Back in 1997 a group of leading experts wrote a paper about "leaving law enforcement a way in". From that paper's Executive Summary:
The deployment of key-recovery-based encryption infrastructures to meet law enforcement's
stated specifications will result in substantial sacrifices in security and greatly increased costs to
the end user. Building the secure computer-communication infrastructures necessary to provide adequate
technological underpinnings demanded by these requirements would be enormously complex
and is far beyond the experience and current competency of the field. Even if such infrastructures
could be built, the risks and costs of such an operating environment may ultimately prove unacceptable.
In addition, these infrastructures would generally require extraordinary levels of human
trustworthiness.
// You mean like this? // I don't mind it, but I have worked with people who would hate this style. void func3() { if (AcquireResource3()) { DoStuffWithResources(); Cleanup3(); } } void func2() { if (AcquireResource2()) { func3(); Cleanup2(); } } void func() { if (AcquireResource1()) { func2(); Cleanup1(); } }
// I wouldn't go so far as to claim this is "better" than the goto version. // Especially since "goto cleanup" is a well-known idiom. // However, I do think this reads quite naturally. void func() { bool hasResource1, hasResource2, hasResource3; hasResource1 = AcquireResource1(); if (hasResource1) {hasResource2 = AcquireResource2();} if (hasResource1 && hasResource2) {hasResource3 = AcquireResource3();} if (hasResource1 && hasResource2 && hasResource3) { DoStuffWithResources(); } if (hasResource3) {Cleanup3();} if (hasResource2) {Cleanup2();} if (hasResource1) {Cleanup1();} return; }
If it is so good, why not just store the hydrogen for fuel? Wouldn't it be cheaper/easier to skip the last steps?
Hydrogen is difficult to store in a lightweight, compact system. One good way to store hydrogen is to chemically combine it with carbon and oxygen and put the resulting liquid in tanks at ordinary temperatures and pressures.
If they have a more efficient process with simpler (cheaper) inputs, kudos to them. But this ain't no artificial leaf.
It's a two-step process.The artificial leaf step uses sunlight to split water. The second step has bacteria combine the resulting hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce isopropanol. Rather different from the time-tested use of yeast to convert sugars into ethanol.
Well, there are all the rare earths needed to make 2,900 acres worth of panels, so it's not like it's for free. In fact on a per MWhr basis I'm willing to bet that nuclear fission is still more environmentally friendly (though heat pollution of the cooling water source can be an issue depending on where the plant is sited).
What rare earths? These panels are made from a thin film of cadmium and tellurium on glass, no rare earths required. Tellurium is somewhat rare, if that's what you meant. Since it is mostly produced as a byproduct of copper production, the panels increase the total economic benefit derived from that environmental cost.
Nuclear being more environmentally friendly on per MWhr basis depends heavily on how you define "environmentally friendly".
As for water, "The project will also displace over 152,000 metric tons of water consumption annually based on the average California grid." So, not only no heat pollution, it will save water compared to other methods of producing the electricity.
So imagine that I own a company called "Road America Inc." and we own the roads going in and out of your town. Imagine I'm allowed to say, "Tolls for Ford cars are $1, and Ford cars can go 70 MPH. Tolls for Dodge are $20, and Dodge cars have a speed limit of 35 MPH." You see, I'm not owned by Ford, but I've made a deal with Ford where I get a payoff to promote their brand.
Thankfully the real Road America only owns a road that goes around in a loop, does not price discriminate by manufacturer, and the speed limit is as fast as you can handle it.
I would think that any organism would seek a better or easier path and perhaps come back to center as no gain was found but I think the drift would be endless even if the return to center is endless. Otherwise we would have to explain the ability of an organism to simply be content and intelligent enough to stop trying to change.Other than a decision making process the only other explanation might be divine intervention.
There is no seeking, no contentedness, no intelligence, no decision making process, and no divine intervention.
There is only a stable environment, in which no mutations have occurred that conferred a reproductive advantage.
