All of Washington state, not just Seattle. Other states tax oil revenues, Washington should tax it's prime industry too. As it stands, Microsoft pays NO taxes to any agency and in fact graciously waives the 1 billion dollar a year tax refund owed to them by the IRS because of our fucked up tax laws. Tax the unholy crap out of them, they pay no dividends or taxes. Money NEVER leaves Microsoft.
Net Bios Extended User Interface = Dave stops working and win XP cannot log on to Samba server except by installing NetBios which is now unsupported. Additionally, The Pro versions contain just enough of the appletalk protocol that any appletalk device with file shares on the network gets treated like a printer... Want to see every 8.1 box you have crash? On a DHCP network have win2k or XP look for network printers on your ethernet. 9.0.4 will figure it out but all the other boxes die. Static IP boxes seem to be safe from this but all others crash. 9.1 USB printer shareing boxes also will crash. 2000 server has full appletalk capability and will not cause this. Will not occure on an AUI adapter box like a 6100 but will kill an asante nic box. USB printer sharing does not work under DHCP anyway, so their crashing is not much of a hazard because any USB p/s box should be on a static IP anyway. You cannot convince me that Windows plays nice with Apples exept the servers and old NT 4. The problem occures when windows forces an election to become the master browser.
Do you possibly think microsoft would stick to a protocol that increases their compatibility? That must be why you can open a Word 2001.doc in word 98.
Price point? Price point. What did it cost you? What is the new barrier to entry for Apple? Getting a new imac went from $800 to $1300. Your Dual G4 cost you at least $3000. That's if you got the GeForce 4mx based on a two year old design.
"It's called a VGA connector. My Mac has one."
The cheap apple was the iMac. I'm talking an iMac box without a monitor at all. Let it be round and cute but skip the $500 tiny flat panel. And give it some PCI slots. But keep the low price point. Not that hard really, just do the math.
As far as Apple is concerned, PCI slots cost you an extra $1000, because that is the difference in price between a machine that has them compared to a machine that doesn't. Utter bullshit.
By the way, NetBios is unsupperted under XP now. meaning microsoft has broken compatibility with Samba, meaning they are assholes and OS X cannot work in a *modern* NT enviroment. It's a moving target, but if Apple wants to thrive instead of survive, they better hit the damn thing.
A 1 Ghz G3 would be better because it was available 6 months ago and is done on a more efficient process, meaning better yield, meaning less expencive. Apple failed to capitalize on the faster G3 because at the time it would have meant their low end processor would be faster than their high end processor.
"Manufactured in IBM's advanced 0.13 micron copper process with Silicon-on-Insulator and Low-K Dielectric technology, the 750FX will be offered at frequencies up to 1 GHz. The 750FX expands the capabilities of the IBM PowerPC 7xx processor family to support more performance-demanding and power-sensitive applications. The new processor is ideally suited for a variety of systems, including networking, communications, storage, imaging, computing, and consumer applications. The 750FX is architecturally based on the PowerPC 750 and PowerPC 750CXe processors, and implements many enhancements that address the performance and reliability requirements of embedded applications. These include 512 Kbytes of internal L2 cache running at core frequency with cache locking, expanded width of internal data paths, additional cache buffers, parity protection on internal cache arrays, additional memory mapping registers, the capability for up to 200-MHz operation of the 60x system bus interface with additional bus pipelining, and two PLLs."
I'll take 512k of on die full speed L2 cache over 2 Mb of 266mhz L3 any day. 266mhz DDR is what PCs use for memory, Apples use it as "high speed cache". As for the 200mhz fsb, Sounds like it is ready for DDR-333. 6 months would have given them the time to put it in the new iMac. They knew IBM was building it almost two years ago. But Motorola is a sexier company than stodgy old IBM so they kept the flagship processor contract even though IBM has a better process.
The shame of it is, as slick as OS X is, it's still on expensive, proprietary, out of date hardware. Don't get me wrong, the hardware is nice, but imagine OS X on a platform that has general use benchmarks as high as the PC side of the house. IBM announced the 1 ghz G3 750FX power PC six months ago. But Apple has a stranglehold on their hardware. So the only place we will see that chip is in a game console. We will soon be able to guy a 1 ghz G3 game console for three hundred dollars.
That puts Apple's speed, price and marketing to shame. Marketing? Apple's marketing puts their inferior hardware in glossy wrappers and words. Apple used to have hardware features that put PCs to shame. Back when every computer was $2000, Apple was the obvious choice. But competition in the PC industry has pushed their speed up and price down. Apple can no longer hide their head in the sand about price. Apple is competing with PCs on four fronts: price, hardware, OS and software. Apple must not let marketing make their hardware decisions. If nothing else, if their hardware was better, their marketing would not have to lie so much. Jobs using the same Photoshop benchmark that shows apple hardware faster than PC hardware over and over is an industry joke. Apple users must know what SDRAM i845 Pentium 4 owners feel like. They pay insane prices for hardware that does a few things fast and does everyday tasks significantly slower. So the G3 does not have the altivec multimedia (SSE) instructions, so what?
