So - just maybe - the Roc may also have existed???
Do you think one of those could carry a baby elephant?
Legends DO tend to grow a bit with the telling. Also: It looks like these could carry off 250 pounds of bird. How big IS a baby elephant?
Given that these eagles were alive at the time of the earliest recorded Roc legends and the Medeteranian and African ship technology was adequate to make it to New Zeland and back, at least occasonally, why shouldn't these be the basis for such stories?
E4BP4 has been shown to regulate circadian gene expression and to be induced by light in the chick pineal gland, where it regulates the pineal clock gene cPer2 (ref. 24). Several studies have shown that the degree of NK cell cytotoxicity is circadian in both rodents and human... . It is plausible that as E4BP4 is critical for NK development, it may also serve a central role in regulating the circadian nature of NK cell function.
And this may also lead to treatments modulating the production of NT cells by exposing the body to intense light, perhaps of some particular wavelength, or shielding it from light.
I was under the impression that to detect the superposition you'd have to observe the experimentee having collapsed into one state while evidence exists for something it intereacted with having collapsed into a state that would have been incompatable.
For instance: Schrodenger's cat is a tom and there's a queen in heat in another compartment, with the partition opening between them after the half-death event. Sometimes when you open the box you find a pregnant queen and a tom killed by the machinery that operated before the partition opened.
(But I'm not a quantum mechanic. Perhaps a qualified physicist can vet that statement.)
How do you perform a similar detection for a virus? (And if that's not how you do it with quantum kitty, how DO you detect that the cat was in a superposition?)
Quite a number of fortune 500 companies rely on Linux heavily. Almost every investment bank certainly,...
After the crash of Oct '08 I'd say investment banks aren't the world's best role models of successful operations. (Unless you count sucking money out of governments.)
The one bright side is that nobody's blamed the financial meltdown on Linux. Yet. (Give Microsoft a few more months...)
With the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses coming in a couple of years, combined with extremly low IPv6 deployment, the Internet expansion will grind to a halt very soon.
Imminent death of Internet predicted. Film at eleven.
= = = =
And for those of you who weren't on it back then: This was a running gag on netnews virtually from its initial deployment. Seems like every week there was a new prediction of some mechanism by which the rapidly-doubling internet would break - yet it still kept going.
As someone who works as an engineer in a big-name company that builds Internet infrastructure boxes: I can tell you that "able to do IPV6 when we get around to turning it on" is one of the major checkboxes for new equipment purchases.
For many years I lived on a sailboat with a wind generator which shorted the output to stop the blades as well as to KEEP them stopped.
Worked fine even in gale force +++ winds.
It worked fine because the turbine was small and the genny was powerful. It was able to produce enough drag torque to pull the rotor down to stall speeds even in a gale.
Unfortunately, for big homebrew turbines the alternators can't be counted on to be sufficiently strong to accomplish this. (For starters ie means dumping the energy of the turbine's inertia, plus all the power the blades are pulling from the air before they get down to stalling speed, into the alternator coils as heat. On a big machine this may melt them.) Also: If the turbine is in stall and the wind gets high enough to overpower the genny if the turbine weren't in stall, a gust may start it spinning and pull it out of stall (or, as in your case, cause enough damage to the alternator to cause it to stop braking the blades effectively).
One VERY dark night headed for Fiji though a magnet came loose in the generator and THAT was spectacular!... I now understand that the bade was close to MACH 1 when it broke free!
An important design parameter for wind turbines is TSR - Tip Speed Ratio. This is the ratio of the speed of the tip of the blade to the speed of the wind when the turbine is under load and achieving peak efficiency. (When unloaded, for instance if the battery came unhooked, the turbine will freewheel at something like twice that speed.)
Horizontal axis wind turbines (the wind-facing "propellor" type) are most efficient when designed for a TSR in the vicinity of 6. (Slower and they waste more power "spinning the exhaust". Faster and they waste more power in drag - and the airflow over part of the blade may go supersonic in a storm, which is not good.)
Speed of sound at 68F is about 768 MPH. That means a TSR 6 turbine will have the tips hit sonic speed at a wind speed of about 128 MPH under load or roughly 64 MPH freewheeling. (And that cube law means your genny will probably burn out in sustained winds approaching 128 MPH so you'll probably be unloaded at speeds well below 128.)
