That's perfectly fine so long you don't get injured in a car accident with your unregulated, uninsured driver. Who foots the bill for your hospital stay? Uber? Good luck with that.
It should be me.
If I get into an uber card that has no insurance, I am assuming responsibility for my medical bills if something happens. If I don't want that, then I can simply request that the driver has insurance and I would pay a little more for it.
This will be random people under no regulations driving you around for a fee.
What if that is all I want. What if I don't care at all if my driver has a taxi license, proper insurance and liability? Why should I as a customer be forced to pay for those things? Heck, I would much rather see great reviews for an uber driver than a taxi license.
In the land of the free, it should be up to me if I want the extra assurances or not, not up to some bureaucrat sitting in some office hundreds of miles away, because he thinks he knows better and forces me to use the more expensive service "for my own good".
You complain that taxis have a lot more requirements than uber drivers. Well, the solution is simple: remove those requirements from taxis. If they are important to customers, they will chose the taxi driver that meets the extra requirements and pay the associated premium.
The point is that human drivers are idiots and drive in all sorts of unpredictable ways
You got this backwards. The point is that perfectly abiding by the law is not the safest way to drive. Don't just assume the law is right because it is the law, it was put in place by humans who make mistakes. Rather take this opportunity to improve the law such that it more closely reflects the safest way to drive.
There's no actual security issue there. How can one client POST something and the response from that request go to a completely different client? They can't. And if the user's client machine is compromised to inject javascript in a post, well, um, what is the point of sending it to the server to have it send it straight back?
You are right, there is no actual security issue in this constrained example because one would not attack himself, it is just a bug that cannot be exploited. But you can easily see where I was going. When you are displaying content entered by a different user (it would not be in the $_POST variable) that is when it would turn into a security issue. This happens very often.
There is more to it than simply being popular. Consider a case where you want to output data that the user posted in a form. The obvious way to do it in PHP is this:
This is vulnerable code, the values posted may contain javascript, and the browser would execute it happily. If you are displaying content that other people posted, then a malicious user can easily exploit this code to hijack other users sessions. This is known as XSS (Cross site scripting), and it is one of the most common vulnerabilities in PHP code.
The secure way is this:
Hi <?php echo htmlspecialchars($_POST['name']); ?>.
A good language should be designed in such a way that the simple way is the safe way, and make you be more explicit if you want something else. For example the php expression blocks should do html escaping, and when you don't want escaping you would use a more verbose command that would make it clear that you are outputting a trusted value. In the name of convenience PHP is plagued by questionable design decisions like this. register_globals was on by default up until php 4.2, it is incredibly easy to write sql injection vulnerabilities in php if you are not paying attention, etc.
Atheism seems to have it's own type of religion. A cult with an agenda.
What the actual fuck?
From the dictionary:
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
As an atheist myself, I do not believe in the existence of any superhuman controlling power, God or gods. Atheism is by definition not a religion.
From the dictionary:
Cult: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
Once again, no religious veneration here at all. No rituals, no candles, no penitence, no cards, no inferring anything based on star positions at the time of birth .
I don't meet with a bunch of atheist to worship our supreme leader that will guide the world towards a god free society. I do not give a shit what other people believe, I simply do not believe in any type of supernatural higher power. There is no agenda, I have no interest of convincing anybody to be atheist, I don't want to overthrow anything, being atheist means one thing only: we do not believe in god, anything else is beyond being atheist.
If there are atheists that want to change something, i.e. they have an agenda, that is _them_. Saying that atheist have an agenda because a few atheist do, makes as much sense as saying that Christians are pedophiles because of a few priests. You can't even say "most atheist are xxx" because there is no actual number to back that up. All you can possibly say about a person that identifies himself as an atheist is that he does not believe in any god.
So please realize generalization is the mother of all bigotry, and try not to prejudge people on the simple fact that they don't believe the same thing you do.
The entire pharmaceutical industry is based around market-based solutions..
You are kidding right?
If I have strep throat, I have to go to an AMA approved doctor, which has a government enforced monopoly on licensing medical practice. I cannot simply pay for his service, I must pay a lot of middle men in my government mandated insurance or get a fine from the IRS, in order to get a prescription to go to a government licensed pharmacy, where I must wait about 1 hour for getting government mandated confirmation to get an FDA approved dose of amoxicillin. All this red tape means that I end up paying hundreds of dollars for 10 pills that cost a few cents to produce.
