The initial concept was that man was able to change the traits of livestock and pets through selective breeding, or manual selection.. and that the forces of nature may be doing the same, creating multiple species of iguana, as we do dogs.
This has some big consequences.. that recursion would mean that whatever was a common ancestor would need a common ancestor,, all the way down. and perhaps plants and animals are fundamentally different arising from different organisms, and a few trunks might appear for bugs, fungus, and bacteria..
By choosing traits carefully, a phylogeny was developed, which related animals to each-other.. strangely this worked really well.
Anyway, evolution predicts that there is a tree structure, and that endpoints dont cross over.. so mammals dont get 4 chambered lungs like birds, but might still have some egg laying abilities like reptiles. Not should we see the octopus eye structure in humans. or bug armor on birds. Armadillos will have armor from keratin like a rhino horn, or fingernails.
Anyway, once molecular biology and sequencing came out, it solidly backed the theory.. Phylogeny people have been re-mapping the tree, bacteria took some serious adjustment, larger organism less so.
Now there is a push to generate "ancestral genomes" so that we have an idea of what the predecessor organisms were capable of... and where some of the novel enzymes popped into being. So enzymes which appear to be adaptation from our last ice age might be related in some way to survival of the cold, or eating rodents without GI distress. But with some timing, and some idea of the climate, the flora, and fauna some good guesses can be made as to why a subtle change might have happened.
So evolution theory may help in figuring out why humans stopped making vitamin C, and rats never need a vitamin C pill or fruit in their lifetime.
Or it can confirm things that we might already have guessed.. that humans make less stomach acid during pregnancy might be an evolutionary adaption to morning sickness.. because most pregnant women don't seem to have chronic bulimia problems, ie rotten teeth, esophagus ulcers, which would occur at higher acid concentrations. anyway, once they find the control mechanism I'm betting that it'll point to roughly the time when we started bipedalism.
Yes evolution is science, it does matter, knowing the history of automobiles lets us understand why tempered glass isnt appropriate for a windshield. Knowing the path that our ancestors evolved with lets us know what we should watch out for when we start tinkering.
1. The guys (gender neutral) that I would call great are algorithm heads.. not that they know the advantages between Kruscals and Prims. But that they wold have the same ideas on how to build an algorithm. The big idea isn't just that they have a good algorithm to solve X, Y or Z.. but that they can come up with a bunch over the course of lunch. Ask them the google question, how do you find the first 10 digit prime in e.. and after their canned answer, ask for 5 different ways it could be done. If they're good you'll hear 10.. even if some of the ideas stink your still doing pretty well...
2. Troubleshooters are brutally useful.. take an expert with a known problem in his head, and have the troubleshooter (applicant) role-play the diagnostic... If your really bored, prep a full test with some odd code that doesnt work.. coders that cant effectively troubleshoot are not superstars, and are often dead weight.
3. Ask them what they hate... If they use a product X it should have some horrible inconsistencies that they will despise. Programmers have some habits that the compilers just hate, depending on the skill level the coder will have different views on what is bad..
After all of that then you have to find a good place to put them.. you cant feed an algorithm head CSS style sheet problems, they will be malnourished. Then you need to make sure they're on task.. algorithm heads love puzzles and problems.. keeping them working on one that they've solved is almost punishment.. Once you've hit their boredom wall you need to adjust the task so that they're not slogging through the motions.. or re-task them and let a hardened solid coder finish up the dull bits.
Are they talking about "real" nanotech (atomic-level assemblers), or "hype" nanotech (surface chemistry of finely ground powders)? Much of what's now being touted as "nanotech" is the latter.
They're talking "hype"..
Otherwise they would call it molecular biology. MOLB goes down a whole lot further in scale, and can reliably make things of specific size. etched silicon motors don't even come close to a bacterial motor, size, efficiency, torque. Real nanotech is something that will come more from the biology side. If Molb can figure out folding then mass nanotech wont be far behind. Whereas physics has a whole slew of manufacturing issues to figure out for anything more impressive than sunscreen.
Storm
ok, that was a bit of a troll.. but my karma can take this bite.
1. the polite phone.. it would know your schedule, it's gps information, and the information that is shared by nearby phones.. to determine if you are in an area that a ringing phone would be rude.. Then depending on your preferences, the phone would switch to vibrate while the phone beleives that you would be embarrased by having a phone go off in the middle of a school play.
