/dev/random is slow because it maintains an entropy pool filled by sources of randomness in the hardware -- things like mouse movements, keystroke timings, disk timings, etc. If reading from/dev/random drains the pool faster than it's filled, then/dev/random blocks until there is enough entropy./dev/urandom uses the same techniques (same pool, even), but it doesn't block when the pool is drained of entropy. Theoretically this means that there could be enough information in the output of/dev/urandom to predict the next output, but I don't think the theory has been put into practice.
A hardware RNG could easily be configured as another source of randomness added to the pool.
The issue is that a waltz is characterized by a beat with an emphasis on every third beat ("Oom-pa-pa-Oom-pa-pa"). If you want to get closer but without the emphasis on thirds you can do a swing or a pivot, either of which would better describe the motion of two massive orbiting bodies.
Data General made this OS (and derivative) for their 16- and 32-bit minicomputers in the early '80s. My high school had one and it's what I learned Pascal on. Since DG seems to have dropped the line in 1988 and switched to concentrating on their Unix derivative before finally crashing and burning in 1999, and it never ran on machines that most hobbyists would be familiar with, I suspect that there are few orphaned installations out there...but apparently I'm wrong.
Maybe I missed something. Isn't this just a perfectly sensible extension of "innocent until proven guilty"? If I call you a thief and you sue me for libel, why should the burden of proof be on *you*, exactly?
If you are accusing me of libel, why should the burden of proof be on me? You are the one making the legal accusation, not me. If you were accusing me of anything else, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that you have legal redress and that I did what I was accused of. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Why should it be different for libel?
In the US, libel typically has several elements which must be proven, including (a) it was published, (b) it was defamatory, and (c) it is false. Where the whole "defendant has the burden of proof" bit comes in is that if the defendant can show the truth of the supposedly libelous statement, then the plaintiff's case fails on (c), and it is often easier to rebut the accusation of falsehood than the rest of the case.
In the UK, the "falsehood" element is missing; a true statement can be considered libelous. This makes life much harder for the defendant.
How about, you want to study very high speed cars. On a daily basis people are caught by cops going over 100 mph all over the usa. But the odds of putting a camera up on any old street corner and seeing a 100 mph car are very low and at best you might see one in a zillion years. Like cosmic rays.
Not quite. Using your analogy, it's like you want to study the handling and aerodynamics of a car going 75. There are millions of cars on the road, but the best you can do to see cars going 75 on the public highways is via road-side cameras, 100 feet away from the road, and you don't know when the cars are going to drive by, and they could be doing anything from 60 to 120mph and you don't know what in advance. One time one of your colleagues saw a car zip past at 300mph, but it hasn't happened again. You see 75mph cars all the time, but your pictures are not all that good.
However, on the track you can set up an observing station that is 10 feet wide, has pressure and strain sensors embedded in the roadbed, has air pressure meters at close intervals, has high-speed, high resolution video recording from both sides, above, below, and at various angles. And you know, to the fraction of a second, when a car is going to go through your sensor. And you have dozens of expert drivers who send a car through the observing station at 30 second intervals at exactly 75mph.
The hundreds of inexpensive road-side cameras you and your colleagues have deployed see more cars doing 75+ than you will see on your track, but you know much more about how the cars handle from your data.
What the LHC does is slam hadrons -- large collections of quarks bound together by strong nuclear forces -- into other hadrons at high energy. The LHC uses the hadrons it does not because there is anything special about them but because it's somewhat easier to get the energies they want to study using the hadrons they choose. They also chose the energies they use for the collision for convenience more than anything special. Ideally, they want the most energetic range they can accurately control. If they could build a bigger collider, capable of higher energy collisions, they would, but these things are complicated, big, and expensive.
Cosmic rays are a mixture of fast particles, including hadrons of various sizes, traveling at very high speeds. Many cosmic rays are bare protons, the same as used in the LHC. The energy range of cosmic rays is wide, ranging to many more orders of magnitude higher than the LHC. A collision between a proton from space at 100TeV and a proton in an oxygen atom in the upper atmosphere of the earth is very similar to a proton-proton collision in the LHC, but much higher energy.
