This is a site for geeks. What is the geek's arch nemesis (if we're to stereotype)? Jocks and people perceived to be idiots. We don't talk about it too much, but there's usually at least a latent dislike towards people who perceive themselves as intelligent but are pretty obviously not well educated and seem to not be the sharpest tool in the toolbox.
Not only does Palin have those qualities in spades, she's even quite outspoken about her disdain towards the elite, educated types (us). If there were ever to be a person who would be mocked more on slashdot hypothetically I can't imagine what quality they would need in order to exceed Palin's natural ability to attract our ire.
Yes. That's one of the lowest tax rates in the country (15%). Also, you are only taxed if you make a profit obviously, so it isn't like you would lose money should capital gains taxes increase although your profit would be reduced of course.
In addition, even some of the wealthiest people in the world are in favor of increasing the capital gains tax, such as Warren Buffett (who made his fortune from stocks).
Where does the money come from for those programs? For the most part it comes from tax payers. What would be the incentive for people to pay taxes in one state with all of the jobs going to another? If all of the construction was done in Florida then all of the people in the other states would be paying taxes for those salaries without seeing any direct benefit.
So while there's certainly a political incentive, it's also more fair for the jobs to be distributed regionally as well.
The reason there's foam is to prevent ice from forming on the fuel tank. Ice is both a weight issue as well as a falling hazard. The Apollo rocket boosters had no foam (or very little, but I'm pretty sure it was none) since falling ice wasn't a hazard.
Of course you wouldn't put a glider on top of the rocket booster. You would put a standard capsule on top, as was done during Apollo.
Look, I love the shuttle but there's no way it can compete on cost with a standard rocket, period. We tried for decades to make it more cost effective yet it still costs several times more per pound of payload to launch than by using a Soyuz rocket.
When NASA was looking for a replacement for the shuttle they didn't even consider another glider due to the cost issue alone.
I would also argue that it can't compete on safety with a simpler launch system either.
What does the glider offer? It's almost completely reusable (everything but the primary fuel tank). It can land near where it is launched from (although often lands in California due to weather and must be flown back to Florida at enormous cost).
However, it also requires a lot more fuel per pound of payload to launch. The vehicle costs much more than a capsule system. It also has to go through an extensive (and expensive) refurbishing process after each mission. And, of course, it is a heck of a lot more complicated (so has many more parts that can fail).
Those two Soyuz disasters happened very early in its program (the first and eleventh flight). There has not been another disaster on the Soyuz since 1971. During the entire lifetime of the shuttle program there hasn't been a single fatality on the Soyuz.
NASA learned from their mistakes and did a good job of not repeating them. After Apollo 1 they stopped filling the capsule with 100% oxygen and made some design changes to the capsule to make it safer (and there hasn't been another cabin fire since on any mission).
The Apollo style rockets are fundamentally safer than shuttles. If we had stayed with that kind of rocket we likely would have had something similar to the Russian Soyuz, a rocket that hasn't had an accident since 1971. The reason they are safer is due to being much less complex and because they carry the payload on top of the rocket (so there is no chance of it being struck by falling ice or foam during launch).
The number of Russians (or anyone else) who died on launches by Soyuz during the lifetime of the shuttle program: zero.
That was not the critical flaw to the shuttle. The flaw was its basic concept, of having a hypersonic space glider attached to the side of a rocket. It simply can't compete on a cost basis with traditional rockets (of having the payload carried on top of a disposable rocket). It also is more dangerous due to ice and foam falling from the fuel tank which can then strike the shuttle. If you watch old Apollo launches you will see large chunks of ice fall from the boosters but then harmlessly fall to the ground since there was nothing for it to his.
I don't blame congress for that critical flaw since there really was no way to know how difficult it would be to solve the issue of falling ice and foam or how much it would cost to do the shuttle launches until they tried it since it had never been tried at that point in time. Once they saw how expensive it was they probably should have gone back to the drawing board, but this was going on at the end of the Cold War and I'm sure the political pressure to continue building shuttles was immense.
