Modern warfare by insurgents is ALREADY past mines, since they don't have an endless amount of money to spend - they already place explosives and use remote detonators when troops come by.
What you've said is not true. I said this to someone else, and at the risk of being modded redundant- BOTH triggers are used in Afghanistan against US troops. Remote detonation falls to the age-old electronic counter measure and it's best defense is a higher power jamer. This is compounded by the fact that the cheapest way to remote detonate is with cellphones, which only operate over a limited & known range of frequencies. Because of this flaw other types of triggers (force/pressure based) are still used (and because for pressure based explosions no enemy has to be physically present ['set it and forget it']). (I work in land mine detection)
I know it was used as an anesthetic at one time, but do they use it for that at all anymore? The only thing I found was: "Cocaine and Phenylephrine Eye Drop Test for Parkinson Disease" http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/8/932-b
? I've left programs running for hours. I guess I've never tried pulling my internet connection during that time. Based on experience, it appears to only check for the license after a certain time has elapsed AND there has been user input. But I havn't been that rigorous about proving it as it has never caused a problem.
I'm going to have to call BS on your last point. I believe you (that you were told this information), just that your professor is either an idiot or a liar. The licensing is done once at start up and then like every hour. That is not enough to "slow down" matlab. I've even run matlab locally while the license server is remote ( 3 down/1 up Mb) internet connection and not noticed a difference.
A plugin gets it into something like firefox. Then, as long as there is a way for a webserver like apache to allow both requests (http or spdy), it shouldn't be that hard because you arn't storing your web pages in (static or dynamic) in a different format so it shouldn't be that much work to add the [apache] module once it is written.
Congrats on your PhD, but i'm glad they didn't ask you this question on your quals. And as this is covered in physics 101, qualification dropping is meaningless. You can't just hand wave and say, oh it would have been heat. Your assumption that angular momentum is only effected by torques is flawed. Yes that is angular momentum 101, but it certainly fails to describe what is accelerating the blades of the windmill. Or will they turn indefinitly too?
You, my new friend, need to contrast your belief in the conservation of angular momentum with your blatant disregard for the conservation of energy. If I store energy (in the form of electricity) made from wind energy (kinetic), I have taken that energy out of the system, because energy cannot be created, nor destroyed (at least on this level).
net energy loss in the neighborhood of 7.59x10^18 joules/year-- about 241GW
This is a power not an energy, but I do get the point.
World Energy Usage: 20 TrillionKWH Maximum Windmill->E efficiency is about 30% so tripple that and get 60 Trillion KWH of energy taken out of the system per year. Relating that to your example system would correspond to a slowing of about.6 ms a year. Ok, while certainly non-zero, that isn't that much of a problem. Prove to me that it won't effect the weather and I'll be much happier. 60*10^12/(241 * 10^9 *365*24/1000) *.022
That fact that you even put it that way shows you don't understand what the laws of conservation say. Wind turbines by definition work by slowing down the wind.
Also, I agree, clearly a few windmills don't pose a thread. But: Annual Energy use in the World is something like 20 Trillion kWH. We would have to cover 1/7 of ALL land in the world to get this.
Nope, because the system has feed back, when you break the system is when there are problems. Producing a little CO2 is not a problem, producing more than the planet can handle w/o changing the pH of the ocean is.
Just like wind, the world isn't covered in windmills, but, if you had enough wind turbines to produce 100% of the earth's energy, then we'd have a problem.
Clearly energy is already being taken out of wind, I'm arguing against pushing wind as a primary power source, not for clear cutting the planet because I 3 wind.
Solarpanels being black only changes the heat if they are replacing previously reflective things. Cities already generate strange weather patterns because of the difference in heating/cooling versus the surrounding area, and you could put solar panels on every roof top in my neighborhood and not change heat signatures because they are already black.
Bah, we shouldn't be using wind for power at all. Solar has more benefits and fewer drawbacks.
