If you're only a few kilometers away from the center of gravity of something with the Sun's mass, *then* the gravity will be really strong.
Actually, even at a million kilometers away (or approximately 1 solar radius) from the sun's center, the sun's gravity is still approximately 28 g's. I'd call that really strong.
I was just trying to write HTML. (This was years ago when I was first learning.) I believe one problem was when I left off </li> tags. IE correctly assumed that when I started a new <li> tag, that it should insert a </li> for me. Netscape ignored the new <li> tag since it hadn't received a </li> tag, and hence my list was not a list under Netscape. I did know enough to look at both browsers, so it isn't accurate to say that IE was the reference browser. This was not the only issue, but it captures the flavor of some of the discrepancies.
This is not to say that what you describe doesn't happen. It's just not the only explanation.
This is not meant to be an attack on IE. If reasonable assumptions can be made about what the code should do, even when coded incorrectly, then it's great that IE does this. I'm not sure of any specific examples, but when I first started writing web pages (years ago), I remember that Netscape would cough on some pages that IE rendered well. Invariably, the problem was that I had left off some terminating tags, and IE correctly figured out my intentions.
Three caveats:
First, having Netscape scold me allowed me to fix my code. IMHO, a better way to do this, however, would be to have an option called "pedantic" that would insist on matching tags (where appropriate). This might exist now, and if so, that's great.
Second, trying to "guess" what was intended is rife with problems. Anyone who has used MS Word for long enough knows what I mean.
Finally, I currently use FireFox the vast majority of the time. I do not know if any of what I said is still true.
First of all, as explained elsewhere (in replies to replies of the reply you're replying to, I believe), the correct equation should be 43*2+8 (since this is helpful when Jupiter is in conjunction with the sun, and is not helpful when Jupiter is in opposition (on the opposite side of the night sky, i.e., on the same side of the sun as us). Of course, 43*2+8 = 94 minutes, which one might be tempted to write as 1 hour, 34 minutes, meaning that I'm off by 4 minutes.
However, if one were to stick to significant figures, 94 minutes = 1.6 hours, so in fact I'm off by 0.1 hours. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.:)
Let's say we're dealing with John Doe at State U. While a high-school student he took advantage of the free web-hosting services of hypothetical-hosting.net. He has a decent home-page that he's spent far too much time on and when he got to State U., he was given a (small) place where his student web-page resides. He wants users who access that page to be sent to his already established home-page at XYZ.net. NTS, he doesn't have admin priviliges, and isn't computer-saavy enough to figure out what server is being run, or how to do anything with that knowledge if he did (it doesn't take much knowledge to set up a home-page at hypothetical-hosting.net). Now, do you really expect him to figure out how to redirect with HTTP, when he can use a simple redirect in HTML?
If you think John Doe is based on me, you'd be only partly correct. I don't have as many excuses as him, and I'm too old to have had a home-page in high-school. However, I do have two accounts on two different servers, and the lesser one (in my opinion) redirects to the better one. I am using HTML redirect, but I'll defend myself by saying that at least I use a 2 second-delay, so that people can relatively easily use the back button. My reason for using redirect is simple - redirect is simple and it works. I'm not proud of it, but since very few people are likely to access the lesser page, I don't see why I should figure out how to make the Apache stuff work (assuming I even can without Admin priviliges). I think my time would be better spent on more important things, like reading/.!
P.S. In FireFox, the redirect page seems to get absorbed after redirecting. If I go to page Example1.html, and then to ExampleRedirect.html, which redirects me to Example2.html, my back button takes me immediately to Example1.html.
You'd think they would not want to show that line, but would rather show only the line displaying what you should do. (I.e., describe what not to do in fairly clear terms, but give the code showing what you should do.)
Of course, from what I can gather from that web-site, what you should do seems to depend on what your server is. Perhaps w3c should try to make it easier to do the right thing.
Just my $0.02 worth.
(I also find it funny that this coincides with the Google story.)
It's always amusing to watch somebody not from the United States pull out the "executed" line.
