The problem is--and you could find this out from the summary, really--is that this is the alleged consumer build that's having these kinds of problems.
I understand where you're coming from but I think this highlights why microsoft forced updates on windows 10. Users just want to turn their machine on to do X then turn it off. Update notices get in the way of that so users delay or prevent them so the updates never end up getting installed. Then their machine gets infected by a billion malware cause they haven't updated in over a year so their machine is full of holes. You say you just want to get work down now so don't bother you with updates but the updates need to be installed at some point so when is a good time for you?
Well, you could, y'know, try using the update method described as the one that Linux uses--I will admit it does need to be rebooted, but I suppose that's so everything can be gotten using the new version of the file as I saw no detectable changes in shutdown/bootup in the process.
If you have your update process be buggy & annoying, and are prone to pushing out patches that should have M$ ordering paper bags by the boatload for pretending they'd even finished alpha testing? You should not be surprised if users reasonably decide that updating is not a Good Idea.
This is the sort of thing that shows why you sometimes should think about the precedent more than the current case. Here, it may be that if Apple agrees, it avoids risking a bad precedent being set, and it could probably get an agreement that the tool remains in their hands. (And, done right, they would then have a strong defense if the FBI tried to insist that no, Apple gives them the tool.)
This would all be safer if they were arguing that the FBI is asking for the impossible or the practically impossible, since there is a lot of motivation out there to keep the law from being capable of compelling anybody to do that. A law can be horrible for merely the reason that it sets bad precedents. (Equally good would be if Apple was complaining about warrant issues but presumably the case would have gotten tossed out on its ear if those existed; IANAL but as I recall they're actually obligated to insist on the formalities there...which is why them keeping the tool might be safe.)
If you don't know the formulas, interpretation is a lot harder and you can miss some of the games being played. Modern technology does mean you don't need to hand-work the math, but I can assure you that using a computer or calculator to do it requires you understand the math. (If nothing else, that and basic coding skills make it possible for you to knock together a program to do it if you need to do so.)
Funny, a lot of statistics made vastly more sense once I covered the math involved, and algebra has a lot if things to it that can be used on a daily basis...if we still taught them regularly. I could see an argument for shifting the classes towards showing current applications for what you're teaching at all points, such as how to use algebra so you only need to memorize one version of a formula--but yeah, stats are worse than algebra & calculus and I say this as somebody who got top grades in their stats class and loves them...but isn't so into calculus.
Though, given this person is out of polisci, I suspect that stats isn't their strong point, if they were even required to take it; it's a field where often enough you hire or borrow a statistician, and my aunt quit being a statistician precisely because she was being pressured to...massage the results of her work to support ideology. Odds are horribly good he doesn't know what is involved in doing or understanding stats beyond the most basic parts, and if he did cover ever that it was as an undergrad & is now very rusty knowledge.
The problem most people have with algebra and calculus is bad teachers--I know I'm good at math, yet I flunked calc the first time because I was expected in that class to memorize everything instantly and do formal proofs...every time, from the first weekly quiz on. (I wish I exaggerating.) I passed the second time, under a teacher who let us use notecards so we could gradually & naturally memorize things through use, and didn't demand formal proofs except for once, mostly so we could show if we knew how.
I don't think common core is actually going to improve how math is taught--there are a few handy shortcuts that improve understanding that it outright skips. It kind of feels like they took a bit too much to heart the latter part of the saying "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."
Perhaps you missed that what was being suggested is that there may be gender-based differences in attitudes and coding styles--and this might be a testable hypothesis for why having female coders in the group might be desirable for concrete reasons. You know, as opposed to just meeting the project's tit quota?
I would suspect that people might well pick up that "An Mouse" has a tendency to work on the long-term efforts despite their low priority. This would not, however, mean that they know that An Mouse happens to be a woman. They only know that An is good and reliable at doing these things, and trust An based upon An's track record and earned good reputation.
Of course, a confounding factor might be that there may be notable and significant differences in coding approaches & skills between "women who choose to present themselves in a gender-neutral way" and "those who feel that it is very important you know they are women" as well as their ability to work smoothly as part of a group. If the latter group has an overall poor track record on even one of these, it might well encourage a tendency to be wary of somebody showing the social indicators. (In other words, it could be that some people, by being obnoxious assholes, ruined it for the larger group...yet again.)
A bond consists in its simplest cases of electron pairs (or simply an ionic bond): they neither have heat, nor pressure nor any conceivable volume, hence: they are not covered by "the laws of thermodynamics".
Even ionic bonds require or produce some energy to form or break and you can even look up exactly what the enthalpy of doing so is in standard references such as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, but it's beyond obvious that you didn't even bother reading your original post, nor any attention whatsoever to any effort ever to actually cover the physics involved here that has ever happened around you.
I can't even begin to figure out where to start on the whole idea that physics has nothing to do with chemistry that is inherit though unstated in your argument--what the fucking hell do you think physical chemistry is? Chemistry is as much applied physics as engineering, merely at a slightly different level.
