You're misunderstanding the situation. Ceglia was forced by court order to turn over all of his hard drives. These hard drives could potentially contain private information not related to the case. So, Ceglia's lawyers have say over what is confidential. The facebook team in charge of looking through them has to check with Ceglia before they can use any of it. And so Ceglia has so far declared that 100% of everything is confidential. Even stuff that the Facebook team is saying is related to the case, Ceglia says "NOPE". And so since the lawyers cannot agree, they need to go to the judge to get a ruling on whether or not each specific document is privileged. Facebook's lawyers are saying he is abusing the process by declaring everything privileged, which certainly may be true, but of course since they are under NDA nobody but them has any idea what's in them. One of these documents is allegedly the original contract. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's not privileged. Here's just one reason why it could be: It's not the original, it's Zuckerberg's forgery. It's on Ceglia's hard drive because his lawyers emailed it to him and said "This is what was presented by Facebook in court". As attorney client communication that would be privileged. It also wouldn't be a smoking gun, obviously. On the other hand, that situation doesn't seem likely. The other "smoking gun" is evidence that he has other hard disks and/or backups that he didn't turn up, in violation of court order. Again, if the "smoking gun" is that he emailed his lawyers and mentioned his secret cache of documents he's illegally withholding, then that's still attorney client privilege, however damning it may be. Or, it might just be a reference to a box that wasn't turned over, and that could be because it was sold or destroyed years ago, not because it's hidden. But we don't know what the situation is until the judge rules on it. Because they're not allowed to tell anybody. But how do we know they found the original if they're not allowed to comment on what they find unless Ceglia says it's not privileged? Well, when they filed the papers, the version sent to the public was supposed to be redacted, but they "accidentally" forgot to redact "authentic contract", a "mistake" they quickly "fixed" but not before the journalists who watch court filings found it. In fact, quickly redacting it helped the journalists pinpoint it without having to look!
Learn to read. Lexis-Nexis only applies if the teacher is using it to communicate directly with students. Same with Google, same with any "work-related website". It has to be used to communicate directly with students. So yes, if the school is using its payroll system to communicate directly with students, then the parents need equal access to that of their children. But if its not, then no, learn to read. Same for the second one. No, if you quit and go into the private sector and then 30 years later friend somebody who used to be a student, it only applies if that student is still under 18 AND was at one point taught directly by you. Oh, and it also only applies if you were lying about quitting and still actually are a teacher at that school. You can add former students on facebook once they graduate highschool.
Keep in mind that you are replying to Reacher Gilt. If his neighbors get irradiated or killed, they can organize a boycott and let the invisible hand of the market take care of it. After being brutally boycotted, nobody else would ever dare try it again. That's why the police are unnecessary. If you get robbed, simply spread the word. People will not do business with the robber, and then he will starve to death. Much cleaner. You can't have the police stop him. See, he has unlimited and inalienable freedom. If you stop a murderer from murdering a child, you have stolen his freedom to murder, his natural and inalienable right. Without government in the way, he would be totally free to do so.
The Liberals did the exact same thing. You can't close the fisheries or else that will cost jobs and that will cost you in the next election. But what you can do is take the numbers the scientists give you, double them, and then brag about how under your stewardship things are getting better all of the time. All you have to do is make sure the scientists aren't allowed to talk to the media directly.
It may surprise and shock you, but you can be against American style anti-sodomy laws, which outlaw consenting oral and anal sex between two heterosexual adult partners, but still support laws against sodomizing little boys. I know you find that strange, but it's true. Similarly, you can oppose a law that would restrict my freedom to participate in the Nielsen surveys and sell my viewing habits for cash, but not oppose a law that restricts my freedom to shoot people in the face. You see?
Your solution to "passwords are stored plain text and can therefore be stolen by a Trojan Horse running as root" is "encrypt them and prompt the user for a password each time they use their saved password?" Do you not understand the concept of a saved password? Your alternate solution of full disk encryption does not work because the disk is decrypted by the user turning their phone on and unlocking it, and so the Trojan Horse will have free rein regardless. It protects the user only in the specific case that their phone is stolen while off. Right now if that happens the thief could root it and then get at the files, but with full disk encryption they could not.
