Your comments would make more sense if cigarette's where illegal vs regulated. Cigarette's are dangerous for your long term health and the degrade your short term health but they are "safe" to use on the short term because of regulation. Similar numbers of people smoke pot and cigarette's. They pose similar long term risks however because pot is illegal we increase the users risk significantly.
Yes, quiting cigarette's is a pain, but plenty of people do so. However, if cigarette's where illegal the risk of short term use would go way up so many people might never get a chance to quit. Not to mention the legal and social ramification of illegal drug use vs Cigarettes.
EX: LSD is vary risky to use but much of that risk stems from contamination and unknown dosage levels instead of long term continuous LSD usage. The term "bad batch" means someone/group was used as a lab rat and found out that the LSD is mixed with some other random harmful substance. Regulated substances don't have these problems.
PS: When somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of young people have tried POT it's hard to think making it illegal is doing much good.
"According to an October 2002 Time/CNN poll, nearly half of Americans (47 percent) have smoked pot at least once. Gallup polls indicate that a greater share of people have sampled the drug over the last 30 years or so, but not to the level reflected in the Time/CNN survey. According to Gallup data gathered in 1999, 34 percent of Americans admitted trying marijuana, up from 11 percent in 1972 and 4 percent in 1969. (Perhaps to elicit honest responses, those polled were reminded that all of their answers were confidential.) Furthermore, phrasing the question in the following way, "Have you, yourself, ever happened to try marijuana?" seemed to imply that usage could have been inadvertent or that the smoker was somehow not responsible for his or her action."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is _5_25/ai_102102598
Now those statistics might be higher if pot where legal, but it was legal for well over 100 years and apparently few people where having problems.
A) Die. B) Start selling high speed internet. (100Mbit+) C) Start their own vertion of Netflix. D) Follow IBM and get into the consulting Biz. E) Follow Sony and get into content creation.
Cable is in the same situation as radio companies they are a distribution company with outdated teck. They can adapt or die.
1. IC engines in the average car is about around 1/2 as effecent as a high effecency coal power plant. 2. You don't get gas out of the ground. You get a black substance which when highly refined (energy) and transported hundred's of miles to distribution centers,(energy) where it is driven (More energy and that energy is gas which had to go though the above steps) to the local gas station. vs: Coal which is often burned next to the mine. 3. Hybrids are more effecent though regenerative breaking and a more optimised IC engine but they still have step 2.
Anyway look at the costs to operate a coal power plant vs gas generators to get some idea just how much cheeper coal is.
Hybrids are more efficient than normal IC engines. However, using a Hybrids IC engine to charge it's batteries costs about 3x as much as using electric energy to charge them.
There are several reasons for this including the energy and manpower requirements to create and distribute gas, how much IC engines suck, and gas taxes. Now you can assume it's all from taxes or you can run some numbers and find out why.
Gas takes significantly more energy for production and distribution vs coal, and electric cars can also use regenerative braking, but using some raw numbers...
"Subcritical fossil fuel power plants can achieve 36-38% efficiency. Super critical designs have efficiencies in the low to mid 40% range, with new "ultra critical" designs using pressures of 30 MPa and dual stage reheat reaching about 48% efficiency."
~.45 / ~.25 (your number) = 1.8 times as efficient at generating energy... AKA a lot of wiggle room.
Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995. (Note: Night time charging is more efficient because cool lines are more efficient. Adding local power generation would also increase efficiency, but I will still use 7.2%)
"Electric motors often achieve 90% conversion efficiency over the full range of speeds and power output and can be precisely controlled."
Thus it comes down to battery efficiency....25(your number) / (~.45 *.928 (line loss) *.9 (motor)) =.665 So around 66.5% is the break even. Ignoring regenerative breaking etc.
Which means electric cars can be more efficient in terms of CO2 production vs normal gas cars. Hybrids are closer but production and distribution of gas produces a lot of CO2. (I don't have good numbers for this.)
Lithium ion battery: "Current generation cells can be fully charged in 45 minutes or less; some reach 90% in as little as 10 minutes."
