TFA does not mention which exoplanets, but they will need to be relatively close to detect our transits. By "relatively close" we would be talking 10-20 light years - so us, not our ancestors (apart from the kids here).
Anyway they would not need to look for transits when we are blasting radar beams and TV broadcasts in all directions, the latter of which which might be shit but nevertheless has strong self-correlation, such as we ourselves look for in the SETI project.
.....You'd pretty much have to rengineer entire ports worlwide, while accepting a much larger total number of smaller ships with less schedulingvceryainty. This woildnlead to concomittantly far longer loading/unloading backlogs and associated ground networks (rail/trucking) running far more frequently and at less than capacity most of the time.
If you think it's insignificant, I'm sure we can somehow arrange to have a few thousand tonnes of it dumped in your yard.
But it would not all be in his yard. A few thousand tonnes of anything, even stuff with "green" labels on it, in someone's yard would do them no good. Straw man.
Compared with a full sailing ship, which would not need to be that much different in outline from a rotor ship (in fact it would be simpler), and would save far more, a 10% saving looks rather underwhelming.
There has long been talk of building modern windjammers, but it never happens.
There are reasons it doesn't happen, such as: 1. Bridges 2. Container cranes 3. Fixed port schedules
1. Most trading ports can be accessed without passing under bridges. Some ports up river used to involve a bridge (eg Bristol, London) but such bridges were made very high to allow sailing ships to pass. But then the ports generally moved down-river to nearer the sea (eg Avonmouth, Tilbury), for reasons of depth.
2. Easily soluble. Not every ship carries containers anyway, some carry bulk.
3. What has that got to do with it? No modern sailing ship would wait for the right wind to enter or leave port - they would have auxiliary engines. Even 150 years ago sailing ships were taken in and out of port by tugs.
The modern equivalent of a windjammer would have two or three self-supporrting wing sails, not the rats nest of ropes and spars you are probably thinking of with your Point 2.
You have missed my point. I wrote "EMAIL" not "email ". EMAIL (with capitals) is this liar Ayyadurai's creation (maybe) in 1978, and he claims that all email (lower case) originated with EMAIL (capitals). As you say, he's talking bollocks because ARAPNET and other entities were using email long before 1978.
The amazing thing is, this guy seems smart and well spoken, why would he ruin his reputation by making easily disprovable claims over such a widely used and revered technology.
Steve Jobs and Wozniak are praised as gods having created the computer! It's ridiculous you know, because they reused past knowledge. Even in the mini-computer front, there were people already doing it.
The way you put it sounds like you half-believe it yourself. It is not ridiculous because "they re-used past knowledge", it is ridulous because computers were in use before they were born. Actually, it is more common for people to belive that Gates invented the computer : https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
Have you ever been to India?... Or are you just stereotyping a nation?... I can tell you first hand that Andra Pradesh... has a lot of very rural areas and getting from point A to point B is difficult because the roads are horrible (often dirt) and they have major issues when it rains....
What about the UK invading almost every country on the planet and ruining it beyond repairs being the cause of all these immigrants in the first place?
What BS.
Britain colonised some places and these ended up being some of the best places to live (eg North America, Australia, NZ). Other places they did not colonise (in the sense of settling large numbers of people there) but administered (eg India, African nations, parts of the Middle East); some of these latter are hell-holes today. But they were hell-holes before - that is why Britain stepped in and administrated them. Britain would start with trading posts, but when trade stopped because of warring between different tribes inland, the British would go in and bang heads together to stop it. This led to taking over high-level internal policing and administration. In these cases the local native rulers were usually allowed to retain their positions under British protection. This was a different approach from some other European colonial powers (notably France) which tried to stamp out the local cultures.
Eg gradually most (not all) of India became administrated in that way, including the building of infrastructure such as railways, ports, and government buildings often superior to those back home. While many British administrators and engineers and their families lived for long periods in India, they were not settlers like in North America and would always be talking of the day they would go back home. In fact settling was only done where the natives were clearly primitive (usually stone age in culture) and the climate was temperate.
It was Britain withdrawing from some of these countries that was a disaster for them. India was a blood-bath in the late 1940's (but recovered eventually), and some of the old African colonies still are. The reason the UK is sought by immigrants is that Britain had given these ex-colonies a taste of how life could be better than in a shit hole, and of course the English language which remained the official one in many of these ex-colonies.
