Yes, linux doesn't always have good support for obscure hardware. But then again, neither does windows. I just had a hell of a time trying to find a Windows XP driver for an old Diamond Monster 3D card. The only one that even remotely worked brought my system down every five minutes.
You wouldn't try to build a windows system using hardware that didn't have widely used windows driver support; why do people expect to build linux systems with unsupported hardware, and act surprised when it proves difficult?
One of the things that makes innodb faster than MyISAM in many cases, is MyISAM uses table-level locks while innodb uses row-level locking. If your read/write ratio is anywhere between 30-70%, innodb will be faster. In fact, in a few places, the mysql guys say: MyISAM is only faster if your table receives 90% writes, or 90% reads.
But there is SOMEONE performing them, dont they get paid ALSO ??
Harmonix employed a handful of studio musicians to record all the covers. On the first game, most of the guitar tracks were recorded by a single guy, named Marcus Henderson. All the studio musicians got their cut a long time ago. Studio musicians in a situation like that don't get royalties, and don't retain copyrights.
Why is small, difficult-to-read fine print okay? Why can't features be in fine print gotchas be in large print? Why is it that a company can advertise something as true that others can show to be false? Why can a company call themselves "perfect" when it's not? Why is it okay that a company obfuscates things from their potential consumers?
Because consumers tolerate it, and the government doesn't regulate it.
Ideally, in pure capitalism, consumers would either be savvy enough to see through these 'deceptions', or at least principled enough to refuse to purchase from merchants they deem to use deceptive business practices.
It's a trade-off between consumer protections and free enterprise.
The fruit stand proved a fitting replacement for Shockley's lab, and we're anxious to see what will sprout up on the site next. Let's hope it's not a Burger King or the like
There's been a BK just past the sears, closer to the corner of El Camino and San Antonio. Also really low traffic. Even for a BK.
As for the building itself, I always have a bit of a struggle in deciding how to approach potential landmarks. The problem is that every time we reserve land as a "landmark", we reduce the ability of that particular area to advance. That land could be used for a larger, more modern building supporting new and exciting development. And yet, what would we lose to history if it was torn down?
In this case, it'd be no loss. The building being a landmark wouldn't be preventing progress, by any stretch of the imagination -- it's obviously a really low-rent area, or a fruit stand would never be able to afford to open up there.
This place is right next to a strip mall. Not a very good one at that -- check the satellite view -- the parking lot on that end of the mall is empty, and always is. I've visited this shopping center hundreds of times, and never even noticed the building. It's near the least-frequented area of the mall. There's a Ross and a Sears auto center right there, both of which are very low traffic. You can see the main sears building in the background of the picture on El Reg; below it is the aforementioned empty lot. Turns out the Sears just shut their doors 2 weeks ago.
So, no, in this case, there will be no "larger, more modern building supporting new and exciting development". I can tell you what's been in there in the past: A plumbing shop, a car stereo shop, and this fruit stand. It's right next to a crappy Mexican takeout place, and across the street from a laundromat.
Hell, I was even *in the Shockley building* once, as a kid, somewhere around 15 years ago, and never realized it. It was a car stereo place, at the time. The fact that I'm a local geek, and never even noticed "The birthplace of silicon valley" in *hundreds* of passes through the area seems like a bit of a shame.
The very fact we're not sure means we have no choice *in case we're right*. Not being certain works both ways. We're not certain it's a bit disaster, but neither are we certain it isn't. If we don't start taking action now then in 50 years time it may be too late.
That's absurd. You can't possibly mean to say that we should do everything with in our power to avoid any potential disaster, "because we might be right". It's a tradeoff between certainty and cost. If a few people suggested that the sky *really was* falling, and that we needed to construct $40 trillion dollar structures to hold it up, I doubt you'd come here suggesting we do so, because "they might be right".
