if (!document.getElementById) { alert("You can't shoot yourself in the foot without the DOM. Try shooting yourself in the head instead."); return; } var foot=document.getElementById("foot"); var gun=document.getElementById("gun"); gun.onload = function() { gun.shoot(foot); }
You won't find a language the does the exact same thing in two different commands and those two different commands only work on distinctly different machines.
When I write C code to open a named pipe, if I'm going to run the program on windows, I write CreateNamedPipe("name", [some other stuff I can't remember]) but on linux I write mknod("name", S_FIFO|S_IRUSER|S_IWUSER, 0). It does the same thing, at least as similarly as new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP") and new XMLHttpRequest do.
A CMS with a relatively advanced JS UI that my company's currently working on has around 7,000 lines of JS. That's not a particularly complex application, either. I could easily imagine something like a webmail system reaching five times that.
It's hard to comment on the function-attaching example you gave, since obviously any real implementation of most languages already has functions such as those you describe.
A real world example you may find more enlightening: There's a framework out there somewhere that extends the standard Javascript classes with methods that are API-compatible with the standard methods of equivalent Ruby classes, meaning that simple Ruby programs can often be run with few or no modifications.
Another thing you can do with this capability is use it on your own classes. Consider plugins that directly add new features to existing objects.
Though the solution to gain access was almost too simple
It's worth noting that in the novel he didn't have it quite so easy - the back door password was actually realistically strong, as it contained a number as well as a word.
The ideal brewing temperature of coffee is 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit,
True. But there is little or no reason to actually serve it at that temperature. Drinking it at such a high temperature would be dangerous, and allowing it to cool (to say 160) would mean the drink could be drunk as soon as it is served.
while it takes less than 2 seconds of direct skin exposier to get a severe burn (THIRD DEGREE) when fluid is as little as 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
Do you have a source for that? Medical evidence presented at the trial in question suggests more like 20 seconds, as opposed to 5 at 180.
From the site you reference: Another trial court in New Mexico, however, didn't, and became a national icon when the jury claimed that Stella Liebeck deserved $2.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages because McDonald's dared to sell the 79-year-old hot 170-degree coffee.
Which just goes to show that the author doesn't understand punitive damages: you don't get them awarded to you because you "deserve them". Punitive damages are awarded because the responsible party has acted in a way that means they deserve to pay them.
3.Gas cookers have a higher risk than electric cookers, at 4 [serious injuries or fatalities] per million for gas, against 2 per million for electric. However, an analysis of the individual incidents shows that 96% were caused by the behaviour of the victim. The presence of an open gas flame does create a slightly higher risk than for an electric hob - the risk is low at 3 per million. Electric hobs retain heat which also causes problems - a risk of 1 per million. All other incidents analysed would have happened whatever the fuel.
Don't you have to use some kind of special pans with induction stoves? I like All-Clad stainless steel ones....with the aluminum core. Can these be used on induction?
Probably not. Usually, the base has to be pure steel.
My refrigerator is only active approximately 20% of the time, meaning that on average it consumes only about 20% of its rated power.
dishwasher
The power used by my dishwasher varies dramatically over the course of a cycle; it's usually less than 100W, despite the device being rated at 800W.
oven
My oven's consumption is described as 10.4KW. I've yet to see it use more than 4, and that only happens if you're using both ovens and the grill at the same time.
Home appliances here (in EU) even get labelled and categorized in shops in classes by their power consumption (ABCD energy class), measured by standards, so it is very clear what you get before you buy.
Those ratings don't tell you how much the appliance uses, though, only how efficient it is compared to other devices in the same class.
When you say things like Windows 2.0 was technically impressive product, it makes it hard to take you seriously.
Did I say that? No; I said that in a number of important ways it was superior to what Apple were doing 3 years earlier, and that in many of these respects it took Apple a while to catch up.
An electric heating element can turn black very quickly after you turn it off but is still hot enough to burn. I would rather be able to see when the element is on than risk my 2yo son burning his hand on one that looks like it's cool but isn't.
