All reactors we had until now cannot be used to produce energy. We need a test reactor that can be used to produce energy, like the fission reactors. It can be used to tweak the design before comitting 100 billion to build 20+ 10-20GW units and then finding a flaw.
Anyway, I stand by my statement that there is lack of funding. The reactor will not work until 2016! With proper funding it could be completed in quater of the time and be operational by 2011-2012.
At this time we can only hope that ITER will not fall behind! (virtually all projects on this timescale do). Hopefully it will lead to a mass-produceable design.
For one, they haven't yet found anything safe to do with the waste. For another, there have been so many near catastrophic accidents. You don't have to evacuate a city when ANY pipe breaks for a coal plant. You did not mention this, but it has also been extremely expensive compared to everything else.
Wow. How then thousands die each year in cities like Toronto from smog? I guess their quiet deaths are not heard. Nothing spectacular like freaking out the uninformed about the dangers of "radiation".
Just because US has scaled up their submarine reactors to be used as energy producting reactors doesn't mean all reator types are that unsafe. CANDU (Canadian heavy water) and pebble-bed reactors are inherently safe. In the CANDU reactor, if the cooling fails and the pipes explode from too much pressure, the reaction stops. This is nothing designed by humans. It is part of physics of this type of nuclear reaction.
The amount of waste produced by a nuclear power plant is miniscule. The tons of crap we have are all good fuel that can be reused if it is reprocessed. But as of now it is cheaper to dig up Uranium from the ground.
A reactor can work for 5-7 years and the amount of actual waste produced will fit in a small bucket. And this waste is contained. With coal, it just spreads everywhere killing all of us, slowly.
Anyway, fusion reactors are around the corner (ie. they work now). All we need is will on the part of the governmnents to fund the development of the commercial fusion reactor.
Unfortunately, AI is very much like Fusion. It's only 20 years away (for the next century)
No, AI is nothing like fusion. We *don't* know what is required (software-wise) to make a robot alive. We *do* know how to make fusion energy efficient and it was done.
The perception that fusion doesn't work is from the early days of fusion research. Without doing any actual testing, physicists just though if you put the plasma in a magnetic bottle, you get fusion. When they actually done the experiment, they discovered more is going on in the plasma. You can't treat it as a gas. You can't treat it as a liquid. It is kind of a combination of both. Virtually everything in physics with regards to fluid/gas flow, as well as electromagnetism is part of the fusion reactor. Only NOW, after the experiments were done, do we understand WHAT is required to make fusion work and HOW to make it work.
Unlike AI, fusion research has been done. It works. It is here now. All that is needed is money to build a test reactor based on *current* knowledge (no pun intended:), work out final nicks in application of the theory, and then we can build the first commercial fusion reactor.
The obstacle to fusion is not science (or lack thereof), but lack of funding. You see, what people heard in the 60s about fusion, they still think it applies today.
AC is bad for long distance. Lots of radiation losses especially when your transmission line get to be a multiple of 1250km:) Hey, it happened! They had to build an entire new DC tranmission line after losing most of the power in the line.
What AC is good for is powering motors (especially 3-phase) as well as its voltage can be readily changed (transformers). Very easy to produce with an alternator-type generators.
DC is superior for power transmission, heaters (stove, etc..) as well as powering solid state circuits. Solar panels and batteries are the only easy way of producing DC power directly.
AC->DC conversion is easy enough. DC->AC is more problematic.
In OSS, a lot of the maintainers and coders are just "hackers" or college kids contributing bits and pieces of less broad knowledge over a bigger project team, not real software engineers who have been trained to really think through the consequences of certain design decisions.
Thank you for making the Stupid Comment of the Day (TM).