If I am interpreting a graph on Wikipedia correctly, cosmic rays with an energy of over 1000 TeV impact the Earth at a rate of about 1 per square meter per year. Given the size of the Earth, that's 14 million/second. So 14 million collisions hundreds of times more energetic than the LHC can do happen in the Earth's atmosphere every second. And there appears to be a power scaling going on. 10TeV cosmic rays are thousands of times more frequent than 1000TeV cosmic rays.
The difference, and why the LHC was built, is location. Looking at cosmic ray collisions tells us what the end result is going to be, but it doesn't tell us what happens partway through. If you look at a car crash on the side of the road, you know that the car got squished and the driver was injured. If you look at a car crash in a lab with cameras and crash dummies, you can tell that the driver hits the windshield before the crumplezones absorb all the energy.
The same sort of thing with the LHC. If the LHC will create Higgs Bosons, they are being created all the time in the upper atmosphere. But Higgs Bosons are expected to last an incredibly short amount of time, and all we see is what's left after they decay into other particles. We can't see cosmic ray collisions clearly enough to see if the decay particles come from Higgs or from other processes we understand well.
Sir Pterry isn't a Knight Commander (which is a title within various British Orders), but a Knight Bachelor (which is a title outside the Order system). Formally, there are no initials he can add to his name as a Knight Bachelor, but many add Kt. So he could be styled "Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE" (Officer of the Order of the British Empire), but not "Sir Terry Pratchet, KBE" (Knight Commander...).
In the non-embedded world, people rely on the operating system to handle the time, DST and all.
Linux and MacOS systems are configured to use a second count from an epoch internally, which it converts to local time using a timezone database. The timezone database is designed to be updated, and updates are routinely sent out whenever a timezone (or DST rule) changes worldwide. The timezone db for Linux changed within days of the law being changed. The DB is historical, so it'll properly report times in the past, even though the rules have changed since then.
The main problem with Linux embedded applications is updating the DB when the rules change.
Actually, it's more like going into a library and stealing books you don't want anyone to read. Which I gather is a real problem at libraries.
That risks getting caught and lacks imagination. A much safer technique is to simply move the books around in the library. It may be years before anyone notices that Mein Kamf is misshelved under archaeological textiles, and you don't have to worry about the theft-guards at the doors beeping at you.
Of course, this works best in large university libraries where even suggesting shelf-reading the entire collection will get you incredulous stares by the staff. I've browsed library shelves and found books (in their proper place, mind you) which didn't appear in any publically available catalog (I checked). Misshelving can be a serious problem. I understand that some of the largest libraries don't allow patrons into the stacks for exactly that reason and all books are fetched and returned by pages.
The common answer is what many states have enacted: an allowed gap in ages between participants where it isn't illegal to have sex with someone who is too young as long as you aren't too old. In your situations, (18&17, 17&16, 18.5&18.75, etc) there wouldn't be a problem.
In my state (New York), you are considered to be "incapable of consent" if you are under 17 years of age. However, 3rd degree rape is written rather clumsily to avoid that issue: a person is guilty of 3rd degree rape if (1) he or she has sex with someone incapable of consent for a reason other than being under 17 years of age, (2) being 21 or older, he or she has sex with someone who is less than 17 years of age, or (3) another factor not relevant here. For 2nd degree rape, the two relevant clauses are (1) being 18 or older, having sex with someone under 15, but it is an affirmative defense to that clause of at the time of the act the defendant was less than 4 years older than the victim.
There are odd corner cases in NYS law where it is OK for two folks to boink, but have to stop because they get older, but it involves some rather large spreads of ages (and may be covered by juvenile law I haven't looked into). A 17 year old can boink an 11 year old until he/she turns 18. A 17 year old can boink a 13 year old, but if he turns 18 before she turns 14, they have to stop boinking for a year or more until she turns 15, then they can boink until he turns 21 (and she's 16) and then they have to wait (less than a year) for her to turn 17, then they can boink with impunity. If she turned 14 before he turned 18, then they never have to stop boinking.
