Nuclear power does not produce any CO2 emissions. But that in itself does not make it clean. Nuclear waste, the radioactive remnants of the Uranium fuel that become useless to power plants, requires storage and it is by no means clean. The problem with nuclear waste is that it will continue being dangerously radioactive long after the facilities built for its storage begin to deteriorate. Any building or construction will deteriorate in time, and radioactive waste will be here for hundreds of years, which is longer than any facility built for its storage would last. And if it gets into water, there will likely be radioactive poisoning among animals and possibly humans.
The bottom line is, in the short term nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels, but in the long term nuclear waste has to be managed and monitored continuously to make sure it is being contained in storage and isolated from environment.
Technically, the authors are incorrect in saying that this is a 30-year battery. It is not a battery. It is a micro power plant. The radioactive isotope method of producing energy is the same power source as what space exploration vehicles operating outside the orbit of mars use. Whenever NASA launches a mission to a far reach of solar system, there is usually a radioactive isotope battery power source on board, and thousands of protesters near the launch site. The protesters' rationale is that if something went wrong and there was en explosion, then harmful radioactive toxins would be released into the atmosphere. The extend of damage would be limited however, since this form of radiation is not nearly as harmful as the type of fuel that is involved in fission reactors.
I would rather have a spell checker that checks contents of strings in my source code, but ignores words that do not have suggestions in the spell checker. The latter would make sure I do not get annoying notifications for non-specified acronyms or words that are not meant to be spelled correctly.
That's a good one, but I like the final battle of DS9 better. The one where the federation, the klinons, and the romulans duke it out with the dominion and the brin, and where the kardassians switch over at the last moment. If you have a link for that one, please share.
I have never seen wooshing and swishing starships on Star Trek. In Star Wars there are lots of noises that are produced by ships' engines and internal systems. As far as sounds like those produced by aero-dynamic aircraft due to surface contact with air, or signals at an airport, in my opinion movies and video games that use such sounds in space, are mentally-challenged in relation to sci-fi concepts, no offense. However still, that may or may not be a serious drawback to the movie or the video game as far as enjoying it is concerned.
Actually, there is no sound in space because sound travels through mechanical waves which require medium which does not exists in space, except maybe in nebulaes that have gas in them, and even then the concentration of gas is very light in order to propagate sound effectively. However, an explosion in space produces lots of electro-magnetic waves. On Earth and in space exploration, radio uses electro-magnetic waves in order to propagate sound and television. In astronomy, for the purpose of observation of intereseting cosmic objects, sometimes electro-magnetic radiation that is not a visible light is converted into visible light in order to be able to visualize it. Many images obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope are modified in this way in order to visualize certain properties that are not visible to human eyes. The point is that sound in space when used to visualize explosions, does not violate any scientific principle because EM radiation is routinely used to propagate sound beyond its natural range (think of walkie-talkies, or short-wave radio). When an object explodes in space, the sound can not travel beyond the explosion area, so it must likewise be propagated by radio.
Agreed. Warp-like effect has been studied in theoretical physics, and has even been considered by the US military. Unfortunately, creating a gravitational field strong enough to warp space requires far too much energy, that is outside any practical capabilities our technologies will have any time soon. Even with the ability to build anti-matter containment fields, which is currently an actual research topic. There are several multi-billion dollar particle-collider laboratories around the world which can be used to create antimatter. NASA has even seriously considered building an anti-matter photon propulsion engine as a means of traveling to Mars. Unfortunately anti-matter containment field technologies are not currently mature enough to safely store enough anti-matter for such a trip.
Yes, and Star Wars has even more fundamental problems with physics than Star Trek. And now, forgive me, but I have to get back to ruling my Sith Empire. Remember, when Dow goes back up, it was all me, muahahaha, I have all your dollars now, for I am strong with the Force!
