Do either of these products support posable models, bones structurs and human modeling? That is, do they have RK (or whatever the "new" thing is) and pre-built human models to morph and play with? Is there a source of freeware human model meshes? The last time I looked, there wasn't. At best, you had to buy the meshes separately, and it wasn't clear how easily they would integrate with those products. I am certain a good 3D artist could easily work with it all, but something that impressed me (as a beginner) about Poser (when I last used it, which was version 3 a long time ago) was how easy it was to model a human figure, pose it, animate it, etc - in a fairly intuitive manner...
No, terrorism didn't start with the current US administration, and we weren't just attacked "yesterday". The beginning of terrorism in the face of US interests started a long time ago, most likely in response to US military bases being left in place in certain regions directly after WW2, coupled with the beginnings of Israel soon thereafter and the US support of such a nacent state at the time.
Time and again, those we are currently fighting have told us exactly what they want, what will stop all of this madness, yet we never stop to actually listen. We never stop to think and possibly try such a scenario. What they want is really simple: for the western nations to get the fuck out of Dodge. That is, for us to pack up all of our military bases and such, and leave their countries for them to govern without oversight of western nations. They feel they can do a good job. So why don't we try it?
For the middle east, there is only one answer why: a steady supply of oil to the west. That is why we (western nations) are so entrenched in the middle east, to ensure a steady, dependable supply of that which keeps our society from collapsing. Now, certainly, we don't get all of our oil from the middle east, not even a majority of it. IIRC, we get only 15-20 percent from the middle east. But, can you imagine the chaos that would erupt in the west if that flow was cut off or reduced significantly?
During WW2, there was severe rationing of oil in the west, for the war effort mainly. Afterwards, the west needed to ensure a supply of oil, and the middle east was where it was at, which is why (probably) the new nation of Israel was so heavily support, to provide a toehold on the region initially. Even so, we weren't that dependent on such oil, so it wasn't a huge priority. The oil embargo and shortages of the 1970's, combined with our greater need of oil, showed us that better stability was needed in the region. So we reacted by bringing stability.
I am also certain that between that period of time and now, the oil companies also ran the numbers through the Hubbert calculations and realized when world oil peak was to occur. Today, they don't even bother to conceal this fact, they mention it in most of their SEC paperwork filings (why the media is mostly hush on it is anybody's guess) - but, back then - they probably only shared it with certain individuals high up in government offices, and as things went forward, a certain family heavily involved in oil, who also had to know about such things, became heavily involved and successful in securing the highest government office in the United States (Clinton was an abberation).
We stay in the region to control the source of the oil - to "stabilize" the region (when in actuality nothing is stable there) - so that we have a steady flow of oil, and the 1970's oil crisis isn't repeated.
They all know the numbers now, even if the American people don't. It all relates to keeping the flow of oil going (not to get cheap oil - the oil companies don't want that - they want the west to pay as much as possible, but they also want the product to flow so there is something to pay for, without the instability of flow and prices jumping up and down due to lack of regional stability). By keeping a military presence there, the west assures that control and flow of the oil will continue, and that profits for the oil companies will continue to rise (and having a oil man in the highest office in the US helps immensely in these goals). The oil companies don't care about due process or inalienable rights of the people - profit is above all else, and corporations of any type can operate and make profits from any region with any government, short of an anarchic region, and even in those cases, money can be made. Is it any wonder that western nations are starting to resemble, government-wise, their corporate master's internal governance systems? Furthermore, since many people (especially those who tend to vote) work in such corporations, these same people seem to vote for further similar
What exactly is "Christian Science-Fiction"? It seems like an oxymoron to me. I could understand the idea of Christian Fantasy fiction (although, I will admit, a lot of so-called science-fiction should be re-classified as fantasy) - but mixing the ideas of religious faith (which is untestable and therefore unverifiable, by definition) with science (which is testable and verifiable), seems like two topics which would be at odds with each other (however, this hasn't stopped creationists with their approach of "intelligent design", so I suppose such a genre of science-fiction could exist, no matter how laughable it would be to read it with a sceptical mind)...
Heh, there's a bunch of things about the McMaster Motor that are just plain wrong...for example, the total volume per chamber never changes. If you see a 2D animation, it might look like it, but that thing in the middle is basically a tilted plate that spins, so there is no volume displacement into or out of the chamber whatsoever.
Are you certain about this? From what I understand, nutating plate "engines" are all around us and work well - they just work on water or gas - as in being used to drive the meters on our water and gas metering systems at our homes.
Instead of water or gas, the working fluid is the expansion of an ignited fuel (like a regular engine). From email conversations I have had with people at McMaster, they said the driving source could be nearly anything - common gasoline, steam power, or even air (they said they had a demo model that ran great on compressed air).
I do agree with your stance on the hydrogen - electrolysis of water is not the way to make hydrogen and use the energy effectively - there are much better ways...
100,000 miles with no maintenance - you have to be kidding? Or are they not including your normal things as part of maintenance? You know, things like belts, hoses, transmission fluid/filters, spark plugs and wires, water pump, etc? I also hope you know whether you have a timing belt or a timing chain, and whether your engine is an interference or a non-interference engine. If you have a timing belt (which only last about 60,000 miles or so - though I have personally gone 90,000 miles on one - you should have seen the shape it was in when it was pulled!) - and an interference engine - and that belt goes...whoo-boy, do I feel sorry for you (can you say likely engine rebuild?)...
I have a Buick, too - a 1995 Century. When I drive the thing (it is my wife's car - to replace the Neon we used to have), I just love how solid it feels. It runs great, we bought it used with about 40,000 on it (some granny owned it before us, obviously), it has the works. It is great for long drives with the cruise control.
My other two vehicles are a 1994 Ford Ranger with almost 150,000 miles on it, running strong, and a 1979 Ford Bronco with a 400 M-block in it (6.6L V-8) with who-knows-how-many-miles on it (200,000? 300,000? I am not even sure the speedometer is original) - it runs well when I drive it (which isn't very often - especially with gas prices - it was bought for off-roading anyhow), passed emmissions. Most of it's problems are because of the fact that it needs major suspension work (needs all the rubber mounts and such replaced, along with a new set of ball joints for the steering). Among other relatively minor problems.
Overall, I would say the vehicles I own (and I do own them - no payments for me, thank you - never, ever again) have worked for me well over the years...
Does OnStar get more money for finding these problems?
What they are likely doing is sending the OBD information over the OnStar system, where a computer probably monitors it, then alerts an operator to notify the driver that they need to have their automobile serviced soon by their local GM dealer (oh, and we can make a quick appointment - we notice you are driving by a neighborhood dealer right now).
Because the driver has no clue what the OBD told OnStar (despite the fact that this information is generally easily available either with a key sequence code or via a scan tool - although I imagine they will slowly phase this out as well, despite laws that exist), they have no real idea what the problem is, whether it is serious, nor what parts are likely to be needed, how long it will be in the shop, or how much it can (or should) cost. They are literally "in the dark" as to what the problem is. They are then (most likely) at the mercy of their neighborhood GM dealer to repair it. For all they know, the problem might be a simple issue that is easy for a home mechanic to fix (slipping belt, new air filter, oil change, brake pads) - but they could easily pad the problem out both time and parts wise, and the customer has no idea what the problem really is. After all, OnStar told them! OnStar and the ODB computer are always right, right?
This is just another example of people delegating responsibility to a third-party entity for the sake of convenience. As all such trade are likely to go, whether in business or government, these people will likely be screwed for a long time before anything comes to light (and then those responsible will get off with a slap of the wrist)...
