Apple supports OpenCL compilation using clang. I never saw any mention of this being open sourced. It seems all clang support for OpenCL has been developed somewhere else.
Actually the F-111 was the brainchild of McNamara who originally came from the industry (FMC) and wanted to reduce the amount of different kinds of military hardware in the armed forces to cut costs. History eventually proved him right when the F-4 Phantom went into use by both the Navy and the USAF. I think the problem is that it is easier to convert a Navy fighter to Air Force use (basically you delete things off the plane) than the other way around.
In the F-111's case we got the USAF insisting on things like side-by-side seating which required the use of an escape capsule instead of ejection seats and other items that eventually stopped being required. The F-15E has tandem seating for example. Navy said it was too large to fit on a carrier. Then the F-14 entered into service with the same dimensions. So it was all a bunch of malarkey from the armed services.
The F-35s problem is the F-35B VTOL variant. It is one step too far in integration. The other variants are in final testing right now. Another problem is that they decided to rewrite *all* the avionics code instead of reusing code from the F-22.
So it is just like C. It will run anywhere if coded to the standard but you need to take care to optimize for a specific architecture. Does not sound particularly bad to me FWIW in my experience you just need to change some constants in your program to get most of the performance. These can be determined in runtime by querying the device. So it is not as bad as people paint it.
First solar uses CdTe. Even CdTe and CIGS have better efficiency than 10%. Quoting Wikipedia: In February 2013, First Solar created a cell with an 18.7% efficiency.
The "cheap" solar panels from China used in housing installations are usually crystalline silicon so it is less rare than you seem to think.
I used to be a GNUStep proponent as well. But in the end it was the lack of apps that killed it. Well not killed it but put it in life support. If you want GIMP you have GTK+ as a dependency, same thing goes for Inkscape. Applications rule put simply. Otherwise you could just use a regular window manager.
The use of Objective-C brought it no favors either. People were not used to the language and contributors did not show up often. GNOME has a C bent and KDE has a C++ bent from the get go.
Well just try reading about the OODA loop and tell me if it makes sense to slave the firing system to the helmet and do eye tracking or not. Not to mention the F-22's limited support for off-boresight missiles due to stealth considerations again.
Agreed. But if there is supposed to be a pre-default installed key that certifies that the signed OSes are safe I am ok with it. As long as I can install my own key. This should be easy to do, just a y/n question not a different option on each BIOS. Or having Microsoft design their OSes to they don't boot when other keys are present in the keychain. Imagine that if Microsoft instead of Verisign handled Internet certificates... IMO there should be a separation of roles between certification authorities.
The F-22 still does not have an integrated helmet sight unlike the Super Hornet. The available weapons payload is inadequate and the oxygen generator system apparently does not work properly. Of course these are all fixable but it will cost time and money.
The Super Hornet has a buddy-buddy refueling system. It also has JHMCS helmets for quicker target selection unlike F-22 pilots. They still haven't decided on a helmet for the F-35 after the issues they had with that 'horned' helmet. It has two engines so it has more redundancy. Plus it has more range than the F-35.
The problem with nuclear power plants is many fold. The cheapest models generate 250 MW and that is too much for many applications. Smaller reactors, like those used in naval vessels, usually use highly enriched uranium not available for civilian purposes. The cost in steel and concrete plus construction time (not less than 3 years more likely 5) mean you will have to wait a long time until your investment starts to pay off. You will have to fight a ton of regulations, legislation, protests, attempts to stall the project via injunctions, etc.
LNG power plants can be build in smaller units and put in place in 6 months or a year. In the long run they are more expensive to use because of the higher fuel costs. However the sheer multiplicative effect of having a shorter cycle time in adding generating capacity is very important. Plus LNG power plants can spool up and down to meet demand better than a nuclear power plant. Both have their uses. But it heavily depends on local conditions. If there is a LNG pipeline nearby it probably is the most sensible solution, unless there are nearby coal sources, or rivers to dam, if none of those apply nuclear is your best bet. Especially if you want low air pollution. Thus France, Japan, South Korea rely on nuclear a lot. While countries like US and China with large coal reserves still extant burn coal.