Solar can be put in more places than wind, and doesn't fuck up local weather (and potentially global). We have to ask ourselves, where does the energy come from? For Solar it is directly from the sun. For wind, it is much more complex, and much less understood what happens when we pull energy out of that system. We have the Coriolis effect and indirect effects from the sun, and wind drives other things. I don't want deserts expanding because less wind isn't getting moisture to the grasses and trees on the edges of the current ones.
You commented on my aside "just because" twice as if it was even part of the main part of my response. It was not.
I see many of the things added/backported in Linux by Google are already included in other current operating systems.
In the article they talk about how they have slowly gone from one kernel release to another. Some specifics are in TA, but the only thing unsaid that might help is that because the kernel is so complex and development so fast, google can't just keep updating to the next one. It would put undo work on the people maintaining the google_specic_patches. It would put that much more work on their testers because you just never no how changes between version might effect your system until you try it, and even then you can miss something.
I believe your other point/question to be:
What is the relationship between computing efficiency and advertising revenue? How have these practices affected Google's bottom line?
Clearly I don't know, but to defend my supposition that there is a reason Google would spent time*money doing this-
Google tried to return it's entire search page (complete with adds etc) in under X seconds (I think X=1/10 ), and too that aim it can vary a bunch of things. It can throw more computers at the problem, because clearly they use 1 computer to service Y thousand requests for searches+ads. That costs money for cost of computer + maintenance + power-cost*time. (Increasing efficiency decreases this cost). Another thing is algorithm complexity + database lookups. Google must have a fairly sophisticated system of updating it's search results database, returning results from it's add requests. These also have to return in X time which limits the complexity of the algorithm+lookups. If you have more computationally efficient systems, you can do more in the same period of time.
That's just my argument, google might have their own, and if I have not persuaded you by this point, I probably never will and you have your own point of view (which is in short: "it's not worth it"). Then, I would understand if you wouldn't fund the work> but they did, and that's the way it is.
You are clearly not an engineer of scientist. Aside from the fact that some people just like to solve technical problems, I am betting google's logic goes something like this: We have a problem that is basically only costing us $0.01*10,000computers/day. While that seems low, we plan on staying in business a long time, we could pay someone to solve the problem. Then there is that X factor, that if you don't do it, if you stop innovating, your competitors will, and they will get more and you will get less from the pool of money that is out there. In addition to that, the CS guy you paid to solve that is now worth more to your company (if you employed him) because [s]he now has a better understanding of a complex bit of code (the linux kernel) that you rely on heavily.
There are plenty of ground breaking scientific findings that were not obvious. They fall under the category paradigm-shifting findings.
--Evidence that suggested all things accelerate downward equally (neglecting air friction) --Evidence that suggested the world was spherical --Evidence that the earth was not at the center of...well anything --Evidence that suggested time was reletive --Evidence that things are made up of atoms and not Earth,Fire,Water,Air --DNA...
I understand, if that whats he meant if that is implementation specific.
(on the topic of ppc and sparc) Registers, and pointers aside, if 64bit code is even less computationally efficient because of deficiencies in the architecture, then there is almost no point in using it!
Binaries can be made PIE, and on >4gb can be addressed with PAE (though I understand that is an x86 technology). It sounds like sparc and ppc REALLY dropped the ball architecturally if people run 32bit binaries for speed reasons.
If what you said was correct (which it is not), then why would intel/amd stop making 32 bit chips, as they are concerned only with processor efficiencies (and not RAM).
32bit is only more memory efficient than 64bit. It is not computationally so.
Tor started releasing the prologs before the book came out by that time, so I think the extra long prologs (100pgs) for books 9/10/11 were intentionally supposed to be mini-background stories that could be read independent of the main-character story arcs. It was something wet the pallets or perspective readers and appease die hard fans with something to read until the next book came out. Ask me if the book is good in about a month, I read slowly unlike a lot of people I know, and I just bought the book last night (signed!)
Slashdot Mirror
Modern warfare by insurgents is ALREADY past mines, since they don't have an endless amount of money to spend - they already place explosives and use remote detonators when troops come by.
