If most people sleep in on Sundays then why is it if I go to the grocery store during church hours (9 a.m. to about noon) on a Sunday they are basically empty but on any other day there are always substantially more people.
You just inadvertently broke my brain. Unless people who are sleeping in do so in the grocery store where you live, then you answered your own question in the same sentence you asked it.
They can't make it out of thin air to pay their debts, but they can essentially make it out of thin air to loan to people. There are reserve requirements, but they've gotten kind of ridiculous. After they've loaned it to people, they get back interest and, if the person they've loaned to can't pay, they seize and sell their collateral.
Isn't that the same logic that the killer in the "Saw" movies uses? That he doesn't kill anyone, he just sets them up to kill themselves or for other people to kill them.
Fear of being called gay doesn't prevent people from being gay. Fear of being a "geek" doesn't prevent people from being a geek. Fear of being left handed doesn't prevent people from being left handed.
Whatever other points you may have had in your post, those points stick out as just being blatantly ignorant of the history of the real world. For starters, there have been tons of gay men who have hidden being gay and married women. There's a lot less of that in the US today because being gay is now more widely socially acceptable and gay people can find peer networks where they feel more accepted. In some subcultures in the US, there are still homosexuals who are living as heterosexuals out of fear of being shunned by their community. On to geeks. Fear of being labelled a "geek" does actually prevent people from being geeks. I don't know what world you're living in. Fear of being left-handed also has prevented people from being left-handed. Once upon a time, if you were left handed, you could be ostracised and schools would punish left-handed students for their left-handedness until they learned to do it the "right" way.
I don't understand kick starter. If you fund a project you don't get any shares and don't get to share in the profit, and if the person leading the project blows all the dough on ale and wenches you can't interject any authority right?
That's right! You should only put your money into good, solid, traditional investments. May I suggest Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC?
Heck, in the case of Bell and Gray, their patents were submitted on the same day. In fact, there's some pretty damning evidence that Bell had a spy in the patent office who alerted Bell's lawyer of Gray's application and inserted Bell's into the queue before it.
Sorry, not making sense to me. If you point the engines of a large passenger jet straight downward and power them up to full thrust, the jet is just going to sit there on the runway. Nearly all planes are built with a thrust to weight ratio of less than 1. So two snakes of thrust thrown out of the window is going to be less than two snakes worth of thrust.
"I call market at the time deciding that the spending on these programs was not worth the effort.
What you call the "market... deciding", anyone who knows anything at all about emergent behaviours calls a joke. There's no magic invisible hand that causes markets to make ideal choices. Predicting the potential of a particular technology is something that's clearly outside the set of things market "decisions" can accomplish.
Why does everyone feel so entitled to be unaware of their own finances and security to the point of blaming the BANK for a scam?
Bear in mind that we're discussing this on a site that presents itself as "News for Nerds". Those discussing this are probably among the top 5% of people in the area of computer/security savvy. Most people probably don't even know how to check a link before clicking on it, but for everyone here, such a basic security step is second nature. The banks are doing business with all of those other people as well as with us. They do have some basic responsibility to provide security that most people can work with. The problem is, they don't. The kind of security banks provide seems to be stuck somewhere around the early 20th century or late 19th rather than the 21st
Take credit cards. An unchanging series of numbers given in the clear for every transaction. Their biggest security "innovation" in recent years is 3 or 4 extra digits written on the back of the card. Wow, that's real security genius. The kind of technology to create a secure, hidden key based, authentication system has existed for decades, but the banks stick with primitive technology and broken security practices. Given that, it's hard not to blame the banks when these things happen.
Remember when they used to teach that humans exhale co2, inhale oxygen? And plants "inhale" CO2, and release oxygen? Turns out they take in oxygen [google.com], too.
How old do you think we are exactly? I remember being taught this as a child, and I'm pretty sure that knowledge wasn't even remotely new at that time. And there were dinosaurs roaming the earth and I had to walk to school barefoot, through the snow, uphill both ways.
Telomeres don't shorten on their own, as you say. The traditional understanding is that they shorten when DNA replicates itself. Cell splits into two copies and the copies have shorter telomeres, limiting the number of times they can reproduce. Applying Ockham's Razor, it seems that the simplest explanation for two otherwise similar individuals of similar ages to have differing telomere lengths is that the individual with the shorter telomeres has experienced more cell death over their lifetime, so more of their cells are replacements. That can be explained by exposure to drugs or alcohol in the womb, poor nutrition, heightened stress levels causing cell death through various mechanisms, as well as plain old physical trauma. Given that explanation of how growing up in an abusive home could lead to shorter telomeres, is another explanation necessary? Does there have to be some special mechanism shortening telomeres to explain the results of this study, or does the traditional explanation that telomeres shorten with every cell division cover it?