PS: Lithium ion battery's do better in colder areas. 40% Charge At 25 C (77 F)= 4% loss after 1 year At 0 C (32 F) = 2% loss after 1 year
100% Charge At 25 C (77 F) 6% loss after 1 year 4% loss after 1 year 20% loss after 1 year
Note: You can recycle Lithium ion's as the raw materials are not damaged over time, so this is not a huge deal after significant adoption of electric cars.
There is little you could do to a trillion ton impactor (It's #$@*ing 10 miles wide). But look at your numbers for a ~10 billion ton ~mile wide impactor over the ocean.
1000 billion 10 lb rocks would dump more energy into the upper atmosphere and they will flash boil a lot of ocean. But they are going to cause a much smaller wave. Because the wave is what would cause most of the devastation from such an impact it's vary usefull.
It's not going to fix everything but ~70% of the time your going to hit the ocean so it's a reasonable aproach for a lot of these situations.
So a large tower would not get you orbital velocity at LEO. "Atmospheric and gravity drag associated with launch typically add 1,500-2,000 m/s to the delta-V required to reach normal LEO orbital velocity of 7,800 m/s." So a LEO tower would help but you need to get to GEO before your orbital velocity is "free".
There is a huge difference between "effective" and "efficient".
2000 people working for 10 years might develop software that "works" but 30 people working for 6 years might solve the same problem. I have solved problems in hours that someone else spent weeks on. Both of us where effective, but that says nothing about being cost effective.
I hate to brake it to you but communication tends to be the most important problem on most projects.
Short example: A friend designed a complex toy the fairly exact specifications but kept getting back "We can't build this" from the Chinese haul of the company. After 8 faxes and several phone calls it was discovered that they needed a to extend the base 1/4 of an inch to fit all the components. Now the original specification was ~1 inch base but either ~1 does not stretch to 1 and 1/4th or someone dropped the ~.
Knowing which aspects of the specification are flexible is vital when designing any complex system. Trying to get someone to build from a fixed spec without understanding the problem is stupid. Yet, off shoring development crates a huge separation between those you understand what needs to get done and those who implement a solution. Anyone who does not see this a huge problem is a fool.
Without going into hardcore math the idea is that in LEO your horizontal velocity is 17,000 mph and you orbit the earth every 90 min. So while going down at 30mph might seem a big deal within 45 min the are are on the other side of the earth and that 30mph down becomes 30mph up. Looking at some basic vector math slowing down gives you the most bang for the buck but 17,000 mph vs 16,970 is not going to cut it.
PS: A comet and the earth both orbit the sun and while they might cross the same point in space but they do it at different speeds.
It could have more L1 and L2 Cache, a possibly a wider buss to the systems RAM, and or a better architecture designed around that clock speed.
Anyway, for many things AMD 64bit CPU's are 30% faster than 32bit chips clock for clock. And a little cooler than old AMD CPU's clock for clock.
PS: Comparing to systems of similar clock speeds and ignoring there architecture is a bad idea. A 1Gz P3 is faster than a first generation 1Gz P4 for most apps.
If the US wants to open the doors to everyone of any skill set immigrating to the US that's one thing. But H1B's are basically a direct attack on specific segments of highly skill labor.
I would be more than happy to let 5 million people a year enter the US as long as they are representative of the entire spectrum of economic life. However, when H1B's drive down programmer wages but doctors and lawyers are basicly left alone there is a problem.
"Gas/diesel engine is 30% efficient" (at best often it's much lower than that.)
"Electrical-to-mechanical (incl gears etc): 70%" Umm... Electric motors are about 95% efficient and there are no gears or anything else between them and the wheels.
Battery charging/storage: 70% (Hybrid cars waste less energy than this charging but I will use your numbers because I can't find any good data on this and there is the self-discharge issue.)
So Electric cars are 0.5*0.98*0.95*0.70(charge cycle) = 32.6% efficient.
However, fossil fuels are only 50% of US electric generation so you your at less than 1/2 CO2 vs. Gas.
Now hybrids get to use things like regenerative braking and their internal engines are more efficient but electricity is so much cheaper than gas that adding pluggable power can be vary worth it. At which points why not dump the IC engine add some more batteries and go for 100% electric?