What you've said is not true. I said this to someone else, and at the risk of being modded redundant- BOTH triggers are used in Afghanistan against US troops. Remote detonation falls to the age-old electronic counter measure and it's best defense is a higher power jamer. This is compounded by the fact that the cheapest way to remote detonate is with cellphones, which only operate over a limited & known range of frequencies. Because of this flaw other types of triggers (force/pressure based) are still used (and because for pressure based explosions no enemy has to be physically present ['set it and forget it']).
(I work in land mine detection)
^ certainly the most insightful thing I've read today.
several local eye surgeons who swear by it and endure large amounts of additional paperwork to get the Real Thing
Heh, well THAT 's not surprising! But seriously, thanks for the response; I was just curious.
I know it was used as an anesthetic at one time, but do they use it for that at all anymore?
The only thing I found was: "Cocaine and Phenylephrine Eye Drop Test for Parkinson Disease"
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/8/932-b
? I've left programs running for hours. I guess I've never tried pulling my internet connection during that time. Based on experience, it appears to only check for the license after a certain time has elapsed AND there has been user input. But I havn't been that rigorous about proving it as it has never caused a problem.
I'm going to have to call BS on your last point. I believe you (that you were told this information), just that your professor is either an idiot or a liar. The licensing is done once at start up and then like every hour. That is not enough to "slow down" matlab. I've even run matlab locally while the license server is remote ( 3 down/1 up Mb) internet connection and not noticed a difference.
A plugin gets it into something like firefox. Then, as long as there is a way for a webserver like apache to allow both requests (http or spdy), it shouldn't be that hard because you arn't storing your web pages in (static or dynamic) in a different format so it shouldn't be that much work to add the [apache] module once it is written.
What would that signal even exist? So that law enforcement could break the law by phone and not get caught?
You argument holds true for a bus, but certainly not for a train. The circumstances of train travel are much more controlled, and statistically safer.
Congrats on your PhD, but i'm glad they didn't ask you this question on your quals. And as this is covered in physics 101, qualification dropping is meaningless. You can't just hand wave and say, oh it would have been heat. Your assumption that angular momentum is only effected by torques is flawed. Yes that is angular momentum 101, but it certainly fails to describe what is accelerating the blades of the windmill. Or will they turn indefinitly too?
You, my new friend, need to contrast your belief in the conservation of angular momentum with your blatant disregard for the conservation of energy. If I store energy (in the form of electricity) made from wind energy (kinetic), I have taken that energy out of the system, because energy cannot be created, nor destroyed (at least on this level).
net energy loss in the neighborhood of 7.59x10^18 joules/year-- about 241GW
This is a power not an energy, but I do get the point.
World Energy Usage: 20 TrillionKWH .6 ms a year. .022
Maximum Windmill->E efficiency is about 30% so tripple that and get 60 Trillion KWH of energy taken out of the system per year.
Relating that to your example system would correspond to a slowing of about
Ok, while certainly non-zero, that isn't that much of a problem. Prove to me that it won't effect the weather and I'll be much happier.
60*10^12/(241 * 10^9 *365*24/1000) *
I'll look at your numbers later (which I do appreciate). But the effects of wind turbines on global weather are not imaginary.
That fact that you even put it that way shows you don't understand what the laws of conservation say. Wind turbines by definition work by slowing down the wind.
Also, I agree, clearly a few windmills don't pose a thread. But:
Annual Energy use in the World is something like 20 Trillion kWH. We would have to cover 1/7 of ALL land in the world to get this.
Nope, because the system has feed back, when you break the system is when there are problems. Producing a little CO2 is not a problem, producing more than the planet can handle w/o changing the pH of the ocean is.
Just like wind, the world isn't covered in windmills, but, if you had enough wind turbines to produce 100% of the earth's energy, then we'd have a problem.
Clearly energy is already being taken out of wind, I'm arguing against pushing wind as a primary power source, not for clear cutting the planet because I 3 wind.
Solarpanels being black only changes the heat if they are replacing previously reflective things. Cities already generate strange weather patterns because of the difference in heating/cooling versus the surrounding area, and you could put solar panels on every roof top in my neighborhood and not change heat signatures because they are already black.
Not if the earth begins to spin slower because we are taking energy out of wind.
