Actually solving a Rubics cube can be done the way most problems are solved, a piece at a time, and selecting a starting point to work from there.
1. Pick a side to start with and get all the squares of that side the same. (e.g. put all the blue sides on one face of the cube.)
2. Check the corners of each side and move them around until each corner is correct. (e.g. the blue side is put back intact, but now the two blue/red corners have red on the same side, the two blue/green corners have green on the same side, the two blue/yellow are together, and the blue/orange are together.)
3. Now move around the edge pieces of the starting face are with the corner pieces just set. (e.g. blue/greens are together, blue/orange, blue/yellow and blue/red.)
4. Move the centers coresponding to the four 'sides' as needed. (not going to explain moving green to green, etc.)
5. Start solving the next layer of the cube. There are patterns of moves that allow you to move, and flip, pieces around, and when the piece is in place, the starting side is back to 'complete', which you will have to learn.
6. Do the same for the four corners of the side opposite of your starting side, Again there are patterns of movements that allow you to move, and rotate, corners.
7. More patterns allow you to move around the edges of the final side.
Alternatively you can 'solve' for all 8 corners first, then start filling in edge pieces on opposing layers, leaving the 'middle' layer to solve last.
Both of these are the methods used in the 80's for people to solve a cube in under a minute. I was doing that then. The methods used to solve the cube in under 15 seconds require significantly more processing power, and while there are people who can do so, I'm not one of them.
Last item first, if you work with a general contractor, you should get the best results. Hiring a licensed electrician is a good idea, but you may also need to file paperwork with your city hall to have, or do, the work, documenting who is doing the work, any licenses required, when the work will be done, and schedule an electrician to confirm that the work performed meets any code requirements. I've lived in cities where skipping that would leave you liable for significant legal problems, and in counties where the only reason to file such paperwork was to have a record on file that the work was done, and the county didn't inspect because there was no budget for an inspector.
Next to last, this is one reason for the 'at desk level' outlets. I've gone as far as building a desk that had a power strip on a level between the desk and the wall for plugging things into, yet not sitting on the desktop. That solution also includes a shelf above the desk for equipment under test, stuff on display, and as a book-shelf for development tool references.
I do like the idea of the outlets 2 feet above the desk to plug things into behind the monitors. That said, I also like the idea of outlets being immediately behind computer monitors to allow you to plug those monitors in, without draging those power cords across a desk, or having to dig around under a desk for the power cord later on. Granted I like to mount flat panel monitors directly on the wall, and that can generate airflow tolerance issues, but then I'm not re-wiring the office either.
I can think of several things that may take advantager of a floor based outlet. The example I gave initially was a vacuume cleaner, which is somewhat facitious, as no one in their right mind would manufacture a corded vacuume with a cord so short that you had to find a new outlet to plug it in as often as I suggest. That said, if the room is large enough to have tables, couches, etc, positioned in the middle of the room, away from a wall, having an outlet to plug a lamp, or a laptop charger in seems to me to be a better investment than having an outlet stuck behind the couch over at the wall that you now have to stretch an extension cord from to use.
This also provides a recommendation for a ceiling based power outlet in that you may have a good reason to mount a projector there. In this case I really recommend treating that project as a built-in solution specific to the projector, but it may be used for other purposes, such as a wifi repeater.
No, no, no! The correct response is 'hire an electrician and carpenter to put in more electrical outlets around your room at all of the levels you expect to plug things in. Those locations should be 'every 2 feet in each direction across the floor so you can plug in your vacuume to clean the floor; one foot above the floor every 2 feet along the wall; 2 feet off the floor every 2 feet along the wall, (this one to support end tables being placed at any location along the wall); 3 feet off the floor every 6 inches, so people can plug things in that are siting on desks; and 5 feet off the floor so that people can install permanent lighting fixtures and mount wall clocks, these can be spread every 6 feet apart to reduce the appearance of clutter at 'eye level' for Steve Jobs family.
Remember to install only as many outlets on a circuit breaker as code allows, and that the sum of the possible current load of all of the circuit breakers for distribution from the circuit breaker box may not violate the code limits of the load for that box. (some regulatory districts provide for an 'oversubscription' allowance of 50% on the expectation that you are not going to put a full load on every circuit off of a breaker, but check with your electrician.)
The problem with sneakernet solutions is rarely the read/write time at either end. In almost all cases if you're organization is large enough to make use of high capacity circuits, you probably can't control the end-to-end security of your sneakernet for the data transfer any more.
You may use bonded couriors, but you very likely can't controll such things as bridge failures (rare, but anyone else wonder how much was paid for the cargo in the trucks that were on the I-35W bridge that collapsed August 1, 2007?) natural disasters (consider the number of transport trucks that roll on interstate freeways because of high winds, and compare the number of such incidents with the number of drivers of smaller vehicle accidents) and theft of cargo (how many times have we heard of the wide screen TV that someone is selling at below what should be cost, because it 'fell off the truck'?) I'm not even considering the primary reason that most carriers are bonded, employee theft, as that variety of issue applies whether the employee is of the courior, of your own company.
there are two free market solutions. One is the loudly proclaimed "don't buy an Apple iPhone!" which I have no problem with. The other is for cable manufacturers to negotiate a license that allows them to manufacture authorized cables with the correct chips built in to allow them to work with these devices.
Of course the latter relies on Apple allowing the companies to negotiate a price per cable that allows the manufacturers to still earn a profit, and still undercut Apple's product prices. My own suggestion is that for some time the production runs have a higher per unit cost that covers any liability related to expected failure rates, and that after some period the license fees go down if the manufacturer demonstrates high quality production. The understanding being that if at some point the failure rate exceeds a certain value, Apple will voide that license, and devices that get software updates from Apple will recognize the cable as no longer valid, pop up a message advising the customer to take the cable to an Apple Store for a replacement, and the cost of replacement will be bour by the licensee of the cables.
And if no-one wants to agree to those negotiated fees, then the market can always revert to the former suggestion.
Back in the late 1990's I stopped by my ISP and the frontdesk person was using his windows computer as a phone. This was a trivial solution using a voice capable modem, and off the shelf software. Capabilities included sending and receiving faxes, a voice mail system, and the early possibilities of setting up voice response system at the desktop.
There was nothing at all at the time, or even in the early 90s when I was working with similar hardware and software, that would have prevented microsoft from adding voice capabilities to windows server systems, as well as building connectivity between those servers and standard telco systems to build a platform that would extend to the business network (what there was of one at the time) and could be integrated into systems they were developing like Exchange and user software like Outlook (though other solutions may have been workable.)
If they had developed something like that, then it is far mroe likely that we would have seen workable solutions, for corporate users initially, to turn various PDA platforms into corporate managed mobile phones. I don't know if they would have gone with a VoIP solution for moving the voice over the network, though I don't recall there being a NetBUI opton for moving something like voice, so it may have ended up being VoIP.
At some level they can get onto this path now with Skype, and I think they have tried, but they have the problem now that they completely missed the integration with the POTS variety phone system that is now almost completely monopolized by Astrisk and Cisco.
I ask for a citation, not because I don't believe you, but because I want to quote it a few places without having to say 'Someone named Lendrick on Slashdot says...':-)
Not sure that the idea of an event horizon as being a 2D object in 3D space is valid. The Event Horizon is not a surface, it's the description of a place in space where information can not pass, because you can't pass information beyond the speed of light. There is no physical surface there. It's not like you could put your hand against this and pull back a stump.
The next question is are the 'D's between the 4D space as a source, and the resulting 3D space related or concurrent? I.e. does our 3D space x,y,z match to some combination of the earlier univers' w,x,y,z? or are we talking about completely separate t,u,v,w generating our x,y,z?
Alternatively is this an example of the string theroy's multiple dimensions being a common source of dimensions for each univers, and that (at least potentially) one could "translate" from one univers to the other by matching up dimensions in one universe with dimensions in the other, through the quantum foam? I can't see the translation into 4 dimenssions would work well for us, any more than I suspect that people would find it disconcerting if 2D cartoons sudenly popped up in our 3d univers. There would be a dimension of the resulting reality missing from the perspective of the translated being. Whether that would mean that the being would cease to exist, would have to learn new ways of representing reality in their mind, or if they would be subject to influences that they wouldn't be aware of because of how someone from that dimension set would nottice the missing dimension in the translated being. (Perhaps not an issue as there are sufficent dimensions actually available in the quantum foam that if you translated to a 4d univers, you would simply pick up the needed dimension on the fly. It may even be that our experiences in 3D space are simply the illusions of dreams in the 4D space, and we exist in both places already.
Wow, three straw man arguments aimed at derailing the conversation in one response. You're good.
My comment refernecing both Manning and Snowden had nothing to do with comparing either, or with the validity of the security level what they shared was, or should have been.
Simply stated, someone thought that the level was appropriate to convict Manning, whether it was drivel or not, and someone has considered that the material Snowden has shared is sufficient to generate far more publicity regarding searching for ad trying to put him in jail to begin with, than we have seen in any of the history I can recall. (for someone who has not pulled the trigger on killing someone anyway.)
Their appearance in my post was specifically aimed at recognizing that there are people willing to share material that _someone_ thinks should be secured, for a whole lot less than I suspect people are willing to pay for to get something that would allow them to institute a massive man in the middle attack against financial instututions, e-commerce sites, or even the ability to do a mitm attack to gain access to someone's e-mail, whether to simply see what they are doing, or to masqurade as them then, or at a later time.
...that I have is not with the NSA being able to crack some platform's encryption. TOR after all was a product of some part of the DOD at least in part in response to the great firewall in China, though it's been through some itterations since.
My concern is that there's likely to be far greater money available from people willing to make use of collections of cracked keys outside of the news sector, than there is within it. That tells me that it's far more likely that someone working at the NSA is likely to be being asked to collect such keys for truely neferious purpouses, than that the press will find out that such is happening.
A MITM attack on an individual with such a key seems to me to be far more likely than that the NSA is interested in actually reading the vast collection of encrypted data that they have collected over the years they have been running these programs.
I can hope that such materials are being held in the strictest of secure areas, but that's kind of what a lot of people thought was happening with the material that Manning is convicted of sending to WikiLeaks, and Snowden has been giving to The Guardian, and presumably others.
...is not that this material is, or is not available. It's not even that it is, or is not available and known by the study groups that select what textbooks school districts that they are responsible for. The fundamental problem is that this information is almost never of importance to those people.
Both Feynman, and Robert A. Heinlein have described their experience with being involved in this process, and while at the time they were involved in the process, neither would have access to this information, it didn't exist, I have serious reservations that with the pressures they were under, as well as the rest of the people on those boards, that the result of having this information would have significantly affected the selection of content for their districts.
What I got from reading both experiences is that unless you carefully compared the content of the material being made available with the requirements of the selection process, and stuck to that comparison, it was very easy to get caught up in the publishers promises to make changes to content in support of the requirements, even though (at least in Heinlein's case) the lead time to make those changes didn't exist.
