"all that energy is compressed into two protons, which are a million times smaller than that annoying bug[Mosquito].
Hmm, (2/(6.02*10^23grams))/(0.002grams) = 1.66112957 × 10-21 so 2 protons weigh about 1 / (1,700,000,000,000,000,000,000)th as much as those Mosquito's which means it's volume is around that much smaller as well.
How about length 15 mm vs (10^15 meters) = 1.5 × 10^ -17meters so umm nope.
The use of the term law has more to do with an idea's name and age than how "true" it is.
The law of energy conservation is false for vary small time scales. And only approximately true for longer ones.
The "Universal Law of Gravitation" is false for vary large masses, high speeds, ect. Thus general relativity ect. We don't know how well it works on small time scales and small time slices but does not seem to mesh well with QM.
The gas laws are vary wrong at low temperatures, are approximately true for normal temperatures.
Your assumption PHD = a good level of statistical understanding.
Counter Example:
A single case where a PHD program produces students with little statistical understanding.
QED: While some PhD's might have a good understanding of statistics simply having a PHD does not equate to high level of statistical knowledge.
I would agree that on average PhD's have a better understanding of statistic than the average 12th grader. However, there is probably some population of 12th grade students with a better understanding of statistics than some population of PhD's.
Anyway, if you do enough research and you will get some 98+% correlations simply from the number of studies your performing but it's even worse when you do small populations studies. One of the basic assumptions in statistical analysis is that the distribution of your sample relates to the destitution of the population. When you have small sample sizes your sample's variability needs to be representative for your results to be accurate and there is no amount of statistics that will demonstrate this. The smaller the samples size the more important your assumptions become. You can't have a 20-person study that gives you a 99.99% level of certainty even if the statistics seem to point in that direction. Take a simple case study where 20 people from Nebraska and none of them are left handed but your control group has 19/20 people are left handed. What does that say about the overall population of Nebraska being left handed?
Now if you think they did a great job then cool. I might agree with you when I read the study, but with the information I have gained so far I think their conclusion is reliable enough to warrant further study, but not enough to be worth a posting in the popular press. Doing so (for these type of studies) erodes the credibility of science as seen by the general public as a lot of these stories turn out to be false. 1 in 20 is a good gamble as far as investing in further research but it a horrible level of certainty when expounding ideas to the public. The general public does not understand the difference between a preliminary study and the scientific consensus around things like global worming so they seem to equate them and say "it's just a guess."
PS: I would love to have a 19 in 20 chance of knowing who would win the next supper bowl but I would not bet my retirement on those odds. When I read something in the popular press that talks about a small population study I think that's nice go back and tell me what's up when you have better data it's not that I think they did I poor job I just don't have enough data to trust their results.
Having tutored a PHD though quantitative methods (she had one and was working on the 2nd) I can tell you the required level of Statistical knowledge for a PHD is shit. This PHD program spent about as much time teaching them how to use SPSS as they spent trying build a foundation for understanding and applying statistics.
Anyway, I have read fair amount of "PHD" level research in neuroscience and it's full of tiny sample sizes, which does not mean it's a good idea. The problem with those sample sizes you don't know the underlying variability. You can guess it's distributed about a "standard bell curve" and that your "representative sample's" variability relates to the overall populations variability ect. But, you don't know shit about it. This study used two self-selecting populations (people that chose to go to over 100 miles to Dartmouth at 18 or they are 25 to 35 year old collage students.) and tiny sample sizes so even if the math seems to work out they don't know shit about what's going on.
Now, if they want to use this research to look for grant money to study what's going on fine, but don't publish this research like they discovered something.
PS: Granted I did not read the study only the linked article, but they did not imply that the control group where freshmen only "older students" and based on the quote. "During the first year of college, especially at a residential college, students have many new experiences," I can only assume the other participants where not necessarily freshmen so this is looking more like a fishing expedition than a look into how age relates to brain maturity. Now I could be wrong in this case after you see enough misrepresentation of research you will start hearing alarm bells every time you see a tiny sample used to backup a plausible argument. After all if they had used the same methods with 12 year olds and 60 year olds and found no difference in brain development how would you have interpreted the results? It's not that their methods are sufficient but the fact that their results are so expected that makes you willing to trust their results.
