Just looking at the technology alone, it seems like this would be a problematic system, especially if you want to evade it. Car scratches and dents can be repaired, increase in number or even be faked (decals). Something as simple as your car being dirty and then cleaning it would fool such a system until it read your plate again. However, this just means it's good for short term recognition using high resolution cameras. The same applies for using it on people.
First of all, $6B is very little in the scheme of things. Consider the $500B we piss away on the military. Second, it's geoengineering, not terraforming. We already live on Earth (Terra). Third, diverting large amounts of water to sustain deserts is a poor plan, just ask California how it's working out for them. Fourth, the sheer volume of CO2 being emitted is far beyond what a few new forests could absorb even if we could sustain them (which we cannot). Thus far we have put 400 years worth of what trees can absorb into the atmosphere. Fifth, even if we so how managed to remove it, it's only being sequestered within the tree until the tree dies at which point it's released. This wouldn't actually solve the problem.
The only way to solve this is to use a lot of machines to extract the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that we've already put into their air.
...nobody wants to go first and make healthy food...
Are you truly trying to be a jerk, or have you never been to a grocery store? There are lots of healthy foods available,
Allow me to clarify: nobody wants to go first and only make healthy foods.
Convenience foods and junk foods are popular, and you can't reasonably expect food stores to stop selling them just because they're harmful when eaten in excess.
I'm not saying they should stop selling them, I'm saying that foods should be taxed based on how detrimental they are.
People need to exercise responsibility; this has been true for millennia.
Sure... but if they don't, what then? My idea of a tax ensure that if they are irresponsible that they will still get medical care without putting the burden on other people.
Your approach, using the threat of government guns against manufacturers, is tyranny.
My approach is to allow companies to sell their items but also include a tax on unhealthy items to pay for people's future medical bills due to the items they have selected. There is no "threat of government guns against manufacturers" and it's certainly not tyranny but rather it's simple civic responsibility. If you cause a problem, you should be responsible for cleaning it up.
all the pressure to cut healthcare costs, and about food corporations pushing high-carb, high-sugar foods, and the entertainment industry with all its incentives to become a couch potato.
It has nothing to do with healthcare at all. The amount of sugar people consume has been on the rise for many decades, long before healthcare was even on the radar. The only thing food corporations want is to sell more of their product. They know they are the problem but nobody wants to go first and make healthy food because some other asshole company will just replace their unhealthy food and nothing will change.
I've said it many times before but feedback loops determine behavior. As such, the only way we can change corporations that make unhealthy things is to tax them based on how unhealthy/harmful the product is in order to cover future medical expenses. Of course this only makes sense with a national healthcare system. With a complete lack of taxes based on health, nobody should be getting government subsidized healthcare assistance because they are destroying themselves and putting the burden on the rest of society.
Now you have a 20 year old with a replacement heart valve and they are going out scuba diving or running marathons. Is that safe or risky behavior? Should they try to take it easy, or is that worse than remaining active? There's no data to make a good judgement.
It's perfectly safe for them to go do the most exerting exercises and things like rock climbing without equipment. Worst case scenario, billions of dollar saved. >;)
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production.
Better food production in limited areas. However, the land will be devastated in many regions that are currently relied upon. More volatile weather will result in extreme drought followed by extreme rainfalls. Some plants will do well but many will not.
So what is the real effect of this? Mass extinctions of wildlife both on land and the ocean. Untold millions will perish from die from famine while others will migrated. It won't always be migrating for refuge either, wars will be fought over land for food production.
But hey, if you like mass extinctions, mass migration, war, genocide and famine, the future is looking rosy.
My point was that you don't really need to ask that question because you know they will.
The question was about the power consumption, expressly, is it higher or lower than what Intel is offering. The rationale for that question is that it dictates what datacenters would do. So, do you know the answer? Because I do not.
My point was that if it is cheaper and more efficient that it's clear that datacenters would switch and that's something people on this site would like to know about.
I've mostly moved away from Google products because of their privacy eroding stance but this crosses a line that is going to be very difficult to uncross. I refuse to support a company that promotes sexism in the name of "equality".
