ok being masochistically curious i had to search google. and the first result is for a pair of shoes from overstock. WTF is wrong with the marketing geniuses who thought of that name?!
and searching in images (yeah i've got problems) comes up with the brown zune on the front page - now thats more like it!
"If we wanted to travel to Alpha Centauri (the nearest star system to the Earth) when should we start the project?"
Located a mere 24 trillion miles from downtown Manhattan, Proxima Centauri, the dimmest orb in the Alpha Centauri star system, is actually the nearest star to the Earth. It takes light, which travels at 186,200 miles per second, 4.22 years to make the trip.
Now, the Voyager spacecraft is generally considered to be the fastest man-made object traveling in space. It is heading out into interstellar space at a blistering, 38,000 miles per hour.
So, if it was pointed at Proxima Centauri (which it is not) it would take Voyager approximately 73,000 years to get there.
Let's think about project management for a moment. Most of the technology we need for this journey does not yet exist. My rocket scientist friends estimate that it will take mankind approximately 1,000 years to build the ship. Inside that 1,000 year time-frame, let's assume that technological advances allow us to travel four times faster than Voyager's top speed. If we start today, we could reasonably expect to arrive at Proxima Centauri in about 20,000 years.
However, if we wait 10,000 years to start the project, technological advances might allow us a four-fold increase in speed for each 1,000 years we wait which would reduce travel time to about 2,000 years.
Which brings us to the Alpha Centauri paradox. If we start the project today, it will take us approximately 20,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri, but if we wait 10,000 years to start the project, the whole trip will take about 12,000 years.
Yes, in the race to the nearest star, waiting 10,000 years to start will get you there 8,000 years ahead of the people who start building technology today. Would you wait?
I know my workload could use 16 cores, but the average consumer PC?
the more processing power the [average] box has the easier it is to create [bad] applications - meaning less work for certain developers. i would throw a lot of websites & software straight into this category (facebook for example, or office 2007). humans are a naturally lazy species and so will gravitate to this paradigm
this is news?! the itouch get an app that is about a decade old?
i've been using Truphone for about 4 years now, its free and can work with what ever network you want (Wifi, 3g).
i used to live in england and could call the states for free using this software.
maybe they are just ok with limiting their market demographic to those people who dont pirate. its not really a bad bet - since they can save themselves on all the lawsuits and what not. if i were them, i would just have a lot of 'problems' with the sniffer - that way they can just pretend their customers arent doing anything wrong
while we at it, lets also go after the car manufacturers for forcing us to use their wheels/rotors / axles / engines when all i want to do is drive my car.
uhh chips are so fast right now (for normal people) that the industry has been looking at making them super low powered. case in point - the Atom. why on earth do we need faster chips for 85% of use [by hours of usage]?
im sorry to say it but i dont think normal people dont game on their PCs. Even if you and i do.
fair that, that chip went to 8Ghz (which is dam impressive). But it was Pentium 4 architecture, and we all know the P4's sacrificed actual throughput for silly clock speeds (as a marketing gimmick). i bet the 3dmark score on that wasnt more than 25k
i cant tell but is there an incredibly large whoosh goin over my head? (or just your head?). 6.5Ghz is faster than 3. And in other news six is afraid of 7, because 7, 8, 9
from the article.
So far, little is known about the new 10 meter asteroid in our near-Earth neighbourhood, but it provides us with an exciting opportunity to track its laborious orbit to see whether it will eventually be ejected after making a close pass to the Earth's gravitational field (as was the case with 2003 YN107 in 2006).
while i must admit i did not read that before i wrote my OP. i do still think it would be valuable to stick some sensors on it.
I agree land on it! (unmanned mission) Attach a small transceiver sending data back to earth -- we dont need our own spaceships we could just hitch a ride on the '2009 BD express'
while i respect the efforts and thought you have put into how you raise your children, i have to categorically disagree with your approach. i believe that is a difference in world outlook. my POV is this: in the lunch buffet that is life, i want to try all the tasty looking things. its that simple. so while you think public school + church + family = fulfilling life (or existence), i think the opposite.
i worry that the existential realization will haunt your kids as they realize that there is much much more to life then being a good kid or pleasing god. without challenge where would you find satisfaction?
while that was true in past generations, i think that kids are progressively learning social skills through the construct of a game console / social network site / and other virtual interaction.
so while technical skills are clearly becoming more and more common place, they seem to be replacing social skills.
at my job i get a lot of respect simply because i can compose emails that dont offend while constructively solving an issue at hand. this is a skill that is no longer common place [well at least not in techie work places]
Slashdot Mirror
whats sad, is that even that group has a use.
useless facebook group fail!
ok being masochistically curious i had to search google. and the first result is for a pair of shoes from overstock. WTF is wrong with the marketing geniuses who thought of that name?!
and searching in images (yeah i've got problems) comes up with the brown zune on the front page - now thats more like it!
"Welcome to adulthood its boring as hell" FTW!!!
which brings a whole new meaning to 'rule of thumb'
from: http://advancedmediacommittee.typepad.com/emmyadvancedmedia/2007/05/wideband_cable_.html
"If we wanted to travel to Alpha Centauri (the nearest star system to the Earth) when should we start the project?"
Located a mere 24 trillion miles from downtown Manhattan, Proxima Centauri, the dimmest orb in the Alpha Centauri star system, is actually the nearest star to the Earth. It takes light, which travels at 186,200 miles per second, 4.22 years to make the trip.
Now, the Voyager spacecraft is generally considered to be the fastest man-made object traveling in space. It is heading out into interstellar space at a blistering, 38,000 miles per hour.
So, if it was pointed at Proxima Centauri (which it is not) it would take Voyager approximately 73,000 years to get there.
Let's think about project management for a moment. Most of the technology we need for this journey does not yet exist. My rocket scientist friends estimate that it will take mankind approximately 1,000 years to build the ship. Inside that 1,000 year time-frame, let's assume that technological advances allow us to travel four times faster than Voyager's top speed. If we start today, we could reasonably expect to arrive at Proxima Centauri in about 20,000 years.
However, if we wait 10,000 years to start the project, technological advances might allow us a four-fold increase in speed for each 1,000 years we wait which would reduce travel time to about 2,000 years.
Which brings us to the Alpha Centauri paradox. If we start the project today, it will take us approximately 20,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri, but if we wait 10,000 years to start the project, the whole trip will take about 12,000 years.
Yes, in the race to the nearest star, waiting 10,000 years to start will get you there 8,000 years ahead of the people who start building technology today. Would you wait?
I know my workload could use 16 cores, but the average consumer PC?
the more processing power the [average] box has the easier it is to create [bad] applications - meaning less work for certain developers. i would throw a lot of websites & software straight into this category (facebook for example, or office 2007). humans are a naturally lazy species and so will gravitate to this paradigm
Also, eight hours on a charge? Where can I get me some of that?
you can get it here: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-NC10-14GBK-10-2-Inch-Netbook-Processor/dp/B001O94FY8/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1234307109&sr=8-2
its rates it at 6, but other places rate it at 8. to be completely fair - i do own this bit of kit and i regularly get a reading of 6hours batter left. and i run xp - linux would probably realize that 8 hours
this is news?! the itouch get an app that is about a decade old? i've been using Truphone for about 4 years now, its free and can work with what ever network you want (Wifi, 3g). i used to live in england and could call the states for free using this software.
the self whoosh strikes again!!
maybe they are just ok with limiting their market demographic to those people who dont pirate.
its not really a bad bet - since they can save themselves on all the lawsuits and what not. if i were them, i would just have a lot of 'problems' with the sniffer - that way they can just pretend their customers arent doing anything wrong
which is even more funny if you consider the etymology of technology. (basically comes across as 'no logic')
while we at it, lets also go after the car manufacturers for forcing us to use their wheels /rotors / axles / engines when all i want to do is drive my car.
why stop at internet browsers? hell while we are at it, lets blame M$ for including only their calculator, image editor, txt editor, etc.
oh wait... this is the software we actually paid for.
but would you mind condensation in your box? i'll take the fans
IIRC that game can in like 10 CDs - it was ludicrous!
i think thats what they got-- 'Geek Squad' level of expertise (they just wanted to sell the 100BaseT in a later episode)
uhh chips are so fast right now (for normal people) that the industry has been looking at making them super low powered. case in point - the Atom. why on earth do we need faster chips for 85% of use [by hours of usage]?
im sorry to say it but i dont think normal people dont game on their PCs. Even if you and i do.
fair that, that chip went to 8Ghz (which is dam impressive). But it was Pentium 4 architecture, and we all know the P4's sacrificed actual throughput for silly clock speeds (as a marketing gimmick). i bet the 3dmark score on that wasnt more than 25k
yes, yes we do.
i cant tell but is there an incredibly large whoosh goin over my head? (or just your head?). 6.5Ghz is faster than 3. And in other news six is afraid of 7, because 7, 8, 9
from the article. So far, little is known about the new 10 meter asteroid in our near-Earth neighbourhood, but it provides us with an exciting opportunity to track its laborious orbit to see whether it will eventually be ejected after making a close pass to the Earth's gravitational field (as was the case with 2003 YN107 in 2006).
while i must admit i did not read that before i wrote my OP. i do still think it would be valuable to stick some sensors on it.
I agree land on it! (unmanned mission) Attach a small transceiver sending data back to earth -- we dont need our own spaceships we could just hitch a ride on the '2009 BD express'
no really couldnt we?
well i pass your test, but i'll go ahead and still GTFO. MACs are for trolls (evidently)
while i respect the efforts and thought you have put into how you raise your children, i have to categorically disagree with your approach. i believe that is a difference in world outlook.
my POV is this: in the lunch buffet that is life, i want to try all the tasty looking things. its that simple. so while you think public school + church + family = fulfilling life (or existence), i think the opposite.
i worry that the existential realization will haunt your kids as they realize that there is much much more to life then being a good kid or pleasing god.
without challenge where would you find satisfaction?
while that was true in past generations, i think that kids are progressively learning social skills through the construct of a game console / social network site / and other virtual interaction.
so while technical skills are clearly becoming more and more common place, they seem to be replacing social skills.
at my job i get a lot of respect simply because i can compose emails that dont offend while constructively solving an issue at hand. this is a skill that is no longer common place [well at least not in techie work places]
ahh crap, that'll teach me to post before reading below D: