I think it's a mixture of the two, with environmental factors weighing in as well.
You do get jerks everywhere, but the frequency and context you encounter the jerks in makes a big difference.
If 2% of drivers are asshats, in a small town, you'll encounter one every now and again. If you're in Dallas at 5:15 PM on 35E heading toward Denton, you've probably got several of them in sight. You'll notice them more because you're stressed out.
Then again, some areas seem to breed bad drivers. I've seen more insanity in Dallas than I have anywhere, with LA coming up a close second. Driving in Oklahoma City isn't too bad. Kansas seems to breed drivers who drive ten miles below the speed limit on two lane highways and fail to understand basic driving techniques such as turn signal usage or the ability to turn a corner faster than one mile per hour. Northern states seem to breed people who can't drive after a fresh snow (my theory is that northern states clean their roads often enough that drivers don't develop the skillset), while central states seem to have the best inclement weather drivers. Texas drivers freak out in the rain.
You also have different highway designs in different cities. Dallas' freeway system is like spaghetti thrown over a relief map. Houston, on the other hand, is logical, but travel off the freeway is aggravation personified. St. Louis, if you don't count the I55 bridge and its haphazard exits, works really well; I rarely slow down because of rush hour traffic on the freeway. The state tree of Florida seems to be the stoplight, which is made worse by how the freeway systems and the state highway system try to avoid each other at all costs. How a highway system is constructed makes a big difference.
(I know I've demonized Dallas quite a bit here. I do so because I've never seen a metropolitan area that was more aggravating and pointless to drive in than Dallas and the surrounding area. I'd rather drive through Compton than Farmer's Branch.)
Linux isn't restricted to the x86. It will run fine on Alpha, PA-RISC, MIPS, Itanium, PowerPC, POWER, and most likely the T4 (it runs on pretty much every other SPARC out there). There are various flavors of BSD that will run on all of those platforms as well, including many others.
The question becomes why you'd want to run Linux on any of these. Or perhaps, why a hardware manufacturer would want to encourage you to run Linux on one of these. It might make sense to buy a high-end POWER based system to run a lot of virtualized Linux instances, I suppose, but running Linux directly on the hardware gains you no advantage over running IBM's software. When you get into minicomputer territory, Linux doesn't cut it.
For workstation use, Linux (and BSD, for that matter) is great, and probably better than the native software for most of these platforms. It's a good platform for servers. Linux runs circles around Solaris, for instance, when you're talking small/medium server and workstation applications.
Linux and BSD can't do what OS/400 (or IBM i or whatever) can do. They can't keep up with Solaris on really huge setups. They're just not designed for those uses, and it would be a huge waste of money to buy that kind of hardware and not use software that can make full use of it.
The universe not having blown up isn't necessarily a sign that the drive doesn't violate anything. It could just as easily be a sign that there's no way to actually make a working version of it. Requring the energy equivalent of the total converted mass of a star or three is a major barrier. That's what I meant by "no practical idea".
We don't know Einstein was wrong yet - the whole drive thing is theory, and there isn't even a consensus on how to accomplish such a thing. Even if aliens figured it out somewhere, causality violation might not cause the universe to blow up. Either way, relativity is a working model which works really well when applied to certain tasks, but we already know it fails in certain areas (hence quantum mechanics).
Being "wrong" doesn't really make sense anyway - we already know of places he was wrong - hence quantum mechanics. That doesn't stop us from using relativity for a lot of things, just like how we still use Newton's laws for the vast majority of applied physics.
IIRC (it's ben quite some time since I was a trekkie), warp drives work by tunnelling through subspace.
Basically, you flip the ship into another universe with different rules, create a field around the ship to maintain our universe's properties inside (force strengths, planck length, c, etc.), and move your field (the "warp bubble") and its contents to the location in subspace that matches your destination in our universe. Then you "come out of warp" - i.e. you flip back into our universe - and you're there. The reason warp isn't instananeous is that you actually have to travel spacially inside subspace.
There's probably some explanation as to why subspace radio works "instananeously". By the time I knew enough about relativity to know how rediculous that is, I wasn't a trekkie anymore.
Anyway, warp drives don't violate relativity because they go around the problem. They do violate causality, however, but that never seemed to come up in the show.
