That's simply not true from a pragmatic view. Like all applications, you then pick a gearing/#gears/transmission combination which is complimentary to both the engine's output and the specific application.
Diesel engines are commonly used for extremely high HP output and used in conditions where gas engines typically fall apart after half the total work load. And what you consider a negative (low RPM) is actually a positive.
One of the big problems of high RPM is poor scavenging efficiency. That means as RPMs rise, overall efficiency decreases. Once you start reach 5500+ RPM, scavenging and lifter assembles becomes major bottlenecks to performance without a forced induction. That's why you rarely see production vehicles creating peak HP over 5000 RPM; even with forced induction. And far more typically for V8s, peak is usually somewhere between 3600-4500 RPM. Modern turbo diesels are typically maxing RPM at around 3000 RPM. And as they are designed differently, they typically provide optimal output all the way up to peak RPM because of their steep torque curves.
Additionally, gas engines typically have what is dubbed a "power band". Most performance engines don't start making any significant HP until they reach a specific RPM, for a variety of reasons. For many V8s, this typically starts around 2100-2800 RPM; effectively providing meaningful HP output between 2100 - 4500 RPM. That's a "usable" power band of 2300 RPM. Contrasting that with diesel engines, which typically have a power band of 1500-2500 RPM. Suddenly the gas engine doesn't look so attractive.
This distinction is very important to keep in mind as gas engines typically produce very little HP on the bottom end; while those that do typically produce very poorly on the top end. Furthermore, because they must build RPM to create HP and those engines which are designed for top end power, are typically very inefficient on the bottom end. That's why the first two thousand RPM is typically not outputting much HP and as its lacking torque compared to diesel, it takes longer to build.
Long story short, far too many people drastically underestimate diesel potential while at the same time drastically over estimate gas' utility.
Right. I simply left out the rest as it tends to confuses people. For the purpose of the post the simplified equation, while technically wrong, illustrates the discussion with added clarity.
Technically, diesel should be cheaper. The problem is, just as modern diesel engines started to grab traction in the US, lobbyists required ultra low sulfur diesel production. This caused the price to almost double over night. Likewise, gas production has continue to rise which places additional pressure to contribute more processing time to gas rather than diesel. While diesel/kerosene/jet fuel is really a byproduct of gas production, the new found processing requirements are not. Remember, 40%-60% of all gas production basically creates diesel/kerosene/jet fuel. If we shifted the sulfur requirements to a more reasonable level (modern diesel is already much, much cleaner than gas) and a bulk of US cars shifted to diesel, the cost of diesel would drastically drop. There is absolutely no reason diesel fuel should cost anywhere near that of gas unless its politically manipulated to force/justify its pricing higher. And don't forget, also requires yet additional additives to obtain its octane rating which the vast majority of the cars on the road no longer require.
In short, if the oil companies were forced to remove the additives which they needlessly charge premium for, gas prices could drop 15-30% (local regulations and legal requirements drive this) over night. Remember, the vast majority of cars sold since the early 80's no longer require additional octane. Those that do can purchase additives and add it when they purchase gas. Likewise, diesel prices could drop almost 50%. And if the trend continued to shift the way of the diesel, diesel prices could drastically drop more.
Nothing could be father from the truth. HP is a function of torque. The reason you equate HP to high RPMs is because gas engines typically have poor torque curves compared to diesel so they have to make up for it with RPM. The base equation is hp=torque*rpm. That means you can produce HP by ramping up torque or by ramping up rpm. And since torque is what actually gets you moving, the performance advantage goes to diesel rather than gas. Likewise, its far easier to ramp up torque with diesel than it is rpms. Conversely, for gas engines, its far easier to ramp up rpm than torque because of fuel limitations (octane constraints). That's why you traditionally see high rpm gas engines and low rpm diesel engines.
This is also why electric motors are used in trains - as they can produce high torque values at zero or near zero rpms. Oddly enough, they use diesel engines to run the generators which power those electric motors. The combination provides for incredibly high workloads which would otherwise kill gas engines. And even if you remove the electric motor, the advantage still goes to diesel.
So don't let people blow smoke up your tail pipe. Diesel engines have a lot to offer. The days of low power, noisy, smoggy. and black smoke, rattle traps have long been gone from the diesel world.
is it as gutless as I've been led to believe diesel cars are?
