Yes but we know that well-done meat increases stomach cancer. If you're charring, you deserve your gutrot. It takes 19 seconds to cook a steak properly.
There's plenty of glutimate salts in pork and sea kelp, including monosodium glutamate. The sodium ion breaks off in the same way as table salt; it reacts away eventually, and is metabolized as glutamate.
Biologically, it's harmless. Pharmacologically, we do this all the time: dexamphetamine sulfate is a sulfur salt of dextrorotary amphetamine, which is itself a vapor at room temperatures; naproxen similarly isn't readily available--it's insoluble in water--and so we use the sodium salt.
More complex, particularly stable, molecules can be problematic. GABA can't cross the blood-brain barrier; but, by attaching a phenyl group, we can make it readily cross the blood-brain barrier, where it breaks down into GABA and a free Phenyl group. This is like valium, but stronger, and 10 times as addictive. This isn't a concern with MSG because glutamate already crosses the blood-brain barrier readily, and because adding a sodium ion doesn't make it cross the blood-brain barrier any better.
The concern is "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome", a disease caused by neurotoxic brain damage from MSG.... not really. But that's what the news papers said: MSG causes brain damage.
I would imagine if you consumed 1000 times more nitrates than is considered safe in food, you may have issues. Toxicology is about dosage. Our river water is borderline unsafe because of sodium chloride.
The study that originally connected nitrates with cancer risk and caused the scare in the first place has since been discredited after being subjected to a peer review. There have been major reviews of the scientific literature that found no link between nitrates or nitrites and human cancers, or even evidence to suggest that they may be carcinogenic. Further, recent research suggests that nitrates and nitrites may not only be harmless, they may be beneficial, especially for immunity and heart health.
Amusing stuff. More nitrate from vegetables than from like 500 hotdogs. 90% of your nitrite exposure comes from internal manufacture.
No, they're trying to eat his lunch. You can't tell if bullies are winning until they escape without getting their nuts kicked. Besides, some of us got utterly thrashed in school and just shrugged it off to laugh in their faces, not a single bruise; so far Elon has done pretty much that.
You nailed it. Tesla is not operating at a comparative disadvantage: they can produce cars more effectively than anyone. A $90k top-end Cadillac won't have the features of a $90k top-end Model S. They're comparable, but edged out by trim and safety features (what Cadillac warns you that it's on fire, and then doesn't burn the driver's compartment?).
The auto manufacturers are competing with each other; Tesla, a new entrant, clearly has gotten a step ahead. Detroit can catch up readily, but they're already in competition with Japan and Germany: it's unlikely they can just leave Tesla in the dust and build much better cars for the same price. That means Tesla is at worst a highly competent auto manufacturer, and possibly the top-tier American auto manufacturer.
It means GM and Chrysler should get out of the auto manufacturing business more than Tesla. If the big three keep trying to squeeze Tesla out, they might get kicked out themselves: a $20k Tesla offering could easily send the Ford Focus and Chevrolet Cobalt packing.
Fighting the assessment?! I live in a state where the insurer can't take money back! Everyone I know who's had a fire or some other kind of damage falls into two categories: people who got an insurance claim, were told by their insurer that the damage was $40,000, did the work themselves for $17,000, and pocketed $23k; and people who filed an insurance claim, were told by their insurer that the damage was $40,000, hired a contractor for $30,000, and pocketed $10k.
For shits and giggles, i removed the burglar bars in my high-crime area and installed laminate glass. It's tested up to Missile C specs (2.5 pound 4 foot 2x4 launched at 40fps, which means yes it will deflect bullets--in fact, it'll accept a 3 inch ballistic sphere at 100fps without the sphere creating a large enough hole to enter the house). This type of glass is a standard residential offering: tempered glass takes more abuse before cracking, while laminate glass cracks quickly but can resist explosives (piercing force works; blast force will usually blow the pane out of the frame rather than putting a hole in it).
