That's only because somebody's still got to pay for the darned thing... if there's a profit to be made by mining an asteroid, then there's a much better chance that somebody's going to fund the expedition to get there.
Not an entire mine, no.... but that's because they didn't stay very long... certainly not long enough to establish any kind of permanent or even semi-permanent mining infrastructure.
No, but that's only because it's not cost effective to do so... it is definitely entirely in the realm of what is technologically feasible today.
But hey, if you have a few billion dollars laying around to throw at the problem and don't mind losing money for longer than you are likely to still be alive, barring some technological breakthrough that makes it vastly cheaper, then by all means... knock yourself out.
How will kids call their parents when a shooter with automatic weapons bursts into the school?
The answer is obvious... bring the phone to school, but leave it off or in airplane mode so that it can't receive any unexpected messages.... if one is only ever pulling out their phone in an emergency situation, then there wouldn't be any issue.
It was my understanding that conventional explosives are used in nuclear weapons as well, surrounding the fissionable material and detonated all at once, compressing it to critical levels, and causing a self-sustaining chain reaction that burns most of the radioactive material up, while from what I remember is that a dirty bomb generally just doesn't have plutonium, or enough explosive power to compress it to achieve full self-sustaining reaction as a clean bomb does, and fizzles out comparatively much more quickly, leaving a large quantity of radioactive material in its wake, but radioactive waste aside, still causing far more devastation than just what the chemical explosives alone would have done.
In 1982, when I was in high school the subject of nuclear bombs came up during one lecture in my chemistry class, and as our lectures were highly interactive, it was proposed by one of my classmates that they would have to be very difficult to build or else at least require access to such highly specialized parts and equipment that there was no reasonable way to expect anyone to be able to build one. I recall on my own part that I was quite confident that nobody could easily build such a bomb, and was skeptical when the teacher claimed that it was not actually that difficult a task. A week or so later, my teacher brought in photocopies of a handout he had, which filled both sides of two pages, and everyone who wanted a copy could have one. It was clearly a photocopy of a photocopy of I don't know how many generations. Nonetheless, it was still legible, and appeared to have originally come from some sort of magazine. The handout, which was small enough to fold into a two-page flyer and mail to anyone you wanted for the price of a basic postage stamp, detailed how to build an atomic bomb accurately enough to supposedly be reproducible.
In particular, the bomb it described was considered a "dirty bomb", but from what I remember, the most difficult to acquire component was the plutonium.
And again, these instructions fit into just four 8.5x11" pages, and that included two diagrams for reference, each diagram being only about 3 inches square. As I recall, there was one diagram on the first page, and one on the third page.
In retrospect I wish I had kept that handout.... but I had a very shortsighted view of education in my youth, and only came to appreciate the knowledge that teachers would provide when I was well into my twenties.
Yes, a 'guaranteed job' pretty much means 'YOU better find a job you like, or we will find one you DONT'
As one who has had the misfortune of living over 50% of his adult life looking for work, I think I would actually prefer this, as long as there was enough allowance within such a system that a person could still reasonably take (unpaid) time off to find a more desirable employment opportunity as desired.
I don't mind working at a job that I loathe if it spells the difference between keeping a roof over my head and freezing to death in the streets come wintertime, as long as the option exists to leave it if something better comes along... of course, this presumes that the job actually pays enough that I am able to afford to keep said roof over my head. If not, then it's not any different than being unemployed in the first place, except that I would have has even less free time to try and improve their situation.
Actually, you don't get any number. Division by zero is entirely undefined and meaningless. It is only correct to say that the limit of division approaches plus or minus infinity as the divisor approaches zero. But the limit of a division by a number that approaches zero is not the same thing as division by zero. The former is actually defined, having two specific (non-numeric) values: +/- infinity. The latter is entirely undefined. It is about as meaningful (and no more correct) to say n/0 = +/- infnity as it is to say n/0 = red, or n/0 = hippopotamus.
Technically, the actual semiconductor substrate is immaterial... the point is that something that is 'solid state' is built from semiconductor technology. I mentioned silicon because that is currently the only really practical substrate that is used commercially today.
