BTW how can something with zero volume have an interior?
You're confusing the singularity at the center of the black hole with the hole itself. The hole itself is the volume inside the Schwartzchild Radius, which is where the escape velocity equals the speed of light. Only the singularity has no volume of its own.
You may be right, for yourself. Personally, I do tech support. Part of my "compensation" is the ability to know that when I go home each day, there are people who's lives are a little bit better because they spoke to me. If I had to work in a job where that wasn't possible, I'd want more money to make up for the loss of job satisfaction.
In my case, it was probably Agent Orange related, but I never set foot ashore, so it's assumed by the VA that I wasn't exposed. I did, however, sail regularly through clouds of sand, grit and debris from B52 raids. Alas, the records of where it was used are mostly gone, so that's the standard they set to avoid opening a can of worms.
As far as it being more common, I sometimes wonder if it really is, or is just better diagnosed now. No way of knowing, of course.
But I don't understand the point of view of people who revel in its economic marginalization. I, for one, would be very happy to have a lot of people entering scientific fields for the money!
You're right, you don't understand the point of view. If the most important thing to you is earning a huge salary, don't plan on a carear in science or tech. Go into Real Estate, the stock market, or marketing because that's where the money is. If science is what interests you, study it and make it your life's work. Yes, those doing cutting-edge, basic research should be paid more, as should those working out how to apply the new developments. Alas, no matter what we do, they'll never make as much in science as they could in Real Estate because that's just the way the world happens to work.
It's like the guy who drinks double big gulps for most of his life, gives himeself diabetes and blames his fatness on it.
As a Type II diabetic that's almost underweight, I resent that. I'd also like to point out that eating too much sugar doesn't give you diabetes; at most, it aggravates a tendancy toward it. Try learning what you're talking about before throwing insults around.
As far as smoking, I've never heard of people's hearts being better afterwards, sound like something you made up.
It's a good friend of mine, and both of us were astonished at the doctor's suggestion. I've never heard of it before, and I doubt I will again. I mentioned it only to show that there can be valid medical reasons not to stop.
Yes, I know that hard cases make bad law, and it'd be tough writing a set of guidelines to fit these two people. What you really want is general rules with the ability to make exceptions where needed. Unless English doctors have enough leeway in applying their rules, there are going to be people denied care for all the wrong reasons. This is my main objection, a perceived lack of any understanding that One Size Doesn't Fit All.
At least the english system punishes you for an unhealthy lifestyle.
When I was a child, one of my father's good friends weighed well over 500 pounds, and had to be weighed on a butcher's scale. In a resturaunt, he'd order a child's portion and not finish, but he couldn't lose weight. He really did have a glandular condition that made him so heavy. (No, I don't know what it was; I was only about ten or eleven when he died.) In England, he'd now be refused medical service because of an "unhealthy lifestyle." Is this fair?
I also have a friend that's confined to a wheelchair because of various problems. He's a long-term smoker, but that hasn't caused his medical trouble. One of his conditions is a heart condition. Nicotine is, among other things, a heart stimulent, and his doctor has instructed him not to quit because a cigerette will give him the right dose quicker, easier and cheaper than a pill. In England, not only wouldn't he be given this advice, he'd not be given treatment at all. Is this fair? I mention this to show that not everybody who's obese is at fault, and that there are times that smoking isn't a "bad lifestyle choice." I also don't like the English refusing medical care on those grounds because it's not the doctor's job to force patients to change if they don't want to. Their job is to advise their patients, and do the best they can with what the patient decides to do.
Thank you for your information. I never thought Free Clinics gave more than the minimum care, but it's good to have my impressions confirmed. I mentioned them only to show that the indigent aren't completely cut off from medical care, not to claim that they had all they needed.
