I used to work in a party supply store and had a lady who was looking at our plates, which are available in plastic or paper. She asked me if we had any clear paper plates just like the clear plastic ones.
I told her we were all out of them, not being mean, but knowing that if I said there is no such thing as clear paper plates I would have had to argue with her about it.
Java fanboys notwithstanding, I don't know a single person who likes running Java apps on their system. Slow load times and a huge VM size aren't desirable to most people.
If it's already available in Theora and Xvid, why on Earth would anybody want to choose a format like Fluendo that is hardly known? A *lot* of people disable Java because along with Javascript it's likely to become the next big attack vector to target browsers cross platform. Unlike Javascript, Java malware is more likely to work cross-browser because VMs don't differ as much as browser Javascript vulnerabilities.
So Mozilla should give RedHat preferential treatment? If they hold back a patch to wait for RedHat, don't they also have to wait for Suse? Debian? Everybody else?
Holding back patches is nonsense and is something Slashdotters regularly blast Microsoft for doing.
Crap, sorry about the lack of line breaks. Here it is fixed
Utter nonsense, every word of it.
1. If you are actually using the fact that some package is open source and run a modified source tree you need someone to maintain that tree for you. You may have to fuss with patches, especially if large or if they affect areas you have customized.
Well, yes, you can't really expect anyone else to patch your custom software, can you? At least when you're modifying GPLed code you can very easily backport most security fixes to your in house version. It's not as if your custom VB database front-end is going to be patched my Microsoft.
2. Depending on your package patches come willy nilly, with no co-ordination. MS releases patches the second Tuesday of every month. This actually allows some type of planning.
It's called "get the security patch out as soon as possible so users aren't left running vulnerable systems". I can't believe you tried to make quick patch releases look *bad* when it's one of the most important benefits of running Linux. Planning? Does MS plan when a security hole will be found? No, so how can they plan when the patch will be released? They can't really do it, so instead they make you wait longer than you should have to.
you have products that are in "heavy development" with pretty serious point releases weekly or monthly... MS has one good thing going for it, in that for example I installed some Win2k Servers in mid 1999 that are still on the same OS install almost 6 years later. I installed some RedHat servers at the same time, and well needless to say, I've upgraded from RedHat 5.x a number of times since
Yes, but you don't need to install upgrades. All serious distros backport security fixes to older versions of the software so you can keep using it for many years. Heck, Debian stable, which gets kicked around for being so old, still has security fixes being applied to ancient (by Linux standards) software. There is no forced upgrade. You could have upgraded Windows 2000 to 2003, but you chose not to. You can also choose not to in Linux as well. Once difference is that if you do Upgrade Linux from a 1999 distro to a 2005 distro you'll get a massive amount of new functionality. The same can't be said for Win2000 vs. Win2003.
4. Patches for Linux, like Windows, still need to be tested in a production environment. Especially if you are running from a largely source built system
Tested, yes. You don't want to break functionality. Running a source-based system doesn't make a difference.
I admin a heavily customized web server that was built almost entirely from source...
If you are building a your own Linux (like LFS) system, then you must be prepared to do more on your own. That's why almost no one does it. Don't compare home-brew to MS, compare a big distro like RedHat, Suse or Debian to MS and you'll see that your highly customized distro problems go away. At least with Linux you have a choice and can opt to bulid your own system if you want to.
Utter nonsense, every word of it.
1. If you are actually using the fact that some package is open source and run a modified source tree you need someone to maintain that tree for you. You may have to fuss with patches, especially if large or if they affect areas you have customized.
Well, yes, you can't really expect anyone else to patch your custom software, can you? At least when you're modifying GPLed code you can very easily backport most security fixes to your in house version. It's not as if your custom VB database front-end is going to be patched my Microsoft.
2. Depending on your package patches come willy nilly, with no co-ordination. MS releases patches the second Tuesday of every month. This actually allows some type of planning.
