Bremsstrahlung is also a huge deal when working with beta-decaying isotopes or isotopes with beta-decaying daughter isotopes (like the medically used radioiodines). A thin enough lead shield will quickly slow the beta particles and release a huge amount of X-rays. Biological assays that use beta-decaying isotopes like P-32 have to use plexiglass or some other low-density material to block the betas but not irradiate the user with X-rays.
That's how it should technically be handled, but practically the outcome would be worse. Congress is entirely run by lobbyists, with laws drafted entirely by the lobbying parties and consensus decided entirely by "campaign donations".
At least in an open court there is a token effort to decide which argument is the most sound. The courts allow for appeals, too, which is notably lacking in the practical outcomes of the decisions of legislators.
To claim Apple "invented" the idea of a reversible USB connector is utterly just plain silly. Even if you claim it is invention to do something blindingly obvious, you'll be disappointed to hear that Nokia's DKU2 cable was (a) reversible (b) carried USB and (c) existed on the 2002 eara Nokia 6100, a full 5 years before even the first generation iPhone and a year before the iPod's reversible connector supported USB.
The original iPod dock connector was not reversible. I'm pretty sure that the Lightning connector from last year is the first reversible connector that Apple has ever used.
That's delightfully evil! You'd be a shoe-in to the USB spec team.
The only thing I'd add is that the power circuit is completed through the user's fingers first, so it delivers an electric shock if the plug is inserted with the indexing lined up correctly.
Connectors that are (un)plugged often should either be symmetrical or clearly indexed. The original (big) USB plug was almost right (in the sense that the plug wouldn't go in the wrong way), except that it was difficult to tell which way the index should be facing. Firewire was a decent implementation of an indexed plug.
The current micro USB plugs are ridiculous, though. It can takes three tries to plug it in and every time you get it wrong you stress the socket a little. The difference in feel between a correct and incorrect fit is very mushy with some plugs/sockets.
While we're on the subject, a pure rectangle (a la the USB A plug) is even worse. The USB connector design over the years has been so bad that I wouldn't be too hopeful about what they come up with next.
The colors are bolder on the Australian bills and the different sizes are nice, but I likely wouldn't be able to count them as quickly as you can. I've never mixed up US money, either. Even when they were all green, I could instantly recognize and count the bills. Besides the vision impaired, I don't think any Americans ever really had problems with the green money.
I think much of the issue you're describing is what everyone finds with foreign currency. Foreign money feeling alien and difficult to recognize and count quickly is so common that it's almost cliche. Every time I travel, I have to keep the bills carefully sorted and double check the printed number before I hand it over. The effect may be more exaggerated when visiting a place with more subtle bill differences, but it's not unheard of anywhere. Also, if you're trained to look for color and size differences, seeking out the numbers may require a more conscious effort.
To be fair, the paper currency issue was addressed ten years ago, it's just taking a little time to get the last few bits of old money out of circulation. I haven't seen an old bill in a while, though I don't deal with cash that often.
The sizes are still the same, but the color issue has been fixed and there are other differences to help distinguish the different notes.
No, he said responsibilities. Moral awareness doesn't require responsibilities.
You got it backward. Responsibilities require moral awareness. This is why children lack legal responsibilities and are generally not held accountable for their actions. Their lack of responsibilities is why they also lack all of the adult rights.
Children have many rights, though, because they will one day grow into adults (and be able to fulfill those responsibilities). Chimpanzees (and other animals) do not reach a point where they can fulfill the responsibilities expected of an adult human, which is why they aren't assigned the rights of a human. They can certainly fulfill some responsibilities (not violently attack others without cause), which is why we recognize that they have some rights. Our own moral awareness also grants them other rights (against cruelty, etc).
Thirdly, Corporations at one time were PROHIBITED from owning another corporations; again to PREVENT consolidation of power.
If corporations keep pressing forward toward legal personhood, I wonder if you could make a 13th amendment argument against them owning other corporations...
I mean, I can understand if it is a yard where kids play football,etc...
From my experience, that's where people prefer to leave their dog shit because there's nobody there to yell at them.
There's a school near my house with a big field where the kids play. The dog owners in the neighborhood apparently think it's a dog park. Dogs off leash running up to little kids walking to school, dog shit left everywhere... it's a disgusting display of self-centered behavior.