In NYS, it isn't the age difference, per se, but rather the difference in maturity and whether one or the other is adult enough to make the appropriate decision. A 16 year old isn't considered mature enough to consent to sex with an adult over 21, but a 4-year age gap is OK. The law handles teen-agers having sex within their age-bracket fine without criminalizing it, yet (theoretically) provides protection of impressionable youth from predatory adults who might convince them they want to have sex or otherwise prey on their insecurities. Unparaphrased sections of the law deal with nonconsensual sex regardless of age, so teens are protected against forced/drugged rape as well.
In my opinion, writing age-of-consent laws with an age-band is more just than allowing disapproving parents to wait until his/her 18th birthday to have him/her arrested for consensual sex with their under-age daughter/son.
I remember CPK, TME, and Furby. I also think it's easier, with eBay, to actually resell them at higher-than-retail than it has been in the past. When the CPK came out, there were shortages and some people selling over retail, but I don't think that there was enough scalping to cause artificial shortages (as is claimed with the Wii and other newer products).
It could, but probably won't. However, if I'm interpreting what you meant correctly, it probably will.
To clarify the incredibly confusing statement...
Energy is the capacity to do work. In SI base units, it's measured in kg m^2/s^2, also known as Joules (J). Another unit used is the Watt-hour (Wh), with a conversion factor of 3600 J = 1 Wh. You tend to buy energy from "power" companies in the US in kiloWatt-hours, with 3.6 MJ = 1 kWh.
Power is the rate at which work is done per unit time. It's measured in kg m^2/s^3, or J/s, also known as the Watt (W).
Obviously, there is a trade-off between time and power when trying to get a certain amount of energy. You can pump 40Wh of energy into a laptop power pack at a rate of 40W for an hour, or at 80W for 30 minutes, etc. So the faster you charge, the more power you need for the same amount of energy.
LiIon technology is limited in how much power you can use to charge them. The LiIon cell, like all batteries, stores electric energy in chemical bonds, and the chemical reaction takes time. Pushing it too fast generates heat, lowers the efficiency of the charge and potentially damaging the battery. I've rarely seen my laptop batteries charge at a rate higher than 10-15W, but I don't know how typical this is. A 40Wh powerpack would charge in about 3-4 hours at that rate.
Ultracapacitors, on the otherhand, have virtually no limit to how much power you can use in charging or discharging them. They are limited by their construction and the leads to them more than their basic chemistry. Properly constructed, an ultracapacitor power pack could easily draw the 1750 W maximum power from a typical 15A 120V US power plug without a problem (100-150 times as much as a LiIon pack). a 40Wh powerpack charged at that rate would charge in under 90 seconds.
So an ultracapacity power pack would use considerable more power than a slow-charging LiIon.
There are efficiencies involved as well: What's the efficiency of the charging circuit for the LiIon pack versus that of the ultracapacitor? It's very possible that, overall, it takes less energy to charge an ultracapacitor pack to 40Wh of energy than a LiIon pack to the same charge.
Since you probably meant to ask if it took less energy (which is what you pay for), the answer is.... probably.
There are other voting systems besides FPP and IRV. Many of them are better than FPP and IRV. I personally like the Condorcet Criterion (a candidate who would defeat all other candidates individually when running in head-to-head contests should be the winner) as an important criterion to apply to voting systems. Neither FPP nor IRV pass it.
I'm uncertain as to what you mean by "this feature"? Showing incorrect historical file timestamps?
As for "dynamic timezones", most *nix distributions use timezone files which have historical information. Check out zoneinfo for more information, as well as a list of *nix distributions which use it. *nix distributions have had this feature for, oh, about 20 years.
I would hesitate to equate a "Catholic College" and a "Christian University". I'm not saying that Catholicism is not Christian, but rather that the Jesuits seem to have different goals than those who found so-called "Christian" colleges and universities.
It is not legal without a warrant for them to open a letter you send at the post office. I suppose they could read a postcard. But the post office is a branch of the Federal Government, and not tampering with the mail is covered by other Federal laws.
From reading the article, it states that the Feds are relying on a 1986 law that gives them permission to do what they are doing.
This story is barely plausible, in my opinion. Energetically, what they are talking about would work, and be emission-free (in fact, as described, it is reverse-emissive: the car would get heavier as it used up its "fuel".
The reactions involved are:
Mg + H2O --> MgO + H2 + heat
Essentially, they are burning the magnesium under water. The heat of reaction splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the oxygen preferentially combines with the magnesium. This is a very energetic reaction, and in this case the heat would cause some of the remaining water bath to turn into steam.
The engine then feeds this mixture of high temperature/pressure steam and hydrogen into a combustion chamber, where it is combined with oxygen with the whole 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O + heat reaction, yielding even hotter steam.
This works against a piston, driving the system.
Basically, it's a steam engine that burns magnesium for a portable fuel source.
A very common way of borrowing money in the corporate setting is by selling promissory notes ("notes"), or loan contracts. Like private loans, every note has associated with it a principle amount (how much was borrowed), an interest rate (how much extra the lender gets per annum for lending the money), and sometimes a security (what the lender gets if the borrower fails to live up to the terms of the notes).
Most notes are standardized in their particulars: The principle is usually $1000, the payment plan is usually interest payed quarterly or semiannually and the principle payed off in full at the end of a pre-defined period. The only variables of import are the length of the loan and the interest rate.
In this case, the notes in question have a lifetime of 10 years, and pay 6.50% interest semiannually. If you owned one of these notes you would get two checks a year of $32.50 each until now, when you would get a check for $1000. If you had bought it when originally sold by Apple, you would have paid $999.25 for it instead of $1000.
So what Apple is saying is that there were $300Mil of these notes (or 300,000 of them) still outstanding in February, and they planned to pay them off with cash on hand.
Don't think of MD5 like a lossy compression algorithm, think of it instead like a lossy encryption algorithm. It's much more similar.
Block encryption algorithms work by taking two blocks (the key block and the data block) and combining them into one block. It is possible to chain blocks so that to decrypt the last block it is necessary to decrypt all the previous blocks.
MD5 works similarly. It has a core bit that combines pairs of blocks, and a wrapper that chains blocks together like an encryption algorithm does. Except instead of showing you all the blocks, it only outputs the last block.
Because MD5 only has 128 bits of output, there are obviously "collisions", or two files that differ in content but have the same MD5 sum. But a design goal of MD5 was to make collisions hard to find. To wit: 1) it should be hard to create two different files with the same MD5 sum, and 2) it should be hard, given one file, to create a second,different, file with the same MD5 sum. It is also hard to create a file with a given MD5 sum.
So, no, a MP3 from MD5 generator isn't possible. More accurately, to do so efficiently would constitute a major break of the MD5 algorithm. So far, after years of scruteny, MD5 has only turned up minor weaknesses, no major breaks.
The US has never repudiated its currency, and is unlikely to do so, so a $20 printed before the addition of the polymer security stripe is still legal tender, if somewhat rare. If you were trying to reproduce high quality paper for counterfeit currency, you'd best aim for pre-polymer-strip bills. That will also save you from having to deal with some of the the other publically acknowledged anticounterfeiting measures (like microprinting, variable optical printing, etc).
Paper currency in the US is printed on paper that is 25% linen, 75% cotton fiber in content, with small amounts of blue and red silk fibers added into the pulp. There is no wood pulp.
Processing leaves the paper a uniform shade of beige or off-white, easily distinguished from most bleached paper. This color is also an anticounterfeiting measure, by the way, since its easily distinguished from white, and bleaching away the ink from an existing bill will likely change that color.
I'm not sure how it works in civil cases, but in criminal cases in the US there is the "Silver Platter" principle. By the "Silver Platter" principle, if illegally acquired evidence is given to them by a third party, they can use it -- assuming they can prove its provenance.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but by those around us we aren't exactly considered sane.
