Um, if you're that good at math, why would you settle for a B, and why wouldn't you deserve at least that high of a grade anyway, in recognition of your talent?
Clearly, they need to put that extra time in to English, so they can be properly understood when communicating on Slashdot...
[quote]Finally, let's say someone stole the plans to the F22 fighter that exposed a way to detect it via radar and wanted to post the information on their MySpace page from an Internet Cafe...[/quote] So why should China not be allowed to ban the distribution of the plans for their new nuclear facility, or anti-satelite missile? Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, surely?
To put yourself in harm's way to carry out an aggression in support of someone's political or economic interests is to be at best a sucker who mistakenly thinks he's supporting innocents, and at worst a villain who knows exactly what he's doing On that front, you are emphatically wrong: the whole point of military in Western thinking is as an extention of politics. This is why the army defers to the (political) Commander In Chief. At the top level, where political agendas are part of the briefing for Generals, sure, there is some scope for saying 'this is wrong', but the only correct actions, are to deliver on the politically decided agenda, or resign. And squaddies don't get to resign...
Strikes me that the meta tag should be used to specify the ACID test that is rendered correctly for that user's understanding.
It is equivalent, in that it identifies the intent of the author in terms of standards, but changes the emphasis (in the same fashion as the DOCTYPE was intended) to put the onus on the browser to render it correctly. Quirks of rendering would be a non-event if the browsers actually rendered the targetted acid tests correctly before being released.
Of course, when coping with browsers that can't render the acid test correctly and require 'quirks' to be included in the code: those quirks themselves should be tagged, so they are correctly ignored by complient browsers.
The timing problem has been resolved already -- almost every VPN solution I have used comes complete with a 'SecureId' card, which generates a number that changes every minute. Not only is it unique to the actual user, but the drift is so low that the one I have had for over 4 years is still good to a second or so.
Racist rhetoric is still free speech in the United States.
Suggest you head out to your nearest City center and try that out. If you are in the South, you'll have no problems, sure, but try it in the North and you'll find yourself talking to a nice chap with a badge. There is a common misconception about 'freedom of speech' meaning you can say anything you like, but you best have some damn fine rhetoric if the speech you are making also disturbs the peace. The oft-used example of this misconception, which earns you a night in a cell: shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre...
your big brother-esque surveillance society, I don't think the UK is really in a position to lecture us about anything.
Well, I have spent the last 4 years in the US, and have to say that I am considerably more careful about what I say -- or rather, how I say it -- on this side of the pond. The Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt generated by the aftershocks of 9/11 and so on are all too clear, and it has plainly led to hightened racial tension.
But if we're going to throw out specious arguments on the 'lecturing' front, how about a question for you: where do you get the idea that the US cannot use an outside perspective? Indeed, how can you comment on 'individual rights' and another the perspective of another country whilst the Guantanamo Bay affair is ongoing? I am very curious to know your position on that.
These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply. These are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign state; therefore, Geneva Conventions do not apply. But we treat them far better than any other military would treat them.
I believe that you have just argued that all National powers have the right to detain non-citizens. So if you are ever abducted (special rendition is something you seem to agree with) to another country and held in a "not concentration" camp with access to wet wipes and a religious book of your choice, you have no cause for complaint. Even if you are held there for years without charges being brought, whilst regularly water-boarded and deprived of toilet paper unless you are in need of a reward...
Of course, I suspect that you believe that the US should follow different rules to the rest of the world (in which case, you are a bigot, but that's another matter).
My references are "'O' level electronics", which I studied a fair few years ago now! If you understand the circuit for a regulated DC power supply, the remainer is trivial.
Regarding power consumption: basically, your device draws power, so the power it uses is defined by its demand, not the other way around. Problems occurs if you put the wrong voltage in to it - ie, 110V straight in to a 12V device will fry it!
Good point on the 7V - I'll just do that.
Regarding the 19V, the power supply also has -12V and -5V available, so in principle it is +12 to -12 plus a resistor & diode for regulation down to 19V. Except for the rather significant problem that the 19V device wants up to 5A, which is greater more the rating on the -12V rail!
Rather, the brick that converts the AC to DC is inefficient.
My savings came from taking an efficient computer power supply (80-85% efficient, depending on the load) and running my own 12V and 5V supplies direct to the devices that use those voltages [includes: cable modem, wireless router, usb hub, network disk, a GPS/VHF radio and a camera]. When I can be find time to finish the job, I'll do the maths and buy the parts to add 19V and 6.8V for two other devices.
In practical terms: I no longer have a collection of bricks generating heat, so I waste considerably less energy; I plug only one device in to the UPS, eliminating a lot of wires, so the installation is simple and tidy; and there's a bonus: the fan on the power supply keeps air moving over the equipment whenever heat builds up...
Yeah, because theres nothing wrong with the concept of having to sneak into PUBLIC buildings where PUBLIC OFFICIALS have their meetings after being elected by their PUBLIC. That is precisely the point: if they want a forum in that public building, they should SEEK ELECTION - that is democracy in action. Barging in and generating noise is UNDEMOCRATIC and represents their personal views, not the views of the ELECTORATE.
Meh. It's a beta emitter; beta radiation is completely harmless to humans as long as you have a nice layer of skin between you and it. That's not strictly true. A low energy beta emitter will not penetrate the skin. For example, radioactive Calcium is not a threat (Ca-45); the 0.275MeV electrons have a range of about a foot and a half and don't penetrate the outler layer of dead skin.
On the other hand, radioactive Chlorine (Cl-36) emits 0.71MeV electrons that have a range of 7 feet, and most certainly pose a threat: you get a dose of that on your skin and you are at very serious risk from beta radiation (although your immediate concern would probably be the chemical interaction!).
And then, there's secondary radiation. When high energy particles collide, there's a significant risk of further radioactive particles being generated: high energy gamma or beta radiation that pass clean through you your skin, then hit an atom in an organ, will often generate an Alpha particle as a side effect... inside the same organ - ie, in a place where it can do significant harm.
Looking specifically at H-3Tritium, the 0.0186MeV beta particles it can generate, as stated, would not penetrade dead skin. Unfortunately, Tritium would be part of a compound, and in the event of a leak, it is important to know that most Tritiated compounds are skin permeable - ie, the compound will pass through the skin, then irradiate you.
However, when it gets into the body it is EXTREMELY harmful, so the worry is that people will break the batteries open and release toxic crap into the environment where it can be inhaled/ingested. Or simply make contact with skin. Eek.
NEWSFLASH to the BBC from the world
We don't want to have to wonder which of our devices will play this content because the BBC deigns to produce a player.
We don't want the Internet to turn into the TV - time-limited, time-shifted, restricted content that is controlled by someone else.
We don't want files that expire, ever.
We don't want Kontiki, PlaysForSure, FairPlay etc.
We don't want yet another bittorrent client that chews up our bandwidth whenever it's open.
We don't want iPlayer; we want your content available on the internet, worldwide. If it's good, people might even pay for it.
That's really simple, then... just don't use it.
You seem to be forgetting,
The BBC is not offering this to the World, just UK viewers;
This is an additional service to the viewers who might want to use it; and
Why should they make their content available to you, anyway? What's in it for them? "If it's good, people might even pay for it" is fallacious reasoning: it is already bought and paid for by the TV License payers in the UK, and there is no reason they should suppliment your selfish viewing, on the offchance you might one day think something is worth paying for!
change all the backgrounds to black and the foreground to light grey or white Likewise... but I use a bright red background with yellow text on sessions that run on PROD boxes. It has prevented a surprising number of mistakes...
Of course. It's the result of the experiment succeeding, and Slashdotters from 2010 using the resulting causality technology to implant the story in June 2007...
Whilst an important point (savings later vs cost now), the one thing that always surprises me about unofficial big-number cost estimates for IT charges is that they are inevitably overblown. And here's why:
Take Bill, a regular programmer, who turns up to work, does 8 hours, and takes home his pay. His cost is his salary. DST kicks in early, and the company decides Bill is to work on ensuring that there are no problems with the clock change... so he turns up to work, does 8 hours, takes home his pay. His cost is still his salary, so the cost to the company is nothing.
The "lost productivity" line is nebulous at best - his activity was redirected from other projects, for sure, but the deadlines on those projects remained the same. If those projects were important and had tight deadlines, Bill would have not been moved to DST work, and the people impacted would have been warned to update their clocks manually...
