The take your old x-box, put it in the to repair pile, get a repaired refurbished x-box, put it in a box and send it to you. What would you prefer, an x-box full of the mucus, semen, blood, and bacteria of the previous owner or an x-box that had been scrubbed down with alcohol? Imagine the lawsuits if one of the refurbished x-boxes sent caused the receiver to become ill.
Google is in no way competing with Microsoft. In fact, Google now depends on Microsoft for it's survival as a large majority of their targets are Microsoft users. However, investing in Linux and open source is a good way of mitigating risk in case of the failure of the Microsoft platform or of conflict with Microsoft.
I feel that the fact that most people waste 1/5 of their time on the internet may be a good indication that work weeks are 1/5th too long. In fact, if I could find a job where I would only work 4 days a week, I would probably be as if not more productive than now that I work 5 days a week. This is a case where corporations should revisit their policies instead of the other way around.
Which makes me wonder... if most of the work of a video card these days is done in software, and one of the biggest complaints about Linux is the lack of good free/open source drivers for high-end NVIDIA/ATI graphics cards, then why, exactly aren't FOSS developers working on one? Get some chip fab to produce some cards based on an open GPU design, write our own drivers and -- bam -- the LinuXtreme3D Graphics Accelerator! Screw NVIDIA and ATI.
Because the sunk cost to get involved in graphics cards is huge. You need a few billion dollars and like 10 years of research and development in order to simply be competitive with NVIDIA and ATI. Wouldn't it be much more convenient instead to outright buy NVIDIA or ATI and open it up? Maybe if us geeks each buy shares in the company.
As Linus explained, he has tough decisions to make and the fact that CFS beat out SD this time, doesn't mean it will remain that way in future releases. Con should have sucked it up and worked harder on his scheduler.
Number of wires? WiFi + Bluetooth/whatever results in the only cords remaining being thepower cord and whatever usb/firewire cables you use for external drives, printers, etc (and many printers can hook up to wifi ap's). As for "box size", it's entirely variable and selectable on the part of the purchaser at this point (both the retail purchaser and the homebrew builder). No longer is the old AT-style mega-desktop or bigass tower the norm for home machines. So... wires and box size?
You are right that it is possible to have a small high end computer with no wires, however, when joe public goes to the store, he sees the small sexy compact laptops and the low-end to medium-range desktops that, although not as big as in the past, take up a big portion of your desk. There's also that joe public does not see the advantage in upgrading their system: not that you can usually upgrade much in say a compaq system anyways. I mean, the CPU is usually glued there. As for bluetooth, it is still only a costly technology.
I feel that the biggest disadvantage of a desktop is the number of wires as well as the size of the box. If desktops are to compete with laptops, perhaps reducing the component sizes and decreasing power so that they can fit in slick thin boxes is what the desktop market needs to be revitalized. A lot of people choose desktop replacement laptops instead of desktops for this precise reason.
In any case, the PC will always remain in existence if only to be a server.
Pressure is the same for gas inside blimp and gas outside of it. By Archimedes' Principle, the difference in weight of gas (Helium) inside blimp and weight of atmospheric gas displaced by blimp and payload must be greater or equal to weight of empty blimp and the payload.
[blockquote]Now, that's an interesting idea -- a lighter-than-air lander. But is it even possible in an atmosphere as thin as Mars?[/blockquote]
All that matters in lighter-than-air spacecrafts is that the density of the gas is lower than the density of the ambiant air, and that it's big enough. The whole principle of the thing is if you have 1 mole of any (ideal) gas, they all take up the same volume under the same temperature and air pressure. To fill the balloon, you simply need to have a slightly higher pressure than the atmospheric pressure. Since the air pressure on mars is 1/100 of earth's you will need about 1/100th of the helium you would use here on earth. Since helium is less dense than the major constituent of mars' atmosphere, carbon dioxide, the "blimp" lander could work. The main issue is, could you deploy this blimp at the mach 3 and is the atmosphere thick enough at high altitude to make this work?
YES!! FIRST POST!!!!! I FINALLY GOT IT!!!!!! gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooo
I'll assume you're using internet explorer under Vista?
Who says they need to get the password from you? I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft has a backdoor to retrieve passwords for bitlockers that they hand over to authorities. I mean, how hard is it to encrypt the password you set for bitlocker with a microsoft public key?
Also the "dispute" you quote is about the effects of AGW on specific hurricane basins, they are not disputing AGW itself. The fact remains that Gore is reporting the "best science available" not "every opinion available", there is no doubt that as the globe warms the climate will become more turbulent (anyone could "guess" that much from basic physics).
I've never said once that global warming does not exist. I've simply stated that the potential effects of global warming have been exaggerated and that the wrong solutions are being considered by those scientists to the problem of global warming.