Re:mall cops for the most part are not real cops a
on
R2-D2: Mall Cop
·
· Score: 1
What gets weird is when most people are approached by a figure of authority, such as a person in a uniform, they tend to comply. A good, from the police department's perspective, law enforcement officer can get almost anyone to consent to a search.
This is because most people don't know that the interaction is voluntary. Your "good policeman" is effective at making the search seem mandatory.
[Their gun, and the general knowledge that they would most likely get away with any assault on you (up to and including murdering you), makes complying with their whims seem even more mandatory. If you recreated your above scenario (you asking for consent to search a car), but this time you are armed and they have no chance of rallying assistance, you'd find people "consent" to your search as well.]
That does seem like a lot, but I imagine they've only stayed at 25c in the US because that's the largest value coin that's in wide enough circulation. If the $1 coin had caught on, they'd almost certainly be required by now.
I'm not quite sure what your argument is. Are you arguing that anyone who kills an animal must take a perverse pleasure in it? Or are you saying that I take a perverse pleasure in it, but that someone else (from whom I would, per your second sentence, buy the meat from) doesn't? On what basis do you feel you can make either of those statements?
You're also overstating the cost involved... There are rabbits in my backyard. The ammunition costs a dime a piece. The rifle was inherited. You can't get meat much cheaper than that. (Certainly not rabbit.)
I don't know every hunter, but everyone that I know shoots paper or an animal that they eat. Why do you think most hunters kill animals and don't eat them? Do you have a source for that?
[Your sig is quite apt, also. Where are these shades of gray you refer to. Your world looks pretty black and white from here.]
Dear god... stop talking. By what mechanism would an affordable laptop component measure the movement of the tiny amounts of iron in your blood via RF well enough to map your veins?
It is likely looking at the near IR (not thermal IR, so temperature isn't even being measured) absorption of hemoglobin. It's similar to what's being measured in pulse oximetry, but you don't really care about whether the blood is oxygenated or not.
No shit, brother! Real men don't let animals live free in nature until their lives are ended in a split second for food.
Real men cramp them in dirty confined spaces, pump them full of hormones and antibiotics, and deprive them of exercise or contact with their young until they're ready to be lined up and slaughtered in front of each other.
Taking responsibility for the life you've taken in order to eat is cruel and inhumane. It's much preferable to pretend that meat comes into existence in shrink-wrapped packages at the grocery.
Skepticism is always a positive attitude when evaluating security. Not implicitly trusting third parties with apparent conflicts of interest is also very rational.
Dismissing valid concerns out of hand because you're a fan of a company is the failure in reasoning here.
Stories are available to subscribers before they go live and they are available to everyone on the firehose. (It's pretty obvious if a firehose story is going to go live.)
I'm not denying that there are paid shills here, but there are other innocuous explanations for long replies posted soon after a story goes live.
On the other hand, the guy's image is now tainted and he's less likely to acquire new followers. It's a method for keeping the "wrong kind of people" from becoming too influential.
That you think it's never ok to take your own life, even if your problem is actually permanent? Or that you think taking your own life is only called suicide if your problem is temporary?
There are plenty of situations where a person could be in agonizing and terminal (ie, permanent) pain and still be capable of suicide.
People tend to lie when they have something to hide.
You've described a subset of the reasons people lie. The more general set is that people lie when they stand to gain something from lying. That 'something' that they gain can be trivial if there are no consequences to be paid for the lie. Police lie to satisfy the probable cause requirement so that they can search a car that they want to search or detain a person that they want to detain.
Our justice system should be based on verifiable facts, not blind trust in arbitrarily selected authorities.
I am against the exploitative practices of the US government overseas and am trying to effect meaningful policy change here to put a stop to those practices. This is because I, unlike you, do not see civilians lives as forfeit due to irresponsible actions carried out by a government.
Despite how you imagine the typical American thinks, the wars are not popular here in the US. If people like you start advocating for the slaughter of more civilians because of the actions of an unleashed US government (and taking actions to achieve that), you will find the world become a much uglier place than it currently is. An eye for an eye only leaves the world blind. Your thirst for blood and vengeance doesn't make the world a better place.
Slashdot Mirror
Bremsstrahlung is also a huge deal when working with beta-decaying isotopes or isotopes with beta-decaying daughter isotopes (like the medically used radioiodines). A thin enough lead shield will quickly slow the beta particles and release a huge amount of X-rays. Biological assays that use beta-decaying isotopes like P-32 have to use plexiglass or some other low-density material to block the betas but not irradiate the user with X-rays.
The absence of evidence of wrongdoing isn't evidence of the absence of wrongdoing.
Even the credible belief of a backdoor in a closed source security program should be taken seriously.
The more qualified a statement is, the more likely it is a lie by omission.
That applies to all areas of life, but is extremely useful when interpreting the statements of politicians and other "authorities".
That's how it should technically be handled, but practically the outcome would be worse. Congress is entirely run by lobbyists, with laws drafted entirely by the lobbying parties and consensus decided entirely by "campaign donations".
At least in an open court there is a token effort to decide which argument is the most sound. The courts allow for appeals, too, which is notably lacking in the practical outcomes of the decisions of legislators.
To claim Apple "invented" the idea of a reversible USB connector is utterly just plain silly. Even if you claim it is invention to do something blindingly obvious, you'll be disappointed to hear that Nokia's DKU2 cable was (a) reversible (b) carried USB and (c) existed on the 2002 eara Nokia 6100, a full 5 years before even the first generation iPhone and a year before the iPod's reversible connector supported USB.
The original iPod dock connector was not reversible. I'm pretty sure that the Lightning connector from last year is the first reversible connector that Apple has ever used.
That's delightfully evil! You'd be a shoe-in to the USB spec team.
The only thing I'd add is that the power circuit is completed through the user's fingers first, so it delivers an electric shock if the plug is inserted with the indexing lined up correctly.
Flash drives often don't have any USB logo. Some of mine have writing on the logo side and some have writing on the other side or both.
The port on my phone is upside down, so that the USB logo faces the back of the phone.
The users aren't the only people who don't bother to think.
Connectors that are (un)plugged often should either be symmetrical or clearly indexed. The original (big) USB plug was almost right (in the sense that the plug wouldn't go in the wrong way), except that it was difficult to tell which way the index should be facing. Firewire was a decent implementation of an indexed plug.
The current micro USB plugs are ridiculous, though. It can takes three tries to plug it in and every time you get it wrong you stress the socket a little. The difference in feel between a correct and incorrect fit is very mushy with some plugs/sockets.
While we're on the subject, a pure rectangle (a la the USB A plug) is even worse. The USB connector design over the years has been so bad that I wouldn't be too hopeful about what they come up with next.
Wikipedia has a great article on the physics of explosively pumped flux compression generators (which is so much more fun to say than e-bomb).
The colors are bolder on the Australian bills and the different sizes are nice, but I likely wouldn't be able to count them as quickly as you can. I've never mixed up US money, either. Even when they were all green, I could instantly recognize and count the bills. Besides the vision impaired, I don't think any Americans ever really had problems with the green money.
I think much of the issue you're describing is what everyone finds with foreign currency. Foreign money feeling alien and difficult to recognize and count quickly is so common that it's almost cliche. Every time I travel, I have to keep the bills carefully sorted and double check the printed number before I hand it over. The effect may be more exaggerated when visiting a place with more subtle bill differences, but it's not unheard of anywhere. Also, if you're trained to look for color and size differences, seeking out the numbers may require a more conscious effort.
To be fair, the paper currency issue was addressed ten years ago, it's just taking a little time to get the last few bits of old money out of circulation. I haven't seen an old bill in a while, though I don't deal with cash that often.
The sizes are still the same, but the color issue has been fixed and there are other differences to help distinguish the different notes.
No, he said responsibilities. Moral awareness doesn't require responsibilities.
You got it backward. Responsibilities require moral awareness. This is why children lack legal responsibilities and are generally not held accountable for their actions. Their lack of responsibilities is why they also lack all of the adult rights.
Children have many rights, though, because they will one day grow into adults (and be able to fulfill those responsibilities). Chimpanzees (and other animals) do not reach a point where they can fulfill the responsibilities expected of an adult human, which is why they aren't assigned the rights of a human. They can certainly fulfill some responsibilities (not violently attack others without cause), which is why we recognize that they have some rights. Our own moral awareness also grants them other rights (against cruelty, etc).
Thirdly, Corporations at one time were PROHIBITED from owning another corporations; again to PREVENT consolidation of power.
If corporations keep pressing forward toward legal personhood, I wonder if you could make a 13th amendment argument against them owning other corporations...
I mean, I can understand if it is a yard where kids play football,etc...
