I remember reading it in an article when they were first announcing the new polymer bills. I don't recall the exact source. For some reason, the prices to manufacture each denomination stuck with me. I tried googling it just now, but couldn't find where I saw it. Sorry.
It also means that places can short customers by more.
Instead of, at most, being able to short a customer by as much as only half of a cent on a purchase, they can now short a customer by as much as 2.5 cents.
The effect on any individual is minor, but if the company uses a pricing structure such that their prices would always get rounded up, they stand to be able to increase profits as much as 5 times faster than they used to.
Actually, no it does not. The dime is currently the lowest denomination that, so far, costs less than its face value to produce. It costs roughly 7 cents to make a nickel (and only 4 cents to make a dime). For what it's worth, right now, quarters cost ten cents to produce, loonies about 15 cents, and twonies about 30 cents.
But coins are insanely expensive compared to bills.
Printed paper bills cost about 10 cents each. The newer plastic bills that Canada has started to use cost about 19 cents to manufacture, but last more almost 3 times as long (the plastic can also be reused to print other bills later, so the cost on the polymer bills will probably drop over time, although it probably will not ever be as cheap as the paper ones are).
Ah, but since pennies currently cost 1.6 cents each to make, that means that his two cents would actually be worth 3.2 cents, and would thus actually really round up to a nickel.
It's more probable, I think, as time has gone on, that we have developed more sophisticated means of actually identifying it, making it easier to distinguish from what may have formerly simply been dismissed without official diagnosis as simply "weird" or "odd".
There are quite a few places that would be illegal. And several industries where, if the potential employer found out about it afterwards, they could have legitimate cause to sue you.
Sometimes it doesn't help... there have been three or four times now in just the past year where I've accidentally tapped on submit when I meant to use the preview button. It would be hugely convenient to have a window of opportunity, say 5 minutes or so, to fix stuff.
This is the internet. It's not live television. We should be able to do reshoots if the first ones don't turn out.
Root kits are not viruses. They are security exploits, but they must be manually installed by somebody who already has at least user privilege on the machine. I would be willing to bet money that the issue at the bank was not a virus, but a rootkit... possibly a trojan.
My point still stands. I would like somebody to please identify *ANY* linux virus that has ever been caught "in the wild" and has compromised even a modest percentage of actual Linux machines in existence.
Bear in mind that by virus, I mean something that can propagate itself to other computers without any explicit user intervention and can proceed to infect any other computers it reaches that have not been patched to prevent the intrusion.
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
While I know that some Linux viruses have been done as proof of concept, I don't think anybody has ever successfully made a linux virus that has actually gone "into the wild", as it were.
You are right. I should have done more fact-checking before posting.
Tambora unleashed +20,000 megatons of SO2 into the air, and was the equivalent of roughly a 1000 mt explosion. So all the nukes combined should do roughly 5 times that devastation.
Even 27,000 megatons is only 35% bigger than the Tambora explosion in 1815.
No argument on your other, arguably more creative ways to wipe out humanity though... especially using a genetically engineered supervirus. although I'd question whether we are actually at that point technologically yet to accomplish it with enough efficacy that the number of humans that might survive it on account of developing an immunity would not have a sufficient dna diversity to be viable.
I meant to also add that the largest bomb ever built had a yield of about 50 megatons, and had a fallout area of about 1000 square km. Given the total nuclear yield is equivalent to roughly 5000 megatons, or roughly a hundred times that of the single largest bomb built, and given that fallout area seems to increase roughly with yield, that means that we could reasonably be looking at a fallout area of about a hundred thousand square km if every nuclear bomb were detonated.
For comparison, the USA is almost 10 million square km in area.
Still think that we have technology that could wipe out humanity?
I do not think you realize just how big this planet is, and how resilient life, even human life is.
There have been explosions on this planet orders of magnitude greater than anything that man has ever produced... and some have even happened during the period while man was walking on this sphere. Yet mankind survived... while many thousands were wiped out in the region of devastation, mankind endured on a global scale... as of course did life itself.
The total nuclear yield of every bomb currently in existence is the equivalent of about 5000 megatons
of TNT, which is over an order of magnitude less than the last eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano, which occurred circa 74,000 BC. Homo sapiens evolved circa 500,000 BC, and modern man has been around since at least 100,000 BC, so there were definitely people on the planet at that time. In spite of the explosion, and its effects on global climate, mankind endured.
Heck, it's still barely a quarter the size of the Tambora volcano explosion, in Indonesia in 1815, and that wiped out fewer than 100,000 people.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading it in an article when they were first announcing the new polymer bills. I don't recall the exact source. For some reason, the prices to manufacture each denomination stuck with me. I tried googling it just now, but couldn't find where I saw it. Sorry.
It also means that places can short customers by more.
Instead of, at most, being able to short a customer by as much as only half of a cent on a purchase, they can now short a customer by as much as 2.5 cents.