A much shorter car analogy: I need a car. But nowhere will give me one for free, they all demand "money". And so technically I "agree" to give them my money, but I was coerced, I had no choice other than to not have a car, and so am forced against my will into giving them money. Monstrous.
Yes, it was debunked in that NASA scientists showed that it would only result in an ice age, (-6 C global temperature cooling, the last ice age was -5) but that it would only last a decade. This totally "busted" Sagan's numbers which had it being colder and longer. Damn commie! Sagan's biggest mistake was predicting cooling in Asia as a result of the Kuwait oil fires, and this mistake there was thinking the fires were large enough to push smoke into the stratosphere. They weren't, so the -10 C cooling stayed fairly localized, and precipitated out eventually. However, studies of large scale fires do in fact confirm that large enough smoke plumes can make it that high, and persist for much longer as a result. The only actual debate over nuclear winter is whether or not nuking a city would actually result in large-scale fires, or if modern cities are too fireproof to be ignited. Call the Mythbusters, sounds right up their ally.
We do not need better terminology. We need people to understand terminology. It is not terminology's fault if people like you do not understand common descent. I do suggest that you read about it. There is more to understand than just the two words in the name. But we can start with those, I suppose.
Common descent is the hypothesis that life arose once, and all life on Earth at this time is therefore a result of this. We call this "descended" meaning that we arose later in time as a result of the first. Those cats are descended from other cats. Period. Common descent is unbroken. They didn't appear out of the aether, they are the offspring of cats. They just had some viruses ram some extra genes in there. But viruses have been doing that forever. It's not new. What's new is humans picking which genes get shuffled about. I'm not sure what your problem is, and I certainly don't see how it relates in any way at all to intelligent design.
Design is the concept that life has been designed by something. But where is YOUR definition of your unqualified terminology? Obviously ever since sexual reproduction, life forms have been "designing" their species by selecting their mates. So is all life designed? Or does that count as part of the process? If it does, does genetic engineering count? Humans are alive, don't forget. But at any rate, design and common descent are not mutually exclusive. You can have common descent, but where space aliens came down and poked at some DNA to guide evolution. And you can have a completely evolution driven system, with no external design, but have multiple origins of life, and thus no common descent.
And so, to your absolute proof that common descent is impossible, and design is true, I raise you the real definition of common descent. There can be no absolute proof of common descent, but since every single life form on earth now has at least a handful of common genes, many of which don't do anything anymore, the case for common descent is a powerful one. You can try to falsify it with "A WIZZARD DID IT" (With an egg and watercress sandwich) but that's just silly. Now it's possible that life arose multiple times, but only one survived, but that's still common descent. And it's possible that it arose twice, and because form follows function, we just got the same genes twice...seems a big stretch, but possible. And it's also possible that it arose twice, and we got common genes because of those aforementioned viruses doing their best to muck up the works. Yeah, we can't know for sure. But all things being equal, common descent is the simplest explanation.
For whether or not we were designed, that's something that cannot be answered, and as such is pointless to discuss in terms of the science of it. Well, it could perhaps be answered. We could find preserved DNA and maybe observe inserted genes with such prevalence that it presents a very powerful case for some outside designer inserting those genes. But we haven't. And I doubt we will. You can go right on believing that Jesus or Aliens designed our DNA. But there's no evidence of that. An open minded scientist (which sadly is not all of them) would not care that you believe that, as long as you do not let it poison your mind against actual observations. And as I said, those observations very strongly indicate common descent. But certainly it can end up being wrong. All we have to do is find life that doesn't have any common genes with everything else we've seen on Earth, and there you have it. But at any rate, it's mostly philosophy. It would be absolutely fascinating if life arose twice on Earth. But it certainly wouldn't say a THING about evolution one way or the other.
