That's not even close to the same idea. That impact (while kind of neat to watch) is of a much larger object, looking to be several hundred miles wide (Ceres?). An asteroid the size of Apophis would create an incredible explosion and crater, but it would not be a life-ending event like in that video.
The accounting used by the Federal budget does not take into account future costs and revenues. Right now, a company can lose billions of dollars in a year but have their bank accounts increase in size if their future revenues will be outstripped by costs. The federal budget uses a much simpler system: how much will be left (or lost) at the end of the budget year? It doesn't care that a new program will result in tens of billions more spending over the next few years, only that this year, it costs a billion dollars. Next year's budget will deal with the higher costs.
Every year, the debt increased, meaning that borrowing increased every year. The smallest increase was $5.4 billion. It was a very good accomplishment, as the debt decreased dramatically that year, but it still meant that the government spent more than it took in. I have difficulty understanding how it could have been balanced, at least insofar as when it's defined by an entity having more in the coffers at the end of the year than at the beginning. And remember: the government does not have to adhere to normal accounting principles, or else its annual losses would be tremendously higher.
We do something similar. Bad HELO/EHLO? Disconnected and blackholed for an hour. It then goes against three RBLs, Spamhaus being the most effective. For what we pay, it is by far the best value of the entire system. Anyway, anything matching that is blackholed for an hour. Then we check for spoofed addresses, then SPF records. After that, it's sent on to the anti-spam systems. We figured last that we block about 92% of all attempts to send messages, between dropped connections, rejections, and quarantines.
We don't use the records where I work (too many uncertainties about where government e-mail is coming from, which is a stupid reason to not do it), but we do check them. Except for a few isolated cases of people sending corporate mail via their cablemodem/DSL SMTP servers and the case of ValueWeb[1], we rarely have any problems with it, and drop several tens of thousands of messages per day. That's out of about 2 million dropped or rejected connections, so it's a small fraction, but every bit helps where it doesn't hurt that much. (Spamhaus is responsible for most of the other dropped connections.)
[1] ValueWeb's DNS servers return NXDOMAIN results when doing TXT record queries against them, unless the record explicitly has a TXT record in it, when it should return a NOERROR response with empty results. In addition, asking them to add a TXT record to the zone almost always results in them adding it to NS1, but not to NS2 or NS3, unless the customer specifically requests it. I still would like to know how the NXDOMAIN is generated in these cases.
I pay almost everything by card and/or online (rent is about the only exception, as it requires a check), but I still get paper copies of my bank and credit card statements. Something vaguely reassuring about that, especially when they practically beg me every month to go fully electronic. I then scan them in for easy visual reference, and file the originals away in a fireproof case.
I just don't trust the banks' electronic systems. It's irrational, I know -- they have so much else -- but it's a little piece of the paranoia that I hold on to.:)
My last apartment complex took Visa or Mastercard to pay rent, so I'd often pay it with that, and then pay it from the website as soon as it showed up in the transaction log. My only regret was that I did not have a mileage card at that point, as I would have racked up a good chunk of frequent flier miles each year (rent in SoCal is a bit high).
The current apartment has been promising it for three years now, but the parent company never seems to be ready to roll it out. I suspect it's the overhead, but I can't get anyone to tell me.
Usually the first $100 is available immediately, though it's subject to loss in case the account is overdrawn. Checks deposited when bank staff can still get to them (usually by 4pm, sometimes by as late as 6 or even 7) are usually processed that night, and funds available the next day.
This may not quite be the case anymore. Since the law changed not long ago and checks could be validated instantly, the money may be available (or not) within seconds or minutes. I haven't deposited a check in a couple of years, though, so I don't know.
It's the way I was taught all through school as well. The same thing applies (as I was taught) with the question mark and most other punctuation, although not with a period or comma. It just makes more sense that way rather than an always-in or always-out rule.
I could have phrased that better. You couldn't fly them by remote control in the ways required until recently. There's been a big difference between moving something around in simple ways via a remote control and having people actually in the plane. The pilots said in the news conference after the flight yesterday that being in the actual plane was significantly different than the full-motion flight simulator.
