Why not switch out the fuel source then for something a little more efficient? If I owned GE, I'd tell them we're bringing the nuclear aircraft back out of cold storage.
I like the idea of not having to refuel the planes, but bimonthly? And Uranium, let alone Plutonium or Thorium, are fairly inexpensive these days. The key is making the cost per trip drop below that of one using standard jet fuel, at which point you can begin punishing the competition. And given how badly the cost of jet fuel has been eating away at the airlines' profits, you'd think they'd have started looking into more profitable lines of thinking.
They already have (prop) engines that work with nuclear reactors, as well as reactors that can fit into aircraft. They've already flown with one on-board. They just never got around to linking the two, as the market changed, at the time.
So, what you're saying is, you've created a giant lollipop for crackers everywhere, where they need only compromise your giant database to get millions and millions of credit cards, passwords, addresses, and more. Were I Loyds, I would not even offer a probability on this happening at some point in the near future.
*facepalms* It's like they've all been taught anti-security. MS -> "Let's ditch our push to safer, garbage collected, safe strings, randomized memory location languages, and bring back C++ with its insanity; let's design an entire OS that our customers don't want and our developer base is rebelling over; let's put giant, gaping backdoors in previously secure software because despite the NSA's insistence that they hire the best and the brightest, they are apparently incapable of discovering the security flaws that already exist, while high-school students in Eastern European countries find them for free during their lunch hours." USA -> "Let's have a cyber-war with people we've totally provoked (at this point), and which we are totally unprepared for. We will train Marines, who are taught to obey orders, to have the mindset of 31337 h@x0r$, who have a completely different, and exclusive mindset. And f*ck fixing the economy, as everything we do makes it worse (and don't use the word 'depression', use the word 'recession'). And it hasn't dawned on us that every-time we engage in nation building / swapping out other countries' governments, we end up making a new enemy. And criticizing our government's actions is a sign of disloyalty, which gets your name on the No-Fly List." Wat. I can't tell if I should be working, or getting fitted for a super-villain costume.
The thing about the Enterprise is that not a lot changes very often with regards to the various functions. Unless they are being refitted for a major upgrade, diagrams with finite states could work fine. It's only when you're attempting to make the ship do something it's not designed to do that you start to see the crew members facepalm; at which point, they start using other interfaces (either switching around the usual stuff), or in extreme cases, putting something together on the Holodeck, which can synthesize any interface they need.
In that way, the usual control surfaces are kind of...specific to their use. They can be re-purposed, but appear slightly less effective (ask yourself, if they can access Engineering from any control panel in the corridor, why do they always rush down to the actual warp core?). Why such stylish and form-fitted displays?
And yet, you need to be wearing a set of stripes (TNG/DS9: command red, engineering yellow, or medical / science blue) to effectively use it. And to get the command stripes meant knowing how to do a yellow or blue job. Even in TOS, the science officer, Spock, was #2, and Kirk knowing how to do Spock's job was a precondition to him being the captain.
Now look at the people who want that kind of interface: do they strike you as being technologically capable? Could they wear the yellow or blue? The answer is no.
They're kind of like the various primitive types that inevitably show up on the ship / station. They poke around, are amazed at the interface, then either destroy it or give up. Using LCARS effectively meant either being technologically inclined from a young age (Ensign O'Brien, Major Kira Nerys), or attending an academy / university (everyone else). Or being a demigod, in the case of Q.
What more, these people have to actually read and understand the manual. For people who have trouble understanding the inner-workings of a toaster, that's not going to happen.
I am going to go with metal fatigue, plus "it's really time to upgrade to something safer / more efficient." It's been a bit of a problem since building new reactors has been held off so long, while at the same time, the accountants appear to be trying to get as much ROI as possible.
At the very least, they need to shutdown that reactor, and find the f*cking leak. A minor tritium leak? Fine. A leak that slowly eating away at the containment vessel for the reactor? Shut it down, and do not bring it back up until it's found, and that hole is patched / the top is replaced, preferably with something that won't ever suffer from this issue again.
Which reminds me. They really need to shift to more passive safety devices, as opposed to active ones. If you can't leave the reactor running over the weekend with no one watching the control board, it wasn't built right.
Because there aren't a host of others methods for generating income.
