As far as I can see it is not about software upgrades but about the upgrade of the entire machine after 3 years.
Thats how I read the article as well. In other words if you take a laptop for life then don't take the new laptop offered after three years, you can't then come back to them after 6 years and say 'new laptop please'
Ever wonder why continental europe has sexy trains on two levels, but we don't in the UK?
Because our century and older railway bridges are too low.
But that doesn't explain why the new bridges and replacement bridges are still allowed to be built just high enough to take a single decker train. Mandate all future bridges must be able to take a double decker train and slowly the restrictions of what can run on our tracks goes away.
Oyster was designed for very high transaction rates spread across a large number of access points (not all fixed, the same cards are used on the buses) with low value transactions, querying the server at every transaction would only slow the process of getting onto public transport slower for negligible gain.
Oyster is basically designed to query the card, deduct the amount needed for the ticket and check the ticket is used to get out at the right station.
I tend to take the same attitude. If a companies is seriously so ignorant that they don't realise a particular decision is pissing off customers, maybe they just don't deserve to survive and certainly don't warrant me going out of my way to explain it to them.
Of course they log the searches, otherwise where did the story come from? unless they had a reporter watch all the SQL statements in realtime just after Joe The Plumbers 15 minutes of fame.
My understanding of the article is that the bubble isn't the universe (the article wasn't very clear on that part), it's a bubble of lower density material within the universe which we are in and we have assumed the local conditions as we see if are roughly constant throughout the universe.
Our calculation for distance is based on Supernova light (which is assumed to be roughly the same brilliance at source in all cases) being absorbed by matter which on a universal scale is roughly uniform and hence the less light receieved from a Supernova the further away it must be.
If however we are in a bubble of lower density material, the light absorption outside that bubble would be higher per unit of distance than we have calculated and hence Supernova are closer than we believe and as a result the universe is not as large as we believe. So there are no other globules to crash into
It does pose the the following questions to me though.
Why are we in the middle of a low density bubble
are there others?
wouldn't the effect be observable through gravitional effects on other galaxies - unless the effect is smaller than that I suppose
Also, there seems to be a lot of assumes in there.
You could get around the Weather issue but having the data center submerge during storms
Thinking about it, submerging the datacenter all of the time (assuming it's unmanned) could have lots of benefits.
Resilience against weather
Even better cooling
Security
Less likely to be involved in a collision
You would need to make the hull significantly stronger but assuming it's unmanned, there is nothing onboard which needs oxygen thus making the a submergable design much easier.
Which gives me another idea, flood the compartment with CO2 and make fires impossible
Just surface the system when you need to perform maintenance.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And yet if he could work without a manager - why have the manager there in the first place?
The whole point of a manager is as an organiser and as a single point of communication into and out of the group he manages. All the GP was asking for from a manager was that role to be fulfilled.
Space is actually a really good insulator because you have removed 2 of the 3 possible methods of removing heat. Conduction and Convection. That only leaves radition.
I remember a temporary art installation a few years back which was made up of hundreds of fluorescent tubes standing up like a forest underneath a high power line all glowing by themselves.
http://www.richardbox.com/
--To name but a few forces in play. Many people in power WANT to destroy the world; it's not a mistake, it's a deliberate goal.
Maybe I'm naive but I don't seriously believe that many people in power WANT to destroy the world.
I do believe that many people in power want to elevate there position relative to everyone else and if that means pulling others down rather than climbing to the top then that's what they will do.
Whatever... this is naval gazing and conjecture, no more credible than Intelligent Design. These guys have a few data points, they create a highly convoluted system that seems to account for their data points, then the moment they get more data, they start over. Again and again.
Data points which are skewed by the fact that planets with a large mass (relative to the star) orbiting close to the star are easier to detect by techniques based on star wobble and transit light level and so are going to be massively over represented in the list of known planetary systems.
Cave paintings were used to represent something which is intrinsically understood by modern humans because for the most part we hunt and we can see animals all around us. It's not a great leap of imagination to see what the painter was trying to represent.
Try to represent something non-physical such as radiation, especially considering the audience may not understand what radiation actually is
In the short term (200-500 years), there is less chance of a industrial breakdown which might hamper our ability to detect radiation, and even if it does, I think our language will still be close enough to catch the gist of a warning sign (which should also still be intact if not exposed to the weather).