2 autodrive-- just like demolition man.
3.auto kiosks. advanced dumb terminal that use your cell phone as the processor wirelessly and securely. encrypted keyboard and monitor to prevent snooping ala keyboard recorder.
4. rfid microwaves.. pop in the meal you want to cook, let the microwave get the cooking info and wham, cooked to the right settings. (rfid as ubiquitous technology)
5. pervasive enabling devices for the elderly.. Once those numbers boom all sorts of silly gadgets will pop up, and quite a few gems should come to light. So expect automatic dog walking collars, which coax the dog to walk within certain parameters.. larger use of automatic bill pay. and huge amounts of snake oil..
6. mini-cars two seater cars in a tandem configuration possibly back to back, 600 lbs mostly carbon fiber. low standard horsepower 25 ish. with an engagable supercharger for quick acceleration. I'd probably go with a compressed air tank to crank the supercharger, and for the inital dose of extra air into the engine, so that the "turbo lag" doesn't happen. In town the car will rock, highway speed, not so good.
7 cheap oleds everywhere.. your cereal box might have animated advertising on it.. I dont expect till near the end of the 25 years..
8. bloody amazing synthetic textiles.. Glycosolated synthetic fibers will have properties normally associated with natural fibers. but once engineered the range of cloth behavior will be much greater than normal, it'll make the neat fabrics of today seem quaint.
The researchers concluded that permanent magnets are the best solution. Other methods, including burning disks with heat-generating thermite, crushing drives in presses, chemically destroying the media or frying them with microwaves all proved susceptible to sensitive, patient, recovery efforts.
And the Chinese did manage to recover the data... I cant find the article right off.
The chinese used some very impressive tech to read the hard drives from a US surveillance plane, where the data was overwritten, and then melted with thermite. Magnetic domains aren't that easy to erase, it like erasing a whiteboard with a slotted eraser, there will still be traces of the magnetic domains even after two rewrites. And the extra data that drives store for CRC info helps a bunch in getting the data right.
That is the point. It evolves, and isn't a cut and paste job. So each item may be superficially similar, but has taken its own path.. bats can fly, but that doesn't mean that they have a bird design. However I would expect that more similarities would occur due to similar niche and mobility.
The platypus is a nice creature that could be researched just fine on wiki.
The Platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs like it's reptilian ancestors did. The platypus evolved a great deal on its own, however its adaptations are it's own, its poison is different than snakes or insects. The bill is much different than a ducks. And while it is a mammal. it doesn't have teats, the milk comes out something like sweat would. It is very similar to the echidna, which also lays eggs.
Creationist Interpretation : "God came up with something he liked, so he repeated his design; I mean it must have taken awhile to design millions of organisms, He must have recycled ideas somewhere"
Whats really intresting then is that while a whole bunch of stuff is recycled, the pattern makes a tree where recycling never seems to occur among plants-mammals-birds, so no four cycle breathing for mammals, no bird milk, no bat fruit.. really strange that with all the shortcuts that were taken, so much separation would be faithfully preserved.
just to be a nitpicker, finding a person with chloroplasts would indeed be monumental, but not enough to disprove evolution. you would also have to prove that they spontaneously generated in way that could not be reconciled with evolutional theory. and maybe i'm tired, but i can't think of a way that that could happen. it would be one HELL of a random mutation... but it is POSSIBLE.
A. A nitproof version would be to bloody big to bother reading.
B. It would be evidence that the model is very wrong. How you use that evidence is a whole other story. oh The likelyhood of that mutation is MUCH lower than winning 10 jackpots in a day that you are hit by ten lightning bolts. making coincidence seem a bit suspect.
Maybe I'm living under a rock here, but I've never really seen evolution demonstrated. I've heard plenty of explanations and leaps of logic attached to it, but I've never actually seen anything evolve. And even if I did, that still wouldn't demonstrate that evolution is the origin of life. That's why it's a theory, because we can only infer, we can't demonstrate, and unfortunately no one actually witnessed it.
ok you have a couple points here.. Evolution isn't the origin of life, it's about life propagating for different situations. But we do have really good evidence for evolution..
