When ending a sentence with a quotation, you are supposed to place the period inside the, "quotation marks."
Also note that quotations are always preceded with a comma, and always followed by a comma (inside the quotation marks). Your example sentence should be, 'Saying, "kudo's," means, "belonging to kudo," which I don't think you meant.'
Colons are only used in written English to delineate lists of words or phrases: to demonstrate proper sentence technique, to accurately correct someone's grammar, etc. In your example, a use of quotation marks would be the correct way to do it. Alas, you do not know how end a sentence with a quotation, so we'll let you go on this one.
If-Then clauses should be separated with commas as well. If you are in the third grade, then I can understand the confusion. If you are a high school student (or beyond), then there really is no excuse for making such basic errors in your grammar.
The piece has been taken out of context. It's an academic brainstorm, put up in a blog for comment. It's not a finished, polished paper.
It seems pretty clear to me that the author intends academic-type people to cite the essay. This would be in error, because the quality of the piece is such that it is unworthy of citation by anyone over the age of, say, twelve.
The author is snooty enough to put a citation text in MLA format at the top of the article. I don't know how often you put such a field at the top of your academic brainstorms, but I'll bet it's...oh...never, because you are more intelligent and more humble than that.
Now please stop looking silly by acting as if it was otherwise....No comment.
Pretty much. I should have stopped when I read the sentence, "Which go where gets kinda sticky."
The paper lacks citations, makes broad-sweeping overgeneralizations, and doesn't bother with talking to anybody on either facebook nor on myspace to back up its claims. The postscript states that numerous interviews were done, but no numbers are revealed from these interviews. Indeed, there are no quotations from anyone that was the interviewed -- the only instances of quotations marks are around words like "good," and "middle class," and naturally a quote from a completely unrelated book. The only claim that this paper successfully backs is that determining a person's class in America is hard. I wrote better papers when I was in the sixth grade.
I think it can be summed up with a sentence mid-way through: "I don't have the data to confirm whether or not a statistically significant shift has occurred but it was one of those things that just made me think." If the author doesn't have data, then why are they bothering with making a claim?
I'm putting slashdot back on my dns blackhole so that the temptation to read is destroyed...
I'm not sure that SR-72 could be a valid name for the plane? During testing, wouldn't that imply a designation of XP-72 or XF-72, which has already been used? Someone that knows more about experimental aircraft and their designations may want to chime in.
What next, an article on slashdot detailing the dissimilarities between the internet and a truck?
A senator warned about email tax? Senators say a lot of stupid and crazy things that aren't true. Until there is actual legislation on the table, the title of the article certainly isn't slashdot-worthy (can you say 'FUD'? I knew you could).
Internet sales tax is maybe slashdot-worthy, but it really isn't about internet sales tax. It's really about interstate sales tax -- telephone orders, even in-person orders that get delivered elsewhere would be subject to the same legislation.
At the very worst, you'll see a lot of internet sales companies move their 'operations center' to Delaware on paper or something...
For example, in the sex education case from your post, the girl probably tried to sue the football player first. The football player's lawyer came up with a great argument: "How can you prove my client is guilty? You haven't tried this other party (the school) first, and it appears that they're really to blame." This claim casts doubt on the the player's guilt. The trial cannot move forward until this question is examined (i.e. another trial). Only if that trial comes back saying that the school is innocent can the trial for the football player proceed on solid ground.
Same with the gun manufacturer case. If you try the shooter, they'll defend themself with the crime-of-passion argument, and that the real culprit is the manufacturer for not doing enough to prevent crime-of-passion shootings.
The whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing comes to play. Defendents in a case have a lot of incentive to pass blame on to a bigger entity -- if the case is dismissed, charges cannot be brought against the little guy again (at least, not the same charges). So, in general, during a lawsuit, you have to 'cast the widest net.' Start with the highest guy up on the food chain, and if they can defend themself, try the next choice down the chain. This has the added benefit of maximizing the potential settlement, but honestly this isn't why people do it -- it's just a legal requirement (assuming the defense lawyer(s) involved is/are competent).
