Intel said 4 nm for 2022, that's in 13 years. What precisely allows you to doubt that claims, except maybe the fact that deadlines are often missed? Let me rephrase that, what allows you to think that it'll be reached much later than anything else?
I'm dunno. Most CEOs don't make claims unless their business plan includes said claims else they look like a fool at the next shareholder meeting. That doesn't stop them from making claims that don't come through.
Remember Steve Jobs saying they would break the 3.0ghz with the IBM by the next WWDC... And then they didn't... Coincidentally they dropped IBM shortly after and went with Intel.
Anyways... Intel seriously uses Moore's Law as their road map so its a self predicting prophecy.
Also, queue a dozen+ posts explaining to the armchair pundits how 560x is possible.
The same thing happens with the concept of moral relativism: while it is an undisputed fact that different cultures place different moral value on certain actions, that does not mean that the moral rules of THIS society don't apply to YOU. This is not an academic problem - look at "honor" killings of Muslim women in western countries.
True, but in that regard doesn't our society in general does not view grammar in the same respect as most grammar experts do?
Name one popular person in the public eye who actually espouses correct usage of grammar as a key function of their popularity.
I can think of several world leaders, political pundits, movie stars, radio talk show hosts, and TV hosts who have horrible grammar and don't seemed bother by it.
So in that regard, our tolerance of improper grammar of a whole is much akin to say nations with Sharia law tolerance of lack of rights towards (women... I can't believe I just said that).
There might be some in society who are upset about it, but its not a majority held view.
Look, on a personal view I'm not saying that people should have bad grammar because its "only natural", I'm saying it happens and there isn't anything we can do about.
Whether or not you come to conclusion will change the fact that the majority of the American English speakers are butchering the language into something that won't be recognizable in a few decades.
It's not really valid, though; it makes a false distinction between "a hidden variable" and "a hidden variable controlled by another hidden variable" as if they were different.
I can't remember who said this (might have been Hawking or Sir Francis Bacon) was that there is a very important difference between "That which 'I know I don't know' and that which 'I don't know that I don't know'"
Maybe I've been watching too many dystopian movies, but technology, for all its benefits, can also change societies for the worse.
I don't know. Technology is a small price to pay to not have to live in caves, scared of the dark, covered in lice dying in the ripe old age of 30.
Personally, I think many people who considering themselves intelligentsia are disturbed by the loss of control of culture or access to information they had in years prior.
Yes, it results in a lot of reality TV and you tube videos but a lot of very intelligent work has come about that would have not flourished under the old media systems.
That's great, as long as morons don't take that to mean "... and therefore your horrible grammar and spelling errors aren't actually errors, but the natural evolution of language."
Natural evolution is mutations weather they are wanted or not.
To them I say: Someday, "loose" may be the correct spelling of "lose". Until that future day, you still need to learn the difference because you're wrong.
At what point do we determine that is? I mean can you specifically pick a time between the 1500 to 1700s where people stopped using "thee" and "thou"?
Either way you can say its wrong all you'd like and people are still going to do it. Eventually it will change. That is the point the linguists are trying to put across. A million Grammar teachers are screaming out in anguish but not much anyone can do about it.
You get the laptops delivered to a big enough organisation, whoever signs for them assumes *somebody* ordered them for a reason, but can't find out who.
Hehe. I worked for a large company where on more than one occasion someone just sends their laptop in to the workshop only to be lost in the stack because they didn't put a ticket number on it. It wasn't stolen but rather just with all the other laptops in a pile and was basically unlocatable for a few months.
Secondly, the purchasing approval process sometimes takes a while so by the time someone gets their laptop purchase approved they might no longer be with the company.
But suddenly I say: and some people want this same government in charge of our healthcare and now I'll be modded troll into oblivion.
I think the problem is that private care is too efficient. If the contract says you can't throw pre-existing conditions to the curb then I'm all for it.
Its really impossible to use capitalism with a health care system because in order to make the most profit you have to deny people healt hcare and that, as we see, does not not work that well.
Imagine you would a private military, police force, fire department.
