The containment of helium has to be only good enough relative to the expected service life of the hard disk, and the expected use.
It's just another engineering parameter, whose optimization is done in consideration to other parameters.
There is little utility in achieving a 25 year seal, if the drive is expected to be toast within 10 years.
But that means that the drive couldn't be used for archival. Which is fine if that's not an expected use case.
Anyway, if 50 years from now someone wants to retrieve something from one of these drives, they can perhaps go through the expense of re-filling it with helium.
Virgil is an anecdote. We have no access to a parallel universe in which a "control Virgil" lives who hasn't had his sight restored. Maybe that Virgil would have lost the will to live anyway. Virgil died of pneumonia only four months after the surgery. So all that we know about his experience is confined to a few weeks or months following the restoration of sight, not how he would have coped in the long run.
Oh if you were part of a minority that doesn't have superpowers, you would feel the bitter sting of inferiority.
What if the predominant culture assumed that everyone has superpowers, making them necessary for communication, transportation and the like?
For instance, I don't mind not being able to sense magnetic fields. But suppose that it was normal, and people used this to form a language with which they communicate. Suddenly, you're left out if you don't have this. You belong, yet you don't belong.
What if buildings assumed everyone can fly, so there are no stairs or elevators? What if X-ray vision was assumed, and cars used stainless steel windshields?
Those people have a right to their ignorant opinion. But no collective has a right to dictate the destiny of an individual.
It is certainly better to hear than not to hear, without a question. Moreover, I would welcome the ability to, say, see infrared or ultraviolet, or to sense the direction of a magnetic field in which I am immersed. I only have a positive attitude toward not having these abilities, because (most?) other people also don't have them.
Umm, no. The more subtle the difference, the better hearing you need to be able to resolve an AXB comparison. (Is sample X equivalent to A, or equivalent to B).
If you can hear a difference with poor hearing, then it must be substantial.
Lossless isn't audio encoding; it's data compression like Lempel-Ziv 77 and so on.
Support for such a thing would mean that Opus is not a codec, but a container/stream format which multiplexes completely different compression algorithms.
If do-not-track is just a factory default, and not a user choice, then the ad networks have no reason to honor it.
If it hasn't gone down well with ad networks, it means they are being earnest about implementing this: those are the "okay" networks. They want not to track users who explicitly express "do not track", (but would like to track other users, the don't-cares). Microsoft is screwing that up by making the don't-care users look like don't-track-me users.
"Bad" ad networks don't care about this issue, since they will track regardless.
Of course, the truly "saintly" ad networks would only want to track those users who explicitly said yes to wanting to be tracked, and so they would not mind that the don't-care ignorant users look like don't-track-me users.
The "okay" ad networks don't want to be "saintly". Certainly, not at Microsoft's bidding, which hardly has a track record of being saintly! (The hypocrisy there is so thick it can be cut with a knife, like SPAM.)
Just because a bunch of cooks deny your claims doesn't mean they are right.
Numerical models of the planet are hypotheses only, not science.
Science requires experimental verification.
Also, some of those who don't believe in a free market are also brainwashed. A free market is the morally correct thing. A wants to trade with B. Who is C to stand in the way?
Only a complete asshole would want to discredit someone who believes in a free market by trying to link him with those who don't believe that smoking causes cancer or that HIV leads to AIDS.
This is completely useless information that only a paleontology/anthropology dweeb can regard as news to get excited about.
None of this is going to result in anything that improves human lives in any way.
With just the slightest squint of the eyes, "Neanderthal" and "Denisovan" become synonyms. Basically it's just a word game: let's arbitrarily divide the prehistoric ancestors into two groups and give them different names, and then pretend that this is important somehow.
Yes, I agree that labeling pushes an agenda. Because there are many truths about something which can be potentially put on a label. The question is what information you choose?
For instance, what if people with AIDS were required to wear a tag which says so?
The words I would have for that would be probably something other than "anti science", though.
Supposedly 30% of their households don't have electricity and the remainder suffer from regular blackouts, and they want to go to Mars? How about a simpler mission first: get from one side of Delhi to the other without hours in traffic.
