Sometimes a company will place a extremely high bed because they really do not want the contract. But they have to bid to stay on the list for future proposals. And if they do get the bid all they have to do is sub it out to a lower bidder and keep the carry.
This is known as a TTFO quote, as in "told to f*** off". It is technically a quote, but you don't expect to win. Rather you look to send a signal that you don't want this piece of business but if someone INSISTS on throwing it your way, you'll do it at your stupidly inflated rate.
This is very often done by finance companies so they can say with a straight face that they offer financing to EVERYONE.
Nice, but there is a big difference between f/2.8 and f/2. You basically told me what I suspected -- your primes are faster than your zooms. I can totally understand at a practical level why they WOULD be, but it's not a law of nature that they MUST be. They just generally are, due to the cost, size, and required upkeep of primes being considerably less than zooms of the same aperture.
I would think the best solution might be to hook a prime to a CCD that's considerably better than 1080p, and use "digital zoom" to crop and rescale as necessary for broadcast purposes. For archival, the entire field of view (which might well be square to take best advantage of the circular output of the lens) would be stored in all its glory. If you're using a zoom with a range of 200 to 500 mm, it seems that a CCD that oversamples by a factor of 2.5 would allow you to accomplish the same thing with a 200mm prime. It's probably not that simple since some rescaling ratios work much better than others, and there may not be an off-the-shelf camera with the required combination of speed and raw pixels, but it seems the days of the optical zoom may be numbered for your particular line of work.
And it's not just the frequency of the light, it's the amount. Zoom lenses lower the light that hits camera CCDs SIGNIFICANTLY.
Aside from internal reflections which will obviously increase with the number of elements necessary for a zoom lens, how does a zoom lens with an aperture of f/2.8 deliver less light to the CCD than a prime lens of aperture f/2.8? Or are you saying that prime lenses are available that are faster than the best zoom lenses (which is probably true)?
Zoom lenses require many compromises. For a given level of light gathering, a zoom will be larger because it does not efficiently make use of all lens surfaces at all focal lengths -- plus, as the front element size is a constant, zooming in will necessarily decrease the maximum focal ratio available. The increase in complexity means they're bigger, heavier, and much more prone to misalignment. The extra elements mean contrast-killing internal reflections are much greater. But assuming you're willing to build them with the extra-large front element(s) necessary, a zoom can gather as much light as a prime.
Firefox 3.6 was great. I don't like FF 11-12-13, but was forced to upgrade if I didn't want to run an unpatched, vulnerable browser. Unfortunately, all of these recent releases just silently crash on my system -- I load a site, and within a few seconds, the app just vanishes from the screen without explanation or error. It's just gone.
I don't care for Chrome either, in addition to not trusting Google. So, in desperation, I downloaded Opera. I haven't looked back since.
At least for a Windows system, the best alternative to the love-hate relationship with Firefox is not Chrome, it is Opera.
Early on, netbooks were defined to fit a design Microsoft found non-threatening (one core, 2 GB of RAM or less) so that MS would let them ship with XP even though Vista was already out. Later netbooks had Vista, even on the same hardware. Also, my Aspire One came with the smaller (doesn't stick out the back and look retarded) battery even though I could have gotten the larger battery at the same price. In this form factor, battery life is only 2.5 to 3 hours of light usage, and under two hours if doing anything taxing (like watching a movie). It even gets as hot as a standard laptop in use. However, it is NOT useless for gaming. I have participated in UT2003 tournaments using the Aspire One and had no problems with the machine itself. It won't run NEW games very well, but to say you can't run games on it is simply not true. I also played 1NSANE over a network, and it did just fine for that too. If you treat it like what it is (a miniature 2005 laptop), it will pretty much perform exactly as expected. As for the keyboard size, I really haven't had a problem with it at all. The trackpad is less than ideal, and that's definitely related to the size. Also it would have been nice if they Acer could have crammed in a tiny bit bigger display rather than having the thick bezel all the way around. I know there is a webcam and a microphone to contend with at the top, and WiFi antennas up the sides, but it still seems like an excessive amount of space wasted.
