Who was benefitting from the fact that the arbitrage opportunity was not exploited? In each case it was the buyer or seller.
Huh? No, if it wasn't exploited then resources would be allocated inefficiently, which benefits no-one. Suppose wheat is selling for 24p in New York and 27p in Tokyo, and then a HFT guy comes along and offers to buy for 25p in New York and sell for 26p in Tokyo. Then the seller in NY gets a better price, the buyer in Tokyo gets a better price, and the HFT guy earns his profit. Sure he's taking profits away from the guys who would've bought in New York for less or sold in Tokyo for more, but he's done so by outcompeting them, which is in the public interest.
It's entirely plausible that even a Dyson sphere capable civilization won't be able to communicate faster than the speed of light, at which point being on even the nearest star is a whole lot of isolation.
A sample return mission would require landing a much larger craft than this proposed rover. (Heck, I doubt you could land enough fuel in a 900kg payload to even reach martian orbit, and it's a whole lot further from there to earth, and I'm not sure the technology for docking two unmanned craft in martian orbit even exists). So if that's what you're aiming for, view this as an incremental step towards a sample return mission - it makes a lot of sense to increase the mass a bit at a time rather than trying to scale it up 100x in one go, and we can get some good science done in the meantime.
It might be more efficient, but people aren't exactly going to line up to move out to the boonies. If you've got the engineering capacity, a Dyson Sphere lets you support a much denser population than spreading across multiple systems, and you can work your way up by starting with an orbital. Also, surely with sufficient engineering you can make your sphere arbitrarily thin (the only requirement I can see is capturing solar output and withstanding solar wind pressure, and you could put holes in if the latter was a real problem), and thus there's no lower limit on the amount of matter needed.
You know, if the incentive for copyrights and patents are to encourage creativity, then it certainly wouldn't hurt anything if the creators were not allowed to sell their intellectual property.
Yes it would. Many creators can't or don't want to handle the business side of monetizing their creations; if they can't sell it then any financial incentive goes away. Even for those who could, it's a waste of their time and creativity to have them running a business (which is a completely different set of skills) rather than... creating.
Not that there aren't problems with the current IP regime, but think a little before making these suggestions.
OK, but even that makes little sense - why not a flatter collector at the L1 (or L4/5 if you can handle the transmission distances). The concept that this thing is artificial is fascinating, but I don't think solar energy collection provides a good enough reason for it.
We're talking C, not C++, so boost is irrelevant. Sure sprintf is big and flexible, but so is python's % operator; the comparison is a fair one, standard language feature to standard language feature. You may well have a faster string library, but using nonstandard libraries has its own problems - you now have two different ways to format your strings, and if you try and do the same thing with some other part of your program (say introduce a nonstandard faster networking library) then whoops, your two nonstandard libraries don't work with each other and you're stuffed.
Of course it's a small, arbitrary comparison, but it's a fair one, with the same rules for both sides - we're talking about the natural, obvious, standard way of writing the same operation in each language. If you want to make it a C victory on the same terms I'd be interested to see whether ICC's whole-program optimization is able to push the constant string down through the standard library.
Jupiter gives off more energy than it receives. I think that Neptune might, too.
Technically I suspect Earth does - it contains trace radioactive elements that decay and give off heat. But we're talking a small enough amount that it would almost certainly be less engineering effort to build a fusion reactor of equivalent power. It's possible there are other reasons to want to build such a thing, but as an energy supply the Dyson sphere makes sense (if you assume a desire for such stupendous amounts of energy) in a way that this really doesn't.
And there's always a bit of arsenic in your food; that doesn't mean you shouldn't care how much there is.
Humanity pumps out large quantities of much more potent greenhouse gasses such as methane, N2O, SF6. I don't know if the amount of these we put out is more or less in terms of greenhouse capacity compared to CO2
Then you're not paying attention. The focus is on CO2 because, guess what, CO2 is presently the biggest problem.
