Except that the oil market is a global market. So there is no such thing when you get down to it as "Domestic Oil".
We can't add much to the oil supply. Saying that the promise of future domestic oil would lead to prices dropping is like saying that a fly at 1,000 feet will affect the brightness of the sun. In order for oil prices to be affected the entire world's oil supply has to change. The US simply doesn't have enough oil to affect the world oil supply at that sort of scale. If we increase oil supply by 50% we would only swing the global scales about 5-10%. That means we would only see a 5-10% drop in price.
The problem with gasoline as far as price goes is that it's more than 200% or more above where it was not too long ago. We can't increase the supply 200%. And even if we did increase the world output by 5% there is nothing stopping OPEC from just cutting their output to keep prices high. If we want to exhaust our reserves quicker to drop prices they'll just drop their output to rebalance the cost.
We have to face the fact. We can't control the prices of oil without imposing protectionist, nationalized oil trading and severe regulation... which would harm us far more than buying oil from countries who would be stupid in the head to stop selling us Oil.
For all of Iran's bluster-- if they stopped selling us oil they would A) Get invaded and B) Go bankrupt in probably the reverse order. What keeps these governments in power (say Saudi Arabia) and not the crazies is that the people who tolerate us are getting payed by us. If they stopped selling us Oil they would go bankrupt and the crazies would have their heads on sticks by sun down.
Money buys influence. Money buys friendship. Even venezuela for all its bluster isn't so stupid that it would stop selling oil and bankrupt the government in order to give us the finger.
Does he deserve to have the book thrown at him? Absolutely. Does he deserve to go to jail for releasing login information for students to those who had no business having it? Absolutely. Does he deserve everything he's getting? Yes.
Would it do any good? No. It would do harm to society. So in this case I would say he should have the shit scared out of him and then offered a hand of mercy and education.
It's obvious this kid isn't malicious he's just a complete dumb fuck who needs an education on how to conduct himself.
And people wonder why piracy is rampant? It is because the pirates are the only ones not having to jump through hoops just to watch or listen to the cartels precious IP.
And here all these years I thought it was because you could get music for free! I forgot how it's sooo hard to rip a CD to MP3 and legally play it on all my devices.
Which is why I advocate the current law that a warrant is required (as mentioned in my GP post). However many people are taking it a step further and talking about the 'liability' and invasion of privacy of that information existing. That the government will be routinely using this information to track everybody. When in reality we're already miles past the point where we can easily hide from the government. Want to use a credit card? Visa know where I am every day. My cell phone logs, IP addresses, eyewitness accounts of friends and family, timecard entries etc etc.. already track my every movement. I might as well get the benefit from these technologies since my location is not sacrosanct information now a days. And personally my locational information (and the vast quantity thereof) is more likely to clear me in a case than convict me so I view it as a giant insurance policy. If you want to put me somewhere I'm not supposed to be then you have to forge dozens of pieces of data. Makes a few corrupt cops' job significantly more difficult. "We have your DNA on this knife." "But I have cell phone logs, a Visa transcation, 3 slashdot posts from home and an automatic toll pass an 18 security cameras which say otherwise."
It's the people who tag news stories "Big Brother" everytime the government installs a security camera that I define as "overly concerned".
Yes but what makes you think the government will respect those privacy "laws"?
The problem is being wrongfully arrested not the government knowing where you were. Our energy and time and money should be put towards protecting people from the government not legislating escape hatches to protect us FROM a tryannical government.
I see gun control laws the same way. I don't see a reason to ban an assault rifle vs a hunting rifle but I also don't see the "to save us from a dictatorship" as a legitimate reason either. Most dictators are wildly popular... until it's too late. Even Bush with his impressive resume of civil rights and constitutional 'infractions' is still suprisingly popular. If you're planning on overthrowing the government do you really need a license for that firearm? In order to overthrow an illegal government you're going to have to commit 'murder' of the defenders of the government. You're going to have to become a terrorist in all likelihood. Concealed handgun licenses will be the least of the charges brought against you.
