Wow. In contrast, I can think of only a small subset of digital logic designs that are practical to implement on a microcontroller.
That's totally beside the point. What I'm saying is that I can't think of anything that fits the description of "[a] neat consumer product that could benefit greatly from a really simple bare-die chip to reduce cost and size" that would necessarily require a digital logic solution. We're talking some cheap little widget, right? Nobody custom designs silicon to make cheap widgets. For small quantity runs the choice is abundantly obvious: you either A) buy off-the-shelf cheap generic silicon solutions (e.g. clocks, caller ID boxes, phones, answering machines) and end up with something that functions exactly like, and has the exact same features as, every other such widget on the market; or B) you tailor the design to an FPGA or a microcontroller. Unless his "neat consumer product" for some bizarre reason requires massive parallelism, I can't imagine that the extra expense of an FPGA is warranted.
What exactly motivates people to post to Slashdot saying, "I have no imagination whatsoever!"?
Is it something you're all proud of? Do you want a pat on the back?
It's a figure of speech, man. Get a grip. I'm not claiming no imagination, I'm saying the article dude is trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
For example a movie like Shrek, imagine if a couple of modellers own the copyright of the Shrek model, but other own the copyright of the Donkey one.
Things like that are considered "work for hire", so the studio that paid the artists would have the copyright. There's a fundamental difference between someone saying "I'll give you X amount to create a cool cartoon for me to sell" and "You created a song, but if you want to ever make any money with it your only chance is by selling it to me." Work for hire has its own problems with regard to employer abuse, but the point is no one could ever claim "work for hire" on something you created before they ever had contact with you.
The 10's of thousands of nuclear bombs can be used to travel to the asteroids
I'm fairly certain that you'd end up having to crack the warheads open and build new ones specifically tailored for the task if you want to do nuke-det propulsion.
We then line them with energy collecting units and grab and store all the photons (of every frequency) for later use. Large capacitors will be needed of course.
Or... we could crack the nukes open and stick the plutonium in fission reactors. This has the double advantage on A) not needing an ungodly huge number of capacitors (do the math sometime, converting the joules of a nuke to farads, times the volume of caps you'd need to get there), and B) not requiring magic* "energy collecting units" that somehow don't vaporize from the intense heat.
* be it Clarke magic, or Crowley magick, it ain't anywhere close to existing yet
Don't be daft. No rational person would even suggest building a reactor with a huge positive void coefficient, nor shielding it with combustible graphite, nor staffing it with soviet-style safety-ignorant fools, like Chernobyl. Modern, standardized reactor designs are perfectly safe. Take a look at France. 30-odd plants, all of a standardized design, providing 75% of their electricity, no accidents. If we get a standardized design together and are allowed to reprocess the waste into more fuel, then nuclear is a near perfect solution.
Let's Nuke Em by extracting energy from the 10's of thousands of nukes. The energy from the control detonations of the bombs will enable massive collection of energy.
There's no effective way to collect the energy from a nuclear detonation and use it slowly. Kinda like trying to boil a pot of water with a stick of dynamite. Better to crack open the warheads and use the plutonium in a regular old fission reactor.
i'm sorry. was this an amazon.com review posted on/. by mistake?
Oh no, Amazon reviews are generally much worse! Besides the typical obviously bad reviews of "I haven't [read/seen/used] this, as it hasn't been released yet, but I love the [author/director/manufacturer] so I give it FIVE STARS!", or "Anyone who likes [whatever] is a fag!-- ONE STAR", there are some real head scratchers. One guy reviewed a raclette set (a swiss fondue thing for cheese):
"This set didn't come with a scraper and tongs like the one I had in switzerland -- ONE STAR"
Most are a little less cryptic, but make just as little sense:
"it came in a box but i was really hoping it would come wrapped in paper -- ONE STAR"
"I was hoping this would be a different shade of white -- ONE STAR"
"Shipping was very expensive for such a small item -- ONE STAR"
and the prize-winningest, most irrelevant review ever, as found by my wife:
"This novel did not have enough pages for what I paid for it -- ONE STAR"
I'm halfway trying to decide if you are an idiot or a troll for that ad hom attack post.
