Comment cut the pseudo-intellectualism (Score 0, Offtopic) 823
You might start by dialing back the flowery and mostly unnecessary vocab. Eschew obfuscation!
Not sure how those questions would indicate, you didn't specify. I could see some thinking "recent" technology means "good", but my personal experience provides little evidence to correlate "new technology" with good. I could even make a case that it's a red flag. (I worked on a disastrous project where by fiat we had to develop with
Code reviews? Meh. Some think they're doing code review, they're not... or they're horrible at it.
I always ask what their turnover is, and why the position being filled was vacated. YMMV.
Anyway, I remember downloading the dist, in "sections" (e.g., X11), each spanning a number of floppy disks with a grand total of 70+ floppies. Then from there I installed linux. If all went well, it usually took about a day to get it up and running, start (download) to finish (first full boot). (Keep in mind, this was in the day of ADSL.) Horrible.
These days, I grab random different ones I've seen recent reviews for and download and boot just for fun. Typically I just download the iso's and point a virtual CD drive from vmware or some virtual pc and boot and install. Much nicer, usually less than an hour.
Faves: Suse, Mandrake->Mandriva, Knoppixware (to save friends and family lost corrupted Windows data), Ubuntu (3 years ago, not today). Mint.
"the team found that none of the Maryland monkeys that started calorie restriction when they were young have developed cancer."
Judge John Rogers, in his ruling, says multiple times that the phone was emanating information that the authorities tracked, therefore no invasion of privacy. He compares it to the scent a dog uses to follow someone, or the color of a car, or the numbers on a license plate, or the location of a car when it is on a public road.
"The government used data emanating from Melvin Skinner’s pay-as-you-go cell phone to determine its real-time location." (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0262p-06.pdf, p2, par1)
Rogers says the information the phone was emanating was just a "proxy" to this other publicly visible information. It's not clear what this "proxy" status is for the phone, but more importantly, the GPS in the phone could not have been emanating position information because that's not how client stations work in GPS. The satellites in the sky emanate position information, and the ground units just receive this and triangulate position from it. Otherwise, it would be a terrible technology for the military to use, as they would be easily located!
The judgement acknowledges that "ping" data had to be accessed from phone company, and that "pinging" the phone is an activity engaged in by the DEA agents on the suspect's phone, but somehow sticks with the emanating logic: "a federal magistrate judge, on July 12, 2006, authoriz[ed] the phone company to release subscriber information, cell site information, GPS real-time location, and “ping” data for the 6447 phone in order to learn Big Foot’s location while he was en route to deliver the drugs." (p4, par1)
(By pining the first phone and realizing it was at Big Foot's home, and not on the road with him, the DEA agents got another "authorization" for the release of the same data for a second "6820" phone.)
"By continuously “pinging” the 6820 phone, authorities learned that Big Foot left Tucson, Arizona on Friday, July 14, 2006, and was traveling on Interstate 40 across Texas. At no point did agents follow the vehicle or conduct any type of visual surveillance. At around 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, July 16, 2006, the GPS indicated that the 6820 phone had stopped somewhere near Abilene, Texas." (p4, par3)
That's where they moved in, did a K-9 walk-around of the RV, and then arrested him.
In the judgement about the 4th Amendment violation:
"If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal."
Of course, GPS clients like the suspect's phone do not actually give of a position signal, which is why they had to ping it. Rogers' logic is most carefully stated in the following, and so perhaps this could be the grounds for a new appeal:
"This case is different from the recent Supreme Court decision in United States
v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). That case involved the secret placement of a tracking
device on the defendant’s car, id. at 948, and the Court’s opinion explicitly relied on the
trespassory nature of the police action. Id. at 949. Although Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence includes an assessment of the defendant’s reasonable expectation of
privacy, that “d[oes] not erode the principle ‘that, when the Government does engage in
physical intrusion of a constitutionally protected area in order to obtain information, that
intrusion may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment.’” Id. at 951 (quoting
Knotts, 460 U.S. at 286 (Brennan, J., concurring)). No such physical intrusion occurred
in Skinner’s case. Skinner himself obtained the cell phone for the purpose of
communication, and that phone included the GPS technology used to track the phone’s
whereabouts. The majority in Jones based its decision on the fact that the police had to
“physically occup[y] private property for the purpose of obtaining information.”
132 S. Ct. at 949. That did not occur in this case." (p10, par2)
This decision relies on a faulty understanding that GPS emanates a signal that the agents passively received, while paradoxically also admitting earlier that the unit was "pinged" to determine its location. Somehow, the use of the term "ping" elides what should have been a more thorough analysis, which could only have shown that pinging the device is physically interacting with (or physically occupying?) the suspect's private property to obtain information from it that would not otherwise be available to the public.
The issue comes up when Apple (or any other Microsoft) uses their monopoly in one area to leverage their position in another (think "shutting off the air supply to Netscape").
So, I think the solution process for an arbitrary system of simultaneous equations actually has a *propensity* to lead to deterministic chaos. I was just looking for a paper discussing this, but came up short; but for the background see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_function_system
Note, the way I'm interpreting this is that *solving* the system leads to iteration of candidate systems in your head, therefore there's an (hypothetical) expected chaotic dynamic. (haven't rtfa yet..
Is there something about the way sudoku systems are chosen, e.g. they're too simple, that excludes this?
substitute in his thesis,
Algebra is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.
and substitute to:
History is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.
and you have a perfect argument for me and the school system not requiring History.
Even better,
$yourWorstSubject is an onerous stumbling block for all kinds of students: disadvantaged and affluent, black and white.
and we've eliminated the need for any required subjects.
"I am not good at", or "I don't want to" are not good arguments for not requiring learnin'.
(-e**(i*pi) st post)
Here's an interesting article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen#Metallization_of_hydrogen_in_shock-wave_compression
Especially the discussion of the LLNL shock-wave compression. Metallic indeed
3000K is not too far from the temperature of the surface of the Sun, and the pressures are thought to vary from virtually nothing at the surface to Peta-pascals in the core, so somewhere there's a transition by the 140GPa needed for metallization. Whether this is within the convective layers where the temperatures remain low..?
I'm posting this for follow-up commentary from @APODNereid, since the thread is now closed.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2967801&cid=40758811
You ask what would keep the surface metallic. Thinking about this more, I found a couple of facts:
The Sun's surface has an energy flux density ~30x that of a hot metal rod at 3,000 C (around the glow point for tungsten in a lightbulb) in the experiment described here:
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones