Utility poles are going the way of the dodo in many places in Sweden, even some pretty sparsely populated areas. Buried cables survive harsh weather better, are not as frequently damaged as utility poles are by vehicles etc, so the maintenance costs for the utility companies have gone WAY down, meaning that the long-term costs of trenching are actually lower.
No, it's not only about price. It's about the fact that the book can be read anywhere, without needing a battery charge or anything. Even many kids think about that. It's also less stressful for the eyes than looking at a screen.
It would still be a "reasonably powerful desktop machine" if your use case is still the same as 10 years ago.
However, contrary to what many geeks think, people don't just browse, do email, watch youtube etc.. A fair amount of non-geeks do CAD, image/video editing, 3D graphics, create music etc with their desktop machines, and routinely have workloads that would bring that 10 year old computer into thrashing hell...
In fact, I think the whole "oh, ordinary people just need enough power to browse, email etc" is a state that has been created by geeks who have no interest in helping their family members or friends by enabling a hobby, so it's become self-perpetuating. Sure, there are ordinary users who just needs that. But there are also ordinary users who have interests beyond that, but has no geek interest in computers, operating system geek wars, programming etc..
Actually, EVE HAS been dumbed down, ever since late 2006. Ship fitting has been made more cookie-cutter so that there is less flexibility for any given ship, and that's just one of the areas that has been dumbed down.
Human appreciation is good enough, compared to completely frozen over pitot tubes.
Inertial navigation without input from reliable sensors is useless. If your Inertial navigation systems last received input with a good tailwind, and suddenly you get a strong wind from front and left, but your sensors can't catch that, your Inertial Navigation is worth 0. ATC? Air France Flight 447 was out of range of ATC, and the storm was essentially blocking that anyway. Engine data? Pointless without other data to correlate it with
Keyword there being "mostly".
Also, far more extensive than an automated car would need.
The thing is, the aircraft autopilots are not AI's, and are tasked with routine tasks such as stabilising the plane, maintaining a level course etc. Adding decision making beyond "sensor data unavailable, alert pilot and disengage" would require you to carry a cluster on board, and a beefy expert system at the very least, preferably an AI....
Read up on and watch a few documentaries about the Hudson River crash landing
Don't forget about wind moving in X, Y and Z, ambient temperature, ambient pressure, humidity, precipitation, other objects moving in X, Y AND Z. And as I said, the forces involved in an aircraft flight are greater.
"The flight computer can't handle that yet. I mean, where comes the human's appreciation of velocity from? Well, three sources: Experience (which is just collected data), knowledge of physical relations (that's the easiest thing to program in), and experience from the senses (which is essentially sensor data). Nothing which could not be replicated in software. The point is that the computer would have to be programmed to estimate missing data from one sensor from available data from other sensors (and also simple check routines to estimate the reliability of data; but I guess they are already built in, to know when to give up control to the pilot). The more sensors are available, the better."
The computer is already programmed to use multiple sensors, such as multiple pitot tubes for example. Despite research, pitot tubes are still the most reliable sensors we have for this application, GPS is way too unreliable. And in case of Air France, all 3 pitot tubes froze over, making the flight computer completely blind(And forget about GPS or other radio based navigational aid in the weather they were in, in the region they were in...)
Also, experience is not just collected data. Experience is the knowledge extracted through sifting and analysis of the collected data, and perhaps generalised and abstracted upon also, to possibly be adapted in whole or part to other situations. A rookie trooper that's gone through training has collected lots of data. But the trooper is still completely inexperienced until he or she has been through the real deal, and seen what works, what didn't work, how it worked, and what can be learned from it. Same thing with pilots. To equate a pilots decision making, you'd need a beefy cluster to handle the expert system, image recognition, processing all the sensor data to give better spatial awareness, and recognize for example an improvised landing strip that is suitable.
What alternate sensors, that aren't already in use? GPS? Far less reliable than pitot tubes, due to weather, and that's just one example. Come on, practical engineering please, and not crackpipe dreaming....
And the systems to see the broken engines would be powered by what? Also, the emergency maneuvers have to be programmed in, based on human experience. Humans also have the advantage of being able to generalise and abstracting, able to adapt from one situation to fit into another situation more or less on the fly.
Hudson landing, until the pilot activated the APU, the flight computer was crippled.
Let's face it, automated cars is a fundamentally easier to solve problem, due to far fewer variables and complications, and weaker forces involved.
A human can get an appreciation of velocity even without working pitot tubes, in a middle of a weather system where GPS doesn't work. The flight computer can't handle that, which is why it disconnected and warned in the case of the Air France flight.
In the case of the Hudson River landing, bird strikes took out both engines simultaneously, killing power. Pilot manually switched over to APU. Ironically however, in that case, the computer helped the pilot ditch the plane safely, once it had power again. With just the pilot, or just the flight computers, there would most likely have been dead people in the water.
That's because Bitcoin mining is not something critical, AND happens to fall into the limited memory structures and computational capabilities that AMD provide. In real-world relevant computational tasks, nVidia and CUDA are dominating in ease of use, flexibility and computational throughput. Hence why HPC use Nvidia and not AMD.
Hashrate is just a gimmick anyway, since if you're serious about it, you go with a FPGA kit.
"CUDA vs. OpenCL seems to be an example of the ongoing battle between an entrenched and supported; but costly, proprietary implementation, vs. a somewhat patchy solution that isn't as mature; but has basically everybody except Nvidia rooting for it."
Wishful thinking. Intel doesn't give a crap about OpenCL, they don't even expose their GPU's for OpenCL under Linux, and as I mentioned AMD are betting on Mantle. As for "costly", there's nothing about CUDA that is costly that isn't costly with OpenCL
Mantle is far more than just a Glide-like API. It covers both graphics and GPGPU, effectively replacing OpenCL on the AMD side(unfortunately, that still comes with AMD idiocy in how to access interfaces etc..... grrrr..)
All the major players are putting aside OpenCL. AMD is betting on Mantle for example.
OK, here a transfer between banks can vary from a minute or two up to maybe an hour..