I assume that the real software engineers, like the ones at Microsoft, really thought out the entire future when they introuced us to such beaties as ActiveX or the well designed IE. Let's not forget about the Win32 API and the most flexible Microsoft BOB! Let's not forget about other great innovations brought to us by the forward looking engineers at Microsoft http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.sh tml
I don't know what people like Linus were thinking when hacking their hobby OS. By your statements, it cannot ever surpass the stability of the well-designed Windows XP. Now, what happened to my well engineered Windows 2.0.. Hmmm...
Drive train? What? Electic cars have motors in the wheels. Well, at least true electric cars. The motors and bearings are sealed. The maintenance is virtually nothing.
Now about recharging, well, true, it will be hell of a lot of current on the battery cells. But that does NOT mean a lot of current in the input. If you want to recharge a 100Ah 24V battery, that's about 24*100=2.4kWh and recharge in 1 minute, you need to provide
The answer is high voltage input and it can be done. Especially in the US/Canada where power is distributed at high votage (ie. no need to worry about melting transmission lines).
Anyway, the battery cannot be recharged this way because the wires feeding the battery would melt, although more research in superconductors could fix this problem.
No you can't. Light is limited to c, just like the E field in the wires. At 3e8m/s, and a distance of 50cm to memory bit, that would take 0.5/3e8 ~ 1.7ns minimum for one way trip. That takes over 3ns to get to memory and back (ignoring any switching delays).
3ns makes the memory access time equivelent to about 333MHz.
What light gives you is more *bandwidth*. That also means you CPU will not run any faster, but it should be able to access to more memory at once. Multi-core/multi-thread processors like what SUN is advertising would benefit a lot from this technology. Single thread processors like P4 will not see any benefit.
Anyway, current access times are now limited by the speed of light, so I guess it will not be getting too much faster.
China gets slashdot? No "Great Chineese Firewall"? Or maybe they are just checking what each person writes/reads hence your exteremely slow speeds. Bandwidth is cheap - scanning each and every packet is not.
Internet is not slow as I generally get 3000kbs (360kB/s) in Canada.
LOL. You only need foreign countries to exchange their US$ for Euro and the US economy collapses.
Japan holds over $800 billion of US dollars in reserves. China has about $200 billion. That's 10% of the US GDP. They switch and the US might just see some significant inflation and problems in the bond market.
I'd say I'm conservative as regards free-market economy, but *very* liberal [in] regards [to] religion, family, sex, the environment etc.
Or do you mean conservative? Environmentalists want to conserve the environemnt. They are less conservative in what it means to society's activities in the environment. Regardless, the attitude towards the environment is that we should do everything to conserve the status-quo (or how it was 100+ years ago, since today a lot of it now is dead).
But I guess the words got all messed up similar to hackers being crackers/vandals/virus writes.
Sony has their own lawyers. $90 million at even $100 per hour, buys you 900,000 man-hours. So if you have a team of 10 people working on the case, then can work full time on it for 90,000 hours, or about 50 years.
You limit it to human life because it is your own species. Are you telling me it is more important for pigs to survive than humans?
Well, pigs will survive as will humans. You should have phrased your question "is it more important for a pig to survive than a human". And the answer to that depends on a situation. For example, would you kill your pet pig (assume you have one:) to feed a death-row inmate? On the other hand, would you kill that same pig to feed yourself (assume starvation)? The situation is relative.
You should also keep in mind that in case of starvation of your pet pig and yourself, the pig will most likely try to eat you (pigs are omnivores, just like us).
On the other hand, the ethics are straight forward if we talk about pigs (as species) and singular human(s), or vice-versa. In this case, it is illogical and unethical for one species to cause extinction of the other. (And please, I'm not talking absurd things like killing people to feed pigs!!)
All other life forms have a lower priority, simple as that. *If* we get enough resources, we might consider extending even more protections to other mammals and perhaps birds as a next step (curiously noone seems to like reptiles, insects, plants, or bacteria).
Well, we rely on bacteria, plants and insects to survive (in that order). We start affecting bacteria to any significant extent, and we will kill ourselves. So far we can't do (bacteria) that or know not to do that (regarding insects).
