I can see most of what they install. Cisco and McAfee stuff in particular.
I'm working on an SSL root certificate problem and certificate chaining, and I have to use virtual machines to do most of it. But I'm also running Wireshark to look at conversations.
Along with having to figure out SSL for my users, I can see what my machine sends back to the mother ship, at least when I can get Wireshark running. So I don't see startup and shutdown traffic, but if they are indeed scraping my cache, it's not obvious at that level.
Of course, they could run any number of appliances out on the rim to do a MITM capture and know everything. Around here, they rarely are that subtle. If they didn't want us using public email, it would just be shut down.
My employer doesn't block the common email services. They do, however, block Google Docs for obvious reasons. I can't be allowed to save data onto public servers, and they can't be bothered to figure out if the data is corporate or personal.
I can live with this. There are other ways to deal with that situation.
I'm a little annoyed that they won't let me have Facebook here, but they gave us back Linkedn recently. I betcha some VP has a profile there.
Now, am I gonna write anything incredibly sensitive on my corporate workstation? Not of a personal nature, of course. Of course. If I were her employer, I would be outraged that she was plotting to sue me on company time and with the company PC. and I would understand, yup, that's what people do.
But their lawyers USED it? That seems really stupid. Is there no protection of attorney-client communications in civil matters? I guess not. Then again...
When you put it that way, April Fools Day is indeed irrelevant.
Sorry, I get cranky when semi-lame April Fools jokes start hitting my sphere of influence around 5:00 AM. Yes, the lame ones make me cranky no matter the time.
Is this hoohah about talking on your phone, or texting with it? C'mon...
Talking on the phone has never been too distracting for me, and is at least as safe as having a passenger, unless she's better looking than my phone. Another problem.
But texting for me is an interesting proposition. Sometimes I do fine, and someetimes I have to stop cause I'm just not supertasking. I can see banning that, but banning conversations talking on the phone, that's stupid if you have a headset. If you don't, you should consider getting more life insurance. One-handed driving is a ticket to the morgue around here.
ps- 'Supertasking'? Nimrods. What's with the jargon creep?
"Say what you will about China, but you can't deny that they are one of the very few countries with their population size under control."
China used, to some extent, forced sterlization and forced abortions. Can't argue with their results?
Yes I can. The Cultural revolution was also effective population control. How do you feel about that? Is it different to kill adults than it is to kill in utero? How?
Oh, and at least in America, some people make sacrifices just to live. Democracy is becoming something that many 'warned' us about - voting ourselves largesse without considering how to pay for it. Actually, we let our representatives vote these favors. We gotta change that, or we will indeed go broke. And a bankrupt America guarantees climate change.
Columbia was destroyed on re-entry when wing damage allowed hot gas to compromise the wing structure leading to structural failure of the vehicle. The damage was caused on launch by a piece of external fuel tank insulation broke away and damaged the wing leading edge. This was not a main engine failure.
There are three Shuttle Main Engines. These are directly mounted to the aft sectTion of the Shuttle. Also 2 Solid Rocket Boosters used for launch only, mounted alongside the external tank.
The Challenger accident was caused by a failed o-ring in one of the SRBs caused apparently by low temperatures and failed to properly seal. This permitted hot gas to burn a hole through the external fuel tank and cause an explosion, with the resultant high-speed accleration of the crew compartment and eventual crash to the ocean with significant g-force, causing the death of the crew at some point during or after the explosion.
Neither of these accidents were caused by the 'main engine (sic)'.
It is unlikely that even mounting the Shuttle atop a launch vehicle would have saved it from an accident similar to that of Challenger. The explosion would likely either envelope the vehicle, or accelerate it beyond crew survival. Needless to say, vehicle stack has nothing to do with failures on re-entry, save that in a fully stacked configuration the wings would not be subject to damage from external fuel tank insulation loss.
Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo escape systems all would have probably been unable to save the capsules in the event of a catastrophic launch vehicle failure. If launch control was able to detect an impending failure they might have been able to get the abort off in time to get the capsule away from the explosion, but that's not assured.
