Comment Re:They're not astronauts, they're ballast. (Score 3, Informative) 77
Like the Mercury and Vostok guys, then?
"No, not spaceman. Specimin." - von Braun, in "The Right Stuff", speaking of the Mercury astronauts.
Like the Mercury and Vostok guys, then?
"No, not spaceman. Specimin." - von Braun, in "The Right Stuff", speaking of the Mercury astronauts.
... What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. Yes, the cooler walls radiate inward but they have no effect whatsoever on the heat source. ALL of that radiation is reflected or scattered by the heat source. (It is not transmitted because we're dealing with diffuse gray bodies of significant mass.)
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21]
It's truly surreal to watch Jane repeatedly double-down on nonsense which Jane claims is too ridiculous even for Sky Dragon Slayers (as if that were possible!).
... You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times.
... You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]
Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly object to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. Since Jane doesn't even include that term, Jane's assuming that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.
... shortly after Latour published that blog post, it became clear that the language he used implied that no radiation at all was absorbed by the warmer body. So a reader could not reasonably be blamed for inferring that. But Latour quickly apologized for the unfortunate wording and corrected himself to make it very clear he was referring to net, not absolute, heat transfer.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]
Ironically, Jane's still insisting that no radiation at all is absorbed by the warmer body. Otherwise Jane's calculation of the required electrical power would include a term for radiation from the chamber walls. Since Jane adamantly insists that this term can't be included, Jane's calculation assumes that no radiation at all is absorbed by the source. None. Zero.
Heh. If you don't know the difference between "kill -1 1" and "kill -9 1", I don't want you ever touching the kill command on my systems.
Hint: one of them terminates init. The other restarts it. A highly consequential distinction.
As for "kill -9 -1", I had to look that one up. It is actually defined, though it looks like nonsense. What that one will do is kill every process in the system EXCEPT init.
Then consider yourself the recipient of valuable information. Signal #1 is SIGHUP ("hangup"). The naming is strictly historical at this point. It is probably easier to remember "kill -HUP <some-daemon's-pid>". Either way you issue it, the command restarts the daemon, or reloads the daemon's config. The precise behavior depends on the coding of the paricular daemon. There is no guarantee except what the man page for the daemon says. SIGHUP used on most non-daemon programs just terminates them. That is the default if a process is not coded to intercept and handle SIGHUP.
You're entirely right that you could go for an entire career without once using kill -1. Issuing "service <daemon> restart" strikes most people as much more natural. That will send the signal for you. Incidentally, it's high time somebody wrote "service" for systemd. A simple shell script will do it for some definition of "do it".
reboots are years between
Really? You don't reboot after a kernel security update? I entirely agree that boot time is a non-issue, but your statement sounds either like hyperbole/exaggeration-for-effect, or you're not serious about security.
I want something that lets me admin my systems without relying on anything more than a dumb terminal
I entirely agree with this, and coming from not-a-fan of systemd, systemd can be administered with ssh just as effectively and probably as easily as sysvinit or bsdinit can be. What is necessary is some additional learning/training, as with any such change.
In sysvinit, the
Like I said, I'm not a partisan fan of systemd, but (I hope that) any criticisms I have are based on reasonable grounds, not misconceptions.
Or the right wing social network..
Or Ricochet wireless networks.
Besides, most Tor exit nodes are monitored. Using Tor is like screaming "I'm hiding".
There was a time that a citizen could walk right up to the White House.
That lasted until WWII.
Until the 1980s, anyone could enter the Pentagon and wander around the corridors. (George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, decided during WWII that there was no way a building with as many people as the Pentagon could keep spies out, and requiring badges would give a false sense of security.) In the 1960s, anyone could enter most Federal buildings in Washington, including the Capitol and all the House/Senate office buildings, without passing any security checkpoints.
As a developer it's been a problem developing for Android. It's one of the reasons why at work we charge more to develop android versions of apps usually as we'll only QA test against Nexus devices. If our clients want QA on any additional handsets basically increase the development costs by 50% per device. Usually if clients add any other devices it's will be Samsung, but we charge QA per model on Android devices. So Galaxy S4, S5, Note could double the price we charge for an Android app vs. iOS.
Personally I no longer develop apps for Android. I used to, but Android apps were less than 25% of my revenue and accounted for about 90% of my support requests. In particular "App crashes on startup" and on a handset I've never heard of before. Especially problematic seemed to be the number of prepaid android devices. Their OS's never seem to be kept current or running some tweaks that may cause compatibility issues for whatever reasons.
It was a Friday evening. The President had left for Camp David earlier, and his main protective detail went with him. Most staffers had gone home. The guy got just inside the outer doors, where there is a security checkpoint, before he was tackled.
