It can't be more efficient than using light sources that don't emit the IR radiation in the first place.
If a room is well-lit by windows, you don't need any additional window to remain well-lit. A 30% reduction in light for something that's well-lit, particularly by daylight, is not really noticeable. (Rather, you can only tell if you have both available for comparison. If you reduced the transmission of your windows by 30%, your eyes would simply adjust.)
No, it's just recently come out. It's one of the mini-projects funded via the DARPA Cyber Fast Track, currently run by Mudge. Their list of funded projects is publicly available on their website (and updated reasonably frequently) and they encourage sharing the results of projects.
The tradeoff point is very low and has little to do with how the car is designed. (The only part that does have to do with the car design, really, is at what power output the engine is most efficient.) Many kinds of internal friction are independent of the speed of the vehicle, and so the slower you go, the worse those frictions are. Air resistance is roughly proportional to the square of the vehicle speed. This means that the influence of air resistance on fuel efficiency is roughly linear in vehicle speed. There's not really any getting around this -- high speeds take a lot of energy to maintain if you insist on moving through air. The energy used for countering air resistance is the most significant energy expenditure in a vehicle starting at about 30 mph. You cannot reasonably design a vehicle that will be more efficient at 60 mph than it is at 45.
In many jurisdictions, the presence of a third party makes a conversation public, rather than private, unless the two parties had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For most Facebook posts (particularly excluding one-recipient messages), all of the "friends" of the poster (and potentially all of the friends of the recipient) are parties to the post. Most users are also aware there is no expectation of privacy (after all, they comment on others' posts). So they certainly could be considered "public" in the sense of "not protected" even if they are not "public" in the sense of "viewable by anyone on the internet".
That's also how it's done in at least some of the states in the US, too -- except that you can have a religious official sign the marriage license. (There are also a number of other people who can sign it, again depending on the state.)
The vast majority of Americans don't live in public housing. The vast majority of Americans will now see a tax if they don't purchase health insurance.
The vast majority wouldn't use the public option, either. You seem to be confusing "public option" with other aspects of ACA, which doesn't make discussing it, beyond platitudes, possible.
If you choose not to do the underlying activity, living, you don't have to buy the insurance or pay the tax. Not really a recommended course of action, though.
Also a public option for housing, so that people don't have to fight with their landlords or builders just to keep from dying from exposure.
We have that.
And a public option for transportation, just so I don't have to fight with the auto retailer just so I can perform useful work for this great civilization.
Yes, if only there was some kind of citywide "public transportation" option...
There are a ton of cheap high-deductible policies that are ACA-compliant. In fact, a lot of health insurers made their policies ACA-compliant starting this year.
Most states legally require auto insurance (liability) in order to drive a car. Some states (and many insurance plans) require (or provide) supplementary insurance to cover your car in the event that it's damaged by an uninsured motorist.
The uglier one is when your uninsured property is damaged by an uninsured motorist.
To prevent the number of uninsured people from increasing dramatically. It's to counter a side effect of the provision that an insurer cannot turn you down due to preexisting conditions.
Without the preexisting-condition rule, going without insurance is very risky (and so unpopular), because if you get some long-term illness or injury, you can never get coverage for it. With the preexisting-condition rule, going without insurance is much less risky, because you can pick up coverage after the fact. In order to make the preexisting-condition commercially viable, then, you need everyone to buy insurance.
The point isn't to protect against bootloader infections, per se. The problem is that if you use a protection mechanism based on one layer being signed (say, signed application code), then it's made irrelevant by attacking one layer lower. So you need to sign from the bottom-most layer all the way up. That means either a signed BIOS or one that can't be changed in software, a signed bootloader, a signed kernel, signed drivers, and signed application code. The purpose of the signed bootloader isn't to protect against bootloader malware that exists now, but to protect against the bootloader malware that would appear if you started relying on a signed kernel.
I'd rather take my chances with the malware than have the liberties of doing what I want with my computer taken away.
It's not "Congreff", it's "Congress". The style of writing they used had a medial "s" that looks similar to, but is not, an "f". Our style of writing does not, so the same text rendered into modern type has neither the letter "f" nor the medial "s". On top of that, they used a final "s" that is the same as our modern "s" -- so the medial "s" character should never appear at the end of the word.
More? Yes. Wireless access is difficult to predict and properly engineer, has highly nonuniform demand (huge per square mile in cities, low per square mile rurally), suffers from nonuniform demand because of its design, and is fundamentally limited by its licensed bandwidth. Wired access pretty much works when you run wire and install appropriate networking equipment. Providing high-bandwidth wireless data access is a reasonably challenging and expensive problem.
Can I justify why it should cost such obscene prices? No.
Slashdot Mirror
Factory assembly hasn't been a mid-level job for a while.
It can't be more efficient than using light sources that don't emit the IR radiation in the first place.
If a room is well-lit by windows, you don't need any additional window to remain well-lit. A 30% reduction in light for something that's well-lit, particularly by daylight, is not really noticeable. (Rather, you can only tell if you have both available for comparison. If you reduced the transmission of your windows by 30%, your eyes would simply adjust.)
Pro tip: not only is it completely reasonable to declare your own units, but there is a unit that is 1/60 s: the jiffy.