I would recommend taking a real look at what America was like before those programs. Obviously there was a time when those programs did not exist and I would argue that the America of today is a heck of a lot better (in terms of average life expectancy, GDP, wealth, productiveness, etc). I would also argue that you cannot possibly find another country in the world that doesn't have a social safety net that is in any way, shape, or form a better place to live than here.
You would be voting for a liar or, at best, someone who is delusional. It is possible to cut defense spending (although it would be very difficult to do politically), but how the heck are you going to cut medicare, medicaid and social security? People are stilling going to get sick and need to go to the hospital and people at the hospital aren't going to work for free. Retired people are still going to need social security in order to pay their bills (and they've already paid their dues so it's hard to imagine justifying cuts to them on social security), reducing spending on them isn't going to lower their mortgage or other bills. The population is growing as well as the number of retirees, so demand for medicare, medicaid and social security is going to continue to grow.
He's not flying the plane. The flight would also be mostly in international airspace which doesn't belong to anyone.
Japan can be very annoying with their security for flights, even violating their own rules. For example, I was flying back with a coworker once from Japan. He bought a bottle of water at a store right next to the gate we were departing from. He turned the corner, started to go past security to get on board and they promptly took the bottle from him even though he hadn't even opened it yet. I checked Japan's airline security policy later and found that they explicitly allow people to bring unopened water bottles bought in the secured part of the airport on flights.
My analysis of the health care reform is that the health care debate was that the government is going to take on an unaffordable liability (or pass it on to the states) and will basically use cost controls which will distort the market further encouraging monopolies, perhaps even giving rise to state run health care, instead of attacking market inefficiencies (eliminating different prices regardless of who pays (insurance company or patient), requirements that medical provider and insurance companies must publicly provide the prices you can expect to pay for a variety of services both before getting a policy and then before service is provided, requiring the insurance company to share cost savings with the patient for choosing the cheaper option, etc.) to provide customers a method to choose cheaper options.
Where do you see the government picking up any additional liabilities? This isn't like the prescription drug bill (which did add $0.5 trillion over 10 years to federal liabilities). In that case, the government started directly paying for prescriptions that patients would have either done without or would have had to pay for themselves.
There isn't a public option. There is some additional funding for medicaid but the main expense to the federal government with the reform plan that was passed is a tax rebate to small businesses to help them pay for health insurance. This is primarily paid for by a tax on premium health care plans.
As far as I can tell there is no additional increase in federal liabilities. It isn't called the individual mandate for nothing and is actually a Republican idea from the early 90s.
These expenses are currently getting paid one way or the other. People are going to the ER to get treatment whether they have insurance or not. If they cannot afford to pay for it, the hospital is stuck with the bill which is then passed on to the rest of us.
There are some temporary liabilities at the state level but once the reform is fully in place a few years from now these liabilities will no longer exist (as they will no longer be needed). For example, the requirement that states offer high-risk insurance pools at an affordable cost is only going to exist until insurance companies can no longer refuse insurance to people at risk (which will only happen after everyone is required to have insurance a few years from now).
Note: You may have seen an early version of the bill. It was very watered down by the end. You mention cost controls but if you check the latest CBO reports on it the minimal cost controls in the bill that was passed have almost no effect at all.
It's actually difficult to say how many people who make $250k are what we normally consider small business owners. Do you consider a doctor or lawyer running their own office a small business owner? They would be categorized the same on their tax forms if they made a S corporation (which is common).
In addition, even if the Bush tax cuts are repealed it would have little effect on small business owners. For more information, see:
(assuming you're in America) How do you like that smog-free air you breath? You think that just happened by chance or by the free market alone? Virtually every car sold in the US since the late 70s has a little chemistry set onboard to convert toxic combustion products to less toxic ones. Does that device improve the performance of the car? Of course not and it obviously costs money to add it to the car. We are also using low-sulfur fuel which greatly helps reduce acid rain but costs more to produce due to more refining but doesn't give a performance benefit over higher sulfur fuel.