But then, the vast majority of people who wish to profit off the web are the same people who should never be allowed to. Get rich quick schemes, shady legal practices...
I'm fairly certain that I keep a mental list of companies not to buy from on the basis of their ads interfering with my lifestyle. Strange, now that I think about it, I do typically associate ads with crap brands; the thinking goes that only a company with crap products needs to annoy people into buying their products, other companies do not need to advertise, or advertise in such a fashion, since they are already well-known for having a decent product. Surprisingly effective, I've found, over the past few years.
I suppose it's like what Alan Shore said in Boston Legal -> "We advertise in the Yellow Pages?" The idea being that a good service or decent product does its own advertising, with the best needing almost none.
Indeed. The new form of advertisement is just an attempt to convince ad-buyers that they should continue paying a premium. It's how things tend to work -> over time, ads become more and more annoying, while being less and less effective. They focus more on loud noise and in your face techniques, which are about as welcome as Busta Rhymes rapping 3 inches from your eyes while you take a shower in your own house at 3 AM. It's all "look at me, and buy some f*cked up product."
My actual purchasing technique involves checking the product for known defects. Not something an ad is going to list.
Indeed. Actual site content = 30K, advertisements = 300K. Nothing like bringing an 8-core machine with a SSD and 32 GBs of RAM to its knees because your site just had to launch three versions of the same flash ad at the same time. I'll take the ad-free version of the internet, thank you.
Really? That many intelligent and talented people, and the only business method they can come up with is the tired advertising model? I guess this explains why their search engine is borderline useless these days.
Join us, and maybe we'll talk to the DA about extenuating circumstances (because we all know you use linux, and only hackers know how to use that; plus, you use 'alternative' browsers).
If by refrigerator you mean my network cable, then yes. It goes in the messenger bag, same with the power cord, the HDMI cord, and the headphones. The extra 10 ounces are offset by the wonderous sling that I can place over my shoulder. And as a bonus, it ensures that if I can find a physical RJ45 connector, I can get on the internet, even during the busy times.
Perhaps, but, correct me if I am wrong, you are still sharing ~100Mbps among all your connected wireless devices. The more devices connected, the slower your connection. While with a switched network, that degradation does not happen.
I just find it truly bizarre that people are willing to sacrifice a 10x guaranteed connection for a 1x wireless shared connection. I cannot trace the logical thought process there. It's like choosing a 40% APR credit card with a $100 limit over a 4% APR credit card with a $3,000 limit and $10,000 in the bank. Such a bizarre infatuation with the idea of 'wireless.'
But then, my house has Cat5 and Cat6 running through it, GigE switches, and a handful of smaller GigE switches for when you need to throw a LAN party in a room. And the 100 Mbps Cat5 is actually limiting the speed to the internet (which I am scheming to replace with Cat6), as I found recently. Just need a crimper and a guide wire to run it through the walls.
And Fiber is actually getting cheap enough that where it not for the hideous costs of the NICs, I'd happily switch over to that.
Right. Because it's not like most people don't question the motives of both.
The reality is that the climate scientists will continue to have their motivations questioned so long as their reports indicate that "more study" (= more money) is required, while energy companies will continue to have their motivations questioned so long as their reports indicate that nothing they do has any impact whatsoever on the local environment (thus drilling / fracking / whatever = more money). In either case, each side is reporting what is considered the most profitable outcome for themselves.
So you see, most people are not inclined to believe either. They believe that both sides are reporting some truth, and some lies.
As a human being, this announcement is without a doubt extra creepy. However, as a scientist, it's fricking awesome! As a mad scientist, I'm giving it three thumbs up.
Takes a moment to get past the "we made an artificial jellyfish (WHY? Don't we have enough of those transparent, swimming, stinging masses of doom?)," and to get onto the real meat of the article: artificial hearts that can be used to test the effectiveness of various experimental drugs without putting human beings at risk.
For a moment there, I thought the DoD had thought of something truly terrifying.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think a flying wing could achieve efficient supersonic flight? If so, there may be a solution to the number of passenger's problem.
Why not switch out the fuel source then for something a little more efficient? If I owned GE, I'd tell them we're bringing the nuclear aircraft back out of cold storage.
