It sounds slow even if they DID mean MB/s. When you're dealing with one quantity measured in giga* and one in mega*, a factor of eight isn't really a HUGE issue.
My brain automatically put "cubic" in place while I was reading it, but you're right. From reading the article, if I understand correctly (it's light on details), they do mean SQUARE inch, with a thickness of 1.5mm.
I think it comes out to something like 500Gb per cubic centimeter. But I'm not sure.
Well, it really doesn't. The only people who NEED terabytes or more can already afford that much in hard drives. But that's mostly what the summary mentions. That and data density by physical size... which isn't really that important.
What I want to know is, how does this technology stack up against hard drives or other existing technologies on issues like
- Data read speed
- Data write speed
- Power consumption
- Heat and/or noise
- Size and complexity of read/write mechanism
- Resistance to physical damage
- Rate of data decay
...and so on. Those areas are where advances could REALLY make a difference.
The problem is that there have been measured increases in ocean temperatures. Hurricanes require energy to keep going (from a site about El Nino, about 81 degrees F). Warmer oceans mean more energy. It's not much of a leap to link stronger hurricanes with warmer oceans.
Well, yes. "Warm oceans -> hurricanes" is well established. I'm saying "global warming -> warm oceans" isn't necessarily accurate, especially since a significant increase in hurricane activity would probably require an ocean temperature increase in excess of the global average temperature increase that has been measured. There are other climate effects that could cause temporary increases in ocean temperature.
I doubt Namco actually intended to do that. I'm thinking it was deliberate blackmail.;)
Also, I imagine someone will make a Katamari clone at some point--it's a pretty simple concept, something of a cult hit, and all but begs to have a level editor...
Well, ^_^ would actually be the replacement... the ^ representing anime style arch-shapped happy eyes, apparently. The o_o face is more of a blank stare, as someone else said. And it wasn't a matter of replacing so much as I don't think the:) style ever caught on in Japan (and wherever else the horizontal style is used). It's a cultural thing, don't worry about it. If you're really curious, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon .
I know you probably just wanted to use the line about rolling the dev team into a katamari, but I have to say that I'm actually glad they won't be rehashing the game. One of the major reasons Katamari Damacy was so neat was that it actually had innovative gameplay and it'd be a shame to waste the talent behind it on remakes and sequels.
Surely you jest? Or maybe have a very peculiar font.
A o_o is a two eyes and a mouth, don't even have to turn your head. Horizontal emoticons of that variety are commonly used in Asia (and by Japan-fixated anime fans). <3 is, if you tilt your head in the opposite direction of a:) face, is clearly a heart, hence the "We < Katamari".
Didn't we already know this? Was it a total mystery that having a patch of water over which hurricanes generate, say, the Gulf of Mexico, will serve to strengthen them? Was it a total mystery that climate change might bring about nasty consequences?
None of that was unknown, no, but they're not logically connected by necessity. Global warming is an overall average temperature increase, and is quite capable of lowering average temperatures in some locations. Thus the jump from "global warming" to "zOMG HURRICANES" still strikes me as unlikely, and blaming last season's monsters on it even moreso.
Oh, and just to make things clear--despite what some people like to think the world IS warming, the only question is by how much and how responsible humans are, and even if it's NOT our fault it isn't going to make our lives any better.
That'd depend on what the vulnerability is. If it's something like "feed a web browser bad info somehow and it'll flip out and trash files", even though the BROWSER has read access there's no way for the attacker to get that info sent out; all the attacker can do is destroy things.
It's not always as straightforward as "attacker is able to execute arbitrary code on target machine with flawed program's permissions and have full two-way communication".
However, isn't manually deleting information like credit card numbers and other sensitive information yourself part of proper/secure browsing techniques?
Yes, but since when has relying on users to follow "proper/secure technique" ever provided good results?
