They're going to cost about $4 billion each, but with their reduced crews due to automation, they'll save lots of money to taxpayers during their 50 years of use.
This is like my girlfriend. She's telling me she has saved money when she has bought a skirt from a sales. I never can convince her that she would saved even more money by not buing a fucking skirt.
Seems to me that politicians are to useless war machines as vain girls are to clothes.
1 - They ignore you 2 - They ridicule you 3 - They fight you 4 - You win
This is insightful? Does people in Slashdot really think that being ridiculed is a sure sign of bending victory?
The list is, of course, a valid path to outcome "you win" and insightful obervation. But let me put another list for comparison: 1 - They ignore you 2 - They ridicule you 3 - They fight you 4 - You lose
This list is as valid as your original list.
My point is that if A neccesary preceeds B it still doesn't mean that B must follow A.
The burning of coal is actually responsible for more radioactive waste than nuclear power, and the radioactive waste from coal goes straight into the atmosphere.
When discussing with The Green, I always make a distinction between waste and pollution. Burning coal results radioactive pollution where as nuclear power is pollution free. All it does it that generates some waste.
It's too heavy, fast, and unmaneuverable to ue on sidewalks, and it's too slow, unprotected, and unmaneuverable to use on streets. In essence, for the Segway to work, there'd have to be a completely new set of lanes for it.
How about using bicycle lanes? They are quite common. That is, at least where I come from.
So what happens if the person who you gave access to does something illegal (child porn for example)? Does the host become responsible, legally and/or morally?
I not going to discuss the leagal matters. But if the system is designed to intervent cencorship how can it be immoral if users of the system access somthing that is being cencored? You know, the prohibition of child porn (in it's current extent) is also a form of cencorship.
I agree, but why stop there? Let's outlaw investment into curing diseases. That prevents all of these investors demanding a Return on Investment. No more conflict. Let's just leave them to making "useless shit like viagra".
Don't think I'm saying we shouldn't cure disease. We should. Let's just disallow any money to be invested in curing disease, and only allow diseases to be cured for free. Doesn't that solve all of these problems?
Don't be a fool. Cutting down private funding doesn't meen that there won't be any funding. Just nationalize all drug companies (or buy them, if you will) and let them continue their work (fully funded from public purse) with new priorities so that all results fall to public domain.
I don't believe that "a fast track through the FDA" is ever advisable for any new drug meant for human consumption. Just because it has the potential to cure one of the world's modern plagues doesn't make the likelihood of harmful side effects any less probable. In fact, the huge demand for such a drug, and the massive use of it that will surely follow once (if) it passes through the FDA, should make the testing for potential side effects all the more important.
Potential harm from a drug is just a risk. If the reward is higher (curing AIDS compared to providing huge boner) the tolerable risk is also higer. This speaks for fast track.
Dark matter is required by looking at galaxy rotation curves. Essentially, the rotation speed of galaxies is too fast given the mass that can be seen, so there must be some mass that doesn't emit light as conventional, baryonic matter does.
What you are basically stating is that when we observe galaxies they don't seet to follow the Newton's theory of gravity (or general relativity). So how to solve this contradiction? Well, according to cosmoligist, we just add an error correction term generally known as dark matter. That is all this dark matter is. An error correction term. Another solution is that our theory of gravity is wrong.
I think that the theory of gravity must be altered, not the reality by adding some error correction term with fancy name.
The hood in front of the car is lifted a few inches after 40 or so milliseconds so the pedestrian gets lifted as well and won't get run over by the car but lands on the softer hood and might hit the car glass.
Wow! That's great! Now instead of plebs getting messily caught in my undercarraige, they'll just hit the bonnet and windshield and bounce right off! I can just turn on the sprinklers and wash the blood right off while I sip on my latte! This is genius!
I understand that the reasoning behind the lifting hood is not apparent. But it's still a good thing. Worst traumas from the car crasing to a pedestiran are because the first thing to hit the car after the initial collision is usually the head. Or was. The new design with this lifting hood increases the propability that pedestrian will land on some other bodypart. As the head traumas are the worst thing that can happen this is generally regarded as a good thing.