This report is seriously misleading. The conclusions made do not follow from facts presented without employing logical fallacies. The data presented in the report measures amount of fixes made. The basic fallacy involves the assumption that just because a fix is not made, there no critical need for one. As a matter fact, a lesser number of fixes may indicate failure to find, report, and fix problems rather than absence of problems.
Since the Linux effort is open, all issues are reported and fixed in the open, with an effort made to report and fix as much as possible, which ensures software quality. Since proprietary systems are not open, their issues are not reported and fixed in the open. As a matter fact, a fewer number of fixes does not in itself indicate a lesser number of problems, or better software quality. On the contrary, a lesser number of fixes may indicate a lesser percent of problems being found, reported and fixed, which implies a lesser quality of software. A fewer number of fixes can be as much due to failing to fix vulnerabilities due to not finding them, or not having them reported.
Therefore, data presented in this report indirectly suggests that the open-source process is better at ensuring software quality.
These code examples are worthy of a first course on elementary computer programming. They even look like they are taken right out of the lecture notes on "commenting your code" for freshmen.
it will be up to the desktop to provide richer functionality
Last I heard the, "desktop" was busy at work, striving to provide the "richer functionality". When I checked, I saw that "desktop" was not employed by anyone, and he didnt even have an h1. Maybe this is what he means by "free software".
As long as I can remember, and I have used SuSE since version 7, SuSE always provided some non-free programs and packages along with their distributions. These non-free programs and packages were not enabled/installed by default, and the user had to manually select them for install. All this does is make sure the user is informed about any possible implications for using such non-free programs and packages, and it is up to the user to take necessary steps to ensure that the user is legally protected in case they chose to use any of these programs and packages. This is nothing but a precaution for the interest of the users of SuSE and also to prevent SuSE from getting any cease and desist letters.
At 100mph, amtrack takes twice as long as GreyHound at 60mph. At 300mph, AmTrack would take about as long as GreyHound at 60mph. Since AmTrack is already more expensive than GreyHound, I dont think raising AmTrack to 300mph would justify the cost. The only people who ride GreyHound are nuns and mexicans. Everyone else rides in their SUVs or flies planes.
The trucking companies don't care much for fast trains transporting anything but truck wagons and they have lobbyists in Congress...
The fast trains won't happen in the US because they are not needed.
When I looked at the title of the article I had a strong surge of hope followed by a suddent concern for job security and visions of decreasing demand for highly skilled professionals. Well, after overviewing the white paper I was feeling completely secure and once again disappointed.
I find most of the propositions as things that need to get done, but overall it looks like just another patch, although a huge one. Majority of it deals with reevaluating design of the physical layer components and their integration, and although grandiose the rest looks like a list of bugs needed to be fixed.
Seriously, in order to rebuild internet from scratch, most if not all of software dealing with networking would have to be rewritten in order to go from the 5 layer model to the more proper 7 layer model. That would mean pretty much rewriting huge chunks of linux, unix, apache, throwing out billiions of lines of code and eventually seeing a significant decline in the demand for both hardware and software. On the positive note, it might also cripple windoze, dealing it a death blow.
It is nice to see that Stanford is at least considering to reexamine the subject, since we pretty much owe it them for being stuck with 5 layers:), ouch,:)!
That's a good point. If the passport is not my property than I can not mess with it. Neither would I want to fill out a lot of paperwork to get another one. I guess it's time to look for a perfectly-shaped tin-box, or just bind the passport with a rubber band so it does not open by itself.
Why was I just thinking of that? No, hammer is too obvious. It would have to be something less obvious, like a 30lb exercise weight or a heavy plate. Oh yeah, and the coffee table was also broken in the process.
I think you may actually be "missing" the "point". As someone has already mentioned above this is a scheme to:
Step 1: Ask for big moon base budget Step 2: Forget the moon: Build stuff in orbit of Earth Step 3: Profit!!!
