Slashdot Mirror

Wow can't believe I'm getting into such a stupid discussion. "Gates's" is actually more 'correct', although it is a matter of style. Links to substantiate this:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Although both ways seem to be technically acceptable, popular style publications such as the Chicago Manual of Style advocate the "adding 's after the s" approach.

I guess a more pertinent question however is, who modded you up (not to bash you or anything) on such an irrelevant discussion and made people like me follow the thread?

LOL -- it's a First-Person Titrator!

While slipstreaming service packs is a common practice, you can also slipstream hotfixes. Hack when I was in IT support we used this great script to automate the process. Some of the other links I still had bookmarked may be of value to people who not only want to slipstream service packs/hotfixes but also build an unattended installation CD. In our case we installed all the apps common to our PC images (except for office) from one CD. We threw the CD in, booted from it and came back 2 1/2 hours later to find a fully installed desktop with all our standard apps. This method is superior to using Ghost or other imaging software when you have a heterogenius enviroment where PC hardware varies drastically from depertment to department or desktop to desktop.

http://www.nu2.nu/bootablecd/
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/ie/ie ak/default.mspx
http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/
http://www.appdeploy.com/packages/

This last link related to a commercial software distribution enviroment but but it includes an archive of the known switches accepted by various installers to make them silent. The technique we used was to use the unattended.txt file to add a RunOnce registry entry, to regedit (to marge a secondary gegistry file containing other RunOnce entries) to be executed on the second reboot to silently install our list of apps, where the installer commands used included the switches detailed on the appDeploy website (and many other palces across the web).

There are a relatively small number of installers out there that take a relitively well known set of switches to make the installation silent (accepting all the defaults). These methods saves us thousands of man-hours in PC deployment in the two years they was in use.

--CTH

http://icecube.wisc.edu/

yay! UW!

Last time I got a haircut, A member of the IceCube project was there, we discussed his upcoming trip to the south pole to study neutrinos. I love living in madison.

The IceCube project seeks to verify the obscure theories that lead to these fantastic predictions, what is your problem dude? You an ID fanatic?

First of all, this has been around at Stanford since October 2005. This was covered at Ars Technica a month and a half ago (including the Stanford on iTunes site and store).

Second, this is also available at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, as well as other schools, such as UC Berkeley.

What's actually "new" here is that Apple has productized this service for educational institutions in the form of iTunes U, announced yesterday.

Though those who haven't heard of it before may be interested in Steve Jobs' 2005 commencement address at Stanford.

Please note that iTunes U operates on a different server (deimos.apple.com) than the normal music store (phobos.apple.com).

From Dave Schroeder
posted 01/24/06
Actually, to those people who think Apple is using TPM/Trusted Computing to actively *prevent* anything other than Mac OS X from booting on the Intel iMacs, you are categorically, one hundred percent wrong.

Apple has done NOTHING to prevent other OSes from booting, as long as there are booters that support Apple's EFI implementation.

There will be Linux distributions, BSD distributions, and Darwin distributions that will definitely run on Intel-based iMacs once EFI (and Apple's EFI implementation specifically) is properly supported in their bootloaders. And it will be.

Apple is doing NOTHING to actively prevent or allow the booting of alternate operating systems, period. Including Windows.

Now, you might say, accurately, that Apple is doing nothing to help, either. But it has no need for legacy BIOS, and EFI is the firmware of the (foreseeable) future on PC platforms as well. It's just that Apple is really on the cutting edge here, and is, again, the first manufacturer to deploy a technology in a widespread, mainstream way. In this case, it's EFI.

Can a novice or recreational user easily get it to boot other OSes without some further development of, e.g., bootloaders? No. But that will happen, and it's only a matter of time.

I just wanted to clarify this point, because Apple is certainly not going to disallow Linux, *BSD, Darwin, OpenDarwin and other UNIX variants from booting on Intel-based Macs, and it's not doing anything specific to prevent Windows from booting, either. It's also not doing anything specific - indeed, anything at all - to SUPPORT Windows booting on these machines.

