Sadly you're wrong though... while rotary engines aren't as FUEL efficient, they are certainly more horsepower efficient, based on weight to power ratios. The rotary engine in the RX-8 is about the same size as a small 4 cylinder engine, yet it puts out 238 horses. It revs silky smooth up to 9000 RPMs, and has only 3 moving parts.
The fact it drinks gas like a drunk uncle unfortunately, makes it an unrealistic engine for cars today though, hydrogen technology is particularly well achieved thru a rotary engine.
If it weren't for the gas mileage, I'd keep my RX-8 after the lease is up... but I think I'll swap it out for a MX-5 later.
I can see that line starting every conversation in the future of computing. Okay, maybe not EVERY one...
Microsoft's latest release only shows that they are focusing more and more on their.NET framework, the myriad of technologies that make it easier to work and create applications in a Windows environment. With the next iteration of Windows Server, we will see this idea enhanced even more.
Unfortunately for us/.ers, we focus on the here and now, of what OSX offers us in terms of ease of use, customization, and 'neato' applications that are included in the bundle of OSX, or free of charge after the fact. And our continual comparisons (and yes, I'm guilty too), only shows us that as nerds -- and this is a suprising thought -- we are interested more in what the look and feel of an OS provide rather than developer functionality.
The line "Microsoft is just doing what Apple did first, in a crappier way" has been said here in some form or another many, many times. And frankly, it's true. The Desktop Search seems to suck, the UI improvements suck, WinFS isn't being released putting it already behind the OSX and *nixes of the world. But developer support... Microsoft enhances and makes easier and easier, and allows ease of deployment with.NET. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but it's right now, the only one that is being offered.
And so we will say that Windows Vista sucks when it's released -- and it probably will. But when, let's say a financial corporation has needs for spreadsheets and already uses Excel, and then they decide to build a custom app.. and find that Microsoft offers them the cheapest and fastest way to build it, in addition to the fact that they are already so widely supported well... you can bet that that company will build their next application using.NET technologies.
So when one of the VPs comes home, and his wife is sick and tired of her piece of shit crashing Windows Vista, he will only get to reply "BUT HONEY!!! -- I can't get a Mac because I need Windows for work!"
And that folks, is the brutal reality. Until Linux and OSX make strides in ease of development in terms of tools and technologies, they will always be a distant second or third compared to crappier, poorly thought out and implemented early, Microsoft technologies.
I don't care about them. They don't have a chance against Windows (and I think OSX is 235253 times better) if they can't supply the population with cheap computers, that they can make available with great supply. They don't have the manufacturing capability to do that yet... if they start specifying hardware, we should be able to build our own, or at least buy a HP Macintosh or something.
I want a Mac, but I'm not paying such a premium to have one. It would just be a toy until it gets more support since none of my work apps would run on it:(
Google is guilty of one thing really, and it's respective to what Microsoft had going for it in the very beginning (ala DOS), in that it has a bunch of clever ideas, and they are implemented well. The thing with Microsoft is that they are now in a position to literally, stop business from functioning in certain parts of the world by implementing changes they deem 'necessary'.
What if Microsoft stopped patching Windows XP? I mean, if there's a vulnerability to Windows, and a BIG one that cripples businesses and users worldwide... Things in this world would HALT. Financial institutions that rely heavily on Excel would not trade. Banks that use SQL Server couldn't make transactions. Of course, this is a very 'doomsday' scenario, but it also can portray the stranglehold Microsoft has on the current business world.
Google on the other hand well... they don't have that kind of power. The resentment in the article comes from different Silicon Valley 'players'. One that I found amusing was the PayPal founder -- and the article later mentioned there may be a PayPal rival in the works. I wonder why he's bitter against Google?