PS: Gas power plants make less financial sense because of the low density of LNG means the transportation costs are quite high. Natural gas is cheapest where you have a LNG pipeline doing the transport.
They are using those old mothballed coal power plants right now where the nuclear reactors are offline but the cost of the imported coal is so high it is worsening the trade deficit and making Japan poorer as a result.
The Japanese will restart their nuclear reactors. Their economy is not viable otherwise. Their economic recovery crashed more because of the plant shutdown and the energy costs of importing coal than the earthquake damage itself. Japan needs nuclear power. Too many people and too few alternative resources for a country with heavy industry. The Chinese are in full swing. They have like one of each leading edge nuclear power plant design either in operation or under construction and they are ramping up training so they can build more of them. Air pollution in China is a big problem and nuclear power in coastal cities is seen as a way to ameliorate the problem. The heavy industry in the interior of the nation will likely continue using cheap coal.
Actually there are other ways like using Hot Dry Rock Geothermal where you drill a borehole deep enough that it gets hot enough to boil water which you inject into the hole. The problem is it induces low intensity earthquakes.
Alternatively let the Linux Foundation, or better yet, some vendor agnostic association, like the PCI SIG should handle the keys. Having Microsoft handle the keychain is bonkers.
The problem with ZFS is a licensing issue. If you want it in the kernel send a memo to Oracle asking for it to be relicensed under the GPL v2. Same thing for Dtrace.
The stable driver ABI issue has been mitigated ever since Dell contributed DKMS support to the kernel. The NVIDIA driver uses it for example.
Slashdot Mirror
If you consider Tivoisation to be a freedom you need to get your head examined.
GPL sure. But had they picked LGPL it would probably have been accepted as well since most of the interest is in the hooks it provides for IDEs.
Apple supports OpenCL compilation using clang. I never saw any mention of this being open sourced. It seems all clang support for OpenCL has been developed somewhere else.
That is because all the contractors are so far away from each other that there is a long cycle time from a design change to an updated prototype.
Actually the F-111 was the brainchild of McNamara who originally came from the industry (FMC) and wanted to reduce the amount of different kinds of military hardware in the armed forces to cut costs. History eventually proved him right when the F-4 Phantom went into use by both the Navy and the USAF. I think the problem is that it is easier to convert a Navy fighter to Air Force use (basically you delete things off the plane) than the other way around.
In the F-111's case we got the USAF insisting on things like side-by-side seating which required the use of an escape capsule instead of ejection seats and other items that eventually stopped being required. The F-15E has tandem seating for example. Navy said it was too large to fit on a carrier. Then the F-14 entered into service with the same dimensions. So it was all a bunch of malarkey from the armed services.
The F-35s problem is the F-35B VTOL variant. It is one step too far in integration. The other variants are in final testing right now. Another problem is that they decided to rewrite *all* the avionics code instead of reusing code from the F-22.
So it is just like C. It will run anywhere if coded to the standard but you need to take care to optimize for a specific architecture. Does not sound particularly bad to me FWIW in my experience you just need to change some constants in your program to get most of the performance. These can be determined in runtime by querying the device. So it is not as bad as people paint it.
First solar uses CdTe. Even CdTe and CIGS have better efficiency than 10%. Quoting Wikipedia: In February 2013, First Solar created a cell with an 18.7% efficiency.
The "cheap" solar panels from China used in housing installations are usually crystalline silicon so it is less rare than you seem to think.
Recycling is doable with electrolysis. It will still not be more expensive than buying aluminum plates so I cannot understand the disagreement.
Qt has more problems than just C++. The problem is its own bastardized templates and the moc compiler. To be honest I prefer the gtkmm API.
I used to be a GNUStep proponent as well. But in the end it was the lack of apps that killed it. Well not killed it but put it in life support. If you want GIMP you have GTK+ as a dependency, same thing goes for Inkscape. Applications rule put simply. Otherwise you could just use a regular window manager.
The use of Objective-C brought it no favors either. People were not used to the language and contributors did not show up often. GNOME has a C bent and KDE has a C++ bent from the get go.
Well just try reading about the OODA loop and tell me if it makes sense to slave the firing system to the helmet and do eye tracking or not. Not to mention the F-22's limited support for off-boresight missiles due to stealth considerations again.
If the prices are negotiated in dollars and the dollar goes up against the yen consumer purchasing power will decrease.
Agreed. But if there is supposed to be a pre-default installed key that certifies that the signed OSes are safe I am ok with it. As long as I can install my own key. This should be easy to do, just a y/n question not a different option on each BIOS. Or having Microsoft design their OSes to they don't boot when other keys are present in the keychain. Imagine that if Microsoft instead of Verisign handled Internet certificates... IMO there should be a separation of roles between certification authorities.
How about lack of JHMCS?
The F-22 still does not have an integrated helmet sight unlike the Super Hornet. The available weapons payload is inadequate and the oxygen generator system apparently does not work properly. Of course these are all fixable but it will cost time and money.
The Super Hornet has a buddy-buddy refueling system. It also has JHMCS helmets for quicker target selection unlike F-22 pilots. They still haven't decided on a helmet for the F-35 after the issues they had with that 'horned' helmet. It has two engines so it has more redundancy. Plus it has more range than the F-35.
The problem with nuclear power plants is many fold. The cheapest models generate 250 MW and that is too much for many applications. Smaller reactors, like those used in naval vessels, usually use highly enriched uranium not available for civilian purposes. The cost in steel and concrete plus construction time (not less than 3 years more likely 5) mean you will have to wait a long time until your investment starts to pay off. You will have to fight a ton of regulations, legislation, protests, attempts to stall the project via injunctions, etc.
LNG power plants can be build in smaller units and put in place in 6 months or a year. In the long run they are more expensive to use because of the higher fuel costs. However the sheer multiplicative effect of having a shorter cycle time in adding generating capacity is very important. Plus LNG power plants can spool up and down to meet demand better than a nuclear power plant. Both have their uses. But it heavily depends on local conditions. If there is a LNG pipeline nearby it probably is the most sensible solution, unless there are nearby coal sources, or rivers to dam, if none of those apply nuclear is your best bet. Especially if you want low air pollution. Thus France, Japan, South Korea rely on nuclear a lot. While countries like US and China with large coal reserves still extant burn coal.
PS: Gas power plants make less financial sense because of the low density of LNG means the transportation costs are quite high. Natural gas is cheapest where you have a LNG pipeline doing the transport.
They are using those old mothballed coal power plants right now where the nuclear reactors are offline but the cost of the imported coal is so high it is worsening the trade deficit and making Japan poorer as a result.
The Japanese will restart their nuclear reactors. Their economy is not viable otherwise. Their economic recovery crashed more because of the plant shutdown and the energy costs of importing coal than the earthquake damage itself. Japan needs nuclear power. Too many people and too few alternative resources for a country with heavy industry. The Chinese are in full swing. They have like one of each leading edge nuclear power plant design either in operation or under construction and they are ramping up training so they can build more of them. Air pollution in China is a big problem and nuclear power in coastal cities is seen as a way to ameliorate the problem. The heavy industry in the interior of the nation will likely continue using cheap coal.
Actually there are other ways like using Hot Dry Rock Geothermal where you drill a borehole deep enough that it gets hot enough to boil water which you inject into the hole. The problem is it induces low intensity earthquakes.
Alternatively let the Linux Foundation, or better yet, some vendor agnostic association, like the PCI SIG should handle the keys. Having Microsoft handle the keychain is bonkers.
The problem with ZFS is a licensing issue. If you want it in the kernel send a memo to Oracle asking for it to be relicensed under the GPL v2. Same thing for Dtrace.
The stable driver ABI issue has been mitigated ever since Dell contributed DKMS support to the kernel. The NVIDIA driver uses it for example.
That's it. I'm starting to format my USB pens as UDF.
Not that ESR and Stallman don't have fair reasons for being unreasonable. So to speak.