Indeed, the escape systems were intended to (obviously) save the capsule from launchpad failures, facilitate aborts under fairly manageable conditions - launch vehicle off-course, loss of thrust beyond minimums for even emergency splashdowns, and of course other failures that permitted time to make the decision. There were onboard systems to detect a launch vehicle failure and trigger an escape on Mercury test launches, so I suspect they were on manned launches and probably similar systems on Gemini and Apollo. I wonder if they would have saved an Apollo capsule. That Saturn V is a lot of fuel. Maybe Gemini with the service module in the way. Mercury was truly spam-in-a-can, and I bet it was considered a gamble, but they did make an effort to save the astronaut, which is good sense. Astronauts are the most expensive part of the mission, usually. (Intentional understatement)
I'm actually standing by the 'dumass' remark. So far, the Shuttle Main Engines are not at fault for any accident, though by extension the external tank has been the contributing factor in both, weather and the SRB in one, and fragile (relatively) wing edges in another, sort of. But I didn't mean to be so harsh. Sorry. Maybe make that into 'not'. Better?
A short stretch of I-95 just North of Portland, Maine, had a dip in the road that caused drivers to slow down jsut a little bit. Not a big thing most of the year, but during the summer tourist season, traffic density and unfamiliar drivers conspired to produce many accidents. A typical scenario I've seen several times, the names, car makes and models, and dates are all changed to protect the guilty:
Early Friday morning rush hour, and plenty of tourists are still slamming it up I-95 with trailer in tow to get to their favorite campground before anyone else does, and they've been driving from Massachusetts for a few hours. Everyone tailgates here cause it's as straight as an arrow for 12 miles. While Donna is putting on her lipstick in the rearview mirror of her pickup, Jimmy is right behind her trying to get a better look at, well where he wants to be. Donna taps the brakes to avoid rear-ending the guy in front of her (no, not me, I'm in the other lane), and Jimmy has to hit his harder to avoid rear-ending her in a way he didn't mean to. Well, Harold behind him hits the brakes a little bit harder, and being a newbie to trailers, he didn't set up the brakes right and his trailer wobbles a litle bit. Behind him that sweet nurse from 3E is scared to death, and slams on the brakes to avoid going to her own ER. That's where the accidents occur, but they were caused up ahead when the guy ahead of Donna slowed down cause he couldn't see past the dip right about where the old Scarborough town line is, I think.
Maine DOT took out that dip when they widened the road. Smoothed out traffic, and saved lives.
Here in the Phoenix area, we are legend for running stop lights. Main streets are laid out in a nice planned grid, but the lights are synched to trap you into doing the speed limit. Mostly. It gets annoying to have to obey the limit, so lots of us clip the yellow and get flashed by the red-light cameras at selected intersections. Eventually, enough $238 tickets convinces you to just let it go and slow downb, unless you're an illegal running from Sheriff Joe. But slowing traffic here is mostly an exercise in signal timing and fines. In Gilbert, the downtown is a slower speed limit, and the setbacks usualyl make you feel congested and make you want to slow down anyways.
And none of this is the least bit new. In the 70s I checked out the traffic studies for Brewer, Maine, my hometown, and read about the design challenges of the Main/State Street intersection intersection, one of the most deadly in Maine. No easy fixes, back then as it was at the top of a hill. Running that light meant you had to trust there was nothing turning left in front of you over the crest of the hill. It doesn't happen like in the movies, let me tell ya. They rarely got through. Poor blighters.
Seriously, none of this is in the least new. Interstate exit and on ramps are designed with differing radii to slow down drivers as they tighten their turns. Rotaries are intended to control traffic. Nothing new since at least the fifties.
"It's quite common actually, and many documented studies have proven it does occur."
Define 'proven'. Single-bit errors in memory are usually described as hardware failures. Memtest86 tests for this, I think, as did many older PC diagnostics. Memory isn't flawless. Are you implying that some appreciable fraction of memory bit flips are actualyl comsic-ray induced, and if so, what study says how many?
"You don't hear much because well, the effects are minimal in most cases. A flipped bit in RAM does nothing if it's just unused memory, for example."
My system at work uses virtually all of its RAM at some point during the day, so I expect this is not so easy an analysis as it appears to be. And I'm already juggling a few paramaters that make it seem very, very difficult, and I'm not much of a mathematician.
Some of your other comments offer even more variables and make it seem even more unlikely, to me, that cosmic rays cause that many problems.
From the Wikipedia; "Studies by IBM in the 1990s suggest that computers typically experience about one cosmic-ray-induced error per 256 megabytes of RAM per month." Interesting, as it was somewhat late in the 90s before many computers had 256MB or RAM... I think. I was pretty happy to have a 486DX-50 with 8MB RAM in 1994 or so. A GB of RAM I didn't get until after 200, IIRC. IBM must be using some statistical analysis, so maybe my poor 486 got as many as 30 hits a month. Being a Novell server, it was using most of its memory, but not a very busy server so I may have missed some events. However, it did go +800 days without a restart or uncorrectable error. Must be lucky. Actually truth is, using a single PC as an example is kinda useless, isn't it? Not a significant sample.
I'm not entirely discounting cosmic radiation damage as a problem, but blaming these car problems in cosmic rays is the height of foolishness, to me. At that rate, I would expect Ford Tauruses to be havign all sorts of problems in the past. Oh, wait, probably the lack of such computer integration saved them. I'm being serious. But how do Civics and Accords avoid this today? Is there any real evidence that design can limit the damage from cosmic rays?
As for glitches, software is imperfect. Much more likely to be a coding error, I think.
For me, this paper offered the only quick reference to how many particles enter the earth's atmosphere - about one a second. Hmm. How many get to the surface? Even one a second, 31 million a year? Wow. With a surface area of 510M sq. km., that is what, 0.06 hits per sq. km.? Actually, just knowing how darned hard it is to detect these particles tells me they aren't common enough to be common, in a practical sense.
I'm still a little skeptical. Once, yeah. Twice? sure. 100 times? Dunno.
I don't hear much about comsumer electronics being fritzed by cosmic rays, or microwave ovens, etc, though I suppose this might explain the random failurs. But comsmic radiation? That's a new one.
But RHoS being forced by lead decay? I dunno, but tin whiskers is negating any advantage that offers.
Give me good old eutectic 63/37 any day. It just works. Not a lot of kids usae circuit boards as pacifiers, ya know?
"Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks... [or] teach them to swim."
If you fill one swimming pool with chlorinated water, and another with beer, which one will the kids want to be around? And what will they do when they get there?
On the other hand, you need lifeguards at both, until the kids are sufficiently mature to not drown so easily. Which will happen much later at the beer pool. You'll need a curfew and age limits.
So the Wikipedia (I know) says New Moore Island was never higher than two meters above the water. Oh, and that was at low tide. Was this any more than a shoal?
Are you (or the FA writer) claiming the ocean there has risen as much as more than a meter???
I call BS. In fact, I suspect it was erosion that has claimed this island. Maybe, MAYBE accelrated by a few centimeters rise in ocean level, if at all. Wind and water do just fine on their own. In fact, the island was close to, if not within, the main channel of the outlet of the Hariabhanga River. Erosion and currents probably did it in.
What a pantload. Global warming? More likely predictable current-based erosion.
New Moore Island wasn't much of an island. The river took it back.
"I think you hit it spot on, it's not the curriculum, it's how they make it as boring as possible. I didn't enjoy math until I was actually out of public school and did that in my private life. When I picked up a Dover math book and learned the mysteries of such things as mathematical abstraction, that was exciting. At least more than learning maths verboten with no end goal in sight.
Another thing is the lack of math history being taught. Yes 1+0=1. But why? Where did zero come from? Where did numerals come from? Why was Algebra invented and where did it come from? What use is it? What about geometry? Who was Euclid? I could go on and on with fascinating topics related to math. These things are rarely answered. It's all about teaching you to understand one function, one algorithm, one technique, etc. Never to understand _why_. It downright sucks, they take all the fun out of a spectacular field. Thanks to their "teaching" me, I thought math had no room for expansion. Boy was I wrong. It's an abstract fun house where you can do whatever you dream up. To a kid, that itself should be reason enough to love any math. "
Ok, it's like this. I graduated from High school in 1972 (yup, I'm that old).
I flunked Algebra I in a flaming pile of poo. My teacher, a rookie, stunk. I did not apply myself. Second time around I worked at it, and my teacher made sure I did. My first year teacher left the school. Not blaming her singly, but I might have had a shot if I had a marginally more involved teacher.
Geometry I LOVE to this day. I would teach high school geometry if it weren't for the students. Unless I get this feeling that I can be the sort of teacher that can break through and motivate the kids to love it as much as I do. If I sit still for a moment, that feeling goes away, as it should - I am not gifted. Still.....
Algebra II was awful, but I got through.
That's 4 years of maths. No calc/trig for me. I am greatly diminished by that, and if I go back to school I will take the maths just because.
