It's only for OS 10.6.8 and 10.7.1. Users of PowerPC Macs can't use any OS after 10.5.8, and many users of Intel based Macs won't update past 10.6.6 because 10.6.7/10.6.8 introduce some significant compatibility issues. It's great that they released a fix, but it's only a fix for 50%-80% of the user base. I guest the rest have to manually remove the Diginotar root cert?
the denser metals such as Cu, Pt, Ni, Ag, and Au should have started to stratify over 4B years. Therefore, what we need is a really big straw, about 4000mi/6400km long to stick into the earth's core and pump out all the those valuable metals. The straw will probably need to be made of graphite and/or carbon nanotubes to handle the heat. On the plus side, it may be a diamond when we remove it.
Think of the side benefits. We can pump iron and transuranic wastes in to replace what we're drawing out. The transuranic wastes will help keep the core hot, and they should stay there for a long time. So, we get valuable metals and we get rid of some nuclear waste at the same time.
So, where do I apply for a grant to start research and drilling?
They're not talking about orienting the chips vertically (e.g. ZIP packaging), but stacking two (or more) chips flat against each other horizontally. This may make a slightly thicker package, but since many of the drivers, buffers, & latches for the external connection can be shared, it doesn't need 2x the power/heat. Silicon is a good conductor, so dissipating the extra heat shouldn't be a major issue. The key will be maintaining good thermal conductivity between the two chips and between the upper chip and the package.
If you design the chips for this purpose, you can share many of the drivers, buffers, and latches for the external connection, thus lowering the power consumption. Also, this won't materially lengthen any of the connections. Half as many packages and ~ half as many driver circuits for a given capacity should produce a notable power savings, even though each package will draw slightly more power than a single chip package would. Or, you could get 2x the capacity with a less than 2x increase in power consumption vs single chip packages.
Not in this instance. This actually helps avoid that. Smaller geometry increases the changes of a bit flip due to cosmic rays (capacitance discharge due to cosmic ray). This allows 2x (or more) the memory in a given package (may be slightly thicker), without going to a smaller geometry.
On chip ECC isn't called for (at least not yet), and in fact chipset based ECC has several advantages, including having a single ECC controller for all memory, and being able to detect errors in the memory bus, not just errors in the chip.
But doing it inside the package, directly stacking chip on chip has significant advantages over stacking packages. Lower height, better heat dissipation, shorter interconnects, etc. And if the chips are designed such that they share the drivers, buffers, & latches, etc for the external connection, that can save quite a bit of power. There are many things you can do in package, that are impractical or impossible off package.
LZ/LZW compression, RSA encryption, etc are excellent examples of software patents that were definitely not obvious, had no prior art, and were incredibly valuable.
However, simply adding "on an electronic device", "on a computer", or "on a mobile device" to an established method of doing something should not qualify for a patent. There needs be something else that makes the method novel and non-obvious, for it to qualify for a patent (i.e. it's an "improvement" patent, not merely applying essentially the same method to another class of products.
If we actually required patents to be novel, non-obvious, significantly different that prior art, and made it easier to contest/invalidate "dubious" patents that slip through, we might be able to create a workable patent system, including software patents. I can even see justification to give most software patents a reduced term (5-10 years?). Not because I think software patents are less valuable, but because they're usually cheaper to create/produce, and because most of them will have a shorter market life in the fast-paced software field, so a shorter term would mean fewer latent infringement suits, not necessarily significantly less revenue. The shorter term also addresses the public interest in making such inventions available for use such that the public benefits from them.
A bit of a left turn here, but patents for medications, gene therapy, genes, etc also need to be seriously reexamined. I have some ideas there, but those with more experience in those fields may have more suggestions for changes. One example I can think of is patenting a racemic mixture of stereoisomers, then when that patent is about to expire, getting a new patent for a single enantiomer of the same medicine. In many stereoisomers, one of the enantiomers is the active component, while the other is either inert, or responsible for increased side effects. So, the isolated enantiomer is often a worthwhile improvement, however, I don't view that as grounds for another 17-20yr patent. If they have to invent a novel process for separating the enantiomers, that process might qualify for a patent, but the drug itself shouldn't. There are other similar examples, but I'll leave it at that for now.
We've seen what happens when companies don't properly fund retirement plans. Requiring the USPS to fund at least 80% of the plan ensures that the retirees are likely to actually receive a decent portion of their promised retirement. If they can't afford to fund it now, how would the be able to do it in 5, 10, or 20 years?
And since you figured it out, why did you choose to post it rather than cancel it?
