A sailboat is limited in manuverability and it's easy for any boat with its own power to approach the ship from a direction which it cannot run away from. So they'd would be easy to capture.
It's unclear that war/privateers and piracy are much of a problem crossing the Pacific right now.
The keel is used as resistance. Because it has a large surface area, it resists the ship being pushed off line by the force of the wind. It's like squeezing a seed between your fingers. Your fingers are pushing up and down, but the seed shoots out sideways. This happens because your fingers keep the seed from going up or down.
This is needed because the wind may be blowing north/south and you need to go east/west. Just turning the sail and the rudder will only change the direction the ship goes so much, you'll never end up going crosswind, let alone upwind.
If you just turn the rudder, it won't change the direction the ship goes, just the direction it points.
I would think a long, slab-sided, deep draft ship might be able to use its own sides as a keel for this purpose. I don't know how effectively though.
The reason for the deeper draft is because the keel can't be removed on large ships. It protrudes down (see below) a long way, even when you're on engines.
The other thing a keel does (and this is perhaps more important on regular sailing ships) is keep the boat from heeling or flipping over when the wind fills the sails. The wind force wants to push the top of the boat over, so the keel is very heavy and sticks far down so that the boat won't tip over from that force. On a ship with a kite sail like this one, the attachment of the string can be put low enough (near the CG) that the boat will not try to flip over when the wind blows.
Ever since Pentium-M (not P4-M), AMD hasn't been able to match Intel on power/heat for laptop processors. Current Turions are just binned Athlon 64s that can run at lower voltages. They don't have an actual laptop design, unlike Intel.
Because of this, Intel has outdone AMD by a lot in the laptop space for quite some time now. There's other reasons that I don't want to get into. I should just make a web page about it and link to it over and over.
I do agree comparing an XP-M to a T2400 is pretty much a joke.
Your first paragraph it pretty on, people just don't need top of the line machines to do most work anymore.
Your 2nd one is way off. There's no problem with 45nm right now, and 32nm will work too. And multi-cores isn't a dodge because of the inability to reduce feature size (increase transistor count), it is a simple trick to USE UP all those transistors it would otherwise take a lot of redesign to utilize well. So, we go to small process, have more transistors than we know what to do with, and so add cores. It works great!
Fabs are expensive, but they do manage to sell their output, so they keep buiding them.
NAND flash companies are already producing 55nm and 50nm parts as samples, with full production coming soon.
Assuming the "10cm" orbit number is altitude from the surface of the tungsten sphere, it actually would orbit 6,000 times a year. It would move at 1.66E-4 m/s, or 1 cm/minute. The orbital path is about 90cm around (14cm*pi), so it would orbit about every 90 minutes, meaning 16 per day * 365 days or about 6,000 a year.
There's no way it would orbit 3,000 times a year, right? It'd have to go very slowly to keep from escaping the gravity well of the tungsten sphere and at that speed, it couldn't cover much ground (even less than 2*pi*10cm*3000 per year).
"The Government told a jury in Federal Court here yesterday that it would produce evidence that the three defendents in this nation's first atom bomb spy trial had conspired to steal and deliver to the Soviet Union "the one weapon that might well hold the key to the survival of this nation and the peace of the world - the atomic bomb"."
"Theft of Secrets Charged"
Your efforts to define the English language to exclude ideas you don't like (a particular form of theft) is Orwellian in itself.
I don't have a link, but there are 50s newsreels of the Rosenbergs using the word theft. I did notice the book was written in 1987, I didn't have another source handy. I personally existed well before 1987 and can tell you that the word theft in application to the Rosenbergs was in heavy rotation before this book came out.
Stealing cable existed in the 70s.
And again, there's that "identity theft" sticky thing for you. No one lost anything there, something was just duped.
If F1 were about speed, they wouldn't have a 2.4L restriction on engine size. Or a aerodynamic restrictions.
F1 uses rules to emphasize the characteristics they want to emphasize and deemphasize others.
It's "brakes", not "breaks", and they were called fiddle brakes. And they were banned over ten years ago, not two years ago, thus undercutting your point.
