The lack of a need for four-watt bulbs with low light output per watt which can only be powercycled a few times per century might have something to do with it.
The dead lights could also be cheep wiring. As for CFLs, when I used them I had them go out with approximately the frequency they said.
This is most likely the case. I've heard many accounts of CFLs lasting only weeks vs. my many brands of CFLs which have always lasted years. There's no way I'm using them that much "better".
Incadescent longevity is also tied to the power quality, so I see this as more of the same. Have your wiring checked if possible if you're having problems.
The Philips softone CFLs I've had have had the most light bulb-like light out of all I've used, so I have confidence in the colour quality of this LED one. Can't speak for the longevity of course.
Those worrying about the price should realize that you (at least here) very recently had to pay the same amount for a LED with one tenth the output. These things are developing really fast, and will most likely be an excellent deal soon.
Most users of LSD voluntarily decrease or stop its use over time. LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior. However, LSD does produce tolerance, so some users who take the drug repeatedly must take progressively higher doses to achieve the state of intoxication that they had previously achieved.
I don't have the time to dig up a scientific paper but the article does have sources at the end.
Most times the "IT and engineering expertise of slashdot" only helps by recommending better places to look for answers.
Nothing "only" about that. Giving pointers to other places is providing new questions.
The tough part usually isn't finding the answers (on the net at least). It's much tougher finding a question. If you ask a general question you'll get general answers, and those won't be sufficient to engineer a plane.
This of course means Slashdot often will be just the first step. But there's nothing wrong about that.
If you do that you'll realize what journalists have a long time ago: recording the whole damn thing can double the time needed for getting the information.
Someone above mentioned some product which automatically anchors parts of the audio to the notes. This is *much* better - no searching for the right part and there's still a sort of backup if the notes miss anything.
But just making raw recordings is pretty much guaranteed to waste time.
All you Anonymous Cowards sound like the slashdotters who still think Windows sucks as bad as Win95.
I have a user name, what difference does it make? Doesn't make me any smarter.
If you're talking about a page full of Flash ads, that's because ads are designed under the flawed assumption that they have 100% of resources available.
Applications shouldn't access memory allocated to them, yet we still have memory protection. Some problems can't be helped but Flash makes it very easy to use resources while being a black box with minimal controls.
As for video performance...it might have improved, but I have a pretty good computer right now so I wouldn't have noticed. But I don't think it matters that much anymore: Flash has been annoying for very long and is still the same black box made by the same company. It's a source of security holes which is mostly used for ads and video, and it's not really trusted.
With HTML video capability the choice stands between playing video and playing video with flash. It ultimately becomes a worthless middleman in this application.
What doesn't happen a lot is that the GPL changes get incorporated into mainstream releases. Not so much because the companies hoard it (the opposite, they're petrified of lawsuits),
Actually, you got it slightly wrong. The big companies are *terrified*. It's Natalie Portman who's *petrified*.
And in true Slashdot fashion I have poured hot grits down my pants. Thank you.
From the outside fusion research looks like a desperate field that's always struggling with its fundamental research/engineering questions. I know more than most laymen: I know the reactions work, I know the sun is powered by (very slow) fusion, I know fusion reactors have produced at least around 50% return on the electricity put in. Still, it feels like it's possible it'll never work, even knowing that difficult problems take time to solve.
This is the outside view. What does the future of fusion look like when you experts look at it from the inside? Does it look like a gamble? Or does it look more like "just give us proper funding and we'll give you your reactor."?
If anything, computers made the creation of paper easy, and the amount of dead tree flung across an office has only exploded since then.
Actually at least here in Finland the use of paper peaked around the year 2000. It has been steadily decreasing since.
The predictions about paper becoming a niche were correct, only too early. Some people realized you can do things digitally and thought 640x480 screens and floppies would replace it in. Well no. Instead laser printers increased the amount of paper.
But today we have a vast amount of new technologies which can actually replace paper: high res displays, e-ink, digital identification, digital payment, ubiquitous fast net, flash memory, digital cameras, PDFs that tend to work even on Windows...and consequently paper use is now decreasing.
Face it, some predictions come with both good contents and bad timing.
Sure, solar power doesn't produce infinite power per area. But that doesn't matter. In fact, I'd argue it still produces quite a lot.
It's been known for a long time that the price of manufacturing per watt is the important thing for solar, and that goes down all the time. There is no known lower limit to prices here.
I think you're underestimating how much space there is when you say solar isn't very dense. A good sunny day will give 1000W solar input for one square metre. There are a million square metres in a square kilometre, meaning a gigawatt of solar input. That's a typical nuclear reactor's worth. But not all of that can be used. Let's assume 10% efficiency, meaning 10 square kilometres/nuclear reactor. Add half for support equipment and it's 15 square kilometres.
