Re:nano this, nano that, but no REAL nano products
on
Diamond Nanotubes Created
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Still no cure for cancer from nanotechnology is kind of saying "still no intelligent machines" about computers in the 1960s. And, yeah, we still have no intelligent machines in any relevant sense 40 years later. That doesn't mean that computer technology "hasn't delivered". If you are only happy when you go up in the space elevator and get your cancer cured by nanites during the 15 minutes it will take you to reach LEO, you are sure to be disappointed.
Think of any applications tagged with a "nano" word in its marketing right now as about as what a transistor radio was in the 1950s. It's good pieces of technology, it's technical advances, but it's not that revolutionary. We might not reach any really revolutionary stage during our lifetimes, but I would say it's far more likely that we actually manage to fullfil one or two of the farfetched dreams, and a lot of the more mundane ones.
> Why is it that naive, idealistic comments get modded up, but harsh realistic comments get modded down?
Why is it that your own sig seems so contradictory to your message? Or is it the your way of acknowledging that you only are a karma whore, well aware that there is no sense in what you write?
Well, there is a very thin line here for some behaviors. How would you consider sneezing and coughing, if the "reason" the pathogen is irritating those membranes and not just having a nice time in the bloodstream would be to be transmitted? How is forcing you to cough every minute any different from, say, a STD that managed to get the bearers to, well, sexually transmit.
Sometimes you do. I would however think that it's better for the common good (which should be a goal of academia, right?) to publish whenever you have something. Of course, the results that you do have should be sound and somewhat checked, but even if your group had the specifical knowledge (or pure luck) to make a discovery doesn't mean that you AND ONLY YOU should be the ones who keep investigating it. By publishing, others can join in, and, importantly, check the results.
To fully understand the process, which still might be quite a bit from getting any practical uses out of it, in six months, is just naive. It could take years. It could be that those involved keep on trying for a couple of years, find some interesting side track on the way, which they follow, and no one would keep studying this parasite as a result.
I, for one, welcome our quick-publishing worm-ridden overlords.
I have hard to envision any scenario where power production by fusion, for use on Earth, would be helped by location of deuterium in anything beyond our atmosphere. It's not like the oceans are more dense with it than any gas cloud in space would ever be. (bar a real star or gas giant planet, maybe)
Slowing down the rotation, as in the axis rotation, has very little do with the overall orbit. There is some degree of tidal forces in the Earth-Sun complex, but those are very small compared to the moon. If you mean slowing down the orbit speed, yes, it will get you closer to the sun. The effect is still quite small and any closing effect is very small. I would worry about the sun as a red giant or any large celestial body devastating the Earth itself or its orbit sooner than worrying about orbit decay.
Also, when you get down to a single gene within a fraction of a population, it's possible that the gene was actually transferred by a retro-virus infecting both human species as hosts...
Yeah, you are missing something. The/. audience will of course not read the article, but they will see the Yahoo name closely connected to the name of Google, which they instinctively consider a Very Good Thing Indeed. So, it's all just a plot to profit on the ads from another company, by reporting about it. Those evil bastards!
Already NTFS has file name indexes (and other indexes possible at the lowest level, in addition to the fulltext indexing service mentioned by others). This means that, opposite to FAT, you can find a specific file without iterating through the complete directory. Wildcards not starting with * or ? also benefits from this.
(In fact, WinXP/2000 on FAT32 suffers from the simple fact that the system32 directory is a huge mess with thousands of files by default. Finding a single file, even when you know its name, isn't straightforward!)
Other types of indexing doesn't have to reside in the real file system, while it may be a boon. locate doesn't, and it's still quite neat, if you take the low overhead into account.
Avalon apps will work under XP, but they won't perform as well. The MSDN bloggers have mentioned some clipping errors that they doubt they will try/care to fix under XP.
Win32s made Win32 glory sort-of available under Win 3.1. It wasn't nice, it wasn't pretty, but it helped convincing management that if you cared about it, you could use a WinNT/Win95 codebase and still target 3.1 on the side.
It's not like something like a year in total in space will be worse than a rough week. It's also quite obvious that episodes of heavy solar flares and other events are much more unlikely to be avoided during a long travel.
The fascinating story is also that a lot of stuff was cut back from Windows 2000. In beta 2, Office files with different data streams could actually be persisted to disk as several NTFS streams in one file, with the intent to expand this. Indexing was also implemented and at some point it was expected to be much better than the current service.
