approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Congratulations - you've outed yourself. You're who we're talking about. That wasn't hard. For your sake I hope this is a throwaway account. I've friended you here and I hope all my friends will too, so we can see the nonsense you post. Now that you're stuck in it, do you see the trap? In hindsight it should be obvious. Those were features iPhone lacked about a billion phones ago, when they faced competition that didn't have those features, or lacked other critical features iPhone did have. They're also features WP7 launched lacking that both iPhone and Android had when WP7 launched. You detected that and sensed you needed to defend your platform without understanding either the temporal context or who you're talking to. You lose. You're exactly who we're talking about. You know your job is to defend your platform, but you lack both context and art. You don't even mention WP7 in your post but by your derogatory remarks you hope to sway, and you can't because temporality prevents it.
When gas is four bucks a gallon fuel efficiency is going to move a lot of cars and American Muscle Cars are a premium item rather than a mass market item. If your job is to move Chevys then your job is to emphasize the luxury of the experience, not the cubic inches that burn fuel. When phones that alert you to who is calling by the ringtone MP3 you've associated with the caller is the standard form then phones that lack that feature are in the bargain bin and you need to draw focus on other things if moving those bargain bin phones is your job. It's not your job to point out that in years past different people focused on different things. To attempt to come to market with such a thing is a fool's game. That's not your fault because you're in Marketing rather than Engineering. The lack of the feature is an Engineering fail. But that you felt the need to come here in this context, reach so far to defend your product and not realize you're out of your depth, that's a Marketing fail. You guys really suck on every level. No wonder you're finding new lows in morale every quarter. Your final line's attempt to become reasonable isn't enough.
Now that you've burned this account for me, I may as well give you a little back. The whole "Apple is mindbending" thing isn't working. You know what? I don't aspire to Apple products and I'm not going to, but I would be flat stupid to try to pretend that others don't. I don't care for them because their Cathedral doesn't appeal to me. I prefer the Bazaar of Android. The others that do? I wouldn't alienate them by calling them stupid. They like different things than me. They have different needs is all. iProducts are good gear. I've walked around with an iPad, and complete strangers felt the need to strike up conversation and see the thing. Apple products just don't suit me because I demand to be the master of my gear. If you don't have that issue, they have iMovie and GarageBand, which is a great deal for what you get. I knew I was giving that up when I bought my Asus Transformer and I'm OK with that because it's got microSDHC, and it obeys me above all.
Do you see what you've done now? Do you have any clue at all? Is your supervisor looking on? Maybe he can explain it to you.
It's hilarious to watch you all fail so spectacularly and so predictably. Do you have any idea how entertaining your failure is? If not failing weren't so freaking obvious it wouldn't be as funny.
While that's a nice story, it's probably mostly incorrect. Most planetary nebulae like this are created when a massive Population II star (over 120 solar masses) that formed in a metal-poor region that was usually deposited by a population III star, explodes in a pair instability supernova. This is a destructive explosion that usually completely obliterates the original star in one blast, having converted up to a fifth of its mass into iron or higher elements. It isn't some pulsing thing that happens over and over. If there's anything left at all it's likely another form of black dwarf consisting of the heaviest elements of the original star's core visible only in the infrared as it can't sustain fusion and its fissibles decompose. The blown off mass is quite important, as that's where we come from. The densest parts of the shell eventually congeal to become stars in a globular cluster. The globular form of the cluster is commonly seen orbiting galaxies rather than within them because the globular form is destroyed over time by tidal forces and interaction with surrounding masses.
This pulsing and contracting thing has been seen and is quite rare. It occurs when the mass of the star is much higher, and its gravity can recapture most of the mass that was thrown off. This would be visible as not one, but multiple shells of glowing gas.
The generations are given in reverse order. Generation I stars like our sun are the oldest, and are probably formed out of the peripheral debris of just such an explosion. Generation II stars are older, and we haven't yet spied a generation III star that formed of hydrogen and helium when more metallic elements didn't yet exist.
