There is also the fact that if you respond to the first post your comment is much more likely to be seen.
I also think that if a response is moderated up then the thing it is responding to should be moderated up as well. I sure see a lot of up-modded responses arguing with something moderated down, but the text is just vague enough (like "Joe Smith said no such thing!") to remove the context. It would also address the belief that only one pov is moderated up here.
I think the idea is to get the game manufacturers to maintain WINE compatibility of their games. Some of the more adventurous may even recompile and link with WINE directly.
To be fair, Wayland really was not coming fast enough. I follow the Wayland developer mailing list, and it is apparent Mir seems to have kicked the Wayland developers in the butt and gotten them back to work. And they did fix some mistakes, in particular they realized that the server has to do event handling so that input methods work, rather than the previous idea that clients would have to interpret raw device events. I think they also fixed the other complaint Mir had which was the method to allocate window image buffers could not work with Android drivers, though this area is very confusing and it is not clear if it was a problem and/or whether it is fixed now.
Silicon Beach is due to media companies such as special effects primarily, not due to MySpace as the summary implies. The Times article also says that MySpace was a "portion" of Silicon Beach, so it is the summary that gets this wrong.
Quote from your article: "0% of the Progressive ones were." Go read it and then call me a liar.
I certainly did not say "only 6 are conservative groups". Please explain why you claim that. Perhaps you read my post as carefully as you read the article?
The only facts in the article, and this is exactly what I wrote:
1. There is a list of 298 groups that were targeted.
2. 6 of them had "progress" in their names.
3. A non-zero number had "tea party" in their name
4. There is a much larger list of all groups the investigators had access to.
5. This larger list had 20 groups with "progress" in their names (thus leading to the 30% statistic)
6. This larger list had the same number with "tea party" in their names as was in the targeted list (thus leading to the 100% statistic).
Go and read what you wrote, what I wrote, and stop being an ass.
You actually had a citation to a real article. I think it very suspicious that the percentage of tea party is much higher than for progressive, meaning that there was further editing after filtering by names. You have a good argument, but you kill it by lying.
If you actually read the citation you quoted you would see you changed the numbers:
1. There were 298 groups total. This includes ones with "progress" in their names, ones with "tea party" in their names, and others (such as the marijuana stuff mentioned). 6 of them were ones with "progress" in their names. A non-zero number had "tea party" in their names.
2. 100% of any subset of these 298 were "given extra scrutiny" since that is what the list is.
3. The investigators compared this list to a full list of applicants for tax exempt status and found that 100% of the groups with "tea party" in their names were put into this list, while only 30% of the groups with "progress" in their names were put into the list (thus implying there were a total of 20 groups with "progress" in their names, and the total number with "tea party" in their names is between 1 and 292).
The primary errors you made are:
1. Claiming that all groups that don't have "progress" in their names are "Conservative"
2. You applied the 30% wrong, and then for some reason it morphed from 30% to 0%.
It's kind of sad you have to lie. The underlying article does back up what you wanted to say. I would be nice if they printed the number of "tea party" groups since that is the biggest unknown. There could be an excuse that they only investigated new groups and not ones that the application had been done before, but there is certainly a non-zero number of "tea party" groups that existed for more than a year so the selection should not have been 100%
Nonsense. None of the other amendments have a preliminary "explanation" sentence. Your interpretation would be equally served by truncating it to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which would match the wording of all other 9 amendments.
The word "well-regulated" is the problem: even 200 years ago, the idea of fighting back against an enemy was never called "regulating the enemy".
I certainly agree that the purpose of the amendment is to allow anybody to have guns, not limiting it to a "militia". This is because it was obvious the militia would have guns (and at that time the only practical way to do this is for the members to take the guns home with them), thus there would be no need for the amendment. However it really does seem that there were opponents to this and that is why the weasel words were added at the start. It does seem that both sides of the argument today want to believe that silly political games did not exist back then, but they did.
What I meant was that "the militia" are the people most likely to lead the revolt against an oppressive government, according to the most common argument for why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is. You are implying that the reason for allowing people to have guns was to *fight* "the militia". That is an unusual position to take.
I think the real reason for the "militia" was that there were some writers opposed to gun rights and they managed to mangle the wording of the 2nd amendment so it did not say anything clearly.
This seems a very strange explanation, and exactly opposite the normal explanation from gun supporters I have heard. At that time "militia" meant an army of normal citizens, there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people. The militia, besides helping to defend the country against evil, would not be controlled enough by the government that it could not turn on it. To make the militia work the people needed guns (the guns used in the start of the revolution were personal weapons).