The true fact is that on a new car, you shouldn't have to change your oil out until about 12,000 miles or so, provided you do a few things:
Measure the amount of oil that is in your engine
Remove a bit of oil and note how much you removed
Send this amount to an oil testing company to form a baseline
Replace the amount you removed with new oil
With the results from the testing company, monitor the oil on a monthly basis
Replace your oil filter regularly
Replace your oil when the viscosity is starting to fail or when the metal levels rise percentage wise, faster than what they did previously
This was test actually performed by a couple of guys on a web-based automobile repair information site. They wanted to test the theory that it is bad to run a car (in their case, it was a brand-new Vette or something similar) without changing the oil regularly (ie, every 3000 miles). They found that actually changing the oil could cause more problems than it helped, especially on a newer engine. They found that the best thing to do was to change the filter. They stressed that you had to establish your baseline oil performance and monitor it over the course of your driving, by utilizing a laboratory oil testing service, which takes a sample and runs it through various tests - the two most important of which were metal content and viscosity breakdown over time. IIRC, they ran the test for a year or more. They did note that 12,000 miles was a bit extreme, but that 3000 miles was way to soon. They said that somewhere in between was ultimately better. Something else they noted was that when they replaced the oil (when they removed oil for the lab tests) - they found that the next test always improved. They tried an experiment where they added a new quart of the same oil as in the engine, and the results came back almost as "good-as-new". Basically, the new oil "propped up" the old oil, and allowed the old stuff work like new.
I would say for most vehicles, you could get away with a 7000 mile or so change schedule, changing your filter at 3000 miles, and replacing the "lost" quart (in the filter) with a new charge of the same kind of oil (DO NOT MIX SYNTHETICS WITH REGULAR OIL) that is in the engine. You will save time, money, and resources overall. Of course, standard disclaimers apply, and you should research all of this on your own...
Imagine driving along and a spark plug wire fails. You hardly notice it but your CO emissions go just over the legal limit.
If you have ever experienced a car mis-firing (either due to a bad plug, bad wires, or loss of compression), you can't help but notice it! Lots of extra vibration, loss of power, engine is louder (chugging and huffing) - plus, if you are in certain OBD-II or OBD-III vehicles, the car might switch into "limp home" mode (which also, by design, does its best to reduce the emmisions produced), and you can't help but notice that...
Plus, loss of one or more cylinders (especially if the fuel/air intake isn't shut off - ie, the valves if electrically actuated, or more often the case, the injectors), won't just put you "a little" over the limit - you will go so far out of bounds that you might ruin the catalytic converter, which will cost big bucks because you can't buy and install them yourself - only a state-regulated shop can (which ticks me off, because I can't even buy used converters from a pick-ur-part for other experiments).
I suppose, though, if you have been given repeated warnings by the state, for what in most cases would be a simple fix (although it could get expensive quickly if loss of compression is the issue) - maybe they should be able to remotely enforce the laws against polluters. What the individual is doing, by not fixing their car in a timely manner, is not much different than knowingly (because, like I said, you can't not-notice losing a cylinder firing) causing pollution. The laws are in place because we as a society decided (most of the time through the voting process, other times via our representatives) that pollution is a bad thing, and in theory, all individuals and companies should behave in a manner respecting those laws which they have agreed to...
It is very expensive to get your car diagnosed because of the silly little "check engine" light.
It is only expensive if you think a car is "mysterious black box" that only "qualified experts" can work on. A similar attitude is held by many who use computers - at least they are somewhat justified, as a computer is a much more complex beast than a car. Although, with more complex computers controlling everything in a car, and hybrids with their advanced systems - makes you wonder...
Which is why I learn everything I can about both systems, because ultimately, that is what they are. Automobiles, as a whole, tend to do something minor that tells you there is a problem early, maybe long before the problem becomes major. Getting to know the smell, sound, and feel of your car is an important thing to do. Sometimes, just a little difference in any of these things from what you know as "normal" (for the age of the vehicle) is enough to let you know there is a problem (much the same can and is said of the human body - of course, so many people fail to notice what comes out of their body, how they feel, or sound, then they are shocked that they are sick or worse). A squeal under the hood when you are accelerating might mean a bad bearing or more likely a loose or worn belt. Rough steering may mean a new power steering pump, worn linkages, bad CV joints, or a wheel bearing going out. Funny smells (or smoke of any kind - and note the color!) from the tailpipe may indicate anything from a valve job, a head gasket needing replacement, or a cracked block (among other issues).
The way I look at it, most people who work on automobiles, I mean work at it like it is second nature, tend to know absolutely nothing about computers, saying they are way too complex. They are right - computers are damn complex, way more complex than a vehicle. Since I work with computers so much (both from a software and hardware perspective, as a developer) - then a car should be respectively simple. Guess what - overall, it is! Most of the frustration of automobiles and maintenance comes from not being able to diagnose problems and having good troubleshooting skills, skills which if you are any good at working with computers you should have in abundance. The rest comes from the fact that cars are not clean beasts, and parts are held together with nuts and bolts torqued to insane levels (because they need to be!) and require a bit of strength to remove. The rest breaks down into figuring out what the "check engine" light means.
For the last case, on most vehicles with OBD-I or OBD-II (and probably OBD-III as well, though I haven't any experience with these type cars), getting the code is either a simple process using the key switch to activate the light blink output, or the connection of a jumper or check lamp to the OBD connector (likely under the hood, sometimes the dash). For OBD-I vehicles, the code is a simple lookup in a book or at AutoZone. For the others, the code might indicate something where you need a scan tool to get better information (for instance, the code might say a "cylinder misfire", but it won't tell you which cylinder - the scan tool will). You can rent one of these at AutoZone, or they will check it for you for free in most cases. If you do a lot of repair work yourself, it might make sense to buy such a scan tool (they are only a few hundred bucks - less than many high-end PC graphics cards).
Having such knowledge can save you a lot of money. Knowing what your vehicle computer(s) are telling you (plural, because on some systems there is a separate connector for the computer which controls the braking system, as separate from the ECM - environmental control measures - computer which regulates the engine and pollution output - this other computer can tell you things about why your ABS light is always on and why your ABS isn't working) will help you in diagnosing the problem. It may be something simple like replacing an O2 sensor or maybe a set of plug wires, or something more complex like a head gasket r
The problems you mention with starrotor sound similar to the problems facing (faced? are they still in business) the McMaster Motor system - ie, needing tight tolerances for the nutating disc...
Hellraiser (Unbelievably graphic horror movie, for the uninitated. More than you can probably imagine.
For a horror movie, you are right, Hellraiser is a very graphic movie. However, for a kid, I am not sure if it is the worst movie you could show them.
Hellraiser relies on fantasy, to show demons which rend the flesh from those who relish in violence, using chains and hooks - among other things. Some would find it a sensual movie (series) depicting ultimate pain as ultimate pleasure. These things tend to go beyond child-level understanding. That, coupled with the imagery on the box, and the knowledge of what it is about, might at least cause a bit of hesitation on the part of the retailer and/or parent, about whether to sell it or let the child watch it.
But is it really that horrible of a movie? Let's take another movie for instance: Silence of the Lambs. Here is a movie that is almost pure psychologically thrilling, with very little (compared to Hellraiser, at least) in the way of blood or gore. More about the naivete and development of the main character of Clarice Starling, as she battles "evil" in the form of "Buffalo Bill", who is killing young women in a seemingly random fashion, for unknown ends. A man who knocks out and kidnaps his victims, then puts them in a deep hole in the basement of a house, while he goes about his business of killing them in a slow, methodical fashion. In the background, helping both himself and Clarice, is the repulsive and enigmatic former-psychiatrist Hannibal Lector, contained in a special cage, given his crimes of utmost depravity - for which he can give very reasoned, logical explanations as to the whys of, which are, it seems, rather convincing...
Does it help that while Hellraiser is based on pure fantasy, Silence of the Lambs draws from the real life terror that the dude in the house three doors down may be a serial killer? That people just as depraved and indifferent to life as both Hannibal Lector and Buffalo Bill walk around among us, have killed among us, have tortured among us, have made couches and lamps with the skin of their victims - in both the past, and likely the present - and that this is real, and has gone on likely as long as mankind has existed?
Which is more frightening? Hellraiser and its fantasy world, or Silence of the Lambs and its based-on-reality world?
