It sounds like they are the perfect candidate for the "Compatibility View List" GPO options available with IE 11 - you can define a list of URLs that should open in IE8 compatibility mode, where everything else runs on IE 11.
It almost fixes bad web sites that are engineered to work with IE8 and nothing else... almost.
The user interface being set automatically to a touch interface on devices without any touchscreen is idiotic.
Even worse is the polluting of the server products with the same garbage. I don't need, nor want, live tiles on my domain controller. I can't "tap" things, or "bezel swipe" a "charm bar" on a damn VM.
Re: More opportunities for amateur observation.
on
X-37B To Fly Again
·
· Score: 1
What's difficult to detect for amateurs may not be difficult to detect for other space-faring nations. Plus, I'm sure that there's probably notification of a launch given ahead of time to other nuclear powers just to make sure they don't mistake it for something it's not...
Yes, there are smaller accidents that were below the threshold of my comment, and I didn't say you were a supporter of coal, but coal is the incumbent generation technology for baseload. Trashing the other baseload alternatives is effectively a vote for coal, which spews persistent poisons into people, animals, and waterways during successful normal operations; as opposed to nuclear energy which only causes environmental harm during an emergency or accident, and eventually the radioactive harm decays, over varying amounts of "eventually."
Is nuclear perfect? Oh, hell no. The companies that run these things need to be bitchslapped by a regulatory agency that is actually willing to bitchslap them. Personally, I'd be happy if the government drafted all the technicians and engineers that operate the ~100 commercial reactors into the US Navy, who has a good operational record of LOTS of nuclear reactors.
Would I be happier if we could go 100% wind / solar / biomass / geothermal? You're damn right I would be, since I work for a company that installs solar nationwide, and my stock options and restricted shares would make me rich in the process. But it's not realistic at this time - you need something to be exciting electrons when the sun is on the other side of the planet while the wind is calm, and I'd rather it isn't coal.
Regardless of if man-made climate change is real or not, can't we all get behind the idea that continually spewing burned-up mountain into the air is bad? Do you not believe that the elevated levels of airborne particulate downwind of coal-fired generation is something we should get rid of in favor of cleaner technology?
Climate change is not the only reason to stop converting mountains into dirty air that kills people.
It's true that it no longer just goes up the stacks and into the air, but it still goes somewhere - the amazingly toxic ash ponds. Which, by the way, are not exactly the safest and most sequestered thing ever. One dam breaks, and you've destroyed a river ecosystem, as happened in Tennessee.
See, that's the exact kind of logical thinking that seems to be in short supply these days. Unfortunately, it's the creeping idea of "we wouldn't want to offend..." that causes expression to be curtailed.
So you're actually suggesting that the two nuclear accidents that involve the release of radioactivity outside of containment has done as much damage to the global ecology as the gigatons of carbon released by burning coal, the massively toxic ash ponds, and thousands of square kilometers of strip mining necessary to keep digging up coal?
As solar tech gets better, it gets equally better for all applications. There would have to be some inherent advantage to an orbital installation that outweighs the humongous inefficiency of all the rockets, all the orbital construction, and the losses from converting to microwaves or lasers that you pass through 100km of atmosphere before converting into electricity.
That is incredibly unlikely without some other super-mega sci-fi project like a space elevator.
Exactly. People commenting here seem to think that if you just have a shitload of hydrogen in the general vicinity of an atomic explosion, you get a yield orders of magnitude higher. Never mind that nuclear scientists are smart, and do things like "math" and "small-scale experimentation" before going all redneck and just giving it a go with a big bang.
I'm also not really sure how Israel could claim land in Iran, which is all the way across Jordan and Iraq. Some people commenting on this article could do well to acquaint themselves with a map - the only arab land they are going to claim without a formal border war is the settlements they are now building in the west bank that they took from Jordan almost 50 years ago when Jordan aligned itself with Egypt in 1967 and got their asses kicked.
It's more likely that Israel decides that they've had enough of Syria's shit and moves north, than hopping two countries to the east.
1. One night of fire bombing in Tokyo killed more people and did more damage than the atomic attack on Hiroshima did. The difference was it took an armada of bombers to do it, rather than just one plane with one package to drop off.
2. Truman wasn't just looking to end this war, but prevent the next conflict that was already brewing up - one with the Soviets. By showing Stalin that he was not only incredibly vulnerable to an attack that he couldn't bog down by throwing millions of people at like he did with the Nazis, and that the person on the other side was capable of using that kind of weapon, that war never came.
