Of course, without those mutjobs (nutjobs?), there's no initial funding, and therefore no movie. Of course, you could always find other mutjobs to provide the initial funding -- but you've still got your mutjobs.
If you don't think capital is important... you don't have a very good grasp of economics.
Given the box office bombs of So and so Carpenter and Battleship, both of which were QUARTER BILLION DOLLAR PRODUCTIONS. I have to ask: WHY IN THE FUCK DO WE NEED MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR FILMS?
"Need" is the wrong word. But obviously we "want" them.
Titanic, Avatar and Avengers each costed the better part of a quarter billion dollars to make as well, and yet they made massive profits for the companies making them. Whether you think they're good movies or not -- you can't argue with that being good business.
These major movies are a gamble -- sometimes they pay off, sometimes not.
Do the studios spend too much making them? Maybe. But as I said -- it's a gamble, and sometimes it pays off big -- and usually when it doesn't, it usually at least breaks even.
And even your examples aren't so great -- Battleship has already earned back it's production costs and a little more. I don't know what "So and so Carpenter" is. John Carter? It's another lackluster performer, but it's earned back it's production costs and a little more too. And neither has been released on DVD yet.
Middle men don't add value: They don't produce the product, and they don't use it. They're worthless. Fuck them.
The "middle men" you're referring to really aren't the RIAA or the MPAA -- they're the record producers and movie studios. The MPAA and RIAA are just trade associations -- they certainly aren't middle men.
Albums can be produced by a band on their own without a record producer, but to claim that the producer adds nothing is wrong. He does provide assistance of various sorts -- technical, capital, access to a distribution network, etc. There's a reason bands are looking for recording contracts -- because they provide at least the chance of success.
Now, these producers tend to rip off the artists much of the time, but to claim they don't add value is wrong.
As for movie studios, yes, somebody can make a home movie on their own. But to make a major movie requires a studio and massive amounts of money. The movie studio is a whole lot more than "middle men". It's not like you can throw a bunch of actors in a room and end up with "The Avengers".
Now, the distribution network -- those people really are middle men. But without them, the record or movie generally doesn't make any money. Yes, there's a few exceptions, especially with albums -- bands selling their music online, for example. But for now, finding the right middle men often means the difference between making no money and making a lot of money -- that certainly does add value if you're trying to make money.
If, for example, Disney isn't selling DVDs of a given movie and has no plans to within the next decade, then Disney makes no more money off me if I don't pirate than if I do. What's the sound public policy behind keeping such a work out of the public's hands if it isn't being distributed or even prepared for distribution?
Your argument that "they make no more money off of you than if you don't pirate than if you do" really only makes sense if you'd never buy their movies to begin with. After all, you failed to buy their movie when it was "out of the vault", and even now you're failing to buy it on eBay or something similar. (Which means there's an additional copy of it for somebody else to buy.) And the "vault" will be opened again in the future, so it's not like you could never see the movie without pirating it.
Let's suppose you really want to see the Lion King, no matter what.
If you buy it from Disney, they get one sale. If you buy it new on eBay, they got one sale. (Not directly from you, but it was on your behalf.) If you pirate it, they get zero sales. If you buy a used copy on eBay, they get zero (additional, just for you) sales (but they haven't found a legal means to stop this yet. Yet.)
If it's unavailable (new, from Disney) for a while... that doesn't change these facts. It just means you'll have to buy it earlier (and they're hoping that this "get it now before it's gone!" gets people to buy it who were on the fence before), later or on eBay or somewhere similar. And buying it on eBay rewards those who stocked up on the movie when it was available -- again, more sales for them.
I'm not saying that this policy of theirs makes them more money (though I imagine they have worked out that it does or they wouldn't do it), serves the public good or is even moral -- but your claim is accurate only if you'd never buy the movie to begin with.
but the U.S. government has no legal authority over the moon. I'd say something which has been left unattended for 50+ years would qualify as "abandoned", so it's not like theft laws should apply.
There is the issue that if the craft is a U.S.-based craft, then like ships in international waters, it might carry U.S. jurisdiction around with it wherever it goes, but if it's, I dunno, a Chinese or Russian spacecraft? What's NASA/USGovt gonna do?
There are international salvage laws -- they generally apply to things found in the ocean, but as written they might apply to things in orbit or on the moon too. I don't know.
