There are afew basic problems with a wireless mesh network Routing, Bandwith becomes devided by the number of hops. And local bandwith devided by the number of users, and full coverage becomes limited.
Now asuming you just wanted to talk to califona from new york and each hop got you 50 miles. That's... 2462 / 50 or 30 hops so your net bandwith would be 1/30th of the avalable bandwith asuming full coverage. Now chances are it's going to be closer to 100 hops aka not a strat line and not alwase 100 miles.
Routing, your in the middle of a mesh network and you want to send a message to califona how is each of the ~100 hops going to know which path to take? Either each node needs to know the states of a few hunderd thousand other nodes around it or you going to start wasing a lot of bandwith on extra hops.
Now given to options pay nothing and get say 100th the bandwith or pay 50$ an month and get full bandwith most people are going to opt for spending cash and if there spending the cash there not going to give out there bandwith for free. So unless the mesh networks start having servaces that the ISP wish to connect to your not going to see mesh networks making the internet free.
1. The cost to produce power "off grid" is generally more expensive than on grid power.
2. Cost to produce would go down but the cost of materials will go up. So the cost would drop but the need for rare elements would limit the amount the cost can drop.
3. There are batteries that charge in 5 minuets or less which is a little slower than fueling up but it's safer so you could add many more charging stations at places like restaurants, and rest stops. Basically you would not need any tankers to refill the stations so all you need is some high power lines going in and anything becomes a gas station.
4. True but you working with a more efferent system so the added weight is less of a problem.
I agree that long hall truckers would probably go for hydrogen power but for a system that is as much as twice as efferent the cost per mile is going to drop to 1/2. I think batteries are getting a lot less press than they deserve.
If you want to see what the US gov is spending go to
http://www.cbo.gov/
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence =0 shows has a nice easy chart showing the gap between what Social Security is outlaying and what it is talking in notice the almost 1% of the US GDP gap? Well all that money is still being spent just not by social security. What's realy going on is social securty is paid from everyone but the amount you pay cap's out at 80k a year. So CEO's and doctors pay the same amount into Social Securty but so do they people who higher them. That's the hidden tax somone who is making 10$ an hour cost the company more than that but they only show taxes on the 10$ an hour they don't show how much more you could be geting if your employer did not pay Social Security. Which is why it's cheaper to give a 10k raise to somone making 100k a year than somone makeing 30k a year.
Yea I know it's funky math but looking around www.cbo.gov you see all sort's of strange things going on. "The total outstanding debt of the federal government, often referred to as the gross federal debt, now stands at approximately $6.2 trillion. That figure is composed of $3.5 trillion in debt that the government owes to the public and $2.7 trillion in debt that the government owes to itself." (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3948&sequenc e=0) Yea the numbers are a little old on that one there from 2002 but when you see the chart The Projected Composition of Federal Debt, 2001 to 2012 you start to notice odd things like the net debt going down while the debt to specific programs is geting ever larger. Most of that gap is realy just Social Securty being funneld into other programs.
Now looking around there I noticed it's been a while sence I looked there but you still noticed all that old wacky acting like the dificlty tracking down who is paying how much for social securty still looking for more upto date numbers on that one.
No. The secret to success in life is knowing when to punctuate your sentences. the reason that punctuation is the key to success is that you do not come off looking like a moron.
I hate english, however, I can construct a paragraph.
Look, you can nitpick if you so chose but I don't find grammar that important. Where I a writer I might chose to reprimand you for forgetting to capitalize the first word in your 3rd sentence and the word English in the same message but think it's a pointless. If you feel writing fish and chips vs. fish and chip is important in some settings I would agree with you. However, your implication that it's important to always use proper grammar is ridicules. I place as much effort into clarifying my message as I believe the audience is worth then I move on to more important things. After all it's much cheaper to higher an editor to read over your business correspondence than a stockbroker to make up for and inability to understand market trends.
PS: "I hate English, however, I can construct a sentence." would have had much more bite as it would have kept harping on the idea that I was unable to do such a simple task as apply the rules of grammar to a simple sentence. Instead your insinuation that I would be unable to construct a paragraph comes of as fairly weak, because the rest of your argument does not particularly support it.
