Well, it gets colder, but once your frozen, getting colder just increases the shelf life. Radiation is a problem, but the insides of meteors are shielded from it somewhat.
No they don't. And I'm also sure that the official definition of temperature for BOTH scales talks about standard pressure rather than sea level. And that standard pressure is defined in a way that is not geocentric.
Still, it was based around geocentric concerns in both cases. The refinements are due to concerns about the standard not remaining fixed over time. (But the real problem has been [recently] the precise definition of mass, i.e. the Kilogram, since the pound has been redefined to be based on the metric system. Have you ever tried to count precisely Avogadro's number of atoms of a precisely specified isotope? Think about the problem for a bit.)
Good point, and that brings up the question of error bars. At 68 F one would assume that it was accurate within half a degree Fahrenheit, at 20 C one would assume it was accurate within 5 degrees Celsius. That's a big difference.
As long as the internal measure is in floats or rationals it would hardly matter.
FWIW, I use both Fahrenheit and Celsius, depending on what I'm thinking about, and sometimes Kelvin. Use the tool that fits the problem. And the thermostats that I'm familiar with can easily switch the display from Celsius to Fahrenheit or back. I rarely see one that handles Kelvin, though.
On later reading, it seems as if he *was* planning on stealing the bicycle. As for "people just illegally break into somebodyÃ(TM)s house to not steal stuff or murder the occupants all the time", that's literally true. E.g. my father had Alzheimer's, and would often walk into someone else's house in the middle of the night and claim it was his house. The police got quite used to taking him back home. I have no idea why the DMV didn't revoke his drivers license, not that it would have mattered.
So it is quite plausible that a mentally defective person of any age might do just what first reading showed was going on. But as he repositioned the bicycle before entering....well, that does eliminate most of the plausible excuses.
I'm sure they could structure it so it just happened to only apply to Charter. Say a tax on promised services that haven't been delivered or some such.
Thanks for highlighting that point. I hadn't noticed that: Police said surveillance video showed that he had moved the bicycle from their backyard to their front yard before asking for their password.
That adds a lot of premeditation to the event, and strongly narrows all the plausible potential ameliorating circumstances (like mental incompetence).
It's not clear he was planning on stealing anything, unless you call using someone's wifi after they've given you the password stealing. The bicycle happened afterwards.
I'll admit that the preponderance of the evidence is against him, but things aren't really all that clear. He may just have been acting really stupidly. (E.g., stealing the bicycle may have been petty vengeance more than theft, or maybe he wanted the wifi to call a ride.)
The evidence, such as it is, is against any innocent interpretation, but it's also not clear enough to say that he was an intentional thief ahead of time.
This administration is, indeed, the worst in history, but I wouldn't trust any administration since Eisenhower to write those policies. And that limit is probably because I don't remember the older ones.
Never is a long time, but I wouldn't expect a consumer product this decade or next. Controlling the accuracy of reads and writes that finely is not going to be easy. Still, it sounds like a capacious non-volatile memory, so it might someday be developed.
Not even that. There's a proposed diamond crystal that would store memories in the polarization of imperfections filled with a particular Nitrogen isotope as doping. That's solid state, and I think it might even be a persistent as flash. Reading it, writing it, and making it are currently problematic, though. (IIRC in the lab sample they wrote it with a particle beam, but that may have been how they made it.)
Someone else is/was running the i486's. The i386 was only for the purpose of running MSWind95, and when the need for it went away, so did the machine. (Well, actually hardware problems rather forced the issue...but if I'd had to keep it running I would have.)
That said, neither is a really good choice on a modern machine. Easier would be the keep it running isolated from the web, which the i386 definitely needed anyway (and that was easy, because it was running MSWind 95a...no included internet connection). For the i486 you'd be running an unsupported OS, so you had BETTER be keeping it isolated from the web. And if you're going to do that anyway, you might as well use a modern processor, unless you've got a good reason not to. (I had this timing dependent software that wasn't upgraded and where MSWind 97 munged the timing.)
It's not a good forwards-looking option, but with all the vulnerable computers already out there, it's an excellent interim step. And its going to take a long time for all those computers to get replaced. IIRC, there are still a few i486-s still running. I know of an i386 that was running until about 3 years ago...it was even running MSWindows 95a.
This is Spectre 1, not Meltdown. I believe it also affects AMD. IIRC, it was also expected to be quite difficult to implement, though I didn't hear any follow-up about that.
