Threads always have the problem of concurrency. Keep in mind that the dining philosophers problem is still unsolved in general. Partial solutions work, but each of them has their drawbacks.
A wellknown fact from all detective/investigator movies. At first, I am totally sure who did it because the guy has a strange smile, and everything else is just digging up evidence. And evidence will be found eventually.
In the Middle Ages, diamonds were not thought of as gemstones, because they didn't have any color, and because the facette cut was not in use yet. Gemstones were rounded before being put into jewelry, and a diamond just looks boring without any facettes. Later the criteria were: seldom, hard (mohs > 7), looking beautiful and used for jewelry.To be considered a gemstone, a mineral had to be at least able to scratch glass. Currently, the World Jewelry Organisation considers both amethyst and agate stones to be gemstones. The term "semi-precious" is no longer used since at least three decades.
As someone who has collected gemstones as a hobby, I doubt that. An amethyst is something I find at certain places after 10 minutes of superficially looking around. Same with an agate stone. I have never found a diamond.
The investigation began in 2012 when a waste station supervisor in Hampton, Connecticut, found Saucier’s cellphone with the submarine photos on top of a pile of demolition trash and showed it to his friend, who was a retired Navy chief and brought the phone to the NCIS, according to court documents.
So the photos were available to unauthorized people, and we have evidence of that. We don't have any evidence that it happened to Hillary's emails. There is quite a difference between speeding, and causing a traffic accident while speeding. And I know the example of General Petraeus, where we also have a quite different kettle of fish: Telling state secrets to someone not supposed to hear them for sexual favors.
All I take from the email affair so far is that some people really, really wish it to be big, and they are constantly diappointed when an official tells them: So far, it isn't, and the only conclusion they come to is that there has to be some large and widespread conspiracy going on. The other possible conclusion, that they err, and that the email affair so far isn't that big from a judical point of view just doesn't get to them.
We still have as many glaciers as ever. They didn't melt.
I actually live surrounded by glaciers, and I know for sure: This is simply wrong. The glaciers shrink. And the lower border of the glaciers went up the mountains. All the skiing infrastructure from the 1930ies and the 1960ies is now lower than the glaciers, and new infrastructure has been built in the last decades in higher regions.
If you like analogies: We are sure that the dead person was deliberately killed. We are not sure yet if he was stabbed to death or if he was poisoned first and only stabbed later to make sure he really stays dead. And we are discussing if one or more persons were involved, and who they were.
You are seeming to suggest that the fact that we are not really sure yet how to present the case to the jury means that there was no case to begin with.
The problem is not the basic language. The features in different languages are often surprisingly similar, because useful features are ported fast and often. Sometimes you get the features by adding libraries, sometimes it's a useful header file, but in general, it's mostly syntactic sugar. The problem is the set of libraries in a project, the frameworks and the little quirks. This can amount to a lot of arcane knowledge, which you don't get within two weeks. You learn it step by step whenever a problem occurs with a solution that is deeply affected by those libraries, frameworks and sudden bugs caused by the quirks.
What older programmers are good in is their long experience and intuition. They don't overengineer code, but know how to keep the code flexible enough for later changes. They know when looking for a general solution in someone else's code helps, they have an idea for which problem a ready made and well maintained library might exist and know how and where to look for it. They remember when they have stumbled upon a similar problem already and remember how they solved it at the time. So in general, they will be productive more early with new technologies than younger programmers missing the experience. But they might never tap the full potential of said technology, because they use what they need and ignore everything else until they need it.
The "small fraction" was put to numbers in the arcticle: 39% of all generated electical energy is fossil, 23% is renewables. So the small fraction is actually more close to 2/3. For sufficiently large values for "small", your argument holds.
The first wrist watch ever was built by Pierre Cartier for the brasilian air plane pioneer Alberto Santos-Dumont. It was the "Cartier Santos" in 1904. Your turn.
Preserving rain-forests doesn't help as much as hippies would like you to think since they are mostly carbon neutral.
See? That's one of those misconceptions floating around. Yes, rain-forests are mostly carbon neutral. But your conclusion is wrong nevertheless. Because while rain-forests are mostly carbon neutral, cutting them down isn't. Each piece of organic matter that is destroyed adds to the carbon foot print, as long as it is not replaced by a piece of organic matter of the same size.