Diesels haven't been gutless since the 80's. Diesels have come a long way, have better energy densities, better thermal efficiency, and generally far better torque curves than their gas cousins. And, modern diesels pollute far, far less than gas engines. Its a win-win. Its odd that about the same time diesels started grabbing traction in the US, diesel fuel regulations changed which forced diesel prices to almost double; thereby making it more expensive than gas despite the fact gas requires far more processing to produce while as the same time, diesel was typically considered the waste product of gas production.
These days, diesels are used to compete in various rally races across the world because it means fewer stops for gas and they are ultra reliable. And guess what, diesels have consistently been winning races for many years now. Many motor sports are heading that way because they've proved to be superior. Simply put, its hard to explain the lack of diesel engines in American made vehicles other than by conspiracy. Of course that doesn't mean there is an actual conspiracy but diesels really are better in almost every way.
Ignoring the long list of foolishness that is your statement about using FTP to transfer confidential and legally protected patient information, none of that really matters.
In traffic shaping, you're typically not limiting bandwidth but rather latency. Applications which require low latency (games, ssh, video conferencing, VoIP, etc), can be granted priority ensuring their packets are placed in front of bulk transfer protocols. The bandwidth remains the same but the overall user experience is improved. Only in situations where bandwidth limits are reached for extended durations will shaping (good implementation) actually compromise bandwidth. And in the end, even in that situation, its more important interactive users observe a low latency experience than it is for your FTP transfer, taking for example sixty seconds, to complete three seconds faster.
And really none of that matters. What they want is to broker deals with specific providers such that data routed to/from those providers receive a richer experience. So if you go to CNN, you can start watching them in five seconds. For video content coming from AOL, suddenly you'll have to wait tens of seconds to start watching. And if the game you want to play isn't hosted on a "sponsored provider", suddenly the game will be unplayable. That most certainly is not the Internet anyone wants, save only for greedy, POS ISPs.
Long story short, there is traffic shaping and then their is what ISPs want.
Not to mention, the writing on the wall is, if they want the right to be non-regulated despite deep inspection on the data they carry, they clearly are responsible for the data which they carry. Seems they are begging to fall under telephone regulations; which they absolutely don't want. Either they are a transparent pipe or they are going to be held responsible for inspecting, routing, prioritization, and monitoring all traffic they carry. Seems they want to have their cake, eat it, and all the while rape your mother with no price to pay. Hopefully Congress will grant the power to the FCC to remind ISPs the privileges they've already been granted.
Generally, I don't watch movies for a message, I watch movies to be entertained.
Like it or not, every movie has a message. For most movies these days that message is, "We have your money now and there ain't shit you can do about it. Bwahhahahhaah...."
Really, there isn't a message here in the traditional sense. Those that see the message simply see what it is to live in modern times. It is to see humanity. Unlike most movies with a message, this movie doesn't preach at you and doesn't talk down to you or even push some type of obviously bullshit agenda. Those that see the message see it because they choose to do so and because they recognize deep undertones of truth in humanity. No bones about it, this movie is not about delivering a message.
In short, you can watch it for a dark scifi ride or you can watch it for that, plus walk away with "a message." To each his own. Besides, its not like "the message" is all that deep. It simply acknowledges man is man.
My brother is an engineer at Boeing... he claims that this is the most screwed up engineering project in terms of cost in human history. I think he has a point.
From my own experience, without fail, this is typical out sourcing results. Foreign outsourcing claims they can do x at price point y where y is substantially cheaper than local competition. Come the end of the project term, 1/2x is delivered at price y. Then round after round and takes place to push 1/2x up to original x requirements. Only to achieve that result, they spend 3y to finally deliver on x, which is now 1/2 year to 2 years late; or the project was flat out canceled. Even worse, to obtain the shoddy results, they wind up spending far more than it would have cost to simply to do it right the first time around. And, had they made the local investment, future upgrades, updates, and new projects would be cheaper because of a shorter delivery as they already had the expertise.
People don't realize, in countries like India, turnover is the norm. So start a project now and then start a new project based on the original two years from now, chances are you're staff will be as fresh then as it was when the original project started. The same lessons will be learned over and over again at the project's expense.
