FDR taxed the airlines in order to build the unprofitable and inefficient system of roads while taking apart the existing system of privately owned profitable and efficient rail.
So what you are saying is that we killed infrastructure by building infrastructure? Look...roads may not be as efficient as air or trans travel, but they offer a LOT more flexibility that a lot of people prefer.
Yet, Saruman's orcs have never heard of saws to cut trees, despite having the ability to make arms and armor, and insist on ripping the trees near Saruman's house down.
Well, there's possibly a compelling argument here. If you have a big enough, strong enough army, pulling them down could be just as quick, and makes most efficient use of the wood (getting the tree roots and all). Also, who is to say they had the technology to make saws? Making a saw isn't the same as making and axe or a suit of armor. Saws need to be very thin, flexible, and require hundreds of very small, consistently sized teeth.
There he gives a yell and all the other Ents magically appear. What, were they following the leader Ent the whole time? Or do they just walk at the speed of light?
These may seem like trivial details, but it's annoying to sit and have to watch them spend so much effort on one hand getting things just right and believable, but on the other expect the audience to throw "suspension of disbelief" out of the window at the drop of a hat.
So what....you wanted Peter Jackson to insert a 15 minute scene of staring at Treebeard while we wait for the other ents to finally emerge from the forest? You know, you just made me realize another huge flaw...how was it that the hobbits made it all the way from the shire to mount doom, had all these incredible adventures in between, and yet it only took them 9 or 10 hours to do it? And why did they have to stop to sleep every hour? Oh yeah, that's right....this isn't an episode of 24. Events do not occur in real time.
You obviously lack the ability to do some research....In fact, given that you were unable to research this for yourself makes your whole existence irrelevant. Throw yourself from a window and remove your defective genes from the pool.
You obviously lack the ability to not be an asshole. I actually did quite a bit of looking at articles on nuclear yield, ICBMs, area of effect, etc, but couldn't find an actual answer. Thanks for being a dick, though. If only slashdot had a "-1: Informative Troll" mod.
Would that be enough? Lets just look at 1 city...Detroit, since I am familiar with it (living in the general area). Would 1 ICBM be enough to devastate and cripple the area? I don't know. The manufacturing basis here is over such a large area. For instance, I know that at least some of the tank manufacturing was done in Warren, which is about 12 miles north of downtown.
So the question is...what is the size of the area of effect of the warheads carried by ICBMs at that time? I honestly don't know. I know both countries had the capability for very large plane delivered warheads, but I think ICBM warheads were still pretty low yield back then. A small warhead might only have a dangerous radius of 4-5 miles. So really, targetting Detroit would kill a lot of people, but you wouldn't be doing so much to cripple the city in terms of its contribution to a war. You'd have to target Warren specifically. But then the question is, were there other important targets in Detroit that were elsewhere (downtown, or in the west and southwest suburbs)? How much real damage could you do with only that 1 warhead?
Certainly it would not be a loss to take lightly, but the thing is, it probably wouldn't cripple the country militarily. So now the big question is, what do you do? You have this other country that you fear is about to become a huge threat, with the capability to launch hundreds of warheads at your country (enough to REALLY devastate your entire country). And you fear that they are going to be more than willing to use it on you. However, what if you know that, while that will be true very soon, you KNOW right now that they only have 4 ICBMs. That may be enough to do some serious damage, but it would be nothing compared to what you believe they may soon be able (and willing) to do. It may be wise to take a smaller loss now rather than a MUCH larger loss later. Also, keep in mind that in this scenario, where the 4 ICMBs would be coming only after your own initial strike, you can plan the timing of your initial strike and attempt to clear out the most important resource from the potential target areas before launching your strike.
So the gist of it is, I think, while 4 ICBMs could have done some damage, had we know the exact situation, it may not have been enough to dissuade us from launching a preemptive strike. It's probably a really good thing we didn't know exactly what was going on.
Plutonium is the most toxic substance known - even one atom will be harmful, even if not readily apparent.
