And the route through Siberia (which is almost entirely devoid of anything that can support human life) alone is close to that. Then you have the Bering straight which is one of the most treacherous stretches of ocean in the world, then Alaska (with almost no roadways and the ones they do have are built on permafrost and not traversable by heavy equipment) and Northwest Canada (with the same problems as alaska) to traverse. All of which are just as treacherous as crossing the pole and at least on the pole you could use bulldozers to mound up snow to provide wind blocks and smooth ice highways along with plenty of opportunities for base camps along the way.
If someone had the choice of taking an army across the pole or via Siberia, the straight, Alaska and Northern Canada I believe they would choose the pole as it would be a far easier journey and far easier to establish unrestricted supply lines. Mechanized transport would make the ice and weather mostly a non issue whereas the other route would present all the same issues plus a dozen additional ones (such as swamps that could eat tanks for breakfast). The only reason to go the other route would be if the ice had receded enough to put open ocean between Canada and the pole.
The last time I looked the x86 decoder area is less than 200k transistors which is typically less than 2% of the processor die. x86 has been nothing but an abstraction layer for more than a decade. It allows Intel to make the internal risc CPU at the heart use whatever instructions or architecture works best while maintaining compatibility with existing.
Reinventing the wheel 8 times is not effective use of R&D. The minor differences between these ARM vendors doesn't justify the expensive redesign of the same thing 8 times. If Intel goes all in and chases this market that divided R&D will be a significant handicap in competition against a well orchestrated and heavily financed competitor like Intel, not a benefit.
A typical processor design takes around 4-5 years from concept to production silicon. Intel did not even consider power as a constraint (other than a maximum) until 2008.Haswell was the first ground up design where power was a constraint, but still not a major constraint. With Haswell Intel was within shooting distance of ARM power levels without even compromising computing power.
In about 2010 power consumption became not just a feature, but a required feature in low watt to milliwatt ranges. Intel should have a processor to meet that requirement later this year or early/mid next year. Intel's already preliminarily released some (un-handicapped) atoms that have about 75% of the performance of Haswell and are power competitive with ARM.
Up until a year or two ago when the PC market began to crater Intel wasn't interested in playing in the low power market because margins were atrocious, but with the rise of high margin smartphones and the reality that they will likely replace a significant chunk of the personal PC market they've begun to take the market seriously. Writing them off as unable to play this game because they haven't bothered in the past would be incredibly stupid. They are the largest CPU designer in the world and they have some of the smartest CPU designers in the world working for them, it just takes a while to turn such a big boat. Give it a few more years then come back and talk about x86 being unable to compete.
I don't know if Intel will succeed but if they put their resources into it they will easily outpace ARM because in the CPU design game it's about design resources and FAB's and Intel has both in spades (in FAB's Intel is one entire process step ahead of everyone else), more than the rest of the ARM market combined and they won't be designing the same thing 50 times. See that's the ARM markets biggest handicap, there are dozens of companies reinventing the wheel over and over again. Intel's biggest handicap is their desire to not eat existing markets and it might be their undoing (a processor with 75% of haswell's power with ARM's power use could likely cannibalize much of their Haswell sales and the tricks to prevent that, ie sales restrictions, will also handicap the processors chances in competing with ARM). IMO if Intel fails at competing with ARM it will only be because they didn't want to cannibalize sales with lower margin parts.
You act as if it would be easier to traverse Siberia and the Bering straight. It might very well be easier to cross the arctic in winter when pack ice is heaviest than it is to cross Siberia, the Bering straight, Alaska and Northern Canada (all at or above the arctic circle). Given the terrain across Siberia and Alaska and how rough and dangerous the sea is in the Bering straight I'd put odds on putting those supply lines across the pole before I put them on the Alaska route.
You are deliberately misreading that company comment. The statement is "we lied in the past so you won't believe us if we say we fixed it so the proof that it's fixed is that it doesn't happen again". It's a major admission.
Because the old GM is gone. The shareholders and management switched. It's a new company with the same name and it doesn't deserve to be liable for the past company.
Last mile utilities are natural monopolies. If you want 4 companies to run fiber past your house your price will reflect running the fiber four separate times. The entire reason broadband costs in this country are triple or more those of the rest of the developed world is we are paying to run the same wires multiple times.
They beauty of not recognizing the natural monopoly is that two things will happen, the first is that if you are a high enough density with wealthy enough customers you might get a singe overbuilder who will conspire with the incumbent to ensure prices remain high, and the if you aren't in an area conducive to overbuilding your price will go up dramatically just because they can.