Now, how to teach math? I memorized multiplication tables up to 12x12. I've played cribbage since I can remember. Since before I was 5, for sure. I used to drive my teachers crazy counting by 15s. to this day, I I see 8 & 7, 6 & 9, etc at '15'. I can add a column of figures in my head almost as fast as I can with a calculator until I get into 5 and 6 digit strings. But I have to exercise that skill. I'm not as good as I used to be.
Where did I learn that 'zero' was a concept? Actually, in World History class. I think this was an Arab invention, but I would not have been taught that the Japanese or Chinese knew of it. In fact, in World History, I learned that much science and math was developed and greatly explored by Arab scholars. Even in the 70s, our teacher lamented that the Arab world had, in his words, 'squandered their legacy and lost their great opportunity'. I'm not sure if that's a nice thing to say, but I learned more about math history in history class than I did in math class.
But I took music appreciation for an easy credit. Wrong. Music history was taught there, and a little bit of music math.
Read Lockhart's Lament for an insight into how popular methods of teaching mathematics in American public schools is possibly destroying any hope for generations. He has an interesting point; if we taught music the way we teach math, musicians would probably never make any music.
And then there's my niece, teaching third grade in Arizona. She's teaching her kids 'series and parallel circuits' and 'vertex edge graphs' to satisfy the standardised testing here. What? circuits? No Ohm's law fo these kids, just circuits. And vertex edge graphs? I dunno about those, and don't care. third graders? Are they deliberately trying to make these kids allergic to maths?
Slashdot Mirror
I can see most of what they install. Cisco and McAfee stuff in particular.
I'm working on an SSL root certificate problem and certificate chaining, and I have to use virtual machines to do most of it. But I'm also running Wireshark to look at conversations.
Along with having to figure out SSL for my users, I can see what my machine sends back to the mother ship, at least when I can get Wireshark running. So I don't see startup and shutdown traffic, but if they are indeed scraping my cache, it's not obvious at that level.
Of course, they could run any number of appliances out on the rim to do a MITM capture and know everything. Around here, they rarely are that subtle. If they didn't want us using public email, it would just be shut down.
"Delete browsing history on exit".
At work, I have IE8. At home, Firefox, much easier.
Of course, there is memory. The work PC uses PGP FDE with a recoverable certificate, so I have to clear it myself.
My employer doesn't block the common email services. They do, however, block Google Docs for obvious reasons. I can't be allowed to save data onto public servers, and they can't be bothered to figure out if the data is corporate or personal.
I can live with this. There are other ways to deal with that situation.
I'm a little annoyed that they won't let me have Facebook here, but they gave us back Linkedn recently. I betcha some VP has a profile there.
Now, am I gonna write anything incredibly sensitive on my corporate workstation? Not of a personal nature, of course. Of course. If I were her employer, I would be outraged that she was plotting to sue me on company time and with the company PC. and I would understand, yup, that's what people do.
But their lawyers USED it? That seems really stupid. Is there no protection of attorney-client communications in civil matters? I guess not. Then again...
As we all know, encryption means probably never having to say you're sorry.
Except maybe to the NSA.
When I wrote it, today was tomorrow. You're reading yesterday.
Where the hell is the Doctor when you need him? Always showing up unexpectedly and unbidden.
Sheesh.
When you put it that way, April Fools Day is indeed irrelevant.
Sorry, I get cranky when semi-lame April Fools jokes start hitting my sphere of influence around 5:00 AM. Yes, the lame ones make me cranky no matter the time.
What's today's date?
Think about it.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. My wife tells me I drive terribly when she rides with me.
But I've ,managed without her somehow.
Is this hoohah about talking on your phone, or texting with it? C'mon...
Talking on the phone has never been too distracting for me, and is at least as safe as having a passenger, unless she's better looking than my phone. Another problem.
But texting for me is an interesting proposition. Sometimes I do fine, and someetimes I have to stop cause I'm just not supertasking. I can see banning that, but banning conversations talking on the phone, that's stupid if you have a headset. If you don't, you should consider getting more life insurance. One-handed driving is a ticket to the morgue around here.
ps- 'Supertasking'? Nimrods. What's with the jargon creep?
"Say what you will about China, but you can't deny that they are one of the very few countries with their population size under control."
China used, to some extent, forced sterlization and forced abortions. Can't argue with their results?
Yes I can. The Cultural revolution was also effective population control. How do you feel about that? Is it different to kill adults than it is to kill in utero? How?
