Using OpenOffice was an option that I stated a few months ago. Since I'm in part responsible for the software used on the computers available for students I've talked about that with a few of my colleagues.
Unfortunately, since I'm in the chemistry department we need to do lots of data analysis like linear regressions, determine measurement errors and stuff. At the present day, OpenOffice doesn't have a data analysis system. OO spreadsheet can draw a regression line on the graph, but doesn't give me any other data such as the equation, or regression error. So, it isn't for us possible to use OpenOffice without increasing (too much) the work that as to be done.
So, for now I still have to use MS Office once in a while... But, when OOo starts having the data analysis, I'll have no problem using it... For my personal documents, I already use it...
Is it Office XP? If it is, I'll buy you 40 copies of it. The computers for students on my university department have been waiting for the funds for Microsoft XP for a while... At that price, I'll buy it myself!
But, more seriously, that was something that intrigued me about Munich! If they lowered the price alot, wouldn't the rest of the world see what they were doing to the rest of us? Now we now that at Microsoft, burning cds isn't that expensive anymore...
Re:What I would Actually like to see.
on
Aquarium Modcase
·
· Score: 1
And ammonium is NH3 and it doesn't mean being NH2- H+ together... Things aren't just that way.
It just happens how you say because water naturally dissociates. But it doesn't mean that it always as to be like that. That way, anything composed of hidrogen and other element would decompose and still haven't heard of CH4 -> CH3- + H+
who's got a process that makes it economically feasible to extract the gold from the computers
I won't say this based on my own knowledge, but more as a chemist student guessing.
One way to do it would be burning the computer boards. All what's organic, plastics and stuff, would be tranformed into carbon dioxide and liberated to the atmosphere. The rest could be separated by electrochemistry. You could apply a certain voltage which would deposit gold (and maybe on or another metal) in one pole and the rest of the garbage would be in the other pole. Then, you would lower the temperatura and add a solvent (metallic) for the substances that you didn't want (that wouldn't solve gold) and you'd get the gold, purified. Although it seams it probably isn't. After all, gold as to be separated from rock and maybe some other contaminants when taken from mines. And part of the process is done by electrochemical deposition of gold (which enables obtaining gold in 999,9 parts out of 1000).
The cost/efficiency of the process if (for me unknown), but as computer garbage increases there will be much gold out there. And probably someone's going to profit from it...
Even though diamonds can in fact be shattered, chipped, discolored, or incinerated to ash
Well, if you buy a car, it will probably have one (or more) year warranty and you'll be able to put an insurance on it, but you can still crash it five minutes after you bought it...
You can destroy anything, well not Adamantium, including diamonds, but the point is not submitting a diamond to very extreme conditions. After all, a gold ring thrown into a plasma arc would be melt in a few seconds and people still buy gold.
Diamonds, even if put away in a safe or something aren't really forever. Carbon's most stable form, acording to thermodynamics is graphite. So, in a very very very long time, if maintained at room temperature and 1 atmosphere, a diamond would become simply graphite. So, in a certain matter, a good slogan for a pencil maker would be "Graphite is Forever". Of course if you keep a diamond locked under two hundred atmospheres it would be the most stable form, but you wouldn't be able to use it so...
Re:Back in the day.
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Another interesting point is if most of the value of the computer is now the diamonds that make it up, dumpster diving for old equipment could get even more profitable!
Well, dumpster diving for old computer is very profitable business. Nowadays, the amount of gold used in a computer is "very high". There's more gold in one ton of computer garbage than there is in one ton of gold ore in the best south african gold mines. And, given the fact that south african gold mines, are the mines with more gold per ton, you should get the point...
Ugly as hell...
on
SOHO Is Back
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
They launch the ugliest satellite and they expect it to work... I mean... even it must be horrified by it's own image...
