Slashdot filters out any good news about America and Americans. Had China sent the rover, the headline would have been:
"Chinese Engineers Overcome Technical Glitch To Gather Groundbreaking Data"... and you would have had thirty posts reading, "Way to go, China! America would have screwed it up."
... but still only invisible in a single frequency of light. The particles would reflect or diffract light or other frequencies, so you're back to having a gray aircraft that, under a very precisely calibrated light, would disappear.
No, no, no. The delivery goes like this:
Doctor: "I've got bad news and I've got bad news. You've got Alzheimer's disease and you've got AIDS."
Patient: "Well, hey - at least I don't have Alzheimer's disease!"
This could simply support my own theory that science fiction is like flan: there's no difference between the good stuff and the bad stuff.
Actually, I'll amend that: reading nearly any science fiction is like eating flan, but reading Neal Stephenson is like eating flan from between Jennifer Connelly's breasts while you're high.
Simply detecting radio signals on publicly accessible (and unlicensed) frequencies isn't a crime.
Yes, and in fact, the act which created the FCC specifically maintains that receiving transmissions on publicall accessible frequencies is legal in all cases, and cannot be legislated by the states. This is why state laws that outlaw passive radar detectors are ripe for overturning, although no one seems interested in doing so.
My guesses are:
1) Cost. A commercial 1U dual processor pizza box is actually very expensive for the computing power, compared to the do-it-yourself method. Of course, you're mostly paying for support, overhead, the brand name, and a sturdy, cool-looking case.
2) Cost. Commerical racks can be pretty pricey, too.
3) I/O speed. The zBox is wired up for good inter-CPU throughput, whereas you lose significant speed with the typical ethernet patchboard scheme you find in a commerical rackspace.
Of these (3) is probably the most important.
The CEO of the supermarket would, and he probably got an employee discount (many if not most CEOs are famously cheap). What I don't understand is why the CEO would use his club card if he knew full well there would be a Thanksgiving promotion revealing his purchases.
It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Seriously, this is strongly reminiscent of designing C++ APIs, called only in-process by C++ code, that use XML blobs for every single parameter type. I came across one of these and asked the "architect" why he chose to use XML for every parameted (at significant cost).
"Well, you know, it's XML," he said.
"And?" I asked.
"Well, it's... I mean, c'mon, it's extensible," he explained.
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. And there are too many developers who are a few parts short of a toolbox.
Well... the "point" I was making was that there aren't a whole lot of parallel jobs that don't have some intermittent serial aspect to them, but the article summary seemed to treat this as if it's an exceptional case. drmarcj's reply to my post explains in better detail.
What parallel-computing activity doesn't involve intermittent activity by a single processor? You have to spawn the parallel job somehow, and typically that starts as a single process. Is the implication here that compiling is pipelined, but linking is a single-CPU job?
Theoretically, yes, an algorithm is a mathematical expression. If I design a new type of cam that maximizes torque efficiency for a certain mechanical application, it's likely that the cam can be described by a mathematical expression as well. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to patent it? Of course not. Simply stating that an algorithm is "a mathematical expression" does not address the legal and economic arguments for allowing algorithms to be patented.
You're concerned that the actors in the live-action movies don't sufficiently resemble the body types of the comic book characters? If someone in real life had comic-style body proportions, they would stand out as grotesque freaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Hooray for the correct use of the expression "begging the question!" Glad to see someone stand up for it.
Interestingly enough, my karma went from positive to bad after that one post. HMMMMM.
Slashdot filters out any good news about America and Americans. Had China sent the rover, the headline would have been: "Chinese Engineers Overcome Technical Glitch To Gather Groundbreaking Data" ... and you would have had thirty posts reading, "Way to go, China! America would have screwed it up."
Writing Google's search engine in Python would be like writing a supercomputer weather simulation in Visual Basic.
... but still only invisible in a single frequency of light. The particles would reflect or diffract light or other frequencies, so you're back to having a gray aircraft that, under a very precisely calibrated light, would disappear.
