the core becomes much more compact (and much hotter) trying to squeeze out the required energy with very little hydrogen remaining.
I really wish you wouldn't repeatedly use this terminology.
It is decidedly un-informative to explain what an inanimate object is "trying" to do. And what's more, a much more accurate and informative explanation is really no longer or more difficult to offer.
A quick and sloppy example:
"As hydrogen is depleted, the [outward] pressure from hydrogen fusion can no longer [fully] counteract the force of gravity, so the star's density increases, and the core pressure rises [getting hotter] until the point that helium fusion occurs."
See... Now people might actually understand why stars don't "try" to fuse helium, until the hydrogen supply is depleted.
AMD plays a much better and more important role for Intel... Forcing them to make reasonably good stuff.
It's worth noting that Intel is using the AMD-64 instruction set in their processors. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that, without AMD, Intel would still be stumbling along trying to push Itanium, and selling only Pentium 4s. In which case, Apple certainly wouldn't have switched over, and, would still be buying PPC chips from IBM. Many other companies, similarly, would still be using proprietary chips. Alpha and MIPS would be alive and well, and Sun SPARC would be doing much, much better.
It's ironic that, what large companies want most, is to AVOID those things that actually help them the most. Just about every company would be happy to rid itself of competitors, but they would quickly find their market stagnating, and their products undesirable. Even now, US auto manufacturers are fighting tooth and nail against higher fuel efficiency standards, when it's clear higher fuel efficiency is exactly what they need to do, and historically has caused their own sales, and the entire market, to rise.
A plurality of nations of equal military strengh would lead to WWIII in short order, unless you think something basic about people has changed in the last 60 years.
The existence of large aircraft, ballistic missiles, and nuclear bombs seems to fit this criteria quite nicely.
Most European wars were fought by the lower-class chattel on the front lines, while the rest of the country was fairly safe, and the leaders much more so. With the introduction of nuclear bombs, large and long range aircraft, and ICBMs, it's clear that any nation that can really militarily challenge a major power will quickly have every square inch of their territory turned into radioactive glass.
This *DOES* do a very good job of heavily shifting the risk/reward scenario (of starting a war) very heavily towards the "risk" column. This is not a change in the people, per-se (as people though out history have shown a reluctance to induce their own destruction and death) but a change in the technology of war that has significantly changed the consequences.
You said before that the US has never defaulted on its explicit debt and you are correct, but the risk is still there. If you want a risk free investment strategy, take your money and put it in a checking account. It is protected by the FDIC, some even offer a small rate of return, and there is no risk.
Banks aren't any more risk-free than government bonds. Banks can go under and then you are dependant on the government to eventually pay you back. Errors in paperwork can occur, identity fraud happens, etc. And more than that, if you aren't willing to trust a certain government with your money they don't need to default on your bonds. They could just as easily seize banks under their jurisdiction at any time.
Gambling does not require a "house". It's difficult for non-existent parties to "always win".
On average, wealth grew and will continue to grow at a reasonable rate over time.
How unfortunate for you that you can't invest in the "average" stock, at the "average" time.
Making an unsubstantiated claim linking on investment to what is basically a means to throw your money away is ignorant and silly.
Gambling is not throwing money away. Gambling is taking risks (beyond your control) with your money. That is exactly what you face in the stock market.
How is a treasury bond a sure thing? governments default on their debt.
That is certainly possible, but I suppose about equally likely of happening as that same government seizing the assets of a private bank where you are storing your money.
The US has not defaulted on its debt even once.
and might be lowered due to inflation and changes in interest rates.
An risk you face, no matter how you store your money, having nothing to do with bonds.
It isn't a gamble. Some investments are riskier than others. No investment is risk free.
Absolutely every single thing you've said is precisely the OPPOSITE of reality.
BluRay-Discs were at the beginning so vulnerable to scratches that they were considered impossible to market.
No, actually they were vulnerable to scratches, so they were put in caddies. A system I greatly wish was adopted. Having used both, I can tell you, handling bare discs requires an order of magnitude more time, care and effort.
Instead of going to market with caddies, they opted for an extremely durable hard coating on the discs. They've demonstrated attacking Blu Ray discs with a screwdriver, all still without causing any scratching of the discs.
but still they wouldn't even get nearby close to HDDVD, which already were as resistant as CDROMs
Blu-ray is FAR more scratch resistant than HD DVD... which isn't really a big challenge...
With HD DVD, Toshiba is packing data on the discs far more densely, which means far, far smaller scratches cause far, far more damage. Given a similar situation, Sony chose a couple ways to make it harder to damage the discs before releasing them. Toshiba, however, did nothing to mitigate this, and HD DVDs must be handled like precious antiques to prevent inadvertently causing errors.
