Location is the reason these system have spare cycles. They build data centers across the street from the market so that they have the lowest latency access to the market (it matters for high frequency trading). A data center on Wall Street is useless for other markets.
Amen to that. We have changed from laborer society to a creative society. You job pays you because you do creative work (intelligent adaptation of previous knowledge). If there isn't any way to protect creative work from being ripped off the value of creative work goes way down and you will be without a job. There is no incentive to invest up-front because someone else can steal and ruin your ability to make back money. I really get annoyed with people saying that business are not adapting to the new environment and technology. It is those people who can't adapt to the environment but must consume as much as possible without contributing anything back.
People would still torrent. Unless the business model is free (maybe with ads) and full quality, people will torrent. Even if it was ad supported people would find ways to block them. People are cheap and when stealing is easy and pseudo-anonymous people will steal.
Random disconnects and abnormally slow speeds sounds like a bad or noisy line. You should get the phone line to your house replaced and that will likely solve the problem. I've used AT&T DSL for years without issues. It is slower then cable, but also quite a bit cheaper. Even as a techie, I for the longest time had a 768k line by choice. I couldn't justify $10-$30 extra a month to watch junk quality internet videos (especially with free HD OTA), and figured I could wait twice as long for my infrequent download (overnight is the same either way). The only disconnect I've ever had was actually with cable internet, the problem was that there is a 4 way splitter out in the open on a telephone pole that apparently someone walking by "kicked" my line out of.
The pay for ABC, otherwise it wouldn't have gone dark. I've heard fees as high as $1 per channel. In fact cable in general is now subsidizing OTA(Over the Air) broadcasts. If everyone switched most local stations would go broke(Some already have). The problem with most content, is there is a complex set of interdependent revenue structures and removing one can break the whole system. Just think if everyone used Hulu instead of cable? There would be a lot less cables channel and a lot less new content.
The best idea for a cable company to resolve this problem is to.... Start an ABC/Disney tier. Make basic cable 50 cents cheaper and charge $3-$5 for a Disney/ABC tier. If people complain then just blame it on a greedy Disney company demanding more more for their content.
According to google 47,000 acres = 73.4375 square miles, with a US population density average of 86.2 people per square mile (wikipedia) generating 800MW of energy would displace ~7000 people in the right areas (less in some areas). Just because you live on the more densely populated east or west coast doesn't mean there isn't plenty of land here in the midwest.
Where is this incompatibility? Specific examples please? This is all speculation. I work an on unreleased Android smart phone and download apps all the time from the market and don't see any compatibility issues. Yes there is a lot of variation in phone, but the framework has methods to deal with that. Incompatibilities are more likely the programmer's fault rather then the phone's fault.
The only place this could be a problem is cutting edge new features or sensors, usually a ODM will implement it in an incompatible way the first generation, but then Google will standardize the interface in the next release (i.e. multitouch)
I agree XKCD shouldn't make the front page of slashdot, but the last 2 XKCD's have been some of their best (top 5%) and the ones before that not too shabby. Either way, with the principle of explosion, I'm going to call your mom and report that you have a dirty mouth among other things to discuss with her over box wine.
The falsifiable hypothesis that I.D. makes is that certain objects can not be the result of natural random processes. Mostly because the certain types of complexity do not evolve out of randomness. For example the complexities of a human can not be a results of a natural random process, but rather at some point had intelligence design in the process. This is a testable theory in the fact that you can test nature's randomness and analyze the results in a scientific way.
This does not disprove evolution, it also does not prove creationism. However it is science.
I.D. actually is fairly scientific and mathematical study. Granted some creationists abuse it to come to weird conclusions. I.D. is a statistical study of what are the characteristics derived from purely random processes. How do these characteristics compare to those of intelligent processes? If we found an pottery in the ground, was that evolved from clay and random processes or does it display sufficiently non-random characteristics to show that something intelligent made it?
Evolution is a very broad term and for the most parts does have lots of evidence. However given that creationism is the explanation of the origin of life, the amount of evidence towards the origin of life for evolution is probably not significant enough that reasonable scientists would completely disregard either.
You just described both extremes, the voice of rationality says that any could of happened and not ruling out possibility based on preconceived notions which both sides have.
I can agree that provably false theories can be excluded, however I don't believe that to be the case in this discussion. All I'm saying is that by presenting contrasting view you allow people to use the scientific process themselves about what to decided rather then deciding for them. Deciding for them only propagates extremist views.
