Sounds like a great idea, not! Nobody knows what the long term effects will be for this kind of experimentation. They should do some long term studies on volunteers first before making this kind of stuff widespread.
Really? Give me some examples of "legitimate innovation", please. Because I'm really curious as to what you consider innovation? iOS isn't innovative? Pinch-to-zoom, bounce-at-scroll-end, inertial flick scrolling, no keyboard, no-scroll-wheel-no-nav-keys, simple app install-deinstall, tap-and-hold to rearrange, that all existed together in one integrated package? Real innovation only seems "obvious" in hindsight. The best proof is the huge slew of criticisms which came out about the iPhone when it first came out. All the moaning about the shit it was missing or didn't do but absolutely needed.
Before the iPhone, the BlackberryOS was considered the nadir of handheld computing. And Android back then looked a heck of a lot like a Blackberry OS. Now that paradigm considered a backwater. The move to mouse+gui wasn't that natural an extension from keyboard+tty, it was innovation. The move from the Blackberry+Palm+WinCE paradigm to iOS wasn't a "natural extension". It only seems natural in hindsight.
First: all these comments calling Jobs a "salesman" and "marketer" don't understand the first thing about Jobs. You can market and sell crappy products for only so long. The MacBook Air, iPod, iPhone, and iPad weren't successful because of the marketing; they were successful because they put the user experience first, they made complex technology easy to use, fun to interact with, and vicerally beautiful to hold. Building stuff like that isn't marketing. Building stuff like that is hardware design+software integration, attention to detail, focus on quality, and precision manufacturing on a scale not seen before. Companies can't copy the MacBook Air and iPhone/iOS experience because they lack that coordination and attention to detail.
Second: see above. Hundreds of companies assumed that all they needed to beat the iPod was to "have a pretty plastic shell" and hit all the bullet points, add a few more (FM Radio! AM Radio tuner! Removable Battery!) and they'd make sales. They didn't. Replace iPod with iMac, iPhone, iPad and you have the same scenario.
Third: Repeat after me: design is not separate from functionality. Design isn't how a thing looks, design is how it works. Which is why despite the fact that the Dell Streak supposedly had all the features needed to be a "iPad killer", it turned into an abortion. Why? It worked like crap. Why is the iPad2 selling in such ridiculous numbers? Because it works! If you took an iPad2, and installed an iOS themed Honeycomb on it, it would work OK, but it wouldn't be great. With iOS, the iPad works amazingly well. The Android market is a joke, very few people I know who own android phones have purchased more than a dozen apps. Everyone I know who has an iPhone has a dozen favorite apps, and some have purchased hundreds of apps. Why? Because it works. Functionality is what the design of the iPad2.
Uh, you're comparing Apple's totally fucked up product line-up, supply chain, and operations from the 1980's when they were hemorraging money like a stuck pig to the problems they're having meeting unprecedented demand right now? Are you kidding me? Apple's supply chain management and operations are why they have margins way above any other PC or tablet manufacturer. And despite those margins, other makers can't sell similar devices without taking a loss.
Yes, Apple has had trouble keeping the pipeline filled, but that's because of absolutely unprecedented demand. Do you remember the problems Nintendo had producing the Wii? The Wii doesn't even come with a cutting edge screen, yet for more the a year Nintendo couldn't meet demand. It took more than a year to increase production from 1.8M to 2.4M. And this for a device which has only 1 constraining component: the CPU+graphics chips. Apple managed to meet iPad demand less than 6 months after the introduction, and even faster for the iPad 2 despite demand being greater than 4M/month. This with a device that has 3 constraining components: memory, display, and cpu+graphics chips. Apple has gone from 0% market share to 5% total market share in worldwide phones in a little over 4 years. Remember the shit Motorola took for being unable to meed RAZR demand for months? And Motorola's been making cell phones since cells phones existed. Every company I've seen that has had a crazy popular hit has trouble meeting demand. Some take a year or more to catch up. Apple takes a couple of months at most.
