... it's very popular and easy to use, has an open specification, and allows users to convert easily into formats playable on all popular music players.
It's frightening how many people believe this -- that, just because someone is a member of some traditionalist culture that believes (for instance) women should be subservient, it's okay for their government to jail them for speaking their mind.
Restrictive traditionalist cultures *can* still exist in countries where civil liberties are (nominally) respected. The first example that comes to mind is the Amish in the US.
On a Unix machine, knowing someone else's username lets you send them mail. It lets you access (if they allow you to) their home directory. It lets you see if they're logged on (using "w"), see information about them (using finger), and even communicate with them (using write), and lots of other useful things.
If we're going to give up on an invention that has the potential to drastically improve our world just because a few lawyers are in the way, then we're a bunch of pussies.
Run the 220V through the lawyers, and you solve the problem.
I've thought about this sort of thing too. It works even better with an electric or hybrid towing it, since you don't need an extra battery in the back (just a big cable).
A variant is a trailer with small electric motors on the wheels that can exert a large peak torque but need to cool off after doing so (for maneuvers and emergency stops), along with an onboard diesel generator. The generator feeds power to the electric motors on the car in front, so you have enough sustained power to tow the thing.
I still get run off the road by people driving shiny SUV's in the city with no clue how to drive them.
If you really want to do something, raise the gas tax so that it's $8/gallon. Then take all the money raised by that tax and use it to lower other taxes.
AC and heat are the only two major current draws. The power drawn by the radio is trivial compared to what it takes to run the wheels and the A/C.
Yes, if you want to preserve the battery you'll have to lay off the heater and put on a coat. Lots of people bike to work, and they wear coats in the winter...
I live in Tucson, and drove a car with no A/C for many years. (I sold it for other reasons -- damage secondary to being stolen by Mexicans and used to run drugs across the border. I think *they* abandoned it because of the lack of A/C, and the cops found it and returned it to me.)
Yes, you have to drink a lot of water. But it's not that bad.
Do you pay additionally for the electricity that goes into the batteries, on top of the 8 cents per mile?
My gas car gets about 40 mpg; at $3 gas that's 7.5 cents a mile for gas. If it's just a flat 8 cents per mile with no recharging charge, then that's pretty awesome.
The lift force on an aircraft does no work. (This was a question on an exam in my Physics 1 for Engineers class.)
Getting a decent amount of lift without increasing drag is a tricky engineering challenge sometimes, but it's certainly permitted by energy conservation.
My issue with Apple shit isn't secrecy before it's released; it's secrecy and proprietaryness *after* release.
I was given an ipod as a gift. I regifted it after it took me 45 minutes to figure out how to play music on the damn thing (after trying to cp *.mp3/dev/sdb1 multiple times and wondering why it wouldn't play the files), and after I realized that you can't replace the battery. Li-Ion gets old, you throw it out. WTF?
Their hardware certainly is pretty, and well-engineered in a lot of cases. But if I can't make it do what I want it to do (rather than what Apple wants me to do with it), it goes down the crapper.
In summary: if I buy a computer, I want root on it.
(Yes, I know you can hack the things. But lots of other people sell hardware I don't have to wrestle into submission for it to do what I want.)
Probably. If it's scientific and computer-y, it's probably powered by penguins.
I just got back from a computational physics conference, and I doubt anybody there would have the slightest idea how to make a supercomputer run on Windows.
It's the same idea, essentially -- a shock focused from all directions onto a point in the middle.
Ultrasound pumped into a resonant cavity is just a different way of starting the shock (and you get many shocks per second with a higher efficiency -- whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on what you're doing)
The issue with this argument is that it requires so little uranium to make a nuclear reactor go.
Some folks are selling reactors that are sealed -- they've got all the fuel they'll ever need sealed inside, and the life of the fuel is longer than the life of the reactor (which is long). Uranium is incredibly efficient as an energy source.
A 1GW coal plant, OTOH, requires 50,000 tons of coal per WEEK to keep running.
Does that include delayed mortality and morbidity from black lung etc?
