Perhaps that header did not belong in the pre-compiled headers list?
If that was a header that everything else did in fact need then things were no different on PCs. I did cross platform work targeting PCs and Macs in the 90s. Macs usually had a slight advantage for disk based activities since they had SCSI drives at that time.
Nope. I was Computer Science in the School of Science and we used terminals, except for the first homework assignment in the Intro to CS class. They wanted us to have used punched cards once to help us better understand why some things are the way they are. However in the Computer Information Systems program in the School of Business they were still using punch cards for regular classwork in most classes. They only got to use terminals in some upper division classes.
i started on punchcards in college on a cdc mainframe
Me too. But that was the 1970s, not the 80s. Using punch cards in 1983 was idiotic.
Similar story here too, but my experience was not idiotic at all. We only had to use punch cards for the first homework project in the Intro to CS class. The instructor said it would help us understand why many things are the way they are, and we would have a ready supply of bookmarks for years to come. Do I need to mention that bookmarks were once pieces of paper that one stuck in a paper book?:-)
Yes it cost you more on your electric power bill, but that cost vs the value of Bitcoin today is negligible.
If you are using CPU or GPU it is not negligible, you are losing money. Even with some specialized hardware (ASICs) the power may consume 30-50% of the value. YMMV depending on the specific ASICs.
A site by organizations who actually operate 4th gen test reactors. A site that the U.S. Department of Energy links to for more information, http://www.energy.gov/ne/artic....
Interesting, google found that page and I went with it since it seemed to say nothing beyond quoting General Atomic's specs on their reactor. If you follow the link they provide to General Atomics they do indeed state that the waste of previous gen reactors is used as fuel and that the waste of the 4th gen reactors is indeed short lived and only needs hundreds of years of storage. Unfortunately they do so with terrible hover over animated graphics, http://www.ga.com/energy-multi..., so I stuck to the summary since it was plain text that could be cut and pasted. BTW, General Atomics are the people who have been building reactors for decades. So these climate deniers clearly got the science correct on this reactor. When the truth happens to be on the side of liars, liars can indeed tell the truth, which seems to be the case here. Again, this page does nothing more than quote General Atomics. Apologies for not offering the General Atomics link directly and going with this summary. I assumed readers could manage clicking on the General Atomics link themselves, did you have some difficulty doing so? Or were you only interesting in the messenger and not the message (the science)?
And the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
The reality is that salesmen have made a lot of bold claims for gen 4 reactors, but so far they are unproven and somewhat dubious.
That's a strange characterization of organizations that the US Department of Energy refers people to for more information on 4th gen reactors, organizations who operate 4th gen test reactors and companies who will actually build 4th gen reactors and have been reactors for decades.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces." http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
Wow, you call that a citation? I'm willing to believe that safe/efficient nuclear tech is possible, but Wikipedia is NOT an authoritative source. Got anything better? Maybe a quote from an unbiased nuclear engineer? Respected NGO? Anything?
The word "claimed" was an appeasement to the nuclear deniers, to avoid an edit war erupting on that page. Don't read too much into it.
The citation above was just the first thing googled and reflects a consensus among qualified scientists and engineers. I did some more googling for you...
"First the EM2 core will be started using 12% enriched uranium and used fuel or depleted uranium (DU). After the initial U235 amount has been consumed in the “starter-part” of the core, enough fissionable material will have been created to switch over to a second part of the core where the nuclear reactions will continue and be fed nuclear waste.." http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/...
"The scientific method requires that we keep an open mind and change our conclusions when new evidence indicates that we should. Climate change is the new evidence affecting the nuclear debate -- we need low-carbon energy. Current (2nd generation) nuclear reactors are not as fail-safe as possible and they burn less than one percent of the energy in uranium ore. Next (3rd) generation reactors are safer, shutting down automatically in case of anomalies, and are ready to go, but they still leave 99 percent of the energy in long-lived waste piles. 4th generation reactors, tested but not commercially available, can extract all of the energy in the nuclear fuel and burn nuclear waste. We urgently need R&D to make the combination of 3rd and 4th generation reactors available with comprehensive international controls.
James E. Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University." http://www.thesciencecouncil.c...
Careful with your NGOs. Some are nuclear deniers that are as purely political and scientifically unfounded as the climate deniers. The climate deniers and nuclear deniers differ only in their political allegiance, they abuse of and rejection of science are quite similar.
Nuclear power has always been a pipe dream of some sort.
Not in France.
"France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel." http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
>4th generation reactors can use this material as fuel
> and the new waste created will only be dangerous for
> hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands.
Citation, please?
"Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:
Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia
100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
Improved operating safety" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
The plant's spent fuel rods are still stored in a facility on-site, because there is no permanent disposal repository to put them in. To monitor them and make sure the material does not fall into the hands of terrorists or spill into the nearby river costs $8 million per year.
4th generation reactors can use this material as fuel and the new waste created will only be dangerous for hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands.
I am not an accountant or tax advisor, but my understanding is that bitcoins are considered a property and not a currency so users must keep track of their basis and gains or losses like with stock purchases.
For incoming coins the new coins have a value based on the time they were received. The old coins returning to you based on when they were new. For outgoing coins (not including those coming back) it would probably be like other accounting practices where a first in first out (FIFO) system or a last in first out (LIFO) system is used. In either case the basis of the outgoing coins are known.
The odd thing would seem to be that as the outgoing coins are spent its necessary to determine if a gain (coins being paid at a price higher than basis) or a loss (coins being paid at a price lower than basis) is being recognized.
Ex. You buy one coin at $500 and another at $600. Coins are priced at $800 at the time of a future purchase. You buy something for $1,200, 1.5 coins. Using FIFO your basis for the outgoing 1.5 coins is $500 + $300 = $800, and the basis for the returning 0.5 coins is still $300. You experienced a gain of $400 on the 1.5 coins at the time of the sale and that $400 would seem to be taxable income. Apologies if I botched the math, hopefully the point gets across.
Don't think of bitcoin as a currency, something that you hold over a period of time. Think of it as a transaction mechanism, an alternative to credit cards, pay pal, etc.
Merchants already have the option to assume zero risk when using bitcoins. An exchange like Coinbase lets merchants do all their accounting, pricing and billing in US Dollars. If a customer wants to use bitcoins the merchant sends the transaction info in USD to Coinbase, Coinbase translates that to Bitcoins and provides a Coinbase payment address, sends this updated transaction info back to the merchant and when coinbase receives the coins the merchant is paid the USD amount they originally submitted to coinbase regardless of any bitcoin price fluctuations that took place in the minutes it took the transaction to occur and be verified. The merchant never sees a bitcoin, and with the new IRS guidelines this is a good thing.
On the consumer side it may not be as convenient. It can take a few days to convert dollars to bitcoins, and there will probably be a fee. So keeping a small amount of coins in digital wallet may be common. Can they be lost, yes, but so can a physical wallet with USD. Can the USD to bitcoin conversion be sped up, perhaps with greater personal identification information provided to the exchange and a track record of use. But we're probably still talking about a 3 business day ACH transfer (bank to coin exchange) becoming a 1 business day ACH transfer.
Right. And the only reason that the "desktop class" A7 isn't running Flash is because it's a threat to Apple's business model.
Actually it was considered a massive security hole. This article seems to validate that opinion. Yeah, I know, there was ample evidence for that opinion back in the day too.
I never installed flash and I rarely find web pages that require it. I've noticed a slow migration away from it as well. One or twice a year I check some websites that required flash in the past and some no longer do so. YMMV.
It does not seem that difficult to go without flash and it is getting easier every day.
No, they are more accurately called the nuclear deniers. They are every bit as politically motivated and misrepresent science and make false scientific claims as the climate deniers, they are merely coming from the other political extreme.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces." http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
Various 4th generation reactors are under or about to begin construction. Proof of concept reactors are already operating.
Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:
Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia
100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
Improved operating safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Of particular importance is that these 4th generation reactors can use as fuel the long lived very dangerous waster ***that we already possess*** and don't have good long term plans for.
So what does this Article 3 give you that the law doesn't already?
It lets a candidate say that they voted for the "internet bill of rights" when the time comes for reelection. I don't know about Brazil but here in the U.S. going on record on the "correct" side of an issue is all that is necessary. Our elected officials are only expect to have good intentions, not to actually produce good and effective legislation.
Article 3's translation says "protecting personal data, as provided by law". So a prosecutor going to a judge to gain access to a server does not seem to violate the bill of rights. The article's goal seems to be to stop the type of snooping the NSA is accused of, not impede a court of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Gone are the days of your PHB using successful compiles as a performance metric.
What, you did not punch sequence numbers on the cards so you could drop them into the sorting machine? :-)
Perhaps that header did not belong in the pre-compiled headers list?
If that was a header that everything else did in fact need then things were no different on PCs. I did cross platform work targeting PCs and Macs in the 90s. Macs usually had a slight advantage for disk based activities since they had SCSI drives at that time.
That was in the 60's and early 70's.