As I said before, life is from life. Life doesn't appear magically at conception or fertilization or whatever. We, as a species, can only survive on this planet because of the environemnt created by other life. If you affect other life, especially bacterial and plant populations, we will affect our environemnt that we depend on. This will affect many, many more lives than does abortion.
Wait a minute. In the other thread you say we must take care of our own species and then here you say "war is sporadic and localized, while people get born all the time". Whaaaa???
Why then worry about abortion? Children are born all the time. Human population will never collapse due to negative population growth. The only way we can kill ourselves is either drown in our own shit or nuke ourselves to extinction. Also, WWII was not localized and thanks to the resources spent on killing ourselves more effectively, a war involving countries like North Korea or Iran would NOT be localized.
About the environemnt, well, if we continue the way we are doing things, our ecosystem will collapse (aka the Earth's ecosystem). This is what happens when a species consumes everything they can consume. Then the human population will collapse (starvation, wars over resources). Wouldn't it make sense for the pro-lifers to be environmentalists? Isn't anything else simply illogical? (in the same way as Taliban was calling itself god's will)
Do you really believe that your experiences and relationships are all that makes you more than just a "mass of cells"?
Yes. We tend to be a bunch of cells. Our experiences make us who we are. Genetics don't do that. Look at identical twins - the longer they live, the more unlike they become.
For example, if someone cloned Hitler and brought him up right, he would be a very tolerant member of the socienty. You see, Hitler's parents (and entire family, for that matter), were quite anti-semitic.
But one can also conclude that one's experiences begin in the womb.
Excuse me while I go 'abort' that man who lives under the local railway bridge now, since he has no established relationships, and has no life experience besides a bottle.
Well, here are few example of what I would consider murder,
abortion
hunting
killing "domestic" animals (to a lesser extent)
homocide
war
poverty (causing death)
causing extinction of species
The difference here is essentially the Law. These are the rules we make ourselves based on our collective sense of morality.
I consider the last four to be the worst (most people affected), yet these are perfecly legal methods of killing people for political and economic gain. Hell, war is even celebrated! And the more you kill, the more medals you get.
You are in your right to do whatever you want. But you must live within the law (no matter what you think of it). If you break it, you will break the most fundamental idea of our society - the Law. Without it, we don't have a society.
So, you can try to influence the Law, but you must live within its limits. If you don't like it, well, too bad. Others don't like all of its parts either. Abortion is legal and that will not be changed any time soon.
Not quite. It still results in a life being ended with no wrong done on their part, and them having no say in the matter. That is the essential axiom of "our side" - that every life begins at conception and is every bit as valuable as any other.
That axiom is a falacy, as with the assumption of life beginning with birth. Life does not begin at conception - life was there all the time. Life is from life, ALWAYS (at least life with any complexity; life as we know it).
We also rely on bacterial life to remain alive. You and me, cell-count-wise (ignoring brain) are only 10% human. 90% of cells in ones body do not have human DNA. ALL complex life forms have a symbiotic relationship with bacterial life to remain alive.
Also, why only focus on human life? Why not about other animans? I know that dogs, cats, cattle, hogs, parrots and others have virtually exactly the same emotions as humans. They get irritated, emotionally attached, angry, happy, sad, fearful, etc. just as we do (if you don't know first hand, then you can trust me on it!). Penguins actually "marry" for life, while we find that rather difficult (50% divorce rate. Premarital sex probably >95%)
Why limit "pro-life" to only "pro-human-life-screw-other-life"? Is it the religious thing?
Your solution does have some potential though - except put the kid up for adoption rather than killing him/her.
That option was always available. But with about 1.5 million abortions per year, the population of the US would grow by additional 0.5% per year. I don't think you could get all of these children adopted. Every couple in the US would have to adopt one child in their lifetimes!
I don't believe abortion needs to be made illegal, but with education and consequences as I stated before, it could be reduced to cases where it is medically necessary.
