My original post pointed out that sand, as we think of it, is up "to a couple millimeters in size" and that what's on Mars isn't. No further clarification is necessary, for anyone capable of understanding English. If you were really concerned that there was a slight overlap in the units I used, go fuck yourself.
Wind-blown Martian dust -- which IS different from sand, as is obvious from Mars' low air density/atmospheric pressure -- can be as small as 1 micron. No terrestrial sand is that small, and the VAST majority of terrestrial sand is on the order of a millimeter, much larger than martian dust, even at the high end of its size range.
Please refrain from pointing fingers when you don't know what you're talking about.
The OP notes the "he high speed grains of sand blowing around at about 30 meters/second".
Just to be clear, we're not talking about "sand" in the sense that your average beachgoer thinks of it. The typical size of the dust grains on Mars is a few tens of microns (say 10-30m or so), which is quite a bit smaller than sand, which ranges from a few hundredths of a millimeter to a couple millimeters in size (roughly, using geological definitions).
The problem is not that their compiler optimizes code for their compiler. It's that their compiler intentionally breaks code for other CPUs that are capable of running the optimized code.
If this is true, Intel deserves to be hung out to dry.
I'm glad AMD is pursuing this action against Intel just because I like rooting for underdogs, but this lends them the moral high ground they might have been seen to be lacking by some in the tech media.
I've been a veggie for about ten years, and have tried most of these products at one time or another. Last night I had an excellent BLT for dinner, made using a bacon substitute called "Smart Bacon".
To be honest, I think that even if I were eating meat, I'd prefer this stuff because it's healthier and still tastes fine.
And there are so many burger substitutes out there that I don't miss eating cow at all.
For crying out loud, isn't anything written by Gibson, or published in Wired, too damn self-referential when posted on/.?
It's a bit like the early days, what with Gibson, Sterling, Barlow and Sirius, thrown into a pot with Mondo2k and Wired 1.x. How many iterations of the same chumbucket can we be expected to swallow?
Seems to me that the physical size of the core has pretty much nothing to do with it. If it can reach critical mass, particularly when surrounded by appropriate materials (beryllium reflector, u-235 shell, etc), then it can...whether it's the size of a basketball...or a golf ball.
The smallest warhead made ("Davy Crockett") was a shoulder-launched, tactical size unit whose business end was the size of a cantaloupe.
Because the market for fuel cells for your mouse isn't driven by the gaming industry, while the processor industry (at the high end, as this CPU is) is.:)
> Denizens of mountainous areas often don't see the > horizon at all - their line of sight to it is > blocked by said mountains.
The edge of visisble land that meets the sky *IS* the horizon, so people in the mountains most certainly DO see thge horizon, just like everyone else. It's just not flat, and is generally closer than the horizon seen by someone standing on a flat plain.
Card writes very good fiction, but I'd hesitate to call it SF.
What he writes is what I'd probably have to call "Fantasy fiction" (to separate it from the 'wizards & swords and dragons' junk so prevalent in what passes for mainstream "Fantasy").
1: As countless others will reply, much of what we take for granted was "science fiction" a very short while ago. People can't fly, because they're heavier than air (I just flew from Iowa to Colorado earlier today. It took me less than two hours.) Everything dies (there are cell lines now that are essentially immortal; nerve tissue has been regenerated successfully in the lab). There are countless et ceteras I could include here, but this thread will be full of then in about ten minutes.
2: While FTL travel may be impossible, but we'll never know. We THINK our understanding of physics shows that it's not possible, but there are gaping holes in physics and those holes could be filled by new insights that show us a way around this "limitation". Or not. But since we see so much today that used to be "impossible" (see #1), your point is silly.
3: There are many kinds of SF. All one has to do is read Gardner Dozois' annual anthology or regularly read Asimov's or Analog to know that. Some is very much "fact based" fiction, whether it occurs in a recognizable world or not, near future or far. Other fiction isn't "fact based" and still manages to be great writing that just happens to be SF - calling it "an opiate" because it's not myopically limited to what's proven/likely does a disservice to its authors and readers. And if you prefer SF that's based on proven/likely technological limitations, there's plenty of it out there for you.
