I was talking about space overhead, but okay, sure.
You can avoid fourth amendment violations by leaving your persons, papers, and effects in your houses.
Google it, you'll get that it has to do with number of transistors, not complexity.
Read Moore's papers.
The AC is strictly incorrect in stating that it has "nothing to do with the number of transistors on a chip". It has something to do with that. However, they did state what Moore said accurately, unlike whatever source Google took you to.
Yes, let's redefine Moore's law all day just like the media does, just like everybody does.
Just like Gordon Moore did 10 years after he originally stated it...
In any case, everyone has known Moore's law has been failing to keep up for a few years.
Transistor counts technically "failed to keep up" around the 1992-1997 era, but increased at a higher rate than predicted by Moore's Law (1975 version) between 2005 and 2012. Moore's Law is an observation about long-term trends. You can't tell anything from "a few years".
Having said that, you're right about Kurzweil.
OK, we have been talking cross-purposes it appears. I went back to the question and I did indeed miss one crucial detail in it.
My fault. Sorry about that.
there is nothing done in new languages that can't be done in others
Not only that, it can be done with worst-case constant overhead simply by implementing the new language using an old language first.
See, I know my algorithmic complexity theory too.
A far more likely reason is that sometimes it's possible to recover a deleted email and sometimes it is not. By analogy, think of the circumstances under which it is possible to recover a deleted file on disk.
Yahoo's policy says it can't recover deleted emails because if it said anything else, someone with an expensive lawyer would interpret that as a guarantee.
No, I'm not talking about the VM crashing because of badly-written code; I'm talking about the VM allowing you to make it do things.
And that's correct. However, you are not talking about what Larry Wall was talking about when he said "don't do that".
I think that they're a fad in the same way that 1990s smartphones were a fad: the technology to build good ones doesn't exist yet. A watch needs to have a battery that lasts long enough that I never accidentally forget to charge it and end up with it not working (my current one is on its second battery and the first one lasted about 5 years) and be light enough that I don't notice that I'm wearing it. I have both of those from a Skagen watch, but if I could keep those requirements then I'd find it very useful to have things like my day's calendar sync'd to the watch, to be able to use it with Bluetooth for two-factor authentication, to be able to use something like Apple Pay and leave my wallet at home, and so on. Make it a quarter the current thickness and make the battery last a week and I'll happily buy one, but that isn't possible yet.
The same thing was true of Smartphones. It was obvious before the iPhone that there were a lot of useful things that a Smartphone could do, but until LiIon batteries, low-power WiFi chipsets and screens improved to a certain point, the downsides outweight the benefits. The difference between the iPhone and the Apple Watch is that the iPhone was released at precisely the time when the technology made it possible to build the useful thing, whereas the Apple Watch appears to be 5-10 years too early.
1) Chances are that "counterfeit" was made in the same factory line as the "real" one.
There have been a lot of cases of third-party batteries being made to significantly lower standards. Often the counterfeit ones are the QA rejects from the real factory.
2) Nikon wouldn't know if you you were using the "real" one or not.
LiIon batteries must communicate with the charger, some communicate things like serial numbers so they can tell it's a fake. A common failure mode is for the battery to expand significantly, at which point it may be difficult to remove it from the camera without causing damage that was obviously not done by the battery and thereby invalidating your warranty.
3) Relying on corporations to be sympathetic is pretty comical. Nikon doesn't care about you.
He's not relying on their sympathy, he's relying on consumer protection laws (you do have those in your country?). If I buy a battery from manufacturer A and put it in a device from manufacturer A, and it destroys the device, then it's clearly the responsibility of manufacturer A. If you buy a battery from A and it destroys a device from B then you're likely to have a lot of effort proving responsibility, and that's assuming that A is not some fly-by-night operator and still exists when you hit the problems.
As I understand the term, it's only a knockoff if it's attempting to portray itself as a different company's brand. Supermarket own brand ketchup is not a Heinz knockoff, even if it's made in the same factory with the same ingredients, because it's got someone else's name on it and isn't trying to pretend to be Heinz ketchup.
If the shoes cost $20 to make and you can get shoes for the same quality as Nike and manage to sell them for $40, making $20 profit on each one, then you shouldn't worry about putting your own brand name on them. You'll get good reviews and the value of your brand increases. The problem is when you make an inferior product and put someone else's name on it, because then you get the benefit from their reputation and they pay the cost when their reputation suffers because of the substandard goods.
You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.