The half-life of an individual CO2 molecule is about 5 years, and the place where that CO2 molecule will almost certainly go is the sea. For the first half of the 20th Century it was believed that atmospheric CO2 was in equilibrium with ocean CO2, until Roger Revelle proved in the 1950s that ocean concentrations of CO2 could not increase fast enough to maintain an equilibrium with the atmosphere. Thus the effective half-life of CO2 is closer to 100 years, which means *mathematically speaking* almost all the CO2 entering the ocean is balanced by a near equal amount coming out.
Obviously the speed at which the oceans absorb CO2 will impact the rate of climate change, but we've known for over 70 years that that rate is not very high, and if it were that would present other problems.
The Karman Line is drawn at 100 km, not just because that's a nice round number, but because it's roughly the point where an object's momentum and atmospheric friction are roughly equally important.
Above the Karman line objects act more like satellites, with their motion momentum-dominated. Below the Karman line object motion tend to act more like aircraft, with their motion dominated by atmospheric interaction.
Obviously momentum exists below the line and drag exists above the line, which is why satellites in extreme low Earth orbit tend to have their orbits decay. ISS is at about 405 km and decays at roughly 2km/month, requiring regular boosting. The lowest altitude at which an object could make at least one full orbit without boost is about 150 km.
The Karman line is a sensible place to end national sovereignty. Well below that line you need to put energy into an object to cross over a country. Well above the line you need to put energy into an object to avoid crossing over the country. Extending sovereignty above the Karman Line would deny access to space to everyone.
Actually, the case for CO2 is much stronger than, way, the case for NOx, because NOx has a half-life measured in hours, but CO2 has an effective half-life in the century range (note carefully: an atom of CO2 that dissolves into the ocean tends to displace one that is already there back into the atmosphere).
Just to play devil's advocate here, it's not just about space. By soldering on the SSD and putting it behind as crypto chip, you complicate the job of, say, the police if they want to recover data from it.
Suppose a flaw in the encryption existed that allowed you recover the key used by the encryption chip. Desoldering the SSD and putting it in a test rig won't stop the NSA, but it will sure slow down casual hackers.
A lot of this architecture actually makes sense from a security standpoint. Biometric credentials stored in cleartext give me the heebie-jeebies. But as always the closed nature of this system makes other, less savory things possible, like locking out non-authorized repair shops.
Well, by that argument, why would argue allow Linux to boot by an UEFI shim?
The point is it doesn't have to make sense to you. People own the computers, and if they want to install FreeDOS on it, they should be able to even if you think that's stupid.
A lot of phone UI changes are not about making phones easier to *use*, they're about making the phones easier to *sell*.
Consider wrap around screens -- do they actually *improve* the functionality of the phone in any way? Or do they exist just to make you say "ooh" the first time you hold it? Or ultra-thin phones -- is a 7mm phone any more convenient, or would you rather have a 10mm phone with 2x the battery?
The very earliest Android phones had a dedicated area with four buttons stenciled on it: back, menu, home, and search. Now there's other reasons they did it this way, but this happens to be the way a UI functionality purist would design the interface. The button row interface is (1) manifest (you see there's a widget there to frob and it gives you some hint of what it's about), and (2) stable (those common buttons are always in the exact same place).
Every change made accessing these functions since that day hasn't been to make the users' lives easier; it's been to impress them when they're shopping for phones. And it quite evidently works, so you can't really blame Google or the phone manufacturers. Consumers get excited by novelty. You'll never get better vendors until you get better consumers.
This is just UEFI secure boot being turned on by default. Turn it off and you can boot any unsigned kernel you want, it's in Apple's support database (google HT208330).
It's not different from what you go through with other UEFI firmware, except Apple's branding obscures that fact.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I would like to respond to this:
If you get past those things, there's a good chance the study would be able to be reproduced if someone tried.
This is true, but it does *not* necessarily mean that other equally valid but contrary studies could take place. The more complex a system you are talking about, the more apparently contrasting evidence is bound to be found. This is particularly true in fields like nutrition, where the funding available is low relative to the complexity of the problem being studied. It's like trying to paint a 360 degree panorama that you're studying through a drinking straw.
YMMV of course, which is why I suggested restricting your search to leading journals that are difficult to get published in. But looking at an *individual* study is useless, unless you are committed to looking at a large number of of other papers that cite that study. Most researchers get a lot of things wrong on the first go, even the good ones.
