According to wikipedia Pu-239 the half-life is 24100 years. It's humbling to realise that is over ten times as long as our civilisation has existed.
Your concern is valid but my main concern is that concentrated radioactive isotopes, like plutonium 239, analogue nutrients the body requires when ingested. So to the body Pu-239 "looks" like iron, and is treated as such, as it is a potent alpha emitter it's most obvious effect on the body when ingested is leukemia. Common radioactive isotopes analogue other things, like calcium and potassium etc, and they cause different, usually cancerous, effects.
I mentioning this because it's often said (of radioactive isotopes) 'they do not emit enough radiation to be a concern for human health' *externally*. What is not often spoken about is that the process of isotope 'Bio-concentration' through the food chain makes isotope absorption an eventuality proportional to how common radioactive isotopes are in the environment. Of course, this continues until the isotope decays.
If you couple that with the fact that the entire Nuclear Industry leaks many different isotopes you may understand why I think it is so important for us to engineer the industry to control/stop radioactive isotope release into the environment.
The few American people I have worked with and met socially in my country have all been decent people.
America is a great country, and has achieved much and overcome enormous difficulties. But something happened to America after WW2 and that is the rise of corporate power in America. Some will and some won't admit it is the core of problems in the US but it is has been spreading around the world and you don't have to look far to find it's influence.
Corporatism lobbies politicians to change laws, dumbs down the media, battles in the courts against those it has wronged, creates pollution, undermines fair working conditions for everyone and so on. There is no refuge from it anywhere, it was released to power in America and after conquering communism is almost finished defeating capitalism.
That is what killed the nice America, it is what engenders a sense of absolute hopelessness in everyone it touches. Deep down, Americans are smart enough to know this is the master to which they are chained while it makes a mockery of freedom. Because it comes from within it is the deadliest enemy of all.
It's a new function on Bill's personal edition of Windows 7. The new key mapped in Windows 7 is the ctrl + 'Weather' key, it's between the 'Launch ICBM' key and 'Crash world economy' key.
Apparently the rc for Bill's copy swapped the 'Crash World economy' key with the 'Weather' key last year some time...
I actually prefer the Logitech Marble Mouse, because the trackball is controlled by my index and (to a lesser extent) middle fingers. Considerably faster and more precise than with the thumb controlled ball.
I use this to. For coding and for music production it certainly reduces the amount of movement you make. I've never attempted to get the scroll buttons on the marble mouse working but they are in a good position.
One thing though if you are after a scroll wheel on the left hand side why don't you just have another mouse on the left hand side with a scroll wheel on it?
That sounds about right, with the exception of the few components that have half lives so long that they do not emit a significant amount of radiation. Half lives in the hundreds of thousands of years.
It's relative though, plutonium is pretty toxic and it's half-life is 25,000 years.
Why does it need to have an operational lifespan that long? If you build it using the design of "nothing, not even waste products ever leave", isn't the important thing that it be structurally sound, and be able safely contain the waste for that period, after it is shut down?
To avoid repeatedly going through any decommissioning procedure at the end of the reactors lifespan. We don't really know how to decommission a standard PWR properly yet and I'd say the belly of an IFR will have some seriously nasty activated elements. Better to have the design operating for as long as possible and when it's time comes, shut it down and consider the core a tomb that you will never open letting it decay with the fuel it has burnt up. Hopefully at the end of the 600 or so years we will have come up with a new way of powering the world AND dealt with all the transuranics and du we have lying around now.
My understanding is that in theory an IFR could be constructed such that the fissile ash could leave, although that creates real logistics problems. Such as storing the waste. The concerns being that the waste is even more radioactive than "normal" waste, but need not be stored nearly as long.
Why bother? The expense and danger comes from the logistical issues around transporting the element. Site the reactor *with* the containment and disposal facility and those logistics issues disappear. The core issue is to start with a geologically sound containment facility first and build a logistics plan to transport the plutonium and d.u. From there you have a foundation for IFR core(s) in a containment facility that could sustain attack from orbit and implement all modern safety recommendations all in one go. At worst the spent fuel is contained properly until the technology comes on line.
You want to use the fuel up anyway so why not plan for the reactors demise also.
I've worked in nuclear reactors in the navy, and they, when staffed by properly trained individuals, are a reliable, easy to operate, serious contender for replacement of coal power.
