...as does my father where he works, though his is the kind you'd stick on a car for a blind spot view.
When I used to where ear phones at work a lot, I liked the over-the-ear-but-still-ear-bid kind (mine were from Koss (similar to these on Amazon)). I had all the benefits of personal music, but could easily hear people coming up who needed to talk to me.
Doing this actually voids the warranty on most water heaters.
I've never heard if this voiding a warranty. In many states, the local energy companies will supply you with some starter insulation, including for your water heaters.
Most (if not all) water heater work is not done under warranty anyway, so even if it does void the warranty, by the time you're adding the blanket it's not under warranty any more.
This has been talked about for quite a long time and even supposedly seen but what can Google do that would make this more special then any other ubuntu release/spin off?
I can think of one big thing. The Google File System. They already run some form of Linux on their servers, and the GFS runs on that. If they released an edition of the file system for Ubuntu, it might make server farms and data-intensive applications in 'normal' enterprises more attainable.
I can easily envision IT departments moving to a distributed environment, rather than specific servers, or even clusters, that users log into, store their work, etc.
do you back the right of Iran to build nuclear power stations then? ditto north korea, Iraq and Syria?
Nuclear has many problems. Wind Wave, Solar, tidal, and energy conservation have much less.
If they were using something along the lines of PBRs, then yes, I would. Since enriching the material from PBRs is more difficult (from what I've read), and they fail in a safer fashion, then it's a good idea.
If their goal is to produce material for bombs, however, then no, it's a bad idea. Once a country has nuclear weapons, they have lost their ability to lose a war when they are behind. They still have the option to stop, but that's different from losing. In general, when people are faced with extreme situations, such as the impending collapse of a government's power and ability to defend itself, they will resort to extreme solutions to their problems. If a country has nuclear weapons at their disposal, they have a pretty extreme response available if they are losing a war.
For countries that are known state sponsors of terrorism - such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Venezuela, etc - it's a bad idea for the world to allow them to continue to develop potentially dangerous resources. During the cold war, the Soviet Union was a known state sponsor of terrorism (training camps for Hamas, the IRA, etc), but was already a nuclear power, so it might have been a bad idea to stop them (especially since their economic system, coupled with the strong centralized power and fear of outsiders in the government was going to fail eventually anyway).
The other possibility, here, though, is that every coutnry should have equally dangerous defensive and offensive weapons, so that no one would really countenance using any of them, and any fighting would be done only with conventional (non-biological -chemical -nuclear) weaponry.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of warring in human history has been because of either a lack of local resources, or greed for more land/power (or defending against an agressor who wanted those things). As much of the world's economies depend on cheap energy for transportation, communication, production, etc, it would be a net benefit for everyone to have reliable, cheap (at least in the long run), and abundant energy sources.
I would also say that trading for resources, services, goods, and knowledge is a far more profitable approach to improving a nation's well-being, compared to attacking neghboring countries.
In simplistic terms it is the moisture content in the atmosphere that drives the weather, by transfering energy through evaporation and condensation. More water vapour will mean hurricanes/tornados/typhoons of greater intensity, and more of them. Same with thunderstorms.
True, except when it rains more often, the transfering energy doesn't have a chance to build into larger storms... kind of the same idea as seeding clouds. If you can get the storms and showers to happen more often, but be somewhat lighter, it's a net improvement.
Nuclear power is cheap, safe, and efficient. Pebble bed reactors, which the Chinese have been playing with for a few years now, are especially safe. So long as a viable method of transporting and storing the waste material is found (many options for which exist now), it's the easiest way of moving away from coal and oil dependency for electrical energy generation on the grid. Admittedly, disposing of the waste from the plant is an issue, but most of the UN's IPCC contributors are big proponents of using nuclear power.
Solar and wind power is great, but you need a lot of space, and continuous wind and sunlight for them to be worthwhile. Wind power gets maligned for the damage it causes to birds, but I'm not really worried about the sparrow, pigeon, and crow populations. There is some interesting wind research being done on Canada's Prince Edward Island, with vertical, horizontal, and variable-incidence and -wind-speed devices.
Hydro power is clean, endlessly renewable, and well understood, but gets bad-mouthed for the impact it has on migrating fish populations. Wave power is an interesting possibility, but more research needs to be done on it.
At the personal - ie non-grid - level, installing better insulation, efficient HVAC systems, and switching to fuel cells for home power supplementation/generation are all things many homeowners can do to improve their personal costs, and reduce their draw from the grid.
Since the world's population is likely to only expand for a while yet, it would be good for the countries that can afford it to move to better sources of power generation to start to clean the air of particulate matter over themselves. It's really a political decision, though, now, and not an economic one. For several years it has been more economically viable (mid- to long-term) to use non-fossil fuel generation, but the political will to do so hasn't been there. Maybe with current oil prices it will begin to appear.
How did global warming affect the wooly mammoth? Many were encased in ICE for goodness sake.
Besides that, though, there are a lot of beneficial side effects to warming, with longer growing seasons in temperate and cool climates; reducing energy consumption in the winter for heating; and increased precipitation, as more water will evaporate, thereby inducing more clouds and rain. somewhat warmer winters may also have the benefit of fewer snow days, fewer traffic tie-ups from weather, etc.
Apparently, you're not familiar with China and India, both pumping out a lot more crap into the atmosphere than the US could if we tried. Per capita we may currently produce more, but as a whole, China and India are far worse. Additionally, in order to brign the Developing (ie Third) World into the First World status as Industrialized, they will have to produce more pollutants in the short term to switch to cleaner energy production later.
I'm nto trolling, or trying to flamebait anybody here, but blame for pollution can't be laid at the feet of any one country. It's an issue we all have to deal with.
Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, covers all of this very nicely. One point often left out of the media reports, but that is in the UN's own IPCC report is that the majority of warming has occurred in the winter and spring seasons, and that it has mostly influenced the minimum temperatures, not the maximums.
don't include the SATA cable with the hard drive, and it is damn near impossible to find it in stores, or at least they were two and a half years ago when I bought mine.
A lot has happened in two years, my friend. Finding SATA cables is really easy and cheap now. Shoot, 2 came with each of the motherboards I recently bought when I built a pair of computers for a friend.
I don't know what the big deal is about emacs being able to run under OS X. I've used the commandline edition, which ships with the OS, for a couple years.
Now, if they meant a GUI edition, a la the Windows or Xwindows builds, then I understand.
first thing we do when we go up there is start irradiating the ground so the dirt behaves the way we want it to
Did I miss something? I have a hard time believing that the microwave generators they're proposing are any more harmful than the unmitigated cosmic radiation hitting the surface every second.
First off, I happen to be all in favor of free speech, and would like you to stop accusing me not being such.
Second, I agree that the.xxx is a bad idea. (Besides, what else would get put on something like 'hotfarmsluts.com'?) I never said the US and ICANN was a perfect solution, just that it is the best of available offers. The US government's primary job is to protect and serve its citizens. It happens to be that they're the ones who paid for the development of the internet. It's a great service to the citizens of the US, and it makes sense for them to retain control over the root servers. There have been some individuals in the government who have not been as pro-free-speech as I would like, but in general, the government does uphold our First Ammendment rights.
I contend that control of Root DNS is all about free speech. Any entity that is in control of the base of something can choose what to do with the branches. So far, ICANN and the US government have shown themselves to be relatively good at this task. It's not the US that censors data in China, it's the Chinese government. What goes on in an internal network, even one facing the outside world, is not the responsibility of the those on the outside, until or unless it breaks the laws of the surrounding community.
So long as what I do on my private, internal network at work, school, or home is not illegal, I am limited only by the imposed regulations of the network administrators. In China, those regulations include discriminating against, and filtering, websites that have information about democracy, the corruption of the Chinese government, and many religious sites. In China, those things are illegal (and whether or not that is right is not what I'm discussing here), and so they filter them internally.
The same thing happens on corporate networks. In general, the machines must be used for company-related activities. If my employer blocked all viewing of Blogger-powered sites while I was at work, I can't complain that they're violating my free-speech rights. It's not illegal in the US for a private network to block access to given external resources, so if an employer wants to do that, it is their prerogative.
I also would like to find an organization that doesn't have any underlying biases and goals, but they don't exist. Besides all this, the organization in charge of such administrative control needs to be large enough to withstand potential attacks fairly well. Maybe ideologically Iceland or Switzerland would be a better home for administration of Root DNS, but they're not nearly big or powerful enough to withstand an attack upon themselves with a high probability of surviving.
I personally can't think of anywhere that's any better to host the Root DNS than the US in terms of political jockeying, national stability, promotion/maintenance of free-speech, etc. If one existed, I'd be all for shifting cnotrol to them, presuming they paid for the switch. Since the US paid for the development in the first place, it does seem only right that whoever might take over the control from the US should have to pay to do so as a reimbursement.
remember the great firewall of china was built by you
those are individual corporations attempting to make money where ever their customers happen to be. I don't recall Cisco being run by the US government and ICANN. Whether or not those corporations have done something unethical is up for debate, but I didn't pay for them to do it.
What free-speech-endorsing entity would you prefer?
The server-side RSS aggregator I use (magpierss) does exactly this. It reads the blog feed, which is effectively a teeny database, and then indexes into the associative array to find the different elements.