For the vast majority of jobs, especially engineering (hardware/software) jobs, and even more so for highly specialized engineering, software, or manufacturing jobs, outsourcing is absolute validation an absolute moron is in charge. But they don't care, chances are they'll taken their hugely undeserved bonus and started ruining another company before the flames are truly appreciated on the decisions they made while present.
Unless you've been brainwashed, as the majority of Americans have been, absolutely he has the right. Period. End of discussion. And contrary to the current illegal laws on the books, even criminals retain that right under the Constitution. Ya I know, that's not a popular position but it is true. It wasn't so many years ago criminals were actually given ammunition for their firearm, having been returned to them when they were freed, in addition to a small amount of money.
Now then, while he has the right to carry said weapon and removal of said weapon would be a blatant violation of Constitutional freedoms, under national security, the Secret Service do have the right to ask him to leave. Should he not leave, they can forcibly remove him. But do not confuse the facts, he absolutely has the right to carry a firearm; contrary to what the press and anti-gun, brainwashed, nut jobs would have you believe.
Clearly there are exceptions, thusly the use of "most", but its rather biased to place your biases on it.
Any job where your whipped to continue and/or where little mental effort is required, or where your pace is set other than by one's self, need not qualify. And even then, many in those categories still suffer from reduced efficiency.
Not to mention squatting. A lot of scumbags go to the delete list, snag them as quickly as possible, return it as a typo just before the allowed period is over, and then turn around and snag it again. They effectively were fraudulently squatting domain names without ever paying for them. Then when you needed your domain, back, they'd charge you a huge fee understanding its cheaper to pay their illegal extortion then it is to hire a lawyer who likely wouldn't understand the situation in the first place.
A large portion of what they've done is reduce the amount of extortion which has been taking place. They've effectively reduced the cost effectiveness of their squatting-extortion model as it now costs them large sums of money to extort from others via the bulk model. As a result, the practice is rapidly on the decline, as one would expect.
Most studies already indicate a work week of 30 hours is roughly as productive as 40 hours for most workers. Extending the work week only creates more web browsing and porn at work, not to mention additional cost to business but not likely to actually be more productive.
Meaning, for most workers, you're *lucky* to get six productive hours out of them every day.
Are you suggesting programmers are going to make the dramatic developments in the next couple of years that they have been unable to in the last ten?
Yes. Ten years ago SMP was not common. These days it is. Don't let complexity vs performance gain confuse your sense of direction. Without a doubt, there is an ever increasing push to take advantage of multiple cores, where it makes sense to do so. Already more and more games attempt to break audio, graphics, physics, loading/caching into multiple threads of execution with varying degrees of success.
Additionally, applications like ray tracers, cad, modelers, image manipulation, etc...continue to increase their concurrency. Hell, even python, a classic lead foot in the language world, ever trying to remain anchored to the ground, has continued to be pushed into better SMP/concurrency support. Java continues to add concurrency support in its contains and VM.
So yes, absolutely, things are charging. No ifs, ands, or butts. It just may not change as rapidly as we'd all like.
Exactly! They've chased away casual contributors. They've even gone in and trashed articles destroying content which they obviously didn't understand. Worse, they have turf wars where one editor destroys content, another editor revises it, further destorting the actual value of the article, and then another comes in and shits on it some more. They've even shit canned articles because it named all contributors and even detailed specific contributions to the noteworrhy open source project which it described.
They've changed it such that it is almost a complete waste of time for casual contributors. Worse, their policies are so open to interpretation, even their own editors constantly disagree what the hell they mean.
Because their radar systems are drastically more advanced than anything currently used in civilian aviation. Furthermore, they have a mix of ground based radar plug airborne radar which can detect individual aircraft out of significant ground clutter. Int he civilian world, you can lose aircraft distinction with aircraft as far as 4.5 miles apart. In fact, its common for radar to be observed in what is called "coast mode" which means if the radar does not get a clear return it interpolates where it thinks the airplane should be.
All of this ultimately null and void as a requirement for safe air travel is "see and avoid". Many UAVs are so small and/or purposely difficult to visually observe it makes it impossible for humans sharing airspace to safely uphold their portion of the obligation. Furthermore, because of technology limitations in UAVs, its almost impossible for UAVs to address the requirement. The bottom line is, even ignoring the potential radar issues, their demanding planes bump into each other and they want to know how you feel about turning every flight into a roll of the dice.
Simply put, its sheer stupidity to be studying what they know is easily twenty to fifty years away before it can hope to be safely implemented.
Looks like your attitude is one of the things they'll be studying, hmm?
Which means we should all be very, very, very, very scared. This is putting the cart before the horse. To say they are studying acceptance is nothing but sheer stupidity. This translates to mean they are studying the acceptance of widespread death and reckless endangerment of the flying public and those who happen to be below.
To be absolutely clear, we are no where near the technology required for UAVs to safely fly and mix with human traffic. A requirement for safe flight is "see and avoid." This requirement becomes impossible to meed by all parties once UAVs enter the mix. Without "see and avoid" you're begging for a daily recurrence of the crash that recently occurred over the Hudson.
Said another way, they want to study the acceptance of extremely dangerous intentions which endangers everyone. This is stupidity for the sake of stupidity. In twenty to fifty years they might have something worth studying.
When you can safely observe cars drive without collision in every scenario, without sensors or other assistive technology in or near the road will you see AUVs flying which are safe for everyone. This is easily twenty to fifty years away.
If your friend can wait a a little while, there will be a ton of Android options available soon. By the end of the year there should be something like 8 handsets (of 21-22) available on US carriers. Rumor has it that includes a second and/or third on Tmo, two on AT&T and at least one on Verizon.
but what about something like DOS where there is no threads?
Hate to burst your bubble, but threads can be supported on DOS. I've even created thread implementations on DOS. Now then, exactly how threads workand their exact implementation details may or may not come as a surprise, but threads can be implemented on DOS.
_potentially_ can put a _fraction_ of a businesses profits in danger.
Why do people always falsely assume piracy only slightly damages, if at all. That position is as mindless and as inaccurate of the RIAA's , which assumes every pirated song is a lost sale. While it might be a fraction of profit for a large company, for a small company it can mean the difference between staying in going out of business and continued growth and development. Piracy is killing small businesses. And contrary to the music world, software does not have "fair use". While fair use makes sense for music, it does not make sense at all for most software. Piracy, just like all other forms of theft also forces everyone to pay higher prices.
Additionally, music tends not to become out dated. Or when it does, it tends to be a generation or more out. Software on the other hand becomes outdated in months. For example, people still buy Pink Floyd but you'll not find many trying to purchase a copy of Windows 3.1.
If the damaging effects of piracy are so "slight", you wouldn't see so many spending so much time, energy, and money into anti-piracy efforts. That alone strongly validate the impact, even for large corporations, is anything other than a "_fraction_"; which implies its not worth pursuing. The reality is, companies are paying large sums of money for licenses to prevent piracy and they would only do so if they can financially justify the offset in both the license and manpower required to implement, deploy, and even maintain. But the reality is, companies of all sizes lose large sums of money from rampant piracy. For medium to large companies the loss is likely to be more tolerable. For smaller companies it is often a death sentence.
If you use an application it is worth purchasing; especially if the cost is reasonable. If you don't use the application, don't buy it. It really is that simple. The moment you (as in people in general) decide pirated software is worth installing, using, and keeping, you assigned value to the product and are incurring an overall lose of value to the product in the larger market by pirating. If you like the software, stop hurting the company/developer - buy it. This is especially true for smaller developers who target platforms like the iPhone and Android.
Support your developers and stop taking money out of their pocket!
Then it becomes like artificial sweeteners, where you have a mountain of evidence stating that it is safe (from the corporations, or people funded by the industry)
As for the oldest of artificial sweeteners (Saccharin), there is actually mountains of evidence that it is safe. The "evidence" which shows it to be unsafe was originally sponsored by sugar growers (direct competition). In fact, research clearly shows sugar to be far, far, far, far, far more dangerous, bringing horrible disease to every culture to which it is introduced and yet law required a cancer warning on the product which is actually far safer.
Slashdot Mirror
thus yielding a lower total horsepower output
That's simply not true from a pragmatic view. Like all applications, you then pick a gearing/#gears/transmission combination which is complimentary to both the engine's output and the specific application.
Diesel engines are commonly used for extremely high HP output and used in conditions where gas engines typically fall apart after half the total work load. And what you consider a negative (low RPM) is actually a positive.