They'd only go out and help when there is a profit to be made. A lot of crime and houses burn down simply because its not cost effective to stop everything.
Do they even TRY to adjust for the fact that fat people avoid getting health care most of their lives (because they're more likely to get tired of getting harassed by their doctor about their weight every time they go in for even a flu shot), drink more than thin people (getting shit on regularly can have that effect on people), and have crappier jobs than their normal-sized counterparts with the consequent lower incomes and inferior health care (because it's a lot harder to get hired)?
I think there is an argument in there for universal healt hcare because if you can't get a job then you can't get a health care plan to help out with the obesity problem and the illnesses that go with it.
I think most Americans don't go to the doctor because they can't afford it, not because they are ashamed too.
(The success of viagra is a good example of showing Americans aren't ashamed to ask their doctor.)
And secondly... Doesn't anyone buy a house to keep it forever anymore?
My parents own three homes (2 paid off with renters living in them) and never intend to sell any of them and plan to pass them on to their kids as a source of income.
Heck... I own a home and I figured it will be a free place to live when I retire in 30 years.
Why are people so intent of reselling their homes? So they can buy a bigger home they don't need?
It's easy to imagine pushing things into the future, but pushing things back is a little harder.
Nah. Its pretty easy! Haven't you seen Bill and Ted where they just have to remember to go back in time to get a particular objects to show up.
Maybe if you start a build queue then you instantly get it but you have to keep the build queue running until then or you blow up the space time continuum by not having the unit to send back when its ready.
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO BEAT THIS INTO YOU! IT NEVER WAS, NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL BE A PROPER METHOD TO SECURE A NETWORK!
*starts whipping the dead horse*
NAT was designed to share network addresses and not to firewall your computer. It just so happens to protect from certain worms because it doesn't know how to deal with certain NAT configurations.
However, NAT is not a replacement for a proper firewall because some of those bots can call home even though a NAT.
If your box can be owned when its on a public IP, it can owned when its behind a NAT.
And if you personally can't replace "gypsy" with any ethnic group and find the joke just as funny then you are stereotyping.
I'm not sure. As a white person, I would not take offense is someone made fun of of white people mostly because I don't relate to other white people.
Then again, white people are generally divided in general by idealogy rather than the color of our skin so if you said the same thing about democrats/republics chasing their sisters then I think more white people would take offense.
As I mentioned, the decision (which I assume will not be limited to "living persons' articles only, in the future) is a good decision that will increase the quality, and a bad one that brings in some strong borders. If I was an optimist, I would say "If they keep it balanced..." but I do not think it is possible to keep it balanced...
Are you thinking what I am thinking?
That people will be murdered just so a wikipedia article can be written about them?
The country I live in is a former British colony, and the official entry on Wikipedia regarding that country is firmly controlled by the government, and the history portion of the entry blames British for everything, something that is patently false.
To be fair, we also make sure the the Wikipedia article makes no mention of the French involvement in our independence war from the British and also that we won WWII single handedly and that there were weapons of mass destruction.
I find it funny when people say "they should have disabled it" instead of the employee knows the rules and shouldn't have done X. I mean is it the employers fault that the employee was surfing porn at work because the sites he visited wasn't blocked by the content controls?
Arguably it is the fault of the employer in the legal systems eyes if the proper procedure is not handled.
If an employee discloses HIPAA information to parties that should not have that info, then the company can be held liable (and a heft fine).
If an employee sexual harasses another, then the employer can be sued as well if the proper procedure was not handled.
If an employee spills a drink on the floor and someone slips on it and breaks a bone, then the employer is liable etc... I could go on but its how at least the US system works.
Assuming that employees will simply behave is foolish at worst and naive at best because there is always the chance you will hire a sociopath (its 1 out 100 people so if you are large company you'll have plenty to go around).
It is the responsibility of the employer to safe guard their data, business, and other employees from their employees. That means being proactive with restrictions because you never know who is going to go postal one day.
The fact that they just didn't "nuke the site from orbit" shows one of the biggest flaws in most Sci-Fi plots.