Cutting CFCs to help reduce the ozone layer was a no-brainer: sure, we weren't totally certain it'd work, but cutting down on CFC usage wasn't really that hard, and it didn't cost that much.
But global warming isn't that cheap to prevent. You're talking about fundamentally changing the world's energy and transportation infrastructures. We're talking about quadrillions of dollars, and a huge impact to the global economy. You can't just throw that kind of money around for a "we might be right!". You've got to have a higher level of certainty than that. Whether or not we've reached that level of certainty is the question at issue. To assert that we should act on absolutely *any* level of certainty is pure foolishness
And don't they realize that the spaceport will bring in a lot of much higher paid people (engineers, technical staff, etc), who will drive property values through the roof as they snap up land for McMansions?
1) Own a home in the area when property values skyrocket. 2) Sell home at drastically inflated price. 3) Profit.
The only people who stand to lose from that arrangement are those who don't already own their homes. But that's what you get for throwing hundreds/thousands of dollars a month into the black pit known as "rent".
That's only true if you assume that the energy expended in mining is anywhere *near* that produced by the reactor.
Given prices are $80/lb, I think it's pretty clear that that's just not true -- the mines would be losing money hand over fist. $80 will get you a tank of gas for a pickup truck. Using the GP's math, and generously assuming that miners spend $80 on gas per pound of Uranium, that's 26 gallons, or 66 kg, which comes out to just under 3 GJ. The resulting pound of uranium can be used to produce somewhere around 700 GJ.
That's a huge net gain. You're effectively getting 700 GJ of energy from a pound of uranium and 3 GJ worth of gasoline. That's a huge jump in efficiency over burning the gasoline directly like we do now.
So you're basically saying breeder reactors are too expensive to be economically feasible, because uranium is still cheap?
If you're right, and TFA is wrong, then we've got plenty of uranium, and don't need breeder reactors. If you're right, and TFA is right, then we don't need breeder reactors yet, but they'll probably become economical in the future, as uranium becomes nearly unobtainable.
Sounds like either way, we've still got a source of nuclear fuel, which is what all of us hopping on the bandwagon are hoping for.
If you're really interested in ideas about reinventing the genre, look to the inventors themselves: read the mud-dev archives, a now-defunct mailing list populated by the likes of Raph Koster and developers behind DAoC and shadowbane, as well as a few who've been in the online virtual worlds game since the days of 300 baud modems.
There may be archives of the handful of conferences they held as well, which were filled with a bunch of great talks and new ideas.
Even as of several months ago, Wii's are taking hours to sell out now (hell, they had units at noon in Santa Rosa back in January); instead of selling out before the store even opens.
I scored one by walking into target 90 minutes after the store opened. You just need to know when they're getting a shipment in.
It's easy. On Sunday morning, get up before Target/Best buy open. Hit their websites, and open up the weekly ad. If the ad mentions the Wii, that means they're putting stock on the floor at open that day. If not, wait til next week and check again.
When I showed up at 9:30 in February, there was a line of maybe 6 people, and they still had units stacked to waist height -- probably about 80 left.
Of course the real reason is they don't want the public to know what criteria they use to determine the financial viability of your neighborhood -- as they cherry-pick only the most lucrative areas for next-generation services
Welcome to capitalism. Every corporation does that. That's why you don't see a "The Sharper Image" in the middle of Compton. You sell your product in markets that are going to buy it.
Believe it or not, companies are out to make money. That means not providing residential fiber to nowheresville, UT.
An Apollo application can connect automatically to online data or services when an Internet connection is detected
my spyware paranoia starts acting up. I really don't want my applications calling home and checking for updates without my explicit permission! I don't think I'd trust an auto-updater from Adobe much more than I'd trust Microsoft's "Windows Update" utility.
You realize that the application you used to post that message (a browser) operates in exactly the same way, right?
That's really all apollo is -- a slightly specialized, cross-platform browser, with some of the client code cached locally, and available offline.
