Wow... are you retarded? You might as well accuse Einstein of being an amateur with regards to relativity.
You're sorta right, slashdot is kinda a democracy. But there is a reason democracies don't work in real life, and a reason the United States is a constitutional republic. One of the big reasons is so that the stupid masses don't ruin the country being governed.
God... if you don't want it to become the standard, MAKE SOMETHING BETTER.
Stop complaining like a 4 year old, and do something about it.
I like passport. Saves me a lot of time on a lot of sites, and allows those sites to deliver content I like. If you make something better, I will use that.
The price/performance is what is of concern here, and SQL Server 2000 with Windows 2000 still comes out far ahead of all the rest.
Is this a good or a bad thing?
Well, if you're not a moron, it's a good thing since you can have the best performance for the smallest buck. (SQL Server 2000 is also *very* robust. FAR more robust than any free solution, and easily ranks up their with DB2 or Oracle.)
If you're a moron, however, please begin crying now. Use what's best for the job DAMNIT.:-p
Is anybody bothering to think about what Linus said?
He is basically comparing open source to the open sharing of scientific ideas. How you can compare these two things, in the context of commerce, is beyond me.
Science is NOT a product. Pure science is the search for truth. Software IS A PRODUCT.
What the MS guy was saying (well, I think what he tried to say) is that the primary purpose of creating software, in the business context, is to make money, and there are no examples of OSS being successful in this endeavor despite many failed attempts, so it must be bad. Is that a valid conclusion? Not really... but there are no examples to counter act it, so for now, it's true.
The primary goal of science (when done as it should be, like how Bohr, Einstein, Netwon, etc. did it) is to discover truth. The sharing of that science openly can facilitate that discovery because more minds = more ideas.
For making money via OSS, that's not true. You HAVE to make money to survive as a business. Duu. You DON'T have to make money to survive as a scientist... or rather, for your research to survive.:-)
There is no money involved in the pursuit of pure science. (I know... funding, blah blah, technology, blah blah... you miss my point.) Newton, as much of an asshole as he was, was not out to make money from mathematically proving the inverse square force represents gravity acuratly, nor was he in it for the buck he could make off calculus. (Good book: Newton: The Last Sorcerer, by White.)
Linus implying that he is somehow anywhere in the ballpark of being as important as Newton, Bohr, Einstein, or any of the other great minds of the past 400 years, is about as arrogant as it gets. (And don't start saying that wasn't his intention. Linus knew exactly what he was saying.)
Yes, the MS guy had a lot of claims that have little data to support them. (Or, rather, HE had little data to support them.) But Linus oozes arrogance and egotism in that "reply."
Gimme a break people. The fact few of you saw this confirms my belief that Linux users are just as, if not more so, brainwashed as they claim Windows users are. They are just brainwashed by different people.
Anybody who has read Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" would have heard about this a long time ago.;-)
He has a whole capture about the implications concerning both asteroid deflection and their possible use as weapons.
His solution? Well... you will have to read the book!
Re:Some Other Observations
on
Review: Blow
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. This is a tribute to what's wrong with the drug war.
Notice that each time he got caught and screwed over he was about to start a new life (or had just started) with his kid? He was on his way OUT of the drug business.
It was the government's assualt on his life that ruined it, NOT the drugs themselves.
"The tobacco industry might be a bunch of lying bastards, but they don't kill anyone."
If I make a candy bar that containes arsnic, and make it so that the candy is VERY addictive, then tell nobody about the arsnice - scratch that, LIE about the arsnic even being there, and continue to sell it even though it IS killing peope, am I am murderer?
Maybe not in the strictess sense, but I would be evil.
Yes, it is a personal choice to smoke - but it's not a choice to become addicted.
It was also a personal choice for the tobacco industry to engineer their smokes to be more addictive, to target kids so they would get hooked young, and lie the whole way through it all.
And, actually... they MIGHT have really killed people, or at least tried. Go watch "The Insider" and you will see what I mean. If even 1/10th of that actually happened, it will change your mind about the tobacco industry.
