Man, you sure look like a dumbass now. It's confirmed that the first guy infected at least 2 of the nurses treating him. Those nurses went on to treat other patients. The number of confirmed infections has tripled in the 7 days since my post, and the number of people exposed is now completely out of control.
How would you implement a system to prevent it? Preferably without completely blocking all traffic from Liberia to the rest of the world, because there's a fair number of foreigners there who will want to come home someday, and (at the time of this particular incident) no cases outside of Africa have been seen yet.
Block all traffic from Liberia to the rest of the world. Allow exceptions only after a 21-day quarantine.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to maintain a quarantine you have to maintain a quarantine.
I have a million other things to deal with.
I'll just run my shit against https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltes... in a month and do what it tells me to.
guaranteed to pay back in a few years
Gonna need to see the math on that one.
Please show your work.
What a disgusting waste...
If you elevate the panels you reduce the intensity of the shadow but you increase the size by a proportional amount. Grazing? There will proportionately less to graze on in the areas with solar panels. Reflected light? Plants use it just as much as the solar panels do.
raymorris is correct.
In case anyone else was curious like I was, the 50 acres used to provide afternoon power could , if used as farmland instead, feed 250 people a minimal diet, or 20 fat Americans who supersize their Big Macs.
Just an interesting factoid.
What a fucking dumbass. You can't supersize a big mac. You can only supersize the drink and fries.
Beyond that, it's been about a decade since they got rid of supersizing.
This conversation is entirely about cracking down on drugs, gambling & prostitution.
3 things that people should be able to do freely.
They never were.
the only way to reach these companies would be to either eschew legal methods of home entertainment (along with 100m other people), or shoot some executives.
Or?
You' ll be modded down, but it really is this fucking simple.
And then there was the NIH grant to study why gay men are often thin and lesbians are often obese.
Why is this a problem? Research should always be done, however ridiculous your hypothesis may be. The freedom to do such insane research is what has made USA the leader of all sciences.
Useless research on my fucking dime should absolutely not be done, let alone to the exclusion of useful research.
My advice: Don't use Solr. Don't use PCRd PDFs. Don't support full-text searching, because no one fucking uses it. We get thousands of searches against title, keywords, dates, and other meta shit every day in our internal application. The only full-text searches performed are by me when I'm testing shit.
Lawyers use it. Magazines use it. Lots of people use it.
Lawyers use it because they have to - there is no alternative to search shit short of hiring monkeys to manually type up mountains of old documents. Often, those monkeys would have to be legally privileged to look at the documents, so it's not something you can shunt off to cheap labor / Mechanical Turk. OCR sucks. Solr sucks. Mixing the two is a big ol' suck fest.
Magazines use it because... they're stupid? There's no need to OCR a massive backlog of shit. For old shit that may not be digital, you can go ahead and hire a monkey to type it in. You're still left with Solr sucking, but on top of that much of a magazine's content is so heavily formatted/styled/image-based that a Solr index would not suit it well.
If you NEED a fulltext index. there are plenty of alternatives, some mentioned by others in the comments on this article. I can only speak to OCR sucking, Solr's indexer sucking, and Solr's search giving me way too many things for it to be useful.
1) The frequence of choosing a password is not within the end-user's control, and hence has no impact on whether or not the end-user chooses to include special characters vs several simple words.
The vast majority of passwords and resets are controlled by the user. Websites do not often force people to reset passwords. In a corporate environment people will be forced to change passwords more frequently, sure. But email, 20 social networking sites, shopping sites, and even banks will typically not force a reset unless they've been compromised.
2) Protecting against a brute force attack does not, in any way, break protection against "informed statistical" attacks.
XKCD's shitty advice is protecting against brute force attacks by using length (even though in many cases the effective length is still limited to something stupid like 16 characters). By following XKCD's shitty advice, you open yourself up to statistical attacks - your search space is just a combination of a few words. People generally only use a few thousand words, and when you want them to be random about it they'll likely pick common ones, fairly short ones, mostly nouns, etc.
3) End-users do not typically know how many other people have chosen that same password, but can protect themselves against accidentally choosing a common password by doing exactly what the XKCD comic recommends (picking four random words and juxtaposing them). Just don't use the specific password chosen in the comic.
Humans are terrible at being random. Any magician, con-artist, or statistician will tell you that. The most commonly-picked "random" cards are the ace of spades and the queen of hearts, for example. The 4 "random" words scenario will give you a search space many orders of magnitude smaller than a good, traditional password.
4) Disallowing common passwords is not within the end-user's control. It is a good practice, but does not in any way change the password-selection logic that end users should use as per the XKCD comic.
The only contradictory point mentioned is the "change password strength meters", which might mean "require special characters and numbers," which is exactly what the comic demonstrates to offer no value. The intent here seems to be the avoidance of common passwords, and that can be done without forcing special characters, which makes passwords hard to memorize.
Disallowing common passwords is within the user's control. Don't use a fucking password you've heard of before. If your password manager, or a site, tells you that the password is shitty, maybe don't use it.
The XKCD comic is fucking wrong. Symbols, numbers, and capitalization, all increase the search space exponentially. Special characters do not make passwords harder to memorize. I find they make it easier. They provide a cadence in may of the passwords I use. Instead of just a slurry of letters, a password with digits or symbols is less likely to get twisted about in someone's mind. alhysuidopmnah will be subject to transposition on shit like the ui, mn. alhys5idop#nah doesn't have that problem, and is much easier to compartmentalize (alhys5 idop# nah). This may or may not be true for all users for fixed length (and it certainly depends on the specific password itself). Beyond that, for passwords of a given strength those with symbols and shit will be easier to memorize than those without, if only because they'll be much shorter.
Yes, if you have to support it, you have to support it. I would steer clear from Solr based on my experience with it, however.
We only added it on because the shit we use integrates well with it. It was a "why not?" that works well enough to not be ripped out, but I wouldn't do it again unless I had to.
"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel
