nah, just post your favorite pets name, favorite band, first car, high school attended, full name, address and social security number here and I'm sure we'll have her maiden name figured out right quick!;-)
The problem is what information will you be afraid of 10 years from now? Think Michael Phelps and his bong hits. Granted he should have been afraid of those pics *now* but for most kids it won't matter to them until they need a job that does background checks.
Reasonable suggestions, unless they also are tracking changes to accounts. In that case, they keep all the values that have ever been used. For instance, "Hey user '1@m1337' has lived in Ohio, Florida and Tijuana". Time to check for drugs!
Very Interesting. So the chart you reference seems to be mostly inline with Wikipedia's numbers 56/20 compared to 70/20.
What I wonder is the caveat you point out that the values for methane takes into account the 2ndary effects...that seems to really make it an apples to oranges comparison no? Wouldn't it need to also take into account the 2ndary effects for every other substance in the chart to be useful?
Stuff like that type of chart seems to give science a bad name. Saying the effects over time for this one thing will be measured differently but we'll put it in a chart and it ends up seeming to be a side by side comparison. Yes there's a caveat, but still.
you do know about misleading. Water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas indeed. However, it's atmospheric concentration is based on ambient temperature. When it gets colder it condenses out...you know...rain! Warmer and you get more vapor.
The problem is that water vapor is the prime mechanism for a feed back loop. If we warm the earth even a little bit through CO2 and methane (much lower concentration gases), the water vapor amplifies that by increasing in concentration thus trapping more heat which in turn releases more vapor.
Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere)
Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high 'global warming potential' of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years).
Global Warming Potential is a relative scale which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is by convention equal to 1).
So methane is 70 times worse then CO2 over 20 years and 25 times worse over 100 years. Not exactly insignificant...
Using stored procedures is harder than just creating the SQL query
Exactly my point.
To me the key difference is there are 3 positions here. Application Developers (Java,.NET, etc), DBA's (key point, ''administrators' not DEV) and Database Developers.
The third position is almost never in existence. They are the bridge between Application and the DB. I don't expect my site Sys Admins to do application code, why would I expect my Database Admins to do DB code?
Unfortunately costs and money usually push the DB dev work onto the App Developers because the lack of DB quality is chosen over a higher headcount. I try to ask why not just have the DBA's do the application work and cut out even more;-)
Why Java/.NET programmers are expected to know SQL fluently while DBA's are not expected to know the Application languages is ridiculous. App programmers can code SQL, but tuning it, designing it and implementing it in best practice ways is best left to Database people (developers not DBAs).
I'm comparing a solar panel in space with a solar panel on Earth
Fair enough. But then you also need to factor in the cost of either a night time power supply or energy storage capabilities.
Plus, since northern latitudes don't really get great sun a good percent of the year, you'll need a way to provide them with the added power they'll need.
and cloudy places, power during dust storms, or anything else that might obstruct the terrestrial panels.
I agree it's a *very* ambitious plan that may or may not be feasible, but you do need to make sure the results are the same (full 24/hr power) before making a true comparison.
Besides, have you ever seen a rocket? Not exactly green power!
you mean like the H2+O2=H2O rocket that powers the space shuttle and Delta IVs? Obviously the Shuttle SRB's aren't exactly green but quite a bit of the Shuttle's thrust is actually quite green. (or at least could be assuming solar power to produce the H2 & O2)
not quite sure what you're responding too but here goes:
The power needs to be beamed to a location reasonably close to where it will be used. The transmission from the ground station out to the end-users still has the same loss rates as current power plants.
My point was that unless the solar panels are the size of a continent they aren't going to be adding significantly more energy to the earth than is already being added right now.
well electricity is only 'not expensive' if you don't account for the 'cost' of the CO2 (and other pollutants) being released. Just like if I dump my waste into the river, the 'cost' isn't borne by me, but by anyone downstream. To me it's cheap.
What is the cost of global warming? How much do you amortize against the fossil fuels? We frankly don't know yet, but many indications are that it's going to be a massively significant amount. If 400 million people need to relocate because of sea-level rise, you want to put a cost estimate on that? Or just take Florida if that's easier to understand, how much to relocate 1/2 the state?
As you say, the problem is not extra energy being added to Earth, but the reduction in the amount of heat energy being allowed to leave earth.
If by adding the energy in the proposed manner we can stop the extra CO2 from being added to the atmosphere, then likely the extra energy would just radiate into space.
And since you're wondering, the amount of extra energy being grabbed pales in comparison to the amount of energy already hitting the earth. These panels aren't going to be even a tiny fraction of the size of the earth.
You're not doing it wrong. You could argue that the websites that 'broke' are doing it wrong though with quite a few caveats.
The point of NoScript is to stop scripts from executing automatically the first time. After that you can enable them individually or for the full page as you need them, as well as permanently enable them so your next visit isn't 'broken'.
