There are tons of reasons why "fuel based technologies", which is really an odd statement as even most of renewable energy sources are fuel based on some level, primary among them is we still have a fairly large shortfall between the world energy demands and its energy producing capacity. A situation that will only get worse as we increase our capacity for creating energy ironically enough. It would be irresponsible to not work the problem from every angle possible. This means working on solar, wind, nuclear fission and fusion, and even better fossil fuel facilities, for now. As well as on working on increasing our efficiency in consuming and delivering energy.
Neither side of the great energy debate wants to hear it, but we are decades away, at best, from a real solution to the problem. And attacking the solutions you don't like don't gain anyone a thing. If you think one solution is the best one then do what you can to support it. Technology wars are won by one side winning via whatever merits, not attacking opposing technologies.
While I won't disagree that I would like to see more money pushed at fusion, it is hard to say that it is more efficient when we haven't been able to build a plant that can be continuously energy positive yet. Fission reactors are more practical in the short term.
Umm... this isn't a lobbyist getting a federal law to overrule a state law. This is a national defense issue, whether you agree with the decision or not, and should be decided on the federal level.
A very noble thought indeed, but unfortunately not liking war isn't the same as not understanding there are times for it, and preparing yourself for other countries which may not believe the same way.
Additionally, you have to remember that as far as our country's military leaders are concerned the people who choose to enlist in our military are more important than those who they may have to fight against.
Or you could try working somewhere crazy where they actual value you and:
1.) Asks you how long you believe something will take and then actually listens to you, and more importantly won't punish you if you were wrong. (Though it is important to tell them as soon as you know were wrong.)
2.) Maybe people could actually just volunteer and say "I screwed up." when something comes to light? No need to blame period then.
3.) Overtime pay is completely dependent on what you agree to when you are hired. And if they agreed to it, and still won't pay you, then you don't want to work there.
4.) Or you work at a place where the salesman have a good relationship with the development team. And like above will talk to them about how long things will take and set priorities appropriately.
5.) Don't bring your own code in, but still keep coding in your off time. You learn from it.
6.) Any place you work should give you in writing what they ask to include. If they are out to stab you in the back you don't want to work there.
Not everyplace out there is a hellhole. It took me a while to learn this too, but there are legitimate good places to work. Find one.
This is one of the times when the saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat" comes to mind.
I work in a shop that has a solid rule of not commenting anything. It carries another hard rule along with it. We write very explicit method, field, parameter, and test names. If the code is in someway not understandable for you than stop and rewrite it so that it is clear.
Comments are a nice concept, but in practice they are rarely kept current. And amazingly enough are rarely correct immediately after they are written.
Sometimes there might be a better way to do things.
I agree they will try, but they will lose that lawsuit.
You can't really force a company to sell a product.
It is honestly a double edged sword for Apple though. Because eliminating your retail sales of OS X upgrades is a hit in revenues.
The concept of using the Moon as a launching pad to go further into space is almost completely broken from the start. What fuel source for launching rockets is present on the moon to take advantage of? None really, so it becomes an excercise of launching from earth, using more fuel to slow it down and land it on the moon, and then yet more fuel to have it take off again.
You should honestly go back and investigate Einstein's views and input on both subjects at some point instead of taking one out of context quote as you seem to have done.
Just a thought, instead of complaining about the theft to Northwest, maybe think about complaining to the airport that actually employs the baggage handlers.
Argument of consciousness vs awareness, you are equating the two of them. But while we haven't come to an absolute concrete definition of what consciousness really is, ignoring the poor attempts in dictionaries. I question at times whether tying consciousness, as a scientific term, directly to awareness.
Perhaps this is just related to my own personal biases and views on the subject that I want to study for the rest of my life, but take it for what it is worth.
This is the common complaint I have with arguing against free will, and one I partially walked myself into by making the programming example in the grandparent post.
The problem here is that you are equating the programming techniques that we have at our disposal currently with all possible programming techniques.
I don't doubt that there is some equivalent to "programming" locked in the human mind. What I do question is whether or not the programming is of the sort that we are currently using, where the results can always be predicted by present state plus inputs, or if there is something else slightly more complicated at play.
Personal religious opinions aside, the free will question and the question of religion are not tied to one another. And, in fact, the question of free will is one that can actually lead to a dilemma in many religions, omnipotent or omniscient god anyone?
The debate of free will is one that provides a number of problems for human society as it is currently constructed. If people truly lack free will can you punish them for crimes that they commit, or honor them for accomplishments made?
Bottom line, don't make this discussion about something that it isn't really about.
Just because there is a delay in the person being able to be cognizant of making the decision doesn't eliminate the potential that there was free will in making it.