Hospitals are forbidden to refuse emergency service to anybody, even if they can't pay. Alas, this has lead to more and more hospitals closing their Emergency Rooms or Urgent Care facilities because it's gotten too expensive for them. I don't say our system is perfect, but we don't have overweight people or smokers refused service simply because the are overweight or because they smoke. We also don't have wating lists for operations other than transplants because we don't have government bureaucrats deciding how many each hospital can perfom per month. (I'm not sure if that's the real reason for the waiting lists on bypass surgery, but if not, it's still somethng outside the hospital's control because I'm sure they'd rather not make people wait months for their bypass.)
I don't say that the idea of having the government provide medical service for everybody isn't a nice idea, I just say that I've never heard of a place that tried it and ended up with as good service as places that don't use it. To me, it's just another nice ideal that Just Doesn't Work. Getting back to the original point, our government requires hospitals to provide expensive services but refuses to pay for them. It's just Yet Another Unfunded Mandate, and that's wrong. Hospitals should be able to be reembursed for emergency care to the indigent, after they've made a proper attempt to collect from the patient and failed.
What you missed is the fact that I earned those benefits by putting my life on the line for my country. I was off-shore in '72 when the NVA came across the border with more armor and machinery than the Germans took to the Kursk Salient, and I helped send them running home on foot because we'd smashed all their transport, at a cost of less than 500 American casualties. During that time, I watched 6" shells land within 30 yards of my ship. Part of the contract I signed was that I'd receive these benefits, so it's just Uncle Sam complying with a contractual obligation.
Are you the only person who dislikes this word? Ugol's Law gives us the answer: no. Ugol's Law can be thought of as an anti-Highlander principle: there is never only one!
I don't know if there are still free clinics, supported by charities, but I'd be surprised if there weren't. I never said the US system is perfect, just that it doesn't have many of the flaws of the British system.
Well there has to be some criteria, money is limited, the other answer is to tax more to create more money.
We don't have socialized medicine in the USA. We also don't have doctors refusing to treat patients because they're overweight or because they smoke. We also don't have three to four month waiting lists for bypass surgery, or a large number of other proceedures. Maybe the answer isn't more taxes, it's going back to the old system of private practice because it works better. Yes, that would mean you'd have to pay for health insurance, but it probably wouldn't be any more than the taxes you're paying now, and you'd get a lot better service for it.
Once I worked at a company where you needed SecureID to log into their machine for customers, among other security provisions.
The one thing you don't want to do is add another layer of security to their machines or programs just because you can. Use as much as you need, but not one iota more.
Back when I did tech support for a major ISP, our admins didn't understand this. One thing we needed, for a long time, was a telnet session into a certain mail server to allow us to check customer's email boxes and clean them if needed. Everybody using it was inside the firewall and logged into a company machine; no outside access allowed. Then, some twit admin put a five minute inactivity logout policy on the box and made everybody's life miserable until there were so many complaints it was dropped.
The admins didn't learn. Soon, we had to log into various webpages on different internal boxes to check this and that. Even though there was no external access, we had ten character passwords, expiring once a month. Why? How did it possibly add security when we had to use our badges to get into the building, then log into a work box in order to reach those servers? Not only that, some of the pages had four or five certificates, all out-of-date, and there was no way to make our machines believe that we wanted them accepted from now on without asking. Every morning we had to click OK on a series of queries about bad certificates and if our machine crashed (And, as we were on Winderz boxen, of course they did.) we'd have to do it again when we rebooted. My office was closed after about two years or so of this nonsense, and it hadn't been fixed.
All in all, my advice is to do what's needed to keep the admin's LAN up and running so they don't have to waste time doing it themselves and don't put obsticles in their way.
when you have to resort to tacky giveaways to promote your product , i think its safe to say their "product" sucks.
No more than grocery markets that use "club cards" to give discounts to regular shoppers suck. When it comes to search engines, Google is the best known, the most used. For a new site to succeed, they need some way of getting people to use it, and random giveaways are simply a marketing tool. I've never received anything from Blingo, but I do use it, and from their POV that's what matters. Mind you, I also use Google, if I can't find it through Blingo.
