I submit to my local mailserver from whichever machine I'm using using port 587. My local machine then submits it to my own mailserver via SMTP+TLS. That then delivers it to my works public facing mailservers using SMTP+TLS.
This is perfectly normal delivery of email.
Cox, it appears, would prevent this by requiring that they be allowed to snoop on all email.
I totally disagree. The Cox-provided SMTP servers will transfer any outbound mail you send to them. There is never any need to use another mail server for outbound traffic.
When I send an email to work it goes directly from my MX to works MX. It's encrypted on the way. (as is any other email to a server that supports STARTTLS)
Cox's "solution" to spam forces everybody in my position to jump through complicated hoops and it would be so easy to forget on that one email in a thousand where it actually matters that it is encrypted.
That was sort of like the British up until the 1960's when you bought some things like groceries in pence, paid rent in shillings and bought property in pounds
Propery was typically bought in guineas rather than pounds. AIUI, racehorses still are bought and sold in guineas.
I prefer wine. Or maybe a whisky at the end of the evening.
(For those who don't know Britain, wine is sold in 125, 175 or 250ml glasses or 375ml or 75cl bottles. Whisky (and other shorts) are sold in multiples of 25ml in a pub or in 700ml or 1l bottles. The shorts changing from 1/6 gill to 25ml is the most recent change for alcohol I can think ok)
However, (and not that I'm not the grandparent poster), I've long asked myself: How do we even know superposition exists? You can't measure it, since doing so will cause the particle to take on a state.
In order words: How do you differentiate between the case where particles A and B exists, with the same state, and the case where A and be are in a superposition, quantum entangled?
As a start, consider a source of entangled particles that sends one to A and one to B.
There are two possible measurements that A and B make, I'll call them % and & and they are conjugate operators - i.e. measuring % destroys all knowledge of & and vice versa.
% has results 0 or 1 & has results + or -
Now the clever bit: A and B set it up so that A takes measurements just before B (e.g. put them 100m apart with the source 49m from A and 51m from B) but their measurements are so close in time that no lightspeed communication can take place between A and B before B has completed the matching measurement to A. (the choice of which measurment to make also has to be left to the last possible instant)
A and B each (independently) make a random choice whether to measure & or % for each particle and record all their results.
Each find that the results are random - 1/2 of the % measurements have 0, 1/2 have 1. Likewise for the & measurements. (assuming both measurements are equiprobable there will be 1/4 for each of the four possible results)
Now they get together and compare their results and find something remarkable: every time that A and B randomly decided to make the same measurement they find that if A got 0, B got 1; if A got +, B got -. (Again assuming both measurements are equiprobable then this would occur 1/2 of the time)
So the particles, despite behaving randomly for both A and B are clearly correlated.
The first guess would be hidden variables - the results of both the possible measurements are 'known' to the particles when they're created - google for Bell's inequality for how this possibility can be eliminated.
The problem with this 'simple' experiment is that in any practical setup there's a lot of noise obscuring the results. It's also necessary for A and B to only decide which measurement to make just before the particle arrives, otherwise there's time for the measuring equipment to communicate - either with the source or with each other. Assuming that our particles are travelling at the speed of light and 100m is about the limit of separation (we're talking about ultra stable controlled laboratory conditions here) we're talking about having equipment where we can change what we want to measure in around 100ns.
Ummmm, my company is clamoring for Etch to release.
Why? Postgres8 and PHP5, to name just two packages we're waiting for, and NO, we're not comfortable moving all our production customers over to the testing release.
Here's your problem. You want the stability that stable gives you without having to do the necessary waiting that stable needs to get a stable product.
I was wishing sarge would hurry up because I was having to maintain a couple of non-standard packages for features I needed.
And now I'm running a patched version of growisofs (the DVD drive incorrectly reports it's ready to close the disk when it's not) and a patched version of libgphoto (my camera doesn't work properly with the version in stable so I've had to merge the code for the latest canon drivers into the sarge code and build it)
So what I would want is sarge with just these two packages enhanced. Etch will fix my gphoto problem (but I don't want to pull in all the changes that etch's gphoto will require including a new kernel). I don't know whether the growisofs problem is resolved in Etch or not.
