People of unusually high intelligence often look at things differently.
EX: My HS and Collage GPA where both under 3.0. At the same time I passed some AP exams and graduated collage in less than 4 years. I broke 700 on both my math and verbal SAT but I went to a small state school. So I avoided high debt loads and I never really worked that hard in collage or HS.
Now days I walk to work and spend less than 40 hours a week working a low stress job and I still make over 70k with awesome benefits. EX: They dump 10%/year into your retirement fund without you doing anything. 16 days paid vacation + 2 floating holidays etc. 5k/year education/convention reimbursement + free internal training etc. Now, I know plenty of people who make more than I do per year but when you look at $/h worked including benefits I am doing unusually well for late 27. And I have plenty of free time to enjoy my life.
Now plenty of people thought I was lazy and I could be a multimillionaire right now etc but IMO life is more than your bank account. It's easy to retire in your early 50's if you avoid wasting your income and there is little point in spending half your life for a larger pile of junk. Working twice as hard for 25 years seems silly when you can cost though and finish in 30.
PS: A friend of mine who graduated from MIT with serious debt makes and works long hours makes ~15% more than I do but and he spends a lot of that income paying back collage loans so what's the point?
If you could roll out a new solution that people would buy then it would need to be a better product than what's on the market so they could make more money selling it than they could off traditional polluting energy sources.
EX: Let's say I can make a zero point energy device (with magic fairy dust...) for 1$ that produces 1KW of power. Now a power company could drop the cost of 1kW/h down to 2c and still make 175$/year or 175k / MW / year which is a lot more money than they are making right now per MW. And because the price dropped they are going to sell a lot more MW's.
Basically any new useful technology is worth selling vs. hording.
IMO it's not about HD-DVD etc I just hate being charged extra for basic functionality let's say I want the system and 2 controllers and rechargeable batteries.
With the PS3 you buy a PlayStation 3 (60GB) $499.99 Playstation 3 Wireless Sixaxis Controller $39.99 (Includes rechargeable battery). 2nd PlayStation 3 USB Controller Charger Cable $4.99 or less it's just a USB cable. (Don't need but this way you can charge both at the same time...)
Xbox needs Xbox 360 Console Includes 20GB Hard Drive $349.99 or 350... Xbox 360 Wireless Controller $37.99 But wait you also need rechargeable batteries Xbox 360 Rechargeable Controller Battery Pack $11.99 Xbox 360 Quick Charge Kit 29.99$ (includes one battery pack)
From Amazon Wii = $324.34 or you camp out for 250$ Now add in Wii Charge Station $29.99 with twin rechargeable battery packs... but wait 2nd person = Wii Remote Controller $39.99 Wii Nunchuk Controller $19.99 Now to play Classic games you should pick up: Wii Classic Controller $19.99 x2 = $40 and / or Gamecube Wavebird Wireless Controller Grey $29.90 x2 = $60
Totals:
PS3: $545 360: $430 - $530 Wii: $380 - $474
Granted you can pay some Wii games without the second Nunchuk but it's considered somewhat "standard" for a lot of 2 player games. On the other hand it does come with some basic demo's which is cool.
PS: Though Amazon you can also get 8 blue ray disks (3 ship with the PS3 5 come with a mail in rebate) but it's not that big a deal. I don't consider video's as part of a game system so I skipped the 360's HD-DVD drive.
I think your idea of "qualified" might be extreme.
"How would you design the object memory layout for a language like Java?"
If your looking for something like: <ChildClass> = {ClassID,Size,<BaseClass(ClassID,Size,Data),<Child >(ClassID,Size,Data)} with some boxes on the whiteboard but it's one of those questions you could easily spend weeks optimizing depending on the OS your using and how the rest of the VM is written. After all you only really need the class ID, Data, and a look up table but having some debugging data inside the classes could be vary useful...
IMO a more reasonable question is you are handed some functional but slow code that takes way to long how you go about speeding it up. You then keep some notes on what's wrong and answer some questions until they work out what's up. Be it thrashing a DB or allocating memory inside a tight loop these types of problems show a lot about how people think vs. what they know.
