Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there are any commercial printers that can print circuits at the nano scale.
And we have printers who can do one type of metal at a time, others that can do plastic, and some that can do circuits – but none can do all 3. So you can get parts, but a lot of assemble is still required.
I live in Minneapolis MN and the big city has plenty of movie theaters where there is not glass that separates you from the cashier. It is the suburbs who have the security windows
If I had to guess, the chances of a security windows would be based on how much cash was being used verse ease of escape. The inner city first run theater (now closed) did not have security windows – but it took a lot of credit cards and you had to run 3 level of stairs before you got out of the building. The suburb one faced out onto a freezing cold parking lot.
What you are saying is totally correct. The first 10 minutes. – beautifully shot, but yes, one big plot hole. (Could this have been fixed with better writing? Yes.) Ignore how fast those alien buggers grow. (Isaac Asimov said every SF writer is allowed one impossibility, and for me that was 2.)
What about the reset of the movie? What about the relationship between parent and child? (Alien to Human, Human to Android, healthy human parent-child. Unhealthy parent-child.) What do we get when we demand answers or respect from said distant parents? I really like that part and it did have something to say. So not a complete waste.
Yes I do, and it is because was because Prometheus was not awful.
Good movies tend to be good in their own way. Call it being original, vision, whatever. Bad movies tend to be bad in the same way – clichés, plot holes, etc. See Alien: Resurrection. (I would like to reference Alien vs. Predator but I never saw those.)
But that is not why Prometheus failed. Scott made some bold choices – some of them worked and some of them failed – but at least they were new. I did not like the plot holes at the start but I did like the ending (I thought they were making a stupid choice by finding the home world, but we knew why they were making the choice.).
I have found a very low correlation between how good a movie is and how good the writer’s prior screenwriting work was. There is a lot that goes on between the writing of the words and what we see on the screen. Studio heads, directors, writers, film editors all modify what was on the written page.
I trust Ridley Scott. If he picked this guy out then that is good enough for me. Maybe Mr. Green’s magnum opus is this work and Scott has seen an early draft. (But I will withhold finial judgment until I see the movie on the big screen.)
I have a question – why would answering that question make a good movie?
Personally, I like the ambiguity. It still makes for an interesting conversation after all of these years – Unlike Han’s “Who shot first” question? My guess is that it would detract from the original – not add. Personally, I think that the should leave it like the original Matrix movie – No reason to do another one, even if the fans demand a sequel.
I had a uncle who worked at GM from the 50 to the 70s as a troubleshooter for production issues. (Got his engineering degree first, then later his MBA – back when such things mattered.). I also know some ex Ford line workers from the same era. So, yeah, it's anecdotal – but it is coming from two different sources. And no, it would be rare for a person to be able to pick the day the car was made.
And what bit of untruth would that be? I see arguments, not truths. From the link, there seems to be 3 arguments.
The key difference is that people don't foresee a fixed cost (unit amount) that they must pay with Bitcoin.
Well, that is kind of the point. Money is 3 things, a unit of exchange, storage, and account. If people don't expect things in the future to have a (approximate) fixed cost in the future, it is not a store of value, so it's not money. As a plain example, it is saying people won't save BitCoins to buy their next car in 2 years. Or even their grocery bill next week. So, no deflation because BitCoins are not money.
If the value of the Bitcoins that they own increases, then any future cost will take a proportionally smaller amount of Bitcoins. There isn't any fixed incentive to holding Bitcoin other than speculation.
o.,k. - people won't speculate. Why? If deflation is 2%, my money earns 2% a year sitting under my mattress. Deflation favors financial assets over real assets. Deflation transfers values from the wealth (those who have a lot of currency and hard assets) away from the poor.
If the economy grows faster then supply of money, you are going to get deflation from a mathematical standpoint. That is a cold hard fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
But maybe we should not deal with cold hard facts – people are not rational things – their fuzzy and irrational.
From the MIT Technology Review
"In a Bitcoin world, everyone would anticipate that, and they know what they got paid would buy more then than it would now."
