Ironically the utility of fortran has only grown with time. Modern fortrans embrace parallel computing by having constructs that are inherently parallel; for example loops which announce they are parallel and can be done out of order and matrix operations as language primitives. One great innovation is the combination of python and fortran. You do things with precisely defined memory boundaries that are compiled to maximum efficiency using the simple clean fortran, and you do the messy stuff of memory allocations and references and exotic libraries and user interfaces in the python. No need to extend the fortran language and make is slower-- just put the non-speed critical stuff in the python part. With the rise of GPUs and their rigidly defined memory limits fortran is a nice fit. You actually want a constrained language for that. It's really an ideal combination. Fortran compiles so fast its even possible to have python write the fortran on the fly and then call it.
For instance, I suspect we waste more energy moving tap water in plastic bottles between cities.
"Well, people get shot all the time, so what's the big deal if I shoot someone?"
Doesn't work that way, does it? It sounds a bit like you're arguing a nirvana fallacy, namely that because this trend of saving energy in datacenters doesn't save energy everywhere, it's useless.
But then you have companies such as Google and Microsoft building data centers next to rivers for cheap hydroelectric power in remote parts of the Pacific Northwest and reporting insanely low PUEs (below 1.1 in some cases).
Power Usage Efficiency has nothing to do with the source of the power you're using.
It's not even a measure of efficiency of equipment.
What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.
Sort of. What people invariably want is a state where the rules benefit them, or at least not stopping them from doing what they want to do.
It would be the strong doing whatever they wanted to the weak.
Given Brin and company are arguably the most powerful people in the world, it's not terribly surprising he wants a land where there are no rules, is it? See above.
Spock and Uhura was implied, though never outright shown, in the original series.
Implied where? In Charlie X? That was just playful flirting as a performance for the people in the recreation room.
What a lot of idiots like Animats just don't get about Arduino is that Arduino managed to get a fun package out on the market anyone can get started with and can get started with without having to rely on the type of people who snort derisively at anyone who cannot tell resistors apart by smell.
Just buy a kit and you can experiment for fun in a way that is fun and does not involve the need to first lean how to measure voltages until you want to.
Yes there are countless other systems out there, both more powerful and invariable connected to communities that are exclusive rather then inclusive. Ask on an Arduino forum for stuff anyone knows about as beginner and you get an answer. It is the same reason Linux beat BSD and PHP beats say Java or Ruby. Not because they are necessarly better products but because more people can get started with them.
Plenty of people who mess with these kit robots just want to mess about, use them as toys, have a bit of fun. They don't need massive parallel processing or sensors with miles of range, they do not dream of making a spy bot. They want to have a toy that follows their hand or make their own beer cannon or just see some leds light up. I know to anyone who has a full soldering stations it might sound incredible but for the majority, first having to spend a weekend soldering a kit together is NOT what they want if they buy a diy robot kit. They want to spend maybe an hour at most and then have something that moves. From there they may or may not advance. 2D SLAM? Jezus Christ Animats, just how sad are you as a human being?
Most people don't want to instantly have to develop the next generation mars rover. They want to have some fun! PLAY. If you like remote control aircraft, you start with a simpel plastic model and have fun and MAYBE someday you will go further OR NOT! Maybe start with a click and play model train set like Kato and MAYBE one day move on to making your own tracks from scratch. MAYBE. But from beginner to expert there is a lot of room for simply having fun, for enjoying toys at the level you are comfortable at and are willing to spend the time learning. And Arduino sits there are the beginner entry, middle level, open and welcoming and not demanding people first follow a 4yr electronics course to get anything done and because of that it is a massive hit. And it is getting people involved in messing with electronics who never would have before and it is GREAT!
And in the background are the forever alone losers trying to point out there more powerful toys with impossible to read manuals and secret society forums where you can only post if you first lurked for two years as an apprentice.