This is all thanks to action by the federal government decades ago. Even though there are many more cars on the road now than 30 years ago the air quality has improved greatly in all US cities.
The reason you see an organic label is because the produce doesn't look obviously different than the alternative. Can you taste antibiotics in milk? No, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. You wouldn't see a difference between a car with a catalytic converter versus on without it but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between the two.
So if you want to call that socialism, fine. I'll take the fresh air of socialism over the choking smog of the alternative any day.
I often hear conservatives say we're wasting too much money on x (say on administration costs at a public school or government agency). However, when I show them the raw numbers for the budget (including the fraction spent on administration costs) they will still believe we're spending too much. In one case, they claimed something like 10-20% was spent on administration expenses but when I showed them the report showing only 5% was spent on administration they still wouldn't budge.
And that was a very unusual case. Typically they don't even claim to have an idea of how much money is being wasted, just that it is and in huge amounts.
Somehow, no matter how enormous the benefits and pay packages are for executives of private corporations there is this belief among conservatives that private companies are, by default, more efficient than the government. For this reason more and more government functions are being contracted out to private companies. However, is there proof of this assertion? Who needs proof? It sounds good so it has to be true under any and all circumstances.
Do you know what proportion of the population payed the federal income tax when it was reintroduced in 1913? Or a couple of years after that? It has moderated a lot over the years, early on only the very rich had to pay the tax.
In fact, when it was first passed they didn't even consider having everyone pay the same rate (or pay at all). One of the more extreme senators I could find (quickly) who supported your position (having everyone pay) would only go this far:
(Senator) Lodge did not attack the essential idea of the income tax. Such a tax, he said, was well fitted to distribute equally the burdens of Government upon those best able to bear them. The viciousness of the Democratic bill, he said, lay in its exemptions from all burdens of the great middle class. Instead of exempting all incomes of less than $4,000, he said, he would rather see an impost like that suggested by Mr. McCumber of North Dakota, which proposed a tax of one-tenth of 1 per cent. on incomes of $1,000, with gradual increases of rates as the income increased. In that way, said Mr. Lodge, practically every citizen would feel that he had a share in the Government, as well as a personal interest in its economic administration.
That was in August, 1913 (from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A02E7DC113CE633A2575AC2A96E9C946296D6CF&scp=3&sq=income+tax&st=p). At that time the average annual income rate was a little over $700 (in 1913 dollars, which is obviously what he was referring to in the quote). So even this senator was only proposing to include the middle class rather than relying solely on the rich, and only adding a very slight tax on the middle class. He didn't even consider levying the tax on the poor.
Melosh calculates the PETE process can get to 50 percent efficiency or more under solar concentration, but if combined with a thermal conversion cycle, could reach 55 or even 60 percent – almost triple the efficiency of existing systems.
And if you make it opt-in and someone gets into an accident and can't be identified for whatever reason (do you always carry your ID when you leave the house?) his wishes aren't going to be respected.
I don't see how that can possibly be true. A donor's organs needs to match almost perfectly with the recipient and the organs need to be free of disease. How would they know whether the donor has any genetic or personal history of countless diseases without knowing who the donor is?
According to the report, blocking IO with one thread per connection is faster than even epoll by 25%. From page 18:
To work around not so performant/scalable poll() implementation on Linux's we tried using epoll with Blackwidow JVM on a 2.6.5 kernel. while epoll improved the over scalability, the performance still remained 25% below the vanilla thread per connection model. With epoll we needed lot fewer threads to get to the best performance mark that we could get out of NIO.
Even practical nuclear fusion wouldn't generate nearly enough helium to meet today's needs. Fusion creates an incredibly tiny amount of helium. Even if all of the electrical power in the world was generated by fusion there wouldn't be enough helium produced to fill a single Goodyear blimp in a year.
There's already shortages of helium-3 (an isotope that has to be manufactured). The entire world only produces 20,000 liters of helium-3 per year (it takes 368 million liters of helium to fill a blimp).
