So your claiming that E=MC^2 is not intimately and directly related to a endothermic oxidation reaction ?
It's a matter of applicability. The equation E=MC^2 only comes in to play when the reactions involved are nuclear. Oxidation reactions are chemical; the energy you're releasing (in the case of endothermic oxidations) is stored in the molecular bonds, not the nuclear bonds.
(Disclaimer: IANAP; this may be slightly inaccurate and/or an oversimplification.)
When Jianhong Zhu treated a patient with a chopstick lodged in his brain, not an uncommon injury in the country, the culinary implement ultimately helped repair the damage it had caused.
I didn't realize that getting chopsticks lodged in one's brain was such a common thing in China.
In fact, the overall average should go down due to some hogs bumped from the previous month, thus it should be a little harder for the remaining users to reach the cap.
Actually, you've got that backwards: it will make it easier to reach the cap, as the cap is directly tied to the average, which went down.
Let's say you and 1 other person download 50GB over the average for the month. The 2 of you get your letters, and you decide to be a "good" customer, and lower your usage by 10GB. The other person, however, does not, and downloads just as much the next month. The average is slightly lower due to your using less, but not enough to cause you any problems. However, the other guy gets cut off.
The month after that, though, the average is going to be much lower, because the other guy is no longer downloading >50GB + old average. You didn't get a letter last month, so you merrily continue downloading about 40GB + the old average. Oops! The new average is now more than 10GB lower, and you're back over the cap! And, since they sent you a letter the month before last, you must be an evil person, willfully disregarding the ISP's right to profit. So they cut you off.
Of course, they'd probably send you a second warning but you'd still have to drastically cut back your usage to fall within the acceptable "norm."
And just imagine if your neighborhood has a fairly large standard deviation (ie, a fairly flat normal distribution). Every month they'd be either cutting people off or forcing them to lower their usage, thereby further lowering the mean and putting more people above the cap, until everyone is crunched around a much more "acceptable" mean. They might end up sending letters to almost half their customers!
That may or may not be an unrealistic scenario. I don't really know what the distribution of usage looks like. But it's certainly possible.
Moz 0.9.9 still does it. And not just the toolbar and tabs go off the edge of the screen. So does the page itself (w/o creating a scroll bar), so you end up losing some of the content.
They did add a little button to close the active tab, so you don't have to right-click any more. Though it's always all the way to the right, so a little inconvient if you only have a couple tabs open, or just activated one of the tabs over to the left. *shrug*
Not to say that virus writers... are not criminals but... they aren't terrorists!
I think you missed Christianfreak's point. They are criminals. They should be punished (or, better yet, rehabilitated... but when have we ever done that with criminals?). But they are not terrorists.
Granted, terrorism doesn't have to involve killing, but these kids aren't trying to make some crazed point. They're not striving to strike fear into the heart of everyone in the nation. They are simply, as Christianfreak put it, kids with too much time on their hands.
The people equating virus/worm writers with terrorists seem to be putting their bottom line at least on par with, if not above, the value of human life. That frightens me more than the network being down for a couple of days ever would.
Yes, but my desktop is usually pretty cluttered with windows;-)
Really, though, I don't see the point. Either you want the focus to follow the mouse, or you don't. I just can't think of any situation where I would want it to automatically focus a window my mouse happens to move over. As long as I can scroll the window without raising it (which I can), if I want it focused, it's not a big deal to click, and it's likely a bigger deal when it accidentally takes the focus away from the window I actually want it on.
Personally, I dislike focus-follows-mouse, mostly because I tend to move the mouse out of the window I'm looking at, so it's not in my way. (Yes, even when it's a small veritcal bar, it can be annoying/distracting.)
What I do like, however, is having mouse wheel button events work on non-focused windows, and not focus or raise the window they're sent to. In fact, I tend to have several windows set to never take focus, since I will tend to only interact with them briefly and with the mouse only (eg: my IM buddy window) and don't want to have to click back to the window I was typing in.
Just my $0.02.
I don't think that's what this stuff is for...
on
Nano-pants
·
· Score: 1
What I understood from the article is that this stuff does let water through (sweat), it just doesn't let it soak into the fabric itself. So the, say, hot grits you accidentally pour on your pants will soak through but not soak into (thus preventing stains and making it easy to wipe off). You're still going to get wet and burned.
