I suggest you look at Apples sales numbers. I dboubt that Jobs is shaking at all. Planning yes. Shaking I doubt it. It is hard to be terrified when your sales are up and you have Billions in the bank.
"Assuming you're not kidding, there are two major problems with this approach. The first is a matter of morality: "bomb your enemies from orbit until their land is clear of any buildings, population, dogs, pine cones, or ants" may be a lot of fun in a game, but in real life it's mass murder on a scale that not even the most bloody-minded conquerors in history have ever attempted, and that is really not a contest any sane nation wants to win." Okay let me put this in perspective. These conventional ICBMs are not for taking out cities. You can do that much cheaper with B1's, B52s, and B2's armed with air fuel exposives. The US wouldn't do that honestly because the US people wouldn't stand for mass murder on that scale. What conventional ICBMs do give the US is a none nuclear option for really bad situations. Say North Korea builds an ICBM and puts a nuke on it and threatens the US. The US would have the option to take it out in less than 30 minutes with say a 500 lbs slug of tungsten carbide moving at 18,000 MPH. And yes that could even take out a missile in a silo. No need to nuke North Korea to protect LA or Hawaii.
The danger is that they could be used to destabilize the balance of power between the US and Russia. Right now Russia has a good number of mobile ICBMs but they keep them at a base. Also they keep more than 50% of their SLBMs in port at any one time. In theory the US could use a large number of conventional ICBMs to take out 50% of the SLBMs, a good number of the mobile ICBMS, an most of the Russian Bomber force all without using a single nuke! So with a "conventional first strike" the US could really cut down an the number of warheads that Russia could retaliate with all with out expending a single nuclear weapon. The US would never do that or probably even think of doing it because that would push Russia into a corner and could cause them to launch a nuclear strike. However just how tempting would it be if tensions start to rise and our satellites show Russia getting ready to put their subs out to see and move their mobile ICBMs out of garrison? The Russians have to think of the possibility that the US would use those weapons on Russia. And yes it is a threat to them. Frankly I can see the benefits but man they scare the daylights out of me. These could be really destabilizing weapons if built in quantity.
"The US is unquestionably stronger militarily than any other country, but we aren't stronger than everybody, and this is a good thing. " Actually the US is probably stronger than all the other counties put together. And the US was with out a doubt stronger than the rest of the world combined from 1945 to about 1960 and probably right up to 1965. The US really doesn't want to conquer the world and never has. The US was the only Nuclear power from 1945 to 1949 at all. The US military in 1945 was so far ahead of every other in the world it just was not funny. For years after the war the US had to extend Lend Lease to help the UK survive. Europe was living off the Marshall plan, and Japan was an occupied nation. The only nation that was a remote threat to the US militarily was Russia and it's cities where just a few B-29 silver plate missions away from being smoking holes in the ground. The simple truth is that if the US had wanted to take over the world in 1945 nobody could have stopped it. As one historian put it. "In the history of the world there has never been a nation with the power and position that US had at the end of World War II. The US could have enslaved the world and nobody could have stopped them. Yet they decided to try and build a world in their image by rebuild their enemies and treating them with kindness and dignity." The only reason that there isn't an American Empire is because that is not what America wanted.
We like to shut down our PCs at night to save power which it will do even with modern power management. Also I find Windows boxes tend to slow down the longer they go between reboots. Funny thing is that my windows box doesn't tend to do that. It is an interesting option even then. It wouldn't be all that hard to reconfigure each machine to reboot from the network just in case. What we tend to do is keep a Linux CD and or Flash drive handy just in case. That allows us to boot into Linux and access the HD from Linux to fix corrupt files and such. We actually average less than three "infections" a year at our office. For the most part we lock down the support staffs web access, we use a Linux based firewall, we have a virus scanner on our email server, and we do not allow any executables as email attachments. That combined with a fairly tech savy user base means that we do not have anywhere near the infection rate that other offices our size have.