Still, Windows 2000 was a huge step over NT4. And, still, XP improved several APIs, both in kernel and user mode. Auto-growing stacks was introduced (news in the Windows world), which of course can simplify development of recursive stuff in some scenarios. It's not much, and if you want to keep compatible with 2000, it's irrelevant, but they continued tweaking.
Vista can still, from what I know, be a huge enough step to warrant a 6.0 version number. It won't be a "new" product, but (just about) nobody ever said it would. If NT4 => 2000 was an upgrade worth mentioning, I would think that this will be, too.
(And, hey, on a laptop/TFT desktop, Cleartype is enough for me to want XP if I run Windows)
Friction is not an energy source. Without nuclear reactions/something, it would cool down just as fast, just that there would be some linkage between kinetic energy and heat.
You have to take the "negative" force of Earth gravity into account. If you're going "up" and the gravity force is directed "down", it's obvious that the total work performed by your engine (in the effort to go up) must also negate the gravity work. The gravity work will be time-dependent. Of course, at some point you will get into a real orbit, where it's actually the gravity keeping you in place, and no rocket launch is going in a perpendicular manner towards the surface all the way.
Of course, you can do this to some degree if you launch on top of an existing aircraft. The difference is that the weight for aircraft fuel (and tanks) isn't brought along (think of it as a higly reusable booster stage). In addition, an aircraft is aerodynamic, when you are up to speed, the airflow around the wings is what's keeping you from falling. In a rocket design, you are more like fighting air resistance in the best way possible, certainly not helped by it.
Can those who do stop modding this guy as funny? It isn't. It's just madness. Chips are reliable because it's expensive to make new ones. It isn't inherently simple to design a CPU. Still, the operations it perform can be documented quite easily. Documenting the whole operation of an OS or another complex piece of software is a daunting task.
Put another way, CPUs are reliable because they are simple and straightforward enough to let algorithmic software do most of the "bug-prone" design work of minor parts.
You never know when you'll be modded a flamebait. Last time, I just made the assumption that the number of virgins on/. would be approximately equal to the number of unique user IDs.
That would require a general purpose processor on the cards (and a quite fast one to keep up), or constant switching to the firmware code in the OS. There is no doubt that such a beast could be designed, but it would be immensely hard to fit into the multi-tasking and memory management schemes of the kernel of every OS, "just" like you don't want int13 to be your main HD access method.
But 1920x1200 is quite common for widescreen computer displays. And, yes, DVI has to be interlaced, or the refresh rate lowered with a progressive signal, to allow it. (or a higher, non-standard, frequency, or double data lines)
(except that a wannabe male engineer in a jumpsuit a hundred years before, but at the same time a hundred years after you, got pregnant in such a device a hundred years before you at the same time? Long live Berman-Braga consistency.)
Slashdot Mirror
Think of any applications tagged with a "nano" word in its marketing right now as about as what a transistor radio was in the 1950s. It's good pieces of technology, it's technical advances, but it's not that revolutionary. We might not reach any really revolutionary stage during our lifetimes, but I would say it's far more likely that we actually manage to fullfil one or two of the farfetched dreams, and a lot of the more mundane ones.
Why is it that your own sig seems so contradictory to your message? Or is it the your way of acknowledging that you only are a karma whore, well aware that there is no sense in what you write?
Well, there is a very thin line here for some behaviors. How would you consider sneezing and coughing, if the "reason" the pathogen is irritating those membranes and not just having a nice time in the bloodstream would be to be transmitted? How is forcing you to cough every minute any different from, say, a STD that managed to get the bearers to, well, sexually transmit.
To fully understand the process, which still might be quite a bit from getting any practical uses out of it, in six months, is just naive. It could take years. It could be that those involved keep on trying for a couple of years, find some interesting side track on the way, which they follow, and no one would keep studying this parasite as a result.
I, for one, welcome our quick-publishing worm-ridden overlords.