To put this in terms the programmers among us can relate to. This is the difference between generating a result and outputting the result. They aren't necessarily directly tied together.
a pitcher's repertoire was limited to about a half-dozen pitches
I hate to break it to you, but even in modern day baseball there are few pitchers that throw more then 4 pitches. The fact of the matter is that it is difficult to develop that many pitches to major league caliber. Additionally, there are only 2 major pitches that I am aware of, split finger and the slider, that have been developed since the 30's. Add in the fact, as another poster pointed out, that the era pre-1920 was the dead ball era where, in general, hits weren't as prevalent. Might want to try verify your facts just a bit first.
I am in know way saying that this is a perfect solution, but a carrying method for using hydrogen as a fuel is a better long term alternative for us then batteries storing electrial energy.
The fundamental problem with batteries is that sooner or later the chemical process that you are taking advantage of breaks down and you are left with a battery that no longer functions. As most batteries, actually all the ones I am aware of, are made with particularly noxious chemical compounds now you have the problem of what to do with the no longer functional battery. Let's review the common options:
1.) Burn it - Not so great for the air.
2.) Toss it in a landfill - Sooner or later even the best toxic landfills develop leaks. Not so great for the land or water.
3.) Recycle it - Typically involves large amounts of energy with some nasty chemical by products. Again not so great for land, water, or air depending non where the byproducts go.
Hydrogen, unless someone can present evidence to the contrary, almost has to be our portable energy source of the future. And if you consider fusion reactors as our best fixed source of energy then it is really the energy source in that case as well.
I think that generally the US finding a way to let ICANN move to an international governance model while continuing to be based in the US is a good thing.
That said I read the Register article, and maybe I am missing something, but it didn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. The US government added him to their "bad guy" list. I might disagree with this, and the embargo in general, but that is governmental policy at the moment. His web host took him down, but it was a host outside the US. All the US government could do was send them a polite note; they had no power of enforcement. It didn't read to me as if they took the actual registration away from him. So how does ICANN fit into this?
Forgive me for not RTFA as I am on my way out the door
How does the chip contact the Patent Holder?
Are we dealing with some form of activation system here?
Is it going to end up being the same end result as Windows Activation which is the never ending race between the pirates and patent holder to get to keys?
If a pirate manufacturer gets ahold of the serial generation scheme and is able to activate their chip before the real one does that mean the real user will not be able to?
Slashdot Mirror
There are tons of reasons why "fuel based technologies", which is really an odd statement as even most of renewable energy sources are fuel based on some level, primary among them is we still have a fairly large shortfall between the world energy demands and its energy producing capacity. A situation that will only get worse as we increase our capacity for creating energy ironically enough. It would be irresponsible to not work the problem from every angle possible. This means working on solar, wind, nuclear fission and fusion, and even better fossil fuel facilities, for now. As well as on working on increasing our efficiency in consuming and delivering energy.
Neither side of the great energy debate wants to hear it, but we are decades away, at best, from a real solution to the problem. And attacking the solutions you don't like don't gain anyone a thing. If you think one solution is the best one then do what you can to support it. Technology wars are won by one side winning via whatever merits, not attacking opposing technologies.
While I won't disagree that I would like to see more money pushed at fusion, it is hard to say that it is more efficient when we haven't been able to build a plant that can be continuously energy positive yet. Fission reactors are more practical in the short term.
Umm... this isn't a lobbyist getting a federal law to overrule a state law. This is a national defense issue, whether you agree with the decision or not, and should be decided on the federal level.
A very noble thought indeed, but unfortunately not liking war isn't the same as not understanding there are times for it, and preparing yourself for other countries which may not believe the same way.
Additionally, you have to remember that as far as our country's military leaders are concerned the people who choose to enlist in our military are more important than those who they may have to fight against.
1.) Asks you how long you believe something will take and then actually listens to you, and more importantly won't punish you if you were wrong. (Though it is important to tell them as soon as you know were wrong.)
2.) Maybe people could actually just volunteer and say "I screwed up." when something comes to light? No need to blame period then.
3.) Overtime pay is completely dependent on what you agree to when you are hired. And if they agreed to it, and still won't pay you, then you don't want to work there.
4.) Or you work at a place where the salesman have a good relationship with the development team. And like above will talk to them about how long things will take and set priorities appropriately.
5.) Don't bring your own code in, but still keep coding in your off time. You learn from it.
6.) Any place you work should give you in writing what they ask to include. If they are out to stab you in the back you don't want to work there.
Not everyplace out there is a hellhole. It took me a while to learn this too, but there are legitimate good places to work. Find one.
This is one of the times when the saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat" comes to mind.
I work in a shop that has a solid rule of not commenting anything. It carries another hard rule along with it. We write very explicit method, field, parameter, and test names. If the code is in someway not understandable for you than stop and rewrite it so that it is clear.
Comments are a nice concept, but in practice they are rarely kept current. And amazingly enough are rarely correct immediately after they are written.
Sometimes there might be a better way to do things.
I agree they will try, but they will lose that lawsuit. You can't really force a company to sell a product. It is honestly a double edged sword for Apple though. Because eliminating your retail sales of OS X upgrades is a hit in revenues.