Finally I think it was evident in both descriptions that there was not a lot of deep review of the material happening by others on the review committees. In entirely too many cases the decision was being made based on the behaviour of the publishers to the board members.
...but I think the biggest problem with the Nook and Barnes & Nobel going forward is not the Nook hardware (widely acclaimed, see above) or the selection of books, (especially considering that you're not limited to B&N content) or even the Android platform options and marketplace options that B&N has elected through the years.
The problem that the Nook has at this time, and going forward is the Investment that Microsoft made in B&N. As that is the factor that has essentially destroyed Nokia as a brand, I can't see anyone thinking that it's going to help B&N over the long term.
There will always be some form of transmission los. Hopefully over the long haul, losses due to pipeline leakage, or storage tank leakage will be a significantly lower percentage compared to high tension power line loss. I'll agree that it's likely to be less than 50%, and presumably less than 30% (which combined with the 20% unrecovered waste in an 80% efficient fuel cell would come to a 50% loss.) but there will be some appreciable loss due to leakage. Heck you loose gasoline to evaporation between filling up the 1.5 gallon gas can at the station and filling the lawn mower, though you only notice it if you're storing the gas in that gas can for months at a time.
More specifically it converts specific types of fuel to energy. Usually Hydrogen and Oxygen get converted to Water, and the reaction releases an appreciable amount of dc voltage.
Systems like this that take propane, or natural gas, (pretty much any hydrocarbon fuel is an option, though as the chains get longer you run into other problems, we're not likely to see conversion of tar to electricity any time soon) first strip the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbon, and capture and sequester, or release the remaining carbon,
This works as long as that fuel source is not cost prohibitive. You're not likely to get Reliant to deliver a gas line to the middle of no where just so you can have electricity, and if you decide to go with delivered propane, I recommend spending time actually running your entire load off the system to see what your usage patern would be like if the AC line were cut for several days at a time, and size your propane delivery and reserve to support those needs. (Do remember to allow for additional load that may be seasonal, for example lines brought down by an ice storm in the middle of winter are probably going to result in a different demand pattern for the propane than wind storm in the middle of summer. It's also likely to result in different delivery limitations of the propane, and power restoration by the AC provider.)
An alternative to natural gas would be to electrolicize water using solar or wind power (or even a small hydroelectric plant,) then use a straight hydrogen and oxygen fuel cell to recombine the molecules as your demand for power comes up. There are issues with this of course, you're going to have to find a way to stuff the hydrogen into something that you can extract it from later, though there are a number of possibilities for that already. No real need to worry about the Oxygen molecules. The percentage of O2 in the atmosphere is high enough that most fuel cell systems that work in earth normal atmosphere can use it. (you run into issues in space and deep sea situations, and in theory on other planets, but we're pretty much ignoring those situations here.
Look at e-mail as an example. Globally and between corporations people have long used free/open standards, protocols and applications, sendmail, smtp, postfix, etc. However a growing number of users are moving from stand alone e-mail clients to web based e-mail platforms such as hotmail, yahoo mail, gmail, and so on, each of which have the option of being accessed through stand alone clients, or through their web interfaces.
When you enter the corporate environment you largely switch to comercial web server and clients. Perhaps most often Exchange and Outlook, respectively.
That said, many compaies are using open source platforms as their interface to the rest of the world. Whether that server is between firewalls in a DMZ, on some external service provider is irrelevant.
Similarly tremendous portions of internal corporate networks are running Microsoft web servers to host content internally, and managing content with Sharepoint. While there are some examples of each on the Internet, most corporate public interfaces and a the vast majority of other available servers are open source / free Apache, and other servers, with open source php, postgres, python, and so on backing it up.
Based on that model, VMWare and Zen instances will be widely used within corporate environments, however I strongly suspect that OpenStack will be largely used on the Internet in general.
The hazard with saying it will only be used by 'hobbiest' and 'geeks' is that when you get down to it, two of the largest entities on the Internet today, namely Google and Facebook, were started by hobbiest and geeks. And both started with free/open source, software, and are largely using that to this day. In other words people experimenting with new ways of making the Internet work for them are going to do so using the resources they can get the most value for their dollar from, and that's far more likely to be OpenStack than it is VMware or commercial instances of Zen.
You'd like wifi right? While there are wifi adapters that have free/open drivers, not many are in the ultra-low-power-cost SystemOnChip wifi adapters. Likewise the drivers for the telco data side of things are unlikely to be open/free, especially for sprint and Verizon in the US, can't speak for overseas.
I'm pretty sure that mark would like them to be free too. That doesn't mean that it's going to, or is likely to, happen.
I suspect that the concern of heavy elements being supernova products has to do with the short duration of the event, the perceived amount of time needed to generate the heavey elements involved, and the apparent distribution of heavy elements compared to the percieved age of the universe. Additionally while supernova events are not likely to be the sources of the high volume of grb events that are being detected. So what would be the products of grb's, and what are the likely causes of the events in the first place, if you eliminate the possibility of a grb being the result of supernova events even larger than what we think is the maximum, you end up having to look at other types of events, stars coliding with each other, dead stars coliding with each other, dead stars coliding with Neutron Stars, Neutron stars coliding with each other, dead stars with neutron stars, stars, dead stars, or neutron stars coliding with black holes, and black holes colliding with each other. Any of these collisions are possible, though of these the most probable are stars with stars, stars with dead stars, and dead stars with dead stars, as the perception is that small stars are far more frequent than stars large enough to collapse in a supernova.
