I'm not sure, but I believe he did have a degree in chemical engineering as well. I don't remember mine saying vol. 1. Maybe someone else could clarify this.
--I also saw eight B52-G/H bombers take off from RAF Fairford in Oxfordshire this morning, presumably on the way to Iraq, each capable of holding 70,000 lbs of assorted ordinance. I would imagine they were carrying Tommahawk Cruise missiles though - each one can carry 20.--
Actually they carry the AGM-86C and not the Tommahawk. I believe these have a 2000lb. war load instead of 1000lb. that the Tommahawk has.
--"We"? Who's "We"? The only people making money are the banks doing the exchange, as they charge a percentage for their costs of doing business.--
The Federal Reserve Bank and as someone else mentioned it helps finance US debt.
--Wrong. There is no "standard currency" in the world. The US Dollar is widely used, yes, but that is only because there is a lot of faith in the stability of the US Economy.--
Point taken. It all has to do with faith. Some would say that there will be more faith in the Euro eventually.
--Money is fluid, and interchangable. It doesn't matter if the oil countries want US Dollars, Euros, Suiss Francs, or Beanie Baby Futures, as long as it's freely exchangable, then it doesn't matter. I know it fits into some people's idea that this whole thing is "(old) Europe vs. America", but c'mon, there'd be better ways to do it than this.--
Wrong! It DOES matter. The US dollar is currently the standard currency in the world. We make money off of this every time someone coverts their currency to dollars. If the Euro becomes the standard we (the US) loose out on the conversion. Duh! It's not completely freely interchangeable. The is a percentage on the exchange.
In related news, after more objective study, it has been postulated, pointy objects that are hot and thrusted hurt more than unthrusted cold pointy objects.
--Transportation of physical goods is still done much the same way it always has been: ships. Airplanes help somewhat, but the majority of international trade uses no technology more sophisticated than was invented during the 19th century.--
I don't believe the container was invented in 1910 or the super tanker. SO transportation IS in fact much more sophisticated.
--Every once in a while, a country such as Japan will make it over the hump, and from that point on will converge along with everyone else. At the worst, the USA would simply lose its lead, and we'd start converging towards, say, Australia.--
NO , at worst the US could be destroyed by war. That is still a possibility if we loose our lead to someone unfriendly to us.
--An article (recently posted on Slashdot) mentioned that the larger the company, the more likely they were to move IT jobs overseas. In the long run, this is a counter-productive move. Firing a bunch of people will lower the demand for your goods and services; the unemployed don't have the money to spend. And you create a group of seriously pissed off people with time on their hands.--
This hits nail on the head. Unfortunately greed will cause this to continue until the greedy ones are weeded out by the bottom droping out under their feet.
--Jesus, you'd think people had never lived through a recession before. This shit happens. This recession is no more likely to be eternal than the Dot Com boom was. Of course salaries are falling from their formerly inflated rate. Then, once they've fallen sufficiently, companies will start moving jobs back to the US, and salaries will rise again. Christ, if you think this is bad, thank God that we weren't alive during the Great Depression. That didn't sink us, and this won't either.--
The past doesn't always determine the future. Remember Rome didn't last forever.
--Also, for those who argue that this time it's different because of globalization: the world was more globalized in 1910 than it is now, because of European colonialism.--
Bull! Money could not be moved around globaly in 1910 as today and there was no internet or satelites or... well you get the picture.
--While eventually we probably will move to a hydrogen based economy, there is a flaw here. Currently and in the foreseeable future, extracting the vast amounts of hydrogen that we'll need requires...wait for it...hydrocarbon based fuels like oil and coal! That's right, in order to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, we need energy. How do we produce most of our energy? Hydrocarbons.--
Yes, but couldn't hydrogen be produced by a fuel cell that uses alcohol which could be made by fermentation and distillation from plant matter that is renewable?
--It's 2003. You don't still drive 30 mph in a '55 Chevy, why would you be so resistent to modern browser plugins?--
FYI
My dad had a `55 Chevy and I guarantee you it would go much faster than 30 mph. It had 265 small block V8 w/ 3 speed manual on the column. A cheap and fast car for its day. He lost a drag race to a `57 with a 283 but not by much.
As far as what this has to do with 3D OS's, I duuno, but I like fast, simple, cheap, and effective. Whether you have 3D or not the search engine in it is what counts. Maybe Google could work on that.
Well there is risk in anything. Driving for example is very risky. I think the biggest problem with fuel cell laptops would not be the saftey factor, but if it would be allowed on a plane. Ammonium Nitrate as fertilizer is very safe. By adding a blasting cap and a booster, you can blow things up. The laptop manufactures will have to address that with fuel cells.
Slashdot Mirror
Try IRC instead.
Putting it in space would be even more dangerous where a 2% failure rate would not be acceptable.
Another dumb question.
What about the effects of wind? I just don't think this will work even with new materials.
Yahoo has some stuff that the older audience likes as well.
Solitare
Diamond Mine
Bingo
Brain Melt
Uh....
He wasn't arrested.
I'm not sure, but I believe he did have a degree in chemical engineering as well. I don't remember mine saying vol. 1. Maybe someone else could clarify this.
He also wrote the book "Introduction to Microcomputers"
It is now out of print. I used to have a copy. Interesting.
