This is a bit outdated, possibly a dead project, but it was cool when it was new and going on. Check out http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/ [High Altitude Glider Project]. Might be enough interesting pieces there to continue a similar project, or at least contact the original site-owner and ask him a few questions to get you started.
Now I wonder (and I'm traveling down the "how do we defeat the GPL path, not a specific MySQL bashing) if this model of distribution is a potential flaw in the GPL? (bear with me whilst I work myself through this one).
Scenario: Let's say company X takes some super-cool GPL code, modifies that code, but only offers that modified code to customers paying for the binaries. Of course, in order to get the privilege of paying for the binaries, you have to sign a contract commercially stating you won't ask for the code, and/or you won't distribute that code. Thus, Company X can now charge for modified GPL code, without breaking the terms of the GPL for not distributing their modified code back to the community at large, since the only folks getting the binaries are people they have binding commercial contracts with...
I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel for this one. Seems... dangerous.
> > And anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice", and then
> > tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron.
> In the quotes of the parent post, Linus defends his use of the word hypocritical, and gives what I consider a reasonable example of a hypocrit, but what person or group specifically thinks Linus doesn't have the "right to choice"? Is this a strawman argument, or is there a nameable culprit who specifically thought or communicated a hypocritical message to Linus? In other words, who is Linus referring to when he addresses
anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice",... and what exactly did they say to him??
There is a pretty serious trade off here. Many driving systems of today are programmed to improve by learning the signatures of a particular vehicle system. Without this data, the vehicles will now be limited by a government mandate. Seems very counter-intuitive, considering the continuing government pressures to add just these kind of technologies to make greener and more fuel efficient vehicles.
And don't forget bragging rights. Hey, I invented some feature. Sure, some guy debugged it, but I get to slap the label to it. I might even name it after me (Hello Mr. Reiser, if you should read this...). The guy who debugs it gets... zip.
Okay, then how about this: I debug someone else's code, and not only do I modify the copyright header to add my name and title (debugger extraordinar), but I also add comments at the points I did debug on what was wrong and why it is now better, along with my initials. Thus I, the debugger, get the appropriate respect due, while the initial code writer maintains the respect they're due. Win-win?
No, there is no such requirement in order to mate. There are any number of websites that demonstrate mating between different species. To mate and have functional and fertile progeny, that's another thing however. I'd like to point out that as you said, Humans have 2 chromosomes from apes bonded together, which is simply a transcription modification.... I assume that God can allow the telomeres to unfold differently if He wishes?
I can accept that "telomeres can unfold differently" as a theory, and then expect scientists to be able to research and find "proof" that it has happened. I might even expect them to find an understanding of how they unfold differently, and be able to replicate that as an experiment.
On the other hand, I also take on Faith that the laws of physics we study today might not have held exactly the same 20 billion years ago. I don't pretend to understand it at an explainable level, but I know there is some scientific searching going on regarding the basis of physics at all times. Things like "mass at the speed of light", or that time in a stationary frame of reference is measured, or so many other scientific foundations, are nothing more than beliefs. Nothing new here, anyone who doubts them must be "freaks" (scientific word for unbelievers), or so many would say. It's remarkably similar treatment found in religious statements about people who "don't believe in God or show it in a certain way" must be cast out.
Frankly, the two things I hold as given are: #1: There is a God (yes, I'm Christian), and #2: The Laws of Physics apply quite nicely today, in this particular frame of reference we live in now. I always qualify the second one as I did there, because Science has taught me to carry doubt and questions to further my own understanding. The first, however, I don't qualify. And I don't see any conundrum with the two... other than the conflict of Ego's telling the more vocal in each group that only one can be right.
Isn't the example more like this? A guy in a uniform is on a street corner, holding a bag and passing something out. He says "Here, try this new Reeses' PB cup. You'll like it!" For 99% of the non-paranoid folks in this world, that's a legitimate, salesman-like friendly thing to do. For the other 1%, that free PB cup could be full of arsenic, or something they're allergic to, or *gasp* have a worm in it.
There. That's a better analogy. And I think the odds are a bit more accurate than your example.
What means more to you from an environmentally friendliness perspective, A:) Good gas mileage, or B:) Tier II emmissions standards? It almost seems to me we are professing enlightenment, without understanding all that much in reality. Now, if you were to argue the "Emmissions per Mile" of a vehicle, and compare Europe, China, Mexico, the U.S. and other vehicle outputs, then I'd be far more inclined to think we were heading down the right path to an honest debate.
Gas mileage, on the other hand, is often nothing more than a measure of what it costs you to drive. Sure my German Opel got better gas mileage than my current F-150. But I'm also pretty sure I burned a lot more Ozone while doing 140kph on the autobahn to Frankfurt for 3 hours than I do in my F-150 driving through the snow to the great white north for 4 hours.