Apple knows full well that people will be running Windows in virtualization on these things, and that will be *far* more useful to *far* more people than dual booting, and it's certainly not going to be stopping that, so why would they stop people from booting Windows and only Windows natively? Think for a second, people.

Now, the REVERSE is true, however: Apple IS using TPM to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. But it is NOT using TPM to *prevent* other OSes from being run on Apple hardware.

- Dave Schroeder
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

I think as a plasma physicist you might want to read this .

You will notice the section on Neutronicity .

In the 3HE + 3HE reaction you will notice it is "ZERO"

This is what your neighbors ultimate goal is there .

Presently I think they have D + 3HE working .

If they are next door you might go ask them why they have this up on
the web if you feel it is wrong ????

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC27/IMAGES/fig1 7.GIF

Thanks,
Ex-MislTech

A magnetically confined fusion plasma is a very tenuous beast. If all operating conditions are not satisfied, the background plasma requisite for fusion will not be created -- and if you go from 'good' to 'bad' operating conditions, the plasma snuffs itself out on the order of a confinement time (several milliseconds depending on device parameters).

has any scientist working on such a reactor deliberately simulated a total containment field failure?

Sure -- in modern research devices these failures happen for a myriad of reasons. Disruptions have happened a lot in the course of this research. On current devices, a disruption can be a 'no big deal' operation or force repairs; on a fusion reactor they really need to be avoided. Fortunately, the cause of showstopper disruption events are well known and techniques exist to stay away from the region of parameter space that causes them! There are also techniques to mitigate disruptions from unexpected failures (PDF warning).

think a popcorn kernel what happens when it reaches the right temperature? *pop*

There's a difference between temperature and energy density. For instance, if you blow out a candle you can snuff out the glowing wick with your fingers without burning them -- despite the wick being around 1000 K. The reason is that the candle wick doesn't have much energy stored inside. The same goes for a magnetically confined plasma. While the plasma has a very small tail in its energy distribution which allows thermonuclear fusion, the stored energy in the plasma itself is insufficient to, say, melt a building and set off an incindeary firestorm.

I think a distinction needs to be made between the use of fusion to produce net energy versus fusion for other purposes, such as a low-volume neutron generator. It is the latter which IEC devices currently find their use. For instance, a friend of mine is working on using the IEC device to produce medically useful isotopes; another works on detecting explosives/land mines via the emitted neutrons.

When it comes to making power, IEC grids suffer from the same neutronics issues. A real fusion reactor will be undoubtedly the harshest material environment on Earth. These neutronics material issues are of fundamental importance, so much so that a separate neutron irradiation facility will be constructed as a part of the ITER negotiations to study the topic.

Free Lunch , no but I think the ppl in wisconsin have a better idea :

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/iec.html

It is running right now, the real issue is fuel, and this does kinda
throw a monkey wrench into spending billions on ITER .

We know where the fuel is, and so do the chinese, and I feel it is a large
part of their interest in a return to the moon .

Helium-3 is placed there by the sun over time .

At current oil prices, 1 Kilogram of Helium-3 as fuel = over 4 million USD of oil .

I think robotically mining the moon is the way to get it, and of course ppl
will flip out and want to save the natural habitat of the moon...

To them I say take a stand, either it is oil, and more wars in the middle east,
or we look for any viable alternative that may also take us into space .

I think it is worth it, and so do a lot of scientists .

Keep in mind this type of fusion does not radioactively contaminate the reactor .

24 hours after a shutdown, you could enter the reactor chamber .

Zero pollution Fusion is in our grasp, and one is running in wisconsin now .

Hope for the future ...

Ex-MislTech

With apologies for straying off-topic to answer...

BTW, can you point to online info about IQ test norming?

The notorious but well-written and methodically researched 'The Bell Curve' http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684824299/002-21 85531-9075203?v=glance&n=283155 also springs to mind, if your interested in the intersection of race and racism with intelligence testing.

For a casual historical introduction Wikipedia covers the basic history and common instruments, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient , as well as the specific topic of race and intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence .

I'm particularly interested in historical data about the levels to which common instruments were normed in prior decades.

If I'm reading this correctly, the air doesn't get sucked out of the gel, because the aerogel is a actually the solid silica that is left after drying and extracting the liquid. It is not a closed cell structure, and cannot actually "contain" the air. However, what with me not being a JPL scientist, I could be wrong.

A young man I was and an old man I am...

Or to put it another way: Being clevva isn't doing clevvah.

As for example, being a geek would get you here: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/comp/cmoll/200401518 00.gif from there: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/comp/cmoll/cmoll.htm l

But how many of you can work out what to do with it?

Actually, there is a misnomer involved; as the ancient empire got its greatness from war and only learned what was well known to other empires by conquest (very ungeek.)

Seeing as Alexander died in his thirties and his generals spent the remaining generations to Rome fighting each other, it isn't suprising that the Roman empire lasted so much longer....

Never mind about all that crap. I'll tell you what, if you really are a geek, I will give you the answer for the above if you can find out how to ask me for it. Clue:
It's Greek to me. But it is more your North African, in reality.

A young man I was and an old man I am...

Or to put it another way: Being clevva isn't doing clevvah.

As for example, being a geek would get you here: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/comp/cmoll/200401518 00.gif from there: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/comp/cmoll/cmoll.htm l

But how many of you can work out what to do with it?

Actually, there is a misnomer involved; as the ancient empire got its greatness from war and only learned what was well known to other empires by conquest (very ungeek.)

Seeing as Alexander died in his thirties and his generals spent the remaining generations to Rome fighting each other, it isn't suprising that the Roman empire lasted so much longer....

Never mind about all that crap. I'll tell you what, if you really are a geek, I will give you the answer for the above if you can find out how to ask me for it. Clue:
It's Greek to me. But it is more your North African, in reality.

Supposedly that was already done ten years ago for some Macs, when there was a PPC port of Windows NT.

Yes, I've got one of those boxes in my office (the one on the far left, next to my 128K Mac and NeXT Cube). And indeed, it could run Windows NT for PowerPC. It was a Motorola Viper, a prototype of one of the Mac "clones", and was to be the first shipping Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP) machine. In theory, it could run Mac OS, Linux, AIX, Solaris, NetWare, and Windows NT. For various reasons, Solaris and NetWare on PowerPC were killed, as was Windows, eventually. Apple killed cloning (for Motorola's part, Apple bought back their Mac OS license for $100M), and the CHRP machines - or the first clone with the G3, the Motorola StarMax 6000 - never shipped.

Yes, it's a small piece, but enough to play with.

I would invite people to check out the Games Learning and Society Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. There you can see cutting edge research in the field of using games in Education.

Here at UW, we use pubcookie for single signon, and call it NetID Login Service. It's part of the larger WebISO concept (Web Initial Sign On), like cosign. But Michigan did have a lot of this deployed in the early 90s.

The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed a campuswide PKI solution based on GeoTrust.

More information, with presentations and descriptions of our deployment:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/

UW/GeoTrust/EDUCAUSE joint press release:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/geotrustuwpki. asp

For more information about UW-Madison's PKI deployment, contact Nick Davis

The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed a campuswide PKI solution based on GeoTrust.

More information, with presentations and descriptions of our deployment:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/

UW/GeoTrust/EDUCAUSE joint press release:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/geotrustuwpki. asp

For more information about UW-Madison's PKI deployment, contact Nick Davis

The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed a campuswide PKI solution based on GeoTrust.

More information, with presentations and descriptions of our deployment:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/

UW/GeoTrust/EDUCAUSE joint press release:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/geotrustuwpki. asp

For more information about UW-Madison's PKI deployment, contact Nick Davis

The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed a campuswide PKI solution based on GeoTrust.

