Right, but remember 9/11? Some people NEVER switched from CNN. A goodly enough majority would never even realize what was happening because they're either addicted to Fox, NBC, or CNN. Some people only have ONE news source (because they're lazy).
There are records of said play still available on the used market. I've even heard rumors of a CD version, but I've got no evidence to back that up.:-/
I heard it when I was in... 7th grade, maybe? Sometime betwixt '89 and '94. (Yup, in the seventh grade for 5 years LoL). Part of a human studies class in mass behavior... good stuff.
Which I just don't get. If the A-rab world hates Israel SOOOO MUCH, why don't they just steamroller the fuckers? I mean, between pre-war I-raq, I-ran, and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Syria, Yemen and the rest, Israel would have no chance (except with those Nukular weapons they don't say that they do or do not have).
Oh wait, it's because the U.S. of A. won't stand idly by while it's ally gets wasted. Got it. Hmm... seems like pissing off the neighborhood cop just so he'll stop protecting a particular house on the block so you can rob it, rape it's occupants and level it to the ground seems kind of ass-backwards, don't you think?
But what do I know, I'm an ignorant moronic American..
Or on the other hand, once all those cheap computers with OSS get into the hands of Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean developers, you're likely to see:
1. Improved i18n support for Eastern languages. 2. Motivation to make better OSS software for end users, especially if there's a captive market. 3. Who's going to spend money on MS Office 2003 when you have to eat, cloth yourself, and provide a decent living for your children.
Odds are people who have computers in Vietnam are already driving Mercs anyway.
PS: Yes, I'm an American ignoramus. Flame on. -Chris
Oh god no. Out of all the creatures to bring back from extinction, PLEASE don't make it velociraptor, or the pleisosaurs, or pterosaurs capable of wafting away our children in a heartbeat...
I don't necessarily want to do "binary diffs". Block diffs, maybe. Some enterprise level fileservers currently have this functionality, like EMC, HP, etc. Change a file, and a copy of the changed block is kept so that a single consistent backup can be made.
Scenario (for the uninitiated):
I want to backup c:\winnt and C:\program files, both directories VERY important to the proper functioning of NT/IE/Word, etc.
Most backup software will backup one directory, then the other, allowing for differences and inconsistencies to pop into play, say I make significant registry changes that breaks my system before C:\winnt can be backed up. If I then attempt a restore, I'll still get the broken changes, and will be screwed.
Now there's at least one filesystem/backup tool available that will:
Take snapshot of system at XX:XX PM. Every change made to the filesystem after this, store in a special area to be committed after the backup has finished. Similar to transaction logs with SQL servers. Why something like this couldn't be done easily at the block level on a filesystem confuses me.
It would be less useful for software that completely rewrites it's data file each time it's saved, but in that event, you'd still have an automaticly version controlled file, except it would be the ENTIRE thing. For some files I have, that's acceptable.
CVS is all well and good, but it's one more level of indirection that I need to manage, and for some things, it's one level too many. I want to set up a group collaboration share, and just have the documents version control themselves at the FS level. With some good management tools, I'd never have to be asked to restore yesterdays copy of a file because some tool destroyed it again.
But say I do? I mean, versioning databases are the next bit, man. Why not have a chmod +v for versioning? If this bit is set, then apply version control. Every file open/write/close sequence adds a new version delta. Sure, there's a performance hit associated with it, but I'd like the choice.
AFAIK, there's at least on project out there to turn CVS into a filesystem, and a few others to add MVCC functionality into a filesystem (somewhat like the Clearcase filesystem does).
It's a good feature, something I'd want on my docs and code, and other specs, not necessarily on my pr0n and MP3s.
And of course, objects with a sufficently low density (ie inflatable lifeboats) would still float, so you would expect at least these. <P> Presuming of course that someone was quick enough to unlash the lifeboats, get in them, and survive any potential surface fires that might engulf them after the boat sank? <P>
Pigs will eat ANYTHING dude. I've never seen such ravenous beasts in all my days. Hell, even Tigers have the good sense not to eat crap... pigs will eat each other given ample opportunity.
Which is why they are called pigs.:-)
As Bricktop would say: Be careful Turkish, of any man who keeps a pig farm!
Only because that's what 99% of the people who make said request are actually trying to debunk the whole "nuclear is cheaper" by then doing a per Kwh comparison to their electricity bill.:-) Sorry to provoke you.
Sure thing. Do the same thing for a prototype coal plant, and get back to me.:-) Be sure you include the marginal cost of using the highways to transport that material as well.
