Yes, I know you can buy a fixed number of license via volume licensing. I've done it often. I have been told by MS in the past that they don't do site-wide, unlimited-number licenses. You had to pick a number and they'd give you a price.
We have an application using supercaps for short term power storage. It's part of a system that has a very high peak, short duration power draw - similar to a strobing camera flash. The caps have very good power density and don't degrade with the charge/discharge cycles. However, they do leak-down badly. They lose 50% of their voltage which is 75% of their energy in under an hour sitting on the bench. We could have gotten better leakage rating, but at the expense of much lower energy density. I suspect this is the tradeoff that Miller is referring to.
Agreed, the weight of the liquid fuel would be greater than equivalent weight of conventional explosive propellant. The US is trying really hard to move to all-electric ships, so Nuclear reactors and electrically powered weapons are a good match.
The hour estimate for for pulling a very small power load of 22 kW (a mere 30 HP, btw). Even multiplying by a factor of 8 is not a problem for a destroyer. Consider that the gas-turbines on an Arleigh Burke class destroyer put out a total of 75MW of propulsion power. Not real hard to tap into that or even just slap on a small 300-HP gas-turbine generator.
Can you cite what data are you referring to? I'm curious how we have reliable data from that far back. It's only since the 1960's that we have even looked at ozone. We can get generalized temperature from historical records, but nothing as accurate as a worldwide average within 5 degrees. Ice core samples perhaps?
You're assuming the summary is correct, which is often a bad assumption here on slashdot. I'm going to assume that 8 Megajoules is the final energy level of the projectile and not the input energy of the weapon. Taking a wild guess of 90% energy loss in the system, we are looking at 22.2 kilowatt-hours. A destroyer can easily provide 22.2 kilowatts of power to get this thing charged in an hour.
"Scientists are not out to bring America down, or trying to stop us having fun in cool cars. They're totally regular people whose only crime is knowing about the frickin topic they're talking about, and smart-arses like you seem to hate them for it."
Actually I do know a little bit about the topic, and the intelligence of my buttocks is irrelevant. You seem to be lumping me in with 90% of the population who thinks we have an "ozone hole" in our "ozone layer". Both of those are mass-media terms because it's more scary than saying localized reductions in upper stratospheric ozone concentrations.
Having some experience in scientific and medical research arenas, I know pure research is driven by funding. Scientist either live off grants or work under colleges or businesses with a public image to defend. Publishing or saying anything contrary to the prevailing opinion is bad for your career. Most studies funded via grants are expected to getting a specific range of answer. I'm not saying that scientists are biased (although some are), but rather the research is towards other explanations is simply not being funded.
There is one big issue with claiming that reduced CFC emissions are responsible for the increasing levels of O3 in the upper stratosphere. The global levels are continuing to drop. Since 1967, the estimated total worldwide reduction in O3 in the upper stratosphere is approximately 2%. This very slow trend has not changed. The notion of the "ozone hole getting smaller" is that that local areas of lower concentrations are not as severe or large.
The "ozone hole" is an area with lower concentrations above the antarctic region. It is this area that scientists have noted a 60-70% lower than average concentration during certain times of the year. The entire "ozone layer" (another misnomer) undergoes yearly cycles but thin spots seem to have bigger swings. Since the O3 concentrations have an observable short duration cycle, it is certainly reasonable to assume that it may also be subject to longer term cycles. Our ozone data at best stretches back 50 years.
It's also quite possible that the local and global ozone concentrations are being affected by increased solar activity. After all, ozone is primarily produced by solar activity which happens to be on the upswing.
As for the Kyoto treaty, people are very naive if they think there were no politics involved. Less industrialized nations are very eager to put limits on the US industry because is helps close the technology gap. You'd certainly sign a treaty if it put a bigger handicap on your competitors right? Even better if you can sell emissions credits. I don't disagree that lowering greenhouse emissions is a good thing. I just think the affect of man-made greenhouse gases is overstated and highly politicized. Naturally, oil industry fed politicians in the US fought this tooth and nail. The reality is that the treaty called for a meager 5.2% reduction in industrially produced CO2 world-wide.
I'm skeptical of both sides and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not the doom-gloom that environmental groups preach, or the rosy-nothing-is-wrong view espoused by our current administration. I believe man is having some measurable effect, but not the dominating cause for out climate change. Efforts to address our pollution are needed, but need to have their priorities and funding handled with a clearer view of the problem.
I'm wondering if Apple didn't get dinged for claiming revenue from the upgrade and now they are being backed into a corner and forced to charge for the upgrade?