I also didn't hear that Rowhammer was specific to Intel. Do you have reason to believe differently?
FWIW, and IIUC, while Linux allows you to disable the protection against Spectre (or was it Meltdown), the kernel automatically optimizes it away if the processor is not vulnerable. (IIUC, the original patch submitted by Intel didn't do that, but AMD submitted a revised patch.)
I think it's better to track down what's holding onto the USB. Occasionally I've had a process running in the background that really should prevent the device from being ejected. More commonly, of course, I've just had a terminal window open that was using something on it as the "current directory". The second case should be easy to just eject, the first case...better kill the process first.
In either case I could just reach over an pull the device out...the question is "Can I do that without corrupting the files or file system?". And in both cases I prefer to handle the process properly.
Apparently the thing is about 2 ft tall when standing up (presumably not including the giraffe-like neck). So it's sturdier than I was thinking. And from the pictures it's uglier than I remembered. (I wonder who made the robot I was remembering...it wasn't nearly that ugly, and was white with black spots. And it was smaller.)
This is supposed to be a modified "Spot-mini", so it's not going to be big enough to carry anything heavy, and not going to be sturdy enough to survive being stepped on.
OTOH, I hope they're less ugly than the prior edition. And I do wonder what possible utility they have. Spies, perhaps?
That happens on Linux, too, with various window managers.
I've never been certain whether this is dangerous or not. (I tend to play it safe.) It shouldn't cause any trouble, but you *might* end up with a corrupted file system if you just pull it out.
You're making assumptions about the scope and purpose. One should choose the language to fit the project, and some of those aren't appropriate to all projects. (Even the "reliable libraries" requirement can occasionally be dropped.)
FWIW, I grew up as a FORTRAN IV programmer, but now I do most of my programming in Python, Go, or Ruby...depending on the project. And some in D, where appropriate. So I recognize the value of what you're recommending, but you also need to recognize the costs.
That said, I've never heard anyone say anything good about PHP...except the poster above who said (paraphrase)"It's better to continue a project in PHP than to partially replace it with Python.", and that's faint praise indeed.
IIRC the original use was the Roman dominated "Federati", which in practice meant allies or associates, but where the policy came from Rome. These were groups that Rome didn't actually conqueror for one reason or another, but dominated. Mainly there were Germanics, but that seems to have been "that's where the situation developed". They were nominally independent of Rome, and would meet together in councils to decide on common policy, when never happened to contradict Roman policy (though they could be quite slow on agreeing to some Roman policies).
And here I'm elaborating a bit beyond the edge of my knowledge, so I'd better stop. But federated doesn't mean free of outside control, it seems to mean more free of explicit outside control. This makes me wonder about the US federal government which started life in debt to Alexander Hamilton (Chase-Manhattan bank).
Given that, the choice of words is a bit ominous, but not necessarily incorrect.
I think you underestimate the importance of US agricultural exports to China, but just how much that would affect the leadership is another question. They could clearly direct a lot of the resentment over any tight belts against the clearly malign policies of the US government. They wouldn't even need to lie.
Also China has been building ties with various other agricultural exporting countries, so the importance of the US is probably less than it was. And despite the problems it caused, the "one child per family" policy did reduct the population of China substantially, and now economics and family planning are letting them manage the population size (with, admittedly, a lot of lag in the feedback).
It's been clear for quite awhile that the US was falling out of the dominant nation position, and perhaps we can thank Trump for getting us into a secondary position without the common accompaniment of a huge war. This would be a very good thing, as being the "top nation" is generally a bad thing for a country. Perhaps China will be up to it, or at least long enough for an AI to make the matter irrelevant in one way or another. I'd been hoping for the US to hold onto the top position, but it has clearly been in decay mode for decades, with less and less concern being given to it's national ideal and more concern to holding onto power. In olden times this is a mode that could last for centuries, but that was with weaponry that was considerably less powerful than the current weaponry. Fortunately, like the US, China is predominately introverted and moved to economic dominance. I hope that they aren't too introverted to continue development of space, but we still seem to be pushing them there, at least in the shape of SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin. (NASA appears moribund, but I can hope I'm wrong.)
Slashdot Mirror
We aren't talking about controls here, but about a news article. And I can easily imagine an editor rounding 24.5 degrees to 20 degrees.
Well, it gets colder, but once you're frozen, getti...
