One knee-jerk reaction people have, particularly leftists, is that the watch list is useless and easily evaded, and that it merely exists to make people feel secure.
What is this 'leftist' creature that you talk about? I have seen a dramatic increase in the use of the term in the last couple of years. No doubt its rise in popularity only coincidentally coincides with 2001/09/11. Unfortunately, it seems primarily to be used as a sort of epithet meant to discredit some or other class of opinions. The snobbish might call it an ad hominem attack--the rest of us recognize it as name-calling. His points aren't valid, because he's a leftist.
So, what is this 'leftist' creature? Dusting off my history books, the closest fit seems to be 'Commie'. A bearer of uncomfortable political ideas. Anathema in the halls of power. Dangerous to be seen with anywhere else. Might even get you put on a watch list...
Incidentally, I suspect that the shortcomings of watch lists as enumerated by those wicked 'leftist' sympathizers are valid concerns. Terrorists aren't the only ones with limited resources--if airlines and the government are wasting significant time and effort on a very large proportion of false positives, couldn't that time and effort be better spent elsewhere?
If you want to make sure your hijacking works fly around innocently as "Sam bin Laden" for a few months, get your name on all the "Fly lists," and then hijack a plane.
Yeah, but if you can get convincing fake ID that says "Sam bin Laden", why don't you just get convincing forged identification that reads "Sam Schmidt"?
Aside: Are you ever going to log in? I feel like I'm feeding a troll, here. If you're trying to have an intelligent debate, please stop hiding.
It's the part about obligating SOMEBODY ELSE to make COPIES of your own WORK that nullifies your copyright. Under ordinary circumstances, that activity is prohibited. The GPL does not allow it, under limited conditions. Instead, it makes it MANDATORY under ALL circumstances. If you distribute the objects (allowed) you HAVE to distribute the source (normally prohibited by copyright).
Well, here's the kernel of the problem. You're distinguishing between the source code and the binaries produced from them. To be blunt, there is no distinction between the two under copyright law. I'm afraid that you've been getting bad legal advice. It is perfectly legal and enforceable to distribute both source and binaries and still retain copyright. Suppose I want to sell electronic voting machines to Florida. Wisely, the state government demands full access to the source code, to ensure that I have not inserted any backdoors. I may provide source and binaries under an appropriate contract without waiving my copyright.
Further, the GPL does not require indiscriminate redstribution of copyrighted works. I may download GPL'd code, modify it, and sell it for one million dollars to someone. When I do so, I must provide both the binaries and the source code, and supply them under the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not mean that I must make the software available at zero cost, nor does it mean that I must make it available to everyone. It merely specifies the terms under which I may use someone else's copyrighted code. Indeed, it would be perfectly legal for me to enter into an exclusive contract with a buyer that expressly forbids any further sale of my newly minted and properly-GPL'd software.
In order for the GPL to be a license, it would have to be enforceable. If it's not enforceable, it's not a license. Same with a contract. If it's null and void, then it's not a contract.
Okay--I see a couple of tautologies about contracts, and an assertion that the GPL is unenforceable? Why is it unenforceable? You insist that a person who publishes under the GPL has waived their copyright--I assert that this is an incorrect interpretation. I suppose that is where the story ends. If we can't get past this point, there's no point to further discussion. I don't imagine you have consulted a copyright lawyer about the enforceability of the GPL. Note also that the FSF has done so.
Yes it does. It requires you to redistribute the original source code as written by somebody else when you ship your product. This is 180Â counter to copyright law, which expressly prohibits you from redistributing any works without express permission. So when you release something under the GPL, you are telling the protections provided by copyright law to take a flying leap.
Hypothetical case: Let us assume that I am an author of a conventional dead-trees and ink book. To keep this simple, I will write, print, and distribute the thing myself. If I sell a copy, the person who receives it has all the information necessary to duplicate that book. The content is all right there. Nevertheless, they are not permitted to photocopy all of the pages, rebind them, and resell them.
In fact, they are not allowed to do this even if they don't charge for the pages, or if I gave them the original copy for free. Copyright continues to hold. Even if I stood on a downtown street corner giving away thousands of copies for free--for that matter, even if I gave away all the copies, and made no money from the enterprise whatsoever--I would still hold the copyright, and duplication of the books beyond the accepted bounds of fair use would be forbidden.
