Re:Maybe we can see E10/E15 dead too?
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1
gas + water makes a nasty acid (nicknamed "gacid" by mechanics) that destroys engines.
[citation needed]
If you can somehow mix gas (mostly alkanes) and water and make acids, there will be plenty of chemists interested in that. And the patent itself will be worth a ton of money.
Not saying water won't damage an engine, but this gacid (if as simple as you put there) is total bullshit.
I once saw a tv show where they talked about these military dolphins. I can't recall what the program was, but the outcome wasn't that great. They basically said the dolphins, being such intelligent creatures, sometimes actually lied for the fun of it. Unlike the dogs who simply do what they're told, the dolphins actually played with the rules and would say no mine was there even if they knew they were spotted as being lying.
Maybe the psychological side of the training has evolved since then, or maybe it was just a campaign of misinformation, but if it's actually true, doesn't sound too great for this theory...
Of course if that's the root password for the company's server and you type that close to someone else it won't be that difficult for them to find out.
If your attacks only come from someone who knows nothing about the password, that theory works fine. If they saw you typing a three letter word and then put a bunch of dots after "PrXyc.N(n4k77#L!eVdAfp9" seems "slightly" better.
Part of the color comes from what you have on the atmosphere, as different molecules absorb at different wavelengths and, as a consequence, only let go everything else. It is also due to the light the star itself emits.
But the most important part is how thick the atmosphere is. There is a phenomenon called Rayleigh scattering that correlates how much the light is scattered the wavelength. It basically says that the thicker the atmosphere, the more light is scattered and the more you see the reds, as opposed to the blues (that got "way too scattered" already). So, the blue sunset in Mars should be related to the small thickness of its atmosphere...
Everyone is used to get software for free, either because it's really free or because they download a pirate version.
Most of us don't steal coffee, gas, bread or anything else of physical existence, for that matter.
Had Apple put a minimum price on apps and most people would use as little of those as possible. It's not like we are all buying our music through iTunes, is it?
So me mentioning "devices" in the first line and phones, tablets and other internet connected devices on the rest of the text wasn't enough to make it a post about devices?
Yes, because with a total of 4 billion IPv4 addresses and the fact that an ever increasing number of people are having more and more devices connected to the internet this is not something that would eventually be bound to happen.
You must be from a first world country, to be able to waste your time in Slashdot. How many IP addresses are you responsible for yourself? Phones? Tablets? Routers? E-book readers?
Multiply that by everyone else in a first world country and that's a ton of IP addresses, and we are not even counting companies, the public sector or any non-first world country in the planet...
How many Chinese and Indians have a phone which needs an IP address? Is the number gonna get smaller anytime soon?
Screw IPv6, let's all use NAT... it's such a wonderful thing!
It was also the fault of the users who did not opt for a heterogeneous browser ecosystem. Granted, it's a lot to ask the average person to defend a "heterogeneous browser ecosystem", but at least the geeks (and epidemiologists) should get it.
While I do get it (I'm more on the geek side here), we should put things into (historical) perspective.
The first browser I used must have been Netscape 2.x, back in 1996 when I first got a modem. I never lived in the US and paid web access per minute, there was no sort of flat-rate where I was. I remember downloading Netscape Communicator when it first came out (my machine was still on Windows 3.1) and I basically started the download at the end of the evening and woke up around 5 am to go turn off the modem. It had taken several hours on my 28.8 kbps modem to download the 15 MB suite.
A bit later Windows 95 was coming with Internet Explorer and for most of the people sticking with whatever came was not only the only choice (due to lack of knowledge about alternatives) but also the best choice (considering the hours it took to download the alternatives), time you could spend doing useful stuff with the little bandwidth you had. By the time IE got to version 4.0 it was actually a decent browser. And this lead to the disappearance of Netscape in the browser landscape.
Nowadays we stream full HD movies and it seems difficult to rationalize not downloading an alternative "browser suite" that occupied 15 or 20 MB, but back then it was a lot harder to do so. And it was certainly based (partly) on this assumption that Microsoft included IE on Windows.
As it's mentioned in the summary, the Terahertz frequencies are very directional, unlike the typical GHz stuff of wireless networks. So, instead of broadcasting for all the neighborhood you are transmitting more on a point to point fashion. Saturation is almost irrelevant in this scenario (as long as the signal dies off within the solar system).
You sir are taking my comment way, way, WAY out of context. Please tell me which cameras nowadays will take you a 640x480 picture... are you walking around taking pictures with the webcam of a three year old computer?
If you are not good at photography, it doesn't matter if you have a professional grade (D)SLR camera, you still will not take perfect pictures.
Learn how to take pictures with a decent camera. You don't need a $1000 camera to make something your friends and family will appreciate as well as something that could be exhibited. But you do need to be able to frame and composite and play with the subjects. And that is independent of the camera you have!
