This is only "kinda true". I worked on a program that started with a variable thrust solid rocket motor. It was eventually discarded: I don't know all the details, but I think the overall thrust was too low to give us the range we required. However, ditching it did require substantial navigation changes for shorter range flights so as to keep terminal velocity within the required limits, i.e. without being able to throttle down we had to pull wacky manuevers to bleed velocity. I don't know how much is public, so I'll just stop there and state: yes, variable thrust solid rocket motors at least tentatively exist.
But you're right, I find it unlikely that they'd be suitable for the given application.
Vernor Vinge has a short story about this: I *think* it's "The Ungoverned". It's set in the not tremendously distant future where there are basically certain kinds of people ("Armadillos" in the story, I believe) that just don't want to be bothered, and are very serious about it.
I did it: I had a 2nd permanent tooth coming up under the first (around tooth 26 or 27, I think: lower right part of my jaw): had to have oral surgery to have it removed. Happened when I was around 13, I think: made a few shark jokes.
My guess would be: this isn't yet the common case. The common case is instead people who want a single, small LED. And thus the easiest way to get more light is not to design a new, bigger LED and a new fab, etc., but to simply group the commonly available, cheap LEDs. Seems like a side benefit is you never have to worry about things being the wrong size: you just use fewer or more, or whatever. And you can make fun shapes for car brake lights and so forth by physical arrangement rather than design changes.
What's sad is that, while I have an EE degree, I don't know if there are any physical limitations that would prevent making huge LEDs. Those semiconductor classes were a awhile ago.
You make me tired. This was a shootdown of a target launch from Kodiak and an interceptor launched from Vandenburg. And yet somehow this same system will be unable to intercept something launched from Korea? I would imagine that some due diligence was done in selecting Kodiak for where the interceptors are housed: there is really only one way from that country to the U.S.: up to the north and then back down.
Oh, but I'm sorry, you're much smarter than the people who spent years considering this very problem: it should be easy for any aggressor country to simple uproot their emplaced missile silos, put them in a shopping cart, and move them to, say, Easter Island with no one noticing.
We are never going to get one fifth of our energy from renewable in two years in this state. It ain't going to happen. Californians are under this delusion that passing a law can change reality. We're rather stupid that way.
I wondered if it was instead "20% of new capacity" or something like that, but no, it really does look like it's 20% of retail sales of electricity (I suppose industrial has some different mandate (like none?)).
California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program requires retail sellers of electricity to increase their sales of eligible renewable-energy resources by at least 1 percent of retail sales per year, so that 20% of their retail sales are served with eligible renewable energy resources by 2010.
No. These governments typically subsidize gasoline to an *enormous* extent. Iran has had some pretty significant unrest because they were forced to lower their subsidies, i.e. raise prices, because the gasoline subsidy was becoming a major component of their budget (something like $20 billion dollars, I think). And similarly for many of these other countries (I'm not if all of them). I am almost certain that Venezuela does this: Hugo Chavez uses the high prices charged to, e.g. the U.S. to provide populist support at home.
In Venezuela's case, it's becoming enormously damaging: Chavez has plundered his country's oil wealth to buy political support, but the underinvestment in oil infrastructure is leading to declining oil production. I think he'll be in a lot of trouble in fairly short order if either of (a) oil price goes down (b) production falls enough. Maybe he'll be out of office in time, handing the problem to his successor.
I would say that premature optimization should be avoided per Knuth's epigram, but at least where I work, hardware is only "sorta" cheap. Sure, it's $100k+/year of salary per developer, but if you have 10k machines deployed, a 10% increase in performance saves you 1k machines. Alternatively, think about it in terms of user time. If we offer responses 10% more quickly, I'm sure that adds up to thousands of man years in days or weeks when we're serving hundreds of thousands of requests per second. Plus it can be a competitive edge to say "We can support 2*X users for the same cost as competitor ABC supporting X users."
Also, I think that keeping performance in mind, even if not as the chief focus, can really improve a design. I don't think that performance necessarily means "Horrid Hacks R Us".
They're not trying to regulate every little thing, they're trying to say "don't do anything that harms the environment".
And how do they do that? REGULATION.
Aside from the enormous harm that taxations place upon the economy (taxation leads to what is known as a deadweight loss, which must be offset against the benefits of whatever is being taxed), carbon sinking is not even possible given the engineering capacity we as humans have. Furthermore, even if it *were* possible, there is no way to know what damage the CO2 does in the meantime while it is being sinked.
