You're thinking in terms of today. SanDisk has already released 16GB CF cards. Density is increase at a fairly quick rate. While I agree that it'll be more expensive for quite some time I find it hard to imagine a future world that still relies on spinning disks and moving parts. What I am saying is that the technology for flash memory & interfaces is quickly approaching the point at which it will outperform any disk solution, even if the only fightable factor left is rotational latency.
All that to say perhaps my foreseeable future is a little farther away than yours.
And Flash drives have almost no chance of penetration in the server market
What do you mean? I fully expect that rotating drives are on their way out. There's too many advantages to flash and the disadvantages with using SSDs in a server environment are being worked out as_we_speak. I'm willing to wager that within 3 years SSDs will beat high end HDDs in every desirable metric sans price- and price is just a matter of time.
It's always kind of weird to think that the smell of farts is micro-poo-particles. It's also funny to think that our bacterial friends the Methanogens enjoy Taco Bell as much as they do.
Ohhh, and we really shouldn't (as microbiologists) mention methane without pointing to the Volta Experiment.
1. Yeah that would be stupid. See #4 2. Funding. This is true of many fields. It's typically viewed as harder to get funding if your results are inconclusive or show nothing. Just read any old science journal, how often do you find articles stating that experiments were done and nothing was found. Plus, in science it's fun to believe what is popular. $Popular != $Correct 3. Way to attack the source and not the science. I suppose next you'll say there is no science behind those sources- at least none non you want to consider. 4. Does anyone actually say that? If they do you're right that's pretty dumb. Then again keep in mind that 'could' and 'does' are not lexically equivalent (neither are 'can never happen' and 'isn't happening right now').
In all fairness those aren't very convincing replies.
Oh- and for all you GW (and I don't mean Bush) scaremongers who continue to have haydays with warmer than usually temps make a note of this last weeks weather across the US.
It's an accelerometer. It (also) detects the acceleration of gravity. You should get yourself a wii controller and some software to hook it up to your computer (see sourceforge). All kinds of fun physics experiments to be had including the measurement of gravity on the controller.
Toggling text/all controls is an obscure feature that is only included for completeness. Of course it's blind. If anyone is interested in stuff like that they ought to hit up the accessability/keyboard pref panes.
Cmd-H for Hide windows makes sense, but like you said it's all about the option-click. I disagree about the key location- I've never missed cmd-G, ever. Maybe that's because I use it all the time.
Hitting the wrong key is a pretty lame reason to not like a keyboard shortcut. It's your fault. I do agree that shift-F11 should turn off when you uncheck the box in keyboard prefs.
I'd like to see some real world (non-manufacturer) data that shows this. My experience has been that CFBs don't last nearly as long as their incandescent friends. My only evidence is anecdotal: I bought all CFBs to replace my incandies as they die. The old incandies next to the new CFBs have outlasted at least one set of CFBs. That is to say I haven't even replace all the incandescent bulbs and the new CFBs are already burning out.
The bulbs I've been using are by Lights of America, GE and Philips. They've all been used in household applications like Night Lights and Room Lights which are switched on and off at least daily.
Has anyone had the same experience? Anyone had the bulbs perform particularly well? What brands are you using?
Do you mean the publisher opt's in? My experience is that if Microsoft is making it it will be Opt-Out for the consumer if if opting is even an option. Remember WMP- "Rights Protection" on by default, even when you're ripping from your own CDs.
I hope this is obvious: Remember, it's not so much the genetic mutations in the GE/Cloned meat were worried about. It's the mutations in the various pathogens that infect (zoonotically or as a reservoir) said meat.
Perhaps the GE/Cloned meat is predisposed to a soon-in-the-future human pathogen.
Ok, now I'm done. Cheers, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. Ed
I'm a student of Microbiology. One reason to object to eating cloned animals is that a single defect may cause disease on a large scale. This is the same as previous posts. Physiology? There's lots of ways this can happen. For instance a genetic predisposition to particular bacterial or parasitic infections (Hooray for microbiology!).
A benefit might be that some cloned animals have a statistically lower carrier rate for certain known pathogens. Others might genetically 'prefer' less virulent pathogens. Still, my experience with microbes tells me that having only a few clone models as a food supply is a patently bad idea. Something like a statistical time-bomb where everything is fine for a long long time but when it goes wrong the consequences are huge (either for the animal population or the ones eating them).