Use an induction cooker. I have one, and as soon as you've finished cooking the surface is cool enough to touch. It'll hurt, but won't cause serious damage.
Electric ranges are more dangerous than gas. Gas explosions are very, very rare - certainly a lot rarer than electrical fires or burnt hands (both of which are more common with electrical ranges).
Induction cookers are substantially safer than any traditional design -- they cause the pan to get hot directly, rather than the surface the pan sits on. Burnt hands can then only be caused by touching the pan, which is just as much of a risk with gas.
the wattage, hence the consumption, is written on the label.
Almost all appliances only put peak consumption on the label. Most appliances average substantially less. Some never even reach the peak,it being a theoretical maximum.
It did not discuss the "remote on" issue at all. (When your TV, Stereo, etc. has a remote control that lets it turn on, that means it is really ALWAYS on, just in a kind of 'sleep' mode, draining some power, costing your money)
Having performed the same experiment myself and found that most of my appliances consume between 2 and 10W in this state, mostly tending to the lower end, I decided it is substantially less significant than other energy-waste issues. Changing a single light to compact fluorescent can save more power. Some appliances did drain large amounts of power in standby mode, though: my washing machine used 25W, and my electric cooker a staggering 100W to sit their doing nothing. Needless to say, these devices are now switched off at supply when not in use.
Anyways, somewhat on topic, I hear that in California all new development and remodeling requires fluorescent lighting. Is that true?
Not sure about California, but here in the UK new building requires a "low energy" lighting installation. This can be either CF or a halogen type that provides efficiency about halfway between the two. You may find this is a useful alternative for your dimmable lighting, BTW.
There's really no other way to cook (if you like to cook) than to use gas stovetop. Electric burners suck....just no heat control there.
Have you tried an induction cooker? I used to think the same way as you, until I first tried one. To my surprise, it is even more responsive than the gas burner I previously had (I don't know how that works, but it does).
I've always been curious why more people don't use gas.
I think safety issues are the prime concern, these days. Cooking on an open flame just seems risky.
It strikes me that building a sustainable, long-term orbital habitat isn't exactly a small step. It is a hard goal, one that will require work. Could it be achieved within ten years? From an engineering perspective, I think it could. From an economic one, I'm not so sure. It'll cost more than Apollo did, I suspect.
The one who settles first obviously will have the first pick in land, and this might be a heavy weighing factor in their decision.
Why is this obvious? By international treaty, it isn't the case. Of course, somebody not accepting that treaty might try to seize some lunar land, but due to violation of the treaty it would be justified to use force to remove them from it.
True, but compare to the effects of 1g provided by rotating a 450m major radius torus at 1RPM and I think the latter will be even less problematic than either.
Re: your title: you mean centrifugal force. Centripetal force is the force that you apply to something in order to make it travel in a circle. In the case of something in orbit, this is supplied by gravity. Centrifugal force is the opposite force that appears because of Newton's third law.
The weight on the outer rim of the space station will be uneven. As a result, the space station will wobble and move as it spins. How would you compensate for this wobble? Rockets require fuel, which adds weight and a tremendous expense (The rockets need to be fired frequently).
I don't think this is an issue. The reason an unbalanced wheel wobbles isn't because of the imbalance, really - it's because you're expecting it (and constraining it, via the axle) to rotate around a point that isn't its center of mass. In a space station rotating like this, the imbalance will merely cause a alight shift of the axis of rotation. Other than if you're trying to include a central docking bay like the station at the start of 2001 (or Babylon 5), I don't think there's a particular issue here.
Besides, even if there was wobble, why would you compensate for it? It can't have a net effect of moving your station - it'll move a little in one direction in one half of the rotation, but move back again in the other.
* Sufficiently cheap launch technologies. A workable rotating space habitat has to have a diameter of at least 900m. This makes them rather expensive to construct with current launch systems. * Dependence on regular imports of stuff from Earth, to replace lost gasses and volatiles. * Keeping the thing in an appropriate orbit will require periodic boosting. The reaction mass for this will need to come from somewhere.
