NO ONE EVER WINS A NUCLEAR WAR!!!! It's not the WWII now, once some zealots launches a nuclear weapon into another nuke capable country, then both are losers. This is just common sense and need not to be explained further. I really have no idea how the Slashdot crowd could augue "who wins a nuclear war" by looking at who gets more nukes, this is so naive.
You're saying if Darl McBride imitates Dr. Evil then he'll go to step 3 (profit!) instantly? Never imagined that Austin Powers could contain deep financial intelligence.
Not always, friction is just a means to lose energy. When the energy input for the object is purely kinetic energy, we say the object is slowing down.
That's not the case for satelites. When satelites are falling, the energy input are BOTH kinetic and gravitational potential (radius decreases, g potential decreases, work done is positive). Since gravitational potential energy is constantly converted into kinetic energy, we're losing both kinds of energy. Whether the satelite is slowing down or not depends on the rate of change of the two kinds of energies.
i.e.
kinetic energy gained = energy gained from gravitational potential - energy lost to friction
There's nothing (or, a lot of things) to dictate which rate of energy loss is greater. e.g. if your satelite is falling into a think layer of jelly then apparently you can't gain as much from gravitational potential change than friction. However if you're falling onto a planet with a very thin layer of atomsphere then you should be speeding up.
Extracting oil from plants is an interesting idea, as long as the demand isn't high. Last time I read, plants, be it corn, hemp, or trees, are not terribly efficient at producing polymers. So if plant oil were to replace petroleum, we may very well need to turn the whole United States or even the whole America continent into farms.
From what I know what we need from petroleum for making plastics, is mainly the hydrocarbon chains/rings. After we've obtained the HC chains/rings we can cling other atoms (e.g. Cl for making PVC, which we can obtain from the sea and your stomach) onto them, then weave them into longer chains or networks, thus plastic.
If we were to do away from petroleum in making plastics, we must find an alternative way to obtain those hydrocarbon chains. I'm not sure how it can be done easily, as I'm no chemist. But I've heard that it can possibly be synthesized from plain carbon and hydrogen, with some catalysts and energy input. But then, if there's an easy way to produce hydrocarbons (with some alternative energy sources), why hydrogen?
Anyways, it shouldn't be impossible to produce plastics once the oil runs out. If we were to go into great lengths into establishing a hydrogen economy, I doubt if we won't find a way to synthesize plastics in some alternative ways.
Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source, of coz, that's common sense I suppose. Plz don't repeat that.
There're literally thousands of ways to extract hydrogen on Earth. You can get H from hydrocarbons and their derivatives, water, and from your fart (really), just to name a few. Leave that to the chemists, I'm sure we humans have no problem extracting hydrogen at 2003 AD. Even if petroleum runs out, we'll still have plenty of ways to extract hydrogen.
The problem is just an energy input. I think you've wrongly assumed that the only energy input we can get right now is from fossil fuels... well that may be the most economic energy source right now. Don't forget however, we've also other effective means of getting energy for the hydrogen cells, nuclear power is an example - and it's not going to run out soon.
Energy is lost when your converting water into H2 and O2. Suppose your dream non-fossil-fuel electricity generator is of 100% efficiency, than the energy lost in electrolysis should be just the same as the energy gained from burning that H2 back into water.
The problem is not about how to get a particular compound, it's about how to get the energy.
> Taikonaut was formed by taking the Chinese Chinese word for 'Space' and adding the '-onaut' ending.
It's actually "Tai Kon" for "space" in Chinese, what they added was "-aut".
It's pretty redundant to argue over how to call the Chinese astronauts tho, since even the Chinese don't care a lot about that. If you go the CCTV's website we (yes I'm a Chinese) just call him as astronaut.
http://www.cctv.com.cn/english/index.shtml
This depends on at least where you're working at.
Here in Hong Kong, CS degree students might get less then $800 USD per month working overtime with a computer related job. Programmers are among them.
Assuming they work 8 hours a day (it's closer to 10 in fact!), 25 days a month, you get USD $4 per hour -- less than half the salary of a trashman in your country.
It seems that most of the Slashdot population are misinformed about the Godson-I chip...
1. Although the chip's Chinese name can be translated directly to "Dragon chip", it has an English name "Godson-I"
2. The chip is manufactured in.18um process. Not the old.25um.
3. The chip is targetted at the embedded market, it's not going to compete with the current GHz chips like Pentium 4 or Athlon XP. It's not guaranteed for the future Godson generations tho...
4. Therefore, the chip has an extremely low power consumption, ranging from 0.4W to 1W. (Compare: AXP and P4s -- 50W - 80W). Yes - you can theoretically run 100 or more Godsons simutaneously and they're just consuming the same power as ONE 3GHz P4.
5. It's an MIPS chip, not X86.
If you're able to read Chinese, check out the following URL, it gives you a much clearer idea about the chip
There're literally millions of p2p network users, how could MPAA possibly disconnect them all? It's even more laughable that MPAA is asking the ISPs to disconnect their OWN MILLIONS OF USERS.
And even if they've sucessfully disconnected and maybe prosecuted that millions of users, what would the people think about this?
Slashdot Mirror
ChinaNet is one of the biggest ISPs in China. The Internet Police won't do anything to ChinaNet itself, but their ruthless users.
And then half (or even better, whole) of the Earth is scortched.
Do you think the anyone would win a war by killing everything else on his home planet?
First off,
NO ONE EVER WINS A NUCLEAR WAR!!!!
It's not the WWII now, once some zealots launches a nuclear weapon into another nuke capable country, then both are losers. This is just common sense and need not to be explained further. I really have no idea how the Slashdot crowd could augue "who wins a nuclear war" by looking at who gets more nukes, this is so naive.
