I have no idea of how much of this 1640 km^3 water belongs to the cold part of the lake but even if it's not much they probably only extract a very tiny fraction, you're right.
Though one might ask whether this has some localized effects on the region where the water is removed...
Ok, they do not pump it to the top directly but simply remove it. Anyway, the lake is refilled by other means, rain etc. This goes to the top so there infact is a cycle from the bottom to the top causing an equilibration of temperature (if a significant amount of water is removed).
As far as I remember from biology class in school lakes are not just big holes with water but have an annual cycle. Two times a year the cold water from the bottom exchanges with the warmer water from near the surface. Between this exchanges it is more or less in rest (any biologists please correct me if I'm mistaken here). Now if we introduce a constant flux by pumping cold water from the bottom to the top you cannot predict what consequences this has for lifeforms in the lake. Animals and plants will surely be dependant on the natural cycle somehow.
Of course if it's just a tiny fraction of the cold water that gets extracted there might be no effect at all.
I visited a few lectures about lasers and currently work on my diploma thesis which has to do with lasers. You can believe me, they generally do have more than one wavelength.:)
I don't have good web references though (only old-fashioned books and such), but a quick googling brought up this site.
It explains quite good how multi-mode operation of lasers can be understood (see the "Longitudinal Laser Modes" section). If you have any more questions feel free to ask.
Well, besides the lightbulb others already mentioned there actually is a kind of ambient laser - the random laser. It differs from others that you don't have a cavity but a little sphere (or a cloud) of the active medium. On their way out of it the photons get scattered, but also amplified by stimulated emission. This type of laser usually radiates in all directions. Here's some more information about them: random lasers.
Look under publications, there are 2 papers on the 2nd page.
Further nitpick: a laser does amplify more than your lightbulb since it's based on another principle, the stimulated emission, whereas the lightbulb "uses" spontaneous emission. Lasers always have an active medium which amplifies the light. By your definition a lightbulb within a cavity would also be a laser...
All photons in laser light have the same wavelength, and do not scatter, so they travel in the same direction over long distance.
Nope. Most lasers emit light at several modes (frequencies) and some do so on a very broad band. A single-mode laser is actually quite demanding to build.
And laser light scatters excatly the same way other light does, it's nothing different. But it is very directional and can achieve high intensities, that's why it usually travels further than the light of a bulb.
Stimulated emission occurs when an atom absorbs a photon causing an electron to move to a "higher" state but in this case the electron can immediately jump back to it's lower state. This causes two photons to be emitted in exactly the same direction as the original photon was travelling.
If the incident photon would excite an electron, which by falling back into its lower state will emit another photon, you cannot get out 2 photons identical to the incident one. This violates conservation of energy.
With stimulated emission an incident photon interacts with an already excited atom, where the excitation energy must be (more or less) equal to energy of the photon. Then this photon can cause the electron to drop into a lower state, producing another photon, which will be identical to the incident one (and travel in the same direction).
Bear in mind that this spoof only looks convincing if you haven't changed your Firefox toolbar at all, ie. you haven't switched to smaller icons or added/removed/moved buttons.
Sure, if a toolbar suddenly looks like the default config all users will suspect a faked UI and get alerted instantly... you expect too much. IMHO many will simply assume the browser messed up their config and keep on browsing. Even if the majority gets suspicious, the small percentage that is fooled is most likely to be profitable enough for the phishers.
Any fresh Firefox installation asks about sending unencrypted form data, but not about executing arbitrary XUL stuff? This is a serious design flaw.
Re:Glare, Light Levels, Contrast See Optometrist
on
Handling Eye-Strain?
·
· Score: 1
Reducing the light level in your work area is also important. Either reduce the overhead lights, turn them off, or pull the shades slightly.
For me the best light to work with in the evening is simple candle light. Far more pleasing to the eye than any electrical light I know of. Plus staring at the flame is great to take a break and think about something.:)
At first thought it sounds plausible, but you will always miss something on that other computer. Even if it's just your favourite editor, you'll be forced to use a different one which most probably lowers you productivity. It might work if you install exactly the same software on all computers, plus all the libs, header etc. for developers. I never seen such a workplace, every desktop has it's own individual 'note'. A sick computer is IMHO not that much different from a sick employee.