The unfortunate fact is that people will continue to hound on the former and ignore the latter - whether it comes to children or adults watching it. People, for some reason, seem oblivious, and likely frightened, of the fact that the ordinary can easily hide the extraordinary and depraved. That the clown hired to tend to a child's party is actually a serial killer hiding the bodies under his house (J. W. Gacy). That a woman can go on a "rampage" and kill her family and friends for seemingly no reason at all (Lizzy Borden). That a person could stalk and kill prostitutes without provacation (Jack the Ripper). That a respected "Doctor" could so easily lure and kill his victims in a "house" constructed to lull and confuse his victims before he killed them (Dr. H. H. Holmes).
They have numbed themselves to the fact that humans are, at base, animals, and that some of us lack both reason and empathy, and are able to commit these crimes without remorse - and day in, day out - these people exist among us, work among us (and in some cases, over us), live next door to us. That, in my opinion, should be way more frightening than any fantasy depiction of violence...
In the USA, it's possible to flunk every class, drop out and become a millionaire.
That, or become the president of the country.
I am not saying that our current president "flunked out". He certainly was a millionaire, but it is debateable whether he got there by his own initiative or via family help. I suspect the latter.
What isn't debateable is the fact that he stood in front of a graduating class of university students, proclaimed that even a "C" student could become president of the USA, and people cheered...
Sickening, and despicable, to say the least.
People, here is a man in what could arguably be called "the top office in the world" - who by his own recollection in public - is merely average. In my limited experience, average people do not tend to care to learn about and apply reason and logic to their everyday activities, let alone activities happening during a crisis. Average people tend to instead apply emotion and knee-jerk reaction (instead of logic and pro-active reason) to most events and situations, especially those which occur without foreknowledge or preparation. Even with foreknowledge, logic and reason are rarely applied by these individuals.
This is a man walking around carrying "the football", with the capability of launching more man-made death and destruction than the world has ever witnessed in the past. A man who tends to rely on knee-jerk reactions and emotion, rather than logic and reason. A man, by his own words, who is "average".
know this is going to draw a lot of flames, but i want to ask this seriously... in american society, the rights of minors are restricted (by the state) in all sorts of ways.
Let's add another, shall we?
Among other similar "fairness" we expose our children to, they can't vote on (or have any voice about) issues and/or laws which allow them to be tried and convicted as an adult for crimes they commit as a minor.
It is one thing to try, convict and punish (and/or execute) adults for criminal activities they commit, because in theory those and other adults have voices they can use prior to the commission of their acts to help shape laws and society such that the legal response to those acts can be said to in some way have been shaped by themselves (ie, live by the rules and laws you help set). I say "in theory", because as we know, most supposed "adults" couldn't give a damn about the laws and such which govern them, let alone vote on those issues - but they do have the option.
For all of the talk about "think of the children", we adults don't seem to be too keen on giving them the self-same rights we enjoy to let them have a voice in the process, which may arguably one day kill them.
Of course, given what I have stated above that most adults don't even participate in their own governance, I suppose it is folly to presume that they would participate in helping their children do the same...
Little to nothing, actuallly. For a brief while, the "latest case-mod" thing was to open up the harddrive (remove the cover), then mod the cover to add a window to see the heads move and platters rotate. The smart modders used older drives, and tried to do a "clean room" system by getting a bathroom steamy (to trap dust particles), letting the steam die down, then performing the surgery (a few others tried to build mini-cleanroom-boxes as well - with HEPA filtered air systems and such). Some of these drives actually lasted a while without crashing or corrupting - a few months in some cases. I think the fact that you don't see clear hard drive covers for sale (though they do exist for demo/sales units put out by hard drive manufacturers) kinda tells you that it wasn't as successful as some would have liked. But it wasn't a complete disaster, either...
Are we not animals as well, and do not both religion and science agree that the strong does not respect the weak?
Yes, we are.
Fortunately, we also have something most animals do not: the ability to reason. Unfortunately, many of us fail to use this ability (or in some cases, lack it entirely)...
Personally, a part of me thinks that the nay-sayers of Wolfram's book (A New Kind Of Science) haven't read the book themselves. I have (well, I didn't read the footnote area in detail - a lot of the math in that area goes way above my head, and the section is as long as the rest of the book - egads!), and what struck me most, to the point of boredom, was that it seemed like on every other page Wolfram writes something akin to "none of this is new, I didn't discover this, all I am doing here is making connections and bringing it all together in one volume" - more or less. Throughout the book, you see this, this "self-deprecation" of what is shown in the book.
In other words, he acknowledges (repeatedly!) that others came before him. The only thing he shows is something that I haven't been able to find in similar literature explored in the same detail, the main premise of Wolfram's book: that the driving force behind the universe at large is a form of a Universal Turing Machine.
With his research into his simple six rule (IIRC) one-dimensional CA, he shows how this "machine" can be configured (with the right starting input pattern) to act as a UTM. Furthermore, he shows that higher dimensional CAs can be "devolved" into lower-order CAs that preserve the UTM nature. He shows that his simple six rule CA (and he acknowledges that there might be - probably is - simpler CAs which preserve the UTM nature) can emulate and output patterns as well as chaotical similarities as is found in nature. He postulates and theorizes on the idea that what we see as natural processes are actually UTM "machines" creating all of this, and that ultimately the universe on some level, is a UTM which has been running since the beginning of time, and creating further UTMs which have created all that we see. Ultimately, everything is the result of a UTM.
He then goes on to speculate on what possible practical uses such knowledge could be applied to - certainly, if everything is ultimately a result of a UTM, then in theory if you can build a UTM, then you can do *anything*.
Are you noticing the self-referentialism here? We are UTMs - we have built UTMs - we have used these UTMs to discover that we and everything else is a UTM - round and round we go. In a way, the concept and the ideas aren't too far out. If you have every looked into how our cells work - how DNA (and RNA, and messenger RNA, etc) work - you will see that the cellular act of replication is nothing more than a UTM at work, where DNA is the code, and the base pairs are the symbols upon which the whole thing runs. Ultimately, at the basest of levels, we embody UTMs by the multitude.
You see, the thing Wolfram has done with his book is question something, and has possibly found the answer (or at the very least, the right questions) to answer the big "whys" of the universe. This scares a lot of people, including many who shouldn't be scared. Much of this hits up against a lot of transhumanist philosophy and ideas. In many cases, it seems a natural fit. Wolfram never says why the Universe came about in this manner - he can't answer that big question, and I doubt that anyone can. It may be something as simple as that if you get enough particles interacting with one another, eventually out of those interactions a simple (six rules or less, remember?) CA can form, and once that occurs, a UTM can be born, and from that, for whatever reason, it spreads and forms more of what we see. It could be that these "slow UTMs", which form the universe and operate on vast scales of time and space - still exist and are running. Out of these simple structures form the seemingly random complexity which we see in the universe. It isn't random, it is just that the CA/UTM has been running for a very long time, and is forming all of this.
Which is another theme within the book - that complexity can easily arise from simple rules, that seemingly complex things don't require a "designer", just a simple six rules or less CA which runs and produces the complexity over time.
In case you are not aware, what breeder reactors do is take low grade nuclear "fuel" and turn it into high grade nuclear "fuel". This new "fuel", which can then be reused, is also, unfortunately, real close to what is needed for weapons-grade nuclear material. In other words, a breeder reactor can just as easily be used to manufacture weapons-grade nuclear material as it could energy.
It isn't so much that people don't bring it up in discussions of Peak oil, it is that there isn't a political or technological solution to the issue of the near-weapons grade material that comes out of the other end. Perhaps, if everything was rosy and nice here with humans (fat chance of that happenning - people are angry poo-flinging monkeys, most of the time), breeder reactors would be something worth discussing. As it is, they don't get discussed because for the moment, they won't be built because of the issues surrounding them.
