What we're seeing here is the difference between a company run by engineers (generate profit by solving problems) versus a company run by MBA's (generate profit by cutting corners^W costs).
Or you could have high expectations, and do your best to help the students meet them. Those who don't would receive a lower grade, with average students receiving an intermediate grade. These grades could then help future colleges and employers judge the students' ability and drive.
Agreed. The vast majority of economics is ideology and/or theory-induced blindness. Of the fairly small number of people who predicted the GFC (I'm not including the large number of finance people who knew mortgage's were doomed, because they didn't understand the larger consequences), only one that I'm aware of was actually an economist: Steve Keen. Not coincidentally, he is also recognized as being one of the major proponents of economic education and policy reform.
I think they meant "limits to Moore's law". Remember that Moore's law is not a law at all, it's just an observation. Furthermore, the observed doubling time has been steadily increasing for a number of years. Note that Intel missed their last targeted doubling.
The driving factor behind Moore's law has always been economics. Once scaling becomes too expensive, it won't happen (at least not at an exponential rate). We're getting close to that point. 3D transistors have delayed the end of Moore's law for NAND flash, but it's not clear if the same can be done for logic. Unlike NAND flash, the performance of logic circuits is usually limited by heat dissipation. If you go 3D, you might be able to pack in more transistors per unit area, but you can't operate all of those transistors at the same time or they will burn up.
The channel lengths were 60 nm. This is massive compared to the latest generation of CMOS (~14 nm).
The confusion seems to come down to the fact that the SWCNT diameter is ~1 nm. However, 14 nm CMOS already uses FinFET's with channel widths of ~8 nm which is ~60 atoms.
Regardless, the science article is actually about improved contact resistance, which is one of the major challenges associated with continued scaling of CMOS. However, they have only been able to show this improvement for p-channel devices, and they state clearly that n-channel devices present a much larger problem. If you want to replace CMOS, you need both n-channel and p-channel devices (not to mention fabrication yield needs to be as close to perfect as Si CMOS is). Thus my subject line (see above).
You could print out the secret keys as Q codes and then secure delete the files from your HDD. At that point it's essentially as safe as cash (ignoring exchange volatility). Unlike cash, you can even make backup copies.
The SI unit for pressure is the Pascal, which is equal to one Newton per square meter, i.e. force per unit area. A paper weight does not apply pressure on a table without some acceleration applied, e.g. gravity. Please check your facts before correcting others.
To be fair, government employees don't really fall under Capitalism (the concept). Nonetheless, when it comes to invading our privacy, private corporations are at least as effective as the government. The difference is that the former are pursuing profit, while the latter are pursuing power and control.
This is certainly the case in Austin. I don't know the numbers, but way way way more people use Uber and Lyft than ever used taxis. And the streets are safer for it (less drunk driving).
"...over a protracted period of good times, capitalist economies tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance units to a structure in which there is large weight to units engaged in speculative and Ponzi finance. Furthermore, if an economy with a sizeable body of speculative financial units is in an inflationary state, and the authorities attempt to exorcise inflation by monetary constraint, then speculative units will become Ponzi units and the net worth of previously Ponzi units will quickly evaporate. Consequently, units with cash flow shortfalls will be forced to try to make position by selling out position. This is likely to lead to a collapse of asset values.â
-- Hyman Minsky, "The Financial Instability Hypothesis"
The waves probably did travel faster than light. This is a well known property of waveguides below cutoff. Even the group velocity can travel faster than light if the attenuation is large enough. However, energy transfer is limited to the speed of light.
The whole "nothing can travel faster than light" claim is an over generalization. A lot of things travel faster than light, just not matter, energy, or information.
The patent points to PCM. Maybe they're applying the same X-Point structure to a different material system, though. I'm guessing, however, that they're just saying it's not PCM in an attempt to dodge other patents.
The Everettian interpretation is certainly better than the Copenhagen interpretation, since it doesn't raise the measurement problem; however, it's no where near as simple (in the Occam's razor sort of way) as the Bohmian interpretation.
However, I think the history of physics should teach us that different interpretations are often different facets of the same thing. Compare Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, for example. They are both accurate (at least for our universe), but quite different in their approach and interpretation. However, they are unified in that they are dependent on conservation laws. A unified theory should be approachable from both directions, and possibly other directions as well. It also turns out that one is often easier to apply than the other in certain situations, and thus both approaches are useful.
