Perhaps then someone can explain how I can make a small but important fix in my code and upload it onto 200 iPads that are deployed at the business?
If the tablets run Linux or Windows or even full OS/X then the answer is simple. But how do *I* push the update onto the iPad? And do I have to submit the new revision of the application to Apple for a 3-week review? And do I need to deploy my own software onto my own tablet through the app store (and pay Apple for that?) Those are not contrived issues.
Answering those practical questions will help the iPad far more than ratcheting the rhetoric up to 10, while at the same time saying nothing.
Our sales people will use it to give presentations whilst on the road.
I didn't know that MS Office (and PowerPoint specifically) is supported on iPad. An average sales guy will not want to design the presentation on one computer, then compile for presentation on another - and carry both. There is nothing to be gained.
Also there is that small issue of the VGA output, it's very useful with a projector. And the projector is used for approximately 100% of all presentations. Even a presentation "one on one" would be awkward if you have to stand behind the presenter to see the screen.
Besides those showstoppers, often the presenter is asked something. Then he stops the presentation and opens some semi-confidential or preliminary Word document to answer your question. Now and then he will burn a few files onto a CD for you right there at the meeting (or saves them onto a USB stick.) The iPad is unusable for such things, and any sales guy will notice that immediately. The rejection of iPad will be not on religious grounds, but just because the iPad is less functional.
maybe healthcare software makers will start loading the iPad up with software and make it a viable competitor in that space.
There may be a concern in healthcare and elsewhere in the industry that iPad, with all its restrictions and kill switches and app stores, is not sufficiently under control of the owner.
Another, large concern is that iPad is a single source product, with no fallback scenario if Apple discontinues it. Yet another concern is that iPad is expensive. Yet another concern is that the battery is not accessible (which is important if you run your business 24/7.)
And one more thing. I personally don't know how healthcare apps are written, but I saw quite a few engineering / production apps, and they are all written in Java, controlled through the browser, and talking to the database server. If the app requires Java the iPad won't be even in the running. And as far as I know, applications of this type are very conservatively written, and seldom revised (forget about rewrite in Objective C, a language that most business process coders have no knowledge of.)
Generic parents probably will prefer a device that is easy to use and that is reliable. I don't know if iPad is one of those. We already know that Flash is a fail, and many news sites use Flash to show photos and video. My parents would give the thing back to me as "not working right."
Which design would I prefer when I want to sit on the couch (or on an airplane) and watch a video, browse the web, handle a bit of email, and read a book?
If your video is on a DVD then probably iPad is not the best option. If your video is a download from Apple Store you need deep pockets and fast Internet connection, lest you will depart for the airport before the video is all here.
If you want to browse the Web, the tablet may be OK for that (or not - need to wait for hands-on reviews) but many tablets are just too slow even for the Web. Many Web pages are just awfully complicated, and on top of that there is that Javascript compiler, Java itself (which is or is not supported)... you may be better off with a notebook/netbook, at least you know that they come with *complete* browsers.
If you want to read your email then I guess you can use the tablet for that. But if you want to reply... that I don't know. This very comment contains 1800+ characters, it would take a while to type on a touch screen. Again, we'll see how the real thing measures up in this department. Myself, I doubt I'd be any good without tactile feedback. Lugging a separate dock and keyboard is not even a viable option; those are only for your home office.
And reading a book... practically everyone jumps up and down, waves flags and screams at full power that eInk is the best reading screen ever. I personally hate eInk for its low contrast and flicker, but it seems like I'm a minority. I read my eBooks in bed on a Windows tablet (UMPC) and I like it a lot, especially because I like to read in darkness.
I'm thinking of buying one to watch videos / run the facebook app / run the "kindle for ipod" app.
Indeed, you are the market - [relatively] young people who can easily spend a $1,000 on a gadget, without worry and without high expectations and without looking at netbooks as competition.
if you survive a run-in with the kids, your wounds will probably heal...lawsuits for large amounts of money don't heal so well.
It can be also seen the other way around:
A lawsuit is just money; in worst case you declare bankruptcy and move on. However it's harder to move on if your skull is in three separate pieces, and the police was able to find only two so far.
It is much safer to face a congressman in court than a juvenile. The latter will be on bail or parole soon, and he (or his friend) is just smart enough to do a drive-by on you. The congressman will not do that.
Unless there are fluent speakers who use google translate for fun, I don't see much feedback coming from there
You ignore bilingual people who want to translate an article or a Web site for others. Sure, if they translate themselves the results will be better, but it's a lot of typing.
One has an army of juveniles the other has an army of congressmen. Which one do you think will win?
It depends on your definition of victory; however in most cases I would bet on juveniles - many are vicious and unrestrained by social norms, while politicians are just greedy and power-hungry.
To put it differently: who would you prefer to meet in a dark alley in a bad part of town - a group of juveniles or a group of congressmen?
But in reality I'm not that far from the city, and I live here because I have a lot of land here, birds, deer, clean air, and great view. For the same money I could have gotten a 0.125 acre lot with a primitive house right in the street, and if you spit left or right you hit a neighbor. Here you'd need binoculars to even figure out where neighbors may be.
I do live in a city, where we have real gang violence and real crime, including robbery, armed and otherwise.
And that's another reason to live elsewhere. Why to pay more for the privilege of having a gang get-together 10 feet from your door? Note that they are within their rights to do that as long as they stay on public land (sidewalk.)
Time-wise, I'd say I need about 15 minutes to get to the nearest ATM. It makes no sense to spend the time unless I need something else there. Since I work primarily at home (and over the Internet) I can go to the city maybe a couple times per week.
can we expect to have fusion power in the next 20 years?
You can have fusion power even now, if you want (if you call 1991 "now") - but it either produces less energy than it consumes, or is unstable, or usually both.
Making it easier to spend money doesn't require you to spend that money
Maybe for you it doesn't. For other people it does. It's all psychology; it's too easy to buy stuff if you don't have to pay cash (which you might as well not have.) Millions of people are in debt. The last thing they need is easier methods to spend money. If the payment takes more effort or time they have a chance to reconsider the purchase. I don't say it's a good solution, but it helps. Look at this advice, for example:
Put all your credit cards in a bowl of water and freeze them. When the time comes you wish to make a purchase, you'll have plenty of time to reconsider how badly you "need" the item while the cards are thawing out.
(I just found it on the Web, I don't claim invention of it, or anything:-)
But just standing outside using an ATM in broad daylight isn't something I've ever heard of anyone having trouble with.
I allow a possibility of robbery in day time, for a good reason:
Most bank ATM robberies occur at night between 7pm and midnight (link.)
Most != all, that's why I can't say that the daytime is a guarantee of safety. Basically it depends on how bad the area is, and how much that drug user needs your money.
the fraud and theft rate of getting unauthorized access to someone's bank account is lower than in the US. So, how would someone use it to get money?
But you already answered your question: the rate of unauthorized accesses to someone's bank accounts in the USA is higher than elsewhere.
So, how would someone use it to get money? You set up a password that you never, ever share or write down. and you do your banking with that password.
I guess you never read articles about phishers, keylogging, social engineering, or just plain old fake ATMs.
And that's more secure than the tons of holes in the US banking system where all you need is someone's SSN, DOB and account number and there's pretty much nothing you can't do with it.
I don't know what banks in your country require, but in the USA you need to have something (your bank card) and to know something (your PIN) if you want to get any money from an ATM or in person. If the sum is above trivial you will be asked for a photo ID. I don't know what SSN and DOB have to do with it, I don't think I was ever asked for those - they are worthless as authenticators. And the "account number" - wasn't that you who complained that even knowing those you couldn't transfer the money? What stopped you, with so many "holes" and with the transfer being completely legal? I guess the "holes" aren't holes, after all.
And based off the fact that you say you'd disable electronic access to your accounts indicates that you have an irrational fear of technology.
