There's a huge gap between current chips correcting errors in general long before they propagate up to to userland and what this article is talking about. This researcher is talking about creating more "robust" software "so an error simply causes the execution of instructions to take longer". If they're talking about the microcode on the CPU itself (I doubt it), then this is nothing new. If they're talking about code in every end developers program, than they fall into exactly the problem I describe (along with trying to convince the software development community that it's a great idea to add more complexity to programs just to get around design flaws in CPUs, given that most commercial software companies can't be bothered to fix their own bugs.
Moreover, if the processor goofs on the check, how will the program know? Do we run every operation 3 times and take the majority vote (then we've cut down to 1/3rd of the effective power)? Even if we were to take the 1% error rate, given that each core of CPUs right now can run billions of instructions per second, this CPU will fail to check correctly every second (even checking, rechecking, and checking again every single operation). And what about memory operations? Can we accept errors in a load or store function? If so, we can't in practice trust our software to do what we tell it. (change a bit on load and you could do damn near anything from adding the wrong number, to saying an if statement is true when it should be false, to not even running the right fricken instruction.
There's a damn good reason why we want our processors to be rock solid. If they don't work right, we can't trust anything they output.
Have you considered that it might be teenagers and college students who don't have credit cards doing a fair bit of the pirating? Some of the mess we've gotten into is that there's a large group of people who have technical savvy yet have no ability to pay for things online (yes, theoretically they could borrow their parents credit cards, but that's not something that's reasonable to do all the time). Free is a powerful lure, but sometimes there's more problems than that.
Then dump Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho, large portions of Texas, some of the very large state and national parks, etc from the US estimates. If every city up and down the east and west coast were saturated with 100 Mb/s with most inland areas getting only 10 Mb/s with only the really remote and inhospitable areas not getting good service (yeah, you're probably not going to see great speed in inland Alaska for the foreseeable future), then we could say that we're doing really well. But we're not. We've got an aging infrastructure that didn't get updated due to all sorts of greed and we'll pay the price for it eventually.
Exactly. Where would we be if a senator said "that fucker across the aisle is full of shit" rather than "what my fellow lawmaker from the great state of SuchandSuch fails to understand is that intricacies of our delicate situation"? I mean, we might actually get a forceful opinion rather than a group of meaningless words (ok, ok, you don't *need* to use swearing to do that, but it gets the point across much, much clearer sometimes).
I'll believe that they'll pay $x billion when I actually see it. And not just on capping the well, but cleaning up what might be a crap ton of shore damage and ecological impact (nevermind that most of that can't effectively be fixed once broken) for the next 20/30/50/100 years. Prince William Sound still hasn't recovered from the Exxon Valdez, a spill that was an order of magnitude smaller than this one.
It's a big clusterfuk because in our wisdom we let British Petroleum (BP) do business in our country but they're a foreign corporation. Do you want to punish them or make them pay for all the damage they've done and continue to do? Sure, now how would you propose to do that? For extra credit, accomplish this goal without interrupting the flow of gasoline to all the BP (Arco and probably other) stations in this country and also avoid a diplomatic incident with our (for now) friends in the British Empire.
Make them pay. If they want to continue to do business in the US, they will pay the money. If they refuse, seize their assets and either nationalize it or sell it to the highest bidder. Start working up criminal liability for anyone who knew that safety checks weren't being done right and work that as high as it can go. If the board of directors knew (or encouraged) things weren't being done right, try to extradite them and make them serve jail time. Why have sympathy for anyone cultivating the attitude leading to this incident? There's 11 dead people and what could be the largest man-made environmental disaster in the Gulf ever that will take decades to recover from.
Sorry, but prayer led by state paid chaplain in a state-funded institution i.e. state penitentiary is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Depends. If they refused to hire chaplains that weren't X religion, then yes, that would be establishment. If they hire chaplains of any requested religion (and have non-religious oriented councilors for those that want them), then I'd allow it.
Or how about this one:
Sorry, but prayer led by military chaplain in a military-funded institution i.e. chapel is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Same as the above, though two added notes:
1)Either set aside the same amount of time for every soldier, regardless of faith or lack thereof, or have it all done in free time.
2)Exceptions can be made if necessary (i.e. you're not going to get every flavor of faith a minister when you're at a remote base in middle of nowhere Afghanistan). In those cases, every effort should be made to be as non-sectarian as possible and to avoid proselytizing.
What about if the "employee" is not paid?
Same basic rules as above. Give access to all comers equally.
What about when congress opens its session with a prayer? (That is done at the opening of every congress, IIRC.)
I'd rather they started with a science experiment. Maybe some of it would rub off.
What about when a school sponsored club meets on the school grounds, but wants to start with a student-led prayer? (There are instances that can be cited where such things have been prohibited.)