From my experience, that's where people prefer to leave their dog shit because there's nobody there to yell at them.
There's a school near my house with a big field where the kids play. The dog owners in the neighborhood apparently think it's a dog park. Dogs off leash running up to little kids walking to school, dog shit left everywhere... it's a disgusting display of self-centered behavior.
What gets weird is when most people are approached by a figure of authority, such as a person in a uniform, they tend to comply. A good, from the police department's perspective, law enforcement officer can get almost anyone to consent to a search.
This is because most people don't know that the interaction is voluntary. Your "good policeman" is effective at making the search seem mandatory.
[Their gun, and the general knowledge that they would most likely get away with any assault on you (up to and including murdering you), makes complying with their whims seem even more mandatory. If you recreated your above scenario (you asking for consent to search a car), but this time you are armed and they have no chance of rallying assistance, you'd find people "consent" to your search as well.]
That does seem like a lot, but I imagine they've only stayed at 25c in the US because that's the largest value coin that's in wide enough circulation. If the $1 coin had caught on, they'd almost certainly be required by now.
I'm not quite sure what your argument is. Are you arguing that anyone who kills an animal must take a perverse pleasure in it? Or are you saying that I take a perverse pleasure in it, but that someone else (from whom I would, per your second sentence, buy the meat from) doesn't? On what basis do you feel you can make either of those statements?
You're also overstating the cost involved... There are rabbits in my backyard. The ammunition costs a dime a piece. The rifle was inherited. You can't get meat much cheaper than that. (Certainly not rabbit.)
I don't know every hunter, but everyone that I know shoots paper or an animal that they eat. Why do you think most hunters kill animals and don't eat them? Do you have a source for that?
[Your sig is quite apt, also. Where are these shades of gray you refer to. Your world looks pretty black and white from here.]
Dear god... stop talking. By what mechanism would an affordable laptop component measure the movement of the tiny amounts of iron in your blood via RF well enough to map your veins?
It is likely looking at the near IR (not thermal IR, so temperature isn't even being measured) absorption of hemoglobin. It's similar to what's being measured in pulse oximetry, but you don't really care about whether the blood is oxygenated or not.
No shit, brother! Real men don't let animals live free in nature until their lives are ended in a split second for food.
Real men cramp them in dirty confined spaces, pump them full of hormones and antibiotics, and deprive them of exercise or contact with their young until they're ready to be lined up and slaughtered in front of each other.
Taking responsibility for the life you've taken in order to eat is cruel and inhumane. It's much preferable to pretend that meat comes into existence in shrink-wrapped packages at the grocery.
Skepticism is always a positive attitude when evaluating security. Not implicitly trusting third parties with apparent conflicts of interest is also very rational.
Dismissing valid concerns out of hand because you're a fan of a company is the failure in reasoning here.
Stories are available to subscribers before they go live and they are available to everyone on the firehose. (It's pretty obvious if a firehose story is going to go live.)
I'm not denying that there are paid shills here, but there are other innocuous explanations for long replies posted soon after a story goes live.
On the other hand, the guy's image is now tainted and he's less likely to acquire new followers. It's a method for keeping the "wrong kind of people" from becoming too influential.
What does that even mean?
That you think it's never ok to take your own life, even if your problem is actually permanent? Or that you think taking your own life is only called suicide if your problem is temporary?
There are plenty of situations where a person could be in agonizing and terminal (ie, permanent) pain and still be capable of suicide.
People tend to lie when they have something to hide.
You've described a subset of the reasons people lie. The more general set is that people lie when they stand to gain something from lying. That 'something' that they gain can be trivial if there are no consequences to be paid for the lie. Police lie to satisfy the probable cause requirement so that they can search a car that they want to search or detain a person that they want to detain.
Our justice system should be based on verifiable facts, not blind trust in arbitrarily selected authorities.
I am against the exploitative practices of the US government overseas and am trying to effect meaningful policy change here to put a stop to those practices. This is because I, unlike you, do not see civilians lives as forfeit due to irresponsible actions carried out by a government.
Despite how you imagine the typical American thinks, the wars are not popular here in the US. If people like you start advocating for the slaughter of more civilians because of the actions of an unleashed US government (and taking actions to achieve that), you will find the world become a much uglier place than it currently is. An eye for an eye only leaves the world blind. Your thirst for blood and vengeance doesn't make the world a better place.