I work at a small development firm so 90% of the people at the firm are techs so we need very little in management. My question is if it goes to boot from network first doesn't that take a while to time out and got into a regular boot? Just wondering how much time that adds to the initial boot. Over all I can see how this is really a life saver for a firm in this situation. The fun of pushing 1000 images over the network is just too much for me to even think about but I can see the value.
Okay I work at a small firm so we don't have the problems or the tools to deal with the problems that you would have dealing with a thousand PCs. But how do you just reimage a PC remotely when the OS will not even boot? I can only assume that you can buy PCs that have some advanced management tools built into the BIOS. "and as all campus data was kept on centralized servers then you should have lost no data," That would be nice and ideal but how hard is it to enforce in practice? I would think enforcing strict policies like that on a university campus would be like herding cats. Yes for the Administration system it should be a piece of cake but what about systems in research labs?
Even with all of your suggestions sort of the testing of the antivirus update this is still a nightmare. I mean even in a small hospital you could be dealing with hundreds or thousands of systems that you would have to get back up and running. While testing updates really should be a matter of course I am not sure that many people do that with antivirus signature files.
What I still don't get is this. Why is it so easy to modify a critical OS system file! I mean really shouldn't it be just about impossible for any program to delete or modify system files? If we could fix that little issue it would do wonders for the security of most PCs.
If you have a box running so you can use the VPro client software. Actually VPro looks very cool. The question is how do you get it? Seems like it must be built into the system at the motherboard or bios level.
maybe you should put a Linux partition on all of the boxes with some remote access software? Not actually trying to be a smart ass but if you could do that then it might have been possible to fix the issue remotely. I am not sure since my office has a small network and we didn't have the problem. I would think that it should be possible to replace the missing file and disable the anti virus or maybe replace the definitions file remotely. Most modern Linux distros can mount NTFS partitions.
Of course right now the idea of light clients and Windows terminal services probably doesn't sound so bad!
"Well PBMR have similar containment structures proposed " Chernobyl had No containment building at all. Russia used to say that their reactors where so safe that there was no need of containment buildings. Truth was that was cheaper. Pebble bed reactors are very different from Chernobyl. Pebble bed reactors are thermally stable. Also the there are no PBMRs yet in service. So why bring them up at all since it is a clear red herring. Also the AP-1000 is totally different design from Chernobyl as well in every way. The new containment building has passed all reviews and is the result of decades of operating experience. In other words nice effort at trying to confuse the issue. "Systemic failures occurred at Three Mile Island, what's the difference as long as humans are involved in the process." And nobody died at TMI because of all the safety systems involved. In fact at TMI almost every error that could be made was and there was no deaths. No large spike in Cancer in the area that you could attribute to the accident. Most studies put the "possible" increase in cancers deaths as 1/2 of a death. In other words there is a 50% chance that somebody died from that accident. Far fewer deaths than where caused by cars in the same time period. While I would that to be zero deaths it is frankly fewer deaths that have happened at the power plant in my home town. They lost there people putting Christmas decorations on the smoke stacks one year. It is also probably less deaths than the wind and solar industry had over the same time period from falls. since both those industries have the danger of heights.
"Well considering we are talking about *groundwater* contamination with radioactive isotopes "downwind" is not really relevant."
radiation load is radiation load. Your body doesn't care where it comes from. Frankly tritium in not super dangerous. It is a weak beta emitter and does not stay in your body for very long at all. It doesn't accurate in the biosphere. Coal often contains radioactive isotopes of Phosphorus. Since Phosphorus is biologically active it far more dangerous. Of course even "natural" sources of Phosphorus are radioactive. That is just how it is and how it always has been. BTW the "safe" limt for tritium in the US is right around 1/10 that set by Canada and WHO. So frankly that leak and contamination is a tempest in a tea pot. Considering the high level of background radiation in Vermont anyway it is really is a drop in the bucket. Vermont has huge granite deposits that are a source of Radon. So step by step. 1. Chernobyl was a terrible design from the start. It lacked a containment building and was thermally unstable. The only thing to learn from Chernobyl was don't throw out the western safety regulations we have had for decades. 2. TMI actually showed that the safety systems worked.
