Proce55ing (JVM front-end, so it runs anywhere, easy, clean, concise, designed for beginners but still powerful lots of graphics capabilities, Arduino microcontroller programming is based on it)
Frink (the ultimate desktop calculator - JVM-based, runs on anything including phones, 1-click install or web interface, terminal or text-editor interface, can write self-modifying code (eval, 1st-class functions), allows converting nearly any combination of physical units that has ever been used, has obsessively exact date/time arithmetic, number theory functions, default rational arithmetic, arbitrary precision arithmetic, symbolic computation, interval arithmetic, physically dimensioned graphics, animation, natural language translation, currency and inflation-adjusted monetary conversions, Java introspection and embeddability in Java programs...
And it's really easy to use, for example, type at the command line:
teaspoon water c^2 -> gallons gasoline it returns:
3164209.862836101 Which is the mass-energy equivalent of a teaspoon of water expressed as US gallons of gasoline.
The best of the genre in TFA was: "Seen on materials for a Pentium processing chip: 'If this product exhibits errors, the manufacturer will replace it for a $2-shipping and a $3-handling charge, for a total of $4.97.' "
Nah, more like a couple of push-mowers gang-banging a 120hp bunk-bed.
Re:This is seriously a world first?!!??
on
USB Foot Controls
·
· Score: 1
What would be cooler would be a computer with a crank. Back in 1959 the Rice R1 had one for faster single-stepping through a program . A bicycle-type setup would be even more efficient. Used as a game controller, it might get a little much-needed exercise to heavy players.
A contract of adhesion does not void any parts of the contract in any jurisdiction that I know about (IANAL). Parts may still be void or voidable for other reasons, of course - no consideration, no meeting of the minds, against public policy, illegal, unconscionable, a party is incompetent or a minor, etc. A contract of adhesion will, however, insofar as it is vague or contradictory be interpreted as much as possible in favor of the party who did not draft the agreement.
Like all legal principles in practice it can be applied or not depending on how the judge feels about the totality of the case. In practice you often do better figuring out which way a judge will rule by looking at the parties rather than the documents, let alone the laws.
Don't you get it? With the new standard, now C++, the popular automatic bug generator that has eaten more minds than Yog-Sothoth, can generate faster, bigger, more advanced and totally incomprehensible bugs! I swear, people like you, it's almost like you want your code to actually work instead of make work.
Here's a history of the lawsuits Microsoft has lost through 2003: http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html . Many of these were MS ripping off competitors. These are just the cases where the victims could stick it out financially for long enough to see the lawsuits through.
"An auction based system avoids this." But who sells the credits in the first place? Either the government, in which case it is essentially a tax with market/speculator set rates and lobbyist-rigged supply,. or the existing CO2-producing industries, or some combination of the two.
"...from what I understand their coal power plants are cleaner." Nukes and hydro are about 16% of Chinese electrical production capacity. Coal is at least 78% and that is not declining much if at all - several hundred more coal plants are set to come on line in the next few years.85% of their plants usually have no sulfur scrubbers, and the pollution is horrendous according to people I have talked to. The Chinese have the dirtiest coal plants in the world. Even if they did have scrubbers, about 15-20% of total world CO2 emissions come from Chinese coal burning.
"Also it's not like Australia has much in the way of carbon intensive industries left that could be viably shipped overseas..." But it has one big one that could be brought back. Much Chinese coal is burned to smelt Australian iron ore into steel, and the Aussies could move up the value chain by selling steel rather than ore. Having the steel made locally would likely stimulate other industries, too. That won't happen with a carbon tax/ carbon derivative system where China is exempt.
For instance: "Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests;..."
An emissions trading scheme is a carbon tax, except that the money goes first to those who were producing unnecessary emissions (and hence have credits to sell), then to the financial speculators who have bribed the politicians to set up this rigged market designed to ensure continually rising prices for carbon credits. At least with a real tax the polluters would pay and the government would get money, but with the carbon credit scheme the old polluters get grandfathered in, even get paid, while any new manufacturing enterprise has costs the incumbents, non-productive ventures and Chinese firms don't. This raises further barriers to entry to new manufacturing firms in Australia, tilts the field towards the "service sector", and ships the pollution and the productivity to China, where there will be much more pollution emitted compared to the goods produced.
