How long is "not very long"? Xenon atoms from a boiling liquid at only move at about 5 m/s. That's not enough of a disturbance relative to the orbital velocity (measured in kilometers per second) to make them fall out of orbit. (The starting orbit is stable, or the space-junk would not need removing.)
The gas atoms would have to collide with something before they'd fall down. And space being near-vacuum, it could take some time before that happens. So there will be an expanding cloud of gas that stays in orbit for a very long time slowing down space-junk and functioning satellites alike.
If you could build a telescope that could make detailed underwater maps of strategic, potentially oil-rich, regions in the North Atlantic, it'd get funded too.
If I were a Canadian politician who received email by the thousands, I'd for sure have a python script that allowed me to send out a generic response to everybody who wrote me on a particular subject in a given time period. This can be done without compiling a list of those people as an intermediary step.
(I don't know if this is what he did, but it seems a plausible scenario.)
You do understand the difference between an official addressing a specific correspondence and compiling a list of people who are interested in X, right?
Actually, no. The distinction between "correspondence" and "a list" may have been clear once upon a time, when everything was on paper. But in a digital world, processing an entire email archive can be done in seconds, so there's little practical difference between "keeping your correspondence" and "keeping a list".
Or are you saying that Canadian officials are required to delete their incomming emails whenever they state personal interests/preferences/etc ?
Nobody compiled a list of sexual preferences. The mailing list in question contained people who had expressed concerns about gay refugees' rights. Those people then received an email concerning gay refugees' rights. Some of the people on that list may have been gay, refugees, or both, but the email did not imply that they were.
Also: You have signed petitions to the goverment stating your opinion, but you don't want the government to note your opinion? Then, why the hell did you sign the petition?
From TFA: "Whenever someone “signed” the petition, the site automatically sent a form letter by email to Kenney’s office with the signatory’s reply email address."
So Kenney only sent out email to addresses from which he had previously received email on the same theme. If change.org did not inform the people signing the petition that they were sending out email their behalf, then that's hardly Kenney's fault.
People sent email to the minister of immigration telling him they were interested in gay rights. The minister took note, and then wrote back to tell them about the work he's doing to promote gay rights. Is this not how democracy is supposed to work? Should he ignore his incomming email in order to protect the sender's privacy?
This guy is using parts of a video in a larger context where he gives his own interpretation. (Essentially "asteriods did not exist before they were discovered, as they were created by God in that instant.") This should be considered "fair use" in most contries. (If that were not the case, then it would also follow that you could not use clips from his video to demonstrate how stupid some religous nuts can be.)
Youtube has a "comment" function. Censorship is not the way to go.
Interesting! So, I guess, while one hydrogen balloon is relatively benign, tying scores of them together is a bad idea, since this can generate enough heat to set the balloon shells on fire.
The flames seen in the video is burning rubber from the balloon shells. Hydrogen flames are blue and nearly invisible.
Helium and neon are 5 and 18 ppm by volume, but neon is 5 times heavier. If you extrapolate linearly, the price per kg would be $35k per kg.
But you can't extrapolate linearly (as has already been pointed out) because the boiling points are different. A better approximation would be that the cost of cooling is inversely proportional to the boiling point. This is approximately a factor of 6, so the price would be over $200k per kg.
This is indeed a good idea. A baloon filled with hydrogen is not much more dangerous than one filled with air. If you hold it over a flame, it will make about the same pop as an air-filled baloon. The 0.3 g of hydrogen in a baloon is not enough to produce any serious amount heat as it burns. (We did this back in high-school chemistry class. We had an awesome teacher.) Hydrogen is cheaper than helium, and does not diffuse as easily through the baloon surface, so baloons would last longer.
There is some danger in the handling of cylinders. If hydrongen leaks out in a room with poor ventilation, there is a risk of explosion. However, the same is true for propane/butane gas which is used in kitchen stoves, and most people seem to be able to handle that.
