Because IMO Facebook is just another fad and will go the same way as Friends Reunited when something new and shinier comes along or the novelty wears off. Very few trendy websites stay trendy for more than a few years - its only the interesting ones that survive and theres a limit to how much aquaintances boring lives and silly little games can keep you interested over a long period of time.
A LOT of people by a PC just to access email or the web. If they can do all this with an OS that starts instantly too , why will they want Vista? Time for MS to sweat possibly?
.. ther may well be a market for the specialised hardware and what batter way than for example IBM to advertise their hardware & software abilities as a company to the triumph at chess so the marketing paybacks are enormous , far bigger than slapping your logo on the front of a football player or F1 car.
Either one of the journos really doesn't like apple , or more likely they're just a bunch of incompetent idiots. The whole story is a pile of **** anyway because ALL consumer eletronics give off tiny amounts of fumes from the organics in them.
"1) No CO2 causes the heating up of a closed box in a laboratory."
CO2 strongly absorbs infra red light becauses its raman active at these frequencies. It converts its energy into vibrational and kinetic energy and transmits this energy to the other gases in the atmosphere - ie it heats them up. This is regardless of whether its in a box or not.
"2) We don't know that either. It's likely to *change* things, which might be bad."
No we don't know for certain, you want to take the chance?
"3) Yes, but is it because we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, or because we're removing too many trees ? "
Probably both, but that doesn't change the fact that the CO2 is increasing and nature cannot absorb it all. "
"You don't know whether it will be bad for environment or us"
Any change that leads to higher temperatures in areas that are already subject to drought is bad news for agriculture and will cause more disease.
"the more plants can grow (pretty obvious) "
Actually it might seem obvious but its not true. Experiments have been done and a lot of plants don't grow any quicker in higher CO2 , however they do grow slower if the temperature exceeds certain levels.
1) CO2 does cause heating of the atmosphere. Thats basic physics and is not up for debate.
2) Global warming might not be bad in the long term scheme of things but its bad for the enviroment (and ourselves) as we know it.
3) Given that current natural mechanisms can't cope with the amount of CO2 we're chucking into the atmosphere then its pretty obvious they're inadequate to the needs of clearing up our mess.
When you burn gas you get less CO2 for the same energy output than you do from coal because part of the reaction is reacting the hydrogen in the gas with oxygen which produces water so gas plants arn't quite so bad for the enviroment.
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H20
Coal however is almost 100% carbon (apart from some minor impurities).
If using a remote machine for some sort of computing services , be it data processing or display, isn't remote computing then what would you call it? Fluffy clouding? Dress it up all you want but ultimately all this "cloud" crap is just accessing data and/or services from a remote machine. Which has been done for decades.
The soviet union for example and that was an atheist state. I'm not sure if russia still has it but china certainly does and thats hardly run by the religious.
And for the record I'm an atheist and I'm for the death penalty in certain situations too , so don't assume everyone who supports it is a religious nutter.
At what speed do you have to travel in the atmosphere before the cooling effect of air rushing past is overtaken by the friction effect and you start heating up again? I remember reading that concorde used to heat up on the outside but subsonic airliners don't. Does it have anything to do with the speed of sound?
Right , so in other words its a catch all term for remote computing. So why not call it , oh , I dunno , "remote computing"? A term thats been around since someone came up with the idea of RPCs.
Why have we suddenly taken to calling the internet "the cloud"?. Giving it some fluffy cuddly hippy name doesn't change what it is so is this just an example of technodroolers trying to sound achingly trendy (and failing) yet again?
Looks like the site is being hosted on an MSI Wind
on
OS X On the MSI Wind
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Yeah , of course you did sonny. That'll be why you know all about Phong & gauraud shading, DB normalisation and tuning, digital signal processors, AI vision algorithms, network theory etc.
Because I did all those for my BSc.
But i'll admit , if all you ever do is write mickey mouse VB apps for a living you won't need any of the above.
What exactly do you think all these VMs run on top of , magic pixie dust on an infinite turing machine? All the current vogue for VMs mean is that there are now more OS installations with the same amount of hardware , that hardware hasn't gone anywere and it still needs something to run it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because IMO Facebook is just another fad and will go the same way as Friends Reunited when something new and shinier comes along or the novelty wears off. Very few trendy websites stay trendy for more than a few years - its only the interesting ones that survive and theres a limit to how much aquaintances boring lives and silly little games can keep you interested over a long period of time.
A LOT of people by a PC just to access email or the web. If they can do all this with an OS that starts instantly too , why will they want Vista? Time for MS to sweat possibly?
