Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not humane? (Score 1) 33

by drinkypoo (#48477111) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

"more distributed" means more land use.

No, not it does not. It means integrating them into existing land use, in places where they're not used.

human labor is an astoundingly costly input, even just from an environmental perspective.

Nonsense.

Modernization of food production is the central thing that has raised the standard of living from the stone age to the present day

Bullshit. That's often said but never backed up. The Green Revolution has in fact diminished our ability to produce food without massive energy expenditure. We must go back to a closed cycle in which the crap is reused or we will continue to deplete our topsoil. The best the GR achieved anywhere in the world was delaying starvation, and in some places it may well have caused at least as much as it postponed. Take a look at India to see what's coming for the rest of us.

Comment: Re:Its just Apple being Apple (Score 1) 117

by drinkypoo (#48476853) Attached to: Behind Apple's Sapphire Screen Debacle

What kind of surprises me is that Apple doesn't have their own skunkworks R&D for coming up with new technologies like sapphire screens or other key components. They could work out what they wanted and then farm it out to someone who can mass produce it. Sort of like the Bell Labs or IBM labs.

Under Jobs, Apple followed Jobs' vision. Without Jobs, Apple has no vision.

Probably they should have gone with JLG and BeOS instead.

Comment: Re:not a lot of use for most (Score 1) 179

by drinkypoo (#48476477) Attached to: Consortium Roadmap Shows 100TB Hard Drives Possible By 2025

I'm pretty sure he's dead.

So you can agree that being raised by his own parents didn't work out so well, right? He destroyed his face out of low self-esteem in spite of being one of the best-loved entertainers in history, and died of a prescription drug overdose. Now, can you prove that being raised by someone else wouldn't have been better for him?

Comment: Re:trillions of bits, why one head per platter? (Score 2) 179

by drinkypoo (#48475821) Attached to: Consortium Roadmap Shows 100TB Hard Drives Possible By 2025

Alignment isn't an issue - there's no alignment on a modern drive. Instead, at the factory, they write a set of servo tracks all over the platters which do the aligning for you - basically the head seeks to approximately the right position and starts reading, and the servo track tells it where it actually is, so feedback gets the head to the right track.

Sigh. Alignment is an issue, because each platter has its own alignment. That means that when you're reading/writing one platter, you're not aligned for the other platters. That's why you can't have multiple heads on one armature (which has multiple arms, all fixed together) and read/write multiple platters at once.

the bigger reason why two actuators didn't work is far simpler - think multiprocess programming. Both actuators could read or write data to the platters (of which there was one set) and if you screwed up the order of the accesses, you could easily write the wrong thing

You're being ridiculous. That's true no matter how many actuators you have — if you screw up, you write the wrong thing. Even if you only have one actuator, if you write the data to the wrong sectors, you're gonna have a bad time. But both actuators have the same job: write some data to someplace. The two don't have the job to write the same data. If the drive gets a command to write data to a sector to which it already has cached data waiting to write, then hopefully it just throws away the first command anyway. This is something we would hope any drive with queuing would do whether it has 1 actuator or a dozen.

think you do a read then a write of a sector - and the sector happens to be under the actuator doing the write

HDD sectors are either 512 bytes or 4kb. In the former case they are often smaller than filesystem blocks and there is no need to read them before writing. You just run right over them. In the latter case, they are typically the same size as filesystem blocks (we use bigger blocks on larger filesystems, and we use 4k blocks on multi-TB drives) and again, there is no need to read them before wrtiting. You only have to find them, which means waiting the seek and then for some fraction of the time it takes the spindle to go around once. Then you can write. This is true no matter how many armatures are reading/writing the same disk.

Comment: Re:Cholesterol (Score 1) 33

by drinkypoo (#48475797) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

It would have been more interesting to have more of the responses from the scientists that work there rather than some droid in the marketing department.