Two of the big pieces of evolution are common ancestry, and a "tree of life" of phylogenetic tree as scientists use it. The data that we have does in fact build a very good tree of life. Even if the choice of data changes the tree comes out remarkably similar. Generally Ribosomes are used, as they have a low mutation rate. But other markers such as synteny (same ordering of genes) can be used as well. This has been seen, sure with instruments, but its the same with anything small even modern microprocessors. We rely on scientific methods to get data.
Common ancestry is a slam dunk, we have a virtually identical genetic code with every other organism on the planet, other ancestry should have its own codon table.. eukaryotes have the same cell membrane composition... There are literally thousands of pieces of interlinking observations that support evolution.
However to disprove evolution, you would need to find evidence of "cut and paste" along different branches of the tree of life. So find a bat that has four cycle breathing like a bird, and you'll have a monumental paper on your hands. Or a human (heck any mammal) that has chloroplasts.., or a reptile with chitin (bug-shell) armor.
Disproving common ancestry, find a mammal that has a very different codon table.. um good luck with that.
Science shouldn't worry so damn much about what people think, it should be about the truth, finding it and offering it, not making people believe it. Same goes for religion. The rest is just name calling and childishness.
Science is basically a game, like a puzzle, where if a hypothesis fits it gets added until the hypothesis is mucking up the puzzle.
Scientists dont care that much about what people think, but they do care if little kids add "magic pieces" to the puzzle and throw a fit when mom says the magic pieces must stay. Scientists want to do the real puzzle, not some puzzle that includes magic pieces.
oh the piece of mom saying the magic pieces stay is when school boards say intelligent design is science.
Let the scientists play by the rules, otherwise other scientists snicker behind their backs, and it isnt pretty.
once power storage gets good enough then the whole thing crashes down.period.
But the kicker is that unstable power sources can be considered a much more viable source of energy when you can sell the power as it comes. Rather than turning on natural gas turbines, you just reduce the amount of cheap power. Rather than opening spillgates on a hydroelectric dam, you offer cheap power, and every plug in hybrid car in town will suck it down, and all the Air conditioners will kick it down to 70.
The cheap power will always need to have some cap, aka 80% of normal. just so the demand can start in a matter of seconds.
I agree, one device (smartMeter)talks to the power company, the devices talk to the smartmeter.
The concept is this.. The power company auctions off power in real time to devices which automatically bid for "cheap energy blocks" The cheap energy blocks never exceed the price of standard energy. This allows the power company to adjust load based on production from non-predictable sources. So when a windfarm starts going crazy with power, the air conditioner in your house can go full steam for quarter price. As the number of smart devices increases, the prices can auction to higher values. As smart devices get more vogue, we can rely on sporadic power generation more and more.
Right now, the power companies predict usage, with little control, with smart energy, they can tune usage much more efficiently.
The concept of storing the energy as thermal is fine, but reducing the amount of energy swaps is going to be the more efficient way to use the power. The efficiency that they can store energy and re-convert it is going to determine how low a cheap power block can sell for.
Make sure that the machine that controls the card key locks is not behind a card key locked door that doesn't have a regular key. Because your always one stupid mistake from needing a power saw, and drywall patch.
The concept of remote activation is sorta primitive. The real concept of smart devices is about utilizing smart metered power. The concept is this.. The power company auctions off power in real time to devices which automatically bid for "cheap energy blocks" The cheap energy blocks never exceed the price of standard energy. This allows the power company to adjust load based on production from non-predictable sources. So when a windfarm starts going crazy with power, the air conditioner in your house can go full steam for quarter price. As the number of smart devices increases, the prices can auction to higher values. As smart devices get more vogue, we can rely on sporadic power generation more and more.
Right now, the power companies predict usage, with little control, with smart energy, they can tune usage much more efficiently.