The whole thing is about the most regulated market we have in the US (no wonder it is such a mess). It is as far from being market based as it can possibly be without being fully socialized.
If big pharma sucks, surely little pharma would have a field day and eat it for lunch no? Well, it turns out that getting FDA approval on a drug costs on average $4 billion . This pretty much means that because of government, it is impossible for little pharma and new competition to exist at all. This exorbitant cost, is one of the main reasons drugs cost so much in the US. It is also a huge disincentive for companies to invest in R&D in medicine. Why would anybody spend time and money finding a cure for something that affects say "only" 100K people, if getting it approved will cost $4 billion dollars? Helping those people would bankrupt anyone.
As it is the government treats us like cattle that is too stupid to know what is good for ourselves, and charges us for it, no personal responsibility at all.
You know what market based solution looks like? I get sick, I go to the pharmacy and I buy the drug I need. I can consult a doctor if I want professional opinion. I would not pay insurance middle men for a cold or for a yearly checkup, insurance would be used only to hedge against the risk of catastrophic health problems, and would be ridiculously cheap.
If the government wants to do that, it is certainly within their authority.
No it isn't. The constitution only grants a handful of powers to the federal government listed in article 1 section 8, everything else is reserved for the states or the individuals. Education, healthcare, transportation, and yes, aviation are nowhere mentioned in the constitution, and are strictly jurisdiction of the states or individuals according to the 9th and 10th amendment.
Not that that has ever stopped the federal government from doing whatever they want. Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but it is justified by a loose interpretation of the "general Welfare" and "regulate commerce among the serveral states" that is not supported by the federalist papers. But by law, this is outside their authority.
I don't know what those particular routers are running. Here is just me listing a few packages off the top of my head that could be in there:
There are 12 million LOC in the kernel alone (linux?) Another million for libc 2 millions for web server 2 millions for php or whatever they use. 6 million for java.
I have not even included anything cisco might write themselves. As you can see, it would not be too hard to get to the 30 million LOC mark. The backdoors can be installed in any of these packages not only in the stuff Cisco wrote.
I seriously doubt cisco wrote 30 million LOC for their routers, but once you start counting all the 3rd party software that runs inside those routers 30 million does not seem too far fetched.
What magical place do you work at? I've worked for three companies that claim to do SCRUM and developers have less say than anywhere else I've worked. These companies still back into their schedule and shoe-horn it all into two week increments.
If you are doing scrum properly, the team of _developers_ decide via poker planning how hard a particular feature (user story) will be to develop. They should size all the user stories.
The product owner gets to decide which ones are more important and should be developed first (with input from development team), leaving the least important user stories last, in case there is no time to get to them.
Under scrum, the product owner can say: I want to deploy in 3 months, that is fine and the team should stick to it. The only question is which user stories and how many will be included in that deployment. As the team matures and learns about how fast they can develop, they may need to add or remove user stories for that deployment, but the 3 month schedule would stay in place. The product owner is simply presented with a budget: we can develop x amount of points in that time and this is how many points each user story costs, pick the ones you want. Expectations are set realistically, the team does not need to work long hours to cram work for the deadline, and you deliver the most valuable features first.
If they are doing something else, then simply put they are NOT doing scrum.
When done right, scrum is fantastic methodology. I know this from my own experience. However, I have not see many teams master it. They usually cut corners, or "adapt" it to their own preconceptions that end up breaking the process. They often don't do the retrospective meeting, or do it improperly so they are not able to get better at it, and get stuck carrying over user stories iteration after iteration.
I don't think scrum and open development have a lot of overlap. They are each suitable for different types of projects. Open development works great for open source projects that a lot of people would have interest on. Scrum works great in small teams developing for particular verticals within a company that would have limited application outside.
Things can always be improved of course, I would not say scrum is the ultimate methodology, but it is a pretty darn good one, and we are yet to see better ones.
The Faculty of Homeopathy said patients supported the therapy.
Who cares what the patients "support"? Patients for the most part demonstrably have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to medical treatments. We have highly trained medical professionals and we rely on treatments that can objectively be shown to work better than placebo for a reason.
