nuclear plants could start generating hydrogen right now, generating it during non-peak electrical periods.
Fact is that the reason they don't is there is currently no market for hydrogen. If there was a market, it wouldn't take long for people to start coming up with ways to generate it. These ways, obviously, would get cheaper and better.
The great thing about it is that, unlike natural gas, the market for hydrogen would be steady all year.
It's not really accurate to use the nationwide stats for clean power, since different areas have different sources. Here in the Chicago area, much of the power comes from a local nuclear plant, so our area should be at a much higher stat than 6%.
Also, how does a nuclear plant figure in the clean power stat? I consider it clean, because it doesn't pollute, even though there is currently waste involved. But there are designs in place to utilize the waste in new plants.
More money? It costs the same as the xbox. Only the gamecube costs less.
Heck, Sony has been releasing information about the ps3 since last year. Everyone already knows that the ps2 is outdated. The attempt may simply be to make people wait rather than buying an xbox.
Even possibly to buy the ps2 anyway. If you buy the ps2 now, you can buy the games that you know will be playable on the ps3. If you buy an xbox, the games won't be playable on the ps3.
even if they could sell anything approaching the number of machines that Sony has sold, Sony can make them far cheaper since they make the parts themselves.
Microsoft will never be successful at this until they can make a profit on the machine and keep up with Sony. That can't happen if Microsoft constinues to buy the parts off the shelf.
True, the xbox graphics kick ass. But Sony can come out with better machines cheaper and faster than MS can.
Personally, I have a ps2 that I bought last summer. I was tempted to get an xbox, even after owning the ps2, until I heard that the ps3 should be out in 2004. If it comes out even in 2004, the xbox will be toast.
Assuming the transplant goes well, and no rejection occurs, it will take them years of painful healing and training.
I believe stem cell regeneration is a far better method, once it is ready. (Of course, that's the rub.)
In an earlier/. story, one patient had stem cells (from his own blood) rebuild part of his heart instead of a transplant. I believe that it won't be another 10 years before the process is improved enough that all transplants can be replaced with cell regeneration.
You have noticed a decline of thousands of customers, and received emails from, what, hundreds, that state they are giving up on the 'net because of spam?
Your conclusion is based on anecdotal evidence that you haven't even shared.
I just read an somewhere (I can't seem to find it at the moment however) that states that AOL market share is declining, and they are attributing it to customers quitting the net. I find it more likely that most of these people are switching to dsl or cable.
At some point AOL had reached the entire country, and anyone who was going to get on using AOL has. Many of those people who were on AOL would eventually discover that AOL isn't good enough for them, and find a better connection.
I'm not saying there aren't people not quitting the net. I just haven't seen any valid data proving the claims people have been making.
I've tried doing searches where I specify dvds, but end up with search results of movie times.
I've listed their new releases on sci-fi/fantasy, and discovered that somehow they have regular fiction in there too. (One was the story of a woman as she approached menopause and how she dealt with her emotion over it. Definitely not sf)
Amazon's search system leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, I would go there more often if they would give me the option to NOT see the recommendations. It's just a pain the the arse, clutters the screen, and wastes my bandwidth.
I usually go to amazon only if I'm clicking on someone's link. What really irks me is that my investment club bought amazon stock. In other words, I'm a stockowner of them. *grumble*
But the spammer could simply be running multiple threads sending spam.
Sure, one thread is slowed down while it connects to that one server sending throttling packets, but the others won't.
So while one thread is slowed down waiting to sending packets slower to that server, add'l threads will be creating with the excess cpu.
Even with 90% of the smtp servers using Tarpit, it would just means that the spammer's machine would have 10 times as many spam threads as he would otherwise.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I hope so, because anything that hurts a spammer is good.
Just what percentage of people who buy tax software actually buy it by the beginning of Feb? (I think that was the date of their pr crud.) I usually buy mine in April. This year I bought tax software early so I could do my sister's taxes because she needs her refund.
Even worse, how do they calculate the actual store sales by then?