As far as I can see, none of the comments relating to the story touch the subject of the rights of the people being fingerprinted. I see concern for the troops, and the need to reduce the cost in American lives, but no concern for abrogation of the rights of the civilian suspects - who are quoted as suspected insurgents.
What would the outcry be if this technology was deployed to the police in the US? I cannot imagine the population -- which is now arguing about compulsory identity cards -- thinking it is fine for the police to fingerprint anyone they wish at random.
So, I see some interesting issues. For example, by fingerprinting these suspects, against their will, the US forces are sending the wrong message: oppression is the word that springs to mind. They are stepping out of a "police" role, and back into a "police action" - specifically the territory that is to be strenuously avoided!
What is to be done with this database of fingerprints that is collected: will it be turned over to the local police as a collection of "suspects" to be interred and tortured? Over the long term, will this actually save lives, or sow enough seeds of discontent that more of the locals are driven to insurgency?
Feel free to tell me how I have missed the point here...
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly, they need to put that extra time in to English, so they can be properly understood when communicating on Slashdot...
There is some evidence Saddam had foreknowledge of the attack
Would this be the same source that provided evidence he had weapons of mass destruction?
[quote]Finally, let's say someone stole the plans to the F22 fighter that exposed a way to detect it via radar and wanted to post the information on their MySpace page from an Internet Cafe...[/quote] So why should China not be allowed to ban the distribution of the plans for their new nuclear facility, or anti-satelite missile? Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, surely?
Ironically, I actually use that for shells on Production boxes - it is a very real reminder to be careful of what I ask for!
Plenty of righteous indignition, but no insight to the conversation
Strikes me that the meta tag should be used to specify the ACID test that is rendered correctly for that user's understanding.
It is equivalent, in that it identifies the intent of the author in terms of standards, but changes the emphasis (in the same fashion as the DOCTYPE was intended) to put the onus on the browser to render it correctly. Quirks of rendering would be a non-event if the browsers actually rendered the targetted acid tests correctly before being released.
Of course, when coping with browsers that can't render the acid test correctly and require 'quirks' to be included in the code: those quirks themselves should be tagged, so they are correctly ignored by complient browsers.
The timing problem has been resolved already -- almost every VPN solution I have used comes complete with a 'SecureId' card, which generates a number that changes every minute. Not only is it unique to the actual user, but the drift is so low that the one I have had for over 4 years is still good to a second or so.
Suggest you head out to your nearest City center and try that out. If you are in the South, you'll have no problems, sure, but try it in the North and you'll find yourself talking to a nice chap with a badge. There is a common misconception about 'freedom of speech' meaning you can say anything you like, but you best have some damn fine rhetoric if the speech you are making also disturbs the peace. The oft-used example of this misconception, which earns you a night in a cell: shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre...
Well, I have spent the last 4 years in the US, and have to say that I am considerably more careful about what I say -- or rather, how I say it -- on this side of the pond. The Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt generated by the aftershocks of 9/11 and so on are all too clear, and it has plainly led to hightened racial tension.
But if we're going to throw out specious arguments on the 'lecturing' front, how about a question for you: where do you get the idea that the US cannot use an outside perspective? Indeed, how can you comment on 'individual rights' and another the perspective of another country whilst the Guantanamo Bay affair is ongoing? I am very curious to know your position on that.
I believe that you have just argued that all National powers have the right to detain non-citizens. So if you are ever abducted (special rendition is something you seem to agree with) to another country and held in a "not concentration" camp with access to wet wipes and a religious book of your choice, you have no cause for complaint. Even if you are held there for years without charges being brought, whilst regularly water-boarded and deprived of toilet paper unless you are in need of a reward...
Of course, I suspect that you believe that the US should follow different rules to the rest of the world (in which case, you are a bigot, but that's another matter).
My references are "'O' level electronics", which I studied a fair few years ago now! If you understand the circuit for a regulated DC power supply, the remainer is trivial. Regarding power consumption: basically, your device draws power, so the power it uses is defined by its demand, not the other way around. Problems occurs if you put the wrong voltage in to it - ie, 110V straight in to a 12V device will fry it!
