Not to mention density. A vat of radioactive sludge is larger and heavier than the actual radioactive metals within the vat. If you could extract the radioactive metal from the surrounding chemicals and only store that, you may save a significant amount on the storage, transportation, and monitoring of the waste.
Oh and you can't forget about perception. If I showed you a radio active brick and a drum of sludge and asked you to pick one to store in your back yard... you would pick the brick every time. Most of our issues with Nuclear power have nothing to do with the generation, or the risks associated with it... it's the waste that makes it difficult to sell to the public. The fact that it looks dangerous makes things significantly harder. Hell, its cliche now that soon-to-be-superheroes fall into vats of radioactive waste.
So you saying that we would take "highly radioactive stuff with half lives of decades" and just store it. I thought the point of a breeder reactor is that you can take that "highly radioactive stuff" and use it to generate more power.
I also have to wonder, if you were to spread this radio active material out over a large area... say via vaporization and spraying from an airplane... how much could you spread out with out having a measurable impact on on the background radiation in a given area. Perhaps small quantities of short half-life, highly radioactive material could simply be dumped over a national forest or two. Perhaps the only reason that Nuclear waste is dangerous is because we insist on concentrating it.
According to Wikipedia's article on background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation):
The release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels in nuclear generating plants.
This suggests that we could disperse all of our spent nuclear fuel into the atmosphere and not even come close to the amount of background radiation created through the burning of coal. It wouldn't be a popular solution, but it seems to make a lot more sense than stockpiling it in one place.
Actually my experience is quite different. Most universities and Colleges I have attended or worked with/for (I used to work in higher education) are heavily dependent upon FOSS for infrastructure and servers. Though I will admit I spent much more time with smaller private universities where they were more likely to use homegrown FOSS solutions than expensive commercial products just to save money.
So Google made 1261 contributions to the Kernel. I would wager that these contributions were heavily tested and in wide use within their infrastructure prior to their submission.
Tracking the contribution a company makes by the number of submissions is bunk... I could contribute patches every day, just fixing my own mistakes... doesn't make my contribution all that valuable.
Additionally, Google's systems are pretty simple. The use the kernel on pretty vanilla equipment that they purchased specifically to run their software... I would imagine that the hardware they chose was already really well supported by the kernel.
Theoretically, the only area of major continuous activity in the kernel should be done by the hardware vendors or those who develop modules for hardware. Everything else is just bug fixes and the occasional new feature... areas where the Google's of the world couldn't care less about.
So between the facts that Google has no real incentive to improve the kernal much, and the that they likely don't make small submissions, I'd say they are a strong contributor.
Actually... I give me a photo of a candidate and I will give you a photo of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke, or some other similarly embarrassing situation. The fact of the matter is that with current technology, it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate reality and well crafted lies.
At some point, the public will grow immune to slander, and vote with their hearts and minds. Considering we now have a "Muslim", "terrorist loving", "socialist", "anti-Christ", president who wants to "pull the plug" on the elderly to save a few bucks. Ironically, the truths about Obama, like the fact that he smokes and has used drugs, are basically accepted without concern. I have to believe that majority of the public has learned to see through the lies, and they are much more forgiving of past mistakes as long as the candidate doesn't treat the public like idiots and claim that they didn't inhale or that oral sex does not constitute sexual relations.
Finally, I agree with the GP... standards of behavior are worthless in judging someones ability to perform a give function. Not so long ago, those "absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards" would have essentially disqualified anyone who wasn't "happily" married, male, church going, and white. Not because people who are all of those things are better leaders and decision makers, but because of worthless standards by which people judged potential leaders. As we, as a nation, become more socially liberal, the diversity of our leadership increases. Eventually, someone who made mistakes in their childhood, dropped out of high school because of an unplanned pregnancy, but later went on to get a GED and graduate top of their class at Harvard would be considered a better candidate that one that was "bred" and groomed for politics due to life experience and perspective.
I agreed with our newest Supreme Court Justice when she said that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The job of a justice is to interpret the constitution. The act of interpretation REQUIRES life experiences by which to base conclusions, if it didn't then we wouldn't need the courts, as everyone would read the law and understand it to mean the same thing. We need to destroy all preconceptions about what a leaders should be, what they should look like, how they should live. Often the real leaders, and the best leaders, are exactly those people who break every mold.