The static tests are done to the breaking point, and then the results compared to non-destructive dynamic tests to make sure that the results curves follow what was seen in the dynamic tests. The six 787 test articles were all scheduled to go to airline customers after the testing was completed, though based on some recent news out of Boeing, it sounds like they may be keeping them instead, possibly due to the structural changes required to fix the wing problem.
Planes are not "flown to destruction" as part of the certification process. Pilots get killed that way. (And no, you couldn't fly these things via radio control, not until very recently, and that would probably invalidate the test.) Destructive tests are performed under very specific, controlled conditions so that the engineers know the exact point of failure.. The wing flex tests that you mentioned have already been performed in 2008, though a new round of tests either was recently done or will be done in the near future following the changes made since the weakness was discovered and fixed this year.
The A350 is still 2+ years from first flight. By that time, Boeing will have delivered a few dozen of the 787, presuming that nothing happens during flight testing and initial service to throw off the delivery schedule, and will have delivered even more by the time the first A350 has been delivered, as that plane will still have to go through its own ~9-month test plan. The A350 was largely a panic response to the 787, as evident from the dismissive attitude taken towards the 787 by Airbus early on, and then the rushed design paralleling the 787 (including the use of large fractions of composite materials) later on as orders stacked up in Boeing's corner while A380 orders languished. To this day, the A380 has barely more than 200 firm orders, whereas the 787 has well over 800. The A350 has 500 on firm order, but that may change as the 787 gets out the door.
I've got a CRT TV that's about ten years old, with no plans to replace it in the near future. I'd love to see the volume of commercials get cut back, because the channels that I mostly watch (Comedy Central, TNT, History, Discovery) are some of those that have the loudest commercials for products I have no intention of buying.
If someone kills by stabbing them in the head with a knife it's the same charge as if they used a gun, everything else being equal.
Actually, in most of the US, using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime is a slightly different charge set containing an automatic sentence extension, usually of five or ten years. Killing someone by stabbing them in the head with a knife would carry the same charge as caving in the head with a hammer, though.
A lot of big-city cops now will approach very close to the side of the vehicle, and maintain an angle behind the driver, making it difficult for a driver to get a shot off with anything resembling accuracy. At some point, they have to come a little more in view, and this doesn't help deal with passengers, especially in the back seat, but it may have saved a few lives.
I'll have to check with my Canadian friends and find out what they do.
In many places in the US, the preferred pattern when being pulled over is to stop, turn off the car, put the keys on the dash, and put both hands on the wheel. When getting something not in immediate view, tell the officer what you're going for and where. For example, "My license is in my wallet in my back pocket, and the insurance is in the glove compartment." They know then why you're reaching for a particular location. It doesn't make them watch any less closely, but when you pull something dark and indistinguishable out from underneath you, they may decide it's a wallet and not a weapon.
It's not directly applicable to this case, since it happened at a border control point, but the essence still applies: stay in the car unless you're told to get out, and don't do anything that may make the guys with guns nervous.
Any time one is in a vehicle stopped by a member of law enforcement, whether a traffic cop getting ready to write a citation or a border cop inspecting for contraband, the basic rule is to stay in the car. They've been teaching this in driver's ed for many years, it's mentioned on TV and on the radio, and aside from that, it's common knowledge.
Bottom line: Don't do anything to make the officer nervous, particularly anything that may be a prelude to aggression. Getting out of the car is a possible prelude to aggression, as it may be an attempt to distract attention from something in the car.
I watched a clip a few nights ago of an officer performing a traffic stop. The suspect got out of his vehicle part way through, and actually did a little dance in the street. Within a few seconds, he was back at the vehicle, where he pulled a gun and shot and killed the officer. Prior to the gun appearing, he just looked like a goofy idiot. The clip is now used as a training video to show cops how quickly a stop can go bad.
The Soviets did get access to the the ports in Vietnam. In response, the US beefed up its presence in Japan, the Philippines, and Thailand, and made a point of sending naval vessels along the routes to exercise the right of passage through international waters. The forces regularly observed each other. It didn't come to blows, of course (or at least no significant blows), but it wouldn't have taken long for Soviet cruise and anti-ship missiles to shut down virtually all shipping in the area. The US forces were there to provide a balance against that.
