Also, just start the dam browser when I run it. If there are updates, you can think about a non-itrusive way to alert me later. A window without the focus is ok, even if it opens before the main window. But blocking the main window because of it isn't ok.
Yep, I do see a pattern. People paid to hold an opinion (in this case the pro-shield ones) are quoted as "experts", yet, people that form an opinion on their own, based on aquired knowledge are quoted as "anti" or "pro-cause".
It is like some of the money is flowing to the ones quoting people, but who am I to know, I'm probably some anti-lucrative-press or something like that.
Seating is decided by the manufacturer of the airplane, not the airline. It normaly also must be approved by the aeronautical authority of the country the plane will be sold at (at the US that is the FAA).
On most cases, the manufacturer designs several different configurations of seats, that the airline can choose, but that doesn't mean the airline can dictate the seats disposition. It is as if the manufacturer had several different planes to sell, with the same characteristics, except for seating.
The GP used "breaking" as activating the breaks, to stop the plane. But you didn't make it much far from the truth, the main problem I see with this thing going faster (besides reducing efficiency) is that its wings may break.
But, anyway, the wings of any plane could break if it goes faster than some limit, and makes a curve.
I had the same tought. Well, just after I asked if this thing would fit on a 60m wide runway, with 150m of clearance. Then I RTFA, and discovered that it desn't answer any of those questions.
Then we go all over the place again. Your method will only work if the master doesn't degrade during the lifetime of your copyrights. Anything you use as archive today will be destroyed (or unreadable) in 80 years time.
Also, most Linux DVD players start by default at the begining of the first movie, having also the option to go to the menu or any other movie on the disk (usefull in case the fist movie isn't what you want to see).
No problem. The FS I use on this current computer splits everything into 512b chunks, 25MB is quite a nice increase. Or are you complaining that the block is too large?
For the interconnect, they still need I/O buffers to deal with the impedance of those (relatively) huge wires, and clock distribution still can't be perfect. Both increase the delay a lot, but I guess modern processors don't rely on perfect clock distribution anyway.
Well, ok, I was talking about Turbo Pascal. I never even used the original one. It has pointers, but you can allocate them without thinking too much about the size.
At least they didn't prove its security. It works if, and only if conventional quantum cryptography works, what means, it doesn't work at all.
Let me prove it is not secure:
Bob places his transmiters, to triangulate Alice.
Alice places her transmiter.
Eve places a transmiter between each Bob's tranmiter and Alice's one. (That is, on the same configuration that would break the classical crypto.)
Now, let's say Bob starts transmiting. He transmits the key encoded on the polarization of the wave.
Eve reads the key. Yep, she changes it. She also blocks it, by jamming the frequency, cutting the fiber, or whatever.
Eve now transmits another key to Alice, delayed by a constant amount of time from Bob's key. The delay must be exactly the sme (to the definition Alice can measure) on all transmiters.
Alice gets Eve's key, and sends back the orientations.
Eve gets the orientations, and stablish a shared key with Alice. She also blocks Alice's message.
Eve now transmit her orientations to Bob, delayed by a constant amount on all her transmiters. Again, the delay will need to be exactly the same (to the definition Bob can measure) on all transmiters.
Bob receives Eve's orientations, and stablishes a key with her.
Eve is now (literaly) in the middle of the conversation.
It was created in a time when bandwidth was too expensive and computers too slow. Today computers aren't still fast enough, but something like it may appear again in the near future, and be adopted this time. (Or, if we are luck, people won't be affected by NIH, and use the already existent VRML. But I wouldn't bet on it.)
The I/O isn't a problem for some applications (really big computers). I'm more concerned about they not demonstrating any usefull gate (besides NOT) and not demonstrating those being assembled on a chain.
But they didn't show it because they aren't really trying to produce circuits. They are doing some research that could lead to another way to produce circuits on the future, if everything works as planned and somebody solves the remaining problems (that happen to be quite hard). Or, in other words, that isn't applied research.
The advantaje of using DNA is that it hooks toghether with just the addition of an enzyme. You can also control what hooks on what by controlling the sequence, and it is easy to manufacture on any sequence you want (for some value of "easy").
That said, that is not the first time it was tried. The problem here is that using some DNA that is pure for a few parts per billion (the best we can achieve on big amounts) to manufacture one a few trillion switches big circuit (like the original Pentium at the 90's) will give you a very very very low yeld. The obvious way to increase that yeld is to purify your reactants every few steps, but after just a few hundreds of switches, it gets harder to chemically purify the circuits than to enrich uranium. And a circuit with a few hundred switches is still nearly useles.
Well, I'm a big fan of entretaining the students. Motivated people learn way faster than bored ones, and starting with a simpler language doesn't mean you can't use a more complex one later. That's why I think Pascal is ideal for a introdutory course for CS students.
That said, I'm yet to met those great programmers that don't know C that a previous poster was talking about. I know even promissing ones, but no great one.
It's inside a spacecraft, that has walls, that will exalate gas at low pressures. But, ok, if it is coated, that is probably for surface effects (probably reflection).
I (miss)understood from the text that it was made of gold and platinum.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the AC has a good point. Altough lately both parties seem to be paid for specific opinions.
