I seem to recall that the concord was operating at a profit though the last seveal years of it's life. The R&D costs where never paid back but at some point the they doubled the price and basicly nobody noticed. If somone is going to pay 2k to shave 3 hours off their trip they are willing to pay 4k to do the same thing.
Anyway, a ship that can take 300 people should have less drag per person than a ship that is built for 100 people. And.52 is 16% more effecent than.62 which is a HUGE savings. Overall I think they can drop their fuel price per person mile down by 20-30% which should let them increase the things range. I think a lot of people would be willing to spend ~5-10k to save 8 hours off of a trip. It's hard to say what the market would be overall but once they pay for the R&D they should be able to build a lot of them. US to AU, US to Jap. US to EU. Their might even be a EU to Jap fight path that's mostly over water. Basicly any trip where they can save people 4+ hours is going to be worth it to some people.
Conscious has a definition. The definition is based on the properties of consciousness not it's component parts. Anything that falls under that definition is conscious. Thus, if a room full of monkeys fit's the definition of consciousness then their is a consciousness in that room.
You don't need to define red as a subjective experence to define conscious; a specific subjective experence is not part of the definiton of consciousness.
if f * o * u * r = 4 and
2x = 8 then 4 = x and x = f * o * u * r.
The point of this? You can have more than one thing equivelent to something else. So if "red" = "my red" and "red" = "your red" then the specifics of the subjective experence are not needed. Once you say "your red" = "red" I can use "red" and forget about the difrence between "my red" and "your red".
PS: Why do you feel the need to define consciousness in subjective terms? A MD can walk up to somone and say if your awake and aware then your conscious just fine.
However, to be accounted for in a functional way, entities need to have well-defined properties - they need to have a representation in terms of some formal system, just as a computer program will only work if all the states it sends the CPU into have well-defined representations in terms of the formal system which describes the microcode of the CPU.
No. You're missing my point. When you define something as a car there is a set of things it can do like move and some constraints like size ect. The individual parts are irrelevant. You can have a "chair" with 3, 4, or 5 legs as long as they are connected to a seat in the correct fashion.
This works the same with consciousness. To be conscious you need to sense and respond you your surroundings. How you do so is irrelevant. If you where talking to something for a few hours and could not tell that it was now human then clearly it would be conscious. Just as people can call paint "red" without knowing anything about optics you can call someone conscious without knowing anything about their synapses.
PS: If you can't define something than it has no meaning. AKA
Bob:"Look it's a jabajojotinko.
Cindy: " Where?
Bob: "It went away."
Cindy: "Hmm, what did it look like."
Bob: "I umm don't know."
Cindy: "What do you mean you don't know? What did it do?"
Bob: "Don't know"
Cindy: "Well, can you tell me anything about it?"
Bob: "No."
Cindy: "Thanks as far as I can tell a jabajojotinko has no meaning."
I think the roads in europe would be more effecent if the where built based on where people lived and ignored national boundarys.
A uniform supply system could be more effecnt and thus help out schools and other gov projects. A global system could increase the avalibility of potable water by shiping it accross national borders. By taping/draining all large bodies of water we could have plenty of water. EX: Shiping water from the great lakes to say mexico could provide them cubic miles of freash water.
Umm, it seems to me one of the few things that Christians, and Islamists both agree upon is "god can change his mind".
Christians (Catholics) Eating meat on a Friday = going to hell... Or not. Then again there is that whole old testimate to new testimate thing but they are the same right?
Islamists even say there will be many profits... Each with a new message.
If you looking for unchanging religions look into Buddhism but most of the "And god said" type realigns change with the time.
PS: The use of Buddhism = unchanging was meant as a pun should not be taken as an insult to any true believers here on/.
Ok, for the most part I understand relativity but it's so far outside what we deal with in day-to-day life it's hard to "think about" on some level. So let's do what most scientists would do under these circumstances lets build an experiment.
Take a large space ship ~1km long or longer. Place it in empty space and have 2 free floating objects a laser and a target. Now with minor calibration you have a laser floating in your ship hitting a target in your ship. At this point talking about how fast the ship is moving is pointless because everything is moving in the same frame of reference.
Now let's have the ship move by a star. The laser is going to keep going more or less strait to the target but the target will have moved. Now are we going to define a "straight line" in terms of the laser or the target? How about if the laser is aiming a gun?