Similarly. I would say a police state that watches your every movement is a symptom of a much larger problem and not a problem in of itself. If you fear your government it's too late.
The wonderful thing about a murder investigation is that they actually do an investigation. So as yoda would say "Being there, guilty makes you not."
This is the mistake I see being made by 90% of overly cautious privacy advocates. If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws.
If the government is going to frame you... why go through the hastle of actually using real footage. If the government's case against you is "his phone was at the scene of the crime when it was committed" and they win then you've got far bigger problems in your legal system then needing a warrant.
I completely agree with the legal decision that digital information should be only accessible through a warrant. Just like I think that surveilance footage should only be accessible through a warrant. If 'the law' can riffle through my stuff in my apartment with a warrant then I see no problem with them rifling through my digital stuff with a warrant.
Except that the part crashing is almost certainly the iPod USB driver.
Funny thing about windows you might not know. Vista and XP do not have cross compatible drivers. So as far as bugs are concerned the two platforms are completely different pieces of software.
This is why everybody's hardware didn't magically work with Vista when it was released. It wasn't that Vista was "bad" it was just that it required *new* drivers to be written which didn't exist.
The problem is limited because we're talking to two different releases. IF it was iTunes itself crashing then you could say the legacy compatibility was bad and would be Vista's fault.
I agree about graphics but not gameplay. It's just that people have stopped trying to advance the simple concepts.
On the graphics front you have a game like Team Fortress 2. Which with very little work will look great in 100 years.
On the gameplay front you have games like Braid which is essentially Mario + a horde of other 80s games + New time manipulation widget.
Even Duke Nukem for Xbox now is going to get "rewind" instead of save. Also the flash version of Portal is freakin' brilliant. As good if not better puzzling.
What makes a 3D game great is the immersion. Someone could make a top down TF2 clone very quickly. What I think should happen is a move to prototyping your game concepts in 2D and then the 3D transition should be relatively simple. If you have a 10 million dollar budget put 100,000 into prototyping a complete 2D working version to play until you've gotten the game you really want then spend the effort better directed at creating an immersive experience to make it *sizzle* and *pop*.
I convinced myself while preparing for a highschool debate on the subject. I wanted to be sure I knew both sides of the subject as thoroughly as possible and the arguments that both sides would use. It almost was a "wow, you're right!" moment. Only in this case "you're" was "I'm".
It's not a free market because I can't purchase AT&Ts text messages if I'm a TMobile customer and vice versa. If your car could only buy gas from one company then you would see extravagantly priced gasoline.
Deluded ones who believe that it's actually based on observation (science based creationists). And those who hold onto it purely because they want to and for no other reason what so ever (faith based creationists).
The second variety (of which you seem to be a member) have nothing to fear from any research ever so yes... if we accept that evolution is possible as a mechanism then this will have no effect one way or another.
If you say "God caused ambiogenesis" then you're pretty safe from scrutiny and falsifiability (I would argue that what that leaves you is no longer the judeo-christian tradition and pushes it out to a form of deism due to the philisophical consequences of evolution and 'fall of man'.) or if you push it even further out to the big bang "God caused the big bang" then you're almost completely safe (for now) from scrutiny.
However in both cases the only argument that can be made for "rock grew up from under ground millions of years ago" vs "rock fell from above millions of years ago" is purely speculative. Which means any theory may be advanced. "I'm a ExoImplosionists. I believe that the big bang was caused by an alien fart which imploded under its own stink."
The trouble with circumstances where science has no domain is that it means everybody's belief is pointless and completely random. That's the trouble with situations where you really do have to just take it on faith... nobody's faith is better than anybody else's which means YOU are without a doubt statistically wrong. And so am I. Which leaves us worse off than before we even started.
These theories are not so fragile that we have to protect them with a shield of awe. If the science is well-founded, then it should be able to clear these hurdles easily. It should be able to withstand the most withering lines of inquiry -- And it does.
You're 100% right and 100% wrong at the same time.
Yes it should be able to withstand scrutiny and it does withstand scrutiny however most people do not scrutinize. And most people even after scrutiny are incapable or unwilling to learn.
I for instance do not have a formal education in earth sciences--I defer my opinions to the majority until I find evidence to the contrast. I am incapable of forming a sound argument or opinion of my own because it would require an increase in knowledge and background which I have not acquired.
Under proper scrutiny quantum mechanics as we understand it can be determined to be likely or unlikely... but not under my scrutiny.
The important discrepancy in this whole parable is that the teacher himself evidently didn't understand the topic and was unable to provide an answer to the class. And based on circumstantial evidence of the student not understanding (and prior school experience) the teacher probably left it open as a mystery instead of HIMSELF managing to find an answer. "If the teacher can't figure it out and he's a teacher then 'other' scientists much also not really understand it."
I've had so many teachers in my life tell me something is "impossible", "a mystery" or "nobody knows" when in reality the answer was "I don't know". I once had a teacher of astronomy insist that every object in the universe is moving away from the earth. I objected and offered them an opportunity to correct a misspoken statement but the next day had to bring in a search summary from NASA which found something like 3.2 billion observed stars which had a negative velocity relative to us.
I'm curious and skeptical too. But leaving open a question and not admitting ignorance is as much a statement of authority as closing discussion without providing reason.
It's a lot like the chief investigator of a homicide going on national television and announcing: "Isn't it strange that Bob was the only person who didn't show up to work yesterday and the masked shooter had a keycard to the secured building?"
It's only the biologists if they didn't reproduce it using means that feasibly would occur under historical circumstances.
If I pick up a rock, let go and it falls then I've found substantial evidence of the feasibility of spontaneous falling when an object is unsupported.
This instance of life isn't interesting to ambiogenesis but to rule out artificial life as tangential to creationism is an innaccurate blanket statement.
Why? Is it really that big of a deal? Don't open a tab that's going to lock up your browser.
Oh that's why all those links were labeled "will crash your browser if clicked"! It makes so much more sense now. I kept expecting my browser to fail gracefully and continue operating and didn't realize I just wasn't supposed to click all those links listed as such.
In other news I would like everybody to stop running executables which crash. The OS shouldn't need to keep them isolated since you shouldn't be running applications which crash in the first place./sarcasm
You must be a gymnast because you really had to bend over backwards pretty far to justify yourself.
Re:Rootkit? WTF are you talking about?
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Also weight.
I use the 'weight saver' in my DVDRom port to cut a few ounces.
I usually run on a DMZ. No firewall local or at the router.
I even have a dynamicDNS directed to my main computer.
I scan regularly. And haven't been infected in over 8 years. (which was my fault for opening an attachment without thinking.)
My current windows install is about 2 years old with LOTS of use. The computer is 5 years old and it's time to junk it. It's also still suffering from a 4 year old Norton uninstall that seems to have never completed and is getting worse. Norton was the worst thing that ever happened to one of my computers and I still haven't completely purged it.
What junks up my Windows PCs aren't the illicit viruses that get installed without my permission. It's all the crap that comes along with little freeware worthless pieces of crap that I need to use once to convert some file or another.
Windows PCs and Macs get used very differently. Having run both of them I used them very differently myself--largely because there just isn't the world of little crappy apps available.
I'm with parent. Your comparison is apples to oranges.
One very interesting note is at the end of the article:
Timeline for Tradelect upgrades
18 June 2007: Tradelect launched, reducing the time taken to process trades from 140 milliseconds to 10 milliseconds. Capacity increased from 593 to 2,500 orders a second.
November 2007: Version 2 upgrade. Trading time reduced from 10 milliseconds to about 6 milliseconds. Capacity increased by 70% from 2,500 to 4,200 orders a second. Introduced full suite of Mifid-compliant services.
September 2008: Planned migration of Italian trades to Tradelect platform.
September 2008: Tradelect Version 2 to launch. Plans to double trading capacity to 10,000 continuous messages per second. Aims to cut average time taken to complete a trade by half from 6 milliseconds to 3 milliseconds.
Coincidence that this month was when they intended to release a new version?