The problem is not the RDBMS model it's people who try to use it without understanding LISP. People write OO software in C++, Java, C# etc which stores data in a flat file(RAM) though the use of a compiler. They then try and save a subset of this data into a static Database and assume they need to a few tables on a monster machine but try thinking about this.
Take a table with ID an AGE and a Type. 101, 10 years old, Person 102, 10 months old, Dog 103, 10 second old, Thread
You then have a Thread table a Dog table and a Person Table but you can easily find an age for any ID. Now your Person and Dog tables might have gender but it's meaningless for a Thread yet everything inherits its Age data from the parent object. What's my point you don't shoehorn it into a structure you build a structure that fit's you data it's easy if your object has inheritance do the same thing in your database.
PS: The point about LISP. Think about this odd but valid table Invoice Items. Invoice ID, Item ID, Cost, Type, Company 101, 731, 25k, bike, BMW 101, 732, 25k, bike, BMW 102, 101, 50k, Invoice, BMW 102, 971, 50k, car, Honda 103, 102, 100k, Invoice, Composite
My point this simple looking table can handle any level of recursion. Now if you want the total costs you select from Invoice Items where Type not Invoice. Granted in the real world you need time stamps, status, etc but you get the idea.
Chances are the "experts" did not know what they where talking about. Let's say you're designing a billing system that handles 10 years of historical data on 1000 transactions a second and interfaces with an average of 5,000 billing systems with 3-5 new billing systems a week. With a little work you can solve this problem using a moderately complex backend DB. The problem is separating the basic functions of a billing system from the implementations of each billing system.
And the simplest way to do this is to dynamically generate one or more tables for each new system which also fits the basic needs of your billing system. Yes, that's right you can dynamically update your database schema at any time. Granted the larger the table the longer this takes but as long as you separate your core functions from the details you just prevent new data from entering that table and have at it.
PS: Now I know you like using the next new thing so if it makes you feel better feel free to use XML to keep track of your DB schemas but the point of DB's is they increase speed, stability, and data integrity and let you work on harder parts of the problem at hand.
Ok, they are cyborgs that seek to increase their numbers by converting people into ___
However, the Borg are a collective where individual Cybermen can and do act independently. Personally I think of the Borg as a mix of zombies (convert you and your fellows to them), ants (hive with little individuality), rampaging robots (they have advanced teck and for the most part just walk all over Starfleet). IMO it's their organic / zombie nature that really messes with you as they are not going to kill you so much as eat your brains and send your body off to collect your friends and family. Because it's one thing for an intelligent toaster to attack someone it's another thing for the family pet to get rabies and attack you. Add to that the somewhat seductive nature of the "Borg queen" and it's IMO a fairly unique mix.
Wow, All the productive therapies are coming out of the adult side, not the embryonic side. and my point was if we don't do significant embryonic research we don't get results from embryonic research...
You are double plus good at double speak. (1984 is a book read it and thinks about what you're saying.)
PS: If you assume killing babies is bad and embryonic research kills babies then you might assume it's an ethical decision. But if one of your facts is wrong then it's a pointless argument.
GDP is only one factor in a countries ability to support military spending. The real cost of feeding 1billion people > real cost of feeding 300 million people. So if GDP A = GDP B and Country A's population is 3x as large then they have less surplus capital spend on the military.
Think of it this way substance farmers increase GDP but they do little to aid military spending.
So, ignoring the fact that a strong push into embryonic stem cell research would have resulted in zero additional baby deaths you assuming we would be in the same place today? Ethics aside we are probably in a worse place today than we would be without embryonic stem cell research. Over time millions of people may die because we are just a little behind where we could be. However, we will never know what could have been...
Thanks.
PS: The point of research is to find out how to do things. It was unlikely we would ever use embrionic stem cells as "standard" treatment but we could have learned a lot about how cells work much sooner.
SAAS works well for some games (MMO's) like WoW. There is a more fundamental way of looking at this if you are continuously exchanging data with large numbers of people use SAAS. If you are working by your self at one location and possibly submitting it to something else then SAAS gives you next to nothing. (Think playing solitaire or composing an email to your mother.)
IMO: Some of the best systems are hybrids. You can use exchange on you home pc 90% of the time, but you can also connect over the internet to a website and get limited functionality when you realy need to get to your email from a random location.
