Torvalds dismisses photo editing as a task for "professional photographers", but our amateur cameras are taking phenomenally detailed pictures, and even making fairly simple edits is a compute-intensive task. He may be right, but he may equally be wrong.
Torvalds is being completely ridiculous here. Avid used to be the domain of professional film editors but iMovie is incredibly popular. We even see cell phones these days sporting 4k cameras. My Lumia has a 41 megapixel sensor! I have a RED camera and it's "only" 18 megapixels. In fact the less professional you are the more processing power you need. Photoshop's paint brush can accomplish wonders in the hands of a professional touch-up artist. But Photoshop's Content-Aware-Fill is processor murder and designed specifically to intelligently replace a professional artist. Take something like 3D rendering. You could have someone hand paint every frame. It would without question require a professional artist. But if you want a pretty picture at the push of a button you want raytracing.
This is actually something that you see happening today in the high-end VFX market. It used to be that raytracing was too compute intensive for films. But for amateurs and non-artists ironically enough ray tracing was fine. The architect only needed to render 3 frames. Waiting a day was perfectly acceptable there wasn't another 100,000 frames that also needed to get rendered. In film there wasn't time for something like Global Illumination and the shortcuts caused unacceptable flickering. Now the film industry is starting to embrace advanced lighting like GI and they're getting all of the bounces and detail that used to take hundreds of lights to fake automatically. It's making artists more productive but it's coming at the cost of increased compute time. Again a professional lighter can as an artist fake global illumination. An amateur could simply position the sun, turn on GI and wait 18 hours.
The future will be an Automagical button that not only fixes your photo *cough* instagram *cough* but also performs even more advanced editing like "Remove the gray clouds and put in a photorealistic blue sky. Oh yeah, and also change the lighting of the photo to make it look sunny!" That's going to be far more CPU intensive than any photoshop filter currently in existence and it'll be targeted as much as your average cell phone user as a professional.
You assume that task-specific tasks are all that people will come up with. If you have to spin a new ASIC every time you want to improve your software we aren't going to innovate. ASICs are specifically for something like 10GB networking which is a defined standard. But most tasks aren't defined standards. Changing specs is the norm not the exception outside of core OS functionality like storage or networking. GPUs couldn't keep up so they moved to a compiled per-pixel shading model so that developers could rapidly iterate and invent new uses. In the process GPUs by necessity became pretty general purpose. But GPUs are still frustratingly limited in their general purpose applications. There is a huge domain of problems that need more than 4 cores but need more memory and larger caches than a GPU offers them. You could legitimately call whatever processor manages to handle them a "CPU" or a "GPU".
The point isn't to pick any one approach or technology (say neural nets) the point is that we *already* have an application that comfortably uses more than Linus' mythically adequate 4 cores. A 4 core CPU is fantastic at running a word processor and an email client in the background. But that's not the future of computing. The future of computing is going to be doing the work of the human brain, but better. The human brain is one example of the sort of application we are going to see more of. Improved Microsoft Word is not the future. Improved Chrome is not the future, we see the future in Science Fiction and it's an interface that can communicate with us naturally. Natural human/computer communication means a whole new set of problems, and these are not problems relegated to "niche" marketplaces like research lab super computers. The applications for machine vision are everywhere. The applications for voice recognition are everywhere. The applications for 'common sense' in your interaction are everywhere. These aren't problems that I expect will be solved best with fast linear serial processes. To date all of these classes of problems have been best approached with multi-threaded parallel computing.
You mention the GPU. It's true the GPU was a custom semi-specialized piece of hardware. In fact the original 3D accelerators weren't even in the display card they were pass-through cards. But you know what else used to be a semi-specialized chip? Math Co-Processors. Even today GPUs are slowly blending back into the CPU. Once something like a math co-processor becomes sufficiently critical to the average user it becomes part of the CPU's die. AMD has already integrated pretty substantial GPUs into their "APUs". By definition SOCs are integrating the GPU. If we do develop a chip that is critical the average user like AI with a magic AI-chip then they'll just integrate it into the CPU.
