We could make air travel even safer by making the planes travel slower. Cut the speeds by half or more. No one needs to travel 500mph. That's just an unnecessary luxury, nay, an irresponsible thrill. We should limit aircraft to no more than Mach 5%, and require that their wheels are never more than three or four inches above the ground, so that in the event of a lift failure, there's not far to fall.
There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further, and if it saves even one life, we should enact them, too. It's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do.
Why should he be apologetic? He became addicted to oxycontin as a result of taking it to relieve the severe pain from his back surgery. Jeez man, revel in others' pain, much?
So, what you propose is to create not only a new constitution every fifty years, but also to maintain a meta-constitution to restrict even the creation of the fifty-year constitution?
Although I do like the "get everyone to agree on the terms by which they will consent to be governed every generation." idea.
I think you would be interested to know where artillery used in the revolution came from. To interpret "arms" as anything other than "any and all arms" just because you're afraid of people sane enough to acquire a massive enough fortune to acquire expensive, gigantic weapons but insane enough to actually do so and further insane enough to use them is to emasculate the constitution as a controlling document.
If you think the second (or any other) amendments, articles, or clauses should be more permissive of government than they ostensibly are (or more restrictive, also) the proper way to accomplish that goal is to propose additional amendments to the document using the framework the founders already provided for just such an act.
These powers have been used nearly twenty times since the bill of rights, so they should not be foreign to anyone. There is no need, nor is it desirable, to extend "elastic" clauses to let congresses just "do what I want."
It's not though, unless they only obtain information for the specific suspect named in the warrant. Using mass cell phone data as some kind of suspect sieve is definitely not within the scope of the fourth amendment (there will necessarily be thousands of records obtained for people who are not suspects and never will be) but is also a very dangerous investigative tactic: there can be both false positives and false negatives.
That data doesn't belong to the phone companies, and even if it did, the phone companies would almost certainly not be legitimate targets of a bank robbery investigation.
Seems like they only tried "rush," "heavy metal," and manipulated beatle noises, and rush and heavy metal came out *below* beatle noises.
They did not try white noise, other radio commentators (Al Franken, perhaps), other genres of music, or even other animals. Also unmentioned is whether they tried silence.
I think a more appropriate title would be "Biologists manage to get paid for amazingly inadequate experiment, while making jabs at completely unrelated fields they really don't know much about."
It will be equipped with its own artificial eclipse which will be precisely sized to look at various parts of the photosphere, corona, etc. There is not any real benefit of a lunar eclipse, since the unlit side of the moon would be.. unlit, thus making it equivalent to a small metal disk anyway. I suppose you could talk about lunar mountain ranges, but frankly, the point of an orbital sun-observing satellite is that there isn't any atmosphere to drown out your signal with diffuse light. That is particularly important *before* the occulting disk: the atmosphere can't scatter light that never reaches the atmosphere.
Good observations can be made if the occulting disk is *ahead* of the atmosphere, the problem being the moon is the only appropriately sized disk for an earthbound observatory to use, and it's on the moon's time. If the moon is what you want to observe, you should be able to get pictures of it from earth as well or better than pictures from an equally distant space-based station.
Oh yeah, George Lucas is really creative enough to give us another B5. It most certainly won't be "Hercules: the Legendary Journeys: But in Spaaace: Again" Where the heroes will definitely not get themselves into a situation where they end up on some (conveniently cheap for sfx) crapsack world filled with arboreal rainforest and corrugated tin shanty-towns (brilliantly founded in played out mines for some reason...) forever.
I mean, sure you could do it right. It's possible to do another B5 or Space: Above and Beyond, but Star Wars is a Franchise and one thing that established franchises do not do is take risks. And one of those "risks" is pinning down an ending so you can't "keep it going" and milk as much profit as possible. (ironically guaranteeing a short, unprofitable run. Doctor Who notwithstanding, TV audiences are not nearly as forgiving of bad sci fi as Movie audiences.)
The issue is that with a hardback, one is getting a product that more valuable, in the eyes of many people, than a paperback
Yes, but that product isn't the two pieces of flimsy cardboard, thicker pages and more glue. That product is "reading the book while it's still trendy."
If you read Dan Brown novels, you really need to read them when they come out, so you can tell the other plebs how awesome it was (before they themselves read it). If you read Alexandre Dumas novels, not so much. Note that the Dumas novels at Barnes and Noble will run you about as much for a hardcover (sans dust jacket) as the Brown novel will run you for paperback.