Once you eliminate poverty, provide knowledge and insentive, the number of abortions will drop drasticly.
Personally, I am not "pro-life". I am "pro-choice", but there should be consequences for getting abortions. I mean, if people are stupid enough to get/cause pregnancy and do not *want* the child (ie. not a medical reason), then they should be able to get an abortion. Then you sterilize them so they will not make the mistake again.
Is this is a fair compromise for "your side"?
PS. Many "workers" in Auschiwtz were the prisoners themselves. You either worked or were killed yourself. Furthermore, abortions have nothing to do with it - no one hates their babies. Don't make the comparisons.
Also, there are thousands of abortions done each year due to medical reasons. And then there are "abortions" where the baby is dead in the first place. Those seem to get counted in the statistics as well.
The amount of deaths caused directly (bombing) or indirectly in 1990s is unknown. If US took care of Saddam back in 1990, we wouldn't be in the shit we are in now. How many people died due to *messed up* operation in Somalia (US *was* involved)? How many in Panama?
But these are still small numbers compared to the amount of death the US Army contributes (as well as Russian, French, etc.. armies) by selling weapons to nations at war. There are millions people getting killed per year by US weapons. What are the exact numbers? 400 billion buys a lot of death. The rest of the world spends about as much on the military as the US alone.
Now, on to abortion. I came across some statistics here http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html. According to them, there were 1,528,930 induced abortions in the US in 1992, 798,850 @ less than 9 weeks. Most of these were single women with annual income of less than $15,000. Most of the abortions were before 9th week. Only 320 were above 26 week. Also, for each 3 weeks of pregnancy there were about 5000 natural fetal deaths. Anyway, it seems the major cause of abortions is poverty.
So, how many people did the US military killed in the last 20 years directly? Probably less than 1.5 million directly, but certainly much more indirectly though arms sales.
Provide numbers to justify your position. How many people did the US military killed in the last 20 years? How many were killed by US weapons?
I'm not sure if Linux has a paging file, but I fail to see why the linux swapping can't be done preemptively as well. If a program loses focus, swap the memory used by it, but retain the active copy in RAM.
I don't think you have any idea how a Linux VM works. There is no "focus" because there is no windows. There are processes and how they are run depends on the scheduler.
Memory management of Windows sucks. There is no question about it. If I don't have a gigabyte page file, I run out of memory (according to Windows) if I play GTA 3 for a while. The process uses only about 300M, but windows pops up crap about running out of memory. Memory manager says windows is using 500M for caching. WTF?
This is not a troll, but Linux's memory management is vastly superior. Even if I run programs that can use up 80% of RAM and cause cache to shrink, the swap is still not extensively used.
Re:Magnification Info: Intensity, Physics & Op
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
Very insightful. From moderation, I don't think any moderators know what is a Poynting vector! Of course, that knowledge is beyond elemetry physics.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, I stand by my statement that there is lack of funding. The reactor will not work until 2016! With proper funding it could be completed in quater of the time and be operational by 2011-2012.
At this time we can only hope that ITER will not fall behind! (virtually all projects on this timescale do). Hopefully it will lead to a mass-produceable design.
Wow. How then thousands die each year in cities like Toronto from smog? I guess their quiet deaths are not heard. Nothing spectacular like freaking out the uninformed about the dangers of "radiation".
Just because US has scaled up their submarine reactors to be used as energy producting reactors doesn't mean all reator types are that unsafe. CANDU (Canadian heavy water) and pebble-bed reactors are inherently safe. In the CANDU reactor, if the cooling fails and the pipes explode from too much pressure, the reaction stops. This is nothing designed by humans. It is part of physics of this type of nuclear reaction.
The amount of waste produced by a nuclear power plant is miniscule. The tons of crap we have are all good fuel that can be reused if it is reprocessed. But as of now it is cheaper to dig up Uranium from the ground.
A reactor can work for 5-7 years and the amount of actual waste produced will fit in a small bucket. And this waste is contained. With coal, it just spreads everywhere killing all of us, slowly.