"nineteen 18-year-old Dartmouth students who had moved more than 100 miles to attend college" vs "A control group of 17..."
With a sample size that small you realy can't tell anything specific.
I don't know how they can try and publish a study where they look at such a small sample size, and assume the diffrence between the older and younger group's brain is based on maturity. Now if they had tracked 100 people from age 12 to 30 and compared brain scans with their behavior they could get good data but this study is worthless.
Few people know to interact with a database efficiently. http://www.ncr.com/en/solutions/solutions.htm takes this to an extreme but with a good db design you don't have to worry about scalability. It might take a little time to figure out what to index ect, but unless your over 10k transactions per second there is no reason to worry about scalability. Chances are performance issues are based around your design and using the db more will help. This is not to say that cashing is without value, but with proper indexing SELECT can be insanely fast on multi million record tables.
PS: This is not to say all systems work well with a huge db on the back end but when you look at the total costs of doing this stuff in house even Oracle and 50k in HW can seem cheep.
You can use lossles compression on RAW IMG fiels and still save space. The first few bit's are not vary random and compress well while you can compress a higher percentage of a 16 bit picture than a 24 bit picture you can still compress the 24bit picture some without loss of any data.
IMO: Use Java(ick)/Pascal/(stable high level lanuage) and link to your own custom C++/ASM lib for the stuff that needs to be *fast*.
By spliting the app into more than one language you end up with a clean code seperation between the *fast* code and the *stable* core. Chances are you don't realy need to work out complex thread communication all that often, but if people think the App needs to be fast then they will start optimising stuff that they have no reason to thouch. If this is not fast enough profile the code and see what you need to work on. Chances are your app is going to spend over 90% of it's time on less than 10% of it's code so you are free to keep everything else clean and only make a mess of that fraction.
In the first generation you would see more "uncommon" and recessive DNA show up. Chances are if it's not the "common" DNA then it's bad mojo.
However, in the second generation your dealing with a smaller pool of DNA so if nothing killed of the first generation then the second generation probably got a little lucky and skipped out of most of the "bad" DNA so while you don't have a lot of diversity there are fewer things "hiding in the back of the closet" as it where. Over time inbreeding is bad, but 3 or 4 generations is not going to produce people with flippers...
Well, most of the time. One of the reasons animal breeders tend to use highly related offspring is so they can focuses on eliminating things they don't like or promoting things they like. Say you take 10 random dog's and pair them up producing 60 new dogs dogs per pair. Now select the 10 dogs with say the longest tail and bread them over time you end up with a small set of DNA that happens to have long tails and a host of other problems. But if you separate them into 5 groups you can focus on promoting long tails in each set and then cross bread at a latter time to remove any problem DNA in your line. (The fresh blood idea. You don't want a bunch of clones you want a bunch of random DNA with some specific change.)
Floor 100 with 0 passangers vs bottom floor 0 with a full load 3500lb's.
Cable is not light. And you still need to expend energy overcoming momentium of the car, cable, and counter weight.
Regenerative breaking is vary effecent (90+%)and I don't think you need to expend energy holding the car in place so on average the system should be about as energy effecent excluding the cooling costs which are not that bad.
To find out the mass ratio you need to find out how fast the exit gas is.
To find the gas's velocity you need to know how ionized the gas is and how strong a field it's falling though. For example dropping Deuterium ions though a 30kv field (what's in a CRT) you get a velocity of ~1,600,000 m / s. Which is about what you would find when drooping most ionized gases though that strong a field. It depends on how ionized the gas's is but even at 1/100th the field KE your still at 160,000m/s.
Anyway, the real limiting factor is how powerful an energy source you're providing is and how much that weight's. However, as the reactor is not going to get much lighter over time this does not alter the final velocity calculations just the cargo capacity.
The advantage of ION engines is the the exit gas is going a so much faster that it provides on the order of 10,000x as much thrust as chemical rocket's gas per unit weight, so you only need ~1/10,000th as much of it. The point is if your old craft was 80% fuel by weight then your new craft can be can have.01% that much propellant and get the same delta V.
Granted the Argon gas does not provide any energy, but chemical energy storage is not all that efficient when compared to fission or solar power (only works close to the sun but if you only orbiting earth then you can get all the energy you need for 20years from a mid sized solar array)
Ok it was a bad example, but I am trying to point out that being overly verbose in code can lead to bugs. I have taken 20+ pages of somewhat buggy source code and condenced it down to 2-3 pages of clear but somewhat complex code and found a lot of simple bugs that are from somone spliting things up and then forgeting what's going on.
The point was "spliting a conditional's logic from the conditional is not realy inherently helpfull". I see a lot of:
if (someDataType.isValid()) {
}
Which is fine if you use isValid is used all over the place, but in cases where somone overloads ifValid a few times and then has a bug somewhere it's not realy helpfull. IMO the only reason to have a function do something is if your going to use it in several places or it's over 1/3 a page of code that does some clear and independent function.
IMO a line of code should be a clear thought such as "if (odd condtion is going on) { do something}"
When you write
Boolean DBready= ((DBcon != null)&&(DBcon.isValid())&&(DBcon.isReady)) if (DBready){ }
you have lost something because overtime people will start adding lines between DBready and the if so it becomes harder to follow what's going on.
I have also seen where a bunch of those type of checks are at the top of a code block so that they can throw a try block if something is wrong, but they don't document that their code is doing this. So they have section where they assign a bunch of boolean values with their value. (each of which is only used once) Which makes it harder to follow AND buggy if things are moved around.
I think it's a good idea to use a tool like Jalopy to keep some consistent basic style, but a little code review goes a long way to keeping things clear. Just the idea that someone is going to look at the source code keeps most coders from doing anything that's all that ugly. So while a few coding ideas like "No magic numbers" is a good idea I think it's best to let the code fit the style of the problem not some exacting standard. Coders have enough ways to waste time without giving them boring takes to procrastinate about.
I think the idea is it blocks "all" gravity not just that from earth at which point your going to get some ext ream fast acceleration. AKA you would quickly end up at a good close to C but without without much tidal stress.
PS: Yep the idea is stupid, but as a thought exercise.
You don't need to encode all of the disk using RSA encription. You can use RSA to secure your key's for some other faster system. Basicly at startup you need to enter your private key and then the system decodes the key(s) that let it decode the HDD but after startup you don't spend any time decoding RSA data.
Hmm, you might be miss understanding what I am saying. Let's say Allice and Bob have 2 lines one of which is sending QM info an the other is a classic line which athentecates which QM bits where valid and then the message incoded with those bit's. Now of you tap both lines you can get Allice to send you the message read it and then reincode it for Bob; which is the clasic "man-in-the-middle" attack. You do need acess to both lines, but if you have a few hundred miles of fiber it's not posible to guard all of the line and if people assuem that QM is making things safe they might use 2 strands of fiber on the same cable for this which would make it realy easy to subvert.
How do you think "man-in-the-middle" attacks work vs RSA style public key incription? You can call it an authentication isue if you want but it's all under the heading of "man-in-the-middle" attacks the goal of which is to fool both party's into talking to the wrong system. In any case you can fool QM based encription if you get both party's talking to you while they think they are talking to eachother on ALL channels.
If you want to get into a semantic argument fine, but if people think QM is going to fix the security isues they are going to make it easy for people to fool them. QM gives you little advantage over public key's but it makes it easyer to fool the system. With public key's you can distribute a key with the softwhere/hardwhere but with QM your trusting that nobody is messing with your network which IMO is little better than assuming that nobody can take tap a fiber line under the ocean. (Which RUSSA fell for.)
