This map reminds me of a film I saw on PBS once, and then again at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in D.C., called "Powers of Ten". Starts with an overhead camera shot of some people having a picnic. The camera starts to pull away, at the rate of another power-of-ten units each second. You see the earth, then the solar system, then the galaxy, then other galaxies, etc. Then the whole process is done backwards, right back down to the original shot of the picnic. Only this time, the camera zooms in further by powers of 10, into the skin on one of the people's hands, then into the cells, then the atoms, etc. It's really a must see.
Just a small nitpick - the article fails to mention that only users of browsers capable of (or set to by default) showing images can be tracked by this method.
Does anyone know which episode contains the following Do-Re-Mi parody?
Dough... the stuff that buys me beer Ray..... the guy who sells the beer Me...... the guy who drinks the beer Far..... the distance to the beer So...... I'll have another beer La...... la la la la la beer Tea..... No thanks I'm drinking beer That will bring us back to....
I've heard it sung, I've seen it online, but I can't find the episode. Is it a genuine Homerism?
The reader is cautioned that reproduction of these experiments should be carried out only with the cooperation of the owner of the lock systems on which the attack is attempted.
Once worked for a large bank's IT department. Physical access to the site was via a turnstyle that was activated by the magnetic stripe on your employee ID badge.
Their firing procedure: the boss invites you out to lunch. As soon as you are outside the turnstyle he says, "You're fired. Give me your ID badge." And you have to wait there a few minutes while a (former) colleague boxes up your personal effects and brings them outside to you.
The Wireless Toolkit from Sun here. I use it and it's pretty cool, and there's a version for Linux and Solaris also. It bundles the MIDP and CLDC packages referenced in this article. It makes the whole.jad and MANIFEST file management a snap. And it's also free!
Gonad \Gon"ad\, n.; pl. Gonads. [Gr. ? that which generates.] (Anat.) One of the masses of generative tissue primitively alike in both sexes, but giving rise to either an ovary or a testis; a generative gland; a germ gland. --Wiedersheim.
There's one thing I don't get. Here's the relevant snippet:
But a spin network represents the entire universe, and that creates a big problem. According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, things remain in a limbo of probability until an observer perceives them. But no lonely observer can find himself beyond the bounds of the universe staring back. How, then, can the universe exist? "That's a whole sticky thing," Markopoulou Kalamara says. "Who looks at the universe?" For her, the answer is: we do. The universe contains its own observers on the inside, represented as nodes in the network. Her idea is that to paint the big picture, you don't need one painter; many will do. Specifically, she realized that the same light cones she had used to bring causal structure into quantum spacetime could concretely define each observer's perspective.
Because the speed of light is finite, you can see only a limited slice of the universe. Your position in spacetime is unique, so your slice is slightly different from everyone else's. Although there is no external observer who has access to all the information out there, we can still construct a meaningful portrait of the universe based on the partial information we each receive. It's a beautiful thought: we each have our own universe. But there's a lot of overlap. "We mostly see the same thing," Markopoulou Kalamara explains, and that is why we see a smooth universe despite a quantized spacetime.
So my boggle is this: Until the first "observer" evolved, nothing observed the universe, so it existed in all quantum states simultaneously. If so, how did that first observer ever evolve? Or is she posutlating that the universe's existence is its own observation?
I thought the most interesting quote from the article was near the end:
"... slides also showed the surprising results of automated crash reports from Windows users. A mere 1 percent of Windows bugs account for half of the crashes reported from the field."
Dead on! There's been loads of evidence that NONE of the patriots EVER hit a signle scud
Of course they didn't. The patriot was specifically designed to detonate itself CLOSE TO the offending missile and, hopefully, in the process destroy the latter. This is, in fact, what happened: Tel Aviv and surrounding areas were rained on by falling scud parts. These were pieces of the scuds intercepted by the Patriots.
The problem of intercepting a moving target is difficult, but it becomes much easier when the goal is to simply get "near enough" to disable it with an explosion.
Slashdot Mirror
This map reminds me of a film I saw on PBS once, and then again at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in D.C., called "Powers of Ten". Starts with an overhead camera shot of some people having a picnic. The camera starts to pull away, at the rate of another power-of-ten units each second. You see the earth, then the solar system, then the galaxy, then other galaxies, etc. Then the whole process is done backwards, right back down to the original shot of the picnic. Only this time, the camera zooms in further by powers of 10, into the skin on one of the people's hands, then into the cells, then the atoms, etc. It's really a must see.