Of course holding the blade to the hub when the tip is moving near the speed of sound (or fast enough that part of the airflow is supersonic and making the blade vibrate horribly) takes a LOT of strength - usually more than the parts have. This is why wind machines are designed to furl somehow before they get spinning that fast.
You don't have to make your whole post italicized. Really, you don't.
I didn't intend to. Blew the end-italics HTML tag after the quoted paragraph and was rushed so didn't preview. Sorry 'bout that.
(One advantage some other systems have over slashcode is that you can edit your posting up to the point where somebody responds to it. With Slashdot it's cast in stone once you post. IMHO a short window where you can fix typos such as the above would be good.)
My wife points out another contributor to the demise of corporate basic research:
A couple decades ago the government changed the tax structure so that money spent on applied research was deductable and eligible for extra tax breaks as well, while money spent on basic research was not. This was a massive cost increase for operations like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC.
Subsidize it and you get more. Tax it and you get less.
Basic Research is normally extremely profitable. But what it will discover and how this will pay off isn't known in advance. So corporate management usually doesn't have the long-range vision to conduct it, sticking to applied research where the expected payoff is more predictable. The major exceptions seem to result from special circumstances.
Bell labs did basic research because the legislation that created the Bell System allowed them to adjust rates to make a specified profit (6% back then) on any money spent on the telephone system. This included telephone-system related R&D. So Bell Labs was set up to spend as much money as possible - on any research that could have some plausible connection to telephony. The more they spent, the more AT&T earned.
From the first year Bell Labs was a "failure": They made more money licensing technology they invented to outsiders than they spent. B-) And this continued through the spinout as Lucent - until eventually management pulled a standard "Harvard Business School" stunt: Stop investing in future inventions and maximize revenue from current IP inventory. This makes the bottom line look great for a few years. (Then deposit your bonuses and move on, letting your successors take the blame when the house of cards collapses.)
Xerox PARC's long foray into basic research seems to be the result of an odd accounting artifact. Early Xerox copiers were controlled with electromechanical devices - switches, relays, etc. In the very early days of microprocessors, the new research center designed a microprocessor-operated control panel for copiers. This drastically reduced the cost of manufacturing the machines. PARC was credited with this savings - for many years. So it could spend a lot of money on basic research and still be profitable on paper even if the research never saved Xerox another dime. This gave its management a very free hand. (Of course it DID invent a lot of stuff, some of which brought in more bux for Xerox. But not having to meet specific performance goals on a quarterly basis allowed them to chase bigger game.)
You missed yaw controlled wind turbines - the common system for homebrewed and also the old "patent windmill" designs like classic the water-pumpers. These pivot the tail which makes the mill turn sideways to the wind to reduce power input or even stop the mill.
Many modern homebrew designs use an off-center and tilted tail pivot and a slightly offset turbine axis, plus a couple stops to limit the tail travel (mainly to avoid it hitting the blades). Combined with the weight of the tail this makes the mill automatically yaw-furl in high winds to prevent electrical overheating or overspeed mechanical stresses.
Some homebrewed wind generators, once they're stopped, are sometimes KEPT stopped by shorting the output, whichmakes them act like an electric brake. The blades rotate very slowly and stay in aerodynamic stall. But trying to do that when they're under power in a storm is more likely to burn out the generator than stop the mill. Available power goes up with the CUBE of the windspeed, torque with the square, and heating from current in a permanent-magnet alternator with the FOURTH POWER.
If only the wind turbines were on stationary towers, then they might be able to map them, and use such a map to inform their interpretation of the radar data.
If only the tip voitices stayed at the blades, rather than trailing for miles downwind.
If only "downwind" was always the same direction, rather than moving around when the wind changes - especially when it changes rapidly during a storm.
If only the vortices were reliably visible to the radar, rather than sending a variable strength return depending on how many raindrops are getting blown around by each section of it at any given moment.
= = = =
More interestingly: The conditions that form tornadoes are weather-driven but the exact location they form, path they take, and indeed whether the finally DO form, are dependent on local things that disturb the airflow. Like mountains. And buildings. And forests. And freeways full of moving cars. And big windmills...
Tornadoes have been documented to prefer to form up a short distance downwind of expressways. Perhaps the twisting air behind the mills of a wind farm will trigger the tornadoes in that area.
If so it might be good: Triggering them in particular, known, mostly uninhabited spaces. Triggering them when the storm is not fully formed so they can dissipate the energy as small vortices - maybe not even making it to the ground - rather than letting conditions build until you finally get a small number of big skyscraper-topplers.
