First, thank you so much for this. Someone else has already talked about Most Informative Post to slashdot this year. I agree.
Second, your point on peer review and secrecy is well taken. In the case of Polywell, the only reason it's known about outside the US Navy is the invasion of Iraq and now that they have enough money to pour into it once again, it's going dark again. Whenever I hear complaints against Polywell about peer review, I feel a bit like Bussard and his team are being painted with the Cold Fusion brush which isn't fair. It'd be nice if someone could take the data that's already out in the public and find enough funding, at least to try to duplicate their results. Or is the data that's out there even enough for that?
Whatever other things get blamed, I still say it's secrecy that hampers scientific advance more than anything else.
This doesn't get a lot of public exposure. I had never seen this diagram or anything like it.
But some of the rhetoric sounds a bit weird: "We predicted this result (experimental) in the 70s and achieved it in the 90s." Now that's a long development cycle. In the meantime, I got impatient. Can anyone blame me?
And I still have a problem with doing D-T fusion that sends so many wild and crazy neutrons out into the world where they'll make things outside the reaction chamber radioactive (or brittle) (or both). Don't the inherent risks in that reaction make it incumbent on us to find other source reactions that don't have those problems?
But thanks for the link. That was interesting...ank
"Disappointing" then, is outsider-speak for, "I thought this was going to lead to widely distributed production-level reactors that would lead away from dependency on other more destructive, consumptive and dangerous forms of energy generation..."
Or to put it another way, "Fusion tomorrow, warp engines the next day, replicators the day after that, right?" Only it's not working out that way. It sucks to be the public watching. It probably sucks even more to be the scientist who's working on it -- at least until he sheds some of the idealism of youth.
"the science is good" reminds me of something Dr. Bussard said in the "Should Google Go Nuclear?" video.
But if the goal is power that really does become cheap and clean, I'll still insist that there's something right (at least the tiniest bit) about being disappointed with ITER so far.
How is ITER disappointing: how many decades of research have they performed without inching perceptibly closer to positive power output, and with each iteration (pun noted) you yet another large expensive facility full of potentially dangerous (flying neutrons engendered more radioisotopes), useless (structures become unsound when enough of the atoms in their engineered parts change and the alloys no longer have their specified characteristics) remains.
Cannibalising as a mistake: I'm with you here and the amount spent on ringtones, petfood or any of the other frivolous stuff we humans can't quite do without would seem to be better sources for this money. Still, I hardly think shaving off one to five percent of the money from ITER will hurt it very much -- heck, with the amounts we're talking about, shaving ITER by one to five thousandths wouldn't hurt ITER at all but could provide oceans of seed cash for other alternatives.
Middle East wars etc.: totally with you on that one. Wasn't it the cut in Navy funding with Gulf War 2 that drove Bussard, for instance, to seek other funding in the "Should Google Go Nuclear" video?
ITER/Tokamak has been around for a long time with, to say the least, disappointing results in the long haul.
At some point, practical planning would say that a portion of the money -- even a very small portion -- being spent on ITER projects should be redirected to make sure that the pre-occupation with ITER isn't starving other options that may turn out to be better ideas. It's often been the outliers that succeed even in technology areas where lots of attention and money have been spent on some "standard" solution.
I'm not against pure science but in this situation I'm likely to appear so to some: it's annoying to me that ITER, the long term "solution of the future and always will be" is getting so much money that other options are being starved out. Am I completely out to lunch for some reason?
If there's so much emphasis on ITER (and there is) that few people think it's worth the risk to admit they know enough about Polywell to review Polywell papers as peers, then there will not exist peer-reviewed papers on Polywell.
I can't answer for others who advocate for Polywell -- indeed, with my limited background in nuclear physics, I probably qualify as an "internet crank" but the trails of information that are out there seem pretty high density that at the very least, someone who knows should be given a grant to examine things and make sure that the good stuff gets attention.
From where I'm at, calling the folks who advocate for polywell "cranks" is almost as good as calling Dr. Bussard a "crank" since he holds forth in a hard to understand voice (like a crank) for 90 minutes in the Should Google Go Nuclear video -- in which he was definitely "advocating" for his project.
At the very least, every government that is supplying any money to ITER should peel back 5 or 10% (I'd like to see more than that, but even such a pittance would be a princely sum -- even that much of a rollback will lead to a rice-bowl fight, I'm afraid) to establish some kind of research board to examine the other alternatives: NIF, Polywell, Thorium (in many forms), Burnaby BC's "General Fusion", whatever, and lets not just aim for the commercialization of one alternative. Let's go for several and eliminate as they prove unworkable, or long term intractable. ITER has had more than enough time to breakthrough and it hasn't. So let's not stop working on it, but let's put a few more eggs in our baskets.
And unless Pons and Fleischmann are showing up again, let's hold off from calling people cranks when what you ask for isn't available and not necessarily through the fault of the technology being suggested.
And the neighbour who asked for peer-reviewed evidence that Polywell doesn't work is on the right track there.
"... While these things have temporary effects on the movements of money, in the long run we benefit from having other people making discoveries alongside us, rather than continuing to scrabble in rice paddies."
I think you're somewhat right but I get the feeling that this model is wrong when one side is nobbling currency rates and locally incentivising the newly arrived industries to the point where, for instance, nearly all Vitamin C worldwide is produced in the country that gave us melanine-laced milk and automotive-exhaust-dried tea. Is that smart for any of us? The only safeguard is that QA for export-bound products are stricter because other countries' regulators are more transparent, therefore more accountable and reliable. But market forces only work well when there are no well-established bullies (especially not 147 colluding ones) or even determined alternative rule-set writers.
And lest anyone think I'm fear-mongering, what about solar panels? The markets are only fair when the rules are all becoming more stringent on all players regardless of source and buyer and where the measures used for exchange are equitable. My hope is that greater public wealth will lead to greater openness and accountability, but it hasn't always panned out very well.
Still, I also look forward to the day when some kind of abundance is available to everyone, when we all get much better at use and re-use as opposed to use and using up. Science and technology can get us there if the greed of the few doesn't prevent it. I think our vision as a race tends not to be big enough (worrying about our own rice bowls, all too often, all too appropriately) and we're way too short-sighted and too prone to getting into shouting matches over individual issues in the larger overall programs available to our imagination.
You are committing a category error between Gilles Duceppe (a man bent on splitting Canada up) and Barack Obama, together with so-called "big government socialists" (who have no intention of splitting the US up).
Okay, that's not an answer so much as a dismissal. Your thinking is simple in the fashion typical of those who are only reading certain varieties of history and economics. I recommend you balance Newt and the Austrians with some Walter Russell Mead, for starters -- and then check out Hernando de Soto's "The Mystery of Capital". Our systems in all their frailness are precious and ought to be preserved, not burned down -- nor should their looting by plutocrats be suffered to continue.
I do know what malinvestments are and I have seen enough bubbles and busts to suffice for five lifetimes but Ron Paul's ideas remind me more clearly of those of William Roper's views on giving the Devil the protection of Law in the movie "A Man For All Seasons". Ordinary folk won't find shelter from the resulting storms if you allow Ron Paul's ilk too much latitude.
Support for Ron Paul by the young and sometimes geeky has intrigued me for some time. Is it a result of reading Ayn Rand? Is it because his ideas seem so much more sensible than so many others? Is it because he does not appear beholden to any lobbyists? Is it primarily because he wants to end drug Prohibition? Possibly all of the above.
But it's also confused me because a number of the things Ron Paul wants to do away with are things that help the young find their first footholds -- things like student loans (or even grants). When I read this headline, I thought for just a second that perhaps Dr. Paul wants to throw open the universities for all, call a full education a civil right that you get to take advantage of based on merit. But I dismissed that thought before I saw the rest of the post, and I was right to do so. My response: his analysis may have some truth in it but it's so simple as to be suspect, in my view. On balance, like much of what Ron Paul says, it's too simple to be right.
Whoever thinks Ron Paul is cool, whatever lobby groups he is not beholden to, make no mistake: the über-rich and powerful wish his ideas well because their adoption would entrench and deepen the growing class divisions in America and put an end to the American dream as anything but that: a wistful dream of what expectations used to be.
