My guess is that fluids encountering massive temperature and pressure shifts can't be reclaimed in the normal way during the flight? Just a guess though.
Seems to me that I would save that for emergencies. Use the high speed descent to pressurize air for controlling.
Just saying...
Due to the fact that they've only got 4 mins of fluid, I'd say they're already doing that. It's for the low-speed descent to the capture pad that the fluid is needed. Obviously, they cut their margins a bit too close, and so now will be increasing the fluid instead of decreasing the control time. I'm sure they've run the numbers to see if the other way was more viable, as they want as little extra mass as possible.
"Kidnapping as we general think of it (a stranger taking a child with nefarious intent) is exceptionally rare. In the United States, there are some 100 incidents per year."
That's not really accurate. it's some 100 incidents per year that are IDd as "stranger kidnapping". There are hundreds per year on top of that which are unsolved child homicides that are not included in that statistic.
While true, most solved child homicides (there are notable exceptions) are not the result of "stranger kidnapping" but involve someone with which the child already has a relationship.
It truly is amazing how few deaths and injuries to children occur due to the child being left unattended. And as I pointed out, that could possibly be due to so few children being left unattended these days... or not.
To play devil's advocate: A number of people have stated that the "world" is much safer today than it was in the 80's (and yes, urban North America is significantly safer today than it was then), that fails to account for the fact that children out by themselves are a much rarer sight now, and are seen as an oddity, not commonplace.
Where I'm going with this is that the "world" is in part "safer" because we don't have young children traveling distances unsupervised. We might discover that the kidnapping and abuse rates went up if everyone stopped accompanying their children everywhere they want to go.
Then again, we might not. But as you can see, the argument by itself has some serious flaws.
As for personal recountings: My grandparents used to spend the entire day unsupervised during the summer, playing on railway tracks/bridges, biking out to the country to go fishing, walking around with friends in the seedier parts of town. My parents used to travel unsupervised between urban areas for extra-curricular lessons, bike/take transit by themselves to friends' places and parks, but have more structured days and more general supervision when not in transit. I had 30 acres of wilderness to spend my time in, so spent much of my youth unsupervised, but checking in with a parent (mine or someone else's) fairly regularly; supervision in a rural setting is pretty silly for the most part. Kids learn how to avoid animals that may attack them, and you know who/where all the people around are -- some stranger wouldn't last very long sitting waiting in the middle of nowhere for a victim to come along. They'd be reported by the kids in the area and an adult would soon find them and ask them what they're up to, and get them to move along.
My kids? They don't really have the time to be unsupervised; there's always an adult accompanying them to wherever they go. This will change as they get older of course -- when they're old enough to babysit, they're old enough to have some independence too.
One other point to bring up: for the most part, abuse and kidnapping is done by someone you know/trust. This usually means that trusting your kids' care to a responsible adult won't decrease the risk of something bad happening all that much.
I've heard lots of thoughts on both sides of this issue, and seen a number of studies on both sides of the issue (studies always appear to push the group's agenda though -- I have yet to see a study by someone without a vested interest in the outcome they derive in their conclusion).
The summary goes like this though: As you say, Fracturing takes place well below *current* domestic water supplies, usually in a deep shale bed (the result being that water will no longer accumulate there either, due to the fracturing). So at first glance, there's no problem with poisoning the water table.
Second, as you say, a properly drilled well has to be sealed and lined anyway, so with a properly drilled well, there is no further hazard than you'd get from a leaky shaft pumping crude (which is just as bad for the water table as the chemicals used in fracturing).
The issues with fracturing appear to be: 1) Loosening dormant fault lines (rare, but we've had a few cases documented now) 2) Bad drilling and disposal practices.
The second one appears to be the real issue here; one study that was conducted found that the official site inspections tended to give notice, and the sites inspected generally had proper treatment of the shaft and proper site care and fluid disposal (which makes sense, as the fluids are usually re-used between wells, and it's not in the fracker's interests to have to re-invest in the fluids).
