I own some old stuff. An Amiga 2000, a C64, an Apple IIe, a Macintosh se/30. I maintain them because they were a part of my childhood. I have an emotional connection to these machines. Someday (I am watching) I will buy the digital microvax my old university used for their comp labs if I can. Loved that box. Spent days on it. I'll own an original Defender cabinet someday too.
I guess what I'm trying to say is why? You have no connection to this machine. You won't get nostalgic when you see it boot. Why bother?
That's the kind of thing someone says when they're hungry and eating stale crackers or something. "You know, after the first ten of these they don't suck so bad."
And this is about the best thing I've heard people say about Windows 8. You don't hear a lot of people saying "this thing freaking rocks and I love it".
Anyone notice the theme music in the video? A strangely sappy song to have playing for the nuking of New York.
Oh, and I'll bet they didn't get permission for the song either as well as the Activision video. Wait until the RIAA bills Dear Leader for eleventy billion dollars for lost revenue. That'll fix 'em.
We simply don't have an alternative to fossil fuels that can be rapidly scaled up, doesn't require a daunting input of raw materials and energy, and has a relatively low output of air-polluting emissions.
NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.
The TL;DR version is that we could replace all car gasoline consumption in the United States with farms equivalent to 15% the size of the Sonora Desert, using land that you can't farm on anyways, which would be a 100% carbon neutral 100% solar solution.
The article also says:
Never mind the infrastructure required for transmitting solar electricity to all who need it, and storing some for a rainy day.
Biodiesel stores nicely even in the dark. See? Not a problem.
The person who wrote this article is simply unimaginative.
I notice the complete lack of a response to my question. Which religion has Xenu as a character in it? It is a simple question. And you still haven't answered it.
Why should I bother reading your entire posting history? You said you are a Scientologist. And I am told that is a part of their creation myth. Just as when someone says "I am a Christian" you know they believe in the resurrection of Jesus. So. Xenu is a mythic character from which religion? A) Christianity, B) Islam, C) Scientology. Pick one. Be honest when you do.
But on the other hand if you are simply out to play games and jerk people around, fine. It's the internet and you wouldn't be the first troll I've ever encountered.
Nah, I'd still put this battery in the parlor trick category. It makes lots of hydrogen, but at an enormous cost! Tada!
It might replace butane fuel cells because it could be made smaller (an important military consideration), but it isn't a game changing technology yet. It could be though. If some wizard somewhere figures out a more efficient creation process. But hey, any new energy technology is another time at bat, another opportunity for mankind to finally hit one out of the park and get clean, non-environment threatening, global warming free energy. I'm happy we have another opportunity to try. But so far this isn't anything to get super excited about.
The downside is the significant amount of energy and resources required to produce the smaller silicon particles. This would make the particles expensive and likely rule them out for widespread use in powering consumer electronic devices – at least initially. However, the researchers say the technology could find applications in situations where water is available and portability is more important than cost, such as camping and military operations.
So it's currently not much more than a parlor trick. You're not going to be filling up an electric car with silicon nanoparticles and water any time soon.
Time travel can be a great thing if done well, or a crutch if not. It depends on the skill and the thoughtfulness of the author.
Yesterday's Enterprise? Fantastic. One of the best episodes of the series, easy. A great story that meshes in beautifully with the established episodes. It's a brilliant bit of writing. Another good example is DS9, Trials and Tribbleations. Also brilliantly written time travel. The look, the details, the writing - it's a joy to watch.
The Star Trek reboot? A crutch. That is a seriously lazy script. A big gigantic do-over. They couldn't be bothered with continuity, so they just held the entire franchise up like an etch-a-sketch and gave it a shake. Bleah. And for what? The story is useless, angry, and illogical. It's really nothing more than a palette to display sound bites and chase scenes. It's basically Lethal Weapon 2 in space.
We were all hoping we would get a Joss Whedon / Avengers style treatment from Disney. Instead we're going to get JJ Abrams and Star Trek. Oh well, Star Wars has been dead to me since the prequels anyway.
All this hubbub is in response to a UN vote censuring them for the December rocket launch. The vote was unanimous - China did not back them up or even abstain.
Betcha I know why.
If war were to break out and China supported NK, we would technically be at war with China. Or at the very least consider them hostile and sever ties. Which wouldn't be in China's best financial interests at all, seeing as how they own over a trillion dollars of US debt. If things went that way I think they would have a hard time collecting on a single penny of that debt. And that's a lot of money to flush away.
So for purely financial reasons alone, China wouldn't get involved. There are other good reasons, sure. But a trillion dollars in the balance probably trumps a lot of them.