My second best is a stable that is really stable. I don't care about KDE, Gnome, PHP, Postgresql, (at least what is in Sarge is sufficient for my needs). And so I use Debian because it is slow to make changes but (almost) always gets them right. I've had far more issues in the past with RedHat where an upgrade broke everything (ISTR installing a 386 glibc upgrade on a 686 rendered the machine unbootable - Not a bug!?)
However, the arguments which come out of anti-DRM people et al really come across as being pathetic at times. There is a pervading sense that fundamental human rights are being trampled on, when we are talking about entertainment product. Nobody needs the latest hit singles. Nobody needs box sets, DVD extras, or music libraries of 10,000 songs. We want them.
It's not just entertainment. School text books are now starting to come out with DRM. Before long you won't be able to buy a paper version or a non DRM version at all.
And some people don't "steal" music. My partner really does have more music on CD than she can fit on an iPod. And a significant proportion of that is music she already owns on LP (not necessarily the same recording). But despite the fact that for every single "song" on her iPod she owns the CD, and quite often also a record, it's still technically (probably[1]) illegal in the UK
[1] I say probably because there are exceptions for "private study" in the Copyright, designs and patents act and she has enough music qualifications to be able to show that she really does study music, not just listen to it.
I had a smaller record collection. I've rebought them on CD - for stuff I really liked I bought the same recording on CD, other stuff I just bought the same music, different orchestra, conductor etc. At the time I gave (some) of the old records to friends/family and binned the rest. They've probably all been binned by now.
The DRM crowd want to go a step further still. They want to be able to stop me referencing my old college text books. They want to stop you referencing that 2005 edition of the encyclopedia but make you buy a new one instead.
I grew up on old encyclopedias, my parents couldn't possibly have afforded a new one, let alone one every year. And 99% of whats in a 10,20 or even 50 year old encyclopedia isn't useless although there are wonderful things to be found; "Silicon, an abundant but mostly useless element."
pp. 32-33 of Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium
by the Committee on International Security and Arms Control
of the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press 1994)
With reactor-grade plutonium, the probability of such "pre-initiation" is very large. Pre-initiation can substantially reduce the explosive yield, since the weapon may blow itself apart and thereby cut short the chain reaction that releases energy.
Calculations demonstrate, however, that even if pre-initiation occurs at the worst possible moment (when the material first becomes compressed enough to sustain a chain reaction), the explosive yield of even a relatively simple device similar to the Nagasaki bomb would be of the order of one or a few kilotons.
Dealing with the second problem with reactor-grade plutonium, the heat generated by Pu-238 and Pu-240, requires careful management of the heat in the device. Means to address this problem include providing channels to conduct the heat from the plutonium through the insulating explosive surrounding the core, or delaying assembly of the device until a few minutes before it is to be used.
In short it would be quite possible for a potential proliferator to make a nuclear explosive from reactor-grade plutonium using a simple design that would be assured of having a yield in the range of one to a few kilotons, and more using an advanced design. Theft of separated plutonium, whether weapons-grade or reactor-grade, would pose a grave security risk.
The Pu-240 content even in weapons-grade plutonium is sufficiently large that very rapid assembly is necessary to prevent pre-initiation. Hence the simplest type of nuclear explosive, a "gun type," in which the optimum critical configuration is assembled more slowly than in an "implosion type" device, cannot be made with plutonium, but only with highly enriched uranium, in which spontaneous fission is rare.
I don't know for certain but I'd be very surprised if it wouldn't undergo fast neutron fission.
I think what you mean is that Pu-238 can't support a self sustaining chain reaction. Again, I don't know this for certain but it sounds believable, at least in quantities of less than tonne lots.
Once the thing is charged, the losses are (approximately) zero when you use that power.
So you are going to get about 4x the performance you would get from an equivalent petrol engine.
50kWh is going to give something like the equivalent of a smallish European petrol engined car.
If this has regenerative braking it's likely to do far better in stop-start traffic and will probably perform worse on fast clear roads where most of the losses are down to air drag.
I'd like to see how this could work for urban cycling. I have a 4km commute through central London and have 25 independent sets of traffic lights. Assuming a peak speed of 10m/s and I get stopped at 10 of the sets of lights I'm losing something like 80kJ braking to a stop for the red lights. (and that's twice a day, every day. It's no wonder cyclists don't like stopping for red lights)
This is nothing short of a pyramid scheme. The best that health provision can do is keep money moving through the economy, whether that be a publicly funded health service paid for by taxes, or a private scheme paid for by insurance premiums or a combination of the two.