Likely, they won't be built until there isn't any other options left. Hopefully, the technology stays tightly controlled by western countries (though that isn't any guarantee either - western countries can go "insane" just like any other), and that the technology and knowledge doesn't find its way to countries which simply want it for the weapons production capability. There are are ton of countries out there which do, who want to use nuclear weapons to destroy the "west". They (and increasingly, we) don't understand the kind of destruction these weapons cause. Nuclear weapons are true doomsday devices. With them, mankind has built a system which could easily destroy the planet and make it uninhabitable by humans, possibly even destroying the species, along with a host of others. With the end of above ground tests, we have lost an important thing: perspective. I am not saying we shouldn't have ended such tests, but what such tests provided (for the observers, at least) was the knowledge and understanding of just what monstrous capability and destruction these weapons provided their wielders. In many case, this understanding was humbling to those witnesses, who then went on to provide a check against wanton use of these weapons. With the loss of that perspective, I fear that one day we will see their use again, despite all the past has shown us.
Of course, though, hasn't history shown us that this is the way of us animals?
The religious right isn't America, but rather are the ones who are voting. I can guarantee you that while most of America is religious (which is scary in its own regard, but that is a discussion for another day), the majority of these people are only concerned for themselves and their families, and couldn't care less what others do, think or say.
This "new" hydrogen "pellet" sounds real similar to what was demonstrated (in a GM prototype, no less!) several years ago based on a patented technology called "Powerball". The company (Powerball, Inc?) created this technology that bound hydrogen to borax, as a "borohydrate" or something - which when combined with water, produced hydrogen, heat, and when dried, something that could be easily turned back into borax.
At the time, I was pretty excited. Over time, I realized that since this country has a lot of borax near Barstow/Daggett, California (ie, 20 mule team Boron), which also has a very convenient freight rail line nearby as well as a freeway with tons of long haul trucks (as anyone who has gone through Kramer Junction can attest to) - that combining the Powerball technology with a solar-power water disassociation plant (ie, use a similar system as current refineries do with hydrocarbons to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen - but use high-intesity solar heat to power it, using a similar system as the Solar-1 project in Daggett, or the other high-temperature solar plants out there) - right there in the desert we could easily have a plant that takes borax and combines it with hydrogen (where to get the water is an issue - colorado river diversion?), creating a pelletized fuel to be shipped by truck and rail to the rest of the country. When refilling the car, exchange the "slush" for fresh pellets and water - the slush is pumped and trucked back to the plant to close the cycle (thus part of the water and borax returns to be recycled).
I am sure that the Powerball technology had problems similar to the way this new technology seems to, which is probably why the technology just seemed to "vanish" after the GM demonstration...
Something which also vexes me is what ever happened with the McMaster Motor? The thing seemed very simple - a nutating disk/sphere system (similar to what is in a gas or water meter), powered by an internal combustion system or steam, which essentially had on a few moving parts (something like three or so). Regardless, we need new engine designs like this - the whole piston sliding up and down turning a crankshaft with valves, etc - all of it is too many parts which rob fuel efficiency. Less moving parts, less friction, better efficiency!
Finally - what about an engine that ran on water? If we can disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen on a larger scale, can we do the same within an engine? For instance, I have read about these devices which are basically like a quarter shrinker - where the electrodes (attached to the capacitor) are ran through a tube of water. I have heard that this extreme energy release causes the water to disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen, which then immediately ignites (they are call water exploders or something like that - part of the whole high voltage crowd who like to play with things like quarter shrinkers and huge Tesla coils). Could an engine be built that did the same thing?
Or, what about a "flash steam" engine - where the water stays water until it enters the cylinder, which is kept very hot and the water immediately flashes into steam, driving the piston?
I am not an engineer, I am sure all of these ideas have little to no merit - but it is ideas like these that are what we need to work on and develop, then bring to market - if we want to break our dependency on oil for transportation. Oil will always have a place in industry and transportation - but for ordinary transport of people and goods, other technologies can and should fill the role. We have to think of ways to do this from the generation/extraction through to propelling the vehicle and then recycling whatever (if anything) is left over back into the process. This will require new ideas not just for the fuel or energy carrier, but also for the engine which will provide the motive force...
Did you abstract the interface to your DB and tables?
How portable is your SQL code?
The answers to these two questions will largely determine how dificult it is to convert to another DB (any DB, not just MySQL to PostgreSQL). Please note that there are other factors as well, I am just identifying two of the largest.
The first, if you didn't address it correctly the first go around, and depending on the complexity of your application, could be a "killer" in development time to convert over. For example, if you used the "built-in" PHP MySQL interfacing code all over your application's php pages, you will run into one hell of a conversion process, a nightmare, to be honest. Every single call will have to be replaced in some manner, either with an equivalent call to whatever other interface exists in PHP, or with a call to a DB abstraction layer. If you are smart, you will go with the latter approach, so you don't have to repeat this down the line.
If you were smarter the first go around, perhaps you slightly abstracted everything, and put all the MySQL interface functions into a DB abstraction library module that you include in all your pages. It will still be a ton of work, but now you only have to modify the module, and verify it all works - if you "blackboxed" it enough, your application might not even know or care about the changes you make (barring issues from second point in the list, of course, which I will explain in a moment).
If you were really smart, you used the PEAR::DB abstraction layer, and hopefully the DB you are moving to is supported by that abstraction (and if not, here is a chance to extend PEAR::DB!). Hopefully, you put this layer behind your own layer in a library module so you only have one area to change, and with luck, nothing will break once you have your tables imported and your connection string changed for the new DB server.
Now, about point 2 - this is just as important. If you abstracted things out, with your own DB abstraction wrapper over the top of PEAR::DB or some custom abstraction library, it will be easier, but there still will be pitfalls. Basically, how well did you adhere to using "common" or ANSI SQL97 or SQL99 SQL code? In other words, how portable are your SQL selects/updates/inserts/deletes? How did you handle date/time stamps? How did you handle record IDs? How did you set up your table fields (did you use "standard" field types, or ones specific to your DBMS?). All of these (and more) are "gotchas" in the area of database applications and DB abstraction layers.
You may have a ton of SQL code to go through and change, depending on what you were selecting or updating, and how you were doing it. If you were thinking about this problem from the beginning, hopefully you set up an abstraction layer with functions or classes that allow you to pass some arguments and call a method that populates a recordset array which you can then easily use and manipulate - that is, you never or hardly ever write any SQL code, because you let your abstraction library handle that portion. In that case, you simply have to update the abstraction layer and/or any other areas where you may have had to use your own SQL code to get the job done, and you are golden. However, if you didn't do that, you have a hell of a process ahead of you.
If you didn't handle either of those situations properly - that is, if you have MySQL-dependent functions scattered throughout your PHP code, and your SQL code is highly MySQL specific in structure and syntax - unless your application is fairly small you are really going to feel the pain if you have to do a conversion.
My advice in this kind of a situation is to "bite the bullet", and start small, gradually working up: Abstract all of your MySQL specific calls to the custom DB abstraction library, where you put the MySQL specific code in place. DO THIS WITH EVERYTHING. Once you have that running, then look into taking that module and making as much of
I have a copy of it here, still in the package, never installed or played (though I did remove the outer plastic wrap). I bought it at a Walmart a week before it was to be officially released, at a price less than the official release price (major screwup at wally world, no doubt).
I never installed it or played it, because at the time the PC I had didn't have enough power to run it. I figured I would install it some day when I did. I now do have a machine that could easily play it, but since I don't fuss with 'doze any more, it sits on a shelf, collecting dust.
Maybe someday I will get really nostalgic and actually try it out...
First off, when I read the thing, I thought "that's kinda funny" - but then giving a few seconds thought, I now realize this guy is an IDIOT!
I mean, yeah - I could see his point in a way, but they weren't using much of his bandwidth (certainly no where near as much as the other sites in that chart)...