Most stores don't submit sales figures for individual products on a daily basis. Perhaps monthly is done, but I doubt if that's where they get their figures.
I suspect that the figures they are using are the total sales TO STORES. Stores stock up on software based on last year's sales figures. If they figure they will sell X next month, then they will order that many.
So Intuit sold X copies of Turbotax to all the stores based on last year's sales only.
In other words, Intuit's sales figures for this year so far have no relation to reality whatsoever. They won't have the actual figures of true sales until May, and they will still need to take into account store returns and customer returns.
Of course, sometime in April we might start seeing trends. If stores aren't buying more copies, because the product isn't selling well, then we'll have clues by then. But Feb is way too early to see any real information on sales.
Ironically, I think Intuit's marketing dept is even more out of touch than the top poster realized.
They are actually getting a lot more returns than they seem to be admitting. I understood that the fund they use for returns actually bottomed out. Of course, I read that on xtremetech, so take it for what it's worth.
Stores are accepting it back without many questions, too. I know I had no problems returning my copy to walmart, even though it was opened and well past the posted policy of 15 day returns on unopened software.
I bought the dang thing, thinking that I could live with it.
Unfortunately, it screwed up my anti-virus software.
It also made me waste 4 to 6 hours installing it, re-installing it several times, and then finally taking it back to the store. It seems that although the basic install worked, the one-click update wouldn't, and the downloaded update program just trashed the whole install.
I was pretty nervous the first time I uninstalled it too. I wasn't positive that uninstalling it wouldn't prevent me from re-installing it. I didn't know at the time that the c-dilla program writes to sector 33 of track 0, and it would be safe.
Also, something to consider: I understand that if you have more than one program using c-dilla, they won't co-exist. c-dilla stores the license for each program in the same sector. Installing program one will be fine. Installing program two will overwrite the license key of program one.
Lastly, since it uses such poor copyprotection (not cd-protection as the story shows), it's relatively easy to break. All you have to do is copy that sector from a licensed machine, and keep it with the cd key. It would be relatively simple to write a program to do that, and release it to everyone.
Btw, since it doesn't warn people about the boot sector, people could easily lose their bootloaders, and possibly drives, if they use install this.
You said "It produces some of the most optimized, efficient code of any compiler (note the death of competing compilers: There was no reason to buy a third party compiler. The only big one really in the game is Intel's, and it only exists so they can encourage developers to use Intel only operands). "
I had assumed that the part in the parens was supporting the part about MS's compilers generating the most efficient code of any compiler. If you weren't, then I retract what I stated.
Of course, you still said it generated the most efficient code, and now you say it's the most respected. But you haven't really supported either of those statements. I'm not saying you are wrong. I agree that it's not garbage, but you seem to be taking the opposite stance. (That it's the most respected and that it generates the most optimized and efficient code.)
Death of competition doesn't necessarily indicate that microsoft's compilers are the best.
Btw, I use visual studio myself. I'm not saying it's bad. Frankly I haven't used anything other than Borland's, and I haven't looked at the quality of the code either generated.
The reason I use MS's now is because my clients use it. They settled on visual studio because it came with the name Microsoft. It doesn't make it a better product.
Slashdot Mirror
nuclear plants could start generating hydrogen right now, generating it during non-peak electrical periods.
Fact is that the reason they don't is there is currently no market for hydrogen. If there was a market, it wouldn't take long for people to start coming up with ways to generate it. These ways, obviously, would get cheaper and better.
The great thing about it is that, unlike natural gas, the market for hydrogen would be steady all year.
It's not really accurate to use the nationwide stats for clean power, since different areas have different sources. Here in the Chicago area, much of the power comes from a local nuclear plant, so our area should be at a much higher stat than 6%.
Also, how does a nuclear plant figure in the clean power stat? I consider it clean, because it doesn't pollute, even though there is currently waste involved. But there are designs in place to utilize the waste in new plants.