I disagree. These two are in direct competition like every MMO. It is just too hard to play multiple MMOs well. I am sure there are people who do this, but I know if I am playing one MMO, I don't have time to play another. If I do, that other MMO will be cancelled because it doesn't have enough content to keep me playing.
I'd suggest that EVE online and World Of Warcraft are only in competition as much as Honda and Porsche are -- sure, you probably choose one or the other, but the type of people that choose to drive a Porsche aren't very likely to be tempted away by the latest Civic.
There's always gonna be a market for "hardcore" MMOs. I don't think EVE is in direct competition with WoW -- they're different subgenres, really.
There are MMO players out there that *want* death to matter. You're right, they're the minority, but they're out there, games like EVE cater to them, and that minority isn't going to dissolve.
The guys who are out there in lowsec space (the most dangerous areas) every day don't *want* to play World of Starcraft. It'd bore the hell out of them.
Beyond my disdain for most TV to begin with, I am blown away that with all of our current problems -- homelessness and crime on the home front, war fighting and terrorism abroad -- our government is seriously going to spend this much money on upgrading peoples' televisions.
If you deny the peasants their bread and circuses, they might just up and start paying attention to the world around them, and realize that their government is whittling away their freedoms one by one.
By the way, the plan to allocate these funds was announced back when the FCC announced plans to force migration to digital -- years ago.
2,000,000 hours = 228 years and 4 months or so. Who the hell cares if you make it to 5,000,000?
MTBF doesn't work like that. You can, however, directly translate it to a likelyhood of failure over a year; that is, if a 1 million hour MTBF corresponds to a 1% chance of failure over the course of a year, then a 5 million hour MTBF corresponds to an even lower likelyhood of failure over the course of a year.
One question about this whole thing that has bothered me is that she wore diapers to obviate the need for bathroom breaks. She drove 900 miles really fast, which meant she also had to refuel. Assuming great mileage, a large fuel tank, and a speedy car, she had to stop at least twice to gas. I'm not sure how much time would've been saved by stopping off in the loo. I think it tends to show more of how batty she is- which is good for her defense. Has anyone seen how long the trip actually took for her to drive?
Assuming a vehicle with a range of 350 miles on a full tank, and an average speed of 50 miles per hour, that's one stop every 7 hours. I think that'd be rough on most people, assuming normal hydration. I think most people on such a journey would stop for biological reasons more often than they stop for fuel.
And really, not stopping to pee is not uncommon for people who drive long distances. Witness the growing problem of "Trucker Bombs" -- truckers urinating in disposable containers, and throwing them out the window when full. The astronaut in question may well have opted for the same strategy, if only she'd been gifted with the blessing of external genitalia.
It's interesting to look at how many of the above responses are lame/decent attempts at humor.
Is this because there's nothing in the article for us to all argue about, or because everyone thinks this is funny?
This is slashdot.org, not beedot.org. There aren't many people here with knowledge of the beekeeping industry. If this was about CPU fabrication, you'd see a thread full of detailed discussion on operations per cycle and whatever else.
Instead, it's bees, so all we can do is crack bee jokes. Lack of knowledge => lack of insightful commentary.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, linux doesn't always have good support for obscure hardware. But then again, neither does windows. I just had a hell of a time trying to find a Windows XP driver for an old Diamond Monster 3D card. The only one that even remotely worked brought my system down every five minutes.
You wouldn't try to build a windows system using hardware that didn't have widely used windows driver support; why do people expect to build linux systems with unsupported hardware, and act surprised when it proves difficult?
One of the things that makes innodb faster than MyISAM in many cases, is MyISAM uses table-level locks while innodb uses row-level locking. If your read/write ratio is anywhere between 30-70%, innodb will be faster. In fact, in a few places, the mysql guys say: MyISAM is only faster if your table receives 90% writes, or 90% reads.
No BLAZEMONGER?
