in this context... what does "aggressive timing" means?
Advancing the spark relative to the piston stroke. Generally, if you start the burn earlier, the hot gasses will push the piston through a larger fraction of the power stroke, and you get more power and economy. However, too much spark advance for a given octane rating can cause detonation (pinging).
Your definition of cold fusion is fusion happing at relatively low temperatures I take it?
Well, the problem with that is that it most likely cannot exist, a certain amount of kinetic energy is required at the atomic level for fusion
It's easy to fuse hydrogen at room temperature, as long as you first replace the electrons in the atoms with muons. (Obtaining the muons is an exercise left to the reader.)
Make the USPTO liable for damages, wrongly-paid royalties and legal fees caused by patents that are eventually found to be invalid. Fund the USPTO's legal damage budget by docking up to 25% of the salary of its employees. If this were done, they would certainly be just a little more careful about what patent claims they rubberstamp.
Which raises the question: WTF don't JVMs get their timezone info from the OS? What were the developers thinking?
In general, I don't understand how people let this become a problem. The DST dates have already changed a couple of times within my lifetime, so I would never hard-code such a thing. This upcoming change has been scheduled for almost two years now, so every OS should have had this update in place long ago. Every app should be querying the OS for timezone info instead of hard coding it. How can so many people do such sloppy work so that there are still problems looming at this late date?
So I can pay Charter $40 a month for cable internet and then switch to OpenDNS which has the same broken DNS setup as Charter, but its different because I'm not paying OpenDNS to do the same thing Charter is?
No, DNS is understood to be an integral part of the services provided by an ISP. Its cost has always been included in your monthly fee. It's highly unlikely that any ISP is going to drop monthly rates because of this ad revenue, so this action is essentially just another rate hike. Nothing about your ISP's service is improved, you may get stuck looking at ads, and some of your apps may break. OpenDNS, OTOH, is an optional backup than can provide higher reliabilty through redundancy. If your apps break with it, you don't need to point your resolver at it. They are adding optional value above what your ISP is providing (redundant DNS service), in return for you dealing with the ads and/or app issues.
Well... It's Charter's network, so I guess they can do what they want, eh?
They can do what they want after they've dropped out of the exclusive franchising agreement they have with my city. Until then, they enjoy government protection from market competition, and they should be subject strict oversight to prevent them from taking advantage of their monopoly entitlement to harm consumers.
Why not concentrate on the bottlenecks rather than what is already one of the fastest components in any system.
Firstly, system memory is not especially fast compared to the CPU, and the recent proliferation of multiple cores is making the situation worse because more CPUs are trying to bang on the same memory.
Secondly, the most straightforward way to paper over problems with high-latency devices is to put a cache in front of them. Super fast DRAM would be one way to enable bigger caches that reduce the impact of various system bottlenecks. Sure we can hope to replace all hard drives with solid state devices, but since they still cost orders of magnitude more per megabyte, it will probably be quite a while before that happens. In the mean time, better caches couldn't hurt.
You repeatedly make the assumption that scientists are making stuff up. Why don't *you* prove your claims, with specificity. Hard numbers please, not these sweeping generalizations. Otherwise, we can only assume that you're the one making stuff up.
While your at it, please bother to learn the difference between weather and climate. They are completely different concepts, and by confusing the two you lose all credibility.
This error is a big factor for many saying that the C02 level increase is the reason for this factual increase in measured temperatures.
Yeah, it must not be the huge increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past century. Some mysterious factor must be erasing the otherwise well-known heat transfer characteristics of that gas. Some other unknown mysterious factor must be causing the rising temperatures instead. After all, causation is hardly ever associated with correlation.
