The sodium that is normally used for a coolant is highly volatile and routinely causes fires from what I have read.
Yes, you wouldn't want to try to emergency cool a liquid sodium based reactor by, eg, pouring seawater on it from a fire hose. I'm not sure exactly what the emergency cooling options would be. Dump lead shot on it maybe? Just abandon the place and run?
Of course it's laughable that any reactor could ever get into such a state that it even required emergency cooling, because nothing ever goes wrong at nuclear plants or their offsite power grid, and never will for the forseeable future. So we're all good and breeders are the way of the future!
companies will reimplement the parts they need in a way that's more closed than before. That is why GPLv3 is a mistake.
So if the enemies of freedom hate freedom, it's freedom's fault for being too serious and, like, all buzz-kill and downer about how the inherent human right to freedom is non-negotiable, and should just, man, lighten up?
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to 'Your Struggle'.
all of the binaries in/System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering...by the user
Right, so removing the user's freedom to change their system and locking their hardware to a single OS would be exactly what is violating the clear intention (and now the letter) of the GPL. Sounds like the GPLv3 is working perfectly, then.
Why would I want to run something like Gimp in a browser, when I can just run it regularly?
Because if you embed anything in a browser it automatically becomes a "web app" and you can charge for it, hold the data hostage, raise the prices whenevery you want, and yank access if the users complain.
Not to the VPs and marketing guys of whom you speak.
Most of them can't count beyond 2 and the rest are evenly split as to whether 3 or 4 comes next.
Come on now, it's easy. The counting numbers for marketing go 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11, 3.11 For Workgroups, 95, 95OSR2, 95SE, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7- the fourteenth - which is actually 6.1.
I'm going to go trademark "Syzzlergy" before anyone else does.
Fo shyzzle.
Re:Yes download now for all the latest security ho
on
Firefox 4 Released!
·
· Score: 1
in practice, security vulnerabilities seem to be found more often in legacy code that was written before proper bounds checking was recognized as a major issue.
If array bounds checking was ever "not recognised as a major issue" then I fear for the programming industry.
Programming is an exact precision discipline based on mathematics and yet we can't even guarantee to get simple 'X+1=Y' maths right? Ouch.
What's all this? Have I missed out on some piece of news?
You didn't get the memo? It's been retitled The Hobbinator Legacy Revolutions With A Phantom Vengeance Of the Fallen... iin Spaace.
Michael Bay is co-directing with the digital avatar of Ingmar Bergman. I'm told the three-hour breakfast scene where Frodo challenges Death to an eating contest of exploding crumpets is pretty stunning.
Do I assume NZ is recovered by its major earthquake/quake?
As a Christchurch resident, the answer is 'yes, sorta, depends'.
The Feb 22nd earthquake happened only in Christchurch, and in fact was very very localised pretty much to the central business district and East Side. A few dozen kilometers out into the farmland suburbs/exurbs, there's no damage at all.
We're in the process of reopening Christchurch businesses right now. Yes, Christchurch's central city high-rise hotels are currently toast, which sucks for local tourism, but the capital city Wellington, where Jackson's studio is based, is on a whole other island, and is completely unscathed. Auckland, our only big city and the business hub, is even more unscathed. So unless you're doing adventure tourism (or the Rugby World Cup... sigh....) Christchurch isn't much of an issue.
I don't know where the Hobbit is shooting, and they'll probably be coming to the South Island to do stuff at some point, but odds are most of the production will be in Wellington and that when they do hit the South Island they'll be going to sufficiently distant places that they'll do their own logistics - helicopter flights and stuff - so I doubt the lack of bulk hotel capacity in Chch will hurt them.
Now Wellington does happen to be right smack on its own fault line (had a huge one in the 18whatsits), and we here in Christchurch always thought that if there was an earthquake, Wellington would be hit first. Shows what we know, but of course there's always a chance it could happen again.
On the other hand, Japan got hit instead, so... beats me how this earthquake prediction business works.
I can't see how this situation could be resolved with anything other than physical force. We currently have a very strong military force backing up a tyrannical dictator marching towards a city with every intention of murdering every man, woman, and child in the city when they get there.
Well, for a start, we could eg stop selling him the bullets he's using to do it?