My personal opinion is that the gun rights argument existed even then, resulting in an unreadable weasel-wording of the amendment to try to make both sides happy.
I agree, the keyboard thing was monumentally stupid. ALL the ads pointed out the keyboard as the kool difference between it and other tablets. Any reasonable person would expect that exciting keyboard would be included in the base model, the ones they quote prices for. As soon as I saw it was an add-on I was a lot less interested in it. Seriously I think they would have done better if they had made the base model include the keyboard, yet charge the same price they are trying to charge for the base+keyboard now. At least you would not feel screwed by seeing that to get the advertised device you had to pay more than the advertised price.
Not sure if that is exactly the same. It would be the same if everybody could only watch one movie a year, and then had to watch the same one next 3 years. There would be two big movies (probably a superhero one and a romantic comedy). Maybe there would be third-party superhero and romantic comedy mash-up with a clever and unique plot that makes you think and is much more pleasurable than either of them. But you cannot go to that, since (assuming you prefer superheros) it would mean you could not go to the superhero movie, and then the romantic comedy you hate would win, and you would have to watch it the next 3 years.
Now if everybody had the ability to vote for as many candidates as they want it would be more like the movies. Then the scary, and all-too-likely "perfect candidate" engineered by corporations could still arise.
Yes you can run Wayland inside an X window. It does this automatically if $DISPLAY is set when wayland is run. This is in fact the only way I have gotten it to work. It is certainly a requirement for Wayland development right now. I have two monitors and I just run it fullscreen in one of the monitors, with the launching terminal in the other one so I can see error messages.
For me it uses the X shm interface to transfer the pixmaps from Wayland to X (I believe it may just transfer a single image that corresponds to the entire desktop). For me this works surprisingly well though. It may be slow, but the lack of async update between the various portions makes things like moving and resizing windows actually look smoother.
Apparently it can use EGL for this instead. The Wayland pixmaps are transferred as EGL images and composited into the desktop image using the EGL driver in the X server. This would be vastly faster. However this does not work under the Nvidia X drivers.
I'm not sure if it is related, but Wayland clients can use either EGL or shm (unrelated to X shm, but using Linux shm with fallback to files in/tmp) to send images to Wayland. The EGL api has never worked for me, probably due to some interference from the Nvidia X driver though I can't figure it out. This must not be an uncommon problem, as most of the demo Wayland clients now detect that EGL will not work and use shm in that case (the one called simple_egl fails however). I don't think this was intended, I think they hoped EGL would be used always. It looks to me that if EGL worked from the clients and in talking to X, the wayland-on-x stuff would pass the EGL buffers right through and composite them in the X EGL driver, and this should be pretty close to full speed.
No, Windows 95 really did have some innovations that were not in the X desktops at that time. Don't discount them just because they seem obvious now or that Microsoft really did develop them.
1. The "taskbar" contained an item for a window whether or not the window was open. All previous systems (including earlier windows) had "icons" that were only there for "closed" windows (ie a window was either "visible" or "iconized"). The taskbar realizes that users don't keep track of whether they last left a window iconized, and that windows can be buried and hidden.
2. They removed divider lines between window borders and contents. This made the graphics much thinner and cleaner looking. You should look at contemporary designs back then, nobody else figured out this graphics improvement.
3. As stated, making "everthing you can do" be in a tree with a single root (the "start" button) actually helped users a LOT by making it possible to search for what they wanted to do without having to wonder if they missed it.
Apple's scheme involved metadata embedded in the file (in the resource fork) that said what program to run when you double-clicked.
This works but has the strange effect that sometimes you cannot predict what program will open, or if the file will open at all. A common example (for me) is that I *always* have to use open-as on pdf and other files to get the nice fast "preview" program to run, rather than launching Adobe's reader.
Microsoft's version just used the filename to go to a central database that said "this filename pattern runs this program when double-clicked". The advantage here is that the program that opened was predictable, that you could install a new better program for a type of file and it would automatically be used. And it appeared to be a lot easier for users to understand and change. A disadvantage was that a "worse" program could also claim all the files, but you could blame the worse program installer rather than the underlying system.