The solution is to either recognize the last mile monopoly and make it government administered (government build-out of neighborhood connections with leased access to all comers), or let it be private and regulate the shit of out as a utility. Anything other than those two will result in high prices, bad service and abuse of monopoly. We're currently doing the later in the US in the name of competition and free market that doesn't exist. As a result we pay 10 times more than countries like sweden (with worse density than the US and worse construction conditions) and we have worse service than some third world countries in both speed and reliability. The worst of all worlds for no other reason that to make rich people richer. It's the height of stupidity.
At some point people need to realize that pretending we live in some ideal free market is just that, pretending. Monopolies are contraventions of the free market and MUST be regulated or you end up with something far worse than government run. Republicans helped spearhead trust busting back in the day (because trusts break free markets), it's ironic how they want to prevent trust busting today.
You wouldn't be able to get the brass in the tube without boring it out. The brass is wider than the round, and the rim on the rim fire cartridge is even wider. You'd need to double bore the tube to accommodate the width of the brass then a little extra to accommodate the rim of the round. You need some pretty precise machining to accommodate brass, not that it's difficult mind you, state of the art early 1900's metal working equipment is quite capable of the tolerances you need.
But it's not quite as simple as screw cap on pipe and drill hole in the end for a nail. The screw a cap on a pipe would probably work fine if you want a muzzle loader but if you are going to go the trouble of putting brass rounds in you might as well take the little bit of extra time it would take to machine a proper receiver with either a bolt or semi-auto type. Honestly it's not that challenging, consider that the class of metal working tools that were available to Browning when they invented the semi-automatic and it shouldn't be that hard to realize that making a firearm really isn't that hard. Hell even the early colonists could make firearms and they actually had to make the steel tube by hand from plate stock which was the hardest part.
I know you weren't trying to be accurate but I don't see a functional fire arm there, at least for the type of ammunition you selected. If you were after a muzzle loader you might have been ok (and you should really specify an outside diameter on that pipe lest someone use too thin of a wall and blow their face off) but you don't need the firing pin only a hole for fuse. The reason for this should be obvious if you've ever handled modern brass ammunition.
The actual rule is you always verify data, regardless of source. You might trust internal data to not be intentionally malicious but you can't design something idiot proof because idiots are incredibly ingenious.
Suggesting other people takes risks and put their ass on the line for your personal benefit IS being a dick. There is nothing I'm "taking it personally" about me pointing out that obvious fact. Are you socially obtuse enough that you don't recognize a dick move when it happens? Here's another dick move, sleeping with your friends wife/girlfriend. Would you defend that as well and claim someone is taking it personal when they point out it's a dick move?
The point about the "radiation" from the solar winds isn't the radiation you are thinking of. What they are concerned about is that the solar wind will be so strong that without a powerful magnetic field to redirect it around the planet it will rip the atmosphere from the planet. Have you ever wondered why Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere? It's because the solar wind, with is composed of radiated charged particles, striped it off shortly after the sun and planets formed.
And as an aside, if it was real radiation as in X-rays and gamma rays as opposed to UV and lower wave lengths even the deepest ocean on earth isn't likely to protect you. The gamma bursts from a supernova of a star up to a couple hundred of light years away would sterilize this planet (would probably even get the bacterial life miles deep in the crust). Hell even a pulsar within the same distance would do the same thing if it swept the planet with a pulse. You can't protect yourself from star capable gamma emissions with anything but distance. It's hard to comprehend the danger a star can present because it's hard to imagine that a gamma burst you would experience from a star a hundered light years away would be stronger than that from a nuclear bomb detonating above you.
tldr. What the article is saying is that if the magnetic field isn't strong enough the star strips the atmosphere off the planet and if it has oceans at the time the same solar winds quickly strip them off as they boil away without an atmosphere.
The revelation about spying on the Chinese military does no such thing. It does cripple the defense of the US from a serious and capable future potential adversary.
It's called google. You go there and type in search terms. Alternatively you could pay attention to real news sites that frequently report these revelations in all their details and then remember them so that later you don't post to slashdot asking people to google something for you.
The NSA has compromised almost 100,000 computers around the world in its quest to get its tentacles into air-gapped computers operated by adversaries such as the Chinese Army.
The revelation was made by the New York Times in a report published on Tuesday based on documents released by Edward Snowden.