I mean the Starship Troopers explained it (well they did mostly in the novels) that it was an ego thing that they had to show the aliens they were going to kill them in person.
Arguably in most of the Warhammer 40K fluff novels revolves around the fact the Imperial navy can or cannot blow up the planet in orbit.
AAPL/GOOG are publicly traded companies and as such their only obligation is to make a profit for their stockholders
No. Publicly traded companies are only obligated to obey the votes of their shareholders which in some cases is contrary to making a profit.
In that regard both AAPL and GOOG have a small set of people controlling the votes so they can choose how to operate.
Of course most public companies are about the whole profit only thing simply because that is what their shareholders want.
In that regard, APPL, GOOG, and MSFT can basically blow through millions in R&D and short term unprofitable ventures (like the fact Xbox lost them money and not until the Xbox 360 did they get money back... what was that 5 years?) and the shareholders can't get rid of the CEO.
If there is proof that humans are causing global warming,
I think "Global Warming" is a misnomer. I think a better term would be "Global Chaos" in that because humans are mucking with the atmosphere, surface reflection of earth's surface, and generating heat en masse through mechanical engines that normal assumptions about weather patterns will no longer apply.
So that the energy has to go somewhere and usually will result in hotter weather, colder winter, higher winds, and rougher seas.
Slashdot Mirror
They could have bought DC Comics.
Intel said 4 nm for 2022, that's in 13 years. What precisely allows you to doubt that claims, except maybe the fact that deadlines are often missed? Let me rephrase that, what allows you to think that it'll be reached much later than anything else?
I'm dunno. Most CEOs don't make claims unless their business plan includes said claims else they look like a fool at the next shareholder meeting. That doesn't stop them from making claims that don't come through.
Remember Steve Jobs saying they would break the 3.0ghz with the IBM by the next WWDC... And then they didn't... Coincidentally they dropped IBM shortly after and went with Intel.
Anyways... Intel seriously uses Moore's Law as their road map so its a self predicting prophecy.
Also, queue a dozen+ posts explaining to the armchair pundits how 560x is possible.
Simple. Move the goal posts.
The same thing happens with the concept of moral relativism: while it is an undisputed fact that different cultures place different moral value on certain actions, that does not mean that the moral rules of THIS society don't apply to YOU. This is not an academic problem - look at "honor" killings of Muslim women in western countries.
True, but in that regard doesn't our society in general does not view grammar in the same respect as most grammar experts do?
Name one popular person in the public eye who actually espouses correct usage of grammar as a key function of their popularity.
I can think of several world leaders, political pundits, movie stars, radio talk show hosts, and TV hosts who have horrible grammar and don't seemed bother by it.
So in that regard, our tolerance of improper grammar of a whole is much akin to say nations with Sharia law tolerance of lack of rights towards (women... I can't believe I just said that).
There might be some in society who are upset about it, but its not a majority held view.
Look, on a personal view I'm not saying that people should have bad grammar because its "only natural", I'm saying it happens and there isn't anything we can do about.
Whether or not you come to conclusion will change the fact that the majority of the American English speakers are butchering the language into something that won't be recognizable in a few decades.
It's not really valid, though; it makes a false distinction between "a hidden variable" and "a hidden variable controlled by another hidden variable" as if they were different.
I can't remember who said this (might have been Hawking or Sir Francis Bacon) was that there is a very important difference between "That which 'I know I don't know' and that which 'I don't know that I don't know'"
Maybe I've been watching too many dystopian movies, but technology, for all its benefits, can also change societies for the worse.
I don't know. Technology is a small price to pay to not have to live in caves, scared of the dark, covered in lice dying in the ripe old age of 30.
Personally, I think many people who considering themselves intelligentsia are disturbed by the loss of control of culture or access to information they had in years prior.
Yes, it results in a lot of reality TV and you tube videos but a lot of very intelligent work has come about that would have not flourished under the old media systems.
That's great, as long as morons don't take that to mean "... and therefore your horrible grammar and spelling errors aren't actually errors, but the natural evolution of language."