Besides: Comparing something dangerous with something *really* dangerous doesn't make it any less dangerous. People die doing construction, doesn't mean coal mining is pretty.
I'm a "liberal" in a lot of ways -- I am for a small military, public healthcare, strong public education, equal rights for homosexuals, addressing global warming, etc.
I also support nuclear power.
I support all of these things not because I am "ruled by my emotions", but because there are legitimate economic and scientific arguments for them. Not everyone on the left is a kneejerk type.
"IF the nuclear accident will happen. Its a matter of WHEN it will AGAIN"
[citation needed]
Do you know anything about modern reactor designs? Humans aren't terribly reliable, but the laws of physics ARE. So reactors have been designed so that if anything goes wrong, the reactor -- by itself -- will wind up in a safe state. The pebble bed reactor is one type like this, but there are others.
Even if all of the safety mechanisms fail, a pebble bed reactor is going to heat up and sit there, without any serious incident.
The researcher posted up above saying he's an HPC researcher, not a computer security guy, and in that context using Wine makes sense.
HPC people typically study emergent behavior -- how a lot of nodes interacting by simple rules generate complicated phenomena. The challenge is coming up with the simple rules in a form that accurately captures whatever leads to the emergent behavior you want to model. In this case, "actually being Windows so all the viruses work exactly right" is less important than getting a lot of nodes running to capture the interesting behaviors of viruses spreading through a large network.
Supercomputing is difficult on Windows. I'm at a computational physics conference now, and everything runs on Linux just because it's bloody *easier* to make everything go. I doubt many people here would even know *how* to run our models on a Windows supercomputer.
Performance issues aside, my guess is that the fellow chose Linux because the computer *already* ran Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
... it's very popular and easy to use, has an open specification, and allows users to convert easily into formats playable on all popular music players.
The spec is at http://www.aboutthescene.com/images/scenerules_mp3_2007_v2.png .
It's frightening how many people believe this -- that, just because someone is a member of some traditionalist culture that believes (for instance) women should be subservient, it's okay for their government to jail them for speaking their mind.
Restrictive traditionalist cultures *can* still exist in countries where civil liberties are (nominally) respected. The first example that comes to mind is the Amish in the US.
There's a reason usernames are public.
On a Unix machine, knowing someone else's username lets you send them mail. It lets you access (if they allow you to) their home directory. It lets you see if they're logged on (using "w"), see information about them (using finger), and even communicate with them (using write), and lots of other useful things.
I don't hypermile or drive in the left lane except to pass... ... actually I drive pretty fast on the highway.
If we're going to give up on an invention that has the potential to drastically improve our world just because a few lawyers are in the way, then we're a bunch of pussies.
Run the 220V through the lawyers, and you solve the problem.
I've thought about this sort of thing too. It works even better with an electric or hybrid towing it, since you don't need an extra battery in the back (just a big cable).
A variant is a trailer with small electric motors on the wheels that can exert a large peak torque but need to cool off after doing so (for maneuvers and emergency stops), along with an onboard diesel generator. The generator feeds power to the electric motors on the car in front, so you have enough sustained power to tow the thing.
I still get run off the road by people driving shiny SUV's in the city with no clue how to drive them.
If you really want to do something, raise the gas tax so that it's $8/gallon. Then take all the money raised by that tax and use it to lower other taxes.
AC and heat are the only two major current draws. The power drawn by the radio is trivial compared to what it takes to run the wheels and the A/C.
Yes, if you want to preserve the battery you'll have to lay off the heater and put on a coat. Lots of people bike to work, and they wear coats in the winter...
They also need to get the cost under $35k.
I live in Tucson, and drove a car with no A/C for many years. (I sold it for other reasons -- damage secondary to being stolen by Mexicans and used to run drugs across the border. I think *they* abandoned it because of the lack of A/C, and the cops found it and returned it to me.)
Yes, you have to drink a lot of water. But it's not that bad.
Do you pay additionally for the electricity that goes into the batteries, on top of the 8 cents per mile?