What you're talking about sounds similar to the Alcubierre Drive. It requires the ability to manipulate the contraction and expansion of space to work, which may be possible in a theoricial sense, but no one has a good practical idea of how to do it.
I never understood what the whole "year of the Linux desktop" thing was, anyway.
I've used Linux pretty much exclusively on the desktop since around '97. I usually keep a Windows install around to play games, but that's about it.
For the type of stuff I do on a computer, Linux is what I prefer. The only reason I care about "marketshare" is driver support - the higher the marketshare, the more companies will release drivers and/or documentation for their hardware. There's a small amount of software that has no good replacement on Linux, but I don't need any of it for what I do (except the aforementioned games). I've used Linux in a small office environment, and it works well, as long as you don't have any suits who absolutely have to have Exchange (there really is no good replacement on a UNIX box).
For you, Linux has just now become viable. For many people, it will never be viable. It's all down to your particular requirements. I think it's just fine, but then again I do 90% of my work in xterms and Firefox.
(Ironically, I'm posting in Windows now - I booted it up for the first time in six months and I'm loading updates. Another reason I dislike Windows: Windows Update is slower than molasses in February.)
For a more general climate capable house, there's a book written by a guy in the 70's about underground housing.
He's got a site: Underground Housing. The book was for a place he built for $50.
Now, it didn't have a bathroom or running water, he already owned the land, he got scrap lumber for free from a lumber mill, he did all the work by hand, and his land is heavily wooded (it was built in Idaho, I think) so he could cut logs for timber frame supports, but it's still a viable concept for cheap housing.
The basic idea is that you dig a big hole into a hillside, use logs (probably with asphalt coating or equivalent) to support the roof, and make the roof follow the hill. The door and windows face uphill, although later designs had a back door facing downhill as well. There's a trench between the house and the uphill section, which you can use as a terraced garden (he covered it with plastic sheeting and framing to make a greenhouse). His original design had packed dirt floors, but he later put down a sheet of plastic and some carpet.
Being underground, thermal mass isn't a problem, and you can put a stove on the lowest level to heat the entire house. A composting toilet and a simple rainwater system would work for plumbing.
It's certainly not an option for everyone, but in hilly areas a solution like this would be equal or superior to housing currently in use in much of the third world.
No, it happened because your post was unclear and unrelated to my comment.
I mean, go back and look at it. Your first sentence:
And who cares for that "legal standpoint"?
makes sense, from a grammatical point of view. It doesn't make sense in context. We were talking about what is legal or illegal to do with a credit card. Visa and Mastercard care about the legal standpoint. Judges, congressmen, the Federal Reserve, lawyers, and the attorney general care about the legal standpoint. These are the people who determine what can and cannot be purchased with a credit card.
You then follow that sentence with this run-on:
Which actually is just a deliberate euphemism for "standpoint of those in power", and completely unrelated to the standpoint of those among us, who still have their own opinions.
OK. I assume your meaning here is: "Those in power interpret the laws how they see fit, regardless of how the public see fit. Most of the public don't hold an opinion they've arrived at via critical thinking."
My response to this would be: yes, those in power do interpret the laws - that's their job. Yes, lack of interest by the general public gives them leeway to interpret the laws to their own gain. Welcome to the human race - people all have their own interests, and most people don't take the time to hold their leaders to task.
Then, you spout:
Yes, since it's by "those in power" one has to act like one cares, until one can stab them in the back. But nobody who can still be considered an individual actually does.
This has me stumped. It looks like you're saying, "we have to pretend to care what our leaders say, until we have the chance to revolt, but it never happens."
That's a valid observation, sure. It also has pretty much nothing to do with what you can do with a credit card or who gets put on the terrorist watch list.
As far as your ad hominem attack:
My personal sense of right and wrong wasn't part of the discussion. We live under the rule of law. The law isn't always right, but it's better than any of the alternatives. I do have individual opinions on this subject. I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about it. My opinion is that the rule of law is better than any of the alternatives. If you don't agree, that's fine. That's what opinions are for. Just because someone's opinion differs from yours does not mean they haven't thought it through.
And just to keep things clear, and prevent any more accusations of "evil", I'll state my opinion on the matter: I don't like racist groups, be they the KKK, Black Panthers, IRA, Al-Qaeda, or whatever. I do not support violent action against innocent people. I do support their right to free speech. As part of that right, I support the right to donate money to nonviolent groups who support your viewpoint. I may not like it, and I may not agree with their opinions, but they have as much a right to their opinions as I have to mine, or you have to yours.
If the KKK starts killing people again, then I'll be more than happy to see them labeled as a terrorist group, and hunted down. Until that happens, they can hate blacks and jews and whatnot as much as they want, as long as they stay within the law.
"Really big straw" is a fair description of deep well drilling, and there are a lot of (uninformed) people who think drilling into the mantle can be done using current generation technology. The government has assigned grants for projects that would lay the groundwork for your straw.
So while your post may have been satirical, it wasn't really all that farfetched.
Rock acts differently under the kinds of pressures you get when you get close to the mantle.
From what I understand, it can flow to some degree, even in solid form. Thus, your well keeps trying to collapse while you're drilling. Also, with the high pressures come high temperatures, and it's difficult to drill in high temperature situations (this is what shut down the Kola Borehole in Russia).
Drilling is also really expensive, and it gets more so the deeper you go. You need special (read: expensive) materials to withstand the forces involved.
There have been a few government financed scientific deep drilling projects. No one has yet to get close to the mantle.
Rambus did the hardware patent troll thing. It was all over/. back in the day.
Short story, Rambus was a member of an industry group designing the new RAM chips (SDRAM, pentium II and III era). The new designs used technlology they had patented, but this wasn't a big deal since all members of the group were supposed to license any applicable patents they held under "reasonable" terms.
Rambus didn't like that, so they pulled out and started suing everyone who made SDRAM. Intel had started using Rambus memory modules on their motherboards (RDRAM), and had already committed to the designs before all this broke out. The lawsuits were all over the place, and Rambus was found guilty of fraud, had the ruling overturned, was sued by the FTC for antitrust violations, and so on.
The whole thing was covered by/., and it went on for years. Only the SCO debacle topped it.
I can't tell what your post has to do with my comment. You seem to be advocating some sort of vigilante action, but I can't tell if you're wanting to stab politicians or KKK members.
If they started it up again. You missed the it. I'm aware they're still around. They don't go around lynching people and bombing churches anymore. If they started lynching people and bombing churches again, they'd be put on the terrorist group list.
The devices the GP was talking about have quite a few advantages over SSD, and the contents don't disappear with the power (they generally have a battery that keeps the RAM refreshed).
They don't have a limited number of writes like flash-based SSDs, and they run at the speed of your bus for writing or reading.
The downside: price per gigabyte. This can be a real issue with Windows installs, since Windows likes a lot of space on C:, but for UNIX systems, you can use it for the partitions that need it and use traditional drives for everything else.
From a legal standpoint, a terrorist organization is not a group that terrorizes people.
A terrorist organization is a group of people the government has chosen to put on the list of terrorist organizations.
Now, don't get me wrong - I have no love for the KKK - but it's been quite a while since they went around lynching people and bombing churches and whatnot. If they started it up again, they'd be put on the list.
That depends. Complete combustion is more energy efficient than incomplete combustion. Depending on how much more power you get out of using these plugs, you very well might lower your fuel usage enough to produce less CO2 overall.
Any decent size truck stop will have a selection of them. You're pretty much guaranteed to find rolls of orange and while striped reflective tape, since those are applied to the side and rear of trailers. Dirt and weather make them peel off after a while, but you're unlikely too see the kind of mileage those tapes are made to deal with.
A friend of mine in Illinois had a license to own a gun. It wasn't concealed carry or anything (I'm not sure if Illinois has those), but he had to have it to keep a handgun in his home, apparently.
Of course, he lived in the same city where you had to have a permit to live in the city limits, and all houses had to meet insane inspection standards for anyone to live in them.
It's a trade-off, and it really depends on your goals.
We've accumulated a lot of data, and pushed our understanding of both our neighboring area and the greater universe further than we would have if we had focused on manned exploration.
The downside is that if we'd kept with the manned exploration, we'd have a moonbase, landings on Mars, and probably be considering setting up fueling stations in Jovian orbit. Space would be safer for people, although of course we'd have seen a lot more deaths out there than we have kicking around LEO.
