Which is why he was not kicked out of office. Or does the concept innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?
He got head which is not sex, and nowhere near as bad as all the cocaine JWB did, but let's smear the best president in the last 40 years for telling the truth.
Java's RTspec is not designed around those applications. In the Real time world a lot of people are still using ASM because in plenty of applications programmer time is much cheaper than CPU time. If your paying for 10,000,000 CPU's then and 6 programmers then paying for 50c CPU's vs. 1$ CPU's is worth a lot.
I work with real time systems and 0.0001 seconds (100 microseconds) is plenty fast for most Human to Real time systems applications. Granted JAVA is not what you want for fine-tuning your Engines performance but it's plenty fast for most applications. What makes Java so useful is you get to avoid most of the really time consuming bugs. Compare a fully functional java based multithreaded HTTP server with the C / C++ equivalent and it's going to be 1/3rd as much code. And will operate at vary close to the same speeds. In other words it's designed around applications where programmer time is worth more than machine time. We already have C so Java was built around the 95% of applications that don't need inline ASM.
I have killed BSD UNIX with buggy C networking code which is the only thing I have been unable to duplicate with good Java code. You can do bit twiddling in Java, but it's faster in C. You can have hundreds of threads doing their own thing in either but it's much easer to do that in Java than C/C++. The secret is to know enough about how Java works so that you avoid things like creating new threads that eat up a lot of time. Once you understand how things work you can use things like Thread Pooling that are extremely efficient. Instead of complaining that concatenating Strings takes so long try learning about what other tools are out there like StringBuffer.
But this depends on context. If you have 3 days left to finish a project anything that get's it done FAST is elegant in that it's exactly what you want. However, if your designing a system and you come up with an elegant solution your "great" hack might be using LISP as your scripting language to greatly increase the system's flexibility while using a bunch of C++ code to leverage existing liburarys.
Einstein's hack was to stop thinking of the would in terms of eculidian space and to start thinking of space/time that can be bent. He could have randomly chosen the formula for general relativity worked though the math and said ok this works. Instead he *changed* the nature of the problem in such a way that an elegant solution showed up.
I don't think this is a question of him not knowing the fundamentals of his discipline so much as not caring about specific implementations. A CS student is closer to an engineer who is studding how to design car engines than an auto mechanic who will fix them. I frequently deal with support people who know all sorts of work around to get the system to do what they want, but such knowledge becomes useless once I fix the problem. I have done a lot of socket / low level programming for TCP/IP and Apple Talk but I know vary little about LDAP.
My XP machine kept complaining that I did not set up a firewall; it's the only machine behind a NAT so I knew it was not a real problem. However, a friend told me to turn on windows firewall so the message would go away. Such problems are not about the fundamentals of computing so much as knowing that your car has a sticky transmission.
The study of Ethics is more about what people in specific cultures feel is right than it is about what is absolutely right. Morals tend to be generic rules that are based on ethical principles. But, in the real world you need a system to specify which is worse the sending one innocent man to jail or not punishing 10 guilty men.
What do you do if you're the defense attorney for a man who is willing to take the blame for a murder committed by his son? Should a battlefield doctor risk his life, knowing that if he dies more of his countrymen will die without his help, to save a foot solder? How about the army's best general?
The reason why the above are ethical dilemmas is because they are situations where there are different Moral principles in conflict. Triage is a vary simple case of this. "When many peoples lives are at risk go where you can do the most good." But, how do you rank good? That's what Ethics is about. Most doctors agree that it's better to give a heart transplant to an otherwise healthy 20 year old than an 80 year old with a 6-month life expectancy.
My point is the ends justify the means works as part of a moral and ethical system. Ethics becomes complicated when you realize that you don't know things. The 80 year old might be working on a cure for AIDS and the 20 year old might be on death row for human sacrifice, but that does not mean you need to know everything before making a decision. However, understanding that you could be wrong is part of the basis for acting as a defense attorney for someone you think is guilty and many other situations where ethics point to a different conclusion than morals might suggest.
PS: Philosophers like to try and codify things like "absolute good" but that is no grantee that such things exist. You can make an analogy that volcano's are like the bowl movements of animals, but that's just blowing smoke as it where. The central problem with philosophy is that just because an argument sounds good does not make it correct. Thus, western thought moved on and codified the principles of science so that you could have some basis for judging the validity of ideas in the real world.