I'm sure you'd be just as upset if the same number of tech support people were laid off, right? No. You care more about the master class because you think you might get to join them someday. The little people get screwed by the millions by executives every week, that's not news, that's efficiency - but when executives get screwed, that's unusual, unnatural even - and then some uppity prole starts stereotyping the poor executive victims just because they happen belong to a parasitic class that has consistently fucked over anyone anytime they thought there might be a buck in it. That's so illogical and hurtful, stereotyping like that. Won't somebody think of the executives? They have feelings, too, you know. Or at least a passable imitation, anyway.
If by "capitalism at its finest" you mean unethical and illegal conduct, breaking contractual obligations, using the law as a club against competitors with better products while breaking the law itself and lying to customers to harm competitors, then sure, you're right. I think you're being a little harsh on capitalism, though, by holding Microsoft up as its paragon.
No, you have it backwards. IP is the government telling you what technology you can use by delegating the power to exclude you from using certain arrangements of bits to those who have the money to pay the lawyers to shake you down in court. The actual stock of productive capital (which means useful things and useful information, not the money which is just a representation) is reduced by limiting the distribution of information beyond the minimum that may be needed to encourage its creation.
Microsoft invented very little of what it sold - often others introduced things, were ripped off by Microsoft, and then crushed by MS lawyers who had far greater funding than the smaller entities. Microsoft took few risks, was never first to market with anything innovative and useful.
Capitalism in the sense of a system with the goal of increasing productive capital as much as possible would be a good thing, provided "productive capital" is defined in the right way. "Capitalism" as it exists today has not gotten that definition right, instead getting hung up on gaming the monetary layer of indirection, squabbling over the map while the territory goes to hell.
It does not need a president's signature. Under the US Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to declare war:
Article I, Section8 The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States;.... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 7
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section 9.... No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;....
TFA says it can do 30GB/s memory transfers, while the CPU functions only need at most 12GB/s. 30GB/s isn't the fastest ever for a GPU, but it's quite respectable.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks to me like it can cope with either CPU or GPU workloads without recompilation needed for either, and it can use most of the GPU silicon for parallelizable math computations with very little extra effort compared to most other GPUs.
"hopefully it'll help programmers utilize the hardware better."
Yes, this looks like a very nice architecture, which it should be possible to use to the max - if it weren't for AMD's plan to cripple its double-precision performance. NVIDIA already does this- if you don't shell out the extra $ for a Tesla or Quadro, they cut the 64-bit performance by half of what the chip can actually do. AMD's current chips are even slower than the crippled NVIDIA chips on 64-bit floating point, but the new AMD Fusion chips should match the NVIDA performance ratio, 64-bit being half as fast as 32-bit FP. But unless you get a Fire brand card, AMD plans to cut the potential performance by half, and lower end models may see their chips spoiled to do 1/8 or less of the design potential.
This is stupid. If AMD wants to gain market share, they need to provide better value than NVIDIA or Intel. They've got a design that will do that, with faster memory transfers and potentially far more RAM than NVIDIA's GPU's can access, potentially opening up new markets for large data sets and real-time simulation. Intentionally screwing up their chips is not an effective way to try to get that market share. AMD should differentiate models by clock speed and compute units, not by spoiling good hardware.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm not into Bitcoins, but I don't think any government should be a party to every transaction I make. "Mony laundering" is just an elastic propaganda term for any kind of financial privacy.
It seems like the recent outbreak of high-profile cases of computer break-ins is almost calculated to provoke legislation locking down the internet. First the kill-switch proposal, the announcement by the US military that computer intrusion would be considered an act of war, now a constant drumbeat of reporting in the media about major cracks.
Perhaps the hacks are all just being done by people who don't see how useful such stories are to those who want to assert control over the net, but it would be foolish to think that the "problem-reaction-solution" method has stopped being used by those who are after power, or to discount the possibility that some of this hacking and the publicity it receives is actually being provoked or even orchestrated by those seeking to expand government control over the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Proce55ing (JVM front-end, so it runs anywhere, easy, clean, concise, designed for beginners but still powerful lots of graphics capabilities, Arduino microcontroller programming is based on it)
Frink (the ultimate desktop calculator - JVM-based, runs on anything including phones, 1-click install or web interface, terminal or text-editor interface, can write self-modifying code (eval, 1st-class functions), allows converting nearly any combination of physical units that has ever been used, has obsessively exact date/time arithmetic, number theory functions, default rational arithmetic, arbitrary precision arithmetic, symbolic computation, interval arithmetic, physically dimensioned graphics, animation, natural language translation, currency and inflation-adjusted monetary conversions, Java introspection and embeddability in Java programs ...