If you did not need to burn calories then you would not need to breath air. So clearly even while asleep your using energy. Now fat cells take energy in several froms. A biger gut takes more energy to move per breath, you have more capilary's which means your hart needs to pump harder. Each of those fat cells needs to spend energy to maintain "life" even when they don't seem to be donig anything.
You hear things like " but resting hardly uses any calories at all, we may only burn 50 calories an hour." from places like www.weightlossforall.com/calories-per-pound.htm but when you think about it 50*24 = 1200. So they are saying that somone on a 2400 calorie a day diet uses 1/2 of that energy just staying alive. Now an increase in body weight also increases the amount of energy it takes to move so walking 1 mile burns 2x the energy if you are 300lb vs 150 lb. All of this adds up the fact that mainting the same diet/exercise plain will not keep droping pounds at the same rate. (This is part of the reason why you get stuck at specific wiegths with a specific diet / excersise plain and why the first few lb's are always the fastest to go.)
PS: Yes that's how bad things are before I run spell check.
LOL, you can still get a "man-in-the-middle" attack you just need to subvert 2 channels vs 1. The idea that by using QM on one channel you can you a vary public channel to send the rest of your data so it's harder to subvert. But, all your realy doing is adding channels that you need to take over to do a true 'man-in-the-middle" attack. "Man-in-the-middle" will always work if you subvert all channels of comunication.
Even fat cells need energy. An extra 200lb's needs over 1000 calories each and every day to keep the cells alive. So if somone only eat's 1200 calories there is no way for them to get that fat. (And yes people can make it on 1200 calories they get extreamly thin but by doing so there are less cells to keep alive which help balance that out.)
I think there is a lot of value in knowing who your genetic ancestors are. For example my father has an uncommon genetic condition whereby he has poor speculation to his extremity's. But having lived like this most of his life he put little thought into keeping his extremity's worm and got a case of frost bite by working on his car for a few hours in the cold when not useing good foot protection. It then took him several years of somewhat ext ream pain and the removial of some toes to heal. Now knowing about this I have reason to be more cautious when it does not seem all that could out.
However, before this happened to him I used to walk around all winter in sandals because my feet never felt cold. I understand that while I don't feel cold my feet are vary cold when I do this so I can do a lot of damage by walking around like this even if it seems like everything is fine. Thus, by knowing about possible genetic issues you are better able to deal with them.
It's the same thing with hart conditions / diabetes ect. On a more personal level knowing you family's history for breast caner is a powerful tool which would help you manage risk. But, I agree with you that knowing you genetic ancestors as specific people is probably not all that important.
1M62 ~= 10.7f^2 my laptop ~1 f^2 so let's use.1 square metres *.15 *.25 = 3.75w but if you use 50% eff solar cells that goes to 12.5w which would more than double your battery life. At 14w you get 14/(14-12.5)= 9.3 x as long. However, if you used 27% eff and 75% solar power 1f^2 gives 20.25 which means that if you had a detachable solar device you could add ~4-5 hours of peak useage per day anywhere.
The problem is you don't use laptops outside all that much and when you do use them outside you tend to look for shade. And even then the back of a loptop would need to face the sun which is not as common.
So I could see buying a solar laptop batery charger, but I don't think there is much value in covering a laptop in solar cells.
Slashdot Mirror
I just hope it can do math...
"all that energy is compressed into two protons, which are a million times smaller than that annoying bug[Mosquito].
Hmm, (2/(6.02*10^23grams))/(0.002grams) = 1.66112957 × 10-21 so 2 protons weigh about 1 / (1,700,000,000,000,000,000,000)th as much as those Mosquito's which means it's volume is around that much smaller as well.
How about length 15 mm vs (10^15 meters) = 1.5 × 10^ -17meters so umm nope.
The use of the term law has more to do with an idea's name and age than how "true" it is.
The law of energy conservation is false for vary small time scales. And only approximately true for longer ones.
The "Universal Law of Gravitation" is false for vary large masses, high speeds, ect. Thus general relativity ect. We don't know how well it works on small time scales and small time slices but does not seem to mesh well with QM.
