As I understand it - it's not the distance that's the problem, but the amount of time spent being irradiated. So, the only other option would be to go really freaking fast.
There's always the classic "build the heavy ship in orbit" method, of course.
Don't forget the 25% that turns evil, and gets the power to control electromagnetic waves. Or whatever it is his power was. I was too distracted looking at the invisible woman to pay attention. Wait, looking at the invisible woman? I think I just figured out what was wrong with that movie...
My problem with an IE7 this year and an IE7.5 (they'll call it 8, you know they will) next year is that IE7 will still have to be supported for many, many years. I'd rather they just wait for the super-duper fixed-up version. Yet another browser to check for to work around the bugs. No thanks.
Okay, I misspoke - they're not 5 years behind everyone else, but they're 5+ years behind where they should be. I haven't seen any notable new features since, what, 1999 or so? That's pathetic for a company with the resources MS has at hand.
I agree that the aforementioned fixes are good things, but not for a beta of a major new version release. They're still adding features; this should be an _early alpha_, at most.
What they could do in a reasonable timeframe is give up on IE as the product, port the KHTML renderer over to Windows, and give it a new name. No worries about browser detection, etc - a whole new product that already passes the ACID2 test, et voila, all caught up. This would probably take a couple of orders of magnitude LESS time than making the IE code base do the same thing in a stable manner. Not that it'll happen, but it'd be nice. Since it's not a paying product, it's not like they don't have better things to do with their time than continually update the renderer in their browser. Internet Vista, that's a good name. IV - it'll get in your blood!:)
I don't believe they ARE shooting for "full CSS2," but instead are shooting for as much as they can do in the time allotted. They're not even claiming to fix all their known bugs, but only the most egregious ones. To be fair, they've got a HELL of a lot of known bugs.:)
The thing that bugs me the most here is that the time allotted seems to have nothing to do with how long it should take to get it where it should be, but some competely arbitrary ship date. Windows Vista isn't due for over a year, so what's the rush? It's not like they aren't already 5 years behind everyone else. You can't make up that much of a gap in so short a time. They shouldn't ship until it's ready. And by "ready," I mean "not crappy." We're going to be stuck with supporting IE7 for a _very_ long time.
You're making my point for me, though. Since there is no market need to ship a new IE until Windows Vista, which is due no sooner than 3Q2006, there's no reason they can't finish complete standards support in it. Since such a large portion of the market will be using it by default, it's that much more important that its standards support is complete, not "the best they can do in the time allotted." The time allotted for this seems to be an artificial thing.
Sure, IE7's CSS support will be better, but will it be good enough? Think about this - fixing the major bugs is great, but think about how long we'll have to support this thing. Is it REALLY good enough? What marketing deadline are they trying to meet here? Vista isn't due out until 4Q2006 (or 2H2006, best case), so what artificial ship date are they trying to meet? What's the upside for them to ship it before it's as good as it can be?
Re:perhaps someone should make a game for Card
on
Orson Scott Card on Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That reminds me of a great quote:
"I don't have a problem with Catholics, as long as they don't practise Catholocism.":)
1) Spyware/virus removal, installation of self-updating prevention software.
2) HD defrag, MSFT padding, etc. Removal of unneeded applications/data.
3) OS updates with auto-update, configure for best privacy settings
4) Easy upgrades that make a big difference (HD & RAM upgrades, and maybe a newer videocard)
5) security configuration for people with wireless connections
6) simple OS settings (higher refresh rates/resolution/colour depth) that people don't know to check for. Turning off the 'personalized menus' bullshit in Windows, and any animated help characters.
Although HD upgrades don't always make for the 'quick turnaround' mentioned in my subject line.
You may wish to specialize in security/privacy work, so as to better prey on people's fears. Lots of profit in that these days.
