LMAO. Talk to me when all of this "will have" stuff is complete. Don't doubt what the world's largest economy can accomplish if it decides to prioritize something (yeah, I know...China "will" overtake the U.S. by some year I'm sure you can throw out).
So I'll ask again. Are you criticizing AGW/Climate Change by saying that it cannot be proven?
I am criticizing the frequent rhetoric where people assume AGW is scientific fact. I am criticizing what I perceive as some "group think" amongst the academic climate change community. I spent the last 7 years in a PhD program and am quite familiar with the "group think" aspects of academia. Circle the wagons and shoot outwards.
What are you driving at when you say you can't prove AGW? That complaint is usually followed by "you can't _scientifically prove_ it therefore we shouldn't do anything about it".
Actually my view is that society should apply some actuary science here (i.e., risk management). GW is happening whether we like it or not, thus a fair amount of money should be spent on researching/improving our ability to adapt. AGW may or may not be happening, and it may be irreversible if it is. Nonetheless, there exists some non-zero probability that AGW is indeed happening and that it is reversible with modest or drastic worldwide action. Thus I absolutely believe we should be purchasing some modest insurance policies (modest meaning 1-3% of global GDPs). What I find unrealistic is calling for such drastic change, given the uncertainties involved, that global economies and balances would rapidly shift.
As an example, I believe the risks of AGW probably outweigh the risks of nuclear power generation (which could *substantially* reduce CO2 emissions).
I personally do not believe you have any understanding of the scientific method. How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have you published? Because I've got over a dozen.
What I am referring to is "scientific fact". A scientific fact can be verified with a controlled experiment. As quoted in wikipedia (which obviously should not be taken as factual): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome."
Facts can also be observations that are used to support theories. The Theory of Evolution itself will always be a theory. The individual observations themselves are facts.
It is not possible to perform controlled experiments to prove AGW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments
You can only perform "natural" or "quasi-experiments".
How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method? You can't stick the earth in a test tube. You cannot perform repeatable experiments with controlled variables. Thus you can only prove sub-components of AGW that may support the *theory* of AGW.
The scientific method cannot prove AGW since you can't stick the Earth in a test tube. You can only prove/disprove sub-components that may support the *theory* of AGW.
ARM currently supports 4 GB of memory since the ISA is 32-bits. Full 64-bit addessing support is years away. Interim "PAE" extensions will be just as ugly and unused as the x86 PAE.
Droid has a better screen than the Nexus's OLED display? Are you flipping kidding me?! I own both and the Nexus screen is amazingly better than the Droid and the iPhone.
He also sued the University of Wisconsin for allowing "segregated fees" to pay for student group activities like the LGBT group. Case went to the Supreme Court. The University won.
Then he was a media darling for adopting some Iraqi boy.
Bullshit. Normalized data going back many years show Toyota has a far higher incidence rate. Either old people buy way more Toyotas or Toyotas really do have a problem.
Claims of sudden acceleration happen across all makes. However incidence among Toyotas is significantly higher than other makes, and this trend goes back many years before all the widespread media attention. Thus either a) older people tend to buy Toyotas, or b) there really is something about Toyotas and sudden acceleration.
You don't have a clue. Alpha particle strikes in microprocessors are a real and growing problem. They were never a problem before because the CMOS gates were too big to matter. Now the gates are so small and hold so little charge that a single alpha particle strike is increasingly flipping bits. Its been happening to DRAM for a long time...hence ECC.
You are misinformed. Alpha particle strikes are a real problem as process technology shrinks. Certain cars and systems could very well be more vulnerable than others due to process variation. There is a reason why microprocessors are adding ECC and parity protection to L2/L3 caches and even L1 caches. The problem nailed Sun in the 90s. It nailed Virginia Tech (when they had to replace every server in their supercomputer since they didn't use ECC memory). It probably happens to your own laptop/PC more often than you might think.
Intel has an entire research group devoted to mitigating transient errors caused by alpha particle strikes.
And you might be surprised at the number of home PC crashes blamed on Windows but really caused by bit flips.
I own a Nissan. But my next car will be a Ford. As someone involved with the higher education of engineering students, Ford and GM recruit engineers from American universities and Toyota/Nissan/Honda do not. What do you think will happen if engineering students in this country cannot find jobs? What jobs are more important, hourly manufacturing jobs or higher-end engineering jobs?
Iridium was a terrible idea devised by engineers with an ill-thought out business plan. The business model could *never* succeed by simple math (i.e., the max capacity of the Iridium system was so small that it could really never be profitable). The worst part of Iridium was that it was an engineering drain on the rest of the company. Some of our best cellphone engineers got sucked into making cellular plug-in cards for Iridium handsets.