The bottom line is every single thing in chemistry requires physics, and thermodynamics--primarily entropy--pretty much dictates if any reaction is likely to happen and under what conditions. You can even calculate enthalpy as a function of entropy...and, since you need the extra help, you do so using a calculation derived using the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (It's so basic Wikipedia doesn't demand a citation when doing just that when giving the formal definition. You can also find the equation elsewhere, such as here.)
I'm not going to bother reading another reply from you, because I doubt you'll bother actually checking your claims, no less actually reading my posts, reading your own previous post(s), or coming up with a coherent explanation of how a goddamn function of thermodynamics is not, in fact, thermodynamics. Thermodynamics hasn't been about only "heat, pressure, volume of gases and the usefulness of either of them in heat engines" (as you put it) for well over a century--and even then it was about energy because heat is thermal energy and engines are machines that convert other types of energy into mechanical energy. Chemical thermodynamics has been around since the 19th century, and it's is what you use to explain the physics of how energy of any sort--including thermal--can be gotten from or needed for a chemical reaction, as well as for explaining the physics involved of how energy can stored in a chemical form.
To put it bluntly? If thermodynamics wasn't involved here, the whole question of how much energy is required to turn CO2 into anything else would be like asking how much beef is in a cup of black coffee. Also, all fuels of any kind would simply not function as such--the very concept of fuel would be meaningless, and not merely because that alone would render life itself impossible. I think we'd kinda notice that one.
Short chain carbons have less bonds to break for power, long chain have more. Converting a short chain to a long chain is a PITA as it's not favorable because of something called 'thermodynamics,' almost always requires energy input
That is wrong, like 99% of all posts on/. containing the term thermodynamics.
For starters: the laws of thermodynamics have absolutely nothing to do with "breaking" chemical bonds and/or "creating" them.
What you think enthalpy is? What do you think it means when somebody says that the enthalpy of formation or of reaction is a given number of joules? What do you think is going on when a chemical reaction produces heat or when one needs heat in order to take place?
Given that enthalpy is defined as "a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system," and you can easily find tables of bond enthalpies for covalent bonds like you get in hydrocarbons, I'm sure there's a lot of recognition to be gotten if you can explain how something that is by definition a thermodynamic quantity could have nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
If you get stuff like this already wrong, I wonder what that pun "is being left as an exercise for the reader" regarding your explanations to enzyme is supposed to mean.
That wasn't a pun. If you can find something that forms polymers without having to have energy added to the system in any way, shape, or form--that does it entirely under standard conditions--and give me a citation from a peer-reviewed journal to verify it, I'll be impressed. I am not, however, going to do the search for you. It's not anywhere near the area of chemistry I chose to specialize in.
The short answer is that energy is gotten by breaking bonds and required to form bonds, if we're talking stable structures in organic chemistry. Going from there... Short chain carbons have less bonds to break for power, long chain have more. Converting a short chain to a long chain is a PITA as it's not favorable because of something called 'thermodynamics,' almost always requires energy input,* and even then may just ignite instead unless you're using enzymes.
And sometimes you will never know why your reaction decided to fail. Maybe that cute undergrad who is supposed to scrub the glassware screwed up? Maybe the air system came on and changed the pressure just enough at just the wrong time? Maybe the reaction just hates you, even to the point of apparently violating the laws of physics? I've heard of or personally experienced all of these...
* If you managed to have the chains end just right and are connecting them to each other, you can get polymers at room temperature without using an enzyme. In theory. How is being left as an exercise for the reader.
Perhaps because it would mean going outside? Algae does pretty well, too, and the problem really is more than anything else a failure to keep the carbon cycle's capacity up.
Pele is, in multiple senses, a hot woman by all reports. While I don't have my usual Native Hawaiian source to check with, what I've been told suggests they're rather more offended by renaming land, though I can't tell you where we're starting on the offense scale.
If you think of land as people, it makes sense, but brings up the question of how do we know the sacred mountain isn't an astronomy fan? Especially given that the observatories already there are fine, it may just be that everybody needs to be polite and let the mountain's personification have a turn with the telescope, with any luck we won't end up having to work out how to list geography as an author...
In other words, DIY law enforcement on a large scale? After all, if there's no 'us' then it's really nothing more or less than that, and staying neutral in a war zone & not getting flattened requires having some way of ensuring neither side feels it's worth taking your stuff...ignoring the fact that there's always been people who would do it purely because you're there and they can.
About the only place I've heard of that has been successful in having an anarchy and not gone pretty Mad Max is Somalia. That is probably because Xeer, their form of law, is entirely divorced from government and your bonds to your clan are pretty strong in part because without them providing you with insurance you're an outlaw in the old sense of being outside of its protections as well... (It also rather sucks if you're not an adult male member of a clan, but it does look like the Elders are agreeing that this is a Problem so something may eventually get done in the next few centuries.)
If you're not into having a significant death toll, try starting local and working gradually up--should it become patently clear that a job needs doing regardless, the odds are better that both less damage will be done and that something can be done about it sooner. You'd also have to win over significantly less people if you want to suggest trying something other than a popularity contest should be used, in those cases.
If the market decides that it's not important for people to have this, then the only way to change that is for the people who need it to somehow become rich. If the regulators decide people shouldn't have this, then the voters can change that. And if you factor in the increased independence and productivity of the recipients, it might not cost that much.
Of course the way we do it now is we force employers to make accommodations. That's better than nothing, but statistically the public is still paying; the burden is just randomly concentrated on a few unlucky employers.
Unless you're suggesting voting anarchist and/or libertarian, then voting can't do anything about the regulators. That's kind of the complaint about them, really: they are overall too well insulated from any people they harm for there to be the desirable feedback loop there. I've known quite a few people who left countries with single-payer systems because either they are their loved ones were considered by those running the heath care system to 'not really need' such things as a hip replacements or leukemia treatments.
There's a greater chance of success with 'somehow become rich' than trying to change the regulators by voting.
It's more likely to work if the market was free enough that voting with your feet--refusing to buy policies which don't cover things you consider important--was actually an option, but the US got to where it is because employers buy it for you and they as a third party don't generally have the same motivation as you do to care about your long-term health and welfare.
And that's not going to actually change even if there's a switch to single-payer--and it might become hard to get your hands on 'something better' if the regulators decide that nobody needs it, if they've also any say in the approval process and/or your ability to import it from elsewhere.
Okay, let's start from the top, with just some basic chemistry. Sodium chloride is an ionic compound. (Fun fact: 'Salt' is basically a depreciated term for ionic compounds.) All ionic compounds become their constituent ions in an aqueous solution--in other words, sodium chloride in water becomes a lot of sodium and chloride ions in water.
Chloride--that's the chlorine ion--is utterly essential to life, and you will die a horrible and painful death without any in your system. Without it, your nervous system will fail in new and exciting ways (ask somebody with cystic fibrosis, which is caused by a nonfunctional chloride ion channel), though honestly you'd have to survive having lots of cells just suddenly implode and/or explode and your body's acid/base balance go out of wack first. None of these are considered pleasant ways to die.
Perhaps you're thinking about chlorine gas or elemental chlorine on the 'potent poison'? Except I was routinely working in a very safety-conscious lab without hoods where there was a risk of mild exposure to the stuff, and you get a whiff of it with chlorine bleach...
(Citations will be provided on request, though "decent basic college-level chemistry textbook, ditto for physiology" should hit at least most of this. The cystic fibrosis may require a neurobiology textbook, but I'm afraid you're on your own for that. I got a lousy one.)
Don't forget to take into consideration the situation that made the body count happen--Stalin had pretty much purged all the competent military officers about two purges back (I think it was that, purge of people who ran that purge, then WWII) which meant that when WWII started the Red Army's strategy was pretty much a loop of "throw bodies at the problem, see if problem is solved yet."
That and "Let the weather do it."
Really, having the highest body count in a war, even if just for your side, is probably more a sign that you've screwed up somewhere than anything else.
Plus the US wandering in at the tail end was WWI, where part of what happened is the US had more or less wanted to just be a neutral or mostly-neutral party, and there's evidence that both sides made an effort to drag the US in anyway.
Honestly, you could make a pretty good argument that European colonialism didn't as much die as it evolved into a less manpower-intensive and more concealed form. While I have to agree with the people who don't trust ICANN remaining in US hands, the bottom line is that I'm not sure I'd trust the people it's slated to be handed over to either; I'd prefer transparency and firm independence with 'oversight' being only there to ensure that all policies & procedures are publicly announced and followed.
Actually, why not have those locked by default, period? You might even set it up so advanced users could have the option of configuring the lock so they could instead get a process like 'confirm root password and that you want to' instead of having to visit the distro's website, but it might be sanest to just flat out have certain commands always locked.
I may not be getting this, I admit, so this is not meant as challenging or critical, but what linux user would/might/could "accidentally" log in to a console as root, then issue an "rm -rf" command? I can see how a malware script might, given a prior enabling compromise of root, but "accidentally" doesn't compute. In my understanding, gaining root, or Windows admin, privilege pretty much allows malicious actions anywhere, so I don't get at this point why this is earth shattering.
I'd expect it to require at least one PEBKAC problem, which could be as innocent as a user who is not getting sufficient sleep. Would it actually be difficult to implement something that will give a clear visual flag when in somebody is logged in as root, even in command line, so it takes a lot more effort to be unaware of if you're currently root or not? Something as simple as just inverting the display colors would be hard to miss, robust, and potentially simple to implement. (It might also happen to encourage only logging in as root when absolutely necessary as a side effect, which may not be a Bad Thing.)
I dunno, I am very much of the feeling that anything that can brick the system should be hidden behind a hardware switch in order to update. If a motherboard advertised having a jumper that needed to be set in order to update boot info, I would consider that a desirable feature in general.