Storm
Fistfight in a tunnel
on
Hacking VIM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I for one would rather use emacs, but if key combinations like ctrl+alt+meta+% are beyond your manual dexterity, the best vi clone is vigor
A few years ago, I modified all of the system test environments at my workplace so that vi was just an alias to vigor. All of the administrators were thrilled with vigor's responses, including everyone's favorite: 'You pressed the right arrow key. Push OK to continue'. No OS can be considered mature (or senile) if Vigor isn't installed by default.
ok, this one got me.. Why sysadmins go for vim.. first it's everywhere, which has been covers an-nauseum here.. But it doesn't need jack except the escape key to get through a system. Alt tab on a windows box, and poof, youve gone to a new window.. and it didnt do jack to your emacs session. VIM just needs escape..
yes, Emacs can be set up great, and windows to ignore alt tab, and a myriad of other things. But VIM is slick, migrating from VI acolyte to EMACS is just heresy
No instructor wants to be handed in a paper that is a rehash of a wikipedia article. However the students would be idiots not to check the wikipedia entry. If I saw a paper where the student didnt consider a main point that was covered in the wikipedia article, I'd leave some bad marks.
By the time your in grad school for a particular topic, youve already been biased by wikipedia articles, as youve nearly memorized dozens of them specifically for your major. By that time it's usefull as a quick place to find articles via the bibliography.
Damaged Hexose-Isomerases. Basically they change one type of sugar to a very similar type. Luckily you can afford to have some damage to a few as others will hold things together. Anyway, the right types of sugars can make these people feel peppy.
Remember the amount of single parent families out there prevent a solid background for quite a large portion of the population. So the things that you may take for granted, ie knowing that your Dad had diabetes, other people never know. So the problems that hit later in life might be handled sooner, and more effectively.
So, out of curiosity, at this point (given the evidence we have in favor of evolution) what would we have to find to disprove it? Since the ability to be proved false stands at the core of the criticism of ID.
I'm not trying to argue for ID - I think it's a load of bullocks and evolution has a whole lot of research going for it. I'm just curious for those of us who didn't have to take more than high school bio what would actually prove evolution false?
This might take a bit, so bear with me..
Evolution is based on a concept of common ancestry, and that speciation occurs in the branches, where organisms can no longer interbreed. This means that you can build a tree of life that is untangled between major branches, with minor tangling of the twigs within a branch. (theres quite a bit more to evolution, but these are the parts I'm using)..
So a reptile can mutate to get hair, passing the trait to its progeny. Eventually those progeny have a vast array of variation in their hair. The hair becomes more advanced (hollow hairs in the case of the Pronghorn). Now this bit of evolution is a pretty advanced piece of work.
Now to disprove Evolution we need to show that this trait shows up in another major branch of life IE find a tangle. So if we can find a plant with these kinds of hairs, or a bird that has the same kind of hair, were golden. Now since we classify all things with hair as mammals we might never find a bird with hair. So we could look for something more useful from birds in mammals.
Birds have a four cycle lung which is more efficient than the mammalian 2 cycle lung, because it vents nearly all the waste gases in each breath. If we found a mammal with a four cycle lung, that could also be evidence that something is wrong with our theory of evolution.
So then there is the platypus, a mammal that lays eggs, is that evidence? Since we're pretty sure that reptiles were the forbearer's of mammals, then mammals can still have the egg laying apparatus from the reptilian side. So the branches haven't been crossed.
So to disprove evolution you need to find highly evolved traits which don't appear to exist in a common ancestor, but are copied nearly exactly. (so birds and bats flying doesn't count, because the wings aren't even close to being similar)
Storm
p.s. for you ID advocates, happy hunting. Find where the designer is cutting and pasting at the top levels, and you have a way better case...
Explain that somehow the source code got onto the internet from your company.. Then let a higher up know, the some of their code got leaked.
Then let them figure out the truth, and get indignant with your boss.
A sleazy thing to do to a sleazy guy
Storm
p.s. The correct answer is to get your boss and his in a room, and explain the situation. And more than likely you'll be stuck re-coding it. And your boss will hate your guts, his boss will be cranky with both of you. But it would be the right way to handle the situation.
Actually If I were wandering space, I would get a total kick out of Luna.. The moon is the exact angular size of the sun.. I'd wonder just how much that changed the baseline superstitions from the norm.. How many times did an Eclipse cause bizarre choices to be made? How much emotion does the moon stir up in people. How much was science held back by having a moon that never appears to rotate? The moon is a huge influence on us, and we're too close to notice, and rarely appreciate it.
??$/gig up to 1.5 tb, plus the cost of a 4G fiber card.
