Of course your comment assumes the concept of "maximum bid" does not exist. If you have to bid more than your maximum bid to win, then it wasn't your maximum bid--it doesn't matter whether the other party is rational or not. You seem to be implying that the only way to win against an irrational counter bid is with a larger, also irrational bid.
I was driving close to the Googleplex the other day and spotted what I thought was one of those infernal google camera cars, so I drove up next to it and stared, holding a bizarre contorted face for as long as possible. Turns out it was just Google security. Sorry security man, I thought I could be famous....
It's the paradox of people hunting animals to extinction; the more rare the animal the more money hunters can demand for it until there is no more left.
It's worthwhile to note that approximately 0 species have been literally hunted to extinction in the past 200 years. There are counter-balancing forces. In the case of whales, they were hunted for their spermacetti and blubber, providing oil. Then crude was discovered. Whale hunting fell out of fashion. While a close call, whale numbers have recovered. Similarly for buffalo, although in that case most of the buffalo were not hunted for their meat or hides, but killed off in mass numbers for essentially no good reason other than to undercut American Indians' way of life. One certainly couldn't argue that market forces were at work there.
The thing you seem to have left out of your summary is that as the price skyrockets due to scarcity, people naturally develop alternatives and the system corrects. Demand decreases. Supply increases. In fact, in almost every case of skyrocketing prices for animal parts, said animals have been successfully domesticated and bred.
Your scenario only occurs if demand is both inelastic and the consumers have infinite money to keep consuming and push prices higher.
What would be ironic is if the space junk hit the Soyuz capsule when they were in it. Probably not the best strategy to put all the eggs in one basket in that case.
You mean, the people who own all the resources that you could very easily go and do productive work with are comfortable and have no desire to allow you permission to work them.
Why don't you go negotiate an agreement when you can borrow said resources, be productive with them, and produce more for both you and the owner, instead of being a disenfranchised, frightened, angry little clerk with delusions of grandeur?
I wasn't aware that the consent of government was necessary to exert influence on any scale. When was the last time you got clearance from the government get a partner into bed? Seems like you just object to other people having more influence than you....
I don't get it. You claim that in the free market would these banks would fail, yet you want to introduce more regulation to make sure no banks get big enough in order for the market to let them fail.
When is it "over", btw? And what do you recommend until then?
I am not aware of any chips that have path lengths long enough to require multiple clock cycles to cross the entire chip. Clock distribution is a very complex problem, just getting a single cycle across the whole chip synchronized. "Pipelining" in the sense that you mean it doesn't make this problem any easier, since the pipeline stages aren't necessarily laid out sequentially anyway. Going superscalar means even more complexity.
Probably not. If the United States were to launch nuclear weapons at Iran, it would probably be from SSBN(s). The flight time for a SLBM (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile) is less than 8 minutes. Most early warning systems can detect that fast... but they have a human in the loop, and alerting that human (Obama, Putin, whoever), getting a decision, and sending that decision back to the military can easily take more than 8 minutes.
Cruise missiles launched from near the Iraq/Iran border would work just as well and can carry warheads of at least 225kt.
Or a special ops mission armed with ADMs would work too.
I disagree. I don't think that the existence of objective reality is necessarily an axiom of Science. The repeatability of experiments on this potentially existing world, meaning they have the same results across human experience, suggests that this external world does actually exist. Suggests, but does not prove. So, you could call this a theory and not necessarily an axiom.
To be accepted into science, a theory doesn't have to be true, it just has to be predictive and testable. And I think that external reality would fit into that category. Accepting it as true doesn't make it an axiom, no more than accepting The Theory of Evolution makes that an axiom either.
So the theory that objective reality exists is universally accepted as true in Science, but that doesn't make it an axiom unless it is untestable.
I hate code written by "geniuses." It can often be incomplete, incomprehensible, and dripping with disdain for those poor unfortunate souls who can't comprehend it. Often it is so fast when it doesn't matter and too slow when it does, and it's never the straightforward, simple solution. God forbid you should find a case it doesn't handle or an input that produces incorrect results, or worse--a race condition!
If you find one of these "geniuses," whack them over the head with their keyboard. Tell 'em it was from me.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course your comment assumes the concept of "maximum bid" does not exist. If you have to bid more than your maximum bid to win, then it wasn't your maximum bid--it doesn't matter whether the other party is rational or not. You seem to be implying that the only way to win against an irrational counter bid is with a larger, also irrational bid.
