With you on the file system...although FileZ has that pretty much hacked in. As for the multiprocessing: I can listen to mp3's while doing anything else I want on my T3...it's a PDA, what else do you want to multiprocess?
Space elevator gets built as soon as we get materials with the tensile strenght. And guess what? We already have: nano-tubes are it...all we need to do now is get them to be longer than they are now:) But there's a lot of people working on that...I'd guess we're gonna see that elevator in our lifetimes. I just wish Arthur C Clarke can be around to see that.
Whilst it's true that you need a lot of energy to achieve orbit, a rocket is actually one of the least efficient ways of accomplishing orbit; the reason they're still used is they're proven technology; this is the mayor one: space tech is some of the most conservative I know of. The stuff works, the tech/science is a knowwn quantity and rocket scientists are very resistant to change.
Anyway, Rutan's approach is quite efficient: launching an aircraft isn't that energyhungry, and getting something from cruising altitude to orbit is also not to bad. In terms of energy, it's actually more effiecient to do it in these two stages than in one single go...one reason being that a rocket goes STRAIGHT UP, instead of conserving energy by developping lift by going forwards (like an airplanes wing does).
And the best thing about Rutans approach? It's scalable:) That means in terms of passengers and fuel...which means that scaling the design gets more people higher:)
Weaponising this must be an absolute bitch! I mean, you can't just shoot antimatter out of a gunbarrel (or more likely accellerate it with EM fields) as-is: as soon as it hits the air you'd get interaction with real matter:) So you'd have to encase it in it's own little containment unit which breaks on impact or gets the matter-antimatter reaction going on impact: we're talking bombs only, I'd guess. Man, this would be damn interesting to work on...only you can just wait for Oppenheimer's thoughts to start haunting you.
.jp means it's a japanese. A uni server means the server is part of a university, which are always connected to very high-bandwidth internet connections (the proverbial 'phat pipes'). And pdf's are icky becuase they're a closed format which take up too much space, are reader-unfriendly and are only suitable to print...and seeing as we're on the internet and like tree's, why post stuff you wanna read once and then forget in a format meant to be printed?
Actually, no. That rationale for nukes is does not work anymore; there is no MAD, no country against which to have a detente.
If a nuke is used, it will be by a terrorist organisation, not a country. So a nuclear answer is impossible; one cannaot nuke a terrorist organisation. As for countries; even if China where to nuke the US, the firepower in ordinary TNT is deterant enough, and can create destruction enough, that nukes aren't neede anymore.
The use of nukes is now unjustifiably abhorent; the sterilise peices of land for too long (just look at the sky high cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Every dollar spent on nuclear weapons (note that I didn't say power) except for disarmament is one dollar the so-called military-industrial complex which past presidents have warned against is earning over the back of the taxpayer.
I don't know anything about blindness, but do know something about being visipon impaired, 'cause I'm lucky to still be able to get 85% vision with my glasses/contacts.
So what I'd do with photoshop (appart from resizing with a couple of filters) is to change the colours around so you get some mayor contrast going on. White for the countries, purple for the borders, or something like that.
Anyway, without knowing more about the particular way in which this kid/can/ percieve, I'm not much more help, really.
What about amateur satalites? Google for it, and you'll find not only amateur/student designed and launched ones, but you'll even find a german collaborative launch to mars. And just look at what Burt Rutan is doing; not entirely amateur, but in a game which is usually reserbed for mayor governments, I think his company can be classified as a pro-am in comparison.
So your final comment is correct, but it's scope is, I think, grander than you'd realise.
Have you ever done a bungiejump? You basically sign away all responsibility the bungiejump-organiser has towards you. So why would this have to be different?
I know that 'that's the way it is'...which is exactly why I'm whining: I don't want the 'luxury version'...I want the stripped down, basic, no-extra-work-put-into-them-exept-digitisation(-wh ich-costs-nothing-as-studios-are-doing-that-for-pr eservation/archival-purposes-anyway) version. Not only that, but I, and many with me, are decrying Lucas' business sense, as we all know we'd buy that version in a heartbeat and that the profits would well-commiserate the outlay on production of said version.
In simple terms: Lucas makes what we want, and he makes a shitload of money: artistry doesn't come into it, especially when he makes mass-media-art...the customer is always right (in much the same way that 'Brazil' by Terry Gilliam finally found the form it was meant to have, ie the form the custumorts (and luckily Terry himself) wanted it).
