How stable is it? This would drastically lower the costs of production and effectively approach the size limit of a transistor, but for something that they purport to use in supercomputing applications, they'll have to find a way to make it last a long time. That's the hurdle that's preventing most organic devices (LEDs, PVs, TFTs).
Well you didn't see any such stories a month after XP was released, did you?
Come to think of it, we didn't see anything of the sort until a while after Vista too. I guess this means that MS isn't sitting back this time. It's news in that they've finally returned to the competitors' block.
Much, if not all, of those can probably be solved by setting up a home server to handle all of that while you work remotely. I myself run a lot of Python scripts for scientific work and use Latex for pretty much every document/presentation I make, and I can do it just fine over ssh. Gnuplot is still pretty slow though, don't have a great solution for that on this weak Atom chip.
I'm not just worried about the night, but I'm also wondering how direct the sunlight has to be, because this could narrow which air routes can be used. Will it only work at direct, perpendicular incidence? Is there a range of angles where it would be enough? Or do the panels themselves have trackers to orient themselves towards the light?
I assume that they're not huge issues cause they can make it through the night on battery, but they're interesting to consider. Also, I wonder how long it takes those batteries to fully charge.
Relax, it's just for research. They're not saying that it'll completely replace all airplane technology, or even that it will ever displace current jet fuel models - it's just something that's worthy of being looked into. Instead of asking ourselves if we can use this to fuel a jumbo jet, let's start with a simpler engineering problem and see if it's practical for powering, say, a 4-passenger private vehicle. Or maybe an unmanned drone for non-passenger purposes.
What is important about this is that if they can show that it's practical and stimulate some interest, then maybe they can get more funding and attention. That's why they have these prototype designs and demos - not cause they think it'll solve every energy-related problem the world faces. Sure, not every new, 'promising' technology ever turns out to be as great as we expect them to be; but if they weren't labeled as such, those few that actually have a chance of being viable would never receive attention.
Frankly, I'm wondering what benefit nightlies would have for MS, who does pretty much all of their testing in-house.
Well it worked out well for Win7, didn't it? Doesn't mean IE would fall the same way (far from it in fact), but you'd think MS would learn something after a while.
Talk about a half-assed attempt to solve the problem. No one's gonna say "I'm gonna Xerox(tm) Corporation that for you." Maybe they could suggest some better alternatives. Duhhhh
Not only that, maybe MS believes that they can use this route to make better software too. If the OSS community can respond and show MS how much there is to benefit from opening one of their projects, maybe they'll be more responsive with other projects too.
The OSS community should see this as an opportunity to give something back to MS for good reason. They would be less likely to stab the OSS community in the back with patent suits and the like if we can engender a true, two-way relationship. Maybe with some dialogue, we can start moving toward working in harmony instead of against each other.
I generally notice that the professors that know their material the most are the ones that feel comfortable writing on the chalkboard, maybe with just a few notes in front of them. The best ones are the ones that just walk in and start talking about the material as if it were their life story. The best example I can think of is my thermodynamics professor who went straight through things as complicated as the Grand Canonical Partition Function with just a page or two of notes.
The truth is, a professor that really knows his/her material can teach it in any manner. And it doesn't just take command of the subject, but they also have to have good oration skills, good communication, a good presence in front of a crowd.... Then again, most universities in the US hire you based on your research credentials, so why does anyone really care if a Professor can teach?
It doesn't matter how the virus was initiated, it could have happened by any means available. Remember the USB virus that spread just because of Windows' autorun (or whatever it's called) behavior? Would it really make a difference then? The operating system should stop malware no matter how it's launched. And when it's malware that has been in the wild for a long time before the system's release, it just goes to show that there really isn't any better security at all.
As far as what the program is capable of, this is why robust operating systems have reasonable user access management systems. On Windows, users can do whatever they want, and so can any process that they run. UAC is supposed to prevent them from causing damage, but obviously it has failed almost completely. On Linux, users can still run stuff if they want to, but those programs are limited in what they can do by the permissions that are built in. Just another example of why you can never get around the fact that Windows is just defective by design.
Well after a couple thousand years of evolution, yeah, I'd expect to see some human immunity to those diseases. Is that how long we're expected to wait for Redmond?