These are effective strategies that have been in use and working for some time. There are a few refinements the past decade. People often skip the middle of the review or zone out in the middle. So when you're 'turfing a product with fatal flaws like for example a phone that can't multitask, has no apps and can't even set your "I like big butts" MP3 as a ringtone for your amply so endowed love interest like other phones can, that's a good spot to pretend those slights don't exist and instead go on about some minor flaw that absolutely nobody could care about before dismissing it as a minor issue not worthy of subtracting a star.
For the most part they've given up using the ESL contingent from Bangalore and Costa Rica for the astroturfing campaigns. They gave a lot of column inch per dollar, but just weren't persuasive. They couldn't tell when they were being played, they weren't aware of context. They would just argue away, pasting their talking points into a dialog with someone who understood what was going on without a care how it looked to the audience in general. The new ones would just paste the script verbatim as if it was a trump card and blow everybody else's chance at subtlety. It was a negative return on investment. It took so much more investment in psych majors to build up decent arguments than the 'turfers cost to post them, and then the 'turfers just ruined it with poor delivery. So now they just hire the psych majors I think. And prisoners. Lots of Arizona prisoners.
I think they're investing more in poisoning before. If a venue isn't generally supportive they might spend some considerable effort making the entire site unsavory, or picking apart established players in order to diminish their interest in the site. Griefer is probably the most advanced form of 'turfer out there today - and I don't mean goatse guy - he's a legitimate researcher into captcha defeat technologies.
There are even absurd parodies of fans of products in play. They gush adoration for minor features at every opportunity but never mention prime benefits and dismiss (but never fail to mention) major shortcomings as trivial. They creatively destroy their credibility with every post to create a positive impression of what they criticize and a negative impression of what they praise. They're the marketing version of getting your idiot cousin on your competitor's payroll. This rabbit hole goes much further than you've considered.
In case you're wondering, yes - this means that the term "light year" has some constant distance that is fixed, plus some variable component that is less than 1 millionth of it that is variable depending on the rate of the expansion of the universe at the specified moment (which as far as we can tell is a complex function currently positive but eventually of indeterminate sign). In the common parlance we use the fixed part and ignore the variable part for engineering locally. But the variable part gains meaning under the laws of compound interest over distances of 1M lightyears or so. At some point in spans of over 4B lightyears the interest becomes more important than the principal. Even the expansion of the universe demands a Lissajous curve.
As we look at these distant sources of light we have to be mindful that they are far and alien. The laws of physics may have been different then and there. Light definitely had a different speed, though not much different. The numbers we take now for constants are more likely variable functions that matter little at the moment but over the course of 12 billion years mean a lot as T is a minor factor in the equation that adds up eventually.
But over a foot these issues matter not enough to measure by a great deal. Not a planck length per attosecond. Not even close.
I'm not really good at this sort of math, but I'll take a swing at it. I'm going to have to take some liberties. Let's start with your foot distance. Objects located within a foot of each other are closely coupled reference frames. If you could hold them static with each other for 12 billion years the distance might grow to three or four feet, but they can still strongly interact. Since they are so close to each other, the time light takes to travel between is measureable but the expansion of the universe over so small a distance and span of time isn't measureable. Objects more distant from each other are more loosely coupled and at intergalactic ranges and travel durations we can see the expansion as red shift as the space containing the photons expands. At some great distance from each other objects become irrelevant to each other - neither can evermore influence the other in any way as even light can't bridge the distance. According to general relativity the universe can expand faster than the speed of light, and as near as we can tell it actually does.
This object and the early Population II star that would provide the mass for our sun weren't really 12 billion lightyears apart when the light left the distant object - more like 7. Concerning these two objects, they're fairly static in terms of proper motion (inasmuch as such a thing means anything over distances so vast). They're not moving relative to each other at anything near the speed of light. Unfortunately, the space between them is expanding - the distance between them is so vast that they exist in different reference frames and the distance between is increasing as a function of time even though they're not really moving because the universe itself is expanding. Our beam of light is born, and in its rapid departure quickly becomes its own near-timeless reference frame, moving at the speed of light.
Our intrepid beam of light, trekking across this vast expanse finds its destination receding as it draws near, and its departure point receding ever faster as the gap grows. Over the duration of travel the distance between origin and destination is greatly increased. After four billion years of travel, approaching a third of its journey the target sun undergoes a pair-instability supernova as the accumulated fusion of elements within it shifts from exothermic (below iron) to endothermic (iron and above), the star implodes and then with a sudden burst of fusion creating a blast that extinquishes the star and spreads vast quantities of material through our region of space in a nebula what will be the cradle of Sol. At this point its departure point is already 5 billion lightyears behind, and receding also.
Another two billion years or so finds the target renewed as collapsing hydrogen, iron and gas ignites our sun. The photons' starting point is now over 8 billion lightyears behind, and falling further every day. One of these days the expansion of the space between becomes so great that the point of no return is reached and the expansion of the space between the photons and the origin becomes greater than the speed of light. This will happen within about 1.5 billion years after the midpoint of the duration of the journey (if it happened sooner than the midpoint, the light would never arrive at all).
After another two billion years or so the planets have formed and swept their orbits, their surfaces cooled. The comets still fall now and then on the Earth, but the for the most part the planetary bombardment is over. Earth's surface has cooled below the boiling point of water and in an iron-rich ocean the first lifeforms find their spark. The ray, having not felt the passage of time through its 8 billion year journey travels on. As it closes the distance to the target, the expansion of space between becomes less and less - but the expansion between it and its origin becomes more and more. Its wavelength has expanded a good bit during the journey as even the space containing the photon's waveform has expanded. The or
Fortunately Ceres has abundant water, and a much gentler gravity well than the Moon. We're probably better off settling there first - though the commute will be a pain. Ceres is also conveniently close to the iron-rich asteroids we'll be building things out of.
There is no there there. If it was 12 billion lightyears away 12 billion years ago, light from here leaving now will never fall there. It's outside of our light cone. The space between here and there is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. This quasar no longer exists as anything but a now-mythical story told in photons.
The government is hard to understand. All this proves is that RIM is good at passing these gates. Dell is good at this too, and a US company, and has Android tablets. RIM Won't be alone on this field long enough to matter.
They also sell the case by itself. They wanted $872 for qty 1 on the case alone about 18 months ago, some reasonable customization extras are available (custom silkscreen logo, custom colors and so on). Shipping is extra. It's odd that they don't have a simple web store setup for this, but it looks like their business is almost exclusively bespoke tin bending.
You can get this from the company that builds the cases for them, Protocase. Send an email to lpodgursky@protocase.com for details. It's $5395.00 (1-4 units) and $4995.00 (5-9 units). And yes, that's more than building it yourself naturally.
Agreed. I use mine a lot and the battery just goes and goes. I bought the keyboard but frankly used it only twice. An amazing bunch of tech for only $399 for the tablet.
I'm pretty sure that archive.org mirrors all publically available Google books. Archive.org is a charitably funded organization with the remit to archive all of the Internet they can.
I was using RAMdisk for storage over 30 years ago. It's great performance storage, but the whole forgetting everything on power loss is an issue. We've done ten workarounds that I know about.
You kids these days, you think you invented everything.
I'm ok with this proposal as long as it doesn't block the resolution of the current case in the courts. I'm more concerned that the library be built than who owns it. It does not - and can not - actually belong to any company. It belongs to all of us. We in general own our culture and the artistic works that created it. AFAIK, Google is not opposed to other companies scanning and making available all works. Microsoft even had a similar project Google lauded while it lived. Microsoft lost interest though, and won't be going forward unless they can find money in it.
This evolution is a Brin project. Sergey Brin is the son of Russian immigrants to the US who fled Russia to escape oppression of speech and privacy. He's brilliant and committed. He invented the trawl and indexing methods of Google. He has higher goals than you might imagine. He's wealthy beyond your imagining and he doesn't care. He aspires to do things your grandchildren will saint him for, and he would impoverish himself to do it. He's smarter than you and me, and just about everybody else - and he has the means to work his good will. But for how you feel about him today he cares not at all.