FusionIO is 700 MB/SEC + 87K iops (3x more bandwith, Exceeds SATA 2)
30$/gig up to a 640GB card (19k$)
TMS, its huge and heavy, and blows the doors off either product, and expensive. They have a $150/gb
product that is still pretty fast. 2GB/sec 100K iops (8x more than bitMicro)
Unless the Bitmicro comes in at a price that is below fusionIO ($30/gig) I don't see the point, just buy 3 fusionIO devices in raid-0 and keep your backups recent
Dont get me wrong, I like Reiser4.. But on an SSD?
Reiser is designed to address the physical limitations of an Mechanical Drive. It puts small files in the allocation table, it tries to avoid seeking and fragmentation, and takes a good deal of effort to make sure this happens. THESE are the sterengths of an SSD, fragment all you like, SSD will still be happy. access a bunch of 90 byte config files.. still happy (well ish, the controller will still hate your guts)
ok I'm replying to an AC, but the point remains WHY?
After Sony added the rootkits to their CD-ROMs, I lost trust in them as a company. I figure If I'm one more person who boycotts their blu-ray launch, they might just get a clue how much damage the rootkit did to their customer loyalty.
I'll probably hold the grudge for another five-ish years if they can keep their nose clean.
Slashdot Mirror
This has some big consequences.. that recursion would mean that whatever was a common ancestor would need a common ancestor,, all the way down. and perhaps plants and animals are fundamentally different arising from different organisms, and a few trunks might appear for bugs, fungus, and bacteria..
By choosing traits carefully, a phylogeny was developed, which related animals to each-other.. strangely this worked really well.
Anyway, evolution predicts that there is a tree structure, and that endpoints dont cross over.. so mammals dont get 4 chambered lungs like birds, but might still have some egg laying abilities like reptiles. Not should we see the octopus eye structure in humans. or bug armor on birds. Armadillos will have armor from keratin like a rhino horn, or fingernails.
Anyway, once molecular biology and sequencing came out, it solidly backed the theory.. Phylogeny people have been re-mapping the tree, bacteria took some serious adjustment, larger organism less so.
Now there is a push to generate "ancestral genomes" so that we have an idea of what the predecessor organisms were capable of... and where some of the novel enzymes popped into being. So enzymes which appear to be adaptation from our last ice age might be related in some way to survival of the cold, or eating rodents without GI distress. But with some timing, and some idea of the climate, the flora, and fauna some good guesses can be made as to why a subtle change might have happened.
So evolution theory may help in figuring out why humans stopped making vitamin C, and rats never need a vitamin C pill or fruit in their lifetime.
Or it can confirm things that we might already have guessed.. that humans make less stomach acid during pregnancy might be an evolutionary adaption to morning sickness.. because most pregnant women don't seem to have chronic bulimia problems, ie rotten teeth, esophagus ulcers, which would occur at higher acid concentrations. anyway, once they find the control mechanism I'm betting that it'll point to roughly the time when we started bipedalism.
Yes evolution is science, it does matter, knowing the history of automobiles lets us understand why tempered glass isnt appropriate for a windshield. Knowing the path that our ancestors evolved with lets us know what we should watch out for when we start tinkering.
Storm Storm
2. Troubleshooters are brutally useful.. take an expert with a known problem in his head, and have the troubleshooter (applicant) role-play the diagnostic... If your really bored, prep a full test with some odd code that doesnt work.. coders that cant effectively troubleshoot are not superstars, and are often dead weight.
3. Ask them what they hate... If they use a product X it should have some horrible inconsistencies that they will despise. Programmers have some habits that the compilers just hate, depending on the skill level the coder will have different views on what is bad..
After all of that then you have to find a good place to put them.. you cant feed an algorithm head CSS style sheet problems, they will be malnourished. Then you need to make sure they're on task.. algorithm heads love puzzles and problems.. keeping them working on one that they've solved is almost punishment.. Once you've hit their boredom wall you need to adjust the task so that they're not slogging through the motions.. or re-task them and let a hardened solid coder finish up the dull bits.
Storm
Otherwise they would call it molecular biology. MOLB goes down a whole lot further in scale, and can reliably make things of specific size. etched silicon motors don't even come close to a bacterial motor, size, efficiency, torque. Real nanotech is something that will come more from the biology side. If Molb can figure out folding then mass nanotech wont be far behind. Whereas physics has a whole slew of manufacturing issues to figure out for anything more impressive than sunscreen.
