I don't know +-2mm seems more than sufficient for almost everything. There are a few things which it might not work perfectly for, but keep in mind even if it was a little off you'd still see a mouse cursor and be able to adjust its error. So I'd say a 5x improvement might be all that's necessary;)
Because we're a capitalist society and every company is going to want a piece of the pie when it comes to ED medicine profits. You're not going to find one big pharma with a bunch of ED pills, once they get one that's making them profits, they'll move on for the most part (until they have to worry about making a better one that they can keep patented when their earlier patents run out).
You're missing the point. There aren't that many scientists working on ED drugs, they're very easy to develop and there are already a ton out there from which you can base forward progress. And you should realize some of the profits made off ED drugs find their way back into drug discovery labs that work on drugs for more serious problems. It's not as black and white as you suppose. Who knows the profits made off ED might actually INCREASE the R&D budget for other drugs, and your entire point is moot. At the very least the profits off ED drugs help to cover fixed costs of a big pharma letting other drug discovery projects only have to worry about the variable costs of their own work.
And there is a TON of blue sky research going on in academia, hell most PhD students (and brilliant professors) spend their time doing this research. Have a look at all the Ab Initio work being done (Friesner and Head-Gordon are a couple good authors to start on), in 20 years we may be able to use high accuracy ab initio calculations on proteins. Tons of blue sky research going on.
I'm in medical research, it's not that simple. There are SIGNIFICANTLY more researchers on cancer, aids, etc than erection deficiencies - it just so happens that increasing blood flow and getting a muscle to relax is a very easy to solve problem - we have a lot of different drugs doing it because there are a lot of different easy ways to do it. Developing a drug that can differentiate between two cells of the EXACT same organism (cancer is our own cells) and pick the right one to kill, that's not an easy task. Developing a drug that can stop a virus with many many different types of mutations that mutates EXTREMELY quickly from replicating (AIDS) again is a very difficult task.
Here's a computer problem comparison since that is probably your specialty. There are a MILLION programs out there that can act as calculators, they're very easy programs to write - but there are only a handful of good BLAS libraries out there, those are difficult problems. You'd be called a fool if you suggested that we could make BLAS progress faster by taking the people off developing calculators and put them on BLAS - it's the same as your uneducated assumptions about the medical community.
What's the difference in your analogy? So she's making and distributing CD's instead of stealing them, that still basically constitutes a loss of value of one CD per distributed CD - what the original poster was inferring. You'd have to distribute a lot of CD's to get up to $9250 per song. The original comparison was fine.
I would completely agree with this. Since the inception of emusic my online downloading has gone down significantly, and even more significantly very recently now that Amazon has some major label MP3 downloads.
What the RIAA doesn't understand is that a LOT of people are perfectly willing to pay for the songs, we just don't want to pay for copies of them that we don't have control over. I run Linux on all my computers and my work is a linux shop, DRM'ed music is hardly even an option (not that I would pay for it if I could, I'd get a CD in a second over a DRM'ed piece of crap).
People are missing a pretty huge element in this GPL is DRM thing.
Linux is free. You didn't pay for it, you don't own it. You're allowed to use it - for free - providing you play by their rules.
Music and movies are intellectual content you PAY to own. Once you have actual ownership of it, you should have more fair usage rights. But you can't complain about restrictions on using something that is 100% free - simply don't use it, you didn't pay for it anyway..
Your signature is such an overused stupid argument.
Science isn't faith. They key component about science is you can always learn more and attempt to prove your hypothesis. It only takes faith to believe in science if you're too stupid or lazy to verify what you're being told is true.
The key component to faith is that you ACCEPT your hypothesis without any proof.
Your post is just a lack of understanding in both the scientific method (evolution) and faith.