I chose to take a risk and I went from failing math to the 99th percentile in most subjects. I also read over 200 books and learned to program in 5 years, hell by the time I was back I could have taken the GED and skipped HS. I mean sorry if taking a student that was failing most subjects to the top of his class in 5 years is not enough for you.
O and by the way while I almost failed English I was taking HONERS English at the time. And I still got out of HS and though college hell I passed the AP English test and got a 700 English 710 math on the SAT's my English hit 800 on the PSAT... But hey I should have sat back in public school and retaken the 3rd grade. Because as we all know knowing when to use who vs. whom is the secret to success in life.
More extreme weather both hot and cold due to more energy creating more instability. Many places will get wormer summers and colder winters. Others will get more tornados and / or hurricanes.
Less land. Where ever land locked ice melts that water will end up in the ocean, which will reduce the amount of land.
More erosion, so more mud slides and faster depletion of existing farm land.
Now yea some farmland closer to the poles will be available but most of the rest will be less productive. But other than the possibility of better farming which is not going to happen what other benefits do you see that would offset the loss of human life from all that bad weather?
Anyway, I am sorry if they did not answer your questions but they where not trying to. They where asking one and only one question "Does the scientific community believe man is causing global worming?" and they got the answer yes.
Hmm, while I can figure out what you ment by
Pretending that there is, in fact, gets in the way of teaching people what we want to be teaching them, which is *communication skills.* I think that the syntax of the english is there to aid redundancy which aids in decoding the meaning faster. I mean I got the meaning of what you said (I think) but with out that redundancy it's harder to feel confidant in the decoding.
While my spoken grammer is above average I was home schooled and thus subject to vary little grammer from 4 - 8th grade inclusive. And thus only realy had one grammer class in 9th grade I I passed with the lowest posible numeric grade. Thus leading to the travisty of english that is this post.
PS: Not spell checked to show ya just how bad my writting truly is and how hard it is to decode english in the raw as it where.
There is still cost. In man power, materials, decreased desire to join military ect. Money is representive shure but if we spent the same amount of cash we could have given 400billion / 2000$ or 200million laptops or just about one to every person in the US. And you know what I WANT MY LAPTOP.
The "core" problem is limited clean energy. If you have enough of it most problems are easy.
One solution: Europe, Japan, china and the US are working on a 500MW fusion reactor should be up and running in 9ish years. Dump 400billion in that project and we could get working stations in like 20 -25 years.
Car pollution = hydrogen storage. Ditto for tons of things form batteries to nuke waste.
Clean water = desalinization.
Trash = Ionize it then sort it with magnetic fields and you can turn anything into inert materials. ok you going to have to mix things like Na with Cl but it's not that hard.
Food = Maybe not green houses with sun lamps but with cheep desalinized water that you can pump anyway anytime you can farm a lot more land.
Ok you still need to work on education, housing, and health care. Come to think of it with less pollution many health problems go away and there would be a lot more money available to work on those things so it's still going to help those things out indirectly.
All that debt is not due on the same year and 2/3 of that is owed to Social Security. Last I checked the real debt was only like 1trillion and the rest was people using Social Securty to tax those making under 80k / year pay for the tax breaks given to the upper 1%.
Umm, I don't know about you but I been getting 30+% growth per year for the last 2 years... Then again I moved to foreign investments when I saw the dollar was going to fall but hey it's all good:)
It's the semi-regularly that's the problem. Running 2 miles 6 days a week is much much better than running 4 miles 3 days a week. Try this work out 20 min every morning rain or shine then if you get home from work and feel like it do a 2nd 20 min workout if not no big deal. If you do this for 3 months and your under 50 those 20 min in the morning will start to feel like nothing just another part of waking up and while you may or may not work out after you get home your body will be more than ready to take it.
In 8 years we are going to have a "working" reactor. As in it produces more energy than it uses. Now if it takes 8 years to build that say's it's 2 generations from compleation 8 years (built) 3 years test 8 years to build 3 years to test 8 years to build and done.
It's not that the science needs updating we could have built a working reactor by now. It's that we are not tossing much money at the problem. It's the same thing with sending a man to the moon we have done that already but it would take at lest 5 years to get it done a second time. Geting it done has more to do with building the thing than figuring out how to get it to work.
