"My opinion is there is problem as I see it is there is a big abuse on free speech."
I totally agree. After the Las Vegas mass shooting, I spent most of two days watching youtube conspiracy theories about it. It was pretty clear that they were wrong, but nonetheless, I found them fascinating. Since when is all entertainment required to be educational? And what if the videos had turned out to be correct?
The authorities "knew" that Galileo was wrong back in the 17th century, but that didn't make their censorship of him OK.
Is this already being used for advertising purposes? I had a potentially serious health issue last month, and received my very first snail mail advertisement for "cremation services" 30 days later. I'm feeling like the modern tech economy has become a committee of vultures circling over all of our heads.
1) Tulips don't have a limited supply. I.e. as tulips are bred, their supply can increase exponentially over time. 2) Tulips aren't divisible. I.e. you can't pay 0.032 tulips for something. 3) Tulips aren't easily transportable. I.e. you can't send a tulip to china in a few minutes. 4) Tulips aren't durable. If you kept one for 20 years, it would be unlikely to be in good condition afterwards. 5) Tulips aren't uniform. One tulip is not like another.
That's not possible. 4KB is 32000 bits, so there are 2 ^ 32000 ~= 10 ^ 10000 possible 4KB sequences. That's a one followed by 10,000 zeros number of sequences you would have needed to compare to find the one you were looking for. If you could have compared a billion sequences / second, it would have taken the age of the universe times nearly infinity to locate the sequence you were looking for. You must have had a bug in your code - perhaps your random number generator was faulty, or you weren't comparing the full 4KB length of the data.
I might remember something about that 30 year ago scheme! One of my father's friends (a professional mathematician who worked for a well-known defense contractor) invested in it in mid-1987. I thought about it and told my father's friend that I didn't think the claims were plausible and suggested that he try to get his money back - which annoyed him. Never heard anything about it since, and my father's friend died many years ago. I wish I knew the name of the technology or company.
He's using 50 polygons to render the final picture. By appearances, each polygon has roughly five vertexes. Each vertex needs an x and y position, so say two bytes total per vertex. That's 500 bytes for the whole picture, and the picture looks pretty grainy.
Also I'm puzzled by the claims about hundred layer 3D NAND chips. I can see how a hundred-layer chip would increase density and therefore could reduce access latency, but I don't see how it could significantly reduce cost-per-bit. Sure, there will be a hundred times as many bits per square cm, but a hundred times as many manufacturing processing steps should be required to make it, thereby increasing manufacturing cost a hundred-fold. Also, with all those manufacturing steps, the chance of defects also goes up, thereby reducing yields and increasing costs even more. Reduced latency would be cool, but I don't see it reducing cost-per-bit by much, if at all.
Also, Intel seems to be peculiarly self-contradicting when discussing their 3D XPoint technology. In 2015 they claimed that 3D XPoint was NOT phase-change technology and that it was already in volume production to prepare for sale in early 2016. In 2016 they're claiming that 3D XPoint IS phase-change technology and will not enter volume production until 2017.
I've become very cynical about all this. Frankly, I'll believe these things when I can see them with my own eyes.
1) The first paper you linked to was entitled "5D Data Storage by Ultrafast Laser Nanostructuring in Glass" published in 2013 - not the same title as the one referred to by the article: "5D Data Storage by Ultrafast Laser Writing in Glass" due to be published tomorrow (2016).
2) The second paper you linked to mentions a pitch of "up to" 150 nm but was published in 2006.
