The Earth's ocean surface is about 360 million square kilometres. Multiply that by 11 metres, and you have about 4 trillion cubic metres of water, or 4 trillion metric tonnes = 4 quadrillion kilograms. It takes about 64 megajoules to get 1 kg of mass up to the Earth's escape velocity. So, you'd need 256 sextillion joules of energy, just to get that much water off the planet. That's more than twice the amount of energy the USA consumes in a year. And that doesn't consider the efficiencies involved in the technology you use to move the water, or the effects on climate that would result from doing it. Possible? Perhaps. Practical? No way. Better to find a way to stay where we are, or find water that is on Mars already.
I made a mistake. 360 million square kilometres is 360 trillion square metres. Multiply that by 11 metres, and you have about 4 quadrillion cubic metres, not 4 trillion. So you would need 256 septillion joules of energy, not 256 sextillion. That's more that two thousand times the energy used by the USA in a year. And again, that doesn't take (in)efficiencies into account, or the effect on the Earth's climate that kind of terra-un-forming would have. So, either we make our stand on Earth, or wait for Superman to show up and help us move to Mars.
Carbon emissions won't continue at their current clip indefinitely, since the green revolution will displace our industrial-revolution based fuel sources.
Also, any amount of terrain we lose will be dwarfed by the terrain gained from Antarctica, no longer covered in 3 miles of ice.
So, rising sea levels will cause devastation to major coastal cities all over the world, but we don't need to worry because we can move to Antarctica??
Then, theres the need to take water off earth. Are we going to colonize the moon, Mars? Thats going to take terraforming on a planetary scale, and 11 meters of ocean-depth seems like a good start.
Okay, I didn't think you could top your Antarctica scheme for silliness. Boy, was I wrong. Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to move eleven metres of our ocean from Earth to Mars? The Earth's ocean surface is about 360 million square kilometres. Multiply that by 11 metres, and you have about 4 trillion cubic metres of water, or 4 trillion metric tonnes = 4 quadrillion kilograms. It takes about 64 megajoules to get 1 kg of mass up to the Earth's escape velocity. So, you'd need 256 sextillion joules of energy, just to get that much water off the planet. That's more than twice the amount of energy the USA consumes in a year. And that doesn't consider the efficiencies involved in the technology you use to move the water, or the effects on climate that would result from doing it. Possible? Perhaps. Practical? No way. Better to find a way to stay where we are, or find water that is on Mars already.
I thought perhaps it might be Intel's ICC compiler doing a better job of optimizing for Intel CPUs than GCC does. If that were true, and the distro is compiled with it, then that could explain the performance differences.
But now I doubt that because: (a) what I can find on compiler benchmarks indicates that GCC and ICC are about on par with each other; and (b) Clear Linux has GCC selected as the default anyway.
I wonder if some crucial parts of the system were re-coded to work better on Intel systems, at the expense of cross-compatibility (or AMD products.) That might explain why it does better across so many tools, both compiled and interpreted.
"With real education?" This guy had a chance at real education already, and rejected it. He believes there is no difference between science and science fiction. And yet the laws of aerodynamics and Newton don't seem fictional to him.
When I hear you rant about banks and education, I anticipate something next about "precious bodily fluids."
There is no reason to level disdain and malice toward this man. He has his own sort of courage and intellect, let him be.
Alas, no. His "courage and intellect" are not helpful. His motivation is not the kind of good-faith naïveté that seeks to discover new things. It is the kind of stubborn blindness that seeks to affirm rigid beliefs that are not supported by evidence.
Let him be? Perhaps. But let's not celebrate his ignorance.
Have you ever personally verified that the Earth is round? Few have.
Anyone who has travelled to a different latitude and has seen the difference in the positions of the stars has seen first-hand that the Earth is a spheroid. That's not a "few" people.
Because HR people are highly networked. Once you (or they) no longer work for the company, they can help you find jobs, and you can help them find candidates.
There's no question that the employer-employee relationship is unbalanced, with power mostly in the hands of the employer. But the counter-argument is that, degree or not, people jump from one job to another in order to advance their career. And that has become much easier to do in the past couple of decades, with job websites like monster and careerbuilder, and networking services like linkedin.
