Why did the student have access to those records? The breach occurred when the student got the financial data. To be sure, it got worse when it spread beyond them, but I doubt there was a reason a student needed to have that data in non-anonymized form.
Oh, my thoughts on the matter extend to most such things.
Wire twist pliers are still used for safety wire in the aerospace world. They probably will be for some time to come.
I actually got the scope for free (the company I worked at wanted the shelf space more than the scope, since they had better scopes and no particular use for the old one). Of course, I've replaced a number of the original adjustment pots and electrolytics, since they were starting to show their age. That, cleaning some of the dust out, and running through the manual-specified calibration procedure put it all in working order.
On opening my oscilloscope, you will find a pair of warnings. The large one at the top says "DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE." The one underneath reads "It is desirable that only silver bearing solder be used on the ceramic terminals and for tinning the iron. Ordinary tin-lead solder may be used but repeated use will break the solder-to-ceramic bond. See your instruction manual." Above that is a small roll of silver-bearing solder.
I wish it was still the case that the owner of a tool was expected to know how to repair and maintain it. Of course, the scope in question is older than I am. For the curious, it's a Tektronix 561A. It uses vacuum tubes. You can find a picture of the insides here.
Then the question becomes, what should you listen to? Where should you get your music from, if you're to stop buying new music?
All you're doing is sending them a message that you personally no longer care about music, or movies -- and, very likely, they will assume you're a pirate. What you should be doing is sending them a message that also tells them how you want it to look. Show them demand, but on your terms.
There are plenty of non-RIAA artists out there. But how do you find them? Web radio is a good option. There may be local community radio stations in your area (and they'll likely be streaming on the web). Your local college radio probably has a wide variety of things on it. If you look for them, there are clubs that play mostly indie music. Finding the right sort of small music store will get you hours of staff recommendations. And, of course, there's the old standby of getting recommendations from people you know.
I've read it. Requiring active control for stability when a car is in transit is hardly something that makes it impossible. Nor is it even remotely related to "suspension." There are plenty of systems that fail catastrophically without active stabilization.
The fact that there are several problems to solve does not mean the whole thing should be thrown out. If you seriously think the right answer to a hard but interesting problem is to give up as soon as you realize it's hard, I think you're on the wrong web site.
Um what? Why is this moderated insightful? Arguing that it doesn't work because you have to hold it up shows as poor an understanding of physics as claiming it's turtles all the way down.
Of course, the cable needs to be made out of a material that we don't yet know how to make -- but that our understanding of materials science suggests is entirely possible.
(OTOH, I don't think the elevator will be a useful idea for a long, long time, but that's for different reasons.)
An unjustified fascination with reuse of materials and saving fuel is at least as harmful as the current unjustified fascination with performance above everything else. Right now, the cost of the actual materials used and fuel burned is a trivial part of the total price. Most of it is in manufacturing, design, testing, etc. The way to get low cost is to simplify things and improve reliability. Now, I'm a huge believer in reusability as a route to improved reliability and therefore reduced costs. But if you want to reduce costs, you need to stop worrying about fuel used an liftoff mass, and worry about dollars spent on engineering and maintenance. A fascination with payload fraction as an optimization metric is why current launchers are expensive and unreliable.
Aside: It's unreasonable to believe that the technical merits of a particular design are well reflected by whether NASA chose to use it or not. As you note above, a lot of those choices are based on politics and inertia, and not technical reasons. You can't in one breath say that the Shuttle is bad because NASA designed it by committee and then in the next that the Saturn V is bad because NASA decided by committee to stop using it. (I'm not in favor of rebuilding it, or reusing it; I'm merely in favor of building a rocket that is broadly similar in some aspects.)
"Most of the fuel carried is used just to lift the fuel carried. Huh?" This belies a fundamental unfamiliarity with the rocket equation and its practical implications for chemical rockets trying to reach orbit from the surface of the Earth. Study it carefully, and internalize exactly what that exponential growth of mass ratio implies before you start complaining that current designs use too much fuel.
To the extent that they can kick you out for not following them, certainly. But if they want to claim legal ownership over your work, they need a basis for it -- and sans contract, you using their stuff isn't sufficient (or would at least result in a *very* messy case).
Yes, it could be done. But some of the blueprints have weird features to them the purpose of which is not recorded (I don't remember any examples off hand). And some of the precise details would have to basically be reverse engineered from the samples we have. Yes, it could be done; no, you don't want to. Fundamentally, any engineering project has a lot of information stored only in the heads of the people working on it (or perhaps on the table napkins they wrote on while discussing it). Those engineers largely aren't around any more, and even very good documentation isn't enough to build the system without redoing a lot of the engineering.