Once the natural supply of helium-2 runs out, all helium would have to be produced on earth artificially or somehow imported from other parts of the solar system. It would take billions of years for enough uranium to decay to replenish the earth's supply of helium.
Also, from one of the articles linked to in the story (Sobotka refers to Lee Sobotka, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and physics in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis):
"When we use what has been made over the approximate 4.5 billion of years the Earth has been around, we will run out," Sobotka said . "We cannot get too significant quantities of helium from the sun — which can be viewed as a helium factory 93 million miles away — nor will we ever produce helium in anywhere near the quantities we need from Earth-bound factories. Helium could eventually be produced directly in nuclear fusion reactors and is produced indirectly in nuclear fission reactors, but the quantities produced by such sources are dwarfed by our needs."
Sorry to reply a second time, but the punishment for this 'crime' is:
Article 24 Where foreign organizations or individuals use encryption products or equipment containing encryption technology without approval, the State Cryptographic Administration Authority, in conjunction with the public security departments, shall issue an official warning and order rectification, and may also confiscate the encryption products or equipment containing encryption technology.
Article 24 Where foreign organizations or individuals use encryption products or equipment containing encryption technology without approval, the State Cryptographic Administration Authority, in conjunction with the public security departments, shall issue an official warning and order rectification, and may also confiscate the encryption products or equipment containing encryption technology.
What law would this person be breaking? As far as I can tell there is no such explicit law in China forbidding people from circumventing the Great Firewall of China, although nothing would stop them from trumping up some charges against you using one of their many loosely defined laws, such as distribution of 'state secrets' which can be virtually anything (but they could do that regardless).
Absolutely. Or, as a simpler approach, assume you will always get caught. That is almost always a safe assumption no matter how smart you think you are or how complex your schemes are.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a site for geeks. What is the geek's arch nemesis (if we're to stereotype)? Jocks and people perceived to be idiots. We don't talk about it too much, but there's usually at least a latent dislike towards people who perceive themselves as intelligent but are pretty obviously not well educated and seem to not be the sharpest tool in the toolbox.
Not only does Palin have those qualities in spades, she's even quite outspoken about her disdain towards the elite, educated types (us). If there were ever to be a person who would be mocked more on slashdot hypothetically I can't imagine what quality they would need in order to exceed Palin's natural ability to attract our ire.
Yes. That's one of the lowest tax rates in the country (15%). Also, you are only taxed if you make a profit obviously, so it isn't like you would lose money should capital gains taxes increase although your profit would be reduced of course.
In addition, even some of the wealthiest people in the world are in favor of increasing the capital gains tax, such as Warren Buffett (who made his fortune from stocks).
Where does the money come from for those programs? For the most part it comes from tax payers. What would be the incentive for people to pay taxes in one state with all of the jobs going to another? If all of the construction was done in Florida then all of the people in the other states would be paying taxes for those salaries without seeing any direct benefit.
So while there's certainly a political incentive, it's also more fair for the jobs to be distributed regionally as well.
The reason there's foam is to prevent ice from forming on the fuel tank. Ice is both a weight issue as well as a falling hazard. The Apollo rocket boosters had no foam (or very little, but I'm pretty sure it was none) since falling ice wasn't a hazard.
Of course you wouldn't put a glider on top of the rocket booster. You would put a standard capsule on top, as was done during Apollo.
Look, I love the shuttle but there's no way it can compete on cost with a standard rocket, period. We tried for decades to make it more cost effective yet it still costs several times more per pound of payload to launch than by using a Soyuz rocket.
When NASA was looking for a replacement for the shuttle they didn't even consider another glider due to the cost issue alone.
I would also argue that it can't compete on safety with a simpler launch system either.
What does the glider offer? It's almost completely reusable (everything but the primary fuel tank). It can land near where it is launched from (although often lands in California due to weather and must be flown back to Florida at enormous cost).
However, it also requires a lot more fuel per pound of payload to launch. The vehicle costs much more than a capsule system. It also has to go through an extensive (and expensive) refurbishing process after each mission. And, of course, it is a heck of a lot more complicated (so has many more parts that can fail).