No you run that sort of thing on dedicated hardware which can't be improved, modified or enhanced cheaply or easily as the market dictates. Apparently every other exchange in the world is also run by idiots--seeing as none of them use dedicated purpose-built hardware.
The LSE used to run on HP-NonStop (w/ Cobol and C as far as I can find) but still managed to take itself down for 8 hours in 2000.
If they're going to go down for a day every 7-8 years it might as well be cheaper and faster. (Articles quote the CTO as citing 10x performance increases).
(All based on a quick google search)
So before the hounds descend upon Microsoft it would seem the LSE has a history managing to bring down whatever system they run on.
So much more likely that only fringe scientists believe them?
Carbon Dioxide is the most likely culprit and that is backed up by decades of research and computer simulations.
Eitherway. Your arugment is dumb beyond explanation. If you accept there is global warming at all then you also have to accept that warming is the result of increased energy in our climate system.
The 1500 ship solution does one thing and one thing only. It reduces the input energy from the sun by reflecting it back into outer space.
IF it works as advertised then it would in fact counter every single possible imagineable form of warming by reducing the intensity of the sun.
Which means if it's caused by farts, carbon dioxide, the earth's core warming, an increase in talk show blowhards or even a decrease in pirates the outcome would still be cooling.
Unless you're suggesting that other theories are a lot more likely such "God is willing it."
I'm more infuriated by how slow slashdot has become.
Slashdot now uses 80% of my CPU with a single page open and 400MB of ram.
For being a site which often idolizes small and efficient the new slashdot is the slowest most resource intensive webpage I've ever visited in my life. It's out resourcing Hulu! And it's just a forum!
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the oil market is a global market. So there is no such thing when you get down to it as "Domestic Oil".
We can't add much to the oil supply. Saying that the promise of future domestic oil would lead to prices dropping is like saying that a fly at 1,000 feet will affect the brightness of the sun. In order for oil prices to be affected the entire world's oil supply has to change. The US simply doesn't have enough oil to affect the world oil supply at that sort of scale. If we increase oil supply by 50% we would only swing the global scales about 5-10%. That means we would only see a 5-10% drop in price.
The problem with gasoline as far as price goes is that it's more than 200% or more above where it was not too long ago. We can't increase the supply 200%. And even if we did increase the world output by 5% there is nothing stopping OPEC from just cutting their output to keep prices high. If we want to exhaust our reserves quicker to drop prices they'll just drop their output to rebalance the cost.
We have to face the fact. We can't control the prices of oil without imposing protectionist, nationalized oil trading and severe regulation... which would harm us far more than buying oil from countries who would be stupid in the head to stop selling us Oil.
For all of Iran's bluster-- if they stopped selling us oil they would A) Get invaded and B) Go bankrupt in probably the reverse order. What keeps these governments in power (say Saudi Arabia) and not the crazies is that the people who tolerate us are getting payed by us. If they stopped selling us Oil they would go bankrupt and the crazies would have their heads on sticks by sun down.
Money buys influence. Money buys friendship. Even venezuela for all its bluster isn't so stupid that it would stop selling oil and bankrupt the government in order to give us the finger.
What's[...] been cut from the game this time?
Load-times. *Bada Bing crash*
Does he deserve to have the book thrown at him? Absolutely.
Does he deserve to go to jail for releasing login information for students to those who had no business having it? Absolutely.
Does he deserve everything he's getting? Yes.
Would it do any good? No. It would do harm to society. So in this case I would say he should have the shit scared out of him and then offered a hand of mercy and education.
It's obvious this kid isn't malicious he's just a complete dumb fuck who needs an education on how to conduct himself.
And people wonder why piracy is rampant? It is because the pirates are the only ones not having to jump through hoops just to watch or listen to the cartels precious IP.
And here all these years I thought it was because you could get music for free! I forgot how it's sooo hard to rip a CD to MP3 and legally play it on all my devices.
