See the commentary at the top of the page from this link:
See the commentary at the top of the page from this link:
He didn't jump back because he was physically incapable of doing so. In Eve: Online, other ships can use ship modules on you that prevents you from leaving the area. It's called "tackling." The pilot in question, upon erroneously jumping into the system, was tackled by enemy forces before he could escape. Instead of eating the loss, he called up on his allies to jump in to attempt to destroy the ships that were tackling him. (A titan-class vessel is largely unable to destroy the much smaller Heavy Interdictor-class vessels that are capable of tackling it due to the ship's poor tracking and large guns, and requires help if it is tackled. A good analogy here is trying to kill a fly with a cannonball at 30 kilometers -- guns in Eve work similarly.)
When the pilot's allies arrived, the enemies called THEIR allies and joined the fight. With the amount of tackling ships on the field, neither party could easily escape, and things snowballed considerably. The enemy forces in this case had the upper hand of available pilots and were able to inflict heavy losses.
You are right, but I can clarify the matter. In Eve: Online, other ships (typically your enemies) can use a ship module on you that prevents you from leaving the area, making you vulnerable to weapons fire. It's called "tackling." Tackling a titan-class vessel in Eve is difficult, requiring a special class of ship and a special weapon, but possible if you are coordinated enough and have enough espionage available to determine where your enemies will be.
Your assertion is that green capacity is always fully utilized, which is incorrect. Your second assertion is that non-renewable capacity is also fully utilized, which is also incorrect. This process yields a benefit when there is slack capacity in the system -- cases where it is generating more power than is actually needed. Instead of wasting that energy, it can be used for some useful purpose.
There is no minimum speed limit on surface streets. You can bitch and moan about cyclists all you want, but they have a legal right to be there. Deal with it or get the law changed. Getting angry at the cyclist for "holding up traffic" is just as stupid as getting angry at school busses for stopping to pick up children or at the mailman for stopping to deliver mail.
I saw your comment, but I couldn't find your data. The only information I could find regarding expected life was 25000 hours. Some examples:
"Lasts at least 22.8 years", "22.8 years means rated average life based on engineering testing and probability analysis where the lamp is used on average 3 hours/day, 7 days a week"
22.8 years * 365.25 days/year * 3 hours/day = 24983.1 hours
"The unit that I am reviewing is warm-white (2700K) and has a CRI of 80. Warranty is 6 years, and Philips rates it at 25,000 hours of operation (it should last for decades if you take good care of it)."
On picture of the box: "Life 25,000 hours"
"The LED bulb will last 25,000 hours compared with the 1,000 hours that consumers normally get out of the average 60-watt incandescent bulb."
"The next question you need to ask yourself is would you pay $40 (around £25) for a light bulb? Answer is probably not but if that light bulb was to last as it is advertised for 25,000 hours then of course."
"Other features include: instant-on, dimming capability to 10% of maximum brightness, a 25,000 hour life and a 6 year warranty."
Long-term lumen maintenance testing
Continuing to run; now > 12,000 hours
Lumen mainteance at 25,000 hours -> 99.3% (95% confidence, 200 units)
Not yet; those are probalby still a few years away yet. They're just now getting 100w equivelent bulbs on the market. You'll probably start seeing 3 way bulbs come to market after they're able to emit enough light to match 150w incandescents.
I can count the number of times I've had a bulb break in a lamp after knocking it over on zero hands.
Most lamps have shades, which prevent the bulb from impacting the ground. Lamps without shades usually have some sort of glass surrounding the bulb; if the bulb breaks that glass is most certainly broken (and presents a much more expensive problem than replacing the bulb).
Finally, LEDs are plastic and are far more durable than glass bulbs. I haven't tested what kind of abuse they'll take (as I generally don't knock lamps off of tables), but I expect them to be less fragile than glass. They will certainly survive a move without damange if reasonable common sense is used (meaning that you don't use them as feet for your heaviest furniture).
LED bulbs can also be used in more locations than just table lamps as well; if the bulbs installed in your ceiling fixtures are commonly being broken by your children you've got far bigger issues on your hands than the cost of light bulbs...
I think you need to work on your math a bit.
