But tides also act off shore (i.e. the depth of water changes), so I see no reason why the energy shouldn't be harnessed their. Of course, it might be easier to do it on a rive, but of course there are the problems you mention.
I've never understood why the power of tides is not exploited more. In a short streach of coast around the UK, hundreds of millions of tons of water must be moved every 24 hours. I'm sure there must be a lot more energy in that than in the wind in the same area. Why isn't that exploited? Anyone know?
Why aren't we sending a manned mission to Mars? That would be much more interesting...
Actually, I think I know the answer. This administration has consistently show that it doesn't care much for science. This is all really about providing a publicly acceptable spin on weaponizing space, and a mission to Mars doesn't make much sense it that context.
Oh, I completed that miniboss battle a long time ago. But it's very annoying and repetative if don't know what you are supposed to do - like when the boulder chases after you in Resident Evil 4. But once you "get it" it's fairly easy.
I'm not sure that I'd call the stuff the article describes as "games" in a relationship as games...
How many people here have had a conversation like this with a girlfriend:
Me [returning from business trip]: Hi, I'm back! Her [upset]: You never called!!! Me: Erm, no, I didn't. Her: Why not?! Me: I was on a business trip. I didn't have anything interesting to tell you. Her: You could have called! Me: Erm, you didn't call me either. Her [Really upset]: You don't care about me! [storms off] Me: [confused]
I want to be able two have two applications running "in the foreground" simultaneously.
What do I mean? Well, I have two big monitors and often work with several applications at once, for instance, Photoshop and Flash or Photoshop and Final Cut Pro. I would like to be able to run them side by side, simultaneously, not have just the one in the "foreground" open.
The problems at the moment are that it is very fiddly to position palettes etc between two applications so they do not overlap, lots of the palette windows disappear when when an application is not in the foreground, and there are lots of other petty annoyances.
Wired was great once. It went down hill when the internet bubble started to grow and money went to their heads, and then went downhill as it became a catalogue of the latest gadgets to buy and puff-pieces about Hollywood movies. Until about 1996 or 7, it rocked.
Apple is I believe going to launch the next version of OSX at the same time as the public starts to get its hands on Vista. Vista is just catching up with OSX in terms of interface. It will really piss on Microsoft's fire if the "Joe Public" press review the next version of OSX at the same time as Vista and conclude that OSX is better - from a PR perspective that will be a disaster for Microsoft because it will make their claims about how Vista is the greatest OS ever much weaker. (Keep in mind that Microsoft has not yet started its marketing bandwagon rolling for Vista).
I'm not sure that online service providers are going to be naturally monolithic in the way that, say, hardware manufacturers or pre-web software companies are. I find it easy to imagine that Google's core business could be wiped out in a year by a new upstart with a better technology. Microsoft are lucky in that they have established lock-in - it will be superceded by something else over the long term rather than replaced by superior products of the same ilk. Google doesn't have any lock-in, and I think the nature of online serices is such that companies that try to establish it aren't going to be successful.
If someone who would be persuaded by that line of reasoning (which doesn't even make sense even if accessing Google really were "using open source software") is in charge of security, open/closed source is the least of their problems.
The point is that we are surrounded by open source usage, and we're all directly or indirectly using it all the time. It's everywhere and many of the biggest, most dynamic companies in the world (Google for instance) are using it, often in their core business. So why aren't we seeing all this evidence of real problems with open source security breaches? Why are all the problems with Windows. Let's face it, the reality is that virtually all viruses, for example, would be more accurately called "Microsoft viruses", because it is security flaws in Microsoft software they exploit. The same goes for worms. So the IT guy counters "but Microsoft software is everywhere and that's why it gets expoited". My central argument is that actually, open source software is also everywhere, even if you don't realise it, and it suffers much fewer security problems.
I think one of the most powerful ways to demonstrate open source is to show people how much they are using without even knowing it.
