"Cloud" deployment isn't new because the technology is new, it is new because the billing systems are relatively new. The fine-grained billing allows the technology to be utilized much more broadly than before, and to much greater effect. Also the almost guaranteed instant availability of additional compute units is a big difference compared to the old offsite data center, where you had to lease greater-than-expected-peak capacity. With "the cloud" if you have variable traffic during different parts of the day, it is often cheaper than hosting your own hardware, even if you have latent admin capacity and only pay for the hardware, power, and connectivity. Even just the peak+ connectivity could cost more than the whole cloud hosting, depending on traffic pattern. It also brings a new level of scaling capability to small business that was just not feasible before without hiring multiple 6-figure IT guys full time.
Internet of Things: Yeah, but the industrial applications will be huge. Imagine a factory where each machine, or every subsystem in every machine, has a health status that updates in real time, based on sensor input (I imagine this is already in place in many factories). With a sufficiently advanced setup a lot of workers could probably be laid off.
No. That is the intranet of things, not the internet of things. Also, that is just networked industrial sensors, that isn't what the "internet of things" is. The word "things" there means "things that would not otherwise be networked," like the common examples of the refrigerator and coffee maker. For example, the Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0) https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc23... isn't even clearly a joke anymore.
I totally know parallel computing is the future, because I read Parallel Processing: The Transputer and Its Applications back in the 90s.
Web APIs are new? What?
Embedded systems... what? I'll give everybody a hint... when major appliances were replacing incandescent lamps with LEDs in the 70s and 80s, that is when embedded systems were no longer new and were only new-ish.
I've tried to offend both major political parties in the US with this post. I could try to also offend the Libertarians, Greens, or Tea Party folks . . . but there don't seem to be enough breasts to go around!
You should have gone for a Total Recall reference, then. Missed opportunity.
The natural situation that is implied is that his parents were against the concept of "bad words," and he was overhearing anti-anti-obscenity propaganda of the sort where they deny that anybody has an honest complaint, and that the words are just "bad" because they were told they were bad, and that nobody is honestly offended. Entirely presumptive on my part, but it is a common scenario when parents are trying to propagandize their children, and his response fits the normal response that children have. Which is basically, "gosh, that sounds so easy to solve even I could solve it." Of course, the real world problem never matches the propaganda, so it always turns out to not be quite that simple.
Otherwise it makes no sense for the kid to be saying to just pick a cutoff date where the words aren't bad anymore. He basically had to have just been told that nobody is really offended.
I think you just raised the bar on this "hate on bennett" thing. Hope it doesn't escalate from there...
I agree this stuff shouldn't be on slashdot, but spilling the fight over to wikipedia is probably taking it a little too far.
Look at the talk page on wikipedia. It has been nominated before, and it is not just slashdotters who question A) if he actually wrote his own article and B) if he is at all notable since the one nonprofit that he's connected to that does stuff already has its own separate page that discusses his involvement.
You're not helping yourself here, or even defending yourself. You're tripping over your own feet, and making a total clown of yourself.
Small samples have no statistical value for real reasons. Get over yourself and stop thinking you invented a new math that allows small samples to have extra meaning via some clever asshat trick. They don't have value. They don't tell you anything at all about the background population. Small samples are not instructive. Look up the AC statistics professor above who tries to teach you the math that you totally mangled.
As I said, I included the link to the perl script in the article, so that you don't have to take my word for it about the statistical calculations -- you can run one million trials of the experiment and verify that, under the posited hypothesis, a result similar to the one that occurred will only occur about 2.5% of the time. So the posited hypothesis is probably wrong.
Three minutes before posting this you were smacked down by a statistics prof posting as AC. I recommend you just apologize for having defended your small sample size with bad statistics, and hope people forget in a few years.
There might be, if only the regulars (who have advertising disabled and filtered) click and post complaints. It isn't even button-pushy enough to troll in new users though, most likely.
Katz was a great writer with wrong and unpopular opinions about subjects nerds care about.
Bennett is so weak, it took a couple dozen posts for an AC prof of statistics to clown him, and the only other interesting responses are a practice session in smack-talking. Meh.
That is a lot shorter than most of the books I read, even including both fiction and non-fiction. 300 pages is right at the low end of "maybe they have something to say and go into useful detail."
I went to music festival on a farm one time, and they had this weird-painted bus by the stage, and a bunch of naked women preached for an hour between bands about the scourge of Nipple Phobia and encouraging all the women to bare their breasts and help people to feel more normal in the presence of nipples.
I'm not sure I agree with everything they said, but I suspect the same people who are against public breastfeeding are okay with pasties-only on TV. Nipple Phobia is real.
Side-boob? No problem. Low-cut top? No problem. Itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-yellow-polka-dot-bikini? No problem. Non-sexualized nipple being used for important biological functions? Z0MG ITS A NIPPLE... "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
Not everything that is shown to the world is "your business."
For example, it is none of your business what some random poet writes. That is totally up to him or her. Publishing the art doesn't make it your business, it just makes it accessible.
What shirt my neighbor wears today is none of my business. And yet, it might be worn in public. Oh, the horrors!
I enjoyed the bold followed by all-caps at the end. The rant devolves into shouting at the end, but not too early; just enough to leave the reader shouting, "YEAH, that bleepity-bleep."
Same. Scanned it and all I saw was him trying to use inappropriate statistical games to obfuscate that the sample is too small to draw meaningful conclusions. The answer isn't to use more-clever tricks, the answer is to not draw conclusions when the sample is too small.
You're conflating the DOI and the Constitution there. Again. I recommend reading about them on wikipedia, it will give you a basic understanding of what the two documents are.
And no, there was no requirement to maintain English common law. Why English, anyways? Many colonists were from other parts of Europe. And by the time the Constitution was written, the war was over and England had conceded and it was agreed by all the involved parties that we weren't under English authority anymore. Many countries when adopting a new Constitution in a post-colonial period do not in fact keep any of the laws from whatever Empire had ruled them. Do you assume the English common law to have some sort of magical properties? Was there some sort of World Government that decided common law was an "authority?" No? The only Authority was the ones the States agreed to by ratifying the Constitution; an Authority gained through force of arms, not through some clever legal principle or declaration.
No they are not "before my time", they simply don't exist.
Slashdot is full of retarded stories, posts, and posters. That should be pretty obvious. As with everything it's going down hill, but it's not like it started exceptionally high to begin with anyway.
You at least demonstrate your own claim, so you have that going for you. A lot of people aren't that self-consistent.
It doesn't really refute anybody else's experience, though.;)
Remember, he consulted with the US right up to the kuwait invasion.
That is a refuted lie. Look into the claim. It is so thin that even if you just presume it is all true, it doesn't amount to consulting at all, certainly not any sort of permission. It also ignores that he was being warned not to, and was given a chance to reverse course and give it back afterwards, before any invasion. So by the time of Desert Shield, he could still just go home, no problem. If he had done that, then there might be a case to argue that he thought he had permission. But the actual course of events refutes the claim that he was basing any of it on perceived US permission.
I've protested most of the wars that have happened in my life. I protested Desert Storm at the age of 14, and was tear gassed blocking I-5. I dropped out of school to live at the protest site. But look, being against war is no excuse for using pathetic propaganda. Thinking you're right is no excuse to try have your own set of facts.
And if children starved, that is because somebody was stealing from the "oil-for-food" program. Sometimes people are serious about oppressing people that when you try to stop them, they'll do something even more evil. That certainly should inform people's decisions about when to use sanctions or when to invade or when not to do either, but it doesn't automatically mean that the blame is shifted to the people actively trying to protect the rights of those children. There are legit reasons to be against sanctions, but "Saddam stole from oil-for-food... therefore the US is starving children" isn't really one that stands up.
Those are laptop brands, right? I don't buy any of those, so I have no idea why they do or don't have whatever they do or don't have.
BTW, the A10 is the power hog model. The A6 and A8 lines are where the low power models are.;) The one you linked is 95W peak. There are A8 models that are nearly as fast and peak at 65W, but use under 25W in normal usage.
The problem with Intel's offerings is that you get really sucky onboard video. The A series gives you a full-featured GPU but that trades speed for low power. You can't compare the Intel to the A-series, you have to compare the Intel plus a mid-range discrete GPU and then you'll see the big power difference. Yes, if you don't need the GPU features, or you want them for cutting edge games with the graphics settings turned up, then you won't want the A-series. But if you want a business machine that can do light 3d editing, using modern software and APIs, and play basic 3d games, etc., then it is a great choice.