PS: Hybrid cars are more efficient in highway driving because the engine is designed for a smaller operating range, thus it is more efficient and you still get the advantages of a hybrid system every time you change speeds.
"Engineers and techs are hired to perform some technology-related task. They are responsible to complete these tasks."
False.
Projects could work this way if they started with extremely clear goals but most Managers are unable to provide sufficient detail. In the real world Engineers are often asked to provide the idea's, estimated completion time, wait for Management to decide what to do and how many resources they have to work with, and then Engineers to start creating a product. However, the goal keeps changing as new ideas show up so Engineers are often asked to adapt something designed to do X and get it to do Y and Z using old time tables created around different projects.
Most Engineers understand you need to have marketing sell products and it's a good idea to have the public input on what are important features but filtering public desires though a marketing department decreases the accuracy of such requests. AKA instead of we will only buy it if A..N and we want M..Z marketing says they need A..Z.
IMO. The most efficient method of managing teck projects is to have teck people, working all other departments involved in the project, create a detailed plain of action which is then vetted though upper management to align it with overall strategic planning. Management then oversees this project to keep things going and keep Engineers focused on creating adequate if not perfect solutions to the problems at hand.
PS: This is not to say need the same Engineers working at each of the projects stages. The problem is management is unable to determine how complex changing "small details" is so they need to be given the choice between different plains of action instead attempting to micro manage said projects.
It's not a binary choice. The idea that security is all important is why 3 x as many nukes as there is any reason to have. That's right we could have spent 1/3 as much on building nukes and been just as safe. This is not to say we would have been as safe with zero nukes.
You can defend stop some types of "terror attack's" by telling countries that support "TERRORISM" that we will hold them responsible for such support. If Iran creates a dirty bomb that's detonated on US soil then nuke the country into glass. We did the same thing with the USSR and Cuba and it worked.
It's a good idea to read up on the list at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ and count the number of fallacies used in the average political speech. I think this will start to clear up some issues for you over time.
Note: I am ignoring the "Appeal to Emotion" and "Ad Hominem" attacks because I don't find them worthy of note, but feel free to waste your time with such things in the future.
"The "Local Memory" is the RSX graphics memory. The Cell shouldn't need to read this. The PS3 would still work even if the Cell couldn't read this memory at all. This memory is where you store textures and other graphics data."
IMO it's reasonable to have asynchronous communication with the graphics subsystem. The only stupid thing going on is calling graphics cards memory "Local Memory". It suggests that the X-Box got it right by having one big chunk of memory that is read by both the CPU and GPU even if most developers will make the same basic split anyway.
Let's see annual death total from TERRORISM 2000 to 2006 ~2k from 9/11 + 2.5k in Iraq(Which seems silly but we can add them in if you want...) / 6 = ~750 / year.
So my annual risk from TERRORISM is about 250,000,000 / 750 US deaths / year or so my risk is around 1 in 333,333 per year.
Let's compare that to: "Normal" Homicide which kills over 20,000 people in the US every year. Which means I am 27 times as likely to be killed by someone in the US vs. a foreign TERRORIST.
Motor Vehicle Crashes: 26,000+ US deaths / year aka 35x as likely to kill me vs. Al Qaeda, yet I still drive.
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity: 365,000 US deaths / year aka 467x as likely to kill me which is why I work out and try to keep a healthy diet.
I think it's a good idea to start by focusing on one area and then branching out. Once you have a good understanding of one area you can safely move on to other areas of computing to help you understand how this works.
If you want to become a good programmer I would suggest doing something like this:
Start with C.
A) Write a program to open a file and display it to your screen. B) Expand that to make a copy of the file backwards. C) Make a new program that gets 2 numbers from a file (A and B) and prints A + B.
Move on to C++ I would read Ivan Horton's beginning C++ A) Start with a program that opens a file, reads a list of numbers, and sorts them. B) Extend that so you can work with 10+GB files quickly. (This would be a good time to pick up a book on computer algorithms and learn how your operating system handles memory.)
Learn enough ASM to replace 2 functions in the above project with ASM
I would stick with java for a while. A) All the above projects B) A simple web server. C) Extend the web server so it returns the contents of a small Database.
