Starting with a multiuser approach and being aware of a network that early on is likely to have made all of the difference. Most of the shit is a legacy of having a single user non-networked environment for so long. Currently it's a single click on an email to infect all the available network shares with cryptolocker - nothing about elevating to install something at all.
Nice try but the chemists who are looking at the samples did a bit more than high school chemistry as well. WTF is it with the science deniers? I suppose I should at least be happy that they are looking up new words on wikipedia and they may actual pick something up by osmosis (new word for you to look up kid that you would have learnt if you'd done high school chemistry).
Nice attempt to distract with semantics, but I doubt you are actually stupid enough to push the line you are pushing. So what are you pushing it? I work in the resources industry and I'm not pushing it, what's your excuse, are you trying to save my job by pretending that any science that sees problems with coal and oil use does not exist? Should I be flattered that you are prepared to be a liar and look like an idiot for my sake? How the fuck did science denial get to such prominence in a site like this? We're supposed to be the ones that understand how to use technology and supposed to know that it is the fruit of science.
I don't know a single person who holds Calhoun's views today
You've exported a few to Australia as "rock star CEOs" to fuck up our communications and other technology companies. There must be a festering pool of them somewhere.
It's very funny when Americans just do not get that the meme you are using began when Ian Plimer was comparing climate scientists to your fundamentalist lay preachers and creationists in order to make fun of them. The science denial crowd really is a strange bunch mostly astroturfed by PR companies but somehow you've been conned and taken for a ride,
The science is telling you not to put your fingers on a glowing metal hotplate but the exact amount of damage from the burn is a bit harder to predict. Simple enough analogy for you, or are extremes all you can deal with?
To put that in perspective everything related to weather and climate which may have earlier have been seen to be agricultural related activities has been relabled as being climate change expenditure. That weather report on the TV news or the net you just saw was paid for as part of those millions.
Is mankind the (only) cause of it? Is that really the question now?
It's the move on from outright denial that there is a fire at all and the latest excuse to ignore the fire. Don't knock it, such a line has turned an obscure Danish economist with nothing to his name into a millionaire! There's serious sponsorship money in arguing to keep pollution regulators off the lawn of companies that may get regulated.
The "future shock" scarcity of mass starvation was on track until China got it's act together, so your dumbed down idea doesn't fit the most simple comparison to reality. I'm not an advocate of Chinese politics, their "justice" system is evil for a start with 99%+ convictions, but I just did not want to see such hardline left/right division stupidity run free.
Come on superwiz, you are not as dumb as the words you've written so don't be so lazy and lift your game.
So? The twenty write the course and some math teachers look at it and probably find that apart from a bit of paper they are qualified to teach it as well, or at least they now understand it enough to teach it plus a bit more.
"inside the box" -- same as the reactor vessel at Fukushima
So now it started inside the reactor? Make up your mind. Obviously it's like the brick wall that the shock wave hit in my example. Gas mix detonates, explosion shock wave and debris hits vessel, vessel either gets damaged enough to leak or not. Your cut and paste technical term you do not understand does not apply at all.
I really don't get why you are trying to distract from the events due to a long chain of fuckups at Fukushima, it's counterproductive.
You didn't, made a huge deal about the type being a factor and then attempted to confuse the reader by misapplying technical terms thta you do not appear to understand yourself. At least your magic steel ball was sort of amusing and showed how little you actually know about the topic you are attempting to lecture us on.
Troll? You built an imaginary troll and argued with that, I'm no troll. Why don't you talk about what I've written instead of cowardly attacking a strawman you've built. Address what actually happened and whether it's a problem or not (which is all I wrote about) instead of going off on a tangent.
You might think you know high energy and "explosives" but you don't know the first thing about them
Actually I do and if you'd been studying mining engineering in the late 1990s you may have had me as a tutor before I went back into private enterprise, so your cut and pastes and wild claims have failed as a bluff coder boy. I'm no expert with explosives but I've done a few dozen experiments using shock waves to compress metal together, so I understand the physics, and now I work with a few real shotfirers, (not imaginary ones) in the seismic industry.