As a side note, if there is another big war that the US enters into, maybe we get to think about building a Mars base, or base at a lagrange point. Once again, we are not actually going to be able to do it, unless Hawkins delivers those long promised but overdue theoretical breakthroughs in science, but at least we all get to have fun thinking about it. Say how about colonizing mars. Any volunteers?
"Stop producing food for horses because we are going all gasoline." When cars replaced horsepower.
I am sure that analog TV and radio will never die out becuase it is the most straight forward way to send signal communications. I just hope that we evolve to the point of being able to put together a receiver/broadcast radio out of spare parts just like one could change a tire on a roadside. Steven Hawkins, this is for you man, to be like star trek, theoretic advances are not enough, we also have to evolve. And yeah, if _you_ can do it, you are special, the rest of mankind is not dumb, they just havent evolved yet.
Freaking fix the freaking array freaking implementation in the sucking PHP. Implement the freaking offset array and speed up my freaking apps 80%. I dont want to buy a freaking 16-way MIPS server because PHP crawls slower than a freaking turtle.
I don't want to discourage you from pursuing your interests because I once felt similarly. My family would not pay for a math major at a prime school so I tried to switch from my Comp Sci major at a private research university for a math major at a mediocre state school that was well positioned between a ghetto/hood, possibly abandoned industrial waste-lands and a mediocre metropolitan. And I am glad it did not work out. I like math, but it is much easier to get around with a comp sci diploma in your pocket than a math teaching license. Assuming you do not plan to inherit a few million bucks in a near future, here are the reasons why you should keep your current major:
1. It is a lot easier to reach your goals/dreams once you have a nice financial foundation. It is easier to convince people with money (businessmen) that you are worth holding on to. Show them how good you are at abstract algebra or curved space geometry and they will see no use for you, given that they do not fall asleep first. Show them that you can make computers run on steroids, help bridge together salesmen and IT and possibly impress with your sharp knowledge in economics and you've got yourself a nice paycheck twice a month plus a super medical+dental to keep your natural or implanted teeth shining. This does not mean that you have to give up your dreams or so-to-speak "sell-out".
2. Give yourself some slack or room to fall. No matter how smart you are or how smart you think you are, and even if you are a member of the MESA (genius), you have limits too. Do not count on everything working out perfectly, it is really hard to get into serious academia. Know your limits, give yourself slack.
3. Working for NASA is not really all it is purported to be. Among other things, the longer you work there, the more seriously it limits your career options/paths. So if things do not work out you may have a harder time fitting in elsewhere.
The last advice I would give you is this. Get an internship or a co-op and see what it is like. That will help give shape to your idea of what your future prospects are. Try to apply as both a math major and comp sci major in different instances and see for yourself what works out better for you.
The US wants to protect its companies that it sees as strategic resource. They probably do not understand all the intricate issues related to Microsoft and see it as an "innovative" bleeding edge technology company that is an asset for the country's security and economic growth. Or maybe they have simply forgotten the economic repercussions of monopolies and how they cause economies to lose. Either way, it is clearly visible that in the wake of the government's failure to apply anti-monopoly laws, the relatively recently demonopolized AT&T (about 2 decades ago) is back to buy all of its separated baby bells. Many other big companies in the US are becoming increasingly bold against anti-monopoly laws, and mega purchases continue with the recent example of Oracle's acquisitions. Where this is going is uncertain, perhaps the government hopes to maintain the country's technological lead and is willing to look the other way when mega-mergers occur and monopolies grow. However, the economic theory is clear that monopolies will contribute to the slowing down of economic growth, or even become the cause of economic decline. Maybe this is more about government's priorities than seeing the Microsoft's issues one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear power does not produce any CO2 emissions. But that in itself does not make it clean. Nuclear waste, the radioactive remnants of the Uranium fuel that become useless to power plants, requires storage and it is by no means clean. The problem with nuclear waste is that it will continue being dangerously radioactive long after the facilities built for its storage begin to deteriorate. Any building or construction will deteriorate in time, and radioactive waste will be here for hundreds of years, which is longer than any facility built for its storage would last. And if it gets into water, there will likely be radioactive poisoning among animals and possibly humans.