3) Using the 150 nm pitch figure from the 2006 paper: 25400000 nm per inch / 150 nm pitch = 170000 dots per inch per layer 170000 dots per inch per layer * 3 layers = 510000 dots per inch 510000 dots per inch * 3 bits per dot = 1530000 bits per inch (1530000 bits per inch)^2 = 2.3 Tb per square inch 2.3 Tb per square inch / 8 bits per byte = 293 GB per square inch So only twice the density of the latest 10TB HDDs (140 GB per square inch)
3) According to the phys.org article linked in the summary: "The file is written in three layers of nanostructured dots separated by five micrometres (one millionth of a metre)." 25400 um per inch / 5 um pitch = 5000 dots per inch per layer 5000 dots per inch per layer * 3 layers = 15000 dots per inch 15000 dots per inch * 3 bits per dot = 45000 bits per inch (45000 bits per inch)^2 = 2 Gb per square inch 2 Gb per square inch / 8 bits per byte = 250 MB per square inch So only 0.0018 times the density of the latest 10TB HDDs (140 GB per square inch)
4) 200kHz laser pulses would give: 200 kb per second / 8 bits per byte = 25 kB per second 360TB claimed data storage / 25 kB per second = 14400000000 seconds 14400000000 seconds / 32 Million seconds per year = 450 years So 450 years to read or write the disk.
Interesting, but it still doesn't clarify any tax implications. Under U.S. law (not applicable in Australia, of course) bitcoin is taxable under capital gains law only when it's exchanged for something else of value. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Newly-mined bitcoin is also treatable as business revenue based on *bitcoin's price at the time the bitcoin was mined* which until Mt. Gox opened in July 2010, was measurable only at fixed-rate bitcoin exchanges such as New Liberty Standard that set their prices equal to estimated mining cost. So revenue - mining cost = taxable profit = zero. Bitcoin mined after Mt. Gox opened may have been deemed profitable, depending on difficulty and mining expense. I haven't seen any analysis of any immediate profitability of Nakamoto's likely mining rewards. I suppose it's doubtful that anyone involved with bitcoin mining filed relevant information in their tax returns in bitcoin's early days. Perhaps the home invasion is just a fishing expedition.
They noticed odd things about the light curve throughout the four-year observation period, while the earth was making four orbits around the sun, so the occulting object would have to be big enough to occult the the star from anywhere in earth's orbit. That means an occulting object would have to have significant size compared to the area of either the earth' s orbital area or the star's cross-sectional area, whichever is smaller.
All living things on earth use energy and produce an equal amount of waste (energy) heat. The only way to "shield" that heat would be to contain it, which would result in continuously increasing temperature.
As long as it's possible from time to time to hop from one star to another, one civilization can be all over a galaxy in 250 million years. That's less than 2% of the age of the universe.
If someone wants to buy a cheap TV for $200 do they insist on getting financing from the manufacturer? No, they use their credit card. Why would a phone be any different? I also don't get it why anyone would want to buy a phone from Verizon in the first place. Do people want to buy a toaster from their electric company or a car from their local gas station? Carriers should be in the business of providing a monthly data allotment and nothing more. Hopefully, this change is the first step towards a more competitive marketplace. More competition should eventually lead to *fully* open-source cheap and powerful phones.
Option 1: The government spends millions of dollars inspecting and enforcing safety rules. No accident happens, and the government collects nothing. Profit for the government: negative millions.
Option 2: The government spends nothing on inspections or enforcement. An accident happens, and the government collects billions of dollars in fines. Profit for the government: positive 18.7 billion dollars.
The weird thing is that the mainstream media celebrates when property prices go up and moan when property prices go down; but they also celebrate when rents go down and moan when rents go up. Putting the two together, the media seems to want property prices high but rents low - which makes no economic sense. The only thing I can figure is that the media figures that more of their readers/viewers already own than are looking to buy, and more readers/viewers are renters rather than landlords. I guess that logic makes sense in a cynical kind of way - the media is playing both sides of the fence to increase their own market share and profits - like a military arms manufacturer that sells to both sides of a conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
"My opinion is there is problem as I see it is there is a big abuse on free speech."
I totally agree. After the Las Vegas mass shooting, I spent most of two days watching youtube conspiracy theories about it. It was pretty clear that they were wrong, but nonetheless, I found them fascinating. Since when is all entertainment required to be educational? And what if the videos had turned out to be correct?
The authorities "knew" that Galileo was wrong back in the 17th century, but that didn't make their censorship of him OK.
