APK, serious question: most software I write does work on background threads and the interface thread just waits for updates. Your code seems to put just the GUI thread into "real time mode" which will not help the actual task running on the background threads. Any comments on this?
Microsoft has killed it. Sure, label me any which way you like, but there is a huge volume of Microsoft news on here these days, compared to five years ago. Sure, not all of it is positive, and some of you may even believe that it is mostly negative. But you misunderstand advertising and market mind share if you think like that. It is actually better for Microsoft that Microsoft be discussed more frequently, even in a negative way, than for a better OS [Linux] to exist and not be discuss at all.
We all know this site accepts paid submissions. Sure, the editors will deny this until they look ridiculous, but for any seasoned readers it's extremely obvious that they exist. So, of course Microsoft has been able to buy more submissions that the FOSS team and as a result, what was once regarded as *the* place to discuss FOSS is but a shadow of what it once was.
Sure, there are lots of confounding factors, which will lead many to criticize me for this post.
Actually we're closer to this reality than you think. Sure, there's no forced castration, but the other comments about social mobility are pretty accurate. The American dream is a myth. Those that have the capital: keep the capital.
It depends on the energy of the gamma ray and the cross section of the nucleus.
Gamma rays have enough energy to be absorbed by the atomic nucleus of any atom. It all depends on the cross section of the nucleus, which depends on its current excitation state, and of course the energy of the photon.
The general point here is that gamma rays have enough energy to interact with the nucleus of material surrounding a gamma ray source, and due to the fundamental physics those gamma rays will make the surrounding material unstable, and thus by definition, radioactive. The devil is in the details, as always.
Of course I get your point. What's the modern standard for non-earthed devices though? Don't they require double insulation to make up for the lack of an earth on the device?
The biggest problem with cheap microscopes is not so much the optics, but the illumination.
I'm thinking about the same phenomenon a lot of kids/people have with telescopes. They expect to set up the one they got for Christmas in the back yard and see images of the Orion nebula just like they see on the internet. This is of course, not going to happen.
With microscopes, I think a child will experience more wonder and have more fun with a reflected light scope. To get the most out of any microscope, then sample preparation and illumination are key. Most cheaper hobby microscopes only use transmitted light. With such a scope you won't see much on most specimens without decent sample prep. Rocks? Forget it, you need to make thin sections. Cells? Forget it, you need to stain them and prep them a certain way. And so on. I just think there's more to see for kids with a reflected light scope.
To get a scope with a decent reflected light mode costs more money than the cheaper transmitted scopes. Heck, a starting level reflected light illuminator (just the source) is over $500 by itself.
Once you get into reflected light you really can play a lot more with the scope. Pretty much anything you put under it will look good and they really feel like you're an explorer of the miniature world!!
Of course, I take your point entirely. Once a child is enthusiastic enough that they want higher mag and/or are prepared to mount the specimens properly, then a good beginner-grade scope will bring hours of fun and education.
A lot of web developers broke basic form functionality by writing their own submit handlers. These often deviate from accepted practices such as Enter for submit. You only have to lose form data once or twice before saying "fuck it" and always clicking the submit "button" (often just an image with an onClick hander) on all forms.
"A microscope. I suspect if they bothered, a CCD device would be cheaper and do a better job than a cheap manual/eye optical one, but have no idea if that's available."
For the price, these USB microscopes and similar offer incredible quality at that price point over any "real" optical microscope. You need to spend over $500 before an optical microscope "looks good" to casual users.
I second that, though it was New Scientist for me. Had the same impact. Sure, I couldn't understand even half the articles when I started reading it at age 10, but it opened my mind to the world of science and research.
That style of design should never have been allowed. Can't believe how many corners get cut in product design, though really, it should simply have been legislated for.
" innocuous things like hairstyle, are mandated by law."
Actually, at least if it's mandated by law it would be possible to know what the laws are, and even somehow change them. In the end, those are just "bad laws" and we already have plenty of those on the books.