The original target market for wrist watches were pilots and racing drivers who couldn't afford to get the hands off the steering to pull out a watch and look at the time. That's why expensive watches still have names like "sky master" or "pilote". I stopped wearing a watch about 15 years ago when I was on-call and had to carry a cell phone with me all the time.
If the Ediacara fauna was the remainings of the failed attempt of the Venuvians to settle on Earth, where did the Gabonionta came from? Were they Marsians attempting to flee worsening conditions on our outer planetary sibling?
And there is another problem with software patents, and this is, what Judge Mayer was pointing out: Describing what a program is supposed to do is a far cry from actually implementing it. Only the actual implementation running on a universal purpose computer does affect the physical world. Software patents thus are merely a wishlist of what a conceived program shall do on an universal computer. The task of actually implementing them would still be a necessary, creative act. This is quite different from a patented mechanism, where the patent application actually contains a full description how to built the mechanism, e.g. the complete code.
And as you know, only the people on B Ark were able to land safely on a new planet and found a new civilisation there. People destined for A Ark and C Ark weren't, they died from a contamined phone handset. Apparently, without the economic, education, HR and mass media specialists, we as a species are much more vulnerable, because the elite is too elitist to spot everyday problems, and the working slaves are forbidden to spot problems.
It seems that there is an inverse proportionality between the durability of a storage medium and its storage density, and I don't know if we can overcome that easily, as we have the law of entropy working against us. A stone carving or a clay tablet can overcome hundreds and thousands of quantum events, and they will still be stone and clay. A papyrus starts to rot, when its molecules break up, and it gets brittle and is more easily destroyed. Printed paper is thinner and has smaller letters than a hand written papyrus and thus even small damage can erase whole words or paragraphs. And with a hard disk or flash memory, even single quantum events can erase or flip a bit, and a two bit error is already unrecoverable, and any more damage loses large swats of the file.
Not voting always means voting with the majority. Not voting means agreeing with whoever wins. Whatever George Carlin thinks he's doing, the arithmetics of elections means that he just becomes a majority voter.
But most of those devices have some "check for updates" functionality built in, and if you can intercept that and feed false data back to the device, it will gladly download bogus firmwares or execute commands injected in the data stream. And now the attack starts behind the NAT/firewall, and this direction is not in any way filtered at most sites, but set to In->Out Allow All.
(And from the absolute oxygen in the atmosphere, 480,000,000,000 tons is just a minuscle part, a rounding error. We have about 500 times as much oxygen than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or 210,000 ppm vs. 400 ppm.)
No. I have two numbers: 660,000,000,000 tons is the total amount of carbon dioxide. It comes from two sources: 480,000,000,000 tons of oxygen (not explicitely mentioned) and 180,000,000,000 tons of carbon.
Not exactly, as I was calculating the amount of carbon and not of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide is 660,000,000,000 tons, of which 480,000,000,000 is oxygen that we took from the atmosphere to burn the carbon. 180,000,000,000 is the actual carbon that was added to the atmosphere. And the carbon we extracted from fossil resources I estimated to be about 770,000,000,000 tons.
Seeing as how industrialization in it's entirety has failed to have been shown to appreciably affect global temperature changes...
I don't see the failure. CO2 levels are directly connected to temperature changes. So if we find the cause for the changing CO2 levels, we have the cause for the temperature changes. And CO2 levels have changed in the last 100 years. Just go to a library and take a 100 year old book about the atmosphere, and you will find that there are measurements of about 270 ppm CO2. Then take a measurement yourself, and you will get about 400 ppm CO2 today. So we have a 130 ppm increase of CO2 levels within 120 years. Now you could go and calculate how many tons of CO2 130 ppm represent.
Lets do some back-of-the-envelope calculations:
The average air pressure is about 100 kPa, and 130 ppm of that is additional CO2, so about 13 Pa is contributed by additional CO2.
1 Pa = 1 Newton/square meter, so the weight of the additional CO2 is 13 Newton per square meter.
1 kg weighs about 9.81 Newtons or slighlly less than 10 Newtons, thus 13 Newtons represent about 1.3 kg CO2.
That means that we have about 1.3 kg additional CO2 per square meter on this world. Given the Earth's surface area of 510,000,000 square kilometers, which are 510,000,000,000,000 square meters, this means about 660,000,000,000,000 kg or 660,000,000,000 tons of additional CO2.
1 ton of carbon, if burned, causes 3.7 tons of CO2 to be released. Those 660,000,000,000 tons of CO2 thus represent 180,000,000,000 tons of carbon. Per year, humanity extracts 6,500,000,000 tons of coal and about 95,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil. Crude oil is about 85% carbon, and one barrel of crude oil weighs about 130 kg, thus 1 barrel of crude oil represents about 115 kg carbon. 95,000,000,000 barrels crude oil thus are about 11,000,000,000 tons of carbon. So we have about 17,500,000,000 tons of carbon which we extract from fossil resources per year.
If we estimate, that the amount of carbon used doubles every 20 years, the amount of carbon we extracted within the last 100 years would be about 770,000,000,000 tons, and of those, just one fourth seems to be added to the atmosphere, representing 180,000,000,000 tons of carbon, as we calculated before. This makes sense as not all carbon is burned, and additional CO2 levels increase plant growth.
See, how our estimation of carbon usage and increased CO2 fit nicely? And we know that CO2 levels and Earth surface temperatures are closely correlated. So we have a direct correlation between industrialization and temperature increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Threads always have the problem of concurrency. Keep in mind that the dining philosophers problem is still unsolved in general. Partial solutions work, but each of them has their drawbacks.
Which -- oh marvel -- computes to about 9,81 Newton per kilogram, rounded to 10 Newtons per kilogram as stated by the previous poster.
A wellknown fact from all detective/investigator movies. At first, I am totally sure who did it because the guy has a strange smile, and everything else is just digging up evidence. And evidence will be found eventually.
In the Middle Ages, diamonds were not thought of as gemstones, because they didn't have any color, and because the facette cut was not in use yet. Gemstones were rounded before being put into jewelry, and a diamond just looks boring without any facettes. Later the criteria were: seldom, hard (mohs > 7), looking beautiful and used for jewelry.To be considered a gemstone, a mineral had to be at least able to scratch glass. Currently, the World Jewelry Organisation considers both amethyst and agate stones to be gemstones. The term "semi-precious" is no longer used since at least three decades.
As someone who has collected gemstones as a hobby, I doubt that. An amethyst is something I find at certain places after 10 minutes of superficially looking around. Same with an agate stone. I have never found a diamond.
The investigation began in 2012 when a waste station supervisor in Hampton, Connecticut, found Saucier’s cellphone with the submarine photos on top of a pile of demolition trash and showed it to his friend, who was a retired Navy chief and brought the phone to the NCIS, according to court documents.
So the photos were available to unauthorized people, and we have evidence of that. We don't have any evidence that it happened to Hillary's emails. There is quite a difference between speeding, and causing a traffic accident while speeding. And I know the example of General Petraeus, where we also have a quite different kettle of fish: Telling state secrets to someone not supposed to hear them for sexual favors.
All I take from the email affair so far is that some people really, really wish it to be big, and they are constantly diappointed when an official tells them: So far, it isn't, and the only conclusion they come to is that there has to be some large and widespread conspiracy going on. The other possible conclusion, that they err, and that the email affair so far isn't that big from a judical point of view just doesn't get to them.
You just want it to be true, facts be damned, rignt?
We still have as many glaciers as ever. They didn't melt.
I actually live surrounded by glaciers, and I know for sure: This is simply wrong. The glaciers shrink. And the lower border of the glaciers went up the mountains. All the skiing infrastructure from the 1930ies and the 1960ies is now lower than the glaciers, and new infrastructure has been built in the last decades in higher regions.
You are seeming to suggest that the fact that we are not really sure yet how to present the case to the jury means that there was no case to begin with.
What older programmers are good in is their long experience and intuition. They don't overengineer code, but know how to keep the code flexible enough for later changes. They know when looking for a general solution in someone else's code helps, they have an idea for which problem a ready made and well maintained library might exist and know how and where to look for it. They remember when they have stumbled upon a similar problem already and remember how they solved it at the time. So in general, they will be productive more early with new technologies than younger programmers missing the experience. But they might never tap the full potential of said technology, because they use what they need and ignore everything else until they need it.
When he said, preserving rain-forests would not matter. But it does matter, because the alternative (cutting them down) adds to the carbon footprint.
The "small fraction" was put to numbers in the arcticle: 39% of all generated electical energy is fossil, 23% is renewables. So the small fraction is actually more close to 2/3. For sufficiently large values for "small", your argument holds.
The first wrist watch ever was built by Pierre Cartier for the brasilian air plane pioneer Alberto Santos-Dumont. It was the "Cartier Santos" in 1904. Your turn.