For ballistic missile launches, other nations are notified well in advance. In this case, Britain, France, and the US were certainly notified, and others may have been provided some level of notice as well.
North Vietnam was backed primarily by the Soviets, not the Chinese. In fact, shortly after the end of the Vietnam War, China and Vietnam got into a shooting match over the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia.
The Soviets needed more warm-water ports, and Vietnam was willing to provide this. This also put a significant portion of the world's shipping lanes within striking distance of Soviet forces. The domino theory may have been an overblown fear, but a significant base of operations in that part of the world is all that the USSR needed to make a serious nuisance in case things heated up.
Large volumes of e-mail for you is tens per day? That looks like a typo to me, or you're really doing something wrong. If you meant tens of thousands of messages per day, that's not what Outlook (or e-mail, for that matter) was designed for. If that's log information, it needs to be going to a syslog server, or better yet, a SIEM.
Between rules looking at senders and certain content, my Inbox has fairly low levels per day, as messages are classified and sent off to other folders. The search engine in Outlook 2007 and 2010 is fairly quick at finding items even when in PSTs (of which I have about six, each corresponding to a different year or in a couple of cases certain subjects). It returns results which may be as few as one message or as many as several hundred, in only a few seconds searching through about 4.5GB of mail. My daily mail volume is around 200 or so messages, but I have effectively dealt with volumes around a thousand per day.
This one works better scattered across multiple folders, of which I have dozens. It works well for conversations at work. To each his own, I guess -- though you'll probably lose out on it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not even close to the same idea. That impact (while kind of neat to watch) is of a much larger object, looking to be several hundred miles wide (Ceres?). An asteroid the size of Apophis would create an incredible explosion and crater, but it would not be a life-ending event like in that video.
The accounting used by the Federal budget does not take into account future costs and revenues. Right now, a company can lose billions of dollars in a year but have their bank accounts increase in size if their future revenues will be outstripped by costs. The federal budget uses a much simpler system: how much will be left (or lost) at the end of the budget year? It doesn't care that a new program will result in tens of billions more spending over the next few years, only that this year, it costs a billion dollars. Next year's budget will deal with the higher costs.
Here are the debts to the penny for 31 Aug of the years where budgets signed by Clinton were in effect (1993 is included for debt increase reference):
1993 - $4,403,247,046,170.58
1994 - $4,691,991,360,873.49
1995 - $4,970,755,679,060.21
1996 - $5,208,303,439,417.93
1997 - $5,404,420,294,885.51
1998 - $5,564,553,479,478.04
1999 - $5,672,386,167,530.41
2000 - $5,677,822,307,077.83
2001 - $5,769,875,781,034.48
All numbers were pulled from Debt to the Penny.
Every year, the debt increased, meaning that borrowing increased every year. The smallest increase was $5.4 billion. It was a very good accomplishment, as the debt decreased dramatically that year, but it still meant that the government spent more than it took in. I have difficulty understanding how it could have been balanced, at least insofar as when it's defined by an entity having more in the coffers at the end of the year than at the beginning. And remember: the government does not have to adhere to normal accounting principles, or else its annual losses would be tremendously higher.
We do something similar. Bad HELO/EHLO? Disconnected and blackholed for an hour. It then goes against three RBLs, Spamhaus being the most effective. For what we pay, it is by far the best value of the entire system. Anyway, anything matching that is blackholed for an hour. Then we check for spoofed addresses, then SPF records. After that, it's sent on to the anti-spam systems. We figured last that we block about 92% of all attempts to send messages, between dropped connections, rejections, and quarantines.
We don't use the records where I work (too many uncertainties about where government e-mail is coming from, which is a stupid reason to not do it), but we do check them. Except for a few isolated cases of people sending corporate mail via their cablemodem/DSL SMTP servers and the case of ValueWeb[1], we rarely have any problems with it, and drop several tens of thousands of messages per day. That's out of about 2 million dropped or rejected connections, so it's a small fraction, but every bit helps where it doesn't hurt that much. (Spamhaus is responsible for most of the other dropped connections.)