Fear of nuclear power is based on a lack of knowledge and unreasoning fear. The problem is that people will use tricks to try and mislead. Just like the the post I am replying to tired.
Well you have many details wrong. 1. ICBMs do reach speeds not far below orbital velocities and some do look up FOBBS. 2. ICBMs do have heatsheilds.Well the RVs do anyway.
Actually the idea of using a winged system like this does have some merit and the USAF has looked into it back in the late 60s and early 70s. In theory you could have this reach a much lower altitude than an ICBM which would give you less time where you are over the horizon so the enemy would have less time to reach. Also this test vehical looks like it has the same 1000 mi cross range ability as the shuttle so yes it could look like it was going one place and then at the last minute turn and hit a different target But I do not see it being used for that.
No to your idea about it as a sabotage. There is no way they would risk using this to deorbit or steal a satellite. It is to easy to put a self destruct on a satellite and take out this space UAV. This critter is not cheap to launch.
So what could they use it for besides research? Simple as a space bomber quick strike weapon. The 9 month parking time means you can put it into orbit and leave it there for a long time. It will just sit there waiting. If you do not need it it de orbits and brings it's warhead home to be reused. After all you don't want a warhead to just come down someplace when it gets old do you? Somebody gets out of line? You just drop one of these bad boys on there head. The crowbar or telephone pole from space kinetic kill weapon can take out a launch silo, ship, or just about any hard target you want all without any warhead at all. A nice targeted 1000lbs slug of tungsten carbide at 18,000 mph will really ruin your day. You could pack a few different weapons maybe a few 20KG small ones for ships or mobile missle launchers and a big one for high value targets.
'but large fonts support still breaks lots of applications, even popular ones. Try using large fonts with Trillian or many Adobe products." Then those apps are BROKEN! Really folks don't give application programmers a pass for broken apps just because they used to work! And yes I am an Application programmer and it is a PITA to make it work but it can be done. That is why we get paid the big bucks.
Not really since people living downwind of coal fired power plants receive more radiation than people living downwind of nuclear powered plants.
Any yes I am leaving out those that lived near Chernobyl. That plant was a disaster from stop to bottom. It is a design that would never have been built in the West and never run the way that it was in the USSR. Bring up Chernobyl went talking about western nuclear power plants is as out of place and clueless as bring up the Titanic as a reason to not take a Caribbean cruise or the Hindenburg as a reason to not fly on a 767.
Well if I was building any type of military satellite I would include a self destruct or anti-tamper device. The shuttle already had the ability to grab a satellite and showed it a few times with US ones. If you any classified type of device in orbit and you saw a US anything getting close just set it with a proximity / time fuse. Boom.. I am sorry there must have been a fault in that. We had no idea that you would have your shuttle close to it! And why was that BTW?
But Apple could get first crack and new cores and Apple could get a lot of input on the cores as well. Think Microsoft and Office? And didn't you see how Intel got hit with an anti-trust case?
This could be seen are really damaging to compilation and it really should be.
What it does come down to is that they had an agreement. You have no right to force people to think they way you do. I have an idea let's forbid them from teaching their silly creation myth at all. Heck just take their kids away and put them in boarding schools so we can teach them science and math and how to fit into the modern world.... That was tried and not all that long ago folks. In this case I think you need to take a look at the historical context. 99% of the time I think the old saw of the white mans guilt is BS but in this case it seems like such a case of history repeating it's self that it just isn't funny. These are people not lab animals after all and should have the right to have some control of what research is done on them. Ignore the creation myth part and just think about this. The tribe claims that the samples where used for research they did not agree too. That is all that matters in this case.
"On the other hand, every time I here a "waaah, cry cry, science is being mean to my bullshit creation myths, mommy make it stop!" "
Dang right now dare a Native American tribe be upset when researchers don't honor the agreements they made with the tribe! They should trust that is is for their own good and will help them in the end. Oh and they should just give up their beliefs and and got on with life. Really have they learned nothing from history!