I think the thing you are missing is that Military reactors have to be certified for operation, have an operating budget, are well maintained have an entire engineering safety culture designed around passing information up the chain of command. Importantly Naval reactors are not expected to to turn a profit.
Whilst the exact power output of a naval reactor is probably classified, I doubt it is in the 600 - 1000Mw range of a commercial power plant. A commercial power plant has different operational objectives, a for profit impetus and a engineering culture that has management dictate what is acceptable safety culture to maintain operations.
I think your comments would only be valid if *all* civilian reactors were run by the government or the military, but they are not. They are run by power companies to generate income, not by the military to complete an objective.
The radioactive waste produced will decay to the level of natural uranium radiation in only 200 years, which is worlds better than the thousands of years it takes for the "spent" fuel of current systems to decay.
Since it will be much more radioactive than the spent fuel products of PWR then it is likely to be 'shorter' half life than those. Though from other information I've read the 'fissile ash' of an IFR would take around 600 years to decay through all the daughter products. Now if only we could design an IFR reactor with an operational lifespan to match the decay characteristics of the spent fuel.
Fuel does not need to be precisely fabricated like in many other reactor designs. It can simply be cast into the correct shape.
The process is called "Pyroprocessing" and was a stage of the project that was not completed. It meant dissolving the spent fuel 'cartridge' of an IFR in an acid bath and using an electrolytic process to recover fissionable fuel. It was a significant component of the 'IFR' facility design which was meant to be contained completely underground. A 'Pyro-process' (a new type of fuel reprocessing facility) was planned to be sited with the reactor and fuel to and from the reactor facility went by underground tunnels. The fuel cartridges were to be made in a remote environment in an atmosphere of an inert gas (argon - I think). The idea, fissile material went into the facility and nothing comes out.
The reactor is not a serious proliferation concern, because once the fuel is started in the reactor it remains extremely radioactive until it is completely spent...
and decays through it's daughter products. The 'fissile ash' is very radioactive.
However that risk exists with conventional reactor designs, and is even worse, because of the larger amount of waste produced by those designs....even though an explanation of the design would make it clear that constructing such a plant would reduce proliferation risk.
IFR has three characteristics which make it a design worth developing
Weapons grade Plutonium can be used as fuel
Spent fuel from PWR can be used as fuel
U-238, or depleted uranium can be used as fuel
apart from the first two, being able to use up U-238 is a positive for this design. Unfortunately the IFR design is let down by current day materials technology - and the fact that a reactor of commercial scale would be cooled by roughly 60-100,000 tons of sodium. You want to make sure there is no chance of a leak *into* the system. Unless you could use a different type of metal the sodium is necessary to achieve the fuel burn-up rates of an IFR which are around 19% as opposed to the 0.3% of a PWR.
If nuclear power plants had to pay for waste disposal in proportion to how long the fuel takes to decay, that would almost certainly offset this.
If the containment facility was built in a mountain made of granite as opposed to a mountain made of pumice (as is the case of Yucca) there would be the basis of a responsible logistics and infrastructure plan to centralise the storage fuel for a potential IFR facility contained in the same mountain. Make no mistake though, despite the advances IFR offer, it would still be a dangerous beast to operate. The failure modes are undefined, the basis design issues are unknown as are the accident sequence precursors - all of which would require *significant* research and development to acquire data for. Breeder reactors are known to be fickle beasts with much shorter times to react to problems than PWR.
That said though, it could be a viable long term plan rather than taking the 'Not in My Generation' (NIMG) attitude and just consuming electricity. Allowing 50 years to implement it is not and unreasonable way to address the issue of transuranic fuel containment
Brad C Edwards NIAC study into building a Space Elevator pointed out that the next generation launchers would have to have enough lift capacity to send the initial 20 ton capacity spool and deployer into space. I don't know how much that would weigh, but I bet if some significant breakthroughs in CNT technology are made in the lifetime of this launch system then the priorities of what NASA tasks them to do may change dramatically.
I know we haven't successfully made long strand CNT's yet but it is feasible that a breakthrough in this technology is made in our lifetimes and the way we look at getting into space changes with that. I hope so, as it will also change the way we access other planets orbiting Sol, including Mars.
