one more downside, perhaps: zero noise. How will you know the difference between a hang and simple thrashing without being able to put your ear to the chassis and listen to the disk doing what it does?
Wait what? Is there some resistance to regular stem cell research I'm not aware of? I thought it was just the embryonic stem cells, and only because of that pesky, "we think it's a human with rights, so we shouldn't kill 'it'" crowd. Along with the "We have limited resources, and there's this similar research that's getting results other than rats with systemic tumors and organ rejection, let's give that a bigger slice"
I think a similar problem will result from trying to sell a used diamond encrusted laptop. IOW, it's not worth $1e6. That's just what the company is charging for it. The buyer immediately loses a significant portion of its value just by purchasing it.
Why are you using paste at all? I was under the impression that the principle advantage of paste is that it's easily applied, but that pads are much better for long-term installation. I was under that impression because of the instructions provided my AMD processor when I built my PC.
I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but the reason it won't work is that the fan robs the stirling engine of its power source. This is a real problem in an environment where the delta-T is already pretty small. I doubt the final equilibrium temperature would be better than passive cooling, which basically does the same thing: convention is a heat engine that "generates" wind.
Perhaps, but the $300 you might spend for an iPod video pays for features. Not some useless overpriced semi-precious carbon allotrope with rare impurities causing red tint. If you buy an iPod, and decide to get rid of it the next day, chances are you could get pretty close to the original price for it on eBay. But diamonds depreciate to almost nothing as soon as you get them off the lot.
If you want to reduce accidents due to distracted driving, the best thing to do would be to look at the list of distracted driving causes and discourage each one of them (perhaps by outright outlawing, but that need not be the only option) from the most common down to the level at which the inconvenience is worth the risk.
i.e. don't set speed limits to 5mph and require all cars to be made by Nerf. A certain number of driving fatalities is acceptable in a functioning economy.
Now, If you're looking at the list just about the least common cause is cell phones. According to http://www.aaafoundation.org/multimedia/index.cfm? button=disdrv the most common cause is events outside the vehicle, followed by the radio, followed by a few other inside-the-car activities, including eating while driving.
All of which, before cell phones, are very plebeian activities. Which ones get banned? Only the one with the class-warfare implications. It's an order of magnitude less common than changing a radio station and an order of magnitude less than talking to passengers, yet we haven't even suggested people should drive in blissful silence.
So who is protecting whom from what?
*I am not suggesting that cell phone use while driving shouldn't be banned, only that if we're not going to go after other far more common, and equally easily bannable, causes, that we as a society have de facto declared that the reduced risk isn't worth the nuisance.
The game simply lasts too long. It's open ended, but that just means that it asymptotically approaches maximum boredom.
One way to combat this (and a way which I don't think would work for WoW the way it currently is) would be to run the game for different lengths of time. say.. 3 months or so, depending on how much content there is, and then switch things around a little at each reset so it's a new world every time. If player-houses are allowed, maybe some kind of token could carried through to the "new universe" in the form of a trophy depending on their progress. Even Monopoly has an ending.
I played WoW for a little while when it first came out, and I had the most fun when I was just starting out. The opening cinematic, the various quests which hinted at things to come. As I progressed, the world became smaller: some things I imagined would be possible when I was lower level simply did not exist, tasks I accomplished weren't nearly as rewarding as I expected them to be, and the disappointments added up. (actually, that's kind of like real life sometimes....) I never made it to 60. I did play for 30 levels past where it stopped being fun though, before I realized that the final 10 levels would take me just as long as the previous 30, and offer very little new experience other than larger and cooler-looking monsters to fight.
There's one other way to do it, and it is always full-spectrum:
Really freakin' huge diameter binoculars(/telescopes) with unity magnification. Refractive or Reflective optics as per choice (though reflective would probably be lighter.)
But it's really bulky, especially if it needs to work with starlight.
I'm actually surprised no one has made matched-color wheel image intensifier before. It's a fairly obvious modification to existing technology, especially to anyone that's studied image intensifiers used in astronomy. Even if it is mechanically complex. I'm not sure I'd want to use one on the battlefield, but there are plenty of uses that allow sufficient care.
Equal for who though? You have to have some kind of criterion, otherwise everyone will say they're running, just to get a piece of the pot. no amount of money divided 300 million ways would even matter.
So, do you do it the way they do now, with the "matching funds" available to those who accept its restrictions? 'cause that just means that pols will *still* be beholden to "big money" except that $3,000 can leverage another $3,000 (or whatever the limits and rates are.)
And what's this sneaky switcheroo between a document named, "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child" and the aforementioned "Human Rights Convention?"
Further, since by your statement, the nations of the "axis of evil" did sign it, I wonder if the text was as strict as or conflicted with our own founding documents.