You're talking out your ass. Almost since the beginning of civilization, and well before science as we know it developed, knowledgeable people were aware that the earth was not flat. The ancient Greeks had calculated the diameter of the earth to a high degree of accuracy. It's highly unlikely that anybody who we would call a "scientist" has ever believed that the earth is flat. (Even the urban legend about Columbus arguing that the earth isn't flat is wrong. In fact, Columbus was wrong and had misinterpreted other peoples' calculations and assumed that the earth was about half of its actual size; the people who he was arguing with knew the actual diameter and correctly assumed that he could not sail with enough supplies to make it to China non-stop.)
it looks like silicon wafer cost only translates to a dollar or two per cpu,
It's not the cost of the wafer itself. It's the fact that hundreds of fabrication steps have to be applied individually to each wafer. So the cost of each fabrication step is roughly multiplied by the number of wafers you need to process. Fewer wafers allow for lower costs.
The environmentalists aren't the ones will prevent nuclear power from solving the world's energy problems; the neocons are. And in this case, they're right.
For nuclear power to put more than a tiny dent in the total carbon output, most every nation in the world will have to build large numbers of breeder reactors. (There just isn't enough uranium ore available to run the world on non-breeder reactors for more than a couple of decades.) Since every nation understandably wants energy security, most will insist on controlling their own fuel cycles. This means that almost every country on the planet will have a major fuel reprocessing industry, including places like Somalia, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, Lebanon, etc.
This scenario just isn't going to be allowed to happen due to fact that it's a total security nightmare. A lot of people like to use nuclear power as a red herring to criticize hippies, but at the end of the day, most of the non-hippies won't accept the consequences of actually running the world on nuclear power either.
Since we can predict with absolute certainty what the weather of the Earth is going to be 100 years from now (latest IPCC report), why can't we accurately predict the weather 10 days from now?
It's the same reason why you can't predict what you might win if you play a slot machine for an hour, whereas the casino can predict the annual profits from its slot machines to a high degree of accuracy.
The US government is a customer of lockheed, and no more owns the rights to F-22 IP than I own the rights to the design of the transmission in my mustang.
Just like the American Bantam Car Company owned its Jeep design.
how often in modern society are you likey to end up confused.
However, avoiding any confusion can be vitally important. The next time you're straining to hold your front door closed against a mob of attacking zombies, and you yell out to your friends "Get Me A Torch, NOW!", you sure don't want them come back with some wimpy little flashlight.
Countries like India are building up local launch capabilities because it is cheaper than launching the same satellite, etc using private companies like Ariane (ESA).
Actually, countries like India are building up local launch capabilities because to make their nuclear weapons a credible threat for any given range, they need an effective delivery system with that much range. Orbital launch capability == ICBM capability.
As you wish. An argument equally as valid and backed up with hard facts as yours:
Yes, if is YES and When is NOW.
The big problem with the whole "There's no Global Warming" crap is that is doesn't take into account human processes. It just looks at our Earth from a static viewpoint and assumes nothing we could do could ever change things, while adding in massively deflated numbers of Human pollution. But the models that the scientists are using conclusively prove that predict real climate change is happening.
The truth is, in a real "Global Warming" type of situation, you would have accept what the experts are predicting. Rampant hurricanes, super violent weather. There's no reason to believe that you would have a "banding" effect of the weather, much like we see on Venus. And our system is doing NOTHING LIKE THAT! In fact, our weather system is typical of what one would expect from a dynamic system being perturbed; Lots of wild fluctuations, with an overall effect of changing climate throughout the globe.
Our Earth has been warming and cooling for MILLENIA, well before we humans showed up on the scene. Entire ecosystems have sprung up and been wiped out several times over during the course of our planet's history. We were never there for any of them, and civilization couldn't have survived the conditions at many of those times. Those who think that ancient tides of our planet's natural systems are too deep and strong for the insignificant ship of humanity to do a thing about are wrong. We can and do make large impacts on the system, which can be amplified in a positive feedback loop by nature.
Ultimately, what the "Anti Global Warming" push is about is power. It has become a political point of view, co-opted by neocons and mercantilists who are attempting to force a consensus in the scientific community through rewriting of government reports and funding biased private foundations. Once they are able to force a consensus and squash all independent thought in the scientific community, they hope to be able to push the government towards hypercapitalism and (eventually) all-out fascism. While I doubt there is a conspiracy in the classical sense, there are absolutely like-minded groups of people all pushing for similar goals. I, for one, am appalled of GW's suppression of real hard science, and the death of independent thought that the "Consensus Antiintellectualism" would bring us.