Natural evolution is mutations weather they are wanted or not.
To them I say: Someday, "loose" may be the correct spelling of "lose". Until that future day, you still need to learn the difference because you're wrong.
At what point do we determine that is? I mean can you specifically pick a time between the 1500 to 1700s where people stopped using "thee" and "thou"?
Either way you can say its wrong all you'd like and people are still going to do it. Eventually it will change. That is the point the linguists are trying to put across. A million Grammar teachers are screaming out in anguish but not much anyone can do about it.
Yeah, because donuts make cops, faster, better, stronger, more intelligent... ^^
Depends. Have you ever stood in between a cop and his end shift at a doughnut shop?
You get the laptops delivered to a big enough organisation, whoever signs for them assumes *somebody* ordered them for a reason, but can't find out who.
Hehe. I worked for a large company where on more than one occasion someone just sends their laptop in to the workshop only to be lost in the stack because they didn't put a ticket number on it. It wasn't stolen but rather just with all the other laptops in a pile and was basically unlocatable for a few months.
Secondly, the purchasing approval process sometimes takes a while so by the time someone gets their laptop purchase approved they might no longer be with the company.
But suddenly I say: and some people want this same government in charge of our healthcare and now I'll be modded troll into oblivion.
I think the problem is that private care is too efficient. If the contract says you can't throw pre-existing conditions to the curb then I'm all for it.
Its really impossible to use capitalism with a health care system because in order to make the most profit you have to deny people healt hcare and that, as we see, does not not work that well.
Imagine you would a private military, police force, fire department.
They'd only go out and help when there is a profit to be made. A lot of crime and houses burn down simply because its not cost effective to stop everything.
Do they even TRY to adjust for the fact that fat people avoid getting health care most of their lives (because they're more likely to get tired of getting harassed by their doctor about their weight every time they go in for even a flu shot), drink more than thin people (getting shit on regularly can have that effect on people), and have crappier jobs than their normal-sized counterparts with the consequent lower incomes and inferior health care (because it's a lot harder to get hired)?
I think there is an argument in there for universal healt hcare because if you can't get a job then you can't get a health care plan to help out with the obesity problem and the illnesses that go with it.
I think most Americans don't go to the doctor because they can't afford it, not because they are ashamed too.
(The success of viagra is a good example of showing Americans aren't ashamed to ask their doctor.)
And secondly... Doesn't anyone buy a house to keep it forever anymore?
My parents own three homes (2 paid off with renters living in them) and never intend to sell any of them and plan to pass them on to their kids as a source of income.
Heck... I own a home and I figured it will be a free place to live when I retire in 30 years.
Why are people so intent of reselling their homes? So they can buy a bigger home they don't need?
It's easy to imagine pushing things into the future, but pushing things back is a little harder.
Nah. Its pretty easy! Haven't you seen Bill and Ted where they just have to remember to go back in time to get a particular objects to show up.
Maybe if you start a build queue then you instantly get it but you have to keep the build queue running until then or you blow up the space time continuum by not having the unit to send back when its ready.
"Spear men sapping my tanks!"
A chip to offload encryption is a good thing, however it is not a "security chip". Security is a broad topic that this chip will barely touch.
Encryption takes the failure of a breach out of the responsibility of the computer and makes the greatest point of failure the human being.
That is much as we can hope for.
NAT IS NOT A SECURITY MEASURE!!
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO BEAT THIS INTO YOU! IT NEVER WAS, NEVER HAS, AND NEVER WILL BE A PROPER METHOD TO SECURE A NETWORK!
*starts whipping the dead horse*
NAT was designed to share network addresses and not to firewall your computer. It just so happens to protect from certain worms because it doesn't know how to deal with certain NAT configurations.
However, NAT is not a replacement for a proper firewall because some of those bots can call home even though a NAT.
If your box can be owned when its on a public IP, it can owned when its behind a NAT.
And if you personally can't replace "gypsy" with any ethnic group and find the joke just as funny then you are stereotyping.