1. the fact that the BSA rarely files suit for casual violations. 2. they usually give you an opportunity to become compliant unless your obviously violating copyright intentionally and blatantly. 3. most of the products the BSA represents have alternatives, so producers cannot afford to risk alienating their consumers. Sure you can listen to different musicians, but thats not the same as finding a different payroll package. 4. most business software packages actually benefit from moderate amounts of piracy. For example, very few IT types would pay for a $10K enterprise software to use at home. However by "stealing" it, they increase product's mind share and actually increase it's profit making potential. 5. business software typically consists of two components, the actual software, and a license. The BSA is not so concerned about the distribution of the software, but they target use/sale without a valid license.
Comparing the BSA and the RIAA is not a fair comparison. Even if the RIAA were more consumer focused (or should I say consumer satisfaction focused), they would never be able to operate like the BSA does.
Essentially its a cream/lotion that can be applied topically to trigger a genetic mutation of cells. These cells then reproduce in the typical fashion, which would maintain the same genetic code.
I think they use a creme because all they really need effected are the parts that may be exposed to the virus. Otherwise they would use an engineered virus to deliver the mutation to your entire body.
Agreed. Either they are a threat and should be removed from society. Or they are a potential threat.
Potential threats should have an opportunity to prove themselves. For example, I'd imagine that a majority of those reading this have gone to college and committed an act that could land you on the registry. Something that would never happen once you graduated. Only keep them on the list for a short time, unless their actions are worthy of long term public wariness.
I think the Sex Offender registry should be a part of sentencing. Don't make it required, but instead make it up to the courts to use as part of the sentence, terms of probation, or terms of early release.
Of course they could make redundant pieces on other nodes, but that doesn't solve the problem.
Actually it does. Assume that the content provider, say Download.com, is managing a seed for a particular download. You, and thousands of others like you, download the content and seed it as well. Do I care if you delete the file and stop seeding? Or, it is determined that more seeds are needed so your machine is configured to download a portion of the file and make it available, even if you delete it, or halt the download, it doesn't corrupt the original seed or the hundreds/thousands of nodes who have that same part of the file you did.
This model makes perfect sense for distribution, not so much for primary storage or archival purposes. Think of it as torrents with centralized management that can force you to seed some/all of a file.
The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect. For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red, you might begin to see both images in both eyes (no 3d).
With a properly calibrated display and some good quality glasses I'd bet the effect is quite good.
Software is well suited to detecting patterns, including patterns that might appear as distracting artifacts in an image. Just because subjectively the pictures are both equally similar to the original, doesn't mean that they are mathematically similar.
I can imagine a method for comparing two images to an original image and scoring the two based upon how similar they are to the original while detecting and deducting for distracting compression artifacts. Ironically this method would be very similar to the JPEG compression algorithm itself, as it tries to make decisions with regard to subjective ideas and artifact reduction (dark areas are reduced in complexity, noise is blurred, etc because most people don't perceive these changes as readily as other areas of detail loss.)
Perhaps using a subjective comparison scoring mechanism you could train this algorithm to favor your individual taste during is compare, perhaps you could even add this capability to a JPEG compression tool so your JPEGs can reflect your individual perception better.
For example, I can accept more blurring, but banding in solid color areas are very distracting to me, while some people would rather keep detail that might be smoothed out and they might tolerate a bit of banding in large fields of color.
Put it back in the ocean. Any water that was extracted will end up there eventually. Even if it didn't it would be difficult to raise the salinity of the oceans by any measurable amount. If that were ever a concern, just flush the the salt into the ocean with the fresh water collected and have zero net salinity change.
So, essentially if you "really want to use your netbook" it only takes a bit of tweaking to make it do the same things as any other netbook. Sounds like the GP didn't give it a fair shake.
Since you have tried it, can you answer a couple of questions.
1 - can you open a shell/terminal window? 2 - can you create custom application launchers
If so, how is it so unappealing. Perhaps you just need to customize it a little to make your needs more accessable. If not, then you have saved me the effort of giving it a try.
So what about the Dell Precision Laptop I had in 2002 with a 15" 1600x1200 display. Why can't I buy a panel like that in a desktop form factor.
Smaller, high resolution, displays are much better when your forced to sit close to your display. I also prefer a small display for working in low light situations, finally the high dot pitch can make renderings look amazing, even up close the individual pixels are nearly impossible to distinguish.
- Ogg requires ZERO licensing costs, which is very important to the Open Source community who want to create free products that do not produce revenue for the creator. - Ogg is not currently hardware accelerated by any mainstream hardware (encode or decode) and therefore is not ideal for current generation netbooks or other low powered devices. - Ogg does not produce quite the same quality as the patent encumbered options at low bitrates
These are the core arguments for and against ogg, the only royalty free option. If ogg produced very similar quality at the same bit rates and there was hardware on the market that encoded and decoded it then it would be the spec without contention.