BTW-- I used to work for Motorola as a software engineer on handsets. It was a lousy experience.
The USA really has extremes in population density. We have NYC and we have North Dakota. This is why CDMA was, at one time, the favored technology here in the U.S. GSM cell sizes are fixed at 45km. CDMA can go much larger (for greater coverage area, less capacity), and of course, can also go much smaller (for higher capacity).
It is no wonder that Verizon has the best coverage in North America.
Of course you can make a reliable GSM network that covers a vast area and has high capacity. It just costs a lot of money.
I find my computer worthless when disconnected from the internet. Any code I write is done on remote systems. I grew out of gaming long ago. Perhaps I would edit/organize photos, but thats about it.
More basic than that: Friends don't let friends -buy- computers from Best Buy.
Eh. Why not? I bought my mother a new laptop from Best Buy a couple weeks ago. For $450, I got an HP dv4 laptop with 4 GB of DRAM, T4300 processor, 14.1" widescreen, HDMI output, DVD burner, etc. One hell of a deal if you ask me.
Actually thats not fair either, since most SoC's that contain an ARM core have most of their value in the uncore portion of the silicon. Hence compare Intel's revenue from the revenue that Arm Ltd. gets for licensing.
ARM is clearly a success story, but not near the "commercial success" that is Intel's x86 processors.
Indeed, and compare it to the gross revenue of all ARM-based products from those companies you cite. By your logic, the 8-bit Zilog Z80 processor might actually be the most commercially successful in the past 30 years.
(Yes, I know that the numbers regarding ARM-based products, but please go look at Intel's revenue before you claim ARM is the most "successful" CPU architecture)
GSM has a maximum cell size of 45km or size. CDMA cell sizes can grow much larger. A big deal when trying to cover the sparsely populated, vast geographic regions of the U.S. (especially when the number of cellular subscribers in the early 90s was a small fraction of what it is today).
There are good reasons why some U.S. carriers bypassed GSM and went with CDMA IS-95.
And lets not forgot that 3G GSM (UMTS) uses CDMA signaling because it is superior and is more spectrum efficient. The 2G CDMA folks were just ahead of the game.
Slashdot Mirror
LMAO. Talk to me when all of this "will have" stuff is complete. Don't doubt what the world's largest economy can accomplish if it decides to prioritize something (yeah, I know...China "will" overtake the U.S. by some year I'm sure you can throw out).
So I'll ask again. Are you criticizing AGW/Climate Change by saying that it cannot be proven?
I am criticizing the frequent rhetoric where people assume AGW is scientific fact. I am criticizing what I perceive as some "group think" amongst the academic climate change community. I spent the last 7 years in a PhD program and am quite familiar with the "group think" aspects of academia. Circle the wagons and shoot outwards.
What are you driving at when you say you can't prove AGW? That complaint is usually followed by "you can't _scientifically prove_ it therefore we shouldn't do anything about it".
Actually my view is that society should apply some actuary science here (i.e., risk management). GW is happening whether we like it or not, thus a fair amount of money should be spent on researching/improving our ability to adapt. AGW may or may not be happening, and it may be irreversible if it is. Nonetheless, there exists some non-zero probability that AGW is indeed happening and that it is reversible with modest or drastic worldwide action. Thus I absolutely believe we should be purchasing some modest insurance policies (modest meaning 1-3% of global GDPs). What I find unrealistic is calling for such drastic change, given the uncertainties involved, that global economies and balances would rapidly shift.
As an example, I believe the risks of AGW probably outweigh the risks of nuclear power generation (which could *substantially* reduce CO2 emissions).
I personally do not believe you have any understanding of the scientific method. How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have you published? Because I've got over a dozen.
What I am referring to is "scientific fact". A scientific fact can be verified with a controlled experiment. As quoted in wikipedia (which obviously should not be taken as factual): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome."
Facts can also be observations that are used to support theories. The Theory of Evolution itself will always be a theory. The individual observations themselves are facts.
It is not possible to perform controlled experiments to prove AGW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments You can only perform "natural" or "quasi-experiments".
It is not possible to perform controlled experiments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments You can only perform "natural" or "quasi-experiments".
How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method? You can't stick the earth in a test tube. You cannot perform repeatable experiments with controlled variables. Thus you can only prove sub-components of AGW that may support the *theory* of AGW.
The scientific method cannot prove AGW since you can't stick the Earth in a test tube. You can only prove/disprove sub-components that may support the *theory* of AGW.
ARM currently supports 4 GB of memory since the ISA is 32-bits. Full 64-bit addessing support is years away. Interim "PAE" extensions will be just as ugly and unused as the x86 PAE.