I've been checking my spam filter for it all afternoon, and still nothing.
/dev/random is slow because it maintains an entropy pool filled by sources of randomness in the hardware -- things like mouse movements, keystroke timings, disk timings, etc. If reading from /dev/random drains the pool faster than it's filled, then /dev/random blocks until there is enough entropy. /dev/urandom uses the same techniques (same pool, even), but it doesn't block when the pool is drained of entropy. Theoretically this means that there could be enough information in the output of /dev/urandom to predict the next output, but I don't think the theory has been put into practice.
A hardware RNG could easily be configured as another source of randomness added to the pool.
The issue is that a waltz is characterized by a beat with an emphasis on every third beat ("Oom-pa-pa-Oom-pa-pa"). If you want to get closer but without the emphasis on thirds you can do a swing or a pivot, either of which would better describe the motion of two massive orbiting bodies.
Data General made this OS (and derivative) for their 16- and 32-bit minicomputers in the early '80s. My high school had one and it's what I learned Pascal on. Since DG seems to have dropped the line in 1988 and switched to concentrating on their Unix derivative before finally crashing and burning in 1999, and it never ran on machines that most hobbyists would be familiar with, I suspect that there are few orphaned installations out there...but apparently I'm wrong.
Maybe I missed something. Isn't this just a perfectly sensible extension of "innocent until proven guilty"? If I call you a thief and you sue me for libel, why should the burden of proof be on *you*, exactly?
If you are accusing me of libel, why should the burden of proof be on me? You are the one making the legal accusation, not me. If you were accusing me of anything else, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that you have legal redress and that I did what I was accused of. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Why should it be different for libel?
In the US, libel typically has several elements which must be proven, including (a) it was published, (b) it was defamatory, and (c) it is false. Where the whole "defendant has the burden of proof" bit comes in is that if the defendant can show the truth of the supposedly libelous statement, then the plaintiff's case fails on (c), and it is often easier to rebut the accusation of falsehood than the rest of the case.
In the UK, the "falsehood" element is missing; a true statement can be considered libelous. This makes life much harder for the defendant.
Not quite. Using your analogy, it's like you want to study the handling and aerodynamics of a car going 75. There are millions of cars on the road, but the best you can do to see cars going 75 on the public highways is via road-side cameras, 100 feet away from the road, and you don't know when the cars are going to drive by, and they could be doing anything from 60 to 120mph and you don't know what in advance. One time one of your colleagues saw a car zip past at 300mph, but it hasn't happened again. You see 75mph cars all the time, but your pictures are not all that good.
However, on the track you can set up an observing station that is 10 feet wide, has pressure and strain sensors embedded in the roadbed, has air pressure meters at close intervals, has high-speed, high resolution video recording from both sides, above, below, and at various angles. And you know, to the fraction of a second, when a car is going to go through your sensor. And you have dozens of expert drivers who send a car through the observing station at 30 second intervals at exactly 75mph.
The hundreds of inexpensive road-side cameras you and your colleagues have deployed see more cars doing 75+ than you will see on your track, but you know much more about how the cars handle from your data.
What the LHC does is slam hadrons -- large collections of quarks bound together by strong nuclear forces -- into other hadrons at high energy. The LHC uses the hadrons it does not because there is anything special about them but because it's somewhat easier to get the energies they want to study using the hadrons they choose. They also chose the energies they use for the collision for convenience more than anything special. Ideally, they want the most energetic range they can accurately control. If they could build a bigger collider, capable of higher energy collisions, they would, but these things are complicated, big, and expensive.
Cosmic rays are a mixture of fast particles, including hadrons of various sizes, traveling at very high speeds. Many cosmic rays are bare protons, the same as used in the LHC. The energy range of cosmic rays is wide, ranging to many more orders of magnitude higher than the LHC. A collision between a proton from space at 100TeV and a proton in an oxygen atom in the upper atmosphere of the earth is very similar to a proton-proton collision in the LHC, but much higher energy.
