There is a point one reaches when discussing temporality, casualty, and Yhe Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything that a scientific question becomes a philosophical one. A point where convincing oneself of something "better" than what one convinced himself of yesterday becomes the goal. When the use of "better" in the previous statement is defined by the previous statement. The recursive practice of defining the universe.
Knowing the history of our universe is one thing. Knowing the future is another. The field these scientists dabble in is trying to logically decide on one theory. Occam's Razor, the concept that of any two theories with equal proof, the simpler one is usually correct, is supposedly used. The fault is that all of the "proof" is built upon ramifications that the scientists could never fully comprehend, much less observe, about the theory previous to this new developement. The new developement which would completely disprove what we thought we knew about the universe is and must always be based on what we thought we knew.
The entire field eventually becomes an exercise in some overarching form of self-justification. When faced with the art of making the next big theory about the universe, one thinks how much simpler being a creationist must be. All in all, I prefer "42" to this crap anyday.
Yet another case of "Its not a bug, its a feature"But how can one insult emacs on slashdot? I belong to the ancient order of the knights of vi!
vi! vi! vi!
VB and C++, in my experiance, are good for different timespans. VB is much more intuitive, and is a higher level language, but less flexible very large projects. I think the key criteria involved here is time. For small projects it is IMO a much easier language to, say, demonstrate an algorithm. C++ is a bit more flexible in the type of structures it can use. It IS a very messy language(the official spec is 750 pages long) in order to maintain compatability with all the other versions. VB is annually, so this might be a factor in ease-of-use. C++ can also deal with more abstract concepts, and it's a bit more condensed. One can make an Unreal Tournament in C++ in a couple years. One can make a small, effective VB program that looks nice in a couple of minutes.
The seek time(somewhere between 70-150 ms) is not a big factor. The drive needs to spin up to whatever rpm it uses, and no amount of force can do this instantaneously. Seek time plays almost no part in loading a CDROM. First there is going from open-drive to closed drive(I'll say 1 second), then there is the time the OS needs to mount the drive(about.5 to 3 seconds, depending on config). This includes seek time required to detect CDROM settings, such as name, autorun yes/no, format, etc. Next there is the time required to find the autorun and execute it. Then there is the overhead involved in loading anything into memory. Admittedly, seek time comes into play many times before the autorun menu comes up, but that is just how the whole system was designed. If you could seek for one file that had all the info u needed to start the app, it would be much faster.
U2 has publicly stated that as long as noone makes any money off of it, they support trading of their music in any form, be it CD, MP3, etc.
Of course their ability to say that is only because they have been around long enough to overshadow whichever record company they started in.
You damn lazy-ass college ppl. Most of the better public highschools are 10x more challenging than this shit. I go to a high school in Montgomery County Maryland. I get up at 5:30 in the morning and come back @ 3:00, enduring the 90+(93 today) degree heat until the airconditioning system comes up(the county controls it by calender to save money, and it begins in mid-May). I am taking 2 AP classes for 90 hours per semester per class. You complain about 8 classes in 1 quarter? Try 8 1-hour classes in 1 day! On top of that I am learning perl, java, and C++. Why is it considerred "Higher Learning" if people get only a 0-3 classes a day? I know that your class-time is longer and you have jobs(well, some of you) but who fucking cares? Don't whine about academic challenge when you are able to CHOOSE EVERY CLASS YOU TAKE!!
Cows do not grow naturally. Oxen, buffalo, and various other grazers grow naturally, but domestic cattle is like the domestic poodle: selectively bred for a purpose.
One of the main points cloning raises is that if it and research associated with it IS banned, in 20-30 years we will NOT have the experiance to start. This is the only certainty when dealing with cloning advances. Yes, right now it is horribly brutal - but this is like the period right after a teenager gets their learner's permit... you can't progress in skill without fumbling around at the beginning.
This is one of the first times I have ever seen gene therapy actually HELPING anyone. People would talk and talk about it, that one day it would cure any disease they could think of as long as they got research grants, that it would save the world. Then there were the people that criticized it for being too creepy(among other things, but "being too creepy" is usually the best argument). It became an Issue - are you For or Against it?
