All computers in the same company, that's a very unreliable sample of what's out there, since a lot of the software is the same. What if everyone in a company uses corel wordperfect?
How many home computers have a firewall or antivirus from the list of problem software?
But is that true? I'm ignorant too, but I think it depends on the index n of 802.11n.
My uneducated guess is, WEP leaves the mac address exposed(actually, that much I know for sure), and 802.11i (WPA2)does not expose the MAC address. For 802.11g, (WPA), i would like to know. It's supposed to be much more secure than WEP, in any case.
I've read Haldeman's story and it's related, but it's about creating a huge ambitious setup.
David Brin's book 'Earth' describes a black hole that 's created at laboratory scale. It's small and innocent and it can't be contained. So it escapes immediately and starts gravitating to the middle of the earth and it grows by sweeping up whatever it passes by. Very slowly at first, but then faster and faster.
This gives a nice touch to the comment in the article that the black hole is harmless... on would almost forget that the guy in the article is perfectly right.
I guess the fuel usage should be counted per hour, decreasing as the plane gets lighter.
The plane had about 18200 lbs of fuel at the start, and possibly lost 2600, or 1/7. The flight took 67 hours instead of 80(very favorable wind). He should have some left. 18000*67/80= 15200. 400 gallons left? Give a nudge to the numbers because the plane might be lighter and might fly higher, and the margin is bigger. I Can't do it with toes and fingers. Also, The plane can reportedly glide for 200km on empty tanks.
A better calculation would take in account the weight of the plane
Why do they give such an exotic example of usage. Too expensive in other cases so a tradeoff with surface is made? Not usable on satellites?
I didn't see the yield with the new technology? I thought the record was somewhere around 35%.
I can see that less surface means better portability 'in the field'. So maybe the only market at this moment is when transportability outweighs all other factors.
However, these projects are not currently able to define the kilogram with as much precision as the current kilogram object can be measured.
Maybe what you thought you were writing is not what I think i am reading, but I dislike this phrase, so I'll try to unravel it(at the risk of making things worse).
A definition is exact, infinite precision. When you're using either Planck constant or Avogadro's number, once you're changing the status of one of them from a physical constant to a defined constant, their values are exactly what they are "because we say so".
The problems are here:
Definition and conversion problem: that's the scientist who asks "okay , I wrote in this article that object A has weight X. What's that in new units? I never used Avogadro's constant because it was so crude." Nobody knows how many atoms there are in the Paris standard specimen. What exact value shall we define the constant to be so we don't have to bother too much with older experiments.
Calibration problem: you have an absolute definition of a kilogram: count A atoms. But where previously you could say "Marie, go to Paris and calibrate our kilogram.", Manuel the atom counter here keeps coming up with different numbers each time and it's not his fault. Or so he says.
Or Morons. How do you produce them? How to detect them? Are they charged? What would be the spin of a Moron? Science is fun once you get the hang of it.
I have the same feeling that some things about the article stink, but this article is not what will be published in 'Science' journal.
There is quote from Brown that looks perceptive enough: "We started with the premise that perhaps the cingulate was not responding to the detection of an error or state of conflict, but maybe instead what the cingulate is detecting is the likelihood of making an error. We wanted to see if the cingulate would become more active even in situations where no conflict is presented and no errors are made, but the potential for error is still higher than normal."
In my words, this part of the brain does not just react when you experience a mismatch situation (like a spelling error), but can also react when your experience suggests a high chance for such a mismatch occurring. That sounds sensible to me.
The guy who wrote the article however drags in extrasensory input, subconscious perception, precognition, complex judgement that is hard to analyze, and other varieties of intuition. I'm not saying he believes in any of the weird stuff, but it doesn't belong there(well, maybe it would fit in if you want to distinguish categories). I wonder where he got it from. From the same Brown? There is a paradigm shift too. That must be from Dilbert.
It seems a basic feature about the existing memory techniques is that the things to remember are embedded in something richer(visually, spatially).
