That's why for reliability they will need either uranium reactor of tritium reactor or both.
Recent (August'2003) events have shown that we still manage geographically distributed power infrastructures very badly. 18-36 hours of power outage - that was in North America, where we have support people everywhere.
Any damage on Moon might make much longer outages due to lack of support people (how many will be there all time?) and their transportation infrastructure (I guess no convinient roads there build yet).
That's why for reliability, even if they will decide to go primarily with solar energy on Moon, they will need some reactors just for a case if solar power generating infrastructure is going temporary down.
The major difference (still - even nowadays!) is in education: US schools and universities mostly teach how to count money and manage people. I can tell it from own experience after talking to and working with many people across US, both natural-borns and recently-naturalized. Somehow Europians managed to keep old adademic style of their education.
For me, the best think about it is a competition. Look how Postgres guys immidiately begin to compare it to PgAdmin and other PostgreSQL DB admin tools (IMHO, which GUI are unfortunately really poor, by the way) - same as they usually do comparing MySQL to PostgreSQL (which DBMS is very good, by the way). What does it change for software? Developers on both sides are more motivated to make it better. What does it change for me? I have better databases and db tools. So, it's good.
Look, guys, it's all about data management. The better GUI is the more complicated data can be managed. And that means more chances that MySQL developers will understand that in order to manage complicated data you have to have ACID. So, with MySQL v6 perhaps non-transactional updates will be more exception then a default rule.
On the other side, the better GUI MySQL has got is the more motivation PostgreSQL guys will have to improve PgAdmin. So, the more chances that with PostgreSQL v8 we'll rarely hear here "Postgre... who?" The name will begin being recocognized not only by experts.
On the other-other side (how many sides do I have?), I am thinking about better data-querying tool for ZODB. And MySQL GUI is a good source of good ideas.
As I said on my second though: the best solution to transfer it to the Earth is not to transfer it at all. Instead, bring inudstrial energy-consuming plants to the Moon and send periodically hi-cost industrial products back to the earth.
In the case of Chernobyl, the Russian government stole a US design, built a reactor, and assigned engineers who didn't understand how it worked.
I spoke in person with engineers and nuclear physists who worked with Academic Alexandroff, who was a project leader to design Leningrad reactor which design has been used later in Chernobyl. Those guys know how it works. Moreover, Soviet nuclear phisists, who designed first Soviet nuclear bomb (Kurchatov and others) new exactly how nuclear physics works.
It was US engineers who learned from German physists. Saying that Soviet Nuclear engineers do not understand how the reactor works is the sign that you watch way too much TV and read way to many tabloids. Your brains are washed by US propaganda.
Coming back to Chernobyl, the Leningrad reactor was innovative in many ideas to reduce the cost of protection. That created an illusion that it's absolutely safe. It is safe, but not absolutely, just more safe than other reactors of that time. When its design has been re-applied in Chernobyl, they made more shortcuts on safity, thinking that it's safe anyway. Not only design shortcuts, but also in the technological process of the construction as well as n in organization of its support (like shift and like that). We all know the result.
If the fusion reactor will be made stable then why even bringing the fuel to the Earth? Instead, bring the reactor to the Moon, make the energy there and transfer the energy back to the earth in a form of a laser beam or something.
On a second thought, why even transfer energy to the Earth? Instead, transfer energy consumers to the Moon. And I meand *real* consumers, like allimium metal plants and like that. That means a heavy machinery industry. Bring it to the Moon, while keep the Earth for flower gardens and swimming pools:)
By the way, Lisp vs Python comparison by the famous AI hacker Peter Norvig is way better as it's more objective (less biassed) and it has very important details and very clear examples.
Any function can be defined anonymously, via the lambda keyword.
Is supported by a standard (R5RS, IEEE)
Makes it easy to program in a functional style, i.e., without side effects.
Supports macros.
Mathematically oriented, rather then processor oriented, numeric model.
Supports fairly optimized compilation to native code.
As we can see most of points are serious arguments saying that Scheme is better designed as a language due to its original FP design.
Python has the following advantages to Scheme:
Standard object system (OTOH, "Any scheme programmer has written an object system, sometimes two")
Many builtin or standard functions for easy programmings, such as regular expressions or Internet connectivity.
Many builtin data types.
Relatively main-stream syntax.