As far as why to link to Networkworld.com, I suspect that the submitter couldn't find a better source.
What are the procedures when the information that the iris scanner has recorded is no longer valid? The human iris is not a static unchanging feature of the body. Obviously it changes with the intensity of the light it experiences, but it also changes as a result of the fact that it's moving, and the components of the iris do break down over time. This is going to chang ethe pattern of lines in the iris. This may not be significant for a 4 year degree (does anyone really get a 4 year degree in 4 years anymore?) but if you ad in graduate and postgraduate work, as well as separate degree tracks if those become necessary for some reason, you can easily spend 12-16 years in college, which is a reasonable period of time over which your iris may change.
Additionally, if the iris scan for ID is required of instructors, administrative personel and custodial service staff, it's practically guaranteed that you will encounter these changes over time. Unless the scanners are designed to tollerate, and over time adjust for, such changes, the system is likely to run into issues over the tenure period of a professor, the career of staff, or that doctoral candidate who suddenly can't enter the building the day he needs to appear before his examiners to defend his thesis.
Students use student IDs to demonstrate that they are a student, either at the institution where the student ID is issued, or at related institutions and businesses, some of those businesses provide significant discounts to students. Whether a student 'needs' these things or not is a different matter. Most schools that I'm aware of hllow online registration that doesn't require an id, just a login. Books for classes are often available at a lower cost through third party sources. If you're living off campus you don't need an ID to gain access to yourr dorm. If you live within walking distance of classes, you don't need an id for campus busses (presumably, though with the size of some campuses these days, that may not be entirely satisfactory.)
And if your parents are footing the bill, you probably don't need a student ID to get a student loan, but those a another issue entirely.
And yes, I've glossed over quite a bit here. The change in velocity will also be affected by the angle of the plane of the orbit of the planet wrt the sun, compared to the plane of the orbit of the sun to the galactic core (i.e. that change in velocity will be zero should the plane of the orbit of the earth intersect the plane perpendicular to the orbit of the sun intersecting the line from sun to galactic core) and the fact that the sun's orbit of the galaxy is not co-incident with the plane of the ecliptic of the galaxy. (bit of a wobble, above and below, which some people think may have something to do with the period of global extinction level events.)
I"m trying to remember if we're going faster than our sun at the moment, or slower. Ah, well, not finding a ready reference, however a couple of back of the envelope calculations should work. The planet is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, dictated by gravity, and with no appreciable forces of acceleration affecting the planet that are not also affecting the path of the sun. (Yes that can happen, consider the possibility that the orbit of the earth passes through one of the jets of a supernova, where the jet does not directly interact with the sun. However we'd probably notice something like that, or cease to notice anything else.) Neither do we appear to be generating a field or having any reaction sources that act as a drive. I'm not suggesting that we won't ever find such, but I do not expect that we will, as I think that if the planet were doing this, or affected by such, that again, we would be able to detect it, and the best information I'm aware of doesn't indicate that we have detected such a phenomena.
In this orbit, we vary from leading the sun in it's orbit of the galaxy by approximately one AU, to trailing the sun by approximately the same distance, over the period of a year. An AU is approximately 150 billion meters, so we're looking at an orbit approximately 300 billion meters from trail, to lead. At trail and lead points in the orbit, the speed of the planet around the galaxy matches that of the sun, so the points of interest are where the orbit crosses the plane perpendicular to the orbit of the sun intersecting the line between the sun and the galactic center. These two points are inflection points in the change in apparent acceleration due to gravity where as we are moving ahead of the sun our acceleration starts decreasing, and as we move to trailing the sun our acceleration is increasing.
Now you can apply some trig to get the numbers, but it's just as easy to work out the various speeds by noting that in 6 months, the planet earth travels 300 billion meters relative to the earth, and starts with a relative velocity of zero. At 3600 seconds per hour, 24 hours per day, and 182.5 days per half year, that means that we have 15,768,000 seconds to work with. 300,000,000,000 meters divided by 15,768,000 seconds means that we on average travel 19,025.875, call it 19,026 meters per second over that half a year. To start at zero, and end at zero, that means that at the inflection points, were traveling som 38,051 meters per second faster, or slower than the sun. Call it 38 kps. (approximate) The speed of light is some 300,000 kps, so our change in velocity is just over 1/10000'th of the speed of light for that half of the orbit, or twice that 1/5000th of the speed of light for the entire orbit.
Consider the estimated distance out from the center of the galaxy that we are at, and the fact that in the presumed lifespan of the sun, just over 4.5 billion years, calculations show that the sun has made some 12 orbits of the galaxy, (i.e. approximately 300 million years per orbit) and it's trivial to show that you really don't need to 'compensate' for the orbital speed of the sun around the galactic center.
To add to the interest, I'll leave it as an exercise of the reader to discover what the change in velocity for Mercury, and Jupiter (starting point, mercury has an orbit of approx.4 au, and a period of approx 88 days, while Jupiter has an orbit of just over 5 au, and a period of 4331 days, or just under 12 years.) Which you should see that having an orbit closer to the sun results in having a _lower_ change in velocity relative to the sun, not a higher. i.e. to put a solar probe into an orbit closer to the sun, you actually need to slow down the orbital velocity of the probe, not increase it's speed. You do Accelerate the probe, however that acceleration is 'negative' with respect to it's existing orbital speed about the sun.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually solving a Rubics cube can be done the way most problems are solved, a piece at a time, and selecting a starting point to work from there.
1. Pick a side to start with and get all the squares of that side the same. (e.g. put all the blue sides on one face of the cube.)