I also know that Europe is heavily into small diesel engines, which have really respectable gas mileage. However, I am entirely unconvinced that this is in any way better for the environment, considering the horrible things that come out of a diesel engine while it's transitioning to a steady state of operation, especially in the cold winter months. Not to mention the incredible impact Summer vs. Winter fuel has on such vehicles.
Anyone got a good reference on what the oil industry themselves could do to reduce vehicle emissions? There are trade-offs on various emission components, but eliminating 89 octane for 91 octane minimum, in conjunction with some technology upgrades / updates on new cars, would seem to be a step in the right direction. At today's gas prices, seems it would be a reasonably cost-effective improvement on multiple fronts.
What means more to you from an environmentally friendliness perspective, A:) Good gas mileage, or B:) Tier II emmissions standards? It almost seems to me we are professing enlightenment, without understanding all that much in reality. Now, if you were to argue the "Emmissions per Mile" of a vehicle, and compare Europe, China, Mexico, the U.S. and other vehicle outputs, then I'd be far more inclined to think we were heading down the right path to an honest debate.
Gas mileage, on the other hand, is often nothing more than a measure of what it costs you to drive. Sure my German Opel got better gas mileage than my current F-150. But I'm also pretty sure I burned a lot more Ozone while doing 140kph on the autobahn to Frankfurt for 3 hours than I do in my F-150 driving through the snow to the great white north for 4 hours.
I also know that Europe is heavily into small diesel engines, which have really respectable gas mileage. However, I am entirely unconvinced that this is in any way better for the environment, considering the horrible things that come out of a diesel engine while it's transitioning to a steady state of operation, especially in the cold winter months. Not to mention the incredible impact Summer vs. Winter fuel has on such vehicles.
Anyone got a good reference on what the oil industry themselves could do to reduce vehicle emissions? There are trade-offs on various emission components, but eliminating 89 octane for 91 octane minimum, in conjunction with some technology upgrades / updates on new cars, would seem to be a step in the right direction. At today's gas prices, seems it would be a reasonably cost-effective improvement on multiple fronts.
Thoughts, comments, references, suggestions?
There is (at least where I come from) a great deal of knowledge available on how cars pollute. However, I'm curious if anyone has been able to come up with a National "average amount of pollution per Kilowat-Hour" for our electrical power in the U.S., making sure they keep track of the real details beyond the power plants themselves. For example, is there any real data (not just "I heard...") on how much power is lost between the plant and the end user?
In other words, where is the information on what pollution price we pay when we consider the whole system of electrical distribution? Those windmills are great, but they don't support you power hungry, 10 servers-in-your-basement types, and so some average percentage of power must be burnt just combining electricity from multiple energy powerplants, including still-operational coal-burners.
Are you kidding me? This is 100% bait and switch, and got modded to "Insightful" anyway? This is, pure and simple, just popular slashdot drivel. Let me break it down:
1st Quote: "Would a slavish devotion to the literal interpretation of the bible have eventually resulted in the creation of the products I'm using?" Response: *Shrugs* Who knows? I bet there's statistical data that shows how many "product creationists" are also believers in the bible. I seriously doubt that product creation and universe creation beliefs have as much to do with each other as this AC seems to imply.
2nd Quote: "If anyone with new/different/progressive ideas and ideals were burned at the stake, would society grow and improve?" Response: Probably, but it would also be pretty much a binary growth and happen a bit slower. Question is, what the hell does this have to do with religion? I'd suggest you use a bit of real data if you respond to this. I'm betting your not going to find a lot of solid scientific and genuine factual ground to support whatever prejudice made you spew that original quote.
3rd Quote: "Then consider the answer you give yourself in light of the fact that fundamentalists posit that the ONLY valid point of view is the one that elevates the allegorical parable of the bible to absolutely infallible fact, and any/all other views as worthy of persecution and destruction." Response: Methinks you are taking things a bit literal, though I think there may be at least a modicum of evidence here to support that specific individuals calling themselves fundamentalists have done exactly this. However, for the most part, I'd say fundamentalists, and for that matter most Christians, Muslims, Sik (?sp?) and other religions might just say that your persecution and destruction will happen *after* you die. If I'm reading the theme of your writing correctly, you are not particularly worried about this anyway, so why the fuss?
4th Quote: "If religion were allowed to run wild we'd be a world of zealots disconnected from our physical reality. At least when science has no agenda other than discovery of truth." Response: This sounds like a Hypothesis. Care to pose a Proof? Seems like there might be a bit of real data you could mind, but I'm guessing again that you don't have the time to do trivial things such as "provide a proof of my Hypothesis". Sounds a bit more like "beliefs" to me. No... I mispronounced. I meant "agenda".
5th Quote: "Whereas religion *should* be about the discovery of truth but instead has devolved into an organization bent on the dissemination of faith, over and above the meaning or truth of the object of that faith. It's ceased to be about the truth and has come to be about group think and suppression of dissent." Response: First part is the first statement you made that makes the slightest bit of sense. As a student of religion, I agree that it can be about discovery of truth and faith. Did I mention you only made a slight bit of sense there? The second part? Well, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Informed...
6th Quote: "The church(es) have placed the wielding of political influence over and above the spiritual well being of their believers, and over and above the total well being of humanity as a whole." Response: Please list a few, with some supporting evidence. Ones that have some identifiable connection between the Politician? I'm sure you can find some of that evidence, present it to us, and then let folks discuss it scientifically to better understand whether the link goes beyond a couple of people who share a common belief, or maybe that there's some worldwide conspiracy to force you to believe against your own will. You know, it's about time we have a second crusade, after all..
NonSequor wrote: " There is some truth in some of what he says.
It's worth noting that an aircraft with multiple engines is more likely to have some sort of engine failure than an aircraft with one engine of similar design. In general, increasing the number of components in a system increases the chance that at some point one of the components will fail.
Basically if you put your eggs in several different baskets the number of eggs you can expect to lose will be greater than the number of eggs you can expect to lose by putting them in a single well designed basket."
All around, that was just poor execution of analogies. Let's just use basic engineering to try again in a more methodical and dependable engineering / scientific analysis:
Having multiple engines on an airplane (versus one of similar design)
The "weak" point of multi-engine aircraft is that there is a significantly higher *design* requirement to get the engines integrated and working as a system with each other, versus the simplicity of getting a single engine design to work. There is also very significantly higher maintainance time / costs associated with these, both because there are more engines, and because the backbone system supporting them is more complicated. I think the later is perhaps where the original poster was heading with the "one basket" versus "multiple baskets" analogy, but I'm not entirely certain of that fact. For now, I'll just assume... [I'll explicitely make this a computer comparison later, after the analogies are all done...]
Though the likelihood of a multi-engine aircraft having a failure is higher, the point of having multi-engine aircraft is that you still have engines when one fails. Thus, the overall "System" [the aircraft] availability is higher while in the air, while at the same time, the aircraft is likely to have *less* overall airtime due to the increased number of pairs. Like any engineering feat, it's a matter of finding where the optimal trade-off functions meet ( [Availibility in the Air] versus [Availibility of aircraft to *be* in the air] )
If you can pick 4 engines that all work flawlessly the same with the backbone system, then mixing in 2 high fidelity engines with 2 lower fidelity engines is, obviously, not a bad idea. Unless
You don't have any technicians who know how to repair the higher fidelity engines.
Or they cost more to repair.
Or, the pilots' have learned all the quirks of the lower fidelity engines, and have to learn to deal with the now-odd COMPLETE System behavior that results from the mixing of engines.
Finally, on to the computers:
Having multiple OS's increases training costs for technical support, and for users if they too are required to use multiple OS's.
Since the number of computers required at a company are seldom dictated by anything more than the number of people in the company, the choice of OS is not going to significantly impact the total number of *systems*. Of course I recognize that there's more to it than that for *specific* types of company, but as a consultant, I'm sticking to the most common.
That said, having more *reliable* systems out there has the *potential* to be a money- and headache-saver, but it is not guaranteed. Most companies I deal with have 1-2 "IT" folks, and it's not even their full time job. However, if they already know both systems, and Linux applications are available as replacements for key functions within their companies, then adding a second (or more) OS makes sense.
In other words, there is no blanket statement that says 2 OS's, or 5, or 1, is better. As an intelligent group, we ought to be developing TCO's *specifically* for businesses based on a set of specific capabilities / needs within the realm of possible businesses. THAT would go a lot farther in this day and age then the generic M$ SUCKS! trademark statements, and "Linux isn't ready for prime-time" statement. Both, it seems, can be true once they are applied to a specific class of businesses.
Who, exactly, will decide how this technology is managed? It is easily as dangerous as the guns themselves.
Here's a test: would you want the police and the military to use this technology? We're talking rifles and hand-guns (yes, the military uses hand-guns...), though if you want, we can limit it entirely to hand-guns. Either way, think wisely before you answer... whole nations are built around such principles... and wiser men have spoken.
Ask yourself if this is at all hostile: "It's not that I'm hostile to you, I just don't think that the reasons behind anything you have to say matter in the slightest, except possibly as a hobby."