That's a square less than four kilometres wide. For a nuclear reactor this would be an acceptable safety zone - it's pretty small really.
There is plenty of space for solar if it only becomes cheap enough. It is already cheap enough in places like Hawaii, and it will only get cheaper while fossil fuel prices will keep going up.
Did you notice your examples of good and bad deeds are on completely different levels? Punching someone isn't a mirror image of saying hello, at least not where I live.
Say someone does try to beat you up, and a third person intervenes to "save" you. Same level of violence, one bad, one good deed.
Why would you want to carry out a sample return mission? There's not a single analysis you could want to do on a sample which couldn't be more cheaply done by sending the lab to mars. That's why we're sending one there.
No, we're sending a rover there because we can't afford a sample return mission. Also a rover can study weather and other transient phenomena. A rover and a returned sample aren't nearly as similar as you're making them sound.
When you say "not a single analysis" etc this implies you know all analyses that could be done and all instruments that can be fitted onto a rover, and the relative performance of all of these. Do you?
Finally, we can still study our lunar samples fourty years after they were brought back. Even if we had the capability to send a world-class lab to Mars today, we cannot send a lab from decades into the future.
If they left exactly half the lights on then that's the worst "solution". You get blinded by the lights that are on and can't see under the lights that are off.
Research says this is worse than keeping the lights off completely.
If they just turned off select roads in their entirety then that would already make more sense.
No, think you are very wrong on that. What is the point of UV blocking sunglasses then if our eye lens would block out UV light naturally?
Because neither set of lenses blocks it perfectly. This is typical of filters.
It's a lot like some lethally poisonous delicious mushrooms. The poison is unaffected by cooking, so you should soak the mushrooms in water first. After you've done that you should do it a second time. This process doesn't remove the poison - it only removes something like 90% (per soaking) of it IIRC. Then you eat the poisonous mushrooms, and they're delicious.
In the same way the 10% (I just made up that number for the point) of UV that gets past your own lens is still bad. 1% or even less that gets past shades and your eye is much better. Shades are only needed occasionally because the difference in solar UV probably varies by several orders of magnitude.
The relatively bright star Adhara (Epsilon Canis Majoris) is actually the brightest star in the sky in UV light. Of course you don't have pure UV vision but rather just a bit more UV bias.
However, since you seem to enjoy an experiment I suggest going somewhere where at least the brightest stars are visible, and comparing relative brightnesses between stars with a person with average vision.
From now on proper terrorists will put their weapons/bombs up their butts. Unless something has changed this should still get past the scanners without a problem.
Not that anyone seems to be very interested in bombing planes these days.
I think it goes something like this: 1) Any ordinary Maksutov of that size would take far too long to adjust to ambient temperature. It would also be heavy. 2) This thing will have a lot of Maksutov benefits while being usable and huge (meaning powerful) at the same time. 3) Professionals and others with more resources can get a Ritchey-Chretien (fuck you for not having unicode Slashdot) telescope or similar instead and indeed probably don't care for something like this. 4) However, for amateurs shortcuts like this one often make sense. A popular way of getting huge apertures is to grind your own mirror, for instance.
Maybe you should sell your property if it's such a bother?
Seriously, if you feel that some random campers are "sponging off" you then the largest problem is probably your attitude. There could be some actual tax peculiarity but it's pretty much guaranteed to be a negligible problem.
I'm not against the concept of nuclear power per se, but eveything I've read about the industry and its practices makes me think they're rather untrustworthy and greedy.
If by "the industry" you mean "the energy industry" then I'm right with you.
This isn't pro-nuclear or pro-anything either: I'm just saying that any large-scale energy production has looked corrupt to me. They're all subsidized too.
The way it all appears to suck reminds me of the construction industry.
Because sometimes when I install software on Ubuntu I can't find the magic file that makes it run.
I can choose the software I need, I can install it perfectly, and I know how to use it. I also know that some bin directory or other tends to house these things, but somehow that's not always enough - I can't trace the single action needed to make it run.
Call me dumb if you like. But seeing as how I've built my computer from components myself and installed the OS myself I have a feeling it's not solely my fault when I can't find an "executable" on my own computer. Hasn't happened on any other OS either...
(That said the part where they break standards is probably an actual problem with any reform.)
Slashdot Mirror
The lack of a need for four-watt bulbs with low light output per watt which can only be powercycled a few times per century might have something to do with it.
The dead lights could also be cheep wiring. As for CFLs, when I used them I had them go out with approximately the frequency they said.
This is most likely the case. I've heard many accounts of CFLs lasting only weeks vs. my many brands of CFLs which have always lasted years. There's no way I'm using them that much "better".
Incadescent longevity is also tied to the power quality, so I see this as more of the same. Have your wiring checked if possible if you're having problems.
