Crash bugs are frustrating, but nowhere NEAR as scary as a bug that results in an incorrect but plausible computation. If the program crashes, you KNOW it crashed and you know the runs before that didn't crash are OK.
Alleluia friend. The number of times management has suggested I just turn off assertions so a program will not crash is amazing to me. Long discussion ensues - but it only crashes if there is a bug in the code or my understanding of the code....but we don't want it to crash...but do you want it to work correctly????
As is mentioned in many responses, the eMacs are PPC. I supported my daughter's eMac until about 2 years ago; but too many things slowly stopped working, or needed too much memory. PPC G3 means Firefox 3.6 or earlier. That means an older version of Safari. It means no Flash as far as I can tell - I spent almost an hour trying to find a flash installer for PPC recently, including trying to install some from Adobes archive site without success. I am supporting an old PPC G4 iBook for my 5 year old now and probably will for another year or more. But when I gave up the eMac it really was too much of my time to be worth fighting anymore. Newish Wordpress themes require recent browsers, so the software can were out because the websites are using features more recent than are available anymore on the old browsers.
I have an iPad 1. I like it. Bought my wife an iPad 2 and she likes it and I like it a bit more than my 1. I upgraded from a 2001 PowerBook to a 13 inch Air - it is awesome. Not much larger or heavier than the iPad 1 and all the computing I need - anything more is what the servers in the office are for. I just leave it in my bag, which I will not do with the fat ugly Dell work gives out. But if the iPad 3 will work as a nice second screen to the Macbook Air, it will be tempting. For me it will be almost all about how nice the screen looks. I went from an iPhone 1 to a 4 and I could not believe how much nicer it is to read.
As far as them being the biggest offender I was under the assumption that if I posted a video with Alan Parson Project as the background music I am fully allowed to use it under "Fair Use", as long as I'm not making a profit.
I bought a 2TB drive from NewEgg recently and made it my TimeMachine backup drive. After about a week it started unmounting randomly. Of course it had a full backup of everything on my main HD at that point. I was lucky that it mounted long enough for me to wipe the drive before I RMA'd it. I would have eaten the $200 rather than return it with my data on it. And I am thinking I might go to encrypting my backups at this point. But I never sell or give away old drives - I usually put a steal punch through the case and platters and toss the drive.
For a rocket to get into orbit, most common propellents end up requiring 80% or more of the mass of the rocket be propellent. Now, if we had a big cannon we could do it with the energy you are mentioning.
and fundamental physics research would simply awe the likes of Feynman and Dirac if they were around to see it.
If Feynman were around he would be doing fundamental physics. He was actively doing research and teaching 'till the week he died. Look up "Plenty of room at the bottom", or some of his last published papers to see if he would be in awe, or leading the field. I do agree that there will not likely be enough energy to move a large fraction of people off the planet any millenia soon; but look up the population estimates of humans as they left Africa, we only need to send tens to hundreds to start an off planet sustainable population. And that could certainly be done.
...and you can imagine that if there's molten rock inside, it would be pulled (as expected) towards a big nearby gravity well - Earth in this case.
You could imagine that, but from a physical reality point of view you would be quite wrong. Consider the tides of Earths oceans. By your argument the whole ocean would slosh towards the Sun, including on the far side of the Earth. Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Field_tidal.png
I've seen some suggestion that if neither pilot presses the priority switch the inputs are algebraically summed. Do you know? I can not say that in all cases it would be better to have slaved yokes. I am aware of one fatal incident in a sailplane where the best guess is the passanger panicked and overpowered the pilot fighting for the stick. But I have to think it would be better to have some shared feedback between the sticks.
They're just designed to act like a plane with direct hydraulic control even though they aren't.
Sounds like an improvement over the feel of two non-coupled joysticks, where assuming one pilot has a clue he can not even tell what the clueless pilot is doing wrong. I'm not a big metal pilot, but I understand that in a Boeing the yokes are connected so that both pilots have coordinated movement between them; in the Airbus with a side joystick I don't even know if the pilots can see what each other are doing, and further I understand that the pilot to most recently move the stick in the Airbus takes command of the plane. If my understanding is correct, I'll take a Boeing any day.