In short: it's legitimately hard to bust through my windows with a sledgehammer. Faced with an unexpected puzzle box such as a locked, impenetrable glass window, most would-be criminals go somewhere else. This costs more than rude metal bars, since panes take damage on occasion (once or twice a year out to once every 5 years or so), but facilitates emergency egress (casement windows).
I got tired of living in a neighborhood that looked like a prison. I decided to change it.
Actually, a static checker did find the OpenSSL bug, but nobody used Frama-C to check OpenSSL. Any parametric fuzzing would have caught the OpenSSL bug as well: give it construction of the packet and say, "Vary the data in this fixed length field, vary data and size of this variable-length field." Such tests only account for what types of data come through the program, and may cause strange behavior.
Test-driven development would also have caught Heartbleed. Similar to fuzzing, TDD would produce valid and invalid tests and their valid results. For example, a TLS Heartbeet test would send a valid and an invalid request and check each response against an expected response. Most likely, this process would prevent bugs like Heartbleed; it would later fail in regression, i.e. if the test expects 65000 "HELLO" to close connection but instead gets back a response.
It's a flow resource that's difficult to store (you can store it as nuclear material). If you're not using 100% of the flow, have no plans to use 100% of the flow, and have no real way to use 100% of the flow, it's effectively infinite.
The energy consumption of the earth is known. The solar output of the sun is known. A dyson sphere enclosing the sun would collect, at 40% efficiency using our best parabolic collector sterling engine generators, 13,000 trillion times the energy consumption of the earth.
Getting the first useful bits of the dyson sphere up and in operation--hitting the break-even point--would bankrupt the global economy. Actually having a functional Dyson sphere would provide effectively infinite energy and material of all kinds, since we can create any material using arbitrary mass and a fusor.
Using PostgreSQL is the same as using Access. If you are plugging directly into a database, no fancy tools will prepare you for this.
You either want people to understand what a table is, what rows and columns are, what indexes are, and how to use them; or you want to create an interface that provides an abstract concept (helpdesk tickets, accounting ledgers, whatever) and uses the database as a back-end. If you want people who don't know what the fuck tables and indexes are to create tables and indexes, you've fucked up.
Access is "harder to use than it should be" because you're looking at a thing you don't understand and trying to put it to use. It's like getting a forge to make engine parts, but not understanding anything about engineering; what you want is a car that has a steering system and an engine. If you actually want to build custom engines, you're going to have to learn how the parts of an engine go together and what they do.
Just use PostgreSQL from the outset, and include some operational procedures for trailing in your project's requirements.
The requirement to allow non-technical people to perform technical tasks without the knowledge and experience is a critical modern mistake. Cars are easy to drive, but we make you take driver's ed. We don't try to dumb down brain surgery or rocket science. Yet in computers and, horrifyingly, food, we often avoid providing proper training.
Fast food businesses often use a dedicated grill operator. The sandwich line never interacts with raw meat, so nobody explains food handling safety to anyone. In part, we assume you know; in part, we just don't put people in that position. That's half-assed risk management.
It's no more acceptable in computers, where you expect people to understand what they're doing yet not understand how to use OpenOffice.org Base to modify tables, or even the command line. People who can't use computers can't complete this task; you put an interface in front of them that does all the back-end work. If you're giving them direct back-end access, they're technical people.
I noticed the graphics thing way, way back. Playstation 2 brought it to my attention. Back then, I made the unqualified assertion that a video game's budget was some 10% graphics and 90% game on 2D sprite platforms; but on 3D platforms it was rising to mostly graphics and little game. The theory was simple: any idiot can get a pencil and learn to draw, then sketch things repeatedly; any idiot can learn to make pixel art, then pump out pixel sprites in minutes; but any idiot who learns how to model 3D still needs to model a 3D object, add the animations, tweak textures, and overall put 100 times as much work into getting the damn thing to look right.
We've gone from a 20 minute job of making a few sprites and having them cycle in a loop to a several month job of making one model and all the animations and textures. It takes a team of people to get cinnematic realism out of a stampeding mech. A day or two for the model, and then weeks of tweaking and animating.
Games are now CGI movies. Fortunately, we're getting better at this.