Or just help people migrate all their crap from a Windows box to a Mac box.:)
Dude - how else do you explain Dennis Rodman?! Okay, I guess he could be merely an alien from this timeline, but... I dunno.
re: infinite time = infinite timetravelers
I think this is the critical assumption here, which is unlikely to be true. Despite space being infinite, there seems to be a finite amount of matter contained within it, thus a finite set of possible entities. When you take into account the recent stories of there being a much more limited set of intelligent-life-conducive areas (due to radiation) than previous estimates have said, the likelihood of so many 'infinite' timetravelers becomes especially small. Now, just because time 'may' be infinite (not currently provable by our technology), that doesn't mean that intelligent life will always be around. At some point, assuming a species survived long enough, I could easily imagine them involving into a non-corporeal existence. This would easily explain the non-proven sightings of time travelers. And again, with your 'infinite' guidelines, it comes much less likely that the here and now of our existence is even interesting enough to bother with, even assuming we COULD see them, or recognize what we're seeing.
Plus, the Temporal Prime Directive _is_ enforced, you know.:)
That's assuming that a) We'd recognize them even if they were here, b) that we live in a time and place so interesting that they'd bother, and c) that they can't just view this time remotely, and thus avoid any contamination of the timeline (assuming such is possible). Thus, sir, I dispute your conclusion.
"When it's time to railroad, you get railroads." Or however the saying goes.
This question is one I've been thinking about for a few years now due to an idea for an invention I've got (not cold fusion, though), plus some stories I know of. The most relevant one is an episode of Outer Limits (the series from the 90s, not the one from the 60s).
In the story, an expelled physics student detonates a small 'cold fusion bomb' in a campus clocktower as proof of the technology, then takes a physics class hostage with another device. He demands that the people who have tormented him in the past be brought to the courtyard and shot in front of him, or he'll detonate the more powerful device he's got with him.
While the military is trying to figure out what the hell it was that detonated (since they don't believe in a cold fusion bomb), the negotiator is trying to figure out what the deal is with the hostagetaker. It comes out that, among other things, he believes there's a reason we've not found any signals from other species. The cold fusion technology is so simple that anyone can make it. When a species gets advanced enough to realize how easy cold fusion is, he says it's inevitable that a species will destroy itself before it can get mature enough to handle its technology. The negotiator then says, well, tell us what led you to the idea, and we can try to steer science around that until we can mature enough to handle it. The guy thinks back to what started him on the path to cold fusion - a physics test with the question, "Demonstrate why cold fusion is impossible."
I'd say it's inevitable that we WILL have this technology. How simple it winds up being is unknown at this point, of course, but hopefully it'll be complex enough that not every nut in a garage can do it.
I wouldn't be surprised if DIY turbines were bad for birds. Smaller turbines tend to move faster and be more deadly. Modern blades spin far more slowly and result in few bird casualties.
>> One of my lifelong goals is to live simply, on a large plot >> of undeveloped land somewhere.
> Serious reply here. On my way to Vegas last week, I saw a sign > in Salina, UT that read "Undeveloped land, $500 per acre". Maybe > you should check that out.
Yeah, but then you're in Utah, and that simply ain't living. *shudder*
Okay, with the used VW TDI car, you get very good mileage (40mpg or better), which is not as good as hybrids (when hybrids are at their best), BUT, you can run them on biodiesel, which you can't do with hybrids currently available in the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
I tell ya - if smokers wind up getting to go into space because of their past stupidity, I'm going to go completely postal.
As I understand it - it's not the distance that's the problem, but the amount of time spent being irradiated. So, the only other option would be to go really freaking fast.
There's always the classic "build the heavy ship in orbit" method, of course.
Don't forget the 25% that turns evil, and gets the power to control electromagnetic waves. Or whatever it is his power was. I was too distracted looking at the invisible woman to pay attention. Wait, looking at the invisible woman? I think I just figured out what was wrong with that movie...
My problem with an IE7 this year and an IE7.5 (they'll call it 8, you know they will) next year is that IE7 will still have to be supported for many, many years. I'd rather they just wait for the super-duper fixed-up version. Yet another browser to check for to work around the bugs. No thanks.
Okay, I misspoke - they're not 5 years behind everyone else, but they're 5+ years behind where they should be. I haven't seen any notable new features since, what, 1999 or so? That's pathetic for a company with the resources MS has at hand.
:)
I agree that the aforementioned fixes are good things, but not for a beta of a major new version release. They're still adding features; this should be an _early alpha_, at most.
What they could do in a reasonable timeframe is give up on IE as the product, port the KHTML renderer over to Windows, and give it a new name. No worries about browser detection, etc - a whole new product that already passes the ACID2 test, et voila, all caught up. This would probably take a couple of orders of magnitude LESS time than making the IE code base do the same thing in a stable manner. Not that it'll happen, but it'd be nice. Since it's not a paying product, it's not like they don't have better things to do with their time than continually update the renderer in their browser. Internet Vista, that's a good name. IV - it'll get in your blood!
I don't believe they ARE shooting for "full CSS2," but instead are shooting for as much as they can do in the time allotted. They're not even claiming to fix all their known bugs, but only the most egregious ones. To be fair, they've got a HELL of a lot of known bugs. :)
The thing that bugs me the most here is that the time allotted seems to have nothing to do with how long it should take to get it where it should be, but some competely arbitrary ship date. Windows Vista isn't due for over a year, so what's the rush? It's not like they aren't already 5 years behind everyone else. You can't make up that much of a gap in so short a time. They shouldn't ship until it's ready. And by "ready," I mean "not crappy." We're going to be stuck with supporting IE7 for a _very_ long time.
You're making my point for me, though. Since there is no market need to ship a new IE until Windows Vista, which is due no sooner than 3Q2006, there's no reason they can't finish complete standards support in it. Since such a large portion of the market will be using it by default, it's that much more important that its standards support is complete, not "the best they can do in the time allotted." The time allotted for this seems to be an artificial thing.
Sure, IE7's CSS support will be better, but will it be good enough? Think about this - fixing the major bugs is great, but think about how long we'll have to support this thing. Is it REALLY good enough? What marketing deadline are they trying to meet here? Vista isn't due out until 4Q2006 (or 2H2006, best case), so what artificial ship date are they trying to meet? What's the upside for them to ship it before it's as good as it can be?
That reminds me of a great quote:
:)
"I don't have a problem with Catholics, as long as they don't practise Catholocism."
...that will teach him tolerance of homosexuals/bisexuals. That'd be good. Until then, I don't give a shit what Card thinks.
1) Spyware/virus removal, installation of self-updating prevention software.
:)
2) HD defrag, MSFT padding, etc. Removal of unneeded applications/data.
3) OS updates with auto-update, configure for best privacy settings
4) Easy upgrades that make a big difference (HD & RAM upgrades, and maybe a newer videocard)
5) security configuration for people with wireless connections
6) simple OS settings (higher refresh rates/resolution/colour depth) that people don't know to check for. Turning off the 'personalized menus' bullshit in Windows, and any animated help characters.
Although HD upgrades don't always make for the 'quick turnaround' mentioned in my subject line.
You may wish to specialize in security/privacy work, so as to better prey on people's fears. Lots of profit in that these days.
Or just help people migrate all their crap from a Windows box to a Mac box.
Hows about calling it PCMCIA "Protection Compromised-- Microsoft Can't Improve Anything"
I don't think that'll work, as People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms.
I think that Atlantis is in need of a new Zero Point Module before it can be used for any rescue missions.
(*Damn* I hate that show.)
Gatchaman (aka "Battle of the Planets" or "G-Force") but withOUT the stupid add-on robot characters! (Bastards.)
:)
MASK - I'd love to see some of those vehicles done up in some spiffy CG.
Thundercats, with the extra Thunderans added in the final episodes; they were great; non-Thundercat Thunderans.
Thundarr The Barbarian - totally want to see a 'real' Ookla the Mok. And Princess Ariel always did look hot.
Good times, man...good times.
