What? Only if it's in a balloon. Otherwise it will mix with other air through convection, and it won't be a parcel of air any more.
Actually, it's a sufficiently good approximation to use. And you can see it for yourself any day when there are cumulus clouds in the sky - the border in the sky that you can see between the cooler cloud (where the water vapour has condensed out to make tiny droplets - which we see as the "white" of the cloud) and the (close to) transparent air-with-water-vapour, is the border of a "parcel" of air that has risen, as a parcel, after being heated over a source such as a forest, or bright field of flowering oilseed rape.
If you'd flown a glider, or been attentive when landing a conventional plane in turbulence, you'd have felt the impact of those different "parcels" of air. Yes, they can rip lumps off aircraft.
Go back to your spherical cows and let us be.
Stop being a fuckwit. You can be better than that. The AC provided good information about a complex phenomenon which most people don't understand at all well.
How can someone not find sufficient privacy for their family on 700 acres, even if it contains a few parcels he doesn't own?
700 acres is 30492000 sq.ft ; if arranged in a square that would be 5521 ft on an edge. If he build a house in the middle of that square, it would be about 2700ft from the property border to the building.
Put 4 half-acre properties symmetrically on the site, with an access path to the property border. The closest point on land which other people can access is now 1951 ft from your house borders.
If you have grounds to believe that someone may aim a gun at your house (even if it's a cantenna trying to sniff your WiFi), that 750ft difference isn't trivial.
I'm not defending Zuckerberg here - just trying to clarify what his grounds for complaint might be. If the shapes aren't as symmetrical as I discuss, the loss of "privacy" could be much larger.
There is something that silentcoder talks about which is confusing, because it doesn't have any meaningful objective existence. But it's not the concept of "life", it's the concept of "species".
"Species" isn't a characteristic of any living organism - it's something that we project onto two (or more) living organisms. If they're capable of producing fertile offspring (with some caveats for sex errors, and non-sexual organisms), then we humans classify them as being of the same species. The organisms in question don't know if they're in the same species or not - and don't care. Right cues? Count the legs and divide by two? Then try to reproduce.
Individuals live, die and (sometimes) reproduce. "Species" and higher taxonomic groups are projections that humans put onto collections of individuals. Currently the criteria we use for those divisions are reproductive. Previously, they've been morphological. We're moving from the sexual to a genetic basis. But those differing grounds for taxonomy are a significant part of the reason for a lot of current disputes in taxonomy.
Having worked with fossils for decades, I've seen lots of Stürm und Drang over things like this. For example, a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth has taken place over the proposition that many "species" of ceratopsian dinosaurs may (or may not) be pairs of species with sexual dimorphism. But basically the argument is about comparing apples (the morphologies called "Thisosaurus" and "Thatosaurus") and oranges (inferring that "Thisosaurus" and "Thatosaurus" could produce fertile offspring together). At which point, it becomes a much less divisive issue.
Since these are company-owned phones issued for company business, that is entirely their prerogative.
Doing work on personal phones will be banned shortly - and if you need to do work on a telephone, you'll be issued with one to carry for work purposes. If you want to carry a personal phone too, that's your choice. Don't expect work to either pay for it, or acknowledge it's existence.
You missed the far more stringent maintenance requirements and cradle-to-grave monitoring by the manufacturers. See this incident of 28 December 2016 at 0844 hrs. Does your car manufacturer have such timely recall-to-base procedures?
Expensive to run and they certainly cannot land everywhere.
Anything that goes into the air is expensive. I noticed that the world-wide fleet of Sikorsky 92 was just shut down for 11 hours of boroscope inspection per aircraft following the catastrophic failure of a tail rotor on the West Franklin just before New Year. Anything that has (and needs) this level of after-sales support is going to remain expensive. (AAIB report ; particularly fig 1 on p3 if you're into engineering pr0n.).