And it's really easy to use, for example, type at the command line:
teaspoon water c^2 -> gallons gasoline
it returns:
3164209.862836101
Which is the mass-energy equivalent of a teaspoon of water expressed as US gallons of gasoline.
The best of the genre in TFA was:
"Seen on materials for a Pentium processing chip: 'If this product exhibits errors, the manufacturer will replace it for a $2-shipping and a $3-handling charge, for a total of $4.97.' "
It looks like it is a combination of that and the prolate cycloid aero propeller (1934 Modern Mechanics and Popular Science illustrations)
"Now it merely looks like a high-tech fan."
Nah, more like a couple of push-mowers gang-banging a 120hp bunk-bed.
What would be cooler would be a computer with a crank. Back in 1959 the Rice R1 had one for faster single-stepping through a program . A bicycle-type setup would be even more efficient. Used as a game controller, it might get a little much-needed exercise to heavy players.
A contract of adhesion does not void any parts of the contract in any jurisdiction that I know about (IANAL). Parts may still be void or voidable for other reasons, of course - no consideration, no meeting of the minds, against public policy, illegal, unconscionable, a party is incompetent or a minor, etc. A contract of adhesion will, however, insofar as it is vague or contradictory be interpreted as much as possible in favor of the party who did not draft the agreement.
Like all legal principles in practice it can be applied or not depending on how the judge feels about the totality of the case. In practice you often do better figuring out which way a judge will rule by looking at the parties rather than the documents, let alone the laws.
Don't you get it? With the new standard, now C++, the popular automatic bug generator that has eaten more minds than Yog-Sothoth, can generate faster, bigger, more advanced and totally incomprehensible bugs!
I swear, people like you, it's almost like you want your code to actually work instead of make work.
Here's a history of the lawsuits Microsoft has lost through 2003: http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html .
Many of these were MS ripping off competitors. These are just the cases where the victims could stick it out financially for long enough to see the lawsuits through.
"An auction based system avoids this." But who sells the credits in the first place? Either the government, in which case it is essentially a tax with market/speculator set rates and lobbyist-rigged supply,. or the existing CO2-producing industries, or some combination of the two.
"...from what I understand their coal power plants are cleaner."
Nukes and hydro are about 16% of Chinese electrical production capacity. Coal is at least 78% and that is not declining much if at all - several hundred more coal plants are set to come on line in the next few years.85% of their plants usually have no sulfur scrubbers, and the pollution is horrendous according to people I have talked to. The Chinese have the dirtiest coal plants in the world. Even if they did have scrubbers, about 15-20% of total world CO2 emissions come from Chinese coal burning.
"Also it's not like Australia has much in the way of carbon intensive industries left that could be viably shipped overseas..."
But it has one big one that could be brought back. Much Chinese coal is burned to smelt Australian iron ore into steel, and the Aussies could move up the value chain by selling steel rather than ore. Having the steel made locally would likely stimulate other industries, too. That won't happen with a carbon tax/ carbon derivative system where China is exempt.
I exaggerated, but only slightly. See http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html for the exceptions to the privacy rule. If a nosy tax-feeder can't fit his request into one of these exceptions, then he needs to go back to bureaucrat school.
For instance: "Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; ..."
An emissions trading scheme is a carbon tax, except that the money goes first to those who were producing unnecessary emissions (and hence have credits to sell), then to the financial speculators who have bribed the politicians to set up this rigged market designed to ensure continually rising prices for carbon credits. At least with a real tax the polluters would pay and the government would get money, but with the carbon credit scheme the old polluters get grandfathered in, even get paid, while any new manufacturing enterprise has costs the incumbents, non-productive ventures and Chinese firms don't. This raises further barriers to entry to new manufacturing firms in Australia, tilts the field towards the "service sector", and ships the pollution and the productivity to China, where there will be much more pollution emitted compared to the goods produced.
Managers exist so real executives won't get loser-cooties from the headcounts.