Oh, and at least in America, some people make sacrifices just to live. Democracy is becoming something that many 'warned' us about - voting ourselves largesse without considering how to pay for it. Actually, we let our representatives vote these favors. We gotta change that, or we will indeed go broke. And a bankrupt America guarantees climate change.
That's what we all say.
Ditto. In a blaze of glory.
Columbia was destroyed on re-entry when wing damage allowed hot gas to compromise the wing structure leading to structural failure of the vehicle. The damage was caused on launch by a piece of external fuel tank insulation broke away and damaged the wing leading edge. This was not a main engine failure.
There are three Shuttle Main Engines. These are directly mounted to the aft sectTion of the Shuttle. Also 2 Solid Rocket Boosters used for launch only, mounted alongside the external tank.
The Challenger accident was caused by a failed o-ring in one of the SRBs caused apparently by low temperatures and failed to properly seal. This permitted hot gas to burn a hole through the external fuel tank and cause an explosion, with the resultant high-speed accleration of the crew compartment and eventual crash to the ocean with significant g-force, causing the death of the crew at some point during or after the explosion.
Neither of these accidents were caused by the 'main engine (sic)'.
It is unlikely that even mounting the Shuttle atop a launch vehicle would have saved it from an accident similar to that of Challenger. The explosion would likely either envelope the vehicle, or accelerate it beyond crew survival. Needless to say, vehicle stack has nothing to do with failures on re-entry, save that in a fully stacked configuration the wings would not be subject to damage from external fuel tank insulation loss.
Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo escape systems all would have probably been unable to save the capsules in the event of a catastrophic launch vehicle failure. If launch control was able to detect an impending failure they might have been able to get the abort off in time to get the capsule away from the explosion, but that's not assured.
Indeed, the escape systems were intended to (obviously) save the capsule from launchpad failures, facilitate aborts under fairly manageable conditions - launch vehicle off-course, loss of thrust beyond minimums for even emergency splashdowns, and of course other failures that permitted time to make the decision. There were onboard systems to detect a launch vehicle failure and trigger an escape on Mercury test launches, so I suspect they were on manned launches and probably similar systems on Gemini and Apollo. I wonder if they would have saved an Apollo capsule. That Saturn V is a lot of fuel. Maybe Gemini with the service module in the way. Mercury was truly spam-in-a-can, and I bet it was considered a gamble, but they did make an effort to save the astronaut, which is good sense. Astronauts are the most expensive part of the mission, usually. (Intentional understatement)
I'm actually standing by the 'dumass' remark. So far, the Shuttle Main Engines are not at fault for any accident, though by extension the external tank has been the contributing factor in both, weather and the SRB in one, and fragile (relatively) wing edges in another, sort of. But I didn't mean to be so harsh. Sorry. Maybe make that into 'not'. Better?
Yes, and if NASA let you or me drive their vehicles, their accident rate would be a bit higher...
I'm now interested in how many astronauts and NASA engineers drive Toyotas, and if any have had this problem... Curious...
Hell yeah. Everbody knows putting the engine on TOP of the rocket works so well. They abandoned that when no one could get launch rights from China.
Dumass. You gonna complain that they also put lots and lots of burnable stuff under them too, right?
Yeah...
How many Russians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two. But don't ask how they got in there....
Duh.
A short stretch of I-95 just North of Portland, Maine, had a dip in the road that caused drivers to slow down jsut a little bit. Not a big thing most of the year, but during the summer tourist season, traffic density and unfamiliar drivers conspired to produce many accidents. A typical scenario I've seen several times, the names, car makes and models, and dates are all changed to protect the guilty:
Early Friday morning rush hour, and plenty of tourists are still slamming it up I-95 with trailer in tow to get to their favorite campground before anyone else does, and they've been driving from Massachusetts for a few hours. Everyone tailgates here cause it's as straight as an arrow for 12 miles. While Donna is putting on her lipstick in the rearview mirror of her pickup, Jimmy is right behind her trying to get a better look at, well where he wants to be. Donna taps the brakes to avoid rear-ending the guy in front of her (no, not me, I'm in the other lane), and Jimmy has to hit his harder to avoid rear-ending her in a way he didn't mean to. Well, Harold behind him hits the brakes a little bit harder, and being a newbie to trailers, he didn't set up the brakes right and his trailer wobbles a litle bit. Behind him that sweet nurse from 3E is scared to death, and slams on the brakes to avoid going to her own ER. That's where the accidents occur, but they were caused up ahead when the guy ahead of Donna slowed down cause he couldn't see past the dip right about where the old Scarborough town line is, I think.
