Comment Re: Wouldn't it be rejected? (Score 1) 77
Desynchronized pumping action would be a problem I imagine. Our heart valves aren't really designed to cope with more then the one.
Desynchronized pumping action would be a problem I imagine. Our heart valves aren't really designed to cope with more then the one.
I think the fear people have with binary logs is that, if you get corruption, a human feels like they have a hope of decoding what the text was supposed to mean.
Although I think this is pretty naive - people thinking "dropped characters", as opposed to the more usual "50 consecutive messages disappeared". A binary format with proper message boundaries is exactly as robust as a text file in that capacity.
Upstart was in no way complicated, and writing upstart scripts was a breeze.
Run blah every X seconds is just about the dumbest way we can be doing things on a computer. It's a closed system. It can know exactly when a process dies, and handle the event then. The inability to do this is a huge flaw.
What's broken exactly?
Software has bugs and occationally they crash. I'm not an expert GNU/Linux system administrator by any means, and I've lost count of the amount of times when I simply wanted to just find a way to make the init system restart a service automatically when it crashes. This is trivial with Systemd, you just set Restart=on-failure in the service file and it's done. No need to write error-prone shell scripts or fiddle with run levels. It just works and it's well documented.
Straight out of Windows. Write buggy software. It's ok if it crashes once in a while because we can just restart it.
Also straight out of Windows. Make everything into one big integrated binary instead of something that you can see into or hack on.
Write non-buggy software. Hope you have the millions per line of code they paid the space shuttle team.
And you know, of conspiring to commit murder. People seem to forget that part.
Again: so?
We've reached monitor parity. We reached it because TV improved and there's no point trying to maintain a difference for difference's sake.
But the vertical height argument is just rubbish. People run 16:9 and 16:10 screens vertical all the time, and no one was ever going to be manufacturing giant squares which physically wouldn't fit on a desktop. 4K and the like is going to sell principally to the computer market first because lord knows there's little need for it in home theatre for most people.
Because it is a force? A force is anything which transfers momentum and energy around. Which gravity does.
Moreover, what seems so obvious to you that gravity is the curvature of space time? What does that mean? Because it is in no way obvious. For example, if gravity is spacetime curvature, then it doesn't really pull on things in 4D spacetime since we've already defined it away. So why do things appear to move down gravitational wells? Are they elastically colliding with a sheet of space time? Why aren't they normally deflected by it?
Finally, it doesn't matter what new theory shows something is or isn't. It has to verify old theory. And old theory says that gravity looks and acts, in the human range of experience, like a conventional force identical to any other. So whatever it is, it has to be simply back down to confirming our everyday experience.
Which is why I presume they've been shutting off cell towers in areas with protests
Or you know, someone in China buys popular phones en masse, swaps the baseband chip with a blank one, and resells them on ebay for less then they cost in the US to start with.
And
Err no, it would be because you can pickup 3 1200p mo itors, flip them vertical, ane have all the real estate you need for under $1000. Computers weren't 'not important enough' - TV finally got not terrible enough.
We have those ultrasound acoustic weapons - highly directional noise projectors. Presumably the volume of wildlife isn't very high, so you could watch the sky with a camera and then direct some sound which they treat as "fly away from" at any birds which crossed over a safe zone. Most nearby wildlife would quickly figure out where not to go.
Look at ITER: $20B and rising, it will only make 500 MW(th) -- six times less thermal energy than a 1 GW(e) fission reactor -- and it doesn't even include the advanced materials needed to withstand commercial reactor levels of integrated neutron flux.
Well, that's ITER's point now isn't it? We know what is required to make fusion work, we just don't know how long we can sustain a reaction because we do not understand how the large neutron flux will affect the materials in the container and we still have difficulties maintaining the containment. It's an engineering problem now, not something that is clearly impossible.
IMHO, investments in such experiments should be expanded, by both government and industry. Just like getting a man on the moon, We need a JFK'esk commitment to making this work.
ITER is also heavily instrumented and represents the design prototype for power generation. It's successor - DEMO - is expected to be bigger, but cheaper, because the design will be known, the manufacturing for the parts will be understood, and it won't include the scientific instrumentation since it'll be a power generating reactor, not an experiment.
No. No it isn't, and literally every single thing you wrote is either factually wrong, or completely unrelated to what I was saying.
"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry
