they are not "flying" over any populated areas so the risk is pretty low.
NASA Picked the Florida site for several reasons. One of the most important is that the launches go east, out over the ocean. If something fails, it falls onto NASA land or into the water. Before every launch, they clear the launch path of boats for safety. The idea is that NOTHING is in the launch path during a launch.
Stockton Texas may not have many people downwind, but there are still some. Where there aren't people there is still private land. If a rocket falls in the middle of a cow pasture, the rancher is still going to get mad.
The specific risk may be low due to relatively low periodicity of launches (compared to airline flights) and empty terrain, but it still has much more potential dammage landing a flaiming rocket there than in the ocean.
They should have picked somewhere with an easterly view of an ocean.
On another note: Another reason NASA choose Florida is that the further south you launch, the better boost they get from the Earths rotation. The prime launch site would be on the equator. Private launch sites on the east cost of Brazil would be the best to save fuel.
The RIAA Was sued in US courts for violating US Anti-trust laws. If you want the RIAA to pay up in your country, you have to sue them in YOUR courts for violating YOUR laws.
According to the AMD Processor Road Map, the first hammers will be 0.13, but they will be going to 0.09 for the clawhammer in late 2003. Thats where the map ends, but presumably all processors will eventually reach 0.09.
It seems a shame that Hollywood had to wait until his death before they took him seriously....
More like, it took his death for the rights to transfer to someone who would actually give Hollywood permission to make the movie. DA probably held out. Whoever inherited the rights isn't holding out.
I'd bet that if we had implemented the Marshal Plan in Afganistan ten years ago when the Russians left instead of leaving them poor and ruined for ten years, they would not have fallen to the Taliban and subsequently been a host for terrorist.
Marshal plan brings the poor and destitute up to modern health and abilities, thus releaving much of the desparation that supports extreamism. If a country is already powerful and is seeking domination, that is a different sort of problem.
Mr. Hand has some nice statistics, but we know what they are worth.
The reason Japan has not had any agression since WWII is not the pounding they got, it is because of the MARSHAL PLAN.
Some history. After WWI, Germany was pounded into submission, millions killed, all infrastructure destroyed. Internaltional punishment was delt to them. They were oppressed. Germany was reviled, Their people hated world wide. Extremely horrible economic and emotional conditions.
Question: Did that prevent them from starting another war?
Answer: NO!
After WWII, The Marshal plan was implemented in both Germany and Japan. This plan prevented either from building an Army. But it did help both rebuild their economies, their industries, their schools and hospitals. The US and allies spent millions of dollars rebuilding Germany and Japan into modern, capable and respected countries. No oppression. No punishment.
Since then, neither has had any aggression of the type in WWII.
So, by your logic, Germany should have been stopped after WWI. But they weren't, were they.
The difference? Rebuild them, respect them. Don't give them an emotional reason to go to war.
Now a question for you. If someone were to beat the crap out of you, a school yard bully (assuming you weren't the school yard bully). Would you sit and cower and pray he goes away, or would you plot vengence? Do you believe other people think any differently that you do on subjects like that?
Learn some history. Learn some psychology. Become a better person.
I have read Feynman, and he is good. He does well defining as closely as possible the understanding of Quantum. But I've found others that are good and clear and probably more to the readers liking. These had more of an overview of the precice details that Feynman gets into, but covers a wide variety of topics at an interesting (for me) level.
I found In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality to be a good introduction. It explains
a lot about quantum at a level that is easy to read but also accurate. It has some companion books, basically anything by John Gribbin.
They cover quantum, cosmic creation and evolution, various theories on cosmic destiny. "In search of the Big Bang" is great and detailed. I read the earlier books, circa 1990. There are later updates (Kittens is recommended) that should ring them up to date.
I only wish I had time to go through them all (again). Sigh.
Some people would like to come to a real funeral, but are too far away. People from across the country or across the world may not be able to fly on the spur of the moment, they may not be able to afford it, or get the time off.
And maybe they don't know the person as well or don't miss as much as the family of the person who died. So what.