The Philips softone CFLs I've had have had the most light bulb-like light out of all I've used, so I have confidence in the colour quality of this LED one. Can't speak for the longevity of course.
Those worrying about the price should realize that you (at least here) very recently had to pay the same amount for a LED with one tenth the output. These things are developing really fast, and will most likely be an excellent deal soon.
Reference please?
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/infofacts/hallucinogens-lsd-peyote-psilocybin-pcp
Most users of LSD voluntarily decrease or stop its use over time. LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior. However, LSD does produce tolerance, so some users who take the drug repeatedly must take progressively higher doses to achieve the state of intoxication that they had previously achieved.
I don't have the time to dig up a scientific paper but the article does have sources at the end.
Most times the "IT and engineering expertise of slashdot" only helps by recommending better places to look for answers.
Nothing "only" about that. Giving pointers to other places is providing new questions.
The tough part usually isn't finding the answers (on the net at least). It's much tougher finding a question. If you ask a general question you'll get general answers, and those won't be sufficient to engineer a plane.
This of course means Slashdot often will be just the first step. But there's nothing wrong about that.
If you do that you'll realize what journalists have a long time ago: recording the whole damn thing can double the time needed for getting the information.
Someone above mentioned some product which automatically anchors parts of the audio to the notes. This is *much* better - no searching for the right part and there's still a sort of backup if the notes miss anything.
But just making raw recordings is pretty much guaranteed to waste time.
All you Anonymous Cowards sound like the slashdotters who still think Windows sucks as bad as Win95.
I have a user name, what difference does it make? Doesn't make me any smarter.
If you're talking about a page full of Flash ads, that's because ads are designed under the flawed assumption that they have 100% of resources available.
Applications shouldn't access memory allocated to them, yet we still have memory protection. Some problems can't be helped but Flash makes it very easy to use resources while being a black box with minimal controls.
As for video performance...it might have improved, but I have a pretty good computer right now so I wouldn't have noticed. But I don't think it matters that much anymore: Flash has been annoying for very long and is still the same black box made by the same company. It's a source of security holes which is mostly used for ads and video, and it's not really trusted.
With HTML video capability the choice stands between playing video and playing video with flash. It ultimately becomes a worthless middleman in this application.
Man that sucks. Sorry to hear that even though I'm a stranger. My problems suddenly seem small.
What doesn't happen a lot is that the GPL changes get incorporated into mainstream releases. Not so much because the companies hoard it (the opposite, they're petrified of lawsuits),
Actually, you got it slightly wrong. The big companies are *terrified*. It's Natalie Portman who's *petrified*.
And in true Slashdot fashion I have poured hot grits down my pants. Thank you.
From the outside fusion research looks like a desperate field that's always struggling with its fundamental research/engineering questions. I know more than most laymen: I know the reactions work, I know the sun is powered by (very slow) fusion, I know fusion reactors have produced at least around 50% return on the electricity put in. Still, it feels like it's possible it'll never work, even knowing that difficult problems take time to solve.
This is the outside view. What does the future of fusion look like when you experts look at it from the inside? Does it look like a gamble? Or does it look more like "just give us proper funding and we'll give you your reactor."?
If anything, computers made the creation of paper easy, and the amount of dead tree flung across an office has only exploded since then.
Actually at least here in Finland the use of paper peaked around the year 2000. It has been steadily decreasing since.
The predictions about paper becoming a niche were correct, only too early. Some people realized you can do things digitally and thought 640x480 screens and floppies would replace it in. Well no. Instead laser printers increased the amount of paper.
But today we have a vast amount of new technologies which can actually replace paper: high res displays, e-ink, digital identification, digital payment, ubiquitous fast net, flash memory, digital cameras, PDFs that tend to work even on Windows...and consequently paper use is now decreasing.
Face it, some predictions come with both good contents and bad timing.
I'm more familiar with this being said about IRC.
Of course, it was probably said about Usenet before my time...
Sure, solar power doesn't produce infinite power per area. But that doesn't matter. In fact, I'd argue it still produces quite a lot.
It's been known for a long time that the price of manufacturing per watt is the important thing for solar, and that goes down all the time. There is no known lower limit to prices here.
I think you're underestimating how much space there is when you say solar isn't very dense. A good sunny day will give 1000W solar input for one square metre. There are a million square metres in a square kilometre, meaning a gigawatt of solar input. That's a typical nuclear reactor's worth. But not all of that can be used. Let's assume 10% efficiency, meaning 10 square kilometres/nuclear reactor. Add half for support equipment and it's 15 square kilometres.
That's a square less than four kilometres wide. For a nuclear reactor this would be an acceptable safety zone - it's pretty small really.
There is plenty of space for solar if it only becomes cheap enough. It is already cheap enough in places like Hawaii, and it will only get cheaper while fossil fuel prices will keep going up.
