I don't have any problem with Snowden revealing mass surveillance on American citizens to American citizens, but spying on foreign governments is what the NSA is supposed to do. Yes, even our allies, and yes, even for economic reasons (most spying is economic in nature, and every ally spies on every ally).
Right, just like Nazis are supposed to gas Jews, and Sunnis are supposed to blow up Shi'ites. Don't bother thinking about whether or not any of this actually makes sense, it's just the natural order of things, yes?
I say if the NSA is supposed to engage in activity that harms the US diplomatically, harms US businesses, and harms American citizens, then it's only rational for us to want to dismantle the NSA in its entirety.
The article is filled with inaccuracies which all support this person's conclusion that, essentially "ho hum, nothing can be done and nothing will be done".
Quite the allegation!
First he cites that...
Oh. Here I thought you had actually engaged in some deep analysis of the article. That you refer to Lauren Weinstein as a "he" leaves me in doubt.
The correct accounting would be that you should be charged retail rates for what you draw out of the grid, but reimbursed only at wholesale rates for what you feed into the grid, like any other power producer who feeds into the grid is paid.
Any other power producer doesn't "feed into the grid". The reason they only get wholesale rates is because they dump their power onto high-voltage lines. There's retail power companies that operate switching substations that step-down the voltage on that power so it can be put on the low-voltage grid. As a residential solar user, you don't dump power on the high-voltage lines. You don't need a middle-man to step-down that voltage for you. Your solar power isn't having its voltage stepped-up to go onto the high-voltage lines. Your comparison is horribly flawed.
This might just be a shortcoming of the current pricing system. Back in the day, you got charged for power consumption, and that's it. Today, we've broken that out into generation cost and distribution cost. If you look at wholesale electricity pricing, this is the price for power from high-voltage distribution lines, typically only offered to customers with very high power consumption (>1MW). These customers are retail power companies, companies that own and operate switching substations that step-down the voltage of high-voltage lines to power the low-voltage distribution system. The costs that these retail power companies incur, are they included in the generation cost or the distribution cost?
Another way of phrasing this is: what accounts for the difference between wholesale and retail cost? Delivery to the low-voltage distribution lines? If so, then shouldn't residential solar users be getting the full retail price for any power they supply, since they're supplying it to the low-voltage distribution lines, doing the job of both "power plant operation" and "substation operation" themselves?
Really, this isn't rocket science, and it seems like there should be an objectively fair solution to the issue. That there's bickering going on suggests to me that one side of the equation is getting a bit greedy, and if I had to guess, I'd say it wasn't the residential solar users.
we still have no workable solution for waste disposal
We don't have any workable solution for waste disposal when it comes to coal, oil, and gas power plants either, but I can't picture you using that argument against hydrocarbon energy generation. Maybe we can just dispose of nuclear waste by dispersing it in the air?
Instead of encouraging Nvidia to open up CUDA and other hardware vendors to support it, Apple opted to create a new standard, OpenCL. Of course, there's no technical reason [that I can see] why CUDA support couldn't be extended to non-Nvidia hardware, much like OpenCL support has been added to a variety of GPU hardware. That would've resulted in a world with one standard for GPGPU instead of the two we see today. Nvidia could've passed CUDA off to Khronos to alleviate any conflicts of interest. Also, I'd like to point out that OpenCL support was not always quite so universal, and targeting the OpenCL standard did not mean free choice of "any GPU".
It's true Apple created it but that's because nothing else like it really existed at the time (apart from CUDA of course).
That's my point. CUDA did exist. Apple could have used CUDA and worked to promote CUDA as the standard for all GPGPU. They didn't, for what I'm sure were perfectly valid reasons. But they could have, and that's why I'm saying it's not reasonable to blame Adobe over Apple.
I fail to see how "real" programmers could have any problem coding in Node. Its dead fucking simple.
Indeed, that's my point. However, I don't believe the converse is true. That is, while any real programmer should be able to easily pick up Node.js/javascript, I don't think it's quite as likely that someone with only a Node.js background will be too successful coding in a real language like C.
Based on my anecdotal and entirely subjective experience, someone that codes C is more likely to be a good coder than someone that codes Javascript.