So banning it is better than taxing it? What kind of bizarro-world do you live in where banning a previously legal activity because it is environmentally harmful is better than taxing that activity to compensate for the damage caused, i.e. rendering it less competitive than activities that do not damage the environment?
And people are definitely investigating carbon sequestration techniques, so the whole "not even possible given the engineering capacity we humans have" is not correct. I think they'd work harder if, e.g. coal suddenly cost 10x as much due to environmental damage costs. Of course the carbon-emitting activities might themselves be reduced, i.e. the need to sequestrate would be reduced, if carbon was taxed.
You really have no understanding of the problem, do you? The complete commodification of the rights to pollute simply mean that companies will simply find a way to price in the dollar value of pollution credits to get away with whatever they are doing now. Pollution and environmental issues are *the* classic economic textbook example of market failure. It takes a real fundamentalist (or a complete idiot) to attempt to solve market failure by the application of more market instruments.
To me it is *you* who don't seem to understand the problem. You handwave the ability of companies to somehow keep doing whatever they're doing that is environmentally damaging once it is more expensive (potentially much more expensive) once taxes are levied. You additionally handwave pollution and environmental issues as a classic textbook example of market failures without explaining why that is the case (perhaps I have the wrong economics textbooks). I see it as an issue that has been sidelined only because the costs weren't obvious (carbon dioxide bad?) or due to regulatory capture. Neither is a failure of markets, but a failure to even apply them. This is changing as the true costs become apparent: Europe has started its cap-and-trade market and I think California and/or some other states are interested in doing the same here. In fact, I read recently that some big companies are petitioning for a federal system (in the United States) so that there is at least a uniform system rather than several state-level systems.
One thing that could short-circuit these efforts is governmental cowardice to push something that would be unpopular: I assume that adding environmental costs to gas/oil consumption would substantially raise its price. Just as cowardice has led to refusal to tackle other hard problems like the future of social welfare systems.
Thus I state that you have failed to make your case that the grandparent poster is a "real fundamentalist" or a "complete idiot". The Market system is not magical. You simply assign costs to scarce or undesirable behaviors/objects and let the efficiency drive of the average person (read, greed) regulate what happens. The failures so far have been to assign costs to adverse consequences that were dilute or fuzzy. Like there should probably be a cost assigned based on the undesirability of propping up shitheads in the Middle East, but I don't know how you'd do that (divide the cost of the Iraq War by the oil output we receive from there?).
I think taxing carbon outright is the correct solution. I used to really like the cap-and-trade scheme
But given the fact that limelight's foundation was built by a bunch of Akamai's ex-employees, it certainly isn't surprising that they chose the same path for resolving issues that Akamai did. And given Limelight's close ties with Microsoft, it's also not very surprising that they chose to emulate what they knew rather than innovating and improving upon the model.
Well, it's kinda late for moderation, but I thought I'd at least point out that this contention is incorrect. The engineers that created Limelight's architecture were not Akamai ex-employees. In fact, those half-dozen guys were pretty much serial employees of Limelight's founder and CTO, following him from company to company. I am sure that there are ex-Akamai employees there, just as Microsoft employs ex-Sun people and Google employs ex-Microsoft people. It would be hard for it to be otherwise since the space isn't huge and Akamai seems intent on sueing all competitors into the ground.
And I love how you equate Microsoft's relationship with Limelight as somehow tarring them with the brush of stagnation. Microsoft has close relationships with Intel and I'm sure Cisco and lots of other people. Do they fall into this same blackhole of "suck"? Someone had to serve Windows Updates and the Xbox Live content and so forth: wouldn't Microsoft partner with someone who could get the job done?
That's CO2 as a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure. Presumably the crystals do a slightly better job of keeping the CO2 smooshed together than does, say, the freakin' open atmosphere (STP).
Think about it. To capture the output from a powerplant, you'd need a volume equivalent to the entirety of the output of the plant's CO2 emissions unless CO2 density in the crystal was higher than that. Might as well recommend a giant Ziplock bag unless this is the case.
It takes a long time to develop new things, especially given the horrors of the military procurement system (with which I am more than passing familiar). I would say at least a decade for a new cutting edge design to really be feasible and out there. Look at the F-22, for example: I am pretty sure the down-select to Lockheed was in 1990 or so. They were finally fielded (I assume that they have at least a squadron fielded now) in perhaps 2005.
And of *course* you work to develop things for the next threat, the anticipated threat. We largely have the tools needed to fight terrorist threats now: the problems are organizational. I suppose new and better detection techniques are always welcome and being worked on, but the terrorist threat problem is more political and social than technological (which has been a big part of the problem for us, since we were more set up to fight the technological foe).
