Does this take into account the miniaturization of electronics and the associated increase in battery size? We're seeing this in many mobile platforms. I'm curious if this is taken into account when they consider 'battery life' while possibly ignoring that batteries themselves may be more efficient or simply larger due to more space in the enclosure.
Errr, I'm not sure what your point was, but it is interesting that even as devices like laptops get more efficient (more computations per unit energy), we make them do *so* much more computing that they still require more power and bigger/better batteries.
Re:Is there an error in first time the date is use
on
Happy Programmer Day!
·
· Score: 1
Shouldn't it be "255" and not "265"?
Kids today have no respect for binary. Back in the day, we had to code in hexadecimal... in 6 feet of snow! Uphill!
I'm pretty skeptical, it says he's been doing this since he was four and has some funny stories of such but do we have any actual proof that this is true? Are we sure he's not an artist with a gimmick to get his stuff sold? He wouldn't be the first.
It certainly could be fake, but I don't think the claim is so outrageous. Sleepwalking is a pretty well studied phenomenon. Being able to do something while sleepwalking that you can't do while awake is not something I've heard of before, I'll admit. But sleepwalkers don't always "see" what's really there, do they? Maybe when you're drawing, that's an advantage. Maybe he's just "tracing" something his brain already sees on the canvas.
>even beyond any reasonable doubt of intelligent designers.
Luckily for them, their doubts are not reasonable in the first place, so this will have little effect.
I beg to differ. In the absence of certainty, doubt is perfectly reasonable. The problem with the intelligent design crowd is that they can't live with that, and prefer to replace doubt with superstition and myth.
If you look at it objectively, the religious accounts are seen by their adherents as history. And the person who says with certainty, "when we have sequenced all these genomes we WILL discover" is technically also engaging in unscientific faith.
Okay, so let me get this straight - some "evangelical scientists" are considering whether the Genesis account is literal. Presumably if they are "evangelical", they believe in an omnipotent God. So they say, "Suppose God literally created the first man and woman within the last 10,000 yrs. That's impossible because of the genetic variation we see today - we can't mutate that fast". If you can accept (even for the sake of argument) the hypothesis that God created man from nothing, I don't see how you can then say a fast mutation rate is impossible.
IIRC, "valve" is British for "vacuum tube". When the article says the timing circuits are controlled by valves, I'm pretty sure they're talking about the electronic kind.
I don't see any way cameras can be both ineffective and a privacy problem simultaneously. If they don't work then they are, at best, an expensive placebo.
I think you mean "at worst". Anyway, I see your point, but there may be some room for cameras to be both ineffective and a privacy concern. They may be ineffective because as you say the "bad guys" wear hoods, caps, and in other ways try to avoid the cameras, but they may still be able to provide identifiable images of the law-abiding public in general.
As long as law enforcement doesn't take down social networks... People in London have been using it to protect themselves and communicate with each other from the yobs running around.
Use of this technology was inevitable and people can always argue about the "big brother" feeling with these cameras and technology, but in the end it dOesn't affect normal, law-aBiding citizEns except for Yobs.
Odd -- I feel an unaccountable desire to agree with you...
The CBO assumed discretionary spending will grow at the rate of inflation. S&P assumed it grows with GDP. Both of these are perfectly valid assumptions (if any complaint is to be made, they're both too optimistic since historically the growth in discretionary spending has far exceeded both measures); a legitimate alternate choice of economic models is not an error. This is the Obama administrations typical "all reasonable experts agree" tactic of painting legitimate differences in opinion as disengenuous.
As for S&P's "acknowledgement", it was more along the lines of "we just reported your long term unfunded obligations are $211 trillion and you lack the political will or ability to do anything about it. And you want to have an argument over whether it's really $211 trillion or $209 trillion? If it's that improtant to you, we'll use your numbers, but you're completely missing the point here."
Excellent point, IMO. Why would one assume the Treasury secretary is unbiased and S&P is being political.
I think most of the comments (and the summary) are thinking around the wrong lines: If you could make something invisible, it's not because it doesn't EMIT light, but because it doesn't REFLECT it. Acoustic cloaking doesn't make something sound proof or silent. On the contrary, it makes it "transparent" to sound. It would be "invisible" to SONAR, I guess. If I've got this backwards, I apologize, but that's how understood the article.
But if being a regulator paid better than the industry did, why would someone risk losing such a great paying job by taking bribes? The reason regulators get bought off now is because, worst case scenario, they lose their job and accept a higher paying job at the company that bought them.
