Judging by Mein Kampf, universal access to a book does not mean it is universally read beyond the first few pages. The book (or app) becomes a sort of status symbol, while its true purpose is mostly ignored.
That means nobody will complain about you watching cat videos if you just keep mashing the keys at random. Also works as a good imitator of real work. With that much noise, how can someone not be working?
I'm sure there are more interesting pursuits when you've got a home-made rover at your disposal. Ordering at a drive-through and stalking random people come to mind.
Well, unless you have a big rocket to launch your creation, you can't do much beyind having it drive around LA anyway.
Of course, if you do happen to have a rocket big enough, I'm guessing you can afford the full package and won't be satisfied by a router tacked on to some wheels and a few rockets.
So we should just abandon all research and rely on the reactor technology we have now?
Because alchemists frequently died from their misguided attempts at chemistry, we should've abandoned it?
Because early airplanes were essentially death traps, we should've let the idea of flying rest?
My point is, research can get us to the point where we can actually use better reactor designs to solve several of our problems. Not researching them only means we'll be stuck with primitive reactors, fossil fuel power plants, and a lot of radioactive waste that'll last longer than pretty much anything else.
I'd agree with you, if there were a real very high value to the accounts, which is doubtful. The computing power needed to brute force the salted, hashed passwords is probably more expensive than the reward is valuable. It's not worth the hassle.
Sounds like a good idea - almost as good as a small-scale reactor for a neighborhood that provides essentially unlimited power and hot water. If it's good enough for a sub, it's good enough for me.
That's the half-assed way of dealing with it. Reprocessing and advanced reactor designs can massively cut the lifetime of the waste while allowing for more energy to be extracted without the need for more raw materials.
You're using logic. Nuke-haters don't use logic, let alone understand it.
Nukes = minimal CO2 (potentially 0 emissions if we move to hydrogen from oil)
"Green" energy sources != green because they're not enough (not yet at least)
No nukes => alternative sources of electricity
Alternative sources = "Green" energy + coal + natural gas = no CO2 + lots of CO2 and all kinds of nasty stuff + more CO2 = Lots of CO2.
No nukes => Lots of CO2 Nukes => spent fuel, which can be processed and reused or used in a different reactor design, massively reducing volume, lifetime and resource consumption.
If anything is active for thousands of years, it's easy enough to carefully scoop it up and bury it as nuclear waste. Hundreds of years, maybe, but let's not exaggerate.
More than enough fuel. Especially because nearly all plants currently in operation only go so far. You've only truly spent the fuel once it's stable (non-radioactive), and even then, you might be able to extract even more energy from it.
Unfortunately, that requires new reactor designs, which the usual crowd hates more than Satan himself. Ironic, isn't it? Hippies are more likely to contribute to our collective demise than the devil himself.
Well, there's no electric potential to harness, no usable kinetic energy, no usable EM... That leaves us with heat. Since we can't really convert heat into electricity directly, we need something that'll act as a middleman. So, we convert heat into usable mechanic energy which is used to drive a generator.
Novel ideas on how to manipulate electromagnetic fields using nuclear fission are appreciated, if you have any.
Wait, I thought the whole point of Sim City was to create the best city you could, only to play with the multitude of options at your disposal to destroy it.
Get rid of them, build new ones. Simple enough, but of course, there's always the usual group, saying how bad nuclear power is... The only thing that accomplishes is a mixture of more coal/natural gas power plants and increasingly old nuclear reactors, operating way beyond their designed lifespan.
PowerPC seems to have lost a direction. Intel is aggressively pushing x86 toward lower power applications and more integration with peripheral components. AMD is trying to cram more "cores" in the same amount of die space while pushing for more GPU integration. ARM vendors mostly seem to be trying to enter the desktop space using larger processors. Hell, MIPS found itself a niche in the low-cost market (think embedded devices like home routers).
What is anyone currently doing with the PowerPC architecture? The idea of a regular POWER core with many vector units attached (Cell) failed pretty miserably, with only one commercially successful application. The Xeon (360 processor) was mostly a derivative of the main core of the Cell processor, thereby reducing costs. Nintendo probably stuck with essentially a higher-clocked GameCube processor in the Wii (and presumably Wii U) to keep costs down and provide easy backward compatibility. Only IBM seriously considers POWER for anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Judging by Mein Kampf, universal access to a book does not mean it is universally read beyond the first few pages. The book (or app) becomes a sort of status symbol, while its true purpose is mostly ignored.
That means nobody will complain about you watching cat videos if you just keep mashing the keys at random. Also works as a good imitator of real work. With that much noise, how can someone not be working?
I'm sure there are more interesting pursuits when you've got a home-made rover at your disposal. Ordering at a drive-through and stalking random people come to mind.
Well, unless you have a big rocket to launch your creation, you can't do much beyind having it drive around LA anyway.