There are two processes involved. First, just like when you configure firewalls, you disable everything and then individually enable what you really need. I can't imagine that I will ever want to send money electronically to another client of my bank. That's reason #1 why it will be disabled.
But there is another reason too. Not all technology is beneficial, personally or socially. This is open to debate, of course, since there are many technologies out there. Even the nuclear fusion reaction produced one bad outcome (the bomb) and one good outcome (nuclear power.) Of course, banking is nowhere as serious, but still I don't see a need to make spending my money even easier than it is now. I guess I'm not one of those spending-big consumers that every vendor loves to have; I certainly wouldn't want to have a payment token implanted into my arm or carried in my phone. If you want my money *right now* you will get nothing.
Is it just to pass lies about the banking system and bitch about politics?
starting in 2018, British banks won't be using personal checks any more.
Indeed, UK has many problems:-)
The advantage of a simple piece of paper is that it is not tied to any technology. Maybe Londoners are well connected, but a good part of rural USA doesn't have computers and doesn't really even need them. They use checks to pay for everything. A payment can be concluded in the middle of a field, if necessary. You can't do that with a card or a telephone.
This also connects with the problem of receiving payments. If you are a small business that, say, repairs stuff, how are you going to receive non-cash payments from your customers? Check is the only method where you do not incur extra costs. So why in the world would you want to pay a few percent of your revenue (not even profit!) for the service?
The decision to do away with checks can be only seen as one, last push of credit card companies to insert themselves into the payment stream. And of course banks would be glad to reduce their costs even further, holding billions in other people's money without even having to work for it.
Well, mailing an endorsed check is about the same as mailing cash
Not really; a thief can take cash and leave no traces. However what can a thief do with a check? It is not in his name to begin with, and even if his bank misses that detail the check writer (your friend) will see that the check was deposited, so he and you can raise hell about it. The money will be traced and the thief goes to jail.
Also if you are that concerned about theft, use Fedex or UPS or DHL or Purolator, or whatever you have. It will cost you more, but you can trace those packages all the way to the bank.
Another way for your friend to pay you is to use Wire Transfer. It's a long form to fill, but not complicated. Wells Fargo charges about $20 for that service; cheaper than FedEx and you don't need to do a thing - your friend does. The money will land in your account within one day.
But in general it is true, banks in the US do not promote private electronic transfers between accounts. I don't blame them for that, and in fact if they did I'd make sure to block that. Such a feature wouldn't be of much use to most people here, but it would be a great way to steal money electronically.
It would seem safer if the bank would let us use electronic transfers they have set up, rather than having them available and set with limits so low as to be a great inconvenience and with absolutely no manner of override.
I guess they are just managing their potential losses. Debit cards here, issued to new clients, are limited to something like $300 in cash. You need to have some banking history to raise those limits.
And you must not get out much, as I would have to go out of my way to go to a store of any kind without passing an ATM.
You probably live in a city. I don't. I need to drive for a while to get to a nearest ATM, but the mailman stops by my house every day.
And making an ATM deposit is faster, cheaper, and safer than mailing it in.
Actually it is quite dangerous in the USA to stand by an ATM. I *never* do that, and banks advise to exercise lots of caution when it's dark. But even the day time is not a guarantee of safety; you are standing in an open street, with your card in the machine and the PIN entered. I much prefer to go inside the bank, especially because I know pretty much everyone there, and they know me.
I moved from the US, so it would take two international mailings (and I don't even know how to mail in deposits)
Ok, I understand that in this particular case you have it taken care of. But I can tell you how it is generally done, if you need something like that later.
Unless you or your correspondent live in North Korea, it shouldn't be that difficult to mail a letter to a foreign address. You just need a stamp. For example, USPS charges $2.54 for the "First-Class Mail® International Letter" service - which is probably fine for your needs.
Once you receive the check, you endorse it on the back, fill a deposit slip (you get them with your checkbook), put both into another envelope and address it to your bank (the address of the bank office should be on your check.) Add stamps that your country's postal service wants, and drop it in the mail. Check your account online in a week, the deposit should be there.
