The UK doesn't even bother with a secret ballot at the voting booth, let alone by mail. I suspect you're from Australia? They have secret voting there and I think it's a much better system.
Will their task somehow become easier if they "get the job" and win office? If they can't even handle *running* for office what makes you think they can handle the actual job?
Recently I was optimising some simulation code. Each job ran as a separate single-thread process with its own workload, with no inter-process communication, meaning that it parallelizes trivially. I compared performance on a range of CPUs, but what struck me the most was that the HT CPUs really did keep up with the non-HT CPUs. I expected total performance (measured as total work performed by all processes against wall time) of the HT CPUs to start dropping off once the "real" cores were full of work. However, the peak total performance for the HT CPUs occurred at N-1 processes, where N=number of logical cores in the CPU. Compare this to the non-HT CPUs, which showed (exactly as expected) peak performance at N processes. This was a surprise and showed that HT isn't just some marketing BS.
Of course, this calculation was not RAM or IO intensive, and as predominantly a floating point cruncher. The CPUs were all Intel from the past five years.
But of course everything I've posted here is only for one workload. The scaling will vary enormously depending on what you're doing.
In addition to speed, think about whether your computer use has changed much.
For me, the biggest change in the past five years has been ubiquitous VM use for daily computing. I have dozens of VMs that I pick and choose from based on my daily requirements.
To support this, I need lots of RAM, since I like to keep the VMs spun up (lazy like that) but not doing any actual work. So for me, 32GB of RAM is the minimum and was the primary reason for my latest upgrade (previous laptop motherboard was capped at 16GB).
Second to this, I entirely support switching to SSD. It's the single best upgrade for any typical computer user. I helped a friend with their upgrade just the other day (Samsung 850 EVO 500GB for AUD$240 just walking into a high-street store, no special effort to find anything cheaper because I like to support the local computer shop when I can) and we benchmarked the two drives to show him how significant the improvement was: while raw read/write speeds were clearly 10x faster, the random access times are thousands of times faster and in general use this is what you notice, especially while Win10 is streaming all its telemetry/spying data to the disk for later upload to the mothership.
I'll post my reply here, but there are a few other sibling posters asking similar questions.
This report collates historical data on in-flight fires. From the report: "Fire in the air is one of the most hazardous situations that a flight crew can be faced with. Without aggressive intervention by the flight crew, a fire on board an aircraft can lead to the catastrophic loss of that aircraft within a very short space of time. Once a fire has become established, it is unlikely that the crew will be able to extinguish it. The following table from a UK CAA report in 2002 supports the generally held view that, from the first indication that there is a fire onboard the aircraft, the crew has on average approximately 17 minutes to get the aircraft on the ground."
I'll agree entirely with the observations that most cabin materials are fire retardant, and this is a very good thing. However, we are considering a very dense energy source that can spontaneously combust. In addition, have you noticed that airlines won't let you fly with a spare laptop battery in your checked luggage? They are very concerned about a spontaneous fire in the luggage hold, where most of the material is certainly not fire proof.
Wow, I'm a little surprised that you disagree with me so much.
Yes, I agree with you entirely that the open API approach is much better than closed ecosystems from car manufacturers.
However, when I evaluate what I want, I'll forego the integrated system entirely and instead choose separate devices, mostly for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.
Absolutely no agenda, just sharing my opinion on here as usual...
My brother lent me his Mercedes C-class the other day. While it's a "nice car" the center console features a horrendous touch screen display. And you know what really surprised me? Just how slow it was, to the point of being painful. So even "luxury" cars get this wrong.
Right, but "Android Auto" only works with your phone. What if you want to lend your car to a family member or friend who does not have an equivalent Android phone? They're stuck. This is the biggest problem with all-in-one devices: they do not foster sharing or collaboration. With a standalone MP3 player, GPS navigation device, and "simple" mobile phone, I can share and or all of them and never be inconvenienced, and I'll know that my friend/father/sister will get to their destination without having to field a call from my girlfriend or angry ex-girlfriend, etc...
I've worked on some failed products before. What's scary is the attitude of the sociopaths at the top, the management chain, and general clusterfuck of accountability and deniability involved. Trust me: what Samsung is "saying" and what the fuck is "actually happening" there are completely different beasts. I have no doubt that they know exactly what happened and exactly what corners were cut that ultimately lead to this problem. Even the failure of the reissued devices is not so surprising, with management stuck in a corner, and doing everything they could to avoid the complete recall, only the bare minimum was done for the replacement units, and ultimately that was insufficient.