One standard implementation: easy to write extension modules in a systems programming language (C/Java).
Main-stream control structures (while, for).
Dispite #1 all other points are weak and don't keep any water.
I call it biased because it's abvious from the above (counting the weakness of the second group arguments) that Scheme is superior, but the comparison author wants Python to look as good as Scheme.
I understand and appreciate when Python language designers bring one by one FP features to the language, but please be honest - Python is still not there yet in terms of having a real power of a FP language.
Having said all that I can add that personally I consider Python as the most power among all other non-FP languages (Python was not originally designed as FP, it's aquired some FP features later).
Due to traditional lack of math education among most of programmers around me I usually have a very hard time to ask them to use FP methods and a FP style. That's why I don't have any chances to ask them to use Lisp or Haskell or ML with me in the same project we work together. As for Python I have such chances: Java programmers find Python's OOP style convinient for them, while Tcl and Perl programmer love that Python is a scripting language.
Don't ask about C and C++ programmers - they are a lost case, when they write applications. Kernel and DB and library programming is fine on C IMHO, but not application logic.
I don't know what is that Duke. But I know what is E17... or what is E17 supposed to be after being released. It's been too long already (3 years?) for me to lose any hope to see it working.
Yeah, I like. And I use Arhitypes in my projects too for the very same reason. However each time I am thinking about other people and that's why I use only stable Architypes. but PCNG guys requre Arhitypes from CVS HEAD, and THAT make PCNG unusable for normal site for at least half of year. If not longer. Ignoring other users is not the best type of behaviour we can find in Open Source.
While I agree that plone is better documented then zope I disagree that it's "easy".
Plone is still in a deep lack of being documented. For example "Plone for web-designers" is till missed. Many API details I still have to get from the source code itself.
Also, one of the best Plone's documentation is a set of already existing and still being actively developed Plone applications.
But in general Plone still keeps guiding app developers, and thus leaves them more chances for future interoperability.
I wish that one of issue collectors/trackers in Plone will stabilize. Currently I use CollectorNG, which can already beat Bugzilla. I am not sure what PloneCollector developers want to achive by completely rewriting CollectorNG. As for official Zope/Plone issue collectors - they are kind of primitive.
Another wish: Zope and Plone sites will have forums with functionality of CMBoard, which I think is beating PHPBB already.
I dunno about anyone else who uses Solaris out there, but I've _never_ seen a Sun machine lock up hard, such that a Reset Button would have been the solution...
Here is the list of equipment locked up to the point we had turn off power in order to make it running again:
Ultra-10
Enterprise E450
Enterprise E4500
In any next project we would need something big that cannot be x86 - I would strongly recommend Power4 or G5 based big irons.
Sounds like a chalengeable task to me (my university education was partially around gyros-based sattelitte-control systems). I cannot believe NASA labs cannot gather a team that would solve such a problem.
Saudi is a place of camels. That means Perl. I don't like Perl for its over-obfuscated syntax abd semantics oriented mostly for pipes.
I do like Python. I heard there are lots of pythons in Australia. Perhaps I should move there. Besides, I don't have to change a style of my clothes there.
Yes, I remember death vikings were seeding wherever they came to conquer, rob and rape.
Remember Columbus' sailing ships?
Yes I remember the death Spanish conquistadors brought to Latin America killing millions of Inidans and destrouying civilizations just for Gold.
Remember the Conestoga wagons?
Yes, I remember the death white coloizers were seeding among Indian tribes around. asically the whole Indian population was wiped out from the whole continent, living just microscopically-small groups in so called reservations (read: prison camps).
Remember the first steps off this planet? and onto another world?
Just wait a bit for front-page news about our next brave, excellent and efficient compaign that has destroyed all those uncultural aborigenes on other plannets.
Why distroy it in athmosphere? If they are going to send a robot to correct Hubble's destroyment anyway then why not combine efforts with Russians and for cheaper price send such robots to correct Hubble's orbit back to normal on a regular basis?
I guess the only explanation of why not is in political reasons.
It will be enabled when it will be developed (up to the quaility it could be offcially canonicized).
It will be developed when someone will need it enough to spend own money for own in-house devloping it and then contributed back to Mozilla's CVS.
Money will be spent for developing it when market for SVG will be there.
Market for SVG will be there when people will be unhappy with Macromedia Flash.