Similarly, making code available for download is not the same as actively waiving copyright, any more than giving away a copy of my book gives the receiver the right to duplicate it.
Releasing code under the GPL, which does not merely permit but actually REQUIRES people to make copies of your work, results in the waiving of your copyright.
Well, no. Releasing the code under the GPL does not require people to copy and redistribute your work--though this is a common misconception. People who download GPL'd software are welcome to keep it to themselves, use it for their own purposes, and never let it see the light of day again.
Back to my 'book' analogy. People can do just about anything with my book short of redistributing it. However, if someone wants to reprint my book (perhaps do a run in softcover) or a part thereof (lift a chapter and put it into some sort of collection) they need to approach me for my permission. I must grant them permission to use my copyrighted material in derivative works. Similarly, if someone wishes to use GPL'd code in a derivative work, the GPL provides the terms by which permission to redistribute is granted.
In other words, the notion that the GPL actively waives one's copyrights is misleading in the extreme. If I release material under the GPL, copyright still rests with me. I may choose to release another version of the program under a new and more restrictive license. The original version is still out there, and there is nothing I can do to recall it--any more than the Encyclopedia Britannica people can insist that libraries buy a new edition every year.
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer--but I don't think that you are either.
On the other hand, this guy removed essentially all the monitor internals and pretty much just reused the plastic case. I didn't see anything there that was more potentially harmful than any other sort of mod work.
Yes, there are parts of a CRT that are at high voltage when plugged in, and yes, the tubes are at high vacuum. If Slashdot readers need to be warned not to disassemble monitors while they are plugged in--or that hitting them with a hammer is a bad idea--then they deserve to be removed from the gene pool.
We can point fingers all we want. The French were involved in the oil-for-food program during the embargo--duly approved, and permitted under the UN sanctions. The United States during its invasion chose to protect from looters not hospitals or museums but the Iraqi oil ministry buildings. Thousands of irreplacable artifacts are now circulating on the black market, or in the hands of U.S. troops.
If I saw you throw a basketball at my car at 500mph, I would likely stop looking for the "real" cause of the dent!
Even after the experiment and the basic lesson in physics, they still won't say "Yeah, we are keeping our minds open to any new evidence, but right now it appears that this foam strike was the a major factor in the accident."
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SAYING "Yes, we think this is what caused the damage" If it was instead the basketball that indeed hit the shuttle, the debate about what caused the damage would be wrapping up.
There are several things wrong with saying "Yes, we think this is what caused the damage." So far, they've made a statement that is completely supported by experiment--it is probable that the foam is capable of doing damage.
Is it likely that the foam did in the Shuttle? Yes. Do we know it did? No. So they can't publicly say they think they know. What if it turns out to be a micrometeoroid, and they find evidence to support that conclusion? How about if they discover a flaw in the adhesives used to assemble the wing? What if it's a software thing--once per century, the computer will decide that the Shuttle is upside down and move to 'correct' it. They have to retract their statements, present new data, upset the powers-that-be. Administrators get raked over the coals in Senate hearings, because they 'changed their story'. Senators looking to score political points and move dollars from NASA to Disney demand to know, "why should we believe you now, since you lied to us before?"
If an airliner crashes in the United States, the NTSB will investigate, and usually keeps a very tight lid on all speculation until they can issue a final report. This is how it should be done. You don't whip off a press release as soon as you have a plausible scenario--you test everything. Investigators looking at other areas might be tempted to get sloppy if they perceive that their superiors have already 'decided' what the cause of the accident was.
Those on/. more than twenty-five years old or so will remember the incidents involving the Therac-25 radiotherapy accelerator. Early accidents were attributed to a faulty microswitch, and investigation ceased at that point. Consequently, several more people were injured or killed because nobody kept looking for the real problem--a software bug.
One more thought regarding the 500 mph basketball impact--your car is not designed for flight at many multiples of the speed of sound, or for atmospheric reentry. We're working in a realm where most laypeople should definitely not trust their intuition. (Foam sounds light...but 500 mph is pretty fast...what does it mean?) My training actually is in physics, but I'm still leery of making guesses.