A moonstalk with 2000kg capacity to lunar orbit would be an absolutely worthwhile mission to commit *any* launch platform to building and that doesn't need CNT's to build it. From there using Lunar regolith for radiation shielding for space craft and stations become a possibility because the energy cost of getting it from earth are not there. What valuable experience it would gain us have a second means to access the Moons surface, and potentially building our first space craft *in space*.
I'm not questioning the need for either of these launch systems - we need them. But what I question is how serious we are about making access to space cheap and affordable. Why, if all the industrial efforts to build spacecraft culminated in a moon landing within a decade can we not have a 'effort' of some kind to crack making long strand CNT's? It's hard to believe that it's something we *can't* do, especially if we have the existing materials technology to work out the logistical problems with a moonstalk.
against poor design then they would not exist. I suppose that the gross profit of all the anti-virus companies combined are a quick glance at what a poorly designed operating system costs it's users.
Hi omo, I run a recording studio and produce music so I guess I'm in your target market. I think it's really important not to alienate your potential customers, especially online. If you get in someones face, online, who might be able to help you it kills word of mouth marketing very quickly.
In other words, ask yourself if it's a problem with the program or if the problem could be you.
Running a recording studio is hard and producing music is extremely challenging. After setting up a room, miking up the musicians (and each band has it's own complexities just there), making sure no dumbass has brought a powered up mobile phone into the studio, doing the recording session and producing a mix for musicians who can't make up their mind about the final result the last thing you need is to rely on a production tool from someone who has an attitude and can be regarded as unhelpful.
You may have a good idea, exporting a sound file to a graphic image and then use photoshop or something to edit it but I question why a producer is going to use/learn a *visual* tool to do *sonic* work. I know of a lot of good producers that don't want to see their video monitors and hang towels over them while they listen to the mix on a four inch auratone. They don't want to engage their eyes because the visual cortex causes a distraction when setting up the 'ghosts' in the audio monitors. It's about sound and the illusion it creates, not about the illusion and the sound it creates.
Clearly, your program is used during the production phase and being a 50/50 proposition it very much comes down to how *you* come across to your market. If you are reasonable, they might give it a shot, if not word will spread very quickly. Be realistic and have some humility about your program. It's not essential or even revolutionary but it could have a place so make sure you don't come across as a buffoon and try to make out that it is. Leave the attitude behind, know when to say sorry when appropriate and, most important, try to make friends. Those things will gain you respect and credibility.
That said, it looks interesting and I wish you the best of luck.
You know that little comic is kinda cute and all but when I read a response, like yours, to someone using the moniker 'M$' for Microsoft I instantly think wow here is a 'M$ fanboi'. Beside the parent said 'MS' and you *still* got offended.
First of all I don't want to type Microsoft all the time and MS is accepted shorthand for Multiple Sclerosis, ms is for millisecond, Ms is for referring to women. So why don't you tell me what is an accepted short term for Microsoft and convince everyone to use it in a politically correct way that will not offend you?
Then tell me why should I have to type a string of extra character throughout a post as to not invoke your sense of outrage to invoking what, for years now, has been an accepted shorthand for Microsoft. I got three words:
Get over it.
Here is some news for you, Microsoft don't care. Everyone knows the fastest way to really rub a Microsoft fanboi up the wrong way is to refer to Microsoft as M$, especially long time, old skool smug bearded Unix guys like myself. If it bothers you that people say M$ it's because it reminds us all what M$ is all about. If you are offended then it's probably designed to offend you, because no-one else cares. Frankly I think the moniker is a work of genius, whoever referred to Microsoft as M$ first should be given a percentage of all the insightful mod points ever used in any discussion about M$, except it probably predates the web, $lashdot and O$$.
M$ M$M$M$
See M$ stockprices are the same, Bill and Melinda are doing whatever they are doing, Ballmer didn't even care. No one cares.
I don't think the problem is whether or not we went to the moon. The problem is that we have a government which has no problem lying to us.
My girlfriend often remarks to me when we see old American movies that 'that was when it was a much nicer America' not one so conditioned to lying to it's own people that no one knows what the truth is. Obviously I don't know what the actual truth is either.
My uncles and my father all watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing *LIVE*. As they were in Australia they were getting the feed slightly before the U.S did. I have no doubt that the moon landing happened but the three of them have all told me the same strange story about when they watched the moon landing.
I can't say exactly when they heard Armstrong, a man known for his calm under pressure, say in an excited voice:
"Huston, Huston: There is something large and suspiciously white moving off the crater ri.."
the transmission was cut off and they were left wondering what was going on.