F1 was once about teams, I agree. But now that teams are allowed to have "B-teams" like Toro Rosso which cannot vie for the win not because of a lack of money, will or technology, but because they are purposefully put in 2nd line equipment so they don't threaten the top teams (while still filling the grid), it became not about teams competing anymore.
The use of stealing to mean copying information predates your existence on this planet. It was in use in the 50s. Stop trying to pretend it is others trying to redefine the language.
Did you moan about the identity theft article on slashdot last week?
"The Soviets stole the atomic bomb from the US before you were even born."
Did they? They up and took a bomb? how did they get it out of the USA? Those old school nuclear weapons were pretty big. Im curious becuase i never heard this story before. Unless you actually meant they COPIED the usa's PLANS for the bomb, in which case they havent actually deprived the usa of anything. Its not even wrong for them to do this! Unless you somehow think that the USA has the only rights to make nuclear bombs...
You realize you look like a retard, right? Pretending to not understand what I said just because of how I phrased it?
Again, they stole the bomb. Yes, we could still make one too, but they stole it. Look it up. You want to argue about the meaning of words changing, note that this one had this meaning a long time ago. It is just you (and a few others) who think that steal can't mean to copy information without permission. And it's been that way for 50 years. So stop trying to pretend it is others trying to reinvent the English language.
Did you step up to the plate to complain about the "Identity Theft" article slashdot ran last week? Nothing was stolen, just information duplicated. If you did, I salute you, but I really suspect you didn't.
Because you know, everything thats ILLEGAL is wrong right? Good thing all laws are made by god and there are no unjust laws. Otherwise we might have to THINK FOR OURSELVES and determine what's right and wrong with our own moral compass. Imagine how sick that would be!
This isn't a question of morals. You said the two were the same, I pointed out there is a difference. You can't use one as a substitute for the other when there are significant differences.
"if you can't see how downloading something without the commercials could hurt a business who makes money selling ad space on the idea that you might view it, then you're pretty dim"
Do I care about the poor spammers whoes business are hurt by my spam filters? Why do you think these business have a god given right to make money? OFF OF ME no less!!! This is a new world. I get to say who makes money off of me. Im not a prostitute and the advertising companies are not my pimps.
I don't think they have a God-given right. If you don't like the ads, you don't have to watch the show. I think that perhaps as a recepient of these shows for no fee you would be appreciative and not try to bust the business model that is letting you do so.
Either way, redistrubuting the show without the ads breaks the business model and will lead to the end of it. That would mean paying for TV shows or having no TV shows. Does that sound good to you? It doesn't sound good to me.
I feel the ad agencies don't have a right to force you to pay attention, maybe you should even have the right to press a skip button. But I feel that for their money spent they deserve to have the chance to catch your eye and actually present an ad you want to watch. By removing the commercials, you deprive them of that possibility. I do feel ad agencies have gone overboard thinking you somehow have to watch their ads, even if they are crap. I don't agree with that. They should have to make their commercials interesting enough to hold your attention.
This whole thing comes down to you deciding you're going to take the law into your own hands. That companies aren't doing a good job with their property, so you're going to take control. It doesn't work that way. you do have a choice, a choice to not buy their stuff if you feel it isn't worth what you're paying. To not watch it if you don't fe
MS aside, Formula One has had a huge problem keeping driver aids out of the sport. Driver aids do not belong in a series that is supposed to be the ultimate test of a driver.
The only series that has had any luck keeping driver aids out is NASCAR, because they don't allow any kind of tech (even fuel injection).
If this allows Formula 1 to get traction control, antilock brakes, launch control and other stuff out of F1, this will be a good thing.
I'm not sure if I believe it though. The excuse for allowing traction control was because they said they couldn't figure out how to keep it out. And yet I can see telemetry of the pedal position in the car, see the revs climb and even hear the TC cut in and out. It's simple. Monitor the telemetry and if the engine acceleration drops without the pedal moving, DQ the car.
Formula 1 is a shadow of its former self. It's still fast and expensive, but all passing is gone. And allowing tire changes during the race again just made the marbles problem much bigger, as anyone could have predicted, decreasing the passing even more.
Okay, that's enough. This isn't the right place to complain about this anyway.