Droid has a better screen than the Nexus's OLED display? Are you flipping kidding me?! I own both and the Nexus screen is amazingly better than the Droid and the iPhone.
OLED inferior? Have you ever used the 800x400 OLED screen on the Nexus One? The screen is stunning.
Southworth is a dickwad who craves attention.
He also sued the University of Wisconsin for allowing "segregated fees" to pay for student group activities like the LGBT group. Case went to the Supreme Court. The University won.
Then he was a media darling for adopting some Iraqi boy.
Bullshit. Normalized data going back many years show Toyota has a far higher incidence rate. Either old people buy way more Toyotas or Toyotas really do have a problem.
Claims of sudden acceleration happen across all makes. However incidence among Toyotas is significantly higher than other makes, and this trend goes back many years before all the widespread media attention. Thus either a) older people tend to buy Toyotas, or b) there really is something about Toyotas and sudden acceleration.
You don't have a clue. Alpha particle strikes in microprocessors are a real and growing problem. They were never a problem before because the CMOS gates were too big to matter. Now the gates are so small and hold so little charge that a single alpha particle strike is increasingly flipping bits. Its been happening to DRAM for a long time...hence ECC.
You are misinformed. Alpha particle strikes are a real problem as process technology shrinks. Certain cars and systems could very well be more vulnerable than others due to process variation. There is a reason why microprocessors are adding ECC and parity protection to L2/L3 caches and even L1 caches. The problem nailed Sun in the 90s. It nailed Virginia Tech (when they had to replace every server in their supercomputer since they didn't use ECC memory). It probably happens to your own laptop/PC more often than you might think.
Intel has an entire research group devoted to mitigating transient errors caused by alpha particle strikes.
And you might be surprised at the number of home PC crashes blamed on Windows but really caused by bit flips.
I own a Nissan. But my next car will be a Ford. As someone involved with the higher education of engineering students, Ford and GM recruit engineers from American universities and Toyota/Nissan/Honda do not. What do you think will happen if engineering students in this country cannot find jobs? What jobs are more important, hourly manufacturing jobs or higher-end engineering jobs?
Motorola StarTAC dropped from motorcycle traveling at ~ 80 mph. Hit a car behind. Phone retrieved...screen cracked, but it placed a call.
Iridium was a terrible idea devised by engineers with an ill-thought out business plan. The business model could *never* succeed by simple math (i.e., the max capacity of the Iridium system was so small that it could really never be profitable). The worst part of Iridium was that it was an engineering drain on the rest of the company. Some of our best cellphone engineers got sucked into making cellular plug-in cards for Iridium handsets.
BTW-- I used to work for Motorola as a software engineer on handsets. It was a lousy experience.
The USA really has extremes in population density. We have NYC and we have North Dakota. This is why CDMA was, at one time, the favored technology here in the U.S. GSM cell sizes are fixed at 45km. CDMA can go much larger (for greater coverage area, less capacity), and of course, can also go much smaller (for higher capacity).
It is no wonder that Verizon has the best coverage in North America.
Of course you can make a reliable GSM network that covers a vast area and has high capacity. It just costs a lot of money.
I find my computer worthless when disconnected from the internet. Any code I write is done on remote systems. I grew out of gaming long ago. Perhaps I would edit/organize photos, but thats about it.
More basic than that: Friends don't let friends -buy- computers from Best Buy.
Eh. Why not? I bought my mother a new laptop from Best Buy a couple weeks ago. For $450, I got an HP dv4 laptop with 4 GB of DRAM, T4300 processor, 14.1" widescreen, HDMI output, DVD burner, etc. One hell of a deal if you ask me.
Actually thats not fair either, since most SoC's that contain an ARM core have most of their value in the uncore portion of the silicon. Hence compare Intel's revenue from the revenue that Arm Ltd. gets for licensing.
ARM is clearly a success story, but not near the "commercial success" that is Intel's x86 processors.
Indeed, and compare it to the gross revenue of all ARM-based products from those companies you cite. By your logic, the 8-bit Zilog Z80 processor might actually be the most commercially successful in the past 30 years.
the most successful commercial CPU architecture
:-)
You mean x86?
(Yes, I know that the numbers regarding ARM-based products, but please go look at Intel's revenue before you claim ARM is the most "successful" CPU architecture)
GSM has a maximum cell size of 45km or size. CDMA cell sizes can grow much larger. A big deal when trying to cover the sparsely populated, vast geographic regions of the U.S. (especially when the number of cellular subscribers in the early 90s was a small fraction of what it is today).
There are good reasons why some U.S. carriers bypassed GSM and went with CDMA IS-95.
And lets not forgot that 3G GSM (UMTS) uses CDMA signaling because it is superior and is more spectrum efficient. The 2G CDMA folks were just ahead of the game.