Most of those divers that swarm all over places are not qualified to dive to that depth. This thing will be sitting far deeper than the 18m limit recommended for most recreational divers.
I did a 30m dive a few months ago for my PADI Advance Open Water. I got pretty narced - I don't particularly want to do it again unless I'm with an experienced buddy. That doesn't sound like too much fun. Also, the more limited time at that depth (you go through your air faster) makes this worse.
So who is this targetted at? And why does the person who submitted the story think this will shortly be one of the most awesome dive sites? It's either going to be very expensive, or there's some contradictions in the story:
Officials in the Florida Keys expect it to pay dividends, up to $8 million in annual tourism-related revenue, mostly from divers flocking to get a look at the underwater spectacle.
[...]
The idea is to not only to attract tourists, but to help protect the Keys' natural reefs, already suffering from excessive diving, snorkeling and fishing along with warming ocean temperatures.
A good driver will drive below the speed limit, even if it's a poorly chosen limit. One doesn't get to arbitrary do what one likes because it doesn't make sense to one. If 85% of people ignore the limit and speed, there's 15% of people who aren't. There's a now a safety issue. The majority are in the wrong.
If local 500 people manage to get the speed limit lowered, there's a valid reason. Why should people who from outside the area dictate their lives? If it so bad, 500 drivers can campaign (maybe at a higher political level) to have the limit raised again. If instead they ignore the limit, that would have been like the local people installing their own traffic calming measures instead of correctly campaigning as they did.
People who drive faster than the speed limit are idiots.
Depends on where you are. I think I read once that the difference between 25 and 35 mph was the difference between 10% and 90% of pedestrians dying when hit by a car. Speeding in residential areas should be considered much more seriously than on a freeway where there shouldn't be any pedestrians and the road is designed with speed in mind. Ultimately it's a probability game, and those odds get worse and worse as speeds go up or the conditions change.
Don't you remember your basic physics that you should have been taught around the age of 14?
KE = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2
Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, thus twice as fast is four times as much energy, three times as fast is nine times as much energy. See the wikipedia page.
Forcing law-abiding drivers to slow down where driving conditions don't need it artificially increases speed differentials since realistically a significant number of drivers will exceed an inappropriately low limit anyway
That's not a problem with speed differentials. That's a problem with people being idiots. It's also a societal problem: make speeding and ignorant driving socially unacceptable, and you will start lowering the probability of the situation you described.
And who's to say that a speed is unreasonably low? Even if the road can clearly bear higher speeds, there might have been a spate of accidents or deaths in the area that you don't know about, or conditions might vary based on time of day, the weather or time of year. Some places use electronic signs to adjust the speed limit as appropriate, but where they can't do this, they obviously have to set the limit closer to the lower end of the range. Speeding isn't acceptable, and you're an idiot if do so.
Most of what you say is true, and differences in speed are vastly under-rated.
I do disagree with your conclusion about speed. It does increase the likelihood of dying. It does decrease the amount of time you have to react to things. Don't forget that when you double your speed, you have four times as much energy, and that has to be dissipated somehow. No amount of crumple zones will protect you or other people if you have too much energy.
No doubt. He's blaming tough economic times, but that's today. By the time that schools and governmental agencies are trying to buy this in serious numbers, we should be out of recession (not in six months at product release, but 12-18 after SP1 has been released).
That article about "ground breaking experiments" is from 1997. I'm trying to remember when I read the story about Rechtschaffen's experiments the first time, and it is entirely possible that it was a/. story then too, which would make this a dup. This story is hardly news.
My guess is memcpy_s does runtime bounds checking (it isn't specified on the memcpy_s page, maybe the security ref - too busy to read it though).
If you have VS.Net and the CRT source installed, you can easily check this.
Yes, it does some range checking and pointer checks, memset'ing of the dest if the source is NULL or the dest is smaller. Then delegates to memcpy. Memcpy does no checking whatsoever.
And that you've tested the recovery process. We had a DB array failure last year and discovered that we couldn't recover our incremental backups, and lost two weeks of data. This was about a week before we switched to a new colo with new hardware. A few months later I asked the IT guys responsible if the new backup system recovered... uh, no it failed, and we haven't fixed it yet!
What, you haven't switched to digital yet? Doesn't Freeview deliver more channels?
Trust me, even when there were only four channels and during the day BBC2 was showing cricket and C4 was showing horse racing, it's no worse than 80 channels or more, half of which are showing adverts, the rest being informercials, evangelist preachers, and utter wank like Days of Our Lives. With more channels it takes longer to figure out there's nothing on, and thus more frustrating.
The UK is a unitary state, even though it appears federal at times. There are much bigger differences between states in the US, or provinces within Canada for example. All that aside though, if they're going to break up the UK along these lines, they should have broken up other federal countries too. This "report" was done very badly.
