Not to be a naysayer, but the entire page load for SOSDG was under 3k. I supposed there is a lesson to be learned from that, but I imagine there are cases when people acutally want to put more than 3k of streamlined content on their pages. Maybe people who want to use graphics...
I wasn't intentionally sarcastic, but I didn't delete it once I reread it, because it's true - Not everyone wants to make 3k text web pages.
Not to say that you didn't do a nice job on your webpage, but the problem of surviving a slashdotting is less trivial than just 'running your server well.'
How long will it take people to realize that what is obvious to you isn't obvious to anyone. There are people in the market for an mp3 player who might know very little about them. Maybe they saw a few ads on TV and that's it. This article is informative, and not especially biased (I think).
What if you don't know anything about mp3 players, have $200 to spend, but are interested in getting one? Would article be useful for you? YES. Are there people in that situation? YES. A lot.
I'm going to forward article to someone who asked about buying an mp3 player the other day. I said the ipod is the best out there, but that it's a little pricey and there might be some other things to consider. WHOA! An article that talks about those considerations. It's like they read my mind and wrote the article for me.
Don't crap on the article just because it's something you already know. Not everyone is blessed with as much nerd knowledge as the average slashdot reader.
3) Nobody has dredged up any information to indicate that the $38M UT spent includes the cost of a building. As csoto pointed out:"A "Center" at UT is a special term for a particular type of organized unit, often a research unit. It does not necessarily mean this place gets its own building. In fact, at UT, space is such a premium that most "Centers" don't have their own (yeah the place is huge, but has lots of people). In fact, I'd venture to guess that NO center has its own building."
cough cough... http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si d=82220&ci d=7210864 http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s id=82220&ci d=7209071 (didn't want to steal credit from other posters)
Bottom line to me is that you really can't draw much of a comparison from any of the information everyone is throwing about. You're better off going to Apple's and Dell's website and making estimates from educational pricing, even if that misses installation costs.
Hey, I've got the same idea as you, but I can see why a lot of others are so reserved. Some people who are religious equate stem cell research with abortion. (even if a fetus is already dead) It doesn't make a whole lot of sense from our perspective, but that's why it's not our perspective.
I don't really see how these are cells like biological cells. It just a bunch of particles following electrostatics. Just because it resembles what biological cells do in a few ways doesn't mean that it's the 'beginning of life' or anything like that.
Similar things happen with particles in water. If you go to any water treatment plant and look at the flocculation tanks you'll see tons (literally) of particles colliding each other, forming new particles. They have natural organic matter and other crud absorbed to their surfaces, and if coniditions are right, they can break apart (too much shear).
It's interesting still, in the sense that anything that self assembles usually minimizes the total energy of a system in a 'neat' way, but I wouldn't rewrite the theory on how life begin, because of it.
Umm...lead doesn't necessarily do a good job of stopping EM interference. You need something that is going to conduct electricity in some way if you are going to stop any EM. Lead does a god job with radioactivity though.
I think that if there is already life, it will adapt to many of these harsh conditions, but I just don't think the RNA soup theory we currently have took place in extremely harsh conditions.
I don't understand what this at all has to do with being a good thing for the environment. Lower CO emissions. Well that's not a bad thing. The issue we are really trying to deal with is total carbon emissions. I'm not too worried about people sitting in their garages with the car running. They have other problems...
so I chose the option that would have a lesser impact on the net amount of CO2 added back to the atmosphere by my driving.
I understand the mass balance on carbon above and below the ground. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether the carbon is above or below ground, what *really* matters is whether it is in the air or not.
There is some equilibrium between the carbon on the ground and the carbon in the air. If you make any case for global warming, then you are saying that *human* sources of CO2 are shifting the equilibrium that would otherwise be in place. 'Carbon neutral' should be about getting the CO2 back out of the air (read: more plants) and not about where the carbon came from.
I think that if you compared the total carbon mass pumped/mine through oil and coal it would pale in comparison to the amount of carbon already on the surface. The problem is that we're *burning* so much carbon (and shifting the eq.), not that there is too much carbon in the cycle.