At one point in the article they actually say that the force was equivalent to catching a basketball thrown at 500 mph. OF COURSE IT IS. It is equivalent to catching ANYTHING thrown at 500 mph which weighs about 1.7 pounds. The only real difference is elasticity(which is almost irrelevant at that velocity) and surface area of impact(the same amount of force to a much smaller area).
Your 'of course it is' is misplaced, for the reasons that you state. It is significantly easier to 'catch' 1.7 pounds of something with large surface area and significant compressibility. Take a 1.7 lbs solid sphere of steel. Striking a solid surface at 500 mph, it might deform by a half inch or so. Now take 1.7 lbs of foam. It's an extended, compressible, deformable object. Striking the surface, it might well compress by six inches or more. We've just reduced the force on the impact area by a factor of (very roughly) twelve.
It gets even better when you consider surface area in contact with the projectile--a couple square inches for the steel ball, dozens of square inches for the foam. Again, the force is reduced by one or two more orders of magnitude.
So, yes--the two objects have the same amount of kinetic energy to transfer to the surface under consideration. But--the foam object spreads out the energy transfer in space and time, reducing the maximum pressure endured by any portion of the surface. In terms of 'catching' such objects, the steel ball would go right through your hand, and probably the body behind it. The foam slab would break a lot of bones, and the blunt force trauma could easily kill you, but there wouldn't be the same sort of puncture if the impact was spread over a large area.
...make a loss on each sale, but make up for it in volume...
Oh yeah, that's fucking brilliant. We lose money on each sale, so let's a sell lot of them and lose even more money!
"Sure we're losing money on each sale, but we're making it up in volume!" is an old joke in business circles. You're supposed to recognize that it's absurd, and everyone knows this. Then you smile quietly to yourself, smug in the knowledge that you weren't the AC that decided to jump on it.
It's also sometimes a deliberate part of a business plan. A business sets up a proof-of-concept pilot assembly line, and starts selling new-type widgets below the initial manufacturing cost. If they can show that there is sufficient demand, then it is easier to get funding (sell shares, borrow money) to scale up production. Economies of scale kick in, and widgets become profitable at the original price point.
For Amazon, they had to sell at a loss, just to prove that they could get people to buy things (lots of them) online. Now that their volume is up, they're enjoying some economies of scale. Their practices (faster shipping, better distribution, better order picking, etc.) have also improved with practice--even while they were selling at a loss, they were learning their business, and improving their efficiency.
besides, even if we grant what you imply, that Apple is merely the lesser of two evils - I must remind you that up until now, almost all major distribution channels for music wants to screw you both ways - pump the artists dry AND limit the consumer's rights to their stuff. Apple, if not given any other credit, must be commended on their effort to make sure you can do (for the most part) whatever you want with the music you bought.
The big problem for Apple is that they are not a record label themselves--so the screwing of artists is something over which they can exercise very little control. The labels control the sale of the music, ultimately. As a consequence, Apple cannot give the artists any sort of 'fair' deal. As well, since the labels set the prices, there is a built in floor on Apple's costs, no matter how much less they would like to charge for tracks.
So then--does Jobs want to start his own label? (Then what do you call it? Apple is already the name of a record label...)
Seeing as how God was supposedly vengeful in the Old Testament, and hasn't rained down sulfur much lately, I'd say it's possible we all exist in a very advanced version of SimCity.
So you're saying that God just got bored and went away?
What happens when He discovers Quake? Is the Uncertainty Principle the result of sloppy overclocking?
Finally, what happens to us when His mom tells him to shut down the computer and go outside to play?
Not yet, but we're working on it. It also needs some case mods--battleship gray is just so 1970s, and it needs some windows. Maybe some neon lights would help, and we could use some go-faster stickers. I know some overclockers who are building a nuclear reactor for her now--none of this sissy diesel. They have promised me the case cooling issues are sorted out this time.
Yes, we will have the 133test ship in the f133t.
Oh, and can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?/me ducks
There are probably no rocks or metals that would be worth returning to Earth, but it is believed that there is plentiful naturally occurring H3, which should be instrumental in the furthering of fusion energy research.
That's He-3, or helium-3. It gets dropped on the Mooon by solar wind, and is trapped in the lunar regolith. H-3 is hydrogen-3 (tritium), which is radioactive with a fairly short half-life (~12 years) which makes it very rare except in environments where it is continuously being replenished. (To add further confusion, both isotopes make excellent fuels for fusion reactions...)