He missed an opportunity - and perhaps put future opportunities in jeopardy. The bandwidth wasn't a big deal. He could have contacted the webmaster for Fuddrucker's, told him his concerns, let him know that he appreciated the flattery of the linking, but that he would like to come to a better arrangement. He is now, after all, thanks to that game and others, a Flash game programmer. He could have offerred to create a custom Fuddrucker's branded version of the game, to be hosted on Fuddrucker's site. He could have worked out an arrangement to license the game to Fuddrucker's, perhaps set up a "pay-per-play" agreement (ie, for each person who plays the game, Fuddrucker's could pay him five cents). It is basically advertisement in a subtle form. Fuddrucker's already pays this (and pays much more) for other advertising venues, his outlet would likely have been very cheap! He could then add this to his resume, he could have perhaps offered the game to be "branded for your enterprise" - or offerred the game to an advertisement agency as a service. He could now be enjoying fruits of his labor, for as long as Fuddrucker's were willing to pay. He might have been able to land a deal for his current employer as well (if he works for someone and doesn't do custom contract work game development).
Instead, he chose to throw all of this away - and unfortunately for him - to do so in a very "loud" manner. He may have (although in this day of 5 second sound bites, maybe not) even tarnished his own reputation as a game developer, and certainly as one for small games on web sites. If he is employed by another, the fact of that relation might even put his employer's reputation in jeopardy (and ultimately his own job). What could have turned out to be a lucrative thing for him and/or his employer has now likely become something that those in the business might remember him for - and he will find money lacking if he wants to sell games for corporate branded website use.
Let us all see his folly and learn something about thinking before we respond, lest our own pride causes our future downfall...
For my 1979 Bronco (fullsize with a V8 - good thing it isn't my daily driver with these gas prices!) my key is double sided - flip it one way to open the doors (there is a notch on the key), flip it the other way to start the vehicle. I had to get it cut this way at a locksmith because the locks on the door were different from the lock on the ignition, and I didn't want to have to mess with multiple keys (and fortunately the locks could work like this, too)...
Slashdot Mirror
Do either of these products support posable models, bones structurs and human modeling? That is, do they have RK (or whatever the "new" thing is) and pre-built human models to morph and play with? Is there a source of freeware human model meshes? The last time I looked, there wasn't. At best, you had to buy the meshes separately, and it wasn't clear how easily they would integrate with those products. I am certain a good 3D artist could easily work with it all, but something that impressed me (as a beginner) about Poser (when I last used it, which was version 3 a long time ago) was how easy it was to model a human figure, pose it, animate it, etc - in a fairly intuitive manner...
Time and again, those we are currently fighting have told us exactly what they want, what will stop all of this madness, yet we never stop to actually listen. We never stop to think and possibly try such a scenario. What they want is really simple: for the western nations to get the fuck out of Dodge. That is, for us to pack up all of our military bases and such, and leave their countries for them to govern without oversight of western nations. They feel they can do a good job. So why don't we try it?
For the middle east, there is only one answer why: a steady supply of oil to the west. That is why we (western nations) are so entrenched in the middle east, to ensure a steady, dependable supply of that which keeps our society from collapsing. Now, certainly, we don't get all of our oil from the middle east, not even a majority of it. IIRC, we get only 15-20 percent from the middle east. But, can you imagine the chaos that would erupt in the west if that flow was cut off or reduced significantly?
During WW2, there was severe rationing of oil in the west, for the war effort mainly. Afterwards, the west needed to ensure a supply of oil, and the middle east was where it was at, which is why (probably) the new nation of Israel was so heavily support, to provide a toehold on the region initially. Even so, we weren't that dependent on such oil, so it wasn't a huge priority. The oil embargo and shortages of the 1970's, combined with our greater need of oil, showed us that better stability was needed in the region. So we reacted by bringing stability.
I am also certain that between that period of time and now, the oil companies also ran the numbers through the Hubbert calculations and realized when world oil peak was to occur. Today, they don't even bother to conceal this fact, they mention it in most of their SEC paperwork filings (why the media is mostly hush on it is anybody's guess) - but, back then - they probably only shared it with certain individuals high up in government offices, and as things went forward, a certain family heavily involved in oil, who also had to know about such things, became heavily involved and successful in securing the highest government office in the United States (Clinton was an abberation).
We stay in the region to control the source of the oil - to "stabilize" the region (when in actuality nothing is stable there) - so that we have a steady flow of oil, and the 1970's oil crisis isn't repeated.
They all know the numbers now, even if the American people don't. It all relates to keeping the flow of oil going (not to get cheap oil - the oil companies don't want that - they want the west to pay as much as possible, but they also want the product to flow so there is something to pay for, without the instability of flow and prices jumping up and down due to lack of regional stability). By keeping a military presence there, the west assures that control and flow of the oil will continue, and that profits for the oil companies will continue to rise (and having a oil man in the highest office in the US helps immensely in these goals). The oil companies don't care about due process or inalienable rights of the people - profit is above all else, and corporations of any type can operate and make profits from any region with any government, short of an anarchic region, and even in those cases, money can be made. Is it any wonder that western nations are starting to resemble, government-wise, their corporate master's internal governance systems? Furthermore, since many people (especially those who tend to vote) work in such corporations, these same people seem to vote for further similar
What exactly is "Christian Science-Fiction"? It seems like an oxymoron to me. I could understand the idea of Christian Fantasy fiction (although, I will admit, a lot of so-called science-fiction should be re-classified as fantasy) - but mixing the ideas of religious faith (which is untestable and therefore unverifiable, by definition) with science (which is testable and verifiable), seems like two topics which would be at odds with each other (however, this hasn't stopped creationists with their approach of "intelligent design", so I suppose such a genre of science-fiction could exist, no matter how laughable it would be to read it with a sceptical mind)...
Are you certain about this? From what I understand, nutating plate "engines" are all around us and work well - they just work on water or gas - as in being used to drive the meters on our water and gas metering systems at our homes.
Instead of water or gas, the working fluid is the expansion of an ignited fuel (like a regular engine). From email conversations I have had with people at McMaster, they said the driving source could be nearly anything - common gasoline, steam power, or even air (they said they had a demo model that ran great on compressed air).
I do agree with your stance on the hydrogen - electrolysis of water is not the way to make hydrogen and use the energy effectively - there are much better ways...
100,000 miles with no maintenance - you have to be kidding? Or are they not including your normal things as part of maintenance? You know, things like belts, hoses, transmission fluid/filters, spark plugs and wires, water pump, etc? I also hope you know whether you have a timing belt or a timing chain, and whether your engine is an interference or a non-interference engine. If you have a timing belt (which only last about 60,000 miles or so - though I have personally gone 90,000 miles on one - you should have seen the shape it was in when it was pulled!) - and an interference engine - and that belt goes...whoo-boy, do I feel sorry for you (can you say likely engine rebuild?)...
My other two vehicles are a 1994 Ford Ranger with almost 150,000 miles on it, running strong, and a 1979 Ford Bronco with a 400 M-block in it (6.6L V-8) with who-knows-how-many-miles on it (200,000? 300,000? I am not even sure the speedometer is original) - it runs well when I drive it (which isn't very often - especially with gas prices - it was bought for off-roading anyhow), passed emmissions. Most of it's problems are because of the fact that it needs major suspension work (needs all the rubber mounts and such replaced, along with a new set of ball joints for the steering). Among other relatively minor problems.
Overall, I would say the vehicles I own (and I do own them - no payments for me, thank you - never, ever again) have worked for me well over the years...
What they are likely doing is sending the OBD information over the OnStar system, where a computer probably monitors it, then alerts an operator to notify the driver that they need to have their automobile serviced soon by their local GM dealer (oh, and we can make a quick appointment - we notice you are driving by a neighborhood dealer right now).
Because the driver has no clue what the OBD told OnStar (despite the fact that this information is generally easily available either with a key sequence code or via a scan tool - although I imagine they will slowly phase this out as well, despite laws that exist), they have no real idea what the problem is, whether it is serious, nor what parts are likely to be needed, how long it will be in the shop, or how much it can (or should) cost. They are literally "in the dark" as to what the problem is. They are then (most likely) at the mercy of their neighborhood GM dealer to repair it. For all they know, the problem might be a simple issue that is easy for a home mechanic to fix (slipping belt, new air filter, oil change, brake pads) - but they could easily pad the problem out both time and parts wise, and the customer has no idea what the problem really is. After all, OnStar told them! OnStar and the ODB computer are always right, right?
