Something about seeing Samus doing battle with Pikachu makes me
want to know more
about the PowerPC chip that powers the system;)
the brunt power of the system doesn't lie in the IBM chip. It's in the ATI chip...
though not a valid argument, but a good indication, just compare the chip sizes:
the ATI chip is quite a bit larger
If one has to actually first put the object into
the sphere, then one (obviously) already has a quite good
apprehension
what it looks like...
unless one wants to "see" something that was
"created" while in the sphere...?
only with special holographic-quantum luggage
on
Quantum Holography
·
· Score: 1
According to the scheme, the inside of chamber
would be designed to detect the time when a photon
hits the wall but not where it hits.
hey! this wont't work with any random luggage...
this only works with special luggage that can detect when a photon hits its inner lining...
they mention quite a few drawbacks of real material sails (wear & tear, launch, weight, construction),
drawbacks that can be circumvented with the help of a magnetic field that acts as a sail, see post #79
of course using real sails leads to wear and tear,
as also insanely cumbersome maintenance.
a recent novel alternative is experiencing the force of solar wind with a generated magnetic field.
see post #79
solar sails've been OVERHAULED by magnetic fields
on
How Solar Sails Work
·
· Score: 1
solar sails are pretty much out of date
instead the new approach now is to use a magnetic field which can also experience solar wind.
since it's a field there obviously is no wear or tear.
since it's generated it can be easily enlarged or reduced in size
The magnetic sail, or magsail, is a field effect device which
interacts with the ambient solar wind or interstellar medium over a
considerable volume of space to generate drag and lift forces. Two
theories describing the method of thrust generation are analyzed and
data results are presented. The techniques for maintaining
superconductor temperatures in interplanetary space are analyzed and
low risk options presented. Comparisons are presented showing mission
performance differences between currently proposed spacecraft using
chemical and electric propulsion systems, and a Magsail propelled
spacecraft capable of generating an average thrust of 250 Newtons at
a radius of one A.U. The magsail also provides unique capabilities
for interstellar missions, in that at relativistic speeds the
magnetic field would ionize and deflect the interstellar medium
producing a large drag force. This would make it an ideal brake for
decelerating a spacecraft from relativistic speeds and then
maneuvering within the target star system.
_________________________________________
hillarious interview with Steve Jobs about OS X
on
OS X
·
· Score: 3
this reminds me of the immortal Dilbert comic where the boss walks in from some idiot leadership meeting and suggests they install a "SQL". Dilbert then (knowing his boss doesn't kown diddly) asks him if he already knows in which color he wants the server... which of course makes things for the pointy-haired boss *very* -if not to- complicated...
the point to the whole story is the joke about the colors isn't so absurd anymore...
____________________________________________
Re:cellphone, schmellphone... if you're so clever.
on
Norway Bans Spam
·
· Score: 1
P.S. If you are so skilled at filtering your e-mail, why doesn't your e-mail address appear with your posting?
It does. I've filtered it out so that you can't see it, dumb-ass.
your ISP is passing the costs of spam on to you and every other
subscriber?
not really, the ISPs usually only have fixed costs (maintenance, people, power, rent, lines and hardware), the only thing that suffers when spammers reign is bandwidth. But spam uses far less bandwidth then
moviez, appz, isoz and mp3z...
Ever though 'bout the grand costs that are being passed to you (your argument) thanks to such activities, cell-phone-email-meister?
Hey dumb fuck, my cell phone has an e-mail address. I don't have to forward anything. If e-mail is sent to that
address, it appears on my phone. Because of spammers, I dare not give that address out -- but what right do
spammers have to render useless a feature included with my cell phone service?
Hey bubba, you gotta be a fool if you actually pass out your cell phone email to people. That absolutely sucks. So what's you grand email address? your line is something like this right:
Yeah, you can send me email on my cell phone. The address is 555-1234-123@cell.at4.mci.com
Set up an account and forward it. Make sure that only you know the real cell email address and only you forward to it. then the above line would be lots better:
Yeah, you can send me email on my cell phone. The address is cellphone@Im-still-a-dumb-ass.com
6 months for spam is the attitude of a fashist state, you dumb jerk.