Looking at the solitary image (of a "concept"), this is going to require hard surface to land on and then drive away (slick tyres, I note ; very low suspension) ; I doubt that they'd be able to land on more than 10 degrees of slope (without the wings/ bumpers/ airframe contacting the ground before the wheels do - a rather important point). That's a tighter constraint than the helicopters I've used (including the S-92s).
I bet that happened before you learned to read - which is why you totally misunderstood what either the caption or the in-video voiceover were saying, let alone actually doing any research on the event. Way to represent your generation!
People who only use the Internet, browse, shop and watch movies will probably no longer need a PC.
What would they use then? A "smart TV" which they need to replace every year or two as last years firmware is compromised by web-based automated attacks? A tablet suffering from the same defective-by-design issues?
No, the "cheap PC driving expensive display" paradigm will continue until there is no such thing as an "expensive" display. I notice upthread one person mentioning that they work with 3x50in displays, and someone else saying "I'd do that, but I don't have the room". The race for screen size is probably topping out already (without using a tape measure, I don't think I've even got an unused bit of wall large enough to take a 70in display - that's nearly 2m!), and it won't be much longer before resolution gets below what the human eye can resolve too. Until we get "wallpaper displays", there's not a lot of point going larger or higher-resolution.
Even if commodity white-box shifters stop making "desktop PC" ranges, there will still be a market for "server PCs". The products that go into a commodity server pretty much define a desktop PC anyway and long have. Unless you're already spending peanuts on your PC and megabucks on your graphics card - in which case you're back to a variant of the "cheap PC / expensive display" paradigm above. (Personally, I never saw any real benefit to the VooDoo-whatever card which was my last foray into the fancy graphics card realm.)
Sort of. Some people think they're "lucky", or have a gambling addiction.
Let them die starving in the gutter, and ensure that all their offspring die with them. Possible exception, if you're feeling really kind, of allowing the offspring to live if they themselves are sterilised without issue.
Unfortunately, web traffic consists of 1% like you and me (who understand the meaning of security and it's importance), 1% of people (who understand the meaning of security and make a living from those who don't understand it), and 98% who don't give a shit either way.
Business people aim for the 98%, not the 2%.
I've not bothered to look at the UIDs of most commenters here, or even to consider if the UID is anything resembling a count of users before that user signed up. But ISTR noticing UIDs in the 2 million plus range. Maybe even 3 million. Which is something like 0.3% of FarceBook.
Ah, but you're not one of the 1%. So of course you expect to pay for services, instead of getting others (e.g. tax payers) to pay you to receive those services free of charge.
Good points all. I'm assuming that your reference to Jared Diamond is either to "Guns, Germs & Steel" (which I have read) or "Collapse" (not read), probably the latter because I don't remember it from the former. While he's a credible enough source in general, I'm pretty dubious of almost anything from "the dismal science" that is economics.
Otherwise, all well-known points for anyone who looks beyond the western world. Which most people don't want to do. Apart from your point about the smallness of pre-Colonisation sub-Saharan African cities. That's news to me. I knew ("Great") Zimbabwe was relatively small, with significant "megalithic" structures (which implies a substantial construction population, but without knowing the details of the place's construction history, that's hard to be more precise on). But OTOH places like Timbuktu were quite significant population centres. The Ashanti and Beninese civilisations in West Africa had appreciable population centres too. Not to the size of Middle Eastern, Chinese or European contemporary cities I'll grant, but not village-size centres either. But you're plumbing the depths of my knowledge of African history now - it's just a continent I work on sometimes.
On more than one occasion I've spent more days outside my home country in a year than in it.
Yeah. That's pretty common l for me too. At least until the current slump.
Then allow any bonded provider to run cable or fiber through that pipe for a small standard fee. Since 99% of the cost of providing service is the trenching, this will make the market far more competitive.
You'd have to have some provisions (which you may be trying to cover in "bonded" - not a term used outside adhesive technology here) to failsafe that old/ obsolete cable (fibre, whatever) is removed from the conduit as part of bankruptcy proceedings, with some really punitive consequences if the cable isn't removed. And those provisions would need to be based on tested legalese, so that the precedent is there for (for example) selling the houses of investors in a failed provider to pay for the removal process.
