I think C++'s lack of memory management and bad programming has lead to a shitload of buggy software..Net manages that for you, so bad programming is less damaging.
So you're saying the real solution is to burn the radioacive waste, spent fuel rods and cladding etc and send them up a chimney. It works for coal power plants...
Also, comparing the hazzards of the first reactor is hardly usefull, there have been massive leaps in safety and techniology since. An open fireplace isn't as clean or efficient as a coal fired power station either.
Programers love to make assumptions. I hear them regularly from my colleagues (and myself sometimes too).
"This statement will never cause an exception, I wont test for one"
"That function couldnt possible be causing a bug"
"No-one uses this feature, it's redundant"
I'm assuming it's those sort of assumptions that official testing tries to resolve. OK, OK, maybe not with their origonal code, but you'd expect a fix to be a bit more dependable.
The third party fix actually disables some functionality (overrides/blocks a function).
I would assume that Microsoft will try to fix the exploit whilst still maintaining functionality - and that is probably alot harder to design and implement.
That said, puting it in with their other "monthly" releases is poor form.
Whilst they may be below their maximum operating temp, some electical components age badly with heat.
Processors will undergo electromigration much more rapidly, and electrolytic capacitors will dry out. Both will significantly shorten the life of a console.
Have you seen images of submarines where they still cause a bit of a bow wave when slightly submerged? Pushing against the water in front creates a bit of a ripple, and even though the total volume of the water is the same, part of it is at a raised height. Due to gravity, this ripple requires some energy that has to be exerted - just like the bounce in running.
From TFA, the point was that most motion involves: 1) A vertical gravity component (the bounce in running or the lift/glide in flying) 2) A horizontal motion/friction component.
At first glance, swimming only has #2, but they realised that in swimming the fish has to displace some water as it moves. The sides and bottom of the water body are constrained (lake etc), however the top is not, so a slight ripple on the surface is crated. This may be inpercievable as it can be spread out over an entire lake, but is still a real gravity component.
Yep, I completely agree. My ISP (iiNet) does this to a certain extent by blocking a few ports like 25 until you go to their web based toolbox and remove the fierwall.
Uhh, no. Wheels do not transfer energy (primarily), they transfer force. Force times distance (your wheels turning against torque) equals work (energy), so by wheels turning they convert the chemical energy of the fuel into kinetic energy of the car.
The only other significant energy wheels transfer to the ground is a bit of hysteresis and some skidding.
I would say that efficiency in this contect is thrust / fuel consumption rate.
For example, lets say that both engines could get the craft to 20000km/hr. They both use the same mass of propellant, but the new engine gets you up to speed 100 times faster.
I've always wondered why the programmers around my office read so many programming books. It seems strange that people so into technology like hunks of dead tree.
I'm not really a professional programmer but can put together quite a bit of C#, ASP.Net, ASP, VB, Javascript, Perl etc. Forgive me, I'm an Engineer.... Anyway, I'd much rather read online tutorials or MSDN help articles than programming books.
Power doesnt really flow through capacitors.....they just support a charge being moved either side of them. When that moving charge does work like speakers or antennas, then yes, there is power consuption.
MOS transistors have acted like capacitors for ages. There's no power flow in the sense of work done, there is just the regular expense of charging/discharging the gate.
I'm betting that gene's responsible for higher IQ's will die out.
Reasons (with a liberal shaking of salt) 1) Smarter people tend to become more educated and land better jobs 2) People with "better", higher paying jobs will tend to be more career oriented and not so interested in having a family (especially modern women). 3) Poeple who dont have families dont progress their gene's
By comparison, uneducated, poor trailier trash families tend to breed like rabbits.
AFAIK, nanotech was origonally about the construction of componets from the atom and up.
Whilst we may be building small things, it's really still chemistry and lithography that we're tinkering with. Only a few scanning tunnelling microscopes are actually building anything one atom at a time.
Scientifically, a theory is something that lacks an absolute proof, and only has some supporting examples. Eg, all dogs ive seen so far have four legs, so I have a theory that all dogs have four legs.
If something has an absolute proof, then it is fact. Eg, that dog over there has four legs.
If something has a disproof, then it is false. Eg as soon as I see a three legged dog, my origonal theory becomes invalid and I have to modify it.
ID has no proof, so it cant be fact yet. If someone has found a disproof, then it is no longer even a theory, it's just a fairy tale.
Physics would also predict that if a photon hits an electron in an atom's shell, it raises it's energy level and moves it out one orbit in the electron shell. It *could* be quite easy for these hydrinos to return to a regular hydrogen state.
Slashdot Mirror
I think C++'s lack of memory management and bad programming has lead to a shitload of buggy software. .Net manages that for you, so bad programming is less damaging.
Try drinking something made from real (fresh) beans. The difference is like comparing Linux and Windows.
Yes, but if you look on the label of any store bought "distilled" water, you'll find that it's just deionised.
I was under the impression that deionised can still contain impurities, it's just that they are not ionic (eg oils etc).
So you're saying the real solution is to burn the radioacive waste, spent fuel rods and cladding etc and send them up a chimney. It works for coal power plants...
Also, comparing the hazzards of the first reactor is hardly usefull, there have been massive leaps in safety and techniology since. An open fireplace isn't as clean or efficient as a coal fired power station either.