It is kinda sad in a way because it is just basic business sense. You want to sell something, you got to make it accesible. Arduino is the next step up from Lego Mindstorm. They got what made Mindstorm such a gigantic hit, an open accessible friendly platform where you can either remain as a fun loving beginner or use as a stepping stone.
And forever aloners like Animats will be crying "but we got more cpu power" as the rest of the planet has fun.
One advantage that the Pebble has over rumored watches from big names like Google and Apple is existing.
Apple has rarely entered a market first. iPod, iPhone, iPad, Air, etc. Hasn't stopped them from being successful, and in some cases reshaping or redefining the market.
Do you want to be the first to jump into the water, or see what happens to the other person when they jump in the water?
What a load of bullshit. The government isn't supposed to fear us, you twit, and to be brutally honest, it's that attitude that has gotten us into such the mess we're in today. After all, how far a leap is it from "government is supposed to fear us" to "if only someone would bomb a federal building in Oklahoma City or an Olympic venue in Atlanta, that would show 'em"?
The government is supposed to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the country. When some dictator stages a military coup d'état against his government, how well is that government able to provide for the common defense and general welfare? It's impossible for a government that fears its citizenry to fulfill that mandate. It's also utterly moronic to espouse rule by physical intimidation, which is exactly what you're supporting when you propagate this idiotic notion that people should have guns to keep government in check.
A little anecdote I like to relate to "government is supposed to fear us" twits:
On April 12, 2009, three Navy SEALs shot and killed three Somali pirates holding Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama hostage. They had parachuted in two days before, and were set up on the fantail of the U.S.S. Bainbridge, a destroyer dispatched to handle the situation. The pirates were on a lifeboat being towed over 75 feet behind the Bainbridge. The SEALs had been manning their sniper rifles for over 24 hours straight, and both boats were bobbing up and down. Three simultaneous shots were taken, and there were three direct hits in the heads of each of the pirates. Captain Phillips was successfully rescued without injury.
I bring this up for a couple of reasons. First, because Navy SEALs are badass, and you do not want to mess with them. But mostly because you need to understand that if the government wants you dead, you are going to be dead. You will be a red splatter on the wall before you even have the chance to get your military-grade weaponry.
Several times since the Revolutionary War, nutcases have tried to rise up in armed resistance to the U.S. government. The largest such rebellion took place between 1861 and 1865. You would have thought that that would have settled the matter once and for all, but no, even almost 150 years later, we still have people romanticizing revolutions trying to convince others that overthrowing the U.S. government via armed conflict is a good idea, or that the U.S. government is even remotely concerned about the possibility; thus we end up with incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco. So let me break it down to you really simple-like: 1) Armed revolt against the U.S. government by U.S. citizens will never work, and 2) if you try, you will be quickly dispatched with no matter how many guns you own.
And personally, I'm glad. Unlike apparently you, I realize that we need government to maintain our society. If someone burns down my house or murders someone in my family, I don't want the government to be afraid to arrest and prosecute the guy who did it because he has a lot of guns, that's the height of idiocy. If you want a haven where there is little to no government interference, you should move to Somalia. There's practically no government there past the "might makes right" rules imposed by local warlords. If you have a lot of guns, you have a lot of power. If someone commits some perceived injustice against you, there's nothing stopping you from using your resources to carry out justice in whatever way you want. As an added bonus, you wouldn't have to pay taxes. Of course, you do have to worry about your warlord neighbors getting jealous of your stuff and, if they have more guns and mercenaries than you do, coming over and taking it. But hey, at least you can go down in a blaze of glory knowing that you and your family are dying without the benefit of government helping you with your personal protection or interfering with your ability to acquire lots of guns and that the only limit you have on what kind you can buy is how much money you have.
Plus, all of this "government is supposed to fear us" talk has me wondering, who exactly do you consider to be "us"? You sure as hell aren't speaking for me. You are presumably aware that over 90% of people support universal background checks? A good majority of them support stricter gun laws? Hell, even the headline of this submission is "Majority of Americans Would Ban 3D-Printing Guns at Home". So by "us", I can only assume that you don't mean a majority of the American people. Instead, you're referring to the minority; depending on exactly which issue you're referring to, a minority that varies from tiny to at best somewhat small. Funny how people like you think that government should only protect your interests, not the common defense or the general welfare of the country.