More information, with presentations and descriptions of our deployment:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/

UW/GeoTrust/EDUCAUSE joint press release:
http://doit.wisc.edu/middleware/pki/geotrustuwpki. asp

For more information about UW-Madison's PKI deployment, contact Nick Davis

Try ghostscript. The PDF opens with gs under windows, should work under Linux/BSD. Might not be as pretty, but what do you want? ;-)

Hmm. Anybody remember the "phone home without telling the user" functionality in Acrobat Reader? It also always insists on enabling Javascript when I disable it, claiming that documents contain it and won't properly display when it's disabled, even with documents that I created myself and that I know FOR A FACT don't contain any Javascript.

Thanks, but no. I'll keep on using GSview for PDFs.

I'm really impressed that the appeal to Sept. 11th came in on the FIRST article. Slashdot should be proud to have the right wing spin machine view it with the importance that it receives.

Take it up with Fortune, not me. You did RTFA, didn't you? That's a direct quote from the submitted article.

Forget college, forget healthcare, we need radio bandwidth and tax cuts for the richest to help fight the terrorists.

If only there were an emoticon for rolling eyes.

Yeah, that's what it's all about.

Not to mention that there will be a NET GAIN from the bandwidth auction alone and innovation by tech companies who purchase said bandwidth.

Over a full third of taxpayers in this country pay no taxes at all. The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax. The top 5% now pay over 60% of the tax. The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.

So, I ask you: how is this not fair? Or should the entire tax burden be paid by the top, say, 5%? The poor - the bottom, say, 20%, will still be poor and struggling. Since, as you say, the more fortunate have more than enough money, perhaps we could take some of theirs, and simply give it to the poor? [1999 ref]

80 years ago people were expected to read Shakespear in the 4th grade, now we (MAYBE) get into it by high school. We've been dumbed down folks, and if you don't think TV played a large part in that, well, you watch too much TV...

I think this attitude is hilarious coming from slashdot. I have seen it almost too many times to count. From the "technology isn't bad, it's just technology" crowd, and indictment of a communication technology. And yes, one-way is still communication. Otherwise, we should trash newspapers and "Shakespear" (sic - hmm, maybe you're right about the dumbing down...), too.

TV isn't a villain here any more than any other technology. The lack of personal responsibility, however, is. Of course, your message doesn't seem to hold personal responsibility in very high regard, so your assessment isn't surprising.

It pissed me off when I saw that GWB was giving the oil industry HUGE tax breaks while cutting alternative energy research.

I totally agree, I am not a democrap or republicrap, and I think we have many options we could
pursue to use clean energy .

Foremost among these is bio-diesel from Algae .

        * Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m/km)
        * Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m/km)
        * Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m/km)
        * Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160 m/km)
        * Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (610 m/km) [2]
        * Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (10,000 to 20,000 m/km)

This could get us out of the middle east for good, and I am all for that, though it may be too late.

The amount of money we send the middle east every 10 years would more than pay for a total
conversion to alternative energy here in the US .

Yes, I said total .

Up to 150 billion USD a year, over 10 years, 1.5 trillion USD we could do geothermal, wind, solar,
biofuels, and fund robotic mining of HE3 on the moon .

For the "save the moon crowd" China already plans to do this, good luck convinving them to stop.

The University of wisconsin has a "working" helium-3 fusion reactor .

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/iec.html

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/helium3.htm

We can end one huge stream of money leaving US soil for good .

With total energy independence we can work on making the US independent on other fronts as well .

The potential good this can do the world as a whole, we can split the cost "evenly"
with the EU, and other nations that see the cost benefit of shared costs .

Ex-MislTech

is very different to mine, where things like 3D modelling, photorealistic rendering, and large scale simulations are bread and butter. Does anyone write CAD programs or supercomputer-based weather modellers using Java?

Yes, they do.
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/cacm2005.html

"Java distributed components for numerical visualization in VisAD"

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~csstsjt/ssg/ssghome.html
Using JAVA to develop simulation models [Keynote]

"From a simulation perspective, Java may be regarded in one of two lights. The first is as yet another general purpose programming language in which computer simulation models may be developed."

and

"Distributed Simulation with Java"

It took just a few seconds with Google to find these... there must be many, many more.