One of the big problems of high RPM is poor scavenging efficiency. That means as RPMs rise, overall efficiency decreases. Once you start reach 5500+ RPM, scavenging and lifter assembles becomes major bottlenecks to performance without a forced induction. That's why you rarely see production vehicles creating peak HP over 5000 RPM; even with forced induction. And far more typically for V8s, peak is usually somewhere between 3600-4500 RPM. Modern turbo diesels are typically maxing RPM at around 3000 RPM. And as they are designed differently, they typically provide optimal output all the way up to peak RPM because of their steep torque curves.
Additionally, gas engines typically have what is dubbed a "power band". Most performance engines don't start making any significant HP until they reach a specific RPM, for a variety of reasons. For many V8s, this typically starts around 2100-2800 RPM; effectively providing meaningful HP output between 2100 - 4500 RPM. That's a "usable" power band of 2300 RPM. Contrasting that with diesel engines, which typically have a power band of 1500-2500 RPM. Suddenly the gas engine doesn't look so attractive.
This distinction is very important to keep in mind as gas engines typically produce very little HP on the bottom end; while those that do typically produce very poorly on the top end. Furthermore, because they must build RPM to create HP and those engines which are designed for top end power, are typically very inefficient on the bottom end. That's why the first two thousand RPM is typically not outputting much HP and as its lacking torque compared to diesel, it takes longer to build.
Long story short, far too many people drastically underestimate diesel potential while at the same time drastically over estimate gas' utility.
Right. I simply left out the rest as it tends to confuses people. For the purpose of the post the simplified equation, while technically wrong, illustrates the discussion with added clarity.
I do appreciate the clarification.
That's the case for several reasons.
Technically, diesel should be cheaper. The problem is, just as modern diesel engines started to grab traction in the US, lobbyists required ultra low sulfur diesel production. This caused the price to almost double over night. Likewise, gas production has continue to rise which places additional pressure to contribute more processing time to gas rather than diesel. While diesel/kerosene/jet fuel is really a byproduct of gas production, the new found processing requirements are not. Remember, 40%-60% of all gas production basically creates diesel/kerosene/jet fuel. If we shifted the sulfur requirements to a more reasonable level (modern diesel is already much, much cleaner than gas) and a bulk of US cars shifted to diesel, the cost of diesel would drastically drop. There is absolutely no reason diesel fuel should cost anywhere near that of gas unless its politically manipulated to force/justify its pricing higher. And don't forget, also requires yet additional additives to obtain its octane rating which the vast majority of the cars on the road no longer require.
In short, if the oil companies were forced to remove the additives which they needlessly charge premium for, gas prices could drop 15-30% (local regulations and legal requirements drive this) over night. Remember, the vast majority of cars sold since the early 80's no longer require additional octane. Those that do can purchase additives and add it when they purchase gas. Likewise, diesel prices could drop almost 50%. And if the trend continued to shift the way of the diesel, diesel prices could drastically drop more.
Diesels still don't put down a ton of horsepower
Nothing could be father from the truth. HP is a function of torque. The reason you equate HP to high RPMs is because gas engines typically have poor torque curves compared to diesel so they have to make up for it with RPM. The base equation is hp=torque*rpm. That means you can produce HP by ramping up torque or by ramping up rpm. And since torque is what actually gets you moving, the performance advantage goes to diesel rather than gas. Likewise, its far easier to ramp up torque with diesel than it is rpms. Conversely, for gas engines, its far easier to ramp up rpm than torque because of fuel limitations (octane constraints). That's why you traditionally see high rpm gas engines and low rpm diesel engines.
This is also why electric motors are used in trains - as they can produce high torque values at zero or near zero rpms. Oddly enough, they use diesel engines to run the generators which power those electric motors. The combination provides for incredibly high workloads which would otherwise kill gas engines. And even if you remove the electric motor, the advantage still goes to diesel.
So don't let people blow smoke up your tail pipe. Diesel engines have a lot to offer. The days of low power, noisy, smoggy. and black smoke, rattle traps have long been gone from the diesel world.
is it as gutless as I've been led to believe diesel cars are?