Might want to check your exaggeration just a tad as that would mean there isn't a single artist on the entire planet.
Depends on where you live in the Midwest actually...
--Veteran of far to many pop vs. soda holy war discussions from college
The concept of using the Moon as a launching pad to go further into space is almost completely broken from the start. What fuel source for launching rockets is present on the moon to take advantage of? None really, so it becomes an excercise of launching from earth, using more fuel to slow it down and land it on the moon, and then yet more fuel to have it take off again.
Explain why this is a good plan again?
You should honestly go back and investigate Einstein's views and input on both subjects at some point instead of taking one out of context quote as you seem to have done.
At least making the "product" freely available is a lot more enjoyable.
As an EE major this seriously makes me want to hurt someone.
Just a thought, instead of complaining about the theft to Northwest, maybe think about complaining to the airport that actually employs the baggage handlers.
FBI Memo:
The parent poster is being contact for possible involvement in a terrorist plot to bomb the White House with a WMD.
If you have any further information on this threat please contact us at 1-800-HELP-FBI
Millenia might be a bit of a stretch as this is a known active seismic zone, though obviously a bit less then our friends out west are used to.
Argument of consciousness vs awareness, you are equating the two of them. But while we haven't come to an absolute concrete definition of what consciousness really is, ignoring the poor attempts in dictionaries. I question at times whether tying consciousness, as a scientific term, directly to awareness.
Perhaps this is just related to my own personal biases and views on the subject that I want to study for the rest of my life, but take it for what it is worth.
This is the common complaint I have with arguing against free will, and one I partially walked myself into by making the programming example in the grandparent post.
The problem here is that you are equating the programming techniques that we have at our disposal currently with all possible programming techniques.
I don't doubt that there is some equivalent to "programming" locked in the human mind. What I do question is whether or not the programming is of the sort that we are currently using, where the results can always be predicted by present state plus inputs, or if there is something else slightly more complicated at play.
Personal religious opinions aside, the free will question and the question of religion are not tied to one another. And, in fact, the question of free will is one that can actually lead to a dilemma in many religions, omnipotent or omniscient god anyone?
The debate of free will is one that provides a number of problems for human society as it is currently constructed. If people truly lack free will can you punish them for crimes that they commit, or honor them for accomplishments made?
Bottom line, don't make this discussion about something that it isn't really about.
Just because there is a delay in the person being able to be cognizant of making the decision doesn't eliminate the potential that there was free will in making it. To put this in terms the programmers among us can relate to. This is the difference between generating a result and outputting the result. They aren't necessarily directly tied together.
I hate to break it to you, but even in modern day baseball there are few pitchers that throw more then 4 pitches. The fact of the matter is that it is difficult to develop that many pitches to major league caliber. Additionally, there are only 2 major pitches that I am aware of, split finger and the slider, that have been developed since the 30's. Add in the fact, as another poster pointed out, that the era pre-1920 was the dead ball era where, in general, hits weren't as prevalent. Might want to try verify your facts just a bit first.
I am in know way saying that this is a perfect solution, but a carrying method for using hydrogen as a fuel is a better long term alternative for us then batteries storing electrial energy.
The fundamental problem with batteries is that sooner or later the chemical process that you are taking advantage of breaks down and you are left with a battery that no longer functions. As most batteries, actually all the ones I am aware of, are made with particularly noxious chemical compounds now you have the problem of what to do with the no longer functional battery. Let's review the common options:
1.) Burn it - Not so great for the air.
2.) Toss it in a landfill - Sooner or later even the best toxic landfills develop leaks. Not so great for the land or water.
3.) Recycle it - Typically involves large amounts of energy with some nasty chemical by products. Again not so great for land, water, or air depending non where the byproducts go.
Hydrogen, unless someone can present evidence to the contrary, almost has to be our portable energy source of the future. And if you consider fusion reactors as our best fixed source of energy then it is really the energy source in that case as well.
I think that generally the US finding a way to let ICANN move to an international governance model while continuing to be based in the US is a good thing.
That said I read the Register article, and maybe I am missing something, but it didn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. The US government added him to their "bad guy" list. I might disagree with this, and the embargo in general, but that is governmental policy at the moment. His web host took him down, but it was a host outside the US. All the US government could do was send them a polite note; they had no power of enforcement. It didn't read to me as if they took the actual registration away from him. So how does ICANN fit into this?
Forgive me for not RTFA as I am on my way out the door How does the chip contact the Patent Holder? Are we dealing with some form of activation system here? Is it going to end up being the same end result as Windows Activation which is the never ending race between the pirates and patent holder to get to keys? If a pirate manufacturer gets ahold of the serial generation scheme and is able to activate their chip before the real one does that mean the real user will not be able to?
Would that have something to do with the fact that there wouldn't be much of a world to have a war with after that?