I doubt you are right. The thermal conductivity of the thermal compound is much worse than the two surfaces. The compound's thermal conductivity is better than air, which is why you use the compound, but if you get a mirror finish, then you have a lot less air and compound between the two surfaces on average.
It's just things are designed so that a mirror surface isn't necessary - there's enough margin for how most people use it.
With a bit of practice why not? Get everyone a nice very flat polished piece of metal (easy enough in those days). Each soldier/archer just aims his reflection patch on the beach or something, wiggles it to confirm it's his, then moves it at the ship to burn.
Either that or stick out a sight or hand so that the main part of your beam hits the sight/hand and it's all aligned with the target. This will probably work better.
One "shield" doesn't do anything, but 500 would. I doubt getting 500 or more would be a prob. If you have the whole army out, it doesn't matter even if 10% have bad aim.
In those days if a few ships in front of yours suddenly caught fire, you'd start feeling more than a bit nervous about this invasion thing...
Anyway more than a few attackers may get blinded too.
Also a significant gain in fuel economy from hybrid cars is due to regenerative braking.
If normal cars had regenerative braking they'd do a lot better. But it's probably easier to do regenerative braking if you get to leverage electrical stuff, than if you somehow rigged some flywheels/springs or something to a nonelectric/nonhybrid vehicle.
If you increase the lens size and the focal point was in mid air, would you be able to _hear_ something? Even though air is quite transparent, at those energy densities wouldn't it start to get pretty hot and expand?
Get a big enough one and you might get a thunderclap if you ramp it up suddenly?
I figure a similar thing could happen with those huge lasers - get thunder like from lightning. Even more interesting is if that 747+huge laser ever shoots past a thundercloud towards a target.
The target could get zapped by a laser (ouch), and also get hit by the lightning discharges (ouch) down the laser-ionized air.
That could be a way to assassinate people and make it look like an "act of God" eh?
He loves the Israelites more than he loves the Egyptians.
And in this world given the conflict[1] of free wills (we are made in the image of God), innocent people sometimes have to die. Similarly Jesus, God's real first born (and God) died, though innocent.
I admit I have difficulty reconciling popular interpretations of the "Jesus is the only way" concept, with a loving, all powerful God. If they are correct, billions are going to hell. Is there really no other way? Does the choice end at death?
[1] Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."
"Oh, come on. It's not the same at all; disk mirroring, ECC and such is redundancy automatically generated from the original source."
Same sort of thing. You say it's not worth it and that may be true for you. But there are people who claim it is worth it to them - many are just trying to find better methods.
Error checking is not worth it for many. Most of the time the transmission will be right and duplication/redundancy is senseless overhead. In cases where the transmission is wrong, you have no guarantee that error checking will catch it. The only thing you know for sure is that you wasted time and resources doing error checking for the parts that do work.
Seriously tho it's just a matter of how good this method is (not all ECC methods are good or practical) - if it takes too many bits for the error detection and correction it does then it isn't very good at all. But if it really doesn't take that many bits for each actual data byte then it will be useful for many.
Microsoft considers everything as potential threats. That's how Microsoft sees the world - there are no real alliances, no real friends. Everything is a problem to be solved.
"Oh, it's OK to rape, mutilate, enslave, murder as long as you're doing it to whole cities"
"If it is supposed to give a defensible moral code, it should not speak approvingly of rape, torture, incest, massacre, etc. But it does."
You're still reading from the SAB. The SAB is a contextless glance through the material with a strong bias.
I'm not interested in arguing with you.
You have to be willing to risk changing your point of view. You may not actually end up changing your POV but if you're not actually willing, then no matter what whoever says it doesn't really matter anyway.
The Skeptic's Annotated bible is written by people who can read but either have very little understanding of what they read or are so severely biased that they're a joke themselves.
Given the mention in verse 3 that the sisters Oholah= Samaria and Oholibah=Jerusalem, it's frigging obvious that it's about Samaria and Israel and how they were behaving - defiantly unfaithful to God (who they had a covenant with ).
The Israelites were to keep themselves separate from the other nations, and not to behave like them, and yet they did not.
I actually don't mind most of the atheists with brains. But so many atheists are actually fanatical to the point of stupidity, just like the religious people they like making fun of.
That's part of the contract (aka covenant) for the Israelites between them and God. Go read it up in _context_, rather than just picking verses out without bothering to understand stuff.
In many marriages it is a customary requirement for the participants to wear a ring on their ring finger and there are various other restrictions and practices they agree on as part of marriage.
There are smart ass guys who make fun of wedding rings etc (the really dumb ones do it in front of their significant other). Sure in a way it's silly. But hey if she's happy, you're happy and vice-versa. And that's sometimes the point - you are willing to look silly to others for the sake of your beloved. Plus sometimes it turns out to be useful/a good practice.
Now what that particular verse is to symbolize or other possible meanings/implications is for people who are actually interested to figure out. Same goes for the other rules[1].
[1] I find the Jubilee and related laws quite interesting - a reset every 50 years - limits how powerful any person/family can get - the regular reminder is God is the owner of the land, and the Israelites are kind of like tenants, every 50 years, poof, everyone back to their own farmland.