I am not a programmer. But I just don't see why augmenting my ram on disk does anything useful. All it really does is make my system appear to have more ram than it does, while causing the disk to thrash if the "extra" ram actually gets used for anything. If i need some kind of buffer space, then why not partition off a portion of the existing ram for that, add a return value to malloc for 'allocated from buffer area' or some such so I can get the buffer without sacrificing speed or HDD wear, and most importantly, not doing these things without warning the programs at all.
Your examples are silly, too. An "uncompressed" DVD may be 4.3 GB, but there is no reason to load the entire thing into ram at once, and anything that you put on the disk is going to be read *slower* than reading it from the DVD and decompressing it on the fly not only because of the vast difference in speed between the disk speed and the ram speed, but also because you have to write it before reading it. How much do you have to have decompressed ahead of time anyway? I assume it depends on processor and ram availability: if you're wasting cycles waiting on virtual memory thrashing, you might need to have a bigger buffer...
Video games shouldn't ever touch on swap space. They should be made to degrade or fail gracefully if memory is low: fps is far more important than graphics quality for anything more intense than sudoku.
If there isn't enough ram, programs should either deal with it intelligently or fail. After all, the people best able to optimize a given program for limited memory are the programmers themselves, not developers of some other project.
NEW hotels will probably be build with ethernet jacks. Old hotels will of course have to make do with what they've got. And that means either wifi, some kind of internal dsl-like system, or tearing up a bunch of drywall and laying new wires.
No, he's saying that more memory is better than fast memory. He might not need 8GB, but it's likely that 8GB of RAM would improve system performance better than doubling the speed of the ram.
The whole assumption is that anyone needing that much performance will be butting up against disk read bottlenecks due to swap anyway.
My question to programmers is this, Swap may have made sense 30 years ago, when ram was like $8/byte and not much faster than disk anyway, but in 2007, ram is ubiquitous and MUCH faster than disk. Why do we even have swap anymore at all?
Yes, but.. you're missing out on a whole class of games that you've decided you don't need. Maybe you're right, but it's not something everyone wants to do.
Back to the car analogy, I don't drag race. I have no interest in hard-core driving*, so I save a lot of money on cars by not spending a fortune on Ferraris or souped up japanese imports.
*actually I have no interest in commuting either, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
With a computer, every crash is the last of its type. With a human, there's a chance of the problem being solved the first time.. but not the second or third times.
So I think the statistics would be on the side of the machines.
Especially since, with enough scenarios, eventually there would be some overlap covering unanticipated situations.
The only way to truly free yourself from taxes involves significant risk of death. And even then you don't free everybody from taxes. Most people simply decide the benefits of not being a revolutionary outweigh the cost of not being in charge.
So is B&N. But their extras are more in line with their primary business. You can buy movies, video games, toys, and office supplies. Sure it's not as vast as amazon's offerings, but it doesn't look like a kindergartner chose the colors and layout either. They also haven't filed for ridiculous patents like "one-click purchasing."
You only need one or two self-driving cars for a family, depending on what time work starts. Carpool with the kid, and let the car drive him to school before returning home (or vice versa), wait for the scheduled return times, and go through the whole thing again.. automatically
The beauty of it is that if everyone has their only personal chauffeur (i.e. self-driving car) we can completely eliminate storefront parking: the car will drop you off at the entrance and either go home or to a designated parking area (or drive itself to a garage for scheduled maintenance) to wait for a specified time or for you to call it.
Computers were invented to free us from repetitive tasks. At a certain order of complexity, commuting is a repetitive task, hence it will eventually be eliminated. People might still drive for fun, but they won't have to if they don't want to.
I fail to see what your proposal has to do with Swift. Although I agree with the premise that laws should not be written by or for lawyers, lawyers should be banned from ever 'serving' on a law-making body, and perhaps used to appease angry volcanoes if the need arises.
Original Galactica had a really depressing premise, the utter decimation of almost all of mankind except for a ragtag fleet and perhaps a few others. But they ignored that and did some kind of love-boat clone instead. The new Galactica is much more true to the premise and seems a lot better planned too. I actually believe that they could take years to get to earth and not have a single 'filler' episode.
Galactica Grew up.
I don't know about original dr. who, but the recent series is pretty juvenile, cheesy, unbelievably one dimensional. It doesn't have anything new either. Everything I've seen has been done before, and done much better. Perhaps on one of the previous Who seasons itself. I think even "sci-fi original series'" have handled some of the themes better.
Slashdot Mirror
one more downside, perhaps: zero noise. How will you know the difference between a hang and simple thrashing without being able to put your ear to the chassis and listen to the disk doing what it does?