This has very little to do with the "open source movement."
Having two people sitting in front of a computer, looking at the same code at the same time while one of them is writing it is very different from having two different people looking at code a day later, with no knowledge of the thought process involved during its creation.
I know the open source movement wants to somehow take credit for everything, but you can't.
First off, the whole idea of collaboration has nothing to do with open source. It happens all the time with thousands of programmers inside companies, all the while keep the code closed.
Open source doesn't seem to work any better than closed, and nobody is making any real money at it. So if it's not better, and makes less money... well you can finish that thought.
How many of you are exobiologists? None? Thought so.
For those of you who don't know, the field of exobiology is the study of non-terrestrial life, and was pioneered by Carl Sagan. (One of my personal heros.)
Exobiologists, especially Carl Sagan, have long searched for EXACTLY this kind of evidence. This particular configuration chain, which is impossible (note the impossible - I didn't say nearly impossible, nor did I say almost impossible - just impossible) outside of organic or artificially constructed containment, is the first really solid evidence of life off the Earth.
Now, for those of you saying "well don't magnets arrange themselves in chains normally?" Yes - very good, you watched Mr. Wizard as a kid too... but you are completely ignorant of exobiology and of the basic patterns involved. So why post? Why not read up on the subject and actually be informed? Most people, unfourtunatly, either don't want to know the truth or don't care.
NASA may have been hasty in releasing this information only because the observations should be duplicated by many idependant scientists before a release of this scale happens, not because the evidence may not be what it seems.
Unless the observations are 100% wrong, as in the magnetite crystals don't exist as they are, or rather are of a different configuration (specifically, globular), which would be akin to saying the exact opposite of what they have already said, THERE WAS LIFE ON MARS!!!
The impacts of this discovery are incredible to say the least. For the first time we can confirm we are, or at least were (sorta), not alone in the Universe. Not sure what the Pope is gonna say... since this pretty much screws most of the Bible over (not that it's hard to do that anyway) but maybe people will decide to open their eyes and minds instead of swallowing the babble that most people beleive in today. Fat chance I guess... but I'm one of those silly people who wants to known what is really going on.
READ THIS BOOK: "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. As one review on Amazon.com said, it should be required reading for the planet. Then, once you're done, read every other book by Sagan. Sure, he often presents theory as fact... but as he has proven countless times, his theories usually are fact. May he rest in peace.
Slashdotters (some of them at least) continue to amaze me with their seemingly religious disregard for any facts, and rely on speculation, lies, or "nut-uh's".
.Net is a MUCH more grand concept than Java ever was..Net is a completely new way of thinking about software, communications, distribution, etc.
Java was simply a feeble attempt at creating a programming language / platform that you could write for once, and could run anywhere that had the platform installed. It failed in miserably. When was the last time you ran a Java app on your desktop, and not counting cheesy chat programs in Netscape? Oh wait, I'm asking this of people who primarily use Linux, my bad.
Comparing C# (or the CRL) to Java would be more accurate, but both of those are VERY small parts of.Net.
Oh, and a few clarifications about Java:
Java IS slow. Sure, you CAN write a Java program as fast as the average C/C++ program... but you have to be so good at Java that there really isn't a point, you should apply your skills to writing a really good C/C++ program (which isn't as hard in many respects) which will always be faster. The time it takes to develop a Java app with the speed of C would be MUCH better spent either designing the C app to be portable (not too hard, btw) or making that C app as fast as possible.
You need proof that C/C++ is nearly always faster that Java, not a problem:
Please READ that before the flames start. And no, moron, MS didn't fund that or me. Don't you think I would have spelled stuff better if I had funding?
Second, Java is NOT as portable as Sun would brain wash, er, lead you to believe. Sure, most simple (and even the occasional complex) applications work most of the time, mostly everywhere... with only a little modification... but since when was C/C++ that hard to port if it was well written?