I personally believe the majority of UFO sighting can be explained by high speed intelligence reconnaissance aircraft and UFO sightings were a convenient cover for their operations. Yet there may be some sort of conspiracy, not that we didn't land on the moon I have no doubt of that we did. But what actually happened may be much stranger.
It seems kind of convenient that the original recordings of the moon landings have been "lost", who knows maybe the story of faked moon landings is yet another cover story. The only way to be sure is to see and hear the recordings of the original moon landing in it entirety from separation of the LM and CM to the docking of the LM to the CM. It's simple really, as it's is a significant piece of human history, why can't I buy it somehow and listen and watch without commentary? Surely, since nothing about the mission is classified, I should be able to do that, so why is it so difficult to find, even just to connect to what was achieved all those years ago?
They then say which filesystems are fastest, but 'these margins were small'.
They also said "All mount options and file-system settings were left at their defaults", and I struggled to see what the point is of doing performance tests to find the fastest file system if you are not going to even attempt to get the best performance you can out of each filesystem.
Why not do a test that just uses dd to do a straight read from a target hard drive to a file(s) on the target filesystem to eliminate *any* variation with the source data?
Read, write and delete times are the most important things to know and copying a large file on the same file system. What about how successive small file writes performed while a large write is under way. What about how the file system performs when it is 25%, 50% and 95% full? Why not just use the exact same shell script with different target file systems? For everything else Reiser did, what about comparisons to reiserfs, it's still a pretty good file system.
When I put my Studio systems together I spent time doing exactly the tests I outlined above to determine which file system would do the job. I actually thought this article might have been better than the tests I did, but as you rightly mentioned, most of the tests are to CPU bound and complicated to be of any use.
Can you explain it to me? What CPU features does Vista/7 take advantage of that XP does not?
Not with any authority, however it is my understanding that four is the most cpu cores that XP can access, after going through the hassle of installing the appropriate service pack. Whilst I think that the i7 has 4 cpu cores I don't think XP can access the maximum thread count even with the service pack.
I think the real comparison is that multi core cpu's and 64 bit is old hat to Linux where as it's a fairly recent addition to Windows. So I can expect less problems with Linux handling multiple cpu cores as opposed to Windows. Besides I think Ubuntu proves Windows as it is not really good value for money.
The video production software was a simple select/install/use and is already multi-threaded and 64 bit so he didn't have to buy or pirate the software to be able to use it immediately. Furthermore the machine's cpu is not burdened with the overheads that having to use anti-virus software imposes on the machine no matter what version of Windows is used, which releases even more cpu time and disk bandwidth for user tasks.
I have learned, since I have supported Microsoft products since MS-DOS was released, that supporting Windows installations eventually becomes a nightmare and with the DRM being further embedded into Windows 7 I would expect it's just going to get even more frustrating to support. Even though I will have to learn how to deal with those issues, if I put my neighbour through them, he's gonna hate it. I learned long ago that you *NEVER* deploy a new Microsoft product to users until more experienced users, such as yourself in all likelyhood, have run the most common issues out of the product. Vista was already out of the question.
Realistically, even if Windows 7 was released today, it still wouldn't be ready for general users for another 6 months minimum! If my neighbour wants to fork out a couple of hundred dollars purchasing Winodws 7 when it's available, then he can. I've told him it's there if he wants it. For now though he is running Ubuntu Studio and making video productions of his fishing trips whilst listening to Hilltop Hoods.
Maybe someone should explain it to you. Did you put more than 4 gigs of memory in his computer? Otherwise it "gets the juice" just fine.
Well thank you for the gracious offer. I put 6Gb of ram in the machine as the base (target is 24Gb), however I think because the machine is triple channel that XP would only be able to address 3Gb of ram. So no, XP doesn't get all the juice.
I mean it would be pretty lame if I gave him the machine and it could only *ever* use 3Gb of ram. Maybe I have missed something but he is hooked on workspaces now it's hard to go back to windows once you have used that Linux feature.
Get everything you can out of the 'current generation of processors', like when you juice a lemon or an orange and you are trying to get all the juice out of it.
No, I wasn't going to explain cpu architecture to my neighbour.
That is not a surprise. Of course average Joe can migrate to Linux if he has a confident geek holding his hand the whole way. But there is many average Joe out there, and very few confident geeks.