Demonstrate to me that homeopathy is more effective than a placebo and I'm fine with it. Until that happens it is nothing but snake oil and anyone who supports it is harming people with fake treatments.
Right, we should treat people like cattle, too ignorant to know what is good for themselves. Go to where people work and give them shots that the government deems is good for them, because they are too stupid to know better. Force them to pay for it too.
Also, the biggest religion is christianity at 33%. That means that even in the best case scenario of christianity being entirely accurate, then at least 66% of what people believe is wrong. Demonstrate to me that praying is more effective than a placebo and I'm fine with it. Until that happens, it is nothing but snake oil and anyone who supports it is harming people with fake treatments.
What you are advocating is making water in pills illegal because it has not been proven to help. You are looking at it wrong. only if it was proven to _harm_, then one should consider making it illegal.
People should be responsible for themselves. If I want to take water with "magical powers", such as homeopathy or holy water, then it should be entirely up to me. It would be my own damned fault if I don't educate myself about it.
I'm sure I'm not the first person in the world to have come up with the idea of putting a Dollar Store in an airport. Since I've never owned or operated a retail outlet of any kind, though, I can imagine there's some sort of prohibition to the idea that I haven't thought of yet
The reason you don't see dollar stores at airports or malls, is that they operate at very low margins. If they sell you stuff at $1, they would simply not be able to afford rent at a premium spot like that. There is no law against it, it is just not economical.
How do you explain skinny people from Asia who consume a large portion of their diet through rice calories?
Also, while rice is indeed empty calories, it is a lot better than french fries, baked potatoes and mashed potatoes, which are the side of choice in America.
How do you explain skinny people from Asia who consume a large portion of their diet through rice calories?
Same as south america where I grew up. Yes, we eat a lot of rice there, but we also walk _everywhere_. And while there are lots of calories coming from rice, we generally eat less sweets and sodas.
That is FAR from a hard and fast rule. It depends on your genetics.
I am sorry, but genetics is nothing more than a cop out excuse for not exercising and eating properly.
Next time you are at Walmart look at any shopping cart, and look at the person pushing it. Overweight people have doughnuts, cheetos, cereal, beers, cakes, potato chips, baked potatoes, rice, sodas, icecream, candy, white bread, etc... It is all about sugar, simple carbs, high glycemic index foods. Fit people have fruit, vegetables, meats, eggs, nuts, etc...
It is true that overweight parents tend to have overweight children. But this is just correlation, not causation. They are feeding their kids the same sugary stuff they eat. Any kid would be overweight eating like that regardless what their parents look like.
If someone reading this thinks I am full of it and they indeed have some genetic predisposition that makes it impossible to lose weight. Go ahead, answer honestly, what did you eat yesterday (include snacks and drinks)? Open your fridge and pantry and honestly list what you have in there. How many miles did you run or walk last week?
I have great admiration for that fat lady at the gym running on a treadmill and lifting. She mustered the courage to some something out of her comfort zone, full of people that might make her feel inadequate. She has concluded that she will not be a victim of bad genes, environment, aliens, or whatever other bs people tell themselves. She has taken control of her own body and decided to endure the sacrifice it takes to improve herself. Fat lady at the gym, I salute you.
For automobile manufacturers to start factoring in the time of day and keeping the "key" hidden...
A much more secure method would be a challenge/response protocol, the car sends an encrypted random challenge to the key, the key decrypts it, calculates a response to the challenge and sends the response back to the car. The car checks the response and if valid, it unlocks.
There is no way to replay messages as long as the challenge is randomized, and the car obviously should not unlock if it receives a response to something other than the last challenge. There is no way to get the encryption key since it never goes over the air, it is just used internally by the car and the key to encrypt/decrypt the message.
The only problem with this is that it requires 2 way communication between the key and the car, so your solution would be cheaper and simpler.
Indeed many games have color banding, so do many jpeg images. But this has nothing to do with the color depth.
When a game bundles an image, it is normally compressed in a lossy format such as DXT5 or ETC1 (depends on your platform) . These formats are typically much smaller than say a PNG, and are sent compressed to the video card. The video card has hardware that can get a pixel when needed from these images without having to decompress it. This saves a lot of video card memory which can be used for more polygons and whatnot.