I absolutely agree that that military procurement is wasteful and sucky, but no one's created a workable solution as yet. The bar to getting defense work is so absolutely retarded that I just don't know how new companies manage to enter the arena. The paperwork I had to do I think makes Sarbanes-Oxley (I'm sure I murdered that) compliance a complete joke.
And you may whine about how these engineers are "welfare queens", but (a) would you prefer that we not have the know-how or the experience in these fields (b) its not tremendously likely that the engineers put together a sales pitch to create the weapons themselves. "(b)" absolutely does happen: a contractor thinks, "Wow, we can do a cool thing: let's see if the military is interested" (with whatever level of twisting connections and incestuousness there is between industry and government), but that's at high levels within a company: the engineers are often just trying to find something useful to save soldiers' lives. And more often, the request comes from the military. So people tell the military, "You don't need that" first (though, indeed, sometimes Congress funds a program the military has indicated they don't want anymore. But there's a lot of brinksmanship there, as well.)
But perhaps you think that we should just toss all our military equipment know-how out in the street. In fact, that was the main thing that amazed me about the defense industry: the learning curve is steep and continues forever. You sometimes really do need 20 years of continuously trying stuff and learning and failing to be good at what you do. The discipline is very specialized and strenuous and rigorous. You fucking up == people dead. Because of this, you can't simply throw people at it periodically when you feel a need. You have to maintain that industrial base of people who know how to do things.
For me, the bureaucracy of an 80k+ person company in the insanely bureaucratic defense industry with rather mediocre money was just too much, even though the work was pretty damn cool. I went to a company of ~250 people (smaller than my medium sized Army program) and picked up a 24% raise. I miss the people a lot, and the work sometimes, but not the insanity.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitching.
Remember that Norway has huge oil money flowing in for about the next 10 years or so. And both countries are small with relatively stable, homogeneous populations. The United States has more *illegal* residents (~12E6 is the best estimate I've heard) than Sweden (9E6) or Norway (4.6E6). The New York City metro area has around 18.8E6 million people...
This isn't to denigrate their achievements, which are substantial: but it's less difficult than maintaining the same standards over a substantial portion of a continent with 300E6 people right up against a poor neighbor.
I am curious as to how the Scandinavian countries will deal with a rapidly graying and shrinking population. Japan is shrinking, I think Italy is shrinking, Russia is shrinking. I haven't seen any satisfactory solutions to the whole "fewer working people, now what?" problem. Higher retirement ages, more flexible working schedules for the elderly who want at least partial employment, and ???
BTW, please save the commerce-needs-transport retort, it costs four times as much to ship something by truck compared to rail. I don't believe you. Try building tracks every place a road can go. It's exclusive use (well, you could run passenger trains as well as commercial: my thinking was more that a truck drives on the same roads into cities that cars can take, and that commercial trains can't do that) that requires substantial right-of-way, etc. I mean, the cost of building track is one of the reasons we don't have more trains right now. They're adding light rail right now in the Phoenix/Tempe AZ area right now: a project that was delayed several times by cost considerations.
Yes, I'm sure long haul trains to depots over existing tracks is cheaper than using trucks. That isn't the full problem.
I think that was the point. If this is the "new, smaller" kernel, then it isn't (?) based on the Vista kernel, and wouldn't then be 6.1.x or 6.2.x. So the version number of 6.1.x seems to indicate that this new O.S. kernel *is* actually largely based on the Vista kernel. This could be a good thing: they'll have learned things. But, like the grandparent post, I'm surprised that it's doable.
Thus saying that the version "7" from the "Windows 7" isn't based on the kernel version is disingenuous. What else di they base the number on? As you note, Win 2k was really "NT 5.0", Vista was "NT 6.0". Therefore the next major version is "NT 7.0" and kernel reflects this (except it doesn't: the grandparent's point). So "Windows 7" appears to be "Windows Vista XP" from its version info.
Americans are paying for it, so I'd say what we want matters a fair deal. And in this instance, the original poster was saying that he would prefer that we do the initial work of building a permanent presence on the Moon. In fact, so would I. I am more interested in starting that work now, using the money that *I* am providing, then on the scientific exploration of asteroids, given the choice. Sadly for the scientists, they will have to do a lot of convincing in order for me to prioritize their desires for knowledge over my desire for a permanent settlement on a second Solar body. They can always start their own asteroid-exploring scientific foundation, if they have troubles with the priorities I set for them. Or they can ask for both: I would in fact be quite willing to open my wallet if I could directly support their work. But I can't, they are SOL, and should get back to doing what I'm paying them to do.