Systemic reviews are the best way for layman to evaluate evidence. If you *do* choose the read *a* study, you need to real *a lot* of studies that cite it before you put any credence in it.
You should go on systemic reviews published in high impact factor journals.
The reason is that the world is complex. When you look at it, even if your technique is flawless (which it won't be), you will find contradictory evidence. If you look back at landmark studies that have stood the test of time, you will just about always find procedural or analytical flaws that invalidate their conclusions. Note very carefully here: an invalid conclusion is not the same as an *untrue* one.
The moment of scientific discovery has immense romantic appeal, but it's only the start of a long process in which that discovery is repeatedly knocked down and then propped back up again. What a systemic review paper does is go back over the *entire* chain of contradictory findings and sum up the state of the evidence.
You say this like it proves the exclusion zone is too big. In fact the problem with the exclusion zone is that it's not uniform; it has hot spots where you would not want to live, and less hot spots that you could live in and which are are closer to the sarcophagus.
You could reduce the area of the zone by producing an extremely detailed map of go/no-go areas. That has the advantage of reclaiming more land. But it has the disadvantage that given enough people living right next to no-go areas a certain number will inevitably stray into them, pick up or disturb contamination, then spread it.
No matter how you draw the line, you could probably draw it better by some criterion.
I'm not a nuclear apologist by any means, but it's an empty argument to say Fukushima means nuclear is impossible. Nobody would build a plant remotely like this one, or situate a modern plant anywhere like there.
I'm a huge proponent of upgrade the electric grid. This would enable renewable sources to power distant cities, but it could *coincidentally* give more flexibility in locating nuclear plants, should we decide to build more of them. And if we do we need to build what we've learned about organizations running nuclear plants (we can't rely on them doing the right thing) into the design.
I don't believe we should have a all-eggs-in-one basket approach to our energy needs. A diverse portfolio of energy sources means we can build them where the marginal risk/environmental cost is minimal.
I should hope they're trying to clean this mess up.
Well, first they've got to find the mess, which has taken years and which will probably take many more years. It's all well and good to say "clean the site up", but if you just had at it you'd probably cause more harm than good.
For the moment the situation appears stable-ish, but since we don't really know what's going on it makes sense to find out rather than trusting our luck.
I think two-factor is definitely the way to go for high security applications. That does not mean that "two factor" is automatically better than a password scheme, it depends on the design and implementation.
Is 8 characters enough to control access to a *network* resource? I'd say the answer is a resounding "maybe".
If you start by assuming that that the attacker has no access to the underlying password database and that he never will, and that rules eliminate easily guessed passwords, sure: I'm satisfied. But the assumption that the password database is secure is a big one. An unsalted password databases is a gold mine for an attacker.
If you assume that the password database *might potentially* be accessed remotely through some other exploit, but that it is hashed using a reasonably secure function and is never stored anywhere in unsalted form, and the valid password rules are reasonable, I'd say 8 characters is secure enough for *most* practical purposes.
As for any remaining practical purposes, you simply need something stronger than passwords, because humans aren't going to be any good at memorized ten character strings of pure gobbledygook.
What I think is interesting is to compare her Air Force service photo to the photo of her circulating in the news stories. She is a Texan of German extraction, and in her service portraits he looks white. In the photo used in the news stories she is wearing a hijab and is very brown.
I find this strange. There are a dozen or so ethnic groups in Iran, some of whom are dark-skinned, some of whom are about the same color as this woman. Tehran has about the same latitude as Oklahoma city, so if she was brought in Texas and had the genetics to turn brown while living in Iran, she ought to have been brown all her life.
The Dutch outfit *The Correspondent* has developed a subscription news service -- no advertisers, no eyeball selling to third parties. They get 100% of their revenue from their readers. And they just finished a successful crowdfunding campaign to start up in the US.
Straw man much? People aren't talking about banning QoS for classes of traffic when they talk about Net Neutrality. They're talking about the carrier using its middleman behavior to steer consumers toward some providers of services over competitors providing the same kind of service.
Slashdot Mirror
So the government should compel private companies to carry their views on their private held servers, and connect advertisers to them?
Anyhow, there's very little danger of a monopoly. A weblog is easy enough to set up, if Storm Front isn't your cup of tea.