Just a small nitpick - the article fails to mention that only users of browsers capable of (or set to by default) showing images can be tracked by this method.
Long live lynx!
... I had a great employment agent. His name, if I recall correctly, was Jerry Maguire.
Check it out.
Check out this link for these recipes.
I'm waiting to see ED-209.
... trip must be what Taco's on.
As in "Sir Francis Drake circumsized the globe with a 100 foot clipper."
Does anyone know which episode contains the following Do-Re-Mi parody?
Dough... the stuff that buys me beer
Ray..... the guy who sells the beer
Me...... the guy who drinks the beer
Far..... the distance to the beer
So...... I'll have another beer
La...... la la la la la beer
Tea..... No thanks I'm drinking beer
That will bring us back to....
I've heard it sung, I've seen it online, but I can't find the episode. Is it a genuine Homerism?
The reader is cautioned that reproduction of these experiments should be carried out only with the cooperation of the owner of the lock systems on which the attack is attempted.
Once worked for a large bank's IT department. Physical access to the site was via a turnstyle that was activated by the magnetic stripe on your employee ID badge.
Their firing procedure: the boss invites you out to lunch. As soon as you are outside the turnstyle he says, "You're fired. Give me your ID badge." And you have to wait there a few minutes while a (former) colleague boxes up your personal effects and brings them outside to you.
Does nobody notice the abbreviation in the parent post?
here
The Wireless Toolkit from Sun here. I use it and it's pretty cool, and there's a version for Linux and Solaris also. It bundles the MIDP and CLDC packages referenced in this article. It makes the whole .jad and MANIFEST file management a snap. And it's also free!
gonads
Gonad \Gon"ad\, n.; pl. Gonads. [Gr. ? that which generates.] (Anat.) One of the masses of generative tissue primitively alike in both sexes, but giving rise to either an ovary or a testis; a generative gland; a germ gland. --Wiedersheim.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
I believe she has 'nads.
That depends. Is she married?
There's one thing I don't get. Here's the relevant snippet:
But a spin network represents the entire universe, and that creates a big problem. According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, things remain in a limbo of probability until an observer perceives them. But no lonely observer can find himself beyond the bounds of the universe staring back. How, then, can the universe exist? "That's a whole sticky thing," Markopoulou Kalamara says. "Who looks at the universe?" For her, the answer is: we do. The universe contains its own observers on the inside, represented as nodes in the network. Her idea is that to paint the big picture, you don't need one painter; many will do. Specifically, she realized that the same light cones she had used to bring causal structure into quantum spacetime could concretely define each observer's perspective.
Because the speed of light is finite, you can see only a limited slice of the universe. Your position in spacetime is unique, so your slice is slightly different from everyone else's. Although there is no external observer who has access to all the information out there, we can still construct a meaningful portrait of the universe based on the partial information we each receive. It's a beautiful thought: we each have our own universe. But there's a lot of overlap. "We mostly see the same thing," Markopoulou Kalamara explains, and that is why we see a smooth universe despite a quantized spacetime.
So my boggle is this: Until the first "observer" evolved, nothing observed the universe, so it existed in all quantum states simultaneously. If so, how did that first observer ever evolve? Or is she posutlating that the universe's existence is its own observation?
This is hilarious. Why isn't this tagged as Funny?
Suggestion: I always register as foo@bar.com, or something similarly nonsensical that gets past their silly javascript field validator.
No matter how high-level your picture, that devil is stil lurking below in the details to bite you when he can.
In fact, the quote "the devil is in the details" sums up the entire article.
I thought the most interesting quote from the article was near the end:
"... slides also showed the surprising results of automated crash reports from Windows users. A mere 1 percent of Windows bugs account for half of the crashes reported from the field."
Of course they didn't. The patriot was specifically designed to detonate itself CLOSE TO the offending missile and, hopefully, in the process destroy the latter. This is, in fact, what happened: Tel Aviv and surrounding areas were rained on by falling scud parts. These were pieces of the scuds intercepted by the Patriots.
The problem of intercepting a moving target is difficult, but it becomes much easier when the goal is to simply get "near enough" to disable it with an explosion.
A mite offtopic, but food for thought anyway: [cantrip.org]