So was the grandparent. My statement at least has some proof - Soviet Union fell, US started dismantling the military, and boom - terrorist attack, back to military buildup.
BTW, the real problem with the new metals is mass. It takes at least 7 tons of fuel to carry 1 ton of heat shield (ignoring that you also need to add tank mass for the new fuel, requiring more fuel, etc.) At $5,000 per pound, adding mass is seen as a bad idea. Though an argument could be made that using the metals would lower the cost per pound...
More specifically, a deorbit burn (such as for the shuttle on reentry) is around 100 m/s (200 mi/hr). So if you can get the object anywhere near that velocity, it will reenter very quickly.
If we weren't spending any money on war, we would be accomplishing nothing - because people would have come in and taken away any resources we had, if they didn't just kill us for being "not we".
My point was simply that this introduces a bias - a scientist that thinks the environment was unimportant would not study the environment, so (to exagerate the effect) the only theories that get tested are the ones that assume the environment is important. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, just that an inherent bias exists.
When water is exposed to vaccuum, the water gives up energy by boiling, until it is frozen. As you add more and more water, eventually the water in the center is compressed back into a liquid. Further adding water may eventually make the center into a supercritical fluid (sort of half water, half gas), but I am virtually certain it would not get back to a gas. As you add more water, the water in the core would probably break down chemically, and the hydrogen would separate out. Adding more and more water might start fusion in the core, convert to a nuetron star, and then a black hole.
Really, I think even this doesn't get to the heart of the matter. I don't think anyone questions the humans had an effect (though some question the size of that effect) - the real questions are predictive questions. One study predicts that once a certain point is reached, the temperature rise will accelerate. Others disagree. If there is a breaking point, then it makes sense to forcibly halt human progress to avoid it (this means lots of people dying, etc.). If there isn't a breaking point, then by continuing down our current path we will fix whatever problems happen (as our technology progresses, it becomes less ecologically damaging because that is at least slightly valued by humans and so will be provided in the normal course).
The real question is "Is the sky falling?" The US says no. Lots of other countries say maybe. A few loonies say yes. Much confusion ensues...
I wish that were true - it does matter who funded the study when explaining complex things to "common" poeple. The data and test procedure may not be in question, but the simplified explanation given to the average Joe may be. This doesn't even speak to the problems of sample bias, such as the vast majority of environmental scientists strangely enough are environmentalists...
One of the things I love about the scientific method (I consider myself an engineer, not a scientist) is how it is based on a known fallacy. The first thing you learn when studying the scientific method is that you cannot prove a positive, so you always test for the opposite of what you are proving. Then, if the test fails, you "reject the null hypothesis", meaning that you say that since you couldn't prove it wrong it must be right. While this rejection is useful in the real world, doing that just gets back to pretending that you can prove a positive...
The WTO people came to Chicago to protest. On the news that night, the newscaster was making fun of them because they didn't even know what they were protesting... he said something like "In my day we really knew how to protest, these losers are doing it all wrong."
I think in general protests are not getting media attention anymore because they are just students protesting to try to be heard and make a mark - not because of real injustice, etc. Face it, students are easily misled and so are ignored for the most part.
That's totally wrong on both counts - the most obvious, clearly defined case limited only to the US would still be the Native Americans. The Hawaiians were politically forced to sign a contract honored by both sides, the Native Americans were merely killed if they complained.
When the polynesians arrive at Hawaii, there were people there - though only legends and a few archiological artifacts remain. They were called "Menehune", and the legends refer to them similar to elves and say that they had interesting architecture and intermarried with the polynesians. (This was thought to be merely a rip-off of Tahiti, until recently an archiological find seemed to confirm it.)
Of course, there are a lot of Hawaiians that swear that "the man" took all their land, women, goodness, etc. Just goes to show that some people want something for nothing, or to put it differently believe in the racists idea that being born in a particular culture shoud give you special privileges...
A few cheat codes and some correct game play get you there
That isn't true. For the PC, you need a mod. For the PS2, you need to modify the bytecodes of a save file (using a PC). It really wasn't part of the game, really.
