What's with the accidental sarcasm today.. You seem to be opposed to Bush and conservatives based on the throwaway rhetoric, but your main point is so outrageous that it has to be sarcasm.
Are you actually proposing that Bush is actively supporting a policy whose goal is to reduce the effectiveness of weather products? And that we're having more hurricanes as a result?
Except those are for type accepted devices, which includes the antenna. If you modify the system in any way, it's no longer a type accepted part 15 device. I suppose you could operate under part 92, but then you'd have to change the frequency and alter it to identify every 10 minutes.
That was the first "horror movie" to actually scare me in quite some time. As an added bonus, a friend of mine who had already seen the film called me during the credits (which was odd because I was supposed to have watched the earlier showing) and did the "7 days" thing. (of course it would've been spookier if the caller-id had been turned off too...)
Bah.. We should offer those people the choice: pay for education now or don't collect SS later.
(seriously.. the baby boomers are the selfishest generation ever: 'There's a lot of us, but we choose to not have kids, but give us money when we're old you selfish kids of other people.')
The space shuttle is pressurized to 1 atmosphere 'regular' air. The space suits are pressurized to ~.5 atmosphere 100% O2. Astronauts must prebreathe oxygen before using the suits to avoid DCI.
Interesting thing about DCI, if you briefly drop the pressure and then raise it again, your chance of ill effects is quite low. (this is one of the reasons navy divers come up quickly and jump in a deco chamber instead of using time-consuming in-water decompression) In other words, during the 10-90 seconds you could survive in the anoxic environment, it is unlikely you would get bent, even if you were rescued just in time.
There are two things you need to consider in guessing the occurance of DCI: formation of bubbles and expansion of bubbles.
Expansion of existing bubbles will occur according to the ratio of pressures (to a first order) for a quick change in pressure. I am not a biologist, but I would guess that your tissues themselves wouldn't reach 0psi even if exposed to vacuum: if your heart is pumping, you've at least got minimum blood pressure over hard vacuum in your tissues.
Formation of bubbles is a bit more nebulous. It involves dissolved gas coming out of solution. It depends on the pressure in the tissue, temperature of the tissue, quantity of dissolved gas and even on the species of dissolved gas. Allegedly, oxygen is metabolized quickly enough that the quantity of dissolved gas is nearly always below the limit for the pressure+temperature.
You can see both mechanisms by examining your favorite pint. Guinness is pressurized at about 2.5 ata iirc. Upon pouring, due to the lower pressure, some gas comes out of solution very quickly (but the dissolved gas in a pint of guinness remains greater than room-temperature would allow for quite some time: at least duration of the drinking). Some gas is released over time as you drink it and if you follow the bubbles from the bottom to the top, you can watch them expand and rise faster. (after initial pouring, there is a convection cell which is irrelevant to this discussion but produces the interesting effect, "Wow! The bubbles go Down!") Finally, when you pour the ale down your throat, the rapid temperature change forces more of those magnificent bubbles out of solution.
Incidentally, I fail to see why people believe you would struggle for breath if exposed to vacuum. It's true you wouldn't be getting enough oxygen, but unlike an asthmatic, you would meet no resistance to the expansion of your lungs. just nothing would be there filling it. I assume that means you would breathe normally or possibly try to hyperventilate. I'm not sure about this though: hard vacuum would be pretty good at transporting carbon dioxide, accumulation of which is the trigger for breathing. There is no reason to assume pained struggling for breath.
I don't think the experience would be all that similar. In diving, your body is supported evenly by the water surrounding it, so you're technically weightless, but you're not in freefall. You can still tell which direction is down if you pay attention to your inner ear.
Not having been in the "microgravity explorer" (the name printed on the side in a picture one of my professors had) I can't say for sure, but i'd wager that the experiences are different enough to make trying both worthwile.
The 'job' is to LOOK IN everyone's baggage, specifically for items that would be dangerous to other passengers. If they happen to see drugs while doing that, they should report it as should any responsible citizen. In fact, they have even more of a mandate, being an agency of the exective branch - the branch of government charged with executing law.