I have given you ample opportunity to justify your position with some particular rationalization, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had some sort of reason to think it was somehow unlikely that someone in Canada could have done this. Given your continued ignoring of the direct question, and that you merely choose to repeat your expression of incredulity, It seems you have crossed the threshold between being forgivably naive about reality and just plain irrationally bigoted.
That doesn't answer the question... again, why should this be so surprising when Canada is not a backwater country without any ubiquitous access to modern technology?
If the usb driver doesn't cache writes, then unmounting the device before removal will not take any extra time, and has cost you nothing, while if it does cache writes, removing before unmounting could corrupt the data on the device.
Seriously, it takes like 2 seconds if it would have been safe to do the other way and will save you untold hours of grief later if it wasn't.
I take it that you don't write applications for other people to use... or your audience is so small that the possibility of a large number of people using your application in a single billing period causing you to get billed for all those requests is not an issue.
.... they simply are not technologically possible to implement.
For example. don't most human beings have a filter that enables them to choose whether or not to look at porn? Obviously there can be neurologically atypical patterns that might be the exception to this, but generally speaking, this is going to be true for most people.
The brain follows the laws of physics, so there is nothing physically impossible about being able to detect whether or not something is porn.
This ultimately only means that we don't currently have the technology to achieve it, not that it is literally and physically impossible to do.
Obviously a lot of hobbies cost money to engage in, but philosophically, I think it is absurd to be put in the position of essentially renting the very tools that one needs just to practice something purely recreationally.
Obviously... but according to the summary, putting this on the iPad was supposed to somehow appeal to the *hobbyist*.... which I would take to mean people who want to use the software but not the purpose of trying to make any money with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not entirely true... it will just take several million more years to reform back into oil.
That's only because somebody's still got to pay for the darned thing... if there's a profit to be made by mining an asteroid, then there's a much better chance that somebody's going to fund the expedition to get there.
It's just as technogically possible as converting lead to gold by pulling out 3 protons from each atom using fission... doesn't mean it's practical.
Not an entire mine, no.... but that's because they didn't stay very long... certainly not long enough to establish any kind of permanent or even semi-permanent mining infrastructure.
No, but that's only because it's not cost effective to do so... it is definitely entirely in the realm of what is technologically feasible today.
But hey, if you have a few billion dollars laying around to throw at the problem and don't mind losing money for longer than you are likely to still be alive, barring some technological breakthrough that makes it vastly cheaper, then by all means... knock yourself out.
The answer is obvious... bring the phone to school, but leave it off or in airplane mode so that it can't receive any unexpected messages.... if one is only ever pulling out their phone in an emergency situation, then there wouldn't be any issue.
realized this after hitting submit... I meant that a dirty bomb doesn't have *enough* plutonium... obviously it has some.
It was my understanding that conventional explosives are used in nuclear weapons as well, surrounding the fissionable material and detonated all at once, compressing it to critical levels, and causing a self-sustaining chain reaction that burns most of the radioactive material up, while from what I remember is that a dirty bomb generally just doesn't have plutonium, or enough explosive power to compress it to achieve full self-sustaining reaction as a clean bomb does, and fizzles out comparatively much more quickly, leaving a large quantity of radioactive material in its wake, but radioactive waste aside, still causing far more devastation than just what the chemical explosives alone would have done.
It doesn't take a book.
In 1982, when I was in high school the subject of nuclear bombs came up during one lecture in my chemistry class, and as our lectures were highly interactive, it was proposed by one of my classmates that they would have to be very difficult to build or else at least require access to such highly specialized parts and equipment that there was no reasonable way to expect anyone to be able to build one. I recall on my own part that I was quite confident that nobody could easily build such a bomb, and was skeptical when the teacher claimed that it was not actually that difficult a task. A week or so later, my teacher brought in photocopies of a handout he had, which filled both sides of two pages, and everyone who wanted a copy could have one. It was clearly a photocopy of a photocopy of I don't know how many generations. Nonetheless, it was still legible, and appeared to have originally come from some sort of magazine. The handout, which was small enough to fold into a two-page flyer and mail to anyone you wanted for the price of a basic postage stamp, detailed how to build an atomic bomb accurately enough to supposedly be reproducible.
