This is why parallel computing will become more and more important. While a few tasks are unparallelizable, each calculation requiring the results of the previous, most tasks can be engineered to take advantage of a computer that can do 100 things at once at 1 GHz for example.
asking them to hand over the full specifications on all their EXISTING modern formats--a move that would allow comptetitors to develop Office clones at will.
If the only thing keeping office on the market is an undocumented proprietary format, then office isn't worth the prices they're asking for it. There are hundreds of programmes that produce JPEG format files, but that doesn't mean I can write an Adobe Photoshop clone at will. The programmes should be able to compete without locking people in, and forcing them to use Microsoft products because their documents are already stored in.doc files.
I think there needs to be a distinction between learning concepts and the tools you use to learn them.
I am currently studying computer science in university, and was first taught Java. While I agree with the distinction between concepts and tools, I do believe that C++ would be just as effective as a concept teaching tool as Java. When I first taught myself C++, I was impressed by, first, how robust the language is, and second, by how easy it would be to teach simple concepts in it without full knowledge of the inner workings of the language.
I suppose you could locate objects in shallow water, but you wouldn't be able to distinguish the lost city of Atlantis from a big pile of rocks using this method. It's great for tracing water currents, but questionable at best for locating underwater structures of interest and at any appreciable depth. Note: I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.
"An infra red imaging device, or certain wavelengths of radar should work nicely." First, water is opaque to IR, you should know that! Second, radar is absorbed over relatively short distances in water, making it nearly impossible to resolve very far under water.
isn't a kilogram a measure of mass?
Yes, the kilogram is a measure of mass.
isn't it actually possible that the mass has remained constant, but the force of gravity has slightly changed in that locality?
No. The story isn't really "the kilogram is losing weight." The author is just an idiot. When scientists measure the mass of the reference mass, they use methods which completely eliminate contamination by gravitational fluctuations.
other reference masses in the same locality could be used for comparison
Have you ever used a balance..? [wikipedia.org] The simple lab balance is a good example of a device that can measure mass regardless of fluctuations in gravitational acceleration. In fact, you could take a lab balance right from a high school classroom to the moon and it would measure mass just as accurately without modification.
It's not easy to know, once a battery is assembled and sealed, what really is inside.
It's not that difficult. You'd simply impliment a random battery check whereby one in every so many of the batteries coming from China is cut open and examined. You could also do random torture tests to determine what the failure points of the batteries are, and what materials are responsible.
My problem with it was package availability, especially when it's popularity began to slide.
I agree with GP that Ubuntu's usability, features, etc. aren't overly impressive compared to other distros like mandriva. However, Ubuntu's popularity attracts not only more users, but developers, driver support, millions of users testing Ubuntu on every kind of hardware, native linux installed on new hardware from major companies like dell, and vast, vast quantities of great free software that generally integrates perfectly into the desktop.
.Ubuntu's technical specifications themselves aren't responsible for this; it has simply reached a user critical mass of sorts. Windows operates on the same principle, and in theory, this principle can easily lead to a kind of de facto lockdown on inovation (just look at Windows).
HOWEVER, I think we need to put away our idealism here, and be pragmatic: the Ubuntu effect is the lesser of evils / means to an end that can bring a more modern, open, secure, and free operating system into the main stream. And this, I propose, is a very worthy goal.
Only with a train, and maybe a truck, could you really have the protection needed
Also, when something goes wrong with a train/truck, the impact velocities will likely be greatly reduced in the event of a crash, and it's a good bet the whole mess won't end up in someones living room, or some random location within a hundred mile radius of the original failure; i.e. a land based vehicle is much more predictable.
just because your DNA is present does not mean you committed a crime It's all down to interpretation this combination of markers at these location are likely to occur in X percent of the population
Welcome to the real world: nothing can prove anything. The only thing we can do is demonstrate an exceeding likelihood that a given series of events actually occured. But I do see your point; in criminal court you don't prove things, or even soberly evaluate evidence, you sell stories, and the best salesman (aka lawer) wins the judgement of the jurry.
"...have the whole screen be an interferometry based 'camera' "
Nice thought, but this would be near impossible. Each pixel would be receiving light from every direction at once. Trying to resolve an image on a mat of photoreceptors open to the light without any kind of lens is like grafting your retinas to your forehead.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why parallel computing will become more and more important. While a few tasks are unparallelizable, each calculation requiring the results of the previous, most tasks can be engineered to take advantage of a computer that can do 100 things at once at 1 GHz for example.