Sorry you think that pointing out that one person's anecdotal experience with normal depression doesn't apply to clinical depression is ad hominem attack.
you are deliberately taking everything I type out of context and putting words in my mouth.
I have only your words to go by. Did you not say the following?:
I know from myself when I'm feeling depressed, it's usually because I've been cooped up too long
"People like you" is based solely upon that comment. I put no words in your mouth. I'm not sure how additional context could change the meaning of that statement. That's not clinical depression. That's normal depression. Sorry you took it personally when I pointed out that you, like most people, are apparently fortunate enough to not suffer from clinical depression.
Saluting is more akin to doffing one's hat than a handshake.
True, but the hypothetical idiots to which I was referring would probably not be familiar with cap-doffing, what with popular "hat culture" being reduced to a few slack-jaws wearing sideways baseball caps all the time-- indoors, outdoors, when being introduced to ladies, at funerals, etc. Point is, they're all salutory gestures and even the foolest of fools knows those are for people, not machines.
They dispel a few myths, such as the lights didn't really dim when they turned it on, and the military officers did not salute ENIAC.
Hoestly, I'm amazed they even felt the need to dispel such myths. Anyone who believed either is an idiot. Well, OK, I suppose maybe people could be excused for not having any sense of how electricity works, or how the difference in scale between a room-sized computer and the entire electrical grid of Philadelphia; But the saluting thing? Come on. Even the basest fool could quickly figure out that saluting is like unto handshaking, and that no officer (even a fresh ROTC butterbar) would be so dense as to salute a machine. The machine has no rank, and can't salute back!* There is more sense even in the old joke about saluting the refrigerator because it says on the front "General Electric".
* special exception: the flag is saluted, despite having no capability of saluting back, but it could be argued that the flag has near-infinite rank...
Additionally, I never stated that we must ignore all others' problems; I merely stated that I believed our own problems are more important than _this_ problem.
And I believe the various wars around the world are a bigger problem than US domestic homicides. So the fuck what? Neither are germane to the discussion. Bringing either up in a discussion of Japanese suicide is simply obvious trolling.
I know from myself when I'm feeling depressed, it's usually because I've been cooped up too long...Attitude means a shitload... suicide is more common among people who live in dark/rainy areas and people who are less active... Of course, it's not all cases (let's not go Tom Cruise here), but a lot more than one thinks.
But you see, it doesn't necessarilly go both ways. Lack of activity can aggravate or cause depression, but that does not mean that depression can be cured by activity and sunshine. "More than one thinks?" I don't think so. The notion that one need only get some exercise and "cheer up" is age-old and quite pervasive. It's taken decades to get people to understand that dealing with clinical depression isn't simply a matter of putting on a happy face and taking a walk in the sun. Not to cast aspersions, but the problem is people like you, who've never had to deal with real depression. Just about everyone experiences depression at one time or another, but the vast majority of people only need a little activity, a little more sleep, a change in environment, etc. to fix it. Real clinical depression, the kind that is considered a problem is effectively defined by the fact that fighting it is not simply a matter of getting some exercise and sunshine. Yeah, sure, most people are cured by a walk on the beach, but none of them are the kind of people who're suicidal.
Blame the/. gcranston (article writer) Zonk (approving editor) and for that. That's what happens when you let just any old half-literate dingbat submit articles. You get "20th century was the warmest... since approximately 800AD" when the article itself said no such thing.
We're not talking about claiming the moon landing is a hoax.
Then why the fuck did you bother replying to my original post about the moon landing not being a hoax? Clearly I wasn't talking about the smaller stuff, as I illustrated in my last post. Ever heard of CONTEXT? Or were you just being cotrarian to start an argument.