My reply is more directed to the multiple responses posted in response to the above. A fair amount stated that this is not considered hostile. I am admittedly a Christian, I agree with the OP that "I exist and am capable of concious thought [summarized]", but I'm not sure whether I take the above as hostile or not. My opinion of that is based on whether the person who says "... as a hobby" is hostile is hard to judge in an electronic forum. To state that he is not hostile, even though he says he is not, is based on a belief without evidence as well, and there is not even a 50/50 chance anyone who doesn't know the original poster knows if this is true or not (you might *believe* he is not hostile, depending on your outlook and whether or not this agrees with your own basis).
As an engineer / scientist / student, I'm fairly sure I and many others could take the very first post, and make a 'belief tree' from there. I seriously doubt there would only be one version of that tree that leads to 'hostile' or 'not hostile', even for those who come to the same final conclusion.
Psycho-analysis aside, I know that 'pushing' my religion is not anywhere close to just having faith in it's fundamentals. The FUD about Christianity, and many other religions, is that all the followers are 'hostile' to non-believers. That, however, is often stated as 'fact' in other responses. Again, it's a matter of what your fundamental 'beliefs' tell you, and is very seldom based on any statistical / proven science.
United States = 293,633,000 persons * 4.7 tons / person = 1.38 billion tons of Carbon.
China = 1,300,060,000 persons * 0.73 tons / person = 0.95 billion tons of Carbon.
Also, Cars per 1000 people [2]:
United States : 774
China : 16
This amounts to 6.07 tons per U.S. car/truck, compared to 45.63 tons per Chinese car/truck.
Bottom line: both suck.
One other stat that might be of value (?) would be the average and peak carbons per acre in different Countries. I don't think life is as simple as the original poster suspected, but at least they meant well.
Notes:
[1] See the Population Reference Bureau's website at www.prb.org, search on "mid-2004 Population" in the USA and China.
[2] See the Population Reference Bureau's website at www.prb.org, search on "Cars per 1000 (people) - 2000" in the USA and China.
Quote: "I can't recall that many uses for a D10 in D&D/AD&D. Rolemaster, certainly. Rolemaster is 99.9% percentiles, which makes GMing much simpler. But D&D? Nah. That uses almost anything but!"
Are you kidding? Go back to the original 'Basic' and 'Expert' D&D, and even more so in the 1st Edition D&D. d10's were used for everything from Extra Strength rolls, to Wandering Encounters, to Random Dungeon Generation, to Random Personality Generation, to Random Treasure Generation, etc... (how many other examples? Maybe I'll do a little research and get back to you, but let's just say a *fast* flip through the DM's guide alone shows at least 20 charts).
Has anyone ever tried both? I have. I think 'hunting' with a camera is fun, and allows me to share my love of the wild with many people. However, hunting with a gun or a bow is, by far, much more difficult than hunting with a camera.
I know the poster above meant well, but clearly has no understanding of the limitations of weapons and the realities of hunting. Let me give you some specifics:
In the woods, hunters look for clear shots. Even a twig, or a leaf, can seriously deflect the trajectory of the missile (bullet / shot / arrow / et al). I wish I had some links to point you to a more scientific description of why these seemingly light massed obstructions are so detrimental to the trajectory. Suffice it to say shooting through obstructions is a primary "Don't do this" in any hunters safety course. Besides, wounding an animal in the woods is a guarantee of it's slow death, and I assure you that type of cruelty is not the goal of a hunter.
As far as getting the shot during hunting season? Well, take it from someone who just walked out of the woods after 7 days without seeing a single deer in the daylight: it is not easy to get a shot. All animals are instinctively self-preserving, and despite all the technologies mentioned above (scents, high powered weapons, blinds, et al..), the odds of finding the right location during the open season is a rare chance indeed, at least on public land. I will readily admit that private hunt clubs and lands are a far different picture, but the sheer number of animals found on those locations is a clear sign of reproductive rates and survivability of most wild animals.
Unfortunately, that high productive rate has very serious consequences in a country building up new subdivisions everywhere, and selling of state land to private owners. Perhaps I can find some pictures of the herds of frozen deer in Michigan's Upper Penninsula after a slightly worse than average winter: you'd think twice about whether the hunters are as efficient as the original poster seemed to imply in his post. In the lower Michigan Penninsula, articles such as this one indicate that same high breeding rate has other consequences when combined with humans and shrinking wild forest lands.
Does this signing over of the rights for copyright prevent the author from selling the code itself under the author's own terms? In other words, can they still dual license the code under GPL and another license themselves, or are they cut-off from doing that now?
Slashdot Mirror
Try http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A788. It seems relatively current, and offers some GPL'd software and lots of links.