The *worst* outcome is when the "laws" are secret or unknowable and enforced arbitrarily. That's where mass surveillance is going. There won't be a law saying "visiting website XYZ is illegal", since if there was there would be an easy way to query the database and go door knocking to arrest everyone. No, it will be used in the opposite way: when you're being socially or politically "difficult" or even just successful: your data will be leaked to the press, you will be arrested on trumped up charges founded by surveillance data that are "too secret" to release to the public, and you will generally be shamed and tamed into submission. That is *not* a fair and open society based on the rule of law, and that is why mass surveillance is fundamentally wrong.
To remember mine: I unzip the laptop bag and take the laptop out and place it in the bin. Then I put all the crap in my pockets into the slot in the laptop bag. When I pass through security, my own trained behaviors of checking my pockets for my wallet, keys,and phone, ensures my laptop goes back in the bag. An added bonus is my personal effects are not on show, nor is my wallet likely to be flipped out of the tray by the hanging baffles on the x-ray machine. I've seen it happen before.
Nobody would steal anything from a security checkpoint. Every single person in that area is identifiable from their boarding passes, long with the face recognition tracking systems that a lot (sure, not the smaller ones) of airports are using now. In addition to being identifiable you are also completely traceable, and, have no where to go: security staff can just find you sitting in your seat on your next flight.
So no, any sane person would keep their hands to themselves.
However, if 70 people are leaving their laptops behind then I am sure many others are taking the wrong bags and/or gear by accident.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks APK, you made me chuckle this morning.
Happy New Year!
It's also almost impossible to monitor IO on Windows with the standard tools.
APK, serious question: most software I write does work on background threads and the interface thread just waits for updates. Your code seems to put just the GUI thread into "real time mode" which will not help the actual task running on the background threads. Any comments on this?
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/list-of-windows-7-telemetry-updates-to-avoid.379151/
Microsoft has killed it. Sure, label me any which way you like, but there is a huge volume of Microsoft news on here these days, compared to five years ago. Sure, not all of it is positive, and some of you may even believe that it is mostly negative. But you misunderstand advertising and market mind share if you think like that. It is actually better for Microsoft that Microsoft be discussed more frequently, even in a negative way, than for a better OS [Linux] to exist and not be discuss at all.
We all know this site accepts paid submissions. Sure, the editors will deny this until they look ridiculous, but for any seasoned readers it's extremely obvious that they exist. So, of course Microsoft has been able to buy more submissions that the FOSS team and as a result, what was once regarded as *the* place to discuss FOSS is but a shadow of what it once was.
Sure, there are lots of confounding factors, which will lead many to criticize me for this post.
You mad bro?
---
NotAPK
Actually we're closer to this reality than you think. Sure, there's no forced castration, but the other comments about social mobility are pretty accurate. The American dream is a myth. Those that have the capital: keep the capital.
Thanks, that's great.
In case anyone else is wondering, that add on is compatible with Pale Moon, and it encrypts the form content that it saves. So far seems rather nice.
It depends on the energy of the gamma ray and the cross section of the nucleus.
Gamma rays have enough energy to be absorbed by the atomic nucleus of any atom. It all depends on the cross section of the nucleus, which depends on its current excitation state, and of course the energy of the photon.
The general point here is that gamma rays have enough energy to interact with the nucleus of material surrounding a gamma ray source, and due to the fundamental physics those gamma rays will make the surrounding material unstable, and thus by definition, radioactive. The devil is in the details, as always.
"Yes he did. His was funnier. Sound's like a fix to me. YMMV"
FTFY
With a straight edge :)
Of course I get your point. What's the modern standard for non-earthed devices though? Don't they require double insulation to make up for the lack of an earth on the device?
The biggest problem with cheap microscopes is not so much the optics, but the illumination.
I'm thinking about the same phenomenon a lot of kids/people have with telescopes. They expect to set up the one they got for Christmas in the back yard and see images of the Orion nebula just like they see on the internet. This is of course, not going to happen.
