You must not work with network apps all that much.
Think of the most basic email app possible. Now when a user presses "send mail" would you create a new fork (), try and micro manage the remote connation in a thread that handles the GUI, or force the user to wait around?
Next think about video where you have a resource intensive task AND you still want a highly responsive GUI.
Granted if all you ever work with is simple biz apps with one user you have a point but I think your 99.99% estimate says more about the work you do than programming in general. Because threads can often simply demanding applications.
My TV has a digital out for audio. So I can use the audio portion of HDMI and still send a digital signal to good speakers. Anyway, HDMI is simply easer to setup than component which in and of it's self is worth it. IMO.
PS: It's a Sony 55 inch SXRD so not all that high end, but a good screen (1080p) for the price(2k).
In the best locations wind power pays back well over 100x the energy used to manufacture, maintain and recycle them. The problem with wind is that some areas have a much higher payback than others however depending on the basline you can still get a lot of energy.
"The most comprehensive study to date[27] found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW (~54,000 Mtoe), or over five times the world's current energy use and 40 times the current electricity use. The potential takes into account only locations with Class 3 (mean annual wind speeds 6.9 m/s at 80 m) or better wind regimes, which includes the locations suitable for low-cost (0.03-0.04 $/kWh) wind power generation and is in that sense conservative."
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word theories if you think they ever stop being theories. Newtonian physics is wrong and a highly accurate model at the same time. Scientists might care that changing CO2 levels by X would increase the temperature by 1.00003 vs. 1.00004 degrees, but once you start talking about large changes to large systems the simple approximations are still true. Think of it this way, just because we can plot the location a Jupiter to within a few feet over hundreds of years does not change the fact that other older approaches sill work to their levels of accuracy.
"There is no evidence that anything we can do will have any effect whatsoever."
That's just silly. I can increase the average global temperature by panting a football field black. Its one thing to say the magnitude of change is too small to notice but saying there is no effect simply wrong.
Umm, if a 25% increase in energy costs = 10-25% increase in the cost of everything then energy costs are (10/25 % to 25/25 %) = 40 to 100% the cost of everything, which is just not the case. Feel free to look up fuel costs as a % of GDP. (If you don't believe these numbers feel free to look at the cost of land as a function of the cost of fossil fuels. Next look into the price of a good doctor / programmer as a function of energy cost's etc. Physical goods and services are no where near 100% of the US economy.)
Fossil fuel energy costs are ~3% of the US GDP so a 25% increase in those energy costs would increase everything by.03 *.25 = 0.75%.
Granted I have not run the numbers in a few years but converting all of the US electricity generation would to non CO2 sources would create a 30 - 65% premium over existing costs depending on location. See: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview.htm for a good example of such systems.
Solar hot water heaters save money for most of the continental US. Granted not so much in Alaska.
The only real issues is Cars / Jet's but there is enough of a buffer from heating and electric costs that even at 2.5x gas prices your only talking about 2x net energy costs. (Note your price at the pump is only about 50% raw fuel costs so (2.5x/2 +.5) = 1.75x at the pump or ~5.25$)
PS: In time there will be no fossil fuel's left anywhere in the world so doing nothing is not really an option. Those economies' that are prepared for ever increasing costs of fossil fuels will do better in the long run.
PS: Balancing green house gasses would do little harm to the US economy. We might go from spending ~3% of are GDP on fossil fuel to ~6% on renewable energy but over the long term it's a minor change.
Keep a public list of countries to be nuked in the event of an attack. Let it be known you will nuke the fuck out of them in the event of an attack regardless of who caused this attack. Now watch those countries try and prevent such attacks on you.
See: Cuban missile crisis. Basically, the US says to Russia if they attack us we attack you do you really want them to be able to attack?
PS: When it comes to MAD it's not a question of "are you evil" but "are you sufficiently evil to be left alone".
First off most HD signals are digital at some point so you never going get back that lost info. EX: HD-DVD, HD-CABLE, 3D Video Cards etc.
Second analog signals don't have any point of reference so they are not accurate beyond the first few bits of info.
Third analog get's more expensive the more accurate you go. So you can do 3MP but displays are soon going to be 20 times that at which point analog is a lost cause.
Finally the higher your signal rate the more interference degrades signal quality. With digital you have a base floor of "good enough" but analog can degrade though the floor. What's the point of a 10k/7k display if it looks like 1080i?
