No, no. Those things suck. Plastic corks are like regular corks, except they don't get moldy and they're a royal pain to get out of the bottle. Glass stoppers are easy to get out unless you break a bottle opener on it by accident. They're also vaguely resealable.
There are two modern methods that are amazing for wine. Screw caps are stupid easy to use, cheap, and resealable. Modern, pioneering winemakers that don't worry about what people think about the presentation use screw caps. (They also often make great wine at affordable prices.) The other method is the box (or rather, a bag inside a box). A box looks completely classless, but it's one of the best ways of storing wine because pouring wine doesn't expose any of the remaining wine to oxidation. This means you can make a (disturbingly compact) 3L box of wine and use it over the course of a week. Or two days. Or a month. The wine stays good. Mercifully, some people -- not all Australian -- are making good wine in boxes now.
By the way, you just engaged in the typical deception "again" (again?), responding to something I didn't say because it's an easier target than what I did say.
By the way, you just engaged in the typical deception again, misrepresenting an old result that modern results happen to rely on as if that lent any credence or evidence for the modern result.
I didn't say Arrhenius's work lends credence to modern results. You did, as an attempt to deflect. I simply said that the general understanding of CO2 influencing atmospheric temperature is much, much older than you imply it is.
The CO2 graph (direct measurement) is clearly climbing at a never-before-seen rate.
Okay, graphs don't climb. That nitpick aside, it's clear that what is never before seen is the rate. The rate at which a quantity Q climbs is its derivative dQ/dt.
CO2 levels 18 times as high as they are today.... we are currently at one of the low points for CO2 levels in Earths history.
Here, you're talking about the quantity Q and not its rate of increase dQ/dt.
It may surprise you to learn that a quantity and its derivative are totally different things, and that one can be very low while the other is very high.
This is actually a good tangent, though, because it's a frequent mistake. Graphs of temperature and CO2 over very long periods of time are often dominated by sharp transitions. This causes people to say that the current situation is not unprecedented because there were very sharp transitions in the past! The problem is that if you pick an appropriate time scale, all transitions look sharp. The reader is mentally comparing two graphs (CO2 or temperature today, of the course of a few hundred years, with ages ago, over the course of thousands). Quantification is absolutely necessary. Very roughly, the rate of CO2 and temperature increase today is at least an order of magnitude higher than the "natural" transitions of the past that we have (indirectly) measured. So yes, unprecedented.
The general principles and some interesting initial conclusions, which started (very slowly at first) a lot of this research, were worked out by Arrhenius in the (very) late 19th century.
If they're being correct, which they may not be, then 5% is multiplicative. Percent changes are always multiplicative. If you're talking about additive changes, the term is "percentage points".
Unfortunately, lazy speaking sometimes causes people to say "percent" when they mean "percentage points".
Base64 is an encoding to turn encrypted data into text so that an e-mail client is happy with it.
Symmetric encryption is generally 128 or 256 bits. Even 128-bit encryption is quite strong, though 256-bit is recommended for future-proofing.
Quantum computers are not useful against symmetric encryption. They're useful against public-key encryption and key-exchange protocols, though, which is presumably how you're conveying your symmetric private keys.
1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting.
Following someone isn't assault. It's also not evidence that, in an ensuing confrontation, the follower was necessarily the instigator of violence. You can follow someone and then they assault you.
While more Tor exit nodes is better, all use of Tor should be done assuming that the exit node is controlled by a hostile party. A lot of the exit nodes are controlled by people much more unpleasant than the NSA.
Note that exit nodes are the weak link in Tor. Your traffic through them is not encrypted by Tor, so you must use SSL. They are, by design, a man in the middle, so you must be prepared for MitM attacks.
Why on earth would one store hashed and salted credit card information? If you're going to bill people, you need the original credit card number, no? Hashing isn't reversible.
That's not the correct quote. At least, that's not quite what he said at the keynote I went to, and that's what the article's about. So I'll call it a misquote.
The nutbag theory is that Muslims want convert countries like the US to Sharia law.
What "those guys" want, as Gen. Alexander explained, is to create a caliphate in the Middle East that is based on strict Sharia law. Our actions in the Middle East stymie that.
Note that this is actually the statedgoal of Al-Qaeda.
What I was trying to say is that both products are cheap in the US. Corn syrup is a little cheaper, but cane sugar is still really cheap. Many companies have switched to cane sugar as the result of anti-HFCS public opinion. Doesn't really cost them much.
The label "dextrose" is annoying, too. Dextrose is the same as R-glucose, which is really the same as "glucose". Sure, there's L-glucose, but it's generally only found in indigestible starches IIRC. But they're required to label corn-derived glucose differently (in some cases) than glucose from other sources. Hence, dextrose.