You grand slashdotters are always complaining about losing your digital freedoms and
electric tolerance all but evaporating...
These new digital freedoms are grand for
us users, but hell for the conventional industry, since they fear losing revenue (warez, mp3z, bookz, moviez)... that's why they're pressuring for new laws that'll change this stuff from petty delicts to high-cost crime for the perpetrator.
Of course we all bitch about that, right.
But if you're suddenly on the losing side of the new grand digital order, and are "being taken advantage of" by getting spam, then SUDDENLY it's:
"Give those damn spammers SIX MONTHS!"
You dumb jerk, your grand additude leads to exactly the same kind of goverment attitude:
new laws and less tolerance on and in everything digital or networked
(it's just SPAM, for crying out load, you want somebody to go to jail for SIX months for spam!?!?
YES, I'm am all for fining the guy, but not for incarceration)
I've been programming for some years now in all possible languages, and OOP *did* make the overview and management of the data-structures very much easier. (developement speed and costs of course profitted from this)
If this guy only has to *script* twiddly-diddly less-than-10,000-lines programs, then DUH! He's simply never really experienced how practical a tool OOP can be...
virtual interfaces, encapsulation of data & methods and inheritance are as natural as functional programming, namespaces and dynamic memory. If he fails to see that then he's simply never written a respectable application.
If you only do calculations in the single digits then you're gonna question why everybody thinks calculators are so grand...
this guy is problably the local loser (compared to his OOP-luvin colegues) in the his company and is playing the contrarian...
He's pleaded guilty to forgery and I hope he gets all 7 years. But then again, I
also wish someone would get 7 years every time they mail me a credit card offer, or call me
and ask me to change my long distance service.
you gotta be joking... you think SEVENS years of real prison time is adequate for faking emails?!?!
sure the guy has to pay a big monetary fine, but this isn't in the league an assault, burglary, rape or kidnapping...
This training will
have the side effect of making us worth two to
three times as much as we are paid now
Well, gosh! Why don't you just invest your OWN freaking money and increase your value yourselves you dumb babies!?
Once your trained you're worth more on the market. If the company you work for doesn't honour that, work somewhere else. period.
If the company needs trained people then it should hire them at market price levels. If it can't afford the market prices then it isn't efficient and shouldn't be in the business. period.
that isn't visible and graspable.
If everything goes through electric lines and is accumulated on some cpu somewhere, if one can't see the stacks and stacks of votes or the machines counting them, then it becomes harder for many people to palpably trust everything is going on in an orderly fashion.
(not complete) list of advantages of paper votes
It's hard to loose a palpable vote ballot.
It's easy to hold up a vote ballot and say: this is my vote!
It's easy to check, see and understand how the possiblity of vote fraud is reduced to a minimum. Everybody has an eye on the ballots and boxes. Counting is done under observation.
Now look at electronic votes.
Being a complex system that has to ensure authorization, anonymity,
data confidence, UI, and security, the chances of failure are high.
Failure means votes that disappear.
Only a small percentage of the population will actually phantom what the technical details are that ensure authorization, anonymity,
data confidence, UI, and security. The rest won't know what's going on.
If I don't know how it's garanteed that my vote doesn't get deleted or the other guys vote duplicated then the system scares me.
People will start believing in reality of fictional stories like The Net.
Hello disentchantment, ambiguity and loss of trust.
If you think Florida is bad then try to imagine the conspiracy theories that would arise each time there was mass bitterness and dissatisfaction concerning the framework of the election.
People would say the computers were rigged, files were deleted, hackers broke in.
It doesn't matter if the system is technologically set up to make it impossible.
Nobody except the upper digeratti will understand and so believe that. Everybody else will highly doubt it.
I suppose you're a tech-adept person. Then you should know that the solution should always be of maximum simplicity under the condition of fully and satifactorially solving the problem. The method should solve the problem - no more and no less - as often as possible with an induced overhead that is minimal.
