I'm thinking not only of the efficiency but of something similar to cogeneration. Maybe it would be better to locate centres furthur north so they could help heat a small town in winter with the exccess heat. IIRC in Winnipeg for a long time, "waste steam" from a smaller electrical generation station near the core was used to heat a whole section of office buildings in the downtown (this was from the 1920s to maybe the 80s... but the idea is still valid I think). Or would it be possible to use the excess heat to run boilers to generate electricity for other areas of the facility? I'd bet that the heated air generated now couldn't be used for either idea as easily as using liquid.
In the long run, it was probably good that the atom bombs were used when they were. That is, when they were still really small (relatively speaking). It is why people are and were scared as hell to use them when they got really big; and why anyone who is a proponent of using them for a first strike is feared if they are in power and roundly ignored otherwise. If we didn't see what they did, we wouldn't know, and likely Armageddon would have already happened and we'd either all be dead or playing Fallout 3 for real. A harsh reality but there you go. And quite frankly, given that the atrocities the Nazis perpetrated pale against the imperial Japanese of WWII, I don't feel too badly we learned how bad they were the way we did.
As for Ahmadinejad, I personally think he is that crazy. I also don't think the Americans are. What you are talking about is a day and age when people really didn't understand what nuclear bombs could and would do and how bad radiation and fallout is. And they were fighting a people responsible for huge atrocities and figured they wouldn't surrender willingly even when faced with invasion (and as documents have pointed out... read history yourself I'm not going to educate you in something that is widely known... they were correct). I can't fault them for sparing their own (our own) side more casualties fighting an emperor-god plutocracy who used Pyrrhic tactics to avoid surrender. And remember, people knew so little about the effects of radiation in those days that many used radium coated watch dials to be able to read them at night. You can't compare today and yesterday the way you just did. To label Americans as being proponents of launching nuclear bombs is purely ignorant on your part.
I'm really starting to like the idea that they should submerge all their servers in circulating liquid and cool them that way. It could absorb a lot more heat and it would probably make it a lot easier to reclaim the energy from the waste heat. Air has a really low specific heat. It's why they make fluffy down filled jackets; to trap the air which acts as a good thermal insulator (and getting it wet in the winter will kill you if you don't get somewhere warm because liquids conduct/transfer heat better due to greater specific heat).
He's a troll or an idiot or both. And you are correct, if someone wants to use software that can't do the job, it's their problem. If someone like Slashdot provides the service at no cost, they shouldn't also be asked to kiss the asses of the smallest percentage of viewers. The majority who have proprietary software are obviously the ones who actually spend money. Why would a for profit company care what people who don't spend money for their stuff, think? Especially if their income is at least in part advertisements to entice people to buy.
Robust security policies are nothing by glory holes that facebook can strap your ass to, to allow unknown entities to sodomize you without being seen. They are there to protect facebook, not you. They use the term 'robust security policies' openly knowing that the general public actually believes that it refers to how facebook protects them, when it means nothing of the sort.
The article is not really about mobile phones but about the business behind one specific mobile phone manufacturer. And I think you did as good a job explaining it as I needed. Thank you. Too bad people forgot how to write abstracts. FWIW, I worked in the telecom world for 7 or 8 years. But I don't follow the business soap operas that much.
I got way down the page and found that I was in reality not even a quarter through and still hadn't seen any explanation of the title of the article (three pillars). Just a bunch of rambling. I tried reading some more then hit the tl;dr; wall.
Can someone list succinctly (like the article should have) what the three pillars are?
You think it wouldn't be justice if they could do that to their attackers? Therein lies the problem with idiots like you. You believe in a legal system, not a justice system.
How many people have touch screen(s) on their desktop anyway? Nobody I know has one. Even if I had one I wouldn't use it for that.
Programmers of all people should know what a pain in the ass it is to interupt a flow of operations just to click on a button with a mouse, never mind stopping all so you can reach across your desk to push on the monitor. If anyone has ever bothered to watch people do data entry or customer service, they'll know that the less the people have to move their hands from one input device to the other, the better, and the more efficiently they can work. Often these people don't even look at the keyboard after a while. But when you force them to move all over hell's half acre to do something that shouldn't require it, you really screw up how they work.