Bah, we shouldn't be using wind for power at all. Solar has more benefits and fewer drawbacks.
Solar can be put in more places than wind, and doesn't fuck up local weather (and potentially global). We have to ask ourselves, where does the energy come from? For Solar it is directly from the sun. For wind, it is much more complex, and much less understood what happens when we pull energy out of that system. We have the Coriolis effect and indirect effects from the sun, and wind drives other things. I don't want deserts expanding because less wind isn't getting moisture to the grasses and trees on the edges of the current ones.
You commented on my aside "just because" twice as if it was even part of the main part of my response. It was not.
I see many of the things added/backported in Linux by Google are already included in other current operating systems.
In the article they talk about how they have slowly gone from one kernel release to another. Some specifics are in TA, but the only thing unsaid that might help is that because the kernel is so complex and development so fast, google can't just keep updating to the next one. It would put undo work on the people maintaining the google_specic_patches. It would put that much more work on their testers because you just never no how changes between version might effect your system until you try it, and even then you can miss something.
I believe your other point/question to be:
What is the relationship between computing efficiency and advertising revenue?
How have these practices affected Google's bottom line?
Clearly I don't know, but to defend my supposition that there is a reason Google would spent time*money doing this-
Google tried to return it's entire search page (complete with adds etc) in under X seconds (I think X=1/10 ), and too that aim it can vary a bunch of things. It can throw more computers at the problem, because clearly they use 1 computer to service Y thousand requests for searches+ads. That costs money for cost of computer + maintenance + power-cost*time. (Increasing efficiency decreases this cost).
Another thing is algorithm complexity + database lookups. Google must have a fairly sophisticated system of updating it's search results database, returning results from it's add requests. These also have to return in X time which limits the complexity of the algorithm+lookups. If you have more computationally efficient systems, you can do more in the same period of time.
That's just my argument, google might have their own, and if I have not persuaded you by this point, I probably never will and you have your own point of view (which is in short: "it's not worth it"). Then, I would understand if you wouldn't fund the work> but they did, and that's the way it is.
You are clearly not an engineer of scientist. Aside from the fact that some people just like to solve technical problems, I am betting google's logic goes something like this:
We have a problem that is basically only costing us $0.01*10,000computers/day. While that seems low, we plan on staying in business a long time, we could pay someone to solve the problem. Then there is that X factor, that if you don't do it, if you stop innovating, your competitors will, and they will get more and you will get less from the pool of money that is out there. In addition to that, the CS guy you paid to solve that is now worth more to your company (if you employed him) because [s]he now has a better understanding of a complex bit of code (the linux kernel) that you rely on heavily.
There are plenty of ground breaking scientific findings that were not obvious. They fall under the category paradigm-shifting findings.
--Evidence that suggested all things accelerate downward equally (neglecting air friction) ...
--Evidence that suggested the world was spherical
--Evidence that the earth was not at the center of...well anything
--Evidence that suggested time was reletive
--Evidence that things are made up of atoms and not Earth,Fire,Water,Air
--DNA
I understand, if that whats he meant if that is implementation specific.
(on the topic of ppc and sparc) Registers, and pointers aside, if 64bit code is even less computationally efficient because of deficiencies in the architecture, then there is almost no point in using it!
Binaries can be made PIE, and on >4gb can be addressed with PAE (though I understand that is an x86 technology). It sounds like sparc and ppc REALLY dropped the ball architecturally if people run 32bit binaries for speed reasons.
If what you said was correct (which it is not), then why would intel/amd stop making 32 bit chips, as they are concerned only with processor efficiencies (and not RAM).
32bit is only more memory efficient than 64bit. It is not computationally so.
I believe that is what cross compiling is for
Tor started releasing the prologs before the book came out by that time, so I think the extra long prologs (100pgs) for books 9/10/11 were intentionally supposed to be mini-background stories that could be read independent of the main-character story arcs. It was something wet the pallets or perspective readers and appease die hard fans with something to read until the next book came out. Ask me if the book is good in about a month, I read slowly unlike a lot of people I know, and I just bought the book last night (signed!)