Build a business machine based on the 1 Ghz G3. Make it mesh seamlessly with an NT environment (without Dave) and make it cheap. The iMac does not serve the roll well. Let the businesses use their legacy monitors. Give it some PCI slots. Resurrect the beige G3 tower for less than $600. Compete on all three fronts. OS X alone will rescue Apple. But competing on price and speed will bring Apple back to dominance.
Final word: Appleworks. This is the last competition to Office. But even Apple themselves is pushing Office on the mac. Sure, Microsoft injected 200 million into Apple. Microsoft bribed the only competition for 200 million, then spent 500 million marketing the X-box. Apple sold out for a song, and will soon be surpassed in performance by a console. Will soon be surpassed in performance by a console. A console for god sakes.
"It may be the ONLY way to properly destroy a deep bunker with the LEAST amount of risk to our troops AND with reduced collateral effect."
If we our not willing to risk our troops then we have no business fighting in the first place. If our goal was just, we would be willing to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve it. I spent 11 years in the Army more than willing to give my life for the goals of the USA. I am all for the use of overwhelming force but send a nuke just because you are not willing to sacrifice troops lives means your goal is false.
You have heard the joke about blasting the middle east to glass and re-drilling the wells? Oil money is not a good reason to waste troops lives why would it be a good reason to use nukes?
You may not use your former position as a B-52 crewman to gain any support for your arguement with me. I think you are a coward. Because you don't have the stomach to die for your country does not mean that we are all cowards. How dare you dishonor all of us by showing your willingness to hide behind nukes.
Sometimes a nuke would be the right tool for the job but my response to you is not pavlovian. Unless you have been living under a rock, you might notice the only reason we go to war any more is for OIL. That is not a good enough reason to waste lives so it is not a good enough reason to use a nuke. But if we have a conflict that warrants the dying of US troops then using a nuke is OK. Do you understand this? The problem is, the new policy makes NO moral distinction on this point, and neither have you.
Additionally, while air bursts may be clean, there is no way to bust a bunker with a clean nuke. A mission to destroy a bunker, by its nature, MUST be a dirty blast. Ther are countless conventional means to destroy a bunker. Some of which do not risk lives, coward. So there is no reason to use a nuke for that purpose. Troops in the open can be easily killed with conventional bombs, so again, there is no reason to use a nuke.
So I would like to know, coward, what is the reason to ever use a nuke? well? coward.
Just to bring slash back to our normal discussion on computers, I wonder what a guitar cut from a pure silicon crystal would sound like. When fabs start using 16" wafers, I want a 1 inch slice with a neck and pickups.
What is the natural resonate frequency of current 8 inch wafers? Could you embed a resonate noise source in the bedrock near a fab and ruin all their chips?
I better shut up before some Mac zealot fixes Dresden and Malaysia; "So pc's have made it to.13 process huh? Well, I'll show the world that Macs are still better!! *maniacal laughing*"
The internet is the world's best source of information and while transport of that information is built in, organization of that information is not. We have only half an internet.
We will really know what is out there on the net when Cisco includes a search function in their routers. Distributed searching. Access to over 90% of the world's data. Anonymous usage statistics. Person X searched for data (a) and spent the most time at www.example.xyz. Cross refrence it all and include hooks into TCP/IP V.x for cataloging search, usage and content statistics.
A website might contain information about leftover wiffle-waffles. That website sends that same data 1000 times an hour to end users. I want the router to pipe up "1000 unique page veiws for leftover wiffle-waffles" somewhere else a router says "500 unique page veiws for leftover wiffle-waffles". So when I do my search, I get 2 hits, most popular and second most popular.
Why incorperate it into TCP/IP? what good is moving all that data if it is just a morass of chaos? Let that which transports it also serve to catalog it. Currently, user data's content is transparent to TCP/IP. But if I wanted my data to be found, I could enclose tags that would allow the Router to sniff my data, insuring my data was included in the next real time search.
Take note that untill recently, having the internet meant having a piece of copper strung to your house. Because most countries have not had the massive copper build out that is seen in the united states, getting internet was not possible. that is what makes some of the wireless technologies so interesting. For example, Kuwait has phone lines to only 15% of residences. Every one has a mobile phone though. To a person in kuwait, placing a call means calling a person, not a location. Internet cafes are extremely popular, satisfying demand for an internet that has no infrastructure. Which is what makes 802.11b/a and other wireless methods so interesting. I am guessing that there are as many people in the world, with dollars to spend, that the providers of wireless internet access will call customers, as currently use copper to access the internet. However, untill it is cheaper to set up a wireless internet connection than buy a similar length of copper, acceptance will obviously be poor.
And obviously biased. Everyone but the few hundred music/movie executives that stand to profit from this are biased. We have passed the DMCA and will ratify this treaty for benifit of a few hundred people.
There are 6 billion people on the planet and hardship caused to less than a thousand does not warrant an international treaty.
If it impacted a million people adversly, it would not warrent a treaty.
