I did something similar: put a DVD in to burn, not noticing it had a fingerprint on the underside (it was from a cakebox and had evidently been handled carelessly earlier)
Anyway, after burning the pattern of the fingerprint could be seen in the changed-color DVD medium, just like your dust. I thought it was rather cool.:)
As one of the people who suggested H&H, I didn't do it 'to sound knowledgeable', but because I do consider it a useful book for practical analog design. Also I don't think of it as a cookbook, I always thought it too vague for what I would consider 'a cookbook' (i.e. a book of recipes to follow), but that is perhaps a matter of taste.
Still, you may be right that it is not an EE book, I'm a physicist and admittedly haven't had to do electronics design for years now. I'm sure Grey et al. is also a good book.
I think he has far too much integrity and good taste to jump on a mindless movie.
"Cloverfield" was hardly deep. Lots of running and screaming and destroying of cities by monsters and not much else. It's enjoyable the first time round, but once you know the premise and ending there is nothing left.
I'm ambivalent about Abrams. "Lost" was good, but "Alias" was pretty poor, and "Cloverfield" was enjoyable once.
No one is suggesting that any entry about Harry Potter be deleted (just as there are presumably still articles about Warhammer on Wikipedia). The analogy would be something like "List of magic spells in Harry Potter".
This article, despite its massive breadth and deep emotional investment, did not contain one single citation to a reliable source that was independent of the subject. That is why it was deleted.
Which in this case is ridiculuous, Games Workshop created the Warhammer universe and retain creative control over it. It is thus impossible for an authoritative source listing the 'Weapons of the Imperium' to exist independently of GW; in fact, it is precisely the 27 books published by GW which should be considered the reliable source, and anything else is potentially unreliable.
To do otherwise is the same as deleting any entry about Harry Potter because the only source is the author, J K Rowling, or any entry about Star Wars which is based on the 6 movies, since that would not be 'independent' of George Lucas, leaving only the non-Lucas stuff. Clearly mad.
That's not the point... the point is: rather than selling unnecessary or useless 'features' at high cost or dumping outdated technology at low cost, why not design something simple and robust and inexpensive but takes advantage of new technology?
This is the approach Renault took for the Dacia Logan car... and it is proving very successful.
... tend to have a long shelf life. (Probably in other sciences too, but physics has the oldest codes since it embraced numerical computing earlier.)
Once a good piece of code has been written and thoroughly tested, it gets left alone unless there is a very good reason to change it. Which is also why Fortran is still going strong in physics and engineering, since there is so much legacy code out there.
I regularly use a code which has some procedures from the mid 1970s, according to the comments in the code, alongside stuff from the 1990s and 2000s in the same program.
Which relationship? I never specified one. As for ignoring the scientific data, from the very articles you linked to:
The consensus among experts is that global warming will not lead more hurricanes overall, but will increase the average intensity of storms.
It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm.
If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.
An implication of the GFDL studies is that... a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.
The data you yourself mention points to a strong possibility of increased severity of storm surges and hurricanes and thus increased damage to and flooding of coastal cities, Katrina-style (it was the surge that did most of the damage in New Orleans). The severity of the possible consequences of global warming should be enough to look at reducing the effects as a form of insurance. Of course other things are important too, like better building codes and maintenance of levees and what not, but that doesn't detract from the importance of trying to reduce CO2 emission.
The comment about taxes is irrelevant, since is is the final street price (with taxes) which people pay and which influences their behaviour. The fact is that at the pump fuel is more expensive. The difference is huge. Average price across the US is around 3 USD per US gallon, which is about 80 cents per litre. In the UK it is around a pound per litre, or 2 USD. The same factor of 2 is more or less true across Europe. This is even before taking into a account cost of living and disposable income, which makes the effective difference even greater.
Do you have some kind of insurance taken out? Medical? Home? Accident? Car? Life? Or aren't you willing to pay money for something you aren't even sure will happen? No? You do have insurance? Well, fancy that.
Then think of spending a little more on improving fuel efficiency and finding alternative energy sources as insurance. Maybe climate change isn't being caused by us, in which case all you lose is a little money and you gain in new industries and technologies. Hell, you gain in less smog in your cities. But if it is, then you can win big.
Why is it that many Americans, who already have some of the cheapest gas and power relative to income in the world, are the most unwilling to pay a little more for a little insurance? Most of your own big cities are on the coast, at or near sea level. Don't you even care about your own cities? Even the possibility of another Katrina-like disaster should be spur enough.
