Re: I hope she didn't take all 81 pages in one go...
A4 is a metric size - in the USA, we still use inches (8.5x11)
5048 posts • joined 1 May 2015
A4 is a metric size - in the USA, we still use inches (8.5x11)
"He won't break. Shall we bring out the Leroy Neiman paintings?"
play Barney 7/24 until he cracks. (like in 'Men who stare at goats')
"That's getting off light."
When I was in the military, I got a clue when it comes to classified information, why something that doesn't seem like it should be 'Secret' is classified 'Secret'.
Think of it like this (my interpretation):
'for official use only' - disclosure might embarrass the government or create diplomatic problems
'confidential' - disclosure might give advantage to a potential enemy in war, or compromise our advantage
'secret' - disclosure might get spies or informants killed, or greatly compromise intelligence gathering
'top secret' - disclosure might cause war or otherwise get a lot of people killed
and it goes up in importance and consequence from there, I'm sure.
The point is, if you're trusted with classified information, it's NOT your job to determine whether or not you should or can disclose it. You probably do not have the "need to know" of just how important (or unimportant) that information is, nor the implications of actually disclosing it. And the penalties for disclosure _SHOULD_ be very very high, because if they're not, you won't be able to trust ANYONE.
there's a YUGE stink regarding all of the rebellious "leaking" going on in the security branches of the U.S. gummint. Trump had to apologize to your PM over it a few months back...
I think she'll be used as an example. A mid-20's decent looking female, who probably had a really good career in front of her at the NSA, and might've married well and had a family... and who NOW won't get out of the Iron Bar Hotel until she's close to FORTY. Say buh-bye to your "youth", there, girly, because you just FLUSHED IT DOWN THE CRAPPER!
[when she gets out she'll probably write a book, but that's no guarantee of income]
"Not sure if a 20% corporate tax rate is good enough to get companies like Apple holding trillions overseas to bring it home."
I agree. corporate tax rate should be ZERO. Individuals (stock holders, employees) pay MORE THAN ENOUGH taxes already, so in effect corporate income is DOUBLE TAXED. That's hardly "fair".
regarding S corporations...
if you owned one, you'd know that what you said was COMPLETE BOVINE SEWAGE.
Most people who own S corporations are independent contractors and small business owners. It's a way to avoid 'C' corporation regulations and nonsense, while simplifying the liability problems. LLC's are similar, as well as sole proprieterships, as far as 'income' goes. It costs me a flat $800/year for cali-fornicate-you state taxes, regardless of whether or not I earn money. I'm also required to PAY MYSELF A WAGE rather than taking all of the income as 'shareholder draft'. That wage has to be 'fair market value' or (as I understand it) you could get audited and have to pay penalties. Most of the tax difference is 'social security and medicaire' taxes, things I'll probably NEVER see [I'll just work until I'm dead, and never retire, and to hell with gummint programs, I don't want them and they'll be bankrupt before I'm eligible anyway]. So by paying myself a reasonable salary [which is taxed like everyone else], AND taking shareholder drafts on whatever profit I'm lucky enough to EARN, then I probably end up paying MORE taxes than the average person in the process [plus all of the extra costs associated with the additional tax filings and so on].
It's a _LOT_ different when you have to sign the FRONT of the checks...
And consider this: if you can get a *SLIGHT* tax break for owning a business where you are NOW taxed at a lower rate when you FINALLY get far enough ahead that you can ENJOY the fruits of your labors, then the difference between 40% and 25% could be...
A _ N E W _ E M P L O Y E E !!!
That's right, you HIRE SOMEONE with the extra money, to grow the business, relieve yourself from having to do ALL of the work yourself, yotta yotta.
Or you buy new equipment. Or you purchase more inventory. Or you open another store front or grow the business in another kind of way. Whichever.
LET PEOPLE KEEP WHAT THEY EARN! It's "fair".
"Cutting taxes for the top 1% while eliminating the state tax deduction for the bottom 90%. Is this what you voted for?"
fake news if you think THAT is happening. Still, I _WISH_ that top rates REALLY WERE were being cut! Sadly, I think the current political situation won't support it. Dumb-feels "feel" instead of think, "the rich" is an oppressed minority, and [believe it or not] the high marginal tax rates aren't ON "the rich", they're REALLY on people trying to _BECOME_ "the rich" !!! [high marginal tax rates on upper income earners help to keep the 'haves' and 'have nots' separated, in other words, and history confirms my premise]
If a 'rich' person is heavily taxed, that money goes to gummint. The money is then used to keep politicians in power, keep people doing busywork, and (effectively) pay people to STAY POOR (you know, welfare, food stamps, the social welfare tit, yotta yotta).
If a rich person is taxed LESS, the extra money goes to BUYING THINGS and HIRING PEOPLE for service work. In turn, more people are hired to MAKE things, etc..