Nope. I was Computer Science in the School of Science and we used terminals, except for the first homework assignment in the Intro to CS class. They wanted us to have used punched cards once to help us better understand why some things are the way they are. However in the Computer Information Systems program in the School of Business they were still using punch cards for regular classwork in most classes. They only got to use terminals in some upper division classes.
i started on punchcards in college on a cdc mainframe
Me too. But that was the 1970s, not the 80s. Using punch cards in 1983 was idiotic.
Similar story here too, but my experience was not idiotic at all. We only had to use punch cards for the first homework project in the Intro to CS class. The instructor said it would help us understand why many things are the way they are, and we would have a ready supply of bookmarks for years to come. Do I need to mention that bookmarks were once pieces of paper that one stuck in a paper book? :-)
Yes it cost you more on your electric power bill, but that cost vs the value of Bitcoin today is negligible.
If you are using CPU or GPU it is not negligible, you are losing money. Even with some specialized hardware (ASICs) the power may consume 30-50% of the value. YMMV depending on the specific ASICs.
Why do silver bullets always get all the love? Gold bullets would be awesome.
One of the James Bond films, The Man with the Golden Gun, may have them.
Let's examine your citations:
https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms.
So you have an industry PR site.
A site by organizations who actually operate 4th gen test reactors. A site that the U.S. Department of Energy links to for more information, http://www.energy.gov/ne/artic....
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/...
a shitty Wordpress blog written by climate change skeptics
Interesting, google found that page and I went with it since it seemed to say nothing beyond quoting General Atomic's specs on their reactor. If you follow the link they provide to General Atomics they do indeed state that the waste of previous gen reactors is used as fuel and that the waste of the 4th gen reactors is indeed short lived and only needs hundreds of years of storage. Unfortunately they do so with terrible hover over animated graphics, http://www.ga.com/energy-multi..., so I stuck to the summary since it was plain text that could be cut and pasted. BTW, General Atomics are the people who have been building reactors for decades. So these climate deniers clearly got the science correct on this reactor. When the truth happens to be on the side of liars, liars can indeed tell the truth, which seems to be the case here. Again, this page does nothing more than quote General Atomics. Apologies for not offering the General Atomics link directly and going with this summary. I assumed readers could manage clicking on the General Atomics link themselves, did you have some difficulty doing so? Or were you only interesting in the messenger and not the message (the science)?
http://www.thesciencecouncil.c...
a motivational speaker
And the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
The reality is that salesmen have made a lot of bold claims for gen 4 reactors, but so far they are unproven and somewhat dubious.
That's a strange characterization of organizations that the US Department of Energy refers people to for more information on 4th gen reactors, organizations who operate 4th gen test reactors and companies who will actually build 4th gen reactors and have been reactors for decades.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
>"the claimed benefits"
Wow, you call that a citation? I'm willing to believe that safe/efficient nuclear tech is possible, but Wikipedia is NOT an authoritative source. Got anything better? Maybe a quote from an unbiased nuclear engineer? Respected NGO? Anything?
The word "claimed" was an appeasement to the nuclear deniers, to avoid an edit war erupting on that page. Don't read too much into it.
...
The citation above was just the first thing googled and reflects a consensus among qualified scientists and engineers. I did some more googling for you
Click on the links for the various reactor types: https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms...
"First the EM2 core will be started using 12% enriched uranium and used fuel or depleted uranium (DU). After the initial U235 amount has been consumed in the “starter-part” of the core, enough fissionable material will have been created to switch over to a second part of the core where the nuclear reactions will continue and be fed nuclear waste.."
http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/...
"The scientific method requires that we keep an open mind and change our conclusions when new evidence indicates that we should. Climate change is the new evidence affecting the nuclear debate -- we need low-carbon energy. Current (2nd generation) nuclear reactors are not as fail-safe as possible and they burn less than one percent of the energy in uranium ore. Next (3rd) generation reactors are safer, shutting down automatically in case of anomalies, and are ready to go, but they still leave 99 percent of the energy in long-lived waste piles. 4th generation reactors, tested but not commercially available, can extract all of the energy in the nuclear fuel and burn nuclear waste. We urgently need R&D to make the combination of 3rd and 4th generation reactors available with comprehensive international controls.
James E. Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University."
http://www.thesciencecouncil.c...
Careful with your NGOs. Some are nuclear deniers that are as purely political and scientifically unfounded as the climate deniers. The climate deniers and nuclear deniers differ only in their political allegiance, they abuse of and rejection of science are quite similar.
Nuclear power has always been a pipe dream of some sort.
Not in France.
"France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
>4th generation reactors can use this material as fuel
> and the new waste created will only be dangerous for
> hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands.