I was talking about the TCP/IP model which oddly enough works just as well with IRC/UDP/IP/Ethernet/Ethernet physical layer as HTTP/TCP/IP/Frame Relay/Optical Fiber.
"The TCP/IP model or Internet reference model, sometimes called the DoD model (DoD, Department of Defense), ARPANET reference model, is a layered abstract description for communications and computer network protocol design."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model)
Anyway, I was trying to walk the fine line between roasting someone with a really low UID (484) (you might belong on/. Welcome to the party) and correcting someone who was almost correct but just wrong enough to bother me. The "OSI model" and the "TCP/IP model" share the bottom 4 layers (Physical layer / Data link layer / Network Layer / Transport Layer), but OSI has 3 layers where TCP Model uses one. AKA HTTPS covers the top 3 OSI layers Session, Presentation, and Application but it's not broken up into separate parts.
PS: I think inserting the Link into the middle of TCP/IP and Model obscured what I was saying.
I know this is/. but did you read the article you linked?
Noting actually uses the OSI model it's just an abstraction to help people understand how networking works. The Internet uses the TCP/IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_model model of Application, Transport, Network, and Data link layers.
PS: The internet has redundancy as a mesh of networks even if many of those networks have single point's of failure. On second as you speak with such conviction on subjects you know little about you might belong on/. Welcome to the party.
you do need some form of reusable vehicle with a large cargo hold.
Why? Generally speaking the important thing is cost per LB to orbit. Let's say you can move 20tuns of cargo to LEO at 1k / LB and a 90% success rate or 5k/LB at 95% success rate or 10k/LB at 98% success rate. Well the real cost of LEO of the first system is 1.1k/lb + 10% the value of the cargo which in the vast majority of unmanned systems is a lot cheaper than ~5k/lb to LEO we have today.
The real reason space is expensive is we don't send much stuff up. The real reason we don't send much stuff is we don't need a lot of junk in orbit. We already have GPS, Weather Satellites, Spy satellites, telescopes, telecommunication gear, etc but other than replacing what's every few years what's the next stage? Let's say you now have the capability to send 50,000 tons to orbit for 100$/lb what new things would you place up there?
PS: I can see the value of returning say 100 lb of samples from orbit but what could be worth spending millions returning from orbit that you can't just build here?
The problem with the shuttle is not any specific design decision it's the overall design goals which the "top-end engineers at NASA" had little to do with.
"The crucial factor in the size and shape of the Shuttle Orbiter was the requirement that it be able to accommodate the largest planned spy satellites, and have the cross-range recovery range to meet classified USAF mission's requirement for a one-around abort for a polar launch." The most obvious bad design decision was to send cargo up in a manned mission. Manned vehicles cost a lot more per pound sent to space than unmanned so mixing the two increases the cost of sending stuff to orbit with zero real gain. The other issue is the requirement for a polar orbit. (Think Russia) Getting people to space is hard but doable getting people to space and a polar orbit is a much harder task that is a waste of resources 99% of the time.
Second "Each Shuttle was designed for a projected lifespan of 100 launches or 10 years' operational life." However, Discovery was built in 1985 its last flight is scheduled for 2010.
If you want a cheep reusable rocket rebuild the shuttle with 5% its cargo capacity, a slow reentry, and skip the polar orbit concept and you get a much larger safety margin and a much less extreme operating environment and a lower cost per person to orbit.
"(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility,"
Note: A 20 second clip may or may not be protected under title 17.
IMO this is what is over the top:
(d) Immunity for Theaters.--With reasonable cause, the owner or lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility where a motion picture or other audiovisual work is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of such owner or lessee, the licensor of the motion picture or other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such licensor--
``(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a
reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this
section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work
for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement
officer; and
``(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal
action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1).
"Burden Of Proof" the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.
FYI: In debate there is zero need to site sources until a specific clam has been called into question. Failing to specify which if any assertions you disagree with implies you have zero counter arguments ("Failure To State") and generally speaking you would loose a debate a this point.
PS: "At least make a feeble attempt to become educated before you go spewing your biases and opinions -- because without supporting data, that's all you have." is a nice use of Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man).