Yes programmers produce code with bugs, yes they do try to correct it until Mr.Manager comes in and tells them they need to ship yesterday.
But... The point is they could be designing/coding in ways that reduce bugs from the start, not spending time later trying to hunt them down.
People have been doing this themselves for a good 6 months - 1 year, maybe even longer.
Comedy? Your post is hilarious.
This idea is quite feasible, and transporting power via subsea cable is common.
Programers love to make assumptions. I hear them regularly from my colleagues (and myself sometimes too).
"This statement will never cause an exception, I wont test for one"
"That function couldnt possible be causing a bug"
"No-one uses this feature, it's redundant"
I'm assuming it's those sort of assumptions that official testing tries to resolve. OK, OK, maybe not with their origonal code, but you'd expect a fix to be a bit more dependable.
The third party fix actually disables some functionality (overrides/blocks a function).
I would assume that Microsoft will try to fix the exploit whilst still maintaining functionality - and that is probably alot harder to design and implement.
That said, puting it in with their other "monthly" releases is poor form.
Whilst they may be below their maximum operating temp, some electical components age badly with heat.
Processors will undergo electromigration much more rapidly, and electrolytic capacitors will dry out. Both will significantly shorten the life of a console.
Have you seen images of submarines where they still cause a bit of a bow wave when slightly submerged? Pushing against the water in front creates a bit of a ripple, and even though the total volume of the water is the same, part of it is at a raised height. Due to gravity, this ripple requires some energy that has to be exerted - just like the bounce in running.
From TFA, the point was that most motion involves:
1) A vertical gravity component (the bounce in running or the lift/glide in flying)
2) A horizontal motion/friction component.
At first glance, swimming only has #2, but they realised that in swimming the fish has to displace some water as it moves. The sides and bottom of the water body are constrained (lake etc), however the top is not, so a slight ripple on the surface is crated. This may be inpercievable as it can be spread out over an entire lake, but is still a real gravity component.
There are spiders (and snakes?) that ball up and roll down hills/sand dunes.
Other than that, I'd imagine that rotary mechanism's are biologically quite difficult.
Yeah I'm sure all those environmentalists are out to ruin the environment.
I dont see any environmentalists picketing outside a fossil fuel power station. I see many tree huggers complain whenever nuclear gets mentioned.
Which is cleaner, realistically? It's the nuclear.
Yep, I completely agree. My ISP (iiNet) does this to a certain extent by blocking a few ports like 25 until you go to their web based toolbox and remove the fierwall.
Uhh, no. Wheels do not transfer energy (primarily), they transfer force. Force times distance (your wheels turning against torque) equals work (energy), so by wheels turning they convert the chemical energy of the fuel into kinetic energy of the car.
The only other significant energy wheels transfer to the ground is a bit of hysteresis and some skidding.
I would say that efficiency in this contect is thrust / fuel consumption rate.
For example, lets say that both engines could get the craft to 20000km/hr. They both use the same mass of propellant, but the new engine gets you up to speed 100 times faster.
I've always wondered why the programmers around my office read so many programming books. It seems strange that people so into technology like hunks of dead tree.
I'm not really a professional programmer but can put together quite a bit of C#, ASP.Net, ASP, VB, Javascript, Perl etc. Forgive me, I'm an Engineer.... Anyway, I'd much rather read online tutorials or MSDN help articles than programming books.
What am I missing?
Power doesnt really flow through capacitors.....they just support a charge being moved either side of them. When that moving charge does work like speakers or antennas, then yes, there is power consuption.
MOS transistors have acted like capacitors for ages. There's no power flow in the sense of work done, there is just the regular expense of charging/discharging the gate.
I'm betting that gene's responsible for higher IQ's will die out.
Reasons (with a liberal shaking of salt)
1) Smarter people tend to become more educated and land better jobs
2) People with "better", higher paying jobs will tend to be more career oriented and not so interested in having a family (especially modern women).
3) Poeple who dont have families dont progress their gene's
By comparison, uneducated, poor trailier trash families tend to breed like rabbits.
PS - all of this is just wild conjecture.
AFAIK, nanotech was origonally about the construction of componets from the atom and up.
Whilst we may be building small things, it's really still chemistry and lithography that we're tinkering with. Only a few scanning tunnelling microscopes are actually building anything one atom at a time.
And past battery technologies....
Lead Acid
Nickel and Cadmium
Lithium
I'd take my chance with fullerines any day - at least you could incinerate them.
Scientifically, a theory is something that lacks an absolute proof, and only has some supporting examples. Eg, all dogs ive seen so far have four legs, so I have a theory that all dogs have four legs.
If something has an absolute proof, then it is fact. Eg, that dog over there has four legs.
If something has a disproof, then it is false. Eg as soon as I see a three legged dog, my origonal theory becomes invalid and I have to modify it.
ID has no proof, so it cant be fact yet. If someone has found a disproof, then it is no longer even a theory, it's just a fairy tale.
Umm...
Spam sending zombies cant spoof IP addresses. The TCP based SMTP connection requires two way communciation that isnt possible with a spoofed address.
A DDOS is different however, you can spew out all sorts of invalid and malicious packets.
Physics would also predict that if a photon hits an electron in an atom's shell, it raises it's energy level and moves it out one orbit in the electron shell. It *could* be quite easy for these hydrinos to return to a regular hydrogen state.