That'd certainly be a good way to implement an actually secure boot, though I would cheerfully enough settle for any method that requires 'person with physical access' verification. I'm not sure I quite want to have to crack open a case when I just want to boot a live disk, especially if I'm doing something as basic as trying to check to see if a laptop that's still covered by warranty is suffering a hardware or a software problem or other diagnostics, and there's also the risk of people forgetting to reset the jumper afterwards. Something simple as paperclip-in-hole switch (a la emergency resets and releases) probably would do the trick, since if nothing else it would be easy to both check for and fix it if somebody forgets to remove the paperclip to take it out of that mode.
This looks like an EFI design bug. Why should EFI allow the OS or any other software brick the system by deleting its variables? Like OO, EFI should allow access to these variables through methods and not directly.
That you reached +5 makes me weep for Slashdot.
It's completely normal for a *nix based system to expose something like UEFI variables through the filesystem. It's a concept called Everything is a File and is the same reason why root can read and poke places in/proc and/dev to get information about the system or make changes to it. I can sympathize with the systemd developers on this one (I know, get a rope) because making a unilateral decision to force UEFI read-only over this one issue will have a long-standing and huge impact of system administration (and this goes double controlling large networks of systems).
The fact that root running rm -rf/ causes problems shouldn't surprise anyone. Even with newer flags like --no-preserve-root, running as root means exerting ultimate control. Some care is expected or eventually you'll get burned.
Besides, the real question here I think is: Why don't these motherboards have a ROM backup that can be used to restore and boot the boards after catastrophic failure of their saved state? Even without the rm -rf/ red herring, that seems like a brain-dead requirement, and one that legacy boards have supported for decades.
They don't have a ROM backup because UEFI was supposed to be taking its place, meaning that in fact the original question is important and the bottom line may be that UEFI is in and of itself broken--given its entire point is to prevent boot hijacking, having even a mildly unimportant part of it that could be affected by rm -rf/ strikes me as a nice blinking neon sign of where to start work for a proof-of-concept boot hijacker that will not be bothered by UEFI, and perhaps you could even manage to suborn UEFI to make it actually more difficult to reverse?
Honestly, I'd rather go for a system where I can boot to a certain level and get an error message if a hijacking attempt got made, and could live with having to have physical access to the computer was required if I wanted to install an OS. I'd mind it requiring a special dongle, but I feel that it's probably easier to deal with having to protect computers from roving bands of people maliciously flashing motherboards than a bad attempt to prevent remote attempts...
But these ideologies have not infiltrated science classes like biology, where they actively cast doubt on things like evolution. That's what this is about. That hijacked feminist theories are not getting enough sh*t, doesn't change that Creationism kind of deserves all the sh*t it gets.
Actually, they have, and it's more than a bit of a problem because it's also causing problems if you actually want to do research that will help women that also happens to contradict Feminist dogma. Probably that's also why they don't want to talk about how women in social psychology actually gave us a good case study on why the female perspective is important--because what the female perspective brought was "Wait, what, no women are aggressive" to the study of aggression, which led to researchers admitting that maybe you don't actually have to get physical to be aggressive. Whoops.
If the lack of somebody doing a particular job does not cause any harm, then the job is really a no-show job and should be eliminated--what kind of anarchist wants to keep a government job around that is clearly unnecessary?
That is my entire point. Let's try out not having a President for four years and see if everybody likes not getting into wars as much as I do. Maybe we'll just keep it that way.
A quick check confirms that if you want than what you want to do is get rid of Congress and probably the rest of the world, too, just to ensure they don't decide to declare war on us. That has happened, and failing to declare war back doesn't make it not a war, though it probably will ensure that whatever soldiers survive being ill-prepared will be rather emphatic about ensuring no repeats.
I don't like government any more than you, probably, but it's generally considered a Good Idea to be prepared for the entire structure collapsing before you go knocking out key load-bearing elements and keystones from arches.
If the lack of somebody doing a particular job does not cause any harm, then the job is really a no-show job and should be eliminated--what kind of anarchist wants to keep a government job around that is clearly unnecessary? And sometimes "None of the above" will win because nobody's gotten around to making a requirement for the office be that you're actually qualified to hold it, never mind the absurdity involved in running an election for what is fundamentally a job for an engineer or a scientist. For example, why are we electing somebody to be in charge of the water department and why can't we at least insist that anybody running for the office be a civil engineer with possibly some additional qualifications? (I know the historical 'why,' what I'm curious about is why we're still doing it when it's no longer something you can pick up anywhere near as easily and being trained matters.)
Or you could just hark back to Norse law, which was a predecessor of English law anyway, and its requirement that the lawmaking body's annual assembly start with every single law being read aloud, with any omissions resulting in the omitted part being not law for that year. Toss in a requirement that there be a quorum for the entire thing and to participate you need to be physically present for a significant percentage of it. (You could even ban all electronics aside from the camera and sound system from the floor during the reading & require not only being present but also being awake.)
Want to bet that legal codes are going to very, very quickly get much shorter?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is--and you could find this out from the summary, really--is that this is the alleged consumer build that's having these kinds of problems.
