But the real reason it won't happen is because it's a dumb idea. Like any other tax, the cost will simply be passed through to the consumer.
I wonder if that's true. Imagine product A and B. Both cost $5. But now a tax on advertising is introduced. Product A uses advertising and now costs $10 Product B uses no advertising, and still costs $5.
We need a limit on the number of people in a corporation. There's too much stuff inside google that would be much more valuable when open to the general market.
The situation has an analogy in modular programming: imagine one module having 1,000,000 lines of code. Not good.
Given the fact that Google copied millions of books without any regard of the law, I'd say there's little reason to believe they will respect privacy when appropriate laws are put into place.
so while the computation on the gpu may be 10x faster...feeding the data in/out is 10x slower meaning it did not do anything for you, except require you a lot of extra coding complication do use it.... Benchmarks tend not look like real world queries, of often you can do something that helps a benchmark, but does nothing in the real world,.
But what if the benchmark is larger than the memory size of the GPU? I don't know the actual size, but I guess they use at least realistic amounts of data (larger than the memory of the GPU card), so that would prove your theory wrong!
By the way, there's more to databases than just queries. Skimming through the abstract, I see that they only address speeding up the queries. The commit phase of a database is also interesting, but they don't seem to address it.
Well, for one, you can have the same single-threading benefits you have in the browser, now on the server! Cooperative multitasking like in the old days! It will make you forget what threads were invented for in the first place!
The person who needs to use threads. Or the person needing access to special functions such as page fault interrupts. Or the person porting python/Haskell/your favorite language.
The Big O formalism actually bounds the error quite precisely. In contrast, approximate computing does not offer any bound for the error (or perhaps only in the statistical sense).
In fact, that's exactly how I think the government will, in the future, invalidate bitcoins (and keep control of currency).
They will put up a website where you can "validate" your bitcoins. The ones which the government doesn't like will get banned (because who wants to have "dirty" money?) and devalued.
Your analogy may work if you add that the sound of the singer is at frequencies near 1GHz (a high-frequency coloratura soprano?), and the sound is filtered as usual through a 44kHz lowpass filter before being recorded.
They have taken a thousand complicated steps to make this mission work, and you think they were just fooling around when it came to designing the landing procedure?
Nope. The Chinese are smarter than you want to believe.
Tell them this: If your radiator is broken, do you ask a thermodynamics professor to fix it? Of course not, he probably won't even know where to begin, and he will probably get it broken even more.
Slashdot Mirror
Google just puts you inside a bubble. That effectively erases the rest of the internet.
But the real reason it won't happen is because it's a dumb idea. Like any other tax, the cost will simply be passed through to the consumer.
I wonder if that's true.
Imagine product A and B. Both cost $5.
But now a tax on advertising is introduced.
Product A uses advertising and now costs $10
Product B uses no advertising, and still costs $5.
Which product will you buy?
We need a limit on the number of people in a corporation.
There's too much stuff inside google that would be much more valuable when open to the general market.
The situation has an analogy in modular programming: imagine one module having 1,000,000 lines of code. Not good.
Given the fact that Google copied millions of books without any regard of the law, I'd say there's little reason to believe they will respect privacy when appropriate laws are put into place.
Unfortunately, lots of clueless people _do_ vote.
so while the computation on the gpu may be 10x faster...feeding the data in/out is 10x slower meaning it did not do anything for you, except require you a lot of extra coding complication do use it. ...
Benchmarks tend not look like real world queries, of often you can do something that helps a benchmark, but does nothing in the real world,.
But what if the benchmark is larger than the memory size of the GPU? I don't know the actual size, but I guess they use at least realistic amounts of data (larger than the memory of the GPU card), so that would prove your theory wrong!
By the way, there's more to databases than just queries. Skimming through the abstract, I see that they only address speeding up the queries. The commit phase of a database is also interesting, but they don't seem to address it.
Well, for one, you can have the same single-threading benefits you have in the browser, now on the server! Cooperative multitasking like in the old days! It will make you forget what threads were invented for in the first place!
[quote]
You are confusing tools for professionals with overpriced doo-dads intended to fool other people into believing that you are wealthy.
[/quote]
Annual cost of a dog: $695 (http://xkcd.com/980/)
Cost of an iPhone: $699
A daily pack of cigarettes per year: $3,050
Cost of a Mac Pro: $2,999
Ergo, Apple products do not make you look wealthy.
No, the next step is they will predict what your face looks like by just looking at your social data.
The person who needs to use threads.
Or the person needing access to special functions such as page fault interrupts.
Or the person porting python/Haskell/your favorite language.
That's simple: just offer them, at the age of 18, a choice between voting rights and an iPhone.
The Big O formalism actually bounds the error quite precisely. In contrast, approximate computing does not offer any bound for the error (or perhaps only in the statistical sense).
The problem is not to identify this. The problem is to change it.
This isn't done, because governments have far more control over them than bitcoins.
Fixed that for you :)
In fact, that's exactly how I think the government will, in the future, invalidate bitcoins (and keep control of currency).
They will put up a website where you can "validate" your bitcoins. The ones which the government doesn't like will get banned (because who wants to have "dirty" money?) and devalued.
Your analogy may work if you add that the sound of the singer is at frequencies near 1GHz (a high-frequency coloratura soprano?), and the sound is filtered as usual through a 44kHz lowpass filter before being recorded.
I think we just need an IQ test for politicians. That's all.
Is a car ever going to replace a running athlete?
There. That's how silly this question really is.
how is Norway going to know if the person doesn't self report?
They just look in the bitcoin transaction log (and link it to you via stuff you bought)
You thought bitcoin was anonymous?
Think again.
It is the wet dream of the IRS (and NSA, etc.)
They have taken a thousand complicated steps to make this mission work, and you think they were just fooling around when it came to designing the landing procedure?
Nope. The Chinese are smarter than you want to believe.
Tell them this:
If your radiator is broken, do you ask a thermodynamics professor to fix it?
Of course not, he probably won't even know where to begin, and he will probably get it broken even more.
Tracking unique users is still easy (using a unique URL)
Not if google simply opens all e-mail behind the scenes, regardless of whether the user exists or not.
Uhmmm... what if google reads the images *regardless* of whether the recipient is known?
The solution is simple:
if(connection.ip_address in google_ip_addresses)
write(connection, "Sorry Google, only the user may open this image!");
So you want to hire someone fresh out of law school who never worked for a company, or what?
I was more thinking along the lines of a Zen Buddhist monk.