The temperature of the thermosphere has nothing to do with the temperature of the climate. We're talking about the part of the atmosphere where the international space station orbits. The rules there are very different from the lower atmosphere (as are the temperatures (up to a few thousand C depending upon where you are). The temperatures are controlled by the absorption and emission of radiation (and, of course, conservation of energy).
The radiation absorbed by these tenuous gasses is in the extreme ultraviolet and soft x-ray. We've been monitoring the solar EUV and SXR output for quite a while. When they are high the thermosphere heats up and expands. Satellites in low orbit experience a lot of drag and end up in lower orbits. Because of the extended solar minimum EUV and SXR are way down, but they haven't changed enough to explain the entire temperature difference. So the remainder of the difference has to be in the emission of radiation in the thermosphere. There's a series of linked partial differential equations involved, so I won't do the actual math. But the easiest way to cool the thermosphere is to add higher amounts of species that have a lot of cooling transitions.
One of the people quoted in TFA thinks it might be due to increased CO2. I have a hard time buying that. Because it's heavy, it's hard to get CO2 into the thermosphere. It would be tough to get an in situ measurement of CO2 and it's ionization products with any existing instrument
As far as what this effect could do to the world. Well, it could screw up your AM reception. And it could screw up a prediction of a LEO satellite's orbit. (i.e. your sun synchronous polar orbit might not be as sun synchronous as you hoped.) But it's not going to kill dolphins or sea turtles, or cause earthquakes or polar shifts.
I could do the required measurement with an FUV to NUV spectrometer for diffuse radiation on 2-axis coarse pointing gimbal. I'd need a satellite for a platform. But by the time I got it built and launched we'd be heading up toward solar max.
I believe that the antennas in other models were internal rather than integral to the case and exposed. The internal method has problems of its own (attenuation of signal due to metal parts of the case and circuitboards).
You don't need to be skeptical. This will produce crappy results. You're still pushing the light through a tiny dirty lens and a tiny aperture. The iphone's autofocus will be fighting your attempts to get the focus you want (unless there's a way to turn off autofocus). The iphone 4 may be a nifty point and shoot camera, but it's not SLR quality regardless of the number of pixels.
I'd title this one "I don't know anything about optics or photography, but I can machine a bracket out of aluminum."
First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.
Yes, but why should we expect Verizon to be responsible for providing benefits to veterans if we can't get our own fucking government to do the right thing? You think that Verizon should somehow grow the conscience that the Senate doesn't have?
The ETF isn't that unreasonable given that the $350 fee is for people who got a phone for at least $350 less than it should have cost them. I got a $600 phone for $175. The rest is a debt to be paid as part of the phone bill or via the ETF if I leave. Second, if my wife died regardless the reason, I wouldn't expect them to waive the ETF for my phone service.
Doesn't work. Everyone knows Google's motto is "Don't be (openly) evil." Apple's is "Be openly evil." Any rootkit installer on the iPhone 4 would be advertised as an amazing new feature.
Which state is it that the public can make a law via a petition? How many signatures do you require? 50% of the electorate?
Maybe you can petition to get a law considered or a referendum on the ballot. But that's not a vote, it's a petition. It might be a good indicator of how you would vote, but it doesn't obligate you to vote in that manner, or to even vote.
A petition is an expression of opinion intended to sway the government. And if you're trying to sway the government, the people have a right to know who you are. It's not a vote and it carries no expectation of privacy.
If you want to vote anonymously on a government matter there are referendums, ballot propositions and initiatives, depending upon whatever process your state has implemented.
I always thought that was the case. Why would anyone think you can petition the government anonymously? I believe visitor logs to the white house are public records, although Bush was pretty successful at withholding them when he wanted. Visitors to congresspeople and letters relating to pending legislation should also be public records. And if you could petition anonymously, why do you think they would listen?
We need to get rid of it and make the penalties for buying votes and intimidating people into voting one way or anything significantly worse.
They would never be enforced, unless, for some reason, you thought that the Chief of Police and the local mob wouldn't be the one buying and selling the votes. Without that, how are the right judges going to be elected?
This isn't a petition. This is slashdot. Not that I'm all that anonymous, even here.
There are good reasons why government petitions are public records. Some people are not eligible to sign them. Some of the names will be false. Some people will sign more than once.
Anyone signing any petition is stupid to expect anonymity.
Your concept of "Internet based software store" is very 1994. You click on the icon for the software and it downloads. Once it downloads you click to install. Whatever transaction was necessary for the purchase was handled by the Marketplace app. It probably account information for your provider, so you'd be billed properly and a decryption key so the app could be installed. I doubt it contained an email address, but Google may be able to determine your email address from the account information.
I'm guessing the "research purposes" were to find out how many users would download it, what fraction would give it the permissions it requested, and how many would keep it installed after if failed to work properly.
Only download apps from the web? Yeah, I guess you can download apps from any application marketplace. Or any website that has an app on it, for that matter. But you could also transfer the apps via USB. If your devices has a card slot you could put the app on the card. With a little effort you could write your own apps on the device itself. So are you actually complaining that you can get your apps from just about anywhere? Or did you think that the Google Marketplace was the only place you can get apps?
If it was actually a useful app that was removed, one of the other repositories would be trumpeting the fact that the app was still available from their website.
And 20% malicious apps? As if there weren't enough problems getting iphone 4s as it is....
The 20% is bad editing. The real statistic is that 20% of apps ask for permission to access data or functions that could be used maliciously. Like the ability to access the Internet. And really? Apple hasn't remotely uninstalled an app yet, even though they routinely remove ones that work exactly as advertised from the iTunes store? I'd say it's only a matter of time...
That's one of a thousand reasons I wouldn't use any phone from AT&T, or any AT&T phone, internet or television service. But it doesn't have a whole lot to do with Google.
Unless Obama gives a definite time line of how long it will take to "figure out" what went wrong, I think this judge did the right thing. What if Obama wants to shut it down indefinitely? What if a federal investigation will take 8 years to complete? What if takes 15?
Then we won't have deepwater drilling in that time, and maybe some of the $$ we would spend on cleaning up the next disaster could be put to productive use, like alternative energy. Probably not, because in 15 years we'll still be cleaning up this one, and bp will have morphed in a way that shields them and their shareholders from having to pay for it. The oil under the Gulf doesn't belong to the company doing the drilling or the pumping. It belongs to us, and we let them take it for half a cent on the dollar because, in theory, it benefits us for them to do so. If the country decides its no longer in our interest to have wells operating in the Gulf, then it stops, period. The oil companies aren't entitled to the oil. We don't owe them the ability to make a profit on oil. People working the rigs aren't entitled to jobs, any more than the clerk at Blockbuster is. That's just the way it works.
The people at the Baton Rouge refinery aren't even going to notice a difference of less than a tenth of a percent in production. That tenth of a percent will probably be made up by an extra tanker or two steaming into the gulf. You didn't think there were no import of oil into the gulf states, did you?
Slashdot Mirror
The temperature of the thermosphere has nothing to do with the temperature of the climate. We're talking about the part of the atmosphere where the international space station orbits. The rules there are very different from the lower atmosphere (as are the temperatures (up to a few thousand C depending upon where you are). The temperatures are controlled by the absorption and emission of radiation (and, of course, conservation of energy).
The radiation absorbed by these tenuous gasses is in the extreme ultraviolet and soft x-ray. We've been monitoring the solar EUV and SXR output for quite a while. When they are high the thermosphere heats up and expands. Satellites in low orbit experience a lot of drag and end up in lower orbits. Because of the extended solar minimum EUV and SXR are way down, but they haven't changed enough to explain the entire temperature difference. So the remainder of the difference has to be in the emission of radiation in the thermosphere. There's a series of linked partial differential equations involved, so I won't do the actual math. But the easiest way to cool the thermosphere is to add higher amounts of species that have a lot of cooling transitions.
One of the people quoted in TFA thinks it might be due to increased CO2. I have a hard time buying that. Because it's heavy, it's hard to get CO2 into the thermosphere. It would be tough to get an in situ measurement of CO2 and it's ionization products with any existing instrument
As far as what this effect could do to the world. Well, it could screw up your AM reception. And it could screw up a prediction of a LEO satellite's orbit. (i.e. your sun synchronous polar orbit might not be as sun synchronous as you hoped.) But it's not going to kill dolphins or sea turtles, or cause earthquakes or polar shifts.
I could do the required measurement with an FUV to NUV spectrometer for diffuse radiation on 2-axis coarse pointing gimbal. I'd need a satellite for a platform. But by the time I got it built and launched we'd be heading up toward solar max.
Disclaimer, I do this for a living.
Other methods of mounting the antenna wouldn't have looked as good. Therefore they went with this one.
I believe that the antennas in other models were internal rather than integral to the case and exposed. The internal method has problems of its own (attenuation of signal due to metal parts of the case and circuitboards).
You don't need to be skeptical. This will produce crappy results. You're still pushing the light through a tiny dirty lens and a tiny aperture. The iphone's autofocus will be fighting your attempts to get the focus you want (unless there's a way to turn off autofocus). The iphone 4 may be a nifty point and shoot camera, but it's not SLR quality regardless of the number of pixels.
I'd title this one "I don't know anything about optics or photography, but I can machine a bracket out of aluminum."
First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.
Yes, but why should we expect Verizon to be responsible for providing benefits to veterans if we can't get our own fucking government to do the right thing? You think that Verizon should somehow grow the conscience that the Senate doesn't have?
