You run the same problem anywhere that is cold and remote, which is what is being discussed right now. Besides, if the other advantages are great enough in a location and there is enough capacity to satisfy at least one or two big companies, the rest of the capacity will follow.
As for Alaska, it has some advantages, but if the energy problem is as bad as TFer_Atvar says, that would be hugely prohibitive. Iceland not only has a cold climate, but has abundant geothermal energy. Unfortunately, it seems a little light in terms of the internet connections to the outside world, and only a single direct connection to North America. Compared with something like the US, this might make companies somewhat reluctant to place too much of their data there.
Canada might be another interesting choice. It has all the climate benefits of Iceland, but lacks some of the disadvantages. Datacenters could be easily connected over ground to the US, from which there are ample connections to the rest of the world. As Canada's tar sands are increasingly utilized, the energy costs for the area will likely be at least comparable to most other areas in the world. In fact, as cheaper oil sources are exhausted, the energy costs near the tar sands will likely become relatively cheap. It certainly isn't the most environmentally friendly option, but it will likely be an attractive one for businesses looking to cut costs.
If they're just trying to scare people, why do they need a new corporation (which has it's own army of lawyers) to process the payments? To scare more people, and to do it faster and more efficient at the same time, perhaps? Really, though, both goals are likely to be important to them.
Publishing information to WP based on your own work would probably be original research according to WP. Which WP doesn't allow. As long as the information is published in a journal, it isn't really considered original research.
Secondly, WP doesn't allow copyrighted work like journals to be posted verbatim on the site--even IF the author grants explicit permission signed in blood and double-notarized to have the material published there too. For WP, it's basically 100% Free or no deal. So, the ONLY way this material could be posted on Wikipedia and stay up for more than 7 minutes with the WP Copyright Police would be if the author released it under GFDL. In one of the articles it mentioned that the acceptance was rescinded because the authors wanted the content licensed to be compatible with wikipedia, so the copyright wouldn't have been an issue from wikipedia's side.
Not entirely. Once you actually have a person on the surface, there is a lot that they could do in terms of sample collection and observation that would be far more rapid and versatile than any robot we can currently send. With robots such as Spirit and Opportunity, every move must be carefully planned out ahead in advance, and it takes many days to cover distances that a human could readily cover in a short time.
Of course, even with the benefits, it is still far more cost effective to send a robotic probe than a person, but as long as you're going to put a person on the surface anyways, there is a lot that they could be doing.
I don't know the answer, but I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere on the astronomy podcast. At any rate, it's a great show for anyone who is interested in astronomy. I'd especially recommend listening to their series on the objects of the solar system.
Astronomy Cast
Despite being completely blown off by the mainstream media, Ron Paul has managed to win delegates. Giuliani, who received a lot of press coverage, didn't get any before dropping out. How many has Keyes come up with?
Unless you went through the code yourself, don't trust it. Maybe you can trust the maintainer of that code, but either way you end up trusting a third party.
That's true to some extent. There is, however, a large difference. In closed software the third party you are trusting is often limited to the people who actually wrote the code. In open source software, you just have to trust that some people out of the many on the internet capable of understanding the code have actually looked at it, and that at least one of the people who looked at the code would call the project out on any suspect parts of the code. Personally, I'd say that the second set of assumptions is probably more likely to be true (at least for non obscure projects) than the first.
Go on strike against who, though? Aren't most bloggers fairly independent anyways. I know that there are bloggers who are employed for the purpose of blogging, but I was under the impression that they were a minority.
What is it that makes visual studio so much greater than other debuggers such as gdb? I'm still in school, but I've used both and so far the only thing I've seen that Visual Studio has any great advantage in is the learning curve.
The problem with this type of storage and distribution, is that it strongly favors only what is popular.
This comment really hits the nail on the head. Even worse is that it only favors what is popular at a given moment. What is popular today might not be as popular tomorrow, and what is popular after that could be different still. If we relied on the interest of individuals to preserve content, then all it takes is one uninterested generation for valuable content to be lost forever. It doesn't matter if people for the next thousand years would love to have that content, since once it is gone it is gone forever.
Systematic and planned archives are a way of normalizing out these sorts of temporary trends. When we take care to preserve the past, then we are making sure that future generations have the opportunity to decide what is and is not worth paying attention to.
Now that the academic scientific orthodoxy has rallied to ensure for now that one disturbing inference, ID, is uniquely excluded There is nothing special or unique about ID's exclusion from being taught as science. Quite simply put, it doesn't actually make any testable predictions, it has no way to be falsified, and therefore it simply isn't science.
The issue here seems to be notability. If you look at the articles for deletion page, there seem to be two main positions taken by posters. One side want to include proofs only if the proof itself is notable, while the other group believes that the proof should be allowed as long as the theorem itself is notable. I don't think that the issue is as cut and dried as people seem to be taking it, although personally I tend to side with the latter group.
Sure, but in areas like that you're going to see a lot better returns on solar power than areas with high rainfall will. In that respect, this sort of technology will be a complement to solar power. In other words, areas with lots of rain and cloud cover will have more available biomass for fuel, whereas areas without the rainfall will see much more output from solar generators. Ideally, it should balance out, although in actual practice it will certainly be more messy than that.
Seriously, it's like the government is going out of their way to make the US noncompetitive. Many of them are top tier scientists and engineers who are almost certain to have no problem finding work elsewhere. Pulling shit like this just means that NASA is going to drive talent into the arms of other organizations.
they were so set in their ways that they couldn't see any way such a wave could exit Except that scientists actually looked at the evidence and eventually found that they did exist. So how exactly were they "set in their waves". They did what they were supposed to do. They looked at a reported phenomenon and skeptically investigated it until they were able to determine one way or another whether it actually existed. Then once there was actually something to study, they set out to understanding what was actually going on. Please tell me what exactly they should have done differently here.