Wow, you really like pulling numbers out of thin air. "lets say $500 per square meter" wrong. "At electricity going for the wholesale rate of 3 cents a KwH, which is, that's.2 cents per hour." wrong. "instead maybe half that at best, if they'll take it at all (you see to take it they'll have to build more gas-turbine peaking plants to make up for the cloudy times)." wrong. "about $9 per year." wrong. "For an investment of $500." wrong.
Do you happen to work in a management position? PS: Utility's operate on a scale where a single cloud is not going to significantly impact things. Wholesale rates vary based on time of day and season and location such that electricity generated by solar power is worth a lot more than other types of power as it tracks when people need energy. In any case a home solar system reduces your usage of metered power so you're payback is at consumers prices.
1) Ice ages are somewhat random events so saying 10,000 years we will be in an ice age is silly it may have already happened or yet to start. Looking back several million years ices ages have no where near the consistency as the seasons. They don't all get as cold they don't last the same amount of time and they don't occur on a regular basis.
2) Both sides are trying to muddy the waters. You don't hear "Everything will be fine" and you don't hear "We are all going to die" because there is some give and take with every publication.
3) Some people think we can't change the climate. But looking at the "Dust Bowl" in the US and "urban heat island effect" it's clear we can alter the local climate in significant ways.
4) It's generally accepted that increasing CO2 increases global temperature up to a point but we don't know what all the effects of increased global temperature are going to be. It's probably going to be expensive / destructive for low lieing costal cities but most of the temperature increase is going to occur in the north which might increase economic activity enough to help offset some of the damage.
IMO: I suspect in the long term (1000+ years) we will carefully control the worlds climate. Over the realy long term 10,000 - 1,000,000 years we may decide to alter the earths orbit and fine craft our heat output to deal with the amount of energy we are generating, but right now we don't have the tools or experience to deal with significant climate change. As with most significant changes large numbers of people are going to die and then the world will adjust and move on. It's not the end of the world just the end of our world as we know it.
"Aside from that, the whole premise is stupid and just a fluff piece to drive traffic."
I agree. I have far more processing power in my car than my home PC. Mores Law is about more than just CPU's. Now day's people use hundreds of chips in their daily lives in everything from street lights, to Wii's, and cellphones. The classic desktop / laptop is a small segment of the overall chip market.
Don't forget Dell also pays people to do build systems and do support. So when your buying a Dell your paying for the HW, SW, man power to build it, shipping costs, man power to support it, and some R&D.
Granted Dell gets huge discounts due to their size but you can build systems in house for around the same cost as a rebuilt Dell if you build a lot of systems. (AKA Assuming you don't pay full retail cost for windows.)
Don't forget Support Contracts make Dell a lot of cash and they outsource a lot of this Support. So you could higher the same company's and get that slice of the pie.
PS: 7000 machines per year is on the small side so you may be better off working out a good deal with Dell but if you start to grow it may not be such a great idea any more.
A historical investment in the US economy. Let's say the US is 50k worth of roads, education, hospitals, networks, legal system etc per person. Now letting an unlimited number of people into the US would strain that infrastructure reducing it's value per person. Now how is that fair to a 65 year old that has been playing taxes for years.
Granted, for 25 year old PHD's it's easy to say their education / talent is worth that so let them in but what about 50 year old farm workers who don't know English. Now a 50 year old farm worker with 300k in the bank can say his cash balances out our collective investment so it's ok. But what about a 90 year old with no family, no cash and dementia.
PS: Yes this is cold but world wide more people would like to live in the US than currently live in the US.
Yea, the article is junk but so is the H1B quota system. It seems like the simple solution is for the government to auction off H1B's.
If Google really want's someone they can offer 50k but they can probably get local talent for cheaper. My guess is H1B's would balance out to around 25K a pop and most Americans would be fine competing on that type of playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
People of unusually high intelligence often look at things differently. EX: My HS and Collage GPA where both under 3.0. At the same time I passed some AP exams and graduated collage in less than 4 years. I broke 700 on both my math and verbal SAT but I went to a small state school. So I avoided high debt loads and I never really worked that hard in collage or HS. Now days I walk to work and spend less than 40 hours a week working a low stress job and I still make over 70k with awesome benefits. EX: They dump 10%/year into your retirement fund without you doing anything. 16 days paid vacation + 2 floating holidays etc. 5k /year education/convention reimbursement + free internal training etc. Now, I know plenty of people who make more than I do per year but when you look at $/h worked including benefits I am doing unusually well for late 27. And I have plenty of free time to enjoy my life.