2. Check the corners of each side and move them around until each corner is correct. (e.g. the blue side is put back intact, but now the two blue/red corners have red on the same side, the two blue/green corners have green on the same side, the two blue/yellow are together, and the blue/orange are together.)
3. Now move around the edge pieces of the starting face are with the corner pieces just set. (e.g. blue/greens are together, blue/orange, blue/yellow and blue/red.)
4. Move the centers coresponding to the four 'sides' as needed. (not going to explain moving green to green, etc.)
5. Start solving the next layer of the cube. There are patterns of moves that allow you to move, and flip, pieces around, and when the piece is in place, the starting side is back to 'complete', which you will have to learn.
6. Do the same for the four corners of the side opposite of your starting side, Again there are patterns of movements that allow you to move, and rotate, corners.
7. More patterns allow you to move around the edges of the final side.
Alternatively you can 'solve' for all 8 corners first, then start filling in edge pieces on opposing layers, leaving the 'middle' layer to solve last.
Both of these are the methods used in the 80's for people to solve a cube in under a minute. I was doing that then. The methods used to solve the cube in under 15 seconds require significantly more processing power, and while there are people who can do so, I'm not one of them.
Last item first, if you work with a general contractor, you should get the best results. Hiring a licensed electrician is a good idea, but you may also need to file paperwork with your city hall to have, or do, the work, documenting who is doing the work, any licenses required, when the work will be done, and schedule an electrician to confirm that the work performed meets any code requirements. I've lived in cities where skipping that would leave you liable for significant legal problems, and in counties where the only reason to file such paperwork was to have a record on file that the work was done, and the county didn't inspect because there was no budget for an inspector.
Next to last, this is one reason for the 'at desk level' outlets. I've gone as far as building a desk that had a power strip on a level between the desk and the wall for plugging things into, yet not sitting on the desktop. That solution also includes a shelf above the desk for equipment under test, stuff on display, and as a book-shelf for development tool references.
I do like the idea of the outlets 2 feet above the desk to plug things into behind the monitors. That said, I also like the idea of outlets being immediately behind computer monitors to allow you to plug those monitors in, without draging those power cords across a desk, or having to dig around under a desk for the power cord later on. Granted I like to mount flat panel monitors directly on the wall, and that can generate airflow tolerance issues, but then I'm not re-wiring the office either.
I can think of several things that may take advantager of a floor based outlet. The example I gave initially was a vacuume cleaner, which is somewhat facitious, as no one in their right mind would manufacture a corded vacuume with a cord so short that you had to find a new outlet to plug it in as often as I suggest. That said, if the room is large enough to have tables, couches, etc, positioned in the middle of the room, away from a wall, having an outlet to plug a lamp, or a laptop charger in seems to me to be a better investment than having an outlet stuck behind the couch over at the wall that you now have to stretch an extension cord from to use.
This also provides a recommendation for a ceiling based power outlet in that you may have a good reason to mount a projector there. In this case I really recommend treating that project as a built-in solution specific to the projector, but it may be used for other purposes, such as a wifi repeater.
No, no, no! The correct response is 'hire an electrician and carpenter to put in more electrical outlets around your room at all of the levels you expect to plug things in. Those locations should be 'every 2 feet in each direction across the floor so you can plug in your vacuume to clean the floor; one foot above the floor every 2 feet along the wall; 2 feet off the floor every 2 feet along the wall, (this one to support end tables being placed at any location along the wall); 3 feet off the floor every 6 inches, so people can plug things in that are siting on desks; and 5 feet off the floor so that people can install permanent lighting fixtures and mount wall clocks, these can be spread every 6 feet apart to reduce the appearance of clutter at 'eye level' for Steve Jobs family.
Remember to install only as many outlets on a circuit breaker as code allows, and that the sum of the possible current load of all of the circuit breakers for distribution from the circuit breaker box may not violate the code limits of the load for that box. (some regulatory districts provide for an 'oversubscription' allowance of 50% on the expectation that you are not going to put a full load on every circuit off of a breaker, but check with your electrician.)
The problem with sneakernet solutions is rarely the read/write time at either end. In almost all cases if you're organization is large enough to make use of high capacity circuits, you probably can't control the end-to-end security of your sneakernet for the data transfer any more.
You may use bonded couriors, but you very likely can't controll such things as bridge failures (rare, but anyone else wonder how much was paid for the cargo in the trucks that were on the I-35W bridge that collapsed August 1, 2007?) natural disasters (consider the number of transport trucks that roll on interstate freeways because of high winds, and compare the number of such incidents with the number of drivers of smaller vehicle accidents) and theft of cargo (how many times have we heard of the wide screen TV that someone is selling at below what should be cost, because it 'fell off the truck'?) I'm not even considering the primary reason that most carriers are bonded, employee theft, as that variety of issue applies whether the employee is of the courior, of your own company.
there are two free market solutions. One is the loudly proclaimed "don't buy an Apple iPhone!" which I have no problem with. The other is for cable manufacturers to negotiate a license that allows them to manufacture authorized cables with the correct chips built in to allow them to work with these devices.
Of course the latter relies on Apple allowing the companies to negotiate a price per cable that allows the manufacturers to still earn a profit, and still undercut Apple's product prices. My own suggestion is that for some time the production runs have a higher per unit cost that covers any liability related to expected failure rates, and that after some period the license fees go down if the manufacturer demonstrates high quality production. The understanding being that if at some point the failure rate exceeds a certain value, Apple will voide that license, and devices that get software updates from Apple will recognize the cable as no longer valid, pop up a message advising the customer to take the cable to an Apple Store for a replacement, and the cost of replacement will be bour by the licensee of the cables.