It also seems quite likely that if the salvage laws don't actually cover the moon yet that the laws will be extended before anybody is actually able to make it up there that isn't a major government -- the US may rely on a strongly worded letter today, now that it doesn't matter, but they will go for something a lot stronger once it begins to matter. And if technology progresses to the point that people can go to the moon on their own without major government assistance, the government will have long since done something to protect the site -- build walls, add guards, perhaps bring the lander back to Earth, etc.
I'm pretty sure that quite a few governments would really like to be able to go back to the moon and stay there a while, if only to stake a claim to it. It's too expensive now, but at some point in the future that may change. I would expect major governments to respect things like the lunar landing site and not disturb it -- but they wouldn't let it stand in the way of them claiming ownership of the moon (or a large part of it) either. Random citizens, if they had a way to get up there, would try to bring it back here to sell on eBay if they could get away with it, or would paint graffiti on it, etc. -- but not major governments. Not officially, anyways.
Ion power isn't about horse power it's about efficiency.
I'm not sure sure what your point is here -- I said nothing about what ion power was or wasn't. (But I know what it is, and you're not wrong.)
My allusion was to an original series Star Trek where they Scottie mentioned ion power and got all excited about it, as it was vastly superior to the dilithium crystals (which created anti-matter somehow) that powered their own ship. The joke is that we've already figured out ion power, sort of -- it's antimatter (and fusion and other things) power that evades us.
As for protecting against radiation, they could add lots of shielding. Charged particle radiation could be deflected by a large magnetic field (superconducting magnets around the outer edge? Being in space would make it easier to keep them cold), maybe, with EM radiation blocked by lots of mass. Making the ship more massive would make it slower, but you could give it a sphere shape and have the crew spend most of its time in the very center, with all the equipment and fuel and stuff surrounding them and adding some shielding by itself. If the engines release lots of radiation, have them far away from the crew quarters -- perhaps miles away, connected with a boom. (Niven's science fiction world has where the engines pull the crew quarters with many mile long tethers -- but that would require being able to aim the exhaust very precisely.)
As for using old people, considering that the ship would cost a trillion or so dollars to make, we're not going to man it with people likely to die or have other medical problems during a mission. Instead, we'll minimize the risks as much as practical, then tell people the risks remaining and ask for volunteers. I doubt they'd have a problem finding young, healthy, appropriately skilled people to volunteer for a mission that could result in their death from cancer (and many other things) if it meant they'd be the first people to go to Europa, for example.
The form of the Enterprise, if it were to follow any sort of function at al
The function of the shape of the Enterprise is to look cool. (And it succeeded, I might add.) Everything else comes from that.
Actually, if I recall correctly the shape came first, but then the series creators realized it couldn't land on a planet, so they added the shuttlecraft and transporters...
As for logical shapes, I'd think where it was a rotating cylinder or sphere (for gravity) with its propulsion at the center would make the most sense. The engines could rotate with the rest of the ship or be stopped with some sort of coupling (though the coupling might be problematic.)
This is a well thought out essay on how we'd build space ships with current technology to wage war with -- many of the considerations would not apply to a ship not meant for battle, but still, he seems to have a good handle on things.
All this said, I guess the guy's idea of making it look like the Enterprise isn't really a failure, as it gets people talking about it. If it was just a sphere with a rocket, nobody would care (no matter how good the idea was, though it's not a new idea by any stretch). But by making it all Star Trekkish, we all talk about how to correct it and that's exposure that the idea wouldn't have had before.
This is nothing like the Enterprise except in shape -- and it would be pointless to duplicate the shape.
And besides, in the Enterprise world, dilithium crystals (with antimatter in there somewhere) were the power source of "reality", and "ion power" was what made Scottie get all wide-eyed.
With current technology, we'd end up with a generational sublight ship. Keeping in with the Star Trek theme, this would be closer to the SS Botany Bay which according to Star Trek canon was launched only 18 years ago. Of course, that turned out horribly wrong, so maybe it's not the mission to emulate.
Joking aside, making such a ship would be very neat. But the guy needs to stop pretending that it has anything to do with Star Trek or it's Enterprise. We could call it Enterprise if we wanted, but picking that shape would be silly -- there are much more practical shapes to be had. And considering just how expensive this would be, we should be trying to make it practical rather than novel.
Ok. Who cares? I guess you feel better for your decision but there still isn't any "win" involved.
if the word "win" offends you, just replace it with "taken off", as used in the article. It will not fundamentally change my meaning.