I hate to burst your little bubble, but it doesn't work that way. Mr. Random Anonymous Coward doesn't get to dictate to the rest of us through a campaign of fear and intimidation what the agenda of our government is. If you don't like it, then try to elect different people to set a different agenda. But the second you take action to instill fear in other people for their physical safety to advance your political agenda or to coerce the government into doing your bidding, that doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a terrorist. Furthermore, you have exactly zero room to try to frame our government as a tyranny, because what you're espousing is a tyranny--just one that caters to your whims instead of someone else's.
People like you boggle my mind. I wish that for one year, you would live in a place where there is a real totalitarian government, somewhere like North Korea. Then for a year, live in a place where there is no government, like Somalia. Only then, I'm convinced, will you ever realize the tripe that you're spewing is completely impractical and immoral. Only then will you realize that the best government is a happy medium, one in which neither the government fears us nor we fear the government, but we work together as a team to ensure our common defense and promote our general welfare, one in which the citizens realize that they're not always going to get what they want, one in which people realize that no freedoms come completely without limit and that is not a slippery slope into communism/socialism/whatever evil buzzword you pretend it is.
But in the meantime, I highly suggest you grow the hell up and stop being such an insufferable tool, and to stop getting your political thoughts off of bumper stickers and from right-wing talk radio hosts.
Do the hive-"people" really believe they will be able to keep the pro-freedom folks from seceding, taking with them an amount of land value commensurate with their population? After all, not only does the Declaration of Independence defend the moral principle, but the whole point of the abolition of slavery was to subdue those who thought they had a right to keep others from leaving them.
This argument starts up every time somebody had to pay their plumber 80 bucks an hour to fix the toilet, their fility stinking filled with shit toilet. They then think the plumber doing a job they never ever want to do themselves, is rolling in it and the IT being their shit but piles of money.
As if that 80 bucks is pure profit. Meanwhile the daddy plumber knows just how much of that costs goes to cover unpaid hours, taxes, insurance, tool costs etc etc. And he also knows how much Mr Doctor and Mr Lawyer charged him for his children's delivery and to deal with that frivolous lawsuit.
So... what is he going to want for his kids? The same as himself in a world where just getting by is the same as being a loser OR to aim for the top?
And don't for a second think that Bloomberg is interested in the fortunes of the public. He just wants more plumbers so he can pay less, same reason his kind wants immigrants to bust unions and high wages. Sure kids, all become plumbers and wave bye bye to 80 bucks as the competition sky rockets. And then you look longingly at IT graduates making high wages because nobody learned how to code anymore.
Simple piece of advice for live: NEVER listen to a billionaire, they didn't get rich by looking out for other peoples interest.
Well, how about Reservations?
The problem is that JJ Abrams didn't make a movie for Star Trek fans. He made a movie for movie fans. So let's stop calling it a "reboot", or a "reimagining", because it is nothing of the sort.
What does this story have to offer?
The world is a competitive place, except when it isn't. And why is that, exactly? Why do social insects exist? Why, for that matter, do social mammals exist? We wouldn't even have social networking unless the roots of cooperation in our genetics and culture are nearly as deep (and indispensable) as nature red in tooth and claw.
Competition will never not be present, which provides an excellent enclosed gondola for all the slippery-slopers out there. How nice is that? You can never be entirely wrong arguing that competition will always exist. Safe! Secure! You'll never say anything insightful, either, about how competition self-regulates into ritualized displays of dominance/submission without goring every participant.
was a failure in several key areas, like believable physics
Yeah, because that's where Star Trek used to really shine.
Okay, perhaps I should have said "hypothetical pseudo-physics that didn't snap the suspension of disbelief" instead of "believable physics".