You get what you pay for. In the case of sending money to gummint, you get more gummint, more social safety net for people who don't have jobs, and so on. In the case of KEEPING your earned cash, and spending it on things that have to be MADE or DONE, you get people WORKING to get the money.
I prefer the 2nd scenario. So, CUT TAXES ACROSS THE BOARD!
That's right. Let's get some WORK done for the money being spent. And it seems that only RICH people have money to SPEND these days. Taxing them MORE will only make things WORSE. Taxing them LESS will _MAKE_! _A_! _HUGE_! _DIFFERENCE_! in boosting the economy, WORLD WIDE.
It worked back in the 80's. and don't lie about the 80's, either. I was THERE. I was there in the 70's, too, and I know the difference. You can't convince me otherwise. The truth is the truth.
I always "read over" the manual, but when assembling furniture, you really do have to follow the procedure, to avoid the 'where does THIS panel go" problem, when you put the screws into the wrong one, etc. etc. and embarassingly have to remove them and put them into the RIGHT one...
[I got used to following procedures in the military. sometimes it makes more sense to do that]
"Is this because of 'Millennials' who may have seen exotic countries, lived at home with mom and dad for 20-odd years, and never had to do anything on their own or even <gasp> with their hands?"
actually I see this as "job opportunity" for teenagers. Excessively high minimum wages and illegal immigration have basically left teens with very few good opportunities for earning money, RESULTING in things like "living with mom and dad for 20 years"...
If I were a teenager, I'd do it. I used to do things like walking a lawnmower around the neighborhood looking for people in serious need of gardening help, then "do it for 5 bucks" - a one-time hit.
pirate icon because, after all, I _AM_ a privateer!
and which "illegal content" would THAT be?
Is it *ILLEGAL* in the EU to speak your mind, when "they" don't agree with you?
OK they won't admit it's going in this direction, but it's going in this direction. Just like when the howler monkeys do the downvote poo-slinging, the EU socialists are going to SUPPRESS free expression, and they'll use corporations to do it.
If content is "illegal", why not prosecute the person who posted it? Oops, is that person OUTSIDE OF THE EU? Well, TOO! FREAKING! BAD!!!
The only people inciting HATRED VIOLENCE and TERRORISM are those who seek to PREVENT FREE SPEECH. This is what we get from the Califate Daesh-bags to left wing SOCIALIST "ANTIFA" types. The LAST thing that THEY want is someone expressing an opinion that THEY do not agree with, ESPECIALLY without THEM doing mud-slinging, downvotes, gang-up behavior, and outright BULLYING in one form or another, to SILENCE opposing ideas.
that's how they operate
"Does anyone know if there is significant effort going into muon catalysed fusion these days?"
dunno - I'm too lazy to look.
I'm a fan of using resonance. Anybody researching THAT? In the nuclear physics world, 'resonance capture' applies to neutrons. At certain neutron energies, Uranium [and other materials] will capture a neutron but the Uranium will never fission from it. It may spit it back out again, later, or may just keep it. Or it might alpha decay into something else. Whatever. You lose the neutron and the uranium atom, and that's the point. The idea is to slow the neutron down to thermal energies in as short of a distance as possible in order to minimize the capture. On the other hand... breeder reactors with U238 in them would rely on this factoid, and the slowing down length is MUCH bigger which is why they moderate with carbon instead of water.
In any case - the concept of resonance is *REAL*. Therefore, has anyone discovered the connection between proton/deuteron/trition resonant energies and the probability of a fusion reaction?
'duck duck go' search brought up one scientific paper, along with some links to other unrelated things like fusion music, MRI scans, and so forth. Not very helpful...
"The neutrons pass out of the magnetic fields because they are neutral, and strike atoms in the lining of the torus. These then undergo radioactive funtimes and release heat that's used to generate electricity."
nuclear reactions are fun in a lot of ways. but they still obey the laws of physics, like conservation of momentum.
When you add up the total momentum of the fission or fusion products, it will match what it was before the reaction. In the case of fission, the uranium is sitting still, so the split atom products will buzz off in opposite directions [this heats the fuel material]. You also get neutrons, and a LOT of gamma.
In the case of fusion, it's a bit different. the products fuse together to produce one "thing" plus a neutron. The velocity of the neutron may be very high compared to the original products, but it can't be TOO high, because [after all] you MUST conserve momentum.
So where does the energy end up? gamma. Gamma has no actual mass, and so its momentum is based on the "planck's constant stuff" and you can have more than one and they can all buzz off in different directions as long as TOTAL momentum is the same as it was when you started out. [in theory the neutron could go back the other way at extreme speed and the helium go in the same direction, and ALL of the energy could be in neutron + helium, with total momentum conserved, but this is much less likely than the ejection of gammas from the fused helium, which may actually NOT produce a neutron immediately].
