At that moment, Firefox 51.0. But I've had some ciphers disabled since the early days of Logjam attacks, which included all ciphers using Diffie-Hellman without elliptic curves. That's why there was no overlap between accepted ciphers on my end and ciphers supplied by VS.

Then consider it completely awesome since with the scale and perspective presented there's no way you could differentiate the actual elliptical orbits from perfectly circular orbits. Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus all have an eccentricity of about 5% while Neptune's is less than 1%.

I have experienced enormous difficulties trying to keep people engaged.

It was particularly obvious to me when I returned from the 30C3 and talked to my friends about the most important shit I learned over the weekend. They are techies, the lot of 'em, and everyone is keenly aware of the Snowden revelations and their implications.

Yet after 6 months of this, the only ones still paying attention for more than 2 minutes at a time are the folks who don't blank out when I mention ephemeral elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman, aka wierd people.

In order to keep all my non-wierd friends, colleagues and acquaintances engaged, I started to discard any non-encrypted email sent to my private address as well as any calls to my cell without RedPhone after three months of warnings. People can still leave a message on my landline if they can't get their shit together.

But the point is: if even my friends (nearly all in IT) have a hard time dealing with the ongoing and ever more depressing revelations, how can I blame the family down the street for not being indignant about it...

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

I'm still trying (after two and a half months) to get the working elliptical trainer I ordered and paid for...I swear it'll be the last NordicTrack equipment I ever buy. Not much point in tracking my use of a non-functioning trainer.

Shit, I'm lifting mighty dumbbells of 10 pounds, so don't be ashamed.

You people all need to join us in there, you need to lose some jelly rolls!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

i just got on it but havnt really done anything with it yet
i still kinda stick to my regular treadmill or elliptical machine routine so i was looking for something to get me over to the weight side of the gym.
It doesn't help that all the smaller weights up to 20lbs at my gym are pink... so hopefully this will trick my mind into doing something a bit more.

i just got on it but havnt really done anything with it yet

i still kinda stick to my regular treadmill or elliptical machine routine so i was looking for something to get me over to the weight side of the gym.

It doesn't help that all the smaller weights up to 20lbs at my gym are pink... so hopefully this will trick my mind into doing something a bit more.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^AeroMechanical:
As a related note, someone told me that a hydrogen atom is similar in relative scale to the solar system, with the sun being the nucleus and the earth being the electron. I dunno if that's right or not, but it's pretty cool anyways. Maybe Pluto was the electron. Back when it was still a planet.

That interested me.. if you're interested;
Accepted radius of a proton (nucleus of hydrogen) is 0.88 10^-15 m
Radius of sun = 6.96 10^8 m
Divide radius of sun by radius of proton to give how many times bigger the sun is than the proton = 7.91 10^23
Radius of an orbiting electron = 0.0529 10^-9 m
Multiply orbital radius of electron by our scale factor = 4.2 10^13 m.
We're 1.4 10^11 m away from the sun (that's the value of an astronomical unit, it's as good as you can ask for when talking about orbital radius, cos it's not a circle). So it's out by a factor of 300ish. (cos i rounded here and there)
Pluto's orbit is very eccentric (more elliptical than circular), but at its closest, it's about 4.4 10^12 m away from the sun. Out by a factor of 10 there. Or getting close to a factor of 5 at its furthest. Getting close, but still a pretty big difference.
^ all subject to change when (not if) i notice i've dropped a clanger

A factor of 300 is actually not that bad when you're talking about such big numbers.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

As a related note, someone told me that a hydrogen atom is similar in relative scale to the solar system, with the sun being the nucleus and the earth being the electron. I dunno if that's right or not, but it's pretty cool anyways. Maybe Pluto was the electron. Back when it was still a planet.


That interested me.. if you're interested;
Accepted radius of a proton (nucleus of hydrogen) is 0.88*10^-15 m
Radius of sun = 6.96*10^8 m
Divide radius of sun by radius of proton to give how many times bigger the sun is than the proton = 7.91*10^23

Radius of an orbiting electron = 0.0529*10^-9 m
Multiply orbital radius of electron by our scale factor = 4.2*10^13 m.

We're 1.4*10^11 m away from the sun (that's the value of an astronomical unit, it's as good as you can ask for when talking about orbital radius, cos it's not a circle). So it's out by a factor of 300ish. (cos i rounded here and there)

Pluto's orbit is very eccentric (more elliptical than circular), but at its closest, it's about 4.4*10^12 m away from the sun. Out by a factor of 10 there. Or getting close to a factor of 5 at its furthest. Getting close, but still a pretty big difference.

^ all subject to change when (not if) i notice i've dropped a clanger

Wow. Even on the sift you're debating distance from the sun. Distance from the sun, whether it results from the tilt of the earth's axis (the north pole is less than 5000km closer to the sun in summer) or the eccentricity of the earth's elliptical orbit (the earth itself is 5 million km closer to the sun in January than July), is immaterial. The tilt of the axis results in variations in the angle of incidence at which the sun's energy strikes the earth resulting in variations in the intensity of that energy on any given point on the earth's surface. It also affects the thickness of the amount of atmosphere that the sun's energy must pass through. The tilt also varies the length of the day. More daytime hours in a 24 hour period means more energy absorbed from the sun, more nighttime hours means more energy radiated back into space.

That being said I don't find it particularly disturbing that a bunch of arts grads, even from Harvard, might give these answers. I asked this question of my two daughters. The artist talked about distance from the sun and the MoSc in molecular genetics talked about axial tilt.

WTF? I didn't hear any of those students say anything about a highly elliptical orbit. What they said was that the seasons are caused by the earth being closer or further away from the sun during the seasons. Which is basically right. The northern hemisphere is closer to the sun during the summer, and is further away from the sun during the winter. F--k me, but I didn't see the Jeopardy set behind them requiring a specific phrase for the answer.

(Yes, I'm aware that the angle of incidence of sunlight is more relevant, but ffs, these are art students, according to the video's first few moments. I would not expect them to have solid mathematical understanding of astrophysical concepts.)

Jeez, that cat needs to hit the elliptical.

Sooo.... The elliptical machine and the bicycle had a wild night and this is the outcome. Gotta say, the security at LA Fitness is pretty lax.

>> ^EmptyFriend:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Wheels need to be much much larger. This sucks because you can't go very fast on it under your own power. You need more leverage. Multiple gears would be nice also, once you upgrade the wheel size.

Just FYI, it does have gears, although it could probably use more. I'm sure there's some reasoning for the small wheels... handling, storage, etc. I didn't have a problem getting it up to a good speed.


Okay, well from the looks of this video, they're looking like they're getting close to max speed on those things. Doesn't feel fast enough to me.