This is a opinion, not a fact. The Japanese have been experiencing and expecting deflation for the past 10 years. Their economy is still in the tank. 1930's Great Depression, deflation. There are a couple of other depressions tied to deflation. So maybe not.
But let's say we have entered a new era, and we are New Men – rational beings who can overcome their hind brain and rationally expect things. For example, if deflation is at 2%, and our boss comes in and says you have been doing a great job, and then gives you a raise by cutting your salary by only 1% - not by 2%. you would be o.k. with that? “Economic Rational” people maybe – but it is hard to find these people.
I have seen studies where they take MBA students, tell them they are studying money illusion, and the MBA students still value items in nominal, not real terms. Now, I am not saying that MBA students are the smartest people around, but I do think they would be above average in a case like this.
The first 2 arguments are rubbish. The 3rd holds some water. I have seen articles and studies that mild deflation is not bad, or at least, no worse then mild inflation. However, I feel that the majority of the evidence is that deflation is bad.
Well, as a named person, I have put up quite a few negative posts about BitCoin. Well, maybe not negative – I think it is an interesting experiment that will fail because BitConn's monetary policy – or lack thereof – is inherently deflationary. But that is my opinion of BitCoins ultimate fate – not a judgment on what it is.
As for the pro-posts themselves – they seem a bit self righteous – the tone reminds me of the post going around that the dotcom bubble was not a bubble.
By the way, it's not that a little inflation is good. It's that deflation and hyperinflation are horrid. Zero inflation is theoretically impossible and in practice has been horrid. That only leaves one choice – a little inflation.
So, to your points. I think you overstate the evil effects of current (and potential) monetary power and abuse by the rich. I also think you are ignoring all of the other ways that currency can be manipulated.
Check out the 18th and 19 century when the gold standard still dominated. I liked Milton Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States.
Having well run banks for basic savings is a huge boon for the poor. That implies a certain amount of government regulation and a central bank.
I am going to make the assumption that the developers of these apps have a legitimate corporate bank account, which means that have a legitimate business license. And besides, I think most people would argue that in app purchases are for serveries, not to transfer funds.
The issue here is not the BitCoins. The issue is that every banking (which includes money transfers) requires lots of regulations around integrity of operations, “know your customer” rules, etc. There is something special about handing money over to a 3rd party to do stuff with – lots of fraud, get quick scams, etc.
Maybe yes, maybe no. To many variables would change.
Do you get thousands of small chunks or a half dozen big chunks? If thousands of small chunks, then yes, it would most burn up in the atmosphere. Lots of air burst, lots of stuff dumped into the atmosphere but probably the best case scenario. On the other hand, if it just shattered into a few chunks....
I have seen arguments on which one is worse, land based strikes, water strikes, or air burst. You would get all 3.
One could get general damage to the entire world instead of concentrating the damage in a single place. If it were a water strike with an asteroid, you would get 1 massive tilde wave that would strike one ocean. With multiple strides you could get massive tilde waves in multiple oceans.
We can tell what is on the outside, we can tell the approximate mass, but after that... We can't tell if it is solid. I would actually be a little surprised it was sold.
It could be a couple of small asteroids glued together with ice to make 1 large one. See Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9.
It could be a lot of gravel bonded together with a lot of ice.
If this was done close to Earth, it just might shatter and not be deflected – sort of being hit with a shotgun blast instead of a bullet.
Most long contempt charges I know about are journalist.
I don't think contempt is his biggest worry. At some point presumption of innocence changes into presumption of guilt. I have heard of cases (mostly fraud) where the judge ordered the defendants to turn over documents, the defendants destroyed, lost, etc. the documents, The judge then informs the jury that they consider why the defends failed to do so, and pushes the burden off of the prosecutor and onto the defendants. It takes a lot to get to this point – and I would assume most lawyers would direct their clients away from such a course of action.
Have you read the story about the young British boy, who was kind of an outcast and wore glasses, who one day was informed that he was destined to be a great wielder of magic for good?