Its version of the 1984 Mac came out in the end of 1995 - unimpressively.
When was the last time you used an 84 Mac? The original Mac OS was single tasking, only supported monochrome displays, allowed no network connectivity, and didn't support heirarchical filesystems. Its memory accesses were limited to 1MB, I believe. Windows 2.0, released in 1987, was superior in most respects, and an equal in many respects to much later versions. MacOS's multitasking capabilities didn't match Windows 2.0 until the release of System 7 in '91. MacOS wasn't an equal of the features in Win95 until the first release of OSX in 99. And I'll admit that that was a far superior OS to anything MS had released then, or had in the pipeline.
So, basically, in terms of essential features like multitasking, memory protection and virtual memory support, MacOS has lagged behind Windows consistently. All Apple had first was a good user interface.
But go ahead and believe that Apple led the way if you want.
Its version of the 1989 NeXTSTEP stopped trying to ship in 1996.
Almost all of the features MS had discussed as NeXT competitors shipped in NT4 in 1997. Primarily, we're talking about DCOM. Note that the NeXT of 1989 was targetted to high end workstations, while Windows NT was targetted primarily to top-end PCs, which lacked power and features compared to the workstations of the day. That it lagged behind somewhat is only to be expected.
Its version of the 2002 Mac OS X is just now planning to ship in 2007, minus most of its planned features.
Well, actually, no. First, it has already shipped, just not to retail markets. Second, the features that were abandoned (WinFS and NGSCB being the only two anyone seems to talk about) don't really count as "most". There are significant numbers of new features that did make it, most notably the Aero UI, the Avalon API, XAML, and several new built-in applications. Yes, MS are playing catchup to Apple here. But "minus most of its planned features" is just plain wrong.
why are you defending the world from reality?
Because your version of reality seems to be warped and twisted, and connected only obliquely with the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
if (!document.getElementById) { alert("You can't shoot yourself in the foot without the DOM. Try shooting yourself in the head instead."); return; }
var foot=document.getElementById("foot");
var gun=document.getElementById("gun");
gun.onload = function() { gun.shoot(foot); }
You won't find a language the does the exact same thing in two different commands and those two different commands only work on distinctly different machines.
When I write C code to open a named pipe, if I'm going to run the program on windows, I write CreateNamedPipe("name", [some other stuff I can't remember]) but on linux I write mknod("name", S_FIFO|S_IRUSER|S_IWUSER, 0). It does the same thing, at least as similarly as new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP") and new XMLHttpRequest do.
A CMS with a relatively advanced JS UI that my company's currently working on has around 7,000 lines of JS. That's not a particularly complex application, either. I could easily imagine something like a webmail system reaching five times that.
It's hard to comment on the function-attaching example you gave, since obviously any real implementation of most languages already has functions such as those you describe.
A real world example you may find more enlightening: There's a framework out there somewhere that extends the standard Javascript classes with methods that are API-compatible with the standard methods of equivalent Ruby classes, meaning that simple Ruby programs can often be run with few or no modifications.
Another thing you can do with this capability is use it on your own classes. Consider plugins that directly add new features to existing objects.
Though the solution to gain access was almost too simple
It's worth noting that in the novel he didn't have it quite so easy - the back door password was actually realistically strong, as it contained a number as well as a word.
That's actually about the only natural and realistic plot device there is.
Except it isn't really very realistic. The number of people out there who can truly be called evil is fairly small. And most never achieve anything.
Much better is the struggle between principled but impractical vs. unpricipled yet practical. The redeeming factor for Swordfish, for example.
The ideal brewing temperature of coffee is 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit,
True. But there is little or no reason to actually serve it at that temperature. Drinking it at such a high temperature would be dangerous, and allowing it to cool (to say 160) would mean the drink could be drunk as soon as it is served.
while it takes less than 2 seconds of direct skin exposier to get a severe burn (THIRD DEGREE) when fluid is as little as 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
Do you have a source for that? Medical evidence presented at the trial in question suggests more like 20 seconds, as opposed to 5 at 180.