Clearly you see the same things on earth but a straight line is defined in terms of the laser and it's path not the target or bullet. You fire a gun on the earth or the moon and the bullet falls but the laser falls less and you define space in terms of light not the objects and their paths.
Re: "hook it up and talk to it" Well, that's one view. On the other hand, imagine a room full of people, trained to collectively implement a simulation of a Chinese speaking brain. None of the people speak Chinese individually, they just follow symbol-manipulating rules. Then hook that room up to a Chinese speaking human and let them have a conversation. Does the ability of the room full of people to converse in Chinese indicate that there's a Chinese-speaking consciousness in the room somewhere? Yes.
Where is it, exactly?
In the room.
I look out side and see 1 car. It's a convertible and someone takes it's roof off, how many cars are there outside? One
Why? Because cars consist of many parts none of which are car. Being a car is a property of a collective of parts arranged in a manor such that the collective can function as a car.
Re: your PS. Yes - we all agree that red paint is red. No problem with that. But: what does it look like?
That depends on factors other than just the paint.
Are you saying that our experience of red is somehow present in the optical properties of the paint?
No. The optical properties of the pant are why it's red. Being red is a classification outside of perception.
The conventional picture is that the experience is in our heads, not in the paint!
That's silly. We have a symbolic model in our heads of the outside world but when you talk about a bucket of red paint your talking about the bucket not the symbols in your head.
Is red pant still red paint in a cave without light? Yes. Is red pant sill red paint after mixing it with blue paint? No. Why? Because you define things based on there properties and or the relationship they have with other things not as a fixed property where the paint would always be red paint.
When you look at a galaxy and see gravitational lensing, it is due to the deformation of spacetime.(TRUE)
But what your missing is a straiht line is a straight line independent of speed. An extra solar object that fly's straight to the sun is going in a staight line. BUT, a high velocity object that passes by the sun is deflected by difrent amounts based on it's velocity. With gravitational lensing light is following a straight line based on the curature of space time but a slower object is not going to follow that same line even if it's passing though the same space.
Is it really worth being a dick about semantics when the reality is we don't rotate OR revolve about the sun, but we travel in a straight line through curved spacetime? As a physics person, I think in terms of frames of reference, and rotational frame of reference makes sense - revolutionary does not.
I think your missing the point space / time is only curved in relation to light. If space / time where curved such that the earth where moving in a straight line around the sun then light would also do the same thing.
Sun1 and Sun2 are ~1u from each other. 180 degrees on the other side of the suns is a planet that can only see one sun. Now somewhere along the line from sun1 to sun2 there would be a point that would orbit. There would also be a on the other side of sun1 where a planet could orbit the same point in space as fast as sun1 and sun2 orbit that point. It's a longer orbitital path but it's basically orbiting sun1 which is moving along that path so like the earth it can orbit the sun at a farther distance and still keep 1 orbit a year.
There are probably other semi stable orbit's where sun2's orbit is not stable over the long term but planet1 is so tiny and far from it that the system could stay stable for millions or billions of years. Basically you have a 178 degree angle between sun1 sun2 and the planet and sun2 keeps pulling the planet into a slightly faster orbit around sun1 but the planet is so tiny that force does not slow down sun2's orbit for millions / billions of years.
In reality, it isn't a "gaseous medium" that imposes the maximum velocity, it's the velocity of the mass the ship is ejecting from its engine(s) that imposes it.
NO! NO! HELL NO!
In space your ship accelerates based on its mass and the force of it's exist. So you might accelerate as fast with 1gram/second of exit gas as you can with 100g/s of exit gas if that 1gram of exit gasses where going a lot faster than the 100gram/s of gasses.
In the atmosphere you accelerate in the same fashion but you need to counter the force of drag that grows at the square of your speed. So in space you might accelerate at 1g for 2 months and still be at less than c but in an atmosphere you would only accelerate at 1g while your standing still your acceleration would then be limited by your drag. So when you start moving faster your drag goes up until the force of the drag is the same as the force your using to push your self with at which point your at "top speed".
F=MA; Force = Mass * acceleration. In space it's just you and what your ejecting but in the air you need to apply force to move that air so you have less force to accelerate with.
Umm, hook it up to a set of speakers and a microphone and have a chat with it.