The reason I mentioned Tomcat is that such application servers are used because the are so effective at running garbage collected applications multi-threaded without one program impacting the other, or locking up the system.

This would be great for running Condor flocks in a University computer lab. Distributed computing, only when not being used.

I found several stories like this: http://www.engr.wisc.edu/bme/newsletter/2002_sprin gsummer/Article01_ECG.html. I admit that a more targeted search phrase, such as "Can retinal scanners damage the eye"?, gets better results.

My contact with them is admittedly old: if they've gone to low-power infrared, effectively, then good for the developers. The old bright light was very uncomfortable. But that doesn't offset the part where the focusing headpiece can become risky if mis-handled, if for example the padding of the eyepiece becomes frayed, which is a kind of disrepair that I've actually seen. Unless someone's invented a new, wildly more durable form of padding and a maintainer who will actually keep it fixed, there's still a small danger to unsuspecting users who've just removed their glasses and see very well.

Old experience may be out of date, but have you seen any evidence of the other factor being addressed? I suspect not. And the expense of the things is still hideous even compared to fingerprint scanners.

Don't you dare try and put that on teachers.

I have no respect for any teacher that is a member of any teacher union. I have at least 4 friends who are teachers who quit the unions and still teach, and I have the utmost respect for them. If you are a teacher and a member of the socialist union, you're trash, plain and simple. Read what the teacher unions do every year and you'll agree.

Have you talked to the crazy parents teachers have to put up with? Most will actually tell you they expect the school to teach their kids dicipline.

I agree. This is also the teacher unions fault. They have fought, tooth and nail, the ability to bring independent graders into the system. Let teachers teach, let grades grade. A teacher grading their own students is similar to an employee setting their own salary!

And every kid is a geneous, and most parents do about 20% of their kids work, especially essays. And teachers do a LOT of work for the crap pay they get, more than you know.

Crap pay? This is a myth. Teachers are some of the best paid for the actual time they spend and the quality of their output.

They also usually have very specific lesson requirements handed down from the state level, so any real teaching or discussion gets put to the side.

Thanks, I also agree that the State is to blame. The Federal mandates on education are a big problem as well.

The problem is lazy parents who don't have time to deal with their kids because their (1) divorced or (2) both working.

When we were in the 1960s, a family of 4 paid about 20% of their income to government at every level. 1 parent could afford to stay home. In 2005, a family of 4 pays over 50% of their income to government at every level. This is 250% higher, causing both parents to have to work just to get by. Don't blame the parents for what you voted for.

...

Do you not know what bracketted taxation is? Then what are you doing in this debate? Lets back up to income taxes 101.

No, I know what tax brackets are, thanks, (though you appear to be the only person to refer to it as "bracketted taxation"). And by "I don't know what you're getting at, here," I thought I made myself clear with the link I posted, which I guess I'll have to post again. As I said, the difference is even more dramatic now. Over a full third of taxpayers in this country pay no taxes at all. The top 1% of taxpayers - and these aren't all or even mostly people who are fabulously wealthy; these include people who make just over $250,000/year in household income - as of 2004, pay over 40% of the tax. The top 5% now pay over 60% of the tax. The entire bottom 50% now pay less than 3% of the tax burden, and most of them are at the upper part of the 50%. The bottom 35% pay nothing.

So, I ask you: how is this not fair? Or should the entire tax burden be paid by the top, say, 5%? The poor - the bottom, say, 20%, will still be poor and struggling. Since, as you say, the more fortunate have more than enough money, perhaps we could take some of theirs, and simply give it to the poor?

If you're going to respond to this, please do so directly, as I did.

Clinton: Signed the Kyoto protocol; spoke regularly about the need to stop global warming
Bush: Unsigned the Kyoto protocol. First denied any global warming, then admitted it but downplayed human effect on it.
Summary: Complete Opposites.