Last time I checked, one of the principle reasons for creating C, then C++, was for portability. I don't find it hard to port my heavily object oriented, fast-than-java code to nearly any platform I wish. Then again... 90% of the platforms are the same (Windows) so it doesn't really matter.
Phew... got that off my chest. Granted, Microsoft has done some stupid things, they have written some bad code, and they may even be guilty of some of the DOJ crap... but they have also done some really good stuff, written some really good code, and every once in a while, they come up with a brand new idea which could really be cool.
What do most of you do? Vomit out the same old M$ crap and continue to miss out on both reality, and even possibly, some cool stuff.
You people scream about MS marketing, but you are more than willing to ignore the fact that Sun has suckered an entire generation of programmers into using a language that doesn't live up to it's promises, and has as few merits as MS Bob.
To say that KDE/Gnome has acheived what it has not because of millions of dollars of research (like MS's Windows has) is an extremely stupid and short sighted statements.
KDE/GNOME has, for the VAST majority of it's interface, simply copied what Microsoft has done. It's REALLY easy to copy an interface and say hey, we did it without all the research. Gee...
Nearly every element of the common window managers available for Linux are nearly identical to Windows - by design no less, yet you some how come to the conclusion that KDE/Gnome got there all by itself.
Typical Linux zealots. Microsoft could cure cancer (heh) and you would refuse to acknowledge it because of your biases.
Oh, the review sucked too. I can't tell you how many times I have gotten lost in the non-standard myriad of windows that most WM's use these days for Linux. A novice user would be screwed.
The BEST estimates for uranium deposits leave us with LESS THAN 50 YEARS OF IT LEFT.
Yes, you can build breeder reactors which use depleted uranium to run the plant, and this would give us nearly 1000 years of electricity... but there is one problem, the waste from a breeder reactor is WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM.
So, I think we can all agree on this one, breeder reactors are a pretty stupid solution.
The only good form of nuclear energy is FUSION!!!! Fusion could give us NON-POLLUTING energy for about... um... ever. Using sea water we could extract Deuterium which is the main incredient for fusion (and tritium).
Anyway... you're a moron for thinking Nuclear Fission is sustainable, because:
1.) It's not. 50 years max.
2.) Breeder reactors are NOT an option.
Who ever told you it was sustainable for 5 billion years is an ignorant fool, or works for GE. (Or both.) You obviously have no real knowledge about this subject, and like to spout off facts hoping nobody will know enough to reply.
Oh, yeah, and for those of you who are planning on saying "But fusion doesn't work!!" We reached break-even in 1983, and can acheive temperatures of over 150 million C. When we hit around 180m C, we will have a sustainable reaction which will basically solve the worlds energy problems.
It will be SO cheap that it would cost the power company more to send you a bill then to simply not charge you at all.
The reason we can (or at least should) see black holes has to do with quantum pairing of all matter, and quantum flux.
There is matter coming into, and going out of being constantly. This matter comes in pairs of matter and anti-matter, and as soon as they interact... poof, gone. But say this matter/anti-matter pair comes into being right on the edge of the even horizon of a black hole. One side of the pair would slip into nothingness, to be crushed by the black hole, and the other... due to very complex math (hehe) gets shot off VERY fast and with a LOT of energy away from the hole.
This is what we would see, a glowing halo of sorts around the black hole. These particles are of such high energy, x-ray to gamma ray or so, we need VERY sensitive detection devices to see them.
Excellent point. You need to add one more factor, though. A protest will only work if you stop buying them and DON'T steal them.
In other words, let the economics resolve the problem. If you steal the movies, then the economics becomes impossible and you will never get anything better. If you don't steal them, and you don't buy them, the prices will decrease until they reach a point where you are willing to buy them again.
Simple econ people. Stealing is NOT a way to protest, but boycotting is.
Considering SQL Server is the fastest database solution on the planet next to IBM's DB2, it's worth the money. DB2 costs nearl 11 times what SQL Server costs, and it sure as hell doesn't perform 11 times better.
Actually, there are MANY places where Quantum Gravity can't explain the nature of the universe, specifically in the scales that are sub-planck length.
For instance, explain to me, with Quantum Gravity, the exact nature of black holes. You can't, but String Theory can. QG also can't deal with the universe shortly after the big bang, or at the very start of that matter, but string theory can!
M-Theory (the 5 string theories unified) is the *only* theory that has any potential in bringing us as close as we can get to understanding... well... everything.
The problem with String Theory is that it's the first time since the classical greek natural philosphers that theory has preceded experiment.
The math isn't the biggest problem. The problem is we can't experimentally verify anything that string theory says with current technology. In the near future, BIG super colliders could provide us with the evidence to support string theory, and that would be awesome.
At any rate, there is nothing else in physics that comes close to explaining the basic nature of the universe. Quantum [insert related field here] can't do it, even with much of relativity and gravity factored in. String theory is the only party in physics right now...
The biggest question in all of Physics right now is solving the riddles behind SuperString theory. If we solve the problems with the math behind SuperString theory, we basically have the key to understanding *everything* in the universe.
Many people have pointed out interesting problems in Quantum mechanics and it's integration with Relativity and Gravity, but the thing is, if we understand SuperString theory, those problems solve themselves.
1.) The reason Hotmail crapped out the first time in 1997 on NT was not because it couldn't handle the 10mil + users, but because the software was written in a way that was not happy on NT. In fact, the software was designed by the same people who designed the original back end code for the Solaris version of Hotmail. Basically, they just ported their code, that hardly ever works right.
2.) NT (not to mention 2k) can handle just as many hits as Solaris, or any other Unix platform. This has been shown time and time again, but people seem to like to ignore facts and concentrate on a three year old story about poorly written back end code.
3.) The reason they are doing it step by step (as in not just going, BOOM... all 20mil users on Win2k now,) is for debugging reasons. If a few thousand accounts get screwed, that's much easier to fix than a few million.
There are MANY sites on the net that get far more traffic than hotmail (the MSN homepage for instance) and they handle the load just fine. Doesn't that make you think?
It's not the number of *accounts* that matters, it's the number of simultaneous users.
I get a kick out of stuff like this. Slashdot posts something, everybody beleives it must be true if Slashdot posts it, and then we find out that it's complete crap.
Seems like a pattern is forming. It goes something like this:
Slashdot posts BS. People beleive BS. Somebody shows facts that show it's BS.
if(BS == Microsoft Stuff) { People still beleive BS. } else { People laugh and stop beleiving BS. }
We have known about the dangers of genetic manipulation since the early days of Sci-Fi. It is inevitable that the human race will become an engineered one, and while it will be a tough transition, it is no different than the socio-economic classes that we have today.
100 years from now, the human race will be closer to perfection than we have ever been before. We will live longer, be smarter, stronger, faster, etc. Sure there will be the have and have-nots, but there are have and have-nots today. I feel sorry for them, but it is no reason not to continue on with the logical evolutionary step for mankind.
What PC's are you talking about? There isn't a PC now, nor not for about 5 years, that will be able to produce the kinds of real time graphics this thing will be capable of.
I suggest you take a few seconds out of your ignorance, and learn something about the subject which you comment on.
I love to see a place as biased as Slashdot comment on how fair or biased another news organization is. (Actually, I shouldn't say another... since Slashdot gets all it's content from others - they aren't a real news organization.)
It's great when Slashdot calls something biased or unfair... talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... are you retarded? You might as well accuse Einstein of being an amateur with regards to relativity.
You're sorta right, slashdot is kinda a democracy. But there is a reason democracies don't work in real life, and a reason the United States is a constitutional republic. One of the big reasons is so that the stupid masses don't ruin the country being governed.
You, my friend, constitute a stupid mass of 1.
God... if you don't want it to become the standard, MAKE SOMETHING BETTER.
Stop complaining like a 4 year old, and do something about it.