Is anyone really going to argue that a modern hard drive is worse for the environment than one that holds 0.0000000001% of current capacity and takes up 1000x the space (other than the aforementioned Al)?
Quite possibly, because what matters is not what its capacity is, but how it's used. Are you really going to argue that if you were reduced to the old hard drives you'd buy and run 1000000000 of them to match your current capacity?
Also, this "we're killing the planet" line is a bunch of garbage. The planet took a massive meteor strike that wiped out most life on the surface of Earth 65 million years ago and it's still chugging along. No matter how you spin it the worst case scenario is: we kill ourselves off and the planet takes a few million years to return to baseline and evolution continues in ways we can't even begin to imagine
We've used up energy stores that took billions of years to create, and mined out all the easily-accessible metal deposits, and by the time tectonics has shifted things around enough to expose new ones we're looking at close to the Sun's expansion and destruction of Earth. Any future species would have a much harder time advancing technologically than we did.
And while you're right technically, in that wiping out 80% of species isn't "killing the planet", it's still quite a big deal.
As to "heavier instruments", It's worth noting that 8 or so MERs carry almost as much.
Huh? So what, you'd send one MER with a reflector and two more with big and small lenses, and together they'd form a big microscope? That's not how it works. You could try and build a bunch of specialized MER-sized vehicles with a different instrument each and have them cooperate, but getting them to align their instruments on the same target would be an absolute nightmare, and seeing the same part of the same rock in different spectra and with different tools is vastly more useful than getting one instrument's reading on each of several different rocks.
If we're talking about suspend-to-ram (as the grandparent did) that means it's drawing what, 5W total? So over the 15 hours between leaving my desk and arriving at it the next day that's a total of 0.075kWh, or less than a penny's worth of electricity. A minute of my time when I come in to boot it up is worth more than that.
The language in which probably the most popular open-source IDE is written.
Do you count laptops as PCs? Because they can be a pain to program on, what with the tiny screen size and the need to turn off the touchpad that takes up so much room
So plug in a screen, like you would with a desktop. Difference is you can also take it on the train and carry on using it. And complaining about wasted space while advocating desktop PCs is the height of irony.
At my last job I was handed a laptop and a docking station for my desk. It had more than enough power for programming work. So I wouldn't be so confident that businesses will keep the desktops.
If we make screens thin enough, which seems to be just a matter of time, there's no reason you couldn't have two (or more) panels slide out of your transformer.
3.xx Ghz quad core right now, 8GB+ of much faster ram, faster HDD access speeds, Ethernet ports, ridiculously faster GPU, higher than HDMI resolution, a dozen kinds of ports and outputs (HDMI, DVI, 10+ USB, 1394, SPDIF, etc.)
Those numbers might give you a bigger e-penis, but do they let you do anything useful? I can't think of a single thing that my desktop can handle that my laptop can't (I can program on it, encode videos, and play pretty modern games), and while tablets may not be quite there yet it can't be long now.
I found my 7" netbook better than a tablet for that, precisely because it is a PC - it can run regular PC programs (including my substantial collection of '90s PC games), and has a usable keyboard.
when you see Tom Cruise jumping out of helicopters or Bruce Willis driving a car up a ramp into a helicopter all while the surroundings and story are meant to be more or less realistic, you don't go complaining how unrealistic the movie is.
Um, it seems to me most serious movie critics do exactly that.
You even lost team members permanently - you could finish a level with one (or even three) of your four guys getting shot, but you'd have to use less skilled alternates on future missions. But that actually damaged the fun - one ends up reloading and redoing missions one's already completed.
In any case, counterstrike was a hell of a lot more popular.
Any oil in eggs has been processed out of something that whatever laid the egg ate. It's almost certainly better to make biodiesel the direct way (and there are still plenty of problems with that)
RDP is cumbersome if you're using more than one remote machine at a time. Heck, it's cumbersome if you're using a remote machine and your local machine at the same time. That might not be your use case, but I assure you it's very much real-world.