In the long term, chance of a complete technological break down is increased (although I suppose the chance of a recovery and relearning the necessary skills is increased as well) and there is a good chance language will have changed sufficiently to make understanding any sign we leave now a mystery (assuming a sign we leave could last 10000 years).
I don't think the internet ads model generates a lot of revenue. Naturally Viacom wants people watching their programs on TV only so they can keep ratings up and TV ad revenues up.
I've always wondered about that. If internet advertising doesn't work, why does TV advertising? I suppose it could just be audience size, but if advertisers are so good at their job, why can't they produce more tailored ad campaigns for a more fractured audience given how much more (potentially at least) they know about the person seeing the ad.
The one thing Internet advertising has given ad managers is more accurate information on response rates. How do you measure TV response rate, the number of people phoning a number asking for a product after a advert goes out? that would seem to give vague numbers at best.
Perhaps it's just more honest response rate which are harder to hide that ad managers dislike about Internet advertising.
The problem is that this alleged wunderfuel is still a hydrocarbon, which means that you still have carbon atoms to dispose of (lots of 'em)
Carbon from this source wouldn't be a problem at all.
The Greenhouse Gas problem is really about taking carbon which has been buried and effectively out of the biosphere for millions of years and dumping it into the air in quantities large enough to affect atmospheric carbon concentrations.
All those Biofuels are effectively carbon neutral (or would be in an ideal world if we weren't using fossil fuels to harvest the feedstock) because the carbon in the feedstock has come directly from the atmosphere within the last 1-2, 10-20 years (depending on the feedstock).
If we could run the entire worlds fleet of cars/buses/planes/trains on biofuels, it would have eventually balance out and have zero effect on atmospheric carbon concentrations.
Biofuels have a single problem, in the last hundred years we have (in the west at least) got used to burning a fuel store which took millions of years to produce, biofuels have to produce energy in a 1:1 time ratio and there is simply no way to do that without a significant proportion of the earths surface being turned over to energy collection and conversion into an energy store.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats how I read the article as well. In other words if you take a laptop for life then don't take the new laptop offered after three years, you can't then come back to them after 6 years and say 'new laptop please'
Shouldn't that be 'I, for one, welcome our new unwettable overcoats!' ?
But that doesn't explain why the new bridges and replacement bridges are still allowed to be built just high enough to take a single decker train. Mandate all future bridges must be able to take a double decker train and slowly the restrictions of what can run on our tracks goes away.
Oyster was designed for very high transaction rates spread across a large number of access points (not all fixed, the same cards are used on the buses) with low value transactions, querying the server at every transaction would only slow the process of getting onto public transport slower for negligible gain.
Oyster is basically designed to query the card, deduct the amount needed for the ticket and check the ticket is used to get out at the right station.
I tend to take the same attitude. If a companies is seriously so ignorant that they don't realise a particular decision is pissing off customers, maybe they just don't deserve to survive and certainly don't warrant me going out of my way to explain it to them.
If I remember correctly from the original article, the money for the town fibre plan was raised from Bonds not taxation.
Of course they log the searches, otherwise where did the story come from? unless they had a reporter watch all the SQL statements in realtime just after Joe The Plumbers 15 minutes of fame.
Why does it even need to be structurally sound? the pictures are mounted inside a frame.
I wish I had mod points :)
How can be circumventing a security measure when the answer is displayed with the question?
My understanding of the article is that the bubble isn't the universe (the article wasn't very clear on that part), it's a bubble of lower density material within the universe which we are in and we have assumed the local conditions as we see if are roughly constant throughout the universe.
Our calculation for distance is based on Supernova light (which is assumed to be roughly the same brilliance at source in all cases) being absorbed by matter which on a universal scale is roughly uniform and hence the less light receieved from a Supernova the further away it must be.
If however we are in a bubble of lower density material, the light absorption outside that bubble would be higher per unit of distance than we have calculated and hence Supernova are closer than we believe and as a result the universe is not as large as we believe. So there are no other globules to crash into
It does pose the the following questions to me though.
Also, there seems to be a lot of assumes in there.
I suppose you eat dolphin safe tuna as well?!
No, but I do eat tuna safe dolphines. hmmm
You could get around the Weather issue but having the data center submerge during storms
Thinking about it, submerging the datacenter all of the time (assuming it's unmanned) could have lots of benefits.
