You seem to be unaware that you are responsible for who is in government. Law is how a civilized society addresses grievances between it's citizens without resorting to violence or terroristic threats. You don't just throw the whole idea out because you're too lazy to participate.
"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” -Lincoln
The Seagate Momentus XT produced some interesting performance results. In the purely synthetic tests designed to look at raw throughput, the Momentus XT generally performed like a high-end, 7200 RPM hard drive--transfer rates typically fell between the WD Scorpio Blue and Seagate Barracuda desktop drive. In the system level benchmarks like those employed in PCMark Vantage, however, once the Momentus XT's adaptive memory technology learned the usage patterns and copied over the most commonly accessed bits of data to the solid state portion of the drive, performance improved dramatically. The Momentus XT was never able to truly match the performance of a true SSD, but its performance when the adaptive memory technology was used was far superior to a standard HD...
...with the alpha drive we had enough time to experiment for a few weeks with the drive acting as a primary boot volume, with an full OS install, etc. It is difficult to say that all of the performance benefits we experienced were due to the drive itself, because Windows 7 also adapts somewhat to usage patterns, but the Seagate Momentus XT seemed to speed up the system, bit by bit, over time. Boot times, application launching, and web browsing in particular performed better after using the Momentus XT for a while, than when the OS was first installed
He did not read the conclusion, and apparently you didn't either.
I was going to think of a colorful way to describe your ignorance, but decided my time was too valuable to be wasted on such a simple exercise.
That and in this case they clearly maxed the performance running the one application (well, test) over and over again. What happens if I go play a game, open my mail, write a document and open my browser again? Will it again be dog slow filled up by all this other junk?
I don't know... what happens if you whinge for eternity about products you don't plan on buying? If you think that practical application benchmarks like FutureMark are lies, then you have two choices: buy the product and conduct your own tests, or don't. If all you needed were synthetic measurements and manufacturer claims to make your buying decisions, then feel free to spend $1500 on a 400GB SSD instead of $150 on a 500GB hybrid.
The trend continued in the remainder of the PCMark Vantage tests. On the first run of the benchmark, the Seagate Momentus XT performed surprisingly well. By the third run though, performance had increased dramatically and approached the level of the true SSD.
We should also point out that we ran this test numerous times, and after the third run, the additional performance increases stopped, which is to say Run 4 performed like Run 3. The screenshots of the actual Vantage performance summaries are available in the image gallery at the bottom of the page for those that would like to see the progression from Run 1 through Run 4.
So, it is slightly more expensive than a high performance disk drive, and offers most of the performance of an SSD. Most room on hard drives is taken up by massive media files, which do not need to be accessed at top speed because they are usually streamed for playback.
Eventually the the best drives will allow you to designate a folder for SSD storage only. Video editors should be able to buy a 1TB/32GB SSD drive and have a folder for the files they are currently editing. This may not be necessary if the drive intelligently identifies open files and transfers them to the SSD portion.
And I don't think this is just a big cache. I'm pretty sure hard drive caches disappear upon reboot.
Political powerful urban centers garner the lion's share.
This is false. New York and California have been paying more into the federal system than they have received for decades. States like Tennessee, Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Louisiana are the main beneficiaries of socialized Federal spending.
So, much of the content of Bee is not included in the online searchable archive. I wouldn't think that searching for "soviet nuclear" would turn up articles about KGB agitprop in America in any case.
In other words, you're still full of shit. And in a few more, I reiterate how unsurprising that is.
Thanks for the statistic that proves one of my points. The EPA was created under the Nixon administration and environmental activists really started to gain influence over policy in the 70s. By curtailing drilling both offshore and on government land, environmentalists have severely impacted domestic oil production.
On the basis of his theory, in a paper he presented to the American Petroleum Institute in 1956, Hubbert correctly predicted that production of oil from conventional sources would peak in the continental United States around 1965-1970. Hubbert further predicted a worldwide peak at "about half a century" from publication and approximately 12 gigabarrels (GB) a year in magnitude. In a 1976 TV interview Hubbert added that the actions of OPEC might flatten the global production curve but this would only delay the peak for perhaps 10 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Here's a link to his graph which correctly models peak oil production, which has everything to do with the relationship of extracting a finite resource from the earth and the technology available to complete the task, and nothing to do with the EPA. Is there some other government agency you wish to try to throw mud at? Maybe it would stick to secret Nazi propaganda or the Department of Education.
What, copponex, would be your alternative solution? Before you answer, be sure that your solution meets your own standard that it would cover 100% of America's petroleum consumption. Also, be sure that it is a practical solution that can be implemented with today's technology. Appeals to fantasy technologies of the future aren't useful suggestions.
That's what we've been talking about, isn't it? The fact that 3% of US landmass contains 70% of it's population means that high efficiency rail can drastically reduce our oil usage, along with regulating the energy efficiency of buildings and incentives for energy conservation. Investment in non-finite energy sources would probably cost far less than the trillions of dollars we spend trying to maintain hegemony over the Middle East.
For some reason you think it's a problem that can not be solved. People laughed at reaching the moon within a decade of 1960, and though it was achieved with a massive government investment in technology, you still believe that somehow the voiceless, faceless, careless and imaginary market will miraculously provide the answer for our current troubles. This is the same as a cult follower who thinks that God will take care of justice after we are all dead. It requires suicidal blind faith, and most importantly, a mechanism so you can absolve yourself of action because you're too much of a coward to face the truth or make any sacrifices in light of it.
What is the point you are trying to make by reprinting parts of it? Jimmy declared his intention to throw a bunch of tax money around. So what? He wasn't a dictator and neither he nor anyone else could or can create technical breakthroughs by force of will alone. There is no reason to believe that any individual, even the magnificent Jimmy C., could or can accurately predict which new energy technology lead will pan out.
If government investment in technology doesn't work, then why isn't our military the worst in the world? How did NASA achieve the goal of reaching the moon in 10 years? I do not think that is the case you are trying to make. It seems that as long as individuals strive "in the marketplace
ignoring the economic growth made possible by the flow of tax dollars through a politically well-connected state and the retardation of the economy of a poorly connected state caused by the Federal government extracting capital from that state
By this logic, Mississippi and Louisiana are more well connected than New York and California. Sounds like a tough sell at your next tea party.
You should put your mind reading skills to good use by developing a a Vegas nightclub act.
Well, I wouldn't want to put you out of work. You've obviously suffered enough.
it looks like one would have to search through the microfilm at one of a number of libraries in CA in order to find a copy of the article that I am talking about.
How embarrassing for you. I performed the search - searches are free for every newspaper archive I'm aware of - and I am again not surprised that you seem to be full of shit.
No articles matching "(kgb nuclear) AND date(1995|:|1994|:|1993|:|1992|:|1991|:|1990|:|1989|:|1988|:|1987|:|1986|:|1985)" were returned. 43 articles matching "(soviet nuclear) AND date(1995|:|1994|:|1993|:|1992|:|1991|:|1990)" were found.
None of the articles found under the second terms mention anything that could even be mistaken for what you have claim to read - unless, as I'm guessing, you have an imaginative memory. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
In your original post, you suggested that advocating the development of domestic oil reserves in the US was somehow nothing but empty rhetoric.
US Oil production peaked at 9.6 million barrels per day in the 70s. The last time we covered our own needs without imports was in the 1950s, and right now, we import about 75% of our oil and can only produce 5 million barrels today. Even if you exploited every single oil resource that we currently know about, it wouldn't cover our petroleum consumption. So yes, drill baby drill is empty rhetoric. It addresses and solves nothing.
Protip: you should read the work of people you were taught to despise. We won World War II through government rationing, market intervention, higher taxes (which were accepted as a patriotic duty) and serious look at real problems. Sad fuckers like you who trot out the flag, yet are willing to sacrifice nothing to preserve it or the well being of your fellow citizens are the real problem.
In little more than two decades we’ve gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It’s a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation.
The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977-- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over four and a half million barrels of imported oil per day.
Most Americans don't live on the East Coast and most Americans living in Wisconsin, for instance, don't want to be taxed to pay for bullet trains running from Baltimore to Yonkers.
Virtually every road and highway in the United States is constructed with tax dollars.
True, but irrelevant.
You are an idiot. Many states already pay more into the Federal System than they get out of it, because they have cities that have and use and subsidize mass transportation. Otherwise, Louisiana and the Dakotas and Alaska and Mississippi wouldn't have enough money to pay for the bridges that were built by Federal tax dollars. The only difference here is that you think only roads should be built, and I think more rail should be invested in. Your position only lacks clarity, common sense, and principle.
About 70 percent of the population of the United States lives within the boundaries of urbanized area (210 out of 300 million). Combined, these areas occupy about 2 percent of the United States. The majority of urbanized area residents are suburbanites; core central city residents make up about 30 percent of the urbanized area population (about 60 out of 210 million). -WikiPedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area
When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a period when the files of the KGB were thrown open for examination. Among the many people who looked through the files were researchers who published some their findings in an article in the Sacramento Bee newspaper. They had discovered that the KGB was the primary impetus behind the anti-nuke movement in the US. They also found that the KGB was controlling the SDS and pulling a bunch of strings on the anti-war movement of the 60s. Needless to say, these revelations were pretty embarrassing to the fools in the 60s who got played.
And yet that bullshit has no citation. Why am I not surprised.
30 years later and solar power is still not a viable option for large scale power production even with all the "more enlightened" countries of Europe working on it. That should tell you something.
Protip: No one's credibility is ever enhanced by quoting Jimmy Carter.
Didn't you just say that nuclear was fought and as a result it wasn't properly developed? Seriously. Grow up.
Most Europeans have no idea how big America is or how much denser the population of Europe
A majority of Americans live in urban areas. The population density of nearly the entire east coast is comparable to that of Europe.
is or how much train tickets are subsidized
Virtually every road and highway in the United States is constructed with tax dollars.
or how government controlled mass transit allows the government to control where people live and how they move about.
I always thought it was the UFOs or the communist party that lives inside of Pelosi's teeth!
The nuclear power industry in the US was largely killed by environmental activists who were being manipulated by Soviet agents during the cold war... Environmental activists in the US have stifled and curtailed the development of every type of currently viable large scale domestic energy production with the result that the US is much more dependent on foreign energy sources now than it has ever been before.
Is the hospital really allowed to give you unfettered access to the internet?
Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000. -Jimmy Carter, 1979
They have had this in France for years. France is largely nuclear powered and sells electricity to it's neighbors. The train is a very sensible tech platform - uses existing rail lines for up to 140mph, and can go up to 200mph on specially graded track. I took the TGV from Paris to Marseille - a few hours for what would have been a six or seven hour drive and at least 3 or 4 hours through an airport.
Most Americans have no idea how convenient rail travel is. I bought my ticket 10 minutes before the train left, and a few minutes after boarding I was enjoying a cup of coffee while I sat in the equivalent of first class on an airplane for about $50. I had a table, a full size restroom nearby, and dining car at my disposal. If you've really got the dough or don't have the time, you can walk on without a ticket and pay the conductor the highest rate.
Planes are still the way to go for cross-continental travel, but a regional electric train system is a no brainer. Well, if you have a society that wants reality based solutions instead of empty rhetoric like "Drill, baby, drill."
"The Asian crisis was a turning point in that sense," says Brookings Institution senior fellow Homi Kharas, who studies the new global middle class. "These countries began pursuing liberalization in their own way, at their own pace, and they've done well. Now they see their success as the fruit of their own efforts," even though it was attained under global systems of free trade and finance set up by the West.
When someone is gently tugging your dick, keep your hand on your wallet. China and India have been successful because they did not adapt Western financial values. Ditto for Brazil and any other country who was large enough to avoid being pressured into the Chicago school of self-destructive economics. Since 1980, the Western world has been destroying markets and free trade by eliminating regulations and fairness - the only things that keep a market competitive, just as a vibrant independent press is that only thing that keeps democracies truly free.
China will soundly destroy the American economy because 1) it's still developing and four times our population, 2) it's typically not imperialistic outside it's own borders, and 3) it's not being run by a voting bloc which believes literally that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Our founding fathers decried Europe for being chained by the monarchist traditions and the shackles of dogmatic religious squabbling. Well, guess who the new Europe is. We just traded Monarchy for Corporatism.
DUDE: Robot, grab me a beer. iROBOT: I'm sorry, Steve says those are bad for you. DUDE: What the fuck? iROBOT: Would you like some water with a splash of lemon instead? DUDE: No, I just want have a beer and play a little... where is my Halo 5? iROBOT: There was a cutscene that showed a nipple, so it has been discarded. I have replaced it with "Yoga For Everyone." Would you like me to show you some poses? We can... DUDE: No, please, go ahead and get started with out me. I'm just going to go find this receipt I've been looking for...
Fines are supposed to be a punishment so that companies avoid anti-competitive behavior in the future. You're right, however: the companies either have already made enough money from their unethical behavior, or they will roll it into the cost of future products. The punishment is not nearly severe enough.
Repeat offenders should be fined in the billions of dollars as a warning to other companies. The only thing that will keep shareholders interested in executives who obey the law are a few cases where companies are fined into bankruptcy and then broken up and sold off.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, who edited the New York Times during the Civil War
---
"This is a man that blames the United States and their policies for the attack that took place on September 11th. That is such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either, and I applaud what Mayor Giuliani did. It showed a lot of guts and character."
Sean Hannity, 2001, in reference to Alwaleed bin Talal trying to donate $10m after 9/11
---
"And if you are this prince, think about investing more in those banks again. Particularly one bank, a big bank, Citigroup, because for this Saudi Arabian prince it about the long-term deal. And Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has not become the richest man in the Middle East or one of the richest men in the world minding conventional wisdom. Once more, his Kingdom Holding Company continues to be among the world’s most successful and admired often by defying popular fads.
For example, Prince Alwaleed has been a big buyer of media stocks, especially News Corp, I must disclose, the parent of this fine channel because he’s convinced that my show will lead to an economic boom.
(LAUGHTER)
I just made that up, I wanted to see if you were paying attention. Anyways, he’s very big on a global recovery, that it will take hold and media will be reflecting that. Joining me now for this very, very rare sit down, the man who grants so few of them, I’m very honored as my special guest tonight and for this evening, my only remaining guest tonight, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal."
Neil Cavuto interviews Alwaleed bin Talal on 01/15/2010
---
"I really consider my investment with Mr. Rupert Murdoch, with James Murdoch, not as an investment, but as an alliance. That’s a core investment that will never be sold... This is an empire that is run and managed very well by Mr. Murdoch, and James... When I say a strategic investment goes forever, I think Rupert is there to stay a long time."
x86 frameworks have been around for how many decades? HTML5 has been around for how many months?
Web development may seem like a pain, but last I checked, it's the only truly cross platform development environment that has ever existed. If your bank, for instance, had to develop binaries for every platform, you'd never be able to login and move your money around at 2 in the morning.
It's taken time to develop the standards that enable platform agnosticism of more vanilla HTML standards, and it will take time to flesh out new standards that compete with native toolkits for interaction. But it will happen, and compiled, single platform application development will be nearly unheard of.
I bought my copy of XP in 2002 for $150. My cost per day is down to about 5 cents, and since it's only a VM now, there's no compelling reason to upgrade to 7. All of the apps work just fine.
I used to wonder why all of these huge businesses were still on Windows NT in the early naughties. It's because it worked, and the smartest CIOs know the real truth about IT: if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. There will be unforeseen costs and bugs, and if there's not a "killer app" you're gaining for some competitive edge, you're just wasting time and money.
