It works two ways. Firstly it causes a break in the flow of oil, and secondly it uses much of the available oxygen.
Uhh... explosives supply their own Oxygen, that's one of the major points in making those complex chemicals.
They don't need - and therefore don't consume - environmental Oxygen.
Or, if harpooning isn't viable (cue 'Whalers on the Moon'), just have the spacecraft rest on the asteroid's surface and, using ion engines again, push on the thing.
One word: Rotation.
If you put an engine on the asteroid, you cannot use it about half of the time (very roughly, probably way less)
because it would be pushing in the wrong direction.
Hovering decouples your applied force from the rotational movements of the asteroid, so as long as you manage
to hold your position on the right side of the asteroid, the force is applied constantly.
So a gravity tractor can apply the same delta-v faster than a "ground based" solution.
Use a $495 Verisign certificate
- People will come to your site
Use a $9.95 budget CA certificate
- People will come to your site
Use a $0 self-signed certificate
- People will come to your site
Use an expired or invalid certificate
- People will come to your site
Use no certificate at all, just a disclaimer saying that you're
secure
- People will come to your site
The whole PDF is a highly recommended read full of sad truths.
Unfortunately, it is VERY hard to recondition users. I don't blame Mozilla for
trying (in fact I completely agree with the change), but it will probably fail.
Let me see if I understood: The issue is not the legality (it's illegal. period.), but the
decision by local executive authorities not to sanction illegal behaviour in certain cases -
who are motivated to do so by local legislature.
Right?
As someone from outside the US, I'm a bit (actually, rather much) stumped by the claim
that the legal status of doing something depends on who looks at the matter.
I know there are differing laws about some things e.g. in Germany on state and federal level,
but there are exact procedures on how to resolve such a conflict of law, and by result, in a single
place, something is either legal or not.
Completely independent from whether a matter is handled by state or federal police.
I would have suspected the same here: That in one place, doing $foo is either legal or not.
That this may very well differ from the legality of doing $foo in another place.
But that it would never be legal or illegal in a single place, just depending on who checks on people doing $foo.
...and when Firefox 5 is out, people will say the same about Firefox 3 users. "OMG security vulnerabilities have fun browsing on your sieve."
People said the same thing about 1 vs 1.5 as well. You HAVE to upgrade to 1.5 because it's the secure version and it doesn't have all those security holes.
What's the difference?
Is that a serious question?
Did you look at the links I gave?
Time is the difference. Those lists list known vulnerabilities. They are in those versions
of Firefox, and some are actively exploited by malicious websites, right now.
Those lists get longer with time due to exposure of the software to a curious public. I can guarantee you that a lot of the unknown vulnerabilities in Firefox 3 will have become
very well known ones by the time Firefox 5 will be out.
To calculate the gravitational effect of a massive sphere, its whole mass can be
considered accumulated in its center as long as you are outside of it.
So the gravitational acceleration indeed only depends on mass an distance.
Mathematical fact.
Neat additional trivia:
- Inside a hollow sphere, there is no gravitational effect by the sphere's mass - it cancels out exactly.
That's why
- Inside a massive sphere, gravitational acceleration increses linearly with the radial distance to the center.
(the mass increases with r^3 as you get further out, its effect decreases by 1/r^2 - and as it can be considered
concentrated in the middle, you get an increase by a factor of r^3/r^2 = r
Gravity is fun:-)
I run a rather busy Mozilla related server (~200k hits per day).
Within days after the release of Firefox 3, over 40% of my visitors
had switched to it. Another ~50% use the newest 2.0.x version.
Conclusion:
It makes a huge difference if the user is aware of existing choices and has
actively chosen a certain browser (i.e. installed something other than the default).
Also, Firefox' autoupdate mechanism works very well.
I cannot say anything about IE users - they make for less than 0,2% of my hits:-)
Also, I don't claim to have representative numbers for the "general Mozilla crowd",
as my target audience are the more tech-savvy.
No problem for the original con artists though: They sold to a big german media house for an undisclosed two-digit million sum estimated to be around 50 million Euros.
When did that happen? It sounds to me as if Facebook might have the timing just right, not late at all, now that it's owned by somebody with enough assets to be suing for.
The sale was settled in early January 2007. So even if they waited for some sueworthy assets, the lawsuit isn't beyond the fastest.
[I use neither site, but followed their development from early on]
Seriously? I just checked both sites, and they look kind of similar, but not much.
Facebook is a bit late with that lawsuit. That site used to look exactly like Facebook except for being red.