It used to be that video playback was a niche market and now just about every CPU, GPU and combination there-of has integrated video decoding into the chip. So what makes you think they won't integrate ai and call it a "CPU"?
If that whole process takes 3 seconds (which would be amazing) then your computer only performed 1 "operation per second". But computers don't perform "operations" they have to perform millions of sub-actions to accomplish your goal.It would be like saying that "Rendering a game's frame is only a single task so it would be a very serial task without any potential for multithreading." when in reality "rendering a frame" is a massively parallel task of rasterizing millions of triangles (or intersecting rays) and sampling textures, computing lighting values and performing table look ups.
Take interpreting voice. By applying multiple models simultaneously you can get better results. Seems pretty obvious. http://devblogs.nvidia.com/par...
For the flyer maybe it'll generate 1,000 flyers simultaneously and then compare them to award winning graphic design projects to see which of the 1,000 ideas it had matches historical good ideas.
I say you are the one moving the goal posts, Linus and *most* of the other people working on parallelism solutions are working/speaking in the context of computers like the ones we know today, you they guy trying to apply what they say to *any* computer. Linus will probably be proved correct there. Past n cores the fundamental architecture in use today will not scale but for niche cases.
Within the context of traditional Van Neumann computers we already today have voice recognition, we already have SLAM 3D positioning, we already have databases like Wolfram Alpha which can give us insights, we already have applications which crunch massive 3D datasets. Some of these run ok on GPGPUs and some need the larger cache sizes of a CPU to run efficiently.
My point isn't that we need some completely exotic system, my point is that with the very limited amount of applications today for AI-driven solutions there are plenty of applications that can and would use hundreds of cores. Computers were once a "niche" tool for rich people. The internet was once just a niche tool for academics. Only gamers needed a GPU etc etc. All the way back through history when something becomes accessible someone finds an application. Build it and they will come.
It is a niche which will need specific algorithms tuned for the hardware (GPU or other) the pipeline must be kept busy to observe a performance gain. It doesn't scale to general purpose computing.
I feel like this is moving the goal posts. "You will never do massively parallel computing on a CPU because if it's massively parallel it's a GPU not a CPU."
Linus is 100% wrong. What's the "general purpose" computing that we all want? The NCC-1701D's main computer from star trek. If I say "Cortana/Siri/Google Now please rough me out a flyer for our yardsale on Saturday." you're going to be looking at massively parallel task for the neural networks to not only interpret the voice but then make sense of the words and finally produce a printable flyer suitable for hanging. Programming is still a really fancy version of "IF A THEN B". "for X in GROUP do Z". "X = Y". Yeah, if your application is incredibly serial then a serial processor is all that you'll need. When computing advances to the next phase of neural networks, AI and directed (not instructed) computing then it'll need to be more like our brain: massively parallel.
Now there are two obnoxious tautological arguments against this: A) "That's not a "CPU" that's like a NeuroProcessorUnit, an NPU if you will" B) "Yes we'll need a giant mainframe, but it'll be a server in the cloud!"
A is moving the goal posts. Just because the processor isn't an ARM or x86 instruction compatible chip doesn't mean it's not worthy of the label CPU. As mentioned above you can't say that there'll never be a CPU with massive parallelism because as soon as it has massive parallelism it's by definition no longer a CPU. B is just saying that nobody will have a need for computers because we'll have a giant mainframe. Which might be true but you just need a basic DSP not even a CPU if it's just a pure thin client transmitting a video, audio and input stream to the cloud for processing. In which case all of the CPUs in existence... need to be massively parallel AI processors.
Who cares about developers? Microsoft is rewriting their browser to make it faster and use less battery/resources. The Trident render engine is already good. The JS engine is already one of the fastest. Developers should be happy to develop for Trident, rewriting the browser so that it's more cross platform compatible and smoother on mobile seems like a "good thing" to me.