From my understanding, current laws let students start up religious clubs, but any teacher involved is there purely as an observer. That said, I'd have a problem with non-religious clubs and activities being co-opted by religion and approved as such by the school (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe ).
What about the case of the Boy Scout council in Philadelphia that was essentially evicted from the property the city was leasing them for $1/year? (The argument there was that the city's favorable lease to the Boy Scouts constituted an establishment of religion, because of the Boy Scouts' policy against atheists.)
Setting aside the church-state separation talk for a second, why do the Boy Scouts think they deserve a free ride on taxpayer dollars?
Anyway, if the government is essentially sponsoring your operations, you shouldn't get to turn around and discriminate against a large segment of the population (both atheists and gays). If you want some private club, fine, have it. But don't indirectly come with your hat in your hand to those you're denying.
In fact, Jefferson wrote his own book where he copy/pasted various sections out of the 4 Gospels and took out the parts that he thought were crap (including, but not limited to, everything supernatural). His definition of Christianity was to follow the philosophy, rather than the mythology, of Jesus. You think the religious right is rabid against Obama? Try imagining how they'd feel about a president taking the God out of Jesus. Oh, wait, we don't have to, they're showing that by minimizing him in history.
I produced a faster than light engine in my apartment using nothing but tin cans, duct tape, and my own stored flatulence.
Do you believe me? If no, you refute yourself. If yes, I'll sell you my research for $1,000,000 (no refunds if it later turns out to have been fabricated).
The difference is that for some people their level of tolerance ends at exactly the point where their personal tastes are offended. A puritanical person might see gay porn and say "eww... now ban it for corrupting morals!" A reasonable person sees gay porn and says "eww... I'd better not go to that website again."
Slashdot Mirror
There's a huge gap between current chips correcting errors in general long before they propagate up to to userland and what this article is talking about. This researcher is talking about creating more "robust" software "so an error simply causes the execution of instructions to take longer". If they're talking about the microcode on the CPU itself (I doubt it), then this is nothing new. If they're talking about code in every end developers program, than they fall into exactly the problem I describe (along with trying to convince the software development community that it's a great idea to add more complexity to programs just to get around design flaws in CPUs, given that most commercial software companies can't be bothered to fix their own bugs.
Moreover, if the processor goofs on the check, how will the program know? Do we run every operation 3 times and take the majority vote (then we've cut down to 1/3rd of the effective power)? Even if we were to take the 1% error rate, given that each core of CPUs right now can run billions of instructions per second, this CPU will fail to check correctly every second (even checking, rechecking, and checking again every single operation). And what about memory operations? Can we accept errors in a load or store function? If so, we can't in practice trust our software to do what we tell it. (change a bit on load and you could do damn near anything from adding the wrong number, to saying an if statement is true when it should be false, to not even running the right fricken instruction.
There's a damn good reason why we want our processors to be rock solid. If they don't work right, we can't trust anything they output.
... will continue to cause the Plaintiff great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.
But they'll sure try and hit the defendants over the head with a ruler, won't they?
Have you considered that it might be teenagers and college students who don't have credit cards doing a fair bit of the pirating? Some of the mess we've gotten into is that there's a large group of people who have technical savvy yet have no ability to pay for things online (yes, theoretically they could borrow their parents credit cards, but that's not something that's reasonable to do all the time). Free is a powerful lure, but sometimes there's more problems than that.
Not if it has sex in it (sex with oneself doesn't count).
Ones that are willing to spend a few bucks to mitigate those risks.
America invented it, we get to name it. :p
They didn't say who it would be dangerous for...
Judging by the quality of US education, I suspect that many people would add the percentages up wrong.
Then dump Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho, large portions of Texas, some of the very large state and national parks, etc from the US estimates. If every city up and down the east and west coast were saturated with 100 Mb/s with most inland areas getting only 10 Mb/s with only the really remote and inhospitable areas not getting good service (yeah, you're probably not going to see great speed in inland Alaska for the foreseeable future), then we could say that we're doing really well. But we're not. We've got an aging infrastructure that didn't get updated due to all sorts of greed and we'll pay the price for it eventually.
Exactly. Where would we be if a senator said "that fucker across the aisle is full of shit" rather than "what my fellow lawmaker from the great state of SuchandSuch fails to understand is that intricacies of our delicate situation"? I mean, we might actually get a forceful opinion rather than a group of meaningless words (ok, ok, you don't *need* to use swearing to do that, but it gets the point across much, much clearer sometimes).
I'll believe that they'll pay $x billion when I actually see it. And not just on capping the well, but cleaning up what might be a crap ton of shore damage and ecological impact (nevermind that most of that can't effectively be fixed once broken) for the next 20/30/50/100 years. Prince William Sound still hasn't recovered from the Exxon Valdez, a spill that was an order of magnitude smaller than this one.