Are you that invested in your brand of choice that you need to shout it from the rooftops while the sane population look at you like a loser neckbeard? Have at it. It'd be funny if you didn't sound so pathetically desperate.
I don't really give a crap what OS my phone/e-reader/TV/cable box/toaster/whatever runs as long as it does what I want it to.
And really, if I were to buy them based on OS, I'd probably favor iOS -- certainly, the iPhone and iPod seem to be better in general than their Android equivalents, and I'd certainly rather have an iPad than a Kindle (though the Kindle was 1/4th the price. Price tends to be a pretty big driver of my purchases, certainly bigger than whatever OS they run if I have no plans on "hacking" them -- and I rarely do have such plans.)
And finally, a post on/. hardly qualifies as "shouting from the rooftops".
Alright, I still do not get why people with Android running a modified Linux kernel thinks it is somehow related to DESKTOP LINUX!!!!
Because people seem to think the "war" is just about desktop Linux, desktop Linux, desktop Linux.
People used to say "desktop Linux" because they were differentiating it from "server Linux" where Linux was used in server farms, managed by professionals (and geeks, of course), but now "embedded Linux" has come onto the scene, and our houses are full of the things. Grandma has Linux devices in her hands!
When it comes to servers, Linux is a strong contender, if not the winner. When it comes to embedded devices, it *is* the current winner. (iOS would be the second place contender, thanks to iPods, iPhones and Apple TVs.)
Ultimately, Linux isn't just about the "desktop" and the "server" any more.
And besides, you may not have noticed, but the current trend is *away* from desktop and laptop computers. Sure, they're not going away (in spite of what some claim), but more and more people are doing more of their computing with embedded devices -- phones, tablets, televisions, etc. And Linux is very strong there -- so it sort of flanked the "desktop" battle entirely and helped create a new battlefield entirely.
So that's why I think it's somehow related to DESKTOP LINUX!!!! Because your desk (you know, the other desktop, but made of wood) may have a PC on it running Windows -- and a Kindle and a phone running Android, and an alarm clock running Linux, and a TV running Linux and a cable box running Linux. And that PC may connect to a tiny disk server, running Linux.
Sure, the end users generally never touch the CLI of these Linux devices, but then again -- they probably rarely touch the CLI of their WIndows box either. A few of those Linux devices may be servers (especially that disk server) -- but for the rest, they just use the built in GUI, just like with Windows.
Let's see... there's four Windows desktops and laptops and one Linux desktop/server in my household in common use.
But looking at other systems...
Three Kindle Fires, running Android (Linux). Two original Nooks, running Android (Linux). Two smart phones, one running Android (Linux) and one is an iPhone (not Linux.) One Boxee Box, running Linux. One Chumby alarm clock, running Linux. I'm not sure, but the cable company provided DVR might run Linux. (The DirectTV Tivo I had previously certainly did.)
In my household, it seems that Linux has already won. Just not on the desktop.
I would take this to mean that the entirety of a 17mm think wire would carry current, but an 18mm thick wire would have a small part at the core that wasn't carrying current.
Not exactly. The skin depth is defined as "the depth below the surface of the conductor at which the current density has fallen to 1/e". So most of the current flow happens within the skin depth -- but not all. Current flow as a function of depth tapers off, but there's no hard cutoff.
The core does carry some current -- just not very much.
This idea is going to seem ridiculously silly in the future when batteries can charge faster than a tank can fill
Maybe you don't understand just how much energy gasoline holds.
Gasoline contains about 45 kJ of energy per gram. That means a 20 gallon tank has about 2.5 billion joules -- enough power to generate 1.21 gigawatts for two seconds. Considering that the local gas station can fill this tank in two minutes, that's equal to about 20 megawatts of power -- at 220 volts, that's 90,000 amps.
Race car pit teams probably do dump fuel into their race cars at a rate around 1.21 gigawatts.
As I see it, people will either wait for their cars batteries to charge at a rate much lower than we can fill their gasoline tanks -- or we'll swap entire batteries. Or maybe we'll have fuel cells that are powered by gasoline anyways.
OK, but the simple fact that OO was added, all by itself, is sufficient to make your statement of "it entirely misses out of 50+ years of research and innovation in programming languages" to be completely false. And of course it's only one of many features added in the last 50+ years.
If you think that OO is the pinnacle of modern language design
An attempt at a strawman?