But don't you dare say they don't have the right to morn at all. Online is a way to bring together people from across the world who would otherwise be left out. It's not as close as in person, but it is much better than nothing.
But optics work on a scale much larger than electrons. Index of refraction requires a medium larger than a few molecules. Microscopic optics would run into size problems long before electronics, requiring whole conduits limited by wavelength considerations. Electronics are approaching the realm of molecular switches. 100 million transistors (typical CPU) would fill a small room with even the smallist optical transistors. Propagation speed advantage of 50% to 100% would pale next to propagation distances of 1000 times more.
Optical will always be more expensive, you can't lay down optics with lithography or other large pattern duplication techniques. It requires every path to be a fiber.
So optics have lots of uses, data transmission being the biggy. But logic is not likely to be one of them. I was hoping someone had a good idea of some overriding advantage, but all i get are trolls.
Flame away. If you know anything it'll show. If you don't, that'll show too.
It sounds cool and all, but what do you get with photon logic over electron logic?
Is it faster? Cheaper? Less heat? More Compact? Some of these but not all of these? What do you lose by switching to photon?
It does sound like good stuff, but what exactly is the good?
The guy may me an a$$hole, but that doesn't automatically mean everything he says is wrong.
bandwidth
is about $300/Mbps (about 30 times the home cable rate). I have a single
site that costs me $2100/month for the server and the bandwidth. And the
only way to pay for that is with ads.
His numbers are close enough. We all watched Linux Weely News throw fits trying to stay afloat, and failing. They can't make enough money on their banner adds. So, how many of you here use add blockers while reading LWN? How many of you went and donated money to LWN when they needed it? How many of you are sad to see them go?
The ranting anti-addblocker talks about every site going down without adds to support them. That is an exaduration, but it is not completely off base. Sites will go down. Some already are.
LWN and Slashdot both get much of their revenue from adds. How do you support them?
The real question is: If you don't want to see adds on LWN or Slashdot, then how do you think they should make enough money to keep running? Or would you rather see them shut down?
Since when is it okay to ridicule someone for a speech impediment?
It is Dyslexia, and it is not ridicule. Read it how you will. Maybe you'd care to explain away the rest of the post now?
The main point is that he is a bully and he does not listen to anyone outside of his own little cadre of insiders. He doesn't give a crap about what anyone else wants or thinks. He enjoys causing suffering, and doesn't even think about helping anyone unless the point becomes politically important. When he first went into Afganistan, all he wanted to do was destroy Al-Queda and Taliban. He cared nothing for what he left behind. "We are not here as nation builders" he says. It wasn't until practically the whole world called him on it that he reversed and supported building a new Afgan government and aiding the people.
You'd think his biggest supporters would be the military, but even they are complaining that things are worse under Bush than under Clinton. Bush may give them more money, but he is commanding them to do things that the Military (the Generals, Admirals, the people who know better) don't want to do. He is interfering with proper and safe operation of the military, and they don't like it. The Pentagon is filling up with Bush insiders who know crap about real military operations, and the real military people are leaving or being kicked out if they don't tow the Bush line.
Yeah, he maybe funny to listen to, but the real scarry stuff is the dammage he is doing to this country, our economy and our international reputation. Turning our national security and national defence upside down to create his "Homeland Defence department" in the middle of a crisis is not good planning. And we are seen as a nation of bullies now more than ever thanks to him.
Re:Why Enron Execs Aren't In Jail Yet
on
WorldCom Fraud Doubles
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Buddy, I don't know if this is a troll, but I'll bite.
Pres. Bush is a good and honorable person who makes his decisions based on what's morally and ethically correct, not by putting his finger to the wind; unlike our last president.
I'm really tired of hearing people smear a good and decent man, I may not agree with everything he's done but he's certainly a person with integrity.
W is a bully and a slacker. He can barely read, write or speak english. Take a look at The Bush Dylsexicon for an in depth character study (not political or economical, but character). This man is my every nightmare.