Google cares that the back history of forgotten works can be found and acquired by the common person - that's their mission: to index all human knowledge. That they have it for sale or you have it matters not to them a whit. They paid to scan, convert and index these works because that needed to be done to achieve that mission. If you can do it also, they don't have a problem with that - others, including Microsoft, have made the attempt.
NAND flash degrades over time and has a limited amount of program/erase cycles.
Spinning rust degrades over time and has a limited amount of write/erase cycles.
The difference between NAND flash and spinning rust is that it's faster. Early evolutions of NAND flash reached the limits of their write cycles therefore. Modern evolutions of NAND flash make it more durable and reliable than spinning rust in every instance - and the speed and storage density is just a bonus.
They were sued to prevent the collection of this library by corporations that stand to profit from the Great Forgetting. There is great profit in selling the same ideas over and over, or in forgetting old stories in preference to new ones - but such business is not in the common interest of Mankind, culture or science. The purpose of copyright in the US is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...."
As Isaac Newton said: "We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."
We don't get this benefit by forgetting what has gone before. With the Great Forgetting we step down from the shoulders of giants and aspire to reinvent what they once knew over and over again. It is an end to progress. It is a loss of art. It is an outcome not to be wished. Unless what we have known already is preserved how can we hope to learn things that are truly new, to know that our art is innovative and not derivative of some lost tome?
How can one legitimately argue against digitizing, preserving and making available the lost works of Mankind, the universal translation thereof, of making such available to all who come - where they are - at little or no cost? I can't imagine the depravity of soul that would be required to oppose such. To me it is evil in simple terms - the seeking of profit at the expense of progress in art and maturity of people, the exploitation of human forgettery.
Prince Piero Ginori Conti tested the first geothermal power generator on 4 July 1904 in Larderello, Italy. - Wikipedia
I guess the best reference would be The Geysers in California, generating electricity since 1960. You'll find five countries that (as of 2004) generated more than 15 percent of their electrical power from geothermal energy here.
Typically geothermal plants produce more widely distributed energy than nuclear power. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. The closer the generation is to the use the less the transmission losses waste.
You should find sufficient citations in the wikipedia articles to continue your search.
Slashdot Mirror
And it makes a great marinade for steaks and rib roasts!
craphound.com
Congratulations - you've outed yourself. You're who we're talking about. That wasn't hard. For your sake I hope this is a throwaway account. I've friended you here and I hope all my friends will too, so we can see the nonsense you post. Now that you're stuck in it, do you see the trap? In hindsight it should be obvious. Those were features iPhone lacked about a billion phones ago, when they faced competition that didn't have those features, or lacked other critical features iPhone did have. They're also features WP7 launched lacking that both iPhone and Android had when WP7 launched. You detected that and sensed you needed to defend your platform without understanding either the temporal context or who you're talking to. You lose. You're exactly who we're talking about. You know your job is to defend your platform, but you lack both context and art. You don't even mention WP7 in your post but by your derogatory remarks you hope to sway, and you can't because temporality prevents it.
When gas is four bucks a gallon fuel efficiency is going to move a lot of cars and American Muscle Cars are a premium item rather than a mass market item. If your job is to move Chevys then your job is to emphasize the luxury of the experience, not the cubic inches that burn fuel. When phones that alert you to who is calling by the ringtone MP3 you've associated with the caller is the standard form then phones that lack that feature are in the bargain bin and you need to draw focus on other things if moving those bargain bin phones is your job. It's not your job to point out that in years past different people focused on different things. To attempt to come to market with such a thing is a fool's game. That's not your fault because you're in Marketing rather than Engineering. The lack of the feature is an Engineering fail. But that you felt the need to come here in this context, reach so far to defend your product and not realize you're out of your depth, that's a Marketing fail. You guys really suck on every level. No wonder you're finding new lows in morale every quarter. Your final line's attempt to become reasonable isn't enough.
