"Theoretically, roomtemperature computer memory operating at the Landauer limit could be changed at a rate of one billion bits per second with only 2.85 trillionths of a watt of power being expended in the memory media."
Even if we approached 1 million percent of the fundamental minimum, we'd be doing pretty well.
Why are you worried about the safety of others that are satisfied with their current level of safety (after all, they are willingly continuing their employment)?
Why do you believe regulation makes a difference?
Oh, you sound like somone who knows nothing about history. Look at how companies were run pre-1930. Look at how children were used for unsafe labor. Look at how adults were worked literally to death. But, hey, they could always go work somewhere else.
Face it. Your viewpoint on the way government should be run died off a long time ago. Go start another country built on a pure free market, no government model. You'll quickly learn how without government, free market will die, replaced by corporations who are able to push their agenda, and quickly form a government that enforces their desires.
No, government is not perfect. Regulation is not perfect and your misguided notion that you can always hold an entity responsible for destruction of property is naive. In the 60's, a river caught on fire in Ohio. It is impossible to know who polluted the water and in what amount and how many fish they killed and how many birth defects each caused. Trying to sue individual polluters proved impossible. Instead, regulation did a great job of cleaning up a stretch of river that hadn't had fish in it for decades.
So, please take your libertarian utopia and go try it somewhere where people don't have decades worth of counterexamples of why it didn't work in their country.
Still an estimated 40% of the oil and natural gas from the spill is still in the Gulf today.
Read that. Basically, you seem like you'd be happy if I served you a glass of my piss, but before I served it to you I removed 60% of the piss and replaced it with pure water.
Some of us are not "enviro-wacko"s, but are not comfortable with self-regulating companies. We learned from the pre 1920's when corporations ran rampant. We learned from the period before 1970 or 1980 when companies polluted without consequences. I want progress. I want oil drilling. I don't want a blank check for BP and others to pollute or shortcut on safety.
Talk about having a bad day at the office... can you imagine being a Sys Admin at GoDaddy?
We have a few odd DNS entries still hosted at GoDaddy. We'll be yanking those last ones away. Any advice on how to set it up so I'm not depending on one registrar?
" which should make it the fastest supercomputer in the Top 500"
At first I thought this was redundant, but then I wondered if there are faster supercomputers that simply are not independently verified to be in the top 500 supercomputers. Anyone have any more info, or am I just overthinking this?
Of course it is. It's designed to divert attention away from rampant corruption, without which, poverty would not be so widespread. India just happens to be notoriously corrupt, and it shows.
Thanks for bringing up the corruption. I've heard from a few folks who are involved with India, and I've heard numbers like 90% of the funds intended for the poor end up misapprpriated. I have no way of validating these numbers, but my cynical view of humankind leads me to believe it is true.
Correct. This is one incident out of a (short) lifetime. You will find dozens of examples of Jesus or his disciples helping the poor. It is all about balance.
Thanks. As a former atheist myself, I am amazed at how folks from both viewpoints immediately turn off their brains in these matters. I've found it interesting to read about men like Thomas Jefferson who denied the deity of Jesus, but viewed his teachings as worthy of building a moral framework on. Regardless of one's viewpoints on who Jesus is, I don't know how you can argue with his viewpoint on the poor.
It was not meant to be a religous debate, you simply have made it one.
The point is that Jesus, viewed as being a champion of the poor and amaterialist example didn't view helping the poor as an absolute imparative. Even he realized that sometimes resources could be used for other purposes and not be violating God's will (or sensible use of resources for the atheist and agnostics).
I'm sorry you chose to turn this into a religous topic.
I understand that the caste system has been forbidden by the government. This does not change the fact that the caste system is so engrained in society, but it does show India is taking some initial steps to deal with the problem.
"Don't act so smug. You don't understand what "ad hominem" means. "
I do. Your response was not an ad hominem. The poster who replied to my OP was. I may not agree with your arguments, but those arguments are reasoned and not just a "I don't like Jesus" respose.