Actually I have to find it a little amusing that they where upset to find out the researchers didn't keep there agreement. I mean really does any tribe really expect that any agreement they sign will be honored? And just how can any researcher NOT honor an agreement with a Native American tribe and sleep at night? I mean ignoring their wishes and beliefs for their own good? Because you know better than they do? Usually I am the first to say that the concept of "white mans guilt" is stupid and abused but really in this case it seems like they must be from another planet?.
Kind of reminds me of that STNG when they are asked to relocate some Native Americans from a Planet and you can just see the character of Picard thinking, "You want me to do what???"
Not that I know of. But have you looked at the Beagleboard? Not a MiniITX but a handy device for many projects. There is an expansion board to add a network connection of you can use an USB network adaptor.
Re:Buying ARM for a leg?
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Except that unfortunately Apple doesn't have the market share necessary for anti trust to kick in." But ARM does.
But ARM does have have a near monopoly on the processor cores used in smart phones and a HUGE percentage of the embedded processor market with it's cores. What keeps regulators away is the fact that ARM is a fabless company that has a very liberal licensing program. If Apple tries to buy them then I see the regulators going nuts.
Simple. There is a HUGE segment of the population that doesn't need anymore graphics capability than what even the crappy Intel integrated graphics offer. The current offerings are much better. Here is the maximum graphics requirement for about 80% of all Windows PCs. Will it playback 1080p video. And that is the maximum they require.
A lot of people never play any video game that is more graphically intensive than Plants vs Zombies. A lot of people never play any video better than what is on Youtube.
Think all the PCs that are ill the offices in the world. Integrated graphics is good enough the vast majority of them. Even on the highest end system in may office that we use for development system we can get by with any video card that can drive two good sized monitors. We do not need high end graphics cards for any of our systems and integrated graphics are just fine for most of them.
Intergrated graphics from ATI and nVidia are actually pretty good and can even do some light gaming. The i3 and i7s that I have tested seem to be much better than what Intel used to provide and seem to be good enough. Enthusiast systems like what I have at home to play FSX are a small minority of the PC market. Also the GPU on the CPU could also be used for things like Physics simulation in the game if you have a graphics card installed so even then it could be used. Odds are that gamers will get the ultra high end quads and they will not have IG on the die anyway.
1. It will not be as sturdy as the ipad. 2. It will not run as long on batteries. 3. It will not have the touch screen interface. Over all it just will not be as convent or as good of a tool for this job. You could also get a desktop and mount it in your car and run it off an inverter. Wait a while and you will find Linux tablets soon that will compete with the iPad. Or you could get and Nokia tablet or an Archos tablet that will better fit the task and both run Free OSs
I would say art is any beautiful act of creation. So is a piece of music a work of art or is a performance of the work a piece of art? Or are both examples of art. What about the Golden Gate Bridge, the Handcock building, or the Parthenon? To me the Saturn V, Supermarine Spitfire, and the Lockheed SR-71 are all works of art but I know an artist that disagrees because as she said, "their form is dictated by their function". I tend to see that as just working within the limitations of your medium.
Now I will say that I do not classify most video games as great art. In fact I would put 99.999% of them in the classification of commercial art but yes they are still art.
Now the big question is can any video game reach the level of what we call high art? So far the closest I feel we have come would would be maybe Myst for visuals, the works of Infocom in for writing quality, and honestly Tetris. As far and an abstract construct that really seems to resonate with everybody on the planet Tetris has got to be a stand out. If nothing else it has become a classic that I wouldn't shocked to see people playing 100 years from now.
Slashdot Mirror
But it could have been damaged by the environment. The thermal cycling is pretty extreme on the moon.
I suggest you look at Apples sales numbers. I dboubt that Jobs is shaking at all.
Planning yes. Shaking I doubt it. It is hard to be terrified when your sales are up and you have Billions in the bank.
"Assuming you're not kidding, there are two major problems with this approach. The first is a matter of morality: "bomb your enemies from orbit until their land is clear of any buildings, population, dogs, pine cones, or ants" may be a lot of fun in a game, but in real life it's mass murder on a scale that not even the most bloody-minded conquerors in history have ever attempted, and that is really not a contest any sane nation wants to win."
