To be fair, that has some extra fluff as well - it's well over 1024 bytes if you count the HTML template. Although, since it doesn't need a <title> or the canvas element, you can reduce it somewhat further. If you take out the sound, you can reduce it even further.
936 bytes of raw javascript. Paste it into the address bar:
Nothing else on the web can even tell that Facebook's servers exist, unless I write it an exception. Grooveshark even pops up a little message to warn me of this.
An anisotropic radiator? THE FUCK does directionality have to do with anything?
An "electrostatic charge" is just an electric charge that isn't moving, by the way. Move an electric charge with an AC current and you get... wait for it... EM radiation.
An antenna radiates EM energy by moving charges around. The radiated energy from an antenna, in turn, induces movement of electrons in other conductors. The Faraday cage is a conductor, so the radiated energy causes electrons to move in it. That movement of electrons also radiates energy, as if the Faraday cage were itself an antenna. Hence the Faraday cage might as well be pinned directly (electrically shorted) to the antenna of the transmitter inside it.
I think you're using big words about concepts you don't really understand.
A "hot wire?" What is a "hot wire?" Are you talking about AC mains voltage? The same concept would apply to vehicles, building doors, household appliances, etc. This has nothing to do with RF.
I never said it did, moron. Yes, one of the reasons it is a good idea to ground a Faraday cage is exactly the "same concept" as why it is good to ground household appliances, etc.
Umm, NO. The idea of a Faraday cage is that you create an RF short as the cage is larger than lambda/2.
You're confusing signals getting into a Faraday cage with signals getting out of one. If the cage's mesh is larger than lambda/2, the signal will penetrate it. If it's not, the signal will not.
The earth does NOT become an antenna. You merely increase the VSWR at the transmitter.
2) If anything inside the cage tries to transmit, nothing happens outside. The transmission is bottled up inside. The Faraday cage is a barrier between the outside and inside.
1) The cage is made from a conductive material. If a hot wire shorts against it, and you touch the cage, you could be electrocuted. Grounding it is therefore prudent.
2) If anything inside the cage is trying to transmit, it turns the entire planet into its antenna. Your transmission is going to be pretty weak if you're trying to drive a planet-sized antenna with a few milliwatts of power. (Actually, no weaker than normal, but only if you're far enough away from the antenna that it looks like a point-source.)
Note the significant absence of "prevents radio signals from getting into the Faraday cage". It doesn't. Grounding has nothing to do with preventing radio signals from getting into the Faraday cage. The cage's mesh diameter is the only factor that affects which radio signals can get into the cage.
They wouldn't use a bottle. They'd just need a way for the container to adapt to the amount of liquid in it at any given point in time.
Suppose they have a vertical-walled beaker of vodka with a sheet of graphene exactly the same size as the inside of the beaker. Ethanol evaporation is directly proportional to the un-protected surface area (negligible); water evaporation is directly proportional to the entire surface area, since water would evaporate perfectly well through the membrane.
As the water evaporates, the level of the liquid drops, and the floating graphene membrane drops along with it.
Of course, the slightest air current would probably pile up the graphene membrane on one side of the beaker, so you'd probably have to come up with something a little more elaborate than that, but you get the point.
No - water is in a lower energy state after it has risen in a narrow space due to capillary action. You'd have to add energy to get it back out of the narrow space.
It's what happens when you use the old (D1) posting form and type or paste characters that Slashdot doesn't like. Either he copied-and-pasted that from somewhere, or he composed it in Word and pasted it into the posting form, or he used the Alt-codes not realizing that Slashdot would scramble them.
The new (D2) posting form automatically replaces a subset of special characters with their HTML character entities, such as the decorative quotes (“ and ”). Of course, using the HTML character entities will work no matter which discussion style you're using, as long as that character is allowed.
You could write it on a post-it so you won't forget.
it's not your personal data that is at risk, but just the company's, and if the company doesn't care more, why should you?