Another danger is when stupid people inhale baloon gas and asphyxiate. With helium, this problem is commonly solved by adding some oxygen to the mix. Hydrogen cannot be safely mixed with oxygen, so you'd either have to tell the stupid people not to do that, or accept a slight decline in the stupid population as they figure it out for themselves.
I have a hard time imagining that upgrading an internal network to IPv6 would cost more than what selling an IPv4/8 block on the open market would net.
Freedom of speech is a concept that applies to law-making, not web-hosting. Google has done nothing to prevent the filmmakers from distributing this trailer. They are also not blocking it from search.
All they do is abstain from hosting it themselves in ceratin countries in the same way as a US newspaper might refuse to publish a nazi propaganda ad. People perceive publication/distribution as (weak) a form of endorsment, and Google wants to avoid this.
(Also, the movie itself seems to be a piece of crap, regardess of any point it's trying to make.)
Actually, a lot of what is currently being sold on ebay was first sold (in bulk) on Alibaba to a reseller. I figure it's just a matter of time before people start cutting out the middle man.
The money comes from people who put money into pension funds. Those funds then make large trades that the HFT algorithms pick up on and profit from. Before that, it was human traders at the investment banks that did this, so the pension funds have always been leeched off of. The only thing that has changed is by whom.
By most definitions, a "gambler" is someone who runs a ceratain risk of losing money. A trader can either be profitable, and get paid base salary plus bonus, or unprofitable, and get paid only his base salary plus whatever part of the bonus is not linked to profit. In no scenario is his payoff negative, so he's not a gambler by the usual definition.
Somebody who puts money into a pension fund, on the other hand, could be considered a gambler.
the solution is easy: queue all trades on a heart beat
I think it's pretty naive to think that such a system would remove the advantage that high frequency traders have over "average investors". Information outside of the "heart beat" is going to flow in real time, so there will still be an advantange in having fast computers and a direct connection to the exchange, in order to place orders at the last possible moment before the next "heart beat".
Maybe if you could sync all of the exchanges in the entire world to the same "hart beat", and also persuade all news outlets sync all information releases to it. The "heart beat" would have to be slow enough to allow information to travel around the globe between each beat. That way everyone can get all the information from the previous beat before sending in orders for the next one and you might have a "fair" system where every trader has acess to the same information.
The idea that children can be "scarred for life" by learning skills that "they are not ready for yet" seems pretty common in U.S. culture. (Much less so in Europe, and even less in eastern Europe, so I'm not surprised they are doing this first in Estonia.)
The hypothesis is that if you'd teach a child something "too early" then he'd not be very good at it, and therefore feel that he "failed". This would damage his self esteem and "scar him for life".
That hypothesis has been disproven in two ways. First, children don't feel that they "failed" if they don't master a skill immediately. They enjoy the process of learning and getting better, even if it takes a long time. And they compare themselves to what they could do the day before, not to what adults can do. (They also compare themeselves to other kids the same age, and in that respect, learning a skill early is good for self-esteem.)
Second, it is acaually bad for a child when parents try to build his self esteem by only giving him tasks that he can master immediately. The good kind of self esteem comes from knowing that some things take years to master, but you can get there if you work hard.
The data you harvest is encrypted and posted as a comment on the same page where you stored the data URI, or sent to some irc channel, or to any of a million places on the internet that accepts data from a POST form and displays the result publicly.
Slashdot Mirror
How long is "not very long"? Xenon atoms from a boiling liquid at only move at about 5 m/s. That's not enough of a disturbance relative to the orbital velocity (measured in kilometers per second) to make them fall out of orbit. (The starting orbit is stable, or the space-junk would not need removing.)
The gas atoms would have to collide with something before they'd fall down. And space being near-vacuum, it could take some time before that happens. So there will be an expanding cloud of gas that stays in orbit for a very long time slowing down space-junk and functioning satellites alike.
