Growing plants for fuel is far, far more destructive and less efficient than just turning the solar energy directly to electricity and operating off of that.
Sorry. Those numbers do NOT include energy costs of producing solar cells. Most people have become so good at externalizing the real cost of production that they simply gloss over this bullshit all the time
It costs more energy to create a finished solar cell than it will ever produce over it's service life, and I don't see this innovation is going to take a big dent out of that.
Couldn't find a better source for the energy cost of production:
Let me know when your panel exceeds 768KWh of output... thats similar to a number I saw reported many years ago, and seems to be reasonable break even point, but I don't know if that number includes ALL energy costs for producing and delivering a panel to service.
A fairly simple estimation would favor the panel. It would be a very fine 3' x 5' solar panel that could produce that amount of energy in 25 years. Likely it wouldn't produce that much energy in 35 years.
Without knowing the values of whatever tables they have set up for the day/hour/minute your trades could get smacked pretty hard before figuring it out.
wanna bet that part of that 32MB is the config files from the production environment?
Is this thread now speculating that Aleynikov may have installed a back door into GS production servers via the software he maintained that allowed someone outside of GS to manipulate the trade processing? Is this why GS trades for the last couple of weeks were removed from the NYSE programmed trading reports?
There seems to be a lot more going on here than a simple white-collar burglary.
Gee when the world economies crash for good, global warming floods out the costal cities of the world, and we are all contemplating a MadMax existence, the few and wealthy will be glad they invested in a get away... station wagon.... >_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta future...
"But yeah, I'm glad that GeoHot did what he did b/c the DevTeam was starting to go prima donna. Competition is good."
Good for you today, but what the DevTeam was trying to do is make sure it would be as painful as possible for Apple to plug the hole(s) that the DevTeam is exploiting. If a jailbreak is offered too soon after a X.0 release Apple is encourage to release a quick patch to lock the phone back down.
This GeoHot clown is the one who's grandstanding. By not applying a wise discipline to the timing of his release, GeoHot has increased the risk that Apple will break his hack in 3.1 and potentially force the DevTeam and all the other teams back to square 1. In later dot-releases Apple cannot risk breaking Apps to fix these issues. Any exploit NOT played during the 3.0, 3.1 has a much better chance of remaining viable until the next major release.
This whole jailbreak process is a lot like playing a poker game, where the exploits are high-value plays. The DevTeam seems to understand that, and desires to make their 'plays' as 'profitable' in this context as possible. GeoHot and others are squandering irreplaceable hacks to get attention, and thus risk fucking over all of those that might want to jailbreak on 3.X versions of their equipment.
While ultimately there's no way to prevent these assshats from doing this. Maybe giving them a ration of shit every time they do it would help.
If anything it's AT&T and T-Mobile and Verizon that risk DOJ action. It's likely that Apple never wanted to have AT&T be the Exclusive Provider of iPhone connectivity. It REDUCES Apple's potential market, and they knew it.
However, if Apple didn't bend over to one of the carriers they would be sitting on the sidelines without anyone taking them seriously. In the US, if a carrier doesn't bless the shiny new phone you just built.... you don't get any market share.
Add to that, the restrictions on the iPhone and other phones (none of them are truly "open") have more to do with protecting the carriers from a new generation of phone Phreakers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking (this has happened before)
A skilled end user with direct access to the baseband chipset in a phone can do all kinds of things on the network that carriers do not want to support and such activities would put their networks, and their customers at risk from various types of fraud and malicious activity.
Apple in examining their options for getting into the market with their 'iPod with a Phone' knew they were going to have to bend over for one of the carriers AND that the carriers would require that Apple made all possible attempts to secure the phone against jailbreaking. Apple appears to have turned this constraint into a win by piggybacking the AppStore on the constraints that were handed down to them by AT&T. I'm speculating here, but it seems likely that Apple went with AT&T for one of a few reasons: 1. least restrictive deal they could negotiate as a newbie in the phone space, to get their foot in the door. 2. Possibly AT&T was the only carrier that didn't laugh them out of the building. 3. When Apple came calling AT&T was losing market share and heading for becoming irrelevant in the mobile space. AT&T needs iPhone a lot more than Apple needs AT&T.
It's interesting to note that DOJ's interest in the mobile space is not focused on the phone manufacturers, it's focused on the carriers. It's the carriers that control who gets access to the mobile phone market. It seems likely that since the carriers already have to negotiate connectively between their networks that there is some level of collusion built into those relationships. These issues are more than likely what has put so much pressure on phone manufacturers to secure their platform, and restrict user choice.
Apple coming from the iPod model did desire a closed market for their equipment, but how is this any different than what the game console manufacturers have done ever since the Atari 2600 was released? Attempts to break those closed systems with anti-trust FAILED largely because the game console manufacturers were able to show that they were not in a position to have a monopoly, were not extending their market beyond their core business, and could show significant benefit to their customers by restricting who could develop code for their platform.
The majority are men. The majority of these men are more comfortable with machines than people, let alone women.
I'd say it's pretty clear from this thread that the majority have little experience with empathy, let alone sympathy.
This anecdotal story of a woman being abused by pornographers sounds like it might have happened. If there is any basis in fact that this did happen then she should be encourage to contact the police regarding the matter. IANAL, but this sounds like like a variation of date rape.
It has been argued here by some very insensitive clods that this woman acted foolishly and gets what she deserves.
I'd like to put out for your cloddish consideration a thought experiment:
Let's say you actually get out of your mother's basement for a night on the town... you laugh.... bear with me for a moment. You go out and take your trusty laptop to a old-school coffee shop or a tavern or whatever roost suits your tastes and meet a nice girl.... your laughing again.... You talk for a bit and seem to be getting along.... and you find that she's single, and you both have enough in common that you finally decide to ask her for her phone number..... so you do.
And then suddenly.... there's a not so subtle shift in her demeanor and with a bear minimum of pleasantries she's gone. AND SHE DIDN"T GIVE YOU HER PHONE NUMBER.
Why? Because the odds are that she or a close girl-friend of her's has been raped, it was never reported, and she now has issues trusting men she meets casually in public. It doesn't matter what the specific scenario was in her case( or her girl-friend's), that kind of fear paints all men with the same brush. It makes it far less likely that any random single girl you meet in public is going to give you enough information to follow up with her. The reason has nothing to do with how charming you might be (now I'm laughing ) or anything about you specifically. She might even be quite interested in you. *Ahem*.....
In an environment where 4 out of 5 women have either been raped(I'm using the broadest definition for rape here) or know someone who has, this nice girl's fear is going to check her initial impulse to trust you on any level beyond a casual convo in a public space.
There's a lot more harm done by this combination of fear and remembered pain, and shame. It impacts the good guys because an otherwise attractive an interesting potential date is likely to have a big scary monster hiding under her bed. Trust me on this: you do not want to meet that monster./soapbox
For this target usage, someone (either you or the compiler) may need to perform extensive low-level optimizations (in addition to the high level design and choice of algorithms), and it therefore helps if an off-the-shelf compiler is available that can do this, and does not rely on the code generator having to be hand-optimized for the hardware architecture you're targeting.
Even with this extension to the GCC there is a huge amount of work upfront creating a xGCC for a new platform. While I welcome the improvement, it's not really much of a value add when you consider:
1. Declaring the programming model 2. Declaring the Instruction set and pipeline timing 3. Recoding the atomic gcode operations in the new instruction set 4. writing and testing custom -params, pragmas and machine specific keywords 5. Rewriting the ctrio to give your core a sane machine state on boot. 6. Hand adjusting the clib and stdlib calls and headers to deal with hardware dependancies and idiosyncrasies specific to the bare metal. 7. testing basic compiler function, and lib function 8. Getting the compiler to pass the gcc testsuite.
and finally the last step: tuning the optimizer
Optimizing the code generator is the low-hanging fruit in the process of targeting GCC. It's still a grueling, boring and thankless process even if you are just updating an existing target for a new platform.
IT seems pretty clear the water we have today didn't come from the type of comets we see NOW. However, I don't see how it says anything about what sources of water ice were like shortly before or after the sun spooled up it's furnace, and gradually blew the remnant dust to the edge of the solar system. Why couldn't the proto-Earth cloud have captured large volumes of water ice before the Sun fired up?
As for the Nitrogen. That the isotope ratios in the comets and on the Earth agree, means to me that they had a common source, and have experienced similar environments since their formation. I do think an earlier notion that IRC from high school is probably debunked. It seems unlikely that atmospheric nitrogen was cooked off nitrogen rich compounds during the formation of the earth's crust, because the high temps involved in such a cook off would change the isotope ratios. Is there any reason that N2, or gaseous N-compounds would not have been present during early formation?
Seems to me that going after the LVDS stream to the display panel would be a much easier method of a good rip that cannot be easily prevented. Capturing the audio is trivial. It's only a matter of time before these hardware hacks are implemented and kits are provided to mod 1080p panels to spit out a convenient signal to either record or dynamically re-encode.
Eventually HDCP will get hacked.
To paraphrase an old movie quote: "The tighter Sony's grip, the more the system will slip through their fingers."
On the quality issue:
Sony lost the VTR wars because Beta did not bring enough improvement in quality to overcome the VHS Consortium's low-cost solution. Sony has a long history of being head of the pack on creating new formats and then finding that the market just is not willing to go there in the long run because superior quality alone does not trump affordability, choice, and enhanced functionality. VHS to DVD was a no-brainer for the consumer. DVD to BD... not so much.
On voting with dollars:
I personally do not support the media on their IP war. I refuse to purchase their products, and if eventually that means I have NO access, so be it. It's not entertaining any more.
The media companies have made the value proposition untenable as far as I am concerned. I have simply taken my dollars to entertainment formats that do not have such thorny issues. Should there come a time that there is a must watch movie, the secondary market avoids giving the IP wars any of my money to fuel their folly.
The only thing that will stop this senseless war is to take the money out of it. Don't buy it, avoid using it, even on the secondary market. Eventually they will sell us exactly what we we want. We just will need to be clear about what that is, and refuse to compromise.
If enough people can apply a little discipline to their entertainment funds, this IP war can be won very quickly.
If 50% of the market were to participate in a boycott the media companies would probably capitulate in less than a year.
BD can support unencrypted media as easily as encrypted media. Watermark it if you want to chase down criminal bootlegging. (commercial infringement) I don't mind having my copies serialized and traceable to me if that will help put this piracy nonsense to rest. However, the encryption bullshit must stop.
For those trying to visualize a gaming future were we have access to ST:TNG style holodeck technology I would remind you that the Star Trek world is a Military Industrial Complex that pretty much took over after a world-war had already decimated world populations and democratic governments. JJ Abram's retooling of the genesis story for the ST Universe kinda points out that if you don't sign on with Star Fleet you really don't have much opportunity to do Great Thingsâ and likely no access to holodeck technology since it's primary use is for military training for both Red Shirts, and Gold Shirts. That it sometimes is depicted as being used for recreation means a lot less shore leave is required for the crew on extended missions.
More on topic. I don't buy the video game as trigger for violence in children, but on the other hand I have witnessed children acting out violent scenes from movies that IMO they should not have been exposed to. I do think that kids understand that this acting is not real, but their desire to make the play realistic can lead to very dangerous interactions because children (= 11 yo) tend to have an incomplete understanding of risks and consequences associated with rough play.
Columbine and similar tragedies appear to have far more to do with toxic social environments in our school system, perpetrated by school staff as well as peers, and family. When these issues are resolved to the point where these social systems are not a primary source of self-destructive behavior in children, then maybe we can re-examine the media related issues with a lot more confidence that correlations are being attributed correctly.
"I'm not one to throw out the word "impossible" very quickly, since people who have used that word have been proven wrong so many times in the past. However, I read an argument back in...Jr. High?...that claimed that a truly rotational structure on a biological organism was at the very least highly improbable. There aren't biological structures that can rotate infinitely, because biological mechanisms require plumbing (blood, etc.) and muscle attach points on both halves of the rotating structure. "
I beg to differ. Mother Nature figured this one out billions of years ago with the Flagellum motor.
"Nope. As you can see, the wings flap horizontally, which means it is a completely different concept, from what birds do."
You obviously have never taken a really close look at a slow motion video of a hummingbird doing the stationkeeping thing. The NAV is mimicking a simplification of the hummingbird's vertical stationkeeping fight mode.
Head, Tail and back are in a vertical orientation, (like a person standing) wings flapping in a 'sculling' motion to direct thrust downward. The wing shape is used more like a propeller blade in this mode than a lifting wing.
If you tread water, while swimming using arm-sculling, your arms are doing a slow motion version of roughly the same motions, with corrections, and for the same reasons, to maintain balance and position. Take particular note of how the hands are used as blades and tilted to direct force down against the water. Our arm geometry is somewhat different so we don't orient the hand portion or our 'wing' vertically, and lacking feathers we rotate the thumb down to generate lift on the return stroke, rather than up and out as the hummingbird does.
The only difference with the NAV is that it's wing geometry is not as complex as a hummingbird so the system cannot switch to the more efficient horizontal orientation for cruising flight, the mode most birds use commonly. Hummingbirds use this more typical flight mode when they are not hovering.
I have witnessed some types of sparrows kind of manage the vertical flight mode, but their body's are not balanced correctly to make it very stable IMO. Consequently, they must use a lot more energy to stabilize the maneuver. This reduces their ability to hover to a matter of ten seconds or so before fatigue sets in.
Larger birds cannot mange the vertical flight mode at all. They simply can't move their wings fast enough to generate stable raw lift when their bodies are oriented vertically. The closest they can get is a cupped wing geometry used for VTOL maneuvers, and this too uses a lot of energy and is not stable enough for hovering.
One other variation I have seen is in small hawks where they seem to induce a low-speed stall and use small wing movements at the "wrist joint" to hold position for a few moments before committing to an attack dive. This is not a stable flight mode. After a few seconds they must either resume forward motion and normal flight, to mitigate the effects of the stall, or begin their attack dive.
This gross hypothesis that some how the installed base affects malware creation on a particular platform is fundamentally flawed.
From MacOS V4.x through V9.x there were many thousands of active viruses and trojans developed for the platform, and it's market share was significantly LESS than MacOS X's market share today!
What changed? Pre- OS X versions were inherently, wide frakin open. There was virtually no security. In fact it was common practice for game software to gather system information at run time, catalog all resources it wanted to use, and then stomp on the OS and take over it's resources. This was trivially easy to do. It was so easy to exploit pre-OS X Macs that many application developers would modify the OS resources in the system folder and other applications behind the user's back, which caused truly heinous conflicts.
Now we have a situation where OS X has been in the market place for almost as long as pre- OS X versions and still there is not a single wild exploit reported....
User sophistication doesn't wash either. Mac end users are, if anything, LESS sophisticated than typical windows users.
There is simply no credible evidence that MacOS X is more secure due to it's minority market status. However there is plenty of historical evidence that Pre-OS X Macs had a comparable number of wild exploits that were equally as disruptive and contagious, as the exploits on Windows based systems.
While my argument does not prove that OS X is more secure, in light of the history of the platform it offers considerable circumstantial evidence that it might be.
You might get cheeky and point out that 'smells' come from the olfactory sense organs in her nasal passages. The odor she is perceiving is indeed from a wind event./pedantic
Mars has had some distinct disadvantageous events in it's history.
1)No large satellite creating tidal forces means there is no means of keeping the core hot for 4 bln years. Tidal friction is not enough to melt the core in the earth's case, but it does help keep it from cooling. Some of the moons of Jupiter experience such powerful tidal stress that it likely has created enough heat to keep their cores hot even when our moon, which doesn't have a very dense core is largely a dead cold chunk of rock.
2) Mars shows evidence of a possible collision with a large planetoid that disrupted Mar's core, and thus it's EM field, and most likely ripped a large chunk of it's native atmosphere away. Solar wind depleted the rest of the atmosphere over time. Without a large EM field to deflect the solar wind, the atmosphere gradually gets "sand blasted" off the planet.
----
addressing the rest of your comment about geothermal "cooling off"
Yes, over thousands of years these fields will tend to cool a little bit. What you fail to account for is that these thermal sources are HUGE. By comparison, the amount of heat being extracted by these power plants is very small.... kind of like spitting on coals in a campfire....
Drawing on a previous comment about drive re-use...
I can assure you a degaussed ATA compatible drive will never store data again, unless the manufacturer put it through QA again. Once the servo tracks are lost thats it. Game over.
It's not like the old SCSI days where the controller formatted the drive from scratch when you sent the FORMAT(char sector_interleave) command to the drive, which wrote the servo tracks to the drive.
In many cases, just swapping drive controllers works just fine for data recovery.. Haven't tried that with a password-locked drive. But it stands to reason if the hashed password is stored in flash rather than on the platters then swapping the controller would be a potentially viable attack.
Apple charges $29 for their OS upgrade, but the Mac user who's getting that cheap upgrade paid 50% more up front for the computer that he bought from Apple.
Utter bullshit. Apple hardware prices have typically been less than 1:1, generation over generation. The notable exception is the high end towers and servers, where the prices are very volatile from generation to generation.
I have built high-end PCs and purchased midrange macs.... I get WAY more bang for my buck out of the Macs than the PCs.
Slashdot Mirror
Growing plants for fuel is far, far more destructive and less efficient than just turning the solar energy directly to electricity and operating off of that.
Sorry. Those numbers do NOT include energy costs of producing solar cells. Most people have become so good at externalizing the real cost of production that they simply gloss over this bullshit all the time
It costs more energy to create a finished solar cell than it will ever produce over it's service life, and I don't see this innovation is going to take a big dent out of that.
Couldn't find a better source for the energy cost of production:
http://www.genersys-solar.com/carbon-savings/carbon_footprint_solar-panel_manufacture.asp
Let me know when your panel exceeds 768KWh of output... thats similar to a number I saw reported many years ago, and seems to be reasonable break even point, but I don't know if that number includes ALL energy costs for producing and delivering a panel to service.
A fairly simple estimation would favor the panel. It would be a very fine 3' x 5' solar panel that could produce that amount of energy in 25 years. Likely it wouldn't produce that much energy in 35 years.
Without knowing the values of whatever tables they have set up for the day/hour/minute your trades could get smacked pretty hard before figuring it out.
wanna bet that part of that 32MB is the config files from the production environment?
Is this thread now speculating that Aleynikov may have installed a back door into GS production servers via the software he maintained that allowed someone outside of GS to manipulate the trade processing? Is this why GS trades for the last couple of weeks were removed from the NYSE programmed trading reports?
There seems to be a lot more going on here than a simple white-collar burglary.
Gee when the world economies crash for good, global warming floods out the costal cities of the world, and we are all contemplating a MadMax existence, the few and wealthy will be glad they invested in a get away... station wagon.... >_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta future...
"But yeah, I'm glad that GeoHot did what he did b/c the DevTeam was starting to go prima donna. Competition is good."
Good for you today, but what the DevTeam was trying to do is make sure it would be as painful as possible for Apple to plug the hole(s) that the DevTeam is exploiting. If a jailbreak is offered too soon after a X.0 release Apple is encourage to release a quick patch to lock the phone back down.
This GeoHot clown is the one who's grandstanding. By not applying a wise discipline to the timing of his release, GeoHot has increased the risk that Apple will break his hack in 3.1 and potentially force the DevTeam and all the other teams back to square 1. In later dot-releases Apple cannot risk breaking Apps to fix these issues. Any exploit NOT played during the 3.0, 3.1 has a much better chance of remaining viable until the next major release.
This whole jailbreak process is a lot like playing a poker game, where the exploits are high-value plays. The DevTeam seems to understand that, and desires to make their 'plays' as 'profitable' in this context as possible. GeoHot and others are squandering irreplaceable hacks to get attention, and thus risk fucking over all of those that might want to jailbreak on 3.X versions of their equipment.
While ultimately there's no way to prevent these assshats from doing this. Maybe giving them a ration of shit every time they do it would help.
I'll start:
Geohat is a grandstanding idiot not a hero!
If anything it's AT&T and T-Mobile and Verizon that risk DOJ action. It's likely that Apple never wanted to have AT&T be the Exclusive Provider of iPhone connectivity. It REDUCES Apple's potential market, and they knew it.
However, if Apple didn't bend over to one of the carriers they would be sitting on the sidelines without anyone taking them seriously. In the US, if a carrier doesn't bless the shiny new phone you just built.... you don't get any market share.
Add to that, the restrictions on the iPhone and other phones (none of them are truly "open") have more to do with protecting the carriers from a new generation of phone Phreakers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking (this has happened before)
A skilled end user with direct access to the baseband chipset in a phone can do all kinds of things on the network that carriers do not want to support and such activities would put their networks, and their customers at risk from various types of fraud and malicious activity.
Apple in examining their options for getting into the market with their 'iPod with a Phone' knew they were going to have to bend over for one of the carriers AND that the carriers would require that Apple made all possible attempts to secure the phone against jailbreaking. Apple appears to have turned this constraint into a win by piggybacking the AppStore on the constraints that were handed down to them by AT&T. I'm speculating here, but it seems likely that Apple went with AT&T for one of a few reasons:
1. least restrictive deal they could negotiate as a newbie in the phone space, to get their foot in the door.
2. Possibly AT&T was the only carrier that didn't laugh them out of the building.
3. When Apple came calling AT&T was losing market share and heading for becoming irrelevant in the mobile space. AT&T needs iPhone a lot more than Apple needs AT&T.
It's interesting to note that DOJ's interest in the mobile space is not focused on the phone manufacturers, it's focused on the carriers. It's the carriers that control who gets access to the mobile phone market. It seems likely that since the carriers already have to negotiate connectively between their networks that there is some level of collusion built into those relationships. These issues are more than likely what has put so much pressure on phone manufacturers to secure their platform, and restrict user choice.
Apple coming from the iPod model did desire a closed market for their equipment, but how is this any different than what the game console manufacturers have done ever since the Atari 2600 was released? Attempts to break those closed systems with anti-trust FAILED largely because the game console manufacturers were able to show that they were not in a position to have a monopoly, were not extending their market beyond their core business, and could show significant benefit to their customers by restricting who could develop code for their platform.