Layer 0: CPU Layer 1-5: Cache SRAM Layer 6-100: DRAM
How does that help, you ask? Well, you have a very wide bus going between the SRAM and DRAM, say about 8 Mbits wide. That would mean that you could load your entire level 1 cache in a few nanoseconds (one DRAM cycle), instead of waiting for info to flow across the bus in a linear fashion (a few tens of milliseconds).
What everyone seems to be missing is that the problems you mentoin are problems even with flat chips. The real problem with 3D is heat disapation, and the real advantage is faster switching times (smaller wires require smaller transistors with less capacitance that switch faster) and less clock skew. So this is probably best fit with microprocessors - clock skew is a killer, and you can always use speed. Of course, making it harder to cool doesn't help, but realistically we are nearing the limit of cooling tech anyway (as in flat or cube more than 100 Watts is hard to get off the chip!).
Really, all the problems are solveable using standard techniques - the real question is cost verses value (for example noone really uses SOI except IBM).
Solutions List: Yield: build in redundancy (already in production use) Heating: big heat sinks, turn off circuits whenever possible, limit I/Os (already in production use) Packaging: who cares, as long as the external interface is the same (but they will certainly use aucustically bonded wires, like everyone else!)
Um, the government shouldn't be spending any money on development, especially on development of things that are not viable near term, like solar cells. Since we live in a democracy and more people agree with that statement then not, the government doesn't fund it. (I believe that the government shouldn't fund anything like that! That is the place for private enterprise - consider how much money you would personally give me to compete with the US government on a development project!)
Now, of course the NSF does fund studies of such things - and they are funding solar cells, not oil. Oil research is funded by the oil companies. When that is not true, then the government is probably being inefficient - but oil is a net payer of taxes, not a net receiver.
Ah, I understand. Most of Europe is just fundamently different than the US - they have high taxes, much more government supplied services, and in general following of dreams seems to be curtailed. Where as the US allows people to follow their dreams (sometimes to their own and other's detriment), has very little in the wya of government supplied services, and lower taxes in general.
Very different viewpoints. Each can be argued, but really I don't think a conclusive argument is even possible. Different values, and all that.
This kind of thinking is silly! Believe me, if Bush thought he could make solar cells cheaper than he could get oil, he would quickly make friends with a solar cell manufacturer and solar cells would be in!
Just follow your logic a few more steps - the reason oil is used instead of gas is because the oil guys are politically stronger. The reason the oil guys are politically stronger is that the solar cell guys don't have money. The reason the solar cell guys don't have money is because they don't show a profit relative to oil.
I'm not sure which point you're arguing, and thought I'd point that out. Either you are an American, and think it is silly to change your entire lifestyle to fit the European ideal of "goodness," or you are a European dismayed that Americans cannot see the virtue of your ideal of "goodness."
That's the funny thing about politics - believe it or not, very few people are evil (as in they will put there own wellbeing above others). Most people just have different ideas about how wellbeing is defined, and the best way to achieve it.
Most likely, how this will work out is: it will be a great project in the beginning, things will be much better, etc. etc. because a centrally planned structure works great in the beginning. Later, people will start to find holes in the structure, little things that the central planners ignored, etc. Then things will start to get worse, and it will all fall apart in 50 years.
Sorta like programming, really. Just rebuild it all occasionally, and it's all good!
Heh, well if she's reading Slashdot she already knows to ignore half of what she reads...
That said, I think it is important to teach children about the real world and not leave them stranded in their fantasy world - otherwise they will not be able to understand the poor decisions of others, and avoid them theirselves.
For example, Bush made some very poor decisions. (For the record, I voted for him and I agree with his major ones but not in the implementation). If you think that Bush is "evil" and so he is killing our military (like my father) for money, so if and when you become president and someone does something that requires a military response you will make the same mistakes. Bush isn't evil, he just had to do something he didn't know how to communicate. (That's why if the Democrats had put someone reasonable forward, I would have voted for him - it was obvious what needed to be done, just not how to communicate it. He should not have said his decision was based on things it wasn't - he should have said I can't tell you why, but congress knows why too. (Of course, maybe that wouldn't have played as well - but I think it would be better long term)
Here's a hint - if they had tapped Hussien's cell phone, they could not tell you what he said. Otherwise, Hussien would know his cell was compromised. (Of course, on the flip side - we have no proof that Bush didn't just get upset and invade. You have to weigh both possibilities and decide which is more likely.)