People who use Macromedia Flash have no clue about web-technologies. And they don't pay for Flash, its runtime is free, its flash developers who have to pay for it. But they have to do it anyway as their customers (like advertisers) pay for it. And advertisers do not care either about web-techs.
But it's not that dead-end. Kiosk developers can put into kiosks whatever they like as end-users do not hae to install anything. So, I can predict that it is a big chance that first company who will make a good donation of SVG code into Mozilla (good enough to officialize it) will be a kiosk company.
Elephant is on the logo of PostgreSQL, which is also coming from Berkley historically. I guess Rhino, who lives close to Elephants, will remind that fact. Besides, that thing on its head reminds me existing BSD daemon head:)
Slashdot Mirror
Recent (August'2003) events have shown that we still manage geographically distributed power infrastructures very badly. 18-36 hours of power outage - that was in North America, where we have support people everywhere.
Any damage on Moon might make much longer outages due to lack of support people (how many will be there all time?) and their transportation infrastructure (I guess no convinient roads there build yet).
That's why for reliability, even if they will decide to go primarily with solar energy on Moon, they will need some reactors just for a case if solar power generating infrastructure is going temporary down.
The major difference (still - even nowadays!) is in education: US schools and universities mostly teach how to count money and manage people. I can tell it from own experience after talking to and working with many people across US, both natural-borns and recently-naturalized. Somehow Europians managed to keep old adademic style of their education.
Look, guys, it's all about data management. The better GUI is the more complicated data can be managed. And that means more chances that MySQL developers will understand that in order to manage complicated data you have to have ACID. So, with MySQL v6 perhaps non-transactional updates will be more exception then a default rule.
On the other side, the better GUI MySQL has got is the more motivation PostgreSQL guys will have to improve PgAdmin. So, the more chances that with PostgreSQL v8 we'll rarely hear here "Postgre... who?" The name will begin being recocognized not only by experts.
On the other-other side (how many sides do I have?), I am thinking about better data-querying tool for ZODB. And MySQL GUI is a good source of good ideas.
As I said on my second though: the best solution to transfer it to the Earth is not to transfer it at all. Instead, bring inudstrial energy-consuming plants to the Moon and send periodically hi-cost industrial products back to the earth.
I spoke in person with engineers and nuclear physists who worked with Academic Alexandroff, who was a project leader to design Leningrad reactor which design has been used later in Chernobyl. Those guys know how it works. Moreover, Soviet nuclear phisists, who designed first Soviet nuclear bomb (Kurchatov and others) new exactly how nuclear physics works.
It was US engineers who learned from German physists. Saying that Soviet Nuclear engineers do not understand how the reactor works is the sign that you watch way too much TV and read way to many tabloids. Your brains are washed by US propaganda.
Coming back to Chernobyl, the Leningrad reactor was innovative in many ideas to reduce the cost of protection. That created an illusion that it's absolutely safe. It is safe, but not absolutely, just more safe than other reactors of that time. When its design has been re-applied in Chernobyl, they made more shortcuts on safity, thinking that it's safe anyway. Not only design shortcuts, but also in the technological process of the construction as well as n in organization of its support (like shift and like that). We all know the result.
On a second thought, why even transfer energy to the Earth? Instead, transfer energy consumers to the Moon. And I meand *real* consumers, like allimium metal plants and like that. That means a heavy machinery industry. Bring it to the Moon, while keep the Earth for flower gardens and swimming pools :)
If they are dead - it's their sentence. If they survive - it's their amnisty. And a part of their rehabilitation.
As far as I can see from history that's they way Australia begin speaking English - UK sent Britain prisoners to Australia.
Slashdot is now advertising mostly for Microsoft, so what? It doesn't stop up using Slashdot. Yet.
By the way, Lisp vs Python comparison by the famous AI hacker Peter Norvig is way better as it's more objective (less biassed) and it has very important details and very clear examples.
As we can see most of points are serious arguments saying that Scheme is better designed as a language due to its original FP design.
Python has the following advantages to Scheme:
Dispite #1 all other points are weak and don't keep any water.
I call it biased because it's abvious from the above (counting the weakness of the second group arguments) that Scheme is superior, but the comparison author wants Python to look as good as Scheme.
I understand and appreciate when Python language designers bring one by one FP features to the language, but please be honest - Python is still not there yet in terms of having a real power of a FP language.