This is a bit outdated, possibly a dead project, but it was cool when it was new and going on. Check out http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/ [High Altitude Glider Project]. Might be enough interesting pieces there to continue a similar project, or at least contact the original site-owner and ask him a few questions to get you started.
Now I wonder (and I'm traveling down the "how do we defeat the GPL path, not a specific MySQL bashing) if this model of distribution is a potential flaw in the GPL? (bear with me whilst I work myself through this one).
... dangerous.
Scenario: Let's say company X takes some super-cool GPL code, modifies that code, but only offers that modified code to customers paying for the binaries. Of course, in order to get the privilege of paying for the binaries, you have to sign a contract commercially stating you won't ask for the code, and/or you won't distribute that code. Thus, Company X can now charge for modified GPL code, without breaking the terms of the GPL for not distributing their modified code back to the community at large, since the only folks getting the binaries are people they have binding commercial contracts with...
I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel for this one. Seems
> > tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron.
> In the quotes of the parent post, Linus defends his use of the word hypocritical, and gives what I consider a reasonable example of a hypocrit, but what person or group specifically thinks Linus doesn't have the "right to choice"? Is this a strawman argument, or is there a nameable culprit who specifically thought or communicated a hypocritical message to Linus? In other words, who is Linus referring to when he addresses
anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice",... and what exactly did they say to him??
Why can't I just order a computer / laptop without a harddrive? Has this been tried?
There is a pretty serious trade off here. Many driving systems of today are programmed to improve by learning the signatures of a particular vehicle system. Without this data, the vehicles will now be limited by a government mandate. Seems very counter-intuitive, considering the continuing government pressures to add just these kind of technologies to make greener and more fuel efficient vehicles.
Okay, then how about this: I debug someone else's code, and not only do I modify the copyright header to add my name and title (debugger extraordinar), but I also add comments at the points I did debug on what was wrong and why it is now better, along with my initials. Thus I, the debugger, get the appropriate respect due, while the initial code writer maintains the respect they're due. Win-win?
No, there is no such requirement in order to mate. There are any number of websites that demonstrate mating between different species. To mate and have functional and fertile progeny, that's another thing however. I'd like to point out that as you said, Humans have 2 chromosomes from apes bonded together, which is simply a transcription modification.... I assume that God can allow the telomeres to unfold differently if He wishes?
I can accept that "telomeres can unfold differently" as a theory, and then expect scientists to be able to research and find "proof" that it has happened. I might even expect them to find an understanding of how they unfold differently, and be able to replicate that as an experiment.
On the other hand, I also take on Faith that the laws of physics we study today might not have held exactly the same 20 billion years ago. I don't pretend to understand it at an explainable level, but I know there is some scientific searching going on regarding the basis of physics at all times. Things like "mass at the speed of light", or that time in a stationary frame of reference is measured, or so many other scientific foundations, are nothing more than beliefs. Nothing new here, anyone who doubts them must be "freaks" (scientific word for unbelievers), or so many would say. It's remarkably similar treatment found in religious statements about people who "don't believe in God or show it in a certain way" must be cast out.
Frankly, the two things I hold as given are: #1: There is a God (yes, I'm Christian), and #2: The Laws of Physics apply quite nicely today, in this particular frame of reference we live in now. I always qualify the second one as I did there, because Science has taught me to carry doubt and questions to further my own understanding. The first, however, I don't qualify. And I don't see any conundrum with the two... other than the conflict of Ego's telling the more vocal in each group that only one can be right.
Isn't the example more like this? A guy in a uniform is on a street corner, holding a bag and passing something out. He says "Here, try this new Reeses' PB cup. You'll like it!" For 99% of the non-paranoid folks in this world, that's a legitimate, salesman-like friendly thing to do. For the other 1%, that free PB cup could be full of arsenic, or something they're allergic to, or *gasp* have a worm in it. There. That's a better analogy. And I think the odds are a bit more accurate than your example.
Gah... stupid submit-next-to-the-preview button mistake...
Should have looked like this:
What means more to you from an environmentally friendliness perspective, A:) Good gas mileage, or B:) Tier II emmissions standards? It almost seems to me we are professing enlightenment, without understanding all that much in reality. Now, if you were to argue the "Emmissions per Mile" of a vehicle, and compare Europe, China, Mexico, the U.S. and other vehicle outputs, then I'd be far more inclined to think we were heading down the right path to an honest debate.
Gas mileage, on the other hand, is often nothing more than a measure of what it costs you to drive. Sure my German Opel got better gas mileage than my current F-150. But I'm also pretty sure I burned a lot more Ozone while doing 140kph on the autobahn to Frankfurt for 3 hours than I do in my F-150 driving through the snow to the great white north for 4 hours.
