Has anyone ever seen any evidence about the difference between Quadro and GeForce? I’ve read through all of the white papers describing the “differences” between a Quadro and a GeForce card [1]. Approaching it as a skeptic, this paper seems written by the Quadro marketing team. Most of the claims made about the quadro are also true about the geforce - for example, just the first one says that the quadro supports anti-aliasing in hardware, but then so does geforce. Consider the Quadro P4000, retailing for $799 vs. the 1080ti at $749 Architecture: both are pascal chips Clock rates: titan is 1536MHz, pascal is 1202MHz Memory width: titan is 352-bit, pascal is 256-bit Memory Bw: titan is 484MBps, pascal is 243MBps CUDA cores: titan 3584 cores, pascal is 1792 cores Both support G-sync, directX 12, Vulkan API, OpenGL 4.5 ,. Both support up to 4 displays, both support 4K and 5K displays. I've even looked at rendered images side by side and I cannot see any difference ... the only thing I can tell is that its a different profit center for nVidia. [1] www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_geforce.html

Read David Braine's Language and Human Understanding: The Roots of Creativity in Speech and Thought[1]. Unless you think programming languages have anything to do with creativity and especially, in breaking wholes into parts (fun quotations of Bertrand Russell and Aristotle in the first two pages of de Koninck's "The Unity and Diversity of Natural Science"[2]), you need a whole different kind of language. The difference is between a structurally closed language which is 'dead' (Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look[3], 12; Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics[4], 79), and a structurally open language, which has that critical informality that allows one to explore new territory that the language was not 'designed' to address. Finally, from Jacques Ellul's The Humiliation of the Word[5]:

Meaning is uncertain; therefore I must constantly fine-tune my language and work at reinterpreting the words I hear. I try to understand what the other person says to me. All language is more or less a riddle to be figured out; it is like interpreting a text that has many possible meanings. In my effort at understanding and interpretation, I establish definitions, and finally, a meaning. The thick haze of discourse produces meaning.

All of intellectual life (and I use the word "all" advisedly), even that of specialists in the most exact sciences, is based on these instabilities, failures to understand, and errors in interpretation, which we must find a way to go beyond and overcome. Mistaking a person's language keeps me from "taking" the person—from taking him prisoner. (19)

Anyone who tries to circumvent the above (eliminating all ambiguity everywhere) is doing violence to creativity and humanity.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Language...
[2] http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aver...
[3] http://www.amazon.com/Interpre...
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Interpre...
[5] http://www.amazon.com/The-Humi...

The current incarnation of the media might need this—especially if they rely on advertising instead of being paid by the people who consume what they produce. As it turns out, who pays determines what is made/said! This is merely capitalism at work, and here I mean 'capitalism' entirely neutrally—an emergent system based on many individuals voting on their conception of 'good' and 'bad'. Yeah I've been reading some F.A. Hayek recently. I don't think all incarnations of the media require this. Some might need actual mature adults. You know, if they wanted to actually make the world a better place instead of spread inanity and mediocrity around like some cheap butter substitute. (Yeah, I'm a butter supremacist.)

This exists: Open Annotation:

Annotation is a pervasive activity when reading or otherwise engaging with publications. In the physical world, highlighting and sticky notes are common paradigms for marking up and associating one's own content with the work being read, and many digital solutions exist in the same space. These digital solutions are, however, not interoperable between systems, even when there is only one user with multiple devices.

This document lays out the use cases for annotations on digital publications, as envisioned by the W3C Digital Publishing Interest Group, the W3C Open Annotation Community Group and the International Digital Publishing Forum. The use cases are provided as a means to drive forwards the conversation about standards in this arena.

There's a San Francisco 501(c)(3) working on this stuff: hypothes.is

I just came across Canada stabbing victims identified as students: ‘They were all good kids’. The dichotomy is intriguing:

(1) The victims were 100% innocent.

(2) The murderer was 100% guilty.

Bang Bang You're Dead is a great way to explore the question, "What if this dichotomy were wrong?" Now, I don't mean to assert that victims always match the pattern in Bang Bang. Sometimes people lash out at folks who had nothing to do with their pain. But sometimes they do. And when we assert (1) and (2), we sometimes depart from a true description of the situation. Do we care about this?

The idea that merely removing guns from the populace will stop the 'badness' which leads to a good proportion of mass murder is delusional. It'll merely suppress visibility of the problem. Sadly, many are just fine with this. Treating the symptoms is easier than treating the cause. False dichotomies are easier than uncomfortable tensions.

Does RMS have plans for how developers will eat if e.g. steals their code and makes it cheaper? Does he have plans for companies which wish to contribute some of their developer time to open source, and some to heavily-invested-in trade secrets? I've been in situations where I wanted to use and contribute to OSS for part of what I did, but couldn't because of copyleft. I wonder if this is why the embedded systems space has such terrible OSS support: the lack of sufficient 'boundaries' between modules in embedded code forces one to be fully infected by the virus or clear of it entirely.

I hear that it's never a good idea to let the rich dump the first chunk of money into something.

From the article: ... bring outsiders with no experience onto teams to keep creativity and innovation on track. When experts have to slow down and go back to basics to bring an outsider up to speed, "it forces them to look at their world differently and, as a result, they come up with new solutions to old problems." Wow. Isn't this what Universities have been doing for hundreds of years? Its almost like academics understand this concept or something.

Games are one of the few things that would work well in VMs. Raymond Chen explains why VMs aren't a simple cure-all.