Not that I defend everything our country does, but we do not execute most of our murderers and/or rapists. IANAL, so I don't know exactly what determines whether or not the prosecution will seek the death penalty (it has something to do with premeditation, intent, and how much you can pay your lawyers, I believe), but very few people are executed in the US every year. For example, last year, 59 inmates were executed.
Don't get me wrong - I think that executing anyone damages who we are (and I know this puts me in the minority here in the US). It's just that we're not as primitive as many people like to think we are.
I'm sure I don't understand the cost or complexity of running a spacecraft. However, I'm certain that a volunteer organization could raise more than $4M per year to keep these spacecraft running. Additionally, I imagine that they could at least off-set some of the cost by relying on volunteer, possibly quite distributed, labor. Naturally, some of the labor cannot be distributed, and perhaps for some of the labor you don't want to rely on volunteers. However, money is money, and if NASA can do it for ~$4M, then I doubt that it would cost more than that for an independent organization to do the same. There are probably quite a few retired NASA employees who would be willing to donate their expertise. Probably several of these employees were involved in getting Voyager off the ground in the first place.
What if NASA simply removed funding for the probes, but allowed a volunteer organization to take over the day-to-day administration. I would wager that the job would get done even better (after a few mis-steps, probably), and wouldn't cost the tax-payers anything. (I'm not saying that the probes aren't worth funding, just that volunteer funding definitely beats no funding.)
/me puts on tin-foil hat...
What if this is already NASA's plan? Create a demand for volunteer funding? Brilliant!
Currently, the combination of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus do a pretty good job of covering the Sun from all angles. Of course, when the planets line up this won't work so well. But with the pole shifting that happens during conjunction, we'll have much bigger things to worry about anyway. (WHAT?!? There was no pole shift in 2000-2001? Well, it will happen next time.)
Since Jupiter is about 43 light-minutes from the sun, and we're about 8 light-minutes away, the round-trip travel time (when Jupiter is on the opposite side of the sun) will be 43*2 + 8 = 94 minutes.
A lot of information we get from the sun is, naturally, only 8 minutes delayed, but I guess since solar winds travel no faster than about 750 km/s (and usually travel much slower), solar winds take more than 50 hours to reach us -- so an hour and a half delay isn't that bad.
Two guys are out hiking and they see a bear. One guy starts running and the other yells after him, "Hey, you can't outrun a bear!" He replies, "I don't have to - I only have to outrun you!"
Same logic applies here. You don't have to be perfectly secure (although that'd be nice, no doubt). You just have to be secure enough that others look like much better targets.
You see, if you have a huge expensive compute engine, you don't go randomly hooking it up to the internet, nor letting anyone who hasn't had careful screening get access to the damn thing.
Cluster != huge expensive computer engine. With software like clusterKNOPPIX (I was just playing with this today), it's really easy to take all of the computers in a research lab (that are already connected to the internet) and turn them into a load-sharing cluster. This is different from a super-computer, although you can presumably get some of the benefit if you are also running MPI (I haven't tried that locally yet). In case you don't understant the purpose of such a cluster it's so that when I want to launch 100 simulations (say to do a parameter sweep, which is embarrassingly parallel), I can launch them all from my local computer and openMosix will automagically distribute the workload across all computers in our lab.
Personally, I'm glad Windows is getting in the game, just like I'm glad when the US gets competition in the space program. Competition, it's a good thing (tm).:)
It seems like they need to watch this again. (In searching for an appropriate link, I also stumbled upon a strange amalgamation of Monty Python and JRR Tolkein. It's bloody hilarious if you know both.)
I know it used to be bad to look like a nerd, but I thought we were past those old prejudices. Perhaps it's only my cohort that is past those prejudices, and not all of the younger cohorts, yet. My impression is, in some areas at least, even in high school it can be cool to be a nerd. Perhaps that phenomenon hasn't reached your neck of the woods, yet.