Others complain about the talent Google is 'stealing'. Another post mentioned this but I feel it's worth reiterating -- you pay people what you feel they are worth. Trust me as much as I'd like to work for Google, if they don't pay me more than I make now... I don't think I'd make the move. There is a huge bonus to Google because of the way they treat their employees -- and people worldwide know it, and they want to be a part of the community that ENJOYS their jobs. If you work at a bank as a programmer, where you have to wear a dress shirt and tie, arrive promptly and work extra hours with no appreciation, then the wunder-stories of employees at Google are extremely appealing. If you are mad about not getting that 'talent' that Google is 'stealing' then start changing your work environment. Make employees ENJOY their work, give them freedoms -- it's software development after all! And yea, PAY THEM MORE! I find it amazing that computer programmers who LITERALLY have to study longer and harder than DOCTORS (due to the ever-changing atmosphere of technology, new languages, methods etc), get paid so little so many places in this country. When a computer programmer makes less than a garbageman it's indicative of a larger problem. So fix that problem you complainers -- don't blame Google because they saw past the problem and offered a solution.
I won't say Google is full of angels, but by in large when they express the "Do no evil" philosphy, they are pretty close to following up on it. They release an IM client, and show you, ON THEIR SITE, how to make it work with other 3rd party clients like Trillian or iChat. They release a web based email with a lot of free space, and to no addition revenue, offer free POP3 service for it. They release Google Earth free of advertising. They buy Picasa, update it, and release it better and ad free, even better (imho) than the Photoshop Gallery software or anything else. They release plugins for Internet Explorer, and follow by releasing similar plugins for Firefox. They create AJAX and allow royalty free use of it.
Evil huh? There may be examples of how Google is being 'evil', but at this point it's as laughable as the character with the same name in an Austin Powers movie.
In a time when the Open Source community and movement as a whole are gathering steam, I find it counterproductive for Google to release another competing browser. Firefox being open source, and being pretty darned good, is probably the best opponent to the dominance of IE. Google would be better supporting an ongoing OSS movement like the one Firefox has created in a short span of time. The brainpower of Google and their ability to create applications that are simple yet advanced would lend itself greatly to Firefox.
I'm not hoping to see Firefox replaced by a , nor am I hoping to see IE replaced by it. By leveraging Firefox as a whole, they challenge.NET, they challenge Windows as a 'necessity', and they make room for web applications that work wonderfully using the newly formed AJAX along with other existing technologies, and ones yet to be created.
The "Do No Evil" philosphy would lend itself very well here.
id Software is not owned by anybody. They are INDEPENDANT of other owners. For example, look at Blizzard North (World of Warcraft, etc). They are owned by Vivendi. Epic Entertainment (Unreal Tournament) is owned by Atari.
These are just a few examples. There are very few "INDY" software shops that turn out a decent game, if any game at all.
Then you have to look harder. They weren't 'commercial' in the "I can buy it at EBGames!" sense, but there are games that came out of Q2 (at least that much for sure) that catered to a niche crowd making a neat game that appealed to only a handful of people, and did well at that.
No, id Software doesn't rule because they are open sourcing an outdated graphics engine. There will always be complainers...
They rule because they are open sourcing it to make room for cheap games based on that engine. Carmack and Co know that they don't have to give the engine out, but the people that follow their games religiously, this is kind of 'giving back to the community'. The fact this engine will be open sourced means that it can also be improved upon, free of charge. Indy developers (mind you, id Software is one of the FEW left) get a chance to develop a great game -- albeit one that lacks a bit graphically compared to the D3 and HL2 standards -- to cater to a niche crowd and make a name for themselves.
The sheer price to enter the market for game developing is HUGE. Especially when it costs more money to develop a reliable engine than to buy one from somebody else. Those engines can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and for a small gaming firm, or even a lone developer, that entry fee is too high a price to pay.
id Software should be commended for their efforts to continue supporting open source, make room for solo developers, and help broaden the PC gaming genre as we know it by including those who previously had restraints on their investment into gaming.