It's called finding customers. Someone desperate enough to kick the establishment into working around regulations... someone who desperately needs cheap^H^H^H^H^Hcost-effective reliable power. Someone who can guilt around the whole NIMBY thing. Someone who can serve as a testbed for a much, MUCH larger target market.
Selling these things to Nairobi isn't a good idea, because they won't buy lots of them, and won't be able to influence the G8 countries to purchase 100's of them. By getting them into Alaska, in a remote area, and proving the system works, they open up the entire North American, European and Asian markets.
Considering Japan's history of Nuclear power is just as bad as ours (that reprocessing fiasco a few years ago killed more people than 3 Mile Island), I'm not surprised they wouldn't try and do this in the homeland.
Buy a big enough plot of land, say... 250-300 acres, put 100-200 of these in, put a reprocessing facility on site, and every 30 years you extract the core, replace it with reprocessed uranium, and reprocess the stuff you took out for a new reactor.
Only transport that needs to occur is the occasional barrel of waste that cannot be reprocessed, and the occasional arrival of fresh uranium.
Who's to say that you couldn't stack 50-100 of these in a 20 acre facility all hooked up to small turbines generating 500-1000 MW?
This is a testbed. Like the PBR models, this is to make the system work, prove it can deliver energy for a reasonable price, and be reliable and easy to manage.
Think response time. It's going to take some SERIOUS time to extract this uranium (without blowing it all over the Alaskan tundra). By the time the crane gets the uranium out of the whole, the Marines are parachuting in.
I would rather have a one-time use reactor that cannot be refueled, but needs an overhaul and can be shipped somewhere to get reprocessed and fueled while under guard, than have a modular reactor that has fuel rod replacement schedules and "holding ponds" ripe for theft.
Christ, the thing is almost entirely ENCASED in concrete. It's definitely not "user-serviceable".
Slashdot Mirror
RTFM is way older than tLDP. Hell, it's probably older than me, and I'm older than dirt. Hell, Saigon fell LONG before I was born... ;-)
Right, but remember 9/11? Some people NEVER switched from CNN. A goodly enough majority would never even realize what was happening because they're either addicted to Fox, NBC, or CNN. Some people only have ONE news source (because they're lazy).
There are records of said play still available on the used market. I've even heard rumors of a CD version, but I've got no evidence to back that up. :-/
I heard it when I was in... 7th grade, maybe? Sometime betwixt '89 and '94. (Yup, in the seventh grade for 5 years LoL). Part of a human studies class in mass behavior... good stuff.
Which I just don't get. If the A-rab world hates Israel SOOOO MUCH, why don't they just steamroller the fuckers? I mean, between pre-war I-raq, I-ran, and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Syria, Yemen and the rest, Israel would have no chance (except with those Nukular weapons they don't say that they do or do not have).
.
Oh wait, it's because the U.S. of A. won't stand idly by while it's ally gets wasted. Got it.
Hmm... seems like pissing off the neighborhood cop just so he'll stop protecting a particular house on the block so you can rob it, rape it's occupants and level it to the ground seems kind of ass-backwards, don't you think?
But what do I know, I'm an ignorant moronic American.
Something, I feel I should remind you, that our own government is starting to do.
... Pompous American ass.
-Chris
Or on the other hand, once all those cheap computers with OSS get into the hands of Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean developers, you're likely to see:
1. Improved i18n support for Eastern languages.
2. Motivation to make better OSS software for end users, especially if there's a captive market.
3. Who's going to spend money on MS Office 2003 when you have to eat, cloth yourself, and provide a decent living for your children.
Odds are people who have computers in Vietnam are already driving Mercs anyway.
PS: Yes, I'm an American ignoramus. Flame on.
-Chris
Goodness, a brilliant bit of insight in an otherwise frothing cesspool of doomsday scenarios. You sir, score +5 virtual Insightful points. :-)
You should read Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy. Deals with this very topic. VERY scary. Let me repeat: VERY scary stuff.
Oh god no. Out of all the creatures to bring back from extinction, PLEASE don't make it velociraptor, or the pleisosaurs, or pterosaurs capable of wafting away our children in a heartbeat...
I don't necessarily want to do "binary diffs". Block diffs, maybe. Some enterprise level fileservers currently have this functionality, like EMC, HP, etc. Change a file, and a copy of the changed block is kept so that a single consistent backup can be made.
Scenario (for the uninitiated):
I want to backup c:\winnt and C:\program files, both directories VERY important to the proper functioning of NT/IE/Word, etc.
