Well, even using water as the reference substance. 1J per cc/ml/gm would produce a scale of 4.2x the precision of celsius. For this exploration, I'll use the abbreviation z for this hypothetical scale. Using the freezing point of water 0C as the zero point, would give the following:
0z = 0C = 32F = freezing
0z - 20z ~ 0C - 5C ~ 32F - 41F = cold (refrigerator temp)
20z - 40z ~ 5C - 10C ~ 41F - 49F = cold day
40z - 60z ~ 10C - 14C - 49F - 58F = chilly day
60z - 80z ~ 14C - 19C ~ 58F - 66F = cool day
80z - 100z ~ 19C - 24C ~ 66F - 75F = human comfort zone (indoor)
91z ~ 21.7C ~ 71F = comfortable indoor temperature (average for a large group of people without heaving clothing)
100z-120z ~ 24C - 29C ~ 75F - 84F = warm day
120z-140z ~ 29C - 33C ~ 84F - 92F = very warm day
140z-160z ~ 33C - 38C ~ 92F - 101F = hot day
155.4z = 37C = 98.6F = average body temperature
160z-180z ~ 38C - 43C ~ 101F - 109F = very hot day
180z-200z ~ 43C - 48C ~ 109F - 118F = extremely hot day
In short, temperatures near 100z (80z-120z) are fairly comfortable. Temperatures from 0z - 150z are safe with appropriate clothing, food, and water. Temperatures below 0z or above 150z are extreme and may require additional protective measures for prolonged exposure.
I think I like that scale. It's finer grained than fahrenheit, probably finer grained than necessary. One with about half that resolution (which would make it similar to fahrenheit) would be sufficient. With some looking through the elements, we might find an element better suited to be a scale reference than water.
How about basing temperature upon the heat delta of 1cc of some element (e.g. a metal in liquid or solid form) when 1 joule (or 10^x joules) of energy is added (as heat). We already have something very similar, but in reverse and based upon the compound H20 rather than an element. 1 calorie (small calorie or gram calorie) is the energy required to raise 1cc (1ml) of water by 1 degree celsius, ~ 4.2joules. If we continued to use pure water at STP, then this temperature scale would be 4.2x as fine a resolution as celsius, and 2.333x as fine as fahrenheit, thus there would be 420 degrees from ice to boiling water. However, if we used something other than water, we could have a scale very similar to fahrenheit. This would reverse the direction of the dependency, and give us a useful and meaningful metric temperature scale.
There is no significant advantage to having 100 (or 180) degree delta between freezing water and boiling water. There is some advantage to using the freezing point of water as a zero point, but as fahrenheit demonstrates, it's not strictly necessary, still that may make the most sense. Setting zero point at -40c/f would make converting to/from c/f relatively simple (both would use the same formula except for the multiplier), and in most populated areas, -40 is lower than any temperature you'll experience, so for most of the population in most of the world, you would never see a negative temperature. Setting the zero point at "absolute zero" makes no sense because we still only have a good estimate of "absolute zero", we've never actually achieved it. If our estimate is wrong by even a tiny amount, then "0" wouldn't really be "absolute zero", therefore, the zero point should be something meaningful and useful to humans on planet earth.
And who are you to question the almighty SCO? Just pay the license fee and ask no questions.
--
The opinions expressed in the post are not the actual opinions of the poster.
Yes, but since the ruling is that SCO never owned the copyrights, Novell did, SCO's claim was factual and therefore, not libelous. Therefore, this quote was irrelevant outside of countering SCO's expert witness.
And it was allowed only because SCO's "expert witness" included damages from after the initial ruling in Novell's favor. Had the expert properly stopped his estimate as of the date of the initial ruling, Novell would have had no grounds to introduce this quote to contradict the expert testimony. So because of SCO's own mistake, we now have evidence in the trial record that SCO is "The Most Hated Company in Tech.". Classic.
You're partially correct, Red Hat vs SCO"On the 11th of October 2007 the case was closed with leave to reopen after the SCO group leaves Chapter 11 bankruptcy." However, first, SCO must emerge from bankruptcy. Given that there is no money to go after, I believe that case is dead.
SCO vs Autozone is already settled. "On October 22, 2009, Edward Cahn, SCO's Chapter 11 trustee, sought bankruptcy court approval for an agreement he reached with AutoZone. According to the court filings, the confidential settlement resolves all claims between SCO and AutoZone."
SCO vs Daimler-Chrysler was dismissed. "The parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal order on December 21, 2004. The case was dismissed without prejudice, but if SCO wishes to pursue the timeliness claim again, it must pay DaimlerChrysler's legal fees since August 9. On December 29, 2004, SCO filed a claim of appeal notice. On January 31, 2005, the claim of appeal was dismissed." I would say the chance of SCO paying Daimler-Chysler's legal fees in order to continue the suit are really close to zero.