Ever been to Bloomington? It's a pretty beautiful place. Most of the cities in the US (NYC especially) were built out of Limestone from the surrounding quarries. Beautiful limestone hills, tons of wildlife, lakes, trees, fields, flowers etc.. It also has amazing culture, the #2 music school in the country (behind Juilliard), very good and diverse restaurants, very diverse population. The Dalai Lama's brother actually lives in Bloomington, and the Dalai Lama visits every few years (this year is one of those years). I've lived in the bay area, traveled to most of the lower 48, and currently live in Manhattan - and even with that perspective Bloomington is one of my favorite places I've been. You can continue to hate though if you like....
I used latex for my lab reports. It looks a HELL of a lot better, and the formatting options are significantly nicer. Plus once you get your basics written, it's much easier to create a well formatted document in latex than screwing around with word. If you're smart enough to be performing physics labs above 101, you should be smart enough to learn latex...
At least in the case of ext2, they're not particularly good drivers from what I'm told, and ext2 is a dinosaur FS just as much as fat32 is. Giving users a black box API to attempt to write a file system to work well with an operating system is NOT going to lend itself to good FS development.
Clearly your system and maintenance are above and beyond the average user. The common user does not do that. There's no need to do that on competing file systems.
And I know it's spelled "smeagol" you arrogant ass. It was an intentional misspelling 15 years ago knowing that I wanted one name and I didn't want to deal with it being taken on various sites and have to think up multiple names. But I appreciate the fact that you think you're so smart because you can maintain a windows raid array and falsely correct people on LOTR...lol. Nothing makes me laugh more than a windows "guru" bragging about a raid array.
I'm working from personal experience here. I did tech help for two years when I was in university, and I've had to "fix" so many peoples computers by doing a backup, complete reformat and restoration of backup because the FS was fragmented to crap. The simple fact is, that process would ONLY radically speed up a computer if the underlying file system was incredibly fragmented. Doing a complete backup/restore with a reformat in between does nothing but clean up after a crappy FS. But please, continue to feed me a load of sh*t about how great NTFS is, and how it's the most elite FS and never fragments. I know it's BS, most educated people reading this know it's BS, and you probably even know it's BS.
And I understand perfectly well that windows is built off NT now. In fact, that virus infected, featureless, resource hog Windows XP was based off of NT too. Didn't seem to do much for it.
NTFS is also unusably slow after 6 months of heavy usage, and requires regular reformatting. It can have every feature in the world, and if it's horribly slow and degrades very quickly, it's useless.
Constant in fighting is what makes OSS better than M$. Constant in fighting creates competition, it stimulates independent thought and new idea's, and it forces you to consistently set the bar higher or your competition is going to knock you out. The lack of this competitive technological drive is probably why Windows has been the same POS for the last 20 years.
The reason why it's a proprietary one that is "the best cross platform one", is because the proprietary OS's refuse to support other filesystems. If windows would support Reiserfs, it'd be a much better option for cross platform than AWFUL ntfs/fat32. But unfortunately M$, for obvious reasons, refuses to do that. Meaning that open source software has to attempt to reverse engineer a crappy file system and use it, instead of having the best filesystem win out for system users of ALL platforms.
You obviously can't read, I said a person who decides exactly what must be done and it gets done, that is NOT the US president by any stretch. Bush can't get anything done. The legislature gets things done, not the president. I could really stop here, since it's obvious you know nothing, but I'll go on.
I'm saying he's a dictator because he has absolute power and control over the military and the press, there is no circular reasoning whatsoever, but again, logic and facts are obviously not your specialty.
Now I'll try to speak slowly since it's clear you have very little political education:
What do you call a man at the top of a government who has no immediate challenge to his power, decides exactly what must be done and it gets done, and has full control of the military? Correct Answer: a dictator.
You're not even challenging that, your entire point is that he was democratically elected (and then with EXTREME naivety you're assuming it wasn't rigged, you need to do some research on how often elections of dictators are rigged).
