Navigation: Drive List Submit Your Drive Statistics Feedback Help Privacy About

Hard drive profile

Date added: 2005-07-04 Posted by: AJAX
Brand: Western Digital Firmware: N/A
Model number: WB800LB-07DNA0 Manufacture date: N/A
Model name / serie: WB800LB-07DNA0 Buffersize: 8 MB
Drive size: 80 GB RPM: N/A
XBOX version: v1.1 Progam(s): hdd maker II

Additional notes: Report this entry - Edit


#1 - posted by (192.99.2.*)2014-01-06 11:19:59
I've never seen this problem deicusssd in literature before so I admit I made up the name. I chose template overspecialization because a lot of code within the function is type dependent when it shouldn't be. I was avoiding the term instantiation because it could easily be confused with another topic I intend to cover: redundant instantiation. In retrospect I think you're right, however, that specialization implies different/overridden behavior per type which isn't the issue here at all.Now I have to rename the article. Thanks a lot.

#2 - posted by (84.145.25*.*)2014-01-07 22:52:57
Yes, I thought this post would stir up some<a href=""> cvosernation</a>. Yooper, yes, it's exactly the inability of most modern people to realize that the laws of thermodynamics apply to us that is making the approaching mess as problematic as it is. Jim, of course terms like "mature" and "advanced" are slippery -- they necessarily incorporate our ideas about where our society is headed. That's exactly the reason they need to be examined and, where necessary, challenged. Stephen, your argument for extraplanetary colonies is very reminiscent of the rhetoric about undersea cities back in the 60s, in the days of Sealab -- does anybody remember Sealab any more? The asteroid belt and the van Oort cloud have abundant resources in the abstract, but those resources are of very limited types -- mostly metals and a handful of gases -- and they're thinly distributed over immense volumes of empty space. For a very long startup period, at the very least, orbital colonies would have to be supported at vast expense (in economic, energetic, and resource terms) by the homeworld, and it's only in the imaginations of science fiction fans that such colonies would necessarily become self-sustaining in time. As for an extraplanetary civilization lasting for millions of years, one thing we know about complex societies is that they cycle up and down in complexity. On a planet, that's not fatal, because you can always fall back to a lower technological level, but if a civilization in space suffered enough of a loss of complexity that it could no longer maintain the hypercomplex technology needed to sustain life, that's the end of it. My guess is that the whole thing will turn out to be a pipe dream, and the claim that any civilization can last indefinitely strikes me as a fine absurdity. I would disagree, as it happens, that industrial civilization could be compared to an annual plant, not least because this presupposes that it has the goal of setting seed -- where did the "seed" for our plant come from, if that's the case? Still, the relevant metaphor is biological, or rather ecological (since a civilization is a community and not an organism), so you're thinking in the right direction. More on this next week.Robin, my guess is that the only way we or any other intelligent life form will ever be able to harness fusion power is by using the light and heat from the nearest star. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone into fusion research, and we're arguably no closer to a working power plant than we were in 1970. My skepticism about the claims of the PV community doesn't make me dismiss solar power -- far from it, it's going to be one of the few good sources of power for future deindustrial societies, and the sooner we can come up with effective low-tech methods for turning it into usable power, the better. Sabretache, many thanks! Jean-Michel, unfortunately your argument boils down to "only an extraterrestrial intervention can save us, so an extraterrestrial intervention will save us" -- and that's wishful thinking rather than a basis for constructive action. You're quite right that information about UFOs is still treated as a military secret in the US, but the reason's pretty much an open secret at this point -- something like half of American UFO sightings during the '50s and '60s were U-2 or SR-71 high altitude spyplanes whose activities were still being officially denied by the government. (See, for example, Gregory Pendlow and Donald Welzenbach, The CIA and the U-2 Program (1998), for some of the details.) The steep decline in UFO sightings since the end of the 1973 flap correlates precisely to the American intelligence community's shift from spyplanes to spy satellites. The Soviet Union also made use of the same gimmick, of course, and I'd be amazed if other countries' intelligence services didn't borrow the UFO mythology for similar purposes. Is there more to the UFO phenomenon than