I will always prefer using the keyboard if there is an easy way to maintain the work flow with it. The next next step is the mouse which definitely has its uses, and which I couldn't live without. Reaching across the desk to touch a screen though is really intrusive and really, probably only necessary for those with Down's syndrome who need the big boxy thingies on the screen. Hey, now we know where Microsoft Windows 8 Product Managers and GUI designers come from!
1: a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake 3: an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity
Do they say anything about biting off the head of a mouse?
Further context, the entire fucking world went apeshit because the police in Russia arrested 3 women for conducting a tasteless stunt in a church probably definitely offending a shitload of religious Russians. Personally I think they were overboard, rude, and were disrespectful of the church and the congregation for doing that. But I don't think they deserved to be put in prison over it. Slap upside the head maybe.
Now we have some fucking knob thrown in jail for making a tasteless joke about some poor family's child. Why isn't the world going apeshit now? Offensive is offensive. Or is it if you offend a church it is OK? I think it is in poor taste. I don't think he should go to jail. I think he should be restrained and allow the child's mother to deliver a short sharp shock (or 4 or 5) to the guy. In public for his humiliation (the sad thing is this is what he deserves, but then they'd arrest the family too... there is no justice system anymore, just a legal system). But jail? Fuckoff already. It is no wonder Orwell and his book originated in England. Canada and it's censorship/hate speech laws aren't far behind.
I don't think it is right to purposely go somewhere and say or do something just to be offensive. That is, where being offensive is the point of the endeavour. I know we can all say stuff that offends some people. But it's not usually like a verbal goatse. I'm not going to just start in on 'the aristocrats' in a mall so parents freak and run away with their children and old folks have a stroke. In the right company however, I will and have given it a good shot.
Regardless of all that. Unless the person is being a genuine non-stop troll whether online or in real life, jail is way over the top. Let's get Madonna to rant about this guy at her next concert.
They are not terrible sinners. They are very good ones. Same as most Christian fundamentalists. Those guys are all trying hard to find a way to get a camel through the eye of needle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle
You slag Romney (and I am no Republican either) , but when I heard Obama's slant on this and other things, I almost want Romney to win. At least he wouldn't lie about being a Democrat.
I tell the story of the genetic engineer I met who was so born again he didn't believe in evolution (true story). This happened in Saint. Louis. Guess where Monsanto's headquarters is? Yep, he worked for Monsanto. They have an inside line to God you know. It would be like suing themselves.
But when was this? If you learned this in the 60s, then obviously that would have been the right time, but if you were learning this in the 80s, then it says quite a different thing about your high school.
I notice you selectively focused on the WWII part. As for the space race tech, yes a lot of that stuff came out of technologies developed by way of that. As for the rest, you are just showing you are another person who can find all sorts of reasons for not doing something, but you just rationalize things more than most. Boeing, Apple, MS, Intel didn't come out of nothing. They came out of a bunch of people doing something they thought was really cool, and generally pointless until a point was found later. Guy like Gates and Woz weren't thinking "next multibillion dollar software company." They were thinking build something cool and they will come. All the original airplane makers started because they like flying. I'll stick to my point of view. I'm tired of people telling me all the things that can't be done or shouldn't be done because of a lack of foresight and imagination.
Most of what we consider "high tech" actually came out of WWII and the Space Race. We're in the last stages now of ideas and technologies that were originated to solve those goals. Now we need new goals.
Basic research is of course needed, but if there is no place to focus it, mankind will get bored of it. It's like making national parks but not allowing people to go to them by either telling us we're not allowed to sully their pristine nature or just plain pricing the costs to visit them too high for the average person . Eventually people will forget about the flora and fauna there and not give a shit if some toad or owl goes extinct. Out of sight, out of mind. (Sorry, no car metaphor.)
