None of this is really new. Over 100 years ago local general stores were losing business to Sears Roebuck or Wards who had much the same idea of delivering product to customers only they used magazine catalogs instead of webpages.
Somehow the world and economy survived and improved greatly on the whole. You forget that people who save money buying through Amazon instead of at a mall now have additional money to spend into the local economy.
In another century Amazon will be supplanted by something else. Probably local businesses that can 3D print or otherwise fabricate custom goods for consumers.
That's what I was wondering about as well. The lack of ECC support seems like a deal breaker for some workloads. The weird thing is that their previous HEDT chips had ECC support, so I'm not sure why they removed it, especially when they have more competition than anytime in recent memory.
I think I'll just sit this one out and wait until 8K or whatever else comes out after this because you know they're going to need something new to sell everyone in another five years. Hopefully they'll reach a point where they can just quit though so we can break the cycle. I mean 64K ought to be enough for anybody.
That seems to imply that the number of bugs is (relatively) constant. Adding automatic bounds checking to a language prevents a whole category of bugs, particularly ones that can be quite nasty. Sure if you had only skillful and exceptionally careful programmers, you wouldn't get those types of bugs either, but that's wishful thinking in most cases.
If there is some truth to what you I suspect its for tangental reasons. I'd hypothesize that languages that solve many of those categories of errors have much lower barriers to entry and therefor you get more cowboys using them who are making other kinds of mistakes because they're idiots and not because a programmer must make some fixed number of mistakes somewhere. Those people wouldn't be trusted with languages that didn't prevent them from introducing certain types of bugs because they would be counter productive for their team and create more problems than they solve, but languages that cut down on the potential types of mistakes that can be made mean there are entire categories of bugs that they can't introduce and that they can probably be productive.
It's another old adage: "Make something foolproof and the universe will invent a better fool."
I suppose as it probably took some courage to post something as asinine as this. It also takes courage to climb into a cage with a lion. Just because something takes courage doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea.
Can they force a person to disclose which finger should be used though or compel a person to use the correct one? Sure may not matter since it's almost always going to be the thumb on a person's dominant hand, but if you had it set to require the password after a single failed attempt they might have more troubles with that approach.
Your own existence is likely to result in the breaking of one or more laws at some point. Should we be able to sue you for something that you might well do or cause without establishing any actual harm first?
It shouldn't be too difficult for them to find one or two people who have been affected by this issue. Having shitty default security isn't a crime in and of itself (though perhaps it could be fraud if they tried to pass it off as really good security) so it requires someone who's actually been harmed in order for legal action to proceed. Anything else would result in even more frivolous lawsuits and an even more bogged down legal system.
That's poor comparison. Reckless driving is a citable offense in many places. A better example would be if the cop wouldn't even let you get into your car at all because you might drive recklessly. Typically they would have to show some cause for that such as you being inebriated, but most of them would probably just wait for you to get in the vehicle so they can actually bust you.
It's still pretty impressive especially if you account for most of the growth being towards more cores. That's going to have higher diminishing returns than single core improvements.
Anything else improving 3x in ten years would be pretty much miraculous. Imagine if cars now got that much improvement in fuel efficiency. We're so spoiled it's not even funny.
I think the better question is what's different about this time. They already tried buying a device maker once with Motorola (although to be fair Motorola was trying to put a gun to Google's head with patent threats) and while they produced some interesting devices, none of them caught on in the market and they ended up unloading the company a few years later to Lenovo.
I'm curious what their plan is this time around, or they're just buying another slumping handset manufacturer to prop them up for a few years until they realize that they aren't making any money and end up selling the company to a Chinese manufacturer interested in buying the brand.
Sure you can leave your phone behind, but as soon as you try to use the watch to take phone calls for any prolonged period that battery is shot and now you've got nothing. I was somewhat interested in Apple's smartwatches as I've wanted a really good fitness tracker and it seems as though they've got some stuff you don't get with a standard Fitbit, but Apple seems to be putting a lot of effort in the wrong direction in my mind. I can understand that as technology improves, having cellular access in a watch will be the norm, but it still feels too far ahead of its time right now to be actually useful.
