation, to which the final result was a big bunch of nothing. Something along the lines of "Oopsie, war is hell!".
I would have loved to see the Wikileaks video of that engagement, to see how it really went down. However all we have to go on is what they determine and considering its their ass and face on the line, they may have a little "bias" in any sort of investigation of say, themselves.
I mean its not like he a has a war to worry about, or a crashed economy, or building health care, or environmental disasters.
I am sure he has time to pressure allies, to press charges against a WEBSITE that they do not like.
I mean that makes perfect sense.
Though seriously the title is misleading. Bad Editors, Bad! It makes it sound like Obama himself is saying this, when really its just his staff.
All of that said, I hope when they approach Canadian officials that they tell them to "take a hike hoser!". If sending troops as allies to your stupid wars and having our troops killed for your stupid mistakes, you have the audacity to try and pressure us to enforce your stupid laws? Ya right. Though considering our current glorious leader "the harper" is such a douchebag USA love puppy he will likely hand everything over and the kitchen sink, and break our own laws in a frenzied attempt to placate the all seeing Obama.
Seriously I hope I am not the only one that sees so many things wrong with this message on so many levels.
So exactly how does your car get its internet connection then? Or does it connect to other hot spots and then provide that signal to your devices? Or is this supposed to use one of the new wireless protocols like WiMAX or something? I didn't think those were all that operational yet? Will this be a subscription based service offered by Audi, like OnStar or something? Article seemed a bit light on details.
I believe that is a chicken or the egg argument really.
Somehow I think that would make a great protest mob...
pickets... We want Braaaaains! :)
I remember fighting over monopoly with an old friend of mine when we were kids. I caught him stealing money from the bank (he was banker) when I would get up. At the time he actually said that he was "taking interest free bank loans".
I guess he was just ahead of his time.
I bought a Nissan, so bring on the tentacles! Though I am pretty sure it was built in Mexico, so maybe that is all going to a drug Cartel...
Of course Canada is by FAR the largest importer of Oil to the USA. Only the USA contributes more. So as far as foreign oil dependency goes, take a hike hosers!
To draw a full circle, likely China is the largest importer or Oil from the Saudis (or will be soon), to which the USA gives its hard currency debt to... so good luck with that.
Anyway just trying to point out in our global economy it is pretty hard to be a conscious spender...
That was one thing I always thought "interesting", of the 18 or whatever 9/11 jerks, I seem to recall like 15 of 'em were Saudis. Yet the US invaded IRAQ and the Afghanistan? Heck good 'ole Bin Ladin was a Saudi. I know the USA does a lot of business with the Saudi's but come on! That seems like a pretty big deal to me.
The same thought occurred to me after years in Afghanistan with the Taliban simply going across the boarder into Pakistan to hide. Though to Pakistan's credit after a lot of pressure was put on them, they at least tried to do something about it, and paid for it as well.
Seriously Slashdot, for shame!
The RIAA wants Pirates I say we give 'em pirates! Just imagine the fast sloop Datahawk closing on the large and unwieldy Datastore, just watch out for the HCMS Defender. (I have no idea what I went with all "D's" there). Anyway Heave to and have at her! Full broadsides, get that connection going!
Dress Code for the Sys Admin includes a eye patch and a peg leg. As you were for personal hygiene.
You'll be dead.
Pentagon: We demand you take down those documents! We can't have those on the internet!
Me: Good Luck with that...
Clearly the Pentagon has little understanding how this "internet" thing works. I mean they did kind of build it. You know, as a redundant communication system in the event of a nuke attack, that you know, is resistant to attack at a single node.
I mean it's out there in the wild. Do they really think it will be gone if they take if off their website? That's like deleting a shortcut off your desktop thinking you just uninstalled a program. Unless they are just being bitter and spiteful I don't see the point.
It could have something to do with the bottom falling out of the IT job market....
The fact that companies like to outsource those jobs to India....
People don't want to be considered corporate baggage and paid like a day laborer....
Have figured out that most IT jobs are not exciting, but soul sucking cube jobs with little hope of advancement.
Now also make the requirements stiff, and the courses somewhat harder.
Attach a stigma of never getting laid in a college setting...
Gee I have no idea why enrollment is down.
Better hire someone with a business degree to figure it all out, its too complicated for mere mortals.
It was recently revealed that it was just Dr. Who and his Tardis....