Even though I'm not anywhere near an expert when it comes to nuclear physics, elemental decay, etc, that still seems like BS to me. It emits a single alpha particle and now it is no longer Plutonium. I just can't see how that can be so dangerous. But, I was willing to concede that, due to my lack of expertise, there may be something here I don't fully understand. So I went to look it up:
Plutonium is more dangerous when inhaled than when ingested. The risk of lung cancer increases once the total dose equivalent of inhaled radiation exceeds 400 mSv.[91] The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the lifetime cancer risk for inhaling 5,000 plutonium particles, each about 3 microns wide, to be 1% over the background U.S. average.[92] Ingestion or inhalation of large amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death; no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium, and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.[77]
I'm not sure how many atoms of plutonium it takes to make a 3 micron wide particle. A quick search looks like Pu is approx 175 pm. So if those were lined up in a straight line, it would take over 5000 atoms to be 3 microns wide. I'm assuming when they say 3 micron particle, they mean something like a 3 micron sphere, but lets just go with the straight line anyway. That means that 1 atom of Pu is 1 / 25,000,000 of the dosage necessary for a 1% increase in cancer.
What's funny about Obama is that his supporters will vigorously defend him and his spinelessness and inaction, usually blaming it on the Republicans (even though they were a minority in Congress for two years, during which time the Democrats should have reasonably been able to get through anything they wanted).
Actually, while the Republicans were a minority for 2 years, it was really only the 2nd half of the first year when the democrats had free reign to do whatever they wanted. Though the republicans were a minority, they were determined to filibuster everything under the sun that came from the democrats (even when it was ideas that they were in favor of themselves just a few years earlier). The only way the democrats could overcome this was with 60 votes. Even including the 2 independents who caucused with the democrats, they didn't get 60 seats until Al Franken was declared the winner and sworn in on July 7. Then Kennedy died on August 25th. He was not replaced until Sept 24th, when a Democrat was temporarily put in his place, and he stayed there until Feb 4, when a republican was brought in as the permanent replacement.
So the democrats only had their 60 votes to overcome the filibuster from July 7 to Aug 25, and then from Sep 25 to Feb 4....less than 6 months total. And that was only if they could get unanimous support of all democrats and independents (which wasn't always the case).
Granted, I am disappointed with some of what Obama has (or rather, has not) done, but I think your 2 specific examples are particularly bad examples to choose. In the case of closing Gitmo, that couldn't be done unless they found somewhere else to house the prisoners, and everyone was all "not in MY neighborhood". Obama was kind of powerless there when no state would step up and take the prisoners. He didn't have the power to force it on anyone.
And as far as wars, I think he's done a pretty reasonable job backing out of Iraq as quickly and safely as possible (though I think his initial timetables were a bit shorter), and as far as Afghanistan, he never said he was going to get us out of that. He actually campaigned on INCREASING our involvement there, which is exactly what he's done. For some reason, people don't seem to remember this, and they always think he campaigned on ending that war.
I understand that people use devices differently and that for a lot of people this will be great, so I'm not trying to threadcrap here or anything. However, this remote wouldn't work for me for a couple of reasons.
1) Gyroscope that makes only one side active at a time, depending on orientation. This wouldn't work for me because I use my remotes in all sorts of orientations depending on how I happen to be sitting/laying. Often instead of pointing it at the TV, I have it in my hand, upside down (ie: my hand on my chest), with the IR signal bouncing off the back wall. In this orientation, the remote would think I'm using the keyboard.
2) Button layout. It seems so many of the remotes these days put the number keys at the very bottom of the remote, and the transport keys (play, rewind, etc) at the very top of the remote, with tons of stuff in between. This doesn't work for me because I love to use mythtv's arbitrary skip feature, where you can hit (for example) "1 - 2 - forward" to skip forward 12 minutes. I use this sort of thing all the time...mostly to deal with skipping commercials on programs where commercial detection is flaky (like shows with lots of black scenes).