I was being facetious, if that wasn't obvious. I was merely pointing out that "blaming" Adobe for supporting CUDA is no less subjective than "blaming" Apple for supporting OpenCL.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Apple didn't tie themselves to a standard so much as they created a new standard for everyone else to tie themselves to. It's not like OpenCL was an existing standard that Apple embraced.
See, that's the thing. Perl isn't dead. Perl is still used extensively in system administration and for quick prototyping and proof-of-concept work. Python is still alive and well in the sciences as a supplement to MatLab and other similar tools. Perl and Python have both just about vanished from the web, though, as other server-side scripting tools have become more prevalent. This same tide that displaced Perl and Python from their traditional stomping grounds has also displaced Ruby. However, Perl and Python have found other niches where they thrive. Can the same really be said of Ruby?
While that seems like a savvy business decision, it seems like this article is suggesting that it's a decision that has had a negative impact on customer experiences. Apparently, among third-party developers, CUDA is more widely supported than OpenCL.
My post, however, was meant as a cheap shot at Wovel, as his biased claim blames Adobe for this situation when it would be just as valid to blame Apple.
While you and I, as programmers, have an innate hatred for JavaScript, you can't overlook the hoards of "web developers" whose only experience writing code entails JavaScript.
What's great about Node.js is that it doesn't warrant hiring actual programmers.
Just because it's not getting all the buzz from the young kids doesn't mean it's dying.
Ruby is not C. Ruby was born amidst a slew of toy languages, getting all the buzz from the young kids. Once that buzz died down, and the kids moved on to newer fad languages, and without a generation of seasoned programmers extolling its virtues, Ruby died.
Or Apple's mistaken focus on OpenCL over CUDA. Unfortunately, Apple have not indicated that they will remedy the problem.
Your logic cuts both ways. Don't hate, though, as I have no horse in the game. I don't do computing-on-a-video-card, nor do I love/hate Adobe or Apple. Actually, scratch that; now that I think of it, I really do hate Adobe.
But... what does that have to do with the number of cores?
I understand that there are significant variations between CPU architectures. For example, the Xeon supports ECC memory, whereas the i7 does not. That's a notable difference between these two processors, and relevant to this thread.
On the other hand, a quad core is a quad core. If the Xeon and the i7 both have four compute cores, then indeed, the core count is not a notable difference between these two processors. In fact, quadcore==quadcore.
Computer != computer would've been just as insightful. That is, not at all.
Despite my lack of interest in Apple products and video editing, I actually did read the fucking article.
Adobe Premier doesn't use the second video card. It barely uses the first one. It pegs the CPU.
Apparently Final Cut X (whatever that is) is the only video editing software that features optimizations that make use of all this hardware. It's apparently wicked fast, but people hate Final Cut X. Apparently, Final Cut 7 was great, but X blows, despite running like a champ on this system.
My head did almost asplode when I saw the price tag, though. I guess the barebones model isn't that overpriced at $3k, but the configurations they mention weighing in around $10k sound like hilariously bad deals.
I never understood this side of the argument. Let's say that the "skeptics" are right, and that the reason for the climate changes we've observed is in fact a gradually increasing solar output. Does that mean that we should just throw up our arms, sit back, and wait until the sun cooks us? That it doesn't make sense to try to stem the warming trend? That rising oceans inundating our coastal cities aren't a problem?
Dropping the charges or showing remorse would open up a can of worms regarding liability. Doing so would create precedent and a mechanism for descendants to air grievances over historical wrong doings - it will never end and may be costly.
This is the mentality that allows unjust laws to exist. Governments know that there is no accountability, and that they are not exposed to any liability for creating and enforcing unjust laws. The expediency of government ignoring past offenses is more valuable than the ethical justice that would follow from owning up to gross fuck-ups. No, clearly it would be too costly for us to demand a moral government. Until our priorities change and we're ready to pay a very real price, government will never have any meaningful incentive to truly consider the ethical ramifications of its actions.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have any problem with Snowden revealing mass surveillance on American citizens to American citizens, but spying on foreign governments is what the NSA is supposed to do. Yes, even our allies, and yes, even for economic reasons (most spying is economic in nature, and every ally spies on every ally).
Right, just like Nazis are supposed to gas Jews, and Sunnis are supposed to blow up Shi'ites. Don't bother thinking about whether or not any of this actually makes sense, it's just the natural order of things, yes?