I suggest "Daylight Savings Time" and "Moonlight Savings Time."
Don't waste those precious moonlight hours!
I've read that the upcoming new version of the Flash player solves the CPU usage problem quite nicely, but, of course, time will tell.
No, it's the zesty sauce! (and the RDF(tm))
Dude - how else do you explain Dennis Rodman?! Okay, I guess he could be merely an alien from this timeline, but ... I dunno.
:)
re: infinite time = infinite timetravelers
I think this is the critical assumption here, which is unlikely to be true. Despite space being infinite, there seems to be a finite amount of matter contained within it, thus a finite set of possible entities. When you take into account the recent stories of there being a much more limited set of intelligent-life-conducive areas (due to radiation) than previous estimates have said, the likelihood of so many 'infinite' timetravelers becomes especially small. Now, just because time 'may' be infinite (not currently provable by our technology), that doesn't mean that intelligent life will always be around. At some point, assuming a species survived long enough, I could easily imagine them involving into a non-corporeal existence. This would easily explain the non-proven sightings of time travelers. And again, with your 'infinite' guidelines, it comes much less likely that the here and now of our existence is even interesting enough to bother with, even assuming we COULD see them, or recognize what we're seeing.
Plus, the Temporal Prime Directive _is_ enforced, you know.
That's assuming that a) We'd recognize them even if they were here, b) that we live in a time and place so interesting that they'd bother, and c) that they can't just view this time remotely, and thus avoid any contamination of the timeline (assuming such is possible). Thus, sir, I dispute your conclusion.
"When it's time to railroad, you get railroads." Or however the saying goes.
This question is one I've been thinking about for a few years now due to an idea for an invention I've got (not cold fusion, though), plus some stories I know of. The most relevant one is an episode of Outer Limits (the series from the 90s, not the one from the 60s).
In the story, an expelled physics student detonates a small 'cold fusion bomb' in a campus clocktower as proof of the technology, then takes a physics class hostage with another device. He demands that the people who have tormented him in the past be brought to the courtyard and shot in front of him, or he'll detonate the more powerful device he's got with him.
While the military is trying to figure out what the hell it was that detonated (since they don't believe in a cold fusion bomb), the negotiator is trying to figure out what the deal is with the hostagetaker. It comes out that, among other things, he believes there's a reason we've not found any signals from other species. The cold fusion technology is so simple that anyone can make it. When a species gets advanced enough to realize how easy cold fusion is, he says it's inevitable that a species will destroy itself before it can get mature enough to handle its technology. The negotiator then says, well, tell us what led you to the idea, and we can try to steer science around that until we can mature enough to handle it. The guy thinks back to what started him on the path to cold fusion - a physics test with the question, "Demonstrate why cold fusion is impossible."
I'd say it's inevitable that we WILL have this technology. How simple it winds up being is unknown at this point, of course, but hopefully it'll be complex enough that not every nut in a garage can do it.
I wouldn't be surprised if DIY turbines were bad for birds. Smaller turbines tend to move faster and be more deadly. Modern blades spin far more slowly and result in few bird casualties.
Mmm...free range bird for dinner. "Again?!"
>> One of my lifelong goals is to live simply, on a large plot
>> of undeveloped land somewhere.
> Serious reply here. On my way to Vegas last week, I saw a sign
> in Salina, UT that read "Undeveloped land, $500 per acre". Maybe
> you should check that out.
Yeah, but then you're in Utah, and that simply ain't living. *shudder*
Come up here to L5 and say that, punk! :)
How can a government ever justify not releasing source code to the public? It's developed with public funds, therefore we own it.
... I'll have to use that argument to get into Area 51 to take a ride in whatever cool aircraft they've got there. :)
Hmm
"Don't point that weapon at me, young man; I'll have you know I pay your salary!"
Okay, with the used VW TDI car, you get very good mileage (40mpg or better), which is not as good as hybrids (when hybrids are at their best), BUT, you can run them on biodiesel, which you can't do with hybrids currently available in the U.S.