Changing from one employer to another is an onerous decision, one that you want to initiate on your own terms, not your employer's. But people can do it even if they have debts. Start by building up an emergency fund, with enough to cover about 3 to 6 months of your living expenses, in case you get laid off. Then -- start to save up for a down-payment on a house, if buying one makes sense. (It may not if your career requires you to be mobile.)
TL/DR: From an employer's perspective, I don't think that a candidate with a 4-year degree is necessarily "stickier" than one without. It comes down to the liquidity of the market for the skills the candidate has.
And the only reason you had any need for IQ edge was because their online platform ran Silverlight for who knows what reason. Silverlight?!?! There's no getting THAT to work on Linux!
Lately I have had no problems in linux with either IQ Edge or their website (aside from some network access problems due to my ISP that took awhile to straighten out.) I'm not sure what your Silverlight issue is.
Luckily the online platform now works on real computers and I haven't used IQ edge since.
Please define what a "real computer" is?
I also wouldn't call IQ edge a full "success". About every 3rd time you open the app it will fail to run because you need to update it first (I've never seen any app that needed so frequent updates, especially with no noticable changes ever) , and while on Windows you can basically click the update button on the popup, wait a minute, and be running the new version, on Linux under wine you have to manually go to their website, find and download the update manually, unzip it, manually copy the files in to the correct locations, and then relaunch the app.
I have had success using wine staging which is a more cutting-edge release of wine. As for IQ Edge updates, there have been a few this year, but the number hasn't been excessive. And when the updates happen, I have found that my Wine/Linux system (Ubuntu 16.04) has accepted them gracefully with minor complaints that can be bypassed easily.
Questrade IQ Edge works quite well under Wine, although it freezes if I try to minimize its window.
Fidelity Active Trader Pro almost finishes starting up, but fails at the last moment with an unhelpful error message. Funny thing is, Fidelity uses Crossover (a Wine derivative) to run Active Trader Pro on Macs. I'm wondering whether it's worth buying the Linux version of Crossover.
In more polite terms, I would not be surprised if individual states begin to do exactly that, through the courts. I wish them luck, sincerely. IMHO, I would tell them to reset their mission to one that protects consumers from thoe who provide service to them.
The internet, from its beginnings, has aspired to be a communication medium. In the hands of ISPs and their allies in government, it has slowly evolved into a broadcast medium. Imagine a telephone company that only lets you say one word for every X that gets spoken back to you, and X varies with who you call. That's where we're headed, if we aren't there already.
The most effective attack against him is that he has kept his promises. That tells the public to take what he says seriously which will sink him.
During the campaign last year, I remember hearing this comment from someone in the media about Trump's candidacy: Trump's supporters took him seriously but not literally and the media took him literally but not seriously.
For Trump's base, it's more about style than substance. In 2016 Trump won by carrying the rust belt because Clinton thought she could take it for granted. He'll still have his base in 2020, but whether he can win the same crucial states again is another matter.
As for Trump keeping his promises, well yes and no. For example, he called for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslim immigration, and instead he ordered travel restrictions for seven -- oh wait, no, six countries, none of which have citizens responsible for acts of terror on American soil.
Another AC on this thread has it right: this is not a story.
Chris Cuomo expressed an opinion on the law. Quite probably an incorrect one. But retracted or not, that doesn't make it fake news. It's just an opinion. Like your opinion that he did it deliberately to keep people from looking at the leaked e-mails. Whereas another tenable opinion is that he just got it wrong.
They mention RT and Sputnik but fail to mention CNN, HuffingtonPost, Salon. You know, predominately fake news sites.
Show me one single story on CNN, HuffPo or Salon that is indisputably fake news.
I don't mean op-eds. They aren't news.
I don't mean stories with errors that get corrected later. That happens to all news outlets.
I don't mean stories that are real, but reported with a bias. The better news sites try to avoid bias, but it still slips in. They can mitigate it by reporting from various viewpoints and with commentators who have different views.
I mean deliberate fabrications, stories that are just plain false, that are intended to deceive, anger or frighten the reader, and that the outlet does not retract even when they are debunked. I mean stuff like "pizzagate."
And while you're at it, try doing the same for Fox News. I'm no fan of theirs, but I doubt you'll find they spread fake news of the kind I'm describing.