We could have done both, but we got busy and had other things to spend our money on, like Vietnam, for instance. Good ROI we got there.
Re:Via MasterCard and Visa? Sure!
on
Rent Your Own Botnet
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Donating to white supremacist causes is covered by the first amendment.
It's not actually illegal to be an asshole. Sure, a KKK member legally can't turn down a black man's job application based on his race, but he's within his rights to feel that the law should be changed to allow him to do so. This same right protects a lot of good stuff as well.
Buying botnet time is probably illegal. Buying pirated goods is illegal. Donating to Wikileaks shouldn't be illegal, but the government probably considers them a 'terrorist group' or something, and donating money to terrorist groups is certainly illegal. Buying cigarettes overseas and not paying tariffs on them is illegal (oops!). You can do tons of illegal stuff with your Visa or Mastercard - sometimes you get caught, and sometimes you don't.
At the time all this was going on, no one cared about MacOS. Apple's market share was in the toilet, and even their core users were switching to windows-based systems.
Sun focused Java development on Solaris and Windows, with some support for Linux (remember Blackdown?). They probably, like many of us, expected Apple to go the way of Commodore or Be. Add to that the fact that MacOS had a significantly different programming environment than Windows or Unix (no real preemptive multitasking, core libraries not based around C/C++, etc.) and you'd see why no one would want to put much effort into porting such a massive piece of software like Java.
Microsoft included a JRE with Windows (I don't remember what version) that was crippled and slow. This allowed Windows users to run Java applets (this was when applets were the main focus of Java), but they ran like crap.
The main point was to encourage developers to use ActiveX, which was IE-only. If they had just not included a JRE, then users would be prompted to install one, just like with Flash or any other plugin. By including a crippled version, users would think the problem was with the website.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a mixture of the two, with environmental factors weighing in as well.
You do get jerks everywhere, but the frequency and context you encounter the jerks in makes a big difference.
If 2% of drivers are asshats, in a small town, you'll encounter one every now and again. If you're in Dallas at 5:15 PM on 35E heading toward Denton, you've probably got several of them in sight. You'll notice them more because you're stressed out.
Then again, some areas seem to breed bad drivers. I've seen more insanity in Dallas than I have anywhere, with LA coming up a close second. Driving in Oklahoma City isn't too bad. Kansas seems to breed drivers who drive ten miles below the speed limit on two lane highways and fail to understand basic driving techniques such as turn signal usage or the ability to turn a corner faster than one mile per hour. Northern states seem to breed people who can't drive after a fresh snow (my theory is that northern states clean their roads often enough that drivers don't develop the skillset), while central states seem to have the best inclement weather drivers. Texas drivers freak out in the rain.
You also have different highway designs in different cities. Dallas' freeway system is like spaghetti thrown over a relief map. Houston, on the other hand, is logical, but travel off the freeway is aggravation personified. St. Louis, if you don't count the I55 bridge and its haphazard exits, works really well; I rarely slow down because of rush hour traffic on the freeway. The state tree of Florida seems to be the stoplight, which is made worse by how the freeway systems and the state highway system try to avoid each other at all costs. How a highway system is constructed makes a big difference.
(I know I've demonized Dallas quite a bit here. I do so because I've never seen a metropolitan area that was more aggravating and pointless to drive in than Dallas and the surrounding area. I'd rather drive through Compton than Farmer's Branch.)
Linux isn't restricted to the x86. It will run fine on Alpha, PA-RISC, MIPS, Itanium, PowerPC, POWER, and most likely the T4 (it runs on pretty much every other SPARC out there). There are various flavors of BSD that will run on all of those platforms as well, including many others.
The question becomes why you'd want to run Linux on any of these. Or perhaps, why a hardware manufacturer would want to encourage you to run Linux on one of these. It might make sense to buy a high-end POWER based system to run a lot of virtualized Linux instances, I suppose, but running Linux directly on the hardware gains you no advantage over running IBM's software. When you get into minicomputer territory, Linux doesn't cut it.
