Thank God, I don't think I could deal with kids preening about their new zaptastic whiz bang they just bought off New Egg 70+ years from now as if they had invented the damn thing.
If by some chance I am alive then, I better have made a killing off of NewEgg's IPO.
Countries and states that are largely agricultural are not at the highest end of the economic spectrum.
The point was large parts of New Mexico are agricultural and are doing poorly just like large parts of other states (or nations) that are purely agricultural.
I probably could have phrased that better but in the original context of the GP and my post I think it's pretty clear my point wasn't "Agriculture never makes any money". The point was you're not going to see what appears to be a vibrant flourishing economy if it's based almost purely on agriculture.
Native and current resident. New Mexico is no different than the rest of the states. The rural areas are seeing a steady migration out, the urban areas are seeing a steady migration in.
Some areas like Farmington (North west) or Artesia, Roswell, Carlsbad (east side) are highly susceptible to boom/bust natural gas/oil cycles. Areas like Albuquerque are chugging right along and were hit about the national average by the recent recession. Most of the state is agricultural and is slowly sliding into oblivion like the rest of the nation's non corporate-run agriculture though not merely so hard hit as the wheat belt region.
The current governor is a bit of a twit at times but he's done a decent job getting some higher tech interest in NM. The combination of alternative energy as both a producer of energy and producer of materials, light rail interconnect for Rio Grande corridor and of course the space port may end up putting NM in an promising position.
The state isn't overly rich in resources/industry and agriculture is not a money making proposition for any state/country. The state's future is either in energy or tech or it's doomed to a tail end of the pack future much like most other low pop poor states.
In short I think you've overstated the destitute nature of the state compared to most other comparable states. On the other hand I agree that this newest venture is yet another energy/tech venture within the state which is needed or your observation regarding the state may be prophetically accurate.
Then again all the above it's pretty much true for the nation as a whole.
The current cynicism that any improvement in infrastructure is a) only for the money b) going to ruin the planet c) a target for terrorists d) too late
is getting really old.
The proposal allows for better distribution of power generation across the continent. Even if it was a target for terrorism so what. If you want to curl up in a little ball because the terrorists might get you knock yourself out.
BTW, knocking this section out doesn't take all 3 grids down.
If you pick a random starting point, say the mid/late 80's the rate of improvement for CPU speeds, bus speeds, network speeds, disk speeds and disk sizes were similar. Their doubling rates differences were in months not years or decades. Through the 90s and the last 10 years what worked in the late 80s continued to more or less work.
Disk capacity has had the fastest doubling times while networks have had the slowest over the past two decades. The resulting difference between now and then, what appear to be whopping big data sets that are difficult to transmit and require more parallelism to reduce.
First, the test ban treaty covers nuclear detonations. The ban doesn't address 'weapons in space' it covers further testing of detonations in any medium other than underground (ie water, surface, atmosphere and space).
Secondly a nuclear reactor is an excellent mechanism for generating heat, not an overly good mechanism for generating propulsion in space. Nuclear propulsion in space is via 'pulse propulsion', essentially a series of nuclear detonations which unfortunately are directly covered by the Partial Test Ban Treaty.
It has nothing to do with the 'usual hippies' and everything to do with the '63 Partial Test Ban Treaty. It's against the law until we re-write, ratify that treaty.
I get hating 'the other guy' but try to hate them for things they've actually done rather than irrationally applying every perceived slight to them.
Having just read through the document and as some other folks have posted further down it's not nearly as bad as you're implying and is *less* friendly to health agencies where reporting rules are concerned.
It's certainly written in typical bureaucrat/lawyer speak but for individuals it's a clear improvement over the current state of affairs.
In terms of the form of these documents, I wonder if an collaborative re-write type project would fly. Get volunteers to re-write the document such that the intent and legality doesn't change but the readability is greatly increased. I noted several times where the general ordering of the document was not terribly linear, they repeated themselves or used very confusing sentence structure.
I started to post several derogatory comments as I read through it but eventually I came to the conclusion that while nearly unfathomable to most readers it doesn't completely suck.
In several cases they specifically ask for comment from the public where they think there may be valid concern and I think they accurately identified the weak links where they requested comment. If you have an opinion you might consider posting it there rather than (or in addition to) here.
They do actually address reporting breaches of encrypted data where that encryption could arguably have been broken or circumvented.
I don't quite understand the logic of not simply reporting any breach but it's hardly the disaster it's being made out to be.
A couple of details you'd need to fill in before people could give legitimate advice.
What's the rate of change of that 12TB. Is it mostly static or mostly dynamic. I would assume it's mostly write once read rarely video but maybe not.
Do you have a budget ? As cheap as practical or is there leeway for bells/whistles.
Is this just disaster recovery. You say if the station gets slagged you want a backup. How quickly do you want to restore. Minutes, hours, next day ?
Do you need historical dumps ? Will anybody want data as it existed last month ?