Improved battery technology will improve range. Solar panels on the roof won't help (much), but in-road charge cables might; public electricity infrastructure creates its own problems, since electricity is a private venture. If the batteries store 1000 miles, charging may be irrelevant: you'd park at a hotel and charge overnight, because who drives more than 1000 miles in one day?
Hydrogen ultimately comes back to fossil fuels, at which point we should just stick with fossil fuels. Propane provides better efficiency and easier storage than hydrogen.
Which doesn't count, because we could just run from natural gas rather than hydrogen. Converting natural gas to hydrogen is a wasted step when you can just burn natural gas!
Efficiency of hydrogen car economy: 25%. Efficiency of electric car economy: 80%.
The advances in hydrogen fuel storage include high-pressure tanks (carbon fiber, over 10,000PSI), cryogenic storage, and chemical storage. The first doesn't store enough hydrogen, and leaks like a sieve. The other two require power: liquid and slush tanks require cooling, while chemical storage requires heating to extract hydrogen.
Electric cars have 96% storage efficiency; advances center mainly around power production, distribution, and conversion. These factors all contribute to the 20% loss in the system.
We'll benchmark new advantages in fuel against electric vehicles, not hydrogen. When we can use electricity to turn atmospheric CO2 and water into fuel oil at efficiencies above 80%, we'll use diesel engines and atmodiesel. Why? Because it has better energy density than batteries, yet hits that 80% well-to-wheel efficiency of EVs, and so effectively works like an EV with 1000 miles of range and 2 minute recharge. We could also use the process to bootstrap a 65% efficient hydrogen generation process, compared to about 20% efficient for hydrolysis and 80% for hydrogen from natural gas.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but we know that well-done meat increases stomach cancer. If you're charring, you deserve your gutrot. It takes 19 seconds to cook a steak properly.
There's plenty of glutimate salts in pork and sea kelp, including monosodium glutamate. The sodium ion breaks off in the same way as table salt; it reacts away eventually, and is metabolized as glutamate.
Biologically, it's harmless. Pharmacologically, we do this all the time: dexamphetamine sulfate is a sulfur salt of dextrorotary amphetamine, which is itself a vapor at room temperatures; naproxen similarly isn't readily available--it's insoluble in water--and so we use the sodium salt.
More complex, particularly stable, molecules can be problematic. GABA can't cross the blood-brain barrier; but, by attaching a phenyl group, we can make it readily cross the blood-brain barrier, where it breaks down into GABA and a free Phenyl group. This is like valium, but stronger, and 10 times as addictive. This isn't a concern with MSG because glutamate already crosses the blood-brain barrier readily, and because adding a sodium ion doesn't make it cross the blood-brain barrier any better.
The concern is "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome", a disease caused by neurotoxic brain damage from MSG. ... not really. But that's what the news papers said: MSG causes brain damage.
Because canes are for lames.
I would imagine if you consumed 1000 times more nitrates than is considered safe in food, you may have issues. Toxicology is about dosage. Our river water is borderline unsafe because of sodium chloride.
The study that originally connected nitrates with cancer risk and caused the scare in the first place has since been discredited after being subjected to a peer review. There have been major reviews of the scientific literature that found no link between nitrates or nitrites and human cancers, or even evidence to suggest that they may be carcinogenic. Further, recent research suggests that nitrates and nitrites may not only be harmless, they may be beneficial, especially for immunity and heart health.
Amusing stuff. More nitrate from vegetables than from like 500 hotdogs. 90% of your nitrite exposure comes from internal manufacture.
Yeah, and why would you want a lettuce low in potassium and nitrates anyway? You need those things to live!
People think Japan is basically 90% uninhabitable because of nuclear holocaust. I want to move out of the US to escape the stupidity.
No, they're trying to eat his lunch. You can't tell if bullies are winning until they escape without getting their nuts kicked. Besides, some of us got utterly thrashed in school and just shrugged it off to laugh in their faces, not a single bruise; so far Elon has done pretty much that.