Hello from Poland! This message is sent to 200 000 recipients. We offer You the same mass mailing service and our prices are VERY cool! Our 13 months experience guaranties You excellent results! Please read some short FAQ before mailing Us questions: we use our servers - You get NO complains for sending mass messages! we have NO targeting options at the moment we send both plain text and HTML messages (less 20K bytes) we do not collect replies for this messages we can not host Your pageswe can order a domain for You this is 100% LEGAL we accept bank wire, WesternUnion and PayPal (buy we DISLIKE PayPal for some reasons) Our prices: $100 for 200`000 email messages using our mail list. $190 for 1`000`000 email messages using Your mail list. $250 for 1`000`000 email messages using our mail list. $190 for 1`000`000 email messages using Your mail list. $650 for 3`000`000 email messages using our mail list. $550 for 3`000`000 email messages using Your mail list. $1900 for 9`000`000 email messages using our mail list. $1700 for 9`000`000 email messages using Your mail list.
Reply ONLY to mailings@messpro.com Also we offer UNTARGETED checked mail lists: $100 for 2'000'000 checked mail mail addresses $400 for 10'000'000 checked mail mail addresses $900 for 25'000'000 checked mail mail addresses
Reply ONLY to mailings@messpro.com Best wishes, Teador Smornij
I really don't want to see anyone walking around with radioactive batteries. Sure youy can read "Snowcrash" and make the assumption that using radioactive isotopes as power sources is a good idea but you would be mistaken. For example, californium, who's isotopes have generally short half-lives, is a candidate because of the heat it generates. A one kilogram block would but out 10,000 horsepower in heat for about the first half-life period, and of course half and half again after that. Wow, you could power anything with that, but that is the problem.
A laptop would have twice as much energy as it needs for the first half-life period. We have enough waste heat to deal with. The laptop would have just the right amount of power for the second period. It would not have enough power for the third period. This is a gradual drop off in reality. So your Laptop would have a period of too much heat inside followed by a period of not enough power.
Gather enough spent laptop batteries and wait 20 years and you have plutonium, one of the intermediate states of decaying californium.
Fuel cells in laptops suffer the same problem. Computers convert almost 100% of the power they consume into heat. Fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity and heat. So nearly 100% of the power derived from a fuel cell powered laptop would be converted to heat. So much heat that active cooling would be required. That would consume power, and generate more heat to produce the power to cool the laptop. Catch 22.
Theoretically a great source of power but for practical applications absolutely worthless. Your summation ruins an otherwise lucid and informative post.
The article is about batteries for a reason. No other power source is viable for some applications. Laptops are the primary showstopper.
Sim Monopoly (Immediately bought and axed by Microsoft) Sim Corporate Lapdog (Bush's favorite) Sim Golf (never mind, they get enough of that.) Sim Pedophile (For catholic priests) Sim Vote Fixing (the Supremes played this one) Sim Yes man (For aspiring corporate lapdogs) Sim Republican (Sim soft money included) Sim Democrat (Morals not included) Sim IRS accountant (God mode: 100% tax rate) Sim FCC (Sell stuff the public owns back to them) Sim NSA (Record every conversation and admit nothing) Sim FBI (Blunder everything except cover-ups) Sim ATF (This is just a regular first person shooter) Sim NASA (Go to moon for 15 billion then squander 15 billion a year not going to the moon.) Sim DOD (Procure junk, Get hired by junk peddlers.) Sim DOJ (Income1,000,000 !=goto jail, Try others arbitrarily.) Sim Congress (See how little you can sell out the country for.) Sim FTC (reinforce monopolies with weak penalties) Sim Slashdot (Hire secretaries to mod comments you don't like) Sim THE PEOPLE (we look like goatse after the poloticians are done)
Use a 1cm thick sheet of 2mm pitch honeycombed aluminum. Off angle viewing is shit but it makes everything readable by cutting glare and light hitting the screen to zero.
There are a couple of places that sell it but they tend to say "let us give you a quote" instead of just having the product at a given price.
It will be shiny when you get it so get some high quality flat black primer and paint it. It is also very fragile so if you so much as rub your finger across it it's ruined. Sort of like the fins of a radiator.
A cost no object project could use honeycomb aramid fiber (kevlar) or carbon fiber but both of those have drawbacks too. The aramid should only be used in a sealed environment because UV will destroy it in a matter of months. The carbon fiber is just extraordinarily expensive. Neither is as thin as the aluminum so the viewing quality will not be as good either.
a robot's height, and maintain it's aspect ratio, you get an eight fold increase in volume and therefore weight but only a four fold increase in foot size. So, A 40 foot tall humanoid robot would weigh 216 times as much as its 6-foot tall counterpart while having only 36 times as much foot surface area. So, the 200lb, 6-foot tall robot would exert about 1.4 pounds per square inch while the 1t's counterpart would exert just over 8 pounds per square inch walking pressure. The true problem in creating a 40 foot tall robot is that it could only be used on hardened concrete, because it would sink in anything else. Not to mention the inefficiencies of armoring something with such a terrible volume to surface area ratio. Granted, spheres cannot walk around and look cool, but you can stack about 14 times as much armor on the same volume at a given weight. Makes DARPA look like a bunch of fools for issuing a spec for powered personal armor.
Something to consider about T-Rex, it seems to be the pinnacle of 250million years of evolution compared to just 50 million years that mammals have had. It is quite possible that their muscles had much greater efficiency than any modern animal has. This is somewhat supported by their fantastic size, which no modern animal can achieve except when supported by water.
Also, the earth is about.3% heavier than it was 50 million years ago due to meteor deposition..3% is nothing in astronomical terms but could mean everything in efficiency. An elephant that weighs 7 tons would loose 50 pounds if sent back 50 million years.
If the Meteor theory is true, It also added it's mass to the earth, but I doubt it would be enough to be significant.
except that the footprints in question came from a dino the size of an ostrich, which we know is quite fast. We need to find running big dino tracks to say for shure that the speed available to smaller dinos was available to the big ones. The problem being any tracks would be over twenty feet apart making finding the next on in the chain problematic. There is also the problem of finding that a Rex, while possibly being able to run, might not be able to run in mud, where there is the best chance of track preservation.
Which makes me realize my theory is not falsifiable, meaning it is probably wrong.:)
Looking at pictures of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime and Abebe Bikila (the Ethiopian marathon runner) tells me that muscle mass has nothing to do with running speed. The hippopotamus is as fast as a horse. Basiliscus basiliscus also called the "Jesus Christ lizard" can run on water with quite thin musculature. The best comparison comes from the ostrich, with a top speed of nearly 40 mph. I don't see an incredible problem with that body type scaling from 3 inches to 8 feet while still maintaining speed. In fact, the speed seems to scale too. I'll be the last one to say that a Rex with 13 foot long legs could run at over 100mph but to say that Rex, with a body type that scales as well as it seems too, could not have been slow. To place one foot in front of the other in a bipedal gate requires dynamic movement. Dynamic movement and balance when your legs are 13 feet long dictates a minimum natural walking gate in the 10 mph range. Rex could not have used stealth. Rex may have been a scavenger. But wasn't there a duckbill skeleton found with a T Rex tooth imbedded in the spine that had the bone heal around the tooth? So Rex went after live prey and did not use stealth. That requires speed. All predators have speed. Rex had it too.
There is the story of Archimedes using mirrors to burn an attacking roman fleet. Even if not true, credit might be given to a Byzantine writer. Even if he was streaching the truth, it is a phenominal idea for an ancient man to have had simply because it predates our first use of directed energy as a weapon by almost a thousand years.
A vacuum is exactly what Rome provided or at least that's what Archimedes said. Archimedes was one of the people who understood steam dynamics. I may be completely wrong, but I belive he was the first true mechanical engineer with a strong math foundation. Perhaps that honor should go to Imhotep.
Please grant that without theoretical math, there are no technological advances. Grant that Archimedes had enough knowlegde to at least experiment with steam power. Grant that Rome had the industrial power to provide Paullinus with an army that sailed to briton with 10,000 soldiers, all equiped, at a minimum, with a three pound bronze drusus to defeat a rebelion of 80,000 rebellious Britons.
Bronze is certainly not the Ideal substance to build a locomotive with but it would not be impossible.
A chariot from about 1400 B.C. was found in the tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu, along with traces of the original lubricant, mineral oil, on the axle.
Tribology, the study of lubricants, is an ancient greek word.
The first locomotive rails were made of wood capped with copper, then later iron.
And if it takes a supercomputer to build a locomotive, Babbage must have gotten a lot farther than I had thought:)
You may also accept that all of Rome's and the WRE's problems potentially had technological solutions.
Imagine steam locomotives. Troop strength ceases to be a problem because they could move all their troops where they were needed in timeframes that would stun the barbarians attacking them. The massive corruption of Rome would be mitigated by the plenty provided by improved logistics.
"Europe escaped the dark ages after some people were accepted at Islamic universities"
So, the Roman Empire did not collapse, but Arabic universities brought the people who would have been considered to be inside the borders of the Roman Empire out of the dark ages...
Lack of a theoretical mathematic foundation caused the people that inhabited the area considered to be the Roman Empire to experience a sharp drop in their standard of living, the dark ages, and were brought out of the dark ages by the re-introduction of theoretical math, and with it the technologies that improve standard of living.
Yes, you are absolutely right, but you have failed to look at it in any way other than by wrote. It may serve you well to introduce some "what if" variables into the history you have memorized to see if you can deduce the actual causality of historical events.
For instance, a baby deprived of mother's milk will surely die of starvation. You would say, the baby starved to death, and you would be right. I would say the baby died of neglect, and that even if fed, would die for lack of its mother's love. You are right but you have not addressed the causality of the situation.
Imagine a world with no Newton or Einstein, but with the same population expansion. Civilization without theoretical mathematics is the recipe for proving Methuselah's theory.
Technology has created civilization.
Stone age: stone tools. Bronze age: bronze tools. Dark age: lack of technology. Industrial age: industrialization. Nuclear age: nuclear power. Information age: Computers.
We define civilization through technology. How is it possible that not pursuing the foundations of technology would not have an effect on civilization?
If anything is to "cure" the current threats to our global civilization such as glogal warming, overpopulation and even political chaos/war, it will be technological solutions, supported by theoretical mathmatics.
Slashdot Mirror
When naming machines gets 600+ posts!
All of Washington state, not just Seattle. Other states tax oil revenues, Washington should tax it's prime industry too. As it stands, Microsoft pays NO taxes to any agency and in fact graciously waives the 1 billion dollar a year tax refund owed to them by the IRS because of our fucked up tax laws. Tax the unholy crap out of them, they pay no dividends or taxes. Money NEVER leaves Microsoft.