You really can look at it from a pure chemical equilibrium standpoint:
Apparently you've forgotten that people don't want to plug their cars in over night, want to be able drive more than 200 miles, and want to be able to fuel up anywhere (good luck with your nearest H2 or methanol station).
In addition, the carbon released into the atmosphere from "burning the bean" releases no new carbon into the air, as that carbon was used by the soy plant during its growth (i.e. biodiesel is "carbon-neutral"). Contrast to burning petroleum, which releases excess carbon from its storage deep inn the earth's crust into the air.
I don't buy into this "carbon neutral" deal. The environment is impacted by the amount of carbon in the air. I doesn't matter whether it came from underground or on the ground. By that reasoning, we'd still be causing a problem as long as we pumped the oil up, because it'd be entering the biosphere.
If you are worried about global warming, the problem is the amount of carbon in the air, so it doesn't matter whether you are burning corn oil or crude oil. On top of that diesel puts out massive particulate matter into the air, which isn't exactly human friendly.
Best would be to immediately begin work on an elevator. Current best estimates say that an elevator could be built in about ten years, with a budget of six billion. Considering that the US is spending more than $8 billion per month in Iraq, I'd say we obviously have $6 Billion to spend over the course of ten years...
I'm sorry but this is probably coming from the same people who made the cost estimates on the shuttle. We don't even have the technology to do this (materials and more), and you already know the cost? The space elevator is not a bad idea, but it VERY far from a mature idea and should be treated as such.
2830 kJ/mol / 180 g/mol * 0.83 = 13 kJ/g
1 kWh = 60 min * 60 s/min * 1000 J/s = 3600 kJ
3600 kJ / 13 kJ/g ~= 280 grams of sugar for 1 kWh or power
Can't find a good price for sugar, but 1 kWh of electricty is not more than 10-15 cents in the US. I have a feeling that half a pound of sugar is way more than that...
Can't you say something about the origin because of the orbit of the rock and the other rocks around it? Isn't it unlikely that all the rocks in the belt entered the sun's orbit from the same direction with and with the same velocity? If not, they'd be orbiting all over the place, like comets, not organized in a neat belt.
Re:$1.5 billion well spent
on
Goodbye, Galileo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Also, engineers are trained to downplay risks. They consider a risk of one in a million insignificant. But to a layperson who has seen the results of thousands of environmental accidents where the risk was supposedly very low, one in a million seems quite possible.
That is the one the stupidest views on 'risk' I've heard. Risk is risk. One in a million IS low! 'results of thousands of environmental accidents' What the hell is he talking about it? It doesn't matter how many accidents you've seen, it matters how many accidents you seen compared to the number of things you've tried. *That* is an esitmation of risk. I don't understand the point this guy is trying to make.
Even worse:
Of course, how can we get anyone to be concerned about the possible harmful effects of dumping our radioactive waste on other worlds when modern science condones illness, cancer, and even deaths if they advance a technology or turn a profit. Our culture has made it OK to release a drug if the side effects "only" kill two percent of the users under certain circumstances. (idealist alarm rings) There is no such thing as a world without risk. If your risk of dying in a car accident is WAY more than one in a million, but does that mean we should outlaw driving?? Does this person not get in their car? You trade some level of risk to _actually_ do something.
On top of this, what does the guy advocate we do? The plutonium has to go somewhere. Do you store enough fuel to launch it out of the solar system? Isn't that still 'pollution?' I'm sorry but the basis for the argument is a *little* weak.
I agree with you, it isn't need by most people...at this point. But if in the coming years broadband content for regular people grows, then they'll want it. Isn't digital cable really just 'broadband' between you cable service provider and your box? What if netflix (or equiv.) gave you a settop box that plugged in to your cable modem/dsl, and setup a service where you could request a DVD, and it'd be downloaded in 24 hours? There's a chance people might actually use something like that. Or even better...a settop mp3 player/storage device that would let you buy a cd from itunes and then burn it for you. All of this could be designed for the non-computer savvy. Then normal people would really want broadband.