... in the case of the brain, it's even more explicit. There are mechanisms in place that act to massively amplify signals, specifically geared to utilize quantum effects.
Which doesn't mean that quantum weirdness is mapped into the thought process in any useful way (other than, perhaps, a good random generator).
Doesn't mean it's NOT either, of course. Yet TBD.
Maybe the brain is just made out of high efficiency (and perhaps somewhat noisy) logic devices. Maybe it includes elements that make use of quantum mechanical entanglement and similar effects to aid computation.
Maybe it uses odd quantum mechanical effects to interface to a "soul" (perhaps a dark-matter construct), "ghosts", a "God", "gods", or other "supernatural" beings, or construct additional senses, communication channels, and/or means of manipulating matter and/or energy outside the usually accepted list of capabilities - or even the usually accepted limitations on macroscopic action across time and space. B-)
We could speculate all day. It will be interesting to see what physicists and biologists come up with.
- If you have free will and do your best to exercise it in your own interest, you have a chance to exert some control over your situation and benefit yourself.
- If you have free will and do not do your best to exercise it in your own interest, you are likely to do poorly.
- If you don't have free will it doesn't matter.
So the best path seems to be to assume you have free will and act accordingly.
With the USPS I can send a letter anywhere in the country for $0.42 in three days in anything short of a nuclear holocaust. Thats not too bad in my book. It may be less important with the internet, but still, not a bad return, especially since its all self-funded and doesn't rely on tax dollars.
Actually it does. It runs a deficit in most years and sometimes that needs to be made up with tax dollars because postal rate increases won't cover it. It also enjoys a federally-granted monopoly. (Nevertheless, it does pretty well for a monopoly provider.)
And the interstate highway system??? I can go get in my car and get to LA, or NYC, or Boise, ID from my house in College Station, TX in a couple of days, only paying for gas, snacks, and hotels.
And if the cold war ever turned hot and the cities were destroyed you could take off and land fighter and bomber aircraft on the straight stretches and hangar them and their support facilities under some of the overpasses, while convoy and other traffic was diverted to one side as a two-way road. (This was a major design consideration when president - and former 5-star general - Eisenhower pushed for their design and construction. It affects the layout, width of right-of-way, spacing of overpasses, size of lanes, structure of roadbed,...)
You should plumb the slab with standard hydronic heating tubing - terminating in the furnace room but also bringing the loop up the wall into a "jumper" in the computer room wall - in a box like you'd use to install water for a washer. Jumper the furnace room or computer room end depending on whether you're using it for the furnace or the computer.
This is easy to explain. Hydronic tubing will also be considerably cheaper and possibly longer lasting than copper, and may be a resale bonus for the house.
It will also let your computer help heat your house in the winter.
-You edit file A. -Some other guy edits files A and B so that B won't work without the changes in A. -Your branched version blocks the other guy's changes in A so you have broken source code until you merge.
Which is why you NEVER specify the bleeding edge of the trunk as the base of your view spec. You specify a release tag or trunk-(or-shared-branch)-as-of-date/time. Nothing in your view changes unless YOU change it.
By the way: One of the nice things about Clearcase is that, if you do make that error and get bit, you can fix your view AFTERWARD by editing one line in the view spec to back up the trunk view to a moment BEFORE the other guy checked in A and B. As I recall the Clearcase make understands that the actual source changed even if its time went BACKWARD and gets the dependencies right. (Try THAT with other version control systems.)
The 'view spec' thing is idiocy in its purest form.
It seems that way because you're using it wrong. (Like any powerful language it gives you enough rope to hang yourself if you tell it to do the wrong thing.)
-You create a branch and a view that shows files in the branch on top of the trunk.
And that was your error. You should only use "latest" for YOUR changes.
-You edit file A. -Some other guy edits files A and B so that B won't work without the changes in A. -Your branched version blocks the other guy's changes in A so you have broken source code until you merge.
Which is why you NEVER specify the bleeding edge of the trunk as the base of your view spec. You specify a release tag or trunk-(or-shared-branch)-as-of-date/time. Nothing in your view changes unless YOU change it.
When you've got your version working you merge in TWO steps:
1) Merge the changes in the trunk (or whatever shared branch you're using) TO your branch. (Switch the trunk start time to the moment you start this step and merge the changes.) Build and run tests. (Repeat if this took long enough that the trunk thrashed.)