A) If recommending books results in someone becoming an active reader and reading more books then they are more likely to subscribe to a book rental service instead of spending their time watching TV, reading facebook or playing video games. Therefore if the claim that book recommendations increases readership is true we would fully expect book recommendations to continue operating as they have in the past and translate into a bigger pot. So not a zero sum game. B) If it doesn't improve subscription levels or readership then someone will read the same amount regardless of recommendations and your recommendations don't by definition hurt you since they have no effect one way or the other. If anything what it can then accomplish is to establish a recommendations network where authors try to corner as much of the market as possible by recommending in exchange for recommendations, like the old link-rings of the pre-google era.
Personally I believe theory A is true and that good recommendations does improve readership. I imagine Harry Potter has made a great deal of authors besides Rowling a huge amount of money thanks to increased YA readers substituting Xbox for a Book. If your kid is reading 2-3 books a month then a subscription makes sense. If you don't foster reading by recommending really great books like Harry Potter then the pot shrinks.
If game developers build against a specific library and your console has an older version (because manufacturers have to get a firmware build to install months before launch) then it's not easy to release a game that uses both the newer, more stable, higher performance library and the older one sent months ago to get something into the manufacturer's hands.
I imagine that newer consoles all have sufficiently new firmware/libraries to allow games to run out-of-the-box but I don't think expecting launch-day hardware to for instance to be up to date is realistic. Especially since the only way to keep up with demand is to start manufacturing so much earlier than shipping.
Total bullshit. They DDOS'ed the gaming servers. That's not "insecure" that's just overwhelmed. That's like saying that your bank account is insecure because protesters can chain themselves to the door handles and prevent you from entering the building. It is far more expensive to secure your servers against random bursts of demand because they shouldn't and can't really protect against it. It would be like saying "well I shot up your house to prove how weak your walls and windows are." No shit. I'm not going to install ceramic plating costing millions of dollars throughout my exterior siding nor am I going to sacrifice my nice large windows and replace them with 3" bullet proof glass because somebody might at some point shoot a gun at my house.
Also most internal tools aren't CPU bound it's either Database or Disk bound anyway. A lot of internal tools at media and corporate offices is just a workflow enhancer.
Airbus is only a quasi-private company. Their entire operations are heavily subsidized by the government. It would be a bit like.. I don't know... The Airforce using a European Airbus airframe instead of a US one. Politicians will be (?justifiably?) pissed that it's tax payer dollars being diverted into an overseas corporation.
My internet connection at home is 100mbps = 12MB/s.
= 43GB/hr = 1TB / day = 100 TB in 100 days.
Spread that out across 10 machines and you're looking at a little over a week.
An uncompressed 4k film in DPX is 10bit * 4096 x 2214 * 3 = 32 MB / frame * 24 fps * 60 seconds/minute * 60minutes/hour = 2.63 TB per *version*. Then there are Subtitled and Closed caption versions. A single film often has 10TB. They might have just stolen 10-20 films. And those servers presumably are on very fast connections capable of remote review over something like cinesync.
Then we *shouldn't* be teaching long division we should be forcing them to estimate in their head.
3913 / 3 = ???
No using a calculator or long division.
"Well 3913 is about 3,900 which is a nice division of 3 so about 1300. 13/3 is pretty close to 12/3 = 4 so about 1304. "
That's not teaching long division that's teaching how to decompose a number into "easy" similar numbers and then estimating. That's incredibly useful to check your answers. What's not useful is getting 1304.33333
Windows has so many piles of APIs and hooks rotting in the corners, unpatched for 15 years and longer, that it's perhaps time to blow up the known universe and start afresh.
You're both wrong. They're wrong, Windows Phone isn't targeting mid market it's setting its sights firmly on the low-end. And you're wrong, Google is doing a ton to make Android work on the low-end. Low end is doing things like adding dual sims and other features for people in the developing world. Low end means heavily optimizing the OS so that it runs smoothly on weaker hardware. Google could be adding features but all of their press is on optimizing the rendering to achieve better framerates with existing hardware. Facebook is doing the same thing, read their blog on bandwidth optimization. Google is even spending tens of millions on R&D for giving web access to the developing world. Those won't be up market devices. They want to bring wireless internet to the developing world to sell billions of phones--all accessing Google Adwords.