In particular, the bomb it described was considered a "dirty bomb", but from what I remember, the most difficult to acquire component was the plutonium.
And again, these instructions fit into just four 8.5x11" pages, and that included two diagrams for reference, each diagram being only about 3 inches square. As I recall, there was one diagram on the first page, and one on the third page.
In retrospect I wish I had kept that handout.... but I had a very shortsighted view of education in my youth, and only came to appreciate the knowledge that teachers would provide when I was well into my twenties.
When I was a kid, I delivered the paper for about 2 years. I quit because I didn't realize what a good thing I had.
That was about 40 years ago. I have had numerous jobs since then, but have never voluntarily left one.
As one who has had the misfortune of living over 50% of his adult life looking for work, I think I would actually prefer this, as long as there was enough allowance within such a system that a person could still reasonably take (unpaid) time off to find a more desirable employment opportunity as desired.
I don't mind working at a job that I loathe if it spells the difference between keeping a roof over my head and freezing to death in the streets come wintertime, as long as the option exists to leave it if something better comes along... of course, this presumes that the job actually pays enough that I am able to afford to keep said roof over my head. If not, then it's not any different than being unemployed in the first place, except that I would have has even less free time to try and improve their situation.
So does that mean it broke on the 27th drop?
Actually, you don't get any number. Division by zero is entirely undefined and meaningless. It is only correct to say that the limit of division approaches plus or minus infinity as the divisor approaches zero. But the limit of a division by a number that approaches zero is not the same thing as division by zero. The former is actually defined, having two specific (non-numeric) values: +/- infinity. The latter is entirely undefined. It is about as meaningful (and no more correct) to say n/0 = +/- infnity as it is to say n/0 = red, or n/0 = hippopotamus.
Should human beings be required to tell that they *ARE* human?
Technically, the actual semiconductor substrate is immaterial... the point is that something that is 'solid state' is built from semiconductor technology. I mentioned silicon because that is currently the only really practical substrate that is used commercially today.
I have given you ample opportunity to justify your position with some particular rationalization, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had some sort of reason to think it was somehow unlikely that someone in Canada could have done this. Given your continued ignoring of the direct question, and that you merely choose to repeat your expression of incredulity, It seems you have crossed the threshold between being forgivably naive about reality and just plain irrationally bigoted.
That doesn't answer the question... again, why should this be so surprising when Canada is not a backwater country without any ubiquitous access to modern technology?
Nothing about "solid state" implies non-volatility... it actually implies no moving parts, but actually only means that is implemented on silicon.
Umm... why? Serious question.
Yes, unmount the drive before taking it out.
If the usb driver doesn't cache writes, then unmounting the device before removal will not take any extra time, and has cost you nothing, while if it does cache writes, removing before unmounting could corrupt the data on the device.
Seriously, it takes like 2 seconds if it would have been safe to do the other way and will save you untold hours of grief later if it wasn't.
The ship has sailed, I know... but it's still my own personal objection.
I take it that you don't write applications for other people to use... or your audience is so small that the possibility of a large number of people using your application in a single billing period causing you to get billed for all those requests is not an issue.
For example. don't most human beings have a filter that enables them to choose whether or not to look at porn? Obviously there can be neurologically atypical patterns that might be the exception to this, but generally speaking, this is going to be true for most people.
The brain follows the laws of physics, so there is nothing physically impossible about being able to detect whether or not something is porn.
This ultimately only means that we don't currently have the technology to achieve it, not that it is literally and physically impossible to do.
Obviously a lot of hobbies cost money to engage in, but philosophically, I think it is absurd to be put in the position of essentially renting the very tools that one needs just to practice something purely recreationally.
Obviously... but according to the summary, putting this on the iPad was supposed to somehow appeal to the *hobbyist*.... which I would take to mean people who want to use the software but not the purpose of trying to make any money with it.