I also know that Europe is heavily into small diesel engines, which have really respectable gas mileage. However, I am entirely unconvinced that this is in any way better for the environment, considering the horrible things that come out of a diesel engine while it's transitioning to a steady state of operation, especially in the cold winter months. Not to mention the incredible impact Summer vs. Winter fuel has on such vehicles.
Anyone got a good reference on what the oil industry themselves could do to reduce vehicle emissions? There are trade-offs on various emission components, but eliminating 89 octane for 91 octane minimum, in conjunction with some technology upgrades / updates on new cars, would seem to be a step in the right direction. At today's gas prices, seems it would be a reasonably cost-effective improvement on multiple fronts.
Thoughts, comments, references, suggestions?
What means more to you from an environmentally friendliness perspective, A:) Good gas mileage, or B:) Tier II emmissions standards? It almost seems to me we are professing enlightenment, without understanding all that much in reality. Now, if you were to argue the "Emmissions per Mile" of a vehicle, and compare Europe, China, Mexico, the U.S. and other vehicle outputs, then I'd be far more inclined to think we were heading down the right path to an honest debate. Gas mileage, on the other hand, is often nothing more than a measure of what it costs you to drive. Sure my German Opel got better gas mileage than my current F-150. But I'm also pretty sure I burned a lot more Ozone while doing 140kph on the autobahn to Frankfurt for 3 hours than I do in my F-150 driving through the snow to the great white north for 4 hours. I also know that Europe is heavily into small diesel engines, which have really respectable gas mileage. However, I am entirely unconvinced that this is in any way better for the environment, considering the horrible things that come out of a diesel engine while it's transitioning to a steady state of operation, especially in the cold winter months. Not to mention the incredible impact Summer vs. Winter fuel has on such vehicles. Anyone got a good reference on what the oil industry themselves could do to reduce vehicle emissions? There are trade-offs on various emission components, but eliminating 89 octane for 91 octane minimum, in conjunction with some technology upgrades / updates on new cars, would seem to be a step in the right direction. At today's gas prices, seems it would be a reasonably cost-effective improvement on multiple fronts. Thoughts, comments, references, suggestions?
There is (at least where I come from) a great deal of knowledge available on how cars pollute. However, I'm curious if anyone has been able to come up with a National "average amount of pollution per Kilowat-Hour" for our electrical power in the U.S., making sure they keep track of the real details beyond the power plants themselves. For example, is there any real data (not just "I heard...") on how much power is lost between the plant and the end user?
In other words, where is the information on what pollution price we pay when we consider the whole system of electrical distribution? Those windmills are great, but they don't support you power hungry, 10 servers-in-your-basement types, and so some average percentage of power must be burnt just combining electricity from multiple energy powerplants, including still-operational coal-burners.
Sincerely,
Tired of the partial stories.
Are you kidding me? This is 100% bait and switch, and got modded to "Insightful" anyway? This is, pure and simple, just popular slashdot drivel. Let me break it down:
1st Quote: "Would a slavish devotion to the literal interpretation of the bible have eventually resulted in the creation of the products I'm using?"
Response: *Shrugs* Who knows? I bet there's statistical data that shows how many "product creationists" are also believers in the bible. I seriously doubt that product creation and universe creation beliefs have as much to do with each other as this AC seems to imply.
2nd Quote: "If anyone with new/different/progressive ideas and ideals were burned at the stake, would society grow and improve?"
Response: Probably, but it would also be pretty much a binary growth and happen a bit slower. Question is, what the hell does this have to do with religion? I'd suggest you use a bit of real data if you respond to this. I'm betting your not going to find a lot of solid scientific and genuine factual ground to support whatever prejudice made you spew that original quote.
3rd Quote: "Then consider the answer you give yourself in light of the fact that fundamentalists posit that the ONLY valid point of view is the one that elevates the allegorical parable of the bible to absolutely infallible fact, and any/all other views as worthy of persecution and destruction."
Response: Methinks you are taking things a bit literal, though I think there may be at least a modicum of evidence here to support that specific individuals calling themselves fundamentalists have done exactly this. However, for the most part, I'd say fundamentalists, and for that matter most Christians, Muslims, Sik (?sp?) and other religions might just say that your persecution and destruction will happen *after* you die. If I'm reading the theme of your writing correctly, you are not particularly worried about this anyway, so why the fuss?
4th Quote: "If religion were allowed to run wild we'd be a world of zealots disconnected from our physical reality. At least when science has no agenda other than discovery of truth."