You nailed it. Tesla is not operating at a comparative disadvantage: they can produce cars more effectively than anyone. A $90k top-end Cadillac won't have the features of a $90k top-end Model S. They're comparable, but edged out by trim and safety features (what Cadillac warns you that it's on fire, and then doesn't burn the driver's compartment?).
The auto manufacturers are competing with each other; Tesla, a new entrant, clearly has gotten a step ahead. Detroit can catch up readily, but they're already in competition with Japan and Germany: it's unlikely they can just leave Tesla in the dust and build much better cars for the same price. That means Tesla is at worst a highly competent auto manufacturer, and possibly the top-tier American auto manufacturer.
It means GM and Chrysler should get out of the auto manufacturing business more than Tesla. If the big three keep trying to squeeze Tesla out, they might get kicked out themselves: a $20k Tesla offering could easily send the Ford Focus and Chevrolet Cobalt packing.
Fighting the assessment?! I live in a state where the insurer can't take money back! Everyone I know who's had a fire or some other kind of damage falls into two categories: people who got an insurance claim, were told by their insurer that the damage was $40,000, did the work themselves for $17,000, and pocketed $23k; and people who filed an insurance claim, were told by their insurer that the damage was $40,000, hired a contractor for $30,000, and pocketed $10k.
For shits and giggles, i removed the burglar bars in my high-crime area and installed laminate glass. It's tested up to Missile C specs (2.5 pound 4 foot 2x4 launched at 40fps, which means yes it will deflect bullets--in fact, it'll accept a 3 inch ballistic sphere at 100fps without the sphere creating a large enough hole to enter the house). This type of glass is a standard residential offering: tempered glass takes more abuse before cracking, while laminate glass cracks quickly but can resist explosives (piercing force works; blast force will usually blow the pane out of the frame rather than putting a hole in it).
In short: it's legitimately hard to bust through my windows with a sledgehammer. Faced with an unexpected puzzle box such as a locked, impenetrable glass window, most would-be criminals go somewhere else. This costs more than rude metal bars, since panes take damage on occasion (once or twice a year out to once every 5 years or so), but facilitates emergency egress (casement windows).
I got tired of living in a neighborhood that looked like a prison. I decided to change it.
Code smell? What the fuck? What was wrong with "antipattern"?
Actually, a static checker did find the OpenSSL bug, but nobody used Frama-C to check OpenSSL. Any parametric fuzzing would have caught the OpenSSL bug as well: give it construction of the packet and say, "Vary the data in this fixed length field, vary data and size of this variable-length field." Such tests only account for what types of data come through the program, and may cause strange behavior.
Test-driven development would also have caught Heartbleed. Similar to fuzzing, TDD would produce valid and invalid tests and their valid results. For example, a TLS Heartbeet test would send a valid and an invalid request and check each response against an expected response. Most likely, this process would prevent bugs like Heartbleed; it would later fail in regression, i.e. if the test expects 65000 "HELLO" to close connection but instead gets back a response.
Various tests can and have caught these bugs.
I never bought a microwave. Parents had one, but I bought a toaster oven when I moved out. I've never needed a microwave.
I've heard this story before. About a million times on TDWTF.
See you on the front page.
It's a flow resource that's difficult to store (you can store it as nuclear material). If you're not using 100% of the flow, have no plans to use 100% of the flow, and have no real way to use 100% of the flow, it's effectively infinite.
The energy consumption of the earth is known. The solar output of the sun is known. A dyson sphere enclosing the sun would collect, at 40% efficiency using our best parabolic collector sterling engine generators, 13,000 trillion times the energy consumption of the earth.
Getting the first useful bits of the dyson sphere up and in operation--hitting the break-even point--would bankrupt the global economy. Actually having a functional Dyson sphere would provide effectively infinite energy and material of all kinds, since we can create any material using arbitrary mass and a fusor.
Using PostgreSQL is the same as using Access. If you are plugging directly into a database, no fancy tools will prepare you for this.
You either want people to understand what a table is, what rows and columns are, what indexes are, and how to use them; or you want to create an interface that provides an abstract concept (helpdesk tickets, accounting ledgers, whatever) and uses the database as a back-end. If you want people who don't know what the fuck tables and indexes are to create tables and indexes, you've fucked up.
Access is "harder to use than it should be" because you're looking at a thing you don't understand and trying to put it to use. It's like getting a forge to make engine parts, but not understanding anything about engineering; what you want is a car that has a steering system and an engine. If you actually want to build custom engines, you're going to have to learn how the parts of an engine go together and what they do.
Just use PostgreSQL from the outset, and include some operational procedures for trailing in your project's requirements.
The requirement to allow non-technical people to perform technical tasks without the knowledge and experience is a critical modern mistake. Cars are easy to drive, but we make you take driver's ed. We don't try to dumb down brain surgery or rocket science. Yet in computers and, horrifyingly, food, we often avoid providing proper training.
Fast food businesses often use a dedicated grill operator. The sandwich line never interacts with raw meat, so nobody explains food handling safety to anyone. In part, we assume you know; in part, we just don't put people in that position. That's half-assed risk management.
It's no more acceptable in computers, where you expect people to understand what they're doing yet not understand how to use OpenOffice.org Base to modify tables, or even the command line. People who can't use computers can't complete this task; you put an interface in front of them that does all the back-end work. If you're giving them direct back-end access, they're technical people.
They probably never felt a need to bother. "What? People listening in on your shit? Yeah, that's our job. We make shit like that impossible."
100 people isn't an absurdly large team?
I noticed the graphics thing way, way back. Playstation 2 brought it to my attention. Back then, I made the unqualified assertion that a video game's budget was some 10% graphics and 90% game on 2D sprite platforms; but on 3D platforms it was rising to mostly graphics and little game. The theory was simple: any idiot can get a pencil and learn to draw, then sketch things repeatedly; any idiot can learn to make pixel art, then pump out pixel sprites in minutes; but any idiot who learns how to model 3D still needs to model a 3D object, add the animations, tweak textures, and overall put 100 times as much work into getting the damn thing to look right.
We've gone from a 20 minute job of making a few sprites and having them cycle in a loop to a several month job of making one model and all the animations and textures. It takes a team of people to get cinnematic realism out of a stampeding mech. A day or two for the model, and then weeks of tweaking and animating.
Games are now CGI movies. Fortunately, we're getting better at this.
Improved battery technology will improve range. Solar panels on the roof won't help (much), but in-road charge cables might; public electricity infrastructure creates its own problems, since electricity is a private venture. If the batteries store 1000 miles, charging may be irrelevant: you'd park at a hotel and charge overnight, because who drives more than 1000 miles in one day?
Hydrogen ultimately comes back to fossil fuels, at which point we should just stick with fossil fuels. Propane provides better efficiency and easier storage than hydrogen.
Which doesn't count, because we could just run from natural gas rather than hydrogen. Converting natural gas to hydrogen is a wasted step when you can just burn natural gas!
Efficiency of hydrogen car economy: 25%. Efficiency of electric car economy: 80%.
The advances in hydrogen fuel storage include high-pressure tanks (carbon fiber, over 10,000PSI), cryogenic storage, and chemical storage. The first doesn't store enough hydrogen, and leaks like a sieve. The other two require power: liquid and slush tanks require cooling, while chemical storage requires heating to extract hydrogen.
Electric cars have 96% storage efficiency; advances center mainly around power production, distribution, and conversion. These factors all contribute to the 20% loss in the system.
We'll benchmark new advantages in fuel against electric vehicles, not hydrogen. When we can use electricity to turn atmospheric CO2 and water into fuel oil at efficiencies above 80%, we'll use diesel engines and atmodiesel. Why? Because it has better energy density than batteries, yet hits that 80% well-to-wheel efficiency of EVs, and so effectively works like an EV with 1000 miles of range and 2 minute recharge. We could also use the process to bootstrap a 65% efficient hydrogen generation process, compared to about 20% efficient for hydrolysis and 80% for hydrogen from natural gas.