Learn enough LISP and Pearl to parse a java file and find all the variable names for each function.
At this point you should pick complex project you want to work on and using the best language for that task get it to work.
It's a variation on a standard electric welder. He is using electricity to split water transforming 2 H20 into 2* H2 + O2 which is then burned.
Now FOX news cut out all the science making this seem like a *great new thing* which use water as an energy source but it is water as a battery. They are basically doing the same thing as saying "I can use copper wire to power my lights" ignoring the fact the only reason it works is the coal power plant attached to said copper wire.
In the same way the car is not using water as a power source rather it's some kind of battery. After all if it really ran on H20 there would be no reason for the car to run on gas.
PVE: Death is basically Zero Risk.
PVP: Death is Zero Risk.
Skill tree: Almost zero risk change at any time for little cost.
Overall there is little advantage to intelligent game play. EX: 2-3x exp advancement or 2-3x PVP rank advancement.
Now let's look at EVE:
PVE: Death = loss of ship, 70% of gear, but no loss of implants.
PVP: Death = loss of ship, all gear, and probably all implants. Vs. Win = 30% of players gear.
So their is risk in death.
Overall intelligent game play makes a huge difference.
EX: Scamming is an accepted game practice. Steal more money than most players make in 6 months and gain fame and fortune.
EX: You have access to past market activity so learning which items have value in which areas becomes valuable. You can setup buy / sell orders for up to 3 months and change their value over time.
EX: The in game skill tree let's you learn any useful skill in game but picking the right path becomes vary important. You can never trade skills but you always keep learning so it's easy to change path's at your own risk.
PS: The whole idea of grinding is a dumbing down. PVP grinding is stupid (aka taking 10 deaths and 0 losses is worth less than 11 wins and 100 losses.) it levels the playing field by making the number of hours you pvp become far more important than how good you are at PVP. Thus a low level of rank has little to do with skill and high levels of rank require some skill AND insane play times.
That's one way to think about things, but in the real world there is a huge separation in the number and type of bugs created when you go from one language to another.
For example:
C++ programs tends to have a both a large number and a wide verity of pointer issues.
Java still has pointer issues but most of them are NULL pointer issues.
Granted they both have casting issues. However, for the same memory foot print you are not going to end up with the same number and type of bugs.
The real reason why most software is full of bugs is people don't realy care. Yes, software is a hard problem but most projects tend to operate by trimming features to fit the schedule vs. focusing on the core problem until you have a rock solid solution and then adding carefully tested features until time runs out.
PS: When people do care you see a huge difference. EX: Few people are willing to use an extremely buggy compiler.
Yea "with a virtually unbreakable 128-bit key, itself generated through a Diffie-Hellman exchange."
Sorry, I read "generated" as a 128-bit Diffie-Hellman (RSA) key.
Anyway it's been a while since I looked at encryption but I thought 4096 was mostly used by banks.
"they perform a 1024-bit Diffie-Hellman shared secret exchange, to generate a secret 128-bit key. This process takes between 10 to 30 seconds."
As to new math I don't think "UK government" would act any different even if they could break such systems. If they could break such systems they are going to try and act like it's a problem so people will keep using them. So I don't think most people in the UK government would have any idea that such a system existed.
"with a virtually unbreakable 128-bit key, itself generated through a Diffie-Hellman exchange."
Sorry, I read that as a 128-bit Diffie-Hellman (RSA) key. The use of generate vs exchange is what though me for a loop. I was so used to shitty encryption on most hand held devices I never thought they might use something decent.
After Reading TFA:
"they perform a 1024-bit Diffie-Hellman shared secret exchange, to generate a secret 128-bit key. This process takes between 10 to 30 seconds."
Slashdot Mirror
Your comments would make more sense if cigarette's where illegal vs regulated. Cigarette's are dangerous for your long term health and the degrade your short term health but they are "safe" to use on the short term because of regulation. Similar numbers of people smoke pot and cigarette's. They pose similar long term risks however because pot is illegal we increase the users risk significantly.
s _5_25/ai_102102598
Yes, quiting cigarette's is a pain, but plenty of people do so. However, if cigarette's where illegal the risk of short term use would go way up so many people might never get a chance to quit. Not to mention the legal and social ramification of illegal drug use vs Cigarettes.