It's not your personal data that is at risk; it's the ability to use your username and password to do things that would make the company start caring very quickly. Like sending its data to places it shouldn't be. Or, for that matter, to access data that shouldn't be accessed from the company's internet connection (e.g. porn).
you had a choice of Macbook Pro (OS X), a Sony Vaio (Windows) and sometihng else (for Linux)... And despite the/. crowd chanting "FUNCTION FIRST, not form", most people seem to consistently go for the Macs.
And despite what most people seem to consistently do, last time I blew a tidy sum on a laptop, I bought a Sony Vaio.
As you said... nice machine, after the crapware was cleaned up a bit.
Well, I'll give you that it was a funny comment but it sent me on an interesting stumble through Google/Wikipedia, so I should be the one thanking you.
Actually, that repetition wasn't accidental. Yemen South (South Yemen) has not been an independently recognized country in the international community since the unification of Yemen in 1990, so perhaps the list was wrong. Although South Yemen did attempt to secede (unsuccessfully) in 1994 and the South Yemen Movement has existed since 2007 and still demands secession of South Yemen.
Zaire is just Zaire; there is no South Zaire. But the list was badly formed in that there's no way to tell divisions between the names of the countries, other than just recognizing the names.
Yes, it was half-assed on their part. However, see my previous comment for why that half-assed attempt was actually a deliberate oversight.
I'll add to it the fact that Wikipedia's owners know that technical users, the ones likely to be surfing with NoScript, are more than likely already going to know about the legislation. They just want to get the message out, and they would be preaching to the crowd by blocking these users.
One of the things that I think the Tea Party has done, to some effectiveness, is shake up the established Republican party, which has gradually drifted away from many of its supporters, sometimes without them realizing it. The result of this drift is, as you said, forcing members to vote in line with the group (for fear of the "wrong" group getting into power), when they don't really agree with many of the candidates selected to represent that group.
This drift is somewhat natural and almost unavoidable. The Democratic party has also been drifting - it is not the Democrat party of Andrew Jackson any more - but no real threat from within has raised its head so far, not to the effect that the Tea Party has shaken the Republican party anyway. Perhaps one of the more socially-liberal parties such as the Green or Libertarian party will grow into those shoes.
And I'm not attempting to say that the drift is itself a bad thing, either. A party, or person, should always be willing to learn, and opinions will almost inevitably change over time as a natural result of the learning process. What is bad is when the party has become powerful enough to drift significantly distant from its base. A weak party can't drift very far away from its base, so its positions will better reflect the represented.
Perhaps, rather than saying it hides something, I could simply say that it diverts something. Any time you see passive tense used (by whom?)... there you go. That was passive tense, and it diverted the "whom" into a side discussion and kept it out of the main thought. Sometimes the "whom" is important, and should be kept in the main body of the sentence so the reader or listener doesn't have to go looking for it.
I was making a statement of fact (or what I believe the facts to be).
I was also essentially implying (correctly) that your misunderstanding is part of a much larger shared misunderstanding which many people have.
And that is why I pretended to be misled. I do know what evolution is, and I knew what the headline meant, but it was sensationalized more than I liked, so my reaction to the headline was essentially "big deal" when in fact I'm sure their research was interesting. Note that plenty of other people have essentially responded with similar dismissive comments. That's primarily because the headline itself seemed more sensational than the actual explanation of it.
The passive tense is quite good at that.
At misleading people? Sure, just another reason to avoid it when it's unnecessary.
I meant the thumping, not the lurking. I suppose you might have meant that too
I did in fact mean that.
it would make the original statement rather hard to swallow
It was a half-joking way of answering your question both by defining my positions and also assuring you that you probably won't change my mind, although I'll be happy to discuss differences civilly. And, per my original comment, you seem like the sort of person who's able do that too. Does that make it any easier to swallow?