Diesels haven't been gutless since the 80's. Diesels have come a long way, have better energy densities, better thermal efficiency, and generally far better torque curves than their gas cousins. And, modern diesels pollute far, far less than gas engines. Its a win-win. Its odd that about the same time diesels started grabbing traction in the US, diesel fuel regulations changed which forced diesel prices to almost double; thereby making it more expensive than gas despite the fact gas requires far more processing to produce while as the same time, diesel was typically considered the waste product of gas production.
These days, diesels are used to compete in various rally races across the world because it means fewer stops for gas and they are ultra reliable. And guess what, diesels have consistently been winning races for many years now. Many motor sports are heading that way because they've proved to be superior. Simply put, its hard to explain the lack of diesel engines in American made vehicles other than by conspiracy. Of course that doesn't mean there is an actual conspiracy but diesels really are better in almost every way.
Ignoring the long list of foolishness that is your statement about using FTP to transfer confidential and legally protected patient information, none of that really matters.
In traffic shaping, you're typically not limiting bandwidth but rather latency. Applications which require low latency (games, ssh, video conferencing, VoIP, etc), can be granted priority ensuring their packets are placed in front of bulk transfer protocols. The bandwidth remains the same but the overall user experience is improved. Only in situations where bandwidth limits are reached for extended durations will shaping (good implementation) actually compromise bandwidth. And in the end, even in that situation, its more important interactive users observe a low latency experience than it is for your FTP transfer, taking for example sixty seconds, to complete three seconds faster.
And really none of that matters. What they want is to broker deals with specific providers such that data routed to/from those providers receive a richer experience. So if you go to CNN, you can start watching them in five seconds. For video content coming from AOL, suddenly you'll have to wait tens of seconds to start watching. And if the game you want to play isn't hosted on a "sponsored provider", suddenly the game will be unplayable. That most certainly is not the Internet anyone wants, save only for greedy, POS ISPs.
Long story short, there is traffic shaping and then their is what ISPs want.
Not to mention, the writing on the wall is, if they want the right to be non-regulated despite deep inspection on the data they carry, they clearly are responsible for the data which they carry. Seems they are begging to fall under telephone regulations; which they absolutely don't want. Either they are a transparent pipe or they are going to be held responsible for inspecting, routing, prioritization, and monitoring all traffic they carry. Seems they want to have their cake, eat it, and all the while rape your mother with no price to pay. Hopefully Congress will grant the power to the FCC to remind ISPs the privileges they've already been granted.
Generally, I don't watch movies for a message, I watch movies to be entertained.
Like it or not, every movie has a message. For most movies these days that message is, "We have your money now and there ain't shit you can do about it. Bwahhahahhaah...."
Really, there isn't a message here in the traditional sense. Those that see the message simply see what it is to live in modern times. It is to see humanity. Unlike most movies with a message, this movie doesn't preach at you and doesn't talk down to you or even push some type of obviously bullshit agenda. Those that see the message see it because they choose to do so and because they recognize deep undertones of truth in humanity. No bones about it, this movie is not about delivering a message.
In short, you can watch it for a dark scifi ride or you can watch it for that, plus walk away with "a message." To each his own. Besides, its not like "the message" is all that deep. It simply acknowledges man is man.
My brother is an engineer at Boeing... he claims that this is the most screwed up engineering project in terms of cost in human history. I think he has a point.
From my own experience, without fail, this is typical out sourcing results. Foreign outsourcing claims they can do x at price point y where y is substantially cheaper than local competition. Come the end of the project term, 1/2x is delivered at price y. Then round after round and takes place to push 1/2x up to original x requirements. Only to achieve that result, they spend 3y to finally deliver on x, which is now 1/2 year to 2 years late; or the project was flat out canceled. Even worse, to obtain the shoddy results, they wind up spending far more than it would have cost to simply to do it right the first time around. And, had they made the local investment, future upgrades, updates, and new projects would be cheaper because of a shorter delivery as they already had the expertise.
People don't realize, in countries like India, turnover is the norm. So start a project now and then start a new project based on the original two years from now, chances are you're staff will be as fresh then as it was when the original project started. The same lessons will be learned over and over again at the project's expense.