The main problem is the display, or rather, the lack of real estate of the display. Larger units had 1366x768 displays which are serviceable (though not great) for "real work", but the larger units seem to defeat the whole purpose of having a netbook in the first place. At that point, it makes more sense to spend an extra $100 and get a low-end E350 laptop that will take 8 GB of RAM, have full 3D hardware, and run just about everything. However, I can fit the Aspire One in the front pocket of cargo pants and walk around with it. There's no way I'm going to do that with a "real" laptop. Then, if I can get hold of a monitor at my destination, I have a fully functional machine (if a bit slow) to drive it. Shame there's no DVI or HDMI out, but for short-term use VGA is acceptable.
They're not taking the entire system into consideration at all. At best this allows you to transfer heat from one object to another, or make one side of an object warm while another side is cold, a temperature dipole so to speak. That's not a violation of thermodynamics at all, the two still have the same net energy as they did before. Even if you didn't spend any energy to separate them, it doesn't matter, no net energy has been gained. One side is only gaining temperature by pulling it from either the other side, or the environment.
That IS, in fact, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. (And never decreases.)
Creating separate hot and cold regions is a decrease in entropy, as the two isolated regions can be used to produce work through a heat engine. If there is no cost to do so, or it is less than the work done by allowing the two to re-equalize through a heat engine, then you have a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.
It's hardware that he already had though. If a card reader could be had at a local garage sale and refurbished in a weekend, he probably would have done exactly that -- but it can't, for most people. The code was probably fun, as was building it from Lego pieces.
for example. I mean, fucking folders? For scientists? REALLY?
I'm with you on this one. I couldn't get by with just a "music" folder. In fact, my music library is separated by artist, and those artists are further organized by letter just so I don't have as much to wade through trying to find them. (This happens when dealing with tens of thousands of tracks.) There is a "letter" for multi-artist compilations such as soundtracks as well. A one-level system works so long as it doesn't contain too much information, such as a portable media player or phone. I have a 16 GB SD card in my MP3 player, and it doesn't need hierarchies. One folder per artist is quite sufficient. This system falls flat on its face though when dealing with 200 GB of the same kind of files. The result is that the organization of music (and just about every other kind of media) on my NAS box is complex, but on single-serving devices it remains simple.
The fact is that there is no ONE RIGHT WAY to do things, not even for a single person. I encounter this with the filing of artists into letters. I decided that artists who use their own name or name the entire band after themselves, are filed under the first letter of their LAST name. Thus, Dave Matthews (and The Dave Matthews Band) is filed under "M", not "D". But what do I do with The Reverend Horton Heat? Sure his last name is really "Heath", not "Heat", but it's still (mostly) his name. So do I file it under "H" or "R"? I opted for "R" because "Reverend" is a critical part of the nickname, but it really could have gone either way.
Unfortunately this is "too complex" for some people (especially those who can never remember the artist name), while "too complex" to me is having your music scattered across several folders without rhyme or reason, relying on your media player's Search function to find anything. Dumping it all into a single folder seems only slightly better.
Many older 'DC' train systems were half- or full-wave rectified AC, so the peak voltage is much higher than the RMS value.
This was probably the case on my train set. The transformer box was too small to have any appreciable capacitors inside, although I never checked. Off the top of my head, the peak voltage should be about 25 to 26V, so maybe that was what was going on.
As for the parallel port vs case, I've found that the leakage voltage as read by a voltmeter reads very low - very low current leakage sources are loaded down by the meter.
So the voltage on the parallel port that zapped me may have actually been much higher than measured? I'm at a loss to understand where a motherboard would GET such a voltage to drive into a parallel port, even if it is using both the +12V and -12V rails off the power supply.
Another data point - I've worked on telephone circuits 'barehand' without shocks, and that's 48VDC. If the phone rings, THAT HURTS - it's about 90V @ 20Hz.
I can agree fully with this, as I've done the same thing (and been hit by the same thing).
Put your arm across fully powered (18VDC) model train tracks. It fucking hurts. I have also been shocked painfully by a poorly shielded parallel port. Once discovered, we took a meter to it and found that it somehow had an 18V potential on the outer casing, relative to the (very nearby) computer case. While neither of these may have been truly dangerous, 18VDC is more than capable of inflicting considerable pain.
Your power brick is designed to be able to run the laptop at full power and still charge the battery at the same time. If you accepted charging the battery only when the laptop isn't drawing max power, you could get away with considerably less.