"Pioneers used to do that sort of thing all the time in the new world"
"
The new world (the Americas) had a lot of advantages that Mars does not:
Breathable atmosphere
Climate suitable for growing stuff
Fertile soil with plants and animals already there
turkeys, cranberries and mashed potato for dinner (and locals to tell the colonists how to cook them)
Trees for making wooden structures out of
fresh water
mineral resources
etc
The Americas also had by some estimates 90 million humans living there already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas - who taught the 'pioneers' about the local flora and fauna - who bred with them and so on. The Americas had humans living here for somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 years - probably much longer, just not in the numbers needed to leave behind obvious signs of habitation.
...these labs don't exist for the pleasure of working there. And nerds clearly still don't have a clue of how they are perceived by the rest of society.
In a real sense they do exist for the pleasure of working there; because the primary societal goals for which the labs were created can only be accomplished by people who are motivated by the pleasure of their work. The motivations of people like Oppenheimer, Feynman, Hasslacher, et al. are not generally money, they are motivated to understand nature, to work with similarly talented people, and to be recognized within that peer group for their work. Acknowledgment outside the peer group is largely unimportant, which means even if they spent the time to consider how they are perceived by the rest of society, they would not especially care. These are not easy people to manage towards goals other than their own, and it takes someone like Oppenheimer who was both in the peer group and an excellent manager to do so. It may also take an existential situation like was faced in WWII.
If Apple is paying market rate, and that includes discount for quantity; or if Apple is investing in the construction of manufacturing capacity in return for first dibs is it anti-trust? Please fill out you argument for it being anti-trust.
I assume you rolled it? I bought an Rx2 for $50 with the bad roof, and an ok frame from my cousin. He'd overheated it and blown a radiator hose, which in turn crushed a rotor housing and caused exhaust to bubble out the radiator. I rebuilt the engine - could just about lift it out of the car bar handed. Drove it for a few thousand miles - could not resist running it up to 10,000 RPM - and wouldn't you know blew a radiator hose. Left the thing in a friend's back yard. He cut it up with a torch. Good times!
I have the McAfee slows me down argument with IT once or twice a year, but it has been easier to move to OS X and Linux than to get McAfee off my Windows machine. What I would like is an effective way to measure the pain. IT always points out that McAfee is only taking 5% or whatever of my CPU - but I know it is I/O bound as it scans every file opened and that is not reflected in CPU use ( can I argue 1-CPU use is the right metric ?). And I suspect it scans the whole file even if the whole file is not read. Opening Eclipse or doing anything with a few hundred Meg of svn files is quite painful.
Anyone know how to capture metrics on the time spent waiting for McAfee to unblock my I/O? I've poked around SysInternals for the right tool, and I've done some Google searches but patching windows FS calls for metrics is not my area of interest. If this was a OS X problem I'd learn enough DTrace to figure it out.
I also occasionally see build script failures where a file or directory can not be deleted, and I suspect McAfee is holding on to it - anyone have proof McAfee is bad for builds?
You might want to check your 2nd law again. A thermoelectric cooler is just one side of a thermoelectric heat pump - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling.
It moves heat from one side of the device to the other, and it takes work to do this, work which ends up depositing more heat into the hot side than is moved from the cold side; so they do generate heat in the unit.
I remember hearing or reading about an idea that involved identifying a leaker by seeding different people with documents that contained juicy, unique phrases to tempt journalists into quoting them directly, thereby identifying the source of the document.
Infocom did similar with review copies of games. Someone was posting their review copy on a BBS. We made custom copies for each reviewer with a modified room description for one of the rooms. It was posted, and that reviewer was caught.
Slashdot Mirror
Crash bugs are frustrating, but nowhere NEAR as scary as a bug that results in an incorrect but plausible computation. If the program crashes, you KNOW it crashed and you know the runs before that didn't crash are OK.
Alleluia friend. The number of times management has suggested I just turn off assertions so a program will not crash is amazing to me. Long discussion ensues - but it only crashes if there is a bug in the code or my understanding of the code....but we don't want it to crash...but do you want it to work correctly????
If it gets you you'd best jump into a pressure chamber, it's you only hope.