It's a much fairer comparison to say that Blu-ray discs are more durable than all previous (bare/non-caddied) optical discs.
They show that you cannot just solve a problem by throwing more storage space at it. Better invest $10 in a better decoder chip and you'll get away with half of the bitrate,
HD DVD SUPPORTS EXACTLY THE SAME VIDEO CODECS AS BLU-RAY.
If you need higher bitrates, simply offer more storage space, which might as most require upgrading the drive.
Nobody is going to take apart their Toshiba HD DVD players, pull out the drive, and replace it with a new one.
BluRay, on the other hand, is maxed out
Sony has demonstrated Blu-Ray discs with a ridiculously large number of layers. It is far, far LESS "maxed out" than HD DVD ever was.
but Toshiba figured out how to top 50GB using HD-DVD discs as the technology got more mature.
3-layer HD DVDs was just a PR stunt. None were ever produced, and I'm willing to bet that none of the existing HD DVD players could read them, so it might just as well have been a new format that nobody would have adopted.
Sony demonstrated much, much higher numbers of layers on Blu Ray discs as well.
You're welcome to break into any of my systems using a user account that has been disabled, and has no permission to access anything. eg. user "nobody". That's precisely how I would set up a sftp group.
WebDav with ApacheSSL properly installed is lots safer.
Why? No privilege separation. A MUCH bigger code base.
Not to mention fewer standalone programs.
IMHO there should never be user accounts on a machine,
Why not? The user security model is reliable and time tested. It does not require reinventing the "user". It does not depend on one program handling it's own system of virtual permissions correctly. It does not depend on the security of a large program that users directly interact with.
So, no, Google shouldn't be allowed to patent their PageRank system.
You're also saying that h.264/AVC shouldn't exist. You're also saying 802.11 shouldn't exist. In fact, you're saying NO open standards should exist...
Without software patents, EVERYTHING would have to depend on being trade secret and closed source to make any money. And because reverse engineering is relatively easy, instead of one big open standard with a lot of improvements, every company would have to come out with a new version of a product, each with one small improvement, to keep everything profitable.
By saying you don't want any software patents at all, you're saying you long for the (bad) old days of RealPlayer, 4DTV, TwinVQ/VQF, Cinepak, and everything else proprietary.
What's your solution? Are companies supposed to go proprietary? Are they just supposed to NOT spend any money developing new software and formats?
DVD became a runaway success because (a) it was cheap, and (b) it gave noticable picture-quality improvements and other advantages that could be enjoyed with existing setups.
DVD became a "runaway success" while it was very expensive... much more expensive than VHS. DVD players and discs are cheap NOW, but that wasn't at all the case in the beginning, when DVD was becoming the most quickly adopted consumer technology ever.
How much better DVDs looked on standard TVs is debatable. The cheap Asian DVD players with the wrong black level, running through a cheap RF adapter that darkens and distorts it even more, displaying a letter-boxed extremely widescreen (2.37:1) image on a 4:3 TV, with subsampled chroma... It's quite possible is many scenarios that playing a DVD was far lower resolution than an equivalent VHS tape.
i've just re-read that and realised that is exactly how free software works, so i suppose such a system would work just as well as free software has.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Open source software has several factors going for it, that would not be true if applied to art.
For one, numerous open source projects are funded by companies who stand to financially benefit from the fruits of the project... eg. If you sell a web server, you might benefit from a good web browser being available to the public. If you sell ARM hardware, you might benefit from high quality open source software that will run on, and be optimized for ARM. etc., etc. This influx of cash is a big reason these "hard" software problems are tackled by open source projects.
With art, however, companies don't stand to financially benefit from it, except in very small ways. So, you can't expect to get the big funding for "open art" that open software has.
Secondly, open source software benefits greatly from a well developed commercial software market. Without it, barely a fraction as many individuals would be highly skilled programmers. Wit it, many individuals might feel a desire to work on open source software, as a point on their resume, and a way to gain the skills they need to get a high-paying job. If you propose removing copyright on art, or on software, you'll see a lot of the effort behind both slowly fade away, until it's about as big and dedicated of a community as potato chip collectors.
LED's are much more power efficient (which means they also give off less heat) and last much longer (need less replacing) than our current forms of lighting
Except, of course, for the fact that they aren't...
Fluorescent lights are significantly more efficient than LEDs.
Now if our government would start looking into algae to power vehicles
Yes, those DECADES and DECADES of research they've put into it clearly prove they hate the idea...
