The answer is: "Hydrogen, because it has the most energy per weight." So they build huge complex engines with tanks to keep the liquid hydrogen (EXTREMELY EXPLOSIVE) and liquid oxygen safe. The engines are also extremely complex because they have to handle liquid helium temperature liquids at one end and blast furnace temperatures at the other end. And engineering difficulties and complexities that continue on and on. Always adding weight. All because hydrogen was the best fuel in theory.
When an entrepreneur asks this same question, the answer comes back: "What do you want to do with it?". "Well, I want to put it in a rocket to launch satellites with." "Well, if you use H2 you'll have all those temperatures to deal with...jet fuel is much better than H2 in every respect except for power/weight ratio. But with all of the weight we'll save in the engines and the tanks and the handling, it'll more than make up for it..."
Outlined above is the type of reasoning that leads to NASA's rockets costing an order of magnitude more than Russia's. It also shows why, IMHO, Beal Aerospace Technology has a pretty good chance of revolutionizing the satellite launch market.
Daniel Lee
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
I've said it before and I'll say it again, "We've already got one!". It's called the Sun and works alot better than any of these puny, radioactive fusion reactors that we are building. Instead of trying to convert fast neutrons and protons -> radioactive material -> heat -> steam -> electricity, we could be doing solar radiation -> steam -> electricity or solar radiaion -> electricity.
Even the cheapest conceivable fusion reactors would be many (hundreds? thousands?) times the cost of a large solar energy installation. Wake up people. $15 Billion to do a proof of concept that has proven that we might be able to generate more energy than we put in. So? We still have to convert that useless gamma+kinetic energy into electricity.
That $15 Billion could have gone a long way to building/maintaining a profitable solar energy installation in the desert somewhere...
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
What bothers me is the fact that there doesn't seem to be any mention of how they are going to know when the results that they get are correct. Probably when the results fit with their own prejudices. What they will do with the results hasn't been specified either. This has the potential to do more harm than good.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
which was doomed to fail since the shell needs to expand the "*" before it can even start call grep, you should have tried
find . -type f -exec grep -l MTV {} \; >/tmp/filelist
If you wanted to delete the files then
find . -type f -exec grep -q MTV {} \; -exec rm -f {} \; -print
in general, I've found that relying on shell wildcards for very large file lists is not the best use of computing resources. "find" is a very useful and powerful tool.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
If you read the examples given here, they aren't just saying "Don't use Exchange, it's microsoft." (well at least not all of them:-). Most of them have very valid experiences and reasons for stating this. If you would take off the "This is just another microsoft bash" you would see that.
As for myself, after watching a team at my former company struggle for 5 days trying to rebuild a crashed MSExchange server, I no longer look on it as a reliable, economical solution.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
Well, I guess it was about time. The rumors of Apple being bought by Oracle were getting stale. These "someone's buying Apple" rumors seem to happen every 6-12 months or so. Personally, I don't see a content company buying apple (especially for the 3-4 billion that it would take). What is having a computer/OS manufacturer going to do for Viacom, Time-Warner or Disney? Piss off Microsoft? Get a new method reaching consumers? They already have that.
IMHO, buying a company doesn't automatically add it's strengths to your company. You have to work really hard at integrating the two companies together. Sometimes it ends up taking too much time and effort in comparison to the supposed advantages/synergies you were buying in the first place. This is especially true if the two companies are different, either in corporate culture or corporate focus. Hell, even bank mergers don't work sometimes.
Which brings me back to my original point. I can't see the big advantage that any of these companies get by buying Apple. Partnering, yes. Lots of good stuff can happen with that. And it won't cost them 3.5 Billion. C'mon guys, show me somehing original.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
Using just the thumb, seems to be limiting your speed drastically. You can see the spec here. It looks like all control keys take at least two thumbings. Emacs, probably isn't too much fun with this. It also seems like your thumb could get a serious RSI (anyone played with a genesis controller for 6 hours straight?) with continuous use. Also, the lack of an integrated pointer (a la Twidder) seems like it could pose some problems.
Now, if you could "thumb" without any glove on, just an electronic eye strapped to your wrist, that would be cool. The image of that sort of reminds me of the "hand talking" that was described in Dune.