What do you expect from the /. crowd?
The majority are men.
The majority of these men are more comfortable with machines than people, let alone women.
I'd say it's pretty clear from this thread that the majority have little experience with empathy, let alone sympathy.
This anecdotal story of a woman being abused by pornographers sounds like it might have happened. If there is any basis in fact that this did happen then she should be encourage to contact the police regarding the matter. IANAL, but this sounds like like a variation of date rape.
It has been argued here by some very insensitive clods that this woman acted foolishly and gets what she deserves.
I'd like to put out for your cloddish consideration a thought experiment:
Let's say you actually get out of your mother's basement for a night on the town... you laugh.... bear with me for a moment.
You go out and take your trusty laptop to a old-school coffee shop or a tavern or whatever roost suits your tastes and meet a nice girl.... your laughing again....
You talk for a bit and seem to be getting along.... and you find that she's single, and you both have enough in common that you finally decide to ask her for her phone number..... so you do.
And then suddenly.... there's a not so subtle shift in her demeanor and with a bear minimum of pleasantries she's gone. AND SHE DIDN"T GIVE YOU HER PHONE NUMBER.
Why? Because the odds are that she or a close girl-friend of her's has been raped, it was never reported, and she now has issues trusting men she meets casually in public. It doesn't matter what the specific scenario was in her case( or her girl-friend's), that kind of fear paints all men with the same brush. It makes it far less likely that any random single girl you meet in public is going to give you enough information to follow up with her. The reason has nothing to do with how charming you might be (now I'm laughing ) or anything about you specifically. She might even be quite interested in you. *Ahem*.....
In an environment where 4 out of 5 women have either been raped(I'm using the broadest definition for rape here) or know someone who has, this nice girl's fear is going to check her initial impulse to trust you on any level beyond a casual convo in a public space.
There's a lot more harm done by this combination of fear and remembered pain, and shame. It impacts the good guys because an otherwise attractive an interesting potential date is likely to have a big scary monster hiding under her bed. Trust me on this: you do not want to meet that monster. /soapbox
For this target usage, someone (either you or the compiler) may need to perform extensive low-level optimizations (in addition to the high level design and choice of algorithms), and it therefore helps if an off-the-shelf compiler is available that can do this, and does not rely on the code generator having to be hand-optimized for the hardware architecture you're targeting.
Even with this extension to the GCC there is a huge amount of work upfront creating a xGCC for a new platform. While I welcome the improvement, it's not really much of a value add when you consider:
1. Declaring the programming model
2. Declaring the Instruction set and pipeline timing
3. Recoding the atomic gcode operations in the new instruction set
4. writing and testing custom -params, pragmas and machine specific keywords
5. Rewriting the ctrio to give your core a sane machine state on boot.
6. Hand adjusting the clib and stdlib calls and headers to deal with hardware dependancies and idiosyncrasies specific to the bare metal.
7. testing basic compiler function, and lib function
8. Getting the compiler to pass the gcc testsuite.
and finally the last step:
tuning the optimizer
Optimizing the code generator is the low-hanging fruit in the process of targeting GCC. It's still a grueling, boring and thankless process even if you are just updating an existing target for a new platform.
That's why embedded compilers include ways to disable specific optimizations that break this type of code.
Declaring a variable 'volatile' tells the compiler not to assume that it knows what value the variable had last, thus disabling said optimizations.
This happens most often in embedded situations for ISRs and code that reads hardware registers.
Probably is an MS employee.... and in this day and age, a wise crack like that would get a body fired.
I can't tread water, you insensitive clod!
You must be Bob.
IANAAP/AB:
IT seems pretty clear the water we have today didn't come from the type of comets we see NOW. However, I don't see how it says anything about what sources of water ice were like shortly before or after the sun spooled up it's furnace, and gradually blew the remnant dust to the edge of the solar system. Why couldn't the proto-Earth cloud have captured large volumes of water ice before the Sun fired up?
As for the Nitrogen. That the isotope ratios in the comets and on the Earth agree, means to me that they had a common source, and have experienced similar environments since their formation. I do think an earlier notion that IRC from high school is probably debunked. It seems unlikely that atmospheric nitrogen was cooked off nitrogen rich compounds during the formation of the earth's crust, because the high temps involved in such a cook off would change the isotope ratios. Is there any reason that N2, or gaseous N-compounds would not have been present during early formation?
Seems to me that going after the LVDS stream to the display panel would be a much easier method of a good rip that cannot be easily prevented. Capturing the audio is trivial. It's only a matter of time before these hardware hacks are implemented and kits are provided to mod 1080p panels to spit out a convenient signal to either record or dynamically re-encode.