EX: LSD is vary risky to use but much of that risk stems from contamination and unknown dosage levels instead of long term continuous LSD usage. The term "bad batch" means someone/group was used as a lab rat and found out that the LSD is mixed with some other random harmful substance. Regulated substances don't have these problems.
PS: When somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of young people have tried POT it's hard to think making it illegal is doing much good.
"According to an October 2002 Time/CNN poll, nearly half of Americans (47 percent) have smoked pot at least once. Gallup polls indicate that a greater share of people have sampled the drug over the last 30 years or so, but not to the level reflected in the Time/CNN survey. According to Gallup data gathered in 1999, 34 percent of Americans admitted trying marijuana, up from 11 percent in 1972 and 4 percent in 1969. (Perhaps to elicit honest responses, those polled were reminded that all of their answers were confidential.) Furthermore, phrasing the question in the following way, "Have you, yourself, ever happened to try marijuana?" seemed to imply that usage could have been inadvertent or that the smoker was somehow not responsible for his or her action." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/i
Now those statistics might be higher if pot where legal, but it was legal for well over 100 years and apparently few people where having problems.
A) Die.
B) Start selling high speed internet. (100Mbit+)
C) Start their own vertion of Netflix.
D) Follow IBM and get into the consulting Biz.
E) Follow Sony and get into content creation.
Cable is in the same situation as radio companies they are a distribution company with outdated teck. They can adapt or die.
1. IC engines in the average car is about around 1/2 as effecent as a high effecency coal power plant.
2. You don't get gas out of the ground. You get a black substance which when highly refined (energy) and transported hundred's of miles to distribution centers,(energy) where it is driven (More energy and that energy is gas which had to go though the above steps) to the local gas station.
vs:
Coal which is often burned next to the mine.
3. Hybrids are more effecent though regenerative breaking and a more optimised IC engine but they still have step 2.
Anyway look at the costs to operate a coal power plant vs gas generators to get some idea just how much cheeper coal is.
Hybrids are more efficient than normal IC engines. However, using a Hybrids IC engine to charge it's batteries costs about 3x as much as using electric energy to charge them.
There are several reasons for this including the energy and manpower requirements to create and distribute gas, how much IC engines suck, and gas taxes. Now you can assume it's all from taxes or you can run some numbers and find out why.
Gas takes significantly more energy for production and distribution vs coal, and electric cars can also use regenerative braking, but using some raw numbers...
.25(your number) / (~.45 *.928 (line loss) * .9 (motor)) = .665
)
"Subcritical fossil fuel power plants can achieve 36-38% efficiency. Super critical designs have efficiencies in the low to mid 40% range, with new "ultra critical" designs using pressures of 30 MPa and dual stage reheat reaching about 48% efficiency."
~.45 / ~.25 (your number) = 1.8 times as efficient at generating energy... AKA a lot of wiggle room.
Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995. (Note: Night time charging is more efficient because cool lines are more efficient. Adding local power generation would also increase efficiency, but I will still use 7.2%)
"Electric motors often achieve 90% conversion efficiency over the full range of speeds and power output and can be precisely controlled."
Thus it comes down to battery efficiency...
So around 66.5% is the break even. Ignoring regenerative breaking etc.
Which means electric cars can be more efficient in terms of CO2 production vs normal gas cars. Hybrids are closer but production and distribution of gas produces a lot of CO2. (I don't have good numbers for this.)
Lithium ion battery:
"Current generation cells can be fully charged in 45 minutes or less; some reach 90% in as little as 10 minutes."
http://www.answers.com/topic/lithium-ion-battery
Self-discharge rate 5%/month (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery
PS: Lithium ion battery's do better in colder areas.
40% Charge
At 25 C (77 F)= 4% loss after 1 year
At 0 C (32 F) = 2% loss after 1 year
100% Charge
At 25 C (77 F) 6% loss after 1 year
4% loss after 1 year 20% loss after 1 year
Note: You can recycle Lithium ion's as the raw materials are not damaged over time, so this is not a huge deal after significant adoption of electric cars.