"Children of Vegans are necessarily developmentally disadvantaged" is a hypothesis that can be disproven with a single valid data point.. "This medicine has a 70% chance of healing you", on the other hand, requires a lot more evidence to disprove. It depends on how strong a claim you're making. If, for example, people are merely saying that children of Vegans are more likely to be developmentally disadvantaged, then you need a lot more evidence to disprove it. The difference between the claims should be obvious.
That's not the way it works. When the hypothesis is: "children of vegans are necessarily developmentally disadvantaged", a single counterexample is a significant data point.
It seemed to me to be implied by the context. It seems highly unlikely that the poster in question would have replied to the parent poster in such a way if they weren't also working for a startup and disagreed with them on the convenience. If they aren't working for a startup, I don't see how replying like that even makes sense.
This treatment is meant to actually kill off the infected cells before they spread more HIV around the body. Combining this with anti-retrovirals might actually be able to wipe all of the HIV out of a patients body. At least it's a step in that direction.
The poster talking about the two degrees, 65 hours a week and $8 an hour was replying to someone talking about working as a software engineer in a startup. I'm assuming that the $8 an hour poster is also working in a startup environment for slave wages in the hopes of the startup succeeding and doesn't find the situation as nice as the original poster does. Having worked in a startup that didn't succeed myself, I can certainly understand.
This actually reminds me of a joke: An entrepreneur is receiving a visit by an auditor from the labor board. The auditor asks him: "Does everyone here make at least minimum wage?" "Yes. Well, everyone except the half-wit." "The half-wit? What does he make?" "I figure it works out to about $3.25 an hour plus a stale fruitcake at Christmas." "I see. I would like very much to interview this half-wit." "You already are/"
Considering what a small fraction of the cost of most launches fuel actually ends up being, I often wonder if there isn't too much emphasis on keeping weight down.
Yes, but plutonium 238 seems to have the best performance profile. First of all, it pretty much just emits alpha radiation that can be stopped with a thin layer of shielding. It also has a decently high power density combined with an 87.7 year half life. For long space missions Americium-241 seems to me to the the next best. It actually has a 432 year half life. It only has about 1/4 the power density of pu-238, so you have to use 4 times the mass of the pu-238 you would otherwise need. It needs a lot more shielding than pu-238, but still less than any other option. Strontium-90 has only a 28.8 year half-life, which is probably going to be too short for a Voyager style mission, and it has heavier shielding requirements. It could be useful for shorter space missions though. Planetary rovers/stations, for example. For that matter, it might be useful for powering a manned base as an alternative to a nuclear reactor. A metric ton of the stuff would generate 460 Kilowatts of heat, which you could convert to maybe 230 kilowatts of electricity (using a Stirling engine or something rather than just an inefficient thermocouple RTG). Of course, you can't turn the heat production off in any way, so you have deal with the heat somehow during transportation along with the radiation.
By that logic, the RMV could start selling licenses to drive the wrong way down one way streets because customers like them. ICANN is not meant to be in the business of offering "innovative and exciting new products". They're in charge of a system that they're supposed to keep operating smoothly. Instead of doing that, they only seem to be interested in exploitation.
Why does this kind of security vulnerability even exist in this day and age? Considering how compact solid state data storage is these days, there's no reason I can think of whatsoever that a vulnerability like this should exist. This is the perfect use case for a one time pad. It's simple. You generate some random data and save a copy of it on three storage devices. One copy goes into the pump, another copy goes into the external wireless controller, and the last copy goes into a safe somewhere. When the wireless controller wants to send instructions to the pump, it xors them against the random data. The pump then xors what it's receiving against its copy of the data to decrypt it. If the controller ever gets lost, a new one can be programmed with the copy of the data that's in a safe somewhere. Provided the control instructions to the pump are long enough, that method makes it virtually impossible to attack the pump without getting physical access to the pump itself, the controller, or the copy of the data securely locked in a safe.
It's like no-one even considers security. Maybe the manufacturers of these pumps take their cues about security from the credit card companies.
I assume you mean the Republican primary? Since the Republican primary is only for Republicans, the GP was quite right to say "Citation doubtful". It's possible you're correct that he has 70% support among _Republicans_ age 18 to 35 (although that still sounds a little doubtful), but since Republicans are only a subset of the group known as "people", then you have a problem. If, for example, the 70% figure is correct for Republicans and Republicans make up 50% of the population (and we assume a perfectly even distribution by age group), then it would be 35% support among people age 18 to 35.
Slashdot Mirror
If most people sleep in on Sundays then why is it if I go to the grocery store during church hours (9 a.m. to about noon) on a Sunday they are basically empty but on any other day there are always substantially more people.