To win an electronic, heck any kind of war, all China has to do is to stop shipping electronic and any other goods to the US.
Clearly, we're doomed if prices on crappy TVs (that fail after a year) go up 25%. Not to mention that China's economy depends far, far more on the US, than the other way around.
Fear of China causes people to lose all perspective.
Not to mention that most of the corporates have either sold or licensed almost all intellectual property to China in one form or another.
China has done quite well in ramping up their manufacturing, even though they're having a horrible time getting halfway decent quality. Even there, though, they're still 4th in the world... Behind the US, Japan, and even Germany, despite China's large size and absolutely mind-boggling population.
And even with all of that, they have very little actual domestic technical knowledge.
Those nice cheap "Made in China" DVD players? They're made from DVD drive assemblies imported from Japan, and chipsets owned, designed, etc., by companies in the US and Japan (see Qualcom, Broadcom, ESS tech., etc.).
Where China does make chips, they are almost exclusively designed by other countries, and manufactured in factories on older processes, with imported equipment.
Spammers are truly evil; the people who buy from them are merely stupid.
I'd say the same thing about drug dealers, and street-corner movie pirates...
Still, no single drop of rain believes it is responsible for the flood, and the large numbers of stupid people complicit in all of this are why it remains a sustainable business.
I don't think gullible fools are bad people, but they are, without question, dangerous.
Are they going to march out here to fish the Snake River or something?
No, but those fish migrate, and they also serve to drive other ocean ecology.
The world isn't short on food, it's just in the wrong places.
The ocean IS running short on fish. A combination of loss of habitat and over-fishing is greatly diminishing the populations of common stocks available, and causing difficulties for fishermen around the globe.
Now the environmentalists want to blow up the dams that supply almost all of the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people.
A significant portion of the humans on this planet survive almost entirely on fish. A damn might give your state a slightly higher amount of clean electricity, while it causes 1 billion people around the planet to starve.
You DID NOT say that there happens to be no evidence for the existence of God. You EXPLICITLY said there is "evidence" (not quite proof) that any known God is "false".
The whole point sir; is that you have faith. You believe things without evidence. That is the heart of the problem.
The scientific method is not the be-all end-all. It's efficacy varies based on the situation, but is exceptionally poor in some cases. Theology and sociology come to mind. To use an example based on current events, someone could have believed that Hillary Clinton would win the New Hampshire primary, despite AMPLE evidence directly to the contrary, and have been correct. Now, that's not proving God exists, obviously, but worshiping the scientific method as infallible, despite it's known (and possibly unknown) flaws, is at least as irrational, if not much more-so, than believing in a "sky-wizard". The scientific method doesn't even handle absolutes, like religion. It is purely "best guess now, we'll change it to something better later."
Mythology of all kinds is FILLED with examples of historical facts, which scientists dismissed as purely myth. So, lack of evidence in support, is NOT evidence of a negative, and assuming so is just as much a leap of faith.
Slashdot Mirror
I really wish you wouldn't repeatedly use this terminology.
It is decidedly un-informative to explain what an inanimate object is "trying" to do. And what's more, a much more accurate and informative explanation is really no longer or more difficult to offer.
A quick and sloppy example:
"As hydrogen is depleted, the [outward] pressure from hydrogen fusion can no longer [fully] counteract the force of gravity, so the star's density increases, and the core pressure rises [getting hotter] until the point that helium fusion occurs."
See... Now people might actually understand why stars don't "try" to fuse helium, until the hydrogen supply is depleted.
AMD plays a much better and more important role for Intel... Forcing them to make reasonably good stuff.
It's worth noting that Intel is using the AMD-64 instruction set in their processors. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that, without AMD, Intel would still be stumbling along trying to push Itanium, and selling only Pentium 4s. In which case, Apple certainly wouldn't have switched over, and, would still be buying PPC chips from IBM. Many other companies, similarly, would still be using proprietary chips. Alpha and MIPS would be alive and well, and Sun SPARC would be doing much, much better.
It's ironic that, what large companies want most, is to AVOID those things that actually help them the most. Just about every company would be happy to rid itself of competitors, but they would quickly find their market stagnating, and their products undesirable. Even now, US auto manufacturers are fighting tooth and nail against higher fuel efficiency standards, when it's clear higher fuel efficiency is exactly what they need to do, and historically has caused their own sales, and the entire market, to rise.
The existence of large aircraft, ballistic missiles, and nuclear bombs seems to fit this criteria quite nicely.
