Windows device driver for a special PCIe card receiving continuous 80MB/s data from an image sensor into system RAM.
But if you could get that working in Javascript, you would be a programming god. A god whose coming was foretold in papyrus scrolls inked in blood:
"And Lo! When the seas boil and the Jester becomes King, a dark and terrible god will be born, and He will write Windows drivers in Javascript, and the world shall tremble at His passage."
They're out of the question for the vast majority of TV sets out there as they won't work with LCD, LED, or Plasma sets. No way around that.
Unless they were to give you a light gun that works with LCD, LED or Plasma TVs. Say a little camera in the barrel that looks for some QR-code-like-thing.
You want to know what the kicker is? In Ontario "green energy" accounts for under 1% of total generation and over 55% of the total price sold to consumers.
So when I looked this up, I found the following breakdown: Nuclear 36%, Gas/Oil 28%, Hydro 23%, Wind 11%, Biofuel 1%, Solar 1%. That's 36% of total energy generation.
People can't afford 0.18/kWH(which is the peak price in Ontario) already.
Looking this one up, I found that they only pay peak rate for 6 hours out of the day. Then they pay "mid-peak" at 13.2 cents for another 6 hours, then 8.7 cents for the rest. Which is Pretty Goddamned Low
the most conservative estimate is that it will raise the cost of goods across all sectors by 20%
Honest question, do you work for them? The Conservatives I mean.
For the vast majority of users, life was much better when bits were directly blasted to ALSA.
Ahh, I remember when ALSA came to Debian linux. So good. You could read docs for 10 minutes and run alsaconf and then your sound card would just work.
Then, PulseAudio came out, and it was flaky garbage. I had to switch a few machines back to ALSA just to get any sound at all. A year went by, and the flaws in PulseAudio were fixed. I haven't had to do any sound card configuration ever since. Sound is just something I never have to worry about any more.
calling programmers "engineers" is a complete farce because compared to actual engineering, all coding is "cowboy coding."
Be fair. We never said they were good engineers. I've always felt that calling it "Computer Science" was a stretch... even the theoretical parts of software development are really applied mathematics. What software architects are actually doing looks a lot like engineering... they're building (virtual) components, and fitting them together to build a virtual machine to accomplish some goal. It's just that we don't know how to reliably measure the quality of any given piece of code. So it could have the sophistication and grace of two Volkswagens duct taped together at a 90 degreee angle, but it still somehow works most of the time if you're lucky.
Anyways, my point: shitty engineering is still engineering.
Well, the article does not tell us what percentage of trees are normally dead, or historical average.
Eh? If I told you two thirds of Americans were found dead this weekend, would you say, "Yes, but what percentage of Americans are normally dead? Like, on a historical basis."
Let's see... 3 GB/sec with a maximum of 100 TB of writing works out to... 9.25 hours of continuous writing. So, don't use it as a RAM drive. Or with Windows Vista. I wonder how long it would last continuously compiling software? In fact, I'd be tempted to artificially restrict the write speed so that some write-happy process doesn't bork my drive after a few hours. I could write a 6-line program that needs no admin privileges and could destroy such a drive overnight.
Thanks! So if I observe the photon before it goes through the stencil, it won't have the stencil pattern because it ran into my observation tools instead. The difference between having a pattern and no pattern is in space, not in time. That is, the position where I measured the photon's contents.
But what if I create the photon, and the stencil is not quite in position to intercept the photon, and is very far away? In the millisecond it takes for the photon to travel the distance between them, I move the stencil into place and the photon passes through it. If I understand correctly, the photon will still be generated having the stencil pattern inside it, since no one has observed it between its generation and encounter with the stencil?
Also a meaningless term for a photon, as a photon's life span is instantaneous or infinite, never anything in-between. Any "while" only affects the surroundings, not the photon itself.
I am trying to understand, but could use some help. I understand that a single photon can contain a 2D image after passing though a very small stencil. link But that would imply a time when the photon was not shaped by the stencil, and a later time when it was. Are you saying the photon was initially shaped like the stencil when it was generated, even though it hasn't passed through the stencil yet?