I like passport. Saves me a lot of time on a lot of sites, and allows those sites to deliver content I like. If you make something better, I will use that.
Gimme a break.
The price/performance is what is of concern here, and SQL Server 2000 with Windows 2000 still comes out far ahead of all the rest.
:-p
Is this a good or a bad thing?
Well, if you're not a moron, it's a good thing since you can have the best performance for the smallest buck. (SQL Server 2000 is also *very* robust. FAR more robust than any free solution, and easily ranks up their with DB2 or Oracle.)
If you're a moron, however, please begin crying now. Use what's best for the job DAMNIT.
Is anybody bothering to think about what Linus said?
:-)
He is basically comparing open source to the open sharing of scientific ideas. How you can compare these two things, in the context of commerce, is beyond me.
Science is NOT a product. Pure science is the search for truth. Software IS A PRODUCT.
What the MS guy was saying (well, I think what he tried to say) is that the primary purpose of creating software, in the business context, is to make money, and there are no examples of OSS being successful in this endeavor despite many failed attempts, so it must be bad. Is that a valid conclusion? Not really... but there are no examples to counter act it, so for now, it's true.
The primary goal of science (when done as it should be, like how Bohr, Einstein, Netwon, etc. did it) is to discover truth. The sharing of that science openly can facilitate that discovery because more minds = more ideas.
For making money via OSS, that's not true. You HAVE to make money to survive as a business. Duu. You DON'T have to make money to survive as a scientist... or rather, for your research to survive.
There is no money involved in the pursuit of pure science. (I know... funding, blah blah, technology, blah blah... you miss my point.) Newton, as much of an asshole as he was, was not out to make money from mathematically proving the inverse square force represents gravity acuratly, nor was he in it for the buck he could make off calculus. (Good book: Newton: The Last Sorcerer, by White.)
Linus implying that he is somehow anywhere in the ballpark of being as important as Newton, Bohr, Einstein, or any of the other great minds of the past 400 years, is about as arrogant as it gets. (And don't start saying that wasn't his intention. Linus knew exactly what he was saying.)
Yes, the MS guy had a lot of claims that have little data to support them. (Or, rather, HE had little data to support them.) But Linus oozes arrogance and egotism in that "reply."
Gimme a break people. The fact few of you saw this confirms my belief that Linux users are just as, if not more so, brainwashed as they claim Windows users are. They are just brainwashed by different people.
Anybody who has read Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" would have heard about this a long time ago. ;-)
He has a whole capture about the implications concerning both asteroid deflection and their possible use as weapons.
His solution? Well... you will have to read the book!
Exactly. This is a tribute to what's wrong with the drug war.
Notice that each time he got caught and screwed over he was about to start a new life (or had just started) with his kid? He was on his way OUT of the drug business.
It was the government's assualt on his life that ruined it, NOT the drugs themselves.
"The tobacco industry might be a bunch of lying bastards, but they don't kill anyone."
If I make a candy bar that containes arsnic, and make it so that the candy is VERY addictive, then tell nobody about the arsnice - scratch that, LIE about the arsnic even being there, and continue to sell it even though it IS killing peope, am I am murderer?
Maybe not in the strictess sense, but I would be evil.
Yes, it is a personal choice to smoke - but it's not a choice to become addicted.
It was also a personal choice for the tobacco industry to engineer their smokes to be more addictive, to target kids so they would get hooked young, and lie the whole way through it all.
And, actually... they MIGHT have really killed people, or at least tried. Go watch "The Insider" and you will see what I mean. If even 1/10th of that actually happened, it will change your mind about the tobacco industry.
The users can't shoulder ALL the blame.
"OSS has traditionally provided a better quality of software in which bugs are fixed more quickly"
Please provide me with some references so I can do more research.
Other than that, good arguments, although I am still not convinced that open source is truly better.
This has very little to do with the "open source movement."
Having two people sitting in front of a computer, looking at the same code at the same time while one of them is writing it is very different from having two different people looking at code a day later, with no knowledge of the thought process involved during its creation.