For example there is an old technique of visualizing a building with decorated rooms, where you place the data to remember. With mindmaps, added colors and illustrations make remembering easier. So 'Richer' does not mean "oh no, more things to remember!". It makes remembering easier. For anyone.
I suspect part of what Tammer does is natural ability, and part is natural ability allowing him to discover by himself what can also be taught to others.
Frances Yates' book The Art of Memory describes the history of methodologies of memory, from the Romans(when written records were still rare, trained memory was precious, and the training was fairly common good) till beginning of 18th century.
In modern day education, "learning by heart" has become unpopular. True, it's much less needed, but maybe it would be worthwile to separate technique from the content, and have schools only teach technique. I think in recent times, only content was taught.
A study of several cases at Federation of American Scientists. Death rates will depend a lot on the thresholds for closing an area and moving people out. Meaning that cancer rates climb but not enough to evacuate the area. I think the numbers in the FAS article assume people stick around. Say rich people move out, poor people move in. FAS death rate numbers assume more things. Like no advance in cancer treatment in the next 40 years. And little protective measures.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be looking for oil too, because beside hydrogen shortage, there'll be carbon shortage.
But seriously, if you're really going to find any water, the local air might be a nice place to store some of the waste oxygen.
Loss of consciousness in 10 to 15 seconds. Kills in say, 2 minutes. See here.
The formula is right. And you're not.
:)
But don't worry. Getting the sign wrong is a bit like mixing up left and right. It's not a sign of stupidity
Just my personal version of common sense, but I doubt there is oxygen shortage on the moon. And air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, right?
Mining any hypothetical water for its oxygen seems like a total waste. You're looking for water because you're looking for hydrogen.
All computers in the same company, that's a very unreliable sample of what's out there,
since a lot of the software is the same.
What if everyone in a company uses corel wordperfect?
How many home computers have a firewall or antivirus from the list of problem software?
Using non-microsoft antivirus or firewalls.
But is that true? I'm ignorant too, but I think it depends on the index n of 802.11n.
My uneducated guess is, WEP leaves the mac address exposed(actually, that much I know for sure), and 802.11i (WPA2)does not expose the MAC address. For 802.11g, (WPA), i would like to know. It's supposed to be much more secure than WEP, in any case.
you can now claim the pages got downloaded beyond your knowledge.
I've read Haldeman's story and it's related, but it's about creating a huge ambitious setup.
...
David Brin's book 'Earth' describes a black hole that 's created at laboratory scale. It's small and innocent and it can't be contained. So it escapes immediately and starts gravitating to the middle of the earth and it grows by sweeping up whatever it passes by. Very slowly at first, but then faster and faster.
This gives a nice touch to the comment in the article that the black hole is harmless
on would almost forget that the guy in the article is perfectly right.
For dark chocolate Cote d'Or is amongst the best. And I know my chocolate. Nestle is about the same, but more expensive and a less nice company.
Contrary to the Wensleydale from the link, Wallace eats cheese that has got holes in it.
Their 'Wallace and Gromit' cheese is white too, not yellow.
Oh I got it: movie language. Cheese becomes more cheesy if it has holes.
Oh, and fruitcakes and Wensleydale go together well. Smashing, innit?
and NASA made the trousers. You're on to something...
which one ?
kids watch the Pacifier...
real men watch W&G
I keep having to come up with new convincing alias identities so people won't think I do all the editing on my own.
I guess the fuel usage should be counted per hour, decreasing as the plane gets lighter.
The plane had about 18200 lbs of fuel at the start, and possibly lost 2600, or 1/7. The flight took 67 hours instead of 80(very favorable wind). He should have some left. 18000*67/80= 15200. 400 gallons left?
Give a nudge to the numbers because the plane might be lighter and might fly higher, and the margin is bigger. I Can't do it with toes and fingers.
Also, The plane can reportedly glide for 200km on empty tanks.