Those two Soyuz disasters happened very early in its program (the first and eleventh flight). There has not been another disaster on the Soyuz since 1971. During the entire lifetime of the shuttle program there hasn't been a single fatality on the Soyuz.
NASA learned from their mistakes and did a good job of not repeating them. After Apollo 1 they stopped filling the capsule with 100% oxygen and made some design changes to the capsule to make it safer (and there hasn't been another cabin fire since on any mission).
The Apollo style rockets are fundamentally safer than shuttles. If we had stayed with that kind of rocket we likely would have had something similar to the Russian Soyuz, a rocket that hasn't had an accident since 1971. The reason they are safer is due to being much less complex and because they carry the payload on top of the rocket (so there is no chance of it being struck by falling ice or foam during launch).
The number of Russians (or anyone else) who died on launches by Soyuz during the lifetime of the shuttle program: zero.
The parent is absolutely correct.
That was not the critical flaw to the shuttle. The flaw was its basic concept, of having a hypersonic space glider attached to the side of a rocket. It simply can't compete on a cost basis with traditional rockets (of having the payload carried on top of a disposable rocket). It also is more dangerous due to ice and foam falling from the fuel tank which can then strike the shuttle. If you watch old Apollo launches you will see large chunks of ice fall from the boosters but then harmlessly fall to the ground since there was nothing for it to his.
I don't blame congress for that critical flaw since there really was no way to know how difficult it would be to solve the issue of falling ice and foam or how much it would cost to do the shuttle launches until they tried it since it had never been tried at that point in time. Once they saw how expensive it was they probably should have gone back to the drawing board, but this was going on at the end of the Cold War and I'm sure the political pressure to continue building shuttles was immense.
I would recommend taking a real look at what America was like before those programs. Obviously there was a time when those programs did not exist and I would argue that the America of today is a heck of a lot better (in terms of average life expectancy, GDP, wealth, productiveness, etc). I would also argue that you cannot possibly find another country in the world that doesn't have a social safety net that is in any way, shape, or form a better place to live than here.
You would be voting for a liar or, at best, someone who is delusional. It is possible to cut defense spending (although it would be very difficult to do politically), but how the heck are you going to cut medicare, medicaid and social security? People are stilling going to get sick and need to go to the hospital and people at the hospital aren't going to work for free. Retired people are still going to need social security in order to pay their bills (and they've already paid their dues so it's hard to imagine justifying cuts to them on social security), reducing spending on them isn't going to lower their mortgage or other bills. The population is growing as well as the number of retirees, so demand for medicare, medicaid and social security is going to continue to grow.
He's not flying the plane. The flight would also be mostly in international airspace which doesn't belong to anyone.
Japan can be very annoying with their security for flights, even violating their own rules. For example, I was flying back with a coworker once from Japan. He bought a bottle of water at a store right next to the gate we were departing from. He turned the corner, started to go past security to get on board and they promptly took the bottle from him even though he hadn't even opened it yet. I checked Japan's airline security policy later and found that they explicitly allow people to bring unopened water bottles bought in the secured part of the airport on flights.
That would be mob rule. That's exactly what the founding fathers did not want and worried extensively about when preparing the Constitution.
Why do you think senators have terms of 6 years while members of the House serve only 2 years?
My analysis of the health care reform is that the health care debate was that the government is going to take on an unaffordable liability (or pass it on to the states) and will basically use cost controls which will distort the market further encouraging monopolies, perhaps even giving rise to state run health care, instead of attacking market inefficiencies (eliminating different prices regardless of who pays (insurance company or patient), requirements that medical provider and insurance companies must publicly provide the prices you can expect to pay for a variety of services both before getting a policy and then before service is provided, requiring the insurance company to share cost savings with the patient for choosing the cheaper option, etc.) to provide customers a method to choose cheaper options.
Where do you see the government picking up any additional liabilities? This isn't like the prescription drug bill (which did add $0.5 trillion over 10 years to federal liabilities). In that case, the government started directly paying for prescriptions that patients would have either done without or would have had to pay for themselves.