Right, ignored by "serious business". got any proof of that? Why would Apple care? They're growing at 6x the rate of the rest of the computing industry. Stop living in the past and look at the present.
iPad sold 500,000 units after one week. That's a little more than 70,000 units a day. And if you consider that in the five days after the weekend, Apple sold 200,000 units. That's 40,000 a day. Not quite so impressive. I'd bet that all the Netbooks combined sell at least 40,000 units per day.
Doing some quick googling, I get guesstimates of yearly total netbook sales between 22M and 30M. And since 40k units a day is around 15M a year, iPad is selling within a 2x factor of ALL netbooks sales. Still think it's a flop? ref
Of if that measure doesn't work, how about total monetary sales values? 40k per day at $600 per unit is around $9B, which is around 9% of all portable PC sales in 2009, and around half of all mini-note and ultraportable pc sales ($18B). Still think the iPad's a flop? ref
BTW, the Motorola Droid (considered a pretty good success for Motorola during the first few months of sales sold around 1M units the first 74 days it was out (which went for $200, less than half the price of an iPad). That's around 14k a day since you seem to be a bit math deficient.
Name one cell phone, computer, or similar device that sold 300,000 times over on the first day that was considered a failure.
The interesting thing is that Apple sold 300,000 units in it's first weekend--this is after the device had been available for pre-order for one month. So it took Apple one month to sell 300,000 units--about 1,000 units a day.
So name one cell phone, computer, or similar device that sold 300,000 units in one month that was considered a success.
Strawman alert! So which is it- 40k a day or 1k a day? Up above, you deride the drop from 70k/day to 40k/day. Now it's suddenly 1k/day (before people could even try it out, mind you). I fail to see how you convert pre-sales volume into foward sales volume. Especially when the full 3G version isn't out for sale AND sales are US only.
But that's okay. Just sit in your corner, hug your iPad, and keep repeating: "The iPad is successful! The iPad is successful!" It'll make you feel better.
I'm sure you're feeling better too. It's all good.
You missed the next section 117(b) which prohibits the transfer of such modifications without the permission of the copyright owner as noted in this post.
The simple truth is that Psystar DID have to use an image method to perform the installs, and so this should be considered a minimum necessary step towards exercising First Sale rights to do as you like with something you've purchased; but I do agree that they should have been required to use an image based on the same version of OSX that would appear in the box. First Sale law permits you to modify things you've purchased. If I am not permitted to modify Apple software, then arguably I can't even use it. And if I'm not permitted to use images to deploy OSX, then I'm certainly not even going to consider using it in the enterprise. If Psystar isn't allowed to use a custom image, then I must assume I'm not allowed to either.
Good points and I totally agree with your points on the validity of the First Sale law and it's necessity. However, you're missing a crucial point. Pystar not only modified OSX, (as is allowed for personal use), but it sold this modified derivative product, which is not protected by the First Sale law. You can use a modified product, but you can't sell. That's why Pystar lost, and lost big. I personally think that these and other copyright restrictions are too strict, but it is pretty clear in this case (summary judgement and all that) that Pystar broke it.
By that same logic, the iTunes store should have been crushed by rivals (amazon, walmart, emusic et al) in 2007. Guess what? Didn't happen that way. I think that android will gain marketshare, but most of it will be from Symbian and WinCE Mobile (or whatever they're calling it this year). Apple will also gain market share at an equal or greater pace, fueled by the advantage of the app store. Focused competition will beat apple (remember Palm vs Newton?), but unfocused, dispersed competition is going to have a hard time beating Apple at their own game.
1) Adding more screws costs MORE money, not less. It changes the adhesion between the components from a press-fit|tab-fit|glue-fit to a much stronger/deeper connection between components. Being able to "pop" stuff out is design not for strength but economy and convenience.
2) The reason you didn't get it right is because you're a crappy engineer, not because it "doesn't fit together that well".