The entire browser is going to be... Just one giant hamburger button that crashes the browser when you click it.
No it won't crash the browser. It will get a a pack of hamburgers delivered to you together with a crate of cola. Don't worry about paying, it will debit you automatically. Then the hamburger button will be replaced by a theatre ticket button. And so on.
This is such an incredibly stupid post that it can only have been put here as a seed for debate. For a start, Linux is not a company, nor is it a single person or group in any shape or form. It has no headquarters. The most that can be said is that it is a diffuse group who have co-operatively created something. You cannot take it to court "much like what was done against Microsoft". In any case there is nothing to take it to court for. Linux does not control or attempt to control what people do; it does not advertise and has no sales reps. It does not force anyone to install it. An analogy to "Linux" is "the world of sci-fi" or "astronomy". Try taking action against astronomy.
Anway, this is off-topic, nothing to do with browsers. Sorry, I've fed the troll.
It's legal to take a photo of anything you like in the UK, as long as you're stood on publicly accessible property when you take it.
It certainly is not. Try taking photos of someone else's children in the park for example - you need to take care not even to get them in frame by accident. Try taking "candid" pictures - be careful that the subject does not notice. Then there are your photos with a telephoto lens of the girl down the road who forgot to close her bedroom curtains.
Someday, one of these tech companies will get smart and offer 7-10% interest on a card for those who are good risk.
Those of us who are good risk generally pay 0% interest. There is nothing tech savvy about this market.
Exactly this. You are a good risk if you do not need to borrow money. If you don't need to borrow money you can pay off your credit card bills in full. Zero interest is paid.
Anyone who is paying a 10% fee to bankers for everything they buy is already a loser if they need to, and a fool if they don't.
Tell the Russian GF that if she does not hurry up you will switch your affections to a gorgeous and fabulously wealthy Nigerian princess who keeps emailing you, consumed with desire. I can put you in touch with one or two.
Credit card companies provide convenience. I never have to worry about having the right amount of cash or dealing with change or stupid cashiers.
What exactly is the "worry" ? You just pull out cash; more than the amount if you don't have the "right" amount and get change. I worry more about people commiting fraud with my credit card details.
Not to mention they scale to the internet and other transaction scenarios where cash is inconvenient or impossible.
Ever heard of direct bank transfer? Try it. I know, I know : There is more legal protection with a credit card than a debit card or other direct bank transfer. However this is over-blown; in years of using credit cards I have many times got my money back on substandard stuff from the retailer without ever having recourse to the legal rights of a credit card. With many things it is scarely relevant - do you really need that credit card legal protection when you pay for petrol/gas say, or for your weekly groceries?
I mean you could just pick your items up on a dock for cheaper. Are you happy paying that middle man?.. What about the middle man that shipped the goods?
Shippers, and shopkeepers (both bricks and mortar and internet) are adding value or doing a significant service - physically moving, displaying, stocking, cataloguing and despatching the wares. All that the banks and credit card companies do is handle the money, or rather their computers do. 2% fee - how TF does it cost $20 of computer time to handle a $1000 payment?
... there is a certain comfort to always having the latest.
That's a givaway - it's an entirely emotive reason, just wanting shiny. I don't give a shit. I have a dumb phone that's about 7 years old and I'll use it until either it fails or they change the network technology.
When 267mph maglev is already in service in other countries?
It was a test run. When you are developing something you don't go full throttle right away, you step it up progessively in a series of trials; standard engineering practice.
But Musk is primarily a showman who wants every possible opportunity to listen to his own voice and seeks the adulation of others listening too. As a result, we are going to subjected to a Musk-managed shitstorm of media hype time a test vehicle has gone faster than in the previous test. In any normal project this would be dome without any fuss, at least unti some real record was broken
Slashdot Mirror
TFA does not mention which exoplanets, but they will need to be relatively close to detect our transits. By "relatively close" we would be talking 10-20 light years - so us, not our ancestors (apart from the kids here).
Anyway they would not need to look for transits when we are blasting radar beams and TV broadcasts in all directions, the latter of which which might be shit but nevertheless has strong self-correlation, such as we ourselves look for in the SETI project.
Same would go for rotor ships.
If you think it's insignificant, I'm sure we can somehow arrange to have a few thousand tonnes of it dumped in your yard.