"Do you know who the first simulated brain was?"
"That would be I."
End of story.
PS: Not to be snide, but we define things by what they do not what they are. A person is a "evil psyco killer" becasue he acts like one not becase he "is" one. If somone says that _ is red paint then the paint is red because of how it interacts with light not because it is made out of the same stuff as other red paint.
1:The kernel is definitely a weird chimera of kernels, but I guess that'll be fixed for OS XI or something.
2: Carbon and Cocoa are both superficial, high-level layers that don't interfere with each other nor slow anything down. Classic also doesn't interfere and just slows itself down.
No. See 1.
The reason why the kernel so messed up is it has so many interfaces. If everything was running in Cocoa then they could optimize for it but you can have Cocoa, Carbon, Classic, and BSD threads all running at the same time which mean you can't give say Cocoa access to low level kernel functions with out going though an interface built to support everything else. If they had built an interface for BSD and Coca then emulated Carbon from coca and emulated Cocoa from Carbon then Carbon and Classic would not have slowed Cocoa down but by making an interface that they all have to go though they slowed the path down for everyone.
I don't see the point anymore. We decided to go 100% Java a while ago. It's got enough critical mass that it's not going to go away quickly and when you look at products like Azureus can see just how refined java has become.
Some people call java slow but it's easy to avoid doing slow things in java because it's a stable platform. If you don't use code like Str = St1 + St2 + St3...St22 it's fast enough and you don't have to worry about things suddenly not working on the "latest release" or your old optimizations slowing things down.
XCode2 looks cool but that does not help any of our legacy code. I still have over 6megs of Object Pascal code from the late 70's and early 80's that never really got carbonized. It's got an install base of around 500 machines and is working well so nobody wanted to pay to finish carbonizing it. I can look at the code and see leftovers from when they changed CPU types and all sorts of other junk.
How long do you think it's going to be before your XCode2 code just stops working? So for it's seems like every 5 to 10 years they just say ops sorry you need to write code not to make you software better but just because we felt like changing some things and never got around to emulating the old way of doing things. I don't mind when say Apple Talk dies because TCP/IP becomes the standard shure it was some work but that's not apple's problem but the real reason bill G won was because all the legacy apps stopped working just one to many times.
Instead of using $500,000,000,000 try "more money than the rest of the world put together" or 2,000$ per person.
There is a point where people just see a lot of zeros. 500,000,000,000 and 5,000,000,000,000 look about the same but on is 10x as large.
Same thing, different package.
Or 150% of the US's total energy costs (electric, gas, jet fuel, natural gas, heating oil ect). It's really funny when people go ape over 50c at the pump but they don't mind spending thousands of dollars every year on the military.
If we spent 1/2 our current budget on the military we could still destroy the rest of the world several times over. Do we really need to have several subs each of which have ~12+ ICBM's and 40+ independently targetable 10+ million tunes wroth of TNT nukes? That's what 10,000+ times the destructive force of all of NC nukes put together per ship.
PS: If our leaders keep trying to make up for an inferiority complex by overthrowing other countries we should start checking the package before they can run for office.
Upgrading is not a solution. They are not willing to leave well enough alone.
"Apple has officially decided to drop IBM, and will use Intel processors starting in their '06 line of systems"
So now I know all my old software is going to be emulated on an x86 which means it's going to slow things down when people upgrade. I don't care if this is true or not they keep doing things like this. I work for a small development shop and keeping up with Apple is starting to be a waste of time. Yea, they needed to change to OSX (or somthing like it) but if they want us to optomise things for them they need to stop jumping from from one new idea to the next. People did no re invent UNIX every 3-5 years and for the most part it just works.
I think some of the performance issues are related to the extreme number of interfaces the OS supports. Carbon Coca and Classic is a good idea from a marketing standpoint but it creates an extremely complex environment where it's hard to write efferent code. Apple's can't leave things alone for vary long. They keep forcing developers to recode old methods to fit into their new ideas so people stop optimizing, as it's a waste of time.
I love using Apple hardware / software but I hate coding for their OS.
PS: I am typing this from a year old g5 running OS X 10.2.8 so
Sorry, Uranium 232 is nasty stuff and it has a haulf life is long enough so you can collect a good pile of it to use with a non critical dirty bomb and a long decay path. I was going to look up the type of uranium with a haulf life of ~70 years but forgot about it.
The problem with using somethign like ebola is many people like myself would nuke the fuck out of any contry with even the slightest link to such an attack. Ok you killed 100 million americans but your contry is now a large glass plate that's going to be radio active for a long long time. The problem is the old "M.A.D." idea where you can't get anythign out of an attack like this other than death.
U235 is vary safe but U232 is nasty stuff. If your going to make a dirty bomb for long term contamination U232 is about the perfact substance. It's haulf life is ~68 years and it has a tun of sort lived things it decays to so it's vary radio active and will stay that way for a long time.
Now as I said in the real world it's much easer to make a shity atomic bomb than a true dirty bomb but covering central park with U232 would make it vary nasty place for a long time.
PS: If your going to make a mess of things for a long time dirty mobs can work well but they work better as a fear tactic than as a true wepon to kill people.
Umm, the point of public education is to increase the tax base. If we give you 100k and you make an extra 2mil over your lifetime then the system is working well. Now how is that different from using public grants for research?
If you develop a good idea with 100k of public funds and make a company worth 100m then the public is much better off. You created a new product or service, jobs, and wealth for other uses. Chances are the "public" is much better off giving you that money than sending one more random person to collage or keeping someone in jail for 3 years or most things the public could do with that money.
Research and education are not zero sum games when the public spends money on them they can get ahead over time. Universities can try and keep all the funding from new ideas to them selves but Universities are public institutions they are not the "public". As a student I am not going to try and develop an idea that is not going to benefit me. So as a student you keep that idea to your self because it's not going to get you anything. Thus universities gain little and the public gains nothing when universities try and keep all profit from its students and staff.
Ok looking at the wireless costs most of Africa is not going to have a cell tower "every few hundred meters across the coverage area " In some areas the cell towers are closer to a 20 mile across or 300 square miles of land from a single tower.
When your talking about ongoing costs of wireless you speak in terms of "spectrum rental" and "upgrade cycles" but they don't apply to developing nations. Spectrum is effectively free when nobody wants it and there is little point in upgrading a system when they can start with the best teck the US has been using instead of jumping though all those past incarnations.
Now in highly populated areas the cost of wired service drops but it's a lot cheaper to use wireless when the population density is 1000's of people per squire mile than it is to maintain wires to everybody's house. You end up with a single tower with a satellite uplink or fiber line instead of 1000's of miles of copper just waiting to break.
Now inside of city's it's a good idea to lay down fiber so businesses can get access high speed networks, TV, and 10's or 100's of phone lines with a single instillation but in moderately populated areas a cell phone is a lot cheaper to setup and operate.
Cell towers work best when you have low talk time per user and or a sparsely populated area and landlines work best in densely populated areas with high talk time per user. Now from your personal experience which defines most of Africa better?
Yahoo is providing a free service so in the event he sued them they would be liable for what? They have a "we can refuse service to anyone for any reason" clause so the most they would be liable for is a refund of 0$.
It's unlikely that she would lose her case vs. him because he was impersonating her. He may or may not have the right to post pictures but clearly E-Mailing someone and saying hi my name is 'Anna" call me at 555-1212 and I will F^&* you all night long is against the law.
Now if this was a simple geo city's act where he just posed pics of all his old GF's that would be one thing but clearly he was using their service to commit fraud. And by failing to respond to her repeated requests to take the sight down they where aiding him.
It's standard operating procedure for most ISP's to take content down at the first request from anyone and they have yet to be fined for this.
PS: I expect she is bringing some sort of charges against him. The article did not mention this but if she is that pissed off then clearly she is going to do something.
It's a troll if they are trying to get an 800 millimeters = 80 centimeters post.
Completely clueless seems a good option but I like using overrated. If they are simply using information that seems right they may have used poor math skills without noticing.
Every time you pay a bill with a Credit Card it cost's 20c or more + some % of the total bill. If you go from 4 bills to 1 you can save 3 * 20c * 12 mo = 7.20$ a year which is not a big deal but still cool.
Ditto for cost savings on # of bills sent out ect. It can add up to 50$ or more of savings a year.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to recall that the concord was operating at a profit though the last seveal years of it's life. The R&D costs where never paid back but at some point the they doubled the price and basicly nobody noticed. If somone is going to pay 2k to shave 3 hours off their trip they are willing to pay 4k to do the same thing.
.52 is 16% more effecent than .62 which is a HUGE savings. Overall I think they can drop their fuel price per person mile down by 20-30% which should let them increase the things range. I think a lot of people would be willing to spend ~5-10k to save 8 hours off of a trip. It's hard to say what the market would be overall but once they pay for the R&D they should be able to build a lot of them. US to AU, US to Jap. US to EU. Their might even be a EU to Jap fight path that's mostly over water. Basicly any trip where they can save people 4+ hours is going to be worth it to some people.
Anyway, a ship that can take 300 people should have less drag per person than a ship that is built for 100 people. And
Conscious has a definition. The definition is based on the properties of consciousness not it's component parts. Anything that falls under that definition is conscious. Thus, if a room full of monkeys fit's the definition of consciousness then their is a consciousness in that room.
You don't need to define red as a subjective experence to define conscious; a specific subjective experence is not part of the definiton of consciousness.
if f * o * u * r = 4 and 2x = 8 then 4 = x and x = f * o * u * r.
The point of this? You can have more than one thing equivelent to something else. So if "red" = "my red" and "red" = "your red" then the specifics of the subjective experence are not needed. Once you say "your red" = "red" I can use "red" and forget about the difrence between "my red" and "your red".
PS: Why do you feel the need to define consciousness in subjective terms? A MD can walk up to somone and say if your awake and aware then your conscious just fine.
However, to be accounted for in a functional way, entities need to have well-defined properties - they need to have a representation in terms of some formal system, just as a computer program will only work if all the states it sends the CPU into have well-defined representations in terms of the formal system which describes the microcode of the CPU.
No. You're missing my point. When you define something as a car there is a set of things it can do like move and some constraints like size ect. The individual parts are irrelevant. You can have a "chair" with 3, 4, or 5 legs as long as they are connected to a seat in the correct fashion.
This works the same with consciousness. To be conscious you need to sense and respond you your surroundings. How you do so is irrelevant. If you where talking to something for a few hours and could not tell that it was now human then clearly it would be conscious. Just as people can call paint "red" without knowing anything about optics you can call someone conscious without knowing anything about their synapses.
PS: If you can't define something than it has no meaning. AKA
Bob:"Look it's a jabajojotinko.
Cindy: " Where?
Bob: "It went away."
Cindy: "Hmm, what did it look like."
Bob: "I umm don't know."
Cindy: "What do you mean you don't know? What did it do?"
Bob: "Don't know"
Cindy: "Well, can you tell me anything about it?"
Bob: "No."
Cindy: "Thanks as far as I can tell a jabajojotinko has no meaning."
I think the roads in europe would be more effecent if the where built based on where people lived and ignored national boundarys.
/draining all large bodies of water we could have plenty of water. EX: Shiping water from the great lakes to say mexico could provide them cubic miles of freash water.
A uniform supply system could be more effecnt and thus help out schools and other gov projects. A global system could increase the avalibility of potable water by shiping it accross national borders. By taping
Umm, it seems to me one of the few things that Christians, and Islamists both agree upon is "god can change his mind".
/.
Christians (Catholics) Eating meat on a Friday = going to hell... Or not. Then again there is that whole old testimate to new testimate thing but they are the same right?
Islamists even say there will be many profits... Each with a new message.
If you looking for unchanging religions look into Buddhism but most of the "And god said" type realigns change with the time.
PS: The use of Buddhism = unchanging was meant as a pun should not be taken as an insult to any true believers here on
Ok, for the most part I understand relativity but it's so far outside what we deal with in day-to-day life it's hard to "think about" on some level. So let's do what most scientists would do under these circumstances lets build an experiment.
Take a large space ship ~1km long or longer. Place it in empty space and have 2 free floating objects a laser and a target. Now with minor calibration you have a laser floating in your ship hitting a target in your ship. At this point talking about how fast the ship is moving is pointless because everything is moving in the same frame of reference.
Now let's have the ship move by a star. The laser is going to keep going more or less strait to the target but the target will have moved. Now are we going to define a "straight line" in terms of the laser or the target? How about if the laser is aiming a gun?
Clearly you see the same things on earth but a straight line is defined in terms of the laser and it's path not the target or bullet. You fire a gun on the earth or the moon and the bullet falls but the laser falls less and you define space in terms of light not the objects and their paths.