The gas laws are vary wrong at low temperatures, are approximately true for normal temperatures.
Basic logic.
Your assumption PHD = a good level of statistical understanding.
Counter Example:
A single case where a PHD program produces students with little statistical understanding.
QED: While some PhD's might have a good understanding of statistics simply having a PHD does not equate to high level of statistical knowledge.
I would agree that on average PhD's have a better understanding of statistic than the average 12th grader. However, there is probably some population of 12th grade students with a better understanding of statistics than some population of PhD's.
Anyway, if you do enough research and you will get some 98+% correlations simply from the number of studies your performing but it's even worse when you do small populations studies. One of the basic assumptions in statistical analysis is that the distribution of your sample relates to the destitution of the population. When you have small sample sizes your sample's variability needs to be representative for your results to be accurate and there is no amount of statistics that will demonstrate this. The smaller the samples size the more important your assumptions become. You can't have a 20-person study that gives you a 99.99% level of certainty even if the statistics seem to point in that direction. Take a simple case study where 20 people from Nebraska and none of them are left handed but your control group has 19/20 people are left handed. What does that say about the overall population of Nebraska being left handed?
Now if you think they did a great job then cool. I might agree with you when I read the study, but with the information I have gained so far I think their conclusion is reliable enough to warrant further study, but not enough to be worth a posting in the popular press. Doing so (for these type of studies) erodes the credibility of science as seen by the general public as a lot of these stories turn out to be false. 1 in 20 is a good gamble as far as investing in further research but it a horrible level of certainty when expounding ideas to the public. The general public does not understand the difference between a preliminary study and the scientific consensus around things like global worming so they seem to equate them and say "it's just a guess."
PS: I would love to have a 19 in 20 chance of knowing who would win the next supper bowl but I would not bet my retirement on those odds. When I read something in the popular press that talks about a small population study I think that's nice go back and tell me what's up when you have better data it's not that I think they did I poor job I just don't have enough data to trust their results.
Having tutored a PHD though quantitative methods (she had one and was working on the 2nd) I can tell you the required level of Statistical knowledge for a PHD is shit. This PHD program spent about as much time teaching them how to use SPSS as they spent trying build a foundation for understanding and applying statistics.
Anyway, I have read fair amount of "PHD" level research in neuroscience and it's full of tiny sample sizes, which does not mean it's a good idea. The problem with those sample sizes you don't know the underlying variability. You can guess it's distributed about a "standard bell curve" and that your "representative sample's" variability relates to the overall populations variability ect. But, you don't know shit about it. This study used two self-selecting populations (people that chose to go to over 100 miles to Dartmouth at 18 or they are 25 to 35 year old collage students.) and tiny sample sizes so even if the math seems to work out they don't know shit about what's going on.
Now, if they want to use this research to look for grant money to study what's going on fine, but don't publish this research like they discovered something.
PS: Granted I did not read the study only the linked article, but they did not imply that the control group where freshmen only "older students" and based on the quote. "During the first year of college, especially at a residential college, students have many new experiences," I can only assume the other participants where not necessarily freshmen so this is looking more like a fishing expedition than a look into how age relates to brain maturity. Now I could be wrong in this case after you see enough misrepresentation of research you will start hearing alarm bells every time you see a tiny sample used to backup a plausible argument. After all if they had used the same methods with 12 year olds and 60 year olds and found no difference in brain development how would you have interpreted the results? It's not that their methods are sufficient but the fact that their results are so expected that makes you willing to trust their results.
"nineteen 18-year-old Dartmouth students who had moved more than 100 miles to attend college" vs "A control group of 17..."
With a sample size that small you realy can't tell anything specific.
I don't know how they can try and publish a study where they look at such a small sample size, and assume the diffrence between the older and younger group's brain is based on maturity. Now if they had tracked 100 people from age 12 to 30 and compared brain scans with their behavior they could get good data but this study is worthless.