So far, the US has been the only player who wants to maintain the free and open nature of the internet, with little-to-no censoring. The internet works because anyone can put anything they want up for the world to see.
Some of that content will be wrong, inflamatory, misguided, illegal, and/or offensive, but having that open forum means that a lot of good will show up, too.
Actually, I do think for myself. And I can see you're wrong.
When you make something, what is your obligation to it? Nothing.
However, whatever you have made has an obligation to you (for example, something as simple as a bookshelf whose job is now to hold books). God doesn't owe us anything. If He made us (which He has), then we owe Him our loyalties.
Slashdot Mirror
...as does my father where he works, though his is the kind you'd stick on a car for a blind spot view.
When I used to where ear phones at work a lot, I liked the over-the-ear-but-still-ear-bid kind (mine were from Koss (similar to these on Amazon)). I had all the benefits of personal music, but could easily hear people coming up who needed to talk to me.
I've never heard if this voiding a warranty. In many states, the local energy companies will supply you with some starter insulation, including for your water heaters.
Most (if not all) water heater work is not done under warranty anyway, so even if it does void the warranty, by the time you're adding the blanket it's not under warranty any more.
I can think of one big thing. The Google File System. They already run some form of Linux on their servers, and the GFS runs on that. If they released an edition of the file system for Ubuntu, it might make server farms and data-intensive applications in 'normal' enterprises more attainable.
I can easily envision IT departments moving to a distributed environment, rather than specific servers, or even clusters, that users log into, store their work, etc.
If they were using something along the lines of PBRs, then yes, I would. Since enriching the material from PBRs is more difficult (from what I've read), and they fail in a safer fashion, then it's a good idea.
If their goal is to produce material for bombs, however, then no, it's a bad idea. Once a country has nuclear weapons, they have lost their ability to lose a war when they are behind. They still have the option to stop, but that's different from losing. In general, when people are faced with extreme situations, such as the impending collapse of a government's power and ability to defend itself, they will resort to extreme solutions to their problems. If a country has nuclear weapons at their disposal, they have a pretty extreme response available if they are losing a war.
For countries that are known state sponsors of terrorism - such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Venezuela, etc - it's a bad idea for the world to allow them to continue to develop potentially dangerous resources. During the cold war, the Soviet Union was a known state sponsor of terrorism (training camps for Hamas, the IRA, etc), but was already a nuclear power, so it might have been a bad idea to stop them (especially since their economic system, coupled with the strong centralized power and fear of outsiders in the government was going to fail eventually anyway).
The other possibility, here, though, is that every coutnry should have equally dangerous defensive and offensive weapons, so that no one would really countenance using any of them, and any fighting would be done only with conventional (non-biological -chemical -nuclear) weaponry.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of warring in human history has been because of either a lack of local resources, or greed for more land/power (or defending against an agressor who wanted those things). As much of the world's economies depend on cheap energy for transportation, communication, production, etc, it would be a net benefit for everyone to have reliable, cheap (at least in the long run), and abundant energy sources.
I would also say that trading for resources, services, goods, and knowledge is a far more profitable approach to improving a nation's well-being, compared to attacking neghboring countries.
Perhaps it doesn't, but if we get rid of ~half of the problem, then haven't we made big strides?
As to the amount of known uranium, here's a couple links: cameco.com's Alberta data & the wikipedia uranium article.
True, except when it rains more often, the transfering energy doesn't have a chance to build into larger storms... kind of the same idea as seeding clouds. If you can get the storms and showers to happen more often, but be somewhat lighter, it's a net improvement.
Solar and wind power is great, but you need a lot of space, and continuous wind and sunlight for them to be worthwhile. Wind power gets maligned for the damage it causes to birds, but I'm not really worried about the sparrow, pigeon, and crow populations. There is some interesting wind research being done on Canada's Prince Edward Island, with vertical, horizontal, and variable-incidence and -wind-speed devices.
Hydro power is clean, endlessly renewable, and well understood, but gets bad-mouthed for the impact it has on migrating fish populations. Wave power is an interesting possibility, but more research needs to be done on it.
At the personal - ie non-grid - level, installing better insulation, efficient HVAC systems, and switching to fuel cells for home power supplementation/generation are all things many homeowners can do to improve their personal costs, and reduce their draw from the grid.
Since the world's population is likely to only expand for a while yet, it would be good for the countries that can afford it to move to better sources of power generation to start to clean the air of particulate matter over themselves. It's really a political decision, though, now, and not an economic one. For several years it has been more economically viable (mid- to long-term) to use non-fossil fuel generation, but the political will to do so hasn't been there. Maybe with current oil prices it will begin to appear.
