Bought an HP tablet for $99 and put Android on it, does everything the iPad can do. Still kind of a useless device.
Not everything - it couldn't turn a profit for its manufacturer.
Also, the fact that it had Android on it probably had something to do with it. (Not a critique of Android directly, just that the TouchPad was not made with it in mind)
Right now you can, yes - the current Mac Pro is extremely long in the tooth and overpriced for what it is (and using server CPUs really pushes the price up).
Assuming they do update it when the Sandy Bridge Xeons are available in much higher volume (around now) then it'll get more competitive (but still cost more).
It does have some very well thought out features in hardware design though (although again, I'm sure it's not the only screw-less case out there, for example).
So wait... are Apple "copycats", or are they leaders?
You say you're waiting for a "cheaper, better performing Linux tablet" - so where are they right now? You know, the ones Apple is supposedly "copying"? Why not buy one of those?
We've also been hearing the "just you wait for the cheaper, better Android tablets" line since the release of the iPad 1. We're still waiting.
Asus Eee Pad Transformer was pretty good, briefly, (at $100 less than an equivalent iPad at the time), but the new retina iPad seems to have eclipsed it, and the iPad it matched is now the same price.
Did they finally patch in working support for the SD card reader? The so called "killer feature" missing from the iPad that shipped broken on the Xoom.
Just curious:p
I agree though, the iPad should at least offer the option.
It's still not perfect. Most of the scaling works perfectly, but just like on Windows, there are some apps that simply do not like to go off piste with a "non-standard" dpi.
Like I say, it's getting better, but it's still not 100% there yet.
Because Windows and OS X have spotty support for high dpi modes right now (both slated to improve enormously in next release), so while your images, video, scaled up vector fonts etc all look fantastic, the UI elements tend to be tiny. You can scale the UI, but this sometimes breaks some apps.
I would not take a dewar of any cryogenic liquid onto an aircraft - I don't even ride in the lift with them. That said, a small volume wouldn't pose all that much of an asphyxiation hazard. I carry LN2 around in a cheap thermos bought at the grocery store and you can keep it liquid that way for hours.
They could run more reactions that show positive power output (eg, D-T runs), but those are the ones that tend to irradiate the reactor. They know that they *can* do it based on the models, but they tend not to since they are putting more work into the other things that need to be solved without having to deal with excess radiation buildup inside a vessel that they are climbing in and out of relatively frequently (compared to a working power reactor, say).
It takes time, and resources. What they have managed on the limited resources they have is pretty good. I certainly wouldn't call it disappointing given the (financial and planning and construction) roadblocks the have faced - the science is good.
The fact that the human race sees fit to give it microscopic amounts of money (relative to say, the war for oil, err I mean "on terror" in the Middle East, or on oil subsidies and exploration etc.)
It's expensive research, and the money they get is "large", but it really should be much more heavily funded. It is a surmountable problem, and once it is solved the human race will have virtually limitless energy.
That's not really ITER's fault (and really, how is it disappointing? The research *is* going forward with goals and useful information).
I mentioned this the other day, but the UK spent more on ringtones for cellphones annually than it did on fusion research in 2008-2010 (or around that time). The problem of funding starvation is one of priorities over other projects - for example, the money being pumped into oil field location, or the wars in the Middle East.
"Cannibalising" one fusion project to fund another really isn't the way to go about this.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we have to take money away from fusion research. Perhaps one or two fewer wars in deserts, or an increase of one or two cents on the top tax rate for millionaires might be more effective?
There's very little actual mass of plasma inside. If it touches the walls it instantly gets contaminated and cools down. There's not really enough to "burn through" the various layers of the reactor vessel if it loses magnetic containment - it would cool down very quickly.
Think about dripping candle wax onto your skin. The first drop might burn the local area right at the surface, but there's just not enough volume of liquid at that temperature to keep on burning your skin to any significant degree before all the heat has dissipated.
In a science classroom, that *is* the only relevant source of truth. The Scientific Method what determines "truth" in this context (and even then, it puts limitations on the use of the word). The problem with religion and Creationism in this scenario is that it positions a supernatural creator as the solution, with no evidence or falsifiable hypothesis. It's simply not science. They have tried to dress it up like science but it does not bear scrutiny.
This doesn't mean that no other sources of "truth" exist - for example, spiritual discussions, philosophy etc; simply that calling certain things "science" and placing them in a situation where they are given equal weight to a scientific theory in a scientific context and taught as one just will not hold.
Regardless, I don't see what is wrong in teaching kids both evolution and the evidence for or against it, and creationism and the evidence for or against it. People need to be encouraged to reason not just memorize whichever view we decide is "right" and cram down their throats.