Or, perhaps it's people who are trying to look like a nerd that look out of place.:)
It seems the best of these ($399) will satisfy the great-grandparent post's need for 20 W (well, assuming that he can get close enough to its maximum output of 25 W). And, for only $150, he can get one that will extend his battery life as he's requested, with a maximum output of 15W. Of course, the cheaper one's not flexible, but it's not as big (in surface area), either.
Why not have something like those folding sunvisors people put up in their windshields to keep out some of the heat? You could sit out on the beach on a nice sunny day, unfurl your solar panel, and plug it into your laptop as you write code, research proposals, or whatever you use your laptop for.
Why relative to Tom Baker? Was he your favorite Doctor? Personally, I preferred Jon Pertwee, but I think I would rank Tom 2nd in the pantheon of Doctors Who. (Peter Davison would come a close 3rd.)
It seems this lady is going to be upset when she learns that! Of course, she might also get upset when she realizes how hard it is to hold your breath when trying to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans on foot.:P
Until the great-grandfather (my original post's father) mentioned it, I'd never heard of it. I've went to the PuTTY download page and they do not mention a European version. Since it was made in England (I'm assuming), I do not think that any of the US laws apply to it (i.e., AFAIK, the US laws regarding cryptography limit cryptography techniques in the US leaving the US, not vice-versa, or at least that used to be the case).
I don't believe that the actual cryptography is restricted. (I know you can use PuTTY here, and I suspect it is perfectly legal to use the "European version", however that may differ.) I am definitely no expert in this matter, so I could be wrong, but absent reliable information to the contrary, I don't think I am. For a while, certain cryptography programs (e.g., SecureCRT) could not be sent overseas. This meant that if you were downloading SecureCRT you had to acknowledge (by clicking on a button - real secure) that you were actually downloading it within the US. Since I always downloaded it within the US, I have no idea if they were doing any checking beyond asking you to verify that you were in the US. This restriction, btw, has been removed - at least for the time being.
You could be right, but if so, could you please cite some evidence? I tried doing a Google search, and came up negative. I.e., it did not confirm or deny what you are suggesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, even at a million kilometers away (or approximately 1 solar radius) from the sun's center, the sun's gravity is still approximately 28 g's. I'd call that really strong.
Just my $0.02. :)
I was just trying to write HTML. (This was years ago when I was first learning.) I believe one problem was when I left off </li> tags. IE correctly assumed that when I started a new <li> tag, that it should insert a </li> for me. Netscape ignored the new <li> tag since it hadn't received a </li> tag, and hence my list was not a list under Netscape. I did know enough to look at both browsers, so it isn't accurate to say that IE was the reference browser. This was not the only issue, but it captures the flavor of some of the discrepancies.
This is not to say that what you describe doesn't happen. It's just not the only explanation.
This is not meant to be an attack on IE. If reasonable assumptions can be made about what the code should do, even when coded incorrectly, then it's great that IE does this. I'm not sure of any specific examples, but when I first started writing web pages (years ago), I remember that Netscape would cough on some pages that IE rendered well. Invariably, the problem was that I had left off some terminating tags, and IE correctly figured out my intentions.
Three caveats:
First, having Netscape scold me allowed me to fix my code. IMHO, a better way to do this, however, would be to have an option called "pedantic" that would insist on matching tags (where appropriate). This might exist now, and if so, that's great.
Second, trying to "guess" what was intended is rife with problems. Anyone who has used MS Word for long enough knows what I mean.
Finally, I currently use FireFox the vast majority of the time. I do not know if any of what I said is still true.
(Somehow, that doesn't sound right...)
First of all, as explained elsewhere (in replies to replies of the reply you're replying to, I believe), the correct equation should be 43*2+8 (since this is helpful when Jupiter is in conjunction with the sun, and is not helpful when Jupiter is in opposition (on the opposite side of the night sky, i.e., on the same side of the sun as us). Of course, 43*2+8 = 94 minutes, which one might be tempted to write as 1 hour, 34 minutes, meaning that I'm off by 4 minutes.