Q: What happens if they *do* shoot a plane down A: No one flies.
See, it's not purely a "How do we spend $40 billion?", but a "What happens if someone shoots down a plane with a missile?" I imagine the consequences to the airline industry (and other industries as a result) due to the events of September 11th, 2001, had an economic impact > $40 billion.
So the question isn't (just) "What else could we do with $40 billion?", but must be combination of what else we could spend money on while considering the risks of severe economic damage that could come from a country that won't fly if an airliner is shot down. Not that people would be too thrilled to even have had the system activate "for reals", I'm sure.
Linux 32 bit and Windows 32 bit Int: 32 bit Long: 32 bit Long long: 64 bit Pointer: 32 bit
Linux 64 bit Int: 32 bit Long: 64 bit Long long: 64 bit Pointer: 64 bit
Windows 64 bit Int: 32 bit Long: 32 bit <---- (!) Long long: 64 bit Pointer: 64 bit
So in the Windows world, pointers don't fit in a long anymore. People shouldn't be doing that, but they do. On the other hand, non-pointery uses of long that relied on its size being 32-bit will continue to work.
I think the Linux (and lots of other O.S. people, I'm sure) decision is much the smarter. And to me, it feels nice and more natural to have int and long be different sizes. 32-bit int/longs always felt a bit unnatural.
I thought "ah ha - flashing red means stop and go if clear".
It actually does mean this most/all other places. The way I learned it was "flashing red lights are equivalent to a stop sign". They usually use them in my area at crosswalks: they start solid red for awhile but turn flashing red after a reasonable interval (to give slower folks a chance to finish crossing). So perhaps you weren't so wrong. We do get flashing reds with trains, but it's the lowered wooden arm gives the contextual hint (aside from the tracks...).
The sensors are coming. One promising sensor is "flash LIDAR" (or LADAR, "light" vs "laser"). Here's a mention from Google's first result (for a Grand Challenge thing in 2005):
True 3D solid-state flash LIDAR devices exist. We've visited Advanced Scientific Concepts in Santa Barbara, CA, and have seen an eye-safe 128 x 128 pixel solid state flash 3D LIDAR suitable for outdoor work in operation on an optical bench. The device consists of two custom chips bonded back to back using ball grid array techniques. The front chip contains the array of detectors, and the rear chip contains the counters, timers, and interface logic. The detector chip typically uses indium arsenide technology. Some versions are front-ended by a photomultiplier cathode, like a night vision device. (The photomultiplier effect is at the atomic level, and has no integration delay, so it can be used to front-end a LIDAR detector.) The two-chip approach is a convenience for prototyping; a volume production unit would probably be a single chip.
The military really wants them. Non-flash LIDAR is being integrated in systems like RAMICS (which uses LIDAR to look for mines underwater (assuming it works)) plus a number of missiles. One example here, the abortive attempt to put a LADAR in a ~7" (180cm) missile seeker with the Loiter Attack Missile (LAM). Lockheed, however, sucks, and couldn't pull it together. I've seen imagery from a competitor's seeker. Not great, but getting there. I think there are efforts underway in larger missiles like Tomahawk and Maverick where there's more power available.
Besides LADAR, there's IR sensors. I mean, Cadillacs and Hummers and stuff use Raytheon's uncooled array: as did that guy who just did the cross-country Cannonball-type sprint in his M5. I dunno the resolution of that one, but there *are* uncooled Focal Plane Arrays out there that are pretty damn big. No 3D info, but some all weather-capability. Presumably pavement looks different from non-pavement at night.
There's millimeter wave radar: ~100-300GHz. There's a *lot* of military interest in this since it gives good visibility in the presence of aerosols and smoke and whatnot (where LIDAR and IR may not work). Not so great in the rain, depending.
There are sensors. They may not be available to universities yet (sadly: I'm sure they are better at finding ingenious uses than big military contractors (I know)), but hopefully within the next 5-10 years. Or maybe we'll get awesome(r) at SAR (Sandia Labs has some great pictures for miniSAR: 4" resolution). I dunno if SAR is practical for ground-based navigation.
And I've used MEMs nav systems: GPS and IMU in a package about the size of a paperback book. There're smaller systems, too: for precision artillery shells (and so they can withstand accelerations of ~15k gees).
I hope that this Challenge will spur development in these areas as teams search for an edge in sensor technology.