Anyway, fusion reactors are around the corner (ie. they work now). All we need is will on the part of the governmnents to fund the development of the commercial fusion reactor.
No, AI is nothing like fusion. We *don't* know what is required (software-wise) to make a robot alive. We *do* know how to make fusion energy efficient and it was done.
The perception that fusion doesn't work is from the early days of fusion research. Without doing any actual testing, physicists just though if you put the plasma in a magnetic bottle, you get fusion. When they actually done the experiment, they discovered more is going on in the plasma. You can't treat it as a gas. You can't treat it as a liquid. It is kind of a combination of both. Virtually everything in physics with regards to fluid/gas flow, as well as electromagnetism is part of the fusion reactor. Only NOW, after the experiments were done, do we understand WHAT is required to make fusion work and HOW to make it work.
Unlike AI, fusion research has been done. It works. It is here now. All that is needed is money to build a test reactor based on *current* knowledge (no pun intended :), work out final nicks in application of the theory, and then we can build the first commercial fusion reactor.
The obstacle to fusion is not science (or lack thereof), but lack of funding. You see, what people heard in the 60s about fusion, they still think it applies today.
What AC is good for is powering motors (especially 3-phase) as well as its voltage can be readily changed (transformers). Very easy to produce with an alternator-type generators.
DC is superior for power transmission, heaters (stove, etc..) as well as powering solid state circuits. Solar panels and batteries are the only easy way of producing DC power directly.
AC->DC conversion is easy enough. DC->AC is more problematic.
Thank you for making the Stupid Comment of the Day (TM).
I assume that the real software engineers, like the ones at Microsoft, really thought out the entire future when they introuced us to such beaties as ActiveX or the well designed IE. Let's not forget about the Win32 API and the most flexible Microsoft BOB! Let's not forget about other great innovations brought to us by the forward looking engineers at Microsoft http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.sh tml
I don't know what people like Linus were thinking when hacking their hobby OS. By your statements, it cannot ever surpass the stability of the well-designed Windows XP. Now, what happened to my well engineered Windows 2.0.. Hmmm...
Try physics then.
There is a big difference between information and knowledge and an even bigger one between knowledge and experience.
If a company is located in Canada, it is then a Canadian company. Period.
Electric motors bring true 4x4 power to cars. Don't know how that can be done? Look here about Variable Speed Drives http://www.psnh.com/Business/SmallBusiness/Motor.a sp
Now about recharging, well, true, it will be hell of a lot of current on the battery cells. But that does NOT mean a lot of current in the input. If you want to recharge a 100Ah 24V battery, that's about 24*100=2.4kWh and recharge in 1 minute, you need to provide
ASIDE: Motor effiency is >>95%, not some 70% crap. Even if you have have physical gears, you get >90% efficiency for the entire drive train. http://www.tech-m4.com/eng/tm4transport/moto_centr almotor/
The answer is high voltage input and it can be done. Especially in the US/Canada where power is distributed at high votage (ie. no need to worry about melting transmission lines).
Anyway, the battery cannot be recharged this way because the wires feeding the battery would melt, although more research in superconductors could fix this problem.
3ns makes the memory access time equivelent to about 333MHz.
What light gives you is more *bandwidth*. That also means you CPU will not run any faster, but it should be able to access to more memory at once. Multi-core/multi-thread processors like what SUN is advertising would benefit a lot from this technology. Single thread processors like P4 will not see any benefit.
Anyway, current access times are now limited by the speed of light, so I guess it will not be getting too much faster.
Internet is not slow as I generally get 3000kbs (360kB/s) in Canada.
Is it cheap as borscht?
Japan holds over $800 billion of US dollars in reserves. China has about $200 billion. That's 10% of the US GDP. They switch and the US might just see some significant inflation and problems in the bond market.