And so, most of the energy is gamma. Trapping gamma is easy. You just need enough mass to slow ti down and heat up in the process.
Slowing down neutrons is a bit harder. you need something to 'scatter' it, something that weighs about as much as a neutron. like hydrogen. in water.
You could try to ABSORB neutrons, but that tends to deplete the material that does it. Boron 10 has a high affinity for absorbing neutrons. It becomes Boron 11 and then doesn't do squat for neutrons after that. boron is cheap, however, and might still be useful if you replace it often [or somehow just pump it through the system].
In any case, all of that energy becomes a) fusion products [He5, He4, Li5, etc.], b) neutrons [probably moving very very fast], and c) gamma radiation [most of it]
So you just need to collect the energy from the gamma. Easiest method: cooling system, using water. If the water blanket is thick enough, about 3 feet per "tenth thickness" as I recall, you'll get the energy from the neutrons as well. you just need to make sure the temperature is high enough so that you can boil water [direct boiling is possible, but probably a bad idea, because of neutron activation] and make steam and drive generator turbines with it.
"We've had an economic revolution since then - there's no money left."
same as it ever was. politicians will make sure that their power is the only power that controls the economy, whenever they get a chance. If that means higher taxes and more spending, so be it. It empowers them.
"It's about what the US spends on the MIC per month"
and on "entitlements", per week. just sayin'.
"Try that in Centigrade and you'd be nearer the mark."
uh, what? I could run the calculations in 'El Reg' units and it wouldn't change the efficiency. duh.
"The pressure for modern supercritical coal and oil plants is about 2x that."
2400psi? if you base that on the mollier diagram, that wouldn't be a whole lot hotter.
It's a bit hard to read in that zone, but the temperature would be just under 1100R as I recall. The boiling point at 2000 psi was in the 600F range (1060R), if I remember correctly. the temperature change for a large pressure change in that zone is not very large. A few deg F gives you a major change in saturation pressure, maybe even doubling it.
So now by doubling the steam pressure you change your temperature by about 60F or so, which isn't a whole lot for the Carnot efficiency. You'd do better by trying to pre-cool the coolant more, get condenser vacuum up.
Not to mention the kinds of materials you'd need to handle 2000psi steam at 600F. But like I mentioned, it's been 30 years or so since I was "in the industry" so to speak. Tech has advanced a bit. but it hasn't managed to break the laws of physics. You still have limitations based on the physics characteristics of water and steam.
"Also high temp superconductors are playing a big role."
the fact that they're using superconductors are even NECESSARY is a big problem in and of itself.
Gamma radiation disrupts superconductivity. The primary energy output of a fusion reaction is GAMMA ENERGY, and the secondary is neutron energy. This would be due to conservation of momentum, actually. And let's not mention the COOLING REQUIREMENT for these superconductors. Consider that the closest thing to a gamma source will absorb MOST of the energy, like the innermost part of the walls of the containment vessel. Magnets would be right outside of that, I'd expect. They'd get a nice heavy dose of gamma and neutrons, and heat up rapidly [which we know is bad for superconductors also, not just the effects that gamma radiation have on superconductivity].
So there ya have it. The very operation of the reactor causes its confinement mechanism to fail.
(it's another reason why I favor a more linear design, to limit the need for strong superconducting magnets that operate at extremely high temperatures, and also to rely more on electrostatic effects for confinement)
"ITER is a money well"
that's one way to put it, yeah.
Back to my original point: They need to use something that's NOT a Tokomak. Thanks for pointing out the bit about replacing the housing after operating for a short period of time. that's not something that ended up in the article.
It's also why I would favor a linear design, embedded within a tank of water, which would act like heat exchanger and boiler, or just heat exchanger if you want to use a primary/secondary system like a PWR fission plant. Radioactive steam, due to neutron activation of various things in the water, is kinda, uh, bad.
The problem with a linear design is you'd have to make THAT large, too, and put lots of fuel through it, just to get it running. That might frighten the scientists because 'too much fuel' could become an H bomb. yeah, no risk involved in coming up with a design. However, the advantage would be the 'continuous operation' aspect. You'd have to magnetically and/or electrostatically confine the plasma, but you wouldn't have to worry about bending its direction of travel, nor the 'twisty/turny' aspect of having the outside portion going faster than the inside portion. You could use resonant cavities to 'bunch' the protons at ideal energy levels, and thereby allow their own energies to confine the fuel into tight enough bunches to cause fusion to happen THAT way. But I can't see this happening in a short distance, and I'm not sure how long the thing would actually have to be. CERN long? probably not, but if nobody builds the thing, how would we know?
"Eventually, maybe, we'll have a useful reactor that's smaller than, say, a skyscraper."
Skyscraper sized - if we stick with Tokomak, yes, could be.
But of course, they SHOULD do it. At least one. As a proof of concept.
Like the first 'general use' computer, which was ginormous and had to be programmed by re-wiring it. That wouldn't be the specialized 'Collossus' machine developed by Turing and the Bletchley Park group [I don't know how that one was programmed, exactly] which was not 'general purpose', but still pretty damn good at the time. I think the first 'general use' computer was Eniac, which had to be re-wired to re-program it. And it was ginormous. That's the point.
As for my preference, there's a design that's based on keeping the plasma flow all at the same velocity, that twists and turns in somewhat unusual ways, producing a 'ribbon' effect as I recall. I can't remember what it is called, though...
And there are other possibilities with 'linear' rather than 'cyclic' accelerators.
And I don't know if they're at least looking into RESONANCE ENERGIES and other physical effects to assist with the fusion process. A linear system could employ something similar to a 'travelling wave tube' to bunch the protons/deuterons together at ideal energy levels, as one example. It would be a type of 'resonance confinement'.
Anyway you'd think they'd be talking about this stuff if it were being done, right?
(regarding the post by 'The Man Who Fell To Earth')
Uh, I visited the first link and did not see any of that information. The 2nd one was interesting [keep in mind I was talking about steam plants, not gas turbines].
I might as well give a bit of background on max efficiency:
Carnot Efficiency: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1942
Here are some calculations based on Carnot efficiency.
For a 1200 psi steam plant, appx 550 deg F with 60F rejection temperature - that would be 1010R and 520R, approximately. Yeah I'm using deg R. deal with it. Would you prefer an El Reg unit?
max efficiency = (1010R - 520R) / 1010R, approximately 44.5%
That's the theoretical maximum assuming 100% efficiency everywhere else. A bit better than I expect, actually.
Of course In actual practice it's considerably lower than this. So achieving better than 30% is actually VERY good, so I won't doubt your claims outright.
But if you assume ~30% total efficiency instead of ~25%, you STILL end up using a third of that electricity just to run the fusion reactor. And THAT was my point, along with pointing out that Tokomak is probably NOT the best design for an actual power plant.
As for overall plant efficiency, you have turbine blade efficiency, the effects of condenser vacuum [or lack of it], delta-temperature across the condenser, generator efficiency, secondary steam systems, superheaters, and power required to run all of the support equipment (in particular all of the pumps, like cooling water pumps, and primary coolant pumps for a nuke plant).
And when you consider that 70% of the thermal energy goes out through the cooling system, those pumps have gotta be BIG. A high 'delta T' on the condenser would reduce its efficiency even more, so the flow rate for the cooling water has to be MASSIVE to keep efficiency up. Big pumps, with big electricity consumption, in other words.
Again, I've been out of the industry for a while. I remember what I've worked with. So kudos to steam plant makers who've squeezed an extra few percent efficiency out in the last 30 years. Well done.
Of course gas fired plants would have higher efficiency than steam plants, because they're not limited by the physics of steam.
But good luck transferring a bunch of gamma energy into a gas.
Nuclear aircraft were tried, at one time, and that one big problem of transferring nuke heat into air for a jet engine's turbine cycle became impractical. Sure, you COULD do it, if the heat transfer surface were 'big enough'. You'd need something that could absorb gamma AND neutron radiation, and would tolerate the higher temperatures. And pressurized water would land you back in the same realm as a fission plant. So there ya go.
And that was my point all along [so thanks to everyone for all of the thumbs down, a testament to your ignorance of practical applications in the realm of power plant engineering].
In answer to another question, the only reason they don't hire _ME_ is because I don't have their "lovely academic pedigree". After all, a paper pedigree makes you SO smart these days... [academic arrogance, yeah]. And yet I see it often enough, where "those who can't, teach". In the IT realm, professors who call themselves 'programmers' generate some of the most impractical, inefficient, and unmaintainable code I've ever seen. In Python. [used to be BASIC]
Question: how many people in this forum have ACTUALLY OPERATED a nuclear reactor or even a steam plant? (I have, just sayin')
seems like "bigger" is better for tokomak, as far as efficiency goes.
I wish them luck, though I have my doubts about the practicality of using a scaled up tokomak to get 500MW out of 50MW of laser+microwave+whatever.
Keep in mind, that the thermal efficiency of a power plant might be 20-25%. So in theory, the 500MW (thermal) plant is generating only about 25% of that as electricity. Then 10% would be required to sustain the fusion reaction, leaving 10-15% for powering light bulbs and computers etc.
it's all about the physical capabilities of devices (assume steam system) that can turn thermal energy into electricity. Because we're dealing with the limits of known materials, you probably won't go over 1200 psi, or about 550 deg F (as I recall). The carnot efficiency at that temperature is around 30% as I recall, meaning practical efficiency is a bit lower, hence the 20-25% number [which is a ballpark guess, I've been out of the power generating world for quite some time].