You just inadvertently broke my brain. Unless people who are sleeping in do so in the grocery store where you live, then you answered your own question in the same sentence you asked it.
They can't make it out of thin air to pay their debts, but they can essentially make it out of thin air to loan to people. There are reserve requirements, but they've gotten kind of ridiculous. After they've loaned it to people, they get back interest and, if the person they've loaned to can't pay, they seize and sell their collateral.
Isn't that the same logic that the killer in the "Saw" movies uses? That he doesn't kill anyone, he just sets them up to kill themselves or for other people to kill them.
Fear of being called gay doesn't prevent people from being gay. Fear of being a "geek" doesn't prevent people from being a geek. Fear of being left handed doesn't prevent people from being left handed.
Whatever other points you may have had in your post, those points stick out as just being blatantly ignorant of the history of the real world. For starters, there have been tons of gay men who have hidden being gay and married women. There's a lot less of that in the US today because being gay is now more widely socially acceptable and gay people can find peer networks where they feel more accepted. In some subcultures in the US, there are still homosexuals who are living as heterosexuals out of fear of being shunned by their community. On to geeks. Fear of being labelled a "geek" does actually prevent people from being geeks. I don't know what world you're living in. Fear of being left-handed also has prevented people from being left-handed. Once upon a time, if you were left handed, you could be ostracised and schools would punish left-handed students for their left-handedness until they learned to do it the "right" way.
I don't understand kick starter. If you fund a project you don't get any shares and don't get to share in the profit, and if the person leading the project blows all the dough on ale and wenches you can't interject any authority right?
That's right! You should only put your money into good, solid, traditional investments. May I suggest Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC?
Heck, in the case of Bell and Gray, their patents were submitted on the same day. In fact, there's some pretty damning evidence that Bell had a spy in the patent office who alerted Bell's lawyer of Gray's application and inserted Bell's into the queue before it.
I'm not familiar with that particular problem. At a place I worked once the walkie talkies would drive the fax machine crazy though.
I'm assuming this happens because the industry is full of Communications majors rather than Journalism majors.
When they talk about themselves, do they call themselves the "N.Y. Times""?
Sorry, not making sense to me. If you point the engines of a large passenger jet straight downward and power them up to full thrust, the jet is just going to sit there on the runway. Nearly all planes are built with a thrust to weight ratio of less than 1. So two snakes of thrust thrown out of the window is going to be less than two snakes worth of thrust.
"I call market at the time deciding that the spending on these programs was not worth the effort.
What you call the "market ... deciding", anyone who knows anything at all about emergent behaviours calls a joke. There's no magic invisible hand that causes markets to make ideal choices. Predicting the potential of a particular technology is something that's clearly outside the set of things market "decisions" can accomplish.
Why does everyone feel so entitled to be unaware of their own finances and security to the point of blaming the BANK for a scam?
Bear in mind that we're discussing this on a site that presents itself as "News for Nerds". Those discussing this are probably among the top 5% of people in the area of computer/security savvy. Most people probably don't even know how to check a link before clicking on it, but for everyone here, such a basic security step is second nature. The banks are doing business with all of those other people as well as with us. They do have some basic responsibility to provide security that most people can work with. The problem is, they don't. The kind of security banks provide seems to be stuck somewhere around the early 20th century or late 19th rather than the 21st
Take credit cards. An unchanging series of numbers given in the clear for every transaction. Their biggest security "innovation" in recent years is 3 or 4 extra digits written on the back of the card. Wow, that's real security genius. The kind of technology to create a secure, hidden key based, authentication system has existed for decades, but the banks stick with primitive technology and broken security practices. Given that, it's hard not to blame the banks when these things happen.
Compaqt wrote:
Remember when they used to teach that humans exhale co2, inhale oxygen? And plants "inhale" CO2, and release oxygen? Turns out they take in oxygen [google.com], too.
How old do you think we are exactly? I remember being taught this as a child, and I'm pretty sure that knowledge wasn't even remotely new at that time. And there were dinosaurs roaming the earth and I had to walk to school barefoot, through the snow, uphill both ways.
Telomeres don't shorten on their own, as you say. The traditional understanding is that they shorten when DNA replicates itself. Cell splits into two copies and the copies have shorter telomeres, limiting the number of times they can reproduce. Applying Ockham's Razor, it seems that the simplest explanation for two otherwise similar individuals of similar ages to have differing telomere lengths is that the individual with the shorter telomeres has experienced more cell death over their lifetime, so more of their cells are replacements. That can be explained by exposure to drugs or alcohol in the womb, poor nutrition, heightened stress levels causing cell death through various mechanisms, as well as plain old physical trauma. Given that explanation of how growing up in an abusive home could lead to shorter telomeres, is another explanation necessary? Does there have to be some special mechanism shortening telomeres to explain the results of this study, or does the traditional explanation that telomeres shorten with every cell division cover it?