Gaiman wrote that story 7 years before Rowling. Does he feel he was ripped off? No. There are only so many stories out there, and everybody cribs off of everybody else. Look at Shakespeare – hard to find an original idea in any of his plays. What differs bad plagiarized works and brilliant works is the execution.
Here is Gaiman's take – it the second part of the blog post.
To answer half your question, because this works scales nicely in that the work is parallel. It can be broken down and run on multiple computers, cores, threads, VM, clould, whatever. So that explains the number. And a computer that is a 100 times faster then a normal computer tends to be over a 100 times more expensive.
As why not to the cloud? I am going to take a wild guess that it's the data – there is a lot of it so access could be a bottle neck. In this case you want your data and cpus to be physical close to each other. I am sure something could be rigged up in the cloud, but that might be more expensive, but now I entered the realm of serious speculation.
Odd, but I see AIDs as a great example. Virulence is a plus as long as you can spread before you kill your host.
Take the pre-1900s STDs like syphilis. Like AIDs it was 100% deadly – pre-antibiotics. However, back then, people had fewer sexual partners. If you have to wait a long time to jump from one to another – and you are 100% deadly, you burn slowly, you converse your host.
Now look at AIDs and the 1980s. The groups that it exploded in were very sexually promiscuous (and international travel was common for the first time, shared needles, and had a national blood bank going, etc.). AIDs could be much more deadly because the chance of it being passed on before it killed it host was higher. Why converse your host when you have dozens to hundreds of opportunities to infect each year?
Disease that kill like AIDs don't survive long in the natural world. They go big, wipe out the local population, kill off all the hosts, and die back. A (very deadly) flash in the pan. AIDs got lucky that it hit the right place at the right time. However, syphilis has the better long term prospects and I would bet will be around for longer then AIDs.
You have that backwards – virus can either burn fast or burn slow.
A virus that burns slow is less contagious and less lethal to it's host. If it is less contagious then it needs to keep it host alive for a longer period of time so there can be more opportunities to spread (or vice versa.).
As for less lethal over time – that is a maybe. Do you burn hot and fast or long and slow? One strategy does not strictly dominate the other.
If a virus can transfer to a host faster then it can kill off it's old one, there is a selective pressure to go more virulent. Now speed does come with it's own costs, but it can work in a virus favor over the short term.
As I understood it, when Myxomatosis was first introduced, it was the highly virulent kind that went wide first. It burnt itself out because it was killing the hosts faster then it could spread. After that, the less virulent continued to spread.
If you want to argue that in the long term the less virulent kind is the one that survives – o.k. - but that is only after the more virulent kind has spread. Or am I missing something here?
Not exactly FUD. Think of it as a snowball that might turn into a avalanche.
A 25% kill rate is nothing to sneeze at.
Ferret are the best animal model we have – and there are open questions on how it was transmitted.
And, most importantly, there is the question on how this virus would change it if went wide.
A virus needs to balance out 2 factors from a evolutionary standpoint. First, the more copies of itself it turns out the better chance it while have to spread, while the more copies it turns out the more likely it will kill the host so no more copies will be turned out.
If this virus went wide, the more virulent versions would dominate, which means the death toll would be higher.
It's secretive because it Google's skunk works – with lots of hair brain ideas, where 9 out of 10 fails. Since it is secret, in the sense that Google isn't publishing what it is doing, people can feel free to throw out and try wild ideas without the fear of embarrassment that comes with failure. (You don't know until you tried something, you learn from your mistakes, bold experiments tend to turn up unexpected results, etc.)
I thought the UK got their stuff from the Americans? Is Canada really taking third hand stuff when America is right next door?
And Americans buy a lot of stuff from the UK. See BAE systems. It's British, but it does top secret design work for the US. (Using American workers in segregated subsidiaries.)
Or the Joint Strike Fighter, which in theory the British are partners.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there are any commercial printers that can print circuits at the nano scale.
And we have printers who can do one type of metal at a time, others that can do plastic, and some that can do circuits – but none can do all 3. So you can get parts, but a lot of assemble is still required.