This is just another example of people delegating responsibility to a third-party entity for the sake of convenience. As all such trade are likely to go, whether in business or government, these people will likely be screwed for a long time before anything comes to light (and then those responsible will get off with a slap of the wrist)...
This was test actually performed by a couple of guys on a web-based automobile repair information site. They wanted to test the theory that it is bad to run a car (in their case, it was a brand-new Vette or something similar) without changing the oil regularly (ie, every 3000 miles). They found that actually changing the oil could cause more problems than it helped, especially on a newer engine. They found that the best thing to do was to change the filter. They stressed that you had to establish your baseline oil performance and monitor it over the course of your driving, by utilizing a laboratory oil testing service, which takes a sample and runs it through various tests - the two most important of which were metal content and viscosity breakdown over time. IIRC, they ran the test for a year or more. They did note that 12,000 miles was a bit extreme, but that 3000 miles was way to soon. They said that somewhere in between was ultimately better. Something else they noted was that when they replaced the oil (when they removed oil for the lab tests) - they found that the next test always improved. They tried an experiment where they added a new quart of the same oil as in the engine, and the results came back almost as "good-as-new". Basically, the new oil "propped up" the old oil, and allowed the old stuff work like new.
I would say for most vehicles, you could get away with a 7000 mile or so change schedule, changing your filter at 3000 miles, and replacing the "lost" quart (in the filter) with a new charge of the same kind of oil (DO NOT MIX SYNTHETICS WITH REGULAR OIL) that is in the engine. You will save time, money, and resources overall. Of course, standard disclaimers apply, and you should research all of this on your own...
If you have ever experienced a car mis-firing (either due to a bad plug, bad wires, or loss of compression), you can't help but notice it! Lots of extra vibration, loss of power, engine is louder (chugging and huffing) - plus, if you are in certain OBD-II or OBD-III vehicles, the car might switch into "limp home" mode (which also, by design, does its best to reduce the emmisions produced), and you can't help but notice that...
Plus, loss of one or more cylinders (especially if the fuel/air intake isn't shut off - ie, the valves if electrically actuated, or more often the case, the injectors), won't just put you "a little" over the limit - you will go so far out of bounds that you might ruin the catalytic converter, which will cost big bucks because you can't buy and install them yourself - only a state-regulated shop can (which ticks me off, because I can't even buy used converters from a pick-ur-part for other experiments).
I suppose, though, if you have been given repeated warnings by the state, for what in most cases would be a simple fix (although it could get expensive quickly if loss of compression is the issue) - maybe they should be able to remotely enforce the laws against polluters. What the individual is doing, by not fixing their car in a timely manner, is not much different than knowingly (because, like I said, you can't not-notice losing a cylinder firing) causing pollution. The laws are in place because we as a society decided (most of the time through the voting process, other times via our representatives) that pollution is a bad thing, and in theory, all individuals and companies should behave in a manner respecting those laws which they have agreed to...
It is only expensive if you think a car is "mysterious black box" that only "qualified experts" can work on. A similar attitude is held by many who use computers - at least they are somewhat justified, as a computer is a much more complex beast than a car. Although, with more complex computers controlling everything in a car, and hybrids with their advanced systems - makes you wonder...
Which is why I learn everything I can about both systems, because ultimately, that is what they are. Automobiles, as a whole, tend to do something minor that tells you there is a problem early, maybe long before the problem becomes major. Getting to know the smell, sound, and feel of your car is an important thing to do. Sometimes, just a little difference in any of these things from what you know as "normal" (for the age of the vehicle) is enough to let you know there is a problem (much the same can and is said of the human body - of course, so many people fail to notice what comes out of their body, how they feel, or sound, then they are shocked that they are sick or worse). A squeal under the hood when you are accelerating might mean a bad bearing or more likely a loose or worn belt. Rough steering may mean a new power steering pump, worn linkages, bad CV joints, or a wheel bearing going out. Funny smells (or smoke of any kind - and note the color!) from the tailpipe may indicate anything from a valve job, a head gasket needing replacement, or a cracked block (among other issues).
The way I look at it, most people who work on automobiles, I mean work at it like it is second nature, tend to know absolutely nothing about computers, saying they are way too complex. They are right - computers are damn complex, way more complex than a vehicle. Since I work with computers so much (both from a software and hardware perspective, as a developer) - then a car should be respectively simple. Guess what - overall, it is! Most of the frustration of automobiles and maintenance comes from not being able to diagnose problems and having good troubleshooting skills, skills which if you are any good at working with computers you should have in abundance. The rest comes from the fact that cars are not clean beasts, and parts are held together with nuts and bolts torqued to insane levels (because they need to be!) and require a bit of strength to remove. The rest breaks down into figuring out what the "check engine" light means.
For the last case, on most vehicles with OBD-I or OBD-II (and probably OBD-III as well, though I haven't any experience with these type cars), getting the code is either a simple process using the key switch to activate the light blink output, or the connection of a jumper or check lamp to the OBD connector (likely under the hood, sometimes the dash). For OBD-I vehicles, the code is a simple lookup in a book or at AutoZone. For the others, the code might indicate something where you need a scan tool to get better information (for instance, the code might say a "cylinder misfire", but it won't tell you which cylinder - the scan tool will). You can rent one of these at AutoZone, or they will check it for you for free in most cases. If you do a lot of repair work yourself, it might make sense to buy such a scan tool (they are only a few hundred bucks - less than many high-end PC graphics cards).
Having such knowledge can save you a lot of money. Knowing what your vehicle computer(s) are telling you (plural, because on some systems there is a separate connector for the computer which controls the braking system, as separate from the ECM - environmental control measures - computer which regulates the engine and pollution output - this other computer can tell you things about why your ABS light is always on and why your ABS isn't working) will help you in diagnosing the problem. It may be something simple like replacing an O2 sensor or maybe a set of plug wires, or something more complex like a head gasket r
The problems you mention with starrotor sound similar to the problems facing (faced? are they still in business) the McMaster Motor system - ie, needing tight tolerances for the nutating disc...
For a horror movie, you are right, Hellraiser is a very graphic movie. However, for a kid, I am not sure if it is the worst movie you could show them.
Hellraiser relies on fantasy, to show demons which rend the flesh from those who relish in violence, using chains and hooks - among other things. Some would find it a sensual movie (series) depicting ultimate pain as ultimate pleasure. These things tend to go beyond child-level understanding. That, coupled with the imagery on the box, and the knowledge of what it is about, might at least cause a bit of hesitation on the part of the retailer and/or parent, about whether to sell it or let the child watch it.
But is it really that horrible of a movie? Let's take another movie for instance: Silence of the Lambs. Here is a movie that is almost pure psychologically thrilling, with very little (compared to Hellraiser, at least) in the way of blood or gore. More about the naivete and development of the main character of Clarice Starling, as she battles "evil" in the form of "Buffalo Bill", who is killing young women in a seemingly random fashion, for unknown ends. A man who knocks out and kidnaps his victims, then puts them in a deep hole in the basement of a house, while he goes about his business of killing them in a slow, methodical fashion. In the background, helping both himself and Clarice, is the repulsive and enigmatic former-psychiatrist Hannibal Lector, contained in a special cage, given his crimes of utmost depravity - for which he can give very reasoned, logical explanations as to the whys of, which are, it seems, rather convincing...
Does it help that while Hellraiser is based on pure fantasy, Silence of the Lambs draws from the real life terror that the dude in the house three doors down may be a serial killer? That people just as depraved and indifferent to life as both Hannibal Lector and Buffalo Bill walk around among us, have killed among us, have tortured among us, have made couches and lamps with the skin of their victims - in both the past, and likely the present - and that this is real, and has gone on likely as long as mankind has existed?