How about having a slashdot interview about C++0x with Strousrup? I think it would be a good forum to gain more insights about C++ and a fine possibility to allow a community (in this case the slashdot readers) to make and to vote on feature proposals.
From the article: "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google."
I have a hard time beliving that anyone would get offended by the real use of the word fuck: "I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."
So, please, prove me wrong and come forward if you would get offended if Wired prited "fuck" instead of "f***".
Seriously, why is printing "fuck" so difficult? I'm from Europe and I really can't understand you Americans.
The Chinese sponsor students to come to the U.S. with the express goal sometimes of infiltrating research staffs and supplying tech info back to China.
Why is this a problem? In theory, what happens is that a technology is moved from use of 250 million people (all Americans) to use of 1,5 billion people (all Chinese and Americans). Of course, in practice, numbers are smaller but the basic argument remains.
Pics of many of the finalists (including neck down) here
Strange. Most of them look like that they have breast implants. Doesn't modelers know what a real brests look like? Maybe they shouldn't model and surf internet porn (usually girls with brest implants) all the time but try to have date (usually a girl without breast implants).
That's because the US didn't really suffer all that much because of the nazis. Yes, they lost quite a few soldiers; but Europe was reduced to smoking ruins and half of it was occupied by Soviet empire. Germany still hasn't recovered completely; the eastern half still suffers the results of the communistic dictatorship era, a direct result of nazism.
Not that there was anyting great in Nazi dictatorship but:
The reason that Soviet Union didn't conquer the whole western Europe was the Nazi Germany. Stalin was planning an invasion to Western Europe. Only thing that stopped him was Hitler and Germany's military juggernaut. Given that it lost but it managed slow down Soviet invasion to a point that Stalin was only able to conquer only half of Europe.
So there you have it: the western half never suffered the results of the communistic dictatorship era, a direct result of nazism.
he had the most gorgeous Russian administrative assistant. I could write for hours about her. I mean, she was hot and she said things like 'I think my phone just did a core dump' Hi Masha!)
Ok, I pick up that she has made a quite an impression on you. However, I fail to understand what lovable/funny/worth to mention is in a line 'I think my phode just did a core dump'. It's not funny and it's not sexy.
Is..:: Riddles::... In has (amogst others) the famous "prison with a lamp" problem:
100 prisoners are imprisoned in solitary cells. Each cell is windowless and soundproof. There's a central living room with one light bulb; the bulb is initially off. No prisoner can see the light bulb from his or her own cell. Each day, the warden picks a prisoner equally at random, and that prisoner visits the central living room; at the end of the day the prisoner is returned to his cell. While in the living room, the prisoner can toggle the bulb if he or she wishes. Also, the prisoner has the option of asserting the claim that all 100 prisoners have been to the living room. If this assertion is false (that is, some prisoners still haven't been to the living room), all 100 prisoners will be shot for their stupidity. However, if it is indeed true, all prisoners are set free and inducted into MENSA, since the world can always use more smart people. Thus, the assertion should only be made if the prisoner is 100% certain of its validity.
Before this whole procedure begins, the prisoners are allowed to get together in the courtyard to discuss a plan. What is the optimal plan they can agree on, so that eventually, someone will make a correct assertion?
"I got a call that someone had a problem with their computer." "I called. I don't think this big, floppy disk will fit in my tiny drive." "Don't worry, I'll make it fit. Looks like you have some backdoors on here too."
I just reached new level of being a nerd. I got a hard-on because of someone writing naughy messages about computers in slashdot.
Sorry to break this to you but mass production isn't exactly "nothing". It may look trivial but that's just because you have never tried to figure out how to take 1,000 different parts, put them together, repeat 100,000 times a day and then ship ready made computers around the world while allowing a high level of customization. This is, of course, done by Dell. Above the process itself they have managed to get it quite fault tolerant and cheap.
Bouillabaisse sushi Feb 5th 2004 From The Economist print edition
A site will soon be chosen for a new international fusion reactor. This is a pity
IF AVANT-GARDE cuisine is any guide, Japanese-French fusion does not work all that well. And the interminable discussions over the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) suggest that what is true of cooking is true of physics. Japan and France (along with much of the rest of Europe, under the banner of an organisation called Euratom) are supposed to be joining America, China, Russia and South Korea in a project called ITER, which aims to build a fusion reactor.