While I agree with your conclusions, we can't just dust off the Saturn designs and reimplement them. For one, we don't have all the details. Some of them have been lost. For another, you'd have to redo a lot of things anyway -- do you really want to be using Apollo-era electronics? If you did, where would you get them? It would make sense to update the alloys used, at which point you have to recheck all the design parameters.
Of course, I'm all in favor of building an all-liquid rocket that focuses on reliability over performance by doing things like modest chamber pressures and gas generator cycles, and eschews the minimal gains and large headaches of hydrogen in favor of kerosene. Huh, where have heard that before? Building to similar specs as the Saturn V makes a lot of sense as well; it's an appropriate size for such a vehicle. But any idea that we can just dust off the old designs is as much a fantasy as the idea that the new Orion SRBs are just retouched Shuttle ones.
Start typing. See suggestion list appear. Press down arrow to select typo. Press delete. You'll never see the typo again.
Now, why that isn't explained anywhere in any documentation I can find, I don't know. But it's there, and it works, and it's handy.
You might also like to try out It's All Text! which lets you edit text boxes with your favorite editor. Local copes are then just a:w ~/foo/bar.txt away. Not automatic, but I use it when writing something long.
In the case of renters, we have legal protection because if you get evicted without notice you may find yourself temporarily homeless, and that is a *huge* problem. It has direct impacts on people that extend far beyond the simple financial costs of moving on short notice.
On the other hand, getting your web site shut down really only has economic impacts that are in line with the cost of moving your web site. So, if those costs are large, you should have a service level agreement with your hosting provider. The one exception is all those old links to your web site. Requiring hosting providers to provide redirects to your new site seems minimally intrusive for all concerned, and solves the problem. However, I think the size of the problem is small relative to the cost of adding yet more random crud to our legal code. If your web presence is even marginally important, buy your own domain name and then if you get evicted set it up to point to your new host.
And it goes without saying that you should have backups of your data. You should always have backups of your data.
The correct response to these things is to make a big stink about it online, so people know who to avoid (and possibly shame the companies into handling the evictions better). It is emphatically not more nanny state regulations to protect ourselves from doing things that were stupid in the first place.
Even if you're a conspiracy nutjob, how is inventing a cheaper solution (geoengineering) than existing plans (emissions abatement) going to get them more money?
(Not that I think there's a conspiracy, but...)
Competitive market forces work even for invented problems. If I can solve a fake problem cheaper than you can, I can get more of the funding dollars.
This just goes to show that conspiracy theories can be as fluid as needed to accommodate data that conflicts with the starting axiom that a conspiracy exists...
I haven't looked at this particular article, but most iron fertilization schemes talk about the Southern Ocean, large regions of which appear to be iron-deficient. I believe the idea is to create less extreme algal blooms, which act as food sources for things like krill that create carbonaceous exoskeletons that then fall to the ocean floor. So the idea is to get rid of dead zones rather than create them.
Whether this is a good idea or not, whether it's needed or not, and what unintended consequences it has, are a different question...
You do have to actually check for the bomb or other weapon at some point.
All a terrorist group would have to do would be get the suicide bomber to not know whether or not the backpack contained a bomb *this* time, while knowing that it eventually would. The details of the attack are left to the reader...
Not true. Hyperventilating gets (at best) a little extra O2 in your blood, but mainly just drives down the CO2 level. Since your breathing reflex is controlled by CO2, not O2, this makes it easier to hold your breath -- but disproportionally so compared to how much more air you really have available. Hyperventilating will make it much easier to pass out. Furthermore, your lung tissue is really just an exchange membrane -- it holds almost no oxygen. In a vacuum exposure situation, your lungs are exposed to vacuum. You *cannot* hold your breath because your lungs aren't strong enough. As blood passes through your vacuum-exposed lungs, essentially *all* the dissolved O2 and CO2 leaves (remember, your lungs are quite efficient as exchange membranes). The blood leaving your lungs is now completely devoid of O2, regardless of anything you did or didn't do before the decompression event. Once that blood hits your brain, you *will* lose consciousness. That takes about 15 seconds.
That bizarre situation could be as simple as crappy power. Switch mode power supplies that are made as cheap as possible don't particularly like weird inputs. They'll burn out some capacitor or piece of silicon in a tearing hurry.
