It's God's pressure cooker. At that depth the pressure is so high that the boiling temperature of water is higher than the normal 100C. That said, there's no reason it couldn't be converting to steam in small pockets and then the steam re-condenses as it comes in contact with cooler water.
It would be even more interesting if the hot water could rise up fast enough without mixing too much with the cooler water around it to the point where it actually would start to boil vigorously. It would be a race between the decrease in pressure and the decrease in temperature.
an awful lot of effort to go through for some parboiled prawns. The Ventura county site sounds like a great spot for a barbecue, though. Don't even have to bring any charcoal.
Well apart from nationalizing healthcare, the only option I can see is to mandate that private insurers operate as mutual insurance companies the way they did in the old days, where the policyholders were the actual shareholders. The problem these ran into was their ability to raise and maintain capital sufficient to compete with corporate insurers. The same thing happened with the mutual savings and loan banks (FSLIC insured, rather than FDIC or NCUA).
One advantage that health insurance has as a mutual insurance market is that overall healthcare costs in large populations are fairly predictable. It's not like homeowners' insurance where wildfires, earthquakes and hurricanes are going to generate a flood of claims that can wipe your small insurance company out. It sounds like there are an awful lot of patients/policyholders that would prefer a company that was just as interested in its customers as in its profits. And even if a mutual insurance company did decide to sell its data for data mining, the profits would go back to the policyholders anyway, in their role as shareholders.
Does anyone know of any true mutual insurance companies still in existence?
Per the parent Wikipedia cite, payment history is covered by HIPAA.
It establishes regulations for the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI). PHI is any information about health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual.[10] This is interpreted rather broadly and includes any part of a patient's medical record or payment history.
I Think they're more likely climbing through this loophole: A covered entity may disclose PHI to facilitate treatment, payment, or health care operations.
That "facilitate health care operations" seems like a big enough loophole to cover all sorts of crap.
Just "coincidentally" the current Wired August 2008 issue has review of 4 models of disk repair appliances. The best one goes over $500, but they list a Maxell Pro Disk Fixer for $50 that might fill the bill. Note that the weblink doesn't contain the actual article (yet), since this issue is still in print.
Richard Pryor is comedy gold, too. But that doesn't give me the right to post transcripts or recordings of his material online, even if they were given to me personally by him.
Just because I send you an email with a picture in it doesn't transfer the copyright of that material to you, nor does it give you a license to republish the material. His only fair use argument is going to be satire or parody, and that seems like a bit of a stretch. Not impossible, but he'll need a friendly court and a good lawyer.
IANAL - JP (Just pontificating).
Hmmm, perhaps for one hour during the Carter administration? I would have to be after J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, and before Ruby Ridge. Incidentally, the Waco fiasco was BATF (the Treasury dept. you seem to love) not the FBI.
I don't fault the Bush administration for making the FBI incompetent (as opposed to FEMA), but I do blame the Bush administration for giving the FBI and HSA even more latitude to exercise their incompetence against us.
There was no violation here by the FBI. They requested and the librarian complied.
I have to wonder what the written policies of the library system are, though. It could easily be that the library director violated the policies of the library system itself by not requiring a search warrant, and could face dismissal on those grounds. The ALA is a very libertarian organization in matters of information access for the public and constitutional limits on the powers of government. If this library system adheres to the ALA Code of Ethics and other policies, our friendly library director could be in big trouble.
This needs to be looked at from the point of view of the average user, not just the power user. Most users' dealings with SSL will be to places like financial institutions, service providers and other companies in situations where the authentication of the correct site is at least as important as the encryption. See the man in the middle attack description above. So the default setting definitely should be to disallow self-signed SSL certificates. We shouldn't want to compromise the security of the internet masses for the convenience of the much smaller percentage of users that link to sites with self-signed certificates.
That said, there needs to be a configurable override for more advanced user to either allow self-signed certificates globally, or to easily enable self-signed certificates from specified sites. The use-case where authenticity is established out-of-band via other communications is common enough that it needs to be supported by the browser.