Another interesting (anecdotal) factoid - this reverses in Polynesia. Although there are fewer engineers / physicists / programmers, they seem far more likely to be female.
Strange stuff! (And with 10,000 citations, she should be arrested and have her license taken away! Sheesh! [Wow that is impressive!])
I would seriously disagree with this! Destroying companies removes jobs and value from the economy, because things that could be done previously can no longer be done. Taking your gains and giving them away to people also destroys economic value for less obvious reasons (essentially it hurts the recipient emotionally and makes them less likely to try to advance themselves). Giving money to people is probably the worst thing you could do with it - for example, pretend that instead of giving his money away he decided he wanted Mt St Helens moved 2 feet to the right. He spends billions, so the net effect to him is the same. Others receive the billions (as salary), so they are also better off. But in addition, the workers at the end can have a feeling of pride - they did something very hard (stupid, yes, but hard).
Donations do not make up for damaging the economy - that is a far less than zero sum game. It is far better for everyone if a rich guy hords his money, but creates economic value (jobs and a better life for everyone). In the long term (more than a single lifetime), economic value is always redistributed. Donations help in the short term, but long term make everyone worse off.
Of course, that said, balance is required in everything. (I currently donate about 20% of my income to charitable institutions...)
This would still prevent spam - the MTA can easily limit the allowed source addresses to those logged into the box. Any email that got through would be easily traceable.
Not to mention that it would exclude people like me who's father is a military officer, whose brothers are military, and who was going into the military but became disabled...
Well, at the very least not running as root limits the places where "bad stuff" can hide. As I wrote earlier, you can also have a script automagically backing up the user's home directories to fix even user error.
As for sending spam, etc - well, if you allow you users to direct connect to port 25 (as in, no firewall restrictions), then what you say is true. But you don't have to set up the system that way, assuredly...
Slashdot Mirror
So was the grandparent. My statement at least has some proof - Soviet Union fell, US started dismantling the military, and boom - terrorist attack, back to military buildup.
BTW, the real problem with the new metals is mass. It takes at least 7 tons of fuel to carry 1 ton of heat shield (ignoring that you also need to add tank mass for the new fuel, requiring more fuel, etc.) At $5,000 per pound, adding mass is seen as a bad idea. Though an argument could be made that using the metals would lower the cost per pound...
More specifically, a deorbit burn (such as for the shuttle on reentry) is around 100 m/s (200 mi/hr). So if you can get the object anywhere near that velocity, it will reenter very quickly.
If we weren't spending any money on war, we would be accomplishing nothing - because people would have come in and taken away any resources we had, if they didn't just kill us for being "not we".
My point was simply that this introduces a bias - a scientist that thinks the environment was unimportant would not study the environment, so (to exagerate the effect) the only theories that get tested are the ones that assume the environment is important. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, just that an inherent bias exists.
Idle answers:
When water is exposed to vaccuum, the water gives up energy by boiling, until it is frozen. As you add more and more water, eventually the water in the center is compressed back into a liquid. Further adding water may eventually make the center into a supercritical fluid (sort of half water, half gas), but I am virtually certain it would not get back to a gas. As you add more water, the water in the core would probably break down chemically, and the hydrogen would separate out. Adding more and more water might start fusion in the core, convert to a nuetron star, and then a black hole.
Moral of this story - never play with water!
Really, I think even this doesn't get to the heart of the matter. I don't think anyone questions the humans had an effect (though some question the size of that effect) - the real questions are predictive questions. One study predicts that once a certain point is reached, the temperature rise will accelerate. Others disagree. If there is a breaking point, then it makes sense to forcibly halt human progress to avoid it (this means lots of people dying, etc.). If there isn't a breaking point, then by continuing down our current path we will fix whatever problems happen (as our technology progresses, it becomes less ecologically damaging because that is at least slightly valued by humans and so will be provided in the normal course).
The real question is "Is the sky falling?" The US says no. Lots of other countries say maybe. A few loonies say yes. Much confusion ensues...