Also, very few people care about the "full speed" power usage because it is unlikely to have the CPU as the bottleneck. Even if you're waiting on the machine frequently, you're more likely waiting on the disk or the memory bus. What matters is actual power usage running real software. I do a lot of compiling, but very little on a laptop. Maybe there is a bunch of libraries every few months or something, but even if I'm working on a C project, only the object file whose source I am editing gets re-compiled when I recompile.
The claim that it would somehow... overheat and die... because people care about low idle power use... I just don't see where you even attempted to bridge those ideas. Modern computers don't overheat and die. And that hasn't been a real-world concern since... the Cyrix 5x86 series! Wow, that was a long time ago.
If you didn't assume that I know the technical details of how throttling works, don't bother replying next time. This isn't PC World, this is slashdot.
That sounds pretty... silly. You can't find anything useful to do with your time on a bus, because you're surrounded by such awful people that you're only willing to pay attention to... those people you dislike. To the complete exclusion of activities that would distract you from them, or be otherwise useful tasks.
It sounds like you have very little experience with public transit, and are just making up reasons to dislike it. Or, you really really disliked it when you tried it... because you were paying attention to the other passengers, instead of just using it for transportation.
BTW, most commuter routes in urban areas don't have many examples of the stereotypes you list.
My recommendation is to get either a "music player" or a "tablet computer" if you don't have a "smart phone." Then you can plug in headphones and not even listen to them at all. At a minimum you should be able to do some electronic recreation with the time, even if you can't bring yourself to do anything productive in the presence of the Unwashed.
It would be a ban because it would be expensive, for one. For another, many indie gamers are principled and would not agree to raise money to do some kind of nonsense testing that isn't for safety, or any other real-world reason.
You can ensure 100% that "shit like this" doesn't happen to you by simply checking before hand if the game has been tested to that specification, and if it hasn't, don't buy it.
If that doesn't work to 100% effectiveness, either own the isolated purchasing mistake and learn from it, or see an addiction counselor, as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
"Cloud" deployment isn't new because the technology is new, it is new because the billing systems are relatively new. The fine-grained billing allows the technology to be utilized much more broadly than before, and to much greater effect. Also the almost guaranteed instant availability of additional compute units is a big difference compared to the old offsite data center, where you had to lease greater-than-expected-peak capacity. With "the cloud" if you have variable traffic during different parts of the day, it is often cheaper than hosting your own hardware, even if you have latent admin capacity and only pay for the hardware, power, and connectivity. Even just the peak+ connectivity could cost more than the whole cloud hosting, depending on traffic pattern. It also brings a new level of scaling capability to small business that was just not feasible before without hiring multiple 6-figure IT guys full time.
Internet of Things: Yeah, but the industrial applications will be huge. Imagine a factory where each machine, or every subsystem in every machine, has a health status that updates in real time, based on sensor input (I imagine this is already in place in many factories). With a sufficiently advanced setup a lot of workers could probably be laid off.
No. That is the intranet of things, not the internet of things. Also, that is just networked industrial sensors, that isn't what the "internet of things" is. The word "things" there means "things that would not otherwise be networked," like the common examples of the refrigerator and coffee maker. For example, the Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0) https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc23... isn't even clearly a joke anymore.
I totally know parallel computing is the future, because I read Parallel Processing: The Transputer and Its Applications back in the 90s.
Web APIs are new? What?
Embedded systems... what? I'll give everybody a hint... when major appliances were replacing incandescent lamps with LEDs in the 70s and 80s, that is when embedded systems were no longer new and were only new-ish.
Sure, his stuff is fucked up, but it's become an iconic meme and I love to see it appear.
And that, my friends, is the difference between a dork and a nerd.
I've tried to offend both major political parties in the US with this post. I could try to also offend the Libertarians, Greens, or Tea Party folks . . . but there don't seem to be enough breasts to go around!
You should have gone for a Total Recall reference, then. Missed opportunity.
The third parties will just have to share.
The natural situation that is implied is that his parents were against the concept of "bad words," and he was overhearing anti-anti-obscenity propaganda of the sort where they deny that anybody has an honest complaint, and that the words are just "bad" because they were told they were bad, and that nobody is honestly offended. Entirely presumptive on my part, but it is a common scenario when parents are trying to propagandize their children, and his response fits the normal response that children have. Which is basically, "gosh, that sounds so easy to solve even I could solve it." Of course, the real world problem never matches the propaganda, so it always turns out to not be quite that simple.