I fully agree...winxp is the only MS OS that I actually would have bought. Then I looked at the price, and saw the sudden pricehike from something like a hundred bucks to three-four times that. I mean, wtf? That is just not normal. They lost a sale there and then. And the sad thing is, I would have bought it at win98 prices. Oh well...seems MS has no fucking clue what the term 'price elasticity' means.
So why TF don't you just re-use the license key on that so-called legitemate machine you 'fix'? I mean, if you can get windows in safe mode, it's dead simple, and if you have to boot from dos or whatever, it's only marginally more difficult.
I mean, it's only the license key MS checks...and even for OEM installs, that should be legit...so what is your problem exactly?
Uhuh...and then I have to buy a laserdisk player too? And pay a nice premium to have the lot shipped overseas? And I need extra space in my room? And a switch for my tv, or pull wires for my dedicated Star Wars player? Now I am a geek, but I'm not that much of a geek to get something/that/ single-use. Plus, being a student, I don't have that kind of money to burn for something so limited.
"The fact that you can still see the original movie if you want"
But that's the whole point: you can't. Not really. Can I go out and buy the originals? No. I can only buy a version I don't want or like; where character progression has been changed from their original paths, and which ends with a wrong Darth Vader and a disco on the planets.
The only way to get the originals is to buy really old (and therefore degraded) VHS tapes, even more unfindable Laserdisc discs & find a player from somewhere; or become this pirate Lucas is so scared of and download the roiginals from a torrent somewhere. And out of all those options, the only one readily available to most people is the last: watch a bad reconstruction, or do something illagal. Maybe npow you can get why people are 'whining'.
Dude, you really don't get it, do you? The poster obviously knows the original phrase: he's just repeating a rephrased version editors (might?) use, because that better describes what they do. The paraphrased saying shows you what really happens, as oposed to the hackneyed saying which is what everyone uses. He even explains that (up to a point) in his post.
My god...I can't beleive I'm trying to explain this...go get a clue about satire, you pedantic clod.
Whilst what you say is true, we are now past the point of what you call 'early extrapolation'. We have modern scientific data spanning 50 years, and infered data spanning well before that time, due to ship logs, weather records spanning to the 16th century and even sketchier data from (literaly) millenia back.
There is pretty much direct correlation between the use of 'modern' chemicals (fuels, pfc's etc) and global temperature rise [for example]. Same with the occurence of catastrophic weather patterns (droughts, floods, cyclones etc). We can see this correlation and it looks like two exponential graphs plotted against each other (with loads of stuff filtered and taken into account for)...the correlation is so great that even if we stopped using every harmfull substance (which just won't happen...we have trouble even cutting the growth of pollutants by a couple of percent!), we are still in for a heavy ride. But seeing as we won't even reach stable levels, you can sure as hell say that the temperature won't level off, or that the weather will improve anytime soon.
These things are now accepted by damn near everyone who studies these things (you know, the guys&gals who spent at least 4 years at a university, and probably more doing postgrad research, and then went to work in that field). The exact details are still debatable, but the effect just isn't: it is there, it is going to happen, and it just amazes me that people can ignore the science like that and say 'well, I don't think that's gonna be a problem at all', when smarter people than they, who have spent their lives in that field, are not just saying it will happen, but are now just sad that no-one will listen to them.
Oh, and you're right: the trend of gravity might just stop any minute now...it just ain't likely, so you'll have to work on the assumption that it won't.
And you know what the real kicker is? I'm not some eco-nut. I'm just a guy who got shown the just a fraction of the data and had it explained to me by a guy who works at the national meteorological institute. What scared me most was that he was sadly resigned to the situation.
I'm just stunned. There is a reason why I refered you to people who know what they are talking about, because you obviously not only don't, but haven't even bothered to keep up with current thinking on all subjects.
"However, catastrophic is just hyperbole. The best case scenarios are hardly noticeable in the natural variation, and the worst case scenarious are no longer on a threat to civilization scale."
As I said, go talk to some environmental scientists. Catastrophic is not hyperbole, it is an accurate extrapolation of what the data tells us. And that is data corrected for the obvious, with the errorbars in no way allowing for a 'doomsday scenario'. Really, this is not spin, or green-tree-hugger-rhetoric. It is the way scientists now look at the problem. Go talk to people who know. Go to a university and ask a number of professors, or just go to the local climatological institute and inform yourself.
As for the EU...again, keep yourself informed. If you can't hear the rumblings going on...you really aren't listening. Start by having a look at how decisions are made at the European level (the different councils etc), and have a look at the mayor decisions which have been made (or more to the point, the ones which haven't!). If you think that Yugoslavia was the tragic exception, you don't know nearly enough. Just have a look at how Poland is funded now and how being part of the EU has changed it's income. Also keep in mind that 1 out of 5/germans/ want the wall put back in place. Not just think that it was better in the old days, but want that wall back!