This is amazing in and of itself not just that it was a "suprising new implication of gene therapy research" or something as pointless as ordering one human genome without any identification(its something like SETI's white noise without any pattern recognition).It actually, finally, for one of the first times, helped someone.Damn. The future: not the one with flying cars and a robot house-servant imagined in countless baby boomer daydreams;not the one available on the sci-fi channelnot the one vaguely thought of as what has to come next in the worldnot the Next Big Thing But the future shouted from the rooftops of countless research institutions at the parade of forward-thinking VentureCaps,The one told to the CEO of the medicine companies by mindless consultants looking for a buckThe one forever promised by the marketting departments of companies that don't really need marketting departments, because they don't sell anything.The one where if someone is sick, they can be cured.The one where we have the technologyWhere We have the resourcesWe can remake PEOPLE Better... Stronger... and Faster... This is one of the first tangible results of an industry that has based itself around promises of results sometime in the next 50 years... The future is now, people.
Agreed.
Disturbing.
Nitpick: Nike Logo melanined in? It's called Tattooing, and it has existed for hundreds of years.
Another thing: Evolution has the unique ability to never be rendered null and void as long as life remains. It will merely not function in the traditional way. Suppose, for example, that there is a trailor-trash gene(actually, its much more likely just a self-propagating social meme, but just supposing). People who have it tend to be trailor trash and have more children than usual while having less ability to hold a job. This phenotype(genetic trait) will gain a bigger and bigger percentage of the world population.
What I am saying, in my strange, uber-complicated way of saying it, is that as long as procreation happens, evolution will continue.
Evolution is the circumstances leading up to child-production combined with the child's circumstances of reaching mating age.
Am I the only one that realizes that any type of ion drive would be an effective weapon? Or just that it is very dangerous to experiment with? It is basically an electron gun, that is propelled by the recoil. In order to generate enough recoil, one must either propel the electron very fast, or propel very many of them, because an electron is only something like.01% the mass of a hydrogen atom.
The reason it has such high heat-conduction is that the carbon structure left is similar to diamond. I would expect that the bubbles would somewhat enforce(remove diamonds main weakness: directional cleavage) the strength of the foam, as compared to the normal carbon.
I admire all of their dedication to their ideals. The terrorists were dedicated not to ideals, but to a primal defence instinct. We built air bases within 100 miles of Mecca, we gave the Islamic world Britney Spears, we started wars to protect possible future pipelines, we do not officially support the decimation of Palestine, but our one-sidedness is obvious to any neutral observer.
The terrorists were dedicated to both the hatred of Americans and to the idolatry(one of the worst 'sins' mentioned in the Koran) of their leaders, whoever they may be. IMO, they were brave, couragous souls who fought for entirely the wrong cause. To give your life for something cannot be considered cowardly, however you look at it. To do it based on what your leaders tell you to, with little thinking involved on your part, as opposed to for some purpose greater than yourself, or societal good, is weak-minded, IMO. But the human mind is weak, the masses are misinformed, and my rant is over. Could we please stop contradicting obvious blanket statements by inserting the word "terrorist" into them? I am getting tired of doing this.
Re:Replacable fan for my PCPower&Cooling PS fa
on
PC Fan of the Future?
·
· Score: 1
The best fan on the market is the almost impossible to get(the only retailer outside of germany that has it is www.chillblast.com, which I found out after a month of looking) Noisecontrol Silverado, which is a 2-blower silver-coated HSF, as opposed to a single-fan HSF. It is slightly below the performance of the highest-end fans now, but quieter than your crap generic cooler.
Tons of innovations have been made in the last couple years in CPU cooling, as we try to find a way to pump up to 70 watts of heat out of the case as fast as possible
The solution to this whole thing is water. In Red Mars, for example, a layer of water was used to protect the crew from solar datiation storms. The entire crew would crowd into a small chamber with a water reservior between them and the sun. The water is needed anyway for human consumption, and it does not get holes in it like metal does(you use a hole-filling rubber liner or something like people use in puncture-proof tires)
One the silliest expressions used in America is
liberal media. The word liberal itself
has been so abused and twisted in the last few decades, you'd
think the Ministry of Truth had decreed its meaning must be changed.
Liberal has become a contemptuous epithet for opposition
to economic liberty, Constitutional principles, and even religious
expression.