The Soviets stole the atomic bomb from the US before you were even born.
Stop trying to redefine the English language to remove meanings you don't like. It has been accepted that it is possible to "steal" information just by copying it for longer than you have been around. You're the one tilting at windmills.
And BTW, if you TiVo something, TiVo knows you watched it and reports it, whether you are a Nielsen family or not.
Downloading the shows is different because (ready?) IT'S ILLEGAL. The makers of the content have allowed you to watch it for free on a channel and (begrudgingly) allowed you to tape it or TiVo it. They don't give you permission to download it off the internet (in this case) and their permission is the only thing that matters in the eyes of the law. If they want to execute what you feel is a flawed business model (not allowing people to download), then that is their right. This isn't a country where the government steps in and tells companies that they are running themselves into the ground by not understanding technology.
It would be better if the companies wise up. They seem to be starting too. That'd good. But it's not up to you to decide to force their hands. Just like an object you can't figure out how to copy, if you don't value it enough to pay for it, DO WITHOUT.
Also, if you can't see how downloading something without the commercials could hurt a business who makes money selling ad space on the idea that you might view it, then you're pretty dim and probably don't understand the situation very well.
You steal a companies' work and then they forgive you.
In your parallel, you suggest a company should ask you what bands you already know about that they should sign. In this case, you are listening to (and not paying for, I guess) music they don't own and they're asking you if they should own it.
First of all, why would you want them to own it? Second of all, if they should ask people what bands to sign, the bands wouldn't want to sign, because they would already have an audience. Why give 90% of your profits away if you already have a fan base big enough for labels to pay attention to?
So, what unsigned artists do you listen to anyway?
There has been one high-output liquid rocket motor developed in the US since the NK33 was created. And it was already being developed when the NK33 was developed.
So yeah, it is ahead of anything the Americans could have done at the time. And yeah, it's still ahead 20 years later, but that's because the Americans didn't do anything in the intervening 20 years.
If there had been any money spent on new liquid rocket motor design in the intervening years, it's possible we would have surpassed the NK33 (after the fact). But the money wasn't spent, and so I again say I can't imagine the Raytheon rocket engineers were really all that surprised that after 20 years of no development, a 20 year old motor from the Soviets was still ahead of the game.
Honestly, it all kind of underscores how privatization of rocket launches (legalized and begun in the Clinton years) is a smart idea. We're finally reaping the rewards.
Reviing other articles on the topic says that the engines were not found in a warehouse, the engines used (RD-180) are American made from the design recovered from older Soviet engines.
Also, the hyperbole here seems to overstate the edge this engine has. Yes, it's more advanced than current US designs, but current US designs aren't any more advanced than US designs from the same timeframe as the creation of the NK33 engine (the RD-180 came from). In other words, yeah, it's 5 years ahead of its time, not 25. It's just time has halted since.
I can't imagine the Raytheon folks were too blown away considering how little money has been spent on development of high-output liquid engines lately.
All this fish tubing crap is amateur hour. Switching to nitrile or metal hoses makes the system a lot more palatable and reliable.
I expect this Intel solution will be rolled out with Woodcrest. I can't see another way they're going to get two dual-core chips into any regular case and have it quiet. Apple will probably insist on a system like this for their towers anyway, because its quiet.
Yes, it's similar in that you're referring to the particular races of people in the country.
But both you and the other poster are putting too fine a point on it. You're dividing things down much more than they need to be. Like dividing English into Saxons and Normans.
My point (and it goes along with the original poster's) is that subdivisions at that level are immaterial. The large division between Iraqis and Iranians is that Iraqis are Arabs and Iranians are not. It doesn't matter if the Iranians are Aryans, Aztecs or Normans, any is equally foreign to the Iraqis and other Arabs in the Middle East.
I don't mean to step on toes, because we're all on the same page here. I'll quit while I'm not too far behind yet.
In the US, Cellophane tape is not common anymore. Plastic tape is more common.
But my comments about the other stuff still stand. The clingy wrap people often call cellophane isn't cellulose-drived. Cellophane isn't clingy, in fact it is rather crinkly. When it was used as a kitchen wrap, you had to tape or rubber band it onto bowls.