Which is more frightening? Hellraiser and its fantasy world, or Silence of the Lambs and its based-on-reality world?
The unfortunate fact is that people will continue to hound on the former and ignore the latter - whether it comes to children or adults watching it. People, for some reason, seem oblivious, and likely frightened, of the fact that the ordinary can easily hide the extraordinary and depraved. That the clown hired to tend to a child's party is actually a serial killer hiding the bodies under his house (J. W. Gacy). That a woman can go on a "rampage" and kill her family and friends for seemingly no reason at all (Lizzy Borden). That a person could stalk and kill prostitutes without provacation (Jack the Ripper). That a respected "Doctor" could so easily lure and kill his victims in a "house" constructed to lull and confuse his victims before he killed them (Dr. H. H. Holmes).
They have numbed themselves to the fact that humans are, at base, animals, and that some of us lack both reason and empathy, and are able to commit these crimes without remorse - and day in, day out - these people exist among us, work among us (and in some cases, over us), live next door to us. That, in my opinion, should be way more frightening than any fantasy depiction of violence...
That, or become the president of the country.
I am not saying that our current president "flunked out". He certainly was a millionaire, but it is debateable whether he got there by his own initiative or via family help. I suspect the latter.
What isn't debateable is the fact that he stood in front of a graduating class of university students, proclaimed that even a "C" student could become president of the USA, and people cheered...
Sickening, and despicable, to say the least.
People, here is a man in what could arguably be called "the top office in the world" - who by his own recollection in public - is merely average. In my limited experience, average people do not tend to care to learn about and apply reason and logic to their everyday activities, let alone activities happening during a crisis. Average people tend to instead apply emotion and knee-jerk reaction (instead of logic and pro-active reason) to most events and situations, especially those which occur without foreknowledge or preparation. Even with foreknowledge, logic and reason are rarely applied by these individuals.
This is a man walking around carrying "the football", with the capability of launching more man-made death and destruction than the world has ever witnessed in the past. A man who tends to rely on knee-jerk reactions and emotion, rather than logic and reason. A man, by his own words, who is "average".
We reap what we sow, people...
Let's add another, shall we?
Among other similar "fairness" we expose our children to, they can't vote on (or have any voice about) issues and/or laws which allow them to be tried and convicted as an adult for crimes they commit as a minor.
It is one thing to try, convict and punish (and/or execute) adults for criminal activities they commit, because in theory those and other adults have voices they can use prior to the commission of their acts to help shape laws and society such that the legal response to those acts can be said to in some way have been shaped by themselves (ie, live by the rules and laws you help set). I say "in theory", because as we know, most supposed "adults" couldn't give a damn about the laws and such which govern them, let alone vote on those issues - but they do have the option.
For all of the talk about "think of the children", we adults don't seem to be too keen on giving them the self-same rights we enjoy to let them have a voice in the process, which may arguably one day kill them.
Of course, given what I have stated above that most adults don't even participate in their own governance, I suppose it is folly to presume that they would participate in helping their children do the same...
Little to nothing, actuallly. For a brief while, the "latest case-mod" thing was to open up the harddrive (remove the cover), then mod the cover to add a window to see the heads move and platters rotate. The smart modders used older drives, and tried to do a "clean room" system by getting a bathroom steamy (to trap dust particles), letting the steam die down, then performing the surgery (a few others tried to build mini-cleanroom-boxes as well - with HEPA filtered air systems and such). Some of these drives actually lasted a while without crashing or corrupting - a few months in some cases. I think the fact that you don't see clear hard drive covers for sale (though they do exist for demo/sales units put out by hard drive manufacturers) kinda tells you that it wasn't as successful as some would have liked. But it wasn't a complete disaster, either...
Yes, we are.
Fortunately, we also have something most animals do not: the ability to reason. Unfortunately, many of us fail to use this ability (or in some cases, lack it entirely)...
In other words, he acknowledges (repeatedly!) that others came before him. The only thing he shows is something that I haven't been able to find in similar literature explored in the same detail, the main premise of Wolfram's book: that the driving force behind the universe at large is a form of a Universal Turing Machine.
With his research into his simple six rule (IIRC) one-dimensional CA, he shows how this "machine" can be configured (with the right starting input pattern) to act as a UTM. Furthermore, he shows that higher dimensional CAs can be "devolved" into lower-order CAs that preserve the UTM nature. He shows that his simple six rule CA (and he acknowledges that there might be - probably is - simpler CAs which preserve the UTM nature) can emulate and output patterns as well as chaotical similarities as is found in nature. He postulates and theorizes on the idea that what we see as natural processes are actually UTM "machines" creating all of this, and that ultimately the universe on some level, is a UTM which has been running since the beginning of time, and creating further UTMs which have created all that we see. Ultimately, everything is the result of a UTM.
He then goes on to speculate on what possible practical uses such knowledge could be applied to - certainly, if everything is ultimately a result of a UTM, then in theory if you can build a UTM, then you can do *anything*.
Are you noticing the self-referentialism here? We are UTMs - we have built UTMs - we have used these UTMs to discover that we and everything else is a UTM - round and round we go. In a way, the concept and the ideas aren't too far out. If you have every looked into how our cells work - how DNA (and RNA, and messenger RNA, etc) work - you will see that the cellular act of replication is nothing more than a UTM at work, where DNA is the code, and the base pairs are the symbols upon which the whole thing runs. Ultimately, at the basest of levels, we embody UTMs by the multitude.
You see, the thing Wolfram has done with his book is question something, and has possibly found the answer (or at the very least, the right questions) to answer the big "whys" of the universe. This scares a lot of people, including many who shouldn't be scared. Much of this hits up against a lot of transhumanist philosophy and ideas. In many cases, it seems a natural fit. Wolfram never says why the Universe came about in this manner - he can't answer that big question, and I doubt that anyone can. It may be something as simple as that if you get enough particles interacting with one another, eventually out of those interactions a simple (six rules or less, remember?) CA can form, and once that occurs, a UTM can be born, and from that, for whatever reason, it spreads and forms more of what we see. It could be that these "slow UTMs", which form the universe and operate on vast scales of time and space - still exist and are running. Out of these simple structures form the seemingly random complexity which we see in the universe. It isn't random, it is just that the CA/UTM has been running for a very long time, and is forming all of this.
Which is another theme within the book - that complexity can easily arise from simple rules, that seemingly complex things don't require a "designer", just a simple six rules or less CA which runs and produces the complexity over time.
I think
It isn't so much that people don't bring it up in discussions of Peak oil, it is that there isn't a political or technological solution to the issue of the near-weapons grade material that comes out of the other end. Perhaps, if everything was rosy and nice here with humans (fat chance of that happenning - people are angry poo-flinging monkeys, most of the time), breeder reactors would be something worth discussing. As it is, they don't get discussed because for the moment, they won't be built because of the issues surrounding them.
Likely, they won't be built until there isn't any other options left. Hopefully, the technology stays tightly controlled by western countries (though that isn't any guarantee either - western countries can go "insane" just like any other), and that the technology and knowledge doesn't find its way to countries which simply want it for the weapons production capability. There are are ton of countries out there which do, who want to use nuclear weapons to destroy the "west". They (and increasingly, we) don't understand the kind of destruction these weapons cause. Nuclear weapons are true doomsday devices. With them, mankind has built a system which could easily destroy the planet and make it uninhabitable by humans, possibly even destroying the species, along with a host of others. With the end of above ground tests, we have lost an important thing: perspective. I am not saying we shouldn't have ended such tests, but what such tests provided (for the observers, at least) was the knowledge and understanding of just what monstrous capability and destruction these weapons provided their wielders. In many case, this understanding was humbling to those witnesses, who then went on to provide a check against wanton use of these weapons. With the loss of that perspective, I fear that one day we will see their use again, despite all the past has shown us.
Of course, though, hasn't history shown us that this is the way of us animals?