There is little you could do to a trillion ton impactor (It's #$@*ing 10 miles wide). But look at your numbers for a ~10 billion ton ~mile wide impactor over the ocean.
1000 billion 10 lb rocks would dump more energy into the upper atmosphere and they will flash boil a lot of ocean. But they are going to cause a much smaller wave. Because the wave is what would cause most of the devastation from such an impact it's vary usefull.
It's not going to fix everything but ~70% of the time your going to hit the ocean so it's a reasonable aproach for a lot of these situations.
GEO orbit = 24 hours.
LEO orbut ~ 90 minutes.
So a large tower would not get you orbital velocity at LEO. "Atmospheric and gravity drag associated with launch typically add 1,500-2,000 m/s to the delta-V required to reach normal LEO orbital velocity of 7,800 m/s." So a LEO tower would help but you need to get to GEO before your orbital velocity is "free".
There is a huge difference between "effective" and "efficient".
2000 people working for 10 years might develop software that "works" but 30 people working for 6 years might solve the same problem. I have solved problems in hours that someone else spent weeks on. Both of us where effective, but that says nothing about being cost effective.
I hate to brake it to you but communication tends to be the most important problem on most projects.
Short example: A friend designed a complex toy the fairly exact specifications but kept getting back "We can't build this" from the Chinese haul of the company. After 8 faxes and several phone calls it was discovered that they needed a to extend the base 1/4 of an inch to fit all the components. Now the original specification was ~1 inch base but either ~1 does not stretch to 1 and 1/4th or someone dropped the ~.
Knowing which aspects of the specification are flexible is vital when designing any complex system. Trying to get someone to build from a fixed spec without understanding the problem is stupid. Yet, off shoring development crates a huge separation between those you understand what needs to get done and those who implement a solution. Anyone who does not see this a huge problem is a fool.
Without going into hardcore math the idea is that in LEO your horizontal velocity is 17,000 mph and you orbit the earth every 90 min. So while going down at 30mph might seem a big deal within 45 min the are are on the other side of the earth and that 30mph down becomes 30mph up. Looking at some basic vector math slowing down gives you the most bang for the buck but 17,000 mph vs 16,970 is not going to cut it.
PS: A comet and the earth both orbit the sun and while they might cross the same point in space but they do it at different speeds.
It could have more L1 and L2 Cache, a possibly a wider buss to the systems RAM, and or a better architecture designed around that clock speed.
Anyway, for many things AMD 64bit CPU's are 30% faster than 32bit chips clock for clock. And a little cooler than old AMD CPU's clock for clock.
PS: Comparing to systems of similar clock speeds and ignoring there architecture is a bad idea. A 1Gz P3 is faster than a first generation 1Gz P4 for most apps.
Or
proc DetectPoison(NeuralActivity)
{
return (NeuralActivity==0);
}
If the US wants to open the doors to everyone of any skill set immigrating to the US that's one thing. But H1B's are basically a direct attack on specific segments of highly skill labor. I would be more than happy to let 5 million people a year enter the US as long as they are representative of the entire spectrum of economic life. However, when H1B's drive down programmer wages but doctors and lawyers are basicly left alone there is a problem.
"Gas/diesel engine is 30% efficient" (at best often it's much lower than that.)
"Electrical-to-mechanical (incl gears etc): 70%"
Umm...
Electric motors are about 95% efficient and there are no gears or anything else between them and the wheels.
Battery charging/storage: 70% (Hybrid cars waste less energy than this charging but I will use your numbers because I can't find any good data on this and there is the self-discharge issue.)
So Electric cars are 0.5*0.98*0.95*0.70(charge cycle) = 32.6% efficient.
However, fossil fuels are only 50% of US electric generation so you your at less than 1/2 CO2 vs. Gas.
Now hybrids get to use things like regenerative braking and their internal engines are more efficient but electricity is so much cheaper than gas that adding pluggable power can be vary worth it. At which points why not dump the IC engine add some more batteries and go for 100% electric?