Other than the exporting of drugs (intellectual property or physical manufacture and export) the health system cannot generate wealth. On a global scale there is no wealth to be generated, only transferred.
On a small scale, a health system can help increase the wealth creation of other parts of the economy by eliminating trivial diseases, mending injuries without permanent disablement etc, which enables a non health worker to continue generating wealth in the economy but western economies are well past that point (although it's possible this isn't the case for the poorest US Americans) and, even with the rationned systems of Europe, we will spend money on intervention that far surpasses any possible wealth that the patient could possibly generate in the rest of their life. (I'm not saying this is a bad thing, merely that it is an economic cost of health provision)
Bike paths don't usually help because it's not the road that's the problem but the junctions.
Pushing cyclists onto paths and off the road just means that they "appear from nowhere" every at every junction as far as the car drivers are concerned.
The Milton Keynes redway system was designed when the town was built, so it's not a case of trying to fit it onto an existing road infrastructure.
And in this case, even though accidents with a motor vehicle that occur at junctions between the redway and the road system are classes as road accidents, the redways still have a higher accident rate than the roads.
Of course, it's likely there are confounding factors. A large proportion of experienced cyclists use the road rather than the redways. I would suspect that most inexperienced cyclists use the redways instead of the road.
"Redways generally demand much more skill when cycling than most roads, not less."
There's easily a use, even on the consumer side, for far above 10 MP. But the optics of the camera needs to provide enough detail themselves for that resolution to show you something beyond a lower-res shot.
It's not so much the lens system as the sensor size. As the pixels get smaller the integration time has to increase in order to catch enough photons or the noise gets worse. And if you increase the sensor size you need to increase the aperture size as well which has a disproportionate effect on the cost of the lens system if you want to maintain integration times.
Astronomers abandoned film for CCD years ago. But they don't care too much about their sensor size (and they can cool the CCD) and usually have much more leeway on integration times.
But home (and pro) cameras ideally need a sensor that can fit in a 35mm body (especially if you want to use the same lenses).
18Mpixel (6M per separation) would give you similar quality[1] to 100ASA 35mm film if integration times and sensor size aren't an issue. Of course, most sensors don't use a 1:1:1 color separation because for most real world uses a 1:2:1 ratio gives better results.
So for the right sort of image a 10Mpixel camera should be very close to 100ASA 35mm film.
Tim.
[1] To an extent this is going to be subjective because film has random grain and CCD has regular pixels.
It would have cost him more than that to make the payment, and there are plenty of reputable U.K. or international based charities working in Afghanistan that would have taken his money.
Did you read the article?
Salama said the only cross-border payment he is aware of making is £20 a month to a British-based charity, which sponsors children in Afghanistan.
Yup, In the (old) college bar which is now a music room. Although I don't remember it being a drinking game, more something that we played while drinking.
When I was at college[1] we used to play a game called bibble, bibble, bibble, hic.
The basic game went something like this. People sit in a circle. You start counting going around the circle, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc.
Every number with a five in it or a multiple of 5, the next person is skipped so person N+2 says the next number.
Every number with a seven in it or a multiple of 7, the direction is reversed.
Every number with a nine in it or a multiple of 9, the actions for 5 and 7 are exchanged.
Every time someone speaks when they shouldn't or doesn't speak when they should they drop out. Winner is the last person in.
To make this more difficult, for every 5 or multiple of 5 you say bibble. For every 7 or multiple of seven you say bibble For every 9 or multiple of nine, you say bibble.
And for every number that doesn't fit the above, you say bibble.
I don't recall ever reaching 100+ before the game disolved in confusion but we certainly reached 70+.
House rules on whether numbers like 55 are bibblebibblebibble (and three people miss a turn or reverse direction three times depending on how many bibbles there are reversing the meaning of bibble and bibble) or just bibble add to the excitement.
Tim.
[1] Wadham College, 1989-1992, if anyone else remembers doing this.
Because there is no practical way to differentiate between "something we don't understand yet", and "something we cannot understand". There isn't anything you can point to and say "that's forever incomprehensible".
But we already know that there are things that cannot be explained (proved).