That's the whole point there *is* no evidence for or against Creationism - it's a made up story based on a work of fiction. It's not a scientific hypothesis that can be debated. It's a set of beliefs. Just like I believe there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Shut up, there totally is! Prove that there isn't! You just have to take my word for it and believe that it is there.
The pros and cons of the theory of evolution, however (and the wider discussion about the Scientific Method) are suitable topics for discussion.
You could also just pump shitloads of energy into a Syngas process. You can use almost anything with carbon in it. All it takes is energy. The chemistry is quite literally WW2-era.
The UK spent more on ringtones for cellphones in 2010 than they did on fusion power research, despite having the JET in Oxford where a lot of heavy lifting in the fusion world has been done (among many other excellent research groups).
It will be forever just out of reach unless we stumble across a needle in a haystack or we actually put some worthwhile money behind it. Once we crack it (and we will, eventually, but infinitely faster if we fund it properly) then energy independence is solved forever. That sounds like hyperbole, but it's really not - if you can generate power by nuclear fusion on the Earth then we have unlimited fuel and endless power.
I mean, the US spends more money per year air conditioning tents in Afghanistan than they do on NASA's entire budget. Priorities. Wonky. The US put a man on the moon in 9 years because the Soviets launched a tin can into LEO that did nothing but go "beep beep". Maybe I should start a rumour that the Chinese have built a prototype fusion reactor and might someday get it working...
Slashdot Mirror
That's because I'm not comparing the Macbook Pro *at all*. I'm talking about the Mac Pro.
If you are lugging that around as a portable I hope you have a few future hernia operations scheduled.
Bought an HP tablet for $99 and put Android on it, does everything the iPad can do. Still kind of a useless device.
Not everything - it couldn't turn a profit for its manufacturer.
Also, the fact that it had Android on it probably had something to do with it. (Not a critique of Android directly, just that the TouchPad was not made with it in mind)
Right now you can, yes - the current Mac Pro is extremely long in the tooth and overpriced for what it is (and using server CPUs really pushes the price up).
Assuming they do update it when the Sandy Bridge Xeons are available in much higher volume (around now) then it'll get more competitive (but still cost more).
It does have some very well thought out features in hardware design though (although again, I'm sure it's not the only screw-less case out there, for example).
I was surprised that they kept the 10W charger.
The battery is massive (compared to the iPad 2), and almost half the size of an actual Macbook - and those use much more powerful chargers.
I have to assume that the charging circuitry is simply not rated for the much higher current.
So wait... are Apple "copycats", or are they leaders?
You say you're waiting for a "cheaper, better performing Linux tablet" - so where are they right now? You know, the ones Apple is supposedly "copying"? Why not buy one of those?
We've also been hearing the "just you wait for the cheaper, better Android tablets" line since the release of the iPad 1. We're still waiting.
Asus Eee Pad Transformer was pretty good, briefly, (at $100 less than an equivalent iPad at the time), but the new retina iPad seems to have eclipsed it, and the iPad it matched is now the same price.
Every other car like the.... Xoom?
Did they finally patch in working support for the SD card reader? The so called "killer feature" missing from the iPad that shipped broken on the Xoom.
Just curious :p
I agree though, the iPad should at least offer the option.
It's still not perfect. Most of the scaling works perfectly, but just like on Windows, there are some apps that simply do not like to go off piste with a "non-standard" dpi.
Like I say, it's getting better, but it's still not 100% there yet.
Because Windows and OS X have spotty support for high dpi modes right now (both slated to improve enormously in next release), so while your images, video, scaled up vector fonts etc all look fantastic, the UI elements tend to be tiny. You can scale the UI, but this sometimes breaks some apps.
Of course, it is vented :p
(also, Derek's site is a common read among me and my friends!)
I would not take a dewar of any cryogenic liquid onto an aircraft - I don't even ride in the lift with them. That said, a small volume wouldn't pose all that much of an asphyxiation hazard. I carry LN2 around in a cheap thermos bought at the grocery store and you can keep it liquid that way for hours.
Apple's 4th and 5th gen Airport Extreme routers also have this. Pretty much all of the higher-performance dual band routers include it now.
The saucer-shaped Linksys ones also offer it.
If your business is going to be sued out of existence due to a $100 licensing fee, then you have bigger problems than trademark infringement.
Only if it ends with a guy trying to sell just such a "system". The only sure-fire get-rich-quick scheme is selling get-rich-quick schemes.
Well, there's always opening a brown envelope and briefcase store in Washington DC during lobbying season.
Hey, I used to know a great place like that. It was right next to the place that sold signs with catchy, grossly one-sided messages to protesters.
