Just did. Simple download (130MB) and trivial installation was a good start. Just choose between shared folders or CoFS to share files, a reboot, and it's running.
Seems to work well too, X started automatically and works fine.
There are no fences, but to a significant gravitational barrier to overcome when leaving the original star system. Also, to fall into orbit around or sun would require a third body to take away the excess energy. I guess this could be one of our planets, but on overall I'm suspecting more "boring" origins, such as a cold spot in our own solar system.
That's more an argument for never modifying your data, not never backing it up. Which would require you to write once as encrypted and not write and then rewrite in place as encrypted.
True, so I guess I join you in asking 'why is backing up an encrypted volume a bad thing?'
You can see the afterimage of the previous bit direction on magnetic storage. Not all of the magnetic domain making up a bit is changed, sort of getting a fuzzy + when changing - to |. This is why repeated overwriting is recommended when you really want to delete files.
The effect is probably better explained under hysteresis over at google:)
No idea how this works on solid state disks though.
Very often we know exact equations from verified theory, but are unable to solve them analytically because there are too many dimensions or no closed forms exist. Then numerical methods are a godsend.
All fluid dynamical problems, for instance, rely on computational fluid dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics) for the preliminary design phase. Nothing is ever tested in a wind tunnel before it has shown merit in a computer model.
The application is not so immediately obvious when it comes to cosmology, but it is the same principle (ok, except for the wind tunnel testing).
[...] there's a small chance that the object, small enough to be classified as a planet, merely resides in the same part of the sky as the star but is not gravitationally bound to it.
Disagree. Sure there is some rehashing of material that mathematicians will be familiar with, but unless said mathematicians are familiar with applications in physics, the book will cover plenty of new material for them. Take complex analysis : the initial chapter on complex analysis will be a rehash, but later chapters on its applications in QM, QFT, GR will NOT be a rehash.
As I understoot OP, he only had a highschool background in physics. In this case the knowledge necessary to start working with astrophysics is more like Caroll/Ostlie, and all you need to understand this book.
Only some fields within astrophysics have any need at all to know about QFT, and even for these the material isn't what I would call "basic." The fundamental physics of astrophysics (OK, nod to Shu here:) is radiation and thermal physics. Some QM is necessary to understand this, but classical physics is just as important.
Seconded. It's 1000 pages of both facts and theory suitable at a BSc level of physics. Note that these authors appear stronger in solar than in cosmological physics, at least they cover this field much better...
Geophysics books would be of little value, I'm afraid. There are some overlapping fields, but these could be found in physics / astrophysics book, with more relevant examples.
You should cover all of the foundation physics. At least mechanics, electromagnetism, classical radiation, a ground course in modern physics, and heat theory.
Depending on your research topic, also pick up more advanced books in necessary fields. Eg. for cosmology, you'd want to be familiary with relativity and prior work in this area, while for plasma physics a strong knowledge of thermodynamics and radiation is necessary.
This 1000-page brick is probably to long and theoretical to be of much practical value. It gives broad views of many fields, but many of them are already known to a BSc math (complex analysis) or too far-reaching (brane theory).
I'd recommend something more detailed in his specific fields of interest. Or rather leading up to his field of interest.
Wikipedia lists Mars' radius as 3,396 km, so I guess 1 degree translates to about 60km. That should make the semi-major axis of the target ellipse (very roughly) about 30km.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, no kidding! Try it.
Just did. Simple download (130MB) and trivial installation was a good start. Just choose between shared folders or CoFS to share files, a reboot, and it's running.
Seems to work well too, X started automatically and works fine.
It does feel a little resource-heavy though.
And the Voyagers, Pioneers, the Galileo Jupiter probe, SoHO and Hubble, to mention just a few other systems to ignore their "do not use after" dates?
Nor did they fail to present evidence:)
Computer Lib / Dream Machines by Ted Nelson is a classic by a computer visionary. Well worth it, if you can get it.
Governor Palin in Alaska.
There are no fences, but to a significant gravitational barrier to overcome when leaving the original star system. Also, to fall into orbit around or sun would require a third body to take away the excess energy. I guess this could be one of our planets, but on overall I'm suspecting more "boring" origins, such as a cold spot in our own solar system.
