It would be like buying a refrigerator, and discovering that in order to use it, you need to hire someone from the distributor to stand there and open the doors for you whenever you want something
I wouldn't have to hire anyone. The refrigerator would come with one for free.
True, it would come with one, and they'd swap out a new one when that one got outdated. But they wouldn't be free. They come with a bunch of conditions, including the ones I outlined. They also require a key to your house, and you only have the distributor's word on what they will/won't do.
The slowest of these cards does over 2 teraflops, there's no way you can remotely use that level of performance and features in games with an open source driver anyway.
Why not? And what about other GPU-intensive operations, such as real-time rendering or (some) bitcoin mining?
What I'd like to know though is what features are locked out of the OSS driver?
I don't know about you but this is really bad. It's just as if you bought a car and the trunk came locked with a key only NVIDIA staff have.
There is nothing locked. You can fully use your GPU with the proprietary driver. These days cars are chock full of proprietary components as well.
I was going to respond with the same thing about the cars -- but "you can fully use your GPU with the proprietary driver" is false.
They've slaved their hardware to their software, so the hardware no longer belongs to you. Without their software, it's (almost) useless.
It would be like buying a refrigerator, and discovering that in order to use it, you need to hire someone from the distributor to stand there and open the doors for you whenever you want something -- and it's backed up by legislation that says any attempt to get into the refrigerator yourself is a criminal offense (with a few exceptions, such as moving the contents to a new refrigerator, or for officially recocognized research purposes).
Want to use your refrigerator somewhere where the professional door opener won't go (because, say, it doesn't meet Accessibility Standards regulations)? Well, it's no longer your refrigerator to do with as you want -- you can't open the door, and you can't hire anyone to do it for you. The solution is to move it to somewhere that the professional door opener is allowed to operate.
Good for research, not so good for forest fires. The camera might have gone up in a puff of smoke by then.
However, "The research team says the technology can be used to create self-powered cameras that can live on the internet of things."
This indicates that it also has a low-powered wireless transmitter powered by photovoltaics, which means you could have a line-of-sight yagi set up between two points to transmit the photos to some powered location.
So these basically allow you to mount anywhere (with enough light) and not worry about wiring -- but you still need to be close to base if you want to transmit.
Yeah; it seems to me like the solution would be to catch the rocket with a tethering mechanism, and then absorb the lateral thrust with the barge itself.
But I think what they're attempting to do here is minimize the complexity/parts of the situation, and solve the problem in logic as much as they can -- because that logic can be reused in every navigation system they develop. The last test showed that sometimes you do need more parts (or in that case, fluid), but this time it was a combination of the hardware, physics, and logic that failed -- so they could just update their navigation software to land it with less lateral thrust, and possibly compensate with the barge thrusters.
Of course, using a net, they could side-step all this, and even land it in rougher weather. I'm curious to see what they do next time.
I'm not talking about only a few thousand hectares of wind or wave systems -- and their impact will be much less per energy output than coal ever is. But everything that happens on this globe affects everything else; place a large enough wave farm in the wrong location (such as across the gulf stream) and you're not just affecting the flow of water, you're affecting global weather systems -- possibly for the better in some cases, if it mitigates other human-caused factors.
I'm not saying the change will be 1:1, I'm not saying it'll be soon, and I'm not even saying it'll be adverse. But we do have the capacity to impact weather systems via harvesting wind and waves. Collecting energy means it is no longer available elsewhere. Ignoring this fact by saying that it "must be" negligible is idiotic, as eventually our energy consumption will impact other systems. This needs to be modeled and planned for during design, not after it happens (and many people are denying it for financial or other gain). Just because it won't happen in your lifetime is no reason to be negligent.
I'm interested in how Musk is going to ramp up battery manufacture, as the current Li-ion techniques actually do have major ecological and environmental impact during the mining, refining and manufacturing processes. As a result, placing solar-to-battery in each Indian village will release huge amounts of toxins at the start, and then again after the panels/batteries wear down and are no longer operating efficiently.
I see wave generators and wind turbines as being a bigger part of the solution here, but at some point these are going to have to scale up so large that they'll impact our weather systems.