Which is why I advocate the current law that a warrant is required (as mentioned in my GP post). However many people are taking it a step further and talking about the 'liability' and invasion of privacy of that information existing. That the government will be routinely using this information to track everybody. When in reality we're already miles past the point where we can easily hide from the government. Want to use a credit card? Visa know where I am every day. My cell phone logs, IP addresses, eyewitness accounts of friends and family, timecard entries etc etc.. already track my every movement. I might as well get the benefit from these technologies since my location is not sacrosanct information now a days. And personally my locational information (and the vast quantity thereof) is more likely to clear me in a case than convict me so I view it as a giant insurance policy. If you want to put me somewhere I'm not supposed to be then you have to forge dozens of pieces of data. Makes a few corrupt cops' job significantly more difficult. "We have your DNA on this knife." "But I have cell phone logs, a Visa transcation, 3 slashdot posts from home and an automatic toll pass an 18 security cameras which say otherwise."
It's the people who tag news stories "Big Brother" everytime the government installs a security camera that I define as "overly concerned".
Yes but what makes you think the government will respect those privacy "laws"?
The problem is being wrongfully arrested not the government knowing where you were. Our energy and time and money should be put towards protecting people from the government not legislating escape hatches to protect us FROM a tryannical government.
I see gun control laws the same way. I don't see a reason to ban an assault rifle vs a hunting rifle but I also don't see the "to save us from a dictatorship" as a legitimate reason either. Most dictators are wildly popular... until it's too late. Even Bush with his impressive resume of civil rights and constitutional 'infractions' is still suprisingly popular. If you're planning on overthrowing the government do you really need a license for that firearm? In order to overthrow an illegal government you're going to have to commit 'murder' of the defenders of the government. You're going to have to become a terrorist in all likelihood. Concealed handgun licenses will be the least of the charges brought against you.
Similarly. I would say a police state that watches your every movement is a symptom of a much larger problem and not a problem in of itself. If you fear your government it's too late.
The wonderful thing about a murder investigation is that they actually do an investigation. So as yoda would say "Being there, guilty makes you not."
This is the mistake I see being made by 90% of overly cautious privacy advocates. If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws.
If the government is going to frame you... why go through the hastle of actually using real footage.
If the government's case against you is "his phone was at the scene of the crime when it was committed" and they win then you've got far bigger problems in your legal system then needing a warrant.
I completely agree with the legal decision that digital information should be only accessible through a warrant. Just like I think that surveilance footage should only be accessible through a warrant. If 'the law' can riffle through my stuff in my apartment with a warrant then I see no problem with them rifling through my digital stuff with a warrant.
Except that the part crashing is almost certainly the iPod USB driver.
Funny thing about windows you might not know. Vista and XP do not have cross compatible drivers. So as far as bugs are concerned the two platforms are completely different pieces of software.
This is why everybody's hardware didn't magically work with Vista when it was released. It wasn't that Vista was "bad" it was just that it required *new* drivers to be written which didn't exist.
The problem is limited because we're talking to two different releases. IF it was iTunes itself crashing then you could say the legacy compatibility was bad and would be Vista's fault.
I agree about graphics but not gameplay. It's just that people have stopped trying to advance the simple concepts.
On the graphics front you have a game like Team Fortress 2. Which with very little work will look great in 100 years.
On the gameplay front you have games like Braid which is essentially Mario + a horde of other 80s games + New time manipulation widget.
Even Duke Nukem for Xbox now is going to get "rewind" instead of save. Also the flash version of Portal is freakin' brilliant. As good if not better puzzling.
What makes a 3D game great is the immersion. Someone could make a top down TF2 clone very quickly. What I think should happen is a move to prototyping your game concepts in 2D and then the 3D transition should be relatively simple. If you have a 10 million dollar budget put 100,000 into prototyping a complete 2D working version to play until you've gotten the game you really want then spend the effort better directed at creating an immersive experience to make it *sizzle* and *pop*.
I convinced myself while preparing for a highschool debate on the subject. I wanted to be sure I knew both sides of the subject as thoroughly as possible and the arguments that both sides would use. It almost was a "wow, you're right!" moment. Only in this case "you're" was "I'm".
It's not a free market because I can't purchase AT&Ts text messages if I'm a TMobile customer and vice versa. If your car could only buy gas from one company then you would see extravagantly priced gasoline.