You act like Dictators are made less dangerous if they're elected by the people, so I'll return to my previous point, Stalin was "elected", the "h-man" whose name I shall not mention was elected, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected. Just because a dictator is "elected" doesn't mean they're not a dictator. And before you go off on a rant about how he's elected and he can lose his power, do a search of all the "elected" military dictators and see how many have given up their power. Seriously, I can't say it enough, you're naive. You need to learn your history before you start spouting on about his great social programs. The best part is that you assume the great social programs supposedly coming out of a country WITHOUT free press, with a DICTATOR, aren't propaganda, but then you assume the criticisms of his reign of terror coming from a country WITH free press, with a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, are propaganda. It's really quite funny.
OK, so basically you can't do research, and that makes it not an important issue? And your idea of research is to look it up on wikipedia? And then you go on to call my reasoning lazy because you don't know what the hell you're talking about? LOL
Where did I say anything about free market, it's the government regulations COMBINED with free market that make the systems of the industrialized world work. The problem is when the government is the only people doing something, and nobody is looking over their shoulder (like the gov't and stock holders do to industrialized countries), then the odds of an awful product are significantly higher. This isn't just rampant speculation, talk to some people who lived in communist Russia and ask them what they thought of the quality of government produced goods -- in fact amongst Russians there are lots and lots of jokes about how everything the government produced fell apart.
It's obvious that you are sold on the fact that the new dictator of Venezuela is a great guy, but don't present it as an educated viewpoint when it CLEARLY isn't. You declare everything that comes out against him as propaganda. I realize you don't understand how free speech works, but in the US the vast majority of our press has a liberal bias (there I typed an extra 5 characters for you, god you whine), and they also do not agree with the current conservative government the vast majority of the time. In fact here in very liberal NYC, on the campus of very liberal Columbia University, he got booed off of his podium because he started telling lies that even the bush-hating liberals found absolutely absurd. But yet, despite the fact that he's an "enemy of an enemy" for the liberal media and the liberal academics, they still wouldn't buy the crap he was selling, because he is clearly grabbing power.
But you can keep lying to yourself, and saying he's just doing good things by suppressing basic rights, stealing land, and enforcing his will militarily upon his people - because he stood up to America, and that's when you decided you like him.
Do some research on a chemical called diethylene glycol, and how it's poisoned several countries in south America as they tried to make their own medicine, opting not to pay for American medicine where we have this thing called "Quality Control". And grammar-master, I use quotes because I'm too lazy to type the html flag for italics, but thanks for the English lesson, another pompous brit (and yes, starting a sentence with a conjunction was put there to annoy you).
Lastly, your comment on how it's a democracy who elected a socialist leader...lol!! Did you know Stalin was elected too? By a landslide! At least according to the results he issued. He also ran a socialist country with elected officials... How naive, this guy is clearly setting himself up to be a socialist dictator, and Europe loves him because he gives a lot of shit to the US.
And by the way, I'll take my healthcare system over the brits any day. I live in and work in NYC, which leads me to work and be friends with several former Londoners, and they all agree as well. Sure the service isn't as good for everyone, but if you have health insurance, it is significantly better than anything socialized medicine offers. And in the long run, cheaper too.
And it lead to thousands of sick and dying people, when they tried to team up to make medicine. Let's hope they actually attempt "quality control" this time, something communism has always been awful at.
Not to be an ass, but you might want to learn some basic chemistry before you go off on a rant about this.
1 unit of carbon weighs 12 times more than 1 unit of hydrogen. I haven't examined this reaction but it almost certainly releases hydrogen by turning single bonded carbons into double bonded carbons (meaning you can only use 1/2 of the hydrogen on the molecule), on top of that, larger molecules mean that you probably have a 2.1-2.5 hydrogens per carbon. The ratio discussed here is about the best you can do, and it's not inefficient a tall. Hydrogen weighs a lot less than Carbon, that's how it works. Gasoline is for the most part C8H18, meaning there are 96kg of carbon for every 18kg of hydrogen. Gasoline doesn't convert at 100% though (and I haven't studied the reaction, though I know it's not amazingly efficient) - so I'd be surprised if the ratio of gasoline was any better than 4kg of hydrogen energy for every 27kg of gasoline.