If all stories came with that disclaimer then all stories would be burdened with a load of FUD.
Computers become outdated and useless, hard drives crash, thumbdrives are lost, LTOs break, RAIDs die, etc etc. Everything is temporary, no single solution is reliable and should be solely relied on. The cloud is no better or worse.
On the other hand TODAY while the cloud is still here OneDrive gives me a really nice service to consolidate my data across multiple machines. So why would I toss a great service today because tomorrow it might go away? I got unlimited Gmail 10 years ago or so and it's a cloud service I still use every day. Maybe gmail will implode some day. And when that day comes... I'll find something better.
Considering Sharyl Attkisson is an Anti-vaxxer and a conspiracy theorist who quit CBS because it was full of too many liberals I doubt that forensic evidence will ever come.
Just another conservative who thinks the government A) cares about them in the slightest B) is trying to stop them from uncovering their secret evil communist plots!
It's not that women disproportionately left in the 80s. They just haven't benefited from the boom years as much. Men left the industry in the 80s too. But since the high was higher the low was higher.
Nah the Tea Part is the PERFECT name for these people. The original tea party was a astroturf protest instigated by wealthy tea importers who looked to lose business thanks to their businesses being made obsolete by a direct sales model combined with a *lower tax*.
England thought they had found the perfect solution: their too-big-to-fail tea company would see increased profits thanks to direct sales and the Americans would get lower prices and reduced taxes.
Instead a bunch of self interested 1%'ers spun something ostensibly *good* for the people into an "evil plot to take your money!" to distract from the fact that they were actually better off with the tea tax.
The fact that they blamed a disadvantaged minority group for their own actions is just icing on the cake.
Yeah I would say "OMG YOU ARE A STUPID ____" is endemic to the tech industry. I'm definitely guilty of it. Within half an hour you can have two people do it back and forth in half jest. But it's also true of nerdy girls in school and nerdy boys. Nerds are generally the victim of mocking so to be superior gives them an opportunity to take it out on others. It's not helpful--but it is understandable.
Or neither. Sometimes it's fine to have a website crash and it's not worth the effort for the one time every 10 years that it gets pounded into oblivion. It would be like WalMart needing to redesign their entire store for black friday. It's probably not worth the effort to redesign the entire store for a single day.
My advice to anyone who wants to work in IT is this -- there will ALWAYS be downward pressure on salaries.
I think this is good for everyone, not just IT. I had a job on the side for 3 years that was paying buko bucks. I socked every dollar into stocks and launching a side business. Now all of my profits from my side business are gravy since I invested in myself and others. And long after that job is a distant memory I'll still be making money from those paychecks.
I see a lot of people get a really sweet job and instead of treating it like a lottery winning, they treat it like a permanent source of income. Then that sweet deal disappears and they've raised their living expenses so that they have to find a replacement or go broke.
My little windfall has helped me fully fund my retirement account and it's given me a side job that I could parlay into a full time gig to fall back on if I ever was completely unemployed.
The long term trend as far as I'm concerned is near complete unemployment. If you don't own capital in one of the large corporations who own the robots and get a share of their profits you'll be broke looking for a job. You can already see that today. People always complain about how companies only care about their stock holders not their employees. It's true. They'll happily fire you and hire someone for 1/10th the price overseas if it increase their profits. But those profits don't just evaporate, they go said shareholders. So if your company is going to outsource your job, you might as well profit from their increased profit margin.
I agree. And I would wager that compiled languages with efficient compilers are on average more efficient than depending on people to write these systems in assembly and random mistakes being a drag on performance.
But, there is a big difference between the networking stack and some rapidly evolving "feature". For the most part TCP/IP handling is largely static so first-to-market is less important than bullet proof.
Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds dismisses photo editing as a task for "professional photographers", but our amateur cameras are taking phenomenally detailed pictures, and even making fairly simple edits is a compute-intensive task. He may be right, but he may equally be wrong.