Now that you've burned this account for me, I may as well give you a little back. The whole "Apple is mindbending" thing isn't working. You know what? I don't aspire to Apple products and I'm not going to, but I would be flat stupid to try to pretend that others don't. I don't care for them because their Cathedral doesn't appeal to me. I prefer the Bazaar of Android. The others that do? I wouldn't alienate them by calling them stupid. They like different things than me. They have different needs is all. iProducts are good gear. I've walked around with an iPad, and complete strangers felt the need to strike up conversation and see the thing. Apple products just don't suit me because I demand to be the master of my gear. If you don't have that issue, they have iMovie and GarageBand, which is a great deal for what you get. I knew I was giving that up when I bought my Asus Transformer and I'm OK with that because it's got microSDHC, and it obeys me above all.
Do you see what you've done now? Do you have any clue at all? Is your supervisor looking on? Maybe he can explain it to you.
It's hilarious to watch you all fail so spectacularly and so predictably. Do you have any idea how entertaining your failure is? If not failing weren't so freaking obvious it wouldn't be as funny.
While that's a nice story, it's probably mostly incorrect. Most planetary nebulae like this are created when a massive Population II star (over 120 solar masses) that formed in a metal-poor region that was usually deposited by a population III star, explodes in a pair instability supernova. This is a destructive explosion that usually completely obliterates the original star in one blast, having converted up to a fifth of its mass into iron or higher elements. It isn't some pulsing thing that happens over and over. If there's anything left at all it's likely another form of black dwarf consisting of the heaviest elements of the original star's core visible only in the infrared as it can't sustain fusion and its fissibles decompose. The blown off mass is quite important, as that's where we come from. The densest parts of the shell eventually congeal to become stars in a globular cluster. The globular form of the cluster is commonly seen orbiting galaxies rather than within them because the globular form is destroyed over time by tidal forces and interaction with surrounding masses.
This pulsing and contracting thing has been seen and is quite rare. It occurs when the mass of the star is much higher, and its gravity can recapture most of the mass that was thrown off. This would be visible as not one, but multiple shells of glowing gas.
The generations are given in reverse order. Generation I stars like our sun are the oldest, and are probably formed out of the peripheral debris of just such an explosion. Generation II stars are older, and we haven't yet spied a generation III star that formed of hydrogen and helium when more metallic elements didn't yet exist.
Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Not even this.
Let's be thankful machines aren't good at this yet.
These are effective strategies that have been in use and working for some time. There are a few refinements the past decade. People often skip the middle of the review or zone out in the middle. So when you're 'turfing a product with fatal flaws like for example a phone that can't multitask, has no apps and can't even set your "I like big butts" MP3 as a ringtone for your amply so endowed love interest like other phones can, that's a good spot to pretend those slights don't exist and instead go on about some minor flaw that absolutely nobody could care about before dismissing it as a minor issue not worthy of subtracting a star.
For the most part they've given up using the ESL contingent from Bangalore and Costa Rica for the astroturfing campaigns. They gave a lot of column inch per dollar, but just weren't persuasive. They couldn't tell when they were being played, they weren't aware of context. They would just argue away, pasting their talking points into a dialog with someone who understood what was going on without a care how it looked to the audience in general. The new ones would just paste the script verbatim as if it was a trump card and blow everybody else's chance at subtlety. It was a negative return on investment. It took so much more investment in psych majors to build up decent arguments than the 'turfers cost to post them, and then the 'turfers just ruined it with poor delivery. So now they just hire the psych majors I think. And prisoners. Lots of Arizona prisoners.
I think they're investing more in poisoning before. If a venue isn't generally supportive they might spend some considerable effort making the entire site unsavory, or picking apart established players in order to diminish their interest in the site. Griefer is probably the most advanced form of 'turfer out there today - and I don't mean goatse guy - he's a legitimate researcher into captcha defeat technologies.
There are even absurd parodies of fans of products in play. They gush adoration for minor features at every opportunity but never mention prime benefits and dismiss (but never fail to mention) major shortcomings as trivial. They creatively destroy their credibility with every post to create a positive impression of what they criticize and a negative impression of what they praise. They're the marketing version of getting your idiot cousin on your competitor's payroll. This rabbit hole goes much further than you've considered.