If I am interpreting a graph on Wikipedia correctly, cosmic rays with an energy of over 1000 TeV impact the Earth at a rate of about 1 per square meter per year. Given the size of the Earth, that's 14 million/second. So 14 million collisions hundreds of times more energetic than the LHC can do happen in the Earth's atmosphere every second. And there appears to be a power scaling going on. 10TeV cosmic rays are thousands of times more frequent than 1000TeV cosmic rays.
The difference, and why the LHC was built, is location. Looking at cosmic ray collisions tells us what the end result is going to be, but it doesn't tell us what happens partway through. If you look at a car crash on the side of the road, you know that the car got squished and the driver was injured. If you look at a car crash in a lab with cameras and crash dummies, you can tell that the driver hits the windshield before the crumplezones absorb all the energy.
The same sort of thing with the LHC. If the LHC will create Higgs Bosons, they are being created all the time in the upper atmosphere. But Higgs Bosons are expected to last an incredibly short amount of time, and all we see is what's left after they decay into other particles. We can't see cosmic ray collisions clearly enough to see if the decay particles come from Higgs or from other processes we understand well.
Sir Pterry isn't a Knight Commander (which is a title within various British Orders), but a Knight Bachelor (which is a title outside the Order system). Formally, there are no initials he can add to his name as a Knight Bachelor, but many add Kt. So he could be styled "Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE" (Officer of the Order of the British Empire), but not "Sir Terry Pratchet, KBE" (Knight Commander...).
In the non-embedded world, people rely on the operating system to handle the time, DST and all.
Linux and MacOS systems are configured to use a second count from an epoch internally, which it converts to local time using a timezone database. The timezone database is designed to be updated, and updates are routinely sent out whenever a timezone (or DST rule) changes worldwide. The timezone db for Linux changed within days of the law being changed. The DB is historical, so it'll properly report times in the past, even though the rules have changed since then.
The main problem with Linux embedded applications is updating the DB when the rules change.
Windows... I dunno how Windows handles it.
I would find it hard to add a statement0 to that code.
Even in languages that recurse properly that'll overflow on big numbers. To not overflow in properly recursing languages, you need:
That risks getting caught and lacks imagination. A much safer technique is to simply move the books around in the library. It may be years before anyone notices that Mein Kamf is misshelved under archaeological textiles, and you don't have to worry about the theft-guards at the doors beeping at you.
Of course, this works best in large university libraries where even suggesting shelf-reading the entire collection will get you incredulous stares by the staff. I've browsed library shelves and found books (in their proper place, mind you) which didn't appear in any publically available catalog (I checked). Misshelving can be a serious problem. I understand that some of the largest libraries don't allow patrons into the stacks for exactly that reason and all books are fetched and returned by pages.
The common answer is what many states have enacted: an allowed gap in ages between participants where it isn't illegal to have sex with someone who is too young as long as you aren't too old. In your situations, (18&17, 17&16, 18.5&18.75, etc) there wouldn't be a problem.
In my state (New York), you are considered to be "incapable of consent" if you are under 17 years of age. However, 3rd degree rape is written rather clumsily to avoid that issue: a person is guilty of 3rd degree rape if (1) he or she has sex with someone incapable of consent for a reason other than being under 17 years of age, (2) being 21 or older, he or she has sex with someone who is less than 17 years of age, or (3) another factor not relevant here. For 2nd degree rape, the two relevant clauses are (1) being 18 or older, having sex with someone under 15, but it is an affirmative defense to that clause of at the time of the act the defendant was less than 4 years older than the victim.
There are odd corner cases in NYS law where it is OK for two folks to boink, but have to stop because they get older, but it involves some rather large spreads of ages (and may be covered by juvenile law I haven't looked into). A 17 year old can boink an 11 year old until he/she turns 18. A 17 year old can boink a 13 year old, but if he turns 18 before she turns 14, they have to stop boinking for a year or more until she turns 15, then they can boink until he turns 21 (and she's 16) and then they have to wait (less than a year) for her to turn 17, then they can boink with impunity. If she turned 14 before he turned 18, then they never have to stop boinking.