As for C. You really have no clue. You didn't even bother to look up any UN reports. This: "the global trend is increasing wealth for both poor and rich, and even narrowing the gap between countries" is just not true. The global trend (as supported by the UN and many, many other independant studies) is that wealth is being concentrated (consoledated)in a smaller and smaller group. Furthermore, more and more people hyave no direct access to something as basic as potable water. Read that again: the number of people who can't drink plain water is increasing. The fact that there is a UN NGO which deals only with water should tell you enough.
"The climatic changes will not be more catastrophic than we can deal with them"
This is mopst likely not true; ask any climatologist...and by that I mean people who have finished their studies, not someone who buggered off after the first year; climate change is here, it's happenening and it is going to catastrophic. That is the general scientific consensus; the only debate is on the/exact/ effects.
"Today, war between the EU members seem impossible"
I think maybe you missed the fact that 15 new eastbocl states just signed on, and Turkey really wants to. The EU is a decent enough idea, but when countries with too different viewpoints join up, you are going to see tairs in the structure.
"I'm not sure the gap between rich an poor is widening, on a global scale"
It is, go look at some UN studies. Hell, the gape between the poor and rich in the US is the widest it has ever been, right now.
"Chaos theory does not apply to all statistical systems"
Whilst this is true, you would actually be glad that the system you're studying is found to be chaotic; that means you have more tools to study, describe and extrapolate the system than if it where purely random.
I really hope you can appreciate the irony of your statement about electricity and North Korea when very recently the US proved it has some (recently discovered to be chronic and endemic) problems with/it's/ electric system too. And remember, it wasn't just New York, but the South had rolling problems too.
No. The problem is that Harrison Ford wouldn't be the one playing Han Solo...it would probably be Ben Stiller. Which would suck. Han Solo isn't James Bond; replacing the actor doesn't work for this kind of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
With you on the file system...although FileZ has that pretty much hacked in. As for the multiprocessing: I can listen to mp3's while doing anything else I want on my T3...it's a PDA, what else do you want to multiprocess?
Space elevator gets built as soon as we get materials with the tensile strenght. And guess what? We already have: nano-tubes are it...all we need to do now is get them to be longer than they are now :) But there's a lot of people working on that...I'd guess we're gonna see that elevator in our lifetimes. I just wish Arthur C Clarke can be around to see that.
Athough you are kinda correct, you're also not :)
:) That means in terms of passengers and fuel...which means that scaling the design gets more people higher :)
Whilst it's true that you need a lot of energy to achieve orbit, a rocket is actually one of the least efficient ways of accomplishing orbit; the reason they're still used is they're proven technology; this is the mayor one: space tech is some of the most conservative I know of. The stuff works, the tech/science is a knowwn quantity and rocket scientists are very resistant to change.
Anyway, Rutan's approach is quite efficient: launching an aircraft isn't that energyhungry, and getting something from cruising altitude to orbit is also not to bad. In terms of energy, it's actually more effiecient to do it in these two stages than in one single go...one reason being that a rocket goes STRAIGHT UP, instead of conserving energy by developping lift by going forwards (like an airplanes wing does).
And the best thing about Rutans approach? It's scalable
Weaponising this must be an absolute bitch! I mean, you can't just shoot antimatter out of a gunbarrel (or more likely accellerate it with EM fields) as-is: as soon as it hits the air you'd get interaction with real matter :)
So you'd have to encase it in it's own little containment unit which breaks on impact or gets the matter-antimatter reaction going on impact: we're talking bombs only, I'd guess.
Man, this would be damn interesting to work on...only you can just wait for Oppenheimer's thoughts to start haunting you.
.jp means it's a japanese. A uni server means the server is part of a university, which are always connected to very high-bandwidth internet connections (the proverbial 'phat pipes'). And pdf's are icky becuase they're a closed format which take up too much space, are reader-unfriendly and are only suitable to print...and seeing as we're on the internet and like tree's, why post stuff you wanna read once and then forget in a format meant to be printed?
"Look, we have a military to defend ourselves."
Absolutely untrue. In the past century, when has the US military been used for defense? Never: it has solely been used as an offensive force.
Actually, no. That rationale for nukes is does not work anymore; there is no MAD, no country against which to have a detente.