Um, that's not a very good distinction: you need to be clear what meaning of "hacker" you're using. Someone who r00ts my box and types "rm -rf/*" is not an artist, he's a criminal who should have his nuts ripped off
That's why there are hackers... and crackers!
Although people tend not to use the term crackers, it exists and it refers to what you call as a bad hacker.
Changing the size of the hard drive? Isn't 20 GB or 40GB enough?
Aren't you ever getting home again, to change some musics? Are you gonna listen them all? Admit it, with a 20 GB hard drive, will put every mp3 you have there, to show your friends. And even the ones you don't like.
20 GB is far more than you'll need. You don't like music that much do you... Come on, admit it!
We will log IP addresses of anyone who visits this site
So, I'm not a mp3 player owner. But since I visited the site you'll still prosecute me? And why's that? Because I can read? In my country I still have the right to red you know. As far as I know there aren't forbiden books or words here.
So, go ahead and prosecute me. I'll prosecute you for invading my privacy.
I was not talking about my personal opinion. My personal opinion is that Disney should let everyone do what they wanted with Mickey Mouse. As you said, Disney has had its share of profiting.
But my opinion is not here at stake. If I were in favour of not having any copyright on any subject it wouldn't make a difference here, would it?
I was trying to take Disneys point of view. I don't make any money any time someone uses Mickey. I'm not in any way associated to Disney. But Disney is (really?)! They are the ones who benefit with it, and it's they who benefit with the longer copyright not me.
For me personally it doesn't make sense to have copyright last more than 50 years. I'd probably even say a smaller value. I'd like to see what others would do with my invention, while not having to hope for life after life to see it. I'd like to see how successful others where on using my stuff. But that's me, not talking in a "money only" point of view.
Today Disney won't probably use Mickey Mouse for anything else. So, what they can do with it is get more money. And, as they are a company, money is a big part of the equation. And that was basically the point of view I tried to focus.
Other point of view that I wanted to make and that I might have forgot was the fact that although globally Hollywood might benefit with the expiracy of copyright, individually, a certain company (the former copyright owner) might lose a lot of money. And that's what drives this all. It's not Hollywood that's being stupid. This equation isn't only about Hollywood.
Some used the example of Mickey Mouse. So I'll use it too.
There is a difference between Hollywood and a certain company. If the rights on Mickey Mouse expire I don't see what Disney gains in general with this. Since the company that makes the film doesn't have to pay anything to Disney for using it's toy, Disney won't benefit from it.
Of course, the sooner Mickey Mouse can be used, the sooner the second company could profit from it. But, they might think (or know) that keeping the rights for a lot more years will give them more money with the films they made, rather than what they'd get from using others productions.
You might also say that the use of a already worldly known character would make a film easier to sell to viewers, but since the film wouldn't be from Disney, who would be running to the theatres to see it just because of Mickey (it could even be a porn movie, not that you would like your kids to see that, would you?).
You can even add that Diskey could launch a parallel commercial campaign around the original Mickey. But, would Disney be interested in being associated to a XXX movie. Don't think so. So, in this case Disney itself wouldn't want to be in any way related to the film. Or in a case that the film is a serious piece of shit.
Of course who made the film, could generate more profit than the one it would generate from an unknown character. But the risk to the (former) copyright holder would be tremendous and possibly not worthy of the gain it would have.
So, there are, in my opinion, far more reasons to prefer an extension of copyright rather than a expiracy of it.
Since the baloon is so fragile I don't think it would be possible (in this case) to lift such a weight. And, don't forget, that at a lower altitude, the baloon isn't totally expanded, so it isn't pushing stuff up as much as it can at a higher altitude.
But in theory that can be done. But, is it cost effective?? Really don't know. Besides, since you apparently need very good weather (that could be solved with a more resistant baloon) I think you wouldn't want to wait for a launch until you had good weather. Spacecrafts (those sent in interplanetary missions) depend a lot on a "window of oportunity". If you don't launch it in that window of time, the planet will be to far to be reached (mostly a matter of money).