These formats like jpeg, do modify the image a little bit if it helps makes them smaller. A somewhat oversimplified explanation is this: suppose there are 5 pixels that are almost the same color, for example: (red, red+1, red-1, red + 2, red +1), the algorithm will change them to be the same color: (red, red, red, red, red), then instead of saving each individual pixel, it will just store: (5 red), which takes a lot less space. A particularly bad effect of this is that gradients end up being not so smooth so you see banding. Reality is a lot more complex than this, but you get the idea.
In addition, when a texture is rendered at a distance, the hardware actually chooses a scaled down version of the image. The farther the texture, the less precision is used until there is only 1 pixel. This is called mipmap. Depending on the algorithm used for blending mipmaps, it can also generate banding.
You could use 128 bit RGBA color depth, and you would still see the same banding due to these optimizations.
I don't understand what the 67% loss in combustion is...
When we burn fuel, we are only able to convert a fraction of the potential chemical energy into work (pushing something like a piston). Then we convert the kinetic energy into electricity and again we are only able to convert so much. Some fuels are more efficient than others, and the performance of generators also differs greatly.
What the author is refering too is the fact that from the total potential chemical energy in fossil fuels, we are only able to collect less than half in the form of usable electric power. The rest of the energy is simply dissipated in the form of heat, and other non usable forms.
It's not surprising at all. The NASDAQ is tech-heavy and the performance of those companies affects the job prospects for recent graduates. It's interesting, but I don't think it's particularly remarkable.
Exactly!. I would be surprised if there was no correlation.
Education (just like any other service) is primarily driven by supply and demand. The more companies want a particular skill, the higher they will be willing to pay for it (demand). The higher the salaries, the more people will be interested in learning that skill (supply).
Slashdot Mirror
That's perfectly fine so long you don't get injured in a car accident with your unregulated, uninsured driver. Who foots the bill for your hospital stay? Uber? Good luck with that.
It should be me.
If I get into an uber card that has no insurance, I am assuming responsibility for my medical bills if something happens. If I don't want that, then I can simply request that the driver has insurance and I would pay a little more for it.
This will be random people under no regulations driving you around for a fee.
What if that is all I want. What if I don't care at all if my driver has a taxi license, proper insurance and liability? Why should I as a customer be forced to pay for those things? Heck, I would much rather see great reviews for an uber driver than a taxi license.
In the land of the free, it should be up to me if I want the extra assurances or not, not up to some bureaucrat sitting in some office hundreds of miles away, because he thinks he knows better and forces me to use the more expensive service "for my own good".
You complain that taxis have a lot more requirements than uber drivers. Well, the solution is simple: remove those requirements from taxis. If they are important to customers, they will chose the taxi driver that meets the extra requirements and pay the associated premium.
The point is that human drivers are idiots and drive in all sorts of unpredictable ways
You got this backwards. The point is that perfectly abiding by the law is not the safest way to drive. Don't just assume the law is right because it is the law, it was put in place by humans who make mistakes. Rather take this opportunity to improve the law such that it more closely reflects the safest way to drive.
There's no actual security issue there. How can one client POST something and the response from that request go to a completely different client? They can't. And if the user's client machine is compromised to inject javascript in a post, well, um, what is the point of sending it to the server to have it send it straight back?
You are right, there is no actual security issue in this constrained example because one would not attack himself, it is just a bug that cannot be exploited. But you can easily see where I was going. When you are displaying content entered by a different user (it would not be in the $_POST variable) that is when it would turn into a security issue. This happens very often.
There is more to it than simply being popular. Consider a case where you want to output data that the user posted in a form. The obvious way to do it in PHP is this:
Hi <?php echo $_POST['name']; ?>.
In fact up until a few years back, the php tutorial had code like this.
This is vulnerable code, the values posted may contain javascript, and the browser would execute it happily. If you are displaying content that other people posted, then a malicious user can easily exploit this code to hijack other users sessions. This is known as XSS (Cross site scripting), and it is one of the most common vulnerabilities in PHP code.
The secure way is this:
Hi <?php echo htmlspecialchars($_POST['name']); ?>.