I think that will have done them more damage here than good, by far. What's funny is that really nobody wants to hear a line of bullshit any more. Kawasaki just sent a clueless flack to be on Leno's Garage and show off their new bike and a good portion of the comments were about what a lame he was. That's at least half of what people will take away from the experience. Send someone who knows what they're talking about and can handle being on camera, or don't send anyone at all. Just send the bike and a brochure.

Comment: Re:Not humane? (Score 1) 33

by drinkypoo (#48475783) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

I'm not sure that's actually true. What would have to happen is that the production of chickens and eggs would have to become more distributed, and you would need more human labor. There's lots of places where the chickens can get free food, but they do need to range for that, so you're going to have to spend a lot more time and effort managing your chickens.

On the other hand, integrating chickens into more agricultural scenarios has the potential to improve them in a variety of ways. Chickens can be mixed in with most plants once they reach a certain size that makes them less appealing than the pests that they attract, and the weeds growing up around them. The chickens help with both of these problems. If we move to a more integrated food production model in which we do sensible things like compost our shit and put it back into the fields once it's become soil again, we'll want to move away from tilth and towards guilds anyway. Robotics is advancing on fruit-picking, and in the mean time, we have a lot of labor lying around to handle the substantial increase in labor currently demanded by such a change. We only don't do this now to maximize profits. We could pay people enough to pick vegetables, but then some of the vegetables which currently produce the most profit would fall by the wayside, and we can't disturb the status quo now, can we?

Comment: Re:I’m sorry, what are the nutritional benef (Score 1) 33

by drinkypoo (#48475773) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

Ehhh, sounds good, we can use margin of error as an excuse then. I suppose it's just by margin of error that this company is too stupid to be able to figure out that not all birds are mistreated. And by margin of error, I'll not bother to do business with them.

Actually, you're both displaying ignorance, although yours is the more spectacular; it's a fact that the bread far outweighs the mayo, so caring about the carbs in the mayo is a jerkoff waste of time. Even a low-carb slice of bread will run you around 5g net carbs (carbs less fiber, which is indigestible.) The truth is that anything less than 1.0g can be reported as 0g by our nutritional guidelines, and otherwise the numbers are rounded. Therefore, something with 0.9g carbs is reported as having 0g carbs, while something with 1.1g carbs is reported as having 1g carbs.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 151

by drinkypoo (#48475749) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.

Only to the extent that the law allows.

The law already included a solution to the problem of misleading information in at least some EU countries; you can have the material taken down, because it is already illegal there. Hell, even some non-misleading material is illegal in some of those countries, those in which the truth is not an absolute defense against libel. A new law seeking to hide the illegal information is not the solution. It only really seeks to do two things: one, let people hide their misdeeds, and two, attempt to hide the extent of the failure of laws against stupid people saying stupid shit on the internet.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 151

by drinkypoo (#48475739) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

If you need to search for information about someone then by definition you are not fully aware of all the facts and cannot be in a position to make a fair judgement if you are presented only with partial, misleading information.

You are so right. That is precisely why I need to be provided with all of the search results, so that I can make up my own mind.

Comment: Re:Cholesterol (Score 1) 33

by drinkypoo (#48475731) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

Finally, on a side note, I've never understood the argument that because some other animals do a thing it makes it morally acceptable.

No, you've got it twisted. I'll eat chickens because they would eat me. Unless I was starving, I wouldn't eat a llama, because they wouldn't. I'll eat octopi on the same basis even though they're intelligent, although I do prefer to eat stupid food.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 2) 151

by drinkypoo (#48474705) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

Incorrect. If the court was saying to remove the page in question, then that would be forgetting things which are true.

However, the court action is directed at the association created by Google between a particular person and a page.

There is no functional difference; if you can't remember what you forgot, then you forgot it. The data might be out there someplace, but if you can't find it, then you can't make use of it.

No, it's about requiring search engines to stop returning irrelevant items about a person when asked for relevant items,

As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.

Without this law, search engines could report results which are false and do harm with impunity.

No, no they couldn't, because you'd click on the links and you'd see the actual result. Search engines can only report what is there; they might report on it incorrectly, but you can always check up on them.

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...