Remember, no spinning platter means you don't have to worry about bumping a gyroscope - an SSD is inherently more shock resistant. I'm under the belief an SSD uses less power than a HDD.
I have one SSD. It's in my netbook, I removed my perfectly functional factory HDD and replaced it with a smaller SSD since I really don't need my storage space
Yes, an SSD is more shock resistant. However, it is the screen that tends the break when laptop/netbook is dropped, not the hard drive.
BS. I have a friend who has gone through about 7 phones in the last 5 years. He buys the replacements. How has he damaged them? He leads an active lifestyle - rock climbing, hiking, rides a motorbike. He also got mugged twice.
So I would say that old people don't engage in activities which could result in a phone breaking because they are... well... old.
No. Responsible people make sure their phone are secure. I'm an inline speed skater. I've crashed countless times while carrying my phone and have the scars to prove it. I've damaged my phone this way exacdtly 0 times. I attribute this to not throwing the phone into any ol' pocket and going.
What's with all these new CPUs being labeled for "Windows 8 only?" First it was the new Intel processor, now AMD. Does Microsoft have some new ridiculous "partnership" strategy going on that we need to be aware of?
I think it is most likely that they don't think they can compete with ARM for the Android market. x86 compatibility isn't a compelling feature for an android machine. To the extend that ISA matters, the ISA to be compatible with is ARM. This makes it really hard for Intel and AMD to win supplying chips for Android devices. Windows 8 is an easier market for them to penetrate in the short run. In the long run, both AMD and Intel benefit from steering mobile devices to a platform that at least encourages x86 compatibility.
No more enrichment, ever. Needs Uranium only to start the reactor.
It needs enriched uranium to start. Not bomb-grade but a higher level then used in uranium reactors.
Alternatively, Uranium-233 can be extracted chemically from an existing plant but handling is tricky due to the presence of intensely radioactive Uranium-232 (That's actually why it isn't a source of bomb material. It is too difficult to separate U-232 from U-233 and if you don't the gammas do ugly things to the other parts of bomb and the people handling them)
In the new company, software is not what this company does primarily.
I've always tried to be in companies in which what I did was directly tied to the company's main business. There is an analogy to a river: You want to be in the main stream, not in some backwater, so that when things get tight and money dries up, you're not left high and dry -- as in, a department or division that can be conveniently closed as a "cost reduction," with little (immediate) effect on their main business
This. But it is more than just job security. It is also motivation and job satisfaction. When what you do is the company's main business, especially in smaller companies, you can feel that your contribution matters. The company's success is your success and you are generally treated better too. In a supporting role, especially in a larger organization, your contribution doesn't obviously tie into the company's success. Your success may have little meaning or recognition beyond the egos involved in corporate politics.
And if the leaders of the startup don't understand the power and limitations of those cards, then you're in trouble.
True to an extent. As an early-stage entrepreneur, you need to put on many hats.
Keep in mind also, that as an entrepreneur you're selling a product, not the code. I've met many very successful entrepreneurs of later stage enterprises, who have gone through multiple rounds of funding and are worth hundreds of millions. The people at the helm were all there in the beginning, but they are no longer part of the day-to-day, and probably could not explain the fine-grain details of the product anymore as well as the chemists on the ground floor could. But they can still sell their product without knowing the exact details of the chemical processes, and they made the tough choice of divorcing themselves from the day-to-day research in favor of steering the overall direction of the ship.
True, but there is a difference between not knowing the details of what R&D is doing and not being able to understand what they are doing. Entrepreneurs at every level, must occasionally make decisions that depend on understanding their own technology. If they can do this without being at mercy of advisers to interpret for them, they and their company will be much better off.
I made a game, hosted on facebook that earns me a fair income from people spending facebook credits with it...... Facebook handle everything to do with credits, etc.... purchasing them, giving refunds, etc.
How can I make money, if Diaspora took over. Would people become too frightened to spend if there isn't a benevolent dictator to step in should they feel they've been duped?... If I cant make money, then I wont make stuff. No stuff, means a boring Social network
No. It means a social network with less potential for people who want to make money there and fewer annoyances for the users.
People don't join Facebook to play your games. They join Facebook to connect with their friends. They play your games (those that do) because they are already on Facebook.
For those that don't play games, the games that their friends play are an annoyance as they bombard them with useless requests and "information" they don't care about. (Honestly, even a description of a friend's breakfast is more interesting than the results of their latest hit in Mafia Wars)
You don't even have to go non-flammable - large transformers that you might see next to buildings have been using oil as a coolant and insulation for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_oil
They also explode and catch fire every now and then. Of course, they are also carrying high voltages and statistically it is pretty rare.
