Me too. But I also wonder what you are talking about.
I just can't find the mistakes our current government is making that the EU also made. We aren't getting deeper into debt, we aren't taking any power away from our central bank, and we aren't turning into foreign commerce (that being a mistake or not).
If anything, the current brazilian government just shows that the set of available mistakes is huge, and that they can still get completely original ones.
IANAP, so anything I say about tht can be quite wrong. But from what I remember from explanations about quark-glun plasma, it gets in thermal equlibium faster than the energy can be dissipated. Thermal equilibrium also doesn't resemble what you get in atoms.
Also, it dissipates by emmiting particles, and ALICE is a particle detector, so the energy was calculated by observing how the plasma decayed.
And what could Russia or China do with the curiosity that NASA won't tell them the results? If they have some great idea for it, they can just tell NASA, and get some colaboration.
About your other comment about people that think NASA is taling with martians... Well, I'm afraid the intersection between this set of people and the set of people capable of hacking Curiosity is empty.
What gets into the real reason nobody did it yet (and NASA didn't protect against it). What gain can there be in hacking Curiosity?
It will ceratainly expose your high profile hackers (that could be stealing rocket technology instead) and instantly turn the entire world against you. As a reward you'll get a low capacity computer 14 light minutes away, and some sensors that will be more usefull to you in the hands they are now.
You'll also get some news exposition, of course. But if you are willing to turn the entire world against you, there are plenty of easier ways that'll get way more exposition.
how many people do you know that could use gdb to any effect?
In my experience, most people that know how to write code know how to use gdb. The ones that throw garbage at the complier untill it looks like it's doing the thing they want can't.
I completely agree that making flawed programs fail faster is a good thing, but Java takes a different approach about that. It compartimentalize the code, so that you can live with ilegible code, or replace flawed code easily (ok, easier than C). While in C bad code has an habit of spreading everywhere. Even when every piece still passes the minimum sanity tests, problems still appear out of interactions. That's because C gives developers enough rope so they can make great knots, or they can hang themself.
In busy commuter traffic will it adjust the "aggressiveness" of pulling out from a side-road to take into account that if you don't pull out quick and accelerate hard you could be waiting until the end of the rush?
The nice things of computers is that, while you can make it act as conservatively as a near blind granma, it still has better reflexes, sees further, and make way more precise calculations than you.
So, yes, I bet it will be agressive enough to enter a high trafic lane. And it'll probably do a much better job on that than 99,99% of the drivers.
You don't really have the option to write terrible code in Java, for the same reasons you don't have the option to write great code in it. (What makes the language great for people that don't know how to hire developers.)
Or, better, you do have the option of writting terrible code in it, but you'll have to fight tooth and nail against every barrier on your way, will need much more time than for mediocre code, and must know very obscure details of the language. I've described this situation as "not having the option", but if you look hard enough, you'll find somebody doing it.
It does not create any extra protection for IT people to use against their users. If they break into their computers enough to install a boot loader, Secure Boot doesn't stop them from doing anything else, besides installing some unigned Linux distro.
It also won't protect your computer against any trojan or virus that doesn't install a boot loader, and that set is basicaly all of them. There are a few exceptions, of course, boot loader malware exists, it is just very very very rare.
The most visible practical consequence of Secure Boot (the way it is now, ignoring the obvious extension that will make Windows mandatory) is that it will protect your computer against anti-virus and data recovery tools.
Yes, when they are free they just peck their weakest brothers out of the protection of its mother. I'd say that without care it would die, but no chicken can live without care anyway.
Have you ever seen they preying? They torture their prey for hours. They are so dumb tht they can't kill it fast, so they eat the creature alife.
The size of the chunk you use as reaction mass vary with the size of the bomb you are detonating (and the asteroid, everything depends on the features of the asteroid). If you have a big enough bomb, the best way is to break it in two (for a centered hit). But, of course, we don't have a big enough bomb, and would take a decade to move the bombs to the asteroid, and we'd need to decide who would actualy do the job...
About gravity atraction, whatever mass you decide to use, you must give it enough energy that it doesn't fall back into the rest of the asteroid. That means, you give it escape velocity.
If you don't dig all the way into the center of the asteroid, you may not lose so much energy. It can get into the point where the lost energy is more than compensated by the mass of the things your are throwing away (at a smaller speed), and the momentum actualy increases.
Also, really, pretty much any method proposed for spacecraft acceleration would work for asteroids as well.
Quite likely, for asteroids as it is for spacecraft, detonating a bunch of nuclear bombs near it is the cheapest way of changing its course. That is, untill we learn how to produce anti-matter in big amounts, and pack it.
What? The preprocessor (yeah, that's shared with C), copy semantics, type translating... If you want to hate, there is plenty of material.
By the other side, it is easy to love those same things. Differently from Java (and Microsoft's copy) you have the freedom to write terrible and great code in C++. People's opinion of the language mostly vary with the category of code they see most.
Exact. And if they put that in the contract, and tell you before you buy, they'll do The Right Thing. Bonus if they have a more expensive plan, with highter limits.
But they don't. They lie to their clients, and don't provide the service they anounced and agreed on a contract. That's fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too. But I also wonder what you are talking about.
I just can't find the mistakes our current government is making that the EU also made. We aren't getting deeper into debt, we aren't taking any power away from our central bank, and we aren't turning into foreign commerce (that being a mistake or not).
If anything, the current brazilian government just shows that the set of available mistakes is huge, and that they can still get completely original ones.
