What might work better is to use both. In the same way that we already split tasks into fifo, realtime and normal levels, we might want to subdivide the normal into standard and massive, where massive uses the more scalable of the schedulers and standard uses the more generally applicable.
I have a very strong suspicion that highly scalable schedulers are going to be needed - particularly when threads within a process have been migrated to other nodes or when running heavy loads on the top-end SMP clusters (16-way SMP with 4-core CPUs is not trivial). On the other hand, you absolutely don't want these kinds of cases to reduce the efficiency of the mainstream scheduler for mainstream work.
The obvious solution is to go from 3 bands to 4. If the O(1) scheduler is superior in cases that neither of the replacements is good at, then go to 5 bands.
Standing there is as foolish and self-destructive as blowing the mountains up to prevent a landslide. If there is a landslide and the means exists to dissipate the energy harmlessly, do so. If not, get out the way and figure out how to dissipate the energy next time. And if the landslide was cause by you turning the scree slopes into road chippings? Well, next time try another source.
As for the Middle East - it's hard to know what to do there. Most of the present troubles stem from covert British and American action in the past, such as deposing elected rulers and imposing people like the Shah. History shows how stubborn people can be. The defenders of Stalingrad chose suicide by starvation over German occupation, and the Germans in turn chose death and glory over surrender to the Russians. You think the Islamic fundamentalists are any less insane or fanatical? If mere, very traditional, nationalism can turn someone into a suicidal warrior, as illustrated above, then what happens when you add a religion in which death is merely an illusion?
No amount of ferocity can tame a lump of rock, but considerable workmanship might turn it into a thing of beauty.
Yes. By starting at the crimes, you start at the wrong point. Crimes are almost always a consequence of a malformed society, so to start there, you imply that societies must coalesce around a mutually-agreed point of defectiveness. That does not sound helpful, however unifying it may be. Besides which, define murder. I'd call murder the taking of another person's life. Which would therefore include ALL cases of "justifiable homicide" and State/Federal executions - which, I would point out, can't be all that universally abhorrent, or they wouldn't be legal!
No, you need to work your way back from there. The crimes are at the end of a trail, so turn around and walk back up. See where you get. Well, one wrong direction is a lack of social justice. Too many have-nots in a world where only the haves get any say. That is as true in America as anywhere else. Perhaps more so, as people on welfare in the States are not just seen as vermin, they're seen as second-class vermin.
Education was another wrong turn. In today's society, any job that can be done with lesser credentials than a bachelors' degree or comparable vocational training is either done by a machine or should be done by a machine. If society is to minimize the have-nots, then it must maximize those with the greatest skills achievable.
These two alone will fix very few problems - many societies have tried and not gone much further - but I can tell you that this is starting with the solution, not living in the problem. Those who start with the problem are doomed to stay there. Those who start with the solution might - just might - produce something worthwhile.
If there is no difference between them and you, then they are as entitled to their beliefs as you. I regard murder as an abhorrent crime. I regard the death penalty as an abhorrent crime. I regard the Bible Belt as an abhorrent crime. You will undoubtedly have a different list of abhorrent crimes. A member of some stone-age tribe in Papau New Guinea would most definitely have a different list. Yet we are to believe that you - and you alone - have the Right Way? That all the rest of us are merely blind fools, whose notions of right and wrong are - well - wrong?
There's an excellent book, dates back to the 1960s, called "Eight Keys to Eden". I've seen it on Amazon and a few libraries probably carry copies. Read it and then get back to me about the coherency thing.
It's because the moles are eating your geraniums, whereas the mountains generally just sit there and take up the scenery?
Or maybe it's because as a democracy, we are responsible for our decisions, not for anyone else's. We are accountable for the leaders we elect, because we freely elected them. We had the choice to do things differently, we chose not to. If our leaders misbehave, commit crimes, etc, then WE are culpable. Nobody else.
Or maybe it's because education is random, cultural evolution has been sporadic, technological evolution has been hoarded, and military hardware is on sale to anyone who wants it. There is no reason to expect anyone to behave in a mature, sane fashion around nukes or other high-power weaponry, when we make no effort to raise the standards of understanding and education. Ethics isn't found in a christmas cracker, it's found only in understanding.
...would be to take what has been learned in all the different arenas (TeX/LaTeX, Postscript, OpenDocument, OpenType, OpenOffice, etc) and to say "Ok, the applications suck at some things, the languages suck at others, the fonts suck at whatever's left over - how do we improve on what we have to fix all this?"