The half-life of an individual CO2 molecule is about 5 years, and the place where that CO2 molecule will almost certainly go is the sea. For the first half of the 20th Century it was believed that atmospheric CO2 was in equilibrium with ocean CO2, until Roger Revelle proved in the 1950s that ocean concentrations of CO2 could not increase fast enough to maintain an equilibrium with the atmosphere. Thus the effective half-life of CO2 is closer to 100 years, which means *mathematically speaking* almost all the CO2 entering the ocean is balanced by a near equal amount coming out.
Obviously the speed at which the oceans absorb CO2 will impact the rate of climate change, but we've known for over 70 years that that rate is not very high, and if it were that would present other problems.
The Karman Line is drawn at 100 km, not just because that's a nice round number, but because it's roughly the point where an object's momentum and atmospheric friction are roughly equally important.
Above the Karman line objects act more like satellites, with their motion momentum-dominated. Below the Karman line object motion tend to act more like aircraft, with their motion dominated by atmospheric interaction.
Obviously momentum exists below the line and drag exists above the line, which is why satellites in extreme low Earth orbit tend to have their orbits decay. ISS is at about 405 km and decays at roughly 2km/month, requiring regular boosting. The lowest altitude at which an object could make at least one full orbit without boost is about 150 km.
The Karman line is a sensible place to end national sovereignty. Well below that line you need to put energy into an object to cross over a country. Well above the line you need to put energy into an object to avoid crossing over the country. Extending sovereignty above the Karman Line would deny access to space to everyone.
Actually, the case for CO2 is much stronger than, way, the case for NOx, because NOx has a half-life measured in hours, but CO2 has an effective half-life in the century range (note carefully: an atom of CO2 that dissolves into the ocean tends to displace one that is already there back into the atmosphere).
The argument will be that greenhouse gas regulations (like many air pollution regulations) fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
If people are having fun, why does it have to accomplish anything?
What's the number one thing to you is not necessarily the number one thing for other people.
Just to play devil's advocate here, it's not just about space. By soldering on the SSD and putting it behind as crypto chip, you complicate the job of, say, the police if they want to recover data from it.
Suppose a flaw in the encryption existed that allowed you recover the key used by the encryption chip. Desoldering the SSD and putting it in a test rig won't stop the NSA, but it will sure slow down casual hackers.
A lot of this architecture actually makes sense from a security standpoint. Biometric credentials stored in cleartext give me the heebie-jeebies. But as always the closed nature of this system makes other, less savory things possible, like locking out non-authorized repair shops.
Well, by that argument, why would argue allow Linux to boot by an UEFI shim?
The point is it doesn't have to make sense to you. People own the computers, and if they want to install FreeDOS on it, they should be able to even if you think that's stupid.
A lot of phone UI changes are not about making phones easier to *use*, they're about making the phones easier to *sell*.
Consider wrap around screens -- do they actually *improve* the functionality of the phone in any way? Or do they exist just to make you say "ooh" the first time you hold it? Or ultra-thin phones -- is a 7mm phone any more convenient, or would you rather have a 10mm phone with 2x the battery?
The very earliest Android phones had a dedicated area with four buttons stenciled on it: back, menu, home, and search. Now there's other reasons they did it this way, but this happens to be the way a UI functionality purist would design the interface. The button row interface is (1) manifest (you see there's a widget there to frob and it gives you some hint of what it's about), and (2) stable (those common buttons are always in the exact same place).
Every change made accessing these functions since that day hasn't been to make the users' lives easier; it's been to impress them when they're shopping for phones. And it quite evidently works, so you can't really blame Google or the phone manufacturers. Consumers get excited by novelty. You'll never get better vendors until you get better consumers.
This is just UEFI secure boot being turned on by default. Turn it off and you can boot any unsigned kernel you want, it's in Apple's support database (google HT208330).
It's not different from what you go through with other UEFI firmware, except Apple's branding obscures that fact.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I would like to respond to this:
If you get past those things, there's a good chance the study would be able to be reproduced if someone tried.
This is true, but it does *not* necessarily mean that other equally valid but contrary studies could take place. The more complex a system you are talking about, the more apparently contrasting evidence is bound to be found. This is particularly true in fields like nutrition, where the funding available is low relative to the complexity of the problem being studied. It's like trying to paint a 360 degree panorama that you're studying through a drinking straw.