No there isn't. It's a fertile ground for a movie, maybe a movie trilogy, not an unending episodic series in which every forty minutes there comes a time when "everything goes back how it was."
With a projector (or a proper shield blocking most of the input at the front), you'll be able to see sunspots. If you can get a local university to part with a fabry-perot etalon, you can see prominences.
Of course, you can probably get them to part with a grad student an a 12" refractor to go with it for the same price...
Indeed. And by "appropriate filters" Rei means go to the local university and borrow an H-alpha etalon (interference filter). Not, "get some red glass from Edmund Scientific."
Different things are visible at different times, although a four inch telescope is really only going to be able to see the the brightest objects. A little better than binoculars, but surprisingly little better after you account for the perception boost binoculars get by letting you use both eyes.
If you're talking about a nearby observation opportunity, then let me recommend Sky & Telescope - At a Glance and Human Spaceflight Realtime Data as sources of interesting things to look for. You can also nearly always find a satellite or two around dusk, if you know where to look. Nasa has some pages about that as well.
Make sure you have some information to talk about about everything you plan to look at, since most of the class will be standing around the telescope rather than actually looking through it at any given time.
Re:So is this a /vertisement or a serious rant?
on
Power To the Pop-Ups
·
· Score: 1
You know, the gloves only work because there is already a complicated system of valves, tubes, and smaller tubes in the underlying architecture...
You should ditch the laptop before you replace the battery.
If you're lucky, you might be able to get a fresh battery, but form factors change over the years, and if your laptop lasts a couple, then its parts haven't been made in a while. So you're either going to get an OEM part that's been in long-term storage, a "refurbished" OEM part of unknown cycle-life, or you're going to get a third-party part of questionable quality.
Lithiums will last a *long* time though on very little maintenance current, or even no maintenance current. The thing that usually kills lithiums is the *cycle* life, and cells in a warehouse aren't getting cycled.
Huh. I didn't have a doting family member to give me advice about the lottery, so, I guess I'll have to substute what I've always said.
"There's a slim chance you'll ever win the lottery, but if you buy when the payout ratio is less than unity, you're playing a losing game."
Which I usually follow up with "And the grand prize is split amongst the winners in the event of multiples, making the payout ratio per ticket difficult to determine."
Anyway, the point is this: It's true that you can't win if you don't play (in gambling), but you also can't lose if you don't play. Unfortunately, in the case of copyright treaties (and pretty much anything else where law is made...) you can't win if you do play, and not playing isn't even an option.
Automated does not mean that it must be done by a machine. That's precisely why I used "photocopied howto" rather than "computer program"
I couldn't reproduce the attack from the details in the article, but nothing in the article suggests to me that it could not be mechanically described for a subset of existing TMP chips similar enough to the one in the article.
Indeed, the steps you bolded are the very steps that I am most certain are "scriptable" in the sense of "Step one: fill beaker with acid. Step two: place chip inverted in acid for blah blah seconds...." The bit where I'm not sure of was the probe bits: is the chip uniform enough that the probe points would be the same for a number of them, how many chips could be attacked using the same probe points?
Please engage "reading comprehension" while you RTFA, before accusing people of not R'ing the F'in A. (although that is usually a good assumption.)
Agreed. File > Export should basically do the same thing as file > save, except a) not nag you that the format you choose might not have all the features, except where there is a decision to be made about how to reconcile (e.g. merge layers) and b) It shouldn't change the "save-target" to the exported file. I'm exporting to send it out to someone, not because I want to do image manipulation directly on a jpeg.
Yeah, but the GP's issue is probably with what happens when you just want to use the keyboard for input for a while (perhaps some task that using a mouse for doesn't really enhance), and you don't want the mouse pointer to be in the way, either.
If you just carelessly put the mouse "off window" and it happens that there is another window under it and "focus follows mouse," the you're going to get a little jarring surprise when you start typing. Some systems will let you alt-tab away to the proper window, but guess what happens if your elbow nudges the mouse just a little bit in that circumstance...
Stuff that might be hard to *figure out* how to do to a strong box is still insecure in a world where there there is a sneaker-net passing around badly photocopied "how-to" step-by-step instructions discovered by the single clever attacker.
