'R.I.P.D.,' 'After Earth,' 'White House Down,' 'Pacific Rim,' and 'The Lone Ranger.'
Not heard of any of these. And, to be honest, only two of them sound in the slightest bit interesting. Oh, hang on, if one is about Rhode Island Police Department, then it's only going to retain interest if it stars Peter Griffin.... Googles... well that one goes into the shit can.
How much bloodshed will it take for America to realize such a disproportionate response is unwarranted and disastrous?"
From a country that regularly kills it's school pupils in production-line numbers... that would be hilarious if it didn't have an element of tragedy about it.
Admit it, Americans, you like having lots of blood and gore on your streets.
Linus Pauling may have convinced some people that they needed vitamin supplements ; the vitamin supplement industry hired industrial psychologists (known as advertising sharks) and convinced many more people.
His sterling work on atomic orbital theory notwithstanding, he never convinced me that consuming megadoses of vitamins are good for anything other than selling megadoses of vitamins.
The criterion is distance from the shoreline (whether it's MAT, Mean Astronomical Tides or LAT, Lowest Astronomical Tides I'm not sure ; in most places it only makes a few metres difference), not water depth.
In this case, being on the "East coast of England" would mean that the agreed median lines between states would come into effect. I've worked on at least three, probably more, oil fields that straddle the median lines, and where the geological and petrophysical data I collect determines the way that production is assigned between countries, and hence who gets what tax. the question is thoroughly settled.
There was an implication that it was from the state of the find, and I was even corrected by someone above that it was the state of the find, so it must not have been that clear that it was a race to beat maritime law and exploit them before they become protected.
Since it is very likely that at least some of these vessels are war graves, then "exploiting" them is likely to carry jail time as a penalty already.
More likely : "Submarine U-47 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
"Submarine U-48 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
"Submarine U-49 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
"Submarine U-50 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
(Weather reports, because of their predictability, were one of the keys that the Bletchley Park code-breakers used to get the day's settings for Enigma one war later.)
Communications at the time were very, very limited, to reduce the chance of onshore radio direction finding locating a sub.
You're probably thinking of the German Imperial Fleet, which was seized, interned at Scapa Flow, and scuttled by the sailors to prevent them from being used by the British Navy. They remain one of the country's (if not world's) best diving sites. Poor visibility and cold water notwithstanding.
Though I do admit to wondering how such a concentration of vessels came to be. It does sound like a deliberate scuttling.
And having read TFA now, (the https://srlabs.de/rooting-sim-cards/ , not the regurgitated one) then the obvious call is the one suggested there : "2 Handset SMS firewall." Much more likely to be implemented on a useful time scale than either "1. Better SIM cards." or "3. In-network SMS filtering."
So... who is working on an Android firewall at the appropriate level? I see 48 demos, meetoos and other indistinguishable dreck.
"Smartphones are susceptible to malware and carriers have enabled NSA snooping, but the prevailing wisdom has it there's still one part of your mobile phone that remains safe and un-hackable
Whoever wrote this - the summary or the original article - has a severe attack of journalistic diarrhoea. They can't distinguish between "unhacked" and "unhackable".
"Unhacked" means that no successful exploit has been reported ; "unhackable" means that an attack is impossible. I heard of an "unhackable" computing device once - it was kept switched off, sealed in a block of concrete which had been thrown over the side of a ship in the middle of the Pacific. It didn't respond to "ping" in any protocol. It's usefulness was limited.
So, now an exploit is reported against SIM cards. Not a surprise ; I'll have to go and RTFM, to determine if I need to turn my phone off (since it has never known any banking details or similar secrets, it's not a terribly useful platform to hack into).
wehn you use a valet you trust that they won't mess with your stuff
I think you've just hit the nail on the head as to why I just cannot think why the fuck I'd use a valet parking service (if I'd ever heard of one before today, which I frankly hadn't).
I expect that there is a whole suite of "security car camera" footage of car valets doing the equivalent of wanking into your MacSludgeburger to improve the flavour. But I'd literally never considered the possibility that someone would want this sort of service at an airport. I mean... why?