Interesting. On the same path, I once heard a quote something like this: "It costs you nothing to be friendly when your friendship isn't worth anything." I've often wondered if people would tend to become friendlier if you convinced them they were worse off than their peers, because in a friendship they'd have more to gain and little to lose.
True. But you would need enough memory to contain an entire Universe though, which would still require an insanely large and complex (and infeasible) computer.
Yeah. Elon Musk's argument was that if we assume any improvement rate in computers at all, then one day it will be affordable to simulate entire worlds, and therefore there are billions of simulations for every real Universe, and therefore we're likely in one.
But, like most arguments, that one is wrong. He seems to be under the impression that it's inevitable that computers will improve indefinitely, and that there's no limit to how complex and powerful they can become while still remaining inexpensive to mass produce. But there's no reason to think that is true. Just because there's a rate of improvement now doesn't mean it won't taper off and eventually flatten in the future.
Having dabbled in a little R, I have to say I was surprised to see it in the top 10. First, everyone I know uses SPSS. And, why are so many people into statistical analysis anyways? I would have guessed that there might be one statistician for, say, every 100 web developers or so.
So therefore it cannot work, because there is no such thing as AI.
Well, it probably uses artificial artificial intelligence. They just call it artificial intelligence because it sounds like it's really artificial, when it's actually artificially artificial.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows device driver for a special PCIe card receiving continuous 80MB/s data from an image sensor into system RAM.
But if you could get that working in Javascript, you would be a programming god. A god whose coming was foretold in papyrus scrolls inked in blood:
"And Lo! When the seas boil and the Jester becomes King, a dark and terrible god will be born, and He will write Windows drivers in Javascript, and the world shall tremble at His passage."
They're out of the question for the vast majority of TV sets out there as they won't work with LCD, LED, or Plasma sets. No way around that.
Unless they were to give you a light gun that works with LCD, LED or Plasma TVs. Say a little camera in the barrel that looks for some QR-code-like-thing.
You want to know what the kicker is? In Ontario "green energy" accounts for under 1% of total generation and over 55% of the total price sold to consumers.
So when I looked this up, I found the following breakdown: Nuclear 36%, Gas/Oil 28%, Hydro 23%, Wind 11%, Biofuel 1%, Solar 1%. That's 36% of total energy generation.
People can't afford 0.18/kWH(which is the peak price in Ontario) already.
Looking this one up, I found that they only pay peak rate for 6 hours out of the day. Then they pay "mid-peak" at 13.2 cents for another 6 hours, then 8.7 cents for the rest. Which is Pretty Goddamned Low
the most conservative estimate is that it will raise the cost of goods across all sectors by 20%
Honest question, do you work for them? The Conservatives I mean.
I work in government IT. No one is worried about Trump. No one.
I am.
For the vast majority of users, life was much better when bits were directly blasted to ALSA.
Ahh, I remember when ALSA came to Debian linux. So good. You could read docs for 10 minutes and run alsaconf and then your sound card would just work.
Then, PulseAudio came out, and it was flaky garbage. I had to switch a few machines back to ALSA just to get any sound at all. A year went by, and the flaws in PulseAudio were fixed. I haven't had to do any sound card configuration ever since. Sound is just something I never have to worry about any more.
Because I live in the future.
In Tennessee and Florida, it's a felony to have less than an ounce.
That's why I always carry at least two, and some crack just in case.
calling programmers "engineers" is a complete farce because compared to actual engineering, all coding is "cowboy coding."
Be fair. We never said they were good engineers. I've always felt that calling it "Computer Science" was a stretch... even the theoretical parts of software development are really applied mathematics. What software architects are actually doing looks a lot like engineering... they're building (virtual) components, and fitting them together to build a virtual machine to accomplish some goal. It's just that we don't know how to reliably measure the quality of any given piece of code. So it could have the sophistication and grace of two Volkswagens duct taped together at a 90 degreee angle, but it still somehow works most of the time if you're lucky.
Anyways, my point: shitty engineering is still engineering.
Well, the article does not tell us what percentage of trees are normally dead, or historical average.
Eh? If I told you two thirds of Americans were found dead this weekend, would you say, "Yes, but what percentage of Americans are normally dead? Like, on a historical basis."
is there ANY other company you can think of that gives up market share to help a competitor?