It's called "get the security patch out as soon as possible so users aren't left running vulnerable systems". I can't believe you tried to make quick patch releases look *bad* when it's one of the most important benefits of running Linux. Planning? Does MS plan when a security hole will be found? No, so how can they plan when the patch will be released? They can't really do it, so instead they make you wait longer than you should have to.
you have products that are in "heavy development" with pretty serious point releases weekly or monthly... MS has one good thing going for it, in that for example I installed some Win2k Servers in mid 1999 that are still on the same OS install almost 6 years later. I installed some RedHat servers at the same time, and well needless to say, I've upgraded from RedHat 5.x a number of times since
Yes, but you don't need to install upgrades. All serious distros backport security fixes to older versions of the software so you can keep using it for many years. Heck, Debian stable, which gets kicked around for being so old, still has security fixes being applied to ancient (by Linux standards) software. There is no forced upgrade. You could have upgraded Windows 2000 to 2003, but you chose not to. You can also choose not to in Linux as well. Once difference is that if you do Upgrade Linux from a 1999 distro to a 2005 distro you'll get a massive amount of new functionality. The same can't be said for Win2000 vs. Win2003.
Re:Microsoft and Crack
Re:Microsoft and Crack (Score:2, Interesting)
by danheskett (178529) Alter Relationship on Friday May 20, @09:00AM (#12588104)
Patching open source is easy and does not need to be done as often
This isn't always true!
1. If you are actually using the fact that some package is open source and run a modified source tree you need someone to maintain that tree for you. You may have to fuss with patches, especially if large or if they affect areas you have customized.
2. Depending on your package patches come willy nilly, with no co-ordination. MS releases patches the second Tuesday of every month. This actually allows some type of planning.
3. Depending on your package patches may come in series: three patches in three days, for example. I have never figured this out, but its almost like the attitude is, "well, while we are here". Additionally, you have products that are in "heavy development" with pretty serious point releases weekly or monthly. This really sucks if you are working against product. Do you wait and just upgrade once a year or every two years, or do you keep on the treadmill? MS has one good thing going for it, in that for example I installed some Win2k Servers in mid 1999 that are still on the same OS install almost 6 years later. I installed some RedHat servers at the same time, and well needless to say, I've upgraded from RedHat 5.x a number of times since:)
4. Patches for Linux, like Windows, still need to be tested in a production environment. Especially if you are running from a largely source built system
Tested, yes. You don't want to break functionality. Running a source-based system doesn't make a difference.
I admin a heavily customized web server that was built almost entirely from source...
If you are bui
"You can hire windows admins on the cheap. To get Unix admins will cost more if you want someone that knows what they are doing. I wonder if they take the cost of knowledgable staff into the equation."
Any company that hires unknowledgable sysadmins deserves the trouble they are going to get. Just because it's more obvious to click a couple of buttons than run a couple of commands (I wouldn't say it's easier) doesn't mean your sysadmin shouldn't know any more about the computer.
When you hire competent admins for Windows or *nix you are paying them the same anyway.
"isn't this a (sic) unfair trade move by the Chinese government"
No. They are just creating a policy for how government buys software. They aren't disallowing any Chinese businesses or people from buying US or other software. I can't see how this affects the economy at all. The Chinese government big enough.
"Nintendo never gives what I call "pissing contest" specs, even when asked for them."
That's because it's been *years* since they've been in the technological lead. They used to tout the SNES' scaling and rotation over the Genesis every chance they could. Even with the N64 they constantly talked about their fog effect even though it was really nothing more than a way to hide the system's horrible performance at drawing scenes at a distance (where you could see the background being drawn in on racing games, for instance).
Nintendo still makes a great system with some great games, but they just don't compete with Sony or MS technology. They have to win with great games.
1) Atari 2600 - no 2) NES - no (unless you rip off the hinged cover) 3) Master System - no 4) Vectrex - no 5) TuboGraphix 16 - yes (i think... cards slid in the front) 6) Genesis - no 7) SNES - no 6) Jaguar - no 8) Neo Geo - no 9) PSX - no 10 Saturn - no 11) N64 - no 12) PS2 - no 13) Dreamcast - no 14) GameCube - no 15) Xbox - no 16) PS3 - no 17) Xbox 2 - no
I am missing a few, like 3DO and that Panasonic CDROM system that came out before SegaCD, but I think I got all the mainstream systems.
Everybody said the same thing when they first got a look at the PSX controllers, too. It was crazy... the traditional D-pad was replaced by four buttons! How absurd!
Sony kept the same controller around for two console generations so you know they're not the type of company to come out with a new design just because there is a new console. They probably did hundreds of hours of user testing.
The way we're going, we may soon see a knowledge divide that makes the digital divide irrelevant. Evolution and other "controversial" science is just the beginning.
Adults from different regions will be separated by a giant chasm between their intellect as most are taught by a progressive, science-friendly system (or as much as the education system can be) while the remainder are led to believe in nonscience "theories" that do much more to please religious leaders and believers than to satisfy an iota of truth.