The Saturn V employed a total mass of 2970 tonnes to lift a mere 118 tonnes to LEO. But the actual raw energy needed to lift 118 tonnes to 200 km is E=mgh = 118,000 times 9.81 times 200,000 = 232 GJ, which is the quantity of energy contained in just 5.47 tonnes of gasoline. So the efficiency of the Saturn V was 0.184%, not because it was a "bad" rocket, but because it was a rocket.
If you just lift the payload to 200 km, it will immediately start falling back to the surface. The payload must also be accelerated to orbital speed, 8000 m/s, at which the 118 tonnes has a kinetic energy of 3776 GJ, so your "efficiency" is off by quite a bit.
If everything is moving away from us, perhaps we -are- the center of the Universe! Sounds like there are still things we dont understand about the observable universe if we cant get the red/green shift stuff to make consistent sense.
Get a rubber balloon and a marker, or just use your imagination. Put a bunch of dots on the balloon. Now choose one dot as a reference and inflate the balloon--all of the other dots move away as the balloon expands. Try using a different dot as the reference and you get the same result. Note that there are limitations to this analogy, but I found it helpful.
Lets see Myxomatosis - 99.8% of the rabbit population destroyed in 2 years
Over time the numbers of rabbits resistant to the virus increased and in 1995 the rabbit haemorraghic disease virus RHDV was released to again cull the numbers. Even in 1995 when RHDV was release the rabbit population was no where near the 1950s population which was destroying pastoral Australia.
Cane toads on the other hand - now that was a fuckup.
Clearly Australian scientists should be working on genetically modifying rabbits so that they will eat cane toads.
We barely have technology within our lifetimes to get one man to Mars on a suicide mission. Even if you pored all the resources of all mankind's wars it would barely be better and that's just to the nearest planet
We have the technology within our lifetimes to send multiple people to Mars on an extended scientific research mission and return them safely to Earth. What we lack is the will to expend our resources on such an endeavor.
That said, interstellar travel is orders of magnitude more difficult.
NTSC stuff is so bad when viewed on a large TV. It is amazing how blurry things look when you flip back and forth between the HD and SD channels. That is part of what lead to the rise of big screen TVs was actually having content for them. With NTSC, a large TV just meant a big blurry image. With ATSC it can mean a nice large image.
I had a 35" tube, needed to view from far enough away or it looked terrible. Went to a 50" class 1080p LCD, sized so with the wider screen the vertical height was about the same. HD looks good even from silly front-row-at-the-cinema close.
Personally I have no opinion about HTTP/2, but I have to say that this anonymous hit piece looks a lot like some IETF participant who didn't like how the process came out trying to create the appearance of consensus against it by pumping up the anger of the interwebs without actually saying what's wrong with the spec. When I see people making statements not supported by explanations as to why we might want to consider them correct, my tendency is to assume that it's hot air trying to bypass the consensus process.
It's also a bit annoying to see the IETF accused of having published a document advocating snooping when in fact someone floated that idea in the IETF and it was shot down in flames, and what we actually published was a document stating that snooping is to be considered an attack and addressed in all new IETF protocol specifications (RFC 7258).
HTTP/2.0 is not a technical masterpiece. It has layering violations, inconsistencies, needless complexity, bad compromises, misses a lot of ripe opportunities, etc. I would flunk students in my (hypothetical) protocol design class if they submitted it. HTTP/2.0 also does not improve your privacy.
I too would like more details, but I doubt he's just blowing smoke here.
The one who will build a forecast model will know which side of the earth will be.... "sunny way up".
Appropriate investment decisions can be made to purchase a land in the twilight zone, where is not too hot and not too cold.
Some sources say, that earth is slowing down 1.7 milliseconds every 100 years. However the last leap second adjustment took place in 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Anybody know a quick and dirty way, a good formula, that would tell us when the earth will really stop rotating?
The Earth will likely still be spinning when the Sun becomes a red giant, boils away the atmosphere and oceans and turns everything all melty, so the real (long-term!) investment deal is in O'Neill colonies.
