Particle accelerator experiments seem to regularly result in data from 10 to 100 terabytes. The Stanford Linear Accelerator has a db of over 800 terabytes and I believe it didn't cost too much to set up (not to mention I doubt it's exactly cutting edge anymore if it ever was), so such large data sets are already in use. Given that this data will be mostly black space and much of the rest will not change unexpectadly over time compression will make it a small problem in comparison to the onces I already listed.
See, if you've BOUGHT photoshop, you're going to be using it.
Not necessarily, you may have changed jobs (maybe the new one provides you with a system that has PS on it already or it doesn't require PS at all) or hobbies. Also if I remember correctly you can only have it on one system at a time, as such if you get a new computer and wish to say legally install it on the new one you're not going to have fun from what you say.
Not to mention that there is an educational version which you would probably need to remove upon leaving school. For example every student who takes the into CS course at my school gets a copy of Visual Studio.Net Education.
Generally.pkg installing programs are things you'd be unlikely to want to uninstall (iTunes, Photoshop etc) unless you were uninstalling everything (at which point format and reinstall is faster)
That is all nice until you realize you have 1gb of hard drive space and haven't used Photoshop in 2 months. Or in the case of CS2 decide that it's not worth an upgrade and it's better to go install the old version. Likewise since I don't listen to music I may install iTunes to test something or another specific purpose and not want it cluttering things in the future.
Also see under "norton ativirus can only be uninstalled via ActiveX over the web".
Your first problem was using Norton Antivirus, your second was using Norton Antivirus. Unless it's Symantec Corporate Antivirus, which kicks ass although has some uninstaller problems as well, you have a bloated piece of shit that can't interact nicely with anything. That applies to most "Norton" products, as I've had Norton Firewall take out the network interface when uninstalled. IF you want antivirus protection, Norton is not the place to look.
Not trying to be mean or anything, just letting you know the quirks of windows (and it's programs) you may not know about.
And if you are so smart, I recommend you grow up sometime soon.
You mean like you and cry "I'm good at math, go look" whenever someone insults my intelligence on-line? Sorry, I prefer to stay where I am.
I usually have better and more intelligent comebacks than waving some random piece of paper around. Granted I usually could care less about what some idiot online says about me or my intelligence, well other than being amused by them (sort of like the jesters of old times).
Interesting, from experience the people who brag about a test score that is years or decades old are the ones who have done nothing since then that is worth bragging about. In other words their greatest accomplishment in life is a meaningless piece of paper. I recommend you stop bragging about such things.
Anyway I think you're a moron and since you place value on pieces of paper you should regard me highly. I mean I scored a 4 on the Calc AB AP exam when I was 11, and a 5 on the BC exam when I was 12. I also got an 800 (max score) on the GRE math section if you want to know, with my study time for it being 4 hours or so. Of course, as I already said they're all simply meaningless pieces of paper and that you think of them as anything else is quite telling about your intelligence.
. Their recourse is to call the cops and have the people removed, which is what they did.
No, their only recourse is to ask people to leave. The cops cannot simply remove someone since they lack the power to do this (no crime was committed, etc.).They failed to ask them to leave and as such the cops were there for nothing because no crime was committed.
The cops told this to Best Buy, and as such no one was arrested or removed by the cops.
And that is the difference between Eastern Europe and US. In the US you do it for "fun," while in EE you do it for survival. They need every little advantage they can get, and having that title around their neck actually matters.
The ACM contest is irrelevant, what is relevant is the mindset differences it highlights.
Just because you can speak to a human doesn't mean your problem will get solved in a reasonable fashion. Verizon took me two weeks, multiple phone calls and finally getting someone who spent the time to solve my problem (their records for my phone number were fucked, they claimed I didn't have a verizon number so I couldn't upgrade the service although I already had verizon dsl). This was business dsl if it matters.
Granted the request was odd so I understand some of the wait, now with another company it took me three days of calling and bitching to get them to do a simple port forward. Before that it took me two days to just get info about the dsl line. Needless to say, that location switched dsl providers as quickly as humanly possible.