Okay let me put this in perspective. These conventional ICBMs are not for taking out cities. You can do that much cheaper with B1's, B52s, and B2's armed with air fuel exposives. The US wouldn't do that honestly because the US people wouldn't stand for mass murder on that scale.
What conventional ICBMs do give the US is a none nuclear option for really bad situations.
Say North Korea builds an ICBM and puts a nuke on it and threatens the US. The US would have the option to take it out in less than 30 minutes with say a 500 lbs slug of tungsten carbide moving at 18,000 MPH. And yes that could even take out a missile in a silo. No need to nuke North Korea to protect LA or Hawaii.
The danger is that they could be used to destabilize the balance of power between the US and Russia.
Right now Russia has a good number of mobile ICBMs but they keep them at a base. Also they keep more than 50% of their SLBMs in port at any one time.
In theory the US could use a large number of conventional ICBMs to take out 50% of the SLBMs, a good number of the mobile ICBMS, an most of the Russian Bomber force all without using a single nuke!
So with a "conventional first strike" the US could really cut down an the number of warheads that Russia could retaliate with all with out expending a single nuclear weapon.
The US would never do that or probably even think of doing it because that would push Russia into a corner and could cause them to launch a nuclear strike.
However just how tempting would it be if tensions start to rise and our satellites show Russia getting ready to put their subs out to see and move their mobile ICBMs out of garrison?
The Russians have to think of the possibility that the US would use those weapons on Russia. And yes it is a threat to them. Frankly I can see the benefits but man they scare the daylights out of me. These could be really destabilizing weapons if built in quantity.
"The US is unquestionably stronger militarily than any other country, but we aren't stronger than everybody, and this is a good thing. "
Actually the US is probably stronger than all the other counties put together.
And the US was with out a doubt stronger than the rest of the world combined from 1945 to about 1960 and probably right up to 1965.
The US really doesn't want to conquer the world and never has. The US was the only Nuclear power from 1945 to 1949 at all. The US military in 1945 was so far ahead of every other in the world it just was not funny. For years after the war the US had to extend Lend Lease to help the UK survive. Europe was living off the Marshall plan, and Japan was an occupied nation.
The only nation that was a remote threat to the US militarily was Russia and it's cities where just a few B-29 silver plate missions away from being smoking holes in the ground.
The simple truth is that if the US had wanted to take over the world in 1945 nobody could have stopped it. As one historian put it. "In the history of the world there has never been a nation with the power and position that US had at the end of World War II. The US could have enslaved the world and nobody could have stopped them. Yet they decided to try and build a world in their image by rebuild their enemies and treating them with kindness and dignity." The only reason that there isn't an American Empire is because that is not what America wanted.
We like to shut down our PCs at night to save power which it will do even with modern power management.
Also I find Windows boxes tend to slow down the longer they go between reboots. Funny thing is that my windows box doesn't tend to do that.
It is an interesting option even then. It wouldn't be all that hard to reconfigure each machine to reboot from the network just in case.
What we tend to do is keep a Linux CD and or Flash drive handy just in case.
That allows us to boot into Linux and access the HD from Linux to fix corrupt files and such.
We actually average less than three "infections" a year at our office.
For the most part we lock down the support staffs web access, we use a Linux based firewall, we have a virus scanner on our email server, and we do not allow any executables as email attachments.
That combined with a fairly tech savy user base means that we do not have anywhere near the infection rate that other offices our size have.
I work at a small development firm so 90% of the people at the firm are techs so we need very little in management.
My question is if it goes to boot from network first doesn't that take a while to time out and got into a regular boot?
Just wondering how much time that adds to the initial boot.
Over all I can see how this is really a life saver for a firm in this situation.
The fun of pushing 1000 images over the network is just too much for me to even think about but I can see the value.
Okay I work at a small firm so we don't have the problems or the tools to deal with the problems that you would have dealing with a thousand PCs. But how do you just reimage a PC remotely when the OS will not even boot?