Twitter is a private service and can remove users for violating their terms of services. I suspect that the grant-parent poster was trying to be a bit pithy by alluding to whether these accounts were actual terrorists or merely just people who held politically incorrect view points as Twitter has also caught a lot of flak for banning the accounts of people who have been associated with the alt-right or maybe even just the regular right.
I personally think it's kind of pointless to ban anyone as free speech and public discourse are far better ways of dealing with idiots like ISIS. Trying to silence them just adds some mystique and allure to their cause, especially if you already dislike the government or western society for any number of reasons.
All that aside, I think you missed my point entirely. It was that with a group like ISIS, their actions make me question what kind of freedom they're fighting for since it seems they have no desire to bring freedom to anyone, but rather to extinguish it. I suppose, you could reinterpret the expression to take it that they are actively fighting against freedom instead of the usual meaning of people fighting for freedom.
Yes it's not as interesting as having a benchmark of how it will perform in a real-world situation, but it is at least useful in comparing it against other vehicles assuming that they were also tested in a similar way as you can get an idea of relative performance gains.
They probably have done some more realistic simulations where they have weighted dummies loaded on the bus and make periodic starts and stops to simulating running an actual route. This test is done purely for marketing purposes though, as 1,101 miles sounds a lot more impressive and is going to get more people talking about it than if they did a more realistic simulation.
That's a fair point, but when someone is posting videos of burning apostates alive or beheading their enemies, I question what kind of freedom they're fighting for.
I don't think he'll be successful at all. 4chan did much worse to Ben Garrison where they took it beyond turning his cartoons into antisemitic versions, but also turned the cartoonist himself into a meme of sorts. At this point it's probably better for him to just consider the character dead and gone or just wait for the meme to play itself out.
In general I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think this particular implementation would work out well as there are some unintended consequences when it becomes better for companies to hold on to cash rather than return it to shareholders, which would additional taxes. It also creates an incentive for a person to incorporate as some kind of sole-proprietorship that can avoid paying taxes on profits instead of recording that income as personal income. Sure you could make something like that illegal, but what's to stop someone from creating a small business that happens to be completely employee owned that attempts to do the same thing?
Any competition results in a race towards the bottom, or stated in a less judgmental way, a strategy that produces the best outcomes. You can't get around this unless you grant a monopoly to some entity and prohibit anyone from competing against them, but that has potential consequences of its own. See arguments against patents (software or otherwise), for example.
You probably don't or wouldn't complain about how this race to the bottom has enabled cheap computers, cellular phones, or any number of other goods and services that you're able to afford because individuals and companies are competing for your business.
I think it's a silly idea that anyone can create jobs, whether its a government or even a business. I suppose if you had a massive amount of capital you can slowly dispense it and have people do whatever you want them to, but that's clearly not sustainable. It's consumer demand that ultimately creates jobs, otherwise you could simply have people make and sell mud sculptures of Elvis for a living and there would be no unemployment.
Fortunately for us all, humans have pretty much an endless supply of wants. Sure once you have a lot of many different goods, you might not want that much more of it, but there's always things that wear out and require repair or replacement. Even when a person has plenty of material goods, they typically also want social status, or to be able to spend more time with their family, or to have some new experience in their life.
As you point out though, no one else really cares about anyone else's job. They just want goods and services at lower costs because it makes their own labor more valuable by comparison. There aren't too many cases where humans will go against this either, and most examples tend to be focused around small communities or tribal groups. The jobs will be lost sooner or later whether this company succeeds or its someone else with a similar idea and better execution. Small town general stores were largely supplanted by large wholesalers like Sears that would deliver, who were in turn replaced by malls and a new generation of retailers, who are now all dying because companies like Amazon are eating their lunch. The common thread is that its consumers who are dictating what jobs exist based on who can supply them with the cheapest access to the goods and services they desire. In the same way this might kill corner stores, but eventually something is going to kill these. Sure, existing jobs will be lost, but they give way to new ones in turn.
Although it seems kind of silly, you never know what you might get when you take a good look at nature. Nature is a cruel thing and it tends to favor more efficient solutions to survival. For as smart as humans can be, sometimes looking at the results of hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution can help to guide us in the right direction.