Fake news is written by fake reporters. It is not news at all, and does not belong in a news feed.
Overrated. I'm not fond of the prospect of killer drones the size of hockey pucks flying around programmed to target political leaders, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, thankyouverymuch.
I'm wondering if this is the sort of technology that can be defeated with chicken wire.
Probably not. The video demonstrates the swarms defeating windows and other hard surfaces by having a subset of the swarm commit suicide so that the rest can penetrate. No doubt these bots could be designed to handle countermeasures like chicken wire with some similar approach.
iOS passcodes can be six digits now, not only four. It will take you longer than you think.
Not if you clone and parallelize the process. But you have a point. My Android phone allows even longer backup passwords. And I use my fingerprint, not a passcode.
Nevertheless, a phone used by human is likely to be crackable using the resources available to police. Humans don't type RSA keys into their phones to unlock them. At best they use moderately short passwords that could be determined in a reasonable time with brute force.
one can't trust the government for personal protection. Until that changes, guns is essentially the only effective protection many have.
I'm not fond of the prospect of walking around all the time packing heat, and having to defend myself with deadly force on a split-second's notice. If you live your life in such peril, then there's much worse going on than the inability of government to protect you.
There are plenty of civilized countries with far lower gun violence than the USA, where people don't feel the need to walk around armed.
As for the Las Vegas shooter, he had scoped, high-powered rifles, bump-stocks, and a 32nd-floor vantage point. Could the crowd have retaliated effectively with hand-held pistols? Not likely.
Slashdot Mirror
The Earth's ocean surface is about 360 million square kilometres. Multiply that by 11 metres, and you have about 4 trillion cubic metres of water, or 4 trillion metric tonnes = 4 quadrillion kilograms. It takes about 64 megajoules to get 1 kg of mass up to the Earth's escape velocity. So, you'd need 256 sextillion joules of energy, just to get that much water off the planet. That's more than twice the amount of energy the USA consumes in a year. And that doesn't consider the efficiencies involved in the technology you use to move the water, or the effects on climate that would result from doing it. Possible? Perhaps. Practical? No way. Better to find a way to stay where we are, or find water that is on Mars already.
I made a mistake. 360 million square kilometres is 360 trillion square metres. Multiply that by 11 metres, and you have about 4 quadrillion cubic metres, not 4 trillion. So you would need 256 septillion joules of energy, not 256 sextillion. That's more that two thousand times the energy used by the USA in a year. And again, that doesn't take (in)efficiencies into account, or the effect on the Earth's climate that kind of terra-un-forming would have. So, either we make our stand on Earth, or wait for Superman to show up and help us move to Mars.
Carbon emissions won't continue at their current clip indefinitely, since the green revolution will displace our industrial-revolution based fuel sources.
That won't be enough. Reducing carbon emissions is important, but we also have to reduce the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere.
Also, any amount of terrain we lose will be dwarfed by the terrain gained from Antarctica, no longer covered in 3 miles of ice.
So, rising sea levels will cause devastation to major coastal cities all over the world, but we don't need to worry because we can move to Antarctica??
Then, theres the need to take water off earth. Are we going to colonize the moon, Mars? Thats going to take terraforming on a planetary scale, and 11 meters of ocean-depth seems like a good start.
Okay, I didn't think you could top your Antarctica scheme for silliness. Boy, was I wrong. Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to move eleven metres of our ocean from Earth to Mars? The Earth's ocean surface is about 360 million square kilometres. Multiply that by 11 metres, and you have about 4 trillion cubic metres of water, or 4 trillion metric tonnes = 4 quadrillion kilograms. It takes about 64 megajoules to get 1 kg of mass up to the Earth's escape velocity. So, you'd need 256 sextillion joules of energy, just to get that much water off the planet. That's more than twice the amount of energy the USA consumes in a year. And that doesn't consider the efficiencies involved in the technology you use to move the water, or the effects on climate that would result from doing it. Possible? Perhaps. Practical? No way. Better to find a way to stay where we are, or find water that is on Mars already.
I thought perhaps it might be Intel's ICC compiler doing a better job of optimizing for Intel CPUs than GCC does. If that were true, and the distro is compiled with it, then that could explain the performance differences.