Bush and co are probable the most insidious lot ever to make it to the Whitehouse, and that is saying a lot. I lived in Texas when he was elected Governer. He lied and twisted everything in his campaign. He tried to ruin the Texas education system and was only prevented by a legislative override (he later took credit for this). He assaulted the prior Governer for her prison reform actions, then later took credit for those.
Now, at a national level, he is sending the national budget into extreem defecit so he can give massive tax breaks to all the rich people, while everyone else will end up paying for the debt.
As far as putting his finger to the wind, he seems to have little or no interest in what the public wants unless EVERYONE gets right in his face about it and threatens him.
I here by renounce anything I said about the spammers, spamaus.org, miss whats-her-name, whatever. The spammers are evil and deserve to die. spamhaus.org is the ultimate in accurate reporting and honest unbiased facts. Whats-her-name is perfectly justified in stalking the spammer and publicly humiliating him.
There, happy now?
But I do stand by my original post. The author of the article mearly repeated what the subject said. He added no editorial one way or the other. This is not biased reporting. This is proper news reporting. Just because you don't like what the spammer said does not mean that they do not have the right to be heard. It does not mean the author of the article is responsable for altering the spammers meaning or presenting an opposing viewpoint. That is journalism, and it has nothing to do with the subject. The same rules apply to any subject, whether it be a criminal, politician, corporate exec, or popular programmer. Q: If Microsoft does not like to see articles quoting Linus, RMS or ESR (who have been known on occasion to be just a little bit loose with opinion and fact) should they be able to demonify any journalist or news service that publishes their quotes? Nope. Its news and its quotes. Thats all.
That article is part two of three. I'd bet the other two have all the juicy anti-spammer stuff you really want to see. A true complete news coverage should always cover all sides of a story, not just one. Maybe the author realy is on your side, and maybe you should read the WHOLE article before passing judgment.
Very true. True OO can add run time type checking overhead that you don't really want.
ADA95 has some structures that support most of the type of capabilities that you want in OO, without actually having an OO environment. It is not OO in the same way smalltalk or Java or others are. But it is compiled and can be optimized well enough to match many F77 compilers. Of cource, true final speed depends a lot on the specific compiler. GCC has both F77 and ADA and they use the same backend. The end reuslt is probably similar speed for similar code. YMMV with other compilers of either.
My reference to OO was really more in the idea that you should not limit your language to old constructs such as fortran when modern OO like constructs are available at similar speeds.
... 20 years ago, (ye gads). It is OK, but not anything special. About the only special feature it has is the builtin COMPLEX type. Beyond that, you're in just another procedural language, and an old one at that.
The problems you described in C/C++ are probably mostly inherant to C. C is not type strict, so it lets you shoot yourself in the foot (or head) a lot.
What it sounds like you want is a strongly typed and type safe language. That would catch most of your problems, assuming your're just writing algorithms and not trying to interface to strange API or hardware.
PASCAL/MODULA-2/-3, or ADA can probably do what you want, and have GCC frontends available. These languages usually have runtime checks for safety, but after debugging, you can usually optomize them out for a production release.
So over all, go compiled, go type safe, go modern/OO if you can.
Congratulations, you have a "criminal". Now just go find all the evidence that all the other spammers in the article are also convcted and you can have the shiny new "s" to put on the end.
One thing that was pointed out elsewhere in this thread is that this article is part two of a three part series. I'm gonna bet that the other articles have just exactly the sort of spammer bashing that you want to read. Why don't you go RTFAs and then tell us if the author really left out all the stuff you think should have been there.
And yes, I'm sure spamhaus.org is really going to give us an unbiased point of view. Pointing me at one extream as an example of a source of information is not going to convince me that another source of information is just too biased.
I appreciate unbiased reporting precicely because it enlightens me on how the other side thinks. It doesn't mean I'm going to believe everything I read. But it is better to know your enemy than to live in ignorance and pretend they are not human or don't have motivations of their own. Understanding your enemy is not the same as loving your enemy. You can only understand them if you get their point of view. You won't get that from spamhaus.org.
You're the one who does not understand the comment.
I did read the link. The lady is refuting the comments that the spammer made. I don't doubt that he lied and that she set him straight. That does not mean that the article lied, just that the spammer lied.