How do they propose to keep the non-junk from being de-orbited by the same gas? (I'm too lazy to read TFA.)
You did the math wrong. 74.3 / 3.08567758e19 is approximately 2.4e-18 Hz.
This is how frequently the universe doubles it current size at the current rate of growth.
If you could build a telescope that could make detailed underwater maps of strategic, potentially oil-rich, regions in the North Atlantic, it'd get funded too.
If I were a Canadian politician who received email by the thousands, I'd for sure have a python script that allowed me to send out a generic response to everybody who wrote me on a particular subject in a given time period. This can be done without compiling a list of those people as an intermediary step.
(I don't know if this is what he did, but it seems a plausible scenario.)
You do understand the difference between an official addressing a specific correspondence and compiling a list of people who are interested in X, right?
Actually, no. The distinction between "correspondence" and "a list" may have been clear once upon a time, when everything was on paper. But in a digital world, processing an entire email archive can be done in seconds, so there's little practical difference between "keeping your correspondence" and "keeping a list".
Or are you saying that Canadian officials are required to delete their incomming emails whenever they state personal interests/preferences/etc ?
Nobody compiled a list of sexual preferences. The mailing list in question contained people who had expressed concerns about gay refugees' rights. Those people then received an email concerning gay refugees' rights. Some of the people on that list may have been gay, refugees, or both, but the email did not imply that they were.
Also: You have signed petitions to the goverment stating your opinion, but you don't want the government to note your opinion? Then, why the hell did you sign the petition?
Actually yes:
From TFA: "Whenever someone “signed” the petition, the site automatically sent a form letter by email to Kenney’s office with the signatory’s reply email address."
So Kenney only sent out email to addresses from which he had previously received email on the same theme. If change.org did not inform the people signing the petition that they were sending out email their behalf, then that's hardly Kenney's fault.
People sent email to the minister of immigration telling him they were interested in gay rights. The minister took note, and then wrote back to tell them about the work he's doing to promote gay rights. Is this not how democracy is supposed to work? Should he ignore his incomming email in order to protect the sender's privacy?
Mod parent up.
This guy is using parts of a video in a larger context where he gives his own interpretation. (Essentially "asteriods did not exist before they were discovered, as they were created by God in that instant.") This should be considered "fair use" in most contries. (If that were not the case, then it would also follow that you could not use clips from his video to demonstrate how stupid some religous nuts can be.)
Youtube has a "comment" function. Censorship is not the way to go.
Interesting! So, I guess, while one hydrogen balloon is relatively benign, tying scores of them together is a bad idea, since this can generate enough heat to set the balloon shells on fire.
The flames seen in the video is burning rubber from the balloon shells. Hydrogen flames are blue and nearly invisible.
That would be a good argument, except helium diffuses out of the baloon much quicker than hydrogen does (because of its even smaller molecular size.)
I even mentioned this in my original post.
Helium and neon are 5 and 18 ppm by volume, but neon is 5 times heavier. If you extrapolate linearly, the price per kg would be $35k per kg.
But you can't extrapolate linearly (as has already been pointed out) because the boiling points are different. A better approximation would be that the cost of cooling is inversely proportional to the boiling point. This is approximately a factor of 6, so the price would be over $200k per kg.
This is indeed a good idea. A baloon filled with hydrogen is not much more dangerous than one filled with air. If you hold it over a flame, it will make about the same pop as an air-filled baloon. The 0.3 g of hydrogen in a baloon is not enough to produce any serious amount heat as it burns. (We did this back in high-school chemistry class. We had an awesome teacher.) Hydrogen is cheaper than helium, and does not diffuse as easily through the baloon surface, so baloons would last longer.
There is some danger in the handling of cylinders. If hydrongen leaks out in a room with poor ventilation, there is a risk of explosion. However, the same is true for propane/butane gas which is used in kitchen stoves, and most people seem to be able to handle that.
