I imagine that there are at least dozens of libraries that archive major newspapers to microfilm (err, microform, I guess) and store it in artificial, man made caves.
I guess I just think a machine (or process, yadda yadda) that makes fine radioactive dust and then bathes it in acid is complicated.
(from what I just read, vitrification uses borosilicate glass, which is nicely chemically inert, so you need to make an awfully fine powder if you want to get good separation, lest the glass protect some of the material)
Assuming there is just a little serious in your post: Directly heating the atmosphere isn't really a problem, trapping a little bit more of the heat the sun puts into it is the problem.
For perspective, human power utilization is on the order of 15 terawatts (I'm not sure how efficiency factors into that number, but even then, 50 or 100 terawatts would be a sane upper number). The sun hits the earth with more than 100 petawatts of power (that's 100,000 terawatts).
It's not like anybody there is working for some fixed charitable pay scale, the 501(c)3 is a tax status, not confirmation of their motives.
(I think the Clinic is arguing the right side of the case here, motivated by a desire to serve their patients, but there are plenty of institutions in the U.S. that call themselves charities that are no such thing, so I feel the need to push back on the general argument)
Would you agree or disagree that a good deal of medical innovation and advancement comes out of the U.S.?
If you agree, do you think there would be as much if the U.S. operated something more similar to Canada?
I realize that there is plenty of research coming from universities and so forth, but I hesitate to assume that there is nothing coming out of the industrial side of medicine.
The whining about refining emissions in that article is hilarious, it complains that refining the fuel to run a 1,000 megawatt reactor for a year produces emissions comparable to a 10 megawatt power plant running for 23 days (well, they used hours, but whatever), but fails to point out that when coal is the alternative, that fuel also offsets 100 10 megawatt reactors running for a year. I imagine that the emissions from mining are similarly small fractions of the eventual energy output of the fuel.
If the test depends on significant statistical work, the lab should simply keep that work private. If such correlations are diagnostically valuable but not easily protected by keeping the work private, you probably don't need to worry, the research and medical communities will do the statistical work.
Actually, the judge ruled quite narrowly -- that the definition given in the EULA is appropriate for determining whether Microsoft violated the terms of EULA, mostly because "Personally identifiable information" is not well defined elsewhere.
A new law could be passed making it clear that IP addresses are personal information, but all that would do is require Microsoft to stop collecting the data, it would not be retroactive.
Re:Question for NewYourkCountyLawyer
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 1
I see at least 2 things: The RIAA is not beholden to statements and definitions made in Microsoft's EULA and privacy policy (read the legal claim, the complaint is that Microsoft violated their own EULA by transmitting the IP, the judge ruled that "PII", as defined in the EULA, does not include IP addresses), and also, courts are not monolithic, different courts don't always look to each other for precedent.
So other courts might not even care about the ruling, but even if they did, the ruling is specific to the meaning of "Personally Identifiable Information" in the Microsoft EULA, not the meaning of the term in general.
It just shows how utterly shitty all previous attempts at internet advertising were (Adwords appears to do a very good job of detecting both advertisers that are willing to pay a lot and of finding lots of places to advertise; some systems did either of those, but not both of them well).
They are probably benefiting from quite a bit of momentum at this point.
If they had spend 5 times as much money on each mission, they could have landed with 100% extra fuel...
That doesn't diminish the technical accomplishment, I'm just pointing out that they were intentionally finessing things, not playing it fast and loose (the failure mode for running out of fool was to boost back into orbit).
According to Feynman, Challenger wasn't a result of not passing the word, it was a result of blatant technical illiteracy; seeing that the o-rings only burned about 1/3 of the way through in testing, the managers recorded that they provided a safety factor of 3, when the 'engineering' viewpoint would be that they failed. Wikipedia walks through it:
Adeona is currently broken. It says so right on the page that you linked.
(The issue is that OpenDHT, which they depend on, is wobbly, and the maintainer has announced plans to shut it down (the announced plan was to shut it down on July 1, but I haven't checked to see if that happened or not))
It sounds like you have a handle on things so this might be redundant, but be aware that this mode of operation has the potential to create in-the-clear temporary copies of the encrypted documents (so depending on what sensitive means, it may not be appropriate; I encrypt financial documents in container file so I don't have to worry about casual browsing of them in case of loss/theft, not to protect them from mean guys with bricks).
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine that there are at least dozens of libraries that archive major newspapers to microfilm (err, microform, I guess) and store it in artificial, man made caves.
Apparently, some of the archives go back a ways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaperarchive
And some are enormous:
http://www.loc.gov/about/facts.html
I guess I just think a machine (or process, yadda yadda) that makes fine radioactive dust and then bathes it in acid is complicated.