It should not be impossible to create a font language that borrows the strengths of Metafonts and OpenType. You want a language, because shapes don't necessarily scale uniformly and may be context-sensitive, but you want the language simple enough that fonts can be generated by mere mortals. Interpreters for fonts shouldn't be too bad - most modern machines are happy with interpreters for entire applications, so we're easily at the point where just-in-time font generation should not be an issue.
OpenDocument is a markup language. TeX and LaTeX are markup languages, albeit of a slightly different kind. Since there's a push to standardize on OpenDocument, it only makes sense for OpenDocument to be equal in power and versatility to TeX. No point in having a standard for documents if not all documents can be translated to that standard. (This doesn't mean OpenDocument should be used for all things, only that if there exist TeX documents that cannot be mapped into the OpenDocument format, we will outgrow OpenDocument too quickly. A standard should never be so constrained that people start to break it in order to do what they need to do.)
OpenOffice, KOffice, and all these other office packages, all have to have an engine for some of the core DTP functions. Web browsers used to have this problem, but there are now a few popular core engines and usually some sort of support for Mozilla plugins for non-Mozilla-based browsers. I don't see why the same method couldn't be used to solve DTP problems - perhaps have TeX or something similar as a plugin for regular wordprocessors to add the DTP functions. (That eliminates the need for wordprocessors to support DTP functions directly, which they usually do very badly at.)
Another option would be to get a group of real hardcore TeX hackers together to crunch out what should be LaTeX 3 and basically shock the typesetting community into getting off its collective backside. Shouldn't be too hard - it's not like it requires actually debugging LaTeX, it only requires producing a parser that can read LaTeX and write TeX. Which isn't horrible. Anything that's a macro is expanded, anything else is copied through. The expander should be trivial, the only difficult part would be to actually re-implement the macros - and that's only because there are so many of them.
I do wish the LaTeX group could pull up their socks. Version 3 is being "worked on" (read: the mailing list occasionally has sparks of life), but the need for an underlying engine that does all of this properly seems clear to me.
Adding layers on top of LaTeX only goes so far, if the underlying engine has flaws. If TeX can't do kerning adequately any more, then fixes above it will simply be implementation-dependent - which is largely what happened when LaTex 2 broke down and splintered into a billion variants. LaTeX 2e was a hack to glue the splinters back on.
To be honest, if TeX could be brought up to speed on typesetting needs and font requirements, I think a lot of people would consider taking it up again. Modern wordprocessors suck at true DTP, are generally memory hogs, and demand significant horsepower from the machine to work at a decent speed. Demands on what can be produced have gone up, yes. Demands on flexibility and capability have gone up, yes. Demands on clippy have most definitely gone down.
There's said to be a single supercolony of ants in Europe that is something like 2,500 miles long. I'd have a hard time not considering this a success - both for the ants and the stores selling ant traps.
Never mind that the same thinking banned DDT which meant millions of Africans have died from malaria or that liberated prisoners from the Nazi death camps were bathed in DDT to kill the bugs living on them or that "Silent Spring" has been shown to be a work of fiction.
A brave set of claims. Do you have a reference for the first or third claims? Assuming you have a reference for the second, can you provide a reference to any follow-up health studies that show no ill-effect occurred?
At least when I make outrageous claims (and I do - often), I tend to either give my reasoning or a reference to someone else's. This doesn't make me right, or indeed you wrong. What it means is that others can easily figure out if I'm on the right lines, whereas it would take many hours of careful research for the rest of us to dig up enough research to counter a single statement you've made. If I'm sometimes a troll, then at least I'm a vegetarian troll.
Automobile brakes may or may not be safer than they once were. the carbon-fibre brakes on modern F1 cars seem to be vastly superior to anything in a 70s F1 racing car. Since I can't seriously imagine anyone using inferior brakes when that much money is at stake, I would need to conclude that modern brakes are in fact superior - provided you buy the right ones. From that, I will deduce that you're not buying in the high-end market.
Asbestos is fire-resistant, but it splinters easily. The impact shock would have easily pulverized enough asbestos shielding for the steel to be directly exposed and the tower to have collapsed. There may have been ways for the twin towers to have survived, but you can't just look at one variable and say "aha!" You had a gigantic shock-wave from one side (the impact), you had a second gigantic shock from inside (the explosion), for each piece of debris of any size, you had a third gigantic shock wave (the object striking the wall or whatever), then and only then did you have the sustained fire. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that is capable of surviving all of these to the point of keeping a gigantic tower block upright for even a few more minutes, let alone hours.
