I suspect part of the reason is the lower screen is touch sensitive, the upper isn't. There's a pretty clear difference in the image quality of the two screens (especially after heavy use). I've noticed most games keep most of the action on the upper screen that isn't getting scratched up and reserve the touch screen for displaying things that are more static like inventory or actually using it for the touch functionality. And then there's the point other posters have made that until we have folding screens it's also a size concern.
There's a phenomenon in superconductors known as a critical current (or critical field) above which the material is driven back to the normal state. This is why the best superconducting electromagnets (last I knew) only generated fields up to about 10-15 Teslas whereas as pulsed copper electromagnet can hit 60T. If you drove the current (and thus the magnetic field) higher the superconductor suddenly becomes a rather good resistor and you destroy the material.
That was a little off-topic but the point is that in order to move large amount of energy through a superconductor you still need a big enough wire to keep the current density low.
Right, I was aware of the illegality of the MediaSentry investigations. I guess I had my eye on the much jucier RICO charges like racketeering that can carry up to 20 year sentences. Any chances a US Attorney could indict on those grounds even after this litigation is settled?
Oops, I phrased that poorly. It appears to me this is a civil suit, but what I really mean to ask is there a possibility for criminal charges to be filed as well?
After reading/skimming my way through all 109 pages of that, I have a question for you. I noticed many of the allegations made against the defendants look like laws with criminal punishments. Is there any chance (please say yes) that some of the people involved in this legal travesty could face prison time? Preferably somewhere with multiple large cellmates named "Bubba"?
The researcher of course, if he discovers a cure, is out of a job, so they are always looking for that cure just around the corner. The truth is we already have it but it is not that profitable, rather we need a pill they can pop and we can patent.
Do you even realize how absurd that sounds? The researcher who cures any famous incurable disease not only will be famous and probably set for life from that alone, but their career will no know bounds. Who wouldn't want to hire the guy who cured a rare form of leukemia? He can easily rest on his laurels for the rest of his life or if he likes working, move on to new incurable disease. There will always be new diseases to cure.
The problem with your demand is you're looking for something that doesn't exist. E=mc^2 is an explicit relationship that follows mathematically from fundamental physical principles. You can't just write down an "Average Earth Temperature" formula broken down into the contributions of various components that has any meaningful predictive power. You're asking for someone to simplify a chaotic non-linear system of equations into a single linear equation averaged over time and the entire globe which is a fool's errand. Sure, you can compute an annual average global temperature, but for the most part it's just a convenient statistic to use as a reference from year to year, but it doesn't mean a lot. In short your "simple" request isn't simple, and even worse it'd be an utterly meaningless formula.
There have been many papers that try to quantify contributions of various forcings to climate change, but these are typically couched in units of how many W/m^2 change they have on the total radiation budget of the atmosphere, NOT annual temperature. There is a relationship between these two things, but it is by no means linear. If you want to see things broken down into neat categories this is as close as you're going to get. I'm pretty certain the IPCC reports include a breakdown similar to what you're asking for, maybe you should try reading them? Or if you want a general overview to the topic that includes science but isn't too hard to follow I suggest you read Chapter 12 of Hartmann's Global Physical Climatology, ISBN: 0-12-328530-5. I realize it's more work than just ranting, but at least you could make your rants slightly more informed.
No, it has more to do with politicized scientific fraud. Global Warming "scientists", now going by the more PR friendly label "Climate Change" scientists, claim an average Earth Temperature T and present no model, no formula of variables. They pretend all non human variables are constant, and reduce their "hidden" formula to Human Activity = Average Earth Temperature.
Wow. Just... wow. Kudos for one of the least informed/most rage-filled rants I've seen in a while. Clearly you've never been troubled to look in an atmospheric science text book or read some atmospheric science literature. Models are routinely published in the literature, but they wouldn't make for very exciting reading in the mainstream media. Also, several attempts have been made to quantify the anthropogenic component of global warming relative to natural forcings. In fact, there is a great deal of relevant literature on the topic if you'd be bothered to look for it, then maybe you could post an informed rant. It's hard to take you seriously when you clearly don't even know the first thing about the body of work you're criticizing. If you think it's such bullshit spend some time studying the science that's been done and write a proper scientific critique. Until you have something informative to say, please be quiet.
Yes, but there aren't really two sides in the global warming debate. I don't know of any credible expert who denies that humans are drastically raising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and that it's going to change the climate somehow. The ongoing debate is over what's going to happen next, but that's a very complicated debate with a lot of subtlety and doesn't make for a good right vs. left narrative so it doesn't really get covered properly in the media. Instead what we get is whackjobs saying "Climate change isn't real! Humans aren't doing anything!" getting air time trying to shout down the scientists who devote their careers to studying this subject. Or we get pseudo-science documentaries about the scary "reality" of global warming that only shows a combination of all of the worst case scenarios. Neither of these is acceptable or responsible journalism.
That was pretty much my point too. Parts of the upper midwest are getting expensive, but that trend has reversed somewhat lately as people can't afford vacation homes and the like anymore. In parts of rural Minnesota it wouldn't be a shock to see land at that value or more depending on proximity to a nice lake. But it's also generally true land values go up the closer you are to a major metro area, and it's hard to find 3000 acres of undeveloped wilderness there.