[1] ValueWeb's DNS servers return NXDOMAIN results when doing TXT record queries against them, unless the record explicitly has a TXT record in it, when it should return a NOERROR response with empty results. In addition, asking them to add a TXT record to the zone almost always results in them adding it to NS1, but not to NS2 or NS3, unless the customer specifically requests it. I still would like to know how the NXDOMAIN is generated in these cases.
Auntie Entity will build Bartertown, and all will be OK.
I pay almost everything by card and/or online (rent is about the only exception, as it requires a check), but I still get paper copies of my bank and credit card statements. Something vaguely reassuring about that, especially when they practically beg me every month to go fully electronic. I then scan them in for easy visual reference, and file the originals away in a fireproof case.
I just don't trust the banks' electronic systems. It's irrational, I know -- they have so much else -- but it's a little piece of the paranoia that I hold on to. :)
My last apartment complex took Visa or Mastercard to pay rent, so I'd often pay it with that, and then pay it from the website as soon as it showed up in the transaction log. My only regret was that I did not have a mileage card at that point, as I would have racked up a good chunk of frequent flier miles each year (rent in SoCal is a bit high).
The current apartment has been promising it for three years now, but the parent company never seems to be ready to roll it out. I suspect it's the overhead, but I can't get anyone to tell me.
Usually the first $100 is available immediately, though it's subject to loss in case the account is overdrawn. Checks deposited when bank staff can still get to them (usually by 4pm, sometimes by as late as 6 or even 7) are usually processed that night, and funds available the next day.
This may not quite be the case anymore. Since the law changed not long ago and checks could be validated instantly, the money may be available (or not) within seconds or minutes. I haven't deposited a check in a couple of years, though, so I don't know.
It's the way I was taught all through school as well. The same thing applies (as I was taught) with the question mark and most other punctuation, although not with a period or comma. It just makes more sense that way rather than an always-in or always-out rule.
I could have phrased that better. You couldn't fly them by remote control in the ways required until recently. There's been a big difference between moving something around in simple ways via a remote control and having people actually in the plane. The pilots said in the news conference after the flight yesterday that being in the actual plane was significantly different than the full-motion flight simulator.
The static tests are done to the breaking point, and then the results compared to non-destructive dynamic tests to make sure that the results curves follow what was seen in the dynamic tests. The six 787 test articles were all scheduled to go to airline customers after the testing was completed, though based on some recent news out of Boeing, it sounds like they may be keeping them instead, possibly due to the structural changes required to fix the wing problem.
When aircraft aluminum fails, it shreds and tears. The end result is about the same.
Planes are not "flown to destruction" as part of the certification process. Pilots get killed that way. (And no, you couldn't fly these things via radio control, not until very recently, and that would probably invalidate the test.) Destructive tests are performed under very specific, controlled conditions so that the engineers know the exact point of failure.. The wing flex tests that you mentioned have already been performed in 2008, though a new round of tests either was recently done or will be done in the near future following the changes made since the weakness was discovered and fixed this year.
The A350 is still 2+ years from first flight. By that time, Boeing will have delivered a few dozen of the 787, presuming that nothing happens during flight testing and initial service to throw off the delivery schedule, and will have delivered even more by the time the first A350 has been delivered, as that plane will still have to go through its own ~9-month test plan. The A350 was largely a panic response to the 787, as evident from the dismissive attitude taken towards the 787 by Airbus early on, and then the rushed design paralleling the 787 (including the use of large fractions of composite materials) later on as orders stacked up in Boeing's corner while A380 orders languished. To this day, the A380 has barely more than 200 firm orders, whereas the 787 has well over 800. The A350 has 500 on firm order, but that may change as the 787 gets out the door.
I've got a CRT TV that's about ten years old, with no plans to replace it in the near future. I'd love to see the volume of commercials get cut back, because the channels that I mostly watch (Comedy Central, TNT, History, Discovery) are some of those that have the loudest commercials for products I have no intention of buying.
If someone kills by stabbing them in the head with a knife it's the same charge as if they used a gun, everything else being equal.