Is it just data you're dumping or some windows App complete with Windows registry junk that needs to be restored (don't know anything about Final cut pro)
If you just want to dump data and restore isn't critical, you just need to be able to do it in some time frame then sure rsync'ing to some striped 6 (or 12) TB SATA array is plenty good.
My understanding is that women navigate by discrete landmarks building up a continuous linking of landmarks.
Men navigate by way points and distances. They flag in their brain decision points and then track distance to next point.
My wife and I've compared notes while driving and that certainly seems to be the case.
The argument I've heard from an evolutionary view is women needed a very accurate mental image of nearby areas for gathernig. Men needed to be able to navigate to remote areas and return without really knowing a great deal about the intervening details.
I was talking about the rapid corrections in the thrust cone while the lander was stable. There's a pronounced difference in the correction rate around the 3:00 mark of the first video as thermals or reflected exhaust began to affect the lander. Those effects won't exist on the moon but it did cause me to wonder just how large an external force it can deal with before becoming catastrophically unstable.
I was impressed by that as well. While I realize it would never have to on the moon, I wonder how well it would deal with a slight breeze. It was making some fairly rapid corrections from what I assume was ground effect buffeting.
Having never seen this one before I was a little taken back at the end when somebody jogged up to it. It was 2-3x bigger than I initially thought.
That was my first thought too but then I started thinking about it. I've been interviewed numerous times regarding ex-employees getting civilian security clearances. In general I suspect you're right. A civilian whose background opened them up to black mail is *exactly* the kind of person they're trying to screen out. It may be this kind of screening process is just a formality where officers in the RAF are concerned, i.e. they're assumed to be trustworthy otherwise they couldn't be officers. It's a built in blind spot.
Granted my experience involved civilians gaining access to nuclear labs in the US, maybe the RAF is just stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, I'll be dead by then anyway.
Thank God, I don't think I could deal with kids preening about their new zaptastic whiz bang they just bought off New Egg 70+ years from now as if they had invented the damn thing.
If by some chance I am alive then, I better have made a killing off of NewEgg's IPO.
Apparently asking Google 'how to appear intelligent' is itself intelligent.
Countries and states that are largely agricultural are not at the highest end of the economic spectrum.
The point was large parts of New Mexico are agricultural and are doing poorly just like large parts of other states (or nations) that are purely agricultural.
I probably could have phrased that better but in the original context of the GP and my post I think it's pretty clear my point wasn't "Agriculture never makes any money". The point was you're not going to see what appears to be a vibrant flourishing economy if it's based almost purely on agriculture.
Native and current resident. New Mexico is no different than the rest of the states. The rural areas are seeing a steady migration out, the urban areas are seeing a steady migration in.
Some areas like Farmington (North west) or Artesia, Roswell, Carlsbad (east side) are highly susceptible to boom/bust natural gas/oil cycles. Areas like Albuquerque are chugging right along and were hit about the national average by the recent recession. Most of the state is agricultural and is slowly sliding into oblivion like the rest of the nation's non corporate-run agriculture though not merely so hard hit as the wheat belt region.
The current governor is a bit of a twit at times but he's done a decent job getting some higher tech interest in NM. The combination of alternative energy as both a producer of energy and producer of materials, light rail interconnect for Rio Grande corridor and of course the space port may end up putting NM in an promising position.
The state isn't overly rich in resources/industry and agriculture is not a money making proposition for any state/country. The state's future is either in energy or tech or it's doomed to a tail end of the pack future much like most other low pop poor states.
In short I think you've overstated the destitute nature of the state compared to most other comparable states. On the other hand I agree that this newest venture is yet another energy/tech venture within the state which is needed or your observation regarding the state may be prophetically accurate.
Then again all the above it's pretty much true for the nation as a whole.
Meh, why is that getting flagged as insightful.
The current cynicism that any improvement in infrastructure is
a) only for the money
b) going to ruin the planet
c) a target for terrorists
d) too late
is getting really old.
The proposal allows for better distribution of power generation across the continent. Even if it was a target for terrorism so what. If you want to curl up in a little ball because the terrorists might get you knock yourself out.
BTW, knocking this section out doesn't take all 3 grids down.
Agreed, more or less.
If you pick a random starting point, say the mid/late 80's the rate of improvement for CPU speeds, bus speeds, network speeds, disk speeds and disk sizes were similar. Their doubling rates differences were in months not years or decades. Through the 90s and the last 10 years what worked in the late 80s continued to more or less work.
Disk capacity has had the fastest doubling times while networks have had the slowest over the past two decades. The resulting difference between now and then, what appear to be whopping big data sets that are difficult to transmit and require more parallelism to reduce.
Jump the shark, jumped the shark, jumped the shark ...
The phrase 'jump the shark' has itself skipped over various cartilaginous fish. I seem to hear it once a day lately.
You're missing the point. It's written in Java and folks can implement their own calls in just a few lines of code.
You're guilty of 20th century thinking. Now image is everything, actually recognizing it is secondary.