Efficiency, fault tolerance and simplicity.
what you're suggested in a way increases efficiency (no more bears, no leaving the house) if you leave out the extreme costs and overhead of such a system, but it utterly stamps fault tolerance (which means how much can one trust worthiness of the results) and simplicity into the ground.
tom
it's hard to trust a system...
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
that isn't graspable.
If everything goes through electric lines and is accumulated on some cpu somewhere, if one can't see the stacks and stacks of votes or the machines counting them, then it becomes harder for many people to palpably trust everything is going in an orderly fashion.
It's hard to loose a palpable vote ballot.
It's easy to hold up a vote ballot and say: this is my vote!
It's easy to check, see and understand how the possiblity of vote fraud is reduced to a minimum. Everybody has an eye on the ballots and boxes. Counting is done under observation.
Now look at electronic votes.
Being a complex system that has to ensure authorization, anonymity,
data confidence, UI, and security, the chances of failure are high.
Failure means votes that disappear.
Only a small percentage of the population will actually phantom what the technical details are that ensure authorization, anonymity,
data confidence, UI, and security. The rest won't know what's going on.
If I don't know how it's garanteed that my vote doesn't get deleted or the other guys vote duplicated then the system scares me.
People will start believing in reality of fictional stories like The Net.
Hello disentchantment, ambiguity and loss of trust.
If you think Florida is bad then try to imagine the conspiracy theories that would arise each time there was a neck to neck election and the winner won by fractions of a percent.
People would say the computers were rigged, files were deleted, hackers broke in.
It doesn't matter if the system is technologically set up to make it impossible.
Nobody except the upper digeratti will understand and so believe that. Everybody else will highly doubt it.
I suppose you're a tech-adept person. Then you should know that the solution should always be of maximum simplicity under the condition of fully and satifactorially solving the problem. The method should solve the problem - no more and no less - as often as possible and the induced overhead is minimal.
Efficiency, fault tolerance and simplicity.
what you're suggesting in a way increases efficiency (no more bears, no leaving the house) if you leave out the extreme costs and overhead of such a system, but it utterly stamps fault tolerance (which mean trust worthiness of the results) and simplicity into the ground.
tom
Slashdot Mirror
-
Something about seeing Samus doing battle with Pikachu makes me
;)
the brunt power of the system doesn't lie in the IBM chip. It's in the ATI chip...want to know more about the PowerPC chip that powers the system
though not a valid argument, but a good indication, just compare the chip sizes:
the ATI chip is quite a bit larger
here's the article
so having a display on paper gives a whole new ;)
...
meaning to burn-in, eh?
can't help it, one more:
it can't be to hard to push the envelope with
this technology: just fold and
oo! oo! one more:
eh... and then there's the cutting edge
to be considered also...
but what is the technology good for?
If one has to actually first put the object into the sphere, then one (obviously) already has a quite good apprehension
what it looks like...
unless one wants to "see" something that was "created" while in the sphere...?
-
According to the scheme, the inside of chamber
would be designed
hey! this wont't work with any random luggage...to detect the time when a photon hits the wall but not where it hits.
this only works with special luggage that can detect when a photon hits its inner lining...
they mention quite a few drawbacks of real material sails (wear & tear, launch, weight, construction),
drawbacks that can be circumvented with the help of a magnetic field that acts as a sail,
see post #79
of course using real sails leads to wear and tear, as also insanely cumbersome maintenance.
a recent novel alternative is experiencing the force of solar wind with a generated magnetic field.
see post #79
instead the new approach now is to use a magnetic field which can also experience solar wind.
-
since it's a field there obviously is no wear or tear.
- since it's generated it can be easily enlarged or reduced in size
to find out more google: solar sails magnetic fieldshere's a nice abstract from http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diedrich/cgi/search.
