what makes my SOOO frustrated is that 1.5 years ago I applied several times to Google to work on exactly this question and was never able to get an interview - and I have a PhD in Informatics
That's because the position was replaced by a computer.
I don't think anyone is serously suggesting that we will not even look for more Uranium (or any other resource) until we have completely run out first - making that argument is the task of fools.
Straw men aside, engineering advances follow resource exploration, in that once a resource has been found, the question of how to ecnomically extract it becomes relevant. Neither extraction techniques nor economics are fixed quantities.
Many people have made foolish suggestions in the past by assuming that there will be no further advances in extraction techniques combined with no further resource discoveries - this is a situation so far unknown (ie a fiction).
I feel confident in saying that Uranium usable in mass power production will be first taken from known resources - then found.
Right now there is simply no point in undertaking expensive exploration activites for a resource that people aren't sure they want yet, when existing production capacity remain in excess of demand.
When demand rises it will first be taken by accelerating current extration, then by exploring for, finding, and tapping new resources.
I think you mean "probably for ten years if no one builds more plants and if Australia builds no new mines and does not increase production".
U mining here is still in its infancy, with few facilities, not using especially advanced tech. Yes, we have enough to supply the world for a decade - that's quite a lot acutally.
This does not include known, untapped U resources, just current, limited production.
No need to go to Niger (or Nigeria) at this stage, but you can if you want;).
I realy would like to know where in Germany the uranium mines are located! The European countries have to import uranium as they have to import oil!
Except that Uranium comes if far, far smaller quantities than oil, last far longer, and also comes from more stable regions of the world.
You can get all the Uranium you require from Australia, especially since it would be political suicide for someone here to suggest we used our own resource rather than dig it up and sell it off cheap.
DOOM 3 and PERFECT DARK ZERO are two prime examples of deleopers dropping the ball.
Those two games are also good examples of game reviewers dropping the ball, both games received uniformly high scores, and dropped from sight soon after release. Once the rabid types who would buy any game with whichever name on the box were through, few other gamers came on board.
Computer Games magazines dug this hole for themselves well over a decade ago.
I find that one or two sentences on a game from Tycho is more informative than 300 words from any gaming magazine. Penny Arcade is a far more reliable source of game info than most magazines, and they too have good access to many games before release. They also criticised the single-player version of Halo 2.
If a consistently honest and reliable gaming mag actually showed up I'm sure people would buy it. As things stand, they are just enthusiastic regurgitators of whatever the marketing people let them see that month. When was the last time a computer games mag had something other than a preview as its front cover? You know they are just passing on the marketing spiel when that happens, and it happens every month, with every mag.
What we as gamers really need is a Rolling Stone for the computer games market. I?d buy that.
Being open source makes it tamper-resistant, not tamper-proof. Would it not be easier to just use a paper ballot in the first place?
This may shock and surprise you - but paper ballots are not tamper-proof. They are not even tamper-resistant. Any random pen or pencil mark on a paper ballot invalidates it. This is known as the 'informal vote' people mark their own ballot then deface it so that it will no count.
The assumption of course is that the person who filled it out also defaced it.
Note too that 'deface' in this context can be a simple pen mark outside the box.
So, picture this. The Book of Revelations is coming true. The Apocalypse is occurring. And all of us are standing around with that 'oh s**t' look on our faces while a small minority of the population (whose average IQ is about 80, perhaps?) start floating away to a bright light on the horizon.
Actually, if the IQ 80 fundies suddenly 'floated away' that would solve a lot of our problems.
The technology they are using is interesting, and they have pilot systems up and running, which are working fine in pacific island environments for 'low level' power needs. This is good, as pacific islands typically have to import fuel to burn for their power, and this technology does away with or at least reduces that need/
The only thing is that you need easy access to deep ocean close to land in order for this to work. In other words you need a 2000m (or deeper) ocean trench a short easy distance from the users of your power. Take a look at one of those global maps showing ocean depth and you'll see that pacific islands are about the only place you get this.
This technology is unlikely to ever have practical application beyond the pacific rim.
Ideas by themselves aren't dangerous. The become so only through interaction with beliefs.