Also, intensity decreases with the square of the distance, so brightness would be roughly 7.1K^2/21M^2 ~ 1.14E-7 the brightness, which is ~17 orders of apparent magnitude (5 orders of visual magnitude is a factor of 100).
If you bothered to read any of my other posts, or if you actually understood causality and space-time intervals you would know "The paths of particles and light beams in spacetime are represented by time-like and null (light-like) geodesics (respectively)". And null (light-like) intervals are always 0. Therefore, the supernova actually happened on earth when the light-cone reached Earth, or approximately 1 week ago. That it was 21M LY distant in space affects the magnitude of it's impact on Earth, however, it didn't happen 21M years ago in our frame of reference, it happened last week on earth. It was only 21M years ago in the frame of reference at the origin 21M LY away (and wasn't 21M years ago at any other place in the universe)
Not causally linked means that in the region of space-time that isn't yet causally linked it hasn't yet happened. It didn't happen in our part of space-time until last week. For Earth, the supernova happened a week ago, at an estimated space-time distance of 21M LY. If it happened more than a week ago for us, show me it's any of it's history from some time before we first detected it. Obviously, that's not possible. It didn't happen for us until last week.
The only frame of reference in which it happened 21M years ago is the frame of the progenitor star. Everywhere else in space-time, it happened less than 21M years ago, and for regions of space-time more than 21M LY from the supernova, it hasn't even happened yet.
If it occurred 21M years ago for Earth, then you should be able to study it's history and impact on earth for the last 21M years. You can't, it didn't happen for Earth until a week ago. Saying it happened 21M years ago is a calculation based upon its estimated distance from Earth and the fact that we observed it last week. For Earth, it happened a week ago, and it's 21M LY distant in space-time. Any other interpretation is purely artificial and based upon it's calculated distance from us.
Let's take an extreme example. Assume (hypothetically) that the explosion destroyed all animal life on Earth. When would animal life on earth die? Not 21M years ago, it would have happened last week. It would be meaningless and misleading to say that it happened 21M years ago, as we were all here 2 weeks ago.
Talking about when events in space-time occurred from any reference point other than the one you're in is meaningless and misleading. Space and time aren't two separate things, they exist together as space-time. Events happen at an observer's reference only when there has been sufficient time for light to travel between the origin and observation points in space-time. At least, that's what our best theories of physics indicate.
Saying something is/was/occurred 21M LY away does not require "absolute time". 21M LY is a measure of space-time. Space and time aren't separate, that's fundamental to understanding relativity, and that's why we now use the term space-time. A LY is a measure of distance in space-time, not a measure of time.
Because the speed of light is a limit for how fast information or matter can travel, the very concept of simultaneity at two different points in space-time is a flawed concept. Simultaneity or "universal time" would require that information can be transmitted instantaneously across space-time, which violates all we know about physics. Both information transfer, and causal effects are limited by the speed of light, therefore, something occurs in space-time, "when the first light" from that event reaches (or could reach) a given point in space-time, and not before.
Here's an extreme example. Suppose that a cataclysmic event occurred 1B LY away from Earth, and that event destroys the universe, however, since it can't move faster than the speed of light it will take 1B LY to reach Earth. Now let's suppose that the event will reach earth 600M years from now. Given that it's 1B LY away, we can calculate that "it happened" 1B-600M = 400M years ago (in the space-time where the event happened). However, as a resident of Earth, you wouldn't say the universe ended 400M years ago, that would be misleading and meaningless, as clearly the Earth is still here, and (in this example) would be for another 600M years. There is another problem with even making that calculation, and that is that unless information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, we couldn't know about it until it reached Earth 600M years from now, at which point Earth wouldn't exist so it would be meaningless to say that a cataclysmic event that destroyed the the universe happened 1B years ago, it happens when it reaches Earth. Either way, it's meaningless and misleading to say it happened XX years in the past.
Cite some problem with my post. Posting as AC giving a blanket assertion that "there are so many problems with your post" without citing any examples or any referencing any information to back up your assertions indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about.
For Earth, it happened a week ago. Space and time aren't separable, stuff doesn't merely move through space, it moves through space-time. We can only refer to time separately when looking from a specific reference frame. Only from the space-time of the supernova did it happen 21M years ago, and we're not in that space-time. From ANY other reference, it DIDN'T happen 21M years ago, it happened less than that, or (for distances greater than 21M LY from the event) it hasn't even happened yet. Thus it's both misleading and meaningless to say it happened 21M years ago. It happened last week, and it is/was 21M LY distant in space-time.