Despite using it all the time I have no idea what is happening with Linux. The "desktop" files have "mime types run this" which implies that "mime data" is stored somewhere but it isn't. There is another database that turns filenames into mime types. The end result is obviosly no better than Microsoft's (because it uses filenames) but hard (actually impossible) for the user to change. Believe me I have tried many many times to get my own file extension to launch my own program, I just cannot figure out a way to do this and have to use "open with" always. Almost novice users could do this on earlier versions of Windows (I think Microsoft broke this recently, perhaps they hired Linux developers?).
This is probably a troll, but if you are genuinely being ignorant:
The water rises when the piece of ice breaks off and enters the ocean, not when it later melts.
Before it was sitting on land and displacing less than 90% of it's volume of water (it would be displacing 0% if the land was above the ocean surface, but it is non-zero in this case because the land is below the surface). When floating it is displacing 90% of it's volume. The difference means the extra displaced water has to go somewhere.
I absolutely agree. Why is everybody in a panic about Microsoft and Google sending information to the NSA, while not worrying about the fact that Microsoft and Google have this information in the first place? Even if you think corporations are entirely benign and only government is evil, if they did not have this information they could not give it to the NSA, while the current situation means that the evil government can force them to claim they are not giving it while still giving it.
The solution is end-to-end encryption of all the information, with sufficient open source so that testing devices can be put into the lines and detect that closed devices are not leaking information they should not.
I agree, having just done some refactoring of a large chunk of code exactly like this.
There were about 10 functions, spread between 4 source files in two directories and also duplicated in 4 header files. Some of the functions were entirely inline in the header files. Every single one of them was only called once, by one of the other functions. In a few cases one function called another with a lambda, when that called function could have just done the code in the lambda directly. Each of the functions took 8 or more parameters, pretty much the same set for each of them.
It was a nightmare to straighten this out. I did not try to structure it, I just inlined the code from one function into another, being very careful to change the variable names in the many many cases where the called function used a different symbol for it's argument than the caller used to pass it. The result was about 300 lines of code.
It is now possible to read one file and figure out how this code works, and to fix bugs without worrying that you don't know who else is relying on a function working the way it does.
It is true that the final function is too large and should be split up. There is an if statement choosing between two courses of action in the middle which likely should be replaced with a virtual function on the base class and two subclasses. And a few other utility functions can be pulled out. But none of this has anything to do with the original structure and I consider the monolithic function a lot easier to figure out than the many small functions.
A basic rule is that if it takes more than 2 arguments and is only called once, it should not be a function, just inline it.
Bull. Microsoft's refusal to interpret byte strings as UTF-8 is the problem. The fact that you have to use "wide characters" everywhere is by far one of the biggest impediments to I18N.
Unicode in bytes with UTF-8 is *TRIVIAL*. Look at the bytes and decode them. Variable length is not a problem, or if it is then you are lying about UTF-16 being so great because it is variable length as well! And if there are errors you can do something *intelligent*, like guess an alternative encoding (thus removing the need to mark either UTF-8 or legacy codes with a marker), and also preserve the error bytes until later so that you can do lossless data handling. Working with UTF-16 because of the lossy error conversion is like having to work with 7-bit data streams again, incredibly painful.
Intelligently-designed systems (like Plan9 back in the mid 80's!!!) could do All of Unicode using the same api as was used for ASCII and other character sets. None of this wide character shit. And there is zero reason Microsoft's stupid compilers cannot handle UTF-8 quoted constants except their pig headedness.
I don't understand why this Closed Cycle Brayton will work with a Thorium plant but not with a conventional nuke plant. So it would seem either that a conventional plant will have the advantage of not needing water as well, or it would be cheaper or more efficient to make a Thorium plant use cooling water and thus as likely they will have it.
I don't think the need for external water has anything to do with the fact that a conventional plant has water in the core. That is different water.
You say no cooling water is needed, but isn't water or a cooling tower needed to efficiently make the steam produced in the final loop run a turbine? I'm not sure I buy this as being different, unless these reactors are much much smaller than conventional nuclear reactors.
Yes the development version includes the ability to run a wayland "desktop" inside an X window. It will do this automatically if $DISPLAY is set when you run Wayland.
For me that is the only version that works. I have two monitors and I have set it up so Wayland runs a full-screen version on one of them, making testing pretty accurate and easy.
They may not like it but that is probably the way it is going to work first with full nVidia acceleration.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one more than I have seen.
Every time I think I am seeing a surface, a closer look reveals it is an iPad mini with a keyboard attachement.
I have seen surfaces in lots of TV shows, though. I guess product placement works.
There is also the fact that if you respond to the first post your comment is much more likely to be seen.