If it were up to me, I would say write it in the spec as the standard and prey that demand encourages manufacturers to add hardware acceleration to their products. At the same time, start an OGG quality improvement campaign and try and get some massive attention paid to the development of Ogg Vorbis over then next few months while HTML 5 spec browsers are being developed and tested.
I believe that making it the standard would ensure that it gets the attention it needs to achive quality/feature parity with some of h264 and other competitiors.
Actually, I must defend the author and say that his conclusion is not an "opinion". The law's intent was to protect children from exploitation and provide a means to prosecute those who participate in an industry that, by its very nature, exploits children. The use of a publicly available photo of a minor, which was taken with no exploitation of said minor is certainly not a crime. To convict this individual would infer that in some way Miley Cyrus was exploited, or that the possession of this image has somehow caused harm to a child.
Of course, quite often a law's intent is sidelined in favor of political or social gains, but I too can not think of a logical argument that would make the possession of such an image a violation of the law's intent. Of course this is assuming that a valid argument MUST conform to the intent of the law, which is rarely done.
The closest I can come is that the photo MAY serve to desensitize those who are attracted by pedophilia, therefore indirectly harming all children... but similar arguments have been repeatedly dismissed by courts as it is impossible to show causation. Sure a pedophile who assaults a child may posses this photo, but there is no way to say that this photo contributed to the assault.
So I agree with the author's assertion... however I agree with you that he should recognize that he weakens his arguments and the value of his data by assuming that the reader will agree with his assertion. An impartial presentation of survey results and a fair analysis and conclusion is far more likely to build consensus.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention density. A vat of radioactive sludge is larger and heavier than the actual radioactive metals within the vat. If you could extract the radioactive metal from the surrounding chemicals and only store that, you may save a significant amount on the storage, transportation, and monitoring of the waste.
Oh and you can't forget about perception. If I showed you a radio active brick and a drum of sludge and asked you to pick one to store in your back yard... you would pick the brick every time. Most of our issues with Nuclear power have nothing to do with the generation, or the risks associated with it... it's the waste that makes it difficult to sell to the public. The fact that it looks dangerous makes things significantly harder. Hell, its cliche now that soon-to-be-superheroes fall into vats of radioactive waste.
So you saying that we would take "highly radioactive stuff with half lives of decades" and just store it. I thought the point of a breeder reactor is that you can take that "highly radioactive stuff" and use it to generate more power.
I also have to wonder, if you were to spread this radio active material out over a large area... say via vaporization and spraying from an airplane... how much could you spread out with out having a measurable impact on on the background radiation in a given area. Perhaps small quantities of short half-life, highly radioactive material could simply be dumped over a national forest or two. Perhaps the only reason that Nuclear waste is dangerous is because we insist on concentrating it.
According to Wikipedia's article on background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation):
The release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels in nuclear generating plants.
This suggests that we could disperse all of our spent nuclear fuel into the atmosphere and not even come close to the amount of background radiation created through the burning of coal. It wouldn't be a popular solution, but it seems to make a lot more sense than stockpiling it in one place.
Actually my experience is quite different. Most universities and Colleges I have attended or worked with/for (I used to work in higher education) are heavily dependent upon FOSS for infrastructure and servers. Though I will admit I spent much more time with smaller private universities where they were more likely to use homegrown FOSS solutions than expensive commercial products just to save money.
10-12 are "tweens", or more universally a preteen... not yet a teen but in the double digits.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preadolescence#Preteen_and_tween if you believe that Wikipedia is the authority on everything, like I do!
Oh wait... they didn't delay the spec... they spec is not ready yet. BIG DIFFERENCE!
So the spec is complete, but were not gonna tell you what it says!
Doesn't make sense!
Isn't that precisely what the article is talking about?
So Google made 1261 contributions to the Kernel. I would wager that these contributions were heavily tested and in wide use within their infrastructure prior to their submission.
Tracking the contribution a company makes by the number of submissions is bunk... I could contribute patches every day, just fixing my own mistakes... doesn't make my contribution all that valuable.
Additionally, Google's systems are pretty simple. The use the kernel on pretty vanilla equipment that they purchased specifically to run their software... I would imagine that the hardware they chose was already really well supported by the kernel.
Theoretically, the only area of major continuous activity in the kernel should be done by the hardware vendors or those who develop modules for hardware. Everything else is just bug fixes and the occasional new feature... areas where the Google's of the world couldn't care less about.