Did you notice your examples of good and bad deeds are on completely different levels? Punching someone isn't a mirror image of saying hello, at least not where I live.
Say someone does try to beat you up, and a third person intervenes to "save" you. Same level of violence, one bad, one good deed.
I don't think you'll forget either.
No, we're sending a rover there because we can't afford a sample return mission. Also a rover can study weather and other transient phenomena. A rover and a returned sample aren't nearly as similar as you're making them sound.
When you say "not a single analysis" etc this implies you know all analyses that could be done and all instruments that can be fitted onto a rover, and the relative performance of all of these. Do you?
Finally, we can still study our lunar samples fourty years after they were brought back. Even if we had the capability to send a world-class lab to Mars today, we cannot send a lab from decades into the future.
If they left exactly half the lights on then that's the worst "solution". You get blinded by the lights that are on and can't see under the lights that are off.
Research says this is worse than keeping the lights off completely.
If they just turned off select roads in their entirety then that would already make more sense.
No, think you are very wrong on that. What is the point of UV blocking sunglasses then if our eye lens would block out UV light naturally?
Because neither set of lenses blocks it perfectly. This is typical of filters.
It's a lot like some lethally poisonous delicious mushrooms. The poison is unaffected by cooking, so you should soak the mushrooms in water first. After you've done that you should do it a second time. This process doesn't remove the poison - it only removes something like 90% (per soaking) of it IIRC. Then you eat the poisonous mushrooms, and they're delicious.
In the same way the 10% (I just made up that number for the point) of UV that gets past your own lens is still bad. 1% or even less that gets past shades and your eye is much better. Shades are only needed occasionally because the difference in solar UV probably varies by several orders of magnitude.
The relatively bright star Adhara (Epsilon Canis Majoris) is actually the brightest star in the sky in UV light. Of course you don't have pure UV vision but rather just a bit more UV bias.
However, since you seem to enjoy an experiment I suggest going somewhere where at least the brightest stars are visible, and comparing relative brightnesses between stars with a person with average vision.
Some background and a chart for Adhara below. It's close to Sirius which in turn is easy to find by using the belt of Orion.
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/adhara.html
http://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/fig/CanisMajor_wAdhara.gif
From now on proper terrorists will put their weapons/bombs up their butts. Unless something has changed this should still get past the scanners without a problem.
Not that anyone seems to be very interested in bombing planes these days.
Come on moderators, reward the man for managing an on-topic post on with that subject!
I'm wondering what they'll do too!
I think it goes something like this:
1) Any ordinary Maksutov of that size would take far too long to adjust to ambient temperature. It would also be heavy.
2) This thing will have a lot of Maksutov benefits while being usable and huge (meaning powerful) at the same time.
3) Professionals and others with more resources can get a Ritchey-Chretien (fuck you for not having unicode Slashdot) telescope or similar instead and indeed probably don't care for something like this.
4) However, for amateurs shortcuts like this one often make sense. A popular way of getting huge apertures is to grind your own mirror, for instance.
I usually have between 100 and 200 tabs open in firefox, and the memory limit (and the memory leaks) are annoying. Firefox is a memory hog
Heh, I suspect that *you* are the memory hog here if you "usually" have 200 tabs open. =)
I believe you when you say Chrome works better for you. But performance with 200 tabs open has no (direct) connection to marketshare in any way.
Actually I'm not that interested in arguing, but rather want to ask how you manage to actually open/need/use that many tabs?
Maybe you should sell your property if it's such a bother?
Seriously, if you feel that some random campers are "sponging off" you then the largest problem is probably your attitude. There could be some actual tax peculiarity but it's pretty much guaranteed to be a negligible problem.
I'm not against the concept of nuclear power per se, but eveything I've read about the industry and its practices makes me think they're rather untrustworthy and greedy.
If by "the industry" you mean "the energy industry" then I'm right with you.
This isn't pro-nuclear or pro-anything either: I'm just saying that any large-scale energy production has looked corrupt to me. They're all subsidized too.
The way it all appears to suck reminds me of the construction industry.
They still draw and publish a magazine with him in Sweden. Probably only Superman/Batman are more well known/popular there.
Why fix what is not broken?
Because sometimes when I install software on Ubuntu I can't find the magic file that makes it run.
I can choose the software I need, I can install it perfectly, and I know how to use it. I also know that some bin directory or other tends to house these things, but somehow that's not always enough - I can't trace the single action needed to make it run.
Call me dumb if you like. But seeing as how I've built my computer from components myself and installed the OS myself I have a feeling it's not solely my fault when I can't find an "executable" on my own computer. Hasn't happened on any other OS either...
(That said the part where they break standards is probably an actual problem with any reform.)