Unfortunately, this is the problem...
At the time, I was pretty excited. Over time, I realized that since this country has a lot of borax near Barstow/Daggett, California (ie, 20 mule team Boron), which also has a very convenient freight rail line nearby as well as a freeway with tons of long haul trucks (as anyone who has gone through Kramer Junction can attest to) - that combining the Powerball technology with a solar-power water disassociation plant (ie, use a similar system as current refineries do with hydrocarbons to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen - but use high-intesity solar heat to power it, using a similar system as the Solar-1 project in Daggett, or the other high-temperature solar plants out there) - right there in the desert we could easily have a plant that takes borax and combines it with hydrogen (where to get the water is an issue - colorado river diversion?), creating a pelletized fuel to be shipped by truck and rail to the rest of the country. When refilling the car, exchange the "slush" for fresh pellets and water - the slush is pumped and trucked back to the plant to close the cycle (thus part of the water and borax returns to be recycled).
I am sure that the Powerball technology had problems similar to the way this new technology seems to, which is probably why the technology just seemed to "vanish" after the GM demonstration...
Something which also vexes me is what ever happened with the McMaster Motor? The thing seemed very simple - a nutating disk/sphere system (similar to what is in a gas or water meter), powered by an internal combustion system or steam, which essentially had on a few moving parts (something like three or so). Regardless, we need new engine designs like this - the whole piston sliding up and down turning a crankshaft with valves, etc - all of it is too many parts which rob fuel efficiency. Less moving parts, less friction, better efficiency!
Finally - what about an engine that ran on water? If we can disassociate water into hydrogen and oxygen on a larger scale, can we do the same within an engine? For instance, I have read about these devices which are basically like a quarter shrinker - where the electrodes (attached to the capacitor) are ran through a tube of water. I have heard that this extreme energy release causes the water to disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen, which then immediately ignites (they are call water exploders or something like that - part of the whole high voltage crowd who like to play with things like quarter shrinkers and huge Tesla coils). Could an engine be built that did the same thing?
Or, what about a "flash steam" engine - where the water stays water until it enters the cylinder, which is kept very hot and the water immediately flashes into steam, driving the piston?
I am not an engineer, I am sure all of these ideas have little to no merit - but it is ideas like these that are what we need to work on and develop, then bring to market - if we want to break our dependency on oil for transportation. Oil will always have a place in industry and transportation - but for ordinary transport of people and goods, other technologies can and should fill the role. We have to think of ways to do this from the generation/extraction through to propelling the vehicle and then recycling whatever (if anything) is left over back into the process. This will require new ideas not just for the fuel or energy carrier, but also for the engine which will provide the motive force...
The answers to these two questions will largely determine how dificult it is to convert to another DB (any DB, not just MySQL to PostgreSQL). Please note that there are other factors as well, I am just identifying two of the largest.
The first, if you didn't address it correctly the first go around, and depending on the complexity of your application, could be a "killer" in development time to convert over. For example, if you used the "built-in" PHP MySQL interfacing code all over your application's php pages, you will run into one hell of a conversion process, a nightmare, to be honest. Every single call will have to be replaced in some manner, either with an equivalent call to whatever other interface exists in PHP, or with a call to a DB abstraction layer. If you are smart, you will go with the latter approach, so you don't have to repeat this down the line.
If you were smarter the first go around, perhaps you slightly abstracted everything, and put all the MySQL interface functions into a DB abstraction library module that you include in all your pages. It will still be a ton of work, but now you only have to modify the module, and verify it all works - if you "blackboxed" it enough, your application might not even know or care about the changes you make (barring issues from second point in the list, of course, which I will explain in a moment).
If you were really smart, you used the PEAR::DB abstraction layer, and hopefully the DB you are moving to is supported by that abstraction (and if not, here is a chance to extend PEAR::DB!). Hopefully, you put this layer behind your own layer in a library module so you only have one area to change, and with luck, nothing will break once you have your tables imported and your connection string changed for the new DB server.
Now, about point 2 - this is just as important. If you abstracted things out, with your own DB abstraction wrapper over the top of PEAR::DB or some custom abstraction library, it will be easier, but there still will be pitfalls. Basically, how well did you adhere to using "common" or ANSI SQL97 or SQL99 SQL code? In other words, how portable are your SQL selects/updates/inserts/deletes? How did you handle date/time stamps? How did you handle record IDs? How did you set up your table fields (did you use "standard" field types, or ones specific to your DBMS?). All of these (and more) are "gotchas" in the area of database applications and DB abstraction layers.
You may have a ton of SQL code to go through and change, depending on what you were selecting or updating, and how you were doing it. If you were thinking about this problem from the beginning, hopefully you set up an abstraction layer with functions or classes that allow you to pass some arguments and call a method that populates a recordset array which you can then easily use and manipulate - that is, you never or hardly ever write any SQL code, because you let your abstraction library handle that portion. In that case, you simply have to update the abstraction layer and/or any other areas where you may have had to use your own SQL code to get the job done, and you are golden. However, if you didn't do that, you have a hell of a process ahead of you.
If you didn't handle either of those situations properly - that is, if you have MySQL-dependent functions scattered throughout your PHP code, and your SQL code is highly MySQL specific in structure and syntax - unless your application is fairly small you are really going to feel the pain if you have to do a conversion.
My advice in this kind of a situation is to "bite the bullet", and start small, gradually working up: Abstract all of your MySQL specific calls to the custom DB abstraction library, where you put the MySQL specific code in place. DO THIS WITH EVERYTHING. Once you have that running, then look into taking that module and making as much of
I never installed it or played it, because at the time the PC I had didn't have enough power to run it. I figured I would install it some day when I did. I now do have a machine that could easily play it, but since I don't fuss with 'doze any more, it sits on a shelf, collecting dust.
Maybe someday I will get really nostalgic and actually try it out...
I mean, yeah - I could see his point in a way, but they weren't using much of his bandwidth (certainly no where near as much as the other sites in that chart)...
He missed an opportunity - and perhaps put future opportunities in jeopardy. The bandwidth wasn't a big deal. He could have contacted the webmaster for Fuddrucker's, told him his concerns, let him know that he appreciated the flattery of the linking, but that he would like to come to a better arrangement. He is now, after all, thanks to that game and others, a Flash game programmer. He could have offerred to create a custom Fuddrucker's branded version of the game, to be hosted on Fuddrucker's site. He could have worked out an arrangement to license the game to Fuddrucker's, perhaps set up a "pay-per-play" agreement (ie, for each person who plays the game, Fuddrucker's could pay him five cents). It is basically advertisement in a subtle form. Fuddrucker's already pays this (and pays much more) for other advertising venues, his outlet would likely have been very cheap! He could then add this to his resume, he could have perhaps offered the game to be "branded for your enterprise" - or offerred the game to an advertisement agency as a service. He could now be enjoying fruits of his labor, for as long as Fuddrucker's were willing to pay. He might have been able to land a deal for his current employer as well (if he works for someone and doesn't do custom contract work game development).
Instead, he chose to throw all of this away - and unfortunately for him - to do so in a very "loud" manner. He may have (although in this day of 5 second sound bites, maybe not) even tarnished his own reputation as a game developer, and certainly as one for small games on web sites. If he is employed by another, the fact of that relation might even put his employer's reputation in jeopardy (and ultimately his own job). What could have turned out to be a lucrative thing for him and/or his employer has now likely become something that those in the business might remember him for - and he will find money lacking if he wants to sell games for corporate branded website use.
Let us all see his folly and learn something about thinking before we respond, lest our own pride causes our future downfall...
For my 1979 Bronco (fullsize with a V8 - good thing it isn't my daily driver with these gas prices!) my key is double sided - flip it one way to open the doors (there is a notch on the key), flip it the other way to start the vehicle. I had to get it cut this way at a locksmith because the locks on the door were different from the lock on the ignition, and I didn't want to have to mess with multiple keys (and fortunately the locks could work like this, too)...