I don't think it's a matter of how many confident geeks are out there I think it's a matter of confident business, there has actually been very little migration. I resolved to set the machine up the same way I would have installed any Windows installation. I showed him where Add/remove software was and how to look for software that he might want to add, which doesn't exist in windows. Plug your camera in here, your phone in here and just make sure your dog doesn't piss on the computer.
The only difference with a windows install was I said to him "Don't be afraid to try stuff on the computer, it's hard to break and if you do we can probably fix it", I do not feel that confident saying that with windows installations because I know when they break it's a nightmare to fix them.
I'm almost completely certain that no matter what he does he will *never* get a virus on that machine.
Slashdot Mirror
According to wikipedia Pu-239 the half-life is 24100 years. It's humbling to realise that is over ten times as long as our civilisation has existed.
Your concern is valid but my main concern is that concentrated radioactive isotopes, like plutonium 239, analogue nutrients the body requires when ingested. So to the body Pu-239 "looks" like iron, and is treated as such, as it is a potent alpha emitter it's most obvious effect on the body when ingested is leukemia. Common radioactive isotopes analogue other things, like calcium and potassium etc, and they cause different, usually cancerous, effects.
I mentioning this because it's often said (of radioactive isotopes) 'they do not emit enough radiation to be a concern for human health' *externally*. What is not often spoken about is that the process of isotope 'Bio-concentration' through the food chain makes isotope absorption an eventuality proportional to how common radioactive isotopes are in the environment. Of course, this continues until the isotope decays.
If you couple that with the fact that the entire Nuclear Industry leaks many different isotopes you may understand why I think it is so important for us to engineer the industry to control/stop radioactive isotope release into the environment.
The few American people I have worked with and met socially in my country have all been decent people.
America is a great country, and has achieved much and overcome enormous difficulties. But something happened to America after WW2 and that is the rise of corporate power in America. Some will and some won't admit it is the core of problems in the US but it is has been spreading around the world and you don't have to look far to find it's influence.
Corporatism lobbies politicians to change laws, dumbs down the media, battles in the courts against those it has wronged, creates pollution, undermines fair working conditions for everyone and so on. There is no refuge from it anywhere, it was released to power in America and after conquering communism is almost finished defeating capitalism.
That is what killed the nice America, it is what engenders a sense of absolute hopelessness in everyone it touches. Deep down, Americans are smart enough to know this is the master to which they are chained while it makes a mockery of freedom. Because it comes from within it is the deadliest enemy of all.
Don't you think that Uncle Bill could be described as all three of these things?
It's a new function on Bill's personal edition of Windows 7. The new key mapped in Windows 7 is the ctrl + 'Weather' key, it's between the 'Launch ICBM' key and 'Crash world economy' key.
Apparently the rc for Bill's copy swapped the 'Crash World economy' key with the 'Weather' key last year some time...
I use this to. For coding and for music production it certainly reduces the amount of movement you make. I've never attempted to get the scroll buttons on the marble mouse working but they are in a good position.
One thing though if you are after a scroll wheel on the left hand side why don't you just have another mouse on the left hand side with a scroll wheel on it?
It's relative though, plutonium is pretty toxic and it's half-life is 25,000 years.
To avoid repeatedly going through any decommissioning procedure at the end of the reactors lifespan. We don't really know how to decommission a standard PWR properly yet and I'd say the belly of an IFR will have some seriously nasty activated elements. Better to have the design operating for as long as possible and when it's time comes, shut it down and consider the core a tomb that you will never open letting it decay with the fuel it has burnt up. Hopefully at the end of the 600 or so years we will have come up with a new way of powering the world AND dealt with all the transuranics and du we have lying around now.
Why bother? The expense and danger comes from the logistical issues around transporting the element. Site the reactor *with* the containment and disposal facility and those logistics issues disappear. The core issue is to start with a geologically sound containment facility first and build a logistics plan to transport the plutonium and d.u. From there you have a foundation for IFR core(s) in a containment facility that could sustain attack from orbit and implement all modern safety recommendations all in one go. At worst the spent fuel is contained properly until the technology comes on line.
You want to use the fuel up anyway so why not plan for the reactors demise also.
I think the thing you are missing is that Military reactors have to be certified for operation, have an operating budget, are well maintained have an entire engineering safety culture designed around passing information up the chain of command. Importantly Naval reactors are not expected to to turn a profit.