This is a parody of the word. Liberal
has to do with open-mindedness, dedication to principles of intellectual
liberty, and a strong regard for human rights. Over the last
two and a half centuries, expanding the franchise, achieving
religious liberty, defending human rights, and concern for the
environment were all liberal causes. Not a bad record, that.
How was this fine word reduced to shabbiness?
The answer is through endless repetition of the parody in magazines,
newspapers, and on television. That's not exactly prima facie
evidence for liberal bias in the media.
Nothing has changed to erode the truth
of that wonderful remark about freedom of the press existing
for those who own one. In fact, with massively increased concentration
in the ownership of American corporations, including the news
business, the remark is more pertinent than ever.
Just reeling off the names of some major
owners of America's press and broadcasting tells a story. Rupert
Murdoch (Australian billionaire newspaper magnate), Disney Corporation,
Dow-Jones, Tribune Corporation, Knight-Ridder, Hearst Corporation,
and General Electric. In what possible sense are any of these
liberal?
Even the New York Times, often regarded
as the liberal paper in America, a paper whose very name causes
sagebrush politicians to curl their lips in contempt, is actually
a very cautious one, as befits the flagship publication of a
multi-billion dollar enterprise.
The Times always defends the establishment.
It becomes positively hot and bothered about supporting often-abusive
institutions like the FBI over the rights of individuals, as
in its hideous, long-term attack on Wen Ho Lee.
Where's the liberal bias? In pompous
editorials that read like press releases for the American Imperium?
In a slick magazine whose mostly-vapid stories float in a thick
ooze of advertising for expensive clothes, perfumes, and furniture?
In a letters column whose writers often use two lines to give
their titles? Try finding a tough op-ed piece in the New York
Times. They're as common as farts in a church service.
Ah, there's public broadcasting, isn't
there? But America's public broadcasting is the most sanitized,
politically correct that I'm aware of. Public television is hopelessly
fluffy, featuring gorilla pictures narrated by authorities like
Martin Sheen and puff-piece investigative reports.
Its evening news specializes in pseudo-debate,
invariably with dependents of the two parties exchanging slogans.
The program focuses on Beltway babble rather than investigation.
Holders of think-tank sinecures are regular seat-fillers. American
public radio, which does a better job than television, still
lacks breadth of view, lacks bite, and, for the most part, contains
precious little not found in mainstream media.
America's public-broadcast officials
collapsed in a heap when Newt Gingrich and his band of Texas
Visagoths attacked them about running a sandbox for yuppies,
and they haven't recovered yet. Public broadcasting has lost
much of its government financing over the years, and it lives
under constant threat of losing more. After all, the party in
power doesn't even pay its UN dues. What's support for public
broadcasting compared to international-treaty obligations?
Is Dan Rather a Republican? Peter
Jennings? Tom Brokaw? ask readers who think they have a
definitive point, but the point they make is quite different
to the one they think they're making.
Who cares what these gentlemen are as
long as they do their jobs? What is it about the right-wing (conservative
is really too gentle a word) that insists on knowing the details
of one's political ties and bedroom habits? Isn't this a little
like what you would expect in the old Soviet Union? And who has
more influence on the overall character of a news organization,
a paid news reader or the guys paying the bills? Anyone with
a very good job doesn't have to be told not to seriously irritate
the boss.
Reflect on events over some decades and
ask yourself about the American press's liberal role
in them. Did the press ever tell us what happened in the Gulf
War? Has it given us much more than Pentagon press releases on
Afghanistan? Does the gloss on the Middle East ever go beyond
what you'd expect from the State Department?
Did the press ever reveal to the American
people what a manipulative monster J. Edgar Hoover was? Did the
press tell people, while he was destroying people's lives, that
Joe McCarthy was a desperate drunk trying to revive a failing
political career? Such questions are endless, and the answer
to virtually all of them is no.