Of course there are tons of technology issues to work out, but I'm sure there are a bunch of companies on that already. Hopefully we'll see more services like this in a few years.
This was about the height that the Challenger exploded and the jump shows that the crew of the Chalenger could have survived had the technology developed in the manhigh project been avilable to them.
I think you are ignoring maybe a few hundred engineering/technical difficulties involved in exiting a spacecraft. It's not like they had ejection seats. Also, from a flight controller's perspective there was little to no warning, at the time, that a catastrophic event was about to happen.
Save the 'could have' and 'should have' for a problem where people actually could have done something.
With all this hash talk going on, I thought I'd mention that Musicbrainz uses some sort of similarity hash in identifying songs. It compares the hashes of the files you have to an existing user submitted database. If the match is good, then you can use the database tag info, which is pretty handy.
I've compared albums I've ripped myself to the database and gotten "100%" matches (along with some matches of a much lower percentage) That leads me to think that if the RIAA kept its own database like that, they could do a whole lot of comparison with similarity or quasi-unique (ala MD5) hashes. I'd also venture that, with enough work at the comparison system, they could make court-valid assertions. They can hire plenty of geeks to handle the statistics necessary to call something 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' (for criminal proof)
Isn't there an issue with how often binaries are actually changed these days? I unzip new Mozilla builds all the time. I'm sure Windows update changes exe/dll files. Wouldn't all those legitimate changes cause false positives with the innoculation scheme? Would you set up some sort of authority system for editing then? I don't think that would work, because viruses usually run under as a normal user (read: admin in windows).
I remember long long ago in the DOS days, when software came by way of floppy that these executables didn't change much. I think things are different now.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Popular Articles
1. Microsoft tests Web news service
Not to be a naysayer, but the entire page load for SOSDG was under 3k. I supposed there is a lesson to be learned from that, but I imagine there are cases when people acutally want to put more than 3k of streamlined content on their pages. Maybe people who want to use graphics...
I wasn't intentionally sarcastic, but I didn't delete it once I reread it, because it's true - Not everyone wants to make 3k text web pages.
Not to say that you didn't do a nice job on your webpage, but the problem of surviving a slashdotting is less trivial than just 'running your server well.'
oops. I meant 'everyone' and not 'anyone' in the first line. I even re read it and missed that. Anyway...
How long will it take people to realize that what is obvious to you isn't obvious to anyone. There are people in the market for an mp3 player who might know very little about them. Maybe they saw a few ads on TV and that's it. This article is informative, and not especially biased (I think).
What if you don't know anything about mp3 players, have $200 to spend, but are interested in getting one? Would article be useful for you? YES. Are there people in that situation? YES. A lot.
I'm going to forward article to someone who asked about buying an mp3 player the other day. I said the ipod is the best out there, but that it's a little pricey and there might be some other things to consider. WHOA! An article that talks about those considerations. It's like they read my mind and wrote the article for me.
Don't crap on the article just because it's something you already know. Not everyone is blessed with as much nerd knowledge as the average slashdot reader.
It's called electroosmosis. Just hit up google. What they did is scale it up.
3) Nobody has dredged up any information to indicate that the $38M UT spent includes the cost of a building. As csoto pointed out:"A "Center" at UT is a special term for a particular type of organized unit, often a research unit. It does not necessarily mean this place gets its own building. In fact, at UT, space is such a premium that most "Centers" don't have their own (yeah the place is huge, but has lots of people). In fact, I'd venture to guess that NO center has its own building."
i d=82220&ci d=7210864s id=82220&ci d=7209071
cough cough...
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?
(didn't want to steal credit from other posters)
Bottom line to me is that you really can't draw much of a comparison from any of the information everyone is throwing about. You're better off going to Apple's and Dell's website and making estimates from educational pricing, even if that misses installation costs.
Short informative read:S peedOfLight/measure_c.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/
Hey, I've got the same idea as you, but I can see why a lot of others are so reserved. Some people who are religious equate stem cell research with abortion. (even if a fetus is already dead) It doesn't make a whole lot of sense from our perspective, but that's why it's not our perspective.