What was no surprise at all, because most of the stylesheets and templates were exact copies of the original
Facebook ones, down to file names and entity IDs. PHP errors visible to users contained a path ".../fakebook/..." until not
too long ago. Their equivalent verb for "poke" is "gruscheln" (a completely made up and rather ridiculous word) - and the
PHP script to do it was called... wait for it... poke.php.
This list could go on for quite some time.
They basically copied everything they could from facebook (and I mean copy as in "use wget to download everything" and tried
to replicate the backend. If a ripoff lawsuit was ever justified, it is this one. It just comes too late, or the copy would
have been completely obvious to even a casual observer.
No problem for the original con artists though: They sold to a big german media house for an undisclosed two-digit million sum
estimated to be around 50 million Euros.
Speaking for Germany, Austria and France here (I don't know about the situation in other EU countries):
Is that because the price is posted including a VAT tax (meaning that you can't tell how much of the cost is the product or service and how much is the tax)?
Yes. It includes all other fees as well. Prices have to be stated as the final number you will actually have to pay.
Or are the taxes stated separately?
Also yes. The amount of VAT is always stated at the end of a bill or receipt. As percentage and as amount. By law as well.
There's no reason it should be one OR the other, is there?
TFA reads like a verbatim transcription of a conversation with some (badly done)
abridgements. It definitely lacks some quotation marks to mark actual quotations,
and could've used quite some redacting. Like this, it is just sloppy and not very readable.
Add to that the fact that most new artists lose all their copyrights to the labels by contract and you'll find the only ones not getting screwed by the extension is the labels.
JFTR: In most european legislatures, copyright is non-transferable and always stays with the author -
The only thing transfered to the labels are the exploitation rights (pun unintended;-).
This doesn't change the fact that artists very much get screwed there as well...
Riches's imagination in making accusations is matched by his audacity in asking for damages. In the July 16 suit he demanded "211,429,399,000,000.00 trillion dollars backed by gold and silver, delivered by United States Postal Service."
That's 211 septillion, 429 sextillion, 399 quintillion dollars. To compare, the world's GDP (as of 2006) was $65.95 trillion. So the guy wanted over 3.2 TRILLION percent of the world's GDP.
Looking at it by another angle: At roughly 1,000USD per troy ounce of gold (Or 31,000 USD per kg), this makes (dropping lots of decimal places, just a rough estimate) around a tenth of our moon's mass. Or about 5*10^13 times all gold ever mined on Earth.
Considering the density of gold, this would result in a sphere with a diameter of about 870km. Cool. (That's no moon, that's your opponent's payment...)
I leave figuring out the postage for the delivery as an exercise to the reader;-)
Using a certain fitting method (least squares, least absolutes etc.) has nothing whatsoever to do with something like "complementing the equations"
I don't know what you mean by complementing the equations.
Neither do I, that's an expression you introduced, and the reason why I put it in quotation marks.
You are arguing that multiple measurements do not increase the accuracy of a computed average because there are multiple averaging algorithms to choose from.
Precisely. These multiple averaging methods give different answers. Which one is right? There isn't one. In particular, none of them is more accurate than a human. Just different.
Fascinating. I regularly make measurements in the micrometer scale using a microscope, and easily increase the precision of my results by repeating them.
So I should just trust my gut feeling, statistics be damned? Thanks, that'll really speed up my work.
I'm really not convinced that I am the one with no clue...
Since we're only dealing with three dimensions, why would any number of satellites > 3 be more precise for GPS?
Because we are dealing with reality as well - where no measurement is perfect.
Geometrically, three sats indeed are enough, but in reality:
More measurements -> smaller error bars -> better position.
The alternative to more sats would be not to move and to take more measurements over time.
But that would render GPS useless for most applications;-)
Additional trouble with the "stay and wait" method: Those nasty satellites move over time,
introducing different errors that can not be eliminated as easily by simple averaging.
That's also why ultra precise GPS surveying records the satellite data and waits for the week it takes
to make the actual orbital data (as measured, and not just as predicted) available before computing
the position, thereby elimiating (well, at least reducing) another source of error.
In statistics, the only thing beating multiple measurements is even more measurements.
The accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with the overdetermination of the system.
If it had, it would be simple to reduce the number of cameras to three, and boom - perfect position.
That's obviously not how it is.
And of course does the number of cameras increase the precision of the computed position - the principle
is exactly the same as for GPS, where more satellites are better as well.
Using a certain fitting method (least squares, least absolutes etc.) has nothing whatsoever to do
with something like "complementing the equations", that's just necessary because no measurement is perfect -
You are arguing that multiple measurements do not increase the accuracy of a computed average because there
are multiple averaging algorithms to choose from.
