Right now, I have a computer with 150Gb SSD drive - it's a rugged industrial design for high-vibration environments. It works very fast, about as fast as 7200RPM desktop drive on bulk reads/writes and _much_ faster on random access.
There's only one problem: this SSD drive costs about $5000.
So we have the technology, we only need to wait until prices come down to reasonable values.
Actually, the most-used programming language in Russia is the language of 1C:Enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1C_Company), it has Russian keywords and system variable names - it's the only sane way, because some terms of Russian accounting do not translate well into English (and transliterated Russian is _ugly_).
Though, Russian text in computer programs looks very weird.
It reminds me about mithridization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridatism) - vaccinating against poisons (such as snake venom). It's effective, but it requires constant administration of vaccines to keep antibody levels high enough to neutralize several hundred milligrams of poison.
Singularity, essentially, uses capability-based security design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security). It's definitely possible to do it without SIPs. And even with a good performance with only simple hardware additions (which are already present on ARMs, for example).
In fact, it has already been done several times with great success in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessey_System_250 and... in Linux using SELinux! There's just one problem - it doesn't work well in practice outside high-security military installation. There's a usual usability-security trade-off.
So, a lot of other projects (like AppArmor and SMACK in Linux) aim to present a _simple_ solution, which covers 90% of all activities without significant drawbacks. And that is _innovation_, BTW.
But I still don't understand WHY. Your link doesn't give a good explanation - I don't care about solutions of Einstein equations, a good demonstration with a 'classic' black hole should be good enough.
Oh, and if a very fast particle collides with another particle - it should generate enough energy to become a black hole in any case, without any relativistic tricks.
Of course, in the reference frame of the particle photons can be emitted isotropically.But all the "outside world" (as imaged by incoming photons) will be compressed in two small bands.
If you fell beyond the event horizon of a black hole - you still can emit photons, and they will still move at c. Only the trajectories of photons will always lead to the singularity - same as with the moving particle.
In any case, if relativistic mass is different - then how this paradox is solved?
So? If we move into the reference frame of the moving particle then we'll see that no light can escape the particle: 1) Photons can move almost only in the direction of particle (because of relativistic focusing). 2) Photons can't escape the meager gravity pull of the particle because they are horribly red-shifted. 3) Incoming photons will be extremely blue-shifted. Seems to fit the definition of a black hole.
Ok, another thing: what if such fast-moving particle strikes another particle with the same speed? This should result in creation of real particles having enough mass to create an event horizon.
Light moves with the same speed in all reference frames, the extremely-fast-moving object will behave in _almost_ the same way - it will move with the same speed in almost all reference frames.
I don't think there's a paradox, but it's an interesting point.
>All this, of course, is purely theoretical and can never be accomplished because it's hard to accelerate any particle infinitely. But according to relativistic physics, an infinite temperature can exist.
No, relativity requires the application of infinite energy to reach the infinite temperature, just like classic mechanics. For this very reason it's impossible to reach it - you don't have the source of infinite energy in our Universe (probably).
However, quantum mechanics has _another_ theoretical limit. I don't really know its precise reason, but this 'handwaving' argument holds: imagine that you have a particle with VERY large speed. The mass of this particle can be large enough to create a black hole. And it will immediately start to lose mass due to Hawking radiation, which will be directed along the path of the black hole (due to relativistic focusing) in the opposite direction (it'll look like black hole with retrorockets).
So it's not possible to reach the infinite speed because our Universe seems to have the _maximum_ allowed finite speed.
Temperature depends on particles _energy_. At low temperature particle energy is calculated as E=m*v^2/2, but if you start to get closer to the light speed then the _MASS_ of a particle will grow. So you can get arbitrarily large energy as you approach the "c" limit.
Most of laptops display some kind of EULA during the first boot and/or have EULA in printed materials. The question if EULA is binding is another one. As far as I know, there's no definite answer to this question: _sometimes_ courts upheld EULA terms.
Of course, current limitations on signed drivers do not affect users (much) and probably nothing bad is going to happen during this iteration of Windows development (i.e. for the next 4-5 years). But I expect that MS will later try to push for signed userspace software, and this will be BAD.
And by that time they may very well have a legal framework for prosecuting people trying to work around Vista's protections.
Slashdot Mirror
Kasparov is allied with NBP (National Bolshevisk Party - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party) - it's known for its racist and nationalistic (and occasionally antisemic) rhetoric.
So Kasparov IS close to Fisher.
It's curious, but Kasparov seems to be the exact Russian counterpart of Fisher.
They even have close political views!
I have a 5Gb archive of every email (including spam) from 2002. Where do you want me to send it? :)
Right now, I have a computer with 150Gb SSD drive - it's a rugged industrial design for high-vibration environments. It works very fast, about as fast as 7200RPM desktop drive on bulk reads/writes and _much_ faster on random access.
There's only one problem: this SSD drive costs about $5000.
So we have the technology, we only need to wait until prices come down to reasonable values.