- Abstract:
_________________________________________The magnetic sail, or magsail, is a field effect device which interacts with the ambient solar wind or interstellar medium over a considerable volume of space to generate drag and lift forces. Two theories describing the method of thrust generation are analyzed and data results are presented. The techniques for maintaining superconductor temperatures in interplanetary space are analyzed and low risk options presented. Comparisons are presented showing mission performance differences between currently proposed spacecraft using chemical and electric propulsion systems, and a Magsail propelled spacecraft capable of generating an average thrust of 250 Newtons at a radius of one A.U. The magsail also provides unique capabilities for interstellar missions, in that at relativistic speeds the magnetic field would ionize and deflect the interstellar medium producing a large drag force. This would make it an ideal brake for decelerating a spacecraft from relativistic speeds and then maneuvering within the target star system.
BBspot Interviews Apple CEO Steve Jobs
this reminds me of the immortal Dilbert comic where the boss walks in from some idiot leadership meeting and suggests they install a "SQL". Dilbert then (knowing his boss doesn't kown diddly) asks him if he already knows in which color he wants the server
the point to the whole story is the joke about the colors isn't so absurd anymore...
____________________________________________
It does. I've filtered it out so that you can't see it, dumb-ass.
your ISP is passing the costs of spam on to you and every other subscriber?
not really, the ISPs usually only have fixed costs (maintenance, people, power, rent, lines and hardware), the only thing that suffers when spammers reign is bandwidth. But spam uses far less bandwidth then moviez, appz, isoz and mp3z...
Ever though 'bout the grand costs that are being passed to you (your argument) thanks to such activities, cell-phone-email-meister?
Hey dumb fuck, my cell phone has an e-mail address. I don't have to forward anything. If e-mail is sent to that address, it appears on my phone. Because of spammers, I dare not give that address out -- but what right do spammers have to render useless a feature included with my cell phone service?
Hey bubba, you gotta be a fool if you actually pass out your cell phone email to people. That absolutely sucks. So what's you grand email address? your line is something like this right:
- Yeah, you can send me email on my cell phone.
Set up an account and forward it. Make sure that only you know the real cell email address and only you forward to it. then the above line would be lots better:The address is 555-1234-123@cell.at4.mci.com
The address is cellphone@Im-still-a-dumb-ass.com
6 months for spam is the attitude of a fashist state, you dumb jerk.
You grand slashdotters are always complaining about losing your digital freedoms and electric tolerance all but evaporating...
These new digital freedoms are grand for us users, but hell for the conventional industry, since they fear losing revenue (warez, mp3z, bookz, moviez)... that's why they're pressuring for new laws that'll change this stuff from petty delicts to high-cost crime for the perpetrator.
Of course we all bitch about that, right.
But if you're suddenly on the losing side of the new grand digital order, and are "being taken advantage of" by getting spam, then SUDDENLY it's:
You dumb jerk, your grand additude leads to exactly the same kind of goverment attitude:"Give those damn spammers SIX MONTHS!"
(it's just SPAM, for crying out load, you want somebody to go to jail for SIX months for spam!?!? YES, I'm am all for fining the guy, but not for incarceration)
ohhh, poor guy...
I've been programming for some years now in all possible languages, and OOP *did* make the overview and management of the data-structures very much easier. (developement speed and costs of course profitted from this)
If this guy only has to *script* twiddly-diddly less-than-10,000-lines programs, then DUH! He's simply never really experienced how practical a tool OOP can be...
virtual interfaces, encapsulation of data & methods and inheritance are as natural as functional programming, namespaces and dynamic memory. If he fails to see that then he's simply never written a respectable application.
If you only do calculations in the single digits then you're gonna question why everybody thinks calculators are so grand...
this guy is problably the local loser (compared to his OOP-luvin colegues) in the his company and is playing the contrarian...
- He's pleaded guilty to forgery and I hope he gets all 7 years. But then again, I
also wish someone would get 7 years every time they mail me a credit card offer, or call me
and ask me to change my long distance service.
you gotta be joking... you think SEVENS years of real prison time is adequate for faking emails?!?!sure the guy has to pay a big monetary fine, but this isn't in the league an assault, burglary, rape or kidnapping
spamming is not a violent crime.
ever read Solis by A.A. Attanasio?
oddly it's out of print, but it's definitely in the same league of awe-inspriringness...
more fitting would be:
This training will have the side effect of making us worth two to three times as much as we are paid now
Well, gosh! Why don't you just invest your OWN freaking money and increase your value yourselves you dumb babies!?