Something is rotten in the way the US is going these days. For instance, in my lifetime, before 2008, I had never heard a leading politician in the US say of their president from the opposing party that they wanted him to fail. Whether you agree with Mr. Obama or not, that attitude on the part of any member of your government is pernicious. I'll stop there because the list of things going wrong is so long (most of them decades in the making) as to make this too-long post ridiculously so.
But Ron Paul is not the answer to those problems: his ideas (and incidentally those of the Tea Party) are only going to help the rich get richer and inherit the meek (and the not so meek). Do yourselves a favour, folks, and elect leaders that remember what they learned in Kindergarten (without forgetting all the things they learned since) and value their neighbours over hard lines -- internal neighbours, of course! I wouldn't advocate that you would elect the people I, your Canadian neighbour, want you to elect. I'm just confident that if, overall, you voted in line with your interests (and that may take a lot of thinking to figure out who's going to serve those best) and do well, then you won't become neighbours that we have to fear from across that longest unarmed border in the world.
Whether space is or is not eventually "The Place", one of Cringely's latest columns on the "next frontier" is worth reading. He's been going on about the need for a new frontier to provide a direction in which mankind expand our expectations without entirely being guilty of exuberant over-optimism. The prequel article is also worth reading.
To quote from somewhere in the middle (and I almost feel I should shout SPOILER ALERT! first):
What should that new frontier be? It almost doesn't matter as long as it is big enough to capture the fancy of hundreds of millions of people. Your ideas are just as good or better than mine. But since I have a couple favorites I'll throw them on the table. I think our next frontier should be a combination of additive manufacturing and autonomous flight.
The rest of the article does give one something to think about, if only to wonder what he's been smoking lately.
Okay, so IEEE has the bulk of the article behind a pay wall but the abstract here makes it plain that we're talking about superconduction at 77 K, close to the boiling point of Nitrogen but as someone pointed out, Sapphire is the substrate on which another high-temperature superconductor is laid out and the resulting material only superconducts at microwave frequencies.
But any advance in this area is a good thing, if you ask me. We don't have enough copper to serve everyone's needs and its Ohm's Law losses are too much to be acceptable in the future.
The default web browser on my HTC Hero (running 2.1-update 1 -- thank you Telus for keeping me there) cannot handle the new format and appears to hang. I'll have to hunt up a link that will take me back to an older version of the layout.
I have to say, that while the overall layout may appear nicer, neater, whatever, I still think the lighter-weight older versions served my needs adequately without taking advantage of all the additional bandwidth either in the pipe or in my boxen: in short, leaner and meaner is preferable. It wasn't busted as far as this simpleton was concerned.
About 30 minutes after the first artillery shells landed in Seoul, a nice mushroom cloud would appear over Pyongyang.
This only avoids the larger conflagration if the nukes fly in from China after a clear note to the permanent members of the security council, Japan, Korea, followed by a press conference at the UN.
I'm having an "Obi-Wan senses the destruction of Alderaan" moment just contemplating the possibility.
Moreover, I suspect a goodly chunk of the Canadian voting public (mostly West of Ontario) don't think what he says is really that outrageous.
I'm an exception then. I'm from west of Banff actually and I think what he said was outrageous. Perhaps it's time to start manufacturing Julian Assange masks, kind of like the "Anonymous" masks at certain kinds of protests -- which incidentally also relate closely to part of Mr. Assange's past at suburbia in Australia -- and "My name is Julian" T-shirts.
And I'm not particularly proud to be a canuck these days on every front, either. Hey, at least we're surviving the current Great Recession in somewhat better health than so many other places.
And please don't forget to leave flowers on Algernon's grave.
But I prefer to encourage others to give karma-points to identifiable individuals, so I recommend this article instead. And I would propose a kindly glass for Charlie, too.
The very first, rather arcane search and I find something that I had thought must have fallen off the web because I couldn't get there the last time I googled it.