I actually wondered for a moment if you were serious. Then I saw you'd written X-Men 23.
Got me.
More money? It costs the same as the xbox. Only the gamecube costs less.
Heck, Sony has been releasing information about the ps3 since last year. Everyone already knows that the ps2 is outdated. The attempt may simply be to make people wait rather than buying an xbox.
Even possibly to buy the ps2 anyway. If you buy the ps2 now, you can buy the games that you know will be playable on the ps3. If you buy an xbox, the games won't be playable on the ps3.
even if they could sell anything approaching the number of machines that Sony has sold, Sony can make them far cheaper since they make the parts themselves.
Microsoft will never be successful at this until they can make a profit on the machine and keep up with Sony. That can't happen if Microsoft constinues to buy the parts off the shelf.
True, the xbox graphics kick ass. But Sony can come out with better machines cheaper and faster than MS can.
Personally, I have a ps2 that I bought last summer. I was tempted to get an xbox, even after owning the ps2, until I heard that the ps3 should be out in 2004. If it comes out even in 2004, the xbox will be toast.
No, it was definitely not scifi. If you read the book description, you'd agree.
Have they stopped producing the ps1 yet?
I know they are still available at stores, right next to the ps2s. Probably just leftovers though.
Not much better off.
/. story, one patient had stem cells (from his own blood) rebuild part of his heart instead of a transplant. I believe that it won't be another 10 years before the process is improved enough that all transplants can be replaced with cell regeneration.
Assuming the transplant goes well, and no rejection occurs, it will take them years of painful healing and training.
I believe stem cell regeneration is a far better method, once it is ready. (Of course, that's the rub.)
In an earlier
once a system such as paid ads by email become common, there will be few isps that don't automatically include spam.
The spam-supported accounts won't be cheaper than current accounts, but the spam-free will be cost extra.
Just look at self-serve gasoline, or the telephone company's "extra" features such as caller id.
How accurate is your anecdotal evidence?
You have noticed a decline of thousands of customers, and received emails from, what, hundreds, that state they are giving up on the 'net because of spam?
Your conclusion is based on anecdotal evidence that you haven't even shared.
I just read an somewhere (I can't seem to find it at the moment however) that states that AOL market share is declining, and they are attributing it to customers quitting the net. I find it more likely that most of these people are switching to dsl or cable.
At some point AOL had reached the entire country, and anyone who was going to get on using AOL has. Many of those people who were on AOL would eventually discover that AOL isn't good enough for them, and find a better connection.
I'm not saying there aren't people not quitting the net. I just haven't seen any valid data proving the claims people have been making.
I've tried doing searches where I specify dvds, but end up with search results of movie times.
I've listed their new releases on sci-fi/fantasy, and discovered that somehow they have regular fiction in there too. (One was the story of a woman as she approached menopause and how she dealt with her emotion over it. Definitely not sf)
Amazon's search system leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, I would go there more often if they would give me the option to NOT see the recommendations. It's just a pain the the arse, clutters the screen, and wastes my bandwidth.
I usually go to amazon only if I'm clicking on someone's link. What really irks me is that my investment club bought amazon stock. In other words, I'm a stockowner of them. *grumble*
But the spammer could simply be running multiple threads sending spam.
Sure, one thread is slowed down while it connects to that one server sending throttling packets, but the others won't.
So while one thread is slowed down waiting to sending packets slower to that server, add'l threads will be creating with the excess cpu.
Even with 90% of the smtp servers using Tarpit, it would just means that the spammer's machine would have 10 times as many spam threads as he would otherwise.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I hope so, because anything that hurts a spammer is good.
Why was that offtopic?
It seemed very on-topic.
Here in the US, the word "hoover" isn't used very commonly, but people will understand what you mean if you use it.
It's also used in reference to non-cleaning, as in hoovering one's food.
They will just blame declining profits on p2p pirating of the product.
After all, it can't simply because the product sucks.
Heh.
