Moore to the point, Moore's law was an observation of a natural trend. This is the opposite, typical of so much legislation.
Moore's law is like having a speedometer needle showing the speed, or a thermometer showing the temperature. Legislation which tries to change society pretends changing the observation will change reality: move the needle to slow down or speed up; move the pointer to raise or lower the temperature. In reality, you need an entirely different device to do that.
"So let it be written, so let it be done" sounds good in movies, but it don't do squat in real life except muck things up.
Another echo of the dubious 99.7. It shouldn't take 2 seconds to realize what nonsense that is. Did you also believe the reports of Fidel's popularity?
99.7, such a believable (and unverifiable) number. I'd like to know who dreamed it up and how they justified it. Was it people who recognized the alphabet?
Any post relying on such a dubious statistic is suspect right off the bat.
Clinton and Trump campaigned in the swing states because that is what the Electoral College encourages. The popular vote "imbalance" is a mirage. If they had been campaigning for the popular vote, if there had been no Electoral College, the campaigns and the results would have been different in ways we can't imagine.
To change the Electoral College process now, after the popular vote is over, is sour grapes.
Hopefully Trump won't renew the economic oppression of the Cuban people.
Unsure how to respond. If you mean is Trump the heir to Fidel, the answer is no. If you mean the stupid embargo, that was the best thing to happen to Castro; he couldn't have asked for a better justification to continue his own oppression of the Cuban people.
If you actually do think Castro was good for Cuba, you are sadly ignorant. Batista's Cuba was famous for literacy and doctors per capita, compared to the rest of Latin America, so Castro's improvements were pretty small, he killed far more people, and destroyed all chances for improvements.
Maybe you are one of the who thinks Che Guevara was heroic and cannot see the irony of selling t-shirts with his picture.
But everything I have read says the goal is to separate heavy industry and its pollution from humanity and the environment. Server farms contribbute nothing to pollution except energy production (presumably could be beamed down from orbital power stations) and cooling.
Yes, dropping stuff from orbit is easy -- unless you want it to survive. Then you need as much structure as payload. This also doesn't account for the raw materials -- how do you get that to the orbital factories? This is, by definition, heavy industry, not smart watches. Cars, trucks, steel stock, drilling machines -- nothing small and light.
I understand the allure of separating heavy industry from people and parks and nice things, to centralize the pollution. But if you put heavy industry in space and most people still live on the ground, it takes an incredible amount of energy to get the raw resources into orbit and bring the finish products back down. If you mine the moon or asteroids, that still takes a lot of energy to get to space-based factories. If you put the factories on the moon or near the asteroids, that's still a lot of energy to ship finished products back to earth or orbital habitats. If you put the factories on Earth near the resources, it's a lot of energy to get the finished products up to orbit.
Besides, factories pollute a lot less now than they used, they are getting cleaner all the time, and we rely on heavy industry, percentage-wise, a lot less than we used to, and all these trends are going to continue.
And if energy becomes so cheap (fusion, cold fusion, who knows) that all this shuffling is practical, then it would also be practical to simply pour all that energy into making heavy industry even cleaner. The problem with cutting pollution isn't the idea, it's doing so efficiently, and with cheap energy, efficiency becomes more relative.
So what am I missing? What is the actual benefit to separating heavy industry and people?
Several million times a year, guns are used to deter or prevent crime. Most of those are merely showing the gun or announcing its presence. Very very few of these make the news, because they are boring. But they work because guns are simple and effective. If all guns were smart guns, they'd bo so unreliable that very few criminals would be deterred by them, and crime would skyrocket.
On, and all your police would be be effectively disarmed too. Unless of course you think police (who commit more crimes off-duty than conceal carriers) are more responsible than "civilians".
Apparently that is the government's main request, that Apple somehow disable that auto-wipe feature so they can brute force it.
These are not like PGP passphrases which are entire sentences; most people only use a couple of words.
I thought of creating a passphrase in a different language, but (at least then) that input screen has to come so early in the boot process that no alternate keyboards were available.
The decryption key is stored nowhere on the phone. It is taken directly from the user tapping it in. This is not like a login password which is matched against user input; it literally is the raw decryption key.
I have both gold and ceramic caps; dentist said gold is better in general since ceramic is so hard that it wears the opposite tooth, but most people don't want a gold front tooth.
I'd worry about not only the difficulty of putting in a super hard filling material, but how hard it would wear down the opposite tooth.