Harmonix employed a handful of studio musicians to record all the covers. On the first game, most of the guitar tracks were recorded by a single guy, named Marcus Henderson. All the studio musicians got their cut a long time ago. Studio musicians in a situation like that don't get royalties, and don't retain copyrights.
http://www.eff.org/share/?f=legal.html
Because consumers tolerate it, and the government doesn't regulate it.
Ideally, in pure capitalism, consumers would either be savvy enough to see through these 'deceptions', or at least principled enough to refuse to purchase from merchants they deem to use deceptive business practices.
It's a trade-off between consumer protections and free enterprise.
There's been a BK just past the sears, closer to the corner of El Camino and San Antonio. Also really low traffic. Even for a BK.
In this case, it'd be no loss. The building being a landmark wouldn't be preventing progress, by any stretch of the imagination -- it's obviously a really low-rent area, or a fruit stand would never be able to afford to open up there.
This place is right next to a strip mall. Not a very good one at that -- check the satellite view -- the parking lot on that end of the mall is empty, and always is. I've visited this shopping center hundreds of times, and never even noticed the building. It's near the least-frequented area of the mall. There's a Ross and a Sears auto center right there, both of which are very low traffic. You can see the main sears building in the background of the picture on El Reg; below it is the aforementioned empty lot. Turns out the Sears just shut their doors 2 weeks ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Shopping
So, no, in this case, there will be no "larger, more modern building supporting new and exciting development". I can tell you what's been in there in the past: A plumbing shop, a car stereo shop, and this fruit stand. It's right next to a crappy Mexican takeout place, and across the street from a laundromat.
Hell, I was even *in the Shockley building* once, as a kid, somewhere around 15 years ago, and never realized it. It was a car stereo place, at the time. The fact that I'm a local geek, and never even noticed "The birthplace of silicon valley" in *hundreds* of passes through the area seems like a bit of a shame.
That's absurd. You can't possibly mean to say that we should do everything with in our power to avoid any potential disaster, "because we might be right". It's a tradeoff between certainty and cost. If a few people suggested that the sky *really was* falling, and that we needed to construct $40 trillion dollar structures to hold it up, I doubt you'd come here suggesting we do so, because "they might be right".
Cutting CFCs to help reduce the ozone layer was a no-brainer: sure, we weren't totally certain it'd work, but cutting down on CFC usage wasn't really that hard, and it didn't cost that much.
But global warming isn't that cheap to prevent. You're talking about fundamentally changing the world's energy and transportation infrastructures. We're talking about quadrillions of dollars, and a huge impact to the global economy. You can't just throw that kind of money around for a "we might be right!". You've got to have a higher level of certainty than that. Whether or not we've reached that level of certainty is the question at issue. To assert that we should act on absolutely *any* level of certainty is pure foolishness
1) Own a home in the area when property values skyrocket.
2) Sell home at drastically inflated price.
3) Profit.
The only people who stand to lose from that arrangement are those who don't already own their homes. But that's what you get for throwing hundreds/thousands of dollars a month into the black pit known as "rent".
That's only true if you assume that the energy expended in mining is anywhere *near* that produced by the reactor.
Given prices are $80/lb, I think it's pretty clear that that's just not true -- the mines would be losing money hand over fist. $80 will get you a tank of gas for a pickup truck. Using the GP's math, and generously assuming that miners spend $80 on gas per pound of Uranium, that's 26 gallons, or 66 kg, which comes out to just under 3 GJ. The resulting pound of uranium can be used to produce somewhere around 700 GJ.
That's a huge net gain. You're effectively getting 700 GJ of energy from a pound of uranium and 3 GJ worth of gasoline. That's a huge jump in efficiency over burning the gasoline directly like we do now.
So you're basically saying breeder reactors are too expensive to be economically feasible, because uranium is still cheap?
If you're right, and TFA is wrong, then we've got plenty of uranium, and don't need breeder reactors.