Otherwise it makes no sense for the kid to be saying to just pick a cutoff date where the words aren't bad anymore. He basically had to have just been told that nobody is really offended.
I think you just raised the bar on this "hate on bennett" thing. Hope it doesn't escalate from there...
I agree this stuff shouldn't be on slashdot, but spilling the fight over to wikipedia is probably taking it a little too far.
Look at the talk page on wikipedia. It has been nominated before, and it is not just slashdotters who question A) if he actually wrote his own article and B) if he is at all notable since the one nonprofit that he's connected to that does stuff already has its own separate page that discusses his involvement.
I just hope the top row are all Katz and Dvorak breastfeeding practice dolls.
You're not helping yourself here, or even defending yourself. You're tripping over your own feet, and making a total clown of yourself.
Small samples have no statistical value for real reasons. Get over yourself and stop thinking you invented a new math that allows small samples to have extra meaning via some clever asshat trick. They don't have value. They don't tell you anything at all about the background population. Small samples are not instructive. Look up the AC statistics professor above who tries to teach you the math that you totally mangled.
As I said, I included the link to the perl script in the article, so that you don't have to take my word for it about the statistical calculations -- you can run one million trials of the experiment and verify that, under the posited hypothesis, a result similar to the one that occurred will only occur about 2.5% of the time. So the posited hypothesis is probably wrong.
Three minutes before posting this you were smacked down by a statistics prof posting as AC. I recommend you just apologize for having defended your small sample size with bad statistics, and hope people forget in a few years.
no such thing as bad publicity.
There might be, if only the regulars (who have advertising disabled and filtered) click and post complaints. It isn't even button-pushy enough to troll in new users though, most likely.
Katz was a great writer with wrong and unpopular opinions about subjects nerds care about.
Bennett is so weak, it took a couple dozen posts for an AC prof of statistics to clown him, and the only other interesting responses are a practice session in smack-talking. Meh.
That is a lot shorter than most of the books I read, even including both fiction and non-fiction. 300 pages is right at the low end of "maybe they have something to say and go into useful detail."
I went to music festival on a farm one time, and they had this weird-painted bus by the stage, and a bunch of naked women preached for an hour between bands about the scourge of Nipple Phobia and encouraging all the women to bare their breasts and help people to feel more normal in the presence of nipples.
I'm not sure I agree with everything they said, but I suspect the same people who are against public breastfeeding are okay with pasties-only on TV. Nipple Phobia is real.
Side-boob? No problem. Low-cut top? No problem. Itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-yellow-polka-dot-bikini? No problem. Non-sexualized nipple being used for important biological functions? Z0MG ITS A NIPPLE... "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
John Dvorak was guilty of posting well-written articles on interesting topics... and being completely wrong on all the conclusions.
Bennett isn't well-written and doesn't have interesting topics.
I never thought I'd say this, but... "leeaave Johny aloooooooooone!"
Maybe they can make a skit about it for Slashdot Radio!
We should probably email bomb Kurt the Pope demanding answers.
Not everything that is shown to the world is "your business."
For example, it is none of your business what some random poet writes. That is totally up to him or her. Publishing the art doesn't make it your business, it just makes it accessible.
What shirt my neighbor wears today is none of my business. And yet, it might be worn in public. Oh, the horrors!
I enjoyed the bold followed by all-caps at the end. The rant devolves into shouting at the end, but not too early; just enough to leave the reader shouting, "YEAH, that bleepity-bleep."
Well done.
Same. Scanned it and all I saw was him trying to use inappropriate statistical games to obfuscate that the sample is too small to draw meaningful conclusions. The answer isn't to use more-clever tricks, the answer is to not draw conclusions when the sample is too small.
You're conflating the DOI and the Constitution there. Again. I recommend reading about them on wikipedia, it will give you a basic understanding of what the two documents are.
And no, there was no requirement to maintain English common law. Why English, anyways? Many colonists were from other parts of Europe. And by the time the Constitution was written, the war was over and England had conceded and it was agreed by all the involved parties that we weren't under English authority anymore. Many countries when adopting a new Constitution in a post-colonial period do not in fact keep any of the laws from whatever Empire had ruled them. Do you assume the English common law to have some sort of magical properties? Was there some sort of World Government that decided common law was an "authority?" No? The only Authority was the ones the States agreed to by ratifying the Constitution; an Authority gained through force of arms, not through some clever legal principle or declaration.