That half a second leg stuff sounds like a total load of crap. What are you, a professional sports photographer? If the guy who made the thread wants to take pictures of buildings, of landscapes, of nature or even of clouds, half a second vs instant hardly makes a difference. Want to take a picture of a bird flying? Instant doesn't do you much since it's there's luck involved in taking the picture as the bird moves faster than you. Want to take a picture of a lightning? Instant is no good because by the time you notice it it's already too late to press the button. There you need a camera with a half a minute, one minute shutter opening time or lots of smaller exposures to actually get anything at all. Here it's perseverance that does it!
No one carries around a DSLR at all times. A smaller camera not making perfect pictures in "total darkness" because it has a slightly smaller sensor is better for taking pictures if you have it with you than the perfect SLR that stayed at home.
Ken Rockwell says it best: Your Camera
Doesn't Matter
Search the rest of his website for other info on the subject as well as more practical info for who is starting into taking pictures.
On a more practical side I got myself a Canon S90 (should be S95 nowadays). I would never carry a DSLR around with me and this one has a good (almost DSLR) manual mode. The auto mode works quite well as well. It is small enough that I carry it with me whenever I expect/want to take some pictures.
Who the hell does intrusion detection by (simply) analyzing network traffic and port scanning? Here's a line from a log file in a certain machine I have access to:
Nov 21 18:20:46 ccc sshd[2549]: Accepted keyboard-interactive/pam for <USER> from <aaa>.<bbb>.58.34 port 64715 ssh2
(I replaced the username and part of the IP address for security and privacy reasons)
In this case, the user logged in successfully. If it was unsuccessful, it would also be logged. If it's an attempt at an invalid user, it's also log. So... tell me how is it hard to miss an actual connection from Russia, as compared to a script kiddie's unsuccessful attempt at finding the root password by trying a few common passwords?
Riiiiiiiight... Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "connection attempt" won't be enough to take down any system. Getting a Russian IP address to attempt to connect at your SSH port is one thing, getting a Russian IP address successfully entering your machine and "doing stuff" is something totally different.
If this was all because of an IP logged as failing access then that's one thing. Having heard earlier in the week that the password was 3 characters long, I kind of doubt that...
Actually, some of the studies on the prostate cancer are not saying "you are diagnosed too late", they are saying that "you are diagnosed too early to tell if it's a real cancer" and that detecting one risk factor and starting treatment based on just that is probably going to have more nasty consequences than doing nothing for most of them.
Men are "pretreated" for their cancer and thus, men that maybe would never have a cancer (because a bigger percentage of men are treated than the average of prostate cancer incidence) are going through all the side effects of the drugs, which include impotence, among others. Does it seem like a good trade-off? Well yes, if you do have cancer! The problem is these screenings are not saying this person has a cancer, they say due to these factors this person *may* have cancer and that should not be enough to start cancer treatment.
While not focusing just on this subject, Malcolm Gladwell had a text on this a few years back. (Worth reading and if you are in a hurry just search for "cancer").
Soon in Slashdot, and following the previous topic of why so many bee trucks crashing or whatever:
Why so many programming language creators are dying these days?
It's a late answer but I'm not here for the karma anyway... hope you get to see it.
The reason why you can't make a round trip sort of experiment is because neutrinos hardly interact with matter. They zip through the planet as if solid rock was just more vacuum. Therefore, expecting something like a mirror in the other end so that they bounce back (let's imagine we are talking about light) would be impossible, as they'd just go through said mirror. Even if you say "well, one of them will be bouncing back sooner or later" this is studied with statistically significant populations. They would need several thousand of neutrinos coming back before being able to say anything and that is not happening any time soon.
They did the experiment up to the highest standards, no one (with proper knowledge) is complaining about their setup.
Another practical reason is that the two liquids usually have different densities, so one will tend to float on top of the other.
You mean like alcohol and water? Or like typical gases dissolved in water?
The "one floating on top of the other" is a consequence of them not being miscible, not the other way around.
Just because YOU don't want it and don't understand it, it doesn't mean other people won't.
I have one clock only, my cell phone. I want an alarm clock and I want it to work when I turn off the phone (which I do every night!).
I've seen that theory in the past (it's called Triangle of Life) and apparently it's not as consensual as it may seem.
I'm not saying it's false because I have a Wikipedia link, but for future reference I think it's worth it having a counterclaim right here. At least everyone can (at least) think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
gas + water makes a nasty acid (nicknamed "gacid" by mechanics) that destroys engines.
[citation needed]
If you can somehow mix gas (mostly alkanes) and water and make acids, there will be plenty of chemists interested in that. And the patent itself will be worth a ton of money.