(from what I just read, vitrification uses borosilicate glass, which is nicely chemically inert, so you need to make an awfully fine powder if you want to get good separation, lest the glass protect some of the material)
Assuming there is just a little serious in your post: Directly heating the atmosphere isn't really a problem, trapping a little bit more of the heat the sun puts into it is the problem.
For perspective, human power utilization is on the order of 15 terawatts (I'm not sure how efficiency factors into that number, but even then, 50 or 100 terawatts would be a sane upper number). The sun hits the earth with more than 100 petawatts of power (that's 100,000 terawatts).
Yes, that was the point. See:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1310539&cid=28776415
(the timing suggests that it is perfectly reasonable for you to have missed that post, it just confirms the above)
He isn't selling anything back to the owners, he is selling information about their information to them.
Ideally, the government agencies that provided him the information would simply contact the people free of charge, undercutting his prices.
Personal identification number number.
Your erudite sig demonstrates your strong preference for decorum.
Is your pin number personal?
It's not like anybody there is working for some fixed charitable pay scale, the 501(c)3 is a tax status, not confirmation of their motives.
(I think the Clinic is arguing the right side of the case here, motivated by a desire to serve their patients, but there are plenty of institutions in the U.S. that call themselves charities that are no such thing, so I feel the need to push back on the general argument)
So no drug patents at all?
Would you agree or disagree that a good deal of medical innovation and advancement comes out of the U.S.?
If you agree, do you think there would be as much if the U.S. operated something more similar to Canada?
I realize that there is plenty of research coming from universities and so forth, but I hesitate to assume that there is nothing coming out of the industrial side of medicine.
Step 0 for Yucca is glassification. It complicates things quite a bit.
Is it 60 million metric tons of greenhouse gases?
The whining about refining emissions in that article is hilarious, it complains that refining the fuel to run a 1,000 megawatt reactor for a year produces emissions comparable to a 10 megawatt power plant running for 23 days (well, they used hours, but whatever), but fails to point out that when coal is the alternative, that fuel also offsets 100 10 megawatt reactors running for a year. I imagine that the emissions from mining are similarly small fractions of the eventual energy output of the fuel.
Yes. The continued on-site storage of reactor waste and political failure of Yucca mountain is 'a good thing'.
If the test depends on significant statistical work, the lab should simply keep that work private. If such correlations are diagnostically valuable but not easily protected by keeping the work private, you probably don't need to worry, the research and medical communities will do the statistical work.
Is there something terribly dangerous about parameterized queries?
NewYorkCountryLawyer even (the r).
Actually, the judge ruled quite narrowly -- that the definition given in the EULA is appropriate for determining whether Microsoft violated the terms of EULA, mostly because "Personally identifiable information" is not well defined elsewhere.
A new law could be passed making it clear that IP addresses are personal information, but all that would do is require Microsoft to stop collecting the data, it would not be retroactive.
I see at least 2 things: The RIAA is not beholden to statements and definitions made in Microsoft's EULA and privacy policy (read the legal claim, the complaint is that Microsoft violated their own EULA by transmitting the IP, the judge ruled that "PII", as defined in the EULA, does not include IP addresses), and also, courts are not monolithic, different courts don't always look to each other for precedent.
So other courts might not even care about the ruling, but even if they did, the ruling is specific to the meaning of "Personally Identifiable Information" in the Microsoft EULA, not the meaning of the term in general.
It just shows how utterly shitty all previous attempts at internet advertising were (Adwords appears to do a very good job of detecting both advertisers that are willing to pay a lot and of finding lots of places to advertise; some systems did either of those, but not both of them well).
They are probably benefiting from quite a bit of momentum at this point.
If they had spend 5 times as much money on each mission, they could have landed with 100% extra fuel...
That doesn't diminish the technical accomplishment, I'm just pointing out that they were intentionally finessing things, not playing it fast and loose (the failure mode for running out of fool was to boost back into orbit).
According to Feynman, Challenger wasn't a result of not passing the word, it was a result of blatant technical illiteracy; seeing that the o-rings only burned about 1/3 of the way through in testing, the managers recorded that they provided a safety factor of 3, when the 'engineering' viewpoint would be that they failed. Wikipedia walks through it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Challenger_disaster
Adeona is currently broken. It says so right on the page that you linked.
(The issue is that OpenDHT, which they depend on, is wobbly, and the maintainer has announced plans to shut it down (the announced plan was to shut it down on July 1, but I haven't checked to see if that happened or not))
You can also just disable LM hashing if a longer password sounds annoying:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/299656
It sounds like you have a handle on things so this might be redundant, but be aware that this mode of operation has the potential to create in-the-clear temporary copies of the encrypted documents (so depending on what sensitive means, it may not be appropriate; I encrypt financial documents in container file so I don't have to worry about casual browsing of them in case of loss/theft, not to protect them from mean guys with bricks).