Candy wrappers are sometimes still cellophane. Think of the crinkliness of the wrappings on hard candy and how non-clingy they are.
However, I am not so sure this is where things are today or are going in the near future. I am seeing more and more IT professionals using Linux; even individuals I would never have suspected. And its not just the recent graduate crowd. Though, as these recent-grads enter the workforce, they are gaining access to expense accounts that would go towards tools they are familiar with and prefer. There's a reason you can pick up very expensive software at steep "student" discounts and it has nothing to do with immediate profits.
I agree with that. I do see a shift. I couldn't say how big it will be, or when it'll peak (or what's next), but I see a shift toward Linux, and that means more than just the hardcore (having no alternative due to price or doing it on principle) running it.
I tried to address that in my other post, talking about a shift toward people running Linux "for the features". I can't say as I described my meaning very well though. Right now, desktop users are largely running Linux for other reasons than the feature list it provides. They're doing it for the price, or some niche thing it does or perhaps for the configurability (although that is a feature, isn't it?). But if Windows begins (or continues, depending on your POV) to be perceived as having abandoned the user in favor of MS and big media's own interests or maybe they just can't beat this lack of security rap, then a lot more people will begin to run Linux because of what it can do for them. And once people aren't just running it for the price, you'll hit a big slice of people who are completely willing to pay a fair price for quality apps.
So I see the demographics of Linux shifting, we'll see over time how much things change.
Iran isn't a Persian Country. Iran is a country that sits on the same location that Persia used to. Persia doesn't exist anymore. To call Iran a Persian Country would be like calling Mexico a North American country. It's true, but it's a feature of geography, not demographics.
Iranians are Caucasians (they're actually close to the Caucasus mountains for which the race is named) not Arabs, I think that is what you meant to say.
I agree with you about Bush Sr. He was wise to not go to Baghdad. He is a lot wiser than his son in many ways.
Not that it took a genius to realize that if you topple a minority-demographic dictator who holds down (not just lives with) a demographic who makes the majority of the country (at least in the South) it will produce a civil war. But apparently it took more brains than we had in the White House at the time.
I do agree that many pirates wouldn't have paid anyway. That's why I mentioned them.
But there is another slice of pirates (esp. on pay-for platforms like Windows) that would buy the app but do not because they can pirate it.
I'm curious as to where you get the idea that most desktop Linux customers won't pay. I'm suspecting it is a personal guess. I have met very few desktop Linux users who refuse to pay for any software either due to financial reasons or being morally opposed to the idea. I'm sure there are some. But I would be surprised if they measure in the majority these days (note that the Free / Open Source concept has nothing to do with cost).
I would hazard a guess that a large portion of desktop Linux installations aren't even set up by the users. A large portion are enterprises (schools) who deploy Linux because they deploy thousands of installs and they save a lot by not having Windows, even at MS' cheap rates. They don't want to undo this by paying for the apps.
But I base most of my belief on seeing the behavior of college students (who I think make up the largest percentage of Linux desktop users, along with recent college grads). They don't pay for their music, they don't pay for movies or cable (some DVDs). They live on a limited budget and $20 spent on an album (let alone $50-$300 on a software package) is less they have to spend on other entertainments or even necessities.
Back when DVD drives were expensive and media too, it wasn't uncommon to see college students save up to blow $150 on a DVD burner and $4 a throw for media to "save" money by not buying movies or TV. It did turn out in the end, I'm sure, and it's easier to justify to oneself the purchase of hardware (since you cannot pirate it and you don't get tired of it as fast) than software.
College students and recent grads don't have a lot of money and have a lot of time. They'll spend a while finding and downloading content and programs because they don't have the money to spend. Now, if you think moms and pops are big desktop linux users, they are definitely more used to buying software and content, additionally they don't as often have time to burn to scare it up through underground (even marginally underground) channels.
So it really goes because I see Linux being bigger with a crowd that is already light on cash and used to copying things. No matter what you do, if you aim at that market, you'll have a bit more trouble selling software than to someone who has the money to buy it, the will to buy it and doesn't have the time to go find it elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
A sailboat is limited in manuverability and it's easy for any boat with its own power to approach the ship from a direction which it cannot run away from. So they'd would be easy to capture.
