Did they actually remove it, instead of making it not visible by default? If so, there's no way I'll ever upgrade to that garbage. What the hell is their problem, anyway?
Goddammit, I had you pegged as someone who had some common sense, but now I see I was way off. Did you even read that page? Not ONE one the hijackings post-9/11 occurred anywhere in the US. Albania. Sudan. Mauritania. Cyprus. Do you seriously expect us to believe that people from those countries allowing hijackings has any fucking bearing on what people in the US or other Western nations will do? Especially when we have all these examples of passengers successfully fighting and thwarting the terrorists? And not only that, but you'd take down someone who is trying to fight them? Did you not realize that any bomb that the terrorist would manage to get on the plane would be almost certainly unable to bring it down anyway? What kind of coward are you?
As far as North Korea goes, I think part of the reason the West hasn't had much interest in invading them is because they hold a lot of South Korean lives hostage, with their long-range artillery targeting Seoul. (See here.) Even without the nuclear weapons they supposedly have, that would be enough of a threat that no one would really want to rock the boat. And as far as reunification goes, I think many in South Korea realize that it could be prohibitively expensive, like the German reunification, so it's not a given that they even desire that. I imagine many of them would be perfectly happy with a North that doesn't threaten Seoul or randomly attack their forces.
If you call the Confederates "terrorists," then you must also call all other revolutionaries so -- even the ones who succeeded, such as the Founding Fathers.
Something tells me he'd have no problem doing so...
The difference, though, is that Google's implementation isn't calling itself Java. That matters, because the Microsoft implementation called itself Java but was incompatible, whereas Google claims no such thing, so there's not really any possibility of anyone coding an app for Google's platform and expecting it to work on real JVMs. Oracle is simply being evil here.
Tough on them, then. They're lucky enough to attend this school. They can make whatever effort they need to do understand what's being taught and tested.
Actually, they do a decent job, since most of the "heat" they give off is actually in the form of infra-red. It's not useful to the lumen output since we can't see it, but it's not just heating the air or the fixture: it's heating everything it lights.
If you are seriously arguing that someone who brings up Hitler in a context like that was NOT trying to make the audience associate the idea with evil, then I wonder about YOUR intelligence.
That guy quoting Hitler is itself a good example of propaganda, as by associating phrases or ideas with Nazism, you can make people think that those ideas are themselves evil, completely independent of whether they are or not. For example: is law and order something a country NEVER needs? I'd say that overall it's a good thing, in fact. What sort of evil or not comes from the actual details of doing that - not simply saying some words that Hitler once said. So anyone could call for law and order, but if simply saying "Hitler said it" was a valid argument, then most good ideas are forfeit.
I'm surprised so few people are intelligent enough to understand this. But people's brains turn off when Hitler is involved. It's almost as bad as bringing up child porn.
Bullshit. The Itanium is slow as shit because Intel didn't bother to give it out-of-order execution like every other modern processor has. As a result, it is only fast on DSP-like operations and slow at everything else. Out-of-order execution is essential because the compiler can't know at compile time exactly where everything is going to stall: it's provably impossible.
Remember, this is the same company that designed the P4 without a barrel shifter.
Are you that dense? A private entity generally cares about profit, and wouldn't generally sell something for less than they can get for it (and I know that there are occasional exceptions). A government, on the other hand, takes money by force, is backed by police and military, and doesn't need to make a profit, so in this case where they are dumping helium below value, there is nothing to stop them from destroying it all. A government and a private entity aren't even close to comparable.
What I mean is; how much Helium is getting trapped in some form that is not reclaimable? It's not like Helium is burnt, and I don't know what kind of compounds have Helium bonds or otherwise trap a Helium molecule. So where is the Helium going that we are using up?
I'm obviously no Helium expert, which is why I'm asking so many questions, but I've never heard of a 'Helium mine', so I'm assuming that most of the Helium we have wasn't trapped in gas pockets underground, so we must have distilled it from the atmosphere. So can't we do it again after the Helium has fulfilled it's 'use'? Like melting down circuit boards to make jewelery?