As for extreme environments (cold) where getting your clothes soaking wet can be deadly, I don't know if this would apply too well. I mean, you'd still get wet, and it'd get inside your clothes and on your skin, but your clothes wouldn't stay wet... They just kinda pass the moisture through on to you. Then it would evaporate away just like sweat would, making you cold. But I don't think you'd stay cold (wet) as long...
Psh. If the movie industry wanted to release the movies at the same time, they could very easily. I mean, it's not like they're not already sitting on fully complete movies for months (if not years) before releasing them already (mostly to spend time promoting and such).
They should spend some of that time translating and dubbing them. Hell, they have the script. They could have people translating and dubbing while they're filming.
So don't let yourself believe that it's not all about the benji's. It's just not true.
These fibers are collecting ambient light, not amplifying it.
Um... Okay. Well, actually, the article says, "Hajto started by mixing fluorescent dyes into a transparent polymer called polycarbonate. He then stretched the polymer into fibres."
The flourescent dyes actually do amplify the light, albeit only UV light if I'm not mistaken. So LEDs still wouldn't really work (unless there are UV LEDs?) but still. I think that's actually the major thing that this thing has over plain fibre-optics (besides the fact that plain fibre-optics wouldn't really accept any new light from the sides... or maybe I'm mistaken again).
That's where the Hydrogen Economy concept comes in: you use efficient, or even (gasp!) clean electric generation to separate hydrogen from water, then you distribute it through pipelines to where it can power fuel cells in homes and cars, creating water as a byproduct.
One problem with that... You suggest using electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water but where does that electricity come from? You can't use the electricity generated by burning the hydrogen. Even if you could capture 100% of the energy released in the burn, it takes exactly the same amount of energy to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms as is released by combining them.
You would have to use some other source for energy, such as gasoline, coal, wood (renewable), or solar. Solar is the only one that would eliminate pollution, and is the most easily renewable, but at the current efficiency rates for converting solar and hydrogen to usable energy, I doubt it's pratical. I could be wrong, I'm no expert. : )
Except that, if the JS code MrJay is accurate, they used JS to do the test, then they tried to use JS to do the redirection to the non JavaScript page. If a browser doesn't support JS, it's not going to understand the window.location="url" command. So there's some irony in that, if only in their ignorance of how to do a proper redirect.
The proper way to do el redirecto would be to direct the viewer to the non-JS page and have some JS code that executed at the top of it that just redirected them. That way, if the browser didn't support JS, it would not execute the code, leaving the user there, and if the browser did support JS, it would execute the window.location="url" (or window.location.replace("url") to be nice to histories) unconditionally and they'd be on their merry little way.
Well, that's how I'd do it, anyway.
NexusJedi -------------------------------------------- How do you catch an original rabbit? Unique up on it. How do you catch a domestic rabbit? The tame way.
I don't know about everyone else but I have never really had any problem with advertising, per se. I do, however, have a problem with a company that I know nothing about tracking/logging all (or even many) of my page-loads, browses, surfs, downloads, clicks, double-clicks, responses, emails, keystrokes, likes, dislikes, pets' names, beverage choices, et cetera, et cetera. . .
Advertisements will be a part of our society as long as it is based on a market economy and statistics say that people buy things they see on TV. As long as they're relatively unobtrusive and easily ignored by those of us who're not interested in the wares they hawk, they're acceptable. I don't believe, though, that anyone should keep track of any little thing I do so they can "customize content" for me. I want to be the one who decides what I want and what I see. That is, IMHO, the power and promise of the internet: that the individual has the power to control the information they recieve, not the Big Corporation.
When I find out that the DoubleClicks have been tracking 1/2 or 2/3'rds of the web pages I choose to go to (and not having knowledge about the rest, creating a possibly very inaccurate picture of my tastes), without my knowledge, much less consent, I feel violated. Things I did that I assumed to be (at least relatively) private are now found out to be logged in some huge database and used to filter what information is streamed to me. My choice has been taken away.
I suppose that's what I feel it's about, really. The individual's choice. *shrug* I know it's an out-of-date, out-of-style thing but I miss it. (Or maybe it was always just an illusion created by the Big Co's to placate us dissidents. Who knows.)
Slashdot Mirror
So your claiming that E=MC^2 is not intimately and directly related to a endothermic oxidation reaction ?
It's a matter of applicability. The equation E=MC^2 only comes in to play when the reactions involved are nuclear. Oxidation reactions are chemical; the energy you're releasing (in the case of endothermic oxidations) is stored in the molecular bonds, not the nuclear bonds.
