Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.
And while they are all deciding whether God/god/Xenu programmed the universe via voice command or a PADD, I'll be working to convince the Creator that I am self-aware, thus securing a free warp-capable shuttlecraft!
On a more serious note, as is always the case, this "new" line of thought seems to be a better description of something we observe, yet still constrained by our ability to model and describe things. As IANATP (I am not a theoretical physicist, more the applied kind), what does this potentially bring us, other than that better description? You know us engineers will be snickering until you show us something we can do or make shiny with this.
Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information? No? Too simple?
I personally have hated PDF forms for some - as a Mac user, having an OS with great PDF support built-in, but still having to use Adobe's products to use their non-standard (or newly made standard) forms implementation is a headache.
Yeah try getting all that with a mage or (insert whiny "can haz buffz?" race / class combo here)!
But seriously, check out his Feats of Strength. He may have "only" done this on one race / class combo, but he's pretty done everything a druid could / should do. Realm firsts on nearly every Wrath raid boss that gives a feat, high arena ranking last season (probably explains the tree off-spec), has Atiesh, and did holidays before holidays gave achievements. Impressive, if not insanely time consuming. (also - no "the Insane" feat? Psh...)
Yeah two "possessive" types would help, but here a more direct syntax would also help. This statement "Intel's USB Competitor" is unclear because you are not sure if the writer means "a competitor to Intel's USB standard" or "a competitor belonging to Intel which will compete against USB." In the former, "Apple Behind Competitor to Intel's USB" would work better; in the latter, "Apple Behind Intel's Competitor to USB."
But see, McDonald's is already 10 steps ahead of you there - when franchisees complained about the cost of a "double cheeseburger" ("universally" recognized as a sandwich with 2 hamburger patties and 2 slices of cheese) then on the Dollar Menu, they created a "new" sandwich with 2 patties, 1 slice of cheese and called it the "McDouble," moving the "double cheeseburger" up to something like $1.29 and putting the "McDouble" on the Dollar Menu.
And, speaking of Malaysia, they already go after anyone with "Mc" in the name - so no trademarking "McSandwich" or "McBreadWithMeat" or "McDoubleMcMeatProductWithMcCheeseProduct."
As many others have pointed out, the F-22 is not going anywhere, we're just not going to make any more past the 187 we have / are in production already. The F-35 will fill in more of the Air Force as a result, but the F-35 is no replacement for the F-22. The F-35 is a multi-role, multi-configuration fighter with admittedly awesome capabilities (especially the B and C variants for carrier and VSTOL operations), but the F-22 could still easily take out an F-35 or 3. The F-22 is much faster, more maneuverable, and killer against every fighter out there - look up the war games where a couple F-22s took out entire wings of F-15s and F-16s (not a fair fight from a tech perspective, sure, but in numbers it should have been closer).
But of course this is all hypothetical and simulated. The F-22 hasn't seen combat against anything equally matched, or even close, which is probably more the reason many see no problem in cutting the program short. If it's THE air superiority fighter for the next 2 or 3 decades, why not just wait to spend more money in 2 or 3 decades?
Also, it helps to understand the AF's perspective here. As safety officers, they may have to be the ones pushing the Big Red Button (TM) if things go wrong. They're just laying things out so NASA knows what to expect. And as others have pointed out, "aborting" a solid rocket launch is... well... about as successful as aborting a nuclear reaction. You don't get to stop things from burning like you might with a liquid-fueled rocket. You just get to watch the remaining fuel get burned up, people on top or not.
The Russian and us, sans 40 years of "experience." You'd think Challenger would've taught us something about stackable SRBs and people. Or Columbia something about non-melting crew return vehicles.
Oh, I just had an idea! How about a capsule with an ablative heat shield mounted on top of a liquid-fueled, multi-stage heavy lifter?! I know, I know, I'm a genius (and a rocket scientist, IRL, coincidentally).
... OEMs will not offer Windows 7 options. If netbooks are mostly for email, web, etc., who needs a particular OS? All seem to do those basics well enough (often with the same software ported around to fill the market).
I like the analogy in principle, but there's one problem with it - if I bought a car from a random guy (for cash or otherwise), and didn't get the title transferred into my name at whatever government office is responsible for such things in my neck of the woods, I'm an idiot. While there's currently no government agency policing computer ownership (pause for applause / tin foil hat brigade reaction), this highlights the importance of shopping at a reputable dealer when purchasing goods for which there is no clear transference of ownership. That, most likely, is the point you were trying to make in that analogy.