With a half-life under 5 years things decay at the almost the same rate it's being created in a reactor after a short period. So it's not geting much worse at 30 years than it was at 15 which means it's a limited problem.
In anycase the fact that your fuel does not become radio active is the primary advantage shure over time your structure start's to "glow in the dark" but that's ever so much better than spent fuel rods it's not even funny.
Despite what you might think large part's of the ocean contain vary little life. The reason for this is with 3 miles of water till you hit land (vertically) you don't get much in the way of nutrients near the surface unless there is churning due to currents. As no such churning takes place little to no radio active waste would reach living fish thus little to no human contact would result from such a launch failure in these areas.
Despite all the nasty things you hear about radiation there have been many open air nuclear tests. So a containment failure rate of 1 in 1000 should suffice to prevent any noticeable ill effects.
This is not to say we should dump this stuff into space but rather if we did we could do so with little to no risk to human life. I mean if we are transporting this stuff across the country to a disposal site then we can have risk there so it's not 0 risk but rather acceptable risk.
It's worse than that it's close to one person at a time thing.
Ok I would build it so your ship weight = 2/3 the ground weight so you can send a 2nd ship up as soon as your first ship hit's 1/2 G but your still vary limited.
0km 9.8m/s
2500km 5.0m/s
Which would work out to one ship per 25 hours. Chances are you can use more because you would build more stenght at higher levels with less cost to let you send up more cargo vs adding more total weight at the bottom.
Tools > Word Count
It shows Pages, Words, Characters (no spaces), Characters (with spaces), Paragraphs, Lines, and has an option to see if you want footnotes and endnotes included.
Granted it only counts the characters you see and not all the formatting information that is in the.doc file but that's more useful to most people than what a wc on a.doc file would give you. Anyway maybe if people stopped trying to say that the GUI is useless we might be able to convert more people over to the command line.
Can someone explain why accessor and mutator methods (I assume this is what he means by "getters/setters") are bad?
My guess is that in some instances, publically accessible getter/setter methods can be construed to be "exposing the underlying implementation" of a class. Of course, that just means you need to judiciously use getter and setter methods.
Hmm, so don't make them all public? I agree that classes should only let you get and set things that are meaningful outside the class by things like Vector.getLength are needed for classes to interact. And private methods like window.setFontSize() are vary useful as they can check for valid data as they change the object's state.
My guess is he wants you to have object's interact at higher levels so you use things like Dog. Jump vs. chains of actions like
For (int x = -25; x < = 25; x++){ Dog.setHight(ABS(25-ABS(x))); Dog.showLoc(); }
where it's not clear what your telling the other object to do.
Anyway Nod: That's my guess at least. I suppose I should read the book.
As a 24 year old programmer I don't mind saying Natual language programming will not show up in my lifetime. For a geologist to use Natual language to program a solution for him it's going to take an AI that understands the context of the problem thus puting both me and the geologist out of a job...
Thanks, I was thinking the test ship is using hydrogen so that works out as H + 0 vs H but it's H2 + 0 vs H2.
Atomic weight: 2 + 16 vs
Atomic weight: 2
18 vs 2 = 9 : 1
So the fuel weighs 1/9th as much with a oxidizer/fuel weight ratio is 0:1 vs 8:1.
But, that does not effect the arguemnt all that much it's still usefull to have a first stage rocket that uses a scram jet to hit mach 10 abd hopefuly mach 15.
Basically an air breathing craft that can hit mach 10 would make a great 1st stage for a spacecraft.
Rocket fuel weighs 17 times as much as jet fuel per unit energy due to the need for oxidizer. So you could build a craft that carried a rocket up to mach 10 then have it shoot into space and the rocket would need a lot less fuel so it would weigh less so your scramjet would not need as much fuel to lift it ect. You end up with a lot of fuel savings and jets tend to be safer than rockets, which also helps.
You can also save a lot of energy by using some form of wings to carry the craft up the first 20miles vs. wasting that much thrust on a craft that basically wastes 1g of thrust on overcoming gravity to lift the craft the first 20 miles altitude. And once you hit mach 10 you're a little over 45% orbital velocity so at that point your velocity start's to over come some of that 1g downward acceleration due to gravity.