It's unclear that war/privateers and piracy are much of a problem crossing the Pacific right now.
The rudder is used to change direction.
The keel is used as resistance. Because it has a large surface area, it resists the ship being pushed off line by the force of the wind. It's like squeezing a seed between your fingers. Your fingers are pushing up and down, but the seed shoots out sideways. This happens because your fingers keep the seed from going up or down.
This is needed because the wind may be blowing north/south and you need to go east/west. Just turning the sail and the rudder will only change the direction the ship goes so much, you'll never end up going crosswind, let alone upwind.
If you just turn the rudder, it won't change the direction the ship goes, just the direction it points.
I would think a long, slab-sided, deep draft ship might be able to use its own sides as a keel for this purpose. I don't know how effectively though.
The reason for the deeper draft is because the keel can't be removed on large ships. It protrudes down (see below) a long way, even when you're on engines.
The other thing a keel does (and this is perhaps more important on regular sailing ships) is keep the boat from heeling or flipping over when the wind fills the sails. The wind force wants to push the top of the boat over, so the keel is very heavy and sticks far down so that the boat won't tip over from that force. On a ship with a kite sail like this one, the attachment of the string can be put low enough (near the CG) that the boat will not try to flip over when the wind blows.
Ever since Pentium-M (not P4-M), AMD hasn't been able to match Intel on power/heat for laptop processors. Current Turions are just binned Athlon 64s that can run at lower voltages. They don't have an actual laptop design, unlike Intel.
Because of this, Intel has outdone AMD by a lot in the laptop space for quite some time now. There's other reasons that I don't want to get into. I should just make a web page about it and link to it over and over.
I do agree comparing an XP-M to a T2400 is pretty much a joke.
Your first paragraph it pretty on, people just don't need top of the line machines to do most work anymore.
Your 2nd one is way off. There's no problem with 45nm right now, and 32nm will work too. And multi-cores isn't a dodge because of the inability to reduce feature size (increase transistor count), it is a simple trick to USE UP all those transistors it would otherwise take a lot of redesign to utilize well. So, we go to small process, have more transistors than we know what to do with, and so add cores. It works great!
Fabs are expensive, but they do manage to sell their output, so they keep buiding them.
NAND flash companies are already producing 55nm and 50nm parts as samples, with full production coming soon.
Assuming the "10cm" orbit number is altitude from the surface of the tungsten sphere, it actually would orbit 6,000 times a year. It would move at 1.66E-4 m/s, or 1 cm/minute. The orbital path is about 90cm around (14cm*pi), so it would orbit about every 90 minutes, meaning 16 per day * 365 days or about 6,000 a year.
Amazing. I would have said it was impossible.
There's no way it would orbit 3,000 times a year, right? It'd have to go very slowly to keep from escaping the gravity well of the tungsten sphere and at that speed, it couldn't cover much ground (even less than 2*pi*10cm*3000 per year).
Right?
March 8th, 1951.
s enbergs/mar81951.pdf
http://cms.westport.k12.ct.us/cmslmc/resources/ro
"The Government told a jury in Federal Court here yesterday that it would produce evidence that the three defendents in this nation's first atom bomb spy trial had conspired to steal and deliver to the Soviet Union "the one weapon that might well hold the key to the survival of this nation and the peace of the world - the atomic bomb"."
"Theft of Secrets Charged"
Your efforts to define the English language to exclude ideas you don't like (a particular form of theft) is Orwellian in itself.
I don't have a link, but there are 50s newsreels of the Rosenbergs using the word theft. I did notice the book was written in 1987, I didn't have another source handy. I personally existed well before 1987 and can tell you that the word theft in application to the Rosenbergs was in heavy rotation before this book came out.
Stealing cable existed in the 70s.
And again, there's that "identity theft" sticky thing for you. No one lost anything there, something was just duped.
You're in denial.
If F1 were about speed, they wouldn't have a 2.4L restriction on engine size. Or a aerodynamic restrictions.
F1 uses rules to emphasize the characteristics they want to emphasize and deemphasize others.
It's "brakes", not "breaks", and they were called fiddle brakes. And they were banned over ten years ago, not two years ago, thus undercutting your point.