First, the test ban treaty covers nuclear detonations. The ban doesn't address 'weapons in space' it covers further testing of detonations in any medium other than underground (ie water, surface, atmosphere and space).
Secondly a nuclear reactor is an excellent mechanism for generating heat, not an overly good mechanism for generating propulsion in space. Nuclear propulsion in space is via 'pulse propulsion', essentially a series of nuclear detonations which unfortunately are directly covered by the Partial Test Ban Treaty.
It has nothing to do with the 'usual hippies' and everything to do with the '63 Partial Test Ban Treaty. It's against the law until we re-write, ratify that treaty.
I get hating 'the other guy' but try to hate them for things they've actually done rather than irrationally applying every perceived slight to them.
Having just read through the document and as some other folks have posted further down it's not nearly as bad as you're implying and is *less* friendly to health agencies where reporting rules are concerned.
It's certainly written in typical bureaucrat/lawyer speak but for individuals it's a clear improvement over the current state of affairs.
In terms of the form of these documents, I wonder if an collaborative re-write type project would fly. Get volunteers to re-write the document such that the intent and legality doesn't change but the readability is greatly increased. I noted several times where the general ordering of the document was not terribly linear, they repeated themselves or used very confusing sentence structure.
The actual document is here:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/federalregisterbreachrfi.pdf
I started to post several derogatory comments as I read through it but eventually I came to the conclusion that while nearly unfathomable to most readers it doesn't completely suck.
In several cases they specifically ask for comment from the public where they think there may be valid concern and I think they accurately identified the weak links where they requested comment. If you have an opinion you might consider posting it there rather than (or in addition to) here.
They do actually address reporting breaches of encrypted data where that encryption could arguably have been broken or circumvented.
I don't quite understand the logic of not simply reporting any breach but it's hardly the disaster it's being made out to be.
I don't know enough about the facts to really care but the comments on the article
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/09/18/0918comments.html
are pretty fascinating. They're a fairly good reflection of the current mentality that "things I don't like = communism/fascism/scary thing".
What I don't get is how hooking one up to this http://nanomushroom.com/ will be all that productive.
What exactly is a nanomushroom other than a really really small mushroom.
A couple of details you'd need to fill in before people could give legitimate advice.
What's the rate of change of that 12TB. Is it mostly static or mostly dynamic. I would assume it's mostly write once read rarely video but maybe not.
Do you have a budget ? As cheap as practical or is there leeway for bells/whistles.
Is this just disaster recovery. You say if the station gets slagged you want a backup. How quickly do you want to restore. Minutes, hours, next day ?
Do you need historical dumps ? Will anybody want data as it existed last month ?
Is it just data you're dumping or some windows App complete with Windows registry junk that needs to be restored (don't know anything about Final cut pro)
If you just want to dump data and restore isn't critical, you just need to be able to do it in some time frame then sure rsync'ing to some striped 6 (or 12) TB SATA array is plenty good.
My understanding is that women navigate by discrete landmarks building up a continuous linking of landmarks.
Men navigate by way points and distances. They flag in their brain decision points and then track distance to next point.
My wife and I've compared notes while driving and that certainly seems to be the case.
The argument I've heard from an evolutionary view is women needed a very accurate mental image of nearby areas for gathernig. Men needed to be able to navigate to remote areas and return without really knowing a great deal about the intervening details.
I was talking about the rapid corrections in the thrust cone while the lander was stable. There's a pronounced difference in the correction rate around the 3:00 mark of the first video as thermals or reflected exhaust began to affect the lander. Those effects won't exist on the moon but it did cause me to wonder just how large an external force it can deal with before becoming catastrophically unstable.
I was impressed by that as well. While I realize it would never have to on the moon, I wonder how well it would deal with a slight breeze. It was making some fairly rapid corrections from what I assume was ground effect buffeting.
Having never seen this one before I was a little taken back at the end when somebody jogged up to it. It was 2-3x bigger than I initially thought.
People seem to be able to better use their brains to keep their bodies healthy
Have you gone outside recently and seen the average American (as opposed to person). Healthy and 'brain using' are not attributes I'd apply to them.
Proper spanish translation is "Estadounidense".
Roughly translated to English as 'One dense country'
True, but there are some *very* inquisitive idiots.
You've never seen this movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Petticoat) have you.
Pink subs attract nurses and sink trucks.
That was my first thought too but then I started thinking about it. I've been interviewed numerous times regarding ex-employees getting civilian security clearances. In general I suspect you're right. A civilian whose background opened them up to black mail is *exactly* the kind of person they're trying to screen out. It may be this kind of screening process is just a formality where officers in the RAF are concerned, i.e. they're assumed to be trustworthy otherwise they couldn't be officers. It's a built in blind spot.
Granted my experience involved civilians gaining access to nuclear labs in the US, maybe the RAF is just stupid.
Kind of depends on how far away it is.
Belthize