2) Merge your changes TO the trunk and build-run again. (The build should be quick because, unless a LOT changed after you started your last iteration of 1) the objects should all-or-mostly be the ones you built in step 1).)
Even the build for the final merge test runs from a tagged or date/time version of the trunk. That way if somebody else checks in THEIR merge during your build you still get the version YOU merged. If your tests passed you can say "I left the trunk working as of (tag or date/time)". This becomes very important when the smoke tests take longer than the mean time between fix merges.
If you're going to switch to diverge/converge you have to switch all the way. Part of the POINT of diverge-converge is that you see NOBODY'S CHANGES BUT YOUR OWN until you have your part working and are ready to merge or you find you MUST incorporate somebody else's fix to get your stuff working.
Clearcase gives you the fine-grained control over what you "see" which makes this style a breeze.
Killing SCO isn't enough. It just puts the asset into other hands. You have to destroy the alleged asset to put this to rest.
Of course they COULD just give/sell it back to Novell as part of the payment for SCO's debt, after which Novell could do what it wants, including freeing the code. Or somebody else could bid on it and then cut a deal with Novell to free the code.
Of those I've tried, Clearcase is the hands-down winner function-wise, especially for the diverge-converge model of multi-programmer development.
Extremely lightweight branching. "View spec" - a little language to specify exactly what version of what you want: (Version x.y.z but override by the foobar feature development branch but override that by anything in/src/garble as of Tuesday at 3:15PM but override all with anything I've got checked out in MY development branch...). Integration into the filesystem so your tools "see" containing just what version of the sources you specified. A make variant that imports already-built objects that some OTHER developer made from the equivalent sources, rather than compiling them again, etc.
Downside: It's commercial and 'way pricey.
But if you're a commercial shop you should at least evaluate it. The functionality is fansastic.
(I hear some of the core functionality came from an open-sourced student project. I've often wondered why there isn't a FOSS clone of the important features - or if there is and I just missed it.)
And can't somebody put an end to SCO forever? It's like keeping a braindead body alive through machines in the hope that the brain will reboot.
As I understand it the court has decided to kick Darryl and crew out and put a trustee in charge. (Not sure if the trustee is already appointed and dropped into place or if they're still hunting for him.)
Meanwhile the court DID uphold the summary judgment that SCO owes the money from the Sun deal to Novell. So that should suck the money out of the corpse so it will dry up and blow away.
But the court stuff may go on. The issues where the summary judegment was overturned include whether the Novell/SCO deal included transferring enough copyright to SCO to let them write and enforce contracts and collect royalties (of which they get to keep something like 5% and give the rest to Novell.) That now has to be decided by a jury if it is to be decided.
And because that set of rights would be an asset of the company and thus of value to its creditors, it would be the duty of the trustee to attempt to sell it off to someone who could continue the suit, or continue the suit in order to settle the point and then sell off the asset (or reboot the company with it), if there's sufficient chance this would produce enough more money than it consumes to justify the risk-taking.
Killing SCO isn't enough. It just puts the asset into other hands. You have to destroy the alleged asset to put this to rest.
Not sure how it works with the UK parties. But in the US the Democrats are usually the ones proposing and voting for speech restricting legislation and the Republicans voting against it (unless it's encapsulated with something else they want) - with a few in each party voting the other way, of course. But the press manages to keep people convinced it's the other way around.
Don't believe it? Check the Congressional Record on any of the high-profile censorship laws. And don't forget to "think of the chill'ren".
Therefore all convictions since 1984 should be nullified, since the law itself is voided by the treaty.
That's how it would work in the US, where being declared invalid (at least on constitutional grounds) means the law was NEVER valid, according to the Supreme Court.
However, the UK authorities seem to think that similar rule does not exist under their legal system.
According to TFA, the spammer offered three times (at judgment, at collection, and after seizure) to drop the judgment or return the possessions if the anti-spammer would drop his appeal.
If I understand the law correctly, by doing so the spammer committed extortion.
Slashdot Mirror
So - just maybe - the Roc may also have existed???
Do you think one of those could carry a baby elephant?
Legends DO tend to grow a bit with the telling. Also: It looks like these could carry off 250 pounds of bird. How big IS a baby elephant?
