Am I the only one who saw the goatse picture on the page about "Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?"? No I'm not trolling, if you're curious you can check out that link (but I suggest that you don't).
What do you expect libraries to do? Give out a load of books to anonymous people with no collateral. That is basically saying anyone can come in and steal whatever books they want.
Anyone that cannot afford the $20 can still go in the library and read the book.
And what bank are you with that the interest on $20 for a few weeks is actually an appreciable amount?
AFAIK it uses true colour satillite images of the landscape. So that mud colour is what your country looks like.
Maybe on your version it does, but this is a satellite image of the UK. OK, so its not all green, but the majority is.
The brown colour was apparently chosen for clarity, as it provides more contrast for the overlay of the graphics. This is necessary because they show cloud just by a shadow on the map (no cloud pictures).
This attitude annoys me off. If it is not sustainable, then it will cause problems eventually. Whether or not this scheme is sustainable in the long term needs investigation, but to just assume "There's only 6 billion of us needing aircon/heating, we can't make a difference. It'll be fine." is just plain reckless.
Previous examples of the attitude you express: whaling, fishing, logging, hunting, burning fossil fuels, and of course, the classic, oil. In case your history is rusty, in all these cases people just assumed the capacity of nature was limitless. Then one day they woke up and realised the world had changed for the worse.
The system would have definite points of extraction, therefore you have to consider local effects. You can't just calculate the energy of the whole ocean and then say, "we are only taking 1%, so it must be OK". If you are taking 1% of all the ocean's energy from 0.1% of its volume you are going to cause serious problems.
To be fair, the science seems perfectly sound (read the last page of the article where the methods are explained). Whether it is actually practical and viable is another matter.
The "limitless energy" claim is pure hype, but just ignore that bit.
As you point out, it is also important to evaluate the long term affects of removing significant amounts of cold water from the oceans (disrupting ocean currents, overall water temp. rises, etc). The drinking water generator would also lower the air humidity, which would cause problems if the project was done on a wide scale.
I am sure this technology has applications in some circumstances (perhaps on oil rigs, remote islands, etc), but it is certainly not the solution to all our energy problems. Done on a large scale it would be unsustainable.
Are they going to do this by stripping out features (Windows Starter Edition style) or making it more efficient?
If the former, then I don't see it being popular for the usual reasons (see any thread on Starter Edition). If the latter, then why don't they just release a new version of Windows XP that runs more efficiently for everyone? It seems stupid that a (presumably) cheaper version of windows would run faster than the full price version.
...that users will try Starter Edition, find out it has all these restrictions and assume that all versions of Windows must suck and just load a free, non-crippled OS (mentioning no names!).
I think they would be wiser to give away this crippled version on the hope that as India's economy develops they will capture some market with the full price Windows XP at later stage.
A genuine question: why doesn't the shuttle have a fuel line so that fuel can be pumped from the ground for the first 30m or so of liftoff? The pipe could then disconnect as the shuttle moved clear of the tower and transfer to its main fuel tank.
I read somewhere (no ref. to hand) that 1/3 of the fuel is used just to clear the tower. Wouldn't it be much more efficient to pump fuel from the tower until the shuttle is at least a few meters off the ground?
You completely missed the point I was making. The only reason they need "managing" is because humans have had such an impact in reducing/encroaching on their habitat. Deer, coyotes and every other species managed to survive millions of years with no intervention from humans. The populations are sustained by their predators and their prey (i.e. plants), in combination with natural selection.
Then you let wind of the real reason for hunting them and indeeed allowing them to live at all - their meat. I'm sure you want great big fat deer that can barely run - much easier to shoot, much more meat per deer, much tastier. Again this a purely human factor. Deer can survive just fine with ticks, worms and their ribs showing. If genuinely isn't enough food, the least effective foragers will probably die. The genetically defective members you refer to are only defective in your point of view. If there was any serious problem with them they will not be able survive and reproduce. Some "defects" could prove beneficial in the long run.