If a nuke is used, it will be by a terrorist organisation, not a country. So a nuclear answer is impossible; one cannaot nuke a terrorist organisation. As for countries; even if China where to nuke the US, the firepower in ordinary TNT is deterant enough, and can create destruction enough, that nukes aren't neede anymore.
The use of nukes is now unjustifiably abhorent; the sterilise peices of land for too long (just look at the sky high cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Every dollar spent on nuclear weapons (note that I didn't say power) except for disarmament is one dollar the so-called military-industrial complex which past presidents have warned against is earning over the back of the taxpayer.
I don't know anything about blindness, but do know something about being visipon impaired, 'cause I'm lucky to still be able to get 85% vision with my glasses/contacts.
/can/ percieve, I'm not much more help, really.
So what I'd do with photoshop (appart from resizing with a couple of filters) is to change the colours around so you get some mayor contrast going on. White for the countries, purple for the borders, or something like that.
Anyway, without knowing more about the particular way in which this kid
What about amateur satalites? Google for it, and you'll find not only amateur/student designed and launched ones, but you'll even find a german collaborative launch to mars. And just look at what Burt Rutan is doing; not entirely amateur, but in a game which is usually reserbed for mayor governments, I think his company can be classified as a pro-am in comparison.
So your final comment is correct, but it's scope is, I think, grander than you'd realise.
Have you ever done a bungiejump? You basically sign away all responsibility the bungiejump-organiser has towards you. So why would this have to be different?
Sounds like liquid crystals, only without the electricity...
Why would Pixar want to team up with Disney again? It's much more profitable for them to finally go on their own...
I know that 'that's the way it is'...which is exactly why I'm whining: I don't want the 'luxury version'...I want the stripped down, basic, no-extra-work-put-into-them-exept-digitisation(-wh ich-costs-nothing-as-studios-are-doing-that-for-pr eservation/archival-purposes-anyway) version. Not only that, but I, and many with me, are decrying Lucas' business sense, as we all know we'd buy that version in a heartbeat and that the profits would well-commiserate the outlay on production of said version.
In simple terms: Lucas makes what we want, and he makes a shitload of money: artistry doesn't come into it, especially when he makes mass-media-art...the customer is always right (in much the same way that 'Brazil' by Terry Gilliam finally found the form it was meant to have, ie the form the custumorts (and luckily Terry himself) wanted it).
I fully agree...winxp is the only MS OS that I actually would have bought. Then I looked at the price, and saw the sudden pricehike from something like a hundred bucks to three-four times that. I mean, wtf? That is just not normal. They lost a sale there and then. And the sad thing is, I would have bought it at win98 prices. Oh well...seems MS has no fucking clue what the term 'price elasticity' means.
Keygens get 'round this, I'd think (depending on the algorithm, of course).
So why TF don't you just re-use the license key on that so-called legitemate machine you 'fix'? I mean, if you can get windows in safe mode, it's dead simple, and if you have to boot from dos or whatever, it's only marginally more difficult.
I mean, it's only the license key MS checks...and even for OEM installs, that should be legit...so what is your problem exactly?
Uhuh...and then I have to buy a laserdisk player too? And pay a nice premium to have the lot shipped overseas? And I need extra space in my room? And a switch for my tv, or pull wires for my dedicated Star Wars player? /that/ single-use. Plus, being a student, I don't have that kind of money to burn for something so limited.
Now I am a geek, but I'm not that much of a geek to get something
"The fact that you can still see the original movie if you want"
But that's the whole point: you can't. Not really. Can I go out and buy the originals? No. I can only buy a version I don't want or like; where character progression has been changed from their original paths, and which ends with a wrong Darth Vader and a disco on the planets.
The only way to get the originals is to buy really old (and therefore degraded) VHS tapes, even more unfindable Laserdisc discs & find a player from somewhere; or become this pirate Lucas is so scared of and download the roiginals from a torrent somewhere.
And out of all those options, the only one readily available to most people is the last: watch a bad reconstruction, or do something illagal. Maybe npow you can get why people are 'whining'.
Dude, you really don't get it, do you? The poster obviously knows the original phrase: he's just repeating a rephrased version editors (might?) use, because that better describes what they do. The paraphrased saying shows you what really happens, as oposed to the hackneyed saying which is what everyone uses. He even explains that (up to a point) in his post.
My god...I can't beleive I'm trying to explain this...go get a clue about satire, you pedantic clod.
Whilst what you say is true, we are now past the point of what you call 'early extrapolation'. We have modern scientific data spanning 50 years, and infered data spanning well before that time, due to ship logs, weather records spanning to the 16th century and even sketchier data from (literaly) millenia back.