And to those of you assholes who continually compare Doom3's engine to the Source engine, and say it sucks... just write an engine that's even half as good as the Q3 engine, and then maybe you can say what sucks, and what doesn't. Doom3 may not have been graphically spectacular in its own instance, but I have a feeling that the engine behind it will do much of what the Q3 engine did -- pave the way for amazing games, and challenge hardware AND software vendors to up their efforts to support the T&L and effects that the D3 engine is spectacular at.
And when I have a few extra bucks to spend, I will buy myself one. But in a workplace unless I'm a graphic designer (and even then, the AMD PCs tend to render faster, ala Star Wars and Sin City), I don't think it's worth it for me in a corporate environment.
What does a corporate environment need? I mean, it's easy to throw numbers out like this, but a Mac cannot achieve a lot of what is needed in corporate environments. Linux on the other hand, can do that -- Red Hat and Novell's SUSE distros have enterprise tools that make managing servers, profiles, software, etc... relatively painless.
Unless Macs are being used as servers as well as desktops, I don't see them doing as good a job as Windows or Linux for their respective 'corporate' environments. I can be wrong of course, but then again.. I'm an MCSE. Go figure.
That Microsoft should stop calling their OS "Windows".
It's a tired name, now synonymous with spyware, virii, headaches, problems, lack of security and worse. If nothing else, they can market it a lot more easily...
"Tired of the same spyware? Scared of losing your identity to some scammer online??! Microsoft now introduces "Longhorn", a revolutionary new operating system that will put an end to all your old concerns."
Granted... there will just be new concerns, but that's not what marketing is about, is it?
So, does a game like America's Army cut the snuff for 'realism' or is it too, sorely lacking? I am not versed in any of this but I do like realistic games:)
That's what the ITER project is all about. We will find out the limits, capabilities, potential waste, dangers, etc... of fusion related technologies and reactors.
France's energy solution is provided almost entirely by nuclear power. The same applies for Japan, whose power is derived nearly at 100% from nuclear energy. To date, there have been no problems, no leaks, no DEATHS (to radioactivity or otherwise) at all.
I give you that France is using alternate energy methods because even while nuclear power is safe, it's not 100% safe, and wind turbines are only to take advantage of areas that would give good returns on that investment, and also please some environmentalists.
Their latest fusion project is not what you think it is -- it's more like a 'tech demo'. This is a reactor that won't produce much power at all, but rather be a testbed for how fusion power can be produced using magnetic fields and stuff... (i'm no nuclear scientist). The fusion reactor (The ITER, you can check BBC for that) is the culmination of the research of many scientists across a range of nations. France was merely chosen as the area to have the reactor tested and built -- it could just as easily have been in the US or anywhere else. Problem is, that the US devoted very little funding because of the handcuffs the oil and gas industries put on our government to partake in any of those activities.
Anyways... time will tell how it progresses. I would rather have the US at the FORE of this development rather than playing catchup in a few years. When the Japanese discover nuclear fusion and then patent the hell out of every design... we will be paying oodles of money to the Japanese to get the rights to build those reactors because by that time, we will have run out of oil. And since we use more oil exponentially every year -- I don't think it's a terribly long way off before the wells run dry. It will happen in my lifetime I think, and that's a scary thought given that nobody in our government wants to take steps to try alternative sources of fueling our nation's need for power -- forget nuclear -- ANYTHING!
We provide 'some' funding for this... it's a curtailed amount because the oil lobby has pushed *not* to invest in nuclear technologies as hell.. it might put them out of business.
If the US was a nuclear based country. It's amazing to me to see how many 'environmentalists' are up in arms about this when in fact, the nuclear reactors are more safe than ever. Slashdot previously reported on this.
Sadly, the words of "Chernobyl" are so well rehearsed by this community that they fail to realize the fact that Chernobyl was running at 130% capacity at the time -- a situtation which does not happen in current reactors due partially to the government regulations, partially to the IAEA, and partially to political pressures. That, and it's fucking common sense for crying out loud! Nuclear scientists and engineers know what they are working with now more than ever.