But now I doubt that because: (a) what I can find on compiler benchmarks indicates that GCC and ICC are about on par with each other; and (b) Clear Linux has GCC selected as the default anyway.
I wonder if some crucial parts of the system were re-coded to work better on Intel systems, at the expense of cross-compatibility (or AMD products.) That might explain why it does better across so many tools, both compiled and interpreted.
Trump is best at mining. His little hands can dig into the ether and get the tiny coins out.
Trump ... digging for something ... with his hands? Nah. Never happened.
But hey, he knows how a shovel works.
"With real education?" This guy had a chance at real education already, and rejected it. He believes there is no difference between science and science fiction. And yet the laws of aerodynamics and Newton don't seem fictional to him.
When I hear you rant about banks and education, I anticipate something next about "precious bodily fluids."
There is no reason to level disdain and malice toward this man.
He has his own sort of courage and intellect, let him be.
Alas, no. His "courage and intellect" are not helpful. His motivation is not the kind of good-faith naïveté that seeks to discover new things. It is the kind of stubborn blindness that seeks to affirm rigid beliefs that are not supported by evidence.
Let him be? Perhaps. But let's not celebrate his ignorance.
Have you ever personally verified that the Earth is round? Few have.
Anyone who has travelled to a different latitude and has seen the difference in the positions of the stars has seen first-hand that the Earth is a spheroid. That's not a "few" people.
they just want to hire smart people?
smart != educated
That being said, the two often correlate.
Why would you be friends with HR?
Because HR people are highly networked. Once you (or they) no longer work for the company, they can help you find jobs, and you can help them find candidates.
There's no question that the employer-employee relationship is unbalanced, with power mostly in the hands of the employer. But the counter-argument is that, degree or not, people jump from one job to another in order to advance their career. And that has become much easier to do in the past couple of decades, with job websites like monster and careerbuilder, and networking services like linkedin.
Changing from one employer to another is an onerous decision, one that you want to initiate on your own terms, not your employer's. But people can do it even if they have debts. Start by building up an emergency fund, with enough to cover about 3 to 6 months of your living expenses, in case you get laid off. Then -- start to save up for a down-payment on a house, if buying one makes sense. (It may not if your career requires you to be mobile.)
TL/DR: From an employer's perspective, I don't think that a candidate with a 4-year degree is necessarily "stickier" than one without. It comes down to the liquidity of the market for the skills the candidate has.
Yeah, nerds don't want to admit that Microsoft have actually improved their products in the last 20 years.
Oh MS has improved, I'll give them that. But what burns me up is that it took them 20 years to get where they are now.
Meanwhile, on the Linux side of things, we got Ubuntu. *shudder*
Don't like Ubuntu? You have lots of other distros to choose from.
And the only reason you had any need for IQ edge was because their online platform ran Silverlight for who knows what reason. Silverlight?!?! There's no getting THAT to work on Linux!
Lately I have had no problems in linux with either IQ Edge or their website (aside from some network access problems due to my ISP that took awhile to straighten out.) I'm not sure what your Silverlight issue is.
Luckily the online platform now works on real computers and I haven't used IQ edge since.
Please define what a "real computer" is?
I also wouldn't call IQ edge a full "success". About every 3rd time you open the app it will fail to run because you need to update it first (I've never seen any app that needed so frequent updates, especially with no noticable changes ever) , and while on Windows you can basically click the update button on the popup, wait a minute, and be running the new version, on Linux under wine you have to manually go to their website, find and download the update manually, unzip it, manually copy the files in to the correct locations, and then relaunch the app.
I have had success using wine staging which is a more cutting-edge release of wine. As for IQ Edge updates, there have been a few this year, but the number hasn't been excessive. And when the updates happen, I have found that my Wine/Linux system (Ubuntu 16.04) has accepted them gracefully with minor complaints that can be bypassed easily.
Success: Questrade IQ Edge (Canadian broker)
Weakness: Fidelity Active Trader Pro (US broker)
Details:
Questrade IQ Edge works quite well under Wine, although it freezes if I try to minimize its window.
Fidelity Active Trader Pro almost finishes starting up, but fails at the last moment with an unhelpful error message. Funny thing is, Fidelity uses Crossover (a Wine derivative) to run Active Trader Pro on Macs. I'm wondering whether it's worth buying the Linux version of Crossover.