I didn't advocate anything here. But using numbers to the base 10 ist simply intuitive cause you can use your fingers for counting. How often have you seen someone counting with his/her arms? Hardly, I guess, and for a good reason. Binary is just too impractical for everyday use.
Well, except for the IP spoofing. The nethack paper from the other reply (found it afterwards) doesn't mention IP addresses, so they either left them out or the firewalls/gateways only use the ports to keep track of connections. Hm, maybe I should try it.:)
I just read the part concerned with the NAT-traversal, but it's a bit scarce on details. They use some kind of handshake with a 3rd party server for the initial negotiation, using UDP and some "seed ports" which the clients use to "probe" each others gateways.
What I could think of is spoofing the source IP (and port) of outgoing packets to those used in the initial communication with the 3rd party server. Since they use UDP there are no sequence numbers to guess. This way the packets should traverse each client's firewall. Just an idea...
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying as a rebuttal to your statement [to paraphrase] "organised religion is proven to be dangerous".
Well, I didn't say all religion is dangerous, just that it can be (and this was proven). But even paraphrased these two statements don't exclude each other.
His statements were almost entirely derisive of the Jewish race.
Yes, but this "race" is only distinguished from others by its religion. I agree that Hitler's intentions were not with religion but his hatred of the Jews had in some way a religious component.
I've studied them...
I was afraid you'd say that.;-)
Thanks for the information. My point loses a lot of its weight then (but not all). Some cruelty was comitted by the church (which it would not be able to do nowadays). The fact some of it was politically motivated does not make it less worse.
The human rights and equality you proclaim are derived from Natural Law, which is founded in specifically christian concept
These can also be derived without any religion by simple logic. We live in a society and the only way to avoid chaos is a peaceful living, which can only be achieved by ensuring the equality of all. Another even simplier way is "don't do to others what you don't want others do to you".
But sadly humans are not logical beeings. Religion can help here if it's based upon the same concepts of equality. But the problem is that it must not.
It seems to me that the Modern Age has seen the highest level of horrific violence of all history so it doesn't seem to be helping there.
I agree, although I would say this is not related to religion in any way. IMHO this is one of the negative aspects of our advanced technology. You can kill thousands of people without even seeing them, just by pressing some buttons. In the past you had to meet your enemy face to face. Without this need the inhibition to hurt people drops quite a bit I would guess.
And one should note that the Native Americans may not feel that it worked out so well for them.
Surely not, but I was actually thinking of a later time here, sometime in the 20th century. The US had a constitution far earlier but it was not until the 60s when racial discrimination was made illegal. I'm making up the start of the Modern Age at the beginning of civil rights, which is probably different from what others think. I don't know that much about US history since I'm not a US citizen but in Germany for example I would point the start of the Modern Age after WW2. Since then we have a constitution that guarantees equal rights for all people.
Sorry, but "organized belief" is a non-sense phrase [akin to "organized religion"]--with its implication that there is a contrary state.
As for religion I would say that it is by definition organized. Belief on the contrary is not (it can be, but must not) because it reflects each individuals thoughts. This IMO is the contrary state. I know far more people who believe in God but don't associate their believes with a religion. They searched for their very own truths. But maybe you define religion and belief different then I do.
The only way around this is to state that not one thing in all of existence is universally true.
Since we are talking about beliefs here (and not about facts) I would actually agree to it (besides the oxymoron;). But I should have made myself clearer. The term "organized beliefs" was meant in the way of dogmatics and not just teaching. My fault.
Nope, that's not how it works--for Catholics or even the more organised Buddhists. Certainly, it is for some individuals and religions, but it is absolutely not a requisite of religion itself.
I think it's just a matter of defining religion. How I understand it religion includes a common set of beliefs, certain rituals (going to church, praying, etc) and some form of moral code to which you have to conform with your behaviour. The last one is what I mentioned before.
Stalin, Hitler, Tse-Tung: the three greatest killers of all history and all three running fundamentally anti-religious regimes.
It only proves that cruelty is not bound to religion. This argument cannot be reversed. Just think about the Middle Ages, they are not called the Dark Ages for naught. We had the holy crusades, the inquisition, the burning of witches and heretics (please note that I do not generalize this to all religions).
Oh, and by the way, are you really going to tell me that Hitler's hate for the Jews had nothing to do with religion?