The government is perfectly capable of keeping classified materials that way forever.
Specifics about the internals of, say, a neutron device or stress concentrations in turbines used in the stealth bomber? That's a different matter altogether.
Is there an echo in here. That's precisely the point I made in my previous post. Small stuff stays secret. Big stuff doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
That's totally beside the point. What I'm saying is that I can't think of anything that fits the description of "[a] neat consumer product that could benefit greatly from a really simple bare-die chip to reduce cost and size" that would necessarily require a digital logic solution. We're talking some cheap little widget, right? Nobody custom designs silicon to make cheap widgets. For small quantity runs the choice is abundantly obvious: you either A) buy off-the-shelf cheap generic silicon solutions (e.g. clocks, caller ID boxes, phones, answering machines) and end up with something that functions exactly like, and has the exact same features as, every other such widget on the market; or B) you tailor the design to an FPGA or a microcontroller. Unless his "neat consumer product" for some bizarre reason requires massive parallelism, I can't imagine that the extra expense of an FPGA is warranted.
It's a figure of speech, man. Get a grip. I'm not claiming no imagination, I'm saying the article dude is trying to use the wrong tool for the job.
Things like that are considered "work for hire", so the studio that paid the artists would have the copyright. There's a fundamental difference between someone saying "I'll give you X amount to create a cool cartoon for me to sell" and "You created a song, but if you want to ever make any money with it your only chance is by selling it to me." Work for hire has its own problems with regard to employer abuse, but the point is no one could ever claim "work for hire" on something you created before they ever had contact with you.
I can't imagine what you could possibly want to do that you couldn't do with a fifty cent one-time programmable microcontroller.
I'm fairly certain that you'd end up having to crack the warheads open and build new ones specifically tailored for the task if you want to do nuke-det propulsion.
We then line them with energy collecting units and grab and store all the photons (of every frequency) for later use. Large capacitors will be needed of course.
Or... we could crack the nukes open and stick the plutonium in fission reactors. This has the double advantage on A) not needing an ungodly huge number of capacitors (do the math sometime, converting the joules of a nuke to farads, times the volume of caps you'd need to get there), and B) not requiring magic* "energy collecting units" that somehow don't vaporize from the intense heat.
* be it Clarke magic, or Crowley magick, it ain't anywhere close to existing yet
Don't be daft. No rational person would even suggest building a reactor with a huge positive void coefficient, nor shielding it with combustible graphite, nor staffing it with soviet-style safety-ignorant fools, like Chernobyl. Modern, standardized reactor designs are perfectly safe. Take a look at France. 30-odd plants, all of a standardized design, providing 75% of their electricity, no accidents. If we get a standardized design together and are allowed to reprocess the waste into more fuel, then nuclear is a near perfect solution.
Minor correction: Ethanol goes into gasoline. Diesel is "stretched" with vegetable oil.
There's no effective way to collect the energy from a nuclear detonation and use it slowly. Kinda like trying to boil a pot of water with a stick of dynamite. Better to crack open the warheads and use the plutonium in a regular old fission reactor.
How much time? Cane toads have been multiplying and spreading unabated for 71 years . Apparently even .5% is more than australian "nature" can handle.
Oh no, Amazon reviews are generally much worse! Besides the typical obviously bad reviews of "I haven't [read/seen/used] this, as it hasn't been released yet, but I love the [author/director/manufacturer] so I give it FIVE STARS!", or "Anyone who likes [whatever] is a fag!-- ONE STAR", there are some real head scratchers. One guy reviewed a raclette set (a swiss fondue thing for cheese):
"This set didn't come with a scraper and tongs like the one I had in switzerland -- ONE STAR"
Most are a little less cryptic, but make just as little sense:
"it came in a box but i was really hoping it would come wrapped in paper -- ONE STAR"
"I was hoping this would be a different shade of white -- ONE STAR"
"Shipping was very expensive for such a small item -- ONE STAR"
and the prize-winningest, most irrelevant review ever, as found by my wife:
"This novel did not have enough pages for what I paid for it -- ONE STAR"
Sorry you think that pointing out that one person's anecdotal experience with normal depression doesn't apply to clinical depression is ad hominem attack.