For those who are interested, here and here are a couple of articles on the science and economics of helium-3 fusion. He-3 is a desirable fusion fuel because its reaction with deuterium produces very few neutrons. Consequently, very little in the way of radioactive waste is generated. It's very clean, and very safe. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but I suspect is may be an easier reaction to ignite, as well.
To the rest of the world, this is just one more triumph of the United States that nobody else has caught up to after 35 YEARS!
Not even the United States has caught up to the U.S. When was the last time they walked on the moon? Scientifically it could be quite interesting to send more people there, and it would provide some much needed practice for U.S. construction of heavy lift vehicles--as well as landing craft.
Personally, I think the term 'little person' is more demeaning.
No doubt it depends a great deal on context--and it probably has also evolved significantly over time. It's like the term 'geek'. Earlier in this century, a geek was "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake."
Later the definition was expanded to include a more general class of social misfits, eventually coming to mean those socially awkward individuals with a strong intellectual bent.
Now, the name 'geek' has been claimed as almost a badge of honour for members of that misfit intellectual community. In some circles (I'm looking at you, gentle reader), there is no stigma attached to being considered a 'geek'. The term has been picked up by mainstream marketers (ie ThinkGeek) who probably see it as a valuable demographic.
Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to?
That should be "to whom are you going to speak it?"
Ahhhhh. I had to get that out of my system.
Normally I leave grammar alone, but if you're going to speak about correct English...I suppose the sig is a troll for the so-called grammar Nazis. Very well. I bit.
I never listened to music much at school, and I'd have been irritated to get charged $20 a term for a service I never used.
I thought that university-supplied music was called "radio."
At the University of Waterloo, students pay $4.50 per term to the radio station--to which nobody (I'm gonna get flamed for that) listens. The fee is actually refundable, but you have to go up to 'North Campus' to the radio station office to get your money. Consequently, most people don't bother.
The Eddington limit is achieved when the radiation pressure from the surface of a star is sufficient to balance the gravitational attraction of infalling matter. As more matter falls on a star, it becomes more luminous, increasing the radiation pressure and reducing the rate of accretion. As long as there is more matter available, this process continues until the Eddington limit is reached. The resulting equilibrium is stable. (Probably.)
The problem is that the radiation pressure from a black hole decreases (and decreases rapidly) with mass. So, as more mass accretes, less radiation pressure exists and the rate of accretion accelerates. In principle, it might be possible to create a highly unstable equilibrium with a very low-mass black hole--but I suspect that such a system would tip over into either complete evaporation or rapid growth very, very quickly.
Here's a neat derivation relating evaporation time to mass. Radiation pressure varies as roughly 1/m^4. It's not gonna be stable--and you need a very small black hole (ie much less than a solar mass) to see any appreciable radiation at all.
Slashdot Mirror
What is this 'leftist' creature that you talk about? I have seen a dramatic increase in the use of the term in the last couple of years. No doubt its rise in popularity only coincidentally coincides with 2001/09/11. Unfortunately, it seems primarily to be used as a sort of epithet meant to discredit some or other class of opinions. The snobbish might call it an ad hominem attack--the rest of us recognize it as name-calling. His points aren't valid, because he's a leftist.
So, what is this 'leftist' creature? Dusting off my history books, the closest fit seems to be 'Commie'. A bearer of uncomfortable political ideas. Anathema in the halls of power. Dangerous to be seen with anywhere else. Might even get you put on a watch list...
Incidentally, I suspect that the shortcomings of watch lists as enumerated by those wicked 'leftist' sympathizers are valid concerns. Terrorists aren't the only ones with limited resources--if airlines and the government are wasting significant time and effort on a very large proportion of false positives, couldn't that time and effort be better spent elsewhere?
Yeah, but if you can get convincing fake ID that says "Sam bin Laden", why don't you just get convincing forged identification that reads "Sam Schmidt"?
It's the part about obligating SOMEBODY ELSE to make COPIES of your own WORK that nullifies your copyright. Under ordinary circumstances, that activity is prohibited. The GPL does not allow it, under limited conditions. Instead, it makes it MANDATORY under ALL circumstances. If you distribute the objects (allowed) you HAVE to distribute the source (normally prohibited by copyright).