I'll give you that there was a story, but was it an accurate story? I've seen a few stories about it, but following the links back to the source, you can see that it got blown out of proportion by bad math. The claim of 1000 times the allowed level came from another report of 1000% over the allowed level. As anyone with the most basic mathematical knowledge should know, 1000% is equal to 10 times, not 1000 times.
I think YOU need to calm down. Nobody is saying that there MIGHT be a radiation leak. There is a leak, and that's confirmed. There's no denying the radiation in the water. The question is, where is it coming from. This cray MAY BE the source of that leak (or it may turn out to be something else, or a combination of several things...they aren't sure yet). If you RTFA:
Nishiyama told reporters on Saturday that the crack "could be one source" of the radiation leaks that have hobbled efforts to quell the damaged reactor. On Sunday he added: "This(crack in the pit) for the first time clarified the relationship (of the contaminated water) with the sea."
As far as your other comment:
European energy commissioner said 'biggest disaster of the century' over chernobyl, yet, talking heads in mainstream media almost trying to convince people that radiation is good for their health. Despite EPA found 1000 times allowable radiation in groundwater in massachusetts.
LOL...are you expecting me to believe that fukushima is causing massachusetts ground water to be 1000 times allowable levels? Sorry, but that seems INCREDIBLY far fetched...so far fetched, I'm not even sure how to explain it to you. I'll just stick to what the EPA has said: “these detections were expected and the levels detected are far below levels of public-health concern.”
And you think the media is trying to keep people calm? Doesn't seem that way to me. For instance, a few days ago I'm watching the news and they give a teaser for an upcoming story saying that "radiation from fukushima has reached detroit". Then they go to commercial, come back, do another story, then do the fukushima story, which is about 4 minutes long, and then at the very end of the story, they throw in a quick note about "oh yeah, it's about 1/15 of the radiation you get from eating a banana". Seems to me they're more interested in freaking people out for ratings and then just throwing in a calming footnote at the end.
It's not that it's a bad technology, it just doesn't have a great track record.When it works, it works well, when it doesn't the results are horrifyingly bad.
But you are right, that when nuclear fails, the results CAN BE horrifyingly bad. Note that it CAN BE bad, but it's not a certainty. Three Mile Island is the 3rd worst nuclear power incident in history, and its negative effects were almost non-existent. No deaths, no serious radiation exposure to anybody, and no land contaminated and made uninhabitable. It's almost as if the incident had never happened.
But back to the point, yeah Chernobyl was horrifying. Not sure that Fukushima is yet what I would call horrifying (just bad). But you know what...most other sources of power are pretty horrifying when they go bad, too. Banqiao Dam was pretty horrifying. The gulf oil spill was certainly horrifying. And then there's coal power, where even when things go GOOD and there are no accidents, the results are STILL horrifying.
I have burned out a Major Name Brand SLC SSD with a high traffic OLTP DB in eight months.
Why tip-toe around this? Are you talking about Intel or not? If not, it's not really relevant here because this is about Intel, and I think most people agrees that Intel is generally a bit more respected for being a better tested product with a bit more truth behind their numbers. If you ARE talking about Intel, then I think that's pretty important to know.
Perhaps they should spend that idle time pondering the importance of the decisions they will be making and the impacts those decisions will have on the various parties involved -- and taking stock of their own capacity to be objective, their own internalized biases, and personal foibles, in order to offer a fairer verdict at the end of the process. Instead of playing Angry Birds. Just a thought.
How exactly do I ponder anything at all about the decision I will be making in the many, many hours I sit there in the waiting room, before I've even been selected to go into a courtroom to see if maybe I might get picked for a trial?
Isn't most important astronomy these days done by space-based telescopes?
Actually, the tide is turning a bit the opposite way. I seem to recall reading a while back (perhaps it was here on slashdot) that people were working on ground based systems that could out-resolve hubble, using software that could detect and compensate for the atmospheric distortion.