Wait what? Is there some resistance to regular stem cell research I'm not aware of? I thought it was just the embryonic stem cells, and only because of that pesky, "we think it's a human with rights, so we shouldn't kill 'it'" crowd. Along with the "We have limited resources, and there's this similar research that's getting results other than rats with systemic tumors and organ rejection, let's give that a bigger slice"
Those guys are the "lot."
Here's an old question you might want to ask yourself: Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?
I think a similar problem will result from trying to sell a used diamond encrusted laptop. IOW, it's not worth $1e6. That's just what the company is charging for it. The buyer immediately loses a significant portion of its value just by purchasing it.
Why are you using paste at all? I was under the impression that the principle advantage of paste is that it's easily applied, but that pads are much better for long-term installation. I was under that impression because of the instructions provided my AMD processor when I built my PC.
I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but the reason it won't work is that the fan robs the stirling engine of its power source. This is a real problem in an environment where the delta-T is already pretty small. I doubt the final equilibrium temperature would be better than passive cooling, which basically does the same thing: convention is a heat engine that "generates" wind.
Perhaps, but the $300 you might spend for an iPod video pays for features. Not some useless overpriced semi-precious carbon allotrope with rare impurities causing red tint. If you buy an iPod, and decide to get rid of it the next day, chances are you could get pretty close to the original price for it on eBay. But diamonds depreciate to almost nothing as soon as you get them off the lot.
If you want to reduce accidents due to distracted driving, the best thing to do would be to look at the list of distracted driving causes and discourage each one of them (perhaps by outright outlawing, but that need not be the only option) from the most common down to the level at which the inconvenience is worth the risk.
? button=disdrv the most common cause is events outside the vehicle, followed by the radio, followed by a few other inside-the-car activities, including eating while driving.
i.e. don't set speed limits to 5mph and require all cars to be made by Nerf. A certain number of driving fatalities is acceptable in a functioning economy.
Now, If you're looking at the list just about the least common cause is cell phones. According to http://www.aaafoundation.org/multimedia/index.cfm
All of which, before cell phones, are very plebeian activities. Which ones get banned? Only the one with the class-warfare implications. It's an order of magnitude less common than changing a radio station and an order of magnitude less than talking to passengers, yet we haven't even suggested people should drive in blissful silence.
So who is protecting whom from what?
*I am not suggesting that cell phone use while driving shouldn't be banned, only that if we're not going to go after other far more common, and equally easily bannable, causes, that we as a society have de facto declared that the reduced risk isn't worth the nuisance.
The game simply lasts too long. It's open ended, but that just means that it asymptotically approaches maximum boredom.
One way to combat this (and a way which I don't think would work for WoW the way it currently is) would be to run the game for different lengths of time. say.. 3 months or so, depending on how much content there is, and then switch things around a little at each reset so it's a new world every time. If player-houses are allowed, maybe some kind of token could carried through to the "new universe" in the form of a trophy depending on their progress. Even Monopoly has an ending.
I played WoW for a little while when it first came out, and I had the most fun when I was just starting out. The opening cinematic, the various quests which hinted at things to come. As I progressed, the world became smaller: some things I imagined would be possible when I was lower level simply did not exist, tasks I accomplished weren't nearly as rewarding as I expected them to be, and the disappointments added up. (actually, that's kind of like real life sometimes....) I never made it to 60. I did play for 30 levels past where it stopped being fun though, before I realized that the final 10 levels would take me just as long as the previous 30, and offer very little new experience other than larger and cooler-looking monsters to fight.
There's one other way to do it, and it is always full-spectrum:
Really freakin' huge diameter binoculars(/telescopes) with unity magnification. Refractive or Reflective optics as per choice (though reflective would probably be lighter.)
But it's really bulky, especially if it needs to work with starlight.
I'm actually surprised no one has made matched-color wheel image intensifier before. It's a fairly obvious modification to existing technology, especially to anyone that's studied image intensifiers used in astronomy. Even if it is mechanically complex. I'm not sure I'd want to use one on the battlefield, but there are plenty of uses that allow sufficient care.
It is impossible to tolerate their ridiculous marketing-teen-lingo long enough to find out what the thing actually does.
Which brings to mind the point: If you're imagining, why would you imagine she isn't attractive?
Equal for who though? You have to have some kind of criterion, otherwise everyone will say they're running, just to get a piece of the pot. no amount of money divided 300 million ways would even matter.
So, do you do it the way they do now, with the "matching funds" available to those who accept its restrictions? 'cause that just means that pols will *still* be beholden to "big money" except that $3,000 can leverage another $3,000 (or whatever the limits and rates are.)
Only congress has the power to ratify treaties.
And what's this sneaky switcheroo between a document named, "UN Convention on the Rights of the Child" and the aforementioned "Human Rights Convention?"