Given that these eagles were alive at the time of the earliest recorded Roc legends and the Medeteranian and African ship technology was adequate to make it to New Zeland and back, at least occasonally, why shouldn't these be the basis for such stories?
E4BP4 has been shown to regulate circadian gene expression and to be induced by light in the chick pineal gland, where it regulates the pineal clock gene cPer2 (ref. 24). Several studies have shown that the degree of NK cell cytotoxicity is circadian in both rodents and human ... . It is plausible that as E4BP4 is critical for NK development, it may also serve a central role in regulating the circadian nature of NK cell function.
And this may also lead to treatments modulating the production of NT cells by exposing the body to intense light, perhaps of some particular wavelength, or shielding it from light.
I was under the impression that to detect the superposition you'd have to observe the experimentee having collapsed into one state while evidence exists for something it intereacted with having collapsed into a state that would have been incompatable.
For instance: Schrodenger's cat is a tom and there's a queen in heat in another compartment, with the partition opening between them after the half-death event. Sometimes when you open the box you find a pregnant queen and a tom killed by the machinery that operated before the partition opened.
(But I'm not a quantum mechanic. Perhaps a qualified physicist can vet that statement.)
How do you perform a similar detection for a virus? (And if that's not how you do it with quantum kitty, how DO you detect that the cat was in a superposition?)
Quite a number of fortune 500 companies rely on Linux heavily. Almost every investment bank certainly, ...
After the crash of Oct '08 I'd say investment banks aren't the world's best role models of successful operations. (Unless you count sucking money out of governments.)
The one bright side is that nobody's blamed the financial meltdown on Linux. Yet. (Give Microsoft a few more months...)
Cisco kicks ass! :D
Also:
* Alcatel-Lucent
* Avici Systems
* Ericsson (Redback)
* Huawei Technologies Ltd.
* Juniper Networks
* Nortel Networks
and a few others.
With the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses coming in a couple of years, combined with extremly low IPv6 deployment, the Internet expansion will grind to a halt very soon.
Imminent death of Internet predicted. Film at eleven.
= = = =
And for those of you who weren't on it back then: This was a running gag on netnews virtually from its initial deployment. Seems like every week there was a new prediction of some mechanism by which the rapidly-doubling internet would break - yet it still kept going.
As someone who works as an engineer in a big-name company that builds Internet infrastructure boxes: I can tell you that "able to do IPV6 when we get around to turning it on" is one of the major checkboxes for new equipment purchases.
A security model that allows users to be their usual flaky selves and still work reasonably well is what's called for.
How about this security model:
Hunt down the people who deploy malware and take them out of circulation.
For many years I lived on a sailboat with a wind generator which shorted the output to stop the blades as well as to KEEP them stopped.
Worked fine even in gale force +++ winds.
It worked fine because the turbine was small and the genny was powerful. It was able to produce enough drag torque to pull the rotor down to stall speeds even in a gale.
Unfortunately, for big homebrew turbines the alternators can't be counted on to be sufficiently strong to accomplish this. (For starters ie means dumping the energy of the turbine's inertia, plus all the power the blades are pulling from the air before they get down to stalling speed, into the alternator coils as heat. On a big machine this may melt them.) Also: If the turbine is in stall and the wind gets high enough to overpower the genny if the turbine weren't in stall, a gust may start it spinning and pull it out of stall (or, as in your case, cause enough damage to the alternator to cause it to stop braking the blades effectively).
One VERY dark night headed for Fiji though a magnet came loose in the generator and THAT was spectacular! ... I now understand that the bade was close to MACH 1 when it broke free!
An important design parameter for wind turbines is TSR - Tip Speed Ratio. This is the ratio of the speed of the tip of the blade to the speed of the wind when the turbine is under load and achieving peak efficiency. (When unloaded, for instance if the battery came unhooked, the turbine will freewheel at something like twice that speed.)
Horizontal axis wind turbines (the wind-facing "propellor" type) are most efficient when designed for a TSR in the vicinity of 6. (Slower and they waste more power "spinning the exhaust". Faster and they waste more power in drag - and the airflow over part of the blade may go supersonic in a storm, which is not good.)
Speed of sound at 68F is about 768 MPH. That means a TSR 6 turbine will have the tips hit sonic speed at a wind speed of about 128 MPH under load or roughly 64 MPH freewheeling. (And that cube law means your genny will probably burn out in sustained winds approaching 128 MPH so you'll probably be unloaded at speeds well below 128.)