I've posted this here before, but the scariest thing about the failure of these (and any highly dense energy storage, LiPo or otherwise) devices is the risk of cabin fire aboard an aircraft. The chance of surviving a cabin fire is pretty slim. As a regular business traveler I found my peace with the demons of air travel by choosing reliable airlines and trusting national regulators to enforce maintenance schedules. But the chance that some faulty device operated by a clueless user will catch fire in the cabin and kill all of us has made me seriously rethink my travel arrangements for the foreseeable future. That kind of risk is not acceptable to me, and is infinitely more likely and terrifying than any terrorist threat...
Cheers, I haven't seen disk fragmentation myself, but I'll look out for it from now on.
And yes, I think you're correct, I don't think 7zip has any recovery or repair mode, but it does make a "best effort" and in my experience will partially recover damaged archives. Of course, since it will depend enormously on the exact file structure, archive structure, and level of damage, this should be regarded more as an anecdote than advice.
No, I under-estimated the shielding effect of the Earth's magnetic field. It's a relatively weak field, but it's massive, and this is sufficient to bend cosmic rays away from the Earth. To use the same approach on an object the size of a spaceship is infeasible due to the high strength field required, which is why I made my original claim that you don't use magnets for shielding.
There's a good article on Wikipedia about health effects from cosmic rays. The human on the ISS for 6 months receives an order of magnitude more radiation than a human on the surface of the Earth, but on a round trip to Mars a human will receive an order of magnitude more radiation than 6 months aboard the ISS.
7-zip decompresses RAR files, and makes 7z (LMZA and LMZA2) files which are smaller, "better"* (support multi threaded compression/decompression and AES encryption) and is multi-platform and open source. Absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be your compression format of choice.
PS: It's not my figure, but it needs to be interpreted correctly: the first "Mars" bar is for the 6 month transit to Mars. The second "Mars" bar is for 500 days on the surface, and you can see it's the same dose. So a "slow" (6-month transit, 500 day surface time) mission to Mars will accumulate three times the radiation exposure as shown on the Figure, which is almost exactly an order of magnitude more than 6 months on the ISS. I don't know what they didn't include the compound bar on the chart.
Read the rest of the Wikipedia page, it's really interesting stuff. You are correct, the ISS is protected by the Earth's magnetic field to some extent. There is an order of magnitude more radiation exposure from 6 months on the ISS than the US average. That figure estimates almost another order of magnitude of exposure from a 6 month Mars mission.
I'm sorry, but you're the 4th or 5th poster to claim that a magnetic field will shield high energy cosmic rays and this assertion is wrong. You need *mass* to shield them, and on Earth that mass is provided by the atmosphere. Adding mass to spaceships compounds the fundamental problem we have with getting anywhere in the solar system, namely the "rocket equation".
There are some alternatives but they are all highly speculative.
You can hit a needle with a hammer and the shocks allow the randomly oriented domains to align, either to the largest domain in the material, or a weak external field, such as that from the Earth. It's not instant, and you won't get everything lining up as neatly as you would by applying a strong external field. But the resulting magnetism is measurable and may be useful, depending on what your needs are. Here's some more info.
The magnetosphere does not shield against high energy cosmic rays. You need mass density, and on Earth that shielding is provided by the atmosphere.
There's no point burning fuel rushing to Mars to minimise exposure to cosmic rays, since the atmosphere on Mars is too thin to provide any protection. So the only safe option is to make the entire round trip as short as possible. It just seems so difficult to do with current rocket technology...
Sorry, this is the recording from TFA that I listened to. While I'm a little tired today and may have failed to comprehend the article correctly, my understanding is that this recording is from 1951 and has been restored by the authors of TFA.
I haven't worked with NASA, but my experience is that a lot of US academics and technology businesses are very introspective and suffer from major issues with NIH.
The wealthy have learnt a lot since the French revolution.
If there was an uprising of the poor in today's society then they won't even know who the wealthy they hope to lynch even are. Ownership is very well hidden in today's world, from both ends: finger a wealthy individual and try to determine what they own, as well as finger a prosperous company and try to determine who owns it.
Not a problem my friend, I was actually curious to hear whether that was a phrase being used. Your English was certainly clear enough that I didn't even suspect that English was not your first language! My own efforts in Spanish are rather paltry, as all I can manage is: "dos cerveza por favor" (I always order two)
Anyway, please do not misunderstand my post, I was simply venting that Slashdot was getting too much credit for not doing much while raking in all the advertising dollars that this site brings them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should voting be restricted to citizens?
If "others" are living and working in the US on a visa then why shouldn't they be allowed to take part in the local democratic process?
You probably think that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?
The UK doesn't even bother with a secret ballot at the voting booth, let alone by mail. I suspect you're from Australia? They have secret voting there and I think it's a much better system.
