I was going to add sharks, but the parent did specify "natural predators".
Sharks with FLBs are decidedly unnatural.
Also, I don't believe that homo sapiens is naturally an aquatic creature.
True but I would guess that per year, on average, there are more fatalities from sharks (the non-FLB type) than there are bears and probably wolves for that matter. I guess it also depends on how you define "predator". I guarantee mosquitoes cause more deaths than all of the predators discussed combined.
Personally, I found the article quite nice - it was a nice trip.
Me too, but it also made me realize that I've spent way too much money on video cards over the years. My first 3D card was a Monster Voodoo 1 w/ 4 MB of RAM, which I returned when I found a 6 MB Voodoo 1 from Canopus for the same price. It paired nicely, at the time, with a 4 MB Matrox Millennium.
I was kind of surprised that they missed quite a few cards though. There was a company nameded Obsidian (or maybe that was the name of their cards) that made $1000+ cards with up to at least 4 (I think they had a 8 GPU board) Voodoo 1 chips at the time.
Since they also mentioned some other flops, I thought they'd have mentioned the Matrox Mystique and some of the other cards that were more CPU dependent.
High carbon dioxide levels can indicate problems with combustion, and measuring its volume is of diagnostic utility.
Actually high levels of CO2 indicate you are getting good combustion. High levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbons indicate a problem. If you were able to get perfect combustion, the only emission would be CO2.
Dump the "slushbox" (the conventional automatic transmission with torque converter). There are so many ways to get the efficiency of the manual with the convenience of the automatic that it's criminal that we aren't doing it.
I get so tired of this outdated argument. automatics have been more efficient for some time now. Ever since the advent of the lock up torque converter this has been the case. Even so, an automatic has probably gotten better millage since before that in real world use. Yes, over a decade ago it was possible to get better mileage out of a standard transmission, but you had to also be consciences of when to shift. Which most people were not.
Next, manufacturers choose gear ratios that are good for jack rabbit starts and passing while going uphill and using the air conditioning, but which are terrible for fuel economy. High gear isn't nearly high enough.
Perhaps, but if you are driving in a city you also will be using the lower gears more than the top one. If you gear a car as you suggest then it will be miserable in stop and go traffic. The other option is to add more gears, which will cost more and probably make for a less reliable transmission. Also, upper gears that surpass a 1:1 ratio have been around for a long time now. Any time you see a car with "overdrive" it will have a better than 1:1 top gear. It's so common now that you rarely see it mentioned. Some cars use overdrive for the top two gears even.
Another big one is weight reduction. We use steel because it's cheap, not because it's all that great. We can replace many steel parts with lighter ones that are just as strong or stronger.
The last time I checked carbon fiber and such are certainly much lighter and stronger, however they are considerably more expensive. You also have QC concerns. There's little chance you need to worry about getting air bubbles in the steel of a car, or that the epoxy is mixed right, or applied properly in multiple layers within a single body part. If a part does have a defect, what are you going to do with it? You certainly can't recycle an entire lot of defective carbon fiber body panels.
We could also revamp the safety regulations to keep things just as safe without having to weigh down the car with super strong B pillars and such.
Are you fucking kidding? Granted most of us will never need to worry about rolling a car, but it does happen. I'm not willing to sacrifice the strength of the A, B, or C pillars for an extra half mile/gallon, or even an extra 10 miles/gal for that matter. With the number of people on cell phones these days, I'd prefer to have more safety options.
Why is it we can ride motorcycles, which are far more dangerous, but we can't bring a car from Mexico to the US because it isn't "safe" enough?
Because a certain level of safety is mandated and now expected by the American people. If you are riding a motorcycle it's self evident that it doesn't have a good survival rate in a rollover crash.
We dumped the 5 mph bumper of the 1970s. We need to trim the regulations again.
No, that was changed on May 14, 1982. This has nothing to do with safety and more to do with saving the consumer some money when someone backs into your bumper in a parking lot. So you'd prefer to have to pay a bunch of money to fix your car every time someone accidentally backs into your car at.5 mph? That certainly won't help much with your aerodynamics will it?