I understand where you're coming from but I think this highlights why microsoft forced updates on windows 10. Users just want to turn their machine on to do X then turn it off. Update notices get in the way of that so users delay or prevent them so the updates never end up getting installed. Then their machine gets infected by a billion malware cause they haven't updated in over a year so their machine is full of holes. You say you just want to get work down now so don't bother you with updates but the updates need to be installed at some point so when is a good time for you?
Well, you could, y'know, try using the update method described as the one that Linux uses--I will admit it does need to be rebooted, but I suppose that's so everything can be gotten using the new version of the file as I saw no detectable changes in shutdown/bootup in the process.
If you have your update process be buggy & annoying, and are prone to pushing out patches that should have M$ ordering paper bags by the boatload for pretending they'd even finished alpha testing? You should not be surprised if users reasonably decide that updating is not a Good Idea.
This is the sort of thing that shows why you sometimes should think about the precedent more than the current case. Here, it may be that if Apple agrees, it avoids risking a bad precedent being set, and it could probably get an agreement that the tool remains in their hands. (And, done right, they would then have a strong defense if the FBI tried to insist that no, Apple gives them the tool.)
This would all be safer if they were arguing that the FBI is asking for the impossible or the practically impossible, since there is a lot of motivation out there to keep the law from being capable of compelling anybody to do that. A law can be horrible for merely the reason that it sets bad precedents. (Equally good would be if Apple was complaining about warrant issues but presumably the case would have gotten tossed out on its ear if those existed; IANAL but as I recall they're actually obligated to insist on the formalities there...which is why them keeping the tool might be safe.)
If you don't know the formulas, interpretation is a lot harder and you can miss some of the games being played. Modern technology does mean you don't need to hand-work the math, but I can assure you that using a computer or calculator to do it requires you understand the math. (If nothing else, that and basic coding skills make it possible for you to knock together a program to do it if you need to do so.)
Funny, a lot of statistics made vastly more sense once I covered the math involved, and algebra has a lot if things to it that can be used on a daily basis...if we still taught them regularly. I could see an argument for shifting the classes towards showing current applications for what you're teaching at all points, such as how to use algebra so you only need to memorize one version of a formula--but yeah, stats are worse than algebra & calculus and I say this as somebody who got top grades in their stats class and loves them...but isn't so into calculus.
Though, given this person is out of polisci, I suspect that stats isn't their strong point, if they were even required to take it; it's a field where often enough you hire or borrow a statistician, and my aunt quit being a statistician precisely because she was being pressured to...massage the results of her work to support ideology. Odds are horribly good he doesn't know what is involved in doing or understanding stats beyond the most basic parts, and if he did cover ever that it was as an undergrad & is now very rusty knowledge.
The problem most people have with algebra and calculus is bad teachers--I know I'm good at math, yet I flunked calc the first time because I was expected in that class to memorize everything instantly and do formal proofs...every time, from the first weekly quiz on. (I wish I exaggerating.) I passed the second time, under a teacher who let us use notecards so we could gradually & naturally memorize things through use, and didn't demand formal proofs except for once, mostly so we could show if we knew how.
I don't think common core is actually going to improve how math is taught--there are a few handy shortcuts that improve understanding that it outright skips. It kind of feels like they took a bit too much to heart the latter part of the saying "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."
Perhaps you missed that what was being suggested is that there may be gender-based differences in attitudes and coding styles--and this might be a testable hypothesis for why having female coders in the group might be desirable for concrete reasons. You know, as opposed to just meeting the project's tit quota?
I would suspect that people might well pick up that "An Mouse" has a tendency to work on the long-term efforts despite their low priority. This would not, however, mean that they know that An Mouse happens to be a woman. They only know that An is good and reliable at doing these things, and trust An based upon An's track record and earned good reputation.
Of course, a confounding factor might be that there may be notable and significant differences in coding approaches & skills between "women who choose to present themselves in a gender-neutral way" and "those who feel that it is very important you know they are women" as well as their ability to work smoothly as part of a group. If the latter group has an overall poor track record on even one of these, it might well encourage a tendency to be wary of somebody showing the social indicators. (In other words, it could be that some people, by being obnoxious assholes, ruined it for the larger group...yet again.)
A bond consists in its simplest cases of electron pairs (or simply an ionic bond): they neither have heat, nor pressure nor any conceivable volume, hence: they are not covered by "the laws of thermodynamics".
Even ionic bonds require or produce some energy to form or break and you can even look up exactly what the enthalpy of doing so is in standard references such as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, but it's beyond obvious that you didn't even bother reading your original post, nor any attention whatsoever to any effort ever to actually cover the physics involved here that has ever happened around you.
I can't even begin to figure out where to start on the whole idea that physics has nothing to do with chemistry that is inherit though unstated in your argument--what the fucking hell do you think physical chemistry is? Chemistry is as much applied physics as engineering, merely at a slightly different level.
