Yeah, the casting was intermittently terrible. Midi-clorians were completely unnecessary? Hayden Christensen (as my wife calls him "Mannequin Skywalker") had zero screen chemistry with Natalie Portman and their characters' relationship was simply incredulous. The story arc and plot points were thin and uninspiring. All of these are forgivable flaws.
The one thing I absolutely can not get past is the blatant racist stereotyping.
By saying X times "more" or "less", the "more" or "less" or "greater" or "lesser" the writer adding is a qualitative assessment and not a mathematically significant descriptor. The correct way to write it "10 times" or "one tenth", any increase or decrease is obvious to anyone with a grade-school education and consistent for mathematically experienced readers. Alternately, if the author wants to state the obvious they can say "increased to 10 times" or "reduced to one tenth". Journalist used to write like that, and I recall being taught to write this way in school.
I sympathize with Megane on the issue of x + 10x
When speaking about percentages, to say 100% more, we are saying 2 times. The original 100% plus 100% = 200%, therefore 2 times. To say 1000% more is equal to x + 10x. Mathematically percentages work exactly like multiplication, so "10 times more" should mean x + 10x
Consistent? Not really. What if someone writes "0.1 times less". Strictly speaking, X times 0.1 is one tenth of X and would be the correct interpretation. But modern vernacular, the "less" indicating division, it would be X divided by 0.1 equaling 10X.
On a side note, what ever happened to teaching journalism students basic math?
I had not read the paper. Now I have. I stand by my statement that this is not what I consider "forged". All of the detected certificates mentioned in the paper were detected by noticing inconsistencies in the public certificate. In most cases an outsider attacker would trigger at least a browser warning unless they had gotten their certificate authority registered on the victim computer as a trusted authority. In the case of the opFailZeroAccessCreate malware, "VeriSign Class 4 Public Primary CA" which it apparently used on some of its public certs, does not exactly match any trusted CA registered on my computer. The same goes for "thawte Extended Validation SSL CA". That would suggest that the malware is merely faking an official sounding names to make it look good.
We know that there are truly forged certs out in the wild. CA's have been hacked to steal their root certs or other wised tricked into issuing bogus certs in the past. The paper goes on at length about this. But based on their results, I am dubious of them actually finding any such fraudulent certificates or of their methodology being capable of detecting such certificates. My feeling is that if a criminal (or government) had some perfect fraudulent cert they would not use it for hacking random bank transactions from a Starbucks wireless hotspot, but I could be wrong. It may be quite common. I don't believe this article sheds much light either way.
This isn't really all that interesting. I will be more interested when researchers find a way to detect certs created with stolen root certificates. You know, the kind that don't make the browser throw up a warning.
K6-2 was good, but the K6-III was much better. It was the first consumer-level CPU with on-die L2 cache. It scared Intel enough that they renamed the PII to PIII (because anything with a 3 in the name is clearly better than anything with a 2 in the name). The down side was that the K6-III overclocked for shit.
As I recall, the shared registers were a real problem with MMX. It meant that there was a big latency cost as the chip switched between superscalar and traditional operating modes. It made for penalty that frequently negated the MMX performance benefit.
It is the Senate's job to vet judicial nominees, not just rubber-stamp every appointment. In this case, the nominee himself authored some or all of the legal "justification" the President used to execute an American citizen without a trial. Paul is doing his job.
But you are ignoring the lower reservoir. Air and water pressure there is generally higher than pressure at the higher location, so it will tend to push water UP the siphon tube. That would counter and virtually negate the pressure at the higher location. It seems to me that the only significant force difference is the greater weight of the water in the lower leg of the siphon vs the weight of water in the higher leg.
In any case, the experiment contradicts the theory that air pressure is the driving force in a siphon. If air pressure differential was the driving force, the water velocity would have slowed more dramatically as pressure dropped because any air pressure differential would become much smaller in absolute terms, but the water density would be almost constant. So, a smaller and smaller difference in air pressure would have to lift nearly the same weight of water up the ascending leg of the tube. But in the experiment, reducing air pressure had very little effect to the velocity of the water flow up until the point where the vapor inside the siphon was so low that the water spontaneously vaporized.