All this is not a reason to avoid using cloned meat sources. Instead it gives us good reason to pause and consider the various outcomes of our actions. I think reasonable study of the issue will reveal that cloned meat is mostly fine but requires some industry regulation to ensure adequate genetic diversity in the food supply (which may not be much diversity, but that's a matter for another day).
Mac Viruses By The Numbers - Word Macro: 553, Classic Mac: 26, OS X: Zero by Charles Gaba, 11:00 AM EDT, August 29th, 2003
So, another week, another Windows virus. Ho-hum.
Computer viruses--Windows-based computer viruses, for the most part--have been around for a long time now, but it's really only since the explosion of the Internet (the modern, commercialized Internet, that is) that they've caught the public eye, and it's only within the past 2-3 years (since the first "rock star" viruses, Melissa, AnnaKournikova and ILOVEYOU) that the media has made a fuss over it.
[...]//Who actually reads the whole article?
6. This is where things start to get very interesting. You see, out of those 579 total viruses which affect some versions of the Mac operating system, you'll notice that the vast majority of their names start with a WM/ or XM/. I checked these out, and sure enough, this means that they're a Macro virus which runs exclusively on some versions of--you guessed it--Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel (there are a few Word/Excel Macro viruses which don't have WM/ or XM/ in their names as well). In fact, over 95% of these so-called "Mac" viruses are actually directly made possible by Microsoft software. If you take these out of the equation, which seems reasonable to me since there are solid alternatives on the Mac to Word and Excel, just as there are alternatives to Windows itself, you're left with the following number of viruses that affect the Mac and can't be blamed on Microsoft in any way, shape or form: 26.
Yes, that's right: 26 out of a total of over 71,000.
However, I've left out one of the most important factors here: All 26 of these, along with the other 553 Word/Excel Macro viruses, were designed for the OLDER versions of the Mac OS (and the older versions of Word/Excel, to be fair). None of this has anything to do with Mac OS X, which is the relevant system to look at.
If you remove the viruses which don't affect OS X, you know what you're left with--at least, as of this writing, and to the best of my knowledge?
Slashdot Mirror
All that to say perhaps my foreseeable future is a little farther away than yours.
It's about time someone turned up the flame in here!
Well since we can't mod articles (yet), I'll answer the troll:
- Appletalk???? What are you, living in the age of System 7?
- Repairing Permissions? Maybe in 10.1. I don't even remember the last time I did that.
Ok, that's done, now off toPretty incredible stuff!
I'm not buying this appeal to "authority"
Ohhh, and we really shouldn't (as microbiologists) mention methane without pointing to the Volta Experiment.
This is equivalent to buning a CD and re-importing using the Apple Lossless Codec. Remember, you won't get AAC data off the AE's Optical out.
I only dream of a world with No Fork-in Windows
[Calibrating...] Have you seen the price on the new iPods??
Forget Jobs- look at Ballmer. He's richer and less respectful. Someone ought to graph that phenomenon. I would but...I'm reading.
1. Yeah that would be stupid. See #4
2. Funding. This is true of many fields. It's typically viewed as harder to get funding if your results are inconclusive or show nothing. Just read any old science journal, how often do you find articles stating that experiments were done and nothing was found. Plus, in science it's fun to believe what is popular. $Popular != $Correct
3. Way to attack the source and not the science. I suppose next you'll say there is no science behind those sources- at least none non you want to consider.
4. Does anyone actually say that? If they do you're right that's pretty dumb. Then again keep in mind that 'could' and 'does' are not lexically equivalent (neither are 'can never happen' and 'isn't happening right now').
In all fairness those aren't very convincing replies.
Oh- and for all you GW (and I don't mean Bush) scaremongers who continue to have haydays with warmer than usually temps make a note of this last weeks weather across the US.
Or rather, that's not dedication *wink*.
It's an accelerometer. It (also) detects the acceleration of gravity. You should get yourself a wii controller and some software to hook it up to your computer (see sourceforge). All kinds of fun physics experiments to be had including the measurement of gravity on the controller.
Toggling text/all controls is an obscure feature that is only included for completeness. Of course it's blind. If anyone is interested in stuff like that they ought to hit up the accessability/keyboard pref panes. Cmd-H for Hide windows makes sense, but like you said it's all about the option-click. I disagree about the key location- I've never missed cmd-G, ever. Maybe that's because I use it all the time. Hitting the wrong key is a pretty lame reason to not like a keyboard shortcut. It's your fault. I do agree that shift-F11 should turn off when you uncheck the box in keyboard prefs.
Or you could just press control-F7 to toggle Text Boxes+Lists to All Controls.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=love+site %3Awww.collinslake.com&btnG=Search
and the transposition
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Aww w.collinslake.com+love&btnG=Search
Google just throws ANDs inbetween all query parts that don't specify OR. Order doesn't matter much.
Here's one source that says CFLs last longer: http://www.nef.org.uk/energyadvice/lighting.htm Makes me wonder...
I'd like to see some real world (non-manufacturer) data that shows this. My experience has been that CFBs don't last nearly as long as their incandescent friends. My only evidence is anecdotal: I bought all CFBs to replace my incandies as they die. The old incandies next to the new CFBs have outlasted at least one set of CFBs. That is to say I haven't even replace all the incandescent bulbs and the new CFBs are already burning out.
The bulbs I've been using are by Lights of America, GE and Philips. They've all been used in household applications like Night Lights and Room Lights which are switched on and off at least daily.
Has anyone had the same experience? Anyone had the bulbs perform particularly well? What brands are you using?
Do you mean the publisher opt's in? My experience is that if Microsoft is making it it will be Opt-Out for the consumer if if opting is even an option. Remember WMP- "Rights Protection" on by default, even when you're ripping from your own CDs.
Does WMP still so that?
Happy New Year, Ed
http://www.www.browsercam.com/. There's free ones too but I'm to lazy to look them up. Anyway, now you know it already exists. Cheers, Ed
I hope this is obvious: Remember, it's not so much the genetic mutations in the GE/Cloned meat were worried about. It's the mutations in the various pathogens that infect (zoonotically or as a reservoir) said meat. Perhaps the GE/Cloned meat is predisposed to a soon-in-the-future human pathogen. Ok, now I'm done. Cheers, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. Ed
I'm a student of Microbiology. One reason to object to eating cloned animals is that a single defect may cause disease on a large scale. This is the same as previous posts. Physiology? There's lots of ways this can happen. For instance a genetic predisposition to particular bacterial or parasitic infections (Hooray for microbiology!).
A benefit might be that some cloned animals have a statistically lower carrier rate for certain known pathogens. Others might genetically 'prefer' less virulent pathogens. Still, my experience with microbes tells me that having only a few clone models as a food supply is a patently bad idea. Something like a statistical time-bomb where everything is fine for a long long time but when it goes wrong the consequences are huge (either for the animal population or the ones eating them).
All this is not a reason to avoid using cloned meat sources. Instead it gives us good reason to pause and consider the various outcomes of our actions. I think reasonable study of the issue will reveal that cloned meat is mostly fine but requires some industry regulation to ensure adequate genetic diversity in the food supply (which may not be much diversity, but that's a matter for another day).
Because it's cheaper (nudge nudge wink wink)
by Charles Gaba, 11:00 AM EDT, August 29th, 2003
So, another week, another Windows virus. Ho-hum.
Computer viruses--Windows-based computer viruses, for the most part--have been around for a long time now, but it's really only since the explosion of the Internet (the modern, commercialized Internet, that is) that they've caught the public eye, and it's only within the past 2-3 years (since the first "rock star" viruses, Melissa, AnnaKournikova and ILOVEYOU) that the media has made a fuss over it.
[...] //Who actually reads the whole article?
6. This is where things start to get very interesting. You see, out of those 579 total viruses which affect some versions of the Mac operating system, you'll notice that the vast majority of their names start with a WM/ or XM/. I checked these out, and sure enough, this means that they're a Macro virus which runs exclusively on some versions of--you guessed it--Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel (there are a few Word/Excel Macro viruses which don't have WM/ or XM/ in their names as well). In fact, over 95% of these so-called "Mac" viruses are actually directly made possible by Microsoft software. If you take these out of the equation, which seems reasonable to me since there are solid alternatives on the Mac to Word and Excel, just as there are alternatives to Windows itself, you're left with the following number of viruses that affect the Mac and can't be blamed on Microsoft in any way, shape or form: 26.
Yes, that's right: 26 out of a total of over 71,000.
However, I've left out one of the most important factors here: All 26 of these, along with the other 553 Word/Excel Macro viruses, were designed for the OLDER versions of the Mac OS (and the older versions of Word/Excel, to be fair). None of this has anything to do with Mac OS X, which is the relevant system to look at.
If you remove the viruses which don't affect OS X, you know what you're left with--at least, as of this writing, and to the best of my knowledge?
Zero. None. Zip. Zilch.
Linux is the path to dependencies.