Then there's aerodynamics. Most vehicles are miserable on that point. Observe that the front grill openings of a typical car are much wider than necessary, extending well beyond the radiator. Why? Because people think it looks better that way. They've thought so for at least 50 years, and the limp noodles in marketing haven't bothered with any reeducation on that point. Thi
Imagine, I'll be spending less on gas, and I'll be polluting less too! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!
Why is it that everyone thinks that the most fuel efficient is also the least polluting? There are basically three ways to tune a car. 1. For the most power 2. For the best fuel efficiency 3. For the lowest emissions
If 1 is done correctly, the emissions shouldn't be much worse than in the case of 2, just different. That is unless you are running a pair of big ass carburetors on top of a tunnel ram.
In the case of 2, you get the most mileage out of the fuel, however it's harder on the engine and doesn't burn the fuel as well causing more pollution Than 3.
3 releases the least amount of bad stuff from the tailpipe, however at the cost of both 1 and 2.
It all has to do with choosing the air-to-fuel ratio that is the best compromise for what you want. If you favor one over the others, in this case fuel economy, then you will sacrifice power and increase pollution.
Personally I think it's past due for someone to start regulating commercial diesel trucks. Have you seen the amount of crap that comes out of some of the dump trucks and 18-wheelers? I bet one commercial diesel vehicle dumps more crap into the air than 100 cars/SUVs. Unfortunately that industry seems to have paid off the right people to keep it quiet while in plain view.
Have you seen the "Tree Style Tab" addon? I just found it the other day, and I'm not sure how I lived without it.
This provides tree-style tab bar, like a folder tree of Windows Explorer. You can collapse/expand sub trees, etc.. Very nice.
Thank you for the link! I'm not sure why I have never searched for this, but I just installed it and can see that it will make my life much easier. I Typically have multiple browser windows open with numerous tabs in each. Currently I have 8 windows open with 5 to 23 tabs in each. This is a much better way to group and navigate the tabs. Thanks again.
There are such things as coincidences, but I wouldn't say the link to the Bush administration has been "proven false" or even much diminished. Due to Libby's perjury and further pardoning by GWB we will probably never have good evidence for either scenario.
GWB did not pardon Libby, he commuted his sentence. There a big difference, Libby is still a convicted felon he just didn't have to serve the time. He also still has to pay a $250K fine.
Broke into someone's house and tripped over something they left out? Technically, you're in a legal grey area regarding trespassing, and besides, there's nothing in the trespassing law saying you don't have to clean up your junk, so sue the homeowner!
This is one I just don't understand. If you're there illegally, then that's just too bad for you. If the police seize evidence w/o a warrant or improperly, then it is inadmissible. I don't see why self injury while knowingly committing a crime should be any different.
Tesla was a brilliant man. If he wanted to summon a comet, he would find a way. If he wanted to destroy a remote area of Siberia without a comet, he would find a way.
If he wanted to transmit electricity wirelessly he'd... Um, uh, never mind.
So saying that NNN technology is X% better than bioethanol is like saying that doing X is less painful than scraping off your penile foreskin with a cheese grater.
I'm guessing that the latter would be less painful than trying to get this past the corn lobby if it works best with another kind of crop.
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
* is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
* may cause severe burns.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.
But at the same time, I work in IT at a hospital, and our support contracts include on-site fixing by the vendor, but the vendors normally try to get our IT guys to be their eyes and fingers because it is CHEAPER than sending out a tech as the contract requires. And our medical folks don't want to wait until the vendor sends out a tech. I've been bitten too many times by trying to "help" our radiology folks with ther PACs system or our pharmacy folks with their P2000 system. Even if built on Wintel, these systems have too many odd outside-of-the-norm bells & whistles to allow us non-vendor techs a warm-fuzzy feeling when working on them. So dammit, vendor, I don't feel bad about you coming on site, because we PAY you to do so. But be sure to let us know before you come so someone from our IT section, familiar with your system and possessing the admin password, can come help. It doesn't help us when you pop in unexpectedly and the system-associated local tech is 40 miles away.