Torvalds is being completely ridiculous here. Avid used to be the domain of professional film editors but iMovie is incredibly popular. We even see cell phones these days sporting 4k cameras. My Lumia has a 41 megapixel sensor! I have a RED camera and it's "only" 18 megapixels. In fact the less professional you are the more processing power you need. Photoshop's paint brush can accomplish wonders in the hands of a professional touch-up artist. But Photoshop's Content-Aware-Fill is processor murder and designed specifically to intelligently replace a professional artist. Take something like 3D rendering. You could have someone hand paint every frame. It would without question require a professional artist. But if you want a pretty picture at the push of a button you want raytracing.
This is actually something that you see happening today in the high-end VFX market. It used to be that raytracing was too compute intensive for films. But for amateurs and non-artists ironically enough ray tracing was fine. The architect only needed to render 3 frames. Waiting a day was perfectly acceptable there wasn't another 100,000 frames that also needed to get rendered. In film there wasn't time for something like Global Illumination and the shortcuts caused unacceptable flickering. Now the film industry is starting to embrace advanced lighting like GI and they're getting all of the bounces and detail that used to take hundreds of lights to fake automatically. It's making artists more productive but it's coming at the cost of increased compute time. Again a professional lighter can as an artist fake global illumination. An amateur could simply position the sun, turn on GI and wait 18 hours.
The future will be an Automagical button that not only fixes your photo *cough* instagram *cough* but also performs even more advanced editing like "Remove the gray clouds and put in a photorealistic blue sky. Oh yeah, and also change the lighting of the photo to make it look sunny!" That's going to be far more CPU intensive than any photoshop filter currently in existence and it'll be targeted as much as your average cell phone user as a professional.
You assume that task-specific tasks are all that people will come up with. If you have to spin a new ASIC every time you want to improve your software we aren't going to innovate. ASICs are specifically for something like 10GB networking which is a defined standard. But most tasks aren't defined standards. Changing specs is the norm not the exception outside of core OS functionality like storage or networking. GPUs couldn't keep up so they moved to a compiled per-pixel shading model so that developers could rapidly iterate and invent new uses. In the process GPUs by necessity became pretty general purpose. But GPUs are still frustratingly limited in their general purpose applications. There is a huge domain of problems that need more than 4 cores but need more memory and larger caches than a GPU offers them. You could legitimately call whatever processor manages to handle them a "CPU" or a "GPU".
The point isn't to pick any one approach or technology (say neural nets) the point is that we *already* have an application that comfortably uses more than Linus' mythically adequate 4 cores. A 4 core CPU is fantastic at running a word processor and an email client in the background. But that's not the future of computing. The future of computing is going to be doing the work of the human brain, but better. The human brain is one example of the sort of application we are going to see more of. Improved Microsoft Word is not the future. Improved Chrome is not the future, we see the future in Science Fiction and it's an interface that can communicate with us naturally. Natural human/computer communication means a whole new set of problems, and these are not problems relegated to "niche" marketplaces like research lab super computers. The applications for machine vision are everywhere. The applications for voice recognition are everywhere. The applications for 'common sense' in your interaction are everywhere. These aren't problems that I expect will be solved best with fast linear serial processes. To date all of these classes of problems have been best approached with multi-threaded parallel computing.
You mention the GPU. It's true the GPU was a custom semi-specialized piece of hardware. In fact the original 3D accelerators weren't even in the display card they were pass-through cards. But you know what else used to be a semi-specialized chip? Math Co-Processors. Even today GPUs are slowly blending back into the CPU. Once something like a math co-processor becomes sufficiently critical to the average user it becomes part of the CPU's die. AMD has already integrated pretty substantial GPUs into their "APUs". By definition SOCs are integrating the GPU. If we do develop a chip that is critical the average user like AI with a magic AI-chip then they'll just integrate it into the CPU.
It used to be that video playback was a niche market and now just about every CPU, GPU and combination there-of has integrated video decoding into the chip. So what makes you think they won't integrate ai and call it a "CPU"?