That's true -- or at least, it's close enough that I'll believe you -- but even with the current prices and subsidies, both sugar and corn syrup are cheap. The price difference doesn't really matter for most products.
Academic researchers rarely pay for articles (in my experience). However, their institutions often have access through subscriptions purchased by the library.
They also frequently use Google Scholar to find free copies of paywalled articles that the don't have access to. It's a great approach. Another solution is to find the contact e-mail of the lead author and politely ask him for a preprint copy.
Most applications of HFCS use versions that are between 40% and 60% fructose. The other 40-60% is, of course, glucose.
Table sugar, sucrose, is a disaccharide that consists of glucose and fructose combined. When it's metabolized, very early on, it's hydrolyzed into its constituent parts (glucose and fructose), which are then metabolized normally. So by the time you're talking about actually using the sugar for energy, HFCS and sugar are the same.
There's some evidence that the metabolic feedback early on of sucrose, glucose, and fructose have subtly different effects.
But fructose, pre-hydrolysis, is not some rare chemical only found in HFCS. Agave syrup is about 75% fructose / 25% glucose. Fruit is quite heavily weighted toward fructose. Honey is roughly equal parts glucose and fructose (plus a weird collection of other sugars). Invert sugar, which is created in the kitchen from sugar, is a common component of many candies and confections. Invert sugar is just hydrolyzed sucrose -- 50% glucose and 50% fructose. (Heat sucrose in water and some of it will invert. Add a bit of acid and stick with it and most of it will invert. Now you've basically recreated HFCS.)
There's nothing chemically special about HFCS. Despite the label "high fructose", which is chemically accurate but terrible marketing, it's not really high in fructose relative to other common forms of sugar. It's also, despite claims, not enormously cheaper than sugar. It's cheap, yes. Sugar is also cheap. A lot of companies have been moving from HFCS to sugar because the cost difference is small and the marketing edge is big.
The problem with HFCS is that sugars in general, along with fats and salt, are really overused in processed and prepared foods.
Slashdot Mirror
Plastic corks, glass stoppers
No, no. Those things suck. Plastic corks are like regular corks, except they don't get moldy and they're a royal pain to get out of the bottle. Glass stoppers are easy to get out unless you break a bottle opener on it by accident. They're also vaguely resealable.
There are two modern methods that are amazing for wine. Screw caps are stupid easy to use, cheap, and resealable. Modern, pioneering winemakers that don't worry about what people think about the presentation use screw caps. (They also often make great wine at affordable prices.) The other method is the box (or rather, a bag inside a box). A box looks completely classless, but it's one of the best ways of storing wine because pouring wine doesn't expose any of the remaining wine to oxidation. This means you can make a (disturbingly compact) 3L box of wine and use it over the course of a week. Or two days. Or a month. The wine stays good. Mercifully, some people -- not all Australian -- are making good wine in boxes now.
Unintentional, actually, but I'll take it!
By the way, you just engaged in the typical deception "again" (again?), responding to something I didn't say because it's an easier target than what I did say.
By the way, you just engaged in the typical deception again, misrepresenting an old result that modern results happen to rely on as if that lent any credence or evidence for the modern result.
I didn't say Arrhenius's work lends credence to modern results. You did, as an attempt to deflect. I simply said that the general understanding of CO2 influencing atmospheric temperature is much, much older than you imply it is.
Let's compare.
The CO2 graph (direct measurement) is clearly climbing at a never-before-seen rate.
Okay, graphs don't climb. That nitpick aside, it's clear that what is never before seen is the rate. The rate at which a quantity Q climbs is its derivative dQ/dt.
CO2 levels 18 times as high as they are today. ... we are currently at one of the low points for CO2 levels in Earths history.
Here, you're talking about the quantity Q and not its rate of increase dQ/dt.
It may surprise you to learn that a quantity and its derivative are totally different things, and that one can be very low while the other is very high.
This is actually a good tangent, though, because it's a frequent mistake. Graphs of temperature and CO2 over very long periods of time are often dominated by sharp transitions. This causes people to say that the current situation is not unprecedented because there were very sharp transitions in the past! The problem is that if you pick an appropriate time scale, all transitions look sharp. The reader is mentally comparing two graphs (CO2 or temperature today, of the course of a few hundred years, with ages ago, over the course of thousands). Quantification is absolutely necessary. Very roughly, the rate of CO2 and temperature increase today is at least an order of magnitude higher than the "natural" transitions of the past that we have (indirectly) measured. So yes, unprecedented.
papers that are barely a few years old
The general principles and some interesting initial conclusions, which started (very slowly at first) a lot of this research, were worked out by Arrhenius in the (very) late 19th century.
If they're being correct, which they may not be, then 5% is multiplicative. Percent changes are always multiplicative. If you're talking about additive changes, the term is "percentage points".
Unfortunately, lazy speaking sometimes causes people to say "percent" when they mean "percentage points".
Base64 is an encoding to turn encrypted data into text so that an e-mail client is happy with it.
Symmetric encryption is generally 128 or 256 bits. Even 128-bit encryption is quite strong, though 256-bit is recommended for future-proofing.
Quantum computers are not useful against symmetric encryption. They're useful against public-key encryption and key-exchange protocols, though, which is presumably how you're conveying your symmetric private keys.
So, all consumer devices that aren't based on FPGAs are shitty?
Can't flash in hardware support. Gotta change the hardware for that.
Is there any population group where dickheaded infighting ... is a surprise?
No.
1. He followed Trayvon -- he was the one doing the assaulting.
Following someone isn't assault. It's also not evidence that, in an ensuing confrontation, the follower was necessarily the instigator of violence. You can follow someone and then they assault you.
You mean like 1847, 2015, and 3156?
They should've fit it with a cubic function to claim an r^2 of 1.
You study statistics.
While more Tor exit nodes is better, all use of Tor should be done assuming that the exit node is controlled by a hostile party. A lot of the exit nodes are controlled by people much more unpleasant than the NSA.
Note that exit nodes are the weak link in Tor. Your traffic through them is not encrypted by Tor, so you must use SSL. They are, by design, a man in the middle, so you must be prepared for MitM attacks.
Why on earth would one store hashed and salted credit card information? If you're going to bill people, you need the original credit card number, no? Hashing isn't reversible.
That's not the correct quote. At least, that's not quite what he said at the keynote I went to, and that's what the article's about. So I'll call it a misquote.
The nutbag theory is that Muslims want convert countries like the US to Sharia law.
What "those guys" want, as Gen. Alexander explained, is to create a caliphate in the Middle East that is based on strict Sharia law. Our actions in the Middle East stymie that.
Note that this is actually the stated goal of Al-Qaeda.
What I was trying to say is that both products are cheap in the US. Corn syrup is a little cheaper, but cane sugar is still really cheap. Many companies have switched to cane sugar as the result of anti-HFCS public opinion. Doesn't really cost them much.
The label "dextrose" is annoying, too. Dextrose is the same as R-glucose, which is really the same as "glucose". Sure, there's L-glucose, but it's generally only found in indigestible starches IIRC. But they're required to label corn-derived glucose differently (in some cases) than glucose from other sources. Hence, dextrose.
All three of those are just fine as constituents of processed foods. It's just that they're used in too large of quantities.
That's what "overused" means.
That's true -- or at least, it's close enough that I'll believe you -- but even with the current prices and subsidies, both sugar and corn syrup are cheap. The price difference doesn't really matter for most products.
A very large fraction of them are preprints posted by the authors. Usually legally.
Academic researchers rarely pay for articles (in my experience). However, their institutions often have access through subscriptions purchased by the library.
They also frequently use Google Scholar to find free copies of paywalled articles that the don't have access to. It's a great approach. Another solution is to find the contact e-mail of the lead author and politely ask him for a preprint copy.
Most applications of HFCS use versions that are between 40% and 60% fructose. The other 40-60% is, of course, glucose.
Table sugar, sucrose, is a disaccharide that consists of glucose and fructose combined. When it's metabolized, very early on, it's hydrolyzed into its constituent parts (glucose and fructose), which are then metabolized normally. So by the time you're talking about actually using the sugar for energy, HFCS and sugar are the same.
There's some evidence that the metabolic feedback early on of sucrose, glucose, and fructose have subtly different effects.
But fructose, pre-hydrolysis, is not some rare chemical only found in HFCS. Agave syrup is about 75% fructose / 25% glucose. Fruit is quite heavily weighted toward fructose. Honey is roughly equal parts glucose and fructose (plus a weird collection of other sugars). Invert sugar, which is created in the kitchen from sugar, is a common component of many candies and confections. Invert sugar is just hydrolyzed sucrose -- 50% glucose and 50% fructose. (Heat sucrose in water and some of it will invert. Add a bit of acid and stick with it and most of it will invert. Now you've basically recreated HFCS.)
There's nothing chemically special about HFCS. Despite the label "high fructose", which is chemically accurate but terrible marketing, it's not really high in fructose relative to other common forms of sugar. It's also, despite claims, not enormously cheaper than sugar. It's cheap, yes. Sugar is also cheap. A lot of companies have been moving from HFCS to sugar because the cost difference is small and the marketing edge is big.
The problem with HFCS is that sugars in general, along with fats and salt, are really overused in processed and prepared foods.