I also think that if a response is moderated up then the thing it is responding to should be moderated up as well. I sure see a lot of up-modded responses arguing with something moderated down, but the text is just vague enough (like "Joe Smith said no such thing!") to remove the context. It would also address the belief that only one pov is moderated up here.
I think the idea is to get the game manufacturers to maintain WINE compatibility of their games. Some of the more adventurous may even recompile and link with WINE directly.
To be fair, Wayland really was not coming fast enough. I follow the Wayland developer mailing list, and it is apparent Mir seems to have kicked the Wayland developers in the butt and gotten them back to work. And they did fix some mistakes, in particular they realized that the server has to do event handling so that input methods work, rather than the previous idea that clients would have to interpret raw device events. I think they also fixed the other complaint Mir had which was the method to allocate window image buffers could not work with Android drivers, though this area is very confusing and it is not clear if it was a problem and/or whether it is fixed now.
Silicon Beach is due to media companies such as special effects primarily, not due to MySpace as the summary implies. The Times article also says that MySpace was a "portion" of Silicon Beach, so it is the summary that gets this wrong.
Quote from your article: "0% of the Progressive ones were." Go read it and then call me a liar.
I certainly did not say "only 6 are conservative groups". Please explain why you claim that. Perhaps you read my post as carefully as you read the article?
The only facts in the article, and this is exactly what I wrote:
1. There is a list of 298 groups that were targeted.
2. 6 of them had "progress" in their names.
3. A non-zero number had "tea party" in their name
4. There is a much larger list of all groups the investigators had access to.
5. This larger list had 20 groups with "progress" in their names (thus leading to the 30% statistic)
6. This larger list had the same number with "tea party" in their names as was in the targeted list (thus leading to the 100% statistic).
Go and read what you wrote, what I wrote, and stop being an ass.
You actually had a citation to a real article. I think it very suspicious that the percentage of tea party is much higher than for progressive, meaning that there was further editing after filtering by names. You have a good argument, but you kill it by lying.
If you actually read the citation you quoted you would see you changed the numbers:
1. There were 298 groups total. This includes ones with "progress" in their names, ones with "tea party" in their names, and others (such as the marijuana stuff mentioned). 6 of them were ones with "progress" in their names. A non-zero number had "tea party" in their names.
2. 100% of any subset of these 298 were "given extra scrutiny" since that is what the list is.
3. The investigators compared this list to a full list of applicants for tax exempt status and found that 100% of the groups with "tea party" in their names were put into this list, while only 30% of the groups with "progress" in their names were put into the list (thus implying there were a total of 20 groups with "progress" in their names, and the total number with "tea party" in their names is between 1 and 292).
The primary errors you made are:
1. Claiming that all groups that don't have "progress" in their names are "Conservative"
2. You applied the 30% wrong, and then for some reason it morphed from 30% to 0%.
It's kind of sad you have to lie. The underlying article does back up what you wanted to say. I would be nice if they printed the number of "tea party" groups since that is the biggest unknown. There could be an excuse that they only investigated new groups and not ones that the application had been done before, but there is certainly a non-zero number of "tea party" groups that existed for more than a year so the selection should not have been 100%
Well there is Kryptonite, but that allergy may be dismissed as a pre-existing condition.
Nonsense. None of the other amendments have a preliminary "explanation" sentence. Your interpretation would be equally served by truncating it to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which would match the wording of all other 9 amendments.
The word "well-regulated" is the problem: even 200 years ago, the idea of fighting back against an enemy was never called "regulating the enemy".
I certainly agree that the purpose of the amendment is to allow anybody to have guns, not limiting it to a "militia". This is because it was obvious the militia would have guns (and at that time the only practical way to do this is for the members to take the guns home with them), thus there would be no need for the amendment. However it really does seem that there were opponents to this and that is why the weasel words were added at the start. It does seem that both sides of the argument today want to believe that silly political games did not exist back then, but they did.
What I meant was that "the militia" are the people most likely to lead the revolt against an oppressive government, according to the most common argument for why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is. You are implying that the reason for allowing people to have guns was to *fight* "the militia". That is an unusual position to take.
I think the real reason for the "militia" was that there were some writers opposed to gun rights and they managed to mangle the wording of the 2nd amendment so it did not say anything clearly.