I'm sure you'd be just as upset if the same number of tech support people were laid off, right? No. You care more about the master class because you think you might get to join them someday. The little people get screwed by the millions by executives every week, that's not news, that's efficiency - but when executives get screwed, that's unusual, unnatural even - and then some uppity prole starts stereotyping the poor executive victims just because they happen belong to a parasitic class that has consistently fucked over anyone anytime they thought there might be a buck in it. That's so illogical and hurtful, stereotyping like that. Won't somebody think of the executives? They have feelings, too, you know. Or at least a passable imitation, anyway.
If by "capitalism at its finest" you mean unethical and illegal conduct, breaking contractual obligations, using the law as a club against competitors with better products while breaking the law itself and lying to customers to harm competitors, then sure, you're right. I think you're being a little harsh on capitalism, though, by holding Microsoft up as its paragon.
No, you have it backwards. IP is the government telling you what technology you can use by delegating the power to exclude you from using certain arrangements of bits to those who have the money to pay the lawyers to shake you down in court. The actual stock of productive capital (which means useful things and useful information, not the money which is just a representation) is reduced by limiting the distribution of information beyond the minimum that may be needed to encourage its creation.
Microsoft invented very little of what it sold - often others introduced things, were ripped off by Microsoft, and then crushed by MS lawyers who had far greater funding than the smaller entities. Microsoft took few risks, was never first to market with anything innovative and useful.
Capitalism in the sense of a system with the goal of increasing productive capital as much as possible would be a good thing, provided "productive capital" is defined in the right way. "Capitalism" as it exists today has not gotten that definition right, instead getting hung up on gaming the monetary layer of indirection, squabbling over the map while the territory goes to hell.
Not to mention anybody in any branch of any level of government who asks.
Use your head - berth control is a load of ship. 8-)
It does not need a president's signature. Under the US Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to declare war:
Article II, Section 2
TFA says it can do 30GB/s memory transfers, while the CPU functions only need at most 12GB/s. 30GB/s isn't the fastest ever for a GPU, but it's quite respectable.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks to me like it can cope with either CPU or GPU workloads without recompilation needed for either, and it can use most of the GPU silicon for parallelizable math computations with very little extra effort compared to most other GPUs.
"hopefully it'll help programmers utilize the hardware better."
Yes, this looks like a very nice architecture, which it should be possible to use to the max - if it weren't for AMD's plan to cripple its double-precision performance. NVIDIA already does this- if you don't shell out the extra $ for a Tesla or Quadro, they cut the 64-bit performance by half of what the chip can actually do. AMD's current chips are even slower than the crippled NVIDIA chips on 64-bit floating point, but the new AMD Fusion chips should match the NVIDA performance ratio, 64-bit being half as fast as 32-bit FP. But unless you get a Fire brand card, AMD plans to cut the potential performance by half, and lower end models may see their chips spoiled to do 1/8 or less of the design potential.
This is stupid. If AMD wants to gain market share, they need to provide better value than NVIDIA or Intel. They've got a design that will do that, with faster memory transfers and potentially far more RAM than NVIDIA's GPU's can access, potentially opening up new markets for large data sets and real-time simulation. Intentionally screwing up their chips is not an effective way to try to get that market share. AMD should differentiate models by clock speed and compute units, not by spoiling good hardware.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm not into Bitcoins, but I don't think any government should be a party to every transaction I make. "Mony laundering" is just an elastic propaganda term for any kind of financial privacy.
OP - Tight enough is good enough. it's a statistical game, anyway.
That should be "principle" not "principal"
-OP, Gruppenführer Grammar Nazi.
It seems like the recent outbreak of high-profile cases of computer break-ins is almost calculated to provoke legislation locking down the internet. First the kill-switch proposal, the announcement by the US military that computer intrusion would be considered an act of war, now a constant drumbeat of reporting in the media about major cracks.
Perhaps the hacks are all just being done by people who don't see how useful such stories are to those who want to assert control over the net, but it would be foolish to think that the "problem-reaction-solution" method has stopped being used by those who are after power, or to discount the possibility that some of this hacking and the publicity it receives is actually being provoked or even orchestrated by those seeking to expand government control over the internet.
I don't know why that got modded troll, it's a concise and accurate summary of what's going on.