The knowledge divide will be noticable in geographic quantities as large swarms of the populace have been completely left behind. People from Kansas will have no hope of competing in any meaningful way with people from California, for instance. There will be a third vs. first world mentality and it will be what tears us apart.
Web server security is already at acceptable levels for both Apache and IIS, so long as new patches are applied when they become available.
The problem with insecure web sites is that the apps themselves are the biggest security threats. It's been three years since I've heard of anybody I know actually becoming a victim of a web server security hole, but in the last year I can think of seven separate occasions where a web app has allowed somebody to deface and/or take control of a web site.
In the end it doesn't really matter if anybody hacks this IIS server since it's not the easiest or most common way to deface a site anyway.
Not only could we in North America find our internet experience censored, but the majority of our peers would support it.
The government would just say they were censoring child porn and terrorist web sites and everybody would be ok with it. Then they'd say they are censoring hate literature web sites and everybody would be ok with it. Then they'd say they were censoring unAmerican web sites and everybody would go along with it because they don't want to be unAmerican. Then, they'll be living in China.
"Malkovich? Smallville? *These* are what he thinks are the paramount of Sci-Fi? This guy needs his head checked!"
What he's saying is that scifi space shoot-em-ups and space adventures died long ago in the world of scifi novels, but television and movies took a long time to catch up. Now that they are catching up (Malkovich, Smallville, Lost, etc) there is no need for the shallow space stories of yore.
I had never thought of it that way, but he's right in many ways. While I don't think space adventures should die, meaningless stories such as Star Trek are wearing thin on me and I prefer stories with deeper plots.
I think it's about time more scifi fans began to think of the genre as something other than what Trek has defined.
FWIW, I never thought of Malkovich or Sunshine as scifi either, but I will go back and watch them again with a different perspective.
Re:This Doesn't Change Much
on
Sarge is Now Frozen
·
· Score: 2, Informative
According to them it is.
Quote: "Keep the Ubuntu installer in sync with the Debian installer as much as we can, and feed back relevant changes. Develop new installer features, in cooperation with Debian and with the other groups using d-i."
"They are now propriatary software developers, and it is immoral to support ubunto because of it, unfortunatly."
So is it also immoral to support Suse because Novell has some proprietary products? Or IBM, even though they make huge contributions to the Linux kernel, because they are primarily a proprietary software vendor?
The original nine books in the series. I believe they were all pulled from the shelves once they realized how big Ep. 4 was going to be, so as not to dilute their movie revenue.
I'm not sure if they were ever released again, nor who the author is.
# Amidahla, who in Ep 1 was "queen", talking in Ep 2 about how wonderful democracy is
She was an elected Queen, just as the Ep 2 Queen was elected. Just because she's not called President or something similar doesn't mean it's not democracy.
# The "evil trade empire" made up of aliens with pronounced asian accents
So, pronounced American accents would have been so much more realistic, because that's how aliens speak?
# The Jedi, who are supposed to be very very smart, attacking into what is completely obviously a trap
The dark side clouds their vision, as is oft repeated. That's how Palpatine and Dooku keep their plans hidden. Besides, the Jedi still had to save Padme, Obi-Wan and Anakin somehow and they knew the clones were on their way.
# The dialog between Annakin and Amidalhla that left me wanting to puke.
Fair enough, but they have to fall in love somehow and without turning the whole movie into a romance it had to be rushed. It's unfortunate that their love is so pivotal to the story, yet not interesting enough to be its own movie so it can be properly told.
The following is *not* an informative comment by radtea from the previous story. I wrote this just now. Really.
What these guys have done is found a novel application of a relatively well-known means of generating extremely high electric fields. This is good, and may produce more compact, robust neutron generators than we currently have.
But it is clear from the article--and the basic physics--that this isn't a practical means of generating fusion power. This is just another hot fusion mechanism--it isn't "room temperature". The deuterium ions from the gas discharge are accelerated by the field and smash into the ErD surface with high energies.
The interaction cross-sections are such that virtually all of the D ions will slow down without fusing, and the energy that went into accelerating them will be only recoverable as heat, with the usual thermodynamic (in)efficiencies. The DD fusion cross-section just isn't high enough to overcome those losses.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to work in a party supply store and had a lady who was looking at our plates, which are available in plastic or paper. She asked me if we had any clear paper plates just like the clear plastic ones.
I told her we were all out of them, not being mean, but knowing that if I said there is no such thing as clear paper plates I would have had to argue with her about it.