Because we can estimate the distance, we can calculate that in it's frame of reference it happened 21M years ago, but that frame of reference is meaningless to anything outside the space-time of the progenitor star, thus it's meaningless to us on Earth. Saying it happened 21M years ago for us requires a concept of universal simultaneity (a universal "now"), which would require that information be transmitted across space-time instantly. This information transfer would be infinitely faster than than the speed of light, which would violate all the laws of physics we know.
For an example of how the speed of light and causality work in this interconnected fabric we call space-time, see my other post.
You think wrong, I didn't lose or disprove my argument. Go back and re-read my entire post.
For Earth, it happened a week ago. Only from the space-time of the supernova did it actually happen 21M years ago, and we're not in that space-time. From ANY other reference, it DIDN'T happen 21M years ago, it happened less than that, or (for distances greater than 21M LY) it hasn't even happened yet. That's why it's misleading and meaningless to say it happened 21M years ago. It happened last week, and it is/was 21M LY distant in space-time.
We can calculate that in it's frame of reference it happened 21M years ago, but that frame of reference is meaningless to anyone/thing who wasn't in that space-time. Saying it happened 21M years ago for us requires a concept of a universal simultaneity (universal "now"), which would require that information be transmitted across space-time instantly, vastly exceeding the speed of light, which as far as we can tell, isn't possible.
No, there is a reason we call it space-time. Causality shows that relativistic time frames (not time dilation) apply at a distance. In fact, they apply at any distance, but for local phenomenon are so close that the different frames can usually be ignored. He's a post that explains it more fully.
No, it happened a week ago, and it is/was 21M LY distant in space-time. Referring to that as happening 21M years ago is misleading and meaningless. See my post for a detailed explanation of why it's misleading and meaningless to say it happened 21M years ago.
No, it exploded when the light reached us, and we're watching it expand now. Lightning strikes when we see the flash, the shockwave we call thunder lags behind the light, your analogy is flawed. See my post above for a detailed example of why it's inappropriate to say it happened 21M yrs ago.
He said (this might not be word for word) "Most of the supernova discovered by the Palomar 48 inch telescope are over 1B LY away". They're also discussing only type Ia supernova, not type II (which SN1987A was).
Slashdot Mirror
It's only for OS 10.6.8 and 10.7.1. Users of PowerPC Macs can't use any OS after 10.5.8, and many users of Intel based Macs won't update past 10.6.6 because 10.6.7/10.6.8 introduce some significant compatibility issues. It's great that they released a fix, but it's only a fix for 50%-80% of the user base. I guest the rest have to manually remove the Diginotar root cert?
So far it's pretty good at predicting things that have already happened
Just how does that qualify as "prediction"?
I guess you missed the "really big straw". The whole thing was satire.
the denser metals such as Cu, Pt, Ni, Ag, and Au should have started to stratify over 4B years. Therefore, what we need is a really big straw, about 4000mi/6400km long to stick into the earth's core and pump out all the those valuable metals. The straw will probably need to be made of graphite and/or carbon nanotubes to handle the heat. On the plus side, it may be a diamond when we remove it.
Think of the side benefits. We can pump iron and transuranic wastes in to replace what we're drawing out. The transuranic wastes will help keep the core hot, and they should stay there for a long time. So, we get valuable metals and we get rid of some nuclear waste at the same time.
So, where do I apply for a grant to start research and drilling?
They're not talking about orienting the chips vertically (e.g. ZIP packaging), but stacking two (or more) chips flat against each other horizontally. This may make a slightly thicker package, but since many of the drivers, buffers, & latches for the external connection can be shared, it doesn't need 2x the power/heat. Silicon is a good conductor, so dissipating the extra heat shouldn't be a major issue. The key will be maintaining good thermal conductivity between the two chips and between the upper chip and the package.
If you design the chips for this purpose, you can share many of the drivers, buffers, and latches for the external connection, thus lowering the power consumption. Also, this won't materially lengthen any of the connections. Half as many packages and ~ half as many driver circuits for a given capacity should produce a notable power savings, even though each package will draw slightly more power than a single chip package would. Or, you could get 2x the capacity with a less than 2x increase in power consumption vs single chip packages.
That's stacked packages, this is stacked chips in the package. There are numerous advantages to doing it in package (see my post above.)
Not in this instance. This actually helps avoid that. Smaller geometry increases the changes of a bit flip due to cosmic rays (capacitance discharge due to cosmic ray). This allows 2x (or more) the memory in a given package (may be slightly thicker), without going to a smaller geometry.
On chip ECC isn't called for (at least not yet), and in fact chipset based ECC has several advantages, including having a single ECC controller for all memory, and being able to detect errors in the memory bus, not just errors in the chip.