On a couple of occasions I've spoken to IT people who have said things like "we'd never touch open source because..." and then I've been able to point out multiple ways they use it without realising it. If they use google, if they use email, if they use many websites, then they're using open source software. Many bits of hardware contain open source code (wifi boxes for instance). Many companies are using Apache for their web sites without realising it.
Another good argument is just to spout off a list of Fortune 500 companies who use open source to run their websites. "it's secure enough for IBM, but not secure enough for you?" is the type of argument that's difficult to counter. Very often they just don't know much about it.
The problem you have to fight in people who say things like "open source is insecure" is their ignorance.
Office 2007 lets me do some things (like cool looking charts) in seconds
And this is meant as a demonstration of how Microsoft is innovating. I remember when I last got excited about making "cool looking charts in seconds", it was using a program called Harvard Graphics in about 1991.
It's 2007 and he's talking about "cool looking charts". To me this just demonstrates the extent to which Microsoft is holding back innovation...
notice that of the four hospitals in the world that perform this unique and complicated surgery, all of them are located in the United States
Except that isn't true. I know that the Royal Brompton Hospital in London do surgery on babies in the womb, and it wouldn't suprise me if it was done elsewhere.
Is it just me or do there seem to be more and more stories on Slashdot who's aim seems to be to change our perceptions about a particular product or company, often in a negative way.
Today we seem to have had two stories aimed at changing perceptions of Apple - one about security, one about the type of person who uses Macs. We've had others about the Zune, the last one of which seems to have the aim of changing the perception of the launch from one of failure to success.
Something about the way these stories are written makes me think they are a subtle kind of astroturfing.
I don't see this as odd. I've just been thinking that now would be a good time to purchase classic Gamecube games, so I can play them when I have a wii.
I got a PSP when they were first released in Asia. I am only just starting to use it regularly, it is only now that good games are being released for it.
your readers are all technically literate. Please don't post stories where dumb ideas like "how secure an operating system is = number of potential security holes fixed". That kind of stuff is for pointy haired bosses, not technically literate people.
Speaking from the Whitehouse lawn, President George Bush made a surprise statement today.
"Today's report from the Iraq Study Group has highlighted something that has been on my mind for sometime - my Iraq strategy has failed. I think the right thing for me to do is to apologise to all those people who, during the build-up to our invasion, warned me both publicly and privately that my strategy was unsound and the basis for it wrong. Members of the U.N. weapons inspectors - Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, I would like to apologise to you for deliberately undermining you. Jacques Chirac - Jacques, you were right, and I'm sorry that my adminstration went out of their way to mock you. My good friend Tony Blair, who chose to stand by me even when I acted like a bully and knew you had deep reservations about my decisions. To all of you, I hope you accept my sincere apology."
So I ask you: What value can you concieve of that is in any way "educational"?
Ok, so it is inconceiveable to you that painting light onto a wall with your hands could be a fun and educational activity for kids. You believe in limiting your kids' experience to a set of activities that you believe to be educational. Poor kids.
So how do you propose introducing some "childhood activity" of limited value without displacing "other childhood activities" which have provable, demonstrable, lasting value? (EG: the sand pit, a box of blocks or Legos, tempera paints - good stuff happens there!)
You assume that this activity would be of limited value. You don't know that.
I am not disagreeing with your belief that playing in the sandpit, with paints,etc. are very valuable. They are.
What I don't understand is why you seem to believe that this activity would have little value. A wide range of activities would seem to me to be the best educationally for children - only allowing your children to do certain activities and stopping them doing others based on your (perhaps wrong) ideas about their educational value doesn't seem very clever to me.
Except that you'd be missing a key element to childhood development - the mess!
Perhaps you are assuming that I meant my "painting light on walls" idea should replace all other childhood activities? I never said that. Perhaps rather than being negative about it you might consider how this might be a different experience for children that they might benefit from in other ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Orange! It's going to be next year's most fasionable color!
Most of the water that is being moved by tides isn't moving very fast, or very far.
No, but there is a lot of it.
But tides also act off shore (i.e. the depth of water changes), so I see no reason why the energy shouldn't be harnessed their. Of course, it might be easier to do it on a rive, but of course there are the problems you mention.