The same applies for basic research (for the most part). If people can't see it being applied somewhere eventually, they won't give a rat's ass whether funding is cut for it or not. That is what is happening now. To combat this we NEED some place to apply at least some of what we learn in a spectacular way. Then people, average people, the ones who actually pay for most of the research, can actually see some of what they are getting for the money, and how cool that stuff is; and how it is worth it. Even if only a small part is used in a new space race, it will be enough to help pull funding through for all the less glamorous areas of research.
Stop thinking rationally if you want others to pay for your stuff. They'll only do it if they get something out of it. Directly. In the U.S., national pride is huge. The more you can help fuel that, the more money people will give you. Build a space station. A real space station, not just some "let's stick our toe in the water and do a bit of research" space station. Less of a lab, and more of a one that gives meaning to the word 'station', much like train station, and begins to make space travel routine. Use the research to create that in turn to create whole new technological ecosystems (much like the Apollo series did), and help keep people interested in science so they'll pay for more. The economic benefit (if it isn't offshored by some cynical self serving idiot) is that America will have technology to sell to the rest of the world that it doesn't yet have. This in turn fuels a healthy economy which can then afford to finance basic research. But only if the economic benefits STAY in the country.
Cool sells. Space stations are cool. A nerd in some back lab is cool to many technology lovers, but even then, not all. And certainly not to most of the rest of society. Proof? People pay billions for spoiled sports stars to make millions entertaining them. This gives society a place to vent its anxieties and aggressions (even vicariously). And it is labelled cool and spectacular because it allows those human emotions in full force. Face it, some guy writing equations at a desk, or dolling out solutions from a pipette is pretty dull and boring in comparison. The science that excites is big rocket ships, robots, and risk. Give the crowds what they want, give them Orange Flavoured Tang and Space Opera and they will love you. Give them the spectator sport of science. Then you can pay for basic research. There is a grain of truth even in satire. In this case it is more like a boulder.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm thinking not only of the efficiency but of something similar to cogeneration. Maybe it would be better to locate centres furthur north so they could help heat a small town in winter with the exccess heat. IIRC in Winnipeg for a long time, "waste steam" from a smaller electrical generation station near the core was used to heat a whole section of office buildings in the downtown (this was from the 1920s to maybe the 80s... but the idea is still valid I think). Or would it be possible to use the excess heat to run boilers to generate electricity for other areas of the facility? I'd bet that the heated air generated now couldn't be used for either idea as easily as using liquid.
There has to be something better than air to cool things. People figured that out with respect to engines a long time ago.
In the long run, it was probably good that the atom bombs were used when they were. That is, when they were still really small (relatively speaking). It is why people are and were scared as hell to use them when they got really big; and why anyone who is a proponent of using them for a first strike is feared if they are in power and roundly ignored otherwise. If we didn't see what they did, we wouldn't know, and likely Armageddon would have already happened and we'd either all be dead or playing Fallout 3 for real. A harsh reality but there you go. And quite frankly, given that the atrocities the Nazis perpetrated pale against the imperial Japanese of WWII, I don't feel too badly we learned how bad they were the way we did.
As for Ahmadinejad, I personally think he is that crazy. I also don't think the Americans are. What you are talking about is a day and age when people really didn't understand what nuclear bombs could and would do and how bad radiation and fallout is. And they were fighting a people responsible for huge atrocities and figured they wouldn't surrender willingly even when faced with invasion (and as documents have pointed out... read history yourself I'm not going to educate you in something that is widely known... they were correct). I can't fault them for sparing their own (our own) side more casualties fighting an emperor-god plutocracy who used Pyrrhic tactics to avoid surrender. And remember, people knew so little about the effects of radiation in those days that many used radium coated watch dials to be able to read them at night. You can't compare today and yesterday the way you just did. To label Americans as being proponents of launching nuclear bombs is purely ignorant on your part.
Legumes mixed with maple syrup to fuel bacterial growth for added "nozzle" pressure?
I'm really starting to like the idea that they should submerge all their servers in circulating liquid and cool them that way. It could absorb a lot more heat and it would probably make it a lot easier to reclaim the energy from the waste heat. Air has a really low specific heat. It's why they make fluffy down filled jackets; to trap the air which acts as a good thermal insulator (and getting it wet in the winter will kill you if you don't get somewhere warm because liquids conduct/transfer heat better due to greater specific heat).