OIL, Gas, Tires, Road construction, Cars, insurance, accidents, etc.. cars and traffic are a HUGE businesses and the politicians don't want to get rid of it since it brings the money into their bank accounts...
Or maybe it's because public transportation is a huge pain in the backside.
I've lived in NYC and it's faster, nicer and more comfortable to drive than to deal with rush hour. Or have you never had the joy of daily commuting during rush hour on a subway?
Now the subway and buses are nice if you have time (or a good book) and get a seat.
At least in NYC it is quite often faster to drive to work than take public transportation, especially if you don't live/work in Manhattan. It is also quite a bit more comfortable since you get a seat, don't have to walk to/from the subway station, no waiting for trains/buses, don't get squished into a packed train, and so on.
Should every medical plan have to cover the expensive option?
Yes, that is progress. If only the very rich used the new method it would go down in price very slowly, if ever, thus keeping future progress down as well. Someone has to pay off that research you see, and the faster it is paid off the faster they can start new research. I assign a high value to progress, mostly as I prefer to live a long life.
Do you think it ok for drug companies (and indirectly, us consumers) to pay for people to risk their lives for this?
Huh? People get paid to work at a lot of dangerous jobs, and assuming that care is taken to make the dangers not unreasonable no one seems to complain, so why would medicine be any different? Seems like a shitty example to me.
Can people stop saying this BS, it's like all the FF fanboys shoved their collective heads into sand and are yelling "la la la, I can't hear you firefox is perfect." Here's a hint, ignoring problems doesn't make them go away, it simply makes other people switch browsers.
Yes, FF has memory leak problems, it doesn't release memory properly as everyone affected has noticed by now. Otherwise it wouldn't be using 400mb with one window open and no previous pages in that window. It also wouldn't go down to 50mb when I save the session and then restart the browser+reload the session. Well unless keeping track of where my windows are positioned required 300mb of ram, because that is about the only thing I notice losing when I do this
As someone else said, the biggest piece of evidence is simple. Other browsers which have the same feature seem to mysteriously now be horrible memory hogs (after previous windows are closed)..Maybe the FF devs simply can't code.
Do you realy think food production is currently limited by the land we have? Rather than by water, fertilizer, labour?
And wonders of wonders, if have denser crops (especially if this is due to less weeds) you will use less water, fertilizer and labor. I'll let you think about that one, if you need me to explain this in detail then simply ask.
Rather common, for example Stanford University owns the rights to the google search technology (or parts of it) since it was developed while the founders were students there.
No, most GM food is made to use MORE pesticides. Attempting to ignore that is downright silly, and not knowing that makes you little better than the frankenfood people.
See, one of the easiest gm foods to make is one that is resistant to pesticides/herbicides (specific ones). Now, logically if your crop is resistant to pesticide/herbicide and the weed/fungus/whatever aren't why the fuck wouldn't you use more chemicals? And guess what, that is the point you use more chemicals because your crops won't die. Another easy GM food to make is one that constantly creates a natural pesticide/herbicide, thus also using more chemicals. If you're wondering these are bad because of pollution problems and because nature isn't static and will create resistant strains of pests, and then everyone is screwed.
The other types of gm food are still a minority, and last I checked weren't making amazing progress. With time this will change but right now that is the situation, many of the current gm crops aren't that amazing and are arguably a bad thing.
In summary, both sides of this argument are populated with blind zealots arguably more so on the anti side. On one hand you have people who blindly think gm is great, has no problems, no one should worry about it and that the current gm crops are all some majestic creation. The other side wasn't to throw out the baby with the bathwater, then shoot the family for good measure. We didn't ban refrigerators because they used ozone depleting chemicals; we made legislation so that future refrigerators were better.
I believe this law siginificantly cuts down on emissions and improves fuel efficency,
Because a new USV is so damn fuel efficient...
Anyway it's a stupid way to do this and probably doesn't help that much, if you want to cut down on emissions and increase fuel efficiency then make a law to ban cars which don't pass rigorous standards.
As I said to the parent they're oddly enough not easy to design. Well, not ones which are useful for military applications. Mainly the rails are a bitch since the projectile does nasty things to them as it is launched, to the point where servicing or replacement may be needed after every shot (with normal materials).