As tempting as it is for people who know better to brush off the mistakes of the untrained, sometimes their mistakes affect other people. Security needs to be the default behavior, not something extra you have to do.
If one browser allows an attacker to read arbitrary files, and another allows an attacker to delete arbitrary files, then the one that allows the deletion is surely worse however many ways there are to read files.
This isn't necessarily true. For instance, if the files that can be read include ones with, say, credit card information, wouldn't it be better to have those deleted (you can always re-enter the info to order online) than to have the information read without your knowledge and let someone else charge to your credit card?
The basic point you're making is quite correct, though.
Well, keep in mind that non-radioactive materials, when struck by radiation, can themselves be transmuted into different elements and isotopes, causing the originally harmless material to now be radioactive itself.
I'm pretty sure it does in fact use one of those sort of schemes, which have been in common use in Japan for much longer than Unicode has existed. I'm not certain though, as my grasp of Japanese is far too tenuous to worry about being able to type it.:)
Meanwhile, people who actually understand the value of and principles underlying relational databases grit their teeth and fight the urge to beat people with blunt objects.
Not me, though. I never "got" relational database theory and am quite content to give people nightmares with my naive object-biased approach.:)
Re:In a comparison, Ruby suffers for one big reaso
on
Exploring Active Record
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Kind of ironic, really, given that Ruby actually comes from a country that uses a non-ASCII alphabet... well, not really an alphabet at all, actually.
Depleted uranium (mostly U238) is extremely toxic and carcinogenic and has a half life of 4.46 × 10^9 years (wikipedia) so please don't tell us how it is going to get less dangerous - that's not going to happen for awhile. And despite the ability of DU to absorbs neutrons it is also naturally radioactive and pretty good at emitting them. It gets used in tank shells and is scattered across the Balkans, Kuwait and Iraq where it is definitely causes problems above background radiation. But nevermind over there, there are enough leaks (documented and undocumented) to cause worry here in North America. Take a look at Uranium City for instance... http://www.interlog.com/~grlaird/uraniumcity.html [interlog.com]
Uranium is chemically indeed quite toxic, much like lead or any other heavy metal, radioactive or otherwise. Furthermore small particles (such as those created by ammunition impacting a target) are prone to spontaneous combustion when exposed to air, exacerbating the spread of the toxicity.
DU is however--as the gigantic half-life indicates--simply not appreciably radioactive. Also, if I recall correctly, the form of radiation it emits is harmless from an external source (i.e., as long as it's not ingested or inhaled, in which case you'd still be in more trouble from the toxicity anyhow). Its dangers, not to be disregarded, are at least 99.9% chemical in nature. Radioactivity has precisely nothing to do with it, and any source claiming radiation hazards from DU is either deluded or intentionally deceptive.
Or to turn that around how much of the economic costs are born because nuclear power in any form is supported by scientific illterates? Once closing and storage costs are factored in nuclear plants are expensive even with the massive government subsidies they usually get. And its not like they are long-term viable, the world can run out of affordable uranium too - it will just take a couple of hundred years longer than oil. Right now wind power in many locations is cheaper and more viable long term than nuclear power. And BTW nulcear power is not a type of generator.
The statistic of the world running out of nuclear fuel in a few hundred years is based on the assumption that waste will be disposed of instead of being reprocessed into fuel. Using reprocessing and breeder reactors, we have more than enough nuclear fuel to last thousands of years. Conveniently, this also eliminates a great deal of the costs involved in disposing of waste.
As for wind power, it's only viable in a limited number of locations and will never supply remotely enough energy to replace other forms, and all the wishful thinking of wannabe "environmentalists" won't make that otherwise.
To be fair, there is a lot of room for improvement in battery technology; fortunately, what with the current craze for portable electronics and the introduction of hybrid vehicles, battery technology is progressing steadily.:)
My entire point was that with enough electrical power availible and some improvements in battery technology, things that use hydrocarbon fuel today could instead use electricity, thus eliminating sources of pollution that aren't currently counted as from electrical generation. Ideally, all power would come from clean sources such as nuclear or hydro plants, converted to electricity, then possibly stored in batteries or capacitors, resulting in NO carbon emissions from power generation at all. Make sense now?
On top of that you have generated a waste product, that has been proven impossible to contain an store, and needs to be stored for some 10,000 years of its radioactive lifespan. High level waste, still has no solvable safe storage method - and it has been many many years of discussion what to do with it - meanwhile it continues to build up at 78 Nuclear Plants, which are dure to run out of storage space in 2010.
There's a perfectly viable means to deal with high-level waste: turn it into more fuel. If it's radioactive enough to be dangerous, it's probably radioactive enough to run a reactor. Once all useful radioactive decay has finished, the stuff will be barely radioactive and can be disposed of easily. The only reason this isn't currently done is that the same general process can be used to produce weapon-grade material--political difficulties, not technical ones.
Not even vaguely a decent choice - replace one destructive measure with another destructive measure our decendants have to deal with, although thats essentially what the baby-boomers have done to us. Lots of ticking time-bombs.
On the contrary, the most destructive thing here is the pervasive anti-nuclear FUD spread by those who profit from the status quo and swallowed whole a scientifically illiterate public.
Oh. That's pretty much redundant with the bit about automobile use, though, isn't it? Either way, electric vehicles would help a lot. Though I have to say, I'd be happier to eliminate suburbs entirely and see decent mass transit in place, with high-speed connections between metro areas, but that's a huge amount of expensive and disruptive infrastructure reworking, so the USA is most likely stuck with our current setup. Unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds slow even if they DID mean MB/s. When you're dealing with one quantity measured in giga* and one in mega*, a factor of eight isn't really a HUGE issue.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
...or whatever the exact quote is, as I couldn't find a reliable source for it.
~ Andrew Tanenbaum
My brain automatically put "cubic" in place while I was reading it, but you're right. From reading the article, if I understand correctly (it's light on details), they do mean SQUARE inch, with a thickness of 1.5mm.
I think it comes out to something like 500Gb per cubic centimeter. But I'm not sure.
Well, it really doesn't. The only people who NEED terabytes or more can already afford that much in hard drives. But that's mostly what the summary mentions. That and data density by physical size... which isn't really that important.
...and so on. Those areas are where advances could REALLY make a difference.
What I want to know is, how does this technology stack up against hard drives or other existing technologies on issues like
- Data read speed
- Data write speed
- Power consumption
- Heat and/or noise
- Size and complexity of read/write mechanism
- Resistance to physical damage
- Rate of data decay
The problem is that there have been measured increases in ocean temperatures. Hurricanes require energy to keep going (from a site about El Nino, about 81 degrees F). Warmer oceans mean more energy. It's not much of a leap to link stronger hurricanes with warmer oceans.
Well, yes. "Warm oceans -> hurricanes" is well established. I'm saying "global warming -> warm oceans" isn't necessarily accurate, especially since a significant increase in hurricane activity would probably require an ocean temperature increase in excess of the global average temperature increase that has been measured. There are other climate effects that could cause temporary increases in ocean temperature.
I doubt Namco actually intended to do that. I'm thinking it was deliberate blackmail. ;)
Also, I imagine someone will make a Katamari clone at some point--it's a pretty simple concept, something of a cult hit, and all but begs to have a level editor...
But why on earth did o_o replace :). Less cute?
:) style ever caught on in Japan (and wherever else the horizontal style is used). It's a cultural thing, don't worry about it. If you're really curious, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon .
Well, ^_^ would actually be the replacement... the ^ representing anime style arch-shapped happy eyes, apparently. The o_o face is more of a blank stare, as someone else said. And it wasn't a matter of replacing so much as I don't think the
I know you probably just wanted to use the line about rolling the dev team into a katamari, but I have to say that I'm actually glad they won't be rehashing the game. One of the major reasons Katamari Damacy was so neat was that it actually had innovative gameplay and it'd be a shame to waste the talent behind it on remakes and sequels.