That being said, I don't like them either. They seem pretty ineffective to me and now my favorite game to play on planes is, "what items did i bring on board that I could use as a weapon"
I think the solution is just to use smaller planes. That way damage is minimized if the terrorists do take control. Think no bigger than a city bus. Then we can use the same security protocol that we have for city buses i.e. none. The benefit to the consumer is there as well: many smaller airports serve more communities directly, more direct flights and more flights in general. Airports shouldn't be like the theater where you make reservations months in advance to get the good seats. They should be like the curb outside the theater where busses go by every fifteen minutes or you can hail a cab if you're impatient and willing to pay more.
In fact, NASA is working on guidance and tracking systems for just such a future.
You do realize that gps is not a network protocol, but rather a constellation of satellites with "known" orbits continuously transmitting timecodes for the purpose of triangulation, right?
Ok, make your pdf with 10pt text (though I personally find that annoying to read at a comfortable distance*) and people that read it can hit the little plus sign next to the magnification precentage. done.
PDF is a document specification container. The whole point of pdf is to make your document look good and once your document looks good, to make it look the same on every machine it's displayed on. Thus ensuring that it looks good (at least according to your definition of looking good) on every screen and when printed.
If you want viewers to be able to edit your files at the expense of looking the same, or even good across platforms (and you're willing to put up with images getting strewn about willy nilly) you might as well use a word document. It's not going to look any worse than html.
*If you're making your pdfs with LaTeX then you've probably read some of the docs. A good deal of typesetting knowledge went into the design of TeX and much of it is explained in the documentation. Those docs mention something about a recomended number of characters per line for maximum comfort reading. At 10pt, you're either going to have far to many characters or you're going to have huge margins and/or double-spaced text. At which point you've negated the benefits of your 10pt text.**
**ok you could use a multicolumn format to get around that ugly fact, but then your document looks like a cheesy newsletter.
Re:Still a single point of failure
on
Basics of RAID
·
· Score: 1
Suppose you have two disks and "software assisted" motherboard RAID, Would it be better to hook them up as separate disks or as a raid then?
If you live in America, how can you justify that statement? The whole reason you're here is because someone thought it would be a good idea to traverse dangerous terrain at considerable risk and expense and evidently, liked it enough to stay. (and yes I count native americans in that group as well. Walking across a land bridge in the sub-arctic couldn't have been easy or cheap.)
Hey! a fellow Rhode Islandite (at least in spirit:)) (or maybe an anti-RIer..) either way, what's the deal with Boston getting all the credit for throwing a bunch of tea overboard the following year? The cowards even used disguises.
for those who don't know, the Gaspee was a british tax ship which ran aground on a sand bar in the Narragansett bay. At some point the colonists walked out and torched it. (presumeably in protest of taxes...) Gaspee days are still celebrated to this day..which kind of puts our continued celebration of VJ day in perspective.
afaik, the "rule of thumb" is a PE of ~17. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but if I were to make an argument it would go something like this: At a PE of 17, if the entire earnings were converted to dividend, the value of the stock would not go up and so the price would not as well, your return would be almost 6%. If the return was significantly less than that then you'd be better off putting your money in a bank account or anuity rather than deal with the risks inherent in partial company ownership.
Since I believe the market is efficient, eventually whatever metric describes best the return on investment will fall to near or slightly above (due to the risk) the typical return for other types of investments. this will occur either through the earnings rising to the appropriate level while the stock stagnates or the through the price dropping to the appropriate level. In other words, a lot of people (or one really unfortunate person) are going to get burned on google and microsoft eventually. Hopefully not for a while.
With stocks, it's hard to separate the ponzi part from the real growth part. P/E gives us a tool to help figure that out.
Slashdot Mirror
What's with the accidental sarcasm today.. You seem to be opposed to Bush and conservatives based on the throwaway rhetoric, but your main point is so outrageous that it has to be sarcasm.
Are you actually proposing that Bush is actively supporting a policy whose goal is to reduce the effectiveness of weather products? And that we're having more hurricanes as a result?
I would not drink juice from that apple. It's got a big bite taken out of it. eww.