For workstation use, Linux (and BSD, for that matter) is great, and probably better than the native software for most of these platforms. It's a good platform for servers. Linux runs circles around Solaris, for instance, when you're talking small/medium server and workstation applications.
Linux and BSD can't do what OS/400 (or IBM i or whatever) can do. They can't keep up with Solaris on really huge setups. They're just not designed for those uses, and it would be a huge waste of money to buy that kind of hardware and not use software that can make full use of it.
The universe not having blown up isn't necessarily a sign that the drive doesn't violate anything. It could just as easily be a sign that there's no way to actually make a working version of it. Requring the energy equivalent of the total converted mass of a star or three is a major barrier. That's what I meant by "no practical idea".
We don't know Einstein was wrong yet - the whole drive thing is theory, and there isn't even a consensus on how to accomplish such a thing. Even if aliens figured it out somewhere, causality violation might not cause the universe to blow up. Either way, relativity is a working model which works really well when applied to certain tasks, but we already know it fails in certain areas (hence quantum mechanics).
Being "wrong" doesn't really make sense anyway - we already know of places he was wrong - hence quantum mechanics. That doesn't stop us from using relativity for a lot of things, just like how we still use Newton's laws for the vast majority of applied physics.
IIRC (it's ben quite some time since I was a trekkie), warp drives work by tunnelling through subspace.
Basically, you flip the ship into another universe with different rules, create a field around the ship to maintain our universe's properties inside (force strengths, planck length, c, etc.), and move your field (the "warp bubble") and its contents to the location in subspace that matches your destination in our universe. Then you "come out of warp" - i.e. you flip back into our universe - and you're there. The reason warp isn't instananeous is that you actually have to travel spacially inside subspace.
There's probably some explanation as to why subspace radio works "instananeously". By the time I knew enough about relativity to know how rediculous that is, I wasn't a trekkie anymore.
Anyway, warp drives don't violate relativity because they go around the problem. They do violate causality, however, but that never seemed to come up in the show.
What you're talking about sounds similar to the Alcubierre Drive. It requires the ability to manipulate the contraction and expansion of space to work, which may be possible in a theoricial sense, but no one has a good practical idea of how to do it.
I never understood what the whole "year of the Linux desktop" thing was, anyway.
I've used Linux pretty much exclusively on the desktop since around '97. I usually keep a Windows install around to play games, but that's about it.
For the type of stuff I do on a computer, Linux is what I prefer. The only reason I care about "marketshare" is driver support - the higher the marketshare, the more companies will release drivers and/or documentation for their hardware. There's a small amount of software that has no good replacement on Linux, but I don't need any of it for what I do (except the aforementioned games). I've used Linux in a small office environment, and it works well, as long as you don't have any suits who absolutely have to have Exchange (there really is no good replacement on a UNIX box).
For you, Linux has just now become viable. For many people, it will never be viable. It's all down to your particular requirements. I think it's just fine, but then again I do 90% of my work in xterms and Firefox.
(Ironically, I'm posting in Windows now - I booted it up for the first time in six months and I'm loading updates. Another reason I dislike Windows: Windows Update is slower than molasses in February.)
For a more general climate capable house, there's a book written by a guy in the 70's about underground housing.
He's got a site: Underground Housing. The book was for a place he built for $50.
Now, it didn't have a bathroom or running water, he already owned the land, he got scrap lumber for free from a lumber mill, he did all the work by hand, and his land is heavily wooded (it was built in Idaho, I think) so he could cut logs for timber frame supports, but it's still a viable concept for cheap housing.
The basic idea is that you dig a big hole into a hillside, use logs (probably with asphalt coating or equivalent) to support the roof, and make the roof follow the hill. The door and windows face uphill, although later designs had a back door facing downhill as well. There's a trench between the house and the uphill section, which you can use as a terraced garden (he covered it with plastic sheeting and framing to make a greenhouse). His original design had packed dirt floors, but he later put down a sheet of plastic and some carpet.
Being underground, thermal mass isn't a problem, and you can put a stove on the lowest level to heat the entire house. A composting toilet and a simple rainwater system would work for plumbing.
It's certainly not an option for everyone, but in hilly areas a solution like this would be equal or superior to housing currently in use in much of the third world.
No, it happened because your post was unclear and unrelated to my comment.