Was dropping those two bombs the right decision? Maybe, maybe not. However, it is world history, and seeing the devastation of two cities from these comparatively small weapons compared to what the 1950s and 1960s brought, it might have brought pause to anyone looking to use them later in the coldest days of the cold war.
You missed a perfect opportunity for a car analogy:
The "race to the bottom" is because everyone is competing on price, when they don't have to. Mercedes and BMW are doing just fine without having to undercut Kia on price. At the end of the day, they're all cars; but sometimes people pay more money for more features.
Please tell me you aren't actually this silly anywhere else but when posting on the Internet.
There were millions of apps for Windows available online for a decade before Microsoft's "me-too" app store and Windows 8. And a lot of them are terrible.
Yeah, way to paint hundreds of millions of people with a brush that is appropriate for maybe 500 people.
For every one person who stands in a line, there are 100 that think that guy is an idiot, but still prefer to use Apple products to the competition. But go on trying to paint the picture that everyone that uses their stuff is some zealot that kneels facing Cupertino five times a day. That grew old in the late 90s.
The reason lithium-6 deuteride is used in thermonuclear weapons is because it creates tritium and deuterium once bombarded with X-rays produced by the detonation of a fission device, which can then fuse due to the heat and pressure of said detonation to make an even bigger bang; and it's a more maintainable device due to not having to deal with refreshing the tritium all the time because it tends to half-life away, unlike the stable lithium-6 deuteride.
Also, lithium-6 is separated from the >92% of lithium-7 specifically for the creation of nuclear weapons, which nobody is doing anymore because the nuclear powers already have shit tons of it laying around from decommissioning warheads. Which also says nothing about how your phone battery has exactly 0.0% deuterium in it, and even if it did, it's unlikely that you'd be bombarding your phone battery with the X-ray output of a fission bomb at the moment of supercriticality; and if you were, you'd likely have other problems. Like being a wisp of vapor being quickly scattered over the landscape.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like they are the perfect candidate for the "Compatibility View List" GPO options available with IE 11 - you can define a list of URLs that should open in IE8 compatibility mode, where everything else runs on IE 11.
It almost fixes bad web sites that are engineered to work with IE8 and nothing else... almost.
I'm sure there are lots of people that would like to forget Vista.
Except for Windows 9x being the product name, and any actual version check API would return4.x.x instead.
Aside from that little issue with your argument, I'm sure you're completely right!
The user interface being set automatically to a touch interface on devices without any touchscreen is idiotic.
Even worse is the polluting of the server products with the same garbage. I don't need, nor want, live tiles on my domain controller. I can't "tap" things, or "bezel swipe" a "charm bar" on a damn VM.
What's difficult to detect for amateurs may not be difficult to detect for other space-faring nations. Plus, I'm sure that there's probably notification of a launch given ahead of time to other nuclear powers just to make sure they don't mistake it for something it's not...
Yes, there are smaller accidents that were below the threshold of my comment, and I didn't say you were a supporter of coal, but coal is the incumbent generation technology for baseload. Trashing the other baseload alternatives is effectively a vote for coal, which spews persistent poisons into people, animals, and waterways during successful normal operations; as opposed to nuclear energy which only causes environmental harm during an emergency or accident, and eventually the radioactive harm decays, over varying amounts of "eventually."
Is nuclear perfect? Oh, hell no. The companies that run these things need to be bitchslapped by a regulatory agency that is actually willing to bitchslap them. Personally, I'd be happy if the government drafted all the technicians and engineers that operate the ~100 commercial reactors into the US Navy, who has a good operational record of LOTS of nuclear reactors.
Would I be happier if we could go 100% wind / solar / biomass / geothermal? You're damn right I would be, since I work for a company that installs solar nationwide, and my stock options and restricted shares would make me rich in the process. But it's not realistic at this time - you need something to be exciting electrons when the sun is on the other side of the planet while the wind is calm, and I'd rather it isn't coal.
Regardless of if man-made climate change is real or not, can't we all get behind the idea that continually spewing burned-up mountain into the air is bad? Do you not believe that the elevated levels of airborne particulate downwind of coal-fired generation is something we should get rid of in favor of cleaner technology?
Climate change is not the only reason to stop converting mountains into dirty air that kills people.
It's true that it no longer just goes up the stacks and into the air, but it still goes somewhere - the amazingly toxic ash ponds. Which, by the way, are not exactly the safest and most sequestered thing ever. One dam breaks, and you've destroyed a river ecosystem, as happened in Tennessee.
except that there isn't a tree that is as energy dense as coal, which gives you a problem of scale.