"Unsigned." That's rich. Bush didn't "unsign" anything. Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol, which does nothing until it's submitted for ratification. We are still a signatory of the protocol (which means we support the basic tenets of it in principle), and it has still not been submitted for ratification. Literally no change from Clinton. Our position can be summed up as follows:

This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. . . . America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. . . . . Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. (Ref)

In other words, it's unfair if other nations - like, oh, the second largest consumer of petroleum products and the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and the one who is angling to become the world's next superpower and will essentially be in direct comp

The difference between Magnetic North and True North historically (magnetic declination) is constantly changing. Clued people who use magnetic compasses are well aware of the dynamic nature of magnetic declination and take it into consideration when determining compass directions. For more information see http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs03501.ht ml and/or http://www.geography.wisc.edu/sco/maps/magneticdec lination.php

The majority of the world disagrees with you on this. Heck, the majority of the world, according to polls, would rather have *China* of all countries dominating world affairs than America - that's how sick of our international policy they are. Agree or disagree with their stance, this is what the world views. They do *not* see the US as a "positive influence" as a whole.

Yes. And this is reflects an "anyone but the US" mentality. Similar to the "anyone but Bush" mentality in the last US election. And wishing that *China* were in charge, as it were, of world affairs isn't reflective of anything but the wholesale ignorance of the person or entity that wishes it.

Name an political issue - odds are, the US stance has changed. Bracketted taxation policy? Changed. Global warming stance? Changed. Containment vs. invasion? Partially changed (sorry people, Clinton was no angel there! Just not as wide-scale). Abortion? Changed. Gay rights? Changed. Social services? Changed. Military funding? Changed. Nuclear weapons development? Changed. Need I keep on going? American policy, domestic and foreign, has radically shifted in the past decade.

Decade? Well, I don't know who would have been responsible for it then, unless you're one of those people who think the Democrats and Republicans are just as bad as each other (and that's fine if you are; just making a statement).

And you and I have an extremely different view of what "radically shifted" means. The shifts in the last "decade", or any recent timeframe, whatever you believe them to be, are no different than any shifts that have occurred over the lifetime of the country. I realize you *think* they're far more drastic (at the hands of religious fundamentalists and conservatives, no doubt, since we've never had those in this country before!), but they're not. And any individual, specific, marked policy changes have a hell of a lot more context than you're giving them here.

Bracketted taxation? I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here, but this could serve as a reminder. The difference is even more dramatic today.

Global warming? How has the global warming stance "changed"? Are we now for it? And before you say "well, they're certainly not against it", I'd remind you that smacks of the same ignorance some would paint a "you're either with us or against us" statement. The stance on global warming is simple and straightforward: we will not sacrifice beyond a certain threshold of negative economic impact as long as other nations, like the ever-popular China, are exempted from large portions of international guidelines.

Abortion? Just because a jurist believes that abortion isn't strictly and explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution (and I personally have no earthly idea how it could be) doesn't automatically make abortion "illegal". Roe v Wade is such a charged topic, but it is Constitutionally shaky, and has been ever since it was ruled. It was a horrid bastardization of the Court's role, taking the easy way out on a question that doesn't have easy answers. While I am not anti-abortion, I don't call myself "pro-choice". Because no matter how much someone would claim it, it's not only and exclusively about the "rights" of the woman.

Gay rights? How have they changed? Do gays have less rights because some ridiculous local and state legislatures pass resolutions defining marriage as exactly what it is, namely, the union of a man and a woman? How have any rights been rolled back? From a strictly legal perspective, gays have the same "rights" as any person: they can marry a person of the opposite sex. But the problem is that the state never should have been involved in "marriage" in the first place, between any two persons. Legal union? Yes. Civil union? Sure. Whatever they want to call it. And no, the gay marriage issue is nothing like the interracial marriage issue. Interracial marriage was a civil rights issue. Gay marriage is attempting t

Show a religious person evidence of any kind that contradicts their faith, and the faith doesn't change.

The Dalai Lama apparently claims that Buddhism is different:
http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/New_York_Time s.dalai_lama_op_ed.htm
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.

Behold...

The power of the sun....with no radioactive waste either !

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/GeneralOpPics.htm

Ex-MislTech

yeah, that SIDF (ECMA-208) sure caught on. Yup. Everyone uses SIDF now. Everywhere I look, it's SIDF this, SIDF that.