Talk about wasting time. Your unsubstantiated handwaving are not arguments. Why don't you cite some sources when you contradict what almost every expert in the field agrees upon? Until then, neither the messenger nor the message is credible.
Are you saying that my question was an ad hominem attack against you or talk radio hosts?
Face it, your entire argument was a bunch of unsubstantiated talking out of your ass. I'm just trying to figure out where you obtained this misinformation.
Slashdot Mirror
Advancing the spark relative to the piston stroke. Generally, if you start the burn earlier, the hot gasses will push the piston through a larger fraction of the power stroke, and you get more power and economy. However, too much spark advance for a given octane rating can cause detonation (pinging).
It's easy to fuse hydrogen at room temperature, as long as you first replace the electrons in the atoms with muons. (Obtaining the muons is an exercise left to the reader.)
Make the USPTO liable for damages, wrongly-paid royalties and legal fees caused by patents that are eventually found to be invalid. Fund the USPTO's legal damage budget by docking up to 25% of the salary of its employees. If this were done, they would certainly be just a little more careful about what patent claims they rubberstamp.
In general, I don't understand how people let this become a problem. The DST dates have already changed a couple of times within my lifetime, so I would never hard-code such a thing. This upcoming change has been scheduled for almost two years now, so every OS should have had this update in place long ago. Every app should be querying the OS for timezone info instead of hard coding it. How can so many people do such sloppy work so that there are still problems looming at this late date?
No, DNS is understood to be an integral part of the services provided by an ISP. Its cost has always been included in your monthly fee. It's highly unlikely that any ISP is going to drop monthly rates because of this ad revenue, so this action is essentially just another rate hike. Nothing about your ISP's service is improved, you may get stuck looking at ads, and some of your apps may break. OpenDNS, OTOH, is an optional backup than can provide higher reliabilty through redundancy. If your apps break with it, you don't need to point your resolver at it. They are adding optional value above what your ISP is providing (redundant DNS service), in return for you dealing with the ads and/or app issues.
It's different because you're not already paying OpenDNS $29.99/month for the privilege to see their ads.
They can do what they want after they've dropped out of the exclusive franchising agreement they have with my city. Until then, they enjoy government protection from market competition, and they should be subject strict oversight to prevent them from taking advantage of their monopoly entitlement to harm consumers.
Firstly, system memory is not especially fast compared to the CPU, and the recent proliferation of multiple cores is making the situation worse because more CPUs are trying to bang on the same memory.
Secondly, the most straightforward way to paper over problems with high-latency devices is to put a cache in front of them. Super fast DRAM would be one way to enable bigger caches that reduce the impact of various system bottlenecks. Sure we can hope to replace all hard drives with solid state devices, but since they still cost orders of magnitude more per megabyte, it will probably be quite a while before that happens. In the mean time, better caches couldn't hurt.
I agree. The Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big kringle. It's a series of fjords.
While your at it, please bother to learn the difference between weather and climate. They are completely different concepts, and by confusing the two you lose all credibility.
Yeah, it must not be the huge increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past century. Some mysterious factor must be erasing the otherwise well-known heat transfer characteristics of that gas. Some other unknown mysterious factor must be causing the rising temperatures instead. After all, causation is hardly ever associated with correlation.
You're talking out your ass. Almost since the beginning of civilization, and well before science as we know it developed, knowledgeable people were aware that the earth was not flat. The ancient Greeks had calculated the diameter of the earth to a high degree of accuracy. It's highly unlikely that anybody who we would call a "scientist" has ever believed that the earth is flat. (Even the urban legend about Columbus arguing that the earth isn't flat is wrong. In fact, Columbus was wrong and had misinterpreted other peoples' calculations and assumed that the earth was about half of its actual size; the people who he was arguing with knew the actual diameter and correctly assumed that he could not sail with enough supplies to make it to China non-stop.)
The costs don't need to be equal to pay off. Keeping other factors constant, anything less than (65/45)^2 (about 2X) would cost less per CPU.