And if no-one wants to agree to those negotiated fees, then the market can always revert to the former suggestion.
Back in the late 1990's I stopped by my ISP and the frontdesk person was using his windows computer as a phone. This was a trivial solution using a voice capable modem, and off the shelf software. Capabilities included sending and receiving faxes, a voice mail system, and the early possibilities of setting up voice response system at the desktop.
There was nothing at all at the time, or even in the early 90s when I was working with similar hardware and software, that would have prevented microsoft from adding voice capabilities to windows server systems, as well as building connectivity between those servers and standard telco systems to build a platform that would extend to the business network (what there was of one at the time) and could be integrated into systems they were developing like Exchange and user software like Outlook (though other solutions may have been workable.)
If they had developed something like that, then it is far mroe likely that we would have seen workable solutions, for corporate users initially, to turn various PDA platforms into corporate managed mobile phones. I don't know if they would have gone with a VoIP solution for moving the voice over the network, though I don't recall there being a NetBUI opton for moving something like voice, so it may have ended up being VoIP.
At some level they can get onto this path now with Skype, and I think they have tried, but they have the problem now that they completely missed the integration with the POTS variety phone system that is now almost completely monopolized by Astrisk and Cisco.
I ask for a citation, not because I don't believe you, but because I want to quote it a few places without having to say 'Someone named Lendrick on Slashdot says...' :-)
Not sure that the idea of an event horizon as being a 2D object in 3D space is valid. The Event Horizon is not a surface, it's the description of a place in space where information can not pass, because you can't pass information beyond the speed of light. There is no physical surface there. It's not like you could put your hand against this and pull back a stump.
The next question is are the 'D's between the 4D space as a source, and the resulting 3D space related or concurrent? I.e. does our 3D space x,y,z match to some combination of the earlier univers' w,x,y,z? or are we talking about completely separate t,u,v,w generating our x,y,z?
Alternatively is this an example of the string theroy's multiple dimensions being a common source of dimensions for each univers, and that (at least potentially) one could "translate" from one univers to the other by matching up dimensions in one universe with dimensions in the other, through the quantum foam? I can't see the translation into 4 dimenssions would work well for us, any more than I suspect that people would find it disconcerting if 2D cartoons sudenly popped up in our 3d univers. There would be a dimension of the resulting reality missing from the perspective of the translated being. Whether that would mean that the being would cease to exist, would have to learn new ways of representing reality in their mind, or if they would be subject to influences that they wouldn't be aware of because of how someone from that dimension set would nottice the missing dimension in the translated being. (Perhaps not an issue as there are sufficent dimensions actually available in the quantum foam that if you translated to a 4d univers, you would simply pick up the needed dimension on the fly. It may even be that our experiences in 3D space are simply the illusions of dreams in the 4D space, and we exist in both places already.
Wow, three straw man arguments aimed at derailing the conversation in one response. You're good.
My comment refernecing both Manning and Snowden had nothing to do with comparing either, or with the validity of the security level what they shared was, or should have been.
Simply stated, someone thought that the level was appropriate to convict Manning, whether it was drivel or not, and someone has considered that the material Snowden has shared is sufficient to generate far more publicity regarding searching for ad trying to put him in jail to begin with, than we have seen in any of the history I can recall. (for someone who has not pulled the trigger on killing someone anyway.)
Their appearance in my post was specifically aimed at recognizing that there are people willing to share material that _someone_ thinks should be secured, for a whole lot less than I suspect people are willing to pay for to get something that would allow them to institute a massive man in the middle attack against financial instututions, e-commerce sites, or even the ability to do a mitm attack to gain access to someone's e-mail, whether to simply see what they are doing, or to masqurade as them then, or at a later time.
...that I have is not with the NSA being able to crack some platform's encryption. TOR after all was a product of some part of the DOD at least in part in response to the great firewall in China, though it's been through some itterations since.
My concern is that there's likely to be far greater money available from people willing to make use of collections of cracked keys outside of the news sector, than there is within it. That tells me that it's far more likely that someone working at the NSA is likely to be being asked to collect such keys for truely neferious purpouses, than that the press will find out that such is happening.
A MITM attack on an individual with such a key seems to me to be far more likely than that the NSA is interested in actually reading the vast collection of encrypted data that they have collected over the years they have been running these programs.
I can hope that such materials are being held in the strictest of secure areas, but that's kind of what a lot of people thought was happening with the material that Manning is convicted of sending to WikiLeaks, and Snowden has been giving to The Guardian, and presumably others.
...is not that this material is, or is not available. It's not even that it is, or is not available and known by the study groups that select what textbooks school districts that they are responsible for. The fundamental problem is that this information is almost never of importance to those people.
Both Feynman, and Robert A. Heinlein have described their experience with being involved in this process, and while at the time they were involved in the process, neither would have access to this information, it didn't exist, I have serious reservations that with the pressures they were under, as well as the rest of the people on those boards, that the result of having this information would have significantly affected the selection of content for their districts.
What I got from reading both experiences is that unless you carefully compared the content of the material being made available with the requirements of the selection process, and stuck to that comparison, it was very easy to get caught up in the publishers promises to make changes to content in support of the requirements, even though (at least in Heinlein's case) the lead time to make those changes didn't exist.
Finally I think it was evident in both descriptions that there was not a lot of deep review of the material happening by others on the review committees. In entirely too many cases the decision was being made based on the behaviour of the publishers to the board members.
Let them know that your number is 966-gay-pr0n (966-429-7726). You weren't looking for a cut of the fees were you?
...but I think the biggest problem with the Nook and Barnes & Nobel going forward is not the Nook hardware (widely acclaimed, see above) or the selection of books, (especially considering that you're not limited to B&N content) or even the Android platform options and marketplace options that B&N has elected through the years.
The problem that the Nook has at this time, and going forward is the Investment that Microsoft made in B&N. As that is the factor that has essentially destroyed Nokia as a brand, I can't see anyone thinking that it's going to help B&N over the long term.
And gas lines don't ever leak.
There will always be some form of transmission los. Hopefully over the long haul, losses due to pipeline leakage, or storage tank leakage will be a significantly lower percentage compared to high tension power line loss. I'll agree that it's likely to be less than 50%, and presumably less than 30% (which combined with the 20% unrecovered waste in an 80% efficient fuel cell would come to a 50% loss.) but there will be some appreciable loss due to leakage. Heck you loose gasoline to evaporation between filling up the 1.5 gallon gas can at the station and filling the lawn mower, though you only notice it if you're storing the gas in that gas can for months at a time.
More specifically it converts specific types of fuel to energy. Usually Hydrogen and Oxygen get converted to Water, and the reaction releases an appreciable amount of dc voltage.
Systems like this that take propane, or natural gas, (pretty much any hydrocarbon fuel is an option, though as the chains get longer you run into other problems, we're not likely to see conversion of tar to electricity any time soon) first strip the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbon, and capture and sequester, or release the remaining carbon,
This works as long as that fuel source is not cost prohibitive. You're not likely to get Reliant to deliver a gas line to the middle of no where just so you can have electricity, and if you decide to go with delivered propane, I recommend spending time actually running your entire load off the system to see what your usage patern would be like if the AC line were cut for several days at a time, and size your propane delivery and reserve to support those needs. (Do remember to allow for additional load that may be seasonal, for example lines brought down by an ice storm in the middle of winter are probably going to result in a different demand pattern for the propane than wind storm in the middle of summer. It's also likely to result in different delivery limitations of the propane, and power restoration by the AC provider.)
An alternative to natural gas would be to electrolicize water using solar or wind power (or even a small hydroelectric plant,) then use a straight hydrogen and oxygen fuel cell to recombine the molecules as your demand for power comes up. There are issues with this of course, you're going to have to find a way to stuff the hydrogen into something that you can extract it from later, though there are a number of possibilities for that already. No real need to worry about the Oxygen molecules. The percentage of O2 in the atmosphere is high enough that most fuel cell systems that work in earth normal atmosphere can use it. (you run into issues in space and deep sea situations, and in theory on other planets, but we're pretty much ignoring those situations here.
Look at e-mail as an example. Globally and between corporations people have long used free/open standards, protocols and applications, sendmail, smtp, postfix, etc. However a growing number of users are moving from stand alone e-mail clients to web based e-mail platforms such as hotmail, yahoo mail, gmail, and so on, each of which have the option of being accessed through stand alone clients, or through their web interfaces.
When you enter the corporate environment you largely switch to comercial web server and clients. Perhaps most often Exchange and Outlook, respectively.
That said, many compaies are using open source platforms as their interface to the rest of the world. Whether that server is between firewalls in a DMZ, on some external service provider is irrelevant.
Similarly tremendous portions of internal corporate networks are running Microsoft web servers to host content internally, and managing content with Sharepoint. While there are some examples of each on the Internet, most corporate public interfaces and a the vast majority of other available servers are open source / free Apache, and other servers, with open source php, postgres, python, and so on backing it up.
Based on that model, VMWare and Zen instances will be widely used within corporate environments, however I strongly suspect that OpenStack will be largely used on the Internet in general.
The hazard with saying it will only be used by 'hobbiest' and 'geeks' is that when you get down to it, two of the largest entities on the Internet today, namely Google and Facebook, were started by hobbiest and geeks. And both started with free/open source, software, and are largely using that to this day. In other words people experimenting with new ways of making the Internet work for them are going to do so using the resources they can get the most value for their dollar from, and that's far more likely to be OpenStack than it is VMware or commercial instances of Zen.
You'd like wifi right? While there are wifi adapters that have free /open drivers, not many are in the ultra-low-power-cost SystemOnChip wifi adapters. Likewise the drivers for the telco data side of things are unlikely to be open/free, especially for sprint and Verizon in the US, can't speak for overseas.
I'm pretty sure that mark would like them to be free too. That doesn't mean that it's going to, or is likely to, happen.
Or that 6509 with a sup720 hosting 25 T3s for some 2000 remote sites using OSPF as your routing protocol. (All in Area 0 of course.)
I suspect that the concern of heavy elements being supernova products has to do with the short duration of the event, the perceived amount of time needed to generate the heavey elements involved, and the apparent distribution of heavy elements compared to the percieved age of the universe. Additionally while supernova events are not likely to be the sources of the high volume of grb events that are being detected. So what would be the products of grb's, and what are the likely causes of the events in the first place, if you eliminate the possibility of a grb being the result of supernova events even larger than what we think is the maximum, you end up having to look at other types of events, stars coliding with each other, dead stars coliding with each other, dead stars coliding with Neutron Stars, Neutron stars coliding with each other, dead stars with neutron stars, stars, dead stars, or neutron stars coliding with black holes, and black holes colliding with each other. Any of these collisions are possible, though of these the most probable are stars with stars, stars with dead stars, and dead stars with dead stars, as the perception is that small stars are far more frequent than stars large enough to collapse in a supernova.