Any natural gas well can leak methane into the aquifer. If the top of the well shaft is poorly sealed, that can happen, with or without fracking.
In fact (not that anyone in this hysteria is interested in facts), all natural gas fields, whether developed by conventional production techniques, hydraulic fracturing, or whether completely undeveloped, can leak hydrocarbons (including methane) into the overlying formations. Sometimes we see it on the seismic as a "gas chimney", sometimes it's just a faint bright spot (acoustic impedance mismatch) on the underside of less porous rock units, sometimes it's below the level of visibility. But they all do it.
What leads to an accumulation of hydrocarbons (which may or may not be commercially viable), is that the loss rate described above is lower than the supply rate, be it by leaking from deeper traps, or actually cooking up new hydrocarbons from in situ organic matter.
Anyway, who cares about the fuss over fracking? Either it's going to be allowed (in which case it needs tight regulation, not American regulation) and I'll get work doing it, or eventually the other hydrocarbon accumulations will be depleted and I'll get paid to find new ones. Same difference in both cases.
I'm pretty sure that you're being facetious to some degree, but you do have a point. You certainly don't need drinking grade water to cool power plant, but there are limits nonetheless. Not just on total suspended solids, but also on dissolved salts, dissolved oxygen and a variety of other factors. The details change from plant to plant, and sometimes don't get found out until after the plant is built. Most people get the bulk chemistry issues more or less right, and if they're going to be cooling with brackish or salt water, use pipework that can handle the corrosion (or have sufficient redundancy to allow change-out on a scheduled basis). But several time we've lost use of nuclear power plant to blooms of algae (seaweed) or jellyfish (seriously!) which have blocked pumps. A couple of years ago a drilling rig I was working on had terrible problems working in the relatively warm waters off Southern Ireland when the exhaust vents for it's (relatively warm) cooling water got plugged by growths of mussels which prevented getting sufficient flow for the needed cooling.
But, intrinsically, there's no inherent problem with using turd water. Though it might smell if you cook it up too much. I'll let you experiment on that and report back.
If they were honest, why are they calling it "Climate Change" now, rather than Global Warming?
Because some regional predictions (in particular, my own region of Scotland) have had characteristics of little if any net temperature change, but significant climate change. For us, the predictions have been for slightly cooler, stormier, somewhat wetter winters against summers with slightly higher temperature maxima and longer periods (up to several days) without rain. Which would certainly make for changes, but net temperature changes over the year... too small to detect with confidence in one year.
The best solution to shark attack (not swimming with sharks) has been known for millennia. All the other solutions are second-best solutions for when you find that you have an overwhelmingly good reason to go swimming in shark-rich areas.
By the way, I dread to think what such a suit does for your energy efficiency while diving. You're going to have a significantly increased work load, and therefore go through your gas considerably faster. And the chain-mail suits that I've seen (on TV) are going to do diddly-squat to mitigate the crush injuries from a bite from a big shark. Even if they do prevent it from tearing lumps off you, the violent agitation which is a hallmark of a shark trying to rip you to pieces (they've not got arms ; they have to tear you apart against your own inertia) is going to mess you up pretty badly. I think that I'd apply some behaviourial analysis and avoild looking like shark food, if I ever found myself with a sufficiently good reason to go swimming (diving) with sharks. Maybe I'd take along some surfers to sacrifice to the Great Finned God.
The greatest hope, I imagine, is in utero treatment which would prevent the developmental aspects of Downs Syndrome from happening at all.
Given the amount of genetic fiddling that would be needed to try to modify every cell in the embryo's body, you'd probably be better off treating the embryo at about the 4 cell stage, long before you implant it in the host womb. At which point, you have to ask yourself, why am I trying to use an embryo with a known, serious set of issues, instead of trying to start with a less-damaged embryo.
The interview I heard with the developers implied that their largest expectation from this work was to identify protein targets that are damaged in Trisomy-21 victims, with the hope of developing specific treatments for some specific problems.
But implementing mandatory population control requires something akin to a police state, and it would be too little, too late.
Oh, I doubt it would need a police state. Too expensive, too. All it would take would be a properly-engineered virus with, say, a 60% success at sterilisation, and a high infectivity. I'd start from mumps virus myself - has plenty of useful properties already.
There is room for surprises, but the extension of high-pressure work on the structure of hydrogen under extreme pressures (well below the Earth's core) is reducing the room for surprises. IIRC the work was published from the HP lab at the Carnegie Institute in Washington, USA about 3 or 4 years ago, but I can't be bothered to dig out the citations.
The asteroids were known long before Pluto was discovered, though. And classified as asteroids for over a century by then.
Perhaps more relevant... Ceres (the first asteroid) was discovered in 1801, but the increasing number of bodies discovered in that region didn't lead to the proposal and implementation of the term "asteroid" until 70-ish years later after the introduction of photography as an astronomical technique (and several years more to become accepted practice) ; Pluto was discovered in 1930, and other trans-Neptunian objects started being added after advances in space telescopes and adaptive optics made them more visible, a bit over 60 years later.
Some data: discovery years of asteroids (1801, 1802, 1804, 1807, 1847, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850...) ; discovery years of KBOs (1930, 1977 (Chiron, if you count it), 1979 (Charon if you count it separately from Pluto), 1992, 1993, 1993, 1993, 1993, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994...).
I'd say that "asteroids" became accepted as a class a couple of decades after their count started to accumulate substantially (following a change in observation technology), and the various classes of trans-Neptunian object (not all of them trans-Neptunian) became accepted a decade and a half after their counts started to accumulate (following several changes in observation technologies).
I can't claim to be terribly happy about the demise of Pluto as a planet. I argued for a criterion of sphericity under self-gravity and a Sun-centred orbit, not this "gravitational clearing" guff. Which would give us probably a couple of hundred planets when the count is finally in. Large, but not un-manageable as a class. Possibly by then, you'd treat "icy", "rocky" and "gassy" planets as separate classes - on the grounds of different material properties and probably different histories and locations. But that wasn't the way the professionals went, and I'm content that the subject was battered around a lot.
There's a reason we still tell our children to watch out for strangers,
Yeah, there is. Considering that the overwhelming majority of child murders and rapes are performed by members of the household or family (not necessarily the same thing), and a large proportion of the rest by friends of the family, then the obvious reason for telling children to watch out for strangers is to lull them into a false sense of security and make it easier for them to be raped/ murdered/ sold to foreigners and priests.
Evidence based crime education would have children being warned not to suck Daddy's dick (or Uncle Joe's) because he tell you to. But for some reason, that appears politically unacceptable.
It apparently is not that hard to protect this sort of equipment against the sort of surges that a Carrington Event would generate.
One significant point is that when you blow a transformer/ switch gear/ whatever, then you often are going to fragment the network, and it's the complexity and particularly the areal extent of the networks that allows the big effects to accumulate. So, the fragmented segments of the network are likely to be less prone to further damage.
Slashdot Mirror
Subject says it all.
Not heard of any of these. And, to be honest, only two of them sound in the slightest bit interesting. Oh, hang on, if one is about Rhode Island Police Department, then it's only going to retain interest if it stars Peter Griffin. ... Googles ... well that one goes into the shit can.
Perhaps Bollywood has something worth watching?
From a country that regularly kills it's school pupils in production-line numbers ... that would be hilarious if it didn't have an element of tragedy about it.
Admit it, Americans, you like having lots of blood and gore on your streets.
His sterling work on atomic orbital theory notwithstanding, he never convinced me that consuming megadoses of vitamins are good for anything other than selling megadoses of vitamins.
The criterion is distance from the shoreline (whether it's MAT, Mean Astronomical Tides or LAT, Lowest Astronomical Tides I'm not sure ; in most places it only makes a few metres difference), not water depth.
In this case, being on the "East coast of England" would mean that the agreed median lines between states would come into effect. I've worked on at least three, probably more, oil fields that straddle the median lines, and where the geological and petrophysical data I collect determines the way that production is assigned between countries, and hence who gets what tax. the question is thoroughly settled.
Since it is very likely that at least some of these vessels are war graves, then "exploiting" them is likely to carry jail time as a penalty already.
"Submarine U-48 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
"Submarine U-49 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
"Submarine U-50 did not call in today with it's weather report. It is assumed lost."
(Weather reports, because of their predictability, were one of the keys that the Bletchley Park code-breakers used to get the day's settings for Enigma one war later.)
Communications at the time were very, very limited, to reduce the chance of onshore radio direction finding locating a sub.
Though I do admit to wondering how such a concentration of vessels came to be. It does sound like a deliberate scuttling.
So ... who is working on an Android firewall at the appropriate level? I see 48 demos, meetoos and other indistinguishable dreck.
Whoever wrote this - the summary or the original article - has a severe attack of journalistic diarrhoea. They can't distinguish between "unhacked" and "unhackable".
"Unhacked" means that no successful exploit has been reported ; "unhackable" means that an attack is impossible. I heard of an "unhackable" computing device once - it was kept switched off, sealed in a block of concrete which had been thrown over the side of a ship in the middle of the Pacific. It didn't respond to "ping" in any protocol. It's usefulness was limited.
So, now an exploit is reported against SIM cards. Not a surprise ; I'll have to go and RTFM, to determine if I need to turn my phone off (since it has never known any banking details or similar secrets, it's not a terribly useful platform to hack into).
I think you've just hit the nail on the head as to why I just cannot think why the fuck I'd use a valet parking service (if I'd ever heard of one before today, which I frankly hadn't).
I expect that there is a whole suite of "security car camera" footage of car valets doing the equivalent of wanking into your MacSludgeburger to improve the flavour. But I'd literally never considered the possibility that someone would want this sort of service at an airport. I mean ... why?
In fact (not that anyone in this hysteria is interested in facts), all natural gas fields, whether developed by conventional production techniques, hydraulic fracturing, or whether completely undeveloped, can leak hydrocarbons (including methane) into the overlying formations. Sometimes we see it on the seismic as a "gas chimney", sometimes it's just a faint bright spot (acoustic impedance mismatch) on the underside of less porous rock units, sometimes it's below the level of visibility. But they all do it.
What leads to an accumulation of hydrocarbons (which may or may not be commercially viable), is that the loss rate described above is lower than the supply rate, be it by leaking from deeper traps, or actually cooking up new hydrocarbons from in situ organic matter.
Anyway, who cares about the fuss over fracking? Either it's going to be allowed (in which case it needs tight regulation, not American regulation) and I'll get work doing it, or eventually the other hydrocarbon accumulations will be depleted and I'll get paid to find new ones. Same difference in both cases.
I'm pretty sure that you're being facetious to some degree, but you do have a point. You certainly don't need drinking grade water to cool power plant, but there are limits nonetheless. Not just on total suspended solids, but also on dissolved salts, dissolved oxygen and a variety of other factors. The details change from plant to plant, and sometimes don't get found out until after the plant is built. Most people get the bulk chemistry issues more or less right, and if they're going to be cooling with brackish or salt water, use pipework that can handle the corrosion (or have sufficient redundancy to allow change-out on a scheduled basis). But several time we've lost use of nuclear power plant to blooms of algae (seaweed) or jellyfish (seriously!) which have blocked pumps. A couple of years ago a drilling rig I was working on had terrible problems working in the relatively warm waters off Southern Ireland when the exhaust vents for it's (relatively warm) cooling water got plugged by growths of mussels which prevented getting sufficient flow for the needed cooling.
But, intrinsically, there's no inherent problem with using turd water. Though it might smell if you cook it up too much. I'll let you experiment on that and report back.
Because some regional predictions (in particular, my own region of Scotland) have had characteristics of little if any net temperature change, but significant climate change. For us, the predictions have been for slightly cooler, stormier, somewhat wetter winters against summers with slightly higher temperature maxima and longer periods (up to several days) without rain. Which would certainly make for changes, but net temperature changes over the year ... too small to detect with confidence in one year.
... and it does nothing against the crush- and dislocate- injuries that are commonly part of (Great White) attack patterns.
