The fact that the poster is even asking this means he isn't exactly tech savvy and thus doesn't need overcomplicated solutions that will only make his life harder.
Two laptops (or tablets if that's your schtick) ; memory stick (SD card, floppy disc, whatever) to transfer over files between systems as needed. If you're really paranoid, take the wifi adaptor from the important machine, nail it to a tree and feel unconcerned for ever after. Oh, superglue in the network socket too.
Put wheels under you and aim the rocket horizontally. As long as you don't hit a cliff/ pothole/ Uber SDC stopped for a dead pedestrian, you'll be fine. Knee and elbow pads probably a good idea unless you like gravel rash.
Good advice for the ones that aren't technically savvy, problem is, these cloud services are advertised to individuals as if they are the only backup they need.
I take it you've never made any NH3.NI3 yourself (the approximate stoichiometry of the compound ; analyses are difficult).
The last time I made more than a gram, and it detonated after a couple of days of room-temperature air drying, as I was reaching to pick up the watch glass, my finger tips ended up covered in mm-across bruises where individual grains had been launched from the exploding mass and detonated on impact with my fingers. The small amounts that survived launch without detonating still need to land - and given the sensitivity of the explosive, almost any landing speed is enough to detonate it.
then I saw your UID. Holy crap, how many decades have you had that account?
Almost exactly the same number of decades that I've had mine. I signed up within a couple of days of hearing about the site, from the only person I knew who wasn't on dial-up for their internet access, and (not by coincidence) the only person I knew who had a monthly internet bill greater than my monthly income.
I think Slashdot was up in the tens of thousands of accounts within a couple of months (~0.01 decades) of opening up. When the site had it's 10th anniversary, I vaguely remember there being some sort of report on the growth of user numbers and active account counts.
Why should my phone "track" less satellites than a commercial specialized GPS? Hu?
The GPS chipsets in phones are far and away the biggest sellers of GPS chipsets. With additional specialisations for reducing power (compared to the Garmin GPS which I had in the early 2000s). But why would a phone track fewer satellites than (say) 15kg of suveyor's GPS with a differential base station and another 5kg of battery for each station? Partly for power use - each received signal and decoding cost miliwatt-seconds of battery power - and partly for speed of response.
You only need 3 satellites anyway to get a precise enough position.
Three satellites will give you a ground position. Actually, three satellites will give you the crossing point of three arcs of position solutions. Which almost certainly will not cross, but will define a triangle (*) on the ground. What is the probability of the true ground position being inside that triangle ? 12.5% - 1 in 8.
That is why GPS systems are more accurate with more satellites, and why they strive to acquire as many satellites as the system can handle.
The same problem applies to getting an altitude, for which you need a 4th satellite. It's actually a bit worse, since the system is optimised for ground positions not altitudes, so the uncertainty in altitude is almost always bigger than for ground position.
(*) triangle - with arc of a conic section edges, not straight lines. But it doesn't change the argument, just makes the geometry much more complex.
nah, it's probably a big quantity of nitrogen triiodide.
That survived a lethal explosion? That's not nitrogen triiodide - in my ear-ringing, fingertip bruising purple mushroom cloud experience.
Something somewhere is mind bogglingly wrong. And I can't be bothered trying to figure out if it's foreign reporting, police standards, overcautious officials, or just plain vanilla stupidity.
Many years ago, when woody plants were first developing there was nothing in nature that could break down wood.
Hmm, problem is that the relatively small number of phyla of microorganisms that can digest cellulose and lignin are probably considerably older than the land plants which we're most familiar with. When land plants developed - well that's pretty clear from the fossil record - about 410 Myr ago ; but I don't know how much marine plants use cellulose and lignin.
There was a spike in atmospheric oxygen, as well as the accumulation of considerable amounts of fossilised plant material, in the Carboniferous period, shortly after the first appearance of land plants (360 - 300 Myr ago). Which is certainly not incompatible with your hypothesis. But I doubt it's as simple as you suggest. For example, during that period, the insects and terrestrial vertebrates underwent significant evolutionary radiations too, which could be viewed in part as the slow development of methods (insect mandibles, vertebrate jaws) for finely grinding plant structural material and mixing it with those pre-existing microbes in a bioreactor or digestive system.
Eventually organisms will evolve to devour plastic and break down those yummy hydrocarbon bonds.
Eventually being around 1970 - which is when a Japanese nylon factory started having problems with sludgy growths blocking pumps in it's wash-water systems. In the mid-1970s these were determined to be strains of bacteria that were living by digesting the 6-carbon chains which were the monomers for making the nylon. The case has been much discussed since, due to it's many interesting aspects. And it's not the last such example.
I think it's an AC spoofing people. Its not nice to think that an anatomically modern human (well, enough fingers to operate a keyboard. Or use one of those ball-on-a-forehead things for the quadraplegic.) can be so badly misinformed about basic polymer chemistry. I mean, they cover this stuff in compulsory schooling these days.
Ford even bought plantations in South America and the Pacific to internally provide fibers and rubber for seating, tires, etc.
Not particularly picking on Ford here, but I'm wondering how many of these antique car companies were using rubber and sisal (popular stuffing fibre) or coir (ditto) which came from plantations still using child labour or indentured labour (fancy name for slave labour) in the 1950s and 1960s? I'm sure the figures would have been higher in the 1930s.
I'll just go and read an article screaming about the modern scourge of child labour in COLTAN (columbite/ tantalite) mines for building Teslas, mobile phones and teledildonics research. NO comparison possible!
There are already a number of markets for rental of "high tech" equipment, for various meanings of "high tech". Though I've never used one, there is a long established business model for rental of high end cameras and lenses - there was an article on here just after the recent solar eclipse in America about their returns of user-damaged equipment, and the inability of users to follow usage instructions. (Which raises another part of the business cost equation.) Rental of laptops, projectors, desktops, big monitors is a well established part of the "venue and presentation" industry - why lug hundreds of kilos of freight to $LOCATION$ when you can rent stuff by phone for it to be delivered to the venue for you to make your presentation, train your classroom of users, or whatever.
In a different direction of the "tech market", I've rented life-critical equipment at various scuba centres around the world - demand valves principally. I've seen the same places renting dive computers (I carry my own ; horses, courses). Places doing tech diving rent gas mix sensors, computers and entire systems.
The tech rental market exists. If you want to extend it to more devices, feel free. But you'll not be entering an empty market place.
Why would aliens be unaware of the idea of genetic and cultural differences?
Because they're a clonal hive-mind species?
Hollywood's depiction of aliens as if they're humans in rubber suits is more related to the relative costs of (and appeals of) humans in rubber suits compared to other possible societies. But it's almost certainly wrong.
We have a sample of 1. That doesn't give us a good idea of the potential diversity.
That's a nice symbol to represent humanity, but it's not a depiction of humanity.
It's nice that you pick on a fairly high-tech material - concrete - representing the application of geology (the aggregate, the shale, the lime), chemistry (the cement), heat (to make the lime, then to react the components together), engineering (to grind the components together and mix them well). It's a good metaphor, but I don't think it's a good depiction of the human species.
We should speak to the goals of humanity, not necessarily how humanity currently appears.
We should speak of the actual behaviour of humanity, not the claims, plans and aspirations of the many different sub-groups. Because we're not united, in the slightest.
create a huge amount of Sarin and flood our atmosphere with it and they'd effectively sterilize the planet.
Sarin is effective against vertebrates. It might be effective against insects (IANA biochemist). It's unlikely to be significantly effective against non-animal organisms. Life is more resilient than you give it credit for ; just because it kills you doesn't mean it's particularly god at killing things in general.
See my comment up-thread about the genome project. Either Craig Venter (because he's most likely to be any particular piece of the genome) or NOT Craig Venter (because he's an arrogant so-and-so).
Hey, I'm not a particularly contrarian douche, but I don't like pizza enough to eat it more than every couple of years. Unless the step-daughter makes it from scratch if I've been making bread and have some left-over dough. Lots of mayo, no cheese, plenty of vegetables. Those flat turds you get from shops - not worth wiping your arse on.
We're planning a trip to Naples this year. I'll definitely make a point to try what they call "pizza", because I'm told it's completely different to what the rest of the world calls "pizza" and so may actually be worth eating.
I don't think it's even remotely possible to have a single "archetype" human,
That's a perfectly valid point. But not everyone agrees with you.