Response: This sounds like a Hypothesis. Care to pose a Proof? Seems like there might be a bit of real data you could mind, but I'm guessing again that you don't have the time to do trivial things such as "provide a proof of my Hypothesis". Sounds a bit more like "beliefs" to me. No... I mispronounced. I meant "agenda".
5th Quote: "Whereas religion *should* be about the discovery of truth but instead has devolved into an organization bent on the dissemination of faith, over and above the meaning or truth of the object of that faith. It's ceased to be about the truth and has come to be about group think and suppression of dissent."
Response: First part is the first statement you made that makes the slightest bit of sense. As a student of religion, I agree that it can be about discovery of truth and faith. Did I mention you only made a slight bit of sense there? The second part? Well, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Informed...
6th Quote: "The church(es) have placed the wielding of political influence over and above the spiritual well being of their believers, and over and above the total well being of humanity as a whole."
Response: Please list a few, with some supporting evidence. Ones that have some identifiable connection between the Politician? I'm sure you can find some of that evidence, present it to us, and then let folks discuss it scientifically to better understand whether the link goes beyond a couple of people who share a common belief, or maybe that there's some worldwide conspiracy to force you to believe against your own will. You know, it's about time we have a second crusade, after all..
" There is some truth in some of what he says.
It's worth noting that an aircraft with multiple engines is more likely to have some sort of engine failure than an aircraft with one engine of similar design. In general, increasing the number of components in a system increases the chance that at some point one of the components will fail.
Basically if you put your eggs in several different baskets the number of eggs you can expect to lose will be greater than the number of eggs you can expect to lose by putting them in a single well designed basket."
All around, that was just poor execution of analogies. Let's just use basic engineering to try again in a more methodical and dependable engineering / scientific analysis:
Having multiple engines on an airplane (versus one of similar design)
- The "weak" point of multi-engine aircraft is that there is a significantly higher *design* requirement to get the engines integrated and working as a system with each other, versus the simplicity of getting a single engine design to work. There is also very significantly higher maintainance time / costs associated with these, both because there are more engines, and because the backbone system supporting them is more complicated. I think the later is perhaps where the original poster was heading with the "one basket" versus "multiple baskets" analogy, but I'm not entirely certain of that fact. For now, I'll just assume... [I'll explicitely make this a computer comparison later, after the analogies are all done...]
- Though the likelihood of a multi-engine aircraft having a failure is higher, the point of having multi-engine aircraft is that you still have engines when one fails. Thus, the overall "System" [the aircraft] availability is higher while in the air, while at the same time, the aircraft is likely to have *less* overall airtime due to the increased number of pairs. Like any engineering feat, it's a matter of finding where the optimal trade-off functions meet ( [Availibility in the Air] versus [Availibility of aircraft to *be* in the air] )
- If you can pick 4 engines that all work flawlessly the same with the backbone system, then mixing in 2 high fidelity engines with 2 lower fidelity engines is, obviously, not a bad idea. Unless
- You don't have any technicians who know how to repair the higher fidelity engines.
- Or they cost more to repair.
- Or, the pilots' have learned all the quirks of the lower fidelity engines, and have to learn to deal with the now-odd COMPLETE System behavior that results from the mixing of engines.
Finally, on to the computers:- Having multiple OS's increases training costs for technical support, and for users if they too are required to use multiple OS's.
- Since the number of computers required at a company are seldom dictated by anything more than the number of people in the company, the choice of OS is not going to significantly impact the total number of *systems*. Of course I recognize that there's more to it than that for *specific* types of company, but as a consultant, I'm sticking to the most common.
- That said, having more *reliable* systems out there has the *potential* to be a money- and headache-saver, but it is not guaranteed. Most companies I deal with have 1-2 "IT" folks, and it's not even their full time job. However, if they already know both systems, and Linux applications are available as replacements for key functions within their companies, then adding a second (or more) OS makes sense.
In other words, there is no blanket statement that says 2 OS's, or 5, or 1, is better. As an intelligent group, we ought to be developing TCO's *specifically* for businesses based on a set of specific capabilities / needs within the realm of possible businesses. THAT would go a lot farther in this day and age then the generic M$ SUCKS! trademark statements, and "Linux isn't ready for prime-time" statement. Both, it seems, can be true once they are applied to a specific class of businesses.Who, exactly, will decide how this technology is managed? It is easily as dangerous as the guns themselves.
Here's a test: would you want the police and the military to use this technology? We're talking rifles and hand-guns (yes, the military uses hand-guns...), though if you want, we can limit it entirely to hand-guns. Either way, think wisely before you answer... whole nations are built around such principles... and wiser men have spoken.
Ask yourself if this is at all hostile: "It's not that I'm hostile to you, I just don't think that the reasons behind anything you have to say matter in the slightest, except possibly as a hobby."
