Surely a better analogy would be that of attaching a water cannon to a household tap. The adapter is capable of outputting a fast stream of water / rendered graphics, but if the tap / cpu can't supply water / rendering data at a fast enough rate then that capacity is wasted.
What's you really need for a quad-sli set up is a super hi res monitor to give the cards some more work to do per frame. The CPU bottleneck will be less of an issue if the time to render each frame increases.
In the UK at least, WLAN is not going to replace 3G. 3G networks already cover most of the landmass, WLAN covers assorted cafes, airports, hotels and trains.
There's no killer app for 3G at present, but it's a great upgrade to the slow GPRS. A coworker of mine owns an IMate JASJAR, which has a large touchscreen and switches seamlessly between WLAN, 3G and 2G Data Networks. Hence he is able to browse the internet at the fastest available speed at a viable resolution wherever he likes. He even uses it in his house because it's quicker than going over to the PC to look something up. Unfortunately this particular phone costs around the same price as a laptop at the mo.
Once they start marketing it as "broadband, on your phone, everywhere" (which is a fair summary) it'll take off.
I think we can assume that if the question 'which framework' or 'which language' is being asked, then the team is lucky enough to have the flexibility to choose the design and implementation of the project they're working on. This is probably the ideal case for every project, as no one likes to be tied down to legacy code and designs.
I take it as a sign that the developer just wants to take the (rare) opportunity to start from a blank slate and do it the way it should be done, rather than because it needs to be built on a pre-existing code base, or the team in question just wasn't given the opportunity to make key design decisions. In which case it is most definitely not a silly question to ask.
It's not free. One cannot run Internet Explorer without buying Windows, a costly product only available from Microsoft. I'm of the view that a piece of software is only free when you don't have to pay money to the company that wrote it to be able to use it.
Really? I thought I was being quite positive. Google's ventures are forcing other companies to put a bit more effort into providing decent web and desktop apps, rather than just the usual clunky ad-laden stuff with the 'click here to upgrade to premium' button. These sorts of apps make money in obvious ways, but once there's an superior alternative out there - something free, fast and easy - that model ceases to be viable.
This looks to me like one of the first signs of Microsoft changing its habits to meet the demands the public, rather than releasing whatever software and services it suits them to provide. Let's hope other companies follow suit.
Sounds to me like they're trying to outgoogle Google. Google has beaten Microsoft in many product areas because most of what it produces is useful, well designed and free, whereas most of Microsoft comes up with is inaccessible, bloated and often expensive.
Sounds like Microsoft wants to take a leaf out of Google's book. If Google didn't exist Microsoft would be charging a subscription for this.
I'd like to see the US Congress stick to its guns and ban trade with China due to a human rights record at least as bad as Cuba's. Then watch the US economy go down the plughole. The debts of the USA are underwritten mainly by China, and the US exports a hell of a lot of stuff there.
In matters of economics, morality doesn't get a look in. When making these kind of choices (trade with x / don't trade with x), Governments are just the same as Corporations - they're both looking to keep out of the red.
Barebones but decent PC (plus cheap monitor or TVout capable), between 400 and 600. Trivial stuff. Plus some older games.
Sorry, "plus some older games"?
The back catalogue of PC games stretches to tens of thousands of games. They shouldn't be idly dismissed, since the number of great PC games of years past exceeds the number of games available for any console.
Unfortunately that's not quite true here in the UK.
My first broadband connection was through Tiscali, who have for a long time been the cheapest ISP in the country. All was going well on their Unlimited Account until they redefined the meaning of the words "fair usage". Their exact words were:
All of our users have the right to an acceptable quality of service and to ensure this Tiscali employs a fair usage policy. This gives Tiscali the right to manage or terminate the accounts of customers whose usage adversely affects our network.
Within our fair usage policy we have introduced greater clarity on what constitutes heavy usage; if your monthly usage (up and download) exceeds 30GB we reserve the right to terminate your account.
They are still selling this account, with this policy, as 'unlimited'. IMHO, when an ISP provides a P2P user with a broadband account described as 'unlimited' that ISP has no right to complain when that user downloads a large amount of data.
The best you can hope for is that some employees will bypass their normal procedures once or twice -- but this will come with consequences!
This rang a bell with me - in a large insurance company in the UK (where a request to set up a new user takes approximately one month - if they're a temp admin worker, then they've usually left before they receive the access they need to do their job) a fellow developer needed debug user group rights to debug in Visual Studio. But none of the idiot IT support staff knew how to do it.
He eventually got in contact with a guy in printer maintenance who knew enough about windows to tick the right box. No one else could do it, and it needed to be done, so he did it. For this he received a formal reprimand from IT management. The access request had been authorized, but he was in the wrong department and was not authorized to fulfill the authorized access request.
In that case, could you tell me how a person could conclude that Creationism is true other than by having faith in the literal truth of the bible? That would disprove my generalization.
Also, I wasn't name calling. I was arguing the following:
1) Many intelligent people are Creationists 2) An intelligent person cannot conclude that Creationism is true and Evolution is false through an unbiased assessment of the evidence for each 3) Therefore intelligent Creationists must be forgoing an impartial assessment of the evidence for each 4) They forgo this assessment because they have faith in the literal truth of the bible, and hence the truth of creationism
I would like to meet one person who rejects the theory of evolution who is not a Christian. That would be a sign that they were rejecting the theory of evolution on the basis of comparing evidence for the truth of theory of Evolution with the evidence for the truth of competing theories.
There is no such person, because the only way a person with half a brain can believe that Creationism or ID is closer to the truth is through prejudging the issue, ignoring and distorting the facts to attempt to make them fit the view they came to by having faith in the literal truth of the bible.
It's true that the goalposts have changed. It used to be a simple competition between AMD and Intel to see who could make the fastest processor. But now we're seeing a bit of a slowdown (no pun intended) on that front (with the focus on more cores rather than more speed) they won't be seeking to increase market share by increasing cpu speed.
As that was AMD's trump card over Intel (you got better performance for the same price) I'm afraid we may see Intel coming back in force, especially if Viiv becomes for Desktops what Centrino became for Laptops ("I don't know what it is, but I know that it's good, so I'll get a PC/Laptop with Viiv/Centrino").
Specialism equals efficiency. So fortunately, the machines and programs that will be most useful to us will be the ones that are most specialized.
Who needs artificial intelligence? We have intelligence, so let's be content to let the fast symbol manipulators carry out the role to which they're best suited - simple, repetitive, clearly defined tasks.
I would say that there is no such thing as a 'deep understanding' of arithmetic, because this is essentially a linear activity involving logical manipulation of clearly defined entities. As a result, machines do it much better than us - that is what they are designed for.
We do not work in a way analogous to a calculator or PC because nothing we deal with can be defined. There are no on/off states in the human brain, and brain activity is more analogous to the super-complex and near-chaotic changes in the atmosphere than the stages of the computation of an algorithm.
Neither are there any discrete 'objects'; everything is connected to everything else. That is how a smell reminds you of a memory reminds you of a feeling reminds you of... something you can't define.
I think what's most likely is that they'll carry on making machines that aren't intelligent, and don't do what we want.
To design intelligent machines we first need to understand what intelligence is and how it comes about. This is a long way off, and may indeed not be possible at all.
The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.
As far as I can see, the only figures the american government wants (for now) is the volume of child pornography searches occuring on Google. This isn't an invasion of anyone's privacy, and of course Google already release ample data regarding how often particular searches are made (see http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html>).
If they also requested the ip addresses of the people making the searches, on the other hand, that would be a clear invasion of privacy and probably illegal under US law.
Well that depends on whether or not flash comes pre-installed. Grandma's not going to like it if half her sites don't display properly because the browser is tuned to the requirements of ultra-privacy-conscious tweakers.
The ideal defaults depend only on the target audience for Firefox. Seeing that Mozilla would like more users for Firefox, not less, I'd expect flash to continue to come as standard, no matter what objections the privacy-conscious make.
Most net users think along these lines - the shorter and snappier the domain name, the more it costs to buy. So surfers conclude that sites with short names (and a.com tag) are more likely to be half-decent professional operations than those with long domain names. It's a symbol of prestige.
They're buying traffic. Thousands of people looking for sex will type in www.sex.com every day (strange but true). They're buying traffic, no advertising required.