Preserving rain-forests doesn't help as much as hippies would like you to think since they are mostly carbon neutral.
See? That's one of those misconceptions floating around. Yes, rain-forests are mostly carbon neutral. But your conclusion is wrong nevertheless. Because while rain-forests are mostly carbon neutral, cutting them down isn't. Each piece of organic matter that is destroyed adds to the carbon foot print, as long as it is not replaced by a piece of organic matter of the same size.
The original target market for wrist watches were pilots and racing drivers who couldn't afford to get the hands off the steering to pull out a watch and look at the time. That's why expensive watches still have names like "sky master" or "pilote". I stopped wearing a watch about 15 years ago when I was on-call and had to carry a cell phone with me all the time.
If the Ediacara fauna was the remainings of the failed attempt of the Venuvians to settle on Earth, where did the Gabonionta came from? Were they Marsians attempting to flee worsening conditions on our outer planetary sibling?
And there is another problem with software patents, and this is, what Judge Mayer was pointing out: Describing what a program is supposed to do is a far cry from actually implementing it. Only the actual implementation running on a universal purpose computer does affect the physical world. Software patents thus are merely a wishlist of what a conceived program shall do on an universal computer. The task of actually implementing them would still be a necessary, creative act. This is quite different from a patented mechanism, where the patent application actually contains a full description how to built the mechanism, e.g. the complete code.
And as you know, only the people on B Ark were able to land safely on a new planet and found a new civilisation there. People destined for A Ark and C Ark weren't, they died from a contamined phone handset. Apparently, without the economic, education, HR and mass media specialists, we as a species are much more vulnerable, because the elite is too elitist to spot everyday problems, and the working slaves are forbidden to spot problems.
It seems that there is an inverse proportionality between the durability of a storage medium and its storage density, and I don't know if we can overcome that easily, as we have the law of entropy working against us. A stone carving or a clay tablet can overcome hundreds and thousands of quantum events, and they will still be stone and clay. A papyrus starts to rot, when its molecules break up, and it gets brittle and is more easily destroyed. Printed paper is thinner and has smaller letters than a hand written papyrus and thus even small damage can erase whole words or paragraphs. And with a hard disk or flash memory, even single quantum events can erase or flip a bit, and a two bit error is already unrecoverable, and any more damage loses large swats of the file.
Not voting always means voting with the majority. Not voting means agreeing with whoever wins. Whatever George Carlin thinks he's doing, the arithmetics of elections means that he just becomes a majority voter.
But most of those devices have some "check for updates" functionality built in, and if you can intercept that and feed false data back to the device, it will gladly download bogus firmwares or execute commands injected in the data stream. And now the attack starts behind the NAT/firewall, and this direction is not in any way filtered at most sites, but set to In->Out Allow All.
(And from the absolute oxygen in the atmosphere, 480,000,000,000 tons is just a minuscle part, a rounding error. We have about 500 times as much oxygen than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or 210,000 ppm vs. 400 ppm.)
No. I have two numbers: 660,000,000,000 tons is the total amount of carbon dioxide. It comes from two sources: 480,000,000,000 tons of oxygen (not explicitely mentioned) and 180,000,000,000 tons of carbon.
Not exactly, as I was calculating the amount of carbon and not of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide is 660,000,000,000 tons, of which 480,000,000,000 is oxygen that we took from the atmosphere to burn the carbon. 180,000,000,000 is the actual carbon that was added to the atmosphere. And the carbon we extracted from fossil resources I estimated to be about 770,000,000,000 tons.
Seeing as how industrialization in it's entirety has failed to have been shown to appreciably affect global temperature changes...
I don't see the failure. CO2 levels are directly connected to temperature changes. So if we find the cause for the changing CO2 levels, we have the cause for the temperature changes. And CO2 levels have changed in the last 100 years. Just go to a library and take a 100 year old book about the atmosphere, and you will find that there are measurements of about 270 ppm CO2. Then take a measurement yourself, and you will get about 400 ppm CO2 today. So we have a 130 ppm increase of CO2 levels within 120 years. Now you could go and calculate how many tons of CO2 130 ppm represent.
Lets do some back-of-the-envelope calculations:
See, how our estimation of carbon usage and increased CO2 fit nicely? And we know that CO2 levels and Earth surface temperatures are closely correlated. So we have a direct correlation between industrialization and temperature increase.