You're saying if Darl McBride imitates Dr. Evil then he'll go to step 3 (profit!) instantly? Never imagined that Austin Powers could contain deep financial intelligence.
Not always, friction is just a means to lose energy. When the energy input for the object is purely kinetic energy, we say the object is slowing down.
That's not the case for satelites. When satelites are falling, the energy input are BOTH kinetic and gravitational potential (radius decreases, g potential decreases, work done is positive). Since gravitational potential energy is constantly converted into kinetic energy, we're losing both kinds of energy. Whether the satelite is slowing down or not depends on the rate of change of the two kinds of energies.
i.e.
kinetic energy gained = energy gained from gravitational potential - energy lost to friction
There's nothing (or, a lot of things) to dictate which rate of energy loss is greater. e.g. if your satelite is falling into a think layer of jelly then apparently you can't gain as much from gravitational potential change than friction. However if you're falling onto a planet with a very thin layer of atomsphere then you should be speeding up.
When you can remember them, go to school and be a teacher
Someday we'll all hear from the media: "Copying music is terrorism"
Extracting oil from plants is an interesting idea, as long as the demand isn't high. Last time I read, plants, be it corn, hemp, or trees, are not terribly efficient at producing polymers. So if plant oil were to replace petroleum, we may very well need to turn the whole United States or even the whole America continent into farms.
From what I know what we need from petroleum for making plastics, is mainly the hydrocarbon chains/rings. After we've obtained the HC chains/rings we can cling other atoms (e.g. Cl for making PVC, which we can obtain from the sea and your stomach) onto them, then weave them into longer chains or networks, thus plastic.
If we were to do away from petroleum in making plastics, we must find an alternative way to obtain those hydrocarbon chains. I'm not sure how it can be done easily, as I'm no chemist. But I've heard that it can possibly be synthesized from plain carbon and hydrogen, with some catalysts and energy input. But then, if there's an easy way to produce hydrocarbons (with some alternative energy sources), why hydrogen?
Anyways, it shouldn't be impossible to produce plastics once the oil runs out. If we were to go into great lengths into establishing a hydrogen economy, I doubt if we won't find a way to synthesize plastics in some alternative ways.
If he's really that smart as to go to the thrid step (read: Profit!) without doing much anything. He wouldn't end up being a teacher.
Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source, of coz, that's common sense I suppose. Plz don't repeat that. There're literally thousands of ways to extract hydrogen on Earth. You can get H from hydrocarbons and their derivatives, water, and from your fart (really), just to name a few. Leave that to the chemists, I'm sure we humans have no problem extracting hydrogen at 2003 AD. Even if petroleum runs out, we'll still have plenty of ways to extract hydrogen. The problem is just an energy input. I think you've wrongly assumed that the only energy input we can get right now is from fossil fuels... well that may be the most economic energy source right now. Don't forget however, we've also other effective means of getting energy for the hydrogen cells, nuclear power is an example - and it's not going to run out soon.
forgive my spelling, I'm very sleepy now...
Energy is lost when your converting water into H2 and O2. Suppose your dream non-fossil-fuel electricity generator is of 100% efficiency, than the energy lost in electrolysis should be just the same as the energy gained from burning that H2 back into water. The problem is not about how to get a particular compound, it's about how to get the energy.
They can very well take it further to retrieve the IP list from the tracker, and then go on to sue each of the IPs like RIAA.
M$ software isn't free in speech, still
no, man, your code really won't compile
> while(i++ != 0xFFFFFFFF)
> {
> return 0
> }
You've left out the semicolon after "return 0". Well just a minor mistake.
> Taikonaut was formed by taking the Chinese Chinese word for 'Space' and adding the '-onaut' ending. It's actually "Tai Kon" for "space" in Chinese, what they added was "-aut". It's pretty redundant to argue over how to call the Chinese astronauts tho, since even the Chinese don't care a lot about that. If you go the CCTV's website we (yes I'm a Chinese) just call him as astronaut. http://www.cctv.com.cn/english/index.shtml
well actually, actually... you are wrong too... it won't compile at all ;)
This depends on at least where you're working at. Here in Hong Kong, CS degree students might get less then $800 USD per month working overtime with a computer related job. Programmers are among them. Assuming they work 8 hours a day (it's closer to 10 in fact!), 25 days a month, you get USD $4 per hour -- less than half the salary of a trashman in your country.
Your answer crashes with a stack overflow
but NOT in Soviet Russia? Oh no... unknown error... printer on fire...
It seems that most of the Slashdot population are misinformed about the Godson-I chip...
.18um process. Not the old .25um.
:)
1. Although the chip's Chinese name can be translated directly to "Dragon chip", it has an English name "Godson-I"
2. The chip is manufactured in
3. The chip is targetted at the embedded market, it's not going to compete with the current GHz chips like Pentium 4 or Athlon XP. It's not guaranteed for the future Godson generations tho...
4. Therefore, the chip has an extremely low power consumption, ranging from 0.4W to 1W. (Compare: AXP and P4s -- 50W - 80W). Yes - you can theoretically run 100 or more Godsons simutaneously and they're just consuming the same power as ONE 3GHz P4.
5. It's an MIPS chip, not X86.
If you're able to read Chinese, check out the following URL, it gives you a much clearer idea about the chip
http://www.blxcpu.com/
and,
Merry X'mas
Imagine a beowulf cluster of "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
There're literally millions of p2p network users, how could MPAA possibly disconnect them all? It's even more laughable that MPAA is asking the ISPs to disconnect their OWN MILLIONS OF USERS. And even if they've sucessfully disconnected and maybe prosecuted that millions of users, what would the people think about this?