From the site you reference:
Another trial court in New Mexico, however, didn't, and became a national icon when the jury claimed that Stella Liebeck deserved $2.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages because McDonald's dared to sell the 79-year-old hot 170-degree coffee.
Which just goes to show that the author doesn't understand punitive damages: you don't get them awarded to you because you "deserve them". Punitive damages are awarded because the responsible party has acted in a way that means they deserve to pay them.
(source)
Don't you have to use some kind of special pans with induction stoves? I like All-Clad stainless steel ones....with the aluminum core. Can these be used on induction?
Probably not. Usually, the base has to be pure steel.
I agree, except for refrigerator
My refrigerator is only active approximately 20% of the time, meaning that on average it consumes only about 20% of its rated power.
dishwasher
The power used by my dishwasher varies dramatically over the course of a cycle; it's usually less than 100W, despite the device being rated at 800W.
oven
My oven's consumption is described as 10.4KW. I've yet to see it use more than 4, and that only happens if you're using both ovens and the grill at the same time.
Home appliances here (in EU) even get labelled and categorized in shops in classes by their power consumption (ABCD energy class), measured by standards, so it is very clear what you get before you buy.
Those ratings don't tell you how much the appliance uses, though, only how efficient it is compared to other devices in the same class.
Yet I'm sure you don't think twice about driving.
There's no sensible, safer alternative to driving. I have made sure the vehicle I drive is among the safer ones on the road, though.
When you say things like Windows 2.0 was technically impressive product, it makes it hard to take you seriously.
Did I say that? No; I said that in a number of important ways it was superior to what Apple were doing 3 years earlier, and that in many of these respects it took Apple a while to catch up.
An electric heating element can turn black very quickly after you turn it off but is still hot enough to burn. I would rather be able to see when the element is on than risk my 2yo son burning his hand on one that looks like it's cool but isn't.
Use an induction cooker. I have one, and as soon as you've finished cooking the surface is cool enough to touch. It'll hurt, but won't cause serious damage.
Electric ranges are more dangerous than gas. Gas explosions are very, very rare - certainly a lot rarer than electrical fires or burnt hands (both of which are more common with electrical ranges).
Induction cookers are substantially safer than any traditional design -- they cause the pan to get hot directly, rather than the surface the pan sits on. Burnt hands can then only be caused by touching the pan, which is just as much of a risk with gas.
the wattage, hence the consumption, is written on the label.
Almost all appliances only put peak consumption on the label. Most appliances average substantially less. Some never even reach the peak,it being a theoretical maximum.
It did not discuss the "remote on" issue at all. (When your TV, Stereo, etc. has a remote control that lets it turn on, that means it is really ALWAYS on, just in a kind of 'sleep' mode, draining some power, costing your money)
Having performed the same experiment myself and found that most of my appliances consume between 2 and 10W in this state, mostly tending to the lower end, I decided it is substantially less significant than other energy-waste issues. Changing a single light to compact fluorescent can save more power. Some appliances did drain large amounts of power in standby mode, though: my washing machine used 25W, and my electric cooker a staggering 100W to sit their doing nothing. Needless to say, these devices are now switched off at supply when not in use.
Anyways, somewhat on topic, I hear that in California all new development and remodeling requires fluorescent lighting. Is that true?
Not sure about California, but here in the UK new building requires a "low energy" lighting installation. This can be either CF or a halogen type that provides efficiency about halfway between the two. You may find this is a useful alternative for your dimmable lighting, BTW.
There's really no other way to cook (if you like to cook) than to use gas stovetop. Electric burners suck....just no heat control there.
Have you tried an induction cooker? I used to think the same way as you, until I first tried one. To my surprise, it is even more responsive than the gas burner I previously had (I don't know how that works, but it does).
I've always been curious why more people don't use gas.
I think safety issues are the prime concern, these days. Cooking on an open flame just seems risky.