If you're right, and TFA is right, then we don't need breeder reactors yet, but they'll probably become economical in the future, as uranium becomes nearly unobtainable.
Sounds like either way, we've still got a source of nuclear fuel, which is what all of us hopping on the bandwagon are hoping for.
If you're really interested in ideas about reinventing the genre, look to the inventors themselves: read the mud-dev archives, a now-defunct mailing list populated by the likes of Raph Koster and developers behind DAoC and shadowbane, as well as a few who've been in the online virtual worlds game since the days of 300 baud modems.
There may be archives of the handful of conferences they held as well, which were filled with a bunch of great talks and new ideas.
Even as of several months ago, Wii's are taking hours to sell out now (hell, they had units at noon in Santa Rosa back in January); instead of selling out before the store even opens.
I scored one by walking into target 90 minutes after the store opened. You just need to know when they're getting a shipment in.
It's easy. On Sunday morning, get up before Target/Best buy open. Hit their websites, and open up the weekly ad. If the ad mentions the Wii, that means they're putting stock on the floor at open that day. If not, wait til next week and check again.
When I showed up at 9:30 in February, there was a line of maybe 6 people, and they still had units stacked to waist height -- probably about 80 left.
Welcome to capitalism. Every corporation does that. That's why you don't see a "The Sharper Image" in the middle of Compton. You sell your product in markets that are going to buy it.
Believe it or not, companies are out to make money. That means not providing residential fiber to nowheresville, UT.
You realize that the application you used to post that message (a browser) operates in exactly the same way, right?
That's really all apollo is -- a slightly specialized, cross-platform browser, with some of the client code cached locally, and available offline.
That's $0.40 dollars per user, not $40. The cents sign is missing from the summary.
I'd suggest that EVE online and World Of Warcraft are only in competition as much as Honda and Porsche are -- sure, you probably choose one or the other, but the type of people that choose to drive a Porsche aren't very likely to be tempted away by the latest Civic.
There's always gonna be a market for "hardcore" MMOs. I don't think EVE is in direct competition with WoW -- they're different subgenres, really.
There are MMO players out there that *want* death to matter. You're right, they're the minority, but they're out there, games like EVE cater to them, and that minority isn't going to dissolve.
The guys who are out there in lowsec space (the most dangerous areas) every day don't *want* to play World of Starcraft. It'd bore the hell out of them.
If you deny the peasants their bread and circuses, they might just up and start paying attention to the world around them, and realize that their government is whittling away their freedoms one by one.
By the way, the plan to allocate these funds was announced back when the FCC announced plans to force migration to digital -- years ago.
MTBF doesn't work like that. You can, however, directly translate it to a likelyhood of failure over a year; that is, if a 1 million hour MTBF corresponds to a 1% chance of failure over the course of a year, then a 5 million hour MTBF corresponds to an even lower likelyhood of failure over the course of a year.
Assuming a vehicle with a range of 350 miles on a full tank, and an average speed of 50 miles per hour, that's one stop every 7 hours. I think that'd be rough on most people, assuming normal hydration. I think most people on such a journey would stop for biological reasons more often than they stop for fuel.
And really, not stopping to pee is not uncommon for people who drive long distances. Witness the growing problem of "Trucker Bombs" -- truckers urinating in disposable containers, and throwing them out the window when full. The astronaut in question may well have opted for the same strategy, if only she'd been gifted with the blessing of external genitalia.
Haven't you heard? All the major carriers jacked their rate for SMS up to 15 cents per message.
Because the cost of relaying a 160 byte email has gone up 50% over the last few years.
I believe the argument is that iTunes has succeeded in spite of DRM, not because of DRM.
This is slashdot.org, not beedot.org. There aren't many people here with knowledge of the beekeeping industry. If this was about CPU fabrication, you'd see a thread full of detailed discussion on operations per cycle and whatever else.
Instead, it's bees, so all we can do is crack bee jokes. Lack of knowledge => lack of insightful commentary.