I like the idea of not having to refuel the planes, but bimonthly? And Uranium, let alone Plutonium or Thorium, are fairly inexpensive these days. The key is making the cost per trip drop below that of one using standard jet fuel, at which point you can begin punishing the competition. And given how badly the cost of jet fuel has been eating away at the airlines' profits, you'd think they'd have started looking into more profitable lines of thinking.
They already have (prop) engines that work with nuclear reactors, as well as reactors that can fit into aircraft. They've already flown with one on-board. They just never got around to linking the two, as the market changed, at the time.
Indeed. However, and take this with a grain of salt, they are working on sonic boom suppressed designs, and apparently have made some good progress.
So, what you're saying is, you've created a giant lollipop for crackers everywhere, where they need only compromise your giant database to get millions and millions of credit cards, passwords, addresses, and more. Were I Loyds, I would not even offer a probability on this happening at some point in the near future.
*facepalms* It's like they've all been taught anti-security. MS -> "Let's ditch our push to safer, garbage collected, safe strings, randomized memory location languages, and bring back C++ with its insanity; let's design an entire OS that our customers don't want and our developer base is rebelling over; let's put giant, gaping backdoors in previously secure software because despite the NSA's insistence that they hire the best and the brightest, they are apparently incapable of discovering the security flaws that already exist, while high-school students in Eastern European countries find them for free during their lunch hours." USA -> "Let's have a cyber-war with people we've totally provoked (at this point), and which we are totally unprepared for. We will train Marines, who are taught to obey orders, to have the mindset of 31337 h@x0r$, who have a completely different, and exclusive mindset. And f*ck fixing the economy, as everything we do makes it worse (and don't use the word 'depression', use the word 'recession'). And it hasn't dawned on us that every-time we engage in nation building / swapping out other countries' governments, we end up making a new enemy. And criticizing our government's actions is a sign of disloyalty, which gets your name on the No-Fly List." Wat. I can't tell if I should be working, or getting fitted for a super-villain costume.
The thing about the Enterprise is that not a lot changes very often with regards to the various functions. Unless they are being refitted for a major upgrade, diagrams with finite states could work fine. It's only when you're attempting to make the ship do something it's not designed to do that you start to see the crew members facepalm; at which point, they start using other interfaces (either switching around the usual stuff), or in extreme cases, putting something together on the Holodeck, which can synthesize any interface they need.
In that way, the usual control surfaces are kind of...specific to their use. They can be re-purposed, but appear slightly less effective (ask yourself, if they can access Engineering from any control panel in the corridor, why do they always rush down to the actual warp core?). Why such stylish and form-fitted displays?
And yet, you need to be wearing a set of stripes (TNG/DS9: command red, engineering yellow, or medical / science blue) to effectively use it. And to get the command stripes meant knowing how to do a yellow or blue job. Even in TOS, the science officer, Spock, was #2, and Kirk knowing how to do Spock's job was a precondition to him being the captain.
Now look at the people who want that kind of interface: do they strike you as being technologically capable? Could they wear the yellow or blue? The answer is no.
They're kind of like the various primitive types that inevitably show up on the ship / station. They poke around, are amazed at the interface, then either destroy it or give up. Using LCARS effectively meant either being technologically inclined from a young age (Ensign O'Brien, Major Kira Nerys), or attending an academy / university (everyone else). Or being a demigod, in the case of Q.
What more, these people have to actually read and understand the manual. For people who have trouble understanding the inner-workings of a toaster, that's not going to happen.
Or just use a language that no one outside your country could possibly know.
I am going to go with metal fatigue, plus "it's really time to upgrade to something safer / more efficient." It's been a bit of a problem since building new reactors has been held off so long, while at the same time, the accountants appear to be trying to get as much ROI as possible.
At the very least, they need to shutdown that reactor, and find the f*cking leak. A minor tritium leak? Fine. A leak that slowly eating away at the containment vessel for the reactor? Shut it down, and do not bring it back up until it's found, and that hole is patched / the top is replaced, preferably with something that won't ever suffer from this issue again.
Which reminds me. They really need to shift to more passive safety devices, as opposed to active ones. If you can't leave the reactor running over the weekend with no one watching the control board, it wasn't built right.
Herp Derp, but that somehow involves bringing back child labor, or repealing current labor laws, or ending the minimum wage!
Indeed. If /. implemented a 'click past this ad to post' style of doing things, the site would die.
