Coal power spews radium and uranium into the atmosphere. It isn't visible or concentrated, so it doesn't receive all that much attention.
That's my point.
We're exposed to tons of harmful radiation. The Sun, emissions from power plants, that creepy guy with the lazy eye at Starbucks, etc. But when it happens in one big chunk like this, there's a public outcry.
This is also why there isn't as much complaining about the general emissions from power plants but a huge complaint when some organization dumps a few tons of toxic waste into the river.
If a shuttle blows to bits, well, it's a national tragedy but there's no real lasting damage to the environment. Maybe a chunk of heat shielding will take out a 200 year old oak tree at worst. But if a nuclear reactor - even a small one - impacts on the earth, than the environmentalist nutjobs are going to be up in arms about how NASA can't keep using a "dangerous alternative" to power like that. What the Hell would they expect us to use to get into orbit? Wind power?
Damned if I get modded flamebait for saying it, but do you really want to see NASA as it currently stands have nuclear engines in their ships?
They've lost, what, two manned craft in the last 30 years (Challenger and Columbia)? That's sad, yes, but it's a small portion of their overall manned operations in that time. What if "only" two U.S. tactical nukes were accidentally dropped while they were being flown over some American land during training exercises in the last 30 years?
If one of those ships goes down and sprays radioactive waste everywhere, it's going to be bad. That means NASA is going to have to be extra careful and require a boatload more money than it currently has in its budget.
It's sad that someone who decides what kind of DRM goes into EA games says "Shit, that stuff ain't workin'! 1.7 million downloads! Okay, Spore 2 is gonna have Starforce as well as Securom, 3 CD-Keys, and a decoder ring!"
You've no guarantee you're survive with or without a gun. There's no guarantee a police officer will be shot in the line of duty, yet many of them are smart enough to wear a bulletproof vest just in case.
Yeah, you might not make it if you have a gun and use it. Personally, so long as the other guy doesn't make it either I'm fine with that.
Well we've been using the same basic single-core architecture for the last, what, 30 or 40 years? Now programmers have a much bigger challenge in front of them - taking a program and make it work in a new environment.
I don't honestly believe there's been much in the way of innovation in the programming world for a while. Sure, you might have new coding languages that can do some things better than others or process it a different way, but don't they all operate on the same basic principle? Now programmers are faced with a complete paradigm change - the old style of programming isn't going to cut it 10 years from now when everything from your computer to your coffeemaker has a multi-core processor.
Engineers deal with stuff like this all the time. More than a few programmers use the term "software engineer". It's finally time for them to prove they can live up to that name and innovate.
In the anime Eureka 7, they would take their ship (the Gekko-go) into low orbit to travel across great distances faster. When you don't have to consider things like weather, turbulence, etc. you can travel a lot faster and a lot safer. I wonder how practical this is in reality.
I've never seen someone take what could have been such a simplistic statement and turn it into an incredibly elaborate diatribe. Couldn't you have just said "People who watch football are gay" and saved us a bunch of time?
Back on topic - I read an article in Popular Mechanics a year or two ago about the physics of football.
A fighter pilot might experience 10 Gs in an extreme maneuver. Two football players ramming into each other (homosexual subtext not intended) briefly experience 150 Gs. Even for an instant, that's gotta hurt.
There really aren't any clear winners. Opera has acid compliance in its favor. Firefox is extremely popular, easy to use and has plenty of features.
Firefox's simplicity and robust features are all that matter in the real world for most people. Most people aren't going to use a browser because it's standards-compliant - they'll use it for one or more of the following reasons:
1) It's easy to use.
2) It has a lot of add-ons and customization capabilities.
3) It's safer through a combination of good security practices in the programming and continually updating anti-phishing features.
4) It's not IE - a lot of people use Firefox, Opera, etc. as a big "fuck you" to Microsoft and for that reason alone.
5) This last one is a minority, but some people use browsers based on principle. For example, they might support FOSS and thus wouldn't use Safari or IE because of its closed-source status.
That aside, what is the Acid Test and why is it so important? The last time I heard about an Acid test was when my buddy ended up dehydrated in the Mississippi woods with his pants on his head.