Galileo's idea that a heliocentric model for the solar system was correct was not and is not dangerous by itself. It became dangerous to Galileo when it intersected with the church dogma of the day that held to the belief of a geocentric model of reality. To hold and idea contrary to that enforced belief was dangerous, as Galileo discovered.
Similarly take the idea of evolution. Not dangerous, rather sensible and supported by many facts related and unrelated to biology. Mix that with whatever collection of fairly tales and bible quotes the Christian fundamentalists want to belief this week, and you get a very dangerous mix.
Or consider this: The idea that an operating system designed for internal network applications can be extended to the Internet without problems can be debated and laughed at as we please. A belief in this would lead us to where we are now, with a laughable security situation that long ago ceased to be funny.
Sort of. The 'pressure' is more of the usual of the current Australian government's tripping over itself in its haste to appease the US.
Part of that is adopting as many US laws as possible, through the guise of the FTA. Copyright is one of those, having been greatly influenced by the RIAA. The link is not direct and more of a consequence of RIAAs US efforts.
It is likely that the RIAA is fully aware that through bilateral FTAs it can effectively ensure that numerous other nations adopt whatever they are able to push into law in the US, without having to expend any additonal effort themselves, other than lobbying to make sure that 'copyright protections' are part and parcel of any bilateral agreement.
The difference is in political clout. RIAA has a fair bit, being able to effectivly write and promote thier own laws through tame politicans. They are also able to get their own one-sided message out to consumers without much trouble.
ARIA has zero political clout in Australia. Remember all that fuss about parallel importing and how it was going to destroy Australina artists? Well ARIA tried to stop it with a political and public campaign (remember the TV ads?). They failed.
Years later, the local music scene is thriving, and CD prices have... well at least stopped rising if not actually come down.
The problem I've had is that my emulated version has a bug and freezes if I travel to level 5, which sucks. I still have a working C=64 in the house though...
None of my favourite games of this year were actually released in this year, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
2005 was not an especially good year for PC games, with most of the attention on sequels that you can play in your sleep they are so similar to what is already out there. Consoles and portables got some innovative titles, while PC gamers get left with sequels that play the same, but have a hard time running on modern hardware (I'm looking at you, Civ 4).
Rome: Total War, Diablo 2, UT2k4, and Ranarama (old game) took most of my attention this year, plus multiplayer Call of Duty. Nothing came out this year to take my attention away from games I was already playing.
However the constitution does not force authors and creators to release their works, at their own expense, for no fee, and in whatever format is currently being demanded when that protection period expires.
No mention of profit, and no mention of forced expense either.
It boils down to this: Some people feel that the output of thousands of individuals, writing whatever they feel like on whatever subject they want, when taken together, constitutes an encyclopedia.
Others disagree.
The 'controversy', such as it is, has nothing to do with open source as a programming philosophy or practise. I'm going to show my anti-wikipedia stance here and say that open source has been dragged into this by the wikipedia-philes as they are desperate to associate their discordant invention with anything viewed as 'positive' in the tech media.
Their project is neither open source, nor an encyclopedia. Unless the definition of open source has changed so that anyone, regardless of programming skill, and edit whatever Linux line they wish, and have that incorporated into the only final version. No, didn't think so.
Neither has the nature of an encyclopedia changed to remove anything representing editorial control or peer review.
So in summary, the 'controversy' is simply some people pointing out the obvious (that wikipedia is not what it claims to be) while being shouted at by those who disagree.
There are going to be some mistakes. Don't use an encyclopedia as a primary source. Nothing new here, please move along.
You appear to be very confused. No current encyclopedia constitutes a primary source- do you even know what a primary source is?
A real, actual, proper encyclopedia represents an excellent secondary source of information.
Wikipedia is neither. It is simply a collection of writing, where anyone can write whatever they want on whatever subject they wish. Calling it an encyclopedia does not make it so.
Rule number one of wikipedia: Do not question wikipedia.
If wikipedia says get someone else to write your autobiography, don't question, just do it.
Or you know, you could just ignore it as the feeble masturbations of people desperate to acquire expertise by loudly proclaiming they have it over and over.