But a new camera system has been developed to bring this power to the visible spectrum as well. The "Lucky Camera" works by recording partially corrected images taken using the adaptive optics system at very high speed, capturing more than 20 frames a second. Most of these images are still smeared by the atmosphere, but the occasional one is crisp and clear and unblurred. The software can recognize these clear ones, and keeps them to later assemble into a single, sharp image.
Using this software on the 5.1 metre Hale Telescope on Palomar Mountain, astronomers were able to achieve images with twice the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. Previously, it was 10 times worse.
Where does the Constitution give the government the right to stop me?
I think you misunderstand the constitution. The constitution enumerates the rights you have which cannot be taken away, neither by the federal government nor the state government. Any right not specifically protected by the constitution is yours by default, but can be taken away by the state government if it so chooses.
For instance, the constitution says nothing about your right to walk around nude in public. Therefore, that right is yours by default. However, since the states are not prohibited by the constitution from restricting that right, they are individually allowed to pass laws against public nudity (which they all do).
Good job. Apparently, you bothered to read neither my entire post, nor the contents of your own link. I said there was a bunch of fuss about it a year ago that turned out to be incorrect. And when is your link from? 1 year ago. And in your own link it even says in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH that it doesn't apply to RAID.
So bravo, but maybe you should have spent more than "about 2 seconds" researching the matter.
Intel® Rapid Storage Technology 9.6 supports TRIM in AHCI mode and in RAID mode for drives that are not part of a RAID volume.
A defect was filed to correct the information in the Help file that states that TRIM is supported on RAID volumes.
Notice the date on that page.... "Last Modified: 26-Mar-2010", which is a few days after the flood of articles a few days prior (including the one you linked) claiming the driver would support TRIM on SSD arrays
As far as I know, there is no raid setup (hardware or software) which supports trim. Please correct me if I'm wrong (with proof please). I know that about a year ago there was a bunch of fuss when people thought a new intel driver was going to support TRIM on SSD raid setups, but it was an error in the documentation later clarified. Other than that, I've heard nothing more on the matter.
The whole point of backscatter/mm-wave scanners are that they don't penetrate much more than clothing.
If that's true, then that's not what they are talking about here. From TFA:
The system would use multiple cameras mounted on a so-called Z Backscatter Van to covertly scan moving pedestrians for potential threats, McCall said. A Z Backscatter Van is a mobile threat detection system that uses X-Rays to quickly scan through vehicles and buildings for hidden explosives and contraband.
Any x-ray system capable of scanning through buildings is surely powerful enough to expose a fetus to x-rays.
I've transcoded a bunch of bluray movies using handbrake. I convert to 1080p mkv files and use the core audio track (which is usually 5.1 in either AC3 or DTS format) Most movies shrink to the 2-4GB range (some as small as 1.5GB, some as large as 8GB) and are close enough in quality that most people would have to try pretty hard to notice the difference.
Just needs to be run once to -really- bollox an investigation..
Not entirely. Remember that most SSDs use overprovisioning to increase performance. This means that at any given time, only a portion of the drive (typically around 90-95%) is actually accessible. And I'm pretty sure that, due to wear leveling, the controller will continuously alter which portions are accessible. That means you could write to the entire drive (from the OS's point of view), but there will still be a portion you cannot touch until the controller decides to swap it back into use. On the plus side, I suspect the drives tend to keep that extra space wiped (but I'm not absolutely positive), so there probably wouldn't be any actual data in there.
Why? They are only seizing imports. It didn't say they were pulling them off store shelves. In fact, the article even pointed out that it will be 2 to 3 weeks before the stores run out. So maybe, if you expected the injunction to end up getting extended beyond the initial 10 days (not likely), then this week would be a good time to start buying them from the stores and hoarding them in anticipation of an upcoming shortage.
Slashdot Mirror
taxes kill infrastructure.
FDR taxed the airlines in order to build the unprofitable and inefficient system of roads while taking apart the existing system of privately owned profitable and efficient rail.
So what you are saying is that we killed infrastructure by building infrastructure? Look...roads may not be as efficient as air or trans travel, but they offer a LOT more flexibility that a lot of people prefer.