Obviously the numbers of theories would need to be limited, but teaching science shouldn't be the teaching of facts or theory, it should be teaching the scientific process of how those facts and theory came to be accepted science. Presenting multiple contrasting theories with discussion about both would seem to be beneficial.
I'm not saying one guess is as good as another, I'm just saying the most popular guesses should be compared and contrasted for people to decide for themselves. Zealots on both sides only want one extreme view presented as fact when it will never be.
In the same manner saying "god didn't do it" without being able to prove it seems just as ignorant.
Science isn't fact and can change, just think about what will could be saying 10,000 years from now about how all those (Evolutionists, Creationists) from 2010 were idiots based on the evidence we have in 12010.
The problem is that you are the exception to the rule, most people believe what ever they are told and that is how narrow-minded zealots propagate. I am arguing that people would be less likely to blindly accept things if our educational practices were to present neutral pros and cons on many view points and have people decide for themselves.
Take science for example, science is not a democracy.
But science really is democracy, people put forth ideas which other confirm or refute and eventually the best ideas stick around. How many scientists with ideas no one else agrees with is getting facts into science books?
The problem with science is that for historical events, science is only theorizing a best guess based on the current evidence. It's not a fact, it didn't happen that way, it is a guess with some logical thinking behind it. This doesn't make other guesses incorrect, which is often assumed by science, just less likely based on a certain way of thinking. Honest neutral evaluation of different perspective is the best solution, because it allows people to decide for themselves. Right now there isn't intelligent argument in this area because both extremes are too brain-washed to consider middle ground as the real answer and they only perpetuate their extreme views.
Science is not the search for truth, just facts. If you want truth you should seek out philosophy.
But without written and verified documentation on history, Science can not find out the facts of what did happen, it can only guess based on evidence. That really the only problem I have with Science people is they assume it is fact when it isn't. It is the best guess based on the recently collected evidence. However guessing on recently collected evidence can have its own flaws based on assumptions. How can we say that 1000 years of evidence can accurately predict billions of years before?
Slashdot Mirror
You just don't know where to find the $10 1TB hard drives. I'm going to buy them out and sell them on Ebay!
Location is the reason these system have spare cycles. They build data centers across the street from the market so that they have the lowest latency access to the market (it matters for high frequency trading). A data center on Wall Street is useless for other markets.
Amen to that. We have changed from laborer society to a creative society. You job pays you because you do creative work (intelligent adaptation of previous knowledge). If there isn't any way to protect creative work from being ripped off the value of creative work goes way down and you will be without a job. There is no incentive to invest up-front because someone else can steal and ruin your ability to make back money. I really get annoyed with people saying that business are not adapting to the new environment and technology. It is those people who can't adapt to the environment but must consume as much as possible without contributing anything back.
People would still torrent. Unless the business model is free (maybe with ads) and full quality, people will torrent. Even if it was ad supported people would find ways to block them. People are cheap and when stealing is easy and pseudo-anonymous people will steal.
Random disconnects and abnormally slow speeds sounds like a bad or noisy line. You should get the phone line to your house replaced and that will likely solve the problem. I've used AT&T DSL for years without issues. It is slower then cable, but also quite a bit cheaper. Even as a techie, I for the longest time had a 768k line by choice. I couldn't justify $10-$30 extra a month to watch junk quality internet videos (especially with free HD OTA), and figured I could wait twice as long for my infrequent download (overnight is the same either way). The only disconnect I've ever had was actually with cable internet, the problem was that there is a 4 way splitter out in the open on a telephone pole that apparently someone walking by "kicked" my line out of.
Well godzilla (Godzilla, King of the Monsters) was on youtube, until viacom sent a DMCA notice to take it down.
Good article links, thanks, wish I had mod points.
The pay for ABC, otherwise it wouldn't have gone dark. I've heard fees as high as $1 per channel. In fact cable in general is now subsidizing OTA(Over the Air) broadcasts. If everyone switched most local stations would go broke(Some already have). The problem with most content, is there is a complex set of interdependent revenue structures and removing one can break the whole system. Just think if everyone used Hulu instead of cable? There would be a lot less cables channel and a lot less new content.
The best idea for a cable company to resolve this problem is to.... Start an ABC/Disney tier. Make basic cable 50 cents cheaper and charge $3-$5 for a Disney/ABC tier. If people complain then just blame it on a greedy Disney company demanding more more for their content.
Maximum power consumption when chassis is fully configured with line cards with traffic running: 12320W
Apparently a fully configured rack needs it's own air conditioning unit.