I've never understood why the power of tides is not exploited more. In a short streach of coast around the UK, hundreds of millions of tons of water must be moved every 24 hours. I'm sure there must be a lot more energy in that than in the wind in the same area. Why isn't that exploited? Anyone know?
Why aren't we sending a manned mission to Mars? That would be much more interesting...
Actually, I think I know the answer. This administration has consistently show that it doesn't care much for science. This is all really about providing a publicly acceptable spin on weaponizing space, and a mission to Mars doesn't make much sense it that context.
Oh, I completed that miniboss battle a long time ago. But it's very annoying and repetative if don't know what you are supposed to do - like when the boulder chases after you in Resident Evil 4. But once you "get it" it's fairly easy.
I'm not sure that I'd call the stuff the article describes as "games" in a relationship as games...
How many people here have had a conversation like this with a girlfriend:
Me [returning from business trip]: Hi, I'm back!
Her [upset]: You never called!!!
Me: Erm, no, I didn't.
Her: Why not?!
Me: I was on a business trip. I didn't have anything interesting to tell you.
Her: You could have called!
Me: Erm, you didn't call me either.
Her [Really upset]: You don't care about me! [storms off]
Me: [confused]
Not a very fun game.
I want to be able two have two applications running "in the foreground" simultaneously.
What do I mean? Well, I have two big monitors and often work with several applications at once, for instance, Photoshop and Flash or Photoshop and Final Cut Pro. I would like to be able to run them side by side, simultaneously, not have just the one in the "foreground" open.
The problems at the moment are that it is very fiddly to position palettes etc between two applications so they do not overlap, lots of the palette windows disappear when when an application is not in the foreground, and there are lots of other petty annoyances.
Wired is an overrated collection of BS.
Wired was great once. It went down hill when the internet bubble started to grow and money went to their heads, and then went downhill as it became a catalogue of the latest gadgets to buy and puff-pieces about Hollywood movies. Until about 1996 or 7, it rocked.
Is Jobs scared of Aero?
From what I can see, quite the opposite.
Apple is I believe going to launch the next version of OSX at the same time as the public starts to get its hands on Vista. Vista is just catching up with OSX in terms of interface. It will really piss on Microsoft's fire if the "Joe Public" press review the next version of OSX at the same time as Vista and conclude that OSX is better - from a PR perspective that will be a disaster for Microsoft because it will make their claims about how Vista is the greatest OS ever much weaker. (Keep in mind that Microsoft has not yet started its marketing bandwagon rolling for Vista).
I'm not sure that online service providers are going to be naturally monolithic in the way that, say, hardware manufacturers or pre-web software companies are. I find it easy to imagine that Google's core business could be wiped out in a year by a new upstart with a better technology. Microsoft are lucky in that they have established lock-in - it will be superceded by something else over the long term rather than replaced by superior products of the same ilk. Google doesn't have any lock-in, and I think the nature of online serices is such that companies that try to establish it aren't going to be successful.
"Reporting" hasn't been about "facts" in a long time.
The Economist is pretty good.
If someone who would be persuaded by that line of reasoning (which doesn't even make sense even if accessing Google really were "using open source software") is in charge of security, open/closed source is the least of their problems.
The point is that we are surrounded by open source usage, and we're all directly or indirectly using it all the time. It's everywhere and many of the biggest, most dynamic companies in the world (Google for instance) are using it, often in their core business. So why aren't we seeing all this evidence of real problems with open source security breaches? Why are all the problems with Windows. Let's face it, the reality is that virtually all viruses, for example, would be more accurately called "Microsoft viruses", because it is security flaws in Microsoft software they exploit. The same goes for worms. So the IT guy counters "but Microsoft software is everywhere and that's why it gets expoited". My central argument is that actually, open source software is also everywhere, even if you don't realise it, and it suffers much fewer security problems.
I think one of the most powerful ways to demonstrate open source is to show people how much they are using without even knowing it.