So basically, you're saying people won't take bribes if you pay them enough not to.
Why all this focus on whether the passwords are encrypted? If someone has my CC number, address and date of birth, I'm going to be way more concerned about my identity being hijacked than whether they can impersonate me on PSN!
It isn't the frame rate that's going to be the problem with The Hobbit, it's Peter Jackson's altering Tolkien's story and characters.
Lets face it, if it was true to the book then people would have walked out of the cinema in the first 20 minutes.
The real problem was Tolkien was not actually a good writer by many definitions and had a head full of wierd catholic patriachal moral absolutism which showed in his writing amongst it's many flaws. In fact in places his writing is rather cringeworthy (when I first read his work I had to struggle not to throw the book accross the room) and he has been easy pickings for many a literary critic over the years. What worked however was his world building was epic. Peter Jackson had to do a carefully considered rework of the dialog, plot, characters to make anything near an acceptable 21st century story, and to have a hope in hell of keeping people seated for 3 hours. He even included actual females, the gender Tolkien didn't seem to acknowledge existed let alone could have anything to do with events in his world. Tolkien fans will mod me down, go right ahead, but many won't, many knew PJ did what he had to do.
I've heard his writing criticized for being wordy and over-descriptive, but "catholic patriachal[sic] moral absolutism"? You mean he's a bad writer because you disagree with his world view? If he does believe that way, and he communicated that idea to you through his writing, I think that makes him a good writer. I personally didn't like some of the story changes Jackson did for the movie, but I do understand the need to sell tickets. E.g., the part about Tom Bombadil was interesting in a book, but in an epic film (even one with elves and dwarves and magic) it would seem childish and out of place.
Regarding female characters, the only one whose role was increased for the movie was Arwen. Galadriel and Eowyn were very significant female characters in the books.
When priests figure out how to miracle me some robotic prosthesis on demand we'll talk. Third hand stories ending in "but if you ask its testing god so fuck off" don't really cut it.
Maybe this is unusual, but I've talked to a lot of religious people and never really had them say "don't ask" or "don't question".
If I want, I can educate myself enough to perform the necessary steps to produce quantum entanglement.....
As for the angel, no. No matter how much education, equipment, or experiments I cannot reproduce an angel sighting. This is the critical difference between religion and science.
You mean you have faith that you could learn to perform the experiments, because that's what the experts have told you. And how do you know you couldn't learn to see angels? I'll bet there are some out there who claim you can, but of course you don't believe them.
The 60 percent ride improvement figure was obtained when a single wheel equipped with the system was mounted on a laboratory testbed that simulates road conditions.
Okay, that doesn't really answer your question, but it does imply that the 60% is based on some physical metrics as opposed to something like a customer survey. It also implies that with this suspension on all 4 tires it would be a 240% ride improvement!
This is sad. During a brief period of employment with IBM (I was "rebadged" instead of laid off from another company) I listened to a presentation about IBM's core values. IBM, they say, was founded on solid core values - things they wouldn't waver on, ever. Why even in the 80s when everyone was laying people off, IBM refused to do so. Then (with a straight face mind you) he said that IBM almost went out of business, and had to re-evaluate their core values. So apparently they now have an evolving set of core values that sometimes have to give way to preserving the company.
IMHO, The real test of your ethics is whether you follow them even when it's bad for you.
that isn't even true. The top 10% do not pay 90% of the income tax.
As of 2008 the top 10% pay 70% of the income tax and earns more than 75% of the income.
Meanwhile they possess 73% of net wealth or 83% of financial wealth and that percentage is increasing (mostly in the top 1%).
Do you have a source? I have heard various "share of the income tax burden" statistics and always wondered how they compared to "share of the income". I realize it's not necessarily easy to measure, but I don't understand, given that income tax is progressive, how the top earners would pay a lower share of the taxes compared to their share of the income.
#2 is not an issue if the company sets a policy of not fixing personal equipment, and sticks to it. If they don't stick to that policy, that isn't so much a failure of letting people use their own equipment, but a failure in not having the backbone to make unpopular decisions.
That policy would get the admins off the hook, but the lack of support would still be a problem for the organization. Maybe not allowing personal equipment IS the unpopular decision and they DO have the backbone for it:-).
Slashdot Mirror
Does this take into account the miniaturization of electronics and the associated increase in battery size? We're seeing this in many mobile platforms. I'm curious if this is taken into account when they consider 'battery life' while possibly ignoring that batteries themselves may be more efficient or simply larger due to more space in the enclosure.