But the key for me is 1) Firefox DOES support adding exceptions to the configuration (see the screenshot of the "big scary" warning message in TFA) and 2) if there is a level of trust between the client and the site owner that is high enough to accept self-signed certificates, then the site owner should be able to instruct the client how to accept the certificate and get the desired SSL connection.
Of course you realize that No Such Agency is monitoring all of those cross-border data transmissions you make when you pull your data into your empty laptop. Less inconvenience to you than having the laptop confiscated, but just as much invasion of whatever illusion of privacy you had left.
There seem to be different signage standards in different states. Where I live now, common streets in the community are signed as "Private Road" because the homeowners' association is responsible for the maintenance. But in other locations (New Jersey), I've seen individual driveways with the "Private Road" sign meant to indicate "No Trespassing". So maybe this whole thing was caused by sending photographers from a "public" private road state to a "Private" private road state.
Dude, FoxConn specifically says they don't support Linux. So "targetting" and "breaking" Linux don't enter into it. Their programmers were too stupid to get ACPI (and whatever else) to work correctly in Linux, so they elected not to support Linux rather than throw more money at the problems in their BIOS. This is just the 80-20 rule in action.
Vendors should not artificially limit what you can do...
Why not? As long as there's a competitive market and there are other vendors who do support what you want to do, who cares? If FoxConn can sell their MoBo for $10 less to Windows users by not supporting Linux, that gives them a competitive advantage in the Windows space. Conversely, they are losing the Linux business, so other MoBo vendors have an advantage in that market.
It's not a conspiracy, it's a business decision. Even though sometimes that amounts to the same thing.
You are so right about this blame-shifting. And could someone please tell me how an unregulated capitalist free-market economy is supposed to solve this one? There is a fundamental conflict between the concept of "limited liability" and "free market" that has not been addressed except by government regulation.
Meanwhile on a road leading back to the main topic: there's a nice little kerfuffle between el Reg and l'Inq based on some commentary in the Inquirer regarding the murder-suicide.
This sounds like they're aiming for a compromise that might actually make sense:
1) Source code is not patentable, nor are descriptions of business processes.
2) Binary code in a computer or other programmable device can be patentable, since that is what gives the system to perform the actual patentable task.
Since different compilers can produce different binary implementations of the same process (or even the same compiler using different settings), it might be possible to avoid infringement fairly simply.
In order to make this reasonable, the PTO should set the bar for non-obviousness and scope of claims higher as well. The flexibility of the general purpose computer (including PCs) means that most uses should be considered obvious unless they involve a completely new numerical method or involve a special device attached to the PC. And the scope of the patent must be intimately related to the new algorithm or device. So a patent might be issuable for the implementation of a new formula that calculates the re-order points for their supplies and materials, but not for the overall process of setting the reorder points.
This is just like the TSA security checks at the airport: a minor inconvenience for most internet users, a major hassle for a few, and only capable of blocking the stupidest of the criminals it is intending to catch.
Oh, and both cause an observable erosion of civil liberties.
They're just lucky that the original system programmers, designers and testers that developed the fault detection code were better at their jobs than the mission programmers who fed the bad instructions to the lander. If it had been the other way around, misery and teeth-gnashing would have ensued.
SCOTUS pretty much banned quotas to combat racial discrimination back in the 1990s. I don't see how such a law or administrative rule could successfully be applied to combat gender discrimination. Plus there's no point: more women than men graduate from college, so any discrimination taking place will probably work itself out pretty quickly. And as top poster mentioned, women dominate other fields. If we try to enforce Title IX quotas this way, it'll cost everyone more than it gains.
A better approach would probably be to ensure that funding of male-dominated and female dominated fields give parity on a per capita basis by gender. So funding for hard sciences and social sciences/liberal arts would have to balance in such a way that totals granted to female scientists and male scientists balance "in the large" across multiple disciplines and within a particular discipline. After all, in athletics, Title IX doesn't require the football program to recruit women, they require women's sports programs to receive an equal share of the pie from the athletic department. In the case of research grants, if there is a pattern of discrimination by the federal or state agencies making the grants, that wouldn't be resolved by Title IX regulations anyway.