Is this already being used for advertising purposes? I had a potentially serious health issue last month, and received my very first snail mail advertisement for "cremation services" 30 days later. I'm feeling like the modern tech economy has become a committee of vultures circling over all of our heads.
1) Tulips don't have a limited supply. I.e. as tulips are bred, their supply can increase exponentially over time.
2) Tulips aren't divisible. I.e. you can't pay 0.032 tulips for something.
3) Tulips aren't easily transportable. I.e. you can't send a tulip to china in a few minutes.
4) Tulips aren't durable. If you kept one for 20 years, it would be unlikely to be in good condition afterwards.
5) Tulips aren't uniform. One tulip is not like another.
That's not possible. 4KB is 32000 bits, so there are 2 ^ 32000 ~= 10 ^ 10000 possible 4KB sequences. That's a one followed by 10,000 zeros number of sequences you would have needed to compare to find the one you were looking for. If you could have compared a billion sequences / second, it would have taken the age of the universe times nearly infinity to locate the sequence you were looking for. You must have had a bug in your code - perhaps your random number generator was faulty, or you weren't comparing the full 4KB length of the data.
I might remember something about that 30 year ago scheme! One of my father's friends (a professional mathematician who worked for a well-known defense contractor) invested in it in mid-1987. I thought about it and told my father's friend that I didn't think the claims were plausible and suggested that he try to get his money back - which annoyed him. Never heard anything about it since, and my father's friend died many years ago. I wish I knew the name of the technology or company.
He's using 50 polygons to render the final picture. By appearances, each polygon has roughly five vertexes. Each vertex needs an x and y position, so say two bytes total per vertex. That's 500 bytes for the whole picture, and the picture looks pretty grainy.
LOL
Actually that's a different university. USF != UCSF
It goes back even farther than that!
Here's an article from 2010 reporting Seagate promising 100TB HAMR hard drives:
http://www.myce.com/news/seaga...
Here's an article from 2006 reporting Seagate promising HAMR hard drives in "a few years":
http://webcache.googleusercont...
Also I'm puzzled by the claims about hundred layer 3D NAND chips. I can see how a hundred-layer chip would increase density and therefore could reduce access latency, but I don't see how it could significantly reduce cost-per-bit. Sure, there will be a hundred times as many bits per square cm, but a hundred times as many manufacturing processing steps should be required to make it, thereby increasing manufacturing cost a hundred-fold. Also, with all those manufacturing steps, the chance of defects also goes up, thereby reducing yields and increasing costs even more. Reduced latency would be cool, but I don't see it reducing cost-per-bit by much, if at all.
Also, Intel seems to be peculiarly self-contradicting when discussing their 3D XPoint technology. In 2015 they claimed that 3D XPoint was NOT phase-change technology and that it was already in volume production to prepare for sale in early 2016. In 2016 they're claiming that 3D XPoint IS phase-change technology and will not enter volume production until 2017.
I've become very cynical about all this. Frankly, I'll believe these things when I can see them with my own eyes.
You got 28,900,000 results because you forgot to use quotation marks.
Doesn't make any sense.
1) The first paper you linked to was entitled "5D Data Storage by Ultrafast Laser Nanostructuring in Glass" published in 2013 - not the same title as the one referred to by the article: "5D Data Storage by Ultrafast Laser Writing in Glass" due to be published tomorrow (2016).
2) The second paper you linked to mentions a pitch of "up to" 150 nm but was published in 2006.
3) Using the 150 nm pitch figure from the 2006 paper:
25400000 nm per inch / 150 nm pitch = 170000 dots per inch per layer
170000 dots per inch per layer * 3 layers = 510000 dots per inch
510000 dots per inch * 3 bits per dot = 1530000 bits per inch
(1530000 bits per inch)^2 = 2.3 Tb per square inch
2.3 Tb per square inch / 8 bits per byte = 293 GB per square inch
So only twice the density of the latest 10TB HDDs (140 GB per square inch)
3) According to the phys.org article linked in the summary: "The file is written in three layers of nanostructured dots separated by five micrometres (one millionth of a metre)."