Kids do 75% of their growing during 25% of the year: the summer when they actually get sleep mostly and also sufficient food whenever they want to eat it. So cut out a bit of the summer, and we're gonna have some short kids:-P Of course, several school districts in the US bumped start time up 1 hour to like 9:00 and behavioral problems basically disappeared, skipping school stopped, test scores went through the roof, and kids' opinions of school went up. Since kids aren't designed to get up that early, it's just because of their selfish, lazy, assholes parents that both work, maybe they should just implement that instead.
You can do that with both parents working. You just need to be a little flexible with their work schedule.
Western technology is what caused western birthrates.
No. Western economies and social services caused western birthrates.
In an industrial economy children don't work so they provide no contemporary economic benefit to their parents. In a prosperous industrial economy, children aren't needed to support their parents when the parents are no longer able to work. Children are economic liabilities to their parents so not so many are born.
In an agrarian economy, children help work the fields. When they grow up, they support their parents because no-one else will. It is advantagous to have many children so that the fields are taken care of and there will always be someone to take care of you when you are old.
If you people in an agrarian economy western technology, they will still have an agrarian economy. They will still have many children but those children will survive the periodic collapses that would have kept the population in check without western help.
(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)
No. It isn't uncomfortable. The body adapts. Without the protection of the foreskin, the penis becomes less sensitive. This, of course, has other consequences.
(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)
I occasionally see reports about circumcision affecting cancer outcomes, AIDS transmission, things like that.
What completely mystifies me, is the mechanics of these effects. Perhaps a foreskin can lead to increased transmission of AIDS. How? By what mechanism?
By having unprotected sex and never washing, infectious detritus can be trapped between the foreskin and the penis.
The whole idea is asinine. Butchering babies because they might grow up to be promiscuous while neglecting basic hygiene.
Can someone link to a study that proves that GMO food is safe?.
No, because it is logically impossible to prove that anything is safe. "Safe" is simply the lack of harm so proving safety necessarily requires proving a negative. It is also highly improbably because non-gmo is known to be not-safe. It will cause harm. It is only a question of degree and to whom.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it. Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid, but, hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech - why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs rather than saying "trust me, you don't need to know this".
Probably because they don't think it will work. When people are thinking rationally, it is practical to sway their opinions by presenting facts. When a large number of people have made up their minds and turned themselves into a movement that is highly skeptical of any "facts" from outside of the movement and wholly accepting of "facts" from within the movement, reason becomes nearly waste of time.
It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
Shelf space is limited. Products that don't sell well enough are soon not available. Is there really a difference between being banned and being forced off the shelf by a default boycott?
Maybe we can convince the Saudis to take offense to the other new domains too. Then, maybe the spirit of cultural sensitivity can accomplish the scraping of a bone-headed plan which the voice of reason failed to do.
Oxygen Toxicity can be rather unpleasant though an hour at STP wouldn't be enough to kill you. Be careful that you don't scuff your feet. I would also dump the sweater before entering the chamber.
Just curious. If someone at NASA put out some requirements for a small subsystem how many people here would work on helping develop it in their spare time? I've tried to make this point. There are some things that can be crowd sourced. I think the public could get involved if the ITAR stuff could be avoided.
For example let's say a bracket was needed to hold a sensor. NASA could post the mass, size and Interface for the sensor and list the shock and vib requirements. Then let whoever wants to submit a design with analysis. Then the responsible engineer could review them and pick a design.
Or he could design it himself in less time than it takes to write the detailed specs and vet the submissions.
They say it they will be selling them for $1.35M each. But not many anime geeks can afford $1.35M toys. Is there some practical industrial application that the developers have in mind but don't seem to want to publicize at this point?
Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era, when Antarctica was a desert (or even during the Paleozoic era, when it was a swamp)?
While I agree with the premise that the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past, your examples fail to account for continental drift. Antarctica wasn't was not at the South Pole during the Mesozoic. Even when it did drift South, it didn't actually freeze over until it separated from South America and was surrounded by the circumpolar currents.
In the Paleozoic, Antarctica did not yet exist as a continent. I don't know where all the parts were or what pre-Pangea land masses they were attached to.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, no spinning platter means you don't have to worry about bumping a gyroscope - an SSD is inherently more shock resistant. I'm under the belief an SSD uses less power than a HDD.
I have one SSD. It's in my netbook, I removed my perfectly functional factory HDD and replaced it with a smaller SSD since I really don't need my storage space
Yes, an SSD is more shock resistant. However, it is the screen that tends the break when laptop/netbook is dropped, not the hard drive.
BS. I have a friend who has gone through about 7 phones in the last 5 years. He buys the replacements. How has he damaged them? He leads an active lifestyle - rock climbing, hiking, rides a motorbike. He also got mugged twice.