It should be obvious that distribution of a show, legal or otherwise, is going to get more people watching it. But no network exec would write a press release saying, "thanks to internet piracy, more people have heard of and are watching our show".
But now that iTunes is offering their shows (and paying them for every download) they're suddenly very keen to advertise the positive role that the internet can play in increasing exposure to their programmes.
Overall, though, it's definitely a good thing. Any press that demonstrates that internet downloads can benefit tv corporations as well as harming them increases the chance of a decent compromise between illegal file-sharing and drm'ed-to-the-gills restrictive legal downloads.
Well, if the world is going to return to the dark ages once the copper and fossil fuels run out, why not live in denial? It's the popular option in the face of certain adversity in the long term future.
I noticed that they didn't specify when they expected supplies to run out. I expect they've learnt from their mistakes. Fifty years ago, scientists said that the world's oil supplies would run out in fifty years time.
Personally, I look forward to 'vital' resources running out because they would force social change for the better. Can you imagine a world without motor cars or computers?
At any rate, expect to see huge amounts of money being spent on superconductor research once the supplies get scarce.
This is a forum, right? Not a newspaper, or broadcasting service?
I would worry if every word here was spelt correctly. It would indicate that the editors were more keen on making it clean and pretty, like your usual commercial news site, rather than ensuring good content and moderation.
I would say that the relationship of many websites appearing in Google search results is parasitic. That is, they take advantage of the huge number of searches for popular words and create random junk designed for the sole purpose of syphoning off traffic to their site. Once there, they make as much money as possible from the user by displaying a page full of ads.
If it weren't for search engines driving traffic to any page that contains just the right combination of links and keywords, these parasitic websites wouldn't exist.
This kind of misses the point. If Firefox is to become a mainstream internet browser, it needs to be anti-spyware and usable from a clean install onwards. Making it the ideal browser for the tweakers, where it's at its most usable after multiple options have been changed and several extensions installed, is not going to make it the browser of choice for the general public.
As far as grabbing market share goes, it's the default settings that make the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely a better analogy would be that of attaching a water cannon to a household tap. The adapter is capable of outputting a fast stream of water / rendered graphics, but if the tap / cpu can't supply water / rendering data at a fast enough rate then that capacity is wasted.
What's you really need for a quad-sli set up is a super hi res monitor to give the cards some more work to do per frame. The CPU bottleneck will be less of an issue if the time to render each frame increases.
In the UK at least, WLAN is not going to replace 3G. 3G networks already cover most of the landmass, WLAN covers assorted cafes, airports, hotels and trains.
There's no killer app for 3G at present, but it's a great upgrade to the slow GPRS. A coworker of mine owns an IMate JASJAR, which has a large touchscreen and switches seamlessly between WLAN, 3G and 2G Data Networks. Hence he is able to browse the internet at the fastest available speed at a viable resolution wherever he likes. He even uses it in his house because it's quicker than going over to the PC to look something up. Unfortunately this particular phone costs around the same price as a laptop at the mo.
Once they start marketing it as "broadband, on your phone, everywhere" (which is a fair summary) it'll take off.
I think we can assume that if the question 'which framework' or 'which language' is being asked, then the team is lucky enough to have the flexibility to choose the design and implementation of the project they're working on. This is probably the ideal case for every project, as no one likes to be tied down to legacy code and designs.
I take it as a sign that the developer just wants to take the (rare) opportunity to start from a blank slate and do it the way it should be done, rather than because it needs to be built on a pre-existing code base, or the team in question just wasn't given the opportunity to make key design decisions. In which case it is most definitely not a silly question to ask.
It's not free. One cannot run Internet Explorer without buying Windows, a costly product only available from Microsoft. I'm of the view that a piece of software is only free when you don't have to pay money to the company that wrote it to be able to use it.
Really? I thought I was being quite positive. Google's ventures are forcing other companies to put a bit more effort into providing decent web and desktop apps, rather than just the usual clunky ad-laden stuff with the 'click here to upgrade to premium' button. These sorts of apps make money in obvious ways, but once there's an superior alternative out there - something free, fast and easy - that model ceases to be viable.