However, if one were to stick to significant figures, 94 minutes = 1.6 hours, so in fact I'm off by 0.1 hours. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. :)
Let's say we're dealing with John Doe at State U. While a high-school student he took advantage of the free web-hosting services of hypothetical-hosting.net. He has a decent home-page that he's spent far too much time on and when he got to State U., he was given a (small) place where his student web-page resides. He wants users who access that page to be sent to his already established home-page at XYZ.net. NTS, he doesn't have admin priviliges, and isn't computer-saavy enough to figure out what server is being run, or how to do anything with that knowledge if he did (it doesn't take much knowledge to set up a home-page at hypothetical-hosting.net). Now, do you really expect him to figure out how to redirect with HTTP, when he can use a simple redirect in HTML?
If you think John Doe is based on me, you'd be only partly correct. I don't have as many excuses as him, and I'm too old to have had a home-page in high-school. However, I do have two accounts on two different servers, and the lesser one (in my opinion) redirects to the better one. I am using HTML redirect, but I'll defend myself by saying that at least I use a 2 second-delay, so that people can relatively easily use the back button. My reason for using redirect is simple - redirect is simple and it works. I'm not proud of it, but since very few people are likely to access the lesser page, I don't see why I should figure out how to make the Apache stuff work (assuming I even can without Admin priviliges). I think my time would be better spent on more important things, like reading /.!
P.S. In FireFox, the redirect page seems to get absorbed after redirecting. If I go to page Example1.html, and then to ExampleRedirect.html, which redirects me to Example2.html, my back button takes me immediately to Example1.html.
is what not to do.
You'd think they would not want to show that line, but would rather show only the line displaying what you should do. (I.e., describe what not to do in fairly clear terms, but give the code showing what you should do.)
Of course, from what I can gather from that web-site, what you should do seems to depend on what your server is. Perhaps w3c should try to make it easier to do the right thing.
Just my $0.02 worth.
(I also find it funny that this coincides with the Google story.)
That seemed like a great idea for a journal entry, so I created one. I hope you don't mind that I stole your idea. :)
A centipede can hold 10 millipedes, not the other way around! Sheesh...
It's always amusing to watch somebody not from the United States pull out the "executed" line.
Not that I defend everything our country does, but we do not execute most of our murderers and/or rapists. IANAL, so I don't know exactly what determines whether or not the prosecution will seek the death penalty (it has something to do with premeditation, intent, and how much you can pay your lawyers, I believe), but very few people are executed in the US every year. For example, last year, 59 inmates were executed.
Don't get me wrong - I think that executing anyone damages who we are (and I know this puts me in the minority here in the US). It's just that we're not as primitive as many people like to think we are.
I think that qualifies as bad publicity. :)
I'm sure I don't understand the cost or complexity of running a spacecraft. However, I'm certain that a volunteer organization could raise more than $4M per year to keep these spacecraft running. Additionally, I imagine that they could at least off-set some of the cost by relying on volunteer, possibly quite distributed, labor. Naturally, some of the labor cannot be distributed, and perhaps for some of the labor you don't want to rely on volunteers. However, money is money, and if NASA can do it for ~$4M, then I doubt that it would cost more than that for an independent organization to do the same. There are probably quite a few retired NASA employees who would be willing to donate their expertise. Probably several of these employees were involved in getting Voyager off the ground in the first place.
What if NASA simply removed funding for the probes, but allowed a volunteer organization to take over the day-to-day administration. I would wager that the job would get done even better (after a few mis-steps, probably), and wouldn't cost the tax-payers anything. (I'm not saying that the probes aren't worth funding, just that volunteer funding definitely beats no funding.)
What if this is already NASA's plan? Create a demand for volunteer funding? Brilliant!
Currently, the combination of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus do a pretty good job of covering the Sun from all angles. Of course, when the planets line up this won't work so well. But with the pole shifting that happens during conjunction, we'll have much bigger things to worry about anyway. (WHAT?!? There was no pole shift in 2000-2001? Well, it will happen next time.)
Since Jupiter is about 43 light-minutes from the sun, and we're about 8 light-minutes away, the round-trip travel time (when Jupiter is on the opposite side of the sun) will be 43*2 + 8 = 94 minutes.