As for the "stalker" reference, that would be one of the few points the journalist should have been more clear on. And by clear, I mean he should have said it was the spammers assertion the he was being stalked, not whether what was happening was legally stalking.
If it isn't stalking then it sure has a lot in common with stalking. She did research him, she did take pictures, she did post information in public. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and I can't claim that it was stalking or was not stalking. And frankly, neither can you. You don't want it to be treated like a stalking case because it's "a good guy" following "a bad guy" so it must be OK.
Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like th message.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA Picked the Florida site for several reasons. One of the most important is that the launches go east, out over the ocean. If something fails, it falls onto NASA land or into the water. Before every launch, they clear the launch path of boats for safety. The idea is that NOTHING is in the launch path during a launch.
Stockton Texas may not have many people downwind, but there are still some. Where there aren't people there is still private land. If a rocket falls in the middle of a cow pasture, the rancher is still going to get mad.
The specific risk may be low due to relatively low periodicity of launches (compared to airline flights) and empty terrain, but it still has much more potential dammage landing a flaiming rocket there than in the ocean.
They should have picked somewhere with an easterly view of an ocean.
On another note: Another reason NASA choose Florida is that the further south you launch, the better boost they get from the Earths rotation. The prime launch site would be on the equator. Private launch sites on the east cost of Brazil would be the best to save fuel.
No, he'd forgive the trolls. That's probably why most people here are athiest.
Do you have any applicable laws?
I thought the Big Dig was supposed to go on forever.
First, you set the elevator control to high. ...
Then you set the attitude control to mighty.
Then you
According to the AMD Processor Road Map, the first hammers will be 0.13, but they will be going to 0.09 for the clawhammer in late 2003. Thats where the map ends, but presumably all processors will eventually reach 0.09.
More like, it took his death for the rights to transfer to someone who would actually give Hollywood permission to make the movie. DA probably held out. Whoever inherited the rights isn't holding out.
I'd bet that if we had implemented the Marshal Plan in Afganistan ten years ago when the Russians left instead of leaving them poor and ruined for ten years, they would not have fallen to the Taliban and subsequently been a host for terrorist.
Marshal plan brings the poor and destitute up to modern health and abilities, thus releaving much of the desparation that supports extreamism. If a country is already powerful and is seeking domination, that is a different sort of problem.
The reason Japan has not had any agression since WWII is not the pounding they got, it is because of the MARSHAL PLAN.
Some history. After WWI, Germany was pounded into submission, millions killed, all infrastructure destroyed. Internaltional punishment was delt to them. They were oppressed. Germany was reviled, Their people hated world wide. Extremely horrible economic and emotional conditions.
Question: Did that prevent them from starting another war?
Answer: NO!
After WWII, The Marshal plan was implemented in both Germany and Japan. This plan prevented either from building an Army. But it did help both rebuild their economies, their industries, their schools and hospitals. The US and allies spent millions of dollars rebuilding Germany and Japan into modern, capable and respected countries. No oppression. No punishment.
Since then, neither has had any aggression of the type in WWII.
So, by your logic, Germany should have been stopped after WWI. But they weren't, were they. The difference? Rebuild them, respect them. Don't give them an emotional reason to go to war.
Now a question for you. If someone were to beat the crap out of you, a school yard bully (assuming you weren't the school yard bully). Would you sit and cower and pray he goes away, or would you plot vengence? Do you believe other people think any differently that you do on subjects like that?
Learn some history. Learn some psychology. Become a better person.
Peace be with you.
One year later, we find that both Windows 2000 SP2 and Windows XP still use essentially the same ISN generator
One might presume from this that the available graph is suitable for all of them.
I Doubt MS had anything to do with the content of the report. The authors simply saved space by showing one graph for all of them.
I approve their choice of name.
I found In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality to be a good introduction. It explains a lot about quantum at a level that is easy to read but also accurate. It has some companion books, basically anything by John Gribbin. They cover quantum, cosmic creation and evolution, various theories on cosmic destiny. "In search of the Big Bang" is great and detailed. I read the earlier books, circa 1990. There are later updates (Kittens is recommended) that should ring them up to date.