I see the quibblers came out in force, sweating the fine distinction between socialism and socialism. Yes, my joke about USSR and NAZI went over their heads, and they brought out the predictable (but not by me, alas) rejoinder abut those same communist countries calling themselves democratic republics. People who quibble about things like that are blind to any kind of big picture, so this is addressed to them: you have a lousy grasp of reality if you think quibbling about the definition of socialism changes anything.
You probably think raising business taxes socks it to evil businesses and makes them pay their fair share. Here's some news to think about (but you won't): business pass on taxes to consumers, just like they pass on all costs. People pay taxes, you minwits, not businesses. Every single tax comes down to individual people paying them.
You probably think businesses are evil incarnate because they seek profits. Here's something else to think about: profits are to businesses as wages are to people. Just as you wouldn't want to work for free or for some socially responsible wage, neither would you invest your money for free or start a business with friends and expect no income from it. Oh wait, you think paying yourself while the business itself shows no profit makes it a nice business? Talk to any tax accountant for a dose of reality.
Non-profits seek a profit too, but it is diverted to different legal categories that the tax bureaucrats have created to maintain the fiction of being a non-profit, with the express purpose of fooling useful idiots like you. If you don't believe me, go look up the legislative history.
Look up the legislative history of minimum wage laws while you're at it. The US federal minimum wage law began during the Great Depression by FDR's brain trust with the express purpose of preventing northeast textile mills from relocating to the south for labor which was far cheaper, something like 1/4 the rate, because blacks were so discriminated against, by US and state governments. Look up the speeches by beloved FDR backers expressing their contempt for blacks and support of whites.
For that matter, racism was government-mandated. Railroads (yes, evil businesses) in Louisiana were ordered, against their wishes, to have separate cars and trains for blacks and whites. They did not want to because it added expense and reduced profits, but the government ordered it, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court before "separate but equal" was officially approved as government policy. Before government stepped in, blacks and whites rode together and got along. Hell, slavery itself was government-mandated, which you probably do know, but refuse to see as one of the evil consequences of the tyranny of the majority with a coercive government. You'd rather blame it on evil white males, just as you'd rather blame Eric Garner's death on racism than police unaccountability.
Your beloved Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, was perhaps the most bigoted US President ever. He segregated the post office and other government jobs.
Speaking of Woodrow Wilson, if you look at this chart, or google for "inflation since 1800" if it is invalid. Notice how inflation was consistent up until the 1920s: it rose during war and settled back down after. A dollar in 1900 was very nearly the same value as one from 1800. What happened after? Well, the Fed and income tax were begun in 1913. WW I ran up inflation as usual, and after the war there was the usual depression and deflation -- or would have been, but the new Fed stepped in to prevent deflation back to normality. They wanted to do a lot more damage, but they had no leader, as Woodrow Wilson had had a stroke and was pretty much out of it. The 1920 depression started as bad as the 1929 one, but was over and done with in 18 months precisely because the government did nothing but shrink the budget back to pre-war levels.
Oh come now, those characteristics are insignificant and do not define communism or socialism. Didn't you see the various redefinitions above? You are using antiquated capitalist terms. You need to use the modern self-definitions. After all, you wouldn't depend on a tree for the definition of trees, you'd rely on a superior intellect.
Another redefiner. Just because communism embarrassed socialists doesn't mean you should drop all pride in your beliefs and redefine them. Have some spine, man. Stand up tall and be proud, like a true Scot in his skirt.
By the way, do you know passing the bar to become a lawyer is not that ancient a concept? Ought to learn a little history before you use it wrongly for false parables.
So you know the one truth about the one definition? You and your secret clique, eh? You just said those countries redefined the word -- I am not sure how countries can redefine words, since people make up the societies which establish those norms. Yet you, as a person, are holding back the tide of redefinition. Are you the little Dutch boy with your finger in the dike? Which is it -- is it countries or you which control definitions? Or are you saying, between the lines, that you are a country?
Maybe you are the mythical island which no man is, and have declared yourself an island country.
Sorry to ramble, but garbage amuses me. You haven't got enough logic to fill a hydrogen atom's orbitals.
Slashdot Mirror
Moore to the point, Moore's law was an observation of a natural trend. This is the opposite, typical of so much legislation.
Moore's law is like having a speedometer needle showing the speed, or a thermometer showing the temperature. Legislation which tries to change society pretends changing the observation will change reality: move the needle to slow down or speed up; move the pointer to raise or lower the temperature. In reality, you need an entirely different device to do that.
"So let it be written, so let it be done" sounds good in movies, but it don't do squat in real life except muck things up.
The Che fanbois are not ironic, they think he was a hero. You are just as naive if you don't recognize the difference.
