I also seem to remember someone proposing to use a cyclotron a long time ago. Not cheap either. Then again if the cycle is self-sustaining in a breeder reactor all you need is your initial set of U-233.
If you want it on the cheap better make it while U-235 and Plutonium stocks last! Heh.
So you make a hydrogen bomb. For that you need a trigger. The fact is you can use a small bomb to trigger a larger bomb and the initial trigger can be any powerful enough source of X-rays e.g. Sandia's Z-machine using a small amount of D-D fuel. Then you detonate the bomb inside a cave whose walls are covered in Thorium. The neutrons from the detonation shower the Thorium and transmute it into 233U. I suspect that would not take that much time to do.
Software is maths. It is not necessarily the algebra you learned at high school. But maths is not just algebra nor just that particular algebra. Given that any modern computer is a Von Neumann machine it can be programmed the same way as a Turing Machine (if you go to Wikipedia you will find that both Von Neumann and Alan Turing were mathematicians for whatever reason). The programs that run on it are algorithms i.e. mathematical constructs. You can even rewrite any program into a functionally equivalent program that uses functions if you have some sort of fixation that if its maths it must be functional for whatever reason (see Church-Turing thesis for an explanation why).
You might say it takes some sort of art to program but it takes some sort of art to come up with a useful mathematical theorem or function as well. Was Fermat's Theorem non-obvious and useful? Sure. But should it be patentable?
i.e. programming is art but it is maths as well.
I see no reason whatsoever for software to be patentable when it is much better described and protected by copyright law. Patent law makes no sense and blocks progress when applied to programs. IMO software should just be covered by copyright not patent law. Plus copyright terms for software should be reduced. Heck all copyright terms should be reduced but for software it becomes really ridiculous.
You can type text on Google Hangouts conferences... Don't see why you would need to resort to things like that. Plus Skype on Linux sucks. Especially since Microsoft bought Skype.
The cannon is useful as a last resort weapon. It can even be used for strafing ground targets. Although this is highly not advisable given current fighters are usually made of aluminum and fiber and crap like that which can't withstand AA flak gun fire. The missile hit rates have got much better but we still need to see a modern air to air war using the latest generation of FLIR weapons on both sides of the conflict. Iraq due to sanctions did not possess the Su-27 or its associated weapon systems the R-73 and R-77.
The main problem back then was X86 optimizations. Not the high level optimizations although it was lacking in those too. Eventually they started porting the code to use GIMPLE and moved most of the optimizations away from the language dependent trees to the GIMPLE language independent code. This was done before LLVM was even popular.
More than likely your main gcc use was for Mac or iOS applications and you changed compiler because you can't even figure out how to change the defaults in XCode. Having tried both with my applications I can perfectly tell that clang is not up to snuff. Sure it compiles quickly and the syntax errors have color highlighting but the quality of the code, in terms of execution speed or size, it produces is vastly inferior.
Then there is the fact that several cloud computing companies like Google do not buy server hardware from the traditional hardware vendors so they do not even show up in the charts.
Oh that. There are numbers in terms of units sold and in terms of profits. By units I think Linux leads. By profits MS leads. Then again if you considered IBM's highly lucrative mainframe business to be part of the server business, which usually is not done, you might be pretty surprised...
Slashdot Mirror
HP was like the last vendor standing. They even sued Oracle for stopping to support Itanium. Now they pull the plug themselves. Oh the irony.
I also seem to remember someone proposing to use a cyclotron a long time ago. Not cheap either. Then again if the cycle is self-sustaining in a breeder reactor all you need is your initial set of U-233.
If you want it on the cheap better make it while U-235 and Plutonium stocks last! Heh.
So you make a hydrogen bomb. For that you need a trigger. The fact is you can use a small bomb to trigger a larger bomb and the initial trigger can be any powerful enough source of X-rays e.g. Sandia's Z-machine using a small amount of D-D fuel. Then you detonate the bomb inside a cave whose walls are covered in Thorium. The neutrons from the detonation shower the Thorium and transmute it into 233U. I suspect that would not take that much time to do.
IANAP
If its an open standard why should it be patented at all? Heck that is the problem with this line of thought.
Software is maths. It is not necessarily the algebra you learned at high school. But maths is not just algebra nor just that particular algebra. Given that any modern computer is a Von Neumann machine it can be programmed the same way as a Turing Machine (if you go to Wikipedia you will find that both Von Neumann and Alan Turing were mathematicians for whatever reason). The programs that run on it are algorithms i.e. mathematical constructs. You can even rewrite any program into a functionally equivalent program that uses functions if you have some sort of fixation that if its maths it must be functional for whatever reason (see Church-Turing thesis for an explanation why).
You might say it takes some sort of art to program but it takes some sort of art to come up with a useful mathematical theorem or function as well. Was Fermat's Theorem non-obvious and useful? Sure. But should it be patentable?
i.e. programming is art but it is maths as well.
I see no reason whatsoever for software to be patentable when it is much better described and protected by copyright law. Patent law makes no sense and blocks progress when applied to programs. IMO software should just be covered by copyright not patent law. Plus copyright terms for software should be reduced. Heck all copyright terms should be reduced but for software it becomes really ridiculous.
Not necessarily screwed. There are neutron generators like fusors. You can get neutrons from D-D fusion.
You can type text on Google Hangouts conferences... Don't see why you would need to resort to things like that. Plus Skype on Linux sucks. Especially since Microsoft bought Skype.
I guess you do not live in California. That's the problem.
Facebook IPO, Twitter IPO. Need I say more?
The cannon is useful as a last resort weapon. It can even be used for strafing ground targets. Although this is highly not advisable given current fighters are usually made of aluminum and fiber and crap like that which can't withstand AA flak gun fire. The missile hit rates have got much better but we still need to see a modern air to air war using the latest generation of FLIR weapons on both sides of the conflict. Iraq due to sanctions did not possess the Su-27 or its associated weapon systems the R-73 and R-77.
Don't use templates. Period.
The main problem back then was X86 optimizations. Not the high level optimizations although it was lacking in those too. Eventually they started porting the code to use GIMPLE and moved most of the optimizations away from the language dependent trees to the GIMPLE language independent code. This was done before LLVM was even popular.
I am talking about Watcom C++ of course.
I thought that was something people used back when MS-DOS was a popular OS was not even aware the product still existed.
More than likely your main gcc use was for Mac or iOS applications and you changed compiler because you can't even figure out how to change the defaults in XCode. Having tried both with my applications I can perfectly tell that clang is not up to snuff. Sure it compiles quickly and the syntax errors have color highlighting but the quality of the code, in terms of execution speed or size, it produces is vastly inferior.
Its not like the Mac was the only 68K machine. There were Commodore Amigas, Atari ST, and whatnot as well.
Then there is the fact that several cloud computing companies like Google do not buy server hardware from the traditional hardware vendors so they do not even show up in the charts.
Oh that. There are numbers in terms of units sold and in terms of profits. By units I think Linux leads. By profits MS leads. Then again if you considered IBM's highly lucrative mainframe business to be part of the server business, which usually is not done, you might be pretty surprised...
Google Hangouts. At least for video conferencing. For voice any decent SIP client will do.
Doesn't your operator support SIP? There are all sorts of people offering SIP services around the globe and many of them support calling landlines...
I will probably switch to Google Hangouts and SIP.
Personally I think a big fat NO felt more appropriate.
It won't last. It never does. They may remain the most profitable vendor per unit sold but I suspect even that will cease to be in the next 5 years.
Wait and you will see. We have seen the movie before the first time Steve Jobs left Apple.
Not Slashdot. Netcraft.