Haven't these been around for a while? The company I work for uses an MSDN subscription, so we pay a certain amount regularly (OK, i dont know how much), and get pretty much all MS software you could ever want (OK, that mightnt be very much).
The licenses are often strict, like we only get a couple of SQLServer licenses, but in general it meets, and has met everything we needed. I wonder what the difference between that model and MS's 'new' subscription model is....
Instead, the antenna jammed during its deployment in 1991, forcing scientists to rely on the probe's low-gain antenna and its pokey rate of 160 bits per second
All it takes is one dose of "I am in a harry, I promise you will love it!" and that bad boy wont have any bandwidth for another year...
Damned Outlook on the space probes. They should be using OSS!
I recall reading an article in The Economist a year or so ago, that had a similar discussion about whether to release data taken from publicly funded telescopes to the public immediately. The arguments go along similar lines, predicatably. What actually happens in practice is that the data is released, after a period of time, which tends to be about one year (IIRC).
The primary reason for this was to allow the researchers a chance to examine the data, write reports and so forth, essentially, get a return on the huge investment in time and resources each institution has to make to "buy" time on telescopes. Essentially, it keeps the motivation for those researchers. Importantly, as the data IS publicly funded, it does find its way into the public domain, as it should.
I do agree with you on that point. I think the actions are on the extreme side.
What I object to is a justification of piracy as the reason why "searching homes" should not be done. I dont believe piracy is a valid reason, but I do believe there are valid reasons for why the searching should not be done.
You have no right to copy what it took developers such as me our time, and thus our (or our employers money) to create. It is ours, and we are free to sell it to whomever we please. You may not copy it, period.
The fact that software can be copied with no direct "loss" to me is beside the point. There are plenty of indirect losses as a result of your selfishness.
This is not to say that a guily until proven innocent manner is the way to go. But trying to say that piracy is in any means OK is morally dispicable.
I'm a software developer. I write java web applications. I would be extrememly pissed off to find out that someone is pirating my software, somewhere. If they do that, they deserve everything coming to them.
People will always find some excuse for piracy, but until someone is pirating YOUR software, i really dont think you have any right to excuse yourself. It's theft of intellectual property. Don't do it, even if you have philosophical problems with Microsoft.
I'm told that these things are actually quite capable in off-road situations. Naturally I have never seen one of these "in the wild", but i have a friend of a friend who "claims" to have seen one in an off-road situation.
Perhaps I should have said I sure as hell dont know what causes the apparent imbalance:-)
On one side of the sphere
But doesnt that beg the question....
why did one side get more than the other? or rather, what caused the symmetry to break?
If there really were some other part of the universe made of anti-matter, wouldnt we expect some kind of "boundary region" with lots of energy being liberated?
I know very little about the practicalities of anti-matter creation. The only real assumption I was taking is that energy is convertable into either matter or antimatter.
I dont believe that your premise that only anti-matter can annihilate matter is correct. Fission annihilates matter into energy without using antimatter.
It was my understanding that anti-everythings exist, so you can have an electron, positron, anti-electron, and anti-positron, all with positive mass.
The premise about amount of matter and antimatter, is as you say, too tough. I dont think anyone *knows* why it seems there is an imbalance in the universe.
I guess the question i am most curious about is "Is it possible to "create" anti matter from anything other than pure energy in some form?", or do you have to (as your example) use pair-antipair creation?
Of course it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it.
This is true yes, but that doesnt mean that it would take more energy to "produce" antimatter than what you get out of it. The key lies in what it means to produce antimatter. If you mean produce as in out of thin air (E=mc^2), then yes, that is completely correct. If however there exists a mechanism for conversion somehow from matter to anti matter (there is no fundamental reason why not, is there? (really, i dont know), even if it goes via some exotic scheme) then the source of your energy becomes other matter. You simply have a VAST supply of irreplenishible energy, and you consume it in the process. But in terms of energy consumed to produce the matter coming from human-made power supplies, then no, there is no fundamental reason why this must require more energy than would be stored in the antimatter.
Think of this as analogous to fission, or indeed fusion. You just have the most efficient possible method of extracting energy from matter.
The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top.
Yes, antimatter has mass just like normal matter. Indeed, this is one of the things that distinguishes gravity from say electric charges. Gravity is always attractive, mass is always positive. With electric charge, positive and negative, and repulsive and attractive forces are possible and seen daily.
One can see this from the fact that matter has energy. E = mc^2 and all that. Antimatter has energy also, meaning you cant 'borrow' energy from the universe by creating some antimatter with negative energy. The flip side of this is that when you bring antimatter and matter together, they annihilate each other, liberating all their energy stored as mass into a burst of radioactivity. This presumably is the source of energy for the engines (or whatever) discussed in the article.
You forgot (true story):
I'm the one running back to base with the flag, but with a twitchey finger on the strafe left button, while im running along with the edge of a cliff right by my left.... Ooops, I did it again!
when you include mistakes about the very thing you are knocking, it doesnt come off too well
And because Microsoft changes the Word file format with each release
No it doesnt.
may even find, several years from now, that the Word documents they are writing this year can no longer be read with the version of Word they use then.
Last I checked Word could open ancient documents from all sorts of different word processors.
Regardless of the truth of the rest of the statements, someone like me (programmer, sends HTML mail as it looks nicer, etc) is never even going to give it a chance, if I see so many innacuracies like that in the first few paragraphs. He just comes of looking like yet another YALZ (Yet Another Linux Zealot).
People use word. I use word. 9x% of people use word. Get over it. If you can't interoperate with the rest of the population, doesnt it make it your problem, not theirs?
I opened and referenced (OK, didnt edit), the entire HL7 (its a health messaging format) specification in word a few weeks back. It's over 1000 pages. Very smooth, very scrollable, very everything. It took ages to open, but that was OK because it did it in the background. Memory usage was modest, and CPU, well, after 30 mins of CPU time (low priority here) I turned off spell/grammar checking and that sorted that.
I wonder if this also happens if the said spammer sends with HTML mail, which is then beautifully rendered... including all the images and what-have-you that the mail client will then download. Do these requests also get the referrer field? If so, even by looking at that page, they could tell which emails go to whom....
When the ice melts it melts for a reason - the sea has warmed up. And when the sea warms it will expand.
(S)He was right about this.. the whole thing is a kind of equilibrium, so the cooling effect you mention above may have an effect for a while, but not over the long term.
Consider a large iceberg. Say, 90% of it lies underwater, 10% of it above water. This is because it is (in my example) 11% less dense than water. But it still has the same weight as the amount of water taken up by the submerged portion of the ice berg. Find any physics text book, or perform the experiment mentioned in one of the other posts, put an ice cube in a glass of water, fill it to the brim and note the water level doesnt change when it melts.
Slashdot Mirror
The licenses are often strict, like we only get a couple of SQLServer licenses, but in general it meets, and has met everything we needed. I wonder what the difference between that model and MS's 'new' subscription model is....
All it takes is one dose of "I am in a harry, I promise you will love it!" and that bad boy wont have any bandwidth for another year...
Damned Outlook on the space probes. They should be using OSS!
It's also one picometer/millisecond! that's even more precise. I wonder what kind of instrumentation they use to measure such small distances....
The primary reason for this was to allow the researchers a chance to examine the data, write reports and so forth, essentially, get a return on the huge investment in time and resources each institution has to make to "buy" time on telescopes. Essentially, it keeps the motivation for those researchers. Importantly, as the data IS publicly funded, it does find its way into the public domain, as it should.
Perhaps a similar approach could be used here?
What I object to is a justification of piracy as the reason why "searching homes" should not be done. I dont believe piracy is a valid reason, but I do believe there are valid reasons for why the searching should not be done.
You have no right to copy what it took developers such as me our time, and thus our (or our employers money) to create. It is ours, and we are free to sell it to whomever we please. You may not copy it, period.
The fact that software can be copied with no direct "loss" to me is beside the point. There are plenty of indirect losses as a result of your selfishness.
This is not to say that a guily until proven innocent manner is the way to go. But trying to say that piracy is in any means OK is morally dispicable.
People will always find some excuse for piracy, but until someone is pirating YOUR software, i really dont think you have any right to excuse yourself. It's theft of intellectual property. Don't do it, even if you have philosophical problems with Microsoft.
These claims may of course be merely rumour.
Well, let's just say that it costs more than a Hummer and Less than a Boeing 777 -- and you can't buy this one
If you have to ask.....
