Not always. Most Starbucks I've been to offer a choice of dark or medium roast. A couple even offered a light roast. They were all horrible but admittedly their dark roasts were the worse.
Unless you mean for espresso-based drinks. In that case yes, they use a dark roast. But it becomes almost drinkable when you add lots of milk to it. (A shot of pure espresso from Starbucks? Ewwwww... *shudders*)
Thank you. That was a very interesting review. I initially skipped it because it was too long, but the tl;dr summary ironically prompted me to read it.
Just one comment:
No, it didn't taste like fecal matter.
Uuuhhh... How do you know? Have you somehow acquired extensive experience in coprophagia?
I have never had Kopi Luwak, but I will certainly have a cup if offered (unless the price is just unreasonable). I do see two ways in which very good coffee can be ruined very easily: bad handling and bad roasting. In the case of Kopi Luwak I see how bad hndling could literally get it contaminated with feces. It would still be safe to drink due to the roasting, but still the taste may be extremely compromised. And of course the roast. You clearly don't like dark roasts (and neither do I). To me even the best coffees taste like ashes when roasted too dark. Maybe the Kopi Luwak was also too dark for your taste (and mine).
Orcas are members of the dolphin family (delphinidae) of toothed whales (odontoceti), which means they belong to the order of whales (cetacea). I.e. orcas most definitely are whales. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcinus_orca).
If you are willing to state that all dolphins (including orcas) and porpoises are whales, then you are 100% correct and some zoologists will agree with you.
But other zoologists will claim that whales, porpoises, and dolphins are three clearly distinct suborders of Cetacea, and thus dolphins (including orcas) cannot be whales.
I'm not a zoologist so, as long as you acknowledge that orcas are dolphins, I don't give a $#+ whether you call them whales o not.
Ah, so your shinny new tablet has fantastic third party developer support as long as you don't use it as a tablet since you will need to sit at a desk and use a mouse and keyboard to effectively use almost any of those 32-bit (and 64-bit) applications that were ever written for the world's most popular OS since the mid-90's.
The "visit" was from the Suffolk County Police Department, NOT from the Feds. This is the statement released by that Police Department:
Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms ‘pressure cooker bombs’ and ‘backpacks.’
After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches. The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.
If the police indeed had direct access to the Google searches then it's bad regardless of whether it's a local or Federal LEA. But if what the SCPD is saying is true, then there is really nothing to see here, as all espionage was done by the employer and that is probably even legal.
I don't know if I believe them or not, although the Google snooping does seem a little too sophisticated for a local PD.
Shows how far behind Samsung is in terms of hardware engineering. They stack the deck and still can't touch a 9 month old phone. Both browser performance and gaming performance, the 2 most stressful use cases on a smartphone, are way behind Apple. http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54305.png
Look at your link. It shows the S4 beating the iP5.
Second example: If we want to replicate the health effects of the F-18 in the FDG using Na-22, how much Na-22 do we need? To get the 370 MBq at the start you will need 4.38 x 10^16 atoms of Na-22 (1.6 x 10^6 g), obviously still a minuscule amount. So let's push your concept of "long half-lives are what matters" to the extreme and use instead K-40, a positron emitter with a half-life of 1.248 x 10^9 years. To replicate the effect of the F-18 you need to start with a chunk of potassium that has 2.10 x 10^25 atoms, all of them radioactive! That's 34.9 moles or 1400 grams of potassium... that's 3 pounds of pure, wholly radioactive potassium circulating around your body!
Of course that radioactive potassium is disappearing "magically" at an accelerated rate (a very small part due to radioactive decay and a lot more that we need to remove continuously to match the effects of the F-18 in the FDG). Yet after 10 hours, the time at which we assumed that the patient excreted all the remaining F-18, he will still have 31.6 g (more than one ounce) of 100% radioactive potassium circulating through his body. So the effects of the radioactive FDG for the patient are comparable to having circulating inside his body between one ounce and 3 pounds of a 100% radioactive metal for 10 full hours!