Now plenty of people thought I was lazy and I could be a multimillionaire right now etc but IMO life is more than your bank account. It's easy to retire in your early 50's if you avoid wasting your income and there is little point in spending half your life for a larger pile of junk. Working twice as hard for 25 years seems silly when you can cost though and finish in 30.
PS: A friend of mine who graduated from MIT with serious debt makes and works long hours makes ~15% more than I do but and he spends a lot of that income paying back collage loans so what's the point?
Almost but 4.8 gigabits/s = .6gigabytes/s .9TB = 900 gigabytes
900 gigabytes / (.6 gigabytes/s) = 1500s or 25min.
If you could roll out a new solution that people would buy then it would need to be a better product than what's on the market so they could make more money selling it than they could off traditional polluting energy sources.
EX: Let's say I can make a zero point energy device (with magic fairy dust...) for 1$ that produces 1KW of power. Now a power company could drop the cost of 1kW/h down to 2c and still make 175$/year or 175k / MW / year which is a lot more money than they are making right now per MW. And because the price dropped they are going to sell a lot more MW's.
Basically any new useful technology is worth selling vs. hording.
IMO it's not about HD-DVD etc I just hate being charged extra for basic functionality let's say I want the system and 2 controllers and rechargeable batteries.
With the PS3 you buy a
PlayStation 3 (60GB) $499.99
Playstation 3 Wireless Sixaxis Controller $39.99 (Includes rechargeable battery).
2nd PlayStation 3 USB Controller Charger Cable $4.99 or less it's just a USB cable. (Don't need but this way you can charge both at the same time...)
Xbox needs
Xbox 360 Console Includes 20GB Hard Drive $349.99 or 350...
Xbox 360 Wireless Controller $37.99
But wait you also need rechargeable batteries
Xbox 360 Rechargeable Controller Battery Pack $11.99
Xbox 360 Quick Charge Kit 29.99$ (includes one battery pack)
From Amazon Wii = $324.34 or you camp out for 250$
Now add in
Wii Charge Station $29.99 with twin rechargeable battery packs...
but wait 2nd person =
Wii Remote Controller $39.99
Wii Nunchuk Controller $19.99
Now to play Classic games you should pick up:
Wii Classic Controller $19.99 x2 = $40
and / or
Gamecube Wavebird Wireless Controller Grey $29.90 x2 = $60
Totals:
PS3: $545
360: $430 - $530
Wii: $380 - $474
Granted you can pay some Wii games without the second Nunchuk but it's considered somewhat "standard" for a lot of 2 player games. On the other hand it does come with some basic demo's which is cool.
PS: Though Amazon you can also get 8 blue ray disks (3 ship with the PS3 5 come with a mail in rebate) but it's not that big a deal. I don't consider video's as part of a game system so I skipped the 360's HD-DVD drive.
I think your idea of "qualified" might be extreme.
d >(ClassID,Size,Data)} with some boxes on the whiteboard but it's one of those questions you could easily spend weeks optimizing depending on the OS your using and how the rest of the VM is written. After all you only really need the class ID, Data, and a look up table but having some debugging data inside the classes could be vary useful...
"How would you design the object memory layout for a language like Java?"
If your looking for something like: <ChildClass> = {ClassID,Size,<BaseClass(ClassID,Size,Data),<Chil
IMO a more reasonable question is you are handed some functional but slow code that takes way to long how you go about speeding it up. You then keep some notes on what's wrong and answer some questions until they work out what's up. Be it thrashing a DB or allocating memory inside a tight loop these types of problems show a lot about how people think vs. what they know.
Add a second table.
T1 Bob
(ID), (Has Items),...
123, false,...
124, true,...
T2 Items
(Bob ID), (Item ID),...
