Moving some processing out of the central processor and into processors that access storage is not exactly new.
But I bet these servers don't look too terribly much like CDC 6000s. (Especially their FPGA parts.)
The article should be an interesting read. Which I will get to soon, now that I've offered an uninformed opinion about TFA and incidentally exposed my geezerhood.
How long before the new Greek drachmas (or whatever they call them) appear? Will it be folding money before it's available in bank accounts? Bank accounts before banknotes? Simultaneous?
How long before the price of the drachma, relative to the Euro, drops to half its initial price?
Will Greece do a banana republic-style pretend exchange rate, with control of cash crossing its borders? How about banning the use of other currencies, Soviet-style?
There are so many terrible monetary ideas to emulate. Which ones will Greece do? All of them?
Well, if the Supreme Court does take it up and rules against Google, it won't be their worst decision ever. Nowhere as bad as Dred Scott, for instance.
But it would be on the same list.
Somewhere in the vicinity of Wickard v. Filburn, I would think.
A quick skim didn't reveal any mention of zoning laws and rent control, government restrictions that limit the availability of low-cost housing, both rental and owned.
A very quick skim, it was. Perhaps the article does not suffer these two egregious errors, after all.
What if the news media, instead of reporting on polls and how poling results might alter candidate strategies and all the other "horse race" ephemera, reported on the positions of the candidates? And if there was no news about a candidate's positions, they instead reported on the positions of candidates who had positions?
Of course, they might have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and report on candidates who were not Democrats and not Republicans.
Terrible idea. It could mean the end of elections as we know them. And wouldn't that be awful?
We've had far too many species for far too long. It's about time some of them go away, to make room for new ones.
I'm kidding. I have no idea what the right number of species is. I don't even know if there *is* a right number of species. And I'm actually a little unsure about how to tell a species from a subspecies, anyway. (I hear the biologists have had some trouble in that area, too.)
The important thing is, nature shouldn't change. Evolution is done. Change in nature is bad.
I'm kidding. Of course nature is going to change, whether humans are around or not.
Silly me, I thought the legislative power of the United States was vested in the Congress, like it says in the very first sentence of Article I, Section 1..
The plus side of $15.00 min wage (In Montreal it is almost $14.00 today), is that these low income workers will have some discretionary money to spend on some goods and services
If they still have a job, that is, and their hours aren't cut.
Some people just aren't worth $15/hr to their employers. So after the change, instead of getting a raise, they get the sack. Or they get their hours cut, in favor of someone who is worth at least $15/hr, in the hopes they'll quit.
Turns out government isn't magic, and it isn't omnipotent.
If someone is paid regularly and does no work, as a result of government legislation, does it really much matter whether they're on welfare or have a "job"?
In the latter case I suppose the employer cares, because they have to pay the non-worker directly, rather than pay taxes that are used to pay the non-worker out of general revenue.
Carbon dioxide likely won't be enough. Best to drop some big-ass ice chunks, too.
Now all that's left is to drop in some nitrogen, and get rid of the hydrogen in some of the water. (Turning it into helium would also release energy, I hear. That could come in handy on a cold planet.)
And now and again, add more (net) oxygen and nitrogen to replace what leaks out the top.
Mars really needs more mass. Higher gravity would help with the leakages.
Would somebody please get working on these things?
It's likely (IM uninformed O) that the obvious policy action -- requiring ex-cons and parolees to not live in their old neighborhood -- will not have as great an effect as the correlation suggests.
Some of those ex-cons may have had a greater commitment to avoiding recidivism, and they *chose* to avoid their old neighborhood. (A correlates with B because both are caused to some extent by C.) Forcing them (recidivism-prone and turnaround-prone) to do something that simulates a commitment to going straight may not help at all, and might even hurt. The lure of the old ways might persist, and not be countered by family and community support for their turn-around.
And it's possible that requiring it might even negatively impact those who would have *chosen* to avoid the old neighborhood. Being forced to avoid it might provoke contrariness.
It is a promising approach to test, though, if someone could be found who: (1) had the ability to do a pilot program, (2) had an incentive to reduce recidivism.
I'm having trouble identifying types of people who fit both criteria.
Before you gripe too much about somebody driving slowly, it's a good to consider the possibility that they don't feel like they can safely drive any faster. If that's the reason, do you really want them to speed up?
Before you gripe too much about somebody not voting, it's a good to consider the possibility that they don't feel like they know enough to vote responsibly. If that's the reason, do you really want them to vote?
OK, it seems we're in agreement that there is a downside to having a minimum wage. So, what is it, and how can it be discovered if there's been too great an increase in the minimum wage?
Or to put it differently, how does one discover what the optimum minimum wage is? Is it the same everywhere in the country? Is it the same for every type of employee? Every type of job?
Slashdot Mirror
Moving some processing out of the central processor and into processors that access storage is not exactly new.
But I bet these servers don't look too terribly much like CDC 6000s. (Especially their FPGA parts.)
The article should be an interesting read. Which I will get to soon, now that I've offered an uninformed opinion about TFA and incidentally exposed my geezerhood.
So many questions come to mind now.
How long before the new Greek drachmas (or whatever they call them) appear? Will it be folding money before it's available in bank accounts? Bank accounts before banknotes? Simultaneous?
How long before the price of the drachma, relative to the Euro, drops to half its initial price?
Will Greece do a banana republic-style pretend exchange rate, with control of cash crossing its borders? How about banning the use of other currencies, Soviet-style?
There are so many terrible monetary ideas to emulate. Which ones will Greece do? All of them?
Will Greece invent any new ones?
Stay tuned.
"Not even wrong", I think.