Of course holding the blade to the hub when the tip is moving near the speed of sound (or fast enough that part of the airflow is supersonic and making the blade vibrate horribly) takes a LOT of strength - usually more than the parts have. This is why wind machines are designed to furl somehow before they get spinning that fast.
You don't have to make your whole post italicized. Really, you don't.
I didn't intend to. Blew the end-italics HTML tag after the quoted paragraph and was rushed so didn't preview. Sorry 'bout that.
(One advantage some other systems have over slashcode is that you can edit your posting up to the point where somebody responds to it. With Slashdot it's cast in stone once you post. IMHO a short window where you can fix typos such as the above would be good.)
My wife points out another contributor to the demise of corporate basic research:
A couple decades ago the government changed the tax structure so that money spent on applied research was deductable and eligible for extra tax breaks as well, while money spent on basic research was not. This was a massive cost increase for operations like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC.
Subsidize it and you get more. Tax it and you get less.
Basic Research is normally extremely profitable. But what it will discover and how this will pay off isn't known in advance. So corporate management usually doesn't have the long-range vision to conduct it, sticking to applied research where the expected payoff is more predictable. The major exceptions seem to result from special circumstances.
Bell labs did basic research because the legislation that created the Bell System allowed them to adjust rates to make a specified profit (6% back then) on any money spent on the telephone system. This included telephone-system related R&D. So Bell Labs was set up to spend as much money as possible - on any research that could have some plausible connection to telephony. The more they spent, the more AT&T earned.
From the first year Bell Labs was a "failure": They made more money licensing technology they invented to outsiders than they spent. B-) And this continued through the spinout as Lucent - until eventually management pulled a standard "Harvard Business School" stunt: Stop investing in future inventions and maximize revenue from current IP inventory. This makes the bottom line look great for a few years. (Then deposit your bonuses and move on, letting your successors take the blame when the house of cards collapses.)
Xerox PARC's long foray into basic research seems to be the result of an odd accounting artifact. Early Xerox copiers were controlled with electromechanical devices - switches, relays, etc. In the very early days of microprocessors, the new research center designed a microprocessor-operated control panel for copiers. This drastically reduced the cost of manufacturing the machines. PARC was credited with this savings - for many years. So it could spend a lot of money on basic research and still be profitable on paper even if the research never saved Xerox another dime. This gave its management a very free hand. (Of course it DID invent a lot of stuff, some of which brought in more bux for Xerox. But not having to meet specific performance goals on a quarterly basis allowed them to chase bigger game.)
You missed yaw controlled wind turbines - the common system for homebrewed and also the old "patent windmill" designs like classic the water-pumpers. These pivot the tail which makes the mill turn sideways to the wind to reduce power input or even stop the mill.
Many modern homebrew designs use an off-center and tilted tail pivot and a slightly offset turbine axis, plus a couple stops to limit the tail travel (mainly to avoid it hitting the blades). Combined with the weight of the tail this makes the mill automatically yaw-furl in high winds to prevent electrical overheating or overspeed mechanical stresses.
Some homebrewed wind generators, once they're stopped, are sometimes KEPT stopped by shorting the output, whichmakes them act like an electric brake. The blades rotate very slowly and stay in aerodynamic stall. But trying to do that when they're under power in a storm is more likely to burn out the generator than stop the mill. Available power goes up with the CUBE of the windspeed, torque with the square, and heating from current in a permanent-magnet alternator with the FOURTH POWER.
If only the wind turbines were on stationary towers, then they might be able to map them, and use such a map to inform their interpretation of the radar data.
If only the tip voitices stayed at the blades, rather than trailing for miles downwind.
If only "downwind" was always the same direction, rather than moving around when the wind changes - especially when it changes rapidly during a storm.
If only the vortices were reliably visible to the radar, rather than sending a variable strength return depending on how many raindrops are getting blown around by each section of it at any given moment.
= = = =
More interestingly: The conditions that form tornadoes are weather-driven but the exact location they form, path they take, and indeed whether the finally DO form, are dependent on local things that disturb the airflow. Like mountains. And buildings. And forests. And freeways full of moving cars. And big windmills...
Tornadoes have been documented to prefer to form up a short distance downwind of expressways. Perhaps the twisting air behind the mills of a wind farm will trigger the tornadoes in that area.
