Seconded. There is a lot of noise on what diet is superior and which one works best. Intuitively a person knows when they've over indulged just as when we pull back when putting our hand in a flame. We just don't do it anymore, and design our lives around not ever having it happen again.
My only problem with this is the victim-hood that happens when this high carb crap clamours for our attention in ADs and the media. Invariably you will get victim-hood and people gorging and gulping their way to negate such imagery. I know I don't look at a McBigMac the same way when I've had one.
The problem with itemizing specific things to avoid or cut down, is they are too specific and end up becoming habits. Instead it is more suitable to form an over-arching doctrine. So instead of "Drink less beer", it should become "Avoid mood changing substances".
The reason for a more general approach is because the moment things are calcified like this, they are very difficult to uproot and change. Think of this as a recipe where the ingredients can be swapped out. The recipe doesn't change, but the ingredients do, and not so drastically that the recipe is destroyed.
I'm not convinced it is a bad thing. Why would it be a problem for "avoid mood changing substances" to become a habit, calcified and very difficult to uproot and change?
So it's back to the concept of a recipe where the ingredients change, but the recipe sort of stays intact. Change too many ingredients and we have an entirely different dish. I like this analogy because it's less formal and more forgiving. Just make sure to stick to it in an informal manner and not abuse the leniency provided, and you shall be fine. Technically every substance is mood altering (sugar for example), but there are some that have a marked increase on judgement and mood that it is safe to treat them as suspect. When I refer to "recipe" I mean a loose guide to run with in times of crisis.
Just ran Paul's article through Anonymouth https://github.com/psal/anonymouth Considerably changed and mangled beyond all recognition. It even sounds less persuasive in tone.
What I love about Dave's work is that it's very Zen and self similar to nature. The more I observe complex systems, the more I realize they are just like self-organized nature. Complexity begets complexity. Novelty begets novelty. These ideas are not new.
So I should talk in Legal English all day? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_English which is the reverse of writing as one talks, because the Rule of Law surrounds us always, except for the criminals who flout it repeatedly throughout their day.
When I write, I self censor all the time, and it is no different when I talk. We forgive and forget. We silo only certain words to certain areas of the world. "What happens in Vegas" etc. Language only becomes a problem when it is committed permanently to the footnotes of the web. You can't overlook the law aspect. You also can't so easily withdraw a statement said online.
Some of the work of Distributed.net ( http://www.distributed.net/Main_Page ) is wonderful. Does anyone know if this idea could be more than it is currently, where computers (more than ever) are sitting idly and not contributing their cycles in any meaningful way? Even 5 minutes of raw CPU 100% usage per device could do some serious computation. Theoretically superseding modern supercomputers.
Computers more than ever rely on not being at 100% CPU all the time, because the increased power consumption and heat dissipation is a problem. Instead it's all about the "race to idle": do the work and then go to sleep for a few miliseconds to cool down.
Case in point: with my MBP battery, I can get 8 hours of browsing the Web, reading articles, watching a YouTube video or another. But if I spin a parallel build that uses 100% of all cores for about 15 minutes, I eat through half of my battery life.
The difference between idle and full power is very large in modern CPUs - a typical laptop one can consume an average of a few watts at idle, but several dozen at full load; furthermore, they can switch between these states thousands of times per second. This is why CPU power circuitry is not easy to design, since it has to keep up with the very fast changes in current as the CPU transitions between power states.
Incidentally, this is also why you may be able to hear audible sounds from a computer when it's idle or running some particular process - the wakeups/sleeps are happening at a frequency in the hearing range, and the components like capacitors and coils can act as tiny speakers.
Thing is that when boinc and co were popular all those cycles were really wasted. Today computers just enter power-saving states when not in use saving electricity and in effect money.
This is because Intel is tricking you with the core count. I'm guessing you have an i5/i7/whatever with 8 cores but just two memory channels. Since it only takes two or three cores to saturate those memory channels, you will never be able to max out 8 cores on anything that processes much more than $CACHE_SIZE (~4MB) of data. So you can use 8 cores for stuff like finding primes or bruteforcing RC5 (like distributed.net), but not much else.
Depends on what you want and how much money you want to spend. If your workload is embarrasingly parallel, it could be cheaper to buy several servers with a CPU like the Xeon E5-1630 v3 (Edit: which has just 4 cores and 4 mem channels). Or, as you say, go the POWER8/SPARC route, which also includes the recent option of a single x86 server with up to 8x Xeon E7-8893 v3. For the latter option you may hit NUMA issues as well; depends on your workload.
Your choice boils down to the classic "message passing" vs. "shared memory" (think MPI vs. OpenMP) architectural choice. What the optimal solution is depends on the specific application, as well as how far you want to scale it.
Yes it has turned into The Hacienda at this stage. It has its roots in Temporary Autonomous Zones / Pirate Utopias, but has since seen the attention of the gentrifiers.
I like tools that rather than scan for signatures (which can be polymorphic in nature and bypass AV), they can look for out-of-place behaviour on the OS. The Sysinternals Suite is great for malware hunting: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb842062
Malware has grown up and is now residing in hardware and can survive entire OS re-installs. I feel sorry for Windows users these days because malware has grown up and it is not as obvious you have malware. In the past there were obvious signs you were infected and the malware made itself known (sort of stupid when you're an attacker really).
Also some of the 'second opinion' tools are interesting too:
My only problem with this is the victim-hood that happens when this high carb crap clamours for our attention in ADs and the media. Invariably you will get victim-hood and people gorging and gulping their way to negate such imagery. I know I don't look at a McBigMac the same way when I've had one.