Modern day physicists if asked honestly, know that the answer lies in atomic energies for our future. It is cheap, clean, produces no greenhouse gases, and leave a microbe of waste as compared to a petroleum based economy. If the US and its politics weren't so oil hungry and to boot -- money hungry, they would be investing in the fusion experiement that is now going to be located in France. Granted it probably won't produce much power to boot... but it would be 100% clean and without any radioactive waste. The implications for potential power are huge, unfortunately most US lobbyists have convinced our government to turn their back on the future and concern themselves with just strengthening a limited fuel.
Sorry for the tirade, but I hate to see talks about biodiesel and ethanol (which is actually really cool, it produces higher octane numbers than gasoline!), and the arguement the author makes without bringing up our energy situtation that makes this point oh, so relevant.
I can tell you why Linux doesn't break thru the boundaries, despite its inherent advantages.
Interoperability. The point could be argued that software is paramount but frankly, I think software can be migrated easily to Linux but given the type of platform it is, it's not in any interest of developers to do so.
Microsoft has a suite of products for its operating system. Active directory isn't a new concept -- it was stolen from Novell and then improved upon. But what AD brings to Windows as an enterprise environment is what Linux cannot. Linux offers stability, speed and security. Windows offers easy to use products that work across an enterprise. Have to patch machines to keep them current, or deploy software? Install SMS server. Want to have groupware so your users can communicate via email or IM? Install Live Communication Server and Exchange. Want to have a portal that instantly recognizes your users with a SSO (single sign on)? Install Sharepoint Portal Server. And thru all of this, Active Directory moniters each application, watches users, and can assign rights and privledges at every level of the enterprise, on the fly. Linux may offer this, but it's separate for each application.
I honestly have nothing bad to say about Linux, and as a hardcore Windows user I welcome the day that Linux breaks thru the divide and becomes a viable choice as an enterprise OS for both a server and desktops. I don't *like* Windows -- I just find it easy to use, administer, update, and find software for. Linux has great advantages and the fact it's open source gives more credence to the fact that bugfixes can be released faster, that software can be well developed, and you also get multiple providers from which to buy, so there's no monopoly -- Red Hat, SUSE, etc... all different flavors of the same thing, and that's great as a consumer with regard to pricing.
A consolodation would go a long way to make the first steps to make a dent into Windows as a whole. If enterprise apps are developed with *LINUX* in mind, and not just SUSE, or Red Hat, then CIOs have options that show "Hey, I can make my whole enterprise Linux!"
Windows remains a necessary evil as a desktop OS. Until Linux offers what Windows does in terms of locking down users, ACROSS THE BOARD, it's not going to show the 'on the fence' CIOs and users that Linux is for them.
That said... I'm going a bit off topic to ask a question -- I'm trying to learn Linux now on my own, any helpful pointers you can link me to? The intention is to work on ENTERPRISE Linux, so if you have any help there, give me a 'baby steps' guide or links, because I'd like to get a job where I could also be a Linux admin, as well as a Windows one. I have a line into AskJeeves for a position, but it won't be available for a few months, and they are a Linux shop... I don't think I'd fare well if I wasn't able to do the work:)
What kinds of speeds can they run with the broadband over power lines? I mean... if it's competitive with cable, fiber, etc... bring it on! It's just laying out availability for poorer areas to have access.
That, and the technology being invested in can also be used across the world in poorer nations that don't have the infrastructure to support the kind coverage that developed nations have.
Too bad the Catholic church doesn't like to tell people to use condoms when they are out trying to convert every poor bastard in Africa. You know... that might save lives or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly you're wrong though... while rotary engines aren't as FUEL efficient, they are certainly more horsepower efficient, based on weight to power ratios. The rotary engine in the RX-8 is about the same size as a small 4 cylinder engine, yet it puts out 238 horses. It revs silky smooth up to 9000 RPMs, and has only 3 moving parts.