There is pretty much direct correlation between the use of 'modern' chemicals (fuels, pfc's etc) and global temperature rise [for example]. Same with the occurence of catastrophic weather patterns (droughts, floods, cyclones etc). We can see this correlation and it looks like two exponential graphs plotted against each other (with loads of stuff filtered and taken into account for)...the correlation is so great that even if we stopped using every harmfull substance (which just won't happen...we have trouble even cutting the growth of pollutants by a couple of percent!), we are still in for a heavy ride. But seeing as we won't even reach stable levels, you can sure as hell say that the temperature won't level off, or that the weather will improve anytime soon.
These things are now accepted by damn near everyone who studies these things (you know, the guys&gals who spent at least 4 years at a university, and probably more doing postgrad research, and then went to work in that field). The exact details are still debatable, but the effect just isn't: it is there, it is going to happen, and it just amazes me that people can ignore the science like that and say 'well, I don't think that's gonna be a problem at all', when smarter people than they, who have spent their lives in that field, are not just saying it will happen, but are now just sad that no-one will listen to them.
Oh, and you're right: the trend of gravity might just stop any minute now...it just ain't likely, so you'll have to work on the assumption that it won't.
And you know what the real kicker is? I'm not some eco-nut. I'm just a guy who got shown the just a fraction of the data and had it explained to me by a guy who works at the national meteorological institute. What scared me most was that he was sadly resigned to the situation.
I'm just stunned. There is a reason why I refered you to people who know what they are talking about, because you obviously not only don't, but haven't even bothered to keep up with current thinking on all subjects.
/germans/ want the wall put back in place. Not just think that it was better in the old days, but want that wall back!
"However, catastrophic is just hyperbole. The best case scenarios are hardly noticeable in the natural variation, and the worst case scenarious are no longer on a threat to civilization scale."
As I said, go talk to some environmental scientists. Catastrophic is not hyperbole, it is an accurate extrapolation of what the data tells us. And that is data corrected for the obvious, with the errorbars in no way allowing for a 'doomsday scenario'. Really, this is not spin, or green-tree-hugger-rhetoric. It is the way scientists now look at the problem. Go talk to people who know. Go to a university and ask a number of professors, or just go to the local climatological institute and inform yourself.
As for the EU...again, keep yourself informed. If you can't hear the rumblings going on...you really aren't listening. Start by having a look at how decisions are made at the European level (the different councils etc), and have a look at the mayor decisions which have been made (or more to the point, the ones which haven't!). If you think that Yugoslavia was the tragic exception, you don't know nearly enough. Just have a look at how Poland is funded now and how being part of the EU has changed it's income. Also keep in mind that 1 out of 5
As for C. You really have no clue. You didn't even bother to look up any UN reports. This:
"the global trend is increasing wealth for both poor and rich, and even narrowing the gap between countries" is just not true. The global trend (as supported by the UN and many, many other independant studies) is that wealth is being concentrated (consoledated)in a smaller and smaller group. Furthermore, more and more people hyave no direct access to something as basic as potable water. Read that again: the number of people who can't drink plain water is increasing. The fact that there is a UN NGO which deals only with water should tell you enough.
Just a couple of retorst:
/exact/ effects.
"The climatic changes will not be more catastrophic than we can deal with them"
This is mopst likely not true; ask any climatologist...and by that I mean people who have finished their studies, not someone who buggered off after the first year; climate change is here, it's happenening and it is going to catastrophic. That is the general scientific consensus; the only debate is on the
"Today, war between the EU members seem impossible"
I think maybe you missed the fact that 15 new eastbocl states just signed on, and Turkey really wants to. The EU is a decent enough idea, but when countries with too different viewpoints join up, you are going to see tairs in the structure.
"I'm not sure the gap between rich an poor is widening, on a global scale"
It is, go look at some UN studies. Hell, the gape between the poor and rich in the US is the widest it has ever been, right now.
"Chaos theory does not apply to all statistical systems"
Whilst this is true, you would actually be glad that the system you're studying is found to be chaotic; that means you have more tools to study, describe and extrapolate the system than if it where purely random.
I really hope you can appreciate the irony of your statement about electricity and North Korea when very recently the US proved it has some (recently discovered to be chronic and endemic) problems with /it's/ electric system too. And remember, it wasn't just New York, but the South had rolling problems too.
No. The problem is that Harrison Ford wouldn't be the one playing Han Solo...it would probably be Ben Stiller. Which would suck. Han Solo isn't James Bond; replacing the actor doesn't work for this kind of thing.