There are theoretical models which postulate that life 'not quite as we know it' could evolve in a methane based ecosystem.
Ahhh - so that's where slashdot began.
Basically the climate has only been moderate for a brief span (all of human history) and now WE have whacked the balance out....the wild changes will begin again
Let me get this straight. For 4 billion years the climate fluctuated wildly over the eons. But once mankind showed up on the scene then any fluctuations are attributable to his existence over that 1/10,000th fraction of the Earth's age.
Whatever happened to sharing? We are taught that from pre-school on
Remember how much sharing pissed you off when you had to share your toys with some little snot whose only contribution to your little animal farm was simply his great talent to know to whine only when the teacher was nearby about how "he won't share!!!", and was otherwise a noncontributing, a "taker" but never a "giver", member of your little playgroup?
Hydrogen merely carries the energy, you still have to generate the energy by burning fossil fuels, running nuclear reactors, setting up windmills, or some other means, and how that energy generation is done will determine the effect on the climate.
Besides the potential lessening availability of fossil fuels in the future, combustion of fossil fuels has a detrimental effect due to localized pollution at the combustion point - water vapor, while perhaps producing some fog and causing the Golden Gate Bridge to need more frequent painting, doesn't cause more acidic rain, nor blackened buildings (and lungs).
Additionally, at least in theory, if the pollution of the creation of hydrogen can be localized to efficient facilities, it can also be made a clean process more cheaply - it's easier to clean up a mess that's contained and localized from the beginning than to clean a mess that's been free and dispersed.
If the storage concerns and requirements of H2 can be overcome, then it'll make a fuel that is as clean as we're going to get. The cleanest way to produce it will be some sort of electrolyis - one project I read about envisioned pumping sea water to desert areas, where there is abundant sunshine and sufficient open land, and using solar energy to split the hydrogen out.
Now we're supposed to hate them because of this deal?
"Stupid is as stupid does."
SCO is quite free to buy anything they want - but you don't see Wall-Mart trumpeting that they sold 10,000,000 file folders to SCO. SCO is quite free to buy a license - but there is not requirement on MySQL AB's part to participate in any announcement about it. MySQL AB has displayed a serious lack of judgement in allowing any public announcment of the level they call a partnership with an organization held in such distrust by their vast majority of users. It's damn stupid of MySQL to either not recognize this or to commit the act without regard to their userbase.
And it's also the money of the other taxpayers - who may not agree at what the money is spent on, or the reasons for it. If it's not in the Constitution, i.e. the necessary "defense of the nation" requirement, then involuntary tax money shouldn't be part of the equation.
I think we're agreeing though - if some group of people voluntarily want to rebuild in that location, then let 'em at it - but don't require those who think it's unwise to participate.
I think the states need to be less concerned about State money going to other states, and more concerned with State money going to stuff like the war in Iraq for which we see NO return.
You need to try to look more than 5 seconds into the future.
Google is pretty good at linux internally, but a lot of the consumer software (eg Picasso) is windows only
That's because Google is smart enough to see that while Linux is extremely useful and functional and reliable and cost-effective, that most people who are willing to frivolously spend their excess cash tend to spend it on the "shiny lights syndrome" type of things.
1. Build non-Microsoft-centric application found useful by many, many people.
2. Short Microsoft shares.
3. Give away for free extremely useful and less-frustrating non-Microsoft application.
4. Profit.
... lure women into situations where they are abducted... [t]he billboards allowed you to align your phone's IR receiver with a flashing icon to receive information on how to better protect yourself if you happen to be a woman.
Personally, the women in my life have been taught how the align their sights to better protect themselves from such activities.
a GoogleOS thin-client is not far off. Why? The things that most people do don't require even a 10th the functionality of Windows
Actually, many people are slowly finding they need 10 times the functionality that the Windows variants provide. That's why other OS's exist and will continue to exist. Realize that functionality can be measured in many ways - freedom isn't free, for one thing - it requires work, whether in a democracy or an effort to have free (from control by others) software.
Google is lead by people smart enough to recognize that Microsoft views them as a threat, and so, by fiat, Microsoft is a threat to Google. A world in which Google did not have to worry about loss of search effort (and hence loss of eyeballs to the advertising revenue they capture) to Microsoft or to others is a world in which Google makes more money. A weaker Microsoft that would have to make decisions on concentrating its resources on its bread-and-butter Office (threatened by OpenOffice, for one), and on its OS, which is its starting point for its huge market capitalization, is a world in which Microsoft is not gaining revenue from search, or from IM, etc.
IMO, Google could do far worse than to figure out how to make Firefox even more useful and how to make Gaim even more useful, and how to make Sunbird a useful product, and how to make a free Exchange-like product that tied 'em all together, and acted as a chat server, and so on, and to give those things away, and encourage their use. Less Microsoft presence in those areas means a retrenched Microsoft not dipping into the search engine advertising revenue stream.
Personally my hobbies include martial arts and power lifting. Another good systems guy I know is an expert martial artist. I say we get five minutes locked in a small concrete room with Mr. Worm Creator and see how much fucking fun he has while he's getting an ass beating.
Having some difficulties understanding the self-control aspects of the martial arts, are you?
You must choose a language which is actually maintainable. By maintainable we mean the language must supports modern ways of modularization etc.
This means PHP is a poor choice due to the lack of namespaces and poor resolution of includes.
Modularization is not always the cat's meow. All problems don't come pre-formed to fit into ready made bins.
Discipline can either be enforced by a programming language that shackles you to only its way of doing something, which costs what might be critical flexibility sometimes, or it can be self enforced by competent programmers who can use a flexible language with their own application of structure, knowing how and when to deviate to accomplish a task.