I'm looking at that "core standards" website, and I don't see any evidence that actual algebra is introduced in the first grade. What they call "algebraic thinking" is actually just arithmetic.
When I went to grades 1 through 4 in Czechoslovakia, we learned all kinds of advanced things. Addition and multiplication were introduced using set theory. We used sets to convert numbers from one base to another (binary, ternary). Defintely by grade four, we were well versed in actual algebraic problems with variables. I think we were up to systems of two linear equations with two unknowns.
When I came to Canada, grade 5, it was back to arithmetic. The teacher was surprised how well I could perform division.
The examples from your "core standards" look about the same. For example, here are the "algebraic" objectives ascribed to grade 5:
* 5.OA.1. Use parentheses, brackets, or braces in numerical expressions, and evaluate expressions with these symbols.
* 5.OA.2. Write simple expressions that record calculations with numbers, and interpret numerical expressions without evaluating them. For example, express the calculation “add 8 and 7, then multiply by 2” as 2 × (8 + 7). Recognize that 3 × (18932 + 921) is three times as large as 18932 + 921, without having to calculate the indicated sum or product.
Sounds like a good argument that your cousin does not require academics at all, i.e. schooling.
This is about whether or not academics should include math. I would say that without mathematics, you take away all rigor from academics, leaving only fluff. When rigor goes out the window, it is closely followed by credibility.
Academics is the business of being smart largely for the sake of being smart. The more you chop out of that, the more of a farce it becomes.
Slashdot Mirror
The containment of helium has to be only good enough relative to the expected service life of the hard disk, and the expected use.
It's just another engineering parameter, whose optimization is done in consideration to other parameters.
There is little utility in achieving a 25 year seal, if the drive is expected to be toast within 10 years.
But that means that the drive couldn't be used for archival. Which is fine if that's not an expected use case.
Anyway, if 50 years from now someone wants to retrieve something from one of these drives, they can perhaps go through the expense of re-filling it with helium.
Virgil is an anecdote. We have no access to a parallel universe in which a "control Virgil" lives who hasn't had his sight restored. Maybe that Virgil would have lost the will to live anyway. Virgil died of pneumonia only four months after the surgery. So all that we know about his experience is confined to a few weeks or months following the restoration of sight, not how he would have coped in the long run.
Oh if you were part of a minority that doesn't have superpowers, you would feel the bitter sting of inferiority.
What if the predominant culture assumed that everyone has superpowers, making them necessary for communication, transportation and the like?
For instance, I don't mind not being able to sense magnetic fields. But suppose that it was normal, and people used this to form a language with which they communicate. Suddenly, you're left out if you don't have this. You belong, yet you don't belong.
What if buildings assumed everyone can fly, so there are no stairs or elevators? What if X-ray vision was assumed, and cars used stainless steel windshields?
So, would this same chunk of the deaf culture not mind if someone poked their eyes out?
If it's okay not to hear, it must be okay not to see, right?
Idiots ...
What makes you emotionally comfortable is not the same thing as the truth.
Those people have a right to their ignorant opinion. But no collective has a right to dictate the destiny of an individual.
It is certainly better to hear than not to hear, without a question. Moreover, I would welcome the ability to, say, see infrared or ultraviolet, or to sense the direction of a magnetic field in which I am immersed. I only have a positive attitude toward not having these abilities, because (most?) other people also don't have them.
Umm, no. The more subtle the difference, the better hearing you need to be able to resolve an AXB comparison. (Is sample X equivalent to A, or equivalent to B).
If you can hear a difference with poor hearing, then it must be substantial.
Sync with video? What?
Raw waveform data can be synced with video.
Just say: one video frame = so many audio samples (at such and such a sample rate).
Lossless isn't audio encoding; it's data compression like Lempel-Ziv 77 and so on.
Support for such a thing would mean that Opus is not a codec, but a container/stream format which multiplexes completely different compression algorithms.
Those, we probably don't need any more of.
If do-not-track is just a factory default, and not a user choice, then the ad networks have no reason to honor it.
If it hasn't gone down well with ad networks, it means they are being earnest about implementing this: those are the "okay" networks. They want not to track users who explicitly express "do not track", (but would like to track other users, the don't-cares). Microsoft is screwing that up by making the don't-care users look like don't-track-me users.
