Bah! The Stargate team only had a matter of hours to get Atlantis up before they drowned, and they managed just fine. NASA should take a page out of their book.
As I understand it, in order to read an RFID chip, you have to be close. We're talking a matter of inches. So, not only would the guy with the reader have to know exactly where your card is on your person, but he'd have to shove the reader practically right up against you. I think you'd probably notice if he started rubbing you with his suitcase.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not losing any sleep at night over my RFID card.
As I understand it, RFID cards don't do anything until they're exposed to an electromagnetic field, which gives them just enough juice to fire off a message, usually an identity code. Unless I've been completely misinformed, you'd have to generate quite the field to even have a chance of reading one of these things at a distance. I know that my RFID card doesn't work until it's within a coupla inches of the appropriate reader.
The whole "it's broadcasting all of your personal information!!!!" hype is a bunch of FUD. The only way it could really be a security risk is if the card itself was stolen, and then it's really no different than having your S.S. card or driver's license stolen.
Double check your chemistry. Nitrous oxide, N2O (better known as 'laughing gas') is a common anesthetic. Nitrogen dioxide, NO2, on the other hand, is an air pollutant emitted by internal combustion engines, among other things. Nitric acid, the volatile substance in question, oxides in atmosphere and becomes nitrogen dioxide, not nitrous oxide.
Can't say I've ever experienced that. The water my dentists uses is always at room temperature. Of course, that is still considerably colder than body temperature, I suppose.
I think the real problem would be with nitrogen dioxide (NO2, as opposed to nitrous oxide, N20, which would actually be preferable!). Nitric oxide is very volatile; it'll react with oxygen in the air almost immediately.
2NO + O2 = 2NO2
It's been a while since chemistry, but I think that's right.
To me, it seems like the pain involved with getting cavities filled is due to the high frequency vibrations caused by the drill, not the actual drilling itself. While I have my reservations about having a plasma tip stuck into my mouth, I guess I'd be willing to give it a go.
Of course, I don't plan on having any more cavities, so...
Well, I'd like to see some more data on this point before drawing that kinda conclusion. Because that would imply that it would be just as dangerous to talk to someone riding in the car with you as it would be to talk to someone over a headset phone. In fact, it would be more dangerous, as you might be tempted to turn your head to make eye contact with them.
I'm not able to find a reference to the legality of wearing headphones in the Indiana Drivers Manual (where I live). It may have just been a local thing where I grew up. Either way, I've had friends get pulled over for wearing headphones.
There's a big difference between being deaf and wearing headphones. I doubt that deaf people are distracted by their lack of hearing, as opposed to the person wearing headphones listening to death metal.
Anyways, there's a big difference between headphones and cell phones as well. Cell phones are interactive; you talk and listen. Sometimes you even have to hold them. Your concentration is divided at least 3 ways: between the road, listening to the conversation, and participating in it. With headphones you mostly just listen.
Yeah, there's a considerable fuzziness in deciding when enough is enough when it comes to driver distraction. And it's not the fact that cell phones are a distraction that bothers me. It's the fact that many people with cell phones just can't pull themselves away from their phones long enough to drive. They always have to be yammering away, 24/7.
I know a lot of states are passing harsher punishments. for people who were on a cell phone at the time of an accident or other traffic violation. As I understand it, in Illinois it's double the fine for traffic violations if the offender was talking on a cell phone at the time.
Personally I think it should just be downright illegal. It's illegal to wear headphones while driving, and those are hands-free and only require that you listen. Why should it be legal to use a cell phone while driving? If the call is that important, pull your damn car over, or use the speakerphone option (if you've got it). Do something, but don't put yourself and others at risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Just take your Weapon of Choice along with you when you're walking around flashing your iPod to everyone acting like a pompous jackass.
NASA has just 40 days or so to get Atlantis up.
Bah! The Stargate team only had a matter of hours to get Atlantis up before they drowned, and they managed just fine. NASA should take a page out of their book.
Yeah, Microsoft is afraid Google might try to stage a COO.
As I understand it, in order to read an RFID chip, you have to be close. We're talking a matter of inches. So, not only would the guy with the reader have to know exactly where your card is on your person, but he'd have to shove the reader practically right up against you. I think you'd probably notice if he started rubbing you with his suitcase.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not losing any sleep at night over my RFID card.