However, a third party who did unauthorized site checks found that the same sites sometimes ended up dumping toxins on-site AFTER being inspected, and that sites that were never visited had flawed shafts and should never have been re-used for fracking -- and often had sub-standard disposal practices as well.
So this seems to be one of those cases where there's reason to be concerned (especially now that the industry needs to cut costs to stay profitable), but the concerns usually aren't the ones that people get up in arms about. The problem isn't so much with the fracking as it is with the well placement, well care, and toxin disposal. If these can all be done responsibly (which is expensive), fracking itself doesn't appear to be an issue.
Do you say this because the jurors are your peers?
I've been on juries where the people with BS detectors were a vocal minority. It made me think: "What if I was on a jury where the guy with the BS detector wasn't so vocal?"
The worst part is that on one of these, we found the guy not guilty even though he had obviously done it -- because the prosecution failed to prove their case but attempted to lean on BS to prop things up instead of evidence, leaving reasonable doubt.
See, the prosecution thought they'd done enough because most of the jury was nodding and obviously agreeing with their argument. That one guy pointed out the fact that no actual evidence had been presented, just circumstantial evidence.
Unfortunately, that one guy wasn't even me:) The prosecutors did a really good job until you broke everything down and tossed out what wasn't fact -- which on this case took days of being sequestered to fully untangle. Many others were really annoyed that the one guy wouldn't just shut up and let everyone go home on a guilty verdict.
If an engineer built a bridge woefully inadequately, either on purpose or because he is incompetent, and it falls down and kills a bunch of people would you blame the bridge or the engineer?
If an engineer builds a robot that builds bridge-building robots, and one of those robots builds a bridge that falls down and kills a bunch of people, who/what would you blame?
The one at fault could be the engineer, the people servicing the robot-building robot, the people servicing the bridge-building robot, some freak accident with robot a or b, or it could be an act of god.
Or one of the robots could have become sentient and done it out of malice. Or the bridge (which is also a robot) could be at fault. Or the bridge operators.
The problem is, we're reaching a point of complexity in some devices where no single person fully comprehends the workings of all the components. This is the point at which strict engineering standards should come into play, but as a culture, we seem to be fine with "mere software" having bugs in order for it to be affordable. AI isn't any different.
Is that what this case is about? I thought they'd start by going after:
3. Owner of said marketplace hired a hit-man or 4. Owner of said marketplace laundered money or 5. Owner of said marketplace purchased contraband, and intentionally facilitated other purchasing said contraband.
I didn't think the case was about Silk Road per-se at all, except inasmuch as it was intentionally being used to sell illicit services.
Unfortunately, there are other reasons not to stay on Snow Leopard, wonderful OS though 10.6.7 is. There have been numerous security fixes (both types: data integrity and exploit fixes) since then -- but if you're happy re-compiling and backporting via Darwin, you should be able to manage Just remember, for example, to backport the latest nfsd fix, or you're in for a world of hurt.
Might be time for someone to put together a backporting site for 10.6 similar to what happened for XP a number of years ago.
Unless and until Google starts to hire actual translators and pay them actual money, this is value subtracting and will suck income out of the very translators it depends on. If we are really unlucky, it will be an unsustainable parasitism, driving translators out of work and actually reducing the ability of the world to deal with multiple languages.
I tend to think that Google Translate provides professional translators with a neverending supply of work, while they try to extract their client from whatever mess Google Translate got them into.
Seriously... GT does the sort of work that nobody ever hired a professional translator for. This frees them up to do the real work. And if a professional translator can't do better than GT, then that's a job that's becoming more specialized... kind of like the farrier and the haberdasher.
Arabic is there in the Bing translator, which you could use for not just ISIS, but also Hizbullah, Hamas, Ikhwan and a whole host of other Islamic beauties
And the resulting insult would be something along the lines of "Stain sheep, devout cleric!" when translated back....
English is a language that's much easier to translate to than Arabic. Sure, it's lossy, but going the other way, you end up saying lots of things you didn't actually mean, due to the weighted multiple meanings assigned to each character or phoneme. Once you get past the basics like al and ibn, you'd better know the cultural context.
Christ almighty, this beast is a fucking monster. What's next, a shell and a userland?
Glad I'm heading to FreeBSD. Linux is going down the tubes.
A lot of development work is happening on systemd with just the recent couple of weeks seeing over 20000 commits. With the most recent work that has landed, the emacs component has been improved with new features.
When a significant portion of your community is employed by hospitals, you've got a serious problem. The point about not allowing drug use for on-call employees is always good policy; that still eliminates very few jobs from the available job pool (although high-stress jobs like those found at hospitals sometimes drive people to alcohol and THC in order to help them unwind).
"no gainful employment beyond menial labor" is a far cry from "can't work for the local hospital".
I was never one of the top submitters, but I've submitted many more than are credited to this userid. I too prefer to submit to other sites where my submissions get more coverage and higher response rates.
That said, I could easily game my submissions so that my acceptance rate was higher, but those wouldn't be the kind of submissions I want associated with my userid.
If you want to see more Slashdot-in-2000 style posts, and you have access to the sort of articles that Slashdot-in-2000 might have posted, Slashdot welcomes your submissions. You could even become a "frequent contributor".
Um, no. This used to be the case, but the only stories I've submitted that have actually been picked by the editors in the last 5 years have been the "look at this new tech", "look at this glaring mistake" or the political kind. Anything about explaining actual existing tech or showing novel new uses for existing tech has never made it past the editors.
These days it's extremely easy to become a "frequent submitter" without becoming a contributor at all -- even when you do your own editing, have a reasonable journalistic-style lead-line summary, and multiple sources linked in TFS to back up the lead story.
Exclusive Or is called exclusive for a reason. In your example, you indicated exclusivity with "only". Therefore, while "or" CAN have the connotation he describes, it isn't guaranteed. We gather a lot by context. But what if we don't understand the context? That happens all the time.
I'm very explicit about whether my ors are exclusive or not -- I have to be; I've got children. "Go to bed NOW or you don't get to go to your friend's house tomorrow" is very obviously exclusive to an adult -- but to a kid, they figure they' ve got options. Same goes for if you offer then an apple or an orange -- they'll say "yes" (or "no", depending on their age and disposition).
"fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs"
Really? How does this work, exactly? Most employers still drug test, even for marijuana, so if you want a job, you STILL can't smoke. I agree you save with less arrests, trying, and housing those offenders, but you won't see people who insist on smoking pot going out and getting most jobs.
Hmm? The only jobs I've ever seen that drug test for cannabis use were factory jobs and menial entry level jobs. That's hardly "most employers". Considering the fact that cannabis is legal in those states and is used for medical purposes globally, I think this issue is significantly smaller than you're indicating. I don't know that I'd want someone toking up just before operating heavy machinery of course, and smoking during working hours is about as good an idea as drinking during working hours, but what people do on their own time is generally not HR's concern, for most employers.
Shame that your OS of choice can't seem to download a PDF and open it with the default application.
PDF in the browser is a security nightmare. So is PDF in Acrobat Reader, but at least you have a bit more control about what can poke the PDF that way.
Not only that, I said nothing about TorboTax, other than the current behaviors of Intuit seem to be out of the same playbook that stopped me using their software 15 years ago. The point was to head off other shilling and FUD by pointing out that the free/cheap web alternatives are accurate and get you your full return promptly.
Slashdot Mirror
No no, the Republican Congress will just pass a law mandating the destruction of all thermometers. Problem solved!
No need; they'll just mandate a switch from Farenheit to Celcius. Instant drop in temperature!
My guess is that fluids encountering massive temperature and pressure shifts can't be reclaimed in the normal way during the flight? Just a guess though.
Seems to me that I would save that for emergencies. Use the high speed descent to pressurize air for controlling.
Just saying...
Due to the fact that they've only got 4 mins of fluid, I'd say they're already doing that. It's for the low-speed descent to the capture pad that the fluid is needed. Obviously, they cut their margins a bit too close, and so now will be increasing the fluid instead of decreasing the control time. I'm sure they've run the numbers to see if the other way was more viable, as they want as little extra mass as possible.
"Kidnapping as we general think of it (a stranger taking a child with nefarious intent) is exceptionally rare. In the United States, there are some 100 incidents per year."
That's not really accurate. it's some 100 incidents per year that are IDd as "stranger kidnapping". There are hundreds per year on top of that which are unsolved child homicides that are not included in that statistic.
While true, most solved child homicides (there are notable exceptions) are not the result of "stranger kidnapping" but involve someone with which the child already has a relationship.
It truly is amazing how few deaths and injuries to children occur due to the child being left unattended. And as I pointed out, that could possibly be due to so few children being left unattended these days... or not.
To play devil's advocate:
A number of people have stated that the "world" is much safer today than it was in the 80's (and yes, urban North America is significantly safer today than it was then), that fails to account for the fact that children out by themselves are a much rarer sight now, and are seen as an oddity, not commonplace.
Where I'm going with this is that the "world" is in part "safer" because we don't have young children traveling distances unsupervised. We might discover that the kidnapping and abuse rates went up if everyone stopped accompanying their children everywhere they want to go.
Then again, we might not. But as you can see, the argument by itself has some serious flaws.
As for personal recountings:
My grandparents used to spend the entire day unsupervised during the summer, playing on railway tracks/bridges, biking out to the country to go fishing, walking around with friends in the seedier parts of town. My parents used to travel unsupervised between urban areas for extra-curricular lessons, bike/take transit by themselves to friends' places and parks, but have more structured days and more general supervision when not in transit. I had 30 acres of wilderness to spend my time in, so spent much of my youth unsupervised, but checking in with a parent (mine or someone else's) fairly regularly; supervision in a rural setting is pretty silly for the most part. Kids learn how to avoid animals that may attack them, and you know who/where all the people around are -- some stranger wouldn't last very long sitting waiting in the middle of nowhere for a victim to come along. They'd be reported by the kids in the area and an adult would soon find them and ask them what they're up to, and get them to move along.
My kids? They don't really have the time to be unsupervised; there's always an adult accompanying them to wherever they go. This will change as they get older of course -- when they're old enough to babysit, they're old enough to have some independence too.
One other point to bring up: for the most part, abuse and kidnapping is done by someone you know/trust. This usually means that trusting your kids' care to a responsible adult won't decrease the risk of something bad happening all that much.
I've heard lots of thoughts on both sides of this issue, and seen a number of studies on both sides of the issue (studies always appear to push the group's agenda though -- I have yet to see a study by someone without a vested interest in the outcome they derive in their conclusion).
The summary goes like this though:
As you say, Fracturing takes place well below *current* domestic water supplies, usually in a deep shale bed (the result being that water will no longer accumulate there either, due to the fracturing). So at first glance, there's no problem with poisoning the water table.
Second, as you say, a properly drilled well has to be sealed and lined anyway, so with a properly drilled well, there is no further hazard than you'd get from a leaky shaft pumping crude (which is just as bad for the water table as the chemicals used in fracturing).
The issues with fracturing appear to be:
1) Loosening dormant fault lines (rare, but we've had a few cases documented now)
2) Bad drilling and disposal practices.
The second one appears to be the real issue here; one study that was conducted found that the official site inspections tended to give notice, and the sites inspected generally had proper treatment of the shaft and proper site care and fluid disposal (which makes sense, as the fluids are usually re-used between wells, and it's not in the fracker's interests to have to re-invest in the fluids).
However, a third party who did unauthorized site checks found that the same sites sometimes ended up dumping toxins on-site AFTER being inspected, and that sites that were never visited had flawed shafts and should never have been re-used for fracking -- and often had sub-standard disposal practices as well.
So this seems to be one of those cases where there's reason to be concerned (especially now that the industry needs to cut costs to stay profitable), but the concerns usually aren't the ones that people get up in arms about. The problem isn't so much with the fracking as it is with the well placement, well care, and toxin disposal. If these can all be done responsibly (which is expensive), fracking itself doesn't appear to be an issue.
I for one find it comforting that snapchat is listed as performing a recent code audit and decided not fix anything about it.
They can't really fix it as the initial premise is flawed -- all they can do is improve their marketing. I'm sure Facebook can do that for them.
Do you say this because the jurors are your peers?
I've been on juries where the people with BS detectors were a vocal minority. It made me think: "What if I was on a jury where the guy with the BS detector wasn't so vocal?"
The worst part is that on one of these, we found the guy not guilty even though he had obviously done it -- because the prosecution failed to prove their case but attempted to lean on BS to prop things up instead of evidence, leaving reasonable doubt.
See, the prosecution thought they'd done enough because most of the jury was nodding and obviously agreeing with their argument. That one guy pointed out the fact that no actual evidence had been presented, just circumstantial evidence.
Unfortunately, that one guy wasn't even me :) The prosecutors did a really good job until you broke everything down and tossed out what wasn't fact -- which on this case took days of being sequestered to fully untangle. Many others were really annoyed that the one guy wouldn't just shut up and let everyone go home on a guilty verdict.
That real question is what of the 6 fingered man?
The 6 fingered man is an allegory; it's actually 6 departments of the US government.
But we have yet to see the appearance of Inigo Montoya....
If an engineer built a bridge woefully inadequately, either on purpose or because he is incompetent, and it falls down and kills a bunch of people would you blame the bridge or the engineer?
If an engineer builds a robot that builds bridge-building robots, and one of those robots builds a bridge that falls down and kills a bunch of people, who/what would you blame?
The one at fault could be the engineer, the people servicing the robot-building robot, the people servicing the bridge-building robot, some freak accident with robot a or b, or it could be an act of god.
Or one of the robots could have become sentient and done it out of malice. Or the bridge (which is also a robot) could be at fault. Or the bridge operators.
The problem is, we're reaching a point of complexity in some devices where no single person fully comprehends the workings of all the components. This is the point at which strict engineering standards should come into play, but as a culture, we seem to be fine with "mere software" having bugs in order for it to be affordable. AI isn't any different.
Is that what this case is about? I thought they'd start by going after:
3. Owner of said marketplace hired a hit-man
or
4. Owner of said marketplace laundered money
or
5. Owner of said marketplace purchased contraband, and intentionally facilitated other purchasing said contraband.
I didn't think the case was about Silk Road per-se at all, except inasmuch as it was intentionally being used to sell illicit services.
Unfortunately, there are other reasons not to stay on Snow Leopard, wonderful OS though 10.6.7 is. There have been numerous security fixes (both types: data integrity and exploit fixes) since then -- but if you're happy re-compiling and backporting via Darwin, you should be able to manage Just remember, for example, to backport the latest nfsd fix, or you're in for a world of hurt.
Might be time for someone to put together a backporting site for 10.6 similar to what happened for XP a number of years ago.
Unless and until Google starts to hire actual translators and pay them actual money, this is value subtracting and will suck income out of the very translators it depends on. If we are really unlucky, it will be an unsustainable parasitism, driving translators out of work and actually reducing the ability of the world to deal with multiple languages.
I tend to think that Google Translate provides professional translators with a neverending supply of work, while they try to extract their client from whatever mess Google Translate got them into.
Seriously... GT does the sort of work that nobody ever hired a professional translator for. This frees them up to do the real work. And if a professional translator can't do better than GT, then that's a job that's becoming more specialized... kind of like the farrier and the haberdasher.
Arabic is there in the Bing translator, which you could use for not just ISIS, but also Hizbullah, Hamas, Ikhwan and a whole host of other Islamic beauties
And the resulting insult would be something along the lines of "Stain sheep, devout cleric!" when translated back....