If you get your news from social media, as most Americans do [7], you are exposed to a daily dose of false or misleading content — hoaxes, rumors, conspiracy theories, fabricated reports, click-bait headlines, and even satire. We refer to this misinformation collectively as false or fake news.
So apparently you don't know about this thing called "microcode". Worst case scenario: they have to write a driver that is tweaked for Ryzen. If we can make Linux run on a Tamagotchi, we can make it run on Ryzen.
Edison didn't win the electricity game by producing a better product... he simply understood the way things worked better than Tesla.
No, Edison was an asshole who literally electrocuted neighborhood dogs and sued his competition of rudimentary patents because the only thing he cared about was money. Telsa cared about science and the advancement of society rather than profit and allowed companies infringing on his patents to continue, despite holding arguably the most valuable patents in history.
Telsa wasn't perfect but Edison was a total asshole.
With the Model 3 costing just under Eighty Thousand there aren't going to be many buyers.
First of all, you have the price all wrong because the base model is $35K. Secondly, Tesla already has more preorders to fill than they can keep up with which is why you don't see advertisements for Tesla's cars.
People with money, are not going to open their wallets for it.
That must explain why Tesla sells every single car they make. -_-
Slashdot Mirror
Now the next iPhone can be even thinner! I can't wait to call 911 and tell them I accidently cut myself with my new razor thin iPhone 12! -_-
I found a member of the 50 Cent Army! ;)
Just looking at the technology alone, it seems like this would be a problematic system, especially if you want to evade it. Car scratches and dents can be repaired, increase in number or even be faked (decals). Something as simple as your car being dirty and then cleaning it would fool such a system until it read your plate again. However, this just means it's good for short term recognition using high resolution cameras. The same applies for using it on people.
First of all, $6B is very little in the scheme of things. Consider the $500B we piss away on the military. Second, it's geoengineering, not terraforming. We already live on Earth (Terra). Third, diverting large amounts of water to sustain deserts is a poor plan, just ask California how it's working out for them. Fourth, the sheer volume of CO2 being emitted is far beyond what a few new forests could absorb even if we could sustain them (which we cannot). Thus far we have put 400 years worth of what trees can absorb into the atmosphere. Fifth, even if we so how managed to remove it, it's only being sequestered within the tree until the tree dies at which point it's released. This wouldn't actually solve the problem.
The only way to solve this is to use a lot of machines to extract the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that we've already put into their air.
Heyyy... wait a minute, those aren't *Peruvian* goats...
Agreed, those Canadian goats at goats.eh are just not the same. >:(
Are you truly trying to be a jerk, or have you never been to a grocery store? There are lots of healthy foods available,
Allow me to clarify: nobody wants to go first and only make healthy foods.
Convenience foods and junk foods are popular, and you can't reasonably expect food stores to stop selling them just because they're harmful when eaten in excess.
I'm not saying they should stop selling them, I'm saying that foods should be taxed based on how detrimental they are.
People need to exercise responsibility; this has been true for millennia.
Sure... but if they don't, what then? My idea of a tax ensure that if they are irresponsible that they will still get medical care without putting the burden on other people.
Your approach, using the threat of government guns against manufacturers, is tyranny.
My approach is to allow companies to sell their items but also include a tax on unhealthy items to pay for people's future medical bills due to the items they have selected. There is no "threat of government guns against manufacturers" and it's certainly not tyranny but rather it's simple civic responsibility. If you cause a problem, you should be responsible for cleaning it up.
they take the /. dupes with them. ;)
all the pressure to cut healthcare costs, and about food corporations pushing high-carb, high-sugar foods, and the entertainment industry with all its incentives to become a couch potato.
It has nothing to do with healthcare at all. The amount of sugar people consume has been on the rise for many decades, long before healthcare was even on the radar. The only thing food corporations want is to sell more of their product. They know they are the problem but nobody wants to go first and make healthy food because some other asshole company will just replace their unhealthy food and nothing will change.