Eventually HDCP will get hacked.
To paraphrase an old movie quote: "The tighter Sony's grip, the more the system will slip through their fingers."
On the quality issue:
Sony lost the VTR wars because Beta did not bring enough improvement in quality to overcome the VHS Consortium's low-cost solution. Sony has a long history of being head of the pack on creating new formats and then finding that the market just is not willing to go there in the long run because superior quality alone does not trump affordability, choice, and enhanced functionality. VHS to DVD was a no-brainer for the consumer.
DVD to BD... not so much.
On voting with dollars:
I personally do not support the media on their IP war. I refuse to purchase their products, and if eventually that means I have NO access, so be it. It's not entertaining any more.
The media companies have made the value proposition untenable as far as I am concerned. I have simply taken my dollars to entertainment formats that do not have such thorny issues. Should there come a time that there is a must watch movie, the secondary market avoids giving the IP wars any of my money to fuel their folly.
The only thing that will stop this senseless war is to take the money out of it. Don't buy it, avoid using it, even on the secondary market. Eventually they will sell us exactly what we we want. We just will need to be clear about what that is, and refuse to compromise.
If enough people can apply a little discipline to their entertainment funds, this IP war can be won very quickly.
If 50% of the market were to participate in a boycott the media companies would probably capitulate in less than a year.
BD can support unencrypted media as easily as encrypted media.
Watermark it if you want to chase down criminal bootlegging. (commercial infringement) I don't mind having my copies serialized and traceable to me if that will help put this piracy nonsense to rest. However, the encryption bullshit must stop.
For those trying to visualize a gaming future were we have access to ST:TNG style holodeck technology I would remind you that the Star Trek world is a Military Industrial Complex that pretty much took over after a world-war had already decimated world populations and democratic governments. JJ Abram's retooling of the genesis story for the ST Universe kinda points out that if you don't sign on with Star Fleet you really don't have much opportunity to do Great Thingsâ and likely no access to holodeck technology since it's primary use is for military training for both Red Shirts, and Gold Shirts. That it sometimes is depicted as being used for recreation means a lot less shore leave is required for the crew on extended missions.
More on topic. I don't buy the video game as trigger for violence in children, but on the other hand I have witnessed children acting out violent scenes from movies that IMO they should not have been exposed to. I do think that kids understand that this acting is not real, but their desire to make the play realistic can lead to very dangerous interactions because children (= 11 yo) tend to have an incomplete understanding of risks and consequences associated with rough play.
Columbine and similar tragedies appear to have far more to do with toxic social environments in our school system, perpetrated by school staff as well as peers, and family. When these issues are resolved to the point where these social systems are not a primary source of self-destructive behavior in children, then maybe we can re-examine the media related issues with a lot more confidence that correlations are being attributed correctly.
"I'm not one to throw out the word "impossible" very quickly, since people who have used that word have been proven wrong so many times in the past. However, I read an argument back in...Jr. High?...that claimed that a truly rotational structure on a biological organism was at the very least highly improbable. There aren't biological structures that can rotate infinitely, because biological mechanisms require plumbing (blood, etc.) and muscle attach points on both halves of the rotating structure. "
I beg to differ. Mother Nature figured this one out billions of years ago with the Flagellum motor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum
"Nope. As you can see, the wings flap horizontally, which means it is a completely different concept, from what birds do."
You obviously have never taken a really close look at a slow motion video of a hummingbird doing the stationkeeping thing.
The NAV is mimicking a simplification of the hummingbird's vertical stationkeeping fight mode.
Head, Tail and back are in a vertical orientation, (like a person standing) wings flapping in a 'sculling' motion to direct thrust downward. The wing shape is used more like a propeller blade in this mode than a lifting wing.
If you tread water, while swimming using arm-sculling, your arms are doing a slow motion version of roughly the same motions, with corrections, and for the same reasons, to maintain balance and position. Take particular note of how the hands are used as blades and tilted to direct force down against the water.
Our arm geometry is somewhat different so we don't orient the hand portion or our 'wing' vertically, and lacking feathers we rotate the thumb down to generate lift on the return stroke, rather than up and out as the hummingbird does.
The only difference with the NAV is that it's wing geometry is not as complex as a hummingbird so the system cannot switch to the more efficient horizontal orientation for cruising flight, the mode most birds use commonly. Hummingbirds use this more typical flight mode when they are not hovering.