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~jgast/sidf/

*sigh* it would be funny if it weren't so sad. Funny as hell.

What frightens me is the bottom ad on that page. It's advertising a hidden camera for "security in your kids' playroom" with a picture of an older girl with noticably hard nipples. What are these people trying to tell us?

In case anybody does not remember the X10 ads, I was able to find an online gallery of old X10 ads. Not at all subtle about who their target market is, are they?

Okay, so lets see.. In Iron Ext3 there is a more comprehensive checksumming system than XFS. Linux already has a deadline scheduler. Reiser4 has exactly the same ripple tree structure just like ZFS which provides transactions and will (someday) make snapshots easy. About the only thing in ZFS that doesn't exist by itself in Linux already is the tight raid integration with the FS, which is debatable in it's merits.

So what Sun has really done is taken a bunch of preexisting innovations, and glued them into one completely offering. By themselves they weren't so useful, so they really have done a great thing, but it's ashame that they can now take credit for the innovation of others just because they got a complete product to market first.

This should be a sad but hope building event (to see their ideas hit production first with someone elses name) for the reiser4 folks.... Hope building because it just shows that the world really does need the tech they are working on.

To quote http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/methane/metha ne.html

In the chemical industry, methane is a raw material for the manufacture of methanol (CH3OH)

It's been done, not without problemns though:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/SPRING00/lecture3 4.pdf for example

lots of other interesting links from a google search of "Soviet reactor orbit"

Ppl have said it before to some extent NASA is a jobs program .

Why build shuttles unless u have somewhere to go .

Why build space station unless u have a way to get there .

Some good science has come out of the space station, but some of it could have
been done on the ground .

What was not done on the ground might have been done with robotic control
instruments from earth after just the experiment was delivered via remote control .

I think we stand more to gain from a robotic return to the moon and possibly
mining Helium-3 for the "working" helium-3 reactor in wisconsin .

Helium-3 with a billion dollar a ton return cost would equal oil at $7 a barrel .

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC27/IMAGES/fig1 8.JPG

Just getting us out of the middle east would be damn nice too .

Not to mention the zero pollution aspect ...

It could be dropped back to earth much like the apollo capsules after a rail mass driver
tosses it off the moon's surface much like NASA planned in the past already .

Sending a rover to mars is hard, sending a robot to the moon should be a bit easier,
and a LOT cheaper than sending a human .

Humans require h2o+o2+food and don't have the best tolerance for radiation .

cryogenics for a robot is an off switch ...

It is just not as glorious and all that macho BS .

If we can get a underground chamber dug on the moon and then use solar electricity over time to
extract material from lunar soil to process and make oxygen, it could be stored in the cave
til we are ready for ppl to arrive .

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/10 19_051019_moon_oxygen.html

Still alot of issues to work out, but it is cheaper, and nobody dies .

Build a moon base underground, protected from radiation, build ur spaceships and space stations
up there and it is easier to launch from the much weaker lunar gravity, 1.6 vs. 9.8, roughly 600% less .

Here are the lab locations of prominent scientists that have put alot of time and money
into what they think can fix the world's energy needs .

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC27/IMAGES/fig2 1.GIF

Ex-MislTech

Ppl have said it before to some extent NASA is a jobs program .

Why build shuttles unless u have somewhere to go .

Why build space station unless u have a way to get there .

Some good science has come out of the space station, but some of it could have
been done on the ground .

What was not done on the ground might have been done with robotic control
instruments from earth after just the experiment was delivered via remote control .

I think we stand more to gain from a robotic return to the moon and possibly
mining Helium-3 for the "working" helium-3 reactor in wisconsin .

Helium-3 with a billion dollar a ton return cost would equal oil at $7 a barrel .

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC27/IMAGES/fig1 8.JPG

Just getting us out of the middle east would be damn nice too .

Not to mention the zero pollution aspect ...

It could be dropped back to earth much like the apollo capsules after a rail mass driver
tosses it off the moon's surface much like NASA planned in the past already .