Maine DOT took out that dip when they widened the road. Smoothed out traffic, and saved lives.
Here in the Phoenix area, we are legend for running stop lights. Main streets are laid out in a nice planned grid, but the lights are synched to trap you into doing the speed limit. Mostly. It gets annoying to have to obey the limit, so lots of us clip the yellow and get flashed by the red-light cameras at selected intersections. Eventually, enough $238 tickets convinces you to just let it go and slow downb, unless you're an illegal running from Sheriff Joe. But slowing traffic here is mostly an exercise in signal timing and fines. In Gilbert, the downtown is a slower speed limit, and the setbacks usualyl make you feel congested and make you want to slow down anyways.
And none of this is the least bit new. In the 70s I checked out the traffic studies for Brewer, Maine, my hometown, and read about the design challenges of the Main/State Street intersection intersection, one of the most deadly in Maine. No easy fixes, back then as it was at the top of a hill. Running that light meant you had to trust there was nothing turning left in front of you over the crest of the hill. It doesn't happen like in the movies, let me tell ya. They rarely got through. Poor blighters.
Seriously, none of this is in the least new. Interstate exit and on ramps are designed with differing radii to slow down drivers as they tighten their turns. Rotaries are intended to control traffic. Nothing new since at least the fifties.
As if dslreports.com isn't useful?
Sheesh
"It's quite common actually, and many documented studies have proven it does occur."
Define 'proven'. Single-bit errors in memory are usually described as hardware failures. Memtest86 tests for this, I think, as did many older PC diagnostics. Memory isn't flawless. Are you implying that some appreciable fraction of memory bit flips are actualyl comsic-ray induced, and if so, what study says how many?
"You don't hear much because well, the effects are minimal in most cases. A flipped bit in RAM does nothing if it's just unused memory, for example."
My system at work uses virtually all of its RAM at some point during the day, so I expect this is not so easy an analysis as it appears to be. And I'm already juggling a few paramaters that make it seem very, very difficult, and I'm not much of a mathematician.
Some of your other comments offer even more variables and make it seem even more unlikely, to me, that cosmic rays cause that many problems.
From the Wikipedia; "Studies by IBM in the 1990s suggest that computers typically experience about one cosmic-ray-induced error per 256 megabytes of RAM per month." Interesting, as it was somewhat late in the 90s before many computers had 256MB or RAM... I think. I was pretty happy to have a 486DX-50 with 8MB RAM in 1994 or so. A GB of RAM I didn't get until after 200, IIRC. IBM must be using some statistical analysis, so maybe my poor 486 got as many as 30 hits a month. Being a Novell server, it was using most of its memory, but not a very busy server so I may have missed some events. However, it did go +800 days without a restart or uncorrectable error. Must be lucky. Actually truth is, using a single PC as an example is kinda useless, isn't it? Not a significant sample.
I'm not entirely discounting cosmic radiation damage as a problem, but blaming these car problems in cosmic rays is the height of foolishness, to me. At that rate, I would expect Ford Tauruses to be havign all sorts of problems in the past. Oh, wait, probably the lack of such computer integration saved them. I'm being serious. But how do Civics and Accords avoid this today? Is there any real evidence that design can limit the damage from cosmic rays?
As for glitches, software is imperfect. Much more likely to be a coding error, I think.
For me, this paper offered the only quick reference to how many particles enter the earth's atmosphere - about one a second. Hmm. How many get to the surface? Even one a second, 31 million a year? Wow. With a surface area of 510M sq. km., that is what, 0.06 hits per sq. km.? Actually, just knowing how darned hard it is to detect these particles tells me they aren't common enough to be common, in a practical sense.
I'm still a little skeptical. Once, yeah. Twice? sure. 100 times? Dunno.
I don't hear much about comsumer electronics being fritzed by cosmic rays, or microwave ovens, etc, though I suppose this might explain the random failurs. But comsmic radiation? That's a new one.
But RHoS being forced by lead decay? I dunno, but tin whiskers is negating any advantage that offers.
Give me good old eutectic 63/37 any day. It just works. Not a lot of kids usae circuit boards as pacifiers, ya know?
"Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks ... [or] teach them to swim."
If you fill one swimming pool with chlorinated water, and another with beer, which one will the kids want to be around? And what will they do when they get there?
On the other hand, you need lifeguards at both, until the kids are sufficiently mature to not drown so easily. Which will happen much later at the beer pool. You'll need a curfew and age limits.
So much for analogy.
"Unless there is a genuine purpose to have a printed copy of an email, don't print it"
Excellent advice. Redundant, and reinforcing the college's solution, but excellent.
Just a quick question, are you a Linux user?
Precisely.
So the Wikipedia (I know) says New Moore Island was never higher than two meters above the water. Oh, and that was at low tide. Was this any more than a shoal?
Are you (or the FA writer) claiming the ocean there has risen as much as more than a meter???
I call BS. In fact, I suspect it was erosion that has claimed this island. Maybe, MAYBE accelrated by a few centimeters rise in ocean level, if at all. Wind and water do just fine on their own. In fact, the island was close to, if not within, the main channel of the outlet of the Hariabhanga River. Erosion and currents probably did it in.
What a pantload. Global warming? More likely predictable current-based erosion.
New Moore Island wasn't much of an island. The river took it back.
"I think you hit it spot on, it's not the curriculum, it's how they make it as boring as possible. I didn't enjoy math until I was actually out of public school and did that in my private life. When I picked up a Dover math book and learned the mysteries of such things as mathematical abstraction, that was exciting. At least more than learning maths verboten with no end goal in sight.
Another thing is the lack of math history being taught. Yes 1+0=1. But why? Where did zero come from? Where did numerals come from? Why was Algebra invented and where did it come from? What use is it? What about geometry? Who was Euclid? I could go on and on with fascinating topics related to math. These things are rarely answered. It's all about teaching you to understand one function, one algorithm, one technique, etc. Never to understand _why_. It downright sucks, they take all the fun out of a spectacular field. Thanks to their "teaching" me, I thought math had no room for expansion. Boy was I wrong. It's an abstract fun house where you can do whatever you dream up. To a kid, that itself should be reason enough to love any math. "
Ok, it's like this. I graduated from High school in 1972 (yup, I'm that old).
I flunked Algebra I in a flaming pile of poo. My teacher, a rookie, stunk. I did not apply myself. Second time around I worked at it, and my teacher made sure I did. My first year teacher left the school. Not blaming her singly, but I might have had a shot if I had a marginally more involved teacher.
Geometry I LOVE to this day. I would teach high school geometry if it weren't for the students. Unless I get this feeling that I can be the sort of teacher that can break through and motivate the kids to love it as much as I do. If I sit still for a moment, that feeling goes away, as it should - I am not gifted. Still.....
Algebra II was awful, but I got through.
That's 4 years of maths. No calc/trig for me. I am greatly diminished by that, and if I go back to school I will take the maths just because.
Now, how to teach math? I memorized multiplication tables up to 12x12. I've played cribbage since I can remember. Since before I was 5, for sure. I used to drive my teachers crazy counting by 15s. to this day, I I see 8 & 7, 6 & 9, etc at '15'. I can add a column of figures in my head almost as fast as I can with a calculator until I get into 5 and 6 digit strings. But I have to exercise that skill. I'm not as good as I used to be.
Where did I learn that 'zero' was a concept? Actually, in World History class. I think this was an Arab invention, but I would not have been taught that the Japanese or Chinese knew of it. In fact, in World History, I learned that much science and math was developed and greatly explored by Arab scholars. Even in the 70s, our teacher lamented that the Arab world had, in his words, 'squandered their legacy and lost their great opportunity'. I'm not sure if that's a nice thing to say, but I learned more about math history in history class than I did in math class.
But I took music appreciation for an easy credit. Wrong. Music history was taught there, and a little bit of music math.
Read Lockhart's Lament for an insight into how popular methods of teaching mathematics in American public schools is possibly destroying any hope for generations. He has an interesting point; if we taught music the way we teach math, musicians would probably never make any music.
And then there's my niece, teaching third grade in Arizona. She's teaching her kids 'series and parallel circuits' and 'vertex edge graphs' to satisfy the standardised testing here. What? circuits? No Ohm's law fo these kids, just circuits. And vertex edge graphs? I dunno about those, and don't care. third graders? Are they deliberately trying to make these kids allergic to maths?
What a mess.