The original question notes, among other things, that opening the file while out of the country would raise suspicion. How would anything determine the difference between an out of country user using VPN access to control a computer in country and an actual in country user? Wouldn't seemingly legitimate users likely be using VPN to access the document when not on site, and thus impossible to track directly through the document?
So how much energy does it take to get something up into orbit? (I don't know how much, but it's a lot!) How many years will it take for something like this to return enough energy to pay back the original cost of launch (as measured in energy or in money)? Never mind operating expenses, things wearing down, etc. I don't see how launching a bunch of stuff into space to collect energy is a reasonable strategy to entertain when the cost of getting it up there in the first place is so high.
How about legalization of less dangerous drugs, but with costly sin taxes, as we do with tobacco? But as for the more dangerous drugs, one only has to look at the effect of opium on the history of China to see why some controls on drugs are necessary.
If Tesla is the only one out there willing to try out actually selling fully electric cars (as opposed to leasing them with no right for the lessee to buy the car afterward), then I think an investment in them is a good investment in finding out how well battery technology really works in automotive applications in the real world. Consider the following quote from the article: "BMW believes that current technologies used in the all-electric vehicles have not been tested enough in real conditions to be ready to be sold to the public. It will begin by leasing for one year a fleet of 500 Mini E's for $850 a month each. At the end of the lease term, the cars will be returned to BMW for testing." Those are some awfully expensive experimental cars that the lessees can't even buy afterward. Tesla's ahead of the rest of the industry in this area, and how their cars perform in the real world over time will teach the rest of the industry a lot about electric cars.
Seminars are only to give you a taste of the topic. If you don't get what you need from a seminar, read the associated paper(s). If that isn't good enough, check over the supporting information. (At least in chemistry, many journals now allow supporting information with virtually no size limit, and including, as necessary, objects such as animation that can't be included in the printed journal.) And if that doesn't do the trick, get a copy of the corresponding thesis dissertation(s) (if there are any) or contact the corresponding author.
Every once in a while, my postdoctoral advisor gets e-mails requesting more information about a paper from the lab. If necessary, we'll track down the original lab notebook page from our pile of old notebooks in storage, even if it's from the 1970's. It's part of our job as scholarly researchers, and we request the same information from other laboratories and almost always get a useful response. Just because the information you want isn't presented to you on a silver platter doesn't mean it's not readily available.
I am making one assumption, though: That RAM keeps up. It would really suck to have 198 cores sitting idle, and the other two mostly just waiting for your RAM.
Presumably, as chips get faster, larger caches and more intelligent caching will become ever more important. Latency for main memory access really hasn't improved much from my first computer (Mac SE) to my current computer. Happily, though, the entire contents of my first computer's hard drive can now fit in 1% of my current computer's main memory, and the entire contents of my first computer's RAM easily fits within the on-chip cache.
Yes, molecular genetics is also valuable. But it doesn't mean it's a good substitute for more organic chemistry. Medicine lies at the crossroads of multiple fields. Being really good at one of those fields does not compensate for a working basic understanding of other fields.
Why study organic chemistry when most people in the class will never so much as make one dime as a practitioner of the field? In the undergraduate science curriculum, organic chemistry occupies a special place that makes it a great case study in problem solving. Students come in generally with no background in the field, and they must learn to adopt a formalism for something they cannot see (even having completed a PhD in organic chemistry, I have never directly observed any of my reactions on a molecular level) and for which they do not come in having any intuition. They have to work with the vagaries of the real world, where things don't always fit neatly into simple mathematical formulas. Problems can be tactical or strategic in nature, involving qualitative or quantitative comparisons. Introductory organic chemistry is as much about learning problem solving (especially as relating to stuff you can't directly observe, as thus cannot develop an intuition through normal means) as it is about learning organic chemistry.
The student almost certainly signed an agreement stating the terms of use for the university network. And he almost certainly broke that agreement. If that's the case, then I don't see how the university's response is wrong.