Totally bogus, even in heavy plate it's not hard to stand again unassisted. Maybe you're thinking of tournament armor. Tournament armor was many many times thicker than battlefield armor. Because you wouldn't be wearing it for extended periods, you wouldn't need to maneuver, and nobody wants to die in a game. Those are the ones where the squire had to help them up, because the armor weight as much as the knight! A knight on the battlefield could probably get back up faster than you could. Another piece of common knowledge about armor that's wrong is that it's mostly pointless. In fact, 10 plate armored knights against a force of 100 chain and leather clad soldiers would be an even match. Plate armor was incredibly effective. It was even somewhat effective against musket fire unless it was at very close range. Just because the hero can casually slice through plate armor doesn't mean a damn thing. Just because it's barely effective in RPGs doesn't mean a damn thing.
You mean besides the confession (already mentioned by another reply to you), and besides the fact that when he was emailing his victim's coworkers and bosses with message claiming to be a pedophile he accidentally left some of his ISP's software running, so his laptop was sending login information to Comcast using his own name and Comcast account number? Besides the search warrant that turned up a journal where he detailed his plan to "utterly destroy his life"? Besides the manuals on hacking WEP where he had scribbled his victim's wifi network name? Besides the fact that on his computer was the child pornography he planted on his victim? Along with a note in his journal "PLANT CHILD PORN". Besides the pile of stolen mail under his bed? Besides the unsent letter he had prepared where he had printed off his victim's last tax return, and attached a note that their life belongs to him, and he will end it? Yeah, basically sounds like a setup, could have been anybody!
That sounds almost plausible, although of course the thickness of the boundary layer is the same no matter what reference frame you happen to solve the equations in, as it is parallel to the axis of the rotating frame. I assume what you are saying is that the rotational forces are 10 times greater than the inertial forces you'd normally get from a fan. This is sort of plausible, too.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say (trying to paraphrase, rather). The paper makes this claim with a citation to a paper from 1956, so I don't think it's a new train of thought, exactly. They also mention something about differing speeds at different distances resulting in "violent sheering" to ensure highly turbulent air, and thus superior heat transfer, too. But I think that mostly applies to the air bearing underneath, not the impeller fins on top.
It's a 10 cm diameter circle. So my bad, that's not 100 cm^2, it's about 80, I rounded (OK, so 80 is still rounded off but not by as much). But at any rate, no, 100 cm^2 means 100 (cm^2) not (100 cm)^2. It's basic order of operations. (Well, not that basic, since you square both the centi and the meter part of the unit, I guess). I don't know about Imperial units, but "centimeters squared" is an acceptable SI pronunciation. It's certainly consistent with pronouncing math equations. (Area of a circle I have always said and heard said as "Pi R squared" not "Pi square R").
As for whether that's too big for a CPU, who cares, it's a prototype. And I don't think a bit hanging over the CPU matters at all.
Look, you think it works one way. I think it works another. In my opinion, the merchant never sees a coupon, because the bank issues the rebate offer, and the bank honors the rebate offer. Now, I think my opinion is a bit more valid because I READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE and YOU ARE PULLING SHIT OUT OF YOUR ASS. But that's just me. Maybe the article is full of lies, and you know the honest truth. We'll see, I suppose?
Yes, a layer of air does form between the heat spreader base, and the base of the rotating heatsink. This is called an air bearing. It's extremely thin, and for that reason an excellent thermal conductor even though it's conducting heat poorly. You see, it has a surface area of 100 cm squared, but it is less than 0.03 mm thick. So, heat transfer is inefficient, but its so thin as to be negligible.
And no boundary layer forms (well, it does but it is reduced by a factor of 10) on the fins because they are rotating. The equations for fluid dynamics are quite different between an inertial reference frame and a rotating one. Basically, the fluid cannot settle into little pockets because the (fictional) centripetal force is pushing it outwards along the fin channels.
You don't even know that. You never see a coupon. You cannot know who took advantage of them. The coupons are not at-the-till discounts, they are rebates, and those rebates are processed by the banks. The only way you could know who took advantage of the deal is if all purchasers were taking advantage of the deal, which you could verify by comparing the total sales with the total bill from the marketing company issuing the rebate coupons.
Let's say I want to know who in your town has purchased pornographic videos. I go to the bank with a "buy one get one free" deal for my pizza parlor and have them send it to everyone who's purchased one or more porn videos. As people redeem those coupons, I build up a pretty good idea of who's watching movies they'd rather I didn't know about.