Ok, 322Tbit/sec is cool and all, but where is the geek porn of it? Images, technical details and specifications? Otherwise it is vaporware to me.
According to google 47,000 acres = 73.4375 square miles, with a US population density average of 86.2 people per square mile (wikipedia) generating 800MW of energy would displace ~7000 people in the right areas (less in some areas). Just because you live on the more densely populated east or west coast doesn't mean there isn't plenty of land here in the midwest.
Where is this incompatibility? Specific examples please? This is all speculation. I work an on unreleased Android smart phone and download apps all the time from the market and don't see any compatibility issues. Yes there is a lot of variation in phone, but the framework has methods to deal with that. Incompatibilities are more likely the programmer's fault rather then the phone's fault.
The only place this could be a problem is cutting edge new features or sensors, usually a ODM will implement it in an incompatible way the first generation, but then Google will standardize the interface in the next release (i.e. multitouch)
I agree XKCD shouldn't make the front page of slashdot, but the last 2 XKCD's have been some of their best (top 5%) and the ones before that not too shabby. Either way, with the principle of explosion, I'm going to call your mom and report that you have a dirty mouth among other things to discuss with her over box wine.
The falsifiable hypothesis that I.D. makes is that certain objects can not be the result of natural random processes. Mostly because the certain types of complexity do not evolve out of randomness. For example the complexities of a human can not be a results of a natural random process, but rather at some point had intelligence design in the process. This is a testable theory in the fact that you can test nature's randomness and analyze the results in a scientific way.
This does not disprove evolution, it also does not prove creationism. However it is science.
I.D. actually is fairly scientific and mathematical study. Granted some creationists abuse it to come to weird conclusions. I.D. is a statistical study of what are the characteristics derived from purely random processes. How do these characteristics compare to those of intelligent processes? If we found an pottery in the ground, was that evolved from clay and random processes or does it display sufficiently non-random characteristics to show that something intelligent made it?
Evolution is a very broad term and for the most parts does have lots of evidence. However given that creationism is the explanation of the origin of life, the amount of evidence towards the origin of life for evolution is probably not significant enough that reasonable scientists would completely disregard either.
You just described both extremes, the voice of rationality says that any could of happened and not ruling out possibility based on preconceived notions which both sides have.
I can agree that provably false theories can be excluded, however I don't believe that to be the case in this discussion. All I'm saying is that by presenting contrasting view you allow people to use the scientific process themselves about what to decided rather then deciding for them. Deciding for them only propagates extremist views.
Obviously the numbers of theories would need to be limited, but teaching science shouldn't be the teaching of facts or theory, it should be teaching the scientific process of how those facts and theory came to be accepted science. Presenting multiple contrasting theories with discussion about both would seem to be beneficial.
I'm not saying one guess is as good as another, I'm just saying the most popular guesses should be compared and contrasted for people to decide for themselves. Zealots on both sides only want one extreme view presented as fact when it will never be.
In the same manner saying "god didn't do it" without being able to prove it seems just as ignorant. Science isn't fact and can change, just think about what will could be saying 10,000 years from now about how all those (Evolutionists, Creationists) from 2010 were idiots based on the evidence we have in 12010.
The problem is that you are the exception to the rule, most people believe what ever they are told and that is how narrow-minded zealots propagate. I am arguing that people would be less likely to blindly accept things if our educational practices were to present neutral pros and cons on many view points and have people decide for themselves.
Take science for example, science is not a democracy.
But science really is democracy, people put forth ideas which other confirm or refute and eventually the best ideas stick around. How many scientists with ideas no one else agrees with is getting facts into science books?
The problem with science is that for historical events, science is only theorizing a best guess based on the current evidence. It's not a fact, it didn't happen that way, it is a guess with some logical thinking behind it. This doesn't make other guesses incorrect, which is often assumed by science, just less likely based on a certain way of thinking. Honest neutral evaluation of different perspective is the best solution, because it allows people to decide for themselves. Right now there isn't intelligent argument in this area because both extremes are too brain-washed to consider middle ground as the real answer and they only perpetuate their extreme views.
Science is not the search for truth, just facts. If you want truth you should seek out philosophy.
But without written and verified documentation on history, Science can not find out the facts of what did happen, it can only guess based on evidence. That really the only problem I have with Science people is they assume it is fact when it isn't. It is the best guess based on the recently collected evidence. However guessing on recently collected evidence can have its own flaws based on assumptions. How can we say that 1000 years of evidence can accurately predict billions of years before?