Errr, I'm not sure what your point was, but it is interesting that even as devices like laptops get more efficient (more computations per unit energy), we make them do *so* much more computing that they still require more power and bigger/better batteries.
Shouldn't it be "255" and not "265"?
Kids today have no respect for binary. Back in the day, we had to code in hexadecimal ... in 6 feet of snow! Uphill!
Don't taunt the code monkeys in forums or they may fling poo at you.
I'm pretty skeptical, it says he's been doing this since he was four and has some funny stories of such but do we have any actual proof that this is true? Are we sure he's not an artist with a gimmick to get his stuff sold? He wouldn't be the first.
It certainly could be fake, but I don't think the claim is so outrageous. Sleepwalking is a pretty well studied phenomenon. Being able to do something while sleepwalking that you can't do while awake is not something I've heard of before, I'll admit. But sleepwalkers don't always "see" what's really there, do they? Maybe when you're drawing, that's an advantage. Maybe he's just "tracing" something his brain already sees on the canvas.
>even beyond any reasonable doubt of intelligent designers.
Luckily for them, their doubts are not reasonable in the first place, so this will have little effect.
I beg to differ. In the absence of certainty, doubt is perfectly reasonable. The problem with the intelligent design crowd is that they can't live with that, and prefer to replace doubt with superstition and myth.
If you look at it objectively, the religious accounts are seen by their adherents as history. And the person who says with certainty, "when we have sequenced all these genomes we WILL discover" is technically also engaging in unscientific faith.
Okay, so let me get this straight - some "evangelical scientists" are considering whether the Genesis account is literal. Presumably if they are "evangelical", they believe in an omnipotent God. So they say, "Suppose God literally created the first man and woman within the last 10,000 yrs. That's impossible because of the genetic variation we see today - we can't mutate that fast". If you can accept (even for the sake of argument) the hypothesis that God created man from nothing, I don't see how you can then say a fast mutation rate is impossible.
IIRC, "valve" is British for "vacuum tube". When the article says the timing circuits are controlled by valves, I'm pretty sure they're talking about the electronic kind.
I don't see any way cameras can be both ineffective and a privacy problem simultaneously. If they don't work then they are, at best, an expensive placebo.
I think you mean "at worst". Anyway, I see your point, but there may be some room for cameras to be both ineffective and a privacy concern. They may be ineffective because as you say the "bad guys" wear hoods, caps, and in other ways try to avoid the cameras, but they may still be able to provide identifiable images of the law-abiding public in general.
As long as law enforcement doesn't take down social networks... People in London have been using it to protect themselves and communicate with each other from the yobs running around.
Use of this technology was inevitable and people can always argue about the "big brother" feeling with these cameras and technology, but in the end it dOesn't affect normal, law-aBiding citizEns except for Yobs.
Odd -- I feel an unaccountable desire to agree with you...
The CBO assumed discretionary spending will grow at the rate of inflation. S&P assumed it grows with GDP. Both of these are perfectly valid assumptions (if any complaint is to be made, they're both too optimistic since historically the growth in discretionary spending has far exceeded both measures); a legitimate alternate choice of economic models is not an error. This is the Obama administrations typical "all reasonable experts agree" tactic of painting legitimate differences in opinion as disengenuous.
As for S&P's "acknowledgement", it was more along the lines of "we just reported your long term unfunded obligations are $211 trillion and you lack the political will or ability to do anything about it. And you want to have an argument over whether it's really $211 trillion or $209 trillion? If it's that improtant to you, we'll use your numbers, but you're completely missing the point here."
Excellent point, IMO. Why would one assume the Treasury secretary is unbiased and S&P is being political.
I think most of the comments (and the summary) are thinking around the wrong lines: If you could make something invisible, it's not because it doesn't EMIT light, but because it doesn't REFLECT it. Acoustic cloaking doesn't make something sound proof or silent. On the contrary, it makes it "transparent" to sound. It would be "invisible" to SONAR, I guess. If I've got this backwards, I apologize, but that's how understood the article.
But if being a regulator paid better than the industry did, why would someone risk losing such a great paying job by taking bribes? The reason regulators get bought off now is because, worst case scenario, they lose their job and accept a higher paying job at the company that bought them.
So basically, you're saying people won't take bribes if you pay them enough not to.
Technically, you're both right. They are supposed to be used for the reasons you state, but many end up being used as he states.
You claim that both sides have a point? Call the internet police! I'm pretty sure kind of forum posting law has been broken.