What? It's the wrong shape? Wrong material? Not colorful enough?
What's good "tourism currency" have that the Euro doesn't? What makes the Euro an industrial-strength currency?
You've absolutely baffled me.
No. That's not true. I'm used to non sequiturs and nonsense on the Internet (even on Slashdot). So, no big surprise.
But marked "Insightful"? You 5 guys are jest punkin' us, arncha?
Well, if the Supreme Court does take it up and rules against Google, it won't be their worst decision ever. Nowhere as bad as Dred Scott, for instance.
But it would be on the same list.
Somewhere in the vicinity of Wickard v. Filburn, I would think.
Uh, I'm pretty sure this isn't a competition.
I did not see that coming.
It went right over my head.
It came right out of the blue.
OK, I'll stop now. (But only because I ran out.)
Just so you know: the last part of that comment probably carries more weight with Catholics than with other people.
In fact, for some people, it might say the opposite of your intended message.
"homelands"?
Please explain.
A quick skim didn't reveal any mention of zoning laws and rent control, government restrictions that limit the availability of low-cost housing, both rental and owned.
A very quick skim, it was. Perhaps the article does not suffer these two egregious errors, after all.
But I know which way to bet.
What if the news media, instead of reporting on polls and how poling results might alter candidate strategies and all the other "horse race" ephemera, reported on the positions of the candidates? And if there was no news about a candidate's positions, they instead reported on the positions of candidates who had positions?
Of course, they might have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and report on candidates who were not Democrats and not Republicans.
Terrible idea. It could mean the end of elections as we know them. And wouldn't that be awful?
We've had far too many species for far too long. It's about time some of them go away, to make room for new ones.
I'm kidding. I have no idea what the right number of species is. I don't even know if there *is* a right number of species. And I'm actually a little unsure about how to tell a species from a subspecies, anyway. (I hear the biologists have had some trouble in that area, too.)
The important thing is, nature shouldn't change. Evolution is done. Change in nature is bad.
I'm kidding. Of course nature is going to change, whether humans are around or not.
Silly me, I thought the legislative power of the United States was vested in the Congress, like it says in the very first sentence of Article I, Section 1..
One of my many absurd notions.
They were stolen? I thought he made copies, and left the originals intact.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned this before now. Golly!
I'd vote for a presidential candidate who pledged to eliminate this useless boondoggle agency.
What if the Democrats and the Republicans didn't offer one? Would you be willing to vote for some other candidate?
Because I'm pretty sure that when the dust settles, those two nominees won't make any such pledge.
Another thing wrong with the "Total Recall" remake: no Johnny Cab.
I think the Loglan/Lojban split was settled out of court.
And that the conflict was so vicious because the stakes were so small.
Because that's not how it works?
Yep. Government isn't magic.
The plus side of $15.00 min wage (In Montreal it is almost $14.00 today), is that these low income workers will have some discretionary money to spend on some goods and services
If they still have a job, that is, and their hours aren't cut.
Some people just aren't worth $15/hr to their employers. So after the change, instead of getting a raise, they get the sack. Or they get their hours cut, in favor of someone who is worth at least $15/hr, in the hopes they'll quit.
Turns out government isn't magic, and it isn't omnipotent.
How do you reconcile your statement with the pages cited by the summary?
If someone is paid regularly and does no work, as a result of government legislation, does it really much matter whether they're on welfare or have a "job"?
In the latter case I suppose the employer cares, because they have to pay the non-worker directly, rather than pay taxes that are used to pay the non-worker out of general revenue.
Or near the South Pole, one mile north of a circle a mile in circumference.
... or half a mile in circumference.
... or a third of a mile in circumference.
... etc.
Did Martin Gardner live in vain?
http://www.kyphilom.com/www/games.html#bear
Carbon dioxide likely won't be enough. Best to drop some big-ass ice chunks, too.
Now all that's left is to drop in some nitrogen, and get rid of the hydrogen in some of the water. (Turning it into helium would also release energy, I hear. That could come in handy on a cold planet.)
And now and again, add more (net) oxygen and nitrogen to replace what leaks out the top.
Mars really needs more mass. Higher gravity would help with the leakages.
Would somebody please get working on these things?
It's likely (IM uninformed O) that the obvious policy action -- requiring ex-cons and parolees to not live in their old neighborhood -- will not have as great an effect as the correlation suggests.
Some of those ex-cons may have had a greater commitment to avoiding recidivism, and they *chose* to avoid their old neighborhood. (A correlates with B because both are caused to some extent by C.) Forcing them (recidivism-prone and turnaround-prone) to do something that simulates a commitment to going straight may not help at all, and might even hurt. The lure of the old ways might persist, and not be countered by family and community support for their turn-around.
And it's possible that requiring it might even negatively impact those who would have *chosen* to avoid the old neighborhood. Being forced to avoid it might provoke contrariness.
It is a promising approach to test, though, if someone could be found who: (1) had the ability to do a pilot program, (2) had an incentive to reduce recidivism.
I'm having trouble identifying types of people who fit both criteria.
Before you gripe too much about somebody driving slowly, it's a good to consider the possibility that they don't feel like they can safely drive any faster. If that's the reason, do you really want them to speed up?
Before you gripe too much about somebody not voting, it's a good to consider the possibility that they don't feel like they know enough to vote responsibly. If that's the reason, do you really want them to vote?
OK, it seems we're in agreement that there is a downside to having a minimum wage. So, what is it, and how can it be discovered if there's been too great an increase in the minimum wage?
Or to put it differently, how does one discover what the optimum minimum wage is? Is it the same everywhere in the country? Is it the same for every type of employee? Every type of job?