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, that has some extra fluff as well - it's well over 1024 bytes if you count the HTML template. Although, since it doesn't need a <title> or the canvas element, you can reduce it somewhat further. If you take out the sound, you can reduce it even further.
936 bytes of raw javascript. Paste it into the address bar:
javascript:'.<script>M=Math;C=12;f=[];A=\'charCodeAt\';S=\'slice\';for(P=0;P<96;){k="/SN;__/NK;OL/QN;__/OL;NK4L@@_C4_G@OL4SO@__4QN@OL3NB%3F_G3_K%3FOL/QN;__/SK;__4OL@__4LC@_G4LC@_G4_C@_G"[A](P++);for(j=0;k<95&&j<1e4;){v=M.max(-1e4,M.min(1e4,1e6*M.sin(j*M.pow(2,k/C)/695)))/M.exp(j++/5e3)}}for(e=i=252;i--;)f[i]=i%25C&&i<240%3F(i+1)%25C%3Fr=0:\'%E2%96%88<br>\':\'%E2%96%88\';t=p=4;function d(c){for(q=p+[13,14,26,25][r%254],i=1;i<99;q+=((i*=2)==8%3F[9,-37,-9,37]:[1,C,-1,-C])[r%254])if(\'36cqrtx\'[A](t)&i)if(-c){if(f[q])return 1}else f[q]=c}function m(e){Q=[-1,0,1,C][e%3Fe.keyCode-37:3]||0;d(0);p+=Q;r+=!Q;s=d(1);if(s)p-=Q,r-=!Q;d(\'%E2%96%92\');document.body.innerHTML=f.join(\'\').replace(/0/g,\'%E2%96%91\');return s}onkeydown=m;o=function(){P=P%2596+3;if(m()){t=~~(7*M.random()),p=r=4;e=d(1)%3F1e9:e;for(y=0;y<240;)if(f[S](y,y+=C).join().indexOf(\'0\')<0)f=f[S](0,C).concat(f[S](0,y-C),f[S](y))}setTimeout(o,e*=0.997)};o()</script>'
I use Adblock Plus.
||facebook.com^$third-party,domain=~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||facebook.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.com^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com
Nothing else on the web can even tell that Facebook's servers exist, unless I write it an exception. Grooveshark even pops up a little message to warn me of this.
RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires.
If it's too hard to prove that someone is guilty, then maybe - just maybe - they aren't.
They insist on chasing down the wrong people - innocent websites - and they complain that it's hard to prove guilt?
On the other hand, it would be trivial to prove that a user infringed willfully... but there's very little money to be made in that.
An anisotropic radiator? THE FUCK does directionality have to do with anything?
An "electrostatic charge" is just an electric charge that isn't moving, by the way. Move an electric charge with an AC current and you get... wait for it... EM radiation.
An antenna radiates EM energy by moving charges around. The radiated energy from an antenna, in turn, induces movement of electrons in other conductors. The Faraday cage is a conductor, so the radiated energy causes electrons to move in it. That movement of electrons also radiates energy, as if the Faraday cage were itself an antenna. Hence the Faraday cage might as well be pinned directly (electrically shorted) to the antenna of the transmitter inside it.
I think you're using big words about concepts you don't really understand.
A "hot wire?" What is a "hot wire?" Are you talking about AC mains voltage? The same concept would apply to vehicles, building doors, household appliances, etc. This has nothing to do with RF.
I never said it did, moron. Yes, one of the reasons it is a good idea to ground a Faraday cage is exactly the "same concept" as why it is good to ground household appliances, etc.
Umm, NO. The idea of a Faraday cage is that you create an RF short as the cage is larger than lambda/2.
You're confusing signals getting into a Faraday cage with signals getting out of one. If the cage's mesh is larger than lambda/2, the signal will penetrate it. If it's not, the signal will not.
The earth does NOT become an antenna. You merely increase the VSWR at the transmitter.