As is mentioned in many responses, the eMacs are PPC. I supported my daughter's eMac until about 2 years ago; but too many things slowly stopped working, or needed too much memory. PPC G3 means Firefox 3.6 or earlier. That means an older version of Safari. It means no Flash as far as I can tell - I spent almost an hour trying to find a flash installer for PPC recently, including trying to install some from Adobes archive site without success. I am supporting an old PPC G4 iBook for my 5 year old now and probably will for another year or more. But when I gave up the eMac it really was too much of my time to be worth fighting anymore. Newish Wordpress themes require recent browsers, so the software can were out because the websites are using features more recent than are available anymore on the old browsers.
LOL - thanks! I try not to feed the trolls, but maybe some of them can be helped.
I have an iPad 1. I like it. Bought my wife an iPad 2 and she likes it and I like it a bit more than my 1. I upgraded from a 2001 PowerBook to a 13 inch Air - it is awesome. Not much larger or heavier than the iPad 1 and all the computing I need - anything more is what the servers in the office are for. I just leave it in my bag, which I will not do with the fat ugly Dell work gives out. But if the iPad 3 will work as a nice second screen to the Macbook Air, it will be tempting. For me it will be almost all about how nice the screen looks. I went from an iPhone 1 to a 4 and I could not believe how much nicer it is to read.
Not on any commercial aircraft I'm aware of, and I'd be surprised if it was used on any aircraft at all.
As far as them being the biggest offender I was under the assumption that if I posted a video with Alan Parson Project as the background music I am fully allowed to use it under "Fair Use", as long as I'm not making a profit.
Have a look at : http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use re Fair Use.
I think your described use would not fall under Fair Use.
I bought a 2TB drive from NewEgg recently and made it my TimeMachine backup drive. After about a week it started unmounting randomly. Of course it had a full backup of everything on my main HD at that point. I was lucky that it mounted long enough for me to wipe the drive before I RMA'd it. I would have eaten the $200 rather than return it with my data on it. And I am thinking I might go to encrypting my backups at this point. But I never sell or give away old drives - I usually put a steal punch through the case and platters and toss the drive.
You answered the parents question correctly, but if you have not seen it you should have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation.
For a rocket to get into orbit, most common propellents end up requiring 80% or more of the mass of the rocket be propellent. Now, if we had a big cannon we could do it with the energy you are mentioning.
and fundamental physics research would simply awe the likes of Feynman and Dirac if they were around to see it.
If Feynman were around he would be doing fundamental physics. He was actively doing research and teaching 'till the week he died. Look up "Plenty of room at the bottom", or some of his last published papers to see if he would be in awe, or leading the field.
I do agree that there will not likely be enough energy to move a large fraction of people off the planet any millenia soon; but look up the population estimates of humans as they left Africa, we only need to send tens to hundreds to start an off planet sustainable population. And that could certainly be done.
...and you can imagine that if there's molten rock inside, it would be pulled (as expected) towards a big nearby gravity well - Earth in this case.
You could imagine that, but from a physical reality point of view you would be quite wrong.
Consider the tides of Earths oceans. By your argument the whole ocean would slosh towards the Sun, including on the far side of the Earth. Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Field_tidal.png
I've seen some suggestion that if neither pilot presses the priority switch the inputs are algebraically summed. Do you know? I can not say that in all cases it would be better to have slaved yokes. I am aware of one fatal incident in a sailplane where the best guess is the passanger panicked and overpowered the pilot fighting for the stick. But I have to think it would be better to have some shared feedback between the sticks.
They're just designed to act like a plane with direct hydraulic control even though they aren't.
Sounds like an improvement over the feel of two non-coupled joysticks, where assuming one pilot has a clue he can not even tell what the clueless pilot is doing wrong. I'm not a big metal pilot, but I understand that in a Boeing the yokes are connected so that both pilots have coordinated movement between them; in the Airbus with a side joystick I don't even know if the pilots can see what each other are doing, and further I understand that the pilot to most recently move the stick in the Airbus takes command of the plane. If my understanding is correct, I'll take a Boeing any day.
I recall the story, but not the name. It would be in the Known Space Niven universe. The creature you describe is a Puppeteer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson's_Puppeteers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Known_Space#Invulnerable_Hulls
The story you reference may be Neutron Star.