By the way, I dread to think what such a suit does for your energy efficiency while diving. You're going to have a significantly increased work load, and therefore go through your gas considerably faster. And the chain-mail suits that I've seen (on TV) are going to do diddly-squat to mitigate the crush injuries from a bite from a big shark. Even if they do prevent it from tearing lumps off you, the violent agitation which is a hallmark of a shark trying to rip you to pieces (they've not got arms ; they have to tear you apart against your own inertia) is going to mess you up pretty badly. I think that I'd apply some behaviourial analysis and avoild looking like shark food, if I ever found myself with a sufficiently good reason to go swimming (diving) with sharks. Maybe I'd take along some surfers to sacrifice to the Great Finned God.
Given the amount of genetic fiddling that would be needed to try to modify every cell in the embryo's body, you'd probably be better off treating the embryo at about the 4 cell stage, long before you implant it in the host womb. At which point, you have to ask yourself, why am I trying to use an embryo with a known, serious set of issues, instead of trying to start with a less-damaged embryo.
The interview I heard with the developers implied that their largest expectation from this work was to identify protein targets that are damaged in Trisomy-21 victims, with the hope of developing specific treatments for some specific problems.
Oh, I doubt it would need a police state. Too expensive, too. All it would take would be a properly-engineered virus with, say, a 60% success at sterilisation, and a high infectivity. I'd start from mumps virus myself - has plenty of useful properties already.
Ah, the good old corante.com "Pipeline". Always, always worth a return visit!
Sir, you are a man after my own heart. Wanna burn some sand?
There is room for surprises, but the extension of high-pressure work on the structure of hydrogen under extreme pressures (well below the Earth's core) is reducing the room for surprises. IIRC the work was published from the HP lab at the Carnegie Institute in Washington, USA about 3 or 4 years ago, but I can't be bothered to dig out the citations.
That is rather dependent on the composition. Different materials have different strengths.
Perhaps more relevant ... Ceres (the first asteroid) was discovered in 1801, but the increasing number of bodies discovered in that region didn't lead to the proposal and implementation of the term "asteroid" until 70-ish years later after the introduction of photography as an astronomical technique (and several years more to become accepted practice) ; Pluto was discovered in 1930, and other trans-Neptunian objects started being added after advances in space telescopes and adaptive optics made them more visible, a bit over 60 years later.
Some data: discovery years of asteroids (1801, 1802, 1804, 1807, 1847, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850 ...) ; discovery years of KBOs (1930, 1977 (Chiron, if you count it), 1979 (Charon if you count it separately from Pluto), 1992, 1993, 1993, 1993, 1993, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994, 1994 ...).
I'd say that "asteroids" became accepted as a class a couple of decades after their count started to accumulate substantially (following a change in observation technology), and the various classes of trans-Neptunian object (not all of them trans-Neptunian) became accepted a decade and a half after their counts started to accumulate (following several changes in observation technologies).
I can't claim to be terribly happy about the demise of Pluto as a planet. I argued for a criterion of sphericity under self-gravity and a Sun-centred orbit, not this "gravitational clearing" guff. Which would give us probably a couple of hundred planets when the count is finally in. Large, but not un-manageable as a class. Possibly by then, you'd treat "icy", "rocky" and "gassy" planets as separate classes - on the grounds of different material properties and probably different histories and locations. But that wasn't the way the professionals went, and I'm content that the subject was battered around a lot.
Yeah, there is. Considering that the overwhelming majority of child murders and rapes are performed by members of the household or family (not necessarily the same thing), and a large proportion of the rest by friends of the family, then the obvious reason for telling children to watch out for strangers is to lull them into a false sense of security and make it easier for them to be raped/ murdered/ sold to foreigners and priests.
Evidence based crime education would have children being warned not to suck Daddy's dick (or Uncle Joe's) because he tell you to. But for some reason, that appears politically unacceptable.
Sorry, but you mean your government's Department of Foreign Policy?
What the fuck was a government website doing serving adverts, before you hung the politicians upside-down from lamp posts and set fire to them?
One significant point is that when you blow a transformer/ switch gear/ whatever, then you often are going to fragment the network, and it's the complexity and particularly the areal extent of the networks that allows the big effects to accumulate. So, the fragmented segments of the network are likely to be less prone to further damage.