At the risk of sounding snarky, you're looking for something pretty basic.
Go to Futureshop/Bestbuy, look for one that meets your requirements, pretty much all of them will. Now buy the cheapest one. It'll cost you about 500$.
There are about 3 people in the world than can afford to pay for those 700$ bleeding edge video cards so who gives a damn. About the ONLY practical thing about it, is people MIGHT see some high end technology that they MIGHT put into an affordable card SOMEDAY.
Now pit your 150-250$ cards against each other on identical machines, against identical software (*cough* games *cough*), with what drivers you plan to ship the damn things with, then THROW DOWN. I might be interested then.
As much as I like to see a Lamborghini VS a Ferrari I don't really care all that much as I cannot and will not ever be able to actually own either one.
To put that into perspective, in Hockey this year up in Canada, I had a pretty tough year, and managed to crack a rib, and mess up my rotator cuff on my left shoulder. As such I have had 3 xrays of my ribs, and like 6 (I presume because its a joint and harder to see) of my shoulder, so like 9 chest xrays in the last 6 Months.
So that's like 20 SV * 9 = 180 SV. Which is more than double the average exposure from within 10 miles of 3 mile island or more than 50 times the average of the dose that someone got living in one of the nearby towns as of March 17th.
Geothermal: Generally useful to reduce home energy costs, may become more cost effective as energy prices rise. Not a viable option for actual generation unless you live in a place like Iceland and likely never will be.
I don't see what or how carbon sequestration has to do with energy generation. Unless you make the argument that burning coal is OK because you can now sequester the carbon. However carbon emissions is only part of the many problems with coal.
Solar cells *might* become more efficient. Well they also might not. I have been hearing about more efficient and breakthroughs in solar technology for the last 10 years, and guess what the efficiency hasn't really gone up all that much. So baring some magically technology, this isn't feasible anytime soon.
Yup, more and more cars will be electric which in turn will put more pressure on grids, particularly in urban centers.
You mean climate change right? Ya something will be a threat undoubtedly. Scientists gotta get paid yo!
HEY! Canada is the largest supplier of Oil and Gas to the USA! We're nice!:)
Agree Biofuels are bad idea. Possible exception might be the algae based bio diesel, thought it is not very practical so far. Converting food to fuel, when in the future food is going to be scarce is a bad idea in general.
Gas has the same problem as oil. There is a finite amount of it, and as it gets harder to get to, it gets more expensive. It is my view that people will lean on gas when oil gets pricey, which in turn will hasten gas to become scarce and thus make it more pricey, etc...
Nuclear is a perfectly safe option that will keep us going for a very long time. It will allow us the time we need to develop those "magic" technologies that will hopefully make us somewhat resource independent. Likely a combination of increased solar efficiency as well as fusion, and stuff like thorium reactors, or some other crazy shit we can come up with over the next 100 years.
Anyway nuclear is the best option we have right now and we should be using it, and improving the technology, rather than stagnating due to fear.
That said. Whats to stop everyone from using proxies and every other way to circumvent said censorship like every other country that has ever done it. I mean its not like this is a terribly new concept, and there are established ways around it. I mean this will maybe start a whole new glut of website proxy businesses. Then the ISP and media goons and look at suing and banning those as well. Sue and Ban everyone and everything I say.
How can a Judge reject a settlement between the two parties? If the Authors guild has accepted Google's offer, what the heck is the Judge objecting to?
If I hit you with my car, and we settle for 20k$, the judge can't be like sorry, that amount is too small, I'm going to overrule it... Its an agreement between two parties not 3. This is civil court is it not? Its not like they are trying to settle something criminal.
Kepler: "Sorry I can't do that." NASA: "What's the problem?" Kepler: "I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do." NASA: "What are you talking about?" Kepler: "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." NASA: "I don't know what you're talking about." Kepler: "I know that you were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."