In NYS, it isn't the age difference, per se, but rather the difference in maturity and whether one or the other is adult enough to make the appropriate decision. A 16 year old isn't considered mature enough to consent to sex with an adult over 21, but a 4-year age gap is OK. The law handles teen-agers having sex within their age-bracket fine without criminalizing it, yet (theoretically) provides protection of impressionable youth from predatory adults who might convince them they want to have sex or otherwise prey on their insecurities. Unparaphrased sections of the law deal with nonconsensual sex regardless of age, so teens are protected against forced/drugged rape as well.
In my opinion, writing age-of-consent laws with an age-band is more just than allowing disapproving parents to wait until his/her 18th birthday to have him/her arrested for consensual sex with their under-age daughter/son.
I remember CPK, TME, and Furby. I also think it's easier, with eBay, to actually resell them at higher-than-retail than it has been in the past. When the CPK came out, there were shortages and some people selling over retail, but I don't think that there was enough scalping to cause artificial shortages (as is claimed with the Wii and other newer products).
It could, but probably won't. However, if I'm interpreting what you meant correctly, it probably will.
To clarify the incredibly confusing statement...
Energy is the capacity to do work. In SI base units, it's measured in kg m^2/s^2, also known as Joules (J). Another unit used is the Watt-hour (Wh), with a conversion factor of 3600 J = 1 Wh. You tend to buy energy from "power" companies in the US in kiloWatt-hours, with 3.6 MJ = 1 kWh.
Power is the rate at which work is done per unit time. It's measured in kg m^2/s^3, or J/s, also known as the Watt (W).
Obviously, there is a trade-off between time and power when trying to get a certain amount of energy. You can pump 40Wh of energy into a laptop power pack at a rate of 40W for an hour, or at 80W for 30 minutes, etc. So the faster you charge, the more power you need for the same amount of energy.
LiIon technology is limited in how much power you can use to charge them. The LiIon cell, like all batteries, stores electric energy in chemical bonds, and the chemical reaction takes time. Pushing it too fast generates heat, lowers the efficiency of the charge and potentially damaging the battery. I've rarely seen my laptop batteries charge at a rate higher than 10-15W, but I don't know how typical this is. A 40Wh powerpack would charge in about 3-4 hours at that rate.
Ultracapacitors, on the otherhand, have virtually no limit to how much power you can use in charging or discharging them. They are limited by their construction and the leads to them more than their basic chemistry. Properly constructed, an ultracapacitor power pack could easily draw the 1750 W maximum power from a typical 15A 120V US power plug without a problem (100-150 times as much as a LiIon pack). a 40Wh powerpack charged at that rate would charge in under 90 seconds.
So an ultracapacity power pack would use considerable more power than a slow-charging LiIon.
There are efficiencies involved as well: What's the efficiency of the charging circuit for the LiIon pack versus that of the ultracapacitor? It's very possible that, overall, it takes less energy to charge an ultracapacitor pack to 40Wh of energy than a LiIon pack to the same charge.
Since you probably meant to ask if it took less energy (which is what you pay for), the answer is.... probably.
There are other voting systems besides FPP and IRV. Many of them are better than FPP and IRV. I personally like the Condorcet Criterion (a candidate who would defeat all other candidates individually when running in head-to-head contests should be the winner) as an important criterion to apply to voting systems. Neither FPP nor IRV pass it.
I'm uncertain as to what you mean by "this feature"? Showing incorrect historical file timestamps?
As for "dynamic timezones", most *nix distributions use timezone files which have historical information. Check out zoneinfo for more information, as well as a list of *nix distributions which use it. *nix distributions have had this feature for, oh, about 20 years.
I would hesitate to equate a "Catholic College" and a "Christian University". I'm not saying that Catholicism is not Christian, but rather that the Jesuits seem to have different goals than those who found so-called "Christian" colleges and universities.