Not to be the world's biggest asshat, but: how many hundred story buildings did they knock down? And not just knock down, but fly planeloads of *people* into? There is a difference between bombs that make you remove mailboxes from the street and freakin' airliners flying into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Did all of the IRA's attacks together kill 3,000 people? Or even 100 people (I didn't follow world affairs as much back then)? There is a huge qualitative difference in these attacks, even though 3,000 deaths isn't a huge amount in the scheme of American deaths in a year.
I think that account creation opened up on like a Monday or something, and I put it off for a few days, registering on a Thursday (?). I think this would have been about this time (October, November), 1997. So it only took three or for days for me to sadly end up at 14k+ whatever the hell I am. Less procrastination would have netted me a bitchin' 3 or 4 digit UID. I am sad.
That's what I remember. But of course I am an old man now (30!) and thus my memory is as faltering as my footsteps.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only "kinda true". I worked on a program that started with a variable thrust solid rocket motor. It was eventually discarded: I don't know all the details, but I think the overall thrust was too low to give us the range we required. However, ditching it did require substantial navigation changes for shorter range flights so as to keep terminal velocity within the required limits, i.e. without being able to throttle down we had to pull wacky manuevers to bleed velocity. I don't know how much is public, so I'll just stop there and state: yes, variable thrust solid rocket motors at least tentatively exist.
But you're right, I find it unlikely that they'd be suitable for the given application.
Vernor Vinge has a short story about this: I *think* it's "The Ungoverned". It's set in the not tremendously distant future where there are basically certain kinds of people ("Armadillos" in the story, I believe) that just don't want to be bothered, and are very serious about it.
I did it: I had a 2nd permanent tooth coming up under the first (around tooth 26 or 27, I think: lower right part of my jaw): had to have oral surgery to have it removed. Happened when I was around 13, I think: made a few shark jokes.
My guess would be: this isn't yet the common case. The common case is instead people who want a single, small LED. And thus the easiest way to get more light is not to design a new, bigger LED and a new fab, etc., but to simply group the commonly available, cheap LEDs. Seems like a side benefit is you never have to worry about things being the wrong size: you just use fewer or more, or whatever. And you can make fun shapes for car brake lights and so forth by physical arrangement rather than design changes.
What's sad is that, while I have an EE degree, I don't know if there are any physical limitations that would prevent making huge LEDs. Those semiconductor classes were a awhile ago.
You make me tired. This was a shootdown of a target launch from Kodiak and an interceptor launched from Vandenburg. And yet somehow this same system will be unable to intercept something launched from Korea? I would imagine that some due diligence was done in selecting Kodiak for where the interceptors are housed: there is really only one way from that country to the U.S.: up to the north and then back down.
Oh, but I'm sorry, you're much smarter than the people who spent years considering this very problem: it should be easy for any aggressor country to simple uproot their emplaced missile silos, put them in a shopping cart, and move them to, say, Easter Island with no one noticing.
We are never going to get one fifth of our energy from renewable in two years in this state. It ain't going to happen. Californians are under this delusion that passing a law can change reality. We're rather stupid that way.
I wondered if it was instead "20% of new capacity" or something like that, but no, it really does look like it's 20% of retail sales of electricity (I suppose industrial has some different mandate (like none?)).
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA25R&state=CA&CurrentPageID=1
California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program requires retail sellers of electricity to increase their sales of eligible renewable-energy resources by at least 1 percent of retail sales per year, so that 20% of their retail sales are served with eligible renewable energy resources by 2010.
No. These governments typically subsidize gasoline to an *enormous* extent. Iran has had some pretty significant unrest because they were forced to lower their subsidies, i.e. raise prices, because the gasoline subsidy was becoming a major component of their budget (something like $20 billion dollars, I think). And similarly for many of these other countries (I'm not if all of them). I am almost certain that Venezuela does this: Hugo Chavez uses the high prices charged to, e.g. the U.S. to provide populist support at home.
In Venezuela's case, it's becoming enormously damaging: Chavez has plundered his country's oil wealth to buy political support, but the underinvestment in oil infrastructure is leading to declining oil production. I think he'll be in a lot of trouble in fairly short order if either of (a) oil price goes down (b) production falls enough. Maybe he'll be out of office in time, handing the problem to his successor.
I would say that premature optimization should be avoided per Knuth's epigram, but at least where I work, hardware is only "sorta" cheap. Sure, it's $100k+/year of salary per developer, but if you have 10k machines deployed, a 10% increase in performance saves you 1k machines. Alternatively, think about it in terms of user time. If we offer responses 10% more quickly, I'm sure that adds up to thousands of man years in days or weeks when we're serving hundreds of thousands of requests per second. Plus it can be a competitive edge to say "We can support 2*X users for the same cost as competitor ABC supporting X users."