We supply the software ONLY. The hardware is purchased by the hospital. We also do not supply onsite support or on site support contracts, it must be paid for on a case by case basis. Remote support is free, so I'd prefer to save your institution the cost of an on site visit. And yes, I always try to inform IT when I'm going to be on site. Frankly I don't care if I have to come visit every other day since we will bill you $3K/day, I would rather you be able to use that money for something more useful. So dammit, IT dude, tell your boss to quit bitching about paying $3K/day for something that really should/could be resolved internally.
Who decides what data is old/unneeded and based on what ? Is there a way to make the definition of this process part of the initial configuration of the system ?
Is there a way to build the check for available disk space into the system itself, and when as it gets closer to the red zone, give an unintrusive "Warning: you are running low on disk space. Would you like to invoke the archival procedure now or you do it later?" - Of course, that's a last resort in case automating this is not possible - we all know the users are by now are trained to ignore any and all warnings.
But maybe with some variation of the above you could save a few hassles for the customers, and avoid a couple of support calls.
That's the funny part. All of this is patient data that is stored on PACS. It can be deleted as soon as the analysis is finished. If the analysis needs to be looked at again then the patient data can be sent back to the system and the analysis info can be reloaded with a minimum of effort.
Not that this argument about IP works in the first place - this guy is an executive.
That was my thought when I read the summary too. He's a "top executive" at that. So the only IP he may have are the new buzz words EMC is planning to use in their next marketing campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too. The Corvair was a cool little car, especially if you dropped a 350 in it. Unsafe at any speed my ass.
Maybe it's a 1TB storage device, containing many disks?
I know this is Slashdot but the first sentence in TFS is: "An external hard drive that's believed to contain nearly 1TB of data..."
its probably them who took it on their way out
If it was, they would have been smarter to take the time machine they used to get a 1 TB external drive in 2000.
I was going to add sharks, but the parent did specify "natural predators".
Sharks with FLBs are decidedly unnatural.
Also, I don't believe that homo sapiens is naturally an aquatic creature.
True but I would guess that per year, on average, there are more fatalities from sharks (the non-FLB type) than there are bears and probably wolves for that matter. I guess it also depends on how you define "predator". I guarantee mosquitoes cause more deaths than all of the predators discussed combined.
But what about when dealing with robot on robot action?
I'm confused, are you talking about war or robot porn?
Well, itself and wolves. And tigers. And lions.
And don't forget bears. Definitely bears.
I think we should build giant ethical bear robots. That would scare the SHIT out of our enemies.
Come on man, this is Slashdot. How could you forget sharks...
with "frickin lasers on their heads."
Personally, I found the article quite nice - it was a nice trip.
Me too, but it also made me realize that I've spent way too much money on video cards over the years. My first 3D card was a Monster Voodoo 1 w/ 4 MB of RAM, which I returned when I found a 6 MB Voodoo 1 from Canopus for the same price. It paired nicely, at the time, with a 4 MB Matrox Millennium.
I was kind of surprised that they missed quite a few cards though. There was a company nameded Obsidian (or maybe that was the name of their cards) that made $1000+ cards with up to at least 4 (I think they had a 8 GPU board) Voodoo 1 chips at the time.
Since they also mentioned some other flops, I thought they'd have mentioned the Matrox Mystique and some of the other cards that were more CPU dependent.
High carbon dioxide levels can indicate problems with combustion, and measuring its volume is of diagnostic utility.
Actually high levels of CO2 indicate you are getting good combustion. High levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbons indicate a problem. If you were able to get perfect combustion, the only emission would be CO2.
Dump the "slushbox" (the conventional automatic transmission with torque converter). There are so many ways to get the efficiency of the manual with the convenience of the automatic that it's criminal that we aren't doing it.
I get so tired of this outdated argument. automatics have been more efficient for some time now. Ever since the advent of the lock up torque converter this has been the case. Even so, an automatic has probably gotten better millage since before that in real world use. Yes, over a decade ago it was possible to get better mileage out of a standard transmission, but you had to also be consciences of when to shift. Which most people were not.
Next, manufacturers choose gear ratios that are good for jack rabbit starts and passing while going uphill and using the air conditioning, but which are terrible for fuel economy. High gear isn't nearly high enough.
Perhaps, but if you are driving in a city you also will be using the lower gears more than the top one. If you gear a car as you suggest then it will be miserable in stop and go traffic. The other option is to add more gears, which will cost more and probably make for a less reliable transmission. Also, upper gears that surpass a 1:1 ratio have been around for a long time now. Any time you see a car with "overdrive" it will have a better than 1:1 top gear. It's so common now that you rarely see it mentioned. Some cars use overdrive for the top two gears even.
Another big one is weight reduction. We use steel because it's cheap, not because it's all that great. We can replace many steel parts with lighter ones that are just as strong or stronger.
The last time I checked carbon fiber and such are certainly much lighter and stronger, however they are considerably more expensive. You also have QC concerns. There's little chance you need to worry about getting air bubbles in the steel of a car, or that the epoxy is mixed right, or applied properly in multiple layers within a single body part. If a part does have a defect, what are you going to do with it? You certainly can't recycle an entire lot of defective carbon fiber body panels.
We could also revamp the safety regulations to keep things just as safe without having to weigh down the car with super strong B pillars and such.
Are you fucking kidding? Granted most of us will never need to worry about rolling a car, but it does happen. I'm not willing to sacrifice the strength of the A, B, or C pillars for an extra half mile/gallon, or even an extra 10 miles/gal for that matter. With the number of people on cell phones these days, I'd prefer to have more safety options.
Why is it we can ride motorcycles, which are far more dangerous, but we can't bring a car from Mexico to the US because it isn't "safe" enough?
Because a certain level of safety is mandated and now expected by the American people. If you are riding a motorcycle it's self evident that it doesn't have a good survival rate in a rollover crash.
We dumped the 5 mph bumper of the 1970s. We need to trim the regulations again.
No, that was changed on May 14, 1982. This has nothing to do with safety and more to do with saving the consumer some money when someone backs into your bumper in a parking lot. So you'd prefer to have to pay a bunch of money to fix your car every time someone accidentally backs into your car at .5 mph? That certainly won't help much with your aerodynamics will it?
Then there's aerodynamics. Most vehicles are miserable on that point. Observe that the front grill openings of a typical car are much wider than necessary, extending well beyond the radiator. Why? Because people think it looks better that way. They've thought so for at least 50 years, and the limp noodles in marketing haven't bothered with any reeducation on that point. Thi
Imagine, I'll be spending less on gas, and I'll be polluting less too! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!
Why is it that everyone thinks that the most fuel efficient is also the least polluting? There are basically three ways to tune a car.
1. For the most power
2. For the best fuel efficiency
3. For the lowest emissions
If 1 is done correctly, the emissions shouldn't be much worse than in the case of 2, just different. That is unless you are running a pair of big ass carburetors on top of a tunnel ram.
In the case of 2, you get the most mileage out of the fuel, however it's harder on the engine and doesn't burn the fuel as well causing more pollution Than 3.
3 releases the least amount of bad stuff from the tailpipe, however at the cost of both 1 and 2.
It all has to do with choosing the air-to-fuel ratio that is the best compromise for what you want. If you favor one over the others, in this case fuel economy, then you will sacrifice power and increase pollution.
Personally I think it's past due for someone to start regulating commercial diesel trucks. Have you seen the amount of crap that comes out of some of the dump trucks and 18-wheelers? I bet one commercial diesel vehicle dumps more crap into the air than 100 cars/SUVs. Unfortunately that industry seems to have paid off the right people to keep it quiet while in plain view.
Have you seen the "Tree Style Tab" addon? I just found it the other day, and I'm not sure how I lived without it.
This provides tree-style tab bar, like a folder tree of Windows Explorer. You can collapse/expand sub trees, etc.. Very nice.
Thank you for the link! I'm not sure why I have never searched for this, but I just installed it and can see that it will make my life much easier. I Typically have multiple browser windows open with numerous tabs in each. Currently I have 8 windows open with 5 to 23 tabs in each. This is a much better way to group and navigate the tabs. Thanks again.
Is it just me, or does the attached digital timer make it look like something Wile E. Coyote would blow himself up with while falling off of a cliff?
I'm more athletic than most geeks, but a 20-pound ball isn't gonna do shit against kids.
True, but the kid can use it to knock some sense into the parent for making them wear the stupid thing.