The Guantanamo restrictions have been attached to the defense funding bills (every single year) and have wide support in congress. You suggest he veto the defense spending bill and refuse to budge and in the process accomplishes nothing except de-funding the military. Without support in congress for his objective it's utterly pointless to pursue the goal because he can not accomplish it no matter how many times he veto's bills.
You're suggesting that because congress will not allow him to close it that he should just refuse to fund the military. Of course at some point congress would just override him after the media roasts him for de-funding the military.
Keep pretending that he's to blame for congress not going along with his idea to close Guantanamo. Maybe you can argue next that he can somehow force Congress to write legislation he wants. Because here in the real world without Congress going along with the idea Obama isn't going to do be able to do it, just like every single president before him.
No, the license is a legal authority for them and their heirs to sue anyone that forks that software for around the next 120 years. If the copyright is registered they can get statutory damages for every single copy made regardless of circumstances (ie even if you give it away free).
So step up and put your ass on the line and work under the assumption that the developers nor their heirs for the next 120 years will try to capitalize on your infringement. Fork it and start coding, put yourself and all your assets on the line.
Then put YOUR ass on the line and do what you suggest. Suggesting other people put their asses on the line for your benefit just means you're a dick.
So your non-profit shuts down - worst case.
No worst case is that because your infringement is willful they go after your personal assets. But prove me wrong, get out there and spend your time and money to fork code you can't legally fork and put your ass on the line that none of the developers will decide they see a payday in your infringement.
You can't fork it. The license is actually highly restrictive. The only options are a total reimplementation using the GPL or BSD license or to keep using the last version in perpetuity.
Obama did try to close Guantanamo Bay, Congress wrote a law forbidding it and included terms that he had to give congress 30 days notice before a single prisoner could be transferred so that congress could write a new law blocking it. There have already been half a dozen Republican House members that have claimed the president broke the law by negotiating the exchange for the American POW.
One of the "Snowden" revelations was how many spying devices the NSA has managed to plant into the Chinese military, including schematics and descriptions of most of the devices.
The simplest explanation is that the developers simply got tired of the project and decided to abandon it. It's been years since any update and it's certainly plausible that those developers remaining simply decided it wasn't worth it to keep the project alive when no one was maintaining it. .
Slashdot Mirror
He lives in the UK and is a stooge of the UK version of the NSA.
And the route through Siberia (which is almost entirely devoid of anything that can support human life) alone is close to that. Then you have the Bering straight which is one of the most treacherous stretches of ocean in the world, then Alaska (with almost no roadways and the ones they do have are built on permafrost and not traversable by heavy equipment) and Northwest Canada (with the same problems as alaska) to traverse. All of which are just as treacherous as crossing the pole and at least on the pole you could use bulldozers to mound up snow to provide wind blocks and smooth ice highways along with plenty of opportunities for base camps along the way.
If someone had the choice of taking an army across the pole or via Siberia, the straight, Alaska and Northern Canada I believe they would choose the pole as it would be a far easier journey and far easier to establish unrestricted supply lines. Mechanized transport would make the ice and weather mostly a non issue whereas the other route would present all the same issues plus a dozen additional ones (such as swamps that could eat tanks for breakfast). The only reason to go the other route would be if the ice had receded enough to put open ocean between Canada and the pole.
Your numbers are wrong. Very very wrong.
The last time I looked the x86 decoder area is less than 200k transistors which is typically less than 2% of the processor die. x86 has been nothing but an abstraction layer for more than a decade. It allows Intel to make the internal risc CPU at the heart use whatever instructions or architecture works best while maintaining compatibility with existing.
Reinventing the wheel 8 times is not effective use of R&D. The minor differences between these ARM vendors doesn't justify the expensive redesign of the same thing 8 times. If Intel goes all in and chases this market that divided R&D will be a significant handicap in competition against a well orchestrated and heavily financed competitor like Intel, not a benefit.
A typical processor design takes around 4-5 years from concept to production silicon. Intel did not even consider power as a constraint (other than a maximum) until 2008.Haswell was the first ground up design where power was a constraint, but still not a major constraint. With Haswell Intel was within shooting distance of ARM power levels without even compromising computing power.
In about 2010 power consumption became not just a feature, but a required feature in low watt to milliwatt ranges. Intel should have a processor to meet that requirement later this year or early/mid next year. Intel's already preliminarily released some (un-handicapped) atoms that have about 75% of the performance of Haswell and are power competitive with ARM.