Slashdot Mirror
Who was benefitting from the fact that the arbitrage opportunity was not exploited? In each case it was the buyer or seller.
Huh? No, if it wasn't exploited then resources would be allocated inefficiently, which benefits no-one. Suppose wheat is selling for 24p in New York and 27p in Tokyo, and then a HFT guy comes along and offers to buy for 25p in New York and sell for 26p in Tokyo. Then the seller in NY gets a better price, the buyer in Tokyo gets a better price, and the HFT guy earns his profit. Sure he's taking profits away from the guys who would've bought in New York for less or sold in Tokyo for more, but he's done so by outcompeting them, which is in the public interest.
I don't know any predatory lenders, personally or even know where to look.
Try the poor part of town. Seriously.
With a name like yours, surely that's just more reason to reply.
It's entirely plausible that even a Dyson sphere capable civilization won't be able to communicate faster than the speed of light, at which point being on even the nearest star is a whole lot of isolation.
A sample return mission would require landing a much larger craft than this proposed rover. (Heck, I doubt you could land enough fuel in a 900kg payload to even reach martian orbit, and it's a whole lot further from there to earth, and I'm not sure the technology for docking two unmanned craft in martian orbit even exists). So if that's what you're aiming for, view this as an incremental step towards a sample return mission - it makes a lot of sense to increase the mass a bit at a time rather than trying to scale it up 100x in one go, and we can get some good science done in the meantime.
It might be more efficient, but people aren't exactly going to line up to move out to the boonies. If you've got the engineering capacity, a Dyson Sphere lets you support a much denser population than spreading across multiple systems, and you can work your way up by starting with an orbital. Also, surely with sufficient engineering you can make your sphere arbitrarily thin (the only requirement I can see is capturing solar output and withstanding solar wind pressure, and you could put holes in if the latter was a real problem), and thus there's no lower limit on the amount of matter needed.
You know, if the incentive for copyrights and patents are to encourage creativity, then it certainly wouldn't hurt anything if the creators were not allowed to sell their intellectual property.
Yes it would. Many creators can't or don't want to handle the business side of monetizing their creations; if they can't sell it then any financial incentive goes away. Even for those who could, it's a waste of their time and creativity to have them running a business (which is a completely different set of skills) rather than... creating.
Not that there aren't problems with the current IP regime, but think a little before making these suggestions.
OK, but even that makes little sense - why not a flatter collector at the L1 (or L4/5 if you can handle the transmission distances). The concept that this thing is artificial is fascinating, but I don't think solar energy collection provides a good enough reason for it.
Of course it's a small, arbitrary comparison, but it's a fair one, with the same rules for both sides - we're talking about the natural, obvious, standard way of writing the same operation in each language. If you want to make it a C victory on the same terms I'd be interested to see whether ICC's whole-program optimization is able to push the constant string down through the standard library.
Jupiter gives off more energy than it receives. I think that Neptune might, too.
Technically I suspect Earth does - it contains trace radioactive elements that decay and give off heat. But we're talking a small enough amount that it would almost certainly be less engineering effort to build a fusion reactor of equivalent power. It's possible there are other reasons to want to build such a thing, but as an energy supply the Dyson sphere makes sense (if you assume a desire for such stupendous amounts of energy) in a way that this really doesn't.
First, we all breath out CO2.
And there's always a bit of arsenic in your food; that doesn't mean you shouldn't care how much there is.
Humanity pumps out large quantities of much more potent greenhouse gasses such as methane, N2O, SF6. I don't know if the amount of these we put out is more or less in terms of greenhouse capacity compared to CO2
Then you're not paying attention. The focus is on CO2 because, guess what, CO2 is presently the biggest problem.
Is anyone really going to argue that a modern hard drive is worse for the environment than one that holds 0.0000000001% of current capacity and takes up 1000x the space (other than the aforementioned Al)?