I mail checks to my bank now and then, even though the branch is just a few miles from my home. I do that if I don't have time or desire to stop by the branch (or by any ATM.)
With that system, I declare that to be "no viable alternative."
Why couldn't he write you a check? It can be sent to you in mail and you can mail it to the bank. Or you can meet the guy at the bank and save 88 cents.
During my undergraduate physics degree I started by taking notes on paper, however I started to notice I was struggling to read my handwriting. [tl;dr]
Maybe you need a review of the basic principles of heat transfer.
But it seems unlikely that the turkey would ever exceed 150 degrees, because it loses heat to the environment faster than it's absorbing heat from the oven's heating element.
Looks like an explanation is in order here. The turkey gets heated through the following mechanisms:
Radiation. The IR light from the heating element illuminates the bird, gets absorbed and becomes heat.
Convection. The hot air rises and flows around the turkey. At the boundary some heat gets exchanged.
Conduction. This mechanism is responsible for the propagation of heat within the bird.
You say:
loses heat to the environment faster than it's absorbing heat from the oven's heating element.
That suggests that the turkey is mostly heated by IR and not by convection, and it also suggests that the oven is not at a uniform temperature. This is very unlikely because the temperature sensor within the oven would be unable to report a meaningful reading. Also, the volume of the oven is small, but the heating elements are powerful, and the inner walls of the oven are dark (darker than the food that we are heating.)
This means that the turkey, in general, will not be losing heat to the environment; it will be kept at the same temperature as the environment, with the small exception of the outer skin which will be additionally heated by IR; that energy will be mostly reradiated within the oven and conducted into the bird. To prove that, blow cold air on your turkey and see how it affects cooking time (if you are patient enough, of course:-)
Why do you think things work differently if you change the source of energy from "IR/hot air" to "microwave"
Well, that's obvious - and indeed things work very differently. For example, the turkey (and your body too) are insulated from the environment with a layer of fat, and with a network of blood vessels that act as a liquid cooling system. This allows us to tolerate a desert and Antarctica, within limits. We endanger the skin when we do that, but we don't really expect our muscles or our internal organs to be affected. This is because the source of heat is outside and most of our body is shielded from it.
However take microwave now. It works not by heating air or skin, like your electric oven does. It works by penetrating deep into the meat and heating its water content from the inside. Every cell in the turkey is getting heated, even cells that in a live bird never deviate from their usual temperature (105-107 degrees F). Suddenly those cells can be heated far above that level because they are no longer protected by the fat and skin and feathers. The turkey cooks from the inside, literally.
I hope that also comments on your reference to the solar radiation. You may stand next to a blowtorch if you wish and be safe, as long as you are sufficiently insulated from the heat. Humans haven't evolved natural protection from microwaves that penetrate deep into the tissue.
I do not know if effects of cell phones are noticeable or not. It may well be that cell phones are safe. The discussion above is only to clear the scientific matter - why microwaves are different from sunlight.
but then again, a microwave works around 750 watts, whats the watt of a common mobile phone again?
The microwave oven uses 700-1000 Watts to cook the food in minutes. I'm sure it takes far less power to hurt you over long time. The question is only "how much" and "how long".
I've found I don't like glowing sights or even colored sights
I don't need them either. My scopes have high magnification, clear optics and a fine duplex reticle, that's all I need to hunt varmints at large distances in broad daylight. I posted the link because I was unsure that everyone on/. is aware of tritium use.
Your problem. Fedora is and always has been Red Hat's test bed
You're either very young or you have a short memory.
No, turbidostato is correct. Fedora for the entire length of its existence was a testbed. Here is what they say today:
The Fedora Project is sponsored by Red Hat, which invests in our infrastructure and resources to encourage collaboration and incubate innovative new technologies. Some of these technologies may later be integrated into Red Hat products.
The fact that RH did not have a testbed distribution until Fedora doesn't affect Fedora in the slightest.
Slashdot Mirror
Knocking the rhetoric up to 9, eh? Nice work.