Whilst the exact power output of a naval reactor is probably classified, I doubt it is in the 600 - 1000Mw range of a commercial power plant. A commercial power plant has different operational objectives, a for profit impetus and a engineering culture that has management dictate what is acceptable safety culture to maintain operations.
I think your comments would only be valid if *all* civilian reactors were run by the government or the military, but they are not. They are run by power companies to generate income, not by the military to complete an objective.
Since it will be much more radioactive than the spent fuel products of PWR then it is likely to be 'shorter' half life than those. Though from other information I've read the 'fissile ash' of an IFR would take around 600 years to decay through all the daughter products. Now if only we could design an IFR reactor with an operational lifespan to match the decay characteristics of the spent fuel.
The process is called "Pyroprocessing" and was a stage of the project that was not completed. It meant dissolving the spent fuel 'cartridge' of an IFR in an acid bath and using an electrolytic process to recover fissionable fuel. It was a significant component of the 'IFR' facility design which was meant to be contained completely underground. A 'Pyro-process' (a new type of fuel reprocessing facility) was planned to be sited with the reactor and fuel to and from the reactor facility went by underground tunnels. The fuel cartridges were to be made in a remote environment in an atmosphere of an inert gas (argon - I think). The idea, fissile material went into the facility and nothing comes out.
and decays through it's daughter products. The 'fissile ash' is very radioactive.
IFR has three characteristics which make it a design worth developing
Weapons grade Plutonium can be used as fuel Spent fuel from PWR can be used as fuel U-238, or depleted uranium can be used as fuelapart from the first two, being able to use up U-238 is a positive for this design. Unfortunately the IFR design is let down by current day materials technology - and the fact that a reactor of commercial scale would be cooled by roughly 60-100,000 tons of sodium. You want to make sure there is no chance of a leak *into* the system. Unless you could use a different type of metal the sodium is necessary to achieve the fuel burn-up rates of an IFR which are around 19% as opposed to the 0.3% of a PWR.
If the containment facility was built in a mountain made of granite as opposed to a mountain made of pumice (as is the case of Yucca) there would be the basis of a responsible logistics and infrastructure plan to centralise the storage fuel for a potential IFR facility contained in the same mountain. Make no mistake though, despite the advances IFR offer, it would still be a dangerous beast to operate. The failure modes are undefined, the basis design issues are unknown as are the accident sequence precursors - all of which would require *significant* research and development to acquire data for. Breeder reactors are known to be fickle beasts with much shorter times to react to problems than PWR.
That said though, it could be a viable long term plan rather than taking the 'Not in My Generation' (NIMG) attitude and just consuming electricity. Allowing 50 years to implement it is not and unreasonable way to address the issue of transuranic fuel containment
Well, it's been proven in test after test that Nuclear powered windmills will generate more spin and hot air than wind powered Nuclear plants.
Brad C Edwards NIAC study into building a Space Elevator pointed out that the next generation launchers would have to have enough lift capacity to send the initial 20 ton capacity spool and deployer into space. I don't know how much that would weigh, but I bet if some significant breakthroughs in CNT technology are made in the lifetime of this launch system then the priorities of what NASA tasks them to do may change dramatically.
I know we haven't successfully made long strand CNT's yet but it is feasible that a breakthrough in this technology is made in our lifetimes and the way we look at getting into space changes with that. I hope so, as it will also change the way we access other planets orbiting Sol, including Mars.
A moonstalk with 2000kg capacity to lunar orbit would be an absolutely worthwhile mission to commit *any* launch platform to building and that doesn't need CNT's to build it. From there using Lunar regolith for radiation shielding for space craft and stations become a possibility because the energy cost of getting it from earth are not there. What valuable experience it would gain us have a second means to access the Moons surface, and potentially building our first space craft *in space*.
I'm not questioning the need for either of these launch systems - we need them. But what I question is how serious we are about making access to space cheap and affordable. Why, if all the industrial efforts to build spacecraft culminated in a moon landing within a decade can we not have a 'effort' of some kind to crack making long strand CNT's? It's hard to believe that it's something we *can't* do, especially if we have the existing materials technology to work out the logistical problems with a moonstalk.
