Interesting this is I have a friend still in college who says these two things have happened/do happen to women teachers in Rhode Island.
First, If a woman is seen on a date by one of her students, she is fired. Also, that this happened to one of his teachers.
Second, if a woman teacher becomes pregnant she is sent on a "leave of absence" for the duration of the time that her pregnancy shows. Basically, once she starts to show, she has to leave until she has the kid. Contrast this with teachers in VA where they don't leave until sometime in the third trimester.
Don't speak against the south until you've heard some of the crazy shit the New Englanders do.
My point was we won't need as much nitrogen if we don't use it in an atmosphere. Plants can use a solid form of nitrogen that is easier to keep in near 100% recylcing. For anything we need (such as O2, we can grab a commet. Being able to grab a commet or ice asteroid would pretty much garuntee a sustainable mission anywhere in the solar system.
It doesn't matter if you have facts to back up an assertion like that, you're still going to pay a price in suffering that makes it far better to just shut the hell up.
So it is "Safer" and "easier" to "shut the hell up" about something that is politically incorect if the price is a large amount of suffering? I wonder what would have happened to the Civil Rights movement and Womens Sufferage (among other movements) if people thought that way in the 20's and 50's/60's.
For water and nitrogen we go out and get us a water-ice comet. That is how we can get the water at least. I see no reason why we "need" the nitrogen other than for plants. So we don't need that much of it.
Using a parachute may make it easier, but it reduces re-usability and turn around time. Using a VTOL (vertical take of and landing) you can, in theory, land anywhere that is flat enough without a runway and if you have enough fuel, launch again. Space ship one using a parachute greatly increases it's turnaround time since you have to repack the chute. Or pack a new chute. The plane that lifts it up also increases turn around time.
One other thing about VTOLs. Thinking long term, they are the only kind that can land on the Moon right now. So it's probably also developing the technology needed for that. No Atmosphere = No Parachute. It also allows for more control on where you land.
Space Ship One may be a sub-orbital for getting from one point on earth to another, but it won't get us to another planet or the Moon. And among other things, The moon is what these guys are shooting for.
Hi, I am working for a company that in the next year is going to be purchasing at least 525 Terrabytes of hard drives. You think size doesn't matter to us? The larger they get the more we can fit into our raid server. And the cheaper per GB it will cost us. And yes, we plan to be operating at nearly full capacity of the drives. We do need that amount of space.
As for me personally? I keep a couply things on my computer that so far has lead me to install 400GB worth of disk space in my computer. Music Videos are one that take up Tens of Gigs. Pictures are another (I have so many they take up tens of gigs as well in JPG format). I run a website with the.
As for the average consumer not needing 160GB? That is enough to store ~18 hours of HDTV content in a VCR. When we finally do get the dam digital transision done with, consumers will be buying up PVRs and that is what they will be using for storage.
Monopoly is bad for the customer, declines the economy's well-being and puts a hold on innovation.
I would disagree with this simply from the example of AT&T. They were innovating like crazy at bell labs where they were pumping all the money into and kept a very high quality of service for the phones. The only problem they had was the prices they had to charge for long distance phones. This was caused by the local governments not letting them charge the cost of local calls and so they had to make up the money on long distance fees. As I understand it, if AT&T had stayed together we would have ALL (everyone) had DSL in the 1980's and probably fibre by now.
Monopolies are only a problem when the people running them get lazy and decide to stop doing things. AT&T never did while it was intact because they kept funding bell labs.
1) There is actually 4 different connectors for USB (A,B, mini, micro). Each with M/F ends. Not sure why they have both A and B, but the reason for mini and micro is for really small devices that can't fit a larger (A/B) port on (mp3 players) and they aren't for permanent connections like the larger ones are used for (printers). As for the hermaphroditic connector like a headphone jack? Thats cause the headphone plug is the only design (round cylinder) that that works for. And past 4 pins, you really need a different plug for it to work efficiently and in a small space. Also, I personally find the headphone jaks realtively easy to break compared to others. Finally, the reason for not having them reversable is that that would be a pain from the point of determining which side was for sending data and recieving. Lets remember that USB was invented before 1997 and computers were a lot less powerful.
Will admot that a better design like the Fire Wire "notch" would have been better, thugh.
Master/Slave actually does have some meaning in IDE. The master device actually has priority over the slave device when it comes to sending/recieving data. The origin of Master/Slave comes from when one device controlled another (still used today, especially in broadcast) and they continued it into computers because essentially the Master can prevent the Slave from doing something if it needs to do something.
In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?
No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.
And this debate will always be there. I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned--including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual-property system--there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.
The difference in technology between the US and third world countries today is gigantic compared to the 1880s. Unless there's a known, valid reason not to use a country's data, it's cherry-picking.
The technology may be different, but at least for the US we "know" that it was reliably recorded the way it was reported in the log books. We can't be sure about that for many other countries.
While admittedly, just because we exist, we are going to change the environment around us. I fail to see the benefit in assuming that nothing that we do can or will affect the global perspective, especially when we have countries around the globe working their industrial magic. We should seek to stave off problems before they occur. In the global scale, if it takes 100 years to stabilize the temperature again, and that's a short time, it may be insufficient for us to adapt to if the temperature increases too fast.
Nuclear Power stations can't just pump their waste into the environment surely it would be possible to collect and process greenhouse gasses at source rather than just dumping them in the atmosphere, who knows we may even find useful things to do them.
Nuclear power plants produce no particle polution. That is "Steam" clouds you see rising out of them. They also produce no green house gasses. The only waste nuclear power produces is nuclear waste, which could dramatically be reduced if we set up a breeder reactor to recycle the material. The only reason we haven't done so is the anti-Nuke lobby and Carter having put a ban on breeder reactors in the USA.
I predict WWIII.
I'd personally call this sensationalist. Very Sesnationalist.
New technology for the silicon, Underclocking to reduce power consumption, a couple other things can be done... I have no idea which they are using, but it is possible. Look at the Pentium M or centrino for an example.
But the ones that do are the ones that make the big bucks. Look at DigiCypher. The first company that implemented a practical digital compression scheme for video files. Or IBM for the PC (as opposed to mainframes). The japanese company we just had that came up with a Blue LED. Nintendo came up with the Play Station, but sold it to sony because the load times were too long for them when compared to the Cartridges. They waited till the Cube to do disks. Also, Nintendo for having a portable game system. Xerox, for the Xerox Machine. Sony, for the VTR/VCR. There are plenty of examples.
Although in the case of Microsoft it seems like they just wait for someone else to come up with the ideas and then copy them badly.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting this is I have a friend still in college who says these two things have happened/do happen to women teachers in Rhode Island.
First, If a woman is seen on a date by one of her students, she is fired. Also, that this happened to one of his teachers.
Second, if a woman teacher becomes pregnant she is sent on a "leave of absence" for the duration of the time that her pregnancy shows. Basically, once she starts to show, she has to leave until she has the kid. Contrast this with teachers in VA where they don't leave until sometime in the third trimester.
Don't speak against the south until you've heard some of the crazy shit the New Englanders do.
My point was we won't need as much nitrogen if we don't use it in an atmosphere. Plants can use a solid form of nitrogen that is easier to keep in near 100% recylcing. For anything we need (such as O2, we can grab a commet. Being able to grab a commet or ice asteroid would pretty much garuntee a sustainable mission anywhere in the solar system.
It doesn't matter if you have facts to back up an assertion like that, you're still going to pay a price in suffering that makes it far better to just shut the hell up.
So it is "Safer" and "easier" to "shut the hell up" about something that is politically incorect if the price is a large amount of suffering? I wonder what would have happened to the Civil Rights movement and Womens Sufferage (among other movements) if people thought that way in the 20's and 50's/60's.
For water and nitrogen we go out and get us a water-ice comet. That is how we can get the water at least. I see no reason why we "need" the nitrogen other than for plants. So we don't need that much of it.
Just your left? Hell, I'd give up both along with both my legs and arms and a kidney and lung. I'd love to be able to get off this rock.
The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, The Father of Rocketry, Datalinks
Using a parachute may make it easier, but it reduces re-usability and turn around time. Using a VTOL (vertical take of and landing) you can, in theory, land anywhere that is flat enough without a runway and if you have enough fuel, launch again. Space ship one using a parachute greatly increases it's turnaround time since you have to repack the chute. Or pack a new chute. The plane that lifts it up also increases turn around time.
One other thing about VTOLs. Thinking long term, they are the only kind that can land on the Moon right now. So it's probably also developing the technology needed for that. No Atmosphere = No Parachute. It also allows for more control on where you land.
Space Ship One may be a sub-orbital for getting from one point on earth to another, but it won't get us to another planet or the Moon. And among other things, The moon is what these guys are shooting for.
We would need to vixit the one on the moon first.
Not pron, Anime picture galeries actually.
Hi, I am working for a company that in the next year is going to be purchasing at least 525 Terrabytes of hard drives. You think size doesn't matter to us? The larger they get the more we can fit into our raid server. And the cheaper per GB it will cost us. And yes, we plan to be operating at nearly full capacity of the drives. We do need that amount of space.
As for me personally? I keep a couply things on my computer that so far has lead me to install 400GB worth of disk space in my computer. Music Videos are one that take up Tens of Gigs. Pictures are another (I have so many they take up tens of gigs as well in JPG format). I run a website with the.
As for the average consumer not needing 160GB? That is enough to store ~18 hours of HDTV content in a VCR. When we finally do get the dam digital transision done with, consumers will be buying up PVRs and that is what they will be using for storage.