Good point on the 7V - I'll just do that. Regarding the 19V, the power supply also has -12V and -5V available, so in principle it is +12 to -12 plus a resistor & diode for regulation down to 19V. Except for the rather significant problem that the 19V device wants up to 5A, which is greater more the rating on the -12V rail!
Rather, the brick that converts the AC to DC is inefficient.
My savings came from taking an efficient computer power supply (80-85% efficient, depending on the load) and running my own 12V and 5V supplies direct to the devices that use those voltages [includes: cable modem, wireless router, usb hub, network disk, a GPS/VHF radio and a camera]. When I can be find time to finish the job, I'll do the maths and buy the parts to add 19V and 6.8V for two other devices.
In practical terms: I no longer have a collection of bricks generating heat, so I waste considerably less energy; I plug only one device in to the UPS, eliminating a lot of wires, so the installation is simple and tidy; and there's a bonus: the fan on the power supply keeps air moving over the equipment whenever heat builds up...
On the other hand, radioactive Chlorine (Cl-36) emits 0.71MeV electrons that have a range of 7 feet, and most certainly pose a threat: you get a dose of that on your skin and you are at very serious risk from beta radiation (although your immediate concern would probably be the chemical interaction!).
And then, there's secondary radiation. When high energy particles collide, there's a significant risk of further radioactive particles being generated: high energy gamma or beta radiation that pass clean through you your skin, then hit an atom in an organ, will often generate an Alpha particle as a side effect
Looking specifically at H-3Tritium, the 0.0186MeV beta particles it can generate, as stated, would not penetrade dead skin. Unfortunately, Tritium would be part of a compound, and in the event of a leak, it is important to know that most Tritiated compounds are skin permeable - ie, the compound will pass through the skin, then irradiate you.
However, when it gets into the body it is EXTREMELY harmful, so the worry is that people will break the batteries open and release toxic crap into the environment where it can be inhaled/ingested. Or simply make contact with skin. Eek.
... in 2001, it was demonstrated by a group at IBM, which factored 15 into 3 and 5, using a quantum computer with 7 qubits.You seem to be forgetting,
The BBC is not offering this to the World, just UK viewers;
This is an additional service to the viewers who might want to use it; and
Why should they make their content available to you, anyway? What's in it for them? "If it's good, people might even pay for it" is fallacious reasoning: it is already bought and paid for by the TV License payers in the UK, and there is no reason they should suppliment your selfish viewing, on the offchance you might one day think something is worth paying for!
I, for one, welcome our atomic-scale quantam overlords...
Of course. It's the result of the experiment succeeding, and Slashdotters from 2010 using the resulting causality technology to implant the story in June 2007...
Whilst an important point (savings later vs cost now), the one thing that always surprises me about unofficial big-number cost estimates for IT charges is that they are inevitably overblown. And here's why:
Take Bill, a regular programmer, who turns up to work, does 8 hours, and takes home his pay. His cost is his salary. DST kicks in early, and the company decides Bill is to work on ensuring that there are no problems with the clock change... so he turns up to work, does 8 hours, takes home his pay. His cost is still his salary, so the cost to the company is nothing.
The "lost productivity" line is nebulous at best - his activity was redirected from other projects, for sure, but the deadlines on those projects remained the same. If those projects were important and had tight deadlines, Bill would have not been moved to DST work, and the people impacted would have been warned to update their clocks manually...
Now what you need to do is look up your competitors too, and relocate them a block or so...
As far as I can see, none of the comments relating to the story touch the subject of the rights of the people being fingerprinted. I see concern for the troops, and the need to reduce the cost in American lives, but no concern for abrogation of the rights of the civilian suspects - who are quoted as suspected insurgents.
What would the outcry be if this technology was deployed to the police in the US? I cannot imagine the population -- which is now arguing about compulsory identity cards -- thinking it is fine for the police to fingerprint anyone they wish at random.
So, I see some interesting issues. For example, by fingerprinting these suspects, against their will, the US forces are sending the wrong message: oppression is the word that springs to mind. They are stepping out of a "police" role, and back into a "police action" - specifically the territory that is to be strenuously avoided!
What is to be done with this database of fingerprints that is collected: will it be turned over to the local police as a collection of "suspects" to be interred and tortured? Over the long term, will this actually save lives, or sow enough seeds of discontent that more of the locals are driven to insurgency?
Feel free to tell me how I have missed the point here...