Most backup software will backup one directory, then the other, allowing for differences and inconsistencies to pop into play, say I make significant registry changes that breaks my system before C:\winnt can be backed up. If I then attempt a restore, I'll still get the broken changes, and will be screwed.
Now there's at least one filesystem/backup tool available that will:
Take snapshot of system at XX:XX PM. Every change made to the filesystem after this, store in a special area to be committed after the backup has finished. Similar to transaction logs with SQL servers. Why something like this couldn't be done easily at the block level on a filesystem confuses me.
It would be less useful for software that completely rewrites it's data file each time it's saved, but in that event, you'd still have an automaticly version controlled file, except it would be the ENTIRE thing. For some files I have, that's acceptable.
CVS is all well and good, but it's one more level of indirection that I need to manage, and for some things, it's one level too many. I want to set up a group collaboration share, and just have the documents version control themselves at the FS level. With some good management tools, I'd never have to be asked to restore yesterdays copy of a file because some tool destroyed it again.
I'll be happy to run VMS the minute H-Paq gets it ported to my Duron. ;-)
But say I do? I mean, versioning databases are the next bit, man. Why not have a chmod +v for versioning? If this bit is set, then apply version control. Every file open/write/close sequence adds a new version delta. Sure, there's a performance hit associated with it, but I'd like the choice.
AFAIK, there's at least on project out there to turn CVS into a filesystem, and a few others to add MVCC functionality into a filesystem (somewhat like the Clearcase filesystem does).
It's a good feature, something I'd want on my docs and code, and other specs, not necessarily on my pr0n and MP3s.
-Chris
Except that Nova program was MADE in 1991... ;-)
Nothing to report sir!!
You forgot Bloc 0, the Trolls.
Like that's not happening already...
And of course, objects with a sufficently low density (ie inflatable lifeboats) would still float, so you would expect at least these.
<P>
Presuming of course that someone was quick enough to unlash the lifeboats, get in them, and survive any potential surface fires that might engulf them after the boat sank?
<P>
Pigs will eat ANYTHING dude. I've never seen such ravenous beasts in all my days. Hell, even Tigers have the good sense not to eat crap... pigs will eat each other given ample opportunity.
:-)
Which is why they are called pigs.
As Bricktop would say: Be careful Turkish, of any man who keeps a pig farm!
Only because that's what 99% of the people who make said request are actually trying to debunk the whole "nuclear is cheaper" by then doing a per Kwh comparison to their electricity bill. :-) Sorry to provoke you.
Sure thing. Do the same thing for a prototype coal plant, and get back to me. :-) Be sure you include the marginal cost of using the highways to transport that material as well.
Probably because it's easier to maintain the non-radioactive water loop than it is to maintain the highly deadly radioactive reactor coolant loop?
Because one is typically high pressure and one is not?
Just a couple guesses.
Build it on bedrock.
It's called finding customers. Someone desperate enough to kick the establishment into working around regulations... someone who desperately needs cheap^H^H^H^H^Hcost-effective reliable power. Someone who can guilt around the whole NIMBY thing. Someone who can serve as a testbed for a much, MUCH larger target market.
Selling these things to Nairobi isn't a good idea, because they won't buy lots of them, and won't be able to influence the G8 countries to purchase 100's of them. By getting them into Alaska, in a remote area, and proving the system works, they open up the entire North American, European and Asian markets.
Considering Japan's history of Nuclear power is just as bad as ours (that reprocessing fiasco a few years ago killed more people than 3 Mile Island), I'm not surprised they wouldn't try and do this in the homeland.
Buy a big enough plot of land, say... 250-300 acres, put 100-200 of these in, put a reprocessing facility on site, and every 30 years you extract the core, replace it with reprocessed uranium, and reprocess the stuff you took out for a new reactor.
Only transport that needs to occur is the occasional barrel of waste that cannot be reprocessed, and the occasional arrival of fresh uranium.
Who's to say that you couldn't stack 50-100 of these in a 20 acre facility all hooked up to small turbines generating 500-1000 MW?
This is a testbed. Like the PBR models, this is to make the system work, prove it can deliver energy for a reasonable price, and be reliable and easy to manage.
Think response time. It's going to take some SERIOUS time to extract this uranium (without blowing it all over the Alaskan tundra). By the time the crane gets the uranium out of the whole, the Marines are parachuting in.
I would rather have a one-time use reactor that cannot be refueled, but needs an overhaul and can be shipped somewhere to get reprocessed and fueled while under guard, than have a modular reactor that has fuel rod replacement schedules and "holding ponds" ripe for theft.
Christ, the thing is almost entirely ENCASED in concrete. It's definitely not "user-serviceable".