Sending a rover to mars is hard, sending a robot to the moon should be a bit easier,
and a LOT cheaper than sending a human .

Humans require h2o+o2+food and don't have the best tolerance for radiation .

cryogenics for a robot is an off switch ...

It is just not as glorious and all that macho BS .

If we can get a underground chamber dug on the moon and then use solar electricity over time to
extract material from lunar soil to process and make oxygen, it could be stored in the cave
til we are ready for ppl to arrive .

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/10 19_051019_moon_oxygen.html

Still alot of issues to work out, but it is cheaper, and nobody dies .

Build a moon base underground, protected from radiation, build ur spaceships and space stations
up there and it is easier to launch from the much weaker lunar gravity, 1.6 vs. 9.8, roughly 600% less .

Here are the lab locations of prominent scientists that have put alot of time and money
into what they think can fix the world's energy needs .

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC27/IMAGES/fig2 1.GIF

Ex-MislTech

that was exactly what i wanted to write in reply to this article - thanx!

here a nice website on the process of "liquefaction of co_2":
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA2/MAIN /LIQUIFA/CD2R1.HTM

in fact CO_2 is not as CO_2 in water, but as HCO3- (about 95% at 1atm i think)

CO_2 (gas, very little dissolved in liquid) + 2(H_2O) (liquid) HCO_3- (better dissolved in liquid) + H_3O+ (liquid)

but the result is a shift of pH (because of the H_3O+ instead of H_2O): -> water becomes "acid"

biological systems depend highly (!!!) on a stable pH. playing with the pH of the oceans can be more dangerous than extincting ourselves ;-)

Anyway, I was going for tongue in cheek ;)

Exploring space is horrendously expensive especially when America does it. I remember reading years ago, that the Russian space achievements during the cold war period were achieved at a tenth of the cost of the American achievements. Yes America reached the moon but what have we got to show for it? Apart from an inflated ego zilch! that was up until about twenty ago, when a lab in the University of Wisconsin discovered with little fanfare, something remarkable.

Read

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1283 056.html?page=1&c=y/

Shmitt (The only scientist to visit the moon) reckons that He3 is worth about $40000 an ounce or $1428 dollars a gram , gold is worth around 15 dollars a gram. If Shmitt is correct in his estimate of the value of He3, this makes He3 nearly a hundred times more valuable than gold. Had the astronaughts have struck gold on the moon, I have little doubt that we would be living on the moon by now.

There are many news articles about He3 here http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/

The science of He3 here http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/he3.html/

The thing that will make human endevours in space viable, is when space makes a profit.

Exploring space is horrendously expensive especially when America does it. I remember reading years ago, that the Russian space achievements during the cold war period were achieved at a tenth of the cost of the American achievements. Yes America reached the moon but what have we got to show for it? Apart from an inflated ego zilch! that was up until about twenty ago, when a lab in the University of Wisconsin discovered with little fanfare, something remarkable.

Read

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1283 056.html?page=1&c=y/

Shmitt (The only scientist to visit the moon) reckons that He3 is worth about $40000 an ounce or $1428 dollars a gram , gold is worth around 15 dollars a gram. If Shmitt is correct in his estimate of the value of He3, this makes He3 nearly a hundred times more valuable than gold. Had the astronaughts have struck gold on the moon, I have little doubt that we would be living on the moon by now.

There are many news articles about He3 here http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/

The science of He3 here http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/he3.html/

The thing that will make human endevours in space viable, is when space makes a profit.

Maybe his experimental data made no sense, like this guy's lab report

Here's another option: go to http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ and get GSview (the Ghostscript file viewer), and associate that with PDF files. Admittedly, you'll get a nagging screen when it starts up telling you to register, but it's fast, it works, and maybe most importantly, it does not contain any "phone home" functionality or Javascript-in-documents handling or the like (well, it's unlikely that it does, at least).

I've ditched Acrobat Reader in favour of this, and it's one of the best decisions I ever made.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/

and here

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1283 056.html?page=1&c=y/