That is not nearly the problem you're presenting. When given two choices the person looks at the near and long term consequences that they know about and make judgments based on their limited point of view. Thus, "the ends justifying the means" can work as to foundation of an ethical system even if the final ends are not known.
PS: Is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that someone dies worth it if you save 10,000,000 lives? Why?
Post 4 knows what he is talking about. But, he missed the point. "A large surface area does buy you something: you decelerate earlier, in thinner air, and the heat is spread out over a larger area. This lowers temperatures and makes materials problems much easier. But things still
happen just about as quickly."
When you're getting back from orbit your dumping all that kinetic energy as drag. ~50% of that heat ends up on your craft and 50% ends up on the ship. The problem is you can't dump that heat to the air because your drag is also heating the air next to where you want to cool things down. Which greatly increases the temperature your ship get's to. Now with a shoot all the heat is dumped on one side but the other is a vacuum so you get to dump that heat much faster. You also get to dump the energy at higher altitude as you add more surface area that lowers how much and how fast you heat your craft (As your dumping a higher % of the heat on the shoot).
For small craft heat shields are probably a better option, but for something the size of the shuttle your dumping x^3 more energy in x^2 more space. So if you double the size of the ship you get 8x the mass but that's ok cuz you can add 8x the shoot but it's much harder to keep increasing the temperature that the heat shield can take.
PS: The advantage of the Para sail is you get some lift which increases the time it takes to land which decreases the need for exotic materials (but you need more insulation because while the oven is not as hot your in there longer there comes a point where a little active cooling can go a long way to help this.) And, you get to control where you land / avoid the bump you would get from a normal shoot. Wings also give you this with out them the shuttle would need an insane shoot to keep from killing people as it drops like a rock.
Think about this would a single sheet of paper burn up on reentry?
The real.com lesson is a bad idea stays a bad idea no matter how much money you throw at it.
The problem with the shuttle was they ran out of money for R&D so they tried to get the Air Force to back it. Which forced them had to make a lot of stupid compromises. If that had gone with the original design it would have cost 1/2 - 1/4 as much to operate but the Air Force insisted it could do a lot of things like "hot landings" that had little to no real value and just jacked up the price.
People still think you need "heat shields" to get back from space but there where functional designs for Parachute that would have let Apollo Astronauts get back from orbit in their space suits. The only real problem was getting them down fast enough so they would not run out of oxygen and getting them from orbit into the upper atmosphere.
You would need to recall your public key (which is long and random so it's going to be hard for most people) and a single key logger would compromise all your passwords. So it's not really much better than having software keep a listing of all your passwords. At which point it's going to work on all sights not just ones that implement your system.
The explosive is the medium. H-Bomb reactions are so fast that the pressure is irrelevant to the explosion. The operate by creating a high temperature high pressure area that is so far above atmospheric pressure that it's irrelevant.
A modern H-bomb is basically an Oxidized Explosion > Supper critical fission reaction > Fusion Reaction > More fission from all those neutrons.
PS: Yes, for optimal yield it's useful to know if your going to detonate in space but it's not that big a deal.
On the other hand, water
(seawater, that is) transmits blue-green light pretty well -- losing
"only" about 5% of its original intensity for every meter it transmits
through water.
It drops to 1/2 power every 14m. So at 100m your down to.95 ^ 100 = 0.5% which is going to be ever so usefull...
Can you realy tell the diference in a blind test? Aka have some guy flip a coin and you test either setup A: iTunes though an Audigy card or B: iTunes though an M-Audio Sonica Theater setup. (Repeating 10 times so you can find out if their just guessing.)
PS: The only reasons I ask is I have bet people that just picked up high end stero cables to take this type of test and for the most part they fail.
FYI there basicly an unlimited supply of Uranium. (100,000+ years easy)
Current systems use ~1% of the energy it is possible to extract from uranium. Uranium ends up costing about 5% of a power plants operating budget and we don't even use 99% of it's energy. With a little reprocessing you can use well over 90% of the avalible energy to supply all of the worlds energy needs for 100's of years with what is already out of the ground. And by extracting uranium from the worlds oceans we can meet all the worlds energy needs using LESS than the amount of uranium added each year from erosion.