Not saying water won't damage an engine, but this gacid (if as simple as you put there) is total bullshit.
I once saw a tv show where they talked about these military dolphins. I can't recall what the program was, but the outcome wasn't that great. They basically said the dolphins, being such intelligent creatures, sometimes actually lied for the fun of it. Unlike the dogs who simply do what they're told, the dolphins actually played with the rules and would say no mine was there even if they knew they were spotted as being lying.
Maybe the psychological side of the training has evolved since then, or maybe it was just a campaign of misinformation, but if it's actually true, doesn't sound too great for this theory...
Really, those are your thoughts on this?
How have RIAA and MPAA managed to go after users so far? By sharing pixie dust? Unicorn meat?
Of course if that's the root password for the company's server and you type that close to someone else it won't be that difficult for them to find out.
If your attacks only come from someone who knows nothing about the password, that theory works fine. If they saw you typing a three letter word and then put a bunch of dots after "PrXyc.N(n4k77#L!eVdAfp9" seems "slightly" better.
Part of the color comes from what you have on the atmosphere, as different molecules absorb at different wavelengths and, as a consequence, only let go everything else. It is also due to the light the star itself emits.
But the most important part is how thick the atmosphere is. There is a phenomenon called Rayleigh scattering that correlates how much the light is scattered the wavelength. It basically says that the thicker the atmosphere, the more light is scattered and the more you see the reds, as opposed to the blues (that got "way too scattered" already). So, the blue sunset in Mars should be related to the small thickness of its atmosphere...
Everyone is used to get software for free, either because it's really free or because they download a pirate version.
Most of us don't steal coffee, gas, bread or anything else of physical existence, for that matter.
Had Apple put a minimum price on apps and most people would use as little of those as possible. It's not like we are all buying our music through iTunes, is it?
If I understood what you meant; how do I log in from another computer?
Go back 50 years and replace the word "gay" with "black" or "nigger" and you'll fit right in.
What's your opinion on "colored" soldiers? If you're ok with them, why not assume you may be wrong when it comes to gay people?
So me mentioning "devices" in the first line and phones, tablets and other internet connected devices on the rest of the text wasn't enough to make it a post about devices?
Yes, because with a total of 4 billion IPv4 addresses and the fact that an ever increasing number of people are having more and more devices connected to the internet this is not something that would eventually be bound to happen.
You must be from a first world country, to be able to waste your time in Slashdot. How many IP addresses are you responsible for yourself? Phones? Tablets? Routers? E-book readers? Multiply that by everyone else in a first world country and that's a ton of IP addresses, and we are not even counting companies, the public sector or any non-first world country in the planet...
How many Chinese and Indians have a phone which needs an IP address? Is the number gonna get smaller anytime soon?
Screw IPv6, let's all use NAT... it's such a wonderful thing!
You mean one day in the future we'll be able to have one of these?
Boy, can't wait...
It was also the fault of the users who did not opt for a heterogeneous browser ecosystem. Granted, it's a lot to ask the average person to defend a "heterogeneous browser ecosystem", but at least the geeks (and epidemiologists) should get it.
While I do get it (I'm more on the geek side here), we should put things into (historical) perspective.
The first browser I used must have been Netscape 2.x, back in 1996 when I first got a modem. I never lived in the US and paid web access per minute, there was no sort of flat-rate where I was. I remember downloading Netscape Communicator when it first came out (my machine was still on Windows 3.1) and I basically started the download at the end of the evening and woke up around 5 am to go turn off the modem. It had taken several hours on my 28.8 kbps modem to download the 15 MB suite.
A bit later Windows 95 was coming with Internet Explorer and for most of the people sticking with whatever came was not only the only choice (due to lack of knowledge about alternatives) but also the best choice (considering the hours it took to download the alternatives), time you could spend doing useful stuff with the little bandwidth you had. By the time IE got to version 4.0 it was actually a decent browser. And this lead to the disappearance of Netscape in the browser landscape.
Nowadays we stream full HD movies and it seems difficult to rationalize not downloading an alternative "browser suite" that occupied 15 or 20 MB, but back then it was a lot harder to do so. And it was certainly based (partly) on this assumption that Microsoft included IE on Windows.
As it's mentioned in the summary, the Terahertz frequencies are very directional, unlike the typical GHz stuff of wireless networks. So, instead of broadcasting for all the neighborhood you are transmitting more on a point to point fashion. Saturation is almost irrelevant in this scenario (as long as the signal dies off within the solar system).
You sir are taking my comment way, way, WAY out of context. Please tell me which cameras nowadays will take you a 640x480 picture... are you walking around taking pictures with the webcam of a three year old computer?
If you are not good at photography, it doesn't matter if you have a professional grade (D)SLR camera, you still will not take perfect pictures.
