Last I heard, it still supports unencrypted, but only if both the client and server ask for it. If either one asks for encryption, then the connection is encrypted, even if there's no authentication (i.e. certificate). With no certificate, it's still possible to pull an active(MitM) attack, which is much harder to pull off at a large scale without anyone noticing (i.e. you can just collect all data you see).
But there is definitely an allure to private schools, where the vast majority of the students are there to learn, most of the parents care enough to spend inordinate amounts of money on education, and the entire system is geared towards keeping your business and keeping those Ivy League acceptance rates up instead of ass-covering.
Having been to a private school, I can tell you that most of the focus is not education, but on looking good to the parents. I don't think teachers are any better (though probably not worse), and the main reason students are better come down to pre-selection (entrance exam, no poor children). The only fundamental plus is that they're allowed to expel troublemakers.
The thing that bothers me most with Google (not just Gmail, Android too) is the constant change in interface. I use the average app about 2-3 times between UI redesigns. I don't care how great the new UI is if it takes me more time to learn it than the time it's going to save until the next redesign. How about you make your new designs 3x better and update 1/3 as often? Seems like it would help the vast majority here.
The hydrostatic pressure at the surface is the atmospheric pressure, yes. Not at the bottom, I'm not an idiot. So in your fantasy siphon, you have 100 kPa pressure (absolute) at the surface, then 10 m higher, you have 0 kPa pressure, then 10 m further up you have -100 kPa. Oops.
rho, g, h - the density of the fluid, gravity and the depth of the fluid.... not atmospheric pressure
Indeed, the difference in pressure is independent of atmospheric pressure. The only problem is that at the base of the column, the hydrostatic pressure equals the atmospheric pressure. Oh and you're not allowed to have a negative pressure!
and where do you think the hydrostatic pressure is from? You seem to be saying that I could build a siphon that starts at the top of a building, bring the pipe all the way up to the edge of space, then back down to the bottom of the building and the siphon would work fine? In any column of liquid of height h, with density rho, the change in hydrostatic pressure between the top and bottom of the column is going to be equal to rho*g*h (g=9.8 m/s^2). This is why for water, if you start with 1 atm and go up 10 m, you have zero hydrostatic pressure left. Beyond that you'll get a bit of surface tension, and then if you keep going up, your column will split unless you have some other force.
At 9 m high, the column of water can't break because that would create a vacuum and the atmospheric pressure of ~100 kPa is enough to push a column of water up to 10 high. OTOH, at 11 m, you'd end up with vacuum and two columns. It's the same reason you can't drink water from an 11m high straw, even if you have really powerful lungs. In any siphon, you need gravity to get the liquid to move, and you need some other force to keep the columns of liquid from separating around the highest point. That force can be atmospheric pressure, or it can be attraction between the molecules themselves (aka surface tension). At one point, any of these will break, or are you saying you can build a siphon that goes 100 km high?
I'm not saying it's about hiding something, just about demonstrating up to the level where the thing will work. I don't know how strong the surface tension is exactly. What I do know, is that atmospheric pressure is sufficient to have a siphon that's 10 meters tall and I very much doubt that surface tension comes even close to that value. I'm sure your friend would be able to calculate how high it goes, but I doubt that's more than a few cm high.
The two properties you need for a siphon are the cohesion of the liquid (and this is true for the regular water siphon) and gravity, with the latter being the key player.
...and the former still being essential because if you lose cohesion you have two separate columns and nothing flowing.
Atmospheric pressure is not needed.
Atmospheric pressure is what provides the cohesion in the normal case of the water siphon. It means you can in theory have a siphon that climbs up to 10 meters. The experiment in the video indeed does not use atmospheric pressure. It relies on surface tension, which is much weaker. Even if water didn't boil in a vacuum the siphon would work only work for a height around a mm or so (high high can you "pull" water using its surface tension?). The liquid used in the experiment has a much higher surface tension than water, which is shy the siphon works at all. That being said, I doubt it would work for much higher than what was shown in the experiment -- if it did, the experimenters would have shown us a more impressive siphon.
...a 1.5 m high siphon was set up in a hypobaric chamber to explore siphon behaviour in a low-pressure environment. When the pressure in the chamber was reduced to about 0.18 atmospheres...
Atmospheric pressure isn't enough, but it's still required. In this experiment, 0.18 atmosphere is just enough for (in theory) a 1.8 meter siphon, had the guy attempted to get it to work at 2 meters, it would have failed because the atmospheric pressure needs to be high enough to hold the column of liquid.
"Here's the only link between vaccines and autism: if you don't vaccinate your children, they might die before they can even be diagnosed with autism."
Now only is 192 kHz/24 bit silly in general, it's even more silly for a portable music player, that's usually used in places with a higher background noise than your living room. Listening to music above 100 dB SPL in a cafe with noise at 50 dB SPL means you only need an SNR of 50 dB, just slightly more than 8 bits.
Consider this, if an electron were to transition from "really far" down to the first energy level of the hydrogen atom, then the photon emitted would have an energy of 13.6 eV, and the mass of the resulting hydrogen atom would be 13.6 eV less than the sum of the original masses.