If a charge is placed inside an ungrounded Faraday cage, the internal face of the cage will be charged (in the same manner described for an external charge) to prevent the existence of a field inside the body of the cage. However, this charging of the inner face would re-distribute the charges in the body of the cage. This charges the outer face of the cage with a charge equal in sign and magnitude to the one placed inside the cage. Since the internal charge and the inner face cancel each other out, the spread of charges on the outer face is not affected by the position of the internal charge inside the cage. So for all intents and purposes, the cage will generate the same electric field it would generate if it was simply charged by the charge placed inside.
I.e. the Faraday cage becomes the antenna. You're welcome.
2) If anything inside the cage tries to transmit, nothing happens outside. The transmission is bottled up inside. The Faraday cage is a barrier between the outside and inside.
No.
Grounding a Faraday cage accomplishes two things:
1) The cage is made from a conductive material. If a hot wire shorts against it, and you touch the cage, you could be electrocuted. Grounding it is therefore prudent.
2) If anything inside the cage is trying to transmit, it turns the entire planet into its antenna. Your transmission is going to be pretty weak if you're trying to drive a planet-sized antenna with a few milliwatts of power. (Actually, no weaker than normal, but only if you're far enough away from the antenna that it looks like a point-source.)
Note the significant absence of "prevents radio signals from getting into the Faraday cage". It doesn't. Grounding has nothing to do with preventing radio signals from getting into the Faraday cage. The cage's mesh diameter is the only factor that affects which radio signals can get into the cage.
They wouldn't use a bottle. They'd just need a way for the container to adapt to the amount of liquid in it at any given point in time.
Suppose they have a vertical-walled beaker of vodka with a sheet of graphene exactly the same size as the inside of the beaker. Ethanol evaporation is directly proportional to the un-protected surface area (negligible); water evaporation is directly proportional to the entire surface area, since water would evaporate perfectly well through the membrane.
As the water evaporates, the level of the liquid drops, and the floating graphene membrane drops along with it.
Of course, the slightest air current would probably pile up the graphene membrane on one side of the beaker, so you'd probably have to come up with something a little more elaborate than that, but you get the point.
No - water is in a lower energy state after it has risen in a narrow space due to capillary action. You'd have to add energy to get it back out of the narrow space.
It's what happens when you use the old (D1) posting form and type or paste characters that Slashdot doesn't like. Either he copied-and-pasted that from somewhere, or he composed it in Word and pasted it into the posting form, or he used the Alt-codes not realizing that Slashdot would scramble them.
The new (D2) posting form automatically replaces a subset of special characters with their HTML character entities, such as the decorative quotes (“ and ”). Of course, using the HTML character entities will work no matter which discussion style you're using, as long as that character is allowed.
Nice! Must remember this one :-)
You could write it on a post-it so you won't forget.
it's not your personal data that is at risk, but just the company's, and if the company doesn't care more, why should you?
It's not your personal data that is at risk; it's the ability to use your username and password to do things that would make the company start caring very quickly. Like sending its data to places it shouldn't be. Or, for that matter, to access data that shouldn't be accessed from the company's internet connection (e.g. porn).
Great if you just noticed that you accidentally typed your password into a non-obscured field while a coworker was looking over your shoulder...
That's when you call the IT help line and tell them you accidentally just shredded the post-it your new password was on.
Unless that's grounds for disciplinary action where you work... in which case, just say you forgot it.
Because that would make it too easy for people like Rush Limbaugh to get prescription drugs.
They're not illegal drugs. The headline was misleading.
They're prescription drugs, and selling them without a prescription is illegal.
you had a choice of Macbook Pro (OS X), a Sony Vaio (Windows) and sometihng else (for Linux) ... /. crowd chanting "FUNCTION FIRST, not form", most people seem to consistently go for the Macs.
And despite the
And despite what most people seem to consistently do, last time I blew a tidy sum on a laptop, I bought a Sony Vaio.
As you said... nice machine, after the crapware was cleaned up a bit.