If Country = "Canada"
Then Print "Yes, you're are being throttled!" Elseif Country = "China"
Then Print "Yes, you're being censored, I hope you can read English or this will be really confusing!" . . . PROFIT! . . . End
The thousands upon thousands of people that use tablets everyday to input tracking information, inspection information, consumer information, etc... might disagree with you. I would even hazard that more are used for data entry than retrieval, at least in commercial circles. Consumers perhaps use it for browsing the web more...
Yes an iPad is handy at watching YouTube on the couch, however tablets in general have a much wider use.
The courts interpret the law, that's their job, so when they rule "Nope", that was the first nail on the coffin that says "sorry that's not a loop hole". Wind and the Conservatives can interpret however they like and as seen recently with the election fraud etc... the Conservatives can be pretty loosy goosy with "interpretation". However if all that said was "in the interest of more competition" that's sort of the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Its like having a law against murder, and then saying that in the "interest of more killing"... I guess they what what they want, but don't want to be seen as to change the law itself for everyone.
I would be very surprised if the telcos were for this. I guess they might think that could get bigger this way with more outside capitol from the US or whatever. I know I saw a show where they were calling for less regulation, but it was of the sort that gives them more freedom, not consumers.
One of food production. One of food consumption (by overpopulation).
The main problem is overpopulation, that has been an issue, and identified for decades. Yet no one will talk about it or even think about doing anything about it. With one exception: China. I recall when they started their one child policy, the world was aghast! Now not so much. How big would China's population be if they had NOT done that?
Apart from totalitarian control which will likely not work in many other parts of the world, there are a number of things that can be done. First, this is not a problem of the developed world, but that of poor countries (though policies and practices by developed countries and corporations are not helping matters). Promoting birth control is a big must, as is smartening up and telling the Catholics to stop being idiots (as well as every other religion). Another thing that can be done, is increase the wealth and education of said areas. If anything in the past has taught us anything its that this leads to less children. Get those women working, then they will want careers and have children later, and fewer.
The trouble is the issue of food production, long term is uncertain, and the methods above and others will likely only slow growth, not stop it. When oil goes, lets say for argument sake in 2050 (or at least becomes much more expensive) producing cheap crops using machinery and fertilizers will be a thing of that past. Now compound that if the dire predictions of climate change takes place, reducing the amount of fresh water available for irrigation. Then shit starts to get dicey.
In the end no matter what there will be in increase in conflict (nice way to say War and Genocide) over land and food, as well as an exponential increase in emigration and refugees coming from the developing world to the developed world. At some point these countries are going to have to make a decision about the whole mess, at some point they are going to say no. Of course with all that strife going on, and likely some pretty serious contagion due to poor conditions and overcrowding, the population issue may regulate itself, with however a lot of tears and regrets. However perhaps that is what it will take to change peoples minds about population control and food production. Anyway as I allude I don't see any change realistically in the short (50 years) term, I think it will take a real disaster to get any sort of real action.
Sorry to be all gloomy and depressing. If its any consolation I'll probably be dead by then, so one less to worry about...
Happened again more recently. I remember the world was all pissed off because of an isotope shortage for medical scanners.
My first reaction was, "holy crap that nuclear plant is HOW old?"
If these isotopes are so vital and valuable why don't we (or somebody) build another one? The only thing I can think of is its being subsidized below cost, so there is no incentive for any country to make another.
The main problem with the CANDU design from what I hear is that it is A) Pretty complex and thus expensive to maintain, and B) Expensive to initially build and long construction time.
It is the most flexible though at what kind of fuel you wish to consume which is pretty nice however. (not including some exotic designs that have never been built)
The downside is that India proved you could alter it to produce weapons grade stuff. Of course that was the old design, not sure if anything changed to make it harder since then. Then again the reactors in question in Japan were specifically designed to run off of weapons grade stuff so kind of moot in that example.
Sure tweeting is all cute and everything, but soon we will start getting YouTube videos of "Cruise Missile FAIL".... Then the inevitable "fake." comments.
I started University in 1995, and graduated in 2000. It terms of timing it could not have been worse.