Or do you mean conservative? Environmentalists want to conserve the environemnt. They are less conservative in what it means to society's activities in the environment. Regardless, the attitude towards the environment is that we should do everything to conserve the status-quo (or how it was 100+ years ago, since today a lot of it now is dead).
But I guess the words got all messed up similar to hackers being crackers/vandals/virus writes.
Sony has their own lawyers. $90 million at even $100 per hour, buys you 900,000 man-hours. So if you have a team of 10 people working on the case, then can work full time on it for 90,000 hours, or about 50 years.
You mean they patented an unbalanced, rotating mass and they got millions for it?
But MrTheBunny can now sue your ass off for mental anguish.
Well, pigs will survive as will humans. You should have phrased your question "is it more important for a pig to survive than a human". And the answer to that depends on a situation. For example, would you kill your pet pig (assume you have one :) to feed a death-row inmate? On the other hand, would you kill that same pig to feed yourself (assume starvation)? The situation is relative.
You should also keep in mind that in case of starvation of your pet pig and yourself, the pig will most likely try to eat you (pigs are omnivores, just like us).
On the other hand, the ethics are straight forward if we talk about pigs (as species) and singular human(s), or vice-versa. In this case, it is illogical and unethical for one species to cause extinction of the other. (And please, I'm not talking absurd things like killing people to feed pigs!!)
All other life forms have a lower priority, simple as that. *If* we get enough resources, we might consider extending even more protections to other mammals and perhaps birds as a next step (curiously noone seems to like reptiles, insects, plants, or bacteria).
Well, we rely on bacteria, plants and insects to survive (in that order). We start affecting bacteria to any significant extent, and we will kill ourselves. So far we can't do (bacteria) that or know not to do that (regarding insects).
As I said before, life is from life. Life doesn't appear magically at conception or fertilization or whatever. We, as a species, can only survive on this planet because of the environemnt created by other life. If you affect other life, especially bacterial and plant populations, we will affect our environemnt that we depend on. This will affect many, many more lives than does abortion.
Why then worry about abortion? Children are born all the time. Human population will never collapse due to negative population growth. The only way we can kill ourselves is either drown in our own shit or nuke ourselves to extinction. Also, WWII was not localized and thanks to the resources spent on killing ourselves more effectively, a war involving countries like North Korea or Iran would NOT be localized.
About the environemnt, well, if we continue the way we are doing things, our ecosystem will collapse (aka the Earth's ecosystem). This is what happens when a species consumes everything they can consume. Then the human population will collapse (starvation, wars over resources). Wouldn't it make sense for the pro-lifers to be environmentalists? Isn't anything else simply illogical? (in the same way as Taliban was calling itself god's will)
Yes. We tend to be a bunch of cells. Our experiences make us who we are. Genetics don't do that. Look at identical twins - the longer they live, the more unlike they become.
For example, if someone cloned Hitler and brought him up right, he would be a very tolerant member of the socienty. You see, Hitler's parents (and entire family, for that matter), were quite anti-semitic.
But one can also conclude that one's experiences begin in the womb. Excuse me while I go 'abort' that man who lives under the local railway bridge now, since he has no established relationships, and has no life experience besides a bottle.
Well, here are few example of what I would consider murder,
The difference here is essentially the Law. These are the rules we make ourselves based on our collective sense of morality.
I consider the last four to be the worst (most people affected), yet these are perfecly legal methods of killing people for political and economic gain. Hell, war is even celebrated! And the more you kill, the more medals you get.
You are in your right to do whatever you want. But you must live within the law (no matter what you think of it). If you break it, you will break the most fundamental idea of our society - the Law. Without it, we don't have a society.
So, you can try to influence the Law, but you must live within its limits. If you don't like it, well, too bad. Others don't like all of its parts either. Abortion is legal and that will not be changed any time soon.
That axiom is a falacy, as with the assumption of life beginning with birth. Life does not begin at conception - life was there all the time. Life is from life, ALWAYS (at least life with any complexity; life as we know it).