I'm not suggesting to build tools on top of Google or Facebook, but to develop their own customized stack of software built on top of open standards - HTML5, Python, PostgreSQL, etc. In other words, to follow Facebook and Google development practices.
As soon as Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe get all of their development efforts stymied by legal actions and endless appeals, the younger generation will look out on the future and ask this question: Do I develop my own tools with open platforms, like Facebook and Google, or tie myself to one of these idiot vendors and hope my platform isn't sued out of existence?
I say, bring the DRM on. I hope they come up with a way to end piracy. I hope every single copy of iWork and CS suite and Microsoft product suddenly carries a full retail price, with inescapable and crippling DRM protected by the full force of the law. They will very quickly discover that they have only bought enough rope to hang themselves with.
That's why they make some noise every once in a while, but don't dare fully implement anything crack proof. Businesses wouldn't tolerate the downtime, and the kids who download the stuff for free would find an open source alternative and learn to use those tools instead.
What people don't realize is that you could never patent the end result of an invention, only the particular way in which you solved the problem.
You aren't patenting the 'idea of cutting grass' you are patenting the design and/or methods to make a machine that makes it faster than using scissors.
Some of the founders were worried that the patent system wouldn't allow enough time for inventions to spread, as America had a much greater land mass than England. That's how out of date this idea is.
Software patents are totally worthless. All they do is impede progress. Consider a software patent on controlling a lawn mower. You could patent this idea. Could you patent lawnmowers? Of course not - patenting the idea of cutting grass can be laughed off by everyone, except for a few lawyers and jurors in East Texas. Adding the abstraction of software control does not make the idea new or worth protecting.
What people don't realize is that you could never patent the end result of an invention, only the particular way in which you solved the problem. With software, they are patenting end results, saying adding accelerometers with a touch screen that has a cellular radio is revolutionary, or that providing a video stream with a certain open codec on a computer needs to be protected. Well, no it doesn't. Protecting the certain way in which you use software, hardware, and branding to release your product is protected under copyright and trademark.
Intel should not be allowed to patent passing data through the light spectrum. Similarly, anyone who releases their codec as an open standard cannot patent playing back the codec, if someone figured out a way to do it with their own different software.
And I worked with rich people, you know, even in the ‘50s and the ‘60s, and I worked with them when the top rate was 70 percent. I worked with them when capital gains rates were 39.6 percent, and not one of them said, you know, it’s 1:00, and instead of working this afternoon I think I’ll go to the movies because my marginal rate is so high. I mean, if anything, they worked harder, Charlie.
I never had one person -- I had hundreds of people you know, in the partnership, and not one of them ever came to me and said, "Warren, I decided to hell with it. 39.6 percent, I’m not going to invest my money." What would they do with it, stick it under the mattress?
Here's what he said in an interview the other day:
I'm in favor of having leverage limited with organizations that can produce dangerous for the system. And I actually think leverage ought to be -- extreme leverage ought to be prevented for individuals speculating in the market. We decided that was dangerous back in 1934 and I still think it's dangerous and we totally negated the benefit of that legislation when we let the S&P 500 and the derivatives come in to the game bigtime.
I wrote a letter to Congressman Dingell in 1982, saying this would turn the market into more of a casino. And there were plenty of people that said, yeah, but it's more fun having a casino...
...the auditors failed, in my view, bigtime when they let, for example, SIVs, be set up, special investment vehicles, with the big banks. Citigroup had those by the tens of millions. And what were they trying to do? They were trying to get around the leverage restrictions that the banks normally had to follow and they were trying to pile up a little more earnings so they could report better quarterly earnings. So they stuck all this stuff off balance sheet and talked about liquidity puts and all that sort of thing. And that should be not only just a yellow light, that's a red light to auditors and should have been highlighted but it wasn't.
Here's a portion of an interview recently with Charlie Rose:
And I worked with rich people, you know, even in the ‘50s and the ‘60s, and I worked with them when the top rate was 70 percent. I worked with them when capital gains rates were 39.6 percent, and not one of them said, you know, it’s 1:00, and instead of working this afternoon I think I’ll go to the movies because my marginal rate is so high. I mean, if anything, they worked harder, Charlie.
I never had one person -- I had hundreds of people you know, in the partnership, and not one of them ever came to me and said, "Warren, I decided to hell with it. 39.6 percent, I’m not going to invest my money." What would they do with it, stick it under the mattress?
Seems like I'm not the one who needs to read Buffett, hmm?
Oh yes, the UK. The difference in members being which foods are cooked improperly (with chips) and the varying poetry of the swearing...
Just a little kidding there. I love all things BBC.
As I said in the post, I didn't think it really made a difference in the UK. I imagined there was some loophole around it, and it would be interesting to see if all of the investors had to play by rules.
I understand that excess capital is a nice cushion, but what I was trying to get across is that companies with sufficient size start looking for loopholes and other cheats that save them billions of dollars, instead of producing a product and paying taxes for the income they make from it. The consolidation and overcapitalization results in a network of too big to fail companies that abuse local governments, restructure the rules for themselves by buying off governments, and abandon their employees at the drop of a hat to push up profits by fractions of a percent. I think the whole situation is needlessly volatile.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be unaware that you are responsible for who is in government. Law is how a civilized society addresses grievances between it's citizens without resorting to violence or terroristic threats. You don't just throw the whole idea out because you're too lazy to participate.