PS: Hybrid cars are more efficient in highway driving because the engine is designed for a smaller operating range, thus it is more efficient and you still get the advantages of a hybrid system every time you change speeds.
I don't think HP is doing better than IBM. IBM is doing a lot of high margin sales where HP is doing slightly higher volume low profit sales.
Which would you like to have a 40% profit on 1 billion or a 1.4% profit on 10 billion in sales?
"Engineers and techs are hired to perform some technology-related task. They are responsible to complete these tasks."
False.
Projects could work this way if they started with extremely clear goals but most Managers are unable to provide sufficient detail. In the real world Engineers are often asked to provide the idea's, estimated completion time, wait for Management to decide what to do and how many resources they have to work with, and then Engineers to start creating a product. However, the goal keeps changing as new ideas show up so Engineers are often asked to adapt something designed to do X and get it to do Y and Z using old time tables created around different projects.
Most Engineers understand you need to have marketing sell products and it's a good idea to have the public input on what are important features but filtering public desires though a marketing department decreases the accuracy of such requests. AKA instead of we will only buy it if A..N and we want M..Z marketing says they need A..Z.
IMO. The most efficient method of managing teck projects is to have teck people, working all other departments involved in the project, create a detailed plain of action which is then vetted though upper management to align it with overall strategic planning. Management then oversees this project to keep things going and keep Engineers focused on creating adequate if not perfect solutions to the problems at hand.
PS: This is not to say need the same Engineers working at each of the projects stages. The problem is management is unable to determine how complex changing "small details" is so they need to be given the choice between different plains of action instead attempting to micro manage said projects.
It's not a binary choice. The idea that security is all important is why 3 x as many nukes as there is any reason to have. That's right we could have spent 1/3 as much on building nukes and been just as safe. This is not to say we would have been as safe with zero nukes.
n .html
You can defend stop some types of "terror attack's" by telling countries that support "TERRORISM" that we will hold them responsible for such support. If Iran creates a dirty bomb that's detonated on US soil then nuke the country into glass. We did the same thing with the USSR and Cuba and it worked.
PS: Whenever you feel the need to restate someone's argument before attacking it your probably creating a "Straw Man" argument. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-ma
It's a good idea to read up on the list at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ and count the number of fallacies used in the average political speech. I think this will start to clear up some issues for you over time.
Note: I am ignoring the "Appeal to Emotion" and "Ad Hominem" attacks because I don't find them worthy of note, but feel free to waste your time with such things in the future.
"The "Local Memory" is the RSX graphics memory. The Cell shouldn't need to read this. The PS3 would still work even if the Cell couldn't read this memory at all. This memory is where you store textures and other graphics data."
IMO it's reasonable to have asynchronous communication with the graphics subsystem. The only stupid thing going on is calling graphics cards memory "Local Memory". It suggests that the X-Box got it right by having one big chunk of memory that is read by both the CPU and GPU even if most developers will make the same basic split anyway.
Let's see annual death total from TERRORISM 2000 to 2006
~2k from 9/11 + 2.5k in Iraq(Which seems silly but we can add them in if you want...) / 6 = ~750 / year.
So my annual risk from TERRORISM is about 250,000,000 / 750 US deaths / year or so my risk is around 1 in 333,333 per year.
Let's compare that to:
"Normal" Homicide which kills over 20,000 people in the US every year. Which means I am 27 times as likely to be killed by someone in the US vs. a foreign TERRORIST.
Motor Vehicle Crashes: 26,000+ US deaths / year aka 35x as likely to kill me vs. Al Qaeda, yet I still drive.
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity: 365,000 US deaths / year aka 467x as likely to kill me which is why I work out and try to keep a healthy diet.
Yet we are spending how much to fight TERRORISM?
I think it's a good idea to start by focusing on one area and then branching out. Once you have a good understanding of one area you can safely move on to other areas of computing to help you understand how this works.
If you want to become a good programmer I would suggest doing something like this:
Start with C.
A) Write a program to open a file and display it to your screen.
B) Expand that to make a copy of the file backwards.
C) Make a new program that gets 2 numbers from a file (A and B) and prints A + B.
Move on to C++ I would read Ivan Horton's beginning C++
A) Start with a program that opens a file, reads a list of numbers, and sorts them.