This seems a very strange explanation, and exactly opposite the normal explanation from gun supporters I have heard. At that time "militia" meant an army of normal citizens, there was no way to distinguish the militia from the people. The militia, besides helping to defend the country against evil, would not be controlled enough by the government that it could not turn on it. To make the militia work the people needed guns (the guns used in the start of the revolution were personal weapons).
My personal opinion is that the gun rights argument existed even then, resulting in an unreadable weasel-wording of the amendment to try to make both sides happy.
I agree, the keyboard thing was monumentally stupid. ALL the ads pointed out the keyboard as the kool difference between it and other tablets. Any reasonable person would expect that exciting keyboard would be included in the base model, the ones they quote prices for. As soon as I saw it was an add-on I was a lot less interested in it. Seriously I think they would have done better if they had made the base model include the keyboard, yet charge the same price they are trying to charge for the base+keyboard now. At least you would not feel screwed by seeing that to get the advertised device you had to pay more than the advertised price.
Not sure if that is exactly the same. It would be the same if everybody could only watch one movie a year, and then had to watch the same one next 3 years. There would be two big movies (probably a superhero one and a romantic comedy). Maybe there would be third-party superhero and romantic comedy mash-up with a clever and unique plot that makes you think and is much more pleasurable than either of them. But you cannot go to that, since (assuming you prefer superheros) it would mean you could not go to the superhero movie, and then the romantic comedy you hate would win, and you would have to watch it the next 3 years.
Now if everybody had the ability to vote for as many candidates as they want it would be more like the movies. Then the scary, and all-too-likely "perfect candidate" engineered by corporations could still arise.
Yes you can run Wayland inside an X window. It does this automatically if $DISPLAY is set when wayland is run. This is in fact the only way I have gotten it to work. It is certainly a requirement for Wayland development right now. I have two monitors and I just run it fullscreen in one of the monitors, with the launching terminal in the other one so I can see error messages.
For me it uses the X shm interface to transfer the pixmaps from Wayland to X (I believe it may just transfer a single image that corresponds to the entire desktop). For me this works surprisingly well though. It may be slow, but the lack of async update between the various portions makes things like moving and resizing windows actually look smoother.
Apparently it can use EGL for this instead. The Wayland pixmaps are transferred as EGL images and composited into the desktop image using the EGL driver in the X server. This would be vastly faster. However this does not work under the Nvidia X drivers.
I'm not sure if it is related, but Wayland clients can use either EGL or shm (unrelated to X shm, but using Linux shm with fallback to files in /tmp) to send images to Wayland. The EGL api has never worked for me, probably due to some interference from the Nvidia X driver though I can't figure it out. This must not be an uncommon problem, as most of the demo Wayland clients now detect that EGL will not work and use shm in that case (the one called simple_egl fails however). I don't think this was intended, I think they hoped EGL would be used always. It looks to me that if EGL worked from the clients and in talking to X, the wayland-on-x stuff would pass the EGL buffers right through and composite them in the X EGL driver, and this should be pretty close to full speed.
No, Windows 95 really did have some innovations that were not in the X desktops at that time. Don't discount them just because they seem obvious now or that Microsoft really did develop them.
1. The "taskbar" contained an item for a window whether or not the window was open. All previous systems (including earlier windows) had "icons" that were only there for "closed" windows (ie a window was either "visible" or "iconized"). The taskbar realizes that users don't keep track of whether they last left a window iconized, and that windows can be buried and hidden.
2. They removed divider lines between window borders and contents. This made the graphics much thinner and cleaner looking. You should look at contemporary designs back then, nobody else figured out this graphics improvement.
3. As stated, making "everthing you can do" be in a tree with a single root (the "start" button) actually helped users a LOT by making it possible to search for what they wanted to do without having to wonder if they missed it.
Apple's scheme involved metadata embedded in the file (in the resource fork) that said what program to run when you double-clicked.
This works but has the strange effect that sometimes you cannot predict what program will open, or if the file will open at all. A common example (for me) is that I *always* have to use open-as on pdf and other files to get the nice fast "preview" program to run, rather than launching Adobe's reader.
Microsoft's version just used the filename to go to a central database that said "this filename pattern runs this program when double-clicked". The advantage here is that the program that opened was predictable, that you could install a new better program for a type of file and it would automatically be used. And it appeared to be a lot easier for users to understand and change. A disadvantage was that a "worse" program could also claim all the files, but you could blame the worse program installer rather than the underlying system.
