Look at correlations between people who "chose" to be violent and their background / enviroment which shaped them.
You being (most likely) a not violent, "civilised" human is mostly an instinctive response to your enviroment, type of social interactions you were immensed in for a long, long time.
Strictly speaking, cattle aren't a resource, but a means of transforming resources. Quite inneficient one, even when compared to other demesticated mammals or specifically ruminants.
And they behave like that because we bred that behaviour into them. Not that it's bad per se, even from their "point of view" - heck, being tasty to us makes them one of the most evolutionary succesful large land animals. At least for now.
Yup. And BTW the "seas" (lakes?) on Titan seem to be methane-ethane; so that's probably the main solvent. I think we use comparable chemicals for very low level disinfection...
That is its only major problem though (well, that and the atmosphere being highly toxic to humans - essentially with the addition of...Zyklon B). Other than that it offers protection, stability of conditions, "zero pressure difference" (ok, you would probably want to maintain a slight overpressure inside the base, due to toxicity - together with the cold outside that might make any leaks largely self-closing); greatly simplifying things compared to many other places, so you can concentrate easily on thermal isolation. We already have bases in the Antarctic, and with tech progress...
BTW, you probably don't want to warm whole moon - unless you intend to have a waterworld.
And it has, as usual, broken drivers. It has broken even DirectDraw since Vista drivers; it's not good for latest games, and it's not good for older, "low-range" games. Only for some small part of the middle, the "popular enough" part with Intel blessing.
Also, did you miss all major browser jumping on GPU utilisation? Another area with still huge need of improvement in processing power, video editing, would also benefit greatly.
But hey, Intel is primarilly in the business of selling CPUs...
Not only the impact of Huygens or any future probe would be miniscule - with certainly quite different chemistries of Earth life and any possible Titan life, plus with very precise list of probe components and "payload", there should be little chance of confusion...
Titan, and Saturn system generally, is a really big thing for our distant future. People like to imagine the colonisation of Jupiter system, but the radiation belts there make it not exactly feasible; only Callisto out of 4 big moons might be fine. Saturn doesn't have this problem; is still decently close and with huge system of moons. Discovery of life on Titan might of course complicate things...OTOH, with it (if any) being probably so vastly different, there's little risk of crosscontamination in either direction.
Brown dwarfs territory starts at dozen or so Jupiter masses, at which point they do start fusing deuterium as you mention; and have quite different dynamics, fully convective interiors.
But once fusing of hydrogen starts, the star is likely to expand considerably.
Anyway, I wouldn't expect accretion of mass to be all that likely - simply because such giant planets / sub brown dwarfs would be probably the biggest, by far, "planetary" body in the system already; there would be nowhere to get any significant mass from on top of what they already have...except from the parent star - but that would work in the other direction, star eating its sub brown dwarf. Unless the two are comparable, in which case it's more of a merging.
EDGE is considered to be 3G by ITU (is comfortably in the range of early "true" 3G speeds anyway), Evolved EDGE will at least double its speed; and all this on non-CDMA underlying radio technology, in supposedly "dead" and "not adequate" GSM network (heh, I guess that's why vast majority of the world relies on it; has chosen it often as their first accessible way of communication even when alternatives were readily available; with EDGE carrying at least large part of data traffic)
LTE is not based on CDMA much more than on TDMA...
Sure, a lot of it is what happens when marketing meets technology - but "GSM" is much more neutral, it was from the beginning basically a name of the consorcium; people using it as "the tech from that one consorcium"...which was carried over. Probably will be mostly carried over to LTE. In contrast, some marketing genius had the "bright" idea to call their network on the basis of fundamental underlying tech revving up everywhere (after early start and already long run for "TDMA 2G"); the result of people associating that underlying tech with particular network provider is much bigger of a confusion.
GSM sort of goes to 2.75G (or whatever)...which gets you to Evolved EDGE territory. Funnily enough, even plain EDGE is considered a 3G technology, as far as ITU is concerned; plus Evolved EDGE will end up noticeably faster than first "true 3G" networks.
While that still doesn't lift GSM from "2G" territory (and luckily; designations would become even more meanigless), it's far from "voice-only standard" nowadays. Plus, what people in practice call "GSM", means ususally "the tech from that one consorcium"; LTE networks will get swept under it too.
"4G" is mostly a marketing now; what is supposed to designate next gen mobile phone networks, with "all is data" approach, is used by PR to describe things which are used only for data (not integrated with rest of services), speedwise on par with 3.5G or 3.75G, at best.
Tech belonging to "CDMA" camp is certainly used also in few places close to Sweden...funny enough, practically exlusively as a stationary net access. Not much of a surpise, considering the quality and diversity of GSM mobile phones, at the least.