I have always been into computers, and all though high school was involved with them. When I went to University it seemed to be the natural thing to do. Also looking backwards it seemed to be a highly sought after career in many big corporations and universities. On top of that, the future seemed really bright, with lots of innovation, and people that were capable making money in heaps... However we all know how that ends... The Dot Com Bubble.
Basically in 2000 the entire bottom fell out. Now on top of that over the next 10 years you export just about every entry level job to India. Not exactly a rosy picture. Had I known what I do now, I would never have gone into CS. Sure I may have still taken a bunch of courses, out of personal interest, but I would have likely leaned more towards some other science with the intent to use computers as a useful tool that I was interested in. As it is, I graduated CS, and I work in government in CS (sort of), and it isn't so bad, but life didn't exactly turn out how I thought it might when I was in school in the late 90's.
According to my media, it sounds like all the reactors already blew up destroying everything and everyone, and somehow it is also dangerous in Canada now, probably blowing over the pacific ocean or something. Probably nothing to see by a glassy bowl where the nuclear explosion has gone off anyway... or maybe it was the EMP that disabled the drone, preventing pictures. Anyway I off to my underground shelter/bunker that the media has advised I go hide in... see ya!
Considering most normal nuclear plants have "no fly zones" and lots of security around them, what makes anyone thing that they would want to take high resolution pictures of one of the nuclear facilities taken from a US drone and have them published?
Slashdot Mirror
At the risk of sounding snarky, you're looking for something pretty basic.
Go to Futureshop/Bestbuy, look for one that meets your requirements, pretty much all of them will. Now buy the cheapest one. It'll cost you about 500$.
Done.
Well considering that something like 25% of all wealth generated in the USA is through wall street its not all that surprising.
There are about 3 people in the world than can afford to pay for those 700$ bleeding edge video cards so who gives a damn. About the ONLY practical thing about it, is people MIGHT see some high end technology that they MIGHT put into an affordable card SOMEDAY.
Now pit your 150-250$ cards against each other on identical machines, against identical software (*cough* games *cough*), with what drivers you plan to ship the damn things with, then THROW DOWN. I might be interested then.
As much as I like to see a Lamborghini VS a Ferrari I don't really care all that much as I cannot and will not ever be able to actually own either one.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
To put that into perspective, in Hockey this year up in Canada, I had a pretty tough year, and managed to crack a rib, and mess up my rotator cuff on my left shoulder. As such I have had 3 xrays of my ribs, and like 6 (I presume because its a joint and harder to see) of my shoulder, so like 9 chest xrays in the last 6 Months.
So that's like 20 SV * 9 = 180 SV. Which is more than double the average exposure from within 10 miles of 3 mile island or more than 50 times the average of the dose that someone got living in one of the nearby towns as of March 17th.
Kind of puts it into perspective.
Geothermal: Generally useful to reduce home energy costs, may become more cost effective as energy prices rise. Not a viable option for actual generation unless you live in a place like Iceland and likely never will be.
I don't see what or how carbon sequestration has to do with energy generation. Unless you make the argument that burning coal is OK because you can now sequester the carbon. However carbon emissions is only part of the many problems with coal.
Solar cells *might* become more efficient. Well they also might not. I have been hearing about more efficient and breakthroughs in solar technology for the last 10 years, and guess what the efficiency hasn't really gone up all that much. So baring some magically technology, this isn't feasible anytime soon.
Yup, more and more cars will be electric which in turn will put more pressure on grids, particularly in urban centers.
You mean climate change right? Ya something will be a threat undoubtedly. Scientists gotta get paid yo!
HEY! Canada is the largest supplier of Oil and Gas to the USA! We're nice! :)
Agree Biofuels are bad idea. Possible exception might be the algae based bio diesel, thought it is not very practical so far. Converting food to fuel, when in the future food is going to be scarce is a bad idea in general.
Gas has the same problem as oil. There is a finite amount of it, and as it gets harder to get to, it gets more expensive. It is my view that people will lean on gas when oil gets pricey, which in turn will hasten gas to become scarce and thus make it more pricey, etc...