What makes you think that I am offended? I think omo sounds quite open to advice of which I am lending my perspective.
against poor design then they would not exist. I suppose that the gross profit of all the anti-virus companies combined are a quick glance at what a poorly designed operating system costs it's users.
That's extremely unlikely.
Indeed, I was to tired to be posting replies.
Hi omo, I run a recording studio and produce music so I guess I'm in your target market. I think it's really important not to alienate your potential customers, especially online. If you get in someones face, online, who might be able to help you it kills word of mouth marketing very quickly.
In other words, ask yourself if it's a problem with the program or if the problem could be you.
Running a recording studio is hard and producing music is extremely challenging. After setting up a room, miking up the musicians (and each band has it's own complexities just there), making sure no dumbass has brought a powered up mobile phone into the studio, doing the recording session and producing a mix for musicians who can't make up their mind about the final result the last thing you need is to rely on a production tool from someone who has an attitude and can be regarded as unhelpful.
You may have a good idea, exporting a sound file to a graphic image and then use photoshop or something to edit it but I question why a producer is going to use/learn a *visual* tool to do *sonic* work. I know of a lot of good producers that don't want to see their video monitors and hang towels over them while they listen to the mix on a four inch auratone. They don't want to engage their eyes because the visual cortex causes a distraction when setting up the 'ghosts' in the audio monitors. It's about sound and the illusion it creates, not about the illusion and the sound it creates.
Clearly, your program is used during the production phase and being a 50/50 proposition it very much comes down to how *you* come across to your market. If you are reasonable, they might give it a shot, if not word will spread very quickly. Be realistic and have some humility about your program. It's not essential or even revolutionary but it could have a place so make sure you don't come across as a buffoon and try to make out that it is. Leave the attitude behind, know when to say sorry when appropriate and, most important, try to make friends. Those things will gain you respect and credibility.
That said, it looks interesting and I wish you the best of luck.
Apologies Andr T. I fucked up, it wasn't meant for you.
You know that little comic is kinda cute and all but when I read a response, like yours, to someone using the moniker 'M$' for Microsoft I instantly think wow here is a 'M$ fanboi'. Beside the parent said 'MS' and you *still* got offended.
First of all I don't want to type Microsoft all the time and MS is accepted shorthand for Multiple Sclerosis, ms is for millisecond, Ms is for referring to women. So why don't you tell me what is an accepted short term for Microsoft and convince everyone to use it in a politically correct way that will not offend you?
Then tell me why should I have to type a string of extra character throughout a post as to not invoke your sense of outrage to invoking what, for years now, has been an accepted shorthand for Microsoft. I got three words:
Get over it.
Here is some news for you, Microsoft don't care. Everyone knows the fastest way to really rub a Microsoft fanboi up the wrong way is to refer to Microsoft as M$, especially long time, old skool smug bearded Unix guys like myself. If it bothers you that people say M$ it's because it reminds us all what M$ is all about. If you are offended then it's probably designed to offend you, because no-one else cares. Frankly I think the moniker is a work of genius, whoever referred to Microsoft as M$ first should be given a percentage of all the insightful mod points ever used in any discussion about M$, except it probably predates the web, $lashdot and O$$.
M$ M$ M$ M$
See M$ stockprices are the same, Bill and Melinda are doing whatever they are doing, Ballmer didn't even care. No one cares.
Only you care, you're the only one offended.
Welcome our smug, bearded, Unix liking overloads.
My girlfriend often remarks to me when we see old American movies that 'that was when it was a much nicer America' not one so conditioned to lying to it's own people that no one knows what the truth is. Obviously I don't know what the actual truth is either.
My uncles and my father all watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing *LIVE*. As they were in Australia they were getting the feed slightly before the U.S did. I have no doubt that the moon landing happened but the three of them have all told me the same strange story about when they watched the moon landing.
I can't say exactly when they heard Armstrong, a man known for his calm under pressure, say in an excited voice:
"Huston, Huston: There is something large and suspiciously white moving off the crater ri.."
the transmission was cut off and they were left wondering what was going on.
I personally believe the majority of UFO sighting can be explained by high speed intelligence reconnaissance aircraft and UFO sightings were a convenient cover for their operations. Yet there may be some sort of conspiracy, not that we didn't land on the moon I have no doubt of that we did. But what actually happened may be much stranger.
