Wow. Maybe Sandia should have just given you a call instead of all that research since you have all the answers.
No, turbulence mitigates the boundary layer problem, but does not remove it. This approach apparently, while not removing it completely, reduces it to the point where it's impact on the efficiency of the heat exchanger is negligible.
First, yes, I understand California v California. "Curtilage" is the point you are missing. My understanding is that the object when found was well within the perimeter of the museum, thereby being within the "curtiage" of the building. That would make it private property. It would stay private property until loaded onto a truck and driven outside this perimeter. There is no indication FTFA that the debris was placed in "an area particularly suited for public inspection".
Second, there is a lot more to the story than is in TFA.
For instance -
Guthienz and Riker weren't the only ones searching for Alaska's moon rocks. Alaska State Museum curator Steve Henrikson had been looking for them on and off since he was hired 21 years ago in Juneau. The story he pieced together didn't match Anderson's.
The last people to see the plaque, Henrikson said, were two museum employees who walked through the building after the fire. According to them, the moon rocks were intact, in a glass case. After that, museum staff discussed taking the plaque out of the burned-out area and putting it in a more secure part of the museum.
A few days later, a museum employee noticed it wasn't in the case. Instead there was just a clean square in the ash and dust where it had been sitting. She assumed Phil Redden, a museum curator, took it home for safe-keeping. But later, when he was asked, Redden denied it.
Shortly after the fire, the museum lost its funding and all the employees were let go, Henrikson said. That left the cleanup and inventory of the artifacts to employees in Juneau. It took them three years to go through everything. They kept expecting to find the moon rock plaque but they never did, Henrikson said.
"The museum staff didn't know who did what with it," Henrikson said. "There was just a lot of confusion around at the time, there was just a lot of mystery."
It was never reported stolen.
After the complaint was filed, Henrikson did some more digging and discovered two surprising facts. First, Arthur C. Anderson goes by Coleman Anderson. Coleman Anderson was a skipper of a Dutch Harbor fishing boat featured on the first season of Discovery Channel's "Deadliest Catch." Second, a man named Coleman Anderson is listed in the obituary for the transportation museum's last curator, Phil Redden. It says that Anderson was Redden's foster son.
False, at least in most places in the U.S. If it weren't legal to go onto your property and take things from your garbage can, the garbage man wouldn't be able to do it either.
No, "technically" the garbage man is not allowed to come on your "private" property. The curb is normally part of a public utilities easement which allows utility workers to come onto the property to pick up the cans, but they can't go into your back yard to pick them up without your expressed permission.
Unless this debris was placed within the public utilities easement (TFA doesn't say), then it belonged to the museum and was private property.
I disagree. It was in the trash located on the museum's (private) property. Therefore, it (along with all the debris) still belonged to the museum. Had he waited until it was hauled off, he might have a better argument. In any case, legalities aside, he clearly knew what it was and should have done the honorable thing and returned it.
For gods sake dude, the guy found this in the debris from a fire at a museum. Don't you feel he had an obligation to return this to the museum? It's not like he was just strolling along the beach and found it washed up.
By your logic, anytime there is a fire or other disaster that damages a building, everyone is free to jump in dig for booty. I think the word for this is "looting".
Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin.
True, but we are discussing phones here. Try and keep up.
Which do you think is superior?
Depends on your metric. If by superior, you are referring the number of organisms or relative stability of species through millions of years, clearly the cockroach is superior. If you are referring to ability to screw up their own habitat, humans get the prize.
I just love and Apple fanbois can redefine reality no matter what. When iPhone was way ahead of Android in sales, the percentages mattered. Now that Android is beginning to walk away with the prize, all of a sudden sales don't matter.
However, from a certain perspective, your analogy to cockroaches is apropos. Going forward, Android is going to be everywhere; in phones, tablets, set top boxes, handheld games and who knows in what as yet unannounced devices. iOS is limited, and will continue to be limited to Apple devices so, unless Apple takes over the world and no one uses anything other than Apple products (not likely, especially in light of current sales trends), Android will continue to evolve and continue to become ubiquitous.