F1 was once about teams, I agree. But now that teams are allowed to have "B-teams" like Toro Rosso which cannot vie for the win not because of a lack of money, will or technology, but because they are purposefully put in 2nd line equipment so they don't threaten the top teams (while still filling the grid), it became not about teams competing anymore.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312013493/104-85 97344-0175904?v=glance&n=283155
7 218
The use of stealing to mean copying information predates your existence on this planet. It was in use in the 50s. Stop trying to pretend it is others trying to redefine the language.
Did you moan about the identity theft article on slashdot last week?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/04/23
You realize you look like a retard, right? Pretending to not understand what I said just because of how I phrased it?
Or others:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312013493/104-85 97344-0175904?v=glance&n=283155
Again, they stole the bomb. Yes, we could still make one too, but they stole it. Look it up. You want to argue about the meaning of words changing, note that this one had this meaning a long time ago. It is just you (and a few others) who think that steal can't mean to copy information without permission. And it's been that way for 50 years. So stop trying to pretend it is others trying to reinvent the English language.
Did you step up to the plate to complain about the "Identity Theft" article slashdot ran last week? Nothing was stolen, just information duplicated. If you did, I salute you, but I really suspect you didn't.
This isn't a question of morals. You said the two were the same, I pointed out there is a difference. You can't use one as a substitute for the other when there are significant differences.
I don't think they have a God-given right. If you don't like the ads, you don't have to watch the show. I think that perhaps as a recepient of these shows for no fee you would be appreciative and not try to bust the business model that is letting you do so.
Either way, redistrubuting the show without the ads breaks the business model and will lead to the end of it. That would mean paying for TV shows or having no TV shows. Does that sound good to you? It doesn't sound good to me.
I feel the ad agencies don't have a right to force you to pay attention, maybe you should even have the right to press a skip button. But I feel that for their money spent they deserve to have the chance to catch your eye and actually present an ad you want to watch. By removing the commercials, you deprive them of that possibility. I do feel ad agencies have gone overboard thinking you somehow have to watch their ads, even if they are crap. I don't agree with that. They should have to make their commercials interesting enough to hold your attention.
This whole thing comes down to you deciding you're going to take the law into your own hands. That companies aren't doing a good job with their property, so you're going to take control. It doesn't work that way. you do have a choice, a choice to not buy their stuff if you feel it isn't worth what you're paying. To not watch it if you don't fe
You say I didn't address the original point, I say I addressed the point "it won't expand beyond the eMac niche".
Perhaps I misunderstand the eMac nice, but I think it appeals to more people than that monstrosity does, even if it doesn't sweep in the gamers.
MS aside, Formula One has had a huge problem keeping driver aids out of the sport. Driver aids do not belong in a series that is supposed to be the ultimate test of a driver.
The only series that has had any luck keeping driver aids out is NASCAR, because they don't allow any kind of tech (even fuel injection).
If this allows Formula 1 to get traction control, antilock brakes, launch control and other stuff out of F1, this will be a good thing.
I'm not sure if I believe it though. The excuse for allowing traction control was because they said they couldn't figure out how to keep it out. And yet I can see telemetry of the pedal position in the car, see the revs climb and even hear the TC cut in and out. It's simple. Monitor the telemetry and if the engine acceleration drops without the pedal moving, DQ the car.
Formula 1 is a shadow of its former self. It's still fast and expensive, but all passing is gone. And allowing tire changes during the race again just made the marbles problem much bigger, as anyone could have predicted, decreasing the passing even more.
Okay, that's enough. This isn't the right place to complain about this anyway.
The Soviets stole the atomic bomb from the US before you were even born.
Stop trying to redefine the English language to remove meanings you don't like. It has been accepted that it is possible to "steal" information just by copying it for longer than you have been around. You're the one tilting at windmills.
And BTW, if you TiVo something, TiVo knows you watched it and reports it, whether you are a Nielsen family or not.