Still, based on the meagre amount of information I have absorbed on thumbing, I think the twiddler is better, if for no other reason that it has a built in pointer. Now if I could just convince the wife-unit that I need to $200 keyboard for my pilot...
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
I have interviewed people with CS degrees who didn't know what pipelining was, couldn't tell me the maximum number of "reads/compares" to find an element using binary search in a sorted 1000 element array, and couldn't explain how function calls and the stack pointer were related.
I could go on and on, but it seems to me that MenTaLguY has it right. We are turning out a bunch of C++,VBA,ACCESS,MS trained monkeys, not real programmers who understand computer architecture, programming, languages, and data structures.
This, of course, does not apply to all computer science schools. There still are a few schools that understand that CPU's, languages, and tools may change, but the underlying foundations won't. Unfortunately in many other schools, in order to created people trained with the "latest" tools, they are educating people who won't be able to produce when tools/os/languages change.
Because to me, a B.S. in M.I.S. doesn't mean diddly to me if you don't know the theoretical issues of concurrency and collision. A B.S. in Computer Science doesn't mean a bucket of spit if you don't understand recursion. And a B.S. in programming doesn't mean anything if you don't know what a regular expression is.
All too often today, it does.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
Degrees such as CS, MIS, and engineering, will
never lead to an executive postion.
That's a pretty sweeping statement. And no, I can't agree with it. I've worked at several companies around the bay area and some of the executives have had engineering (CS or otherwise) degrees and some haven't. Just because you have a engineering/tech degree doesn't seem to exclude you in anyway. It is your abilities and whether you can you be an executive that matters, not what label(s) you have on your sheepskin. MIS degrees, never having met one, I don't know about
At the companies I've worked at, most of the real work seems to get done by non-executives. Maybe it is different in your company. I do think that, in today's business environment, business people without technical knowledge who look on tech people as just assets seem destined to become failed business people.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
This, folks, is what happens when people read and believe their own press releases. Let me answer some of this foolishness...
Mr. Edward Muth states that
"People want more integration," he said. "They want to take a bar chart from Excel and put it in Word. On the server side they want strong queuing and security. This is all done through integration. Linux has a low degree of integration. Linux is basically a big step backward for those two reasons plus others."
And MS Windows has such *STRONG* queuing and *SOLID* security. For integration, CORBA is, of course, chopped liver. For desktop/chart manipulation MS is still way ahead. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand.
In comparing the two, he sets up a straw man by stating:
"Let's say, for discussion, they are equally scalable," he said. "And let's assume applications are available for both, and setup time is the same. Given all these factors as equal, the best you could hope for is about the same cost per transaction between servers."
This is so ridiculous that I'm apoplectic. "equally scalable"? Hem! "setup time is the same", LINUX is more (at first). "applications are available", yeah but for LINUX, most, if not all functionality, is FREE!
From this interesting opening he goes on to state:
"The problem with [Linux is] that is there are fewer applications available for Linux, there's no long-term development road map, and there's a higher technical risk in using it," he said. "You could cut Linux some slack if it were sharply lower in cost per transaction than NT, but that's not the case."
Obviously, Mr. Ed "Mush-for-brains" Muth thinks that, GNU, Apache, compilers of every shape and form, database programs, log analysis programs, countless POSIX and UNIX programs aren't 'available' because you can get them for free. He also seems to think that MS has a "long-term development road map". HAH! He also assumes that having an open source platform is higher risk than being dependent on a single source provider for *all* your technical support/bug fixes.
Concerning development he states:
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free," he said. "Without a long-term technical road map, without multi-million dollar test labs, someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
Regarding "Long-term road maps", MS has no long-term technical road map other than "Every few years/months we're going to f*** all MS developers with new API's, 'standards', plug-ins, and OS architectures. He fails to note that people develop on/for LINUX, not because they can give it away free, but because they can get the *own* work done better/faster/more reliably. And then give it away for free.
Mush-For-Brains finishes with some statements about the OS market :
"There is extraordinary competition," he reiterated. "The market is a rich mosaic of parry and thrust from the vendors. We have to earn our stripes every day. That's how it should be."