How can you be "terminally lazy"? Too apathetic to dial 911 while you're bleeding on the kitchen floor? Don't want to go to the hospital to get your chemo?
Maybe this will get rid of all that weird pixellation I get when I download stuff on the Internet. It's not even on the whole picture, only certain parts! Obviously it's due to an unclear signal.
I'll bet your ISP would want a chunk of that change for all of the additional bandwidth that's sure to be burned up for everyone who's not downloading right now for fear of prosecution.
If there was something like this and it was reasonably priced for end users, I'm sure there would be a lot of people downloading 24/7.
I'm glad to see that there can be people here who own a console and aren't going to irrationally defend it when they are presented with its flaws.
I don't own a Wii, but a close friend of mine owned one. I tried out some of the games and I was thoroughly unimpressed. The motion controls are often gimmicky and not implemented very well. I don't think I've read or seen a review yet about a game that makes ample use of the motion controls and there isn't some complaint about them being glitchy. (If you do happen upon one, please feel free to post it here in response.)
The PS3's Sixaxis controls have (from the reviews I've seen) been often reviewed unfavorably as well. The real matter is games that require it versus games that offer it as an option. Both consoles have games that would have been great had it not been for the required motion controls and no option to change them.
I honestly think Nintendo deliberately went for low-powered, cheap, and gimmicky for the Wii. The Gamecube didn't perform as well as they had expected. I think that they wanted something they could crank out cheaply and make a profit on. (I believe PS3s and 360s are sold at a loss, whereas a Wii represents something on the order of $50 profit for Nintendo.)
IMO this is all basically Nintendo trying to recover from its missteps in the last 10 years. I'm hoping that they can come up with something interesting in the next generation that is as innovative as the Wii is without sacrificing graphics or functionality. And please, enough with the gimmicks!
I believe it has less to do with the computers and more to do with the fact that they are distributing OSX.
The end-user license agreement for Mac OS X forbids third-party installations of Leopard, and Psystar's Mac clone is in violation of that agreement.[2] However, Psystar believes Apple's prohibition against third-party installations might not hold up in court: "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"[2] Psystar says it will continue to sell the Open system, adding "We're not breaking any laws."[2]
On July 3rd, 2008, Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar in the District Court of Northern California.[3] A case management conference was scheduled for October 22nd to plan out future proceedings of the trial.
On August 28th, 2008, Psystar Corporation responded to Apple's claims of copyright infringement, and also countersued Apple for anti-competitive practices, monopolistic behavior, and copyright misuse.[4][5] This countersuit was dismissed on November 18, 2008.[6]
Well of course. Here we are trying to have an uninformed discussion based on hearsay and speculation, and he has the outright audacity to bring facts into play!
Firstly, if an asteroid does hit a nation that didn't contribute, inevitably people in America and around the world will cry out about the "Humanity Crisis in $COUNTRY as a result of the asteroid strike" and it will end up costing us many times more money than if we had stopped the damn thing in the first place. The EU and other countries do indeed contribute to the humanitarian crises of the world, but that doesn't mean it won't cost us money.
Secondly, it would make us look bad. We really don't need to ruin our reputation any further.
Lastly, it could set a disturbing precedent. What if we "accidentally" let an asteroid slip through to a nation that wasn't agreeing with some policy we mandated? This could very well turn into a weapons platform in that respect alone.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fuck em" is an effective method of protest against unjust laws.
I agree. Sleeping with a few politicians and judges might get some laws changed!
Coal power spews radium and uranium into the atmosphere. It isn't visible or concentrated, so it doesn't receive all that much attention.
That's my point.
We're exposed to tons of harmful radiation. The Sun, emissions from power plants, that creepy guy with the lazy eye at Starbucks, etc. But when it happens in one big chunk like this, there's a public outcry.
This is also why there isn't as much complaining about the general emissions from power plants but a huge complaint when some organization dumps a few tons of toxic waste into the river.