Actually, the mass of a hydrogen atom isn't equal to the sum mass of the proton and that of the electron. There's a 13.6 eV binding energy (good 'ol E-mc^2) that needs to be taken into account. Considering that the 511 eV rest mass of the electron and the fact that we're taking about measurements that are supposed to be accurate to less than 1 part per billion, then the binding energy is pretty significant. I suspect there are other effects that also need to be taken into account.
More generally, any device that lets energy (light, sound, heat,...) only flow in one direction has to spend energy to avoid violating the laws of thermodynamics. That's true of this device just like for a heat pump. You could probably also create a real one-way mirror, but again it could not be a passive device and would require energy to operate.
There's about a 99% chance that the "problem" with gcc >=4.7 is that your code isn't compliant with the C standard (e.g. relies on undefined behaviour) and there's a new gcc optimization that makes a new (legal) assumption that your program violates.
Actually, I thought the whole idea of the "Goldilocks universe" was that life could develop anywhere without the need for a star at the right distance (otherwise there's no advantage). The problem then is exactly as you pointed out. There's no way for life to extract energy, no matter what the temperature is, because everything is at thermal equilibrium. The only way to get energy is through a star. And if you have a star, then having the microwave background doesn't help and is just likely to just make your planet too hot.
do you mean that they wipe themselves out using nuclear weapons or do you mean something else?
I use "nuclear fission" as a sort of "technological landmark". But I was thinking both in terms of "actively" wiping itself out (i.e. wars of some kind) and "passively" destroying itself just like we're currently doing by polluting everything and depleting resources at an insane rate.
A few things to consider here. First, I don't see a way any of that life at T+15M would have become intelligent before the background got too cold. Second, we do not know if it's even possible for life to actually colonize other star systems and even if it is, what's the percentage of intelligent civilizations that achieve that. Of course, the really interesting question is how long an intelligent civilization can last before either destroying itself or depleting all its resources. Personally, I would suspect the half-life of a civilization is less than 1000 years after discovery of nuclear fission.
Most of these diets just make eating inconvenient in some way. Either because there's half the stuff you can't eat, or because you can't eat X with Y,... I'm sure the "eat anything you like as long as you're up side down" diet would work too. The problem is that you can't keep doing it for years.
about the fact that vaccinated children indeed have a slightly higher risk of having autism... because those that aren't vaccinated have a higher risk of dying before they're even old enough to be diagnosed with autism.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I heard, it still supports unencrypted, but only if both the client and server ask for it. If either one asks for encryption, then the connection is encrypted, even if there's no authentication (i.e. certificate). With no certificate, it's still possible to pull an active(MitM) attack, which is much harder to pull off at a large scale without anyone noticing (i.e. you can just collect all data you see).
The boneheaded part was not realizing that clock speed was about to stop increasing very very soon.
But there is definitely an allure to private schools, where the vast majority of the students are there to learn, most of the parents care enough to spend inordinate amounts of money on education, and the entire system is geared towards keeping your business and keeping those Ivy League acceptance rates up instead of ass-covering.
Having been to a private school, I can tell you that most of the focus is not education, but on looking good to the parents. I don't think teachers are any better (though probably not worse), and the main reason students are better come down to pre-selection (entrance exam, no poor children). The only fundamental plus is that they're allowed to expel troublemakers.
The thing that bothers me most with Google (not just Gmail, Android too) is the constant change in interface. I use the average app about 2-3 times between UI redesigns. I don't care how great the new UI is if it takes me more time to learn it than the time it's going to save until the next redesign. How about you make your new designs 3x better and update 1/3 as often? Seems like it would help the vast majority here.
The hydrostatic pressure at the surface is the atmospheric pressure, yes. Not at the bottom, I'm not an idiot. So in your fantasy siphon, you have 100 kPa pressure (absolute) at the surface, then 10 m higher, you have 0 kPa pressure, then 10 m further up you have -100 kPa. Oops.
rho, g, h - the density of the fluid, gravity and the depth of the fluid.... not atmospheric pressure
Indeed, the difference in pressure is independent of atmospheric pressure. The only problem is that at the base of the column, the hydrostatic pressure equals the atmospheric pressure. Oh and you're not allowed to have a negative pressure!
and where do you think the hydrostatic pressure is from? You seem to be saying that I could build a siphon that starts at the top of a building, bring the pipe all the way up to the edge of space, then back down to the bottom of the building and the siphon would work fine? In any column of liquid of height h, with density rho, the change in hydrostatic pressure between the top and bottom of the column is going to be equal to rho*g*h (g=9.8 m/s^2). This is why for water, if you start with 1 atm and go up 10 m, you have zero hydrostatic pressure left. Beyond that you'll get a bit of surface tension, and then if you keep going up, your column will split unless you have some other force.
At 9 m high, the column of water can't break because that would create a vacuum and the atmospheric pressure of ~100 kPa is enough to push a column of water up to 10 high. OTOH, at 11 m, you'd end up with vacuum and two columns. It's the same reason you can't drink water from an 11m high straw, even if you have really powerful lungs. In any siphon, you need gravity to get the liquid to move, and you need some other force to keep the columns of liquid from separating around the highest point. That force can be atmospheric pressure, or it can be attraction between the molecules themselves (aka surface tension). At one point, any of these will break, or are you saying you can build a siphon that goes 100 km high?