This scheme would probably have some similar side effects to Title IX in athletics, where football and basketball tend to subsidize other sports. Some capital-intensive fields with fewer practical applications like particle physics would lose proportionally. Other fields like biotech or electronics might generate enough revenue that could be used to subsidize other programs.
This vote of Obama's really tears me up. He obviously thinks untrammeled executive power is a good thing if he's going to be the executive, regardless of its effect on civil liberties. There is no way he can spin this to me as a good vote. On the other hand, I desperately want to keep John McCain's paws off of the supreme court over the next 4-8 years. There are a lot of old liberals barely hanging onto the bench by their wrinkled, scrawny, arthritic claws that should not be replaced by a Republican nominee.
But both major parties continue to trample the constitution in pursuit of their own power. It's reached the point where it has the effect of collusion between the parties even if no actual collusion actually takes place (kind of like the pricing on airline tickets). There is obviously an unspoken understanding that the Bush administration will not be investigated at any future date for any violations of law or human rights whatsoever. Remember when the big issue was the Cheney task force and how it was used to set national energy policy? It's only gotten worse since then. The republicans have used national security as a lever to push the democrats so far to the right that it's a legitimate question whether the USA is a fascist state. This law only reinforces that impression.
I have to vote Libertarian in at least some races to send the message that things have gone too far. Whether that includes the presidency, I still haven't decided. After this vote I certainly can't believe in Obama as a representative of a "new kind" of politics, but even the same old democratic platform is still more appealing than McCain's.
This is actually an interesting way to attack the media-sharing peer networks and their seeders without affecting "mainstream" video sources (i.e. old media companies holding copyright). Since there's no download cap, the viewers of streaming content won't be harmed (except in their ability to download from the peer networks).
Since the mainstream media companies already pay for commercial connections, it won't affect them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's God's pressure cooker. At that depth the pressure is so high that the boiling temperature of water is higher than the normal 100C. That said, there's no reason it couldn't be converting to steam in small pockets and then the steam re-condenses as it comes in contact with cooler water.
It would be even more interesting if the hot water could rise up fast enough without mixing too much with the cooler water around it to the point where it actually would start to boil vigorously. It would be a race between the decrease in pressure and the decrease in temperature.
an awful lot of effort to go through for some parboiled prawns. The Ventura county site sounds like a great spot for a barbecue, though. Don't even have to bring any charcoal.
Well apart from nationalizing healthcare, the only option I can see is to mandate that private insurers operate as mutual insurance companies the way they did in the old days, where the policyholders were the actual shareholders. The problem these ran into was their ability to raise and maintain capital sufficient to compete with corporate insurers. The same thing happened with the mutual savings and loan banks (FSLIC insured, rather than FDIC or NCUA).
One advantage that health insurance has as a mutual insurance market is that overall healthcare costs in large populations are fairly predictable. It's not like homeowners' insurance where wildfires, earthquakes and hurricanes are going to generate a flood of claims that can wipe your small insurance company out. It sounds like there are an awful lot of patients/policyholders that would prefer a company that was just as interested in its customers as in its profits. And even if a mutual insurance company did decide to sell its data for data mining, the profits would go back to the policyholders anyway, in their role as shareholders.
Does anyone know of any true mutual insurance companies still in existence?
Per the parent Wikipedia cite, payment history is covered by HIPAA.
It establishes regulations for the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI). PHI is any information about health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual.[10] This is interpreted rather broadly and includes any part of a patient's medical record or payment history.
I Think they're more likely climbing through this loophole:
A covered entity may disclose PHI to facilitate treatment, payment, or health care operations.
That "facilitate health care operations" seems like a big enough loophole to cover all sorts of crap.
Just "coincidentally" the current Wired August 2008 issue has review of 4 models of disk repair appliances. The best one goes over $500, but they list a Maxell Pro Disk Fixer for $50 that might fill the bill. Note that the weblink doesn't contain the actual article (yet), since this issue is still in print.