There are already a lot of people who do though and there are plenty of individuals and companies in the U.S. that are already taking more action of their own accord than anything the Paris Accord would do. The Paris Accord does absolutely nothing to move towards a solution.
Imagine for the sake of argument that we were on some other timeline (whether this one or that one is the darkest is really up to you) where Clinton had won and we aren't even having this conversation because she just goes along for the photo op and only Syria and Nicaragua are left out, or maybe they even join for the sake of argument. In four years Clinton loses reelection and the Republican president probably pulls us out just states that we're not going to do whatever non-binding things we didn't have to actually do anyways, so even if we couldn't actually withdraw, we had effectively done just that.
The Paris Accord does absolutely nothing, because joining doesn't mean that all of the countries are fully on board on that the politics can't shift. Realistically, most of them just don't do anything that they weren't going to do already regardless of what non-binding promises they made. Even if some politician gets called out for not sticking to them, they only need point at everyone else not sticking to them either and that it's unfair to impose the agreement in a non-unilateral way. It's really just a prisoner's dilemma where there's almost no penalty for defecting and very little immediate rewards for not playing greedy.
The end result is exactly what we have now where no one is under any obligation, but there are plenty of individuals and corporations doing good things regardless because they actually want to. We as consumers are then free to reward them with our business or avoid companies that we don't feel are doing enough. Beyond that this isn't much different than creating a Facebook group called the Paris Accord and having people like it. Hell, that might even be more effective since you're at least getting individuals to commit and potentially face scorn from their peer groups if they behave hypocritically.
I thought that cavities were the result of bacteria breaking down leftover food in the mouth and that the bacteria doesn't attack the teeth itself, but rather byproducts of the metabolic process that the bacteria use to eat lead to decay of tooth enamel. Perhaps I have an incomplete (or outright incorrect) understanding, because if that's the case, just using some mouth wash periodically would be just as effective as a lot of that is anti-bacterial in addition to containing fluoride that can bond with your enamel to help repair damages.
The heart disease link is certainly interesting and that's something I've never heard of before. Might you have some literature regarding that?
What's the point of having measurable goals if there's obligation to meet any of them. I can intend to solve world hunger by next Thursday and ask you to contribute money to help me do so, but I can't see how you would trust me with any money if I were also to say that all of my proposed goals or targets are non-binding and I'm not technically obligated to spend any of the money on solving world hunger in the first place.
Nicaragua is probably the only country who is on the money in all of this. The Paris Accord won't actually accomplish anything beyond being some feel-good self-masturbatory act that serves as a good photo op. It's just Kony 2012 on a worldwide stage. Get a group of countries to agree to some binding resolutions that might make a difference. They don't even need to be difficult ones either. Something as simple as a binding promise to stop all government subsidies or tax breaks to oil companies would help make alternative energy sources more economical even if the government does nothing to fund them.
I mean I'm sure that letting the universe know that we as a planet stand united against global warming or some shit like that is sure going to stop climate change in its tracks. Probably get it just shaking in its boots to the point that the temperatures recede a good half degree or so.
If it really takes that long, go grab a cup of coffee, run to the restroom, or do any other number of small mundane tasks that are going to occupy your time at some point in the day while the IDE starts. If stating the IDE truly takes that long on your machine and you're not just being hyperbolic, compiling is going to eat up even more time in which case you probably need a new machine.
The problem with that argument though is that all pharmaceutical research is bullshit because the company paying for the study and testing their drug clearly wants to be able to sell it. It's the same tired argument as the one about climate scientists only getting the results they do so they can continue to get funding.
It seems quite clear from studies that consuming large amounts of sugar is bad for you. It also happens that not getting exercise is bad for you too. So is smoking, heavy drinking, and a whole bunch of other things. It's not as though there's only one thing that kills you and anyone claiming otherwise is part of some shadowy conspiracy to hide the truth for their own nefarious ends.
If we want to know for sure, the scientific method just says we should replicate the study. If we're worried there were some flaws in the design of the original or in its methodology, we can fix them. It's entirely possible for us to exist in a world where this study is completely correct in its findings and that Coca Cola provided funding because it gets people to focus on other causes of poor health than their product.