The fact it drinks gas like a drunk uncle unfortunately, makes it an unrealistic engine for cars today though, hydrogen technology is particularly well achieved thru a rotary engine.
If it weren't for the gas mileage, I'd keep my RX-8 after the lease is up... but I think I'll swap it out for a MX-5 later.
I can see that line starting every conversation in the future of computing. Okay, maybe not EVERY one...
.NET framework, the myriad of technologies that make it easier to work and create applications in a Windows environment. With the next iteration of Windows Server, we will see this idea enhanced even more.
/.ers, we focus on the here and now, of what OSX offers us in terms of ease of use, customization, and 'neato' applications that are included in the bundle of OSX, or free of charge after the fact. And our continual comparisons (and yes, I'm guilty too), only shows us that as nerds -- and this is a suprising thought -- we are interested more in what the look and feel of an OS provide rather than developer functionality.
.NET. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but it's right now, the only one that is being offered.
.NET technologies.
Microsoft's latest release only shows that they are focusing more and more on their
Unfortunately for us
The line "Microsoft is just doing what Apple did first, in a crappier way" has been said here in some form or another many, many times. And frankly, it's true. The Desktop Search seems to suck, the UI improvements suck, WinFS isn't being released putting it already behind the OSX and *nixes of the world. But developer support... Microsoft enhances and makes easier and easier, and allows ease of deployment with
And so we will say that Windows Vista sucks when it's released -- and it probably will. But when, let's say a financial corporation has needs for spreadsheets and already uses Excel, and then they decide to build a custom app.. and find that Microsoft offers them the cheapest and fastest way to build it, in addition to the fact that they are already so widely supported well... you can bet that that company will build their next application using
So when one of the VPs comes home, and his wife is sick and tired of her piece of shit crashing Windows Vista, he will only get to reply "BUT HONEY!!! -- I can't get a Mac because I need Windows for work!"
And that folks, is the brutal reality. Until Linux and OSX make strides in ease of development in terms of tools and technologies, they will always be a distant second or third compared to crappier, poorly thought out and implemented early, Microsoft technologies.
I don't care about them. They don't have a chance against Windows (and I think OSX is 235253 times better) if they can't supply the population with cheap computers, that they can make available with great supply. They don't have the manufacturing capability to do that yet... if they start specifying hardware, we should be able to build our own, or at least buy a HP Macintosh or something.
:(
I want a Mac, but I'm not paying such a premium to have one. It would just be a toy until it gets more support since none of my work apps would run on it
Google is guilty of one thing really, and it's respective to what Microsoft had going for it in the very beginning (ala DOS), in that it has a bunch of clever ideas, and they are implemented well. The thing with Microsoft is that they are now in a position to literally, stop business from functioning in certain parts of the world by implementing changes they deem 'necessary'.
What if Microsoft stopped patching Windows XP? I mean, if there's a vulnerability to Windows, and a BIG one that cripples businesses and users worldwide... Things in this world would HALT. Financial institutions that rely heavily on Excel would not trade. Banks that use SQL Server couldn't make transactions. Of course, this is a very 'doomsday' scenario, but it also can portray the stranglehold Microsoft has on the current business world.
Google on the other hand well... they don't have that kind of power. The resentment in the article comes from different Silicon Valley 'players'. One that I found amusing was the PayPal founder -- and the article later mentioned there may be a PayPal rival in the works. I wonder why he's bitter against Google?