The ETF isn't that unreasonable given that the $350 fee is for people who got a phone for at least $350 less than it should have cost them. I got a $600 phone for $175. The rest is a debt to be paid as part of the phone bill or via the ETF if I leave. Second, if my wife died regardless the reason, I wouldn't expect them to waive the ETF for my phone service.
You can do those things from settings without being rooted.
Doesn't work. Everyone knows Google's motto is "Don't be (openly) evil." Apple's is "Be openly evil." Any rootkit installer on the iPhone 4 would be advertised as an amazing new feature.
If you've got the Marketplace app installed (it is by defaults), you're already checking in with google on a regular basis.
Why would they need to? They could write an app to do it. And then they wouldn't need to hack google.
Which state is it that the public can make a law via a petition? How many signatures do you require? 50% of the electorate?
Maybe you can petition to get a law considered or a referendum on the ballot. But that's not a vote, it's a petition. It might be a good indicator of how you would vote, but it doesn't obligate you to vote in that manner, or to even vote.
A petition is an expression of opinion intended to sway the government. And if you're trying to sway the government, the people have a right to know who you are. It's not a vote and it carries no expectation of privacy.
If you want to vote anonymously on a government matter there are referendums, ballot propositions and initiatives, depending upon whatever process your state has implemented.
Yes, very much so. A vote is for selecting a government. A petition is designed to sway the opinion of an existing government.
I always thought that was the case. Why would anyone think you can petition the government anonymously? I believe visitor logs to the white house are public records, although Bush was pretty successful at withholding them when he wanted. Visitors to congresspeople and letters relating to pending legislation should also be public records. And if you could petition anonymously, why do you think they would listen?
We need to get rid of it and make the penalties for buying votes and intimidating people into voting one way or anything significantly worse.
They would never be enforced, unless, for some reason, you thought that the Chief of Police and the local mob wouldn't be the one buying and selling the votes. Without that, how are the right judges going to be elected?
This isn't a petition. This is slashdot. Not that I'm all that anonymous, even here.
There are good reasons why government petitions are public records. Some people are not eligible to sign them. Some of the names will be false. Some people will sign more than once.
Anyone signing any petition is stupid to expect anonymity.
Your concept of "Internet based software store" is very 1994. You click on the icon for the software and it downloads. Once it downloads you click to install. Whatever transaction was necessary for the purchase was handled by the Marketplace app. It probably account information for your provider, so you'd be billed properly and a decryption key so the app could be installed. I doubt it contained an email address, but Google may be able to determine your email address from the account information.
Yeah, apple prefers to brick the whole phone if they don't like what you're doing with it.
The people downloading the app were probably the subjects of the research.
I'm guessing the "research purposes" were to find out how many users would download it, what fraction would give it the permissions it requested, and how many would keep it installed after if failed to work properly.
Only download apps from the web? Yeah, I guess you can download apps from any application marketplace. Or any website that has an app on it, for that matter. But you could also transfer the apps via USB. If your devices has a card slot you could put the app on the card. With a little effort you could write your own apps on the device itself. So are you actually complaining that you can get your apps from just about anywhere? Or did you think that the Google Marketplace was the only place you can get apps?
If it was actually a useful app that was removed, one of the other repositories would be trumpeting the fact that the app was still available from their website.
And 20% malicious apps? As if there weren't enough problems getting iphone 4s as it is....
The 20% is bad editing. The real statistic is that 20% of apps ask for permission to access data or functions that could be used maliciously. Like the ability to access the Internet. And really? Apple hasn't remotely uninstalled an app yet, even though they routinely remove ones that work exactly as advertised from the iTunes store? I'd say it's only a matter of time...
That's one of a thousand reasons I wouldn't use any phone from AT&T, or any AT&T phone, internet or television service. But it doesn't have a whole lot to do with Google.
Unless Obama gives a definite time line of how long it will take to "figure out" what went wrong, I think this judge did the right thing. What if Obama wants to shut it down indefinitely? What if a federal investigation will take 8 years to complete? What if takes 15?
Then we won't have deepwater drilling in that time, and maybe some of the $$ we would spend on cleaning up the next disaster could be put to productive use, like alternative energy. Probably not, because in 15 years we'll still be cleaning up this one, and bp will have morphed in a way that shields them and their shareholders from having to pay for it. The oil under the Gulf doesn't belong to the company doing the drilling or the pumping. It belongs to us, and we let them take it for half a cent on the dollar because, in theory, it benefits us for them to do so. If the country decides its no longer in our interest to have wells operating in the Gulf, then it stops, period. The oil companies aren't entitled to the oil. We don't owe them the ability to make a profit on oil. People working the rigs aren't entitled to jobs, any more than the clerk at Blockbuster is. That's just the way it works.
The people at the Baton Rouge refinery aren't even going to notice a difference of less than a tenth of a percent in production. That tenth of a percent will probably be made up by an extra tanker or two steaming into the gulf. You didn't think there were no import of oil into the gulf states, did you?