In SCO vs IBM, the copyright violations should be dead as a result of the SCO vs Novell ruling. That still leaves the breach of contract claims. So this one might not be dead yet.
Actually, the results of the previous trial and this appeal clearly indicate that SCO never owned the copyrights and so never had standing to sue IBM. IBM should file for immediate dismissal for lack of standing and/or summary judgement in IBM's favor. I don't know as much about the Red Hat or Autozone cases, but those may fall into the same category.
SCO's stockholders and creditors should consider suing Darryl McBride and/or other officers responsible for pursuing this baseless litigation in breach of the fiduciary responsibilities. But only if any of them are left with enough assets to make it worth the fight.
Yes, SCO has, in effect, sued their own business into bankruptcy. That's a pretty amazing feat considering they never sued themselves. Slow death by initiating baseless litigation.
I know many people will bash this guy as "an Apple fanboi", or having "drunk the Kool-Aid®" (BTW, the Jonestown incident used Flavor Aid®, not Kool-Aid®, but don't let facts get in the way), but what those people are overlooking is that this is both clever and creative.
Side note: Creative people don't care whether or not you like or agree with their choice of tools. If you don't like Apple or Apple products, fine. But all the Apple, Apple product, and "fanboi" bashing is ridiculous. The company and products aren't perfect, but they are good and they do inspire creativity. They're tools that for many people make working easier, faster, and allow them to create. Nothing more, nothing less. And, no, I don't particularly care if you agree/disagree with this post.
Your point is valid, except that the HIRISE imager on the MRO only produces images of 16.4Gb (2.05 GB) before compression, 5Gb (630MB) after compression in red, and 1/5 of that for blue/green channels. It's only a 3 channel device. The CTX camera is lower resolution with only a single channel. MARCI operates in 7 channels, but it's also low resolution.
The MCS spectrometer operates in 9 channels, but is very low resolution.
That leaves the CRISM spectrometer as the only imager on MRO with a large number of channels. It can image 50 or 544 channels depending upon the mode. But again, it's comparatively low resolution (~ 1/40 that of HIRISE, which means about 1/1600th as many pixels in a given area), which more than offsets the increase in number of channels.
6Mbps * 60 sec = 360 Mb/m = 45 MiB/min * 60min = 2.7GiB/hr. Are they saying they're transmitting images that exceed 2.7GiB per image? Assuming 8 bits per "color" and a 6 channel "color", that's a 450M-pixel image. Even at 12b/channel, it's a 300M-pixel image, or 20K x 15K (4:3 aspect ratio) resolution image. Call me skeptical, but I think there has been a mistake.
... unless you're enjoying the exercise, or are rich enough to retire. Here's why: Assume you spend 8+ hours per day sleeping, eating, and bathing, and work 40 hours a week (plus travel to/from work). There are 8760 hours per year, of that at least 2,920 hours are sleeping, eating & bathing. Working 40hr/s & 50 weeks (2 weeks vacation) = 2,000 hours. So, at best, you net 3,840 hours/yr, and realistically, closer to 2,500-3,000. Then you spend time shopping, doing housework, being sick, etc.
92 minutes per week gives you an average of an extra 3 years of life. That's ~80 hrs per year for ~75 years = ~ 6,000 hours exercising. In return, you get 3 years extra life. So, 3 yrs will give you 7500 - 11,500 hours of additional free time. That gains you something, but it's not huge.
Spending an extra hour a week exercising to get to 150min/week, means spending an extra 52 hrs/yr * 79yrs (75 + 4 extra) means you'll spend 4,180 extra hours exercising to gain just one additional year, which I've already established nets you at most 3,840 hrs (less in reality), which is a net loss of free time.
So, if you're enjoying the extra exercise, or you can afford to retire, then that extra hour per week might be worth it, but if not, put in your 92 minutes and call it good. Remember, you read it hear first.
5x faster does not shave off 5 bits, it shaves of log2 (5) ~ = 2.32 bits. So, 256 bit AES is still ~ 253.68 bits (and only if you have 2^88 bytes of very low latency storage, which is many orders of magnitude more storage than humans have produced in recorded history).
If God is the creator of life, and the one who decides when your time is up, then isn't tricking your cells into becoming stem cells again defying God's will (or playing God)?
No, I don't have an answer to that, it's just a question. Just wondering where people draw the line between medicine and "playing God", since "God's will/province" is a central concept in the fight against embryonic stem cell research and abortion.