You never see a coupon. RTFA. You get a bill saying "Last month x people used a coupon, for a total of y dollars. y dollars + our cut, please." You cannot ever connect those numbers to customers. Not unless your pizza is so awful that only people with the coupon would get get two on the same day;)
Nope. Macy's never sees a coupon. There is absolutely no way for Macy's to ever know who got the offer, unless the offer is so good and the item is so bad that almost all purchases would be using the coupon. In the examples of the shoes, or the pizza, that's absurd. Even if Macy's was giving a -100% coupon, how could they weed those out from the normal shoe purchases? It would only potentially work on items that are so shitty that nobody (literally nobody) buys them. The privacy concern is not that a merchant could ever find anything out (they absolutely cannot) but that to allow for verification, the merchants would have to send more information to the bank than just the total bill. (Right now some do, I know on my Mastercard some department stores have subtotals per department on my bill). So that's more information than your bank had before. But the law still prevents them from giving it out to anybody other than certain trusted third parties, same as always. I don't know if the same API can be drilled down to an item-by-item bill, or if it can only use broad categories of merchandise (like the "ALL SHOES" in the article's example).
You have a good point, except that the facts you rely on as absolute truth are in dispute. Anderson's version of events is that he found the plaque in the garbage, badly burned and coated in a thick layer of melted materials. At great expense he had it repaired. He also claims it was undamaged other than a thin layer of ash, which he cleaned off with some toothpaste. But he doesn't have to be consistent!
According to the museum employees, two found the plaque undamaged after the fire other than a layer of ash that had settled on everything. The staff held a meeting where they decided where to relocate it to during repairs. So all of the museum staff were aware it had survived the fire. A few days later, it was gone, removed from its pedestal. The curator denied having seen it, and declared it had been destroyed in the fire in spite of employees claiming it was intact. And, by the way, Anderson is this curator's adoptive son. At least, the curator talked of him so, and he was named as such in the obituary.
So in one version of events, the employees leave the ash-coated plaque where it is, and another employee who misses the memo chucks it in the trash. Whoever is picking over the debris then misses the plaque, or doesn't' care, figuring it's easier to make a new plaque than clean the ash off (and not realizing the uniqueness of the particular plaque). However, Anderson immediately recognizes the unique nature of the plaque. (The plaque may or may not have grown a thick layer of melted material in the intervening time. In the most recent version it has not). The curator declares the plaque destroyed in the fire, rather than lost, out of embarrassment that such a thing could have happened on his watch.
In another version of events, the curator removes the plaque himself and turns it over to his adoptive son as a keepsake. He then declares it destroyed, not lost, so nobody will be looking for it.
Which is more likely? Well, I have only newspaper articles to read, not the actual employee testimony. Who knows...in a criminal case, I don't think it's beyond all reasonable doubt. And besides, the statute of limitations is well passed. But this is a civil suit, and not very cut and dry.
It's kind of clever, actually. I can only speak for my provider (Bell Mobility Canada) but it only asks for your PIN if you are calling from an outside line. And (apparently, I've never tried) it tells if it's an outside line by caller ID, not some tower signal voodoo. So even if you change from the default password, you can still be hacked if your provider works that way. (Bell doesn't for landline VM, it prompts even from your own line). But on the other hand, I think the default voicemail password was randomly assigned. When I got my new phone, I received a text that said "Your default voicemail password is 8231, please dial #whatever to set up your inbox" (or whatever, like I remember). So, that's good. It's just too bad about the caller ID trick;)
Actually, Dr. Frankenstein never explains how he animated Adam, for fear that his work could be duplicated. But he says that he came to his discovery while studying galvanism (the effect of electricity on muscles).
TFA is saying that both MySQL and PostgreSQL are absolute shit, as is anything that uses SQL. For one, they waste time with ACID and concurrency. For another, they waste time with hard drives when RAM is so cheap and you can just throw TB upon TB into a single server (right?)