With microscopes, I think a child will experience more wonder and have more fun with a reflected light scope. To get the most out of any microscope, then sample preparation and illumination are key. Most cheaper hobby microscopes only use transmitted light. With such a scope you won't see much on most specimens without decent sample prep. Rocks? Forget it, you need to make thin sections. Cells? Forget it, you need to stain them and prep them a certain way. And so on. I just think there's more to see for kids with a reflected light scope.
To get a scope with a decent reflected light mode costs more money than the cheaper transmitted scopes. Heck, a starting level reflected light illuminator (just the source) is over $500 by itself.
Once you get into reflected light you really can play a lot more with the scope. Pretty much anything you put under it will look good and they really feel like you're an explorer of the miniature world!!
Of course, I take your point entirely. Once a child is enthusiastic enough that they want higher mag and/or are prepared to mount the specimens properly, then a good beginner-grade scope will bring hours of fun and education.
A lot of web developers broke basic form functionality by writing their own submit handlers. These often deviate from accepted practices such as Enter for submit. You only have to lose form data once or twice before saying "fuck it" and always clicking the submit "button" (often just an image with an onClick hander) on all forms.
"A microscope. I suspect if they bothered, a CCD device would be cheaper and do a better job than a cheap manual/eye optical one, but have no idea if that's available."
For the price, these USB microscopes and similar offer incredible quality at that price point over any "real" optical microscope. You need to spend over $500 before an optical microscope "looks good" to casual users.
I second that, though it was New Scientist for me. Had the same impact. Sure, I couldn't understand even half the articles when I started reading it at age 10, but it opened my mind to the world of science and research.
No you didn't.
That style of design should never have been allowed. Can't believe how many corners get cut in product design, though really, it should simply have been legislated for.
Chassis should always be at earth.
Why is it interesting? He graduated Physics, worked at NASA, and now draws comics and writes books full time.
The other poster called him a "cunt". Any reason why?
Mate, this site really has gone to the dogs.
Learn some physics.
What is a "magnetic bullet"?
"Gamma radiation does not make things radioactive"
Sorry, yes it does.
I couldn't stop watching. I want those 4 minutes of my life back...
" innocuous things like hairstyle, are mandated by law."
Actually, at least if it's mandated by law it would be possible to know what the laws are, and even somehow change them. In the end, those are just "bad laws" and we already have plenty of those on the books.
The *worst* outcome is when the "laws" are secret or unknowable and enforced arbitrarily. That's where mass surveillance is going. There won't be a law saying "visiting website XYZ is illegal", since if there was there would be an easy way to query the database and go door knocking to arrest everyone. No, it will be used in the opposite way: when you're being socially or politically "difficult" or even just successful: your data will be leaked to the press, you will be arrested on trumped up charges founded by surveillance data that are "too secret" to release to the public, and you will generally be shamed and tamed into submission. That is *not* a fair and open society based on the rule of law, and that is why mass surveillance is fundamentally wrong.
To remember mine: I unzip the laptop bag and take the laptop out and place it in the bin. Then I put all the crap in my pockets into the slot in the laptop bag. When I pass through security, my own trained behaviors of checking my pockets for my wallet, keys,and phone, ensures my laptop goes back in the bag. An added bonus is my personal effects are not on show, nor is my wallet likely to be flipped out of the tray by the hanging baffles on the x-ray machine. I've seen it happen before.
Nobody would steal anything from a security checkpoint. Every single person in that area is identifiable from their boarding passes, long with the face recognition tracking systems that a lot (sure, not the smaller ones) of airports are using now. In addition to being identifiable you are also completely traceable, and, have no where to go: security staff can just find you sitting in your seat on your next flight.
So no, any sane person would keep their hands to themselves.
However, if 70 people are leaving their laptops behind then I am sure many others are taking the wrong bags and/or gear by accident.