Ok, so I said there may have been solutions. Well, the design of any tower block is very simple. You've a simple, cuboid-based skeleton on which you hang everything else. The vertical strength is adequate, but the horizontal strength on this kind of design is pretty feeble. Obviously good enough to withstand the occasional direct impact from a jet airliner, which is damn impressive, but it needs work. One possible solution would have been to have load-bearing true spiral staircases within the building. A spiral staircase should not sustain damage as easily as a regular stairwell, as spirals tend to be a strong structure. Escape from the building was a far bigger problem than the time it took, mostly because the existing escape routes were blocked by debris.
Smoke likely disoriented and/or killed many, as well, so an air system that could keep the escape routes as clear of smoke as possible would be another obvious one. Keeping spiral staircases at a positive pressure shouldn't be impossible - not easy, but not impossible.
You are correct in pointing out that this is hardly a neutral forum. However, in all fairness, one most point out that images aren't always entirely in the eye of the beholder. (Besides which, Microsoft already employs several Beholders.)
Seriously, though, you are correct that the legislature is culpable for being influenced in this way. No individual nor any corporation has any business running the Government, which is what this kind of stick/carrot lobbying amounts to, and no government employee (including public officials) has any business deferring matters of state to those individuals or corporations.
Microsoft does indeed have its own interests at heart, though one might quibble over whether protecting file standards is helpful or harmful to them. In the long run, lockins poison the vendors as much they do the consumer. It is also debatable as to what they may lawfully lobby for, given they are a convicted monopolist. (They don't have to agree with the decision, but they still have an obligation to abide by it. It is not for Microsoft to determine the law.)
However, ultimately nobody made the officials take what amount to bribes. Nobody held a gun to their head, although politicians probably have a hard time distinguishing immediate physical danger from a loss of election funds. I truly hope that there is a thorough investigation as to what was said and what was done by whom, and that those public officials found guilty of violating the ethical standards required of them are removed from office. In the end, as much as I dislike Microsoft's role in all this, and as much as I like to diss Microsoft for their conduct at times, this is ultimately not a tale of Microsoft's operations but a tale of corruption and manoevering in assorted halls of power. There are millions of companies no better than Microsoft and many are probably worse. The only common denominator, the only place you can throttle back on will-legislate-for-cash mindsets, is within the political system itself. You still need to fix the flaws in corporate politics, but one major scandal at a time, please.
Firstly, I'm going to guess that frame dragging is verified at no better resolution than the curvature of space/time, but that as far as they can tell, it exists and meets the values expected by Einstein.
Secondly, I'm also going to guess that QM experts will start to get a little nervous. The properties any future QM model of gravity must have contradict the GR model. They cannot both be right. The more "right" the GR model, the more problematic a QM model. This doesn't mean a QM model does not exist, only that it is most undesirable (from a QM perspective) for the GR model to make highly precise and accurate predictions.
Thirdly, frame-dragging occurs at a non-zero distance from an object. This doesn't matter, for the purpose of these observations, as they're nowhere near accurate to measure the relativistic effects that apply to the information passed that creates the effects in the first place. Nonetheless, such an affect must exist, or you'd end up with infinitely fast rates of change of state, which is expressly forbidden in GR. It's a gross simplification and it's not an "obvious" conclusion to reach by any means, but if the curvature (and restoration) of space/time has nothing analogous to Hooke's Constant, then after a gravitationally massive object has moved, either space/time would not unbend at all (it could only do so if Plato's laws of motion were valid), or every moving object would need to be emitting Hawking Radiation (which - as far as anyone knows - doesn't happen).
CDs tend not to be of very high quality, by today's standards. 16 bit isn't bad, but anyone with a good sound card can manage to digitize at 24 bits. 44.1 KHz is ok, but most quality sound cards can manage far higher rates. This doesn't make digital bad, it merely makes the digital that we're sold inferior to the digital we can make ourselves.
(It doesn't help that some DRM/watermarking techniques for digital sound degrades the quality further than the mere absolute rates would account for.)
Frankly, I don't expect this to be a major resurgence of vinyl/analogue formats, but if it forces even a few labels to beef up the stuff they're producing, I'm all for it. Who cares if vinyl "wins", if we all "win" by getting a better product? Of course, a better product really isn't likely, but the 0.01% hope that something could improve is better than the near-certainty of nothing changing if nothing challenges the status quo.