Despite using it all the time I have no idea what is happening with Linux. The "desktop" files have "mime types run this" which implies that "mime data" is stored somewhere but it isn't. There is another database that turns filenames into mime types. The end result is obviosly no better than Microsoft's (because it uses filenames) but hard (actually impossible) for the user to change. Believe me I have tried many many times to get my own file extension to launch my own program, I just cannot figure out a way to do this and have to use "open with" always. Almost novice users could do this on earlier versions of Windows (I think Microsoft broke this recently, perhaps they hired Linux developers?).
Most window managers have middle-click *lower* the window. I don't know why he thought this conflicted with pasting.
This is probably a troll, but if you are genuinely being ignorant:
The water rises when the piece of ice breaks off and enters the ocean, not when it later melts.
Before it was sitting on land and displacing less than 90% of it's volume of water (it would be displacing 0% if the land was above the ocean surface, but it is non-zero in this case because the land is below the surface). When floating it is displacing 90% of it's volume. The difference means the extra displaced water has to go somewhere.
I absolutely agree. Why is everybody in a panic about Microsoft and Google sending information to the NSA, while not worrying about the fact that Microsoft and Google have this information in the first place? Even if you think corporations are entirely benign and only government is evil, if they did not have this information they could not give it to the NSA, while the current situation means that the evil government can force them to claim they are not giving it while still giving it.
The solution is end-to-end encryption of all the information, with sufficient open source so that testing devices can be put into the lines and detect that closed devices are not leaking information they should not.
I agree, having just done some refactoring of a large chunk of code exactly like this.
There were about 10 functions, spread between 4 source files in two directories and also duplicated in 4 header files. Some of the functions were entirely inline in the header files. Every single one of them was only called once, by one of the other functions. In a few cases one function called another with a lambda, when that called function could have just done the code in the lambda directly. Each of the functions took 8 or more parameters, pretty much the same set for each of them.
It was a nightmare to straighten this out. I did not try to structure it, I just inlined the code from one function into another, being very careful to change the variable names in the many many cases where the called function used a different symbol for it's argument than the caller used to pass it. The result was about 300 lines of code.
It is now possible to read one file and figure out how this code works, and to fix bugs without worrying that you don't know who else is relying on a function working the way it does.
It is true that the final function is too large and should be split up. There is an if statement choosing between two courses of action in the middle which likely should be replaced with a virtual function on the base class and two subclasses. And a few other utility functions can be pulled out. But none of this has anything to do with the original structure and I consider the monolithic function a lot easier to figure out than the many small functions.
A basic rule is that if it takes more than 2 arguments and is only called once, it should not be a function, just inline it.
Bull. Microsoft's refusal to interpret byte strings as UTF-8 is the problem. The fact that you have to use "wide characters" everywhere is by far one of the biggest impediments to I18N.
Unicode in bytes with UTF-8 is *TRIVIAL*. Look at the bytes and decode them. Variable length is not a problem, or if it is then you are lying about UTF-16 being so great because it is variable length as well! And if there are errors you can do something *intelligent*, like guess an alternative encoding (thus removing the need to mark either UTF-8 or legacy codes with a marker), and also preserve the error bytes until later so that you can do lossless data handling. Working with UTF-16 because of the lossy error conversion is like having to work with 7-bit data streams again, incredibly painful.
Intelligently-designed systems (like Plan9 back in the mid 80's!!!) could do All of Unicode using the same api as was used for ASCII and other character sets. None of this wide character shit. And there is zero reason Microsoft's stupid compilers cannot handle UTF-8 quoted constants except their pig headedness.
I don't understand why this Closed Cycle Brayton will work with a Thorium plant but not with a conventional nuke plant. So it would seem either that a conventional plant will have the advantage of not needing water as well, or it would be cheaper or more efficient to make a Thorium plant use cooling water and thus as likely they will have it.
I don't think the need for external water has anything to do with the fact that a conventional plant has water in the core. That is different water.
Very interesting, and balanced.
You say no cooling water is needed, but isn't water or a cooling tower needed to efficiently make the steam produced in the final loop run a turbine? I'm not sure I buy this as being different, unless these reactors are much much smaller than conventional nuclear reactors.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/gallery/2008/11/03/water1.jpg
Yes the development version includes the ability to run a wayland "desktop" inside an X window. It will do this automatically if $DISPLAY is set when you run Wayland.
For me that is the only version that works. I have two monitors and I have set it up so Wayland runs a full-screen version on one of them, making testing pretty accurate and easy.
They may not like it but that is probably the way it is going to work first with full nVidia acceleration.