PS: Pseudo physics geeks yea it takes the same amount of energy to gain altitude but I am talking about energy to maintain altitude at which point a harrier takes much more in hover than in flight.
Slashdot Mirror
There are afew basic problems with a wireless mesh network Routing, Bandwith becomes devided by the number of hops. And local bandwith devided by the number of users, and full coverage becomes limited.
Now asuming you just wanted to talk to califona from new york and each hop got you 50 miles. That's... 2462 / 50 or 30 hops so your net bandwith would be 1/30th of the avalable bandwith asuming full coverage. Now chances are it's going to be closer to 100 hops aka not a strat line and not alwase 100 miles.
Routing, your in the middle of a mesh network and you want to send a message to califona how is each of the ~100 hops going to know which path to take? Either each node needs to know the states of a few hunderd thousand other nodes around it or you going to start wasing a lot of bandwith on extra hops.
Now given to options pay nothing and get say 100th the bandwith or pay 50$ an month and get full bandwith most people are going to opt for spending cash and if there spending the cash there not going to give out there bandwith for free. So unless the mesh networks start having servaces that the ISP wish to connect to your not going to see mesh networks making the internet free.
1. The cost to produce power "off grid" is generally more expensive than on grid power.
2. Cost to produce would go down but the cost of materials will go up. So the cost would drop but the need for rare elements would limit the amount the cost can drop.
3. There are batteries that charge in 5 minuets or less which is a little slower than fueling up but it's safer so you could add many more charging stations at places like restaurants, and rest stops. Basically you would not need any tankers to refill the stations so all you need is some high power lines going in and anything becomes a gas station.
4. True but you working with a more efferent system so the added weight is less of a problem.
I agree that long hall truckers would probably go for hydrogen power but for a system that is as much as twice as efferent the cost per mile is going to drop to 1/2. I think batteries are getting a lot less press than they deserve.
If you want to see what the US gov is spending go to http://www.cbo.gov/e =0 shows has a nice easy chart showing the gap between what Social Security is outlaying and what it is talking in notice the almost 1% of the US GDP gap? Well all that money is still being spent just not by social security. What's realy going on is social securty is paid from everyone but the amount you pay cap's out at 80k a year. So CEO's and doctors pay the same amount into Social Securty but so do they people who higher them. That's the hidden tax somone who is making 10$ an hour cost the company more than that but they only show taxes on the 10$ an hour they don't show how much more you could be geting if your employer did not pay Social Security. Which is why it's cheaper to give a 10k raise to somone making 100k a year than somone makeing 30k a year.
c e=0) Yea the numbers are a little old on that one there from 2002 but when you see the chart The Projected Composition of Federal Debt, 2001 to 2012 you start to notice odd things like the net debt going down while the debt to specific programs is geting ever larger. Most of that gap is realy just Social Securty being funneld into other programs.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequenc
Yea I know it's funky math but looking around www.cbo.gov you see all sort's of strange things going on. "The total outstanding debt of the federal government, often referred to as the gross federal debt, now stands at approximately $6.2 trillion. That figure is composed of $3.5 trillion in debt that the government owes to the public and $2.7 trillion in debt that the government owes to itself." (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3948&sequen
Now looking around there I noticed it's been a while sence I looked there but you still noticed all that old wacky acting like the dificlty tracking down who is paying how much for social securty still looking for more upto date numbers on that one.
Dude, as the population declined people would just go back to having 4 or 5 kids.
PS: "I hate English, however, I can construct a sentence." would have had much more bite as it would have kept harping on the idea that I was unable to do such a simple task as apply the rules of grammar to a simple sentence. Instead your insinuation that I would be unable to construct a paragraph comes of as fairly weak, because the rest of your argument does not particularly support it.
LOL, It was that or fail 3rd grade.
I chose to take a risk and I went from failing math to the 99th percentile in most subjects. I also read over 200 books and learned to program in 5 years, hell by the time I was back I could have taken the GED and skipped HS. I mean sorry if taking a student that was failing most subjects to the top of his class in 5 years is not enough for you.