Also, I think that keeping performance in mind, even if not as the chief focus, can really improve a design. I don't think that performance necessarily means "Horrid Hacks R Us".
And how do they do that? REGULATION.
So banning it is better than taxing it? What kind of bizarro-world do you live in where banning a previously legal activity because it is environmentally harmful is better than taxing that activity to compensate for the damage caused, i.e. rendering it less competitive than activities that do not damage the environment?
And people are definitely investigating carbon sequestration techniques, so the whole "not even possible given the engineering capacity we humans have" is not correct. I think they'd work harder if, e.g. coal suddenly cost 10x as much due to environmental damage costs. Of course the carbon-emitting activities might themselves be reduced, i.e. the need to sequestrate would be reduced, if carbon was taxed.
To me it is *you* who don't seem to understand the problem. You handwave the ability of companies to somehow keep doing whatever they're doing that is environmentally damaging once it is more expensive (potentially much more expensive) once taxes are levied. You additionally handwave pollution and environmental issues as a classic textbook example of market failures without explaining why that is the case (perhaps I have the wrong economics textbooks). I see it as an issue that has been sidelined only because the costs weren't obvious (carbon dioxide bad?) or due to regulatory capture. Neither is a failure of markets, but a failure to even apply them. This is changing as the true costs become apparent: Europe has started its cap-and-trade market and I think California and/or some other states are interested in doing the same here. In fact, I read recently that some big companies are petitioning for a federal system (in the United States) so that there is at least a uniform system rather than several state-level systems.
One thing that could short-circuit these efforts is governmental cowardice to push something that would be unpopular: I assume that adding environmental costs to gas/oil consumption would substantially raise its price. Just as cowardice has led to refusal to tackle other hard problems like the future of social welfare systems.
Thus I state that you have failed to make your case that the grandparent poster is a "real fundamentalist" or a "complete idiot". The Market system is not magical. You simply assign costs to scarce or undesirable behaviors/objects and let the efficiency drive of the average person (read, greed) regulate what happens. The failures so far have been to assign costs to adverse consequences that were dilute or fuzzy. Like there should probably be a cost assigned based on the undesirability of propping up shitheads in the Middle East, but I don't know how you'd do that (divide the cost of the Iraq War by the oil output we receive from there?).
I think taxing carbon outright is the correct solution. I used to really like the cap-and-trade scheme
Ask, and you shall receive.
http://www.bangin3d.com/
I've seen it with the glasses (we serve their traffic so our salesguy got a pair (of glasses)). Works pretty well.
Well, it's kinda late for moderation, but I thought I'd at least point out that this contention is incorrect. The engineers that created Limelight's architecture were not Akamai ex-employees. In fact, those half-dozen guys were pretty much serial employees of Limelight's founder and CTO, following him from company to company. I am sure that there are ex-Akamai employees there, just as Microsoft employs ex-Sun people and Google employs ex-Microsoft people. It would be hard for it to be otherwise since the space isn't huge and Akamai seems intent on sueing all competitors into the ground.
And I love how you equate Microsoft's relationship with Limelight as somehow tarring them with the brush of stagnation. Microsoft has close relationships with Intel and I'm sure Cisco and lots of other people. Do they fall into this same blackhole of "suck"? Someone had to serve Windows Updates and the Xbox Live content and so forth: wouldn't Microsoft partner with someone who could get the job done?
That's CO2 as a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure. Presumably the crystals do a slightly better job of keeping the CO2 smooshed together than does, say, the freakin' open atmosphere (STP).
Think about it. To capture the output from a powerplant, you'd need a volume equivalent to the entirety of the output of the plant's CO2 emissions unless CO2 density in the crystal was higher than that. Might as well recommend a giant Ziplock bag unless this is the case.
It takes a long time to develop new things, especially given the horrors of the military procurement system (with which I am more than passing familiar). I would say at least a decade for a new cutting edge design to really be feasible and out there. Look at the F-22, for example: I am pretty sure the down-select to Lockheed was in 1990 or so. They were finally fielded (I assume that they have at least a squadron fielded now) in perhaps 2005.
And of *course* you work to develop things for the next threat, the anticipated threat. We largely have the tools needed to fight terrorist threats now: the problems are organizational. I suppose new and better detection techniques are always welcome and being worked on, but the terrorist threat problem is more political and social than technological (which has been a big part of the problem for us, since we were more set up to fight the technological foe).