I live in Minneapolis MN and the big city has plenty of movie theaters where there is not glass that separates you from the cashier. It is the suburbs who have the security windows
If I had to guess, the chances of a security windows would be based on how much cash was being used verse ease of escape. The inner city first run theater (now closed) did not have security windows – but it took a lot of credit cards and you had to run 3 level of stairs before you got out of the building. The suburb one faced out onto a freezing cold parking lot.
What you are saying is totally correct. The first 10 minutes. – beautifully shot, but yes, one big plot hole. (Could this have been fixed with better writing? Yes.) Ignore how fast those alien buggers grow. (Isaac Asimov said every SF writer is allowed one impossibility, and for me that was 2.)
What about the reset of the movie? What about the relationship between parent and child? (Alien to Human, Human to Android, healthy human parent-child. Unhealthy parent-child.) What do we get when we demand answers or respect from said distant parents? I really like that part and it did have something to say. So not a complete waste.
Yes I do, and it is because was because Prometheus was not awful.
Good movies tend to be good in their own way. Call it being original, vision, whatever. Bad movies tend to be bad in the same way – clichés, plot holes, etc. See Alien: Resurrection. (I would like to reference Alien vs. Predator but I never saw those.)
But that is not why Prometheus failed. Scott made some bold choices – some of them worked and some of them failed – but at least they were new. I did not like the plot holes at the start but I did like the ending (I thought they were making a stupid choice by finding the home world, but we knew why they were making the choice.).
I have found a very low correlation between how good a movie is and how good the writer’s prior screenwriting work was. There is a lot that goes on between the writing of the words and what we see on the screen. Studio heads, directors, writers, film editors all modify what was on the written page.
I trust Ridley Scott. If he picked this guy out then that is good enough for me. Maybe Mr. Green’s magnum opus is this work and Scott has seen an early draft. (But I will withhold finial judgment until I see the movie on the big screen.)
I have a question – why would answering that question make a good movie?
Personally, I like the ambiguity. It still makes for an interesting conversation after all of these years – Unlike Han’s “Who shot first” question? My guess is that it would detract from the original – not add. Personally, I think that the should leave it like the original Matrix movie – No reason to do another one, even if the fans demand a sequel.
I had a uncle who worked at GM from the 50 to the 70s as a troubleshooter for production issues. (Got his engineering degree first, then later his MBA – back when such things mattered.). I also know some ex Ford line workers from the same era. So, yeah, it's anecdotal – but it is coming from two different sources. And no, it would be rare for a person to be able to pick the day the car was made.
Odd, I thought “Blue” Mondays was the worst day, with all of the workers recovering from the weekend – in particular alcohol consumption.
This was at least true during the 70s. Everybody agreed that Wednesday cars were the best.
And what bit of untruth would that be? I see arguments, not truths. From the link, there seems to be 3 arguments.
The key difference is that people don't foresee a fixed cost (unit amount) that they must pay with Bitcoin.
Well, that is kind of the point. Money is 3 things, a unit of exchange, storage, and account. If people don't expect things in the future to have a (approximate) fixed cost in the future, it is not a store of value, so it's not money. As a plain example, it is saying people won't save BitCoins to buy their next car in 2 years. Or even their grocery bill next week. So, no deflation because BitCoins are not money.
If the value of the Bitcoins that they own increases, then any future cost will take a proportionally smaller amount of Bitcoins. There isn't any fixed incentive to holding Bitcoin other than speculation.
o.,k. - people won't speculate. Why? If deflation is 2%, my money earns 2% a year sitting under my mattress. Deflation favors financial assets over real assets. Deflation transfers values from the wealth (those who have a lot of currency and hard assets) away from the poor.
If the economy grows faster then supply of money, you are going to get deflation from a mathematical standpoint. That is a cold hard fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
But maybe we should not deal with cold hard facts – people are not rational things – their fuzzy and irrational.
From the MIT Technology Review
"In a Bitcoin world, everyone would anticipate that, and they know what they got paid would buy more then than it would now."
This is a opinion, not a fact. The Japanese have been experiencing and expecting deflation for the past 10 years. Their economy is still in the tank. 1930's Great Depression, deflation. There are a couple of other depressions tied to deflation. So maybe not.