YMMV of course, which is why I suggested restricting your search to leading journals that are difficult to get published in. But looking at an *individual* study is useless, unless you are committed to looking at a large number of of other papers that cite that study. Most researchers get a lot of things wrong on the first go, even the good ones.
Systemic reviews are the best way for layman to evaluate evidence. If you *do* choose the read *a* study, you need to real *a lot* of studies that cite it before you put any credence in it.
You should go on systemic reviews published in high impact factor journals.
The reason is that the world is complex. When you look at it, even if your technique is flawless (which it won't be), you will find contradictory evidence. If you look back at landmark studies that have stood the test of time, you will just about always find procedural or analytical flaws that invalidate their conclusions. Note very carefully here: an invalid conclusion is not the same as an *untrue* one.
The moment of scientific discovery has immense romantic appeal, but it's only the start of a long process in which that discovery is repeatedly knocked down and then propped back up again. What a systemic review paper does is go back over the *entire* chain of contradictory findings and sum up the state of the evidence.
You say this like it proves the exclusion zone is too big. In fact the problem with the exclusion zone is that it's not uniform; it has hot spots where you would not want to live, and less hot spots that you could live in and which are are closer to the sarcophagus.
You could reduce the area of the zone by producing an extremely detailed map of go/no-go areas. That has the advantage of reclaiming more land. But it has the disadvantage that given enough people living right next to no-go areas a certain number will inevitably stray into them, pick up or disturb contamination, then spread it.
No matter how you draw the line, you could probably draw it better by some criterion.
No. There are a number of plants *exactly like this one*, although few in such dangerous places.
I'm not a nuclear apologist by any means, but it's an empty argument to say Fukushima means nuclear is impossible. Nobody would build a plant remotely like this one, or situate a modern plant anywhere like there.
I'm a huge proponent of upgrade the electric grid. This would enable renewable sources to power distant cities, but it could *coincidentally* give more flexibility in locating nuclear plants, should we decide to build more of them. And if we do we need to build what we've learned about organizations running nuclear plants (we can't rely on them doing the right thing) into the design.
I don't believe we should have a all-eggs-in-one basket approach to our energy needs. A diverse portfolio of energy sources means we can build them where the marginal risk/environmental cost is minimal.
He's got Adam Savage working on it.
I should hope they're trying to clean this mess up.
Well, first they've got to find the mess, which has taken years and which will probably take many more years. It's all well and good to say "clean the site up", but if you just had at it you'd probably cause more harm than good.
For the moment the situation appears stable-ish, but since we don't really know what's going on it makes sense to find out rather than trusting our luck.
I think two-factor is definitely the way to go for high security applications. That does not mean that "two factor" is automatically better than a password scheme, it depends on the design and implementation.
Is 8 characters enough to control access to a *network* resource? I'd say the answer is a resounding "maybe".
If you start by assuming that that the attacker has no access to the underlying password database and that he never will, and that rules eliminate easily guessed passwords, sure: I'm satisfied. But the assumption that the password database is secure is a big one. An unsalted password databases is a gold mine for an attacker.
If you assume that the password database *might potentially* be accessed remotely through some other exploit, but that it is hashed using a reasonably secure function and is never stored anywhere in unsalted form, and the valid password rules are reasonable, I'd say 8 characters is secure enough for *most* practical purposes.
As for any remaining practical purposes, you simply need something stronger than passwords, because humans aren't going to be any good at memorized ten character strings of pure gobbledygook.
What I think is interesting is to compare her Air Force service photo to the photo of her circulating in the news stories. She is a Texan of German extraction, and in her service portraits he looks white. In the photo used in the news stories she is wearing a hijab and is very brown.
I find this strange. There are a dozen or so ethnic groups in Iran, some of whom are dark-skinned, some of whom are about the same color as this woman. Tehran has about the same latitude as Oklahoma city, so if she was brought in Texas and had the genetics to turn brown while living in Iran, she ought to have been brown all her life.
The Dutch outfit *The Correspondent* has developed a subscription news service -- no advertisers, no eyeball selling to third parties. They get 100% of their revenue from their readers. And they just finished a successful crowdfunding campaign to start up in the US.
Straw man much? People aren't talking about banning QoS for classes of traffic when they talk about Net Neutrality. They're talking about the carrier using its middleman behavior to steer consumers toward some providers of services over competitors providing the same kind of service.