Would saying "ok, I believe you" without any evidence or understanding actually have saved any of the lives lost?
You know you're going to be job searching at some point in the future. Just make sure that every now and then you toss in a post that you'd want a future employer to read, and you'll be set by the next time you have to start interviewing again.
Slashdot Mirror
You run the same problem anywhere that is cold and remote, which is what is being discussed right now. Besides, if the other advantages are great enough in a location and there is enough capacity to satisfy at least one or two big companies, the rest of the capacity will follow.
As for Alaska, it has some advantages, but if the energy problem is as bad as TFer_Atvar says, that would be hugely prohibitive. Iceland not only has a cold climate, but has abundant geothermal energy. Unfortunately, it seems a little light in terms of the internet connections to the outside world, and only a single direct connection to North America. Compared with something like the US, this might make companies somewhat reluctant to place too much of their data there.
Canada might be another interesting choice. It has all the climate benefits of Iceland, but lacks some of the disadvantages. Datacenters could be easily connected over ground to the US, from which there are ample connections to the rest of the world. As Canada's tar sands are increasingly utilized, the energy costs for the area will likely be at least comparable to most other areas in the world. In fact, as cheaper oil sources are exhausted, the energy costs near the tar sands will likely become relatively cheap. It certainly isn't the most environmentally friendly option, but it will likely be an attractive one for businesses looking to cut costs.
Secondly, WP doesn't allow copyrighted work like journals to be posted verbatim on the site--even IF the author grants explicit permission signed in blood and double-notarized to have the material published there too. For WP, it's basically 100% Free or no deal. So, the ONLY way this material could be posted on Wikipedia and stay up for more than 7 minutes with the WP Copyright Police would be if the author released it under GFDL. In one of the articles it mentioned that the acceptance was rescinded because the authors wanted the content licensed to be compatible with wikipedia, so the copyright wouldn't have been an issue from wikipedia's side.
Of course, even with the benefits, it is still far more cost effective to send a robotic probe than a person, but as long as you're going to put a person on the surface anyways, there is a lot that they could be doing.
Check out itsownreward's post up above, where he mentions an open gaming system along the lines of what you were talking about.
I'd rather a copy live on than nothing at all.
According to the article, there is a court order telling them to hand over the names. Up until now, they have been resisting despite the court order.
I don't know the answer, but I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere on the astronomy podcast. At any rate, it's a great show for anyone who is interested in astronomy. I'd especially recommend listening to their series on the objects of the solar system.
Astronomy Cast
Despite being completely blown off by the mainstream media, Ron Paul has managed to win delegates. Giuliani, who received a lot of press coverage, didn't get any before dropping out. How many has Keyes come up with?
Definitely a win, in the long run. Lawyers do cost money, after all.
That's true to some extent. There is, however, a large difference. In closed software the third party you are trusting is often limited to the people who actually wrote the code. In open source software, you just have to trust that some people out of the many on the internet capable of understanding the code have actually looked at it, and that at least one of the people who looked at the code would call the project out on any suspect parts of the code. Personally, I'd say that the second set of assumptions is probably more likely to be true (at least for non obscure projects) than the first.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly. I appreciate it.
Go on strike against who, though? Aren't most bloggers fairly independent anyways. I know that there are bloggers who are employed for the purpose of blogging, but I was under the impression that they were a minority.
What is it that makes visual studio so much greater than other debuggers such as gdb? I'm still in school, but I've used both and so far the only thing I've seen that Visual Studio has any great advantage in is the learning curve.
(-1+1: funny flamebait)
With the D standing for distributor?
This comment really hits the nail on the head. Even worse is that it only favors what is popular at a given moment. What is popular today might not be as popular tomorrow, and what is popular after that could be different still. If we relied on the interest of individuals to preserve content, then all it takes is one uninterested generation for valuable content to be lost forever. It doesn't matter if people for the next thousand years would love to have that content, since once it is gone it is gone forever.
Systematic and planned archives are a way of normalizing out these sorts of temporary trends. When we take care to preserve the past, then we are making sure that future generations have the opportunity to decide what is and is not worth paying attention to.
The issue here seems to be notability. If you look at the articles for deletion page, there seem to be two main positions taken by posters. One side want to include proofs only if the proof itself is notable, while the other group believes that the proof should be allowed as long as the theorem itself is notable. I don't think that the issue is as cut and dried as people seem to be taking it, although personally I tend to side with the latter group.
Sure, but in areas like that you're going to see a lot better returns on solar power than areas with high rainfall will. In that respect, this sort of technology will be a complement to solar power. In other words, areas with lots of rain and cloud cover will have more available biomass for fuel, whereas areas without the rainfall will see much more output from solar generators. Ideally, it should balance out, although in actual practice it will certainly be more messy than that.
Goats reference?
Seriously, it's like the government is going out of their way to make the US noncompetitive. Many of them are top tier scientists and engineers who are almost certain to have no problem finding work elsewhere. Pulling shit like this just means that NASA is going to drive talent into the arms of other organizations.
Would saying "ok, I believe you" without any evidence or understanding actually have saved any of the lives lost?
You know you're going to be job searching at some point in the future. Just make sure that every now and then you toss in a post that you'd want a future employer to read, and you'll be set by the next time you have to start interviewing again.