I'm not trying to challenge what you're saying (too much) or start an argument, but I'd just like to see an original source for that. I've often heard that even in complete vacuum a healthy individual will maintain consciousness for 10 to 15 seconds and then have another couple minutes or so before they asphyxiate.
That's basically correct. In vacuum exposure, your blood does not boil, but since your lungs still work all the dissolved gases (like oxygen) in your blood leave through your lungs. 15 seconds is about how long it takes the extremely deoxygenated blood to reach your brain, at which point you suddenly black out. There are plenty of other things that go wrong in vacuum exposure, but that's the first one. Note that this is much faster than asphyxiating from breathing an inert atmosphere, which is faster than from being unable to breathe.
Holding your breath doesn't work; your lungs can't contain enough pressure to help. You'll just get a ruptured lung, which is a medical emergency even if you were in a hospital and not exposed to vacuum.
Note that you can't get white light at 683 lm/W. The lumen has an efficacy curve approximating the human eye response. 683 lm/W implies a perfectly efficient monochromatic 555nm (green) light. An ideal black body is limited to about 95 lm/W; however that's not the ideal output either (the UV and IR components aren't helpful). Actual efficiency for white light is probably limited to 100-200 lm/W, and will depend on how green you allow your white light to be.
According to that link, the GP's number of 500,000x is incorrect, since it's actually a per-axle number (which makes far more sense, imho). I'm actually mildly surprised it's not per contact area. Either way, WP says the number is 7800x rather than 500000x.
Why on Earth would that pose a problem? Change the password: user input -> sanitizing function -> salt -> hash function -> store it somewhere. Verify password: user input -> sanitizing function -> salt -> hash function -> compare to stored value. If you use different sanitizing functions, you deserve any ridicule you receive. If the user objects to the fact that the space is ignored, then it's reasonable to tell them to rtfm.
In econ class, there is no difference. (In real life, the difference only exists from the point of view of the buyer; the seller doesn't care why you are or aren't paying their price. The distinction doesn't have any relevance to the math that determines the price.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why did the student have access to those records? The breach occurred when the student got the financial data. To be sure, it got worse when it spread beyond them, but I doubt there was a reason a student needed to have that data in non-anonymized form.
Oh, my thoughts on the matter extend to most such things.
Wire twist pliers are still used for safety wire in the aerospace world. They probably will be for some time to come.
I actually got the scope for free (the company I worked at wanted the shelf space more than the scope, since they had better scopes and no particular use for the old one). Of course, I've replaced a number of the original adjustment pots and electrolytics, since they were starting to show their age. That, cleaning some of the dust out, and running through the manual-specified calibration procedure put it all in working order.
On opening my oscilloscope, you will find a pair of warnings. The large one at the top says "DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE." The one underneath reads "It is desirable that only silver bearing solder be used on the ceramic terminals and for tinning the iron. Ordinary tin-lead solder may be used but repeated use will break the solder-to-ceramic bond. See your instruction manual." Above that is a small roll of silver-bearing solder.
I wish it was still the case that the owner of a tool was expected to know how to repair and maintain it. Of course, the scope in question is older than I am. For the curious, it's a Tektronix 561A. It uses vacuum tubes. You can find a picture of the insides here.
I won't get involved in most of the above, but...
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
Then the question becomes, what should you listen to? Where should you get your music from, if you're to stop buying new music?
All you're doing is sending them a message that you personally no longer care about music, or movies -- and, very likely, they will assume you're a pirate. What you should be doing is sending them a message that also tells them how you want it to look. Show them demand, but on your terms.
There are plenty of non-RIAA artists out there. But how do you find them? Web radio is a good option. There may be local community radio stations in your area (and they'll likely be streaming on the web). Your local college radio probably has a wide variety of things on it. If you look for them, there are clubs that play mostly indie music. Finding the right sort of small music store will get you hours of staff recommendations. And, of course, there's the old standby of getting recommendations from people you know.
I've read it. Requiring active control for stability when a car is in transit is hardly something that makes it impossible. Nor is it even remotely related to "suspension." There are plenty of systems that fail catastrophically without active stabilization.
The fact that there are several problems to solve does not mean the whole thing should be thrown out. If you seriously think the right answer to a hard but interesting problem is to give up as soon as you realize it's hard, I think you're on the wrong web site.