I can't think of a more practical way to turn gamma+neutron radiation into power than a steam system. Maybe someone has come up with a better way, but water absorbs radiation really well, and if you have THAT much, then all of that energy needs to be absorbed and turned into "something" that can become electricity.
So you've got ginormous "gamma panels" that are like solar panels? 20% efficiency I think, is the best you can do. So not much better, and they're more expensive and more environmentally 'unfriendly' from all of the toxic materials you'll need to make them.
Anyway, steam is the most practical approach to make 'trons' out of 'gammas'. So we're looking at HALF of the electicity going back into the plant.
I'm not complaining so much about that, as pointing out the gross inefficiencies of the tokomak design. Not saying "don't bother making them". I'd love to spend 99 watts to get 1 usable watt out of fusion energy. But let's be realistic and manage expectations a bit, too.
Tokomak is probably not the best method to use in order to get fusion power to work. There are better methods, and some of them are very very interesting. I think that maybe so much money has gone into Toikomak designs that someone out there wants to see a payoff, one way or another, dammit, and there better be SOMETHING or there's HELL to pay!
Or something like that.
"how the girl sold her story to an English Newspaper"
Your tabloids in the UK are better than ours, that's all.
you say that politics is more 'unaccepting' of the "sexuality of power"? In many cases, it's equally bad, and [to the elitists in BOTH arenas], "not a big deal". To them, it's just one of the 'percs' associated with power over other people.
"Another case of a priest or preacher engaging in sexual misconduct" - *yawn*
"Another case of a politician engaging in sexual misconduct" - *yawn*
Everyone forgot about Mr. Bill "sexual favors from an intern while on the phone in the Oval Office" Clinton?
[perhaps that makes Mrs. Clinton "the most cheated on woman in the world" and perhaps Huma, Weiner's wife, "the second most cheated on woman"]
(The Clintons - worse than any royal family, EVAR)
"so less chance (however still some chance) he'll end up shived."
more likely, raped into submission and traded for candy bars
"17 yo Kid sends pic of himself to older girl, gets 10 years for distributing child porn (of himself!!!)."
this is what happens when you get ACTIVISTS in positions of power as attorneys general and in other investigative positions of authority. That and the occasional nod/wink for their fellow 'lodge members', the country club of "the elite" Washington D.C. insiders, aka "the establishment".
Mrs. Clinton has YET to get ANY kind of sentencing for the list o' crimes that she's committed [obstruction of justice and mishandling of classified material being the two obvious ones].
So yeah, it's the law that applies to everyone equally, except that SOME people (certain Demo-rats, certain 'Dynasty' families) are MORE equal than the rest of us...
Weiner is nothing more than a scapegoat, whose crimes are just too heinous to excuse and cover up. That and it gives Huma a chance to "be free" to be with Mrs. Clinton...
"That seems unlikely as Windows Server generally outperforms Linux on the same hardware in benchmarks."
not the ones _I_ have done.
As I recall Linux and FreeBSD were around 25% faster by my own measurements. It's been a while since I tested it, but I doubt this has changed. (I used Samba 3 when I did it, on equivalent hardware). But of course, the license agreements for various windows products [even back then] had something about "not publishing the results" without approval in the EULA. But how hard is it to do a simple file copy operation across a network using equivalent hardware? Anyone can benchmark THAT, and reproduce the kinds of results I saw.
and on winders, I'd run the test by using XCOPY from the command line, and not the GUI. That'd be "more fair". Then use "smbclient" on the Linux end. That way you test both client AND server operations. Windows to Linux, Linux to Windows, Windows to Windows, Linux to Linux, with the same file, NTFS vs EXT4 (or whatever) in addition to all of that, using Samba vs Windows' internal SMB stack.
Yeah, not hard. And since then, I haven't seen nor heard of any changes in relative performance that would justify me re-running that test.
FYI - you don't need a kernel module to manage threads. You'd just need a customized version of the 'pthreads' library, or (more likely) a wrapper around it.
I once wrote a threading library for 16-bit windows 3.x that used cooperative sharing (you'd have to call a function periodically that did cooperative thread switching). It was convenient enough to allow multi-thread solutions and to keep the UI working while you did background things, though Windows 3.x was always a single core. All you really needed to do was maintain a thread context and a separate stack for each thread, then prioritize and switch to them at the correct time, handle messages, yotta yotta. If you were waiting for UI, the thread switcher would happily run background tasks until you did something, and then it would dispatch the appropriate message to the handler like a normal windows application. So the UI was fast and responsive at the same time.
I expect that SQL Server's thread manager just does similar kinds of things, in userland. Windows now has something called 'fibers' that (as I understand) are very similar to the way I did cooperative threading. I also believe that SQL Server makes use of these a LOT. And Windows has a limit to the total number of threads per process, but an SQL Server thread manager could greatly increase this by use of its own stack/context switching method [which, again, could be done in userland].
Anyway, that's my take on it. I see no reason for a kernel module here. It would be better to avoid that anyway, so I guess I agree with the original premise of "wouldn't touch it with a 20 foot pitchfork" etc..
don't think they haven't looked at this a lot harder than you might expect...
Windows has a built-in "license API" for things *LIKE* SQL Server. I have only looked at it in a cursory manner so I'm no expert. However, being as such a thing does NOT exist in Linux [and probably never will], and it's most likely VERY easy to circumvent any such thing on a Linux system, MS basically throws in the towel knowing that this is a battle they cannot win.
Otherwise, they'd put some kind of kernel-enforced per-seat licensing in it. You KNOW they would.
I would say M-shaft sees the writing on the wall, and their server OS business (especially as a VM in a cloud-based thingy) is losing _BIG_ to Linux. The only thing that might be keeping VMs running as a windows OS is, perhaps, an instance of SQL Server... and they're losing to DBMS's that CAN run on Linux, and they're once again "leading from behind" and trying desperately to catch up.
Because the Linux file system and kernel I/O handling is SO much better than windows [and has been for a VERY long time] it's extremely lkely that SQL Server plus Translation Layer on Linux _WILL_ be faster than SQL Server on _ANY_ version of windows.
And Micro-shaft KNOWS this.
In the mean time - amazingly, a LOT of developers swallow Micro-shaft's coolaid whenever they do a massive market campaign of their latest "new, shiny". How many people drank the ".Not" and "C-Pound" coolaid? How many drank the "Silverlight" coolaid? How many are currently drinking the "UWP" Coolaid?
So if your product/business is _ALREADY_ locked into some feature that ONLY SQL SERVER has, like the way they do stored procedures, or something equally similar [I haven't followed their development direction at all since they stated deviating from NORMAL SQL stuff] that can't be done (easily) with PG or MySQL or even Oracle, and it would be WAY TOO EXPENSIVE to "re-develop" everything, then you'll have an inclination to consider running SQL Server on "something that actually has performance" like Linux.
Otherwise, for new products, I'd suggest going with the lowest common denominator on the SQL side, so that ANY DBMS can be used with your product, thus eliminating the lock-in to any ONE. But not everyone thinks the way _I_ do, unfortunately.
usually the compatibility problems between different 'flavours' (or 'flavors' if you're in the U.S.) is caused by linking with shared libs. If you static link instead [my preference] you can simply load the binaries into the correct places because Linux is Linux except for userland.
So, in theory, they could link static "everything" and then release as a tarball with a shell script to install it.
All of that Linux shared lib "DLL HELL" is like a bad echo of "what's wrong with Windows" anyway...
[if this potentially violates the GPL they can use clang instead of gcc, or ship their own binaries for their own shared libs along with the source for those libs]
"I heard something about the read/write heads floating above the plates, and apparently the gas acts as a lubricant or something?"
The laminar boundary layer would prevent the heads contacting the disk (in normal operation).
When you have fluid flow, the molecules right on the surface of the pipe/container/whatever aren't moving. Molecules NEXT to those move, but not as fast as the total air flow. If you plot the fluid velocity vs distance from the surface, you get an exponential curve. The characteristics are based on velocity and the viscosity/pressure/etc. of the fluid. And, it forms what's known as a laminar boundary layer. Outside of that layer you get 'turbulent flow' which generally moves at the speed of the fluid. With spinning disks, this 'flow rate' is actually relative to the disk speed.
I expect Helium to have different laminar boundary layer characteristics than "plain air" and this is probably why the drive spins faster. It may also be physically smaller using Helium [which might have a thinner boundary layer] because the heads float closer to the disk [my speculation].
got... Helium? [we can make it by building fusion reactors, yeah!]
Seriously, regarding Helium: it can leak through just about anything, so eventually that helium will leak out. The question is whether or not it will be in any significant amount within a few years' time.
I understand that the Helium atom is small enough to pass through metals. I don't know about glass, though. Plastic helium balloons deflate within a few days, whereas 'plain air' balloons stay inflated almost indefinitely.
So I have to wonder if a 5 year old helium-filled hard drive will still work properly. I mean, how often do you recycle drives on a computer?
Australis SUCKS like a Kirby. I _HATE_ the 2D FLATSO!
well, we can always fork it like Mate and Devuan
"external then I'd put my LinkedIn profile link instead."
I'd just take some random words strung together to appear in the form of a sentence. "Bat intestine repossesses sinking horse thought" or similar
otherwise, sigs are pointless, except in USENET or blogs
can it get worse than 'clippy' ?