I am not an authority in programming/engineering, but here's my guess why most software is crap despite all that talk of Software Engineering and those brilliant ideas:
"In the first case, you write the exact same thing twice, in different languages. That sounds like an immense waste of time to me."
That's like saying disk mirroring and ECC is a waste of time.
The value of writing things twice or thrice is when it turns out it's not the same thing after all. Then you know you have a problem (whether you can fix it there and then is a different problem;) ).
If it's significantly easier to write one of the "checks" that'll be rather useful.
I am not a cryptographer but it'll be a bit better if it's done this way:
string=concat(salt,'.',base64(md5(concat(longsec re t,IP address,salt))))
Pick a long enough secret and salt. Sure they may still find it in the end, but it'll be fun coz they know it just hides an IP address which is likely to turn out to be useless given the error - leads to a public proxy or something.
And this way you know that it is likely that something with one of your secrets generated the hash. If you know it wasn't your site then you realize something else more important.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt you are right. The thermal conductivity of the thermal compound is much worse than the two surfaces. The compound's thermal conductivity is better than air, which is why you use the compound, but if you get a mirror finish, then you have a lot less air and compound between the two surfaces on average.
It's just things are designed so that a mirror surface isn't necessary - there's enough margin for how most people use it.
No. Coz you have to be close whilst it burns stuff and people might notice.
:).
Best are probably cigarettes and various other stuff - low tech but works fine. Plenty of people legitimately carry cigarettes and associated stuff.
If you want tech, maybe a powerful laser/maser could work - but not many people can afford those.
Or a lens made of ice pointed at some kindling
With a bit of practice why not? Get everyone a nice very flat polished piece of metal (easy enough in those days). Each soldier/archer just aims his reflection patch on the beach or something, wiggles it to confirm it's his, then moves it at the ship to burn.
Either that or stick out a sight or hand so that the main part of your beam hits the sight/hand and it's all aligned with the target. This will probably work better.
One "shield" doesn't do anything, but 500 would. I doubt getting 500 or more would be a prob. If you have the whole army out, it doesn't matter even if 10% have bad aim.
In those days if a few ships in front of yours suddenly caught fire, you'd start feeling more than a bit nervous about this invasion thing...
Anyway more than a few attackers may get blinded too.
Imagine thousands of pasty-pale skinned slashdotters out in the Sun for the first time in years, holding plastic lenses not part of their eyewear.
:).
Maybe that's why
Remember Slashdotters - always use protection...
SPF50 (what else - we're talking Slashdot here right?).
"All that said, I'm not so sure about starting fusion with a sunlight."
In Soviet Russia, fusion starts sunlight for you.
Hang on...
Also a significant gain in fuel economy from hybrid cars is due to regenerative braking.
If normal cars had regenerative braking they'd do a lot better. But it's probably easier to do regenerative braking if you get to leverage electrical stuff, than if you somehow rigged some flywheels/springs or something to a nonelectric/nonhybrid vehicle.
If you increase the lens size and the focal point was in mid air, would you be able to _hear_ something? Even though air is quite transparent, at those energy densities wouldn't it start to get pretty hot and expand?
Get a big enough one and you might get a thunderclap if you ramp it up suddenly?
I figure a similar thing could happen with those huge lasers - get thunder like from lightning. Even more interesting is if that 747+huge laser ever shoots past a thundercloud towards a target.
The target could get zapped by a laser (ouch), and also get hit by the lightning discharges (ouch) down the laser-ionized air.
That could be a way to assassinate people and make it look like an "act of God" eh?
He loves the Israelites more than he loves the Egyptians.
And in this world given the conflict[1] of free wills (we are made in the image of God), innocent people sometimes have to die. Similarly Jesus, God's real first born (and God) died, though innocent.
I admit I have difficulty reconciling popular interpretations of the "Jesus is the only way" concept, with a loving, all powerful God. If they are correct, billions are going to hell. Is there really no other way? Does the choice end at death?
[1] Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."
"Oh, come on. It's not the same at all; disk mirroring, ECC and such is redundancy automatically generated from the original source."
Same sort of thing. You say it's not worth it and that may be true for you. But there are people who claim it is worth it to them - many are just trying to find better methods.
Error checking is not worth it for many. Most of the time the transmission will be right and duplication/redundancy is senseless overhead. In cases where the transmission is wrong, you have no guarantee that error checking will catch it. The only thing you know for sure is that you wasted time and resources doing error checking for the parts that do work.
Seriously tho it's just a matter of how good this method is (not all ECC methods are good or practical) - if it takes too many bits for the error detection and correction it does then it isn't very good at all. But if it really doesn't take that many bits for each actual data byte then it will be useful for many.
Microsoft considers everything as potential threats. That's how Microsoft sees the world - there are no real alliances, no real friends. Everything is a problem to be solved.
"Oh, it's OK to rape, mutilate, enslave, murder as long as you're doing it to whole cities"
"If it is supposed to give a defensible moral code, it should not speak approvingly of rape, torture, incest, massacre, etc. But it does."
You're still reading from the SAB. The SAB is a contextless glance through the material with a strong bias.
I'm not interested in arguing with you.
You have to be willing to risk changing your point of view. You may not actually end up changing your POV but if you're not actually willing, then no matter what whoever says it doesn't really matter anyway.
The Skeptic's Annotated bible is written by people who can read but either have very little understanding of what they read or are so severely biased that they're a joke themselves.
l
e.g. the two sisters -
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ezek/23.htm
Ezekiel 23 (NIV)
Given the mention in verse 3 that the sisters Oholah= Samaria and Oholibah=Jerusalem, it's frigging obvious that it's about Samaria and Israel and how they were behaving - defiantly unfaithful to God (who they had a covenant with ).
The Israelites were to keep themselves separate from the other nations, and not to behave like them, and yet they did not.
And the Skeptic's Annotated Bible categorizes it under "Insults to Women in the Bible".
Doh.
I actually don't mind most of the atheists with brains. But so many atheists are actually fanatical to the point of stupidity, just like the religious people they like making fun of.
That's part of the contract (aka covenant) for the Israelites between them and God. Go read it up in _context_, rather than just picking verses out without bothering to understand stuff.
In many marriages it is a customary requirement for the participants to wear a ring on their ring finger and there are various other restrictions and practices they agree on as part of marriage.
There are smart ass guys who make fun of wedding rings etc (the really dumb ones do it in front of their significant other). Sure in a way it's silly. But hey if she's happy, you're happy and vice-versa. And that's sometimes the point - you are willing to look silly to others for the sake of your beloved. Plus sometimes it turns out to be useful/a good practice.
Now what that particular verse is to symbolize or other possible meanings/implications is for people who are actually interested to figure out. Same goes for the other rules[1].
[1] I find the Jubilee and related laws quite interesting - a reset every 50 years - limits how powerful any person/family can get - the regular reminder is God is the owner of the land, and the Israelites are kind of like tenants, every 50 years, poof, everyone back to their own farmland.
I am not an authority in programming/engineering, but here's my guess why most software is crap despite all that talk of Software Engineering and those brilliant ideas:
Engineering World:
1) design
2) blueprint
3) plastic/clay/3D models
4) Real Thing
Software World:
1) design
2) Sell as version 1.0
3) Sell as version 2.0
4) Sell as version 3.1
Here's the biggie: the blueprints, plastic models cost about the same amount to make as the "real thing".
Willing to pay X times more for software and wait Y times longer? Will programming teams actually be allowed to do those Engineering steps?
No? Well you have to settle for the crappy plastic model then, or the scribbles on a sheet of blue paper.
"In the first case, you write the exact same thing twice, in different languages. That sounds like an immense waste of time to me."
;) ).
That's like saying disk mirroring and ECC is a waste of time.
The value of writing things twice or thrice is when it turns out it's not the same thing after all. Then you know you have a problem (whether you can fix it there and then is a different problem
If it's significantly easier to write one of the "checks" that'll be rather useful.
Anyone have pointers to the algorithms used for defragging HDDs? I've looked before but couldn't find much info.
If you want to play multiple videos together, it's actually faster to have the files interleaved than totally defragmented.
But for most people should be ok to just do disk mirroring and striping.
BTW keep your data off your O/S disk(s).
"background fsck (KILLER when you hard stop a box with 500GB disk. "
And what happens if there indeed is an error in your filesystem? Wouldn't letting the services run risk screwing up the filesystem even more?
Hey, WiFi could end up free in most cities just like airconditioning/heating.
It probably costs businesses more trying to charge for WiFi.
Personally the million eyeballs argument always sounded like the infinite monkeys writing Shakespeare argument.
You need brains not eyeballs. Or infinite eyeballs not a million (chance that one eyeball mutates into uberhacker).
Fraud:
1) A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2) A piece of trickery; a trick.
3) One that defrauds; a cheat.
4) One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
If it quacks like a duck...
I missed your point somewhere.
With all the BS and marketing out there, LostCluster has a point. I don't see yours yet.
Heck look at Enron, they were audited by a "professional company" right?
Well then that's a flawed implementation.
c re t,IP address,salt))))
I am not a cryptographer but it'll be a bit better if it's done this way:
string=concat(salt,'.',base64(md5(concat(longse
Pick a long enough secret and salt. Sure they may still find it in the end, but it'll be fun coz they know it just hides an IP address which is likely to turn out to be useless given the error - leads to a public proxy or something.
And this way you know that it is likely that something with one of your secrets generated the hash. If you know it wasn't your site then you realize something else more important.
I heard it probably won't work because x86 CPUs don't provide so good support for virtualization and VMWare relies on virtualization.
Apparently there's no way to 100% hide the fact that stuff is being virtualized on x86s.
Whereas it's possible on PowerPCs. IBM has been doing virtualization for decades ( and likely holds tons of patents on it).
Of course you can resort to emulation, but that's really really slow.
That's if you only play one avatar at a time.
I bet plenty can be automated, just send an alert if human judgement needed.
Let the computer play the boring parts.