I wish that were true - it does matter who funded the study when explaining complex things to "common" poeple. The data and test procedure may not be in question, but the simplified explanation given to the average Joe may be. This doesn't even speak to the problems of sample bias, such as the vast majority of environmental scientists strangely enough are environmentalists...
One of the things I love about the scientific method (I consider myself an engineer, not a scientist) is how it is based on a known fallacy. The first thing you learn when studying the scientific method is that you cannot prove a positive, so you always test for the opposite of what you are proving. Then, if the test fails, you "reject the null hypothesis", meaning that you say that since you couldn't prove it wrong it must be right. While this rejection is useful in the real world, doing that just gets back to pretending that you can prove a positive...
The WTO people came to Chicago to protest. On the news that night, the newscaster was making fun of them because they didn't even know what they were protesting... he said something like "In my day we really knew how to protest, these losers are doing it all wrong."
I think in general protests are not getting media attention anymore because they are just students protesting to try to be heard and make a mark - not because of real injustice, etc. Face it, students are easily misled and so are ignored for the most part.
That's totally wrong on both counts - the most obvious, clearly defined case limited only to the US would still be the Native Americans. The Hawaiians were politically forced to sign a contract honored by both sides, the Native Americans were merely killed if they complained.
When the polynesians arrive at Hawaii, there were people there - though only legends and a few archiological artifacts remain. They were called "Menehune", and the legends refer to them similar to elves and say that they had interesting architecture and intermarried with the polynesians. (This was thought to be merely a rip-off of Tahiti, until recently an archiological find seemed to confirm it.)
Of course, there are a lot of Hawaiians that swear that "the man" took all their land, women, goodness, etc. Just goes to show that some people want something for nothing, or to put it differently believe in the racists idea that being born in a particular culture shoud give you special privileges...
A few cheat codes and some correct game play get you there
That isn't true. For the PC, you need a mod. For the PS2, you need to modify the bytecodes of a save file (using a PC). It really wasn't part of the game, really.
One use for this, if it could be done could be:
Layer 0: CPU
Layer 1-5: Cache SRAM
Layer 6-100: DRAM
How does that help, you ask? Well, you have a very wide bus going between the SRAM and DRAM, say about 8 Mbits wide. That would mean that you could load your entire level 1 cache in a few nanoseconds (one DRAM cycle), instead of waiting for info to flow across the bus in a linear fashion (a few tens of milliseconds).
What everyone seems to be missing is that the problems you mentoin are problems even with flat chips. The real problem with 3D is heat disapation, and the real advantage is faster switching times (smaller wires require smaller transistors with less capacitance that switch faster) and less clock skew. So this is probably best fit with microprocessors - clock skew is a killer, and you can always use speed. Of course, making it harder to cool doesn't help, but realistically we are nearing the limit of cooling tech anyway (as in flat or cube more than 100 Watts is hard to get off the chip!).
Really, all the problems are solveable using standard techniques - the real question is cost verses value (for example noone really uses SOI except IBM).
Solutions List:
Yield: build in redundancy (already in production use)
Heating: big heat sinks, turn off circuits whenever possible, limit I/Os (already in production use)
Packaging: who cares, as long as the external interface is the same (but they will certainly use aucustically bonded wires, like everyone else!)
Um, the government shouldn't be spending any money on development, especially on development of things that are not viable near term, like solar cells.
Since we live in a democracy and more people agree with that statement then not, the government doesn't fund it. (I believe that the government shouldn't fund anything like that! That is the place for private enterprise - consider how much money you would personally give me to compete with the US government on a development project!)
Now, of course the NSF does fund studies of such things - and they are funding solar cells, not oil. Oil research is funded by the oil companies. When that is not true, then the government is probably being inefficient - but oil is a net payer of taxes, not a net receiver.
Ah, I understand. Most of Europe is just fundamently different than the US - they have high taxes, much more government supplied services, and in general following of dreams seems to be curtailed. Where as the US allows people to follow their dreams (sometimes to their own and other's detriment), has very little in the wya of government supplied services, and lower taxes in general.
Very different viewpoints. Each can be argued, but really I don't think a conclusive argument is even possible. Different values, and all that.