Unless it somehow negates States Rights and overrules the state law, it can't "trump state law." You can't defend yourself from a charge of violating California's law by claiming that you were in compliance with a looser Federal standard because you still have to meet the local standard as well.
Tragically, the privacy laws that are currently being evaluated at the federal level water down the requirements of many state laws. For example, California's SB-1386 requires a company to report to you that you information may have been inappropriately disclosed. However, the proposed federal legislation requires companies to only disclose this to you if they believe you are at risk from this exposure.
Won't change a thing here in California. You'll still have to fulfill the state requirement, even though the Feds have a lower standard. When there's a difference between State and Federal law, the more restrictive applies.
Let's go even further. I live in West Los Angeles. Yesterday, I had to visit a friend in Arcadia, in the San Gabriel Valley, another part of Los Angeles County. Even with no traffic, and staying on freeways as long as possible, it was over 45 minutes each way, and the shortest route takes me through the Downtown Loop, surrounding Central Los Angeles. Can you imagine what a commute would be like, having to go through the worst traffic each way? I'd not consider a job down there unless I could afford to move closer, at least past Downtown. I'm sure every big city has its equivalent, but I've only found one site that ever asked the maximum distance you're willing to travel.
Why do Gatesware servers need somebody to log in? Because all modern versions of Windows boot to a logon screen, and don't finish booting until you've logged in, including doing such things as starting the programs you need. Unless they've changed things quite a bit since I last looked, a Windows webserver won't start IIS, Apache or whatever, the database backend won't be up, and so on, and so forth. And, once you've got them running, you can't log out again and leave them going because logging out means restarting.
No. I've never visited New England or any part of the East Coast except Miami, and that was just to fly in, board a cruise ship, and at the end of the cruise, fly out. I can only judge commutes back there by map distance, not traffic. Thanks for the info.
That's why I specified New England. Although I've never been to New York, I have an idea how big it is and that just specifying the state would be as useless there (or in Pennsylvania) as it is here. The New England states are small enough that commuting distance (if not time) is reasonable across the state.
Having worked at JPL, I can tell you that it's still part of CalTech. I has, however, a contract from NASA to run NASA's unmanned exploration of space, and all NASA probes and sattilites are run from their.
And, to answer the original question, if solar sails are going to be used to power probes, the research would naturally be run through JPL for the above reason.
Here in Los Angeles, we don't measure distances in miles, but in driving time. As an example, LAX is about half an hour from Studio City, unless you're talking Rush Hour, in which case figure about an hour and a quarter to an hour and three quarters.
You think that's bad? How about when you can only specify what state? Try living in Los Angeles and getting notified for a string of jobs in Northern California! Not once did that site send me a link to a job within 100 miles of me, let alone the same county.
The problem, I suspect, is that the site was set up by somebody born and reaised in New England where the states are much smaller and has never been to the rest of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing the singularity at the center of the black hole with the hole itself. The hole itself is the volume inside the Schwartzchild Radius, which is where the escape velocity equals the speed of light. Only the singularity has no volume of its own.
You may be right, for yourself. Personally, I do tech support. Part of my "compensation" is the ability to know that when I go home each day, there are people who's lives are a little bit better because they spoke to me. If I had to work in a job where that wasn't possible, I'd want more money to make up for the loss of job satisfaction.
As far as it being more common, I sometimes wonder if it really is, or is just better diagnosed now. No way of knowing, of course.
You're right, you don't understand the point of view. If the most important thing to you is earning a huge salary, don't plan on a carear in science or tech. Go into Real Estate, the stock market, or marketing because that's where the money is. If science is what interests you, study it and make it your life's work. Yes, those doing cutting-edge, basic research should be paid more, as should those working out how to apply the new developments. Alas, no matter what we do, they'll never make as much in science as they could in Real Estate because that's just the way the world happens to work.