I know the open source movement wants to somehow take credit for everything, but you can't.
First off, the whole idea of collaboration has nothing to do with open source. It happens all the time with thousands of programmers inside companies, all the while keep the code closed.
Open source doesn't seem to work any better than closed, and nobody is making any real money at it. So if it's not better, and makes less money... well you can finish that thought.
The ignorance in this thread is amazing.
How many of you are exobiologists? None? Thought so.
For those of you who don't know, the field of exobiology is the study of non-terrestrial life, and was pioneered by Carl Sagan. (One of my personal heros.)
Exobiologists, especially Carl Sagan, have long searched for EXACTLY this kind of evidence. This particular configuration chain, which is impossible (note the impossible - I didn't say nearly impossible, nor did I say almost impossible - just impossible) outside of organic or artificially constructed containment, is the first really solid evidence of life off the Earth.
Now, for those of you saying "well don't magnets arrange themselves in chains normally?" Yes - very good, you watched Mr. Wizard as a kid too... but you are completely ignorant of exobiology and of the basic patterns involved. So why post? Why not read up on the subject and actually be informed? Most people, unfourtunatly, either don't want to know the truth or don't care.
NASA may have been hasty in releasing this information only because the observations should be duplicated by many idependant scientists before a release of this scale happens, not because the evidence may not be what it seems.
Unless the observations are 100% wrong, as in the magnetite crystals don't exist as they are, or rather are of a different configuration (specifically, globular), which would be akin to saying the exact opposite of what they have already said, THERE WAS LIFE ON MARS!!!
The impacts of this discovery are incredible to say the least. For the first time we can confirm we are, or at least were (sorta), not alone in the Universe. Not sure what the Pope is gonna say... since this pretty much screws most of the Bible over (not that it's hard to do that anyway) but maybe people will decide to open their eyes and minds instead of swallowing the babble that most people beleive in today. Fat chance I guess... but I'm one of those silly people who wants to known what is really going on.
READ THIS BOOK: "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. As one review on Amazon.com said, it should be required reading for the planet. Then, once you're done, read every other book by Sagan. Sure, he often presents theory as fact... but as he has proven countless times, his theories usually are fact. May he rest in peace.
Slashdotters (some of them at least) continue to amaze me with their seemingly religious disregard for any facts, and rely on speculation, lies, or "nut-uh's".
.Net is a MUCH more grand concept than Java ever was. .Net is a completely new way of thinking about software, communications, distribution, etc.
.Net.
9 99-42-10/p109-prechelt/
_ java/index.html
a _response/index1.html
Java was simply a feeble attempt at creating a programming language / platform that you could write for once, and could run anywhere that had the platform installed. It failed in miserably. When was the last time you ran a Java app on your desktop, and not counting cheesy chat programs in Netscape? Oh wait, I'm asking this of people who primarily use Linux, my bad.
Comparing C# (or the CRL) to Java would be more accurate, but both of those are VERY small parts of
Oh, and a few clarifications about Java:
Java IS slow. Sure, you CAN write a Java program as fast as the average C/C++ program... but you have to be so good at Java that there really isn't a point, you should apply your skills to writing a really good C/C++ program (which isn't as hard in many respects) which will always be faster. The time it takes to develop a Java app with the speed of C would be MUCH better spent either designing the C app to be portable (not too hard, btw) or making that C app as fast as possible.
You need proof that C/C++ is nearly always faster that Java, not a problem:
http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/journals/cacm/1
Please READ that before the flames start. And no, moron, MS didn't fund that or me. Don't you think I would have spelled stuff better if I had funding?
Second, Java is NOT as portable as Sun would brain wash, er, lead you to believe. Sure, most simple (and even the occasional complex) applications work most of the time, mostly everywhere... with only a little modification... but since when was C/C++ that hard to port if it was well written?
Last time I checked, one of the principle reasons for creating C, then C++, was for portability. I don't find it hard to port my heavily object oriented, fast-than-java code to nearly any platform I wish. Then again... 90% of the platforms are the same (Windows) so it doesn't really matter.