3) Wiring without the tape-stabilizers can easily come loose due to jarring due to use and expansion/contraction due to temperature changes. It looks cheap to morons but costs a shitload more to tape all that stuff down.
4) "clearly built for cost" and "not well engineered"? Anything more substantial than your say so?
5) The "wiring overall inside is cheaply done". Again, you know this because?
6) Wow. Your point being?
The HP is engineered to be as cheap to manufacture as possible. The MacBook Pro was engineered for many parameters, but it obviously was not engineered for the lowest cost.
Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it? - Brian Kernighan, "The Elements of Programming Style", 2nd edition, chapter 2
Expanding a payments service to other countries is not as simple as writing code: government permits need to be obtained; legal entities created, certified and approved; transaction partners identified, negotiations completed, contracts signed, accounting methods and reconciliation formats agreed upon, tested and verified. Auditors need to be chosen, hired, audits managed. Even a company like PayPal with dozens of experienced legal and financial team members, takes more than a year to release in a new country. For companies with little or no financial institutional experience (beyond typical corporate finance that is) it is an undertaking which is several orders of magnitude more complex for a company to manage and execute than writing, testing and deploying code.
There is a difference between presenting "gotcha" questions and questions which require you to be able to identify patterns in an unfamiliar context. There are many mathematical concepts and theories which can be applied to trigonometric and calculus problems. Being able to identify WHICH concepts to apply is more important IMO than being able to apply the concepts themselves. Presenting what is essentially the same problem that you've seen before with some numbers moved around doesn't test your knowledge of the subject matter; it just tests your ability to mechanically repeat what any computer program could do. Human's aren't needed for that. Humans are needed to identify which program/algorithm applies to the problems at hand.
Real world problems don't come with labels like "solve both sides to this equation" or "comparing the averages of all the runs in a set isn't as meaningful as comparing the variance in the runs". Being able to identify the deep structures within a problem means that you REALLY know the subject since you understand the forms that give rise to the algorithms, and not just the algorithm itself.
This, in my opinion, is one of the real differentiator between the so-so programmers and the good/great ones. When presented with a problem, the so-so programmers always try to fit the problem into a solution they know how to code. Good/great programmers tend to investigate the problem and apply a solution which fits the problem best.
It's actually pretty simple to crack it: you construct a long cone (or tapered stick), wrap the strip around it and slide it around until things match up. Then you measure the diameter of the cone/stick at that point and make a "key" stick with that same diameter.
Chill dude. I haven't run into anything in Visio that it doesn't handle pretty well, but as a code slinger, I don't much use.vss stuff from cisco.com. As to your points regarding VAG-COM etc., I wasn't saying that OSX could replace all of the functionality of a Windows machine, just that you could replace the functionality of Visio of OGP. That's what "If one of the reasons you're using your windows machine is to run Visio" means. I don't see much "unrealistic Mac evangelist" in that, unrealistic Omni fanboy at best.
My personal experience with OGP and Visio is that I prefer to work on OmniGrafflePro+MacOSX instead of using Visio+WindowsXP and that my productivity in OGP+OSX is way ahead of my productivity on Visio+Win32. YMMV.
If one of the reasons you're using your windows machine is to run Visio, run run run to http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnigraffle/ and get the latest version of omnigraffle. Quite simply, it kicks Visio's ass up and down your screen, across the keyboard and out the paper tray of your printer.
small, portable, good battery life, good keyboard. Only fly in the ointment is connectivity, but if you just want text download/upload, it shouldn't be too difficult to hack up a solution.
It is shocking the number of people who will take a boat out to sea with just a single mapping GPS receiver and no compass, no charts, no binoculars, no nothing. BTW, the United States Coast Guard still requires one to pass a celestial navigation exam in order to receive an oceans endorsement for one's boating license. It isn't part of a captains license anymore.