Just what percentage of people who buy tax software actually buy it by the beginning of Feb? (I think that was the date of their pr crud.) I usually buy mine in April. This year I bought tax software early so I could do my sister's taxes because she needs her refund.
Even worse, how do they calculate the actual store sales by then?
Most stores don't submit sales figures for individual products on a daily basis. Perhaps monthly is done, but I doubt if that's where they get their figures.
I suspect that the figures they are using are the total sales TO STORES. Stores stock up on software based on last year's sales figures. If they figure they will sell X next month, then they will order that many.
So Intuit sold X copies of Turbotax to all the stores based on last year's sales only.
In other words, Intuit's sales figures for this year so far have no relation to reality whatsoever. They won't have the actual figures of true sales until May, and they will still need to take into account store returns and customer returns.
Of course, sometime in April we might start seeing trends. If stores aren't buying more copies, because the product isn't selling well, then we'll have clues by then. But Feb is way too early to see any real information on sales.
I wonder if taxcut's sales have increased much.
I know I switched to it this year.
Ironically, I think Intuit's marketing dept is even more out of touch than the top poster realized.
They are actually getting a lot more returns than they seem to be admitting. I understood that the fund they use for returns actually bottomed out. Of course, I read that on xtremetech, so take it for what it's worth.
Stores are accepting it back without many questions, too. I know I had no problems returning my copy to walmart, even though it was opened and well past the posted policy of 15 day returns on unopened software.
Yes, it was.
I bought the dang thing, thinking that I could live with it.
Unfortunately, it screwed up my anti-virus software.
It also made me waste 4 to 6 hours installing it, re-installing it several times, and then finally taking it back to the store. It seems that although the basic install worked, the one-click update wouldn't, and the downloaded update program just trashed the whole install.
I was pretty nervous the first time I uninstalled it too. I wasn't positive that uninstalling it wouldn't prevent me from re-installing it. I didn't know at the time that the c-dilla program writes to sector 33 of track 0, and it would be safe.
Also, something to consider: I understand that if you have more than one program using c-dilla, they won't co-exist. c-dilla stores the license for each program in the same sector. Installing program one will be fine. Installing program two will overwrite the license key of program one.
Lastly, since it uses such poor copyprotection (not cd-protection as the story shows), it's relatively easy to break. All you have to do is copy that sector from a licensed machine, and keep it with the cd key. It would be relatively simple to write a program to do that, and release it to everyone.
Btw, since it doesn't warn people about the boot sector, people could easily lose their bootloaders, and possibly drives, if they use install this.
then only outlaws will spam!
Oh wait...
I think you are referring to the "given" postfix that braininajar used. I agree: microsoft's compilers aren't bad, and don't produce garbage.
I just wanted to clarify that your statements were based on the MS compilers themselves rather than because much of the competition is gone.
You've done so. Thanks.
if instead of merely being luminous, clothing could be programmed to be transparent.
Floating patches of transparency on women's outfits would be all the rage. Obviously, within reason.
You said "It produces some of the most optimized, efficient code of any compiler (note the death of competing compilers: There was no reason to buy a third party compiler. The only big one really in the game is Intel's, and it only exists so they can encourage developers to use Intel only operands). "
I had assumed that the part in the parens was supporting the part about MS's compilers generating the most efficient code of any compiler. If you weren't, then I retract what I stated.
Of course, you still said it generated the most efficient code, and now you say it's the most respected. But you haven't really supported either of those statements. I'm not saying you are wrong. I agree that it's not garbage, but you seem to be taking the opposite stance. (That it's the most respected and that it generates the most optimized and efficient code.)
Death of competition doesn't necessarily indicate that microsoft's compilers are the best.
Btw, I use visual studio myself. I'm not saying it's bad. Frankly I haven't used anything other than Borland's, and I haven't looked at the quality of the code either generated.
The reason I use MS's now is because my clients use it. They settled on visual studio because it came with the name Microsoft. It doesn't make it a better product.
Existing transportation beurocrats aren't interested in these alternative systems because it's not in their interest.