I didn't say these features were awesome or that OO was the "pinnacle of modern language design" (I didn't bring up OO at all -- it's just one of several features added to Fortran over the decades.)
I just pointed out that your statement was completely false.
The weakness of FORTRAN is that it entirely misses out of 50+ years of research and innovation in programming languages.
OK, maybe the original version of Fortran, the one made 50+ years ago, missed out on "50+ years of research and innovation in programming languages", but you are aware that Fortran has been updated since then, right?
Fortran now includes a great number of the improvements to programming languages made since then. But don't take my word for it -- check out Wikipedia's page on it. I picked Fortran 90 as a starting point, but there's been many versions of Fortran made since the first, with new features (often coming from other languages) being added all the time.
And not only is Fortran still being actively developed, but the library of well tested and optimized numerical computing code already written it it is massive.
I'm not saying that there's not room for a new language, and certainly, Fortran doesn't have all the features of some new languages, but your claim that Fortran "entirely misses out of 50+ years of research and innovation in programming languages" is completely and utterly wrong.
I should also mention that they stopped calling it FORTRAN in all caps back in 1990 or so when Fortran 90 came out. Now it's just Fortran. But even the venerable FORTRAN 77 benefited greatly from programing language developments available at the time.
I thought educational use was exempt from copyright restrictions.
You thought wrong.
Educational uses are certainly one of the things that often falls under fair use but there's limits. For example, a teacher can probably legally copy an article to discuss it in class, but you can't photocopy an entire book legally.
If the use is educational, that can make the case for the use being fair use stronger -- but it's only part of the equation.
So... is that wrong? I don't get it. If it's Creative Commons, doesn't that allow this sort of thing, by definition?
Well, yes, wikipedia certainly does allow that sort of thing. But the publishers of the textbooks that are sueing certainly don't.
Their claim is not that the picture itself is being infringed (and if it was, it would be for wikipedia to pursue the claim, but of course wikipedia permits that) but that the mere idea that a bear running illustrates the first law of thermodynamics is copyrightable and that's what is being infringed upon. An artistic choice was made by the author -- a running bear shows the first law of thermodynamics (I certainly don't see it, but whatever) and they think this is copyrightable.
As I see it, it's a weak case, but not so frivilous that it should just be thrown out without going to court. They're probably hoping that Boundless can't even defend themselves against this weak suit.
What we need to guard against is having some ruggedized handheld handheld pig fob handed out to every meter maid and traffic cop. Imagine being stopped for a traffic violation and having the fucker ask for "license registration, and your phone please" and have him snoop/dump your device while he runs your plates.
Sounds like a job for the Fourth Amendment, which is already in place.
(Of course, the other half of the equation is to not be tricked by the cop into giving permission to search the device, of course, but that's a problem with physical searches now.)
What happens when these vulnerabilities are fixed and the kits become useless? I assume our overlords will have to pay for a new version.
Serious answer, they probably get a support contract when they buy the software that entitles them to support and updates during the length of the contract. That's the way commercial Enterprise software generally is licensed, I see no reason why this would be different.
It's entirely possible that their vulnerability could be fixed and they end up with nothing they can use for a while, and there's probably a clause in the contract that says this could happen but that they promise to make a good faith effort to find more vulnerabilities and "fix" their software as soon as possible. (But I seriously doubt it offers their money back -- after all, the rest of the software will probably still work, and even this part will still work on unpatched phones.)
All they need is one case where a child pedo is released due to the systems inability to provide a speedy trial, and we will see another one of our rights taken from us
Such cases aren't rare at all. It doesn't really happen to bonafide terrorists, but people accused of "child pedo" (which could mean a whole lot of different things with varying degrees of severity) often are released without even a trial.
Criminals are released on technicalities or rights violated by the police all the time. And innocents are imprisoned because they were tricked by the police, didn't understand the situation or couldn't afford a decent lawyer all the time too.
Slashdot Mirror
These mutjobs only provide the initial funding.
Of course, without those mutjobs (nutjobs?), there's no initial funding, and therefore no movie. Of course, you could always find other mutjobs to provide the initial funding -- but you've still got your mutjobs.
If you don't think capital is important ... you don't have a very good grasp of economics.
Given the box office bombs of So and so Carpenter and Battleship, both of which were QUARTER BILLION DOLLAR PRODUCTIONS. I have to ask: WHY IN THE FUCK DO WE NEED MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR FILMS?
"Need" is the wrong word. But obviously we "want" them.