I have witnessed some types of sparrows kind of manage the vertical flight mode, but their body's are not balanced correctly to make it very stable IMO. Consequently, they must use a lot more energy to stabilize the maneuver. This reduces their ability to hover to a matter of ten seconds or so before fatigue sets in.
Larger birds cannot mange the vertical flight mode at all. They simply can't move their wings fast enough to generate stable raw lift when their bodies are oriented vertically. The closest they can get is a cupped wing geometry used for VTOL maneuvers, and this too uses a lot of energy and is not stable enough for hovering.
One other variation I have seen is in small hawks where they seem to induce a low-speed stall and use small wing movements at the "wrist joint" to hold position for a few moments before committing to an attack dive. This is not a stable flight mode. After a few seconds they must either resume forward motion and normal flight, to mitigate the effects of the stall, or begin their attack dive.
This gross hypothesis that some how the installed base affects malware creation on a particular platform is fundamentally flawed.
From MacOS V4.x through V9.x there were many thousands of active viruses and trojans developed for the platform, and it's market share was significantly LESS than MacOS X's market share today!
What changed? Pre- OS X versions were inherently, wide frakin open. There was virtually no security. In fact it was common practice for game software to gather system information at run time, catalog all resources it wanted to use, and then stomp on the OS and take over it's resources. This was trivially easy to do.
It was so easy to exploit pre-OS X Macs that many application developers would modify the OS resources in the system folder and other applications behind the user's back, which caused truly heinous conflicts.
Now we have a situation where OS X has been in the market place for almost as long as pre- OS X versions and still there is not a single wild exploit reported....
User sophistication doesn't wash either. Mac end users are, if anything, LESS sophisticated than typical windows users.
There is simply no credible evidence that MacOS X is more secure due to it's minority market status. However there is plenty of historical evidence that Pre-OS X Macs had a comparable number of wild exploits that were equally as disruptive and contagious, as the exploits on Windows based systems.
While my argument does not prove that OS X is more secure, in light of the history of the platform it offers considerable circumstantial evidence that it might be.
You might get cheeky and point out that 'smells' come from the olfactory sense organs in her nasal passages. The odor she is perceiving is indeed from a wind event. /pedantic
Mars has had some distinct disadvantageous events in it's history.
1)No large satellite creating tidal forces means there is no means of keeping the core hot for 4 bln years. Tidal friction is not enough to melt the core in the earth's case, but it does help keep it from cooling. Some of the moons of Jupiter experience such powerful tidal stress that it likely has created enough heat to keep their cores hot even when our moon, which doesn't have a very dense core is largely a dead cold chunk of rock.
2) Mars shows evidence of a possible collision with a large planetoid that disrupted Mar's core, and thus it's EM field, and most likely ripped a large chunk of it's native atmosphere away. Solar wind depleted the rest of the atmosphere over time. Without a large EM field to deflect the solar wind, the atmosphere gradually gets "sand blasted" off the planet.
----
addressing the rest of your comment about geothermal "cooling off"
Yes, over thousands of years these fields will tend to cool a little bit. What you fail to account for is that these thermal sources are HUGE. By comparison, the amount of heat being extracted by these power plants is very small.... kind of like spitting on coals in a campfire....
wow it came from a 5 digit ID it must be gospel....
ffft
Drawing on a previous comment about drive re-use...
I can assure you a degaussed ATA compatible drive will never store data again, unless the manufacturer put it through QA again. Once the servo tracks are lost thats it. Game over.
It's not like the old SCSI days where the controller formatted the drive from scratch when you sent the FORMAT(char sector_interleave) command to the drive, which wrote the servo tracks to the drive.
In many cases, just swapping drive controllers works just fine for data recovery.. Haven't tried that with a password-locked drive. But it stands to reason if the hashed password is stored in flash rather than on the platters then swapping the controller would be a potentially viable attack.
Heat drive to 350C, and hold the temp for 30 minutes. There will be no magnetic information readable from that drive.... or what's left of it....
no hammers, no metal-shredder to jamb..... just a fairly low cost electric, tub-furnace, with a temp controller.
or people who have Macs and want to run Windows under Boot Camp.
No we buy second hand, DOA PCs for $10 and junk them for the windoze license.
Apple charges $29 for their OS upgrade, but the Mac user who's getting that cheap upgrade paid 50% more up front for the computer that he bought from Apple.
Utter bullshit. Apple hardware prices have typically been less than 1:1, generation over generation. The notable exception is the high end towers and servers, where the prices are very volatile from generation to generation.
I have built high-end PCs and purchased midrange macs.... I get WAY more bang for my buck out of the Macs than the PCs.