Also, just start the dam browser when I run it. If there are updates, you can think about a non-itrusive way to alert me later. A window without the focus is ok, even if it opens before the main window. But blocking the main window because of it isn't ok.
We'll also stop nuclear proliferation after everybody is out of resources, what could happen just after a nuclear war...
Anyway, the only certainty is that it will stop someday. You're quite right.
Yep, I do see a pattern. People paid to hold an opinion (in this case the pro-shield ones) are quoted as "experts", yet, people that form an opinion on their own, based on aquired knowledge are quoted as "anti" or "pro-cause".
It is like some of the money is flowing to the ones quoting people, but who am I to know, I'm probably some anti-lucrative-press or something like that.
To fly a 737 slower, you'd need to also fly it lower. The net effect is that increases drag instead of reducing it.
Seating is decided by the manufacturer of the airplane, not the airline. It normaly also must be approved by the aeronautical authority of the country the plane will be sold at (at the US that is the FAA).
On most cases, the manufacturer designs several different configurations of seats, that the airline can choose, but that doesn't mean the airline can dictate the seats disposition. It is as if the manufacturer had several different planes to sell, with the same characteristics, except for seating.
The GP used "breaking" as activating the breaks, to stop the plane. But you didn't make it much far from the truth, the main problem I see with this thing going faster (besides reducing efficiency) is that its wings may break.
But, anyway, the wings of any plane could break if it goes faster than some limit, and makes a curve.
I had the same tought. Well, just after I asked if this thing would fit on a 60m wide runway, with 150m of clearance. Then I RTFA, and discovered that it desn't answer any of those questions.
Most of the people who did those things don't call themselves "software engineers". Anyway, I think that name has a use, but is completely misapplied.
Drag being a force, fuel consuption depends only on its magnitude and the distance. It is not as if time appears anywhere in W = Fx.
Then we go all over the place again. Your method will only work if the master doesn't degrade during the lifetime of your copyrights. Anything you use as archive today will be destroyed (or unreadable) in 80 years time.
Quite so. If some company wants my money, they better not expect me to work for them. Yes, I'm that lazy.
By the way, I'm not the GP, but your argument is quite lame.
Also, most Linux DVD players start by default at the begining of the first movie, having also the option to go to the menu or any other movie on the disk (usefull in case the fist movie isn't what you want to see).
No problem. The FS I use on this current computer splits everything into 512b chunks, 25MB is quite a nice increase. Or are you complaining that the block is too large?
For the interconnect, they still need I/O buffers to deal with the impedance of those (relatively) huge wires, and clock distribution still can't be perfect. Both increase the delay a lot, but I guess modern processors don't rely on perfect clock distribution anyway.
Well, ok, I was talking about Turbo Pascal. I never even used the original one. It has pointers, but you can allocate them without thinking too much about the size.
At least they didn't prove its security. It works if, and only if conventional quantum cryptography works, what means, it doesn't work at all.
Let me prove it is not secure:
It was created in a time when bandwidth was too expensive and computers too slow. Today computers aren't still fast enough, but something like it may appear again in the near future, and be adopted this time. (Or, if we are luck, people won't be affected by NIH, and use the already existent VRML. But I wouldn't bet on it.)
Yeah, solar powered nano DNA based replicators. I can imagine those, I'll tell you that thing looks WILD!
The I/O isn't a problem for some applications (really big computers). I'm more concerned about they not demonstrating any usefull gate (besides NOT) and not demonstrating those being assembled on a chain.
But they didn't show it because they aren't really trying to produce circuits. They are doing some research that could lead to another way to produce circuits on the future, if everything works as planned and somebody solves the remaining problems (that happen to be quite hard). Or, in other words, that isn't applied research.
They probably didn't solve it, since they did no usefull calculation. They just assembled a few switches.
I also doubt they were able to focus the light emanating from a switch into another one, to chain operations.
The advantaje of using DNA is that it hooks toghether with just the addition of an enzyme. You can also control what hooks on what by controlling the sequence, and it is easy to manufacture on any sequence you want (for some value of "easy").
That said, that is not the first time it was tried. The problem here is that using some DNA that is pure for a few parts per billion (the best we can achieve on big amounts) to manufacture one a few trillion switches big circuit (like the original Pentium at the 90's) will give you a very very very low yeld. The obvious way to increase that yeld is to purify your reactants every few steps, but after just a few hundreds of switches, it gets harder to chemically purify the circuits than to enrich uranium. And a circuit with a few hundred switches is still nearly useles.
Well, I'm a big fan of entretaining the students. Motivated people learn way faster than bored ones, and starting with a simpler language doesn't mean you can't use a more complex one later. That's why I think Pascal is ideal for a introdutory course for CS students.
That said, I'm yet to met those great programmers that don't know C that a previous poster was talking about. I know even promissing ones, but no great one.
Not so. Pascal is way simpler than C on things like string handling and allocation sizes, and that is because of abstraction.
It's inside a spacecraft, that has walls, that will exalate gas at low pressures. But, ok, if it is coated, that is probably for surface effects (probably reflection).
I (miss)understood from the text that it was made of gold and platinum.