For the last time, quantum teleportation has nothing to do with moving things or people around instantly- obligatory xkcd. Most likely thing is that they use a project orion style system for launch- only realistic system I can think of to escape from a world with 300% earth gravity.
Er, just pointing out, the 1% is not all "super rich". Not all 311,592 of them. Of course, there are super rich people in the 1%, but in order to be considered a 1%-er, statistically speaking, you "only" have to make about 3-400k a year.
Of course, this just serves to underline the income gap in the US when it's not the top 1% that's the ultra-rich, it's the top.01% or.001%.
Well, humanity's already sent people to the moon, visited every planet in the solar system, some several times, and several non-planetary bodies.
Technologically speaking, humans have had spaceflight capability since before the dawn of the nuclear age- the first man-made object to leave earth under its own power did so in 1942. So yeah, it is pretty easily accessible. I mean, I understand the sentiment... in about 1920. But when humanity's already been and are continuing to go, your continued denial makes very little sense.
But my original point, yeah there's a little more than nothing in space because, by definition, everything is in space.
After all, according to Agenda 21, in order to create a sustainable world on this planet we'll have to shed about 97% of our population by the end of this century.
Seriously? Use your brain. We've had a population higher than that since before the Roman Empire.
It will still be an enormous, inimical, utterly hostile radiation-blasted vacuum with nothing in it.
You know, among other things (for instance, the entire universe), Earth is in space?
Then of course there's the vast mineral wealth of the asteroid belt, potential gaseous resources in the outer planets, the technologically habitable Mars, Phobos, Deimos, Luna, Mercury, probably countless moons of the gas giants, the bodies of the Kuiper Belt, the Oort cloud, and beyond.
You do realize that population growth naturally levels off as standard of living rises, rendering that a solution to a nonexistent problem in a civilization advanced enough to remove significant portions of its population through spaceflight? I'd guess not.
Why? Mars has nothing at all to gain or lose- it's just a planet. Most likely a lifeless planet. How could we possibly fuck it up beyond that? You can't kill something that's already dead.
Not really. Considering that the Martian atmosphere is something like 0.5% of the thickness of earth's, while the gravity is only lower by a little over 60%, it would take so much energy that it's really not possible with our current energy budget for spacecraft.
However, blimps or even zeppelins would be damn near ideal because of low gravity. Simpler and cheaper, too.
Of course, you could mean that technology will push the price of fixing hunger so low that a relative minority of charitable individuals could solve it, which I would find believable.
By the time we have the technology to extend a human life past 150, I don't think feeding the planet's going to be a major issue. Of course, it shouldn't be a major issue now, but that's another topic entirely.
Some years back it was quite tricky to get working in distributions that didn't pre-configure it, required equal proportions of skill and dumb luck. If you stuck to the more user friendly stuff like ubuntu, mint, etc. it's likely you never would have experienced issues. I remember a great deal of frustration before finally just going back to alsa with arch. Damn thing was impossible...
But, like the former difficulty of wifi, it's mostly a distant memory. Mostly...
You ought to be able to see that from a long way off if it's pointed at you.
Yeah, but directly?
The problem with that, probability-wise is that space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen...
I'm just saying that it's a bit early to call the 9600 an obsolete piece of shit when, despite what you have convinced yourself as I doubt you own one, it runs newer games fine on medium settings (though admittedly, gamebroyo isn't that intensive). Besides obviously low end cards, I think it's a stretch to call anything in the DX10 generation obsolete.
Elaborating a bit: I can indeed play skyrim on the 9600 GT, but I usually play connected to a fairly low resolution display (my 720p TV), I'm running TinyXP on a gaming partition, and I've got pretty decent specs otherwise (8GB DDR3 1600, Phenom II x4). Yes, it's not the greatest of the great, but it runs acceptably. Indeed, it outperforms the low end of the 500 series by a decent margin. The 9600 GT is not an outdated piece of shit.
Nitpick: the 400 and 500 series should be considered a single series; they both use the Fermi architecture. Likewise, the 200, 9000, and 8000 series should be considered similarly. Every new nVidia series does not a generation make.
Is the 9600 an older card? Yes. Is it an outdated piece of shit? Absolutely not. Anything that can play brand new games on medium+ settings is not by any means obsolete. Just because the card is older than you, it doesn't make it an outdated piece of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing console sales have been on the decline every month this year, hopefully console gaming will die and we'll get decent PC games again.
Uh, it's much more likely that it's because the current generation's achieving market saturation than because console gaming is dying.
For the last time, quantum teleportation has nothing to do with moving things or people around instantly- obligatory xkcd. Most likely thing is that they use a project orion style system for launch- only realistic system I can think of to escape from a world with 300% earth gravity.