For the vast majority of jobs, especially engineering (hardware/software) jobs, and even more so for highly specialized engineering, software, or manufacturing jobs, outsourcing is absolute validation an absolute moron is in charge. But they don't care, chances are they'll taken their hugely undeserved bonus and started ruining another company before the flames are truly appreciated on the decisions they made while present.
Unless you've been brainwashed, as the majority of Americans have been, absolutely he has the right. Period. End of discussion. And contrary to the current illegal laws on the books, even criminals retain that right under the Constitution. Ya I know, that's not a popular position but it is true. It wasn't so many years ago criminals were actually given ammunition for their firearm, having been returned to them when they were freed, in addition to a small amount of money.
Now then, while he has the right to carry said weapon and removal of said weapon would be a blatant violation of Constitutional freedoms, under national security, the Secret Service do have the right to ask him to leave. Should he not leave, they can forcibly remove him. But do not confuse the facts, he absolutely has the right to carry a firearm; contrary to what the press and anti-gun, brainwashed, nut jobs would have you believe.
Clearly there are exceptions, thusly the use of "most", but its rather biased to place your biases on it.
Any job where your whipped to continue and/or where little mental effort is required, or where your pace is set other than by one's self, need not qualify. And even then, many in those categories still suffer from reduced efficiency.
Not to mention squatting. A lot of scumbags go to the delete list, snag them as quickly as possible, return it as a typo just before the allowed period is over, and then turn around and snag it again. They effectively were fraudulently squatting domain names without ever paying for them. Then when you needed your domain, back, they'd charge you a huge fee understanding its cheaper to pay their illegal extortion then it is to hire a lawyer who likely wouldn't understand the situation in the first place.
A large portion of what they've done is reduce the amount of extortion which has been taking place. They've effectively reduced the cost effectiveness of their squatting-extortion model as it now costs them large sums of money to extort from others via the bulk model. As a result, the practice is rapidly on the decline, as one would expect.
Bravo!
Most studies already indicate a work week of 30 hours is roughly as productive as 40 hours for most workers. Extending the work week only creates more web browsing and porn at work, not to mention additional cost to business but not likely to actually be more productive.
Meaning, for most workers, you're *lucky* to get six productive hours out of them every day.
Are you suggesting programmers are going to make the dramatic developments in the next couple of years that they have been unable to in the last ten?
Yes. Ten years ago SMP was not common. These days it is. Don't let complexity vs performance gain confuse your sense of direction. Without a doubt, there is an ever increasing push to take advantage of multiple cores, where it makes sense to do so. Already more and more games attempt to break audio, graphics, physics, loading/caching into multiple threads of execution with varying degrees of success.
Additionally, applications like ray tracers, cad, modelers, image manipulation, etc...continue to increase their concurrency. Hell, even python, a classic lead foot in the language world, ever trying to remain anchored to the ground, has continued to be pushed into better SMP/concurrency support. Java continues to add concurrency support in its contains and VM.
So yes, absolutely, things are charging. No ifs, ands, or butts. It just may not change as rapidly as we'd all like.
Exactly! They've chased away casual contributors. They've even gone in and trashed articles destroying content which they obviously didn't understand. Worse, they have turf wars where one editor destroys content, another editor revises it, further destorting the actual value of the article, and then another comes in and shits on it some more. They've even shit canned articles because it named all contributors and even detailed specific contributions to the noteworrhy open source project which it described.
They've changed it such that it is almost a complete waste of time for casual contributors. Worse, their policies are so open to interpretation, even their own editors constantly disagree what the hell they mean.
Because their radar systems are drastically more advanced than anything currently used in civilian aviation. Furthermore, they have a mix of ground based radar plug airborne radar which can detect individual aircraft out of significant ground clutter. Int he civilian world, you can lose aircraft distinction with aircraft as far as 4.5 miles apart. In fact, its common for radar to be observed in what is called "coast mode" which means if the radar does not get a clear return it interpolates where it thinks the airplane should be.
All of this ultimately null and void as a requirement for safe air travel is "see and avoid". Many UAVs are so small and/or purposely difficult to visually observe it makes it impossible for humans sharing airspace to safely uphold their portion of the obligation. Furthermore, because of technology limitations in UAVs, its almost impossible for UAVs to address the requirement. The bottom line is, even ignoring the potential radar issues, their demanding planes bump into each other and they want to know how you feel about turning every flight into a roll of the dice.