Slashdot Mirror
None of this is really new. Over 100 years ago local general stores were losing business to Sears Roebuck or Wards who had much the same idea of delivering product to customers only they used magazine catalogs instead of webpages.
Somehow the world and economy survived and improved greatly on the whole. You forget that people who save money buying through Amazon instead of at a mall now have additional money to spend into the local economy.
In another century Amazon will be supplanted by something else. Probably local businesses that can 3D print or otherwise fabricate custom goods for consumers.
That's what I was wondering about as well. The lack of ECC support seems like a deal breaker for some workloads. The weird thing is that their previous HEDT chips had ECC support, so I'm not sure why they removed it, especially when they have more competition than anytime in recent memory.
I think I'll just sit this one out and wait until 8K or whatever else comes out after this because you know they're going to need something new to sell everyone in another five years. Hopefully they'll reach a point where they can just quit though so we can break the cycle. I mean 64K ought to be enough for anybody.
Spoken like a self-important narcissist that expects the rest of the world to revolve around you.
That seems to imply that the number of bugs is (relatively) constant. Adding automatic bounds checking to a language prevents a whole category of bugs, particularly ones that can be quite nasty. Sure if you had only skillful and exceptionally careful programmers, you wouldn't get those types of bugs either, but that's wishful thinking in most cases.
If there is some truth to what you I suspect its for tangental reasons. I'd hypothesize that languages that solve many of those categories of errors have much lower barriers to entry and therefor you get more cowboys using them who are making other kinds of mistakes because they're idiots and not because a programmer must make some fixed number of mistakes somewhere. Those people wouldn't be trusted with languages that didn't prevent them from introducing certain types of bugs because they would be counter productive for their team and create more problems than they solve, but languages that cut down on the potential types of mistakes that can be made mean there are entire categories of bugs that they can't introduce and that they can probably be productive.
It's another old adage: "Make something foolproof and the universe will invent a better fool."
I suppose as it probably took some courage to post something as asinine as this. It also takes courage to climb into a cage with a lion. Just because something takes courage doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea.
Can they force a person to disclose which finger should be used though or compel a person to use the correct one? Sure may not matter since it's almost always going to be the thumb on a person's dominant hand, but if you had it set to require the password after a single failed attempt they might have more troubles with that approach.
Your own existence is likely to result in the breaking of one or more laws at some point. Should we be able to sue you for something that you might well do or cause without establishing any actual harm first?
It shouldn't be too difficult for them to find one or two people who have been affected by this issue. Having shitty default security isn't a crime in and of itself (though perhaps it could be fraud if they tried to pass it off as really good security) so it requires someone who's actually been harmed in order for legal action to proceed. Anything else would result in even more frivolous lawsuits and an even more bogged down legal system.
That's poor comparison. Reckless driving is a citable offense in many places. A better example would be if the cop wouldn't even let you get into your car at all because you might drive recklessly. Typically they would have to show some cause for that such as you being inebriated, but most of them would probably just wait for you to get in the vehicle so they can actually bust you.
It's still pretty impressive especially if you account for most of the growth being towards more cores. That's going to have higher diminishing returns than single core improvements.
Anything else improving 3x in ten years would be pretty much miraculous. Imagine if cars now got that much improvement in fuel efficiency. We're so spoiled it's not even funny.
I think the better question is what's different about this time. They already tried buying a device maker once with Motorola (although to be fair Motorola was trying to put a gun to Google's head with patent threats) and while they produced some interesting devices, none of them caught on in the market and they ended up unloading the company a few years later to Lenovo.
I'm curious what their plan is this time around, or they're just buying another slumping handset manufacturer to prop them up for a few years until they realize that they aren't making any money and end up selling the company to a Chinese manufacturer interested in buying the brand.
Sure you can leave your phone behind, but as soon as you try to use the watch to take phone calls for any prolonged period that battery is shot and now you've got nothing. I was somewhat interested in Apple's smartwatches as I've wanted a really good fitness tracker and it seems as though they've got some stuff you don't get with a standard Fitbit, but Apple seems to be putting a lot of effort in the wrong direction in my mind. I can understand that as technology improves, having cellular access in a watch will be the norm, but it still feels too far ahead of its time right now to be actually useful.