... and then the cheap switching cars branch off from major stations.
In Tokyo, they call those "feet".
Why all this focus on whether the passwords are encrypted? If someone has my CC number, address and date of birth, I'm going to be way more concerned about my identity being hijacked than whether they can impersonate me on PSN!
It isn't the frame rate that's going to be the problem with The Hobbit, it's Peter Jackson's altering Tolkien's story and characters.
Lets face it, if it was true to the book then people would have walked out of the cinema in the first 20 minutes. The real problem was Tolkien was not actually a good writer by many definitions and had a head full of wierd catholic patriachal moral absolutism which showed in his writing amongst it's many flaws. In fact in places his writing is rather cringeworthy (when I first read his work I had to struggle not to throw the book accross the room) and he has been easy pickings for many a literary critic over the years. What worked however was his world building was epic. Peter Jackson had to do a carefully considered rework of the dialog, plot, characters to make anything near an acceptable 21st century story, and to have a hope in hell of keeping people seated for 3 hours. He even included actual females, the gender Tolkien didn't seem to acknowledge existed let alone could have anything to do with events in his world. Tolkien fans will mod me down, go right ahead, but many won't, many knew PJ did what he had to do.
I've heard his writing criticized for being wordy and over-descriptive, but "catholic patriachal[sic] moral absolutism"? You mean he's a bad writer because you disagree with his world view? If he does believe that way, and he communicated that idea to you through his writing, I think that makes him a good writer. I personally didn't like some of the story changes Jackson did for the movie, but I do understand the need to sell tickets. E.g., the part about Tom Bombadil was interesting in a book, but in an epic film (even one with elves and dwarves and magic) it would seem childish and out of place.
Regarding female characters, the only one whose role was increased for the movie was Arwen. Galadriel and Eowyn were very significant female characters in the books.
When priests figure out how to miracle me some robotic prosthesis on demand we'll talk. Third hand stories ending in "but if you ask its testing god so fuck off" don't really cut it.
Maybe this is unusual, but I've talked to a lot of religious people and never really had them say "don't ask" or "don't question".
Yes, yes, yes and no.
If I want, I can educate myself enough to perform the necessary steps to produce quantum entanglement. ....
As for the angel, no. No matter how much education, equipment, or experiments I cannot reproduce an angel sighting. This is the critical difference between religion and science.
You mean you have faith that you could learn to perform the experiments, because that's what the experts have told you. And how do you know you couldn't learn to see angels? I'll bet there are some out there who claim you can, but of course you don't believe them.
Doesn't 60% imply 2 digits of precision?
The 60 percent ride improvement figure was obtained when a single wheel equipped with the system was mounted on a laboratory testbed that simulates road conditions.
Okay, that doesn't really answer your question, but it does imply that the 60% is based on some physical metrics as opposed to something like a customer survey. It also implies that with this suspension on all 4 tires it would be a 240% ride improvement!
This is sad. During a brief period of employment with IBM (I was "rebadged" instead of laid off from another company) I listened to a presentation about IBM's core values. IBM, they say, was founded on solid core values - things they wouldn't waver on, ever. Why even in the 80s when everyone was laying people off, IBM refused to do so. Then (with a straight face mind you) he said that IBM almost went out of business, and had to re-evaluate their core values. So apparently they now have an evolving set of core values that sometimes have to give way to preserving the company.
IMHO, The real test of your ethics is whether you follow them even when it's bad for you.
that isn't even true. The top 10% do not pay 90% of the income tax.
As of 2008 the top 10% pay 70% of the income tax and earns more than 75% of the income.
Meanwhile they possess 73% of net wealth or 83% of financial wealth and that percentage is increasing (mostly in the top 1%).
Do you have a source? I have heard various "share of the income tax burden" statistics and always wondered how they compared to "share of the income". I realize it's not necessarily easy to measure, but I don't understand, given that income tax is progressive, how the top earners would pay a lower share of the taxes compared to their share of the income.
#2 is not an issue if the company sets a policy of not fixing personal equipment, and sticks to it. If they don't stick to that policy, that isn't so much a failure of letting people use their own equipment, but a failure in not having the backbone to make unpopular decisions.
That policy would get the admins off the hook, but the lack of support would still be a problem for the organization. Maybe not allowing personal equipment IS the unpopular decision and they DO have the backbone for it :-).
Well put. I'm not sure why you got modded down.
I wonder if there is a correlation between posters who defend ESP and posters who post without first reading the article.