On a couple of occasions I've spoken to IT people who have said things like "we'd never touch open source because..." and then I've been able to point out multiple ways they use it without realising it. If they use google, if they use email, if they use many websites, then they're using open source software. Many bits of hardware contain open source code (wifi boxes for instance). Many companies are using Apache for their web sites without realising it.
Another good argument is just to spout off a list of Fortune 500 companies who use open source to run their websites. "it's secure enough for IBM, but not secure enough for you?" is the type of argument that's difficult to counter. Very often they just don't know much about it.
The problem you have to fight in people who say things like "open source is insecure" is their ignorance.
Office 2007 lets me do some things (like cool looking charts) in seconds
And this is meant as a demonstration of how Microsoft is innovating. I remember when I last got excited about making "cool looking charts in seconds", it was using a program called Harvard Graphics in about 1991.
It's 2007 and he's talking about "cool looking charts". To me this just demonstrates the extent to which Microsoft is holding back innovation...
notice that of the four hospitals in the world that perform this unique and complicated surgery, all of them are located in the United States
Except that isn't true. I know that the Royal Brompton Hospital in London do surgery on babies in the womb, and it wouldn't suprise me if it was done elsewhere.
Is it just me or do there seem to be more and more stories on Slashdot who's aim seems to be to change our perceptions about a particular product or company, often in a negative way.
Today we seem to have had two stories aimed at changing perceptions of Apple - one about security, one about the type of person who uses Macs. We've had others about the Zune, the last one of which seems to have the aim of changing the perception of the launch from one of failure to success.
Something about the way these stories are written makes me think they are a subtle kind of astroturfing.
I don't see this as odd. I've just been thinking that now would be a good time to purchase classic Gamecube games, so I can play them when I have a wii.
I got a PSP when they were first released in Asia. I am only just starting to use it regularly, it is only now that good games are being released for it.
Dear Slashdot editors,
your readers are all technically literate. Please don't post stories where dumb ideas like "how secure an operating system is = number of potential security holes fixed". That kind of stuff is for pointy haired bosses, not technically literate people.
Thanks!
Speaking from the Whitehouse lawn, President George Bush made a surprise statement today.
"Today's report from the Iraq Study Group has highlighted something that has been on my mind for sometime - my Iraq strategy has failed. I think the right thing for me to do is to apologise to all those people who, during the build-up to our invasion, warned me both publicly and privately that my strategy was unsound and the basis for it wrong. Members of the U.N. weapons inspectors - Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, I would like to apologise to you for deliberately undermining you. Jacques Chirac - Jacques, you were right, and I'm sorry that my adminstration went out of their way to mock you. My good friend Tony Blair, who chose to stand by me even when I acted like a bully and knew you had deep reservations about my decisions. To all of you, I hope you accept my sincere apology."
So I ask you: What value can you concieve of that is in any way "educational"?
Ok, so it is inconceiveable to you that painting light onto a wall with your hands could be a fun and educational activity for kids. You believe in limiting your kids' experience to a set of activities that you believe to be educational. Poor kids.
So how do you propose introducing some "childhood activity" of limited value without displacing "other childhood activities" which have provable, demonstrable, lasting value? (EG: the sand pit, a box of blocks or Legos, tempera paints - good stuff happens there!)
You assume that this activity would be of limited value. You don't know that.
I am not disagreeing with your belief that playing in the sandpit, with paints,etc. are very valuable. They are.
What I don't understand is why you seem to believe that this activity would have little value. A wide range of activities would seem to me to be the best educationally for children - only allowing your children to do certain activities and stopping them doing others based on your (perhaps wrong) ideas about their educational value doesn't seem very clever to me.
Wow. What a negative rant to a fun idea.
Except that you'd be missing a key element to childhood development - the mess!
Perhaps you are assuming that I meant my "painting light on walls" idea should replace all other childhood activities? I never said that. Perhaps rather than being negative about it you might consider how this might be a different experience for children that they might benefit from in other ways.
Couldn't you combine this with a projector to make a wall you can "paint"? Could be great fun.
Great for kids too - finger painting on the wall without making a mess.