But let's say we have entered a new era, and we are New Men – rational beings who can overcome their hind brain and rationally expect things. For example, if deflation is at 2%, and our boss comes in and says you have been doing a great job, and then gives you a raise by cutting your salary by only 1% - not by 2%. you would be o.k. with that? “Economic Rational” people maybe – but it is hard to find these people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_illusion
I have seen studies where they take MBA students, tell them they are studying money illusion, and the MBA students still value items in nominal, not real terms. Now, I am not saying that MBA students are the smartest people around, but I do think they would be above average in a case like this.
The first 2 arguments are rubbish. The 3rd holds some water. I have seen articles and studies that mild deflation is not bad, or at least, no worse then mild inflation. However, I feel that the majority of the evidence is that deflation is bad.
Well, as a named person, I have put up quite a few negative posts about BitCoin. Well, maybe not negative – I think it is an interesting experiment that will fail because BitConn's monetary policy – or lack thereof – is inherently deflationary. But that is my opinion of BitCoins ultimate fate – not a judgment on what it is.
As for the pro-posts themselves – they seem a bit self righteous – the tone reminds me of the post going around that the dotcom bubble was not a bubble.
By the way, it's not that a little inflation is good. It's that deflation and hyperinflation are horrid. Zero inflation is theoretically impossible and in practice has been horrid. That only leaves one choice – a little inflation.
So, to your points. I think you overstate the evil effects of current (and potential) monetary power and abuse by the rich. I also think you are ignoring all of the other ways that currency can be manipulated.
Check out the 18th and 19 century when the gold standard still dominated. I liked Milton Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States.
Having well run banks for basic savings is a huge boon for the poor. That implies a certain amount of government regulation and a central bank.
How is it the same thing?
I am going to make the assumption that the developers of these apps have a legitimate corporate bank account, which means that have a legitimate business license. And besides, I think most people would argue that in app purchases are for serveries, not to transfer funds.
The issue here is not the BitCoins. The issue is that every banking (which includes money transfers) requires lots of regulations around integrity of operations, “know your customer” rules, etc. There is something special about handing money over to a 3rd party to do stuff with – lots of fraud, get quick scams, etc.
Maybe yes, maybe no. To many variables would change.
Do you get thousands of small chunks or a half dozen big chunks? If thousands of small chunks, then yes, it would most burn up in the atmosphere. Lots of air burst, lots of stuff dumped into the atmosphere but probably the best case scenario. On the other hand, if it just shattered into a few chunks....
I have seen arguments on which one is worse, land based strikes, water strikes, or air burst. You would get all 3.
One could get general damage to the entire world instead of concentrating the damage in a single place. If it were a water strike with an asteroid, you would get 1 massive tilde wave that would strike one ocean. With multiple strides you could get massive tilde waves in multiple oceans.
No, there is no easy way.
We can tell what is on the outside, we can tell the approximate mass, but after that...
We can't tell if it is solid. I would actually be a little surprised it was sold.
It could be a couple of small asteroids glued together with ice to make 1 large one. See Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9.
It could be a lot of gravel bonded together with a lot of ice.
If this was done close to Earth, it just might shatter and not be deflected – sort of being hit with a shotgun blast instead of a bullet.
Most long contempt charges I know about are journalist.
I don't think contempt is his biggest worry. At some point presumption of innocence changes into presumption of guilt. I have heard of cases (mostly fraud) where the judge ordered the defendants to turn over documents, the defendants destroyed, lost, etc. the documents, The judge then informs the jury that they consider why the defends failed to do so, and pushes the burden off of the prosecutor and onto the defendants. It takes a lot to get to this point – and I would assume most lawyers would direct their clients away from such a course of action.
Have you read the story about the young British boy, who was kind of an outcast and wore glasses, who one day was informed that he was destined to be a great wielder of magic for good?
Gaiman wrote that story 7 years before Rowling. Does he feel he was ripped off? No. There are only so many stories out there, and everybody cribs off of everybody else. Look at Shakespeare – hard to find an original idea in any of his plays. What differs bad plagiarized works and brilliant works is the execution.
