Are your email addresses hosted with services like hotmail, gmail, or managed by competent admins who use services like spamtitan or mailcleaner? It's very likely you're seeing the results of a large number of people working very hard to keep the spam you receive away from your inbox...
Educational programming has also aimed to elevate knowledge of texts and literacy as in the programmes Barney and Friends (Guofang, 1999) and Reading Rainbow (Wood and Duke, 1997), which offer content on reading books and raising childrenâ(TM)s knowledge of books. This is important since researchers at the University of Sheffield have also suggested that pre-schoolers who develop an ability to talk about texts become familiar with literacy and have greater success with learning to read once they enter school (Hannon, 2000; Hannon, Weinberger and Nutbrown, 1991). "
When you have two distinct things, which you understand to different extents, proving that they're identical allows you to learn about one thing from the knowledge of the other thing.
To use your example:
Prior to today, we knew that cats lapped up milk with their tongues, and also preen their fur with their tongues. Also prior to today, we knew that a Japanese animal called neko coughs up balls of stuff.
Today we found out that cats are identical to neko.
We now know that cats cough up balls of stuff, and that neko preen their fur with their tongue. We might now use this new-found knowledge to identify that the coughed up balls of stuff were probably derived from fur and/or milk.
Besides, where does this "blame the victim" attitude always come from? It's ridiculous.
Different analogy: if you walk across a known-to-be-landmined field, who is to blame? The person who put the landmines there 30 years ago, the person who left the gate unlocked last night, or you?
A conspiracy has ALREADY been proven in this case. They already admitted to targeting specific people for additional scutiny and persecution. That is conspiracy.
No, that is "discrimination".
Conspiracy is when there are multiple parties secretly plotting together to cause harm or do something unlawful.
The "trade dress" and "permit" rules are safety rules, but not road safety, which is why it's not immediately apparent. The safety being assured by those rules is the *passenger* safety, against being abducted, mugged, scammed, etc.
Airports are locations where a large number of people who are not familiar with the local customs arrive, and this makes them prime targets for scams. For a time, it was common for fake taxis/limousines to turn up, pick up unsuspecting travellers, then hold them hostage until they gave up items of value or overcharge them for short journeys (possibly by driving around town before proceeding to their destination).
In response, airports now require checks for anyone providing a pick-up service at the airport; this includes buses, taxis, and limousines. The airport permit fee covers the cost of performing these checks. The trade dress requirement is so that vehicles are clearly identifiable as providing a commercial pick-up service, which can then be monitored by police, airport officials, and other relevant authorities.
Not to say that their motivation in excluding ride-share organisations is not a financial one, but there are reasons these things were put in place...
That's the average SAT score for students entering college... Which automatically filters out those students who weren't good enough to get in. It's not an average of all test-takers...
All that graph tells you is that admission standards for college have been climbing since 1992...
Also, it's not clear how that chart reflects the "recentering" that change the way scores were calculated from 1995 onwards...
It's still approximately the same bandwidth requirement - sending uncompressed HD video data from the video card to a monitor for display, vs sending uncompressed HD video data from a camera to a PC for editing...
[If] the price isn't stabilizing around 0% margins, then there is not enough competition. Competition causes a race to the bottom.
The prices won't stabilize around 0% margin, they should stabilize when margin is around the opportunity-cost-of-capital (approximately, the current investment return/interest rate).
If margin drops below what can be achieved in another investment, competitors will tend to exit the market in preference for the other investment. (Roughly, I have the choice to spend my money to provide you a service, or put it into a bank/hedge fund; I'll do whichever pays me more.)
Standard USB cables are rated for 500ma. If you raise the voltage to 20V, that's 10 watts.
Wires are rated for current, cables are rated for current and voltage.
USB 1.0 cables were specified to 150 mA, and 5V. There is no guarantee that the wires in the cable can sustain 500mA, nor that the insulation around them is thick enough to support 20V.
USB 2.0 cables were specified to 500 mA and 5 V. There is no guarantee that the insulation around the wires is thick enough to support 20V.
USB 3.0 cables were specified to 900 mA and 5 V. There is no guarantee that the insulation around the wires is thick enough to support 20V.