Yeah, right bud. The only reason you can't shit on LINUX is 'cause LINUX/GNU/freeware doesn't buy anything from you, or sell anything to your platform. If they did, like Apple (MacOS and MS Office), Sun (Java) etc., you would have bought our technology, sold us a bill of goods and hung us out to dry. Go spread your puke in your own alternate reality universe.
Yeah right, dude. All Apple needs to do to fix this bug is to program in magic API's available from Bill and figure out (from a two digit date) what 4 digit date the user/programmer wanted.
If your programmer is a moron, your programs come out moronic. There is no way to get around the two digit problem from the OS side. Anybody who still stores/manipulates their dates as two digit dates deserves what they get.
Quick correction...Sorry you're backwards.
on
Apple Announcements
·
· Score: 1
The specs have 3 33Mhz 64bit PCI slots 1 64Mhz 32bit PCI slot for the ATI 128 card.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the best fuel for a rocket?
The answer is: "Hydrogen, because it has the most energy per weight." So they build huge complex engines with tanks to keep the liquid hydrogen (EXTREMELY EXPLOSIVE) and liquid oxygen safe. The engines are also extremely complex because they have to handle liquid helium temperature liquids at one end and blast furnace temperatures at the other end. And engineering difficulties and complexities that continue on and on. Always adding weight. All because hydrogen was the best fuel in theory.
When an entrepreneur asks this same question, the answer comes back: "What do you want to do with it?". "Well, I want to put it in a rocket to launch satellites with." "Well, if you use H2 you'll have all those temperatures to deal with...jet fuel is much better than H2 in every respect except for power/weight ratio. But with all of the weight we'll save in the engines and the tanks and the handling, it'll more than make up for it..."
Outlined above is the type of reasoning that leads to NASA's rockets costing an order of magnitude more than Russia's. It also shows why, IMHO, Beal Aerospace Technology has a pretty good chance of revolutionizing the satellite launch market.
Daniel Lee
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
Even the cheapest conceivable fusion reactors would be many (hundreds? thousands?) times the cost of a large solar energy installation. Wake up people. $15 Billion to do a proof of concept that has proven that we might be able to generate more energy than we put in. So? We still have to convert that useless gamma+kinetic energy into electricity.
That $15 Billion could have gone a long way to building/maintaining a profitable solar energy installation in the desert somewhere...
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
What bothers me is the fact that there doesn't seem to be any mention of how they are going to know when the results that they get are correct. Probably when the results fit with their own prejudices. What they will do with the results hasn't been specified either. This has the potential to do more harm than good.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
grep MTV *
which was doomed to fail since the shell needs to expand the "*" before it can even start call grep, you should have tried
find . -type f -exec grep -l MTV {} \; > /tmp/filelist
If you wanted to delete the files then
find . -type f -exec grep -q MTV {} \; -exec rm -f {} \; -print
in general, I've found that relying on shell wildcards for very large file lists is not the best use of computing resources. "find" is a very useful and powerful tool.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
As for myself, after watching a team at my former company struggle for 5 days trying to rebuild a crashed MSExchange server, I no longer look on it as a reliable, economical solution.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
Yeah I know. I was just stating the theoretical minimum needed to control 51% of the stock. 'Twon't happen any rate.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
IMHO, buying a company doesn't automatically add it's strengths to your company. You have to work really hard at integrating the two companies together. Sometimes it ends up taking too much time and effort in comparison to the supposed advantages/synergies you were buying in the first place. This is especially true if the two companies are different, either in corporate culture or corporate focus. Hell, even bank mergers don't work sometimes.
Which brings me back to my original point. I can't see the big advantage that any of these companies get by buying Apple. Partnering, yes. Lots of good stuff can happen with that. And it won't cost them 3.5 Billion. C'mon guys, show me somehing original.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
Now, if you could "thumb" without any glove on, just an electronic eye strapped to your wrist, that would be cool. The image of that sort of reminds me of the "hand talking" that was described in Dune.
Still, based on the meagre amount of information I have absorbed on thumbing, I think the twiddler is better, if for no other reason that it has a built in pointer. Now if I could just convince the wife-unit that I need to $200 keyboard for my pilot...
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
I could go on and on, but it seems to me that MenTaLguY has it right. We are turning out a bunch of C++,VBA,ACCESS,MS trained monkeys, not real programmers who understand computer architecture, programming, languages, and data structures.