Up until a year or two ago when the PC market began to crater Intel wasn't interested in playing in the low power market because margins were atrocious, but with the rise of high margin smartphones and the reality that they will likely replace a significant chunk of the personal PC market they've begun to take the market seriously. Writing them off as unable to play this game because they haven't bothered in the past would be incredibly stupid. They are the largest CPU designer in the world and they have some of the smartest CPU designers in the world working for them, it just takes a while to turn such a big boat. Give it a few more years then come back and talk about x86 being unable to compete.
I don't know if Intel will succeed but if they put their resources into it they will easily outpace ARM because in the CPU design game it's about design resources and FAB's and Intel has both in spades (in FAB's Intel is one entire process step ahead of everyone else), more than the rest of the ARM market combined and they won't be designing the same thing 50 times. See that's the ARM markets biggest handicap, there are dozens of companies reinventing the wheel over and over again. Intel's biggest handicap is their desire to not eat existing markets and it might be their undoing (a processor with 75% of haswell's power with ARM's power use could likely cannibalize much of their Haswell sales and the tricks to prevent that, ie sales restrictions, will also handicap the processors chances in competing with ARM). IMO if Intel fails at competing with ARM it will only be because they didn't want to cannibalize sales with lower margin parts.
You act as if it would be easier to traverse Siberia and the Bering straight. It might very well be easier to cross the arctic in winter when pack ice is heaviest than it is to cross Siberia, the Bering straight, Alaska and Northern Canada (all at or above the arctic circle). Given the terrain across Siberia and Alaska and how rough and dangerous the sea is in the Bering straight I'd put odds on putting those supply lines across the pole before I put them on the Alaska route.
You are deliberately misreading that company comment. The statement is "we lied in the past so you won't believe us if we say we fixed it so the proof that it's fixed is that it doesn't happen again". It's a major admission.
Because the old GM is gone. The shareholders and management switched. It's a new company with the same name and it doesn't deserve to be liable for the past company.
No. Pit doesn't really work, the entire star is still there, it's just been crushed unimaginably small.
I believe the saying goes, one teaspoon of matter from a neutron star would be more mass than the entire earth. One teaspoon.
Last mile utilities are natural monopolies. If you want 4 companies to run fiber past your house your price will reflect running the fiber four separate times. The entire reason broadband costs in this country are triple or more those of the rest of the developed world is we are paying to run the same wires multiple times.
They beauty of not recognizing the natural monopoly is that two things will happen, the first is that if you are a high enough density with wealthy enough customers you might get a singe overbuilder who will conspire with the incumbent to ensure prices remain high, and the if you aren't in an area conducive to overbuilding your price will go up dramatically just because they can.
The solution is to either recognize the last mile monopoly and make it government administered (government build-out of neighborhood connections with leased access to all comers), or let it be private and regulate the shit of out as a utility. Anything other than those two will result in high prices, bad service and abuse of monopoly. We're currently doing the later in the US in the name of competition and free market that doesn't exist. As a result we pay 10 times more than countries like sweden (with worse density than the US and worse construction conditions) and we have worse service than some third world countries in both speed and reliability. The worst of all worlds for no other reason that to make rich people richer. It's the height of stupidity.
At some point people need to realize that pretending we live in some ideal free market is just that, pretending. Monopolies are contraventions of the free market and MUST be regulated or you end up with something far worse than government run. Republicans helped spearhead trust busting back in the day (because trusts break free markets), it's ironic how they want to prevent trust busting today.
You wouldn't be able to get the brass in the tube without boring it out. The brass is wider than the round, and the rim on the rim fire cartridge is even wider. You'd need to double bore the tube to accommodate the width of the brass then a little extra to accommodate the rim of the round. You need some pretty precise machining to accommodate brass, not that it's difficult mind you, state of the art early 1900's metal working equipment is quite capable of the tolerances you need.
But it's not quite as simple as screw cap on pipe and drill hole in the end for a nail. The screw a cap on a pipe would probably work fine if you want a muzzle loader but if you are going to go the trouble of putting brass rounds in you might as well take the little bit of extra time it would take to machine a proper receiver with either a bolt or semi-auto type. Honestly it's not that challenging, consider that the class of metal working tools that were available to Browning when they invented the semi-automatic and it shouldn't be that hard to realize that making a firearm really isn't that hard. Hell even the early colonists could make firearms and they actually had to make the steel tube by hand from plate stock which was the hardest part.
I know you weren't trying to be accurate but I don't see a functional fire arm there, at least for the type of ammunition you selected. If you were after a muzzle loader you might have been ok (and you should really specify an outside diameter on that pipe lest someone use too thin of a wall and blow their face off) but you don't need the firing pin only a hole for fuse. The reason for this should be obvious if you've ever handled modern brass ammunition.