Yet, Saruman's orcs have never heard of saws to cut trees, despite having the ability to make arms and armor, and insist on ripping the trees near Saruman's house down.
Well, there's possibly a compelling argument here. If you have a big enough, strong enough army, pulling them down could be just as quick, and makes most efficient use of the wood (getting the tree roots and all). Also, who is to say they had the technology to make saws? Making a saw isn't the same as making and axe or a suit of armor. Saws need to be very thin, flexible, and require hundreds of very small, consistently sized teeth.
There he gives a yell and all the other Ents magically appear. What, were they following the leader Ent the whole time? Or do they just walk at the speed of light?
These may seem like trivial details, but it's annoying to sit and have to watch them spend so much effort on one hand getting things just right and believable, but on the other expect the audience to throw "suspension of disbelief" out of the window at the drop of a hat.
So what....you wanted Peter Jackson to insert a 15 minute scene of staring at Treebeard while we wait for the other ents to finally emerge from the forest? You know, you just made me realize another huge flaw...how was it that the hobbits made it all the way from the shire to mount doom, had all these incredible adventures in between, and yet it only took them 9 or 10 hours to do it? And why did they have to stop to sleep every hour? Oh yeah, that's right....this isn't an episode of 24. Events do not occur in real time.
If you don't want to see it, don't watch it.
But why would he want to skip out on the movies? If he did that, he wouldn't have anything to bitch about.
You obviously lack the ability to do some research....In fact, given that you were unable to research this for yourself makes your whole existence irrelevant. Throw yourself from a window and remove your defective genes from the pool.
You obviously lack the ability to not be an asshole. I actually did quite a bit of looking at articles on nuclear yield, ICBMs, area of effect, etc, but couldn't find an actual answer. Thanks for being a dick, though. If only slashdot had a "-1: Informative Troll" mod.
Would that be enough? Lets just look at 1 city...Detroit, since I am familiar with it (living in the general area). Would 1 ICBM be enough to devastate and cripple the area? I don't know. The manufacturing basis here is over such a large area. For instance, I know that at least some of the tank manufacturing was done in Warren, which is about 12 miles north of downtown.
So the question is...what is the size of the area of effect of the warheads carried by ICBMs at that time? I honestly don't know. I know both countries had the capability for very large plane delivered warheads, but I think ICBM warheads were still pretty low yield back then. A small warhead might only have a dangerous radius of 4-5 miles. So really, targetting Detroit would kill a lot of people, but you wouldn't be doing so much to cripple the city in terms of its contribution to a war. You'd have to target Warren specifically. But then the question is, were there other important targets in Detroit that were elsewhere (downtown, or in the west and southwest suburbs)? How much real damage could you do with only that 1 warhead?
Certainly it would not be a loss to take lightly, but the thing is, it probably wouldn't cripple the country militarily. So now the big question is, what do you do? You have this other country that you fear is about to become a huge threat, with the capability to launch hundreds of warheads at your country (enough to REALLY devastate your entire country). And you fear that they are going to be more than willing to use it on you. However, what if you know that, while that will be true very soon, you KNOW right now that they only have 4 ICBMs. That may be enough to do some serious damage, but it would be nothing compared to what you believe they may soon be able (and willing) to do. It may be wise to take a smaller loss now rather than a MUCH larger loss later. Also, keep in mind that in this scenario, where the 4 ICMBs would be coming only after your own initial strike, you can plan the timing of your initial strike and attempt to clear out the most important resource from the potential target areas before launching your strike.
So the gist of it is, I think, while 4 ICBMs could have done some damage, had we know the exact situation, it may not have been enough to dissuade us from launching a preemptive strike. It's probably a really good thing we didn't know exactly what was going on.
Plutonium is the most toxic substance known - even one atom will be harmful, even if not readily apparent.