Most European wars were fought by the lower-class chattel on the front lines, while the rest of the country was fairly safe, and the leaders much more so. With the introduction of nuclear bombs, large and long range aircraft, and ICBMs, it's clear that any nation that can really militarily challenge a major power will quickly have every square inch of their territory turned into radioactive glass.
This *DOES* do a very good job of heavily shifting the risk/reward scenario (of starting a war) very heavily towards the "risk" column. This is not a change in the people, per-se (as people though out history have shown a reluctance to induce their own destruction and death) but a change in the technology of war that has significantly changed the consequences.
Banks aren't any more risk-free than government bonds. Banks can go under and then you are dependant on the government to eventually pay you back. Errors in paperwork can occur, identity fraud happens, etc. And more than that, if you aren't willing to trust a certain government with your money they don't need to default on your bonds. They could just as easily seize banks under their jurisdiction at any time.
Gambling does not require a "house". It's difficult for non-existent parties to "always win".
How unfortunate for you that you can't invest in the "average" stock, at the "average" time.
Gambling is not throwing money away. Gambling is taking risks (beyond your control) with your money. That is exactly what you face in the stock market.
That is certainly possible, but I suppose about equally likely of happening as that same government seizing the assets of a private bank where you are storing your money.
The US has not defaulted on its debt even once.
An risk you face, no matter how you store your money, having nothing to do with bonds.
You could say the same things about gambling.
My $30 Polaroid DVD player begs to differ.
Hey, where's that burning smell coming from?
You must work for Toshiba, right?
Absolutely every single thing you've said is precisely the OPPOSITE of reality.
No, actually they were vulnerable to scratches, so they were put in caddies. A system I greatly wish was adopted. Having used both, I can tell you, handling bare discs requires an order of magnitude more time, care and effort.
Instead of going to market with caddies, they opted for an extremely durable hard coating on the discs. They've demonstrated attacking Blu Ray discs with a screwdriver, all still without causing any scratching of the discs.
Blu-ray is FAR more scratch resistant than HD DVD... which isn't really a big challenge...
With HD DVD, Toshiba is packing data on the discs far more densely, which means far, far smaller scratches cause far, far more damage. Given a similar situation, Sony chose a couple ways to make it harder to damage the discs before releasing them. Toshiba, however, did nothing to mitigate this, and HD DVDs must be handled like precious antiques to prevent inadvertently causing errors.
It's a much fairer comparison to say that Blu-ray discs are more durable than all previous (bare/non-caddied) optical discs.
HD DVD SUPPORTS EXACTLY THE SAME VIDEO CODECS AS BLU-RAY.
Nobody is going to take apart their Toshiba HD DVD players, pull out the drive, and replace it with a new one.
Sony has demonstrated Blu-Ray discs with a ridiculously large number of layers. It is far, far LESS "maxed out" than HD DVD ever was.
On the contrary. I would ask you to try and explain how BD+ is any harsher than AACS.
No, I'd say capacity was the #2 thing that mattered.
#1 was: Blu-Ray discs don't get scratched.
"Geeks" here on
3-layer HD DVDs was just a PR stunt. None were ever produced, and I'm willing to bet that none of the existing HD DVD players could read them, so it might just as well have been a new format that nobody would have adopted.
Sony demonstrated much, much higher numbers of layers on Blu Ray discs as well.
You're welcome to break into any of my systems using a user account that has been disabled, and has no permission to access anything. eg. user "nobody". That's precisely how I would set up a sftp group.
Why? No privilege separation. A MUCH bigger code base.
Not to mention fewer standalone programs.
Why not? The user security model is reliable and time tested. It does not require reinventing the "user". It does not depend on one program handling it's own system of virtual permissions correctly. It does not depend on the security of a large program that users directly interact with.
I can see ample reasons sftp is safer.
As opposed to current gasoline vehicles, which are non-flammable.
Every auto shop I've been too has very high ceilings, and big, wide open doors that can easily vent TONS of vapor.
When my idiot neighbor put a shovel through a natural gas line, the fire department didn't tell us to shut off our cars, avoid open flames, etc.
I'd be happy to barbecue a few yards away from a hydrogen leak. Completely the opposite of a gasoline spill.
You're also saying that h.264/AVC shouldn't exist. You're also saying 802.11 shouldn't exist. In fact, you're saying NO open standards should exist...
Without software patents, EVERYTHING would have to depend on being trade secret and closed source to make any money. And because reverse engineering is relatively easy, instead of one big open standard with a lot of improvements, every company would have to come out with a new version of a product, each with one small improvement, to keep everything profitable.