Slashdot Mirror
0z = 0C = 32F = freezing
0z - 20z ~ 0C - 5C ~ 32F - 41F = cold (refrigerator temp)
20z - 40z ~ 5C - 10C ~ 41F - 49F = cold day
40z - 60z ~ 10C - 14C - 49F - 58F = chilly day
60z - 80z ~ 14C - 19C ~ 58F - 66F = cool day
80z - 100z ~ 19C - 24C ~ 66F - 75F = human comfort zone (indoor)
91z ~ 21.7C ~ 71F = comfortable indoor temperature (average for a large group of people without heaving clothing)
100z-120z ~ 24C - 29C ~ 75F - 84F = warm day
120z-140z ~ 29C - 33C ~ 84F - 92F = very warm day
140z-160z ~ 33C - 38C ~ 92F - 101F = hot day
155.4z = 37C = 98.6F = average body temperature
160z-180z ~ 38C - 43C ~ 101F - 109F = very hot day
180z-200z ~ 43C - 48C ~ 109F - 118F = extremely hot day
In short, temperatures near 100z (80z-120z) are fairly comfortable. Temperatures from 0z - 150z are safe with appropriate clothing, food, and water. Temperatures below 0z or above 150z are extreme and may require additional protective measures for prolonged exposure.
I think I like that scale. It's finer grained than fahrenheit, probably finer grained than necessary. One with about half that resolution (which would make it similar to fahrenheit) would be sufficient. With some looking through the elements, we might find an element better suited to be a scale reference than water.
How about basing temperature upon the heat delta of 1cc of some element (e.g. a metal in liquid or solid form) when 1 joule (or 10^x joules) of energy is added (as heat). We already have something very similar, but in reverse and based upon the compound H20 rather than an element. 1 calorie (small calorie or gram calorie) is the energy required to raise 1cc (1ml) of water by 1 degree celsius, ~ 4.2joules. If we continued to use pure water at STP, then this temperature scale would be 4.2x as fine a resolution as celsius, and 2.333x as fine as fahrenheit, thus there would be 420 degrees from ice to boiling water. However, if we used something other than water, we could have a scale very similar to fahrenheit. This would reverse the direction of the dependency, and give us a useful and meaningful metric temperature scale.
There is no significant advantage to having 100 (or 180) degree delta between freezing water and boiling water. There is some advantage to using the freezing point of water as a zero point, but as fahrenheit demonstrates, it's not strictly necessary, still that may make the most sense. Setting zero point at -40c/f would make converting to/from c/f relatively simple (both would use the same formula except for the multiplier), and in most populated areas, -40 is lower than any temperature you'll experience, so for most of the population in most of the world, you would never see a negative temperature. Setting the zero point at "absolute zero" makes no sense because we still only have a good estimate of "absolute zero", we've never actually achieved it. If our estimate is wrong by even a tiny amount, then "0" wouldn't really be "absolute zero", therefore, the zero point should be something meaningful and useful to humans on planet earth.
And who are you to question the almighty SCO? Just pay the license fee and ask no questions. -- The opinions expressed in the post are not the actual opinions of the poster.
Yes, but since the ruling is that SCO never owned the copyrights, Novell did, SCO's claim was factual and therefore, not libelous. Therefore, this quote was irrelevant outside of countering SCO's expert witness.
That you didn't refer to it as the Black Knight scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is grounds for revoking your nerd credentials.
And it was allowed only because SCO's "expert witness" included damages from after the initial ruling in Novell's favor. Had the expert properly stopped his estimate as of the date of the initial ruling, Novell would have had no grounds to introduce this quote to contradict the expert testimony. So because of SCO's own mistake, we now have evidence in the trial record that SCO is "The Most Hated Company in Tech.". Classic.
You're partially correct, Red Hat vs SCO "On the 11th of October 2007 the case was closed with leave to reopen after the SCO group leaves Chapter 11 bankruptcy." However, first, SCO must emerge from bankruptcy. Given that there is no money to go after, I believe that case is dead.
SCO vs Autozone is already settled. "On October 22, 2009, Edward Cahn, SCO's Chapter 11 trustee, sought bankruptcy court approval for an agreement he reached with AutoZone. According to the court filings, the confidential settlement resolves all claims between SCO and AutoZone."
SCO vs Daimler-Chrysler was dismissed. "The parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal order on December 21, 2004. The case was dismissed without prejudice, but if SCO wishes to pursue the timeliness claim again, it must pay DaimlerChrysler's legal fees since August 9. On December 29, 2004, SCO filed a claim of appeal notice. On January 31, 2005, the claim of appeal was dismissed." I would say the chance of SCO paying Daimler-Chysler's legal fees in order to continue the suit are really close to zero.
In SCO vs IBM, the copyright violations should be dead as a result of the SCO vs Novell ruling. That still leaves the breach of contract claims. So this one might not be dead yet.