Net Bios Extended User Interface = Dave stops working and win XP cannot log on to Samba server except by installing NetBios which is now unsupported. Additionally, The Pro versions contain just enough of the appletalk protocol that any appletalk device with file shares on the network gets treated like a printer... Want to see every 8.1 box you have crash? On a DHCP network have win2k or XP look for network printers on your ethernet. 9.0.4 will figure it out but all the other boxes die. Static IP boxes seem to be safe from this but all others crash. 9.1 USB printer shareing boxes also will crash. 2000 server has full appletalk capability and will not cause this. Will not occure on an AUI adapter box like a 6100 but will kill an asante nic box. USB printer sharing does not work under DHCP anyway, so their crashing is not much of a hazard because any USB p/s box should be on a static IP anyway. You cannot convince me that Windows plays nice with Apples exept the servers and old NT 4. The problem occures when windows forces an election to become the master browser.
Hello?
.doc in word 98.
Do you possibly think microsoft would stick to a protocol that increases their compatibility? That must be why you can open a Word 2001
Price point? Price point. What did it cost you? What is the new barrier to entry for Apple? Getting a new imac went from $800 to $1300. Your Dual G4 cost you at least $3000. That's if you got the GeForce 4mx based on a two year old design.
"It's called a VGA connector. My Mac has one."
The cheap apple was the iMac. I'm talking an iMac box without a monitor at all. Let it be round and cute but skip the $500 tiny flat panel. And give it some PCI slots. But keep the low price point. Not that hard really, just do the math.
As far as Apple is concerned, PCI slots cost you an extra $1000, because that is the difference in price between a machine that has them compared to a machine that doesn't. Utter bullshit.
By the way, NetBios is unsupperted under XP now. meaning microsoft has broken compatibility with Samba, meaning they are assholes and OS X cannot work in a *modern* NT enviroment. It's a moving target, but if Apple wants to thrive instead of survive, they better hit the damn thing.
A 1 Ghz G3 would be better because it was available 6 months ago and is done on a more efficient process, meaning better yield, meaning less expencive. Apple failed to capitalize on the faster G3 because at the time it would have meant their low end processor would be faster than their high end processor.
IBM has it here
To quote IBM's pdf:
"Manufactured in IBM's advanced 0.13 micron copper process with Silicon-on-Insulator
and Low-K Dielectric technology, the 750FX will be offered at frequencies up to 1 GHz.
The 750FX expands the capabilities of the IBM PowerPC 7xx processor family to
support more performance-demanding and power-sensitive applications. The new
processor is ideally suited for a variety of systems, including networking,
communications, storage, imaging, computing, and consumer applications.
The 750FX is architecturally based on the PowerPC 750 and PowerPC 750CXe
processors, and implements many enhancements that address the performance and
reliability requirements of embedded applications. These include 512 Kbytes of internal
L2 cache running at core frequency with cache locking, expanded width of internal data
paths, additional cache buffers, parity protection on internal cache arrays, additional
memory mapping registers, the capability for up to 200-MHz operation of the 60x system
bus interface with additional bus pipelining, and two PLLs."
I'll take 512k of on die full speed L2 cache over 2 Mb of 266mhz L3 any day. 266mhz DDR is what PCs use for memory, Apples use it as "high speed cache". As for the 200mhz fsb, Sounds like it is ready for DDR-333. 6 months would have given them the time to put it in the new iMac. They knew IBM was building it almost two years ago. But Motorola is a sexier company than stodgy old IBM so they kept the flagship processor contract even though IBM has a better process.
The shame of it is, as slick as OS X is, it's still on expensive, proprietary, out of date hardware. Don't get me wrong, the hardware is nice, but imagine OS X on a platform that has general use benchmarks as high as the PC side of the house. IBM announced the 1 ghz G3 750FX power PC six months ago. But Apple has a stranglehold on their hardware. So the only place we will see that chip is in a game console. We will soon be able to guy a 1 ghz G3 game console for three hundred dollars.
That puts Apple's speed, price and marketing to shame. Marketing? Apple's marketing puts their inferior hardware in glossy wrappers and words. Apple used to have hardware features that put PCs to shame. Back when every computer was $2000, Apple was the obvious choice. But competition in the PC industry has pushed their speed up and price down. Apple can no longer hide their head in the sand about price. Apple is competing with PCs on four fronts: price, hardware, OS and software. Apple must not let marketing make their hardware decisions. If nothing else, if their hardware was better, their marketing would not have to lie so much. Jobs using the same Photoshop benchmark that shows apple hardware faster than PC hardware over and over is an industry joke. Apple users must know what SDRAM i845 Pentium 4 owners feel like. They pay insane prices for hardware that does a few things fast and does everyday tasks significantly slower. So the G3 does not have the altivec multimedia (SSE) instructions, so what?
Build a business machine based on the 1 Ghz G3. Make it mesh seamlessly with an NT environment (without Dave) and make it cheap. The iMac does not serve the roll well. Let the businesses use their legacy monitors. Give it some PCI slots. Resurrect the beige G3 tower for less than $600. Compete on all three fronts. OS X alone will rescue Apple. But competing on price and speed will bring Apple back to dominance.