Simply put, its sheer stupidity to be studying what they know is easily twenty to fifty years away before it can hope to be safely implemented.
Looks like your attitude is one of the things they'll be studying, hmm?
Which means we should all be very, very, very, very scared. This is putting the cart before the horse. To say they are studying acceptance is nothing but sheer stupidity. This translates to mean they are studying the acceptance of widespread death and reckless endangerment of the flying public and those who happen to be below.
To be absolutely clear, we are no where near the technology required for UAVs to safely fly and mix with human traffic. A requirement for safe flight is "see and avoid." This requirement becomes impossible to meed by all parties once UAVs enter the mix. Without "see and avoid" you're begging for a daily recurrence of the crash that recently occurred over the Hudson.
Said another way, they want to study the acceptance of extremely dangerous intentions which endangers everyone. This is stupidity for the sake of stupidity. In twenty to fifty years they might have something worth studying.
When you can safely observe cars drive without collision in every scenario, without sensors or other assistive technology in or near the road will you see AUVs flying which are safe for everyone. This is easily twenty to fifty years away.
iPhone and a G1
If your friend can wait a a little while, there will be a ton of Android options available soon. By the end of the year there should be something like 8 handsets (of 21-22) available on US carriers. Rumor has it that includes a second and/or third on Tmo, two on AT&T and at least one on Verizon.
Given how notoriously difficult it is to clean up a credit report, its unfair.
Not to mention how notorious they are at simply being wrong.
Well said!
+1 Insightful
+1 Sense of Humor
but what about something like DOS where there is no threads?
Hate to burst your bubble, but threads can be supported on DOS. I've even created thread implementations on DOS. Now then, exactly how threads workand their exact implementation details may or may not come as a surprise, but threads can be implemented on DOS.
Larry Wall of Perl: "Perl is designed to give you several ways to do anything, so consider picking the most readable one. " - From the Perl Man Pages
Isn't that statement a backhanded way for Larry to tell people to use just about any language other than Perl?
_potentially_ can put a _fraction_ of a businesses profits in danger.
Why do people always falsely assume piracy only slightly damages, if at all. That position is as mindless and as inaccurate of the RIAA's , which assumes every pirated song is a lost sale. While it might be a fraction of profit for a large company, for a small company it can mean the difference between staying in going out of business and continued growth and development. Piracy is killing small businesses. And contrary to the music world, software does not have "fair use". While fair use makes sense for music, it does not make sense at all for most software. Piracy, just like all other forms of theft also forces everyone to pay higher prices.
Additionally, music tends not to become out dated. Or when it does, it tends to be a generation or more out. Software on the other hand becomes outdated in months. For example, people still buy Pink Floyd but you'll not find many trying to purchase a copy of Windows 3.1.
If the damaging effects of piracy are so "slight", you wouldn't see so many spending so much time, energy, and money into anti-piracy efforts. That alone strongly validate the impact, even for large corporations, is anything other than a "_fraction_"; which implies its not worth pursuing. The reality is, companies are paying large sums of money for licenses to prevent piracy and they would only do so if they can financially justify the offset in both the license and manpower required to implement, deploy, and even maintain. But the reality is, companies of all sizes lose large sums of money from rampant piracy. For medium to large companies the loss is likely to be more tolerable. For smaller companies it is often a death sentence.
If you use an application it is worth purchasing; especially if the cost is reasonable. If you don't use the application, don't buy it. It really is that simple. The moment you (as in people in general) decide pirated software is worth installing, using, and keeping, you assigned value to the product and are incurring an overall lose of value to the product in the larger market by pirating. If you like the software, stop hurting the company/developer - buy it. This is especially true for smaller developers who target platforms like the iPhone and Android.
Support your developers and stop taking money out of their pocket!
Then it becomes like artificial sweeteners, where you have a mountain of evidence stating that it is safe (from the corporations, or people funded by the industry)
As for the oldest of artificial sweeteners (Saccharin), there is actually mountains of evidence that it is safe. The "evidence" which shows it to be unsafe was originally sponsored by sugar growers (direct competition). In fact, research clearly shows sugar to be far, far, far, far, far more dangerous, bringing horrible disease to every culture to which it is introduced and yet law required a cancer warning on the product which is actually far safer.