(Disclaimer: IANAP; this may be slightly inaccurate and/or an oversimplification.)
I didn't realize that getting chopsticks lodged in one's brain was such a common thing in China.
Actually, you've got that backwards: it will make it easier to reach the cap, as the cap is directly tied to the average, which went down.
Let's say you and 1 other person download 50GB over the average for the month. The 2 of you get your letters, and you decide to be a "good" customer, and lower your usage by 10GB. The other person, however, does not, and downloads just as much the next month. The average is slightly lower due to your using less, but not enough to cause you any problems. However, the other guy gets cut off.
The month after that, though, the average is going to be much lower, because the other guy is no longer downloading >50GB + old average. You didn't get a letter last month, so you merrily continue downloading about 40GB + the old average. Oops! The new average is now more than 10GB lower, and you're back over the cap! And, since they sent you a letter the month before last, you must be an evil person, willfully disregarding the ISP's right to profit. So they cut you off.
Of course, they'd probably send you a second warning but you'd still have to drastically cut back your usage to fall within the acceptable "norm."
And just imagine if your neighborhood has a fairly large standard deviation (ie, a fairly flat normal distribution). Every month they'd be either cutting people off or forcing them to lower their usage, thereby further lowering the mean and putting more people above the cap, until everyone is crunched around a much more "acceptable" mean. They might end up sending letters to almost half their customers!
That may or may not be an unrealistic scenario. I don't really know what the distribution of usage looks like. But it's certainly possible.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
$| = 1;
use Net::DNS;
use Getopt::Std;
our $opt_q = 0;
getopts('q');
my $res = Net::DNS::Resolver->new(
# These are RoadRunner's name servers. Change to yours.
nameservers => [qw(24.95.227.34 24.95.227.35)],
);
my @bases = qw(
fuckverisignuptheasstheylikeit
);
my @tlds = qw(
net
com
);
while(1) {
foreach my $base (@bases) {
foreach my $tld (@tlds) {
my $host = sprintf "$base\_%04d.$tld", int(rand(10000));
my $q = $res->search($host);
unless($opt_q) {
print "$host: ", $q
? ($q->answer)[0]->address
: "Query failed (" . $res->errorstring . ")",
"\n";
}
}
}
sleep 60;
}
Moz 0.9.9 still does it. And not just the toolbar and tabs go off the edge of the screen. So does the page itself (w/o creating a scroll bar), so you end up losing some of the content.
They did add a little button to close the active tab, so you don't have to right-click any more. Though it's always all the way to the right, so a little inconvient if you only have a couple tabs open, or just activated one of the tabs over to the left. *shrug*
predictions about the future are always wrong
"All generalizations are false."
From the original post (emphasis added):
Not to say that virus writers ... are not criminals but ... they aren't terrorists!
I think you missed Christianfreak's point. They are criminals. They should be punished (or, better yet, rehabilitated... but when have we ever done that with criminals?). But they are not terrorists.
Granted, terrorism doesn't have to involve killing, but these kids aren't trying to make some crazed point. They're not striving to strike fear into the heart of everyone in the nation. They are simply, as Christianfreak put it, kids with too much time on their hands.
The people equating virus/worm writers with terrorists seem to be putting their bottom line at least on par with, if not above, the value of human life. That frightens me more than the network being down for a couple of days ever would.
Yes, but my desktop is usually pretty cluttered with windows ;-)
Really, though, I don't see the point. Either you want the focus to follow the mouse, or you don't. I just can't think of any situation where I would want it to automatically focus a window my mouse happens to move over. As long as I can scroll the window without raising it (which I can), if I want it focused, it's not a big deal to click, and it's likely a bigger deal when it accidentally takes the focus away from the window I actually want it on.
Personally, I dislike focus-follows-mouse, mostly because I tend to move the mouse out of the window I'm looking at, so it's not in my way. (Yes, even when it's a small veritcal bar, it can be annoying/distracting.)
What I do like, however, is having mouse wheel button events work on non-focused windows, and not focus or raise the window they're sent to. In fact, I tend to have several windows set to never take focus, since I will tend to only interact with them briefly and with the mouse only (eg: my IM buddy window) and don't want to have to click back to the window I was typing in.
Just my $0.02.
What I understood from the article is that this stuff does let water through (sweat), it just doesn't let it soak into the fabric itself. So the, say, hot grits you accidentally pour on your pants will soak through but not soak into (thus preventing stains and making it easy to wipe off). You're still going to get wet and burned.
As for extreme environments (cold) where getting your clothes soaking wet can be deadly, I don't know if this would apply too well. I mean, you'd still get wet, and it'd get inside your clothes and on your skin, but your clothes wouldn't stay wet... They just kinda pass the moisture through on to you. Then it would evaporate away just like sweat would, making you cold. But I don't think you'd stay cold (wet) as long...
Or did I miss your point?
Psh. If the movie industry wanted to release the movies at the same time, they could very easily. I mean, it's not like they're not already sitting on fully complete movies for months (if not years) before releasing them already (mostly to spend time promoting and such).
They should spend some of that time translating and dubbing them. Hell, they have the script. They could have people translating and dubbing while they're filming.
So don't let yourself believe that it's not all about the benji's. It's just not true.
Hrm. So I guess that means that parody is now illegal. Sucks to be us.
These fibers are collecting ambient light, not amplifying it.
Um... Okay. Well, actually, the article says, "Hajto started by mixing fluorescent dyes into a transparent polymer called polycarbonate. He then stretched the polymer into fibres."
The flourescent dyes actually do amplify the light, albeit only UV light if I'm not mistaken. So LEDs still wouldn't really work (unless there are UV LEDs?) but still. I think that's actually the major thing that this thing has over plain fibre-optics (besides the fact that plain fibre-optics wouldn't really accept any new light from the sides... or maybe I'm mistaken again).
Just thought I'd add my $0.02.
-------------
No worries.
That's where the Hydrogen Economy concept comes in: you use efficient, or even (gasp!) clean electric generation to separate hydrogen from water, then you distribute it through pipelines to where it can power fuel cells in homes and cars, creating water as a byproduct.
One problem with that... You suggest using electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water but where does that electricity come from? You can't use the electricity generated by burning the hydrogen. Even if you could capture 100% of the energy released in the burn, it takes exactly the same amount of energy to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms as is released by combining them.
You would have to use some other source for energy, such as gasoline, coal, wood (renewable), or solar. Solar is the only one that would eliminate pollution, and is the most easily renewable, but at the current efficiency rates for converting solar and hydrogen to usable energy, I doubt it's pratical. I could be wrong, I'm no expert. : )
Except that, if the JS code MrJay is accurate, they used JS to do the test, then they tried to use JS to do the redirection to the non JavaScript page . If a browser doesn't support JS, it's not going to understand the window.location="url" command. So there's some irony in that, if only in their ignorance of how to do a proper redirect.
The proper way to do el redirecto would be to direct the viewer to the non-JS page and have some JS code that executed at the top of it that just redirected them. That way, if the browser didn't support JS, it would not execute the code, leaving the user there, and if the browser did support JS, it would execute the window.location="url" (or window.location.replace("url") to be nice to histories) unconditionally and they'd be on their merry little way.
Well, that's how I'd do it, anyway.
NexusJedi
--------------------------------------------
How do you catch an original rabbit?
Unique up on it.
How do you catch a domestic rabbit?
The tame way.
I don't know about everyone else but I have never really had any problem with advertising, per se. I do, however, have a problem with a company that I know nothing about tracking/logging all (or even many) of my page-loads, browses, surfs, downloads, clicks, double-clicks, responses, emails, keystrokes, likes, dislikes, pets' names, beverage choices, et cetera, et cetera. . .
Advertisements will be a part of our society as long as it is based on a market economy and statistics say that people buy things they see on TV. As long as they're relatively unobtrusive and easily ignored by those of us who're not interested in the wares they hawk, they're acceptable. I don't believe, though, that anyone should keep track of any little thing I do so they can "customize content" for me. I want to be the one who decides what I want and what I see. That is, IMHO, the power and promise of the internet: that the individual has the power to control the information they recieve, not the Big Corporation.
When I find out that the DoubleClicks have been tracking 1/2 or 2/3'rds of the web pages I choose to go to (and not having knowledge about the rest, creating a possibly very inaccurate picture of my tastes), without my knowledge, much less consent, I feel violated. Things I did that I assumed to be (at least relatively) private are now found out to be logged in some huge database and used to filter what information is streamed to me. My choice has been taken away.
I suppose that's what I feel it's about, really. The individual's choice. *shrug* I know it's an out-of-date, out-of-style thing but I miss it. (Or maybe it was always just an illusion created by the Big Co's to placate us dissidents. Who knows.)
</RANT>