The Secret Service made the right choice not shooting the intruder dead on the lawn. They certainly had the capability to kill him. They would have been heavily criticized, with pictures of the dead body on national TV.
On September 12, a man wearing a Pokemon hat and carrying a stuffed animal jumped the White House fence. He was tackled and arrested. Should he have been killed?
The same thing happened to me. I'd been buying my own health insurance since I sold my company in 2011. It cost me $83 per month. I'm in my early 30's and healthy. Only time I used it was for a sinus infection and annual check ups. Deductible was $3500 with max out of pocket of $11,000. Office co-pay's were $30, $50 for urgent care and drug coverage worked well enough for me. My last antibiotics cost me $20 co-pay. Then I was informed last fall my plan was not "ACA" compliant and would be cancelled at the end of last year.
So I went shopping on the exchange. The closest plan to what I had was a silver package. It was $280 a month. 3x what I was paying. That was more than I wanted to pay. So I looked at a "Bronze" plan. Still $156 a month and eventually what I selected. It had a $6000 a year deductible and $17,000 max out of pocket per year.
Then I actually had to use it for an Urgent care visit. Under my old plan, Urgent care was a $50 visit. Well it was $90 co-pay under my new plan. I was prescribed the same antibiotics as the previous time. Cost: $45 co-pay instead of $20.
Fortunately I got married and now on my Wife's company plan (although they're likely to pay the fine as it will be cheaper than providing insurance so not sure for how much longer). It was about the same as my bronze plan (~$180 per month to add me). But coverage is a hell of a lot better.
... Repeat: this ASSUMPTION of yours that the chamber walls must be accounted for in the power requirement of the heat source is a direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There are no 2 ways around it. Established physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) says that the radiative power out (and therefore power in) of a gray body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. It is completely unrelated to any nearby cooler bodies.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21]
Again, radiative power out is dependent only on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. We don't disagree about that, despite your repetitive claims to the contrary. But "power in" through a boundary around the heat source looks like this:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
Jane refuses to account for the chamber wall radiative "power in" which would only be true if the source didn't absorb any of that radiation. Zero.
If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance. I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it. Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21]
That's ridiculous, Jane. I'm just noting that the chamber walls are hotter than 0K, so they emit radiation into a boundary around the heat source. Therefore Jane's wrong to ignore that radiation when applying the principle of conservation of energy:
... Since the chamber walls are COOLER than the heat source, radiative power from the chamber walls is not absorbed by the heat source.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]
It would only be valid to omit the term describing radiation from the chamber walls if the source absorbs none of that radiation at all. This would only be true if the source's absorptivity = 0. But then its emissivity = 0, so it also couldn't emit any radiation, so it couldn't be a heat source.
So the only "heat source" where we could validly ignore the radiation from the chamber walls would be a perfectly reflective "bobble" from Vernor Vinge's Marooned in Realtime. I assure you that at our current level of technology, we haven't managed to build such a device. And even if we could, it wouldn't be a heat source.
... No NET radiative energy. I did not claim "none at all", and I have repeatedly pointed this out to you. Just no NET transfer from cooler to warmer.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-20]
Jane's equation claims "none at all":
electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4
Since Jane's equation for required electrical power doesn't even include a term for radiation from the chamber walls, Jane's equation wrongly says that no radiation at all is absorbed by the source. None. Zero.
It would only be valid to omit the term describing radiation from the chamber walls if the source absorbs none of that radiation at all. This would only be true if the source's absorptivity = 0. But then its emissivity = 0, so it also couldn't emit any radiation, so it couldn't be a heat source. Slayer "physics" are incoherent nonsense.
When someone buys a share in Apple, they actually get an ownership share in Apple.
Apple, yes. Google or Facebook, no. Google and Facebook have two classes of stock. The class with all the voting rights is in both cases controlled by the founders. The publicly traded shares cannot outvote them, even if someone bought all of them.
Until recently, multiple classes of stock were prohibited for NYSE-listed companies, which tended to discourage doing this. (The classic exception was Ford, which has two classes of stock, the voting shares controlled by the Ford family. This predates that NYSE rule.)
This matters when the insiders make a big mistake and the stock starts going down. There's no way to kick them out.
It is AMD fanboy sour grapes. For some reason some people get really personally invested in their choice of graphics card. So when the other company comes out with a card that is substantially better than what their company has, they get all ass hurt and start trying to make excuses as to what it is bad. The nVidia fans did that back when the AMD 5870 came out and nVidia had no response. Same deal here. The GeForce 900 series are a reasonable bit faster than the AMD 200 series, and way more power efficient. At this time, AMD doesn't have a response, so the AMD fanboys are going on the defensive.
The real answer is, of course, buy the card that works best for your usage, which will vary person to person.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.