And to the poster below complaining about "what's the other 23kg!?!?". It's organic material. It's safe. It's like feces, organic material that's been drained of as much of its energy as an inefficient system can do.
It depends what you mean by "human waste"
on
Driving on Starch
·
· Score: 1
If you mean waste as in garbage, then I'm a bit skeptical, because it's not an easy process to convert generic "waste" to fuel. If you have more details on this type of waste input, I'd be curious.
If you mean waste as in feces/urine, then you might need to rethink what you're saying a bit. How many kilocalories a day do most people consume? Maybe 2000-2500? Even if we inefficiently passed 75% of those out, I don't think a car is going to drive too far on 1500 kilocalories of energy - a gallon of gasoline contains about 31,000 kilocalories of energy. You might be able to drive 100 feet. What you suggest is a great idea...for a very limited amount of vehicles. There is no way it could ever be expanded for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know +-2mm seems more than sufficient for almost everything. There are a few things which it might not work perfectly for, but keep in mind even if it was a little off you'd still see a mouse cursor and be able to adjust its error. So I'd say a 5x improvement might be all that's necessary ;)
While your finger sits on a touch sensor (unmoving, relaxing) your eyes act as the mouse curser. You blink to click. Perfect interaction.
But I've been pinging google.com for years and it has never blocked them.
Because we're a capitalist society and every company is going to want a piece of the pie when it comes to ED medicine profits. You're not going to find one big pharma with a bunch of ED pills, once they get one that's making them profits, they'll move on for the most part (until they have to worry about making a better one that they can keep patented when their earlier patents run out).
And there is a TON of blue sky research going on in academia, hell most PhD students (and brilliant professors) spend their time doing this research. Have a look at all the Ab Initio work being done (Friesner and Head-Gordon are a couple good authors to start on), in 20 years we may be able to use high accuracy ab initio calculations on proteins. Tons of blue sky research going on.
Here's a computer problem comparison since that is probably your specialty. There are a MILLION programs out there that can act as calculators, they're very easy programs to write - but there are only a handful of good BLAS libraries out there, those are difficult problems. You'd be called a fool if you suggested that we could make BLAS progress faster by taking the people off developing calculators and put them on BLAS - it's the same as your uneducated assumptions about the medical community.
What's the difference in your analogy? So she's making and distributing CD's instead of stealing them, that still basically constitutes a loss of value of one CD per distributed CD - what the original poster was inferring. You'd have to distribute a lot of CD's to get up to $9250 per song. The original comparison was fine.
I would completely agree with this. Since the inception of emusic my online downloading has gone down significantly, and even more significantly very recently now that Amazon has some major label MP3 downloads.
What the RIAA doesn't understand is that a LOT of people are perfectly willing to pay for the songs, we just don't want to pay for copies of them that we don't have control over. I run Linux on all my computers and my work is a linux shop, DRM'ed music is hardly even an option (not that I would pay for it if I could, I'd get a CD in a second over a DRM'ed piece of crap).
Needs to mod this post up. This is a very good point.
People are missing a pretty huge element in this GPL is DRM thing.
Linux is free. You didn't pay for it, you don't own it. You're allowed to use it - for free - providing you play by their rules.
Music and movies are intellectual content you PAY to own. Once you have actual ownership of it, you should have more fair usage rights. But you can't complain about restrictions on using something that is 100% free - simply don't use it, you didn't pay for it anyway..
Your signature is such an overused stupid argument. Science isn't faith. They key component about science is you can always learn more and attempt to prove your hypothesis. It only takes faith to believe in science if you're too stupid or lazy to verify what you're being told is true. The key component to faith is that you ACCEPT your hypothesis without any proof. Your post is just a lack of understanding in both the scientific method (evolution) and faith.