So I would say that old people don't engage in activities which could result in a phone breaking because they are... well... old.
No. Responsible people make sure their phone are secure. I'm an inline speed skater. I've crashed countless times while carrying my phone and have the scars to prove it. I've damaged my phone this way exacdtly 0 times. I attribute this to not throwing the phone into any ol' pocket and going.
What's with all these new CPUs being labeled for "Windows 8 only?" First it was the new Intel processor, now AMD. Does Microsoft have some new ridiculous "partnership" strategy going on that we need to be aware of?
I think it is most likely that they don't think they can compete with ARM for the Android market. x86 compatibility isn't a compelling feature for an android machine. To the extend that ISA matters, the ISA to be compatible with is ARM. This makes it really hard for Intel and AMD to win supplying chips for Android devices. Windows 8 is an easier market for them to penetrate in the short run. In the long run, both AMD and Intel benefit from steering mobile devices to a platform that at least encourages x86 compatibility.
The real solution are LFTR reactors.
No more enrichment, ever.
Needs Uranium only to start the reactor.
It needs enriched uranium to start. Not bomb-grade but a higher level then used in uranium reactors.
Alternatively, Uranium-233 can be extracted chemically from an existing plant but handling is tricky due to the presence of intensely radioactive Uranium-232
(That's actually why it isn't a source of bomb material. It is too difficult to separate U-232 from U-233 and if you don't the gammas do ugly things to the other parts of bomb and the people handling them)
The red flag for me was,
In the new company, software is not what this company does primarily.
I've always tried to be in companies in which what I did was directly tied to the company's main business. There is an analogy to a river: You want to be in the main stream, not in some backwater, so that when things get tight and money dries up, you're not left high and dry -- as in, a department or division that can be conveniently closed as a "cost reduction," with little (immediate) effect on their main business
This. But it is more than just job security. It is also motivation and job satisfaction. When what you do is the company's main business, especially in smaller companies, you can feel that your contribution matters. The company's success is your success and you are generally treated better too. In a supporting role, especially in a larger organization, your contribution doesn't obviously tie into the company's success. Your success may have little meaning or recognition beyond the egos involved in corporate politics.
They got rid of PS2, they killed off the floppy, they are pushing thunderbolt foward.
That all seems pretty leading edge to me.
PS2? Did Apple ever use PS2? Prior to the switch to USB with the iMac, Apple machines used ADB for keyboards and mice.
Time to go long on cats? *buy* *buy* *buy*
That's the Toxoplasmosis talking.
And if the leaders of the startup don't understand the power and limitations of those cards, then you're in trouble.
True to an extent. As an early-stage entrepreneur, you need to put on many hats.
Keep in mind also, that as an entrepreneur you're selling a product, not the code. I've met many very successful entrepreneurs of later stage enterprises, who have gone through multiple rounds of funding and are worth hundreds of millions. The people at the helm were all there in the beginning, but they are no longer part of the day-to-day, and probably could not explain the fine-grain details of the product anymore as well as the chemists on the ground floor could. But they can still sell their product without knowing the exact details of the chemical processes, and they made the tough choice of divorcing themselves from the day-to-day research in favor of steering the overall direction of the ship.
True, but there is a difference between not knowing the details of what R&D is doing and not being able to understand what they are doing. Entrepreneurs at every level, must occasionally make decisions that depend on understanding their own technology. If they can do this without being at mercy of advisers to interpret for them, they and their company will be much better off.
I made a game, hosted on facebook that earns me a fair income from people spending facebook credits with it. ..... Facebook handle everything to do with credits, etc.... purchasing them, giving refunds, etc.
How can I make money, if Diaspora took over. Would people become too frightened to spend if there isn't a benevolent dictator to step in should they feel they've been duped?... If I cant make money, then I wont make stuff. No stuff, means a boring Social network
No. It means a social network with less potential for people who want to make money there and fewer annoyances for the users.
People don't join Facebook to play your games. They join Facebook to connect with their friends. They play your games (those that do) because they are already on Facebook.
For those that don't play games, the games that their friends play are an annoyance as they bombard them with useless requests and "information" they don't care about. (Honestly, even a description of a friend's breakfast is more interesting than the results of their latest hit in Mafia Wars)
One example of non-flammable oil is Silicone Oil
You don't even have to go non-flammable - large transformers that you might see next to buildings have been using oil as a coolant and insulation for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_oil
They also explode and catch fire every now and then. Of course, they are also carrying high voltages and statistically it is pretty rare.
Kids do 75% of their growing during 25% of the year: the summer when they actually get sleep mostly and also sufficient food whenever they want to eat it. So cut out a bit of the summer, and we're gonna have some short kids :-P Of course, several school districts in the US bumped start time up 1 hour to like 9:00 and behavioral problems basically disappeared, skipping school stopped, test scores went through the roof, and kids' opinions of school went up. Since kids aren't designed to get up that early, it's just because of their selfish, lazy, assholes parents that both work, maybe they should just implement that instead.