If so it might be good: Triggering them in particular, known, mostly uninhabited spaces. Triggering them when the storm is not fully formed so they can dissipate the energy as small vortices - maybe not even making it to the ground - rather than letting conditions build until you finally get a small number of big skyscraper-topplers.
... in the case of the brain, it's even more explicit. There are mechanisms in place that act to massively amplify signals, specifically geared to utilize quantum effects.
Which doesn't mean that quantum weirdness is mapped into the thought process in any useful way (other than, perhaps, a good random generator).
Doesn't mean it's NOT either, of course. Yet TBD.
Maybe the brain is just made out of high efficiency (and perhaps somewhat noisy) logic devices. Maybe it includes elements that make use of quantum mechanical entanglement and similar effects to aid computation.
Maybe it uses odd quantum mechanical effects to interface to a "soul" (perhaps a dark-matter construct), "ghosts", a "God", "gods", or other "supernatural" beings, or construct additional senses, communication channels, and/or means of manipulating matter and/or energy outside the usually accepted list of capabilities - or even the usually accepted limitations on macroscopic action across time and space. B-)
We could speculate all day. It will be interesting to see what physicists and biologists come up with.
I choose NOT to make a choice!
That seems foolish to me.
- If you have free will and do your best to exercise it in your own interest, you have a chance to exert some control over your situation and benefit yourself.
- If you have free will and do not do your best to exercise it in your own interest, you are likely to do poorly.
- If you don't have free will it doesn't matter.
So the best path seems to be to assume you have free will and act accordingly.
With the USPS I can send a letter anywhere in the country for $0.42 in three days in anything short of a nuclear holocaust. Thats not too bad in my book. It may be less important with the internet, but still, not a bad return, especially since its all self-funded and doesn't rely on tax dollars.
Actually it does. It runs a deficit in most years and sometimes that needs to be made up with tax dollars because postal rate increases won't cover it. It also enjoys a federally-granted monopoly. (Nevertheless, it does pretty well for a monopoly provider.)
And the interstate highway system??? I can go get in my car and get to LA, or NYC, or Boise, ID from my house in College Station, TX in a couple of days, only paying for gas, snacks, and hotels.
And if the cold war ever turned hot and the cities were destroyed you could take off and land fighter and bomber aircraft on the straight stretches and hangar them and their support facilities under some of the overpasses, while convoy and other traffic was diverted to one side as a two-way road. (This was a major design consideration when president - and former 5-star general - Eisenhower pushed for their design and construction. It affects the layout, width of right-of-way, spacing of overpasses, size of lanes, structure of roadbed, ...)
You should plumb the slab with standard hydronic heating tubing - terminating in the furnace room but also bringing the loop up the wall into a "jumper" in the computer room wall - in a box like you'd use to install water for a washer. Jumper the furnace room or computer room end depending on whether you're using it for the furnace or the computer.
This is easy to explain. Hydronic tubing will also be considerably cheaper and possibly longer lasting than copper, and may be a resale bonus for the house.
It will also let your computer help heat your house in the winter.
-You edit file A.
-Some other guy edits files A and B so that B won't work without the changes in A.
-Your branched version blocks the other guy's changes in A so you have broken source code until you merge.
Which is why you NEVER specify the bleeding edge of the trunk as the base of your view spec. You specify a release tag or trunk-(or-shared-branch)-as-of-date/time. Nothing in your view changes unless YOU change it.
By the way: One of the nice things about Clearcase is that, if you do make that error and get bit, you can fix your view AFTERWARD by editing one line in the view spec to back up the trunk view to a moment BEFORE the other guy checked in A and B. As I recall the Clearcase make understands that the actual source changed even if its time went BACKWARD and gets the dependencies right. (Try THAT with other version control systems.)
The 'view spec' thing is idiocy in its purest form.
It seems that way because you're using it wrong. (Like any powerful language it gives you enough rope to hang yourself if you tell it to do the wrong thing.)
-You create a branch and a view that shows files in the branch on top of the trunk.
And that was your error. You should only use "latest" for YOUR changes.
-You edit file A.
-Some other guy edits files A and B so that B won't work without the changes in A.
-Your branched version blocks the other guy's changes in A so you have broken source code until you merge.
Which is why you NEVER specify the bleeding edge of the trunk as the base of your view spec. You specify a release tag or trunk-(or-shared-branch)-as-of-date/time. Nothing in your view changes unless YOU change it.