Surely you jest? Or maybe have a very peculiar font.
:) face, is clearly a heart, hence the "We < Katamari".
A o_o is a two eyes and a mouth, don't even have to turn your head. Horizontal emoticons of that variety are commonly used in Asia (and by Japan-fixated anime fans). <3 is, if you tilt your head in the opposite direction of a
Didn't we already know this? Was it a total mystery that having a patch of water over which hurricanes generate, say, the Gulf of Mexico, will serve to strengthen them? Was it a total mystery that climate change might bring about nasty consequences?
None of that was unknown, no, but they're not logically connected by necessity. Global warming is an overall average temperature increase, and is quite capable of lowering average temperatures in some locations. Thus the jump from "global warming" to "zOMG HURRICANES" still strikes me as unlikely, and blaming last season's monsters on it even moreso.
Oh, and just to make things clear--despite what some people like to think the world IS warming, the only question is by how much and how responsible humans are, and even if it's NOT our fault it isn't going to make our lives any better.
Well, it's a pity the schools didn't brainwash you into believing in "paragraphs".
Failing that, I do believe "We <3 Katamari" is the commonly-accepted substitute.
Alternately, the Japanese title of "Minna Daisuki Katamari Damashii" or "Everyone Loves Katamari Damacy" should also be acceptable.
That'd depend on what the vulnerability is. If it's something like "feed a web browser bad info somehow and it'll flip out and trash files", even though the BROWSER has read access there's no way for the attacker to get that info sent out; all the attacker can do is destroy things.
It's not always as straightforward as "attacker is able to execute arbitrary code on target machine with flawed program's permissions and have full two-way communication".
However, isn't manually deleting information like credit card numbers and other sensitive information yourself part of proper/secure browsing techniques?
Yes, but since when has relying on users to follow "proper/secure technique" ever provided good results?
As tempting as it is for people who know better to brush off the mistakes of the untrained, sometimes their mistakes affect other people. Security needs to be the default behavior, not something extra you have to do.
If one browser allows an attacker to read arbitrary files, and another allows an attacker to delete arbitrary files, then the one that allows the deletion is surely worse however many ways there are to read files.
This isn't necessarily true. For instance, if the files that can be read include ones with, say, credit card information, wouldn't it be better to have those deleted (you can always re-enter the info to order online) than to have the information read without your knowledge and let someone else charge to your credit card?
The basic point you're making is quite correct, though.
Well, keep in mind that non-radioactive materials, when struck by radiation, can themselves be transmuted into different elements and isotopes, causing the originally harmless material to now be radioactive itself.
I'm pretty sure it does in fact use one of those sort of schemes, which have been in common use in Japan for much longer than Unicode has existed. I'm not certain though, as my grasp of Japanese is far too tenuous to worry about being able to type it. :)
So what is the last 0.1% of the dangers?
.1% danger is the risk of someone picking up a chunk of DU and bashing you in the skull with it.
:P
The remaining
You must've really HATED ActiveRecord's pluralization thing. Heh.
Meanwhile, people who actually understand the value of and principles underlying relational databases grit their teeth and fight the urge to beat people with blunt objects.
:)
Not me, though. I never "got" relational database theory and am quite content to give people nightmares with my naive object-biased approach.
Kind of ironic, really, given that Ruby actually comes from a country that uses a non-ASCII alphabet... well, not really an alphabet at all, actually.