I mean, go back and look at it. Your first sentence:
And who cares for that "legal standpoint"?
makes sense, from a grammatical point of view. It doesn't make sense in context. We were talking about what is legal or illegal to do with a credit card. Visa and Mastercard care about the legal standpoint. Judges, congressmen, the Federal Reserve, lawyers, and the attorney general care about the legal standpoint. These are the people who determine what can and cannot be purchased with a credit card.
You then follow that sentence with this run-on:
Which actually is just a deliberate euphemism for "standpoint of those in power", and completely unrelated to the standpoint of those among us, who still have their own opinions.
OK. I assume your meaning here is: "Those in power interpret the laws how they see fit, regardless of how the public see fit. Most of the public don't hold an opinion they've arrived at via critical thinking."
My response to this would be: yes, those in power do interpret the laws - that's their job. Yes, lack of interest by the general public gives them leeway to interpret the laws to their own gain. Welcome to the human race - people all have their own interests, and most people don't take the time to hold their leaders to task.
Then, you spout:
Yes, since it's by "those in power" one has to act like one cares, until one can stab them in the back. But nobody who can still be considered an individual actually does.
This has me stumped. It looks like you're saying, "we have to pretend to care what our leaders say, until we have the chance to revolt, but it never happens."
That's a valid observation, sure. It also has pretty much nothing to do with what you can do with a credit card or who gets put on the terrorist watch list.
As far as your ad hominem attack:
My personal sense of right and wrong wasn't part of the discussion. We live under the rule of law. The law isn't always right, but it's better than any of the alternatives. I do have individual opinions on this subject. I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about it. My opinion is that the rule of law is better than any of the alternatives. If you don't agree, that's fine. That's what opinions are for. Just because someone's opinion differs from yours does not mean they haven't thought it through.
And just to keep things clear, and prevent any more accusations of "evil", I'll state my opinion on the matter: I don't like racist groups, be they the KKK, Black Panthers, IRA, Al-Qaeda, or whatever. I do not support violent action against innocent people. I do support their right to free speech. As part of that right, I support the right to donate money to nonviolent groups who support your viewpoint. I may not like it, and I may not agree with their opinions, but they have as much a right to their opinions as I have to mine, or you have to yours.
If the KKK starts killing people again, then I'll be more than happy to see them labeled as a terrorist group, and hunted down. Until that happens, they can hate blacks and jews and whatnot as much as they want, as long as they stay within the law.
"Really big straw" is a fair description of deep well drilling, and there are a lot of (uninformed) people who think drilling into the mantle can be done using current generation technology. The government has assigned grants for projects that would lay the groundwork for your straw.
So while your post may have been satirical, it wasn't really all that farfetched.
Rock acts differently under the kinds of pressures you get when you get close to the mantle.
From what I understand, it can flow to some degree, even in solid form. Thus, your well keeps trying to collapse while you're drilling. Also, with the high pressures come high temperatures, and it's difficult to drill in high temperature situations (this is what shut down the Kola Borehole in Russia).
Drilling is also really expensive, and it gets more so the deeper you go. You need special (read: expensive) materials to withstand the forces involved.
There have been a few government financed scientific deep drilling projects. No one has yet to get close to the mantle.
Rambus did the hardware patent troll thing. It was all over /. back in the day.
Short story, Rambus was a member of an industry group designing the new RAM chips (SDRAM, pentium II and III era). The new designs used technlology they had patented, but this wasn't a big deal since all members of the group were supposed to license any applicable patents they held under "reasonable" terms.
Rambus didn't like that, so they pulled out and started suing everyone who made SDRAM. Intel had started using Rambus memory modules on their motherboards (RDRAM), and had already committed to the designs before all this broke out. The lawsuits were all over the place, and Rambus was found guilty of fraud, had the ruling overturned, was sued by the FTC for antitrust violations, and so on.
The whole thing was covered by /., and it went on for years. Only the SCO debacle topped it.
Wow, incoherent much?
I can't tell what your post has to do with my comment. You seem to be advocating some sort of vigilante action, but I can't tell if you're wanting to stab politicians or KKK members.
If they started it up again. You missed the it. I'm aware they're still around. They don't go around lynching people and bombing churches anymore. If they started lynching people and bombing churches again, they'd be put on the terrorist group list.