I'm not sure. As a white person, I would not take offense is someone made fun of of white people mostly because I don't relate to other white people.
Then again, white people are generally divided in general by idealogy rather than the color of our skin so if you said the same thing about democrats/republics chasing their sisters then I think more white people would take offense.
Regardless of the wishes of those greedy fucks, a browser and each site should
be sand-boxed in the first place.
Hear! Hear!
I surf the internet to look at websites, not to have those websites modify my OS!
As I mentioned, the decision (which I assume will not be limited to "living persons' articles only, in the future) is a good decision that will increase the quality, and a bad one that brings in some strong borders. If I was an optimist, I would say "If they keep it balanced..." but I do not think it is possible to keep it balanced...
Are you thinking what I am thinking?
That people will be murdered just so a wikipedia article can be written about them?
The country I live in is a former British colony, and the official entry on Wikipedia regarding that country is firmly controlled by the government, and the history portion of the entry blames British for everything, something that is patently false.
To be fair, we also make sure the the Wikipedia article makes no mention of the French involvement in our independence war from the British and also that we won WWII single handedly and that there were weapons of mass destruction.
Oh you mean that other former British colony...
I find it funny when people say "they should have disabled it" instead of the employee knows the rules and shouldn't have done X. I mean is it the employers fault that the employee was surfing porn at work because the sites he visited wasn't blocked by the content controls?
Arguably it is the fault of the employer in the legal systems eyes if the proper procedure is not handled.
If an employee discloses HIPAA information to parties that should not have that info, then the company can be held liable (and a heft fine).
If an employee sexual harasses another, then the employer can be sued as well if the proper procedure was not handled.
If an employee spills a drink on the floor and someone slips on it and breaks a bone, then the employer is liable etc... I could go on but its how at least the US system works.
Assuming that employees will simply behave is foolish at worst and naive at best because there is always the chance you will hire a sociopath (its 1 out 100 people so if you are large company you'll have plenty to go around).
It is the responsibility of the employer to safe guard their data, business, and other employees from their employees. That means being proactive with restrictions because you never know who is going to go postal one day.
Simply telling them to behave won't cut it...
You should really talk to a lawyer. Preferably one that has done GPL cases before.
Yes it will cost money, but it will save you and your user's a headache if legal issues ever arise from the use of your software down the road.
Why was this modded troll?
The fact that they just didn't "nuke the site from orbit" shows one of the biggest flaws in most Sci-Fi plots.
I mean the Starship Troopers explained it (well they did mostly in the novels) that it was an ego thing that they had to show the aliens they were going to kill them in person.
Arguably in most of the Warhammer 40K fluff novels revolves around the fact the Imperial navy can or cannot blow up the planet in orbit.
And yet we can't repair a paralyzed human body? Fail.
I think that part of plot line is just dumb simply because you can come up with a thousand reasons why someone wouldn't want to use their real body.
I mean your chance of dying in an accident goes to near zero once you stop going outdoors and not to mention its just more efficient to travel around.
But to say people only use avatar's because they are paralyzed is silly. People will do it because they want to, not because they have to.
AAPL/GOOG are publicly traded companies and as such their only obligation is to make a profit for their stockholders
No. Publicly traded companies are only obligated to obey the votes of their shareholders which in some cases is contrary to making a profit.
In that regard both AAPL and GOOG have a small set of people controlling the votes so they can choose how to operate.
Of course most public companies are about the whole profit only thing simply because that is what their shareholders want.
In that regard, APPL, GOOG, and MSFT can basically blow through millions in R&D and short term unprofitable ventures (like the fact Xbox lost them money and not until the Xbox 360 did they get money back... what was that 5 years?) and the shareholders can't get rid of the CEO.
If there is proof that humans are causing global warming,
I think "Global Warming" is a misnomer. I think a better term would be "Global Chaos" in that because humans are mucking with the atmosphere, surface reflection of earth's surface, and generating heat en masse through mechanical engines that normal assumptions about weather patterns will no longer apply.
So that the energy has to go somewhere and usually will result in hotter weather, colder winter, higher winds, and rougher seas.