... when IBM PCs had BASIC in ROM which you could start instantly and (in theory) do some sort of work with without booting DOS. No bad thing IMO.
.. ther may well be a market for the specialised hardware and what batter way than for example IBM to advertise their hardware & software abilities as a company to the triumph at chess so the marketing paybacks are enormous , far bigger than slapping your logo on the front of a football player or F1 car.
Yes it is , but if you want a picture of the archetypal Mac you don't show it running Windows do you.
Either one of the journos really doesn't like apple , or more likely they're just a bunch of incompetent idiots. The whole story is a pile of **** anyway because ALL consumer eletronics give off tiny amounts of fumes from the organics in them.
"Chances are that nature already adapted in some way to our CO2 output."
Yeah right, you still to your hand waving guesswork, I'll go by the scientific evidence.
You want to persuade the russians and canadians?
Yeah , because all we have to do its move a billion people from africa to siberia and northern canada. No problem.
"1) No CO2 causes the heating up of a closed box in a laboratory."
CO2 strongly absorbs infra red light becauses its raman active at these frequencies. It converts its energy into vibrational and kinetic energy and transmits this energy to the other gases in the atmosphere - ie it heats them up. This is regardless of whether its in a box or not.
"2) We don't know that either. It's likely to *change* things, which might be bad."
No we don't know for certain, you want to take the chance?
"3) Yes, but is it because we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, or because we're removing too many trees ? "
Probably both, but that doesn't change the fact that the CO2 is increasing and nature cannot absorb it all.
"
"You don't know whether it will be bad for environment or us"
Any change that leads to higher temperatures in areas that are already subject to drought is bad news for agriculture and will cause more disease.
"the more plants can grow (pretty obvious) "
Actually it might seem obvious but its not true. Experiments have been done and a lot of plants don't grow any quicker in higher CO2 , however they do grow slower if the temperature exceeds certain levels.
Yeah , but it would acidify the water (which is already happening to a small extent) and have who knows what knock on effects.
All we need to do is persuade plankton to go on a binge.
1) CO2 does cause heating of the atmosphere. Thats basic physics and is not up for debate.
2) Global warming might not be bad in the long term scheme of things but its bad for the enviroment (and ourselves) as we know it.
3) Given that current natural mechanisms can't cope with the amount of CO2 we're chucking into the atmosphere then its pretty obvious they're inadequate to the needs of clearing up our mess.
When you burn gas you get less CO2 for the same energy output than you do from coal because part of the reaction is reacting the hydrogen in the gas with oxygen which produces water so gas plants arn't quite so bad for the enviroment.
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H20
Coal however is almost 100% carbon (apart from some minor impurities).
If using a remote machine for some sort of computing services , be it data processing or display, isn't remote computing then what would you call it? Fluffy clouding? Dress it up all you want but ultimately all this "cloud" crap is just accessing data and/or services from a remote machine. Which has been done for decades.
The soviet union for example and that was an atheist state. I'm not sure if russia still has it but china certainly does and thats hardly run by the religious.
And for the record I'm an atheist and I'm for the death penalty in certain situations too , so don't assume everyone who supports it is a religious nutter.
At what speed do you have to travel in the atmosphere before the cooling effect of air rushing past is overtaken by the friction effect and you start heating up again? I remember reading that concorde used to heat up on the outside but subsonic airliners don't. Does it have anything to do with the speed of sound?
Right , so in other words its a catch all term for remote computing. So why not call it , oh , I dunno , "remote computing"? A term thats been around since someone came up with the idea of RPCs.
Why have we suddenly taken to calling the internet "the cloud"?. Giving it some fluffy cuddly hippy name doesn't change what it is so is this just an example of technodroolers trying to sound achingly trendy (and failing) yet again?
Its slashdotted already
Yeah , of course you did sonny. That'll be why you know all about Phong & gauraud shading, DB normalisation and tuning, digital signal processors, AI vision algorithms, network theory etc.
Because I did all those for my BSc.
But i'll admit , if all you ever do is write mickey mouse VB apps for a living you won't need any of the above.
Linux 2.0 & 2.2. In that case I think Solaris would wins hands down , in fact with hands tied behind its back with a gag in its mouth!
What exactly do you think all these VMs run on top of , magic pixie dust on an infinite turing machine? All the current vogue for VMs mean is that there are now more OS installations with the same amount of hardware , that hardware hasn't gone anywere and it still needs something to run it.
No , you're talking out your rear end.