(just to get this out of the way)
Early adopters are reporting that the Adamo seems to severely dislike the Roomba unless it needs its room cleaned, and every so often wants to get a little too comfortable with that $4 latte you bought this morning.
First off, this is coming now not because of some perceived "recent flood of iPhone cracked applications," but because the Copyright Office asked for exemption proposals to the DCMA on December 28, 2008, and the EFF filed one for jailbreaking. RTFA and RTFlegalbrief.
Second, while not effectively the same, what Apple is doing is trying to prevent jailbreaking from being ruled legal, not trying to have it ruled illegal. Being a non-lawyer, I'd at first say this is the same thing, but it is different. Just because something isn't ruled explicitly legal doesn't make it illegal, but would definitely help if some day someone wanted to sue over a jailbreak.
It seems that private companies such as SpaceX are going to be the future rather then government funded such as NASA which has become counter productive the older it has gotten.
I largely agree with the sentiment, but only as it regards focus. NASA has become counter-productive because it's doing the same thing now it was doing forty years ago, which never quite motivates people to be inventive or innovative - just structured and regulatory. NASA should be almost exclusively focused on things like deep space exploration, manned interplanetary travel, etc., which don't have an immediate commercial benefit. If we wait on a commercial reason for manned interplanetary travel (read: 4. Profit!!!), we'll probably never get out there (unless "out there" finds us first...). Like any other industry, let the private companies and universities handle all the near-Earth and aeronautical stuff since they can and will find a way to make a profit (and some already have) without the waste of government bureaucracy and Congressional oversight.
Yes, a second Soyuz is the key for escape (that's why capacity will be 6, instead of the original 7 I think that could fit in the X-38). But they've also been limited by sleeping arrangements, which the new Node 3 will provide, along with having all the labs up and running. While the station might have supported 6 crew members on just the Russian and US sections, things would have been very cramped without the EU and Japanese labs around to help pay for things... er... I mean... give them all things to do.
Eh, maybe. First, Mars missions aren't launched from the SS cargo bay, but often (and virtually always for interplanetary missions) the Delta 2's have solids attached for boosting as well as a solid third stage. But it's rare for launch material to get into a payload. If something did get in, it's likely to be a particle or two, not a whole spray, so it is possible only one sensor was contaminated.
But we'll hear soon enough. Either that, or that perchlorate was left by some gooey, amoeba-looking alien of the week that feeds on salt...
Also notice that the original EULA said only "Safari," while the updated one says specifically "Safari for Windows." This could have been a mistake on the part of whoever thought they found this in the first place (they clicked on the wrong Safari license, as the one pictured on the Italian site linked by The Register is identical to the Mac Safari license), though having been updated yesterday kinda points to Apple fixing things.
That "C" should be the one with the little squiggly on the bottom. I'm sure I can find it in my character map, but don't want those without a Unicode compliant browser to see some Chinese character or something... since we are talking the various iterations of IE here.
IIRC, and someone with a better degree in Web History can probably elaborate, but wasn't IE 5.5 written with code which came over from IE5 for Mac, the first really well done major browser with nice CSS support? Tantek Celik was lead (or close to lead) on that, and set the pace for good CSS compliance... which MS dumped when building IE6 for Win, because they could have their flagship internet browser rendering better on those other guy's OS and not their own.
Yeah amps aren't power, though I'd guess that something like a rail gun would discharge whatever current it requires in a pretty small amount of time - so we're probably talking on the order of megawatts or gigawatts here, assuming a 1 second or less discharge time. In that case, the problem isn't so much generators (though those are still a problem, but in comparison...) but the capacitors. A bank of capacitors able to discharge that much juice at once has got to be huge, prone to breaking, and/or ridiculously dangerous to service/operate in a metal boat.
Not an electrical engineer or a sailor, so just guessing there.
It could also vary greatly on the type of aircraft. I'd doubt many 737s or A320s, for instance, would have this in all classes, unless you catch an airline doing fleet-wide upgrades to its interiors. Those interiors are very expensive, and many were designed alongside the airframe (I remember when the 777s first flew Nintendo was advertising them in Nintendo Power since Super NES games were available on them).
Slashdot Mirror
catch run-on sentences in article summaries? Or perhaps stories that are over a month old?
Philosophers and religious folk will argue over what that might mean.
And while they are all deciding whether God/god/Xenu programmed the universe via voice command or a PADD, I'll be working to convince the Creator that I am self-aware, thus securing a free warp-capable shuttlecraft!
On a more serious note, as is always the case, this "new" line of thought seems to be a better description of something we observe, yet still constrained by our ability to model and describe things. As IANATP (I am not a theoretical physicist, more the applied kind), what does this potentially bring us, other than that better description? You know us engineers will be snickering until you show us something we can do or make shiny with this.
Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information? No? Too simple?
I personally have hated PDF forms for some - as a Mac user, having an OS with great PDF support built-in, but still having to use Adobe's products to use their non-standard (or newly made standard) forms implementation is a headache.
Yeah try getting all that with a mage or (insert whiny "can haz buffz?" race / class combo here)!
But seriously, check out his Feats of Strength. He may have "only" done this on one race / class combo, but he's pretty done everything a druid could / should do. Realm firsts on nearly every Wrath raid boss that gives a feat, high arena ranking last season (probably explains the tree off-spec), has Atiesh, and did holidays before holidays gave achievements. Impressive, if not insanely time consuming. (also - no "the Insane" feat? Psh...)
Probably an error in your European to American numerical translator - that should have been 25,800 years.
Yeah two "possessive" types would help, but here a more direct syntax would also help. This statement "Intel's USB Competitor" is unclear because you are not sure if the writer means "a competitor to Intel's USB standard" or "a competitor belonging to Intel which will compete against USB." In the former, "Apple Behind Competitor to Intel's USB" would work better; in the latter, "Apple Behind Intel's Competitor to USB."
But see, McDonald's is already 10 steps ahead of you there - when franchisees complained about the cost of a "double cheeseburger" ("universally" recognized as a sandwich with 2 hamburger patties and 2 slices of cheese) then on the Dollar Menu, they created a "new" sandwich with 2 patties, 1 slice of cheese and called it the "McDouble," moving the "double cheeseburger" up to something like $1.29 and putting the "McDouble" on the Dollar Menu.
And, speaking of Malaysia, they already go after anyone with "Mc" in the name - so no trademarking "McSandwich" or "McBreadWithMeat" or "McDoubleMcMeatProductWithMcCheeseProduct."
Wow. Can I get an RTFA from the congregation?
As many others have pointed out, the F-22 is not going anywhere, we're just not going to make any more past the 187 we have / are in production already. The F-35 will fill in more of the Air Force as a result, but the F-35 is no replacement for the F-22. The F-35 is a multi-role, multi-configuration fighter with admittedly awesome capabilities (especially the B and C variants for carrier and VSTOL operations), but the F-22 could still easily take out an F-35 or 3. The F-22 is much faster, more maneuverable, and killer against every fighter out there - look up the war games where a couple F-22s took out entire wings of F-15s and F-16s (not a fair fight from a tech perspective, sure, but in numbers it should have been closer).
But of course this is all hypothetical and simulated. The F-22 hasn't seen combat against anything equally matched, or even close, which is probably more the reason many see no problem in cutting the program short. If it's THE air superiority fighter for the next 2 or 3 decades, why not just wait to spend more money in 2 or 3 decades?
Also, it helps to understand the AF's perspective here. As safety officers, they may have to be the ones pushing the Big Red Button (TM) if things go wrong. They're just laying things out so NASA knows what to expect. And as others have pointed out, "aborting" a solid rocket launch is... well... about as successful as aborting a nuclear reaction. You don't get to stop things from burning like you might with a liquid-fueled rocket. You just get to watch the remaining fuel get burned up, people on top or not.
The Russian and us, sans 40 years of "experience." You'd think Challenger would've taught us something about stackable SRBs and people. Or Columbia something about non-melting crew return vehicles.
Oh, I just had an idea! How about a capsule with an ablative heat shield mounted on top of a liquid-fueled, multi-stage heavy lifter?! I know, I know, I'm a genius (and a rocket scientist, IRL, coincidentally).
And how will the computer screen be attached?
It'll be built-in. CPUs, RAM, and storage are such commodities, I'll be surprised if in 5 years we buy many displays without "computers" built-in.
... OEMs will not offer Windows 7 options. If netbooks are mostly for email, web, etc., who needs a particular OS? All seem to do those basics well enough (often with the same software ported around to fill the market).
I like the analogy in principle, but there's one problem with it - if I bought a car from a random guy (for cash or otherwise), and didn't get the title transferred into my name at whatever government office is responsible for such things in my neck of the woods, I'm an idiot. While there's currently no government agency policing computer ownership (pause for applause / tin foil hat brigade reaction), this highlights the importance of shopping at a reputable dealer when purchasing goods for which there is no clear transference of ownership. That, most likely, is the point you were trying to make in that analogy.
Okay, who's the genius mod who thought that was an actual religious reference? Someone needs their Geek Card confiscated.
(just to get this out of the way) Early adopters are reporting that the Adamo seems to severely dislike the Roomba unless it needs its room cleaned, and every so often wants to get a little too comfortable with that $4 latte you bought this morning.
First off, this is coming now not because of some perceived "recent flood of iPhone cracked applications," but because the Copyright Office asked for exemption proposals to the DCMA on December 28, 2008, and the EFF filed one for jailbreaking. RTFA and RTFlegalbrief.
Second, while not effectively the same, what Apple is doing is trying to prevent jailbreaking from being ruled legal, not trying to have it ruled illegal. Being a non-lawyer, I'd at first say this is the same thing, but it is different. Just because something isn't ruled explicitly legal doesn't make it illegal, but would definitely help if some day someone wanted to sue over a jailbreak.
Engadget has a nice write-up on this from someone who has legal training if the three or four of you out there who don't just read the summary and post would like another perspective - http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/13/apple-and-eff-spar-over-iphone-jailbreaking-and-the-dmca//
It seems that private companies such as SpaceX are going to be the future rather then government funded such as NASA which has become counter productive the older it has gotten.
I largely agree with the sentiment, but only as it regards focus. NASA has become counter-productive because it's doing the same thing now it was doing forty years ago, which never quite motivates people to be inventive or innovative - just structured and regulatory. NASA should be almost exclusively focused on things like deep space exploration, manned interplanetary travel, etc., which don't have an immediate commercial benefit. If we wait on a commercial reason for manned interplanetary travel (read: 4. Profit!!!), we'll probably never get out there (unless "out there" finds us first...). Like any other industry, let the private companies and universities handle all the near-Earth and aeronautical stuff since they can and will find a way to make a profit (and some already have) without the waste of government bureaucracy and Congressional oversight.
Yes, a second Soyuz is the key for escape (that's why capacity will be 6, instead of the original 7 I think that could fit in the X-38). But they've also been limited by sleeping arrangements, which the new Node 3 will provide, along with having all the labs up and running. While the station might have supported 6 crew members on just the Russian and US sections, things would have been very cramped without the EU and Japanese labs around to help pay for things... er... I mean... give them all things to do.
Eh, maybe. First, Mars missions aren't launched from the SS cargo bay, but often (and virtually always for interplanetary missions) the Delta 2's have solids attached for boosting as well as a solid third stage. But it's rare for launch material to get into a payload. If something did get in, it's likely to be a particle or two, not a whole spray, so it is possible only one sensor was contaminated.
But we'll hear soon enough. Either that, or that perchlorate was left by some gooey, amoeba-looking alien of the week that feeds on salt...
Also notice that the original EULA said only "Safari," while the updated one says specifically "Safari for Windows." This could have been a mistake on the part of whoever thought they found this in the first place (they clicked on the wrong Safari license, as the one pictured on the Italian site linked by The Register is identical to the Mac Safari license), though having been updated yesterday kinda points to Apple fixing things.
That "C" should be the one with the little squiggly on the bottom. I'm sure I can find it in my character map, but don't want those without a Unicode compliant browser to see some Chinese character or something... since we are talking the various iterations of IE here.
IIRC, and someone with a better degree in Web History can probably elaborate, but wasn't IE 5.5 written with code which came over from IE5 for Mac, the first really well done major browser with nice CSS support? Tantek Celik was lead (or close to lead) on that, and set the pace for good CSS compliance... which MS dumped when building IE6 for Win, because they could have their flagship internet browser rendering better on those other guy's OS and not their own.
Yeah amps aren't power, though I'd guess that something like a rail gun would discharge whatever current it requires in a pretty small amount of time - so we're probably talking on the order of megawatts or gigawatts here, assuming a 1 second or less discharge time. In that case, the problem isn't so much generators (though those are still a problem, but in comparison...) but the capacitors. A bank of capacitors able to discharge that much juice at once has got to be huge, prone to breaking, and/or ridiculously dangerous to service/operate in a metal boat.
Not an electrical engineer or a sailor, so just guessing there.
It could also vary greatly on the type of aircraft. I'd doubt many 737s or A320s, for instance, would have this in all classes, unless you catch an airline doing fleet-wide upgrades to its interiors. Those interiors are very expensive, and many were designed alongside the airframe (I remember when the 777s first flew Nintendo was advertising them in Nintendo Power since Super NES games were available on them).
So to borrow from someone else's profound statement, all of our recorded history in well within the margin of error (by 4 orders of magnitude or so).
There's a nice political joke in there for those not yet in their holiday brain coma.
Doh! That's what I get for posting when I should be studying for finals.