Others complain about the talent Google is 'stealing'. Another post mentioned this but I feel it's worth reiterating -- you pay people what you feel they are worth. Trust me as much as I'd like to work for Google, if they don't pay me more than I make now... I don't think I'd make the move. There is a huge bonus to Google because of the way they treat their employees -- and people worldwide know it, and they want to be a part of the community that ENJOYS their jobs. If you work at a bank as a programmer, where you have to wear a dress shirt and tie, arrive promptly and work extra hours with no appreciation, then the wunder-stories of employees at Google are extremely appealing. If you are mad about not getting that 'talent' that Google is 'stealing' then start changing your work environment. Make employees ENJOY their work, give them freedoms -- it's software development after all! And yea, PAY THEM MORE! I find it amazing that computer programmers who LITERALLY have to study longer and harder than DOCTORS (due to the ever-changing atmosphere of technology, new languages, methods etc), get paid so little so many places in this country. When a computer programmer makes less than a garbageman it's indicative of a larger problem. So fix that problem you complainers -- don't blame Google because they saw past the problem and offered a solution.
I won't say Google is full of angels, but by in large when they express the "Do no evil" philosphy, they are pretty close to following up on it. They release an IM client, and show you, ON THEIR SITE, how to make it work with other 3rd party clients like Trillian or iChat. They release a web based email with a lot of free space, and to no addition revenue, offer free POP3 service for it. They release Google Earth free of advertising. They buy Picasa, update it, and release it better and ad free, even better (imho) than the Photoshop Gallery software or anything else. They release plugins for Internet Explorer, and follow by releasing similar plugins for Firefox. They create AJAX and allow royalty free use of it.
Evil huh? There may be examples of how Google is being 'evil', but at this point it's as laughable as the character with the same name in an Austin Powers movie.
In a time when the Open Source community and movement as a whole are gathering steam, I find it counterproductive for Google to release another competing browser. Firefox being open source, and being pretty darned good, is probably the best opponent to the dominance of IE. Google would be better supporting an ongoing OSS movement like the one Firefox has created in a short span of time. The brainpower of Google and their ability to create applications that are simple yet advanced would lend itself greatly to Firefox.
.NET, they challenge Windows as a 'necessity', and they make room for web applications that work wonderfully using the newly formed AJAX along with other existing technologies, and ones yet to be created.
I'm not hoping to see Firefox replaced by a , nor am I hoping to see IE replaced by it. By leveraging Firefox as a whole, they challenge
The "Do No Evil" philosphy would lend itself very well here.
id Software is not owned by anybody. They are INDEPENDANT of other owners. For example, look at Blizzard North (World of Warcraft, etc). They are owned by Vivendi. Epic Entertainment (Unreal Tournament) is owned by Atari.
These are just a few examples. There are very few "INDY" software shops that turn out a decent game, if any game at all.
Then you have to look harder. They weren't 'commercial' in the "I can buy it at EBGames!" sense, but there are games that came out of Q2 (at least that much for sure) that catered to a niche crowd making a neat game that appealed to only a handful of people, and did well at that.
No, id Software doesn't rule because they are open sourcing an outdated graphics engine. There will always be complainers...
They rule because they are open sourcing it to make room for cheap games based on that engine. Carmack and Co know that they don't have to give the engine out, but the people that follow their games religiously, this is kind of 'giving back to the community'. The fact this engine will be open sourced means that it can also be improved upon, free of charge. Indy developers (mind you, id Software is one of the FEW left) get a chance to develop a great game -- albeit one that lacks a bit graphically compared to the D3 and HL2 standards -- to cater to a niche crowd and make a name for themselves.
The sheer price to enter the market for game developing is HUGE. Especially when it costs more money to develop a reliable engine than to buy one from somebody else. Those engines can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and for a small gaming firm, or even a lone developer, that entry fee is too high a price to pay.
id Software should be commended for their efforts to continue supporting open source, make room for solo developers, and help broaden the PC gaming genre as we know it by including those who previously had restraints on their investment into gaming.
And to those of you assholes who continually compare Doom3's engine to the Source engine, and say it sucks... just write an engine that's even half as good as the Q3 engine, and then maybe you can say what sucks, and what doesn't. Doom3 may not have been graphically spectacular in its own instance, but I have a feeling that the engine behind it will do much of what the Q3 engine did -- pave the way for amazing games, and challenge hardware AND software vendors to up their efforts to support the T&L and effects that the D3 engine is spectacular at.