Such a reactor would generate power by merging the nuclei of hydrogen atoms, and thus liberating the so-called binding energy whose absence, paradoxically, helps to hold complicated atomic nuclei together. This is a process similar to the one that powers the sun. Moreover, unlike previous attempts to do so, ITER would produce more energy than it consumed in getting the hydrogen nuclei hot enough to fuse in the first place.
The current imbroglio is over who gets the reactor, and with it the economic boost of a multibillion-dollar construction project. The two sites remaining in the competition are Cadarache in France and Rokkasho in Japan.
America is siding with Japan, while the French have the backing of the Chinese and the Russians. The South Koreans seem to be sitting on the fence, although leaning--if that is not stretching the metaphor too far--towards Europe. Meetings of ministers in December failed to resolve the issue (indeed, Canada withdrew from the project entirely) and the date for a decision keeps getting pushed back. According to spokesmen from the Japanese embassy in London, early March is now the target.
It is unusual for ministers to be discussing scientific projects of this nature, even ones as expensive as ITER. But the reason for all the attention is not that politicians have suddenly developed a particular interest in physics, but that the question of where to put ITER has become--so observers believe--another proxy for the debate over the war on Iraq. America is commonly thought to be supporting Rokkasho in return for Japan's support in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Russians and Chinese may be trying to spite the Americans by siding with the French. Nor are the French helping the situation by threatening (unlike the Japanese) to pull out of the project entirely if they do not get their way.
One ludicrous compromise would place the reactor in Japan and the data and control centre in France, or vice versa. Such gerrymandering recalls the worst of the International Space Station, a collaborative effort which is a scientific boondoggle, and contrasts badly with collaborations such as CERN, the European centre for particle physics, which is a model for international co-operation on big science projects. So, given ITER's price tag (about $5 billion to build, and another $5 billion in running costs for a 20-year operational lifespan and a ten-year decommissioning period), it might not be a bad outcome if the whole thing did go belly up. Although visionaries have long been lured to the idea of fusion because the fuel, being a constituent of water, is unlikely ever to run out, the economics of the process are dubious.
Boon or boondoggle?
Sceptics (including this newspaper) have pointed out that workable fusion power has seemed perpetually 30 years away since the first experiments were done in the 1950s. Even if the 30-year horizon were actually true on this occasion, the discount rate over three decades, and the opportunity cost of all those billions, would probably make it uneconomic. Nor is the world in obvious need of another way to generate electricity.
There are, of course, arguments on the other side. On the 30-year-horizon question Robert Goldston, the head of the Princeton Pla
Sometime the mechinsim is not the important part; just the discovery.
Couldn't agree more.
What if Newton didn't publish gravity
It wouldn't matter. The theory would be invented later by someone else. My example will be... gravity:
In fact Newton didn't publish his findings for some 14 years. It was Leibniz who published the Theory of Gravity first. More over his methodotology was far superior to Newtons and gave us an invention which importance exceed even the importance of Theory of Gravity: The Calculus.
That being said, Google is much more open to developers than the other monopoly we're familiar with. And they have been collecting money and PhDs at an alarming rate -- they have something big planned.
They don't have any big plans. They just have lots of PhDs and money and no idea what to do with them. That why thay are putting out such "innovative" applications as instant messanger.
Finally, the more effectively our weaponry is, the less likely we'll ever need to use it.
So what you are basically saying that the huge amounts of money throwed at weapon development by USA should reduce the number of war fought by it. Do you really belive this?
How many television shows have you seen depicting the man with lesser intelligence
The telling detail is that all the shows you listed as examples are comedies.
It might be funny that men are shown inferior to women. But I would bet my ass off that if these comedies would regulally show women inferior to men "politically enlightened" people would be claiming that TV shows are sexist.
Slashdot Mirror
They're going to cost about $4 billion each, but with their reduced crews due to automation, they'll save lots of money to taxpayers during their 50 years of use.