"An ad hominem attack would be attacking you instead of your argument"
Not true. Don't believe me, you can go to wikipedia and look at their example arguments. The original replier attacked the man not the argument.
"3. Then we have your trendy "false dichotomy" remark. Consider this: space travel has certain minimum costs which must be incurred. Take, for example, the cost of producing the energy to lift a given mass out of the Earth's gravitational field. This is a LOT of money - money which could otherwise be spent on, for example, improving public services. Space-or-not-space is a dichotomy."
It is a false dichotomy. Spending on the poor of India does not have to cease because of expenses on space travel. I'd argue that if you want to reduce poverty long-term, you must have a growing economy. To have a growing economy, you must spend on science and support those who will bring the country out of poverty.
So, no, I don't see this as an either or situation.
Did you stop reading after you saw it was a Bible quote? The next sentence says "We will always have poor, and we will always have the responsibility to care for those who cannot help themselves, and help those who can help themselves to begin helping themselves (you have my welfare policy in a nutshell). "
How exactly do you define a gravity well? I've heard the term gravity well used, but as far as I know there is no "outside of the well", simply the amount of energy needed to escape earth's gravity. If there another way of using this phrase that I am unfamiliar with?
I tried parsing your text as best as I could. My response is that there will always be poor from the standpoint that resources are limited, and regardless of the absolute levels, there will always be inequality. As long as their is inequality there will be, at a minimum, a level of people who are below some perceived level of poverty. In short, the definition of poverty will change to ensure some people are in poverty.
There are two broad categorizations of resource utilization: current needs/wants and investment in the future. Current needs/wants feel the most important, and investment in the future never feels as important. Our monkey brains seem to be wired poorly to allow us the proper perspective we need on the future. The intelligent of us most step outside ourselves and lead the world to where it needs to go, and not allow the baser reactions to dominate.
We will always have poor, and we will always have the responsibility to care for those who cannot help themselves, and help those who can help themselves to begin helping themselves (you have my welfare policy in a nutshell). But, we cannot allow it to be an all consuming policy that detracts from allowing those who do earn from progressing and from mankind as a whole from advancing.
Spave vs Poverty debate is a false dichotomy and I encourage Slashdotters to not fall into this trap.
I think your explanation of TheDarkMaster's thesis is accurate. However, it is absurd... basically he can apply the "scientist might be wrong, So i'll believe what I want" to anything from evolution, to gravity to the earth revolving around the Sun.
Building on what you said, the theory behind quantum entaglement was developed decades before we could actually carry out experiments, and now experiments have verifed what we understand about quantum mechanics. It is weird stuff, and certainly counterintutive to those of us who live in the macro world, but it has been shown to be true over and over.
Every discussion I've had with someone who insists that entanglement means FTL communication boils down to one misunerstanding: they think the "sender" gets to choose the state of the particle being observed. Once that is disspelled, it becomes much easier to understand why it cannot be used for communication of information. It is a weird phenomenon... one I read with a lot of skepticism years and years ago, but when you see the results of decades of experiments, you begin to realize it is true.
One could say the same thing about relativity... it certainly is not intuitive, yet our GPS system relies on it to make adjustments in its timing.
So, I have little patience for "the scientists might be wrong" from someone not offering up any rationalle other than "people aren't perfect they make mistakes".
No one is rolling out FTL communication. It is sad to see how many "nerds" hear a piece of information, do not fully understand it, then fill in the details with their own hopes and dreams about a Star Trek future, then hold onto their beliefs so firmly that they won't listen to an accurate description of what quantum entanglement truly is.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, considering:
"Theoretically, roomtemperature computer memory operating at the Landauer limit could be changed at a rate of one billion bits per second with only 2.85 trillionths of a watt of power being expended in the memory media."
Even if we approached 1 million percent of the fundamental minimum, we'd be doing pretty well.
Can someone mod this guy up? Not sure why he has negative karma... I don't see anything in his posting history to suggest he's a troll.
If it makes you feel better, you can mod me down while you mod him up.