USB 3.1 cables and USB Power Delivery cables were specified to 5,000 mA and 20 V. These are the only cables which are guaranteed to be capable of delivering 100W.
However, it is entirely possible that the earlier spec cables were built over-spec, and might be safe to use at higher currents or voltages, but the specs did not require them to be safe at those levels.
and more to do with finding one with thick enough wires - the flimsy little cables which were specified to carry 0.75 watts (150mA @ 5V) for USB 1.0 would probably melt in a few seconds if made to carry 100 watts...
The relevant statistic is how many other partners your partners have had. If you have sex with only one very promiscuous person with low health safety standards, you're still very likely to catch something.
Promiscuous people are more likely to catch stds, but they're also more likely to spread them after they've caught them.
Not quite. The xkcd math is based on a dictionary-based attack.
An 11 character password drawn randomly from the 95 printable keyboard characters (which you seem to be suggesting) comes out at about 72 bits of entropy, but is very difficult to remember.
A five english word passphrase comes out at around 74 bits of entropy. I can even tell you that my wordlist for selecting those words is the set of four to seven letter entries in/usr/share/dict/american-english - there are 29,482 entries in that set, which means each word is worth about 2.26 characters in your meaningless jumble.
Even restricting the wordlist to the 2000 four-letter words, a 7 word phrase comes out at 76 bits of entropy. Each word is worth about 1.7 characters of random password, but is easier to type, and less susceptable to forgetting, and makes life generally easier.
So there you go: my password is 7 lowercase four-letter words chosen from/usr/share/dict/american-english, with hash $2a$06$9z9FxwVj3X36pkX.wYdLBerdoslUGmrEXVx/Ep5Y9I35MvWcgQfHm - go for your life.
I fly between 4 and 6 sectors per month, on average. I can practically recite the various safety briefings for two different airlines, across 5 different aircraft types. Yes, I've heard them. Yes, I find it ridiculous that after 30 years of flying, I still have to listen to them telling people how to put on their seatbelt. And I'm certainly not a fan of blind adherance to authoritarian protocols.
However, I have had experience in designing risk minimisation procedures, and safety/security system design. And over the many flights I've been on, I've frequently thought about how I would re-design the process, if I was appointed benevolent dictator over the aviation industry.
Ultimately, the question is: what process will increase the chance that the average person on the average flight will do the right thing under emergency conditions? (With the secondary goal of providing the least annoyance to regular customers.)
* Some sort of opt-out for those who fly frequently on the same service? How would you record/manage it?
* Only taking new customers through the briefing? Now you have to do the spiel 25 times for 25 different passengers in different parts of the plane, rather than once for all 190 passengers.
* Pre-flight training? On that scale?
* Better designed spiels? What would need to be included? What could we take out?
* More detailed instructions? Then they'd be longer and even less interesting than at present...
* Humour? (Like the Independence Air celebrity safety briefings?)
And when I think through the options and all the implications, the best thing I can come up with amounts to little more than minor tweaking to the existing safety demonstration.
Nothing I said is limited to landings on runways (other than my use of the phrase "touches down"). Yeah, my wording was a little sloppy, which made it sound like I was talking about a "taxiway fender-bender", but I meant in any situation where the pilot makes an unexpected landing, whether on land or water.
If the plane lands in a way which leads to the plane disintegrating, nothing will save you.
If the plane lands in a way which is unusual, but leaves large chunks of the plane undestroyed, following simple safety procedures will significantly reduce the amount of physical injury you experience.
The safety instructions contemplate the latter situation, not the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Are your email addresses hosted with services like hotmail, gmail, or managed by competent admins who use services like spamtitan or mailcleaner? It's very likely you're seeing the results of a large number of people working very hard to keep the spam you receive away from your inbox...