My reply is more directed to the multiple responses posted in response to the above. A fair amount stated that this is not considered hostile. I am admittedly a Christian, I agree with the OP that "I exist and am capable of concious thought [summarized]", but I'm not sure whether I take the above as hostile or not. My opinion of that is based on whether the person who says "... as a hobby" is hostile is hard to judge in an electronic forum. To state that he is not hostile, even though he says he is not, is based on a belief without evidence as well, and there is not even a 50/50 chance anyone who doesn't know the original poster knows if this is true or not (you might *believe* he is not hostile, depending on your outlook and whether or not this agrees with your own basis).
As an engineer / scientist / student, I'm fairly sure I and many others could take the very first post, and make a 'belief tree' from there. I seriously doubt there would only be one version of that tree that leads to 'hostile' or 'not hostile', even for those who come to the same final conclusion.
Psycho-analysis aside, I know that 'pushing' my religion is not anywhere close to just having faith in it's fundamentals. The FUD about Christianity, and many other religions, is that all the followers are 'hostile' to non-believers. That, however, is often stated as 'fact' in other responses. Again, it's a matter of what your fundamental 'beliefs' tell you, and is very seldom based on any statistical / proven science.
Population [1]:
Total Carbon Emmissions:
- United States = 293,633,000 persons * 4.7 tons / person = 1.38 billion tons of Carbon.
- China = 1,300,060,000 persons * 0.73 tons / person = 0.95 billion tons of Carbon.
Also, Cars per 1000 people [2]:- United States : 774
- China : 16
This amounts to 6.07 tons per U.S. car/truck, compared to 45.63 tons per Chinese car/truck.Bottom line: both suck.
One other stat that might be of value (?) would be the average and peak carbons per acre in different Countries. I don't think life is as simple as the original poster suspected, but at least they meant well.
Notes:
[1] See the Population Reference Bureau's website at www.prb.org, search on "mid-2004 Population" in the USA and China.
[2] See the Population Reference Bureau's website at www.prb.org, search on "Cars per 1000 (people) - 2000" in the USA and China.
Quote: "I can't recall that many uses for a D10 in D&D/AD&D. Rolemaster, certainly. Rolemaster is 99.9% percentiles, which makes GMing much simpler. But D&D? Nah. That uses almost anything but!"
Are you kidding? Go back to the original 'Basic' and 'Expert' D&D, and even more so in the 1st Edition D&D. d10's were used for everything from Extra Strength rolls, to Wandering Encounters, to Random Dungeon Generation, to Random Personality Generation, to Random Treasure Generation, etc... (how many other examples? Maybe I'll do a little research and get back to you, but let's just say a *fast* flip through the DM's guide alone shows at least 20 charts).
Has anyone ever tried both? I have. I think 'hunting' with a camera is fun, and allows me to share my love of the wild with many people. However, hunting with a gun or a bow is, by far, much more difficult than hunting with a camera.
I know the poster above meant well, but clearly has no understanding of the limitations of weapons and the realities of hunting. Let me give you some specifics:
In the woods, hunters look for clear shots. Even a twig, or a leaf, can seriously deflect the trajectory of the missile (bullet / shot / arrow / et al). I wish I had some links to point you to a more scientific description of why these seemingly light massed obstructions are so detrimental to the trajectory. Suffice it to say shooting through obstructions is a primary "Don't do this" in any hunters safety course. Besides, wounding an animal in the woods is a guarantee of it's slow death, and I assure you that type of cruelty is not the goal of a hunter.
As far as getting the shot during hunting season? Well, take it from someone who just walked out of the woods after 7 days without seeing a single deer in the daylight: it is not easy to get a shot. All animals are instinctively self-preserving, and despite all the technologies mentioned above (scents, high powered weapons, blinds, et al..), the odds of finding the right location during the open season is a rare chance indeed, at least on public land. I will readily admit that private hunt clubs and lands are a far different picture, but the sheer number of animals found on those locations is a clear sign of reproductive rates and survivability of most wild animals.
Unfortunately, that high productive rate has very serious consequences in a country building up new subdivisions everywhere, and selling of state land to private owners. Perhaps I can find some pictures of the herds of frozen deer in Michigan's Upper Penninsula after a slightly worse than average winter: you'd think twice about whether the hunters are as efficient as the original poster seemed to imply in his post. In the lower Michigan Penninsula, articles such as this one indicate that same high breeding rate has other consequences when combined with humans and shrinking wild forest lands.
Does this signing over of the rights for copyright prevent the author from selling the code itself under the author's own terms? In other words, can they still dual license the code under GPL and another license themselves, or are they cut-off from doing that now?