I would just rate it as good. I really enjoyed Cars a lot more.
Of all the Pixar films, Cars was the only one I thought only had appeal for children.
I like your sig (All spelling and grammar errors are intentional. Grammar Nazis' need entertainment.). Note the grammatically incorrect use of Nazis' instead of Nazi. That's subtle, dude.
And the reason they got that far was the 80 column card add-on designed and built by a third party for the Apple II and the software that then sprang up to make use of it.
Apple's early success really isn't attributable to Jobs. The Apple II was Wozniak's thing. Jobs insisted on a moulded plastic case for the Apple II, but Commodore had that, too. The Lisa (a good machine, but too expensive because the parts cost was too high back then) was a commercial flop. The original Mac (not enough memory, no hard drive) was too weak to be useful, and the Mac was a commercial flop until it was built up to Lisa specs of 1MB or so and a hard drive. (Understand that there were UNIX workstations with graphics years before the Mac came out. Cost, not innovation, was the problem in the early days.)
What actually saved Apple was the LaserWriter. That's what made the Mac useful and created the "desktop publishing" industry.
Gates just wants to make money and take over the world.
Where'd you get this idea? Have you ever even met Jobs? Those who know him well think his two motivations are the need to control the people around him and the need to make money.
Great point, Lad. Further, beyond the barbarism of our government's torture techniques, they're based on methods used by the Chinese in the Korean War specifically to produce false confessions:
Go look at Powercolor.com. There's a 4870 version with GDDR5 as well. The Slashdot poster just chose to post about the strange lower end uber memory part.
"EW's list seems to represent a major shortcoming in the field: it still isn't diffusing into popular culture."
A professor once gave me a book called The Existential Pleasures of Engineering (http://www.amazon.com/Existential-Pleasures-Engineering-Thomas-Dunne/dp/0312141041/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214425954&sr=8-1), which began with a discussion of engineers as romantic, heroic figures to the people of the late 19th century. This is still true to some extent in some places like France. Right now in the US we're in an anti-intellectual upswing, but that doesn't mean we won't have another golden age of cultural interest in science.
The title is: "Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel Is Broken and How to Fix It", emphasis mine.
Yes, yes, I know.. I shouldn't be another one of us here who fly the European flag in discussions. But...
I tend to expect my flights on time because they usually are, on short-haul they often arrive prior to schedule. I get excellent service even on the budget flights.. the drinks might cost me but I get them just fine. Except for Sky Alliance flights (KLM-AirFrance, Delta) I expect my luggage to arrive with me.
Security is a bit of a nuisance, but I experience longer queues for most concerts, football matches, and so on.
Then again, this has always been my experience outside of Europe as well, so maybe I'm just very lucky?
Budget European carriers like EasyJet are, in my experience, the worst possible nightmare when it comes to air travel without crashing. With no weather problems, I've experienced 2-4 hour delays on each of the half dozen EasyJet flights I've taken. Let's not even mention air rage.
1) Google doesn't link to much useful scientific data. There are other databases that predate Google that did and still do, but Google isn't a very useful tool for data collection, so it shouldn't be in the discussion.
2) For about a century, all funded scientists have had pretty good access to all publicly released data in their fields and could rather efficiently sort through it due to good hierarchical organization. Nothing has changed about that other than speeding up the process to some extent using search (Again, not using Google. Their one foray into academic search is so far not useful for people who have funding and thus access to much more advanced and complete tools), but people who are really involved with their field of study already knew where to look, so the search is mostly a benefit to the undergraduate paper-writer.
3) The way that "paradigm" affects data has not remotely been related to which data sets people choose to examine in well run science. The paradigm affects what data is collected (which is what real data-driven scientists do), and the "Petabyte Age" has no affect on the efficiency of data collection.
How sure are you of that proposition? Not that I think OS X is invulnerable, but perhaps OS X isn't attacked, not because of Marketshare but because Windows is just much easier. Remember the results of the hacking contest a few months ago showing that OSX was the easiest OS to compromise.
They may have the Windows version memory under control, but the OSX (Leopard) version of FF 3.0 is still a PIG. Just starting up FF with 6 tabs (1 is Slashdot) and the memory usage is over 160Mb and virtual memory used is over 900Mb.
And did they have to make the OSX skin so darn ugly?
900 Mb of virtual memory?! That's like 20 seconds of disk thrashing just to write it. What the hell?
The cool thing about the awesomebar is that it lets those of us who do manage to get over it being a New Thing use the browser a lot more efficiently than we did before.
I'm not sure what's going on with the mods on this thread.