There's also the factor that "CDMA" had larger part of its technology ("intellectual property") based in the US, I believe. Lobbying & behind the scene deals could work well with that. Accidentally, not only Iraq, out of more-or-less-US-colonies, is heavily into it.
If not "developed" then it's suddenly "third world"? For that matter, why does first world (numbering designation is a bit obsolete btw) accept the existance of indy videographers? Aren't they useless?
They specifically said about "creating, interacting, sharing... managing, manipulating" - and you just dismissed that part and criticised "consuming"?
There is a quite popular usage scenario which is nowhere near diminishing marginal returns - video editing. Architecture of Fusion seems perfect for that. Will help also in image editing; even if its not so desparatelly needed in this case, it will come handy with what's enabling video boom - reasonably cheap digicams shooting fabulous 720p, even at this point already.
Yeah, sure, go ahead and call it "crap"...but that sea of crap will give us many great videographers. Especially if large portion of them will be able to finally even afford quite sensible camera and editing rig (remember, world encompanesses not only developed countries)
Intel is also leader in performance/watt, due to a complex power delivery architecture and better processor production facilities.
As long as you look only at raw CPU performance and power usage. Add GFX perf into consideration and...
(plus that would be quite recent development for Intel; their power consumption numbers weren't that great by themselves, when adding also chipsets of previous gen)
Well, "incorporating a better GPU" makes quite a bit of difference, considering i3/i5 solution isn't much of an improvement almost anywhere (speed - not really, cost - yeah, I can see Intel willingly passing the savings...anyway, cpu + mobo combo hasn't got cheaper at all, power consumption is one but mostly due to how Intel chipsets were not great at this); and seemed to be almost a fast "first" solution, announced quite a bit after the Fusion.
AMD chipsets with integrated GFX were quite good at power consumption already; using a dozen or so watts. Considering AMD puts out quadcores with sub 100W TDP, Fusion shouldn't be that big a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at correlations between people who "chose" to be violent and their background / enviroment which shaped them.
You being (most likely) a not violent, "civilised" human is mostly an instinctive response to your enviroment, type of social interactions you were immensed in for a long, long time.
Strictly speaking, cattle aren't a resource, but a means of transforming resources. Quite inneficient one, even when compared to other demesticated mammals or specifically ruminants.
And they behave like that because we bred that behaviour into them. Not that it's bad per se, even from their "point of view" - heck, being tasty to us makes them one of the most evolutionary succesful large land animals. At least for now.
We're in the middle of one of the most rapid extinction events in the history of this planet, generally speaking.
Accidentally, it kicked in when we really got the hang of the place...
You seem to, for some reason, assume that Intel will run / support most things? O_o
Yup. And BTW the "seas" (lakes?) on Titan seem to be methane-ethane; so that's probably the main solvent. I think we use comparable chemicals for very low level disinfection...
That is its only major problem though (well, that and the atmosphere being highly toxic to humans - essentially with the addition of...Zyklon B). Other than that it offers protection, stability of conditions, "zero pressure difference" (ok, you would probably want to maintain a slight overpressure inside the base, due to toxicity - together with the cold outside that might make any leaks largely self-closing); greatly simplifying things compared to many other places, so you can concentrate easily on thermal isolation.
We already have bases in the Antarctic, and with tech progress...
BTW, you probably don't want to warm whole moon - unless you intend to have a waterworld.
And it has, as usual, broken drivers. It has broken even DirectDraw since Vista drivers; it's not good for latest games, and it's not good for older, "low-range" games. Only for some small part of the middle, the "popular enough" part with Intel blessing.
Also, did you miss all major browser jumping on GPU utilisation? Another area with still huge need of improvement in processing power, video editing, would also benefit greatly.
But hey, Intel is primarilly in the business of selling CPUs...
Not only the impact of Huygens or any future probe would be miniscule - with certainly quite different chemistries of Earth life and any possible Titan life, plus with very precise list of probe components and "payload", there should be little chance of confusion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Mare_Explorer (hopefully not postponed to be part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Saturn_System_Mission )
Titan, and Saturn system generally, is a really big thing for our distant future. People like to imagine the colonisation of Jupiter system, but the radiation belts there make it not exactly feasible; only Callisto out of 4 big moons might be fine. Saturn doesn't have this problem; is still decently close and with huge system of moons.
Discovery of life on Titan might of course complicate things...OTOH, with it (if any) being probably so vastly different, there's little risk of crosscontamination in either direction.
Considering that concrete would add heat...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation
Yeah, a bit of a low-tech solution; but that's actually a very useful property, and seems to work fine if one really cares to do it...