124, asdfa,...
124, asdfb,...
You then do a join on whatever you're searching for.
The problem is not the RDBMS model it's people who try to use it without understanding LISP. People write OO software in C++, Java, C# etc which stores data in a flat file(RAM) though the use of a compiler. They then try and save a subset of this data into a static Database and assume they need to a few tables on a monster machine but try thinking about this.
Take a table with ID an AGE and a Type.
101, 10 years old, Person
102, 10 months old, Dog
103, 10 second old, Thread
You then have a Thread table a Dog table and a Person Table but you can easily find an age for any ID. Now your Person and Dog tables might have gender but it's meaningless for a Thread yet everything inherits its Age data from the parent object. What's my point you don't shoehorn it into a structure you build a structure that fit's you data it's easy if your object has inheritance do the same thing in your database.
PS: The point about LISP. Think about this odd but valid table Invoice Items.
Invoice ID, Item ID, Cost, Type, Company
101, 731, 25k, bike, BMW
101, 732, 25k, bike, BMW
102, 101, 50k, Invoice, BMW
102, 971, 50k, car, Honda
103, 102, 100k, Invoice, Composite
My point this simple looking table can handle any level of recursion. Now if you want the total costs you select from Invoice Items where Type not Invoice. Granted in the real world you need time stamps, status, etc but you get the idea.
Chances are the "experts" did not know what they where talking about. Let's say you're designing a billing system that handles 10 years of historical data on 1000 transactions a second and interfaces with an average of 5,000 billing systems with 3-5 new billing systems a week. With a little work you can solve this problem using a moderately complex backend DB. The problem is separating the basic functions of a billing system from the implementations of each billing system.
And the simplest way to do this is to dynamically generate one or more tables for each new system which also fits the basic needs of your billing system. Yes, that's right you can dynamically update your database schema at any time. Granted the larger the table the longer this takes but as long as you separate your core functions from the details you just prevent new data from entering that table and have at it.
PS: Now I know you like using the next new thing so if it makes you feel better feel free to use XML to keep track of your DB schemas but the point of DB's is they increase speed, stability, and data integrity and let you work on harder parts of the problem at hand.
Ok, they are cyborgs that seek to increase their numbers by converting people into ___
However, the Borg are a collective where individual Cybermen can and do act independently. Personally I think of the Borg as a mix of zombies (convert you and your fellows to them), ants (hive with little individuality), rampaging robots (they have advanced teck and for the most part just walk all over Starfleet). IMO it's their organic / zombie nature that really messes with you as they are not going to kill you so much as eat your brains and send your body off to collect your friends and family. Because it's one thing for an intelligent toaster to attack someone it's another thing for the family pet to get rabies and attack you. Add to that the somewhat seductive nature of the "Borg queen" and it's IMO a fairly unique mix.
Wow, All the productive therapies are coming out of the adult side, not the embryonic side. and my point was if we don't do significant embryonic research we don't get results from embryonic research...
You are double plus good at double speak. (1984 is a book read it and thinks about what you're saying.)
PS: If you assume killing babies is bad and embryonic research kills babies then you might assume it's an ethical decision. But if one of your facts is wrong then it's a pointless argument.
GDP is only one factor in a countries ability to support military spending. The real cost of feeding 1billion people > real cost of feeding 300 million people. So if GDP A = GDP B and Country A's population is 3x as large then they have less surplus capital spend on the military.
Think of it this way substance farmers increase GDP but they do little to aid military spending.
So, ignoring the fact that a strong push into embryonic stem cell research would have resulted in zero additional baby deaths you assuming we would be in the same place today? Ethics aside we are probably in a worse place today than we would be without embryonic stem cell research. Over time millions of people may die because we are just a little behind where we could be. However, we will never know what could have been...
Thanks.
PS: The point of research is to find out how to do things. It was unlikely we would ever use embrionic stem cells as "standard" treatment but we could have learned a lot about how cells work much sooner.
SAAS works well for some games (MMO's) like WoW. There is a more fundamental way of looking at this if you are continuously exchanging data with large numbers of people use SAAS. If you are working by your self at one location and possibly submitting it to something else then SAAS gives you next to nothing. (Think playing solitaire or composing an email to your mother.)