Well, here's the kernel of the problem. You're distinguishing between the source code and the binaries produced from them. To be blunt, there is no distinction between the two under copyright law. I'm afraid that you've been getting bad legal advice. It is perfectly legal and enforceable to distribute both source and binaries and still retain copyright. Suppose I want to sell electronic voting machines to Florida. Wisely, the state government demands full access to the source code, to ensure that I have not inserted any backdoors. I may provide source and binaries under an appropriate contract without waiving my copyright.
Further, the GPL does not require indiscriminate redstribution of copyrighted works. I may download GPL'd code, modify it, and sell it for one million dollars to someone. When I do so, I must provide both the binaries and the source code, and supply them under the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not mean that I must make the software available at zero cost, nor does it mean that I must make it available to everyone. It merely specifies the terms under which I may use someone else's copyrighted code. Indeed, it would be perfectly legal for me to enter into an exclusive contract with a buyer that expressly forbids any further sale of my newly minted and properly-GPL'd software.
In order for the GPL to be a license, it would have to be enforceable. If it's not enforceable, it's not a license. Same with a contract. If it's null and void, then it's not a contract.
Okay--I see a couple of tautologies about contracts, and an assertion that the GPL is unenforceable? Why is it unenforceable? You insist that a person who publishes under the GPL has waived their copyright--I assert that this is an incorrect interpretation. I suppose that is where the story ends. If we can't get past this point, there's no point to further discussion. I don't imagine you have consulted a copyright lawyer about the enforceability of the GPL. Note also that the FSF has done so.
Hypothetical case: Let us assume that I am an author of a conventional dead-trees and ink book. To keep this simple, I will write, print, and distribute the thing myself. If I sell a copy, the person who receives it has all the information necessary to duplicate that book. The content is all right there. Nevertheless, they are not permitted to photocopy all of the pages, rebind them, and resell them.
In fact, they are not allowed to do this even if they don't charge for the pages, or if I gave them the original copy for free. Copyright continues to hold. Even if I stood on a downtown street corner giving away thousands of copies for free--for that matter, even if I gave away all the copies, and made no money from the enterprise whatsoever--I would still hold the copyright, and duplication of the books beyond the accepted bounds of fair use would be forbidden.
Similarly, making code available for download is not the same as actively waiving copyright, any more than giving away a copy of my book gives the receiver the right to duplicate it.
Releasing code under the GPL, which does not merely permit but actually REQUIRES people to make copies of your work, results in the waiving of your copyright.
Well, no. Releasing the code under the GPL does not require people to copy and redistribute your work--though this is a common misconception. People who download GPL'd software are welcome to keep it to themselves, use it for their own purposes, and never let it see the light of day again.
Back to my 'book' analogy. People can do just about anything with my book short of redistributing it. However, if someone wants to reprint my book (perhaps do a run in softcover) or a part thereof (lift a chapter and put it into some sort of collection) they need to approach me for my permission. I must grant them permission to use my copyrighted material in derivative works. Similarly, if someone wishes to use GPL'd code in a derivative work, the GPL provides the terms by which permission to redistribute is granted.
In other words, the notion that the GPL actively waives one's copyrights is misleading in the extreme. If I release material under the GPL, copyright still rests with me. I may choose to release another version of the program under a new and more restrictive license. The original version is still out there, and there is nothing I can do to recall it--any more than the Encyclopedia Britannica people can insist that libraries buy a new edition every year.
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer--but I don't think that you are either.
Actually, that's a bug. Any presentation software that isn't smart enough to strip out transition sound effects isn't worth using.
Aside: Anybody who uses the 'bounce' effect to bring text or objects on to a slide during a presentation is a waste of oxygen.
Yes, there are parts of a CRT that are at high voltage when plugged in, and yes, the tubes are at high vacuum. If Slashdot readers need to be warned not to disassemble monitors while they are plugged in--or that hitting them with a hammer is a bad idea--then they deserve to be removed from the gene pool.
So much time could be saved on Slashdot if people would put this sentence at the beginning of their posts, instead of at the end.
It was the French who were doing business with Iraq during the embargo.
Glass houses...stones. Pots, kettles, blackness...