But doing it inside the package, directly stacking chip on chip has significant advantages over stacking packages. Lower height, better heat dissipation, shorter interconnects, etc. And if the chips are designed such that they share the drivers, buffers, & latches, etc for the external connection, that can save quite a bit of power. There are many things you can do in package, that are impractical or impossible off package.
This sounds like stacked-die, not PoP.
LZ/LZW compression, RSA encryption, etc are excellent examples of software patents that were definitely not obvious, had no prior art, and were incredibly valuable.
However, simply adding "on an electronic device", "on a computer", or "on a mobile device" to an established method of doing something should not qualify for a patent. There needs be something else that makes the method novel and non-obvious, for it to qualify for a patent (i.e. it's an "improvement" patent, not merely applying essentially the same method to another class of products.
If we actually required patents to be novel, non-obvious, significantly different that prior art, and made it easier to contest/invalidate "dubious" patents that slip through, we might be able to create a workable patent system, including software patents. I can even see justification to give most software patents a reduced term (5-10 years?). Not because I think software patents are less valuable, but because they're usually cheaper to create/produce, and because most of them will have a shorter market life in the fast-paced software field, so a shorter term would mean fewer latent infringement suits, not necessarily significantly less revenue. The shorter term also addresses the public interest in making such inventions available for use such that the public benefits from them.
A bit of a left turn here, but patents for medications, gene therapy, genes, etc also need to be seriously reexamined. I have some ideas there, but those with more experience in those fields may have more suggestions for changes. One example I can think of is patenting a racemic mixture of stereoisomers, then when that patent is about to expire, getting a new patent for a single enantiomer of the same medicine. In many stereoisomers, one of the enantiomers is the active component, while the other is either inert, or responsible for increased side effects. So, the isolated enantiomer is often a worthwhile improvement, however, I don't view that as grounds for another 17-20yr patent. If they have to invent a novel process for separating the enantiomers, that process might qualify for a patent, but the drug itself shouldn't. There are other similar examples, but I'll leave it at that for now.
We've seen what happens when companies don't properly fund retirement plans. Requiring the USPS to fund at least 80% of the plan ensures that the retirees are likely to actually receive a decent portion of their promised retirement. If they can't afford to fund it now, how would the be able to do it in 5, 10, or 20 years?
And since you figured it out, why did you choose to post it rather than cancel it?
Also, intensity decreases with the square of the distance, so brightness would be roughly 7.1K^2/21M^2 ~ 1.14E-7 the brightness, which is ~17 orders of apparent magnitude (5 orders of visual magnitude is a factor of 100).
If you bothered to read any of my other posts, or if you actually understood causality and space-time intervals you would know "The paths of particles and light beams in spacetime are represented by time-like and null (light-like) geodesics (respectively)". And null (light-like) intervals are always 0. Therefore, the supernova actually happened on earth when the light-cone reached Earth, or approximately 1 week ago. That it was 21M LY distant in space affects the magnitude of it's impact on Earth, however, it didn't happen 21M years ago in our frame of reference, it happened last week on earth. It was only 21M years ago in the frame of reference at the origin 21M LY away (and wasn't 21M years ago at any other place in the universe)
Here are some other links you might want to study relativity of simultaneity, absolute simultaneity, space-time, special relativity, and general relativity
Not causally linked means that in the region of space-time that isn't yet causally linked it hasn't yet happened. It didn't happen in our part of space-time until last week. For Earth, the supernova happened a week ago, at an estimated space-time distance of 21M LY. If it happened more than a week ago for us, show me it's any of it's history from some time before we first detected it. Obviously, that's not possible. It didn't happen for us until last week.
The only frame of reference in which it happened 21M years ago is the frame of the progenitor star. Everywhere else in space-time, it happened less than 21M years ago, and for regions of space-time more than 21M LY from the supernova, it hasn't even happened yet.
If it occurred 21M years ago for Earth, then you should be able to study it's history and impact on earth for the last 21M years. You can't, it didn't happen for Earth until a week ago. Saying it happened 21M years ago is a calculation based upon its estimated distance from Earth and the fact that we observed it last week. For Earth, it happened a week ago, and it's 21M LY distant in space-time. Any other interpretation is purely artificial and based upon it's calculated distance from us.
Let's take an extreme example. Assume (hypothetically) that the explosion destroyed all animal life on Earth. When would animal life on earth die? Not 21M years ago, it would have happened last week. It would be meaningless and misleading to say that it happened 21M years ago, as we were all here 2 weeks ago.
Talking about when events in space-time occurred from any reference point other than the one you're in is meaningless and misleading. Space and time aren't two separate things, they exist together as space-time. Events happen at an observer's reference only when there has been sufficient time for light to travel between the origin and observation points in space-time. At least, that's what our best theories of physics indicate.