Besides that, though, there are a lot of beneficial side effects to warming, with longer growing seasons in temperate and cool climates; reducing energy consumption in the winter for heating; and increased precipitation, as more water will evaporate, thereby inducing more clouds and rain. somewhat warmer winters may also have the benefit of fewer snow days, fewer traffic tie-ups from weather, etc.
I'm nto trolling, or trying to flamebait anybody here, but blame for pollution can't be laid at the feet of any one country. It's an issue we all have to deal with.
Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, covers all of this very nicely. One point often left out of the media reports, but that is in the UN's own IPCC report is that the majority of warming has occurred in the winter and spring seasons, and that it has mostly influenced the minimum temperatures, not the maximums.
... and nuclear weapons, but you only have to be upwind for nuclear weapons
I prefer reds and stouts meself
The rest of what I said was not a troll, however.
A lot has happened in two years, my friend. Finding SATA cables is really easy and cheap now. Shoot, 2 came with each of the motherboards I recently bought when I built a pair of computers for a friend.
Opera is 100% free now. No ads. I use it quite a bit for web development, verification of sites, and general browsing.
Now's a great time to relook at it.
Now, if they meant a GUI edition, a la the Windows or Xwindows builds, then I understand.
'Name and File' seems pretty ambiguous to me. I prefer something like 'Save copy as...' or the title of the post, 'Save a copy with name...'
We have the screen real estate to be a little more generous with our names :)
so, Bayesian filtering of your music collection based on the recent history of your chosen/skipped songs?
even over 10 weeks ago :)
"I used to know what a qubit was, let me see here, it's, ahh..." (Bill Cosby, from 'Noah')
Did I miss something? I have a hard time believing that the microwave generators they're proposing are any more harmful than the unmitigated cosmic radiation hitting the surface every second.
Second, I agree that the .xxx is a bad idea. (Besides, what else would get put on something like 'hotfarmsluts.com'?) I never said the US and ICANN was a perfect solution, just that it is the best of available offers. The US government's primary job is to protect and serve its citizens. It happens to be that they're the ones who paid for the development of the internet. It's a great service to the citizens of the US, and it makes sense for them to retain control over the root servers. There have been some individuals in the government who have not been as pro-free-speech as I would like, but in general, the government does uphold our First Ammendment rights.
I contend that control of Root DNS is all about free speech. Any entity that is in control of the base of something can choose what to do with the branches. So far, ICANN and the US government have shown themselves to be relatively good at this task. It's not the US that censors data in China, it's the Chinese government. What goes on in an internal network, even one facing the outside world, is not the responsibility of the those on the outside, until or unless it breaks the laws of the surrounding community.
So long as what I do on my private, internal network at work, school, or home is not illegal, I am limited only by the imposed regulations of the network administrators. In China, those regulations include discriminating against, and filtering, websites that have information about democracy, the corruption of the Chinese government, and many religious sites. In China, those things are illegal (and whether or not that is right is not what I'm discussing here), and so they filter them internally.
The same thing happens on corporate networks. In general, the machines must be used for company-related activities. If my employer blocked all viewing of Blogger-powered sites while I was at work, I can't complain that they're violating my free-speech rights. It's not illegal in the US for a private network to block access to given external resources, so if an employer wants to do that, it is their prerogative.
I also would like to find an organization that doesn't have any underlying biases and goals, but they don't exist. Besides all this, the organization in charge of such administrative control needs to be large enough to withstand potential attacks fairly well. Maybe ideologically Iceland or Switzerland would be a better home for administration of Root DNS, but they're not nearly big or powerful enough to withstand an attack upon themselves with a high probability of surviving.
I personally can't think of anywhere that's any better to host the Root DNS than the US in terms of political jockeying, national stability, promotion/maintenance of free-speech, etc. If one existed, I'd be all for shifting cnotrol to them, presuming they paid for the switch. Since the US paid for the development in the first place, it does seem only right that whoever might take over the control from the US should have to pay to do so as a reimbursement.
those are individual corporations attempting to make money where ever their customers happen to be. I don't recall Cisco being run by the US government and ICANN. Whether or not those corporations have done something unethical is up for debate, but I didn't pay for them to do it.
What free-speech-endorsing entity would you prefer?
The server-side RSS aggregator I use (magpierss) does exactly this. It reads the blog feed, which is effectively a teeny database, and then indexes into the associative array to find the different elements.
Some of that content will be wrong, inflamatory, misguided, illegal, and/or offensive, but having that open forum means that a lot of good will show up, too.
When you make something, what is your obligation to it? Nothing.
However, whatever you have made has an obligation to you (for example, something as simple as a bookshelf whose job is now to hold books). God doesn't owe us anything. If He made us (which He has), then we owe Him our loyalties.