... we are a market. I am using, right now, a 20" CRT running at 2048x1536. It draws 1.5A, less than the 2A drawn by the 17" CRTs downstairs, like the other 20" whose picture is deteriorating so that I can see the writing on the wall. I will have to replace these units. I am dreading this day for exactly the reason pointed out by TFA.
I desperately hope that someone at the LCD-display manufacturers will see the light before these two monitors (acquired for US$50 each, used) both need to be replaced. I am a software developer. I want to see the code, as much of it as possible. I want to see it all at once, now. And I want to be able to do this without getting neck strain from swinging my head from side-to-side on a 16:9 screen. This is a market: it's not as wildly profitable, perhaps as the widest possible consumer market, but there is demand for this kind of product as replies to TFA and some comments in this page make clear. Is anyone listening?
4:3 screens of higher resolution may, actually, all be going to other markets. On a recent knowledge-transfer trip to Israel, I saw a lot of quite high resolution 4:3 LCD screens on my colleagues desks. Is that all it is? Does someone know?
I presume we all knew this -- or mostly didn't care about it -- or whatever -- but I thought it worth re-iterating, just in case anyone who didn't know and did care about it was under any confusion on the idea.
... but I say to you, love your enemy, do good to the one who hates you, bless the one who uses you spitefully... I don't see no beatings there not, without re-writing the dictionary or some such jiggery-pokery (Hit me! Hit me!... ah... that feels much better).
Now, I know people change their names out of admiration for or loyalty to someone in Liberia -- Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's grandfather did that to her father -- so there's no guarantee that he's any relation of the president of Liberia but I wonder.
I looked around for the names of her four sons -- but couldn't find them. Even wikianswers had a post asking for their names, an as yet unanswered question. There's a certain amount of press-coverage density that's required before real transparency thrives. Liberia isn't there yet. Here's hoping it gets there before another tyrant starts wreaking havoc there.
"the word, "Mercy", is gonna have a new meaning when we are judged by the children of our slaves"...ank
I have a LJ 1020 attached to a gentoo box. Every time it powers up the gentoo box sends some data down to it, which I believe is it's insufficiently-firm-ware.
This link describes more or less what I did, too. The result is a printer that looks like a postscript printer on my internal net.
The 1020, though, doesn't have its own network connection and I would agree with AaronW's post that he probably wants a printer that will just live on the network on its own.
If they make this levy reasonable and if it's enough to keep DMCA-like legislation out of Canada, this is a better solution by far.
Once again, it appears that a DMCA-like bill is likely to die on the order paper going into an election. Once again, it is not going to be an issue in the actual election (although it should be). If the result is this kind of a levy and the RIAA and MPAA are shut out from writing Canadian copyright law, I call this a partial but important victory for Canadians.
Sometimes even toads can sing. (toads == politicians; song == good legislation, croak == bad legislation)
Slashdot Mirror
First, thank you so much for this. Someone else has already talked about Most Informative Post to slashdot this year. I agree.
Second, your point on peer review and secrecy is well taken. In the case of Polywell, the only reason it's known about outside the US Navy is the invasion of Iraq and now that they have enough money to pour into it once again, it's going dark again. Whenever I hear complaints against Polywell about peer review, I feel a bit like Bussard and his team are being painted with the Cold Fusion brush which isn't fair. It'd be nice if someone could take the data that's already out in the public and find enough funding, at least to try to duplicate their results. Or is the data that's out there even enough for that?
Whatever other things get blamed, I still say it's secrecy that hampers scientific advance more than anything else.
This doesn't get a lot of public exposure. I had never seen this diagram or anything like it.
But some of the rhetoric sounds a bit weird: "We predicted this result (experimental) in the 70s and achieved it in the 90s." Now that's a long development cycle. In the meantime, I got impatient. Can anyone blame me?
And I still have a problem with doing D-T fusion that sends so many wild and crazy neutrons out into the world where they'll make things outside the reaction chamber radioactive (or brittle) (or both). Don't the inherent risks in that reaction make it incumbent on us to find other source reactions that don't have those problems?
But thanks for the link. That was interesting...ank
thanks for keeping this up, jo_ham...