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41...
http://jlr.sagepub.com/content...
http://works.bepress.com/leah_...
http://www.npr.org/2009/08/28/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03...
http://www.literacytrust.org.u...:
Educational programming has also aimed to elevate knowledge of texts and literacy as in the programmes Barney and Friends (Guofang, 1999) and Reading Rainbow (Wood and Duke, 1997), which offer content on reading books and raising childrenâ(TM)s knowledge of books. This is important since researchers at the University of Sheffield have also suggested that pre-schoolers who develop an ability to talk about texts become familiar with literacy and have greater success with learning to read once they enter school (Hannon, 2000; Hannon, Weinberger and Nutbrown, 1991). "
MyDNS plus a custom-built sign-up form?
According to google, they've used that text before: google: "This is a message from Kickstarter's Trust & Safety team" -iFind
According to google, they've used that text before: google: "This is a message from Kickstarter's Trust & Safety team" -iFind
Yeah, my take on the difference is that the solar roadways idea is technically possible, but it's a stupid idea when you think through the details.
But the iFind is a great idea, but technically impossible when you think through the details...
When you have two distinct things, which you understand to different extents, proving that they're identical allows you to learn about one thing from the knowledge of the other thing.
To use your example:
Prior to today, we knew that cats lapped up milk with their tongues, and also preen their fur with their tongues. Also prior to today, we knew that a Japanese animal called neko coughs up balls of stuff.
Today we found out that cats are identical to neko.
We now know that cats cough up balls of stuff, and that neko preen their fur with their tongue. We might now use this new-found knowledge to identify that the coughed up balls of stuff were probably derived from fur and/or milk.
Different analogy: if you walk across a known-to-be-landmined field, who is to blame? The person who put the landmines there 30 years ago, the person who left the gate unlocked last night, or you?
No, that is "discrimination".
Conspiracy is when there are multiple parties secretly plotting together to cause harm or do something unlawful.
It's been done...
The rules are generally for airport pick-ups, rather than drop-offs...
The "trade dress" and "permit" rules are safety rules, but not road safety, which is why it's not immediately apparent. The safety being assured by those rules is the *passenger* safety, against being abducted, mugged, scammed, etc.
Airports are locations where a large number of people who are not familiar with the local customs arrive, and this makes them prime targets for scams. For a time, it was common for fake taxis/limousines to turn up, pick up unsuspecting travellers, then hold them hostage until they gave up items of value or overcharge them for short journeys (possibly by driving around town before proceeding to their destination).
In response, airports now require checks for anyone providing a pick-up service at the airport; this includes buses, taxis, and limousines. The airport permit fee covers the cost of performing these checks. The trade dress requirement is so that vehicles are clearly identifiable as providing a commercial pick-up service, which can then be monitored by police, airport officials, and other relevant authorities.
Not to say that their motivation in excluding ride-share organisations is not a financial one, but there are reasons these things were put in place...
This looks like the original press release: http://news.unm.edu/news/new-evidence-for-oceans-of-water-deep-in-the-earth
Here's an explanation of what's going on.
The paper is already used as a reference on the Wikipedia page for Ringwoodite.
Here are the research pages of the various authors:
Brandon Schmandt, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of New Mexico
Steven D. "Steve" Jacobsen, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northwestern University
Thorsten W. Becker, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California
Zhenxian Liu, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Kenneth G. "Ken" Dueker, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wyoming
The data across all test-takers (not just those who are admitted to college), tells a different story...
That's the average SAT score for students entering college... Which automatically filters out those students who weren't good enough to get in. It's not an average of all test-takers...
All that graph tells you is that admission standards for college have been climbing since 1992...
Also, it's not clear how that chart reflects the "recentering" that change the way scores were calculated from 1995 onwards...
It's still approximately the same bandwidth requirement - sending uncompressed HD video data from the video card to a monitor for display, vs sending uncompressed HD video data from a camera to a PC for editing...
The prices won't stabilize around 0% margin, they should stabilize when margin is around the opportunity-cost-of-capital (approximately, the current investment return/interest rate).
If margin drops below what can be achieved in another investment, competitors will tend to exit the market in preference for the other investment. (Roughly, I have the choice to spend my money to provide you a service, or put it into a bank/hedge fund; I'll do whichever pays me more.)
True, those matter too.
That said, those make the "who is more promiscuous, men or women" measure I was responding to even less significant.
Wires are rated for current, cables are rated for current and voltage.