Um what? Why is this moderated insightful? Arguing that it doesn't work because you have to hold it up shows as poor an understanding of physics as claiming it's turtles all the way down.
Of course, the cable needs to be made out of a material that we don't yet know how to make -- but that our understanding of materials science suggests is entirely possible.
(OTOH, I don't think the elevator will be a useful idea for a long, long time, but that's for different reasons.)
An unjustified fascination with reuse of materials and saving fuel is at least as harmful as the current unjustified fascination with performance above everything else. Right now, the cost of the actual materials used and fuel burned is a trivial part of the total price. Most of it is in manufacturing, design, testing, etc. The way to get low cost is to simplify things and improve reliability. Now, I'm a huge believer in reusability as a route to improved reliability and therefore reduced costs. But if you want to reduce costs, you need to stop worrying about fuel used an liftoff mass, and worry about dollars spent on engineering and maintenance. A fascination with payload fraction as an optimization metric is why current launchers are expensive and unreliable.
Aside: It's unreasonable to believe that the technical merits of a particular design are well reflected by whether NASA chose to use it or not. As you note above, a lot of those choices are based on politics and inertia, and not technical reasons. You can't in one breath say that the Shuttle is bad because NASA designed it by committee and then in the next that the Saturn V is bad because NASA decided by committee to stop using it. (I'm not in favor of rebuilding it, or reusing it; I'm merely in favor of building a rocket that is broadly similar in some aspects.)
"Most of the fuel carried is used just to lift the fuel carried. Huh?" This belies a fundamental unfamiliarity with the rocket equation and its practical implications for chemical rockets trying to reach orbit from the surface of the Earth. Study it carefully, and internalize exactly what that exponential growth of mass ratio implies before you start complaining that current designs use too much fuel.
To the extent that they can kick you out for not following them, certainly. But if they want to claim legal ownership over your work, they need a basis for it -- and sans contract, you using their stuff isn't sufficient (or would at least result in a *very* messy case).
Yes, it could be done. But some of the blueprints have weird features to them the purpose of which is not recorded (I don't remember any examples off hand). And some of the precise details would have to basically be reverse engineered from the samples we have. Yes, it could be done; no, you don't want to. Fundamentally, any engineering project has a lot of information stored only in the heads of the people working on it (or perhaps on the table napkins they wrote on while discussing it). Those engineers largely aren't around any more, and even very good documentation isn't enough to build the system without redoing a lot of the engineering.
While I agree with your conclusions, we can't just dust off the Saturn designs and reimplement them. For one, we don't have all the details. Some of them have been lost. For another, you'd have to redo a lot of things anyway -- do you really want to be using Apollo-era electronics? If you did, where would you get them? It would make sense to update the alloys used, at which point you have to recheck all the design parameters.
Of course, I'm all in favor of building an all-liquid rocket that focuses on reliability over performance by doing things like modest chamber pressures and gas generator cycles, and eschews the minimal gains and large headaches of hydrogen in favor of kerosene. Huh, where have heard that before? Building to similar specs as the Saturn V makes a lot of sense as well; it's an appropriate size for such a vehicle. But any idea that we can just dust off the old designs is as much a fantasy as the idea that the new Orion SRBs are just retouched Shuttle ones.
How exactly is a statement in the handbook binding if I don't sign it?
Start typing. See suggestion list appear. Press down arrow to select typo. Press delete. You'll never see the typo again.
Now, why that isn't explained anywhere in any documentation I can find, I don't know. But it's there, and it works, and it's handy.
You might also like to try out It's All Text! which lets you edit text boxes with your favorite editor. Local copes are then just a :w ~/foo/bar.txt away. Not automatic, but I use it when writing something long.
In the case of renters, we have legal protection because if you get evicted without notice you may find yourself temporarily homeless, and that is a *huge* problem. It has direct impacts on people that extend far beyond the simple financial costs of moving on short notice.
On the other hand, getting your web site shut down really only has economic impacts that are in line with the cost of moving your web site. So, if those costs are large, you should have a service level agreement with your hosting provider. The one exception is all those old links to your web site. Requiring hosting providers to provide redirects to your new site seems minimally intrusive for all concerned, and solves the problem. However, I think the size of the problem is small relative to the cost of adding yet more random crud to our legal code. If your web presence is even marginally important, buy your own domain name and then if you get evicted set it up to point to your new host.
And it goes without saying that you should have backups of your data. You should always have backups of your data.
