So you aren't on one. I'm not on one. But you find it relevant? NAT doesn't require a proxy, and I've only worked one place that used a proxy. And aside from that one place, I've only seen them commonly used at schools, as it's common for people who misunderstand CIPA to think one is required. Though CIPA allows for all other protocols, so an HTTP proxy with all other ports wide open. Some places do that. All HTTP goes through proxy, but nothing else filtered happens some times as well.
But the real reason the false equivalence is made is that it's anti-American. The Americans invented the Internet and TCP-IP, but CERN invented the World Wide Web, which *IS* the Internet (or, just one of many protocols that run over the Internet). Thus, the more "important" HTTP is, the less important the USA is.
That's why I use Opera. I've been "hit" by malicious code sites, and none get past the security of using the least popular mainstream browser. It's no more secure, but low enough in use that nobody uses it.
So Genius... how's that phone app transmit commands to the system controlling your home? Oh yeah. Through the internet. It's as if security still matters there huh?
Not through HTTP. Oh, never mind. You are too dumb to know the difference between HTTP and The Internet.
I control my home with a phone app. No encryption needed, I'm either wired or going through an encrypted wireless (yeah, not NSA secure, but more than "good enough"). And none of my home stuff talks HTTP. It's all proprietary. If you are worried about bugs and battery life, you wouldn't use HTTP either. HTTPS is not any different.
So color blind guys should mate with women with color blindness in the family, and have only women, and we'll breed tetrachromats.
We should breed women with recessive one type of color blindness with men with another type, and breed women with pentachromacy.
Funny that a mutation would last and be so wide-spread that is a deficit to one sex and a benefit to the other, though manifests rarely.
And, tetrachromats are the daughter of a man who is an anomalous trichromats and a woman with normal vision.
Genetically, it wouldn't matter who gave which X, so why did you exclude the case of a woman with color blindness mating with a man with color blindness? Or a woman with recessive color blindness with a "normal" man? Or a normal man with a tetrachromat mate? Why not R0 G1 B0 on one X and R0 G0 B1 on the other (though R1 is more common than B1)? Though a hexachromat is possible, R0 G0 B0 and R1 G1 B1. We should genetically engineer all women to that, and filter out R0 B0 G0 eggs for male offspring and R1 B1 G1 eggs for female offspring, so there are no color-blind males, and all women are hexachromatic.
Why? If someone compromises my slashdot account, what can they do? Nothing. So there's no need to trust it at all. Sure, I use the same password on multiple sites, but I have levels of password, and the one they'd get if they compromised my slashdot account would only get them into forums. I don't care. So why should I use any security for an insecure site?
You implied in a sarcastic tone that all the people who claim to be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp are lying about it.
There are studies proving the "average" person can't. And I've seen trials where the people who claim they can, can't. Do you have any evidence backing up your claim that there are people who can tell the difference? All the studies indicate that it's a mental illness, not physiology that convinces people that they can hear a difference.
This implies that you cannot.
You inferred I cannot. There's a difference. You neither understand nor care about the difference.
You don't know the audiophiles in question that you are implying are liars, and you can't provide any evidence whatsoever that they lied, but you implied it anyway.
There's "proof" they cannot. I've never seen any proof they can. If you can't actually contradict me, then you are the troll, not me. Your opinion doesn't trump reality.
Yes, I know, your opinion is wrong, and you can't substantiate it, so you lash out at anyone with a differing opinion. I forgive your troll. You can't help your mental incapacity. Maybe you could get some therapy to help yourself out.
With all the problems, it's surprising wood is still the main building material for the load bearing parts of houses. The floors, the wall supports, and the roof support, almost always wood for residential construction.
It gives a performance boost because it uses more fuel. But that doesn't take into account most drivers don't *ever* use full throttle, so when you make more power, you use less throttle. So you use less fuel. So the E85 will end up (for normal driving) less efficient at no change to acceleration. But max acceleration may be affected slightly.
Fibreglass and plastic, from one report I saw. Wood had superior vibration/sound resistance, unexpected crash benefits, and very low cost. But makers shy away from nature's composite because it has a stigma.
Have fun with it. So many people doing restorations go with upgrades. But yeah, if you are keeping it low RPM and low compression, there's no reason for FI.
Actually, both do. The density of the individual rod and cone cells in the retina produces an ultimate resolving power of the eye, under various conditions. The brain then computes its own composite image, that can be of higher power than that produced by either eye individually.
They've found that many of the "optical ilusions" are in fact brain illusions. The input of the eyes is filtered by the brain before passed to conscious thought. The blind spot is edited out, filled in by interpolation, and other "defects" erased. Motion is highlighted. Colors filled in. Patterns highlighted (especially those that look like eyes/faces).
There's a lot of brain processing that occurs between the retina and an image.
That you are too dumb to understand doesn't make it an error on the part of the speaker.
"Drying" fuel can also mean removing precipitated water, sitting at the bottom of the fuel tank by pulling it into the fuel, and burning it off. But it can also pull water from the air into the fuel, which is an undesired effect.
The energy density of gasoline is higher than with ethanol, so the more ethanol you add the more you "dilute" the energy contained in a particular volume.