There are such things as coincidences, but I wouldn't say the link to the Bush administration has been "proven false" or even much diminished. Due to Libby's perjury and further pardoning by GWB we will probably never have good evidence for either scenario.
GWB did not pardon Libby, he commuted his sentence. There a big difference, Libby is still a convicted felon he just didn't have to serve the time. He also still has to pay a $250K fine.
I think Disney should get involved in this. After all, they released a 9 minute demonstration of it in 1940.
Broke into someone's house and tripped over something they left out? Technically, you're in a legal grey area regarding trespassing, and besides, there's nothing in the trespassing law saying you don't have to clean up your junk, so sue the homeowner!
This is one I just don't understand. If you're there illegally, then that's just too bad for you. If the police seize evidence w/o a warrant or improperly, then it is inadmissible. I don't see why self injury while knowingly committing a crime should be any different.
Tesla was a brilliant man. If he wanted to summon a comet, he would find a way. If he wanted to destroy a remote area of Siberia without a comet, he would find a way.
If he wanted to transmit electricity wirelessly he'd... Um, uh, never mind.
I'd suggest taking the whole thing with a little bit of salt.
Isn't that what interns said... Minus the salt part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Legged_Freaks
I didn't know this was based on a true story.
Strange. Being this is /. I was thinking more along the lines of this: http://www.mst3kinfo.com/aceg/8/810/ep810.html
So saying that NNN technology is X% better than bioethanol is like saying that doing X is less painful than scraping off your penile foreskin with a cheese grater.
I'm guessing that the latter would be less painful than trying to get this past the corn lobby if it works best with another kind of crop.
It sounds a lot like Dihydrogen Monoxide.
The Invisible Killer
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
* is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
* may cause severe burns.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.
Where the hell do you get the "good optics" once you're inside the facility? Do those just get right past security?
Considering they are glass, thus no issues with a metal detector, and usually rather small, they could simply be kept in a pocket.
But at the same time, I work in IT at a hospital, and our support contracts include on-site fixing by the vendor, but the vendors normally try to get our IT guys to be their eyes and fingers because it is CHEAPER than sending out a tech as the contract requires. And our medical folks don't want to wait until the vendor sends out a tech.
I've been bitten too many times by trying to "help" our radiology folks with ther PACs system or our pharmacy folks with their P2000 system.
Even if built on Wintel, these systems have too many odd outside-of-the-norm bells & whistles to allow us non-vendor techs a warm-fuzzy feeling when working on them.
So dammit, vendor, I don't feel bad about you coming on site, because we PAY you to do so.
But be sure to let us know before you come so someone from our IT section, familiar with your system and possessing the admin password, can come help. It doesn't help us when you pop in unexpectedly and the system-associated local tech is 40 miles away.
We supply the software ONLY. The hardware is purchased by the hospital. We also do not supply onsite support or on site support contracts, it must be paid for on a case by case basis. Remote support is free, so I'd prefer to save your institution the cost of an on site visit. And yes, I always try to inform IT when I'm going to be on site. Frankly I don't care if I have to come visit every other day since we will bill you $3K/day, I would rather you be able to use that money for something more useful. So dammit, IT dude, tell your boss to quit bitching about paying $3K/day for something that really should/could be resolved internally.
Who decides what data is old/unneeded and based on what ? Is there a way to make the definition of this process part of the initial configuration of the system ?
Is there a way to build the check for available disk space into the system itself, and when as it gets closer to the red zone, give an unintrusive "Warning: you are running low on disk space. Would you like to invoke the archival procedure now or you do it later?" - Of course, that's a last resort in case automating this is not possible - we all know the users are by now are trained to ignore any and all warnings.
But maybe with some variation of the above you could save a few hassles for the customers, and avoid a couple of support calls.
That's the funny part. All of this is patient data that is stored on PACS. It can be deleted as soon as the analysis is finished. If the analysis needs to be looked at again then the patient data can be sent back to the system and the analysis info can be reloaded with a minimum of effort.
Not that this argument about IP works in the first place - this guy is an executive.
That was my thought when I read the summary too. He's a "top executive" at that. So the only IP he may have are the new buzz words EMC is planning to use in their next marketing campaign.