Your last paragraph shows your own ignorance. The only reason those forest fires were a problem are because of man. Large forest fire are perfectly natural when caused by lightning strikes. The forest will regenerate after a large fire pretty quickly and it gives a chance for species to compete for the new land again. There are some species that require forest fires to help them reproduce.
Despite what you may think, I'm not anti-hunting at all. In the real world, I know that animals need to be managed. The point I was making is that the only reason "HUNTING IS 100% NECESSSARY" is because of the uncontrolled expansion of the human population, complete with its own diseases and starvation (see Africa).
Your argument appears contradictory to me. On one hand you are saying the disease is killing lots of them. On the other you are saying the population is getting out of control.
In the short term, the disease (what sort of disease is it by the way?) will help control their population and in the long run, the animals more resistant to it will survive. This means it will act as a stabilising influence on the population over time.
By randomly culling animals you could be wiping out the very animals that are resistant to the disease. Unless anyone is developing a vaccine for the disease (incredibly unlikely unless it affects farming animals), you are best not to intervene [this does assume the animal in question - deer - can reproduce relatively quickly and has a decent population size. Obviously the same practice cannot be used for white rhino for example.]
The top poster also implied it was the destruction of their habititat that was reducing their food supply, not that the population was growing out of control. It would be far better to stop reducing the size of their habitat (but admittedly this is quite an idealistic point of view).
Because of taking over more and more land, cutting down more and more trees the population is dying of starvation and disease. Thinning the population is the HUMANE thing to do.
The most "humane" thing to do would be to stop encroaching on their environment and leave them be.
You must be running 1280x1024 or higher, I'm guessing.
I have the same software versions as you, but it doesn't display correctly at 1024 or lower (I just checked a few resolutions). Even at 1280, the text boxes are centred properly on mine though.
Neither of the ones on eBay are in "mint" condition, which was one of the requirements laid down by Intel.
Those high bidders are going to be pissed when they realise they have shelled out $450+ when the prize has already been claimed. Do they really think Intel will lose it again?
I can just imagine a last-minute solution that aims to keep the suits happy in all companies involved (so that they save face). This compromise could result in a poorly thought out and badly designed standard.
A little later, someone will release another (better) standard and we will be back to square one of having two similar but incompatible standards.
Surely X-Boxes are covered by at least a one year warranty? Couldn't this just be a warranty claim? Or is he going to claim "mental anguish" at the loss of his gaming time in the meantime?
I dislike MS as much as the next Slashdotter, but suing them because his particular X-Box broke seems ridiculous. I suppose people could claim that they have suffered with the loss of their saved games if the HD failed, but that isn't the case with this guy.
Slashdot Mirror
Mirrordot cache
No, you're not the only one. Same goes for the public domain page (NOT work safe).
I guess somebody should have checked the HTML comment posting code a bit more thoroughly.
What do you expect libraries to do? Give out a load of books to anonymous people with no collateral. That is basically saying anyone can come in and steal whatever books they want.
Anyone that cannot afford the $20 can still go in the library and read the book.
And what bank are you with that the interest on $20 for a few weeks is actually an appreciable amount?
Maybe on your version it does, but this is a satellite image of the UK. OK, so its not all green, but the majority is.
The brown colour was apparently chosen for clarity, as it provides more contrast for the overlay of the graphics. This is necessary because they show cloud just by a shadow on the map (no cloud pictures).
COUNTRIES WITH CENTRIFUGE PLANTS: Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, Iran, Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, UK
What does the USA use instead of centrifuge plants then?
Previous examples of the attitude you express: whaling, fishing, logging, hunting, burning fossil fuels, and of course, the classic, oil. In case your history is rusty, in all these cases people just assumed the capacity of nature was limitless. Then one day they woke up and realised the world had changed for the worse.
The system would have definite points of extraction, therefore you have to consider local effects. You can't just calculate the energy of the whole ocean and then say, "we are only taking 1%, so it must be OK". If you are taking 1% of all the ocean's energy from 0.1% of its volume you are going to cause serious problems.
The "limitless energy" claim is pure hype, but just ignore that bit.