The Voyagers was the first thing that came to my mind, too. If the rate of radioactive decay is dependent on neutrino flux from the sun, then shouldn't their RTGs have long since gone dead as the rate of decay slowed (due to increasing distance), rather than maintaining better performance than originally anticipated (due to better performance of the thermocouple than anticipated)? (NASA link) Given that both spacecraft are alive and well out past the heliosphere, I think we can safely conclude that the rate of decay of the plutonium onboard is not meaningfully influenced by solar neutrino flux.
Are there any key lessons to be learned from these rovers' success? Or is it simply that they have no critical consumables (being solar powered and all) and they evidently were overengineered? I guess for starters, having redundancy and the ability to turn off failing components is good, seeing as they're six wheel drive and one of the rovers is now dragging a bad wheel around. What else has been learned from these rovers about engineering long-lasting probes?
It is interesting that the "knots" seen in the Helix Nebulae are likely to be super-comets (Sedna sized bodies ablating under the bright glare of the dying central star), so if you want to get a look at an Oort cloud, here is a good one.
Interesting. Looks like a bloodshot blue eye staring at me!
...until you actually eat the food and metabolize it in your body. The entire cycle is carbon neutral to the extent you can get all the work associated with food production/transport/preparation/storage/etc to be carbon neutral.
I suspect that the IOC will turn a blind eye during the actual Olympic competition in order to allow China to save face, but then the issue will be quietly looked at in a year or two when most people no longer care. I have no evidence for this, but it would explain why the IOC is refusing to investigate now in spite of pretty strong evidence.
Cool idea, but until we have much more economical rockets, I can't see us sending nearly enough material to Venus to be supporting a manned expedition, much less a semi-permanent settlement.
Hydroxide and protons naturally combine to form water - it's another equilibrium but the constant is something like 10**-7 (that 7 is the pH of water)
H(+) + OH(-) H2O
i.e. at pH 7, there will be ten million times as much water as either of the other two.
No. [H+] [OH-] = 10^-14, where [H+] and [OH-] are concentrations of the respective species in M. At pH 7, concentration of each is 10^-7 M. Water is about 56 M (18 g/mol, density 1000 g/L). There is no "ten million times as much" of anything going on.
31 million miles isn't hugely far, but we've got to start somewhere in the search for alien life. Testing ideas at short distances on an object known to harbor life (and presumably also on other objects not known to harbor life) makes perfect sense. This is from much farther away than the seminal "A search for life on Earth from the Galileo spacecraft" performed in a Dec 1990 flyby and published by Carl Sagan and coworkers in Nature in 1993, vol 365, p 715.
Actually, under the right circumstances, anti-particles don't immediately self-destruct. Electrons and positrons (anti-electrons) can form an atom-like species, too, with half-lives on the order of 10^-7 to 10^-10 seconds. Way back in 1971, an entire review of positronium chemistry (ie chemistry of positron and electron as an ato-like species) was published in Angewandte Chemie, a major chemistry journal. (Page 179 for the international edition, published in English.) It's not my area of study, but I came across the review once when looking for something else in the same issue.
Abstract: In this progress report, the properties and behavior of the positron (positive electron, anti-electron) and of the positronium, a hydrogen atom containing a positron instead of a proton, are considered from the chemist's viewpoint. Examples are given to demonstrate the development of positronium chemistry, in aqueous solution and in the gaseous, liquid, and solid phases, with its problems and possibilities.
A friend of mine had a picture he took put up on a billboard in his small town at about 640x480. Sure, the billboard is huge, but the viewer is never very close. If that's good enough for standard definition TV, it's good enough for a billboard.
Slashdot Mirror
How does one "win" at Tetris?
The original question notes, among other things, that opening the file while out of the country would raise suspicion. How would anything determine the difference between an out of country user using VPN access to control a computer in country and an actual in country user? Wouldn't seemingly legitimate users likely be using VPN to access the document when not on site, and thus impossible to track directly through the document?