I wholeheartedly agree with you. The earth and sun have very long cycles that span eons and looking at a mere 100 years of semi-accurate data is very myopic. I can go along with the current theories that we are having an influence on the climate but we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe. IF they were correct after all, the ozone hole would not be getting smaller. Anyone who thinks the Kyoto accords were only about reducing greenhouse emissions needs to really look into the politics behind it. Most of the nations that signed it didn't have significant emissions to begin with.
I assume you're behind at least a router doing NAT, which provides plenty of protection for external intrusions. Otherwise, you probably would be hacked pretty quick given the usual lag between network based vulnerabilities popping up and MS fixing them.
Of course also tell the boy to stop surfing porn and warez sites. You're not going to convince me that he didn't search out porn in the first place (probably not kiddie though).
> Firefox would freeze (all open windows and tabs) for about 15 seconds.
I have this problem every time I right-click "save link as", or a page loads an applet from a slow server, or waiting on a pdf to open, etc. Everything in Firefox is hung waiting on one tab. Nice multi-threading there guys (sarcasm intentional). Sounds like half of this guys gripe is with Firefox. But don't worry, version 3 will provide all these new features so you forget about all the other bugs that have been there since the original beta version.
I hate replying to myself. I was wrong about the dll (it was standard part of the uninstall dir). The patch installs a program called tzchange and runs it to effect the timezone definition changes, which really just changes the registry entries.
I just noticed that the Microsoft patch for XP is marked as an optional software update so it's not actually going out via WindowsUpdate. You have to visit windowsupdate.microsoft.com to get it. It is going out via WSUS though. I wonder if MS will change that before March?
Patch 928338 for XP seems to replace a DLL and does something with the tzchange.exe program. Even weirder, the spunist.inf file in the uninstall directory contains a list of installed software? I wonder if that's normal or if windowsupdate is getting a list of what software I have installed.
Yes, you can simply just edit the registry entries for the timezones. In fact I just pushed this changed to all my W2K clients.
The patch on XP appears to be a little bit more involved. Look at these keys on an XP machine that has gotten the patch and you'll see a subkey with multiple definitions for the dst start/stop. I see an entry called 2006 with the old def and a value 2007 with the new definition.
So does redefining the TZ, cause W2K to display incorrect timestamps for past files created during the weeks that previously were not included? The dynamic TZ keys I see under XP implies that XP will be smart enough to figure it out.
Eskimos, or Esquimaux, are terms used to refer to people who inhabit the circumpolar region, excluding Scandinavia and most of Russia, but including the easternmost portions of Siberia. There are two main groups of Eskimos: the Inuit in northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland, and the Yupik of western Alaska and the Russian Far East.
The term Eskimo can include the Alutiiq, Inupiat, Sug'piak, and Yup'ik Eskimo populations of Alaska, and the Yupik population of Eastern Russia. The speakers of the Yupik languages self-identify as Eskimo [1], but the majority of the Native population in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland prefer to be called "Inuit", or to a smaller extent Inuvialuit, and most find the term Eskimo highly offensive.
The original poster was right as the Inuit are indeed a subset of Eskimos. You are also correct in that Inuit dislike the more generic term of Eskimos. So it's more like africans disliking being called blacks.
You're right, I should have said "anyone" instead of "you". I too consider myself agnostic. I can't rule out a higher power or purpose, but don't know for sure. I am sure that organized religions such as Christianity don't have the answers. Certainly not in the US where religion revolves around politics, power, making money, and elitism.
33% is hardly a vast majority. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.ht ml. Plus, Christianity is one of the youngest religions out there. What makes you believe that Hinduism and Buddism are wrong and this new upstart of a religion is correct?
The biggest reason is that implementing all of the NSA recommended configuration changes seriously impacts the useablility of the OS and software compatibility.
Do you think people would roll out Server 2003 if it wasn't compatible out of the box with legacy Win98 and WinNT machines and totally screws with Samba shares? What if the default configuration destroys the ability to run even 10% of the commercial software without having to dig in the bowels of the OS and undo some obscure tcpip stack setting. Probably not.
Speaking as someone who regularly implements the NSA configuration and DISA security guidelines, I can say it will break lots of things and you'll spend a lot of time back tracking to figure out what you have to undo to restore functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know you can buy a fixed number of license via volume licensing. I've done it often. I have been told by MS in the past that they don't do site-wide, unlimited-number licenses. You had to pick a number and they'd give you a price.
The big clue about the unix origins was the hosts file. I mean really, it's found at ...\etc\hosts after all.
Site licensing? I was under the impression that MS only offered volume licensing for fixed number of licenses.
