Honestly, what did this couple expect by reporting the find?
It's an interesting thing about Canadians: if they know they are legally required to report a human skeleton found buried on their land, they are very likely to do it just because they are supposed to. (And if they didn't know that law for a fact ahead of time, then they would probably be able to guess.) I'm not saying people follow every law in every situation, but the default course of action is generally to follow the law unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
Did they not already know where the heat comes from in a data center?
No. And cooling what doesn't need it is expensive.
Generally, where the exhaust goes gets hot, and where the intakes are doesn't get so hot, but beyond that there are a lot of variables. If you can put the right amount of cooling in the right place, you can save energy and maybe even increase the life expectancy of your chillers.
Bill readers could be required by law for all cash transactions over, say, $50.
The U.S. hasn't managed to require chip readers for credit cards or even bank cards yet. There is a really good reason for doing that, and it only affects merchants that accept credit cards or bank cards. I wouldn't worry about every merchant who accepts cash being required to buy a scanner any time soon.
Ok, I took the time to read the one referenced by artor3 and the one from the original post, and I don't see where either said the severity of right-angle collisions increased. Both said the total cost of all accidents, including rear-end, went up, but didn't have any more detail.
Even if the average severity had increased, that could just mean that the accidents prevented were usually the less severe ones. Is there another article, or is the original report available the actual breakdown?
When the article said the point-of-sale terminals were compromised, I took that to mean the units that scan your card and let you type the PIN. If you can re-wire or replace those, then there is no way to protect against it. The account number is read from the magstripe, and the keypad is right on the terminal.
Now, if you had a smart card, then the information could be encrypted between the card and the bank, and the point-of-sale terminal would just need an OK from the bank that everything is good. The account number wouldn't need to be in clear text anywhere except inside the card and at the bank, and a fake card wouldn't be able to talk with the bank anyhow. So long as magstripes are used, there is no protection from a compromised terminal.
They do have security designed in, but it's the hard-outer-shell variety. Doesn't GSM authenticate handsets by having the home register send a challenge along with the appropriate response in a plain-text packet to the cell? The first GSM "attack" I heard about involved connecting your fake phone to a cell, and listening to the microwave channel to hear what response you should send when it sends a challenge. It doesn't sound like a clever design, but I suppose it was trying to reduce communication and memory requirements at the home register?
It is nice to have writers because we like to read books. If there is no business model that allows people to work as full-time authors, then it's not just the would-be authors who suffer.
Gennum corporation made hearing aids for a long time, and decided five or six years ago that their technology could be transferred to making Bluetooth headsets. They had a product called nxZEN (great headsets for noisy environments), but searching for references shows that the company was bought by Samtech in March of this year, and I don't see any references to either nxZEN or hearing aids on the Samtech site.
Anyhow, the idea must have occurred to them at some point, but I can't find a reference. Especially now with the Bluetooth Low Energy, it shouldn't have any real impact on the hearing aid battery (for control, that is, using your hearing aid as a telephone headset would need a regular Bluetooth connection, which would start affecting battery life).
I don't think that list is relevant to colleges and universities.
The Trillium guide explains that "School boards may select textbooks from the Trillium List and approve them for use in their schools." but the Ontario College of Art & Design is a university with a board of governors (6 individuals appointed by the Ontario government, 2 elected by the OCAD U Alumni, and 9 by the Board itself), not a school with a school board.
Oh! Now I get it. That makes a lot more sense. (Still shouldn't happen, but I finally understand why it's possible.) So you do pay income tax on your income, even if they pay you in stocks, but not until the market value of that payment is known (i.e. you sell it). In the mean time, dividends are investment income, and loans against the holdings are just shuffling your own accounts. If you need to sell off some of them to cover interest on the loan, then that wouldn't count as income either because the loan interest is a deduction and exactly equal to the income. Eventually someone will need to sell a bunch to pay off the principal of the loan, assuming there is enough value left in the stocks to cover it, but you can save that as a pick-me-up bonus to make you feel better some year when you took losses on something else.
Thanks. What I was figuring with the 10% loss was that you would need to find $100K to pay it back, but you had already saved some $150K on taxes, so you are still ahead on the game. Wouldn't it make more sense for the book value of the compensation to be "earned income" in the year you received it, and the "investment income" be just the difference between that and market value when you sell it?
Ok, so if it's not really a hash, but more of a public key, then it's still a possible (although very difficult) thing to reverse. But even if you were able to reverse it, all you would get is the ability to spend any money still in that account when you finished the factorization, not the identity of the person. Is that the point?