How about instead of setting the time to 23:59:60, the value 23:59:59 happens twice. When we have DST, and the time falls back an hour, we don't switch to some odd non-existant number for an hour so that we don't have overlap. We just set the clocks back to 1 AM. So all the times between 1 AM and 2 AM happen twice when switching off daylight savings.
The times between 1 AM and 2 AM don't really happen twice on the day daylight time ends, they are simply ambiguous unless daylight or standard time is specified. (In other words, you don't know which of 2 possible seconds 1:42:42 AM refers to until daylight or standard time is specified.) Similarly, your proposal would make 23:59:59 ambiguous without some additional specifier, in which case why not just use 23:59:60?
There is no one perfect solution, which is why there are multiple time standards, including TAI and GPS which do not incorporate leap seconds.
Many programmers are ignorant as to the more subtle aspects of timekeeping.
It does not help that for many programs, it simply doesn't matter.
It is also very easy to slip assumptions that are broken by leap seconds into code. (Every minute has 60 seconds--wrong! Every hour has 3600 seconds--bzzt! Every day has 86400 seconds--fail!)
The main problem
with desalination plants is that they are a risky investment. If the drought ever does end then you are basically
priced out of the market and you have these big expensive desalination plants collecting dust until the next drought.
Build desalination plants on barges. Move them to the most profitable locations as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Mr. President,
Back in 1997 a group of leading experts wrote a paper about "leaving law enforcement a way in". From that paper's Executive Summary:
The deployment of key-recovery-based encryption infrastructures to meet law enforcement's stated specifications will result in substantial sacrifices in security and greatly increased costs to the end user. Building the secure computer-communication infrastructures necessary to provide adequate technological underpinnings demanded by these requirements would be enormously complex and is far beyond the experience and current competency of the field. Even if such infrastructures could be built, the risks and costs of such an operating environment may ultimately prove unacceptable. In addition, these infrastructures would generally require extraordinary levels of human trustworthiness.
// You mean like this?
// I don't mind it, but I have worked with people who would hate this style.
void func3() {
if (AcquireResource3()) {
DoStuffWithResources();
Cleanup3();
}
}
void func2() {
if (AcquireResource2()) {
func3();
Cleanup2();
}
}
void func() {
if (AcquireResource1()) {
func2();
Cleanup1();
}
}
// I wouldn't go so far as to claim this is "better" than the goto version.
// Especially since "goto cleanup" is a well-known idiom.
// However, I do think this reads quite naturally.
void func() {
bool hasResource1, hasResource2, hasResource3;
hasResource1 = AcquireResource1();
if (hasResource1) {hasResource2 = AcquireResource2();}
if (hasResource1 && hasResource2) {hasResource3 = AcquireResource3();}
if (hasResource1 && hasResource2 && hasResource3) {
DoStuffWithResources();
}
if (hasResource3) {Cleanup3();}
if (hasResource2) {Cleanup2();}
if (hasResource1) {Cleanup1();}
return;
}
If it is so good, why not just store the hydrogen for fuel? Wouldn't it be cheaper/easier to skip the last steps?
Hydrogen is difficult to store in a lightweight, compact system. One good way to store hydrogen is to chemically combine it with carbon and oxygen and put the resulting liquid in tanks at ordinary temperatures and pressures.
If they have a more efficient process with simpler (cheaper) inputs, kudos to them. But this ain't no artificial leaf.
It's a two-step process.The artificial leaf step uses sunlight to split water. The second step has bacteria combine the resulting hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce isopropanol. Rather different from the time-tested use of yeast to convert sugars into ethanol.
How can that be a question? Do you know about an hydrocarbon that does not burn?
In Titan's atmosphere hydrocarbons will not burn.
Well, there are all the rare earths needed to make 2,900 acres worth of panels, so it's not like it's for free. In fact on a per MWhr basis I'm willing to bet that nuclear fission is still more environmentally friendly (though heat pollution of the cooling water source can be an issue depending on where the plant is sited).