Fair and Easy eh?
How about this: http://www.sprintpcs.com/common/popups/pop-fairFlexible.html
Pay for which plan you need. (But I think it's a bit more expensive)
There are two kinds of creationists.
Deluded ones who believe that it's actually based on observation (science based creationists). And those who hold onto it purely because they want to and for no other reason what so ever (faith based creationists).
The second variety (of which you seem to be a member) have nothing to fear from any research ever so yes... if we accept that evolution is possible as a mechanism then this will have no effect one way or another.
If you say "God caused ambiogenesis" then you're pretty safe from scrutiny and falsifiability (I would argue that what that leaves you is no longer the judeo-christian tradition and pushes it out to a form of deism due to the philisophical consequences of evolution and 'fall of man'.) or if you push it even further out to the big bang "God caused the big bang" then you're almost completely safe (for now) from scrutiny.
However in both cases the only argument that can be made for "rock grew up from under ground millions of years ago" vs "rock fell from above millions of years ago" is purely speculative. Which means any theory may be advanced. "I'm a ExoImplosionists. I believe that the big bang was caused by an alien fart which imploded under its own stink."
The trouble with circumstances where science has no domain is that it means everybody's belief is pointless and completely random. That's the trouble with situations where you really do have to just take it on faith... nobody's faith is better than anybody else's which means YOU are without a doubt statistically wrong. And so am I. Which leaves us worse off than before we even started.
Just because you only almost accomplish a specified goal doesn't mean you only almost succeeded.
I can almost create cold fusion but perhaps create an efficient and sustainable hot fusion reaction.
The working being done is interesting and of consequence to scientific study regardless of the outcome.
These theories are not so fragile that we have to protect them with a shield of awe. If the science is well-founded, then it should be able to clear these hurdles easily. It should be able to withstand the most withering lines of inquiry -- And it does.
You're 100% right and 100% wrong at the same time.
Yes it should be able to withstand scrutiny and it does withstand scrutiny however most people do not scrutinize. And most people even after scrutiny are incapable or unwilling to learn.
I for instance do not have a formal education in earth sciences--I defer my opinions to the majority until I find evidence to the contrast. I am incapable of forming a sound argument or opinion of my own because it would require an increase in knowledge and background which I have not acquired.
Under proper scrutiny quantum mechanics as we understand it can be determined to be likely or unlikely... but not under my scrutiny.
The important discrepancy in this whole parable is that the teacher himself evidently didn't understand the topic and was unable to provide an answer to the class. And based on circumstantial evidence of the student not understanding (and prior school experience) the teacher probably left it open as a mystery instead of HIMSELF managing to find an answer. "If the teacher can't figure it out and he's a teacher then 'other' scientists much also not really understand it."
I've had so many teachers in my life tell me something is "impossible", "a mystery" or "nobody knows" when in reality the answer was "I don't know". I once had a teacher of astronomy insist that every object in the universe is moving away from the earth. I objected and offered them an opportunity to correct a misspoken statement but the next day had to bring in a search summary from NASA which found something like 3.2 billion observed stars which had a negative velocity relative to us.
I'm curious and skeptical too. But leaving open a question and not admitting ignorance is as much a statement of authority as closing discussion without providing reason.
It's a lot like the chief investigator of a homicide going on national television and announcing:
"Isn't it strange that Bob was the only person who didn't show up to work yesterday and the masked shooter had a keycard to the secured building?"
It's only the biologists if they didn't reproduce it using means that feasibly would occur under historical circumstances.
If I pick up a rock, let go and it falls then I've found substantial evidence of the feasibility of spontaneous falling when an object is unsupported.
This instance of life isn't interesting to ambiogenesis but to rule out artificial life as tangential to creationism is an innaccurate blanket statement.
Why? Is it really that big of a deal? Don't open a tab that's going to lock up your browser.
Oh that's why all those links were labeled "will crash your browser if clicked"! It makes so much more sense now. I kept expecting my browser to fail gracefully and continue operating and didn't realize I just wasn't supposed to click all those links listed as such.