I'm sure there's a nice latin term for this sort of passing-the-buck law, someone please share...
Google "Taliban 2007" for all the reference you need.
Let's see, which article is it that you're referring to? Perhaps it's "Taliban behead Afghan translator." Oh wait, that backs up the GP's claim. How about "Taliban commander vows bloody 2007 in Afghanistan". Oh wait, that's bad too. Um, it must be, "New strategy in Taliban's Offensive." That's a meaningless headline, the article shows that the Taliban's kidnapping efforts in 2007 are quite effective. Crap. That's bad news, too.
So which story (not counting the blogs and opinion pieces) are you referring to to back up the claim that we're kicking ass with the search cited above? I certainly don't see it on the first three pages of google results.
Which kinda proves my point. The US media does not present any US military victories, just "how many US soldiers died today." Why should I have to go outside US media outlets to find out how many "insurgents" we are killing vs. how many soldiers we are losing. It's kinda hard to keep score when all you see is how many scores opponent has. Don't get me wrong, this is not a game, but if we attack an Al Qaeda stronghold and kill 10,000 insurgents and lose 5 US soldiers, all I see reported is how Al Qaeda killed five soldiers today. Are you telling me that's not pushing an agenda?
This is the fault of the pentagon, not the US media.
There are two ways that enemies die in this war, and our news agencies report on both.
Type 1: suicide bomb. You're right, the media doesn't explicitly say how many enemies died. But when I read the story "19 US soldiers killed by a suicide truck bomb," I generally assume, "1 (maybe 2) enemy died, 19 US soldiers died." I guess news stories should make this more explicit, you're right. These stories usually use the word "fighting" on its own to depict the violence.
Type 2: Enemy death is combat in a firefight. This isn't very common, insurgents avoid firefights because they tend to die and don't get to kill a lot of US soldiers in the process. These stories usually use the phrase "fierce fighting" to depict the violence. The trouble here is that only the military has the ability to count the dead, because they secure the area once they kill the enemy. They don't announce the numbers. It was a lesson they learned from Vietnam: the more numbers of dead people you put in front of our citizens, the more likely they are to oppose a war. Or in the words of Tommy Franks, "We don't do body counts." He said that quote at the start of operations in Afghanistan, referring to the US counting the deaths of enemy combatants. That is pentagon policy, and it is documented everywhere. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Type 2 deaths being unreported isn't the fault of the media. This is the 'fault' of the Pentagon. The trouble is, and the military is slow to learn this, the trouble is that all we see every day are our soldiers' deaths, because that's the only number they have to give us. There are rare instances where an embedded journalist gets to count the number of insurgents killed, or where foreign reporters hear the number and the US can't intimidate them into keeping the numbers to themselves, but it's pretty rare. The first thing to happen to a journalist if a skirmish breaks out is our soldiers grab him and take him/her to safety, where they can't count enemies.
It's kind of a shame, I agree, but announcing these numbers (the enemy combatant deaths) is a two-edged sword for public opinion. Sure it shows them "Gee, we're winning, see? 15 insurgents die for every american soldier that dies!" On the other hand, this kind of number has proven to actually weaken our resolve. We come to say, "Just what the heck are so many people dying for, anyway? This whole thing is stupid!"
This is a topic that has been written about widely by UPI, Reuters, and a lot of foreign press has covered. Just google for "enemy combatant deaths" or similar. Lots of press on this issue in Canada and the UK and other foreign countries...
explains that the number of women in CS is shrinking
I'm sorry, but we use natural numbers to count numbers of items that exist in the world. You can't subtract from 0 in the natural numbers. So this sentence is in error.
Making the claim that there's any 'profit' involved with these old systems is kind of silly. The Lisa originally sold for $9,995. Assuming you bought one years later for $3k, you'd still only be looking at ~4.5% interest over the 20-some odd years of the "investment." Compare that to the S&P500s average return over the last 40 years, and you'll probably say "oh, I should have done something different with that money."