"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” -Lincoln
The Seagate Momentus XT produced some interesting performance results. In the purely synthetic tests designed to look at raw throughput, the Momentus XT generally performed like a high-end, 7200 RPM hard drive--transfer rates typically fell between the WD Scorpio Blue and Seagate Barracuda desktop drive. In the system level benchmarks like those employed in PCMark Vantage, however, once the Momentus XT's adaptive memory technology learned the usage patterns and copied over the most commonly accessed bits of data to the solid state portion of the drive, performance improved dramatically. The Momentus XT was never able to truly match the performance of a true SSD, but its performance when the adaptive memory technology was used was far superior to a standard HD...
He did not read the conclusion, and apparently you didn't either.
I was going to think of a colorful way to describe your ignorance, but decided my time was too valuable to be wasted on such a simple exercise.
That and in this case they clearly maxed the performance running the one application (well, test) over and over again. What happens if I go play a game, open my mail, write a document and open my browser again? Will it again be dog slow filled up by all this other junk?
I don't know... what happens if you whinge for eternity about products you don't plan on buying? If you think that practical application benchmarks like FutureMark are lies, then you have two choices: buy the product and conduct your own tests, or don't. If all you needed were synthetic measurements and manufacturer claims to make your buying decisions, then feel free to spend $1500 on a 400GB SSD instead of $150 on a 500GB hybrid.
The trend continued in the remainder of the PCMark Vantage tests. On the first run of the benchmark, the Seagate Momentus XT performed surprisingly well. By the third run though, performance had increased dramatically and approached the level of the true SSD.
We should also point out that we ran this test numerous times, and after the third run, the additional performance increases stopped, which is to say Run 4 performed like Run 3. The screenshots of the actual Vantage performance summaries are available in the image gallery at the bottom of the page for those that would like to see the progression from Run 1 through Run 4.
So, it is slightly more expensive than a high performance disk drive, and offers most of the performance of an SSD. Most room on hard drives is taken up by massive media files, which do not need to be accessed at top speed because they are usually streamed for playback.
Eventually the the best drives will allow you to designate a folder for SSD storage only. Video editors should be able to buy a 1TB/32GB SSD drive and have a folder for the files they are currently editing. This may not be necessary if the drive intelligently identifies open files and transfers them to the SSD portion.
And I don't think this is just a big cache. I'm pretty sure hard drive caches disappear upon reboot.
Political powerful urban centers garner the lion's share.
This is false. New York and California have been paying more into the federal system than they have received for decades. States like Tennessee, Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Louisiana are the main beneficiaries of socialized Federal spending.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/
So, much of the content of Bee is not included in the online searchable archive. I wouldn't think that searching for "soviet nuclear" would turn up articles about KGB agitprop in America in any case.
In other words, you're still full of shit. And in a few more, I reiterate how unsurprising that is.
Thanks for the statistic that proves one of my points. The EPA was created under the Nixon administration and environmental activists really started to gain influence over policy in the 70s. By curtailing drilling both offshore and on government land, environmentalists have severely impacted domestic oil production.
On the basis of his theory, in a paper he presented to the American Petroleum Institute in 1956, Hubbert correctly predicted that production of oil from conventional sources would peak in the continental United States around 1965-1970. Hubbert further predicted a worldwide peak at "about half a century" from publication and approximately 12 gigabarrels (GB) a year in magnitude. In a 1976 TV interview Hubbert added that the actions of OPEC might flatten the global production curve but this would only delay the peak for perhaps 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Here's a link to his graph which correctly models peak oil production, which has everything to do with the relationship of extracting a finite resource from the earth and the technology available to complete the task, and nothing to do with the EPA. Is there some other government agency you wish to try to throw mud at? Maybe it would stick to secret Nazi propaganda or the Department of Education.
What, copponex, would be your alternative solution? Before you answer, be sure that your solution meets your own standard that it would cover 100% of America's petroleum consumption. Also, be sure that it is a practical solution that can be implemented with today's technology. Appeals to fantasy technologies of the future aren't useful suggestions.
That's what we've been talking about, isn't it? The fact that 3% of US landmass contains 70% of it's population means that high efficiency rail can drastically reduce our oil usage, along with regulating the energy efficiency of buildings and incentives for energy conservation. Investment in non-finite energy sources would probably cost far less than the trillions of dollars we spend trying to maintain hegemony over the Middle East.
For some reason you think it's a problem that can not be solved. People laughed at reaching the moon within a decade of 1960, and though it was achieved with a massive government investment in technology, you still believe that somehow the voiceless, faceless, careless and imaginary market will miraculously provide the answer for our current troubles. This is the same as a cult follower who thinks that God will take care of justice after we are all dead. It requires suicidal blind faith, and most importantly, a mechanism so you can absolve yourself of action because you're too much of a coward to face the truth or make any sacrifices in light of it.
What is the point you are trying to make by reprinting parts of it? Jimmy declared his intention to throw a bunch of tax money around. So what? He wasn't a dictator and neither he nor anyone else could or can create technical breakthroughs by force of will alone. There is no reason to believe that any individual, even the magnificent Jimmy C., could or can accurately predict which new energy technology lead will pan out.