Need proof of that? Ok:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/garf/2001/01/08/bad
Oh, and if you have bitches about that article, read this one:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/garf/2001/01/18/jav
Phew... got that off my chest. Granted, Microsoft has done some stupid things, they have written some bad code, and they may even be guilty of some of the DOJ crap... but they have also done some really good stuff, written some really good code, and every once in a while, they come up with a brand new idea which could really be cool.
What do most of you do? Vomit out the same old M$ crap and continue to miss out on both reality, and even possibly, some cool stuff.
You people scream about MS marketing, but you are more than willing to ignore the fact that Sun has suckered an entire generation of programmers into using a language that doesn't live up to it's promises, and has as few merits as MS Bob.
To say that KDE/Gnome has acheived what it has not because of millions of dollars of research (like MS's Windows has) is an extremely stupid and short sighted statements.
KDE/GNOME has, for the VAST majority of it's interface, simply copied what Microsoft has done. It's REALLY easy to copy an interface and say hey, we did it without all the research. Gee...
Nearly every element of the common window managers available for Linux are nearly identical to Windows - by design no less, yet you some how come to the conclusion that KDE/Gnome got there all by itself.
Typical Linux zealots. Microsoft could cure cancer (heh) and you would refuse to acknowledge it because of your biases.
Oh, the review sucked too. I can't tell you how many times I have gotten lost in the non-standard myriad of windows that most WM's use these days for Linux. A novice user would be screwed.
The BEST estimates for uranium deposits leave us with LESS THAN 50 YEARS OF IT LEFT.
Yes, you can build breeder reactors which use depleted uranium to run the plant, and this would give us nearly 1000 years of electricity... but there is one problem, the waste from a breeder reactor is WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM.
So, I think we can all agree on this one, breeder reactors are a pretty stupid solution.
The only good form of nuclear energy is FUSION!!!! Fusion could give us NON-POLLUTING energy for about... um... ever. Using sea water we could extract Deuterium which is the main incredient for fusion (and tritium).
Anyway... you're a moron for thinking Nuclear Fission is sustainable, because:
1.) It's not. 50 years max.
2.) Breeder reactors are NOT an option.
Who ever told you it was sustainable for 5 billion years is an ignorant fool, or works for GE. (Or both.) You obviously have no real knowledge about this subject, and like to spout off facts hoping nobody will know enough to reply.
Oh, yeah, and for those of you who are planning on saying "But fusion doesn't work!!" We reached break-even in 1983, and can acheive temperatures of over 150 million C. When we hit around 180m C, we will have a sustainable reaction which will basically solve the worlds energy problems.
It will be SO cheap that it would cost the power company more to send you a bill then to simply not charge you at all.
Just to clarify some points made here...
The reason we can (or at least should) see black holes has to do with quantum pairing of all matter, and quantum flux.
There is matter coming into, and going out of being constantly. This matter comes in pairs of matter and anti-matter, and as soon as they interact... poof, gone. But say this matter/anti-matter pair comes into being right on the edge of the even horizon of a black hole. One side of the pair would slip into nothingness, to be crushed by the black hole, and the other... due to very complex math (hehe) gets shot off VERY fast and with a LOT of energy away from the hole.
This is what we would see, a glowing halo of sorts around the black hole. These particles are of such high energy, x-ray to gamma ray or so, we need VERY sensitive detection devices to see them.
Explain that pretty well? No? Stfu.
Excellent point. You need to add one more factor, though. A protest will only work if you stop buying them and DON'T steal them.
In other words, let the economics resolve the problem. If you steal the movies, then the economics becomes impossible and you will never get anything better. If you don't steal them, and you don't buy them, the prices will decrease until they reach a point where you are willing to buy them again.
Simple econ people. Stealing is NOT a way to protest, but boycotting is.