Yes - in hindsight, it looks like an awesome place to work on - and if you were involved in research, you might have known enough about it and really wanted to work there.
But that completely misses the question from the GP:
How many folks, during the 60s and 70s, really wanted to work for the phone company at that time?
(nerds from the present with access to wikipedia do not count)
According to the another response: "Bell labs in its heyday was a couple thousand people. Ma Bell as a whole was nearly a million." So nearly a million, or most likely more than just about any other employer. I guess the GP was wrong and the phone company was a super-popular place to work. That seems to answer the question.
"Solar eclipses in conjunction with a new moon are possibly enough to make it worth investigating this one..."
No, not really. Solar eclipses ALWAYS happen at the same time as the new moon. However, the fact that Mercury went retrograde 34 days before, as mentioned in the text of the poem; at the same season that Bootes is setting and the Pleiades are visible, as mentioned in the text of the poem; and that Venus is visible in the morning, as mentioned in the text of the poem; and that the sun is eclipsed, as mentioned in the text of the poem; and it ALL JUST HAPPENS to occur around the most probable estimate of the historical date of the events--THAT is what makes this worth investigating.
There is evidence of significant historical details being preserved in oral tradition. This might be one example.
Those things were only mentioned in the Odyssey as much as WWII and George Bush were mentioned in Nostradamus. The authors take extreme liberty in interpreting the Odyssey in order to make their "prediction" work. This is nothing that numerologists, astrologers, and psychics don't do every day. The Odyssey doesn't mention Mercury going retrograde, nor does it imply that an eclipse happened outside of a vision.
Let's just throw this on the trash-heap of art/science theories that only appeal to the ignorant, along with all the eye-doctor-written "myopia is the only reason XXX impressionist wasn't a realist" papers.
FTFA
With $40 billion burning a hole in its pocket following the collapse of the Yahoo deal, Microsoft has been consistently linked with a takeover of Facebook, although CEO Steve Ballmer last week talked down the possibility of a deal. "People don't understand what they're talking about," he told The Financial Times. "At the end of the day, this is about the ad platform. This is not about just any one of the applications." I have to admit, Ballmer actually has this one right. Facebook really is just an ad platform. The programs exist to sell ads. But why are they using that as an excuse not to buy it, isn't that what Microsoft wants? A platform from which to advertise other microsoft products? Perhaps one of the chairs ricocheted? Facebook is "valued" at $15B but will never come close to selling $15B in ads. Like most ad-based sites on the web, the numbers just don't justify the company's value.
What exactly was the problem you were having? I had no problem with HD playback on a 7 series card. No stutters or anything. That was on an Athlon x2 3800+ with a 7950 GT. And this was all running on XP. I was, however, running them directly from the hard drive. Were you running them over the network? Perhaps that was the problem and not the HD acceleration.
I had the exact same system as that (I won the x2 in the parking lot of Microcenter at 6 am a long time ago) and it played any 1080p content I threw at it with no problem, even when I was using a 6800 card.
If you check the votes, it's hardly supported by both parties. The dems alone had more nays than yeas. The republicans had almost unanimous support however.
Yes, it's possible the dems could have had many more nays, but you can still form some opinions based on these results.
The votes weren't listed online when I made my comment, but I suspected that the votes would fall the way you describe. Still, a very sizable, though not majority, portion of the democratic party voted for this, which is a lot more evil than I'd like to see in the second most evil party.
While the statement "you cannot focus X-rays like you can visible light with lenses" is misleading, it's true. You can't focus X-rays like you can focus visible light, and you can't do it (effectively) with lenses. However, you can focus X-rays.
Yeah, you just use zone plates.
Anyway, the GP is correct in saying that x-ray microscopy is nothing new. The technique in TFA is not microscopy. My understanding (just from skimming the abstract, mind you) is that this is x-ray scattering, which is physically equivalent to taking a fourier transform of the sample, followed by subtraction of the scattering image from a black sample cell, and then an inverse fourier transform to get back to a position-space image of the virus.
Maybe I'm being dim, but I can't currently think of a reason this is better than SEM/TEM of the virus. Maybe sample prep for normal microscopy isn't feasible, or maybe there's x-ray contrast but no electron contrast. I'm sure there are some compelling reasons to do this.
I call shenanigans. DARPA doesn't let you use research funding to construct buildings! Unless the building itself is the research project. This is what is ALWAYS done with giant DARPA grants. They most certainly allow you to construct buildings with research grant money, at least from the big grants. That's how half of the XXXX Center for YYYYY or XXXXtechnology Institutes within universities are made.