It seems kind of convenient that the original recordings of the moon landings have been "lost", who knows maybe the story of faked moon landings is yet another cover story. The only way to be sure is to see and hear the recordings of the original moon landing in it entirety from separation of the LM and CM to the docking of the LM to the CM. It's simple really, as it's is a significant piece of human history, why can't I buy it somehow and listen and watch without commentary? Surely, since nothing about the mission is classified, I should be able to do that, so why is it so difficult to find, even just to connect to what was achieved all those years ago?
We could simulate murdering Tom Cruise over and over and it would just never get old.
They also said "All mount options and file-system settings were left at their defaults", and I struggled to see what the point is of doing performance tests to find the fastest file system if you are not going to even attempt to get the best performance you can out of each filesystem.
Why not do a test that just uses dd to do a straight read from a target hard drive to a file(s) on the target filesystem to eliminate *any* variation with the source data? Read, write and delete times are the most important things to know and copying a large file on the same file system. What about how successive small file writes performed while a large write is under way. What about how the file system performs when it is 25%, 50% and 95% full? Why not just use the exact same shell script with different target file systems? For everything else Reiser did, what about comparisons to reiserfs, it's still a pretty good file system.
When I put my Studio systems together I spent time doing exactly the tests I outlined above to determine which file system would do the job. I actually thought this article might have been better than the tests I did, but as you rightly mentioned, most of the tests are to CPU bound and complicated to be of any use.
If the bovine has done nothing wrong, surely it has nothing to fear from being tracked. After what's the worst that can happen to it?
Not with any authority, however it is my understanding that four is the most cpu cores that XP can access, after going through the hassle of installing the appropriate service pack. Whilst I think that the i7 has 4 cpu cores I don't think XP can access the maximum thread count even with the service pack.
I think the real comparison is that multi core cpu's and 64 bit is old hat to Linux where as it's a fairly recent addition to Windows. So I can expect less problems with Linux handling multiple cpu cores as opposed to Windows. Besides I think Ubuntu proves Windows as it is not really good value for money.
The video production software was a simple select/install/use and is already multi-threaded and 64 bit so he didn't have to buy or pirate the software to be able to use it immediately. Furthermore the machine's cpu is not burdened with the overheads that having to use anti-virus software imposes on the machine no matter what version of Windows is used, which releases even more cpu time and disk bandwidth for user tasks.
I have learned, since I have supported Microsoft products since MS-DOS was released, that supporting Windows installations eventually becomes a nightmare and with the DRM being further embedded into Windows 7 I would expect it's just going to get even more frustrating to support. Even though I will have to learn how to deal with those issues, if I put my neighbour through them, he's gonna hate it. I learned long ago that you *NEVER* deploy a new Microsoft product to users until more experienced users, such as yourself in all likelyhood, have run the most common issues out of the product. Vista was already out of the question.
Realistically, even if Windows 7 was released today, it still wouldn't be ready for general users for another 6 months minimum! If my neighbour wants to fork out a couple of hundred dollars purchasing Winodws 7 when it's available, then he can. I've told him it's there if he wants it. For now though he is running Ubuntu Studio and making video productions of his fishing trips whilst listening to Hilltop Hoods.
Well thank you for the gracious offer. I put 6Gb of ram in the machine as the base (target is 24Gb), however I think because the machine is triple channel that XP would only be able to address 3Gb of ram. So no, XP doesn't get all the juice.
I mean it would be pretty lame if I gave him the machine and it could only *ever* use 3Gb of ram. Maybe I have missed something but he is hooked on workspaces now it's hard to go back to windows once you have used that Linux feature.
Get everything you can out of the 'current generation of processors', like when you juice a lemon or an orange and you are trying to get all the juice out of it.
No, I wasn't going to explain cpu architecture to my neighbour.
I don't think it's a matter of how many confident geeks are out there I think it's a matter of confident business, there has actually been very little migration. I resolved to set the machine up the same way I would have installed any Windows installation. I showed him where Add/remove software was and how to look for software that he might want to add, which doesn't exist in windows. Plug your camera in here, your phone in here and just make sure your dog doesn't piss on the computer.
The only difference with a windows install was I said to him "Don't be afraid to try stuff on the computer, it's hard to break and if you do we can probably fix it", I do not feel that confident saying that with windows installations because I know when they break it's a nightmare to fix them.
I'm almost completely certain that no matter what he does he will *never* get a virus on that machine.