Once your trained you're worth more on the market. If the company you work for doesn't honour that, work somewhere else. period.
If the company needs trained people then it should hire them at market price levels. If it can't afford the market prices then it isn't efficient and shouldn't be in the business. period.
If everything goes through electric lines and is accumulated on some cpu somewhere, if one can't see the stacks and stacks of votes or the machines counting them, then it becomes harder for many people to palpably trust everything is going on in an orderly fashion.
(not complete) list of advantages of paper votes
- It's hard to loose a palpable vote ballot.
- It's easy to hold up a vote ballot and say: this is my vote!
- It's easy to check, see and understand how the possiblity of vote fraud is reduced to a minimum. Everybody has an eye on the ballots and boxes. Counting is done under observation.
Now look at electronic votes. Being a complex system that has to ensure authorization, anonymity, data confidence, UI, and security, the chances of failure are high.Failure means votes that disappear. Only a small percentage of the population will actually phantom what the technical details are that ensure authorization, anonymity, data confidence, UI, and security. The rest won't know what's going on.
If I don't know how it's garanteed that my vote doesn't get deleted or the other guys vote duplicated then the system scares me. People will start believing in reality of fictional stories like The Net.
Hello disentchantment, ambiguity and loss of trust.
If you think Florida is bad then try to imagine the conspiracy theories that would arise each time there was mass bitterness and dissatisfaction concerning the framework of the election.
People would say the computers were rigged, files were deleted, hackers broke in.
It doesn't matter if the system is technologically set up to make it impossible.
Nobody except the upper digeratti will understand and so believe that. Everybody else will highly doubt it.
I suppose you're a tech-adept person. Then you should know that the solution should always be of maximum simplicity under the condition of fully and satifactorially solving the problem. The method should solve the problem - no more and no less - as often as possible with an induced overhead that is minimal.
Efficiency, fault tolerance and simplicity.
what you're suggested in a way increases efficiency (no more bears, no leaving the house) if you leave out the extreme costs and overhead of such a system, but it utterly stamps fault tolerance (which means how much can one trust worthiness of the results) and simplicity into the ground.
tom
If everything goes through electric lines and is accumulated on some cpu somewhere, if one can't see the stacks and stacks of votes or the machines counting them, then it becomes harder for many people to palpably trust everything is going in an orderly fashion.
- It's hard to loose a palpable vote ballot.
- It's easy to hold up a vote ballot and say: this is my vote!
- It's easy to check, see and understand how the possiblity of vote fraud is reduced to a minimum. Everybody has an eye on the ballots and boxes. Counting is done under observation.
Now look at electronic votes. Being a complex system that has to ensure authorization, anonymity, data confidence, UI, and security, the chances of failure are high.Failure means votes that disappear. Only a small percentage of the population will actually phantom what the technical details are that ensure authorization, anonymity, data confidence, UI, and security. The rest won't know what's going on.
If I don't know how it's garanteed that my vote doesn't get deleted or the other guys vote duplicated then the system scares me. People will start believing in reality of fictional stories like The Net.
Hello disentchantment, ambiguity and loss of trust.
If you think Florida is bad then try to imagine the conspiracy theories that would arise each time there was a neck to neck election and the winner won by fractions of a percent.
People would say the computers were rigged, files were deleted, hackers broke in.
It doesn't matter if the system is technologically set up to make it impossible.
Nobody except the upper digeratti will understand and so believe that. Everybody else will highly doubt it.
I suppose you're a tech-adept person. Then you should know that the solution should always be of maximum simplicity under the condition of fully and satifactorially solving the problem. The method should solve the problem - no more and no less - as often as possible and the induced overhead is minimal.
Efficiency, fault tolerance and simplicity.
what you're suggesting in a way increases efficiency (no more bears, no leaving the house) if you leave out the extreme costs and overhead of such a system, but it utterly stamps fault tolerance (which mean trust worthiness of the results) and simplicity into the ground.
tom