A March 13, 2007 article in The New York Times reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film, noting that they "argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous". Gore's discussion of a rise in sea level of up to 20 feet is contrasted with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts a maximum rise of 23 inches excluding non-linear effects on ice sheets; although that too discusses the possibilities of higher rises if the ice sheets melt. The article also states that "a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium."[8] The article quotes both defenders and critics of the film; Gore responds that scientists may disagree with him on some details, "but we do agree on the fundamentals."[8]
Please provide some evidence of where Al Gore says something that is not supported by the IPCC reports. Since you have researched this you will already know that the IPCC reports are conservative in their estimation of future impacts.
In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" because of Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to recent hurricane activity [36]. Roger A. Pielke who published Landsea's letter writes: "How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations isn't paying attention", but notes that the actual report "Despite the pressures, on tropical cyclones they figured out a way to maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts." He continues "So there might be a human contribution (and presumably this is just to the observed upwards trends observed in some basins, and not to downward trends observed in others, but this is unclear) but the human contribution itself has not been quantitatively assessed, yet the experts, using their judgment, expect it to be there. In plain English this is what is called a "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion." And it is a fair representation of the issue." [37]
That's the thing, you shouldn't trust me, and you shouldn't trust the most outspoken members of the media and politics. You should make your own decision on the issue based on the data you want to use. As for me, I'm nobody special but I've done a lot of research, seen that a lot of data supporting global warming is flawed and decided not to take what I was told at face value. For example, one graph that I've always found particularly devious is the one showing the increase in CO2 in Hawaii. Of course, Hawaii is a volcano and produced a lot of CO2 because it is a volcano.
I'll probably be modded troll for this, but my karma can take 1 troll I suppose. I've researched the topic of global warming, and according to my understanding there is evidence towards the existence of global warming, however there isn't enough evidence to support the cataclysmic model that is put forward by some of the more vocal members of the media and politics such as Al Gore. Of course, there might be some negative repercussions to global warming, but there has been similar increases and decreases in temperature in the past, none of which have jeopardized the existence of man. Sure it can cause some local problems in some areas, but it will also cause other areas of the globe to be more livable. All in all, man can adjust to the effects of global warming without much problems and without needing to throw billions of dollars at faulty solutions.
If we believe the model put forward by the proponent of global warming, it is caused by the widespread use of fossil fuels. Now the solutions to global warming, as put forward by those proponents, is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by using more efficient lights, having efficient appliances, using hybrid cars. What many people don't seem to understand is that those solutions provide linear reduction of greenhouse gases. Let's say that everyone on the globe produces half the greenhouse emissions they currently produce, then current greenhouse = previous greenhouse emission * 0.5 . Meanwhile, world population tends to grow in an exponential fashion. If I remember correctly, population growth is modeled as ae^bt or something like that. So, reducing the greenhouse emissions by a percentage is only offering a short term solution to the problem of global warming and the population growth will eventually mean the increase in total greenhouse emissions. The real problem to global warming then is to reduce or control world population growth. You can do that by discouraging people to have children through various programs.
Not everyone values consistency and commitment. I, myself, have been a Windows user for the past 10 years and dissed Macintosh repeatedly in the past. In the last year, I bought a Macbook and have converted almost entirely to Mac. Why? I love the consistency, elegance and simplicity of Macbooks. Sure Safari crashes all the time, I cannot access all websites, I can't play many games, I can't play WMV's with DRM, and I can't video chat in msn. But I'm not a gamer, I hate WMV's (and you can play them if you download WMP for mac), and am trying to find a better browser (if you have suggestions, please suggest). The only thing I am still bitter about, at this point, is the lack of msn video support. and I want utorrent and emule on mac...
Totally wrong. Someone parent down. Electrons do not move more than a fraction of a millimetre per second. It is actually the electric field along the conductor, which moves at the speed of light, that carries signal.
Slashdot Mirror
The take your old x-box, put it in the to repair pile, get a repaired refurbished x-box, put it in a box and send it to you. What would you prefer, an x-box full of the mucus, semen, blood, and bacteria of the previous owner or an x-box that had been scrubbed down with alcohol? Imagine the lawsuits if one of the refurbished x-boxes sent caused the receiver to become ill.
Nothing is easier than building a green PC, just take out the can of green spray paint.
Google is in no way competing with Microsoft. In fact, Google now depends on Microsoft for it's survival as a large majority of their targets are Microsoft users. However, investing in Linux and open source is a good way of mitigating risk in case of the failure of the Microsoft platform or of conflict with Microsoft.
I feel that the fact that most people waste 1/5 of their time on the internet may be a good indication that work weeks are 1/5th too long. In fact, if I could find a job where I would only work 4 days a week, I would probably be as if not more productive than now that I work 5 days a week. This is a case where corporations should revisit their policies instead of the other way around.
What the writer is describing is NOT procedural programming but rather some sort of event-driven programming.
Because the sunk cost to get involved in graphics cards is huge. You need a few billion dollars and like 10 years of research and development in order to simply be competitive with NVIDIA and ATI. Wouldn't it be much more convenient instead to outright buy NVIDIA or ATI and open it up? Maybe if us geeks each buy shares in the company.