Actually, helium as benefits when used under very low temperatures. Although not getting to such low temperatures, the boiling point of hidrogen is higher than of helium, because hidrogen is a two atom molecule and helium is a monoatomic gas. So, if going to a very low temperatures (aparently not the case, but I'm not sure), helium would still be a gas while hidrogen would be a liquid, which wouldn't help in a floating process.
Slashdot Mirror
Using OpenOffice was an option that I stated a few months ago. Since I'm in part responsible for the software used on the computers available for students I've talked about that with a few of my colleagues.
Unfortunately, since I'm in the chemistry department we need to do lots of data analysis like linear regressions, determine measurement errors and stuff. At the present day, OpenOffice doesn't have a data analysis system. OO spreadsheet can draw a regression line on the graph, but doesn't give me any other data such as the equation, or regression error. So, it isn't for us possible to use OpenOffice without increasing (too much) the work that as to be done.
So, for now I still have to use MS Office once in a while... But, when OOo starts having the data analysis, I'll have no problem using it... For my personal documents, I already use it...
Is it Office XP? If it is, I'll buy you 40 copies of it. The computers for students on my university department have been waiting for the funds for Microsoft XP for a while... At that price, I'll buy it myself!
But, more seriously, that was something that intrigued me about Munich! If they lowered the price alot, wouldn't the rest of the world see what they were doing to the rest of us? Now we now that at Microsoft, burning cds isn't that expensive anymore...
And ammonium is NH3 and it doesn't mean being NH2- H+ together... Things aren't just that way.
It just happens how you say because water naturally dissociates. But it doesn't mean that it always as to be like that. That way, anything composed of hidrogen and other element would decompose and still haven't heard of CH4 -> CH3- + H+
who's got a process that makes it economically feasible to extract the gold from the computers
I won't say this based on my own knowledge, but more as a chemist student guessing.
One way to do it would be burning the computer boards. All what's organic, plastics and stuff, would be tranformed into carbon dioxide and liberated to the atmosphere. The rest could be separated by electrochemistry. You could apply a certain voltage which would deposit gold (and maybe on or another metal) in one pole and the rest of the garbage would be in the other pole. Then, you would lower the temperatura and add a solvent (metallic) for the substances that you didn't want (that wouldn't solve gold) and you'd get the gold, purified. Although it seams it probably isn't. After all, gold as to be separated from rock and maybe some other contaminants when taken from mines. And part of the process is done by electrochemical deposition of gold (which enables obtaining gold in 999,9 parts out of 1000).
The cost/efficiency of the process if (for me unknown), but as computer garbage increases there will be much gold out there. And probably someone's going to profit from it...
Even though diamonds can in fact be shattered, chipped, discolored, or incinerated to ash
Well, if you buy a car, it will probably have one (or more) year warranty and you'll be able to put an insurance on it, but you can still crash it five minutes after you bought it...
You can destroy anything, well not Adamantium, including diamonds, but the point is not submitting a diamond to very extreme conditions. After all, a gold ring thrown into a plasma arc would be melt in a few seconds and people still buy gold.
Diamonds, even if put away in a safe or something aren't really forever. Carbon's most stable form, acording to thermodynamics is graphite. So, in a very very very long time, if maintained at room temperature and 1 atmosphere, a diamond would become simply graphite. So, in a certain matter, a good slogan for a pencil maker would be "Graphite is Forever". Of course if you keep a diamond locked under two hundred atmospheres it would be the most stable form, but you wouldn't be able to use it so...
Another interesting point is if most of the value of the computer is now the diamonds that make it up, dumpster diving for old equipment could get even more profitable!
Well, dumpster diving for old computer is very profitable business. Nowadays, the amount of gold used in a computer is "very high". There's more gold in one ton of computer garbage than there is in one ton of gold ore in the best south african gold mines. And, given the fact that south african gold mines, are the mines with more gold per ton, you should get the point...