A lot of information we get from the sun is, naturally, only 8 minutes delayed, but I guess since solar winds travel no faster than about 750 km/s (and usually travel much slower), solar winds take more than 50 hours to reach us -- so an hour and a half delay isn't that bad.
You collect nothing?!? (Since the amount of money to pay is determined at the time of the mouse's death?)
Two guys are out hiking and they see a bear. One guy starts running and the other yells after him, "Hey, you can't outrun a bear!" He replies, "I don't have to - I only have to outrun you!"
Same logic applies here. You don't have to be perfectly secure (although that'd be nice, no doubt). You just have to be secure enough that others look like much better targets.
Cluster != huge expensive computer engine. With software like clusterKNOPPIX (I was just playing with this today), it's really easy to take all of the computers in a research lab (that are already connected to the internet) and turn them into a load-sharing cluster. This is different from a super-computer, although you can presumably get some of the benefit if you are also running MPI (I haven't tried that locally yet). In case you don't understant the purpose of such a cluster it's so that when I want to launch 100 simulations (say to do a parameter sweep, which is embarrassingly parallel), I can launch them all from my local computer and openMosix will automagically distribute the workload across all computers in our lab.
Personally, I'm glad Windows is getting in the game, just like I'm glad when the US gets competition in the space program. Competition, it's a good thing (tm). :)
It seems like they need to watch this again. (In searching for an appropriate link, I also stumbled upon a strange amalgamation of Monty Python and JRR Tolkein. It's bloody hilarious if you know both.)
I know it used to be bad to look like a nerd, but I thought we were past those old prejudices. Perhaps it's only my cohort that is past those prejudices, and not all of the younger cohorts, yet. My impression is, in some areas at least, even in high school it can be cool to be a nerd. Perhaps that phenomenon hasn't reached your neck of the woods, yet.
Or, perhaps it's people who are trying to look like a nerd that look out of place. :)
It seems the best of these ($399) will satisfy the great-grandparent post's need for 20 W (well, assuming that he can get close enough to its maximum output of 25 W). And, for only $150, he can get one that will extend his battery life as he's requested, with a maximum output of 15W. Of course, the cheaper one's not flexible, but it's not as big (in surface area), either.
(assuming it's real, of course)
Why not have something like those folding sunvisors people put up in their windshields to keep out some of the heat? You could sit out on the beach on a nice sunny day, unfurl your solar panel, and plug it into your laptop as you write code, research proposals, or whatever you use your laptop for.
Why relative to Tom Baker? Was he your favorite Doctor? Personally, I preferred Jon Pertwee, but I think I would rank Tom 2nd in the pantheon of Doctors Who. (Peter Davison would come a close 3rd.)
It seems this lady is going to be upset when she learns that! Of course, she might also get upset when she realizes how hard it is to hold your breath when trying to cross the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans on foot. :P
Until the great-grandfather (my original post's father) mentioned it, I'd never heard of it. I've went to the PuTTY download page and they do not mention a European version. Since it was made in England (I'm assuming), I do not think that any of the US laws apply to it (i.e., AFAIK, the US laws regarding cryptography limit cryptography techniques in the US leaving the US, not vice-versa, or at least that used to be the case).
I don't believe that the actual cryptography is restricted. (I know you can use PuTTY here, and I suspect it is perfectly legal to use the "European version", however that may differ.) I am definitely no expert in this matter, so I could be wrong, but absent reliable information to the contrary, I don't think I am. For a while, certain cryptography programs (e.g., SecureCRT) could not be sent overseas. This meant that if you were downloading SecureCRT you had to acknowledge (by clicking on a button - real secure) that you were actually downloading it within the US. Since I always downloaded it within the US, I have no idea if they were doing any checking beyond asking you to verify that you were in the US. This restriction, btw, has been removed - at least for the time being.
You could be right, but if so, could you please cite some evidence? I tried doing a Google search, and came up negative. I.e., it did not confirm or deny what you are suggesting.