My guess is that managing energy consumption by powering down servers is the wrong way round - there seems to be a fair bit of interest in developing hardware that manages it's own energy consumption without loss, either in additional power to bring it back up to speed or in processing lag, etc. Of course, this doesn't address the poster's immediate concerns to which I have little to add other than it's probably good to cost in heightened risks of hardware failure and therefore the costs of unscheduled downtime.
I see this has been modded funny - but there is a v.salient issue here. Once space-based weaponry is up there there'll be little option for critical upgrades...
I'd imagine you are correct - but it does raise the issue of whether future space-tech could be designed to be upgraded. It's a pretty trivial task to swap components in PCs these days - why not have telescopes, etc., of the future more plug and play? I could almost imagine an automated service vehicle carrying out an upgrade.
To be honest, it sounds like a nice retirement project... sit around, drink coffee, come up with a few whacky ideas, shoot the breeze with a few interesting people. If I had his money I'd probably do something similar. Except I'd have it located somewhere a little more interesting. Like Paris, Berlin, Singapore... or all three!
This is like two fat people drinking diet coke with their supersized double cheeseburger meal.
indeed! But it is really the guys making the burgers who ought to be audited. I can't see Google/MS having that much of a footprint - the guys that manufacture their servers, drive their containers around the world, etc., I bet, are far more environmentally costly. It would look good if Google/MS's contractors competed not only on price but also PUE. Then I think we'd see some serious savings.
Peer review can both help and hinder - there's the reputation effect of guest authorship where having a well-known, senior, academic's name on the paper helps it through no matter how absurd the findings.
Then there are reviewers who review papers they do not have the expertise to review. And to be frank I've seen some pretty bloody ludicrous comments from supposedly expert reviewers - the sort of stuff 1st year students wouldn't make.
But I do think that the majority of researchers are dilligent and beleive in what they submit. And lets face it - if it is an emerging area and you have a neat result that either refutes someone else's grand theory or is just really novel you're going to want to see that in print. It is because we seek to replicate research that findings are later falsified. This isn't evidence that the system is broke it is pricesly how it should work. It is the work that can't be falsified that stands the test of time and contributes to our knowledge.
If there are people who think that falsifying published research is somehow a bad thing - that is shows there's a problem in research standards - the they really really need to go back to school and read some Karl Popper.
It's very common to have brain surgery like this while awake. In fact it's more common than being unconscious for this type of "functional" surgery because they need to know what they are doing to you in real time.
Usually they anethetise the patient for the first bit, opening the skull and so on. Then they gently bring them back to consciousness to check that the operation is not effecting brain function adversely. For example, when a tumour is removed in speech areas they'll have a nice chat with the patient. Once done they'll put the patient back under. The conscious part of the operation doesn't usually last that long.
I find this both increible and humbling at the same time... incredible because of the patient's bravery and the surgeons ability to get in there and treat his condition. But humbling because it seems like a car engineer repeatedly reving an engine when trying to work out where some squeek or somesuch is coming from. Perhaps one day we'll have scanners that can analyse brain function and guide tiny little robots to make repairs - rather than cut the top of someone's head off while they play the bango.
You know, sometimes you'll find organisations with the most detailed and extensive ethical guidelines imaginable. And in the same cupboard you'll find several inches of dust. "A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else" (Gandhi, M).
Can you imagine what Obama's youtube channel would look like if it was unmoderated? Or what a right wing forum would look like? There's plenty of space on the internet where free speach and discussion can happen. What is more sinister is occasional well-written posts from people who seem to have alteria motives...
Well, I'd say Obama's a fair bit smarter than McCain... with Palin coming in a very distant last place. Dress-wise, I'd say it's 50/50. Articulate - Biden seems to be the most fluent. But this is all from a UK resident who, like pretty much the rest of the world, hopes the US people vote Bush out and Obama in. McCain looks like he'd be disasterous - but if that stupid cretinous moron Palin has to replace a deceased McCain then bye bye USA. I'll ratchet up my Chinese lessons and forget about North America.
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised. The fact that it is baised indicatse that economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively.
"economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively" how about "neuroscientists can't be trusted to understand brain issues objectively". who should be trusted? we'll need legislation in some places so the market is out... politicians feather their beds... I think that, at least for academic economists, the process of peer review and (usually) open scrutiny means that most (not all) are the best we have. At the end of the day an economists whose empirical models are are accurate will do far better than an one whose favoured political party is in power.