Titanic, Avatar and Avengers each costed the better part of a quarter billion dollars to make as well, and yet they made massive profits for the companies making them. Whether you think they're good movies or not -- you can't argue with that being good business.
These major movies are a gamble -- sometimes they pay off, sometimes not.
Do the studios spend too much making them? Maybe. But as I said -- it's a gamble, and sometimes it pays off big -- and usually when it doesn't, it usually at least breaks even.
And even your examples aren't so great -- Battleship has already earned back it's production costs and a little more. I don't know what "So and so Carpenter" is. John Carter? It's another lackluster performer, but it's earned back it's production costs and a little more too. And neither has been released on DVD yet.
RIAA and the MPAA are middle men.
Not really. They're associations.
Middle men don't add value: They don't produce the product, and they don't use it. They're worthless. Fuck them.
The "middle men" you're referring to really aren't the RIAA or the MPAA -- they're the record producers and movie studios. The MPAA and RIAA are just trade associations -- they certainly aren't middle men.
Albums can be produced by a band on their own without a record producer, but to claim that the producer adds nothing is wrong. He does provide assistance of various sorts -- technical, capital, access to a distribution network, etc. There's a reason bands are looking for recording contracts -- because they provide at least the chance of success.
Now, these producers tend to rip off the artists much of the time, but to claim they don't add value is wrong.
As for movie studios, yes, somebody can make a home movie on their own. But to make a major movie requires a studio and massive amounts of money. The movie studio is a whole lot more than "middle men". It's not like you can throw a bunch of actors in a room and end up with "The Avengers".
Now, the distribution network -- those people really are middle men. But without them, the record or movie generally doesn't make any money. Yes, there's a few exceptions, especially with albums -- bands selling their music online, for example. But for now, finding the right middle men often means the difference between making no money and making a lot of money -- that certainly does add value if you're trying to make money.
If, for example, Disney isn't selling DVDs of a given movie and has no plans to within the next decade, then Disney makes no more money off me if I don't pirate than if I do. What's the sound public policy behind keeping such a work out of the public's hands if it isn't being distributed or even prepared for distribution?
Disney "puts movies back into the Disney vault" to create demand for them while the "vault" is open.
Your argument that "they make no more money off of you than if you don't pirate than if you do" really only makes sense if you'd never buy their movies to begin with. After all, you failed to buy their movie when it was "out of the vault", and even now you're failing to buy it on eBay or something similar. (Which means there's an additional copy of it for somebody else to buy.) And the "vault" will be opened again in the future, so it's not like you could never see the movie without pirating it.
Let's suppose you really want to see the Lion King, no matter what.
If you buy it from Disney, they get one sale.
If you buy it new on eBay, they got one sale. (Not directly from you, but it was on your behalf.)
If you pirate it, they get zero sales.
If you buy a used copy on eBay, they get zero (additional, just for you) sales (but they haven't found a legal means to stop this yet. Yet.)
If it's unavailable (new, from Disney) for a while ... that doesn't change these facts. It just means you'll have to buy it earlier (and they're hoping that this "get it now before it's gone!" gets people to buy it who were on the fence before), later or on eBay or somewhere similar. And buying it on eBay rewards those who stocked up on the movie when it was available -- again, more sales for them.
I'm not saying that this policy of theirs makes them more money (though I imagine they have worked out that it does or they wouldn't do it), serves the public good or is even moral -- but your claim is accurate only if you'd never buy the movie to begin with.
My god, what a mess. Nearly 179 metric tonnes of garbage!
Garbage that would be worth probably *billions* of dollars if we could somehow recover it and bring it back here.
I wouldn't call it garbage. Materials that were not cost effective to recover (yet), yes, but not garbage.
but the U.S. government has no legal authority over the moon. I'd say something which has been left unattended for 50+ years would qualify as "abandoned", so it's not like theft laws should apply.
There is the issue that if the craft is a U.S.-based craft, then like ships in international waters, it might carry U.S. jurisdiction around with it wherever it goes, but if it's, I dunno, a Chinese or Russian spacecraft? What's NASA/USGovt gonna do?
There are international salvage laws -- they generally apply to things found in the ocean, but as written they might apply to things in orbit or on the moon too. I don't know.