Also, rail guns are an electro-magnetic weapon that works by sending a shot of current through the projectile. A regular guided shell would literally have its insides fried as it was fired. Not a game stopper but still not trivial.
And of course as you said, the acceleration will be more than current guns.
Yes because the only enemy, for the remainder of the foreseeable future, will be the terrorists. I mean, no one ever fights a war with say Argentina, nope never happens. Oh wait...
And of course, you never ever need to attack another country or a terrorist base of operations in another country. And you know asking some neighboring country to use their airfields, who probably dislikes you anyway, is so much faster and more efficient than launching from the carrier you have nearby. Oh wait...
No it doesn't, there is talk of a potential railgun upgrade in the future. Railguns are far from reality right now, I think the navy says 2020 for possible deployment, as they're not a trivial beast to implement (ex: rails made out of conventional materials wear out very quickly).
Too complicated to work well under the conditions, eh?
An Australian adventurer wanted to drive an electrical vehicle to the south pole, not that long ago. The Solar Car motors were one of the only two considered, because of the large body of field test data and telemitry that exists for the motor design.
As a said before, anything on earth is orders of magnitude easier than Mars.
Of the LI batteries in the Rovers, _most_ of them are non rechargeable.
Do you have a link for this, everything I'm seeing says that all the batteries in the new rovers are rechargeable.
I understand the eggs and baskets arguments, but I point out that NASA has gone from being a technology Visionary circa 1965 to one of the most technologically conservative organisations circa 2000.
They had more money to spend on projects back then, now it's going towards more cheap projects instead of a few big ones. That means they need to use tested technology and still have a decent failure rate. I belvie the Voyager probes cost something like
Or are you going to tell me we should have sent Mr Armstrong to make that one small step with "Proven Technology"?
Yes. What do you think Apollo 7 to 10 were there for? Do you think they didn't reuse the technology from previous missions? And how many billions did they have to all that testing with?
A mission to the moon, involving humans and a massive budget is quite different than one to Mars involving robots and a decent budget. People can deal with problems, robots can't for example.
NASA is cutting budgets and doesn't have the money for testing. Fair enough. But innovation is cheap.
And yet you use Apollo as an example, a program that cost $25 BILLION. Seems that innovation in space isn't cheap according to your own example.
None of the design team expected the solar systems to work well or last long.
Dust buildup was supposed to render them useless after a while; luckily it seems some wind solved that problem for them.
The Rovers both carry a massive weight of non-rechargeable batteries (alkaline cells, or something) and very little of rechargeable cells. Unable to even discard the spent battery cells. The rovers have been carrying the spent cells ever since they ran flat, doing horrible things to the power to weight ratio and other such bad stuff.
Asfaik both rovers use Lithium-Ion batteries, well specially designed ones. Older rovers used non-rechargeable batteries, most likely to avoid potential failures.
Also, an efficient asynchronous electric motor design would have been about 30% the weight (or 70% more power, pick one) and running at greater than 90% efficiency. And I'm not talking untested prototypes, either. Motors of this design and build have been run in Solar Car races for the best part of a decade.
There is a difference between running something on earth with a checkup right before it's use, and sending something into space for over a year and having it then run (With no tune up) on an alien world. For example on Earth the radiation isn't high enough to fry normal electronic circuits. Not to mention that your nice solar car doesn't get to deal with temperatures that make Antarctica look pleasant.
Same thing with your rechargeable batteries, they may work great when they're brand new and in an ideal environment but given a few years and they may be worthless.
Efficiency was not on their mind because having it work was more important.
If you take a random bacteria and dump it next to a sulfur vent it will probably die. The process needs to be gradual enough to allow the bacteria to adjust or enough bacteria need to get there for one to randomly survive. On Earth both of those could happen, while an asteroid transfer would have neither really.
Slashdot Mirror
Particle accelerator experiments seem to regularly result in data from 10 to 100 terabytes. The Stanford Linear Accelerator has a db of over 800 terabytes and I believe it didn't cost too much to set up (not to mention I doubt it's exactly cutting edge anymore if it ever was), so such large data sets are already in use. Given that this data will be mostly black space and much of the rest will not change unexpectadly over time compression will make it a small problem in comparison to the onces I already listed.