I only wish I had time to go through them all (again). Sigh.
And maybe they don't know the person as well or don't miss as much as the family of the person who died. So what.
But don't you dare say they don't have the right to morn at all. Online is a way to bring together people from across the world who would otherwise be left out. It's not as close as in person, but it is much better than nothing.
Higher switching speed: true
But optics work on a scale much larger than electrons. Index of refraction requires a medium larger than a few molecules. Microscopic optics would run into size problems long before electronics, requiring whole conduits limited by wavelength considerations. Electronics are approaching the realm of molecular switches. 100 million transistors (typical CPU) would fill a small room with even the smallist optical transistors. Propagation speed advantage of 50% to 100% would pale next to propagation distances of 1000 times more.
Optical will always be more expensive, you can't lay down optics with lithography or other large pattern duplication techniques. It requires every path to be a fiber.
So optics have lots of uses, data transmission being the biggy. But logic is not likely to be one of them. I was hoping someone had a good idea of some overriding advantage, but all i get are trolls.
Flame away. If you know anything it'll show. If you don't, that'll show too.
RTFQ
Is it faster? Cheaper? Less heat? More Compact? Some of these but not all of these? What do you lose by switching to photon?
It does sound like good stuff, but what exactly is the good?
His numbers are close enough. We all watched Linux Weely News throw fits trying to stay afloat, and failing. They can't make enough money on their banner adds. So, how many of you here use add blockers while reading LWN? How many of you went and donated money to LWN when they needed it? How many of you are sad to see them go?
The ranting anti-addblocker talks about every site going down without adds to support them. That is an exaduration, but it is not completely off base. Sites will go down. Some already are.
LWN and Slashdot both get much of their revenue from adds. How do you support them? The real question is: If you don't want to see adds on LWN or Slashdot, then how do you think they should make enough money to keep running? Or would you rather see them shut down?
... Because the SPIRIT of the contract is that they would put Windows on every PC they sold. Is that what you think they should have done?
It is Dyslexia, and it is not ridicule. Read it how you will. Maybe you'd care to explain away the rest of the post now?
The main point is that he is a bully and he does not listen to anyone outside of his own little cadre of insiders. He doesn't give a crap about what anyone else wants or thinks. He enjoys causing suffering, and doesn't even think about helping anyone unless the point becomes politically important. When he first went into Afganistan, all he wanted to do was destroy Al-Queda and Taliban. He cared nothing for what he left behind. "We are not here as nation builders" he says. It wasn't until practically the whole world called him on it that he reversed and supported building a new Afgan government and aiding the people.
You'd think his biggest supporters would be the military, but even they are complaining that things are worse under Bush than under Clinton. Bush may give them more money, but he is commanding them to do things that the Military (the Generals, Admirals, the people who know better) don't want to do. He is interfering with proper and safe operation of the military, and they don't like it. The Pentagon is filling up with Bush insiders who know crap about real military operations, and the real military people are leaving or being kicked out if they don't tow the Bush line.
Yeah, he maybe funny to listen to, but the real scarry stuff is the dammage he is doing to this country, our economy and our international reputation. Turning our national security and national defence upside down to create his "Homeland Defence department" in the middle of a crisis is not good planning. And we are seen as a nation of bullies now more than ever thanks to him.
Pres. Bush is a good and honorable person who makes his decisions based on what's morally and ethically correct, not by putting his finger to the wind; unlike our last president.
I'm really tired of hearing people smear a good and decent man, I may not agree with everything he's done but he's certainly a person with integrity.
W is a bully and a slacker. He can barely read, write or speak english. Take a look at The Bush Dylsexicon for an in depth character study (not political or economical, but character). This man is my every nightmare.
Bush and co are probable the most insidious lot ever to make it to the Whitehouse, and that is saying a lot. I lived in Texas when he was elected Governer. He lied and twisted everything in his campaign. He tried to ruin the Texas education system and was only prevented by a legislative override (he later took credit for this). He assaulted the prior Governer for her prison reform actions, then later took credit for those.