Yes, I noticed there was a lot of building work and whatnot going on. I went through 2E and 2B. 2E was quite nice once inside, getting in was the problem:)
I do remember going through one of the (now older) areas of CDG before the expansion and it was as you say intuitive, so it probably is just the ongoing work in the new buildings.
With shoes and belts, I think it's like with the TSA, security controllers with semi-independent policies. My shoes don't have any metal and don't set off the detectors, but even so I have been in queues where everyone was being asked to remove shoes (once they even had those little plastic hospital-style foot covers for everyone). Kids' trainers, boots, shoes, high-heels, the lot. In Gatwick there was actually a separate X-ray (!) for shoes after the main one last time I went through. I wish I could have taken a picture. Again my belt clasp doesn't set the detectors off, but some controllers insist on having belts off before the metal detector regardless.
Well, I can attest to the fact that I have had to remove belt, shoes and all electronics on various occasions, and in all cases it was happening to everyone in the queue. With the exception of flights through Paris CDG and flights to the UK (where they seem to like shoes off, probably because the shoe-bomber was on a flight from the UK) these were all flights outside of or going to or from Europe, not internal.
Internal flights in Europe do seem to be different. I only had to take my laptop out at Gatwick, which is fine, but everyone had to take their shoes off. No problems either going through Frankfurt. Warsaw to Paris was laptop, shoes and belt. In December, Paris CDG terminal-to-terminal and Paris to Bangkok was all electronics out (incl phones and cameras and power). Coming back it was almost all electronics out at Bangkok, but the lady looked at my bag as I was opening it up and saw it was cameras and waved me through. All out at Paris again, once moving from terminal to terminal and once before boarding, and that was also shoes off. A couple of people in the queue with me were also hand-searched, apparently at random. Internal flights in Thailand were also everything out.
Come to think of it, it seems Paris CDG caused the most issues; the airport is a huge mess, with vast empyt halls, narrow confusing passages, and two terminals which aren't securely connected so that security has to be done twice. It seems also they have rules for incoming flights, so that people flying to Paris CDG get hassled more.
I do agree that as in the original article the policies seem to vary widely between airports and perhaps between flights, and so people's experiences will too.
Unfortunately this practice of having all the electronics out has now spread to the rest of the world, as I posted a month or so ago (http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=400884&cid=21845314). Even if the TSA changes its practices, it won't make much difference for anyone travelling outside the US, unless those authorities choose to copy the TSA in this.
I flew international long distance in December. 3 flights out and 4 flights back. It was a work trip, but the programme included sightseeing.
So I had: 1 laptop + power supply, 1 phone + charger, 1 digital SLR with 2 lenses + battery charger and spare battery, 1 compact digital + spare batteries, 1 electric shaver (after 30-odd hours of travelling I wanted to look presentable when I arrived). None of these things would I have put into hold baggage: they're valuable, fragile and also I needed most of them. Before each flight (and in fact twice at one airport, where there was a change of terminals) I was required to unpack all my electronics from my carry-on bag for scanning separately, plus of course coat, belt, the bag itself and shoes on 2 occasions. Each time the whole unpacking and packing took several minutes and used 3-4 of those trays they give you. Of course anyone else with cameras or laptops had to do the same, so the aggregate delay and hassle was immense.
Now I can understand the need to scan all this, but it seems that the existing system is inadequate to cope with all the additional checks which are being required, or to keep up with personal technology. We are now routinely carrying many more electronic items than 10 or even 5 years ago.
Seriously, though, in this case I didn't forget: Poland has a euroskeptic (or perhaps europhobic) government at the moment and keeps putting off Euro adoption. At the moment it's expected in 2012.
Check again, 13 states now, for a total of 316 million people, also places like Monaco, the Vatican, Andorra etc which are not EU but use the Euro. Cyprus and Malta will join in January 2008. Also, a number of countries are in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which means that while they don't actually use the Euro, their exchange rates are linked to it within certain boundaries.
Interestingly, several countries have started to use Euro for foreign trade because of the isntability of the dollar, oddly enough including North Korea.
Slashdot Mirror
Wkipedia disagrees United_States_Armed_Forces
Twice then, since she played Belle in Secret Diary.
I said "I didn't say that they were nice [...]".
LK
Perhaps this explains why she didn't talk to you for a month?