So how much energy does it take to get something up into orbit? (I don't know how much, but it's a lot!) How many years will it take for something like this to return enough energy to pay back the original cost of launch (as measured in energy or in money)? Never mind operating expenses, things wearing down, etc. I don't see how launching a bunch of stuff into space to collect energy is a reasonable strategy to entertain when the cost of getting it up there in the first place is so high.
How about legalization of less dangerous drugs, but with costly sin taxes, as we do with tobacco? But as for the more dangerous drugs, one only has to look at the effect of opium on the history of China to see why some controls on drugs are necessary.
If Tesla is the only one out there willing to try out actually selling fully electric cars (as opposed to leasing them with no right for the lessee to buy the car afterward), then I think an investment in them is a good investment in finding out how well battery technology really works in automotive applications in the real world. Consider the following quote from the article: "BMW believes that current technologies used in the all-electric vehicles have not been tested enough in real conditions to be ready to be sold to the public. It will begin by leasing for one year a fleet of 500 Mini E's for $850 a month each. At the end of the lease term, the cars will be returned to BMW for testing." Those are some awfully expensive experimental cars that the lessees can't even buy afterward. Tesla's ahead of the rest of the industry in this area, and how their cars perform in the real world over time will teach the rest of the industry a lot about electric cars.
Never knew about Lunokhod. That's pretty amazing. Of course, the orders of magnitude shorter communications time probably helped a lot.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3784225,00.html The news is not that generic blocks didn't previously exist. It's that Lego is unable to retain the trademark.
Seminars are only to give you a taste of the topic. If you don't get what you need from a seminar, read the associated paper(s). If that isn't good enough, check over the supporting information. (At least in chemistry, many journals now allow supporting information with virtually no size limit, and including, as necessary, objects such as animation that can't be included in the printed journal.) And if that doesn't do the trick, get a copy of the corresponding thesis dissertation(s) (if there are any) or contact the corresponding author.
Every once in a while, my postdoctoral advisor gets e-mails requesting more information about a paper from the lab. If necessary, we'll track down the original lab notebook page from our pile of old notebooks in storage, even if it's from the 1970's. It's part of our job as scholarly researchers, and we request the same information from other laboratories and almost always get a useful response. Just because the information you want isn't presented to you on a silver platter doesn't mean it's not readily available.
I am making one assumption, though: That RAM keeps up. It would really suck to have 198 cores sitting idle, and the other two mostly just waiting for your RAM.
Presumably, as chips get faster, larger caches and more intelligent caching will become ever more important. Latency for main memory access really hasn't improved much from my first computer (Mac SE) to my current computer. Happily, though, the entire contents of my first computer's hard drive can now fit in 1% of my current computer's main memory, and the entire contents of my first computer's RAM easily fits within the on-chip cache.
...and a bunch of energy!
Yes, molecular genetics is also valuable. But it doesn't mean it's a good substitute for more organic chemistry. Medicine lies at the crossroads of multiple fields. Being really good at one of those fields does not compensate for a working basic understanding of other fields.
Why study organic chemistry when most people in the class will never so much as make one dime as a practitioner of the field? In the undergraduate science curriculum, organic chemistry occupies a special place that makes it a great case study in problem solving. Students come in generally with no background in the field, and they must learn to adopt a formalism for something they cannot see (even having completed a PhD in organic chemistry, I have never directly observed any of my reactions on a molecular level) and for which they do not come in having any intuition. They have to work with the vagaries of the real world, where things don't always fit neatly into simple mathematical formulas. Problems can be tactical or strategic in nature, involving qualitative or quantitative comparisons. Introductory organic chemistry is as much about learning problem solving (especially as relating to stuff you can't directly observe, as thus cannot develop an intuition through normal means) as it is about learning organic chemistry.