And choose to be good at this weard autmobile stuff, not at carriages.
IANAP, so anything I say about tht can be quite wrong. But from what I remember from explanations about quark-glun plasma, it gets in thermal equlibium faster than the energy can be dissipated. Thermal equilibrium also doesn't resemble what you get in atoms.
Also, it dissipates by emmiting particles, and ALICE is a particle detector, so the energy was calculated by observing how the plasma decayed.
There, FIFY.
And what could Russia or China do with the curiosity that NASA won't tell them the results? If they have some great idea for it, they can just tell NASA, and get some colaboration.
About your other comment about people that think NASA is taling with martians... Well, I'm afraid the intersection between this set of people and the set of people capable of hacking Curiosity is empty.
What gets into the real reason nobody did it yet (and NASA didn't protect against it). What gain can there be in hacking Curiosity?
It will ceratainly expose your high profile hackers (that could be stealing rocket technology instead) and instantly turn the entire world against you. As a reward you'll get a low capacity computer 14 light minutes away, and some sensors that will be more usefull to you in the hands they are now.
You'll also get some news exposition, of course. But if you are willing to turn the entire world against you, there are plenty of easier ways that'll get way more exposition.
In my experience, most people that know how to write code know how to use gdb. The ones that throw garbage at the complier untill it looks like it's doing the thing they want can't.
I completely agree that making flawed programs fail faster is a good thing, but Java takes a different approach about that. It compartimentalize the code, so that you can live with ilegible code, or replace flawed code easily (ok, easier than C). While in C bad code has an habit of spreading everywhere. Even when every piece still passes the minimum sanity tests, problems still appear out of interactions. That's because C gives developers enough rope so they can make great knots, or they can hang themself.
Please, get the right terminology. The right way is: "When a peasant irritates a noble..."
Ok, you can call that horrible. But compare with what those people would write if they were ordered to use C++ instead of Java.
Those things often happen in C++, but come completely hidden, in the interaction of several layers of WTF.
I hope you can generate some quite impressive GCI movies in real time, because the data it'll gather is quite complex.
The nice things of computers is that, while you can make it act as conservatively as a near blind granma, it still has better reflexes, sees further, and make way more precise calculations than you.
So, yes, I bet it will be agressive enough to enter a high trafic lane. And it'll probably do a much better job on that than 99,99% of the drivers.
Yes, and you proposing that statement didn't change my belifs at all.
There, FIFY. You should either look around and see how silly your worldview has become, or stop making such broad statements.
He'd better be talking about shareholders. Management is subject to layoffs too.
You don't really have the option to write terrible code in Java, for the same reasons you don't have the option to write great code in it. (What makes the language great for people that don't know how to hire developers.)
Or, better, you do have the option of writting terrible code in it, but you'll have to fight tooth and nail against every barrier on your way, will need much more time than for mediocre code, and must know very obscure details of the language. I've described this situation as "not having the option", but if you look hard enough, you'll find somebody doing it.
No, it doesn't, and no, it doesn't.
It does not create any extra protection for IT people to use against their users. If they break into their computers enough to install a boot loader, Secure Boot doesn't stop them from doing anything else, besides installing some unigned Linux distro.
It also won't protect your computer against any trojan or virus that doesn't install a boot loader, and that set is basicaly all of them. There are a few exceptions, of course, boot loader malware exists, it is just very very very rare.
The most visible practical consequence of Secure Boot (the way it is now, ignoring the obvious extension that will make Windows mandatory) is that it will protect your computer against anti-virus and data recovery tools.
Yes, when they are free they just peck their weakest brothers out of the protection of its mother. I'd say that without care it would die, but no chicken can live without care anyway.
Have you ever seen they preying? They torture their prey for hours. They are so dumb tht they can't kill it fast, so they eat the creature alife.
Now I'm curious. Did you choose "climate change" instead of "global warming" on pourpose?
You want relatively large mass * relatively low speed (but still enough to escape). That's the better use of your nuke.
The size of the chunk you use as reaction mass vary with the size of the bomb you are detonating (and the asteroid, everything depends on the features of the asteroid). If you have a big enough bomb, the best way is to break it in two (for a centered hit). But, of course, we don't have a big enough bomb, and would take a decade to move the bombs to the asteroid, and we'd need to decide who would actualy do the job...
About gravity atraction, whatever mass you decide to use, you must give it enough energy that it doesn't fall back into the rest of the asteroid. That means, you give it escape velocity.
If you don't dig all the way into the center of the asteroid, you may not lose so much energy. It can get into the point where the lost energy is more than compensated by the mass of the things your are throwing away (at a smaller speed), and the momentum actualy increases.
Quite likely, for asteroids as it is for spacecraft, detonating a bunch of nuclear bombs near it is the cheapest way of changing its course. That is, untill we learn how to produce anti-matter in big amounts, and pack it.
What? The preprocessor (yeah, that's shared with C), copy semantics, type translating... If you want to hate, there is plenty of material.
By the other side, it is easy to love those same things. Differently from Java (and Microsoft's copy) you have the freedom to write terrible and great code in C++. People's opinion of the language mostly vary with the category of code they see most.
Exact. And if they put that in the contract, and tell you before you buy, they'll do The Right Thing. Bonus if they have a more expensive plan, with highter limits.
But they don't. They lie to their clients, and don't provide the service they anounced and agreed on a contract. That's fraud.
You don't need that much RAM for tmpfs, as it can use swap as well.