I mean, come on, these are old viruses that had to be known about before Win7 was released. What excuse could MS possibly have for making an operating system with as poor security performance as its predecessors?
The greatest part is that there is an exact opposite post above you posted 5 minutes earlier which has received +3 without giving any details whatsoever. And here we have a post which deals exactly with the details mentioned in the summary and, where are the mods now?
The same statements that you have made about MS can probably be made about 95% of the Fortune 500.
Then maybe we shouldn't condone that either. Last time I checked, doing something wrong wasn't okay just cause others do it. MS, as well as all other companies that do it should be pegged for this.
Actually, it's www.whitehouse.gov for the Obama administration. I'll let it slide though; as long as you don't confuse it with whitehouse.com - not linkified for a very special reason....
40%, but they're quite viable. From Emcore, you can get 1MW for 2-3 USD per watt which is competitive with all solar cell technology (but it's probably not for a single home, and it's better off for use in, say, desert area with low cloud cover and shadowing).
$/watt is pretty much standard across the whole PV industry though. But I agree with you, I don't see a great future in photovoltaic technology, I think solar-thermal is far more promising. Typically what they do is concentrate the solar energy on simple NaCl (salt) which melts it, then it runs into a water pool which generates steam to turn turbines (the only novel technology is concentrating the light which is pathetically easy, and possibly using trackers to ensure max incident light). The benefit is that is even generates power at night. The drawback is that I don't think it can be scaled down for individual use, and it's not something easily adapted to space application. From Wikipedia, it looks like it's about 2-3 orders of magnitude cheaper than PV
Maybe in bed with Intel too. There's no reason why anyone would need a Nehalem chip (and if you did, you probably wouldn't be buying from Dell anyway) now that Intel has introduced Lynnfield with a much higher performance/$.
There's a lot of considerations that go into making and operating an electron microscope. For one thing, they usually require a pretty high vacuum which always has to be on causing some pretty how power costs.
Plus they also have to be isolated from vibrations in the ground, so even if it's not that sensitive, it still probably would only work if installed in the basement of a suburban house; operating that thing near the top of a multi-story apartment complex probably would cause some sort of calibration errors. The TEMs that I've seen were built on top of some huge concrete blocks (at least 10 feet deep) that were isolated from the surrounding so trucks could pass by without disturbing them.
Don't see why it's worth $60,000 when you can give an entire class of about 100 a regular compound light microscope for everyone to use, as long as it's purely for educational purposes. Nevertheless, it's a pretty cool engineering feat, and I guess someone somewhere could find it practical.
Microsoft's fundamental problem is that they've already sold many people what they need. XP works fine for me. I don't need Vista. Or 7. Office is fine. I don't care about the next round of bells and whistles. Most of what most of us do doesn't require them.
Except Microsoft chooses which you can use. Soon they'll stop selling licenses for XP, you can already only get it on netbooks, and even they probably know that XP is a better product, but force Vista on you anyways. And the same goes for Office - not that I've looked, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't buy Office 2003 if you wanted to.
This is the failure of the software-by-one-company-for-profit model.
Any number of possible solutions. Nanolasers; fiber optics; or they could use x-ray absorbing particles under the surface of the skull which can penetrate soft tissue.
The research as stated in the article isn't exactly meant to be implemented as is for surgical procedures. It has to be engineered in some way that can be used in actual surgical/therapeutic environments. The REAL STORY is that it's possible using a very simple and effective technique. No one said that it was going to be implemented exactly this way.
So I actually believe al contrare that there is much to be expected from this treatment.
Usually in these cases, the particles are surface-activated to only attach to cancer cells. What this means is that cancer cells typically have unique antigens on the surface and the nanoparticles are treated to bind only to them. And since proteins are very picky when they pick what other things they bond to, there's a low chance that it will find another cell with similar morphology to attach to. Then again, considering how diverse and extensive the body is, I'm sure that there's a chance that it could find some other cell to bind to; but that's purely a statistical argument, I'm not referencing any biological data on that front.
Slashdot Mirror
How stable is it? This would drastically lower the costs of production and effectively approach the size limit of a transistor, but for something that they purport to use in supercomputing applications, they'll have to find a way to make it last a long time. That's the hurdle that's preventing most organic devices (LEDs, PVs, TFTs).