I say if the NSA is supposed to engage in activity that harms the US diplomatically, harms US businesses, and harms American citizens, then it's only rational for us to want to dismantle the NSA in its entirety.
The article is filled with inaccuracies which all support this person's conclusion that, essentially "ho hum, nothing can be done and nothing will be done".
Quite the allegation!
First he cites that...
Oh. Here I thought you had actually engaged in some deep analysis of the article. That you refer to Lauren Weinstein as a "he" leaves me in doubt.
They'll get as far as you take them.
Shit's not gonna change itself. Join today.
The correct accounting would be that you should be charged retail rates for what you draw out of the grid, but reimbursed only at wholesale rates for what you feed into the grid, like any other power producer who feeds into the grid is paid.
Any other power producer doesn't "feed into the grid". The reason they only get wholesale rates is because they dump their power onto high-voltage lines. There's retail power companies that operate switching substations that step-down the voltage on that power so it can be put on the low-voltage grid. As a residential solar user, you don't dump power on the high-voltage lines. You don't need a middle-man to step-down that voltage for you. Your solar power isn't having its voltage stepped-up to go onto the high-voltage lines. Your comparison is horribly flawed.
This might just be a shortcoming of the current pricing system. Back in the day, you got charged for power consumption, and that's it. Today, we've broken that out into generation cost and distribution cost. If you look at wholesale electricity pricing, this is the price for power from high-voltage distribution lines, typically only offered to customers with very high power consumption (>1MW). These customers are retail power companies, companies that own and operate switching substations that step-down the voltage of high-voltage lines to power the low-voltage distribution system. The costs that these retail power companies incur, are they included in the generation cost or the distribution cost?
Another way of phrasing this is: what accounts for the difference between wholesale and retail cost? Delivery to the low-voltage distribution lines? If so, then shouldn't residential solar users be getting the full retail price for any power they supply, since they're supplying it to the low-voltage distribution lines, doing the job of both "power plant operation" and "substation operation" themselves?
Really, this isn't rocket science, and it seems like there should be an objectively fair solution to the issue. That there's bickering going on suggests to me that one side of the equation is getting a bit greedy, and if I had to guess, I'd say it wasn't the residential solar users.
we still have no workable solution for waste disposal
We don't have any workable solution for waste disposal when it comes to coal, oil, and gas power plants either, but I can't picture you using that argument against hydrocarbon energy generation. Maybe we can just dispose of nuclear waste by dispersing it in the air?
Instead of encouraging Nvidia to open up CUDA and other hardware vendors to support it, Apple opted to create a new standard, OpenCL. Of course, there's no technical reason [that I can see] why CUDA support couldn't be extended to non-Nvidia hardware, much like OpenCL support has been added to a variety of GPU hardware. That would've resulted in a world with one standard for GPGPU instead of the two we see today. Nvidia could've passed CUDA off to Khronos to alleviate any conflicts of interest. Also, I'd like to point out that OpenCL support was not always quite so universal, and targeting the OpenCL standard did not mean free choice of "any GPU".
It's true Apple created it but that's because nothing else like it really existed at the time (apart from CUDA of course).
That's my point. CUDA did exist. Apple could have used CUDA and worked to promote CUDA as the standard for all GPGPU. They didn't, for what I'm sure were perfectly valid reasons. But they could have, and that's why I'm saying it's not reasonable to blame Adobe over Apple.
I fail to see how "real" programmers could have any problem coding in Node. Its dead fucking simple.
Indeed, that's my point. However, I don't believe the converse is true. That is, while any real programmer should be able to easily pick up Node.js/javascript, I don't think it's quite as likely that someone with only a Node.js background will be too successful coding in a real language like C.
Based on my anecdotal and entirely subjective experience, someone that codes C is more likely to be a good coder than someone that codes Javascript.
I was being facetious, if that wasn't obvious. I was merely pointing out that "blaming" Adobe for supporting CUDA is no less subjective than "blaming" Apple for supporting OpenCL.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Apple didn't tie themselves to a standard so much as they created a new standard for everyone else to tie themselves to. It's not like OpenCL was an existing standard that Apple embraced.
Obligatory.