This looks to me like one of the first signs of Microsoft changing its habits to meet the demands the public, rather than releasing whatever software and services it suits them to provide. Let's hope other companies follow suit.
Sounds to me like they're trying to outgoogle Google. Google has beaten Microsoft in many product areas because most of what it produces is useful, well designed and free, whereas most of Microsoft comes up with is inaccessible, bloated and often expensive.
Sounds like Microsoft wants to take a leaf out of Google's book. If Google didn't exist Microsoft would be charging a subscription for this.
I'd like to see the US Congress stick to its guns and ban trade with China due to a human rights record at least as bad as Cuba's. Then watch the US economy go down the plughole. The debts of the USA are underwritten mainly by China, and the US exports a hell of a lot of stuff there.
In matters of economics, morality doesn't get a look in. When making these kind of choices (trade with x / don't trade with x), Governments are just the same as Corporations - they're both looking to keep out of the red.
Barebones but decent PC (plus cheap monitor or TVout capable), between 400 and 600. Trivial stuff. Plus some older games.
Sorry, "plus some older games"?
The back catalogue of PC games stretches to tens of thousands of games. They shouldn't be idly dismissed, since the number of great PC games of years past exceeds the number of games available for any console.
Unfortunately that's not quite true here in the UK.
My first broadband connection was through Tiscali, who have for a long time been the cheapest ISP in the country. All was going well on their Unlimited Account until they redefined the meaning of the words "fair usage". Their exact words were:
All of our users have the right to an acceptable quality of service and to ensure this Tiscali employs a fair usage policy. This gives Tiscali the right to manage or terminate the accounts of customers whose usage adversely affects our network.
Within our fair usage policy we have introduced greater clarity on what constitutes heavy usage; if your monthly usage (up and download) exceeds 30GB we reserve the right to terminate your account.
They are still selling this account, with this policy, as 'unlimited'. IMHO, when an ISP provides a P2P user with a broadband account described as 'unlimited' that ISP has no right to complain when that user downloads a large amount of data.
The best you can hope for is that some employees will bypass their normal procedures once or twice -- but this will come with consequences!
This rang a bell with me - in a large insurance company in the UK (where a request to set up a new user takes approximately one month - if they're a temp admin worker, then they've usually left before they receive the access they need to do their job) a fellow developer needed debug user group rights to debug in Visual Studio. But none of the idiot IT support staff knew how to do it.
He eventually got in contact with a guy in printer maintenance who knew enough about windows to tick the right box. No one else could do it, and it needed to be done, so he did it. For this he received a formal reprimand from IT management. The access request had been authorized, but he was in the wrong department and was not authorized to fulfill the authorized access request.
In that case, could you tell me how a person could conclude that Creationism is true other than by having faith in the literal truth of the bible? That would disprove my generalization.
Also, I wasn't name calling. I was arguing the following:
1) Many intelligent people are Creationists
2) An intelligent person cannot conclude that Creationism is true and Evolution is false through an unbiased assessment of the evidence for each
3) Therefore intelligent Creationists must be forgoing an impartial assessment of the evidence for each
4) They forgo this assessment because they have faith in the literal truth of the bible, and hence the truth of creationism
I would like to meet one person who rejects the theory of evolution who is not a Christian. That would be a sign that they were rejecting the theory of evolution on the basis of comparing evidence for the truth of theory of Evolution with the evidence for the truth of competing theories.
There is no such person, because the only way a person with half a brain can believe that Creationism or ID is closer to the truth is through prejudging the issue, ignoring and distorting the facts to attempt to make them fit the view they came to by having faith in the literal truth of the bible.
It's true that the goalposts have changed. It used to be a simple competition between AMD and Intel to see who could make the fastest processor. But now we're seeing a bit of a slowdown (no pun intended) on that front (with the focus on more cores rather than more speed) they won't be seeking to increase market share by increasing cpu speed.
As that was AMD's trump card over Intel (you got better performance for the same price) I'm afraid we may see Intel coming back in force, especially if Viiv becomes for Desktops what Centrino became for Laptops ("I don't know what it is, but I know that it's good, so I'll get a PC/Laptop with Viiv/Centrino").
Specialism equals efficiency. So fortunately, the machines and programs that will be most useful to us will be the ones that are most specialized.