By saying you don't want any software patents at all, you're saying you long for the (bad) old days of RealPlayer, 4DTV, TwinVQ/VQF, Cinepak, and everything else proprietary.
What's your solution? Are companies supposed to go proprietary? Are they just supposed to NOT spend any money developing new software and formats?
DVD became a "runaway success" while it was very expensive... much more expensive than VHS. DVD players and discs are cheap NOW, but that wasn't at all the case in the beginning, when DVD was becoming the most quickly adopted consumer technology ever.
How much better DVDs looked on standard TVs is debatable. The cheap Asian DVD players with the wrong black level, running through a cheap RF adapter that darkens and distorts it even more, displaying a letter-boxed extremely widescreen (2.37:1) image on a 4:3 TV, with subsampled chroma... It's quite possible is many scenarios that playing a DVD was far lower resolution than an equivalent VHS tape.
Yes... in exactly the same ways that they "owned" the DVD and CD formats before it.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Open source software has several factors going for it, that would not be true if applied to art.
For one, numerous open source projects are funded by companies who stand to financially benefit from the fruits of the project... eg. If you sell a web server, you might benefit from a good web browser being available to the public. If you sell ARM hardware, you might benefit from high quality open source software that will run on, and be optimized for ARM. etc., etc. This influx of cash is a big reason these "hard" software problems are tackled by open source projects.
With art, however, companies don't stand to financially benefit from it, except in very small ways. So, you can't expect to get the big funding for "open art" that open software has.
Secondly, open source software benefits greatly from a well developed commercial software market. Without it, barely a fraction as many individuals would be highly skilled programmers. Wit it, many individuals might feel a desire to work on open source software, as a point on their resume, and a way to gain the skills they need to get a high-paying job. If you propose removing copyright on art, or on software, you'll see a lot of the effort behind both slowly fade away, until it's about as big and dedicated of a community as potato chip collectors.
Well, it would be terribly expensive, but if you'll volunteering to be the first man to set foot on Saturn, we'll do it! Might be worth a laugh.
Except, of course, for the fact that they aren't...
Fluorescent lights are significantly more efficient than LEDs.
Yes, those DECADES and DECADES of research they've put into it clearly prove they hate the idea...
Clearly, we're doomed if prices on crappy TVs (that fail after a year) go up 25%. Not to mention that China's economy depends far, far more on the US, than the other way around.
Fear of China causes people to lose all perspective.
China has done quite well in ramping up their manufacturing, even though they're having a horrible time getting halfway decent quality. Even there, though, they're still 4th in the world... Behind the US, Japan, and even Germany, despite China's large size and absolutely mind-boggling population.
And even with all of that, they have very little actual domestic technical knowledge.
Those nice cheap "Made in China" DVD players? They're made from DVD drive assemblies imported from Japan, and chipsets owned, designed, etc., by companies in the US and Japan (see Qualcom, Broadcom, ESS tech., etc.).
Where China does make chips, they are almost exclusively designed by other countries, and manufactured in factories on older processes, with imported equipment.
I'd say the same thing about drug dealers, and street-corner movie pirates...
Still, no single drop of rain believes it is responsible for the flood, and the large numbers of stupid people complicit in all of this are why it remains a sustainable business.
I don't think gullible fools are bad people, but they are, without question, dangerous.
No, but those fish migrate, and they also serve to drive other ocean ecology.
The ocean IS running short on fish. A combination of loss of habitat and over-fishing is greatly diminishing the populations of common stocks available, and causing difficulties for fishermen around the globe.
A significant portion of the humans on this planet survive almost entirely on fish. A damn might give your state a slightly higher amount of clean electricity, while it causes 1 billion people around the planet to starve.
You DID NOT say that there happens to be no evidence for the existence of God. You EXPLICITLY said there is "evidence" (not quite proof) that any known God is "false".
The scientific method is not the be-all end-all. It's efficacy varies based on the situation, but is exceptionally poor in some cases. Theology and sociology come to mind. To use an example based on current events, someone could have believed that Hillary Clinton would win the New Hampshire primary, despite AMPLE evidence directly to the contrary, and have been correct. Now, that's not proving God exists, obviously, but worshiping the scientific method as infallible, despite it's known (and possibly unknown) flaws, is at least as irrational, if not much more-so, than believing in a "sky-wizard". The scientific method doesn't even handle absolutes, like religion. It is purely "best guess now, we'll change it to something better later."
Mythology of all kinds is FILLED with examples of historical facts, which scientists dismissed as purely myth. So, lack of evidence in support, is NOT evidence of a negative, and assuming so is just as much a leap of faith.