So what you are saying is that it is the difference between the air pressure at the higher location vs the water pressure in the descending leg of the siphon? Not to say that it is totally irrelevant, but I suspect that it is negligible compared to the difference in water pressure between the higher reservoir and the water pressure in the descending leg of the siphon.
The definition is wrong, or at least misleading, because the length of the legs is irrelevant.
Suction is also not the only way to start a siphon. In most applications I prefer to use pressure to fill the tube with fluid to start the siphon. Mostly that's so I don't have to fill my mouth with some potentially nasty liquid.
Any atmospheric pressure differential would tend to resist the observed siphon. The lower location will normally be a higher air pressure environment than the higher location, and would tend to push the fluid up hill. But siphons always move fluid from a higher location to a lower location.
In microgravity a siphon will not work because there is also no appreciable difference in potential energy. Essentially, there is no upper or lower elevation, so the siphon doesn't have a direction in which to flow.
Cable operators don't necessarily HAVE to pay for local content. In fact, they are required to carry local stations unless the broadcasters demand rebroadcast royalties. At that point, the cable operators have the right to opt out of rebroadcasting that channel. However, with the retransmission agreements cable operators usually negotiate the rights to insert local commercials.
The stupid part of this is that it is NOT a threat to broadcasting. It is a threat to cable companies. I will dump my local cable service in a hot second if Aereo become available to me.
Well, there is also this page about the known possible side effects of various vaccines http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va.... The MMRV vaccine is known to cause permanent brain damage in very rare cases. Critics of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecom... claim that it serves to conceal information about the real risks of vaccinations, and disincentivises vaccine manufacturers from developing vaccines without severe side effects or from developing tests to identify kids at risk of the more severe side effects.
That being said, my daughter is vaccinated because the rates of serious side effects are so low that it only make sense.
Passenger vehicle average for 2012 = 35.6 MPG. On the list you linked there are TWO bikes on the list with MPG lower than 35.6. The median number, at a glance, looks to be about 42 MPG, that's about 15 percent better than the average passenger car. So, how do you figure that the average MPG for motorcycles is worse?
Besides, the DOT average is bogus anyway because they count by the models of car that are available, not by what actually sells
No, not really. Most customer facing ISPs are really there for one thing - they connect customers to tier 1 and tier 2 backbone providers. This costs a fair amount of money and creates choke points for their customer's traffic. Along comes Netflix and says "Lets peer!". They connect their networks and neither party charges the other for data transfer. The ISP pays less to the backbone providers and saves money, and Netflix pays less to the backbone providers and saves money. It is a win-win.
But, AT&T doesn't like this arrangement. AT&T is a major ISP AND a tier 1 backbone provider. Netflix is potentially taking money out of AT&T's pocket by peering with ISP's that use AT&T's backbone. When Netflix asks to peer directly with AT&T's using Netflix's usual ISP agreement, from AT&T's perspective, they would be giving away backbone transit services for free.
In my grade school they discouraged students from learning outside the classroom. It made it harder for the teachers to keep everyone at the same level, and harder to teach the class. One student was told --in front of the class-- to stop practicing math outside the classroom because he knew multiplication before the teacher was ready to teach it. I was actively held back from higher level reading classes when I was in the 5th grade, presumably because no one wanted to take the time to teach the one kid who read Tolkien and science text books for fun. That was in the 80's. Maybe things have changed since then.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mind gritty and dark everywhere. I just want them to quit with the teal & orange. My retinas need a break.
http://theabyssgazes.blogspot....
Yeah, the casting was intermittently terrible. Midi-clorians were completely unnecessary? Hayden Christensen (as my wife calls him "Mannequin Skywalker") had zero screen chemistry with Natalie Portman and their characters' relationship was simply incredulous. The story arc and plot points were thin and uninspiring. All of these are forgivable flaws.