Just a thought, and I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming Gaddafi isn't fashioning jet aircraft and guided missiles out of nothing except sand, lies, hate, the blood of his enemies, and a primitive kind of earwig which enters through the ear canal and eats the brain. He's been selling oil for years, and in return there must have been deals stretching back an equally long number of years to supply him with Stuff, and those deals would have been fairly open and above board and documented and approved by all the UN security council members right up until yesterday, when he suddenly became Hitler Mark III.
But it's easier to just bomb him, right? And especially in international diplomacy and war, the easy option is always the most ethical.
Demanding everything be free, especially when the owner doesn't want you to have it for free, indeed does make one a free-loader.
Demanding that slave-owners free their slaves, which were bought with the owner's own money and which the owner would suffer a loss for freeing, also wasn't popular with those owners at the time, and similar slurs were tossed around against the freedom activists. But these days, we don't consider the proper word to describe advocates of giving away purchased human property to be 'free-loaders'. Rather, it's the owners of others lives and labours who we consider to be profiting unfairly.
The argument can be made that since freedom of sharing one's thoughts (including thoughts received from others) is fundamental to human freedom, that 'intellectual property' is as much of a philosophical non-sequitor in a free society as 'human property' was three hundred years ago.
I'm not sure how more free-loaders benefits society.
If the cost of their 'free-loading' is nil (as it is with copying of information), then society benefits enormously - potentially infinitely - by having lots of members who are now familiar with great works of art and literature. Art and knowledge are valuable in themselves because they give insight into the human condition. Someone who has been exposed to good art and knowledge is a better person: more productive, more compassionate, more skilled. And future generations can keep receiving all these benefits.
For zero cost to society of this 'freeloading', it receives back a return on the order of millions to billions in the lives of people.
Or, society could impose a cost - a rental or tax - on art and knowledge, and receive back an impoverished, frightened, ignorant, fearful population, because what you tax (or rent instead of give away) you get less of.
No, because having copyright expire on death would provide a perverse incentive for murdering authors of famous works, like George Lucas for instance.
I'm sorry, but why is this a bad thing?
Because Stephen Spielberg would put George Lucas' brain in a robotic chassis from A.I. and we would witness the true power of the Extended Remastered Director's Edition of Skywalker Ranch. Afraid? Yousa will be. YOUSSA WILL BE.
Otherwise, ain't no getting over the relativistic arguments against FTL travel
That is of course assuming that the argument from relativity that matter can't travel faster than light is something more than a tautology.
It always bugs me that Einstein made a philosophical jump from an equation describing the observed relative motion of matter under the conditions within which we can observe it, to an equation describing the inherent properties of motion itself under every possible condition. That jump made calculation simple given early 20th century tools, but the one does not logically follow from the other. Is it possible that relativity was a case of premature mathematical optimisation?
For instance: if the Lorentz contraction were merely a second-order effect caused by the self-interaction of EM fields, it would be theoretically possible for the entities which generate those fields to themselves travel faster than light. But under the strict interpretation of relativity, it's forbidden to even frame that question because the definition of motion has now been redefined to assume its own proof.
The interesting thing is that Einstein's wider programme - geometric unification of all fields - failed to be consistent with observations from quantum mechanics, and even general relativity failed to be fully relativistic (doesn't implement Mach's principle completely), yet people still assume that his starting assumptions were completely correct. But if those assumptions couldn' be generalised to actually describe reality at the lowest level, is relativity-as-geometry really such a fundamental principle after all?
Hitlercat concedes defeat. I can has moon? I has a pollo! Now wut? I has a shuttle! Nooo they be stealin mah shuttle! I has a Hubble! I can not has hiperdrive? Tacgnol is charging his lazors! ===_ Itty bitty particle committee does not approve your dissertation. I can has large hadron? Invisible Higgs boson. Srsly, I can not has hiperdrive? Invisible fusion. Invisible shuttle. Invisible oilfield. Invisible bees. Srsly. Monorail cat is offline due to critical future shortfall. Unattainable hiperdrive is unattainable.
with folks living in viable, self-contained colonies on the Moon, Mars, or in Bernal/O'Neill stations, we can at least have the ultimate backup for human knowledge (and humanity itself).