All the laptops I have seen in the past few years operate at 19VDC. That's from my dinky Aspire One to my cousin's hefty gaming laptop. 100W won't suffice for the gaming laptop, but that just means he couldn't simultaneously play Skyrim and charge the battery. It should at least be enough to operate the computer itself.
Tell the boss how good they are even tho they are the worst type of asshole in the universe
Thanks the co-workers for their generous help and guidance even tho they are clumsy back-stabbers
Give great praises the company even tho they are giving you the pink slip
That will make them happy, and happy people (often) do not find time to do more harm to you, leaving you plenty of peaceful time to look for new jobs
This isn't too hard when the boss wasn't the problem. When I gave my notice, I let the boss know that the only reason I was giving a month and not just two weeks was because I felt I owed it to HER. The company didn't deserve it. They had handled previous employee cuts quite badly. When someone is there 25 years, you don't wait until after lunch on a Friday afternoon to tell them they won't have a job on Monday. That's just bullshit. They also were letting go lower-level employees that I knew from experience were doing their jobs reasonably well, while keeping people who weren't. I happened to know that some of the people retained had dirt on the big bosses (as did I), but that only served to reinforce the notion that the company played dirty, and that I needed to do so as well.
When I did leave, I *said* it was because the company had been sold and that I didn't want to work for the new guys. In fact, I would have been willing to work for the new guys under different circumstances but I had had enough of the dysfunctional group that remained. I even campaigned for one of the people being cut to take over my position, and it was offered to him. HE DECLINED IT.
When the exit interview came, the HR director didn't write down a word of it. In fact, she was a little bit drunk. What did she care, she had also been made redundant in the buyout. Both of us cut loose on how we felt betrayed and misled, and we were soon joined by a couple other departing employees. As it turned out, one of them was someone who had been less than friendly, shall we say... but by the end of the meeting we were planning to go drinking.
And I'm too drunk to make the decision for y'all. It appears to me like it alternates between 7-sided and 5-sided carbon polygons, rather than the usual 6-sixed polygons in a sheet of graphene. It beats me how this would do anything but form a sheet of its own. It still seems like a two-dimensional structure, but I'm not organic chemist.
the newscientist article doesn't sound like it's talking about m carbon.
To quote the article I referenced:
Graphite and diamond are the most familiar, while more exotic allotropes include graphene, with versatile electrical properties, and M-carbon and Bct-carbon, which rival diamond's legendary hardness.
with following links to graphene, M-carbon, and Bct-carbon.
Or they just bought a $200 netbook and walked into the building one night. Universities are not exactly high-security facilities...
This is of course quite strange. In any decently run nefarious conspiracy, the only way in would be for a ragtag bunch of misfits to engage in ninja-like operations to infiltrate a top-secret high-security building. So clearly, the people running the global warming conspiracy are completely incompetent when it comes to conspiring. They don't even try to hide their facilities or the people working on it, and most of their key communications occur in a public forum. I'm telling ya, they need to talk to the Illuminati on how to properly organize themselves.
Coming up next: new product announcement - the Acer Conspire One!
The 3:2 orbital resonance and relatively high inclination of Pluto's orbit guarantees it's never close to Neptune. The orbits DON'T CROSS, Pluto is well out of the ecliptic plane when its orbit comes closer than that of Neptune. From the point of view of Neptune, it still has the orbit all to itself. This is somewhat similar to Trojan asteroids and Jupiter. Though they share the same rough path around the sun, the asteroids stay clustered around points 60 degrees ahead of and behind Jupiter. They're never close to Jupiter, as this would disrupt them out of their orbits. The only ones that remain are those that orbit in such a manner that they don't have to come dangerously close to Jupiter. Even then, future perturbations mean some of them will probably be ejected or collide with Jupiter eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes a company will place a extremely high bed because they really do not want the contract.
But they have to bid to stay on the list for future proposals.
And if they do get the bid all they have to do is sub it out to a lower bidder and keep the carry.
This is known as a TTFO quote, as in "told to f*** off". It is technically a quote, but you don't expect to win. Rather you look to send a signal that you don't want this piece of business but if someone INSISTS on throwing it your way, you'll do it at your stupidly inflated rate.
This is very often done by finance companies so they can say with a straight face that they offer financing to EVERYONE.