I have hard to envision any scenario where power production by fusion, for use on Earth, would be helped by location of deuterium in anything beyond our atmosphere. It's not like the oceans are more dense with it than any gas cloud in space would ever be. (bar a real star or gas giant planet, maybe)
Slowing down the rotation, as in the axis rotation, has very little do with the overall orbit. There is some degree of tidal forces in the Earth-Sun complex, but those are very small compared to the moon. If you mean slowing down the orbit speed, yes, it will get you closer to the sun. The effect is still quite small and any closing effect is very small. I would worry about the sun as a red giant or any large celestial body devastating the Earth itself or its orbit sooner than worrying about orbit decay.
The proper name for that "joy stick" is Husband's hill. I'll let you figure out why for yourself.
Also, when you get down to a single gene within a fraction of a population, it's possible that the gene was actually transferred by a retro-virus infecting both human species as hosts...
Yeah, you are missing something. The /. audience will of course not read the article, but they will see the Yahoo name closely connected to the name of Google, which they instinctively consider a Very Good Thing Indeed. So, it's all just a plot to profit on the ads from another company, by reporting about it. Those evil bastards!
(In fact, WinXP/2000 on FAT32 suffers from the simple fact that the system32 directory is a huge mess with thousands of files by default. Finding a single file, even when you know its name, isn't straightforward!)
Other types of indexing doesn't have to reside in the real file system, while it may be a boon. locate doesn't, and it's still quite neat, if you take the low overhead into account.
Win32s made Win32 glory sort-of available under Win 3.1. It wasn't nice, it wasn't pretty, but it helped convincing management that if you cared about it, you could use a WinNT/Win95 codebase and still target 3.1 on the side.
It's not like something like a year in total in space will be worse than a rough week. It's also quite obvious that episodes of heavy solar flares and other events are much more unlikely to be avoided during a long travel.
Still, Windows 2000 was a huge step over NT4. And, still, XP improved several APIs, both in kernel and user mode. Auto-growing stacks was introduced (news in the Windows world), which of course can simplify development of recursive stuff in some scenarios. It's not much, and if you want to keep compatible with 2000, it's irrelevant, but they continued tweaking.
Vista can still, from what I know, be a huge enough step to warrant a 6.0 version number. It won't be a "new" product, but (just about) nobody ever said it would. If NT4 => 2000 was an upgrade worth mentioning, I would think that this will be, too.
(And, hey, on a laptop/TFT desktop, Cleartype is enough for me to want XP if I run Windows)
But it's possible to shoehorn a IIS patch in without a complete OS reboot. Not always, but generally it is. The PnP service was not so simple.
Friction is not an energy source. Without nuclear reactions/something, it would cool down just as fast, just that there would be some linkage between kinetic energy and heat.
Well, only if the name of the guy returning is Hugh and Linus' evil, previously dismantled (?!), brother will turn up as the new MS CEO.
Of course, you can do this to some degree if you launch on top of an existing aircraft. The difference is that the weight for aircraft fuel (and tanks) isn't brought along (think of it as a higly reusable booster stage). In addition, an aircraft is aerodynamic, when you are up to speed, the airflow around the wings is what's keeping you from falling. In a rocket design, you are more like fighting air resistance in the best way possible, certainly not helped by it.
Actually, in Europe, litres per 10 or 100 kilometers is a quite common way to express how gas efficient a car engine is. Assimilate THAT!
Put another way, CPUs are reliable because they are simple and straightforward enough to let algorithmic software do most of the "bug-prone" design work of minor parts.
You never know when you'll be modded a flamebait. Last time, I just made the assumption that the number of virgins on /. would be approximately equal to the number of unique user IDs.
Try to transmit 1920x1200x60x24 on that 1 G Ethernet. Hint: highres, high-FPS, uncompressed video is HUGE.
That would require a general purpose processor on the cards (and a quite fast one to keep up), or constant switching to the firmware code in the OS. There is no doubt that such a beast could be designed, but it would be immensely hard to fit into the multi-tasking and memory management schemes of the kernel of every OS, "just" like you don't want int13 to be your main HD access method.
But 1920x1200 is quite common for widescreen computer displays. And, yes, DVI has to be interlaced, or the refresh rate lowered with a progressive signal, to allow it. (or a higher, non-standard, frequency, or double data lines)
a) protons
b) neutrons
c) extra nuclear energy
This could kind of work, if it weren't for the fact that we can in fact get total annihilation through antimatter.
(except that a wannabe male engineer in a jumpsuit a hundred years before, but at the same time a hundred years after you, got pregnant in such a device a hundred years before you at the same time? Long live Berman-Braga consistency.)