I'm pretty sure it's not the mitochondria, but the shortened telomeres in the older nuclear DNA.
"Children of Vegans are necessarily developmentally disadvantaged" is a hypothesis that can be disproven with a single valid data point.. "This medicine has a 70% chance of healing you", on the other hand, requires a lot more evidence to disprove. It depends on how strong a claim you're making. If, for example, people are merely saying that children of Vegans are more likely to be developmentally disadvantaged, then you need a lot more evidence to disprove it. The difference between the claims should be obvious.
That's not the way it works. When the hypothesis is: "children of vegans are necessarily developmentally disadvantaged", a single counterexample is a significant data point.
It seemed to me to be implied by the context. It seems highly unlikely that the poster in question would have replied to the parent poster in such a way if they weren't also working for a startup and disagreed with them on the convenience. If they aren't working for a startup, I don't see how replying like that even makes sense.
This treatment is meant to actually kill off the infected cells before they spread more HIV around the body. Combining this with anti-retrovirals might actually be able to wipe all of the HIV out of a patients body. At least it's a step in that direction.
The poster talking about the two degrees, 65 hours a week and $8 an hour was replying to someone talking about working as a software engineer in a startup. I'm assuming that the $8 an hour poster is also working in a startup environment for slave wages in the hopes of the startup succeeding and doesn't find the situation as nice as the original poster does. Having worked in a startup that didn't succeed myself, I can certainly understand.
This actually reminds me of a joke:
An entrepreneur is receiving a visit by an auditor from the labor board. The auditor asks him:
"Does everyone here make at least minimum wage?"
"Yes. Well, everyone except the half-wit."
"The half-wit? What does he make?"
"I figure it works out to about $3.25 an hour plus a stale fruitcake at Christmas."
"I see. I would like very much to interview this half-wit."
"You already are/"
Considering what a small fraction of the cost of most launches fuel actually ends up being, I often wonder if there isn't too much emphasis on keeping weight down.
Yes, but plutonium 238 seems to have the best performance profile. First of all, it pretty much just emits alpha radiation that can be stopped with a thin layer of shielding. It also has a decently high power density combined with an 87.7 year half life. For long space missions Americium-241 seems to me to the the next best. It actually has a 432 year half life. It only has about 1/4 the power density of pu-238, so you have to use 4 times the mass of the pu-238 you would otherwise need. It needs a lot more shielding than pu-238, but still less than any other option. Strontium-90 has only a 28.8 year half-life, which is probably going to be too short for a Voyager style mission, and it has heavier shielding requirements. It could be useful for shorter space missions though. Planetary rovers/stations, for example. For that matter, it might be useful for powering a manned base as an alternative to a nuclear reactor. A metric ton of the stuff would generate 460 Kilowatts of heat, which you could convert to maybe 230 kilowatts of electricity (using a Stirling engine or something rather than just an inefficient thermocouple RTG). Of course, you can't turn the heat production off in any way, so you have deal with the heat somehow during transportation along with the radiation.
By that logic, the RMV could start selling licenses to drive the wrong way down one way streets because customers like them. ICANN is not meant to be in the business of offering "innovative and exciting new products". They're in charge of a system that they're supposed to keep operating smoothly. Instead of doing that, they only seem to be interested in exploitation.
Why does this kind of security vulnerability even exist in this day and age? Considering how compact solid state data storage is these days, there's no reason I can think of whatsoever that a vulnerability like this should exist. This is the perfect use case for a one time pad. It's simple. You generate some random data and save a copy of it on three storage devices. One copy goes into the pump, another copy goes into the external wireless controller, and the last copy goes into a safe somewhere. When the wireless controller wants to send instructions to the pump, it xors them against the random data. The pump then xors what it's receiving against its copy of the data to decrypt it. If the controller ever gets lost, a new one can be programmed with the copy of the data that's in a safe somewhere. Provided the control instructions to the pump are long enough, that method makes it virtually impossible to attack the pump without getting physical access to the pump itself, the controller, or the copy of the data securely locked in a safe.
It's like no-one even considers security. Maybe the manufacturers of these pumps take their cues about security from the credit card companies.
I assume you mean the Republican primary? Since the Republican primary is only for Republicans, the GP was quite right to say "Citation doubtful". It's possible you're correct that he has 70% support among _Republicans_ age 18 to 35 (although that still sounds a little doubtful), but since Republicans are only a subset of the group known as "people", then you have a problem. If, for example, the 70% figure is correct for Republicans and Republicans make up 50% of the population (and we assume a perfectly even distribution by age group), then it would be 35% support among people age 18 to 35.