Depleted uranium (mostly U238) is extremely toxic and carcinogenic and has a half life of 4.46 × 10^9 years (wikipedia) so please don't tell us how it is going to get less dangerous - that's not going to happen for awhile. And despite the ability of DU to absorbs neutrons it is also naturally radioactive and pretty good at emitting them. It gets used in tank shells and is scattered across the Balkans, Kuwait and Iraq where it is definitely causes problems above background radiation. But nevermind over there, there are enough leaks (documented and undocumented) to cause worry here in North America. Take a look at Uranium City for instance... http://www.interlog.com/~grlaird/uraniumcity.html [interlog.com]
Uranium is chemically indeed quite toxic, much like lead or any other heavy metal, radioactive or otherwise. Furthermore small particles (such as those created by ammunition impacting a target) are prone to spontaneous combustion when exposed to air, exacerbating the spread of the toxicity.
DU is however--as the gigantic half-life indicates--simply not appreciably radioactive. Also, if I recall correctly, the form of radiation it emits is harmless from an external source (i.e., as long as it's not ingested or inhaled, in which case you'd still be in more trouble from the toxicity anyhow). Its dangers, not to be disregarded, are at least 99.9% chemical in nature. Radioactivity has precisely nothing to do with it, and any source claiming radiation hazards from DU is either deluded or intentionally deceptive.
Or to turn that around how much of the economic costs are born because nuclear power in any form is supported by scientific illterates? Once closing and storage costs are factored in nuclear plants are expensive even with the massive government subsidies they usually get. And its not like they are long-term viable, the world can run out of affordable uranium too - it will just take a couple of hundred years longer than oil. Right now wind power in many locations is cheaper and more viable long term than nuclear power. And BTW nulcear power is not a type of generator.
The statistic of the world running out of nuclear fuel in a few hundred years is based on the assumption that waste will be disposed of instead of being reprocessed into fuel. Using reprocessing and breeder reactors, we have more than enough nuclear fuel to last thousands of years. Conveniently, this also eliminates a great deal of the costs involved in disposing of waste.
As for wind power, it's only viable in a limited number of locations and will never supply remotely enough energy to replace other forms, and all the wishful thinking of wannabe "environmentalists" won't make that otherwise.
To be fair, there is a lot of room for improvement in battery technology; fortunately, what with the current craze for portable electronics and the introduction of hybrid vehicles, battery technology is progressing steadily. :)
I'm not sure you read what I posted.
My entire point was that with enough electrical power availible and some improvements in battery technology, things that use hydrocarbon fuel today could instead use electricity, thus eliminating sources of pollution that aren't currently counted as from electrical generation. Ideally, all power would come from clean sources such as nuclear or hydro plants, converted to electricity, then possibly stored in batteries or capacitors, resulting in NO carbon emissions from power generation at all. Make sense now?
On top of that you have generated a waste product, that has been proven impossible to contain an store, and needs to be stored for some 10,000 years of its radioactive lifespan. High level waste, still has no solvable safe storage method - and it has been many many years of discussion what to do with it - meanwhile it continues to build up at 78 Nuclear Plants, which are dure to run out of storage space in 2010.
There's a perfectly viable means to deal with high-level waste: turn it into more fuel. If it's radioactive enough to be dangerous, it's probably radioactive enough to run a reactor. Once all useful radioactive decay has finished, the stuff will be barely radioactive and can be disposed of easily. The only reason this isn't currently done is that the same general process can be used to produce weapon-grade material--political difficulties, not technical ones.
Not even vaguely a decent choice - replace one destructive measure with another destructive measure our decendants have to deal with, although thats essentially what the baby-boomers have done to us. Lots of ticking time-bombs.
On the contrary, the most destructive thing here is the pervasive anti-nuclear FUD spread by those who profit from the status quo and swallowed whole a scientifically illiterate public.
Oh. That's pretty much redundant with the bit about automobile use, though, isn't it? Either way, electric vehicles would help a lot. Though I have to say, I'd be happier to eliminate suburbs entirely and see decent mass transit in place, with high-speed connections between metro areas, but that's a huge amount of expensive and disruptive infrastructure reworking, so the USA is most likely stuck with our current setup. Unfortunately.