Don't forget wrapping that car around a family of 4, plus that minor fact that I'm 6'4" and my son is 6'6", and my wife and daughter are both taller than average. Put us in a car with a little comfort and wiggle room, sufficient for a long-ish trip, and it starts out not very small.
Then there's the safety factor, both in terms of visibility and crash-worthiness. I know the relationship between big and crash-worthy isn't strict, but it is a tendency. Furthermore, better visibility both for the driver and for others helps crash avoidance. I'd rather avoid a crash than survive it, and obviously either is better than not surviving.
Obviously burning ethanol emits carbon, but that carbon recently came from the atmosphere. So at least it's not unlocking any carbon that has been long bound as a solid or liquid inside the Earth.
I'm surprised that in this whole discussion I only saw 2 references to butanol. There are several factors about ethanol that make it kind of nasty as a fuel, not the least of which is its tendency to adsorb water. Butanol is much more compatible with our gasoline equipment, and is in the same ballpark in terms of fuel value. But we need a breakthrough or two in order to produce butanol in fuel-like quantities.
The answer is to quit moving stuff as much and as needlessly as we do. Obviously things need to move, but we move practically everything around the world, and we've destroyed local production. That only happens when the cost of transportation is severely undervalued.
I do appreciate the complexity, since I'm in silicon, too. I just don't recall the timeline well enough. Nor do I know the internal details well enough before distortion by marketdroids.
When I reloaded my sister-in-law's machine with the recovery CD, which was old SP1, I brought the machine to my house, and put it behind my hardware firewall.
What you say makes sense, unless like me you're using a years-old recovery/installation CD to reinstall an older system. But I guess that's not normal practice.
I just wasn't sure what Microsoft's slipstream process was, or how up-to-date they kept the retail/OEM pipeline.
Maybe, maybe not. What do you get today when you buy a Retail copy of XP? Is SP2 slipstreamed, at the very least?
I recently reinstalled an XP machine for my sister-in-law, and when I was done with the recovery CD, I'm not sure if the system was at base, or at SP1. I had to install a pile of updates with numerous reboots, and THEN I was able to install SP2, plus then I went on to install yet more updates. Maybe I did it the hard way, maybe I'm a noob with Microsoft products, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the screen was VGA resolution, starting at 256 color and changing to 16 color partway through, and I couldn't fully grok the MS Updates website with so little real estate. I finally got the right drivers loaded some time after SP2.
Of course now you can't buy XP preloads any more, but the relevant data point would have been a freshly-preloaded XP system from late last year.
Did Intel really make "power consumption a key part of their strategy" or did something else happen? If I look at a little recent history and cross that with too many years in corporate America, I see something else...
Intel had a Haifa lab - waaaay out of the corporate mainstream. A few years back, Intel corporate mainstream was wrapped up in NetBurst, high clock rates, and IA64. Also at that time, the wind was still behind those sails on all fronts. There was a small design shop in Haifa playing with CPU architecture under the corporate radar. It's just possible that had they been higher profile, their efforts would have been killed, outright. Anyway, starting with a sensible core, the Pentium3, and doing sensible things to it, they came out with a dynamite CPU for portables. Banias became Centrino. Whether this was "strategy designed for the portable market" or "skunk works keeping interesting jobs in Haifa" I don't know, but the neither would surprise me.
As Banias was coming to market, NetBurst and IA64 were smashing into their respective thermal and market walls. Intel, to their credit, turned practically on a dime, dead-ended NetBurst, and moved forward based on the Banias/Centrino core. But nothing turns immediately, and it's worth noting that even after the rudder was shifted, several re-labelings of NetBurst still came out in the interim, before Core2 was ready.
The fact that Banias/Centrino was done in Haifa, very far away from Intel corporate mainstream, makes me think it was either a skunk works, or intended as a niche product. Nor was there lots of Big Press during Banias development, just the fanfare as Centrino was approaching launch. I haven't been able to find specifics, but I strongly suspect that Core/Core2 development was brought back to the US, closer to HQ.
This is obviously one data point, and as others have mentioned, not even the best point for deployment.
But there's a whole raft of virtualization solutions available, and that's just in the Linux kernel, not to mention the Windows solutions. It would be fun/interesting to see an updated comparison of the various solutions.
Then for the real benchmark point, it would be good to see what IBM does with the Big Iron virtualization. Intel and AMD are finally adding hardware support, and it sounds like Intel is improving its support on upcoming products, and no doubt AMD will be, as well. But IBM has been virtualizing for decades, and IMHO has probably forgotten more than Intel and AMD have ever learned.
I believe it was David's sister Dinah who had sex with (Don't remember if it was rape or consensual, or if pregnancy was involved.) a Philistine, and both families considered it "betrothal", at least until the bride's brothers snuck in at night and slaughtered the groom-to-be and his family.
Jewish code was pretty big on "clean" and "unclean," so it wouldn't surprise me that there would be religious prohibitions regarding sex during pregnancy. There's a certain medical sense to it too, because sex during pregnancy can induce labor. It's also possible that the clean/unclean restrictions around a woman's period might have also increased the odds of a boy, (future worker/warrior) based on more modern observations.
To be perfectly honest, I can't give you a concrete example, even based on hearsay, about where non-missionary is illegal. But I do remember several years back hearing some sort of appeals court (Don't know if it was state or federal.) upholding a ruling against "sex toys," essentially stating that the State was permitted to forbid you to have them in the privacy of your own home.
That's just plain silly. Consenting adults, privacy, and all of that.
But then I think most drug laws are misdirected, too. Not that I approve of drugs, but "supply-side" drug control only raises the prices, drives crimes of financing, criminalizes too many people, and warps our foreign policy. I'd favor treating many/most drugs pretty much the same way we treat alcohol and tobacco. Those aren't perfect either, but at least they don't drag along the terrible side-effects.
There's the old line: Since I'm a law-abiding citizen, I see no problem with government surveillance, wiretaps-without-warrants, etc. They NEED these things to fight TERRORISM!!!
Are you SURE you're a law-abiding citizen? Do you know about this "Anti-Terror List?" How about the other Anti-Terror List, and that other one, over there? Do you KNOW for sure that everyone you've ever done any sort of business with is not on one of these lists, especially the secret ones that you're not allowed to see?
Then maybe you're not really a law-abiding citizen, you just don't and can't know it, at least not until WE want to tell you.
By the way, have you ever had sex using any technique other than missionary position? If so, depending on which state you live in, you may have committed a crime!
>It doesn't matter if the other candidate is only slightly less repugnant. Eventually you'll run the crappy people out.
It's called incremental improvement. We do it to code all the time. No matter how many times Libertarians shout Republicrat! and Demican!, the fact is that we can vote for "even slightly better," even a slightly less owned candidate.
WE have to keep the pressure on, with our votes. Maybe progress will be slow, but right now too many are giving up, using not even incremental pressure. (Not me, I know how I voted in both 2000 and 2004. Bush looked far too "anointed" for my taste even in the primaries, so though registered as an independent, thought I wanted to vote Bradley over Gore, I felt it more important to vote in the Republican primary to vote McCain over Bush in 2000.)
Incremental improvement also has a habit of accelerating. But you have to get started, first.
IMHO, the problem can be focused into 3 of your words, "corporations are individuals," after some rather nasty Supreme Court rulings early in the 20th century.
Also IMHO, had the Framers of the Constitution fully understood the threat that would be posed by corporations, they would have carefully delineated the rights of "assemblies of people" and how they related to individuals, the states, and the federal government. The Framers were clearly concerned about abuse of power, but to them that meant the State and the Church, and they were very careful about them. Theoretically individuals were supposed to have the greatest liberty and power, surrendering only what was necessary to the states, then to the federal government. Corporations were then let in on that level of highest power. As state and federal government have grown power has moved away from individuals, but corporations have been better at keeping their hold on it.
Money is Power. Power is Money. It's about that simple.
Furthermore IMHO, had the Framers known about the future potential for surveillance, they would have enumerated and explicit Right to Privacy. There'd be none of this "No right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution" CRAP coming out of our courts. In the Constitution it reserves all rights not explicitly stated otherwise to the people, and in the Bill of Rights it explicitly states that "this list is not complete."
I still stand that patents as provided for in the Constitution are good. What we've done with them is frequently (usually?) bad.
The original intent of patents and copyrights were to encourage more invention and artistic creation. The "limited term" monopolies were simply means to that end. If an inventor invents something, has invested significant time, money, and effort into it, and as he brings it to market, someone else simply copies it and markets it without royalties, that inventor may not have the wherewithal to invent again. He needs to recoup his costs, in order to keep inventing. To that extent the "limited term monopoly" is good, and the same applies to the artist.
But it's important to remember that the "limited term monopoly" is there to encourage continued invention and artistic creation. It's equally important to remember that "old" inventions and artistic works are supposed to go into the public domain as fodder for the future. The "limited term monopolies" are not supposed to be a revenue model, and these things are where we've lost it.
I don't disagree what what Google is doing is good.
But the system IS broken, and while Google IS doing good. In the Renaissance, ability pay for materials as well as the basics of life drove the need for Patrons in order to do art and science. Today between the quagmire of I.P Law and the fact that our legal system has become deep-pockets based have driven us back in time, to Patronage.
We got to where we are today with copyright law, because "people with deep pockets (??AA) attempted (and succeeded) to bring about changes in that law by using their legal muscle to help establish favorable (to them) legal precedents."
Too bad that ordinary people have gotten completely lost in the shuffle.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget wrapping that car around a family of 4, plus that minor fact that I'm 6'4" and my son is 6'6", and my wife and daughter are both taller than average. Put us in a car with a little comfort and wiggle room, sufficient for a long-ish trip, and it starts out not very small.
Then there's the safety factor, both in terms of visibility and crash-worthiness. I know the relationship between big and crash-worthy isn't strict, but it is a tendency. Furthermore, better visibility both for the driver and for others helps crash avoidance. I'd rather avoid a crash than survive it, and obviously either is better than not surviving.
No mod points today, or I'd give this post some.
Still, maybe a response will draw attention and give it some.
And can you give us another name for the "High-Energy, Multi-Use Plant?"
Could it be...in my best Church-Lady voice... HEMP!?!
Obviously burning ethanol emits carbon, but that carbon recently came from the atmosphere. So at least it's not unlocking any carbon that has been long bound as a solid or liquid inside the Earth.
I'm surprised that in this whole discussion I only saw 2 references to butanol. There are several factors about ethanol that make it kind of nasty as a fuel, not the least of which is its tendency to adsorb water. Butanol is much more compatible with our gasoline equipment, and is in the same ballpark in terms of fuel value. But we need a breakthrough or two in order to produce butanol in fuel-like quantities.
The answer is to quit moving stuff as much and as needlessly as we do. Obviously things need to move, but we move practically everything around the world, and we've destroyed local production. That only happens when the cost of transportation is severely undervalued.
> and much better places to put it.
When do we start?
I do appreciate the complexity, since I'm in silicon, too. I just don't recall the timeline well enough. Nor do I know the internal details well enough before distortion by marketdroids.
When I reloaded my sister-in-law's machine with the recovery CD, which was old SP1, I brought the machine to my house, and put it behind my hardware firewall.
How does that stack up against the NetBurst/Banias/Core2 timeline?
What you say makes sense, unless like me you're using a years-old recovery/installation CD to reinstall an older system. But I guess that's not normal practice.
I just wasn't sure what Microsoft's slipstream process was, or how up-to-date they kept the retail/OEM pipeline.
Maybe, maybe not. What do you get today when you buy a Retail copy of XP? Is SP2 slipstreamed, at the very least?
I recently reinstalled an XP machine for my sister-in-law, and when I was done with the recovery CD, I'm not sure if the system was at base, or at SP1. I had to install a pile of updates with numerous reboots, and THEN I was able to install SP2, plus then I went on to install yet more updates. Maybe I did it the hard way, maybe I'm a noob with Microsoft products, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the screen was VGA resolution, starting at 256 color and changing to 16 color partway through, and I couldn't fully grok the MS Updates website with so little real estate. I finally got the right drivers loaded some time after SP2.
Of course now you can't buy XP preloads any more, but the relevant data point would have been a freshly-preloaded XP system from late last year.
It's a box-to-box comparison.
But unless you're already behind a firewall of some sort, 1 hour is more than long enough to be compromised, BEFORE the updates are done.
Did Intel really make "power consumption a key part of their strategy" or did something else happen? If I look at a little recent history and cross that with too many years in corporate America, I see something else...
Intel had a Haifa lab - waaaay out of the corporate mainstream. A few years back, Intel corporate mainstream was wrapped up in NetBurst, high clock rates, and IA64. Also at that time, the wind was still behind those sails on all fronts. There was a small design shop in Haifa playing with CPU architecture under the corporate radar. It's just possible that had they been higher profile, their efforts would have been killed, outright. Anyway, starting with a sensible core, the Pentium3, and doing sensible things to it, they came out with a dynamite CPU for portables. Banias became Centrino. Whether this was "strategy designed for the portable market" or "skunk works keeping interesting jobs in Haifa" I don't know, but the neither would surprise me.
As Banias was coming to market, NetBurst and IA64 were smashing into their respective thermal and market walls. Intel, to their credit, turned practically on a dime, dead-ended NetBurst, and moved forward based on the Banias/Centrino core. But nothing turns immediately, and it's worth noting that even after the rudder was shifted, several re-labelings of NetBurst still came out in the interim, before Core2 was ready.
The fact that Banias/Centrino was done in Haifa, very far away from Intel corporate mainstream, makes me think it was either a skunk works, or intended as a niche product. Nor was there lots of Big Press during Banias development, just the fanfare as Centrino was approaching launch. I haven't been able to find specifics, but I strongly suspect that Core/Core2 development was brought back to the US, closer to HQ.
This is obviously one data point, and as others have mentioned, not even the best point for deployment.
But there's a whole raft of virtualization solutions available, and that's just in the Linux kernel, not to mention the Windows solutions. It would be fun/interesting to see an updated comparison of the various solutions.
Then for the real benchmark point, it would be good to see what IBM does with the Big Iron virtualization. Intel and AMD are finally adding hardware support, and it sounds like Intel is improving its support on upcoming products, and no doubt AMD will be, as well. But IBM has been virtualizing for decades, and IMHO has probably forgotten more than Intel and AMD have ever learned.
Trying to infer stuff from the Old Testament...
I believe it was David's sister Dinah who had sex with (Don't remember if it was rape or consensual, or if pregnancy was involved.) a Philistine, and both families considered it "betrothal", at least until the bride's brothers snuck in at night and slaughtered the groom-to-be and his family.
Jewish code was pretty big on "clean" and "unclean," so it wouldn't surprise me that there would be religious prohibitions regarding sex during pregnancy. There's a certain medical sense to it too, because sex during pregnancy can induce labor. It's also possible that the clean/unclean restrictions around a woman's period might have also increased the odds of a boy, (future worker/warrior) based on more modern observations.
To be perfectly honest, I can't give you a concrete example, even based on hearsay, about where non-missionary is illegal. But I do remember several years back hearing some sort of appeals court (Don't know if it was state or federal.) upholding a ruling against "sex toys," essentially stating that the State was permitted to forbid you to have them in the privacy of your own home.
That's just plain silly. Consenting adults, privacy, and all of that.
But then I think most drug laws are misdirected, too. Not that I approve of drugs, but "supply-side" drug control only raises the prices, drives crimes of financing, criminalizes too many people, and warps our foreign policy. I'd favor treating many/most drugs pretty much the same way we treat alcohol and tobacco. Those aren't perfect either, but at least they don't drag along the terrible side-effects.
There's the old line:
Since I'm a law-abiding citizen, I see no problem with government surveillance, wiretaps-without-warrants, etc. They NEED these things to fight TERRORISM!!!