Some people may recall an article a while back in the NYTimes which was widely disseminated stating that the US Naval Academy decided to stop teaching celestial navigation. Fortunately, this report was incorrect. Annapolis changed some of the content of the celestial navigation class to bring it up to date, but it is still a requirement at the USN Academy (as it should). In fact, one of the premier books on CN, "Marine Navigation: Piloting and Celestial and Electronic Navigation" by Richard R. Hobbs, is published by the Naval Institute Press and was recently updated in 1998 to a fourth edition.
Mod parent up. My neural circuits seized up when my eyes saw the numbers 7.5.3 and it took a while for the memories to force their way through the coccoon of protection I had put up around them. Then I screamed and tried to put them back. 7.5.x was one of the darkest times I ever saw using the Mac OS: rampant system instability, installation hell, incompatible/buggy/broken extensions and control panels galore. 7.6.1 was the true beginning of the recovery in my book. Thanks, I guess, for the memories.
And if they[IBM] use this[Cell] in servers, they'd kill their POWER line.
Did you read the article? The Cell architecture is what might have evolved if the multi-core POWER architecture continued for a couple of generations. Cell just skips those intermediate generations. Here's what the article says "The Cell architecture is essentially a general purpose PowerPC CPU with a set of 8 very high performance vector processors and a fast memory and I / O system, this is coupled with a very clever task distribution system which allows ad-hoc clusters to be set up.". Doesn't sound like IBM is afraid that Cell will kill their POWER line.
The question is a logic question.
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
First, the three conditions which make the inductive solution the only logical solution aren't presented explicitly in the question. They are
The pirates prefer to live.
The pirates are greedy. That is, as long as they live, they want to maximize their gold.
The pirates are all bloodthirsty. That is, as long as they live and get the same amount of gold, they prefer to kill their fellow pirates.
There is nothing in the description of the puzzle which says that the the two pirates who are getting 1 piece of gold should/would trust the pirates who are going to get nothing. This is a logic puzzle, not a social aptitude test. If someone were to ask you the old "two buckets, 5 and 2 gallons, measure one gallon etc." question would you say that you build a bucket which holds 1 gallon by cutting up one of the buckets?
Max solar energy falling on 1m^2 = 1KW
14x10^12 KWh / 365 days / 24 hours = 1.6x10^10^9 KW average consumption rate.
1 km^2 = 10^6 m^2 which generates 10^6KW
1.6 x 10^3 km^2 required for world energy needs at 100% or a plot of land, 40km x 40 km constantly operating at max solar energy (obviously not reasonable). Make it 16% efficient and operate only 1/4 of the day you need an area about 25 times bigger or 200km x 200km. Plenty of those around, especially in New Mexico and thereabouts.
Totally incorrect. The "tons of equipment" turned out by the Russians was their tooth not their tail. (One of) the reasons that the U.S. was able to win WWII was not because the U.S. had a bigger tail than the Germans or Japans, the U.S. had the ability to vastly outproduce Germand and Japan in equipment that comprised the tooth. The enemy isn't damaged by the length and size of your supply train; to him, the bigger your "tail" is, the better target it makes for him. You defeat the enemy by destroying the ability of the tooth to operate by either attacking the tooth or the tail with your tooth not your tail. Having a bigger tail just makes attacking your enemy more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a great idea, not! Nobody knows what the long term effects will be for this kind of experimentation. They should do some long term studies on volunteers first before making this kind of stuff widespread.
Really? Give me some examples of "legitimate innovation", please. Because I'm really curious as to what you consider innovation? iOS isn't innovative? Pinch-to-zoom, bounce-at-scroll-end, inertial flick scrolling, no keyboard, no-scroll-wheel-no-nav-keys, simple app install-deinstall, tap-and-hold to rearrange, that all existed together in one integrated package? Real innovation only seems "obvious" in hindsight. The best proof is the huge slew of criticisms which came out about the iPhone when it first came out. All the moaning about the shit it was missing or didn't do but absolutely needed.