The bottom line is every single thing in chemistry requires physics, and thermodynamics--primarily entropy--pretty much dictates if any reaction is likely to happen and under what conditions. You can even calculate enthalpy as a function of entropy...and, since you need the extra help, you do so using a calculation derived using the first and second laws of thermodynamics. (It's so basic Wikipedia doesn't demand a citation when doing just that when giving the formal definition. You can also find the equation elsewhere, such as here.)
I'm not going to bother reading another reply from you, because I doubt you'll bother actually checking your claims, no less actually reading my posts, reading your own previous post(s), or coming up with a coherent explanation of how a goddamn function of thermodynamics is not, in fact, thermodynamics. Thermodynamics hasn't been about only "heat, pressure, volume of gases and the usefulness of either of them in heat engines" (as you put it) for well over a century--and even then it was about energy because heat is thermal energy and engines are machines that convert other types of energy into mechanical energy. Chemical thermodynamics has been around since the 19th century, and it's is what you use to explain the physics of how energy of any sort--including thermal--can be gotten from or needed for a chemical reaction, as well as for explaining the physics involved of how energy can stored in a chemical form.
To put it bluntly? If thermodynamics wasn't involved here, the whole question of how much energy is required to turn CO2 into anything else would be like asking how much beef is in a cup of black coffee. Also, all fuels of any kind would simply not function as such--the very concept of fuel would be meaningless, and not merely because that alone would render life itself impossible. I think we'd kinda notice that one.
Short chain carbons have less bonds to break for power, long chain have more. Converting a short chain to a long chain is a PITA as it's not favorable because of something called 'thermodynamics,' almost always requires energy input That is wrong, like 99% of all posts on /. containing the term thermodynamics.
For starters: the laws of thermodynamics have absolutely nothing to do with "breaking" chemical bonds and/or "creating" them.
What you think enthalpy is? What do you think it means when somebody says that the enthalpy of formation or of reaction is a given number of joules? What do you think is going on when a chemical reaction produces heat or when one needs heat in order to take place?
Given that enthalpy is defined as "a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total heat content of a system," and you can easily find tables of bond enthalpies for covalent bonds like you get in hydrocarbons, I'm sure there's a lot of recognition to be gotten if you can explain how something that is by definition a thermodynamic quantity could have nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics.
If you get stuff like this already wrong, I wonder what that pun "is being left as an exercise for the reader" regarding your explanations to enzyme is supposed to mean.
That wasn't a pun. If you can find something that forms polymers without having to have energy added to the system in any way, shape, or form--that does it entirely under standard conditions--and give me a citation from a peer-reviewed journal to verify it, I'll be impressed. I am not, however, going to do the search for you. It's not anywhere near the area of chemistry I chose to specialize in.
The short answer is that energy is gotten by breaking bonds and required to form bonds, if we're talking stable structures in organic chemistry. Going from there... Short chain carbons have less bonds to break for power, long chain have more. Converting a short chain to a long chain is a PITA as it's not favorable because of something called 'thermodynamics,' almost always requires energy input,* and even then may just ignite instead unless you're using enzymes.
And sometimes you will never know why your reaction decided to fail. Maybe that cute undergrad who is supposed to scrub the glassware screwed up? Maybe the air system came on and changed the pressure just enough at just the wrong time? Maybe the reaction just hates you, even to the point of apparently violating the laws of physics? I've heard of or personally experienced all of these...
* If you managed to have the chains end just right and are connecting them to each other, you can get polymers at room temperature without using an enzyme. In theory. How is being left as an exercise for the reader.
Perhaps because it would mean going outside? Algae does pretty well, too, and the problem really is more than anything else a failure to keep the carbon cycle's capacity up.
Pele is, in multiple senses, a hot woman by all reports. While I don't have my usual Native Hawaiian source to check with, what I've been told suggests they're rather more offended by renaming land, though I can't tell you where we're starting on the offense scale.
If you think of land as people, it makes sense, but brings up the question of how do we know the sacred mountain isn't an astronomy fan? Especially given that the observatories already there are fine, it may just be that everybody needs to be polite and let the mountain's personification have a turn with the telescope, with any luck we won't end up having to work out how to list geography as an author...
In other words, DIY law enforcement on a large scale? After all, if there's no 'us' then it's really nothing more or less than that, and staying neutral in a war zone & not getting flattened requires having some way of ensuring neither side feels it's worth taking your stuff...ignoring the fact that there's always been people who would do it purely because you're there and they can.
About the only place I've heard of that has been successful in having an anarchy and not gone pretty Mad Max is Somalia. That is probably because Xeer, their form of law, is entirely divorced from government and your bonds to your clan are pretty strong in part because without them providing you with insurance you're an outlaw in the old sense of being outside of its protections as well... (It also rather sucks if you're not an adult male member of a clan, but it does look like the Elders are agreeing that this is a Problem so something may eventually get done in the next few centuries.)
If you're not into having a significant death toll, try starting local and working gradually up--should it become patently clear that a job needs doing regardless, the odds are better that both less damage will be done and that something can be done about it sooner. You'd also have to win over significantly less people if you want to suggest trying something other than a popularity contest should be used, in those cases.