Storm
ok, that was a bit of a troll.. but my karma can take this bite.
2 autodrive-- just like demolition man.
3.auto kiosks. advanced dumb terminal that use your cell phone as the processor wirelessly and securely. encrypted keyboard and monitor to prevent snooping ala keyboard recorder.
4. rfid microwaves.. pop in the meal you want to cook, let the microwave get the cooking info and wham, cooked to the right settings. (rfid as ubiquitous technology) 5. pervasive enabling devices for the elderly.. Once those numbers boom all sorts of silly gadgets will pop up, and quite a few gems should come to light. So expect automatic dog walking collars, which coax the dog to walk within certain parameters.. larger use of automatic bill pay. and huge amounts of snake oil..
6. mini-cars two seater cars in a tandem configuration possibly back to back, 600 lbs mostly carbon fiber. low standard horsepower 25 ish. with an engagable supercharger for quick acceleration. I'd probably go with a compressed air tank to crank the supercharger, and for the inital dose of extra air into the engine, so that the "turbo lag" doesn't happen. In town the car will rock, highway speed, not so good.
7 cheap oleds everywhere.. your cereal box might have animated advertising on it.. I dont expect till near the end of the 25 years..
8. bloody amazing synthetic textiles.. Glycosolated synthetic fibers will have properties normally associated with natural fibers. but once engineered the range of cloth behavior will be much greater than normal, it'll make the neat fabrics of today seem quaint.
happy future
Storm
And the Chinese did manage to recover the data... I cant find the article right off.
Storm
The chinese used some very impressive tech to read the hard drives from a US surveillance plane, where the data was overwritten, and then melted with thermite. Magnetic domains aren't that easy to erase, it like erasing a whiteboard with a slotted eraser, there will still be traces of the magnetic domains even after two rewrites. And the extra data that drives store for CRC info helps a bunch in getting the data right.
Storm
The Platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs like it's reptilian ancestors did. The platypus evolved a great deal on its own, however its adaptations are it's own, its poison is different than snakes or insects. The bill is much different than a ducks. And while it is a mammal. it doesn't have teats, the milk comes out something like sweat would. It is very similar to the echidna, which also lays eggs.
Storm
Whats really intresting then is that while a whole bunch of stuff is recycled, the pattern makes a tree where recycling never seems to occur among plants-mammals-birds, so no four cycle breathing for mammals, no bird milk, no bat fruit.. really strange that with all the shortcuts that were taken, so much separation would be faithfully preserved.
Storm
Two of the big pieces of evolution are common ancestry, and a "tree of life" of phylogenetic tree as scientists use it. The data that we have does in fact build a very good tree of life. Even if the choice of data changes the tree comes out remarkably similar. Generally Ribosomes are used, as they have a low mutation rate. But other markers such as synteny (same ordering of genes) can be used as well. This has been seen, sure with instruments, but its the same with anything small even modern microprocessors. We rely on scientific methods to get data.
Common ancestry is a slam dunk, we have a virtually identical genetic code with every other organism on the planet, other ancestry should have its own codon table.. eukaryotes have the same cell membrane composition... There are literally thousands of pieces of interlinking observations that support evolution.
However to disprove evolution, you would need to find evidence of "cut and paste" along different branches of the tree of life. So find a bat that has four cycle breathing like a bird, and you'll have a monumental paper on your hands. Or a human (heck any mammal) that has chloroplasts.., or a reptile with chitin (bug-shell) armor.
Disproving common ancestry, find a mammal that has a very different codon table.. um good luck with that.
Science is basically a game, like a puzzle, where if a hypothesis fits it gets added until the hypothesis is mucking up the puzzle. Scientists dont care that much about what people think, but they do care if little kids add "magic pieces" to the puzzle and throw a fit when mom says the magic pieces must stay. Scientists want to do the real puzzle, not some puzzle that includes magic pieces.oh the piece of mom saying the magic pieces stay is when school boards say intelligent design is science.
Let the scientists play by the rules, otherwise other scientists snicker behind their backs, and it isnt pretty.
Storm
But the kicker is that unstable power sources can be considered a much more viable source of energy when you can sell the power as it comes. Rather than turning on natural gas turbines, you just reduce the amount of cheap power. Rather than opening spillgates on a hydroelectric dam, you offer cheap power, and every plug in hybrid car in town will suck it down, and all the Air conditioners will kick it down to 70.