Collecting old computers is all about the fun. Unless, of course, you find some obsolete hardware that your work is throwing away, and that you can ebay for a few grand...
Out of the box it only had support for Windows, and was really designed for windows users.
Yes, it was designed for Windows users. That is evident by the the security of the original release. no root password + an ftp server that binds to all interfaces (and can't be disabled without killing the graphical environment) == instant fun!
If someone does break the new key, just wait. Please, wait. Until the format war is over, and there are thousands of titles out, everybody has a player, etc. Then announce.
It's a troll, but hey I'll bite. I used to catch yellow-fin perch that way.
Most of the phone calls made were not made by cellular telephones, but were made by the inside handsets (Airphones). The media widely reported cell phone use for unknown reasons (media doesn't seem to care much for factual accuracy). The only cell phone calls made were at the very end, when the plane flew at 5,000 feet of altitude (so it was very very low). The Moussai trial notes state that only two such phone calls were made, the other hundred or so were made with Airphones.
Of course, the passengers probably used the airphones because their cell phones just didn't work. If you're feeling frisky sometime, try and turn your cell phone on on an airplane (I've done it before by mistake, my cell phone is a smartphone and I just plain forgot to put it in "flight mode"). The one time I've done it I had no signal during the cruising part of my flight.
The real reason is that they wouldn't work. Phones would only work during taxi, takeoff, and landing. The rest of the time, you're cruising along at 3x,000 or 4x,000 feet, and are a good 5-6 miles *above* cell towers. Cell towers don't broadcast their signal up, they use directional antennas that go side-to-side where people actually live. So your cell phone would only work at two times during a flight. Those two times are when ground control/pilot communication is crucial. The benefits (an extra 15-20
minutes where passengers can talk with their friends/coworkers) really don't justify the risks (failure to communicate, even if this risk is quite small).
A rule of thumb is that you have to subtract about 1 km/h to your treadmill speed in order to have an idea on how fast you can go on the road.
Also remember the obvious gravitational difference. When running in free-fall, I can push off the ground and coast 26.2 miles in a single step. A major resistance in running comes from gravity, because we have to bend our legs to buckle to gravity somewhat, and then straighten them to counteract gravity again. That takes a lot of energy over a marathon. The only 'real' way to simulate that would be to place her in some kind of a brace that pushed down on her with a force equivalent to her weight in earth gravity, pushing her into the treadmill.
Of course, where are you going to 'push'. It really wouldn't be fair to push on her shoulders -- her back would get quite sore during the run. The only legitimate way would be to push on her hips, I guess. Interesting device. And, like you said, add wind resistance.
I'm moving to Washington State soon. I wonder what their reaction will be when I apply for one of these and during the interview state that I'm a security researcher interested in breaking it.:).
can be safely used to protect wireless networks in business and government facilities.
Funny, I work for the government and there is no directive saying that we can install wireless if we use EM-shielding paint. We still have to do far more fancy things to secure our wireless infrastructure.
Your post seems to imply that *every* operation a CPU does requires some I/O. This is hardly the case. Most of the computation that occurs in a normal well-written program only requires the CPU. For example, compare these two code snippets and tell me which one is more likely to be seen in an actual program that gets run on your computer:
If you said "Snippet 1", congratulations. You just proved my point. The CPU did a lot of operations in Snippet 1 and the only thing it had to talk to "outside" the CPU was to copy data from memory into registers. If the CPU has a somewhat competent cachine mechanism and the program was written well (so 'list' is bunched together in memory), you'll see something like a > 99% cache hit rate, so you won't even have to wait for memory, only for CPU cache most of the time. Snippet 2 demonstrates a process that does as much I/O as you think we need: one I/O operation per CPU instruction, but really we don't need that much I/O because we're not debugging everything in an amateur way.
Seriously. Most colleges have cable in the dorm. It won't be long before the kids just get a cable modem or DSL service instead of using the campus Intarnet anyway.