But it would not all be in his yard. A few thousand tonnes of anything, even stuff with "green" labels on it, in someone's yard would do them no good. Straw man.
Compared with a full sailing ship, which would not need to be that much different in outline from a rotor ship (in fact it would be simpler), and would save far more, a 10% saving looks rather underwhelming.
A quick google search shows many of these
Your link does not work, but yes rotor ships have been tried before. The Barbara of 1927 was probably the best known.
There has long been talk of building modern windjammers, but it never happens.
There are reasons it doesn't happen, such as:
1. Bridges
2. Container cranes
3. Fixed port schedules
1. Most trading ports can be accessed without passing under bridges. Some ports up river used to involve a bridge (eg Bristol, London) but such bridges were made very high to allow sailing ships to pass. But then the ports generally moved down-river to nearer the sea (eg Avonmouth, Tilbury), for reasons of depth.
2. Easily soluble. Not every ship carries containers anyway, some carry bulk.
3. What has that got to do with it? No modern sailing ship would wait for the right wind to enter or leave port - they would have auxiliary engines. Even 150 years ago sailing ships were taken in and out of port by tugs.
The modern equivalent of a windjammer would have two or three self-supporrting wing sails, not the rats nest of ropes and spars you are probably thinking of with your Point 2.
what the heck is this crazy stuff?
You must be new here.
The history of the internet disagrees with you
You have missed my point. I wrote "EMAIL" not "email ". EMAIL (with capitals) is this liar Ayyadurai's creation (maybe) in 1978, and he claims that all email (lower case) originated with EMAIL (capitals). As you say, he's talking bollocks because ARAPNET and other entities were using email long before 1978.
The amazing thing is, this guy seems smart and well spoken, why would he ruin his reputation by making easily disprovable claims over such a widely used and revered technology.
Because he wants money. Do you know any Indians?
His claims were always far-fetched. Correctly he claims a copyright over a program called "EMAIL", however that does not mean he invented email itself
So it's like Cheverolet claiming he invented the Cheverolet; except hardly anyone ever used or heard of "EMAIL".
...Since it was actually I who invented email.
But you could not have done it without me, who invented the computer, and I'll sue anyone who denies it.
Steve Jobs and Wozniak are praised as gods having created the computer! It's ridiculous you know, because they reused past knowledge. Even in the mini-computer front, there were people already doing it.
The way you put it sounds like you half-believe it yourself. It is not ridiculous because "they re-used past knowledge", it is ridulous because computers were in use before they were born. Actually, it is more common for people to belive that Gates invented the computer :
https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/new...
Give the guy a little credit for creating a working email _system_ in an era where email hadn't proliferated very far.
Sorry, you've already blown your own credit away (see above)
Have you ever been to India?... Or are you just stereotyping a nation? ... I can tell you first hand that Andra Pradesh ... has a lot of very rural areas and getting from point A to point B is difficult because the roads are horrible (often dirt) and they have major issues when it rains ....
Sounds like he got it bang on then.
What about the UK invading almost every country on the planet and ruining it beyond repairs being the cause of all these immigrants in the first place?
What BS.
Britain colonised some places and these ended up being some of the best places to live (eg North America, Australia, NZ). Other places they did not colonise (in the sense of settling large numbers of people there) but administered (eg India, African nations, parts of the Middle East); some of these latter are hell-holes today. But they were hell-holes before - that is why Britain stepped in and administrated them. Britain would start with trading posts, but when trade stopped because of warring between different tribes inland, the British would go in and bang heads together to stop it. This led to taking over high-level internal policing and administration. In these cases the local native rulers were usually allowed to retain their positions under British protection. This was a different approach from some other European colonial powers (notably France) which tried to stamp out the local cultures.
Eg gradually most (not all) of India became administrated in that way, including the building of infrastructure such as railways, ports, and government buildings often superior to those back home. While many British administrators and engineers and their families lived for long periods in India, they were not settlers like in North America and would always be talking of the day they would go back home. In fact settling was only done where the natives were clearly primitive (usually stone age in culture) and the climate was temperate.
It was Britain withdrawing from some of these countries that was a disaster for them. India was a blood-bath in the late 1940's (but recovered eventually), and some of the old African colonies still are. The reason the UK is sought by immigrants is that Britain had given these ex-colonies a taste of how life could be better than in a shit hole, and of course the English language which remained the official one in many of these ex-colonies.