The IHGSC (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium) took genome samples from a large number of people (40?), then randomly selected four but protected their identities so that the 4 (2M, 2F) who contributed to the publicly-funded genome project isn't known. The privately-funded programme used a panel of 21 people including it's leader Craig Venter, from which they selected 5 to use, whose identities again are protected. So there is a probability of between 1.6% and 11% that the origin of any bit of the "reference genome" is from Venter.
He's the only identified individual from that pool, so on a strictly numerical basis, his picture is the obvious one to use.
Using exactly the same data, the sheer hubris of the man is a good argument that his picture never be reproduced and his name becomes synonymous with "unperson", "Voldemort" and "he who should not be named".
Slashdot Mirror
Two laptops (or tablets if that's your schtick) ; memory stick (SD card, floppy disc, whatever) to transfer over files between systems as needed. If you're really paranoid, take the wifi adaptor from the important machine, nail it to a tree and feel unconcerned for ever after. Oh, superglue in the network socket too.
It'd make a pretty significant difference to the budget of the plant manager, who'll get the problem dumped back onto his head.
Mushrooms. Or acid. Mescaline and some ergotamine too. Good reasons for a brain fucked-up enough to come up with an analogy like that.
Put wheels under you and aim the rocket horizontally. As long as you don't hit a cliff/ pothole/ Uber SDC stopped for a dead pedestrian, you'll be fine. Knee and elbow pads probably a good idea unless you like gravel rash.
A fool and their data are soon parted.
I take it you've never made any NH3.NI3 yourself (the approximate stoichiometry of the compound ; analyses are difficult).
The last time I made more than a gram, and it detonated after a couple of days of room-temperature air drying, as I was reaching to pick up the watch glass, my finger tips ended up covered in mm-across bruises where individual grains had been launched from the exploding mass and detonated on impact with my fingers. The small amounts that survived launch without detonating still need to land - and given the sensitivity of the explosive, almost any landing speed is enough to detonate it.
Obviously how to not be a target of such attacks is not something that has been learned.
Almost exactly the same number of decades that I've had mine. I signed up within a couple of days of hearing about the site, from the only person I knew who wasn't on dial-up for their internet access, and (not by coincidence) the only person I knew who had a monthly internet bill greater than my monthly income.
I think Slashdot was up in the tens of thousands of accounts within a couple of months (~0.01 decades) of opening up. When the site had it's 10th anniversary, I vaguely remember there being some sort of report on the growth of user numbers and active account counts.
The GPS chipsets in phones are far and away the biggest sellers of GPS chipsets. With additional specialisations for reducing power (compared to the Garmin GPS which I had in the early 2000s). But why would a phone track fewer satellites than (say) 15kg of suveyor's GPS with a differential base station and another 5kg of battery for each station? Partly for power use - each received signal and decoding cost miliwatt-seconds of battery power - and partly for speed of response.
Three satellites will give you a ground position. Actually, three satellites will give you the crossing point of three arcs of position solutions. Which almost certainly will not cross, but will define a triangle (*) on the ground. What is the probability of the true ground position being inside that triangle ? 12.5% - 1 in 8.
That is why GPS systems are more accurate with more satellites, and why they strive to acquire as many satellites as the system can handle.
The same problem applies to getting an altitude, for which you need a 4th satellite. It's actually a bit worse, since the system is optimised for ground positions not altitudes, so the uncertainty in altitude is almost always bigger than for ground position. (*) triangle - with arc of a conic section edges, not straight lines. But it doesn't change the argument, just makes the geometry much more complex.
That survived a lethal explosion? That's not nitrogen triiodide - in my ear-ringing, fingertip bruising purple mushroom cloud experience.
Something somewhere is mind bogglingly wrong. And I can't be bothered trying to figure out if it's foreign reporting, police standards, overcautious officials, or just plain vanilla stupidity.
Dylan Thomas, apocryphally.
See my reply to the GP. 1970 or so.
Hmm, problem is that the relatively small number of phyla of microorganisms that can digest cellulose and lignin are probably considerably older than the land plants which we're most familiar with. When land plants developed - well that's pretty clear from the fossil record - about 410 Myr ago ; but I don't know how much marine plants use cellulose and lignin.