Re: "hook it up and talk to it" Well, that's one view. On the other hand, imagine a room full of people, trained to collectively implement a simulation of a Chinese speaking brain. None of the people speak Chinese individually, they just follow symbol-manipulating rules. Then hook that room up to a Chinese speaking human and let them have a conversation. Does the ability of the room full of people to converse in Chinese indicate that there's a Chinese-speaking consciousness in the room somewhere?
Yes.
Where is it, exactly?
In the room.
I look out side and see 1 car. It's a convertible and someone takes it's roof off, how many cars are there outside?
One
Why? Because cars consist of many parts none of which are car. Being a car is a property of a collective of parts arranged in a manor such that the collective can function as a car.
Re: your PS. Yes - we all agree that red paint is red. No problem with that. But: what does it look like?
That depends on factors other than just the paint.
Are you saying that our experience of red is somehow present in the optical properties of the paint?
No. The optical properties of the pant are why it's red. Being red is a classification outside of perception.
The conventional picture is that the experience is in our heads, not in the paint!
That's silly. We have a symbolic model in our heads of the outside world but when you talk about a bucket of red paint your talking about the bucket not the symbols in your head.
Is red pant still red paint in a cave without light? Yes. Is red pant sill red paint after mixing it with blue paint? No. Why? Because you define things based on there properties and or the relationship they have with other things not as a fixed property where the paint would always be red paint.
Space is bent around the sun. (TRUE)
When you look at a galaxy and see gravitational lensing, it is due to the deformation of spacetime.(TRUE)
But what your missing is a straiht line is a straight line independent of speed. An extra solar object that fly's straight to the sun is going in a staight line. BUT, a high velocity object that passes by the sun is deflected by difrent amounts based on it's velocity. With gravitational lensing light is following a straight line based on the curature of space time but a slower object is not going to follow that same line even if it's passing though the same space.
Is it really worth being a dick about semantics when the reality is we don't rotate OR revolve about the sun, but we travel in a straight line through curved spacetime? As a physics person, I think in terms of frames of reference, and rotational frame of reference makes sense - revolutionary does not.
I think your missing the point space / time is only curved in relation to light. If space / time where curved such that the earth where moving in a straight line around the sun then light would also do the same thing.
Ok this would be an highly unstable orbit but...
Sun1 and Sun2 are ~1u from each other. 180 degrees on the other side of the suns is a planet that can only see one sun. Now somewhere along the line from sun1 to sun2 there would be a point that would orbit. There would also be a on the other side of sun1 where a planet could orbit the same point in space as fast as sun1 and sun2 orbit that point. It's a longer orbitital path but it's basically orbiting sun1 which is moving along that path so like the earth it can orbit the sun at a farther distance and still keep 1 orbit a year.
There are probably other semi stable orbit's where sun2's orbit is not stable over the long term but planet1 is so tiny and far from it that the system could stay stable for millions or billions of years. Basically you have a 178 degree angle between sun1 sun2 and the planet and sun2 keeps pulling the planet into a slightly faster orbit around sun1 but the planet is so tiny that force does not slow down sun2's orbit for millions / billions of years.
In reality, it isn't a "gaseous medium" that imposes the maximum velocity, it's the velocity of the mass the ship is ejecting from its engine(s) that imposes it.
NO! NO! HELL NO!
In space your ship accelerates based on its mass and the force of it's exist. So you might accelerate as fast with 1gram/second of exit gas as you can with 100g/s of exit gas if that 1gram of exit gasses where going a lot faster than the 100gram/s of gasses.
In the atmosphere you accelerate in the same fashion but you need to counter the force of drag that grows at the square of your speed. So in space you might accelerate at 1g for 2 months and still be at less than c but in an atmosphere you would only accelerate at 1g while your standing still your acceleration would then be limited by your drag. So when you start moving faster your drag goes up until the force of the drag is the same as the force your using to push your self with at which point your at "top speed".
F=MA; Force = Mass * acceleration. In space it's just you and what your ejecting but in the air you need to apply force to move that air so you have less force to accelerate with.
"how would we tell if it was conscious"
Umm, hook it up to a set of speakers and a microphone and have a chat with it.
"Do you know who the first simulated brain was?"
"That would be I."
End of story.