SO, what about the other 0.98% who are neither the wealthy nor the people? That's what I want to know!
I think that's me.
The entire browser is going to be... Just one giant hamburger button that crashes the browser when you click it.
No it won't crash the browser. It will get a a pack of hamburgers delivered to you together with a crate of cola. Don't worry about paying, it will debit you automatically. Then the hamburger button will be replaced by a theatre ticket button. And so on.
This is such an incredibly stupid post that it can only have been put here as a seed for debate. For a start, Linux is not a company, nor is it a single person or group in any shape or form. It has no headquarters. The most that can be said is that it is a diffuse group who have co-operatively created something. You cannot take it to court "much like what was done against Microsoft". In any case there is nothing to take it to court for. Linux does not control or attempt to control what people do; it does not advertise and has no sales reps. It does not force anyone to install it. An analogy to "Linux" is "the world of sci-fi" or "astronomy". Try taking action against astronomy.
Anway, this is off-topic, nothing to do with browsers. Sorry, I've fed the troll.
It's legal to take a photo of anything you like in the UK, as long as you're stood on publicly accessible property when you take it.
It certainly is not. Try taking photos of someone else's children in the park for example - you need to take care not even to get them in frame by accident. Try taking "candid" pictures - be careful that the subject does not notice. Then there are your photos with a telephoto lens of the girl down the road who forgot to close her bedroom curtains.
Someday, one of these tech companies will get smart and offer 7-10% interest on a card for those who are good risk.
Those of us who are good risk generally pay 0% interest. There is nothing tech savvy about this market.
Exactly this. You are a good risk if you do not need to borrow money. If you don't need to borrow money you can pay off your credit card bills in full. Zero interest is paid.
Anyone who is paying a 10% fee to bankers for everything they buy is already a loser if they need to, and a fool if they don't.
Tell the Russian GF that if she does not hurry up you will switch your affections to a gorgeous and fabulously wealthy Nigerian princess who keeps emailing you, consumed with desire. I can put you in touch with one or two.
Credit card companies provide convenience. I never have to worry about having the right amount of cash or dealing with change or stupid cashiers.
What exactly is the "worry" ? You just pull out cash; more than the amount if you don't have the "right" amount and get change. I worry more about people commiting fraud with my credit card details.
Not to mention they scale to the internet and other transaction scenarios where cash is inconvenient or impossible.
Ever heard of direct bank transfer? Try it. I know, I know : There is more legal protection with a credit card than a debit card or other direct bank transfer. However this is over-blown; in years of using credit cards I have many times got my money back on substandard stuff from the retailer without ever having recourse to the legal rights of a credit card. With many things it is scarely relevant - do you really need that credit card legal protection when you pay for petrol/gas say, or for your weekly groceries?
I mean you could just pick your items up on a dock for cheaper. Are you happy paying that middle man? .. What about the middle man that shipped the goods?
Shippers, and shopkeepers (both bricks and mortar and internet) are adding value or doing a significant service - physically moving, displaying, stocking, cataloguing and despatching the wares. All that the banks and credit card companies do is handle the money, or rather their computers do. 2% fee - how TF does it cost $20 of computer time to handle a $1000 payment?
while it may be embarrassing, so is not paying the Bills you agreed to pay.
He had not agreed to pay.
FTFA :-
... there is a certain comfort to always having the latest.
That's a givaway - it's an entirely emotive reason, just wanting shiny. I don't give a shit. I have a dumb phone that's about 7 years old and I'll use it until either it fails or they change the network technology.
When 267mph maglev is already in service in other countries?
It was a test run. When you are developing something you don't go full throttle right away, you step it up progessively in a series of trials; standard engineering practice.
But Musk is primarily a showman who wants every possible opportunity to listen to his own voice and seeks the adulation of others listening too. As a result, we are going to subjected to a Musk-managed shitstorm of media hype time a test vehicle has gone faster than in the previous test. In any normal project this would be dome without any fuss, at least unti some real record was broken
so not much to fear from Thermodynamic's second law, making the process reversable in theory
Care to enlarge on that?
The bulk of that "world war" death toll .... likely has very little to do with professional delivery drivers.
You obviously do not live in the UK. Professional delivery drivers are maniacs here.