Well, I'll give you that it was a funny comment but it sent me on an interesting stumble through Google/Wikipedia, so I should be the one thanking you.
Actually, that repetition wasn't accidental. Yemen South (South Yemen) has not been an independently recognized country in the international community since the unification of Yemen in 1990, so perhaps the list was wrong. Although South Yemen did attempt to secede (unsuccessfully) in 1994 and the South Yemen Movement has existed since 2007 and still demands secession of South Yemen.
Zaire is just Zaire; there is no South Zaire. But the list was badly formed in that there's no way to tell divisions between the names of the countries, other than just recognizing the names.
It looks like Google actually does a pretty fair job of translating it.
Yes, it was half-assed on their part. However, see my previous comment for why that half-assed attempt was actually a deliberate oversight.
I'll add to it the fact that Wikipedia's owners know that technical users, the ones likely to be surfing with NoScript, are more than likely already going to know about the legislation. They just want to get the message out, and they would be preaching to the crowd by blocking these users.
I agree wholeheartedly.
One of the things that I think the Tea Party has done, to some effectiveness, is shake up the established Republican party, which has gradually drifted away from many of its supporters, sometimes without them realizing it. The result of this drift is, as you said, forcing members to vote in line with the group (for fear of the "wrong" group getting into power), when they don't really agree with many of the candidates selected to represent that group.
This drift is somewhat natural and almost unavoidable. The Democratic party has also been drifting - it is not the Democrat party of Andrew Jackson any more - but no real threat from within has raised its head so far, not to the effect that the Tea Party has shaken the Republican party anyway. Perhaps one of the more socially-liberal parties such as the Green or Libertarian party will grow into those shoes.
And I'm not attempting to say that the drift is itself a bad thing, either. A party, or person, should always be willing to learn, and opinions will almost inevitably change over time as a natural result of the learning process. What is bad is when the party has become powerful enough to drift significantly distant from its base. A weak party can't drift very far away from its base, so its positions will better reflect the represented.
As a matter of fact, I didn't even notice that you'd mentioned ID when I posted.
As I said, I already knew your position on that and so I probably compressed it out of your comment when I read it.
(repost because I accidentally replied to the AC due to Slashdot's poor parenting skills.)
As a matter of fact, I didn't even notice that you'd mentioned ID when I posted.
As I said, I already knew your position on that and so I probably compressed it out of your comment when I read it.
That AC wasn't me. I've been posting anon, but that wasn't one of them.
Perhaps, rather than saying it hides something, I could simply say that it diverts something. Any time you see passive tense used (by whom?)... there you go. That was passive tense, and it diverted the "whom" into a side discussion and kept it out of the main thought. Sometimes the "whom" is important, and should be kept in the main body of the sentence so the reader or listener doesn't have to go looking for it.
I was making a statement of fact (or what I believe the facts to be).
Exactly. The two are so obviously connected that saying "I think" is almost always unnecessary. Unless you're being graded by word count, why do it?
I was also essentially implying (correctly) that your misunderstanding is part of a much larger shared misunderstanding which many people have.
And that is why I pretended to be misled. I do know what evolution is, and I knew what the headline meant, but it was sensationalized more than I liked, so my reaction to the headline was essentially "big deal" when in fact I'm sure their research was interesting. Note that plenty of other people have essentially responded with similar dismissive comments. That's primarily because the headline itself seemed more sensational than the actual explanation of it.
The passive tense is quite good at that.
At misleading people? Sure, just another reason to avoid it when it's unnecessary.
I meant the thumping, not the lurking. I suppose you might have meant that too
I did in fact mean that.
it would make the original statement rather hard to swallow
It was a half-joking way of answering your question both by defining my positions and also assuring you that you probably won't change my mind, although I'll be happy to discuss differences civilly. And, per my original comment, you seem like the sort of person who's able do that too. Does that make it any easier to swallow?