Meh, not so unfair. You can't get a Sandy Bridge chip without getting one of these chips as they are both currently the only ones compatible with Sandy Bridge. Yeah sure they are different chips and have different names, but currently if you get a Sandy Bridge, you get one of these. So not terribly unfair to conflate the two in my opinion.
I work in IT for small local bank (5 Branches) and our on-line service provides provides customers with the last 3 years of history in a wide variety of formats (including CSV). Considering our relatively tiny size, I'm surprised that there are any institutions that don't offer this level of service. But if your institution doesn't I second the recommendations of mint.com.
I happen to work for a major national bank in the US and I can tell you we have VERY strict policies concurning shreading of customers confidental account information. Anything that has as much as a customers name or address (much less account information) is either shreaded immideatly or placed in bins which are then kept under lock and key (often in the actual bank vault) untill an appropriate certified and bonded professional comes on sight to dispose of it all in bulk. We (at least in my region) are very strick about this and violation of this policy can lead to immediatl dissmissal. We take traning related to information security at least once a year as well.
I never actualy said that the Nimitz class is better than this new class. Merely that purchasing one of them from the US would be a much more economical solution. Certianly the Nimitz class is heads and tails better than any other carrier out there (only the Charles de Gaulle even comes close), and would certianly be able do any of the same missions as well as these new ones could. So if you can find a cheaper option that can achive all the same goals, why not go with it. Heck, even taking one of the older Nimitz's in to be refurbished with this new fancy crew-saving tech you would still end up with a vessle that was vastly cheaper to aquire.
Although from all I've read, the Nimitz's class (especialy the ones built after the Theodore Rosevelt) will still probably be able to give this new generation a run for their money in terms of out right supperiority.
OR they could hop on with the US and purchase some of the next class of Carriers we are supposed to start building in 2008 sometimes.
It has allways seemed to me that the US's Carrier fleet is vastly oversized. We have like 9 Nimitz class aircraft carriers in service, with another one underconstruction right now. An ideal solution would be to sell three of these to our European allies. This would work great for all concurned. This could downsize the US's oversized fleet and net us a pretty chunk of change. On the EU's side even one of the older Nimtz class carriers is still a lightyears ahead of their current carriers and buying our old ones would be much cheapier then designing and constructing an entirely new class.
As a chemist, it sometimes gets to me when Engineers and Computer Scientists take extrapolations from our macro-scale world, and then translate them down to the nano-scale, without recognising how terribly diffrent the two are. Mechanosythisis and machinephase matter are simply silly concepts on the nano-scale. Atoms and molecules are not nice stable things which will sit still and alow you to pluck them from one position to another. No, they are constantly moving and bouncing into one another at high speeds, changing their shape, and undergoing small reaction constantly.
Richard Smally, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his co-discovery of the Buckyball once tried to point this out to Eric Drexler in a published series of articles., but the nano-enthusiast will not be disauded, no matter how well versed in the subjet matter their opponents.
As for "responsible nanotechnology." Nature has already crated her own version of "grey goo" which we would be hard pressed to copy. That is the simple bacteria. While the cover the Earth, we are in no more danger of them starting to grow out of control and devowering all our resources then we are the nano-technologists every getting machine-phase matter working.
There is generaly no need for a photo-shop conspiracy in the composition of most photographs. Photographers general take more pictures with people/doves ect.. because they are more intresting and appealing to the human eye. Then out of the man pictures the photographers take, the editors are more likely to use those with people/doves becaues they are likewise more intresting and better pictures. No conspiracy, just natural selection, only the fittest photgraphs survive.
I think the point is more that the Shuttle was not destroyed by the "explosion," but by departing controled flight at supersonic speeds. The "explosion" caused little damage to the orbiter, and in fact probably would not have happened if the thing had not been torn appart by the supersonic airstreams like it was.
I don't think 20% inaccuracy will be a problem. One of the great capacities of the human mind is to develope correct inferences from limited information. Of course the developers should always strive to do better, but being able to understand 4 out of every 5 words is probably enough for someone to grasp the meaning of phrase, especialy within a larger context of information.
And it's not as if people achive 100% accuracy, even in their own languages. We constantly misread and mishear things all the time, yet somehow communication manages to function. Indeed, I suffer from mild dislexia and often misread words in books, usualy without even realising it. I would guess I read at probably only 90-95% accuracy, but comprehend at close to 100% anyways, it would be intresting to test this (any psychologist present?). Human translators obviously do much worse than a person in their native language does. So the computer may be coming pretty close.
Lastly, grammer is probably the least of the issue for the program. Languages have their own code, complete with important bits of meta-information like conjugations and articles to tell what bit means what. People have trouble dealing with new/diffrent rule concepts, probably due to the ingraned way we learn languages, but they are easy for machines. Translating from one bit of grammer rules is pretty easy mechanicaly. The bigger issue for them is to actualy understand what is said.
Frankly, if a company is not willing to invest it's money in you by getting the training, then why should YOU have to invest your free time in the company by training yourself. There was a day and time when companies were intrested in investing in people, seeing them as valuable assets. Indeed, they saw this as one of there primary reasons for existance. Now people are seen as "human resources" from which value can be extracted, not invested.