Because there aren't a host of others methods for generating income.
But then, the vast majority of people who wish to profit off the web are the same people who should never be allowed to. Get rich quick schemes, shady legal practices...
I'm fairly certain that I keep a mental list of companies not to buy from on the basis of their ads interfering with my lifestyle. Strange, now that I think about it, I do typically associate ads with crap brands; the thinking goes that only a company with crap products needs to annoy people into buying their products, other companies do not need to advertise, or advertise in such a fashion, since they are already well-known for having a decent product. Surprisingly effective, I've found, over the past few years.
I suppose it's like what Alan Shore said in Boston Legal -> "We advertise in the Yellow Pages?" The idea being that a good service or decent product does its own advertising, with the best needing almost none.
Indeed. The new form of advertisement is just an attempt to convince ad-buyers that they should continue paying a premium. It's how things tend to work -> over time, ads become more and more annoying, while being less and less effective. They focus more on loud noise and in your face techniques, which are about as welcome as Busta Rhymes rapping 3 inches from your eyes while you take a shower in your own house at 3 AM. It's all "look at me, and buy some f*cked up product."
My actual purchasing technique involves checking the product for known defects. Not something an ad is going to list.
Indeed.
Indeed. Actual site content = 30K, advertisements = 300K. Nothing like bringing an 8-core machine with a SSD and 32 GBs of RAM to its knees because your site just had to launch three versions of the same flash ad at the same time. I'll take the ad-free version of the internet, thank you.
Really? That many intelligent and talented people, and the only business method they can come up with is the tired advertising model? I guess this explains why their search engine is borderline useless these days.
And it did quite well with just that for many, many years.
Thus fulfilling the inner hostage-taker and human shielder in all of us.
Good News!
Join us, and maybe we'll talk to the DA about extenuating circumstances (because we all know you use linux, and only hackers know how to use that; plus, you use 'alternative' browsers).
Any chance that mini-USB connector on the bottom of the tablet can be re-appropriated for an add-on card reader / USB hub?
If by refrigerator you mean my network cable, then yes. It goes in the messenger bag, same with the power cord, the HDMI cord, and the headphones. The extra 10 ounces are offset by the wonderous sling that I can place over my shoulder. And as a bonus, it ensures that if I can find a physical RJ45 connector, I can get on the internet, even during the busy times.
Perhaps, but, correct me if I am wrong, you are still sharing ~100Mbps among all your connected wireless devices. The more devices connected, the slower your connection. While with a switched network, that degradation does not happen.
I just find it truly bizarre that people are willing to sacrifice a 10x guaranteed connection for a 1x wireless shared connection. I cannot trace the logical thought process there. It's like choosing a 40% APR credit card with a $100 limit over a 4% APR credit card with a $3,000 limit and $10,000 in the bank. Such a bizarre infatuation with the idea of 'wireless.'
But then, my house has Cat5 and Cat6 running through it, GigE switches, and a handful of smaller GigE switches for when you need to throw a LAN party in a room. And the 100 Mbps Cat5 is actually limiting the speed to the internet (which I am scheming to replace with Cat6), as I found recently. Just need a crimper and a guide wire to run it through the walls.
And Fiber is actually getting cheap enough that where it not for the hideous costs of the NICs, I'd happily switch over to that.
Right. Because it's not like most people don't question the motives of both.
The reality is that the climate scientists will continue to have their motivations questioned so long as their reports indicate that "more study" (= more money) is required, while energy companies will continue to have their motivations questioned so long as their reports indicate that nothing they do has any impact whatsoever on the local environment (thus drilling / fracking / whatever = more money). In either case, each side is reporting what is considered the most profitable outcome for themselves.
So you see, most people are not inclined to believe either. They believe that both sides are reporting some truth, and some lies.
As a human being, this announcement is without a doubt extra creepy. However, as a scientist, it's fricking awesome! As a mad scientist, I'm giving it three thumbs up.
Takes a moment to get past the "we made an artificial jellyfish (WHY? Don't we have enough of those transparent, swimming, stinging masses of doom?)," and to get onto the real meat of the article: artificial hearts that can be used to test the effectiveness of various experimental drugs without putting human beings at risk.
For a moment there, I thought the DoD had thought of something truly terrifying.