There was a spike in atmospheric oxygen, as well as the accumulation of considerable amounts of fossilised plant material, in the Carboniferous period, shortly after the first appearance of land plants (360 - 300 Myr ago). Which is certainly not incompatible with your hypothesis. But I doubt it's as simple as you suggest. For example, during that period, the insects and terrestrial vertebrates underwent significant evolutionary radiations too, which could be viewed in part as the slow development of methods (insect mandibles, vertebrate jaws) for finely grinding plant structural material and mixing it with those pre-existing microbes in a bioreactor or digestive system.
Eventually being around 1970 - which is when a Japanese nylon factory started having problems with sludgy growths blocking pumps in it's wash-water systems. In the mid-1970s these were determined to be strains of bacteria that were living by digesting the 6-carbon chains which were the monomers for making the nylon. The case has been much discussed since, due to it's many interesting aspects. And it's not the last such example.
I think it's an AC spoofing people. Its not nice to think that an anatomically modern human (well, enough fingers to operate a keyboard. Or use one of those ball-on-a-forehead things for the quadraplegic.) can be so badly misinformed about basic polymer chemistry. I mean, they cover this stuff in compulsory schooling these days.
Not particularly picking on Ford here, but I'm wondering how many of these antique car companies were using rubber and sisal (popular stuffing fibre) or coir (ditto) which came from plantations still using child labour or indentured labour (fancy name for slave labour) in the 1950s and 1960s? I'm sure the figures would have been higher in the 1930s.
I'll just go and read an article screaming about the modern scourge of child labour in COLTAN (columbite/ tantalite) mines for building Teslas, mobile phones and teledildonics research. NO comparison possible!
In a different direction of the "tech market", I've rented life-critical equipment at various scuba centres around the world - demand valves principally. I've seen the same places renting dive computers (I carry my own ; horses, courses). Places doing tech diving rent gas mix sensors, computers and entire systems.
The tech rental market exists. If you want to extend it to more devices, feel free. But you'll not be entering an empty market place.
Gold-plated aluminium plate - for stiffness-weight ratio.
Because they're a clonal hive-mind species?
Hollywood's depiction of aliens as if they're humans in rubber suits is more related to the relative costs of (and appeals of) humans in rubber suits compared to other possible societies. But it's almost certainly wrong.
We have a sample of 1. That doesn't give us a good idea of the potential diversity.
It's nice that you pick on a fairly high-tech material - concrete - representing the application of geology (the aggregate, the shale, the lime), chemistry (the cement), heat (to make the lime, then to react the components together), engineering (to grind the components together and mix them well). It's a good metaphor, but I don't think it's a good depiction of the human species.
We should speak of the actual behaviour of humanity, not the claims, plans and aspirations of the many different sub-groups. Because we're not united, in the slightest.
Sarin is effective against vertebrates. It might be effective against insects (IANA biochemist). It's unlikely to be significantly effective against non-animal organisms. Life is more resilient than you give it credit for ; just because it kills you doesn't mean it's particularly god at killing things in general.
See my comment up-thread about the genome project. Either Craig Venter (because he's most likely to be any particular piece of the genome) or NOT Craig Venter (because he's an arrogant so-and-so).
We're planning a trip to Naples this year. I'll definitely make a point to try what they call "pizza", because I'm told it's completely different to what the rest of the world calls "pizza" and so may actually be worth eating.
No, they used the Elvis to wipe the grease onto their Mr Fusion.
That's a perfectly valid point. But not everyone agrees with you.
The IHGSC (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium) took genome samples from a large number of people (40?), then randomly selected four but protected their identities so that the 4 (2M, 2F) who contributed to the publicly-funded genome project isn't known. The privately-funded programme used a panel of 21 people including it's leader Craig Venter, from which they selected 5 to use, whose identities again are protected. So there is a probability of between 1.6% and 11% that the origin of any bit of the "reference genome" is from Venter.
He's the only identified individual from that pool, so on a strictly numerical basis, his picture is the obvious one to use.
Using exactly the same data, the sheer hubris of the man is a good argument that his picture never be reproduced and his name becomes synonymous with "unperson", "Voldemort" and "he who should not be named".