He's saying that instead of clicking "like" instantly pausing the entire facebook system while the "like" is written into the "likes" MySQL table, it should just store that in RAM and not worry about having to lock the entire website to maintain consistency. In other words, he's a complete moron because Facebook doesn't work that way at all, it works how he wants it to work.
Slashdot Mirror
You're misunderstanding the situation. Ceglia was forced by court order to turn over all of his hard drives. These hard drives could potentially contain private information not related to the case. So, Ceglia's lawyers have say over what is confidential. The facebook team in charge of looking through them has to check with Ceglia before they can use any of it. And so Ceglia has so far declared that 100% of everything is confidential. Even stuff that the Facebook team is saying is related to the case, Ceglia says "NOPE". And so since the lawyers cannot agree, they need to go to the judge to get a ruling on whether or not each specific document is privileged. Facebook's lawyers are saying he is abusing the process by declaring everything privileged, which certainly may be true, but of course since they are under NDA nobody but them has any idea what's in them. One of these documents is allegedly the original contract. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's not privileged. Here's just one reason why it could be: It's not the original, it's Zuckerberg's forgery. It's on Ceglia's hard drive because his lawyers emailed it to him and said "This is what was presented by Facebook in court". As attorney client communication that would be privileged. It also wouldn't be a smoking gun, obviously. On the other hand, that situation doesn't seem likely. The other "smoking gun" is evidence that he has other hard disks and/or backups that he didn't turn up, in violation of court order. Again, if the "smoking gun" is that he emailed his lawyers and mentioned his secret cache of documents he's illegally withholding, then that's still attorney client privilege, however damning it may be. Or, it might just be a reference to a box that wasn't turned over, and that could be because it was sold or destroyed years ago, not because it's hidden. But we don't know what the situation is until the judge rules on it. Because they're not allowed to tell anybody. But how do we know they found the original if they're not allowed to comment on what they find unless Ceglia says it's not privileged? Well, when they filed the papers, the version sent to the public was supposed to be redacted, but they "accidentally" forgot to redact "authentic contract", a "mistake" they quickly "fixed" but not before the journalists who watch court filings found it. In fact, quickly redacting it helped the journalists pinpoint it without having to look!
Clever girl.
Learn to read. Lexis-Nexis only applies if the teacher is using it to communicate directly with students. Same with Google, same with any "work-related website". It has to be used to communicate directly with students. So yes, if the school is using its payroll system to communicate directly with students, then the parents need equal access to that of their children. But if its not, then no, learn to read. Same for the second one. No, if you quit and go into the private sector and then 30 years later friend somebody who used to be a student, it only applies if that student is still under 18 AND was at one point taught directly by you. Oh, and it also only applies if you were lying about quitting and still actually are a teacher at that school. You can add former students on facebook once they graduate highschool.
Keep in mind that you are replying to Reacher Gilt. If his neighbors get irradiated or killed, they can organize a boycott and let the invisible hand of the market take care of it. After being brutally boycotted, nobody else would ever dare try it again. That's why the police are unnecessary. If you get robbed, simply spread the word. People will not do business with the robber, and then he will starve to death. Much cleaner. You can't have the police stop him. See, he has unlimited and inalienable freedom. If you stop a murderer from murdering a child, you have stolen his freedom to murder, his natural and inalienable right. Without government in the way, he would be totally free to do so.
The Liberals did the exact same thing. You can't close the fisheries or else that will cost jobs and that will cost you in the next election. But what you can do is take the numbers the scientists give you, double them, and then brag about how under your stewardship things are getting better all of the time. All you have to do is make sure the scientists aren't allowed to talk to the media directly.
It may surprise and shock you, but you can be against American style anti-sodomy laws, which outlaw consenting oral and anal sex between two heterosexual adult partners, but still support laws against sodomizing little boys. I know you find that strange, but it's true. Similarly, you can oppose a law that would restrict my freedom to participate in the Nielsen surveys and sell my viewing habits for cash, but not oppose a law that restricts my freedom to shoot people in the face. You see?
