I'm sure the Belgians will have heard of those people. And equally I'm sure you can name some people who will be famous in the US but draw a complete blank elsewhere - sure, it's disproportionate because of Hollywood and the fact that the US presidents tend to make as many waves as possible when abroad, but if you're going to be talking about the rest of the world you should probably remember that the US is not "most people".
You may have not signed up for it, but at the same time the government can work on the fact that you haven't signed up against it. Tacit acceptance! Watch the bills roll through.
I was surprised by this so have looked into it; a Wikipedia page seems to explain why the lithium goes, and implies that most of the Be formed is 8Be which degenerates back to two 4He. Must have been asleep in that lecture or something...
Fusion reactions in stars will combine everything up to iron. Hydrogen - being the most abundant - will be the major fusion to form Helium; there's so much of it that that's pretty much all you'll see. However as the amount of He goes up, it'll become combined with H and other He to form Li and Be, and so on - all the way up to iron. Past that the energy of fusion required is simply too high, and with a normal star you'll never see anything with a higher atomic mass. Your iron star going supernova is a little misleading, as the supernova star won't be made of iron - at that mass it'll very likely have a good amount of iron compared to other stars, but in general the greatest part of its mass will still be H and He. Only from that supernova energy, (and the occasional cosmic ray collision, but I think those are negligible in comparison to the amount of matter in a supernova) do you get the energy required to fuse higher elements.
So - the elements above Helium come from normal fusion in a star; they don't have their own phases, everything just bumps into everything else at once. All your elements above iron have a greater fission energy than fusion energy, and with the amount of trigger radiation inside a star they don't generally last long. When they get ejected from a supernova, there's less to trigger them, so they stay stable for longer; that's why we have everything higher than iron, though even on earth they're in relatively minute quantities.
One last thing to point out is that your question about carbon seems odd - bear in mind that a carbon atom only has an atomic mass of 12, while iron has an atomic mass of 56. Carbon is relatively abundant compared to iron. To hazard a guess, if you laid the periodic table in a straight line you would probably see an approximately logarithmic amount of each element, up to iron and beyond; it'll be a little complicated since some elements are more likely to decay back to lighter elements faster than others, but that's the gist.
Disclaimer: this is all out of what I remember from courses; it may not be 100% accurate, though I believe it should clarify things enough.
...for which you can set the cache size to 0 (or hit apple-option-E to empty); I believe you can also set cookies to expire with the session, but grant that that's not obvious from the preferences. You can definitely set cookies to reject, but that's true of any browser.
In tag one person chases everyone. In this one everyone chases one person.
Gat?:)
Re:A new set of problems
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
Car charger? Field generator? You make it sound like they're tourists, not fully equipped battle units. What do you think field radios, powered goggles, comm units run off? Wind-up power? They've been out there now for longer than the US was involved in WWII; they're not going to be running on AA batteries.
I'm astounded that they think the correlation should be 1:1. Using some arbitrary figures:
If you have a large web page with 4 million inwards links, and you put the link in a million more places, you're 25% more visible - but part of the 25% that can now see the link in the new places will have known about the site before, and those people then don't add to the figure even though they've been targetted by the new advertising.
If you have a small specialised web page with only 40 incoming links, you're only being found by people who have criteria that fit your particular company; assuming here that it's not just from being a web fledgeling, you've only got a small userbase inside the specialisation who will come to your web page, and chances are they'll probably know about it. If you add 10 more links, then sure you'll get more people - but the people who are your target audience are likely to know about the site anyway, whether via magazine/word of mouth/forum discussion.
Unless your company is special, and is in the startup phase of getting to the relevant people - where the target audience hasn't found out about the site yet, and adding 25% to the links, by being in the right place, reaches that audience. You might get a return of greater than 1 if you do it in the right way there; where you were previously known by only a fraction of the target audience and can via google adwords or whatever suddenly reach a far far far more reaching audience, you'll get good improvement on your visitor numbers.
A major assumption in the whole thing is that each company assessed considers the entire markettable world as a potential customer base. By targetting 25% more people you'll get 25% more interest? Even if we assume that the extra people don't know about the site already, that'll only work if your product is interesting to 100% more people, which in the world of the web seems fairly unlikely.
how can people know that they need to upgrade their server?