English is a language that's much easier to translate to than Arabic. Sure, it's lossy, but going the other way, you end up saying lots of things you didn't actually mean, due to the weighted multiple meanings assigned to each character or phoneme. Once you get past the basics like al and ibn, you'd better know the cultural context.
Christ almighty, this beast is a fucking monster. What's next, a shell and a userland?
Glad I'm heading to FreeBSD. Linux is going down the tubes.
When a significant portion of your community is employed by hospitals, you've got a serious problem. The point about not allowing drug use for on-call employees is always good policy; that still eliminates very few jobs from the available job pool (although high-stress jobs like those found at hospitals sometimes drive people to alcohol and THC in order to help them unwind).
"no gainful employment beyond menial labor" is a far cry from "can't work for the local hospital".
I was never one of the top submitters, but I've submitted many more than are credited to this userid. I too prefer to submit to other sites where my submissions get more coverage and higher response rates.
That said, I could easily game my submissions so that my acceptance rate was higher, but those wouldn't be the kind of submissions I want associated with my userid.
And time is limited :)
If you want to see more Slashdot-in-2000 style posts, and you have access to the sort of articles that Slashdot-in-2000 might have posted, Slashdot welcomes your submissions. You could even become a "frequent contributor".
Um, no. This used to be the case, but the only stories I've submitted that have actually been picked by the editors in the last 5 years have been the "look at this new tech", "look at this glaring mistake" or the political kind. Anything about explaining actual existing tech or showing novel new uses for existing tech has never made it past the editors.
These days it's extremely easy to become a "frequent submitter" without becoming a contributor at all -- even when you do your own editing, have a reasonable journalistic-style lead-line summary, and multiple sources linked in TFS to back up the lead story.
As a result, most people don't bother anymore.
Exclusive Or is called exclusive for a reason. In your example, you indicated exclusivity with "only". Therefore, while "or" CAN have the connotation he describes, it isn't guaranteed. We gather a lot by context. But what if we don't understand the context? That happens all the time.
I'm very explicit about whether my ors are exclusive or not -- I have to be; I've got children. "Go to bed NOW or you don't get to go to your friend's house tomorrow" is very obviously exclusive to an adult -- but to a kid, they figure they' ve got options. Same goes for if you offer then an apple or an orange -- they'll say "yes" (or "no", depending on their age and disposition).
"fewer people labelled as criminals means more people able to access gainful employment outside menial entry level jobs"
Really? How does this work, exactly? Most employers still drug test, even for marijuana, so if you want a job, you STILL can't smoke. I agree you save with less arrests, trying, and housing those offenders, but you won't see people who insist on smoking pot going out and getting most jobs.
Hmm? The only jobs I've ever seen that drug test for cannabis use were factory jobs and menial entry level jobs. That's hardly "most employers". Considering the fact that cannabis is legal in those states and is used for medical purposes globally, I think this issue is significantly smaller than you're indicating. I don't know that I'd want someone toking up just before operating heavy machinery of course, and smoking during working hours is about as good an idea as drinking during working hours, but what people do on their own time is generally not HR's concern, for most employers.
I'm glad at least one person with mod points enjoyed my attempt at subtle humour :)
For those that missed it: think "You're holding it wrong!" and a certain competitor, with a dash of reality distortion field.
I think you missed my attempt at humour.
Shame that your OS of choice can't seem to download a PDF and open it with the default application.
PDF in the browser is a security nightmare. So is PDF in Acrobat Reader, but at least you have a bit more control about what can poke the PDF that way.
... for hand waving. Although it might encompass the "These are not the droids you are looking for" gesture as well.
Not only that, I said nothing about TorboTax, other than the current behaviors of Intuit seem to be out of the same playbook that stopped me using their software 15 years ago. The point was to head off other shilling and FUD by pointing out that the free/cheap web alternatives are accurate and get you your full return promptly.