You may have seen the absolute rats-nest that results if people aren't required (and forced) to remove their cables. We had to use an oxy-acetylene "gas axe" to clear up one cable tray for a job.
"Build it ; they will come?" Motto of the approaching sexbot industry which will lead to huge advances in practical robotics in the same way that pr0n drove the commodity-level advance of computing.
Does NASA still have the facility in Morocco which was an abort landing location for the shuttle fleet? [Checks] They used different sites at different times, one in France, two in Spain, one in England. I'm probably mis-remembering one of the Spanish sites.
The water content and oxygen fugacity of terrestrial magmas are both far higher than the lunar samples, which are things that would show up in a "major element" chemical analysis. You'd spot it immediately (if it was your several-thousandth major element analysis you were looking at, otherwise you'd need to spend hours doing the detailed comparison). There are more subtle traits too, which you'd get from the minor elements analysis - which on the departmental XRF machine would have meant an hour or so of zapping, instead of a few tens of seconds.
(1) your comment sort-of implies that dating only uses zircons, and only uses the uranium-lead system, and only works for crystals with negligible initial lead. All of these are slightly misleading ; there are plenty of clocks other than uranium-lead ; crystals other than zircon can be used (and indeed, aggregates of multiple crystals can be dated as whole rocks) ; rocks with initial contents of the daughter element(s) in your clock(s) can be used with appropriate additional measurements. Radiometric dating is a complex subject - which is well worthy of study if you have anything to do with metamorphism, as different clock systems can be affected differently by different metamorphic events of differing intensities - making for a subtle but highly informative suite of tools.
Also, the growth of zircon crystals can and does happen before the bulk of the magma solidifies. Even a relatively zirconium-rich magma only averages a few hundred ppm. So if you're examining a typical 30x30mm thin section, you'd get around 0.4x0.4 mm of zircon, probably as a dozen or so grains. They're easier to find optically than the raw data would suggest - high relief, quite high birefringence - but you'd need to be point-counting a hundred thousand points on the slide to get a moderately robust estimate of the content (which is why it's only classified as an "accessory" mineral, not a "rock-forming" mineral).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's a sufficiently good approximation to use. And you can see it for yourself any day when there are cumulus clouds in the sky - the border in the sky that you can see between the cooler cloud (where the water vapour has condensed out to make tiny droplets - which we see as the "white" of the cloud) and the (close to) transparent air-with-water-vapour, is the border of a "parcel" of air that has risen, as a parcel, after being heated over a source such as a forest, or bright field of flowering oilseed rape.
If you'd flown a glider, or been attentive when landing a conventional plane in turbulence, you'd have felt the impact of those different "parcels" of air. Yes, they can rip lumps off aircraft.
Stop being a fuckwit. You can be better than that. The AC provided good information about a complex phenomenon which most people don't understand at all well.
And cue the person who only reads a 6th language to come along.
Considering the number of Verizon haters on /., I'm surprised no one has (yet) suggested that your wife is fast heading for unemployment.
700 acres is 30492000 sq.ft ; if arranged in a square that would be 5521 ft on an edge. If he build a house in the middle of that square, it would be about 2700ft from the property border to the building.
Put 4 half-acre properties symmetrically on the site, with an access path to the property border. The closest point on land which other people can access is now 1951 ft from your house borders.
If you have grounds to believe that someone may aim a gun at your house (even if it's a cantenna trying to sniff your WiFi), that 750ft difference isn't trivial.
I'm not defending Zuckerberg here - just trying to clarify what his grounds for complaint might be. If the shapes aren't as symmetrical as I discuss, the loss of "privacy" could be much larger.
"Species" isn't a characteristic of any living organism - it's something that we project onto two (or more) living organisms. If they're capable of producing fertile offspring (with some caveats for sex errors, and non-sexual organisms), then we humans classify them as being of the same species. The organisms in question don't know if they're in the same species or not - and don't care. Right cues? Count the legs and divide by two? Then try to reproduce.
Individuals live, die and (sometimes) reproduce. "Species" and higher taxonomic groups are projections that humans put onto collections of individuals. Currently the criteria we use for those divisions are reproductive. Previously, they've been morphological. We're moving from the sexual to a genetic basis. But those differing grounds for taxonomy are a significant part of the reason for a lot of current disputes in taxonomy.
Having worked with fossils for decades, I've seen lots of Stürm und Drang over things like this. For example, a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth has taken place over the proposition that many "species" of ceratopsian dinosaurs may (or may not) be pairs of species with sexual dimorphism. But basically the argument is about comparing apples (the morphologies called "Thisosaurus" and "Thatosaurus") and oranges (inferring that "Thisosaurus" and "Thatosaurus" could produce fertile offspring together). At which point, it becomes a much less divisive issue.
Why did you marry such a stupid, stupid person? I hope she gave good service before you shit-canned her.
Doing work on personal phones will be banned shortly - and if you need to do work on a telephone, you'll be issued with one to carry for work purposes. If you want to carry a personal phone too, that's your choice. Don't expect work to either pay for it, or acknowledge it's existence.
You missed the far more stringent maintenance requirements and cradle-to-grave monitoring by the manufacturers. See this incident of 28 December 2016 at 0844 hrs. Does your car manufacturer have such timely recall-to-base procedures?
But that will put the established Zyklon-B manufacturers out of business.
Anything that goes into the air is expensive. I noticed that the world-wide fleet of Sikorsky 92 was just shut down for 11 hours of boroscope inspection per aircraft following the catastrophic failure of a tail rotor on the West Franklin just before New Year. Anything that has (and needs) this level of after-sales support is going to remain expensive. (AAIB report ; particularly fig 1 on p3 if you're into engineering pr0n.).
Looking at the solitary image (of a "concept"), this is going to require hard surface to land on and then drive away (slick tyres, I note ; very low suspension) ; I doubt that they'd be able to land on more than 10 degrees of slope (without the wings/ bumpers/ airframe contacting the ground before the wheels do - a rather important point). That's a tighter constraint than the helicopters I've used (including the S-92s).
Oh look! New! Shiny!
I was watching a re-run of RD (9 IIRC) a few days ago, and thinking of snagging that line for my .sig collection.
I bet that happened before you learned to read - which is why you totally misunderstood what either the caption or the in-video voiceover were saying, let alone actually doing any research on the event. Way to represent your generation!
What would they use then? A "smart TV" which they need to replace every year or two as last years firmware is compromised by web-based automated attacks? A tablet suffering from the same defective-by-design issues?
No, the "cheap PC driving expensive display" paradigm will continue until there is no such thing as an "expensive" display. I notice upthread one person mentioning that they work with 3x50in displays, and someone else saying "I'd do that, but I don't have the room". The race for screen size is probably topping out already (without using a tape measure, I don't think I've even got an unused bit of wall large enough to take a 70in display - that's nearly 2m!), and it won't be much longer before resolution gets below what the human eye can resolve too. Until we get "wallpaper displays", there's not a lot of point going larger or higher-resolution.
Even if commodity white-box shifters stop making "desktop PC" ranges, there will still be a market for "server PCs". The products that go into a commodity server pretty much define a desktop PC anyway and long have. Unless you're already spending peanuts on your PC and megabucks on your graphics card - in which case you're back to a variant of the "cheap PC / expensive display" paradigm above. (Personally, I never saw any real benefit to the VooDoo-whatever card which was my last foray into the fancy graphics card realm.)
Let them die starving in the gutter, and ensure that all their offspring die with them. Possible exception, if you're feeling really kind, of allowing the offspring to live if they themselves are sterilised without issue.
It's called evolution. Look it up.