Now, at a national level, he is sending the national budget into extreem defecit so he can give massive tax breaks to all the rich people, while everyone else will end up paying for the debt.
As far as putting his finger to the wind, he seems to have little or no interest in what the public wants unless EVERYONE gets right in his face about it and threatens him.
Nuff said.
I here by renounce anything I said about the spammers, spamaus.org, miss whats-her-name, whatever. The spammers are evil and deserve to die. spamhaus.org is the ultimate in accurate reporting and honest unbiased facts. Whats-her-name is perfectly justified in stalking the spammer and publicly humiliating him.
There, happy now?
But I do stand by my original post. The author of the article mearly repeated what the subject said. He added no editorial one way or the other. This is not biased reporting. This is proper news reporting. Just because you don't like what the spammer said does not mean that they do not have the right to be heard. It does not mean the author of the article is responsable for altering the spammers meaning or presenting an opposing viewpoint. That is journalism, and it has nothing to do with the subject. The same rules apply to any subject, whether it be a criminal, politician, corporate exec, or popular programmer. Q: If Microsoft does not like to see articles quoting Linus, RMS or ESR (who have been known on occasion to be just a little bit loose with opinion and fact) should they be able to demonify any journalist or news service that publishes their quotes? Nope. Its news and its quotes. Thats all.
That article is part two of three. I'd bet the other two have all the juicy anti-spammer stuff you really want to see. A true complete news coverage should always cover all sides of a story, not just one. Maybe the author realy is on your side, and maybe you should read the WHOLE article before passing judgment.
ADA95 has some structures that support most of the type of capabilities that you want in OO, without actually having an OO environment. It is not OO in the same way smalltalk or Java or others are. But it is compiled and can be optimized well enough to match many F77 compilers.
Of cource, true final speed depends a lot on the specific compiler. GCC has both F77 and ADA and they use the same backend. The end reuslt is probably similar speed for similar code. YMMV with other compilers of either.
My reference to OO was really more in the idea that you should not limit your language to old constructs such as fortran when modern OO like constructs are available at similar speeds.
The problems you described in C/C++ are probably mostly inherant to C. C is not type strict, so it lets you shoot yourself in the foot (or head) a lot.
What it sounds like you want is a strongly typed and type safe language. That would catch most of your problems, assuming your're just writing algorithms and not trying to interface to strange API or hardware.
PASCAL/MODULA-2/-3, or ADA can probably do what you want, and have GCC frontends available. These languages usually have runtime checks for safety, but after debugging, you can usually optomize them out for a production release.
So over all, go compiled, go type safe, go modern/OO if you can.
One thing that was pointed out elsewhere in this thread is that this article is part two of a three part series. I'm gonna bet that the other articles have just exactly the sort of spammer bashing that you want to read. Why don't you go RTFAs and then tell us if the author really left out all the stuff you think should have been there.
And yes, I'm sure spamhaus.org is really going to give us an unbiased point of view. Pointing me at one extream as an example of a source of information is not going to convince me that another source of information is just too biased.
I appreciate unbiased reporting precicely because it enlightens me on how the other side thinks. It doesn't mean I'm going to believe everything I read. But it is better to know your enemy than to live in ignorance and pretend they are not human or don't have motivations of their own. Understanding your enemy is not the same as loving your enemy. You can only understand them if you get their point of view. You won't get that from spamhaus.org.
I did read the link. The lady is refuting the comments that the spammer made. I don't doubt that he lied and that she set him straight. That does not mean that the article lied, just that the spammer lied.
As for the "stalker" reference, that would be one of the few points the journalist should have been more clear on. And by clear, I mean he should have said it was the spammers assertion the he was being stalked, not whether what was happening was legally stalking.
If it isn't stalking then it sure has a lot in common with stalking. She did research him, she did take pictures, she did post information in public. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and I can't claim that it was stalking or was not stalking. And frankly, neither can you. You don't want it to be treated like a stalking case because it's "a good guy" following "a bad guy" so it must be OK.
Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like th message.