If a shuttle blows to bits, well, it's a national tragedy but there's no real lasting damage to the environment. Maybe a chunk of heat shielding will take out a 200 year old oak tree at worst. But if a nuclear reactor - even a small one - impacts on the earth, than the environmentalist nutjobs are going to be up in arms about how NASA can't keep using a "dangerous alternative" to power like that. What the Hell would they expect us to use to get into orbit? Wind power?
I, for one, welcome our new fluidic space-dwelling overlords!
Damned if I get modded flamebait for saying it, but do you really want to see NASA as it currently stands have nuclear engines in their ships?
They've lost, what, two manned craft in the last 30 years (Challenger and Columbia)? That's sad, yes, but it's a small portion of their overall manned operations in that time. What if "only" two U.S. tactical nukes were accidentally dropped while they were being flown over some American land during training exercises in the last 30 years?
If one of those ships goes down and sprays radioactive waste everywhere, it's going to be bad. That means NASA is going to have to be extra careful and require a boatload more money than it currently has in its budget.
Also helpful is the referenced technical demonstration.
I always thought "Postmodernism" was a misnomer. Modern means "Pertaining to the current time and style" - i.e. "now". Post- means "After".
Alls I'm sayin' is where the Hell is my goddamned time machine you lying bastards?!
It's sad that someone who decides what kind of DRM goes into EA games says "Shit, that stuff ain't workin'! 1.7 million downloads! Okay, Spore 2 is gonna have Starforce as well as Securom, 3 CD-Keys, and a decoder ring!"
You've no guarantee you're survive with or without a gun. There's no guarantee a police officer will be shot in the line of duty, yet many of them are smart enough to wear a bulletproof vest just in case.
Yeah, you might not make it if you have a gun and use it. Personally, so long as the other guy doesn't make it either I'm fine with that.
...and Apple isn't the kind of company that wants every person on the planet to buy it's stuff.
Isn't that like, the basic main goal of any modern corporation?
"Sir, there's a whole shitload of people buying our stuff in Q4 '08!"
"But is it everyone?"
"Uh, no sir."
"Then work harder, dammit!"
Well we've been using the same basic single-core architecture for the last, what, 30 or 40 years? Now programmers have a much bigger challenge in front of them - taking a program and make it work in a new environment.
I don't honestly believe there's been much in the way of innovation in the programming world for a while. Sure, you might have new coding languages that can do some things better than others or process it a different way, but don't they all operate on the same basic principle? Now programmers are faced with a complete paradigm change - the old style of programming isn't going to cut it 10 years from now when everything from your computer to your coffeemaker has a multi-core processor.
Engineers deal with stuff like this all the time. More than a few programmers use the term "software engineer". It's finally time for them to prove they can live up to that name and innovate.
In the anime Eureka 7, they would take their ship (the Gekko-go) into low orbit to travel across great distances faster. When you don't have to consider things like weather, turbulence, etc. you can travel a lot faster and a lot safer. I wonder how practical this is in reality.
I've never seen someone take what could have been such a simplistic statement and turn it into an incredibly elaborate diatribe. Couldn't you have just said "People who watch football are gay" and saved us a bunch of time?
Back on topic - I read an article in Popular Mechanics a year or two ago about the physics of football.
A fighter pilot might experience 10 Gs in an extreme maneuver. Two football players ramming into each other (homosexual subtext not intended) briefly experience 150 Gs. Even for an instant, that's gotta hurt.
There really aren't any clear winners. Opera has acid compliance in its favor. Firefox is extremely popular, easy to use and has plenty of features.
Firefox's simplicity and robust features are all that matter in the real world for most people. Most people aren't going to use a browser because it's standards-compliant - they'll use it for one or more of the following reasons:
1) It's easy to use.
2) It has a lot of add-ons and customization capabilities.
3) It's safer through a combination of good security practices in the programming and continually updating anti-phishing features.
4) It's not IE - a lot of people use Firefox, Opera, etc. as a big "fuck you" to Microsoft and for that reason alone.
5) This last one is a minority, but some people use browsers based on principle. For example, they might support FOSS and thus wouldn't use Safari or IE because of its closed-source status.