Business people aim for the 98%, not the 2%.
I've not bothered to look at the UIDs of most commenters here, or even to consider if the UID is anything resembling a count of users before that user signed up. But ISTR noticing UIDs in the 2 million plus range. Maybe even 3 million. Which is something like 0.3% of FarceBook.
Ah, but you're not one of the 1%. So of course you expect to pay for services, instead of getting others (e.g. tax payers) to pay you to receive those services free of charge.
Otherwise, all well-known points for anyone who looks beyond the western world. Which most people don't want to do. Apart from your point about the smallness of pre-Colonisation sub-Saharan African cities. That's news to me. I knew ("Great") Zimbabwe was relatively small, with significant "megalithic" structures (which implies a substantial construction population, but without knowing the details of the place's construction history, that's hard to be more precise on). But OTOH places like Timbuktu were quite significant population centres. The Ashanti and Beninese civilisations in West Africa had appreciable population centres too. Not to the size of Middle Eastern, Chinese or European contemporary cities I'll grant, but not village-size centres either. But you're plumbing the depths of my knowledge of African history now - it's just a continent I work on sometimes.
Yeah. That's pretty common l for me too. At least until the current slump.
Why go to that cost and effort yourself when "Robert Graham of Errata Security" will do it for you at their own expense?
You'd have to have some provisions (which you may be trying to cover in "bonded" - not a term used outside adhesive technology here) to failsafe that old/ obsolete cable (fibre, whatever) is removed from the conduit as part of bankruptcy proceedings, with some really punitive consequences if the cable isn't removed. And those provisions would need to be based on tested legalese, so that the precedent is there for (for example) selling the houses of investors in a failed provider to pay for the removal process.
You may have seen the absolute rats-nest that results if people aren't required (and forced) to remove their cables. We had to use an oxy-acetylene "gas axe" to clear up one cable tray for a job.
"Build it ; they will come?" Motto of the approaching sexbot industry which will lead to huge advances in practical robotics in the same way that pr0n drove the commodity-level advance of computing.
Does NASA still have the facility in Morocco which was an abort landing location for the shuttle fleet? [Checks] They used different sites at different times, one in France, two in Spain, one in England. I'm probably mis-remembering one of the Spanish sites.
The water content and oxygen fugacity of terrestrial magmas are both far higher than the lunar samples, which are things that would show up in a "major element" chemical analysis. You'd spot it immediately (if it was your several-thousandth major element analysis you were looking at, otherwise you'd need to spend hours doing the detailed comparison). There are more subtle traits too, which you'd get from the minor elements analysis - which on the departmental XRF machine would have meant an hour or so of zapping, instead of a few tens of seconds.
They're features, not bugs. What sort of a geologist or astronomer are you?
But the important question is, did Buzzfeed get the eyeball-seconds and clicks they needed out of the story?
(1) your comment sort-of implies that dating only uses zircons, and only uses the uranium-lead system, and only works for crystals with negligible initial lead. All of these are slightly misleading ; there are plenty of clocks other than uranium-lead ; crystals other than zircon can be used (and indeed, aggregates of multiple crystals can be dated as whole rocks) ; rocks with initial contents of the daughter element(s) in your clock(s) can be used with appropriate additional measurements. Radiometric dating is a complex subject - which is well worthy of study if you have anything to do with metamorphism, as different clock systems can be affected differently by different metamorphic events of differing intensities - making for a subtle but highly informative suite of tools.
Also, the growth of zircon crystals can and does happen before the bulk of the magma solidifies. Even a relatively zirconium-rich magma only averages a few hundred ppm. So if you're examining a typical 30x30mm thin section, you'd get around 0.4x0.4 mm of zircon, probably as a dozen or so grains. They're easier to find optically than the raw data would suggest - high relief, quite high birefringence - but you'd need to be point-counting a hundred thousand points on the slide to get a moderately robust estimate of the content (which is why it's only classified as an "accessory" mineral, not a "rock-forming" mineral).