This is very true - there's the chance some IT guru's only way of demonstrating effectiveness is by example rather what is on paper (certificates and the like) - and having recruited recently, if you ask one applicant to do some test then it is only fair that you give the same to every applicant.
Indeed - it may also be the case that Google's business model can play a very important role in developing areas. Because infrastructure is generally so poor, transport costs are high. Meaning that any producer must get their goods to market as efficiently as is possible. Having www access will allow buyers and sellers to come together more easily, do the deal and transfer goods without waste. At the moment the fisherman takes his product to the local market in the hope that there are people there to buy it, has to deal with corrupt officials, etc.. With Google he could possibly advertise/sell online [fish-facebook anyone?] before the fish have made shore.
I, for one, am proud of my BBC overlords - for a small(ish) fee I get a bunch of fairly devent radio and tv stations. Best of all, the BBC offers an ad-free haven in this increasingly ad saturated world.
The BBC also sells a bunch of magazines, so there's an existing model for the BBC charging for some content at least and, seeing as the BBC does not own all the songs in their archive the choice to charge is not there's. There will be some music that is owned by the BBC so perhaps some will be free.
Lesser companies work out what people want then try to provide that to them at the lowest cost.
True for a lot of products... but put Apple in context here. The PC market isn't exactly flush with good natured business folk doing their upmost to protect consumers. And there's way too much choice in the phone market. The upshot being Apple has a reasonably well trusted, well known brand that looks good. To your average consumer this will be enough to warrant a little extra on a product.
I got an extended warranty (3 years) with drop cover for my new machine, I once dropped a laptop and broke it's screen and didn't have cover. I did have a spare monitor... but it was hard work getting anything done on a plane/train, those fold down tables just don't accomodate 20" crts.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that managing energy consumption by powering down servers is the wrong way round - there seems to be a fair bit of interest in developing hardware that manages it's own energy consumption without loss, either in additional power to bring it back up to speed or in processing lag, etc. Of course, this doesn't address the poster's immediate concerns to which I have little to add other than it's probably good to cost in heightened risks of hardware failure and therefore the costs of unscheduled downtime.
This is posibly some of the best fun I've seen people having with remote controlled cars.
I see this has been modded funny - but there is a v.salient issue here. Once space-based weaponry is up there there'll be little option for critical upgrades...
I'd imagine you are correct - but it does raise the issue of whether future space-tech could be designed to be upgraded. It's a pretty trivial task to swap components in PCs these days - why not have telescopes, etc., of the future more plug and play? I could almost imagine an automated service vehicle carrying out an upgrade.
To be honest, it sounds like a nice retirement project... sit around, drink coffee, come up with a few whacky ideas, shoot the breeze with a few interesting people. If I had his money I'd probably do something similar. Except I'd have it located somewhere a little more interesting. Like Paris, Berlin, Singapore... or all three!
Why modded troll?? Seems harsh for a genuine question.
This is like two fat people drinking diet coke with their supersized double cheeseburger meal.
indeed! But it is really the guys making the burgers who ought to be audited. I can't see Google/MS having that much of a footprint - the guys that manufacture their servers, drive their containers around the world, etc., I bet, are far more environmentally costly. It would look good if Google/MS's contractors competed not only on price but also PUE. Then I think we'd see some serious savings.
Peer review can both help and hinder - there's the reputation effect of guest authorship where having a well-known, senior, academic's name on the paper helps it through no matter how absurd the findings.
Then there are reviewers who review papers they do not have the expertise to review. And to be frank I've seen some pretty bloody ludicrous comments from supposedly expert reviewers - the sort of stuff 1st year students wouldn't make.
But I do think that the majority of researchers are dilligent and beleive in what they submit. And lets face it - if it is an emerging area and you have a neat result that either refutes someone else's grand theory or is just really novel you're going to want to see that in print. It is because we seek to replicate research that findings are later falsified. This isn't evidence that the system is broke it is pricesly how it should work. It is the work that can't be falsified that stands the test of time and contributes to our knowledge.
If there are people who think that falsifying published research is somehow a bad thing - that is shows there's a problem in research standards - the they really really need to go back to school and read some Karl Popper.
ZZ Top issued a take down notive under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...
I sense an opening in the market for false moustaches in China!
And does anything approach the singular time-wasting abilities of IMDB or Wikipedia?
Erm... /. ?