Using reprocessing we will create create less radiation per kilowatt than from coal power plants and the highly condensed nature of the waste significantly increase the ease of storage. While people "fear" nukes it's not significantly easer to build a bomb from a power plant than it is to create a bomb from sea watter. As for a terrorist threat extracting fuel from an operating power plant is extremely difficulty due to the insane levels of radioactivity and highly toxic nature of the reactor. As to using a "dirty" bomb from spent fuel that is possible, but the average pool supply store keeps everything you need for a far more deadly bomb with little to no security.
"I would rather be concerned for countries which do execute people and do drag people to camps without judge or trail "for national security" and do invade foreign nations to expand their sphere of influence, all covered with a thick layer of propaganda and national pride. *That* is I call tending towards Fascistic nature."
Damm, I honestly thought you where going to start ranting about the US there... Wow, this country is going to shit.
It's a long-standing theory that most people who vehemently object to evolution do so for religious reasons.
If you have a better idea then feel free to expound your idea but it needs to be testable and pass Occam's razor or it's not science. After all, you can poke all the holes in general relativity or evolution or QM or plate tectonics or F=MA you want but until you come up with a new theory or actually test out the "hypothetical problem" your not "doing science" you're just complaining.
"You can't describe pornographic acts while in a school playground."
That's the first time I heard that limitation. Presumably kids can talk about what they want to do with some other person on said playground. Parents can describe the act of reproduction to their children. Teachers can describe STD's and the acts that can spread them. Adults can talk about such things to other adults, but random adults can't talk about such things with random children.
I think it's a reasonable precedent but it's got to be a vary fine line and closely tied in with intent. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html makes you wonder if some group is fighting for power and using this for cover or if most people just find the idea inherently disturbing. I guess if I had kids I could get behind the "think of the children mindset" but from what I can recall it was a transition from not caring about such things to constantly thinking about them at which point I don't see when talking about such things would cause harm.
I don't know but it seems like a lot of this stuff is the dieing gasps of organized religion as it becomes irrelevant in our diverse society. I find it funny that religion has gone from a dominant position in the Middle Ages to the wiping boy of the Republican Party. After all other than the "right to life" issue what are they spending their time on?
Neutrons are the worst type of radiation for several reasons.
They are neutral in charge so they tend to pass though mater and magnetic fields easily, which makes them hard to shield.
They tend to be sent out at high energy's so they tend to create lots of ions along their travel path before they slow down enough to be absorbed. These ions tend to do significant cellular damage.
When they are finally absorbed they tend to create an unstable element which will decay and emit more radiation possibly some other type of radiation and possibly more Neutrons.
I think the pace is slowing down a lot. Today's counter strike is more or less the same as when the game first showed up. Giving the game a better graphics is not going to change the game play much. And minor changes like letting people uses two pistols don't change the game that much. I expect I could watch a game of counter strike 2020 and follow the game just fine.
Besides, if this ever catches on as much as say basketball did then there will be a lot of pressure to keep the game basically the same. After all you might move the free throw line around some but the basketball has changed little over time.
People use a non-random process when choosing passwords. Which is why dictionary attacks work.
Most people use important dates for 5 or 6 digit passwords. aka 5/15/72. or 12/12/04 ect
People also like 12345,54321 ect. Thus a simple dictionary of dates and the simple number patterns tend to crack a good percentage of numeric passwords much faster than a true random attack would. Which is why he might "suspect it is (in reality) much higher than that"
We know a lot more about how the brain functions and develops at a neural level than we do about the formation of galaxies, but it's a far more complex system than the formations of galaxies. We have gotten to the point where we know what the meanings are of the patterns of signals sent to the brain from the eyes. We know the grouse functions of most parts of the brain, and each of its cells but it's extremely complex.
The problem is the brains pattern is important where only the rough shape really matters when dealing with galaxies. The best way to describe this is if you remove a few thousand stars out of galaxies not much happens but if you pick the right few thousand neurons you can have an extremely noticeable effect. And this works on many levels if you damage the right segments of DNA and you can kill a cell while only destroying a minute fraction of it's overall structure.
As to the oceans we have varied good maps of the whole things and only vague guesses as to a tiny fraction of the overall universe. The idea is that the universe is fairly random and it's not going to affect us so having a vague idea of what's going on seems to satisfy most people. After all I don't really care how many planets orbit the average star within 3,000,000,000 light years of us so our inability to find that out does not really bother most people.
"FEMA is the only federal level agency that is even involved, everything else is either state or local."
