I can now watch divx on my pII-233 with it. Xmms never skips and X remains useable under high loads. It's an incredibly huge difference to 2.4. But I only noticed when I had to go back to 2.4.22 to try out openmosix. It was absolutely annoyingly slow compared to 2.6.
I think "computer usage" is a bit more than just computer usage; just because all the tasks one performs nowadays happen to use a computer as a tool, those tasks haven't all of the sudden become the same; it's just that a computer can provide a lot of tools at the same time. The invention of the drill/screw-machine doens't all of the sudden make screwing and drilling the same thing.
My point is that the computer is just a tool (but a very flexible one) and therefore I believe guilt can be very appropiate for using it; it is pretty normal to feel guilty if you've been using the wrong tool for the job and it had unforeseen consequenses such as described in the story. They may be "just" computer usage consequences but that doesn't make them any different from comparable consequences from using the wrong tool for the wrong job (but I can't think of any good example right now:P)
Latency: 12[miles]=19.8[km], 19.8 [km] / c [km/s] = 19.8/300000 [s] = 0.000066s=0.066ms=660ns for the light to travel up. That's 1.66ms to get back down again, maybe a bit more because it's diagonal. Add the delay for 3 times (client, platform, isp) the wireless equipment and it's still pretty damn fast.
Weather: there will not be a lot of turbulence or real storms, but there are pretty strong winds called jet streams and it's pretty cold up there. More information especially over here and also a bit over here.
Re:What do you do with a dead Cobalt cube?
on
Sun Opens Cobalt Code
·
· Score: 0, Troll
No matter what, there are people that want to get to space. So if you don't do it yourself, others will and you'll be behind those others. They will get the economic benefit, not you. It's long-term thinking vs short-term thinking.
"Environmental Acceptability - Because fuel cells are so efficient, CO2 emissions are reduced for a given power output. The fuel cell is quiet, emitting only 60 decibels at 100 feet. Emissions of SOx and NOx are 0.003 and 0.0004 pounds/megawatt-hour respectively. Fuel cells can be designed as water self-sufficient. "
As long as robots cannot fully take over our tasks, their existance will only generate jobs; fixing robots, guiding robots and interfacing with humans are things we still can do a lot better. They're as much a treat to our jobs as little children. But someday - especially when computers are fast enough to do real computer vision - these jobs can be done by robots as well and that's the period of time I'm talking about.
And regarding your second question: there's of course only one economy and that's the global one. And the earth still has quite a lot of natural resources left.
I think you're right in saying capitalism is doomed and you're right about what will cause it's doom. Only a bit more is needed to trigger it's fall: robots. Read this story if you're interested in such things; it gives a good indication of what will happen once robots become good enough to replace most jobs (which imho is inevitable) and describes a few scenarios which we might expect. The conclusion is: capitalism is doomed but it might take a few decades.
Yeah - be happy!; in the US only 10% of the cases gets to a trial at all; the other 90% is blackmailed and never sees a judge. In Norwich on the other hand all suspects get a chance to be judged by the judge and after that both parties get a second chance to be judged by a higher judge. Now which of those systems do you prefer?
Not only was it too expensive, it was too early. Linux was little known with home users back then and ADSL and cable was a lot less common so it didn't really take of. Apart from that, there is market for all-in-one routers/firewall/* for SOHO-use nowadays and since this box is basicly that with a few extras, it'll have a lot easier time than the Cube.
Sunflowers' copyright has expired. If I'd paint what I'd see while sitting in front of a painting whose author was still alive and I was trying to sell or distribute this painting, I'd be eligible to a lawsuit.
Yeah and gasses are lost from the top of our atmosphere, but I think you'd agree with me that thinking of our planet as a closed system in this specific case is a pretty good model.
What makes you believe that? Are you assuming that the plant produces seeds at a diminishing rate, or that burning a seed releases more carbon than was put into building it? Because something doesn't add up here.
The simple fact that it takes at most a day to burn a plant that took half a year to grow in combinatioin with the other simple fact that storing things is expensive, makes me indeed believe that.