I can only assume that you can buy PCs that have some advanced management tools built into the BIOS.
"and as all campus data was kept on centralized servers then you should have lost no data,"
That would be nice and ideal but how hard is it to enforce in practice? I would think enforcing strict policies like that on a university campus would be like herding cats. Yes for the Administration system it should be a piece of cake but what about systems in research labs?
Even with all of your suggestions sort of the testing of the antivirus update this is still a nightmare. I mean even in a small hospital you could be dealing with hundreds or thousands of systems that you would have to get back up and running.
While testing updates really should be a matter of course I am not sure that many people do that with antivirus signature files.
What I still don't get is this.
Why is it so easy to modify a critical OS system file! I mean really shouldn't it be just about impossible for any program to delete or modify system files? If we could fix that little issue it would do wonders for the security of most PCs.
If you have a box running so you can use the VPro client software.
Actually VPro looks very cool. The question is how do you get it? Seems like it must be built into the system at the motherboard or bios level.
maybe you should put a Linux partition on all of the boxes with some remote access software?
Not actually trying to be a smart ass but if you could do that then it might have been possible to fix the issue remotely.
I am not sure since my office has a small network and we didn't have the problem. I would think that it should be possible to replace the missing file and disable the anti virus or maybe replace the definitions file remotely. Most modern Linux distros can mount NTFS partitions.
Of course right now the idea of light clients and Windows terminal services probably doesn't sound so bad!
"Well PBMR have similar containment structures proposed "
Chernobyl had No containment building at all. Russia used to say that their reactors where so safe that there was no need of containment buildings. Truth was that was cheaper.
Pebble bed reactors are very different from Chernobyl. Pebble bed reactors are thermally stable.
Also the there are no PBMRs yet in service. So why bring them up at all since it is a clear red herring.
Also the AP-1000 is totally different design from Chernobyl as well in every way. The new containment building has passed all reviews and is the result of decades of operating experience.
In other words nice effort at trying to confuse the issue.
"Systemic failures occurred at Three Mile Island, what's the difference as long as humans are involved in the process."
And nobody died at TMI because of all the safety systems involved. In fact at TMI almost every error that could be made was and there was no deaths. No large spike in Cancer in the area that you could attribute to the accident. Most studies put the "possible" increase in cancers deaths as 1/2 of a death.
In other words there is a 50% chance that somebody died from that accident.
Far fewer deaths than where caused by cars in the same time period.
While I would that to be zero deaths it is frankly fewer deaths that have happened at the power plant in my home town. They lost there people putting Christmas decorations on the smoke stacks one year. It is also probably less deaths than the wind and solar industry had over the same time period from falls. since both those industries have the danger of heights.
"Well considering we are talking about *groundwater* contamination with radioactive isotopes "downwind" is not really relevant."
radiation load is radiation load.
Your body doesn't care where it comes from.
Frankly tritium in not super dangerous.
It is a weak beta emitter and does not stay in your body for very long at all.
It doesn't accurate in the biosphere.
Coal often contains radioactive isotopes of Phosphorus. Since Phosphorus is biologically active it far more dangerous. Of course even "natural" sources of Phosphorus are radioactive. That is just how it is and how it always has been.
BTW the "safe" limt for tritium in the US is right around 1/10 that set by Canada and WHO. So frankly that leak and contamination is a tempest in a tea pot. Considering the high level of background radiation in Vermont anyway it is really is a drop in the bucket.
Vermont has huge granite deposits that are a source of Radon.
So step by step.
1. Chernobyl was a terrible design from the start. It lacked a containment building and was thermally unstable. The only thing to learn from Chernobyl was don't throw out the western safety regulations we have had for decades.
2. TMI actually showed that the safety systems worked.
Fear of nuclear power is based on a lack of knowledge and unreasoning fear. The problem is that people will use tricks to try and mislead.
Just like the the post I am replying to tired.
Well you have many details wrong.