It also seems quite likely that if the salvage laws don't actually cover the moon yet that the laws will be extended before anybody is actually able to make it up there that isn't a major government -- the US may rely on a strongly worded letter today, now that it doesn't matter, but they will go for something a lot stronger once it begins to matter. And if technology progresses to the point that people can go to the moon on their own without major government assistance, the government will have long since done something to protect the site -- build walls, add guards, perhaps bring the lander back to Earth, etc.
I'm pretty sure that quite a few governments would really like to be able to go back to the moon and stay there a while, if only to stake a claim to it. It's too expensive now, but at some point in the future that may change. I would expect major governments to respect things like the lunar landing site and not disturb it -- but they wouldn't let it stand in the way of them claiming ownership of the moon (or a large part of it) either. Random citizens, if they had a way to get up there, would try to bring it back here to sell on eBay if they could get away with it, or would paint graffiti on it, etc. -- but not major governments. Not officially, anyways.
not true, Russia put stuff up there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_2
Looks like it's not just the USSR and the USA either --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon
Looks like there's stuff up there from the USSR, USA, Japan, China, India and the European Space Agency (18 nations combined.)
Ion power isn't about horse power it's about efficiency.
I'm not sure sure what your point is here -- I said nothing about what ion power was or wasn't. (But I know what it is, and you're not wrong.)
My allusion was to an original series Star Trek where they Scottie mentioned ion power and got all excited about it, as it was vastly superior to the dilithium crystals (which created anti-matter somehow) that powered their own ship. The joke is that we've already figured out ion power, sort of -- it's antimatter (and fusion and other things) power that evades us.
As for protecting against radiation, they could add lots of shielding. Charged particle radiation could be deflected by a large magnetic field (superconducting magnets around the outer edge? Being in space would make it easier to keep them cold), maybe, with EM radiation blocked by lots of mass. Making the ship more massive would make it slower, but you could give it a sphere shape and have the crew spend most of its time in the very center, with all the equipment and fuel and stuff surrounding them and adding some shielding by itself. If the engines release lots of radiation, have them far away from the crew quarters -- perhaps miles away, connected with a boom. (Niven's science fiction world has where the engines pull the crew quarters with many mile long tethers -- but that would require being able to aim the exhaust very precisely.)
As for using old people, considering that the ship would cost a trillion or so dollars to make, we're not going to man it with people likely to die or have other medical problems during a mission. Instead, we'll minimize the risks as much as practical, then tell people the risks remaining and ask for volunteers. I doubt they'd have a problem finding young, healthy, appropriately skilled people to volunteer for a mission that could result in their death from cancer (and many other things) if it meant they'd be the first people to go to Europa, for example.
The form of the Enterprise, if it were to follow any sort of function at al
The function of the shape of the Enterprise is to look cool. (And it succeeded, I might add.) Everything else comes from that.
Actually, if I recall correctly the shape came first, but then the series creators realized it couldn't land on a planet, so they added the shuttlecraft and transporters ...
As for logical shapes, I'd think where it was a rotating cylinder or sphere (for gravity) with its propulsion at the center would make the most sense. The engines could rotate with the rest of the ship or be stopped with some sort of coupling (though the coupling might be problematic.)
This is a well thought out essay on how we'd build space ships with current technology to wage war with -- many of the considerations would not apply to a ship not meant for battle, but still, he seems to have a good handle on things.
All this said, I guess the guy's idea of making it look like the Enterprise isn't really a failure, as it gets people talking about it. If it was just a sphere with a rocket, nobody would care (no matter how good the idea was, though it's not a new idea by any stretch). But by making it all Star Trekkish, we all talk about how to correct it and that's exposure that the idea wouldn't have had before.
This is nothing like the Enterprise except in shape -- and it would be pointless to duplicate the shape.
And besides, in the Enterprise world, dilithium crystals (with antimatter in there somewhere) were the power source of "reality", and "ion power" was what made Scottie get all wide-eyed.
With current technology, we'd end up with a generational sublight ship. Keeping in with the Star Trek theme, this would be closer to the SS Botany Bay which according to Star Trek canon was launched only 18 years ago. Of course, that turned out horribly wrong, so maybe it's not the mission to emulate.
Joking aside, making such a ship would be very neat. But the guy needs to stop pretending that it has anything to do with Star Trek or it's Enterprise. We could call it Enterprise if we wanted, but picking that shape would be silly -- there are much more practical shapes to be had. And considering just how expensive this would be, we should be trying to make it practical rather than novel.
Ok. Who cares? I guess you feel better for your decision but there still isn't any "win" involved.
if the word "win" offends you, just replace it with "taken off", as used in the article. It will not fundamentally change my meaning.
