Mercuric oxide is red. I'm not sure about any of the other properties, but it *is* red. (Actually orange might be a better descriptive, but it's on the red side of orange.)
Speed is ALWAYS a concern, and faster is generally worse due to limits of reaction time and increase in stopping distance. (The exception is some times when you need momentum to traverse some terrain. It's rare, but it does happen, and it may be less rare in Chicago where snow and mud are (were?) frequent.)
That said "too low" is a judgment call, but the comment about "Speeding in-of-itself" cause me to doubt your judgement.
Still, the assertion in the article is that the tickets were issued in a way that appears invalid. This may well be true.
Hmmm... I'd looked under string and character documentation, but didn't find a reference to that function. Not surprising given where they chose to stash it, but it strikes me as an unreasonably obscure location. Surely character should have at least a cross reference. (Well, perhaps it did and I missed it. I wasn't seriously considering switching to Julia. And perhaps the locations would have been obvious to someone who was acquainted with the code. Even I could tell it was being used in some functions.)
When I was seriously considering it my real problem was with its model of parallelism. It seems excellent for handling matrices, but that's not at all what I need.
Last I heard PyPy wasn't even attempting to get rid of the GIL.
Mind you, I do like Python, but not for multiprocessing. It's better than some choices, but it's hardly good.
(OTOH, when I really looked into Julia a few months ago [how many?] I decided that its way of doing multiprocessing wasn't useful for my purposes, but was instead optimized for array arithmetic.) This is great for most of their target audience, but doesn't fit my purposes which are more closely modeled by independent servers. I was looking for an approach that didn't have so much overhead, but was still passing messages into queues and not waiting for a response. The response, when it appeared, would be in the form of a message passed into the queue held by the originating thread/process/server. A TCP server is overkill, but finding anything simpler isn't straightforwards. (If it helps, the messages passed are immutable in actuality, whether or not conceptually.)
Currently I'm torn between Ruby and Python for speed of development, and I'll probably convert the code to use 0MQ so I can switch out modules for C or C++ code to improve speed. But this is running all around Robin Hood's barn to accomplish something that should be straightforwards. But by using 0MQ I can keep the character handling part out of C/C++, as those languages are truly terrible at handling Unicode.
Added to which they've removed Python's GIL. But the documentation doesn't make it clear how to get a character's General Category, despite the fact that many of the functions use it in deriving their answer (e.g., isalnum). This would be a real annoyance were I seriously considering using it.
Until I encounter some more plausible explanation, I'm going to consider that an intentional error. It reads that the Sikh's are doing the discriminating, but the rest of the article reads that they are the ones being discriminated against. So to single that sentence out for republication is at best misleading, and reasonably considered malicious.
Now there may be some evidence not mentioned that would justify that statement, but as it wasn't mentioned, I don't feel it's reasonable to include in the summary. And, in fact, consider that malice is as likely as carelessness.
You seem to be under the impression that just because some group uses the name Anonymous, they are the same as other groups that use the same name. I don't believe this is correct.
Which ones might well be revealed by the records within the PCs of the leaders of ISIS. But good luck trying to find that information.
OTOH, bombing doesn't do that much good, either. It definitely convinces the population of the area bombed that you are the enemy. Many of them might well not have believed that before you dropped a bomb on their sister or at their uncle's funeral.
There is often proof that, at least at some point, they were serious about their religion.
OTOH, I've been quite apauled at the way Roman Cathoics take an obvious joke as a serious grounds for saying theirs is the only true Christian Church. I.e., "Your name is Rocky, and on that rock I will build my church." It may have had serious overtones, but that sure isn't clear.... Well, I don't read either Greek or Aramaic, and the relevant texts were written long after the fact, so maybe there was a reason to take it seriously, but as evidence it's rather poor.