And I suppose you have some other explanation for Windows 8 and 10?
Let's see... 3 GB/sec with a maximum of 100 TB of writing works out to... 9.25 hours of continuous writing. So, don't use it as a RAM drive. Or with Windows Vista. I wonder how long it would last continuously compiling software? In fact, I'd be tempted to artificially restrict the write speed so that some write-happy process doesn't bork my drive after a few hours. I could write a 6-line program that needs no admin privileges and could destroy such a drive overnight.
Thanks! So if I observe the photon before it goes through the stencil, it won't have the stencil pattern because it ran into my observation tools instead. The difference between having a pattern and no pattern is in space, not in time. That is, the position where I measured the photon's contents.
But what if I create the photon, and the stencil is not quite in position to intercept the photon, and is very far away? In the millisecond it takes for the photon to travel the distance between them, I move the stencil into place and the photon passes through it. If I understand correctly, the photon will still be generated having the stencil pattern inside it, since no one has observed it between its generation and encounter with the stencil?
Also a meaningless term for a photon, as a photon's life span is instantaneous or infinite, never anything in-between. Any "while" only affects the surroundings, not the photon itself.
I am trying to understand, but could use some help. I understand that a single photon can contain a 2D image after passing though a very small stencil. link But that would imply a time when the photon was not shaped by the stencil, and a later time when it was. Are you saying the photon was initially shaped like the stencil when it was generated, even though it hasn't passed through the stencil yet?
Yeah. It's getting kind of ridiculous.
Smithers: Do you know where I can buy some, uh... spyware?
Shopkeeper: SPYWARE?! Everything is spyware! Operating system made of spyware! Browser made of spyware! Look! All computer made of spyware!
Smithers: (picks up a graphics driver) I'd like to buy this.
Shopkeeper: Only Bitcoin! (whispers) American money is made of spyware.
In the old Trek series the humans were colorblind
I suspected as much - it explains the uniforms.
Interesting. On the same path, I once heard a quote something like this: "It costs you nothing to be friendly when your friendship isn't worth anything." I've often wondered if people would tend to become friendlier if you convinced them they were worse off than their peers, because in a friendship they'd have more to gain and little to lose.
XKCD has a good image to explain this.
People are the worst drivers imaginable, robots cannot possibly EVER be worse.
Yes, but we're working on it.
Sales going down kinda sucks, because it means prices will go up for those who still want a pc.
I haven't noticed that. For example, prices on CRT monitors tanked when flatscreens came out.
True. But you would need enough memory to contain an entire Universe though, which would still require an insanely large and complex (and infeasible) computer.
Yeah. Elon Musk's argument was that if we assume any improvement rate in computers at all, then one day it will be affordable to simulate entire worlds, and therefore there are billions of simulations for every real Universe, and therefore we're likely in one.
But, like most arguments, that one is wrong. He seems to be under the impression that it's inevitable that computers will improve indefinitely, and that there's no limit to how complex and powerful they can become while still remaining inexpensive to mass produce. But there's no reason to think that is true. Just because there's a rate of improvement now doesn't mean it won't taper off and eventually flatten in the future.
Also, his thinking is sloppy.
Have you thought about what might be wrong with your world view that prevents your beliefs from matching up with objective reality?
He seems to believe that the majority of Americans are sensible, informed people who make rational choices in politics?
The fool!
Having worked in robotics, I can tell you that there are three levels of performance that people use to evaluate robots:
1. Can it navigate around obstacles?
2 .Can it get me a beer?
3. Can it find Sarah Connor?
Saving mankind from Megatron has got to be a 4 at least.
Having dabbled in a little R, I have to say I was surprised to see it in the top 10. First, everyone I know uses SPSS. And, why are so many people into statistical analysis anyways? I would have guessed that there might be one statistician for, say, every 100 web developers or so.
WhatsApp announced last month that it would stop begin sharing some of users' information
Well which one is it? It's like I don't do understand it!
So therefore it cannot work, because there is no such thing as AI.
Well, it probably uses artificial artificial intelligence. They just call it artificial intelligence because it sounds like it's really artificial, when it's actually artificially artificial.
Typical marketing BS.