First, since it's rather hard to post when you're dead, it tells the rest of us that you're alive. Hey, Slashdot's a community like any other and yes we do care a lot.
Just checked with my SO - she's fortunately not at that college, she's elsewhere in Virginia... where they had a number of students stabbed to death recently. Yeesh, if those of us on the fringes are being massively impacted, I can only imagine what it's like for those in the middle of it.
Keep posting. And if you can't post, keep breathing. Whether you like it or not, you matter.
Great info there. The problem, a I understand it, is less the CCD itself and more the scale. The problem seems to be on a far greater scale than would seem to have been expected. This does not require any new mechanisms, but does require an explanation for how we get from historical CCD norms to current CCD levels. It may be as simple as there being better monitoring, better reporting, more experience at triggering sudden panic attacks in the media, etc. However, I see nothing wrong with researchers taking the time to find out.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a very strong suspicion that highly scalable schedulers are going to be needed - particularly when threads within a process have been migrated to other nodes or when running heavy loads on the top-end SMP clusters (16-way SMP with 4-core CPUs is not trivial). On the other hand, you absolutely don't want these kinds of cases to reduce the efficiency of the mainstream scheduler for mainstream work.
The obvious solution is to go from 3 bands to 4. If the O(1) scheduler is superior in cases that neither of the replacements is good at, then go to 5 bands.
It's called Corewars, but nobody has implemented a decent OS in redcode.
As for the Middle East - it's hard to know what to do there. Most of the present troubles stem from covert British and American action in the past, such as deposing elected rulers and imposing people like the Shah. History shows how stubborn people can be. The defenders of Stalingrad chose suicide by starvation over German occupation, and the Germans in turn chose death and glory over surrender to the Russians. You think the Islamic fundamentalists are any less insane or fanatical? If mere, very traditional, nationalism can turn someone into a suicidal warrior, as illustrated above, then what happens when you add a religion in which death is merely an illusion?
No amount of ferocity can tame a lump of rock, but considerable workmanship might turn it into a thing of beauty.
No, you need to work your way back from there. The crimes are at the end of a trail, so turn around and walk back up. See where you get. Well, one wrong direction is a lack of social justice. Too many have-nots in a world where only the haves get any say. That is as true in America as anywhere else. Perhaps more so, as people on welfare in the States are not just seen as vermin, they're seen as second-class vermin.
Education was another wrong turn. In today's society, any job that can be done with lesser credentials than a bachelors' degree or comparable vocational training is either done by a machine or should be done by a machine. If society is to minimize the have-nots, then it must maximize those with the greatest skills achievable.
These two alone will fix very few problems - many societies have tried and not gone much further - but I can tell you that this is starting with the solution, not living in the problem. Those who start with the problem are doomed to stay there. Those who start with the solution might - just might - produce something worthwhile.
There's an excellent book, dates back to the 1960s, called "Eight Keys to Eden". I've seen it on Amazon and a few libraries probably carry copies. Read it and then get back to me about the coherency thing.
Or maybe it's because as a democracy, we are responsible for our decisions, not for anyone else's. We are accountable for the leaders we elect, because we freely elected them. We had the choice to do things differently, we chose not to. If our leaders misbehave, commit crimes, etc, then WE are culpable. Nobody else.
Or maybe it's because education is random, cultural evolution has been sporadic, technological evolution has been hoarded, and military hardware is on sale to anyone who wants it. There is no reason to expect anyone to behave in a mature, sane fashion around nukes or other high-power weaponry, when we make no effort to raise the standards of understanding and education. Ethics isn't found in a christmas cracker, it's found only in understanding.
It should not be impossible to create a font language that borrows the strengths of Metafonts and OpenType. You want a language, because shapes don't necessarily scale uniformly and may be context-sensitive, but you want the language simple enough that fonts can be generated by mere mortals. Interpreters for fonts shouldn't be too bad - most modern machines are happy with interpreters for entire applications, so we're easily at the point where just-in-time font generation should not be an issue.
OpenDocument is a markup language. TeX and LaTeX are markup languages, albeit of a slightly different kind. Since there's a push to standardize on OpenDocument, it only makes sense for OpenDocument to be equal in power and versatility to TeX. No point in having a standard for documents if not all documents can be translated to that standard. (This doesn't mean OpenDocument should be used for all things, only that if there exist TeX documents that cannot be mapped into the OpenDocument format, we will outgrow OpenDocument too quickly. A standard should never be so constrained that people start to break it in order to do what they need to do.)
OpenOffice, KOffice, and all these other office packages, all have to have an engine for some of the core DTP functions. Web browsers used to have this problem, but there are now a few popular core engines and usually some sort of support for Mozilla plugins for non-Mozilla-based browsers. I don't see why the same method couldn't be used to solve DTP problems - perhaps have TeX or something similar as a plugin for regular wordprocessors to add the DTP functions. (That eliminates the need for wordprocessors to support DTP functions directly, which they usually do very badly at.)
Another option would be to get a group of real hardcore TeX hackers together to crunch out what should be LaTeX 3 and basically shock the typesetting community into getting off its collective backside. Shouldn't be too hard - it's not like it requires actually debugging LaTeX, it only requires producing a parser that can read LaTeX and write TeX. Which isn't horrible. Anything that's a macro is expanded, anything else is copied through. The expander should be trivial, the only difficult part would be to actually re-implement the macros - and that's only because there are so many of them.
I saw it at the supermarket trying to buy some control, as it was all out. But they didn't have any in stock, I heard Elvis say.
I do wish the LaTeX group could pull up their socks. Version 3 is being "worked on" (read: the mailing list occasionally has sparks of life), but the need for an underlying engine that does all of this properly seems clear to me.
Adding layers on top of LaTeX only goes so far, if the underlying engine has flaws. If TeX can't do kerning adequately any more, then fixes above it will simply be implementation-dependent - which is largely what happened when LaTex 2 broke down and splintered into a billion variants. LaTeX 2e was a hack to glue the splinters back on.
To be honest, if TeX could be brought up to speed on typesetting needs and font requirements, I think a lot of people would consider taking it up again. Modern wordprocessors suck at true DTP, are generally memory hogs, and demand significant horsepower from the machine to work at a decent speed. Demands on what can be produced have gone up, yes. Demands on flexibility and capability have gone up, yes. Demands on clippy have most definitely gone down.
Seem to remember too many years ago, a young children's book - Hope for the Flowers - that described exactly such a mental state.
IIRC, string theory has twelve dimensions, with the extra ones being space-like - just very very knotted up.
There's said to be a single supercolony of ants in Europe that is something like 2,500 miles long. I'd have a hard time not considering this a success - both for the ants and the stores selling ant traps.
Can I use that as my sig?
A brave set of claims. Do you have a reference for the first or third claims? Assuming you have a reference for the second, can you provide a reference to any follow-up health studies that show no ill-effect occurred?
At least when I make outrageous claims (and I do - often), I tend to either give my reasoning or a reference to someone else's. This doesn't make me right, or indeed you wrong. What it means is that others can easily figure out if I'm on the right lines, whereas it would take many hours of careful research for the rest of us to dig up enough research to counter a single statement you've made. If I'm sometimes a troll, then at least I'm a vegetarian troll.
Automobile brakes may or may not be safer than they once were. the carbon-fibre brakes on modern F1 cars seem to be vastly superior to anything in a 70s F1 racing car. Since I can't seriously imagine anyone using inferior brakes when that much money is at stake, I would need to conclude that modern brakes are in fact superior - provided you buy the right ones. From that, I will deduce that you're not buying in the high-end market.
Asbestos is fire-resistant, but it splinters easily. The impact shock would have easily pulverized enough asbestos shielding for the steel to be directly exposed and the tower to have collapsed. There may have been ways for the twin towers to have survived, but you can't just look at one variable and say "aha!" You had a gigantic shock-wave from one side (the impact), you had a second gigantic shock from inside (the explosion), for each piece of debris of any size, you had a third gigantic shock wave (the object striking the wall or whatever), then and only then did you have the sustained fire. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that is capable of surviving all of these to the point of keeping a gigantic tower block upright for even a few more minutes, let alone hours.
Ok, so I said there may have been solutions. Well, the design of any tower block is very simple. You've a simple, cuboid-based skeleton on which you hang everything else. The vertical strength is adequate, but the horizontal strength on this kind of design is pretty feeble. Obviously good enough to withstand the occasional direct impact from a jet airliner, which is damn impressive, but it needs work. One possible solution would have been to have load-bearing true spiral staircases within the building. A spiral staircase should not sustain damage as easily as a regular stairwell, as spirals tend to be a strong structure. Escape from the building was a far bigger problem than the time it took, mostly because the existing escape routes were blocked by debris.