It's also true that several proto-religions currently extant were founded by trickster figures. This makes it difficult to be certain just how serious they were even with LOTS of evidence being available. How serious was Gurdjieff? Aliester Crowley was serious, but about what? Did Leonard Orr actually believe in rebirthing? If so, WHAT did he believe about it? Etc. Note that in the cases I've cited there is LOTS of evidence that is verifiably valid, and it's still difficult to be certain.
IIRC the thing about cameras stealing a person's soul was common in both Polynesian and African cultures. Calling it a religion isn't quite correct however, as religion wasn't separated from the rest of the culture.
Still, it would be a quite reasonable belief for some religion based on an African or Polynesian belief system. I don't, however, believe that it was ever a part of Vodun. Still, there are enough varieties of Vodun that there might well be a sect that believed that. And it's a quite reasonable belief for any groups that believes in sympathetic magic.
This gets tricky. While emotionally I get your argument, do you *really* want to trust the current crop of politicians to write an amendment?
Protection of religion is written into the bill of rights. Sexism is quite a bit later. And, honestly, does it seem unreasonable to you that women would prefer to be stripped by women when identification was necessary? Men might also prefer to be stripped by men. And in either case a lawyer should be present. The tricky part of that is that the lawyer should be paid by the state, but responsible to the subject. Unfortunately, public defenders have a very poor record of honorable behavior. And I'm not just talking about incompetence.
I prefer the many-worlds interpretation also, but I think it's a mistake to say it's "becoming more mainstream". It was originally published by (among others) J. Archibald Wheeler, and you can't get much more mainstream.
For that matter there are several valid interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, and it's probably a mistake to choose between them. There's even merit to the Copenhagen interpretation ("Don't try to understand it, just calculate.") Until there's an experimental way to choose between the interpretations, you just need to accept them all as somehow saying things that are, as far as we can tell, the same, even though their translations into, e.g., English seem totally different.
This particular thing about event horizons always bugs me (i am no scientist at all): If the stuff falling in never enters from an outside perspective, shouldn't black holes look like Katamari balls and be quite visible?
No. As things approach the event horizon the light from them is increasingly red-shifted, so that by the time they actually reach the event horizon it's been red shifted down to 0 hertz. Also, the light almost goes into orbit, so it needs to make an ever increasing number of orbital passes to escape to where you can see it, so eventually it takes it forever to get there. Both effects are happening at the same time.
Please note that this is an idealized scenario, and assumes perfect vacuum between you and the event horizon. In actuality there would be enough stuff to absorb the light before it reached you. It's possible that even virtual particles would suffice to absorb the light before it reached you as the end-point was approached.
And intelligent actual enemy would not jam your wifi after rooting one of your laptops, but rather use that laptop to forward information to them that you believed them ignorant of. And then, of course, if you detect it you feed in false, but believable information. And then...
It's worse than that. Even the machines in doctors offices are vulnerable, because they are only supposed to install HIPA approved software, and so, e.g., they run the (presumably) most recently approved version of MSWindows. Connected to the internet.
Basically there's no awareness of even a potential threat.
OTOH, they don't browse random web sites. They may not have Flash installed. (I didn't ask to check just what they had installed, it was just blatantly MSWindows...I don't even know which version.) So they probably avoid attack by lurkers.
I suppose the first estimate of vulnerability would be "How many doctors offices were running botnet software?", but I don't know how frequent it is. A simple Google search shows that it happens.
As I have elsewhere asserted, religion seems to have a minimal influence on the violence of the adherent, with most of the influence being cultural. But Buddhism *does* have the reputation of being peaceful...which is interesting since most Samurai were Zen Buddhists...and a very large percentage of people who consider Buddhists to be peaceful both know that, and know that hand-to-hand martial art were developed by Buddhist monks.
Slashdot Mirror
Mercuric oxide is red. I'm not sure about any of the other properties, but it *is* red. (Actually orange might be a better descriptive, but it's on the red side of orange.)