No, because the concept behind freenet is that it's impossible to track from source to destination, and more popular content gains redundancy while unwanted content vanishes from the network -- and the entire thing is encrypted making it virtually impossible to track what anyone's looking at.
This project, while using DHT, is otherwise completely orthagonal to Freenet -- it's all about using nearby/fast nodes to get you the content you're looking for as quickly as possible via a distributed mechanism. There's no privacy involved (you're broadcasting what you want to view to a huge number of nodes), and the distributor of content (and anyone else who wants to help) have control over seeding the content being viewed.
Amazon wants automated deliveries with minimal human intervention. The FAA's exemptions still require that the drones be operated by a human, with a pilots license, and only within visual line of site of the pilot.
Looks like Amazon is going to have to keep testing their drones in Canada, where they can test what they actually want to do.
Not really; they can test in US -- they just can't deploy in US. There's plenty to test while the drone's being supervised by a pilot.
I can see Dyson, Electrolux, Hoover, Bissell and many others having legitimate claims to those domains, and that price seems more than a tad steep. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.
After all, if I were to create the Adespoton Super Straw as a startup, there's no way I'd want to have to buy this sort of a domain for such a price, especially if they're planning to drop it down to $8 in a few months.
Also, these guys are following the "line of sight" rule -- the pilot is in visual contact with the drone at all times. This means that there's no ambiguity as to who's at fault should something go wrong.
This is a good thing. You call someone to look at your roof and they can use a machine to do it instead of risking their life.
Not to mention: using a drone, they're using contactless observation. If an inspector damages your property while inspecting, that costs everyone. A drone shouldn't be causing property damage.
It could even be a case of a recruiter seeing your name show up on the site, and contacting your company's HR person to inquire about you. Remember: this is an opportunity for a pay raise. If you feel threatened by your company knowing you might be considering other work, you probably need to consider other work. Get your name out there to the point where recruiters are contacting you and your company trying to hire you away instead of you having to go look for other work. The company will see you as an asset they want to keep, and value you accordingly. And if they don't, well, someone else will. Completely staying away from the job market just guarantees that when you eventually lose your job, you're going to have a tough time getting a new one.
This is one reason why I normally wear a dress shirt to work (or at least semi-regularly). On the one hand, it means that if I've actually got an interview, nobody will be flagged to it due to what I'm wearing.... on the other hand, management is constantly aware of the fact that it's important to retain me, not just take me for granted.
The bonus benefit is that dress shirts can actually be much more comfortable than T-shirts (unless it's really hot out, in which case I'll postpone my interviews and wear a T-shirt;)
The lottery has a higher return on investment than bank robbery, with zero chance of one ending up behind bars or dead.
Not true... stores that sell lottery tickets get held up all the time. If you happen to be buying your ticket while this is happening, you could end up dead.
The problem with these sorts of incidents is that on the unlikely chance it had been an actual terrorist attack, the police could be sued if they wasted any time at all. That would include calling the closed library.
That's the problem with this whole thing: the police can't afford to verify the calls and have to treat all of them as real.
Scenario goes like this: 911 call comes in 911 dispatcher verifies location and forwards dispatch info to local police Local police flag this up to SWAT for immediate response WHILE AND AT THE SAME TIME calling the library for verification Local police discover it's a prank and notify SWAT en-route so that when they arrive, they're expecting everything to be fine and just do a once-over with a single uniformed officer instead of a full SWAT deployment.
Nobody gets sued, nobody gets harmed, and the SWAT team is ready for redeployment much faster than otherwise (plus, they have MUCH less paperwork to fill out).
Slashdot Mirror
It would be like buying a refrigerator, and discovering that in order to use it, you need to hire someone from the distributor to stand there and open the doors for you whenever you want something
I wouldn't have to hire anyone. The refrigerator would come with one for free.
True, it would come with one, and they'd swap out a new one when that one got outdated. But they wouldn't be free. They come with a bunch of conditions, including the ones I outlined. They also require a key to your house, and you only have the distributor's word on what they will/won't do.
The slowest of these cards does over 2 teraflops, there's no way you can remotely use that level of performance and features in games with an open source driver anyway.
Why not? And what about other GPU-intensive operations, such as real-time rendering or (some) bitcoin mining?
What I'd like to know though is what features are locked out of the OSS driver?
I don't know about you but this is really bad. It's just as if you bought a car and the trunk came locked with a key only NVIDIA staff have.
There is nothing locked. You can fully use your GPU with the proprietary driver. These days cars are chock full of proprietary components as well.
I was going to respond with the same thing about the cars -- but "you can fully use your GPU with the proprietary driver" is false.
They've slaved their hardware to their software, so the hardware no longer belongs to you. Without their software, it's (almost) useless.
It would be like buying a refrigerator, and discovering that in order to use it, you need to hire someone from the distributor to stand there and open the doors for you whenever you want something -- and it's backed up by legislation that says any attempt to get into the refrigerator yourself is a criminal offense (with a few exceptions, such as moving the contents to a new refrigerator, or for officially recocognized research purposes).
Want to use your refrigerator somewhere where the professional door opener won't go (because, say, it doesn't meet Accessibility Standards regulations)? Well, it's no longer your refrigerator to do with as you want -- you can't open the door, and you can't hire anyone to do it for you. The solution is to move it to somewhere that the professional door opener is allowed to operate.
Indeed... my raw editing platform for HD video is a MBP -- and even with the new drives, the R/W is still the bottleneck (but just barely).
Any post production work goes onto beefier hardware, but for initial splicing and storyboarding of video, the MBP works quite well.
Thunderbolt is dead. Apple was the only one to adopt it, and it was for only one generation. It's been replaced, for good or bad, for USB 3.
My 2015 Retina MacBook Pro says otherwise. Unless you mean that Thunderbolt was replaced with Thunderbolt 2, which is true.
Good for research, not so good for forest fires. The camera might have gone up in a puff of smoke by then.
However, "The research team says the technology can be used to create self-powered cameras that can live on the internet of things."
This indicates that it also has a low-powered wireless transmitter powered by photovoltaics, which means you could have a line-of-sight yagi set up between two points to transmit the photos to some powered location.
So these basically allow you to mount anywhere (with enough light) and not worry about wiring -- but you still need to be close to base if you want to transmit.
Yeah; it seems to me like the solution would be to catch the rocket with a tethering mechanism, and then absorb the lateral thrust with the barge itself.
But I think what they're attempting to do here is minimize the complexity/parts of the situation, and solve the problem in logic as much as they can -- because that logic can be reused in every navigation system they develop. The last test showed that sometimes you do need more parts (or in that case, fluid), but this time it was a combination of the hardware, physics, and logic that failed -- so they could just update their navigation software to land it with less lateral thrust, and possibly compensate with the barge thrusters.
Of course, using a net, they could side-step all this, and even land it in rougher weather. I'm curious to see what they do next time.
s/TSA/Trash/
The answer should be a bit clearer now.
It's a standard no self driving car has yet approached.
Too true -- no deployed self driving car has yet performed that badly.
Idiotic?
I'm not talking about only a few thousand hectares of wind or wave systems -- and their impact will be much less per energy output than coal ever is. But everything that happens on this globe affects everything else; place a large enough wave farm in the wrong location (such as across the gulf stream) and you're not just affecting the flow of water, you're affecting global weather systems -- possibly for the better in some cases, if it mitigates other human-caused factors.
I'm not saying the change will be 1:1, I'm not saying it'll be soon, and I'm not even saying it'll be adverse. But we do have the capacity to impact weather systems via harvesting wind and waves. Collecting energy means it is no longer available elsewhere. Ignoring this fact by saying that it "must be" negligible is idiotic, as eventually our energy consumption will impact other systems. This needs to be modeled and planned for during design, not after it happens (and many people are denying it for financial or other gain). Just because it won't happen in your lifetime is no reason to be negligent.
I'm interested in how Musk is going to ramp up battery manufacture, as the current Li-ion techniques actually do have major ecological and environmental impact during the mining, refining and manufacturing processes. As a result, placing solar-to-battery in each Indian village will release huge amounts of toxins at the start, and then again after the panels/batteries wear down and are no longer operating efficiently.
I see wave generators and wind turbines as being a bigger part of the solution here, but at some point these are going to have to scale up so large that they'll impact our weather systems.
And yes, TFA is just stupid.
No, because the concept behind freenet is that it's impossible to track from source to destination, and more popular content gains redundancy while unwanted content vanishes from the network -- and the entire thing is encrypted making it virtually impossible to track what anyone's looking at.
This project, while using DHT, is otherwise completely orthagonal to Freenet -- it's all about using nearby/fast nodes to get you the content you're looking for as quickly as possible via a distributed mechanism. There's no privacy involved (you're broadcasting what you want to view to a huge number of nodes), and the distributor of content (and anyone else who wants to help) have control over seeding the content being viewed.
Well here's an optimistic AC... ...I'm only expecting to see the next 50 years of it.
Amazon wants automated deliveries with minimal human intervention. The FAA's exemptions still require that the drones be operated by a human, with a pilots license, and only within visual line of site of the pilot.
Looks like Amazon is going to have to keep testing their drones in Canada, where they can test what they actually want to do.
Not really; they can test in US -- they just can't deploy in US. There's plenty to test while the drone's being supervised by a pilot.
This seems like the *perfect* place to say...
"Whoosh" :D
I can see Dyson, Electrolux, Hoover, Bissell and many others having legitimate claims to those domains, and that price seems more than a tad steep. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.
After all, if I were to create the Adespoton Super Straw as a startup, there's no way I'd want to have to buy this sort of a domain for such a price, especially if they're planning to drop it down to $8 in a few months.
Also, these guys are following the "line of sight" rule -- the pilot is in visual contact with the drone at all times. This means that there's no ambiguity as to who's at fault should something go wrong.
Equipping these with spread-spectrum cameras would also be great -- check for leaks/weak spots by checking the infra-red, etc.
This is a good thing. You call someone to look at your roof and they can use a machine to do it instead of risking their life.
Not to mention: using a drone, they're using contactless observation. If an inspector damages your property while inspecting, that costs everyone. A drone shouldn't be causing property damage.
Yeah; as long as it did a good job and knew that I value work/life balance more than pay, I'd be pretty happy with such a system.
It could even be a case of a recruiter seeing your name show up on the site, and contacting your company's HR person to inquire about you. Remember: this is an opportunity for a pay raise. If you feel threatened by your company knowing you might be considering other work, you probably need to consider other work. Get your name out there to the point where recruiters are contacting you and your company trying to hire you away instead of you having to go look for other work. The company will see you as an asset they want to keep, and value you accordingly. And if they don't, well, someone else will. Completely staying away from the job market just guarantees that when you eventually lose your job, you're going to have a tough time getting a new one.
Companion piece: JPMorgan algorithm knows you’re a rogue employee
This is one reason why I normally wear a dress shirt to work (or at least semi-regularly). On the one hand, it means that if I've actually got an interview, nobody will be flagged to it due to what I'm wearing.... on the other hand, management is constantly aware of the fact that it's important to retain me, not just take me for granted.
The bonus benefit is that dress shirts can actually be much more comfortable than T-shirts (unless it's really hot out, in which case I'll postpone my interviews and wear a T-shirt ;)
The lottery has a higher return on investment than bank robbery, with zero chance of one ending up behind bars or dead.
Not true... stores that sell lottery tickets get held up all the time. If you happen to be buying your ticket while this is happening, you could end up dead.
The problem with these sorts of incidents is that on the unlikely chance it had been an actual terrorist attack, the police could be sued if they wasted any time at all. That would include calling the closed library.
That's the problem with this whole thing: the police can't afford to verify the calls and have to treat all of them as real.
Scenario goes like this:
911 call comes in
911 dispatcher verifies location and forwards dispatch info to local police
Local police flag this up to SWAT for immediate response WHILE AND AT THE SAME TIME calling the library for verification
Local police discover it's a prank and notify SWAT en-route so that when they arrive, they're expecting everything to be fine and just do a once-over with a single uniformed officer instead of a full SWAT deployment.
Nobody gets sued, nobody gets harmed, and the SWAT team is ready for redeployment much faster than otherwise (plus, they have MUCH less paperwork to fill out).