Even though I'm not anywhere near an expert when it comes to nuclear physics, elemental decay, etc, that still seems like BS to me. It emits a single alpha particle and now it is no longer Plutonium. I just can't see how that can be so dangerous. But, I was willing to concede that, due to my lack of expertise, there may be something here I don't fully understand. So I went to look it up:
Plutonium is more dangerous when inhaled than when ingested. The risk of lung cancer increases once the total dose equivalent of inhaled radiation exceeds 400 mSv.[91] The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the lifetime cancer risk for inhaling 5,000 plutonium particles, each about 3 microns wide, to be 1% over the background U.S. average.[92] Ingestion or inhalation of large amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death; no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium, and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.[77]
I'm not sure how many atoms of plutonium it takes to make a 3 micron wide particle. A quick search looks like Pu is approx 175 pm. So if those were lined up in a straight line, it would take over 5000 atoms to be 3 microns wide. I'm assuming when they say 3 micron particle, they mean something like a 3 micron sphere, but lets just go with the straight line anyway. That means that 1 atom of Pu is 1 / 25,000,000 of the dosage necessary for a 1% increase in cancer.
What's funny about Obama is that his supporters will vigorously defend him and his spinelessness and inaction, usually blaming it on the Republicans (even though they were a minority in Congress for two years, during which time the Democrats should have reasonably been able to get through anything they wanted).
Actually, while the Republicans were a minority for 2 years, it was really only the 2nd half of the first year when the democrats had free reign to do whatever they wanted. Though the republicans were a minority, they were determined to filibuster everything under the sun that came from the democrats (even when it was ideas that they were in favor of themselves just a few years earlier). The only way the democrats could overcome this was with 60 votes. Even including the 2 independents who caucused with the democrats, they didn't get 60 seats until Al Franken was declared the winner and sworn in on July 7. Then Kennedy died on August 25th. He was not replaced until Sept 24th, when a Democrat was temporarily put in his place, and he stayed there until Feb 4, when a republican was brought in as the permanent replacement.
So the democrats only had their 60 votes to overcome the filibuster from July 7 to Aug 25, and then from Sep 25 to Feb 4....less than 6 months total. And that was only if they could get unanimous support of all democrats and independents (which wasn't always the case).
Granted, I am disappointed with some of what Obama has (or rather, has not) done, but I think your 2 specific examples are particularly bad examples to choose. In the case of closing Gitmo, that couldn't be done unless they found somewhere else to house the prisoners, and everyone was all "not in MY neighborhood". Obama was kind of powerless there when no state would step up and take the prisoners. He didn't have the power to force it on anyone.
And as far as wars, I think he's done a pretty reasonable job backing out of Iraq as quickly and safely as possible (though I think his initial timetables were a bit shorter), and as far as Afghanistan, he never said he was going to get us out of that. He actually campaigned on INCREASING our involvement there, which is exactly what he's done. For some reason, people don't seem to remember this, and they always think he campaigned on ending that war.
I understand that people use devices differently and that for a lot of people this will be great, so I'm not trying to threadcrap here or anything. However, this remote wouldn't work for me for a couple of reasons.
1) Gyroscope that makes only one side active at a time, depending on orientation. This wouldn't work for me because I use my remotes in all sorts of orientations depending on how I happen to be sitting/laying. Often instead of pointing it at the TV, I have it in my hand, upside down (ie: my hand on my chest), with the IR signal bouncing off the back wall. In this orientation, the remote would think I'm using the keyboard.
2) Button layout. It seems so many of the remotes these days put the number keys at the very bottom of the remote, and the transport keys (play, rewind, etc) at the very top of the remote, with tons of stuff in between. This doesn't work for me because I love to use mythtv's arbitrary skip feature, where you can hit (for example) "1 - 2 - forward" to skip forward 12 minutes. I use this sort of thing all the time...mostly to deal with skipping commercials on programs where commercial detection is flaky (like shows with lots of black scenes).
There actually was a story about that.