A good language should be designed in such a way that the simple way is the safe way, and make you be more explicit if you want something else. For example the php expression blocks should do html escaping, and when you don't want escaping you would use a more verbose command that would make it clear that you are outputting a trusted value. In the name of convenience PHP is plagued by questionable design decisions like this. register_globals was on by default up until php 4.2, it is incredibly easy to write sql injection vulnerabilities in php if you are not paying attention, etc.
Because the daughter obviously has precedent of mental illness in her immediate family.
Atheism seems to have it's own type of religion. A cult with an agenda.
What the actual fuck?
From the dictionary:
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
As an atheist myself, I do not believe in the existence of any superhuman controlling power, God or gods. Atheism is by definition not a religion.
From the dictionary:
Cult: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
Once again, no religious veneration here at all. No rituals, no candles, no penitence, no cards, no inferring anything based on star positions at the time of birth .
I don't meet with a bunch of atheist to worship our supreme leader that will guide the world towards a god free society. I do not give a shit what other people believe, I simply do not believe in any type of supernatural higher power. There is no agenda, I have no interest of convincing anybody to be atheist, I don't want to overthrow anything, being atheist means one thing only: we do not believe in god, anything else is beyond being atheist.
If there are atheists that want to change something, i.e. they have an agenda, that is _them_. Saying that atheist have an agenda because a few atheist do, makes as much sense as saying that Christians are pedophiles because of a few priests. You can't even say "most atheist are xxx" because there is no actual number to back that up. All you can possibly say about a person that identifies himself as an atheist is that he does not believe in any god.
So please realize generalization is the mother of all bigotry, and try not to prejudge people on the simple fact that they don't believe the same thing you do.
The entire pharmaceutical industry is based around market-based solutions. .
You are kidding right?
If I have strep throat, I have to go to an AMA approved doctor, which has a government enforced monopoly on licensing medical practice. I cannot simply pay for his service, I must pay a lot of middle men in my government mandated insurance or get a fine from the IRS, in order to get a prescription to go to a government licensed pharmacy, where I must wait about 1 hour for getting government mandated confirmation to get an FDA approved dose of amoxicillin. All this red tape means that I end up paying hundreds of dollars for 10 pills that cost a few cents to produce.
The whole thing is about the most regulated market we have in the US (no wonder it is such a mess). It is as far from being market based as it can possibly be without being fully socialized.
If big pharma sucks, surely little pharma would have a field day and eat it for lunch no? Well, it turns out that getting FDA approval on a drug costs on average $4 billion . This pretty much means that because of government, it is impossible for little pharma and new competition to exist at all. This exorbitant cost, is one of the main reasons drugs cost so much in the US. It is also a huge disincentive for companies to invest in R&D in medicine. Why would anybody spend time and money finding a cure for something that affects say "only" 100K people, if getting it approved will cost $4 billion dollars? Helping those people would bankrupt anyone.
As it is the government treats us like cattle that is too stupid to know what is good for ourselves, and charges us for it, no personal responsibility at all.
You know what market based solution looks like? I get sick, I go to the pharmacy and I buy the drug I need. I can consult a doctor if I want professional opinion. I would not pay insurance middle men for a cold or for a yearly checkup, insurance would be used only to hedge against the risk of catastrophic health problems, and would be ridiculously cheap.
Where are my mod points when I need them?
Fross, you nailed it.
If the government wants to do that, it is certainly within their authority.
No it isn't. The constitution only grants a handful of powers to the federal government listed in article 1 section 8, everything else is reserved for the states or the individuals. Education, healthcare, transportation, and yes, aviation are nowhere mentioned in the constitution, and are strictly jurisdiction of the states or individuals according to the 9th and 10th amendment.
Not that that has ever stopped the federal government from doing whatever they want. Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but it is justified by a loose interpretation of the "general Welfare" and "regulate commerce among the serveral states" that is not supported by the federalist papers. But by law, this is outside their authority.
They do realize the planet was forming 450 years ago right?
I don't know what those particular routers are running. Here is just me listing a few packages off the top of my head that could be in there:
There are 12 million LOC in the kernel alone (linux?)
Another million for libc
2 millions for web server
2 millions for php or whatever they use.
6 million for java.
I have not even included anything cisco might write themselves.