Nice, but there is a big difference between f/2.8 and f/2. You basically told me what I suspected -- your primes are faster than your zooms. I can totally understand at a practical level why they WOULD be, but it's not a law of nature that they MUST be. They just generally are, due to the cost, size, and required upkeep of primes being considerably less than zooms of the same aperture.
I would think the best solution might be to hook a prime to a CCD that's considerably better than 1080p, and use "digital zoom" to crop and rescale as necessary for broadcast purposes. For archival, the entire field of view (which might well be square to take best advantage of the circular output of the lens) would be stored in all its glory. If you're using a zoom with a range of 200 to 500 mm, it seems that a CCD that oversamples by a factor of 2.5 would allow you to accomplish the same thing with a 200mm prime. It's probably not that simple since some rescaling ratios work much better than others, and there may not be an off-the-shelf camera with the required combination of speed and raw pixels, but it seems the days of the optical zoom may be numbered for your particular line of work.
And it's not just the frequency of the light, it's the amount. Zoom lenses lower the light that hits camera CCDs SIGNIFICANTLY.
Aside from internal reflections which will obviously increase with the number of elements necessary for a zoom lens, how does a zoom lens with an aperture of f/2.8 deliver less light to the CCD than a prime lens of aperture f/2.8? Or are you saying that prime lenses are available that are faster than the best zoom lenses (which is probably true)?
Zoom lenses require many compromises. For a given level of light gathering, a zoom will be larger because it does not efficiently make use of all lens surfaces at all focal lengths -- plus, as the front element size is a constant, zooming in will necessarily decrease the maximum focal ratio available. The increase in complexity means they're bigger, heavier, and much more prone to misalignment. The extra elements mean contrast-killing internal reflections are much greater. But assuming you're willing to build them with the extra-large front element(s) necessary, a zoom can gather as much light as a prime.
If she has seven arms, why does she need your measly one finger?
Firefox 3.6 was great. I don't like FF 11-12-13, but was forced to upgrade if I didn't want to run an unpatched, vulnerable browser. Unfortunately, all of these recent releases just silently crash on my system -- I load a site, and within a few seconds, the app just vanishes from the screen without explanation or error. It's just gone.
I don't care for Chrome either, in addition to not trusting Google. So, in desperation, I downloaded Opera. I haven't looked back since.
At least for a Windows system, the best alternative to the love-hate relationship with Firefox is not Chrome, it is Opera.
I wasn't saying that upgrading has no cost. I was only refuting the assertion that upgrading three machines means buying three copies.
what for? i have 3 pcs, i'm not buying 3 new copies of windows every 3 years
You don't have to. Microsoft has accounted for people like you (and me).
Early on, netbooks were defined to fit a design Microsoft found non-threatening (one core, 2 GB of RAM or less) so that MS would let them ship with XP even though Vista was already out. Later netbooks had Vista, even on the same hardware. Also, my Aspire One came with the smaller (doesn't stick out the back and look retarded) battery even though I could have gotten the larger battery at the same price. In this form factor, battery life is only 2.5 to 3 hours of light usage, and under two hours if doing anything taxing (like watching a movie). It even gets as hot as a standard laptop in use. However, it is NOT useless for gaming. I have participated in UT2003 tournaments using the Aspire One and had no problems with the machine itself. It won't run NEW games very well, but to say you can't run games on it is simply not true. I also played 1NSANE over a network, and it did just fine for that too. If you treat it like what it is (a miniature 2005 laptop), it will pretty much perform exactly as expected. As for the keyboard size, I really haven't had a problem with it at all. The trackpad is less than ideal, and that's definitely related to the size. Also it would have been nice if they Acer could have crammed in a tiny bit bigger display rather than having the thick bezel all the way around. I know there is a webcam and a microphone to contend with at the top, and WiFi antennas up the sides, but it still seems like an excessive amount of space wasted.
The main problem is the display, or rather, the lack of real estate of the display. Larger units had 1366x768 displays which are serviceable (though not great) for "real work", but the larger units seem to defeat the whole purpose of having a netbook in the first place. At that point, it makes more sense to spend an extra $100 and get a low-end E350 laptop that will take 8 GB of RAM, have full 3D hardware, and run just about everything. However, I can fit the Aspire One in the front pocket of cargo pants and walk around with it. There's no way I'm going to do that with a "real" laptop. Then, if I can get hold of a monitor at my destination, I have a fully functional machine (if a bit slow) to drive it. Shame there's no DVI or HDMI out, but for short-term use VGA is acceptable.