It is not legal without a warrant for them to open a letter you send at the post office. I suppose they could read a postcard. But the post office is a branch of the Federal Government, and not tampering with the mail is covered by other Federal laws.
From reading the article, it states that the Feds are relying on a 1986 law that gives them permission to do what they are doing.
This story is barely plausible, in my opinion. Energetically, what they are talking about would work, and be emission-free (in fact, as described, it is reverse-emissive: the car would get heavier as it used up its "fuel".
The reactions involved are:
Mg + H2O --> MgO + H2 + heat
Essentially, they are burning the magnesium under water. The heat of reaction splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the oxygen preferentially combines with the magnesium. This is a very energetic reaction, and in this case the heat would cause some of the remaining water bath to turn into steam.
The engine then feeds this mixture of high temperature/pressure steam and hydrogen into a combustion chamber, where it is combined with oxygen with the whole 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O + heat reaction, yielding even hotter steam.
This works against a piston, driving the system.
Basically, it's a steam engine that burns magnesium for a portable fuel source.
Sure.
A very common way of borrowing money in the corporate setting is by selling promissory notes ("notes"), or loan contracts. Like private loans, every note has associated with it a principle amount (how much was borrowed), an interest rate (how much extra the lender gets per annum for lending the money), and sometimes a security (what the lender gets if the borrower fails to live up to the terms of the notes).
Most notes are standardized in their particulars: The principle is usually $1000, the payment plan is usually interest payed quarterly or semiannually and the principle payed off in full at the end of a pre-defined period. The only variables of import are the length of the loan and the interest rate.
In this case, the notes in question have a lifetime of 10 years, and pay 6.50% interest semiannually. If you owned one of these notes you would get two checks a year of $32.50 each until now, when you would get a check for $1000. If you had bought it when originally sold by Apple, you would have paid $999.25 for it instead of $1000.
So what Apple is saying is that there were $300Mil of these notes (or 300,000 of them) still outstanding in February, and they planned to pay them off with cash on hand.
Don't think of MD5 like a lossy compression algorithm, think of it instead like a lossy encryption algorithm. It's much more similar.
,different, file with the same MD5 sum. It is also hard to create a file with a given MD5 sum.
Block encryption algorithms work by taking two blocks (the key block and the data block) and combining them into one block. It is possible to chain blocks so that to decrypt the last block it is necessary to decrypt all the previous blocks.
MD5 works similarly. It has a core bit that combines pairs of blocks, and a wrapper that chains blocks together like an encryption algorithm does. Except instead of showing you all the blocks, it only outputs the last block.
Because MD5 only has 128 bits of output, there are obviously "collisions", or two files that differ in content but have the same MD5 sum. But a design goal of MD5 was to make collisions hard to find. To wit: 1) it should be hard to create two different files with the same MD5 sum, and 2) it should be hard, given one file, to create a second
So, no, a MP3 from MD5 generator isn't possible. More accurately, to do so efficiently would constitute a major break of the MD5 algorithm. So far, after years of scruteny, MD5 has only turned up minor weaknesses, no major breaks.
The US has never repudiated its currency, and is unlikely to do so, so a $20 printed before the addition of the polymer security stripe is still legal tender, if somewhat rare. If you were trying to reproduce high quality paper for counterfeit currency, you'd best aim for pre-polymer-strip bills. That will also save you from having to deal with some of the the other publically acknowledged anticounterfeiting measures (like microprinting, variable optical printing, etc).
Paper currency in the US is printed on paper that is 25% linen, 75% cotton fiber in content, with small amounts of blue and red silk fibers added into the pulp. There is no wood pulp.
Processing leaves the paper a uniform shade of beige or off-white, easily distinguished from most bleached paper. This color is also an anticounterfeiting measure, by the way, since its easily distinguished from white, and bleaching away the ink from an existing bill will likely change that color.
I'm not sure how it works in civil cases, but in criminal cases in the US there is the "Silver Platter" principle. By the "Silver Platter" principle, if illegally acquired evidence is given to them by a third party, they can use it -- assuming they can prove its provenance.