Google: mercuric oxide color
Speed is ALWAYS a concern, and faster is generally worse due to limits of reaction time and increase in stopping distance. (The exception is some times when you need momentum to traverse some terrain. It's rare, but it does happen, and it may be less rare in Chicago where snow and mud are (were?) frequent.)
That said "too low" is a judgment call, but the comment about "Speeding in-of-itself" cause me to doubt your judgement.
Still, the assertion in the article is that the tickets were issued in a way that appears invalid. This may well be true.
Hmmm... I'd looked under string and character documentation, but didn't find a reference to that function. Not surprising given where they chose to stash it, but it strikes me as an unreasonably obscure location. Surely character should have at least a cross reference. (Well, perhaps it did and I missed it. I wasn't seriously considering switching to Julia. And perhaps the locations would have been obvious to someone who was acquainted with the code. Even I could tell it was being used in some functions.)
When I was seriously considering it my real problem was with its model of parallelism. It seems excellent for handling matrices, but that's not at all what I need.
Last I heard PyPy wasn't even attempting to get rid of the GIL.
Mind you, I do like Python, but not for multiprocessing. It's better than some choices, but it's hardly good.
(OTOH, when I really looked into Julia a few months ago [how many?] I decided that its way of doing multiprocessing wasn't useful for my purposes, but was instead optimized for array arithmetic.) This is great for most of their target audience, but doesn't fit my purposes which are more closely modeled by independent servers. I was looking for an approach that didn't have so much overhead, but was still passing messages into queues and not waiting for a response. The response, when it appeared, would be in the form of a message passed into the queue held by the originating thread/process/server. A TCP server is overkill, but finding anything simpler isn't straightforwards. (If it helps, the messages passed are immutable in actuality, whether or not conceptually.)
Currently I'm torn between Ruby and Python for speed of development, and I'll probably convert the code to use 0MQ so I can switch out modules for C or C++ code to improve speed. But this is running all around Robin Hood's barn to accomplish something that should be straightforwards. But by using 0MQ I can keep the character handling part out of C/C++, as those languages are truly terrible at handling Unicode.
Added to which they've removed Python's GIL. But the documentation doesn't make it clear how to get a character's General Category, despite the fact that many of the functions use it in deriving their answer (e.g., isalnum). This would be a real annoyance were I seriously considering using it.
Until I encounter some more plausible explanation, I'm going to consider that an intentional error. It reads that the Sikh's are doing the discriminating, but the rest of the article reads that they are the ones being discriminated against. So to single that sentence out for republication is at best misleading, and reasonably considered malicious.
Now there may be some evidence not mentioned that would justify that statement, but as it wasn't mentioned, I don't feel it's reasonable to include in the summary. And, in fact, consider that malice is as likely as carelessness.
You seem to be under the impression that just because some group uses the name Anonymous, they are the same as other groups that use the same name. I don't believe this is correct.
Think military bootcamp.
Both. Just like everyone else.
Sorry, but you overstate your case. The evidence may not be complete, but on certain points the evidence is as complete as one would expect it to be.
E.g., if the Hebrews were the Habiri (Habiru?) then there is evidence that they invaded Canaan during the time of Ikhnaton.
http://phys.org/news/2015-11-n... 404 error, page cannot be found.
A *MUCH* better idea than bombing civilian targets, who might well not be opposed to you if they had a choice.
Only if you lose, and probably not then.
I wish I could believe I was being cynical.
Which ones might well be revealed by the records within the PCs of the leaders of ISIS. But good luck trying to find that information.
OTOH, bombing doesn't do that much good, either. It definitely convinces the population of the area bombed that you are the enemy. Many of them might well not have believed that before you dropped a bomb on their sister or at their uncle's funeral.
You've got safe spaces. Lots of them. Too many. But this isn't one of them.
There is often proof that, at least at some point, they were serious about their religion.