And when I have a few extra bucks to spend, I will buy myself one. But in a workplace unless I'm a graphic designer (and even then, the AMD PCs tend to render faster, ala Star Wars and Sin City), I don't think it's worth it for me in a corporate environment.
What does a corporate environment need? I mean, it's easy to throw numbers out like this, but a Mac cannot achieve a lot of what is needed in corporate environments. Linux on the other hand, can do that -- Red Hat and Novell's SUSE distros have enterprise tools that make managing servers, profiles, software, etc... relatively painless.
Unless Macs are being used as servers as well as desktops, I don't see them doing as good a job as Windows or Linux for their respective 'corporate' environments. I can be wrong of course, but then again.. I'm an MCSE. Go figure.
That Microsoft should stop calling their OS "Windows".
It's a tired name, now synonymous with spyware, virii, headaches, problems, lack of security and worse. If nothing else, they can market it a lot more easily...
"Tired of the same spyware? Scared of losing your identity to some scammer online??! Microsoft now introduces "Longhorn", a revolutionary new operating system that will put an end to all your old concerns."
Granted... there will just be new concerns, but that's not what marketing is about, is it?
You can bet every motherboard made for that new socket will be only PCI-E.
So, does a game like America's Army cut the snuff for 'realism' or is it too, sorely lacking? I am not versed in any of this but I do like realistic games :)
That's what the ITER project is all about. We will find out the limits, capabilities, potential waste, dangers, etc... of fusion related technologies and reactors.
France's energy solution is provided almost entirely by nuclear power. The same applies for Japan, whose power is derived nearly at 100% from nuclear energy. To date, there have been no problems, no leaks, no DEATHS (to radioactivity or otherwise) at all.
I give you that France is using alternate energy methods because even while nuclear power is safe, it's not 100% safe, and wind turbines are only to take advantage of areas that would give good returns on that investment, and also please some environmentalists.
Their latest fusion project is not what you think it is -- it's more like a 'tech demo'. This is a reactor that won't produce much power at all, but rather be a testbed for how fusion power can be produced using magnetic fields and stuff... (i'm no nuclear scientist). The fusion reactor (The ITER, you can check BBC for that) is the culmination of the research of many scientists across a range of nations. France was merely chosen as the area to have the reactor tested and built -- it could just as easily have been in the US or anywhere else. Problem is, that the US devoted very little funding because of the handcuffs the oil and gas industries put on our government to partake in any of those activities.
Anyways... time will tell how it progresses. I would rather have the US at the FORE of this development rather than playing catchup in a few years. When the Japanese discover nuclear fusion and then patent the hell out of every design... we will be paying oodles of money to the Japanese to get the rights to build those reactors because by that time, we will have run out of oil. And since we use more oil exponentially every year -- I don't think it's a terribly long way off before the wells run dry. It will happen in my lifetime I think, and that's a scary thought given that nobody in our government wants to take steps to try alternative sources of fueling our nation's need for power -- forget nuclear -- ANYTHING!
Damn politicians....
We provide 'some' funding for this... it's a curtailed amount because the oil lobby has pushed *not* to invest in nuclear technologies as hell.. it might put them out of business.
Too bad it's not available in 'ergonomic' styles :\
I love my MS ergo keyboard.
NT
Sadly, the words of "Chernobyl" are so well rehearsed by this community that they fail to realize the fact that Chernobyl was running at 130% capacity at the time -- a situtation which does not happen in current reactors due partially to the government regulations, partially to the IAEA, and partially to political pressures. That, and it's fucking common sense for crying out loud! Nuclear scientists and engineers know what they are working with now more than ever.