Army, Navy, Air force, and Cost guard have all been used for domestic disaster recovery. This might blow your mind but we have used nuclear subs to provide civilian power in Hawaii. *Gasp shudder the horror* And if the army was sitting on it's ass with nothing to do then anyone in their right mind would have sent them in. However, my guess is they did not due this as it would have demonstrated how thinly stretched our military is right now.
The appropriate response to the flooding city would have been to rapidly air lift everyone to a few staging grounds where mass transit can move them out of the effected area as rapidly as possible. To do this effectively you declare Martial law and commandeer any civilian transport's necessary to expedite this process as much as possible. You don't give people the option to stick around as an injured person takes much more resources to move than a healthy person so you don't give people the option to stay there and get hurt.
OK, so thousands of people dieing from a natural disaster is not sufficient reasons to declare martial law? Do you thing someone other than the President is responsible for running the Executive branch? How about picking the incompetent staff who mismanaged the relief effort.
I don't see how you can't place the blame for this directly on the Whitehouse. 9-11 would have happened had he been in office for 6 months or 6 years because he was not responding to the threat and this happened because he dismantled FEMA and fucked over every agency that would have responded quickly. Now having created a huge mess out of several working organizations it's clearly his job to deal with it but that has not happened.
As inflation rises so does the value of investments as well as dividends paidout, so while costs have gone up so has income.
O so true. The problem is inflation tends to look like income.
You buy 1000$ in X (re invest the dividends in that stock) and sell it in 10 years at 2000 then most people say they have doubled their money but at 3%/year inflation 15% of that "growth" would be inflation and not real growth. People love to say that they had x% ROI but they tend to ignore inflation when looking at those numbers. It's realy easy to look at the value of your stock and your dividends and start spending more than your real income because your ignoring inflation.
PS: It sounds like you like dividend oriented stock and that tends to counter inflation but the markets tend to hurt you for goint that rout. For the most part "the safer the investment the worse the return." Which get's realy bad when you add inflation into the mix a 6% ROI that's only realy a 3% ROI.
Slashdot Mirror
HE DID NOT LIE!
Which is why he was not kicked out of office. Or does the concept innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?
He got head which is not sex, and nowhere near as bad as all the cocaine JWB did, but let's smear the best president in the last 40 years for telling the truth.
Java's RTspec is not designed around those applications. In the Real time world a lot of people are still using ASM because in plenty of applications programmer time is much cheaper than CPU time. If your paying for 10,000,000 CPU's then and 6 programmers then paying for 50c CPU's vs. 1$ CPU's is worth a lot.
I work with real time systems and 0.0001 seconds (100 microseconds) is plenty fast for most Human to Real time systems applications. Granted JAVA is not what you want for fine-tuning your Engines performance but it's plenty fast for most applications. What makes Java so useful is you get to avoid most of the really time consuming bugs. Compare a fully functional java based multithreaded HTTP server with the C / C++ equivalent and it's going to be 1/3rd as much code. And will operate at vary close to the same speeds. In other words it's designed around applications where programmer time is worth more than machine time. We already have C so Java was built around the 95% of applications that don't need inline ASM.
I have killed BSD UNIX with buggy C networking code which is the only thing I have been unable to duplicate with good Java code. You can do bit twiddling in Java, but it's faster in C. You can have hundreds of threads doing their own thing in either but it's much easer to do that in Java than C/C++. The secret is to know enough about how Java works so that you avoid things like creating new threads that eat up a lot of time. Once you understand how things work you can use things like Thread Pooling that are extremely efficient. Instead of complaining that concatenating Strings takes so long try learning about what other tools are out there like StringBuffer.
PS: A quick look at some fast Java code. (It is a bit dated but gives you some idea what I am talking about.)
A hack is a solution to a complex problem.
But this depends on context. If you have 3 days left to finish a project anything that get's it done FAST is elegant in that it's exactly what you want. However, if your designing a system and you come up with an elegant solution your "great" hack might be using LISP as your scripting language to greatly increase the system's flexibility while using a bunch of C++ code to leverage existing liburarys.
Einstein's hack was to stop thinking of the would in terms of eculidian space and to start thinking of space/time that can be bent. He could have randomly chosen the formula for general relativity worked though the math and said ok this works. Instead he *changed* the nature of the problem in such a way that an elegant solution showed up.
