Ahh...that's much better, though it still doesn't explain the site being registered last year after the announcement...maybe it wasn't noticed so NASA decided to repeat it or something...or maybe it's a dupe:P
"FEATURE - NASA Takes Google on a Journey into Space - 09.28.05 "
September 28th of last year? Either that's some horrible dating software (which I doubt because the information isn't in and of NASA's recent news area and has to be found by searching for google) or this/. article was submitted last year and not approved till today or something. But that's impossible, no/. article is more than 5 min. old right? Right? Come on, where's my false hope going to be if/. isn't up to the minute!?
(I have found other evidence, the googlenasa site was created 09.29.05...it's a conspiracy I tell you!)
No, we just need to educate them. A Window's user who's smart enough not to click things they shouldn't be clicking, run a firewall and use an Anti-Virus is very hard to attack. Adding Linux to the mix makes them a tiny bit harder but it's not like an educated person who's NOT using Linux is going to get viruses. No offense but that statement just sounds like fanboyism, the OS is a very small factor in computer Safety, the user is a very large factor.
Main Entry: irony Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE Function: noun 1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony 2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance 3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony
Nope, doesn't look like irony to me. Irony would be if this problem was discovered while trying to upgrade Microsoft's own servers to Vista. This is just poor planning and communication between departments.
I'm don't think MS could, or probably wants to, take them to court. It seems to be a free product made using a tool released by MS themselves. Where's the lawsuit? So long as Google doesn't charge money for it or force it on people some how it may as well be Myspace IE7 to the courts, and probably to MS themselves, a free change to their browser.
Google seems to be trying to put it's name on anything and everything, FireFox, IE, Dell (far as I've seen all new Dell's come with Google Toolbar and IE Google Toolbar pre-installed...and it freezes the computer if you remove one...).
I'm just waiting for the Google burger at McDonalds, or the Google Sub, or the Google car...
You define operating as 'Being able to install an OS'
This person and myself define operating as 'Being able to log in and access e-mail/internet and install 3rd party software'
So please, don't go insulting him because you have a different definition of what an operating PC is. His definition is held by the majority of users. Your sarcasm doesn't work because you're twisting his words and then making fun of those twisted words...
"Not to mention that saying Windows in integral is saying the PC won't work with Linux flavors, BSD flavors, or BeOS -- all of which have (or had) free distributions ready to be stuck on the hard drive by either the user or HP."
Unless I got a different version of the article he said that without an OS the computer isn't a full product. Last I checked Linux was considered an OS.
And yes, you can boot from whatever you want, but the average user wants to boot from HD, and the average user is the one the corporations make money off of. Why require the company to cater to the small group who want something different when the vast majority are fine with what they're doing?
Okay...so how does that? Oh nevermind, I'm not even going to try and understand how thinking the average person want's Windows makes me a hater.
"Most distros of Linux will work..."
Sure they will, and then the people would go after that for being a required thing to buy a PC. This lawsuit is about bundling any OS, not just Windows. Sure, Linux is free, but, what is is, 80%+ people want Windows on their machine. Why not include something that 80%+ want? It's done in every other business (fast food default toppings, computer mice, DvD extras etc.) so why not PCs?
And by the way, I know many a person who knows nothing about PCs and doesn't just use E-mail and the Internet. In fact I can cite 104 examples from today alone, I was setting up that many PCs for teachers. ((Let me tell you, these teachers know absolutely nothing about PCs. We had to be careful to install the box right-side-up because otherwise they'll complain about their CD players not working and refuse to flip it over so they don't break them (I'm not making this up, though sometimes I wish I was))). I was using those teachers, and the 500+ other teachers I've helped out as my examples of the average user who knows nothing. Where's your evidence?
I've used Windows for 14+ years now. I've encountered 2 viruses on a personal workstations (98 and XP, 98 one crashed comp XP set IE to go to about:blank on load). I'm on a Windows machine right now that I've had almost a year, never gotten a single virus on it. Runs like a charm, does whatever I want it to do when I want it to.
Windows doesn't get you viruses, poor computer use gets you viruses.
"What exactly is the lame behavior?"
Making ignorant claims about Windows, implying that every Windows user has a bazillion viruses on their machine and is an ignorant fool when it comes to PCs, implying that no one on Slashdot would dare use Windows...all that seems to be the lame behavior.