It was also published in 1974, before Smolin's cut-off date ...
Besides which, it is still unobserved.
I did something similar: put a DVD in to burn, not noticing it had a fingerprint on the underside (it was from a cakebox and had evidently been handled carelessly earlier)
Anyway, after burning the pattern of the fingerprint could be seen in the changed-color DVD medium, just like your dust. I thought it was rather cool. :)
Agreed. Bring back the old metamod system, please! The new one doesn't make sense.
Where the hell do you live that you can buy a terabye of storage at a retail store?
Where do you live that you can't? Even Walmart sells them!
As one of the people who suggested H&H, I didn't do it 'to sound knowledgeable', but because I do consider it a useful book for practical analog design. Also I don't think of it as a cookbook, I always thought it too vague for what I would consider 'a cookbook' (i.e. a book of recipes to follow), but that is perhaps a matter of taste.
Still, you may be right that it is not an EE book, I'm a physicist and admittedly haven't had to do electronics design for years now. I'm sure Grey et al. is also a good book.
With 5 years of experience you may well be familiar with it, but if not (and for anyone else)
The Art of Electronics
by Horowitz and Hill was always the classic practical analog electronics text.
I think he has far too much integrity and good taste to jump on a mindless movie.
"Cloverfield" was hardly deep. Lots of running and screaming and destroying of cities by monsters and not much else. It's enjoyable the first time round, but once you know the premise and ending there is nothing left.
I'm ambivalent about Abrams. "Lost" was good, but "Alias" was pretty poor, and "Cloverfield" was enjoyable once.
No one is suggesting that any entry about Harry Potter be deleted (just as there are presumably still articles about Warhammer on Wikipedia). The analogy would be something like "List of magic spells in Harry Potter".
So, exactly like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spells_in_Harry_Potter? Not deleted, not marked for deletion. It has more varied references, but those are mostly for the etymology of the spell names.
Which in this case is ridiculuous, Games Workshop created the Warhammer universe and retain creative control over it. It is thus impossible for an authoritative source listing the 'Weapons of the Imperium' to exist independently of GW; in fact, it is precisely the 27 books published by GW which should be considered the reliable source, and anything else is potentially unreliable.
To do otherwise is the same as deleting any entry about Harry Potter because the only source is the author, J K Rowling, or any entry about Star Wars which is based on the 6 movies, since that would not be 'independent' of George Lucas, leaving only the non-Lucas stuff. Clearly mad.
That's not the point ... the point is: rather than selling unnecessary or useless 'features' at high cost or dumping outdated technology at low cost, why not design something simple and robust and inexpensive but takes advantage of new technology?
This is the approach Renault took for the Dacia Logan car ... and it is proving very successful.
... tend to have a long shelf life. (Probably in other sciences too, but physics has the oldest codes since it embraced numerical computing earlier.)
Once a good piece of code has been written and thoroughly tested, it gets left alone unless there is a very good reason to change it. Which is also why Fortran is still going strong in physics and engineering, since there is so much legacy code out there.
I regularly use a code which has some procedures from the mid 1970s, according to the comments in the code, alongside stuff from the 1990s and 2000s in the same program.
Probably cheaper, too.
Which relationship? I never specified one. As for ignoring the scientific data, from the very articles you linked to:
The consensus among experts is that global warming will not lead more hurricanes overall, but will increase the average intensity of storms. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase. An implication of the GFDL studies is thatThe data you yourself mention points to a strong possibility of increased severity of storm surges and hurricanes and thus increased damage to and flooding of coastal cities, Katrina-style (it was the surge that did most of the damage in New Orleans). The severity of the possible consequences of global warming should be enough to look at reducing the effects as a form of insurance. Of course other things are important too, like better building codes and maintenance of levees and what not, but that doesn't detract from the importance of trying to reduce CO2 emission.
The comment about taxes is irrelevant, since is is the final street price (with taxes) which people pay and which influences their behaviour. The fact is that at the pump fuel is more expensive. The difference is huge. Average price across the US is around 3 USD per US gallon, which is about 80 cents per litre. In the UK it is around a pound per litre, or 2 USD. The same factor of 2 is more or less true across Europe. This is even before taking into a account cost of living and disposable income, which makes the effective difference even greater.
Do you have some kind of insurance taken out? Medical? Home? Accident? Car? Life? Or aren't you willing to pay money for something you aren't even sure will happen? No? You do have insurance? Well, fancy that.