Umm, why are you ignoring the problem, it's not that the backbone can't handle the low bandwidth connections the problem is when you change peoples usage patterns most sites / services don't have enough bandwidth to handle the load. So it's not a 'network' problem. The problem is most companies are not willing to buy enough bandwidth to handle massive usage spikes.
It's not AT&T's fault when 20 people are trying to VPN to a small company with a fractional T1. And it's CNN fault when they don't buy enough bandwidth / processing power to handle 10x normal usage loads if they can reasonably expect those types of spikes.
They are a wide verity of solution to handle these issues, but basically each service/site/company needs to deal with it.
While I agree with most of what your saying consider how far you could go on a ~2 billion per year budget over 20 years. (Not that you would ever "stop" for long but it's a reasonable target.)
Personally I would try and use an ION drive that releases a vary low density foam "pellet's" that impact at fairly high velocity to de orbit large stable space junk. Think two satellites in opposite polar orbits that add ~0.1g pellets to the same object. With every impact pair you just dropped the object's orbital energy. Granted you replace the need for insane delta V's with insane accuracy and even at ~.1g spread over 1 foot area you need a fairly sturdy object but it's not totally impossible. Now the largest problem with this is breaking things into small chunks but...
For smaller objects you could use a several large mirrors to ionize space junk. Yea targeting things would be a huge issue but dumping a few kw/m should ionize most things fairly quickly. At say 1 per week you're at putting a fairly large dent into smaller space junk over time.
Finally for things like large structurally unstable satellites you would need a few high ISP ion drives for de orbiting. Luckaly there are far fewer of these than there are cunks of other stuff.
As to recycling space junk that seems like a tall order but if you consider how much stuff is in geo stationary orbit you have a lot of mass within a small rage of delta V's. So collecting several tons of junk should not be a huge problem. If you heat and spin a large ball / disk you could separate out several useful elements but I don't know how useful this would be. However, you might be able to make some sort of useful impact / radiation shielding from fairly impure chunks of copper etc.
Note: This is not my area but thinking in terms of generic ideas what are your thoughts.
3) Using your right thumb touch the top left side of the device.
4) Note: you're covering 1/4 to 1/2 of the screen with the base of your thumb.
5) Realize it's a dumb idea to use this layout with a standard size phone and move on.
PS: Obviously, you can use that layout with something that is not in the shape or give up using some portion of the screen but it's a bad idea for something phone sized.
The problem with that story is once your break it it's no longer an egg. It's the same with this keyboard idea many have considered placing the keyboard on the other side but considered it useless to not have the screen visible while you type. To truly be a "novel" solution it needs to not just be "new" but also useful. Otherwise several people may have considered and rejected the idea. Which is why you can patent using an existing drug to treat a new disease. Drug patents are not just about the drug but how to use or make it.
Now, I don't purchase or download music any kind, so my exposure is somewhat but I don't think "Performing" qualifies as art.
I don't care how talented a singer is if they don't crate the song they are not creating art. It's like calling a poodle prancing around a dog show "art" because art is more than the creation it's the creative processes.
Basically, A CPU with 4gb L2 cache is better than the same CPU with 4mb L2 cache.
However, 1000x L2 cache does not make a system 1000x faster because something else will bottle neck the system.
Or in simpler terms it would be useful to have an iPod with 100x as much space. But most people would go for an iPod with 10x as much space and 10x as much battery life because that much extra space is useless but more battery life is useful. (Assuming the same price.)
From a modern hardware perspective you never use ALL of a systems power at the same time but that does not mean you can replace any one component without lowering overall performance. All systems have at least one bottleneck, but most games encounter more than one, so you may be limited by the CPU, System bus, and then GPU. Which means beefing up any one component would not be worth it without beefing up several.
Think of it this way replacing 4mb L2 cash with 4 GB L2 cache would speed up most games, however spending that money on several components would be a better use for that same cash. The PS3 is designed to be flexible so you can use the cell to speed up rendering or AI as needed But that flexibility comes at the price of complexity, thus first gen games are using ~50% of the systems capabilities. However games will probably never use more than 80-90% of the systems resources at the same time so the graphics will get better they will not become twice as good.
PS: 3 games may all use 90% of the systems capabilities, but they will probably not use the same 90%.