In Hinduism, an avatar/ævtr/ (Hindustani: [tar], from Sanskrit avatra "descent") is a deliberate descent of a deity to earth, or a descent of the Supreme Being (i.e., Vishnu for Vaishnavites), and is mostly translated into English as "incarnation", but more accurately as "appearance" or "manifestation"
About half of us are IT nerds of one stripe or another. We are a society of aging nerds that have to keep in shape to keep doing what we do - swordfighting is very physically taxing. So we have a fairly large support community that works hard to solve this very problem. A good place to start is the Armour Archive. Search the forums for fitness tips, you'll find plenty.
And if you have motivation problems (we all do somewhat), this SCA is great for fixing that. Nothing in the world will motivate you to get up off the couch and do some situps like knowing Duke So-and-so next weekend is going to pound the ever living crap out of you if you aren't prepared.
Being even older than you, and being an experienced programmer, I can say for certain that I'm not willing to say that kids can do things I cannot. They merely have had a different learnig experience and may have learned things I didn't, because they were hacking things that I don't have the time to hack.
I believe we are saying the same thing. You just explained the how and the why of it. This is why kids can do things we can't do. Could you and I do them? Sure we could. But we haven't. And they have because they have had the time and the familiarity. You and I could do these things certainly, but it would require a few months to study, a free babysitter and someone to cover our mortgages while we got up to speed.
Nor would I "read" a book given me by some wiz kid fresh out of school. I would probably look at the book as I do all books, and make a judgemnet call on whether it was worth a read, or to be given to the nearest charity to be recycled.
As would I. I wouldn't automatically read anything some kid gave me, of course. But unlike the GP I wouldn't discount it out of hand which was my point. I know a few programmers my age or older that wouldn't even read the cover before it hit the circular file.
As a guy in his mid forties this is very true. The first time you go to a doctor that's younger than you, or get pulled over by a cop that's younger than you and have to call him "sir", you feel it.
The thing is you have to recognize it and fight that impulse. Everyone over 21 is an adult. Remember that. Mozart began composing at the age of five. Einstein came up with some of his best work while he was a patent clerk. Not every good idea comes from someone your own age and station.
And it's especially important in the software industry. Younger guys have an advantage us beginning-to-fossilize programmers don't have. They're *flexible*. They can and will use the newest technology and do things we can't. If you don't listen to the younger folks in this field, you will eventually look like your parents did when they couldn't stop the VCR from blinking 12:00. That's how you'll look.
If a kid gave me a book on being a better programmer I'd read the fucking thing. Ego be damned.
You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. Thanks for the info!
Been following the MMU development on WinUAE for a while and I think you'd be pleased to know the base MMU code was lifted from Aranym in the first place. A few bugs were found that were corner cases that Toni found. I believe there was some effort to back-port those fixes to Aranym, or at least let their devs know about them. If you're interested you could drop a message to him and I'm sure he would point them out.
If I get some spare time I will give the d-i build a shot. If nobody has been in there debugging maybe I could be of some service there.
It's nice seeing Linux run in WinUAE, but the distro is rather dated. It would be nice to have something recent running in WinUAE. And before you ask, I have no idea why this is so cool to me and why I want this so much. I just know that I do. Having a recent distro running in WinUAE is for some odd reason very nifty.
Can't explain it. Still though, I'm just very happy about this news.
You do not have the right to incite imminent violence or breach of the peace. Chaplinsky also says you can't do that through direct personal insults.
That's why I think it should apply to Fred and his clan. That's exactly what they are doing. Watch this video. That looks like inciting a breach of the peace to me.
And we all know that's their intent. They are mostly lawyers. The scam is they rile people up enough to where they react, then they sue them. That is how they maintain their funding. The plan IS to incite a breach of the peace, which is not protected.
To me, this is a no-brainer for a Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire type ruling. The story of the Chaplinsky ruling in the wiki article isn't as extreme as what the Phelps clan does. It boggles me that this ruling somehow doesn't apply to them.
You do not have the right to say whatever you want. Hate speech or inciting violence are not protected. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942.
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
And that was the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. So no, people did not die for us to have the freedom to hurt each other with hate speech.
Slashdot Mirror
I own some old stuff. An Amiga 2000, a C64, an Apple IIe, a Macintosh se/30. I maintain them because they were a part of my childhood. I have an emotional connection to these machines. Someday (I am watching) I will buy the digital microvax my old university used for their comp labs if I can. Loved that box. Spent days on it. I'll own an original Defender cabinet someday too.
I guess what I'm trying to say is why? You have no connection to this machine. You won't get nostalgic when you see it boot. Why bother?
It's just a more specific term. Social engineering is a particular type of deception, just like a salmon is a particular kind of fish.
Ok thank you. I haven't heard anyone say anything really positive about Win8 yet. Now I know what to look for.