It's not the cost of the wafer itself. It's the fact that hundreds of fabrication steps have to be applied individually to each wafer. So the cost of each fabrication step is roughly multiplied by the number of wafers you need to process. Fewer wafers allow for lower costs.
For nuclear power to put more than a tiny dent in the total carbon output, most every nation in the world will have to build large numbers of breeder reactors. (There just isn't enough uranium ore available to run the world on non-breeder reactors for more than a couple of decades.) Since every nation understandably wants energy security, most will insist on controlling their own fuel cycles. This means that almost every country on the planet will have a major fuel reprocessing industry, including places like Somalia, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, Lebanon, etc.
This scenario just isn't going to be allowed to happen due to fact that it's a total security nightmare. A lot of people like to use nuclear power as a red herring to criticize hippies, but at the end of the day, most of the non-hippies won't accept the consequences of actually running the world on nuclear power either.
It's the same reason why you can't predict what you might win if you play a slot machine for an hour, whereas the casino can predict the annual profits from its slot machines to a high degree of accuracy.
Just like the American Bantam Car Company owned its Jeep design.
However, avoiding any confusion can be vitally important. The next time you're straining to hold your front door closed against a mob of attacking zombies, and you yell out to your friends "Get Me A Torch, NOW!", you sure don't want them come back with some wimpy little flashlight.
Actually, countries like India are building up local launch capabilities because to make their nuclear weapons a credible threat for any given range, they need an effective delivery system with that much range. Orbital launch capability == ICBM capability.
Especially if it's software that enables random people to schedule them into time-wasting meetings at a click of a button.
Yes, if is YES and When is NOW.
The big problem with the whole "There's no Global Warming" crap is that is doesn't take into account human processes. It just looks at our Earth from a static viewpoint and assumes nothing we could do could ever change things, while adding in massively deflated numbers of Human pollution. But the models that the scientists are using conclusively prove that predict real climate change is happening.
The truth is, in a real "Global Warming" type of situation, you would have accept what the experts are predicting. Rampant hurricanes, super violent weather. There's no reason to believe that you would have a "banding" effect of the weather, much like we see on Venus. And our system is doing NOTHING LIKE THAT! In fact, our weather system is typical of what one would expect from a dynamic system being perturbed; Lots of wild fluctuations, with an overall effect of changing climate throughout the globe.
Our Earth has been warming and cooling for MILLENIA, well before we humans showed up on the scene. Entire ecosystems have sprung up and been wiped out several times over during the course of our planet's history. We were never there for any of them, and civilization couldn't have survived the conditions at many of those times. Those who think that ancient tides of our planet's natural systems are too deep and strong for the insignificant ship of humanity to do a thing about are wrong. We can and do make large impacts on the system, which can be amplified in a positive feedback loop by nature.
Ultimately, what the "Anti Global Warming" push is about is power. It has become a political point of view, co-opted by neocons and mercantilists who are attempting to force a consensus in the scientific community through rewriting of government reports and funding biased private foundations. Once they are able to force a consensus and squash all independent thought in the scientific community, they hope to be able to push the government towards hypercapitalism and (eventually) all-out fascism. While I doubt there is a conspiracy in the classical sense, there are absolutely like-minded groups of people all pushing for similar goals. I, for one, am appalled of GW's suppression of real hard science, and the death of independent thought that the "Consensus Antiintellectualism" would bring us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Quibbling_Ab out_Debate_Terms_to_Avoid_Having_to_Justify_Basele ss_Claims
Sorry, but this ain't some kind of highschool debate contest where you can "win" on argument technicalities while making objectively false points.
Talk about wasting time. Your unsubstantiated handwaving are not arguments. Why don't you cite some sources when you contradict what almost every expert in the field agrees upon? Until then, neither the messenger nor the message is credible.
Face it, your entire argument was a bunch of unsubstantiated talking out of your ass. I'm just trying to figure out where you obtained this misinformation.
And how do you know this? Did you learn it from a true climate expert such as a talk radio host?