Long way to go here.
It might if irregardless were actually a word.
If we insist on being Nazis.
Corporate Intranets with lazy admins or dumb policies are Microsoft's best friend.
Fixed
Time to start planning another release party! Man, where does the time go!
Well you didn't see any such stories a month after XP was released, did you?
Come to think of it, we didn't see anything of the sort until a while after Vista too. I guess this means that MS isn't sitting back this time. It's news in that they've finally returned to the competitors' block.
Much, if not all, of those can probably be solved by setting up a home server to handle all of that while you work remotely. I myself run a lot of Python scripts for scientific work and use Latex for pretty much every document/presentation I make, and I can do it just fine over ssh. Gnuplot is still pretty slow though, don't have a great solution for that on this weak Atom chip.
I'm not just worried about the night, but I'm also wondering how direct the sunlight has to be, because this could narrow which air routes can be used. Will it only work at direct, perpendicular incidence? Is there a range of angles where it would be enough? Or do the panels themselves have trackers to orient themselves towards the light?
I assume that they're not huge issues cause they can make it through the night on battery, but they're interesting to consider. Also, I wonder how long it takes those batteries to fully charge.
Relax, it's just for research. They're not saying that it'll completely replace all airplane technology, or even that it will ever displace current jet fuel models - it's just something that's worthy of being looked into. Instead of asking ourselves if we can use this to fuel a jumbo jet, let's start with a simpler engineering problem and see if it's practical for powering, say, a 4-passenger private vehicle. Or maybe an unmanned drone for non-passenger purposes.
What is important about this is that if they can show that it's practical and stimulate some interest, then maybe they can get more funding and attention. That's why they have these prototype designs and demos - not cause they think it'll solve every energy-related problem the world faces. Sure, not every new, 'promising' technology ever turns out to be as great as we expect them to be; but if they weren't labeled as such, those few that actually have a chance of being viable would never receive attention.
Frankly, I'm wondering what benefit nightlies would have for MS, who does pretty much all of their testing in-house.
Well it worked out well for Win7, didn't it? Doesn't mean IE would fall the same way (far from it in fact), but you'd think MS would learn something after a while.
Talk about a half-assed attempt to solve the problem. No one's gonna say "I'm gonna Xerox(tm) Corporation that for you." Maybe they could suggest some better alternatives. Duhhhh
Not only that, maybe MS believes that they can use this route to make better software too. If the OSS community can respond and show MS how much there is to benefit from opening one of their projects, maybe they'll be more responsive with other projects too.
The OSS community should see this as an opportunity to give something back to MS for good reason. They would be less likely to stab the OSS community in the back with patent suits and the like if we can engender a true, two-way relationship. Maybe with some dialogue, we can start moving toward working in harmony instead of against each other.
I generally notice that the professors that know their material the most are the ones that feel comfortable writing on the chalkboard, maybe with just a few notes in front of them. The best ones are the ones that just walk in and start talking about the material as if it were their life story. The best example I can think of is my thermodynamics professor who went straight through things as complicated as the Grand Canonical Partition Function with just a page or two of notes.
The truth is, a professor that really knows his/her material can teach it in any manner. And it doesn't just take command of the subject, but they also have to have good oration skills, good communication, a good presence in front of a crowd.... Then again, most universities in the US hire you based on your research credentials, so why does anyone really care if a Professor can teach?
It doesn't matter how the virus was initiated, it could have happened by any means available. Remember the USB virus that spread just because of Windows' autorun (or whatever it's called) behavior? Would it really make a difference then? The operating system should stop malware no matter how it's launched. And when it's malware that has been in the wild for a long time before the system's release, it just goes to show that there really isn't any better security at all.
As far as what the program is capable of, this is why robust operating systems have reasonable user access management systems. On Windows, users can do whatever they want, and so can any process that they run. UAC is supposed to prevent them from causing damage, but obviously it has failed almost completely. On Linux, users can still run stuff if they want to, but those programs are limited in what they can do by the permissions that are built in. Just another example of why you can never get around the fact that Windows is just defective by design.
And I have no reply to your ad hominem arguments.
Well after a couple thousand years of evolution, yeah, I'd expect to see some human immunity to those diseases. Is that how long we're expected to wait for Redmond?