If government investment in technology doesn't work, then why isn't our military the worst in the world? How did NASA achieve the goal of reaching the moon in 10 years? I do not think that is the case you are trying to make. It seems that as long as individuals strive "in the marketplace
ignoring the economic growth made possible by the flow of tax dollars through a politically well-connected state and the retardation of the economy of a poorly connected state caused by the Federal government extracting capital from that state
By this logic, Mississippi and Louisiana are more well connected than New York and California. Sounds like a tough sell at your next tea party.
You should put your mind reading skills to good use by developing a a Vegas nightclub act.
Well, I wouldn't want to put you out of work. You've obviously suffered enough.
it looks like one would have to search through the microfilm at one of a number of libraries in CA in order to find a copy of the article that I am talking about.
How embarrassing for you. I performed the search - searches are free for every newspaper archive I'm aware of - and I am again not surprised that you seem to be full of shit.
No articles matching "(kgb nuclear) AND date(1995|:|1994|:|1993|:|1992|:|1991|:|1990|:|1989|:|1988|:|1987|:|1986|:|1985)" were returned.
43 articles matching "(soviet nuclear) AND date(1995|:|1994|:|1993|:|1992|:|1991|:|1990)" were found.
None of the articles found under the second terms mention anything that could even be mistaken for what you have claim to read - unless, as I'm guessing, you have an imaginative memory. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
In your original post, you suggested that advocating the development of domestic oil reserves in the US was somehow nothing but empty rhetoric.
US Oil production peaked at 9.6 million barrels per day in the 70s. The last time we covered our own needs without imports was in the 1950s, and right now, we import about 75% of our oil and can only produce 5 million barrels today. Even if you exploited every single oil resource that we currently know about, it wouldn't cover our petroleum consumption. So yes, drill baby drill is empty rhetoric. It addresses and solves nothing.
Protip: you should read the work of people you were taught to despise. We won World War II through government rationing, market intervention, higher taxes (which were accepted as a patriotic duty) and serious look at real problems. Sad fuckers like you who trot out the flag, yet are willing to sacrifice nothing to preserve it or the well being of your fellow citizens are the real problem.
In little more than two decades we’ve gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It’s a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation.
The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977-- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over four and a half million barrels of imported oil per day.
Point two: To
Most Americans don't live on the East Coast and most Americans living in Wisconsin, for instance, don't want to be taxed to pay for bullet trains running from Baltimore to Yonkers.
Virtually every road and highway in the United States is constructed with tax dollars.
True, but irrelevant.
You are an idiot. Many states already pay more into the Federal System than they get out of it, because they have cities that have and use and subsidize mass transportation. Otherwise, Louisiana and the Dakotas and Alaska and Mississippi wouldn't have enough money to pay for the bridges that were built by Federal tax dollars. The only difference here is that you think only roads should be built, and I think more rail should be invested in. Your position only lacks clarity, common sense, and principle.
About 70 percent of the population of the United States lives within the boundaries of urbanized area (210 out of 300 million). Combined, these areas occupy about 2 percent of the United States. The majority of urbanized area residents are suburbanites; core central city residents make up about 30 percent of the urbanized area population (about 60 out of 210 million). -WikiPedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area
When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a period when the files of the KGB were thrown open for examination. Among the many people who looked through the files were researchers who published some their findings in an article in the Sacramento Bee newspaper. They had discovered that the KGB was the primary impetus behind the anti-nuke movement in the US. They also found that the KGB was controlling the SDS and pulling a bunch of strings on the anti-war movement of the 60s. Needless to say, these revelations were pretty embarrassing to the fools in the 60s who got played.
And yet that bullshit has no citation. Why am I not surprised.
30 years later and solar power is still not a viable option for large scale power production even with all the "more enlightened" countries of Europe working on it. That should tell you something.
Protip: No one's credibility is ever enhanced by quoting Jimmy Carter.
Didn't you just say that nuclear was fought and as a result it wasn't properly developed? Seriously. Grow up.
Most Europeans have no idea how big America is or how much denser the population of Europe
A majority of Americans live in urban areas. The population density of nearly the entire east coast is comparable to that of Europe.
is or how much train tickets are subsidized
Virtually every road and highway in the United States is constructed with tax dollars.
or how government controlled mass transit allows the government to control where people live and how they move about.
I always thought it was the UFOs or the communist party that lives inside of Pelosi's teeth!
The nuclear power industry in the US was largely killed by environmental activists who were being manipulated by Soviet agents during the cold war... Environmental activists in the US have stifled and curtailed the development of every type of currently viable large scale domestic energy production with the result that the US is much more dependent on foreign energy sources now than it has ever been before.
Is the hospital really allowed to give you unfettered access to the internet?
Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000. -Jimmy Carter, 1979
Fuck solar power. -Ronald Reagan, 1986
Thanks Ronnie! -OPEC, 2010
They have had this in France for years. France is largely nuclear powered and sells electricity to it's neighbors. The train is a very sensible tech platform - uses existing rail lines for up to 140mph, and can go up to 200mph on specially graded track. I took the TGV from Paris to Marseille - a few hours for what would have been a six or seven hour drive and at least 3 or 4 hours through an airport.