The devices the GP was talking about have quite a few advantages over SSD, and the contents don't disappear with the power (they generally have a battery that keeps the RAM refreshed).
They don't have a limited number of writes like flash-based SSDs, and they run at the speed of your bus for writing or reading.
The downside: price per gigabyte. This can be a real issue with Windows installs, since Windows likes a lot of space on C:, but for UNIX systems, you can use it for the partitions that need it and use traditional drives for everything else.
That'd be easy to do with SIP or something like it.
Getting widespread adoption is a tad harder, though.
From a legal standpoint, a terrorist organization is not a group that terrorizes people.
A terrorist organization is a group of people the government has chosen to put on the list of terrorist organizations.
Now, don't get me wrong - I have no love for the KKK - but it's been quite a while since they went around lynching people and bombing churches and whatnot. If they started it up again, they'd be put on the list.
That depends. Complete combustion is more energy efficient than incomplete combustion. Depending on how much more power you get out of using these plugs, you very well might lower your fuel usage enough to produce less CO2 overall.
Any decent size truck stop will have a selection of them. You're pretty much guaranteed to find rolls of orange and while striped reflective tape, since those are applied to the side and rear of trailers. Dirt and weather make them peel off after a while, but you're unlikely too see the kind of mileage those tapes are made to deal with.
A friend of mine in Illinois had a license to own a gun. It wasn't concealed carry or anything (I'm not sure if Illinois has those), but he had to have it to keep a handgun in his home, apparently.
Of course, he lived in the same city where you had to have a permit to live in the city limits, and all houses had to meet insane inspection standards for anyone to live in them.
Sorry about that, I was trying to burn down Kansas, but I forgot to check the wind direction.
That picture with your pickup truck in your driveway was taken by aircraft, not satellite.
If there is anything up there that can take a picture like that in space, it's probably classified.
It's a trade-off, and it really depends on your goals.
We've accumulated a lot of data, and pushed our understanding of both our neighboring area and the greater universe further than we would have if we had focused on manned exploration.
The downside is that if we'd kept with the manned exploration, we'd have a moonbase, landings on Mars, and probably be considering setting up fueling stations in Jovian orbit. Space would be safer for people, although of course we'd have seen a lot more deaths out there than we have kicking around LEO.
We could have done both, but we got busy and had other things to spend our money on, like Vietnam, for instance. Good ROI we got there.
Donating to white supremacist causes is covered by the first amendment.
It's not actually illegal to be an asshole. Sure, a KKK member legally can't turn down a black man's job application based on his race, but he's within his rights to feel that the law should be changed to allow him to do so. This same right protects a lot of good stuff as well.
Buying botnet time is probably illegal. Buying pirated goods is illegal. Donating to Wikileaks shouldn't be illegal, but the government probably considers them a 'terrorist group' or something, and donating money to terrorist groups is certainly illegal. Buying cigarettes overseas and not paying tariffs on them is illegal (oops!). You can do tons of illegal stuff with your Visa or Mastercard - sometimes you get caught, and sometimes you don't.
At the time all this was going on, no one cared about MacOS. Apple's market share was in the toilet, and even their core users were switching to windows-based systems.
Sun focused Java development on Solaris and Windows, with some support for Linux (remember Blackdown?). They probably, like many of us, expected Apple to go the way of Commodore or Be. Add to that the fact that MacOS had a significantly different programming environment than Windows or Unix (no real preemptive multitasking, core libraries not based around C/C++, etc.) and you'd see why no one would want to put much effort into porting such a massive piece of software like Java.
Microsoft included a JRE with Windows (I don't remember what version) that was crippled and slow. This allowed Windows users to run Java applets (this was when applets were the main focus of Java), but they ran like crap.
The main point was to encourage developers to use ActiveX, which was IE-only. If they had just not included a JRE, then users would be prompted to install one, just like with Flash or any other plugin. By including a crippled version, users would think the problem was with the website.
C didn't spring fully formed from Ritchie's head, you know. It was based on B, which was based on BCPL.
That being said, the first versions of UNIX were written in assembly. It wasn't until they ported it to the PDP-11 that they rewrote it in C.