Perhaps then someone can explain how I can make a small but important fix in my code and upload it onto 200 iPads that are deployed at the business?
If the tablets run Linux or Windows or even full OS/X then the answer is simple. But how do *I* push the update onto the iPad? And do I have to submit the new revision of the application to Apple for a 3-week review? And do I need to deploy my own software onto my own tablet through the app store (and pay Apple for that?) Those are not contrived issues.
Answering those practical questions will help the iPad far more than ratcheting the rhetoric up to 10, while at the same time saying nothing.
Once you get past all the crap, he's just a pair of lips and a briefcase!
You obviously don't own a dog, otherwise you'd know what dogs like to eat :-)
Our sales people will use it to give presentations whilst on the road.
I didn't know that MS Office (and PowerPoint specifically) is supported on iPad. An average sales guy will not want to design the presentation on one computer, then compile for presentation on another - and carry both. There is nothing to be gained.
Also there is that small issue of the VGA output, it's very useful with a projector. And the projector is used for approximately 100% of all presentations. Even a presentation "one on one" would be awkward if you have to stand behind the presenter to see the screen.
Besides those showstoppers, often the presenter is asked something. Then he stops the presentation and opens some semi-confidential or preliminary Word document to answer your question. Now and then he will burn a few files onto a CD for you right there at the meeting (or saves them onto a USB stick.) The iPad is unusable for such things, and any sales guy will notice that immediately. The rejection of iPad will be not on religious grounds, but just because the iPad is less functional.
maybe healthcare software makers will start loading the iPad up with software and make it a viable competitor in that space.
There may be a concern in healthcare and elsewhere in the industry that iPad, with all its restrictions and kill switches and app stores, is not sufficiently under control of the owner.
Another, large concern is that iPad is a single source product, with no fallback scenario if Apple discontinues it. Yet another concern is that iPad is expensive. Yet another concern is that the battery is not accessible (which is important if you run your business 24/7.)
And one more thing. I personally don't know how healthcare apps are written, but I saw quite a few engineering / production apps, and they are all written in Java, controlled through the browser, and talking to the database server. If the app requires Java the iPad won't be even in the running. And as far as I know, applications of this type are very conservatively written, and seldom revised (forget about rewrite in Objective C, a language that most business process coders have no knowledge of.)
Which design would my parents prefer?
Generic parents probably will prefer a device that is easy to use and that is reliable. I don't know if iPad is one of those. We already know that Flash is a fail, and many news sites use Flash to show photos and video. My parents would give the thing back to me as "not working right."
Which design would I prefer when I want to sit on the couch (or on an airplane) and watch a video, browse the web, handle a bit of email, and read a book?
If your video is on a DVD then probably iPad is not the best option. If your video is a download from Apple Store you need deep pockets and fast Internet connection, lest you will depart for the airport before the video is all here.
If you want to browse the Web, the tablet may be OK for that (or not - need to wait for hands-on reviews) but many tablets are just too slow even for the Web. Many Web pages are just awfully complicated, and on top of that there is that Javascript compiler, Java itself (which is or is not supported) ... you may be better off with a notebook/netbook, at least you know that they come with *complete* browsers.
If you want to read your email then I guess you can use the tablet for that. But if you want to reply ... that I don't know. This very comment contains 1800+ characters, it would take a while to type on a touch screen. Again, we'll see how the real thing measures up in this department. Myself, I doubt I'd be any good without tactile feedback. Lugging a separate dock and keyboard is not even a viable option; those are only for your home office.
And reading a book ... practically everyone jumps up and down, waves flags and screams at full power that eInk is the best reading screen ever. I personally hate eInk for its low contrast and flicker, but it seems like I'm a minority. I read my eBooks in bed on a Windows tablet (UMPC) and I like it a lot, especially because I like to read in darkness.
I'm thinking of buying one to watch videos / run the facebook app / run the "kindle for ipod" app.