Another echo of the dubious 99.7. It shouldn't take 2 seconds to realize what nonsense that is. Did you also believe the reports of Fidel's popularity?
99.7, such a believable (and unverifiable) number. I'd like to know who dreamed it up and how they justified it. Was it people who recognized the alphabet?
Any post relying on such a dubious statistic is suspect right off the bat.
Clinton and Trump campaigned in the swing states because that is what the Electoral College encourages. The popular vote "imbalance" is a mirage. If they had been campaigning for the popular vote, if there had been no Electoral College, the campaigns and the results would have been different in ways we can't imagine.
To change the Electoral College process now, after the popular vote is over, is sour grapes.
Hopefully Trump won't renew the economic oppression of the Cuban people.
Unsure how to respond. If you mean is Trump the heir to Fidel, the answer is no. If you mean the stupid embargo, that was the best thing to happen to Castro; he couldn't have asked for a better justification to continue his own oppression of the Cuban people.
If you actually do think Castro was good for Cuba, you are sadly ignorant. Batista's Cuba was famous for literacy and doctors per capita, compared to the rest of Latin America, so Castro's improvements were pretty small, he killed far more people, and destroyed all chances for improvements.
Maybe you are one of the who thinks Che Guevara was heroic and cannot see the irony of selling t-shirts with his picture.
But everything I have read says the goal is to separate heavy industry and its pollution from humanity and the environment. Server farms contribbute nothing to pollution except energy production (presumably could be beamed down from orbital power stations) and cooling.
Yes, dropping stuff from orbit is easy -- unless you want it to survive. Then you need as much structure as payload. This also doesn't account for the raw materials -- how do you get that to the orbital factories? This is, by definition, heavy industry, not smart watches. Cars, trucks, steel stock, drilling machines -- nothing small and light.
Thus my question about the energy budget.
I understand the allure of separating heavy industry from people and parks and nice things, to centralize the pollution. But if you put heavy industry in space and most people still live on the ground, it takes an incredible amount of energy to get the raw resources into orbit and bring the finish products back down. If you mine the moon or asteroids, that still takes a lot of energy to get to space-based factories. If you put the factories on the moon or near the asteroids, that's still a lot of energy to ship finished products back to earth or orbital habitats. If you put the factories on Earth near the resources, it's a lot of energy to get the finished products up to orbit.
Besides, factories pollute a lot less now than they used, they are getting cleaner all the time, and we rely on heavy industry, percentage-wise, a lot less than we used to, and all these trends are going to continue.
And if energy becomes so cheap (fusion, cold fusion, who knows) that all this shuffling is practical, then it would also be practical to simply pour all that energy into making heavy industry even cleaner. The problem with cutting pollution isn't the idea, it's doing so efficiently, and with cheap energy, efficiency becomes more relative.
So what am I missing? What is the actual benefit to separating heavy industry and people?
Several million times a year, guns are used to deter or prevent crime. Most of those are merely showing the gun or announcing its presence. Very very few of these make the news, because they are boring. But they work because guns are simple and effective. If all guns were smart guns, they'd bo so unreliable that very few criminals would be deterred by them, and crime would skyrocket.
On, and all your police would be be effectively disarmed too. Unless of course you think police (who commit more crimes off-duty than conceal carriers) are more responsible than "civilians".
Fuck off, slaver who is too stupid to think.
I wish all criminal actions would backfire and kill their perpetrators.
I wish all statists would have to endure their own nanny coercion.
I wish all liars would be incapable of telling the truth at any time.
I wish all /. commentors had to listen to their own stupitdiy 24x7.
There are more irresponsible car owners than gun owners.
Study after study has shown that concealed carriers commit far fewer crimes of any sort than off-duty police.
When you are perfect, let us gun owners know, and we will proceed to the next step in your embrace of reality.
Android phones require a password/phrase to use full encryption. A four digit PIN is not enough. Is iOS different?
Use a nonsensical sentence, break normal grammatical patterns, throw in foreign words, etc.
I don't know about iPhones, but Android full-encryption requires using a password, not four digit pin.
Thanks, didn't know that. I don't know enough about encryption to know what that gains, but it's interesting.
Apparently that is the government's main request, that Apple somehow disable that auto-wipe feature so they can brute force it.
These are not like PGP passphrases which are entire sentences; most people only use a couple of words.
I thought of creating a passphrase in a different language, but (at least then) that input screen has to come so early in the boot process that no alternate keyboards were available.
The decryption key is stored nowhere on the phone. It is taken directly from the user tapping it in. This is not like a login password which is matched against user input; it literally is the raw decryption key.
MIT Railroad Club?