We can point fingers all we want. The French were involved in the oil-for-food program during the embargo--duly approved, and permitted under the UN sanctions. The United States during its invasion chose to protect from looters not hospitals or museums but the Iraqi oil ministry buildings. Thousands of irreplacable artifacts are now circulating on the black market, or in the hands of U.S. troops.
That's a good idea. Deliberately enshrine a Y2K/Y2.1K bug in our language, rather than just our code.
Even after the experiment and the basic lesson in physics, they still won't say "Yeah, we are keeping our minds open to any new evidence, but right now it appears that this foam strike was the a major factor in the accident."
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SAYING "Yes, we think this is what caused the damage" If it was instead the basketball that indeed hit the shuttle, the debate about what caused the damage would be wrapping up.
There are several things wrong with saying "Yes, we think this is what caused the damage." So far, they've made a statement that is completely supported by experiment--it is probable that the foam is capable of doing damage.
Is it likely that the foam did in the Shuttle? Yes. Do we know it did? No. So they can't publicly say they think they know. What if it turns out to be a micrometeoroid, and they find evidence to support that conclusion? How about if they discover a flaw in the adhesives used to assemble the wing? What if it's a software thing--once per century, the computer will decide that the Shuttle is upside down and move to 'correct' it. They have to retract their statements, present new data, upset the powers-that-be. Administrators get raked over the coals in Senate hearings, because they 'changed their story'. Senators looking to score political points and move dollars from NASA to Disney demand to know, "why should we believe you now, since you lied to us before?"
If an airliner crashes in the United States, the NTSB will investigate, and usually keeps a very tight lid on all speculation until they can issue a final report. This is how it should be done. You don't whip off a press release as soon as you have a plausible scenario--you test everything. Investigators looking at other areas might be tempted to get sloppy if they perceive that their superiors have already 'decided' what the cause of the accident was.
Those on /. more than twenty-five years old or so will remember the incidents involving the Therac-25 radiotherapy accelerator. Early accidents were attributed to a faulty microswitch, and investigation ceased at that point. Consequently, several more people were injured or killed because nobody kept looking for the real problem--a software bug.
One more thought regarding the 500 mph basketball impact--your car is not designed for flight at many multiples of the speed of sound, or for atmospheric reentry. We're working in a realm where most laypeople should definitely not trust their intuition. (Foam sounds light...but 500 mph is pretty fast...what does it mean?) My training actually is in physics, but I'm still leery of making guesses.
Your 'of course it is' is misplaced, for the reasons that you state. It is significantly easier to 'catch' 1.7 pounds of something with large surface area and significant compressibility. Take a 1.7 lbs solid sphere of steel. Striking a solid surface at 500 mph, it might deform by a half inch or so. Now take 1.7 lbs of foam. It's an extended, compressible, deformable object. Striking the surface, it might well compress by six inches or more. We've just reduced the force on the impact area by a factor of (very roughly) twelve.
It gets even better when you consider surface area in contact with the projectile--a couple square inches for the steel ball, dozens of square inches for the foam. Again, the force is reduced by one or two more orders of magnitude.
So, yes--the two objects have the same amount of kinetic energy to transfer to the surface under consideration. But--the foam object spreads out the energy transfer in space and time, reducing the maximum pressure endured by any portion of the surface. In terms of 'catching' such objects, the steel ball would go right through your hand, and probably the body behind it. The foam slab would break a lot of bones, and the blunt force trauma could easily kill you, but there wouldn't be the same sort of puncture if the impact was spread over a large area.
Oh yeah, that's fucking brilliant. We lose money on each sale, so let's a sell lot of them and lose even more money!
"Sure we're losing money on each sale, but we're making it up in volume!" is an old joke in business circles. You're supposed to recognize that it's absurd, and everyone knows this. Then you smile quietly to yourself, smug in the knowledge that you weren't the AC that decided to jump on it.
It's also sometimes a deliberate part of a business plan. A business sets up a proof-of-concept pilot assembly line, and starts selling new-type widgets below the initial manufacturing cost. If they can show that there is sufficient demand, then it is easier to get funding (sell shares, borrow money) to scale up production. Economies of scale kick in, and widgets become profitable at the original price point.