I'm not saying it's about hiding something, just about demonstrating up to the level where the thing will work. I don't know how strong the surface tension is exactly. What I do know, is that atmospheric pressure is sufficient to have a siphon that's 10 meters tall and I very much doubt that surface tension comes even close to that value. I'm sure your friend would be able to calculate how high it goes, but I doubt that's more than a few cm high.
The two properties you need for a siphon are the cohesion of the liquid (and this is true for the regular water siphon) and gravity, with the latter being the key player.
...and the former still being essential because if you lose cohesion you have two separate columns and nothing flowing.
Atmospheric pressure is not needed.
Atmospheric pressure is what provides the cohesion in the normal case of the water siphon. It means you can in theory have a siphon that climbs up to 10 meters. The experiment in the video indeed does not use atmospheric pressure. It relies on surface tension, which is much weaker. Even if water didn't boil in a vacuum the siphon would work only work for a height around a mm or so (high high can you "pull" water using its surface tension?). The liquid used in the experiment has a much higher surface tension than water, which is shy the siphon works at all. That being said, I doubt it would work for much higher than what was shown in the experiment -- if it did, the experimenters would have shown us a more impressive siphon.
In this case they rely on surface tension, and while it works at a few cm height, I doubt it would work for a 1 meter siphon.
...a 1.5 m high siphon was set up in a hypobaric chamber to explore siphon behaviour in a low-pressure environment. When the pressure in the chamber was reduced to about 0.18 atmospheres...
Atmospheric pressure isn't enough, but it's still required. In this experiment, 0.18 atmosphere is just enough for (in theory) a 1.8 meter siphon, had the guy attempted to get it to work at 2 meters, it would have failed because the atmospheric pressure needs to be high enough to hold the column of liquid.
As far as I'm concerned, the message should be:
"Here's the only link between vaccines and autism: if you don't vaccinate your children, they might die before they can even be diagnosed with autism."
Good, then you can make use of almost 16 bits!
Now only is 192 kHz/24 bit silly in general, it's even more silly for a portable music player, that's usually used in places with a higher background noise than your living room. Listening to music above 100 dB SPL in a cafe with noise at 50 dB SPL means you only need an SNR of 50 dB, just slightly more than 8 bits.
Consider this, if an electron were to transition from "really far" down to the first energy level of the hydrogen atom, then the photon emitted would have an energy of 13.6 eV, and the mass of the resulting hydrogen atom would be 13.6 eV less than the sum of the original masses.
Sorry, I meant to say 511 *keV* for the rest mass of the electron.
Actually, the mass of a hydrogen atom isn't equal to the sum mass of the proton and that of the electron. There's a 13.6 eV binding energy (good 'ol E-mc^2) that needs to be taken into account. Considering that the 511 eV rest mass of the electron and the fact that we're taking about measurements that are supposed to be accurate to less than 1 part per billion, then the binding energy is pretty significant. I suspect there are other effects that also need to be taken into account.
More generally, any device that lets energy (light, sound, heat, ...) only flow in one direction has to spend energy to avoid violating the laws of thermodynamics. That's true of this device just like for a heat pump. You could probably also create a real one-way mirror, but again it could not be a passive device and would require energy to operate.
There's about a 99% chance that the "problem" with gcc >=4.7 is that your code isn't compliant with the C standard (e.g. relies on undefined behaviour) and there's a new gcc optimization that makes a new (legal) assumption that your program violates.
Actually, I thought the whole idea of the "Goldilocks universe" was that life could develop anywhere without the need for a star at the right distance (otherwise there's no advantage). The problem then is exactly as you pointed out. There's no way for life to extract energy, no matter what the temperature is, because everything is at thermal equilibrium. The only way to get energy is through a star. And if you have a star, then having the microwave background doesn't help and is just likely to just make your planet too hot.
do you mean that they wipe themselves out using nuclear weapons or do you mean something else?
I use "nuclear fission" as a sort of "technological landmark". But I was thinking both in terms of "actively" wiping itself out (i.e. wars of some kind) and "passively" destroying itself just like we're currently doing by polluting everything and depleting resources at an insane rate.
A few things to consider here. First, I don't see a way any of that life at T+15M would have become intelligent before the background got too cold. Second, we do not know if it's even possible for life to actually colonize other star systems and even if it is, what's the percentage of intelligent civilizations that achieve that. Of course, the really interesting question is how long an intelligent civilization can last before either destroying itself or depleting all its resources. Personally, I would suspect the half-life of a civilization is less than 1000 years after discovery of nuclear fission.
Most of these diets just make eating inconvenient in some way. Either because there's half the stuff you can't eat, or because you can't eat X with Y, ... I'm sure the "eat anything you like as long as you're up side down" diet would work too. The problem is that you can't keep doing it for years.
about the fact that vaccinated children indeed have a slightly higher risk of having autism... because those that aren't vaccinated have a higher risk of dying before they're even old enough to be diagnosed with autism.