They launch the ugliest satellite and they expect it to work... I mean... even it must be horrified by it's own image...
One of them says it won't work. The other one says it will work!
I'm certain on of the is correct!!! Wanna bet?
That's why there are hackers... and crackers!
Although people tend not to use the term crackers, it exists and it refers to what you call as a bad hacker.
Aren't you ever getting home again, to change some musics? Are you gonna listen them all? Admit it, with a 20 GB hard drive, will put every mp3 you have there, to show your friends. And even the ones you don't like.
20 GB is far more than you'll need. You don't like music that much do you... Come on, admit it!
So, I'm not a mp3 player owner. But since I visited the site you'll still prosecute me? And why's that? Because I can read? In my country I still have the right to red you know. As far as I know there aren't forbiden books or words here.
So, go ahead and prosecute me. I'll prosecute you for invading my privacy.
But my opinion is not here at stake. If I were in favour of not having any copyright on any subject it wouldn't make a difference here, would it?
I was trying to take Disneys point of view. I don't make any money any time someone uses Mickey. I'm not in any way associated to Disney. But Disney is (really?)! They are the ones who benefit with it, and it's they who benefit with the longer copyright not me.
For me personally it doesn't make sense to have copyright last more than 50 years. I'd probably even say a smaller value. I'd like to see what others would do with my invention, while not having to hope for life after life to see it. I'd like to see how successful others where on using my stuff. But that's me, not talking in a "money only" point of view.
Today Disney won't probably use Mickey Mouse for anything else. So, what they can do with it is get more money. And, as they are a company, money is a big part of the equation. And that was basically the point of view I tried to focus.
Other point of view that I wanted to make and that I might have forgot was the fact that although globally Hollywood might benefit with the expiracy of copyright, individually, a certain company (the former copyright owner) might lose a lot of money. And that's what drives this all. It's not Hollywood that's being stupid. This equation isn't only about Hollywood.
There is a difference between Hollywood and a certain company. If the rights on Mickey Mouse expire I don't see what Disney gains in general with this. Since the company that makes the film doesn't have to pay anything to Disney for using it's toy, Disney won't benefit from it.
Of course, the sooner Mickey Mouse can be used, the sooner the second company could profit from it. But, they might think (or know) that keeping the rights for a lot more years will give them more money with the films they made, rather than what they'd get from using others productions.
You might also say that the use of a already worldly known character would make a film easier to sell to viewers, but since the film wouldn't be from Disney, who would be running to the theatres to see it just because of Mickey (it could even be a porn movie, not that you would like your kids to see that, would you?).
You can even add that Diskey could launch a parallel commercial campaign around the original Mickey. But, would Disney be interested in being associated to a XXX movie. Don't think so. So, in this case Disney itself wouldn't want to be in any way related to the film. Or in a case that the film is a serious piece of shit.
Of course who made the film, could generate more profit than the one it would generate from an unknown character. But the risk to the (former) copyright holder would be tremendous and possibly not worthy of the gain it would have.
So, there are, in my opinion, far more reasons to prefer an extension of copyright rather than a expiracy of it.
But in theory that can be done. But, is it cost effective?? Really don't know. Besides, since you apparently need very good weather (that could be solved with a more resistant baloon) I think you wouldn't want to wait for a launch until you had good weather. Spacecrafts (those sent in interplanetary missions) depend a lot on a "window of oportunity". If you don't launch it in that window of time, the planet will be to far to be reached (mostly a matter of money).
Actually, helium as benefits when used under very low temperatures. Although not getting to such low temperatures, the boiling point of hidrogen is higher than of helium, because hidrogen is a two atom molecule and helium is a monoatomic gas. So, if going to a very low temperatures (aparently not the case, but I'm not sure), helium would still be a gas while hidrogen would be a liquid, which wouldn't help in a floating process.