Actually, it does run Doom 3. Just play Doom 1 with the brightness and contrast all the way down to nothing.
+5 Insightful? For this misguided and ignorant post? Unbelievable. Slashdot is dead.
No, no, no. The delivery goes like this: Doctor: "I've got bad news and I've got bad news. You've got Alzheimer's disease and you've got AIDS." Patient: "Well, hey - at least I don't have Alzheimer's disease!"
I like Star Wars because it has excellent acting...
I like your post because it's unintentionally hilarious. "But I was going to go to Anchorhead and pick up some power converters!"
You're joking, right? At least there is ~some~ sembalance of professionalism in televised journalism, whereas anyone and their dog can open up a blog.
Cue FOX News comment in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....
This could simply support my own theory that science fiction is like flan: there's no difference between the good stuff and the bad stuff.
Actually, I'll amend that: reading nearly any science fiction is like eating flan, but reading Neal Stephenson is like eating flan from between Jennifer Connelly's breasts while you're high.
Simply detecting radio signals on publicly accessible (and unlicensed) frequencies isn't a crime.
Yes, and in fact, the act which created the FCC specifically maintains that receiving transmissions on publicall accessible frequencies is legal in all cases, and cannot be legislated by the states. This is why state laws that outlaw passive radar detectors are ripe for overturning, although no one seems interested in doing so.
Better yet, less that Z USD and they bring back Voyager.
They've never gone and done anything nefarious...
... that you know of. Of course, let's not talk about Google's connections to the intelligence community.
It's Zeno's Paradox meets Moore's Theorem.
My guesses are: 1) Cost. A commercial 1U dual processor pizza box is actually very expensive for the computing power, compared to the do-it-yourself method. Of course, you're mostly paying for support, overhead, the brand name, and a sturdy, cool-looking case. 2) Cost. Commerical racks can be pretty pricey, too. 3) I/O speed. The zBox is wired up for good inter-CPU throughput, whereas you lose significant speed with the typical ethernet patchboard scheme you find in a commerical rackspace. Of these (3) is probably the most important.
The CEO of the supermarket would, and he probably got an employee discount (many if not most CEOs are famously cheap). What I don't understand is why the CEO would use his club card if he knew full well there would be a Thanksgiving promotion revealing his purchases.
It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
Seriously, this is strongly reminiscent of designing C++ APIs, called only in-process by C++ code, that use XML blobs for every single parameter type. I came across one of these and asked the "architect" why he chose to use XML for every parameted (at significant cost).
"Well, you know, it's XML," he said.
"And?" I asked.
"Well, it's... I mean, c'mon, it's extensible," he explained.
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. And there are too many developers who are a few parts short of a toolbox.
Really? Then you must enjoy having your testicles electrocuted whenever you question the ruling party.
Good luck filing a lawsuit against "DRM-Kracker666."
Well... the "point" I was making was that there aren't a whole lot of parallel jobs that don't have some intermittent serial aspect to them, but the article summary seemed to treat this as if it's an exceptional case. drmarcj's reply to my post explains in better detail.
What parallel-computing activity doesn't involve intermittent activity by a single processor? You have to spawn the parallel job somehow, and typically that starts as a single process. Is the implication here that compiling is pipelined, but linking is a single-CPU job?
Theoretically, yes, an algorithm is a mathematical expression. If I design a new type of cam that maximizes torque efficiency for a certain mechanical application, it's likely that the cam can be described by a mathematical expression as well. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to patent it? Of course not. Simply stating that an algorithm is "a mathematical expression" does not address the legal and economic arguments for allowing algorithms to be patented.
What we're dicussing here is an algorithm, not the code. There's a difference. (And how the hell did this get modded to +4 insightful?)
You're concerned that the actors in the live-action movies don't sufficiently resemble the body types of the comic book characters? If someone in real life had comic-style body proportions, they would stand out as grotesque freaks.