source: John Chuckman, Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckmanmedia.html
As mentioned in the Douglas Adams work "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency," Edison invented the Dog Door. It was brilliant really. A door within a door. Electricity was already there, he merely discoverred it. The dog door idea he came up with himself.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a point one reaches when discussing temporality, casualty, and Yhe Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything that a scientific question becomes a philosophical one. A point where convincing oneself of something "better" than what one convinced himself of yesterday becomes the goal. When the use of "better" in the previous statement is defined by the previous statement. The recursive practice of defining the universe. Knowing the history of our universe is one thing. Knowing the future is another. The field these scientists dabble in is trying to logically decide on one theory. Occam's Razor, the concept that of any two theories with equal proof, the simpler one is usually correct, is supposedly used. The fault is that all of the "proof" is built upon ramifications that the scientists could never fully comprehend, much less observe, about the theory previous to this new developement. The new developement which would completely disprove what we thought we knew about the universe is and must always be based on what we thought we knew. The entire field eventually becomes an exercise in some overarching form of self-justification. When faced with the art of making the next big theory about the universe, one thinks how much simpler being a creationist must be. All in all, I prefer "42" to this crap anyday.
Yet another case of "Its not a bug, its a feature"But how can one insult emacs on slashdot? I belong to the ancient order of the knights of vi! vi! vi! vi!
It would have been +5 informative if I hadn't gotten smacked in the thread that wouldn't die
VB and C++, in my experiance, are good for different timespans. VB is much more intuitive, and is a higher level language, but less flexible very large projects. I think the key criteria involved here is time. For small projects it is IMO a much easier language to, say, demonstrate an algorithm. C++ is a bit more flexible in the type of structures it can use. It IS a very messy language(the official spec is 750 pages long) in order to maintain compatability with all the other versions. VB is annually, so this might be a factor in ease-of-use. C++ can also deal with more abstract concepts, and it's a bit more condensed. One can make an Unreal Tournament in C++ in a couple years. One can make a small, effective VB program that looks nice in a couple of minutes.
The seek time(somewhere between 70-150 ms) is not a big factor. The drive needs to spin up to whatever rpm it uses, and no amount of force can do this instantaneously. Seek time plays almost no part in loading a CDROM. First there is going from open-drive to closed drive(I'll say 1 second), then there is the time the OS needs to mount the drive(about .5 to 3 seconds, depending on config). This includes seek time required to detect CDROM settings, such as name, autorun yes/no, format, etc. Next there is the time required to find the autorun and execute it. Then there is the overhead involved in loading anything into memory. Admittedly, seek time comes into play many times before the autorun menu comes up, but that is just how the whole system was designed. If you could seek for one file that had all the info u needed to start the app, it would be much faster.
U2 has publicly stated that as long as noone makes any money off of it, they support trading of their music in any form, be it CD, MP3, etc. Of course their ability to say that is only because they have been around long enough to overshadow whichever record company they started in.
You damn lazy-ass college ppl. Most of the better public highschools are 10x more challenging than this shit. I go to a high school in Montgomery County Maryland. I get up at 5:30 in the morning and come back @ 3:00, enduring the 90+(93 today) degree heat until the airconditioning system comes up(the county controls it by calender to save money, and it begins in mid-May). I am taking 2 AP classes for 90 hours per semester per class. You complain about 8 classes in 1 quarter? Try 8 1-hour classes in 1 day! On top of that I am learning perl, java, and C++. Why is it considerred "Higher Learning" if people get only a 0-3 classes a day? I know that your class-time is longer and you have jobs(well, some of you) but who fucking cares? Don't whine about academic challenge when you are able to CHOOSE EVERY CLASS YOU TAKE!!
Cows do not grow naturally. Oxen, buffalo, and various other grazers grow naturally, but domestic cattle is like the domestic poodle: selectively bred for a purpose.
One of the main points cloning raises is that if it and research associated with it IS banned, in 20-30 years we will NOT have the experiance to start. This is the only certainty when dealing with cloning advances. Yes, right now it is horribly brutal - but this is like the period right after a teenager gets their learner's permit... you can't progress in skill without fumbling around at the beginning.
Lol! Someone mod this up.