Here is Gaiman's take – it the second part of the blog post.
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/04/fair-use-and-other-things.html
Probably no 666. That's Christen New Testament stuff – a completely different standards fork then the stuff we are talking about here.
To answer half your question, because this works scales nicely in that the work is parallel. It can be broken down and run on multiple computers, cores, threads, VM, clould, whatever. So that explains the number. And a computer that is a 100 times faster then a normal computer tends to be over a 100 times more expensive.
As why not to the cloud? I am going to take a wild guess that it's the data – there is a lot of it so access could be a bottle neck. In this case you want your data and cpus to be physical close to each other. I am sure something could be rigged up in the cloud, but that might be more expensive, but now I entered the realm of serious speculation.
I am missing something here – where in that paragraph does it talk about tax breaks?
Odd, but I see AIDs as a great example. Virulence is a plus as long as you can spread before you kill your host.
Take the pre-1900s STDs like syphilis. Like AIDs it was 100% deadly – pre-antibiotics. However, back then, people had fewer sexual partners. If you have to wait a long time to jump from one to another – and you are 100% deadly, you burn slowly, you converse your host.
Now look at AIDs and the 1980s. The groups that it exploded in were very sexually promiscuous (and international travel was common for the first time, shared needles, and had a national blood bank going, etc.). AIDs could be much more deadly because the chance of it being passed on before it killed it host was higher. Why converse your host when you have dozens to hundreds of opportunities to infect each year?
Disease that kill like AIDs don't survive long in the natural world. They go big, wipe out the local population, kill off all the hosts, and die back. A (very deadly) flash in the pan. AIDs got lucky that it hit the right place at the right time. However, syphilis has the better long term prospects and I would bet will be around for longer then AIDs.
ok then, what is the best animal model for influenza?
You have that backwards – virus can either burn fast or burn slow.
A virus that burns slow is less contagious and less lethal to it's host. If it is less contagious then it needs to keep it host alive for a longer period of time so there can be more opportunities to spread (or vice versa.).
As for less lethal over time – that is a maybe. Do you burn hot and fast or long and slow? One strategy does not strictly dominate the other.
If a virus can transfer to a host faster then it can kill off it's old one, there is a selective pressure to go more virulent. Now speed does come with it's own costs, but it can work in a virus favor over the short term.
I am not sure I am following – can you explain?
As I understood it, when Myxomatosis was first introduced, it was the highly virulent kind that went wide first. It burnt itself out because it was killing the hosts faster then it could spread. After that, the less virulent continued to spread.
If you want to argue that in the long term the less virulent kind is the one that survives – o.k. - but that is only after the more virulent kind has spread. Or am I missing something here?
Not exactly FUD. Think of it as a snowball that might turn into a avalanche.
A 25% kill rate is nothing to sneeze at.
Ferret are the best animal model we have – and there are open questions on how it was transmitted.
And, most importantly, there is the question on how this virus would change it if went wide.
A virus needs to balance out 2 factors from a evolutionary standpoint. First, the more copies of itself it turns out the better chance it while have to spread, while the more copies it turns out the more likely it will kill the host so no more copies will be turned out.
If this virus went wide, the more virulent versions would dominate, which means the death toll would be higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virulence#Evolution
Remember to wash your hands and sneeze into your sleeve everybody! (I am not stocking up on antivirals yet.)
It's secretive because it Google's skunk works – with lots of hair brain ideas, where 9 out of 10 fails. Since it is secret, in the sense that Google isn't publishing what it is doing, people can feel free to throw out and try wild ideas without the fear of embarrassment that comes with failure. (You don't know until you tried something, you learn from your mistakes, bold experiments tend to turn up unexpected results, etc.)
I thought the UK got their stuff from the Americans? Is Canada really taking third hand stuff when America is right next door?
And Americans buy a lot of stuff from the UK. See BAE systems. It's British, but it does top secret design work for the US. (Using American workers in segregated subsidiaries.)
Or the Joint Strike Fighter, which in theory the British are partners.