Richard Pryor is comedy gold, too. But that doesn't give me the right to post transcripts or recordings of his material online, even if they were given to me personally by him. Just because I send you an email with a picture in it doesn't transfer the copyright of that material to you, nor does it give you a license to republish the material. His only fair use argument is going to be satire or parody, and that seems like a bit of a stretch. Not impossible, but he'll need a friendly court and a good lawyer. IANAL - JP (Just pontificating).
Hmmm, perhaps for one hour during the Carter administration? I would have to be after J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, and before Ruby Ridge. Incidentally, the Waco fiasco was BATF (the Treasury dept. you seem to love) not the FBI.
I don't fault the Bush administration for making the FBI incompetent (as opposed to FEMA), but I do blame the Bush administration for giving the FBI and HSA even more latitude to exercise their incompetence against us.
I have to wonder what the written policies of the library system are, though. It could easily be that the library director violated the policies of the library system itself by not requiring a search warrant, and could face dismissal on those grounds. The ALA is a very libertarian organization in matters of information access for the public and constitutional limits on the powers of government. If this library system adheres to the ALA Code of Ethics and other policies, our friendly library director could be in big trouble.
This needs to be looked at from the point of view of the average user, not just the power user. Most users' dealings with SSL will be to places like financial institutions, service providers and other companies in situations where the authentication of the correct site is at least as important as the encryption. See the man in the middle attack description above. So the default setting definitely should be to disallow self-signed SSL certificates. We shouldn't want to compromise the security of the internet masses for the convenience of the much smaller percentage of users that link to sites with self-signed certificates.
That said, there needs to be a configurable override for more advanced user to either allow self-signed certificates globally, or to easily enable self-signed certificates from specified sites. The use-case where authenticity is established out-of-band via other communications is common enough that it needs to be supported by the browser.
But the key for me is 1) Firefox DOES support adding exceptions to the configuration (see the screenshot of the "big scary" warning message in TFA) and 2) if there is a level of trust between the client and the site owner that is high enough to accept self-signed certificates, then the site owner should be able to instruct the client how to accept the certificate and get the desired SSL connection.
Of course you realize that No Such Agency is monitoring all of those cross-border data transmissions you make when you pull your data into your empty laptop. Less inconvenience to you than having the laptop confiscated, but just as much invasion of whatever illusion of privacy you had left.
There seem to be different signage standards in different states. Where I live now, common streets in the community are signed as "Private Road" because the homeowners' association is responsible for the maintenance. But in other locations (New Jersey), I've seen individual driveways with the "Private Road" sign meant to indicate "No Trespassing". So maybe this whole thing was caused by sending photographers from a "public" private road state to a "Private" private road state.
Dude, FoxConn specifically says they don't support Linux. So "targetting" and "breaking" Linux don't enter into it. Their programmers were too stupid to get ACPI (and whatever else) to work correctly in Linux, so they elected not to support Linux rather than throw more money at the problems in their BIOS. This is just the 80-20 rule in action.
Vendors should not artificially limit what you can do...
Why not? As long as there's a competitive market and there are other vendors who do support what you want to do, who cares? If FoxConn can sell their MoBo for $10 less to Windows users by not supporting Linux, that gives them a competitive advantage in the Windows space. Conversely, they are losing the Linux business, so other MoBo vendors have an advantage in that market.
It's not a conspiracy, it's a business decision. Even though sometimes that amounts to the same thing.
You are so right about this blame-shifting. And could someone please tell me how an unregulated capitalist free-market economy is supposed to solve this one? There is a fundamental conflict between the concept of "limited liability" and "free market" that has not been addressed except by government regulation.
Meanwhile on a road leading back to the main topic: there's a nice little kerfuffle between el Reg and l'Inq based on some commentary in the Inquirer regarding the murder-suicide.
This sounds like they're aiming for a compromise that might actually make sense:
1) Source code is not patentable, nor are descriptions of business processes.
2) Binary code in a computer or other programmable device can be patentable, since that is what gives the system to perform the actual patentable task.
Since different compilers can produce different binary implementations of the same process (or even the same compiler using different settings), it might be possible to avoid infringement fairly simply.