As we look at these distant sources of light we have to be mindful that they are far and alien. The laws of physics may have been different then and there. Light definitely had a different speed, though not much different. The numbers we take now for constants are more likely variable functions that matter little at the moment but over the course of 12 billion years mean a lot as T is a minor factor in the equation that adds up eventually.
But over a foot these issues matter not enough to measure by a great deal. Not a planck length per attosecond. Not even close.
I'm not really good at this sort of math, but I'll take a swing at it. I'm going to have to take some liberties. Let's start with your foot distance. Objects located within a foot of each other are closely coupled reference frames. If you could hold them static with each other for 12 billion years the distance might grow to three or four feet, but they can still strongly interact. Since they are so close to each other, the time light takes to travel between is measureable but the expansion of the universe over so small a distance and span of time isn't measureable. Objects more distant from each other are more loosely coupled and at intergalactic ranges and travel durations we can see the expansion as red shift as the space containing the photons expands. At some great distance from each other objects become irrelevant to each other - neither can evermore influence the other in any way as even light can't bridge the distance. According to general relativity the universe can expand faster than the speed of light, and as near as we can tell it actually does.
This object and the early Population II star that would provide the mass for our sun weren't really 12 billion lightyears apart when the light left the distant object - more like 7. Concerning these two objects, they're fairly static in terms of proper motion (inasmuch as such a thing means anything over distances so vast). They're not moving relative to each other at anything near the speed of light. Unfortunately, the space between them is expanding - the distance between them is so vast that they exist in different reference frames and the distance between is increasing as a function of time even though they're not really moving because the universe itself is expanding. Our beam of light is born, and in its rapid departure quickly becomes its own near-timeless reference frame, moving at the speed of light.
Our intrepid beam of light, trekking across this vast expanse finds its destination receding as it draws near, and its departure point receding ever faster as the gap grows. Over the duration of travel the distance between origin and destination is greatly increased. After four billion years of travel, approaching a third of its journey the target sun undergoes a pair-instability supernova as the accumulated fusion of elements within it shifts from exothermic (below iron) to endothermic (iron and above), the star implodes and then with a sudden burst of fusion creating a blast that extinquishes the star and spreads vast quantities of material through our region of space in a nebula what will be the cradle of Sol. At this point its departure point is already 5 billion lightyears behind, and receding also.
Another two billion years or so finds the target renewed as collapsing hydrogen, iron and gas ignites our sun. The photons' starting point is now over 8 billion lightyears behind, and falling further every day. One of these days the expansion of the space between becomes so great that the point of no return is reached and the expansion of the space between the photons and the origin becomes greater than the speed of light. This will happen within about 1.5 billion years after the midpoint of the duration of the journey (if it happened sooner than the midpoint, the light would never arrive at all).
After another two billion years or so the planets have formed and swept their orbits, their surfaces cooled. The comets still fall now and then on the Earth, but the for the most part the planetary bombardment is over. Earth's surface has cooled below the boiling point of water and in an iron-rich ocean the first lifeforms find their spark. The ray, having not felt the passage of time through its 8 billion year journey travels on. As it closes the distance to the target, the expansion of space between becomes less and less - but the expansion between it and its origin becomes more and more. Its wavelength has expanded a good bit during the journey as even the space containing the photon's waveform has expanded. The or
Fortunately Ceres has abundant water, and a much gentler gravity well than the Moon. We're probably better off settling there first - though the commute will be a pain. Ceres is also conveniently close to the iron-rich asteroids we'll be building things out of.
The light left it long ago, when it was much closer.
There is no there there. If it was 12 billion lightyears away 12 billion years ago, light from here leaving now will never fall there. It's outside of our light cone. The space between here and there is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. This quasar no longer exists as anything but a now-mythical story told in photons.
It were nice if there were some text here but there isn't.
The government is hard to understand. All this proves is that RIM is good at passing these gates. Dell is good at this too, and a US company, and has Android tablets. RIM Won't be alone on this field long enough to matter.
They also sell the case by itself. They wanted $872 for qty 1 on the case alone about 18 months ago, some reasonable customization extras are available (custom silkscreen logo, custom colors and so on). Shipping is extra. It's odd that they don't have a simple web store setup for this, but it looks like their business is almost exclusively bespoke tin bending.