You would need to make the hull significantly stronger but assuming it's unmanned, there is nothing onboard which needs oxygen thus making the a submergable design much easier.
Which gives me another idea, flood the compartment with CO2 and make fires impossible
Just surface the system when you need to perform maintenance.
And yet if he could work without a manager - why have the manager there in the first place?
The whole point of a manager is as an organiser and as a single point of communication into and out of the group he manages. All the GP was asking for from a manager was that role to be fulfilled.
The 1/6th thing comes from the fact that to ensure data accessibility at any time, there needs to be 6 copies of each of those 100 parts
Space is actually a really good insulator because you have removed 2 of the 3 possible methods of removing heat. Conduction and Convection. That only leaves radition.
I remember a temporary art installation a few years back which was made up of hundreds of fluorescent tubes standing up like a forest underneath a high power line all glowing by themselves. http://www.richardbox.com/
--To name but a few forces in play. Many people in power WANT to destroy the world; it's not a mistake, it's a deliberate goal.
Maybe I'm naive but I don't seriously believe that many people in power WANT to destroy the world.
I do believe that many people in power want to elevate there position relative to everyone else and if that means pulling others down rather than climbing to the top then that's what they will do.
Who do you think wants to destroy the world?
Whatever... this is naval gazing and conjecture, no more credible than Intelligent Design. These guys have a few data points, they create a highly convoluted system that seems to account for their data points, then the moment they get more data, they start over. Again and again.
Data points which are skewed by the fact that planets with a large mass (relative to the star) orbiting close to the star are easier to detect by techniques based on star wobble and transit light level and so are going to be massively over represented in the list of known planetary systems.
Crap yeah, and when your headlights start glowing red you know your car is pretty bad ass.
Arrgh, my car is bad ass - oh wait that's just the back of the car
Umm, non-radioactive polars in the present hunt you. There's a reason why the scientists up there are required to carry rifles.
Cave paintings were used to represent something which is intrinsically understood by modern humans because for the most part we hunt and we can see animals all around us. It's not a great leap of imagination to see what the painter was trying to represent.
Try to represent something non-physical such as radiation, especially considering the audience may not understand what radiation actually is
actually I see it the opposite way round.
In the short term (200-500 years), there is less chance of a industrial breakdown which might hamper our ability to detect radiation, and even if it does, I think our language will still be close enough to catch the gist of a warning sign (which should also still be intact if not exposed to the weather).
In the long term, chance of a complete technological break down is increased (although I suppose the chance of a recovery and relearning the necessary skills is increased as well) and there is a good chance language will have changed sufficiently to make understanding any sign we leave now a mystery (assuming a sign we leave could last 10000 years).
I don't think the internet ads model generates a lot of revenue. Naturally Viacom wants people watching their programs on TV only so they can keep ratings up and TV ad revenues up.
I've always wondered about that. If internet advertising doesn't work, why does TV advertising? I suppose it could just be audience size, but if advertisers are so good at their job, why can't they produce more tailored ad campaigns for a more fractured audience given how much more (potentially at least) they know about the person seeing the ad.
The one thing Internet advertising has given ad managers is more accurate information on response rates. How do you measure TV response rate, the number of people phoning a number asking for a product after a advert goes out? that would seem to give vague numbers at best.
Perhaps it's just more honest response rate which are harder to hide that ad managers dislike about Internet advertising.
The problem is that this alleged wunderfuel is still a hydrocarbon, which means that you still have carbon atoms to dispose of (lots of 'em)
Carbon from this source wouldn't be a problem at all.
The Greenhouse Gas problem is really about taking carbon which has been buried and effectively out of the biosphere for millions of years and dumping it into the air in quantities large enough to affect atmospheric carbon concentrations.
All those Biofuels are effectively carbon neutral (or would be in an ideal world if we weren't using fossil fuels to harvest the feedstock) because the carbon in the feedstock has come directly from the atmosphere within the last 1-2, 10-20 years (depending on the feedstock).
If we could run the entire worlds fleet of cars/buses/planes/trains on biofuels, it would have eventually balance out and have zero effect on atmospheric carbon concentrations.
Biofuels have a single problem, in the last hundred years we have (in the west at least) got used to burning a fuel store which took millions of years to produce, biofuels have to produce energy in a 1:1 time ratio and there is simply no way to do that without a significant proportion of the earths surface being turned over to energy collection and conversion into an energy store.