So between the facts that Google has no real incentive to improve the kernal much, and the that they likely don't make small submissions, I'd say they are a strong contributor.
Actually... I give me a photo of a candidate and I will give you a photo of them sleeping in a puddle of their own puke, or some other similarly embarrassing situation. The fact of the matter is that with current technology, it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate reality and well crafted lies.
At some point, the public will grow immune to slander, and vote with their hearts and minds. Considering we now have a "Muslim", "terrorist loving", "socialist", "anti-Christ", president who wants to "pull the plug" on the elderly to save a few bucks. Ironically, the truths about Obama, like the fact that he smokes and has used drugs, are basically accepted without concern. I have to believe that majority of the public has learned to see through the lies, and they are much more forgiving of past mistakes as long as the candidate doesn't treat the public like idiots and claim that they didn't inhale or that oral sex does not constitute sexual relations.
Finally, I agree with the GP... standards of behavior are worthless in judging someones ability to perform a give function. Not so long ago, those "absurd, archaic and hypocritical standards" would have essentially disqualified anyone who wasn't "happily" married, male, church going, and white. Not because people who are all of those things are better leaders and decision makers, but because of worthless standards by which people judged potential leaders. As we, as a nation, become more socially liberal, the diversity of our leadership increases. Eventually, someone who made mistakes in their childhood, dropped out of high school because of an unplanned pregnancy, but later went on to get a GED and graduate top of their class at Harvard would be considered a better candidate that one that was "bred" and groomed for politics due to life experience and perspective.
I agreed with our newest Supreme Court Justice when she said that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The job of a justice is to interpret the constitution. The act of interpretation REQUIRES life experiences by which to base conclusions, if it didn't then we wouldn't need the courts, as everyone would read the law and understand it to mean the same thing. We need to destroy all preconceptions about what a leaders should be, what they should look like, how they should live. Often the real leaders, and the best leaders, are exactly those people who break every mold.
1. the fact that the BSA rarely files suit for casual violations.
2. they usually give you an opportunity to become compliant unless your obviously violating copyright intentionally and blatantly.
3. most of the products the BSA represents have alternatives, so producers cannot afford to risk alienating their consumers. Sure you can listen to different musicians, but thats not the same as finding a different payroll package.
4. most business software packages actually benefit from moderate amounts of piracy. For example, very few IT types would pay for a $10K enterprise software to use at home. However by "stealing" it, they increase product's mind share and actually increase it's profit making potential.
5. business software typically consists of two components, the actual software, and a license. The BSA is not so concerned about the distribution of the software, but they target use/sale without a valid license.
Comparing the BSA and the RIAA is not a fair comparison. Even if the RIAA were more consumer focused (or should I say consumer satisfaction focused), they would never be able to operate like the BSA does.
I'm guessing that it's a one time treatment.
Essentially its a cream/lotion that can be applied topically to trigger a genetic mutation of cells. These cells then reproduce in the typical fashion, which would maintain the same genetic code.
I think they use a creme because all they really need effected are the parts that may be exposed to the virus. Otherwise they would use an engineered virus to deliver the mutation to your entire body.
I'm just guessing, I could be way off base here.
To dumb it down for you:
"The mumbo jumbo we did caused the cells of some female naughty parts to create some stuff that made those cells safe from HIV."
Don't feel too outclassed, they aren't getting laid either.
Agreed. Either they are a threat and should be removed from society. Or they are a potential threat.
Potential threats should have an opportunity to prove themselves. For example, I'd imagine that a majority of those reading this have gone to college and committed an act that could land you on the registry. Something that would never happen once you graduated. Only keep them on the list for a short time, unless their actions are worthy of long term public wariness.
I think the Sex Offender registry should be a part of sentencing. Don't make it required, but instead make it up to the courts to use as part of the sentence, terms of probation, or terms of early release.
Then of course we will have a community of sex offenders, who will have children, who by law must attend school.
So a school is built, and all of the children move away.
why are we posting April Fools stories today?
Seriously though, it really does read like an April Fools story!
Of course they could make redundant pieces on other nodes, but that doesn't solve the problem.
Actually it does. Assume that the content provider, say Download.com, is managing a seed for a particular download. You, and thousands of others like you, download the content and seed it as well. Do I care if you delete the file and stop seeding? Or, it is determined that more seeds are needed so your machine is configured to download a portion of the file and make it available, even if you delete it, or halt the download, it doesn't corrupt the original seed or the hundreds/thousands of nodes who have that same part of the file you did.
This model makes perfect sense for distribution, not so much for primary storage or archival purposes. Think of it as torrents with centralized management that can force you to seed some/all of a file.