Tell the FCC to fuck off and die.
In more polite terms, I would not be surprised if individual states begin to do exactly that, through the courts. I wish them luck, sincerely. IMHO, I would tell them to reset their mission to one that protects consumers from thoe who provide service to them.
The internet, from its beginnings, has aspired to be a communication medium. In the hands of ISPs and their allies in government, it has slowly evolved into a broadcast medium. Imagine a telephone company that only lets you say one word for every X that gets spoken back to you, and X varies with who you call. That's where we're headed, if we aren't there already.
I cannot think of a better way to kill the tech sector.
Won't kill it. Just turn it into something more like cable TV.
The difference being?
It's a sad thing for the world.. but a great opportunity for Europe.
You misspelled "China."
The most effective attack against him is that he has kept his promises. That tells the public to take what he says seriously which will sink him.
During the campaign last year, I remember hearing this comment from someone in the media about Trump's candidacy: Trump's supporters took him seriously but not literally and the media took him literally but not seriously.
For Trump's base, it's more about style than substance. In 2016 Trump won by carrying the rust belt because Clinton thought she could take it for granted. He'll still have his base in 2020, but whether he can win the same crucial states again is another matter.
As for Trump keeping his promises, well yes and no. For example, he called for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslim immigration, and instead he ordered travel restrictions for seven -- oh wait, no, six countries, none of which have citizens responsible for acts of terror on American soil.
Another AC on this thread has it right: this is not a story.
Chris Cuomo expressed an opinion on the law. Quite probably an incorrect one. But retracted or not, that doesn't make it fake news. It's just an opinion. Like your opinion that he did it deliberately to keep people from looking at the leaked e-mails. Whereas another tenable opinion is that he just got it wrong.
They mention RT and Sputnik but fail to mention CNN, HuffingtonPost, Salon. You know, predominately fake news sites.
Show me one single story on CNN, HuffPo or Salon that is indisputably fake news.
I don't mean op-eds. They aren't news.
I don't mean stories with errors that get corrected later. That happens to all news outlets.
I don't mean stories that are real, but reported with a bias. The better news sites try to avoid bias, but it still slips in. They can mitigate it by reporting from various viewpoints and with commentators who have different views.
I mean deliberate fabrications, stories that are just plain false, that are intended to deceive, anger or frighten the reader, and that the outlet does not retract even when they are debunked. I mean stuff like "pizzagate."
And while you're at it, try doing the same for Fox News. I'm no fan of theirs, but I doubt you'll find they spread fake news of the kind I'm describing.
Fake news is written by fake reporters. It is not news at all, and does not belong in a news feed.
A tax break to convert from natural gas to coal?
Pennslyvania, you're doing it wrong.
Speculating on plausible outcomes is the first step towards mitigating the consequences of them.
Overrated. I'm not fond of the prospect of killer drones the size of hockey pucks flying around programmed to target political leaders, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, thankyouverymuch.
I'm wondering if this is the sort of technology that can be defeated with chicken wire.
Probably not. The video demonstrates the swarms defeating windows and other hard surfaces by having a subset of the swarm commit suicide so that the rest can penetrate. No doubt these bots could be designed to handle countermeasures like chicken wire with some similar approach.
iOS passcodes can be six digits now, not only four. It will take you longer than you think.
Not if you clone and parallelize the process. But you have a point. My Android phone allows even longer backup passwords. And I use my fingerprint, not a passcode.
Nevertheless, a phone used by human is likely to be crackable using the resources available to police. Humans don't type RSA keys into their phones to unlock them. At best they use moderately short passwords that could be determined in a reasonable time with brute force.
one can't trust the government for personal protection. Until that changes, guns is essentially the only effective protection many have.
I'm not fond of the prospect of walking around all the time packing heat, and having to defend myself with deadly force on a split-second's notice. If you live your life in such peril, then there's much worse going on than the inability of government to protect you.
There are plenty of civilized countries with far lower gun violence than the USA, where people don't feel the need to walk around armed.
As for the Las Vegas shooter, he had scoped, high-powered rifles, bump-stocks, and a 32nd-floor vantage point. Could the crowd have retaliated effectively with hand-held pistols? Not likely.