The bottom line is, in the short term nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuels, but in the long term nuclear waste has to be managed and monitored continuously to make sure it is being contained in storage and isolated from environment.
Technically, the authors are incorrect in saying that this is a 30-year battery. It is not a battery. It is a micro power plant. The radioactive isotope method of producing energy is the same power source as what space exploration vehicles operating outside the orbit of mars use. Whenever NASA launches a mission to a far reach of solar system, there is usually a radioactive isotope battery power source on board, and thousands of protesters near the launch site. The protesters' rationale is that if something went wrong and there was en explosion, then harmful radioactive toxins would be released into the atmosphere. The extend of damage would be limited however, since this form of radiation is not nearly as harmful as the type of fuel that is involved in fission reactors.
And I am still getting one for each of my cousins who are or will be soon in elementary school.
I would rather have a spell checker that checks contents of strings in my source code, but ignores words that do not have suggestions in the spell checker. The latter would make sure I do not get annoying notifications for non-specified acronyms or words that are not meant to be spelled correctly.
That's a good one, but I like the final battle of DS9 better. The one where the federation, the klinons, and the romulans duke it out with the dominion and the brin, and where the kardassians switch over at the last moment. If you have a link for that one, please share.
I have never seen wooshing and swishing starships on Star Trek. In Star Wars there are lots of noises that are produced by ships' engines and internal systems. As far as sounds like those produced by aero-dynamic aircraft due to surface contact with air, or signals at an airport, in my opinion movies and video games that use such sounds in space, are mentally-challenged in relation to sci-fi concepts, no offense. However still, that may or may not be a serious drawback to the movie or the video game as far as enjoying it is concerned.
They also produce radio waves. If anymore questions, please see this post.
Actually, there is no sound in space because sound travels through mechanical waves which require medium which does not exists in space, except maybe in nebulaes that have gas in them, and even then the concentration of gas is very light in order to propagate sound effectively. However, an explosion in space produces lots of electro-magnetic waves. On Earth and in space exploration, radio uses electro-magnetic waves in order to propagate sound and television. In astronomy, for the purpose of observation of intereseting cosmic objects, sometimes electro-magnetic radiation that is not a visible light is converted into visible light in order to be able to visualize it. Many images obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope are modified in this way in order to visualize certain properties that are not visible to human eyes. The point is that sound in space when used to visualize explosions, does not violate any scientific principle because EM radiation is routinely used to propagate sound beyond its natural range (think of walkie-talkies, or short-wave radio). When an object explodes in space, the sound can not travel beyond the explosion area, so it must likewise be propagated by radio.
Agreed. Warp-like effect has been studied in theoretical physics, and has even been considered by the US military. Unfortunately, creating a gravitational field strong enough to warp space requires far too much energy, that is outside any practical capabilities our technologies will have any time soon. Even with the ability to build anti-matter containment fields, which is currently an actual research topic. There are several multi-billion dollar particle-collider laboratories around the world which can be used to create antimatter. NASA has even seriously considered building an anti-matter photon propulsion engine as a means of traveling to Mars. Unfortunately anti-matter containment field technologies are not currently mature enough to safely store enough anti-matter for such a trip.
Yes, and Star Wars has even more fundamental problems with physics than Star Trek. And now, forgive me, but I have to get back to ruling my Sith Empire. Remember, when Dow goes back up, it was all me, muahahaha, I have all your dollars now, for I am strong with the Force!
This report is seriously misleading. The conclusions made do not follow from facts presented without employing logical fallacies. The data presented in the report measures amount of fixes made. The basic fallacy involves the assumption that just because a fix is not made, there no critical need for one. As a matter fact, a lesser number of fixes may indicate failure to find, report, and fix problems rather than absence of problems.