4: You ask about "having a positive view on life" because of Star Trek. Huh? Since when is that a required/anticipated outcome of watching a TV show? And since when is Star Trek representative of SF as a whole? ST is one small (some would say sad) corner of the SF world. Using it as an example suggests a limited sense of what's out there. Most people I know who read SF on a serious basis haven't paid much attention to ST in a very, very long time, except as an amusement.
Perhaps...but there's a better solution: cut the STATION loose.
ISS has been a big hole in the sky into which we pour money that would be better off spent on alternative manned programs and pure science. With two people onboard, essentially zero science is being done up there, or was being done prior to shuttle flight delays.
NASA ought to return to its strengths: scientific exploration and exploratory manned programs (Mars, Moon). Sitting in low Earth orbit, watching seeds sprout in microgravity while being fed by expensive Soyuz and SST flights is simply a waste.
I've NEVER been disturned with a Windows security problem.
Yes, I run a properly configured firewall and antivirus software. And I regularly download updates from M$.
But with those measures in place - and I'd hope that ANYONE would have them in place in the modern world, not just Windows people - I have NEVER had a problem. Ever, in spite of being online (the Internet, that is) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, since sometime in 1997.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come one, someone mod this back up.
This is funny, unless you're a prude/mormon/granny/etc.
My original post pointed out that sand, as we think of it, is up "to a couple millimeters in size" and that what's on Mars isn't. No further clarification is necessary, for anyone capable of understanding English. If you were really concerned that there was a slight overlap in the units I used, go fuck yourself.
Wrong.
Wind-blown Martian dust -- which IS different from sand, as is obvious from Mars' low air density/atmospheric pressure -- can be as small as 1 micron. No terrestrial sand is that small, and the VAST majority of terrestrial sand is on the order of a millimeter, much larger than martian dust, even at the high end of its size range.
Please refrain from pointing fingers when you don't know what you're talking about.
The OP notes the "he high speed grains of sand blowing around at about 30 meters/second".
Just to be clear, we're not talking about "sand" in the sense that your average beachgoer thinks of it. The typical size of the dust grains on Mars is a few tens of microns (say 10-30m or so), which is quite a bit smaller than sand, which ranges from a few hundredths of a millimeter to a couple millimeters in size (roughly, using geological definitions).
> logical conclusion?
Pshaw. You think too small, too short-term.
Stars gravitate, and thus change orientation with respect to one another, not to mention the impact of dark matter. So do galaxies.
In my day, we used multiple universes with varying fundamental parameters to store our data. The fine structure constant beats a floppy, any day.
The problem is not that their compiler optimizes code for their compiler. It's that their compiler intentionally breaks code for other CPUs that are capable of running the optimized code.
If this is true, Intel deserves to be hung out to dry.
I'm glad AMD is pursuing this action against Intel just because I like rooting for underdogs, but this lends them the moral high ground they might have been seen to be lacking by some in the tech media.
> Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing
> to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in."
Or are willing to pay for their music and then liberate it using Jhymn.
And many of them are really pretty good.
I've been a veggie for about ten years, and have tried most of these products at one time or another. Last night I had an excellent BLT for dinner, made using a bacon substitute called "Smart Bacon".
To be honest, I think that even if I were eating meat, I'd prefer this stuff because it's healthier and still tastes fine.
And there are so many burger substitutes out there that I don't miss eating cow at all.
Bravo!
> before his techno-utopianism has any credibility
Best yet, why doesn't he become a scientologist?
(...and I write this as a fan of most of his work...)
> Pointy-haired Constructionism?
Whhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
(ain't 'dis a fun ol' ride now kids?)
For crying out loud, isn't anything written by Gibson, or published in Wired, too damn self-referential when posted on /.?
It's a bit like the early days, what with Gibson, Sterling, Barlow and Sirius, thrown into a pot with Mondo2k and Wired 1.x. How many iterations of the same chumbucket can we be expected to swallow?