Java fanboys notwithstanding, I don't know a single person who likes running Java apps on their system. Slow load times and a huge VM size aren't desirable to most people.
If it's already available in Theora and Xvid, why on Earth would anybody want to choose a format like Fluendo that is hardly known? A *lot* of people disable Java because along with Javascript it's likely to become the next big attack vector to target browsers cross platform. Unlike Javascript, Java malware is more likely to work cross-browser because VMs don't differ as much as browser Javascript vulnerabilities.
So Mozilla should give RedHat preferential treatment? If they hold back a patch to wait for RedHat, don't they also have to wait for Suse? Debian? Everybody else?
Holding back patches is nonsense and is something Slashdotters regularly blast Microsoft for doing.
Crap, sorry about the lack of line breaks. Here it is fixed
... MS has one good thing going for it, in that for example I installed some Win2k Servers in mid 1999 that are still on the same OS install almost 6 years later. I installed some RedHat servers at the same time, and well needless to say, I've upgraded from RedHat 5.x a number of times since
Utter nonsense, every word of it.
1. If you are actually using the fact that some package is open source and run a modified source tree you need someone to maintain that tree for you. You may have to fuss with patches, especially if large or if they affect areas you have customized.
Well, yes, you can't really expect anyone else to patch your custom software, can you? At least when you're modifying GPLed code you can very easily backport most security fixes to your in house version. It's not as if your custom VB database front-end is going to be patched my Microsoft.
2. Depending on your package patches come willy nilly, with no co-ordination. MS releases patches the second Tuesday of every month. This actually allows some type of planning.
It's called "get the security patch out as soon as possible so users aren't left running vulnerable systems". I can't believe you tried to make quick patch releases look *bad* when it's one of the most important benefits of running Linux. Planning? Does MS plan when a security hole will be found? No, so how can they plan when the patch will be released? They can't really do it, so instead they make you wait longer than you should have to.
you have products that are in "heavy development" with pretty serious point releases weekly or monthly
Yes, but you don't need to install upgrades. All serious distros backport security fixes to older versions of the software so you can keep using it for many years. Heck, Debian stable, which gets kicked around for being so old, still has security fixes being applied to ancient (by Linux standards) software. There is no forced upgrade. You could have upgraded Windows 2000 to 2003, but you chose not to. You can also choose not to in Linux as well. Once difference is that if you do Upgrade Linux from a 1999 distro to a 2005 distro you'll get a massive amount of new functionality. The same can't be said for Win2000 vs. Win2003.
4. Patches for Linux, like Windows, still need to be tested in a production environment. Especially if you are running from a largely source built system
Tested, yes. You don't want to break functionality. Running a source-based system doesn't make a difference.
I admin a heavily customized web server that was built almost entirely from source...
If you are building a your own Linux (like LFS) system, then you must be prepared to do more on your own. That's why almost no one does it. Don't compare home-brew to MS, compare a big distro like RedHat, Suse or Debian to MS and you'll see that your highly customized distro problems go away. At least with Linux you have a choice and can opt to bulid your own system if you want to.
Utter nonsense, every word of it. 1. If you are actually using the fact that some package is open source and run a modified source tree you need someone to maintain that tree for you. You may have to fuss with patches, especially if large or if they affect areas you have customized. Well, yes, you can't really expect anyone else to patch your custom software, can you? At least when you're modifying GPLed code you can very easily backport most security fixes to your in house version. It's not as if your custom VB database front-end is going to be patched my Microsoft. 2. Depending on your package patches come willy nilly, with no co-ordination. MS releases patches the second Tuesday of every month. This actually allows some type of planning. It's called "get the security patch out as soon as possible so users aren't left running vulnerable systems". I can't believe you tried to make quick patch releases look *bad* when it's one of the most important benefits of running Linux. Planning? Does MS plan when a security hole will be found? No, so how can they plan when the patch will be released? They can't really do it, so instead they make you wait longer than you should have to. you have products that are in "heavy development" with pretty serious point releases weekly or monthly ... MS has one good thing going for it, in that for example I installed some Win2k Servers in mid 1999 that are still on the same OS install almost 6 years later. I installed some RedHat servers at the same time, and well needless to say, I've upgraded from RedHat 5.x a number of times since
Yes, but you don't need to install upgrades. All serious distros backport security fixes to older versions of the software so you can keep using it for many years. Heck, Debian stable, which gets kicked around for being so old, still has security fixes being applied to ancient (by Linux standards) software. There is no forced upgrade. You could have upgraded Windows 2000 to 2003, but you chose not to. You can also choose not to in Linux as well. Once difference is that if you do Upgrade Linux from a 1999 distro to a 2005 distro you'll get a massive amount of new functionality. The same can't be said for Win2000 vs. Win2003.