And we can get the same amount of backup much more cheaply by building a few hermetically sealed biodomes right here on Earth. There's nothing magic about space that would make it a better place to put a sanctuary, and many things that make it much worse.
things like historic/cyclic civilizational trends, NEO asteroids, hostile bacteriological evolution, overpopulation, nuclear weaponry, supervolcanoes, human industrial activity, 'idiocracy', zombies, whatever (in descending order of likelihood
For all of these scenarios, including asteroids and nuclear exchange, Earth is still the best location for a biodome. Nothing short of total vaporisation of the entire planet would render Earth appreciably less habitable than Mars. Take the very worst that humans could do to Earth: pollution, mass species extinction, warming, massive radiation, the oceans drying up: none of these would be fraction as bad as what's out there in space on the next planets over.
Seriously, no matter how bad it gets, things simply can't ever get bad enough for us to make leaving more attractive. The very worst case, we simply dig in here, build a few domes, and repopulate using the exact same techniques we'd use for terraforming space. Only we can start right now, building a few glasshouses, saving seeds, that kind of stuff.
The only way space could ever be 'better' than re-terraforming Earth would be if we got tomorrow a magical free energy hyperdrive that let us jump instantly to a fully Earthlike DNA-compatible Eden. Do you see that anywhere on the theoretical horizon? I don't.
So cheer up, emo spaceboy. We aren't leaving anytime soon, and we humans are harder to kill than the roaches. For all we know we are the space roaches.
Huh? Did you even read the article you just linked? It says the exact opposite of what you just said:
But that did not make the photographs "fakes" or a "hoax." The reason these tribes are classified as "uncontacted" is because they have retreated into the jungle and consciously avoided any interaction with settlers--an interaction that has frequently led to the extinction of Amazonian tribes.
Slashdot Mirror
The sodium that is normally used for a coolant is highly volatile and routinely causes fires from what I have read.
Yes, you wouldn't want to try to emergency cool a liquid sodium based reactor by, eg, pouring seawater on it from a fire hose. I'm not sure exactly what the emergency cooling options would be. Dump lead shot on it maybe? Just abandon the place and run?
Of course it's laughable that any reactor could ever get into such a state that it even required emergency cooling, because nothing ever goes wrong at nuclear plants or their offsite power grid, and never will for the forseeable future. So we're all good and breeders are the way of the future!
companies will reimplement the parts they need in a way that's more closed than before. That is why GPLv3 is a mistake.
So if the enemies of freedom hate freedom, it's freedom's fault for being too serious and, like, all buzz-kill and downer about how the inherent human right to freedom is non-negotiable, and should just, man, lighten up?
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to 'Your Struggle'.
Or ast Frost/Stallman might put it:
"I'm saying if the user does it, it's not tampering!"
all of the binaries in /System on a Mac OS X site are signed by Apple to prevent tampering...by the user
Right, so removing the user's freedom to change their system and locking their hardware to a single OS would be exactly what is violating the clear intention (and now the letter) of the GPL. Sounds like the GPLv3 is working perfectly, then.
it is clearly something that Apple has no interest in. It is therefore entirely irrelevant for this discussion.
Yes, that attitude on Apple's part is what makes it incompatible with the GPL3.
Compile a GTK app from C to JavaScript
That word... my dictionary is very sad.
(Is it a sign of the times that we now need a word for turning a compiled language into an interpreted one? 'Elipmoc' perhaps?)
Why would I want to run something like Gimp in a browser, when I can just run it regularly?
Because if you embed anything in a browser it automatically becomes a "web app" and you can charge for it, hold the data hostage, raise the prices whenevery you want, and yank access if the users complain.
Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
and just call it 'Firefox'.
Firefox
Firefox Down
The Amazing Fire-Fox
okay we've done this before.
Not to the VPs and marketing guys of whom you speak.
Most of them can't count beyond 2 and the rest are evenly split as to whether 3 or 4 comes next.
Come on now, it's easy. The counting numbers for marketing go 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.11, 3.11 For Workgroups, 95, 95OSR2, 95SE, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7- the fourteenth - which is actually 6.1.
What's confusing about that?
I'm going to go trademark "Syzzlergy" before anyone else does.
Fo shyzzle.
in practice, security vulnerabilities seem to be found more often in legacy code that was written before proper bounds checking was recognized as a major issue.
If array bounds checking was ever "not recognised as a major issue" then I fear for the programming industry.
Programming is an exact precision discipline based on mathematics and yet we can't even guarantee to get simple 'X+1=Y' maths right? Ouch.
The remake
What's all this? Have I missed out on some piece of news?