Not with the spam feature.
But ya gotta pay for it. I like free mo betta.
--I also saw eight B52-G/H bombers take off from RAF Fairford in Oxfordshire this morning, presumably on the way to Iraq, each capable of holding 70,000 lbs of assorted ordinance. I would imagine they were carrying Tommahawk Cruise missiles though - each one can carry 20.--
Actually they carry the AGM-86C and not the Tommahawk. I believe these have a 2000lb. war load instead of 1000lb. that the Tommahawk has.
--"We"? Who's "We"? The only people making money are the banks doing the exchange, as they charge a percentage for their costs of doing business.--
The Federal Reserve Bank and as someone else mentioned it helps finance US debt.
--Wrong. There is no "standard currency" in the world. The US Dollar is widely used, yes, but that is only because there is a lot of faith in the stability of the US Economy.--
Point taken. It all has to do with faith. Some would say that there will be more faith in the Euro eventually.
--Money is fluid, and interchangable. It doesn't matter if the oil countries want US Dollars, Euros, Suiss Francs, or Beanie Baby Futures, as long as it's freely exchangable, then it doesn't matter. I know it fits into some people's idea that this whole thing is "(old) Europe vs. America", but c'mon, there'd be better ways to do it than this.--
Wrong! It DOES matter. The US dollar is currently the standard currency in the world. We make money off of this every time someone coverts their currency to dollars. If the Euro becomes the standard we (the US) loose out on the conversion. Duh! It's not completely freely interchangeable. The is a percentage on the exchange.
In related news, after more objective study, it has been postulated, pointy objects that are hot and thrusted hurt more than unthrusted cold pointy objects.
I don't eat pork!
Right. Here is a link to some software that does just that.
- pr o.htm
http://www.leica-geosystems.com/gps/product/ski
--Transportation of physical goods is still done much the same way it always has been: ships. Airplanes help somewhat, but the majority of international trade uses no technology more sophisticated than was invented during the 19th century.--
I don't believe the container was invented in 1910 or the super tanker. SO transportation IS in fact much more sophisticated.
--Every once in a while, a country such as Japan will make it over the hump, and from that point on will converge along with everyone else. At the worst, the USA would simply lose its lead, and we'd start converging towards, say, Australia.--
NO , at worst the US could be destroyed by war. That is still a possibility if we loose our lead to someone unfriendly to us.
--An article (recently posted on Slashdot) mentioned that the larger the company, the more likely they were to move IT jobs overseas. In the long run, this is a counter-productive move. Firing a bunch of people will lower the demand for your goods and services; the unemployed don't have the money to spend. And you create a group of seriously pissed off people with time on their hands.--
This hits nail on the head. Unfortunately greed will cause this to continue until the greedy ones are weeded out by the bottom droping out under their feet.
--Jesus, you'd think people had never lived through a recession before. This shit happens. This recession is no more likely to be eternal than the Dot Com boom was. Of course salaries are falling from their formerly inflated rate. Then, once they've fallen sufficiently, companies will start moving jobs back to the US, and salaries will rise again.
... well you get the picture.
Christ, if you think this is bad, thank God that we weren't alive during the Great Depression. That didn't sink us, and this won't either.--
The past doesn't always determine the future. Remember Rome didn't last forever.
--Also, for those who argue that this time it's different because of globalization: the world was more globalized in 1910 than it is now, because of European colonialism.--
Bull! Money could not be moved around globaly in 1910 as today and there was no internet or satelites or
Yea, and gangs from Kentucky will shoot you for the latest pirate Metallica CD because they are smoking too much grass.
Jack Daniels might work.
I thought Mosaic came out in 1989?
2003-1989=close to 13 years +/-
--While eventually we probably will move to a hydrogen based economy, there is a flaw here. Currently and in the foreseeable future, extracting the vast amounts of hydrogen that we'll need requires...wait for it...hydrocarbon based fuels like oil and coal! That's right, in order to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, we need energy. How do we produce most of our energy? Hydrocarbons.--
Yes, but couldn't hydrogen be produced by a fuel cell that uses alcohol which could be made by fermentation and distillation from plant matter that is renewable?
!Mr. Fusion
Not in the EU. Their system of justice is a little different than in the US.
--It's 2003. You don't still drive 30 mph in a '55 Chevy, why would you be so resistent to modern browser plugins?--
FYI
My dad had a `55 Chevy and I guarantee you it would go much faster than 30 mph. It had 265 small block V8 w/ 3 speed manual on the column. A cheap and fast car for its day. He lost a drag race to a `57 with a 283 but not by much.
As far as what this has to do with 3D OS's, I duuno, but I like fast, simple, cheap, and effective. Whether you have 3D or not the search engine in it is what counts. Maybe Google could work on that.
Well there is risk in anything. Driving for example is very risky. I think the biggest problem with fuel cell laptops would not be the saftey factor, but if it would be allowed on a plane. Ammonium Nitrate as fertilizer is very safe. By adding a blasting cap and a booster, you can blow things up. The laptop manufactures will have to address that with fuel cells.
--The Centrinos are out and I had to buy a Dell Inspiron 8200 with a P4-M 1.80Ghz last Friday. I hate technology ;-)--
I'm still waiting for the Neutrino/X w/ Mr. Fusion inside.