Downloading the shows is different because (ready?) IT'S ILLEGAL. The makers of the content have allowed you to watch it for free on a channel and (begrudgingly) allowed you to tape it or TiVo it. They don't give you permission to download it off the internet (in this case) and their permission is the only thing that matters in the eyes of the law. If they want to execute what you feel is a flawed business model (not allowing people to download), then that is their right. This isn't a country where the government steps in and tells companies that they are running themselves into the ground by not understanding technology.
It would be better if the companies wise up. They seem to be starting too. That'd good. But it's not up to you to decide to force their hands. Just like an object you can't figure out how to copy, if you don't value it enough to pay for it, DO WITHOUT.
Also, if you can't see how downloading something without the commercials could hurt a business who makes money selling ad space on the idea that you might view it, then you're pretty dim and probably don't understand the situation very well.
You steal a companies' work and then they forgive you.
In your parallel, you suggest a company should ask you what bands you already know about that they should sign. In this case, you are listening to (and not paying for, I guess) music they don't own and they're asking you if they should own it.
First of all, why would you want them to own it? Second of all, if they should ask people what bands to sign, the bands wouldn't want to sign, because they would already have an audience. Why give 90% of your profits away if you already have a fan base big enough for labels to pay attention to?
So, what unsigned artists do you listen to anyway?
I do agree it's a bad gaming machine.
But that doesn't mean it can't expand beyond the eMac niche.
There are plenty of non-gamers in this world.
There has been one high-output liquid rocket motor developed in the US since the NK33 was created. And it was already being developed when the NK33 was developed.
So yeah, it is ahead of anything the Americans could have done at the time. And yeah, it's still ahead 20 years later, but that's because the Americans didn't do anything in the intervening 20 years.
If there had been any money spent on new liquid rocket motor design in the intervening years, it's possible we would have surpassed the NK33 (after the fact). But the money wasn't spent, and so I again say I can't imagine the Raytheon rocket engineers were really all that surprised that after 20 years of no development, a 20 year old motor from the Soviets was still ahead of the game.
Honestly, it all kind of underscores how privatization of rocket launches (legalized and begun in the Clinton years) is a smart idea. We're finally reaping the rewards.
Go Sea Launch!
It doesn't say much.
Reviing other articles on the topic says that the engines were not found in a warehouse, the engines used (RD-180) are American made from the design recovered from older Soviet engines.
Also, the hyperbole here seems to overstate the edge this engine has. Yes, it's more advanced than current US designs, but current US designs aren't any more advanced than US designs from the same timeframe as the creation of the NK33 engine (the RD-180 came from). In other words, yeah, it's 5 years ahead of its time, not 25. It's just time has halted since.
I can't imagine the Raytheon folks were too blown away considering how little money has been spent on development of high-output liquid engines lately.
For mainstream water cooling.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/295
All this fish tubing crap is amateur hour. Switching to nitrile or metal hoses makes the system a lot more palatable and reliable.
I expect this Intel solution will be rolled out with Woodcrest. I can't see another way they're going to get two dual-core chips into any regular case and have it quiet. Apple will probably insist on a system like this for their towers anyway, because its quiet.
Yes, it's similar in that you're referring to the particular races of people in the country.
But both you and the other poster are putting too fine a point on it. You're dividing things down much more than they need to be. Like dividing English into Saxons and Normans.
My point (and it goes along with the original poster's) is that subdivisions at that level are immaterial. The large division between Iraqis and Iranians is that Iraqis are Arabs and Iranians are not. It doesn't matter if the Iranians are Aryans, Aztecs or Normans, any is equally foreign to the Iraqis and other Arabs in the Middle East.
I don't mean to step on toes, because we're all on the same page here. I'll quit while I'm not too far behind yet.
In the US, Cellophane tape is not common anymore. Plastic tape is more common.
But my comments about the other stuff still stand. The clingy wrap people often call cellophane isn't cellulose-drived. Cellophane isn't clingy, in fact it is rather crinkly. When it was used as a kitchen wrap, you had to tape or rubber band it onto bowls.
Candy wrappers are sometimes still cellophane. Think of the crinkliness of the wrappings on hard candy and how non-clingy they are.