That's worse than I thought, and I already thought it was pretty sneaky. So, in my example, even the original $1M would have been taxed at about $150K, so long as it was paid in the form of stocks that were not sold for at least one year? Would the tax folks have a problem if you were to get a bank loan on good terms by using those stocks as collateral, then sell them a year later to pay off the loan? Even if the stocks went down by 10% you would probably come out ahead.
I know hashes are hard to reverse, but if someone with a lot of computer cycles available were able to reverse this one, could that be used to identify the actual person?
That's not really double-taxation. If I work to earn $1M and pay $300K in taxes (or whatever it is after deductions) then I have paid taxes on the $1M. If I then invest $200K of that after-tax money in something, and sell it a year later for $1M, then the $800K difference has not been taxed yet. My understanding is that it's this $800K that gets the 15% rate, and the original $200K is not taxed again.
If I go on to invest and sell, then I continue to pay 15% on all of that income, independent of my declared income from working, and regardless of how successful I am at it. How is that being taxed twice? I think this is how many people understand it, and it is the basis for most of the complaints that I hear. Is it incorrect?
Except, methane is burned in the production of the biodiesel. The combustion products of methane end up being CO2 and Water. The CO2 can be scrubbed and sequestered in the operation.
If the sewage were not being processed for biodiesel, then it would have given off methane into the atmosphere during natural decomposition, wouldn't it? So this processing prevents some amount methane from being emitted (and possibly uses some more methane from another source; I didn't see that mentioned in the article, but there seems to be a lot of methanol involved, so I guess that might use methane during its production, although I don't know what happens to it after it's used here.) The upshot is that CO2 is produced (when the diesel is produced, and again when it's used), but a bunch of the more dangerous CH4 is avoided or destroyed, so might that not work out as a net good?
The better comparison might be between the emissions that would normally be produced by allowing the raw material to decompose naturally and the emissions from turning it into biodiesel and burning it. They would be different gasses, so the comparison would need to account for the different greenhouse effects. I understand that methane is one of the worse ones, so your emissions on this type of biodiesel might come out negative.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, what did this couple expect by reporting the find?
It's an interesting thing about Canadians: if they know they are legally required to report a human skeleton found buried on their land, they are very likely to do it just because they are supposed to. (And if they didn't know that law for a fact ahead of time, then they would probably be able to guess.) I'm not saying people follow every law in every situation, but the default course of action is generally to follow the law unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
Did they not already know where the heat comes from in a data center?
No. And cooling what doesn't need it is expensive.
Generally, where the exhaust goes gets hot, and where the intakes are doesn't get so hot, but beyond that there are a lot of variables. If you can put the right amount of cooling in the right place, you can save energy and maybe even increase the life expectancy of your chillers.
LISP: Lots of Incredibly Silly Parentheses.
Bill readers could be required by law for all cash transactions over, say, $50.
The U.S. hasn't managed to require chip readers for credit cards or even bank cards yet. There is a really good reason for doing that, and it only affects merchants that accept credit cards or bank cards. I wouldn't worry about every merchant who accepts cash being required to buy a scanner any time soon.
Excellent plan, but points deducted for needing to explain c, f, and lambda in context.
Ok, I took the time to read the one referenced by artor3 and the one from the original post, and I don't see where either said the severity of right-angle collisions increased. Both said the total cost of all accidents, including rear-end, went up, but didn't have any more detail.
Even if the average severity had increased, that could just mean that the accidents prevented were usually the less severe ones. Is there another article, or is the original report available the actual breakdown?
Sugar and cream. The goal is clearly maple walnut ice cream. I just can't work out why. Where is Adam West when we need him?
The cream will be last because it spoils, so watch out for a massive sugar heist next.
When the article said the point-of-sale terminals were compromised, I took that to mean the units that scan your card and let you type the PIN. If you can re-wire or replace those, then there is no way to protect against it. The account number is read from the magstripe, and the keypad is right on the terminal.
Now, if you had a smart card, then the information could be encrypted between the card and the bank, and the point-of-sale terminal would just need an OK from the bank that everything is good. The account number wouldn't need to be in clear text anywhere except inside the card and at the bank, and a fake card wouldn't be able to talk with the bank anyhow. So long as magstripes are used, there is no protection from a compromised terminal.
They do have security designed in, but it's the hard-outer-shell variety. Doesn't GSM authenticate handsets by having the home register send a challenge along with the appropriate response in a plain-text packet to the cell? The first GSM "attack" I heard about involved connecting your fake phone to a cell, and listening to the microwave channel to hear what response you should send when it sends a challenge. It doesn't sound like a clever design, but I suppose it was trying to reduce communication and memory requirements at the home register?
Find a business model or die.
It is nice to have writers because we like to read books. If there is no business model that allows people to work as full-time authors, then it's not just the would-be authors who suffer.