The student almost certainly signed an agreement stating the terms of use for the university network. And he almost certainly broke that agreement. If that's the case, then I don't see how the university's response is wrong.
The Voyagers was the first thing that came to my mind, too. If the rate of radioactive decay is dependent on neutrino flux from the sun, then shouldn't their RTGs have long since gone dead as the rate of decay slowed (due to increasing distance), rather than maintaining better performance than originally anticipated (due to better performance of the thermocouple than anticipated)? (NASA link) Given that both spacecraft are alive and well out past the heliosphere, I think we can safely conclude that the rate of decay of the plutonium onboard is not meaningfully influenced by solar neutrino flux.
Are there any key lessons to be learned from these rovers' success? Or is it simply that they have no critical consumables (being solar powered and all) and they evidently were overengineered? I guess for starters, having redundancy and the ability to turn off failing components is good, seeing as they're six wheel drive and one of the rovers is now dragging a bad wheel around. What else has been learned from these rovers about engineering long-lasting probes?
"will prove to come from another solar system"... Out of curiosity, how would one prove such a thing?
It is interesting that the "knots" seen in the Helix Nebulae are likely to be super-comets (Sedna sized bodies ablating under the bright glare of the dying central star), so if you want to get a look at an Oort cloud, here is a good one.
Interesting. Looks like a bloodshot blue eye staring at me!
Sure, why not? Every liter of oil not consumed is one more liter of oil that can be sold.
...until you actually eat the food and metabolize it in your body. The entire cycle is carbon neutral to the extent you can get all the work associated with food production/transport/preparation/storage/etc to be carbon neutral.
I suspect that the IOC will turn a blind eye during the actual Olympic competition in order to allow China to save face, but then the issue will be quietly looked at in a year or two when most people no longer care. I have no evidence for this, but it would explain why the IOC is refusing to investigate now in spite of pretty strong evidence.
Cool idea, but until we have much more economical rockets, I can't see us sending nearly enough material to Venus to be supporting a manned expedition, much less a semi-permanent settlement.
Hydroxide and protons naturally combine to form water - it's another equilibrium but the constant is something like 10**-7 (that 7 is the pH of water)
H(+) + OH(-) H2O
i.e. at pH 7, there will be ten million times as much water as either of the other two.
No. [H+] [OH-] = 10^-14, where [H+] and [OH-] are concentrations of the respective species in M. At pH 7, concentration of each is 10^-7 M. Water is about 56 M (18 g/mol, density 1000 g/L). There is no "ten million times as much" of anything going on.
31 million miles isn't hugely far, but we've got to start somewhere in the search for alien life. Testing ideas at short distances on an object known to harbor life (and presumably also on other objects not known to harbor life) makes perfect sense. This is from much farther away than the seminal "A search for life on Earth from the Galileo spacecraft" performed in a Dec 1990 flyby and published by Carl Sagan and coworkers in Nature in 1993, vol 365, p 715.
Actually, under the right circumstances, anti-particles don't immediately self-destruct. Electrons and positrons (anti-electrons) can form an atom-like species, too, with half-lives on the order of 10^-7 to 10^-10 seconds. Way back in 1971, an entire review of positronium chemistry (ie chemistry of positron and electron as an ato-like species) was published in Angewandte Chemie, a major chemistry journal. (Page 179 for the international edition, published in English.) It's not my area of study, but I came across the review once when looking for something else in the same issue.
Abstract: In this progress report, the properties and behavior of the positron (positive electron, anti-electron) and of the positronium, a hydrogen atom containing a positron instead of a proton, are considered from the chemist's viewpoint. Examples are given to demonstrate the development of positronium chemistry, in aqueous solution and in the gaseous, liquid, and solid phases, with its problems and possibilities.
A friend of mine had a picture he took put up on a billboard in his small town at about 640x480. Sure, the billboard is huge, but the viewer is never very close. If that's good enough for standard definition TV, it's good enough for a billboard.