There isn't a public option. There is some additional funding for medicaid but the main expense to the federal government with the reform plan that was passed is a tax rebate to small businesses to help them pay for health insurance. This is primarily paid for by a tax on premium health care plans.
As far as I can tell there is no additional increase in federal liabilities. It isn't called the individual mandate for nothing and is actually a Republican idea from the early 90s.
These expenses are currently getting paid one way or the other. People are going to the ER to get treatment whether they have insurance or not. If they cannot afford to pay for it, the hospital is stuck with the bill which is then passed on to the rest of us.
There are some temporary liabilities at the state level but once the reform is fully in place a few years from now these liabilities will no longer exist (as they will no longer be needed). For example, the requirement that states offer high-risk insurance pools at an affordable cost is only going to exist until insurance companies can no longer refuse insurance to people at risk (which will only happen after everyone is required to have insurance a few years from now).
Note: You may have seen an early version of the bill. It was very watered down by the end. You mention cost controls but if you check the latest CBO reports on it the minimal cost controls in the bill that was passed have almost no effect at all.
It's actually difficult to say how many people who make $250k are what we normally consider small business owners. Do you consider a doctor or lawyer running their own office a small business owner? They would be categorized the same on their tax forms if they made a S corporation (which is common).
In addition, even if the Bush tax cuts are repealed it would have little effect on small business owners. For more information, see:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/27/stephen-hayes/so-called-wealthy-are-actually-small-business-owne/
(assuming you're in America) How do you like that smog-free air you breath? You think that just happened by chance or by the free market alone? Virtually every car sold in the US since the late 70s has a little chemistry set onboard to convert toxic combustion products to less toxic ones. Does that device improve the performance of the car? Of course not and it obviously costs money to add it to the car. We are also using low-sulfur fuel which greatly helps reduce acid rain but costs more to produce due to more refining but doesn't give a performance benefit over higher sulfur fuel.
This is all thanks to action by the federal government decades ago. Even though there are many more cars on the road now than 30 years ago the air quality has improved greatly in all US cities.
The reason you see an organic label is because the produce doesn't look obviously different than the alternative. Can you taste antibiotics in milk? No, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. You wouldn't see a difference between a car with a catalytic converter versus on without it but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between the two.
So if you want to call that socialism, fine. I'll take the fresh air of socialism over the choking smog of the alternative any day.
I often hear conservatives say we're wasting too much money on x (say on administration costs at a public school or government agency). However, when I show them the raw numbers for the budget (including the fraction spent on administration costs) they will still believe we're spending too much. In one case, they claimed something like 10-20% was spent on administration expenses but when I showed them the report showing only 5% was spent on administration they still wouldn't budge.
And that was a very unusual case. Typically they don't even claim to have an idea of how much money is being wasted, just that it is and in huge amounts.
Somehow, no matter how enormous the benefits and pay packages are for executives of private corporations there is this belief among conservatives that private companies are, by default, more efficient than the government. For this reason more and more government functions are being contracted out to private companies. However, is there proof of this assertion? Who needs proof? It sounds good so it has to be true under any and all circumstances.
Do you know what proportion of the population payed the federal income tax when it was reintroduced in 1913? Or a couple of years after that? It has moderated a lot over the years, early on only the very rich had to pay the tax.
In fact, when it was first passed they didn't even consider having everyone pay the same rate (or pay at all). One of the more extreme senators I could find (quickly) who supported your position (having everyone pay) would only go this far:
(Senator) Lodge did not attack the essential idea of the income tax. Such a tax, he said, was well fitted to distribute equally the burdens of Government upon those best able to bear them. The viciousness of the Democratic bill, he said, lay in its exemptions from all burdens of the great middle class. Instead of exempting all incomes of less than $4,000, he said, he would rather see an impost like that suggested by Mr. McCumber of North Dakota, which proposed a tax of one-tenth of 1 per cent. on incomes of $1,000, with gradual increases of rates as the income increased. In that way, said Mr. Lodge, practically every citizen would feel that he had a share in the Government, as well as a personal interest in its economic administration.