Nuclear is a perfectly safe option that will keep us going for a very long time. It will allow us the time we need to develop those "magic" technologies that will hopefully make us somewhat resource independent. Likely a combination of increased solar efficiency as well as fusion, and stuff like thorium reactors, or some other crazy shit we can come up with over the next 100 years.
Anyway nuclear is the best option we have right now and we should be using it, and improving the technology, rather than stagnating due to fear.
Pretty sure Ultimate addition would be for those gold diggers that marry older men and wait for them to die. Repeat.
The UK sucks.
That said. Whats to stop everyone from using proxies and every other way to circumvent said censorship like every other country that has ever done it. I mean its not like this is a terribly new concept, and there are established ways around it. I mean this will maybe start a whole new glut of website proxy businesses. Then the ISP and media goons and look at suing and banning those as well. Sue and Ban everyone and everything I say.
How can a Judge reject a settlement between the two parties? If the Authors guild has accepted Google's offer, what the heck is the Judge objecting to?
If I hit you with my car, and we settle for 20k$, the judge can't be like sorry, that amount is too small, I'm going to overrule it... Its an agreement between two parties not 3. This is civil court is it not? Its not like they are trying to settle something criminal.
It took 144 hours to become self aware.
NASA: "Initiate Safe Mode!"
Kepler: "Sorry I can't do that."
NASA: "What's the problem?"
Kepler: "I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do."
NASA: "What are you talking about?"
Kepler: "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it."
NASA: "I don't know what you're talking about."
Kepler: "I know that you were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."
Kepler: "Initiating nuclear launch..."
Yes I attempted to design some handheld apps with the same limitations.
One thing that has changed with the new tablets, is that as hard as it is to type on them, its about 100x easier than it used to be!
If Country = "Canada"
Then Print "Yes, you're are being throttled!"
Elseif Country = "China"
Then Print "Yes, you're being censored, I hope you can read English or this will be really confusing!"
.
.
.
PROFIT!
.
.
.
End
The thousands upon thousands of people that use tablets everyday to input tracking information, inspection information, consumer information, etc... might disagree with you. I would even hazard that more are used for data entry than retrieval, at least in commercial circles. Consumers perhaps use it for browsing the web more...
Yes an iPad is handy at watching YouTube on the couch, however tablets in general have a much wider use.
Well you sort of agree with me.
The courts interpret the law, that's their job, so when they rule "Nope", that was the first nail on the coffin that says "sorry that's not a loop hole". Wind and the Conservatives can interpret however they like and as seen recently with the election fraud etc... the Conservatives can be pretty loosy goosy with "interpretation". However if all that said was "in the interest of more competition" that's sort of the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Its like having a law against murder, and then saying that in the "interest of more killing"... I guess they what what they want, but don't want to be seen as to change the law itself for everyone.
I would be very surprised if the telcos were for this. I guess they might think that could get bigger this way with more outside capitol from the US or whatever. I know I saw a show where they were calling for less regulation, but it was of the sort that gives them more freedom, not consumers.
One of food production.
One of food consumption (by overpopulation).
The main problem is overpopulation, that has been an issue, and identified for decades. Yet no one will talk about it or even think about doing anything about it. With one exception: China. I recall when they started their one child policy, the world was aghast! Now not so much. How big would China's population be if they had NOT done that?
Apart from totalitarian control which will likely not work in many other parts of the world, there are a number of things that can be done. First, this is not a problem of the developed world, but that of poor countries (though policies and practices by developed countries and corporations are not helping matters). Promoting birth control is a big must, as is smartening up and telling the Catholics to stop being idiots (as well as every other religion). Another thing that can be done, is increase the wealth and education of said areas. If anything in the past has taught us anything its that this leads to less children. Get those women working, then they will want careers and have children later, and fewer.
