Does "promoting" mean passing out some posters or getting rid of the requirement to purchase a fishing license from the State to keep the northern snakehead? There are plenty of folks out of work who could help here in a win-win situation. We already have systems in place to police the fish that people keep and removing all restrictions on invasive species taking would go a long way towards reducing their populations.
The state of engineering in PC recovery is awful, shame on software devs
What? You just power off your vm, roll back the storage to the appropriate snapshot, and turn it on again.
Wait - you let Windows touch your hardware? Oh, my.
Sometimes I think what America needs is mother nature hitting the proverbial reset button on us.
It'll be amazing if "America" is still around in 2080, much less 2880.
The entire population of the 13 Colonies was less than the current population of Iowa and they stood up a country just fine. China doesn't keep itself together by playing nice, and we really need to avoid going the Mao Zedong route.
The problem is their algorithm has to be close to perfect or it makes things worse. Once people begin to trust the label, they'll fall harder for the stories that the algorithm misses.
I don't think Literally Unbelievable has anything to worry about.
If someone develops a digital currency that addresses those issues and makes them more practical for every day use I support it.
Exactly. The Bitcoin high priests have already chased off the Zerocoin folks, so their future is far from guaranteed. secp256k1 also looks like it wasn't the best choice.
The blockchain idea is a good one, and will probably outlast bitcoin itself. But middlemen are also needed for any of these systems to handle transactions and arbitrage efficiently.
The OP isn't wrong, though - the trendy altcoins are all doomed too.
Literally, a guy named Lovins writes papers about applied hope.
It's just a made up fairy-tale name anyway.
We need some leadership to push the concept.
Leadership is exactly the opposite of what we need. Remember, the Integral Fast Reactor was successfully run for more than a year and was ready for commercialization by about '92. Within the first few weeks of Clinton's Presidency, he defunded the post-research effort and Gore, Kerry and O'Leary lead the Senate fight to kill the project completely.
Without that "leadership" we'd all be sipping power by now generated by cleaning up the waste from the light water reactors that is such a disastrous 300,000-year problem. Branson even has been trying to get an appointment with Obama for years to talk about _him_ footing the bill to get such a system rolling in the US (Virgin Electric?) but "leadership" continues to suppress clean[up] power.
"Leadership" wants to make an enemy out of carbon-based energy sources - not replace them. An external threat is always the way to more power (but not the kind we need).
We could stand to have quite a bit less leadership and instead let coordinating partners actually fix the problem.
Oh they are "merely imagined" by a lot more than just the US Government. And that's why they have actual value.
And that "imagining" of new FRN's is also why commodity producers around the world demand twice as many FRN's for their goods as they did a decade ago.
With the caveat that not all startups are created equal, if you want to be treated like family then you need to find a startup to work for.
Once a group of humans gets above about 150 people, it starts to fracture. The whole point of the modern corporation is to keep warring factions together and get something done despite the constant efforts of its participants to tear itself apart. It's not surprising that the group will tend to fracture along lines of similar people - engineers perhaps being the beta clan in many corporations (that tend to hire beta engineers).
If you think you can get respect as an engineer in a big corporation (that's not explicitly run by engineers) then you need to go talk to an anthropologist. Not that anthropologists know anything that engineers don't already know better...
You do like this, OK?
<URL:http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/5-reasons-dolby-atmos-is-doa>
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/5-reasons-dolby-atmos-is-doa
But come on, do you really think a 55 year old paper is going to be at the top of impact rankings when computed against current research in a field moving this fast? And, even if so, isn't it more likely this work has been superseded by others? IT'S BEEN 55 GOD DAMN YEARS, FOR CHRISSAKE!!! I think your hero worship is showing. At least find a more modern reference.
To be fair, this is a perfectly acceptable reference in the given context, and the age only helps the argument not hinders it as you suggest.
Even at 55 years old, the Feynman paper is based on known technology and physics at the time. This provides a high-end boundary to the answer that is only potentially (in this case definately) inaccurate on exactly how much lower the size can actually get.
Our tech has changed, but physics not quite as much.
What we know today about building at the atomic scale is only slightly more detailed than the rough idea that was known all the way back then.
About the only thing smaller we know of today that we didn't know back then was the details of the sub-atomic world - which I should add we still know very little about over all, and certainly not enough to build useful machines using. At a technological level nothing has changed as the sub-atomic is still out of our reach as much now as it was then.
So the atomic scale is what we are discussing.
55 years ago our photolithography methods had a 20 micron feature limit.
14 years ago our newest photolithography methods have a 0.005 micron (aka 100 nm) feature limit. That is a 4000 fold decrease in size.
Today we have 32 nm and 28 nm photolithography methods, making things about 12000 times smaller than was possible using technology from 55 years ago.
Anyways, there are more recent references out there.
One good recent paper is "Molecular Construction Limits" by Robert Bradbury, if you can find it anymore. Sadly Bradbury passed away a couple years ago and his personally hosted archive of papers fell offline. Most archived ones seem pay-walled
Probably the best paper on this subject is "Ultimate physical limits to computation" by Seth Lloyd at MIT.
The paper is from 2000 but his current work is on the worlds largest-qbit quantum computer also at MIT - so he is already making my sub-atomic remarks out of date.
His conclusion is purely based on physics alone and ignoring any/all technological capability.
The 'ultimate laptop' is a computer with a mass of one kilogram and a volume of one liter, operating at the fundamental limits of speed and memory capacity fixed by physics.
The ultimate laptop performs [ 5.4258 x 10^50 ] logical operations per second on 10^31 bits.
Although its computational machinery is in fact in a highly specified physical state with zero entropy, while it performs a computation that uses all its resources of energy and memory space it appears to an outside observer to be in a thermal state at 10^9 degrees Kelvin.
I'd really like to see a crowdfunding site which takes venture capital out of the realm of multi-millionaires, and puts it within reach of the common person.
It's a great idea but don't try it in the USA - the SEC specifically forbids this.
People complain that the rich just keep getting richer.
Right, that's the desired outcome of the SEC.
At least it'll be a helluva lot more productive than getting low- and middle-income people to play the lottery.
Those are designed to make the poor poorer whist enriching the governments. They also work as intended.
the customers of the products it produces. So they should on average pick good product ideas, making it positive sum, whereas lotteries are zero or negative sum
Exactly - we can't have that now - it makes for very poor herd management costs.
Witness the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft nobody needs
Don't play the game, man. Here's who needs it:
* Politicians, for pork
* Defense contractors, for "Sweet Jesus we're rolling in dough" money
* Lobbyists, for a slice of the dough.
* The Federal Reserve, the monopoly private bank that makes interest on the debt
* Wall Street bankers, who take a commission on the new debt created.
If you look at this as corruption instead of a mysterious boondoggle, it makes perfect sense.
There's absolutely zero chance of defeating an invisible enemy.
No punishments or consequences, all around!
No government worker will be fired, but don't worry, three hundred million people will be collectively punished for it as that billion dollars gets added to the debt and all their cost-of-goods prices go up.
Sadly, that feedback loop never seems to get closed. Results don't matter - as long as there are promises and intentions, that's good enough for most.
Uber et. al. have obviated the need for those a-priori licensing regimes and offer safer, better solutions to the same old coordination problems.
It means the end of the useful life of the cartels and their [often captured] regulators, so of course they fight it.
Here, have a listen:
http://www.cato.org/multimedia...
Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother. - Kahlil Gibran