Twitter is a private service and can remove users for violating their terms of services. I suspect that the grant-parent poster was trying to be a bit pithy by alluding to whether these accounts were actual terrorists or merely just people who held politically incorrect view points as Twitter has also caught a lot of flak for banning the accounts of people who have been associated with the alt-right or maybe even just the regular right.
I personally think it's kind of pointless to ban anyone as free speech and public discourse are far better ways of dealing with idiots like ISIS. Trying to silence them just adds some mystique and allure to their cause, especially if you already dislike the government or western society for any number of reasons.
All that aside, I think you missed my point entirely. It was that with a group like ISIS, their actions make me question what kind of freedom they're fighting for since it seems they have no desire to bring freedom to anyone, but rather to extinguish it. I suppose, you could reinterpret the expression to take it that they are actively fighting against freedom instead of the usual meaning of people fighting for freedom.
Yes it's not as interesting as having a benchmark of how it will perform in a real-world situation, but it is at least useful in comparing it against other vehicles assuming that they were also tested in a similar way as you can get an idea of relative performance gains.
They probably have done some more realistic simulations where they have weighted dummies loaded on the bus and make periodic starts and stops to simulating running an actual route. This test is done purely for marketing purposes though, as 1,101 miles sounds a lot more impressive and is going to get more people talking about it than if they did a more realistic simulation.
That's a fair point, but when someone is posting videos of burning apostates alive or beheading their enemies, I question what kind of freedom they're fighting for.
I don't think he'll be successful at all. 4chan did much worse to Ben Garrison where they took it beyond turning his cartoons into antisemitic versions, but also turned the cartoonist himself into a meme of sorts. At this point it's probably better for him to just consider the character dead and gone or just wait for the meme to play itself out.
In general I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think this particular implementation would work out well as there are some unintended consequences when it becomes better for companies to hold on to cash rather than return it to shareholders, which would additional taxes. It also creates an incentive for a person to incorporate as some kind of sole-proprietorship that can avoid paying taxes on profits instead of recording that income as personal income. Sure you could make something like that illegal, but what's to stop someone from creating a small business that happens to be completely employee owned that attempts to do the same thing?
Any competition results in a race towards the bottom, or stated in a less judgmental way, a strategy that produces the best outcomes. You can't get around this unless you grant a monopoly to some entity and prohibit anyone from competing against them, but that has potential consequences of its own. See arguments against patents (software or otherwise), for example.
You probably don't or wouldn't complain about how this race to the bottom has enabled cheap computers, cellular phones, or any number of other goods and services that you're able to afford because individuals and companies are competing for your business.
I think it's a silly idea that anyone can create jobs, whether its a government or even a business. I suppose if you had a massive amount of capital you can slowly dispense it and have people do whatever you want them to, but that's clearly not sustainable. It's consumer demand that ultimately creates jobs, otherwise you could simply have people make and sell mud sculptures of Elvis for a living and there would be no unemployment.
Fortunately for us all, humans have pretty much an endless supply of wants. Sure once you have a lot of many different goods, you might not want that much more of it, but there's always things that wear out and require repair or replacement. Even when a person has plenty of material goods, they typically also want social status, or to be able to spend more time with their family, or to have some new experience in their life.
As you point out though, no one else really cares about anyone else's job. They just want goods and services at lower costs because it makes their own labor more valuable by comparison. There aren't too many cases where humans will go against this either, and most examples tend to be focused around small communities or tribal groups. The jobs will be lost sooner or later whether this company succeeds or its someone else with a similar idea and better execution. Small town general stores were largely supplanted by large wholesalers like Sears that would deliver, who were in turn replaced by malls and a new generation of retailers, who are now all dying because companies like Amazon are eating their lunch. The common thread is that its consumers who are dictating what jobs exist based on who can supply them with the cheapest access to the goods and services they desire. In the same way this might kill corner stores, but eventually something is going to kill these. Sure, existing jobs will be lost, but they give way to new ones in turn.
Although it seems kind of silly, you never know what you might get when you take a good look at nature. Nature is a cruel thing and it tends to favor more efficient solutions to survival. For as smart as humans can be, sometimes looking at the results of hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution can help to guide us in the right direction.