See, that's the thing. Perl isn't dead. Perl is still used extensively in system administration and for quick prototyping and proof-of-concept work. Python is still alive and well in the sciences as a supplement to MatLab and other similar tools. Perl and Python have both just about vanished from the web, though, as other server-side scripting tools have become more prevalent. This same tide that displaced Perl and Python from their traditional stomping grounds has also displaced Ruby. However, Perl and Python have found other niches where they thrive. Can the same really be said of Ruby?
While that seems like a savvy business decision, it seems like this article is suggesting that it's a decision that has had a negative impact on customer experiences. Apparently, among third-party developers, CUDA is more widely supported than OpenCL.
My post, however, was meant as a cheap shot at Wovel, as his biased claim blames Adobe for this situation when it would be just as valid to blame Apple.
While you and I, as programmers, have an innate hatred for JavaScript, you can't overlook the hoards of "web developers" whose only experience writing code entails JavaScript.
What's great about Node.js is that it doesn't warrant hiring actual programmers.
Just because it's not getting all the buzz from the young kids doesn't mean it's dying.
Ruby is not C. Ruby was born amidst a slew of toy languages, getting all the buzz from the young kids. Once that buzz died down, and the kids moved on to newer fad languages, and without a generation of seasoned programmers extolling its virtues, Ruby died.
Ruby isn't dying. It's already dead.
Or Apple's mistaken focus on OpenCL over CUDA. Unfortunately, Apple have not indicated that they will remedy the problem.
Your logic cuts both ways. Don't hate, though, as I have no horse in the game. I don't do computing-on-a-video-card, nor do I love/hate Adobe or Apple. Actually, scratch that; now that I think of it, I really do hate Adobe.
But... what does that have to do with the number of cores?
I understand that there are significant variations between CPU architectures. For example, the Xeon supports ECC memory, whereas the i7 does not. That's a notable difference between these two processors, and relevant to this thread.
On the other hand, a quad core is a quad core. If the Xeon and the i7 both have four compute cores, then indeed, the core count is not a notable difference between these two processors. In fact, quadcore==quadcore.
Computer != computer would've been just as insightful. That is, not at all.
was [re]gained?
Quadcore != quadcore
wat
Buy 3, get -1 free?
Despite my lack of interest in Apple products and video editing, I actually did read the fucking article.
Adobe Premier doesn't use the second video card. It barely uses the first one. It pegs the CPU.
Apparently Final Cut X (whatever that is) is the only video editing software that features optimizations that make use of all this hardware. It's apparently wicked fast, but people hate Final Cut X. Apparently, Final Cut 7 was great, but X blows, despite running like a champ on this system.
My head did almost asplode when I saw the price tag, though. I guess the barebones model isn't that overpriced at $3k, but the configurations they mention weighing in around $10k sound like hilariously bad deals.
Spoken like a true Brit. If you were American, then you would have known that the expression is "spoken like a true ___".
Federal Bureau of Investigations, a branch of the Department of Justice of the Government of the United States of America.
FBI. It's called the FBI. You could've just said FBI and everyone would have known what you were talking about.
the ATF
What? What's that? The Asia Task Force? The American Type Founders? The Atlantic Theatre Festival?
I'd mod you down, but there is no -1: Pomp
I never understood this side of the argument. Let's say that the "skeptics" are right, and that the reason for the climate changes we've observed is in fact a gradually increasing solar output. Does that mean that we should just throw up our arms, sit back, and wait until the sun cooks us? That it doesn't make sense to try to stem the warming trend? That rising oceans inundating our coastal cities aren't a problem?
My first computer was a 386DX 33/40. I ran Win32s apps like Mosaic. Even the map editor for Warcraft 2 required Win32s.
Best link I've ever seen on slashdot. I'd mod you up if you weren't already +5. Thank you.
Dropping the charges or showing remorse would open up a can of worms regarding liability. Doing so would create precedent and a mechanism for descendants to air grievances over historical wrong doings - it will never end and may be costly.
This is the mentality that allows unjust laws to exist. Governments know that there is no accountability, and that they are not exposed to any liability for creating and enforcing unjust laws. The expediency of government ignoring past offenses is more valuable than the ethical justice that would follow from owning up to gross fuck-ups. No, clearly it would be too costly for us to demand a moral government. Until our priorities change and we're ready to pay a very real price, government will never have any meaningful incentive to truly consider the ethical ramifications of its actions.