While the article may very well be true, I've heard another saying that strikes me as even more true, "There is a fine line bettwen a Genius and an Idiot." Many people we hold in high esteeme for their brillance were also a little eccentric, or down right crazy. Vincent Van Gogh, Bobby Fisher, Andy Warhol, hell Wikipedia has a whole list of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_widely _considered_eccentric.
In my personal experience, most of the smartest people I have meet have been a little bit, well crazy. Now figuring out what that tiny factor that truly does seperate the loonies, from the genius loonies, that is the hard part.
Umm... Intel is trailing AMD in most benchmarks by a considerable margine right now. If it the performance advantages are not cost effective now, I wonder if it ever will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, not so unfair. You can't get a Sandy Bridge chip without getting one of these chips as they are both currently the only ones compatible with Sandy Bridge. Yeah sure they are different chips and have different names, but currently if you get a Sandy Bridge, you get one of these. So not terribly unfair to conflate the two in my opinion.
I work in IT for small local bank (5 Branches) and our on-line service provides provides customers with the last 3 years of history in a wide variety of formats (including CSV). Considering our relatively tiny size, I'm surprised that there are any institutions that don't offer this level of service. But if your institution doesn't I second the recommendations of mint.com.
I happen to work for a major national bank in the US and I can tell you we have VERY strict policies concurning shreading of customers confidental account information. Anything that has as much as a customers name or address (much less account information) is either shreaded immideatly or placed in bins which are then kept under lock and key (often in the actual bank vault) untill an appropriate certified and bonded professional comes on sight to dispose of it all in bulk. We (at least in my region) are very strick about this and violation of this policy can lead to immediatl dissmissal. We take traning related to information security at least once a year as well.
Although from all I've read, the Nimitz's class (especialy the ones built after the Theodore Rosevelt) will still probably be able to give this new generation a run for their money in terms of out right supperiority.
OR they could hop on with the US and purchase some of the next class of Carriers we are supposed to start building in 2008 sometimes.
It has allways seemed to me that the US's Carrier fleet is vastly oversized. We have like 9 Nimitz class aircraft carriers in service, with another one underconstruction right now. An ideal solution would be to sell three of these to our European allies. This would work great for all concurned. This could downsize the US's oversized fleet and net us a pretty chunk of change. On the EU's side even one of the older Nimtz class carriers is still a lightyears ahead of their current carriers and buying our old ones would be much cheapier then designing and constructing an entirely new class.
Richard Smally, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his co-discovery of the Buckyball once tried to point this out to Eric Drexler in a published series of articles., but the nano-enthusiast will not be disauded, no matter how well versed in the subjet matter their opponents.
As for "responsible nanotechnology." Nature has already crated her own version of "grey goo" which we would be hard pressed to copy. That is the simple bacteria. While the cover the Earth, we are in no more danger of them starting to grow out of control and devowering all our resources then we are the nano-technologists every getting machine-phase matter working.
Those who spend to much time reading/playing/straining on the toilet should beware giving themselves a hernia. Painful, and expensive to correct.
My calander reads February 2, a little early for April fools jokes isn't it?
There is generaly no need for a photo-shop conspiracy in the composition of most photographs. Photographers general take more pictures with people/doves ect.. because they are more intresting and appealing to the human eye. Then out of the man pictures the photographers take, the editors are more likely to use those with people/doves becaues they are likewise more intresting and better pictures. No conspiracy, just natural selection, only the fittest photgraphs survive.
RTFA, I think that is Myth number 6 on the list.
I think the point is more that the Shuttle was not destroyed by the "explosion," but by departing controled flight at supersonic speeds. The "explosion" caused little damage to the orbiter, and in fact probably would not have happened if the thing had not been torn appart by the supersonic airstreams like it was.
And it's not as if people achive 100% accuracy, even in their own languages. We constantly misread and mishear things all the time, yet somehow communication manages to function. Indeed, I suffer from mild dislexia and often misread words in books, usualy without even realising it. I would guess I read at probably only 90-95% accuracy, but comprehend at close to 100% anyways, it would be intresting to test this (any psychologist present?). Human translators obviously do much worse than a person in their native language does. So the computer may be coming pretty close.
Lastly, grammer is probably the least of the issue for the program. Languages have their own code, complete with important bits of meta-information like conjugations and articles to tell what bit means what. People have trouble dealing with new/diffrent rule concepts, probably due to the ingraned way we learn languages, but they are easy for machines. Translating from one bit of grammer rules is pretty easy mechanicaly. The bigger issue for them is to actualy understand what is said.
Frankly, if a company is not willing to invest it's money in you by getting the training, then why should YOU have to invest your free time in the company by training yourself. There was a day and time when companies were intrested in investing in people, seeing them as valuable assets. Indeed, they saw this as one of there primary reasons for existance. Now people are seen as "human resources" from which value can be extracted, not invested.
While the article may very well be true, I've heard another saying that strikes me as even more true, "There is a fine line bettwen a Genius and an Idiot." Many people we hold in high esteeme for their brillance were also a little eccentric, or down right crazy. Vincent Van Gogh, Bobby Fisher, Andy Warhol, hell Wikipedia has a whole list of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_widely _considered_eccentric.
In my personal experience, most of the smartest people I have meet have been a little bit, well crazy. Now figuring out what that tiny factor that truly does seperate the loonies, from the genius loonies, that is the hard part.
Umm... Intel is trailing AMD in most benchmarks by a considerable margine right now. If it the performance advantages are not cost effective now, I wonder if it ever will be.