We also rely on bacterial life to remain alive. You and me, cell-count-wise (ignoring brain) are only 10% human. 90% of cells in ones body do not have human DNA. ALL complex life forms have a symbiotic relationship with bacterial life to remain alive.
Also, why only focus on human life? Why not about other animans? I know that dogs, cats, cattle, hogs, parrots and others have virtually exactly the same emotions as humans. They get irritated, emotionally attached, angry, happy, sad, fearful, etc. just as we do (if you don't know first hand, then you can trust me on it!). Penguins actually "marry" for life, while we find that rather difficult (50% divorce rate. Premarital sex probably >95%)
Why limit "pro-life" to only "pro-human-life-screw-other-life"? Is it the religious thing?
Your solution does have some potential though - except put the kid up for adoption rather than killing him/her.
That option was always available. But with about 1.5 million abortions per year, the population of the US would grow by additional 0.5% per year. I don't think you could get all of these children adopted. Every couple in the US would have to adopt one child in their lifetimes!
I don't believe abortion needs to be made illegal, but with education and consequences as I stated before, it could be reduced to cases where it is medically necessary.
Personally, I am not "pro-life". I am "pro-choice", but there should be consequences for getting abortions. I mean, if people are stupid enough to get/cause pregnancy and do not *want* the child (ie. not a medical reason), then they should be able to get an abortion. Then you sterilize them so they will not make the mistake again.
Is this is a fair compromise for "your side"?
PS. Many "workers" in Auschiwtz were the prisoners themselves. You either worked or were killed yourself. Furthermore, abortions have nothing to do with it - no one hates their babies. Don't make the comparisons.
Also, there are thousands of abortions done each year due to medical reasons. And then there are "abortions" where the baby is dead in the first place. Those seem to get counted in the statistics as well.
Please back up your "facts". So far the estimates that the US armed forces directly contributed/caused more than 100,000 deaths in Iraq alone (since invasion)http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?s id=04/10/29/138232&tid=103&tid=219
The amount of deaths caused directly (bombing) or indirectly in 1990s is unknown. If US took care of Saddam back in 1990, we wouldn't be in the shit we are in now. How many people died due to *messed up* operation in Somalia (US *was* involved)? How many in Panama?
But these are still small numbers compared to the amount of death the US Army contributes (as well as Russian, French, etc.. armies) by selling weapons to nations at war. There are millions people getting killed per year by US weapons. What are the exact numbers? 400 billion buys a lot of death. The rest of the world spends about as much on the military as the US alone.
Now, on to abortion. I came across some statistics here http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html. According to them, there were 1,528,930 induced abortions in the US in 1992, 798,850 @ less than 9 weeks. Most of these were single women with annual income of less than $15,000. Most of the abortions were before 9th week. Only 320 were above 26 week. Also, for each 3 weeks of pregnancy there were about 5000 natural fetal deaths. Anyway, it seems the major cause of abortions is poverty.
So, how many people did the US military killed in the last 20 years directly? Probably less than 1.5 million directly, but certainly much more indirectly though arms sales.
Provide numbers to justify your position. How many people did the US military killed in the last 20 years? How many were killed by US weapons?
I don't think you have any idea how a Linux VM works. There is no "focus" because there is no windows. There are processes and how they are run depends on the scheduler.
Memory management of Windows sucks. There is no question about it. If I don't have a gigabyte page file, I run out of memory (according to Windows) if I play GTA 3 for a while. The process uses only about 300M, but windows pops up crap about running out of memory. Memory manager says windows is using 500M for caching. WTF?
This is not a troll, but Linux's memory management is vastly superior. Even if I run programs that can use up 80% of RAM and cause cache to shrink, the swap is still not extensively used.
About the light go faster than c, well, it appears to be here already http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu495-2.htm, although not exactly faster than c :). There is also this blurb about a negative index of refraction, which might also be interresting. http://www.aip.org/pnu/2001/split/534-2.html