Boy, that article gives way too much credit to the Slashdot crowd. "Bizarre and complex subculture"? "Highly developed and artistic attempts to provoke outraged responses"? Right...
Relax, it's Wiki. If you don't like it, just change it yourself.
Something like "predictable, emotive knee-jerk reactions mixed with the kind of homogenous racism and misogyny we have learned to expect from the internet."
It will be months before anyone notices, then Wired will have something else to write articles on to make themselves look relevant and topical.
Christmas is looking more depressing as each year goes on. Games cost more and more.
Wow, where do you live, and where do you shop? Your experience is the exact opposite to mine. Games are getting less and less.
Right now I can go out and buy Call of Duty 2 for AUD 89.99, which is the same as I paid for Ultima VI on the Amiga a decade ago. Taking inflation into account that is a big drop in price. Never mind that my income has substatially increased since then too.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because the position was replaced by a computer.
Straw men aside, engineering advances follow resource exploration, in that once a resource has been found, the question of how to ecnomically extract it becomes relevant. Neither extraction techniques nor economics are fixed quantities.
Many people have made foolish suggestions in the past by assuming that there will be no further advances in extraction techniques combined with no further resource discoveries - this is a situation so far unknown (ie a fiction).
Right now there is simply no point in undertaking expensive exploration activites for a resource that people aren't sure they want yet, when existing production capacity remain in excess of demand.
When demand rises it will first be taken by accelerating current extration, then by exploring for, finding, and tapping new resources.
U mining here is still in its infancy, with few facilities, not using especially advanced tech. Yes, we have enough to supply the world for a decade - that's quite a lot acutally.
This does not include known, untapped U resources, just current, limited production.
No need to go to Niger (or Nigeria) at this stage, but you can if you want ;).
Except that Uranium comes if far, far smaller quantities than oil, last far longer, and also comes from more stable regions of the world.
You can get all the Uranium you require from Australia, especially since it would be political suicide for someone here to suggest we used our own resource rather than dig it up and sell it off cheap.
DOOM 3 and PERFECT DARK ZERO are two prime examples of deleopers dropping the ball. Those two games are also good examples of game reviewers dropping the ball, both games received uniformly high scores, and dropped from sight soon after release. Once the rabid types who would buy any game with whichever name on the box were through, few other gamers came on board.
I find that one or two sentences on a game from Tycho is more informative than 300 words from any gaming magazine. Penny Arcade is a far more reliable source of game info than most magazines, and they too have good access to many games before release. They also criticised the single-player version of Halo 2.
If a consistently honest and reliable gaming mag actually showed up I'm sure people would buy it. As things stand, they are just enthusiastic regurgitators of whatever the marketing people let them see that month. When was the last time a computer games mag had something other than a preview as its front cover? You know they are just passing on the marketing spiel when that happens, and it happens every month, with every mag.
What we as gamers really need is a Rolling Stone for the computer games market. I?d buy that.
This may shock and surprise you - but paper ballots are not tamper-proof. They are not even tamper-resistant. Any random pen or pencil mark on a paper ballot invalidates it. This is known as the 'informal vote' people mark their own ballot then deface it so that it will no count.
The assumption of course is that the person who filled it out also defaced it.
Note too that 'deface' in this context can be a simple pen mark outside the box.
Actually, if the IQ 80 fundies suddenly 'floated away' that would solve a lot of our problems.
The only thing is that you need easy access to deep ocean close to land in order for this to work. In other words you need a 2000m (or deeper) ocean trench a short easy distance from the users of your power. Take a look at one of those global maps showing ocean depth and you'll see that pacific islands are about the only place you get this.
This technology is unlikely to ever have practical application beyond the pacific rim.
Galileo's idea that a heliocentric model for the solar system was correct was not and is not dangerous by itself. It became dangerous to Galileo when it intersected with the church dogma of the day that held to the belief of a geocentric model of reality. To hold and idea contrary to that enforced belief was dangerous, as Galileo discovered.