If that whole process takes 3 seconds (which would be amazing) then your computer only performed 1 "operation per second". But computers don't perform "operations" they have to perform millions of sub-actions to accomplish your goal.It would be like saying that "Rendering a game's frame is only a single task so it would be a very serial task without any potential for multithreading." when in reality "rendering a frame" is a massively parallel task of rasterizing millions of triangles (or intersecting rays) and sampling textures, computing lighting values and performing table look ups.
Take interpreting voice. By applying multiple models simultaneously you can get better results. Seems pretty obvious.
http://devblogs.nvidia.com/par...
For the flyer maybe it'll generate 1,000 flyers simultaneously and then compare them to award winning graphic design projects to see which of the 1,000 ideas it had matches historical good ideas.
I say you are the one moving the goal posts, Linus and *most* of the other people working on parallelism solutions are working/speaking in the context of computers like the ones we know today, you they guy trying to apply what they say to *any* computer. Linus will probably be proved correct there. Past n cores the fundamental architecture in use today will not scale but for niche cases.
Within the context of traditional Van Neumann computers we already today have voice recognition, we already have SLAM 3D positioning, we already have databases like Wolfram Alpha which can give us insights, we already have applications which crunch massive 3D datasets. Some of these run ok on GPGPUs and some need the larger cache sizes of a CPU to run efficiently.
My point isn't that we need some completely exotic system, my point is that with the very limited amount of applications today for AI-driven solutions there are plenty of applications that can and would use hundreds of cores. Computers were once a "niche" tool for rich people. The internet was once just a niche tool for academics. Only gamers needed a GPU etc etc. All the way back through history when something becomes accessible someone finds an application. Build it and they will come.
It is a niche which will need specific algorithms tuned for the hardware (GPU or other) the pipeline must be kept busy to observe a performance gain. It doesn't scale to general purpose computing.
I feel like this is moving the goal posts. "You will never do massively parallel computing on a CPU because if it's massively parallel it's a GPU not a CPU."
Linus is 100% wrong. What's the "general purpose" computing that we all want? The NCC-1701D's main computer from star trek. If I say "Cortana/Siri/Google Now please rough me out a flyer for our yardsale on Saturday." you're going to be looking at massively parallel task for the neural networks to not only interpret the voice but then make sense of the words and finally produce a printable flyer suitable for hanging. Programming is still a really fancy version of "IF A THEN B". "for X in GROUP do Z". "X = Y". Yeah, if your application is incredibly serial then a serial processor is all that you'll need. When computing advances to the next phase of neural networks, AI and directed (not instructed) computing then it'll need to be more like our brain: massively parallel.
Now there are two obnoxious tautological arguments against this:
A) "That's not a "CPU" that's like a NeuroProcessorUnit, an NPU if you will"
B) "Yes we'll need a giant mainframe, but it'll be a server in the cloud!"
A is moving the goal posts. Just because the processor isn't an ARM or x86 instruction compatible chip doesn't mean it's not worthy of the label CPU. As mentioned above you can't say that there'll never be a CPU with massive parallelism because as soon as it has massive parallelism it's by definition no longer a CPU. B is just saying that nobody will have a need for computers because we'll have a giant mainframe. Which might be true but you just need a basic DSP not even a CPU if it's just a pure thin client transmitting a video, audio and input stream to the cloud for processing. In which case all of the CPUs in existence... need to be massively parallel AI processors.
Who cares about developers? Microsoft is rewriting their browser to make it faster and use less battery/resources. The Trident render engine is already good. The JS engine is already one of the fastest. Developers should be happy to develop for Trident, rewriting the browser so that it's more cross platform compatible and smoother on mobile seems like a "good thing" to me.
It's a completely self defeating logic.
A) If recommending books results in someone becoming an active reader and reading more books then they are more likely to subscribe to a book rental service instead of spending their time watching TV, reading facebook or playing video games. Therefore if the claim that book recommendations increases readership is true we would fully expect book recommendations to continue operating as they have in the past and translate into a bigger pot. So not a zero sum game.