You can patent the application of known drugs for different uses. So if you found out that aspirin (willow bark) reduces your risk of breast cancer you could patent aspirin as an anti cancer pill.
Granted with over the counter medication it's hard to regulate users, but you could sue anyone that advertises their aspirin's anti cancer properties.
IMO A conservative estimate would be 80% of that He3 in the top 2cm.
4(pi)1750km^2 * 2cm = 6.1575216 × 10^11 m3 / 1 million metric tons * 80% = 962.11275 m3 / kg "1 kg of helium-3 burned with 0.67 kg of deuterium gives us about 19 megawatt-years of energy output"
19mw years * 8c/kwh at 40% eff = 13,324$ per kg he3.
Which is probably not enough to offset the cost of extraction, transportation, and fusion but it is an available power source if you want to operate a moon colony.
This is one of the most basic problems with religion:
Saying I can' think how this could be is not the same as demonstrating that something can't be.
EX: You don't need planet's for life let alone earthquakes.
An all powerful god could crate intelligent plant life that orbit a star amidst an asteroid belt. Or human life on a space ship in the void.
Now you could take it on "faith" that the only possible way for life to exist is on a world with earthquakes and run with it but doing so is building a house on sand. Which IMO is the true foundation of religion.
I feel in time belief in Jehovah will go the way of Zeus Isis, father sky, and hundreds of thousands of major and minor gods. Yet the handful of basic dilutions will endure. Granted I could end up walking by the river styx or knocking on the pearly gates. However, I could also wake to find my bed had been transformed to gold because saying "could" basically says nothing.
PS: I think debating things with a true believer is pointless but have at it.
Slashdot Mirror
You must not work with network apps all that much.
Think of the most basic email app possible. Now when a user presses "send mail" would you create a new fork (), try and micro manage the remote connation in a thread that handles the GUI, or force the user to wait around?
Next think about video where you have a resource intensive task AND you still want a highly responsive GUI.
Granted if all you ever work with is simple biz apps with one user you have a point but I think your 99.99% estimate says more about the work you do than programming in general. Because threads can often simply demanding applications.
My TV has a digital out for audio. So I can use the audio portion of HDMI and still send a digital signal to good speakers. Anyway, HDMI is simply easer to setup than component which in and of it's self is worth it. IMO.
PS: It's a Sony 55 inch SXRD so not all that high end, but a good screen (1080p) for the price(2k).
Standard solar cells can generate about 20x the energy used to manufacture, maintain and recycle them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell
In the best locations wind power pays back well over 100x the energy used to manufacture, maintain and recycle them. The problem with wind is that some areas have a much higher payback than others however depending on the basline you can still get a lot of energy.
"The most comprehensive study to date[27] found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW (~54,000 Mtoe), or over five times the world's current energy use and 40 times the current electricity use. The potential takes into account only locations with Class 3 (mean annual wind speeds 6.9 m/s at 80 m) or better wind regimes, which includes the locations suitable for low-cost (0.03-0.04 $/kWh) wind power generation and is in that sense conservative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
"All there are theories right now."
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word theories if you think they ever stop being theories. Newtonian physics is wrong and a highly accurate model at the same time . Scientists might care that changing CO2 levels by X would increase the temperature by 1.00003 vs. 1.00004 degrees, but once you start talking about large changes to large systems the simple approximations are still true. Think of it this way, just because we can plot the location a Jupiter to within a few feet over hundreds of years does not change the fact that other older approaches sill work to their levels of accuracy.
"There is no evidence that anything we can do will have any effect whatsoever."
That's just silly. I can increase the average global temperature by panting a football field black. Its one thing to say the magnitude of change is too small to notice but saying there is no effect simply wrong.
Umm, if a 25% increase in energy costs = 10-25% increase in the cost of everything then energy costs are (10/25 % to 25/25 %) = 40 to 100% the cost of everything, which is just not the case. Feel free to look up fuel costs as a % of GDP. (If you don't believe these numbers feel free to look at the cost of land as a function of the cost of fossil fuels. Next look into the price of a good doctor / programmer as a function of energy cost's etc. Physical goods and services are no where near 100% of the US economy.)
.03 * .25 = 0.75%.
/2 + .5) = 1.75x at the pump or ~5.25$)
Fossil fuel energy costs are ~3% of the US GDP so a 25% increase in those energy costs would increase everything by
Granted I have not run the numbers in a few years but converting all of the US electricity generation would to non CO2 sources would create a 30 - 65% premium over existing costs depending on location. See: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview.htm for a good example of such systems.