Indeed, you are the market - [relatively] young people who can easily spend a $1,000 on a gadget, without worry and without high expectations and without looking at netbooks as competition.
if you survive a run-in with the kids, your wounds will probably heal...lawsuits for large amounts of money don't heal so well.
It can be also seen the other way around:
A lawsuit is just money; in worst case you declare bankruptcy and move on. However it's harder to move on if your skull is in three separate pieces, and the police was able to find only two so far.
And who would you rather face in a courtroom?
It is much safer to face a congressman in court than a juvenile. The latter will be on bail or parole soon, and he (or his friend) is just smart enough to do a drive-by on you. The congressman will not do that.
Unless there are fluent speakers who use google translate for fun, I don't see much feedback coming from there
You ignore bilingual people who want to translate an article or a Web site for others. Sure, if they translate themselves the results will be better, but it's a lot of typing.
One has an army of juveniles the other has an army of congressmen. Which one do you think will win?
It depends on your definition of victory; however in most cases I would bet on juveniles - many are vicious and unrestrained by social norms, while politicians are just greedy and power-hungry.
To put it differently: who would you prefer to meet in a dark alley in a bad part of town - a group of juveniles or a group of congressmen?
you're totally paranoid and afraid of people
That would make me a perfect /. contributor :-)
But in reality I'm not that far from the city, and I live here because I have a lot of land here, birds, deer, clean air, and great view. For the same money I could have gotten a 0.125 acre lot with a primitive house right in the street, and if you spit left or right you hit a neighbor. Here you'd need binoculars to even figure out where neighbors may be.
I do live in a city, where we have real gang violence and real crime, including robbery, armed and otherwise.
And that's another reason to live elsewhere. Why to pay more for the privilege of having a gang get-together 10 feet from your door? Note that they are within their rights to do that as long as they stay on public land (sidewalk.)
Time-wise, I'd say I need about 15 minutes to get to the nearest ATM. It makes no sense to spend the time unless I need something else there. Since I work primarily at home (and over the Internet) I can go to the city maybe a couple times per week.
can we expect to have fusion power in the next 20 years?
You can have fusion power even now, if you want (if you call 1991 "now") - but it either produces less energy than it consumes, or is unstable, or usually both.
Making it easier to spend money doesn't require you to spend that money
Maybe for you it doesn't. For other people it does. It's all psychology; it's too easy to buy stuff if you don't have to pay cash (which you might as well not have.) Millions of people are in debt. The last thing they need is easier methods to spend money. If the payment takes more effort or time they have a chance to reconsider the purchase. I don't say it's a good solution, but it helps. Look at this advice, for example:
Put all your credit cards in a bowl of water and freeze them. When the time comes you wish to make a purchase, you'll have plenty of time to reconsider how badly you "need" the item while the cards are thawing out.
(I just found it on the Web, I don't claim invention of it, or anything :-)
But just standing outside using an ATM in broad daylight isn't something I've ever heard of anyone having trouble with.
I allow a possibility of robbery in day time, for a good reason:
Most bank ATM robberies occur at night between 7pm and midnight (link.)
Most != all, that's why I can't say that the daytime is a guarantee of safety. Basically it depends on how bad the area is, and how much that drug user needs your money.
the fraud and theft rate of getting unauthorized access to someone's bank account is lower than in the US. So, how would someone use it to get money?
But you already answered your question: the rate of unauthorized accesses to someone's bank accounts in the USA is higher than elsewhere.
So, how would someone use it to get money? You set up a password that you never, ever share or write down. and you do your banking with that password.
I guess you never read articles about phishers, keylogging, social engineering, or just plain old fake ATMs.
And that's more secure than the tons of holes in the US banking system where all you need is someone's SSN, DOB and account number and there's pretty much nothing you can't do with it.
I don't know what banks in your country require, but in the USA you need to have something (your bank card) and to know something (your PIN) if you want to get any money from an ATM or in person. If the sum is above trivial you will be asked for a photo ID. I don't know what SSN and DOB have to do with it, I don't think I was ever asked for those - they are worthless as authenticators. And the "account number" - wasn't that you who complained that even knowing those you couldn't transfer the money? What stopped you, with so many "holes" and with the transfer being completely legal? I guess the "holes" aren't holes, after all.