"There is no reason not to allow the PC to be sold blank or with some free OS"
Do you know what would happen if someone bought a computer and it loaded up with Linux? I've seen many ignorant computer users and trust me, if they bought a machine and it didn't load up with the windows logo they'd think it had a virus on it.
Is it good that Windows is so ubiquitous that the average user can't live without it? Probably not. Does that mean that companies shouldn't continue catoring to the majority? Of course not! If 99 people need a PC with something pre-installed and 1 doesn't that 1's just gonna have to live with it frankly or buy from someone else. That's standard business practices, if you want something the majority doesn't want you need to find a specialty shop.
(And if you think these kind of people aren't the majority you've spent too much time on Slashdot, you need to go out and talk to regular people)
"Sure it's a product"
But that's not the question, the question is is it a PC.
When people thinks of a computer what comes to mind? Probably just the box. When I think of a PC I think of a working computer that I can turn on, log in to, and do stuff on.
What do you think the average consumer thinks a PC is? A box with lights that you can add an OS to, or something that you turn on and get the Windows logo? If you tried to sell a PC to someone with the average consumer's view and it didn't come with an OS what do you think would happen? If your answer isn't complaints from the consumer then you're much more optimistic than me:P
"Here, working should be interpreted as the actual PC being able to respond as expected to the user when switched on"
Why? When you get on your PC to work are you satisfied with the lights coming on? Would you be able to use a PC without an OS installed to take inventory? Teach classes? Check E-mail?
Perhaps you consider the only function of the PC to be to turn on, but I, and the technology department of at least one school that I work for occasionally, consider a PC to be working only when you turn it on, log-in, and can check e-mail, hop on the internet, and do many other things. Until then it's just filling up space and serving no useful purpose.
Yes, Windows isn't the only OS, but it is the most common by far and so I see no problem with HP offering only Windows, if you want a different OS go to a different manufacturer. But don't claim a PC is a complete, useable product without an OS. It's not, it's nothing more than a fancy box with lights that light up and options for expansion. It's only truely a PC when it does things a PC can do, like give you options for data entry and retrieval.
Honestly I don't see why HP's argument is flawed, without an OS the PC is useless for things that consumer's want to do. HP could install Linux on every PC they ship, but the problems inherent in that should be easy to see for anyone, even the most die-hard linux fanboy (I'll give you a hint, basic computer + linux + user who knows nothing about PCs = PROBLEM).
Basically the computer they're selling is largely useless to the average consumer without an OS pre-installed, and so either HP would have to change what they sell from full working PCs to almost full working PCs or they just need to win this.
Face facts, without an OS the computer is no where near as useful. It's like telling McDonalds to stop putting their food in bags, because it's unfairly forcing the consumer to pay for something (the bag) that they're probably going to throw away. Or telling TV people to not ships cables with the TV, because it unfairly links cable sales to TV sales when the user may want a different cable.
Admittedly Windows is more expensive but the situation is largely the same...
"As the richest corporation on Earth, I would kind of expect their products to be beacons of excellence"
Why? Because they can afford to sell their products for less than it costs them to make? Find me a corporation that does that and I'll show you one that's out of business soon (I mean their entire product line, Sony's PS3 doesn't count).
No matter how much money a corporation has it's goal must be to make a profit, otherwise it's going to die out. Microsoft sells their product at a price that's cheap enough for most people to afford but high enough to make a profit. If you want a better product then you're gonna have to pay more.
I'm not saying it's right, and I do agree with you, in an ideal world those with money would make the best products. But this is not an ideal world, those with money tend to make the cheapest products and you get what you pay for.
((And, just out of curiosity, what kind of document needs equations and stuff embedded? All I can think of is forms for people to fill out, but I'd just do those as web-forms personally...though I guess I can see a use for something someone can work on off-line and then e-mail to you...))
I think that for many people Microsoft is hated simply because it's the biggest target. Personally I don't exactly 'hate' Microsoft. I think their OS could be quite a bit better and that they could do a lot more to help their users out. Why do I think that about Microsoft and not, say, Apple? Well because Microsoft's what everyone uses. Frankly I could care less what Apple does, because I don't use it, no one I know uses it, and the computer I help set up as a part-time job don't use it.
So I look at those computers and I see how often they crash, how virus prone they are and the natural impulse is to blame the OS for not being more crash and virus-proof. And since in every case the OS is Microsoft Windows I've developed a bias from only seeing Window's fail. I've never seen another OS crash, I know they exist, so therefore my OS must be worse. It's the good old fashion 'grass must be greener, 'cause mine looks pretty yellow' problem.