As a Type II diabetic that's almost underweight, I resent that. I'd also like to point out that eating too much sugar doesn't give you diabetes; at most, it aggravates a tendancy toward it. Try learning what you're talking about before throwing insults around.
As far as smoking, I've never heard of people's hearts being better afterwards, sound like something you made up.It's a good friend of mine, and both of us were astonished at the doctor's suggestion. I've never heard of it before, and I doubt I will again. I mentioned it only to show that there can be valid medical reasons not to stop.
Yes, I know that hard cases make bad law, and it'd be tough writing a set of guidelines to fit these two people. What you really want is general rules with the ability to make exceptions where needed. Unless English doctors have enough leeway in applying their rules, there are going to be people denied care for all the wrong reasons. This is my main objection, a perceived lack of any understanding that One Size Doesn't Fit All.
When I was a child, one of my father's good friends weighed well over 500 pounds, and had to be weighed on a butcher's scale. In a resturaunt, he'd order a child's portion and not finish, but he couldn't lose weight. He really did have a glandular condition that made him so heavy. (No, I don't know what it was; I was only about ten or eleven when he died.) In England, he'd now be refused medical service because of an "unhealthy lifestyle." Is this fair?
I also have a friend that's confined to a wheelchair because of various problems. He's a long-term smoker, but that hasn't caused his medical trouble. One of his conditions is a heart condition. Nicotine is, among other things, a heart stimulent, and his doctor has instructed him not to quit because a cigerette will give him the right dose quicker, easier and cheaper than a pill. In England, not only wouldn't he be given this advice, he'd not be given treatment at all. Is this fair? I mention this to show that not everybody who's obese is at fault, and that there are times that smoking isn't a "bad lifestyle choice." I also don't like the English refusing medical care on those grounds because it's not the doctor's job to force patients to change if they don't want to. Their job is to advise their patients, and do the best they can with what the patient decides to do.
Thank you for your information. I never thought Free Clinics gave more than the minimum care, but it's good to have my impressions confirmed. I mentioned them only to show that the indigent aren't completely cut off from medical care, not to claim that they had all they needed.
I don't say that the idea of having the government provide medical service for everybody isn't a nice idea, I just say that I've never heard of a place that tried it and ended up with as good service as places that don't use it. To me, it's just another nice ideal that Just Doesn't Work. Getting back to the original point, our government requires hospitals to provide expensive services but refuses to pay for them. It's just Yet Another Unfunded Mandate, and that's wrong. Hospitals should be able to be reembursed for emergency care to the indigent, after they've made a proper attempt to collect from the patient and failed.
Mostly I do tech support, not Network Ops. I sit corrected. Thank you for your information.
What you missed is the fact that I earned those benefits by putting my life on the line for my country. I was off-shore in '72 when the NVA came across the border with more armor and machinery than the Germans took to the Kursk Salient, and I helped send them running home on foot because we'd smashed all their transport, at a cost of less than 500 American casualties. During that time, I watched 6" shells land within 30 yards of my ship. Part of the contract I signed was that I'd receive these benefits, so it's just Uncle Sam complying with a contractual obligation.
Are you the only person who dislikes this word? Ugol's Law gives us the answer: no. Ugol's Law can be thought of as an anti-Highlander principle: there is never only one!
Just fine, thank you. Of course, I'm a 'Nam vet and get nearly free care for life from the VA.
I don't know if there are still free clinics, supported by charities, but I'd be surprised if there weren't. I never said the US system is perfect, just that it doesn't have many of the flaws of the British system.
We don't have socialized medicine in the USA. We also don't have doctors refusing to treat patients because they're overweight or because they smoke. We also don't have three to four month waiting lists for bypass surgery, or a large number of other proceedures. Maybe the answer isn't more taxes, it's going back to the old system of private practice because it works better. Yes, that would mean you'd have to pay for health insurance, but it probably wouldn't be any more than the taxes you're paying now, and you'd get a lot better service for it.
The one thing you don't want to do is add another layer of security to their machines or programs just because you can. Use as much as you need, but not one iota more.