this? Arguably so -- and as it happens, I have a book on the subject under contract right now -- but the evidence for an imminent Second Coming in alien drag (which is what most current speculation in the UFO community amounts to) simply won't hold water. As a response to peak oil and global warming, you might as well copy my Lakota ancestors and try the Ghost Dance. Doctor Bob, yes, this is pretty much my reasoning. My guess is that it's quite possible for intelligent species, including our own, to end up evolving something long-term a good deal more sophisticated than a medieval society, but such a mature society will likely be at least as different from what we've got today as it would be from the Stone Age. More on this next week. Bernd, published estimates for the net energy of nuclear power range all over the map, though this is the first time I've heard of anybody claiming 100 to 1 -- the highest figure I'd seen in nuclear industry propaganda was 55 to 1. The problem with these claims is that, as Jeff Vail pointed out in a little while back on the Oil Drum, price makes a good surrogate measure for net energy. If nuclear power actually had the sort of net energy yield suggested by the Munich paper you've cited, it would have shouldered aside every other means of generating electricity decades ago, because a net energy of 100 to 1 works out to very low operating costs per kilowatt. The reality is that, economically speaking, nuclear power has flopped. It only thrives when propped up with massive government subsidies, as in France. Here in the US, utilities that made the mistake of buying into the promises of nuclear power advocates in the 60s and 70s ended up saddled with huge, radioactive white elephants that, even when they're working (which is far from all the time), cost more per kilowatt to generate electricity than any other method. That being the case, I tend to think the estimates that put nuclear power's net energy toward the breakeven point are more reliable in real world terms. RAS, you're assuming a casino model in which there's a jackpot. I'd suggest it's closer to a stock market model where you've got promoters insisting, as they did in 1998 and 1999, that the Dow was going to go straight up to 36,000. It didn't. Corrected for inflation, it probably never will. Starflight is like that -- an abstract possibility that, in the real universe, simply isn't in reach.Nativewater, Hoyle's comment was one of the seeds that got me thinking along these lines. At this point, though, I find the idea that a species evolved onworld can thrive anywhere else dubious at best -- and there are a lot of good things to do with hydrocarbons other than pursuing the fantasy of interstellar expansion. Jeff, I quite understand. A science fiction future among the stars is the heaven of the religion of progress, and letting go of it is a little like what a medieval peasant might experience if he looked up into the sky and found that God and the saints weren't there any more.Nnonth, er, thanks for the link, but as far as I can tell this stuff is somewhere between bad science fiction and bad acid. The anonymous source seems to have put together every theory off the far end of the rejected knowledge movement into a single giddy narrative. Tell you what, though -- if the war between the US and China happens in 2008 the way this guy predicts, we can discuss the matter further.Weaseldog, have you looked at Duncan's papers on the Olduvai Theory? I don't agree with the OT entirely but Duncan makes some very good points that I've tried to integrate into my own work. He's the one who introduced me to White's Law -- and to the fact that energy per capita here on earth has been declining since 1979. By White's Law, we're already sliding backwards in terms of our economic development. Shadowfax, exactly -- if there were abundant sources of free energy in the universe, our infrared satellites would be detecting the heat anomalies caused by alien Dyson spheres and world-sized starships blazing through this end of the galaxy. They don't, of course.Bill, I think our species will survive just fine -- we've been through global catastrophes before, and have the tenacity of cornered rats. It's the topheavy industrial superstructure we've piled on the planet that is the most likely casualty of the next century or two. But you're certainly right that if we're to salvage much from the approaching mess, we have to learn the meaning of the words "enough" and "too much."

#3 - posted by (94.213.8*.*)2014-03-06 13:56:02
Addon states. Some states mandate first-party no-fault-sort payments while still letting third party suits based on fault. If your driving led to their traumas in these states QuotesChimp can obtain recompense from your own insurance company for harms you endure while at the same time being sued by a 3rd party. These are known as addon laws.

Name HTML not allowed!
E-mail Optional (Spam protected)
Verification - Enter code