And based off the fact that you say you'd disable electronic access to your accounts indicates that you have an irrational fear of technology.
There are two processes involved. First, just like when you configure firewalls, you disable everything and then individually enable what you really need. I can't imagine that I will ever want to send money electronically to another client of my bank. That's reason #1 why it will be disabled.
But there is another reason too. Not all technology is beneficial, personally or socially. This is open to debate, of course, since there are many technologies out there. Even the nuclear fusion reaction produced one bad outcome (the bomb) and one good outcome (nuclear power.) Of course, banking is nowhere as serious, but still I don't see a need to make spending my money even easier than it is now. I guess I'm not one of those spending-big consumers that every vendor loves to have; I certainly wouldn't want to have a payment token implanted into my arm or carried in my phone. If you want my money *right now* you will get nothing.
Is it just to pass lies about the banking system and bitch about politics?
Well, that was really uncalled for.
starting in 2018, British banks won't be using personal checks any more.
Indeed, UK has many problems :-)
The advantage of a simple piece of paper is that it is not tied to any technology. Maybe Londoners are well connected, but a good part of rural USA doesn't have computers and doesn't really even need them. They use checks to pay for everything. A payment can be concluded in the middle of a field, if necessary. You can't do that with a card or a telephone.
This also connects with the problem of receiving payments. If you are a small business that, say, repairs stuff, how are you going to receive non-cash payments from your customers? Check is the only method where you do not incur extra costs. So why in the world would you want to pay a few percent of your revenue (not even profit!) for the service?
The decision to do away with checks can be only seen as one, last push of credit card companies to insert themselves into the payment stream. And of course banks would be glad to reduce their costs even further, holding billions in other people's money without even having to work for it.
Well, mailing an endorsed check is about the same as mailing cash
Not really; a thief can take cash and leave no traces. However what can a thief do with a check? It is not in his name to begin with, and even if his bank misses that detail the check writer (your friend) will see that the check was deposited, so he and you can raise hell about it. The money will be traced and the thief goes to jail.
Also if you are that concerned about theft, use Fedex or UPS or DHL or Purolator, or whatever you have. It will cost you more, but you can trace those packages all the way to the bank.
Another way for your friend to pay you is to use Wire Transfer. It's a long form to fill, but not complicated. Wells Fargo charges about $20 for that service; cheaper than FedEx and you don't need to do a thing - your friend does. The money will land in your account within one day.
But in general it is true, banks in the US do not promote private electronic transfers between accounts. I don't blame them for that, and in fact if they did I'd make sure to block that. Such a feature wouldn't be of much use to most people here, but it would be a great way to steal money electronically.
It would seem safer if the bank would let us use electronic transfers they have set up, rather than having them available and set with limits so low as to be a great inconvenience and with absolutely no manner of override.
I guess they are just managing their potential losses. Debit cards here, issued to new clients, are limited to something like $300 in cash. You need to have some banking history to raise those limits.
And you must not get out much, as I would have to go out of my way to go to a store of any kind without passing an ATM.
You probably live in a city. I don't. I need to drive for a while to get to a nearest ATM, but the mailman stops by my house every day.
And making an ATM deposit is faster, cheaper, and safer than mailing it in.
Actually it is quite dangerous in the USA to stand by an ATM. I *never* do that, and banks advise to exercise lots of caution when it's dark. But even the day time is not a guarantee of safety; you are standing in an open street, with your card in the machine and the PIN entered. I much prefer to go inside the bank, especially because I know pretty much everyone there, and they know me.
They [...] go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited
Don't they need an authority (like being a copyright holder) to issue licenses like that?
I moved from the US, so it would take two international mailings (and I don't even know how to mail in deposits)
Ok, I understand that in this particular case you have it taken care of. But I can tell you how it is generally done, if you need something like that later.