And the environmental impact of making many "industrial" sized batteries is as high as petrochemicals.
He's a troll or an idiot or both. And you are correct, if someone wants to use software that can't do the job, it's their problem. If someone like Slashdot provides the service at no cost, they shouldn't also be asked to kiss the asses of the smallest percentage of viewers. The majority who have proprietary software are obviously the ones who actually spend money. Why would a for profit company care what people who don't spend money for their stuff, think? Especially if their income is at least in part advertisements to entice people to buy.
Robust security policies are nothing by glory holes that facebook can strap your ass to, to allow unknown entities to sodomize you without being seen. They are there to protect facebook, not you. They use the term 'robust security policies' openly knowing that the general public actually believes that it refers to how facebook protects them, when it means nothing of the sort.
The article is not really about mobile phones but about the business behind one specific mobile phone manufacturer. And I think you did as good a job explaining it as I needed. Thank you. Too bad people forgot how to write abstracts. FWIW, I worked in the telecom world for 7 or 8 years. But I don't follow the business soap operas that much.
I got way down the page and found that I was in reality not even a quarter through and still hadn't seen any explanation of the title of the article (three pillars). Just a bunch of rambling. I tried reading some more then hit the tl;dr; wall.
Can someone list succinctly (like the article should have) what the three pillars are?
You think it wouldn't be justice if they could do that to their attackers? Therein lies the problem with idiots like you. You believe in a legal system, not a justice system.
Any place where 50% of the population doesn't believe in evolution cannot be said to be a place where religion is in the minority.
How many people have touch screen(s) on their desktop anyway? Nobody I know has one. Even if I had one I wouldn't use it for that.
Programmers of all people should know what a pain in the ass it is to interupt a flow of operations just to click on a button with a mouse, never mind stopping all so you can reach across your desk to push on the monitor. If anyone has ever bothered to watch people do data entry or customer service, they'll know that the less the people have to move their hands from one input device to the other, the better, and the more efficiently they can work. Often these people don't even look at the keyboard after a while. But when you force them to move all over hell's half acre to do something that shouldn't require it, you really screw up how they work.
I will always prefer using the keyboard if there is an easy way to maintain the work flow with it. The next next step is the mouse which definitely has its uses, and which I couldn't live without. Reaching across the desk to touch a screen though is really intrusive and really, probably only necessary for those with Down's syndrome who need the big boxy thingies on the screen. Hey, now we know where Microsoft Windows 8 Product Managers and GUI designers come from!
Do they say anything about biting off the head of a mouse?
Further context, the entire fucking world went apeshit because the police in Russia arrested 3 women for conducting a tasteless stunt in a church probably definitely offending a shitload of religious Russians. Personally I think they were overboard, rude, and were disrespectful of the church and the congregation for doing that. But I don't think they deserved to be put in prison over it. Slap upside the head maybe.
Now we have some fucking knob thrown in jail for making a tasteless joke about some poor family's child. Why isn't the world going apeshit now? Offensive is offensive. Or is it if you offend a church it is OK? I think it is in poor taste. I don't think he should go to jail. I think he should be restrained and allow the child's mother to deliver a short sharp shock (or 4 or 5) to the guy. In public for his humiliation (the sad thing is this is what he deserves, but then they'd arrest the family too... there is no justice system anymore, just a legal system). But jail? Fuckoff already. It is no wonder Orwell and his book originated in England. Canada and it's censorship/hate speech laws aren't far behind.
I don't think it is right to purposely go somewhere and say or do something just to be offensive. That is, where being offensive is the point of the endeavour. I know we can all say stuff that offends some people. But it's not usually like a verbal goatse. I'm not going to just start in on 'the aristocrats' in a mall so parents freak and run away with their children and old folks have a stroke. In the right company however, I will and have given it a good shot.
Regardless of all that. Unless the person is being a genuine non-stop troll whether online or in real life, jail is way over the top. Let's get Madonna to rant about this guy at her next concert.
It's fucking awesome dude! The only thing that would make it better is SPINNING SKULLS!
