Well, we don't have those now (but they were already watered down - literaly, in the case of the chemistry set - by my time, are you sure you are not romanticizing it?), but now we have PCs, arduinos (or Pis if you need something faster), and 3D printers.
Yeah, they are not the same thing, but I guess that's exactly the point.
Loadbalanced multihoming is usefull. And the nice thing about it is that it does not strictly require NAT, it's just an implementation detail that could be changed.
Well, there's a point in abandonning a project that can't even document itself.
But I'd disagree. Iptables was a huge success, and the fact that the official docs isn't that good was eclipsed by how powerfull the software is. But there's a point when you can't simply add features to an old software anymore, and needs to start from scratch. Looks like we are at that point.
The cost of eletricity generators are usualy measured over their peak power. $2/W is exactly the number you need to know for determining how much power you can buy, and exactly the number you need to compare with alternatives (for example, $2/W makes it a quite expensive power source to aquire - near double the price of photovoltaics).
I think the GP was talking about finding an antidote.
Anyway, your plan does nothing to get the bugs at first place, and changing a related one into the desired bacteria still requires a serious level of equipment (but it's getting cheaper by the day).
Well, as I've more than once brought things from ads, I can probably explain why....
I won't buy pants because they are in a magazine or displayed on a sign
Well, me neither. But that's a bad example. I know that pants exist, there isn't a huge variation in their price, and know that I should physicaly try them. Those conditions are not always true, and I really appreciate ads about things that I don't know that exist, or that have a very low price and don't require physical inspection.
Anyway, I dislike anoying ads just like everybody else, and also use NoScript, not really because of the ads, but they are a nice extra. Thus, when I get to see an ad, it's normaly well behaved.
Of course, there are lots of sites serving javascript for the user's benefit. That's why NoScript makes it easy to whitelist a site.
Personaly, I don't like ad-blocking (it messes with the pages, no ethical concerns), and use NoScript. I probably wouldn't even have to change anything for your site, since you are probably serving javascript from the same place as you serve your pages, and I whitelisted local scripts in general. Non-local scripts are bad more often than good, and even when the intention of the developer was to improve the user's life, lots of times that's not really what happens; so I block it by default. It makes the web safer, makes tracking me a lot harder (but I allow tracking by some sites), and makes lots of pages more useable (just before comming to/., I realised NoScript was off because I couldn't use a site).
And, anyway, even if you accept javascript from anywhere you'll still beefit from the other NoScript features, like click to play plugins, xss protection, or audio blocking.
If you increase your zoom so much that the site thinks you are using a phone, the layout gets sane. It'll probably be better on a phone than the current site, too bad it only works for phones. Is/. taking desing classes at Microsoft?
The paper (I don't even know what's in TFA) is not a model of hight-Tc superconductivity. It's more like "we tought about the problem, and think that the explanation is at this side".
It looks like pointers for people trying to create a model that predicts something. The article reads much like "we tought hard about the problem, and altough we couldn't really explain it, this line of tought seems promissing".
I really don't know how deeply it deviates from what other people aready discovered, and the title of the article is quite hyped anyway, but it does not claim to have a working model (altough it claims that it may lead to a model).
I can't see how photonics could be made fast. It can lead to a huge bandwidth, but not much improvement on single-core speed from electronics.
That is, unless your photons have a very big wavelenght, and are poralized, because then you enter spintronics domain, and those have either a huge potential, or some very big problem that nobody discovered yet. The breakthroughs that will make spintronics real are mostly at the "how to assembly superconductors with extreme precision" area, and I think we can apply a lot of what we learned from electronics into this domain, but we'll need to learn how to make the superconducting crystal behave better, because nowadays their behaviour is quite random. It's improving, but not on the headlines.
Anyway, we'll probably see carbon based transistors before any of those. It's a smaller gain from silicon electronics, but it's an improvement, and compared to those techs, they seem to be quite straightforward.
If you reduce all 3 dimensions of a wire by the same proportion, you'll get a wire with highter resistance, not lower. The energy savings from reducing the feature sizes come from reducing transistors and inter-wire capacitance. With a smaller capacitance, you need less charge to turn the transistors on or off, using less power and letting them switch faster.
That is, untill you let too much current leak through them. Make them too small, and you'll consume more power again.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we don't have those now (but they were already watered down - literaly, in the case of the chemistry set - by my time, are you sure you are not romanticizing it?), but now we have PCs, arduinos (or Pis if you need something faster), and 3D printers.
Yeah, they are not the same thing, but I guess that's exactly the point.
I do the same, I ROT13 and XOR the resulting text with itself. Completely unbreakable, and as a bonus, the encripted text compresses pretty well.
Why? Is this machine going to last for more than the 30 years that most solar pannels last?
It's very unlikely that something that needs artificial amino-acids to survive will be our successors.
Nearly all of it?
Ok, there are some things that are done on servers (mostly in IT and raw science). All the rest happen on PCs.