Considering SQL Server is the fastest database solution on the planet next to IBM's DB2, it's worth the money. DB2 costs nearl 11 times what SQL Server costs, and it sure as hell doesn't perform 11 times better.
Actually, there are MANY places where Quantum Gravity can't explain the nature of the universe, specifically in the scales that are sub-planck length.
For instance, explain to me, with Quantum Gravity, the exact nature of black holes. You can't, but String Theory can. QG also can't deal with the universe shortly after the big bang, or at the very start of that matter, but string theory can!
M-Theory (the 5 string theories unified) is the *only* theory that has any potential in bringing us as close as we can get to understanding... well... everything.
The problem with String Theory is that it's the first time since the classical greek natural philosphers that theory has preceded experiment.
The math isn't the biggest problem. The problem is we can't experimentally verify anything that string theory says with current technology. In the near future, BIG super colliders could provide us with the evidence to support string theory, and that would be awesome.
At any rate, there is nothing else in physics that comes close to explaining the basic nature of the universe. Quantum [insert related field here] can't do it, even with much of relativity and gravity factored in. String theory is the only party in physics right now...
The biggest question in all of Physics right now is solving the riddles behind SuperString theory. If we solve the problems with the math behind SuperString theory, we basically have the key to understanding *everything* in the universe.
Many people have pointed out interesting problems in Quantum mechanics and it's integration with Relativity and Gravity, but the thing is, if we understand SuperString theory, those problems solve themselves.
Let's get some facts straight.
1.) The reason Hotmail crapped out the first time in 1997 on NT was not because it couldn't handle the 10mil + users, but because the software was written in a way that was not happy on NT. In fact, the software was designed by the same people who designed the original back end code for the Solaris version of Hotmail. Basically, they just ported their code, that hardly ever works right.
2.) NT (not to mention 2k) can handle just as many hits as Solaris, or any other Unix platform. This has been shown time and time again, but people seem to like to ignore facts and concentrate on a three year old story about poorly written back end code.
3.) The reason they are doing it step by step (as in not just going, BOOM... all 20mil users on Win2k now,) is for debugging reasons. If a few thousand accounts get screwed, that's much easier to fix than a few million.
There are MANY sites on the net that get far more traffic than hotmail (the MSN homepage for instance) and they handle the load just fine. Doesn't that make you think?
It's not the number of *accounts* that matters, it's the number of simultaneous users.
I get a kick out of stuff like this. Slashdot posts something, everybody beleives it must be true if Slashdot posts it, and then we find out that it's complete crap.
Seems like a pattern is forming. It goes something like this:
Slashdot posts BS.
People beleive BS.
Somebody shows facts that show it's BS.
if(BS == Microsoft Stuff) {
People still beleive BS.
} else {
People laugh and stop beleiving BS.
}
We have known about the dangers of genetic manipulation since the early days of Sci-Fi. It is inevitable that the human race will become an engineered one, and while it will be a tough transition, it is no different than the socio-economic classes that we have today.
100 years from now, the human race will be closer to perfection than we have ever been before. We will live longer, be smarter, stronger, faster, etc. Sure there will be the have and have-nots, but there are have and have-nots today. I feel sorry for them, but it is no reason not to continue on with the logical evolutionary step for mankind.
Assuming it's 800x faster than a 56k modem, the movie would be about 76.9 Gigabytes.
((56/8)*800)*14400
Which would be
56Kb --> 7KB
(7KB * 800 times faster) * 14400 seconds in 4 hours.
That's assume ghetto transfer rates on a modem... hehe.
HAHAHAHAAH
What PC's are you talking about? There isn't a PC now, nor not for about 5 years, that will be able to produce the kinds of real time graphics this thing will be capable of.
I suggest you take a few seconds out of your ignorance, and learn something about the subject which you comment on.
I love to see a place as biased as Slashdot comment on how fair or biased another news organization is. (Actually, I shouldn't say another... since Slashdot gets all it's content from others - they aren't a real news organization.)
It's great when Slashdot calls something biased or unfair... talk about the pot calling the kettle black!