B) Extend that so you can work with 10+GB files quickly. (This would be a good time to pick up a book on computer algorithms and learn how your operating system handles memory.)
Learn enough ASM to replace 2 functions in the above project with ASM
I would stick with java for a while.
A) All the above projects
B) A simple web server.
C) Extend the web server so it returns the contents of a small Database.
Learn enough LISP and Pearl to parse a java file and find all the variable names for each function.
At this point you should pick complex project you want to work on and using the best language for that task get it to work.
PS: Have fun.
It's a variation on a standard electric welder. He is using electricity to split water transforming 2 H20 into 2* H2 + O2 which is then burned.
Now FOX news cut out all the science making this seem like a *great new thing* which use water as an energy source but it is water as a battery. They are basically doing the same thing as saying "I can use copper wire to power my lights" ignoring the fact the only reason it works is the coal power plant attached to said copper wire.
In the same way the car is not using water as a power source rather it's some kind of battery. After all if it really ran on H20 there would be no reason for the car to run on gas.
WoW is dumbed down.
PVE: Death is basically Zero Risk.
PVP: Death is Zero Risk.
Skill tree: Almost zero risk change at any time for little cost.
Overall there is little advantage to intelligent game play. EX: 2-3x exp advancement or 2-3x PVP rank advancement.
Now let's look at EVE:
PVE: Death = loss of ship, 70% of gear, but no loss of implants.
PVP: Death = loss of ship, all gear, and probably all implants. Vs. Win = 30% of players gear.
So their is risk in death.
Overall intelligent game play makes a huge difference.
EX: Scamming is an accepted game practice. Steal more money than most players make in 6 months and gain fame and fortune.
EX: You have access to past market activity so learning which items have value in which areas becomes valuable. You can setup buy / sell orders for up to 3 months and change their value over time.
EX: The in game skill tree let's you learn any useful skill in game but picking the right path becomes vary important. You can never trade skills but you always keep learning so it's easy to change path's at your own risk.
PS: The whole idea of grinding is a dumbing down. PVP grinding is stupid (aka taking 10 deaths and 0 losses is worth less than 11 wins and 100 losses.) it levels the playing field by making the number of hours you pvp become far more important than how good you are at PVP. Thus a low level of rank has little to do with skill and high levels of rank require some skill AND insane play times.
That's one way to think about things, but in the real world there is a huge separation in the number and type of bugs created when you go from one language to another.
:
For example
C++ programs tends to have a both a large number and a wide verity of pointer issues.
Java still has pointer issues but most of them are NULL pointer issues.
Granted they both have casting issues. However, for the same memory foot print you are not going to end up with the same number and type of bugs.
The real reason why most software is full of bugs is people don't realy care. Yes, software is a hard problem but most projects tend to operate by trimming features to fit the schedule vs. focusing on the core problem until you have a rock solid solution and then adding carefully tested features until time runs out.
PS: When people do care you see a huge difference. EX: Few people are willing to use an extremely buggy compiler.
Yea "with a virtually unbreakable 128-bit key, itself generated through a Diffie-Hellman exchange."
Sorry, I read "generated" as a 128-bit Diffie-Hellman (RSA) key.
Anyway it's been a while since I looked at encryption but I thought 4096 was mostly used by banks.
"they perform a 1024-bit Diffie-Hellman shared secret exchange, to generate a secret 128-bit key. This process takes between 10 to 30 seconds."
As to new math I don't think "UK government" would act any different even if they could break such systems. If they could break such systems they are going to try and act like it's a problem so people will keep using them. So I don't think most people in the UK government would have any idea that such a system existed.
"with a virtually unbreakable 128-bit key, itself generated through a Diffie-Hellman exchange."
Sorry, I read that as a 128-bit Diffie-Hellman (RSA) key. The use of generate vs exchange is what though me for a loop. I was so used to shitty encryption on most hand held devices I never thought they might use something decent.
After Reading TFA:
"they perform a 1024-bit Diffie-Hellman shared secret exchange, to generate a secret 128-bit key. This process takes between 10 to 30 seconds."
Thanks for making me double check.