O and by the way while I almost failed English I was taking HONERS English at the time. And I still got out of HS and though college hell I passed the AP English test and got a 700 English 710 math on the SAT's my English hit 800 on the PSAT... But hey I should have sat back in public school and retaken the 3rd grade. Because as we all know knowing when to use who vs. whom is the secret to success in life.
PS: Check out http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/sat.html to see how high those scores really are.
As I understand it Global worming =
More extreme weather both hot and cold due to more energy creating more instability. Many places will get wormer summers and colder winters. Others will get more tornados and / or hurricanes.
Less land. Where ever land locked ice melts that water will end up in the ocean, which will reduce the amount of land.
More erosion, so more mud slides and faster depletion of existing farm land.
Now yea some farmland closer to the poles will be available but most of the rest will be less productive. But other than the possibility of better farming which is not going to happen what other benefits do you see that would offset the loss of human life from all that bad weather?
Anyway, I am sorry if they did not answer your questions but they where not trying to. They where asking one and only one question "Does the scientific community believe man is causing global worming?" and they got the answer yes.
Hmm, while I can figure out what you ment by Pretending that there is, in fact, gets in the way of teaching people what we want to be teaching them, which is *communication skills.* I think that the syntax of the english is there to aid redundancy which aids in decoding the meaning faster. I mean I got the meaning of what you said (I think) but with out that redundancy it's harder to feel confidant in the decoding.
While my spoken grammer is above average I was home schooled and thus subject to vary little grammer from 4 - 8th grade inclusive. And thus only realy had one grammer class in 9th grade I I passed with the lowest posible numeric grade. Thus leading to the travisty of english that is this post.
PS: Not spell checked to show ya just how bad my writting truly is and how hard it is to decode english in the raw as it where.
There is still cost. In man power, materials, decreased desire to join military ect. Money is representive shure but if we spent the same amount of cash we could have given 400billion / 2000$ or 200million laptops or just about one to every person in the US. And you know what I WANT MY LAPTOP.
The "core" problem is limited clean energy. If you have enough of it most problems are easy.
One solution: Europe, Japan, china and the US are working on a 500MW fusion reactor should be up and running in 9ish years. Dump 400billion in that project and we could get working stations in like 20 -25 years.
Car pollution = hydrogen storage. Ditto for tons of things form batteries to nuke waste.
Clean water = desalinization.
Trash = Ionize it then sort it with magnetic fields and you can turn anything into inert materials. ok you going to have to mix things like Na with Cl but it's not that hard.
Food = Maybe not green houses with sun lamps but with cheep desalinized water that you can pump anyway anytime you can farm a lot more land.
Ok you still need to work on education, housing, and health care. Come to think of it with less pollution many health problems go away and there would be a lot more money available to work on those things so it's still going to help those things out indirectly.
All that debt is not due on the same year and 2/3 of that is owed to Social Security. Last I checked the real debt was only like 1trillion and the rest was people using Social Securty to tax those making under 80k / year pay for the tax breaks given to the upper 1%.
Umm, I don't know about you but I been getting 30+% growth per year for the last 2 years... Then again I moved to foreign investments when I saw the dollar was going to fall but hey it's all good :)
It's the semi-regularly that's the problem. Running 2 miles 6 days a week is much much better than running 4 miles 3 days a week. Try this work out 20 min every morning rain or shine then if you get home from work and feel like it do a 2nd 20 min workout if not no big deal. If you do this for 3 months and your under 50 those 20 min in the morning will start to feel like nothing just another part of waking up and while you may or may not work out after you get home your body will be more than ready to take it.
The contractors don't get deployed overseas they sign up to go there and get paid 3x what your making.
In 8 years we are going to have a "working" reactor. As in it produces more energy than it uses. Now if it takes 8 years to build that say's it's 2 generations from compleation 8 years (built) 3 years test 8 years to build 3 years to test 8 years to build and done.
It's not that the science needs updating we could have built a working reactor by now. It's that we are not tossing much money at the problem. It's the same thing with sending a man to the moon we have done that already but it would take at lest 5 years to get it done a second time. Geting it done has more to do with building the thing than figuring out how to get it to work.