Actually, all of it was trapped in gas pockets underground. None of it is distilled from the atmosphere as there isn't enough, as all the helium in the atmosphere eventually escapes into space.
Haven't you been paying attention? The supply of helium on earth is finite, and helium that we use escapes into space. Once it's gone, it's gone. So if the government dumps it onto the market, they're essentially throwing away a non-renewable resource forever.
You might like to consider, vis-a-vis aviation, that we looked at supersonic passenger aircraft and then walked away from them because they were stupidly expensive (and actually unsafe.) We did much better with aircraft designed to work, as it were, with the atmosphere rather than against it. Jeremy Clarkson, no less, suggested that supersonic aircraft went away because of mobile phones and the Internet. In the same way, within the limits of our current technical capability, the need for manned spacecraft (if it ever existed, which I doubt) went away once we could put a little robot on Mars and have it wander around for years looking at things.
That sounds nice, but isn't even close to the truth. Concorde operated at a tremendous profit for British Airways: "BA's profits have been reported to be up to 50 million in the most profitable year, with a total revenue of 1.75 billion, before costs of 1 billion." - found here, and in a documentary I recently saw. What hurt them was the single crash, and the fact that 9/11 killed a lot of their best customers. And as far as safety goes, the type had ONE hull loss. You can't conclude that it's worse than any plane which has had at least one, and that's all but the very newest types. With what they learned in the accident investigation, they made it even safer, but in the post 9/11 world it was no longer economically viable. But there's nothing wrong with the concept.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they actually remove it, instead of making it not visible by default? If so, there's no way I'll ever upgrade to that garbage. What the hell is their problem, anyway?
The new installation wizard was trained at hogwarts to install household appliances...
Thank you for that. That was the first thing on Slashdot that made me laugh out loud in... weeks, I think.
Goddammit, I had you pegged as someone who had some common sense, but now I see I was way off. Did you even read that page? Not ONE one the hijackings post-9/11 occurred anywhere in the US. Albania. Sudan. Mauritania. Cyprus. Do you seriously expect us to believe that people from those countries allowing hijackings has any fucking bearing on what people in the US or other Western nations will do? Especially when we have all these examples of passengers successfully fighting and thwarting the terrorists? And not only that, but you'd take down someone who is trying to fight them? Did you not realize that any bomb that the terrorist would manage to get on the plane would be almost certainly unable to bring it down anyway? What kind of coward are you?
As far as North Korea goes, I think part of the reason the West hasn't had much interest in invading them is because they hold a lot of South Korean lives hostage, with their long-range artillery targeting Seoul. (See here.) Even without the nuclear weapons they supposedly have, that would be enough of a threat that no one would really want to rock the boat. And as far as reunification goes, I think many in South Korea realize that it could be prohibitively expensive, like the German reunification, so it's not a given that they even desire that. I imagine many of them would be perfectly happy with a North that doesn't threaten Seoul or randomly attack their forces.
Otherwise, interesting post.
What do you mean, "some"?
If you call the Confederates "terrorists," then you must also call all other revolutionaries so -- even the ones who succeeded, such as the Founding Fathers.
Something tells me he'd have no problem doing so...
Why should anyone give a fuck what they think?
You consider the use of nuclear weapons against your own country WINNING?
The difference, though, is that Google's implementation isn't calling itself Java. That matters, because the Microsoft implementation called itself Java but was incompatible, whereas Google claims no such thing, so there's not really any possibility of anyone coding an app for Google's platform and expecting it to work on real JVMs. Oracle is simply being evil here.
You just CONFIRMED what he said, not contradicted it. Diesel DOES have more energy per volume - more than 10% more.
You can fly them, but you can't weaponize them. Lots of people own their own and fly them, though. Well, some people do.
So if it's been denied by the Chinese government, it can't be true?
Anyone who would believe that is not worth trying to convince.
Tough on them, then. They're lucky enough to attend this school. They can make whatever effort they need to do understand what's being taught and tested.
Actually, they do a decent job, since most of the "heat" they give off is actually in the form of infra-red. It's not useful to the lumen output since we can't see it, but it's not just heating the air or the fixture: it's heating everything it lights.
If you are seriously arguing that someone who brings up Hitler in a context like that was NOT trying to make the audience associate the idea with evil, then I wonder about YOUR intelligence.
That guy quoting Hitler is itself a good example of propaganda, as by associating phrases or ideas with Nazism, you can make people think that those ideas are themselves evil, completely independent of whether they are or not. For example: is law and order something a country NEVER needs? I'd say that overall it's a good thing, in fact. What sort of evil or not comes from the actual details of doing that - not simply saying some words that Hitler once said. So anyone could call for law and order, but if simply saying "Hitler said it" was a valid argument, then most good ideas are forfeit.
I'm surprised so few people are intelligent enough to understand this. But people's brains turn off when Hitler is involved. It's almost as bad as bringing up child porn.
That's the most reasonable proposal for this that I've ever heard.
That made me laugh. Thank you...
Bullshit. The Itanium is slow as shit because Intel didn't bother to give it out-of-order execution like every other modern processor has. As a result, it is only fast on DSP-like operations and slow at everything else. Out-of-order execution is essential because the compiler can't know at compile time exactly where everything is going to stall: it's provably impossible.
Remember, this is the same company that designed the P4 without a barrel shifter.
Are you that dense? A private entity generally cares about profit, and wouldn't generally sell something for less than they can get for it (and I know that there are occasional exceptions). A government, on the other hand, takes money by force, is backed by police and military, and doesn't need to make a profit, so in this case where they are dumping helium below value, there is nothing to stop them from destroying it all. A government and a private entity aren't even close to comparable.
It may be your username, but you are not Sancho.
How much Helium are we actually 'using'?
All that's extracted.
What I mean is; how much Helium is getting trapped in some form that is not reclaimable? It's not like Helium is burnt, and I don't know what kind of compounds have Helium bonds or otherwise trap a Helium molecule. So where is the Helium going that we are using up?
Into space.
I'm obviously no Helium expert, which is why I'm asking so many questions, but I've never heard of a 'Helium mine', so I'm assuming that most of the Helium we have wasn't trapped in gas pockets underground, so we must have distilled it from the atmosphere. So can't we do it again after the Helium has fulfilled it's 'use'? Like melting down circuit boards to make jewelery?
Actually, all of it was trapped in gas pockets underground. None of it is distilled from the atmosphere as there isn't enough, as all the helium in the atmosphere eventually escapes into space.
Haven't you been paying attention? The supply of helium on earth is finite, and helium that we use escapes into space. Once it's gone, it's gone. So if the government dumps it onto the market, they're essentially throwing away a non-renewable resource forever.
You might like to consider, vis-a-vis aviation, that we looked at supersonic passenger aircraft and then walked away from them because they were stupidly expensive (and actually unsafe.) We did much better with aircraft designed to work, as it were, with the atmosphere rather than against it. Jeremy Clarkson, no less, suggested that supersonic aircraft went away because of mobile phones and the Internet. In the same way, within the limits of our current technical capability, the need for manned spacecraft (if it ever existed, which I doubt) went away once we could put a little robot on Mars and have it wander around for years looking at things.
That sounds nice, but isn't even close to the truth. Concorde operated at a tremendous profit for British Airways: "BA's profits have been reported to be up to 50 million in the most profitable year, with a total revenue of 1.75 billion, before costs of 1 billion." - found here, and in a documentary I recently saw. What hurt them was the single crash, and the fact that 9/11 killed a lot of their best customers. And as far as safety goes, the type had ONE hull loss. You can't conclude that it's worse than any plane which has had at least one, and that's all but the very newest types. With what they learned in the accident investigation, they made it even safer, but in the post 9/11 world it was no longer economically viable. But there's nothing wrong with the concept.
That's your answer to everything.
Well, hopefully not. But you're right, they could.