What rare earths? These panels are made from a thin film of cadmium and tellurium on glass, no rare earths required. Tellurium is somewhat rare, if that's what you meant. Since it is mostly produced as a byproduct of copper production, the panels increase the total economic benefit derived from that environmental cost.
Nuclear being more environmentally friendly on per MWhr basis depends heavily on how you define "environmentally friendly".
As for water, "The project will also displace over 152,000 metric tons of water consumption annually based on the average California grid." So, not only no heat pollution, it will save water compared to other methods of producing the electricity.
However, we know there are a myriad of parallel methods, from satellite to dial-up.
Satellite has unacceptable latency, and dial-up has unacceptable throughput. They aren't even in the same league as cable, fiber, and LTE.
So imagine that I own a company called "Road America Inc." and we own the roads going in and out of your town. Imagine I'm allowed to say, "Tolls for Ford cars are $1, and Ford cars can go 70 MPH. Tolls for Dodge are $20, and Dodge cars have a speed limit of 35 MPH." You see, I'm not owned by Ford, but I've made a deal with Ford where I get a payoff to promote their brand.
Thankfully the real Road America only owns a road that goes around in a loop, does not price discriminate by manufacturer, and the speed limit is as fast as you can handle it.
How did eyes evolve? The structures are too complex to be accounted for by traditional evolutionary explanation mechanisms.
That old chestnut? Open your eyes.
I would think that any organism would seek a better or easier path and perhaps come back to center as no gain was found but I think the drift would be endless even if the return to center is endless. Otherwise we would have to explain the ability of an organism to simply be content and intelligent enough to stop trying to change.Other than a decision making process the only other explanation might be divine intervention.
There is no seeking, no contentedness, no intelligence, no decision making process, and no divine intervention.
There is only a stable environment, in which no mutations have occurred that conferred a reproductive advantage.
There is beauty in simplicity.
I've had to throw away over half the resisters for being out of spec last time I got them there
You should have just painted new color codes on them.
The Saturn V employed a total mass of 2970 tonnes to lift a mere 118 tonnes to LEO. But the actual raw energy needed to lift 118 tonnes to 200 km is E=mgh = 118,000 times 9.81 times 200,000 = 232 GJ, which is the quantity of energy contained in just 5.47 tonnes of gasoline. So the efficiency of the Saturn V was 0.184%, not because it was a "bad" rocket, but because it was a rocket.
If you just lift the payload to 200 km, it will immediately start falling back to the surface. The payload must also be accelerated to orbital speed, 8000 m/s, at which the 118 tonnes has a kinetic energy of 3776 GJ, so your "efficiency" is off by quite a bit.
If everything is moving away from us, perhaps we -are- the center of the Universe! Sounds like there are still things we dont understand about the observable universe if we cant get the red/green shift stuff to make consistent sense.
Get a rubber balloon and a marker, or just use your imagination. Put a bunch of dots on the balloon. Now choose one dot as a reference and inflate the balloon--all of the other dots move away as the balloon expands. Try using a different dot as the reference and you get the same result. Note that there are limitations to this analogy, but I found it helpful.
P.S. It's red/blue shift, not red/green.
Lets see Myxomatosis - 99.8% of the rabbit population destroyed in 2 years
Over time the numbers of rabbits resistant to the virus increased and in 1995 the rabbit haemorraghic disease virus RHDV was released to again cull the numbers. Even in 1995 when RHDV was release the rabbit population was no where near the 1950s population which was destroying pastoral Australia.
Cane toads on the other hand - now that was a fuckup.
Clearly Australian scientists should be working on genetically modifying rabbits so that they will eat cane toads.
Well, the real question is if this program was replicating the same rules as the one that was previously accepted and supposedly beat?
Like the previous record holder, this program implements neither en passant nor castling.
Unlike the previous record holder, this program implements queening, so it is both smaller and has an additional feature.
I'd give a slight exception for Haskell code, though. That might take a week to some people.
%$#@! monads, how do they work?