That was in August, 1913 (from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A02E7DC113CE633A2575AC2A96E9C946296D6CF&scp=3&sq=income+tax&st=p). At that time the average annual income rate was a little over $700 (in 1913 dollars, which is obviously what he was referring to in the quote). So even this senator was only proposing to include the middle class rather than relying solely on the rich, and only adding a very slight tax on the middle class. He didn't even consider levying the tax on the poor.
Continue reading:
Melosh calculates the PETE process can get to 50 percent efficiency or more under solar concentration, but if combined with a thermal conversion cycle, could reach 55 or even 60 percent – almost triple the efficiency of existing systems.
And if you make it opt-in and someone gets into an accident and can't be identified for whatever reason (do you always carry your ID when you leave the house?) his wishes aren't going to be respected.
I don't see how that can possibly be true. A donor's organs needs to match almost perfectly with the recipient and the organs need to be free of disease. How would they know whether the donor has any genetic or personal history of countless diseases without knowing who the donor is?
According to the report, blocking IO with one thread per connection is faster than even epoll by 25%. From page 18:
To work around not so performant/scalable poll() implementation on Linux's we tried using epoll with Blackwidow JVM on a 2.6.5 kernel. while epoll improved the over scalability, the performance still remained 25% below the vanilla thread per connection model. With epoll we needed lot fewer threads to get to the best performance mark that we could get out of NIO.
Even practical nuclear fusion wouldn't generate nearly enough helium to meet today's needs. Fusion creates an incredibly tiny amount of helium. Even if all of the electrical power in the world was generated by fusion there wouldn't be enough helium produced to fill a single Goodyear blimp in a year.
There's already shortages of helium-3 (an isotope that has to be manufactured). The entire world only produces 20,000 liters of helium-3 per year (it takes 368 million liters of helium to fill a blimp).
See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/us/23helium.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=helium%20billions&st=cse
Once the natural supply of helium-2 runs out, all helium would have to be produced on earth artificially or somehow imported from other parts of the solar system. It would take billions of years for enough uranium to decay to replenish the earth's supply of helium.
Also, from one of the articles linked to in the story (Sobotka refers to Lee Sobotka, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and physics in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis):
"When we use what has been made over the approximate 4.5 billion of years the Earth has been around, we will run out," Sobotka said . "We cannot get too significant quantities of helium from the sun — which can be viewed as a helium factory 93 million miles away — nor will we ever produce helium in anywhere near the quantities we need from Earth-bound factories. Helium could eventually be produced directly in nuclear fusion reactors and is produced indirectly in nuclear fission reactors, but the quantities produced by such sources are dwarfed by our needs."
Sorry to reply a second time, but the punishment for this 'crime' is:
Article 24 Where foreign organizations or individuals use encryption products or equipment containing encryption technology without approval, the State Cryptographic Administration Authority, in conjunction with the public security departments, shall issue an official warning and order rectification, and may also confiscate the encryption products or equipment containing encryption technology.
From http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/readArticle.asp?id=2384
Seems like the worst possible thing they can do is confiscate his laptop. Big deal.
Doesn't seem like a big deal to me (from http://www.chinaeclaw.com/english/readArticle.asp?id=2384 ):
Article 24 Where foreign organizations or individuals use encryption products or equipment containing encryption technology without approval, the State Cryptographic Administration Authority, in conjunction with the public security departments, shall issue an official warning and order rectification, and may also confiscate the encryption products or equipment containing encryption technology.
What law would this person be breaking? As far as I can tell there is no such explicit law in China forbidding people from circumventing the Great Firewall of China, although nothing would stop them from trumping up some charges against you using one of their many loosely defined laws, such as distribution of 'state secrets' which can be virtually anything (but they could do that regardless).
Absolutely. Or, as a simpler approach, assume you will always get caught. That is almost always a safe assumption no matter how smart you think you are or how complex your schemes are.