I don't really see how these are cells like biological cells. It just a bunch of particles following electrostatics. Just because it resembles what biological cells do in a few ways doesn't mean that it's the 'beginning of life' or anything like that.
Similar things happen with particles in water. If you go to any water treatment plant and look at the flocculation tanks you'll see tons (literally) of particles colliding each other, forming new particles. They have natural organic matter and other crud absorbed to their surfaces, and if coniditions are right, they can break apart (too much shear).
It's interesting still, in the sense that anything that self assembles usually minimizes the total energy of a system in a 'neat' way, but I wouldn't rewrite the theory on how life begin, because of it.
Umm...lead doesn't necessarily do a good job of stopping EM interference. You need something that is going to conduct electricity in some way if you are going to stop any EM. Lead does a god job with radioactivity though.
Just visit Houston or LA in the summer and you'll see why NOx is a serious problem. Ozone creation.
I think that if there is already life, it will adapt to many of these harsh conditions, but I just don't think the RNA soup theory we currently have took place in extremely harsh conditions.
Why does the EPA rate a supposedly fuel efficient, environmentally friendly 2003 diesel Volkswagen Golf as Tier 1 as and give it a 1 out 10 for an air pollution score?
Check it out yourself: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
NOx is the problem: http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/faq.htm#diesel
I don't understand what this at all has to do with being a good thing for the environment. Lower CO emissions. Well that's not a bad thing. The issue we are really trying to deal with is total carbon emissions. I'm not too worried about people sitting in their garages with the car running. They have other problems...
so I chose the option that would have a lesser impact on the net amount of CO2 added back to the atmosphere by my driving.
I understand the mass balance on carbon above and below the ground. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether the carbon is above or below ground, what *really* matters is whether it is in the air or not.
There is some equilibrium between the carbon on the ground and the carbon in the air. If you make any case for global warming, then you are saying that *human* sources of CO2 are shifting the equilibrium that would otherwise be in place. 'Carbon neutral' should be about getting the CO2 back out of the air (read: more plants) and not about where the carbon came from.
I think that if you compared the total carbon mass pumped/mine through oil and coal it would pale in comparison to the amount of carbon already on the surface. The problem is that we're *burning* so much carbon (and shifting the eq.), not that there is too much carbon in the cycle.
You really can look at it from a pure chemical equilibrium standpoint:
Apparently you've forgotten that people don't want to plug their cars in over night, want to be able drive more than 200 miles, and want to be able to fuel up anywhere (good luck with your nearest H2 or methanol station).
In addition, the carbon released into the atmosphere from "burning the bean" releases no new carbon into the air, as that carbon was used by the soy plant during its growth (i.e. biodiesel is "carbon-neutral"). Contrast to burning petroleum, which releases excess carbon from its storage deep inn the earth's crust into the air.
I don't buy into this "carbon neutral" deal. The environment is impacted by the amount of carbon in the air. I doesn't matter whether it came from underground or on the ground. By that reasoning, we'd still be causing a problem as long as we pumped the oil up, because it'd be entering the biosphere.
If you are worried about global warming, the problem is the amount of carbon in the air, so it doesn't matter whether you are burning corn oil or crude oil. On top of that diesel puts out massive particulate matter into the air, which isn't exactly human friendly.
Best would be to immediately begin work on an elevator. Current best estimates say that an elevator could be built in about ten years, with a budget of six billion. Considering that the US is spending more than $8 billion per month in Iraq, I'd say we obviously have $6 Billion to spend over the course of ten years...
I'm sorry but this is probably coming from the same people who made the cost estimates on the shuttle. We don't even have the technology to do this (materials and more), and you already know the cost? The space elevator is not a bad idea, but it VERY far from a mature idea and should be treated as such.
(from http://members.nuvox.net/~on.jwclymer/rq/)
The molecular weight of glucose is 180 g/mol. The calculated heat of combustion is 2830 kJ/mol, or 3.8 kcals/g.