I'm sure that if I were to use Linix or Apple (*dons protective flame suit*) I would encounter just as many problems as Windows. They'd be different problems, but there would be problems none-the-less. Frankly I expect my computer to run perfectly and without error in spite of what I do to it, and I expect the computer to compensate for other users who are no where near as technologically inclined as myself. Is that rational to expect that much? No. Is it human impulse to expect that much? Of course. So who's to blame for my computer not running as I irrationally want it to? It's much easier to pick a large target that other people pick on and blame them for every problem rather than acknowledge that the problem is at least partially my fault for trying to use the program in a way it shouldn't be used.
Another part of the Microsoft bashing, in my opinion, is the bandwagon syndrome. It's become officially 'cool' to bash Microsoft and so many people who have never had a single problem bash them anyways.
In all honesty Microsoft get's a lot more flak than they deserve. Is their product perfect? Certainly not! Is it supposed to be? Of course not! Do we expect it to be? Oh yeah. Who's easier to blame? Yourself, for having unrealistic expectation, or a large easy to bash company for not conforming to those unrealistic expectations?
Am I saying Microsoft makes the best software? No, there's better stuff out there for advanced users (take, for instance, my FireFox browser I'm using). Is Microsoft's products as good as should be expected of such a large program? I think so.
Okay so reading this article tells me that of the corporate people who fell for a phishing attack less had good passwords than those on myspace who fell for a similar attack. So yes, you could draw the conclusion that myspace passwords are better. You're likely wrong though since it's nowhere near a random sample. What I see in this study is that the myspace people who made good passwords fell for the oldest trick in the book whereas in the corporate world only those who don't make good passwords fell for the attack.
So yes, you could say what the article title says, but that's hardly even close to accurate. What's more likely is that myspace users are LESS security conscious and that myspace requires numbers.
If Ocean levels rise River levels will rise in response, it won't be anywhere near as much as the Ocean's predicted to but if he lives, say, 5 ft. from the bank and builds a dam downriver he might pull it off:P
"Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming."
Wait...wait...the sea won't rise as high, and yet the risk is the same...someone explain that one to me.
Personally I've always been a fan of the 'Humans aren't capable of doing much damage to the Earth' theorists who say it's due to the sun becoming hotter (which happens quite often, don't laugh) or some other kind of trend we haven't been around long enough to notice.
Of course they claim that it's because the Ocean's absorbing it and aerosols are reflecting it so I guess I'm still a crackpot eh? Anyone else notice that every Global Warming report seems the same? 'Our last estimate was too high, but it's still dire because of "insert new theory/problem"'?
I know what you mean, in a way. I live between two Best Buys, one across a freeway and one at a mall. The freeway one is probably 1 1/4 the size of the mall one. It never stocks any new PC games until 1-2 weeks after release. The one at the mall stocks them with 2 days (I've actually seen them stocking games before the release day lol). I guess it's just the atmosphere, the one at the mall is built to sell a lot of stuff the moment people demand it, the other one seems to be more of a window shopping place, much more open and fewer cashiers.
Not so much. Perhaps I'm wrong, but as far as I know RADAR works by sending out a signal and picking up the reflected radiation. If nothing's reflected back it would be just like there was no object there at all. The only possible cause of the random noise you mention would be something to do with the ionosphere, and that would be so transient that it couldn't be used for accurate detection.
Interesting applications listed, detectors, chemistry, etc. What I'm wondering is the question implied by the editor, can this blast be used to make the metal absorb radar waves? If they can made a laser pulse make the substance absorb all visible EM radiation, can they do the same for invisible? This could have significant applications for the military if it can, not just for better stealth aircraft, but think of it. An invisible to radar destroyer, aircraft carrier, tank even.
This is defiantly worth keeping an eye on, for the many scientific applications as well as the military ones. If it's really as easy as creating a femptosecond pulse to make something stealth many other nations would be able to do it soon as well.
If this actually does pan out that would be very cool. I have my doubts, however it does seem to be reputable.
For people who can't see it here, http://www.itwire.com.au/index2.php?option=com_con tent&do_pdf=1&id=7242, is a link to a PDF version of the text.
I'm curious as to whether or not laptops will be able to use this technology. Pretty sure it's no but I can always hope they'll make something available...