Since the Linux effort is open, all issues are reported and fixed in the open, with an effort made to report and fix as much as possible, which ensures software quality. Since proprietary systems are not open, their issues are not reported and fixed in the open. As a matter fact, a fewer number of fixes does not in itself indicate a lesser number of problems, or better software quality. On the contrary, a lesser number of fixes may indicate a lesser percent of problems being found, reported and fixed, which implies a lesser quality of software. A fewer number of fixes can be as much due to failing to fix vulnerabilities due to not finding them, or not having them reported.
Therefore, data presented in this report indirectly suggests that the open-source process is better at ensuring software quality.
Archimedes is said to have remarked about the lever: "Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth."
Except that he didnt say "Give me a place to stand on, and I will move objects to orbit, which would be a far lesser accomplishment.
That whole idea about "anchoring" cables from the orbit reaises some serious feasibility questions. Other than that, levers is all a prior art.
These code examples are worthy of a first course on elementary computer programming. They even look like they are taken right out of the lecture notes on "commenting your code" for freshmen.
it will be up to the desktop to provide richer functionality
Last I heard the, "desktop" was busy at work, striving to provide the "richer functionality". When I checked, I saw that "desktop" was not employed by anyone, and he didnt even have an h1. Maybe this is what he means by "free software".
As long as I can remember, and I have used SuSE since version 7, SuSE always provided some non-free programs and packages along with their distributions. These non-free programs and packages were not enabled/installed by default, and the user had to manually select them for install. All this does is make sure the user is informed about any possible implications for using such non-free programs and packages, and it is up to the user to take necessary steps to ensure that the user is legally protected in case they chose to use any of these programs and packages. This is nothing but a precaution for the interest of the users of SuSE and also to prevent SuSE from getting any cease and desist letters.
Fast trains will never happen in the US.
At 100mph, amtrack takes twice as long as GreyHound at 60mph. At 300mph, AmTrack would take about as long as GreyHound at 60mph. Since AmTrack is already more expensive than GreyHound, I dont think raising AmTrack to 300mph would justify the cost. The only people who ride GreyHound are nuns and mexicans. Everyone else rides in their SUVs or flies planes.
The trucking companies don't care much for fast trains transporting anything but truck wagons and they have lobbyists in Congress...
The fast trains won't happen in the US because they are not needed.
Even in France, 9 in 10 passenger miles are not by rail.
In Soviet Russia, 9 in 10 passenger miles are walked.
When I looked at the title of the article I had a strong surge of hope followed by a suddent concern for job security and visions of decreasing demand for highly skilled professionals. Well, after overviewing the white paper I was feeling completely secure and once again disappointed.
:), ouch, :)!
I find most of the propositions as things that need to get done, but overall it looks like just another patch, although a huge one. Majority of it deals with reevaluating design of the physical layer components and their integration, and although grandiose the rest looks like a list of bugs needed to be fixed.
Seriously, in order to rebuild internet from scratch, most if not all of software dealing with networking would have to be rewritten in order to go from the 5 layer model to the more proper 7 layer model. That would mean pretty much rewriting huge chunks of linux, unix, apache, throwing out billiions of lines of code and eventually seeing a significant decline in the demand for both hardware and software. On the positive note, it might also cripple windoze, dealing it a death blow.
It is nice to see that Stanford is at least considering to reexamine the subject, since we pretty much owe it them for being stuck with 5 layers
That's a good point. If the passport is not my property than I can not mess with it. Neither would I want to fill out a lot of paperwork to get another one. I guess it's time to look for a perfectly-shaped tin-box, or just bind the passport with a rubber band so it does not open by itself.
Why was I just thinking of that? No, hammer is too obvious. It would have to be something less obvious, like a 30lb exercise weight or a heavy plate. Oh yeah, and the coffee table was also broken in the process.