I don't think this is a question of him not knowing the fundamentals of his discipline so much as not caring about specific implementations. A CS student is closer to an engineer who is studding how to design car engines than an auto mechanic who will fix them. I frequently deal with support people who know all sorts of work around to get the system to do what they want, but such knowledge becomes useless once I fix the problem. I have done a lot of socket / low level programming for TCP/IP and Apple Talk but I know vary little about LDAP.
My XP machine kept complaining that I did not set up a firewall; it's the only machine behind a NAT so I knew it was not a real problem. However, a friend told me to turn on windows firewall so the message would go away. Such problems are not about the fundamentals of computing so much as knowing that your car has a sticky transmission.
The study of Ethics is more about what people in specific cultures feel is right than it is about what is absolutely right. Morals tend to be generic rules that are based on ethical principles. But, in the real world you need a system to specify which is worse the sending one innocent man to jail or not punishing 10 guilty men.
What do you do if you're the defense attorney for a man who is willing to take the blame for a murder committed by his son? Should a battlefield doctor risk his life, knowing that if he dies more of his countrymen will die without his help, to save a foot solder? How about the army's best general?
The reason why the above are ethical dilemmas is because they are situations where there are different Moral principles in conflict. Triage is a vary simple case of this. "When many peoples lives are at risk go where you can do the most good." But, how do you rank good? That's what Ethics is about. Most doctors agree that it's better to give a heart transplant to an otherwise healthy 20 year old than an 80 year old with a 6-month life expectancy.
My point is the ends justify the means works as part of a moral and ethical system. Ethics becomes complicated when you realize that you don't know things. The 80 year old might be working on a cure for AIDS and the 20 year old might be on death row for human sacrifice, but that does not mean you need to know everything before making a decision. However, understanding that you could be wrong is part of the basis for acting as a defense attorney for someone you think is guilty and many other situations where ethics point to a different conclusion than morals might suggest.
PS: Philosophers like to try and codify things like "absolute good" but that is no grantee that such things exist. You can make an analogy that volcano's are like the bowl movements of animals, but that's just blowing smoke as it where. The central problem with philosophy is that just because an argument sounds good does not make it correct. Thus, western thought moved on and codified the principles of science so that you could have some basis for judging the validity of ideas in the real world.
That is not nearly the problem you're presenting. When given two choices the person looks at the near and long term consequences that they know about and make judgments based on their limited point of view. Thus, "the ends justifying the means" can work as to foundation of an ethical system even if the final ends are not known.
PS: Is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that someone dies worth it if you save 10,000,000 lives? Why?
Post 4 knows what he is talking about. But, he missed the point. "A large surface area does buy you something: you decelerate earlier, in thinner air, and the heat is spread out over a larger area. This lowers temperatures and makes materials problems much easier. But things still happen just about as quickly."
When you're getting back from orbit your dumping all that kinetic energy as drag. ~50% of that heat ends up on your craft and 50% ends up on the ship. The problem is you can't dump that heat to the air because your drag is also heating the air next to where you want to cool things down. Which greatly increases the temperature your ship get's to. Now with a shoot all the heat is dumped on one side but the other is a vacuum so you get to dump that heat much faster. You also get to dump the energy at higher altitude as you add more surface area that lowers how much and how fast you heat your craft (As your dumping a higher % of the heat on the shoot).
For small craft heat shields are probably a better option, but for something the size of the shuttle your dumping x^3 more energy in x^2 more space. So if you double the size of the ship you get 8x the mass but that's ok cuz you can add 8x the shoot but it's much harder to keep increasing the temperature that the heat shield can take.
PS: The advantage of the Para sail is you get some lift which increases the time it takes to land which decreases the need for exotic materials (but you need more insulation because while the oven is not as hot your in there longer there comes a point where a little active cooling can go a long way to help this.) And, you get to control where you land / avoid the bump you would get from a normal shoot. Wings also give you this with out them the shuttle would need an insane shoot to keep from killing people as it drops like a rock.
Think about this would a single sheet of paper burn up on reentry?
And Google is how old?
.com lesson is a bad idea stays a bad idea no matter how much money you throw at it.
The real
The problem with the shuttle was they ran out of money for R&D so they tried to get the Air Force to back it. Which forced them had to make a lot of stupid compromises. If that had gone with the original design it would have cost 1/2 - 1/4 as much to operate but the Air Force insisted it could do a lot of things like "hot landings" that had little to no real value and just jacked up the price.