The one thing I absolutely can not get past is the blatant racist stereotyping.
Have you ever tested a 9-colt with your tongue? I wouldn't try that with a similarly sized super capacitor. You are liable to bite your tongue off.
By saying X times "more" or "less", the "more" or "less" or "greater" or "lesser" the writer adding is a qualitative assessment and not a mathematically significant descriptor. The correct way to write it "10 times" or "one tenth", any increase or decrease is obvious to anyone with a grade-school education and consistent for mathematically experienced readers. Alternately, if the author wants to state the obvious they can say "increased to 10 times" or "reduced to one tenth". Journalist used to write like that, and I recall being taught to write this way in school.
I sympathize with Megane on the issue of x + 10x
When speaking about percentages, to say 100% more, we are saying 2 times. The original 100% plus 100% = 200%, therefore 2 times. To say 1000% more is equal to x + 10x. Mathematically percentages work exactly like multiplication, so "10 times more" should mean x + 10x
Consistent? Not really. What if someone writes "0.1 times less". Strictly speaking, X times 0.1 is one tenth of X and would be the correct interpretation. But modern vernacular, the "less" indicating division, it would be X divided by 0.1 equaling 10X.
On a side note, what ever happened to teaching journalism students basic math?
I had not read the paper. Now I have. I stand by my statement that this is not what I consider "forged". All of the detected certificates mentioned in the paper were detected by noticing inconsistencies in the public certificate. In most cases an outsider attacker would trigger at least a browser warning unless they had gotten their certificate authority registered on the victim computer as a trusted authority. In the case of the opFailZeroAccessCreate malware, "VeriSign Class 4 Public Primary CA" which it apparently used on some of its public certs, does not exactly match any trusted CA registered on my computer. The same goes for "thawte Extended Validation SSL CA". That would suggest that the malware is merely faking an official sounding names to make it look good.
We know that there are truly forged certs out in the wild. CA's have been hacked to steal their root certs or other wised tricked into issuing bogus certs in the past. The paper goes on at length about this. But based on their results, I am dubious of them actually finding any such fraudulent certificates or of their methodology being capable of detecting such certificates. My feeling is that if a criminal (or government) had some perfect fraudulent cert they would not use it for hacking random bank transactions from a Starbucks wireless hotspot, but I could be wrong. It may be quite common. I don't believe this article sheds much light either way.
This isn't really all that interesting. I will be more interested when researchers find a way to detect certs created with stolen root certificates. You know, the kind that don't make the browser throw up a warning.
baffle them with bullshit.
- W. C. Fields
I had an AMD 486 DX4 - 120 MHz. It beat the pants off the contemporary Pentium processors.
K6-2 was good, but the K6-III was much better. It was the first consumer-level CPU with on-die L2 cache. It scared Intel enough that they renamed the PII to PIII (because anything with a 3 in the name is clearly better than anything with a 2 in the name). The down side was that the K6-III overclocked for shit.
As I recall, the shared registers were a real problem with MMX. It meant that there was a big latency cost as the chip switched between superscalar and traditional operating modes. It made for penalty that frequently negated the MMX performance benefit.
It is the Senate's job to vet judicial nominees, not just rubber-stamp every appointment. In this case, the nominee himself authored some or all of the legal "justification" the President used to execute an American citizen without a trial. Paul is doing his job.
SMART is trash. I have had drives that were making whirring and clicking sounds, but SMART still checked out as OK.
But you are ignoring the lower reservoir. Air and water pressure there is generally higher than pressure at the higher location, so it will tend to push water UP the siphon tube. That would counter and virtually negate the pressure at the higher location. It seems to me that the only significant force difference is the greater weight of the water in the lower leg of the siphon vs the weight of water in the higher leg.
In any case, the experiment contradicts the theory that air pressure is the driving force in a siphon. If air pressure differential was the driving force, the water velocity would have slowed more dramatically as pressure dropped because any air pressure differential would become much smaller in absolute terms, but the water density would be almost constant. So, a smaller and smaller difference in air pressure would have to lift nearly the same weight of water up the ascending leg of the tube. But in the experiment, reducing air pressure had very little effect to the velocity of the water flow up until the point where the vapor inside the siphon was so low that the water spontaneously vaporized.
So what you are saying is that it is the difference between the air pressure at the higher location vs the water pressure in the descending leg of the siphon? Not to say that it is totally irrelevant, but I suspect that it is negligible compared to the difference in water pressure between the higher reservoir and the water pressure in the descending leg of the siphon.
"Conspiracy" implies that the FCC has some active input.
The definition is wrong, or at least misleading, because the length of the legs is irrelevant.
Suction is also not the only way to start a siphon. In most applications I prefer to use pressure to fill the tube with fluid to start the siphon. Mostly that's so I don't have to fill my mouth with some potentially nasty liquid.
Any atmospheric pressure differential would tend to resist the observed siphon. The lower location will normally be a higher air pressure environment than the higher location, and would tend to push the fluid up hill. But siphons always move fluid from a higher location to a lower location.
In microgravity a siphon will not work because there is also no appreciable difference in potential energy. Essentially, there is no upper or lower elevation, so the siphon doesn't have a direction in which to flow.
This is an example of capillary action, not a siphon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Cable operators don't necessarily HAVE to pay for local content. In fact, they are required to carry local stations unless the broadcasters demand rebroadcast royalties. At that point, the cable operators have the right to opt out of rebroadcasting that channel. However, with the retransmission agreements cable operators usually negotiate the rights to insert local commercials.
The stupid part of this is that it is NOT a threat to broadcasting. It is a threat to cable companies. I will dump my local cable service in a hot second if Aereo become available to me.
Well, there is also this page about the known possible side effects of various vaccines http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va.... The MMRV vaccine is known to cause permanent brain damage in very rare cases. Critics of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecom... claim that it serves to conceal information about the real risks of vaccinations, and disincentivises vaccine manufacturers from developing vaccines without severe side effects or from developing tests to identify kids at risk of the more severe side effects.
That being said, my daughter is vaccinated because the rates of serious side effects are so low that it only make sense.
Passenger vehicle average for 2012 = 35.6 MPG. On the list you linked there are TWO bikes on the list with MPG lower than 35.6. The median number, at a glance, looks to be about 42 MPG, that's about 15 percent better than the average passenger car. So, how do you figure that the average MPG for motorcycles is worse?
Besides, the DOT average is bogus anyway because they count by the models of car that are available, not by what actually sells
Did you even look at the two charts you linked?
No, not really. Most customer facing ISPs are really there for one thing - they connect customers to tier 1 and tier 2 backbone providers. This costs a fair amount of money and creates choke points for their customer's traffic. Along comes Netflix and says "Lets peer!". They connect their networks and neither party charges the other for data transfer. The ISP pays less to the backbone providers and saves money, and Netflix pays less to the backbone providers and saves money. It is a win-win.
But, AT&T doesn't like this arrangement. AT&T is a major ISP AND a tier 1 backbone provider. Netflix is potentially taking money out of AT&T's pocket by peering with ISP's that use AT&T's backbone. When Netflix asks to peer directly with AT&T's using Netflix's usual ISP agreement, from AT&T's perspective, they would be giving away backbone transit services for free.
In my grade school they discouraged students from learning outside the classroom. It made it harder for the teachers to keep everyone at the same level, and harder to teach the class. One student was told --in front of the class-- to stop practicing math outside the classroom because he knew multiplication before the teacher was ready to teach it. I was actively held back from higher level reading classes when I was in the 5th grade, presumably because no one wanted to take the time to teach the one kid who read Tolkien and science text books for fun. That was in the 80's. Maybe things have changed since then.