There are already a lot of people who do though and there are plenty of individuals and companies in the U.S. that are already taking more action of their own accord than anything the Paris Accord would do. The Paris Accord does absolutely nothing to move towards a solution.
Imagine for the sake of argument that we were on some other timeline (whether this one or that one is the darkest is really up to you) where Clinton had won and we aren't even having this conversation because she just goes along for the photo op and only Syria and Nicaragua are left out, or maybe they even join for the sake of argument. In four years Clinton loses reelection and the Republican president probably pulls us out just states that we're not going to do whatever non-binding things we didn't have to actually do anyways, so even if we couldn't actually withdraw, we had effectively done just that.
The Paris Accord does absolutely nothing, because joining doesn't mean that all of the countries are fully on board on that the politics can't shift. Realistically, most of them just don't do anything that they weren't going to do already regardless of what non-binding promises they made. Even if some politician gets called out for not sticking to them, they only need point at everyone else not sticking to them either and that it's unfair to impose the agreement in a non-unilateral way. It's really just a prisoner's dilemma where there's almost no penalty for defecting and very little immediate rewards for not playing greedy.
The end result is exactly what we have now where no one is under any obligation, but there are plenty of individuals and corporations doing good things regardless because they actually want to. We as consumers are then free to reward them with our business or avoid companies that we don't feel are doing enough. Beyond that this isn't much different than creating a Facebook group called the Paris Accord and having people like it. Hell, that might even be more effective since you're at least getting individuals to commit and potentially face scorn from their peer groups if they behave hypocritically.
I thought that cavities were the result of bacteria breaking down leftover food in the mouth and that the bacteria doesn't attack the teeth itself, but rather byproducts of the metabolic process that the bacteria use to eat lead to decay of tooth enamel. Perhaps I have an incomplete (or outright incorrect) understanding, because if that's the case, just using some mouth wash periodically would be just as effective as a lot of that is anti-bacterial in addition to containing fluoride that can bond with your enamel to help repair damages.
The heart disease link is certainly interesting and that's something I've never heard of before. Might you have some literature regarding that?
What's the point of having measurable goals if there's obligation to meet any of them. I can intend to solve world hunger by next Thursday and ask you to contribute money to help me do so, but I can't see how you would trust me with any money if I were also to say that all of my proposed goals or targets are non-binding and I'm not technically obligated to spend any of the money on solving world hunger in the first place.
Nicaragua is probably the only country who is on the money in all of this. The Paris Accord won't actually accomplish anything beyond being some feel-good self-masturbatory act that serves as a good photo op. It's just Kony 2012 on a worldwide stage. Get a group of countries to agree to some binding resolutions that might make a difference. They don't even need to be difficult ones either. Something as simple as a binding promise to stop all government subsidies or tax breaks to oil companies would help make alternative energy sources more economical even if the government does nothing to fund them.
I mean I'm sure that letting the universe know that we as a planet stand united against global warming or some shit like that is sure going to stop climate change in its tracks. Probably get it just shaking in its boots to the point that the temperatures recede a good half degree or so.
If it really takes that long, go grab a cup of coffee, run to the restroom, or do any other number of small mundane tasks that are going to occupy your time at some point in the day while the IDE starts. If stating the IDE truly takes that long on your machine and you're not just being hyperbolic, compiling is going to eat up even more time in which case you probably need a new machine.
The problem with that argument though is that all pharmaceutical research is bullshit because the company paying for the study and testing their drug clearly wants to be able to sell it. It's the same tired argument as the one about climate scientists only getting the results they do so they can continue to get funding.
It seems quite clear from studies that consuming large amounts of sugar is bad for you. It also happens that not getting exercise is bad for you too. So is smoking, heavy drinking, and a whole bunch of other things. It's not as though there's only one thing that kills you and anyone claiming otherwise is part of some shadowy conspiracy to hide the truth for their own nefarious ends.
If we want to know for sure, the scientific method just says we should replicate the study. If we're worried there were some flaws in the design of the original or in its methodology, we can fix them. It's entirely possible for us to exist in a world where this study is completely correct in its findings and that Coca Cola provided funding because it gets people to focus on other causes of poor health than their product.