Some people would say this is anti-competitive behaviour from MS and that the consumer affairs machinery (ie. "big government") should kick into action but so far they have not. Let's hear from some libertarians - this is a prime example of a company doing whatever they want to remove all other choice in a market and there is no interference to them doing that. It sounds like a libertarian's wet dream to an outsider to me, but is it? What do they really think of the biggest player reducing all the options for everyone else? I'm hoping for an honest answer with some actual wisdom behind it instead of insults from the naive that never considered the implications of their "philosophy".
but the flame-front travels slowly through the medium
Look up what happens with an oxygen and hydrogen mix when it combusts before demonstrating your ignorance in a lecture full of shit. The flame front is VERY fast - hence with the EXPLOSIONS. A metallugist I worked with in the late 1980s was in the middle of a hydrogen explosion in Sweden and due to being very near the ignition point he merely lost his eyebrows as ignition proceeded at a speed aproaching the speed of sound in the material - yet by the time the shock wave hit the wall there was enough behind it to knock bricks out of the wall.
So I suggest you get a few contexts for "deflagration" and then you can use properly instead of as a fucking stupid euphemism for explosion. This is sort of amusing being lectured to on material science and engineering by a coder boy out of his depth.
Lots of text - now it what way does it contradict - "It's what gets tossed out and how much of it that matters"? It doesn't does it? Why bother posting so much - oh yes - a distraction. Sorry child, or man pretending to be one, your distraction did not work. What matters at the end of the day is what damage the explosion (and yes it was one) did, where the debris ended up and if it can be kept from spreading any more.
I really do not get why so many people argue against the fucking obvious when it's not even contraversial as soon as the word "nuclear" is in the mix. Being idiot fanboys is counterproductive.
Yes - "It's what gets tossed out and how much of it that matters". Do you dispute that in any way? The thing above with the attempted redefinition of an explosion to a technical term the above poster had only just learned (and misapplied) is trying to distract from that. It's not the cause of the incident that matters but how much material gets out to contaminate the area around. Don't let a bit of distracting hand waving cause you to lose sight of the spoon being bent.
If a wave going out at the speed of sound in hydrogen is not fast enough to be an explosion then there is no such thing as an explosion.
I don't think the concept was ever intended to be taken seriously. See also the Yosemite Sam dig to China joke. It's just a "rhetorical flourish" to say a really deep hole, when really deep may be nowhere near the depth of a typical open cut coal mine let alone an undergound one.
Slashdot Mirror
Starting with a multiuser approach and being aware of a network that early on is likely to have made all of the difference.
Most of the shit is a legacy of having a single user non-networked environment for so long.
Currently it's a single click on an email to infect all the available network shares with cryptolocker - nothing about elevating to install something at all.
Nice try but the chemists who are looking at the samples did a bit more than high school chemistry as well.
WTF is it with the science deniers? I suppose I should at least be happy that they are looking up new words on wikipedia and they may actual pick something up by osmosis (new word for you to look up kid that you would have learnt if you'd done high school chemistry).
Nice attempt to distract with semantics, but I doubt you are actually stupid enough to push the line you are pushing. So what are you pushing it? I work in the resources industry and I'm not pushing it, what's your excuse, are you trying to save my job by pretending that any science that sees problems with coal and oil use does not exist? Should I be flattered that you are prepared to be a liar and look like an idiot for my sake?
How the fuck did science denial get to such prominence in a site like this? We're supposed to be the ones that understand how to use technology and supposed to know that it is the fruit of science.
You've exported a few to Australia as "rock star CEOs" to fuck up our communications and other technology companies.
There must be a festering pool of them somewhere.
If they had stuck with Xenix we may not have ended bottom lip deep in a malware swamp listening for approaching speedboats.
It's very funny when Americans just do not get that the meme you are using began when Ian Plimer was comparing climate scientists to your fundamentalist lay preachers and creationists in order to make fun of them.
The science denial crowd really is a strange bunch mostly astroturfed by PR companies but somehow you've been conned and taken for a ride,
The science is telling you not to put your fingers on a glowing metal hotplate but the exact amount of damage from the burn is a bit harder to predict.
Simple enough analogy for you, or are extremes all you can deal with?
Yes they did because it's fucking obvious to anyone who did high school chemistry or even had a helium balloon for a week.
To put that in perspective everything related to weather and climate which may have earlier have been seen to be agricultural related activities has been relabled as being climate change expenditure.
That weather report on the TV news or the net you just saw was paid for as part of those millions.
It's the move on from outright denial that there is a fire at all and the latest excuse to ignore the fire.
Don't knock it, such a line has turned an obscure Danish economist with nothing to his name into a millionaire!
There's serious sponsorship money in arguing to keep pollution regulators off the lawn of companies that may get regulated.
The "future shock" scarcity of mass starvation was on track until China got it's act together, so your dumbed down idea doesn't fit the most simple comparison to reality.
I'm not an advocate of Chinese politics, their "justice" system is evil for a start with 99%+ convictions, but I just did not want to see such hardline left/right division stupidity run free.
Come on superwiz, you are not as dumb as the words you've written so don't be so lazy and lift your game.
So? The twenty write the course and some math teachers look at it and probably find that apart from a bit of paper they are qualified to teach it as well, or at least they now understand it enough to teach it plus a bit more.
A bit slow there guys. Where I live it was part of year ten advanced math in the 1980s.
So now it started inside the reactor? Make up your mind.
Obviously it's like the brick wall that the shock wave hit in my example. Gas mix detonates, explosion shock wave and debris hits vessel, vessel either gets damaged enough to leak or not. Your cut and paste technical term you do not understand does not apply at all.
I really don't get why you are trying to distract from the events due to a long chain of fuckups at Fukushima, it's counterproductive.
You didn't, made a huge deal about the type being a factor and then attempted to confuse the reader by misapplying technical terms thta you do not appear to understand yourself.
At least your magic steel ball was sort of amusing and showed how little you actually know about the topic you are attempting to lecture us on.
Actually I do and if you'd been studying mining engineering in the late 1990s you may have had me as a tutor before I went back into private enterprise, so your cut and pastes and wild claims have failed as a bluff coder boy. I'm no expert with explosives but I've done a few dozen experiments using shock waves to compress metal together, so I understand the physics, and now I work with a few real shotfirers, (not imaginary ones) in the seismic industry.
Some people would say this is anti-competitive behaviour from MS and that the consumer affairs machinery (ie. "big government") should kick into action but so far they have not.
Let's hear from some libertarians - this is a prime example of a company doing whatever they want to remove all other choice in a market and there is no interference to them doing that. It sounds like a libertarian's wet dream to an outsider to me, but is it? What do they really think of the biggest player reducing all the options for everyone else?
I'm hoping for an honest answer with some actual wisdom behind it instead of insults from the naive that never considered the implications of their "philosophy".
I hope you are getting paid for making yourself look like such an utter dickhead.
Look up what happens with an oxygen and hydrogen mix when it combusts before demonstrating your ignorance in a lecture full of shit. The flame front is VERY fast - hence with the EXPLOSIONS.
A metallugist I worked with in the late 1980s was in the middle of a hydrogen explosion in Sweden and due to being very near the ignition point he merely lost his eyebrows as ignition proceeded at a speed aproaching the speed of sound in the material - yet by the time the shock wave hit the wall there was enough behind it to knock bricks out of the wall.
So I suggest you get a few contexts for "deflagration" and then you can use properly instead of as a fucking stupid euphemism for explosion.
This is sort of amusing being lectured to on material science and engineering by a coder boy out of his depth.
Lots of text - now it what way does it contradict - "It's what gets tossed out and how much of it that matters"? It doesn't does it? Why bother posting so much - oh yes - a distraction.
Sorry child, or man pretending to be one, your distraction did not work.
What matters at the end of the day is what damage the explosion (and yes it was one) did, where the debris ended up and if it can be kept from spreading any more.
I really do not get why so many people argue against the fucking obvious when it's not even contraversial as soon as the word "nuclear" is in the mix. Being idiot fanboys is counterproductive.
Yes - "It's what gets tossed out and how much of it that matters". Do you dispute that in any way? The thing above with the attempted redefinition of an explosion to a technical term the above poster had only just learned (and misapplied) is trying to distract from that.
It's not the cause of the incident that matters but how much material gets out to contaminate the area around. Don't let a bit of distracting hand waving cause you to lose sight of the spoon being bent.
If a wave going out at the speed of sound in hydrogen is not fast enough to be an explosion then there is no such thing as an explosion.
I doubt they even use this stupid technique and Cisco is heavily compromised themselves anyway.
So? Chenobyl was a steam explosion. It's what gets tossed out and how much of it that matters.
I still vote for Reptile Sequestration like in the movies.
I don't think the concept was ever intended to be taken seriously. See also the Yosemite Sam dig to China joke. It's just a "rhetorical flourish" to say a really deep hole, when really deep may be nowhere near the depth of a typical open cut coal mine let alone an undergound one.