Any theory of the universe must be either inconsistent (i.e. we can prove that a statement is both true and false) or incomplete (i.e. there must be true statements that cannot be proved).
All we can do is keep adding axioms that appear to agree with the universe as we observe it.
The downside to your proposal, You do minor damage to my car,, say $200.00, I have an attorney on retainer, for my business, so I have my attoryne spend 200 hours procecuting the case ath $300/hr, so you owe me after I emerge victorious, $60,200. and I just saved myself two monts retainer, And no I won't use small claims because I cannot use my attorney there, and the whole point of the law suit is to exceed my retainer. (the actual damages are just incidental.
Many people suspect that your proposal would lead to litigation that is aimed at reducing legal costs,
IANAL
It doesn't work like that in the UK.
Typically, if the defendent offers to settle and that offer is rejected and then the court rules in the plaintiffs favour but awards less than or equal to the defendents offer then the plaintiff pays all costs.
Tell that to the poor chap that was gunned down in the tube for committing the crime of "running while foreign". The policemen who shot him have just recently been absolved of any wrongdoing.
Running? IIRC he stopped to pick up a "Metro" (free paper), used his oyster card (RFID card to get access to the tube) at the barriers, walked (rode the escalators) down to the platform and only ran the last few yards when he saw a train waiting at the platform. (Tube trains don't run to an exact timetable but an "about every 5 minutes" timetable so it's a very common occurrence for someone to arrive at the platform and then run for the train that's just about to leave.)
14 million to one odds, with an expected jackpot payout of 3 million on a 1GBP stake. It's a stupid way to gamble.
Gambling on red/black 22 times at roulette carries odds of 7.5 million to one with a jackpot payout of 4 million on a 1GBP stake. (think that is right - IIUC there are 37 numbers of which 18 are red and 18 are black - think there might be 38 numbers in the US)
Alternatively, if you want it more like the lottery pick five numbers from 0 to 36 (duplicates allowed) and then gamble them on the roulette table. I assume the casino pays 36 x the stake so that's odds of 7 million to 1 paying 6 million
(of course, I doubt that there is a casino that would allow you to keep doubling your stake every time for 22 goes so you might need to move casinos when your stake starts exceeding the floor limit. When you get to the very large stakes you'll probably have to take 10k or so out to pay for a holiday to monte carlo)
If you want to gamble on the lottery for a bit of fun and give a bit to charity on the side then that is fine (personally I give directly to charity, not only does my money go to the charities that I want but I get tax relief on the donation as well) but the odds are very poor compared to other "pure luck" gambling if you are doing it because there is an outside chance of winning the jackpot.
Depends on what you are trying to protect against.
My home server uses a self signed certificate. This means that it always presents a popup if I access it via an internet cafe - no popup means that probably someone has installed a root certificate and is now staging a man in the middle attack.
Eventually we will see phishing attacks that involve installing a new root certificate so that the phishers can generate "good" certificates on the fly and stage man in the middle attacks. (I'm surprised this hasn't already happened - once you've got the root certificate installed you can stage a MitM attack against any site)
1) The height of one's orbit is directly related to the speed - the higher the speed, the higher your orbit
No, the higher the orbit the slower the speed.
The ISS orbit has a radius of about 6000km with an orbital period of about 90mins. Geostationary orbit is about 36000km with a period of 24hrs.
So the ISS is doing about 25000km/h while a geostationary satellite is doing about 6000km/h
You need to fire the thrusters to move into a higher orbit but in doing so you actually slow down. And if you are travelling in an identical orbit as something else and want to catch up with it you have to fire your retro-rockets to move into a lower orbit to catch it up.
Slashdot Mirror
I submit to my local mailserver from whichever machine I'm using using port 587. My local machine then submits it to my own mailserver via SMTP+TLS. That then delivers it to my works public facing mailservers using SMTP+TLS.
This is perfectly normal delivery of email.
Cox, it appears, would prevent this by requiring that they be allowed to snoop on all email.
I totally disagree. The Cox-provided SMTP servers will transfer any outbound mail you send to them. There is never any need to use another mail server for outbound traffic.
When I send an email to work it goes directly from my MX to works MX. It's encrypted on the way. (as is any other email to a server that supports STARTTLS)
Cox's "solution" to spam forces everybody in my position to jump through complicated hoops and it would be so easy to forget on that one email in a thousand where it actually matters that it is encrypted.
