Well, that's what I'm saying, there are supersonic planes now that could shorten a flight between the U.S. and Asia to maybe a few hours, but yet we do not use this technology because of the cost. Would these new engines be any different? Wouldn't they be similarly or more expensive than current supersonic planes and thus similarly underutilized?
I suspect that the reason those articles do not cite a plan of action for defusing these explosives stems from the British governments indecision over whether they would rather protect millions upon millions in property or see a really really cool explosion.
BTW, if that episode of Gilligan's Island is any indicator, the solution is obviously to get Gilligan to tow the boat out of the lagoon (or the Thames river in this case). Unfortunately, I don't know if Bob Denver would really be up for this.
Did anybody else think of that episode of Gilligan's Island where Gilligan accidentally brings in a WWII mine while fishing, or was that just my own television warped mind?
If it's a U.S. cargo ship, are we responsible for cleaning up our mess?
More cynical sub-question: if we are responsible, do you think George Bush and Co. are busy right now trying to think up some way to blame it on the terrorists so that they can get funding from the U.N. to clean it up?
Why did this get modded up? Obviously it involves modern technology because that's how this problem will (hopefully) be solved. This article easily could lead into some great posts about the various ways they might be able to learn whether these explosives are still a danger, and if they are, how they might be defused.
This seems like just more feature creep in the MS Office product line. Yet another thing to add to Office to justify another version that they can name after the current year which people will feel obligated to buy because "Oh my God! It's almost 2006! Why am I still using Office 2000!?! I should be using Office 2005!!". MS Office is one of the most disgusting examples of feature creep. The number of truly useful features added to office has been decreasing with every new version, and in my opinion, there haven't been much in the way of significant features added since Office 97. In the meantime, there have been literally hundreds of features that are useless to the vast majority of Office users that slow down and further obfuscate the interface to Office.
I think these are very cool, but I really have to wonder about the practical applications of these. I'm not saying that research into them should be stopped, I think this is definitely an area were further research is warranted, rather I'm just curious about where this technology might be going. The most practical use I can think of off the top of my head is missles because the faster missles move, the harder it is to intercept them. Beyond that though, I'm mostly drawing a blank in regards to truly useful applications.
Since these engines have no moving parts, does that mean that they would provide a quieter ride for passengers aboard ramjet airplanes? Also, does it even really matter -- is it even a possibility that these would become general use passenger planes? I mean, we have supersonic planes today, but hardly anyone has ever flown in one.
Maybe really smart high level execs need more really smart high level people to help look over their mistakes privately so this doesnt happen as much.
But if a really smart high level executive has a really smart high level person look over their mistakes, wouldn't that mean they would make the mistake nine times? I'd hate to see what happens when he shares it with larger group. 3^8 mistakes? That could get ridiculous.
I realized this after taking a death and dying class a little while ago, but I almost always misread "nurses" as "ncurses", at least initially. If somebody wants to make a "Top ten signs you've read too many Unix docs", I'd estimate this would be about #4.
Honestly, I've seen so many "visions of the future" by people that I've started to grow tired of them. They're always a mish-mash of ideas that will probably happen, but not as soon as the author says they will, ideas that have been used in visions of the future for decades (for example, the idea of taking all our foods in pill form) and ideas that are just plain too ridiculous to happen.
Remember folks, this guy is a Science Fiction author and his vision reflects that. Like all great science fiction, a lot of it has basis in fact, but also like most, there is a great deal of speculation, guesswork and just plain making shit up.
Well, I think you're right that he's not just talking FUD and he knows what he's talking about, but still though, tell me it isn't a little unfair that he's very directly implying Cray supercomputers are, across the board, a better solution. There are some problems with which Cray's computers are a better solution (not just those that don't parallelize, but plenty that don't parallelize very well), but there are also problems where a Cray is rather unnecessary.
Okay, you're right, I was just speaking on what I've seen though. My mailbox nor those of any of my few friends foolish enough to still use hotmail have had their sizes increased.
Being the CTO of Cray, can you expect him to say anything less? Now while his points are often valid, I think his conclusion, that supercomputers outshine linux clusters is a little inaccurate. Rather, I think the real conclusion is that linux clusters and supercomputers are both good, but at slightly different things. Which one you need to solve your problem depends ultimately, on the specific details of your problem. Again, though, being the CTO of the company, can really expect him to give a balanced opinion like that, rather than the skewed opinion that his company is always on top?
Cray is a great company, but I really hate that they have to come out with things like this every now and then. Most people in need of a lot of computing power already know the difference between your products and linux clusters and really, they're going to choose whichever's most appropriate for their problem regardless of what your CTO says.
Is it just me or does this just show that Microsoft is missing the point. Yes, it's nice that they will offer 2GB, but honestly, who cares whether you have 1GB or whether you have 2GB? The real advantage is Gmail's interface. Furthermore, Google said Gmail would have 1GB mailboxes and it did. Microsoft said weeks ago that they would increase the mailbox size to 250MB and now has upped that to 2GB. Guess what though, all mailboxes are still 2MB!! 1,000 real MB is more useful than 1,998 phantom megs.
A few weeks ago they said they were going to up their storage to 250MB. Now they say they're going to up it to 2GB. Guess how much space there is now. 2 lousy megs. I'll believe they're giving 2GB mailboxes when I see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's what I'm saying, there are supersonic planes now that could shorten a flight between the U.S. and Asia to maybe a few hours, but yet we do not use this technology because of the cost. Would these new engines be any different? Wouldn't they be similarly or more expensive than current supersonic planes and thus similarly underutilized?