As you can see, it would not be too hard to get to the 30 million LOC mark. The backdoors can be installed in any of these packages not only in the stuff Cisco wrote.
I seriously doubt cisco wrote 30 million LOC for their routers, but once you start counting all the 3rd party software that runs inside those routers 30 million does not seem too far fetched.
What magical place do you work at? I've worked for three companies that claim to do SCRUM and developers have less say than anywhere else I've worked. These companies still back into their schedule and shoe-horn it all into two week increments.
If you are doing scrum properly, the team of _developers_ decide via poker planning how hard a particular feature (user story) will be to develop. They should size all the user stories.
The product owner gets to decide which ones are more important and should be developed first (with input from development team), leaving the least important user stories last, in case there is no time to get to them.
Under scrum, the product owner can say: I want to deploy in 3 months, that is fine and the team should stick to it. The only question is which user stories and how many will be included in that deployment. As the team matures and learns about how fast they can develop, they may need to add or remove user stories for that deployment, but the 3 month schedule would stay in place. The product owner is simply presented with a budget: we can develop x amount of points in that time and this is how many points each user story costs, pick the ones you want. Expectations are set realistically, the team does not need to work long hours to cram work for the deadline, and you deliver the most valuable features first.
If they are doing something else, then simply put they are NOT doing scrum.
When done right, scrum is fantastic methodology. I know this from my own experience. However, I have not see many teams master it. They usually cut corners, or "adapt" it to their own preconceptions that end up breaking the process. They often don't do the retrospective meeting, or do it improperly so they are not able to get better at it, and get stuck carrying over user stories iteration after iteration.
I don't think scrum and open development have a lot of overlap. They are each suitable for different types of projects. Open development works great for open source projects that a lot of people would have interest on. Scrum works great in small teams developing for particular verticals within a company that would have limited application outside.
Things can always be improved of course, I would not say scrum is the ultimate methodology, but it is a pretty darn good one, and we are yet to see better ones.
The Faculty of Homeopathy said patients supported the therapy.
Who cares what the patients "support"? Patients for the most part demonstrably have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to medical treatments. We have highly trained medical professionals and we rely on treatments that can objectively be shown to work better than placebo for a reason.
Demonstrate to me that homeopathy is more effective than a placebo and I'm fine with it. Until that happens it is nothing but snake oil and anyone who supports it is harming people with fake treatments.
Right, we should treat people like cattle, too ignorant to know what is good for themselves. Go to where people work and give them shots that the government deems is good for them, because they are too stupid to know better. Force them to pay for it too.
Also, the biggest religion is christianity at 33%. That means that even in the best case scenario of christianity being entirely accurate, then at least 66% of what people believe is wrong. Demonstrate to me that praying is more effective than a placebo and I'm fine with it. Until that happens, it is nothing but snake oil and anyone who supports it is harming people with fake treatments.
What you are advocating is making water in pills illegal because it has not been proven to help. You are looking at it wrong. only if it was proven to _harm_, then one should consider making it illegal.
People should be responsible for themselves. If I want to take water with "magical powers", such as homeopathy or holy water, then it should be entirely up to me. It would be my own damned fault if I don't educate myself about it.
So, I find that there are generally two arguments:
--You can't take my guns
--Ban all the guns
I have a different argument:
-- Ban all toddlers.
So our grandmas can be safe.
your average gaming computer is like three refrigerators.
I did not know that, that is awesome! I got some serious grocery shopping to do...
I'm sure I'm not the first person in the world to have come up with the idea of putting a Dollar Store in an airport. Since I've never owned or operated a retail outlet of any kind, though, I can imagine there's some sort of prohibition to the idea that I haven't thought of yet
The reason you don't see dollar stores at airports or malls, is that they operate at very low margins. If they sell you stuff at $1, they would simply not be able to afford rent at a premium spot like that. There is no law against it, it is just not economical.
How do you explain skinny people from Asia who consume a large portion of their diet through rice calories?
Also, while rice is indeed empty calories, it is a lot better than french fries, baked potatoes and mashed potatoes, which are the side of choice in America.
How do you explain skinny people from Asia who consume a large portion of their diet through rice calories?
Same as south america where I grew up. Yes, we eat a lot of rice there, but we also walk _everywhere_. And while there are lots of calories coming from rice, we generally eat less sweets and sodas.
That is FAR from a hard and fast rule. It depends on your genetics.
I am sorry, but genetics is nothing more than a cop out excuse for not exercising and eating properly.
Next time you are at Walmart look at any shopping cart, and look at the person pushing it.
Overweight people have doughnuts, cheetos, cereal, beers, cakes, potato chips, baked potatoes, rice, sodas, icecream, candy, white bread, etc... It is all about sugar, simple carbs, high glycemic index foods.
Fit people have fruit, vegetables, meats, eggs, nuts, etc...
It is true that overweight parents tend to have overweight children. But this is just correlation, not causation. They are feeding their kids the same sugary stuff they eat. Any kid would be overweight eating like that regardless what their parents look like.
If someone reading this thinks I am full of it and they indeed have some genetic predisposition that makes it impossible to lose weight. Go ahead, answer honestly, what did you eat yesterday (include snacks and drinks)? Open your fridge and pantry and honestly list what you have in there. How many miles did you run or walk last week?
I have great admiration for that fat lady at the gym running on a treadmill and lifting. She mustered the courage to some something out of her comfort zone, full of people that might make her feel inadequate. She has concluded that she will not be a victim of bad genes, environment, aliens, or whatever other bs people tell themselves. She has taken control of her own body and decided to endure the sacrifice it takes to improve herself. Fat lady at the gym, I salute you.
For automobile manufacturers to start factoring in the time of day and keeping the "key" hidden...
A much more secure method would be a challenge/response protocol, the car sends an encrypted random challenge to the key, the key decrypts it, calculates a response to the challenge and sends the response back to the car. The car checks the response and if valid, it unlocks.
There is no way to replay messages as long as the challenge is randomized, and the car obviously should not unlock if it receives a response to something other than the last challenge. There is no way to get the encryption key since it never goes over the air, it is just used internally by the car and the key to encrypt/decrypt the message.
The only problem with this is that it requires 2 way communication between the key and the car, so your solution would be cheaper and simpler.
I am a game developer.
Indeed many games have color banding, so do many jpeg images. But this has nothing to do with the color depth.
When a game bundles an image, it is normally compressed in a lossy format such as DXT5 or ETC1 (depends on your platform) . These formats are typically much smaller than say a PNG, and are sent compressed to the video card. The video card has hardware that can get a pixel when needed from these images without having to decompress it. This saves a lot of video card memory which can be used for more polygons and whatnot.
These formats like jpeg, do modify the image a little bit if it helps makes them smaller. A somewhat oversimplified explanation is this: suppose there are 5 pixels that are almost the same color, for example: (red, red+1, red-1, red + 2, red +1), the algorithm will change them to be the same color: (red, red, red, red, red), then instead of saving each individual pixel, it will just store: (5 red), which takes a lot less space. A particularly bad effect of this is that gradients end up being not so smooth so you see banding. Reality is a lot more complex than this, but you get the idea.
In addition, when a texture is rendered at a distance, the hardware actually chooses a scaled down version of the image. The farther the texture, the less precision is used until there is only 1 pixel. This is called mipmap. Depending on the algorithm used for blending mipmaps, it can also generate banding.
You could use 128 bit RGBA color depth, and you would still see the same banding due to these optimizations.
I don't understand what the 67% loss in combustion is...
When we burn fuel, we are only able to convert a fraction of the potential chemical energy into work (pushing something like a piston). Then we convert the kinetic energy into electricity and again we are only able to convert so much. Some fuels are more efficient than others, and the performance of generators also differs greatly.
What the author is refering too is the fact that from the total potential chemical energy in fossil fuels, we are only able to collect less than half in the form of usable electric power. The rest of the energy is simply dissipated in the form of heat, and other non usable forms.
It's not surprising at all. The NASDAQ is tech-heavy and the performance of those companies affects the job prospects for recent graduates. It's interesting, but I don't think it's particularly remarkable.
Exactly!. I would be surprised if there was no correlation.
Education (just like any other service) is primarily driven by supply and demand. The more companies want a particular skill, the higher they will be willing to pay for it (demand). The higher the salaries, the more people will be interested in learning that skill (supply).
File this one under "no shit Sherlock" cabinet.