Unless you or your correspondent live in North Korea, it shouldn't be that difficult to mail a letter to a foreign address. You just need a stamp. For example, USPS charges $2.54 for the "First-Class Mail® International Letter" service - which is probably fine for your needs.
Once you receive the check, you endorse it on the back, fill a deposit slip (you get them with your checkbook), put both into another envelope and address it to your bank (the address of the bank office should be on your check.) Add stamps that your country's postal service wants, and drop it in the mail. Check your account online in a week, the deposit should be there.
I mail checks to my bank now and then, even though the branch is just a few miles from my home. I do that if I don't have time or desire to stop by the branch (or by any ATM.)
With that system, I declare that to be "no viable alternative."
Why couldn't he write you a check? It can be sent to you in mail and you can mail it to the bank. Or you can meet the guy at the bank and save 88 cents.
During my undergraduate physics degree I started by taking notes on paper, however I started to notice I was struggling to read my handwriting. [tl;dr]
I just learned to write better.
Maybe you need a review of the basic principles of heat transfer.
But it seems unlikely that the turkey would ever exceed 150 degrees, because it loses heat to the environment faster than it's absorbing heat from the oven's heating element.
Looks like an explanation is in order here. The turkey gets heated through the following mechanisms:
You say:
loses heat to the environment faster than it's absorbing heat from the oven's heating element.
That suggests that the turkey is mostly heated by IR and not by convection, and it also suggests that the oven is not at a uniform temperature. This is very unlikely because the temperature sensor within the oven would be unable to report a meaningful reading. Also, the volume of the oven is small, but the heating elements are powerful, and the inner walls of the oven are dark (darker than the food that we are heating.)
This means that the turkey, in general, will not be losing heat to the environment; it will be kept at the same temperature as the environment, with the small exception of the outer skin which will be additionally heated by IR; that energy will be mostly reradiated within the oven and conducted into the bird. To prove that, blow cold air on your turkey and see how it affects cooking time (if you are patient enough, of course :-)
Why do you think things work differently if you change the source of energy from "IR/hot air" to "microwave"
Well, that's obvious - and indeed things work very differently. For example, the turkey (and your body too) are insulated from the environment with a layer of fat, and with a network of blood vessels that act as a liquid cooling system. This allows us to tolerate a desert and Antarctica, within limits. We endanger the skin when we do that, but we don't really expect our muscles or our internal organs to be affected. This is because the source of heat is outside and most of our body is shielded from it.
However take microwave now. It works not by heating air or skin, like your electric oven does. It works by penetrating deep into the meat and heating its water content from the inside. Every cell in the turkey is getting heated, even cells that in a live bird never deviate from their usual temperature (105-107 degrees F). Suddenly those cells can be heated far above that level because they are no longer protected by the fat and skin and feathers. The turkey cooks from the inside, literally.
I hope that also comments on your reference to the solar radiation. You may stand next to a blowtorch if you wish and be safe, as long as you are sufficiently insulated from the heat. Humans haven't evolved natural protection from microwaves that penetrate deep into the tissue.
I do not know if effects of cell phones are noticeable or not. It may well be that cell phones are safe. The discussion above is only to clear the scientific matter - why microwaves are different from sunlight.
but then again, a microwave works around 750 watts, whats the watt of a common mobile phone again?
The microwave oven uses 700-1000 Watts to cook the food in minutes. I'm sure it takes far less power to hurt you over long time. The question is only "how much" and "how long".
I've found I don't like glowing sights or even colored sights
I don't need them either. My scopes have high magnification, clear optics and a fine duplex reticle, that's all I need to hunt varmints at large distances in broad daylight. I posted the link because I was unsure that everyone on /. is aware of tritium use.
Did you loan your sights to the radioactive boy scout?
See here or here.
You're either very young or you have a short memory.
No, turbidostato is correct. Fedora for the entire length of its existence was a testbed. Here is what they say today:
The fact that RH did not have a testbed distribution until Fedora doesn't affect Fedora in the slightest.