Actually, in most of the US, using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime is a slightly different charge set containing an automatic sentence extension, usually of five or ten years. Killing someone by stabbing them in the head with a knife would carry the same charge as caving in the head with a hammer, though.
A lot of big-city cops now will approach very close to the side of the vehicle, and maintain an angle behind the driver, making it difficult for a driver to get a shot off with anything resembling accuracy. At some point, they have to come a little more in view, and this doesn't help deal with passengers, especially in the back seat, but it may have saved a few lives.
I'll have to check with my Canadian friends and find out what they do.
In many places in the US, the preferred pattern when being pulled over is to stop, turn off the car, put the keys on the dash, and put both hands on the wheel. When getting something not in immediate view, tell the officer what you're going for and where. For example, "My license is in my wallet in my back pocket, and the insurance is in the glove compartment." They know then why you're reaching for a particular location. It doesn't make them watch any less closely, but when you pull something dark and indistinguishable out from underneath you, they may decide it's a wallet and not a weapon.
It's not directly applicable to this case, since it happened at a border control point, but the essence still applies: stay in the car unless you're told to get out, and don't do anything that may make the guys with guns nervous.
Any time one is in a vehicle stopped by a member of law enforcement, whether a traffic cop getting ready to write a citation or a border cop inspecting for contraband, the basic rule is to stay in the car. They've been teaching this in driver's ed for many years, it's mentioned on TV and on the radio, and aside from that, it's common knowledge.
Bottom line: Don't do anything to make the officer nervous, particularly anything that may be a prelude to aggression. Getting out of the car is a possible prelude to aggression, as it may be an attempt to distract attention from something in the car.
I watched a clip a few nights ago of an officer performing a traffic stop. The suspect got out of his vehicle part way through, and actually did a little dance in the street. Within a few seconds, he was back at the vehicle, where he pulled a gun and shot and killed the officer. Prior to the gun appearing, he just looked like a goofy idiot. The clip is now used as a training video to show cops how quickly a stop can go bad.
The Soviets did get access to the the ports in Vietnam. In response, the US beefed up its presence in Japan, the Philippines, and Thailand, and made a point of sending naval vessels along the routes to exercise the right of passage through international waters. The forces regularly observed each other. It didn't come to blows, of course (or at least no significant blows), but it wouldn't have taken long for Soviet cruise and anti-ship missiles to shut down virtually all shipping in the area. The US forces were there to provide a balance against that.
For ballistic missile launches, other nations are notified well in advance. In this case, Britain, France, and the US were certainly notified, and others may have been provided some level of notice as well.
North Vietnam was backed primarily by the Soviets, not the Chinese. In fact, shortly after the end of the Vietnam War, China and Vietnam got into a shooting match over the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia.
The Soviets needed more warm-water ports, and Vietnam was willing to provide this. This also put a significant portion of the world's shipping lanes within striking distance of Soviet forces. The domino theory may have been an overblown fear, but a significant base of operations in that part of the world is all that the USSR needed to make a serious nuisance in case things heated up.
Large volumes of e-mail for you is tens per day? That looks like a typo to me, or you're really doing something wrong. If you meant tens of thousands of messages per day, that's not what Outlook (or e-mail, for that matter) was designed for. If that's log information, it needs to be going to a syslog server, or better yet, a SIEM.
Between rules looking at senders and certain content, my Inbox has fairly low levels per day, as messages are classified and sent off to other folders. The search engine in Outlook 2007 and 2010 is fairly quick at finding items even when in PSTs (of which I have about six, each corresponding to a different year or in a couple of cases certain subjects). It returns results which may be as few as one message or as many as several hundred, in only a few seconds searching through about 4.5GB of mail. My daily mail volume is around 200 or so messages, but I have effectively dealt with volumes around a thousand per day.
This one works better scattered across multiple folders, of which I have dozens. It works well for conversations at work. To each his own, I guess -- though you'll probably lose out on it.
No, there isn't, not without manually moving everything back.
In addition, Mozilla will likely cease support for the 3.0 branch in the very near future, which includes fixing security vulnerabilities.