See, if you've BOUGHT photoshop, you're going to be using it.
.Net Education.
Not necessarily, you may have changed jobs (maybe the new one provides you with a system that has PS on it already or it doesn't require PS at all) or hobbies. Also if I remember correctly you can only have it on one system at a time, as such if you get a new computer and wish to say legally install it on the new one you're not going to have fun from what you say.
Not to mention that there is an educational version which you would probably need to remove upon leaving school. For example every student who takes the into CS course at my school gets a copy of Visual Studio
Generally .pkg installing programs are things you'd be unlikely to want to uninstall (iTunes, Photoshop etc) unless you were uninstalling everything (at which point format and reinstall is faster)
That is all nice until you realize you have 1gb of hard drive space and haven't used Photoshop in 2 months. Or in the case of CS2 decide that it's not worth an upgrade and it's better to go install the old version. Likewise since I don't listen to music I may install iTunes to test something or another specific purpose and not want it cluttering things in the future.
Also see under "norton ativirus can only be uninstalled via ActiveX over the web".
Your first problem was using Norton Antivirus, your second was using Norton Antivirus. Unless it's Symantec Corporate Antivirus, which kicks ass although has some uninstaller problems as well, you have a bloated piece of shit that can't interact nicely with anything. That applies to most "Norton" products, as I've had Norton Firewall take out the network interface when uninstalled. IF you want antivirus protection, Norton is not the place to look.
Not trying to be mean or anything, just letting you know the quirks of windows (and it's programs) you may not know about.
Same here, did it even ask to restart? Anyway, some programs ask to restart to be on the safe side so 99+% of the time it's not needed.
And if you are so smart, I recommend you grow up sometime soon.
You mean like you and cry "I'm good at math, go look" whenever someone insults my intelligence on-line? Sorry, I prefer to stay where I am.
I usually have better and more intelligent comebacks than waving some random piece of paper around. Granted I usually could care less about what some idiot online says about me or my intelligence, well other than being amused by them (sort of like the jesters of old times).
Interesting, from experience the people who brag about a test score that is years or decades old are the ones who have done nothing since then that is worth bragging about. In other words their greatest accomplishment in life is a meaningless piece of paper. I recommend you stop bragging about such things.
Anyway I think you're a moron and since you place value on pieces of paper you should regard me highly. I mean I scored a 4 on the Calc AB AP exam when I was 11, and a 5 on the BC exam when I was 12. I also got an 800 (max score) on the GRE math section if you want to know, with my study time for it being 4 hours or so. Of course, as I already said they're all simply meaningless pieces of paper and that you think of them as anything else is quite telling about your intelligence.
RTFA.
. Their recourse is to call the cops and have the people removed, which is what they did.
No, their only recourse is to ask people to leave. The cops cannot simply remove someone since they lack the power to do this (no crime was committed, etc.).They failed to ask them to leave and as such the cops were there for nothing because no crime was committed.
The cops told this to Best Buy, and as such no one was arrested or removed by the cops.
And that is the difference between Eastern Europe and US. In the US you do it for "fun," while in EE you do it for survival. They need every little advantage they can get, and having that title around their neck actually matters.
The ACM contest is irrelevant, what is relevant is the mindset differences it highlights.
Just because you can speak to a human doesn't mean your problem will get solved in a reasonable fashion. Verizon took me two weeks, multiple phone calls and finally getting someone who spent the time to solve my problem (their records for my phone number were fucked, they claimed I didn't have a verizon number so I couldn't upgrade the service although I already had verizon dsl). This was business dsl if it matters.
Granted the request was odd so I understand some of the wait, now with another company it took me three days of calling and bitching to get them to do a simple port forward. Before that it took me two days to just get info about the dsl line. Needless to say, that location switched dsl providers as quickly as humanly possible.
OIL, Gas, Tires, Road construction, Cars, insurance, accidents, etc.. cars and traffic are a HUGE businesses and the politicians don't want to get rid of it since it brings the money into their bank accounts...