I suspect that the reason those articles do not cite a plan of action for defusing these explosives stems from the British governments indecision over whether they would rather protect millions upon millions in property or see a really really cool explosion.
BTW, if that episode of Gilligan's Island is any indicator, the solution is obviously to get Gilligan to tow the boat out of the lagoon (or the Thames river in this case). Unfortunately, I don't know if Bob Denver would really be up for this.
Did anybody else think of that episode of Gilligan's Island where Gilligan accidentally brings in a WWII mine while fishing, or was that just my own television warped mind?
If it's a U.S. cargo ship, are we responsible for cleaning up our mess?
More cynical sub-question: if we are responsible, do you think George Bush and Co. are busy right now trying to think up some way to blame it on the terrorists so that they can get funding from the U.N. to clean it up?
Why did this get modded up? Obviously it involves modern technology because that's how this problem will (hopefully) be solved. This article easily could lead into some great posts about the various ways they might be able to learn whether these explosives are still a danger, and if they are, how they might be defused.
This seems like just more feature creep in the MS Office product line. Yet another thing to add to Office to justify another version that they can name after the current year which people will feel obligated to buy because "Oh my God! It's almost 2006! Why am I still using Office 2000!?! I should be using Office 2005!!". MS Office is one of the most disgusting examples of feature creep. The number of truly useful features added to office has been decreasing with every new version, and in my opinion, there haven't been much in the way of significant features added since Office 97. In the meantime, there have been literally hundreds of features that are useless to the vast majority of Office users that slow down and further obfuscate the interface to Office.
News: Students at duke will all receive iPods.
Not News: One kid at Duke received an iPod.
Well, chicks dig iPods, do they not?
I think these are very cool, but I really have to wonder about the practical applications of these. I'm not saying that research into them should be stopped, I think this is definitely an area were further research is warranted, rather I'm just curious about where this technology might be going. The most practical use I can think of off the top of my head is missles because the faster missles move, the harder it is to intercept them. Beyond that though, I'm mostly drawing a blank in regards to truly useful applications.
Since these engines have no moving parts, does that mean that they would provide a quieter ride for passengers aboard ramjet airplanes? Also, does it even really matter -- is it even a possibility that these would become general use passenger planes? I mean, we have supersonic planes today, but hardly anyone has ever flown in one.
Good for Ohio, I hope other states follow suit. Get it? Suit? Like lawsuit? Okay, I'll just crawl back into my hole now. :-(
It was a joke. Don't feel bad that you missed it though, we all make mistakes.
I realized this after taking a death and dying class a little while ago, but I almost always misread "nurses" as "ncurses", at least initially. If somebody wants to make a "Top ten signs you've read too many Unix docs", I'd estimate this would be about #4.
Honestly, I've seen so many "visions of the future" by people that I've started to grow tired of them. They're always a mish-mash of ideas that will probably happen, but not as soon as the author says they will, ideas that have been used in visions of the future for decades (for example, the idea of taking all our foods in pill form) and ideas that are just plain too ridiculous to happen.
Remember folks, this guy is a Science Fiction author and his vision reflects that. Like all great science fiction, a lot of it has basis in fact, but also like most, there is a great deal of speculation, guesswork and just plain making shit up.
No sexbots? No flying cars? What horrible vision of the future is this!?
Well, I think you're right that he's not just talking FUD and he knows what he's talking about, but still though, tell me it isn't a little unfair that he's very directly implying Cray supercomputers are, across the board, a better solution. There are some problems with which Cray's computers are a better solution (not just those that don't parallelize, but plenty that don't parallelize very well), but there are also problems where a Cray is rather unnecessary.
Okay, you're right, I was just speaking on what I've seen though. My mailbox nor those of any of my few friends foolish enough to still use hotmail have had their sizes increased.
Being the CTO of Cray, can you expect him to say anything less? Now while his points are often valid, I think his conclusion, that supercomputers outshine linux clusters is a little inaccurate. Rather, I think the real conclusion is that linux clusters and supercomputers are both good, but at slightly different things. Which one you need to solve your problem depends ultimately, on the specific details of your problem. Again, though, being the CTO of the company, can really expect him to give a balanced opinion like that, rather than the skewed opinion that his company is always on top?
Cray is a great company, but I really hate that they have to come out with things like this every now and then. Most people in need of a lot of computing power already know the difference between your products and linux clusters and really, they're going to choose whichever's most appropriate for their problem regardless of what your CTO says.
Mine is still 2 megs as of yesterday.
Dear Hotmail Users,
I.O.U. 1,998 Megabytes.
Sincerely,
William H. Gates
Is it just me or does this just show that Microsoft is missing the point. Yes, it's nice that they will offer 2GB, but honestly, who cares whether you have 1GB or whether you have 2GB? The real advantage is Gmail's interface. Furthermore, Google said Gmail would have 1GB mailboxes and it did. Microsoft said weeks ago that they would increase the mailbox size to 250MB and now has upped that to 2GB. Guess what though, all mailboxes are still 2MB!! 1,000 real MB is more useful than 1,998 phantom megs.
A few weeks ago they said they were going to up their storage to 250MB. Now they say they're going to up it to 2GB. Guess how much space there is now. 2 lousy megs. I'll believe they're giving 2GB mailboxes when I see it.
Reminds me of that ebay auction for a laptop cooling pad where the headline was "Don't burn your penis". Does anyone have a screenshot of that?
I think "don't burn your penis" is good general advice as well, not just in regards to laptops.