Note: £ != $
Did you actually read the article?
asking them to hand over the full specifications on all their EXISTING modern formats--a move that would allow comptetitors to develop Office clones at will.
.doc files.
If the only thing keeping office on the market is an undocumented proprietary format, then office isn't worth the prices they're asking for it. There are hundreds of programmes that produce JPEG format files, but that doesn't mean I can write an Adobe Photoshop clone at will. The programmes should be able to compete without locking people in, and forcing them to use Microsoft products because their documents are already stored in
I think there needs to be a distinction between learning concepts and the tools you use to learn them.
I am currently studying computer science in university, and was first taught Java. While I agree with the distinction between concepts and tools, I do believe that C++ would be just as effective as a concept teaching tool as Java. When I first taught myself C++, I was impressed by, first, how robust the language is, and second, by how easy it would be to teach simple concepts in it without full knowledge of the inner workings of the language.
I suppose you could locate objects in shallow water, but you wouldn't be able to distinguish the lost city of Atlantis from a big pile of rocks using this method. It's great for tracing water currents, but questionable at best for locating underwater structures of interest and at any appreciable depth. Note: I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.
"An infra red imaging device, or certain wavelengths of radar should work nicely." First, water is opaque to IR, you should know that! Second, radar is absorbed over relatively short distances in water, making it nearly impossible to resolve very far under water.
isn't a kilogram a measure of mass?
Yes, the kilogram is a measure of mass.
isn't it actually possible that the mass has remained constant, but the force of gravity has slightly changed in that locality?
No. The story isn't really "the kilogram is losing weight." The author is just an idiot. When scientists measure the mass of the reference mass, they use methods which completely eliminate contamination by gravitational fluctuations.
other reference masses in the same locality could be used for comparison
Have you ever used a balance..? [wikipedia.org]
The simple lab balance is a good example of a device that can measure mass regardless of fluctuations in gravitational acceleration. In fact, you could take a lab balance right from a high school classroom to the moon and it would measure mass just as accurately without modification.
It's not easy to know, once a battery is assembled and sealed, what really is inside.
It's not that difficult. You'd simply impliment a random battery check whereby one in every so many of the batteries coming from China is cut open and examined. You could also do random torture tests to determine what the failure points of the batteries are, and what materials are responsible.
My problem with it was package availability, especially when it's popularity began to slide.
I agree with GP that Ubuntu's usability, features, etc. aren't overly impressive compared to other distros like mandriva. However, Ubuntu's popularity attracts not only more users, but developers, driver support, millions of users testing Ubuntu on every kind of hardware, native linux installed on new hardware from major companies like dell, and vast, vast quantities of great free software that generally integrates perfectly into the desktop.
.Ubuntu's technical specifications themselves aren't responsible for this; it has simply reached a user critical mass of sorts. Windows operates on the same principle, and in theory, this principle can easily lead to a kind of de facto lockdown on inovation (just look at Windows).
HOWEVER, I think we need to put away our idealism here, and be pragmatic: the Ubuntu effect is the lesser of evils / means to an end that can bring a more modern, open, secure, and free operating system into the main stream. And this, I propose, is a very worthy goal.
Only with a train, and maybe a truck, could you really have the protection needed
Also, when something goes wrong with a train/truck, the impact velocities will likely be greatly reduced in the event of a crash, and it's a good bet the whole mess won't end up in someones living room, or some random location within a hundred mile radius of the original failure; i.e. a land based vehicle is much more predictable.
Did they lose six warheads or only five?
Oh well, I'm sure the sixth one with turn up somewhere. Whoops, there goes New York.
just because your DNA is present does not mean you committed a crime
It's all down to interpretation
this combination of markers at these location are likely to occur in X percent of the population
Welcome to the real world: nothing can prove anything. The only thing we can do is demonstrate an exceeding likelihood that a given series of events actually occured. But I do see your point; in criminal court you don't prove things, or even soberly evaluate evidence, you sell stories, and the best salesman (aka lawer) wins the judgement of the jurry.
"...have the whole screen be an interferometry based 'camera' " Nice thought, but this would be near impossible. Each pixel would be receiving light from every direction at once. Trying to resolve an image on a mat of photoreceptors open to the light without any kind of lens is like grafting your retinas to your forehead.