This also makes a lot of sense if you're a long way away from the VPN end-point at the corporate network. Yes, it is a little less secure, but probably a reasonable compromise. We have people who VPN in to the corporate network in California from Australia, China and Europe. There's no need to route all internet traffic over the VPN as it adds hundreds of ms of unneeded latency. All DNS should go over the VPN, which still seems to give poor results for DNS lookups that attempt to return IP addresses to local servers (maybe something like Akamai?). DNS should always go over the VPN whatever though.
I've had problems with Cisco's VPN client where it was using a local DNS server rather the remote one on the work network. It's possible that it might have been when the local network had a similar network (e.g. at an airport, on a 10.0.0.0/24, versus the work network of 10.0.0.0/16), but I don't remember. The version I have now works.
The story description sounds like the VPN client uses local DNS unless look-up fails, and then it goes to DNS server at the other end of the VPN tunnel. This is clearly a security risk and if there were DNS spoofing going on, somebody could give away information that should only belong on the VPN tunnel.
Why is the UK split in to two categories? What point are they trying to make, and what biasis are they carrying? And what about Northern Ireland - is there a third category not listed, or do they not want to include that?
Your TV would have to be a monitor with no ability to tune in to a signal before you could argue exemption for TV licenses, at least in the UK, and Ireland sounds like it has a similar system. Owning a TV and claiming it's not connected to an aerial/cable/satellite/etc is not sufficient. It has been this way for decades. So really, this is just the same: if you have an internet connection, you have the ability to tune in.
160 euros is considerably less than what I used to pay for basic cable in Canada. Having 10 times as many channels gave me close to zero times more content to watch. Speaking again for the UK, the BBC doesn't have to pander to advertisers and makes the viewing audience their primary customer. This raises the standard of TV across the board, and it's no wonder commercial broadcasters like Sky hate it as they have to spend more than they otherwise would.
Yeah, total waste of space. F12 on my MacBook Pro works way better for these things (fades in all of these widgets over everything). Much better use of screen real estate, but also instantly available.
Maybe because I've been using Windows since v3.1 and that happens every time. I can guarantee that it will require more disk space, and I don't just mean the amount required to install it, but how much it will be using 6-12 mos later.
I've been very happy with Vista. I won't upgrade any Vista systems I have because I see no need, and Win 7 will undoubtedly require more/better hardware. You sound like you won't really be happy and find a reason to tout Linux, whatever Microsoft does. That's ok, it's a popular attitude to espouse her in/.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of those divers that swarm all over places are not qualified to dive to that depth. This thing will be sitting far deeper than the 18m limit recommended for most recreational divers.
I did a 30m dive a few months ago for my PADI Advance Open Water. I got pretty narced - I don't particularly want to do it again unless I'm with an experienced buddy. That doesn't sound like too much fun. Also, the more limited time at that depth (you go through your air faster) makes this worse.
So who is this targetted at? And why does the person who submitted the story think this will shortly be one of the most awesome dive sites? It's either going to be very expensive, or there's some contradictions in the story:
Go on, I'll bite: what's the answer?
A good driver will drive below the speed limit, even if it's a poorly chosen limit. One doesn't get to arbitrary do what one likes because it doesn't make sense to one. If 85% of people ignore the limit and speed, there's 15% of people who aren't. There's a now a safety issue. The majority are in the wrong.
If local 500 people manage to get the speed limit lowered, there's a valid reason. Why should people who from outside the area dictate their lives? If it so bad, 500 drivers can campaign (maybe at a higher political level) to have the limit raised again. If instead they ignore the limit, that would have been like the local people installing their own traffic calming measures instead of correctly campaigning as they did.
People who drive faster than the speed limit are idiots.
Depends on where you are. I think I read once that the difference between 25 and 35 mph was the difference between 10% and 90% of pedestrians dying when hit by a car. Speeding in residential areas should be considered much more seriously than on a freeway where there shouldn't be any pedestrians and the road is designed with speed in mind. Ultimately it's a probability game, and those odds get worse and worse as speeds go up or the conditions change.
Don't you remember your basic physics that you should have been taught around the age of 14?
KE = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2
Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, thus twice as fast is four times as much energy, three times as fast is nine times as much energy. See the wikipedia page.
That's not a problem with speed differentials. That's a problem with people being idiots. It's also a societal problem: make speeding and ignorant driving socially unacceptable, and you will start lowering the probability of the situation you described.
And who's to say that a speed is unreasonably low? Even if the road can clearly bear higher speeds, there might have been a spate of accidents or deaths in the area that you don't know about, or conditions might vary based on time of day, the weather or time of year. Some places use electronic signs to adjust the speed limit as appropriate, but where they can't do this, they obviously have to set the limit closer to the lower end of the range. Speeding isn't acceptable, and you're an idiot if do so.
Most of what you say is true, and differences in speed are vastly under-rated.