In order to make this reasonable, the PTO should set the bar for non-obviousness and scope of claims higher as well. The flexibility of the general purpose computer (including PCs) means that most uses should be considered obvious unless they involve a completely new numerical method or involve a special device attached to the PC. And the scope of the patent must be intimately related to the new algorithm or device. So a patent might be issuable for the implementation of a new formula that calculates the re-order points for their supplies and materials, but not for the overall process of setting the reorder points.
Similarly: "Never get into a pissing contest with a dickhead."
The call recipient can choose to avoid taking calls from people not on their A-List, now the caller has the same option.
Not to mention Miley Cyrus, Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Lynn Spears. Interesting that no one has been charged with child porn or molestation in these cases.
This is just like the TSA security checks at the airport: a minor inconvenience for most internet users, a major hassle for a few, and only capable of blocking the stupidest of the criminals it is intending to catch. Oh, and both cause an observable erosion of civil liberties.
They're just lucky that the original system programmers, designers and testers that developed the fault detection code were better at their jobs than the mission programmers who fed the bad instructions to the lander. If it had been the other way around, misery and teeth-gnashing would have ensued.
SCOTUS pretty much banned quotas to combat racial discrimination back in the 1990s. I don't see how such a law or administrative rule could successfully be applied to combat gender discrimination. Plus there's no point: more women than men graduate from college, so any discrimination taking place will probably work itself out pretty quickly. And as top poster mentioned, women dominate other fields. If we try to enforce Title IX quotas this way, it'll cost everyone more than it gains.
A better approach would probably be to ensure that funding of male-dominated and female dominated fields give parity on a per capita basis by gender. So funding for hard sciences and social sciences/liberal arts would have to balance in such a way that totals granted to female scientists and male scientists balance "in the large" across multiple disciplines and within a particular discipline. After all, in athletics, Title IX doesn't require the football program to recruit women, they require women's sports programs to receive an equal share of the pie from the athletic department. In the case of research grants, if there is a pattern of discrimination by the federal or state agencies making the grants, that wouldn't be resolved by Title IX regulations anyway.
This scheme would probably have some similar side effects to Title IX in athletics, where football and basketball tend to subsidize other sports. Some capital-intensive fields with fewer practical applications like particle physics would lose proportionally. Other fields like biotech or electronics might generate enough revenue that could be used to subsidize other programs.
This vote of Obama's really tears me up. He obviously thinks untrammeled executive power is a good thing if he's going to be the executive, regardless of its effect on civil liberties. There is no way he can spin this to me as a good vote. On the other hand, I desperately want to keep John McCain's paws off of the supreme court over the next 4-8 years. There are a lot of old liberals barely hanging onto the bench by their wrinkled, scrawny, arthritic claws that should not be replaced by a Republican nominee.
But both major parties continue to trample the constitution in pursuit of their own power. It's reached the point where it has the effect of collusion between the parties even if no actual collusion actually takes place (kind of like the pricing on airline tickets). There is obviously an unspoken understanding that the Bush administration will not be investigated at any future date for any violations of law or human rights whatsoever. Remember when the big issue was the Cheney task force and how it was used to set national energy policy? It's only gotten worse since then. The republicans have used national security as a lever to push the democrats so far to the right that it's a legitimate question whether the USA is a fascist state. This law only reinforces that impression.
I have to vote Libertarian in at least some races to send the message that things have gone too far. Whether that includes the presidency, I still haven't decided. After this vote I certainly can't believe in Obama as a representative of a "new kind" of politics, but even the same old democratic platform is still more appealing than McCain's.
The subject says it all.
Is spontaneous combustion a big problem for trees in you area?
Well, SoCal seems to be suffering an outbreak lately.
This is actually an interesting way to attack the media-sharing peer networks and their seeders without affecting "mainstream" video sources (i.e. old media companies holding copyright). Since there's no download cap, the viewers of streaming content won't be harmed (except in their ability to download from the peer networks). Since the mainstream media companies already pay for commercial connections, it won't affect them.
OMG. My sig is relevant for once.