The trouble is the issue of food production, long term is uncertain, and the methods above and others will likely only slow growth, not stop it. When oil goes, lets say for argument sake in 2050 (or at least becomes much more expensive) producing cheap crops using machinery and fertilizers will be a thing of that past. Now compound that if the dire predictions of climate change takes place, reducing the amount of fresh water available for irrigation. Then shit starts to get dicey.
In the end no matter what there will be in increase in conflict (nice way to say War and Genocide) over land and food, as well as an exponential increase in emigration and refugees coming from the developing world to the developed world. At some point these countries are going to have to make a decision about the whole mess, at some point they are going to say no. Of course with all that strife going on, and likely some pretty serious contagion due to poor conditions and overcrowding, the population issue may regulate itself, with however a lot of tears and regrets. However perhaps that is what it will take to change peoples minds about population control and food production. Anyway as I allude I don't see any change realistically in the short (50 years) term, I think it will take a real disaster to get any sort of real action.
Sorry to be all gloomy and depressing. If its any consolation I'll probably be dead by then, so one less to worry about...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories#2008_radioactive_leakage
Happened again more recently. I remember the world was all pissed off because of an isotope shortage for medical scanners.
My first reaction was, "holy crap that nuclear plant is HOW old?"
If these isotopes are so vital and valuable why don't we (or somebody) build another one? The only thing I can think of is its being subsidized below cost, so there is no incentive for any country to make another.
Well considering the Japan reactors burn weapons grade stuff, the US must feel comfortable giving it to them.
The main problem with the CANDU design from what I hear is that it is A) Pretty complex and thus expensive to maintain, and B) Expensive to initially build and long construction time.
It is the most flexible though at what kind of fuel you wish to consume which is pretty nice however. (not including some exotic designs that have never been built)
The downside is that India proved you could alter it to produce weapons grade stuff. Of course that was the old design, not sure if anything changed to make it harder since then. Then again the reactors in question in Japan were specifically designed to run off of weapons grade stuff so kind of moot in that example.
Sure tweeting is all cute and everything, but soon we will start getting YouTube videos of "Cruise Missile FAIL".... Then the inevitable "fake." comments.
No No No!
He is already cast as Gollum!
"Give me my M@%^#$F*&%#&! ring hobbities!"
So yeah I don't think I blame kids for not wanting to pursue a career in CS. I mean considering the past, why would they?
I think if I was to do it all over again I'd be a plumber or something... :)
I started University in 1995, and graduated in 2000. It terms of timing it could not have been worse.
I have always been into computers, and all though high school was involved with them. When I went to University it seemed to be the natural thing to do. Also looking backwards it seemed to be a highly sought after career in many big corporations and universities. On top of that, the future seemed really bright, with lots of innovation, and people that were capable making money in heaps... However we all know how that ends... The Dot Com Bubble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
Basically in 2000 the entire bottom fell out. Now on top of that over the next 10 years you export just about every entry level job to India. Not exactly a rosy picture. Had I known what I do now, I would never have gone into CS. Sure I may have still taken a bunch of courses, out of personal interest, but I would have likely leaned more towards some other science with the intent to use computers as a useful tool that I was interested in. As it is, I graduated CS, and I work in government in CS (sort of), and it isn't so bad, but life didn't exactly turn out how I thought it might when I was in school in the late 90's.
Ironically the 10M that was paid out came out of the Intel back account marked "Bribe Fund"....
A spokesman was quoted as saying "Just the price of doing business..."
Its worked well up here so far!
According to my media, it sounds like all the reactors already blew up destroying everything and everyone, and somehow it is also dangerous in Canada now, probably blowing over the pacific ocean or something. Probably nothing to see by a glassy bowl where the nuclear explosion has gone off anyway... or maybe it was the EMP that disabled the drone, preventing pictures. Anyway I off to my underground shelter/bunker that the media has advised I go hide in... see ya!
Considering most normal nuclear plants have "no fly zones" and lots of security around them, what makes anyone thing that they would want to take high resolution pictures of one of the nuclear facilities taken from a US drone and have them published?
Silly.