Um... by saying, like they did, "patch fast"? You seem to have completely missed the difference between telling people there's a hole (allows people to fix it but makes people have to find the hole to exploit it) and detailing what the hole is and why it's a problem (a free lunch for the malicious). The users are aware that a patch needs to be made; the would-be-attackers aren't aware of the compromising details.
The kink, as noted elsewhere in this thread, is that it's a flag that tells those would-be-attackers that there IS a large hole at the moment, but the tradeoff - users can in general update faster than it takes to find the hole and write an exploit for it - is ok here.
It's not chicken and egg at all - Apple have stated that they are not and do not intend to be a serious platform for games. They don't help game development at all, and don't intend to.
The stir stick is in a large jar, and so is able to create large shear forces, over an area proportional to the length and circumference of that stir stick. A thin layer of stuff - as discussed in my post and my parent's has no such large shear surface, and so requires far higher forces - for example, those from a high speed projectile - to cause enough shear to thicken the stuff up. That difference in scale is important here; no-one's going to wear a jacket with a 4-inch layer of goop in it, whether it's cornflour or PEG. From my own research I know that you get a little less than half an order of magnitude of improvement if you use PEG over water, and a little less than a factor of two if you use nanosand over cornflour; also while PEG is cheap, nanosand is bloody expensive for its weight, and I wouldn't recommend that people go out to buy it to be able to try this at home. Cornflour and water are dirt cheap, and so anyone interested can try it out and see the effects.You may have noticed that I wasn't suggesting wearing cornflour in battle either - just trying it out at home.
While I can't vouch for brainiac, I can agree that cornflour certainly has the strength to do this. If you have a cup full, you can literally bounce stuff off the top of it without any visual change; it feels slightly rubbery. If you move your finger slowly into it it glops onto the finger; if you try to pull the finger out fast it locks it in and only moves slowly.
You'd need to have a high enough amplitude and frequency to cause the goop to shear against itself from the sound; I'm not quite sure, but gut feel says you wouldn't need to immobilize them since you'd be doing horrible things to their skin and organs already.
The eggs one won't work, because the eggshell is rigid, and so provides no shear force on the coating. The trampoline one should work, but the effect you'd feel is negligible - this stuff works well at the speed of bullets, but at that small thickness you'd get little effect at the speed of a person's bounce. If you could get bubbles to work, then they'd still pop - they'd just pop slowly, since as the sides pull away from the initial point of zero thickness they'd cap their own speed.
Yeah, I did projects on this stuff. You can make some yourself with 1 part water and 1.44 parts cornflour; put it in at 1:1.3, then continue to add the rest of the flour while pouring. It'll get difficult to mix (don't do it in a machine, you'll break the machine, it's like stirring rocks at that speed) but a minute of perseverance will give you something you can bounce your thumb off or sink your finger in. Good fun. Kids love it, and it's easy to clean off; if it gets onto clothes then it just rinses out.
What I don't grep is the hellbent mutual exclusivity - in a time where we're discussing the rate of change of universal constants, and wondering whether the 'universal' laws behave differently in some areas than in others - patchwork blankets, all kinds of flavoursome theories. Yet we're either on black holes, or we're on MECOs. While I don't have the depth in the field to do more than asking questions - I believe the MECO states that the energy in a collapsing object is enough to cause a great enough number of creation/destruction events - like those from the beginnings of the universe - of particles and antiparticles, in great enough quantities that there's enough pressure to keep the entity from collapsing into a standard black hole. What happens if this MECO gets bigger? Does the pressure generated by the c/d events increase linearly with mass? Will it always be enough to prevent that collapse? I realise that I'm out of my depth, but since this is pretty theoretical anyway I don't see why the theories have to be absolutely mutually exclusive.
On any single night, there's 1000 people or so online on the server that I'm on. There's 5 oceans/servers (not counting the test server); then factor that up by geography and day of the week timing. As I post, there's 3259 online, and it's the middle of the US night. Mmogchart.com puts them at 35k current subscriptions in March, so your 50k figure is probably about right; but your earlier reasoning is off. Only a tiny tiny fraction of people will have filled up 15 slots; it's largely pointless. What does complicate it is that by creating a satellite account to buy dubloons, you get shanghai points for your crew; you can then transfer the dubloons and ditch the satellite. Bonus shanghai point. That, in the dubloon/micropayment oceans, is what's boosting this figure.