The ones that had that offer on 30% more spelling mistakes or your money back?
Only if it ends with a guy trying to sell just such a "system". The only sure-fire get-rich-quick scheme is selling get-rich-quick schemes.
Well, there's always opening a brown envelope and briefcase store in Washington DC during lobbying season.
They could run more reactions that show positive power output (eg, D-T runs), but those are the ones that tend to irradiate the reactor. They know that they *can* do it based on the models, but they tend not to since they are putting more work into the other things that need to be solved without having to deal with excess radiation buildup inside a vessel that they are climbing in and out of relatively frequently (compared to a working power reactor, say).
It takes time, and resources. What they have managed on the limited resources they have is pretty good. I certainly wouldn't call it disappointing given the (financial and planning and construction) roadblocks the have faced - the science is good.
The fact that the human race sees fit to give it microscopic amounts of money (relative to say, the war for oil, err I mean "on terror" in the Middle East, or on oil subsidies and exploration etc.)
It's expensive research, and the money they get is "large", but it really should be much more heavily funded. It is a surmountable problem, and once it is solved the human race will have virtually limitless energy.
That's not really ITER's fault (and really, how is it disappointing? The research *is* going forward with goals and useful information).
I mentioned this the other day, but the UK spent more on ringtones for cellphones annually than it did on fusion research in 2008-2010 (or around that time). The problem of funding starvation is one of priorities over other projects - for example, the money being pumped into oil field location, or the wars in the Middle East.
"Cannibalising" one fusion project to fund another really isn't the way to go about this.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we have to take money away from fusion research. Perhaps one or two fewer wars in deserts, or an increase of one or two cents on the top tax rate for millionaires might be more effective?
There's very little actual mass of plasma inside. If it touches the walls it instantly gets contaminated and cools down. There's not really enough to "burn through" the various layers of the reactor vessel if it loses magnetic containment - it would cool down very quickly.
Think about dripping candle wax onto your skin. The first drop might burn the local area right at the surface, but there's just not enough volume of liquid at that temperature to keep on burning your skin to any significant degree before all the heat has dissipated.
And GNOME is Linux, right?
Or wait, KDE is Linux.
I mean, why have any specific definitions at all?
You don't fuse atoms, you fuse nuclei. If you can show me an atom in a plasma of that temperature I'll buy you a horse. A good one.
In a science classroom, that *is* the only relevant source of truth. The Scientific Method what determines "truth" in this context (and even then, it puts limitations on the use of the word). The problem with religion and Creationism in this scenario is that it positions a supernatural creator as the solution, with no evidence or falsifiable hypothesis. It's simply not science. They have tried to dress it up like science but it does not bear scrutiny.
This doesn't mean that no other sources of "truth" exist - for example, spiritual discussions, philosophy etc; simply that calling certain things "science" and placing them in a situation where they are given equal weight to a scientific theory in a scientific context and taught as one just will not hold.
Regardless, I don't see what is wrong in teaching kids both evolution and the evidence for or against it, and creationism and the evidence for or against it. People need to be encouraged to reason not just memorize whichever view we decide is "right" and cram down their throats.
That's the whole point there *is* no evidence for or against Creationism - it's a made up story based on a work of fiction. It's not a scientific hypothesis that can be debated. It's a set of beliefs. Just like I believe there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Shut up, there totally is! Prove that there isn't! You just have to take my word for it and believe that it is there.
The pros and cons of the theory of evolution, however (and the wider discussion about the Scientific Method) are suitable topics for discussion.
Dammit, which is exactly what you wrote...
(re: other comment).
I think I was reading the next commenter down for the second half of your post somehow. It is late here.
You could also just pump shitloads of energy into a Syngas process. You can use almost anything with carbon in it. All it takes is energy. The chemistry is quite literally WW2-era.
The UK spent more on ringtones for cellphones in 2010 than they did on fusion power research, despite having the JET in Oxford where a lot of heavy lifting in the fusion world has been done (among many other excellent research groups).
It will be forever just out of reach unless we stumble across a needle in a haystack or we actually put some worthwhile money behind it. Once we crack it (and we will, eventually, but infinitely faster if we fund it properly) then energy independence is solved forever. That sounds like hyperbole, but it's really not - if you can generate power by nuclear fusion on the Earth then we have unlimited fuel and endless power.
I mean, the US spends more money per year air conditioning tents in Afghanistan than they do on NASA's entire budget. Priorities. Wonky. The US put a man on the moon in 9 years because the Soviets launched a tin can into LEO that did nothing but go "beep beep". Maybe I should start a rumour that the Chinese have built a prototype fusion reactor and might someday get it working...