A better calculation would take in account the weight of the plane
Why do they give such an exotic example of usage. Too expensive in other cases so a tradeoff with surface is made? Not usable on satellites?
I didn't see the yield with the new technology?
I thought the record was somewhere around 35%.
I can see that less surface means better portability 'in the field'.
So maybe the only market at this moment is when transportability outweighs all other factors.
I've got this solar powered flashlight lying about somewhere. Never found good use for it, but maybe Batman is interested.
how about 1021 grams then. That's for a live kilogram . 1000 is for a dead kilogram.
However, these projects are not currently able to define the kilogram with as much precision as the current kilogram object can be measured.
Maybe what you thought you were writing is not what I think i am reading, but I dislike this phrase, so I'll try to unravel it(at the risk of making things worse).
A definition is exact, infinite precision.
When you're using either Planck constant or Avogadro's number, once you're changing the status of one of them from a physical constant to a defined constant, their values are exactly what they are "because we say so".
The problems are here:
Definition and conversion problem: that's the scientist who asks "okay , I wrote in this article that object A has weight X. What's that in new units? I never used Avogadro's constant because it was so crude." Nobody knows how many atoms there are in the Paris standard specimen. What exact value shall we define the constant to be so we don't have to bother too much with older experiments.
Calibration problem: you have an absolute definition of a kilogram: count A atoms. But where previously you could say "Marie, go to Paris and calibrate our kilogram.", Manuel the atom counter here keeps coming up with different numbers each time and it's not his fault. Or so he says.
The main problem is one of calibration.
Or Morons. How do you produce them? How to detect them? Are they charged? What would be the spin of a Moron? Science is fun once you get the hang of it.
I have the same feeling that some things about the article stink, but this article is not what will be published in 'Science' journal.
There is quote from Brown that looks perceptive enough:
"We started with the premise that perhaps the cingulate was not responding to the detection of an error or state of conflict,
but maybe instead what the cingulate is detecting is the likelihood of making an error.
We wanted to see if the cingulate would become more active even in situations
where no conflict is presented and no errors are made, but the potential for error is still higher than normal."
In my words, this part of the brain does not just react when you experience a mismatch situation (like a spelling error), but can also react when your experience suggests a high chance for such a mismatch occurring. That sounds sensible to me.
The guy who wrote the article however drags in extrasensory input, subconscious perception, precognition, complex judgement that is hard to analyze, and other varieties of intuition. I'm not saying he believes in any of the weird stuff, but it doesn't belong there(well, maybe it would fit in if you want to distinguish categories). I wonder where he got it from. From the same Brown? There is a paradigm shift too. That must be from Dilbert.
It seems a basic feature about the existing memory techniques is that the things to remember are embedded in something richer(visually, spatially).
For example there is an old technique of visualizing a building with decorated rooms, where you place the data to remember.
With mindmaps, added colors and illustrations make remembering easier.
So 'Richer' does not mean "oh no, more things to remember!". It makes remembering easier. For anyone.
I suspect part of what Tammer does is natural ability, and part is natural ability allowing him to discover by himself what can also be taught to others.
Frances Yates' book
The Art of Memory
describes the history of methodologies of memory, from the Romans(when written records were still rare, trained memory was precious, and the training was fairly common good) till beginning of 18th century.
In modern day education, "learning by heart" has become unpopular.
True, it's much less needed, but maybe it would be worthwile to separate technique from the content, and have schools only teach technique. I think in recent times, only content was taught.
I looked up some links after this.
There's a general article at
How Stuff Works.
A study of several cases at
Federation of American Scientists. Death rates will depend a lot on the thresholds for closing an area and moving people out. Meaning that cancer rates climb but not enough to evacuate the area. I think the numbers in the FAS article assume people stick around. Say rich people move out, poor people move in. FAS death rate numbers assume more things. Like no advance in cancer treatment in the next 40 years. And little protective measures.
And an article at
American Institute of Physics that says don't make such a fuss.
Is it a stunt for that Hitchikers guide to the Galaxy movie that will be coming out soon?