Sure, 2 million characters is a flawed number; and a figure of 50k when compared to games like WoW is pretty small. It's still by far the most social game I've seen - and that with easily the largest ratio of girls to guys. I'd guess it as around 50:50, probably ± 5-10%.
A "Shanghai" is the game name for a new user that subscribes; there's time-unlimited free play, with the only limitation being which puzzles you're allowed to play on which day if you're unsubscribed; a crew gets a 'shanghai point' if they hire someone and convince them to subscribe, and they can then use shanghai points for cosmetic-level things which isn't accessible in other ways. It's a mild incentive for players to recruit more people to the game.
Er... you own the share anyway, so that $387 was yours in the first place. If you put it into a bank savings scheme, you'd get a few % a year... and, whoah! The $387 that you put in originally!
The comment is about growth and return on investment, not on sum capital. You can put money into almost any stock and get somewhere near 100% out if you look at it your way; but what people are interested in is the ± value that affects the 100%.
Re:Decreases product cost by 40%?
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Price != cost.
If their cost decreases by 40% and their price doesn't move, their profit goes up by a number that depends on how much profit they're making on it at the moment, only getting a 40% increase in profit if their current price is 200% of their cost.
More likely, their cost will drop by 40%, and their price will drop by... say 15%, maybe 20%. Their profits still go up, but the consumer gets their insulin for less, and the competitors are at a 15%, 20% price disadvantage, ie the company gets more money from greater volume of sales. However the cost to the consumer - "price" - still goes down by 15-20%.
There's a flow of ions; it's not conventional electricity, because there's no loop, nor does the signal travel back along the same axon later like a Leyden jar. Sure, you can label the flow of ions in one direction - a chemical gradient caused by the synapse reaction - as electricity, but to most people that's misleading and confusing.
I appreciate the clarification on the dispose/replace, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the Belgians will have heard of those people. And equally I'm sure you can name some people who will be famous in the US but draw a complete blank elsewhere - sure, it's disproportionate because of Hollywood and the fact that the US presidents tend to make as many waves as possible when abroad, but if you're going to be talking about the rest of the world you should probably remember that the US is not "most people".
You may have not signed up for it, but at the same time the government can work on the fact that you haven't signed up against it. Tacit acceptance! Watch the bills roll through.
Er, damn, it would probably help to include the link.
I was surprised by this so have looked into it; a Wikipedia page seems to explain why the lithium goes, and implies that most of the Be formed is 8Be which degenerates back to two 4He. Must have been asleep in that lecture or something...
Fusion reactions in stars will combine everything up to iron. Hydrogen - being the most abundant - will be the major fusion to form Helium; there's so much of it that that's pretty much all you'll see. However as the amount of He goes up, it'll become combined with H and other He to form Li and Be, and so on - all the way up to iron. Past that the energy of fusion required is simply too high, and with a normal star you'll never see anything with a higher atomic mass. Your iron star going supernova is a little misleading, as the supernova star won't be made of iron - at that mass it'll very likely have a good amount of iron compared to other stars, but in general the greatest part of its mass will still be H and He. Only from that supernova energy, (and the occasional cosmic ray collision, but I think those are negligible in comparison to the amount of matter in a supernova) do you get the energy required to fuse higher elements.
So - the elements above Helium come from normal fusion in a star; they don't have their own phases, everything just bumps into everything else at once. All your elements above iron have a greater fission energy than fusion energy, and with the amount of trigger radiation inside a star they don't generally last long. When they get ejected from a supernova, there's less to trigger them, so they stay stable for longer; that's why we have everything higher than iron, though even on earth they're in relatively minute quantities.
One last thing to point out is that your question about carbon seems odd - bear in mind that a carbon atom only has an atomic mass of 12, while iron has an atomic mass of 56. Carbon is relatively abundant compared to iron. To hazard a guess, if you laid the periodic table in a straight line you would probably see an approximately logarithmic amount of each element, up to iron and beyond; it'll be a little complicated since some elements are more likely to decay back to lighter elements faster than others, but that's the gist.
Disclaimer: this is all out of what I remember from courses; it may not be 100% accurate, though I believe it should clarify things enough.