I absolutely agree that that military procurement is wasteful and sucky, but no one's created a workable solution as yet. The bar to getting defense work is so absolutely retarded that I just don't know how new companies manage to enter the arena. The paperwork I had to do I think makes Sarbanes-Oxley (I'm sure I murdered that) compliance a complete joke.
And you may whine about how these engineers are "welfare queens", but (a) would you prefer that we not have the know-how or the experience in these fields (b) its not tremendously likely that the engineers put together a sales pitch to create the weapons themselves. "(b)" absolutely does happen: a contractor thinks, "Wow, we can do a cool thing: let's see if the military is interested" (with whatever level of twisting connections and incestuousness there is between industry and government), but that's at high levels within a company: the engineers are often just trying to find something useful to save soldiers' lives. And more often, the request comes from the military. So people tell the military, "You don't need that" first (though, indeed, sometimes Congress funds a program the military has indicated they don't want anymore. But there's a lot of brinksmanship there, as well.)
But perhaps you think that we should just toss all our military equipment know-how out in the street. In fact, that was the main thing that amazed me about the defense industry: the learning curve is steep and continues forever. You sometimes really do need 20 years of continuously trying stuff and learning and failing to be good at what you do. The discipline is very specialized and strenuous and rigorous. You fucking up == people dead. Because of this, you can't simply throw people at it periodically when you feel a need. You have to maintain that industrial base of people who know how to do things.
For me, the bureaucracy of an 80k+ person company in the insanely bureaucratic defense industry with rather mediocre money was just too much, even though the work was pretty damn cool. I went to a company of ~250 people (smaller than my medium sized Army program) and picked up a 24% raise. I miss the people a lot, and the work sometimes, but not the insanity.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitching.
No, only Windows uses the retarded long/4 pointer/8 on 64-bit. Linux correctly has 8 byte longs and pointers for x86_64.
./test
#include
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
printf("%lu %lu\n", sizeof(long), sizeof(void *));
return 0;
}
$ gcc -Wall test.c -o test
$
8 8
I agree that %p would be the better choice, but using '%lx' should only provoke warnings on a 32-bit distro.
Remember that Norway has huge oil money flowing in for about the next 10 years or so. And both countries are small with relatively stable, homogeneous populations. The United States has more *illegal* residents (~12E6 is the best estimate I've heard) than Sweden (9E6) or Norway (4.6E6). The New York City metro area has around 18.8E6 million people...
This isn't to denigrate their achievements, which are substantial: but it's less difficult than maintaining the same standards over a substantial portion of a continent with 300E6 people right up against a poor neighbor.
I am curious as to how the Scandinavian countries will deal with a rapidly graying and shrinking population. Japan is shrinking, I think Italy is shrinking, Russia is shrinking. I haven't seen any satisfactory solutions to the whole "fewer working people, now what?" problem. Higher retirement ages, more flexible working schedules for the elderly who want at least partial employment, and ???
Yes, I'm sure long haul trains to depots over existing tracks is cheaper than using trucks. That isn't the full problem.
I think that was the point. If this is the "new, smaller" kernel, then it isn't (?) based on the Vista kernel, and wouldn't then be 6.1.x or 6.2.x. So the version number of 6.1.x seems to indicate that this new O.S. kernel *is* actually largely based on the Vista kernel. This could be a good thing: they'll have learned things. But, like the grandparent post, I'm surprised that it's doable.
Thus saying that the version "7" from the "Windows 7" isn't based on the kernel version is disingenuous. What else di they base the number on? As you note, Win 2k was really "NT 5.0", Vista was "NT 6.0". Therefore the next major version is "NT 7.0" and kernel reflects this (except it doesn't: the grandparent's point). So "Windows 7" appears to be "Windows Vista XP" from its version info.
Flame on.
Dear asshole,
Americans are paying for it, so I'd say what we want matters a fair deal. And in this instance, the original poster was saying that he would prefer that we do the initial work of building a permanent presence on the Moon. In fact, so would I. I am more interested in starting that work now, using the money that *I* am providing, then on the scientific exploration of asteroids, given the choice. Sadly for the scientists, they will have to do a lot of convincing in order for me to prioritize their desires for knowledge over my desire for a permanent settlement on a second Solar body. They can always start their own asteroid-exploring scientific foundation, if they have troubles with the priorities I set for them. Or they can ask for both: I would in fact be quite willing to open my wallet if I could directly support their work. But I can't, they are SOL, and should get back to doing what I'm paying them to do.