That's more an argument for never modifying your data, not never backing it up. Which would require you to write once as encrypted and not write and then rewrite in place as encrypted.
True, so I guess I join you in asking 'why is backing up an encrypted volume a bad thing?'
You can see the afterimage of the previous bit direction on magnetic storage. Not all of the magnetic domain making up a bit is changed, sort of getting a fuzzy + when changing - to |. This is why repeated overwriting is recommended when you really want to delete files.
The effect is probably better explained under hysteresis over at google :)
No idea how this works on solid state disks though.
Thanks, I'll take a look at it.
And from arxiv, a lesson in how to not do web:
"Sadly, your client does not supply a proper User-Agent, and is consequently excluded."
Specifics? Adsabs turned up nothing...
Very often we know exact equations from verified theory, but are unable to solve them analytically because there are too many dimensions or no closed forms exist. Then numerical methods are a godsend.
All fluid dynamical problems, for instance, rely on computational fluid dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics) for the preliminary design phase. Nothing is ever tested in a wind tunnel before it has shown merit in a computer model.
The application is not so immediately obvious when it comes to cosmology, but it is the same principle (ok, except for the wind tunnel testing).
But hey, I was a music major, so what do I know.
Not nearly as much as you think you do?
They are open to that idea. From the article:
[...] there's a small chance that the object, small enough to be classified as a planet, merely resides in the same part of the sky as the star but is not gravitationally bound to it.
This is outrageous! and a 4th amendment violation.
The constitution doesn't apply until you get past the customs officer. And even then only to US citizens.
Disagree. Sure there is some rehashing of material that mathematicians will be familiar with, but unless said mathematicians are familiar with applications in physics, the book will cover plenty of new material for them. Take complex analysis : the initial chapter on complex analysis will be a rehash, but later chapters on its applications in QM, QFT, GR will NOT be a rehash.
As I understoot OP, he only had a highschool background in physics. In this case the knowledge necessary to start working with astrophysics is more like Caroll/Ostlie, and all you need to understand this book.
Only some fields within astrophysics have any need at all to know about QFT, and even for these the material isn't what I would call "basic." The fundamental physics of astrophysics (OK, nod to Shu here:) is radiation and thermal physics. Some QM is necessary to understand this, but classical physics is just as important.
I understand that you're getting an MS(wtf is an MS"c"? Is that asshole for MS?)
Bachelor of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science)? A more advanced and theory-focused degree...
Seconded. It's 1000 pages of both facts and theory suitable at a BSc level of physics. Note that these authors appear stronger in solar than in cosmological physics, at least they cover this field much better...
Geophysics books would be of little value, I'm afraid. There are some overlapping fields, but these could be found in physics / astrophysics book, with more relevant examples.
You should cover all of the foundation physics. At least mechanics, electromagnetism, classical radiation, a ground course in modern physics, and heat theory.
Depending on your research topic, also pick up more advanced books in necessary fields. Eg. for cosmology, you'd want to be familiary with relativity and prior work in this area, while for plasma physics a strong knowledge of thermodynamics and radiation is necessary.
Actually, radiation is the thing to know anyway:)
This 1000-page brick is probably to long and theoretical to be of much practical value. It gives broad views of many fields, but many of them are already known to a BSc math (complex analysis) or too far-reaching (brane theory).
I'd recommend something more detailed in his specific fields of interest. Or rather leading up to his field of interest.
There is no way of knowing if that second hidden volume exists unless you have both passwords.
Won't there be a serious discrepancy in free space on the "public" volume?
If the truecrypt partition is 10GB, with 5GB worth of data and 2.5GB free, the customs officers would probably demand an explanation.
Dennis and Eunice are shorter than Alex, while Chris and Bob are taller than him. Makes Alex the third tallest?
Wikipedia lists Mars' radius as 3,396 km, so I guess 1 degree translates to about 60km. That should make the semi-major axis of the target ellipse (very roughly) about 30km.
Acrobat may be a slow beast with an annoying updater, but I never got the other free readers (eg. xpdf) to render anywhere near as good.
Maybe there's a trick (with gs?) I don't know about?
Confirmed, around that time we saw some cases of that at my company too. Port 80 tcp outbound was blocked.
We never investigated though, just replaced those with another AV we had a licence for.