This kind of thinking is silly! Believe me, if Bush thought he could make solar cells cheaper than he could get oil, he would quickly make friends with a solar cell manufacturer and solar cells would be in!
Just follow your logic a few more steps - the reason oil is used instead of gas is because the oil guys are politically stronger. The reason the oil guys are politically stronger is that the solar cell guys don't have money. The reason the solar cell guys don't have money is because they don't show a profit relative to oil.
I'm not sure which point you're arguing, and thought I'd point that out. Either you are an American, and think it is silly to change your entire lifestyle to fit the European ideal of "goodness," or you are a European dismayed that Americans cannot see the virtue of your ideal of "goodness."
That's the funny thing about politics - believe it or not, very few people are evil (as in they will put there own wellbeing above others). Most people just have different ideas about how wellbeing is defined, and the best way to achieve it.
Most likely, how this will work out is: it will be a great project in the beginning, things will be much better, etc. etc. because a centrally planned structure works great in the beginning. Later, people will start to find holes in the structure, little things that the central planners ignored, etc. Then things will start to get worse, and it will all fall apart in 50 years.
Sorta like programming, really. Just rebuild it all occasionally, and it's all good!
Hmmm.... So it takes 10 MW to create 5 MW of energy in Ethanol - and your solution is to run off the Ethanol?
I hope you were joking...
Heh, well if she's reading Slashdot she already knows to ignore half of what she reads...
That said, I think it is important to teach children about the real world and not leave them stranded in their fantasy world - otherwise they will not be able to understand the poor decisions of others, and avoid them theirselves.
For example, Bush made some very poor decisions. (For the record, I voted for him and I agree with his major ones but not in the implementation). If you think that Bush is "evil" and so he is killing our military (like my father) for money, so if and when you become president and someone does something that requires a military response you will make the same mistakes. Bush isn't evil, he just had to do something he didn't know how to communicate. (That's why if the Democrats had put someone reasonable forward, I would have voted for him - it was obvious what needed to be done, just not how to communicate it. He should not have said his decision was based on things it wasn't - he should have said I can't tell you why, but congress knows why too. (Of course, maybe that wouldn't have played as well - but I think it would be better long term)
Here's a hint - if they had tapped Hussien's cell phone, they could not tell you what he said. Otherwise, Hussien would know his cell was compromised. (Of course, on the flip side - we have no proof that Bush didn't just get upset and invade. You have to weigh both possibilities and decide which is more likely.)
Another interesting (anecdotal) factoid - this reverses in Polynesia. Although there are fewer engineers / physicists / programmers, they seem far more likely to be female.
Strange stuff! (And with 10,000 citations, she should be arrested and have her license taken away! Sheesh! [Wow that is impressive!])
I would seriously disagree with this! Destroying companies removes jobs and value from the economy, because things that could be done previously can no longer be done. Taking your gains and giving them away to people also destroys economic value for less obvious reasons (essentially it hurts the recipient emotionally and makes them less likely to try to advance themselves). Giving money to people is probably the worst thing you could do with it - for example, pretend that instead of giving his money away he decided he wanted Mt St Helens moved 2 feet to the right. He spends billions, so the net effect to him is the same. Others receive the billions (as salary), so they are also better off. But in addition, the workers at the end can have a feeling of pride - they did something very hard (stupid, yes, but hard).
Donations do not make up for damaging the economy - that is a far less than zero sum game. It is far better for everyone if a rich guy hords his money, but creates economic value (jobs and a better life for everyone). In the long term (more than a single lifetime), economic value is always redistributed. Donations help in the short term, but long term make everyone worse off.
Of course, that said, balance is required in everything. (I currently donate about 20% of my income to charitable institutions...)
This would still prevent spam - the MTA can easily limit the allowed source addresses to those logged into the box. Any email that got through would be easily traceable.
Not to mention that it would exclude people like me who's father is a military officer, whose brothers are military, and who was going into the military but became disabled...
Well, at the very least not running as root limits the places where "bad stuff" can hide. As I wrote earlier, you can also have a script automagically backing up the user's home directories to fix even user error.
As for sending spam, etc - well, if you allow you users to direct connect to port 25 (as in, no firewall restrictions), then what you say is true. But you don't have to set up the system that way, assuredly...