Modern day physicists if asked honestly, know that the answer lies in atomic energies for our future. It is cheap, clean, produces no greenhouse gases, and leave a microbe of waste as compared to a petroleum based economy. If the US and its politics weren't so oil hungry and to boot -- money hungry, they would be investing in the fusion experiement that is now going to be located in France. Granted it probably won't produce much power to boot... but it would be 100% clean and without any radioactive waste. The implications for potential power are huge, unfortunately most US lobbyists have convinced our government to turn their back on the future and concern themselves with just strengthening a limited fuel.
Sorry for the tirade, but I hate to see talks about biodiesel and ethanol (which is actually really cool, it produces higher octane numbers than gasoline!), and the arguement the author makes without bringing up our energy situtation that makes this point oh, so relevant.
I can tell you why Linux doesn't break thru the boundaries, despite its inherent advantages.
:)
Interoperability. The point could be argued that software is paramount but frankly, I think software can be migrated easily to Linux but given the type of platform it is, it's not in any interest of developers to do so.
Microsoft has a suite of products for its operating system. Active directory isn't a new concept -- it was stolen from Novell and then improved upon. But what AD brings to Windows as an enterprise environment is what Linux cannot. Linux offers stability, speed and security. Windows offers easy to use products that work across an enterprise. Have to patch machines to keep them current, or deploy software? Install SMS server. Want to have groupware so your users can communicate via email or IM? Install Live Communication Server and Exchange. Want to have a portal that instantly recognizes your users with a SSO (single sign on)? Install Sharepoint Portal Server. And thru all of this, Active Directory moniters each application, watches users, and can assign rights and privledges at every level of the enterprise, on the fly. Linux may offer this, but it's separate for each application.
I honestly have nothing bad to say about Linux, and as a hardcore Windows user I welcome the day that Linux breaks thru the divide and becomes a viable choice as an enterprise OS for both a server and desktops. I don't *like* Windows -- I just find it easy to use, administer, update, and find software for. Linux has great advantages and the fact it's open source gives more credence to the fact that bugfixes can be released faster, that software can be well developed, and you also get multiple providers from which to buy, so there's no monopoly -- Red Hat, SUSE, etc... all different flavors of the same thing, and that's great as a consumer with regard to pricing.
A consolodation would go a long way to make the first steps to make a dent into Windows as a whole. If enterprise apps are developed with *LINUX* in mind, and not just SUSE, or Red Hat, then CIOs have options that show "Hey, I can make my whole enterprise Linux!"
Windows remains a necessary evil as a desktop OS. Until Linux offers what Windows does in terms of locking down users, ACROSS THE BOARD, it's not going to show the 'on the fence' CIOs and users that Linux is for them.
That said... I'm going a bit off topic to ask a question -- I'm trying to learn Linux now on my own, any helpful pointers you can link me to? The intention is to work on ENTERPRISE Linux, so if you have any help there, give me a 'baby steps' guide or links, because I'd like to get a job where I could also be a Linux admin, as well as a Windows one. I have a line into AskJeeves for a position, but it won't be available for a few months, and they are a Linux shop... I don't think I'd fare well if I wasn't able to do the work
Thanks!
Next time I cut myself, I'm going to rub myself with shrimp.
If it doesn't clot blood... I am sure I will smell lovely as I'm wheeled into the ER.
What kinds of speeds can they run with the broadband over power lines? I mean... if it's competitive with cable, fiber, etc... bring it on! It's just laying out availability for poorer areas to have access.
That, and the technology being invested in can also be used across the world in poorer nations that don't have the infrastructure to support the kind coverage that developed nations have.
Too bad the Catholic church doesn't like to tell people to use condoms when they are out trying to convert every poor bastard in Africa. You know... that might save lives or something.
30 deaths worldwide -- and they have narrowed it down to 'getting more sun'.
Imagine if the brilliant scientists could do something about that pesky 'aids' that kills millions every year in Africa.
Hopefully the superior courts are on the same kick of large corporations taking advantage of their positions to muscle out the little guys.
...
I guess we'll see
Sure they do... but it's because they want to capture an audience.
They can have a purpose in mind, and not be stupid at the same time.