Tim.
That was sort of like the British up until the 1960's when you bought some things like groceries in pence, paid rent in shillings and bought property in pounds
Propery was typically bought in guineas rather than pounds. AIUI, racehorses still are bought and sold in guineas.
1 guinea = 21 shillings = 105 new pence
Tim.
I prefer wine. Or maybe a whisky at the end of the evening.
(For those who don't know Britain, wine is sold in 125, 175 or 250ml glasses or 375ml or 75cl bottles. Whisky (and other shorts) are sold in multiples of 25ml in a pub or in 700ml or 1l bottles. The shorts changing from 1/6 gill to 25ml is the most recent change for alcohol I can think ok)
However, (and not that I'm not the grandparent poster), I've long asked myself: How do we even know superposition exists? You can't measure it, since doing so will cause the particle to take on a state.
In order words: How do you differentiate between the case where particles A and B exists, with the same state, and the case where A and be are in a superposition, quantum entangled?
As a start, consider a source of entangled particles that sends one to A and one to B.
There are two possible measurements that A and B make, I'll call them % and & and they are conjugate operators - i.e. measuring % destroys all knowledge of & and vice versa.
% has results 0 or 1
& has results + or -
Now the clever bit: A and B set it up so that A takes measurements just before B (e.g. put them 100m apart with the source 49m from A and 51m from B) but their measurements are so close in time that no lightspeed communication can take place between A and B before B has completed the matching measurement to A. (the choice of which measurment to make also has to be left to the last possible instant)
A and B each (independently) make a random choice whether to measure & or % for each particle and record all their results.
Each find that the results are random - 1/2 of the % measurements have 0, 1/2 have 1. Likewise for the & measurements. (assuming both measurements are equiprobable there will be 1/4 for each of the four possible results)
Now they get together and compare their results and find something remarkable: every time that A and B randomly decided to make the same measurement they find that if A got 0, B got 1; if A got +, B got -. (Again assuming both measurements are equiprobable then this would occur 1/2 of the time)
So the particles, despite behaving randomly for both A and B are clearly correlated.
The first guess would be hidden variables - the results of both the possible measurements are 'known' to the particles when they're created - google for Bell's inequality for how this possibility can be eliminated.
The problem with this 'simple' experiment is that in any practical setup there's a lot of noise obscuring the results. It's also necessary for A and B to only decide which measurement to make just before the particle arrives, otherwise there's time for the measuring equipment to communicate - either with the source or with each other. Assuming that our particles are travelling at the speed of light and 100m is about the limit of separation (we're talking about ultra stable controlled laboratory conditions here) we're talking about having equipment where we can change what we want to measure in around 100ns.
Tim.
Ummmm, my company is clamoring for Etch to release.
Why? Postgres8 and PHP5, to name just two packages we're waiting for, and NO, we're not comfortable moving all our production customers over to the testing release.
Here's your problem. You want the stability that stable gives you without having to do the necessary waiting that stable needs to get a stable product.
I was wishing sarge would hurry up because I was having to maintain a couple of non-standard packages for features I needed.
And now I'm running a patched version of growisofs (the DVD drive incorrectly reports it's ready to close the disk when it's not) and a patched version of libgphoto (my camera doesn't work properly with the version in stable so I've had to merge the code for the latest canon drivers into the sarge code and build it)
So what I would want is sarge with just these two packages enhanced. Etch will fix my gphoto problem (but I don't want to pull in all the changes that etch's gphoto will require including a new kernel). I don't know whether the growisofs problem is resolved in Etch or not.
My second best is a stable that is really stable. I don't care about KDE, Gnome, PHP, Postgresql, (at least what is in Sarge is sufficient for my needs). And so I use Debian because it is slow to make changes but (almost) always gets them right. I've had far more issues in the past with RedHat where an upgrade broke everything (ISTR installing a 386 glibc upgrade on a 686 rendered the machine unbootable - Not a bug!?)
Tim.
However, the arguments which come out of anti-DRM people et al really come across as being pathetic at times. There is a pervading sense that fundamental human rights are being trampled on, when we are talking about entertainment product. Nobody needs the latest hit singles. Nobody needs box sets, DVD extras, or music libraries of 10,000 songs. We want them.
It's not just entertainment. School text books are now starting to come out with DRM. Before long you won't be able to buy a paper version or a non DRM version at all.
And some people don't "steal" music. My partner really does have more music on CD than she can fit on an iPod. And a significant proportion of that is music she already owns on LP (not necessarily the same recording). But despite the fact that for every single "song" on her iPod she owns the CD, and quite often also a record, it's still technically (probably[1]) illegal in the UK
[1] I say probably because there are exceptions for "private study" in the Copyright, designs and patents act and she has enough music qualifications to be able to show that she really does study music, not just listen to it.
I had a smaller record collection. I've rebought them on CD - for stuff I really liked I bought the same recording on CD, other stuff I just bought the same music, different orchestra, conductor etc. At the time I gave (some) of the old records to friends/family and binned the rest. They've probably all been binned by now.
The DRM crowd want to go a step further still. They want to be able to stop me referencing my old college text books. They want to stop you referencing that 2005 edition of the encyclopedia but make you buy a new one instead.
I grew up on old encyclopedias, my parents couldn't possibly have afforded a new one, let alone one every year. And 99% of whats in a 10,20 or even 50 year old encyclopedia isn't useless although there are wonderful things to be found; "Silicon, an abundant but mostly useless element."
Tim.
even atomic numbers and odd atomic mass numbers lets out Pu238 due to even atomic mass.
This may be just semantics on the definition of fissile but I'm pretty sure all Pu isotopes can be used in a nuclear weapon.
http://www.ccnr.org/reactor_plute.html
pp. 32-33 of Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium
by the Committee on International Security and Arms Control
of the National Academy of Sciences (National Academy Press 1994)
With reactor-grade plutonium, the probability of such "pre-initiation" is very large. Pre-initiation can substantially reduce the explosive yield, since the weapon may blow itself apart and thereby cut short the chain reaction that releases energy.
Calculations demonstrate, however, that even if pre-initiation occurs at the worst possible moment (when the material first becomes compressed enough to sustain a chain reaction), the explosive yield of even a relatively simple device similar to the Nagasaki bomb would be of the order of one or a few kilotons.
Dealing with the second problem with reactor-grade plutonium, the heat generated by Pu-238 and Pu-240, requires careful management of the heat in the device. Means to address this problem include providing channels to conduct the heat from the plutonium through the insulating explosive surrounding the core, or delaying assembly of the device until a few minutes before it is to be used.
In short it would be quite possible for a potential proliferator to make a nuclear explosive from reactor-grade plutonium using a simple design that would be assured of having a yield in the range of one to a few kilotons, and more using an advanced design. Theft of separated plutonium, whether weapons-grade or reactor-grade, would pose a grave security risk.
The Pu-240 content even in weapons-grade plutonium is sufficiently large that very rapid assembly is necessary to prevent pre-initiation. Hence the simplest type of nuclear explosive, a "gun type," in which the optimum critical configuration is assembled more slowly than in an "implosion type" device, cannot be made with plutonium, but only with highly enriched uranium, in which spontaneous fission is rare.
I think what you mean is that Pu-238 can't support a self sustaining chain reaction
l ectric_generator this is wrong. The problem with using Pu-238 in a bomb is that it's too hard to assemble a critical mass due to the chain reaction starting too early.
:-)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoe
Here was me assuming Pu-238 would behave similarly to U-238 - a dangerous assumption
Tim.
Pu-238 is not fissile
I don't know for certain but I'd be very surprised if it wouldn't undergo fast neutron fission.
I think what you mean is that Pu-238 can't support a self sustaining chain reaction. Again, I don't know this for certain but it sounds believable, at least in quantities of less than tonne lots.
Tim.
Once the thing is charged, the losses are (approximately) zero when you use that power.
So you are going to get about 4x the performance you would get from an equivalent petrol engine.
50kWh is going to give something like the equivalent of a smallish European petrol engined car.
If this has regenerative braking it's likely to do far better in stop-start traffic and will probably perform worse on fast clear roads where most of the losses are down to air drag.
I'd like to see how this could work for urban cycling. I have a 4km commute through central London and have 25 independent sets of traffic lights. Assuming a peak speed of 10m/s and I get stopped at 10 of the sets of lights I'm losing something like 80kJ braking to a stop for the red lights. (and that's twice a day, every day. It's no wonder cyclists don't like stopping for red lights)
Tim.
Ignorance of the law is no defense, but ignorance of the facts might be defense.
This is nothing short of a pyramid scheme. The best that health provision can do is keep money moving through the economy, whether that be a publicly funded health service paid for by taxes, or a private scheme paid for by insurance premiums or a combination of the two.
Other than the exporting of drugs (intellectual property or physical manufacture and export) the health system cannot generate wealth. On a global scale there is no wealth to be generated, only transferred.
On a small scale, a health system can help increase the wealth creation of other parts of the economy by eliminating trivial diseases, mending injuries without permanent disablement etc, which enables a non health worker to continue generating wealth in the economy but western economies are well past that point (although it's possible this isn't the case for the poorest US Americans) and, even with the rationned systems of Europe, we will spend money on intervention that far surpasses any possible wealth that the patient could possibly generate in the rest of their life. (I'm not saying this is a bad thing, merely that it is an economic cost of health provision)
Tim.
Bike paths don't usually help because it's not the road that's the problem but the junctions.
_ system
Pushing cyclists onto paths and off the road just means that they "appear from nowhere" every at every junction as far as the car drivers are concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_redway
The Milton Keynes redway system was designed when the town was built, so it's not a case of trying to fit it onto an existing road infrastructure.
And in this case, even though accidents with a motor vehicle that occur at junctions between the redway and the road system are classes as road accidents, the redways still have a higher accident rate than the roads.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html
Linked from that article is the original paper.
Of course, it's likely there are confounding factors. A large proportion of experienced cyclists use the road rather than the redways. I would suspect that most inexperienced cyclists use the redways instead of the road.
"Redways generally demand much more skill when cycling than most roads, not less."
Tim.
There's easily a use, even on the consumer side, for far above 10 MP. But the optics of the camera needs to provide enough detail themselves for that resolution to show you something beyond a lower-res shot.
It's not so much the lens system as the sensor size. As the pixels get smaller the integration time has to increase in order to catch enough photons or the noise gets worse. And if you increase the sensor size you need to increase the aperture size as well which has a disproportionate effect on the cost of the lens system if you want to maintain integration times.
Astronomers abandoned film for CCD years ago. But they don't care too much about their sensor size (and they can cool the CCD) and usually have much more leeway on integration times.
But home (and pro) cameras ideally need a sensor that can fit in a 35mm body (especially if you want to use the same lenses).
18Mpixel (6M per separation) would give you similar quality[1] to 100ASA 35mm film if integration times and sensor size aren't an issue. Of course, most sensors don't use a 1:1:1 color separation because for most real world uses a 1:2:1 ratio gives better results.
So for the right sort of image a 10Mpixel camera should be very close to 100ASA 35mm film.
Tim.
[1] To an extent this is going to be subjective because film has random grain and CCD has regular pixels.
It would have cost him more than that to make the payment, and there are plenty of reputable U.K. or international based charities working in Afghanistan that would have taken his money.
Did you read the article?
Salama said the only cross-border payment he is aware of making is £20 a month to a British-based charity, which sponsors children in Afghanistan.
Yup, In the (old) college bar which is now a music room. Although I don't remember it being a drinking game, more something that we played while drinking.
Tim.
When I was at college[1] we used to play a game called bibble, bibble, bibble, hic.
The basic game went something like this. People sit in a circle. You start counting going around the circle, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc.
Every number with a five in it or a multiple of 5, the next person is skipped so person N+2 says the next number.
Every number with a seven in it or a multiple of 7, the direction is reversed.
Every number with a nine in it or a multiple of 9, the actions for 5 and 7 are exchanged.
Every time someone speaks when they shouldn't or doesn't speak when they should they drop out. Winner is the last person in.
To make this more difficult, for every 5 or multiple of 5 you say bibble.
For every 7 or multiple of seven you say bibble
For every 9 or multiple of nine, you say bibble.
And for every number that doesn't fit the above, you say bibble.
I don't recall ever reaching 100+ before the game disolved in confusion but we certainly reached 70+.
House rules on whether numbers like 55 are bibblebibblebibble (and three people miss a turn or reverse direction three times depending on how many bibbles there are reversing the meaning of bibble and bibble) or just bibble add to the excitement.