IMO: Some of the best systems are hybrids. You can use exchange on you home pc 90% of the time, but you can also connect over the internet to a website and get limited functionality when you realy need to get to your email from a random location.
I was talking about the TCP/IP model which oddly enough works just as well with IRC/UDP/IP/Ethernet/Ethernet physical layer as HTTP/TCP/IP/Frame Relay/Optical Fiber.
/. Welcome to the party) and correcting someone who was almost correct but just wrong enough to bother me. The "OSI model" and the "TCP/IP model" share the bottom 4 layers (Physical layer / Data link layer / Network Layer / Transport Layer), but OSI has 3 layers where TCP Model uses one. AKA HTTPS covers the top 3 OSI layers Session, Presentation, and Application but it's not broken up into separate parts.
"The TCP/IP model or Internet reference model, sometimes called the DoD model (DoD, Department of Defense), ARPANET reference model, is a layered abstract description for communications and computer network protocol design."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model)
Anyway, I was trying to walk the fine line between roasting someone with a really low UID (484) (you might belong on
PS: I think inserting the Link into the middle of TCP/IP and Model obscured what I was saying.
I know this is /. but did you read the article you linked?
/. Welcome to the party.
Noting actually uses the OSI model it's just an abstraction to help people understand how networking works. The Internet uses the TCP/IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_model model of Application, Transport, Network, and Data link layers.
PS: The internet has redundancy as a mesh of networks even if many of those networks have single point's of failure. On second as you speak with such conviction on subjects you know little about you might belong on
you do need some form of reusable vehicle with a large cargo hold.
Why? Generally speaking the important thing is cost per LB to orbit. Let's say you can move 20tuns of cargo to LEO at 1k / LB and a 90% success rate or 5k/LB at 95% success rate or 10k/LB at 98% success rate. Well the real cost of LEO of the first system is 1.1k/lb + 10% the value of the cargo which in the vast majority of unmanned systems is a lot cheaper than ~5k/lb to LEO we have today.
The real reason space is expensive is we don't send much stuff up. The real reason we don't send much stuff is we don't need a lot of junk in orbit. We already have GPS, Weather Satellites, Spy satellites, telescopes, telecommunication gear, etc but other than replacing what's every few years what's the next stage? Let's say you now have the capability to send 50,000 tons to orbit for 100$/lb what new things would you place up there?
PS: I can see the value of returning say 100 lb of samples from orbit but what could be worth spending millions returning from orbit that you can't just build here?
The problem with the shuttle is not any specific design decision it's the overall design goals which the "top-end engineers at NASA" had little to do with.
"The crucial factor in the size and shape of the Shuttle Orbiter was the requirement that it be able to accommodate the largest planned spy satellites, and have the cross-range recovery range to meet classified USAF mission's requirement for a one-around abort for a polar launch." The most obvious bad design decision was to send cargo up in a manned mission. Manned vehicles cost a lot more per pound sent to space than unmanned so mixing the two increases the cost of sending stuff to orbit with zero real gain. The other issue is the requirement for a polar orbit. (Think Russia) Getting people to space is hard but doable getting people to space and a polar orbit is a much harder task that is a waste of resources 99% of the time.
Second "Each Shuttle was designed for a projected lifespan of 100 launches or 10 years' operational life." However, Discovery was built in 1985 its last flight is scheduled for 2010.
If you want a cheep reusable rocket rebuild the shuttle with 5% its cargo capacity, a slow reentry, and skip the polar orbit concept and you get a much larger safety margin and a much less extreme operating environment and a lower cost per person to orbit.
"(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the
copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual
recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other
audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a
performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility,"
Note: A 20 second clip may or may not be protected under title 17.
IMO this is what is over the top:
(d) Immunity for Theaters.--With reasonable cause, the owner or
lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility where a motion picture or
other audiovisual work is being exhibited, the authorized agent or
employee of such owner or lessee, the licensor of the motion picture or
other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such
licensor--
``(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a
reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this
section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work
for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement
officer; and
``(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal
action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1).
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/argumen ts.html
"Burden Of Proof" the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.