The correct response to these things is to make a big stink about it online, so people know who to avoid (and possibly shame the companies into handling the evictions better). It is emphatically not more nanny state regulations to protect ourselves from doing things that were stupid in the first place.
Even if you're a conspiracy nutjob, how is inventing a cheaper solution (geoengineering) than existing plans (emissions abatement) going to get them more money?
(Not that I think there's a conspiracy, but...)
Competitive market forces work even for invented problems. If I can solve a fake problem cheaper than you can, I can get more of the funding dollars.
This just goes to show that conspiracy theories can be as fluid as needed to accommodate data that conflicts with the starting axiom that a conspiracy exists...
I haven't looked at this particular article, but most iron fertilization schemes talk about the Southern Ocean, large regions of which appear to be iron-deficient. I believe the idea is to create less extreme algal blooms, which act as food sources for things like krill that create carbonaceous exoskeletons that then fall to the ocean floor. So the idea is to get rid of dead zones rather than create them.
Whether this is a good idea or not, whether it's needed or not, and what unintended consequences it has, are a different question...
in fact I felt safest[...]after a random gate search turned up illegal drugs
What does that have to do with your safety?
You do have to actually check for the bomb or other weapon at some point.
All a terrorist group would have to do would be get the suicide bomber to not know whether or not the backpack contained a bomb *this* time, while knowing that it eventually would. The details of the attack are left to the reader...
Not true. Hyperventilating gets (at best) a little extra O2 in your blood, but mainly just drives down the CO2 level. Since your breathing reflex is controlled by CO2, not O2, this makes it easier to hold your breath -- but disproportionally so compared to how much more air you really have available. Hyperventilating will make it much easier to pass out. Furthermore, your lung tissue is really just an exchange membrane -- it holds almost no oxygen. In a vacuum exposure situation, your lungs are exposed to vacuum. You *cannot* hold your breath because your lungs aren't strong enough. As blood passes through your vacuum-exposed lungs, essentially *all* the dissolved O2 and CO2 leaves (remember, your lungs are quite efficient as exchange membranes). The blood leaving your lungs is now completely devoid of O2, regardless of anything you did or didn't do before the decompression event. Once that blood hits your brain, you *will* lose consciousness. That takes about 15 seconds.
You mean FITALY?
That bizarre situation could be as simple as crappy power. Switch mode power supplies that are made as cheap as possible don't particularly like weird inputs. They'll burn out some capacitor or piece of silicon in a tearing hurry.
I'm not trying to challenge what you're saying (too much) or start an argument, but I'd just like to see an original source for that. I've often heard that even in complete vacuum a healthy individual will maintain consciousness for 10 to 15 seconds and then have another couple minutes or so before they asphyxiate.
That's basically correct. In vacuum exposure, your blood does not boil, but since your lungs still work all the dissolved gases (like oxygen) in your blood leave through your lungs. 15 seconds is about how long it takes the extremely deoxygenated blood to reach your brain, at which point you suddenly black out. There are plenty of other things that go wrong in vacuum exposure, but that's the first one. Note that this is much faster than asphyxiating from breathing an inert atmosphere, which is faster than from being unable to breathe.
Holding your breath doesn't work; your lungs can't contain enough pressure to help. You'll just get a ruptured lung, which is a medical emergency even if you were in a hospital and not exposed to vacuum.
Note that you can't get white light at 683 lm/W. The lumen has an efficacy curve approximating the human eye response. 683 lm/W implies a perfectly efficient monochromatic 555nm (green) light. An ideal black body is limited to about 95 lm/W; however that's not the ideal output either (the UV and IR components aren't helpful). Actual efficiency for white light is probably limited to 100-200 lm/W, and will depend on how green you allow your white light to be.
According to that link, the GP's number of 500,000x is incorrect, since it's actually a per-axle number (which makes far more sense, imho). I'm actually mildly surprised it's not per contact area. Either way, WP says the number is 7800x rather than 500000x.
Why on Earth would that pose a problem? Change the password: user input -> sanitizing function -> salt -> hash function -> store it somewhere. Verify password: user input -> sanitizing function -> salt -> hash function -> compare to stored value. If you use different sanitizing functions, you deserve any ridicule you receive. If the user objects to the fact that the space is ignored, then it's reasonable to tell them to rtfm.
In econ class, there is no difference. (In real life, the difference only exists from the point of view of the buyer; the seller doesn't care why you are or aren't paying their price. The distinction doesn't have any relevance to the math that determines the price.)