Just because you have the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android does not make it fact, no matter how many Apple slanted blog posts you read. I have both an iPhone 4 and a DroidX and I have to say you don't know what your talking about. I'd take the DroidX anyday of the iPhone, not just because of it's openness, but simply based on pure performance, ease of use and user experience.
I used to use DB2 exclusively several (many) years ago, but, while I don't know it's market penetration at the current time, I see little (or no) call for DB2 so I can speak to how recent versions perform compared to Oracle. Several years ago they were neck and neck, leapfrogging each other in tcp-c and other metrics with each release. I like DB2 and you may very well be correct, though the numbers I've seen show DB2 is about 25-30% cheaper than Oracle, but I'm a developer, not a purchaser so I defer to you on that point.
I do strongly disagree on the point that Oracle is crap. I dislike Oracle as a company as much as anybody, but their database technology is outstanding and for very large databases, it's in a class of it's own.
Disagreements on what is the best strategy at any moment in time happen all the time within companies. For better or worse, as a CEO (or similar high ranking position) of a company, it his/her JOB to set the company's direction, and employees are expected to follow a chain of command.
In a reasonable company (not every company is reasonable, btw), if you as an employee, disagree with the stated direction, you can make that known to your reports, or maybe even directly to the CEO him/her self. The CEO may accept your advisement and make the changes suggested, or he/she may ignore them. Sometimes this is because they are idiots, but many times its just because they have a different perspective on where the company should go than you do.
You, as an employee have the option of just letting it go, finding another job, starting your own company, or continuing to try and persuade officials within the organization that you are right. These are all ethical and healthy options. However, screaming to the press because you don't like the decisions of your CEO is most definitely, as it should be, grounds for termination.
Producing a good product is not the job of the CEO anyway - raising stakeholder value is. Good products are the responsibility of the engineering groups. Undermining stakeholder value doesn't cause the product to get better. However, it may well result in the layoffs of not only yourself, but possibly many of your co-workers as sales drop through the floor.
Could this be just a publicity stunt planned by upper management to gain some headlines?
Will management respond to the letter publicly stating something to the effect that "We've heard your cries and we have announced a new strategy blah, blah blah...", much like BP did after the oil spill, while actually not changing a damn thing?
Inquiring minds want to know - well actually, no, I don't really give a damn.
Just don't let him anywhere near a device that would allow him to send any correspondence out lest you be his next victim if he didn't happen to agree with your strategy.
Where the hell do you work that they would appreciate getting blasted in the media, S&M Inc?
First, the guy that sent the letter requested anonymity for obvious reasons as noted by the GP.
Second, most decent companies do appreciate feedback, but they prefer employees use appropriate internal channels, not blast the company to the world, thereby negatively impacting the perception of the company and, more importantly, the bottom line.
no, problem is admins not having turned on the correct settings to making it impossible for users to be stupid.
So admins aren't people?
This is the same mentality that Apple fanbois use to justify the walled garden approach and the same mentality that requires the "Do not eat" warning on the little humidity absorbing packets.
I direct your attention to exhibit # 48 of Murphy's law: "Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it."
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Maybe Sandia should have just given you a call instead of all that research since you have all the answers.
No, turbulence mitigates the boundary layer problem, but does not remove it. This approach apparently, while not removing it completely, reduces it to the point where it's impact on the efficiency of the heat exchanger is negligible.
Sorry, RTFA: the curator was "like a father to him", not "his father".
Actually, it WAS his foster father. Pedantry aside, perhaps you should read more than just TFA.
First, yes, I understand California v California. "Curtilage" is the point you are missing. My understanding is that the object when found was well within the perimeter of the museum, thereby being within the "curtiage" of the building. That would make it private property. It would stay private property until loaded onto a truck and driven outside this perimeter. There is no indication FTFA that the debris was placed in "an area particularly suited for public inspection".