This is a classic example of chasing the symptom instead of the "disease" (if, indeed, using the internet a lot could be considered a disease). If the college really thinks downloading warez and pr0n and other late-night internet activities are so bad, why not, y'know, educate students. Oh my, I just suggested that a university educate students. What am I thinking?
The real-world has 24/7/365 internet access (unless you use time warner cable) and a whole lot of things to waste your time with (like, oh, slashdot). It's better for students to be confronted with this reality in a nurturing environment instead of just being thrown into it later on. But hey, I'm one of those people that thinks college is the time in your life when you're supposed to screw up a lot and learn a bunch of things via those screw-ups, and that a university shouldn't try to be a nanny...
Yeah, I definitely concede that some of the people that modded me as a troll are probably right. Ohwell.
I guess the point that I'm trying to convey is that the only way "Don't be Evil" can convey any meaning at all is if the speaker has some absolute ruleset of morality. To convey this point, let's take "democratic rule" to an extreme for the sake of argument. Suppose there is a country, XYZ, with a democratically elected government. The people in that country decide that, for every $1,000 a company makes, it must sacrifice one kitten. Does Google draw the line there? Probably. But maybe not! Then replace kitten with child. Hopefully yes in that case...
The arbitrary and I admit horribly emotional law would demonstrate where Google's absolute morality lies. I guess mine lies somewhere on the "hippie" side of IPOs (meaning I would stay out of India, and which ultimately means I wouldn't take my company public). Public companies often strive to satisfy the law at the expense of morality (or at least at my definition of morality).
At the very least, I think I *would* like Google to judge another country's morality on the legal basis of the United States (kind of the inverse of the above). If India doesn't like it, they're a democracy, their citizens can change their vote. As for cultural imperialism, it's a weak argument...India could certainly start their own version of Google that followed their laws. It's a free internet...
Google does a lot of Good things, like posting the full text of DMCA takedown threats (including links to the actual offshore websites). Legally it has no obligation to do such things. Shareholders could probably take the stance that doing so costs Google money for no return. But it does them anyway. They have a strong moral compass somewhere...I just wish I would see them take a stand on bigger things like India (or China:)) to protect ideals like privacy and free speech, which they appear to care about when dealing with those of us in the US.
I'll echo the hundred other people here. I drive a VW TDI, which means Turbo Direct Inject. It's pretty old-hat for diesel cars. For gasoline engines, though, this is certainly something new.
TFA is pretty bad IMHO. First they say the new engine would have triple the efficiency. Later they say a 25% increase in efficiency. What they propose, is to start using pressures inside the combustion chamber similar to that found in a diesel motor (most gas cars are ~10:1 compression, diesels are ~20:1). They don't talk about NOx, oxides of nitrogen, that tend to form when fuel is combusted at higher pressures of O2, though. Will modern catalytic converters be enough to deal with the increased NOx? Catalytic converters are probably the biggest bane for diesels, because the fuel has more sulfur than gasoline, and sulfur kills the magic catalyst material by bonding to it and making it not respond to nitrogen anymore. Ethanol probably doesn't have that problem, but the volume of NOx coming out the tailpipe will need some dealing with, the unit injectors for the ethanol will be expensive (you'll need fuel injectors + unit injectors or a common rail system, instead of just unit injectors/common rail on a modern diesel), and all for not a lot of gain in efficiency.
It seems like a lot of research will have to be done to make gasoline cars as efficient as a modern diesel, and then even more work will have to be done to clean it up. Yikes. I'll stick with my Jetta, thankyouverymuch.
Slashdot Mirror
When ending a sentence with a quotation, you are supposed to place the period inside the, "quotation marks."
Also note that quotations are always preceded with a comma, and always followed by a comma (inside the quotation marks). Your example sentence should be, 'Saying, "kudo's," means, "belonging to kudo," which I don't think you meant.'
Colons are only used in written English to delineate lists of words or phrases: to demonstrate proper sentence technique, to accurately correct someone's grammar, etc. In your example, a use of quotation marks would be the correct way to do it. Alas, you do not know how end a sentence with a quotation, so we'll let you go on this one.