Your solution to "passwords are stored plain text and can therefore be stolen by a Trojan Horse running as root" is "encrypt them and prompt the user for a password each time they use their saved password?" Do you not understand the concept of a saved password? Your alternate solution of full disk encryption does not work because the disk is decrypted by the user turning their phone on and unlocking it, and so the Trojan Horse will have free rein regardless. It protects the user only in the specific case that their phone is stolen while off. Right now if that happens the thief could root it and then get at the files, but with full disk encryption they could not.
A much shorter car analogy: I need a car. But nowhere will give me one for free, they all demand "money". And so technically I "agree" to give them my money, but I was coerced, I had no choice other than to not have a car, and so am forced against my will into giving them money. Monstrous.
Yes, it was debunked in that NASA scientists showed that it would only result in an ice age, (-6 C global temperature cooling, the last ice age was -5) but that it would only last a decade. This totally "busted" Sagan's numbers which had it being colder and longer. Damn commie! Sagan's biggest mistake was predicting cooling in Asia as a result of the Kuwait oil fires, and this mistake there was thinking the fires were large enough to push smoke into the stratosphere. They weren't, so the -10 C cooling stayed fairly localized, and precipitated out eventually. However, studies of large scale fires do in fact confirm that large enough smoke plumes can make it that high, and persist for much longer as a result. The only actual debate over nuclear winter is whether or not nuking a city would actually result in large-scale fires, or if modern cities are too fireproof to be ignited. Call the Mythbusters, sounds right up their ally.
We do not need better terminology. We need people to understand terminology. It is not terminology's fault if people like you do not understand common descent. I do suggest that you read about it. There is more to understand than just the two words in the name. But we can start with those, I suppose.
Common descent is the hypothesis that life arose once, and all life on Earth at this time is therefore a result of this. We call this "descended" meaning that we arose later in time as a result of the first. Those cats are descended from other cats. Period. Common descent is unbroken. They didn't appear out of the aether, they are the offspring of cats. They just had some viruses ram some extra genes in there. But viruses have been doing that forever. It's not new. What's new is humans picking which genes get shuffled about. I'm not sure what your problem is, and I certainly don't see how it relates in any way at all to intelligent design.
Design is the concept that life has been designed by something. But where is YOUR definition of your unqualified terminology? Obviously ever since sexual reproduction, life forms have been "designing" their species by selecting their mates. So is all life designed? Or does that count as part of the process? If it does, does genetic engineering count? Humans are alive, don't forget. But at any rate, design and common descent are not mutually exclusive. You can have common descent, but where space aliens came down and poked at some DNA to guide evolution. And you can have a completely evolution driven system, with no external design, but have multiple origins of life, and thus no common descent.
And so, to your absolute proof that common descent is impossible, and design is true, I raise you the real definition of common descent. There can be no absolute proof of common descent, but since every single life form on earth now has at least a handful of common genes, many of which don't do anything anymore, the case for common descent is a powerful one. You can try to falsify it with "A WIZZARD DID IT" (With an egg and watercress sandwich) but that's just silly. Now it's possible that life arose multiple times, but only one survived, but that's still common descent. And it's possible that it arose twice, and because form follows function, we just got the same genes twice...seems a big stretch, but possible. And it's also possible that it arose twice, and we got common genes because of those aforementioned viruses doing their best to muck up the works. Yeah, we can't know for sure. But all things being equal, common descent is the simplest explanation.
For whether or not we were designed, that's something that cannot be answered, and as such is pointless to discuss in terms of the science of it. Well, it could perhaps be answered. We could find preserved DNA and maybe observe inserted genes with such prevalence that it presents a very powerful case for some outside designer inserting those genes. But we haven't. And I doubt we will. You can go right on believing that Jesus or Aliens designed our DNA. But there's no evidence of that. An open minded scientist (which sadly is not all of them) would not care that you believe that, as long as you do not let it poison your mind against actual observations. And as I said, those observations very strongly indicate common descent. But certainly it can end up being wrong. All we have to do is find life that doesn't have any common genes with everything else we've seen on Earth, and there you have it. But at any rate, it's mostly philosophy. It would be absolutely fascinating if life arose twice on Earth. But it certainly wouldn't say a THING about evolution one way or the other.