USB 1.0 cables were specified to 150 mA, and 5V. There is no guarantee that the wires in the cable can sustain 500mA, nor that the insulation around them is thick enough to support 20V.
USB 2.0 cables were specified to 500 mA and 5 V. There is no guarantee that the insulation around the wires is thick enough to support 20V.
USB 3.0 cables were specified to 900 mA and 5 V. There is no guarantee that the insulation around the wires is thick enough to support 20V.
USB 3.1 cables and USB Power Delivery cables were specified to 5,000 mA and 20 V. These are the only cables which are guaranteed to be capable of delivering 100W.
However, it is entirely possible that the earlier spec cables were built over-spec, and might be safe to use at higher currents or voltages, but the specs did not require them to be safe at those levels.
I suspect this has less to do with finding the
"most sincere USB 3.1 cable"
and more to do with finding one with thick enough wires - the flimsy little cables which were specified to carry 0.75 watts (150mA @ 5V) for USB 1.0 would probably melt in a few seconds if made to carry 100 watts...
The relevant statistic is how many other partners your partners have had. If you have sex with only one very promiscuous person with low health safety standards, you're still very likely to catch something.
Promiscuous people are more likely to catch stds, but they're also more likely to spread them after they've caught them.
Not quite. The xkcd math is based on a dictionary-based attack.
An 11 character password drawn randomly from the 95 printable keyboard characters (which you seem to be suggesting) comes out at about 72 bits of entropy, but is very difficult to remember.
A five english word passphrase comes out at around 74 bits of entropy. I can even tell you that my wordlist for selecting those words is the set of four to seven letter entries in /usr/share/dict/american-english - there are 29,482 entries in that set, which means each word is worth about 2.26 characters in your meaningless jumble.
Even restricting the wordlist to the 2000 four-letter words, a 7 word phrase comes out at 76 bits of entropy. Each word is worth about 1.7 characters of random password, but is easier to type, and less susceptable to forgetting, and makes life generally easier.
So there you go: my password is 7 lowercase four-letter words chosen from /usr/share/dict/american-english, with hash $2a$06$9z9FxwVj3X36pkX.wYdLBerdoslUGmrEXVx/Ep5Y9I35MvWcgQfHm - go for your life.
It's from an ad network? So you mean my Android tablet running Firefox and AdBlock is not being counted? I see...
I fly between 4 and 6 sectors per month, on average. I can practically recite the various safety briefings for two different airlines, across 5 different aircraft types. Yes, I've heard them. Yes, I find it ridiculous that after 30 years of flying, I still have to listen to them telling people how to put on their seatbelt. And I'm certainly not a fan of blind adherance to authoritarian protocols.
However, I have had experience in designing risk minimisation procedures, and safety/security system design. And over the many flights I've been on, I've frequently thought about how I would re-design the process, if I was appointed benevolent dictator over the aviation industry.
Ultimately, the question is: what process will increase the chance that the average person on the average flight will do the right thing under emergency conditions? (With the secondary goal of providing the least annoyance to regular customers.)
* Some sort of opt-out for those who fly frequently on the same service? How would you record/manage it?
* Only taking new customers through the briefing? Now you have to do the spiel 25 times for 25 different passengers in different parts of the plane, rather than once for all 190 passengers.
* Pre-flight training? On that scale?
* Better designed spiels? What would need to be included? What could we take out?
* More detailed instructions? Then they'd be longer and even less interesting than at present...
* Humour? (Like the Independence Air celebrity safety briefings?)
And when I think through the options and all the implications, the best thing I can come up with amounts to little more than minor tweaking to the existing safety demonstration.
Nothing I said is limited to landings on runways (other than my use of the phrase "touches down"). Yeah, my wording was a little sloppy, which made it sound like I was talking about a "taxiway fender-bender", but I meant in any situation where the pilot makes an unexpected landing, whether on land or water.
If the plane lands in a way which leads to the plane disintegrating, nothing will save you.
If the plane lands in a way which is unusual, but leaves large chunks of the plane undestroyed, following simple safety procedures will significantly reduce the amount of physical injury you experience.
The safety instructions contemplate the latter situation, not the former.