No they are not "before my time", they simply don't exist.
Slashdot is full of retarded stories, posts, and posters. That should be pretty obvious. As with everything it's going down hill, but it's not like it started exceptionally high to begin with anyway.
You at least demonstrate your own claim, so you have that going for you. A lot of people aren't that self-consistent.
It doesn't really refute anybody else's experience, though. ;)
Remember, he consulted with the US right up to the kuwait invasion.
That is a refuted lie. Look into the claim. It is so thin that even if you just presume it is all true, it doesn't amount to consulting at all, certainly not any sort of permission. It also ignores that he was being warned not to, and was given a chance to reverse course and give it back afterwards, before any invasion. So by the time of Desert Shield, he could still just go home, no problem. If he had done that, then there might be a case to argue that he thought he had permission. But the actual course of events refutes the claim that he was basing any of it on perceived US permission.
I've protested most of the wars that have happened in my life. I protested Desert Storm at the age of 14, and was tear gassed blocking I-5. I dropped out of school to live at the protest site. But look, being against war is no excuse for using pathetic propaganda. Thinking you're right is no excuse to try have your own set of facts.
And if children starved, that is because somebody was stealing from the "oil-for-food" program. Sometimes people are serious about oppressing people that when you try to stop them, they'll do something even more evil. That certainly should inform people's decisions about when to use sanctions or when to invade or when not to do either, but it doesn't automatically mean that the blame is shifted to the people actively trying to protect the rights of those children. There are legit reasons to be against sanctions, but "Saddam stole from oil-for-food... therefore the US is starving children" isn't really one that stands up.
Those are laptop brands, right? I don't buy any of those, so I have no idea why they do or don't have whatever they do or don't have.
BTW, the A10 is the power hog model. The A6 and A8 lines are where the low power models are. ;) The one you linked is 95W peak. There are A8 models that are nearly as fast and peak at 65W, but use under 25W in normal usage.
The problem with Intel's offerings is that you get really sucky onboard video. The A series gives you a full-featured GPU but that trades speed for low power. You can't compare the Intel to the A-series, you have to compare the Intel plus a mid-range discrete GPU and then you'll see the big power difference. Yes, if you don't need the GPU features, or you want them for cutting edge games with the graphics settings turned up, then you won't want the A-series. But if you want a business machine that can do light 3d editing, using modern software and APIs, and play basic 3d games, etc., then it is a great choice.
Also, very few people care about the "full speed" power usage because it is unlikely to have the CPU as the bottleneck. Even if you're waiting on the machine frequently, you're more likely waiting on the disk or the memory bus. What matters is actual power usage running real software. I do a lot of compiling, but very little on a laptop. Maybe there is a bunch of libraries every few months or something, but even if I'm working on a C project, only the object file whose source I am editing gets re-compiled when I recompile.
The claim that it would somehow... overheat and die... because people care about low idle power use... I just don't see where you even attempted to bridge those ideas. Modern computers don't overheat and die. And that hasn't been a real-world concern since... the Cyrix 5x86 series! Wow, that was a long time ago.
If you didn't assume that I know the technical details of how throttling works, don't bother replying next time. This isn't PC World, this is slashdot.
That sounds pretty... silly. You can't find anything useful to do with your time on a bus, because you're surrounded by such awful people that you're only willing to pay attention to... those people you dislike. To the complete exclusion of activities that would distract you from them, or be otherwise useful tasks.
It sounds like you have very little experience with public transit, and are just making up reasons to dislike it. Or, you really really disliked it when you tried it... because you were paying attention to the other passengers, instead of just using it for transportation.
BTW, most commuter routes in urban areas don't have many examples of the stereotypes you list.
My recommendation is to get either a "music player" or a "tablet computer" if you don't have a "smart phone." Then you can plug in headphones and not even listen to them at all. At a minimum you should be able to do some electronic recreation with the time, even if you can't bring yourself to do anything productive in the presence of the Unwashed.
It would be a ban because it would be expensive, for one. For another, many indie gamers are principled and would not agree to raise money to do some kind of nonsense testing that isn't for safety, or any other real-world reason.
You can ensure 100% that "shit like this" doesn't happen to you by simply checking before hand if the game has been tested to that specification, and if it hasn't, don't buy it .
If that doesn't work to 100% effectiveness, either own the isolated purchasing mistake and learn from it, or see an addiction counselor, as needed.