You didn't get the memo? It's been retitled The Hobbinator Legacy Revolutions With A Phantom Vengeance Of the Fallen... iin Spaace.
Michael Bay is co-directing with the digital avatar of Ingmar Bergman. I'm told the three-hour breakfast scene where Frodo challenges Death to an eating contest of exploding crumpets is pretty stunning.
Do I assume NZ is recovered by its major earthquake/quake?
As a Christchurch resident, the answer is 'yes, sorta, depends'.
The Feb 22nd earthquake happened only in Christchurch, and in fact was very very localised pretty much to the central business district and East Side. A few dozen kilometers out into the farmland suburbs/exurbs, there's no damage at all.
We're in the process of reopening Christchurch businesses right now. Yes, Christchurch's central city high-rise hotels are currently toast, which sucks for local tourism, but the capital city Wellington, where Jackson's studio is based, is on a whole other island, and is completely unscathed. Auckland, our only big city and the business hub, is even more unscathed. So unless you're doing adventure tourism (or the Rugby World Cup... sigh....) Christchurch isn't much of an issue.
I don't know where the Hobbit is shooting, and they'll probably be coming to the South Island to do stuff at some point, but odds are most of the production will be in Wellington and that when they do hit the South Island they'll be going to sufficiently distant places that they'll do their own logistics - helicopter flights and stuff - so I doubt the lack of bulk hotel capacity in Chch will hurt them.
Now Wellington does happen to be right smack on its own fault line (had a huge one in the 18whatsits), and we here in Christchurch always thought that if there was an earthquake, Wellington would be hit first. Shows what we know, but of course there's always a chance it could happen again.
On the other hand, Japan got hit instead, so... beats me how this earthquake prediction business works.
I can't see how this situation could be resolved with anything other than physical force. We currently have a very strong military force backing up a tyrannical dictator marching towards a city with every intention of murdering every man, woman, and child in the city when they get there.
Well, for a start, we could eg stop selling him the bullets he's using to do it?
Just a thought, and I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming Gaddafi isn't fashioning jet aircraft and guided missiles out of nothing except sand, lies, hate, the blood of his enemies, and a primitive kind of earwig which enters through the ear canal and eats the brain. He's been selling oil for years, and in return there must have been deals stretching back an equally long number of years to supply him with Stuff, and those deals would have been fairly open and above board and documented and approved by all the UN security council members right up until yesterday, when he suddenly became Hitler Mark III.
But it's easier to just bomb him, right? And especially in international diplomacy and war, the easy option is always the most ethical.
Said leaders cannot just change copyright laws. Much, if not all of copyright laws that are in question are there and covered by international treaty.
And international commercial treaties are often made in secrecy. Whee! Isn't government by stealth wonderful!
Demanding everything be free, especially when the owner doesn't want you to have it for free, indeed does make one a free-loader.
Demanding that slave-owners free their slaves, which were bought with the owner's own money and which the owner would suffer a loss for freeing, also wasn't popular with those owners at the time, and similar slurs were tossed around against the freedom activists. But these days, we don't consider the proper word to describe advocates of giving away purchased human property to be 'free-loaders'. Rather, it's the owners of others lives and labours who we consider to be profiting unfairly.
The argument can be made that since freedom of sharing one's thoughts (including thoughts received from others) is fundamental to human freedom, that 'intellectual property' is as much of a philosophical non-sequitor in a free society as 'human property' was three hundred years ago.
Benefit : you get this new work for free.
I'm not sure how more free-loaders benefits society.
If the cost of their 'free-loading' is nil (as it is with copying of information), then society benefits enormously - potentially infinitely - by having lots of members who are now familiar with great works of art and literature. Art and knowledge are valuable in themselves because they give insight into the human condition. Someone who has been exposed to good art and knowledge is a better person: more productive, more compassionate, more skilled. And future generations can keep receiving all these benefits.
For zero cost to society of this 'freeloading', it receives back a return on the order of millions to billions in the lives of people.
Or, society could impose a cost - a rental or tax - on art and knowledge, and receive back an impoverished, frightened, ignorant, fearful population, because what you tax (or rent instead of give away) you get less of.
But SWtOR will be good...at least better than the Transformer and Harry Potter video games, amiright?
I liked the scene in Harry Potter and the Transformers where Lucius Malfoy turns into a Volkswagen.
No, because having copyright expire on death would provide a perverse incentive for murdering authors of famous works, like George Lucas for instance.