If-Then clauses should be separated with commas as well. If you are in the third grade, then I can understand the confusion. If you are a high school student (or beyond), then there really is no excuse for making such basic errors in your grammar.
Best,
Reid
Yep, San Diego. Charleston/Suffolk, I'm guessing?
Ever heard of Ron Broersma?
You have machines in guam? Me too. Creepy. Are you my boss (e.g. where do you work?)?
The piece has been taken out of context. It's an academic brainstorm, put up in a blog for comment. It's not a finished, polished paper.
...No comment.
It seems pretty clear to me that the author intends academic-type people to cite the essay. This would be in error, because the quality of the piece is such that it is unworthy of citation by anyone over the age of, say, twelve.
The author is snooty enough to put a citation text in MLA format at the top of the article. I don't know how often you put such a field at the top of your academic brainstorms, but I'll bet it's...oh...never, because you are more intelligent and more humble than that.
Now please stop looking silly by acting as if it was otherwise.
Reid
Pretty much. I should have stopped when I read the sentence, "Which go where gets kinda sticky."
The paper lacks citations, makes broad-sweeping overgeneralizations, and doesn't bother with talking to anybody on either facebook nor on myspace to back up its claims. The postscript states that numerous interviews were done, but no numbers are revealed from these interviews. Indeed, there are no quotations from anyone that was the interviewed -- the only instances of quotations marks are around words like "good," and "middle class," and naturally a quote from a completely unrelated book. The only claim that this paper successfully backs is that determining a person's class in America is hard. I wrote better papers when I was in the sixth grade.
I think it can be summed up with a sentence mid-way through: "I don't have the data to confirm whether or not a statistically significant shift has occurred but it was one of those things that just made me think." If the author doesn't have data, then why are they bothering with making a claim?
I'm putting slashdot back on my dns blackhole so that the temptation to read is destroyed...
I'm not sure that SR-72 could be a valid name for the plane? During testing, wouldn't that imply a designation of XP-72 or XF-72, which has already been used? Someone that knows more about experimental aircraft and their designations may want to chime in.
Reid
What next, an article on slashdot detailing the dissimilarities between the internet and a truck?
A senator warned about email tax? Senators say a lot of stupid and crazy things that aren't true. Until there is actual legislation on the table, the title of the article certainly isn't slashdot-worthy (can you say 'FUD'? I knew you could).
Internet sales tax is maybe slashdot-worthy, but it really isn't about internet sales tax. It's really about interstate sales tax -- telephone orders, even in-person orders that get delivered elsewhere would be subject to the same legislation.
At the very worst, you'll see a lot of internet sales companies move their 'operations center' to Delaware on paper or something...
Reid
The problem isn't people. It's the legal system.
For example, in the sex education case from your post, the girl probably tried to sue the football player first. The football player's lawyer came up with a great argument: "How can you prove my client is guilty? You haven't tried this other party (the school) first, and it appears that they're really to blame." This claim casts doubt on the the player's guilt. The trial cannot move forward until this question is examined (i.e. another trial). Only if that trial comes back saying that the school is innocent can the trial for the football player proceed on solid ground.
Same with the gun manufacturer case. If you try the shooter, they'll defend themself with the crime-of-passion argument, and that the real culprit is the manufacturer for not doing enough to prevent crime-of-passion shootings.
The whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing comes to play. Defendents in a case have a lot of incentive to pass blame on to a bigger entity -- if the case is dismissed, charges cannot be brought against the little guy again (at least, not the same charges). So, in general, during a lawsuit, you have to 'cast the widest net.' Start with the highest guy up on the food chain, and if they can defend themself, try the next choice down the chain. This has the added benefit of maximizing the potential settlement, but honestly this isn't why people do it -- it's just a legal requirement (assuming the defense lawyer(s) involved is/are competent).
I'm sure there's a nice latin term for this sort of passing-the-buck law, someone please share...