Perhaps there is a bit of truth in each of the QM interpretations.
The problem with trying to detect radio signals from hypothetical alien civilizations is that they would almost certainly have to be intentionally signaling us, and at great expense (it would take a lot of power). High power analog TV transmissions (the type that can be distinguished from background noise) are nearly extinct on earth, and certainly won't last through the century.
As efficiency improves, every from of communication becomes more and more indistinguishable from random noise to any outside observer that doesn't know the protocol. So, unless we catch a civilization in the particular period of time between the invention of radio, and the invention and perfection of efficient communication, we won't be able to actually detect their signals to each other. I guess we could just look for unusually high powers of random noise, but there are already so many potential sources of high-power random noise that it seems pointless.
I think he meant in terms of time, although his arithmetic is a bit off. 500 million / 4.4 billion = 11%, so by his logic we would have run 89% of our "evolutionary path".
I'm not so sure thats true. I used to think something similar; however, I'm now convinced that we're really living in the most dangerous time period for our race right now. The difficulty is that in the next ~100 years (order of magnitude estimate) is that we need to transition from a growth economy to a steady-state economy, and the growing pains might be too much for us.
I think if we can get through this next ~100 years, then it will be trivial to get through the following 10,000 or more. Eventually we'll have to get off this rock to survive true global extinction events, but those should be quite rare at this stage in our solar system's life.
I know nothing about the TOR protocol, but could you use a random number of hops drawn from a modified Poisson distribution in which the user can modify the minimum number of hops? Every time a layer is peeled off, the node would essentially check that this isn't the last hop, and behave accordingly.
Unless you include the natural capital (resources) in the system, in which case it's a zero sum game. Of course then you should also include the influx of energy from the Sun, which again makes it a positive sum game.
Slashdot Mirror
What we're seeing here is the difference between a company run by engineers (generate profit by solving problems) versus a company run by MBA's (generate profit by cutting corners^W costs).
Or you could have high expectations, and do your best to help the students meet them. Those who don't would receive a lower grade, with average students receiving an intermediate grade. These grades could then help future colleges and employers judge the students' ability and drive.
Agreed. The vast majority of economics is ideology and/or theory-induced blindness. Of the fairly small number of people who predicted the GFC (I'm not including the large number of finance people who knew mortgage's were doomed, because they didn't understand the larger consequences), only one that I'm aware of was actually an economist: Steve Keen. Not coincidentally, he is also recognized as being one of the major proponents of economic education and policy reform.
Even though I know that a solar panel will never make the energy back that was used to produce it...
That hasn't been true for a long time.
I think they meant "limits to Moore's law". Remember that Moore's law is not a law at all, it's just an observation. Furthermore, the observed doubling time has been steadily increasing for a number of years. Note that Intel missed their last targeted doubling.
The driving factor behind Moore's law has always been economics. Once scaling becomes too expensive, it won't happen (at least not at an exponential rate). We're getting close to that point. 3D transistors have delayed the end of Moore's law for NAND flash, but it's not clear if the same can be done for logic. Unlike NAND flash, the performance of logic circuits is usually limited by heat dissipation. If you go 3D, you might be able to pack in more transistors per unit area, but you can't operate all of those transistors at the same time or they will burn up.
The channel lengths were 60 nm. This is massive compared to the latest generation of CMOS (~14 nm).
The confusion seems to come down to the fact that the SWCNT diameter is ~1 nm. However, 14 nm CMOS already uses FinFET's with channel widths of ~8 nm which is ~60 atoms.
Regardless, the science article is actually about improved contact resistance, which is one of the major challenges associated with continued scaling of CMOS. However, they have only been able to show this improvement for p-channel devices, and they state clearly that n-channel devices present a much larger problem. If you want to replace CMOS, you need both n-channel and p-channel devices (not to mention fabrication yield needs to be as close to perfect as Si CMOS is). Thus my subject line (see above).
Newton was an avid Alchemist and spent more time searching for the elixir of life than developing calculus and his theories of motion and optics.
You could print out the secret keys as Q codes and then secure delete the files from your HDD. At that point it's essentially as safe as cash (ignoring exchange volatility). Unlike cash, you can even make backup copies.