Tim.
[1] Wadham College, 1989-1992, if anyone else remembers doing this.
Because there is no practical way to differentiate between "something we don't understand yet", and "something we cannot understand". There isn't anything you can point to and say "that's forever incomprehensible".
But we already know that there are things that cannot be explained (proved).
Any theory of the universe must be either inconsistent (i.e. we can prove that a statement is both true and false) or incomplete (i.e. there must be true statements that cannot be proved).
All we can do is keep adding axioms that appear to agree with the universe as we observe it.
The downside to your proposal, You do minor damage to my car,, say $200.00, I have an attorney on retainer, for my business, so I have my attoryne spend 200 hours procecuting the case ath $300/hr, so you owe me after I emerge victorious, $60,200. and I just saved myself two monts retainer, And no I won't use small claims because I cannot use my attorney there, and the whole point of the law suit is to exceed my retainer. (the actual damages are just incidental.
Many people suspect that your proposal would lead to litigation that is aimed at reducing legal costs,
IANAL
It doesn't work like that in the UK.
Typically, if the defendent offers to settle and that offer is rejected and then the court rules in the plaintiffs favour but awards less than or equal to the defendents offer then the plaintiff pays all costs.
Tell that to the poor chap that was gunned down in the tube for committing the crime of "running while foreign". The policemen who shot him have just recently been absolved of any wrongdoing.
Running? IIRC he stopped to pick up a "Metro" (free paper), used his oyster card (RFID card to get access to the tube) at the barriers, walked (rode the escalators) down to the platform and only ran the last few yards when he saw a train waiting at the platform. (Tube trains don't run to an exact timetable but an "about every 5 minutes" timetable so it's a very common occurrence for someone to arrive at the platform and then run for the train that's just about to leave.)
14 million to one odds, with an expected jackpot payout of 3 million on a 1GBP stake. It's a stupid way to gamble.
Gambling on red/black 22 times at roulette carries odds of 7.5 million to one with a jackpot payout of 4 million on a 1GBP stake. (think that is right - IIUC there are 37 numbers of which 18 are red and 18 are black - think there might be 38 numbers in the US)
Alternatively, if you want it more like the lottery pick five numbers from 0 to 36 (duplicates allowed) and then gamble them on the roulette table. I assume the casino pays 36 x the stake so that's odds of 7 million to 1 paying 6 million
(of course, I doubt that there is a casino that would allow you to keep doubling your stake every time for 22 goes so you might need to move casinos when your stake starts exceeding the floor limit. When you get to the very large stakes you'll probably have to take 10k or so out to pay for a holiday to monte carlo)
If you want to gamble on the lottery for a bit of fun and give a bit to charity on the side then that is fine (personally I give directly to charity, not only does my money go to the charities that I want but I get tax relief on the donation as well) but the odds are very poor compared to other "pure luck" gambling if you are doing it because there is an outside chance of winning the jackpot.
Tim.
And, never use self-signed SSL certificates.
Depends on what you are trying to protect against.
My home server uses a self signed certificate. This means that it always presents a popup if I access it via an internet cafe - no popup means that probably someone has installed a root certificate and is now staging a man in the middle attack.
Eventually we will see phishing attacks that involve installing a new root certificate so that the phishers can generate "good" certificates on the fly and stage man in the middle attacks.
(I'm surprised this hasn't already happened - once you've got the root certificate installed you can stage a MitM attack against any site)
Tim.
1) The height of one's orbit is directly related to the speed - the higher the speed, the higher your orbit
No, the higher the orbit the slower the speed.
The ISS orbit has a radius of about 6000km with an orbital period of about 90mins. Geostationary orbit is about 36000km with a period of 24hrs.
So the ISS is doing about 25000km/h while a geostationary satellite is doing about 6000km/h
You need to fire the thrusters to move into a higher orbit but in doing so you actually slow down. And if you are travelling in an identical orbit as something else and want to catch up with it you have to fire your retro-rockets to move into a lower orbit to catch it up.
Tim.
They have also now denounced their violent past, laid down their arms and are seeking a peaceful solution.
"After both sides got tired of violence and got a lot of external preasure on top."
And after 11th September they were unlikely to continue to get the financial support from the US that they needed to continue their campaign.
Tim.