Few people know to interact with a database efficiently. http://www.ncr.com/en/solutions/solutions.htm takes this to an extreme but with a good db design you don't have to worry about scalability. It might take a little time to figure out what to index ect, but unless your over 10k transactions per second there is no reason to worry about scalability. Chances are performance issues are based around your design and using the db more will help. This is not to say that cashing is without value, but with proper indexing SELECT can be insanely fast on multi million record tables.
PS: This is not to say all systems work well with a huge db on the back end but when you look at the total costs of doing this stuff in house even Oracle and 50k in HW can seem cheep.
You can use lossles compression on RAW IMG fiels and still save space. The first few bit's are not vary random and compress well while you can compress a higher percentage of a 16 bit picture than a 24 bit picture you can still compress the 24bit picture some without loss of any data.
IMO: Use Java(ick)/Pascal/(stable high level lanuage) and link to your own custom C++/ASM lib for the stuff that needs to be *fast*.
By spliting the app into more than one language you end up with a clean code seperation between the *fast* code and the *stable* core. Chances are you don't realy need to work out complex thread communication all that often, but if people think the App needs to be fast then they will start optimising stuff that they have no reason to thouch. If this is not fast enough profile the code and see what you need to work on. Chances are your app is going to spend over 90% of it's time on less than 10% of it's code so you are free to keep everything else clean and only make a mess of that fraction.
In the first generation you would see more "uncommon" and recessive DNA show up. Chances are if it's not the "common" DNA then it's bad mojo.
However, in the second generation your dealing with a smaller pool of DNA so if nothing killed of the first generation then the second generation probably got a little lucky and skipped out of most of the "bad" DNA so while you don't have a lot of diversity there are fewer things "hiding in the back of the closet" as it where. Over time inbreeding is bad, but 3 or 4 generations is not going to produce people with flippers...
Well, most of the time. One of the reasons animal breeders tend to use highly related offspring is so they can focuses on eliminating things they don't like or promoting things they like. Say you take 10 random dog's and pair them up producing 60 new dogs dogs per pair. Now select the 10 dogs with say the longest tail and bread them over time you end up with a small set of DNA that happens to have long tails and a host of other problems. But if you separate them into 5 groups you can focus on promoting long tails in each set and then cross bread at a latter time to remove any problem DNA in your line. (The fresh blood idea. You don't want a bunch of clones you want a bunch of random DNA with some specific change.)
Compare:
Floor 100 with 0 passangers vs bottom floor 0 with a full load 3500lb's.
Cable is not light. And you still need to expend energy overcoming momentium of the car, cable, and counter weight.
Regenerative breaking is vary effecent (90+%)and I don't think you need to expend energy holding the car in place so on average the system should be about as energy effecent excluding the cooling costs which are not that bad.
Wow realy droped the ball on this one. To hit 1/2 ISP the craft needs to be 40% fuel. So, 3000 / 102 * 1000(km to m) /2 = 29,400m/s
Sorry, forgot you had an Isp number (I was stuck thinking in terms of 100 kW). Anyway Isp(seconds) = 102 * [rocket exhaust velocity in km/s]
/2 = 153,000,000m/s
To hit 1/2 ISP the craft needs to be 40% fuel. So, 3000 * 102 * 1000(km to m)
PS: Unless I am missing something else, I am a little tired right now.
Umm, no. F=M*A.
You can't just pick a mass ratio of 5.
To find out the mass ratio you need to find out how fast the exit gas is.
To find the gas's velocity you need to know how ionized the gas is and how strong a field it's falling though. For example dropping Deuterium ions though a 30kv field (what's in a CRT) you get a velocity of ~1,600,000 m / s. Which is about what you would find when drooping most ionized gases though that strong a field. It depends on how ionized the gas's is but even at 1/100th the field KE your still at 160,000m/s.
Anyway, the real limiting factor is how powerful an energy source you're providing is and how much that weight's. However, as the reactor is not going to get much lighter over time this does not alter the final velocity calculations just the cargo capacity.