If you burn a billion shells a year and produce a billion too, you have a net emission of zero. You're basically just extracting solar energy, the shells and the carbon are just carriers in the process.
There would be an minor initial 'cost' in that you're shortening the cycle a little, releasing the carbon more shortly after it's trapped compared to natural decomposition. So you get an initial emission over the first year or two after start up, as the 'cache' of decomposing shells releases its carbon at the same time as new shells are burnt immediately. But after they're gone you'll be running in balance. Or you could avoid that too by imitating nature and storing the shells a couple of years before burning them.
I'm sorry but you're making exactly the same mistake as many others in this thread to; you're looking at the net production/emission of CO2. But that's not at all what I'm interested in nor is it what decision-makers should be interested in since the only thing that really matters it the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're saying "at the end of this year, I've produced a net amount of 0,0 CO2 in my system" while in fact you should be saying "look... over the past year I have raised the average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and since everybody else is doing so as well and our cycles are out of sync the netto percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere must have been raised by my actions".
I consider coal and oil in the ground to still be part of the biosphere; it's not like rotting plants deep under earth's surface suddendly no longer are a part of the biosphere, they're just locked in for quite long. And about the plant growth bloom: the individual plants do indeed grow faster but the total mass just keeps decreasing as we cut down forests etc. Furthermore as we've said before in this thread, plants are slow to adapt to changes in the atmosphere; they do grow faster but that's only marginally.
That's a partially good point; if we'd grow extra nuts and just stored them, that'd be a real good compensation for the amount of carbon we extract from the earth in the form of oil and coles. In a way we're doing this already by using wood for houses etc. but I fear that's not even remotely enough to compensate for the total amount of biomass we keep destroing every year...
I would prefer energy to be produced from sunrays and wind because burning C for energy will allways raise the CO2-level in the atmosphere as I've shown a bit higher in this thread. Since we don't have enough data to know what will happen when we do this, I consider this a risk and try to use as less energy produced from C as possible.
But when I have to choose from nut shells or coal, the choice is easy but in fact there's a lot more options to choose from and ignoring them - is utterly stupid.
Please take a look at this image in which I represent two situations in which an equal amount of plants is grown during a season in a closed system. In situation 1 we burn the plants, in situation 2 we just let them be. I assumed the rotting time for such a plant to be 2 years. This clearly shows that the average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be lower when the plant-to-CO2-process takes longer. I think it's fair to assume rotting takes longer than storing and burning. If it'd be the other way around, burning (and especially storing) would be even better for the environment and could be compared to the storing of C in oil but then on a small scale.
Another example would be to compare C to money and the biosystem to the economy. The atmosphere is where we save our money when we don't use it. Now the end-result can easily be zero while the average amount of money we've saved in the "atmosphere" completely depends on how fast we can spend it.
Because, like I said, it's about the % of CO2 in the biosystem which will stay lower if the C is kept in the biomass longer. You're not looking at it as if it's a closed system, while it is (with regard to C, at least).
Interesing comment. Would you like to share your ideas about how this point of view (with which I agree completely) affects the problem I've decribed a few posts up? If software really should be considered equal to normal language like a recipe for a cake (which I think it should), this would imho completely relieve virus-writers of any guilt (at least in the US) since they would be completely protected by free speech; there's nothing illegal about writing a recipe for doing something illegal. Nor is it illegal to publish such a recipe on something like Usenet.
Anyway. My conclusion would be that if software is the same as a written recipe, writing or publishing virusses cannot possible be a criminal act.
And that's how I believe it should be, actually. Why? Because it's not like virus-authors are doing anything sneaky; they're publishing everything they do and how they do it in the form of source code. Therefore anybody getting their hands on this information (aka: getting the virus) should be held responsible for their own deeds at all time and not the authors of such virusses which only provided them with a detailed list of instructions. If you look at it this way, virus authors are in fact punished because the ones using their information did not have enough knowledge to use it. It's like blaming the guy that wrote the a chemistry-class textbook for the schoolkid that used it to blow up his parents house or blaming authors of computer games for murders your children committed:P
Anyway, it'd like to hear what others think about this:)
Wrong. The only thing that matters in this context, is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. While in the long term, burning plants would indeed not introduce any new CO2 into the biosystem. The only problem is that it is generally assumed it takes about 100 years for nature to create a balance between CO2-production ans CO2-consumption by plants. Just compare it to a closed system in a box with a plant and a device burning it's seeds; the plant will consume the CO2 a lot slower than the device can produce it so the CO2-level in the box will definately go up just like a sink will fill when the tap runs faster than the drain can put up with.