As Linus explained, he has tough decisions to make and the fact that CFS beat out SD this time, doesn't mean it will remain that way in future releases. Con should have sucked it up and worked harder on his scheduler.
You are right that it is possible to have a small high end computer with no wires, however, when joe public goes to the store, he sees the small sexy compact laptops and the low-end to medium-range desktops that, although not as big as in the past, take up a big portion of your desk. There's also that joe public does not see the advantage in upgrading their system: not that you can usually upgrade much in say a compaq system anyways. I mean, the CPU is usually glued there. As for bluetooth, it is still only a costly technology.
I feel that the biggest disadvantage of a desktop is the number of wires as well as the size of the box. If desktops are to compete with laptops, perhaps reducing the component sizes and decreasing power so that they can fit in slick thin boxes is what the desktop market needs to be revitalized. A lot of people choose desktop replacement laptops instead of desktops for this precise reason.
In any case, the PC will always remain in existence if only to be a server.
you, sir are right. My mistake.
[blockquote]Now, that's an interesting idea -- a lighter-than-air lander. But is it even possible in an atmosphere as thin as Mars?[/blockquote]
All that matters in lighter-than-air spacecrafts is that the density of the gas is lower than the density of the ambiant air, and that it's big enough. The whole principle of the thing is if you have 1 mole of any (ideal) gas, they all take up the same volume under the same temperature and air pressure. To fill the balloon, you simply need to have a slightly higher pressure than the atmospheric pressure. Since the air pressure on mars is 1/100 of earth's you will need about 1/100th of the helium you would use here on earth. Since helium is less dense than the major constituent of mars' atmosphere, carbon dioxide, the "blimp" lander could work. The main issue is, could you deploy this blimp at the mach 3 and is the atmosphere thick enough at high altitude to make this work?
The average temperature of space is near 0K.
What about a huge blimp? You carry frozen helium all the way to mars, then heat it before entry to fill a huge blimp.
At least it isn't proprietary junk that doesn't follow standards and tries to shut out the competition. It's a step forward.
I'll assume you're using internet explorer under Vista?
Who says they need to get the password from you? I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft has a backdoor to retrieve passwords for bitlockers that they hand over to authorities. I mean, how hard is it to encrypt the password you set for bitlocker with a microsoft public key?
Read the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#Criticism_of_IP
That's the thing, you shouldn't trust me, and you shouldn't trust the most outspoken members of the media and politics. You should make your own decision on the issue based on the data you want to use. As for me, I'm nobody special but I've done a lot of research, seen that a lot of data supporting global warming is flawed and decided not to take what I was told at face value. For example, one graph that I've always found particularly devious is the one showing the increase in CO2 in Hawaii. Of course, Hawaii is a volcano and produced a lot of CO2 because it is a volcano.
I'll probably be modded troll for this, but my karma can take 1 troll I suppose. I've researched the topic of global warming, and according to my understanding there is evidence towards the existence of global warming, however there isn't enough evidence to support the cataclysmic model that is put forward by some of the more vocal members of the media and politics such as Al Gore. Of course, there might be some negative repercussions to global warming, but there has been similar increases and decreases in temperature in the past, none of which have jeopardized the existence of man. Sure it can cause some local problems in some areas, but it will also cause other areas of the globe to be more livable. All in all, man can adjust to the effects of global warming without much problems and without needing to throw billions of dollars at faulty solutions. If we believe the model put forward by the proponent of global warming, it is caused by the widespread use of fossil fuels. Now the solutions to global warming, as put forward by those proponents, is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by using more efficient lights, having efficient appliances, using hybrid cars. What many people don't seem to understand is that those solutions provide linear reduction of greenhouse gases. Let's say that everyone on the globe produces half the greenhouse emissions they currently produce, then current greenhouse = previous greenhouse emission * 0.5 . Meanwhile, world population tends to grow in an exponential fashion. If I remember correctly, population growth is modeled as ae^bt or something like that. So, reducing the greenhouse emissions by a percentage is only offering a short term solution to the problem of global warming and the population growth will eventually mean the increase in total greenhouse emissions. The real problem to global warming then is to reduce or control world population growth. You can do that by discouraging people to have children through various programs.
Not everyone values consistency and commitment. I, myself, have been a Windows user for the past 10 years and dissed Macintosh repeatedly in the past. In the last year, I bought a Macbook and have converted almost entirely to Mac. Why? I love the consistency, elegance and simplicity of Macbooks. Sure Safari crashes all the time, I cannot access all websites, I can't play many games, I can't play WMV's with DRM, and I can't video chat in msn. But I'm not a gamer, I hate WMV's (and you can play them if you download WMP for mac), and am trying to find a better browser (if you have suggestions, please suggest). The only thing I am still bitter about, at this point, is the lack of msn video support. and I want utorrent and emule on mac...
Totally wrong. Someone parent down. Electrons do not move more than a fraction of a millimetre per second. It is actually the electric field along the conductor, which moves at the speed of light, that carries signal.