This is like my girlfriend. She's telling me she has saved money when she has bought a skirt from a sales. I never can convince her that she would saved even more money by not buing a fucking skirt.
Seems to me that politicians are to useless war machines as vain girls are to clothes.
1 - They ignore you
2 - They ridicule you
3 - They fight you
4 - You win
This is insightful? Does people in Slashdot really think that being ridiculed is a sure sign of bending victory?
The list is, of course, a valid path to outcome "you win" and insightful obervation. But let me put another list for comparison:
1 - They ignore you
2 - They ridicule you
3 - They fight you
4 - You lose
This list is as valid as your original list.
My point is that if A neccesary preceeds B it still doesn't mean that B must follow A.
The burning of coal is actually responsible for more radioactive waste than nuclear power, and the radioactive waste from coal goes straight into the atmosphere.
When discussing with The Green, I always make a distinction between waste and pollution. Burning coal results radioactive pollution where as nuclear power is pollution free. All it does it that generates some waste.
It's too heavy, fast, and unmaneuverable to ue on sidewalks, and it's too slow, unprotected, and unmaneuverable to use on streets. In essence, for the Segway to work, there'd have to be a completely new set of lanes for it.
How about using bicycle lanes? They are quite common. That is, at least where I come from.
So what happens if the person who you gave access to does something illegal (child porn for example)? Does the host become responsible, legally and/or morally?
I not going to discuss the leagal matters. But if the system is designed to intervent cencorship how can it be immoral if users of the system access somthing that is being cencored? You know, the prohibition of child porn (in it's current extent) is also a form of cencorship.
I agree, but why stop there? Let's outlaw investment into curing diseases. That prevents all of these investors demanding a Return on Investment. No more conflict. Let's just leave them to making "useless shit like viagra".
Don't think I'm saying we shouldn't cure disease. We should. Let's just disallow any money to be invested in curing disease, and only allow diseases to be cured for free. Doesn't that solve all of these problems?
Don't be a fool. Cutting down private funding doesn't meen that there won't be any funding. Just nationalize all drug companies (or buy them, if you will) and let them continue their work (fully funded from public purse) with new priorities so that all results fall to public domain.
I don't believe that "a fast track through the FDA" is ever advisable for any new drug meant for human consumption. Just because it has the potential to cure one of the world's modern plagues doesn't make the likelihood of harmful side effects any less probable. In fact, the huge demand for such a drug, and the massive use of it that will surely follow once (if) it passes through the FDA, should make the testing for potential side effects all the more important.
Potential harm from a drug is just a risk. If the reward is higher (curing AIDS compared to providing huge boner) the tolerable risk is also higer. This speaks for fast track.
Dark matter is required by looking at galaxy rotation curves. Essentially, the rotation speed of galaxies is too fast given the mass that can be seen, so there must be some mass that doesn't emit light as conventional, baryonic matter does.
What you are basically stating is that when we observe galaxies they don't seet to follow the Newton's theory of gravity (or general relativity). So how to solve this contradiction? Well, according to cosmoligist, we just add an error correction term generally known as dark matter. That is all this dark matter is. An error correction term. Another solution is that our theory of gravity is wrong.
I think that the theory of gravity must be altered, not the reality by adding some error correction term with fancy name.
The hood in front of the car is lifted a few inches after 40 or so milliseconds so the pedestrian gets lifted as well and won't get run over by the car but lands on the softer hood and might hit the car glass.
Wow! That's great! Now instead of plebs getting messily caught in my undercarraige, they'll just hit the bonnet and windshield and bounce right off! I can just turn on the sprinklers and wash the blood right off while I sip on my latte! This is genius!
I understand that the reasoning behind the lifting hood is not apparent. But it's still a good thing. Worst traumas from the car crasing to a pedestiran are because the first thing to hit the car after the initial collision is usually the head. Or was. The new design with this lifting hood increases the propability that pedestrian will land on some other bodypart. As the head traumas are the worst thing that can happen this is generally regarded as a good thing.
How about having a slashdot interview about C++0x with Strousrup? I think it would be a good forum to gain more insights about C++ and a fine possibility to allow a community (in this case the slashdot readers) to make and to vote on feature proposals.
From the article:
"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google."
I have a hard time beliving that anyone would get offended by the real use of the word fuck:
"I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."
So, please, prove me wrong and come forward if you would get offended if Wired prited "fuck" instead of "f***".
Seriously, why is printing "fuck" so difficult? I'm from Europe and I really can't understand you Americans.
The Chinese sponsor students to come to the U.S. with the express goal sometimes of infiltrating research staffs and supplying tech info back to China.
Why is this a problem? In theory, what happens is that a technology is moved from use of 250 million people (all Americans) to use of 1,5 billion people (all Chinese and Americans). Of course, in practice, numbers are smaller but the basic argument remains.
Pics of many of the finalists (including neck down) here
Strange. Most of them look like that they have breast implants. Doesn't modelers know what a real brests look like? Maybe they shouldn't model and surf internet porn (usually girls with brest implants) all the time but try to have date (usually a girl without breast implants).
code like if(x == 456) is self-explanatory, no comments are needed.
// file not found error
No it's not. "456" should be commented:
if(x == 456)
Or better yet, a variable should be used instead:
final static int ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND;
.
.
.
if(x == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND)
That's because the US didn't really suffer all that much because of the nazis. Yes, they lost quite a few soldiers; but Europe was reduced to smoking ruins and half of it was occupied by Soviet empire. Germany still hasn't recovered completely; the eastern half still suffers the results of the communistic dictatorship era, a direct result of nazism.
Not that there was anyting great in Nazi dictatorship but:
The reason that Soviet Union didn't conquer the whole western Europe was the Nazi Germany. Stalin was planning an invasion to Western Europe. Only thing that stopped him was Hitler and Germany's military juggernaut. Given that it lost but it managed slow down Soviet invasion to a point that Stalin was only able to conquer only half of Europe.
So there you have it: the western half never suffered the results of the communistic dictatorship era, a direct result of nazism.
he had the most gorgeous Russian administrative assistant. I could write for hours about her. I mean, she was hot and she said things like 'I think my phone just did a core dump' Hi Masha!)
Ok, I pick up that she has made a quite an impression on you. However, I fail to understand what lovable/funny/worth to mention is in a line 'I think my phode just did a core dump'. It's not funny and it's not sexy.
Is ..:: Riddles ::... In has (amogst others) the famous "prison with a lamp" problem:
100 prisoners are imprisoned in solitary cells. Each cell is windowless and soundproof. There's a central living room with one light bulb; the bulb is initially off. No prisoner can see the light bulb from his or her own cell. Each day, the warden picks a prisoner equally at random, and that prisoner visits the central living room; at the end of the day the prisoner is returned to his cell. While in the living room, the prisoner can toggle the bulb if he or she wishes. Also, the prisoner has the option of asserting the claim that all 100 prisoners have been to the living room. If this assertion is false (that is, some prisoners still haven't been to the living room), all 100 prisoners will be shot for their stupidity. However, if it is indeed true, all prisoners are set free and inducted into MENSA, since the world can always use more smart people. Thus, the assertion should only be made if the prisoner is 100% certain of its validity.
Before this whole procedure begins, the prisoners are allowed to get together in the courtyard to discuss a plan. What is the optimal plan they can agree on, so that eventually, someone will make a correct assertion?
"I got a call that someone had a problem with their computer."
"I called. I don't think this big, floppy disk will fit in my tiny drive."
"Don't worry, I'll make it fit. Looks like you have some backdoors on here too."
I just reached new level of being a nerd. I got a hard-on because of someone writing naughy messages about computers in slashdot.
My ex-wife.
Am I only one having this eery uncomfortable feeling that this guy isn't joking?
What has Dell ever developed? Nothing.
Sorry to break this to you but mass production isn't exactly "nothing". It may look trivial but that's just because you have never tried to figure out how to take 1,000 different parts, put them together, repeat 100,000 times a day and then ship ready made computers around the world while allowing a high level of customization. This is, of course, done by Dell. Above the process itself they have managed to get it quite fault tolerant and cheap.