They are not terrible sinners. They are very good ones. Same as most Christian fundamentalists. Those guys are all trying hard to find a way to get a camel through the eye of needle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle
You slag Romney (and I am no Republican either) , but when I heard Obama's slant on this and other things, I almost want Romney to win. At least he wouldn't lie about being a Democrat.
I tell the story of the genetic engineer I met who was so born again he didn't believe in evolution (true story). This happened in Saint. Louis. Guess where Monsanto's headquarters is? Yep, he worked for Monsanto. They have an inside line to God you know. It would be like suing themselves.
Tell the truth or go to church. Seems everyone in America is going to church too. Not so much in Europe.
But when was this? If you learned this in the 60s, then obviously that would have been the right time, but if you were learning this in the 80s, then it says quite a different thing about your high school.
SFH = Sherlock Fucking Holmes
I notice you selectively focused on the WWII part. As for the space race tech, yes a lot of that stuff came out of technologies developed by way of that. As for the rest, you are just showing you are another person who can find all sorts of reasons for not doing something, but you just rationalize things more than most. Boeing, Apple, MS, Intel didn't come out of nothing. They came out of a bunch of people doing something they thought was really cool, and generally pointless until a point was found later. Guy like Gates and Woz weren't thinking "next multibillion dollar software company." They were thinking build something cool and they will come. All the original airplane makers started because they like flying. I'll stick to my point of view. I'm tired of people telling me all the things that can't be done or shouldn't be done because of a lack of foresight and imagination.
You sir, suffer from myopia.
Most of what we consider "high tech" actually came out of WWII and the Space Race. We're in the last stages now of ideas and technologies that were originated to solve those goals. Now we need new goals.
Basic research is of course needed, but if there is no place to focus it, mankind will get bored of it. It's like making national parks but not allowing people to go to them by either telling us we're not allowed to sully their pristine nature or just plain pricing the costs to visit them too high for the average person . Eventually people will forget about the flora and fauna there and not give a shit if some toad or owl goes extinct. Out of sight, out of mind. (Sorry, no car metaphor.)
The same applies for basic research (for the most part). If people can't see it being applied somewhere eventually, they won't give a rat's ass whether funding is cut for it or not. That is what is happening now. To combat this we NEED some place to apply at least some of what we learn in a spectacular way. Then people, average people, the ones who actually pay for most of the research, can actually see some of what they are getting for the money, and how cool that stuff is; and how it is worth it. Even if only a small part is used in a new space race, it will be enough to help pull funding through for all the less glamorous areas of research.
Stop thinking rationally if you want others to pay for your stuff. They'll only do it if they get something out of it. Directly. In the U.S., national pride is huge. The more you can help fuel that, the more money people will give you. Build a space station. A real space station, not just some "let's stick our toe in the water and do a bit of research" space station. Less of a lab, and more of a one that gives meaning to the word 'station', much like train station, and begins to make space travel routine. Use the research to create that in turn to create whole new technological ecosystems (much like the Apollo series did), and help keep people interested in science so they'll pay for more. The economic benefit (if it isn't offshored by some cynical self serving idiot) is that America will have technology to sell to the rest of the world that it doesn't yet have. This in turn fuels a healthy economy which can then afford to finance basic research. But only if the economic benefits STAY in the country.
Cool sells. Space stations are cool. A nerd in some back lab is cool to many technology lovers, but even then, not all. And certainly not to most of the rest of society. Proof? People pay billions for spoiled sports stars to make millions entertaining them. This gives society a place to vent its anxieties and aggressions (even vicariously). And it is labelled cool and spectacular because it allows those human emotions in full force. Face it, some guy writing equations at a desk, or dolling out solutions from a pipette is pretty dull and boring in comparison. The science that excites is big rocket ships, robots, and risk. Give the crowds what they want, give them Orange Flavoured Tang and Space Opera and they will love you. Give them the spectator sport of science. Then you can pay for basic research. There is a grain of truth even in satire. In this case it is more like a boulder.
You need to buy a gun. Then you'll have a real gauge on how big your cock is.