I live at the base of the Hollywood Hills, I'm fully aware of what an undeveloped 10k sq ft lot goes for. But typically there isn't anywhere you can own 3000 acres of undeveloped land in the middle of a major city. With a few exceptions, most places you can own that much undeveloped property you're generally talking closer to $2000-4000 per acre. Sure, around Napa Valley or Silicon valley you might find these sorts of prices (or higher), but in most of the rural US that's an outrageous price for undeveloped land. Where I grew up in Iowa good farmland sells closer to $2k per acre and people think that's too much.
Classified networks are kept physically separate from the unclassified networks and the internet. However, most classified projects aren't that outlandish and given enough "unclassified" clues from several users inboxes it wouldn't take a genius to fill in the blanks. It won't get you the technical specifics of what's been accomplished or designs for classified technology, but it's not hard to figure out what your opponents are up to and if they think it's working.
I'd say that depends on your point of view. I'd say the internet's biggest blemish is people who feel the need to spout off like ignorant bigoted jackasses. Besides, if you don't like gay porn what are you doing on sites that put it in your face?
People don't understand basic physics is the simple answer. Or they don't think about it beyond "it's not working right now". Until we have magical transmitters that can transmit at any wavelength in the spectrum all wireless communications are subject to weather interference. The only way to beat the weather right now is to have a physical connection (and even that's not 100% immune).
I'm in exactly the same situation. I'm on Time Warner's fiber network for internet, most of the time my wireless router is the source of any internet troubles, or it's exterior to my connection to TW. I've lost power more times in the last 2 months than I have my cable in the past 2 years. Even then my cable outages are generally under an hour and it usually involves calling the local office and having them reset my box remotely. Takes maybe 10 min to fix. And as far as cell phones, I generally know where the dead zones are and avoid them. I rarely have dropped calls outside of these zones, and I don't really expect Verizon to install a new cell just to fix the dead zone I drive through every day that has a radius of about 20 yards from a particular intersection. Rather, I just make sure I'm not on the phone when I go through it.
You beat me to the punch on this one. It was the first thing I thought when I read that question too. And regarding satellite TV/internet outages we also have a thing called "weather". Yes, they transmit data at wavelengths as far as possible from atmospheric absorption lines. But in cases of heavy rain/snow scattering at those frequencies effectively makes the atmospher opaque. You just can't have 100% reliable home satellite service (unless you live in the Atacama).
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately it looks like it'll become quite a bit more finite the first time a clueless coworker actually puts coffee in it.
I suspect part of the reason is the lower screen is touch sensitive, the upper isn't. There's a pretty clear difference in the image quality of the two screens (especially after heavy use). I've noticed most games keep most of the action on the upper screen that isn't getting scratched up and reserve the touch screen for displaying things that are more static like inventory or actually using it for the touch functionality. And then there's the point other posters have made that until we have folding screens it's also a size concern.
None of Microsofts products are. Surely you've heard of the Ballmer Peak?
You're on slashdot, you're not fooling anyone. We know you're still a virgin and you'll be staying that way. Nice try though.
There's a phenomenon in superconductors known as a critical current (or critical field) above which the material is driven back to the normal state. This is why the best superconducting electromagnets (last I knew) only generated fields up to about 10-15 Teslas whereas as pulsed copper electromagnet can hit 60T. If you drove the current (and thus the magnetic field) higher the superconductor suddenly becomes a rather good resistor and you destroy the material.
That was a little off-topic but the point is that in order to move large amount of energy through a superconductor you still need a big enough wire to keep the current density low.
But has Netcraft confirmed it?
Right, I was aware of the illegality of the MediaSentry investigations. I guess I had my eye on the much jucier RICO charges like racketeering that can carry up to 20 year sentences. Any chances a US Attorney could indict on those grounds even after this litigation is settled?
Oops, I phrased that poorly. It appears to me this is a civil suit, but what I really mean to ask is there a possibility for criminal charges to be filed as well?
After reading/skimming my way through all 109 pages of that, I have a question for you. I noticed many of the allegations made against the defendants look like laws with criminal punishments. Is there any chance (please say yes) that some of the people involved in this legal travesty could face prison time? Preferably somewhere with multiple large cellmates named "Bubba"?
Do you even realize how absurd that sounds? The researcher who cures any famous incurable disease not only will be famous and probably set for life from that alone, but their career will no know bounds. Who wouldn't want to hire the guy who cured a rare form of leukemia? He can easily rest on his laurels for the rest of his life or if he likes working, move on to new incurable disease. There will always be new diseases to cure.
The problem with your demand is you're looking for something that doesn't exist. E=mc^2 is an explicit relationship that follows mathematically from fundamental physical principles. You can't just write down an "Average Earth Temperature" formula broken down into the contributions of various components that has any meaningful predictive power. You're asking for someone to simplify a chaotic non-linear system of equations into a single linear equation averaged over time and the entire globe which is a fool's errand. Sure, you can compute an annual average global temperature, but for the most part it's just a convenient statistic to use as a reference from year to year, but it doesn't mean a lot. In short your "simple" request isn't simple, and even worse it'd be an utterly meaningless formula.