Except those are for type accepted devices, which includes the antenna. If you modify the system in any way, it's no longer a type accepted part 15 device. I suppose you could operate under part 92, but then you'd have to change the frequency and alter it to identify every 10 minutes.
Ironically, despite your sig, you've used your apostrophes incorrectly.
ok, perfect for political ads then.
That was the first "horror movie" to actually scare me in quite some time. As an added bonus, a friend of mine who had already seen the film called me during the credits (which was odd because I was supposed to have watched the earlier showing) and did the "7 days" thing. (of course it would've been spookier if the caller-id had been turned off too...)
indeed. an analogy:
:: Reality Mining Project :: kinetic theory of fluids
psychohistory
navier stokes
Bah.. We should offer those people the choice: pay for education now or don't collect SS later.
(seriously.. the baby boomers are the selfishest generation ever: 'There's a lot of us, but we choose to not have kids, but give us money when we're old you selfish kids of other people.')
The space shuttle is pressurized to 1 atmosphere 'regular' air. The space suits are pressurized to ~.5 atmosphere 100% O2. Astronauts must prebreathe oxygen before using the suits to avoid DCI.
Interesting thing about DCI, if you briefly drop the pressure and then raise it again, your chance of ill effects is quite low. (this is one of the reasons navy divers come up quickly and jump in a deco chamber instead of using time-consuming in-water decompression) In other words, during the 10-90 seconds you could survive in the anoxic environment, it is unlikely you would get bent, even if you were rescued just in time.
There are two things you need to consider in guessing the occurance of DCI: formation of bubbles and expansion of bubbles.
Expansion of existing bubbles will occur according to the ratio of pressures (to a first order) for a quick change in pressure. I am not a biologist, but I would guess that your tissues themselves wouldn't reach 0psi even if exposed to vacuum: if your heart is pumping, you've at least got minimum blood pressure over hard vacuum in your tissues.
Formation of bubbles is a bit more nebulous. It involves dissolved gas coming out of solution. It depends on the pressure in the tissue, temperature of the tissue, quantity of dissolved gas and even on the species of dissolved gas. Allegedly, oxygen is metabolized quickly enough that the quantity of dissolved gas is nearly always below the limit for the pressure+temperature.
You can see both mechanisms by examining your favorite pint. Guinness is pressurized at about 2.5 ata iirc. Upon pouring, due to the lower pressure, some gas comes out of solution very quickly (but the dissolved gas in a pint of guinness remains greater than room-temperature would allow for quite some time: at least duration of the drinking). Some gas is released over time as you drink it and if you follow the bubbles from the bottom to the top, you can watch them expand and rise faster. (after initial pouring, there is a convection cell which is irrelevant to this discussion but produces the interesting effect, "Wow! The bubbles go Down!") Finally, when you pour the ale down your throat, the rapid temperature change forces more of those magnificent bubbles out of solution.
Incidentally, I fail to see why people believe you would struggle for breath if exposed to vacuum. It's true you wouldn't be getting enough oxygen, but unlike an asthmatic, you would meet no resistance to the expansion of your lungs. just nothing would be there filling it. I assume that means you would breathe normally or possibly try to hyperventilate. I'm not sure about this though: hard vacuum would be pretty good at transporting carbon dioxide, accumulation of which is the trigger for breathing. There is no reason to assume pained struggling for breath.
And why do people from New York always say they're waiting "online" when they're actually in a line.
Well now, you're just going to have to use a sensible format then.
Uh.. so you haven't been scuba diving?
I don't think the experience would be all that similar. In diving, your body is supported evenly by the water surrounding it, so you're technically weightless, but you're not in freefall. You can still tell which direction is down if you pay attention to your inner ear.
Not having been in the "microgravity explorer" (the name printed on the side in a picture one of my professors had) I can't say for sure, but i'd wager that the experiences are different enough to make trying both worthwile.
The 'job' is to LOOK IN everyone's baggage, specifically for items that would be dangerous to other passengers. If they happen to see drugs while doing that, they should report it as should any responsible citizen. In fact, they have even more of a mandate, being an agency of the exective branch - the branch of government charged with executing law.
That being said, I don't like them either. They seem pretty ineffective to me and now my favorite game to play on planes is, "what items did i bring on board that I could use as a weapon"
I think the solution is just to use smaller planes. That way damage is minimized if the terrorists do take control. Think no bigger than a city bus. Then we can use the same security protocol that we have for city buses i.e. none. The benefit to the consumer is there as well: many smaller airports serve more communities directly, more direct flights and more flights in general. Airports shouldn't be like the theater where you make reservations months in advance to get the good seats. They should be like the curb outside the theater where busses go by every fifteen minutes or you can hail a cab if you're impatient and willing to pay more.
In fact, NASA is working on guidance and tracking systems for just such a future.
and how is that different from a picket line. There is a definite implicit threat of violence towards "scabs"
wait what? "Terrorism" in which no one is physically hurt and no property is damaged? Wouldn't that just be "protesting?"
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Bad haircut with an exploded cigar?
I see your crass one liner and raise you one,
The right of the US today is the left of the US 50 years ago.
So where does that leave the left of the rest of the world then?
You do realize that gps is not a network protocol, but rather a constellation of satellites with "known" orbits continuously transmitting timecodes for the purpose of triangulation, right?
Ok, make your pdf with 10pt text (though I personally find that annoying to read at a comfortable distance*) and people that read it can hit the little plus sign next to the magnification precentage. done.
PDF is a document specification container. The whole point of pdf is to make your document look good and once your document looks good, to make it look the same on every machine it's displayed on. Thus ensuring that it looks good (at least according to your definition of looking good) on every screen and when printed.
If you want viewers to be able to edit your files at the expense of looking the same, or even good across platforms (and you're willing to put up with images getting strewn about willy nilly) you might as well use a word document. It's not going to look any worse than html.
*If you're making your pdfs with LaTeX then you've probably read some of the docs. A good deal of typesetting knowledge went into the design of TeX and much of it is explained in the documentation. Those docs mention something about a recomended number of characters per line for maximum comfort reading. At 10pt, you're either going to have far to many characters or you're going to have huge margins and/or double-spaced text. At which point you've negated the benefits of your 10pt text.**
**ok you could use a multicolumn format to get around that ugly fact, but then your document looks like a cheesy newsletter.
Suppose you have two disks and "software assisted" motherboard RAID, Would it be better to hook them up as separate disks or as a raid then?
Consumer hdds typically have 3 platters, since they are all on the same spindle and the heads are linked, maybe that's "dependant disks"?
If you live in America, how can you justify that statement? The whole reason you're here is because someone thought it would be a good idea to traverse dangerous terrain at considerable risk and expense and evidently, liked it enough to stay. (and yes I count native americans in that group as well. Walking across a land bridge in the sub-arctic couldn't have been easy or cheap.)
Hey! a fellow Rhode Islandite (at least in spirit :)) (or maybe an anti-RIer..) either way, what's the deal with Boston getting all the credit for throwing a bunch of tea overboard the following year? The cowards even used disguises.
for those who don't know, the Gaspee was a british tax ship which ran aground on a sand bar in the Narragansett bay. At some point the colonists walked out and torched it. (presumeably in protest of taxes...) Gaspee days are still celebrated to this day..which kind of puts our continued celebration of VJ day in perspective.
huh? can't you just pipe it through ssh with port forwarding?
afaik, the "rule of thumb" is a PE of ~17. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but if I were to make an argument it would go something like this:
At a PE of 17, if the entire earnings were converted to dividend, the value of the stock would not go up and so the price would not as well, your return would be almost 6%. If the return was significantly less than that then you'd be better off putting your money in a bank account or anuity rather than deal with the risks inherent in partial company ownership.
Since I believe the market is efficient, eventually whatever metric describes best the return on investment will fall to near or slightly above (due to the risk) the typical return for other types of investments. this will occur either through the earnings rising to the appropriate level while the stock stagnates or the through the price dropping to the appropriate level. In other words, a lot of people (or one really unfortunate person) are going to get burned on google and microsoft eventually. Hopefully not for a while.
With stocks, it's hard to separate the ponzi part from the real growth part. P/E gives us a tool to help figure that out.
IANAaccountant though.