The SI unit for pressure is the Pascal, which is equal to one Newton per square meter, i.e. force per unit area. A paper weight does not apply pressure on a table without some acceleration applied, e.g. gravity. Please check your facts before correcting others.
To be fair, government employees don't really fall under Capitalism (the concept). Nonetheless, when it comes to invading our privacy, private corporations are at least as effective as the government. The difference is that the former are pursuing profit, while the latter are pursuing power and control.
This is certainly the case in Austin. I don't know the numbers, but way way way more people use Uber and Lyft than ever used taxis. And the streets are safer for it (less drunk driving).
Unless you have a causal mechanism and argument, generated through the scientific method...
"...over a protracted period of good times, capitalist economies tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance units to a structure in which there is large weight to units engaged in speculative and Ponzi finance. Furthermore, if an economy with a sizeable body of speculative financial units is in an inflationary state, and the authorities attempt to exorcise inflation by monetary constraint, then speculative units will become Ponzi units and the net worth of previously Ponzi units will quickly evaporate. Consequently, units with cash flow shortfalls will be forced to try to make position by selling out position. This is likely to lead to a collapse of asset values.â
-- Hyman Minsky, "The Financial Instability Hypothesis"
The waves probably did travel faster than light. This is a well known property of waveguides below cutoff. Even the group velocity can travel faster than light if the attenuation is large enough. However, energy transfer is limited to the speed of light.
The whole "nothing can travel faster than light" claim is an over generalization. A lot of things travel faster than light, just not matter, energy, or information.
The patent points to PCM. Maybe they're applying the same X-Point structure to a different material system, though. I'm guessing, however, that they're just saying it's not PCM in an attempt to dodge other patents.
The trick is to feel for the little spikey latches on the male USB connector. Once you find them, point them towards the back of your phone.
Problem solved.
The Everettian interpretation is certainly better than the Copenhagen interpretation, since it doesn't raise the measurement problem; however, it's no where near as simple (in the Occam's razor sort of way) as the Bohmian interpretation.
However, I think the history of physics should teach us that different interpretations are often different facets of the same thing. Compare Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, for example. They are both accurate (at least for our universe), but quite different in their approach and interpretation. However, they are unified in that they are dependent on conservation laws. A unified theory should be approachable from both directions, and possibly other directions as well. It also turns out that one is often easier to apply than the other in certain situations, and thus both approaches are useful.
Perhaps there is a bit of truth in each of the QM interpretations.
The problem with trying to detect radio signals from hypothetical alien civilizations is that they would almost certainly have to be intentionally signaling us, and at great expense (it would take a lot of power). High power analog TV transmissions (the type that can be distinguished from background noise) are nearly extinct on earth, and certainly won't last through the century.
As efficiency improves, every from of communication becomes more and more indistinguishable from random noise to any outside observer that doesn't know the protocol. So, unless we catch a civilization in the particular period of time between the invention of radio, and the invention and perfection of efficient communication, we won't be able to actually detect their signals to each other. I guess we could just look for unusually high powers of random noise, but there are already so many potential sources of high-power random noise that it seems pointless.
I think he meant in terms of time, although his arithmetic is a bit off. 500 million / 4.4 billion = 11%, so by his logic we would have run 89% of our "evolutionary path".
I'm not so sure thats true. I used to think something similar; however, I'm now convinced that we're really living in the most dangerous time period for our race right now. The difficulty is that in the next ~100 years (order of magnitude estimate) is that we need to transition from a growth economy to a steady-state economy, and the growing pains might be too much for us.
I think if we can get through this next ~100 years, then it will be trivial to get through the following 10,000 or more. Eventually we'll have to get off this rock to survive true global extinction events, but those should be quite rare at this stage in our solar system's life.
I know nothing about the TOR protocol, but could you use a random number of hops drawn from a modified Poisson distribution in which the user can modify the minimum number of hops? Every time a layer is peeled off, the node would essentially check that this isn't the last hop, and behave accordingly.
Yeah, that's just what this country's over-leveraged home owners need---more loans.
Wouldn't that make it a positive sum game?
Unless you include the natural capital (resources) in the system, in which case it's a zero sum game. Of course then you should also include the influx of energy from the Sun, which again makes it a positive sum game.
An increase in the money supply only leads to inflation if there is no concurrent increase in wealth (goods, assets, etc.).
This looks completely different than any wave energy production I've seen before. It looks promising.