The cheap power will always need to have some cap, aka 80% of normal. just so the demand can start in a matter of seconds.
I agree, one device (smartMeter)talks to the power company, the devices talk to the smartmeter.
Storm
The concept of storing the energy as thermal is fine, but reducing the amount of energy swaps is going to be the more efficient way to use the power. The efficiency that they can store energy and re-convert it is going to determine how low a cheap power block can sell for.
Anyway, just a crazy rant.. enjoy,
Storm
dont ask
Storm
Right now, the power companies predict usage, with little control, with smart energy, they can tune usage much more efficiently.
Storm
yes, Emacs can be set up great, and windows to ignore alt tab, and a myriad of other things. But VIM is slick, migrating from VI acolyte to EMACS is just heresy
Storm
By the time your in grad school for a particular topic, youve already been biased by wikipedia articles, as youve nearly memorized dozens of them specifically for your major. By that time it's usefull as a quick place to find articles via the bibliography.
Storm
Remember the amount of single parent families out there prevent a solid background for quite a large portion of the population. So the things that you may take for granted, ie knowing that your Dad had diabetes, other people never know. So the problems that hit later in life might be handled sooner, and more effectively.
Storm
Evolution is based on a concept of common ancestry, and that speciation occurs in the branches, where organisms can no longer interbreed. This means that you can build a tree of life that is untangled between major branches, with minor tangling of the twigs within a branch. (theres quite a bit more to evolution, but these are the parts I'm using).. So a reptile can mutate to get hair, passing the trait to its progeny. Eventually those progeny have a vast array of variation in their hair. The hair becomes more advanced (hollow hairs in the case of the Pronghorn). Now this bit of evolution is a pretty advanced piece of work.
Now to disprove Evolution we need to show that this trait shows up in another major branch of life IE find a tangle. So if we can find a plant with these kinds of hairs, or a bird that has the same kind of hair, were golden. Now since we classify all things with hair as mammals we might never find a bird with hair. So we could look for something more useful from birds in mammals.
Birds have a four cycle lung which is more efficient than the mammalian 2 cycle lung, because it vents nearly all the waste gases in each breath. If we found a mammal with a four cycle lung, that could also be evidence that something is wrong with our theory of evolution.
So then there is the platypus, a mammal that lays eggs, is that evidence? Since we're pretty sure that reptiles were the forbearer's of mammals, then mammals can still have the egg laying apparatus from the reptilian side. So the branches haven't been crossed.
So to disprove evolution you need to find highly evolved traits which don't appear to exist in a common ancestor, but are copied nearly exactly. (so birds and bats flying doesn't count, because the wings aren't even close to being similar)
Storm
p.s. for you ID advocates, happy hunting. Find where the designer is cutting and pasting at the top levels, and you have a way better case...
Then let them figure out the truth, and get indignant with your boss.
A sleazy thing to do to a sleazy guy
Storm
p.s. The correct answer is to get your boss and his in a room, and explain the situation. And more than likely you'll be stuck re-coding it. And your boss will hate your guts, his boss will be cranky with both of you. But it would be the right way to handle the situation.
Storm
??$/gig up to 1.5 tb, plus the cost of a 4G fiber card.
FusionIO is 700 MB/SEC + 87K iops (3x more bandwith, Exceeds SATA 2)
30$/gig up to a 640GB card (19k$)
TMS, its huge and heavy, and blows the doors off either product, and expensive. They have a $150/gb
product that is still pretty fast. 2GB/sec 100K iops (8x more than bitMicro)
Unless the Bitmicro comes in at a price that is below fusionIO ($30/gig) I don't see the point, just buy 3 fusionIO devices in raid-0 and keep your backups recent
Storm
Reiser is designed to address the physical limitations of an Mechanical Drive. It puts small files in the allocation table, it tries to avoid seeking and fragmentation, and takes a good deal of effort to make sure this happens. THESE are the sterengths of an SSD, fragment all you like, SSD will still be happy. access a bunch of 90 byte config files.. still happy (well ish, the controller will still hate your guts)
ok I'm replying to an AC, but the point remains WHY?
Storm
Storm
I'll probably hold the grudge for another five-ish years if they can keep their nose clean.
Storm