Well, it gets colder, but once your frozen, getting colder just increases the shelf life. Radiation is a problem, but the insides of meteors are shielded from it somewhat.
No they don't. And I'm also sure that the official definition of temperature for BOTH scales talks about standard pressure rather than sea level. And that standard pressure is defined in a way that is not geocentric.
Still, it was based around geocentric concerns in both cases. The refinements are due to concerns about the standard not remaining fixed over time. (But the real problem has been [recently] the precise definition of mass, i.e. the Kilogram, since the pound has been redefined to be based on the metric system. Have you ever tried to count precisely Avogadro's number of atoms of a precisely specified isotope? Think about the problem for a bit.)
Good point, and that brings up the question of error bars. At 68 F one would assume that it was accurate within half a degree Fahrenheit, at 20 C one would assume it was accurate within 5 degrees Celsius. That's a big difference.
As long as the internal measure is in floats or rationals it would hardly matter.
FWIW, I use both Fahrenheit and Celsius, depending on what I'm thinking about, and sometimes Kelvin. Use the tool that fits the problem. And the thermostats that I'm familiar with can easily switch the display from Celsius to Fahrenheit or back. I rarely see one that handles Kelvin, though.
On later reading, it seems as if he *was* planning on stealing the bicycle. As for "people just illegally break into somebodyÃ(TM)s house to not steal stuff or murder the occupants all the time", that's literally true. E.g. my father had Alzheimer's, and would often walk into someone else's house in the middle of the night and claim it was his house. The police got quite used to taking him back home. I have no idea why the DMV didn't revoke his drivers license, not that it would have mattered.
So it is quite plausible that a mentally defective person of any age might do just what first reading showed was going on. But as he repositioned the bicycle before entering....well, that does eliminate most of the plausible excuses.
I'm sure they could structure it so it just happened to only apply to Charter. Say a tax on promised services that haven't been delivered or some such.
Thanks for highlighting that point. I hadn't noticed that:
Police said surveillance video showed that he had moved the bicycle from their backyard to their front yard before asking for their password.
That adds a lot of premeditation to the event, and strongly narrows all the plausible potential ameliorating circumstances (like mental incompetence).
You are jumping from a possibility to a certainty. Is certainty really that important to you?
It's not clear he was planning on stealing anything, unless you call using someone's wifi after they've given you the password stealing. The bicycle happened afterwards.
I'll admit that the preponderance of the evidence is against him, but things aren't really all that clear. He may just have been acting really stupidly. (E.g., stealing the bicycle may have been petty vengeance more than theft, or maybe he wanted the wifi to call a ride.)
The evidence, such as it is, is against any innocent interpretation, but it's also not clear enough to say that he was an intentional thief ahead of time.
This administration is, indeed, the worst in history, but I wouldn't trust any administration since Eisenhower to write those policies. And that limit is probably because I don't remember the older ones.
That's what Google does. Facebook? I've no idea what they scheme for monetizing the data is.
Never is a long time, but I wouldn't expect a consumer product this decade or next. Controlling the accuracy of reads and writes that finely is not going to be easy. Still, it sounds like a capacious non-volatile memory, so it might someday be developed.
Not even that. There's a proposed diamond crystal that would store memories in the polarization of imperfections filled with a particular Nitrogen isotope as doping. That's solid state, and I think it might even be a persistent as flash. Reading it, writing it, and making it are currently problematic, though. (IIRC in the lab sample they wrote it with a particle beam, but that may have been how they made it.)
Someone else is/was running the i486's. The i386 was only for the purpose of running MSWind95, and when the need for it went away, so did the machine. (Well, actually hardware problems rather forced the issue...but if I'd had to keep it running I would have.)
That said, neither is a really good choice on a modern machine. Easier would be the keep it running isolated from the web, which the i386 definitely needed anyway (and that was easy, because it was running MSWind 95a...no included internet connection). For the i486 you'd be running an unsupported OS, so you had BETTER be keeping it isolated from the web. And if you're going to do that anyway, you might as well use a modern processor, unless you've got a good reason not to. (I had this timing dependent software that wasn't upgraded and where MSWind 97 munged the timing.)
It's not a good forwards-looking option, but with all the vulnerable computers already out there, it's an excellent interim step. And its going to take a long time for all those computers to get replaced. IIRC, there are still a few i486-s still running. I know of an i386 that was running until about 3 years ago...it was even running MSWindows 95a.