It's like putting a capacitor in parallel with the circuit. Smooths out bumps in both directions.
So ... not dead then.
Does anyone remember hearing that Des O'Malley once claimed the Maastricht treaty had "been dealt, at least temporarily, a fatal blow."
Gennum corporation made hearing aids for a long time, and decided five or six years ago that their technology could be transferred to making Bluetooth headsets. They had a product called nxZEN (great headsets for noisy environments), but searching for references shows that the company was bought by Samtech in March of this year, and I don't see any references to either nxZEN or hearing aids on the Samtech site.
Anyhow, the idea must have occurred to them at some point, but I can't find a reference. Especially now with the Bluetooth Low Energy, it shouldn't have any real impact on the hearing aid battery (for control, that is, using your hearing aid as a telephone headset would need a regular Bluetooth connection, which would start affecting battery life).
I don't think that list is relevant to colleges and universities.
The Trillium guide explains that "School boards may select textbooks from the Trillium List and approve them for use in their schools." but the Ontario College of Art & Design is a university with a board of governors (6 individuals appointed by the Ontario government, 2 elected by the OCAD U Alumni, and 9 by the Board itself), not a school with a school board.
Does this do the van der Waals force trick that Gecko feet do, or does it need to be more flexible for that?
Oh! Now I get it. That makes a lot more sense. (Still shouldn't happen, but I finally understand why it's possible.) So you do pay income tax on your income, even if they pay you in stocks, but not until the market value of that payment is known (i.e. you sell it). In the mean time, dividends are investment income, and loans against the holdings are just shuffling your own accounts. If you need to sell off some of them to cover interest on the loan, then that wouldn't count as income either because the loan interest is a deduction and exactly equal to the income. Eventually someone will need to sell a bunch to pay off the principal of the loan, assuming there is enough value left in the stocks to cover it, but you can save that as a pick-me-up bonus to make you feel better some year when you took losses on something else.
Thanks!
Thanks. What I was figuring with the 10% loss was that you would need to find $100K to pay it back, but you had already saved some $150K on taxes, so you are still ahead on the game. Wouldn't it make more sense for the book value of the compensation to be "earned income" in the year you received it, and the "investment income" be just the difference between that and market value when you sell it?
Actually, that's why I asked. You are implying that what's above is wrong. Which specific parts of that example don't reflect reality, and why not?
Ok, so if it's not really a hash, but more of a public key, then it's still a possible (although very difficult) thing to reverse. But even if you were able to reverse it, all you would get is the ability to spend any money still in that account when you finished the factorization, not the identity of the person. Is that the point?
That's worse than I thought, and I already thought it was pretty sneaky. So, in my example, even the original $1M would have been taxed at about $150K, so long as it was paid in the form of stocks that were not sold for at least one year? Would the tax folks have a problem if you were to get a bank loan on good terms by using those stocks as collateral, then sell them a year later to pay off the loan? Even if the stocks went down by 10% you would probably come out ahead.
Thanks for the info. Very interesting.
I know hashes are hard to reverse, but if someone with a lot of computer cycles available were able to reverse this one, could that be used to identify the actual person?
That's not really double-taxation. If I work to earn $1M and pay $300K in taxes (or whatever it is after deductions) then I have paid taxes on the $1M. If I then invest $200K of that after-tax money in something, and sell it a year later for $1M, then the $800K difference has not been taxed yet. My understanding is that it's this $800K that gets the 15% rate, and the original $200K is not taxed again.
If I go on to invest and sell, then I continue to pay 15% on all of that income, independent of my declared income from working, and regardless of how successful I am at it. How is that being taxed twice? I think this is how many people understand it, and it is the basis for most of the complaints that I hear. Is it incorrect?
Except, methane is burned in the production of the biodiesel. The combustion products of methane end up being CO2 and Water. The CO2 can be scrubbed and sequestered in the operation.
If the sewage were not being processed for biodiesel, then it would have given off methane into the atmosphere during natural decomposition, wouldn't it? So this processing prevents some amount methane from being emitted (and possibly uses some more methane from another source; I didn't see that mentioned in the article, but there seems to be a lot of methanol involved, so I guess that might use methane during its production, although I don't know what happens to it after it's used here.) The upshot is that CO2 is produced (when the diesel is produced, and again when it's used), but a bunch of the more dangerous CH4 is avoided or destroyed, so might that not work out as a net good?
The better comparison might be between the emissions that would normally be produced by allowing the raw material to decompose naturally and the emissions from turning it into biodiesel and burning it. They would be different gasses, so the comparison would need to account for the different greenhouse effects. I understand that methane is one of the worse ones, so your emissions on this type of biodiesel might come out negative.
You mean they take things literally, so they'll be squeezing the birds instead of the fruits?