The actual rule is you always verify data, regardless of source. You might trust internal data to not be intentionally malicious but you can't design something idiot proof because idiots are incredibly ingenious.
Suggesting other people takes risks and put their ass on the line for your personal benefit IS being a dick. There is nothing I'm "taking it personally" about me pointing out that obvious fact. Are you socially obtuse enough that you don't recognize a dick move when it happens? Here's another dick move, sleeping with your friends wife/girlfriend. Would you defend that as well and claim someone is taking it personal when they point out it's a dick move?
The point about the "radiation" from the solar winds isn't the radiation you are thinking of. What they are concerned about is that the solar wind will be so strong that without a powerful magnetic field to redirect it around the planet it will rip the atmosphere from the planet. Have you ever wondered why Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere? It's because the solar wind, with is composed of radiated charged particles, striped it off shortly after the sun and planets formed.
And as an aside, if it was real radiation as in X-rays and gamma rays as opposed to UV and lower wave lengths even the deepest ocean on earth isn't likely to protect you. The gamma bursts from a supernova of a star up to a couple hundred of light years away would sterilize this planet (would probably even get the bacterial life miles deep in the crust). Hell even a pulsar within the same distance would do the same thing if it swept the planet with a pulse. You can't protect yourself from star capable gamma emissions with anything but distance. It's hard to comprehend the danger a star can present because it's hard to imagine that a gamma burst you would experience from a star a hundered light years away would be stronger than that from a nuclear bomb detonating above you.
tldr. What the article is saying is that if the magnetic field isn't strong enough the star strips the atmosphere off the planet and if it has oceans at the time the same solar winds quickly strip them off as they boil away without an atmosphere.
The revelation about spying on the Chinese military does no such thing. It does cripple the defense of the US from a serious and capable future potential adversary.
It's called google. You go there and type in search terms. Alternatively you could pay attention to real news sites that frequently report these revelations in all their details and then remember them so that later you don't post to slashdot asking people to google something for you.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Hurry, deny it happened.
Unlike you I'm not trying to be facetious.
The Guantanamo restrictions have been attached to the defense funding bills (every single year) and have wide support in congress. You suggest he veto the defense spending bill and refuse to budge and in the process accomplishes nothing except de-funding the military. Without support in congress for his objective it's utterly pointless to pursue the goal because he can not accomplish it no matter how many times he veto's bills.
You're suggesting that because congress will not allow him to close it that he should just refuse to fund the military. Of course at some point congress would just override him after the media roasts him for de-funding the military.
Keep pretending that he's to blame for congress not going along with his idea to close Guantanamo. Maybe you can argue next that he can somehow force Congress to write legislation he wants. Because here in the real world without Congress going along with the idea Obama isn't going to do be able to do it, just like every single president before him.
No, the license is a legal authority for them and their heirs to sue anyone that forks that software for around the next 120 years. If the copyright is registered they can get statutory damages for every single copy made regardless of circumstances (ie even if you give it away free).
So step up and put your ass on the line and work under the assumption that the developers nor their heirs for the next 120 years will try to capitalize on your infringement. Fork it and start coding, put yourself and all your assets on the line.
Then put YOUR ass on the line and do what you suggest. Suggesting other people put their asses on the line for your benefit just means you're a dick.
No worst case is that because your infringement is willful they go after your personal assets. But prove me wrong, get out there and spend your time and money to fork code you can't legally fork and put your ass on the line that none of the developers will decide they see a payday in your infringement.
It open source but not FOSS.
You can't fork it. The license is actually highly restrictive. The only options are a total reimplementation using the GPL or BSD license or to keep using the last version in perpetuity.
Obama did try to close Guantanamo Bay, Congress wrote a law forbidding it and included terms that he had to give congress 30 days notice before a single prisoner could be transferred so that congress could write a new law blocking it. There have already been half a dozen Republican House members that have claimed the president broke the law by negotiating the exchange for the American POW.
One of the "Snowden" revelations was how many spying devices the NSA has managed to plant into the Chinese military, including schematics and descriptions of most of the devices.
Justify that revelation.
They are anonymous, what do you expect them to conduct interviews? Doesn't fit the facts my ass, it's the most logical assumption.
The simplest explanation is that the developers simply got tired of the project and decided to abandon it. It's been years since any update and it's certainly plausible that those developers remaining simply decided it wasn't worth it to keep the project alive when no one was maintaining it. .