Of course, if you do happen to have a rocket big enough, I'm guessing you can afford the full package and won't be satisfied by a router tacked on to some wheels and a few rockets.
How difficult can it be to tack all these on a router, using Arduino and Raspberry Pis for extra street-cred?
At the very least you'll be the only person in the neighborhood with a rocket-powered router.
They're imagining it because fibromyalgia isn't a disease. If anything, it's a psychiatric problem, not a physical one
So, in this case, the control group imagines the disease, and as such seems that more likely to imagine side-effects of medication.
I'm frankly not surprised that people who imagine diseases imagine side-effects from placebos.
So we should just abandon all research and rely on the reactor technology we have now?
Because alchemists frequently died from their misguided attempts at chemistry, we should've abandoned it?
Because early airplanes were essentially death traps, we should've let the idea of flying rest?
My point is, research can get us to the point where we can actually use better reactor designs to solve several of our problems. Not researching them only means we'll be stuck with primitive reactors, fossil fuel power plants, and a lot of radioactive waste that'll last longer than pretty much anything else.
I'd agree with you, if there were a real very high value to the accounts, which is doubtful. The computing power needed to brute force the salted, hashed passwords is probably more expensive than the reward is valuable. It's not worth the hassle.
Nothing like a bribe to counter NIMBY sentiments.
Sounds like a good idea - almost as good as a small-scale reactor for a neighborhood that provides essentially unlimited power and hot water. If it's good enough for a sub, it's good enough for me.
That's the half-assed way of dealing with it. Reprocessing and advanced reactor designs can massively cut the lifetime of the waste while allowing for more energy to be extracted without the need for more raw materials.
You're using logic. Nuke-haters don't use logic, let alone understand it.
Nukes = minimal CO2 (potentially 0 emissions if we move to hydrogen from oil)
"Green" energy sources != green because they're not enough (not yet at least)
No nukes => alternative sources of electricity
Alternative sources = "Green" energy + coal + natural gas = no CO2 + lots of CO2 and all kinds of nasty stuff + more CO2 = Lots of CO2.
No nukes => Lots of CO2
Nukes => spent fuel, which can be processed and reused or used in a different reactor design, massively reducing volume, lifetime and resource consumption.
Yeah, but the salted hashes aren't of much value then...
http://xkcd.com/927/
Not quite a standard, but I'd say it's close enough.
"Insert securely lest should be detached in set"
Label from a cable bundled with a Samsung monitor. Guess you don't need obscure vendors to laugh a bit.
If anything is active for thousands of years, it's easy enough to carefully scoop it up and bury it as nuclear waste. Hundreds of years, maybe, but let's not exaggerate.
More than enough fuel. Especially because nearly all plants currently in operation only go so far. You've only truly spent the fuel once it's stable (non-radioactive), and even then, you might be able to extract even more energy from it.
Unfortunately, that requires new reactor designs, which the usual crowd hates more than Satan himself. Ironic, isn't it? Hippies are more likely to contribute to our collective demise than the devil himself.
Well, there's no electric potential to harness, no usable kinetic energy, no usable EM... That leaves us with heat. Since we can't really convert heat into electricity directly, we need something that'll act as a middleman. So, we convert heat into usable mechanic energy which is used to drive a generator.
Novel ideas on how to manipulate electromagnetic fields using nuclear fission are appreciated, if you have any.
And just what makes you think they're not?
That's the same thing as saying airplanes are inherently unsafe and using your car to get from A to B is much safer.
Guess what. Neither statement is true.
Wait, I thought the whole point of Sim City was to create the best city you could, only to play with the multitude of options at your disposal to destroy it.
Get rid of them, build new ones. Simple enough, but of course, there's always the usual group, saying how bad nuclear power is... The only thing that accomplishes is a mixture of more coal/natural gas power plants and increasingly old nuclear reactors, operating way beyond their designed lifespan.
Besides, USB 2.0 improved speed a lot, which meant that the pool of devices that needed firewire shrunk considerably.
PowerPC seems to have lost a direction. Intel is aggressively pushing x86 toward lower power applications and more integration with peripheral components. AMD is trying to cram more "cores" in the same amount of die space while pushing for more GPU integration. ARM vendors mostly seem to be trying to enter the desktop space using larger processors. Hell, MIPS found itself a niche in the low-cost market (think embedded devices like home routers).
What is anyone currently doing with the PowerPC architecture? The idea of a regular POWER core with many vector units attached (Cell) failed pretty miserably, with only one commercially successful application. The Xeon (360 processor) was mostly a derivative of the main core of the Cell processor, thereby reducing costs. Nintendo probably stuck with essentially a higher-clocked GameCube processor in the Wii (and presumably Wii U) to keep costs down and provide easy backward compatibility. Only IBM seriously considers POWER for anything.
They removed firewire a long time ago, making 90% of docks made until then incapable of charging iStuff.