"Disappointing" then, is outsider-speak for, "I thought this was going to lead to widely distributed production-level reactors that would lead away from dependency on other more destructive, consumptive and dangerous forms of energy generation..."
Or to put it another way, "Fusion tomorrow, warp engines the next day, replicators the day after that, right?" Only it's not working out that way. It sucks to be the public watching. It probably sucks even more to be the scientist who's working on it -- at least until he sheds some of the idealism of youth.
"the science is good" reminds me of something Dr. Bussard said in the "Should Google Go Nuclear?" video.
But if the goal is power that really does become cheap and clean, I'll still insist that there's something right (at least the tiniest bit) about being disappointed with ITER so far.
How is ITER disappointing: how many decades of research have they performed without inching perceptibly closer to positive power output, and with each iteration (pun noted) you yet another large expensive facility full of potentially dangerous (flying neutrons engendered more radioisotopes), useless (structures become unsound when enough of the atoms in their engineered parts change and the alloys no longer have their specified characteristics) remains.
Cannibalising as a mistake: I'm with you here and the amount spent on ringtones, petfood or any of the other frivolous stuff we humans can't quite do without would seem to be better sources for this money. Still, I hardly think shaving off one to five percent of the money from ITER will hurt it very much -- heck, with the amounts we're talking about, shaving ITER by one to five thousandths wouldn't hurt ITER at all but could provide oceans of seed cash for other alternatives.
Middle East wars etc.: totally with you on that one. Wasn't it the cut in Navy funding with Gulf War 2 that drove Bussard, for instance, to seek other funding in the "Should Google Go Nuclear" video?
cheers...ank
ITER/Tokamak has been around for a long time with, to say the least, disappointing results in the long haul.
At some point, practical planning would say that a portion of the money -- even a very small portion -- being spent on ITER projects should be redirected to make sure that the pre-occupation with ITER isn't starving other options that may turn out to be better ideas. It's often been the outliers that succeed even in technology areas where lots of attention and money have been spent on some "standard" solution.
I'm not against pure science but in this situation I'm likely to appear so to some: it's annoying to me that ITER, the long term "solution of the future and always will be" is getting so much money that other options are being starved out. Am I completely out to lunch for some reason?
I can't answer for others who advocate for Polywell -- indeed, with my limited background in nuclear physics, I probably qualify as an "internet crank" but the trails of information that are out there seem pretty high density that at the very least, someone who knows should be given a grant to examine things and make sure that the good stuff gets attention.
From where I'm at, calling the folks who advocate for polywell "cranks" is almost as good as calling Dr. Bussard a "crank" since he holds forth in a hard to understand voice (like a crank) for 90 minutes in the Should Google Go Nuclear video -- in which he was definitely "advocating" for his project.
At the very least, every government that is supplying any money to ITER should peel back 5 or 10% (I'd like to see more than that, but even such a pittance would be a princely sum -- even that much of a rollback will lead to a rice-bowl fight, I'm afraid) to establish some kind of research board to examine the other alternatives: NIF, Polywell, Thorium (in many forms), Burnaby BC's "General Fusion", whatever, and lets not just aim for the commercialization of one alternative. Let's go for several and eliminate as they prove unworkable, or long term intractable. ITER has had more than enough time to breakthrough and it hasn't. So let's not stop working on it, but let's put a few more eggs in our baskets.
And unless Pons and Fleischmann are showing up again, let's hold off from calling people cranks when what you ask for isn't available and not necessarily through the fault of the technology being suggested.
And the neighbour who asked for peer-reviewed evidence that Polywell doesn't work is on the right track there.
I think you're somewhat right but I get the feeling that this model is wrong when one side is nobbling currency rates and locally incentivising the newly arrived industries to the point where, for instance, nearly all Vitamin C worldwide is produced in the country that gave us melanine-laced milk and automotive-exhaust-dried tea. Is that smart for any of us? The only safeguard is that QA for export-bound products are stricter because other countries' regulators are more transparent, therefore more accountable and reliable. But market forces only work well when there are no well-established bullies (especially not 147 colluding ones) or even determined alternative rule-set writers.