They're not taking the entire system into consideration at all. At best this allows you to transfer heat from one object to another, or make one side of an object warm while another side is cold, a temperature dipole so to speak. That's not a violation of thermodynamics at all, the two still have the same net energy as they did before. Even if you didn't spend any energy to separate them, it doesn't matter, no net energy has been gained. One side is only gaining temperature by pulling it from either the other side, or the environment.
That IS, in fact, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. (And never decreases.)
Creating separate hot and cold regions is a decrease in entropy, as the two isolated regions can be used to produce work through a heat engine. If there is no cost to do so, or it is less than the work done by allowing the two to re-equalize through a heat engine, then you have a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.
It's hardware that he already had though. If a card reader could be had at a local garage sale and refurbished in a weekend, he probably would have done exactly that -- but it can't, for most people. The code was probably fun, as was building it from Lego pieces.
for example. I mean, fucking folders? For scientists? REALLY?
I'm with you on this one. I couldn't get by with just a "music" folder. In fact, my music library is separated by artist, and those artists are further organized by letter just so I don't have as much to wade through trying to find them. (This happens when dealing with tens of thousands of tracks.) There is a "letter" for multi-artist compilations such as soundtracks as well. A one-level system works so long as it doesn't contain too much information, such as a portable media player or phone. I have a 16 GB SD card in my MP3 player, and it doesn't need hierarchies. One folder per artist is quite sufficient. This system falls flat on its face though when dealing with 200 GB of the same kind of files. The result is that the organization of music (and just about every other kind of media) on my NAS box is complex, but on single-serving devices it remains simple.
The fact is that there is no ONE RIGHT WAY to do things, not even for a single person. I encounter this with the filing of artists into letters. I decided that artists who use their own name or name the entire band after themselves, are filed under the first letter of their LAST name. Thus, Dave Matthews (and The Dave Matthews Band) is filed under "M", not "D". But what do I do with The Reverend Horton Heat? Sure his last name is really "Heath", not "Heat", but it's still (mostly) his name. So do I file it under "H" or "R"? I opted for "R" because "Reverend" is a critical part of the nickname, but it really could have gone either way.
Unfortunately this is "too complex" for some people (especially those who can never remember the artist name), while "too complex" to me is having your music scattered across several folders without rhyme or reason, relying on your media player's Search function to find anything. Dumping it all into a single folder seems only slightly better.
If you ever want a phone call, strip telephone wire with your teeth. Someone will call, %100 guaranteed, and it will hurt.
Yup. I made this mistake once.
Once.
</johnnydangerously>
Many older 'DC' train systems were half- or full-wave rectified AC, so the peak voltage is much higher than the RMS value.
This was probably the case on my train set. The transformer box was too small to have any appreciable capacitors inside, although I never checked. Off the top of my head, the peak voltage should be about 25 to 26V, so maybe that was what was going on.
As for the parallel port vs case, I've found that the leakage voltage as read by a voltmeter reads very low - very low current leakage sources are loaded down by the meter.
This article is interesting.
So the voltage on the parallel port that zapped me may have actually been much higher than measured? I'm at a loss to understand where a motherboard would GET such a voltage to drive into a parallel port, even if it is using both the +12V and -12V rails off the power supply.
Another data point - I've worked on telephone circuits 'barehand' without shocks, and that's 48VDC. If the phone rings, THAT HURTS - it's about 90V @ 20Hz.
I can agree fully with this, as I've done the same thing (and been hit by the same thing).
Put your arm across fully powered (18VDC) model train tracks. It fucking hurts. I have also been shocked painfully by a poorly shielded parallel port. Once discovered, we took a meter to it and found that it somehow had an 18V potential on the outer casing, relative to the (very nearby) computer case. While neither of these may have been truly dangerous, 18VDC is more than capable of inflicting considerable pain.
Your power brick is designed to be able to run the laptop at full power and still charge the battery at the same time. If you accepted charging the battery only when the laptop isn't drawing max power, you could get away with considerably less.
All the laptops I have seen in the past few years operate at 19VDC. That's from my dinky Aspire One to my cousin's hefty gaming laptop. 100W won't suffice for the gaming laptop, but that just means he couldn't simultaneously play Skyrim and charge the battery. It should at least be enough to operate the computer itself.