Further, since by your statement, the nations of the "axis of evil" did sign it, I wonder if the text was as strict as or conflicted with our own founding documents.
I am not a programmer. But I just don't see why augmenting my ram on disk does anything useful. All it really does is make my system appear to have more ram than it does, while causing the disk to thrash if the "extra" ram actually gets used for anything. If i need some kind of buffer space, then why not partition off a portion of the existing ram for that, add a return value to malloc for 'allocated from buffer area' or some such so I can get the buffer without sacrificing speed or HDD wear, and most importantly, not doing these things without warning the programs at all.
Your examples are silly, too. An "uncompressed" DVD may be 4.3 GB, but there is no reason to load the entire thing into ram at once, and anything that you put on the disk is going to be read *slower* than reading it from the DVD and decompressing it on the fly not only because of the vast difference in speed between the disk speed and the ram speed, but also because you have to write it before reading it. How much do you have to have decompressed ahead of time anyway? I assume it depends on processor and ram availability: if you're wasting cycles waiting on virtual memory thrashing, you might need to have a bigger buffer...
Video games shouldn't ever touch on swap space. They should be made to degrade or fail gracefully if memory is low: fps is far more important than graphics quality for anything more intense than sudoku.
If there isn't enough ram, programs should either deal with it intelligently or fail. After all, the people best able to optimize a given program for limited memory are the programmers themselves, not developers of some other project.
NEW hotels will probably be build with ethernet jacks. Old hotels will of course have to make do with what they've got. And that means either wifi, some kind of internal dsl-like system, or tearing up a bunch of drywall and laying new wires.
Or people will get pissed off that their cell phones don't work.
Hey, maybe they should paint theaters with this stuff...
No, he's saying that more memory is better than fast memory. He might not need 8GB, but it's likely that 8GB of RAM would improve system performance better than doubling the speed of the ram.
The whole assumption is that anyone needing that much performance will be butting up against disk read bottlenecks due to swap anyway.
My question to programmers is this, Swap may have made sense 30 years ago, when ram was like $8/byte and not much faster than disk anyway, but in 2007, ram is ubiquitous and MUCH faster than disk. Why do we even have swap anymore at all?
Yes, but.. you're missing out on a whole class of games that you've decided you don't need. Maybe you're right, but it's not something everyone wants to do.
Back to the car analogy, I don't drag race. I have no interest in hard-core driving*, so I save a lot of money on cars by not spending a fortune on Ferraris or souped up japanese imports.
*actually I have no interest in commuting either, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
Even if he was counting pluto as a planet, that doesn't explain why it was in the "gas-giant" category.
With a computer, every crash is the last of its type. With a human, there's a chance of the problem being solved the first time.. but not the second or third times.
So I think the statistics would be on the side of the machines.
Especially since, with enough scenarios, eventually there would be some overlap covering unanticipated situations.
The only way to truly free yourself from taxes involves significant risk of death. And even then you don't free everybody from taxes. Most people simply decide the benefits of not being a revolutionary outweigh the cost of not being in charge.
So is B&N. But their extras are more in line with their primary business. You can buy movies, video games, toys, and office supplies. Sure it's not as vast as amazon's offerings, but it doesn't look like a kindergartner chose the colors and layout either. They also haven't filed for ridiculous patents like "one-click purchasing."
You only need one or two self-driving cars for a family, depending on what time work starts. Carpool with the kid, and let the car drive him to school before returning home (or vice versa), wait for the scheduled return times, and go through the whole thing again.. automatically
The beauty of it is that if everyone has their only personal chauffeur (i.e. self-driving car) we can completely eliminate storefront parking: the car will drop you off at the entrance and either go home or to a designated parking area (or drive itself to a garage for scheduled maintenance) to wait for a specified time or for you to call it.
Computers were invented to free us from repetitive tasks. At a certain order of complexity, commuting is a repetitive task, hence it will eventually be eliminated. People might still drive for fun, but they won't have to if they don't want to.
I fail to see what your proposal has to do with Swift. Although I agree with the premise that laws should not be written by or for lawyers, lawyers should be banned from ever 'serving' on a law-making body, and perhaps used to appease angry volcanoes if the need arises.
Original Galactica had a really depressing premise, the utter decimation of almost all of mankind except for a ragtag fleet and perhaps a few others. But they ignored that and did some kind of love-boat clone instead. The new Galactica is much more true to the premise and seems a lot better planned too. I actually believe that they could take years to get to earth and not have a single 'filler' episode.
Galactica Grew up.
I don't know about original dr. who, but the recent series is pretty juvenile, cheesy, unbelievably one dimensional. It doesn't have anything new either. Everything I've seen has been done before, and done much better. Perhaps on one of the previous Who seasons itself. I think even "sci-fi original series'" have handled some of the themes better.