With a half-life under 5 years things decay at the almost the same rate it's being created in a reactor after a short period. So it's not geting much worse at 30 years than it was at 15 which means it's a limited problem.
In anycase the fact that your fuel does not become radio active is the primary advantage shure over time your structure start's to "glow in the dark" but that's ever so much better than spent fuel rods it's not even funny.
Despite what you might think large part's of the ocean contain vary little life. The reason for this is with 3 miles of water till you hit land (vertically) you don't get much in the way of nutrients near the surface unless there is churning due to currents. As no such churning takes place little to no radio active waste would reach living fish thus little to no human contact would result from such a launch failure in these areas.
Despite all the nasty things you hear about radiation there have been many open air nuclear tests. So a containment failure rate of 1 in 1000 should suffice to prevent any noticeable ill effects.
This is not to say we should dump this stuff into space but rather if we did we could do so with little to no risk to human life. I mean if we are transporting this stuff across the country to a disposal site then we can have risk there so it's not 0 risk but rather acceptable risk.
2 words: SEA LANCH
It's worse than that it's close to one person at a time thing.
Ok I would build it so your ship weight = 2/3 the ground weight so you can send a 2nd ship up as soon as your first ship hit's 1/2 G but your still vary limited.
0km 9.8m/s 2500km 5.0m/s
Which would work out to one ship per 25 hours. Chances are you can use more because you would build more stenght at higher levels with less cost to let you send up more cargo vs adding more total weight at the bottom.
Tools > Word Count
.doc file but that's more useful to most people than what a wc on a .doc file would give you. Anyway maybe if people stopped trying to say that the GUI is useless we might be able to convert more people over to the command line.
It shows Pages, Words, Characters (no spaces), Characters (with spaces), Paragraphs, Lines, and has an option to see if you want footnotes and endnotes included.
Granted it only counts the characters you see and not all the formatting information that is in the
My guess is that in some instances, publically accessible getter/setter methods can be construed to be "exposing the underlying implementation" of a class. Of course, that just means you need to judiciously use getter and setter methods.
Hmm, so don't make them all public? I agree that classes should only let you get and set things that are meaningful outside the class by things like Vector.getLength are needed for classes to interact. And private methods like window.setFontSize() are vary useful as they can check for valid data as they change the object's state.
My guess is he wants you to have object's interact at higher levels so you use things like Dog. Jump vs. chains of actions like
where it's not clear what your telling the other object to do.
Anyway Nod: That's my guess at least. I suppose I should read the book.
As a 24 year old programmer I don't mind saying Natual language programming will not show up in my lifetime. For a geologist to use Natual language to program a solution for him it's going to take an AI that understands the context of the problem thus puting both me and the geologist out of a job...
Or they have a working model but red text looks like shit so they don't feel the need to show it.
Thanks, I was thinking the test ship is using hydrogen so that works out as H + 0 vs H but it's H2 + 0 vs H2.
Atomic weight: 2 + 16 vs
Atomic weight: 2
18 vs 2 = 9 : 1
So the fuel weighs 1/9th as much with a oxidizer/fuel weight ratio is 0:1 vs 8:1.
But, that does not effect the arguemnt all that much it's still usefull to have a first stage rocket that uses a scram jet to hit mach 10 abd hopefuly mach 15.
Basically an air breathing craft that can hit mach 10 would make a great 1st stage for a spacecraft.
Rocket fuel weighs 17 times as much as jet fuel per unit energy due to the need for oxidizer. So you could build a craft that carried a rocket up to mach 10 then have it shoot into space and the rocket would need a lot less fuel so it would weigh less so your scramjet would not need as much fuel to lift it ect. You end up with a lot of fuel savings and jets tend to be safer than rockets, which also helps.
You can also save a lot of energy by using some form of wings to carry the craft up the first 20miles vs. wasting that much thrust on a craft that basically wastes 1g of thrust on overcoming gravity to lift the craft the first 20 miles altitude. And once you hit mach 10 you're a little over 45% orbital velocity so at that point your velocity start's to over come some of that 1g downward acceleration due to gravity.
PS: Pseudo physics geeks yea it takes the same amount of energy to gain altitude but I am talking about energy to maintain altitude at which point a harrier takes much more in hover than in flight.