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh...that's much better, though it still doesn't explain the site being registered last year after the announcement...maybe it wasn't noticed so NASA decided to repeat it or something...or maybe it's a dupe :P
"FEATURE - NASA Takes Google on a Journey into Space - 09.28.05 "
/. article was submitted last year and not approved till today or something. But that's impossible, no /. article is more than 5 min. old right? Right? Come on, where's my false hope going to be if /. isn't up to the minute!?
September 28th of last year? Either that's some horrible dating software (which I doubt because the information isn't in and of NASA's recent news area and has to be found by searching for google) or this
(I have found other evidence, the googlenasa site was created 09.29.05...it's a conspiracy I tell you!)
"We need to educate users AND give them Linux"
No, we just need to educate them. A Window's user who's smart enough not to click things they shouldn't be clicking, run a firewall and use an Anti-Virus is very hard to attack. Adding Linux to the mix makes them a tiny bit harder but it's not like an educated person who's NOT using Linux is going to get viruses. No offense but that statement just sounds like fanboyism, the OS is a very small factor in computer Safety, the user is a very large factor.
Main Entry: irony
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony
Nope, doesn't look like irony to me. Irony would be if this problem was discovered while trying to upgrade Microsoft's own servers to Vista. This is just poor planning and communication between departments.
I'm don't think MS could, or probably wants to, take them to court. It seems to be a free product made using a tool released by MS themselves. Where's the lawsuit? So long as Google doesn't charge money for it or force it on people some how it may as well be Myspace IE7 to the courts, and probably to MS themselves, a free change to their browser.
Google seems to be trying to put it's name on anything and everything, FireFox, IE, Dell (far as I've seen all new Dell's come with Google Toolbar and IE Google Toolbar pre-installed...and it freezes the computer if you remove one...).
I'm just waiting for the Google burger at McDonalds, or the Google Sub, or the Google car...
You define operating as 'Being able to install an OS' This person and myself define operating as 'Being able to log in and access e-mail/internet and install 3rd party software' So please, don't go insulting him because you have a different definition of what an operating PC is. His definition is held by the majority of users. Your sarcasm doesn't work because you're twisting his words and then making fun of those twisted words...
"Not to mention that saying Windows in integral is saying the PC won't work with Linux flavors, BSD flavors, or BeOS -- all of which have (or had) free distributions ready to be stuck on the hard drive by either the user or HP."
Unless I got a different version of the article he said that without an OS the computer isn't a full product. Last I checked Linux was considered an OS.
And yes, you can boot from whatever you want, but the average user wants to boot from HD, and the average user is the one the corporations make money off of. Why require the company to cater to the small group who want something different when the vast majority are fine with what they're doing?
"A car without gas doesn't work, yet I am free to buy a car without gas in it and bring my own gas to use in it."
"...large number of consumers."
Those two statements do not belong in the same post much less the same paragraph...
The % of people who buy cars without gas in them is probably less than the % of PC users who don't use Windows...bye bye Mr. Analogy
Okay...so how does that? Oh nevermind, I'm not even going to try and understand how thinking the average person want's Windows makes me a hater.
"Most distros of Linux will work..."
Sure they will, and then the people would go after that for being a required thing to buy a PC. This lawsuit is about bundling any OS, not just Windows. Sure, Linux is free, but, what is is, 80%+ people want Windows on their machine. Why not include something that 80%+ want? It's done in every other business (fast food default toppings, computer mice, DvD extras etc.) so why not PCs?
And by the way, I know many a person who knows nothing about PCs and doesn't just use E-mail and the Internet. In fact I can cite 104 examples from today alone, I was setting up that many PCs for teachers. ((Let me tell you, these teachers know absolutely nothing about PCs. We had to be careful to install the box right-side-up because otherwise they'll complain about their CD players not working and refuse to flip it over so they don't break them (I'm not making this up, though sometimes I wish I was))). I was using those teachers, and the 500+ other teachers I've helped out as my examples of the average user who knows nothing. Where's your evidence?
"without it and all of it's glorious viruses"
I've used Windows for 14+ years now. I've encountered 2 viruses on a personal workstations (98 and XP, 98 one crashed comp XP set IE to go to about:blank on load). I'm on a Windows machine right now that I've had almost a year, never gotten a single virus on it. Runs like a charm, does whatever I want it to do when I want it to.
Windows doesn't get you viruses, poor computer use gets you viruses.
"What exactly is the lame behavior?"
Making ignorant claims about Windows, implying that every Windows user has a bazillion viruses on their machine and is an ignorant fool when it comes to PCs, implying that no one on Slashdot would dare use Windows...all that seems to be the lame behavior.