This is one of the first times I have ever seen gene therapy actually HELPING anyone. People would talk and talk about it, that one day it would cure any disease they could think of as long as they got research grants, that it would save the world. Then there were the people that criticized it for being too creepy(among other things, but "being too creepy" is usually the best argument). It became an Issue - are you For or Against it? This is amazing in and of itself not just that it was a "suprising new implication of gene therapy research" or something as pointless as ordering one human genome without any identification(its something like SETI's white noise without any pattern recognition).It actually, finally, for one of the first times, helped someone.Damn. The future: not the one with flying cars and a robot house-servant imagined in countless baby boomer daydreams;not the one available on the sci-fi channelnot the one vaguely thought of as what has to come next in the worldnot the Next Big Thing But the future shouted from the rooftops of countless research institutions at the parade of forward-thinking VentureCaps,The one told to the CEO of the medicine companies by mindless consultants looking for a buckThe one forever promised by the marketting departments of companies that don't really need marketting departments, because they don't sell anything.The one where if someone is sick, they can be cured.The one where we have the technologyWhere We have the resourcesWe can remake PEOPLE Better... Stronger... and Faster... This is one of the first tangible results of an industry that has based itself around promises of results sometime in the next 50 years... The future is now, people.
Agreed. Disturbing. Nitpick: Nike Logo melanined in? It's called Tattooing, and it has existed for hundreds of years. Another thing: Evolution has the unique ability to never be rendered null and void as long as life remains. It will merely not function in the traditional way. Suppose, for example, that there is a trailor-trash gene(actually, its much more likely just a self-propagating social meme, but just supposing). People who have it tend to be trailor trash and have more children than usual while having less ability to hold a job. This phenotype(genetic trait) will gain a bigger and bigger percentage of the world population. What I am saying, in my strange, uber-complicated way of saying it, is that as long as procreation happens, evolution will continue. Evolution is the circumstances leading up to child-production combined with the child's circumstances of reaching mating age.
Am I the only one that realizes that any type of ion drive would be an effective weapon? Or just that it is very dangerous to experiment with? It is basically an electron gun, that is propelled by the recoil. In order to generate enough recoil, one must either propel the electron very fast, or propel very many of them, because an electron is only something like .01% the mass of a hydrogen atom.
Cancer anyone?
"In my house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics !!!" - Homer Simpson
The reason it has such high heat-conduction is that the carbon structure left is similar to diamond. I would expect that the bubbles would somewhat enforce(remove diamonds main weakness: directional cleavage) the strength of the foam, as compared to the normal carbon.
This sounds suspiciously like a George Carlin-coined meme. But I digress...
I admire all of their dedication to their ideals. The terrorists were dedicated not to ideals, but to a primal defence instinct. We built air bases within 100 miles of Mecca, we gave the Islamic world Britney Spears, we started wars to protect possible future pipelines, we do not officially support the decimation of Palestine, but our one-sidedness is obvious to any neutral observer. The terrorists were dedicated to both the hatred of Americans and to the idolatry(one of the worst 'sins' mentioned in the Koran) of their leaders, whoever they may be. IMO, they were brave, couragous souls who fought for entirely the wrong cause. To give your life for something cannot be considered cowardly, however you look at it. To do it based on what your leaders tell you to, with little thinking involved on your part, as opposed to for some purpose greater than yourself, or societal good, is weak-minded, IMO. But the human mind is weak, the masses are misinformed, and my rant is over. Could we please stop contradicting obvious blanket statements by inserting the word "terrorist" into them? I am getting tired of doing this.
The best fan on the market is the almost impossible to get(the only retailer outside of germany that has it is www.chillblast.com, which I found out after a month of looking) Noisecontrol Silverado, which is a 2-blower silver-coated HSF, as opposed to a single-fan HSF. It is slightly below the performance of the highest-end fans now, but quieter than your crap generic cooler.
They already exist.
We have refrigeration systems(Kryotech)
Peltiers(1 side lowers 50 degrees, the other heats up 80)
Water cooling(Tons of water-cooling kits out there)
Exotic metals[http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q2/01052 1/cooler-25.html]
Tons of innovations have been made in the last couple years in CPU cooling, as we try to find a way to pump up to 70 watts of heat out of the case as fast as possible
The solution to this whole thing is water. In Red Mars, for example, a layer of water was used to protect the crew from solar datiation storms. The entire crew would crowd into a small chamber with a water reservior between them and the sun. The water is needed anyway for human consumption, and it does not get holes in it like metal does(you use a hole-filling rubber liner or something like people use in puncture-proof tires)
The Proles are the only ones that can overthrow the government
The Proles are the only ones that can never bring themselves to try
One the silliest expressions used in America is liberal media. The word liberal itself has been so abused and twisted in the last few decades, you'd think the Ministry of Truth had decreed its meaning must be changed. Liberal has become a contemptuous epithet for opposition to economic liberty, Constitutional principles, and even religious expression.