As I understand it, RFID cards don't do anything until they're exposed to an electromagnetic field, which gives them just enough juice to fire off a message, usually an identity code. Unless I've been completely misinformed, you'd have to generate quite the field to even have a chance of reading one of these things at a distance. I know that my RFID card doesn't work until it's within a coupla inches of the appropriate reader.
The whole "it's broadcasting all of your personal information!!!!" hype is a bunch of FUD. The only way it could really be a security risk is if the card itself was stolen, and then it's really no different than having your S.S. card or driver's license stolen.
Every anti-Microsoft blog and article in existence has been flagged as search engine spam.
More at 11.
Excellent! Now I can receive an internet in a timely fashion!
Hi, my name is Leonard. Have I told you about my condition?
We'll have forgotten about it in 36 hours anyway.
/.
As though this didn't apply to 99% of the things we read on
EXECUTE? [Y/N] N
_
gg no rm
I imagine the part after it separates would be awesome drunk.
Why don't you ask the NASA engineers? They probably have some experience in that field.
You know what's sad? That even though the Technocracy is a fictional element of an awesome RPG, it's becoming more and more real every day.
Next thing you know, I'll start incurring Paradox when mundanes see me slinging fireballs around.
My Sorceress on Diablo II has prior art. She can lay down Firewalls like it's no one's business!
Wait, what's this about networks?
Don't get me wrong, this procedure would be great if it produced nitrous oxide. I'd be getting cavities on purpose.
Double check your chemistry. Nitrous oxide, N2O (better known as 'laughing gas') is a common anesthetic. Nitrogen dioxide, NO2, on the other hand, is an air pollutant emitted by internal combustion engines, among other things. Nitric acid, the volatile substance in question, oxides in atmosphere and becomes nitrogen dioxide, not nitrous oxide.
Can't say I've ever experienced that. The water my dentists uses is always at room temperature. Of course, that is still considerably colder than body temperature, I suppose.
Indeed, nitrogen dioxide isn't any better than straight up nitric oxide.
It's too bad they can't make nitrous oxide out of it. THAT could get fun.
I think the real problem would be with nitrogen dioxide (NO2, as opposed to nitrous oxide, N20, which would actually be preferable!). Nitric oxide is very volatile; it'll react with oxygen in the air almost immediately.
2NO + O2 = 2NO2
It's been a while since chemistry, but I think that's right.
To me, it seems like the pain involved with getting cavities filled is due to the high frequency vibrations caused by the drill, not the actual drilling itself. While I have my reservations about having a plasma tip stuck into my mouth, I guess I'd be willing to give it a go.
Of course, I don't plan on having any more cavities, so...
I think they're referring to P-p-p-people, otherwise known as the users of the P-p-p-powerbook!
Well, I'd like to see some more data on this point before drawing that kinda conclusion. Because that would imply that it would be just as dangerous to talk to someone riding in the car with you as it would be to talk to someone over a headset phone. In fact, it would be more dangerous, as you might be tempted to turn your head to make eye contact with them.
I'm not able to find a reference to the legality of wearing headphones in the Indiana Drivers Manual (where I live). It may have just been a local thing where I grew up. Either way, I've had friends get pulled over for wearing headphones.
There's a big difference between being deaf and wearing headphones. I doubt that deaf people are distracted by their lack of hearing, as opposed to the person wearing headphones listening to death metal.
Anyways, there's a big difference between headphones and cell phones as well. Cell phones are interactive; you talk and listen. Sometimes you even have to hold them. Your concentration is divided at least 3 ways: between the road, listening to the conversation, and participating in it. With headphones you mostly just listen.
Yeah, there's a considerable fuzziness in deciding when enough is enough when it comes to driver distraction. And it's not the fact that cell phones are a distraction that bothers me. It's the fact that many people with cell phones just can't pull themselves away from their phones long enough to drive. They always have to be yammering away, 24/7.
I used my cell phone one time in my car, but I immediately turned on its speakerphone option and set it down.
I know a lot of states are passing harsher punishments. for people who were on a cell phone at the time of an accident or other traffic violation. As I understand it, in Illinois it's double the fine for traffic violations if the offender was talking on a cell phone at the time.
Personally I think it should just be downright illegal. It's illegal to wear headphones while driving, and those are hands-free and only require that you listen. Why should it be legal to use a cell phone while driving? If the call is that important, pull your damn car over, or use the speakerphone option (if you've got it). Do something, but don't put yourself and others at risk.
'the most efficient way to deploy and manage Web-based solutions.'
Typos. Let me fix that for you.
'the most efficient way to destroy and mangle Web-based solutions.