If a site is hosting the scripts it is running I generally allow them, but if it's hosting 'displaylotsofads.js' from some ad site it doesn't get to run.
I liked Avatar but the story itself was pretty predictable. I had almost as much fun pointing out the other movies Avatar is simply a mashup of (The Matrix, Aliens, any generic Cowboys vs Indians movie, even a nod to World of Warcraft in the floating mountains!) as I did watching the movie. When something was pointed out, you knew pretty well how it was going to come back in the closing of the story.
The visual effects were very good though. I did tend to get immersed into the scenes - a very good thing.
as a developer if i have to make a phone call or submit a ticket to modify *my* development box...I don't work there long.
We're currently working with MS SQL Report Services and it's frankly amazing how often we end up having to restart or reconfigure the SQL instances. It stems from a broad mix of it being an M$ product as well as having had zero training on Reporting Services so it's definitely a trial and error type of process.
When you're dealing with trying to figure stuff out that is at the OS and system levels, you're going to be rebooting, restarting and reconfiguring pretty damn often.
actually it's usually about the manager's making *their* jobs easier. Having to explain why you need 2 machines (1 prod/1 dev) for a developer and 2 separate networks that need to be segmented and separately secured with separate configurations let alone the expense involved tends to get a big fat 'no' from mgmt. "Just do it the quickest and cheapest you can".
An Admin is well within his rights to maintain control over what is installed. Remember all the inadvertent leaks of documents because a user installed some file sharing program? That's an admin who didn't have, or wasn't allowed, adequate control over systems under his umbrella.
Developers DO need full admin rights on their dev boxes. You *really* don't want to be bothering the admin teams with "hey I need to restart IIS and/or reboot my machine" every 15 minutes if you're troubleshooting something.
the proper solution is separate networks where the developers simply can't cause significant damage by having admin rights. Unfortunately as has been said above, it's just easier to give developers admin rights on their systems without them being on separate networks from production systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus far the certificate authorities have been trustworthy.
not exactly, we only don't know that they haven't been untrustworthy. There's a pretty big difference.
nah, just post your favorite pets name, favorite band, first car, high school attended, full name, address and social security number here and I'm sure we'll have her maiden name figured out right quick! ;-)
The project uses a high speed camera... so if a camera from a handy is going to be used, they are going to have to get a lot better.
Just throw it faster!
wait, you *had* a civics class to not sleep through???? Obviously you've been indoctrinated with lies and propaganda by the state! ;-)
The problem is what information will you be afraid of 10 years from now? Think Michael Phelps and his bong hits. Granted he should have been afraid of those pics *now* but for most kids it won't matter to them until they need a job that does background checks.
Reasonable suggestions, unless they also are tracking changes to accounts. In that case, they keep all the values that have ever been used. For instance, "Hey user '1@m1337' has lived in Ohio, Florida and Tijuana". Time to check for drugs!
Very Interesting. So the chart you reference seems to be mostly inline with Wikipedia's numbers 56/20 compared to 70/20.
What I wonder is the caveat you point out that the values for methane takes into account the 2ndary effects...that seems to really make it an apples to oranges comparison no? Wouldn't it need to also take into account the 2ndary effects for every other substance in the chart to be useful?
Stuff like that type of chart seems to give science a bad name. Saying the effects over time for this one thing will be measured differently but we'll put it in a chart and it ends up seeming to be a side by side comparison. Yes there's a caveat, but still.
Thoughts?
you do know about misleading. Water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas indeed. However, it's atmospheric concentration is based on ambient temperature. When it gets colder it condenses out...you know...rain! Warmer and you get more vapor.
The problem is that water vapor is the prime mechanism for a feed back loop. If we warm the earth even a little bit through CO2 and methane (much lower concentration gases), the water vapor amplifies that by increasing in concentration thus trapping more heat which in turn releases more vapor.
From Linky:
Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere)
Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high 'global warming potential' of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years).
Global Warming Potential is a relative scale which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is by convention equal to 1).
So methane is 70 times worse then CO2 over 20 years and 25 times worse over 100 years. Not exactly insignificant...
I'm pretty sure the Model-M's could survive someone doing their typing via fired .50 rounds ;-)
indeed, but computers once fell into the category of 'to complex for stupid people' as well.
Sure some still can't use them, but obviously the computer is going strong.
Using stored procedures is harder than just creating the SQL query
.NET, etc), DBA's (key point, ''administrators' not DEV) and Database Developers.
;-)
Exactly my point.
To me the key difference is there are 3 positions here. Application Developers (Java,
The third position is almost never in existence. They are the bridge between Application and the DB. I don't expect my site Sys Admins to do application code, why would I expect my Database Admins to do DB code?
Unfortunately costs and money usually push the DB dev work onto the App Developers because the lack of DB quality is chosen over a higher headcount. I try to ask why not just have the DBA's do the application work and cut out even more
Why Java/.NET programmers are expected to know SQL fluently while DBA's are not expected to know the Application languages is ridiculous. App programmers can code SQL, but tuning it, designing it and implementing it in best practice ways is best left to Database people (developers not DBAs).
def. Cult - a small unpopular religion
def. Religion - a large popular cult
was there ever a more appropriate story for Dogbert's advice?
“Beware of taking advice from the very successful because, as a rule, they don’t want company.”
I'm comparing a solar panel in space with a solar panel on Earth
Fair enough. But then you also need to factor in the cost of either a night time power supply or energy storage capabilities.
Plus, since northern latitudes don't really get great sun a good percent of the year, you'll need a way to provide them with the added power they'll need.
and cloudy places, power during dust storms, or anything else that might obstruct the terrestrial panels.
I agree it's a *very* ambitious plan that may or may not be feasible, but you do need to make sure the results are the same (full 24/hr power) before making a true comparison.
Besides, have you ever seen a rocket? Not exactly green power!
you mean like the H2+O2=H2O rocket that powers the space shuttle and Delta IVs? Obviously the Shuttle SRB's aren't exactly green but quite a bit of the Shuttle's thrust is actually quite green. (or at least could be assuming solar power to produce the H2 & O2)
not quite sure what you're responding too but here goes:
The power needs to be beamed to a location reasonably close to where it will be used. The transmission from the ground station out to the end-users still has the same loss rates as current power plants.
My point was that unless the solar panels are the size of a continent they aren't going to be adding significantly more energy to the earth than is already being added right now.
well electricity is only 'not expensive' if you don't account for the 'cost' of the CO2 (and other pollutants) being released. Just like if I dump my waste into the river, the 'cost' isn't borne by me, but by anyone downstream. To me it's cheap.
What is the cost of global warming? How much do you amortize against the fossil fuels? We frankly don't know yet, but many indications are that it's going to be a massively significant amount. If 400 million people need to relocate because of sea-level rise, you want to put a cost estimate on that? Or just take Florida if that's easier to understand, how much to relocate 1/2 the state?
As you say, the problem is not extra energy being added to Earth, but the reduction in the amount of heat energy being allowed to leave earth.
If by adding the energy in the proposed manner we can stop the extra CO2 from being added to the atmosphere, then likely the extra energy would just radiate into space.
And since you're wondering, the amount of extra energy being grabbed pales in comparison to the amount of energy already hitting the earth. These panels aren't going to be even a tiny fraction of the size of the earth.
doh!...fortunately for me the donkey balls that is the Treo 700p also does SSL for its native email client too ;-)
my aged Treo 700p with default browser Palm Blazer v4.5 seems to handle my https webmail 'out of the box'.
Granted the rendering of the page sucks donkey balls, but I can definitely connect and read email.
You're not doing it wrong. You could argue that the websites that 'broke' are doing it wrong though with quite a few caveats.
The point of NoScript is to stop scripts from executing automatically the first time. After that you can enable them individually or for the full page as you need them, as well as permanently enable them so your next visit isn't 'broken'.
If a site is hosting the scripts it is running I generally allow them, but if it's hosting 'displaylotsofads.js' from some ad site it doesn't get to run.
I liked Avatar but the story itself was pretty predictable. I had almost as much fun pointing out the other movies Avatar is simply a mashup of (The Matrix, Aliens, any generic Cowboys vs Indians movie, even a nod to World of Warcraft in the floating mountains!) as I did watching the movie. When something was pointed out, you knew pretty well how it was going to come back in the closing of the story.
The visual effects were very good though. I did tend to get immersed into the scenes - a very good thing.
as a developer if i have to make a phone call or submit a ticket to modify *my* development box...I don't work there long.
We're currently working with MS SQL Report Services and it's frankly amazing how often we end up having to restart or reconfigure the SQL instances. It stems from a broad mix of it being an M$ product as well as having had zero training on Reporting Services so it's definitely a trial and error type of process.
When you're dealing with trying to figure stuff out that is at the OS and system levels, you're going to be rebooting, restarting and reconfiguring pretty damn often.
actually it's usually about the manager's making *their* jobs easier. Having to explain why you need 2 machines (1 prod/1 dev) for a developer and 2 separate networks that need to be segmented and separately secured with separate configurations let alone the expense involved tends to get a big fat 'no' from mgmt. "Just do it the quickest and cheapest you can".
An Admin is well within his rights to maintain control over what is installed. Remember all the inadvertent leaks of documents because a user installed some file sharing program? That's an admin who didn't have, or wasn't allowed, adequate control over systems under his umbrella.
Developers DO need full admin rights on their dev boxes. You *really* don't want to be bothering the admin teams with "hey I need to restart IIS and/or reboot my machine" every 15 minutes if you're troubleshooting something.
the proper solution is separate networks where the developers simply can't cause significant damage by having admin rights. Unfortunately as has been said above, it's just easier to give developers admin rights on their systems without them being on separate networks from production systems.
I really boobies don't know boobies what you are boobies talking about. boobies