In other news I would like everybody to stop running executables which crash. The OS shouldn't need to keep them isolated since you shouldn't be running applications which crash in the first place. /sarcasm
You must be a gymnast because you really had to bend over backwards pretty far to justify yourself.
Also weight.
I use the 'weight saver' in my DVDRom port to cut a few ounces.
Here here.
I usually run on a DMZ. No firewall local or at the router.
I even have a dynamicDNS directed to my main computer.
I scan regularly. And haven't been infected in over 8 years. (which was my fault for opening an attachment without thinking.)
My current windows install is about 2 years old with LOTS of use. The computer is 5 years old and it's time to junk it. It's also still suffering from a 4 year old Norton uninstall that seems to have never completed and is getting worse. Norton was the worst thing that ever happened to one of my computers and I still haven't completely purged it.
What junks up my Windows PCs aren't the illicit viruses that get installed without my permission. It's all the crap that comes along with little freeware worthless pieces of crap that I need to use once to convert some file or another.
Windows PCs and Macs get used very differently. Having run both of them I used them very differently myself--largely because there just isn't the world of little crappy apps available.
I'm with parent. Your comparison is apples to oranges.
Which from the sounds of this article http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/06/12/231031/agile-trading-software-critical-to-london-stock-exchange.htm was the intent.
One very interesting note is at the end of the article:
Timeline for Tradelect upgrades
18 June 2007: Tradelect launched, reducing the time taken to process trades from 140 milliseconds to 10 milliseconds. Capacity increased from 593 to 2,500 orders a second.
November 2007: Version 2 upgrade. Trading time reduced from 10 milliseconds to about 6 milliseconds. Capacity increased by 70% from 2,500 to 4,200 orders a second. Introduced full suite of Mifid-compliant services.
September 2008: Planned migration of Italian trades to Tradelect platform.
September 2008: Tradelect Version 2 to launch. Plans to double trading capacity to 10,000 continuous messages per second. Aims to cut average time taken to complete a trade by half from 6 milliseconds to 3 milliseconds.
Coincidence that this month was when they intended to release a new version?
No you run that sort of thing on dedicated hardware which can't be improved, modified or enhanced cheaply or easily as the market dictates. Apparently every other exchange in the world is also run by idiots--seeing as none of them use dedicated purpose-built hardware.
Actually this is "again".
The LSE used to run on HP-NonStop (w/ Cobol and C as far as I can find) but still managed to take itself down for 8 hours in 2000.
If they're going to go down for a day every 7-8 years it might as well be cheaper and faster. (Articles quote the CTO as citing 10x performance increases).
(All based on a quick google search)
So before the hounds descend upon Microsoft it would seem the LSE has a history managing to bring down whatever system they run on.
So much more likely that only fringe scientists believe them?
Carbon Dioxide is the most likely culprit and that is backed up by decades of research and computer simulations.
Eitherway. Your arugment is dumb beyond explanation. If you accept there is global warming at all then you also have to accept that warming is the result of increased energy in our climate system.
The 1500 ship solution does one thing and one thing only. It reduces the input energy from the sun by reflecting it back into outer space.
IF it works as advertised then it would in fact counter every single possible imagineable form of warming by reducing the intensity of the sun.
Which means if it's caused by farts, carbon dioxide, the earth's core warming, an increase in talk show blowhards or even a decrease in pirates the outcome would still be cooling.
Unless you're suggesting that other theories are a lot more likely such "God is willing it."
I'm more infuriated by how slow slashdot has become.
Slashdot now uses 80% of my CPU with a single page open and 400MB of ram.
For being a site which often idolizes small and efficient the new slashdot is the slowest most resource intensive webpage I've ever visited in my life. It's out resourcing Hulu! And it's just a forum!
My old phone with a talking phone feature would confirm everything you said.
"Call Mom"
"Call Jill?"
"Call Mom"
"Call Home?"
"Call Mom"
"Call Tom?"
"Call Mom"
"Call Jonathan?"
"Call Mom"
"Call Dad?"
That could go on for hours. But it did at least always repeated what it thought I said before doing it.