FYI: In debate there is zero need to site sources until a specific clam has been called into question. Failing to specify which if any assertions you disagree with implies you have zero counter arguments ("Failure To State") and generally speaking you would loose a debate a this point.
PS: "At least make a feeble attempt to become educated before you go spewing your biases and opinions -- because without supporting data, that's all you have." is a nice use of Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man).
Wow, you really like pulling numbers out of thin air. .2 cents per hour." wrong.
"lets say $500 per square meter" wrong.
"At electricity going for the wholesale rate of 3 cents a KwH, which is, that's
"instead maybe half that at best, if they'll take it at all (you see to take it they'll have to build more gas-turbine peaking plants to make up for the cloudy times)." wrong.
"about $9 per year." wrong.
"For an investment of $500." wrong.
Do you happen to work in a management position?
PS: Utility's operate on a scale where a single cloud is not going to significantly impact things. Wholesale rates vary based on time of day and season and location such that electricity generated by solar power is worth a lot more than other types of power as it tracks when people need energy. In any case a home solar system reduces your usage of metered power so you're payback is at consumers prices.
1) Ice ages are somewhat random events so saying 10,000 years we will be in an ice age is silly it may have already happened or yet to start. Looking back several million years ices ages have no where near the consistency as the seasons. They don't all get as cold they don't last the same amount of time and they don't occur on a regular basis.
2) Both sides are trying to muddy the waters. You don't hear "Everything will be fine" and you don't hear "We are all going to die" because there is some give and take with every publication.
3) Some people think we can't change the climate. But looking at the "Dust Bowl" in the US and "urban heat island effect" it's clear we can alter the local climate in significant ways.
4) It's generally accepted that increasing CO2 increases global temperature up to a point but we don't know what all the effects of increased global temperature are going to be. It's probably going to be expensive / destructive for low lieing costal cities but most of the temperature increase is going to occur in the north which might increase economic activity enough to help offset some of the damage.
IMO: I suspect in the long term (1000+ years) we will carefully control the worlds climate. Over the realy long term 10,000 - 1,000,000 years we may decide to alter the earths orbit and fine craft our heat output to deal with the amount of energy we are generating, but right now we don't have the tools or experience to deal with significant climate change. As with most significant changes large numbers of people are going to die and then the world will adjust and move on. It's not the end of the world just the end of our world as we know it.
"Aside from that, the whole premise is stupid and just a fluff piece to drive traffic." I agree. I have far more processing power in my car than my home PC. Mores Law is about more than just CPU's. Now day's people use hundreds of chips in their daily lives in everything from street lights, to Wii's, and cellphones. The classic desktop / laptop is a small segment of the overall chip market.
Don't forget Dell also pays people to do build systems and do support. So when your buying a Dell your paying for the HW, SW, man power to build it, shipping costs, man power to support it, and some R&D.
Granted Dell gets huge discounts due to their size but you can build systems in house for around the same cost as a rebuilt Dell if you build a lot of systems. (AKA Assuming you don't pay full retail cost for windows.)
Don't forget Support Contracts make Dell a lot of cash and they outsource a lot of this Support. So you could higher the same company's and get that slice of the pie.
PS: 7000 machines per year is on the small side so you may be better off working out a good deal with Dell but if you start to grow it may not be such a great idea any more.
A historical investment in the US economy. Let's say the US is 50k worth of roads, education, hospitals, networks, legal system etc per person. Now letting an unlimited number of people into the US would strain that infrastructure reducing it's value per person. Now how is that fair to a 65 year old that has been playing taxes for years.
Granted, for 25 year old PHD's it's easy to say their education / talent is worth that so let them in but what about 50 year old farm workers who don't know English. Now a 50 year old farm worker with 300k in the bank can say his cash balances out our collective investment so it's ok. But what about a 90 year old with no family, no cash and dementia.
PS: Yes this is cold but world wide more people would like to live in the US than currently live in the US.
Yea, the article is junk but so is the H1B quota system. It seems like the simple solution is for the government to auction off H1B's.
If Google really want's someone they can offer 50k but they can probably get local talent for cheaper. My guess is H1B's would balance out to around 25K a pop and most Americans would be fine competing on that type of playing field.