Before the iPhone, the BlackberryOS was considered the nadir of handheld computing. And Android back then looked a heck of a lot like a Blackberry OS. Now that paradigm considered a backwater. The move to mouse+gui wasn't that natural an extension from keyboard+tty, it was innovation. The move from the Blackberry+Palm+WinCE paradigm to iOS wasn't a "natural extension". It only seems natural in hindsight.
First: all these comments calling Jobs a "salesman" and "marketer" don't understand the first thing about Jobs. You can market and sell crappy products for only so long. The MacBook Air, iPod, iPhone, and iPad weren't successful because of the marketing; they were successful because they put the user experience first, they made complex technology easy to use, fun to interact with, and vicerally beautiful to hold. Building stuff like that isn't marketing. Building stuff like that is hardware design+software integration, attention to detail, focus on quality, and precision manufacturing on a scale not seen before. Companies can't copy the MacBook Air and iPhone/iOS experience because they lack that coordination and attention to detail.
Second: see above. Hundreds of companies assumed that all they needed to beat the iPod was to "have a pretty plastic shell" and hit all the bullet points, add a few more (FM Radio! AM Radio tuner! Removable Battery!) and they'd make sales. They didn't. Replace iPod with iMac, iPhone, iPad and you have the same scenario.
Third: Repeat after me: design is not separate from functionality. Design isn't how a thing looks, design is how it works. Which is why despite the fact that the Dell Streak supposedly had all the features needed to be a "iPad killer", it turned into an abortion. Why? It worked like crap. Why is the iPad2 selling in such ridiculous numbers? Because it works! If you took an iPad2, and installed an iOS themed Honeycomb on it, it would work OK, but it wouldn't be great. With iOS, the iPad works amazingly well. The Android market is a joke, very few people I know who own android phones have purchased more than a dozen apps. Everyone I know who has an iPhone has a dozen favorite apps, and some have purchased hundreds of apps. Why? Because it works. Functionality is what the design of the iPad2.
Fourth: Whatever dude.
Uh, you're comparing Apple's totally fucked up product line-up, supply chain, and operations from the 1980's when they were hemorraging money like a stuck pig to the problems they're having meeting unprecedented demand right now? Are you kidding me? Apple's supply chain management and operations are why they have margins way above any other PC or tablet manufacturer. And despite those margins, other makers can't sell similar devices without taking a loss.
Yes, Apple has had trouble keeping the pipeline filled, but that's because of absolutely unprecedented demand. Do you remember the problems Nintendo had producing the Wii? The Wii doesn't even come with a cutting edge screen, yet for more the a year Nintendo couldn't meet demand. It took more than a year to increase production from 1.8M to 2.4M. And this for a device which has only 1 constraining component: the CPU+graphics chips. Apple managed to meet iPad demand less than 6 months after the introduction, and even faster for the iPad 2 despite demand being greater than 4M/month. This with a device that has 3 constraining components: memory, display, and cpu+graphics chips. Apple has gone from 0% market share to 5% total market share in worldwide phones in a little over 4 years. Remember the shit Motorola took for being unable to meed RAZR demand for months? And Motorola's been making cell phones since cells phones existed. Every company I've seen that has had a crazy popular hit has trouble meeting demand. Some take a year or more to catch up. Apple takes a couple of months at most.
Right, ignored by "serious business". got any proof of that? Why would Apple care? They're growing at 6x the rate of the rest of the computing industry. Stop living in the past and look at the present.
Doing some quick googling, I get guesstimates of yearly total netbook sales between 22M and 30M. And since 40k units a day is around 15M a year, iPad is selling within a 2x factor of ALL netbooks sales. Still think it's a flop? ref
Of if that measure doesn't work, how about total monetary sales values? 40k per day at $600 per unit is around $9B, which is around 9% of all portable PC sales in 2009, and around half of all mini-note and ultraportable pc sales ($18B). Still think the iPad's a flop? ref
BTW, the Motorola Droid (considered a pretty good success for Motorola during the first few months of sales sold around 1M units the first 74 days it was out (which went for $200, less than half the price of an iPad). That's around 14k a day since you seem to be a bit math deficient.