From the summary: Distance costs money, and when you have to shift iron ore from Brazil to China and then ship it back to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh is looking pretty good at 40 bucks an hour.
No it isn't if the alternative is (probably less than) 40 bucks per month.
True, handling and treatment of raw materials may be one of the first things to become cheaper when
handled in what I'll call "the west" as opposed to "the east", because huge quantities are handled
by relatively few people.
But what are we going to do with all those raw materials at home? They still need to be transformed
into consumable goods, which involves much more labour - cheapest done "somwhere else".
True, sea transport costs more than twice es much today than just a few years ago, but if you look at the
absolute numbers, it still is more or less for free compared to the worth of the shipped goods. There needs
to be at least another tenfold increase in shipping costs before businesses really start to feel it in
their manufacturing costs.
I know for a fact that it is (in quite a lot of cases much) cheaper to import presorted recovered paper
(for paper production) from China and India to Europe than to collect it and have it sorted in Europe directly.
Transport costs simply don't matter in that case.
This situation is changing at the moment - not because of higher bulk shipping rates, but because of developing
paper industries in China and India, consuming more of the recovered paper on the spot, thereby increasing prices for
the exported good "recovered paper". Interesting side effect: The shipping costs' percentage in the total price/weight is
therefore even decreasing.
As the Greek Geeks will know, the real (legendary) Ulysses (aka Odysseus) went on a ten-year odyssey returning home after the Trojan war.
Yeah, because he sucked at navigation.
Additionally, he was an idiot: All the things the gods warned him not to do because
they would turn out to be bad, he did - and they went bad. I never understood why this
moron is considered a hero, and what the gods liked about the guy.
Slashdot Mirror
It works two ways. Firstly it causes a break in the flow of oil, and secondly it uses much of the available oxygen.
Uhh... explosives supply their own Oxygen, that's one of the major points in making those complex chemicals.
They don't need - and therefore don't consume - environmental Oxygen.
Or, if harpooning isn't viable (cue 'Whalers on the Moon'), just have the spacecraft rest on the asteroid's surface and, using ion engines again, push on the thing.
One word: Rotation.
If you put an engine on the asteroid, you cannot use it about half of the time (very roughly, probably way less)
because it would be pushing in the wrong direction.
Hovering decouples your applied force from the rotational movements of the asteroid, so as long as you manage
to hold your position on the right side of the asteroid, the force is applied constantly.
So a gravity tractor can apply the same delta-v faster than a "ground based" solution.
SSL certificates provide honesty-box security
- People will come to your site
- People will come to your site
- People will come to your site
- People will come to your site
- People will come to your site
The whole PDF is a highly recommended read full of sad truths.
Unfortunately, it is VERY hard to recondition users. I don't blame Mozilla for
trying (in fact I completely agree with the change), but it will probably fail.
Did that help at all?
Yes, thanks. At least I think so. :-)
Let me see if I understood: The issue is not the legality (it's illegal. period.), but the
decision by local executive authorities not to sanction illegal behaviour in certain cases -
who are motivated to do so by local legislature.
Right?
As someone from outside the US, I'm a bit (actually, rather much) stumped by the claim
that the legal status of doing something depends on who looks at the matter.
I know there are differing laws about some things e.g. in Germany on state and federal level,
but there are exact procedures on how to resolve such a conflict of law, and by result, in a single
place, something is either legal or not.
Completely independent from whether a matter is handled by state or federal police.
I would have suspected the same here: That in one place, doing $foo is either legal or not.
That this may very well differ from the legality of doing $foo in another place.
But that it would never be legal or illegal in a single place, just depending on who checks on people doing $foo.
Can anyone explain that please?
But how are they going to stop the sand storms coming from Mongolia?
50 million chinese blowing the other way.
...and when Firefox 5 is out, people will say the same about Firefox 3 users. "OMG security vulnerabilities have fun browsing on your sieve."
People said the same thing about 1 vs 1.5 as well. You HAVE to upgrade to 1.5 because it's the secure version and it doesn't have all those security holes.
What's the difference?
Is that a serious question?
Did you look at the links I gave?
Time is the difference. Those lists list known vulnerabilities. They are in those versions of Firefox, and some are actively exploited by malicious websites, right now.
Those lists get longer with time due to exposure of the software to a curious public. I can guarantee you that a lot of the unknown vulnerabilities in Firefox 3 will have become
very well known ones by the time Firefox 5 will be out.
To calculate the gravitational effect of a massive sphere, its whole mass can be
:-)
considered accumulated in its center as long as you are outside of it.