You can do that with both parents working. You just need to be a little flexible with their work schedule.
For most devices, the safe non-operating temperature range is substantially broader than then operating range.
Western technology is what caused western birthrates.
No. Western economies and social services caused western birthrates.
In an industrial economy children don't work so they provide no contemporary economic benefit to their parents. In a prosperous industrial economy, children aren't needed to support their parents when the parents are no longer able to work. Children are economic liabilities to their parents so not so many are born.
In an agrarian economy, children help work the fields. When they grow up, they support their parents because no-one else will. It is advantagous to have many children so that the fields are taken care of and there will always be someone to take care of you when you are old.
If you people in an agrarian economy western technology, they will still have an agrarian economy. They will still have many children but those children will survive the periodic collapses that would have kept the population in check without western help.
(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)
No. It isn't uncomfortable. The body adapts. Without the protection of the foreskin, the penis becomes less sensitive. This, of course, has other consequences.
(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)
I occasionally see reports about circumcision affecting cancer outcomes, AIDS transmission, things like that.
What completely mystifies me, is the mechanics of these effects. Perhaps a foreskin can lead to increased transmission of AIDS. How? By what mechanism?
By having unprotected sex and never washing, infectious detritus can be trapped between the foreskin and the penis.
The whole idea is asinine. Butchering babies because they might grow up to be promiscuous while neglecting basic hygiene.
Robot
You could also turn into a web cam or, with appropriate sensors, a weather station.
No. The FCC ruling only apples to the 700Mhz band that Verizon is using for LTE. T-Mobile doesn't have any spectrum in the 700Mhz band.
Can someone link to a study that proves that GMO food is safe?.
No, because it is logically impossible to prove that anything is safe. "Safe" is simply the lack of harm so proving safety necessarily requires proving a negative. It is also highly improbably because non-gmo is known to be not-safe. It will cause harm. It is only a question of degree and to whom.
The "truth" about a food includes whether genetically-modified organisms were involved in producing it. Perhaps those advocating labeling are doing so for reasons that aren't scientifically valid, but, hey, maybe the answer to bad speech is more speech - why don't the agribusinesses spend their money making the case for food the production of which involves GMOs rather than saying "trust me, you don't need to know this".
Probably because they don't think it will work. When people are thinking rationally, it is practical to sway their opinions by presenting facts. When a large number of people have made up their minds and turned themselves into a movement that is highly skeptical of any "facts" from outside of the movement and wholly accepting of "facts" from within the movement, reason becomes nearly waste of time.
It's not as if it's banning GMO-based foods.
Shelf space is limited. Products that don't sell well enough are soon not available. Is there really a difference between being banned and being forced off the shelf by a default boycott?
Maybe we can convince the Saudis to take offense to the other new domains too. Then, maybe the spirit of cultural sensitivity can accomplish the scraping of a bone-headed plan which the voice of reason failed to do.
Oxygen Toxicity can be rather unpleasant though an hour at STP wouldn't be enough to kill you. Be careful that you don't scuff your feet. I would also dump the sweater before entering the chamber.
And how do Hawaii's income levels compare with the national average? I'm guessing it's on the higher side.
Although the 2003 median income of $71,320 for a family of 4 in Hawaii was higher than the national figure of $65,093, this is still below the amount required to maintain the same standard of living for a family of 4 in Hawaii as elsewhere in America
Just curious. If someone at NASA put out some requirements for a small subsystem how many people here would work on helping develop it in their spare time? I've tried to make this point. There are some things that can be crowd sourced. I think the public could get involved if the ITAR stuff could be avoided.
For example let's say a bracket was needed to hold a sensor. NASA could post the mass, size and Interface for the sensor and list the shock and vib requirements. Then let whoever wants to submit a design with analysis. Then the responsible engineer could review them and pick a design.
Or he could design it himself in less time than it takes to write the detailed specs and vet the submissions.
They say it they will be selling them for $1.35M each. But not many anime geeks can afford $1.35M toys. Is there some practical industrial application that the developers have in mind but don't seem to want to publicize at this point?
Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era, when Antarctica was a desert (or even during the Paleozoic era, when it was a swamp)?
While I agree with the premise that the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past, your examples fail to account for continental drift.
Antarctica wasn't was not at the South Pole during the Mesozoic. Even when it did drift South, it didn't actually freeze over until it separated from South America and was surrounded by the circumpolar currents.
In the Paleozoic, Antarctica did not yet exist as a continent. I don't know where all the parts were or what pre-Pangea land masses they were attached to.