Final word: Appleworks. This is the last competition to Office. But even Apple themselves is pushing Office on the mac. Sure, Microsoft injected 200 million into Apple. Microsoft bribed the only competition for 200 million, then spent 500 million marketing the X-box. Apple sold out for a song, and will soon be surpassed in performance by a console. Will soon be surpassed in performance by a console. A console for god sakes.
"It may be the ONLY way to properly destroy a deep bunker with the LEAST amount of risk to our troops AND with reduced collateral effect."
If we our not willing to risk our troops then we have no business fighting in the first place. If our goal was just, we would be willing to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve it. I spent 11 years in the Army more than willing to give my life for the goals of the USA. I am all for the use of overwhelming force but send a nuke just because you are not willing to sacrifice troops lives means your goal is false.
You have heard the joke about blasting the middle east to glass and re-drilling the wells? Oil money is not a good reason to waste troops lives why would it be a good reason to use nukes?
You may not use your former position as a B-52 crewman to gain any support for your arguement with me. I think you are a coward. Because you don't have the stomach to die for your country does not mean that we are all cowards. How dare you dishonor all of us by showing your willingness to hide behind nukes.
Sometimes a nuke would be the right tool for the job but my response to you is not pavlovian. Unless you have been living under a rock, you might notice the only reason we go to war any more is for OIL. That is not a good enough reason to waste lives so it is not a good enough reason to use a nuke. But if we have a conflict that warrants the dying of US troops then using a nuke is OK. Do you understand this? The problem is, the new policy makes NO moral distinction on this point, and neither have you.
Additionally, while air bursts may be clean, there is no way to bust a bunker with a clean nuke. A mission to destroy a bunker, by its nature, MUST be a dirty blast. Ther are countless conventional means to destroy a bunker. Some of which do not risk lives, coward. So there is no reason to use a nuke for that purpose. Troops in the open can be easily killed with conventional bombs, so again, there is no reason to use a nuke.
So I would like to know, coward, what is the reason to ever use a nuke? well? coward.
Just to bring slash back to our normal discussion on computers, I wonder what a guitar cut from a pure silicon crystal would sound like. When fabs start using 16" wafers, I want a 1 inch slice with a neck and pickups.
.13 process huh? Well, I'll show the world that Macs are still better!! *maniacal laughing*"
What is the natural resonate frequency of current 8 inch wafers? Could you embed a resonate noise source in the bedrock near a fab and ruin all their chips?
I better shut up before some Mac zealot fixes Dresden and Malaysia; "So pc's have made it to
The internet is the world's best source of information and while transport of that information is built in, organization of that information is not. We have only half an internet.
We will really know what is out there on the net when Cisco includes a search function in their routers. Distributed searching. Access to over 90% of the world's data. Anonymous usage statistics. Person X searched for data (a) and spent the most time at www.example.xyz. Cross refrence it all and include hooks into TCP/IP V.x for cataloging search, usage and content statistics.
A website might contain information about leftover wiffle-waffles. That website sends that same data 1000 times an hour to end users. I want the router to pipe up "1000 unique page veiws for leftover wiffle-waffles" somewhere else a router says "500 unique page veiws for leftover wiffle-waffles". So when I do my search, I get 2 hits, most popular and second most popular.
Why incorperate it into TCP/IP? what good is moving all that data if it is just a morass of chaos? Let that which transports it also serve to catalog it. Currently, user data's content is transparent to TCP/IP. But if I wanted my data to be found, I could enclose tags that would allow the Router to sniff my data, insuring my data was included in the next real time search.
Take note that untill recently, having the internet meant having a piece of copper strung to your house. Because most countries have not had the massive copper build out that is seen in the united states, getting internet was not possible. that is what makes some of the wireless technologies so interesting. For example, Kuwait has phone lines to only 15% of residences. Every one has a mobile phone though. To a person in kuwait, placing a call means calling a person, not a location. Internet cafes are extremely popular, satisfying demand for an internet that has no infrastructure. Which is what makes 802.11b/a and other wireless methods so interesting. I am guessing that there are as many people in the world, with dollars to spend, that the providers of wireless internet access will call customers, as currently use copper to access the internet. However, untill it is cheaper to set up a wireless internet connection than buy a similar length of copper, acceptance will obviously be poor.
And obviously biased. Everyone but the few hundred music/movie executives that stand to profit from this are biased. We have passed the DMCA and will ratify this treaty for benifit of a few hundred people.
There are 6 billion people on the planet and hardship caused to less than a thousand does not warrant an international treaty.
If it impacted a million people adversly, it would not warrent a treaty.
Don't forget these assholes:
Hello from Poland!
This message is sent to 200 000 recipients.
We offer You the same mass mailing service and our prices are VERY cool!
Our 13 months experience guaranties You excellent results! Please read some short FAQ before mailing Us questions:
we use our servers - You get NO complains for sending mass messages!
we have NO targeting options at the moment
we send both plain text and HTML messages (less 20K bytes)
we do not collect replies for this messages
we can not host Your pageswe can order a domain for You
this is 100% LEGAL
we accept bank wire, WesternUnion and PayPal (buy we DISLIKE PayPal for some reasons)
Our prices:
$100 for 200`000 email messages using our mail list.