So the gravitational acceleration indeed only depends on mass an distance.
Mathematical fact.
Neat additional trivia:
- Inside a hollow sphere, there is no gravitational effect by the sphere's mass - it cancels out exactly.
That's why
- Inside a massive sphere, gravitational acceleration increses linearly with the radial distance to the center.
(the mass increases with r^3 as you get further out, its effect decreases by 1/r^2 - and as it can be considered
concentrated in the middle, you get an increase by a factor of r^3/r^2 = r
Gravity is fun
All this of course only for constant density.
Suggestions have also been made to inform users that their browser is out of date.
Why? I know I run an out-of-date browser (FF1.5), and just don't care.
Well, you should.
Most of those issues are present in earlier versions as well, as stated on the vulnerabilities page for 1.5
Have a look at http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/ - and have fun browsing on with your sieve.
I run a rather busy Mozilla related server (~200k hits per day).
:-)
Within days after the release of Firefox 3, over 40% of my visitors
had switched to it. Another ~50% use the newest 2.0.x version.
Conclusion:
It makes a huge difference if the user is aware of existing choices and has
actively chosen a certain browser (i.e. installed something other than the default).
Also, Firefox' autoupdate mechanism works very well.
I cannot say anything about IE users - they make for less than 0,2% of my hits
Also, I don't claim to have representative numbers for the "general Mozilla crowd",
as my target audience are the more tech-savvy.
No problem for the original con artists though: They sold to a big german media house for an undisclosed two-digit million sum estimated to be around 50 million Euros.
When did that happen? It sounds to me as if Facebook might have the timing just right, not late at all, now that it's owned by somebody with enough assets to be suing for.
The sale was settled in early January 2007. So even if they waited for some sueworthy assets, the lawsuit isn't beyond the fastest.
Seriously? I just checked both sites, and they look kind of similar, but not much.
Facebook is a bit late with that lawsuit. That site used to look exactly like Facebook except for being red.
What was no surprise at all, because most of the stylesheets and templates were exact copies of the original
Facebook ones, down to file names and entity IDs. PHP errors visible to users contained a path ".../fakebook/..." until not
too long ago. Their equivalent verb for "poke" is "gruscheln" (a completely made up and rather ridiculous word) - and the
PHP script to do it was called... wait for it... poke.php.
This list could go on for quite some time.
They basically copied everything they could from facebook (and I mean copy as in "use wget to download everything" and tried
to replicate the backend. If a ripoff lawsuit was ever justified, it is this one. It just comes too late, or the copy would
have been completely obvious to even a casual observer.
No problem for the original con artists though: They sold to a big german media house for an undisclosed two-digit million sum
estimated to be around 50 million Euros.
Is that because the price is posted including a VAT tax (meaning that you can't tell how much of the cost is the product or service and how much is the tax)?
Yes. It includes all other fees as well. Prices have to be stated as the final number you will actually have to pay.
Or are the taxes stated separately?
Also yes. The amount of VAT is always stated at the end of a bill or receipt. As percentage and as amount. By law as well.
There's no reason it should be one OR the other, is there?
TFA reads like a verbatim transcription of a conversation with some (badly done)
abridgements. It definitely lacks some quotation marks to mark actual quotations,
and could've used quite some redacting. Like this, it is just sloppy and not very readable.
Yeah, yeah, sorry for RTFAing...
Add to that the fact that most new artists lose all their copyrights to the labels by contract and you'll find the only ones not getting screwed by the extension is the labels.
JFTR: In most european legislatures, copyright is non-transferable and always stays with the author - ;-).
The only thing transfered to the labels are the exploitation rights (pun unintended
This doesn't change the fact that artists very much get screwed there as well...
Riches's imagination in making accusations is matched by his audacity in asking for damages. In the July 16 suit he demanded "211,429,399,000,000.00 trillion dollars backed by gold and silver, delivered by United States Postal Service."
That's 211 septillion, 429 sextillion, 399 quintillion dollars. To compare, the world's GDP (as of 2006) was $65.95 trillion. So the guy wanted over 3.2 TRILLION percent of the world's GDP.
Looking at it by another angle: At roughly 1,000USD per troy ounce of gold (Or 31,000 USD per kg), this makes (dropping lots of decimal places, just a rough estimate) around a tenth of our moon's mass. Or about 5*10^13 times all gold ever mined on Earth.
;-)
Considering the density of gold, this would result in a sphere with a diameter of about 870km. Cool. (That's no moon, that's your opponent's payment...)