Whether or not it is pragmatic to "not kill" or to enslave, exploit, and slaughter for one's own benefit is left up to the individual.
No point here, the same holds for the individual to accept a religion or not. All of history seems to indicate what humans will do to each other if given a free hand.
You do realize that religion had a much stronger presence (and influence) in past than today, don't you? Sure, there's still cruelty, and probably always will be. But since the seperation of religion from politics we achieved such things as human rights and equality of all people.
Certainly, my religion doesn't tell me what to believe but my faith in the Bible does.
So where do you think the bible comes from? Jesus didn't write it himself, it's the church that assembled it. The church also has the power to declare historic documents as true or false, whatever fits their purpose. Anyway, if the bible tells you everything you need to know, why do you need an institution like the church?
Also, I am a Protestant and our churches seem to be more democratic in that we don't have one central "head" telling us how to administer to our own faith.
Ok, this might be true, I don't know that much about the Protestant Church. I was actually thinking about the Roman Catholics when I wrote my previous posting. They definetly do tell you what is wrong or right. Take for example homosexuality or the use of condoms.
As an atheist I don't see myself as an extremist. I don't believe in any God but I also admit that this might be wrong. As you say it, God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. And I don't want to replace religion, I'd like to get rid of it. Now don't get me wrong, I think everybody shall believe what he/she wants, no matter if it's God, Allah, Buddha or whatsoever. But I do have a problem with organized belief, i.e. religion. Whenever there's an institution that tells others what they have to belief I think it's just wrong (and dangerous, as the past has proven).
From your posting I would suggest you made up your own mind about God and science etc. But that's not Roman Catholicism. The Vatikan sais whats true and not and if you were a true Roman Catholic you would take these "facts" for granted. That's what religion is about.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea of how much of this 1640 km^3 water belongs to the cold part of the lake but even if it's not much they probably only extract a very tiny fraction, you're right.
Though one might ask whether this has some localized effects on the region where the water is removed...
Ok, they do not pump it to the top directly but simply remove it. Anyway, the lake is refilled by other means, rain etc. This goes to the top so there infact is a cycle from the bottom to the top causing an equilibration of temperature (if a significant amount of water is removed).
As far as I remember from biology class in school lakes are not just big holes with water but have an annual cycle. Two times a year the cold water from the bottom exchanges with the warmer water from near the surface. Between this exchanges it is more or less in rest (any biologists please correct me if I'm mistaken here). Now if we introduce a constant flux by pumping cold water from the bottom to the top you cannot predict what consequences this has for lifeforms in the lake. Animals and plants will surely be dependant on the natural cycle somehow.
Of course if it's just a tiny fraction of the cold water that gets extracted there might be no effect at all.
Same as for heat.
I visited a few lectures about lasers and currently work on my diploma thesis which has to do with lasers. You can believe me, they generally do have more than one wavelength. :)
I don't have good web references though (only old-fashioned books and such), but a quick googling brought up this site. It explains quite good how multi-mode operation of lasers can be understood (see the "Longitudinal Laser Modes" section). If you have any more questions feel free to ask.
Well, besides the lightbulb others already mentioned there actually is a kind of ambient laser - the random laser. It differs from others that you don't have a cavity but a little sphere (or a cloud) of the active medium. On their way out of it the photons get scattered, but also amplified by stimulated emission. This type of laser usually radiates in all directions. Here's some more information about them: random lasers. Look under publications, there are 2 papers on the 2nd page.
Further nitpick: a laser does amplify more than your lightbulb since it's based on another principle, the stimulated emission, whereas the lightbulb "uses" spontaneous emission. Lasers always have an active medium which amplifies the light. By your definition a lightbulb within a cavity would also be a laser...
All photons in laser light have the same wavelength, and do not scatter, so they travel in the same direction over long distance.
Nope. Most lasers emit light at several modes (frequencies) and some do so on a very broad band. A single-mode laser is actually quite demanding to build.
And laser light scatters excatly the same way other light does, it's nothing different. But it is very directional and can achieve high intensities, that's why it usually travels further than the light of a bulb.
Stimulated emission occurs when an atom absorbs a photon causing an electron to move to a "higher" state but in this case the electron can immediately jump back to it's lower state. This causes two photons to be emitted in exactly the same direction as the original photon was travelling.