Citation, please?
"Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:
Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia
100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
Improved operating safety"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
The plant's spent fuel rods are still stored in a facility on-site, because there is no permanent disposal repository to put them in. To monitor them and make sure the material does not fall into the hands of terrorists or spill into the nearby river costs $8 million per year.
4th generation reactors can use this material as fuel and the new waste created will only be dangerous for hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands.
What does the IRS think about this little financial transaction?
The IRS recently released a notice regarding virtual currencies.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-dro...
I am not an accountant or tax advisor, but my understanding is that bitcoins are considered a property and not a currency so users must keep track of their basis and gains or losses like with stock purchases.
For incoming coins the new coins have a value based on the time they were received. The old coins returning to you based on when they were new. For outgoing coins (not including those coming back) it would probably be like other accounting practices where a first in first out (FIFO) system or a last in first out (LIFO) system is used. In either case the basis of the outgoing coins are known.
The odd thing would seem to be that as the outgoing coins are spent its necessary to determine if a gain (coins being paid at a price higher than basis) or a loss (coins being paid at a price lower than basis) is being recognized.
Ex. You buy one coin at $500 and another at $600. Coins are priced at $800 at the time of a future purchase. You buy something for $1,200, 1.5 coins. Using FIFO your basis for the outgoing 1.5 coins is $500 + $300 = $800, and the basis for the returning 0.5 coins is still $300. You experienced a gain of $400 on the 1.5 coins at the time of the sale and that $400 would seem to be taxable income. Apologies if I botched the math, hopefully the point gets across.
Don't think of bitcoin as a currency, something that you hold over a period of time. Think of it as a transaction mechanism, an alternative to credit cards, pay pal, etc.
Merchants already have the option to assume zero risk when using bitcoins. An exchange like Coinbase lets merchants do all their accounting, pricing and billing in US Dollars. If a customer wants to use bitcoins the merchant sends the transaction info in USD to Coinbase, Coinbase translates that to Bitcoins and provides a Coinbase payment address, sends this updated transaction info back to the merchant and when coinbase receives the coins the merchant is paid the USD amount they originally submitted to coinbase regardless of any bitcoin price fluctuations that took place in the minutes it took the transaction to occur and be verified. The merchant never sees a bitcoin, and with the new IRS guidelines this is a good thing.
On the consumer side it may not be as convenient. It can take a few days to convert dollars to bitcoins, and there will probably be a fee. So keeping a small amount of coins in digital wallet may be common. Can they be lost, yes, but so can a physical wallet with USD. Can the USD to bitcoin conversion be sped up, perhaps with greater personal identification information provided to the exchange and a track record of use. But we're probably still talking about a 3 business day ACH transfer (bank to coin exchange) becoming a 1 business day ACH transfer.
Well on the positive side it is refreshing to see someone writing portable code. :-)
There are a number of things that require it. For me the big ones are MLB At Bat, WatchESPN, Hulu, and HBO Go.
People are migrating to phones and tablets for such things.
Right. And the only reason that the "desktop class" A7 isn't running Flash is because it's a threat to Apple's business model.
Actually it was considered a massive security hole. This article seems to validate that opinion. Yeah, I know, there was ample evidence for that opinion back in the day too.
Casual gaming is moving from the web to smartphone and tablet apps.
I never installed flash and I rarely find web pages that require it. I've noticed a slow migration away from it as well. One or twice a year I check some websites that required flash in the past and some no longer do so. YMMV.
It does not seem that difficult to go without flash and it is getting easier every day.
... the nuclear-luddites ...
No, they are more accurately called the nuclear deniers. They are every bit as politically motivated and misrepresent science and make false scientific claims as the climate deniers, they are merely coming from the other political extreme.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
Various 4th generation reactors are under or about to begin construction. Proof of concept reactors are already operating.
Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:
Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia
100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel
The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity
Improved operating safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Of particular importance is that these 4th generation reactors can use as fuel the long lived very dangerous waster ***that we already possess*** and don't have good long term plans for.
So what does this Article 3 give you that the law doesn't already?
It lets a candidate say that they voted for the "internet bill of rights" when the time comes for reelection. I don't know about Brazil but here in the U.S. going on record on the "correct" side of an issue is all that is necessary. Our elected officials are only expect to have good intentions, not to actually produce good and effective legislation.
Article 3's translation says "protecting personal data, as provided by law". So a prosecutor going to a judge to gain access to a server does not seem to violate the bill of rights. The article's goal seems to be to stop the type of snooping the NSA is accused of, not impede a court of law.