Who needs artificial intelligence? We have intelligence, so let's be content to let the fast symbol manipulators carry out the role to which they're best suited - simple, repetitive, clearly defined tasks.
I would say that there is no such thing as a 'deep understanding' of arithmetic, because this is essentially a linear activity involving logical manipulation of clearly defined entities. As a result, machines do it much better than us - that is what they are designed for.
... something you can't define.
We do not work in a way analogous to a calculator or PC because nothing we deal with can be defined. There are no on/off states in the human brain, and brain activity is more analogous to the super-complex and near-chaotic changes in the atmosphere than the stages of the computation of an algorithm.
Neither are there any discrete 'objects'; everything is connected to everything else. That is how a smell reminds you of a memory reminds you of a feeling reminds you of
I think what's most likely is that they'll carry on making machines that aren't intelligent, and don't do what we want.
To design intelligent machines we first need to understand what intelligence is and how it comes about. This is a long way off, and may indeed not be possible at all.
The article states:
The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.
As far as I can see, the only figures the american government wants (for now) is the volume of child pornography searches occuring on Google. This isn't an invasion of anyone's privacy, and of course Google already release ample data regarding how often particular searches are made (see http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html>).
If they also requested the ip addresses of the people making the searches, on the other hand, that would be a clear invasion of privacy and probably illegal under US law.
Well that depends on whether or not flash comes pre-installed. Grandma's not going to like it if half her sites don't display properly because the browser is tuned to the requirements of ultra-privacy-conscious tweakers.
The ideal defaults depend only on the target audience for Firefox. Seeing that Mozilla would like more users for Firefox, not less, I'd expect flash to continue to come as standard, no matter what objections the privacy-conscious make.
Two reasons why it fetched so high a price:
.com tag) are more likely to be half-decent professional operations than those with long domain names. It's a symbol of prestige.
Most net users think along these lines - the shorter and snappier the domain name, the more it costs to buy. So surfers conclude that sites with short names (and a
They're buying traffic. Thousands of people looking for sex will type in www.sex.com every day (strange but true). They're buying traffic, no advertising required.
It should be obvious that distribution of a show, legal or otherwise, is going to get more people watching it. But no network exec would write a press release saying, "thanks to internet piracy, more people have heard of and are watching our show".
But now that iTunes is offering their shows (and paying them for every download) they're suddenly very keen to advertise the positive role that the internet can play in increasing exposure to their programmes.
Overall, though, it's definitely a good thing. Any press that demonstrates that internet downloads can benefit tv corporations as well as harming them increases the chance of a decent compromise between illegal file-sharing and drm'ed-to-the-gills restrictive legal downloads.
Well, if the world is going to return to the dark ages once the copper and fossil fuels run out, why not live in denial? It's the popular option in the face of certain adversity in the long term future.
I noticed that they didn't specify when they expected supplies to run out. I expect they've learnt from their mistakes. Fifty years ago, scientists said that the world's oil supplies would run out in fifty years time.
Personally, I look forward to 'vital' resources running out because they would force social change for the better. Can you imagine a world without motor cars or computers?
At any rate, expect to see huge amounts of money being spent on superconductor research once the supplies get scarce.
This is a forum, right? Not a newspaper, or broadcasting service?
I would worry if every word here was spelt correctly. It would indicate that the editors were more keen on making it clean and pretty, like your usual commercial news site, rather than ensuring good content and moderation.
I would say that the relationship of many websites appearing in Google search results is parasitic. That is, they take advantage of the huge number of searches for popular words and create random junk designed for the sole purpose of syphoning off traffic to their site. Once there, they make as much money as possible from the user by displaying a page full of ads.
If it weren't for search engines driving traffic to any page that contains just the right combination of links and keywords, these parasitic websites wouldn't exist.
Disable the feature. Easy.
This kind of misses the point. If Firefox is to become a mainstream internet browser, it needs to be anti-spyware and usable from a clean install onwards. Making it the ideal browser for the tweakers, where it's at its most usable after multiple options have been changed and several extensions installed, is not going to make it the browser of choice for the general public.
As far as grabbing market share goes, it's the default settings that make the difference.