Reid
So is this cable going to tie in to Kinakuta at any point? I want my data haven!
Let's see, which article is it that you're referring to? Perhaps it's "Taliban behead Afghan translator." Oh wait, that backs up the GP's claim. How about "Taliban commander vows bloody 2007 in Afghanistan". Oh wait, that's bad too. Um, it must be, "New strategy in Taliban's Offensive." That's a meaningless headline, the article shows that the Taliban's kidnapping efforts in 2007 are quite effective. Crap. That's bad news, too.
So which story (not counting the blogs and opinion pieces) are you referring to to back up the claim that we're kicking ass with the search cited above? I certainly don't see it on the first three pages of google results.
Which kinda proves my point. The US media does not present any US military victories, just "how many US soldiers died today." Why should I have to go outside US media outlets to find out how many "insurgents" we are killing vs. how many soldiers we are losing. It's kinda hard to keep score when all you see is how many scores opponent has. Don't get me wrong, this is not a game, but if we attack an Al Qaeda stronghold and kill 10,000 insurgents and lose 5 US soldiers, all I see reported is how Al Qaeda killed five soldiers today. Are you telling me that's not pushing an agenda?
This is the fault of the pentagon, not the US media.
There are two ways that enemies die in this war, and our news agencies report on both.
Type 1: suicide bomb. You're right, the media doesn't explicitly say how many enemies died. But when I read the story "19 US soldiers killed by a suicide truck bomb," I generally assume, "1 (maybe 2) enemy died, 19 US soldiers died." I guess news stories should make this more explicit, you're right. These stories usually use the word "fighting" on its own to depict the violence.
Type 2: Enemy death is combat in a firefight. This isn't very common, insurgents avoid firefights because they tend to die and don't get to kill a lot of US soldiers in the process. These stories usually use the phrase "fierce fighting" to depict the violence. The trouble here is that only the military has the ability to count the dead, because they secure the area once they kill the enemy. They don't announce the numbers. It was a lesson they learned from Vietnam: the more numbers of dead people you put in front of our citizens, the more likely they are to oppose a war. Or in the words of Tommy Franks, "We don't do body counts." He said that quote at the start of operations in Afghanistan, referring to the US counting the deaths of enemy combatants. That is pentagon policy, and it is documented everywhere. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Type 2 deaths being unreported isn't the fault of the media. This is the 'fault' of the Pentagon. The trouble is, and the military is slow to learn this, the trouble is that all we see every day are our soldiers' deaths, because that's the only number they have to give us. There are rare instances where an embedded journalist gets to count the number of insurgents killed, or where foreign reporters hear the number and the US can't intimidate them into keeping the numbers to themselves, but it's pretty rare. The first thing to happen to a journalist if a skirmish breaks out is our soldiers grab him and take him/her to safety, where they can't count enemies.
It's kind of a shame, I agree, but announcing these numbers (the enemy combatant deaths) is a two-edged sword for public opinion. Sure it shows them "Gee, we're winning, see? 15 insurgents die for every american soldier that dies!" On the other hand, this kind of number has proven to actually weaken our resolve. We come to say, "Just what the heck are so many people dying for, anyway? This whole thing is stupid!"
This is a topic that has been written about widely by UPI, Reuters, and a lot of foreign press has covered. Just google for "enemy combatant deaths" or similar. Lots of press on this issue in Canada and the UK and other foreign countries...
explains that the number of women in CS is shrinking
I'm sorry, but we use natural numbers to count numbers of items that exist in the world. You can't subtract from 0 in the natural numbers. So this sentence is in error.
Making the claim that there's any 'profit' involved with these old systems is kind of silly. The Lisa originally sold for $9,995. Assuming you bought one years later for $3k, you'd still only be looking at ~4.5% interest over the 20-some odd years of the "investment." Compare that to the S&P500s average return over the last 40 years, and you'll probably say "oh, I should have done something different with that money."
Collecting old computers is all about the fun. Unless, of course, you find some obsolete hardware that your work is throwing away, and that you can ebay for a few grand...