I've said it many times before but feedback loops determine behavior. As such, the only way we can change corporations that make unhealthy things is to tax them based on how unhealthy/harmful the product is in order to cover future medical expenses. Of course this only makes sense with a national healthcare system. With a complete lack of taxes based on health, nobody should be getting government subsidized healthcare assistance because they are destroying themselves and putting the burden on the rest of society.
Now you have a 20 year old with a replacement heart valve and they are going out scuba diving or running marathons. Is that safe or risky behavior? Should they try to take it easy, or is that worse than remaining active? There's no data to make a good judgement.
It's perfectly safe for them to go do the most exerting exercises and things like rock climbing without equipment. Worst case scenario, billions of dollar saved. >;)
move as many systems as possible off the power grid. Blackouts need not cripple our civilizations.
The point about datacenters was an aside. My question was about the power consumption of the chips. Do you know which is lower?
anyone with a brain can admit that we can't completely stop greenhouse emissions (unless you can "cure" farting, or the need to eat in general)
We need to emit less than the amount that plant life can absorb and process. We can also extract greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.
There is one thing you need to remember more than anything though: the laws of physics will never yield regardless of how much you beg and plead.
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production.
Better food production in limited areas. However, the land will be devastated in many regions that are currently relied upon. More volatile weather will result in extreme drought followed by extreme rainfalls. Some plants will do well but many will not.
So what is the real effect of this? Mass extinctions of wildlife both on land and the ocean. Untold millions will perish from die from famine while others will migrated. It won't always be migrating for refuge either, wars will be fought over land for food production.
But hey, if you like mass extinctions, mass migration, war, genocide and famine, the future is looking rosy.
My point was that you don't really need to ask that question because you know they will.
The question was about the power consumption, expressly, is it higher or lower than what Intel is offering. The rationale for that question is that it dictates what datacenters would do. So, do you know the answer? Because I do not.
My point was that if it is cheaper and more efficient that it's clear that datacenters would switch and that's something people on this site would like to know about.
a madman straight out of an Austin Powers movie.
There is nothing "mad" about NK's behavior. The Kim dynasty has been...
Is it weird that I legitimately thought he was referring to Trump? ;)
They are ALL writable.
I've mostly moved away from Google products because of their privacy eroding stance but this crosses a line that is going to be very difficult to uncross. I refuse to support a company that promotes sexism in the name of "equality".
If you get your news from social media, as most Americans do [7], you are exposed to a daily dose of false or misleading content — hoaxes, rumors, conspiracy theories, fabricated reports, click-bait headlines, and even satire. We refer to this misinformation collectively as false or fake news.
The idea here is that Breitbart is misleading and thus misinforming people. Given that a recent headline of theirs is "Planned Parenthood to Spend $3M to Back Democrat in Virginia Governor Race", I would say that misleading is accurate description.
Here's something more recent: http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
The title doesn't match the content. Calling it misleading would be an understatement.
Are you kidding me?! There has been microcode for every x86 processor made in the last decade!
Can someone link to a Breitbart article that's actually fake news?
Here you go: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
The weather channel was displeased: https://weather.com/news/news/...
Pity you can't run BSD or Linux on it
So apparently you don't know about this thing called "microcode". Worst case scenario: they have to write a driver that is tweaked for Ryzen. If we can make Linux run on a Tamagotchi, we can make it run on Ryzen.
Edison didn't win the electricity game by producing a better product... he simply understood the way things worked better than Tesla.
No, Edison was an asshole who literally electrocuted neighborhood dogs and sued his competition of rudimentary patents because the only thing he cared about was money. Telsa cared about science and the advancement of society rather than profit and allowed companies infringing on his patents to continue, despite holding arguably the most valuable patents in history.
Telsa wasn't perfect but Edison was a total asshole.
With the Model 3 costing just under Eighty Thousand there aren't going to be many buyers.
First of all, you have the price all wrong because the base model is $35K. Secondly, Tesla already has more preorders to fill than they can keep up with which is why you don't see advertisements for Tesla's cars.
People with money, are not going to open their wallets for it.
That must explain why Tesla sells every single car they make. -_-
You're a dummy.