But in the long term it's always better to burn plants instead of oil since burning oil introduces new C into our biosystem while burning plants only raises the C-level in the atmosphere but not in the biosystem.
By the way, this only works if you assume each burned plant will be replaced by a equivalent plant. Burning more plants means the average age and therefore size of plants will decrease and therefore the amount of C these plants can hold will also decrease. And then even the space that's available for plants is declining.
Slashdot Mirror
I can now watch divx on my pII-233 with it. Xmms never skips and X remains useable under high loads. It's an incredibly huge difference to 2.4. But I only noticed when I had to go back to 2.4.22 to try out openmosix. It was absolutely annoyingly slow compared to 2.6.
for pico there is nano and for habits there is ln -s /usr/bin/nano /usr/local/bin/pico
My point is that the computer is just a tool (but a very flexible one) and therefore I believe guilt can be very appropiate for using it; it is pretty normal to feel guilty if you've been using the wrong tool for the job and it had unforeseen consequenses such as described in the story. They may be "just" computer usage consequences but that doesn't make them any different from comparable consequences from using the wrong tool for the wrong job (but I can't think of any good example right now:P)
Latency: 12[miles]=19.8[km], 19.8 [km] / c [km/s] = 19.8/300000 [s] = 0.000066s=0.066ms=660ns for the light to travel up. That's 1.66ms to get back down again, maybe a bit more because it's diagonal. Add the delay for 3 times (client, platform, isp) the wireless equipment and it's still pretty damn fast.
Weather: there will not be a lot of turbulence or real storms, but there are pretty strong winds called jet streams and it's pretty cold up there. More information especially over here and also a bit over here.
Indeed. It should fit.
No matter what, there are people that want to get to space. So if you don't do it yourself, others will and you'll be behind those others. They will get the economic benefit, not you. It's long-term thinking vs short-term thinking.
Wasn't that what the wireless bridge on the RC-controlled tank was for?
Because there is space left over, some non-OSS but free and useful software has been placed on the CD.
I reclaimed about 160 MB of space by erasing the source code to all programs (except GnuPG) from the CD.
....
"Environmental Acceptability - Because fuel cells are so efficient, CO2 emissions are reduced for a given power output. The fuel cell is quiet, emitting only 60 decibels at 100 feet. Emissions of SOx and NOx are 0.003 and 0.0004 pounds/megawatt-hour respectively. Fuel cells can be designed as water self-sufficient. "
The complete reaction is explained there as well.
As long as robots cannot fully take over our tasks, their existance will only generate jobs; fixing robots, guiding robots and interfacing with humans are things we still can do a lot better. They're as much a treat to our jobs as little children. But someday - especially when computers are fast enough to do real computer vision - these jobs can be done by robots as well and that's the period of time I'm talking about.
And regarding your second question: there's of course only one economy and that's the global one. And the earth still has quite a lot of natural resources left.
I think you're right in saying capitalism is doomed and you're right about what will cause it's doom. Only a bit more is needed to trigger it's fall: robots. Read this story if you're interested in such things; it gives a good indication of what will happen once robots become good enough to replace most jobs (which imho is inevitable) and describes a few scenarios which we might expect. The conclusion is: capitalism is doomed but it might take a few decades.
Yeah - be happy!; in the US only 10% of the cases gets to a trial at all; the other 90% is blackmailed and never sees a judge. In Norwich on the other hand all suspects get a chance to be judged by the judge and after that both parties get a second chance to be judged by a higher judge. Now which of those systems do you prefer?
How does "integrating a phone in a PDA" classify as the Death of the PDA? I think it's the dead of the cellphone.
Someone mod this guy up just to annoy him, please.