25400 um per inch / 5 um pitch = 5000 dots per inch per layer
5000 dots per inch per layer * 3 layers = 15000 dots per inch
15000 dots per inch * 3 bits per dot = 45000 bits per inch
(45000 bits per inch)^2 = 2 Gb per square inch
2 Gb per square inch / 8 bits per byte = 250 MB per square inch
So only 0.0018 times the density of the latest 10TB HDDs (140 GB per square inch)
4) 200kHz laser pulses would give:
200 kb per second / 8 bits per byte = 25 kB per second
360TB claimed data storage / 25 kB per second = 14400000000 seconds
14400000000 seconds / 32 Million seconds per year = 450 years
So 450 years to read or write the disk.
The best time to get into crypto-currency is six years ago. The second-best time is today.
"mine keeps loosing the spellcheck"
I see what you did there.
90% Isopropyl Alcohol (Rubbing Alcohol) works well for removing the adhesive.
Interesting, but it still doesn't clarify any tax implications. Under U.S. law (not applicable in Australia, of course) bitcoin is taxable under capital gains law only when it's exchanged for something else of value. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Newly-mined bitcoin is also treatable as business revenue based on *bitcoin's price at the time the bitcoin was mined* which until Mt. Gox opened in July 2010, was measurable only at fixed-rate bitcoin exchanges such as New Liberty Standard that set their prices equal to estimated mining cost. So revenue - mining cost = taxable profit = zero. Bitcoin mined after Mt. Gox opened may have been deemed profitable, depending on difficulty and mining expense. I haven't seen any analysis of any immediate profitability of Nakamoto's likely mining rewards. I suppose it's doubtful that anyone involved with bitcoin mining filed relevant information in their tax returns in bitcoin's early days. Perhaps the home invasion is just a fishing expedition.
They noticed odd things about the light curve throughout the four-year observation period, while the earth was making four orbits around the sun, so the occulting object would have to be big enough to occult the the star from anywhere in earth's orbit. That means an occulting object would have to have significant size compared to the area of either the earth' s orbital area or the star's cross-sectional area, whichever is smaller.
All living things on earth use energy and produce an equal amount of waste (energy) heat. The only way to "shield" that heat would be to contain it, which would result in continuously increasing temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also, stars orbit the galactic center with wildly varying orbits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As long as it's possible from time to time to hop from one star to another, one civilization can be all over a galaxy in 250 million years. That's less than 2% of the age of the universe.
It's like the Streisand Effect.
PagePlus also uses Verizon's network. I've got their $30/month half GB plan and it works great - no extra charges for anything.
If someone wants to buy a cheap TV for $200 do they insist on getting financing from the manufacturer? No, they use their credit card. Why would a phone be any different? I also don't get it why anyone would want to buy a phone from Verizon in the first place. Do people want to buy a toaster from their electric company or a car from their local gas station? Carriers should be in the business of providing a monthly data allotment and nothing more. Hopefully, this change is the first step towards a more competitive marketplace. More competition should eventually lead to *fully* open-source cheap and powerful phones.
Option 1: The government spends millions of dollars inspecting and enforcing safety rules. No accident happens, and the government collects nothing. Profit for the government: negative millions.
Option 2: The government spends nothing on inspections or enforcement. An accident happens, and the government collects billions of dollars in fines. Profit for the government: positive 18.7 billion dollars.
The weird thing is that the mainstream media celebrates when property prices go up and moan when property prices go down; but they also celebrate when rents go down and moan when rents go up. Putting the two together, the media seems to want property prices high but rents low - which makes no economic sense. The only thing I can figure is that the media figures that more of their readers/viewers already own than are looking to buy, and more readers/viewers are renters rather than landlords. I guess that logic makes sense in a cynical kind of way - the media is playing both sides of the fence to increase their own market share and profits - like a military arms manufacturer that sells to both sides of a conflict.
So use one of the many open-source wallets that support encryption.
A Trezor bitcoin safe:
https://www.bitcointrezor.com/