/me mentions obligatory clip from 'Salmon Days' regarding BOFH vs Clippy... "I'm NOT! WRITING! a F'ING! LETTER!, you STUPID! F'ING! PAPERCLIP!!!"
[if you've seen the video clip, you'll also know how to properly interpret the capitalization and punctuation]
"He was not talking about CO_2 emissions"
thankfully, or I would have considered his premise to be pure B.S.. Since he's apparently referring to diesel exhaust [specifically] and either particulate or unburned hydrocarbons or other byproducts of combustion, ones that irritate lungs etc., then he still has a point. However, given that car exhaust in the USA has been cleaned up pretty well, it's much less of a problem than it used to be. And we don't allow tetra-ethyl-lead in the fuel any more.
I still can't see the energy density of batteries and their recharge rate being any better than the 'liquid energy' of petroleum, along with the convenient refilling of the fuel tank. Until THAT happens, electric cars will merely be toys for the rich, the experimenters, and the smug.
My gasoline car can go 400+ miles on a "charge" and takes about 5 minutes to fill up. How's that compare to an electric car? That goes TRIPLE when it comes to "road trips". I can gas up before I leave, drive halfway up California, and gas up again, and get all the way to San Jose, or even San Francisco, starting out San Diego, within a day [stopping only for piss breaks and food, and that one stop for gas]. Try THAT in a purely electric vehicle...
"Version 8: Copy Apple."
"Version 10: Copy Google."
Version 1.0: copy Xerox
"I’d argue that Nadella has overseen:"
I think I'll reply point-by-point
The best version of MS Office in recent history
Compared to earlier MS Office versions, I can see why you might say that. Then again, Libre and Open office suites do pretty well, for what I need. No need to 'go subscription' or 'go cloud' just to write a document or make a spreadsheet, ya know? And you don't have to pay for Libre/Open Office. And they run on Linux and FreeBSD.
The opening of Microsoft to Linux technologies
Yeah, some of this is ok, but I always thought Cygwin did pretty well without MS's help. Earlier MS attempts like Interix/SFU/SUA were way too limited. I actually gave them a good try.
The open sourcing of .NET, fulfilling the promise of C#
*YAWN* - C-pound is _STILL_ at the 5%-6% range on the TIOBE index, last I looked. I think Python might be close to beating it. ".Not" has been CRAP since it was excreted from the bowels of Micro-shaft.
(double-checked, C-pound is around 4.8% now, down by ~0.7%, with Python at just under 3%)
The cross-platformisation of Visual Studio
still looks all 2D FLATSO and the interface's VB-ness [since the 2000's] *STILL* irritates me. VS '98 let you edit dialog boxes without lifting a hand off of the keyboard. That's IMPOSSIBLE since the 2000's. The only feature it has that's worth a damn is "virtual space". Those who know what that is probably agree with me about it being the BEST feature, at least. It's how _ALL_ GUI editors should behave.
Some damn good software on Android and iOS
I haven't seen it... and from what I've seen, there's a lot of CRapps out there for phones in the "stores" these days
Some really fantastic computers - both desktop and tablet.
at fantastically overblown prices. At that price, I should get a Mac.
I was hoping it would UNINSTALL Win-10-nic and give you the option to use Win7 or Linux.
Oh well, my hopes are dashed. dammit.
"could you PLEASE stop calling inept idiots hackers?"
well, Script Kiddies (or s'kiddies if you will) is one name, but that doesn't apply to the Daesh-bags. They're below s'kiddies in the overall ranking of things, I'd imagine. I suppose you could call them something else... so what WOULD be a good name for them?
Daesh-bags is probably fine.
Anything beyond that risks poo-slinging and accusations of 'Islama-phobia' from the SJW's [who are really just helping ISIS exist, every damn time they do that crap]
anyway, joining a radical Islamic cult like ISIS would have a prerequisite of below average intelligence, in my opinion...
"the development of startup companies, nations, & a startup world driving innovation & job creation"
'Nations'? I have to wonder what he means by that...
To have a 'startup world' you have to even the playing field, eliminate monopolistic practices, etc.
So what makes 'this guy' the expert on that? [inquiring minds want to know!]
Actually, I bet he goes into venture capital. Forget the 'new world order' speak, and just be an investment banker, k-thanks.
"We use Office 365 at work for email and calendaring"
You have my pity...
In the mean time, looks like the iOS 11 bug is not a universal problem. This is probably why it ended up in the release. "Not enough end-user beta testing"
[still needs fixing, though]
I have to wonder if the reason for fail is (another example of) Micro-shaft NOT following the RFC's...