He he, thanks, woosh indeed! :)
Why?
Genuinely curious.
Will their task somehow become easier if they "get the job" and win office? If they can't even handle *running* for office what makes you think they can handle the actual job?
It really depends on the use case.
Recently I was optimising some simulation code. Each job ran as a separate single-thread process with its own workload, with no inter-process communication, meaning that it parallelizes trivially. I compared performance on a range of CPUs, but what struck me the most was that the HT CPUs really did keep up with the non-HT CPUs. I expected total performance (measured as total work performed by all processes against wall time) of the HT CPUs to start dropping off once the "real" cores were full of work. However, the peak total performance for the HT CPUs occurred at N-1 processes, where N=number of logical cores in the CPU. Compare this to the non-HT CPUs, which showed (exactly as expected) peak performance at N processes. This was a surprise and showed that HT isn't just some marketing BS.
Of course, this calculation was not RAM or IO intensive, and as predominantly a floating point cruncher. The CPUs were all Intel from the past five years.
But of course everything I've posted here is only for one workload. The scaling will vary enormously depending on what you're doing.
In addition to speed, think about whether your computer use has changed much.
For me, the biggest change in the past five years has been ubiquitous VM use for daily computing. I have dozens of VMs that I pick and choose from based on my daily requirements.
To support this, I need lots of RAM, since I like to keep the VMs spun up (lazy like that) but not doing any actual work. So for me, 32GB of RAM is the minimum and was the primary reason for my latest upgrade (previous laptop motherboard was capped at 16GB).
Second to this, I entirely support switching to SSD. It's the single best upgrade for any typical computer user. I helped a friend with their upgrade just the other day (Samsung 850 EVO 500GB for AUD$240 just walking into a high-street store, no special effort to find anything cheaper because I like to support the local computer shop when I can) and we benchmarked the two drives to show him how significant the improvement was: while raw read/write speeds were clearly 10x faster, the random access times are thousands of times faster and in general use this is what you notice, especially while Win10 is streaming all its telemetry/spying data to the disk for later upload to the mothership.
I'll post my reply here, but there are a few other sibling posters asking similar questions.
This report collates historical data on in-flight fires. From the report: "Fire in the air is one of the most hazardous situations that a flight crew can be faced with. Without aggressive intervention by the flight crew, a fire on board an aircraft can lead to the catastrophic loss of that aircraft within a very short space of time. Once a fire has become established, it is unlikely that the crew will be able to extinguish it. The following table from a UK CAA report in 2002 supports the generally held view that, from the first indication that there is a fire onboard the aircraft, the crew has on average approximately 17 minutes to get the aircraft on the ground."
Crew guidance
It's not all doom and gloom, here is a more moderate report from the FAA.
I'll agree entirely with the observations that most cabin materials are fire retardant, and this is a very good thing. However, we are considering a very dense energy source that can spontaneously combust. In addition, have you noticed that airlines won't let you fly with a spare laptop battery in your checked luggage? They are very concerned about a spontaneous fire in the luggage hold, where most of the material is certainly not fire proof.
Safe travels everyone.
Wow, I'm a little surprised that you disagree with me so much.
Yes, I agree with you entirely that the open API approach is much better than closed ecosystems from car manufacturers.
However, when I evaluate what I want, I'll forego the integrated system entirely and instead choose separate devices, mostly for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.
Absolutely no agenda, just sharing my opinion on here as usual...
My brother lent me his Mercedes C-class the other day. While it's a "nice car" the center console features a horrendous touch screen display. And you know what really surprised me? Just how slow it was, to the point of being painful. So even "luxury" cars get this wrong.
Right, but "Android Auto" only works with your phone. What if you want to lend your car to a family member or friend who does not have an equivalent Android phone? They're stuck. This is the biggest problem with all-in-one devices: they do not foster sharing or collaboration. With a standalone MP3 player, GPS navigation device, and "simple" mobile phone, I can share and or all of them and never be inconvenienced, and I'll know that my friend/father/sister will get to their destination without having to field a call from my girlfriend or angry ex-girlfriend, etc...
I've worked on some failed products before. What's scary is the attitude of the sociopaths at the top, the management chain, and general clusterfuck of accountability and deniability involved. Trust me: what Samsung is "saying" and what the fuck is "actually happening" there are completely different beasts. I have no doubt that they know exactly what happened and exactly what corners were cut that ultimately lead to this problem. Even the failure of the reissued devices is not so surprising, with management stuck in a corner, and doing everything they could to avoid the complete recall, only the bare minimum was done for the replacement units, and ultimately that was insufficient.