When you've got your version working you merge in TWO steps:
1) Merge the changes in the trunk (or whatever shared branch you're using) TO your branch. (Switch the trunk start time to the moment you start this step and merge the changes.) Build and run tests. (Repeat if this took long enough that the trunk thrashed.)
2) Merge your changes TO the trunk and build-run again. (The build should be quick because, unless a LOT changed after you started your last iteration of 1) the objects should all-or-mostly be the ones you built in step 1).)
Even the build for the final merge test runs from a tagged or date/time version of the trunk. That way if somebody else checks in THEIR merge during your build you still get the version YOU merged. If your tests passed you can say "I left the trunk working as of (tag or date/time)". This becomes very important when the smoke tests take longer than the mean time between fix merges.
If you're going to switch to diverge/converge you have to switch all the way. Part of the POINT of diverge-converge is that you see NOBODY'S CHANGES BUT YOUR OWN until you have your part working and are ready to merge or you find you MUST incorporate somebody else's fix to get your stuff working.
Clearcase gives you the fine-grained control over what you "see" which makes this style a breeze.
Killing SCO isn't enough. It just puts the asset into other hands. You have to destroy the alleged asset to put this to rest.
Of course they COULD just give/sell it back to Novell as part of the payment for SCO's debt, after which Novell could do what it wants, including freeing the code. Or somebody else could bid on it and then cut a deal with Novell to free the code.
I've only tried a few revision control systems.
Of those I've tried, Clearcase is the hands-down winner function-wise, especially for the diverge-converge model of multi-programmer development.
Extremely lightweight branching. "View spec" - a little language to specify exactly what version of what you want: (Version x.y.z but override by the foobar feature development branch but override that by anything in /src/garble as of Tuesday at 3:15PM but override all with anything I've got checked out in MY development branch...). Integration into the filesystem so your tools "see" containing just what version of the sources you specified. A make variant that imports already-built objects that some OTHER developer made from the equivalent sources, rather than compiling them again, etc.
Downside: It's commercial and 'way pricey.
But if you're a commercial shop you should at least evaluate it. The functionality is fansastic.
(I hear some of the core functionality came from an open-sourced student project. I've often wondered why there isn't a FOSS clone of the important features - or if there is and I just missed it.)
And can't somebody put an end to SCO forever? It's like keeping a braindead body alive through machines in the hope that the brain will reboot.
As I understand it the court has decided to kick Darryl and crew out and put a trustee in charge. (Not sure if the trustee is already appointed and dropped into place or if they're still hunting for him.)
Meanwhile the court DID uphold the summary judgment that SCO owes the money from the Sun deal to Novell. So that should suck the money out of the corpse so it will dry up and blow away.
But the court stuff may go on. The issues where the summary judegment was overturned include whether the Novell/SCO deal included transferring enough copyright to SCO to let them write and enforce contracts and collect royalties (of which they get to keep something like 5% and give the rest to Novell.) That now has to be decided by a jury if it is to be decided.
And because that set of rights would be an asset of the company and thus of value to its creditors, it would be the duty of the trustee to attempt to sell it off to someone who could continue the suit, or continue the suit in order to settle the point and then sell off the asset (or reboot the company with it), if there's sufficient chance this would produce enough more money than it consumes to justify the risk-taking.
Killing SCO isn't enough. It just puts the asset into other hands. You have to destroy the alleged asset to put this to rest.
Not sure how it works with the UK parties. But in the US the Democrats are usually the ones proposing and voting for speech restricting legislation and the Republicans voting against it (unless it's encapsulated with something else they want) - with a few in each party voting the other way, of course. But the press manages to keep people convinced it's the other way around.
Don't believe it? Check the Congressional Record on any of the high-profile censorship laws. And don't forget to "think of the chill'ren".
Therefore all convictions since 1984 should be nullified, since the law itself is voided by the treaty.
That's how it would work in the US, where being declared invalid (at least on constitutional grounds) means the law was NEVER valid, according to the Supreme Court.
However, the UK authorities seem to think that similar rule does not exist under their legal system.
According to TFA, the spammer offered three times (at judgment, at collection, and after seizure) to drop the judgment or return the possessions if the anti-spammer would drop his appeal.
If I understand the law correctly, by doing so the spammer committed extortion.
IANAL. Could somebody who IAL comment please?