Solar hot water heaters save money for most of the continental US. Granted not so much in Alaska.
The only real issues is Cars / Jet's but there is enough of a buffer from heating and electric costs that even at 2.5x gas prices your only talking about 2x net energy costs. (Note your price at the pump is only about 50% raw fuel costs so (2.5x
PS: In time there will be no fossil fuel's left anywhere in the world so doing nothing is not really an option. Those economies' that are prepared for ever increasing costs of fossil fuels will do better in the long run.
What if they sky where to turn green?
...?
What if gravity where to stop working?
What if
PS: Balancing green house gasses would do little harm to the US economy. We might go from spending ~3% of are GDP on fossil fuel to ~6% on renewable energy but over the long term it's a minor change.
Keep a public list of countries to be nuked in the event of an attack. Let it be known you will nuke the fuck out of them in the event of an attack regardless of who caused this attack. Now watch those countries try and prevent such attacks on you.
See: Cuban missile crisis. Basically, the US says to Russia if they attack us we attack you do you really want them to be able to attack?
PS: When it comes to MAD it's not a question of "are you evil" but "are you sufficiently evil to be left alone".
Simply put this is a honorably bad idea that will cost 10,000 to 100,000 human lives over the next 30 years.
RTFA again "It also killed colon tumors in mice without making the mice sick, they reported in the journal International Cancer Research."
There are several problems with your argument.
First off most HD signals are digital at some point so you never going get back that lost info. EX: HD-DVD, HD-CABLE, 3D Video Cards etc.
Second analog signals don't have any point of reference so they are not accurate beyond the first few bits of info.
Third analog get's more expensive the more accurate you go. So you can do 3MP but displays are soon going to be 20 times that at which point analog is a lost cause.
Finally the higher your signal rate the more interference degrades signal quality. With digital you have a base floor of "good enough" but analog can degrade though the floor. What's the point of a 10k/7k display if it looks like 1080i?
Umm, why are you ignoring the problem, it's not that the backbone can't handle the low bandwidth connections the problem is when you change peoples usage patterns most sites / services don't have enough bandwidth to handle the load. So it's not a 'network' problem. The problem is most companies are not willing to buy enough bandwidth to handle massive usage spikes.
It's not AT&T's fault when 20 people are trying to VPN to a small company with a fractional T1. And it's CNN fault when they don't buy enough bandwidth / processing power to handle 10x normal usage loads if they can reasonably expect those types of spikes.
They are a wide verity of solution to handle these issues, but basically each service/site/company needs to deal with it.
While I agree with most of what your saying consider how far you could go on a ~2 billion per year budget over 20 years. (Not that you would ever "stop" for long but it's a reasonable target.)
Personally I would try and use an ION drive that releases a vary low density foam "pellet's" that impact at fairly high velocity to de orbit large stable space junk. Think two satellites in opposite polar orbits that add ~0.1g pellets to the same object. With every impact pair you just dropped the object's orbital energy. Granted you replace the need for insane delta V's with insane accuracy and even at ~.1g spread over 1 foot area you need a fairly sturdy object but it's not totally impossible. Now the largest problem with this is breaking things into small chunks but...
For smaller objects you could use a several large mirrors to ionize space junk. Yea targeting things would be a huge issue but dumping a few kw/m should ionize most things fairly quickly. At say 1 per week you're at putting a fairly large dent into smaller space junk over time.
Finally for things like large structurally unstable satellites you would need a few high ISP ion drives for de orbiting. Luckaly there are far fewer of these than there are cunks of other stuff.
As to recycling space junk that seems like a tall order but if you consider how much stuff is in geo stationary orbit you have a lot of mass within a small rage of delta V's. So collecting several tons of junk should not be a huge problem. If you heat and spin a large ball / disk you could separate out several useful elements but I don't know how useful this would be. However, you might be able to make some sort of useful impact / radiation shielding from fairly impure chunks of copper etc.
Note: This is not my area but thinking in terms of generic ideas what are your thoughts.
1) Look at the picture.
2) Simulate that picture with a phone.
3) Using your right thumb touch the top left side of the device.
4) Note: you're covering 1/4 to 1/2 of the screen with the base of your thumb.
5) Realize it's a dumb idea to use this layout with a standard size phone and move on.