The problem with all 3d is that the lenses on the glasses must be calibrated to the colors on the display for optimal effect. For example if the images appear in the wrong shade of blue and red, you might begin to see both images in both eyes (no 3d).
With a properly calibrated display and some good quality glasses I'd bet the effect is quite good.
Software is well suited to detecting patterns, including patterns that might appear as distracting artifacts in an image. Just because subjectively the pictures are both equally similar to the original, doesn't mean that they are mathematically similar.
I can imagine a method for comparing two images to an original image and scoring the two based upon how similar they are to the original while detecting and deducting for distracting compression artifacts. Ironically this method would be very similar to the JPEG compression algorithm itself, as it tries to make decisions with regard to subjective ideas and artifact reduction (dark areas are reduced in complexity, noise is blurred, etc because most people don't perceive these changes as readily as other areas of detail loss.)
Perhaps using a subjective comparison scoring mechanism you could train this algorithm to favor your individual taste during is compare, perhaps you could even add this capability to a JPEG compression tool so your JPEGs can reflect your individual perception better.
For example, I can accept more blurring, but banding in solid color areas are very distracting to me, while some people would rather keep detail that might be smoothed out and they might tolerate a bit of banding in large fields of color.
Put it back in the ocean. Any water that was extracted will end up there eventually. Even if it didn't it would be difficult to raise the salinity of the oceans by any measurable amount. If that were ever a concern, just flush the the salt into the ocean with the fresh water collected and have zero net salinity change.
Actually, some men will take an ugly woman over no woman.
Of course most of this research was done with animals... that way no feelings were hurt when the men rated their partner as unattractive.
So, essentially if you "really want to use your netbook" it only takes a bit of tweaking to make it do the same things as any other netbook. Sounds like the GP didn't give it a fair shake.
Since you have tried it, can you answer a couple of questions.
1 - can you open a shell/terminal window?
2 - can you create custom application launchers
If so, how is it so unappealing. Perhaps you just need to customize it a little to make your needs more accessable. If not, then you have saved me the effort of giving it a try.
So what about the Dell Precision Laptop I had in 2002 with a 15" 1600x1200 display. Why can't I buy a panel like that in a desktop form factor.
Smaller, high resolution, displays are much better when your forced to sit close to your display. I also prefer a small display for working in low light situations, finally the high dot pitch can make renderings look amazing, even up close the individual pixels are nearly impossible to distinguish.
More importantly are these factors:
- Ogg requires ZERO licensing costs, which is very important to the Open Source community who want to create free products that do not produce revenue for the creator.
- Ogg is not currently hardware accelerated by any mainstream hardware (encode or decode) and therefore is not ideal for current generation netbooks or other low powered devices.
- Ogg does not produce quite the same quality as the patent encumbered options at low bitrates
These are the core arguments for and against ogg, the only royalty free option. If ogg produced very similar quality at the same bit rates and there was hardware on the market that encoded and decoded it then it would be the spec without contention.
If it were up to me, I would say write it in the spec as the standard and prey that demand encourages manufacturers to add hardware acceleration to their products. At the same time, start an OGG quality improvement campaign and try and get some massive attention paid to the development of Ogg Vorbis over then next few months while HTML 5 spec browsers are being developed and tested.
I believe that making it the standard would ensure that it gets the attention it needs to achive quality/feature parity with some of h264 and other competitiors.
Actually, I must defend the author and say that his conclusion is not an "opinion". The law's intent was to protect children from exploitation and provide a means to prosecute those who participate in an industry that, by its very nature, exploits children. The use of a publicly available photo of a minor, which was taken with no exploitation of said minor is certainly not a crime. To convict this individual would infer that in some way Miley Cyrus was exploited, or that the possession of this image has somehow caused harm to a child.
Of course, quite often a law's intent is sidelined in favor of political or social gains, but I too can not think of a logical argument that would make the possession of such an image a violation of the law's intent. Of course this is assuming that a valid argument MUST conform to the intent of the law, which is rarely done.
The closest I can come is that the photo MAY serve to desensitize those who are attracted by pedophilia, therefore indirectly harming all children... but similar arguments have been repeatedly dismissed by courts as it is impossible to show causation. Sure a pedophile who assaults a child may posses this photo, but there is no way to say that this photo contributed to the assault.
So I agree with the author's assertion... however I agree with you that he should recognize that he weakens his arguments and the value of his data by assuming that the reader will agree with his assertion. An impartial presentation of survey results and a fair analysis and conclusion is far more likely to build consensus.