Topology hiding, sure throw away.
Loadbalanced multihoming is usefull. And the nice thing about it is that it does not strictly require NAT, it's just an implementation detail that could be changed.
Well, there's a point in abandonning a project that can't even document itself.
But I'd disagree. Iptables was a huge success, and the fact that the official docs isn't that good was eclipsed by how powerfull the software is. But there's a point when you can't simply add features to an old software anymore, and needs to start from scratch. Looks like we are at that point.
Just buy photovoltaics for half that price, and use a bit of the half you saved to make compost out of whatever you would burn.
But I'd also avoid making compost in an urban environment. It's neither confortable nor healthy.
Too bad slash and burn tends to destroy the soil after some five or six cycles.
The cost of eletricity generators are usualy measured over their peak power. $2/W is exactly the number you need to know for determining how much power you can buy, and exactly the number you need to compare with alternatives (for example, $2/W makes it a quite expensive power source to aquire - near double the price of photovoltaics).
You can still brute force the flu until you get the 1918 variant. Hope you still have credit to buy some ferrets.
I think the GP was talking about finding an antidote.
Anyway, your plan does nothing to get the bugs at first place, and changing a related one into the desired bacteria still requires a serious level of equipment (but it's getting cheaper by the day).
Thanks.
No. I think I spent the night from 25 to 26 awake.
Well, as I've more than once brought things from ads, I can probably explain why....
Well, me neither. But that's a bad example. I know that pants exist, there isn't a huge variation in their price, and know that I should physicaly try them. Those conditions are not always true, and I really appreciate ads about things that I don't know that exist, or that have a very low price and don't require physical inspection.
Anyway, I dislike anoying ads just like everybody else, and also use NoScript, not really because of the ads, but they are a nice extra. Thus, when I get to see an ad, it's normaly well behaved.
Of course, there are lots of sites serving javascript for the user's benefit. That's why NoScript makes it easy to whitelist a site.
Personaly, I don't like ad-blocking (it messes with the pages, no ethical concerns), and use NoScript. I probably wouldn't even have to change anything for your site, since you are probably serving javascript from the same place as you serve your pages, and I whitelisted local scripts in general. Non-local scripts are bad more often than good, and even when the intention of the developer was to improve the user's life, lots of times that's not really what happens; so I block it by default. It makes the web safer, makes tracking me a lot harder (but I allow tracking by some sites), and makes lots of pages more useable (just before comming to /., I realised NoScript was off because I couldn't use a site).
And, anyway, even if you accept javascript from anywhere you'll still beefit from the other NoScript features, like click to play plugins, xss protection, or audio blocking.
Ok, I just had to see it.
If you increase your zoom so much that the site thinks you are using a phone, the layout gets sane. It'll probably be better on a phone than the current site, too bad it only works for phones. Is /. taking desing classes at Microsoft?
I didn't know about that talk (about 1937). I can't find it at this research page (probably because it was a talk) do you have a pointer?
The paper (I don't even know what's in TFA) is not a model of hight-Tc superconductivity. It's more like "we tought about the problem, and think that the explanation is at this side".
It looks like pointers for people trying to create a model that predicts something. The article reads much like "we tought hard about the problem, and altough we couldn't really explain it, this line of tought seems promissing".
I really don't know how deeply it deviates from what other people aready discovered, and the title of the article is quite hyped anyway, but it does not claim to have a working model (altough it claims that it may lead to a model).
Nope, it due to antiferromagnetism.
But I guess some people will ignore anything that they can't use to call people stupid (including what dark matter and energy actualy are).
I don't get it. Are you citing Steve Keen's research as the evidence that I asked for? Because, if so, it doesn't say what you think it does.
I can't see how photonics could be made fast. It can lead to a huge bandwidth, but not much improvement on single-core speed from electronics.
That is, unless your photons have a very big wavelenght, and are poralized, because then you enter spintronics domain, and those have either a huge potential, or some very big problem that nobody discovered yet. The breakthroughs that will make spintronics real are mostly at the "how to assembly superconductors with extreme precision" area, and I think we can apply a lot of what we learned from electronics into this domain, but we'll need to learn how to make the superconducting crystal behave better, because nowadays their behaviour is quite random. It's improving, but not on the headlines.
Anyway, we'll probably see carbon based transistors before any of those. It's a smaller gain from silicon electronics, but it's an improvement, and compared to those techs, they seem to be quite straightforward.
If you reduce all 3 dimensions of a wire by the same proportion, you'll get a wire with highter resistance, not lower. The energy savings from reducing the feature sizes come from reducing transistors and inter-wire capacitance. With a smaller capacitance, you need less charge to turn the transistors on or off, using less power and letting them switch faster.
That is, untill you let too much current leak through them. Make them too small, and you'll consume more power again.
And what kind of problem you can have on a fab that is not a "defect density issue"?
In a related question, can I declare Moore's law dead already, or is there some current fab upgrade that isn't delayed by at least 18 months?