I have only your words to go by. Did you not say the following?:
"People like you" is based solely upon that comment. I put no words in your mouth. I'm not sure how additional context could change the meaning of that statement. That's not clinical depression. That's normal depression. Sorry you took it personally when I pointed out that you, like most people, are apparently fortunate enough to not suffer from clinical depression.
True, I grant you that.
True, but the hypothetical idiots to which I was referring would probably not be familiar with cap-doffing, what with popular "hat culture" being reduced to a few slack-jaws wearing sideways baseball caps all the time-- indoors, outdoors, when being introduced to ladies, at funerals, etc. Point is, they're all salutory gestures and even the foolest of fools knows those are for people, not machines.
From TFA:
And last I checked Philadelphia was a city. The state is Pennsylvania.
Hoestly, I'm amazed they even felt the need to dispel such myths. Anyone who believed either is an idiot. Well, OK, I suppose maybe people could be excused for not having any sense of how electricity works, or how the difference in scale between a room-sized computer and the entire electrical grid of Philadelphia; But the saluting thing? Come on. Even the basest fool could quickly figure out that saluting is like unto handshaking, and that no officer (even a fresh ROTC butterbar) would be so dense as to salute a machine. The machine has no rank, and can't salute back!* There is more sense even in the old joke about saluting the refrigerator because it says on the front "General Electric".
* special exception: the flag is saluted, despite having no capability of saluting back, but it could be argued that the flag has near-infinite rank...
Traditionally one replies to such questions en masse with the simple one liner "RTFA", rather than creating a 24 line content-free reply.
And I believe the various wars around the world are a bigger problem than US domestic homicides. So the fuck what? Neither are germane to the discussion. Bringing either up in a discussion of Japanese suicide is simply obvious trolling.
But you see, it doesn't necessarilly go both ways. Lack of activity can aggravate or cause depression, but that does not mean that depression can be cured by activity and sunshine. "More than one thinks?" I don't think so. The notion that one need only get some exercise and "cheer up" is age-old and quite pervasive. It's taken decades to get people to understand that dealing with clinical depression isn't simply a matter of putting on a happy face and taking a walk in the sun. Not to cast aspersions, but the problem is people like you, who've never had to deal with real depression. Just about everyone experiences depression at one time or another, but the vast majority of people only need a little activity, a little more sleep, a change in environment, etc. to fix it. Real clinical depression, the kind that is considered a problem is effectively defined by the fact that fighting it is not simply a matter of getting some exercise and sunshine. Yeah, sure, most people are cured by a walk on the beach, but none of them are the kind of people who're suicidal.
Except that they've also found evidence of it in east asia and the west coast of north america.
Feel free to rearrange the words in the first sentence above so they make sense. Thank you.
Blame the /. gcranston (article writer) Zonk (approving editor) and for that. That's what happens when you let just any old half-literate dingbat submit articles. You get "20th century was the warmest... since approximately 800AD" when the article itself said no such thing.
Really? It would require a decidedly NON-standard definition of the word "since" for that to be the case.
But keep in mind also that (as noted by others here) the letter of demand referenced in TFA was sent in Dec 2005, before the merger.
Then why the fuck did you bother replying to my original post about the moon landing not being a hoax? Clearly I wasn't talking about the smaller stuff, as I illustrated in my last post. Ever heard of CONTEXT? Or were you just being cotrarian to start an argument.
The government is perfectly capable of keeping classified materials that way forever. Specifics about the internals of, say, a neutron device or stress concentrations in turbines used in the stealth bomber? That's a different matter altogether.
Is there an echo in here. That's precisely the point I made in my previous post. Small stuff stays secret. Big stuff doesn't.