We have an application using supercaps for short term power storage. It's part of a system that has a very high peak, short duration power draw - similar to a strobing camera flash. The caps have very good power density and don't degrade with the charge/discharge cycles. However, they do leak-down badly. They lose 50% of their voltage which is 75% of their energy in under an hour sitting on the bench. We could have gotten better leakage rating, but at the expense of much lower energy density. I suspect this is the tradeoff that Miller is referring to.
Agreed, the weight of the liquid fuel would be greater than equivalent weight of conventional explosive propellant. The US is trying really hard to move to all-electric ships, so Nuclear reactors and electrically powered weapons are a good match.
The hour estimate for for pulling a very small power load of 22 kW (a mere 30 HP, btw). Even multiplying by a factor of 8 is not a problem for a destroyer. Consider that the gas-turbines on an Arleigh Burke class destroyer put out a total of 75MW of propulsion power. Not real hard to tap into that or even just slap on a small 300-HP gas-turbine generator.
It's apparently already sold as a magic cream for a variety of skin problems. http://www.icelandic-goods.com/shop/product_info.p hp/products_id/233 http://www.icelandic-goods.com/shop/images/penzim3 .pdf?osCsid=13a2d473e42ab3b06d77dc3c180a28ca.
Of course, that by no means implies it's suitable for internal use.
Can you cite what data are you referring to? I'm curious how we have reliable data from that far back. It's only since the 1960's that we have even looked at ozone. We can get generalized temperature from historical records, but nothing as accurate as a worldwide average within 5 degrees. Ice core samples perhaps?
You're assuming the summary is correct, which is often a bad assumption here on slashdot. I'm going to assume that 8 Megajoules is the final energy level of the projectile and not the input energy of the weapon. Taking a wild guess of 90% energy loss in the system, we are looking at 22.2 kilowatt-hours. A destroyer can easily provide 22.2 kilowatts of power to get this thing charged in an hour.
Your sig line seems appropriate. The mass media is very good at spreading fear because fear sells.
"Scientists are not out to bring America down, or trying to stop us having fun in cool cars. They're totally regular people whose only crime is knowing about the frickin topic they're talking about, and smart-arses like you seem to hate them for it." Actually I do know a little bit about the topic, and the intelligence of my buttocks is irrelevant. You seem to be lumping me in with 90% of the population who thinks we have an "ozone hole" in our "ozone layer". Both of those are mass-media terms because it's more scary than saying localized reductions in upper stratospheric ozone concentrations. Having some experience in scientific and medical research arenas, I know pure research is driven by funding. Scientist either live off grants or work under colleges or businesses with a public image to defend. Publishing or saying anything contrary to the prevailing opinion is bad for your career. Most studies funded via grants are expected to getting a specific range of answer. I'm not saying that scientists are biased (although some are), but rather the research is towards other explanations is simply not being funded.
There is one big issue with claiming that reduced CFC emissions are responsible for the increasing levels of O3 in the upper stratosphere. The global levels are continuing to drop. Since 1967, the estimated total worldwide reduction in O3 in the upper stratosphere is approximately 2%. This very slow trend has not changed. The notion of the "ozone hole getting smaller" is that that local areas of lower concentrations are not as severe or large.
The "ozone hole" is an area with lower concentrations above the antarctic region. It is this area that scientists have noted a 60-70% lower than average concentration during certain times of the year. The entire "ozone layer" (another misnomer) undergoes yearly cycles but thin spots seem to have bigger swings. Since the O3 concentrations have an observable short duration cycle, it is certainly reasonable to assume that it may also be subject to longer term cycles. Our ozone data at best stretches back 50 years.
It's also quite possible that the local and global ozone concentrations are being affected by increased solar activity. After all, ozone is primarily produced by solar activity which happens to be on the upswing.
As for the Kyoto treaty, people are very naive if they think there were no politics involved. Less industrialized nations are very eager to put limits on the US industry because is helps close the technology gap. You'd certainly sign a treaty if it put a bigger handicap on your competitors right? Even better if you can sell emissions credits. I don't disagree that lowering greenhouse emissions is a good thing. I just think the affect of man-made greenhouse gases is overstated and highly politicized. Naturally, oil industry fed politicians in the US fought this tooth and nail. The reality is that the treaty called for a meager 5.2% reduction in industrially produced CO2 world-wide.
I'm skeptical of both sides and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not the doom-gloom that environmental groups preach, or the rosy-nothing-is-wrong view espoused by our current administration. I believe man is having some measurable effect, but not the dominating cause for out climate change. Efforts to address our pollution are needed, but need to have their priorities and funding handled with a clearer view of the problem.