The effect on any individual is minor, but if the company uses a pricing structure such that their prices would always get rounded up, they stand to be able to increase profits as much as 5 times faster than they used to.
Actually, no it does not. The dime is currently the lowest denomination that, so far, costs less than its face value to produce. It costs roughly 7 cents to make a nickel (and only 4 cents to make a dime). For what it's worth, right now, quarters cost ten cents to produce, loonies about 15 cents, and twonies about 30 cents.
But coins are insanely expensive compared to bills. Printed paper bills cost about 10 cents each. The newer plastic bills that Canada has started to use cost about 19 cents to manufacture, but last more almost 3 times as long (the plastic can also be reused to print other bills later, so the cost on the polymer bills will probably drop over time, although it probably will not ever be as cheap as the paper ones are).
If it's worthless, why are electronic transactions going to continue to be done to the penny?
Ah, but since pennies currently cost 1.6 cents each to make, that means that his two cents would actually be worth 3.2 cents, and would thus actually really round up to a nickel.
First the penny. Then the nickel. Then the dime. Then the quarter. Then the loonie. Then the twonie. Everything will eventually be in $5 increments.
It's more probable, I think, as time has gone on, that we have developed more sophisticated means of actually identifying it, making it easier to distinguish from what may have formerly simply been dismissed without official diagnosis as simply "weird" or "odd".
It's the protective screens that they put over them to protect them in consumer devices that aren't typically flexible.
Nothing new to see here.
Wake me up when they can do vibrant color and have motion video-capable display update speeds.
There are quite a few places that would be illegal. And several industries where, if the potential employer found out about it afterwards, they could have legitimate cause to sue you.
By whose definition? That's what matters. The school considers them obscene. Full stop.
Sometimes it doesn't help... there have been three or four times now in just the past year where I've accidentally tapped on submit when I meant to use the preview button. It would be hugely convenient to have a window of opportunity, say 5 minutes or so, to fix stuff.
This is the internet. It's not live television. We should be able to do reshoots if the first ones don't turn out.
What suggests to you that the compromised machines trying to ssh into your server are running Linux... or any unix variant, for that matter?
For definitions of "few" that run in the tens of millions, yes.
Root kits are not viruses. They are security exploits, but they must be manually installed by somebody who already has at least user privilege on the machine. I would be willing to bet money that the issue at the bank was not a virus, but a rootkit... possibly a trojan.
My point still stands. I would like somebody to please identify *ANY* linux virus that has ever been caught "in the wild" and has compromised even a modest percentage of actual Linux machines in existence.
Bear in mind that by virus, I mean something that can propagate itself to other computers without any explicit user intervention and can proceed to infect any other computers it reaches that have not been patched to prevent the intrusion.
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
Oh... duh.
(embarassed facepalm)
While I know that some Linux viruses have been done as proof of concept, I don't think anybody has ever successfully made a linux virus that has actually gone "into the wild", as it were.
So drive on up to Canada and visit a major bookstore in one of the cities near the border.
My bad...
You are right. I should have done more fact-checking before posting.
Tambora unleashed +20,000 megatons of SO2 into the air, and was the equivalent of roughly a 1000 mt explosion. So all the nukes combined should do roughly 5 times that devastation.
I understood that the Tambora event was an equivalent of about 20,000 megatons.
No argument on your other, arguably more creative ways to wipe out humanity though... especially using a genetically engineered supervirus. although I'd question whether we are actually at that point technologically yet to accomplish it with enough efficacy that the number of humans that might survive it on account of developing an immunity would not have a sufficient dna diversity to be viable.
Damnit... hit submit too soon.
I meant to also add that the largest bomb ever built had a yield of about 50 megatons, and had a fallout area of about 1000 square km. Given the total nuclear yield is equivalent to roughly 5000 megatons, or roughly a hundred times that of the single largest bomb built, and given that fallout area seems to increase roughly with yield, that means that we could reasonably be looking at a fallout area of about a hundred thousand square km if every nuclear bomb were detonated.
For comparison, the USA is almost 10 million square km in area.
Still think that we have technology that could wipe out humanity?
There have been explosions on this planet orders of magnitude greater than anything that man has ever produced... and some have even happened during the period while man was walking on this sphere. Yet mankind survived... while many thousands were wiped out in the region of devastation, mankind endured on a global scale... as of course did life itself.
The total nuclear yield of every bomb currently in existence is the equivalent of about 5000 megatons of TNT, which is over an order of magnitude less than the last eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano, which occurred circa 74,000 BC. Homo sapiens evolved circa 500,000 BC, and modern man has been around since at least 100,000 BC, so there were definitely people on the planet at that time. In spite of the explosion, and its effects on global climate, mankind endured.
Heck, it's still barely a quarter the size of the Tambora volcano explosion, in Indonesia in 1815, and that wiped out fewer than 100,000 people.
Really?
Are you *SURE* about that?
Although I thought that was in a distant galaxy.
Still.... it's old enough.