In that case, vote McCain. Obama's energy independence policy is more of a wet dream than a realistic programme for the future. In what case? Obama is pro-nuclear power (unlike Clinton, for reference). McCain and Obama have basically the same energy policy so far.
You make a big deal about how Obama is generally a bad guy and thus won't support this, but it's just a troll post. Obama specifically has stated that he supports nuclear power during his campaign. One of his biggest campaign donors is Excelon, a nuclear power company. The only anti-nuclear power thing he's done isn't really anti-nuclear power: he introduced legislation to force nuclear power plants to report leaks.
Slashdot Mirror
I would just rate it as good. I really enjoyed Cars a lot more.
Of all the Pixar films, Cars was the only one I thought only had appeal for children.
I like your sig (All spelling and grammar errors are intentional. Grammar Nazis' need entertainment.). Note the grammatically incorrect use of Nazis' instead of Nazi. That's subtle, dude.
And the reason they got that far was the 80 column card add-on designed and built by a third party for the Apple II and the software that then sprang up to make use of it.
Apple's early success really isn't attributable to Jobs. The Apple II was Wozniak's thing. Jobs insisted on a moulded plastic case for the Apple II, but Commodore had that, too. The Lisa (a good machine, but too expensive because the parts cost was too high back then) was a commercial flop. The original Mac (not enough memory, no hard drive) was too weak to be useful, and the Mac was a commercial flop until it was built up to Lisa specs of 1MB or so and a hard drive. (Understand that there were UNIX workstations with graphics years before the Mac came out. Cost, not innovation, was the problem in the early days.)
What actually saved Apple was the LaserWriter. That's what made the Mac useful and created the "desktop publishing" industry.
Yes Jobs is different.
He wants to make cool stuff.
Gates just wants to make money and take over the world.
Where'd you get this idea? Have you ever even met Jobs? Those who know him well think his two motivations are the need to control the people around him and the need to make money.
Great point, Lad. Further, beyond the barbarism of our government's torture techniques, they're based on methods used by the Chinese in the Korean War specifically to produce false confessions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?ref=todayspaper
Go look at Powercolor.com. There's a 4870 version with GDDR5 as well. The Slashdot poster just chose to post about the strange lower end uber memory part.
"EW's list seems to represent a major shortcoming in the field: it still isn't diffusing into popular culture."
A professor once gave me a book called The Existential Pleasures of Engineering (http://www.amazon.com/Existential-Pleasures-Engineering-Thomas-Dunne/dp/0312141041/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214425954&sr=8-1), which began with a discussion of engineers as romantic, heroic figures to the people of the late 19th century. This is still true to some extent in some places like France. Right now in the US we're in an anti-intellectual upswing, but that doesn't mean we won't have another golden age of cultural interest in science.
The title is: "Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel Is Broken and How to Fix It", emphasis mine.
Yes, yes, I know.. I shouldn't be another one of us here who fly the European flag in discussions. But...
I tend to expect my flights on time because they usually are, on short-haul they often arrive prior to schedule. I get excellent service even on the budget flights.. the drinks might cost me but I get them just fine. Except for Sky Alliance flights (KLM-AirFrance, Delta) I expect my luggage to arrive with me.
Security is a bit of a nuisance, but I experience longer queues for most concerts, football matches, and so on.
Then again, this has always been my experience outside of Europe as well, so maybe I'm just very lucky?
Budget European carriers like EasyJet are, in my experience, the worst possible nightmare when it comes to air travel without crashing. With no weather problems, I've experienced 2-4 hour delays on each of the half dozen EasyJet flights I've taken. Let's not even mention air rage.1) Google doesn't link to much useful scientific data. There are other databases that predate Google that did and still do, but Google isn't a very useful tool for data collection, so it shouldn't be in the discussion.
2) For about a century, all funded scientists have had pretty good access to all publicly released data in their fields and could rather efficiently sort through it due to good hierarchical organization. Nothing has changed about that other than speeding up the process to some extent using search (Again, not using Google. Their one foray into academic search is so far not useful for people who have funding and thus access to much more advanced and complete tools), but people who are really involved with their field of study already knew where to look, so the search is mostly a benefit to the undergraduate paper-writer.
3) The way that "paradigm" affects data has not remotely been related to which data sets people choose to examine in well run science. The paradigm affects what data is collected (which is what real data-driven scientists do), and the "Petabyte Age" has no affect on the efficiency of data collection.
The author is a massive failure.
And did they have to make the OSX skin so darn ugly?