You stole my joke!
twit
On one side of the sphere
But doesnt that beg the question....
why did one side get more than the other? or rather, what caused the symmetry to break?
If there really were some other part of the universe made of anti-matter, wouldnt we expect some kind of "boundary region" with lots of energy being liberated?
I know very little about the practicalities of anti-matter creation. The only real assumption I was taking is that energy is convertable into either matter or antimatter.
I dont believe that your premise that only anti-matter can annihilate matter is correct. Fission annihilates matter into energy without using antimatter.
It was my understanding that anti-everythings exist, so you can have an electron, positron, anti-electron, and anti-positron, all with positive mass.
The premise about amount of matter and antimatter, is as you say, too tough. I dont think anyone *knows* why it seems there is an imbalance in the universe.
I guess the question i am most curious about is "Is it possible to "create" anti matter from anything other than pure energy in some form?", or do you have to (as your example) use pair-antipair creation?
cheers
Roger Ramjet he's our man the hero of our nation... da dee da dee da dee da da da da da dee daa daaaaaaaaaa!
This is true yes, but that doesnt mean that it would take more energy to "produce" antimatter than what you get out of it. The key lies in what it means to produce antimatter. If you mean produce as in out of thin air (E=mc^2), then yes, that is completely correct. If however there exists a mechanism for conversion somehow from matter to anti matter (there is no fundamental reason why not, is there? (really, i dont know), even if it goes via some exotic scheme) then the source of your energy becomes other matter. You simply have a VAST supply of irreplenishible energy, and you consume it in the process. But in terms of energy consumed to produce the matter coming from human-made power supplies, then no, there is no fundamental reason why this must require more energy than would be stored in the antimatter.
Think of this as analogous to fission, or indeed fusion. You just have the most efficient possible method of extracting energy from matter.
The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top.
It is contained in magnetic fields, and yes, this is done.
No idea how you make lots of it. I dont think anyone does.
Yes, antimatter has mass just like normal matter. Indeed, this is one of the things that distinguishes gravity from say electric charges. Gravity is always attractive, mass is always positive. With electric charge, positive and negative, and repulsive and attractive forces are possible and seen daily.
One can see this from the fact that matter has energy. E = mc^2 and all that. Antimatter has energy also, meaning you cant 'borrow' energy from the universe by creating some antimatter with negative energy. The flip side of this is that when you bring antimatter and matter together, they annihilate each other, liberating all their energy stored as mass into a burst of radioactivity. This presumably is the source of energy for the engines (or whatever) discussed in the article.
So the people with no computer will walk over to ebay to get their first one :-)
You forgot (true story):
I'm the one running back to base with the flag, but with a twitchey finger on the strafe left button, while im running along with the edge of a cliff right by my left.... Ooops, I did it again!
And because Microsoft changes the Word file format with each release
No it doesnt.
may even find, several years from now, that the Word documents they are writing this year can no longer be read with the version of Word they use then.
Last I checked Word could open ancient documents from all sorts of different word processors.
Regardless of the truth of the rest of the statements, someone like me (programmer, sends HTML mail as it looks nicer, etc) is never even going to give it a chance, if I see so many innacuracies like that in the first few paragraphs. He just comes of looking like yet another YALZ (Yet Another Linux Zealot).
People use word. I use word. 9x% of people use word. Get over it. If you can't interoperate with the rest of the population, doesnt it make it your problem, not theirs?
I opened and referenced (OK, didnt edit), the entire HL7 (its a health messaging format) specification in word a few weeks back. It's over 1000 pages. Very smooth, very scrollable, very everything. It took ages to open, but that was OK because it did it in the background. Memory usage was modest, and CPU, well, after 30 mins of CPU time (low priority here) I turned off spell/grammar checking and that sorted that.
Time to upgrade that 486?
scary stuff.
(S)He was right about this.. the whole thing is a kind of equilibrium, so the cooling effect you mention above may have an effect for a while, but not over the long term.
Consider a large iceberg. Say, 90% of it lies underwater, 10% of it above water. This is because it is (in my example) 11% less dense than water. But it still has the same weight as the amount of water taken up by the submerged portion of the ice berg. Find any physics text book, or perform the experiment mentioned in one of the other posts, put an ice cube in a glass of water, fill it to the brim and note the water level doesnt change when it melts.