Most Americans have no idea how convenient rail travel is. I bought my ticket 10 minutes before the train left, and a few minutes after boarding I was enjoying a cup of coffee while I sat in the equivalent of first class on an airplane for about $50. I had a table, a full size restroom nearby, and dining car at my disposal. If you've really got the dough or don't have the time, you can walk on without a ticket and pay the conductor the highest rate.
Planes are still the way to go for cross-continental travel, but a regional electric train system is a no brainer. Well, if you have a society that wants reality based solutions instead of empty rhetoric like "Drill, baby, drill."
"The Asian crisis was a turning point in that sense," says Brookings Institution senior fellow Homi Kharas, who studies the new global middle class. "These countries began pursuing liberalization in their own way, at their own pace, and they've done well. Now they see their success as the fruit of their own efforts," even though it was attained under global systems of free trade and finance set up by the West.
When someone is gently tugging your dick, keep your hand on your wallet. China and India have been successful because they did not adapt Western financial values. Ditto for Brazil and any other country who was large enough to avoid being pressured into the Chicago school of self-destructive economics. Since 1980, the Western world has been destroying markets and free trade by eliminating regulations and fairness - the only things that keep a market competitive, just as a vibrant independent press is that only thing that keeps democracies truly free.
China will soundly destroy the American economy because 1) it's still developing and four times our population, 2) it's typically not imperialistic outside it's own borders, and 3) it's not being run by a voting bloc which believes literally that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Our founding fathers decried Europe for being chained by the monarchist traditions and the shackles of dogmatic religious squabbling. Well, guess who the new Europe is. We just traded Monarchy for Corporatism.
DUDE: Robot, grab me a beer.
iROBOT: I'm sorry, Steve says those are bad for you.
DUDE: What the fuck?
iROBOT: Would you like some water with a splash of lemon instead?
DUDE: No, I just want have a beer and play a little... where is my Halo 5?
iROBOT: There was a cutscene that showed a nipple, so it has been discarded. I have replaced it with "Yoga For Everyone." Would you like me to show you some poses? We can...
DUDE: No, please, go ahead and get started with out me. I'm just going to go find this receipt I've been looking for...
Fines are supposed to be a punishment so that companies avoid anti-competitive behavior in the future. You're right, however: the companies either have already made enough money from their unethical behavior, or they will roll it into the cost of future products. The punishment is not nearly severe enough.
Repeat offenders should be fined in the billions of dollars as a warning to other companies. The only thing that will keep shareholders interested in executives who obey the law are a few cases where companies are fined into bankruptcy and then broken up and sold off.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, who edited the New York Times during the Civil War
---
"This is a man that blames the United States and their policies for the attack that took place on September 11th. That is such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either, and I applaud what Mayor Giuliani did. It showed a lot of guts and character."
Sean Hannity, 2001, in reference to Alwaleed bin Talal trying to donate $10m after 9/11
---
"And if you are this prince, think about investing more in those banks again. Particularly one bank, a big bank, Citigroup, because for this Saudi Arabian prince it about the long-term deal. And Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has not become the richest man in the Middle East or one of the richest men in the world minding conventional wisdom. Once more, his Kingdom Holding Company continues to be among the world’s most successful and admired often by defying popular fads.
For example, Prince Alwaleed has been a big buyer of media stocks, especially News Corp, I must disclose, the parent of this fine channel because he’s convinced that my show will lead to an economic boom.
(LAUGHTER)
I just made that up, I wanted to see if you were paying attention. Anyways, he’s very big on a global recovery, that it will take hold and media will be reflecting that. Joining me now for this very, very rare sit down, the man who grants so few of them, I’m very honored as my special guest tonight and for this evening, my only remaining guest tonight, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal."
Neil Cavuto interviews Alwaleed bin Talal on 01/15/2010
---
"I really consider my investment with Mr. Rupert Murdoch, with James Murdoch, not as an investment, but as an alliance. That’s a core investment that will never be sold... This is an empire that is run and managed very well by Mr. Murdoch, and James... When I say a strategic investment goes forever, I think Rupert is there to stay a long time."
Alwaleed bin Talal in the same interview
will not happen for web development.
Have you not heard of Javascript? Find me a major site that doesn't use it.
Every application ever written in the history of computers that doesn't use Javascript?
Don't move the goalposts of your own argument. It makes you look petty.
I'm not sure what you mean by "site".
Ditto for retreating under an all too convincing cover of feigned ignorance.
The whole world, on one inferior runtime simply because it is the same everywhere?
Have you not heard of Javascript? Find me a major site that doesn't use it.
x86 frameworks have been around for how many decades? HTML5 has been around for how many months?
Web development may seem like a pain, but last I checked, it's the only truly cross platform development environment that has ever existed. If your bank, for instance, had to develop binaries for every platform, you'd never be able to login and move your money around at 2 in the morning.
It's taken time to develop the standards that enable platform agnosticism of more vanilla HTML standards, and it will take time to flesh out new standards that compete with native toolkits for interaction. But it will happen, and compiled, single platform application development will be nearly unheard of.
I bought my copy of XP in 2002 for $150. My cost per day is down to about 5 cents, and since it's only a VM now, there's no compelling reason to upgrade to 7. All of the apps work just fine.
I used to wonder why all of these huge businesses were still on Windows NT in the early naughties. It's because it worked, and the smartest CIOs know the real truth about IT: if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. There will be unforeseen costs and bugs, and if there's not a "killer app" you're gaining for some competitive edge, you're just wasting time and money.