Back when I did tech support for a major ISP, our admins didn't understand this. One thing we needed, for a long time, was a telnet session into a certain mail server to allow us to check customer's email boxes and clean them if needed. Everybody using it was inside the firewall and logged into a company machine; no outside access allowed. Then, some twit admin put a five minute inactivity logout policy on the box and made everybody's life miserable until there were so many complaints it was dropped.
The admins didn't learn. Soon, we had to log into various webpages on different internal boxes to check this and that. Even though there was no external access, we had ten character passwords, expiring once a month. Why? How did it possibly add security when we had to use our badges to get into the building, then log into a work box in order to reach those servers? Not only that, some of the pages had four or five certificates, all out-of-date, and there was no way to make our machines believe that we wanted them accepted from now on without asking. Every morning we had to click OK on a series of queries about bad certificates and if our machine crashed (And, as we were on Winderz boxen, of course they did.) we'd have to do it again when we rebooted. My office was closed after about two years or so of this nonsense, and it hadn't been fixed.
All in all, my advice is to do what's needed to keep the admin's LAN up and running so they don't have to waste time doing it themselves and don't put obsticles in their way.
No more than grocery markets that use "club cards" to give discounts to regular shoppers suck. When it comes to search engines, Google is the best known, the most used. For a new site to succeed, they need some way of getting people to use it, and random giveaways are simply a marketing tool. I've never received anything from Blingo, but I do use it, and from their POV that's what matters. Mind you, I also use Google, if I can't find it through Blingo.
Unless it somehow negates States Rights and overrules the state law, it can't "trump state law." You can't defend yourself from a charge of violating California's law by claiming that you were in compliance with a looser Federal standard because you still have to meet the local standard as well.
Won't change a thing here in California. You'll still have to fulfill the state requirement, even though the Feds have a lower standard. When there's a difference between State and Federal law, the more restrictive applies.
Let's go even further. I live in West Los Angeles. Yesterday, I had to visit a friend in Arcadia, in the San Gabriel Valley, another part of Los Angeles County. Even with no traffic, and staying on freeways as long as possible, it was over 45 minutes each way, and the shortest route takes me through the Downtown Loop, surrounding Central Los Angeles. Can you imagine what a commute would be like, having to go through the worst traffic each way? I'd not consider a job down there unless I could afford to move closer, at least past Downtown. I'm sure every big city has its equivalent, but I've only found one site that ever asked the maximum distance you're willing to travel.
Why do Gatesware servers need somebody to log in? Because all modern versions of Windows boot to a logon screen, and don't finish booting until you've logged in, including doing such things as starting the programs you need. Unless they've changed things quite a bit since I last looked, a Windows webserver won't start IIS, Apache or whatever, the database backend won't be up, and so on, and so forth. And, once you've got them running, you can't log out again and leave them going because logging out means restarting.
No. I've never visited New England or any part of the East Coast except Miami, and that was just to fly in, board a cruise ship, and at the end of the cruise, fly out. I can only judge commutes back there by map distance, not traffic. Thanks for the info.
That's why I specified New England. Although I've never been to New York, I have an idea how big it is and that just specifying the state would be as useless there (or in Pennsylvania) as it is here. The New England states are small enough that commuting distance (if not time) is reasonable across the state.
Having worked at JPL, I can tell you that it's still part of CalTech. I has, however, a contract from NASA to run NASA's unmanned exploration of space, and all NASA probes and sattilites are run from their.
And, to answer the original question, if solar sails are going to be used to power probes, the research would naturally be run through JPL for the above reason.
Here in Los Angeles, we don't measure distances in miles, but in driving time. As an example, LAX is about half an hour from Studio City, unless you're talking Rush Hour, in which case figure about an hour and a quarter to an hour and three quarters.
The problem, I suspect, is that the site was set up by somebody born and reaised in New England where the states are much smaller and has never been to the rest of the country.