See, that's the exact kind of logical thinking that seems to be in short supply these days. Unfortunately, it's the creeping idea of "we wouldn't want to offend..." that causes expression to be curtailed.
You touch on something I was just thinking - you replace "homosexual" with "Jew" and you get pretty close to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935.
Yeah, yeah, Godwin and all that - but it's remarkably similar in nature, and should be recognized for the abhorrent concept that it is.
They don't think that far ahead in the logic.
It's purely "Nuclear = bad. Coal = bad. Hydro = bad." and that's the end of it.
So you're actually suggesting that the two nuclear accidents that involve the release of radioactivity outside of containment has done as much damage to the global ecology as the gigatons of carbon released by burning coal, the massively toxic ash ponds, and thousands of square kilometers of strip mining necessary to keep digging up coal?
Are you serious?
Because microwaves don't travel for free through an atmosphere?
As solar tech gets better, it gets equally better for all applications. There would have to be some inherent advantage to an orbital installation that outweighs the humongous inefficiency of all the rockets, all the orbital construction, and the losses from converting to microwaves or lasers that you pass through 100km of atmosphere before converting into electricity.
That is incredibly unlikely without some other super-mega sci-fi project like a space elevator.
Exactly. People commenting here seem to think that if you just have a shitload of hydrogen in the general vicinity of an atomic explosion, you get a yield orders of magnitude higher. Never mind that nuclear scientists are smart, and do things like "math" and "small-scale experimentation" before going all redneck and just giving it a go with a big bang.
I'm also not really sure how Israel could claim land in Iran, which is all the way across Jordan and Iraq. Some people commenting on this article could do well to acquaint themselves with a map - the only arab land they are going to claim without a formal border war is the settlements they are now building in the west bank that they took from Jordan almost 50 years ago when Jordan aligned itself with Egypt in 1967 and got their asses kicked.
It's more likely that Israel decides that they've had enough of Syria's shit and moves north, than hopping two countries to the east.
Two things:
1. One night of fire bombing in Tokyo killed more people and did more damage than the atomic attack on Hiroshima did. The difference was it took an armada of bombers to do it, rather than just one plane with one package to drop off.
2. Truman wasn't just looking to end this war, but prevent the next conflict that was already brewing up - one with the Soviets. By showing Stalin that he was not only incredibly vulnerable to an attack that he couldn't bog down by throwing millions of people at like he did with the Nazis, and that the person on the other side was capable of using that kind of weapon, that war never came.
Was dropping those two bombs the right decision? Maybe, maybe not. However, it is world history, and seeing the devastation of two cities from these comparatively small weapons compared to what the 1950s and 1960s brought, it might have brought pause to anyone looking to use them later in the coldest days of the cold war.
You missed a perfect opportunity for a car analogy:
The "race to the bottom" is because everyone is competing on price, when they don't have to. Mercedes and BMW are doing just fine without having to undercut Kia on price. At the end of the day, they're all cars; but sometimes people pay more money for more features.
Please tell me you aren't actually this silly anywhere else but when posting on the Internet.
There were millions of apps for Windows available online for a decade before Microsoft's "me-too" app store and Windows 8. And a lot of them are terrible.
When most mobile developers make an app that isn't complete garbage that they want money for, maybe it will sell. Just like on any other platform.
See, I can make general statements that aren't backed up by any information too.
Yeah, way to paint hundreds of millions of people with a brush that is appropriate for maybe 500 people.
For every one person who stands in a line, there are 100 that think that guy is an idiot, but still prefer to use Apple products to the competition. But go on trying to paint the picture that everyone that uses their stuff is some zealot that kneels facing Cupertino five times a day. That grew old in the late 90s.
There's plenty of other things that appear to be hurting this site though.
And that means what, exactly?
Salary has no direct link with competence or usefulness.
The reason lithium-6 deuteride is used in thermonuclear weapons is because it creates tritium and deuterium once bombarded with X-rays produced by the detonation of a fission device, which can then fuse due to the heat and pressure of said detonation to make an even bigger bang; and it's a more maintainable device due to not having to deal with refreshing the tritium all the time because it tends to half-life away, unlike the stable lithium-6 deuteride.
Also, lithium-6 is separated from the >92% of lithium-7 specifically for the creation of nuclear weapons, which nobody is doing anymore because the nuclear powers already have shit tons of it laying around from decommissioning warheads. Which also says nothing about how your phone battery has exactly 0.0% deuterium in it, and even if it did, it's unlikely that you'd be bombarding your phone battery with the X-ray output of a fission bomb at the moment of supercriticality; and if you were, you'd likely have other problems. Like being a wisp of vapor being quickly scattered over the landscape.