1. ICBMs do reach speeds not far below orbital velocities and some do look up FOBBS.
2. ICBMs do have heatsheilds.Well the RVs do anyway.
Actually the idea of using a winged system like this does have some merit and the USAF has looked into it back in the late 60s and early 70s.
In theory you could have this reach a much lower altitude than an ICBM which would give you less time where you are over the horizon so the enemy would have less time to reach.
Also this test vehical looks like it has the same 1000 mi cross range ability as the shuttle so yes it could look like it was going one place and then at the last minute turn and hit a different target But I do not see it being used for that.
No to your idea about it as a sabotage. There is no way they would risk using this to deorbit or steal a satellite. It is to easy to put a self destruct on a satellite and take out this space UAV. This critter is not cheap to launch.
So what could they use it for besides research?
Simple as a space bomber quick strike weapon.
The 9 month parking time means you can put it into orbit and leave it there for a long time.
It will just sit there waiting. If you do not need it it de orbits and brings it's warhead home to be reused. After all you don't want a warhead to just come down someplace when it gets old do you?
Somebody gets out of line? You just drop one of these bad boys on there head. The crowbar or telephone pole from space kinetic kill weapon can take out a launch silo, ship, or just about any hard target you want all without any warhead at all. A nice targeted 1000lbs slug of tungsten carbide at 18,000 mph will really ruin your day.
You could pack a few different weapons maybe a few 20KG small ones for ships or mobile missle launchers and a big one for high value targets.
'but large fonts support still breaks lots of applications, even popular ones. Try using large fonts with Trillian or many Adobe products."
Then those apps are BROKEN!
Really folks don't give application programmers a pass for broken apps just because they used to work! And yes I am an Application programmer and it is a PITA to make it work but it can be done. That is why we get paid the big bucks.
Not really since people living downwind of coal fired power plants receive more radiation than people living downwind of nuclear powered plants.
Any yes I am leaving out those that lived near Chernobyl. That plant was a disaster from stop to bottom. It is a design that would never have been built in the West and never run the way that it was in the USSR.
Bring up Chernobyl went talking about western nuclear power plants is as out of place and clueless as bring up the Titanic as a reason to not take a Caribbean cruise or the Hindenburg as a reason to not fly on a 767.
It might be worth the risk if you think you have a chance but since it is simple to make it impossible I would bet every nation does it.
Well if I was building any type of military satellite I would include a self destruct or anti-tamper device.
The shuttle already had the ability to grab a satellite and showed it a few times with US ones. If you any classified type of device in orbit and you saw a US anything getting close just set it with a proximity / time fuse. Boom..
I am sorry there must have been a fault in that. We had no idea that you would have your shuttle close to it! And why was that BTW?
So that is probably not it's mission.
But Apple could get first crack and new cores and Apple could get a lot of input on the cores as well.
Think Microsoft and Office? And didn't you see how Intel got hit with an anti-trust case?
This could be seen are really damaging to compilation and it really should be.
What it does come down to is that they had an agreement. You have no right to force people to think they way you do. I have an idea let's forbid them from teaching their silly creation myth at all. Heck just take their kids away and put them in boarding schools so we can teach them science and math and how to fit into the modern world....
That was tried and not all that long ago folks. In this case I think you need to take a look at the historical context. 99% of the time I think the old saw of the white mans guilt is BS but in this case it seems like such a case of history repeating it's self that it just isn't funny. These are people not lab animals after all and should have the right to have some control of what research is done on them. Ignore the creation myth part and just think about this. The tribe claims that the samples where used for research they did not agree too. That is all that matters in this case.
"On the other hand, every time I here a "waaah, cry cry, science is being mean to my bullshit creation myths, mommy make it stop!" "
Dang right now dare a Native American tribe be upset when researchers don't honor the agreements they made with the tribe! They should trust that is is for their own good and will help them in the end.
Oh and they should just give up their beliefs and and got on with life.
Really have they learned nothing from history!