Wtf is this guy smoking? ML had a provably sound parametric type system in the late 1970s!
It's been done. GNUnet.
THE planet, don't you get it? _THE ONE_ PLANET! *chair thrown*
Oh, you mean like how pretty much every paper plant in the United States operates?
I was driving close to the Googleplex the other day and spotted what I thought was one of those infernal google camera cars, so I drove up next to it and stared, holding a bizarre contorted face for as long as possible. Turns out it was just Google security. Sorry security man, I thought I could be famous....
Whew, I haven't had that much relief since I accidentally ate that whole jar of exlax....
hit != visitor
Nothing is stopping you from putting it inside a building, cementing it into its foundation, or surrounding it with appropriately weaponized sharks.
It's worthwhile to note that approximately 0 species have been literally hunted to extinction in the past 200 years. There are counter-balancing forces. In the case of whales, they were hunted for their spermacetti and blubber, providing oil. Then crude was discovered. Whale hunting fell out of fashion. While a close call, whale numbers have recovered. Similarly for buffalo, although in that case most of the buffalo were not hunted for their meat or hides, but killed off in mass numbers for essentially no good reason other than to undercut American Indians' way of life. One certainly couldn't argue that market forces were at work there.
The thing you seem to have left out of your summary is that as the price skyrockets due to scarcity, people naturally develop alternatives and the system corrects. Demand decreases. Supply increases. In fact, in almost every case of skyrocketing prices for animal parts, said animals have been successfully domesticated and bred.
Your scenario only occurs if demand is both inelastic and the consumers have infinite money to keep consuming and push prices higher.
What would be ironic is if the space junk hit the Soyuz capsule when they were in it. Probably not the best strategy to put all the eggs in one basket in that case.
Why don't you go negotiate an agreement when you can borrow said resources, be productive with them, and produce more for both you and the owner, instead of being a disenfranchised, frightened, angry little clerk with delusions of grandeur?
It's ok, Google are the "good" guys, right?
I wasn't aware that the consent of government was necessary to exert influence on any scale. When was the last time you got clearance from the government get a partner into bed? Seems like you just object to other people having more influence than you....
And oddly enough, ice cores are unavailable from periods of time where there was no ice.
Don't give those *ssholes your money anymore (tax dollars or savings)! They will dry up and blow away like the wind.
I don't get it. You claim that in the free market would these banks would fail, yet you want to introduce more regulation to make sure no banks get big enough in order for the market to let them fail.
When is it "over", btw? And what do you recommend until then?
I am not aware of any chips that have path lengths long enough to require multiple clock cycles to cross the entire chip. Clock distribution is a very complex problem, just getting a single cycle across the whole chip synchronized. "Pipelining" in the sense that you mean it doesn't make this problem any easier, since the pipeline stages aren't necessarily laid out sequentially anyway. Going superscalar means even more complexity.
You're off by two orders of magnitude. 6.5ghz is 153 picoseconds per cycle.
Your wife is in to mannequins?
Cruise missiles launched from near the Iraq/Iran border would work just as well and can carry warheads of at least 225kt.
Or a special ops mission armed with ADMs would work too.
1. Invent zero-watt sleep mode for PC.
2. Patent relevant technology.
3. Lobby the Euros for legislation requiring feature.
4. Profit!
(forget about valid strategy of turning off PC--stupid consumers can't be bothered)
I disagree. I don't think that the existence of objective reality is necessarily an axiom of Science. The repeatability of experiments on this potentially existing world, meaning they have the same results across human experience, suggests that this external world does actually exist. Suggests, but does not prove. So, you could call this a theory and not necessarily an axiom.
To be accepted into science, a theory doesn't have to be true, it just has to be predictive and testable. And I think that external reality would fit into that category. Accepting it as true doesn't make it an axiom, no more than accepting The Theory of Evolution makes that an axiom either.
So the theory that objective reality exists is universally accepted as true in Science, but that doesn't make it an axiom unless it is untestable.
I hate code written by "geniuses." It can often be incomplete, incomprehensible, and dripping with disdain for those poor unfortunate souls who can't comprehend it. Often it is so fast when it doesn't matter and too slow when it does, and it's never the straightforward, simple solution. God forbid you should find a case it doesn't handle or an input that produces incorrect results, or worse--a race condition!
If you find one of these "geniuses," whack them over the head with their keyboard. Tell 'em it was from me.
I drove one of these but two hours later I felt hungry again and had to drive it some more.