It strikes me that building a sustainable, long-term orbital habitat isn't exactly a small step. It is a hard goal, one that will require work. Could it be achieved within ten years? From an engineering perspective, I think it could. From an economic one, I'm not so sure. It'll cost more than Apollo did, I suspect.
The one who settles first obviously will have the first pick in land, and this might be a heavy weighing factor in their decision.
Why is this obvious? By international treaty, it isn't the case. Of course, somebody not accepting that treaty might try to seize some lunar land, but due to violation of the treaty it would be justified to use force to remove them from it.
True, but compare to the effects of 1g provided by rotating a 450m major radius torus at 1RPM and I think the latter will be even less problematic than either.
Re: your title: you mean centrifugal force. Centripetal force is the force that you apply to something in order to make it travel in a circle. In the case of something in orbit, this is supplied by gravity. Centrifugal force is the opposite force that appears because of Newton's third law.
The weight on the outer rim of the space station will be uneven. As a result, the space station will wobble and move as it spins. How would you compensate for this wobble? Rockets require fuel, which adds weight and a tremendous expense (The rockets need to be fired frequently).
I don't think this is an issue. The reason an unbalanced wheel wobbles isn't because of the imbalance, really - it's because you're expecting it (and constraining it, via the axle) to rotate around a point that isn't its center of mass. In a space station rotating like this, the imbalance will merely cause a alight shift of the axis of rotation. Other than if you're trying to include a central docking bay like the station at the start of 2001 (or Babylon 5), I don't think there's a particular issue here.
Besides, even if there was wobble, why would you compensate for it? It can't have a net effect of moving your station - it'll move a little in one direction in one half of the rotation, but move back again in the other.
I don't see an issue here. I don't think NASA saw an issue when they discussed this idea - or if they did, they never mentioned it.
AFAIK, the only problems to overcome are:
* Sufficiently cheap launch technologies. A workable rotating space habitat has to have a diameter of at least 900m. This makes them rather expensive to construct with current launch systems.
* Dependence on regular imports of stuff from Earth, to replace lost gasses and volatiles.
* Keeping the thing in an appropriate orbit will require periodic boosting. The reaction mass for this will need to come from somewhere.
Its version of the 1984 Mac came out in the end of 1995 - unimpressively.
When was the last time you used an 84 Mac? The original Mac OS was single tasking, only supported monochrome displays, allowed no network connectivity, and didn't support heirarchical filesystems. Its memory accesses were limited to 1MB, I believe. Windows 2.0, released in 1987, was superior in most respects, and an equal in many respects to much later versions. MacOS's multitasking capabilities didn't match Windows 2.0 until the release of System 7 in '91. MacOS wasn't an equal of the features in Win95 until the first release of OSX in 99. And I'll admit that that was a far superior OS to anything MS had released then, or had in the pipeline.
So, basically, in terms of essential features like multitasking, memory protection and virtual memory support, MacOS has lagged behind Windows consistently. All Apple had first was a good user interface.
But go ahead and believe that Apple led the way if you want.
Its version of the 1989 NeXTSTEP stopped trying to ship in 1996.
Almost all of the features MS had discussed as NeXT competitors shipped in NT4 in 1997. Primarily, we're talking about DCOM. Note that the NeXT of 1989 was targetted to high end workstations, while Windows NT was targetted primarily to top-end PCs, which lacked power and features compared to the workstations of the day. That it lagged behind somewhat is only to be expected.
Its version of the 2002 Mac OS X is just now planning to ship in 2007, minus most of its planned features.
Well, actually, no. First, it has already shipped, just not to retail markets. Second, the features that were abandoned (WinFS and NGSCB being the only two anyone seems to talk about) don't really count as "most". There are significant numbers of new features that did make it, most notably the Aero UI, the Avalon API, XAML, and several new built-in applications. Yes, MS are playing catchup to Apple here. But "minus most of its planned features" is just plain wrong.
why are you defending the world from reality?
Because your version of reality seems to be warped and twisted, and connected only obliquely with the real world.