I mean, come on, these are old viruses that had to be known about before Win7 was released. What excuse could MS possibly have for making an operating system with as poor security performance as its predecessors?
The greatest part is that there is an exact opposite post above you posted 5 minutes earlier which has received +3 without giving any details whatsoever. And here we have a post which deals exactly with the details mentioned in the summary and, where are the mods now?
It's fine for me; I just keep hitting enter!
The same statements that you have made about MS can probably be made about 95% of the Fortune 500.
Then maybe we shouldn't condone that either. Last time I checked, doing something wrong wasn't okay just cause others do it. MS, as well as all other companies that do it should be pegged for this.
Actually, it's www.whitehouse.gov for the Obama administration. I'll let it slide though; as long as you don't confuse it with whitehouse.com - not linkified for a very special reason....
40%, but they're quite viable. From Emcore, you can get 1MW for 2-3 USD per watt which is competitive with all solar cell technology (but it's probably not for a single home, and it's better off for use in, say, desert area with low cloud cover and shadowing).
$/watt is pretty much standard across the whole PV industry though. But I agree with you, I don't see a great future in photovoltaic technology, I think solar-thermal is far more promising. Typically what they do is concentrate the solar energy on simple NaCl (salt) which melts it, then it runs into a water pool which generates steam to turn turbines (the only novel technology is concentrating the light which is pathetically easy, and possibly using trackers to ensure max incident light). The benefit is that is even generates power at night. The drawback is that I don't think it can be scaled down for individual use, and it's not something easily adapted to space application. From Wikipedia, it looks like it's about 2-3 orders of magnitude cheaper than PV
Maybe in bed with Intel too. There's no reason why anyone would need a Nehalem chip (and if you did, you probably wouldn't be buying from Dell anyway) now that Intel has introduced Lynnfield with a much higher performance/$.
Moral of the story: don't complain; there's always someone worse off.
I learned that when I bitched about getting sleep in college, but I guess it also applies to internet availability, and poverty and stuff.
There's a lot of considerations that go into making and operating an electron microscope. For one thing, they usually require a pretty high vacuum which always has to be on causing some pretty how power costs.
Plus they also have to be isolated from vibrations in the ground, so even if it's not that sensitive, it still probably would only work if installed in the basement of a suburban house; operating that thing near the top of a multi-story apartment complex probably would cause some sort of calibration errors. The TEMs that I've seen were built on top of some huge concrete blocks (at least 10 feet deep) that were isolated from the surrounding so trucks could pass by without disturbing them.
Don't see why it's worth $60,000 when you can give an entire class of about 100 a regular compound light microscope for everyone to use, as long as it's purely for educational purposes. Nevertheless, it's a pretty cool engineering feat, and I guess someone somewhere could find it practical.
Microsoft's fundamental problem is that they've already sold many people what they need. XP works fine for me. I don't need Vista. Or 7. Office is fine. I don't care about the next round of bells and whistles. Most of what most of us do doesn't require them.
Except Microsoft chooses which you can use. Soon they'll stop selling licenses for XP, you can already only get it on netbooks, and even they probably know that XP is a better product, but force Vista on you anyways. And the same goes for Office - not that I've looked, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't buy Office 2003 if you wanted to.
This is the failure of the software-by-one-company-for-profit model.
Any number of possible solutions. Nanolasers; fiber optics; or they could use x-ray absorbing particles under the surface of the skull which can penetrate soft tissue.
The research as stated in the article isn't exactly meant to be implemented as is for surgical procedures. It has to be engineered in some way that can be used in actual surgical/therapeutic environments. The REAL STORY is that it's possible using a very simple and effective technique. No one said that it was going to be implemented exactly this way.
So I actually believe al contrare that there is much to be expected from this treatment.
Usually in these cases, the particles are surface-activated to only attach to cancer cells. What this means is that cancer cells typically have unique antigens on the surface and the nanoparticles are treated to bind only to them. And since proteins are very picky when they pick what other things they bond to, there's a low chance that it will find another cell with similar morphology to attach to. Then again, considering how diverse and extensive the body is, I'm sure that there's a chance that it could find some other cell to bind to; but that's purely a statistical argument, I'm not referencing any biological data on that front.