It was actually done with natural gas pipeline (resulting in biggest non-nuclear explosion): http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39147917,00.htm
Yet, losing even more people who can't swim is not better.
That's just not true. There were several water landings of large airliners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditching#Commercial_aircraft
The most striking one: http://www.nevariver.ru/airplane.php (it's in Russian, but you can see the photo).
You can immediately use CO for synthesis of more complex chemicals. No need to store it.
BTW, chemical plants have a lot more nasty compounds than CO.
BTW, it's amusing that you translated the word 'bank' as 'kren'. It means 'list, careen, roll', and not 'place where you put money' :)
Actually, the most-used programming language in Russia is the language of 1C:Enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1C_Company), it has Russian keywords and system variable names - it's the only sane way, because some terms of Russian accounting do not translate well into English (and transliterated Russian is _ugly_).
Though, Russian text in computer programs looks very weird.
It reminds me about mithridization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridatism) - vaccinating against poisons (such as snake venom). It's effective, but it requires constant administration of vaccines to keep antibody levels high enough to neutralize several hundred milligrams of poison.
Singularity, essentially, uses capability-based security design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security). It's definitely possible to do it without SIPs. And even with a good performance with only simple hardware additions (which are already present on ARMs, for example).
... in Linux using SELinux! There's just one problem - it doesn't work well in practice outside high-security military installation. There's a usual usability-security trade-off.
In fact, it has already been done several times with great success in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessey_System_250 and
So, a lot of other projects (like AppArmor and SMACK in Linux) aim to present a _simple_ solution, which covers 90% of all activities without significant drawbacks. And that is _innovation_, BTW.
http://xkcd.com/360/ - insightful and funny as usual.
They actually did it once (episode 013 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MythBusters_episodes )
:)
Nothing happened until they blew the whole section of airplane using a lot of explosives
Why this dependency list is unacceptable? It should work just fine (I had much longer dependency lists when installing KDE).
Just press 'OK'. You don't want to know what happens.
Yes, that's the name ("Foxtrot Electronics") of the company which conducted the test.
But it will change speed very _little_. And this change can be counteracted by object's own gravity.
Ok, I beleive you.
But I still don't understand WHY. Your link doesn't give a good explanation - I don't care about solutions of Einstein equations, a good demonstration with a 'classic' black hole should be good enough.
Oh, and if a very fast particle collides with another particle - it should generate enough energy to become a black hole in any case, without any relativistic tricks.
Of course, in the reference frame of the particle photons can be emitted isotropically.But all the "outside world" (as imaged by incoming photons) will be compressed in two small bands.
If you fell beyond the event horizon of a black hole - you still can emit photons, and they will still move at c. Only the trajectories of photons will always lead to the singularity - same as with the moving particle.
In any case, if relativistic mass is different - then how this paradox is solved?
So? If we move into the reference frame of the moving particle then we'll see that no light can escape the particle:
1) Photons can move almost only in the direction of particle (because of relativistic focusing).
2) Photons can't escape the meager gravity pull of the particle because they are horribly red-shifted.
3) Incoming photons will be extremely blue-shifted.
Seems to fit the definition of a black hole.
Ok, another thing: what if such fast-moving particle strikes another particle with the same speed? This should result in creation of real particles having enough mass to create an event horizon.
Light moves with the same speed in all reference frames, the extremely-fast-moving object will behave in _almost_ the same way - it will move with the same speed in almost all reference frames.
I don't think there's a paradox, but it's an interesting point.
>All this, of course, is purely theoretical and can never be accomplished because it's hard to accelerate any particle infinitely. But according to relativistic physics, an infinite temperature can exist.
No, relativity requires the application of infinite energy to reach the infinite temperature, just like classic mechanics. For this very reason it's impossible to reach it - you don't have the source of infinite energy in our Universe (probably).
However, quantum mechanics has _another_ theoretical limit. I don't really know its precise reason, but this 'handwaving' argument holds: imagine that you have a particle with VERY large speed. The mass of this particle can be large enough to create a black hole. And it will immediately start to lose mass due to Hawking radiation, which will be directed along the path of the black hole (due to relativistic focusing) in the opposite direction (it'll look like black hole with retrorockets).
So it's not possible to reach the infinite speed because our Universe seems to have the _maximum_ allowed finite speed.
Nope.
Temperature depends on particles _energy_. At low temperature particle energy is calculated as E=m*v^2/2, but if you start to get closer to the light speed then the _MASS_ of a particle will grow. So you can get arbitrarily large energy as you approach the "c" limit.
Most of laptops display some kind of EULA during the first boot and/or have EULA in printed materials. The question if EULA is binding is another one. As far as I know, there's no definite answer to this question: _sometimes_ courts upheld EULA terms.
Of course, current limitations on signed drivers do not affect users (much) and probably nothing bad is going to happen during this iteration of Windows development (i.e. for the next 4-5 years). But I expect that MS will later try to push for signed userspace software, and this will be BAD.
And by that time they may very well have a legal framework for prosecuting people trying to work around Vista's protections.
No. Vista license does not allow you to use virtualization to run it.