Second, there is a lot more to the story than is in TFA.
For instance -
Guthienz and Riker weren't the only ones searching for Alaska's moon rocks. Alaska State Museum curator Steve Henrikson had been looking for them on and off since he was hired 21 years ago in Juneau. The story he pieced together didn't match Anderson's.
The last people to see the plaque, Henrikson said, were two museum employees who walked through the building after the fire. According to them, the moon rocks were intact, in a glass case. After that, museum staff discussed taking the plaque out of the burned-out area and putting it in a more secure part of the museum.
A few days later, a museum employee noticed it wasn't in the case. Instead there was just a clean square in the ash and dust where it had been sitting. She assumed Phil Redden, a museum curator, took it home for safe-keeping. But later, when he was asked, Redden denied it.
Shortly after the fire, the museum lost its funding and all the employees were let go, Henrikson said. That left the cleanup and inventory of the artifacts to employees in Juneau. It took them three years to go through everything. They kept expecting to find the moon rock plaque but they never did, Henrikson said.
"The museum staff didn't know who did what with it," Henrikson said. "There was just a lot of confusion around at the time, there was just a lot of mystery."
It was never reported stolen.
After the complaint was filed, Henrikson did some more digging and discovered two surprising facts. First, Arthur C. Anderson goes by Coleman Anderson. Coleman Anderson was a skipper of a Dutch Harbor fishing boat featured on the first season of Discovery Channel's "Deadliest Catch." Second, a man named Coleman Anderson is listed in the obituary for the transportation museum's last curator, Phil Redden. It says that Anderson was Redden's foster son.
See http://community.adn.com/adn/node/157506
False, at least in most places in the U.S. If it weren't legal to go onto your property and take things from your garbage can, the garbage man wouldn't be able to do it either.
No, "technically" the garbage man is not allowed to come on your "private" property. The curb is normally part of a public utilities easement which allows utility workers to come onto the property to pick up the cans, but they can't go into your back yard to pick them up without your expressed permission.
Unless this debris was placed within the public utilities easement (TFA doesn't say), then it belonged to the museum and was private property.
I disagree. It was in the trash located on the museum's (private) property. Therefore, it (along with all the debris) still belonged to the museum. Had he waited until it was hauled off, he might have a better argument. In any case, legalities aside, he clearly knew what it was and should have done the honorable thing and returned it.
Better yet, he should be forced to do the most deadly job in the world!
And what would that be? Windows 7 Phone project manager?
For gods sake dude, the guy found this in the debris from a fire at a museum. Don't you feel he had an obligation to return this to the museum? It's not like he was just strolling along the beach and found it washed up.
By your logic, anytime there is a fire or other disaster that damages a building, everyone is free to jump in dig for booty. I think the word for this is "looting".
Shutting down? Hardly. Aren't there exciting new research programs into how to turn shit and piss into delicacies? What could be more exciting?
Microsoft likely makes more money from Android than its own Windows phone platform.
Well hell, that tells us a lot doesn't it. They make more money from furniture repair or BillG pinup posters than from their Windows phone platform.
Cockroaches outnumber humans by a rather incredible margin.
True, but we are discussing phones here. Try and keep up.
Which do you think is superior?
Depends on your metric. If by superior, you are referring the number of organisms or relative stability of species through millions of years, clearly the cockroach is superior. If you are referring to ability to screw up their own habitat, humans get the prize.
I just love and Apple fanbois can redefine reality no matter what. When iPhone was way ahead of Android in sales, the percentages mattered. Now that Android is beginning to walk away with the prize, all of a sudden sales don't matter.
However, from a certain perspective, your analogy to cockroaches is apropos. Going forward, Android is going to be everywhere; in phones, tablets, set top boxes, handheld games and who knows in what as yet unannounced devices. iOS is limited, and will continue to be limited to Apple devices so, unless Apple takes over the world and no one uses anything other than Apple products (not likely, especially in light of current sales trends), Android will continue to evolve and continue to become ubiquitous.
Now, look around and tell me you honestly think yours is the majority opinion. Some slashdotters really do live in a bubble!
And some live in the reality distortion field.
Q1 2011
Android sales 37.3 million handsets
iPhone 18.65 million handsets and steady
In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone
Just because you have the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android does not make it fact, no matter how many Apple slanted blog posts you read. I have both an iPhone 4 and a DroidX and I have to say you don't know what your talking about. I'd take the DroidX anyday of the iPhone, not just because of it's openness, but simply based on pure performance, ease of use and user experience.
I used to use DB2 exclusively several (many) years ago, but, while I don't know it's market penetration at the current time, I see little (or no) call for DB2 so I can speak to how recent versions perform compared to Oracle. Several years ago they were neck and neck, leapfrogging each other in tcp-c and other metrics with each release. I like DB2 and you may very well be correct, though the numbers I've seen show DB2 is about 25-30% cheaper than Oracle, but I'm a developer, not a purchaser so I defer to you on that point.
I do strongly disagree on the point that Oracle is crap. I dislike Oracle as a company as much as anybody, but their database technology is outstanding and for very large databases, it's in a class of it's own.
Disagreements on what is the best strategy at any moment in time happen all the time within companies. For better or worse, as a CEO (or similar high ranking position) of a company, it his/her JOB to set the company's direction, and employees are expected to follow a chain of command.
In a reasonable company (not every company is reasonable, btw), if you as an employee, disagree with the stated direction, you can make that known to your reports, or maybe even directly to the CEO him/her self. The CEO may accept your advisement and make the changes suggested, or he/she may ignore them. Sometimes this is because they are idiots, but many times its just because they have a different perspective on where the company should go than you do.
You, as an employee have the option of just letting it go, finding another job, starting your own company, or continuing to try and persuade officials within the organization that you are right. These are all ethical and healthy options. However, screaming to the press because you don't like the decisions of your CEO is most definitely, as it should be, grounds for termination.
Producing a good product is not the job of the CEO anyway - raising stakeholder value is. Good products are the responsibility of the engineering groups. Undermining stakeholder value doesn't cause the product to get better. However, it may well result in the layoffs of not only yourself, but possibly many of your co-workers as sales drop through the floor.
Could this be just a publicity stunt planned by upper management to gain some headlines?
Will management respond to the letter publicly stating something to the effect that "We've heard your cries and we have announced a new strategy blah, blah blah...", much like BP did after the oil spill, while actually not changing a damn thing?
Inquiring minds want to know - well actually, no, I don't really give a damn.
Just don't let him anywhere near a device that would allow him to send any correspondence out lest you be his next victim if he didn't happen to agree with your strategy.
Where the hell do you work that they would appreciate getting blasted in the media, S&M Inc?
First, the guy that sent the letter requested anonymity for obvious reasons as noted by the GP.
Second, most decent companies do appreciate feedback, but they prefer employees use appropriate internal channels, not blast the company to the world, thereby negatively impacting the perception of the company and, more importantly, the bottom line.
Composed for nearly fifty years and has been decomposing ever since.
He should just disassemble the entire executable, then show the hundreds of pages disassembled code to the panel.
"Damn right! I wrote the whole thing in uncommented, obfuscated assembler! Got a problem with that?
Case dismissed.
Any more questions?
That doesn't make them idiots.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
no, problem is admins not having turned on the correct settings to making it impossible for users to be stupid.
So admins aren't people?
This is the same mentality that Apple fanbois use to justify the walled garden approach and the same mentality that requires the "Do not eat" warning on the little humidity absorbing packets.
I direct your attention to exhibit # 48 of Murphy's law: "Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it."
But that aside, if you found a candy bar laying on the street, would you eat it?
Possibly, but certainly not one floating in a pool.
The problem isn't that people are idiots...
Seems to me this is exactly the problem.
Maybe Zuckerberg can get a patent for "System and Method for Using a a Silver-inked Rollerball Pen in a Social Network".