Learn how to take pictures with a decent camera. You don't need a $1000 camera to make something your friends and family will appreciate as well as something that could be exhibited. But you do need to be able to frame and composite and play with the subjects. And that is independent of the camera you have!
That half a second leg stuff sounds like a total load of crap. What are you, a professional sports photographer? If the guy who made the thread wants to take pictures of buildings, of landscapes, of nature or even of clouds, half a second vs instant hardly makes a difference. Want to take a picture of a bird flying? Instant doesn't do you much since it's there's luck involved in taking the picture as the bird moves faster than you. Want to take a picture of a lightning? Instant is no good because by the time you notice it it's already too late to press the button. There you need a camera with a half a minute, one minute shutter opening time or lots of smaller exposures to actually get anything at all. Here it's perseverance that does it!
No one carries around a DSLR at all times. A smaller camera not making perfect pictures in "total darkness" because it has a slightly smaller sensor is better for taking pictures if you have it with you than the perfect SLR that stayed at home.
.
Ken Rockwell says it best:
Your Camera Doesn't Matter
Search the rest of his website for other info on the subject as well as more practical info for who is starting into taking pictures.
On a more practical side I got myself a Canon S90 (should be S95 nowadays). I would never carry a DSLR around with me and this one has a good (almost DSLR) manual mode. The auto mode works quite well as well. It is small enough that I carry it with me whenever I expect/want to take some pictures.
Are we all just into saying crap nowadays?
Who the hell does intrusion detection by (simply) analyzing network traffic and port scanning? Here's a line from a log file in a certain machine I have access to:
(I replaced the username and part of the IP address for security and privacy reasons)
In this case, the user logged in successfully. If it was unsuccessful, it would also be logged. If it's an attempt at an invalid user, it's also log. So... tell me how is it hard to miss an actual connection from Russia, as compared to a script kiddie's unsuccessful attempt at finding the root password by trying a few common passwords?
Riiiiiiiight... Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "connection attempt" won't be enough to take down any system.
Getting a Russian IP address to attempt to connect at your SSH port is one thing, getting a Russian IP address successfully entering your machine and "doing stuff" is something totally different.
If this was all because of an IP logged as failing access then that's one thing. Having heard earlier in the week that the password was 3 characters long, I kind of doubt that...
You mean you didn't even read the summary?!
Slashdot can only become a better place when some people stop reaching for the "Post" button...
Actually, some of the studies on the prostate cancer are not saying "you are diagnosed too late", they are saying that "you are diagnosed too early to tell if it's a real cancer" and that detecting one risk factor and starting treatment based on just that is probably going to have more nasty consequences than doing nothing for most of them.
Men are "pretreated" for their cancer and thus, men that maybe would never have a cancer (because a bigger percentage of men are treated than the average of prostate cancer incidence) are going through all the side effects of the drugs, which include impotence, among others. Does it seem like a good trade-off? Well yes, if you do have cancer! The problem is these screenings are not saying this person has a cancer, they say due to these factors this person *may* have cancer and that should not be enough to start cancer treatment.
While not focusing just on this subject, Malcolm Gladwell had a text on this a few years back. (Worth reading and if you are in a hurry just search for "cancer").
Soon in Slashdot, and following the previous topic of why so many bee trucks crashing or whatever:
Why so many programming language creators are dying these days?
It's a late answer but I'm not here for the karma anyway... hope you get to see it.
The reason why you can't make a round trip sort of experiment is because neutrinos hardly interact with matter. They zip through the planet as if solid rock was just more vacuum. Therefore, expecting something like a mirror in the other end so that they bounce back (let's imagine we are talking about light) would be impossible, as they'd just go through said mirror. Even if you say "well, one of them will be bouncing back sooner or later" this is studied with statistically significant populations. They would need several thousand of neutrinos coming back before being able to say anything and that is not happening any time soon.
They did the experiment up to the highest standards, no one (with proper knowledge) is complaining about their setup.
Another practical reason is that the two liquids usually have different densities, so one will tend to float on top of the other.
You mean like alcohol and water? Or like typical gases dissolved in water?
The "one floating on top of the other" is a consequence of them not being miscible, not the other way around.
Just because YOU don't want it and don't understand it, it doesn't mean other people won't.
I have one clock only, my cell phone. I want an alarm clock and I want it to work when I turn off the phone (which I do every night!).
You think I'm stupid? I can live with that...
I've seen that theory in the past (it's called Triangle of Life) and apparently it's not as consensual as it may seem.
I'm not saying it's false because I have a Wikipedia link, but for future reference I think it's worth it having a counterclaim right here. At least everyone can (at least) think about it.
Maybe it's Slashdot who needs a bit of work and not the other way around.