Seems to me that the physical size of the core has pretty much nothing to do with it. If it can reach critical mass, particularly when surrounded by appropriate materials (beryllium reflector, u-235 shell, etc), then it can...whether it's the size of a basketball...or a golf ball.
The smallest warhead made ("Davy Crockett") was a shoulder-launched, tactical size unit whose business end was the size of a cantaloupe.
Actually, it would be a cube 20cm on a side.
I think...checking:
330lbs = 149,685 grams. 149,685 grams at 19.84 grams / cm^3 is about 7545 cm^3. The third root of 7545 is 19.6.
Can that be right? Wow. I knew it was dense stuff, but holy sh*t!
Because the market for fuel cells for your mouse isn't driven by the gaming industry, while the processor industry (at the high end, as this CPU is) is. :)
Probably the best place to look for info:w s&file=article&sid=3165&mode=thread&order=0&thold= 0
http://amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Ne
> Denizens of mountainous areas often don't see the
> horizon at all - their line of sight to it is
> blocked by said mountains.
The edge of visisble land that meets the sky *IS* the horizon, so people in the mountains most certainly DO see thge horizon, just like everyone else. It's just not flat, and is generally closer than the horizon seen by someone standing on a flat plain.
Yes. Photons do, in fact, "gravitate" in the sense you're speaking of.
Card writes very good fiction, but I'd hesitate to call it SF.
What he writes is what I'd probably have to call "Fantasy fiction" (to separate it from the 'wizards & swords and dragons' junk so prevalent in what passes for mainstream "Fantasy").
If your view of science fiction is based primarily on Star Trek please report to the nearest Suicide Booth.
Thank You.
1: As countless others will reply, much of what we take for granted was "science fiction" a very short while ago. People can't fly, because they're heavier than air (I just flew from Iowa to Colorado earlier today. It took me less than two hours.) Everything dies (there are cell lines now that are essentially immortal; nerve tissue has been regenerated successfully in the lab). There are countless et ceteras I could include here, but this thread will be full of then in about ten minutes.
2: While FTL travel may be impossible, but we'll never know. We THINK our understanding of physics shows that it's not possible, but there are gaping holes in physics and those holes could be filled by new insights that show us a way around this "limitation". Or not. But since we see so much today that used to be "impossible" (see #1), your point is silly.
3: There are many kinds of SF. All one has to do is read Gardner Dozois' annual anthology or regularly read Asimov's or Analog to know that. Some is very much "fact based" fiction, whether it occurs in a recognizable world or not, near future or far. Other fiction isn't "fact based" and still manages to be great writing that just happens to be SF - calling it "an opiate" because it's not myopically limited to what's proven/likely does a disservice to its authors and readers. And if you prefer SF that's based on proven/likely technological limitations, there's plenty of it out there for you.
4: You ask about "having a positive view on life" because of Star Trek. Huh? Since when is that a required/anticipated outcome of watching a TV show? And since when is Star Trek representative of SF as a whole? ST is one small (some would say sad) corner of the SF world. Using it as an example suggests a limited sense of what's out there. Most people I know who read SF on a serious basis haven't paid much attention to ST in a very, very long time, except as an amusement.
I don't think that nigh means what you think it means.
> Should the Space Shuttle be cut loose?"
Perhaps...but there's a better solution: cut the STATION loose.
ISS has been a big hole in the sky into which we pour money that would be better off spent on alternative manned programs and pure science. With two people onboard, essentially zero science is being done up there, or was being done prior to shuttle flight delays.
NASA ought to return to its strengths: scientific exploration and exploratory manned programs (Mars, Moon). Sitting in low Earth orbit, watching seeds sprout in microgravity while being fed by expensive Soyuz and SST flights is simply a waste.
I've NEVER been disturned with a Windows security problem.
Yes, I run a properly configured firewall and antivirus software. And I regularly download updates from M$.
But with those measures in place - and I'd hope that ANYONE would have them in place in the modern world, not just Windows people - I have NEVER had a problem. Ever, in spite of being online (the Internet, that is) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, since sometime in 1997.
Not once.
I invented these in 1988, while drinking a bottle of Mouton-Rothschild with my dad.