Then think of spending a little more on improving fuel efficiency and finding alternative energy sources as insurance. Maybe climate change isn't being caused by us, in which case all you lose is a little money and you gain in new industries and technologies. Hell, you gain in less smog in your cities. But if it is, then you can win big.
Why is it that many Americans, who already have some of the cheapest gas and power relative to income in the world, are the most unwilling to pay a little more for a little insurance? Most of your own big cities are on the coast, at or near sea level. Don't you even care about your own cities? Even the possibility of another Katrina-like disaster should be spur enough.
Yes, I noticed there was a lot of building work and whatnot going on. I went through 2E and 2B. 2E was quite nice once inside, getting in was the problem :)
I do remember going through one of the (now older) areas of CDG before the expansion and it was as you say intuitive, so it probably is just the ongoing work in the new buildings.
With shoes and belts, I think it's like with the TSA, security controllers with semi-independent policies. My shoes don't have any metal and don't set off the detectors, but even so I have been in queues where everyone was being asked to remove shoes (once they even had those little plastic hospital-style foot covers for everyone). Kids' trainers, boots, shoes, high-heels, the lot. In Gatwick there was actually a separate X-ray (!) for shoes after the main one last time I went through. I wish I could have taken a picture. Again my belt clasp doesn't set the detectors off, but some controllers insist on having belts off before the metal detector regardless.
.Well, I can attest to the fact that I have had to remove belt, shoes and all electronics on various occasions, and in all cases it was happening to everyone in the queue. With the exception of flights through Paris CDG and flights to the UK (where they seem to like shoes off, probably because the shoe-bomber was on a flight from the UK) these were all flights outside of or going to or from Europe, not internal.
Internal flights in Europe do seem to be different. I only had to take my laptop out at Gatwick, which is fine, but everyone had to take their shoes off. No problems either going through Frankfurt. Warsaw to Paris was laptop, shoes and belt. In December, Paris CDG terminal-to-terminal and Paris to Bangkok was all electronics out (incl phones and cameras and power). Coming back it was almost all electronics out at Bangkok, but the lady looked at my bag as I was opening it up and saw it was cameras and waved me through. All out at Paris again, once moving from terminal to terminal and once before boarding, and that was also shoes off. A couple of people in the queue with me were also hand-searched, apparently at random. Internal flights in Thailand were also everything out.
Come to think of it, it seems Paris CDG caused the most issues; the airport is a huge mess, with vast empyt halls, narrow confusing passages, and two terminals which aren't securely connected so that security has to be done twice. It seems also they have rules for incoming flights, so that people flying to Paris CDG get hassled more.
I do agree that as in the original article the policies seem to vary widely between airports and perhaps between flights, and so people's experiences will too.
Unfortunately this practice of having all the electronics out has now spread to the rest of the world, as I posted a month or so ago (http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=400884&cid=21845314). Even if the TSA changes its practices, it won't make much difference for anyone travelling outside the US, unless those authorities choose to copy the TSA in this.
So I had: 1 laptop + power supply, 1 phone + charger, 1 digital SLR with 2 lenses + battery charger and spare battery, 1 compact digital + spare batteries, 1 electric shaver (after 30-odd hours of travelling I wanted to look presentable when I arrived). None of these things would I have put into hold baggage: they're valuable, fragile and also I needed most of them. Before each flight (and in fact twice at one airport, where there was a change of terminals) I was required to unpack all my electronics from my carry-on bag for scanning separately, plus of course coat, belt, the bag itself and shoes on 2 occasions. Each time the whole unpacking and packing took several minutes and used 3-4 of those trays they give you. Of course anyone else with cameras or laptops had to do the same, so the aggregate delay and hassle was immense.
Now I can understand the need to scan all this, but it seems that the existing system is inadequate to cope with all the additional checks which are being required, or to keep up with personal technology. We are now routinely carrying many more electronic items than 10 or even 5 years ago.
Seriously, though, in this case I didn't forget: Poland has a euroskeptic (or perhaps europhobic) government at the moment and keeps putting off Euro adoption. At the moment it's expected in 2012.
Interestingly, several countries have started to use Euro for foreign trade because of the isntability of the dollar, oddly enough including North Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone
Wikipedia describes the various studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture#Scientific_research_into_efficacy
The NIH consensus statement and the brain imaging study are most interesting.