Oh, and b3ta
It's very common to have brain surgery like this while awake. In fact it's more common than being unconscious for this type of "functional" surgery because they need to know what they are doing to you in real time.
Usually they anethetise the patient for the first bit, opening the skull and so on. Then they gently bring them back to consciousness to check that the operation is not effecting brain function adversely. For example, when a tumour is removed in speech areas they'll have a nice chat with the patient. Once done they'll put the patient back under. The conscious part of the operation doesn't usually last that long.
I find this both increible and humbling at the same time... incredible because of the patient's bravery and the surgeons ability to get in there and treat his condition. But humbling because it seems like a car engineer repeatedly reving an engine when trying to work out where some squeek or somesuch is coming from. Perhaps one day we'll have scanners that can analyse brain function and guide tiny little robots to make repairs - rather than cut the top of someone's head off while they play the bango.
You know, sometimes you'll find organisations with the most detailed and extensive ethical guidelines imaginable. And in the same cupboard you'll find several inches of dust. "A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else" (Gandhi, M).
Nope... someone said that Bush might suspend the election because of the financial crisis. But, McCain=Bush also works.
Can you imagine what Obama's youtube channel would look like if it was unmoderated? Or what a right wing forum would look like? There's plenty of space on the internet where free speach and discussion can happen. What is more sinister is occasional well-written posts from people who seem to have alteria motives...
Well, I'd say Obama's a fair bit smarter than McCain... with Palin coming in a very distant last place. Dress-wise, I'd say it's 50/50. Articulate - Biden seems to be the most fluent. But this is all from a UK resident who, like pretty much the rest of the world, hopes the US people vote Bush out and Obama in. McCain looks like he'd be disasterous - but if that stupid cretinous moron Palin has to replace a deceased McCain then bye bye USA. I'll ratchet up my Chinese lessons and forget about North America.
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised. The fact that it is baised indicatse that economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively.
"economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively" how about "neuroscientists can't be trusted to understand brain issues objectively". who should be trusted? we'll need legislation in some places so the market is out... politicians feather their beds... I think that, at least for academic economists, the process of peer review and (usually) open scrutiny means that most (not all) are the best we have. At the end of the day an economists whose empirical models are are accurate will do far better than an one whose favoured political party is in power.
This is very true - there's the chance some IT guru's only way of demonstrating effectiveness is by example rather what is on paper (certificates and the like) - and having recruited recently, if you ask one applicant to do some test then it is only fair that you give the same to every applicant.
The same companies don't ask other professionals (lawyer, accountant, sales, HR, etc.) to submit to any kind of in-house tests when they are hired.
It is because IT folks do something far more important (potentially)... compared to lawyers, accountants, sales people and HR that is.
Just think yourself lucky you've never had to interview as a proctologist!
an open-source physics text book cannot work. Physicists just can't agree on even the most basic aspects of their science.
Indeed - it may also be the case that Google's business model can play a very important role in developing areas. Because infrastructure is generally so poor, transport costs are high. Meaning that any producer must get their goods to market as efficiently as is possible. Having www access will allow buyers and sellers to come together more easily, do the deal and transfer goods without waste. At the moment the fisherman takes his product to the local market in the hope that there are people there to buy it, has to deal with corrupt officials, etc.. With Google he could possibly advertise/sell online [fish-facebook anyone?] before the fish have made shore.
I, for one, am proud of my BBC overlords - for a small(ish) fee I get a bunch of fairly devent radio and tv stations. Best of all, the BBC offers an ad-free haven in this increasingly ad saturated world. The BBC also sells a bunch of magazines, so there's an existing model for the BBC charging for some content at least and, seeing as the BBC does not own all the songs in their archive the choice to charge is not there's. There will be some music that is owned by the BBC so perhaps some will be free.
Lesser companies work out what people want then try to provide that to them at the lowest cost.
True for a lot of products... but put Apple in context here. The PC market isn't exactly flush with good natured business folk doing their upmost to protect consumers. And there's way too much choice in the phone market. The upshot being Apple has a reasonably well trusted, well known brand that looks good. To your average consumer this will be enough to warrant a little extra on a product.
Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions
I got an extended warranty (3 years) with drop cover for my new machine, I once dropped a laptop and broke it's screen and didn't have cover. I did have a spare monitor... but it was hard work getting anything done on a plane/train, those fold down tables just don't accomodate 20" crts.