And lest anyone think I'm fear-mongering, what about solar panels? The markets are only fair when the rules are all becoming more stringent on all players regardless of source and buyer and where the measures used for exchange are equitable. My hope is that greater public wealth will lead to greater openness and accountability, but it hasn't always panned out very well.
Still, I also look forward to the day when some kind of abundance is available to everyone, when we all get much better at use and re-use as opposed to use and using up. Science and technology can get us there if the greed of the few doesn't prevent it. I think our vision as a race tends not to be big enough (worrying about our own rice bowls, all too often, all too appropriately) and we're way too short-sighted and too prone to getting into shouting matches over individual issues in the larger overall programs available to our imagination.
cheers...ank
Should I answer a non-cow? okay. one point.
You are committing a category error between Gilles Duceppe (a man bent on splitting Canada up) and Barack Obama, together with so-called "big government socialists" (who have no intention of splitting the US up).
Okay, that's not an answer so much as a dismissal. Your thinking is simple in the fashion typical of those who are only reading certain varieties of history and economics. I recommend you balance Newt and the Austrians with some Walter Russell Mead, for starters -- and then check out Hernando de Soto's "The Mystery of Capital". Our systems in all their frailness are precious and ought to be preserved, not burned down -- nor should their looting by plutocrats be suffered to continue.
I do know what malinvestments are and I have seen enough bubbles and busts to suffice for five lifetimes but Ron Paul's ideas remind me more clearly of those of William Roper's views on giving the Devil the protection of Law in the movie "A Man For All Seasons". Ordinary folk won't find shelter from the resulting storms if you allow Ron Paul's ilk too much latitude.
cheers...ank
Support for Ron Paul by the young and sometimes geeky has intrigued me for some time. Is it a result of reading Ayn Rand? Is it because his ideas seem so much more sensible than so many others? Is it because he does not appear beholden to any lobbyists? Is it primarily because he wants to end drug Prohibition? Possibly all of the above.
But it's also confused me because a number of the things Ron Paul wants to do away with are things that help the young find their first footholds -- things like student loans (or even grants). When I read this headline, I thought for just a second that perhaps Dr. Paul wants to throw open the universities for all, call a full education a civil right that you get to take advantage of based on merit. But I dismissed that thought before I saw the rest of the post, and I was right to do so. My response: his analysis may have some truth in it but it's so simple as to be suspect, in my view. On balance, like much of what Ron Paul says, it's too simple to be right.
Whoever thinks Ron Paul is cool, whatever lobby groups he is not beholden to, make no mistake: the über-rich and powerful wish his ideas well because their adoption would entrench and deepen the growing class divisions in America and put an end to the American dream as anything but that: a wistful dream of what expectations used to be.
Something is rotten in the way the US is going these days. For instance, in my lifetime, before 2008, I had never heard a leading politician in the US say of their president from the opposing party that they wanted him to fail. Whether you agree with Mr. Obama or not, that attitude on the part of any member of your government is pernicious. I'll stop there because the list of things going wrong is so long (most of them decades in the making) as to make this too-long post ridiculously so.
But Ron Paul is not the answer to those problems: his ideas (and incidentally those of the Tea Party) are only going to help the rich get richer and inherit the meek (and the not so meek). Do yourselves a favour, folks, and elect leaders that remember what they learned in Kindergarten (without forgetting all the things they learned since) and value their neighbours over hard lines -- internal neighbours, of course! I wouldn't advocate that you would elect the people I, your Canadian neighbour, want you to elect. I'm just confident that if, overall, you voted in line with your interests (and that may take a lot of thinking to figure out who's going to serve those best) and do well, then you won't become neighbours that we have to fear from across that longest unarmed border in the world.
be good to each other, folks...ank
To quote from somewhere in the middle (and I almost feel I should shout SPOILER ALERT! first):
The rest of the article does give one something to think about, if only to wonder what he's been smoking lately.
cheers...ank
But any advance in this area is a good thing, if you ask me. We don't have enough copper to serve everyone's needs and its Ohm's Law losses are too much to be acceptable in the future.
cheers...ank
I have to say, that while the overall layout may appear nicer, neater, whatever, I still think the lighter-weight older versions served my needs adequately without taking advantage of all the additional bandwidth either in the pipe or in my boxen: in short, leaner and meaner is preferable. It wasn't busted as far as this simpleton was concerned.
cheers...ank
About 30 minutes after the first artillery shells landed in Seoul, a nice mushroom cloud would appear over Pyongyang.