As far as why to link to Networkworld.com, I suspect that the submitter couldn't find a better source.
What are the procedures when the information that the iris scanner has recorded is no longer valid? The human iris is not a static unchanging feature of the body. Obviously it changes with the intensity of the light it experiences, but it also changes as a result of the fact that it's moving, and the components of the iris do break down over time. This is going to chang ethe pattern of lines in the iris. This may not be significant for a 4 year degree (does anyone really get a 4 year degree in 4 years anymore?) but if you ad in graduate and postgraduate work, as well as separate degree tracks if those become necessary for some reason, you can easily spend 12-16 years in college, which is a reasonable period of time over which your iris may change.
Additionally, if the iris scan for ID is required of instructors, administrative personel and custodial service staff, it's practically guaranteed that you will encounter these changes over time. Unless the scanners are designed to tollerate, and over time adjust for, such changes, the system is likely to run into issues over the tenure period of a professor, the career of staff, or that doctoral candidate who suddenly can't enter the building the day he needs to appear before his examiners to defend his thesis.
Students use student IDs to demonstrate that they are a student, either at the institution where the student ID is issued, or at related institutions and businesses, some of those businesses provide significant discounts to students. Whether a student 'needs' these things or not is a different matter. Most schools that I'm aware of hllow online registration that doesn't require an id, just a login. Books for classes are often available at a lower cost through third party sources. If you're living off campus you don't need an ID to gain access to yourr dorm. If you live within walking distance of classes, you don't need an id for campus busses (presumably, though with the size of some campuses these days, that may not be entirely satisfactory.)
And if your parents are footing the bill, you probably don't need a student ID to get a student loan, but those a another issue entirely.
And yes, I've glossed over quite a bit here. The change in velocity will also be affected by the angle of the plane of the orbit of the planet wrt the sun, compared to the plane of the orbit of the sun to the galactic core (i.e. that change in velocity will be zero should the plane of the orbit of the earth intersect the plane perpendicular to the orbit of the sun intersecting the line from sun to galactic core) and the fact that the sun's orbit of the galaxy is not co-incident with the plane of the ecliptic of the galaxy. (bit of a wobble, above and below, which some people think may have something to do with the period of global extinction level events.)
I"m trying to remember if we're going faster than our sun at the moment, or slower. Ah, well, not finding a ready reference, however a couple of back of the envelope calculations should work. The planet is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, dictated by gravity, and with no appreciable forces of acceleration affecting the planet that are not also affecting the path of the sun. (Yes that can happen, consider the possibility that the orbit of the earth passes through one of the jets of a supernova, where the jet does not directly interact with the sun. However we'd probably notice something like that, or cease to notice anything else.) Neither do we appear to be generating a field or having any reaction sources that act as a drive. I'm not suggesting that we won't ever find such, but I do not expect that we will, as I think that if the planet were doing this, or affected by such, that again, we would be able to detect it, and the best information I'm aware of doesn't indicate that we have detected such a phenomena.
In this orbit, we vary from leading the sun in it's orbit of the galaxy by approximately one AU, to trailing the sun by approximately the same distance, over the period of a year. An AU is approximately 150 billion meters, so we're looking at an orbit approximately 300 billion meters from trail, to lead. At trail and lead points in the orbit, the speed of the planet around the galaxy matches that of the sun, so the points of interest are where the orbit crosses the plane perpendicular to the orbit of the sun intersecting the line between the sun and the galactic center. These two points are inflection points in the change in apparent acceleration due to gravity where as we are moving ahead of the sun our acceleration starts decreasing, and as we move to trailing the sun our acceleration is increasing.
Now you can apply some trig to get the numbers, but it's just as easy to work out the various speeds by noting that in 6 months, the planet earth travels 300 billion meters relative to the earth, and starts with a relative velocity of zero. At 3600 seconds per hour, 24 hours per day, and 182.5 days per half year, that means that we have 15,768,000 seconds to work with. 300,000,000,000 meters divided by 15,768,000 seconds means that we on average travel 19,025.875, call it 19,026 meters per second over that half a year. To start at zero, and end at zero, that means that at the inflection points, were traveling som 38,051 meters per second faster, or slower than the sun. Call it 38 kps. (approximate) The speed of light is some 300,000 kps, so our change in velocity is just over 1/10000'th of the speed of light for that half of the orbit, or twice that 1/5000th of the speed of light for the entire orbit.
Consider the estimated distance out from the center of the galaxy that we are at, and the fact that in the presumed lifespan of the sun, just over 4.5 billion years, calculations show that the sun has made some 12 orbits of the galaxy, (i.e. approximately 300 million years per orbit) and it's trivial to show that you really don't need to 'compensate' for the orbital speed of the sun around the galactic center.
To add to the interest, I'll leave it as an exercise of the reader to discover what the change in velocity for Mercury, and Jupiter (starting point, mercury has an orbit of approx .4 au, and a period of approx 88 days, while Jupiter has an orbit of just over 5 au, and a period of 4331 days, or just under 12 years.) Which you should see that having an orbit closer to the sun results in having a _lower_ change in velocity relative to the sun, not a higher. i.e. to put a solar probe into an orbit closer to the sun, you actually need to slow down the orbital velocity of the probe, not increase it's speed. You do Accelerate the probe, however that acceleration is 'negative' with respect to it's existing orbital speed about the sun.
In other words they are learning from Business. No wonder they are giving businesses so many perks lately.