I'll give you that there was a story, but was it an accurate story? I've seen a few stories about it, but following the links back to the source, you can see that it got blown out of proportion by bad math. The claim of 1000 times the allowed level came from another report of 1000% over the allowed level. As anyone with the most basic mathematical knowledge should know, 1000% is equal to 10 times, not 1000 times.
I think YOU need to calm down. Nobody is saying that there MIGHT be a radiation leak. There is a leak, and that's confirmed. There's no denying the radiation in the water. The question is, where is it coming from. This cray MAY BE the source of that leak (or it may turn out to be something else, or a combination of several things...they aren't sure yet). If you RTFA:
Nishiyama told reporters on Saturday that the crack "could be one source" of the radiation leaks that have hobbled efforts to quell the damaged reactor.
On Sunday he added: "This(crack in the pit) for the first time clarified the relationship (of the contaminated water) with the sea."
As far as your other comment:
European energy commissioner said 'biggest disaster of the century' over chernobyl, yet, talking heads in mainstream media almost trying to convince people that radiation is good for their health. Despite EPA found 1000 times allowable radiation in groundwater in massachusetts.
LOL...are you expecting me to believe that fukushima is causing massachusetts ground water to be 1000 times allowable levels? Sorry, but that seems INCREDIBLY far fetched...so far fetched, I'm not even sure how to explain it to you. I'll just stick to what the EPA has said: “these detections were expected and the levels detected are far below levels of public-health concern.”
And you think the media is trying to keep people calm? Doesn't seem that way to me. For instance, a few days ago I'm watching the news and they give a teaser for an upcoming story saying that "radiation from fukushima has reached detroit". Then they go to commercial, come back, do another story, then do the fukushima story, which is about 4 minutes long, and then at the very end of the story, they throw in a quick note about "oh yeah, it's about 1/15 of the radiation you get from eating a banana". Seems to me they're more interested in freaking people out for ratings and then just throwing in a calming footnote at the end.
Apparently TiVo also used the same service, because I just got an email from them about names and email addresses being exposed.
It's not that it's a bad technology, it just doesn't have a great track record.When it works, it works well, when it doesn't the results are horrifyingly bad.
Funny, it seems that nuclear has had the BEST track record:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
But you are right, that when nuclear fails, the results CAN BE horrifyingly bad. Note that it CAN BE bad, but it's not a certainty. Three Mile Island is the 3rd worst nuclear power incident in history, and its negative effects were almost non-existent. No deaths, no serious radiation exposure to anybody, and no land contaminated and made uninhabitable. It's almost as if the incident had never happened.
But back to the point, yeah Chernobyl was horrifying. Not sure that Fukushima is yet what I would call horrifying (just bad). But you know what...most other sources of power are pretty horrifying when they go bad, too. Banqiao Dam was pretty horrifying. The gulf oil spill was certainly horrifying. And then there's coal power, where even when things go GOOD and there are no accidents, the results are STILL horrifying.
I have burned out a Major Name Brand SLC SSD with a high traffic OLTP DB in eight months.
Why tip-toe around this? Are you talking about Intel or not? If not, it's not really relevant here because this is about Intel, and I think most people agrees that Intel is generally a bit more respected for being a better tested product with a bit more truth behind their numbers. If you ARE talking about Intel, then I think that's pretty important to know.
Perhaps they should spend that idle time pondering the importance of the decisions they will be making and the impacts those decisions will have on the various parties involved -- and taking stock of their own capacity to be objective, their own internalized biases, and personal foibles, in order to offer a fairer verdict at the end of the process. Instead of playing Angry Birds. Just a thought.
How exactly do I ponder anything at all about the decision I will be making in the many, many hours I sit there in the waiting room, before I've even been selected to go into a courtroom to see if maybe I might get picked for a trial?
Isn't most important astronomy these days done by space-based telescopes?
Actually, the tide is turning a bit the opposite way. I seem to recall reading a while back (perhaps it was here on slashdot) that people were working on ground based systems that could out-resolve hubble, using software that could detect and compensate for the atmospheric distortion.