Say nothing but good things -
Tell the boss how good they are even tho they are the worst type of asshole in the universe
Thanks the co-workers for their generous help and guidance even tho they are clumsy back-stabbers
Give great praises the company even tho they are giving you the pink slip
That will make them happy, and happy people (often) do not find time to do more harm to you, leaving you plenty of peaceful time to look for new jobs
This isn't too hard when the boss wasn't the problem. When I gave my notice, I let the boss know that the only reason I was giving a month and not just two weeks was because I felt I owed it to HER. The company didn't deserve it. They had handled previous employee cuts quite badly. When someone is there 25 years, you don't wait until after lunch on a Friday afternoon to tell them they won't have a job on Monday. That's just bullshit. They also were letting go lower-level employees that I knew from experience were doing their jobs reasonably well, while keeping people who weren't. I happened to know that some of the people retained had dirt on the big bosses (as did I), but that only served to reinforce the notion that the company played dirty, and that I needed to do so as well.
When I did leave, I *said* it was because the company had been sold and that I didn't want to work for the new guys. In fact, I would have been willing to work for the new guys under different circumstances but I had had enough of the dysfunctional group that remained. I even campaigned for one of the people being cut to take over my position, and it was offered to him. HE DECLINED IT.
When the exit interview came, the HR director didn't write down a word of it. In fact, she was a little bit drunk. What did she care, she had also been made redundant in the buyout. Both of us cut loose on how we felt betrayed and misled, and we were soon joined by a couple other departing employees. As it turned out, one of them was someone who had been less than friendly, shall we say... but by the end of the meeting we were planning to go drinking.
If you are going to burn a bridge, make sure it's epic and they can see it from orbit.
Or do it Fight Club style; that scene was the best.
There's a pretty good quit scene in "Half Baked" too.
I'll see your xkcd and raise you a ctrl-alt-del
BZZZT! Sorry, that's a string raise. You'll have to take that comic back.
The moral of the story: Don't put milk in your sealed chest!
It's fine to put milk in the sealed chest, just make sure to pack it in Foreverware!
Bad form to reply to myself, but this might actually prove useful:
A new superhard form of carbon
And I'm too drunk to make the decision for y'all. It appears to me like it alternates between 7-sided and 5-sided carbon polygons, rather than the usual 6-sixed polygons in a sheet of graphene. It beats me how this would do anything but form a sheet of its own. It still seems like a two-dimensional structure, but I'm not organic chemist.
the newscientist article doesn't sound like it's talking about m carbon.
To quote the article I referenced:
Graphite and diamond are the most familiar, while more exotic allotropes include graphene, with versatile electrical properties, and M-carbon and Bct-carbon, which rival diamond's legendary hardness.
with following links to graphene, M-carbon, and Bct-carbon.
Nice of TFS to not link to anything describing M-carbon.
Maybe this will help. Maybe it was "common knowledge", but I personally hadn't heard of the stuff till now.
Or they just bought a $200 netbook and walked into the building one night. Universities are not exactly high-security facilities...
This is of course quite strange. In any decently run nefarious conspiracy, the only way in would be for a ragtag bunch of misfits to engage in ninja-like operations to infiltrate a top-secret high-security building. So clearly, the people running the global warming conspiracy are completely incompetent when it comes to conspiring. They don't even try to hide their facilities or the people working on it, and most of their key communications occur in a public forum. I'm telling ya, they need to talk to the Illuminati on how to properly organize themselves.
Coming up next: new product announcement - the Acer Conspire One!
The 3:2 orbital resonance and relatively high inclination of Pluto's orbit guarantees it's never close to Neptune. The orbits DON'T CROSS, Pluto is well out of the ecliptic plane when its orbit comes closer than that of Neptune. From the point of view of Neptune, it still has the orbit all to itself. This is somewhat similar to Trojan asteroids and Jupiter. Though they share the same rough path around the sun, the asteroids stay clustered around points 60 degrees ahead of and behind Jupiter. They're never close to Jupiter, as this would disrupt them out of their orbits. The only ones that remain are those that orbit in such a manner that they don't have to come dangerously close to Jupiter. Even then, future perturbations mean some of them will probably be ejected or collide with Jupiter eventually.