Though the knock resistance is higher because of the lower energy. So if you have a high compression engine that "requires" 91 or higher, and you have a choice of 87 "pure" or ~95 E85, you may see better mileage and performance from the "lower energy" E85.
Going with a six-pack traditional carb setup too because MPFI additional expense on a small block is just not justified.
Unless you are bumping the compression and using parts in your restoration good to 8k+ RPM, in which case FI is required for accuracy and volume (especially accuracy at high volume).
Her mutation is known to cause color blindness in men.
I hadn't heard that tetrachromacy was related to color blindness. Though it is linked to the X chromosome, which is linked with male colorblindness. And it seems they have linked a similar effect in monkeys, but it hasn't been found in humans.
Are you a child, perhaps? You come across that way. Most people learn that other people have vastly different experiences of the world by the time they reach adulthood, and learn not to project their own capabilities and limitations onto everyone else.
Rude lies like that are why someone modded you troll. Nowhere did I say that if I can't do it you can't do it. Nowhere did I say anything like what you claim I said. You lied about what I said, in a rude manner. Why? Obviously to pick a fight. Some call that trolling.
If you don't like it, stop trolling.
If you want to address what I said, rather than making fun of me for you thinking I share a different opinion, feel free to try again. You do the worst of what you accuse me of.
So a point source of light can be resolved down to an infinitely small size? Why isn't that used as the acuity test?
If we haven't yet hit the resolving limit, then there is still room for growth in output devices, even if those output devices are merely interpolating up from much lower resolution content.
The human eye does not resolve the image. The brain does. We can get to the same "image" with differing resolutions that are worse than the best eye resolution.
Often it gets into discussions like whether a sound system can reproduce 20k to 25k Hz properly, when it doesn't make a difference to whether someone "enjoys" the sound better.
You can't. I can prove you can't. Post your address and I'll drop by with a 720p TV and a 4k TV with 4k source material for both, and I'll swap them back and forth and you tell me which is higher resolution. But you can get no closer than 8' to the TV.
Can you find any study that shows *anyone* can tell the difference? If not, then I'll assume it's confirmation bias, or any of a number of other psychological fallacies where you "know" you are right because that's what your brain tells you, but you are, in fact, wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
So, once we all have proxies, they'll kill the Jews. I don't think I agree with your logic.
So you aren't on one. I'm not on one. But you find it relevant? NAT doesn't require a proxy, and I've only worked one place that used a proxy. And aside from that one place, I've only seen them commonly used at schools, as it's common for people who misunderstand CIPA to think one is required. Though CIPA allows for all other protocols, so an HTTP proxy with all other ports wide open. Some places do that. All HTTP goes through proxy, but nothing else filtered happens some times as well.
But the real reason the false equivalence is made is that it's anti-American. The Americans invented the Internet and TCP-IP, but CERN invented the World Wide Web, which *IS* the Internet (or, just one of many protocols that run over the Internet). Thus, the more "important" HTTP is, the less important the USA is.
That's why I use Opera. I've been "hit" by malicious code sites, and none get past the security of using the least popular mainstream browser. It's no more secure, but low enough in use that nobody uses it.
I'm not. Are you?
So Genius ... how's that phone app transmit commands to the system controlling your home? Oh yeah. Through the internet. It's as if security still matters there huh?
Not through HTTP. Oh, never mind. You are too dumb to know the difference between HTTP and The Internet.
A server cannot ask for encryption.
So a request to HTTP://www.example.com can't be redirected to HTTPS://www.example.com? Because I would consider that the server asking for encryption.
There is no way around it, security needs to be initiated on the client and the server cannot be allowed to refuse a secure connection.
Great, so when we go to all secure, we don't need any more 500 series error messages, as the servers aren't "allowed" to refuse connections.
I control my home with a phone app. No encryption needed, I'm either wired or going through an encrypted wireless (yeah, not NSA secure, but more than "good enough"). And none of my home stuff talks HTTP. It's all proprietary. If you are worried about bugs and battery life, you wouldn't use HTTP either. HTTPS is not any different.
We should breed women with recessive one type of color blindness with men with another type, and breed women with pentachromacy.
Funny that a mutation would last and be so wide-spread that is a deficit to one sex and a benefit to the other, though manifests rarely.
And, tetrachromats are the daughter of a man who is an anomalous trichromats and a woman with normal vision.
Genetically, it wouldn't matter who gave which X, so why did you exclude the case of a woman with color blindness mating with a man with color blindness? Or a woman with recessive color blindness with a "normal" man? Or a normal man with a tetrachromat mate? Why not R0 G1 B0 on one X and R0 G0 B1 on the other (though R1 is more common than B1)? Though a hexachromat is possible, R0 G0 B0 and R1 G1 B1. We should genetically engineer all women to that, and filter out R0 B0 G0 eggs for male offspring and R1 B1 G1 eggs for female offspring, so there are no color-blind males, and all women are hexachromatic.
I saw it too. I had to read it a few times.
This is unrelated to "nuclear energy" and was for bombs.