If the incident photon would excite an electron, which by falling back into its lower state will emit another photon, you cannot get out 2 photons identical to the incident one. This violates conservation of energy.
With stimulated emission an incident photon interacts with an already excited atom, where the excitation energy must be (more or less) equal to energy of the photon. Then this photon can cause the electron to drop into a lower state, producing another photon, which will be identical to the incident one (and travel in the same direction).
Bear in mind that this spoof only looks convincing if you haven't changed your Firefox toolbar at all, ie. you haven't switched to smaller icons or added/removed/moved buttons.
Sure, if a toolbar suddenly looks like the default config all users will suspect a faked UI and get alerted instantly... you expect too much. IMHO many will simply assume the browser messed up their config and keep on browsing. Even if the majority gets suspicious, the small percentage that is fooled is most likely to be profitable enough for the phishers.
Any fresh Firefox installation asks about sending unencrypted form data, but not about executing arbitrary XUL stuff? This is a serious design flaw.
Of course this is very different from Guantanamo Bay...
0 03
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510452
Reducing the light level in your work area is also important. Either reduce the overhead lights, turn them off, or pull the shades slightly.
:)
For me the best light to work with in the evening is simple candle light. Far more pleasing to the eye than any electrical light I know of. Plus staring at the flame is great to take a break and think about something.
At first thought it sounds plausible, but you will always miss something on that other computer. Even if it's just your favourite editor, you'll be forced to use a different one which most probably lowers you productivity. It might work if you install exactly the same software on all computers, plus all the libs, header etc. for developers. I never seen such a workplace, every desktop has it's own individual 'note'. A sick computer is IMHO not that much different from a sick employee.
I didn't advocate anything here. But using numbers to the base 10 ist simply intuitive cause you can use your fingers for counting. How often have you seen someone counting with his/her arms? Hardly, I guess, and for a good reason. Binary is just too impractical for everyday use.
Imperial:
- 1 tbsp = 3 tsp
- 1 cup = 4*4 tbsp
- 1 pint = 2 cups
- 1 gallon = 4+4 pints
Metric:- 1 cl = 10 ml
- 1 dl = 10 cl
- 1 l = 10 dl
Napoleon must have had a strange mind...the ten base system of our numerical system has no real place in the natural world
You mean besides the 10 fingers you mentioned? Anyway, please tell us where the base 12 can be found in nature.
The same holds in Germany.
That's pretty much it.
:)
Well, except for the IP spoofing. The nethack paper from the other reply (found it afterwards) doesn't mention IP addresses, so they either left them out or the firewalls/gateways only use the ports to keep track of connections. Hm, maybe I should try it.
I just read the part concerned with the NAT-traversal, but it's a bit scarce on details. They use some kind of handshake with a 3rd party server for the initial negotiation, using UDP and some "seed ports" which the clients use to "probe" each others gateways.
What I could think of is spoofing the source IP (and port) of outgoing packets to those used in the initial communication with the 3rd party server. Since they use UDP there are no sequence numbers to guess. This way the packets should traverse each client's firewall. Just an idea...
Looks like we are mostly in agreement.
;-)
Yes, we probably are.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying as a rebuttal to your statement [to paraphrase] "organised religion is proven to be dangerous".
Well, I didn't say all religion is dangerous, just that it can be (and this was proven). But even paraphrased these two statements don't exclude each other.
His statements were almost entirely derisive of the Jewish race.
Yes, but this "race" is only distinguished from others by its religion. I agree that Hitler's intentions were not with religion but his hatred of the Jews had in some way a religious component.
I've studied them...
I was afraid you'd say that.
Thanks for the information. My point loses a lot of its weight then (but not all). Some cruelty was comitted by the church (which it would not be able to do nowadays). The fact some of it was politically motivated does not make it less worse.
The human rights and equality you proclaim are derived from Natural Law, which is founded in specifically christian concept
These can also be derived without any religion by simple logic. We live in a society and the only way to avoid chaos is a peaceful living, which can only be achieved by ensuring the equality of all. Another even simplier way is "don't do to others what you don't want others do to you". But sadly humans are not logical beeings. Religion can help here if it's based upon the same concepts of equality. But the problem is that it must not.