Ever been to Bloomington? It's a pretty beautiful place. Most of the cities in the US (NYC especially) were built out of Limestone from the surrounding quarries. Beautiful limestone hills, tons of wildlife, lakes, trees, fields, flowers etc.. It also has amazing culture, the #2 music school in the country (behind Juilliard), very good and diverse restaurants, very diverse population. The Dalai Lama's brother actually lives in Bloomington, and the Dalai Lama visits every few years (this year is one of those years). I've lived in the bay area, traveled to most of the lower 48, and currently live in Manhattan - and even with that perspective Bloomington is one of my favorite places I've been. You can continue to hate though if you like....
I used latex for my lab reports. It looks a HELL of a lot better, and the formatting options are significantly nicer. Plus once you get your basics written, it's much easier to create a well formatted document in latex than screwing around with word. If you're smart enough to be performing physics labs above 101, you should be smart enough to learn latex...
At least in the case of ext2, they're not particularly good drivers from what I'm told, and ext2 is a dinosaur FS just as much as fat32 is. Giving users a black box API to attempt to write a file system to work well with an operating system is NOT going to lend itself to good FS development.
Clearly your system and maintenance are above and beyond the average user. The common user does not do that. There's no need to do that on competing file systems. And I know it's spelled "smeagol" you arrogant ass. It was an intentional misspelling 15 years ago knowing that I wanted one name and I didn't want to deal with it being taken on various sites and have to think up multiple names. But I appreciate the fact that you think you're so smart because you can maintain a windows raid array and falsely correct people on LOTR...lol. Nothing makes me laugh more than a windows "guru" bragging about a raid array.
And I understand perfectly well that windows is built off NT now. In fact, that virus infected, featureless, resource hog Windows XP was based off of NT too. Didn't seem to do much for it.
NTFS is also unusably slow after 6 months of heavy usage, and requires regular reformatting. It can have every feature in the world, and if it's horribly slow and degrades very quickly, it's useless. Constant in fighting is what makes OSS better than M$. Constant in fighting creates competition, it stimulates independent thought and new idea's, and it forces you to consistently set the bar higher or your competition is going to knock you out. The lack of this competitive technological drive is probably why Windows has been the same POS for the last 20 years.
The reason why it's a proprietary one that is "the best cross platform one", is because the proprietary OS's refuse to support other filesystems. If windows would support Reiserfs, it'd be a much better option for cross platform than AWFUL ntfs/fat32. But unfortunately M$, for obvious reasons, refuses to do that. Meaning that open source software has to attempt to reverse engineer a crappy file system and use it, instead of having the best filesystem win out for system users of ALL platforms.
Wow, you really know nothing.
You obviously can't read, I said a person who decides exactly what must be done and it gets done, that is NOT the US president by any stretch. Bush can't get anything done. The legislature gets things done, not the president. I could really stop here, since it's obvious you know nothing, but I'll go on.
I'm saying he's a dictator because he has absolute power and control over the military and the press, there is no circular reasoning whatsoever, but again, logic and facts are obviously not your specialty.
Now I'll try to speak slowly since it's clear you have very little political education:
What do you call a man at the top of a government who has no immediate challenge to his power, decides exactly what must be done and it gets done, and has full control of the military? Correct Answer: a dictator.
You're not even challenging that, your entire point is that he was democratically elected (and then with EXTREME naivety you're assuming it wasn't rigged, you need to do some research on how often elections of dictators are rigged).
You act like Dictators are made less dangerous if they're elected by the people, so I'll return to my previous point, Stalin was "elected", the "h-man" whose name I shall not mention was elected, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected. Just because a dictator is "elected" doesn't mean they're not a dictator. And before you go off on a rant about how he's elected and he can lose his power, do a search of all the "elected" military dictators and see how many have given up their power. Seriously, I can't say it enough, you're naive. You need to learn your history before you start spouting on about his great social programs. The best part is that you assume the great social programs supposedly coming out of a country WITHOUT free press, with a DICTATOR, aren't propaganda, but then you assume the criticisms of his reign of terror coming from a country WITH free press, with a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, are propaganda. It's really quite funny.