Having said all that I can add that personally I consider Python as the most power among all other non-FP languages (Python was not originally designed as FP, it's aquired some FP features later).
Due to traditional lack of math education among most of programmers around me I usually have a very hard time to ask them to use FP methods and a FP style. That's why I don't have any chances to ask them to use Lisp or Haskell or ML with me in the same project we work together. As for Python I have such chances: Java programmers find Python's OOP style convinient for them, while Tcl and Perl programmer love that Python is a scripting language.
Don't ask about C and C++ programmers - they are a lost case, when they write applications. Kernel and DB and library programming is fine on C IMHO, but not application logic.
What E17 has to do with Mandrake?
I don't know what is that Duke. But I know what is E17... or what is E17 supposed to be after being released. It's been too long already (3 years?) for me to lose any hope to see it working.
Just as a short form of US Copyright Law Sucks.
Yeah, I like. And I use Arhitypes in my projects too for the very same reason. However each time I am thinking about other people and that's why I use only stable Architypes. but PCNG guys requre Arhitypes from CVS HEAD, and THAT make PCNG unusable for normal site for at least half of year. If not longer. Ignoring other users is not the best type of behaviour we can find in Open Source.
Plone is still in a deep lack of being documented. For example "Plone for web-designers" is till missed. Many API details I still have to get from the source code itself.
Also, one of the best Plone's documentation is a set of already existing and still being actively developed Plone applications.
But in general Plone still keeps guiding app developers, and thus leaves them more chances for future interoperability.
I wish that one of issue collectors/trackers in Plone will stabilize. Currently I use CollectorNG, which can already beat Bugzilla. I am not sure what PloneCollector developers want to achive by completely rewriting CollectorNG. As for official Zope/Plone issue collectors - they are kind of primitive.
Another wish: Zope and Plone sites will have forums with functionality of CMBoard, which I think is beating PHPBB already.
Here is the list of equipment locked up to the point we had turn off power in order to make it running again:
- Ultra-10
- Enterprise E450
- Enterprise E4500
In any next project we would need something big that cannot be x86 - I would strongly recommend Power4 or G5 based big irons.Sounds like a chalengeable task to me (my university education was partially around gyros-based sattelitte-control systems). I cannot believe NASA labs cannot gather a team that would solve such a problem.
I do like Python. I heard there are lots of pythons in Australia. Perhaps I should move there. Besides, I don't have to change a style of my clothes there.
You can program a robot that will measure gyros periodically and do corrections when needed.
Yes, I remember death vikings were seeding wherever they came to conquer, rob and rape.
Remember Columbus' sailing ships?
Yes I remember the death Spanish conquistadors brought to Latin America killing millions of Inidans and destrouying civilizations just for Gold.
Remember the Conestoga wagons?
Yes, I remember the death white coloizers were seeding among Indian tribes around. asically the whole Indian population was wiped out from the whole continent, living just microscopically-small groups in so called reservations (read: prison camps).
Remember the first steps off this planet? and onto another world?
Just wait a bit for front-page news about our next brave, excellent and efficient compaign that has destroyed all those uncultural aborigenes on other plannets.
I guess the only explanation of why not is in political reasons.
What is MMOG?
It will be developed when someone will need it enough to spend own money for own in-house devloping it and then contributed back to Mozilla's CVS.
Money will be spent for developing it when market for SVG will be there.
Market for SVG will be there when people will be unhappy with Macromedia Flash.
People who use Macromedia Flash have no clue about web-technologies. And they don't pay for Flash, its runtime is free, its flash developers who have to pay for it. But they have to do it anyway as their customers (like advertisers) pay for it. And advertisers do not care either about web-techs.
But it's not that dead-end. Kiosk developers can put into kiosks whatever they like as end-users do not hae to install anything. So, I can predict that it is a big chance that first company who will make a good donation of SVG code into Mozilla (good enough to officialize it) will be a kiosk company.
Smart bank cards, GSM in Europe beats US crdit/debit cards and cell phone standards. Now commercial high-speed maglev train.
Why is that? Is there anything wrong with US that it doesn't let the country to lead hi-techs anymore?
Elephant is on the logo of PostgreSQL, which is also coming from Berkley historically. I guess Rhino, who lives close to Elephants, will remind that fact. Besides, that thing on its head reminds me existing BSD daemon head :)