This only avoids the larger conflagration if the nukes fly in from China after a clear note to the permanent members of the security council, Japan, Korea, followed by a press conference at the UN.
I'm having an "Obi-Wan senses the destruction of Alderaan" moment just contemplating the possibility.
cheers...ank
Moreover, I suspect a goodly chunk of the Canadian voting public (mostly West of Ontario) don't think what he says is really that outrageous.
I'm an exception then. I'm from west of Banff actually and I think what he said was outrageous. Perhaps it's time to start manufacturing Julian Assange masks, kind of like the "Anonymous" masks at certain kinds of protests -- which incidentally also relate closely to part of Mr. Assange's past at suburbia in Australia -- and "My name is Julian" T-shirts.
And I'm not particularly proud to be a canuck these days on every front, either. Hey, at least we're surviving the current Great Recession in somewhat better health than so many other places.
cheers...ank
But I prefer to encourage others to give karma-points to identifiable individuals, so I recommend this article instead. And I would propose a kindly glass for Charlie, too.
cheers...ank
Go Blekko! ...ank
I desperately hope that someone at the LCD-display manufacturers will see the light before these two monitors (acquired for US$50 each, used) both need to be replaced. I am a software developer. I want to see the code, as much of it as possible. I want to see it all at once, now. And I want to be able to do this without getting neck strain from swinging my head from side-to-side on a 16:9 screen. This is a market: it's not as wildly profitable, perhaps as the widest possible consumer market, but there is demand for this kind of product as replies to TFA and some comments in this page make clear. Is anyone listening?
4:3 screens of higher resolution may, actually, all be going to other markets. On a recent knowledge-transfer trip to Israel, I saw a lot of quite high resolution 4:3 LCD screens on my colleagues desks. Is that all it is? Does someone know?
cheers...ank
... but I say to you, love your enemy, do good to the one who hates you, bless the one who uses you spitefully... I don't see no beatings there not, without re-writing the dictionary or some such jiggery-pokery (Hit me! Hit me! ... ah... that feels much better).
cheers...ank
I already see it as a 5. Oh well... "I get thousands of Chinese hackers attempting to break into the battery monitor..." I'm still laughing.
Use Internet Exploder for web browsing, Use Outlook or Outlook Distress for reading e-mail. nuff said...ank
The link in the article points to a framed view of the PDF. The PDF itself is here. Let's post bare links please? ...ank
I looked around for the names of her four sons -- but couldn't find them. Even wikianswers had a post asking for their names, an as yet unanswered question. There's a certain amount of press-coverage density that's required before real transparency thrives. Liberia isn't there yet. Here's hoping it gets there before another tyrant starts wreaking havoc there.
"the word, "Mercy", is gonna have a new meaning when we are judged by the children of our slaves" ...ank
This link describes more or less what I did, too. The result is a printer that looks like a postscript printer on my internal net.
The 1020, though, doesn't have its own network connection and I would agree with AaronW's post that he probably wants a printer that will just live on the network on its own.
cheers...ank
If they make this levy reasonable and if it's enough to keep DMCA-like legislation out of Canada, this is a better solution by far.
Once again, it appears that a DMCA-like bill is likely to die on the order paper going into an election. Once again, it is not going to be an issue in the actual election (although it should be). If the result is this kind of a levy and the RIAA and MPAA are shut out from writing Canadian copyright law, I call this a partial but important victory for Canadians.
Sometimes even toads can sing. (toads == politicians; song == good legislation, croak == bad legislation)
Write your MP, phone him (long distance rates are TOO cheap).
Or her. My MP is male so in my zeal to post I slipped past this point of gender equality.