2830 kJ/mol / 180 g/mol * 0.83 = 13 kJ/g
1 kWh = 60 min * 60 s/min * 1000 J/s = 3600 kJ
3600 kJ / 13 kJ/g ~= 280 grams of sugar for 1 kWh or power
Can't find a good price for sugar, but 1 kWh of electricty is not more than 10-15 cents in the US. I have a feeling that half a pound of sugar is way more than that...
Can't you say something about the origin because of the orbit of the rock and the other rocks around it? Isn't it unlikely that all the rocks in the belt entered the sun's orbit from the same direction with and with the same velocity? If not, they'd be orbiting all over the place, like comets, not organized in a neat belt.
Also, engineers are trained to downplay risks. They consider a risk of one in a million insignificant. But to a layperson who has seen the results of thousands of environmental accidents where the risk was supposedly very low, one in a million seems quite possible.
That is the one the stupidest views on 'risk' I've heard. Risk is risk. One in a million IS low! 'results of thousands of environmental accidents' What the hell is he talking about it? It doesn't matter how many accidents you've seen, it matters how many accidents you seen compared to the number of things you've tried. *That* is an esitmation of risk. I don't understand the point this guy is trying to make.
Even worse:
Of course, how can we get anyone to be concerned about the possible harmful effects of dumping our radioactive waste on other worlds when modern science condones illness, cancer, and even deaths if they advance a technology or turn a profit. Our culture has made it OK to release a drug if the side effects "only" kill two percent of the users under certain circumstances.
(idealist alarm rings) There is no such thing as a world without risk. If your risk of dying in a car accident is WAY more than one in a million, but does that mean we should outlaw driving?? Does this person not get in their car? You trade some level of risk to _actually_ do something.
On top of this, what does the guy advocate we do? The plutonium has to go somewhere. Do you store enough fuel to launch it out of the solar system? Isn't that still 'pollution?' I'm sorry but the basis for the argument is a *little* weak.
Cool link from an insurance company that shows different levels of risk.
I agree with you, it isn't need by most people...at this point. But if in the coming years broadband content for regular people grows, then they'll want it. Isn't digital cable really just 'broadband' between you cable service provider and your box? What if netflix (or equiv.) gave you a settop box that plugged in to your cable modem/dsl, and setup a service where you could request a DVD, and it'd be downloaded in 24 hours? There's a chance people might actually use something like that. Or even better...a settop mp3 player/storage device that would let you buy a cd from itunes and then burn it for you. All of this could be designed for the non-computer savvy. Then normal people would really want broadband.
Of course there are tons of technology issues to work out, but I'm sure there are a bunch of companies on that already. Hopefully we'll see more services like this in a few years.
This was about the height that the Challenger exploded and the jump shows that the crew of the Chalenger could have survived had the technology developed in the manhigh project been avilable to them.
I think you are ignoring maybe a few hundred engineering/technical difficulties involved in exiting a spacecraft. It's not like they had ejection seats. Also, from a flight controller's perspective there was little to no warning, at the time, that a catastrophic event was about to happen.
Save the 'could have' and 'should have' for a problem where people actually could have done something.
With all this hash talk going on, I thought I'd mention that Musicbrainz uses some sort of similarity hash in identifying songs. It compares the hashes of the files you have to an existing user submitted database. If the match is good, then you can use the database tag info, which is pretty handy.
I've compared albums I've ripped myself to the database and gotten "100%" matches (along with some matches of a much lower percentage) That leads me to think that if the RIAA kept its own database like that, they could do a whole lot of comparison with similarity or quasi-unique (ala MD5) hashes. I'd also venture that, with enough work at the comparison system, they could make court-valid assertions. They can hire plenty of geeks to handle the statistics necessary to call something 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' (for criminal proof)
Isn't there an issue with how often binaries are actually changed these days? I unzip new Mozilla builds all the time. I'm sure Windows update changes exe/dll files. Wouldn't all those legitimate changes cause false positives with the innoculation scheme? Would you set up some sort of authority system for editing then? I don't think that would work, because viruses usually run under as a normal user (read: admin in windows).
I remember long long ago in the DOS days, when software came by way of floppy that these executables didn't change much. I think things are different now.