This is a parody of the word. Liberal has to do with open-mindedness, dedication to principles of intellectual liberty, and a strong regard for human rights. Over the last two and a half centuries, expanding the franchise, achieving religious liberty, defending human rights, and concern for the environment were all liberal causes. Not a bad record, that.
How was this fine word reduced to shabbiness? The answer is through endless repetition of the parody in magazines, newspapers, and on television. That's not exactly prima facie evidence for liberal bias in the media.
Nothing has changed to erode the truth of that wonderful remark about freedom of the press existing for those who own one. In fact, with massively increased concentration in the ownership of American corporations, including the news business, the remark is more pertinent than ever.
Just reeling off the names of some major owners of America's press and broadcasting tells a story. Rupert Murdoch (Australian billionaire newspaper magnate), Disney Corporation, Dow-Jones, Tribune Corporation, Knight-Ridder, Hearst Corporation, and General Electric. In what possible sense are any of these liberal?
Even the New York Times, often regarded as the liberal paper in America, a paper whose very name causes sagebrush politicians to curl their lips in contempt, is actually a very cautious one, as befits the flagship publication of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
The Times always defends the establishment. It becomes positively hot and bothered about supporting often-abusive institutions like the FBI over the rights of individuals, as in its hideous, long-term attack on Wen Ho Lee.
Where's the liberal bias? In pompous editorials that read like press releases for the American Imperium? In a slick magazine whose mostly-vapid stories float in a thick ooze of advertising for expensive clothes, perfumes, and furniture? In a letters column whose writers often use two lines to give their titles? Try finding a tough op-ed piece in the New York Times. They're as common as farts in a church service.
Ah, there's public broadcasting, isn't there? But America's public broadcasting is the most sanitized, politically correct that I'm aware of. Public television is hopelessly fluffy, featuring gorilla pictures narrated by authorities like Martin Sheen and puff-piece investigative reports.
Its evening news specializes in pseudo-debate, invariably with dependents of the two parties exchanging slogans. The program focuses on Beltway babble rather than investigation. Holders of think-tank sinecures are regular seat-fillers. American public radio, which does a better job than television, still lacks breadth of view, lacks bite, and, for the most part, contains precious little not found in mainstream media.
America's public-broadcast officials collapsed in a heap when Newt Gingrich and his band of Texas Visagoths attacked them about running a sandbox for yuppies, and they haven't recovered yet. Public broadcasting has lost much of its government financing over the years, and it lives under constant threat of losing more. After all, the party in power doesn't even pay its UN dues. What's support for public broadcasting compared to international-treaty obligations?
Is Dan Rather a Republican? Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw? ask readers who think they have a definitive point, but the point they make is quite different to the one they think they're making.
Who cares what these gentlemen are as long as they do their jobs? What is it about the right-wing (conservative is really too gentle a word) that insists on knowing the details of one's political ties and bedroom habits? Isn't this a little like what you would expect in the old Soviet Union? And who has more influence on the overall character of a news organization, a paid news reader or the guys paying the bills? Anyone with a very good job doesn't have to be told not to seriously irritate the boss.
Reflect on events over some decades and ask yourself about the American press's liberal role in them. Did the press ever tell us what happened in the Gulf War? Has it given us much more than Pentagon press releases on Afghanistan? Does the gloss on the Middle East ever go beyond what you'd expect from the State Department?
Did the press ever reveal to the American people what a manipulative monster J. Edgar Hoover was? Did the press tell people, while he was destroying people's lives, that Joe McCarthy was a desperate drunk trying to revive a failing political career? Such questions are endless, and the answer to virtually all of them is no.
source: John Chuckman, Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckmanmedia.html
Google does not do this, but Teoma has done it for some time, with results on the same level of accuracy as Teoma.
LoL. Possibly the funniest post Ive ever seen
As mentioned in the Douglas Adams work "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency," Edison invented the Dog Door. It was brilliant really. A door within a door. Electricity was already there, he merely discoverred it. The dog door idea he came up with himself.