...for which you can set the cache size to 0 (or hit apple-option-E to empty); I believe you can also set cookies to expire with the session, but grant that that's not obvious from the preferences. You can definitely set cookies to reject, but that's true of any browser.
They just re-use chairs. It's like product testing - if it doesn't break, use it again.
...maybe that should be "If it doesn't break enough, use it again"
In tag one person chases everyone. In this one everyone chases one person. Gat? :)
Car charger? Field generator? You make it sound like they're tourists, not fully equipped battle units. What do you think field radios, powered goggles, comm units run off? Wind-up power? They've been out there now for longer than the US was involved in WWII; they're not going to be running on AA batteries.
I'm astounded that they think the correlation should be 1:1. Using some arbitrary figures:
If you have a large web page with 4 million inwards links, and you put the link in a million more places, you're 25% more visible - but part of the 25% that can now see the link in the new places will have known about the site before, and those people then don't add to the figure even though they've been targetted by the new advertising.
If you have a small specialised web page with only 40 incoming links, you're only being found by people who have criteria that fit your particular company; assuming here that it's not just from being a web fledgeling, you've only got a small userbase inside the specialisation who will come to your web page, and chances are they'll probably know about it. If you add 10 more links, then sure you'll get more people - but the people who are your target audience are likely to know about the site anyway, whether via magazine/word of mouth/forum discussion.
Unless your company is special, and is in the startup phase of getting to the relevant people - where the target audience hasn't found out about the site yet, and adding 25% to the links, by being in the right place, reaches that audience. You might get a return of greater than 1 if you do it in the right way there; where you were previously known by only a fraction of the target audience and can via google adwords or whatever suddenly reach a far far far more reaching audience, you'll get good improvement on your visitor numbers.
A major assumption in the whole thing is that each company assessed considers the entire markettable world as a potential customer base. By targetting 25% more people you'll get 25% more interest? Even if we assume that the extra people don't know about the site already, that'll only work if your product is interesting to 100% more people, which in the world of the web seems fairly unlikely.
how can people know that they need to upgrade their server?
Um... by saying, like they did, "patch fast"? You seem to have completely missed the difference between telling people there's a hole (allows people to fix it but makes people have to find the hole to exploit it) and detailing what the hole is and why it's a problem (a free lunch for the malicious). The users are aware that a patch needs to be made; the would-be-attackers aren't aware of the compromising details.
The kink, as noted elsewhere in this thread, is that it's a flag that tells those would-be-attackers that there IS a large hole at the moment, but the tradeoff - users can in general update faster than it takes to find the hole and write an exploit for it - is ok here.
Someone's already replied with "wildcards?", and I'll point out that even if wildcards did work it's probably better to redirect *.cm to $1.com...
It's not chicken and egg at all - Apple have stated that they are not and do not intend to be a serious platform for games. They don't help game development at all, and don't intend to.
The stir stick is in a large jar, and so is able to create large shear forces, over an area proportional to the length and circumference of that stir stick. A thin layer of stuff - as discussed in my post and my parent's has no such large shear surface, and so requires far higher forces - for example, those from a high speed projectile - to cause enough shear to thicken the stuff up. That difference in scale is important here; no-one's going to wear a jacket with a 4-inch layer of goop in it, whether it's cornflour or PEG. From my own research I know that you get a little less than half an order of magnitude of improvement if you use PEG over water, and a little less than a factor of two if you use nanosand over cornflour; also while PEG is cheap, nanosand is bloody expensive for its weight, and I wouldn't recommend that people go out to buy it to be able to try this at home. Cornflour and water are dirt cheap, and so anyone interested can try it out and see the effects.You may have noticed that I wasn't suggesting wearing cornflour in battle either - just trying it out at home.
Heh... cornstarch and water is nano stuff. It's just handled in a macroscale way, and the nano stuff takes care of itself.
While I can't vouch for brainiac, I can agree that cornflour certainly has the strength to do this. If you have a cup full, you can literally bounce stuff off the top of it without any visual change; it feels slightly rubbery. If you move your finger slowly into it it glops onto the finger; if you try to pull the finger out fast it locks it in and only moves slowly.
You'd need to have a high enough amplitude and frequency to cause the goop to shear against itself from the sound; I'm not quite sure, but gut feel says you wouldn't need to immobilize them since you'd be doing horrible things to their skin and organs already.