The big lesson here is: The effects of the half-life of a radioisotope on a person exposed to it are not as intuitive as you think. You made the rookie mistake of dismissing the effects of 370 MBq of FDG just because the half-life is short.
So why do people care more about the Cs-137 (half-life: 30.17 years) than about the I-131 (half-life: 8 days)? It is NOT as you think because one million atoms of Cs-137 are more dangerous than one million atoms of I-131 if they get into your body. (Arguably the iodine is far more dangerous as it is avidly uptaken by the thyroid gland). It's because 29 years from now half a million of the Cs-137 atoms will still be there waiting to get into you, while the I-131 pretty much vanished five months after the accident.
TL; DR: the 6.23 mSv dose due to the FDG PET scan in my original comment are comprable to more than 6.23 times the 1 mSv dose that a person would be exposed to in a year in the "cleaned" areas of Fukushima for two reasons: First: because it's already inside his body instead of just potentially (as I said before), and Second: precisely because the half-life of F-18 is very short.
OK, enough preliminaries. First example: Let's start with the same amount (5.84 x 10^-12 moles or 1.28g x 10^-10 g) of pure Na-22 injected in the patient (for reference that's the amount in 3.35 x 10^-10 g of pure Na-22 salt). Allow it to decay inside the body until 5.71 x 10^-12 moles have decayed, and then remove all the remaining isotopes (the removed part is only 7.96 x 10^10 isotopes or 1.32 x 10^-13 moles or 2.3% of the total so before you come back with this please realize that this is small peanuts compared to the total). As explained above, the Na-22 and F-18 isotopes that decayed inside the body deliver the same amount of potential damage, as they are both positron emitters. That is, they deliver the same dose. (Yes, the biodistribution of glucose and sodium is not the same, yada, yada, that's beside the point).
The difference is that the F-18 bombarded the body with all that radiation in just 10 hours while the Na-22 took 14 years! In reality for the Na-22 the cells have more time to cope with the low intensity damage, even if it is very, very long-lasting. A good analogy is this: Go to the beach in the middle of clear summer days and expose yourself to the sun with no sunblock or other protection from 10 am to 3 pm for two days. You will almost certainly get severely sunburned in those 10 hours. But if you go there at noon under identical conditions every day for 14 years, but stay only seven seconds every day (same total exposure of 10 hours) you will not have any harmful effects at all.
Lesson #1: If you are starting with a fixed number of radioisotopes trapped inside your body, a longer half-life is not worse for you, contrary to what you think. In fact, a shorter half-life is actually worse (all other things kept equal).
The half-life of some of the radioisotopes in the cleaned area around Fukushima is measured in decades, indeed. Yet the concentration of those radioisotopes around you is so low that they are giving you only 1 mSv per year. (Or so says by jkflying. I haven't checked if that number is accurate, but that's not my point.)
Let me give you two examples to help you understand how this really works, since it has become evident that ironically you don't (not that there's any shame in not knowing about some very specific topics like this). I will break it down into three comments for readability. For the examples, let's use F-18 and Na-22 since they are both positron emittors, so the potential damage due to each decay is similar. (It's actually caused either by the removal of a critical electron when it is annihilated by the positron or by the two 511 keV photons produced that mutual annihilation.) That's easier than trying to compare radioisotopes with different products. From the POV of radiation poisoning, the difference is the half-lives: 109.8 min for F-18, 2.6 years for Na-22.
In the paper I linked before they used a very typical dose of 10 mCi or 370 MBq of FDG, that is 370 million decays of F-18 isotopes per second at the time of injection. That means that 3.52 x 10^12 atoms (5.84 x 10^-12 moles) of F-18 are injected, all of which decay inside his body... well, not really as he will urinate some of them, but the same can be said of most any collection of radioisotopes you ingest: a portion of what you ingest will remain in certain tissues and a portion will be excreted. So let's assume he doesn't pee for 10 hours and that the F-18 remaining in his body after he peed magically disappears: then the number isotopes that did decay in his body is 3.44 x 10^12 (5.71 x 10^-12 moles). Since there is one F-18 isotope per FDG molecule that amounts to 1.04 x 10^-9 g of pure FDG that decays, from a starting amount of 1.06x10^-9 g. If you follow the numbers, be it isotopes, moles, or grams of FDG, you will notice that 97.7% of the F-18 decayed inside the patient and only 2.3% did not.
According to this study, the dose of typical FDG PET-CT scan protocols is between 13.45 mSv and 32.18 mSv depending on gender and the CT protocol used. Most of that is attributable to the CT scan which is delivered in a few seconds. But that's not where I'm going. Let's just pretend for a moment that the CT wasn't acquired.
Of those doses, 6.23 mSv are due to the F18-FDG. That is not something that could potentially get into your body, but actually injected into your bloodstream and it delivers the 6.23 mSv in just a handful of hours (the half-life of F18 is 109.8 minutes). Compare that with the 1 mSv dose spaced across a full year and due to radioisotopes of which only a fraction actually get into your body.
And yet the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence due to the PET-CT study for those doses is between 0.163% and 0.514% for a 20-year-old in the US –and that is including the CT scan!
Of course you shouldn't get a PET-CT scan unless there is a very good medical reason for it, but my point is: even if it's due to radionuclides decaying inside your body, a dose of 1 mSv delivered throughout a year is rather paltry.
No, when zieroh says "Time Machine fires up in the background, does its thing, and then stops shortly thereafter" he is talking about the Time Machine icon spinning around in the menu bar. That will happen throughout the whole back up process, including the prep.
I'm pretty sure that the difference is that zieroh back up very frequently, maybe using the default functionality (i.e., backup every hour), while BitZtream is more like most of us and backups every few weeks (or when he decides he has accumulated so many changes that losing them would really be painful).
I bet you don't back up very frequently, and Time Machine determines that the record of files modified kept by FSEvents is stale. That would force it to do a deep scan, i.e., it traverses the whole directory hierarchy to figure out what has changed, much like rsync does.
If you back up every couple of days the whole backup including prep time should take under a couple of minutes. That's particularly true if you keep the default functionality of Time Machine (that is, backing up every hour).
Wouldn't solve his problem. TimeMachine takes considerable time to prep and start a backup before it starts actually doing any work, I'd guess its likely doing the same sort of thing that Rsync, gathering a list of changes.
No, it doesn't. It only takes a considerable amount of time to prep if you haven't backed up in many days. If you have backed up recently the prep time is quite short. And if you use the default configuration (in which it backs up every hour) the prep time is almost nil.
If you read John Siracusa's excellent OS X Leopard review you will find that Time Machine avoids traversing the whole hierarchy because it taps into FSEvents which keeps a record of the files that have been modified since the last backup.
AFAIK, Time Machine is a GUI frontend for rsync. Watch Activity Monitor.app when it fires up. That will tell you. I don't use Time Machine, personally, I know how to use rsync.
No, Time Machine is NOT a frontend for rsync. Yes, you can achieve something that resembles Time Machine by using the --link-dest option.
I use rsync --link-dest regularly through a script called tym ("Time rsYnc Machine") to backup stuff on systems at work for which I don't have admin privileges to configure Time Machine (oh, I haven't done it in a few weeks, I should do it asap!). So I know it has some drawbacks compared to TM, the main two being:
- It always traverses the whole directory hierarchy looking for changes. Time Machine doesn't always do that.
- It always creates a hard link for every file being backed up that has not changed. Hard links are very inexpensive, but still it takes a considerable amount of time if you need to create over a million hard links *every* time you back up.
If you read John Siracusa's excellent OS X Leopard review you will find that Time Machine avoids traversing the whole hierarchy because it taps into FSEvents which keeps a record of the files that have been modified since the last backup. TM will only do a full, "deep" traversing if it decides that the record is stale (not sure how it does that) and only then the backup takes an inordinate amount of time.
In Siracusa's review you will also find that Time Machine creates hard links to directories for which none of the content has changed since the last backup (as odd as that may sound) thus avoiding the creation of the possibly hundreds of thousands of hard links for all the files inside them.
It amuses me that even though I said "You can change the direction manually,..." still two AC's took the time to reply that "you can change the wind direction".
It doesn't really bother me but it does make me wonder if we are breeding a fast-pace culture in which people don't actually read (and probably neither listen to) what others are saying and just reply automatically.
You can click on "Fallout" to see prevailing weather patterns taken into account.
I don't think so... In all the tests I tried, the "fallout" was always in the North-East direction. You can change the direction manually, but of course that's completely arbitrary unless you already know which are the "prevailing weather patterns".
Perhaps the 3D version considers land countours - I haven't tried it.
Maybe. But I couldn't get it to work in Safari nor in Chrome, even though I have the Google Earth plugin working quite well with both browsers.
I guess the problem is that outside of Belgium the perception is that, even though more people speak Flemish/Dutch variants as a first language in Belgium, a larger percentage speaks French as either their first or their second language.
This idea is supported in the current version of the corresponding page in Wikipedia. (Yes, I know, Wikipedia. Most of us won't dig any deeper so live with it or fix it if you have links to the right sources.)
According to that page, 56% of Belgians speak Dutch vs 48% French as a first language, but only 71% speak Dutch vs 86% French as either first or second language. So by offering a webpage in Dutch you are alienating 29% of Belgians, while if you offer it in French you only alienate 14%.
Cells consist of lots of carbon, so *new* cells will be built out of whatever is available in the environment. Thus cells created before 1945 will have the "standard" ratio of C-12 and C-14, those created in the 1950s will have an increased proportion of C-14, and those created since 1963 will also have an increased proportion, though that increase has gotten smaller every year as the excess C-14 disappears from the environment.
So for cells created in the past ~100 years you can distinguish the pre-nuclear-testing ones from the later ones, and for cells created since 1963 you can give an approximate date based on the isotope ratio, since that ratio has been decreasing on a well-known curve.
Oh, so it has absolutely everything to do with carbon dating, only that instead of using the ratio of C-12 and C14 to estimate the age of the sample directly, they use it to identify if the neurons' age match the patient's age (i.e., estimate the age of the neurons in a slightly more indirect way).
It takes about a second or so of guesswork - 1000 feet is about 300 meters. 2000 is 600. 75% of 300 is 225, so we get a guesstimate of 225 + 300 + 300 = 825m . In reality, we're off by about 13, but remember, that doesn't matter. If you're really good at math, you could subsitute 304 for 300 and get closer to the reality, but why bother?
Why bother? I'll tell you why bother: Because according to your "guesstimate" the new building would be shorter than Burj Khalifa, and the whole point is that it's taller.
That "guestimate" is about as useful as the "second or so" the according to you the calculation takes.
Myself, I cannot see anything wrong with the original decision. "Fifth amendment" is about self incrimination in statements to police or to the court. This case is about being forced to give the police or court access to evidence.
According to that logic, if the police think that you have physical evidence of a crime you allegedly committed but they don't know where you keep it, then forcing you to tell them where to find that evidence (i.e., providing them with access to evidence) is not self incrimination and therefore not covered by the Fifth amendment, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Starbucks uses a dark roast.
Not always. Most Starbucks I've been to offer a choice of dark or medium roast. A couple even offered a light roast. They were all horrible but admittedly their dark roasts were the worse.
Unless you mean for espresso-based drinks. In that case yes, they use a dark roast. But it becomes almost drinkable when you add lots of milk to it. (A shot of pure espresso from Starbucks? Ewwwww... *shudders*)
Thank you. That was a very interesting review. I initially skipped it because it was too long, but the tl;dr summary ironically prompted me to read it.
Just one comment:
No, it didn't taste like fecal matter.
Uuuhhh... How do you know? Have you somehow acquired extensive experience in coprophagia?
I have never had Kopi Luwak, but I will certainly have a cup if offered (unless the price is just unreasonable). I do see two ways in which very good coffee can be ruined very easily: bad handling and bad roasting. In the case of Kopi Luwak I see how bad hndling could literally get it contaminated with feces. It would still be safe to drink due to the roasting, but still the taste may be extremely compromised. And of course the roast. You clearly don't like dark roasts (and neither do I). To me even the best coffees taste like ashes when roasted too dark. Maybe the Kopi Luwak was also too dark for your taste (and mine).
Orcas are members of the dolphin family (delphinidae) of toothed whales (odontoceti), which means they belong to the order of whales (cetacea). I.e. orcas most definitely are whales. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcinus_orca).
If you are willing to state that all dolphins (including orcas) and porpoises are whales, then you are 100% correct and some zoologists will agree with you.
But other zoologists will claim that whales, porpoises, and dolphins are three clearly distinct suborders of Cetacea, and thus dolphins (including orcas) cannot be whales.
I'm not a zoologist so, as long as you acknowledge that orcas are dolphins, I don't give a $#+ whether you call them whales o not.
Ah, so your shinny new tablet has fantastic third party developer support as long as you don't use it as a tablet since you will need to sit at a desk and use a mouse and keyboard to effectively use almost any of those 32-bit (and 64-bit) applications that were ever written for the world's most popular OS since the mid-90's.
Yeah, that's just fantastic third party support.
The "visit" was from the Suffolk County Police Department, NOT from the Feds. This is the statement released by that Police Department:
If the police indeed had direct access to the Google searches then it's bad regardless of whether it's a local or Federal LEA. But if what the SCPD is saying is true, then there is really nothing to see here, as all espionage was done by the employer and that is probably even legal.
I don't know if I believe them or not, although the Google snooping does seem a little too sophisticated for a local PD.
Shows how far behind Samsung is in terms of hardware engineering. They stack the deck and still can't touch a 9 month old phone. Both browser performance and gaming performance, the 2 most stressful use cases on a smartphone, are way behind Apple.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54305.png
Look at your link. It shows the S4 beating the iP5.
No. The S4 only beat the iPhone 5 when they tested it inside a freezer to prevent thermal throttling. It says so in the article from which the chart was taken.
I agree with everything you said, but it really seems that you did not understand devman's comment to which you replied.
Second example: If we want to replicate the health effects of the F-18 in the FDG using Na-22, how much Na-22 do we need? To get the 370 MBq at the start you will need 4.38 x 10^16 atoms of Na-22 (1.6 x 10^6 g), obviously still a minuscule amount. So let's push your concept of "long half-lives are what matters" to the extreme and use instead K-40, a positron emitter with a half-life of 1.248 x 10^9 years. To replicate the effect of the F-18 you need to start with a chunk of potassium that has 2.10 x 10^25 atoms, all of them radioactive! That's 34.9 moles or 1400 grams of potassium... that's 3 pounds of pure, wholly radioactive potassium circulating around your body!
Of course that radioactive potassium is disappearing "magically" at an accelerated rate (a very small part due to radioactive decay and a lot more that we need to remove continuously to match the effects of the F-18 in the FDG). Yet after 10 hours, the time at which we assumed that the patient excreted all the remaining F-18, he will still have 31.6 g (more than one ounce) of 100% radioactive potassium circulating through his body. So the effects of the radioactive FDG for the patient are comparable to having circulating inside his body between one ounce and 3 pounds of a 100% radioactive metal for 10 full hours!
The big lesson here is: The effects of the half-life of a radioisotope on a person exposed to it are not as intuitive as you think. You made the rookie mistake of dismissing the effects of 370 MBq of FDG just because the half-life is short.
So why do people care more about the Cs-137 (half-life: 30.17 years) than about the I-131 (half-life: 8 days)? It is NOT as you think because one million atoms of Cs-137 are more dangerous than one million atoms of I-131 if they get into your body. (Arguably the iodine is far more dangerous as it is avidly uptaken by the thyroid gland). It's because 29 years from now half a million of the Cs-137 atoms will still be there waiting to get into you, while the I-131 pretty much vanished five months after the accident.
TL; DR: the 6.23 mSv dose due to the FDG PET scan in my original comment are comprable to more than 6.23 times the 1 mSv dose that a person would be exposed to in a year in the "cleaned" areas of Fukushima for two reasons:
First: because it's already inside his body instead of just potentially (as I said before), and
Second: precisely because the half-life of F-18 is very short.
OK, enough preliminaries. First example: Let's start with the same amount (5.84 x 10^-12 moles or 1.28g x 10^-10 g) of pure Na-22 injected in the patient (for reference that's the amount in 3.35 x 10^-10 g of pure Na-22 salt). Allow it to decay inside the body until 5.71 x 10^-12 moles have decayed, and then remove all the remaining isotopes (the removed part is only 7.96 x 10^10 isotopes or 1.32 x 10^-13 moles or 2.3% of the total so before you come back with this please realize that this is small peanuts compared to the total). As explained above, the Na-22 and F-18 isotopes that decayed inside the body deliver the same amount of potential damage, as they are both positron emitters. That is, they deliver the same dose. (Yes, the biodistribution of glucose and sodium is not the same, yada, yada, that's beside the point).
The difference is that the F-18 bombarded the body with all that radiation in just 10 hours while the Na-22 took 14 years! In reality for the Na-22 the cells have more time to cope with the low intensity damage, even if it is very, very long-lasting. A good analogy is this: Go to the beach in the middle of clear summer days and expose yourself to the sun with no sunblock or other protection from 10 am to 3 pm for two days. You will almost certainly get severely sunburned in those 10 hours. But if you go there at noon under identical conditions every day for 14 years, but stay only seven seconds every day (same total exposure of 10 hours) you will not have any harmful effects at all.
Lesson #1: If you are starting with a fixed number of radioisotopes trapped inside your body, a longer half-life is not worse for you, contrary to what you think. In fact, a shorter half-life is actually worse (all other things kept equal).
The half-life of some of the radioisotopes in the cleaned area around Fukushima is measured in decades, indeed. Yet the concentration of those radioisotopes around you is so low that they are giving you only 1 mSv per year. (Or so says by jkflying. I haven't checked if that number is accurate, but that's not my point.)
Let me give you two examples to help you understand how this really works, since it has become evident that ironically you don't (not that there's any shame in not knowing about some very specific topics like this). I will break it down into three comments for readability. For the examples, let's use F-18 and Na-22 since they are both positron emittors, so the potential damage due to each decay is similar. (It's actually caused either by the removal of a critical electron when it is annihilated by the positron or by the two 511 keV photons produced that mutual annihilation.) That's easier than trying to compare radioisotopes with different products. From the POV of radiation poisoning, the difference is the half-lives: 109.8 min for F-18, 2.6 years for Na-22.
In the paper I linked before they used a very typical dose of 10 mCi or 370 MBq of FDG, that is 370 million decays of F-18 isotopes per second at the time of injection. That means that 3.52 x 10^12 atoms (5.84 x 10^-12 moles) of F-18 are injected, all of which decay inside his body... well, not really as he will urinate some of them, but the same can be said of most any collection of radioisotopes you ingest: a portion of what you ingest will remain in certain tissues and a portion will be excreted. So let's assume he doesn't pee for 10 hours and that the F-18 remaining in his body after he peed magically disappears: then the number isotopes that did decay in his body is 3.44 x 10^12 (5.71 x 10^-12 moles). Since there is one F-18 isotope per FDG molecule that amounts to 1.04 x 10^-9 g of pure FDG that decays, from a starting amount of 1.06x10^-9 g. If you follow the numbers, be it isotopes, moles, or grams of FDG, you will notice that 97.7% of the F-18 decayed inside the patient and only 2.3% did not.
OK, let's play your game.
According to this study, the dose of typical FDG PET-CT scan protocols is between 13.45 mSv and 32.18 mSv depending on gender and the CT protocol used. Most of that is attributable to the CT scan which is delivered in a few seconds. But that's not where I'm going. Let's just pretend for a moment that the CT wasn't acquired.
Of those doses, 6.23 mSv are due to the F18-FDG. That is not something that could potentially get into your body, but actually injected into your bloodstream and it delivers the 6.23 mSv in just a handful of hours (the half-life of F18 is 109.8 minutes). Compare that with the 1 mSv dose spaced across a full year and due to radioisotopes of which only a fraction actually get into your body.
And yet the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer incidence due to the PET-CT study for those doses is between 0.163% and 0.514% for a 20-year-old in the US –and that is including the CT scan!
Of course you shouldn't get a PET-CT scan unless there is a very good medical reason for it, but my point is: even if it's due to radionuclides decaying inside your body, a dose of 1 mSv delivered throughout a year is rather paltry.
No, it does not. If you read John Siracusa's excellent OS X Leopard review... oh, wait, you are the same guy. Nevermind.
No, when zieroh says "Time Machine fires up in the background, does its thing, and then stops shortly thereafter" he is talking about the Time Machine icon spinning around in the menu bar. That will happen throughout the whole back up process, including the prep.
I'm pretty sure that the difference is that zieroh back up very frequently, maybe using the default functionality (i.e., backup every hour), while BitZtream is more like most of us and backups every few weeks (or when he decides he has accumulated so many changes that losing them would really be painful).
I bet you don't back up very frequently, and Time Machine determines that the record of files modified kept by FSEvents is stale. That would force it to do a deep scan, i.e., it traverses the whole directory hierarchy to figure out what has changed, much like rsync does.
If you back up every couple of days the whole backup including prep time should take under a couple of minutes. That's particularly true if you keep the default functionality of Time Machine (that is, backing up every hour).
Part of why Time Machine takes so long is that it has to create hard links to every file that hasn't changed.
No, it does not. If you read John Siracusa's excellent OS X Leopard review... oh, fuck it. Just read my reply to a sister comment of yours.
tl; dr: FSEvents and hard links to directories.
Wouldn't solve his problem. TimeMachine takes considerable time to prep and start a backup before it starts actually doing any work, I'd guess its likely doing the same sort of thing that Rsync, gathering a list of changes.
No, it doesn't. It only takes a considerable amount of time to prep if you haven't backed up in many days. If you have backed up recently the prep time is quite short. And if you use the default configuration (in which it backs up every hour) the prep time is almost nil.
If you read John Siracusa's excellent OS X Leopard review you will find that Time Machine avoids traversing the whole hierarchy because it taps into FSEvents which keeps a record of the files that have been modified since the last backup.
AFAIK, Time Machine is a GUI frontend for rsync. Watch Activity Monitor.app when it fires up. That will tell you. I don't use Time Machine, personally, I know how to use rsync.
No, Time Machine is NOT a frontend for rsync. Yes, you can achieve something that resembles Time Machine by using the --link-dest option.
I use rsync --link-dest regularly through a script called tym ("Time rsYnc Machine") to backup stuff on systems at work for which I don't have admin privileges to configure Time Machine (oh, I haven't done it in a few weeks, I should do it asap!). So I know it has some drawbacks compared to TM, the main two being:
If you read John Siracusa's excellent OS X Leopard review you will find that Time Machine avoids traversing the whole hierarchy because it taps into FSEvents which keeps a record of the files that have been modified since the last backup. TM will only do a full, "deep" traversing if it decides that the record is stale (not sure how it does that) and only then the backup takes an inordinate amount of time.
In Siracusa's review you will also find that Time Machine creates hard links to directories for which none of the content has changed since the last backup (as odd as that may sound) thus avoiding the creation of the possibly hundreds of thousands of hard links for all the files inside them.
It amuses me that even though I said "You can change the direction manually, ..." still two AC's took the time to reply that "you can change the wind direction".
It doesn't really bother me but it does make me wonder if we are breeding a fast-pace culture in which people don't actually read (and probably neither listen to) what others are saying and just reply automatically.
You can click on "Fallout" to see prevailing weather patterns taken into account.
I don't think so... In all the tests I tried, the "fallout" was always in the North-East direction.
You can change the direction manually, but of course that's completely arbitrary unless you already know which are the "prevailing weather patterns".
Perhaps the 3D version considers land countours - I haven't tried it.
Maybe. But I couldn't get it to work in Safari nor in Chrome, even though I have the Google Earth plugin working quite well with both browsers.
Antibacterial?
Finally, an iPhone screen made for the dirty-old-man in all of us!
I guess the problem is that outside of Belgium the perception is that, even though more people speak Flemish/Dutch variants as a first language in Belgium, a larger percentage speaks French as either their first or their second language.
This idea is supported in the current version of the corresponding page in Wikipedia. (Yes, I know, Wikipedia. Most of us won't dig any deeper so live with it or fix it if you have links to the right sources.)
According to that page, 56% of Belgians speak Dutch vs 48% French as a first language, but only 71% speak Dutch vs 86% French as either first or second language. So by offering a webpage in Dutch you are alienating 29% of Belgians, while if you offer it in French you only alienate 14%.
It has nothing to do with carbon dating.
[...]
Cells consist of lots of carbon, so *new* cells will be built out of whatever is available in the environment. Thus cells created before 1945 will have the "standard" ratio of C-12 and C-14, those created in the 1950s will have an increased proportion of C-14, and those created since 1963 will also have an increased proportion, though that increase has gotten smaller every year as the excess C-14 disappears from the environment.
So for cells created in the past ~100 years you can distinguish the pre-nuclear-testing ones from the later ones, and for cells created since 1963 you can give an approximate date based on the isotope ratio, since that ratio has been decreasing on a well-known curve.
Oh, so it has absolutely everything to do with carbon dating, only that instead of using the ratio of C-12 and C14 to estimate the age of the sample directly, they use it to identify if the neurons' age match the patient's age (i.e., estimate the age of the neurons in a slightly more indirect way).
It takes about a second or so of guesswork - 1000 feet is about 300 meters. 2000 is 600. 75% of 300 is 225, so we get a guesstimate of 225 + 300 + 300 = 825m . In reality, we're off by about 13, but remember, that doesn't matter. If you're really good at math, you could subsitute 304 for 300 and get closer to the reality, but why bother?
Why bother? I'll tell you why bother: Because according to your "guesstimate" the new building would be shorter than Burj Khalifa, and the whole point is that it's taller.
That "guestimate" is about as useful as the "second or so" the according to you the calculation takes.
Myself, I cannot see anything wrong with the original decision. "Fifth amendment" is about self incrimination in statements to police or to the court. This case is about being forced to give the police or court access to evidence.
According to that logic, if the police think that you have physical evidence of a crime you allegedly committed but they don't know where you keep it, then forcing you to tell them where to find that evidence (i.e., providing them with access to evidence) is not self incrimination and therefore not covered by the Fifth amendment, right?
Fascinating.
To be fair, a couple of AC did mention Scott Adams before you (1, 2. One even linked to Scott Adams' take on Larry Page's problem.