Actually, the results of the previous trial and this appeal clearly indicate that SCO never owned the copyrights and so never had standing to sue IBM. IBM should file for immediate dismissal for lack of standing and/or summary judgement in IBM's favor. I don't know as much about the Red Hat or Autozone cases, but those may fall into the same category.
SCO's stockholders and creditors should consider suing Darryl McBride and/or other officers responsible for pursuing this baseless litigation in breach of the fiduciary responsibilities. But only if any of them are left with enough assets to make it worth the fight.
Yes, SCO has, in effect, sued their own business into bankruptcy. That's a pretty amazing feat considering they never sued themselves. Slow death by initiating baseless litigation.
"Does anybody really care?" - Robert Lamm of the group Chicago.
You've just indicated that you do in fact know that 18:00 is 6:00pm, so what's the problem?
Check your mixing instructions, you're supposed to skip the cyanide if you plan to drink it more than once.
So, your contention is that this proposal is to address stupidity? You can't fix stupid.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
So your email domain is "iname..com"?
P.S. I like the sig.
I know many people will bash this guy as "an Apple fanboi", or having "drunk the Kool-Aid®" (BTW, the Jonestown incident used Flavor Aid®, not Kool-Aid®, but don't let facts get in the way), but what those people are overlooking is that this is both clever and creative.
Side note: Creative people don't care whether or not you like or agree with their choice of tools. If you don't like Apple or Apple products, fine. But all the Apple, Apple product, and "fanboi" bashing is ridiculous. The company and products aren't perfect, but they are good and they do inspire creativity. They're tools that for many people make working easier, faster, and allow them to create. Nothing more, nothing less. And, no, I don't particularly care if you agree/disagree with this post.
Your point is valid, except that the HIRISE imager on the MRO only produces images of 16.4Gb (2.05 GB) before compression, 5Gb (630MB) after compression in red, and 1/5 of that for blue/green channels. It's only a 3 channel device. The CTX camera is lower resolution with only a single channel. MARCI operates in 7 channels, but it's also low resolution.
The MCS spectrometer operates in 9 channels, but is very low resolution.
That leaves the CRISM spectrometer as the only imager on MRO with a large number of channels. It can image 50 or 544 channels depending upon the mode. But again, it's comparatively low resolution (~ 1/40 that of HIRISE, which means about 1/1600th as many pixels in a given area), which more than offsets the increase in number of channels.
6Mbps * 60 sec = 360 Mb/m = 45 MiB/min * 60min = 2.7GiB/hr. Are they saying they're transmitting images that exceed 2.7GiB per image? Assuming 8 bits per "color" and a 6 channel "color", that's a 450M-pixel image. Even at 12b/channel, it's a 300M-pixel image, or 20K x 15K (4:3 aspect ratio) resolution image. Call me skeptical, but I think there has been a mistake.
Sell it below cost to gain market share while hoping to make it up in volume.
Two typos in my post "4180" should be "4108" and "hear" should be "here". Preview is nice, but is /. ever going to get an edit option?
... unless you're enjoying the exercise, or are rich enough to retire. Here's why: Assume you spend 8+ hours per day sleeping, eating, and bathing, and work 40 hours a week (plus travel to/from work). There are 8760 hours per year, of that at least 2,920 hours are sleeping, eating & bathing. Working 40hr/s & 50 weeks (2 weeks vacation) = 2,000 hours. So, at best, you net 3,840 hours/yr, and realistically, closer to 2,500-3,000. Then you spend time shopping, doing housework, being sick, etc.
So, if you're enjoying the extra exercise, or you can afford to retire, then that extra hour per week might be worth it, but if not, put in your 92 minutes and call it good. Remember, you read it hear first.
5x faster does not shave off 5 bits, it shaves of log2 (5) ~ = 2.32 bits. So, 256 bit AES is still ~ 253.68 bits (and only if you have 2^88 bytes of very low latency storage, which is many orders of magnitude more storage than humans have produced in recorded history).
Rick Perry considered a bad role model for poor people.
Pull out a hair from your head. See that white clump on the end that used to be attached to your head? There are stem cells in there.
You insensitive clod, I'm practically bald and you want me to pull out some of my remaining hair?
It comes to the assumption or belief or whatever you want to call it that something without a brain is somehow human.
I see plenty of humans walking around (or posting on the internet) with no evidence that they have a brain.
If God is the creator of life, and the one who decides when your time is up, then isn't tricking your cells into becoming stem cells again defying God's will (or playing God)?
No, I don't have an answer to that, it's just a question. Just wondering where people draw the line between medicine and "playing God", since "God's will/province" is a central concept in the fight against embryonic stem cell research and abortion.