B) If it doesn't improve subscription levels or readership then someone will read the same amount regardless of recommendations and your recommendations don't by definition hurt you since they have no effect one way or the other. If anything what it can then accomplish is to establish a recommendations network where authors try to corner as much of the market as possible by recommending in exchange for recommendations, like the old link-rings of the pre-google era.
Personally I believe theory A is true and that good recommendations does improve readership. I imagine Harry Potter has made a great deal of authors besides Rowling a huge amount of money thanks to increased YA readers substituting Xbox for a Book. If your kid is reading 2-3 books a month then a subscription makes sense. If you don't foster reading by recommending really great books like Harry Potter then the pot shrinks.
If game developers build against a specific library and your console has an older version (because manufacturers have to get a firmware build to install months before launch) then it's not easy to release a game that uses both the newer, more stable, higher performance library and the older one sent months ago to get something into the manufacturer's hands.
I imagine that newer consoles all have sufficiently new firmware/libraries to allow games to run out-of-the-box but I don't think expecting launch-day hardware to for instance to be up to date is realistic. Especially since the only way to keep up with demand is to start manufacturing so much earlier than shipping.
Total bullshit. They DDOS'ed the gaming servers. That's not "insecure" that's just overwhelmed. That's like saying that your bank account is insecure because protesters can chain themselves to the door handles and prevent you from entering the building. It is far more expensive to secure your servers against random bursts of demand because they shouldn't and can't really protect against it. It would be like saying "well I shot up your house to prove how weak your walls and windows are." No shit. I'm not going to install ceramic plating costing millions of dollars throughout my exterior siding nor am I going to sacrifice my nice large windows and replace them with 3" bullet proof glass because somebody might at some point shoot a gun at my house.
Also most internal tools aren't CPU bound it's either Database or Disk bound anyway. A lot of internal tools at media and corporate offices is just a workflow enhancer.
I wouldn't mind riding my bike down the shoulder if traffic was moving 2mph.
Airbus is only a quasi-private company. Their entire operations are heavily subsidized by the government. It would be a bit like.. I don't know... The Airforce using a European Airbus airframe instead of a US one. Politicians will be (?justifiably?) pissed that it's tax payer dollars being diverted into an overseas corporation.
My internet connection at home is 100mbps = 12MB/s.
= 43GB/hr
= 1TB / day
= 100 TB in 100 days.
Spread that out across 10 machines and you're looking at a little over a week.
An uncompressed 4k film in DPX is 10bit * 4096 x 2214 * 3 = 32 MB / frame * 24 fps * 60 seconds/minute * 60minutes/hour = 2.63 TB per *version*. Then there are Subtitled and Closed caption versions. A single film often has 10TB. They might have just stolen 10-20 films. And those servers presumably are on very fast connections capable of remote review over something like cinesync.
Then we *shouldn't* be teaching long division we should be forcing them to estimate in their head.
3913 / 3 = ???
No using a calculator or long division.
"Well 3913 is about 3,900 which is a nice division of 3 so about 1300. 13/3 is pretty close to 12/3 = 4 so about 1304. "
That's not teaching long division that's teaching how to decompose a number into "easy" similar numbers and then estimating. That's incredibly useful to check your answers. What's not useful is getting 1304.33333
Windows has so many piles of APIs and hooks rotting in the corners, unpatched for 15 years and longer, that it's perhaps time to blow up the known universe and start afresh.
You just described WinRT aka Metro.
You're both wrong. They're wrong, Windows Phone isn't targeting mid market it's setting its sights firmly on the low-end. And you're wrong, Google is doing a ton to make Android work on the low-end. Low end is doing things like adding dual sims and other features for people in the developing world. Low end means heavily optimizing the OS so that it runs smoothly on weaker hardware. Google could be adding features but all of their press is on optimizing the rendering to achieve better framerates with existing hardware. Facebook is doing the same thing, read their blog on bandwidth optimization. Google is even spending tens of millions on R&D for giving web access to the developing world. Those won't be up market devices. They want to bring wireless internet to the developing world to sell billions of phones--all accessing Google Adwords.