The difference is what can be done about it.
If the market decides that it's not important for people to have this, then the only way to change that is for the people who need it to somehow become rich. If the regulators decide people shouldn't have this, then the voters can change that. And if you factor in the increased independence and productivity of the recipients, it might not cost that much.
Of course the way we do it now is we force employers to make accommodations. That's better than nothing, but statistically the public is still paying; the burden is just randomly concentrated on a few unlucky employers.
Unless you're suggesting voting anarchist and/or libertarian, then voting can't do anything about the regulators. That's kind of the complaint about them, really: they are overall too well insulated from any people they harm for there to be the desirable feedback loop there. I've known quite a few people who left countries with single-payer systems because either they are their loved ones were considered by those running the heath care system to 'not really need' such things as a hip replacements or leukemia treatments.
There's a greater chance of success with 'somehow become rich' than trying to change the regulators by voting.
It's more likely to work if the market was free enough that voting with your feet--refusing to buy policies which don't cover things you consider important--was actually an option, but the US got to where it is because employers buy it for you and they as a third party don't generally have the same motivation as you do to care about your long-term health and welfare.
And that's not going to actually change even if there's a switch to single-payer--and it might become hard to get your hands on 'something better' if the regulators decide that nobody needs it, if they've also any say in the approval process and/or your ability to import it from elsewhere.
Also often the first words of somebody who is innocent, surprisingly enough.
Okay, let's start from the top, with just some basic chemistry. Sodium chloride is an ionic compound. (Fun fact: 'Salt' is basically a depreciated term for ionic compounds.) All ionic compounds become their constituent ions in an aqueous solution--in other words, sodium chloride in water becomes a lot of sodium and chloride ions in water.
Chloride--that's the chlorine ion--is utterly essential to life, and you will die a horrible and painful death without any in your system. Without it, your nervous system will fail in new and exciting ways (ask somebody with cystic fibrosis, which is caused by a nonfunctional chloride ion channel), though honestly you'd have to survive having lots of cells just suddenly implode and/or explode and your body's acid/base balance go out of wack first. None of these are considered pleasant ways to die.
Perhaps you're thinking about chlorine gas or elemental chlorine on the 'potent poison'? Except I was routinely working in a very safety-conscious lab without hoods where there was a risk of mild exposure to the stuff, and you get a whiff of it with chlorine bleach...
(Citations will be provided on request, though "decent basic college-level chemistry textbook, ditto for physiology" should hit at least most of this. The cystic fibrosis may require a neurobiology textbook, but I'm afraid you're on your own for that. I got a lousy one.)
Don't forget to take into consideration the situation that made the body count happen--Stalin had pretty much purged all the competent military officers about two purges back (I think it was that, purge of people who ran that purge, then WWII) which meant that when WWII started the Red Army's strategy was pretty much a loop of "throw bodies at the problem, see if problem is solved yet."
That and "Let the weather do it."
Really, having the highest body count in a war, even if just for your side, is probably more a sign that you've screwed up somewhere than anything else.
Plus the US wandering in at the tail end was WWI, where part of what happened is the US had more or less wanted to just be a neutral or mostly-neutral party, and there's evidence that both sides made an effort to drag the US in anyway.
Honestly, you could make a pretty good argument that European colonialism didn't as much die as it evolved into a less manpower-intensive and more concealed form. While I have to agree with the people who don't trust ICANN remaining in US hands, the bottom line is that I'm not sure I'd trust the people it's slated to be handed over to either; I'd prefer transparency and firm independence with 'oversight' being only there to ensure that all policies & procedures are publicly announced and followed.
Actually, why not have those locked by default, period? You might even set it up so advanced users could have the option of configuring the lock so they could instead get a process like 'confirm root password and that you want to' instead of having to visit the distro's website, but it might be sanest to just flat out have certain commands always locked.
I may not be getting this, I admit, so this is not meant as challenging or critical, but what linux user would/might/could "accidentally" log in to a console as root, then issue an "rm -rf" command? I can see how a malware script might, given a prior enabling compromise of root, but "accidentally" doesn't compute. In my understanding, gaining root, or Windows admin, privilege pretty much allows malicious actions anywhere, so I don't get at this point why this is earth shattering.
I'd expect it to require at least one PEBKAC problem, which could be as innocent as a user who is not getting sufficient sleep. Would it actually be difficult to implement something that will give a clear visual flag when in somebody is logged in as root, even in command line, so it takes a lot more effort to be unaware of if you're currently root or not? Something as simple as just inverting the display colors would be hard to miss, robust, and potentially simple to implement. (It might also happen to encourage only logging in as root when absolutely necessary as a side effect, which may not be a Bad Thing.)
I dunno, I am very much of the feeling that anything that can brick the system should be hidden behind a hardware switch in order to update. If a motherboard advertised having a jumper that needed to be set in order to update boot info, I would consider that a desirable feature in general.