Er, just pointing out, the 1% is not all "super rich". Not all 311,592 of them. Of course, there are super rich people in the 1%, but in order to be considered a 1%-er, statistically speaking, you "only" have to make about 3-400k a year.
Of course, this just serves to underline the income gap in the US when it's not the top 1% that's the ultra-rich, it's the top .01% or .001%.
You know this is a joke?
Well, humanity's already sent people to the moon, visited every planet in the solar system, some several times, and several non-planetary bodies.
Technologically speaking, humans have had spaceflight capability since before the dawn of the nuclear age- the first man-made object to leave earth under its own power did so in 1942. So yeah, it is pretty easily accessible. I mean, I understand the sentiment... in about 1920. But when humanity's already been and are continuing to go, your continued denial makes very little sense.
But my original point, yeah there's a little more than nothing in space because, by definition, everything is in space.
After all, according to Agenda 21, in order to create a sustainable world on this planet we'll have to shed about 97% of our population by the end of this century.
Seriously? Use your brain. We've had a population higher than that since before the Roman Empire.
It will still be an enormous, inimical, utterly hostile radiation-blasted vacuum with nothing in it.
You know, among other things (for instance, the entire universe), Earth is in space?
Then of course there's the vast mineral wealth of the asteroid belt, potential gaseous resources in the outer planets, the technologically habitable Mars, Phobos, Deimos, Luna, Mercury, probably countless moons of the gas giants, the bodies of the Kuiper Belt, the Oort cloud, and beyond.
You do realize that population growth naturally levels off as standard of living rises, rendering that a solution to a nonexistent problem in a civilization advanced enough to remove significant portions of its population through spaceflight? I'd guess not.
Why? Mars has nothing at all to gain or lose- it's just a planet. Most likely a lifeless planet. How could we possibly fuck it up beyond that? You can't kill something that's already dead.
I'd guess he doesn't. Neither do half the people on slashdot, for that matter.
You didn't see it coming? I thought this place was news for nerds?
Not really. Considering that the Martian atmosphere is something like 0.5% of the thickness of earth's, while the gravity is only lower by a little over 60%, it would take so much energy that it's really not possible with our current energy budget for spacecraft.
However, blimps or even zeppelins would be damn near ideal because of low gravity. Simpler and cheaper, too.
Of course, you could mean that technology will push the price of fixing hunger so low that a relative minority of charitable individuals could solve it, which I would find believable.
That is indeed what I mean.
By the time we have the technology to extend a human life past 150, I don't think feeding the planet's going to be a major issue. Of course, it shouldn't be a major issue now, but that's another topic entirely.
Greenpeace. I might have known.
A wise man said that the only way to save the Amazon jungle is to spread nuclear waste all over it. I say he was right.
Considering how comparatively well the environment is doing near Chernobyl, I'm inclined to agree.
There are people that oppose ITER? I have never heard this before.
inventor of the geosynchronous satellite
Actually, that was Arthur Clarke.
Not to mention that Argentina is hardly third world.
Some years back it was quite tricky to get working in distributions that didn't pre-configure it, required equal proportions of skill and dumb luck. If you stuck to the more user friendly stuff like ubuntu, mint, etc. it's likely you never would have experienced issues. I remember a great deal of frustration before finally just going back to alsa with arch. Damn thing was impossible...
But, like the former difficulty of wifi, it's mostly a distant memory. Mostly...
You ought to be able to see that from a long way off if it's pointed at you.
Yeah, but directly?
The problem with that, probability-wise is that space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen...
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.
Hahahahahaha! Oh, you were serious? Let me laugh even harder!
When the result of fracking in your backyard is making your drinking water flammable, they're damn right to not want it there.
I'm just saying that it's a bit early to call the 9600 an obsolete piece of shit when, despite what you have convinced yourself as I doubt you own one, it runs newer games fine on medium settings (though admittedly, gamebroyo isn't that intensive). Besides obviously low end cards, I think it's a stretch to call anything in the DX10 generation obsolete.
Elaborating a bit: I can indeed play skyrim on the 9600 GT, but I usually play connected to a fairly low resolution display (my 720p TV), I'm running TinyXP on a gaming partition, and I've got pretty decent specs otherwise (8GB DDR3 1600, Phenom II x4). Yes, it's not the greatest of the great, but it runs acceptably. Indeed, it outperforms the low end of the 500 series by a decent margin. The 9600 GT is not an outdated piece of shit.
Nitpick: the 400 and 500 series should be considered a single series; they both use the Fermi architecture. Likewise, the 200, 9000, and 8000 series should be considered similarly. Every new nVidia series does not a generation make.
Is the 9600 an older card? Yes. Is it an outdated piece of shit? Absolutely not. Anything that can play brand new games on medium+ settings is not by any means obsolete. Just because the card is older than you, it doesn't make it an outdated piece of shit.