Smoke likely disoriented and/or killed many, as well, so an air system that could keep the escape routes as clear of smoke as possible would be another obvious one. Keeping spiral staircases at a positive pressure shouldn't be impossible - not easy, but not impossible.
The only way 22,000 can equal 200k is if you are operating in base 1.6001. Of course, this would explain a lot about the way the Government works.
Seriously, though, you are correct that the legislature is culpable for being influenced in this way. No individual nor any corporation has any business running the Government, which is what this kind of stick/carrot lobbying amounts to, and no government employee (including public officials) has any business deferring matters of state to those individuals or corporations.
Microsoft does indeed have its own interests at heart, though one might quibble over whether protecting file standards is helpful or harmful to them. In the long run, lockins poison the vendors as much they do the consumer. It is also debatable as to what they may lawfully lobby for, given they are a convicted monopolist. (They don't have to agree with the decision, but they still have an obligation to abide by it. It is not for Microsoft to determine the law.)
However, ultimately nobody made the officials take what amount to bribes. Nobody held a gun to their head, although politicians probably have a hard time distinguishing immediate physical danger from a loss of election funds. I truly hope that there is a thorough investigation as to what was said and what was done by whom, and that those public officials found guilty of violating the ethical standards required of them are removed from office. In the end, as much as I dislike Microsoft's role in all this, and as much as I like to diss Microsoft for their conduct at times, this is ultimately not a tale of Microsoft's operations but a tale of corruption and manoevering in assorted halls of power. There are millions of companies no better than Microsoft and many are probably worse. The only common denominator, the only place you can throttle back on will-legislate-for-cash mindsets, is within the political system itself. You still need to fix the flaws in corporate politics, but one major scandal at a time, please.
Secondly, I'm also going to guess that QM experts will start to get a little nervous. The properties any future QM model of gravity must have contradict the GR model. They cannot both be right. The more "right" the GR model, the more problematic a QM model. This doesn't mean a QM model does not exist, only that it is most undesirable (from a QM perspective) for the GR model to make highly precise and accurate predictions.
Thirdly, frame-dragging occurs at a non-zero distance from an object. This doesn't matter, for the purpose of these observations, as they're nowhere near accurate to measure the relativistic effects that apply to the information passed that creates the effects in the first place. Nonetheless, such an affect must exist, or you'd end up with infinitely fast rates of change of state, which is expressly forbidden in GR. It's a gross simplification and it's not an "obvious" conclusion to reach by any means, but if the curvature (and restoration) of space/time has nothing analogous to Hooke's Constant, then after a gravitationally massive object has moved, either space/time would not unbend at all (it could only do so if Plato's laws of motion were valid), or every moving object would need to be emitting Hawking Radiation (which - as far as anyone knows - doesn't happen).
(It doesn't help that some DRM/watermarking techniques for digital sound degrades the quality further than the mere absolute rates would account for.)
Frankly, I don't expect this to be a major resurgence of vinyl/analogue formats, but if it forces even a few labels to beef up the stuff they're producing, I'm all for it. Who cares if vinyl "wins", if we all "win" by getting a better product? Of course, a better product really isn't likely, but the 0.01% hope that something could improve is better than the near-certainty of nothing changing if nothing challenges the status quo.
Just checked with my SO - she's fortunately not at that college, she's elsewhere in Virginia... where they had a number of students stabbed to death recently. Yeesh, if those of us on the fringes are being massively impacted, I can only imagine what it's like for those in the middle of it.
Keep posting. And if you can't post, keep breathing. Whether you like it or not, you matter.
Great info there. The problem, a I understand it, is less the CCD itself and more the scale. The problem seems to be on a far greater scale than would seem to have been expected. This does not require any new mechanisms, but does require an explanation for how we get from historical CCD norms to current CCD levels. It may be as simple as there being better monitoring, better reporting, more experience at triggering sudden panic attacks in the media, etc. However, I see nothing wrong with researchers taking the time to find out.
I think you may have typod. Shouldn't that be 99.95%? (We know about CmdrTaco's SO, but just try to name one other case.)
I thought Netcraft did that.
On no account touch-type on a hot brunette by mistake. Especially if she calls herself Emma Peel.
We could always put the leaders in a ring and place bets on them
...it would be playable, but only if you had the side of a hotel to play on...