It's a big clusterfuk because in our wisdom we let British Petroleum (BP) do business in our country but they're a foreign corporation. Do you want to punish them or make them pay for all the damage they've done and continue to do? Sure, now how would you propose to do that? For extra credit, accomplish this goal without interrupting the flow of gasoline to all the BP (Arco and probably other) stations in this country and also avoid a diplomatic incident with our (for now) friends in the British Empire.
Make them pay. If they want to continue to do business in the US, they will pay the money. If they refuse, seize their assets and either nationalize it or sell it to the highest bidder. Start working up criminal liability for anyone who knew that safety checks weren't being done right and work that as high as it can go. If the board of directors knew (or encouraged) things weren't being done right, try to extradite them and make them serve jail time. Why have sympathy for anyone cultivating the attitude leading to this incident? There's 11 dead people and what could be the largest man-made environmental disaster in the Gulf ever that will take decades to recover from.
Sorry, but prayer led by state paid chaplain in a state-funded institution i.e. state penitentiary is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Depends. If they refused to hire chaplains that weren't X religion, then yes, that would be establishment. If they hire chaplains of any requested religion (and have non-religious oriented councilors for those that want them), then I'd allow it.
Or how about this one:
Sorry, but prayer led by military chaplain in a military-funded institution i.e. chapel is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Same as the above, though two added notes:
1)Either set aside the same amount of time for every soldier, regardless of faith or lack thereof, or have it all done in free time.
2)Exceptions can be made if necessary (i.e. you're not going to get every flavor of faith a minister when you're at a remote base in middle of nowhere Afghanistan). In those cases, every effort should be made to be as non-sectarian as possible and to avoid proselytizing.
What about if the "employee" is not paid?
Same basic rules as above. Give access to all comers equally.
What about when congress opens its session with a prayer? (That is done at the opening of every congress, IIRC.)
I'd rather they started with a science experiment. Maybe some of it would rub off.
What about when a school sponsored club meets on the school grounds, but wants to start with a student-led prayer? (There are instances that can be cited where such things have been prohibited.)
From my understanding, current laws let students start up religious clubs, but any teacher involved is there purely as an observer. That said, I'd have a problem with non-religious clubs and activities being co-opted by religion and approved as such by the school (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe ).
What about the case of the Boy Scout council in Philadelphia that was essentially evicted from the property the city was leasing them for $1/year? (The argument there was that the city's favorable lease to the Boy Scouts constituted an establishment of religion, because of the Boy Scouts' policy against atheists.)
Setting aside the church-state separation talk for a second, why do the Boy Scouts think they deserve a free ride on taxpayer dollars?
Anyway, if the government is essentially sponsoring your operations, you shouldn't get to turn around and discriminate against a large segment of the population (both atheists and gays). If you want some private club, fine, have it. But don't indirectly come with your hat in your hand to those you're denying.
In fact, Jefferson wrote his own book where he copy/pasted various sections out of the 4 Gospels and took out the parts that he thought were crap (including, but not limited to, everything supernatural). His definition of Christianity was to follow the philosophy, rather than the mythology, of Jesus. You think the religious right is rabid against Obama? Try imagining how they'd feel about a president taking the God out of Jesus. Oh, wait, we don't have to, they're showing that by minimizing him in history.
Nature.
Where is government given the power to take it away?
You forgot ME... I envy you for that.
Wasn't this done in Red Alert 2? Oh shit, we need to stop the Russians from taming giant squids!
You know, you could just browse Slashdot at -1.
"what is the most environmentally appropriate use for a limestone quarry, that's been mined out?"
The answer, for those who were wondering, was BBC set. They'll even recycle it a few dozen times!
I produced a faster than light engine in my apartment using nothing but tin cans, duct tape, and my own stored flatulence.
Do you believe me? If no, you refute yourself. If yes, I'll sell you my research for $1,000,000 (no refunds if it later turns out to have been fabricated).
The difference is that for some people their level of tolerance ends at exactly the point where their personal tastes are offended. A puritanical person might see gay porn and say "eww... now ban it for corrupting morals!" A reasonable person sees gay porn and says "eww... I'd better not go to that website again."
Given:
1)A corporate officer has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their company.
2)There's an herbicide resistant seed that would be effective enough for probably everyone you currently sell cheap.
3)The seed from 2 is going to lose it's patent protection and will get subjected to the free market.
4)You have a new seed that costs many times what the seed from 2 costs that is resistant to a different herbicide.
Then:
5)You can modify a weed to be resistant to the same herbicide as 2.
6)In doing so, you will force people to buy the seed from 4.
7)You don't need "???"
8)Profit! (in accordance with 1)
It's all the better because it's probably not even illegal (not that that would stop most companies).
On the contrary, I'm all for protecting investors who keep money in companies for years. I just hope that traders get beaten down.
When corporations near governments in their power
Well there's your problem.