I'm wondering if Apple didn't get dinged for claiming revenue from the upgrade and now they are being backed into a corner and forced to charge for the upgrade?
I wholeheartedly agree with you. The earth and sun have very long cycles that span eons and looking at a mere 100 years of semi-accurate data is very myopic. I can go along with the current theories that we are having an influence on the climate but we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe. IF they were correct after all, the ozone hole would not be getting smaller. Anyone who thinks the Kyoto accords were only about reducing greenhouse emissions needs to really look into the politics behind it. Most of the nations that signed it didn't have significant emissions to begin with.
I assume you're behind at least a router doing NAT, which provides plenty of protection for external intrusions. Otherwise, you probably would be hacked pretty quick given the usual lag between network based vulnerabilities popping up and MS fixing them.
Of course also tell the boy to stop surfing porn and warez sites. You're not going to convince me that he didn't search out porn in the first place (probably not kiddie though).
> Firefox would freeze (all open windows and tabs) for about 15 seconds.
I have this problem every time I right-click "save link as", or a page loads an applet from a slow server, or waiting on a pdf to open, etc. Everything in Firefox is hung waiting on one tab. Nice multi-threading there guys (sarcasm intentional). Sounds like half of this guys gripe is with Firefox. But don't worry, version 3 will provide all these new features so you forget about all the other bugs that have been there since the original beta version.
I hate replying to myself. I was wrong about the dll (it was standard part of the uninstall dir). The patch installs a program called tzchange and runs it to effect the timezone definition changes, which really just changes the registry entries.
I just noticed that the Microsoft patch for XP is marked as an optional software update so it's not actually going out via WindowsUpdate. You have to visit windowsupdate.microsoft.com to get it. It is going out via WSUS though. I wonder if MS will change that before March?
Patch 928338 for XP seems to replace a DLL and does something with the tzchange.exe program. Even weirder, the spunist.inf file in the uninstall directory contains a list of installed software? I wonder if that's normal or if windowsupdate is getting a list of what software I have installed.
Yes, you can simply just edit the registry entries for the timezones. In fact I just pushed this changed to all my W2K clients.
The patch on XP appears to be a little bit more involved. Look at these keys on an XP machine that has gotten the patch and you'll see a subkey with multiple definitions for the dst start/stop. I see an entry called 2006 with the old def and a value 2007 with the new definition.
So does redefining the TZ, cause W2K to display incorrect timestamps for past files created during the weeks that previously were not included? The dynamic TZ keys I see under XP implies that XP will be smart enough to figure it out.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit, and http://www.native-languages.org/iaq23.htm
Eskimos, or Esquimaux, are terms used to refer to people who inhabit the circumpolar region, excluding Scandinavia and most of Russia, but including the easternmost portions of Siberia. There are two main groups of Eskimos: the Inuit in northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland, and the Yupik of western Alaska and the Russian Far East.
The term Eskimo can include the Alutiiq, Inupiat, Sug'piak, and Yup'ik Eskimo populations of Alaska, and the Yupik population of Eastern Russia. The speakers of the Yupik languages self-identify as Eskimo [1], but the majority of the Native population in the Canadian Arctic and Greenland prefer to be called "Inuit", or to a smaller extent Inuvialuit, and most find the term Eskimo highly offensive.
The original poster was right as the Inuit are indeed a subset of Eskimos. You are also correct in that Inuit dislike the more generic term of Eskimos. So it's more like africans disliking being called blacks.You're right, I should have said "anyone" instead of "you". I too consider myself agnostic. I can't rule out a higher power or purpose, but don't know for sure. I am sure that organized religions such as Christianity don't have the answers. Certainly not in the US where religion revolves around politics, power, making money, and elitism.
33% is hardly a vast majority. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.ht ml. Plus, Christianity is one of the youngest religions out there. What makes you believe that Hinduism and Buddism are wrong and this new upstart of a religion is correct?
I guess maybe, if you count all the other slanted "science" surrounding politicized issues like the ozone layer and global warming.
The biggest reason is that implementing all of the NSA recommended configuration changes seriously impacts the useablility of the OS and software compatibility. Do you think people would roll out Server 2003 if it wasn't compatible out of the box with legacy Win98 and WinNT machines and totally screws with Samba shares? What if the default configuration destroys the ability to run even 10% of the commercial software without having to dig in the bowels of the OS and undo some obscure tcpip stack setting. Probably not. Speaking as someone who regularly implements the NSA configuration and DISA security guidelines, I can say it will break lots of things and you'll spend a lot of time back tracking to figure out what you have to undo to restore functionality.