I think the risk analysis went like this:
Q: What happens if they *do* shoot a plane down
A: No one flies.
See, it's not purely a "How do we spend $40 billion?", but a "What happens if someone shoots down a plane with a missile?" I imagine the consequences to the airline industry (and other industries as a result) due to the events of September 11th, 2001, had an economic impact > $40 billion.
So the question isn't (just) "What else could we do with $40 billion?", but must be combination of what else we could spend money on while considering the risks of severe economic damage that could come from a country that won't fly if an airliner is shot down. Not that people would be too thrilled to even have had the system activate "for reals", I'm sure.
This is what I understand:
Linux 32 bit and Windows 32 bit
Int: 32 bit
Long: 32 bit
Long long: 64 bit
Pointer: 32 bit
Linux 64 bit
Int: 32 bit
Long: 64 bit
Long long: 64 bit
Pointer: 64 bit
Windows 64 bit
Int: 32 bit
Long: 32 bit <---- (!)
Long long: 64 bit
Pointer: 64 bit
So in the Windows world, pointers don't fit in a long anymore. People shouldn't be doing that, but they do. On the other hand, non-pointery uses of long that relied on its size being 32-bit will continue to work.
I think the Linux (and lots of other O.S. people, I'm sure) decision is much the smarter. And to me, it feels nice and more natural to have int and long be different sizes. 32-bit int/longs always felt a bit unnatural.
It actually does mean this most/all other places. The way I learned it was "flashing red lights are equivalent to a stop sign". They usually use them in my area at crosswalks: they start solid red for awhile but turn flashing red after a reasonable interval (to give slower folks a chance to finish crossing). So perhaps you weren't so wrong. We do get flashing reds with trains, but it's the lowered wooden arm gives the contextual hint (aside from the tracks...).
from (here.
There are pictures in this one.
The military really wants them. Non-flash LIDAR is being integrated in systems like RAMICS (which uses LIDAR to look for mines underwater (assuming it works)) plus a number of missiles. One example here, the abortive attempt to put a LADAR in a ~7" (180cm) missile seeker with the Loiter Attack Missile (LAM). Lockheed, however, sucks, and couldn't pull it together. I've seen imagery from a competitor's seeker. Not great, but getting there. I think there are efforts underway in larger missiles like Tomahawk and Maverick where there's more power available.
Besides LADAR, there's IR sensors. I mean, Cadillacs and Hummers and stuff use Raytheon's uncooled array: as did that guy who just did the cross-country Cannonball-type sprint in his M5. I dunno the resolution of that one, but there *are* uncooled Focal Plane Arrays out there that are pretty damn big. No 3D info, but some all weather-capability. Presumably pavement looks different from non-pavement at night.
There's millimeter wave radar: ~100-300GHz. There's a *lot* of military interest in this since it gives good visibility in the presence of aerosols and smoke and whatnot (where LIDAR and IR may not work). Not so great in the rain, depending.
There are sensors. They may not be available to universities yet (sadly: I'm sure they are better at finding ingenious uses than big military contractors (I know)), but hopefully within the next 5-10 years. Or maybe we'll get awesome(r) at SAR (Sandia Labs has some great pictures for miniSAR: 4" resolution). I dunno if SAR is practical for ground-based navigation.
And I've used MEMs nav systems: GPS and IMU in a package about the size of a paperback book. There're smaller systems, too: for precision artillery shells (and so they can withstand accelerations of ~15k gees).
I hope that this Challenge will spur development in these areas as teams search for an edge in sensor technology.
No. They wanted a lot more money to register, like $25-40k (I forget). And there might have been other restrictions as well.
Not to be the world's biggest asshat, but: how many hundred story buildings did they knock down? And not just knock down, but fly planeloads of *people* into? There is a difference between bombs that make you remove mailboxes from the street and freakin' airliners flying into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Did all of the IRA's attacks together kill 3,000 people? Or even 100 people (I didn't follow world affairs as much back then)? There is a huge qualitative difference in these attacks, even though 3,000 deaths isn't a huge amount in the scheme of American deaths in a year.
I think that account creation opened up on like a Monday or something, and I put it off for a few days, registering on a Thursday (?). I think this would have been about this time (October, November), 1997. So it only took three or for days for me to sadly end up at 14k+ whatever the hell I am. Less procrastination would have netted me a bitchin' 3 or 4 digit UID. I am sad.
That's what I remember. But of course I am an old man now (30!) and thus my memory is as faltering as my footsteps.