Cooler, yes, Faster, no. Clock speed compared to process size has NOTHING to do with "fast" vs "slow".
Process may allow higher clock speed, as well as many other advantages (fitting multiple cores, larger caches, etc on one die) - but without any other innovation the SAME architecture at the SAME clock speed with ANY process size will give you the same performance....
Wait, when did the F-14 maneuver without a pilot?
Except in this case, there really isn't a real discussion beyond lawyers wanting to make money but who can't actually find a case...
"Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Bonny Sweeny, suggested that while one or both of her plaintiffs' iPods might not be covered by the case, there are plenty of others to be tapped."
Clearly a case of a lawyer representing the interests of her clients and not just fishing for cash!
I agree that there could be some human-inedible plant material some animals like rabbit could be fed. But that is SO FAR from being an agricultural industry capable of feeding the masses that it's totally irrelevant to any large (25M+) underfed population like North Korea. It's a simple fact (not my opinion - I love meat - I smoked a rabbit just last month and it was great) if you are looking to adequately feed a large population, animal agriculture is just not efficient.
But, yeah, even if North Korea wasn't any good for farming, there'd still be tons of stuff for a rabbit to eat.
"A" rabbit, sure. 25 million rabbits (or whatever it would take to be meaningful to that population - probably more), doubtful.
Easy test: are females banned from being CEOs? Is anyone arresting them from trying to do that, or are they allowed?
This alone shows how you completely do not get the concept of discrimination. I suppose you also think blacks in the south were less than 50 years ago incapable of sitting in the front of buses (it's tough sitting down!), attending universities, marrying outside of their race, or basically walking down the street in many towns without being harassed?
And those are just the blatantly obvious cases, of course, that you are welcome to deny but would be moronic. And given that, you can't conceive that there would be more subtle forms of discrimination that are harder to prove? That could also be applied to women, who 100 years ago could not even vote, and less than 30 years ago were OPENLY discriminated against in business (with innumerable indisputable examples)?
Yes. That just perfectly describes the gender, race, nationality, and other equality gaps. Holy fuck you are a moron.
So, because most garbage man are male (and note, this is a great and stable career if you want to do it) that means men are oppressed?
Well, the professions of house cleaner, dishwasher, nanny, and prostitute are mostly women. What does that prove? Like you examples, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
While I admit it takes a certain narcissistic personality (as well as some actually good personality traits), I don't think sanity actually enters into it. I know a lot of sane and smart people who wouldn't mind a million dollar salary and tens of millions in stock options a year to lead a company.
I'm a man. I'm not a fortune 500 CEO! Why the hell not! I was promised there's be privilige!
Were your only other options being a mover, fireman, security guard, or soldier? If not, what's your point? The OP was moronic, why are you defending it?
Whining that women don't become CEOs (when most women don't want to be CEOs) is so trivial that it makes a mockery of the things that do matter!
Wait, you seriously just claimed you wanted to be a CEO but have a 99.9999% chance of not being one, when claiming more women aren't CEOs because "most women don't want to be CEOs")? Yes, we can assume you are not in the same class as literally thousands of extremely well qualified and intelligent female executives (probably millions but, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). But you are basically implying that there aren't more then a few dozen women on the planet who are both interested in being a top CEO and capable of it. It's only trivial because you trivialized it.
True, but only relevant to North Korea if "free" straw is plentiful. Though really, it's hay that rabbits need to thrive. Straw is basically the leftover shafts of harvested grains, which doesn't have near the nutrients of hay.
To get lots of straw you'd need lots of grain crops, anyway, so they'd have lots of food. And to get what you you really need, hay, you need to harvest the crops before they seed, so you are basically giving it to the rabbits instead of the people.
"Inquisitiveness" is great, but it seems selfish to try to impose one's own specific interests on a 4 year old when there really isn't a great reason to do so. IMO inquisitiveness implies letting them explore their own path.
Who me? No, that was just an example. For some reason I wanted to be an architect. Somewhat oddly, I now, am, just not designing buildings...
It totally depends on your goal. If you want to immediately disrupt all communications, financial transactions, etc in preparation for an attack, you probably want to crash a lot of those machines (and by crash of course that means disable, not just reboot).
An the article already said it was a particular 48,000 machines that ended up taking down several South Korean TV stations and banks. 1800 "soldiers" taking out significant resources in South Korea near instantly? Sounds a hell of a lot more effective than anything 1800 (or 18,000, or probably 180,000) North Korean infantry could accomplish.
Also, please explain to Sony Pictures how the North Korean cyber warfare group is just propaganda. While it's not proven yet, signs are pointing to that group being responsible for completely taking down almost all operations at Sony Pictures for the last week, as well as stealing several high def copies of upcoming movies. Probably cost them tens of millions of dollars so far, maybe more.
It was a stupid idea, anyway. You don't breed (relatively) large animals to feed a starving population since the food they'd consume to grow large would be much more efficiently distributed directly to the starving people.
He's not a jerk, no, but it was a stupid intro to the topic which basically destroyed the article from the start.
And the fact is, many boys do not decide on an engineering path until college, so motivating girls towards engineering/science pre-teen is not likely to be the solution.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