My gas car gets about 40 mpg; at $3 gas that's 7.5 cents a mile for gas. If it's just a flat 8 cents per mile with no recharging charge, then that's pretty awesome.
okay, so I forgot the mount line after being up for 28 hours, having woken up 10 timezones away halfway across the world. Sue me :P
I thought the old 737's got 70-ish MPG?
Yes it does, actually.
The lift force on an aircraft does no work. (This was a question on an exam in my Physics 1 for Engineers class.)
Getting a decent amount of lift without increasing drag is a tricky engineering challenge sometimes, but it's certainly permitted by energy conservation.
My issue with Apple shit isn't secrecy before it's released; it's secrecy and proprietaryness *after* release.
I was given an ipod as a gift. I regifted it after it took me 45 minutes to figure out how to play music on the damn thing (after trying to cp *.mp3 /dev/sdb1 multiple times and wondering why it wouldn't play the files), and after I realized that you can't replace the battery. Li-Ion gets old, you throw it out. WTF?
Their hardware certainly is pretty, and well-engineered in a lot of cases. But if I can't make it do what I want it to do (rather than what Apple wants me to do with it), it goes down the crapper.
In summary: if I buy a computer, I want root on it.
(Yes, I know you can hack the things. But lots of other people sell hardware I don't have to wrestle into submission for it to do what I want.)
Probably. If it's scientific and computer-y, it's probably powered by penguins.
I just got back from a computational physics conference, and I doubt anybody there would have the slightest idea how to make a supercomputer run on Windows.
It's the same idea, essentially -- a shock focused from all directions onto a point in the middle.
Ultrasound pumped into a resonant cavity is just a different way of starting the shock (and you get many shocks per second with a higher efficiency -- whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on what you're doing)
I don't know what's scarier: that your post was so full of technical jargon, or that I understood all of it.
I think I need to switch fields.
Marblecake, clearly.
The issue with this argument is that it requires so little uranium to make a nuclear reactor go.
Some folks are selling reactors that are sealed -- they've got all the fuel they'll ever need sealed inside, and the life of the fuel is longer than the life of the reactor (which is long). Uranium is incredibly efficient as an energy source.
A 1GW coal plant, OTOH, requires 50,000 tons of coal per WEEK to keep running.
Does that include delayed mortality and morbidity from black lung etc?
Besides: Comparing something dangerous with something *really* dangerous doesn't make it any less dangerous. People die doing construction, doesn't mean coal mining is pretty.
Stop railing against liberals.
I'm a "liberal" in a lot of ways -- I am for a small military, public healthcare, strong public education, equal rights for homosexuals, addressing global warming, etc.
I also support nuclear power.
I support all of these things not because I am "ruled by my emotions", but because there are legitimate economic and scientific arguments for them. Not everyone on the left is a kneejerk type.
More people have died due to coal power (and will die in the future due to climate change) than have died and will die due to nuclear power.
Do you really have any idea what it takes to generate power from coal? It's not pretty.
"IF the nuclear accident will happen. Its a matter of WHEN it will AGAIN"
[citation needed]
Do you know anything about modern reactor designs? Humans aren't terribly reliable, but the laws of physics ARE. So reactors have been designed so that if anything goes wrong, the reactor -- by itself -- will wind up in a safe state. The pebble bed reactor is one type like this, but there are others.
Even if all of the safety mechanisms fail, a pebble bed reactor is going to heat up and sit there, without any serious incident.
The researcher posted up above saying he's an HPC researcher, not a computer security guy, and in that context using Wine makes sense.
HPC people typically study emergent behavior -- how a lot of nodes interacting by simple rules generate complicated phenomena. The challenge is coming up with the simple rules in a form that accurately captures whatever leads to the emergent behavior you want to model. In this case, "actually being Windows so all the viruses work exactly right" is less important than getting a lot of nodes running to capture the interesting behaviors of viruses spreading through a large network.
Supercomputing is difficult on Windows. I'm at a computational physics conference now, and everything runs on Linux just because it's bloody *easier* to make everything go. I doubt many people here would even know *how* to run our models on a Windows supercomputer.
Performance issues aside, my guess is that the fellow chose Linux because the computer *already* ran Linux.