Re:Microsoft and Crack
Re:Microsoft and Crack (Score:2, Interesting)
by danheskett (178529) Alter Relationship on Friday May 20, @09:00AM (#12588104)
Patching open source is easy and does not need to be done as often
This isn't always true!
1. If you are actually using the fact that some package is open source and run a modified source tree you need someone to maintain that tree for you. You may have to fuss with patches, especially if large or if they affect areas you have customized.
2. Depending on your package patches come willy nilly, with no co-ordination. MS releases patches the second Tuesday of every month. This actually allows some type of planning.
3. Depending on your package patches may come in series: three patches in three days, for example. I have never figured this out, but its almost like the attitude is, "well, while we are here". Additionally, you have products that are in "heavy development" with pretty serious point releases weekly or monthly. This really sucks if you are working against product. Do you wait and just upgrade once a year or every two years, or do you keep on the treadmill? MS has one good thing going for it, in that for example I installed some Win2k Servers in mid 1999 that are still on the same OS install almost 6 years later. I installed some RedHat servers at the same time, and well needless to say, I've upgraded from RedHat 5.x a number of times since :)
4. Patches for Linux, like Windows, still need to be tested in a production environment. Especially if you are running from a largely source built system
Tested, yes. You don't want to break functionality. Running a source-based system doesn't make a difference.
I admin a heavily customized web server that was built almost entirely from source...
If you are bui
"You can hire windows admins on the cheap. To get Unix admins will cost more if you want someone that knows what they are doing. I wonder if they take the cost of knowledgable staff into the equation."
Any company that hires unknowledgable sysadmins deserves the trouble they are going to get. Just because it's more obvious to click a couple of buttons than run a couple of commands (I wouldn't say it's easier) doesn't mean your sysadmin shouldn't know any more about the computer.
When you hire competent admins for Windows or *nix you are paying them the same anyway.
It's mildly disturbing that your 'aliens' option is the most probable.
"isn't this a (sic) unfair trade move by the Chinese government"
No. They are just creating a policy for how government buys software. They aren't disallowing any Chinese businesses or people from buying US or other software. I can't see how this affects the economy at all. The Chinese government big enough.
Oops, yeah I meant to say 'yes' for the PS2, but got carried away with the 'nos'.
:)
As for the 3DO date, gimme a break it was twelve years ago and I was happy to just have a Genesis with 'blast processing'
"Nintendo never gives what I call "pissing contest" specs, even when asked for them."
That's because it's been *years* since they've been in the technological lead. They used to tout the SNES' scaling and rotation over the Genesis every chance they could. Even with the N64 they constantly talked about their fog effect even though it was really nothing more than a way to hide the system's horrible performance at drawing scenes at a distance (where you could see the background being drawn in on racing games, for instance).
Nintendo still makes a great system with some great games, but they just don't compete with Sony or MS technology. They have to win with great games.
Stackable systems:
1) Atari 2600 - no
2) NES - no (unless you rip off the hinged cover)
3) Master System - no
4) Vectrex - no
5) TuboGraphix 16 - yes (i think... cards slid in the front)
6) Genesis - no
7) SNES - no
6) Jaguar - no
8) Neo Geo - no
9) PSX - no
10 Saturn - no
11) N64 - no
12) PS2 - no
13) Dreamcast - no
14) GameCube - no
15) Xbox - no
16) PS3 - no
17) Xbox 2 - no
I am missing a few, like 3DO and that Panasonic CDROM system that came out before SegaCD, but I think I got all the mainstream systems.
Everybody said the same thing when they first got a look at the PSX controllers, too. It was crazy... the traditional D-pad was replaced by four buttons! How absurd!
Sony kept the same controller around for two console generations so you know they're not the type of company to come out with a new design just because there is a new console. They probably did hundreds of hours of user testing.
The way we're going, we may soon see a knowledge divide that makes the digital divide irrelevant. Evolution and other "controversial" science is just the beginning.
Adults from different regions will be separated by a giant chasm between their intellect as most are taught by a progressive, science-friendly system (or as much as the education system can be) while the remainder are led to believe in nonscience "theories" that do much more to please religious leaders and believers than to satisfy an iota of truth.