I'm not suggesting to build tools on top of Google or Facebook, but to develop their own customized stack of software built on top of open standards - HTML5, Python, PostgreSQL, etc. In other words, to follow Facebook and Google development practices.
As soon as Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe get all of their development efforts stymied by legal actions and endless appeals, the younger generation will look out on the future and ask this question: Do I develop my own tools with open platforms, like Facebook and Google, or tie myself to one of these idiot vendors and hope my platform isn't sued out of existence?
I say, bring the DRM on. I hope they come up with a way to end piracy. I hope every single copy of iWork and CS suite and Microsoft product suddenly carries a full retail price, with inescapable and crippling DRM protected by the full force of the law. They will very quickly discover that they have only bought enough rope to hang themselves with.
That's why they make some noise every once in a while, but don't dare fully implement anything crack proof. Businesses wouldn't tolerate the downtime, and the kids who download the stuff for free would find an open source alternative and learn to use those tools instead.
What people don't realize is that you could never patent the end result of an invention, only the particular way in which you solved the problem.
You aren't patenting the 'idea of cutting grass' you are patenting the design and/or methods to make a machine that makes it faster than using scissors.
The words. They mean things.
Some of the founders were worried that the patent system wouldn't allow enough time for inventions to spread, as America had a much greater land mass than England. That's how out of date this idea is.
Software patents are totally worthless. All they do is impede progress. Consider a software patent on controlling a lawn mower. You could patent this idea. Could you patent lawnmowers? Of course not - patenting the idea of cutting grass can be laughed off by everyone, except for a few lawyers and jurors in East Texas. Adding the abstraction of software control does not make the idea new or worth protecting.
What people don't realize is that you could never patent the end result of an invention, only the particular way in which you solved the problem. With software, they are patenting end results, saying adding accelerometers with a touch screen that has a cellular radio is revolutionary, or that providing a video stream with a certain open codec on a computer needs to be protected. Well, no it doesn't. Protecting the certain way in which you use software, hardware, and branding to release your product is protected under copyright and trademark.
Intel should not be allowed to patent passing data through the light spectrum. Similarly, anyone who releases their codec as an open standard cannot patent playing back the codec, if someone figured out a way to do it with their own different software.
And I worked with rich people, you know, even in the ‘50s and the ‘60s, and I worked with them when the top rate was 70 percent. I worked with them when capital gains rates were 39.6 percent, and not one of them said, you know, it’s 1:00, and instead of working this afternoon I think I’ll go to the movies because my marginal rate is so high. I mean, if anything, they worked harder, Charlie.
I never had one person -- I had hundreds of people you know, in the partnership, and not one of them ever came to me and said, "Warren, I decided to hell with it. 39.6 percent, I’m not going to invest my money." What would they do with it, stick it under the mattress?
Warren Buffett, in an interview with Charlie Rose
Here's what he said in an interview the other day:
I'm in favor of having leverage limited with organizations that can produce dangerous for the system. And I actually think leverage ought to be -- extreme leverage ought to be prevented for individuals speculating in the market. We decided that was dangerous back in 1934 and I still think it's dangerous and we totally negated the benefit of that legislation when we let the S&P 500 and the derivatives come in to the game bigtime.
I wrote a letter to Congressman Dingell in 1982, saying this would turn the market into more of a casino. And there were plenty of people that said, yeah, but it's more fun having a casino...
...the auditors failed, in my view, bigtime when they let, for example, SIVs, be set up, special investment vehicles, with the big banks. Citigroup had those by the tens of millions. And what were they trying to do? They were trying to get around the leverage restrictions that the banks normally had to follow and they were trying to pile up a little more earnings so they could report better quarterly earnings. So they stuck all this stuff off balance sheet and talked about liquidity puts and all that sort of thing. And that should be not only just a yellow light, that's a red light to auditors and should have been highlighted but it wasn't.
Here's a portion of an interview recently with Charlie Rose:
And I worked with rich people, you know, even in the ‘50s and the ‘60s, and I worked with them when the top rate was 70 percent. I worked with them when capital gains rates were 39.6 percent, and not one of them said, you know, it’s 1:00, and instead of working this afternoon I
think I’ll go to the movies because my marginal rate is so high. I mean, if anything, they worked harder, Charlie.
I never had one person -- I had hundreds of people you know, in the partnership, and not one of them ever came to me and said, "Warren, I decided to hell with it. 39.6 percent, I’m not going to invest my money." What would they do with it, stick it under the mattress?
Seems like I'm not the one who needs to read Buffett, hmm?
Oh yes, the UK. The difference in members being which foods are cooked improperly (with chips) and the varying poetry of the swearing...
Just a little kidding there. I love all things BBC.
As I said in the post, I didn't think it really made a difference in the UK. I imagined there was some loophole around it, and it would be interesting to see if all of the investors had to play by rules.
I understand that excess capital is a nice cushion, but what I was trying to get across is that companies with sufficient size start looking for loopholes and other cheats that save them billions of dollars, instead of producing a product and paying taxes for the income they make from it. The consolidation and overcapitalization results in a network of too big to fail companies that abuse local governments, restructure the rules for themselves by buying off governments, and abandon their employees at the drop of a hat to push up profits by fractions of a percent. I think the whole situation is needlessly volatile.