Not even lawyers, it says "useful" arts.
Totally bogus, even in heavy plate it's not hard to stand again unassisted. Maybe you're thinking of tournament armor. Tournament armor was many many times thicker than battlefield armor. Because you wouldn't be wearing it for extended periods, you wouldn't need to maneuver, and nobody wants to die in a game. Those are the ones where the squire had to help them up, because the armor weight as much as the knight! A knight on the battlefield could probably get back up faster than you could. Another piece of common knowledge about armor that's wrong is that it's mostly pointless. In fact, 10 plate armored knights against a force of 100 chain and leather clad soldiers would be an even match. Plate armor was incredibly effective. It was even somewhat effective against musket fire unless it was at very close range. Just because the hero can casually slice through plate armor doesn't mean a damn thing. Just because it's barely effective in RPGs doesn't mean a damn thing.
You mean besides the confession (already mentioned by another reply to you), and besides the fact that when he was emailing his victim's coworkers and bosses with message claiming to be a pedophile he accidentally left some of his ISP's software running, so his laptop was sending login information to Comcast using his own name and Comcast account number? Besides the search warrant that turned up a journal where he detailed his plan to "utterly destroy his life"? Besides the manuals on hacking WEP where he had scribbled his victim's wifi network name? Besides the fact that on his computer was the child pornography he planted on his victim? Along with a note in his journal "PLANT CHILD PORN". Besides the pile of stolen mail under his bed? Besides the unsent letter he had prepared where he had printed off his victim's last tax return, and attached a note that their life belongs to him, and he will end it? Yeah, basically sounds like a setup, could have been anybody!
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say (trying to paraphrase, rather). The paper makes this claim with a citation to a paper from 1956, so I don't think it's a new train of thought, exactly. They also mention something about differing speeds at different distances resulting in "violent sheering" to ensure highly turbulent air, and thus superior heat transfer, too. But I think that mostly applies to the air bearing underneath, not the impeller fins on top.
It's a 10 cm diameter circle. So my bad, that's not 100 cm^2, it's about 80, I rounded (OK, so 80 is still rounded off but not by as much). But at any rate, no, 100 cm^2 means 100 (cm^2) not (100 cm)^2. It's basic order of operations. (Well, not that basic, since you square both the centi and the meter part of the unit, I guess). I don't know about Imperial units, but "centimeters squared" is an acceptable SI pronunciation. It's certainly consistent with pronouncing math equations. (Area of a circle I have always said and heard said as "Pi R squared" not "Pi square R").
As for whether that's too big for a CPU, who cares, it's a prototype. And I don't think a bit hanging over the CPU matters at all.
RTFA and then apologize for making things up.
Look, you think it works one way. I think it works another. In my opinion, the merchant never sees a coupon, because the bank issues the rebate offer, and the bank honors the rebate offer. Now, I think my opinion is a bit more valid because I READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE and YOU ARE PULLING SHIT OUT OF YOUR ASS. But that's just me. Maybe the article is full of lies, and you know the honest truth. We'll see, I suppose?
Yes, a layer of air does form between the heat spreader base, and the base of the rotating heatsink. This is called an air bearing. It's extremely thin, and for that reason an excellent thermal conductor even though it's conducting heat poorly. You see, it has a surface area of 100 cm squared, but it is less than 0.03 mm thick. So, heat transfer is inefficient, but its so thin as to be negligible.
And no boundary layer forms (well, it does but it is reduced by a factor of 10) on the fins because they are rotating. The equations for fluid dynamics are quite different between an inertial reference frame and a rotating one. Basically, the fluid cannot settle into little pockets because the (fictional) centripetal force is pushing it outwards along the fin channels.
You don't even know that. You never see a coupon. You cannot know who took advantage of them. The coupons are not at-the-till discounts, they are rebates, and those rebates are processed by the banks. The only way you could know who took advantage of the deal is if all purchasers were taking advantage of the deal, which you could verify by comparing the total sales with the total bill from the marketing company issuing the rebate coupons.