I think you may actually be "missing" the "point". As someone has already mentioned above this is a scheme to:
Step 1: Ask for big moon base budget
Step 2: Forget the moon: Build stuff in orbit of Earth
Step 3: Profit!!!
As a side note, if there is another big war that the US enters into, maybe we get to think about building a Mars base, or base at a lagrange point. Once again, we are not actually going to be able to do it, unless Hawkins delivers those long promised but overdue theoretical breakthroughs in science, but at least we all get to have fun thinking about it. Say how about colonizing mars. Any volunteers?
I am sorry, but this is like saying
"Stop producing food for horses because we are going all gasoline."
When cars replaced horsepower.
I am sure that analog TV and radio will never die out becuase it is the most straight forward way to send signal communications. I just hope that we evolve to the point of being able to put together a receiver/broadcast radio out of spare parts just like one could change a tire on a roadside. Steven Hawkins, this is for you man, to be like star trek, theoretic advances are not enough, we also have to evolve. And yeah, if _you_ can do it, you are special, the rest of mankind is not dumb, they just havent evolved yet.
PHP Sucks
u cks%22&btnG=Search
http://google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22php+s
Freaking fix the freaking array freaking implementation in the sucking PHP. Implement the freaking offset array and speed up my freaking apps 80%. I dont want to buy a freaking 16-way MIPS server because PHP crawls slower than a freaking turtle.
I don't want to discourage you from pursuing your interests because I once felt similarly. My family would not pay for a math major at a prime school so I tried to switch from my Comp Sci major at a private research university for a math major at a mediocre state school that was well positioned between a ghetto/hood, possibly abandoned industrial waste-lands and a mediocre metropolitan. And I am glad it did not work out. I like math, but it is much easier to get around with a comp sci diploma in your pocket than a math teaching license. Assuming you do not plan to inherit a few million bucks in a near future, here are the reasons why you should keep your current major:
1. It is a lot easier to reach your goals/dreams once you have a nice financial foundation. It is easier to convince people with money (businessmen) that you are worth holding on to. Show them how good you are at abstract algebra or curved space geometry and they will see no use for you, given that they do not fall asleep first. Show them that you can make computers run on steroids, help bridge together salesmen and IT and possibly impress with your sharp knowledge in economics and you've got yourself a nice paycheck twice a month plus a super medical+dental to keep your natural or implanted teeth shining. This does not mean that you have to give up your dreams or so-to-speak "sell-out".
2. Give yourself some slack or room to fall. No matter how smart you are or how smart you think you are, and even if you are a member of the MESA (genius), you have limits too. Do not count on everything working out perfectly, it is really hard to get into serious academia. Know your limits, give yourself slack.
3. Working for NASA is not really all it is purported to be. Among other things, the longer you work there, the more seriously it limits your career options/paths. So if things do not work out you may have a harder time fitting in elsewhere.
The last advice I would give you is this. Get an internship or a co-op and see what it is like. That will help give shape to your idea of what your future prospects are. Try to apply as both a math major and comp sci major in different instances and see for yourself what works out better for you.
The US wants to protect its companies that it sees as strategic resource. They probably do not understand all the intricate issues related to Microsoft and see it as an "innovative" bleeding edge technology company that is an asset for the country's security and economic growth. Or maybe they have simply forgotten the economic repercussions of monopolies and how they cause economies to lose. Either way, it is clearly visible that in the wake of the government's failure to apply anti-monopoly laws, the relatively recently demonopolized AT&T (about 2 decades ago) is back to buy all of its separated baby bells. Many other big companies in the US are becoming increasingly bold against anti-monopoly laws, and mega purchases continue with the recent example of Oracle's acquisitions. Where this is going is uncertain, perhaps the government hopes to maintain the country's technological lead and is willing to look the other way when mega-mergers occur and monopolies grow. However, the economic theory is clear that monopolies will contribute to the slowing down of economic growth, or even become the cause of economic decline. Maybe this is more about government's priorities than seeing the Microsoft's issues one way or another.