Actually I have to find it a little amusing that they where upset to find out the researchers didn't keep there agreement. I mean really does any tribe really expect that any agreement they sign will be honored? And just how can any researcher NOT honor an agreement with a Native American tribe and sleep at night? I mean ignoring their wishes and beliefs for their own good? Because you know better than they do? Usually I am the first to say that the concept of "white mans guilt" is stupid and abused but really in this case it seems like they must be from another planet?.
Kind of reminds me of that STNG when they are asked to relocate some Native Americans from a Planet and you can just see the character of Picard thinking, "You want me to do what???"
Not that I know of.
But have you looked at the Beagleboard?
Not a MiniITX but a handy device for many projects. There is an expansion board to add a network connection of you can use an USB network adaptor.
"Except that unfortunately Apple doesn't have the market share necessary for anti trust to kick in."
But ARM does.
But ARM does have have a near monopoly on the processor cores used in smart phones and a HUGE percentage of the embedded processor market with it's cores. What keeps regulators away is the fact that ARM is a fabless company that has a very liberal licensing program. If Apple tries to buy them then I see the regulators going nuts.
Simple.
There is a HUGE segment of the population that doesn't need anymore graphics capability than what even the crappy Intel integrated graphics offer.
The current offerings are much better.
Here is the maximum graphics requirement for about 80% of all Windows PCs.
Will it playback 1080p video.
And that is the maximum they require.
A lot of people never play any video game that is more graphically intensive than Plants vs Zombies.
A lot of people never play any video better than what is on Youtube.
Think all the PCs that are ill the offices in the world. Integrated graphics is good enough the vast majority of them.
Even on the highest end system in may office that we use for development system we can get by with any video card that can drive two good sized monitors. We do not need high end graphics cards for any of our systems and integrated graphics are just fine for most of them.
Intergrated graphics from ATI and nVidia are actually pretty good and can even do some light gaming. The i3 and i7s that I have tested seem to be much better than what Intel used to provide and seem to be good enough.
Enthusiast systems like what I have at home to play FSX are a small minority of the PC market.
Also the GPU on the CPU could also be used for things like Physics simulation in the game if you have a graphics card installed so even then it could be used.
Odds are that gamers will get the ultra high end quads and they will not have IG on the die anyway.
He is just an Apple hater but frankly a dumb one.
There are reasons to not like the closed nature of the iPad but just using a netbook as a replacement will not work in this case.
So for all the Apple haters and Linux fans "I do like and use Linux" here are what you can use as a replacemnt.
http://www.archos.com/products/imt/archos_5it/index.html?country=us&lang=en Runs Android
And
http://www.nokiausa.com/find-products/phones/nokia-n800-r6 runs Linux.
There you go. Something for everybody.
1. It will not be as sturdy as the ipad.
2. It will not run as long on batteries.
3. It will not have the touch screen interface.
Over all it just will not be as convent or as good of a tool for this job.
You could also get a desktop and mount it in your car and run it off an inverter.
Wait a while and you will find Linux tablets soon that will compete with the iPad.
Or you could get and Nokia tablet or an Archos tablet that will better fit the task and both run Free OSs
No it doesn't frankly tic tac toe is no fun once you figure out how to never loose.
Tetris doesn't have that issue.
I would say art is any beautiful act of creation.
So is a piece of music a work of art or is a performance of the work a piece of art?
Or are both examples of art.
What about the Golden Gate Bridge, the Handcock building, or the Parthenon?
To me the Saturn V, Supermarine Spitfire, and the Lockheed SR-71 are all works of art but I know an artist that disagrees because as she said, "their form is dictated by their function". I tend to see that as just working within the limitations of your medium.
Now I will say that I do not classify most video games as great art. In fact I would put 99.999% of them in the classification of commercial art but yes they are still art.
Now the big question is can any video game reach the level of what we call high art? So far the closest I feel we have come would would be maybe Myst for visuals, the works of Infocom in for writing quality, and honestly Tetris. As far and an abstract construct that really seems to resonate with everybody on the planet Tetris has got to be a stand out. If nothing else it has become a classic that I wouldn't shocked to see people playing 100 years from now.