You never see a coupon. RTFA. You get a bill saying "Last month x people used a coupon, for a total of y dollars. y dollars + our cut, please." You cannot ever connect those numbers to customers. Not unless your pizza is so awful that only people with the coupon would get get two on the same day ;)
Nope. Macy's never sees a coupon. There is absolutely no way for Macy's to ever know who got the offer, unless the offer is so good and the item is so bad that almost all purchases would be using the coupon. In the examples of the shoes, or the pizza, that's absurd. Even if Macy's was giving a -100% coupon, how could they weed those out from the normal shoe purchases? It would only potentially work on items that are so shitty that nobody (literally nobody) buys them. The privacy concern is not that a merchant could ever find anything out (they absolutely cannot) but that to allow for verification, the merchants would have to send more information to the bank than just the total bill. (Right now some do, I know on my Mastercard some department stores have subtotals per department on my bill). So that's more information than your bank had before. But the law still prevents them from giving it out to anybody other than certain trusted third parties, same as always. I don't know if the same API can be drilled down to an item-by-item bill, or if it can only use broad categories of merchandise (like the "ALL SHOES" in the article's example).
You have a good point, except that the facts you rely on as absolute truth are in dispute. Anderson's version of events is that he found the plaque in the garbage, badly burned and coated in a thick layer of melted materials. At great expense he had it repaired. He also claims it was undamaged other than a thin layer of ash, which he cleaned off with some toothpaste. But he doesn't have to be consistent!
According to the museum employees, two found the plaque undamaged after the fire other than a layer of ash that had settled on everything. The staff held a meeting where they decided where to relocate it to during repairs. So all of the museum staff were aware it had survived the fire. A few days later, it was gone, removed from its pedestal. The curator denied having seen it, and declared it had been destroyed in the fire in spite of employees claiming it was intact. And, by the way, Anderson is this curator's adoptive son. At least, the curator talked of him so, and he was named as such in the obituary.
So in one version of events, the employees leave the ash-coated plaque where it is, and another employee who misses the memo chucks it in the trash. Whoever is picking over the debris then misses the plaque, or doesn't' care, figuring it's easier to make a new plaque than clean the ash off (and not realizing the uniqueness of the particular plaque). However, Anderson immediately recognizes the unique nature of the plaque. (The plaque may or may not have grown a thick layer of melted material in the intervening time. In the most recent version it has not). The curator declares the plaque destroyed in the fire, rather than lost, out of embarrassment that such a thing could have happened on his watch.
In another version of events, the curator removes the plaque himself and turns it over to his adoptive son as a keepsake. He then declares it destroyed, not lost, so nobody will be looking for it.
Which is more likely? Well, I have only newspaper articles to read, not the actual employee testimony. Who knows...in a criminal case, I don't think it's beyond all reasonable doubt. And besides, the statute of limitations is well passed. But this is a civil suit, and not very cut and dry.
It's kind of clever, actually. I can only speak for my provider (Bell Mobility Canada) but it only asks for your PIN if you are calling from an outside line. And (apparently, I've never tried) it tells if it's an outside line by caller ID, not some tower signal voodoo. So even if you change from the default password, you can still be hacked if your provider works that way. (Bell doesn't for landline VM, it prompts even from your own line). But on the other hand, I think the default voicemail password was randomly assigned. When I got my new phone, I received a text that said "Your default voicemail password is 8231, please dial #whatever to set up your inbox" (or whatever, like I remember). So, that's good. It's just too bad about the caller ID trick ;)
Actually, Dr. Frankenstein never explains how he animated Adam, for fear that his work could be duplicated. But he says that he came to his discovery while studying galvanism (the effect of electricity on muscles).
TFA is saying that both MySQL and PostgreSQL are absolute shit, as is anything that uses SQL. For one, they waste time with ACID and concurrency. For another, they waste time with hard drives when RAM is so cheap and you can just throw TB upon TB into a single server (right?)
He's saying that instead of clicking "like" instantly pausing the entire facebook system while the "like" is written into the "likes" MySQL table, it should just store that in RAM and not worry about having to lock the entire website to maintain consistency. In other words, he's a complete moron because Facebook doesn't work that way at all, it works how he wants it to work.