As you point out, it is also important to evaluate the long term affects of removing significant amounts of cold water from the oceans (disrupting ocean currents, overall water temp. rises, etc). The drinking water generator would also lower the air humidity, which would cause problems if the project was done on a wide scale.
I am sure this technology has applications in some circumstances (perhaps on oil rigs, remote islands, etc), but it is certainly not the solution to all our energy problems. Done on a large scale it would be unsustainable.
I'm still waiting for practical fusion power...
That's almost on an par with the infamous Windows 98 crash video!
If the former, then I don't see it being popular for the usual reasons (see any thread on Starter Edition). If the latter, then why don't they just release a new version of Windows XP that runs more efficiently for everyone? It seems stupid that a (presumably) cheaper version of windows would run faster than the full price version.
I think they would be wiser to give away this crippled version on the hope that as India's economy develops they will capture some market with the full price Windows XP at later stage.
I read somewhere (no ref. to hand) that 1/3 of the fuel is used just to clear the tower. Wouldn't it be much more efficient to pump fuel from the tower until the shuttle is at least a few meters off the ground?
Then you let wind of the real reason for hunting them and indeeed allowing them to live at all - their meat. I'm sure you want great big fat deer that can barely run - much easier to shoot, much more meat per deer, much tastier. Again this a purely human factor. Deer can survive just fine with ticks, worms and their ribs showing. If genuinely isn't enough food, the least effective foragers will probably die. The genetically defective members you refer to are only defective in your point of view. If there was any serious problem with them they will not be able survive and reproduce. Some "defects" could prove beneficial in the long run.
Your last paragraph shows your own ignorance. The only reason those forest fires were a problem are because of man. Large forest fire are perfectly natural when caused by lightning strikes. The forest will regenerate after a large fire pretty quickly and it gives a chance for species to compete for the new land again. There are some species that require forest fires to help them reproduce.
Despite what you may think, I'm not anti-hunting at all. In the real world, I know that animals need to be managed. The point I was making is that the only reason "HUNTING IS 100% NECESSSARY" is because of the uncontrolled expansion of the human population, complete with its own diseases and starvation (see Africa).
In the short term, the disease (what sort of disease is it by the way?) will help control their population and in the long run, the animals more resistant to it will survive. This means it will act as a stabilising influence on the population over time.
By randomly culling animals you could be wiping out the very animals that are resistant to the disease. Unless anyone is developing a vaccine for the disease (incredibly unlikely unless it affects farming animals), you are best not to intervene [this does assume the animal in question - deer - can reproduce relatively quickly and has a decent population size. Obviously the same practice cannot be used for white rhino for example.]
The top poster also implied it was the destruction of their habititat that was reducing their food supply, not that the population was growing out of control. It would be far better to stop reducing the size of their habitat (but admittedly this is quite an idealistic point of view).
Rimmer: Step up to red alert! Kryten: Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb.
The most "humane" thing to do would be to stop encroaching on their environment and leave them be.
Dude, you really need to get out more!
Hang on, it's Friday night and I'm sitting at my computer reading Slashdot. I really need to get out more.
"...aren't centred properly..." I meant
I have the same software versions as you, but it doesn't display correctly at 1024 or lower (I just checked a few resolutions). Even at 1280, the text boxes are centred properly on mine though.
And it can't be a coincidence that the page doesn't display properly in Internet Explorer!!
Those high bidders are going to be pissed when they realise they have shelled out $450+ when the prize has already been claimed. Do they really think Intel will lose it again?
I can just imagine a last-minute solution that aims to keep the suits happy in all companies involved (so that they save face). This compromise could result in a poorly thought out and badly designed standard.
A little later, someone will release another (better) standard and we will be back to square one of having two similar but incompatible standards.
There are other countries in space besides the USA.
My submission was "edited": I made an appeal for Torrents - think of the starving children when you are running up the UN's bandwidth bills.
I'm no expert on consoles, but is that typical? Consoles may be cheap, but you deserve more support for your money than that.
I dislike MS as much as the next Slashdotter, but suing them because his particular X-Box broke seems ridiculous. I suppose people could claim that they have suffered with the loss of their saved games if the HD failed, but that isn't the case with this guy.