$190 for 1`000`000 email messages using Your mail list.
$250 for 1`000`000 email messages using our mail list.
$190 for 1`000`000 email messages using Your mail list.
$650 for 3`000`000 email messages using our mail list.
$550 for 3`000`000 email messages using Your mail list.
$1900 for 9`000`000 email messages using our mail list.
$1700 for 9`000`000 email messages using Your mail list.
Reply ONLY to mailings@messpro.com
Also we offer UNTARGETED checked mail lists:
$100 for 2'000'000 checked mail mail addresses
$400 for 10'000'000 checked mail mail addresses
$900 for 25'000'000 checked mail mail addresses
Reply ONLY to mailings@messpro.com Best wishes, Teador Smornij
I really don't want to see anyone walking around with radioactive batteries. Sure youy can read "Snowcrash" and make the assumption that using radioactive isotopes as power sources is a good idea but you would be mistaken. For example, californium, who's isotopes have generally short half-lives, is a candidate because of the heat it generates. A one kilogram block would but out 10,000 horsepower in heat for about the first half-life period, and of course half and half again after that. Wow, you could power anything with that, but that is the problem.
A laptop would have twice as much energy as it needs for the first half-life period. We have enough waste heat to deal with. The laptop would have just the right amount of power for the second period. It would not have enough power for the third period. This is a gradual drop off in reality. So your Laptop would have a period of too much heat inside followed by a period of not enough power.
Gather enough spent laptop batteries and wait 20 years and you have plutonium, one of the intermediate states of decaying californium.
Fuel cells in laptops suffer the same problem. Computers convert almost 100% of the power they consume into heat. Fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity and heat. So nearly 100% of the power derived from a fuel cell powered laptop would be converted to heat. So much heat that active cooling would be required. That would consume power, and generate more heat to produce the power to cool the laptop. Catch 22.
Theoretically a great source of power but for practical applications absolutely worthless. Your summation ruins an otherwise lucid and informative post.
The article is about batteries for a reason. No other power source is viable for some applications. Laptops are the primary showstopper.
"Dude, look at that radical paint job."
"Who cares dude, it's still a mac."
"Dude, it looks fast!"
"All macs look fast, dude"
"Dude, you're gettin' a Dell!"
"Wait, Dell makes Macs, right?"
Sim Monopoly (Immediately bought and axed by Microsoft)
Sim Corporate Lapdog (Bush's favorite)
Sim Golf (never mind, they get enough of that.)
Sim Pedophile (For catholic priests)
Sim Vote Fixing (the Supremes played this one)
Sim Yes man (For aspiring corporate lapdogs)
Sim Republican (Sim soft money included)
Sim Democrat (Morals not included)
Sim IRS accountant (God mode: 100% tax rate)
Sim FCC (Sell stuff the public owns back to them)
Sim NSA (Record every conversation and admit nothing)
Sim FBI (Blunder everything except cover-ups)
Sim ATF (This is just a regular first person shooter)
Sim NASA (Go to moon for 15 billion then squander 15 billion a year not going to the moon.)
Sim DOD (Procure junk, Get hired by junk peddlers.)
Sim DOJ (Income1,000,000 !=goto jail, Try others arbitrarily.)
Sim Congress (See how little you can sell out the country for.)
Sim FTC (reinforce monopolies with weak penalties)
Sim Slashdot (Hire secretaries to mod comments you don't like)
Sim THE PEOPLE (we look like goatse after the poloticians are done)
Use a 1cm thick sheet of 2mm pitch honeycombed aluminum. Off angle viewing is shit but it makes everything readable by cutting glare and light hitting the screen to zero.
There are a couple of places that sell it but they tend to say "let us give you a quote" instead of just having the product at a given price.
It will be shiny when you get it so get some high quality flat black primer and paint it. It is also very fragile so if you so much as rub your finger across it it's ruined. Sort of like the fins of a radiator.
A cost no object project could use honeycomb aramid fiber (kevlar) or carbon fiber but both of those have drawbacks too. The aramid should only be used in a sealed environment because UV will destroy it in a matter of months. The carbon fiber is just extraordinarily expensive. Neither is as thin as the aluminum so the viewing quality will not be as good either.
a robot's height, and maintain it's aspect ratio, you get an eight fold increase in volume and therefore weight but only a four fold increase in foot size. So, A 40 foot tall humanoid robot would weigh 216 times as much as its 6-foot tall counterpart while having only 36 times as much foot surface area. So, the 200lb, 6-foot tall robot would exert about 1.4 pounds per square inch while the 1t's counterpart would exert just over 8 pounds per square inch walking pressure. The true problem in creating a 40 foot tall robot is that it could only be used on hardened concrete, because it would sink in anything else. Not to mention the inefficiencies of armoring something with such a terrible volume to surface area ratio. Granted, spheres cannot walk around and look cool, but you can stack about 14 times as much armor on the same volume at a given weight. Makes DARPA look like a bunch of fools for issuing a spec for powered personal armor.
.3% heavier than it was 50 million years ago due to meteor deposition. .3% is nothing in astronomical terms but could mean everything in efficiency. An elephant that weighs 7 tons would loose 50 pounds if sent back 50 million years.