People still think you need "heat shields" to get back from space but there where functional designs for Parachute that would have let Apollo Astronauts get back from orbit in their space suits. The only real problem was getting them down fast enough so they would not run out of oxygen and getting them from orbit into the upper atmosphere.
You would need to recall your public key (which is long and random so it's going to be hard for most people) and a single key logger would compromise all your passwords. So it's not really much better than having software keep a listing of all your passwords. At which point it's going to work on all sights not just ones that implement your system.
The explosive is the medium. H-Bomb reactions are so fast that the pressure is irrelevant to the explosion. The operate by creating a high temperature high pressure area that is so far above atmospheric pressure that it's irrelevant.
A modern H-bomb is basically an Oxidized Explosion > Supper critical fission reaction > Fusion Reaction > More fission from all those neutrons.
PS: Yes, for optimal yield it's useful to know if your going to detonate in space but it's not that big a deal.
Place ontop of a stick and lift above your body...
Did you read the link?
.95 ^ 100 = 0.5% which is going to be ever so usefull...
On the other hand, water (seawater, that is) transmits blue-green light pretty well -- losing "only" about 5% of its original intensity for every meter it transmits through water.
It drops to 1/2 power every 14m. So at 100m your down to
Can you realy tell the diference in a blind test? Aka have some guy flip a coin and you test either setup A: iTunes though an Audigy card or B: iTunes though an M-Audio Sonica Theater setup. (Repeating 10 times so you can find out if their just guessing.)
PS: The only reasons I ask is I have bet people that just picked up high end stero cables to take this type of test and for the most part they fail.
FYI there basicly an unlimited supply of Uranium. (100,000+ years easy)
Current systems use ~1% of the energy it is possible to extract from uranium. Uranium ends up costing about 5% of a power plants operating budget and we don't even use 99% of it's energy. With a little reprocessing you can use well over 90% of the avalible energy to supply all of the worlds energy needs for 100's of years with what is already out of the ground. And by extracting uranium from the worlds oceans we can meet all the worlds energy needs using LESS than the amount of uranium added each year from erosion.
Using reprocessing we will create create less radiation per kilowatt than from coal power plants and the highly condensed nature of the waste significantly increase the ease of storage. While people "fear" nukes it's not significantly easer to build a bomb from a power plant than it is to create a bomb from sea watter. As for a terrorist threat extracting fuel from an operating power plant is extremely difficulty due to the insane levels of radioactivity and highly toxic nature of the reactor. As to using a "dirty" bomb from spent fuel that is possible, but the average pool supply store keeps everything you need for a far more deadly bomb with little to no security.
"I would rather be concerned for countries which do execute people and do drag people to camps without judge or trail "for national security" and do invade foreign nations to expand their sphere of influence, all covered with a thick layer of propaganda and national pride. *That* is I call tending towards Fascistic nature."
Damm, I honestly thought you where going to start ranting about the US there... Wow, this country is going to shit.
It's a long-standing theory that most people who vehemently object to evolution do so for religious reasons.
If you have a better idea then feel free to expound your idea but it needs to be testable and pass Occam's razor or it's not science. After all, you can poke all the holes in general relativity or evolution or QM or plate tectonics or F=MA you want but until you come up with a new theory or actually test out the "hypothetical problem" your not "doing science" you're just complaining.
"You can't describe pornographic acts while in a school playground."
That's the first time I heard that limitation. Presumably kids can talk about what they want to do with some other person on said playground. Parents can describe the act of reproduction to their children. Teachers can describe STD's and the acts that can spread them. Adults can talk about such things to other adults, but random adults can't talk about such things with random children.
I think it's a reasonable precedent but it's got to be a vary fine line and closely tied in with intent. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html makes you wonder if some group is fighting for power and using this for cover or if most people just find the idea inherently disturbing. I guess if I had kids I could get behind the "think of the children mindset" but from what I can recall it was a transition from not caring about such things to constantly thinking about them at which point I don't see when talking about such things would cause harm.
I don't know but it seems like a lot of this stuff is the dieing gasps of organized religion as it becomes irrelevant in our diverse society. I find it funny that religion has gone from a dominant position in the Middle Ages to the wiping boy of the Republican Party. After all other than the "right to life" issue what are they spending their time on?
Neutrons are the worst type of radiation for several reasons.