Thomas Edison?
Probably Zog the Wheek Maker too.
Someone has lost a lot of history.
I suppose neither of you clowns has ever heard of sarcasm, and your parents disabled your sarcasm meters.
I have both gold and ceramic caps; dentist said gold is better in general since ceramic is so hard that it wears the opposite tooth, but most people don't want a gold front tooth.
I'd worry about not only the difficulty of putting in a super hard filling material, but how hard it would wear down the opposite tooth.
I see the quibblers came out in force, sweating the fine distinction between socialism and socialism. Yes, my joke about USSR and NAZI went over their heads, and they brought out the predictable (but not by me, alas) rejoinder abut those same communist countries calling themselves democratic republics. People who quibble about things like that are blind to any kind of big picture, so this is addressed to them: you have a lousy grasp of reality if you think quibbling about the definition of socialism changes anything.
You probably think raising business taxes socks it to evil businesses and makes them pay their fair share. Here's some news to think about (but you won't): business pass on taxes to consumers, just like they pass on all costs. People pay taxes, you minwits, not businesses. Every single tax comes down to individual people paying them.
You probably think businesses are evil incarnate because they seek profits. Here's something else to think about: profits are to businesses as wages are to people. Just as you wouldn't want to work for free or for some socially responsible wage, neither would you invest your money for free or start a business with friends and expect no income from it. Oh wait, you think paying yourself while the business itself shows no profit makes it a nice business? Talk to any tax accountant for a dose of reality.
Non-profits seek a profit too, but it is diverted to different legal categories that the tax bureaucrats have created to maintain the fiction of being a non-profit, with the express purpose of fooling useful idiots like you. If you don't believe me, go look up the legislative history.
Look up the legislative history of minimum wage laws while you're at it. The US federal minimum wage law began during the Great Depression by FDR's brain trust with the express purpose of preventing northeast textile mills from relocating to the south for labor which was far cheaper, something like 1/4 the rate, because blacks were so discriminated against, by US and state governments. Look up the speeches by beloved FDR backers expressing their contempt for blacks and support of whites.
For that matter, racism was government-mandated. Railroads (yes, evil businesses) in Louisiana were ordered, against their wishes, to have separate cars and trains for blacks and whites. They did not want to because it added expense and reduced profits, but the government ordered it, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court before "separate but equal" was officially approved as government policy. Before government stepped in, blacks and whites rode together and got along. Hell, slavery itself was government-mandated, which you probably do know, but refuse to see as one of the evil consequences of the tyranny of the majority with a coercive government. You'd rather blame it on evil white males, just as you'd rather blame Eric Garner's death on racism than police unaccountability.
Your beloved Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, was perhaps the most bigoted US President ever. He segregated the post office and other government jobs.
Speaking of Woodrow Wilson, if you look at this chart, or google for "inflation since 1800" if it is invalid. Notice how inflation was consistent up until the 1920s: it rose during war and settled back down after. A dollar in 1900 was very nearly the same value as one from 1800. What happened after? Well, the Fed and income tax were begun in 1913. WW I ran up inflation as usual, and after the war there was the usual depression and deflation -- or would have been, but the new Fed stepped in to prevent deflation back to normality. They wanted to do a lot more damage, but they had no leader, as Woodrow Wilson had had a stroke and was pretty much out of it. The 1920 depression started as bad as the 1929 one, but was over and done with in 18 months precisely because the government did nothing but shrink the budget back to pre-war levels.
If you quibbl
Oh come now, those characteristics are insignificant and do not define communism or socialism. Didn't you see the various redefinitions above? You are using antiquated capitalist terms. You need to use the modern self-definitions. After all, you wouldn't depend on a tree for the definition of trees, you'd rely on a superior intellect.
Another redefiner. Just because communism embarrassed socialists doesn't mean you should drop all pride in your beliefs and redefine them. Have some spine, man. Stand up tall and be proud, like a true Scot in his skirt.
By the way, do you know passing the bar to become a lawyer is not that ancient a concept? Ought to learn a little history before you use it wrongly for false parables.
So you know the one truth about the one definition? You and your secret clique, eh? You just said those countries redefined the word -- I am not sure how countries can redefine words, since people make up the societies which establish those norms. Yet you, as a person, are holding back the tide of redefinition. Are you the little Dutch boy with your finger in the dike? Which is it -- is it countries or you which control definitions? Or are you saying, between the lines, that you are a country?
Maybe you are the mythical island which no man is, and have declared yourself an island country.
Sorry to ramble, but garbage amuses me. You haven't got enough logic to fill a hydrogen atom's orbitals.