This sunday, 3-7pm
Monopoly is bad for the customer, declines the economy's well-being and puts a hold on innovation.
I would disagree with this simply from the example of AT&T. They were innovating like crazy at bell labs where they were pumping all the money into and kept a very high quality of service for the phones. The only problem they had was the prices they had to charge for long distance phones. This was caused by the local governments not letting them charge the cost of local calls and so they had to make up the money on long distance fees. As I understand it, if AT&T had stayed together we would have ALL (everyone) had DSL in the 1980's and probably fibre by now.
Monopolies are only a problem when the people running them get lazy and decide to stop doing things. AT&T never did while it was intact because they kept funding bell labs.
1) There is actually 4 different connectors for USB (A,B, mini, micro). Each with M/F ends. Not sure why they have both A and B, but the reason for mini and micro is for really small devices that can't fit a larger (A/B) port on (mp3 players) and they aren't for permanent connections like the larger ones are used for (printers). As for the hermaphroditic connector like a headphone jack? Thats cause the headphone plug is the only design (round cylinder) that that works for. And past 4 pins, you really need a different plug for it to work efficiently and in a small space. Also, I personally find the headphone jaks realtively easy to break compared to others. Finally, the reason for not having them reversable is that that would be a pain from the point of determining which side was for sending data and recieving. Lets remember that USB was invented before 1997 and computers were a lot less powerful.
Will admot that a better design like the Fire Wire "notch" would have been better, thugh.
FTP: Thats why they invented SSH
Master/Slave actually does have some meaning in IDE. The master device actually has priority over the slave device when it comes to sending/recieving data. The origin of Master/Slave comes from when one device controlled another (still used today, especially in broadcast) and they continued it into computers because essentially the Master can prevent the Slave from doing something if it needs to do something.
MPEG-2 and Dolby are both proprietary. VC-1 is nothing new when it comes to proprietary codecs becoming a standard.
P.S. MPEG-2 is used as the encoding format for the current DVD video.
That was the quote from Gates, not me. Read the link next time.
http://news.com.com/Gates+taking+a+seat+in+your+de n/2008-1041_3-5514121-4.html?tag=st.next
In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed? No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.
And this debate will always be there. I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned--including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual-property system--there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.
I think what he meant by that was that the musicians didn't get paid for writing music. Not that they didn't get paid for performing.
Don't use MS Windows if you don't know computers. (Disclaimer, I do use MS Windows) Get a Mac or a Linux Box but use something other than MS Windows.
The difference in technology between the US and third world countries today is gigantic compared to the 1880s. Unless there's a known, valid reason not to use a country's data, it's cherry-picking.
The technology may be different, but at least for the US we "know" that it was reliably recorded the way it was reported in the log books. We can't be sure about that for many other countries.
While admittedly, just because we exist, we are going to change the environment around us. I fail to see the benefit in assuming that nothing that we do can or will affect the global perspective, especially when we have countries around the globe working their industrial magic. We should seek to stave off problems before they occur. In the global scale, if it takes 100 years to stabilize the temperature again, and that's a short time, it may be insufficient for us to adapt to if the temperature increases too fast.
i on_data/
The temperature has been fluctuating since the begining of time and has never been "stable". Source for the original data is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/
spcific station data:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/stat
I am not the original poster, but I recognize the source comes from the book "State of Fear" and those sites are where the graphs are originally from.
You can keep your Med coasts in France, and Spain - arrid deserts, they'll be in 100 years.
Can you provide a reference to this?
Nuclear Power stations can't just pump their waste into the environment surely it would be possible to collect and process greenhouse gasses at source rather than just dumping them in the atmosphere, who knows we may even find useful things to do them.
Nuclear power plants produce no particle polution. That is "Steam" clouds you see rising out of them. They also produce no green house gasses. The only waste nuclear power produces is nuclear waste, which could dramatically be reduced if we set up a breeder reactor to recycle the material. The only reason we haven't done so is the anti-Nuke lobby and Carter having put a ban on breeder reactors in the USA.
I predict WWIII.
I'd personally call this sensationalist. Very Sesnationalist.
New technology for the silicon, Underclocking to reduce power consumption, a couple other things can be done... I have no idea which they are using, but it is possible. Look at the Pentium M or centrino for an example.
Companies rarely innovate.
But the ones that do are the ones that make the big bucks. Look at DigiCypher. The first company that implemented a practical digital compression scheme for video files. Or IBM for the PC (as opposed to mainframes). The japanese company we just had that came up with a Blue LED. Nintendo came up with the Play Station, but sold it to sony because the load times were too long for them when compared to the Cartridges. They waited till the Cube to do disks. Also, Nintendo for having a portable game system. Xerox, for the Xerox Machine. Sony, for the VTR/VCR. There are plenty of examples.
Although in the case of Microsoft it seems like they just wait for someone else to come up with the ideas and then copy them badly.