PS: Not to be snide, but we define things by what they do not what they are. A person is a "evil psyco killer" becasue he acts like one not becase he "is" one. If somone says that _ is red paint then the paint is red because of how it interacts with light not because it is made out of the same stuff as other red paint.
1:The kernel is definitely a weird chimera of kernels, but I guess that'll be fixed for OS XI or something.
2: Carbon and Cocoa are both superficial, high-level layers that don't interfere with each other nor slow anything down. Classic also doesn't interfere and just slows itself down.
No. See 1.
The reason why the kernel so messed up is it has so many interfaces. If everything was running in Cocoa then they could optimize for it but you can have Cocoa, Carbon, Classic, and BSD threads all running at the same time which mean you can't give say Cocoa access to low level kernel functions with out going though an interface built to support everything else. If they had built an interface for BSD and Coca then emulated Carbon from coca and emulated Cocoa from Carbon then Carbon and Classic would not have slowed Cocoa down but by making an interface that they all have to go though they slowed the path down for everyone.
I don't see the point anymore. We decided to go 100% Java a while ago. It's got enough critical mass that it's not going to go away quickly and when you look at products like Azureus can see just how refined java has become.
Some people call java slow but it's easy to avoid doing slow things in java because it's a stable platform. If you don't use code like Str = St1 + St2 + St3...St22 it's fast enough and you don't have to worry about things suddenly not working on the "latest release" or your old optimizations slowing things down.
XCode2 looks cool but that does not help any of our legacy code. I still have over 6megs of Object Pascal code from the late 70's and early 80's that never really got carbonized. It's got an install base of around 500 machines and is working well so nobody wanted to pay to finish carbonizing it. I can look at the code and see leftovers from when they changed CPU types and all sorts of other junk.
How long do you think it's going to be before your XCode2 code just stops working? So for it's seems like every 5 to 10 years they just say ops sorry you need to write code not to make you software better but just because we felt like changing some things and never got around to emulating the old way of doing things. I don't mind when say Apple Talk dies because TCP/IP becomes the standard shure it was some work but that's not apple's problem but the real reason bill G won was because all the legacy apps stopped working just one to many times.
Instead of using $500,000,000,000 try "more money than the rest of the world put together" or 2,000$ per person.
There is a point where people just see a lot of zeros. 500,000,000,000 and 5,000,000,000,000 look about the same but on is 10x as large.
Same thing, different package.
Or 150% of the US's total energy costs (electric, gas, jet fuel, natural gas, heating oil ect). It's really funny when people go ape over 50c at the pump but they don't mind spending thousands of dollars every year on the military.
If we spent 1/2 our current budget on the military we could still destroy the rest of the world several times over. Do we really need to have several subs each of which have ~12+ ICBM's and 40+ independently targetable 10+ million tunes wroth of TNT nukes? That's what 10,000+ times the destructive force of all of NC nukes put together per ship.
PS: If our leaders keep trying to make up for an inferiority complex by overthrowing other countries we should start checking the package before they can run for office.
Upgrading is not a solution. They are not willing to leave well enough alone.
"Apple has officially decided to drop IBM, and will use Intel processors starting in their '06 line of systems"
So now I know all my old software is going to be emulated on an x86 which means it's going to slow things down when people upgrade. I don't care if this is true or not they keep doing things like this. I work for a small development shop and keeping up with Apple is starting to be a waste of time. Yea, they needed to change to OSX (or somthing like it) but if they want us to optomise things for them they need to stop jumping from from one new idea to the next. People did no re invent UNIX every 3-5 years and for the most part it just works.
OS X still has some extremely rough edges.
I think some of the performance issues are related to the extreme number of interfaces the OS supports. Carbon Coca and Classic is a good idea from a marketing standpoint but it creates an extremely complex environment where it's hard to write efferent code. Apple's can't leave things alone for vary long. They keep forcing developers to recode old methods to fit into their new ideas so people stop optimizing, as it's a waste of time. I love using Apple hardware / software but I hate coding for their OS. PS: I am typing this from a year old g5 running OS X 10.2.8 so
Sorry, Uranium 232 is nasty stuff and it has a haulf life is long enough so you can collect a good pile of it to use with a non critical dirty bomb and a long decay path. I was going to look up the type of uranium with a haulf life of ~70 years but forgot about it.