There have been many papers that try to quantify contributions of various forcings to climate change, but these are typically couched in units of how many W/m^2 change they have on the total radiation budget of the atmosphere, NOT annual temperature. There is a relationship between these two things, but it is by no means linear. If you want to see things broken down into neat categories this is as close as you're going to get. I'm pretty certain the IPCC reports include a breakdown similar to what you're asking for, maybe you should try reading them? Or if you want a general overview to the topic that includes science but isn't too hard to follow I suggest you read Chapter 12 of Hartmann's Global Physical Climatology, ISBN: 0-12-328530-5. I realize it's more work than just ranting, but at least you could make your rants slightly more informed.
Wow. Just... wow. Kudos for one of the least informed/most rage-filled rants I've seen in a while. Clearly you've never been troubled to look in an atmospheric science text book or read some atmospheric science literature. Models are routinely published in the literature, but they wouldn't make for very exciting reading in the mainstream media. Also, several attempts have been made to quantify the anthropogenic component of global warming relative to natural forcings. In fact, there is a great deal of relevant literature on the topic if you'd be bothered to look for it, then maybe you could post an informed rant. It's hard to take you seriously when you clearly don't even know the first thing about the body of work you're criticizing. If you think it's such bullshit spend some time studying the science that's been done and write a proper scientific critique. Until you have something informative to say, please be quiet.
Yes, but there aren't really two sides in the global warming debate. I don't know of any credible expert who denies that humans are drastically raising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and that it's going to change the climate somehow. The ongoing debate is over what's going to happen next, but that's a very complicated debate with a lot of subtlety and doesn't make for a good right vs. left narrative so it doesn't really get covered properly in the media. Instead what we get is whackjobs saying "Climate change isn't real! Humans aren't doing anything!" getting air time trying to shout down the scientists who devote their careers to studying this subject. Or we get pseudo-science documentaries about the scary "reality" of global warming that only shows a combination of all of the worst case scenarios. Neither of these is acceptable or responsible journalism.
That was pretty much my point too. Parts of the upper midwest are getting expensive, but that trend has reversed somewhat lately as people can't afford vacation homes and the like anymore. In parts of rural Minnesota it wouldn't be a shock to see land at that value or more depending on proximity to a nice lake. But it's also generally true land values go up the closer you are to a major metro area, and it's hard to find 3000 acres of undeveloped wilderness there.
Ok, I was going off a quick google search and my knowledge of what it used to be. My original point still stands, 5k is still nowhere near 43k.
I live at the base of the Hollywood Hills, I'm fully aware of what an undeveloped 10k sq ft lot goes for. But typically there isn't anywhere you can own 3000 acres of undeveloped land in the middle of a major city. With a few exceptions, most places you can own that much undeveloped property you're generally talking closer to $2000-4000 per acre. Sure, around Napa Valley or Silicon valley you might find these sorts of prices (or higher), but in most of the rural US that's an outrageous price for undeveloped land. Where I grew up in Iowa good farmland sells closer to $2k per acre and people think that's too much.
That must be some pretty prime real-estate if you're asking $43,560 per acre.
Classified networks are kept physically separate from the unclassified networks and the internet. However, most classified projects aren't that outlandish and given enough "unclassified" clues from several users inboxes it wouldn't take a genius to fill in the blanks. It won't get you the technical specifics of what's been accomplished or designs for classified technology, but it's not hard to figure out what your opponents are up to and if they think it's working.
I'd say that depends on your point of view. I'd say the internet's biggest blemish is people who feel the need to spout off like ignorant bigoted jackasses. Besides, if you don't like gay porn what are you doing on sites that put it in your face?
I believe it's really more of a bad pun based on a rather popular acronym around here ;)
People don't understand basic physics is the simple answer. Or they don't think about it beyond "it's not working right now". Until we have magical transmitters that can transmit at any wavelength in the spectrum all wireless communications are subject to weather interference. The only way to beat the weather right now is to have a physical connection (and even that's not 100% immune).
I'm in exactly the same situation. I'm on Time Warner's fiber network for internet, most of the time my wireless router is the source of any internet troubles, or it's exterior to my connection to TW. I've lost power more times in the last 2 months than I have my cable in the past 2 years. Even then my cable outages are generally under an hour and it usually involves calling the local office and having them reset my box remotely. Takes maybe 10 min to fix. And as far as cell phones, I generally know where the dead zones are and avoid them. I rarely have dropped calls outside of these zones, and I don't really expect Verizon to install a new cell just to fix the dead zone I drive through every day that has a radius of about 20 yards from a particular intersection. Rather, I just make sure I'm not on the phone when I go through it.
You beat me to the punch on this one. It was the first thing I thought when I read that question too. And regarding satellite TV/internet outages we also have a thing called "weather". Yes, they transmit data at wavelengths as far as possible from atmospheric absorption lines. But in cases of heavy rain/snow scattering at those frequencies effectively makes the atmospher opaque. You just can't have 100% reliable home satellite service (unless you live in the Atacama).