If all stories came with that disclaimer then all stories would be burdened with a load of FUD.
Computers become outdated and useless, hard drives crash, thumbdrives are lost, LTOs break, RAIDs die, etc etc. Everything is temporary, no single solution is reliable and should be solely relied on. The cloud is no better or worse.
On the other hand TODAY while the cloud is still here OneDrive gives me a really nice service to consolidate my data across multiple machines. So why would I toss a great service today because tomorrow it might go away? I got unlimited Gmail 10 years ago or so and it's a cloud service I still use every day. Maybe gmail will implode some day. And when that day comes... I'll find something better.
Considering Sharyl Attkisson is an Anti-vaxxer and a conspiracy theorist who quit CBS because it was full of too many liberals I doubt that forensic evidence will ever come.
Just another conservative who thinks the government A) cares about them in the slightest B) is trying to stop them from uncovering their secret evil communist plots!
It's informative to look at the raw numbers:
http://i111.photobucket.com/al...
It's not that women disproportionately left in the 80s. They just haven't benefited from the boom years as much. Men left the industry in the 80s too. But since the high was higher the low was higher.
Nah the Tea Part is the PERFECT name for these people. The original tea party was a astroturf protest instigated by wealthy tea importers who looked to lose business thanks to their businesses being made obsolete by a direct sales model combined with a *lower tax*.
England thought they had found the perfect solution: their too-big-to-fail tea company would see increased profits thanks to direct sales and the Americans would get lower prices and reduced taxes.
Instead a bunch of self interested 1%'ers spun something ostensibly *good* for the people into an "evil plot to take your money!" to distract from the fact that they were actually better off with the tea tax.
The fact that they blamed a disadvantaged minority group for their own actions is just icing on the cake.
The parallels are eerie.
Yeah I would say "OMG YOU ARE A STUPID ____" is endemic to the tech industry. I'm definitely guilty of it. Within half an hour you can have two people do it back and forth in half jest. But it's also true of nerdy girls in school and nerdy boys. Nerds are generally the victim of mocking so to be superior gives them an opportunity to take it out on others. It's not helpful--but it is understandable.
Or neither. Sometimes it's fine to have a website crash and it's not worth the effort for the one time every 10 years that it gets pounded into oblivion. It would be like WalMart needing to redesign their entire store for black friday. It's probably not worth the effort to redesign the entire store for a single day.
My advice to anyone who wants to work in IT is this -- there will ALWAYS be downward pressure on salaries.
I think this is good for everyone, not just IT. I had a job on the side for 3 years that was paying buko bucks. I socked every dollar into stocks and launching a side business. Now all of my profits from my side business are gravy since I invested in myself and others. And long after that job is a distant memory I'll still be making money from those paychecks.
I see a lot of people get a really sweet job and instead of treating it like a lottery winning, they treat it like a permanent source of income. Then that sweet deal disappears and they've raised their living expenses so that they have to find a replacement or go broke.
My little windfall has helped me fully fund my retirement account and it's given me a side job that I could parlay into a full time gig to fall back on if I ever was completely unemployed.
The long term trend as far as I'm concerned is near complete unemployment. If you don't own capital in one of the large corporations who own the robots and get a share of their profits you'll be broke looking for a job. You can already see that today. People always complain about how companies only care about their stock holders not their employees. It's true. They'll happily fire you and hire someone for 1/10th the price overseas if it increase their profits. But those profits don't just evaporate, they go said shareholders. So if your company is going to outsource your job, you might as well profit from their increased profit margin.
I agree. And I would wager that compiled languages with efficient compilers are on average more efficient than depending on people to write these systems in assembly and random mistakes being a drag on performance.
But, there is a big difference between the networking stack and some rapidly evolving "feature". For the most part TCP/IP handling is largely static so first-to-market is less important than bullet proof.