The problem with using somethign like ebola is many people like myself would nuke the fuck out of any contry with even the slightest link to such an attack. Ok you killed 100 million americans but your contry is now a large glass plate that's going to be radio active for a long long time. The problem is the old "M.A.D." idea where you can't get anythign out of an attack like this other than death.
U235 is vary safe but U232 is nasty stuff. If your going to make a dirty bomb for long term contamination U232 is about the perfact substance. It's haulf life is ~68 years and it has a tun of sort lived things it decays to so it's vary radio active and will stay that way for a long time.
Now as I said in the real world it's much easer to make a shity atomic bomb than a true dirty bomb but covering central park with U232 would make it vary nasty place for a long time.
PS: If your going to make a mess of things for a long time dirty mobs can work well but they work better as a fear tactic than as a true wepon to kill people.
Umm, the point of public education is to increase the tax base. If we give you 100k and you make an extra 2mil over your lifetime then the system is working well. Now how is that different from using public grants for research?
If you develop a good idea with 100k of public funds and make a company worth 100m then the public is much better off. You created a new product or service, jobs, and wealth for other uses. Chances are the "public" is much better off giving you that money than sending one more random person to collage or keeping someone in jail for 3 years or most things the public could do with that money.
Research and education are not zero sum games when the public spends money on them they can get ahead over time. Universities can try and keep all the funding from new ideas to them selves but Universities are public institutions they are not the "public". As a student I am not going to try and develop an idea that is not going to benefit me. So as a student you keep that idea to your self because it's not going to get you anything. Thus universities gain little and the public gains nothing when universities try and keep all profit from its students and staff.
Ok looking at the wireless costs most of Africa is not going to have a cell tower "every few hundred meters across the coverage area " In some areas the cell towers are closer to a 20 mile across or 300 square miles of land from a single tower.
When your talking about ongoing costs of wireless you speak in terms of "spectrum rental" and "upgrade cycles" but they don't apply to developing nations. Spectrum is effectively free when nobody wants it and there is little point in upgrading a system when they can start with the best teck the US has been using instead of jumping though all those past incarnations.
Now in highly populated areas the cost of wired service drops but it's a lot cheaper to use wireless when the population density is 1000's of people per squire mile than it is to maintain wires to everybody's house. You end up with a single tower with a satellite uplink or fiber line instead of 1000's of miles of copper just waiting to break.
Now inside of city's it's a good idea to lay down fiber so businesses can get access high speed networks, TV, and 10's or 100's of phone lines with a single instillation but in moderately populated areas a cell phone is a lot cheaper to setup and operate.
Cell towers work best when you have low talk time per user and or a sparsely populated area and landlines work best in densely populated areas with high talk time per user. Now from your personal experience which defines most of Africa better?
Yahoo is providing a free service so in the event he sued them they would be liable for what? They have a "we can refuse service to anyone for any reason" clause so the most they would be liable for is a refund of 0$.
It's unlikely that she would lose her case vs. him because he was impersonating her. He may or may not have the right to post pictures but clearly E-Mailing someone and saying hi my name is 'Anna" call me at 555-1212 and I will F^&* you all night long is against the law.
Now if this was a simple geo city's act where he just posed pics of all his old GF's that would be one thing but clearly he was using their service to commit fraud. And by failing to respond to her repeated requests to take the sight down they where aiding him.
It's standard operating procedure for most ISP's to take content down at the first request from anyone and they have yet to be fined for this.
PS: I expect she is bringing some sort of charges against him. The article did not mention this but if she is that pissed off then clearly she is going to do something.
It's a troll if they are trying to get an 800 millimeters = 80 centimeters post.
Completely clueless seems a good option but I like using overrated. If they are simply using information that seems right they may have used poor math skills without noticing.
Every time you pay a bill with a Credit Card it cost's 20c or more + some % of the total bill. If you go from 4 bills to 1 you can save 3 * 20c * 12 mo = 7.20$ a year which is not a big deal but still cool.
Ditto for cost savings on # of bills sent out ect. It can add up to 50$ or more of savings a year.
Looking at your list:
Angels
Christian theology (as in walking on water.)
God
Aliens
Bible
Witches (that can use magic to do thins)
As far as I can tell they are all beliefs people hold without reasonable levels of proof. What in your mind separates these things?