Everything sans drives.
You can get this from the company that builds the cases for them, Protocase. Send an email to lpodgursky@protocase.com for details. It's $5395.00 (1-4 units) and $4995.00 (5-9 units). And yes, that's more than building it yourself naturally.
This was a compassionate move, to lessen the burden of watching as vast hordes of portly American travellers waddle naked through their magic gate.
Agreed. I use mine a lot and the battery just goes and goes. I bought the keyboard but frankly used it only twice. An amazing bunch of tech for only $399 for the tablet.
I'm pretty sure that archive.org mirrors all publically available Google books. Archive.org is a charitably funded organization with the remit to archive all of the Internet they can.
Forgive me, but you've shifted the context.
I was using RAMdisk for storage over 30 years ago. It's great performance storage, but the whole forgetting everything on power loss is an issue. We've done ten workarounds that I know about.
You kids these days, you think you invented everything.
I'm ok with this proposal as long as it doesn't block the resolution of the current case in the courts. I'm more concerned that the library be built than who owns it. It does not - and can not - actually belong to any company. It belongs to all of us. We in general own our culture and the artistic works that created it. AFAIK, Google is not opposed to other companies scanning and making available all works. Microsoft even had a similar project Google lauded while it lived. Microsoft lost interest though, and won't be going forward unless they can find money in it.
This evolution is a Brin project. Sergey Brin is the son of Russian immigrants to the US who fled Russia to escape oppression of speech and privacy. He's brilliant and committed. He invented the trawl and indexing methods of Google. He has higher goals than you might imagine. He's wealthy beyond your imagining and he doesn't care. He aspires to do things your grandchildren will saint him for, and he would impoverish himself to do it. He's smarter than you and me, and just about everybody else - and he has the means to work his good will. But for how you feel about him today he cares not at all.
Google cares that the back history of forgotten works can be found and acquired by the common person - that's their mission: to index all human knowledge. That they have it for sale or you have it matters not to them a whit. They paid to scan, convert and index these works because that needed to be done to achieve that mission. If you can do it also, they don't have a problem with that - others, including Microsoft, have made the attempt.
NAND flash degrades over time and has a limited amount of program/erase cycles.
Spinning rust degrades over time and has a limited amount of write/erase cycles.
The difference between NAND flash and spinning rust is that it's faster. Early evolutions of NAND flash reached the limits of their write cycles therefore. Modern evolutions of NAND flash make it more durable and reliable than spinning rust in every instance - and the speed and storage density is just a bonus.
They were sued to prevent the collection of this library by corporations that stand to profit from the Great Forgetting. There is great profit in selling the same ideas over and over, or in forgetting old stories in preference to new ones - but such business is not in the common interest of Mankind, culture or science. The purpose of copyright in the US is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...."
As Isaac Newton said: "We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."
We don't get this benefit by forgetting what has gone before. With the Great Forgetting we step down from the shoulders of giants and aspire to reinvent what they once knew over and over again. It is an end to progress. It is a loss of art. It is an outcome not to be wished. Unless what we have known already is preserved how can we hope to learn things that are truly new, to know that our art is innovative and not derivative of some lost tome?
How can one legitimately argue against digitizing, preserving and making available the lost works of Mankind, the universal translation thereof, of making such available to all who come - where they are - at little or no cost? I can't imagine the depravity of soul that would be required to oppose such. To me it is evil in simple terms - the seeking of profit at the expense of progress in art and maturity of people, the exploitation of human forgettery.
Prince Piero Ginori Conti tested the first geothermal power generator on 4 July 1904 in Larderello, Italy. - Wikipedia
I guess the best reference would be The Geysers in California, generating electricity since 1960. You'll find five countries that (as of 2004) generated more than 15 percent of their electrical power from geothermal energy here.
Typically geothermal plants produce more widely distributed energy than nuclear power. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. The closer the generation is to the use the less the transmission losses waste.
You should find sufficient citations in the wikipedia articles to continue your search.