Pro tip for GP: If two standards differ, neither is wrong, they're just mutually incompatible.
No, it's just recently come out. It's one of the mini-projects funded via the DARPA Cyber Fast Track, currently run by Mudge. Their list of funded projects is publicly available on their website (and updated reasonably frequently) and they encourage sharing the results of projects.
Don't forget 0xABAD1D34.
The tradeoff point is very low and has little to do with how the car is designed. (The only part that does have to do with the car design, really, is at what power output the engine is most efficient.) Many kinds of internal friction are independent of the speed of the vehicle, and so the slower you go, the worse those frictions are. Air resistance is roughly proportional to the square of the vehicle speed. This means that the influence of air resistance on fuel efficiency is roughly linear in vehicle speed. There's not really any getting around this -- high speeds take a lot of energy to maintain if you insist on moving through air. The energy used for countering air resistance is the most significant energy expenditure in a vehicle starting at about 30 mph. You cannot reasonably design a vehicle that will be more efficient at 60 mph than it is at 45.
In many jurisdictions, the presence of a third party makes a conversation public, rather than private, unless the two parties had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For most Facebook posts (particularly excluding one-recipient messages), all of the "friends" of the poster (and potentially all of the friends of the recipient) are parties to the post. Most users are also aware there is no expectation of privacy (after all, they comment on others' posts). So they certainly could be considered "public" in the sense of "not protected" even if they are not "public" in the sense of "viewable by anyone on the internet".
The "old format" should have the question mark inside the quotes and should have a comma.
It's not even a comma splice, unless the intended meaning is "I assisted Jack. Now, kill his donkey."
I think you meant, "For what does it matter?" You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.
That is a grammar rule up with which one should not put.
That's also how it's done in at least some of the states in the US, too -- except that you can have a religious official sign the marriage license. (There are also a number of other people who can sign it, again depending on the state.)
The vast majority of Americans don't live in public housing. The vast majority of Americans will now see a tax if they don't purchase health insurance.
The vast majority wouldn't use the public option, either. You seem to be confusing "public option" with other aspects of ACA, which doesn't make discussing it, beyond platitudes, possible.
If you choose not to do the underlying activity, living, you don't have to buy the insurance or pay the tax. Not really a recommended course of action, though.
Also a public option for housing, so that people don't have to fight with their landlords or builders just to keep from dying from exposure.
We have that.
And a public option for transportation, just so I don't have to fight with the auto retailer just so I can perform useful work for this great civilization.
Yes, if only there was some kind of citywide "public transportation" option...
There are a ton of cheap high-deductible policies that are ACA-compliant. In fact, a lot of health insurers made their policies ACA-compliant starting this year.
Most states legally require auto insurance (liability) in order to drive a car. Some states (and many insurance plans) require (or provide) supplementary insurance to cover your car in the event that it's damaged by an uninsured motorist.
The uglier one is when your uninsured property is damaged by an uninsured motorist.
To prevent the number of uninsured people from increasing dramatically. It's to counter a side effect of the provision that an insurer cannot turn you down due to preexisting conditions.
Without the preexisting-condition rule, going without insurance is very risky (and so unpopular), because if you get some long-term illness or injury, you can never get coverage for it. With the preexisting-condition rule, going without insurance is much less risky, because you can pick up coverage after the fact. In order to make the preexisting-condition commercially viable, then, you need everyone to buy insurance.
So I will have to pay more for services I don't use.
Risk averaging is kind of how insurance works. They have insurance where you pay only for the services you use -- it's called "no insurance".
The point isn't to protect against bootloader infections, per se. The problem is that if you use a protection mechanism based on one layer being signed (say, signed application code), then it's made irrelevant by attacking one layer lower. So you need to sign from the bottom-most layer all the way up. That means either a signed BIOS or one that can't be changed in software, a signed bootloader, a signed kernel, signed drivers, and signed application code. The purpose of the signed bootloader isn't to protect against bootloader malware that exists now, but to protect against the bootloader malware that would appear if you started relying on a signed kernel.
I'd rather take my chances with the malware than have the liberties of doing what I want with my computer taken away.
So turn off UEFI Secure Boot.
Except that that's not how first-to-file works.
It's not "Congreff", it's "Congress". The style of writing they used had a medial "s" that looks similar to, but is not, an "f". Our style of writing does not, so the same text rendered into modern type has neither the letter "f" nor the medial "s". On top of that, they used a final "s" that is the same as our modern "s" -- so the medial "s" character should never appear at the end of the word.
You had logs and were still penetrated? What OS has logs and gets penetrated?
All of them.
but it is impossible to retaliate against, since it universally uses botnets
And, as we know, botnets are impossible to take down.
usually everything is cheaper over there (except getting sick)
Also Internet. Despite inventing the Internet, it's pretty expensive here.
More? Yes. Wireless access is difficult to predict and properly engineer, has highly nonuniform demand (huge per square mile in cities, low per square mile rurally), suffers from nonuniform demand because of its design, and is fundamentally limited by its licensed bandwidth. Wired access pretty much works when you run wire and install appropriate networking equipment. Providing high-bandwidth wireless data access is a reasonably challenging and expensive problem.
Can I justify why it should cost such obscene prices? No.