"There is no reason not to allow the PC to be sold blank or with some free OS"
Do you know what would happen if someone bought a computer and it loaded up with Linux? I've seen many ignorant computer users and trust me, if they bought a machine and it didn't load up with the windows logo they'd think it had a virus on it.
Is it good that Windows is so ubiquitous that the average user can't live without it? Probably not. Does that mean that companies shouldn't continue catoring to the majority? Of course not! If 99 people need a PC with something pre-installed and 1 doesn't that 1's just gonna have to live with it frankly or buy from someone else. That's standard business practices, if you want something the majority doesn't want you need to find a specialty shop.
(And if you think these kind of people aren't the majority you've spent too much time on Slashdot, you need to go out and talk to regular people)
"Sure it's a product"
:P
But that's not the question, the question is is it a PC.
When people thinks of a computer what comes to mind? Probably just the box. When I think of a PC I think of a working computer that I can turn on, log in to, and do stuff on.
What do you think the average consumer thinks a PC is? A box with lights that you can add an OS to, or something that you turn on and get the Windows logo? If you tried to sell a PC to someone with the average consumer's view and it didn't come with an OS what do you think would happen? If your answer isn't complaints from the consumer then you're much more optimistic than me
"Here, working should be interpreted as the actual PC being able to respond as expected to the user when switched on"
Why? When you get on your PC to work are you satisfied with the lights coming on? Would you be able to use a PC without an OS installed to take inventory? Teach classes? Check E-mail?
Perhaps you consider the only function of the PC to be to turn on, but I, and the technology department of at least one school that I work for occasionally, consider a PC to be working only when you turn it on, log-in, and can check e-mail, hop on the internet, and do many other things. Until then it's just filling up space and serving no useful purpose.
Yes, Windows isn't the only OS, but it is the most common by far and so I see no problem with HP offering only Windows, if you want a different OS go to a different manufacturer. But don't claim a PC is a complete, useable product without an OS. It's not, it's nothing more than a fancy box with lights that light up and options for expansion. It's only truely a PC when it does things a PC can do, like give you options for data entry and retrieval.
Honestly I don't see why HP's argument is flawed, without an OS the PC is useless for things that consumer's want to do. HP could install Linux on every PC they ship, but the problems inherent in that should be easy to see for anyone, even the most die-hard linux fanboy (I'll give you a hint, basic computer + linux + user who knows nothing about PCs = PROBLEM). Basically the computer they're selling is largely useless to the average consumer without an OS pre-installed, and so either HP would have to change what they sell from full working PCs to almost full working PCs or they just need to win this. Face facts, without an OS the computer is no where near as useful. It's like telling McDonalds to stop putting their food in bags, because it's unfairly forcing the consumer to pay for something (the bag) that they're probably going to throw away. Or telling TV people to not ships cables with the TV, because it unfairly links cable sales to TV sales when the user may want a different cable. Admittedly Windows is more expensive but the situation is largely the same...
"As the richest corporation on Earth, I would kind of expect their products to be beacons of excellence" Why? Because they can afford to sell their products for less than it costs them to make? Find me a corporation that does that and I'll show you one that's out of business soon (I mean their entire product line, Sony's PS3 doesn't count). No matter how much money a corporation has it's goal must be to make a profit, otherwise it's going to die out. Microsoft sells their product at a price that's cheap enough for most people to afford but high enough to make a profit. If you want a better product then you're gonna have to pay more. I'm not saying it's right, and I do agree with you, in an ideal world those with money would make the best products. But this is not an ideal world, those with money tend to make the cheapest products and you get what you pay for. ((And, just out of curiosity, what kind of document needs equations and stuff embedded? All I can think of is forms for people to fill out, but I'd just do those as web-forms personally...though I guess I can see a use for something someone can work on off-line and then e-mail to you...))
I think that for many people Microsoft is hated simply because it's the biggest target. Personally I don't exactly 'hate' Microsoft. I think their OS could be quite a bit better and that they could do a lot more to help their users out. Why do I think that about Microsoft and not, say, Apple? Well because Microsoft's what everyone uses. Frankly I could care less what Apple does, because I don't use it, no one I know uses it, and the computer I help set up as a part-time job don't use it.
So I look at those computers and I see how often they crash, how virus prone they are and the natural impulse is to blame the OS for not being more crash and virus-proof. And since in every case the OS is Microsoft Windows I've developed a bias from only seeing Window's fail. I've never seen another OS crash, I know they exist, so therefore my OS must be worse. It's the good old fashion 'grass must be greener, 'cause mine looks pretty yellow' problem.
I'm sure that if I were to use Linix or Apple (*dons protective flame suit*) I would encounter just as many problems as Windows. They'd be different problems, but there would be problems none-the-less. Frankly I expect my computer to run perfectly and without error in spite of what I do to it, and I expect the computer to compensate for other users who are no where near as technologically inclined as myself. Is that rational to expect that much? No. Is it human impulse to expect that much? Of course. So who's to blame for my computer not running as I irrationally want it to? It's much easier to pick a large target that other people pick on and blame them for every problem rather than acknowledge that the problem is at least partially my fault for trying to use the program in a way it shouldn't be used.
Another part of the Microsoft bashing, in my opinion, is the bandwagon syndrome. It's become officially 'cool' to bash Microsoft and so many people who have never had a single problem bash them anyways.
In all honesty Microsoft get's a lot more flak than they deserve. Is their product perfect? Certainly not! Is it supposed to be? Of course not! Do we expect it to be? Oh yeah. Who's easier to blame? Yourself, for having unrealistic expectation, or a large easy to bash company for not conforming to those unrealistic expectations?
Am I saying Microsoft makes the best software? No, there's better stuff out there for advanced users (take, for instance, my FireFox browser I'm using). Is Microsoft's products as good as should be expected of such a large program? I think so.
Okay so reading this article tells me that of the corporate people who fell for a phishing attack less had good passwords than those on myspace who fell for a similar attack. So yes, you could draw the conclusion that myspace passwords are better. You're likely wrong though since it's nowhere near a random sample. What I see in this study is that the myspace people who made good passwords fell for the oldest trick in the book whereas in the corporate world only those who don't make good passwords fell for the attack.
So yes, you could say what the article title says, but that's hardly even close to accurate. What's more likely is that myspace users are LESS security conscious and that myspace requires numbers.
Duck and Cover? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_LZDXp0I
If Ocean levels rise River levels will rise in response, it won't be anywhere near as much as the Ocean's predicted to but if he lives, say, 5 ft. from the bank and builds a dam downriver he might pull it off :P
"Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming."
Wait...wait...the sea won't rise as high, and yet the risk is the same...someone explain that one to me.
Personally I've always been a fan of the 'Humans aren't capable of doing much damage to the Earth' theorists who say it's due to the sun becoming hotter (which happens quite often, don't laugh) or some other kind of trend we haven't been around long enough to notice.
Of course they claim that it's because the Ocean's absorbing it and aerosols are reflecting it so I guess I'm still a crackpot eh? Anyone else notice that every Global Warming report seems the same? 'Our last estimate was too high, but it's still dire because of "insert new theory/problem"'?
I call whatever class River is :)
I know what you mean, in a way. I live between two Best Buys, one across a freeway and one at a mall. The freeway one is probably 1 1/4 the size of the mall one. It never stocks any new PC games until 1-2 weeks after release. The one at the mall stocks them with 2 days (I've actually seen them stocking games before the release day lol). I guess it's just the atmosphere, the one at the mall is built to sell a lot of stuff the moment people demand it, the other one seems to be more of a window shopping place, much more open and fewer cashiers.
Not so much. Perhaps I'm wrong, but as far as I know RADAR works by sending out a signal and picking up the reflected radiation. If nothing's reflected back it would be just like there was no object there at all. The only possible cause of the random noise you mention would be something to do with the ionosphere, and that would be so transient that it couldn't be used for accurate detection.
Interesting applications listed, detectors, chemistry, etc. What I'm wondering is the question implied by the editor, can this blast be used to make the metal absorb radar waves? If they can made a laser pulse make the substance absorb all visible EM radiation, can they do the same for invisible? This could have significant applications for the military if it can, not just for better stealth aircraft, but think of it. An invisible to radar destroyer, aircraft carrier, tank even. This is defiantly worth keeping an eye on, for the many scientific applications as well as the military ones. If it's really as easy as creating a femptosecond pulse to make something stealth many other nations would be able to do it soon as well.
If this actually does pan out that would be very cool. I have my doubts, however it does seem to be reputable. For people who can't see it here, http://www.itwire.com.au/index2.php?option=com_con tent&do_pdf=1&id=7242, is a link to a PDF version of the text.
I'm curious as to whether or not laptops will be able to use this technology. Pretty sure it's no but I can always hope they'll make something available...