900 Mb of virtual memory?! That's like 20 seconds of disk thrashing just to write it. What the hell?The cool thing about the awesomebar is that it lets those of us who do manage to get over it being a New Thing use the browser a lot more efficiently than we did before.
Thats amazing considering I get an error page on bank of america around 5% of the time if I move to quickly though the site.
My BoA error message rate is definitely above 10%.I'm not sure what's going on with the mods on this thread.
Yes - in hindsight, it looks like an awesome place to work on - and if you were involved in research, you might have known enough about it and really wanted to work there.
But that completely misses the question from the GP:
How many folks, during the 60s and 70s, really wanted to work for the phone company at that time?
(nerds from the present with access to wikipedia do not count)
According to the another response: "Bell labs in its heyday was a couple thousand people. Ma Bell as a whole was nearly a million." So nearly a million, or most likely more than just about any other employer. I guess the GP was wrong and the phone company was a super-popular place to work. That seems to answer the question.Petrushka opined,
"Solar eclipses in conjunction with a new moon are possibly enough to make it worth investigating this one..."
No, not really. Solar eclipses ALWAYS happen at the same time as the new moon. However, the fact that Mercury went retrograde 34 days before, as mentioned in the text of the poem; at the same season that Bootes is setting and the Pleiades are visible, as mentioned in the text of the poem; and that Venus is visible in the morning, as mentioned in the text of the poem; and that the sun is eclipsed, as mentioned in the text of the poem; and it ALL JUST HAPPENS to occur around the most probable estimate of the historical date of the events--THAT is what makes this worth investigating.
There is evidence of significant historical details being preserved in oral tradition. This might be one example.
Those things were only mentioned in the Odyssey as much as WWII and George Bush were mentioned in Nostradamus. The authors take extreme liberty in interpreting the Odyssey in order to make their "prediction" work. This is nothing that numerologists, astrologers, and psychics don't do every day. The Odyssey doesn't mention Mercury going retrograde, nor does it imply that an eclipse happened outside of a vision.Let's just throw this on the trash-heap of art/science theories that only appeal to the ignorant, along with all the eye-doctor-written "myopia is the only reason XXX impressionist wasn't a realist" papers.
What exactly was the problem you were having? I had no problem with HD playback on a 7 series card. No stutters or anything. That was on an Athlon x2 3800+ with a 7950 GT. And this was all running on XP. I was, however, running them directly from the hard drive. Were you running them over the network? Perhaps that was the problem and not the HD acceleration.
I had the exact same system as that (I won the x2 in the parking lot of Microcenter at 6 am a long time ago) and it played any 1080p content I threw at it with no problem, even when I was using a 6800 card.Yes, it's possible the dems could have had many more nays, but you can still form some opinions based on these results.
The votes weren't listed online when I made my comment, but I suspected that the votes would fall the way you describe. Still, a very sizable, though not majority, portion of the democratic party voted for this, which is a lot more evil than I'd like to see in the second most evil party.I'm rather frightened at the bipartisan support this sort of thing gets.
While the statement "you cannot focus X-rays like you can visible light with lenses" is misleading, it's true. You can't focus X-rays like you can focus visible light, and you can't do it (effectively) with lenses. However, you can focus X-rays.
Yeah, you just use zone plates.Anyway, the GP is correct in saying that x-ray microscopy is nothing new. The technique in TFA is not microscopy. My understanding (just from skimming the abstract, mind you) is that this is x-ray scattering, which is physically equivalent to taking a fourier transform of the sample, followed by subtraction of the scattering image from a black sample cell, and then an inverse fourier transform to get back to a position-space image of the virus.
Maybe I'm being dim, but I can't currently think of a reason this is better than SEM/TEM of the virus. Maybe sample prep for normal microscopy isn't feasible, or maybe there's x-ray contrast but no electron contrast. I'm sure there are some compelling reasons to do this.
Nuclear is bad, don't do it.
Coal is bad, don't do it.
Oil is bad, don't do it.
Maybe a golden talking unicorn will come down on a rainbow and be Obama's running mate too. Don't lump Obama with them. He's openly pro-nuclear power.
You make a big deal about how Obama is generally a bad guy and thus won't support this, but it's just a troll post. Obama specifically has stated that he supports nuclear power during his campaign. One of his biggest campaign donors is Excelon, a nuclear power company. The only anti-nuclear power thing he's done isn't really anti-nuclear power: he introduced legislation to force nuclear power plants to report leaks.
Obama was the one major candidate back in the silly Youtube debate early in the Democratic primary race who was interested in nuclear power.