The advantage of ION engines is the the exit gas is going a so much faster that it provides on the order of 10,000x as much thrust as chemical rocket's gas per unit weight, so you only need ~1/10,000th as much of it. The point is if your old craft was 80% fuel by weight then your new craft can be can have .01% that much propellant and get the same delta V.
Granted the Argon gas does not provide any energy, but chemical energy storage is not all that efficient when compared to fission or solar power (only works close to the sun but if you only orbiting earth then you can get all the energy you need for 20years from a mid sized solar array)
Ok it was a bad example, but I am trying to point out that being overly verbose in code can lead to bugs. I have taken 20+ pages of somewhat buggy source code and condenced it down to 2-3 pages of clear but somewhat complex code and found a lot of simple bugs that are from somone spliting things up and then forgeting what's going on.
:
The point was "spliting a conditional's logic from the conditional is not realy inherently helpfull". I see a lot of
if (someDataType.isValid()) {
}
Which is fine if you use isValid is used all over the place, but in cases where somone overloads ifValid a few times and then has a bug somewhere it's not realy helpfull. IMO the only reason to have a function do something is if your going to use it in several places or it's over 1/3 a page of code that does some clear and independent function.
IMO a line of code should be a clear thought such as "if (odd condtion is going on) { do something}"
When you write
Boolean DBready= ((DBcon != null)&&(DBcon.isValid())&&(DBcon.isReady))
if (DBready){
}
you have lost something because overtime people will start adding lines between DBready and the if so it becomes harder to follow what's going on.
I have also seen where a bunch of those type of checks are at the top of a code block so that they can throw a try block if something is wrong, but they don't document that their code is doing this. So they have section where they assign a bunch of boolean values with their value. (each of which is only used once) Which makes it harder to follow AND buggy if things are moved around.
IMO a lot of coding practices tend to make things less clear.
...
...
Would you rather a bunch of simple lines like:
boolean GoodNameA = (Name.length < maxNameLength)
boolean GoodNameA = (Name.length > 0)
boolean temp2 = (Fark.length < maxNameLength) && (Fark.length > 0)
boolean temp3 = (Logo.length < maxNameLength) && (Logo.length > 0)
if ((GoodNameA ) && (GoodNameB) {
if (Temp2){
if (Temp3){
}
}
...
}
Or a clear compound line which shows you the context for all those simple lines so you can see what's going on.
if ((Name.length < maxNameLength) && (Name.length > 0){
if(Fark.length < maxNameLength) && (Fark.length > 0)
(Logo.length < maxNameLength) && (Logo.length > 0)){
...
}
}
I think it's a good idea to use a tool like Jalopy to keep some consistent basic style, but a little code review goes a long way to keeping things clear. Just the idea that someone is going to look at the source code keeps most coders from doing anything that's all that ugly. So while a few coding ideas like "No magic numbers" is a good idea I think it's best to let the code fit the style of the problem not some exacting standard. Coders have enough ways to waste time without giving them boring takes to procrastinate about.
I think the idea is it blocks "all" gravity not just that from earth at which point your going to get some ext ream fast acceleration. AKA you would quickly end up at a good close to C but without without much tidal stress.
PS: Yep the idea is stupid, but as a thought exercise.
You don't need to encode all of the disk using RSA encription. You can use RSA to secure your key's for some other faster system. Basicly at startup you need to enter your private key and then the system decodes the key(s) that let it decode the HDD but after startup you don't spend any time decoding RSA data.
Hmm, you might be miss understanding what I am saying. Let's say Allice and Bob have 2 lines one of which is sending QM info an the other is a classic line which athentecates which QM bits where valid and then the message incoded with those bit's. Now of you tap both lines you can get Allice to send you the message read it and then reincode it for Bob; which is the clasic "man-in-the-middle" attack. You do need acess to both lines, but if you have a few hundred miles of fiber it's not posible to guard all of the line and if people assuem that QM is making things safe they might use 2 strands of fiber on the same cable for this which would make it realy easy to subvert.