That aside, what is the Acid Test and why is it so important? The last time I heard about an Acid test was when my buddy ended up dehydrated in the Mississippi woods with his pants on his head.
You've never been robbed in your life. But what guarantee do you have that you'll survive if you do get robbed?
Well we gotta do the American thing and harness that unused power! Let's drop a nuke or two down there and see if we can strike magma.
How can you be "terminally lazy"? Too apathetic to dial 911 while you're bleeding on the kitchen floor? Don't want to go to the hospital to get your chemo?
Maybe this will get rid of all that weird pixellation I get when I download stuff on the Internet. It's not even on the whole picture, only certain parts! Obviously it's due to an unclear signal.
By the modern definition of kiddie porn, anyone who owns a copy of Nirvana's Nevermind album is a sex offender.
I'll bet your ISP would want a chunk of that change for all of the additional bandwidth that's sure to be burned up for everyone who's not downloading right now for fear of prosecution.
If there was something like this and it was reasonably priced for end users, I'm sure there would be a lot of people downloading 24/7.
I'm glad to see that there can be people here who own a console and aren't going to irrationally defend it when they are presented with its flaws.
I don't own a Wii, but a close friend of mine owned one. I tried out some of the games and I was thoroughly unimpressed. The motion controls are often gimmicky and not implemented very well. I don't think I've read or seen a review yet about a game that makes ample use of the motion controls and there isn't some complaint about them being glitchy. (If you do happen upon one, please feel free to post it here in response.)
The PS3's Sixaxis controls have (from the reviews I've seen) been often reviewed unfavorably as well. The real matter is games that require it versus games that offer it as an option. Both consoles have games that would have been great had it not been for the required motion controls and no option to change them.
I honestly think Nintendo deliberately went for low-powered, cheap, and gimmicky for the Wii. The Gamecube didn't perform as well as they had expected. I think that they wanted something they could crank out cheaply and make a profit on. (I believe PS3s and 360s are sold at a loss, whereas a Wii represents something on the order of $50 profit for Nintendo.)
IMO this is all basically Nintendo trying to recover from its missteps in the last 10 years. I'm hoping that they can come up with something interesting in the next generation that is as innovative as the Wii is without sacrificing graphics or functionality. And please, enough with the gimmicks!
I believe it has less to do with the computers and more to do with the fact that they are distributing OSX.
The end-user license agreement for Mac OS X forbids third-party installations of Leopard, and Psystar's Mac clone is in violation of that agreement.[2] However, Psystar believes Apple's prohibition against third-party installations might not hold up in court: "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"[2] Psystar says it will continue to sell the Open system, adding "We're not breaking any laws."[2] On July 3rd, 2008, Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar in the District Court of Northern California.[3] A case management conference was scheduled for October 22nd to plan out future proceedings of the trial. On August 28th, 2008, Psystar Corporation responded to Apple's claims of copyright infringement, and also countersued Apple for anti-competitive practices, monopolistic behavior, and copyright misuse.[4][5] This countersuit was dismissed on November 18, 2008.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar#Legal_issues
Well of course. Here we are trying to have an uninformed discussion based on hearsay and speculation, and he has the outright audacity to bring facts into play!
It's downright un-American, I tell you.
Why should I be forced to carry a gun everywhere I go if I want to feel safe outside?
Because the police can't be everywhere at once and you're your own first line of defense.
Yes we should defend it for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, if an asteroid does hit a nation that didn't contribute, inevitably people in America and around the world will cry out about the "Humanity Crisis in $COUNTRY as a result of the asteroid strike" and it will end up costing us many times more money than if we had stopped the damn thing in the first place. The EU and other countries do indeed contribute to the humanitarian crises of the world, but that doesn't mean it won't cost us money.
Secondly, it would make us look bad. We really don't need to ruin our reputation any further.
Lastly, it could set a disturbing precedent. What if we "accidentally" let an asteroid slip through to a nation that wasn't agreeing with some policy we mandated? This could very well turn into a weapons platform in that respect alone.
No man, you need to put it in a cube! A cube has like, six pyramids worth of power!