A quick search turned up this: http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?aid=324
But a new camera system has been developed to bring this power to the visible spectrum as well. The "Lucky Camera" works by recording partially corrected images taken using the adaptive optics system at very high speed, capturing more than 20 frames a second. Most of these images are still smeared by the atmosphere, but the occasional one is crisp and clear and unblurred. The software can recognize these clear ones, and keeps them to later assemble into a single, sharp image.
Using this software on the 5.1 metre Hale Telescope on Palomar Mountain, astronomers were able to achieve images with twice the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. Previously, it was 10 times worse.
Placing hoses would be much, much harder. There is a lot of local radiation around the reactors - otherwise all of this would be rather trivial.
We need big robots.
Something like a cement crane (not sure what it's actually called) would be useful:
http://sailgarden.us/dreamhouse/slab_cement_mixers_crane_800x513.jpg
Where does the Constitution give the government the right to stop me?
I think you misunderstand the constitution. The constitution enumerates the rights you have which cannot be taken away, neither by the federal government nor the state government. Any right not specifically protected by the constitution is yours by default, but can be taken away by the state government if it so chooses.
For instance, the constitution says nothing about your right to walk around nude in public. Therefore, that right is yours by default. However, since the states are not prohibited by the constitution from restricting that right, they are individually allowed to pass laws against public nudity (which they all do).
they have no state income tax.
Try to get at least one simple fact right.
It seems he already did
Good job. Apparently, you bothered to read neither my entire post, nor the contents of your own link. I said there was a bunch of fuss about it a year ago that turned out to be incorrect. And when is your link from? 1 year ago. And in your own link it even says in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH that it doesn't apply to RAID.
So bravo, but maybe you should have spent more than "about 2 seconds" researching the matter.
Nope, that was an error in the documentation:
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/imsm/sb/CS-031491.htm
Intel® Rapid Storage Technology 9.6 supports TRIM in AHCI mode and in RAID mode for drives that are not part of a RAID volume.
A defect was filed to correct the information in the Help file that states that TRIM is supported on RAID volumes.
Notice the date on that page.... "Last Modified: 26-Mar-2010", which is a few days after the flood of articles a few days prior (including the one you linked) claiming the driver would support TRIM on SSD arrays
As far as I know, there is no raid setup (hardware or software) which supports trim. Please correct me if I'm wrong (with proof please). I know that about a year ago there was a bunch of fuss when people thought a new intel driver was going to support TRIM on SSD raid setups, but it was an error in the documentation later clarified. Other than that, I've heard nothing more on the matter.
The whole point of backscatter/mm-wave scanners are that they don't penetrate much more than clothing.
If that's true, then that's not what they are talking about here. From TFA:
Any x-ray system capable of scanning through buildings is surely powerful enough to expose a fetus to x-rays.
I've transcoded a bunch of bluray movies using handbrake. I convert to 1080p mkv files and use the core audio track (which is usually 5.1 in either AC3 or DTS format) Most movies shrink to the 2-4GB range (some as small as 1.5GB, some as large as 8GB) and are close enough in quality that most people would have to try pretty hard to notice the difference.
cat /dev/urandom >> /dev/ssdX
Just needs to be run once to -really- bollox an investigation..
Not entirely. Remember that most SSDs use overprovisioning to increase performance. This means that at any given time, only a portion of the drive (typically around 90-95%) is actually accessible. And I'm pretty sure that, due to wear leveling, the controller will continuously alter which portions are accessible. That means you could write to the entire drive (from the OS's point of view), but there will still be a portion you cannot touch until the controller decides to swap it back into use. On the plus side, I suspect the drives tend to keep that extra space wiped (but I'm not absolutely positive), so there probably wouldn't be any actual data in there.
Why? They are only seizing imports. It didn't say they were pulling them off store shelves. In fact, the article even pointed out that it will be 2 to 3 weeks before the stores run out. So maybe, if you expected the injunction to end up getting extended beyond the initial 10 days (not likely), then this week would be a good time to start buying them from the stores and hoarding them in anticipation of an upcoming shortage.