This, of course, does not apply to all computer science schools. There still are a few schools that understand that CPU's, languages, and tools may change, but the underlying foundations won't. Unfortunately in many other schools, in order to created people trained with the "latest" tools, they are educating people who won't be able to produce when tools/os/languages change.
Because to me, a B.S. in M.I.S. doesn't mean diddly to me if you don't know the theoretical issues of concurrency and collision. A B.S. in Computer Science doesn't mean a bucket of spit if you don't understand recursion. And a B.S. in programming doesn't mean anything if you don't know what a regular expression is.
All too often today, it does.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
That's a pretty sweeping statement. And no, I can't agree with it. I've worked at several companies around the bay area and some of the executives have had engineering (CS or otherwise) degrees and some haven't. Just because you have a engineering/tech degree doesn't seem to exclude you in anyway. It is your abilities and whether you can you be an executive that matters, not what label(s) you have on your sheepskin. MIS degrees, never having met one, I don't know about
At the companies I've worked at, most of the real work seems to get done by non-executives. Maybe it is different in your company. I do think that, in today's business environment, business people without technical knowledge who look on tech people as just assets seem destined to become failed business people.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
This, folks, is what happens when people read and believe their own press releases. Let me answer some of this foolishness...
Mr. Edward Muth states that
"People want more integration," he said. "They want to take a bar chart from Excel and put it in Word. On the server side they want strong queuing and security. This is all done through integration. Linux has a low degree of integration. Linux is basically a big step backward for those two reasons plus others."
And MS Windows has such *STRONG* queuing and *SOLID* security. For integration, CORBA is, of course, chopped liver. For desktop/chart manipulation MS is still way ahead. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand.
In comparing the two, he sets up a straw man by stating:
"Let's say, for discussion, they are equally scalable," he said. "And let's assume applications are available for both, and setup time is the same. Given all these factors as equal, the best you could hope for is about the same cost per transaction between servers."
This is so ridiculous that I'm apoplectic. "equally scalable"? Hem! "setup time is the same", LINUX is more (at first). "applications are available", yeah but for LINUX, most, if not all functionality, is FREE!
From this interesting opening he goes on to state:
"The problem with [Linux is] that is there are fewer applications available for Linux, there's no long-term development road map, and there's a higher technical risk in using it," he said. "You could cut Linux some slack if it were sharply lower in cost per transaction than NT, but that's not the case."
Obviously, Mr. Ed "Mush-for-brains" Muth thinks that, GNU, Apache, compilers of every shape and form, database programs, log analysis programs, countless POSIX and UNIX programs aren't 'available' because you can get them for free. He also seems to think that MS has a "long-term development road map". HAH! He also assumes that having an open source platform is higher risk than being dependent on a single source provider for *all* your technical support/bug fixes.
Concerning development he states:
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free," he said. "Without a long-term technical road map, without multi-million dollar test labs, someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
Regarding "Long-term road maps", MS has no long-term technical road map other than "Every few years/months we're going to f*** all MS developers with new API's, 'standards', plug-ins, and OS architectures. He fails to note that people develop on/for LINUX, not because they can give it away free, but because they can get the *own* work done better/faster/more reliably. And then give it away for free.
Mush-For-Brains finishes with some statements about the OS market :
"There is extraordinary competition," he reiterated. "The market is a rich mosaic of parry and thrust from the vendors. We have to earn our stripes every day. That's how it should be."
Yeah, right bud. The only reason you can't shit on LINUX is 'cause LINUX/GNU/freeware doesn't buy anything from you, or sell anything to your platform. If they did, like Apple (MacOS and MS Office), Sun (Java) etc., you would have bought our technology, sold us a bill of goods and hung us out to dry. Go spread your puke in your own alternate reality universe.
Daniel "Enkidu" Lee
daniel@enact.com
If your programmer is a moron, your programs come out moronic. There is no way to get around the two digit problem from the OS side. Anybody who still stores/manipulates their dates as two digit dates deserves what they get.
The specs have
3 33Mhz 64bit PCI slots
1 64Mhz 32bit PCI slot for the ATI 128 card.