However, I am not so sure this is where things are today or are going in the near future. I am seeing more and more IT professionals using Linux; even individuals I would never have suspected. And its not just the recent graduate crowd. Though, as these recent-grads enter the workforce, they are gaining access to expense accounts that would go towards tools they are familiar with and prefer. There's a reason you can pick up very expensive software at steep "student" discounts and it has nothing to do with immediate profits.
I agree with that. I do see a shift. I couldn't say how big it will be, or when it'll peak (or what's next), but I see a shift toward Linux, and that means more than just the hardcore (having no alternative due to price or doing it on principle) running it.
I tried to address that in my other post, talking about a shift toward people running Linux "for the features". I can't say as I described my meaning very well though. Right now, desktop users are largely running Linux for other reasons than the feature list it provides. They're doing it for the price, or some niche thing it does or perhaps for the configurability (although that is a feature, isn't it?). But if Windows begins (or continues, depending on your POV) to be perceived as having abandoned the user in favor of MS and big media's own interests or maybe they just can't beat this lack of security rap, then a lot more people will begin to run Linux because of what it can do for them. And once people aren't just running it for the price, you'll hit a big slice of people who are completely willing to pay a fair price for quality apps.
So I see the demographics of Linux shifting, we'll see over time how much things change.
Iran isn't a Persian Country. Iran is a country that sits on the same location that Persia used to. Persia doesn't exist anymore. To call Iran a Persian Country would be like calling Mexico a North American country. It's true, but it's a feature of geography, not demographics.
Iranians are Caucasians (they're actually close to the Caucasus mountains for which the race is named) not Arabs, I think that is what you meant to say.
I agree with you about Bush Sr. He was wise to not go to Baghdad. He is a lot wiser than his son in many ways.
Not that it took a genius to realize that if you topple a minority-demographic dictator who holds down (not just lives with) a demographic who makes the majority of the country (at least in the South) it will produce a civil war. But apparently it took more brains than we had in the White House at the time.
I do agree that many pirates wouldn't have paid anyway. That's why I mentioned them.
But there is another slice of pirates (esp. on pay-for platforms like Windows) that would buy the app but do not because they can pirate it.
I'm curious as to where you get the idea that most desktop Linux customers won't pay. I'm suspecting it is a personal guess. I have met very few desktop Linux users who refuse to pay for any software either due to financial reasons or being morally opposed to the idea. I'm sure there are some. But I would be surprised if they measure in the majority these days (note that the Free / Open Source concept has nothing to do with cost).
I would hazard a guess that a large portion of desktop Linux installations aren't even set up by the users. A large portion are enterprises (schools) who deploy Linux because they deploy thousands of installs and they save a lot by not having Windows, even at MS' cheap rates. They don't want to undo this by paying for the apps.
But I base most of my belief on seeing the behavior of college students (who I think make up the largest percentage of Linux desktop users, along with recent college grads). They don't pay for their music, they don't pay for movies or cable (some DVDs). They live on a limited budget and $20 spent on an album (let alone $50-$300 on a software package) is less they have to spend on other entertainments or even necessities.
Back when DVD drives were expensive and media too, it wasn't uncommon to see college students save up to blow $150 on a DVD burner and $4 a throw for media to "save" money by not buying movies or TV. It did turn out in the end, I'm sure, and it's easier to justify to oneself the purchase of hardware (since you cannot pirate it and you don't get tired of it as fast) than software.
College students and recent grads don't have a lot of money and have a lot of time. They'll spend a while finding and downloading content and programs because they don't have the money to spend. Now, if you think moms and pops are big desktop linux users, they are definitely more used to buying software and content, additionally they don't as often have time to burn to scare it up through underground (even marginally underground) channels.
So it really goes because I see Linux being bigger with a crowd that is already light on cash and used to copying things. No matter what you do, if you aim at that market, you'll have a bit more trouble selling software than to someone who has the money to buy it, the will to buy it and doesn't have the time to go find it elsewhere.
Call me crazy if you want. You could be right.
Are not piezoelectric and do not use cellophane.
They work by putting an electrostatic charge on a mylar sheet, which is close to what the GP poster said.
And what you call cellophane wrap is not made of cellophane (or cellulose). It's regular petrochemical plastic based.
Cellophane (both wrap and tape) hasn't been in households for a long time now, at least 30 years.