That'd certainly be a good way to implement an actually secure boot, though I would cheerfully enough settle for any method that requires 'person with physical access' verification. I'm not sure I quite want to have to crack open a case when I just want to boot a live disk, especially if I'm doing something as basic as trying to check to see if a laptop that's still covered by warranty is suffering a hardware or a software problem or other diagnostics, and there's also the risk of people forgetting to reset the jumper afterwards. Something simple as paperclip-in-hole switch (a la emergency resets and releases) probably would do the trick, since if nothing else it would be easy to both check for and fix it if somebody forgets to remove the paperclip to take it out of that mode.
This looks like an EFI design bug. Why should EFI allow the OS or any other software brick the system by deleting its variables? Like OO, EFI should allow access to these variables through methods and not directly.
That you reached +5 makes me weep for Slashdot.
It's completely normal for a *nix based system to expose something like UEFI variables through the filesystem. It's a concept called Everything is a File and is the same reason why root can read and poke places in /proc and /dev to get information about the system or make changes to it. I can sympathize with the systemd developers on this one (I know, get a rope) because making a unilateral decision to force UEFI read-only over this one issue will have a long-standing and huge impact of system administration (and this goes double controlling large networks of systems).
The fact that root running rm -rf / causes problems shouldn't surprise anyone. Even with newer flags like --no-preserve-root, running as root means exerting ultimate control. Some care is expected or eventually you'll get burned.
Besides, the real question here I think is: Why don't these motherboards have a ROM backup that can be used to restore and boot the boards after catastrophic failure of their saved state? Even without the rm -rf / red herring, that seems like a brain-dead requirement, and one that legacy boards have supported for decades.
They don't have a ROM backup because UEFI was supposed to be taking its place, meaning that in fact the original question is important and the bottom line may be that UEFI is in and of itself broken--given its entire point is to prevent boot hijacking, having even a mildly unimportant part of it that could be affected by rm -rf / strikes me as a nice blinking neon sign of where to start work for a proof-of-concept boot hijacker that will not be bothered by UEFI, and perhaps you could even manage to suborn UEFI to make it actually more difficult to reverse?
Honestly, I'd rather go for a system where I can boot to a certain level and get an error message if a hijacking attempt got made, and could live with having to have physical access to the computer was required if I wanted to install an OS. I'd mind it requiring a special dongle, but I feel that it's probably easier to deal with having to protect computers from roving bands of people maliciously flashing motherboards than a bad attempt to prevent remote attempts...
But these ideologies have not infiltrated science classes like biology, where they actively cast doubt on things like evolution. That's what this is about. That hijacked feminist theories are not getting enough sh*t, doesn't change that Creationism kind of deserves all the sh*t it gets.
Actually, they have, and it's more than a bit of a problem because it's also causing problems if you actually want to do research that will help women that also happens to contradict Feminist dogma. Probably that's also why they don't want to talk about how women in social psychology actually gave us a good case study on why the female perspective is important--because what the female perspective brought was "Wait, what, no women are aggressive" to the study of aggression, which led to researchers admitting that maybe you don't actually have to get physical to be aggressive. Whoops.
If the lack of somebody doing a particular job does not cause any harm, then the job is really a no-show job and should be eliminated--what kind of anarchist wants to keep a government job around that is clearly unnecessary?
That is my entire point. Let's try out not having a President for four years and see if everybody likes not getting into wars as much as I do. Maybe we'll just keep it that way.
A quick check confirms that if you want than what you want to do is get rid of Congress and probably the rest of the world, too, just to ensure they don't decide to declare war on us. That has happened, and failing to declare war back doesn't make it not a war, though it probably will ensure that whatever soldiers survive being ill-prepared will be rather emphatic about ensuring no repeats.
I don't like government any more than you, probably, but it's generally considered a Good Idea to be prepared for the entire structure collapsing before you go knocking out key load-bearing elements and keystones from arches.
If the lack of somebody doing a particular job does not cause any harm, then the job is really a no-show job and should be eliminated--what kind of anarchist wants to keep a government job around that is clearly unnecessary? And sometimes "None of the above" will win because nobody's gotten around to making a requirement for the office be that you're actually qualified to hold it, never mind the absurdity involved in running an election for what is fundamentally a job for an engineer or a scientist. For example, why are we electing somebody to be in charge of the water department and why can't we at least insist that anybody running for the office be a civil engineer with possibly some additional qualifications? (I know the historical 'why,' what I'm curious about is why we're still doing it when it's no longer something you can pick up anywhere near as easily and being trained matters.)
Or you could just hark back to Norse law, which was a predecessor of English law anyway, and its requirement that the lawmaking body's annual assembly start with every single law being read aloud, with any omissions resulting in the omitted part being not law for that year. Toss in a requirement that there be a quorum for the entire thing and to participate you need to be physically present for a significant percentage of it. (You could even ban all electronics aside from the camera and sound system from the floor during the reading & require not only being present but also being awake.)
Want to bet that legal codes are going to very, very quickly get much shorter?