Are you that invested in your brand of choice that you need to shout it from the rooftops while the sane population look at you like a loser neckbeard? Have at it. It'd be funny if you didn't sound so pathetically desperate.
I don't really give a crap what OS my phone/e-reader/TV/cable box/toaster/whatever runs as long as it does what I want it to.
And really, if I were to buy them based on OS, I'd probably favor iOS -- certainly, the iPhone and iPod seem to be better in general than their Android equivalents, and I'd certainly rather have an iPad than a Kindle (though the Kindle was 1/4th the price. Price tends to be a pretty big driver of my purchases, certainly bigger than whatever OS they run if I have no plans on "hacking" them -- and I rarely do have such plans.)
And finally, a post on /. hardly qualifies as "shouting from the rooftops".
Alright, I still do not get why people with Android running a modified Linux kernel thinks it is somehow related to DESKTOP LINUX!!!!
Because people seem to think the "war" is just about desktop Linux, desktop Linux, desktop Linux.
People used to say "desktop Linux" because they were differentiating it from "server Linux" where Linux was used in server farms, managed by professionals (and geeks, of course), but now "embedded Linux" has come onto the scene, and our houses are full of the things. Grandma has Linux devices in her hands!
When it comes to servers, Linux is a strong contender, if not the winner. When it comes to embedded devices, it *is* the current winner. (iOS would be the second place contender, thanks to iPods, iPhones and Apple TVs.)
Ultimately, Linux isn't just about the "desktop" and the "server" any more.
And besides, you may not have noticed, but the current trend is *away* from desktop and laptop computers. Sure, they're not going away (in spite of what some claim), but more and more people are doing more of their computing with embedded devices -- phones, tablets, televisions, etc. And Linux is very strong there -- so it sort of flanked the "desktop" battle entirely and helped create a new battlefield entirely.
So that's why I think it's somehow related to DESKTOP LINUX!!!! Because your desk (you know, the other desktop, but made of wood) may have a PC on it running Windows -- and a Kindle and a phone running Android, and an alarm clock running Linux, and a TV running Linux and a cable box running Linux. And that PC may connect to a tiny disk server, running Linux.
Sure, the end users generally never touch the CLI of these Linux devices, but then again -- they probably rarely touch the CLI of their WIndows box either. A few of those Linux devices may be servers (especially that disk server) -- but for the rest, they just use the built in GUI, just like with Windows.
Let's see ... there's four Windows desktops and laptops and one Linux desktop/server in my household in common use.
But looking at other systems ...
Three Kindle Fires, running Android (Linux).
Two original Nooks, running Android (Linux).
Two smart phones, one running Android (Linux) and one is an iPhone (not Linux.)
One Boxee Box, running Linux.
One Chumby alarm clock, running Linux.
I'm not sure, but the cable company provided DVR might run Linux. (The DirectTV Tivo I had previously certainly did.)
In my household, it seems that Linux has already won. Just not on the desktop.
I would take this to mean that the entirety of a 17mm think wire would carry current, but an 18mm thick wire would have a small part at the core that wasn't carrying current.
Not exactly. The skin depth is defined as "the depth below the surface of the conductor at which the current density has fallen to 1/e". So most of the current flow happens within the skin depth -- but not all. Current flow as a function of depth tapers off, but there's no hard cutoff.
The core does carry some current -- just not very much.
This idea is going to seem ridiculously silly in the future when batteries can charge faster than a tank can fill
Maybe you don't understand just how much energy gasoline holds.
Gasoline contains about 45 kJ of energy per gram. That means a 20 gallon tank has about 2.5 billion joules -- enough power to generate 1.21 gigawatts for two seconds. Considering that the local gas station can fill this tank in two minutes, that's equal to about 20 megawatts of power -- at 220 volts, that's 90,000 amps.
Race car pit teams probably do dump fuel into their race cars at a rate around 1.21 gigawatts.
As I see it, people will either wait for their cars batteries to charge at a rate much lower than we can fill their gasoline tanks -- or we'll swap entire batteries. Or maybe we'll have fuel cells that are powered by gasoline anyways.
The most advanced feature I see there is OO
OK, but the simple fact that OO was added, all by itself, is sufficient to make your statement of "it entirely misses out of 50+ years of research and innovation in programming languages" to be completely false. And of course it's only one of many features added in the last 50+ years.