Are you SURE you're a law-abiding citizen? Do you know about this "Anti-Terror List?" How about the other Anti-Terror List, and that other one, over there? Do you KNOW for sure that everyone you've ever done any sort of business with is not on one of these lists, especially the secret ones that you're not allowed to see?
Then maybe you're not really a law-abiding citizen, you just don't and can't know it, at least not until WE want to tell you.
By the way, have you ever had sex using any technique other than missionary position? If so, depending on which state you live in, you may have committed a crime!
The grandparent post brings up a good point:
>It doesn't matter if the other candidate is only slightly less repugnant. Eventually you'll run the crappy people out.
It's called incremental improvement. We do it to code all the time. No matter how many times Libertarians shout Republicrat! and Demican!, the fact is that we can vote for "even slightly better," even a slightly less owned candidate.
WE have to keep the pressure on, with our votes. Maybe progress will be slow, but right now too many are giving up, using not even incremental pressure. (Not me, I know how I voted in both 2000 and 2004. Bush looked far too "anointed" for my taste even in the primaries, so though registered as an independent, thought I wanted to vote Bradley over Gore, I felt it more important to vote in the Republican primary to vote McCain over Bush in 2000.)
Incremental improvement also has a habit of accelerating. But you have to get started, first.
IMHO, the problem can be focused into 3 of your words, "corporations are individuals," after some rather nasty Supreme Court rulings early in the 20th century.
Also IMHO, had the Framers of the Constitution fully understood the threat that would be posed by corporations, they would have carefully delineated the rights of "assemblies of people" and how they related to individuals, the states, and the federal government. The Framers were clearly concerned about abuse of power, but to them that meant the State and the Church, and they were very careful about them. Theoretically individuals were supposed to have the greatest liberty and power, surrendering only what was necessary to the states, then to the federal government. Corporations were then let in on that level of highest power. As state and federal government have grown power has moved away from individuals, but corporations have been better at keeping their hold on it.
Money is Power. Power is Money. It's about that simple.
Furthermore IMHO, had the Framers known about the future potential for surveillance, they would have enumerated and explicit Right to Privacy. There'd be none of this "No right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution" CRAP coming out of our courts. In the Constitution it reserves all rights not explicitly stated otherwise to the people, and in the Bill of Rights it explicitly states that "this list is not complete."
I still stand that patents as provided for in the Constitution are good.
What we've done with them is frequently (usually?) bad.
The original intent of patents and copyrights were to encourage more invention and artistic creation. The "limited term" monopolies were simply means to that end. If an inventor invents something, has invested significant time, money, and effort into it, and as he brings it to market, someone else simply copies it and markets it without royalties, that inventor may not have the wherewithal to invent again. He needs to recoup his costs, in order to keep inventing. To that extent the "limited term monopoly" is good, and the same applies to the artist.
But it's important to remember that the "limited term monopoly" is there to encourage continued invention and artistic creation. It's equally important to remember that "old" inventions and artistic works are supposed to go into the public domain as fodder for the future. The "limited term monopolies" are not supposed to be a revenue model, and these things are where we've lost it.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I remember walking out of Star Wars when it first came out and saying to myself, that's not science fiction, it's a swashbuckler.
Haven't seen Doomsday yet. It's sitting on my hard drive along with the rest of the second season. I've only watched The Christmas Invasion.
Who was Catherine Tate?
I was always partial to Sarah Jane Smith.
I don't disagree what what Google is doing is good.
But the system IS broken, and while Google IS doing good. In the Renaissance, ability pay for materials as well as the basics of life drove the need for Patrons in order to do art and science. Today between the quagmire of I.P Law and the fact that our legal system has become deep-pockets based have driven us back in time, to Patronage.
Seems ungood, but then again...
We got to where we are today with copyright law, because "people with deep pockets (??AA) attempted (and succeeded) to bring about changes in that law by using their legal muscle to help establish favorable (to them) legal precedents."
Too bad that ordinary people have gotten completely lost in the shuffle.
We're back to the Renaissance patronage system.
OK, Cue the Ayn Rand references.
Selfishness is good, and explain why.
Altruism is evil, and explain why.