PS: Obviously, you can use that layout with something that is not in the shape or give up using some portion of the screen but it's a bad idea for something phone sized.
The problem with that story is once your break it it's no longer an egg. It's the same with this keyboard idea many have considered placing the keyboard on the other side but considered it useless to not have the screen visible while you type. To truly be a "novel" solution it needs to not just be "new" but also useful. Otherwise several people may have considered and rejected the idea. Which is why you can patent using an existing drug to treat a new disease. Drug patents are not just about the drug but how to use or make it.
You should look into using a sold state HDD.
Granted, they are not large and they are not cheep, but they are FAST, use less energy and don't care about vibration etc.
Now, I don't purchase or download music any kind, so my exposure is somewhat but I don't think "Performing" qualifies as art.
I don't care how talented a singer is if they don't crate the song they are not creating art. It's like calling a poodle prancing around a dog show "art" because art is more than the creation it's the creative processes.
Hmm, one would hope but... http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html
My guess is amt was defined as an Integer vs int so amt could have a Null value. Thus output might = "null" which is probably not intended.
PS: "" + amt is also vary slow
VM's are about using a higher percentage of cycles vs. cheaper cycles.
If you have 1 process that needs 30 cpu's then cheep boxes win.
If you have 300 processes that need 30 cpu's then VM's win.
Sorry I did not get much sleep last night.
Basically, A CPU with 4gb L2 cache is better than the same CPU with 4mb L2 cache.
However, 1000x L2 cache does not make a system 1000x faster because something else will bottle neck the system.
Or in simpler terms it would be useful to have an iPod with 100x as much space. But most people would go for an iPod with 10x as much space and 10x as much battery life because that much extra space is useless but more battery life is useful. (Assuming the same price.)
From a modern hardware perspective you never use ALL of a systems power at the same time but that does not mean you can replace any one component without lowering overall performance. All systems have at least one bottleneck, but most games encounter more than one, so you may be limited by the CPU, System bus, and then GPU. Which means beefing up any one component would not be worth it without beefing up several.
Think of it this way replacing 4mb L2 cash with 4 GB L2 cache would speed up most games, however spending that money on several components would be a better use for that same cash. The PS3 is designed to be flexible so you can use the cell to speed up rendering or AI as needed But that flexibility comes at the price of complexity, thus first gen games are using ~50% of the systems capabilities. However games will probably never use more than 80-90% of the systems resources at the same time so the graphics will get better they will not become twice as good.
PS: 3 games may all use 90% of the systems capabilities, but they will probably not use the same 90%.
You can patent the application of known drugs for different uses. So if you found out that aspirin (willow bark) reduces your risk of breast cancer you could patent aspirin as an anti cancer pill.
Granted with over the counter medication it's hard to regulate users, but you could sue anyone that advertises their aspirin's anti cancer properties.
IMO A conservative estimate would be 80% of that He3 in the top 2cm.
4(pi)1750km^2 * 2cm = 6.1575216 × 10^11 m3
/ 1 million metric tons * 80% =
962.11275 m3 / kg
"1 kg of helium-3 burned with 0.67 kg of deuterium gives us about 19 megawatt-years of energy output"
19mw years * 8c/kwh at 40% eff = 13,324$ per kg he3.
Which is probably not enough to offset the cost of extraction, transportation, and fusion but it is an available power source if you want to operate a moon colony.
"In Denmark around 20% of our power come from wind, expected to grow to 25%."
FYI: 1% / power plant * 20 power plant = where Denmark is now.
This is one of the most basic problems with religion:
Saying I can' think how this could be is not the same as demonstrating that something can't be.
EX: You don't need planet's for life let alone earthquakes.
An all powerful god could crate intelligent plant life that orbit a star amidst an asteroid belt. Or human life on a space ship in the void.
Now you could take it on "faith" that the only possible way for life to exist is on a world with earthquakes and run with it but doing so is building a house on sand. Which IMO is the true foundation of religion.
I feel in time belief in Jehovah will go the way of Zeus Isis, father sky, and hundreds of thousands of major and minor gods. Yet the handful of basic dilutions will endure. Granted I could end up walking by the river styx or knocking on the pearly gates. However, I could also wake to find my bed had been transformed to gold because saying "could" basically says nothing.
PS: I think debating things with a true believer is pointless but have at it.