(the MSDN web server didn't properly support decade(s) old RFC requirements for downloading a 'byte range' until early this year, meaning that people with slower connections would NEVER be able to download, following the [smart?] decision to obliterate the "special" ActiveX control that COULD do this... so now I can 'hack' it and use wget to get anything >1Gb in size, which I have - anyway, that's ONE recent example of "we're microsoft, we invent our OWN standards; world, follow us")
article: "has since been blocked by Google"
Alister: "The real one is equifaxsecurity2017.com."
yeah, I _HOPE_ google doesn't wield THAT kind of power...
It should stay there, for parody/comedic purposes. I laugh in their general direction over at Equifax. I'm tired of companies like that slurping my personal information. They "get it wrong" more often than not. Try applying for a loan some time when there are errors on your credit report...
I can foresee telemarketers using these to robo-call you...
my grumbles with Android could be fixed by an improved UI toolkit that application designers could adopt...
you know, something that gives you 3D skeuomorphic without the difficulty of application-drawn controls, etc.
I don't expect GNOME devs, who "feel" that 2D FLATSO is a good thing [obviously], and "feel" that GNOME 3 is better than GNOME 2 was [I use MATE as a desktop], and "feel" that requiring 'special keys' without proper documentation to access the properties of the panel are a good thing [Linus _specifically_ bitched about that], and INTEGRATING! WITH! SYSTEMD! AND! DBUS! is a good thing [obviously NOT a good thing], would come up with a phone/slab OS that's any better than 'droid.
I think it would be WORSE for all of the things we do not like about 'droid.
I can't imagine what their "app store" would look like. And I doubt you'll be able to install un-approved applications, the way you can on 'droid (i.e. anybody can turn "that" off and load any APK file they download, if they want to).
"webOS got the user experience _very_ right"
I don't agree. Maybe for a lot of content-consumption-only users, but not everyone. Otherwise, I'd change my desktop to look like that...
and the screenshots I've seen remind me of the XBox panel-based interfaced [which irritates me] and Windows "Ape" and have the 2D FLATSO etc..
Maybe ok for a tiny phone screen from the noughties (or 00-ties, whatever), but 'modern' gear has better resolution and speed, and can at LEAST be 3D skeuomorphic...
(yeah I'm trying to start a rebellion here - pirate icon)
"only runs open source"
I've seen that kind of thing tried before, and it didn't work very well. Example, Debian Linux and the 'non-free' repo that you have to manually add to the package manager. Not quite so heavy-handed but same idea.
That goes along with the 'tainted kernel' thing for Linux kernel drivers that don't explicitly have that "I am GPL'd" macro someplace in the code.
Stallman must be behind this...
[pirate icon because I want REAL freedom, not just freedom to do what "they" want you to do]
"He's a rich tw't who was in the right place at the right time... to make money"
what's wrong with making money? Work hard, earn money. Sounds good to me. Oh, and pick a career that actually pays well. That also sounds good to me.
Only a SOCIALIST or a COMMUNIST would be angry at someone else's success. Those philosophies are based on ENVY, and the concept that "someone else" should be working hard so YOU don't have to, and everyone gets the SAME salary, yotta yotta yotta regardless of how important the work is.
Economic conditions over millenia of human society have caused janitorial work to pay low wages, and engineering work to pay high wages, and "running the entire company" to pay million dollar salaries because "your decisions could mean success or bankruptcy" and "thousands of employees' fates and the stockholders' investments are in YOUR hands, so we want the BEST person running the show and are willing to pay for the best".
The pay should reflect the value of the work done. If YOU aren't paid well, find work that has value, and do that.
"Why does Windows make me press the "any" key or click the mouse before the login prompt appears?"
in Win-10-nic, it's so they can SHOVE ADVERTISEMENTS at you before you log in.
"Later PCs have a four second press of the power switch"
"Not sure what determines that function"
It's done in hardware - APM and ACPI interface with it, but those are software specs.
I forget the acronym associated with the hardware side, if there is one...
"I think going back and destroying Windows ME/Vista would have been higher on the list."
I'd rather keep THOSE and destroy Windows "Ape" and Win-10-nic and that ENTIRE "the Metro" concept.
Win-10-nic - making Vista look "not as bad"
Actually Vista's biggest problem, aside from bloat and slow, was the 'new hardware requirement' which made low-end Vista-capable PCs cost twice as much as an inexpensive XP machine. ME's biggest problem was that it didn't really fix any '98 bugs, and created a bunch of new ones instead. Win "Ape" and Win-10-nic changed all of the rules, made us all "feel dumb" for not knowing how to use the computer any more, and JAMMED a bunch of unwanted things
up our a... down our throats.
Then again, Bill G. has been out of day-to-day things since the century rolled over. Everything since the ".Not" initiative has been Ballmer and Nadella. So Bill might've been involved with ME, but Vista was Ballmer's big blunder.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018