They are neutral in charge so they tend to pass though mater and magnetic fields easily, which makes them hard to shield.
They tend to be sent out at high energy's so they tend to create lots of ions along their travel path before they slow down enough to be absorbed. These ions tend to do significant cellular damage.
When they are finally absorbed they tend to create an unstable element which will decay and emit more radiation possibly some other type of radiation and possibly more Neutrons.
I think the pace is slowing down a lot. Today's counter strike is more or less the same as when the game first showed up. Giving the game a better graphics is not going to change the game play much. And minor changes like letting people uses two pistols don't change the game that much. I expect I could watch a game of counter strike 2020 and follow the game just fine.
Besides, if this ever catches on as much as say basketball did then there will be a lot of pressure to keep the game basically the same. After all you might move the free throw line around some but the basketball has changed little over time.
People use a non-random process when choosing passwords. Which is why dictionary attacks work.
Most people use important dates for 5 or 6 digit passwords. aka 5/15/72. or 12/12/04 ect
People also like 12345,54321 ect. Thus a simple dictionary of dates and the simple number patterns tend to crack a good percentage of numeric passwords much faster than a true random attack would. Which is why he might "suspect it is (in reality) much higher than that"
We know a lot more about how the brain functions and develops at a neural level than we do about the formation of galaxies, but it's a far more complex system than the formations of galaxies. We have gotten to the point where we know what the meanings are of the patterns of signals sent to the brain from the eyes. We know the grouse functions of most parts of the brain, and each of its cells but it's extremely complex.
The problem is the brains pattern is important where only the rough shape really matters when dealing with galaxies. The best way to describe this is if you remove a few thousand stars out of galaxies not much happens but if you pick the right few thousand neurons you can have an extremely noticeable effect. And this works on many levels if you damage the right segments of DNA and you can kill a cell while only destroying a minute fraction of it's overall structure.
As to the oceans we have varied good maps of the whole things and only vague guesses as to a tiny fraction of the overall universe. The idea is that the universe is fairly random and it's not going to affect us so having a vague idea of what's going on seems to satisfy most people. After all I don't really care how many planets orbit the average star within 3,000,000,000 light years of us so our inability to find that out does not really bother most people.
"FEMA is the only federal level agency that is even involved, everything else is either state or local."
Army, Navy, Air force, and Cost guard have all been used for domestic disaster recovery. This might blow your mind but we have used nuclear subs to provide civilian power in Hawaii. *Gasp shudder the horror* And if the army was sitting on it's ass with nothing to do then anyone in their right mind would have sent them in. However, my guess is they did not due this as it would have demonstrated how thinly stretched our military is right now.
The appropriate response to the flooding city would have been to rapidly air lift everyone to a few staging grounds where mass transit can move them out of the effected area as rapidly as possible. To do this effectively you declare Martial law and commandeer any civilian transport's necessary to expedite this process as much as possible. You don't give people the option to stick around as an injured person takes much more resources to move than a healthy person so you don't give people the option to stay there and get hurt.
OK, so thousands of people dieing from a natural disaster is not sufficient reasons to declare martial law? Do you thing someone other than the President is responsible for running the Executive branch? How about picking the incompetent staff who mismanaged the relief effort.
I don't see how you can't place the blame for this directly on the Whitehouse. 9-11 would have happened had he been in office for 6 months or 6 years because he was not responding to the threat and this happened because he dismantled FEMA and fucked over every agency that would have responded quickly. Now having created a huge mess out of several working organizations it's clearly his job to deal with it but that has not happened.
FYI Bandwidth costs are about 50c / GB so 0.001$ / MB could still be profitable.
As inflation rises so does the value of investments as well as dividends paidout, so while costs have gone up so has income.
O so true. The problem is inflation tends to look like income.
You buy 1000$ in X (re invest the dividends in that stock) and sell it in 10 years at 2000 then most people say they have doubled their money but at 3%/year inflation 15% of that "growth" would be inflation and not real growth. People love to say that they had x% ROI but they tend to ignore inflation when looking at those numbers. It's realy easy to look at the value of your stock and your dividends and start spending more than your real income because your ignoring inflation.
PS: It sounds like you like dividend oriented stock and that tends to counter inflation but the markets tend to hurt you for goint that rout. For the most part "the safer the investment the worse the return." Which get's realy bad when you add inflation into the mix a 6% ROI that's only realy a 3% ROI.