Something to consider about T-Rex, it seems to be the pinnacle of 250million years of evolution compared to just 50 million years that mammals have had. It is quite possible that their muscles had much greater efficiency than any modern animal has. This is somewhat supported by their fantastic size, which no modern animal can achieve except when supported by water.
Also, the earth is about
If the Meteor theory is true, It also added it's mass to the earth, but I doubt it would be enough to be significant.
except that the footprints in question came from a dino the size of an ostrich, which we know is quite fast. We need to find running big dino tracks to say for shure that the speed available to smaller dinos was available to the big ones. The problem being any tracks would be over twenty feet apart making finding the next on in the chain problematic. There is also the problem of finding that a Rex, while possibly being able to run, might not be able to run in mud, where there is the best chance of track preservation.
Which makes me realize my theory is not falsifiable, meaning it is probably wrong.:)
Looking at pictures of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime and Abebe Bikila (the Ethiopian marathon runner) tells me that muscle mass has nothing to do with running speed. The hippopotamus is as fast as a horse. Basiliscus basiliscus also called the "Jesus Christ lizard" can run on water with quite thin musculature. The best comparison comes from the ostrich, with a top speed of nearly 40 mph. I don't see an incredible problem with that body type scaling from 3 inches to 8 feet while still maintaining speed. In fact, the speed seems to scale too. I'll be the last one to say that a Rex with 13 foot long legs could run at over 100mph but to say that Rex, with a body type that scales as well as it seems too, could not have been slow. To place one foot in front of the other in a bipedal gate requires dynamic movement. Dynamic movement and balance when your legs are 13 feet long dictates a minimum natural walking gate in the 10 mph range. Rex could not have used stealth. Rex may have been a scavenger. But wasn't there a duckbill skeleton found with a T Rex tooth imbedded in the spine that had the bone heal around the tooth? So Rex went after live prey and did not use stealth. That requires speed. All predators have speed. Rex had it too.
That definitely merits a +1 funny.
There is the story of Archimedes using mirrors to burn an attacking roman fleet. Even if not true, credit might be given to a Byzantine writer. Even if he was streaching the truth, it is a phenominal idea for an ancient man to have had simply because it predates our first use of directed energy as a weapon by almost a thousand years.
A vacuum is exactly what Rome provided or at least that's what Archimedes said. Archimedes was one of the people who understood steam dynamics. I may be completely wrong, but I belive he was the first true mechanical engineer with a strong math foundation. Perhaps that honor should go to Imhotep.
:)
Please grant that without theoretical math, there are no technological advances. Grant that Archimedes had enough knowlegde to at least experiment with steam power. Grant that Rome had the industrial power to provide Paullinus with an army that sailed to briton with 10,000 soldiers, all equiped, at a minimum, with a three pound bronze drusus to defeat a rebelion of 80,000 rebellious Britons.
Bronze is certainly not the Ideal substance to build a locomotive with but it would not be impossible.
A chariot from about 1400 B.C. was found in the tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu, along with traces of the original lubricant, mineral oil, on the axle.
Tribology, the study of lubricants, is an ancient greek word.
The first locomotive rails were made of wood capped with copper, then later iron.
And if it takes a supercomputer to build a locomotive, Babbage must have gotten a lot farther than I had thought
You are absolutely right.
You may also accept that all of Rome's and the WRE's problems potentially had technological solutions.
Imagine steam locomotives. Troop strength ceases to be a problem because they could move all their troops where they were needed in timeframes that would stun the barbarians attacking them. The massive corruption of Rome would be mitigated by the plenty provided by improved logistics.
"Europe escaped the dark ages after some people were accepted at Islamic universities"
So, the Roman Empire did not collapse, but Arabic universities brought the people who would have been considered to be inside the borders of the Roman Empire out of the dark ages...
Lack of a theoretical mathematic foundation caused the people that inhabited the area considered to be the Roman Empire to experience a sharp drop in their standard of living, the dark ages, and were brought out of the dark ages by the re-introduction of theoretical math, and with it the technologies that improve standard of living.
Yes, you are absolutely right, but you have failed to look at it in any way other than by wrote. It may serve you well to introduce some "what if" variables into the history you have memorized to see if you can deduce the actual causality of historical events.
For instance, a baby deprived of mother's milk will surely die of starvation. You would say, the baby starved to death, and you would be right. I would say the baby died of neglect, and that even if fed, would die for lack of its mother's love. You are right but you have not addressed the causality of the situation.
Imagine a world with no Newton or Einstein, but with the same population expansion. Civilization without theoretical mathematics is the recipe for proving Methuselah's theory.
Technology has created civilization.
Stone age: stone tools.
Bronze age: bronze tools.
Dark age: lack of technology.
Industrial age: industrialization.
Nuclear age: nuclear power.
Information age: Computers.
We define civilization through technology. How is it possible that not pursuing the foundations of technology would not have an effect on civilization?
If anything is to "cure" the current threats to our global civilization such as glogal warming, overpopulation and even political chaos/war, it will be technological solutions, supported by theoretical mathmatics.
slaves are practical. steam locomotive are impractical.
exactly.