Strawman alert! So which is it- 40k a day or 1k a day? Up above, you deride the drop from 70k/day to 40k/day. Now it's suddenly 1k/day (before people could even try it out, mind you). I fail to see how you convert pre-sales volume into foward sales volume. Especially when the full 3G version isn't out for sale AND sales are US only.
I'm sure you're feeling better too. It's all good.
You missed the next section 117(b) which prohibits the transfer of such modifications without the permission of the copyright owner as noted in this post.
The simple truth is that Psystar DID have to use an image method to perform the installs, and so this should be considered a minimum necessary step towards exercising First Sale rights to do as you like with something you've purchased; but I do agree that they should have been required to use an image based on the same version of OSX that would appear in the box. First Sale law permits you to modify things you've purchased. If I am not permitted to modify Apple software, then arguably I can't even use it. And if I'm not permitted to use images to deploy OSX, then I'm certainly not even going to consider using it in the enterprise. If Psystar isn't allowed to use a custom image, then I must assume I'm not allowed to either.
Good points and I totally agree with your points on the validity of the First Sale law and it's necessity. However, you're missing a crucial point. Pystar not only modified OSX, (as is allowed for personal use), but it sold this modified derivative product, which is not protected by the First Sale law. You can use a modified product, but you can't sell. That's why Pystar lost, and lost big. I personally think that these and other copyright restrictions are too strict, but it is pretty clear in this case (summary judgement and all that) that Pystar broke it.
By that same logic, the iTunes store should have been crushed by rivals (amazon, walmart, emusic et al) in 2007. Guess what? Didn't happen that way. I think that android will gain marketshare, but most of it will be from Symbian and WinCE Mobile (or whatever they're calling it this year). Apple will also gain market share at an equal or greater pace, fueled by the advantage of the app store. Focused competition will beat apple (remember Palm vs Newton?), but unfocused, dispersed competition is going to have a hard time beating Apple at their own game.
2) The reason you didn't get it right is because you're a crappy engineer, not because it "doesn't fit together that well".
3) Wiring without the tape-stabilizers can easily come loose due to jarring due to use and expansion/contraction due to temperature changes. It looks cheap to morons but costs a shitload more to tape all that stuff down.
4) "clearly built for cost" and "not well engineered"? Anything more substantial than your say so?
5) The "wiring overall inside is cheaply done". Again, you know this because?
6) Wow. Your point being?
The HP is engineered to be as cheap to manufacture as possible. The MacBook Pro was engineered for many parameters, but it obviously was not engineered for the lowest cost.
Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?
- Brian Kernighan, "The Elements of Programming Style", 2nd edition, chapter 2
Expanding a payments service to other countries is not as simple as writing code: government permits need to be obtained; legal entities created, certified and approved; transaction partners identified, negotiations completed, contracts signed, accounting methods and reconciliation formats agreed upon, tested and verified. Auditors need to be chosen, hired, audits managed. Even a company like PayPal with dozens of experienced legal and financial team members, takes more than a year to release in a new country. For companies with little or no financial institutional experience (beyond typical corporate finance that is) it is an undertaking which is several orders of magnitude more complex for a company to manage and execute than writing, testing and deploying code.
Dude, almost all credit card companies take 3-4 weeks to process refunds. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_credit_card_refund_process_work . Check with your credit card company's terms of service if you aren't sure, but pretty much every credit card issuer has that policy.
Real world problems don't come with labels like "solve both sides to this equation" or "comparing the averages of all the runs in a set isn't as meaningful as comparing the variance in the runs". Being able to identify the deep structures within a problem means that you REALLY know the subject since you understand the forms that give rise to the algorithms, and not just the algorithm itself.