We barely have technology within our lifetimes to get one man to Mars on a suicide mission. Even if you pored all the resources of all mankind's wars it would barely be better and that's just to the nearest planet
We have the technology within our lifetimes to send multiple people to Mars on an extended scientific research mission and return them safely to Earth. What we lack is the will to expend our resources on such an endeavor.
That said, interstellar travel is orders of magnitude more difficult.
When things are good, does the clock ever move back?
Yes.
NTSC stuff is so bad when viewed on a large TV. It is amazing how blurry things look when you flip back and forth between the HD and SD channels. That is part of what lead to the rise of big screen TVs was actually having content for them. With NTSC, a large TV just meant a big blurry image. With ATSC it can mean a nice large image.
I had a 35" tube, needed to view from far enough away or it looked terrible. Went to a 50" class 1080p LCD, sized so with the wider screen the vertical height was about the same. HD looks good even from silly front-row-at-the-cinema close.
Yeah but how many wand charges does it take to engrave your pet's name? Huh?
That's why I always name my pet Elbereth...
Personally I have no opinion about HTTP/2, but I have to say that this anonymous hit piece looks a lot like some IETF participant who didn't like how the process came out trying to create the appearance of consensus against it by pumping up the anger of the interwebs without actually saying what's wrong with the spec. When I see people making statements not supported by explanations as to why we might want to consider them correct, my tendency is to assume that it's hot air trying to bypass the consensus process.
It's also a bit annoying to see the IETF accused of having published a document advocating snooping when in fact someone floated that idea in the IETF and it was shot down in flames, and what we actually published was a document stating that snooping is to be considered an attack and addressed in all new IETF protocol specifications (RFC 7258).
What "anonymous hit piece"? Second link in the fine summary has a clear byline, Poul-Henning Kamp.
From the article:
HTTP/2.0 is not a technical masterpiece. It has layering violations, inconsistencies, needless complexity, bad compromises, misses a lot of ripe opportunities, etc. I would flunk students in my (hypothetical) protocol design class if they submitted it. HTTP/2.0 also does not improve your privacy.
I too would like more details, but I doubt he's just blowing smoke here.
At some point the earth will stop spinning.
The one who will build a forecast model will know which side of the earth will be .... "sunny way up".
Appropriate investment decisions can be made to purchase a land in the twilight zone, where is not too hot and not too cold.
Some sources say, that earth is slowing down 1.7 milliseconds every 100 years. However the last leap second adjustment took place in 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Anybody know a quick and dirty way, a good formula, that would tell us when the earth will really stop rotating?
The Earth will likely still be spinning when the Sun becomes a red giant, boils away the atmosphere and oceans and turns everything all melty, so the real (long-term!) investment deal is in O'Neill colonies.
How about instead of setting the time to 23:59:60, the value 23:59:59 happens twice. When we have DST, and the time falls back an hour, we don't switch to some odd non-existant number for an hour so that we don't have overlap. We just set the clocks back to 1 AM. So all the times between 1 AM and 2 AM happen twice when switching off daylight savings.
The times between 1 AM and 2 AM don't really happen twice on the day daylight time ends, they are simply ambiguous unless daylight or standard time is specified. (In other words, you don't know which of 2 possible seconds 1:42:42 AM refers to until daylight or standard time is specified.) Similarly, your proposal would make 23:59:59 ambiguous without some additional specifier, in which case why not just use 23:59:60?
There is no one perfect solution, which is why there are multiple time standards, including TAI and GPS which do not incorporate leap seconds.
Many programmers are ignorant as to the more subtle aspects of timekeeping.
It does not help that for many programs, it simply doesn't matter.
It is also very easy to slip assumptions that are broken by leap seconds into code. (Every minute has 60 seconds--wrong! Every hour has 3600 seconds--bzzt! Every day has 86400 seconds--fail!)
The main problem with desalination plants is that they are a risky investment. If the drought ever does end then you are basically priced out of the market and you have these big expensive desalination plants collecting dust until the next drought.
Build desalination plants on barges. Move them to the most profitable locations as needed.