Slashdot Mirror

They had 30 MB HDs in the seventies?

Sure they did. IBM introduced the 3330 disk, a 100 MB harddisk in June 1970. It was even hot swappable. See 3330 disk to get an idea of what it looked like. Note the handle on the top to facilitate mounting and dismounting it. It did not sell very well among home users though.

The Wikipedia article points out that the German PBR was a prototype built in the late 60's and operational until the late 80's. A prototype. Built in an era where we were still getting a clue about this stuff.

Please use that article as an example of incorrect management/use of a prototype of an early technology that we need to evolve a little further. Same as any other early technology.

Instead, read this report, linked off of the Wikipedia article:

http://juwel.fz-juelich.de:8080/dspace/handle/2128/3136

That's a much more interesting read than the article.

The chemistry of the Earth's natural cycles and environs are identifiably altered under increased carbon dioxide uptake. Carbon dioxide forms acids with constituent components of the atmosphere, soil and water. Water is chemically neutral and oxygen readily balances out to the available reactions, contributing nothing to net chemical cycles on the Earth outside of return carbon that has been out of the cycles for thousands and millions of years (see Cretaceous Period vs the logic of biofuels and green chemistry).

However, I could be fair and ignore science and the world we currently live in, on the off chance your logic needs to be looked at for those circumstances. Actually, we don't have to, as if either of those were a current issue with similar consequences (and some of the conversation regarding the hydrogen economy suggests water could become some class of risk), we actually WOULD be having that conversation. That ISN'T our actual problem right now. Anything that had a similar long term consequence would cause the scientific community the SAME CONCERN.

Unlike you, however, I've actually thrown in some genuine, peer reviewed research. Feel free to add and any ACTUAL research you might have. None of that meta-research by people with readily confirmed biases. After all, my research sources come from a variety of institutions and have been around long enough to go past peer review and enter into the realm of confirmability.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00164.x/full
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985cca..proc..546B
http://wwwzb.fz-juelich.de/contentenrichment/inhaltsverzeichnisse/bis2009/ISBN-0-471-72017-8.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GB001278.shtml
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00864.x/full
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/03-5055
ftp://ftp.imarpe.pe/Curso_Modelos/Biblio%20Arnaud%202/MEPS2008-Acidification.pdf%23page=5
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.short

Both the title and the summary of the article are misleading, this article describes much better, what the scientist really wanted to acomplish.

It basically says, that the QCD is describing the gluon-gluon and gluon-quark interactions and therefore the electrostrong force correctly. This leads to correct proton and neutron masses.

Most of the computations were conducted with this computer.

Both the title and the summary of the article are misleading, this article describes much better, what the scientist really wanted to acomplish.

It basically says, that the QCD is describing the gluon-gluon and gluon-quark interactions and therefore the electrostrong force correctly. This leads to correct proton and neutron masses.

Most of the computations were conducted with this computer.

Documentation like this is great and extremely valuable. It would be much more valuable, however, if it remained current. For example, can the ABISS project (which improves block I/O) be used at all? What do the numbers look like, when using profiling tools like Web100 (which profiles TCP communications)?

Has anyone run the Linux or one of the *BSD kernels through DAKOTA, KOJAK or PAPI to determine where, precisely, bottlenecks are within the kernels? It's easy to theorise, but isn't it cleaner to measure?

Now, I'm not saying these things aren't being done. They probably are, somewhere, by someone, but if the results aren't getting published we don't really know what impact what changes are going to have. The current method of evolving Operating System code in general is often a mix of personal theory and subjective experience based on non-random samples of activity. That can't really be a good way to do things, can it?

If I'm wrong, feel free to say. If I'm right, then maybe it would be a good thing if someone (possibly me) put together some kind of testing kit for measuring Linux kernel performance and actually measured the stats for Linux kernels on some kind of regular basis.

here's a closer view of a single cabinet, apparently almost completely assembled.

This one shows the overall design concept for the installation. Here again in a much sexier view

And here is a bluish picture of Gene Simmons which popped up also.

I can't give you an example for the use of these heavy nuclei, but there is definitely use for non-stable nuclei: for example the technique of beta-NMR uses the decay products of beta-unstable nuclei to find out about electric fields, crystal defects and diffusion in matter. It's a very expensive technique (you need to create the unstable nuclei during the experiment because they are so short-lived), but it gives some information that cannot be gathered by other means.