If you think that OO is the pinnacle of modern language design
An attempt at a strawman?
I didn't say these features were awesome or that OO was the "pinnacle of modern language design" (I didn't bring up OO at all -- it's just one of several features added to Fortran over the decades.)
I just pointed out that your statement was completely false.
The weakness of FORTRAN is that it entirely misses out of 50+ years of research and innovation in programming languages.
OK, maybe the original version of Fortran, the one made 50+ years ago, missed out on "50+ years of research and innovation in programming languages", but you are aware that Fortran has been updated since then, right?
Fortran now includes a great number of the improvements to programming languages made since then. But don't take my word for it -- check out Wikipedia's page on it. I picked Fortran 90 as a starting point, but there's been many versions of Fortran made since the first, with new features (often coming from other languages) being added all the time.
And not only is Fortran still being actively developed, but the library of well tested and optimized numerical computing code already written it it is massive.
I'm not saying that there's not room for a new language, and certainly, Fortran doesn't have all the features of some new languages, but your claim that Fortran "entirely misses out of 50+ years of research and innovation in programming languages" is completely and utterly wrong.
I should also mention that they stopped calling it FORTRAN in all caps back in 1990 or so when Fortran 90 came out. Now it's just Fortran. But even the venerable FORTRAN 77 benefited greatly from programing language developments available at the time.
I thought educational use was exempt from copyright restrictions.
You thought wrong.
Educational uses are certainly one of the things that often falls under fair use but there's limits. For example, a teacher can probably legally copy an article to discuss it in class, but you can't photocopy an entire book legally.
If the use is educational, that can make the case for the use being fair use stronger -- but it's only part of the equation.
From the Article:
So... is that wrong? I don't get it. If it's Creative Commons, doesn't that allow this sort of thing, by definition?
Well, yes, wikipedia certainly does allow that sort of thing. But the publishers of the textbooks that are sueing certainly don't.
Their claim is not that the picture itself is being infringed (and if it was, it would be for wikipedia to pursue the claim, but of course wikipedia permits that) but that the mere idea that a bear running illustrates the first law of thermodynamics is copyrightable and that's what is being infringed upon. An artistic choice was made by the author -- a running bear shows the first law of thermodynamics (I certainly don't see it, but whatever) and they think this is copyrightable.
As I see it, it's a weak case, but not so frivilous that it should just be thrown out without going to court. They're probably hoping that Boundless can't even defend themselves against this weak suit.
Everything gets fatter, hairier, and closer to the ground....
The top of my head is less hairy, and about the same width and distance from the ground as it was 20 years ago ...
What we need to guard against is having some ruggedized handheld handheld pig fob handed out to every meter maid and traffic cop. Imagine being stopped for a traffic violation and having the fucker ask for "license registration, and your phone please" and have him snoop/dump your device while he runs your plates.
Sounds like a job for the Fourth Amendment, which is already in place.
(Of course, the other half of the equation is to not be tricked by the cop into giving permission to search the device, of course, but that's a problem with physical searches now.)
Well, iphones are often set to wipe "automatically" after 4 failed attempts.
And people who do this probably find their iPhones wiped quite often ...
And this software probably bypasses that anyways.
What happens when these vulnerabilities are fixed and the kits become useless? I assume our overlords will have to pay for a new version.
Serious answer, they probably get a support contract when they buy the software that entitles them to support and updates during the length of the contract. That's the way commercial Enterprise software generally is licensed, I see no reason why this would be different.
It's entirely possible that their vulnerability could be fixed and they end up with nothing they can use for a while, and there's probably a clause in the contract that says this could happen but that they promise to make a good faith effort to find more vulnerabilities and "fix" their software as soon as possible. (But I seriously doubt it offers their money back -- after all, the rest of the software will probably still work, and even this part will still work on unpatched phones.)
Yeah. And half of you are below average. THAT'S depressing!
Yes, but ...
"Approximately 99% of people have more than the average number of legs".
All they need is one case where a child pedo is released due to the systems inability to provide a speedy trial, and we will see another one of our rights taken from us
Such cases aren't rare at all. It doesn't really happen to bonafide terrorists, but people accused of "child pedo" (which could mean a whole lot of different things with varying degrees of severity) often are released without even a trial.
Criminals are released on technicalities or rights violated by the police all the time. And innocents are imprisoned because they were tricked by the police, didn't understand the situation or couldn't afford a decent lawyer all the time too.