Why are you worried about the safety of others that are satisfied with their current level of safety (after all, they are willingly continuing their employment)?
Why do you believe regulation makes a difference?
Oh, you sound like somone who knows nothing about history. Look at how companies were run pre-1930. Look at how children were used for unsafe labor. Look at how adults were worked literally to death. But, hey, they could always go work somewhere else.
Face it. Your viewpoint on the way government should be run died off a long time ago. Go start another country built on a pure free market, no government model. You'll quickly learn how without government, free market will die, replaced by corporations who are able to push their agenda, and quickly form a government that enforces their desires.
No, government is not perfect. Regulation is not perfect and your misguided notion that you can always hold an entity responsible for destruction of property is naive. In the 60's, a river caught on fire in Ohio. It is impossible to know who polluted the water and in what amount and how many fish they killed and how many birth defects each caused. Trying to sue individual polluters proved impossible. Instead, regulation did a great job of cleaning up a stretch of river that hadn't had fish in it for decades.
So, please take your libertarian utopia and go try it somewhere where people don't have decades worth of counterexamples of why it didn't work in their country.
200,000 tons is not 400,000 pounds. Try running your numbers again.
Still an estimated 40% of the oil and natural gas from the spill is still in the Gulf today.
Read that. Basically, you seem like you'd be happy if I served you a glass of my piss, but before I served it to you I removed 60% of the piss and replaced it with pure water.
Some of us are not "enviro-wacko"s, but are not comfortable with self-regulating companies. We learned from the pre 1920's when corporations ran rampant. We learned from the period before 1970 or 1980 when companies polluted without consequences. I want progress. I want oil drilling. I don't want a blank check for BP and others to pollute or shortcut on safety.
Thanks. I was trying to figure out how cnastase's solution was helping.
Talk about having a bad day at the office... can you imagine being a Sys Admin at GoDaddy?
We have a few odd DNS entries still hosted at GoDaddy. We'll be yanking those last ones away. Any advice on how to set it up so I'm not depending on one registrar?
" which should make it the fastest supercomputer in the Top 500"
At first I thought this was redundant, but then I wondered if there are faster supercomputers that simply are not independently verified to be in the top 500 supercomputers. Anyone have any more info, or am I just overthinking this?
"Now they mightn't have of course, but surely you can find a quote from someone a little more recent with at least some credentials "
"Why would a third hand quote from some tradesman from 2000 years ago matter in the slightest? "
Of course it is. It's designed to divert attention away from rampant corruption, without which, poverty would not be so widespread. India just happens to be notoriously corrupt, and it shows.
Thanks for bringing up the corruption. I've heard from a few folks who are involved with India, and I've heard numbers like 90% of the funds intended for the poor end up misapprpriated. I have no way of validating these numbers, but my cynical view of humankind leads me to believe it is true.
Correct. This is one incident out of a (short) lifetime. You will find dozens of examples of Jesus or his disciples helping the poor. It is all about balance.
Thanks. As a former atheist myself, I am amazed at how folks from both viewpoints immediately turn off their brains in these matters. I've found it interesting to read about men like Thomas Jefferson who denied the deity of Jesus, but viewed his teachings as worthy of building a moral framework on. Regardless of one's viewpoints on who Jesus is, I don't know how you can argue with his viewpoint on the poor.
It was not meant to be a religous debate, you simply have made it one.
The point is that Jesus, viewed as being a champion of the poor and amaterialist example didn't view helping the poor as an absolute imparative. Even he realized that sometimes resources could be used for other purposes and not be violating God's will (or sensible use of resources for the atheist and agnostics).
I'm sorry you chose to turn this into a religous topic.
I understand that the caste system has been forbidden by the government. This does not change the fact that the caste system is so engrained in society, but it does show India is taking some initial steps to deal with the problem.
"Don't act so smug. You don't understand what "ad hominem" means. "
I do. Your response was not an ad hominem. The poster who replied to my OP was. I may not agree with your arguments, but those arguments are reasoned and not just a "I don't like Jesus" respose.