"Bad" ad networks don't care about this issue, since they will track regardless.
Of course, the truly "saintly" ad networks would only want to track those users who explicitly said yes to wanting to be tracked, and so they would not mind that the don't-care ignorant users look like don't-track-me users.
The "okay" ad networks don't want to be "saintly". Certainly, not at Microsoft's bidding, which hardly has a track record of being saintly! (The hypocrisy there is so thick it can be cut with a knife, like SPAM.)
Just because a bunch of cooks deny your claims doesn't mean they are right.
Numerical models of the planet are hypotheses only, not science.
Science requires experimental verification.
Also, some of those who don't believe in a free market are also brainwashed. A free market is the morally correct thing. A wants to trade with B. Who is C to stand in the way?
Only a complete asshole would want to discredit someone who believes in a free market by trying to link him with those who don't believe that smoking causes cancer or that HIV leads to AIDS.
This comment is not warranted even coming from someone who has only read the Slashdot headline before responding.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the definitions of the words "detect" and "prevent".
If you detect something, it is generally too late to prevent it.
No, rather one use of an anecdote in argumentation can be effective, and another ineffective.
Anecdotes are effective when they provide counterexamples which shatter generalizations.
They are not effective when they are used for making generalizations.
Identifies a drunken gait and tells you to go sleep in the garage tonight.
Thus, your wife doesn't have to stay up waiting for you.
This is completely useless information that only a paleontology/anthropology dweeb can regard as news to get excited about.
None of this is going to result in anything that improves human lives in any way.
With just the slightest squint of the eyes, "Neanderthal" and "Denisovan" become synonyms. Basically it's just a word game: let's arbitrarily divide the prehistoric ancestors into two groups and give them different names, and then pretend that this is important somehow.
A human simply does not have the resonant cavity to produce such notes.
Anyone can make glottal clicks at 0.18 Hz (about 5 clicks per second).
A train of such clicks does have a fundamental frequency 0.18 Hz, but most of the energy will be in the higher harmonics.
A genuine 0.18 Hz note has a 0.18 Hz fundamental as the loudest component.
All children play role playing games of some sort. So "unitiated" here can be taken to mean "had no childhood".
Well, it's not actually the world's first washable keyboard, just the world's first pretty, consumer-oriented washable keyboard.
If you take any category of thing and add more and more restrictions, you can arrive at a world's best, world's first, etc.
Yes, I agree that labeling pushes an agenda. Because there are many truths about something which can be potentially put on a label. The question is what information you choose?
For instance, what if people with AIDS were required to wear a tag which says so?
The words I would have for that would be probably something other than "anti science", though.
How can it be anti-science to put a truthful blurb on something which says what it is?
Great!
Supposedly 30% of their households don't have electricity and the remainder suffer from regular blackouts, and they want to go to Mars?
How about a simpler mission first: get from one side of Delhi to the other without hours in traffic.
LOL!
I would have STFU, and just complained about the non-arriving TV order.
Whoa, quite the early adopter of that particular oath! :)
I'm looking at that "core standards" website, and I don't see any evidence that actual algebra is introduced in the first grade. What they call "algebraic thinking" is actually just arithmetic.
When I went to grades 1 through 4 in Czechoslovakia, we learned all kinds of advanced things. Addition and multiplication were introduced using set theory. We used sets to convert numbers from one base to another (binary, ternary). Defintely by grade four, we were well versed in actual algebraic problems with variables. I think we were up to systems of two linear equations with two unknowns.
When I came to Canada, grade 5, it was back to arithmetic. The teacher was surprised how well I could perform division.
The examples from your "core standards" look about the same. For example, here are the "algebraic" objectives ascribed to grade 5:
Good grief!
Sounds like a good argument that your cousin does not require academics at all, i.e. schooling.
This is about whether or not academics should include math. I would say that without mathematics, you take away all rigor from academics, leaving only fluff. When rigor goes out the window, it is closely followed by credibility.
Academics is the business of being smart largely for the sake of being smart. The more you chop out of that, the more of a farce it becomes.