Not really. In the systems I have used, the supercomputers are composed of a cluster of nodes, with each node containing several compute cores. Each compute core is basically equivalent and fully capable of general tasks.
No. This figure is probably based on the actual rates that the supercomputing facility charges to research projects. For example, look at: http://www.nersc.gov/users/acc...
Supercomputing clusters generally have sophisticated job queues for handling job request by thousands of users. In my experience (in NERSC and TACC), utilization is pretty high, and it can take hours or days for a job to make it through the queue, depending on many factors. I doubt ze was running only on truly spare nodes, since someone can usually find a use for them.
Decreasing the spread does not reduce the cost to long term investors on average. It perhaps reduces the costs to less savvy investors and increases costs to more savvy investors. But the aggregate effect is to increase the cost on average.
Of course it harms us. It hurts long term investors by increasing the prices when they want to buy. Some HFTs are winners and losers, but on an aggregate scale they are taking money from long term traders, mutual funds, (ie you, unless you are some kind of mountain hermit).
How can it be 20% cheaper for everybody if everybody uses different amounts of water? Do you mean it will be 20% cheaper on average, or do you mean everybody.
I'm not sure why printing would be necessary. If we have the ability to send an organic printer to a nearby star, wouldn't we also be able to send frozen embryos or sperm and eggs?
Who said anything about destroying the original? If you are thinking about murderous clone syndrome (where the clone has an insatiable urge to kill the original), don't worry; you'll be long dead before the printer arrives at the destination.
Yes, there will be bugs in the first smart guns. They will improve over time. The question you should ask is not, "are they safe?", but "are they safer?".
These are grade school kids we are talking about. Arithmetic isn't all there is to mathematics, but you have to start somewhere. Do you really expect to go into computer science theory to a bunch of kids?
We should be risk averse when it comes to global, irreparable changes. Maybe global warming will end up helping humans through increases in agricultural yield. Maybe not. At least some of the changes will be bad: flooding of coastal cities, ocean acidification, need to change traditional growing patterns. We don't know what will happen exactly. Isn't it safer to try to limit the change?
But how do you quantify the benefit of freedom versus the costs of people's lives? If you socially engineer everything in terms of number of people saved, then you end up with a full blown nanny state.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. I can wipe my ass with a dollar. I can't do that with bitcoin.
Another difference is that we are talking about supercomputers here.
Not really. In the systems I have used, the supercomputers are composed of a cluster of nodes, with each node containing several compute cores. Each compute core is basically equivalent and fully capable of general tasks.
No. This figure is probably based on the actual rates that the supercomputing facility charges to research projects. For example, look at:
http://www.nersc.gov/users/acc...
Minor thing, but it's more likely a scientist than an engineer.
Supercomputing clusters generally have sophisticated job queues for handling job request by thousands of users. In my experience (in NERSC and TACC), utilization is pretty high, and it can take hours or days for a job to make it through the queue, depending on many factors. I doubt ze was running only on truly spare nodes, since someone can usually find a use for them.
No it doesn't.
Interesting. Why was the symbol table implemented in such a way that it could be full? Is it not dynamically allocated?
If both sides have the full tape, then this is impossible.
We have judges to make these kinds of calls. Legislators can't make these calls and fuck things up when they try.
Decreasing the spread does not reduce the cost to long term investors on average. It perhaps reduces the costs to less savvy investors and increases costs to more savvy investors. But the aggregate effect is to increase the cost on average.
Of course it harms us. It hurts long term investors by increasing the prices when they want to buy. Some HFTs are winners and losers, but on an aggregate scale they are taking money from long term traders, mutual funds, (ie you, unless you are some kind of mountain hermit).
How can it be 20% cheaper for everybody if everybody uses different amounts of water? Do you mean it will be 20% cheaper on average, or do you mean everybody.
To be fair, it's a lot easier to tell people they're doing it wrong than to tell people the right way to do things.
Wrong. This got serious media attention, and Adam Silver was basically forced to act on it.
I'm not sure why printing would be necessary. If we have the ability to send an organic printer to a nearby star, wouldn't we also be able to send frozen embryos or sperm and eggs?
a billion years is a long time, even on cosmological scales
Who said anything about destroying the original? If you are thinking about murderous clone syndrome (where the clone has an insatiable urge to kill the original), don't worry; you'll be long dead before the printer arrives at the destination.
What happens if the electronics are disrupted by hacking or EMP?
I'm not sure what you mean by real skills. Are you saying it doesn't take real skills to spy on people?
It might have worked in the past, but now the mediocre crapware market for everything is dominated by Chinese companies.
Yes, there will be bugs in the first smart guns. They will improve over time. The question you should ask is not, "are they safe?", but "are they safer?".
These are grade school kids we are talking about. Arithmetic isn't all there is to mathematics, but you have to start somewhere. Do you really expect to go into computer science theory to a bunch of kids?
We should be risk averse when it comes to global, irreparable changes. Maybe global warming will end up helping humans through increases in agricultural yield. Maybe not. At least some of the changes will be bad: flooding of coastal cities, ocean acidification, need to change traditional growing patterns. We don't know what will happen exactly. Isn't it safer to try to limit the change?
But how do you quantify the benefit of freedom versus the costs of people's lives? If you socially engineer everything in terms of number of people saved, then you end up with a full blown nanny state.