The eggs one won't work, because the eggshell is rigid, and so provides no shear force on the coating. The trampoline one should work, but the effect you'd feel is negligible - this stuff works well at the speed of bullets, but at that small thickness you'd get little effect at the speed of a person's bounce. If you could get bubbles to work, then they'd still pop - they'd just pop slowly, since as the sides pull away from the initial point of zero thickness they'd cap their own speed.
Yeah, I did projects on this stuff. You can make some yourself with 1 part water and 1.44 parts cornflour; put it in at 1:1.3, then continue to add the rest of the flour while pouring. It'll get difficult to mix (don't do it in a machine, you'll break the machine, it's like stirring rocks at that speed) but a minute of perseverance will give you something you can bounce your thumb off or sink your finger in. Good fun. Kids love it, and it's easy to clean off; if it gets onto clothes then it just rinses out.
What I don't grep is the hellbent mutual exclusivity - in a time where we're discussing the rate of change of universal constants, and wondering whether the 'universal' laws behave differently in some areas than in others - patchwork blankets, all kinds of flavoursome theories. Yet we're either on black holes, or we're on MECOs. While I don't have the depth in the field to do more than asking questions - I believe the MECO states that the energy in a collapsing object is enough to cause a great enough number of creation/destruction events - like those from the beginnings of the universe - of particles and antiparticles, in great enough quantities that there's enough pressure to keep the entity from collapsing into a standard black hole. What happens if this MECO gets bigger? Does the pressure generated by the c/d events increase linearly with mass? Will it always be enough to prevent that collapse? I realise that I'm out of my depth, but since this is pretty theoretical anyway I don't see why the theories have to be absolutely mutually exclusive.
On any single night, there's 1000 people or so online on the server that I'm on. There's 5 oceans/servers (not counting the test server); then factor that up by geography and day of the week timing. As I post, there's 3259 online, and it's the middle of the US night. Mmogchart.com puts them at 35k current subscriptions in March, so your 50k figure is probably about right; but your earlier reasoning is off. Only a tiny tiny fraction of people will have filled up 15 slots; it's largely pointless. What does complicate it is that by creating a satellite account to buy dubloons, you get shanghai points for your crew; you can then transfer the dubloons and ditch the satellite. Bonus shanghai point. That, in the dubloon/micropayment oceans, is what's boosting this figure.
Sure, 2 million characters is a flawed number; and a figure of 50k when compared to games like WoW is pretty small. It's still by far the most social game I've seen - and that with easily the largest ratio of girls to guys. I'd guess it as around 50:50, probably ± 5-10%.
A "Shanghai" is the game name for a new user that subscribes; there's time-unlimited free play, with the only limitation being which puzzles you're allowed to play on which day if you're unsubscribed; a crew gets a 'shanghai point' if they hire someone and convince them to subscribe, and they can then use shanghai points for cosmetic-level things which isn't accessible in other ways. It's a mild incentive for players to recruit more people to the game.
Er... you own the share anyway, so that $387 was yours in the first place. If you put it into a bank savings scheme, you'd get a few % a year... and, whoah! The $387 that you put in originally!
The comment is about growth and return on investment, not on sum capital. You can put money into almost any stock and get somewhere near 100% out if you look at it your way; but what people are interested in is the ± value that affects the 100%.
Price != cost.
If their cost decreases by 40% and their price doesn't move, their profit goes up by a number that depends on how much profit they're making on it at the moment, only getting a 40% increase in profit if their current price is 200% of their cost.
More likely, their cost will drop by 40%, and their price will drop by... say 15%, maybe 20%. Their profits still go up, but the consumer gets their insulin for less, and the competitors are at a 15%, 20% price disadvantage, ie the company gets more money from greater volume of sales. However the cost to the consumer - "price" - still goes down by 15-20%.
There's a flow of ions; it's not conventional electricity, because there's no loop, nor does the signal travel back along the same axon later like a Leyden jar. Sure, you can label the flow of ions in one direction - a chemical gradient caused by the synapse reaction - as electricity, but to most people that's misleading and confusing.
I appreciate the clarification on the dispose/replace, though.
Eh, bah. Link broken, my bad. Try this one instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse.