A common response for engineers and software developers is to blame the users for doing it wrong. Usually the users win. No matter what, though, the developers lose.
You should read up on adaptive impedance matching in smart grid, also known as Volt/VAR optimization. Also, you should know that load shedding, like not running pool pumps for an hour during peak load, can delay construction of new power plants as well as investments in the T&D network infrastructure to reduce congestion. This stuff really works, and economic benefits can be built in so that customers will choose to take advantage of load shifting programs.
Well, the shuttle has about a two per cent death rate per astronaut flight, and a failure rate of 1 in 65. (130 missions with two failures.) the OP is not that far off, and there was a time when the failure rate was 1 in 50, but there have been successful missions since then. Who knows what the final failure rate for the shuttle will be?
I tend to agree with the OP that using the shuttle as a benchmark for safety is a great way to make a high risk activity sound safe. What sounds better: 10 times safer than the shuttle or 1/100,000th as safe as air travel? NASA is lying with statistics.
The risk of an accident is low, but the consequences for the Swiss would be high. An 80 kilometer exclusion zone would cover over 10% of the nation's land mass.
I sort of agree. US$12 billion divided by the amount of energy produced by Fukushima is one or two cents per kilowatt hour. I think the estimate is low, because nuclear engineers have cost underestimation down to a science, and because "cleaned up" has different meanings for different people. You wouldn't live for a year at a place of my choosing on a site that the nuclear industry claims is "cleaned up". Nonetheless, if you assume that every nuclear plant meets this end, it probably doesn't double the cost of the produced electricity.
I have heard a recording of an official during TMI, and two things struck me. First, he was not a "spokesperson". He was the real guy, and it felt almost embarrassing to listen someone so unfamiliar with how to "play" the press. Second, his candor was striking. When he didn't know something, he openly said that he did not know it. How times have changed.
Actually, an operator's job is pretty similar to a commercial pilot's. They work to get it up and running. They work to get it down and stopped safely. They risk everything helping strangers in the event of a disaster. The rest of the time, the job's pretty dull.
What I get from this is that Google is so certain of Chrome's security, they're willing to trust $20k on that security. The lesson you can take from this is not to do anything with the Chrome browser that would put you at risk of losing more than $20k. After all, the authors won't risk more than that. Of course, other authors are even less certain of their browser's security...
Astrology does have a few testable hypotheses (i.e., that an individual's personality traits are correlated to the season they were born in, and that an individual's behaviour in any given season is related to the season in which they were born). However, it's clearly not a science in that it doesn't really test those hypotheses in controlled experiment to establish the predictive power of the theory of astrology. If astrology was rigorously scientific in its approach, then there would be research in areas like southern hemisphere vs. northern hemisphere star signs, not to mention psychological research into refining what effect birth season has on personality traits.
Just about every astrologist is completely out to lunch, as well. Even the most striking imaginable correlation between birth season and personality would not permit quotidian predictions of how your day is going to go.
Very few humans are capable of generating a kilowatt, and none of the ones that can do it are capable of doing it for 40 seconds (1km / 88km/h). Typically, people consume about 100 watts in food power. Generating ten times that power (mechanically) using just your legs is hard and unsustainable.
So, you're saying that an engine incapable of generating 1kw can't push the test car as fast as an engine that is capable of generating 1kw at the drive axle (FTFA: 1050w * 0.98). Yes, you are correct.
I print them out in Cauzin Softstrip format on archival paper. It's the only way to be certain that my blurry thumb will be preserved for my grateful descendants.
Price:revenue is 50:1.6 or 31+. Nope, not worth it.
Price:earnings is 40:0.355 or 140+. Nope, not worth it.
Price:book is not specified.
Price:quick is not specified.
Margin is 0.355:1.6 or 22%. Worth looking.
Revenue growth is the wild card. For this to be a "good" buy, Price:future revenue should be about 5, or four doublings in revenue. 30% revenue growth for 8 or 10 years would do it. Buy and hold - it's the only option that I can see. That must be what everyone is planning to do...
There is always a time when the signal is unencrypted, because our brains are not capable of decoding the encrypted signal if it's displayed on a monitor that way. It would just look like noise.
Certainly, it can be made really, really hard to get at the unencrypted signal by doing the decryption inside the display device, but that will not prevent access to the unencrypted signal. It will just be a real pain.
When I first read Schneier's Cryptography, I was absolutely blown away by the idea of a zero knowledge proof of knowledge. I thought it couldn't possibly work. What the *AA is looking for is a zero knowledge transfer of knowledge. On its face, that's impossible.
I never click any link in an email I get on my Blackberry, because Blackberry's browser sucks poop. And I mean a lot of poop. Like, through one of those big fat "bubble tea" straws. Ssssssssshhhhhhhhthug! Eww, that was a yucky experience. Like that. Poop.
Despite the common belief and what bad scifi would tell you, rabbits (and other things) don't become radioactive when exposed to radiation.
In this case, the rabbit likely consumed radioactive materials, meaning that it is contaminated with radioactive materials. The rabbit itself, though, is not radioactive.
This is true, but it's only a kind of half truth. If the rabbit has consumed some strontium-90 then the skeleton of the rabbit will incorporate some of it. Strontium and calcium are both in family 2 on the periodic table and only one period apart, which means that they are chemically similar. Sr-90 is a pretty common component of waste from old uranium and plutonium fission because it's about half the size of U-235 and Pu-239 and it has a relatively long half life (~30 years). According to wikipedia around one-quarter of the ingested Sr-90 could be retained by the rabbit! This is definitely something they will want to contain to prevent spreading of a biochemically dangerous isotope.
Sr-90 is one of the most dangerous beta emitters because after incorporating the Sr-90 in your bones, you are guaranteed to absorb the beta emission. As long as you're still alive, I guess. It depends on your definition of "you".
The radioactivity is not contagious and the fear is not that someone will pet the radioactive rabbit and become radioactive themself. The problem would be if a hunter caught the rabbit and ate it. Then he/she would ingest both the rabbit and the radioactive materials, putting him/her at higher risk for certain diseases (most notably cancer). However, he/she would not be radioactive either.
This really only touches on a part of the problem. A rabbit can go a long way in a short period of time, pooping all the way before finally expiring. It's not as bad as Sr-90 getting into a waterway, but it's pretty bad.
You're suggesting rich people should be penalised [sic] more on the abstract basis that they happen to be more wealthy?
Isn't there already a precedent in the United States Tax Code for this?
I'm normally not inclined to post about spelling, but you started it. There is more than one correct spelling for penalize. Slashdot is read internationally, and many people who post do so from outside the U.S.
All good points for why stereovision sucks, but you missed one. You can't lie down on your side and watch television. Even if you lean to one side a bit, that's bound to give you a headache.
The US constitution has...how many amendments? The Canadian Constitution has none, and two uses of the notwithstanding clause.
You are wrong. Since 1983 there have been ten amendments to the constitution of Canada. This does not include the 1982 amendment to add the charter, which is now Part I of the constitution. There were myriad amendments to Part II (the BNA Act) prior to 1982.
At 7:00 this morning, they were at $13K. Now, it's 11:00 and they are nearly at $23K, velocity is over $2,000 per hour right now, and there are over 50 hours remaining. Now that this is on slashdot, it's only a matter of time before it gets on digg, reddit, and becomes a twitternado.
If they raise $100K, that's starting to get into the range of reasonable contracts to have great orchestras record 26 symphonies with named-above-the-orchestra conductors. Even if Naxos has a kitten over this and starts to strong-arm, $100K will turn some heads.
Should you choose to part with three CDs worth of your hard earned money - $50 - that will get you a dvd of everything musopen has ever recorded in this way. Lossless. And if you have some doubts about the quality of their recordings, download a few before you give money. It's public domain, yeah?
Slashdot Mirror
The millennium bridge sways because people are walking incorrectly.
You're holding your phone wrong.
A common response for engineers and software developers is to blame the users for doing it wrong. Usually the users win. No matter what, though, the developers lose.
You should read up on adaptive impedance matching in smart grid, also known as Volt/VAR optimization. Also, you should know that load shedding, like not running pool pumps for an hour during peak load, can delay construction of new power plants as well as investments in the T&D network infrastructure to reduce congestion. This stuff really works, and economic benefits can be built in so that customers will choose to take advantage of load shifting programs.
Well, the shuttle has about a two per cent death rate per astronaut flight, and a failure rate of 1 in 65. (130 missions with two failures.) the OP is not that far off, and there was a time when the failure rate was 1 in 50, but there have been successful missions since then. Who knows what the final failure rate for the shuttle will be?
I tend to agree with the OP that using the shuttle as a benchmark for safety is a great way to make a high risk activity sound safe. What sounds better: 10 times safer than the shuttle or 1/100,000th as safe as air travel? NASA is lying with statistics.
The risk of an accident is low, but the consequences for the Swiss would be high. An 80 kilometer exclusion zone would cover over 10% of the nation's land mass.
Remember, you can add more APs for wifi, but not for phones.
Proven false by example.
An acre-foot is about four-fifths of a megalitre.
There are about 9 footballfield-inches in a megalitre.
Nuclear power has never been economic.
I sort of agree. US$12 billion divided by the amount of energy produced by Fukushima is one or two cents per kilowatt hour. I think the estimate is low, because nuclear engineers have cost underestimation down to a science, and because "cleaned up" has different meanings for different people. You wouldn't live for a year at a place of my choosing on a site that the nuclear industry claims is "cleaned up". Nonetheless, if you assume that every nuclear plant meets this end, it probably doesn't double the cost of the produced electricity.
I have heard a recording of an official during TMI, and two things struck me. First, he was not a "spokesperson". He was the real guy, and it felt almost embarrassing to listen someone so unfamiliar with how to "play" the press. Second, his candor was striking. When he didn't know something, he openly said that he did not know it. How times have changed.
Actually, an operator's job is pretty similar to a commercial pilot's. They work to get it up and running. They work to get it down and stopped safely. They risk everything helping strangers in the event of a disaster. The rest of the time, the job's pretty dull.
What I get from this is that Google is so certain of Chrome's security, they're willing to trust $20k on that security. The lesson you can take from this is not to do anything with the Chrome browser that would put you at risk of losing more than $20k. After all, the authors won't risk more than that. Of course, other authors are even less certain of their browser's security...
Astrology does have a few testable hypotheses (i.e., that an individual's personality traits are correlated to the season they were born in, and that an individual's behaviour in any given season is related to the season in which they were born). However, it's clearly not a science in that it doesn't really test those hypotheses in controlled experiment to establish the predictive power of the theory of astrology. If astrology was rigorously scientific in its approach, then there would be research in areas like southern hemisphere vs. northern hemisphere star signs, not to mention psychological research into refining what effect birth season has on personality traits.
Just about every astrologist is completely out to lunch, as well. Even the most striking imaginable correlation between birth season and personality would not permit quotidian predictions of how your day is going to go.
Very few humans are capable of generating a kilowatt, and none of the ones that can do it are capable of doing it for 40 seconds (1km / 88km/h). Typically, people consume about 100 watts in food power. Generating ten times that power (mechanically) using just your legs is hard and unsustainable.
So, you're saying that an engine incapable of generating 1kw can't push the test car as fast as an engine that is capable of generating 1kw at the drive axle (FTFA: 1050w * 0.98). Yes, you are correct.
You're right, of course. The processors used in early personal computers didn't have any bugs at all.
I print them out in Cauzin Softstrip format on archival paper. It's the only way to be certain that my blurry thumb will be preserved for my grateful descendants.
Price:revenue is 50:1.6 or 31+. Nope, not worth it.
Price:earnings is 40:0.355 or 140+. Nope, not worth it.
Price:book is not specified.
Price:quick is not specified.
Margin is 0.355:1.6 or 22%. Worth looking.
Revenue growth is the wild card. For this to be a "good" buy, Price:future revenue should be about 5, or four doublings in revenue. 30% revenue growth for 8 or 10 years would do it. Buy and hold - it's the only option that I can see. That must be what everyone is planning to do...
There is always a time when the signal is unencrypted, because our brains are not capable of decoding the encrypted signal if it's displayed on a monitor that way. It would just look like noise.
Certainly, it can be made really, really hard to get at the unencrypted signal by doing the decryption inside the display device, but that will not prevent access to the unencrypted signal. It will just be a real pain.
When I first read Schneier's Cryptography, I was absolutely blown away by the idea of a zero knowledge proof of knowledge. I thought it couldn't possibly work. What the *AA is looking for is a zero knowledge transfer of knowledge. On its face, that's impossible.
I never click any link in an email I get on my Blackberry, because Blackberry's browser sucks poop. And I mean a lot of poop. Like, through one of those big fat "bubble tea" straws. Ssssssssshhhhhhhhthug! Eww, that was a yucky experience. Like that. Poop.
So, this marks the midpoint of Facebook's life. It's another bit of proof that facebook isn't cool.
Despite the common belief and what bad scifi would tell you, rabbits (and other things) don't become radioactive when exposed to radiation.
In this case, the rabbit likely consumed radioactive materials, meaning that it is contaminated with radioactive materials. The rabbit itself, though, is not radioactive.
This is true, but it's only a kind of half truth. If the rabbit has consumed some strontium-90 then the skeleton of the rabbit will incorporate some of it. Strontium and calcium are both in family 2 on the periodic table and only one period apart, which means that they are chemically similar. Sr-90 is a pretty common component of waste from old uranium and plutonium fission because it's about half the size of U-235 and Pu-239 and it has a relatively long half life (~30 years). According to wikipedia around one-quarter of the ingested Sr-90 could be retained by the rabbit! This is definitely something they will want to contain to prevent spreading of a biochemically dangerous isotope.
Sr-90 is one of the most dangerous beta emitters because after incorporating the Sr-90 in your bones, you are guaranteed to absorb the beta emission. As long as you're still alive, I guess. It depends on your definition of "you".
The radioactivity is not contagious and the fear is not that someone will pet the radioactive rabbit and become radioactive themself. The problem would be if a hunter caught the rabbit and ate it. Then he/she would ingest both the rabbit and the radioactive materials, putting him/her at higher risk for certain diseases (most notably cancer). However, he/she would not be radioactive either.
This really only touches on a part of the problem. A rabbit can go a long way in a short period of time, pooping all the way before finally expiring. It's not as bad as Sr-90 getting into a waterway, but it's pretty bad.
You're suggesting rich people should be penalised [sic] more on the abstract basis that they happen to be more wealthy?
Isn't there already a precedent in the United States Tax Code for this?
I'm normally not inclined to post about spelling, but you started it. There is more than one correct spelling for penalize. Slashdot is read internationally, and many people who post do so from outside the U.S.
All good points for why stereovision sucks, but you missed one. You can't lie down on your side and watch television. Even if you lean to one side a bit, that's bound to give you a headache.
The US constitution has...how many amendments? The Canadian Constitution has none, and two uses of the notwithstanding clause.
You are wrong. Since 1983 there have been ten amendments to the constitution of Canada. This does not include the 1982 amendment to add the charter, which is now Part I of the constitution. There were myriad amendments to Part II (the BNA Act) prior to 1982.
At 7:00 this morning, they were at $13K. Now, it's 11:00 and they are nearly at $23K, velocity is over $2,000 per hour right now, and there are over 50 hours remaining. Now that this is on slashdot, it's only a matter of time before it gets on digg, reddit, and becomes a twitternado.
If they raise $100K, that's starting to get into the range of reasonable contracts to have great orchestras record 26 symphonies with named-above-the-orchestra conductors. Even if Naxos has a kitten over this and starts to strong-arm, $100K will turn some heads.
Should you choose to part with three CDs worth of your hard earned money - $50 - that will get you a dvd of everything musopen has ever recorded in this way. Lossless. And if you have some doubts about the quality of their recordings, download a few before you give money. It's public domain, yeah?
They should put up a candidate with the surname "Brain" then. Or "Brainsssssss". He'd win a landslide....
Well, assuming he didn't get his.... well, brains eaten, that is.
I don't think that would be an impediment to victory...
...[T]hey could have bought an Aircraft Carrier and parked it in the middle of Lake Superior and had an impenetrable fortress.
This suggestion is probably illegal because of the Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817.