Are there really that many more cosmic rays en route to Mars than there are where the ISS is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere -- see some of the graphics for scale - ISS is at a few hundred miles.
GP in first sentence says yeast is better than C.elegans. So I say send a beer to Mars, say a nice Belgian Trappist Ale.
"Pioneers used to do that sort of thing all the time in the new world" " The new world (the Americas) had a lot of advantages that Mars does not:
Breathable atmosphere Climate suitable for growing stuff Fertile soil with plants and animals already there turkeys, cranberries and mashed potato for dinner (and locals to tell the colonists how to cook them) Trees for making wooden structures out of fresh water mineral resources etc
The Americas also had by some estimates 90 million humans living there already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas - who taught the 'pioneers' about the local flora and fauna - who bred with them and so on. The Americas had humans living here for somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 years - probably much longer, just not in the numbers needed to leave behind obvious signs of habitation.
...these labs don't exist for the pleasure of working there. And nerds clearly still don't have a clue of how they are perceived by the rest of society.
In a real sense they do exist for the pleasure of working there; because the primary societal goals for which the labs were created can only be accomplished by people who are motivated by the pleasure of their work. The motivations of people like Oppenheimer, Feynman, Hasslacher, et al. are not generally money, they are motivated to understand nature, to work with similarly talented people, and to be recognized within that peer group for their work. Acknowledgment outside the peer group is largely unimportant, which means even if they spent the time to consider how they are perceived by the rest of society, they would not especially care. These are not easy people to manage towards goals other than their own, and it takes someone like Oppenheimer who was both in the peer group and an excellent manager to do so. It may also take an existential situation like was faced in WWII.
If Apple is paying market rate, and that includes discount for quantity; or if Apple is investing in the construction of manufacturing capacity in return for first dibs is it anti-trust? Please fill out you argument for it being anti-trust.
If it was traveling at .1 c it is not in Solar orbit. Solar escape velocity is 0.0020599 c (speed of light in vacuum).
I always wanted to do a 13B engine in a Fiat x1/9
I assume you rolled it? I bought an Rx2 for $50 with the bad roof, and an ok frame from my cousin. He'd overheated it and blown a radiator hose, which in turn crushed a rotor housing and caused exhaust to bubble out the radiator. I rebuilt the engine - could just about lift it out of the car bar handed. Drove it for a few thousand miles - could not resist running it up to 10,000 RPM - and wouldn't you know blew a radiator hose. Left the thing in a friend's back yard. He cut it up with a torch. Good times!
I have the McAfee slows me down argument with IT once or twice a year, but it has been easier to move to OS X and Linux than to get McAfee off my Windows machine. What I would like is an effective way to measure the pain. IT always points out that McAfee is only taking 5% or whatever of my CPU - but I know it is I/O bound as it scans every file opened and that is not reflected in CPU use ( can I argue 1-CPU use is the right metric ?). And I suspect it scans the whole file even if the whole file is not read. Opening Eclipse or doing anything with a few hundred Meg of svn files is quite painful.
Anyone know how to capture metrics on the time spent waiting for McAfee to unblock my I/O? I've poked around SysInternals for the right tool, and I've done some Google searches but patching windows FS calls for metrics is not my area of interest. If this was a OS X problem I'd learn enough DTrace to figure it out.
I also occasionally see build script failures where a file or directory can not be deleted, and I suspect McAfee is holding on to it - anyone have proof McAfee is bad for builds?
Thanks in advance.
You might want to check your 2nd law again. A thermoelectric cooler is just one side of a thermoelectric heat pump - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling. It moves heat from one side of the device to the other, and it takes work to do this, work which ends up depositing more heat into the hot side than is moved from the cold side; so they do generate heat in the unit.
I remember hearing or reading about an idea that involved identifying a leaker by seeding different people with documents that contained juicy, unique phrases to tempt journalists into quoting them directly, thereby identifying the source of the document.
Infocom did similar with review copies of games. Someone was posting their review copy on a BBS. We made custom copies for each reviewer with a modified room description for one of the rooms. It was posted, and that reviewer was caught.