This, in my opinion, is one of the real differentiator between the so-so programmers and the good/great ones. When presented with a problem, the so-so programmers always try to fit the problem into a solution they know how to code. Good/great programmers tend to investigate the problem and apply a solution which fits the problem best.
It's actually pretty simple to crack it: you construct a long cone (or tapered stick), wrap the strip around it and slide it around until things match up. Then you measure the diameter of the cone/stick at that point and make a "key" stick with that same diameter.
My personal experience with OGP and Visio is that I prefer to work on OmniGrafflePro+MacOSX instead of using Visio+WindowsXP and that my productivity in OGP+OSX is way ahead of my productivity on Visio+Win32. YMMV.
- MacMini = mini desktop (no pro version)
- MacBook (Pro)= portable (Pro version)
- MacTower|Mac (Pro)= standard tower mac (Pro version)
- iMac = All-in-One (the exception)
Appending Pro for the professional performance machines.If one of the reasons you're using your windows machine is to run Visio, run run run to http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnigraffle/ and get the latest version of omnigraffle. Quite simply, it kicks Visio's ass up and down your screen, across the keyboard and out the paper tray of your printer.
There is only unscientific debate, the scientific debate is over.
small, portable, good battery life, good keyboard. Only fly in the ointment is connectivity, but if you just want text download/upload, it shouldn't be too difficult to hack up a solution.
Some people may recall an article a while back in the NYTimes which was widely disseminated stating that the US Naval Academy decided to stop teaching celestial navigation. Fortunately, this report was incorrect. Annapolis changed some of the content of the celestial navigation class to bring it up to date, but it is still a requirement at the USN Academy (as it should). In fact, one of the premier books on CN, "Marine Navigation: Piloting and Celestial and Electronic Navigation" by Richard R. Hobbs, is published by the Naval Institute Press and was recently updated in 1998 to a fourth edition.
Mod parent up. My neural circuits seized up when my eyes saw the numbers 7.5.3 and it took a while for the memories to force their way through the coccoon of protection I had put up around them. Then I screamed and tried to put them back. 7.5.x was one of the darkest times I ever saw using the Mac OS: rampant system instability, installation hell, incompatible/buggy/broken extensions and control panels galore. 7.6.1 was the true beginning of the recovery in my book. Thanks, I guess, for the memories.
- The pirates prefer to live.
- The pirates are greedy. That is, as long as they live, they want to maximize their gold.
- The pirates are all bloodthirsty. That is, as long as they live and get the same amount of gold, they prefer to kill their fellow pirates.
There is nothing in the description of the puzzle which says that the the two pirates who are getting 1 piece of gold should/would trust the pirates who are going to get nothing. This is a logic puzzle, not a social aptitude test. If someone were to ask you the old "two buckets, 5 and 2 gallons, measure one gallon etc." question would you say that you build a bucket which holds 1 gallon by cutting up one of the buckets?Max solar energy falling on 1m^2 = 1KW
14x10^12 KWh / 365 days / 24 hours = 1.6x10^10^9 KW average consumption rate.
1 km^2 = 10^6 m^2 which generates 10^6KW
1.6 x 10^3 km^2 required for world energy needs at 100% or a plot of land, 40km x 40 km constantly operating at max solar energy (obviously not reasonable). Make it 16% efficient and operate only 1/4 of the day you need an area about 25 times bigger or 200km x 200km. Plenty of those around, especially in New Mexico and thereabouts.
Totally incorrect. The "tons of equipment" turned out by the Russians was their tooth not their tail. (One of) the reasons that the U.S. was able to win WWII was not because the U.S. had a bigger tail than the Germans or Japans, the U.S. had the ability to vastly outproduce Germand and Japan in equipment that comprised the tooth. The enemy isn't damaged by the length and size of your supply train; to him, the bigger your "tail" is, the better target it makes for him. You defeat the enemy by destroying the ability of the tooth to operate by either attacking the tooth or the tail with your tooth not your tail. Having a bigger tail just makes attacking your enemy more difficult.