OTOH, I've been quite apauled at the way Roman Cathoics take an obvious joke as a serious grounds for saying theirs is the only true Christian Church. I.e., "Your name is Rocky, and on that rock I will build my church." It may have had serious overtones, but that sure isn't clear. ... Well, I don't read either Greek or Aramaic, and the relevant texts were written long after the fact, so maybe there was a reason to take it seriously, but as evidence it's rather poor.
It's also true that several proto-religions currently extant were founded by trickster figures. This makes it difficult to be certain just how serious they were even with LOTS of evidence being available. How serious was Gurdjieff? Aliester Crowley was serious, but about what? Did Leonard Orr actually believe in rebirthing? If so, WHAT did he believe about it? Etc. Note that in the cases I've cited there is LOTS of evidence that is verifiably valid, and it's still difficult to be certain.
IIRC the thing about cameras stealing a person's soul was common in both Polynesian and African cultures. Calling it a religion isn't quite correct however, as religion wasn't separated from the rest of the culture.
Still, it would be a quite reasonable belief for some religion based on an African or Polynesian belief system. I don't, however, believe that it was ever a part of Vodun. Still, there are enough varieties of Vodun that there might well be a sect that believed that. And it's a quite reasonable belief for any groups that believes in sympathetic magic.
This gets tricky. While emotionally I get your argument, do you *really* want to trust the current crop of politicians to write an amendment?
Protection of religion is written into the bill of rights. Sexism is quite a bit later. And, honestly, does it seem unreasonable to you that women would prefer to be stripped by women when identification was necessary? Men might also prefer to be stripped by men. And in either case a lawyer should be present. The tricky part of that is that the lawyer should be paid by the state, but responsible to the subject. Unfortunately, public defenders have a very poor record of honorable behavior. And I'm not just talking about incompetence.
I prefer the many-worlds interpretation also, but I think it's a mistake to say it's "becoming more mainstream". It was originally published by (among others) J. Archibald Wheeler, and you can't get much more mainstream.
For that matter there are several valid interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, and it's probably a mistake to choose between them. There's even merit to the Copenhagen interpretation ("Don't try to understand it, just calculate.") Until there's an experimental way to choose between the interpretations, you just need to accept them all as somehow saying things that are, as far as we can tell, the same, even though their translations into, e.g., English seem totally different.
No. As things approach the event horizon the light from them is increasingly red-shifted, so that by the time they actually reach the event horizon it's been red shifted down to 0 hertz. Also, the light almost goes into orbit, so it needs to make an ever increasing number of orbital passes to escape to where you can see it, so eventually it takes it forever to get there. Both effects are happening at the same time.
Please note that this is an idealized scenario, and assumes perfect vacuum between you and the event horizon. In actuality there would be enough stuff to absorb the light before it reached you. It's possible that even virtual particles would suffice to absorb the light before it reached you as the end-point was approached.
I disagree. It would probably have lasted at least 6 months.
And intelligent actual enemy would not jam your wifi after rooting one of your laptops, but rather use that laptop to forward information to them that you believed them ignorant of. And then, of course, if you detect it you feed in false, but believable information. And then...
It's worse than that. Even the machines in doctors offices are vulnerable, because they are only supposed to install HIPA approved software, and so, e.g., they run the (presumably) most recently approved version of MSWindows. Connected to the internet.
Basically there's no awareness of even a potential threat.
OTOH, they don't browse random web sites. They may not have Flash installed. (I didn't ask to check just what they had installed, it was just blatantly MSWindows...I don't even know which version.) So they probably avoid attack by lurkers.
I suppose the first estimate of vulnerability would be "How many doctors offices were running botnet software?", but I don't know how frequent it is. A simple Google search shows that it happens.
Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I'm not exactly disagreeing with your point.
As I have elsewhere asserted, religion seems to have a minimal influence on the violence of the adherent, with most of the influence being cultural. But Buddhism *does* have the reputation of being peaceful...which is interesting since most Samurai were Zen Buddhists...and a very large percentage of people who consider Buddhists to be peaceful both know that, and know that hand-to-hand martial art were developed by Buddhist monks.