Here's the Economist's take on the issue:
Bouillabaisse sushi
Feb 5th 2004
From The Economist print edition
A site will soon be chosen for a new international fusion reactor. This is a pity
IF AVANT-GARDE cuisine is any guide, Japanese-French fusion does not work all that well. And the interminable discussions over the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) suggest that what is true of cooking is true of physics. Japan and France (along with much of the rest of Europe, under the banner of an organisation called Euratom) are supposed to be joining America, China, Russia and South Korea in a project called ITER, which aims to build a fusion reactor.
Such a reactor would generate power by merging the nuclei of hydrogen atoms, and thus liberating the so-called binding energy whose absence, paradoxically, helps to hold complicated atomic nuclei together. This is a process similar to the one that powers the sun. Moreover, unlike previous attempts to do so, ITER would produce more energy than it consumed in getting the hydrogen nuclei hot enough to fuse in the first place.
The current imbroglio is over who gets the reactor, and with it the economic boost of a multibillion-dollar construction project. The two sites remaining in the competition are Cadarache in France and Rokkasho in Japan.
America is siding with Japan, while the French have the backing of the Chinese and the Russians. The South Koreans seem to be sitting on the fence, although leaning--if that is not stretching the metaphor too far--towards Europe. Meetings of ministers in December failed to resolve the issue (indeed, Canada withdrew from the project entirely) and the date for a decision keeps getting pushed back. According to spokesmen from the Japanese embassy in London, early March is now the target.
It is unusual for ministers to be discussing scientific projects of this nature, even ones as expensive as ITER. But the reason for all the attention is not that politicians have suddenly developed a particular interest in physics, but that the question of where to put ITER has become--so observers believe--another proxy for the debate over the war on Iraq. America is commonly thought to be supporting Rokkasho in return for Japan's support in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Russians and Chinese may be trying to spite the Americans by siding with the French. Nor are the French helping the situation by threatening (unlike the Japanese) to pull out of the project entirely if they do not get their way.
One ludicrous compromise would place the reactor in Japan and the data and control centre in France, or vice versa. Such gerrymandering recalls the worst of the International Space Station, a collaborative effort which is a scientific boondoggle, and contrasts badly with collaborations such as CERN, the European centre for particle physics, which is a model for international co-operation on big science projects. So, given ITER's price tag (about $5 billion to build, and another $5 billion in running costs for a 20-year operational lifespan and a ten-year decommissioning period), it might not be a bad outcome if the whole thing did go belly up. Although visionaries have long been lured to the idea of fusion because the fuel, being a constituent of water, is unlikely ever to run out, the economics of the process are dubious.
Boon or boondoggle?
Sceptics (including this newspaper) have pointed out that workable fusion power has seemed perpetually 30 years away since the first experiments were done in the 1950s. Even if the 30-year horizon were actually true on this occasion, the discount rate over three decades, and the opportunity cost of all those billions, would probably make it uneconomic. Nor is the world in obvious need of another way to generate electricity.
There are, of course, arguments on the other side. On the 30-year-horizon question Robert Goldston, the head of the Princeton Pla
Sometime the mechinsim is not the important part; just the discovery.
Couldn't agree more.
What if Newton didn't publish gravity
It wouldn't matter. The theory would be invented later by someone else. My example will be... gravity:
In fact Newton didn't publish his findings for some 14 years. It was Leibniz who published the Theory of Gravity first. More over his methodotology was far superior to Newtons and gave us an invention which importance exceed even the importance of Theory of Gravity: The Calculus.
That being said, Google is much more open to developers than the other monopoly we're familiar with. And they have been collecting money and PhDs at an alarming rate -- they have something big planned.
They don't have any big plans. They just have lots of PhDs and money and no idea what to do with them. That why thay are putting out such "innovative" applications as instant messanger.
Finally, the more effectively our weaponry is, the less likely we'll ever need to use it.
So what you are basically saying that the huge amounts of money throwed at weapon development by USA should reduce the number of war fought by it. Do you really belive this?
How many television shows have you seen depicting the man with lesser intelligence
The telling detail is that all the shows you listed as examples are comedies.
It might be funny that men are shown inferior to women. But I would bet my ass off that if these comedies would regulally show women inferior to men "politically enlightened" people would be claiming that TV shows are sexist.