Similarly take the idea of evolution. Not dangerous, rather sensible and supported by many facts related and unrelated to biology. Mix that with whatever collection of fairly tales and bible quotes the Christian fundamentalists want to belief this week, and you get a very dangerous mix.
Or consider this: The idea that an operating system designed for internal network applications can be extended to the Internet without problems can be debated and laughed at as we please. A belief in this would lead us to where we are now, with a laughable security situation that long ago ceased to be funny.
Part of that is adopting as many US laws as possible, through the guise of the FTA. Copyright is one of those, having been greatly influenced by the RIAA. The link is not direct and more of a consequence of RIAAs US efforts.
It is likely that the RIAA is fully aware that through bilateral FTAs it can effectively ensure that numerous other nations adopt whatever they are able to push into law in the US, without having to expend any additonal effort themselves, other than lobbying to make sure that 'copyright protections' are part and parcel of any bilateral agreement.
ARIA has zero political clout in Australia. Remember all that fuss about parallel importing and how it was going to destroy Australina artists? Well ARIA tried to stop it with a political and public campaign (remember the TV ads?). They failed.
Years later, the local music scene is thriving, and CD prices have... well at least stopped rising if not actually come down.
To me it screams "we're too terrified to make a decision, so here's some of the top sellers for you to discuss. At least we'll get a /. hit out of it"
The problem I've had is that my emulated version has a bug and freezes if I travel to level 5, which sucks. I still have a working C=64 in the house though...
2005 was not an especially good year for PC games, with most of the attention on sequels that you can play in your sleep they are so similar to what is already out there. Consoles and portables got some innovative titles, while PC gamers get left with sequels that play the same, but have a hard time running on modern hardware (I'm looking at you, Civ 4).
Rome: Total War, Diablo 2, UT2k4, and Ranarama (old game) took most of my attention this year, plus multiplayer Call of Duty. Nothing came out this year to take my attention away from games I was already playing.
However the constitution does not force authors and creators to release their works, at their own expense, for no fee, and in whatever format is currently being demanded when that protection period expires.
No mention of profit, and no mention of forced expense either.
Others disagree.
The 'controversy', such as it is, has nothing to do with open source as a programming philosophy or practise. I'm going to show my anti-wikipedia stance here and say that open source has been dragged into this by the wikipedia-philes as they are desperate to associate their discordant invention with anything viewed as 'positive' in the tech media.
Their project is neither open source, nor an encyclopedia. Unless the definition of open source has changed so that anyone, regardless of programming skill, and edit whatever Linux line they wish, and have that incorporated into the only final version. No, didn't think so.
Neither has the nature of an encyclopedia changed to remove anything representing editorial control or peer review.
So in summary, the 'controversy' is simply some people pointing out the obvious (that wikipedia is not what it claims to be) while being shouted at by those who disagree.
You appear to be very confused. No current encyclopedia constitutes a primary source- do you even know what a primary source is?
A real, actual, proper encyclopedia represents an excellent secondary source of information.
Wikipedia is neither. It is simply a collection of writing, where anyone can write whatever they want on whatever subject they wish. Calling it an encyclopedia does not make it so.
If wikipedia says get someone else to write your autobiography, don't question, just do it.
Or you know, you could just ignore it as the feeble masturbations of people desperate to acquire expertise by loudly proclaiming they have it over and over.
...Zonk has put in a strong late entry for the coveted "most links in a single slashdot submission" prize for 2005.
Relax, it's Wiki. If you don't like it, just change it yourself.
Something like "predictable, emotive knee-jerk reactions mixed with the kind of homogenous racism and misogyny we have learned to expect from the internet."
It will be months before anyone notices, then Wired will have something else to write articles on to make themselves look relevant and topical.
Otherwise, yeah, News are just a Howard cheer squad. I was only referring to the sedition issue when I spoke of News being an opponent.
Wow, where do you live, and where do you shop? Your experience is the exact opposite to mine. Games are getting less and less.
Right now I can go out and buy Call of Duty 2 for AUD 89.99, which is the same as I paid for Ultima VI on the Amiga a decade ago. Taking inflation into account that is a big drop in price. Never mind that my income has substatially increased since then too.
To opt out, don't.