Comparing a 60w light bulb with a 12.5w led equivelent, and run it for only 4 hours per day, you break even after 3 years. If you're smart about where you install the LEDs, focusing on your most used fixtures in the house, the breakeven point will come sooner.
If the LED bulb only lasts 4 years, at 4 hours a day total cost for the LED is $31 and total cost for the incandescent is $40. You'll have to buy 4 incandencent bulbs over those 4 years ($1.76) and use 350kwh powering it (costing $38.54).
The Philips LED bulbs are actually rated for 25000 hours of use, not 5000. LED bulbs do not have the problems CFL bulbs have with lifetimes -- you can switch them on and off as much as you like and not impact their life. The only thing they're senative to is heat (meaning you shouldn't install them in closed fixtures). Several of the Philips LED bulbs in my house are probably approaching 6000 hours with no issues.
At 4 hours per day, that bulb should last for 17 years. If the bulb actually makes it that far, you'll spend $57 on the led bulb and $171.29 on the incandescent bulb. That, of course, assumes that the cost of power remains 11c per kwh. If the cost of power goes up over time, the cost disparity will increase.
Philips has a new version of their 60w bulb that consumes only 10w (its actually brighter than the existing bulb to boot!), and is rated for 30000 hours (or 20 years @ 4hr/day). Over 4 years the difference is $29 vs $40.30 (or 30% savings) per bulb, and over 20 years $78 vs $201 (or 60% savings).
LED bulbs do require non-trivial up front costs, but do result in measurable savings over the life of the bulb. And those savings will only go up as energy prices continue to rise. There are certainly reasons to continue to use incadescent bulbs, but the "it costs a lot up front" argument is rather short sighted...
Lots of good advice so far, but one more item -- since your father has turned sysadmin tasks over to you, once you wipe and re-install, set up his account on the computer so that it is a restricted user account, not an admin account. If he isn't doing sysadmin tasks then he doesn't need the privs and this limits the amount of damage that a scammer can do to the computer. (Although getting his SSN and other info is still really bad.)
and I love it here. I have no problems finding jobs. Lately at work we've actually had a lot of problems locating qualified software developers. TFA does read quite a bit like a real-estate ad but there's some truth to it, at least in my sector.
I'm a former Apple engineer, current independent consultant, so I'm not going to address the Android side. That's a lot more complicated -- I'll stick with talking about the iOS info that I know about.
That said, wow, there's a lot of snarky comments but not a lot of information posted.
iOS has full-device hardware encryption built-in on the iPhone 3GS and later, activated as soon as you set up a passcode. This top-level encryption layer is for quick device wipes, not for data protection. Each user data file is then encrypted on top of that using its own unique key, then set into a protection class by the app developer:
- Complete Protection - decrypted only when the device is unlocked; file key is removed from memory when the device is locked.
- Protected Unless Open - decrypted when the device is unlocked; if file is open when the device locks, the file stays open/decrypted.
- Protected Until First User Authentication - decrypted on first unlock, stays decrypted until reboot
- No Protection - file system encryption only; no per-file encryption key
Apple has really been on developers cases to tighten down the data protection classes for their apps on iOS.
In addition, iOS has a huge number of remote management options. Apple provides a basic management tool called Profile Manager in Lion Server, and there are third-party Mobile Device Managers (MDMs) that take the basics and go even further. You can force complex passcodes, pre-configure e-mail accounts, restrict usage of features, and so on. The enterpriseios.com site has a pretty complete listing.
One of the cool things about using iOS MDM is that all of the configuration profiles are tied to the management profile that gets installed when the device is first enrolled with the MDM. If you're in a BYOD situation and a user leaves on bad terms, the IT department can retract the management profile, which automatically retracts all of the other configuration profiles. This will delete corporate e-mail accounts, remove in-house apps (and their data!), take away VPN and 802.1X access, and so on, without erasing the person's device entirely. All of the pictures the person took are still there, not blown away as they would be after a complete device wipe.
Anyway, a few links that may help you out:
http://consultants.apple.com/index.php - look for consultants with the Mobility specialization
https://help.apple.com/advancedserveradmin/mac/10.7/ - go into "Manage Users" --> "Profile Manager" on the right
Hope this helps.
Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?