Or maybe it's because public transportation is a huge pain in the backside.
I've lived in NYC and it's faster, nicer and more comfortable to drive than to deal with rush hour. Or have you never had the joy of daily commuting during rush hour on a subway?
Now the subway and buses are nice if you have time (or a good book) and get a seat.
At least in NYC it is quite often faster to drive to work than take public transportation, especially if you don't live/work in Manhattan. It is also quite a bit more comfortable since you get a seat, don't have to walk to/from the subway station, no waiting for trains/buses, don't get squished into a packed train, and so on.
Should every medical plan have to cover the expensive option?
Yes, that is progress. If only the very rich used the new method it would go down in price very slowly, if ever, thus keeping future progress down as well. Someone has to pay off that research you see, and the faster it is paid off the faster they can start new research. I assign a high value to progress, mostly as I prefer to live a long life.
Do you think it ok for drug companies (and indirectly, us consumers) to pay for people to risk their lives for this?
Huh? People get paid to work at a lot of dangerous jobs, and assuming that care is taken to make the dangers not unreasonable no one seems to complain, so why would medicine be any different? Seems like a shitty example to me.
Can people stop saying this BS, it's like all the FF fanboys shoved their collective heads into sand and are yelling "la la la, I can't hear you firefox is perfect." Here's a hint, ignoring problems doesn't make them go away, it simply makes other people switch browsers.
Yes, FF has memory leak problems, it doesn't release memory properly as everyone affected has noticed by now. Otherwise it wouldn't be using 400mb with one window open and no previous pages in that window. It also wouldn't go down to 50mb when I save the session and then restart the browser+reload the session. Well unless keeping track of where my windows are positioned required 300mb of ram, because that is about the only thing I notice losing when I do this
As someone else said, the biggest piece of evidence is simple. Other browsers which have the same feature seem to mysteriously now be horrible memory hogs (after previous windows are closed)..Maybe the FF devs simply can't code.
Do you realy think food production is currently limited by the land we have? Rather than by water, fertilizer, labour?
And wonders of wonders, if have denser crops (especially if this is due to less weeds) you will use less water, fertilizer and labor. I'll let you think about that one, if you need me to explain this in detail then simply ask.
Rather common, for example Stanford University owns the rights to the google search technology (or parts of it) since it was developed while the founders were students there.
No, most GM food is made to use MORE pesticides. Attempting to ignore that is downright silly, and not knowing that makes you little better than the frankenfood people.
See, one of the easiest gm foods to make is one that is resistant to pesticides/herbicides (specific ones). Now, logically if your crop is resistant to pesticide/herbicide and the weed/fungus/whatever aren't why the fuck wouldn't you use more chemicals? And guess what, that is the point you use more chemicals because your crops won't die. Another easy GM food to make is one that constantly creates a natural pesticide/herbicide, thus also using more chemicals. If you're wondering these are bad because of pollution problems and because nature isn't static and will create resistant strains of pests, and then everyone is screwed.
The other types of gm food are still a minority, and last I checked weren't making amazing progress. With time this will change but right now that is the situation, many of the current gm crops aren't that amazing and are arguably a bad thing.
In summary, both sides of this argument are populated with blind zealots arguably more so on the anti side. On one hand you have people who blindly think gm is great, has no problems, no one should worry about it and that the current gm crops are all some majestic creation. The other side wasn't to throw out the baby with the bathwater, then shoot the family for good measure. We didn't ban refrigerators because they used ozone depleting chemicals; we made legislation so that future refrigerators were better.
...thank god people like you areu usally too stupid to do anything correctly otherwise we'd have never gotten out of the stone age.
I believe this law siginificantly cuts down on emissions and improves fuel efficency,
Because a new USV is so damn fuel efficient...
Anyway it's a stupid way to do this and probably doesn't help that much, if you want to cut down on emissions and increase fuel efficiency then make a law to ban cars which don't pass rigorous standards.
I guess it really is a brave new world, he.
To dispose of the nuclear fuel needed for any unmanned spacecraft requires untold millions.
Most unmanned probes do not use nuclear fuel, DAWN is one of them and will use solar panels.
rail guns are pretty straight forward to design
As I said to the parent they're oddly enough not easy to design. Well, not ones which are useful for military applications. Mainly the rails are a bitch since the projectile does nasty things to them as it is launched, to the point where servicing or replacement may be needed after every shot (with normal materials).
Also, rail guns are an electro-magnetic weapon that works by sending a shot of current through the projectile. A regular guided shell would literally have its insides fried as it was fired. Not a game stopper but still not trivial.
And of course as you said, the acceleration will be more than current guns.
Yes because the only enemy, for the remainder of the foreseeable future, will be the terrorists. I mean, no one ever fights a war with say Argentina, nope never happens. Oh wait...
And of course, you never ever need to attack another country or a terrorist base of operations in another country. And you know asking some neighboring country to use their airfields, who probably dislikes you anyway, is so much faster and more efficient than launching from the carrier you have nearby. Oh wait...
No it doesn't, there is talk of a potential railgun upgrade in the future. Railguns are far from reality right now, I think the navy says 2020 for possible deployment, as they're not a trivial beast to implement (ex: rails made out of conventional materials wear out very quickly).
Too complicated to work well under the conditions, eh?
An Australian adventurer wanted to drive an electrical vehicle to the south pole, not that long ago. The Solar Car motors were one of the only two considered, because of the large body of field test data and telemitry that exists for the motor design.
As a said before, anything on earth is orders of magnitude easier than Mars.
Of the LI batteries in the Rovers, _most_ of them are non rechargeable.
Do you have a link for this, everything I'm seeing says that all the batteries in the new rovers are rechargeable.
I understand the eggs and baskets arguments, but I point out that NASA has gone from being a technology Visionary circa 1965 to one of the most technologically conservative organisations circa 2000.
They had more money to spend on projects back then, now it's going towards more cheap projects instead of a few big ones. That means they need to use tested technology and still have a decent failure rate. I belvie the Voyager probes cost something like
Or are you going to tell me we should have sent Mr Armstrong to make that one small step with "Proven Technology"?
Yes. What do you think Apollo 7 to 10 were there for? Do you think they didn't reuse the technology from previous missions? And how many billions did they have to all that testing with?
A mission to the moon, involving humans and a massive budget is quite different than one to Mars involving robots and a decent budget. People can deal with problems, robots can't for example.
NASA is cutting budgets and doesn't have the money for testing. Fair enough. But innovation is cheap.
And yet you use Apollo as an example, a program that cost $25 BILLION. Seems that innovation in space isn't cheap according to your own example.
None of the design team expected the solar systems to work well or last long.
Dust buildup was supposed to render them useless after a while; luckily it seems some wind solved that problem for them.
The Rovers both carry a massive weight of non-rechargeable batteries (alkaline cells, or something) and very little of rechargeable cells. Unable to even discard the spent battery cells. The rovers have been carrying the spent cells ever since they ran flat, doing horrible things to the power to weight ratio and other such bad stuff.
Asfaik both rovers use Lithium-Ion batteries, well specially designed ones. Older rovers used non-rechargeable batteries, most likely to avoid potential failures.
Also, an efficient asynchronous electric motor design would have been about 30% the weight (or 70% more power, pick one) and running at greater than 90% efficiency. And I'm not talking untested prototypes, either. Motors of this design and build have been run in Solar Car races for the best part of a decade.
There is a difference between running something on earth with a checkup right before it's use, and sending something into space for over a year and having it then run (With no tune up) on an alien world. For example on Earth the radiation isn't high enough to fry normal electronic circuits. Not to mention that your nice solar car doesn't get to deal with temperatures that make Antarctica look pleasant.
Same thing with your rechargeable batteries, they may work great when they're brand new and in an ideal environment but given a few years and they may be worthless.
Efficiency was not on their mind because having it work was more important.
If you take a random bacteria and dump it next to a sulfur vent it will probably die. The process needs to be gradual enough to allow the bacteria to adjust or enough bacteria need to get there for one to randomly survive. On Earth both of those could happen, while an asteroid transfer would have neither really.