"It's really not that bad"
That's the kind of thing someone says when they're hungry and eating stale crackers or something. "You know, after the first ten of these they don't suck so bad."
And this is about the best thing I've heard people say about Windows 8. You don't hear a lot of people saying "this thing freaking rocks and I love it".
Anyone notice the theme music in the video? A strangely sappy song to have playing for the nuking of New York.
Oh, and I'll bet they didn't get permission for the song either as well as the Activision video. Wait until the RIAA bills Dear Leader for eleventy billion dollars for lost revenue. That'll fix 'em.
From the article:
We simply don't have an alternative to fossil fuels that can be rapidly scaled up, doesn't require a daunting input of raw materials and energy, and has a relatively low output of air-polluting emissions.
To which I say malarkey, bologna, and BS. This is an opinion, backed by no data. Here is a counter opinion. Which has data, which we like.
From that article:
NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.
The TL;DR version is that we could replace all car gasoline consumption in the United States with farms equivalent to 15% the size of the Sonora Desert, using land that you can't farm on anyways, which would be a 100% carbon neutral 100% solar solution.
The article also says:
Never mind the infrastructure required for transmitting solar electricity to all who need it, and storing some for a rainy day.
Biodiesel stores nicely even in the dark. See? Not a problem.
The person who wrote this article is simply unimaginative.
I notice the complete lack of a response to my question. Which religion has Xenu as a character in it? It is a simple question. And you still haven't answered it.
Why should I bother reading your entire posting history? You said you are a Scientologist. And I am told that is a part of their creation myth. Just as when someone says "I am a Christian" you know they believe in the resurrection of Jesus. So. Xenu is a mythic character from which religion? A) Christianity, B) Islam, C) Scientology. Pick one. Be honest when you do.
But on the other hand if you are simply out to play games and jerk people around, fine. It's the internet and you wouldn't be the first troll I've ever encountered.
I'm not crazy.
And yet, you believe that an alien warlord named Xenu put alien souls in volcanoes on Earth and blew them up with hydrogen bombs while flying a spacecraft that looked like a DC-8. And if you read about that without proper spiritual preparation, you will get pneumonia.
My point being that you don't need a large sample of Scientologists since by definition they all believe this.
Nah, I'd still put this battery in the parlor trick category. It makes lots of hydrogen, but at an enormous cost! Tada!
It might replace butane fuel cells because it could be made smaller (an important military consideration), but it isn't a game changing technology yet. It could be though. If some wizard somewhere figures out a more efficient creation process. But hey, any new energy technology is another time at bat, another opportunity for mankind to finally hit one out of the park and get clean, non-environment threatening, global warming free energy. I'm happy we have another opportunity to try. But so far this isn't anything to get super excited about.
Exactly. The article claims poor efficiency:
The downside is the significant amount of energy and resources required to produce the smaller silicon particles. This would make the particles expensive and likely rule them out for widespread use in powering consumer electronic devices – at least initially. However, the researchers say the technology could find applications in situations where water is available and portability is more important than cost, such as camping and military operations.
So it's currently not much more than a parlor trick. You're not going to be filling up an electric car with silicon nanoparticles and water any time soon.
Time travel can be a great thing if done well, or a crutch if not. It depends on the skill and the thoughtfulness of the author.
Yesterday's Enterprise? Fantastic. One of the best episodes of the series, easy. A great story that meshes in beautifully with the established episodes. It's a brilliant bit of writing. Another good example is DS9, Trials and Tribbleations. Also brilliantly written time travel. The look, the details, the writing - it's a joy to watch.
The Star Trek reboot? A crutch. That is a seriously lazy script. A big gigantic do-over. They couldn't be bothered with continuity, so they just held the entire franchise up like an etch-a-sketch and gave it a shake. Bleah. And for what? The story is useless, angry, and illogical. It's really nothing more than a palette to display sound bites and chase scenes. It's basically Lethal Weapon 2 in space.
We were all hoping we would get a Joss Whedon / Avengers style treatment from Disney. Instead we're going to get JJ Abrams and Star Trek. Oh well, Star Wars has been dead to me since the prequels anyway.
All this hubbub is in response to a UN vote censuring them for the December rocket launch. The vote was unanimous - China did not back them up or even abstain.
Betcha I know why.
If war were to break out and China supported NK, we would technically be at war with China. Or at the very least consider them hostile and sever ties. Which wouldn't be in China's best financial interests at all, seeing as how they own over a trillion dollars of US debt. If things went that way I think they would have a hard time collecting on a single penny of that debt. And that's a lot of money to flush away.
So for purely financial reasons alone, China wouldn't get involved. There are other good reasons, sure. But a trillion dollars in the balance probably trumps a lot of them.