Saying something is/was/occurred 21M LY away does not require "absolute time". 21M LY is a measure of space-time. Space and time aren't separate, that's fundamental to understanding relativity, and that's why we now use the term space-time. A LY is a measure of distance in space-time, not a measure of time.
Because the speed of light is a limit for how fast information or matter can travel, the very concept of simultaneity at two different points in space-time is a flawed concept. Simultaneity or "universal time" would require that information can be transmitted instantaneously across space-time, which violates all we know about physics. Both information transfer, and causal effects are limited by the speed of light, therefore, something occurs in space-time, "when the first light" from that event reaches (or could reach) a given point in space-time, and not before.
Here's an extreme example. Suppose that a cataclysmic event occurred 1B LY away from Earth, and that event destroys the universe, however, since it can't move faster than the speed of light it will take 1B LY to reach Earth. Now let's suppose that the event will reach earth 600M years from now. Given that it's 1B LY away, we can calculate that "it happened" 1B-600M = 400M years ago (in the space-time where the event happened). However, as a resident of Earth, you wouldn't say the universe ended 400M years ago, that would be misleading and meaningless, as clearly the Earth is still here, and (in this example) would be for another 600M years. There is another problem with even making that calculation, and that is that unless information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, we couldn't know about it until it reached Earth 600M years from now, at which point Earth wouldn't exist so it would be meaningless to say that a cataclysmic event that destroyed the the universe happened 1B years ago, it happens when it reaches Earth. Either way, it's meaningless and misleading to say it happened XX years in the past.
Cite some problem with my post. Posting as AC giving a blanket assertion that "there are so many problems with your post" without citing any examples or any referencing any information to back up your assertions indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about.
For Earth, it happened a week ago. Space and time aren't separable, stuff doesn't merely move through space, it moves through space-time. We can only refer to time separately when looking from a specific reference frame. Only from the space-time of the supernova did it happen 21M years ago, and we're not in that space-time. From ANY other reference, it DIDN'T happen 21M years ago, it happened less than that, or (for distances greater than 21M LY from the event) it hasn't even happened yet. Thus it's both misleading and meaningless to say it happened 21M years ago. It happened last week, and it is/was 21M LY distant in space-time.
Because we can estimate the distance, we can calculate that in it's frame of reference it happened 21M years ago, but that frame of reference is meaningless to anything outside the space-time of the progenitor star, thus it's meaningless to us on Earth. Saying it happened 21M years ago for us requires a concept of universal simultaneity (a universal "now"), which would require that information be transmitted across space-time instantly. This information transfer would be infinitely faster than than the speed of light, which would violate all the laws of physics we know.
For an example of how the speed of light and causality work in this interconnected fabric we call space-time, see my other post.
You think wrong, I didn't lose or disprove my argument. Go back and re-read my entire post.
For Earth, it happened a week ago. Only from the space-time of the supernova did it actually happen 21M years ago, and we're not in that space-time. From ANY other reference, it DIDN'T happen 21M years ago, it happened less than that, or (for distances greater than 21M LY) it hasn't even happened yet. That's why it's misleading and meaningless to say it happened 21M years ago. It happened last week, and it is/was 21M LY distant in space-time.
We can calculate that in it's frame of reference it happened 21M years ago, but that frame of reference is meaningless to anyone/thing who wasn't in that space-time. Saying it happened 21M years ago for us requires a concept of a universal simultaneity (universal "now"), which would require that information be transmitted across space-time instantly, vastly exceeding the speed of light, which as far as we can tell, isn't possible.
No, there is a reason we call it space-time. Causality shows that relativistic time frames (not time dilation) apply at a distance. In fact, they apply at any distance, but for local phenomenon are so close that the different frames can usually be ignored. He's a post that explains it more fully.
No, it happened a week ago, and it is/was 21M LY distant in space-time. Referring to that as happening 21M years ago is misleading and meaningless. See my post for a detailed explanation of why it's misleading and meaningless to say it happened 21M years ago.
No, it exploded when the light reached us, and we're watching it expand now. Lightning strikes when we see the flash, the shockwave we call thunder lags behind the light, your analogy is flawed. See my post above for a detailed example of why it's inappropriate to say it happened 21M yrs ago.
He said (this might not be word for word) "Most of the supernova discovered by the Palomar 48 inch telescope are over 1B LY away". They're also discussing only type Ia supernova, not type II (which SN1987A was).
All requests for moving galaxies or altering the axis of the earth must have been made (in triplicate) more than 1B years ago. Request denied.