Brown dwarfs territory starts at dozen or so Jupiter masses, at which point they do start fusing deuterium as you mention; and have quite different dynamics, fully convective interiors.
But once fusing of hydrogen starts, the star is likely to expand considerably.
Anyway, I wouldn't expect accretion of mass to be all that likely - simply because such giant planets / sub brown dwarfs would be probably the biggest, by far, "planetary" body in the system already; there would be nowhere to get any significant mass from on top of what they already have...except from the parent star - but that would work in the other direction, star eating its sub brown dwarf.
Unless the two are comparable, in which case it's more of a merging.
We go more and more towards integrated solutions. Accidentally, those are also the areas where perf/price ratio can really make a huge difference.
EDGE is considered to be 3G by ITU (is comfortably in the range of early "true" 3G speeds anyway), Evolved EDGE will at least double its speed; and all this on non-CDMA underlying radio technology, in supposedly "dead" and "not adequate" GSM network (heh, I guess that's why vast majority of the world relies on it; has chosen it often as their first accessible way of communication even when alternatives were readily available; with EDGE carrying at least large part of data traffic)
LTE is not based on CDMA much more than on TDMA...
Sure, a lot of it is what happens when marketing meets technology - but "GSM" is much more neutral, it was from the beginning basically a name of the consorcium; people using it as "the tech from that one consorcium"...which was carried over. Probably will be mostly carried over to LTE.
In contrast, some marketing genius had the "bright" idea to call their network on the basis of fundamental underlying tech revving up everywhere (after early start and already long run for "TDMA 2G"); the result of people associating that underlying tech with particular network provider is much bigger of a confusion.
GSM sort of goes to 2.75G (or whatever)...which gets you to Evolved EDGE territory. Funnily enough, even plain EDGE is considered a 3G technology, as far as ITU is concerned; plus Evolved EDGE will end up noticeably faster than first "true 3G" networks.
While that still doesn't lift GSM from "2G" territory (and luckily; designations would become even more meanigless), it's far from "voice-only standard" nowadays. Plus, what people in practice call "GSM", means ususally "the tech from that one consorcium"; LTE networks will get swept under it too.
"4G" is mostly a marketing now; what is supposed to designate next gen mobile phone networks, with "all is data" approach, is used by PR to describe things which are used only for data (not integrated with rest of services), speedwise on par with 3.5G or 3.75G, at best.
Tech belonging to "CDMA" camp is certainly used also in few places close to Sweden...funny enough, practically exlusively as a stationary net access. Not much of a surpise, considering the quality and diversity of GSM mobile phones, at the least.
There's also the factor that "CDMA" had larger part of its technology ("intellectual property") based in the US, I believe. Lobbying & behind the scene deals could work well with that. Accidentally, not only Iraq, out of more-or-less-US-colonies, is heavily into it.
...
If not "developed" then it's suddenly "third world"? For that matter, why does first world (numbering designation is a bit obsolete btw) accept the existance of indy videographers? Aren't they useless?
They specifically said about "creating, interacting, sharing ... managing, manipulating" - and you just dismissed that part and criticised "consuming"?
There is a quite popular usage scenario which is nowhere near diminishing marginal returns - video editing. Architecture of Fusion seems perfect for that. Will help also in image editing; even if its not so desparatelly needed in this case, it will come handy with what's enabling video boom - reasonably cheap digicams shooting fabulous 720p, even at this point already.
Yeah, sure, go ahead and call it "crap"...but that sea of crap will give us many great videographers. Especially if large portion of them will be able to finally even afford quite sensible camera and editing rig (remember, world encompanesses not only developed countries)
But when you actually look at the state of drivers...
Intel is also leader in performance/watt, due to a complex power delivery architecture and better processor production facilities.
As long as you look only at raw CPU performance and power usage. Add GFX perf into consideration and...
(plus that would be quite recent development for Intel; their power consumption numbers weren't that great by themselves, when adding also chipsets of previous gen)
Seems a bit better example...
Well, "incorporating a better GPU" makes quite a bit of difference, considering i3/i5 solution isn't much of an improvement almost anywhere (speed - not really, cost - yeah, I can see Intel willingly passing the savings...anyway, cpu + mobo combo hasn't got cheaper at all, power consumption is one but mostly due to how Intel chipsets were not great at this); and seemed to be almost a fast "first" solution, announced quite a bit after the Fusion.
AMD chipsets with integrated GFX were quite good at power consumption already; using a dozen or so watts. Considering AMD puts out quadcores with sub 100W TDP, Fusion shouldn't be that big a problem.
Interesting, if accurate.
(though the discrepancies with Barabbas would be probably the most curious thing in the whole story...)