For Amazon, they had to sell at a loss, just to prove that they could get people to buy things (lots of them) online. Now that their volume is up, they're enjoying some economies of scale. Their practices (faster shipping, better distribution, better order picking, etc.) have also improved with practice--even while they were selling at a loss, they were learning their business, and improving their efficiency.
The big problem for Apple is that they are not a record label themselves--so the screwing of artists is something over which they can exercise very little control. The labels control the sale of the music, ultimately. As a consequence, Apple cannot give the artists any sort of 'fair' deal. As well, since the labels set the prices, there is a built in floor on Apple's costs, no matter how much less they would like to charge for tracks.
So then--does Jobs want to start his own label? (Then what do you call it? Apple is already the name of a record label...)
So you're saying that God just got bored and went away?
What happens when He discovers Quake? Is the Uncertainty Principle the result of sloppy overclocking?
Finally, what happens to us when His mom tells him to shut down the computer and go outside to play?
Sure, it seems that way now--but have you ever owned a house? Have you ever had to paint it?
Do you want to have to slap a coat of paint on the outside of this baby every few years? I suppose if you have kids, you can make them do it.
Not yet, but we're working on it. It also needs some case mods--battleship gray is just so 1970s, and it needs some windows. Maybe some neon lights would help, and we could use some go-faster stickers. I know some overclockers who are building a nuclear reactor for her now--none of this sissy diesel. They have promised me the case cooling issues are sorted out this time.
Yes, we will have the 133test ship in the f133t.
Oh, and can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these? /me ducks
Usually submarines, if I remember correctly. ;)
That's He-3, or helium-3. It gets dropped on the Mooon by solar wind, and is trapped in the lunar regolith. H-3 is hydrogen-3 (tritium), which is radioactive with a fairly short half-life (~12 years) which makes it very rare except in environments where it is continuously being replenished. (To add further confusion, both isotopes make excellent fuels for fusion reactions...)
For those who are interested, here and here are a couple of articles on the science and economics of helium-3 fusion. He-3 is a desirable fusion fuel because its reaction with deuterium produces very few neutrons. Consequently, very little in the way of radioactive waste is generated. It's very clean, and very safe. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but I suspect is may be an easier reaction to ignite, as well.
Not even the United States has caught up to the U.S. When was the last time they walked on the moon? Scientifically it could be quite interesting to send more people there, and it would provide some much needed practice for U.S. construction of heavy lift vehicles--as well as landing craft.
No doubt it depends a great deal on context--and it probably has also evolved significantly over time. It's like the term 'geek'. Earlier in this century, a geek was "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake."
Later the definition was expanded to include a more general class of social misfits, eventually coming to mean those socially awkward individuals with a strong intellectual bent.
Now, the name 'geek' has been claimed as almost a badge of honour for members of that misfit intellectual community. In some circles (I'm looking at you, gentle reader), there is no stigma attached to being considered a 'geek'. The term has been picked up by mainstream marketers (ie ThinkGeek) who probably see it as a valuable demographic.
On the same page you'll note that they also designed and tested an ejection system for Buran (Soviet Space Shuttle) cosmonauts.
That should be "to whom are you going to speak it?"
Ahhhhh. I had to get that out of my system.
Normally I leave grammar alone, but if you're going to speak about correct English...I suppose the sig is a troll for the so-called grammar Nazis. Very well. I bit.
I thought that university-supplied music was called "radio."
At the University of Waterloo, students pay $4.50 per term to the radio station--to which nobody (I'm gonna get flamed for that) listens. The fee is actually refundable, but you have to go up to 'North Campus' to the radio station office to get your money. Consequently, most people don't bother.
At that price, it is cheaper weight-for-weight than some of the textbooks I was forced to buy during my undergrad days.
The problem is that the radiation pressure from a black hole decreases (and decreases rapidly) with mass. So, as more mass accretes, less radiation pressure exists and the rate of accretion accelerates. In principle, it might be possible to create a highly unstable equilibrium with a very low-mass black hole--but I suspect that such a system would tip over into either complete evaporation or rapid growth very, very quickly.
Here's a neat derivation relating evaporation time to mass. Radiation pressure varies as roughly 1/m^4. It's not gonna be stable--and you need a very small black hole (ie much less than a solar mass) to see any appreciable radiation at all.