OK, so basically you can't do research, and that makes it not an important issue? And your idea of research is to look it up on wikipedia? And then you go on to call my reasoning lazy because you don't know what the hell you're talking about? LOL
Where did I say anything about free market, it's the government regulations COMBINED with free market that make the systems of the industrialized world work. The problem is when the government is the only people doing something, and nobody is looking over their shoulder (like the gov't and stock holders do to industrialized countries), then the odds of an awful product are significantly higher. This isn't just rampant speculation, talk to some people who lived in communist Russia and ask them what they thought of the quality of government produced goods -- in fact amongst Russians there are lots and lots of jokes about how everything the government produced fell apart.
It's obvious that you are sold on the fact that the new dictator of Venezuela is a great guy, but don't present it as an educated viewpoint when it CLEARLY isn't. You declare everything that comes out against him as propaganda. I realize you don't understand how free speech works, but in the US the vast majority of our press has a liberal bias (there I typed an extra 5 characters for you, god you whine), and they also do not agree with the current conservative government the vast majority of the time. In fact here in very liberal NYC, on the campus of very liberal Columbia University, he got booed off of his podium because he started telling lies that even the bush-hating liberals found absolutely absurd. But yet, despite the fact that he's an "enemy of an enemy" for the liberal media and the liberal academics, they still wouldn't buy the crap he was selling, because he is clearly grabbing power.
But you can keep lying to yourself, and saying he's just doing good things by suppressing basic rights, stealing land, and enforcing his will militarily upon his people - because he stood up to America, and that's when you decided you like him.
Lastly, your comment on how it's a democracy who elected a socialist leader...lol!! Did you know Stalin was elected too? By a landslide! At least according to the results he issued. He also ran a socialist country with elected officials... How naive, this guy is clearly setting himself up to be a socialist dictator, and Europe loves him because he gives a lot of shit to the US. And by the way, I'll take my healthcare system over the brits any day. I live in and work in NYC, which leads me to work and be friends with several former Londoners, and they all agree as well. Sure the service isn't as good for everyone, but if you have health insurance, it is significantly better than anything socialized medicine offers. And in the long run, cheaper too.
And it lead to thousands of sick and dying people, when they tried to team up to make medicine. Let's hope they actually attempt "quality control" this time, something communism has always been awful at.
1 unit of carbon weighs 12 times more than 1 unit of hydrogen. I haven't examined this reaction but it almost certainly releases hydrogen by turning single bonded carbons into double bonded carbons (meaning you can only use 1/2 of the hydrogen on the molecule), on top of that, larger molecules mean that you probably have a 2.1-2.5 hydrogens per carbon. The ratio discussed here is about the best you can do, and it's not inefficient a tall. Hydrogen weighs a lot less than Carbon, that's how it works. Gasoline is for the most part C8H18, meaning there are 96kg of carbon for every 18kg of hydrogen. Gasoline doesn't convert at 100% though (and I haven't studied the reaction, though I know it's not amazingly efficient) - so I'd be surprised if the ratio of gasoline was any better than 4kg of hydrogen energy for every 27kg of gasoline.
And to the poster below complaining about "what's the other 23kg!?!?". It's organic material. It's safe. It's like feces, organic material that's been drained of as much of its energy as an inefficient system can do.
If you mean waste as in feces/urine, then you might need to rethink what you're saying a bit. How many kilocalories a day do most people consume? Maybe 2000-2500? Even if we inefficiently passed 75% of those out, I don't think a car is going to drive too far on 1500 kilocalories of energy - a gallon of gasoline contains about 31,000 kilocalories of energy. You might be able to drive 100 feet. What you suggest is a great idea...for a very limited amount of vehicles. There is no way it could ever be expanded for everyone.