How do you think "man-in-the-middle" attacks work vs RSA style public key incription? You can call it an authentication isue if you want but it's all under the heading of "man-in-the-middle" attacks the goal of which is to fool both party's into talking to the wrong system. In any case you can fool QM based encription if you get both party's talking to you while they think they are talking to eachother on ALL channels.
If you want to get into a semantic argument fine, but if people think QM is going to fix the security isues they are going to make it easy for people to fool them. QM gives you little advantage over public key's but it makes it easyer to fool the system. With public key's you can distribute a key with the softwhere/hardwhere but with QM your trusting that nobody is messing with your network which IMO is little better than assuming that nobody can take tap a fiber line under the ocean. (Which RUSSA fell for.)
If you did not need to burn calories then you would not need to breath air. So clearly even while asleep your using energy. Now fat cells take energy in several froms. A biger gut takes more energy to move per breath, you have more capilary's which means your hart needs to pump harder. Each of those fat cells needs to spend energy to maintain "life" even when they don't seem to be donig anything.
You hear things like " but resting hardly uses any calories at all, we may only burn 50 calories an hour." from places like www.weightlossforall.com/calories-per-pound.htm but when you think about it 50*24 = 1200. So they are saying that somone on a 2400 calorie a day diet uses 1/2 of that energy just staying alive. Now an increase in body weight also increases the amount of energy it takes to move so walking 1 mile burns 2x the energy if you are 300lb vs 150 lb. All of this adds up the fact that mainting the same diet/exercise plain will not keep droping pounds at the same rate. (This is part of the reason why you get stuck at specific wiegths with a specific diet / excersise plain and why the first few lb's are always the fastest to go.)
PS: Yes that's how bad things are before I run spell check.
LOL, you can still get a "man-in-the-middle" attack you just need to subvert 2 channels vs 1. The idea that by using QM on one channel you can you a vary public channel to send the rest of your data so it's harder to subvert. But, all your realy doing is adding channels that you need to take over to do a true 'man-in-the-middle" attack. "Man-in-the-middle" will always work if you subvert all channels of comunication.
Even fat cells need energy. An extra 200lb's needs over 1000 calories each and every day to keep the cells alive. So if somone only eat's 1200 calories there is no way for them to get that fat. (And yes people can make it on 1200 calories they get extreamly thin but by doing so there are less cells to keep alive which help balance that out.)
I think there is a lot of value in knowing who your genetic ancestors are. For example my father has an uncommon genetic condition whereby he has poor speculation to his extremity's. But having lived like this most of his life he put little thought into keeping his extremity's worm and got a case of frost bite by working on his car for a few hours in the cold when not useing good foot protection. It then took him several years of somewhat ext ream pain and the removial of some toes to heal. Now knowing about this I have reason to be more cautious when it does not seem all that could out.
However, before this happened to him I used to walk around all winter in sandals because my feet never felt cold. I understand that while I don't feel cold my feet are vary cold when I do this so I can do a lot of damage by walking around like this even if it seems like everything is fine. Thus, by knowing about possible genetic issues you are better able to deal with them.
It's the same thing with hart conditions / diabetes ect. On a more personal level knowing you family's history for breast caner is a powerful tool which would help you manage risk. But, I agree with you that knowing you genetic ancestors as specific people is probably not all that important.
1M62 ~= 10.7f^2 my laptop ~1 f^2 so let's use .1 square metres *.15 * .25 = 3.75w but if you use 50% eff solar cells that goes to 12.5w which would more than double your battery life. At 14w you get 14/(14-12.5)= 9.3 x as long. However, if you used 27% eff and 75% solar power 1f^2 gives 20.25 which means that if you had a detachable solar device you could add ~4-5 hours of peak useage per day anywhere.
The problem is you don't use laptops outside all that much and when you do use them outside you tend to look for shade. And even then the back of a loptop would need to face the sun which is not as common.
So I could see buying a solar laptop batery charger, but I don't think there is much value in covering a laptop in solar cells.