Not only was it too expensive, it was too early. Linux was little known with home users back then and ADSL and cable was a lot less common so it didn't really take of. Apart from that, there is market for all-in-one routers/firewall/* for SOHO-use nowadays and since this box is basicly that with a few extras, it'll have a lot easier time than the Cube.
Sunflowers' copyright has expired. If I'd paint what I'd see while sitting in front of a painting whose author was still alive and I was trying to sell or distribute this painting, I'd be eligible to a lawsuit.
Yeah and gasses are lost from the top of our atmosphere, but I think you'd agree with me that thinking of our planet as a closed system in this specific case is a pretty good model.
The simple fact that it takes at most a day to burn a plant that took half a year to grow in combinatioin with the other simple fact that storing things is expensive, makes me indeed believe that.
If you burn a billion shells a year and produce a billion too, you have a net emission of zero. You're basically just extracting solar energy, the shells and the carbon are just carriers in the process.
There would be an minor initial 'cost' in that you're shortening the cycle a little, releasing the carbon more shortly after it's trapped compared to natural decomposition. So you get an initial emission over the first year or two after start up, as the 'cache' of decomposing shells releases its carbon at the same time as new shells are burnt immediately. But after they're gone you'll be running in balance. Or you could avoid that too by imitating nature and storing the shells a couple of years before burning them.
I'm sorry but you're making exactly the same mistake as many others in this thread to; you're looking at the net production/emission of CO2. But that's not at all what I'm interested in nor is it what decision-makers should be interested in since the only thing that really matters it the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're saying "at the end of this year, I've produced a net amount of 0,0 CO2 in my system" while in fact you should be saying "look... over the past year I have raised the average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and since everybody else is doing so as well and our cycles are out of sync the netto percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere must have been raised by my actions".
I consider coal and oil in the ground to still be part of the biosphere; it's not like rotting plants deep under earth's surface suddendly no longer are a part of the biosphere, they're just locked in for quite long. And about the plant growth bloom: the individual plants do indeed grow faster but the total mass just keeps decreasing as we cut down forests etc. Furthermore as we've said before in this thread, plants are slow to adapt to changes in the atmosphere; they do grow faster but that's only marginally.
That's a partially good point; if we'd grow extra nuts and just stored them, that'd be a real good compensation for the amount of carbon we extract from the earth in the form of oil and coles. In a way we're doing this already by using wood for houses etc. but I fear that's not even remotely enough to compensate for the total amount of biomass we keep destroing every year...
But when I have to choose from nut shells or coal, the choice is easy but in fact there's a lot more options to choose from and ignoring them - is utterly stupid.
Another example would be to compare C to money and the biosystem to the economy. The atmosphere is where we save our money when we don't use it. Now the end-result can easily be zero while the average amount of money we've saved in the "atmosphere" completely depends on how fast we can spend it.
Because, like I said, it's about the % of CO2 in the biosystem which will stay lower if the C is kept in the biomass longer. You're not looking at it as if it's a closed system, while it is (with regard to C, at least).
Anyway. My conclusion would be that if software is the same as a written recipe, writing or publishing virusses cannot possible be a criminal act.
And that's how I believe it should be, actually. Why? Because it's not like virus-authors are doing anything sneaky; they're publishing everything they do and how they do it in the form of source code. Therefore anybody getting their hands on this information (aka: getting the virus) should be held responsible for their own deeds at all time and not the authors of such virusses which only provided them with a detailed list of instructions. If you look at it this way, virus authors are in fact punished because the ones using their information did not have enough knowledge to use it. It's like blaming the guy that wrote the a chemistry-class textbook for the schoolkid that used it to blow up his parents house or blaming authors of computer games for murders your children committed:P
Anyway, it'd like to hear what others think about this:)
But in the long term it's always better to burn plants instead of oil since burning oil introduces new C into our biosystem while burning plants only raises the C-level in the atmosphere but not in the biosystem.
By the way, this only works if you assume each burned plant will be replaced by a equivalent plant. Burning more plants means the average age and therefore size of plants will decrease and therefore the amount of C these plants can hold will also decrease. And then even the space that's available for plants is declining.