I do disagree with your conclusion about speed. It does increase the likelihood of dying. It does decrease the amount of time you have to react to things. Don't forget that when you double your speed, you have four times as much energy, and that has to be dissipated somehow. No amount of crumple zones will protect you or other people if you have too much energy.
No doubt. He's blaming tough economic times, but that's today. By the time that schools and governmental agencies are trying to buy this in serious numbers, we should be out of recession (not in six months at product release, but 12-18 after SP1 has been released).
Yes, it's definitely bad advice. One never deploys a new MS OS when it's first released. This won't be a six month wait at this point, but 12 to 18.
That article about "ground breaking experiments" is from 1997. I'm trying to remember when I read the story about Rechtschaffen's experiments the first time, and it is entirely possible that it was a /. story then too, which would make this a dup. This story is hardly news.
If you have VS.Net and the CRT source installed, you can easily check this.
Yes, it does some range checking and pointer checks, memset'ing of the dest if the source is NULL or the dest is smaller. Then delegates to memcpy. Memcpy does no checking whatsoever.
And that you've tested the recovery process. We had a DB array failure last year and discovered that we couldn't recover our incremental backups, and lost two weeks of data. This was about a week before we switched to a new colo with new hardware. A few months later I asked the IT guys responsible if the new backup system recovered... uh, no it failed, and we haven't fixed it yet!
What, you haven't switched to digital yet? Doesn't Freeview deliver more channels?
Trust me, even when there were only four channels and during the day BBC2 was showing cricket and C4 was showing horse racing, it's no worse than 80 channels or more, half of which are showing adverts, the rest being informercials, evangelist preachers, and utter wank like Days of Our Lives. With more channels it takes longer to figure out there's nothing on, and thus more frustrating.
The UK is a unitary state, even though it appears federal at times. There are much bigger differences between states in the US, or provinces within Canada for example. All that aside though, if they're going to break up the UK along these lines, they should have broken up other federal countries too. This "report" was done very badly.
Wrong. UK is an abbreviation for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". You're referring to an older, previous Act of Union.
This also makes a lot of sense if you're a long way away from the VPN end-point at the corporate network. Yes, it is a little less secure, but probably a reasonable compromise. We have people who VPN in to the corporate network in California from Australia, China and Europe. There's no need to route all internet traffic over the VPN as it adds hundreds of ms of unneeded latency. All DNS should go over the VPN, which still seems to give poor results for DNS lookups that attempt to return IP addresses to local servers (maybe something like Akamai?). DNS should always go over the VPN whatever though.
I've had problems with Cisco's VPN client where it was using a local DNS server rather the remote one on the work network. It's possible that it might have been when the local network had a similar network (e.g. at an airport, on a 10.0.0.0/24, versus the work network of 10.0.0.0/16), but I don't remember. The version I have now works.
The story description sounds like the VPN client uses local DNS unless look-up fails, and then it goes to DNS server at the other end of the VPN tunnel. This is clearly a security risk and if there were DNS spoofing going on, somebody could give away information that should only belong on the VPN tunnel.
Why is the UK split in to two categories? What point are they trying to make, and what biasis are they carrying? And what about Northern Ireland - is there a third category not listed, or do they not want to include that?
I stand corrected. I emigrated a long time ago.
Your TV would have to be a monitor with no ability to tune in to a signal before you could argue exemption for TV licenses, at least in the UK, and Ireland sounds like it has a similar system. Owning a TV and claiming it's not connected to an aerial/cable/satellite/etc is not sufficient. It has been this way for decades. So really, this is just the same: if you have an internet connection, you have the ability to tune in.
160 euros is considerably less than what I used to pay for basic cable in Canada. Having 10 times as many channels gave me close to zero times more content to watch. Speaking again for the UK, the BBC doesn't have to pander to advertisers and makes the viewing audience their primary customer. This raises the standard of TV across the board, and it's no wonder commercial broadcasters like Sky hate it as they have to spend more than they otherwise would.
Yeah, total waste of space. F12 on my MacBook Pro works way better for these things (fades in all of these widgets over everything). Much better use of screen real estate, but also instantly available.
No, not when I try. I have it set for 100 results, and the only place I even see the word Chicago is related to this link: http://www.examiner.com/x-8120-Chicago-Business-Technology-Examiner~y2009m4d23-Maine-company-offers-first-soybased-toner-cartridges-for-offices-schools. If I put quotes around your search term, I see no mention of Chicago at all.
Maybe because I've been using Windows since v3.1 and that happens every time. I can guarantee that it will require more disk space, and I don't just mean the amount required to install it, but how much it will be using 6-12 mos later.
I've been very happy with Vista. I won't upgrade any Vista systems I have because I see no need, and Win 7 will undoubtedly require more/better hardware. You sound like you won't really be happy and find a reason to tout Linux, whatever Microsoft does. That's ok, it's a popular attitude to espouse her in /.