This is Spectre 1, not Meltdown. I believe it also affects AMD. IIRC, it was also expected to be quite difficult to implement, though I didn't hear any follow-up about that.
I also didn't hear that Rowhammer was specific to Intel. Do you have reason to believe differently?
FWIW, and IIUC, while Linux allows you to disable the protection against Spectre (or was it Meltdown), the kernel automatically optimizes it away if the processor is not vulnerable. (IIUC, the original patch submitted by Intel didn't do that, but AMD submitted a revised patch.)
I think it's better to track down what's holding onto the USB. Occasionally I've had a process running in the background that really should prevent the device from being ejected. More commonly, of course, I've just had a terminal window open that was using something on it as the "current directory". The second case should be easy to just eject, the first case...better kill the process first.
In either case I could just reach over an pull the device out...the question is "Can I do that without corrupting the files or file system?". And in both cases I prefer to handle the process properly.
Apparently the thing is about 2 ft tall when standing up (presumably not including the giraffe-like neck). So it's sturdier than I was thinking. And from the pictures it's uglier than I remembered. (I wonder who made the robot I was remembering...it wasn't nearly that ugly, and was white with black spots. And it was smaller.)
This is supposed to be a modified "Spot-mini", so it's not going to be big enough to carry anything heavy, and not going to be sturdy enough to survive being stepped on.
OTOH, I hope they're less ugly than the prior edition. And I do wonder what possible utility they have. Spies, perhaps?
That happens on Linux, too, with various window managers.
I've never been certain whether this is dangerous or not. (I tend to play it safe.) It shouldn't cause any trouble, but you *might* end up with a corrupted file system if you just pull it out.
You're making assumptions about the scope and purpose. One should choose the language to fit the project, and some of those aren't appropriate to all projects. (Even the "reliable libraries" requirement can occasionally be dropped.)
FWIW, I grew up as a FORTRAN IV programmer, but now I do most of my programming in Python, Go, or Ruby...depending on the project. And some in D, where appropriate. So I recognize the value of what you're recommending, but you also need to recognize the costs.
That said, I've never heard anyone say anything good about PHP...except the poster above who said (paraphrase)"It's better to continue a project in PHP than to partially replace it with Python.", and that's faint praise indeed.
IIRC the original use was the Roman dominated "Federati", which in practice meant allies or associates, but where the policy came from Rome. These were groups that Rome didn't actually conqueror for one reason or another, but dominated. Mainly there were Germanics, but that seems to have been "that's where the situation developed". They were nominally independent of Rome, and would meet together in councils to decide on common policy, when never happened to contradict Roman policy (though they could be quite slow on agreeing to some Roman policies).
And here I'm elaborating a bit beyond the edge of my knowledge, so I'd better stop. But federated doesn't mean free of outside control, it seems to mean more free of explicit outside control. This makes me wonder about the US federal government which started life in debt to Alexander Hamilton (Chase-Manhattan bank).
Given that, the choice of words is a bit ominous, but not necessarily incorrect.
I think you underestimate the importance of US agricultural exports to China, but just how much that would affect the leadership is another question. They could clearly direct a lot of the resentment over any tight belts against the clearly malign policies of the US government. They wouldn't even need to lie.
Also China has been building ties with various other agricultural exporting countries, so the importance of the US is probably less than it was. And despite the problems it caused, the "one child per family" policy did reduct the population of China substantially, and now economics and family planning are letting them manage the population size (with, admittedly, a lot of lag in the feedback).
It's been clear for quite awhile that the US was falling out of the dominant nation position, and perhaps we can thank Trump for getting us into a secondary position without the common accompaniment of a huge war. This would be a very good thing, as being the "top nation" is generally a bad thing for a country. Perhaps China will be up to it, or at least long enough for an AI to make the matter irrelevant in one way or another. I'd been hoping for the US to hold onto the top position, but it has clearly been in decay mode for decades, with less and less concern being given to it's national ideal and more concern to holding onto power. In olden times this is a mode that could last for centuries, but that was with weaponry that was considerably less powerful than the current weaponry. Fortunately, like the US, China is predominately introverted and moved to economic dominance. I hope that they aren't too introverted to continue development of space, but we still seem to be pushing them there, at least in the shape of SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin. (NASA appears moribund, but I can hope I'm wrong.)