PHP is a fine language. It allows a great deal of expression, just like English, because each has borrowed as desired from other languages. The attitude that only "modern modularization" is suitable for everyone to use is the same kind that would force everyone to only learn and use Esperanto, because "it's designed".
Slashdot Mirror
There are theoretical models which postulate that life 'not quite as we know it' could evolve in a methane based ecosystem. Ahhh - so that's where slashdot began.
Let me get this straight. For 4 billion years the climate fluctuated wildly over the eons. But once mankind showed up on the scene then any fluctuations are attributable to his existence over that 1/10,000th fraction of the Earth's age.
Remember how much sharing pissed you off when you had to share your toys with some little snot whose only contribution to your little animal farm was simply his great talent to know to whine only when the teacher was nearby about how "he won't share!!!", and was otherwise a noncontributing, a "taker" but never a "giver", member of your little playgroup?
One owns only what he can defend.
Besides the potential lessening availability of fossil fuels in the future, combustion of fossil fuels has a detrimental effect due to localized pollution at the combustion point - water vapor, while perhaps producing some fog and causing the Golden Gate Bridge to need more frequent painting, doesn't cause more acidic rain, nor blackened buildings (and lungs).
Additionally, at least in theory, if the pollution of the creation of hydrogen can be localized to efficient facilities, it can also be made a clean process more cheaply - it's easier to clean up a mess that's contained and localized from the beginning than to clean a mess that's been free and dispersed.
If the storage concerns and requirements of H2 can be overcome, then it'll make a fuel that is as clean as we're going to get. The cleanest way to produce it will be some sort of electrolyis - one project I read about envisioned pumping sea water to desert areas, where there is abundant sunshine and sufficient open land, and using solar energy to split the hydrogen out.
"Stupid is as stupid does."
SCO is quite free to buy anything they want - but you don't see Wall-Mart trumpeting that they sold 10,000,000 file folders to SCO. SCO is quite free to buy a license - but there is not requirement on MySQL AB's part to participate in any announcement about it. MySQL AB has displayed a serious lack of judgement in allowing any public announcment of the level they call a partnership with an organization held in such distrust by their vast majority of users. It's damn stupid of MySQL to either not recognize this or to commit the act without regard to their userbase.
And it's also the money of the other taxpayers - who may not agree at what the money is spent on, or the reasons for it. If it's not in the Constitution, i.e. the necessary "defense of the nation" requirement, then involuntary tax money shouldn't be part of the equation.
I think we're agreeing though - if some group of people voluntarily want to rebuild in that location, then let 'em at it - but don't require those who think it's unwise to participate.
You need to try to look more than 5 seconds into the future.
It never is an issue when it's not your money.
Umm.. About 80% of New Orleans is below sea level, apparently.
That's the point.
It'll get mighty cold around here if you put out the sun.
That's because Google is smart enough to see that while Linux is extremely useful and functional and reliable and cost-effective, that most people who are willing to frivolously spend their excess cash tend to spend it on the "shiny lights syndrome" type of things.
1. Build non-Microsoft-centric application found useful by many, many people.
2. Short Microsoft shares.
3. Give away for free extremely useful and less-frustrating non-Microsoft application.
4. Profit.
Personally, the women in my life have been taught how the align their sights to better protect themselves from such activities.
Actually, many people are slowly finding they need 10 times the functionality that the Windows variants provide. That's why other OS's exist and will continue to exist. Realize that functionality can be measured in many ways - freedom isn't free, for one thing - it requires work, whether in a democracy or an effort to have free (from control by others) software.
Google is lead by people smart enough to recognize that Microsoft views them as a threat, and so, by fiat, Microsoft is a threat to Google. A world in which Google did not have to worry about loss of search effort (and hence loss of eyeballs to the advertising revenue they capture) to Microsoft or to others is a world in which Google makes more money. A weaker Microsoft that would have to make decisions on concentrating its resources on its bread-and-butter Office (threatened by OpenOffice, for one), and on its OS, which is its starting point for its huge market capitalization, is a world in which Microsoft is not gaining revenue from search, or from IM, etc.
IMO, Google could do far worse than to figure out how to make Firefox even more useful and how to make Gaim even more useful, and how to make Sunbird a useful product, and how to make a free Exchange-like product that tied 'em all together, and acted as a chat server, and so on, and to give those things away, and encourage their use. Less Microsoft presence in those areas means a retrenched Microsoft not dipping into the search engine advertising revenue stream.
Having some difficulties understanding the self-control aspects of the martial arts, are you?
Yawn ...
I hated the thought of dumping Yahoo mail/search for, oh, about 1.2 seconds.
I've always tried to practice the Richard Feynman way of solving hard problems:
Step 2 has been tricky to teach though.
Maybe we could get back to actually exploring space instead of endless orbits then.
This means PHP is a poor choice due to the lack of namespaces and poor resolution of includes.
Modularization is not always the cat's meow. All problems don't come pre-formed to fit into ready made bins.
Discipline can either be enforced by a programming language that shackles you to only its way of doing something, which costs what might be critical flexibility sometimes, or it can be self enforced by competent programmers who can use a flexible language with their own application of structure, knowing how and when to deviate to accomplish a task.
PHP is a fine language. It allows a great deal of expression, just like English, because each has borrowed as desired from other languages. The attitude that only "modern modularization" is suitable for everyone to use is the same kind that would force everyone to only learn and use Esperanto, because "it's designed".
Of course, APL is the only true way to fly.
If it's the right idea, all you need is one.
as my sharecropper grandpa used to say, "it sure beats farming."
what a bullshit statement.
To date, that's how we all started.