I'm sorry, but why is this a bad thing?
Because Stephen Spielberg would put George Lucas' brain in a robotic chassis from A.I. and we would witness the true power of the Extended Remastered Director's Edition of Skywalker Ranch. Afraid? Yousa will be. YOUSSA WILL BE.
Otherwise, ain't no getting over the relativistic arguments against FTL travel
That is of course assuming that the argument from relativity that matter can't travel faster than light is something more than a tautology.
It always bugs me that Einstein made a philosophical jump from an equation describing the observed relative motion of matter under the conditions within which we can observe it, to an equation describing the inherent properties of motion itself under every possible condition. That jump made calculation simple given early 20th century tools, but the one does not logically follow from the other. Is it possible that relativity was a case of premature mathematical optimisation?
For instance: if the Lorentz contraction were merely a second-order effect caused by the self-interaction of EM fields, it would be theoretically possible for the entities which generate those fields to themselves travel faster than light. But under the strict interpretation of relativity, it's forbidden to even frame that question because the definition of motion has now been redefined to assume its own proof.
The interesting thing is that Einstein's wider programme - geometric unification of all fields - failed to be consistent with observations from quantum mechanics, and even general relativity failed to be fully relativistic (doesn't implement Mach's principle completely), yet people still assume that his starting assumptions were completely correct. But if those assumptions couldn' be generalised to actually describe reality at the lowest level, is relativity-as-geometry really such a fundamental principle after all?
I want to know how our story truly unfolds!!
Hitlercat concedes defeat.
I can has moon?
I has a pollo!
Now wut?
I has a shuttle!
Nooo they be stealin mah shuttle!
I has a Hubble!
I can not has hiperdrive?
Tacgnol is charging his lazors! ===_
Itty bitty particle committee does not approve your dissertation.
I can has large hadron?
Invisible Higgs boson.
Srsly, I can not has hiperdrive?
Invisible fusion.
Invisible shuttle.
Invisible oilfield.
Invisible bees.
Srsly.
Monorail cat is offline due to critical future shortfall.
Unattainable hiperdrive is unattainable.
This is wrong on so many philosophical levels it defies all sense of reason.
That's never stopped science fiction before!
with folks living in viable, self-contained colonies on the Moon, Mars, or in Bernal/O'Neill stations, we can at least have the ultimate backup for human knowledge (and humanity itself).
And we can get the same amount of backup much more cheaply by building a few hermetically sealed biodomes right here on Earth. There's nothing magic about space that would make it a better place to put a sanctuary, and many things that make it much worse.
things like historic/cyclic civilizational trends, NEO asteroids, hostile bacteriological evolution, overpopulation, nuclear weaponry, supervolcanoes, human industrial activity, 'idiocracy', zombies, whatever (in descending order of likelihood
For all of these scenarios, including asteroids and nuclear exchange, Earth is still the best location for a biodome. Nothing short of total vaporisation of the entire planet would render Earth appreciably less habitable than Mars. Take the very worst that humans could do to Earth: pollution, mass species extinction, warming, massive radiation, the oceans drying up: none of these would be fraction as bad as what's out there in space on the next planets over.
Seriously, no matter how bad it gets, things simply can't ever get bad enough for us to make leaving more attractive. The very worst case, we simply dig in here, build a few domes, and repopulate using the exact same techniques we'd use for terraforming space. Only we can start right now, building a few glasshouses, saving seeds, that kind of stuff.
The only way space could ever be 'better' than re-terraforming Earth would be if we got tomorrow a magical free energy hyperdrive that let us jump instantly to a fully Earthlike DNA-compatible Eden. Do you see that anywhere on the theoretical horizon? I don't.
So cheer up, emo spaceboy. We aren't leaving anytime soon, and we humans are harder to kill than the roaches. For all we know we are the space roaches.
That amazon tribe was fake
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-grann/the-truth-about-the-lost_b_172910.html
Huh? Did you even read the article you just linked? It says the exact opposite of what you just said:
But that did not make the photographs "fakes" or a "hoax." The reason these tribes are classified as "uncontacted" is because they have retreated into the jungle and consciously avoided any interaction with settlers--an interaction that has frequently led to the extinction of Amazonian tribes.
Yup. Never mind Our Cellular Overlords...
Monsanto?
Oh, the other kind of cell.