Gautama Buddha
The Buddha in (Vaishnavism) is viewed as an Avatar of Vishnu.
Avatar
In Hinduism, an avatar /ævtr/ (Hindustani: [tar], from Sanskrit avatra "descent") is a deliberate descent of a deity to earth, or a descent of the Supreme Being (i.e., Vishnu for Vaishnavites), and is mostly translated into English as "incarnation", but more accurately as "appearance" or "manifestation"
Seriously. Join the SCA.
About half of us are IT nerds of one stripe or another. We are a society of aging nerds that have to keep in shape to keep doing what we do - swordfighting is very physically taxing. So we have a fairly large support community that works hard to solve this very problem. A good place to start is the Armour Archive. Search the forums for fitness tips, you'll find plenty.
And if you have motivation problems (we all do somewhat), this SCA is great for fixing that. Nothing in the world will motivate you to get up off the couch and do some situps like knowing Duke So-and-so next weekend is going to pound the ever living crap out of you if you aren't prepared.
It will give you the body of a god! Unfortunately, Buddha.
This might be the first example of this particular (and quite correct) philosophy:
Being even older than you, and being an experienced programmer, I can say for certain that I'm not willing to say that kids can do things I cannot. They merely have had a different learnig experience and may have learned things I didn't, because they were hacking things that I don't have the time to hack.
I believe we are saying the same thing. You just explained the how and the why of it. This is why kids can do things we can't do. Could you and I do them? Sure we could. But we haven't. And they have because they have had the time and the familiarity. You and I could do these things certainly, but it would require a few months to study, a free babysitter and someone to cover our mortgages while we got up to speed.
Nor would I "read" a book given me by some wiz kid fresh out of school. I would probably look at the book as I do all books, and make a judgemnet call on whether it was worth a read, or to be given to the nearest charity to be recycled.
As would I. I wouldn't automatically read anything some kid gave me, of course. But unlike the GP I wouldn't discount it out of hand which was my point. I know a few programmers my age or older that wouldn't even read the cover before it hit the circular file.
As a guy in his mid forties this is very true. The first time you go to a doctor that's younger than you, or get pulled over by a cop that's younger than you and have to call him "sir", you feel it.
The thing is you have to recognize it and fight that impulse. Everyone over 21 is an adult. Remember that. Mozart began composing at the age of five. Einstein came up with some of his best work while he was a patent clerk. Not every good idea comes from someone your own age and station.
And it's especially important in the software industry. Younger guys have an advantage us beginning-to-fossilize programmers don't have. They're *flexible*. They can and will use the newest technology and do things we can't. If you don't listen to the younger folks in this field, you will eventually look like your parents did when they couldn't stop the VCR from blinking 12:00. That's how you'll look.
If a kid gave me a book on being a better programmer I'd read the fucking thing. Ego be damned.
You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. Thanks for the info!
Been following the MMU development on WinUAE for a while and I think you'd be pleased to know the base MMU code was lifted from Aranym in the first place. A few bugs were found that were corner cases that Toni found. I believe there was some effort to back-port those fixes to Aranym, or at least let their devs know about them. If you're interested you could drop a message to him and I'm sure he would point them out.
If I get some spare time I will give the d-i build a shot. If nobody has been in there debugging maybe I could be of some service there.
Not too long ago, WinUAE added MMU support. And it didn't take the community long to get Linux running on it.
It's nice seeing Linux run in WinUAE, but the distro is rather dated. It would be nice to have something recent running in WinUAE. And before you ask, I have no idea why this is so cool to me and why I want this so much. I just know that I do. Having a recent distro running in WinUAE is for some odd reason very nifty.
Can't explain it. Still though, I'm just very happy about this news.
The oil industry is saying it isn't happening, and the insurance companies are saying it is.
The legislation that these two vying groups of lobbyists will produce will be a wonderfully schizophrenic bit of doublethink, I'm guessing.
Just don't shake his hand.
You do not have the right to incite imminent violence or breach of the peace. Chaplinsky also says you can't do that through direct personal insults.
That's why I think it should apply to Fred and his clan. That's exactly what they are doing. Watch this video. That looks like inciting a breach of the peace to me.
And we all know that's their intent. They are mostly lawyers. The scam is they rile people up enough to where they react, then they sue them. That is how they maintain their funding. The plan IS to incite a breach of the peace, which is not protected.
To me, this is a no-brainer for a Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire type ruling. The story of the Chaplinsky ruling in the wiki article isn't as extreme as what the Phelps clan does. It boggles me that this ruling somehow doesn't apply to them.
You do not have the right to say whatever you want. Hate speech or inciting violence are not protected. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942.
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
And that was the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. So no, people did not die for us to have the freedom to hurt each other with hate speech.