I've posted this here before, but the scariest thing about the failure of these (and any highly dense energy storage, LiPo or otherwise) devices is the risk of cabin fire aboard an aircraft. The chance of surviving a cabin fire is pretty slim. As a regular business traveler I found my peace with the demons of air travel by choosing reliable airlines and trusting national regulators to enforce maintenance schedules. But the chance that some faulty device operated by a clueless user will catch fire in the cabin and kill all of us has made me seriously rethink my travel arrangements for the foreseeable future. That kind of risk is not acceptable to me, and is infinitely more likely and terrifying than any terrorist threat...
Cheers, I haven't seen disk fragmentation myself, but I'll look out for it from now on.
And yes, I think you're correct, I don't think 7zip has any recovery or repair mode, but it does make a "best effort" and in my experience will partially recover damaged archives. Of course, since it will depend enormously on the exact file structure, archive structure, and level of damage, this should be regarded more as an anecdote than advice.
No, I under-estimated the shielding effect of the Earth's magnetic field. It's a relatively weak field, but it's massive, and this is sufficient to bend cosmic rays away from the Earth. To use the same approach on an object the size of a spaceship is infeasible due to the high strength field required, which is why I made my original claim that you don't use magnets for shielding.
There's a good article on Wikipedia about health effects from cosmic rays. The human on the ISS for 6 months receives an order of magnitude more radiation than a human on the surface of the Earth, but on a round trip to Mars a human will receive an order of magnitude more radiation than 6 months aboard the ISS.
7-zip decompresses RAR files, and makes 7z (LMZA and LMZA2) files which are smaller, "better"* (support multi threaded compression/decompression and AES encryption) and is multi-platform and open source. Absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be your compression format of choice.
PS: It's not my figure, but it needs to be interpreted correctly: the first "Mars" bar is for the 6 month transit to Mars. The second "Mars" bar is for 500 days on the surface, and you can see it's the same dose. So a "slow" (6-month transit, 500 day surface time) mission to Mars will accumulate three times the radiation exposure as shown on the Figure, which is almost exactly an order of magnitude more than 6 months on the ISS. I don't know what they didn't include the compound bar on the chart.
Read the rest of the Wikipedia page, it's really interesting stuff. You are correct, the ISS is protected by the Earth's magnetic field to some extent. There is an order of magnitude more radiation exposure from 6 months on the ISS than the US average. That figure estimates almost another order of magnitude of exposure from a 6 month Mars mission.
I'm sorry, but you're the 4th or 5th poster to claim that a magnetic field will shield high energy cosmic rays and this assertion is wrong. You need *mass* to shield them, and on Earth that mass is provided by the atmosphere. Adding mass to spaceships compounds the fundamental problem we have with getting anywhere in the solar system, namely the "rocket equation".
There are some alternatives but they are all highly speculative.
You can hit a needle with a hammer and the shocks allow the randomly oriented domains to align, either to the largest domain in the material, or a weak external field, such as that from the Earth. It's not instant, and you won't get everything lining up as neatly as you would by applying a strong external field. But the resulting magnetism is measurable and may be useful, depending on what your needs are. Here's some more info.
The magnetosphere does not shield against high energy cosmic rays. You need mass density, and on Earth that shielding is provided by the atmosphere.
There's no point burning fuel rushing to Mars to minimise exposure to cosmic rays, since the atmosphere on Mars is too thin to provide any protection. So the only safe option is to make the entire round trip as short as possible. It just seems so difficult to do with current rocket technology...
Sorry, this is the recording from TFA that I listened to. While I'm a little tired today and may have failed to comprehend the article correctly, my understanding is that this recording is from 1951 and has been restored by the authors of TFA.
Is there another audio file to listen to?
Nemone was born in 1973 and this recording was made in 1951.
I haven't worked with NASA, but my experience is that a lot of US academics and technology businesses are very introspective and suffer from major issues with NIH.
The wealthy have learnt a lot since the French revolution.
If there was an uprising of the poor in today's society then they won't even know who the wealthy they hope to lynch even are. Ownership is very well hidden in today's world, from both ends: finger a wealthy individual and try to determine what they own, as well as finger a prosperous company and try to determine who owns it.
"While many wealthy people worked hard or smart for their wealth."
This is untrue.
"And many poor are there due to slacking off and bad life decisions."
This is also untrue.
Not a problem my friend, I was actually curious to hear whether that was a phrase being used. Your English was certainly clear enough that I didn't even suspect that English was not your first language! My own efforts in Spanish are rather paltry, as all I can manage is: "dos cerveza por favor" (I always order two)
Anyway, please do not misunderstand my post, I was simply venting that Slashdot was getting too much credit for not doing much while raking in all the advertising dollars that this site brings them.
Buenas noches amigo!