I don't know about AC but I bought a made in the USA Moto X (1st gen) and a made in South Korea Galaxy S5, both are first world countries with non-deplorable working conditions.

during her tree felling heydays at HP, I'm not surprised at the chutzpah that would be required for her to think that she could be president.

And her total lack of self-awareness to understand that she doesn't have a snow-ball's chance in hell.

I don't see her being anything approaching a serious candidate.

myke

This is the first article I've seen that explains well how GPUs can/are being used for practical applications along with what can be achieved and some of the issues. Well worth the read even if you're not into this stuff.

I'm sure that there is a significant cost in developing this new approach to CFD (as well as pushing the envelope on GPU operation) but the result is going to be usable for different applications. TFA says there's irony in what SpaceX is doing here as it has applications with automotive Internal combustion engines but I see that as SpaceX/Musk having a secondary revenue stream for this work that doesn't mean he's helping out his direct competitors.

Along with that, they are driving the development of high speed inter GPU communications which I'm sure has value as well.

All this means is that Musk returns to his home planet, not only is the trip going to be fully funded, but he's going to have some money to throw around when he gets there.

myke

Agreed for "self important developers".

"Good" developers know that they probably missed things or could have done some parts of it better (and know that unless there is a functionality issue, to not go back and try to fix them).

myke

This type of article comes up continuously on /. and without some concrete defining attribute asking what model/version/etc. of "X" is "Good" is going to turn into a poll.

I would consider "Good" code to have the following attributes:
1. Runs under all operating systems and platforms
2. Source code is readable (note, this does not mean "Well Commented")
3. Takes up the minimum amount of space
4. Operations execute either apparently instantaneously or provides a progress bar for the user
5. Installs quickly
6. It's operation is intuitive
7. Does not share user information
8. Supports many/all user languages
9. Does not have extreme licensing conditions
10. Is free
11. Source code available

If I thought about it for another five minutes, I could probably double this list.

And, it's *my* list of what I would look for in "Good" software, I suspect for anybody else here, YMMV.

myke

Why the hell would someone have to pay for insurance for something they don't have control of what it does?

Says every parent of a teenager since cars became widespread.

ahem

I think it's more likely we'll ban human drivers. Just this morning I counted over 16 silver/grey/blue-grey vehicles driving in pouring rain and light fog without headlights on. On average a computer driver today is probably better than a human, and they'll just get better as time moves on whereas human improvements are a bit slower to happen.

Yup, why do you think IBM and their Nazgul went after SCO so heavily despite it probably costing 10x what a settlement would have? Because it's cheaper in the long run to kill the invaders and put their heads on pikes outside your walls than to pay them off.

No, because their star with an over-inflated ego physically assaulted a coworker and drew blood. Nobody should have to put up with that. That being said I'll miss him as he was a fairly unique personality in tv.

How do you say "Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia without checking the citations " in Hindi?

FTFY

whereas cruise couldn't be used below 50mph.

What? I've owned or driven dozens and dozens of cars and I've never encountered a higher low end limit than 25mph for cruise control, many work at 15 or 20 mph.

My dentist once told me that I obviously have viking blood. (He was right; I'm essentially half Scot and half Russian.) I am also a diabetic. I'm not alone. Roughly a third of Americans at this point are either diabetic or on the road to diabetes. If I ate the kind of carbs this guy eats, I'd have to load up on hundreds of units of insulin, and I'd never lose a pound. That's not speculation, I've tried that sort of diet. (Was a vegetarian for years, and couldn't lose weight on a 1200 Calorie vegetarian diet. And I was ravenously hungry and depressed all the time.)

Instead, the diet that has worked for me (very successfully) has been cutting the carbs. Most of my calories come from meat. I eat 4 or more eggs and bacon for breakfast. I quickly learned, by following my blood sugar meter, that I simply could not tolerate the 200+ grams of carbs that the government recommends. Since making the decision to follow my blood sugar 100% and ignore studies that, at best, present an average of what worked for someone else, I've lost well over 100 lbs. while increasing my lean body mass. My trigclycerides, once over 1000, have plunged. My HDL is high, my LDL is low, and most importantly my last A1c (a measure of blood sugar over time) was normal for a non-diabetic at 4.9%.

I'm glad his diet worked for him. It wouldn't work for me. No doubt, my diet wouldn't work for him. And that's ok. The notion that there's one perfect diet for everyone is virtually idiotic. And, most importantly, it doesn't work. That's not to say that there aren't some useful general principles, some patterns that are more likely to work for you. But at the end of the day it's your health; take the time to figure out what will work for you.

Solar thermal with molten salts works fine, and those mid latitude locations all receive ~10-14 hours per day of sunshine, though obviously peak output would be during the noon to 4PM period.

California does have geothermal potential, the rest of the US does not.

Really? Because I could have sworn the largest geothermal upwelling on the planet is located in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.

If you do the research and the arithmetic, you find that renewables can make a significant impact - 11% to 13% of our total energy needs.

Bullshit, wind and solar alone can potentially generate many, many times our current energy demands. To get an idea of just how little land would be needed to generate our current needss with even junk solar cells check out this page which has a handy graph showing 6 solar farms in desert areas that would work. Now granted, that's approximately twice the area that we currently occupy with road and parking structures, but it would be completely possible if we were to set it as a goal like we did with reaching the moon, put 5-10% of global GDP for the next few decades to work on converting to 100% renewables and we could get there easily. The problem is not the technology, or the availability, it is the will to do what we know must be done, because it is harder than the current path which we know leads to problems.