I leave figuring out the postage for the delivery as an exercise to the reader
They are indeed good at not getting shot down, but not perfect. An F-117 was taken down by conventional SAMs in Kosovo (might have been a lucky shot)
Yes, the bad guys used a highly sophisticated OverHead Stereoscopic Human Imaging Targeter, known by pilots as "OH SHIT".
In other news, it is a bad idea to fly low altitude daylight missions over hostile ground, because you can see the bloody plane.
It can be watched from outside the US now as well: http://doctorhorrible.net/now-available-outisde-usa/105/
The free world saves the day again (or something).
AT&T Family unlimited texting plan ($30 covering five phones) ... Let's just call it 26,000 messages per month. 3000 / 26000 = $0.115 per message.
So, how is work at Verizon these days?
Using a certain fitting method (least squares, least absolutes etc.) has nothing whatsoever to do with something like "complementing the equations"
I don't know what you mean by complementing the equations.
Neither do I, that's an expression you introduced, and the reason why I put it in quotation marks.
You are arguing that multiple measurements do not increase the accuracy of a computed average because there are multiple averaging algorithms to choose from.
Precisely. These multiple averaging methods give different answers. Which one is right? There isn't one. In particular, none of them is more accurate than a human. Just different.
Fascinating. I regularly make measurements in the micrometer scale using a microscope, and easily increase the precision of my results by repeating them.
So I should just trust my gut feeling, statistics be damned? Thanks, that'll really speed up my work.
I'm really not convinced that I am the one with no clue...
Since we're only dealing with three dimensions, why would any number of satellites > 3 be more precise for GPS?
;-)
Because we are dealing with reality as well - where no measurement is perfect.
Geometrically, three sats indeed are enough, but in reality:
More measurements -> smaller error bars -> better position.
The alternative to more sats would be not to move and to take more measurements over time.
But that would render GPS useless for most applications
Additional trouble with the "stay and wait" method: Those nasty satellites move over time,
introducing different errors that can not be eliminated as easily by simple averaging.
That's also why ultra precise GPS surveying records the satellite data and waits for the week it takes
to make the actual orbital data (as measured, and not just as predicted) available before computing
the position, thereby elimiating (well, at least reducing) another source of error.
In statistics, the only thing beating multiple measurements is even more measurements.
The accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with the overdetermination of the system.
If it had, it would be simple to reduce the number of cameras to three, and boom - perfect position.
That's obviously not how it is.
And of course does the number of cameras increase the precision of the computed position - the principle
is exactly the same as for GPS, where more satellites are better as well.
Using a certain fitting method (least squares, least absolutes etc.) has nothing whatsoever to do
with something like "complementing the equations", that's just necessary because no measurement is perfect -
You are arguing that multiple measurements do not increase the accuracy of a computed average because there
are multiple averaging algorithms to choose from.
Bullshit.
From the summary: Distance costs money, and when you have to shift iron ore from Brazil to China and then ship it back to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh is looking pretty good at 40 bucks an hour.
No it isn't if the alternative is (probably less than) 40 bucks per month.
True, handling and treatment of raw materials may be one of the first things to become cheaper when
handled in what I'll call "the west" as opposed to "the east", because huge quantities are handled
by relatively few people.
But what are we going to do with all those raw materials at home? They still need to be transformed
into consumable goods, which involves much more labour - cheapest done "somwhere else".
True, sea transport costs more than twice es much today than just a few years ago, but if you look at the
absolute numbers, it still is more or less for free compared to the worth of the shipped goods. There needs
to be at least another tenfold increase in shipping costs before businesses really start to feel it in
their manufacturing costs.
I know for a fact that it is (in quite a lot of cases much) cheaper to import presorted recovered paper
(for paper production) from China and India to Europe than to collect it and have it sorted in Europe directly.
Transport costs simply don't matter in that case.
This situation is changing at the moment - not because of higher bulk shipping rates, but because of developing
paper industries in China and India, consuming more of the recovered paper on the spot, thereby increasing prices for
the exported good "recovered paper". Interesting side effect: The shipping costs' percentage in the total price/weight is
therefore even decreasing.
I bought an external WD hard drive for $200 that was 1 TB. Yay, it's fast, but it isn't going to be doing much with so little storage.
That very probably is the total RAM, not disc storage.
As the Greek Geeks will know, the real (legendary) Ulysses (aka Odysseus) went on a ten-year odyssey returning home after the Trojan war.
Yeah, because he sucked at navigation.
Additionally, he was an idiot: All the things the gods warned him not to do because
they would turn out to be bad, he did - and they went bad. I never understood why this
moron is considered a hero, and what the gods liked about the guy.