Quite possibly, because what matters is not what its capacity is, but how it's used. Are you really going to argue that if you were reduced to the old hard drives you'd buy and run 1000000000 of them to match your current capacity?
Also, this "we're killing the planet" line is a bunch of garbage. The planet took a massive meteor strike that wiped out most life on the surface of Earth 65 million years ago and it's still chugging along. No matter how you spin it the worst case scenario is: we kill ourselves off and the planet takes a few million years to return to baseline and evolution continues in ways we can't even begin to imagine
We've used up energy stores that took billions of years to create, and mined out all the easily-accessible metal deposits, and by the time tectonics has shifted things around enough to expose new ones we're looking at close to the Sun's expansion and destruction of Earth. Any future species would have a much harder time advancing technologically than we did.
And while you're right technically, in that wiping out 80% of species isn't "killing the planet", it's still quite a big deal.
As to "heavier instruments", It's worth noting that 8 or so MERs carry almost as much.
Huh? So what, you'd send one MER with a reflector and two more with big and small lenses, and together they'd form a big microscope? That's not how it works. You could try and build a bunch of specialized MER-sized vehicles with a different instrument each and have them cooperate, but getting them to align their instruments on the same target would be an absolute nightmare, and seeing the same part of the same rock in different spectra and with different tools is vastly more useful than getting one instrument's reading on each of several different rocks.
What if a species not quite that advanced built such a shell around their own world?
Sure it's possible, but why the hell would they ever do that? Planets don't give off energy that you want to harvest.
Huh? How else would you do the given task in C? And glibc is the standard C library on most current linucies. It's absolutely a relevant comparison.
If we're talking about suspend-to-ram (as the grandparent did) that means it's drawing what, 5W total? So over the 15 hours between leaving my desk and arriving at it the next day that's a total of 0.075kWh, or less than a penny's worth of electricity. A minute of my time when I come in to boot it up is worth more than that.
What about Android? They use Java
The language in which probably the most popular open-source IDE is written.
Do you count laptops as PCs? Because they can be a pain to program on, what with the tiny screen size and the need to turn off the touchpad that takes up so much room
So plug in a screen, like you would with a desktop. Difference is you can also take it on the train and carry on using it. And complaining about wasted space while advocating desktop PCs is the height of irony.
At my last job I was handed a laptop and a docking station for my desk. It had more than enough power for programming work. So I wouldn't be so confident that businesses will keep the desktops.
If we make screens thin enough, which seems to be just a matter of time, there's no reason you couldn't have two (or more) panels slide out of your transformer.
3.xx Ghz quad core right now, 8GB+ of much faster ram, faster HDD access speeds, Ethernet ports, ridiculously faster GPU, higher than HDMI resolution, a dozen kinds of ports and outputs (HDMI, DVI, 10+ USB, 1394, SPDIF, etc.)
Those numbers might give you a bigger e-penis, but do they let you do anything useful? I can't think of a single thing that my desktop can handle that my laptop can't (I can program on it, encode videos, and play pretty modern games), and while tablets may not be quite there yet it can't be long now.
I found my 7" netbook better than a tablet for that, precisely because it is a PC - it can run regular PC programs (including my substantial collection of '90s PC games), and has a usable keyboard.
when you see Tom Cruise jumping out of helicopters or Bruce Willis driving a car up a ramp into a helicopter all while the surroundings and story are meant to be more or less realistic, you don't go complaining how unrealistic the movie is.
Um, it seems to me most serious movie critics do exactly that.
In any case, counterstrike was a hell of a lot more popular.
If using your real name stops you saying fuck, I think it's working.
Any oil in eggs has been processed out of something that whatever laid the egg ate. It's almost certainly better to make biodiesel the direct way (and there are still plenty of problems with that)
RDP is cumbersome if you're using more than one remote machine at a time. Heck, it's cumbersome if you're using a remote machine and your local machine at the same time. That might not be your use case, but I assure you it's very much real-world.