"An ad hominem attack would be attacking you instead of your argument"
Not true. Don't believe me, you can go to wikipedia and look at their example arguments. The original replier attacked the man not the argument.
"3. Then we have your trendy "false dichotomy" remark. Consider this: space travel has certain minimum costs which must be incurred. Take, for example, the cost of producing the energy to lift a given mass out of the Earth's gravitational field. This is a LOT of money - money which could otherwise be spent on, for example, improving public services. Space-or-not-space is a dichotomy."
It is a false dichotomy. Spending on the poor of India does not have to cease because of expenses on space travel. I'd argue that if you want to reduce poverty long-term, you must have a growing economy. To have a growing economy, you must spend on science and support those who will bring the country out of poverty.
So, no, I don't see this as an either or situation.
Did you stop reading after you saw it was a Bible quote? The next sentence says "We will always have poor, and we will always have the responsibility to care for those who cannot help themselves, and help those who can help themselves to begin helping themselves (you have my welfare policy in a nutshell). "
It is not even outside the earths gravity well.
How exactly do you define a gravity well? I've heard the term gravity well used, but as far as I know there is no "outside of the well", simply the amount of energy needed to escape earth's gravity. If there another way of using this phrase that I am unfamiliar with?
A second ad hominem attack out of four replies.
I tried parsing your text as best as I could. My response is that there will always be poor from the standpoint that resources are limited, and regardless of the absolute levels, there will always be inequality. As long as their is inequality there will be, at a minimum, a level of people who are below some perceived level of poverty. In short, the definition of poverty will change to ensure some people are in poverty.
There are two broad categorizations of resource utilization: current needs/wants and investment in the future. Current needs/wants feel the most important, and investment in the future never feels as important. Our monkey brains seem to be wired poorly to allow us the proper perspective we need on the future. The intelligent of us most step outside ourselves and lead the world to where it needs to go, and not allow the baser reactions to dominate.
Thank you for illustrating an ad hominem attack so well.
"The poor you will always have with you"
http://bible.cc/matthew/26-11.htm
We will always have poor, and we will always have the responsibility to care for those who cannot help themselves, and help those who can help themselves to begin helping themselves (you have my welfare policy in a nutshell). But, we cannot allow it to be an all consuming policy that detracts from allowing those who do earn from progressing and from mankind as a whole from advancing.
Spave vs Poverty debate is a false dichotomy and I encourage Slashdotters to not fall into this trap.
I think your explanation of TheDarkMaster's thesis is accurate. However, it is absurd... basically he can apply the "scientist might be wrong, So i'll believe what I want" to anything from evolution, to gravity to the earth revolving around the Sun.
Building on what you said, the theory behind quantum entaglement was developed decades before we could actually carry out experiments, and now experiments have verifed what we understand about quantum mechanics. It is weird stuff, and certainly counterintutive to those of us who live in the macro world, but it has been shown to be true over and over.
Every discussion I've had with someone who insists that entanglement means FTL communication boils down to one misunerstanding: they think the "sender" gets to choose the state of the particle being observed. Once that is disspelled, it becomes much easier to understand why it cannot be used for communication of information. It is a weird phenomenon... one I read with a lot of skepticism years and years ago, but when you see the results of decades of experiments, you begin to realize it is true.
One could say the same thing about relativity... it certainly is not intuitive, yet our GPS system relies on it to make adjustments in its timing.
So, I have little patience for "the scientists might be wrong" from someone not offering up any rationalle other than "people aren't perfect they make mistakes".
No one is rolling out FTL communication. It is sad to see how many "nerds" hear a piece of information, do not fully understand it, then fill in the details with their own hopes and dreams about a Star Trek future, then hold onto their beliefs so firmly that they won't listen to an accurate description of what quantum entanglement truly is.
Here is what i said:
"No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.
-- MyLongNickName"
What is incorrect about it? Can you even explain what quantum entanglement means? Probably not if you think it implies FTL communication.