Why? If someone compromises my slashdot account, what can they do? Nothing. So there's no need to trust it at all. Sure, I use the same password on multiple sites, but I have levels of password, and the one they'd get if they compromised my slashdot account would only get them into forums. I don't care. So why should I use any security for an insecure site?
You implied in a sarcastic tone that all the people who claim to be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp are lying about it.
There are studies proving the "average" person can't. And I've seen trials where the people who claim they can, can't. Do you have any evidence backing up your claim that there are people who can tell the difference? All the studies indicate that it's a mental illness, not physiology that convinces people that they can hear a difference.
This implies that you cannot.
You inferred I cannot. There's a difference. You neither understand nor care about the difference.
You don't know the audiophiles in question that you are implying are liars, and you can't provide any evidence whatsoever that they lied, but you implied it anyway.
There's "proof" they cannot. I've never seen any proof they can. If you can't actually contradict me, then you are the troll, not me. Your opinion doesn't trump reality.
Yes, I know, your opinion is wrong, and you can't substantiate it, so you lash out at anyone with a differing opinion. I forgive your troll. You can't help your mental incapacity. Maybe you could get some therapy to help yourself out.
With all the problems, it's surprising wood is still the main building material for the load bearing parts of houses. The floors, the wall supports, and the roof support, almost always wood for residential construction.
So you'd rather have a broken ankle than a splinter in your foot? I guess that's why they took it out. The pile of people afraid of wood.
Don't take too many forest walks do you?
It gives a performance boost because it uses more fuel. But that doesn't take into account most drivers don't *ever* use full throttle, so when you make more power, you use less throttle. So you use less fuel. So the E85 will end up (for normal driving) less efficient at no change to acceleration. But max acceleration may be affected slightly.
Fibreglass and plastic, from one report I saw. Wood had superior vibration/sound resistance, unexpected crash benefits, and very low cost. But makers shy away from nature's composite because it has a stigma.
Have fun with it. So many people doing restorations go with upgrades. But yeah, if you are keeping it low RPM and low compression, there's no reason for FI.
Balsa wood was used in the Corvette. Wood it nature's original composite.
Actually, both do. The density of the individual rod and cone cells in the retina produces an ultimate resolving power of the eye, under various conditions. The brain then computes its own composite image, that can be of higher power than that produced by either eye individually.
They've found that many of the "optical ilusions" are in fact brain illusions. The input of the eyes is filtered by the brain before passed to conscious thought. The blind spot is edited out, filled in by interpolation, and other "defects" erased. Motion is highlighted. Colors filled in. Patterns highlighted (especially those that look like eyes/faces).
There's a lot of brain processing that occurs between the retina and an image.
That you are too dumb to understand doesn't make it an error on the part of the speaker.
"Drying" fuel can also mean removing precipitated water, sitting at the bottom of the fuel tank by pulling it into the fuel, and burning it off. But it can also pull water from the air into the fuel, which is an undesired effect.
The energy density of gasoline is higher than with ethanol, so the more ethanol you add the more you "dilute" the energy contained in a particular volume.
Though the knock resistance is higher because of the lower energy. So if you have a high compression engine that "requires" 91 or higher, and you have a choice of 87 "pure" or ~95 E85, you may see better mileage and performance from the "lower energy" E85.
Going with a six-pack traditional carb setup too because MPFI additional expense on a small block is just not justified.
Unless you are bumping the compression and using parts in your restoration good to 8k+ RPM, in which case FI is required for accuracy and volume (especially accuracy at high volume).
Her mutation is known to cause color blindness in men.
I hadn't heard that tetrachromacy was related to color blindness. Though it is linked to the X chromosome, which is linked with male colorblindness. And it seems they have linked a similar effect in monkeys, but it hasn't been found in humans.
Are you a child, perhaps? You come across that way. Most people learn that other people have vastly different experiences of the world by the time they reach adulthood, and learn not to project their own capabilities and limitations onto everyone else.
Rude lies like that are why someone modded you troll. Nowhere did I say that if I can't do it you can't do it. Nowhere did I say anything like what you claim I said. You lied about what I said, in a rude manner. Why? Obviously to pick a fight. Some call that trolling.
If you don't like it, stop trolling.
If you want to address what I said, rather than making fun of me for you thinking I share a different opinion, feel free to try again. You do the worst of what you accuse me of.
If we haven't yet hit the resolving limit, then there is still room for growth in output devices, even if those output devices are merely interpolating up from much lower resolution content.
The human eye does not resolve the image. The brain does. We can get to the same "image" with differing resolutions that are worse than the best eye resolution.
Often it gets into discussions like whether a sound system can reproduce 20k to 25k Hz properly, when it doesn't make a difference to whether someone "enjoys" the sound better.
You can't. I can prove you can't. Post your address and I'll drop by with a 720p TV and a 4k TV with 4k source material for both, and I'll swap them back and forth and you tell me which is higher resolution. But you can get no closer than 8' to the TV.
You know what? I CAN tell the difference.
Can you find any study that shows *anyone* can tell the difference? If not, then I'll assume it's confirmation bias, or any of a number of other psychological fallacies where you "know" you are right because that's what your brain tells you, but you are, in fact, wrong.