The knowledge divide will be noticable in geographic quantities as large swarms of the populace have been completely left behind. People from Kansas will have no hope of competing in any meaningful way with people from California, for instance. There will be a third vs. first world mentality and it will be what tears us apart.
Web server security is already at acceptable levels for both Apache and IIS, so long as new patches are applied when they become available.
The problem with insecure web sites is that the apps themselves are the biggest security threats. It's been three years since I've heard of anybody I know actually becoming a victim of a web server security hole, but in the last year I can think of seven separate occasions where a web app has allowed somebody to deface and/or take control of a web site.
In the end it doesn't really matter if anybody hacks this IIS server since it's not the easiest or most common way to deface a site anyway.
Not only could we in North America find our internet experience censored, but the majority of our peers would support it.
The government would just say they were censoring child porn and terrorist web sites and everybody would be ok with it. Then they'd say they are censoring hate literature web sites and everybody would be ok with it. Then they'd say they were censoring unAmerican web sites and everybody would go along with it because they don't want to be unAmerican. Then, they'll be living in China.
"Malkovich? Smallville? *These* are what he thinks are the paramount of Sci-Fi? This guy needs his head checked!"
What he's saying is that scifi space shoot-em-ups and space adventures died long ago in the world of scifi novels, but television and movies took a long time to catch up. Now that they are catching up (Malkovich, Smallville, Lost, etc) there is no need for the shallow space stories of yore.
I had never thought of it that way, but he's right in many ways. While I don't think space adventures should die, meaningless stories such as Star Trek are wearing thin on me and I prefer stories with deeper plots.
I think it's about time more scifi fans began to think of the genre as something other than what Trek has defined.
FWIW, I never thought of Malkovich or Sunshine as scifi either, but I will go back and watch them again with a different perspective.
According to them it is. Quote: "Keep the Ubuntu installer in sync with the Debian installer as much as we can, and feed back relevant changes. Develop new installer features, in cooperation with Debian and with the other groups using d-i."
Windows knows more about rebooting than everybody else combined. Your truck and Windows sounds like a match made in heaven.
That's where Jimmy Hoffa is.
"They are now propriatary software developers, and it is immoral to support ubunto because of it, unfortunatly."
So is it also immoral to support Suse because Novell has some proprietary products? Or IBM, even though they make huge contributions to the Linux kernel, because they are primarily a proprietary software vendor?
Ubuntu is still FOSS.
The original nine books in the series. I believe they were all pulled from the shelves once they realized how big Ep. 4 was going to be, so as not to dilute their movie revenue.
I'm not sure if they were ever released again, nor who the author is.
RTFA. Anakin does go around and kill the Jedi. Obviously, they aren't going to show every slaughter, but enough that you know what's going on.
# Amidahla, who in Ep 1 was "queen", talking in Ep 2 about how wonderful democracy is
She was an elected Queen, just as the Ep 2 Queen was elected. Just because she's not called President or something similar doesn't mean it's not democracy.
# The "evil trade empire" made up of aliens with pronounced asian accents
So, pronounced American accents would have been so much more realistic, because that's how aliens speak?
# The Jedi, who are supposed to be very very smart, attacking into what is completely obviously a trap
The dark side clouds their vision, as is oft repeated. That's how Palpatine and Dooku keep their plans hidden. Besides, the Jedi still had to save Padme, Obi-Wan and Anakin somehow and they knew the clones were on their way.
# The dialog between Annakin and Amidalhla that left me wanting to puke.
Fair enough, but they have to fall in love somehow and without turning the whole movie into a romance it had to be rushed. It's unfortunate that their love is so pivotal to the story, yet not interesting enough to be its own movie so it can be properly told.
The book the movie is based on was written in the 70's.
The following is *not* an informative comment by radtea from the previous story. I wrote this just now. Really.
What these guys have done is found a novel application of a relatively well-known means of generating extremely high electric fields. This is good, and may produce more compact, robust neutron generators than we currently have.
But it is clear from the article--and the basic physics--that this isn't a practical means of generating fusion power. This is just another hot fusion mechanism--it isn't "room temperature". The deuterium ions from the gas discharge are accelerated by the field and smash into the ErD surface with high energies.
The interaction cross-sections are such that virtually all of the D ions will slow down without fusing, and the energy that went into accelerating them will be only recoverable as heat, with the usual thermodynamic (in)efficiencies. The DD fusion cross-section just isn't high enough to overcome those losses.
Cool experiment, though.