It seems to me that the Modern Age has seen the highest level of horrific violence of all history so it doesn't seem to be helping there.
I agree, although I would say this is not related to religion in any way. IMHO this is one of the negative aspects of our advanced technology. You can kill thousands of people without even seeing them, just by pressing some buttons. In the past you had to meet your enemy face to face. Without this need the inhibition to hurt people drops quite a bit I would guess.
And one should note that the Native Americans may not feel that it worked out so well for them.
Surely not, but I was actually thinking of a later time here, sometime in the 20th century. The US had a constitution far earlier but it was not until the 60s when racial discrimination was made illegal. I'm making up the start of the Modern Age at the beginning of civil rights, which is probably different from what others think. I don't know that much about US history since I'm not a US citizen but in Germany for example I would point the start of the Modern Age after WW2. Since then we have a constitution that guarantees equal rights for all people.
Sorry, but "organized belief" is a non-sense phrase [akin to "organized religion"]--with its implication that there is a contrary state.
;). But I should have made myself clearer. The term "organized beliefs" was meant in the way of dogmatics and not just teaching. My fault.
As for religion I would say that it is by definition organized. Belief on the contrary is not (it can be, but must not) because it reflects each individuals thoughts. This IMO is the contrary state. I know far more people who believe in God but don't associate their believes with a religion. They searched for their very own truths. But maybe you define religion and belief different then I do.
The only way around this is to state that not one thing in all of existence is universally true.
Since we are talking about beliefs here (and not about facts) I would actually agree to it (besides the oxymoron
Nope, that's not how it works--for Catholics or even the more organised Buddhists. Certainly, it is for some individuals and religions, but it is absolutely not a requisite of religion itself.
I think it's just a matter of defining religion. How I understand it religion includes a common set of beliefs, certain rituals (going to church, praying, etc) and some form of moral code to which you have to conform with your behaviour. The last one is what I mentioned before.
Stalin, Hitler, Tse-Tung: the three greatest killers of all history and all three running fundamentally anti-religious regimes.
It only proves that cruelty is not bound to religion. This argument cannot be reversed. Just think about the Middle Ages, they are not called the Dark Ages for naught. We had the holy crusades, the inquisition, the burning of witches and heretics (please note that I do not generalize this to all religions).
Oh, and by the way, are you really going to tell me that Hitler's hate for the Jews had nothing to do with religion?
Whether or not it is pragmatic to "not kill" or to enslave, exploit, and slaughter for one's own benefit is left up to the individual.
No point here, the same holds for the individual to accept a religion or not.
All of history seems to indicate what humans will do to each other if given a free hand.
You do realize that religion had a much stronger presence (and influence) in past than today, don't you? Sure, there's still cruelty, and probably always will be. But since the seperation of religion from politics we achieved such things as human rights and equality of all people.
Certainly, my religion doesn't tell me what to believe but my faith in the Bible does.
So where do you think the bible comes from? Jesus didn't write it himself, it's the church that assembled it. The church also has the power to declare historic documents as true or false, whatever fits their purpose. Anyway, if the bible tells you everything you need to know, why do you need an institution like the church?
Also, I am a Protestant and our churches seem to be more democratic in that we don't have one central "head" telling us how to administer to our own faith.
Ok, this might be true, I don't know that much about the Protestant Church. I was actually thinking about the Roman Catholics when I wrote my previous posting. They definetly do tell you what is wrong or right. Take for example homosexuality or the use of condoms.
As an atheist I don't see myself as an extremist. I don't believe in any God but I also admit that this might be wrong. As you say it, God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. And I don't want to replace religion, I'd like to get rid of it. Now don't get me wrong, I think everybody shall believe what he/she wants, no matter if it's God, Allah, Buddha or whatsoever. But I do have a problem with organized belief, i.e. religion. Whenever there's an institution that tells others what they have to belief I think it's just wrong (and dangerous, as the past has proven).
From your posting I would suggest you made up your own mind about God and science etc. But that's not Roman Catholicism. The Vatikan sais whats true and not and if you were a true Roman Catholic you would take these "facts" for granted. That's what religion is about.
And I hope we will not get the society that you want.
Hehe, you're the first one I don't have to explain where that nick comes from (JR... you watch Dallas?).