Another danger is when stupid people inhale baloon gas and asphyxiate. With helium, this problem is commonly solved by adding some oxygen to the mix. Hydrogen cannot be safely mixed with oxygen, so you'd either have to tell the stupid people not to do that, or accept a slight decline in the stupid population as they figure it out for themselves.
Exactly. Don't buy from this frauds!
I, on the other hand, happen have a rock formed by matter that was once ejected in a supernova.
Only $10 000 per gram.
Any takers?
I have a hard time imagining that upgrading an internal network to IPv6 would cost more than what selling an IPv4 /8 block on the open market would net.
Google (weakly) endorses everything else on Youtube? Then Google is a maniac.
No, they don't. But they are perceived as doing so. Perhaps not by you, but by lots of people. (Very few of the rioters are slashdotters.)
Freedom of speech is a concept that applies to law-making, not web-hosting. Google has done nothing to prevent the filmmakers from distributing this trailer. They are also not blocking it from search.
All they do is abstain from hosting it themselves in ceratin countries in the same way as a US newspaper might refuse to publish a nazi propaganda ad. People perceive publication/distribution as (weak) a form of endorsment, and Google wants to avoid this.
(Also, the movie itself seems to be a piece of crap, regardess of any point it's trying to make.)
Actually, a lot of what is currently being sold on ebay was first sold (in bulk) on Alibaba to a reseller. I figure it's just a matter of time before people start cutting out the middle man.
The money comes from people who put money into pension funds. Those funds then make large trades that the HFT algorithms pick up on and profit from. Before that, it was human traders at the investment banks that did this, so the pension funds have always been leeched off of. The only thing that has changed is by whom.
By most definitions, a "gambler" is someone who runs a ceratain risk of losing money. A trader can either be profitable, and get paid base salary plus bonus, or unprofitable, and get paid only his base salary plus whatever part of the bonus is not linked to profit. In no scenario is his payoff negative, so he's not a gambler by the usual definition.
Somebody who puts money into a pension fund, on the other hand, could be considered a gambler.
the solution is easy: queue all trades on a heart beat
I think it's pretty naive to think that such a system would remove the advantage that high frequency traders have over "average investors". Information outside of the "heart beat" is going to flow in real time, so there will still be an advantange in having fast computers and a direct connection to the exchange, in order to place orders at the last possible moment before the next "heart beat".
Maybe if you could sync all of the exchanges in the entire world to the same "hart beat", and also persuade all news outlets sync all information releases to it. The "heart beat" would have to be slow enough to allow information to travel around the globe between each beat. That way everyone can get all the information from the previous beat before sending in orders for the next one and you might have a "fair" system where every trader has acess to the same information.
Doesn't seem easy to implement.
They should
Who's "they"? Are you volonteeering to teach 72 000 people, most of whom don't even know how to use Windows update, what a firewall is?
The idea that children can be "scarred for life" by learning skills that "they are not ready for yet" seems pretty common in U.S. culture. (Much less so in Europe, and even less in eastern Europe, so I'm not surprised they are doing this first in Estonia.)
The hypothesis is that if you'd teach a child something "too early" then he'd not be very good at it, and therefore feel that he "failed". This would damage his self esteem and "scar him for life".
That hypothesis has been disproven in two ways. First, children don't feel that they "failed" if they don't master a skill immediately. They enjoy the process of learning and getting better, even if it takes a long time. And they compare themselves to what they could do the day before, not to what adults can do. (They also compare themeselves to other kids the same age, and in that respect, learning a skill early is good for self-esteem.)
Second, it is acaually bad for a child when parents try to build his self esteem by only giving him tasks that he can master immediately. The good kind of self esteem comes from knowing that some things take years to master, but you can get there if you work hard.
The data you harvest is encrypted and posted as a comment on the same page where you stored the data URI, or sent to some irc channel, or to any of a million places on the internet that accepts data from a POST form and displays the result publicly.