Reid
Out of the box it only had support for Windows, and was really designed for windows users.
Yes, it was designed for Windows users. That is evident by the the security of the original release. no root password + an ftp server that binds to all interfaces (and can't be disabled without killing the graphical environment) == instant fun!
Reid
If someone does break the new key, just wait. Please, wait. Until the format war is over, and there are thousands of titles out, everybody has a player, etc. Then announce.
Thanks for listening.
It's a troll, but hey I'll bite. I used to catch yellow-fin perch that way.
Most of the phone calls made were not made by cellular telephones, but were made by the inside handsets (Airphones). The media widely reported cell phone use for unknown reasons (media doesn't seem to care much for factual accuracy). The only cell phone calls made were at the very end, when the plane flew at 5,000 feet of altitude (so it was very very low). The Moussai trial notes state that only two such phone calls were made, the other hundred or so were made with Airphones.
Of course, the passengers probably used the airphones because their cell phones just didn't work. If you're feeling frisky sometime, try and turn your cell phone on on an airplane (I've done it before by mistake, my cell phone is a smartphone and I just plain forgot to put it in "flight mode"). The one time I've done it I had no signal during the cruising part of my flight.
Reid
The real reason is that they wouldn't work. Phones would only work during taxi, takeoff, and landing. The rest of the time, you're cruising along at 3x,000 or 4x,000 feet, and are a good 5-6 miles *above* cell towers. Cell towers don't broadcast their signal up, they use directional antennas that go side-to-side where people actually live. So your cell phone would only work at two times during a flight. Those two times are when ground control/pilot communication is crucial. The benefits (an extra 15-20
minutes where passengers can talk with their friends/coworkers) really don't justify the risks (failure to communicate, even if this risk is quite small).
Reid
A rule of thumb is that you have to subtract about 1 km/h to your treadmill speed in order to have an idea on how fast you can go on the road.
Also remember the obvious gravitational difference. When running in free-fall, I can push off the ground and coast 26.2 miles in a single step. A major resistance in running comes from gravity, because we have to bend our legs to buckle to gravity somewhat, and then straighten them to counteract gravity again. That takes a lot of energy over a marathon. The only 'real' way to simulate that would be to place her in some kind of a brace that pushed down on her with a force equivalent to her weight in earth gravity, pushing her into the treadmill.
Of course, where are you going to 'push'. It really wouldn't be fair to push on her shoulders -- her back would get quite sore during the run. The only legitimate way would be to push on her hips, I guess. Interesting device. And, like you said, add wind resistance.
Reid
I'm moving to Washington State soon. I wonder what their reaction will be when I apply for one of these and during the interview state that I'm a security researcher interested in breaking it. :).
Reid
can be safely used to protect wireless networks in business and government facilities.
Funny, I work for the government and there is no directive saying that we can install wireless if we use EM-shielding paint. We still have to do far more fancy things to secure our wireless infrastructure.
This is a nice slashvertisement, though.
Here
Your post seems to imply that *every* operation a CPU does requires some I/O. This is hardly the case. Most of the computation that occurs in a normal well-written program only requires the CPU. For example, compare these two code snippets and tell me which one is more likely to be seen in an actual program that gets run on your computer:
Snippet 1:
while(list != null){
if(list.val == i){
break;
list = list->next;
}
Snippet 2:
fprintf(IOPORT, "Starting search\n");
while(list != null){
fprintf(IOPORT, "Trying %d\n", i);
if(list.val == i){
fprintf(IOPORT, "Found it\n");
break;
list = list->next;
fprintf(IOPORT, "Advancing list\n");
}
fprintf(IOPORT, "Done\n");
If you said "Snippet 1", congratulations. You just proved my point. The CPU did a lot of operations in Snippet 1 and the only thing it had to talk to "outside" the CPU was to copy data from memory into registers. If the CPU has a somewhat competent cachine mechanism and the program was written well (so 'list' is bunched together in memory), you'll see something like a > 99% cache hit rate, so you won't even have to wait for memory, only for CPU cache most of the time. Snippet 2 demonstrates a process that does as much I/O as you think we need: one I/O operation per CPU instruction, but really we don't need that much I/O because we're not debugging everything in an amateur way.
Seriously. Most colleges have cable in the dorm. It won't be long before the kids just get a cable modem or DSL service instead of using the campus Intarnet anyway.
This is a classic example of chasing the symptom instead of the "disease" (if, indeed, using the internet a lot could be considered a disease). If the college really thinks downloading warez and pr0n and other late-night internet activities are so bad, why not, y'know, educate students. Oh my, I just suggested that a university educate students. What am I thinking?
The real-world has 24/7/365 internet access (unless you use time warner cable) and a whole lot of things to waste your time with (like, oh, slashdot). It's better for students to be confronted with this reality in a nurturing environment instead of just being thrown into it later on. But hey, I'm one of those people that thinks college is the time in your life when you're supposed to screw up a lot and learn a bunch of things via those screw-ups, and that a university shouldn't try to be a nanny...
Reid
Yeah, I definitely concede that some of the people that modded me as a troll are probably right. Ohwell.
:)) to protect ideals like privacy and free speech, which they appear to care about when dealing with those of us in the US.
I guess the point that I'm trying to convey is that the only way "Don't be Evil" can convey any meaning at all is if the speaker has some absolute ruleset of morality. To convey this point, let's take "democratic rule" to an extreme for the sake of argument. Suppose there is a country, XYZ, with a democratically elected government. The people in that country decide that, for every $1,000 a company makes, it must sacrifice one kitten. Does Google draw the line there? Probably. But maybe not! Then replace kitten with child. Hopefully yes in that case...
The arbitrary and I admit horribly emotional law would demonstrate where Google's absolute morality lies. I guess mine lies somewhere on the "hippie" side of IPOs (meaning I would stay out of India, and which ultimately means I wouldn't take my company public). Public companies often strive to satisfy the law at the expense of morality (or at least at my definition of morality).
At the very least, I think I *would* like Google to judge another country's morality on the legal basis of the United States (kind of the inverse of the above). If India doesn't like it, they're a democracy, their citizens can change their vote. As for cultural imperialism, it's a weak argument...India could certainly start their own version of Google that followed their laws. It's a free internet...
Google does a lot of Good things, like posting the full text of DMCA takedown threats (including links to the actual offshore websites). Legally it has no obligation to do such things. Shareholders could probably take the stance that doing so costs Google money for no return. But it does them anyway. They have a strong moral compass somewhere...I just wish I would see them take a stand on bigger things like India (or China
I'll echo the hundred other people here. I drive a VW TDI, which means Turbo Direct Inject. It's pretty old-hat for diesel cars. For gasoline engines, though, this is certainly something new.
TFA is pretty bad IMHO. First they say the new engine would have triple the efficiency. Later they say a 25% increase in efficiency. What they propose, is to start using pressures inside the combustion chamber similar to that found in a diesel motor (most gas cars are ~10:1 compression, diesels are ~20:1). They don't talk about NOx, oxides of nitrogen, that tend to form when fuel is combusted at higher pressures of O2, though. Will modern catalytic converters be enough to deal with the increased NOx? Catalytic converters are probably the biggest bane for diesels, because the fuel has more sulfur than gasoline, and sulfur kills the magic catalyst material by bonding to it and making it not respond to nitrogen anymore. Ethanol probably doesn't have that problem, but the volume of NOx coming out the tailpipe will need some dealing with, the unit injectors for the ethanol will be expensive (you'll need fuel injectors + unit injectors or a common rail system, instead of just unit injectors/common rail on a modern diesel), and all for not a lot of gain in efficiency.
It seems like a lot of research will have to be done to make gasoline cars as efficient as a modern diesel, and then even more work will have to be done to clean it up. Yikes. I'll stick with my Jetta, thankyouverymuch.
Reid