Nothing that can be automated can be considered "secure against all but the cleverest attackers"
Slashdot Mirror
We could make air travel even safer by making the planes travel slower. Cut the speeds by half or more. No one needs to travel 500mph. That's just an unnecessary luxury, nay, an irresponsible thrill. We should limit aircraft to no more than Mach 5%, and require that their wheels are never more than three or four inches above the ground, so that in the event of a lift failure, there's not far to fall.
There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further, and if it saves even one life, we should enact them, too. It's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do.
Why should he be apologetic? He became addicted to oxycontin as a result of taking it to relieve the severe pain from his back surgery. Jeez man, revel in others' pain, much?
So, what you propose is to create not only a new constitution every fifty years, but also to maintain a meta-constitution to restrict even the creation of the fifty-year constitution?
Although I do like the "get everyone to agree on the terms by which they will consent to be governed every generation." idea.
I think you would be interested to know where artillery used in the revolution came from. To interpret "arms" as anything other than "any and all arms" just because you're afraid of people sane enough to acquire a massive enough fortune to acquire expensive, gigantic weapons but insane enough to actually do so and further insane enough to use them is to emasculate the constitution as a controlling document.
If you think the second (or any other) amendments, articles, or clauses should be more permissive of government than they ostensibly are (or more restrictive, also) the proper way to accomplish that goal is to propose additional amendments to the document using the framework the founders already provided for just such an act.
These powers have been used nearly twenty times since the bill of rights, so they should not be foreign to anyone. There is no need, nor is it desirable, to extend "elastic" clauses to let congresses just "do what I want."
It's not though, unless they only obtain information for the specific suspect named in the warrant. Using mass cell phone data as some kind of suspect sieve is definitely not within the scope of the fourth amendment (there will necessarily be thousands of records obtained for people who are not suspects and never will be) but is also a very dangerous investigative tactic: there can be both false positives and false negatives.
That data doesn't belong to the phone companies, and even if it did, the phone companies would almost certainly not be legitimate targets of a bank robbery investigation.
Seems like they only tried "rush," "heavy metal," and manipulated beatle noises, and rush and heavy metal came out *below* beatle noises.
They did not try white noise, other radio commentators (Al Franken, perhaps), other genres of music, or even other animals. Also unmentioned is whether they tried silence.
I think a more appropriate title would be "Biologists manage to get paid for amazingly inadequate experiment, while making jabs at completely unrelated fields they really don't know much about."
It will be equipped with its own artificial eclipse which will be precisely sized to look at various parts of the photosphere, corona, etc. There is not any real benefit of a lunar eclipse, since the unlit side of the moon would be.. unlit, thus making it equivalent to a small metal disk anyway. I suppose you could talk about lunar mountain ranges, but frankly, the point of an orbital sun-observing satellite is that there isn't any atmosphere to drown out your signal with diffuse light. That is particularly important *before* the occulting disk: the atmosphere can't scatter light that never reaches the atmosphere.
Good observations can be made if the occulting disk is *ahead* of the atmosphere, the problem being the moon is the only appropriately sized disk for an earthbound observatory to use, and it's on the moon's time. If the moon is what you want to observe, you should be able to get pictures of it from earth as well or better than pictures from an equally distant space-based station.
Communications satellites aren't disrupted by the light from the flare
Oh yeah, George Lucas is really creative enough to give us another B5. It most certainly won't be "Hercules: the Legendary Journeys: But in Spaaace: Again" Where the heroes will definitely not get themselves into a situation where they end up on some (conveniently cheap for sfx) crapsack world filled with arboreal rainforest and corrugated tin shanty-towns (brilliantly founded in played out mines for some reason...) forever.
I mean, sure you could do it right. It's possible to do another B5 or Space: Above and Beyond, but Star Wars is a Franchise and one thing that established franchises do not do is take risks. And one of those "risks" is pinning down an ending so you can't "keep it going" and milk as much profit as possible. (ironically guaranteeing a short, unprofitable run. Doctor Who notwithstanding, TV audiences are not nearly as forgiving of bad sci fi as Movie audiences.)
The issue is that with a hardback, one is getting a product that more valuable, in the eyes of many people, than a paperback
Yes, but that product isn't the two pieces of flimsy cardboard, thicker pages and more glue. That product is "reading the book while it's still trendy."
If you read Dan Brown novels, you really need to read them when they come out, so you can tell the other plebs how awesome it was (before they themselves read it). If you read Alexandre Dumas novels, not so much. Note that the Dumas novels at Barnes and Noble will run you about as much for a hardcover (sans dust jacket) as the Brown novel will run you for paperback.
No there isn't. It's a fertile ground for a movie, maybe a movie trilogy, not an unending episodic series in which every forty minutes there comes a time when "everything goes back how it was."
Why? It's not like they seceded over their right not to oppress people...
Argh.
s/refractor/reflector/
While there are 12" refractors out there, they're very expensive and not typically man-portable. Or van-portable.
With a projector (or a proper shield blocking most of the input at the front), you'll be able to see sunspots. If you can get a local university to part with a fabry-perot etalon, you can see prominences.
Of course, you can probably get them to part with a grad student an a 12" refractor to go with it for the same price...
Indeed. And by "appropriate filters" Rei means go to the local university and borrow an H-alpha etalon (interference filter). Not, "get some red glass from Edmund Scientific."
Different things are visible at different times, although a four inch telescope is really only going to be able to see the the brightest objects. A little better than binoculars, but surprisingly little better after you account for the perception boost binoculars get by letting you use both eyes.
If you're talking about a nearby observation opportunity, then let me recommend Sky & Telescope - At a Glance and Human Spaceflight Realtime Data as sources of interesting things to look for. You can also nearly always find a satellite or two around dusk, if you know where to look. Nasa has some pages about that as well.
Make sure you have some information to talk about about everything you plan to look at, since most of the class will be standing around the telescope rather than actually looking through it at any given time.
You know, the gloves only work because there is already a complicated system of valves, tubes, and smaller tubes in the underlying architecture...
So, the publishers have switched away from LaTeX now, eh? Disappointing all around.
You should ditch the laptop before you replace the battery.
If you're lucky, you might be able to get a fresh battery, but form factors change over the years, and if your laptop lasts a couple, then its parts haven't been made in a while. So you're either going to get an OEM part that's been in long-term storage, a "refurbished" OEM part of unknown cycle-life, or you're going to get a third-party part of questionable quality.
Lithiums will last a *long* time though on very little maintenance current, or even no maintenance current. The thing that usually kills lithiums is the *cycle* life, and cells in a warehouse aren't getting cycled.
Huh. I didn't have a doting family member to give me advice about the lottery, so, I guess I'll have to substute what I've always said.
"There's a slim chance you'll ever win the lottery, but if you buy when the payout ratio is less than unity, you're playing a losing game."
Which I usually follow up with "And the grand prize is split amongst the winners in the event of multiples, making the payout ratio per ticket difficult to determine."
Anyway, the point is this: It's true that you can't win if you don't play (in gambling), but you also can't lose if you don't play. Unfortunately, in the case of copyright treaties (and pretty much anything else where law is made...) you can't win if you do play, and not playing isn't even an option.
Automated does not mean that it must be done by a machine. That's precisely why I used "photocopied howto" rather than "computer program"
I couldn't reproduce the attack from the details in the article, but nothing in the article suggests to me that it could not be mechanically described for a subset of existing TMP chips similar enough to the one in the article.
Indeed, the steps you bolded are the very steps that I am most certain are "scriptable" in the sense of "Step one: fill beaker with acid. Step two: place chip inverted in acid for blah blah seconds. ..." The bit where I'm not sure of was the probe bits: is the chip uniform enough that the probe points would be the same for a number of them, how many chips could be attacked using the same probe points?
Please engage "reading comprehension" while you RTFA, before accusing people of not R'ing the F'in A. (although that is usually a good assumption.)
Agreed. File > Export should basically do the same thing as file > save, except a) not nag you that the format you choose might not have all the features, except where there is a decision to be made about how to reconcile (e.g. merge layers) and b) It shouldn't change the "save-target" to the exported file. I'm exporting to send it out to someone, not because I want to do image manipulation directly on a jpeg.
Yeah, but the GP's issue is probably with what happens when you just want to use the keyboard for input for a while (perhaps some task that using a mouse for doesn't really enhance), and you don't want the mouse pointer to be in the way, either.
If you just carelessly put the mouse "off window" and it happens that there is another window under it and "focus follows mouse," the you're going to get a little jarring surprise when you start typing. Some systems will let you alt-tab away to the proper window, but guess what happens if your elbow nudges the mouse just a little bit in that circumstance...
Yeah, but two words: "Script Kiddies"
Stuff that might be hard to *figure out* how to do to a strong box is still insecure in a world where there there is a sneaker-net passing around badly photocopied "how-to" step-by-step instructions discovered by the single clever attacker.
Nothing that can be automated can be considered "secure against all but the cleverest attackers"