They are the main indicators you have selected under Settings. Default indicators are moving averages for the past 7 (blue) and 30 (yellow) time intervals.

So, how many of these "NSA" algorithms have you personally broken? That's not an unfair question: remember Schneier's Law: "Anyone can create an algorithm that he himself can't break." And your inability to break your own algorithm means nothing if you are unable to break any other algorithms. Nobody will take your cryptography seriously unless you have a lot of experience in breaking other people's algorithms, and rightly so.

Bruce Schneier provides a self-study course in cryptanalysis. Start here and don't even dream of rolling your own crypto until you've broken most of the algorithms in that paper. And no cheating.

Of course not. 10 minutes is the mean, not the median. The median (the point where 50% are higher and 50% are lower) is 6 minutes and 56 seconds. It should be expected that the median will be much smaller than the mean because there is a lower bound to the block time (zero) but no upper bound. It is possible to have a block time to be 20 minutes longer than average, but it is obviously not possible for the block time to be 20 minutes shorter than average (because it would be less than zero). Thus there a few very long block times that aren't (and can't possibly be) matched by very short block times, and this skews the average.

$1,500

$6,000

The first condition is the most critical and makes it much less of a gamble:


As long as you can reliably identify who you're transacting with, you can sue them if they defraud you. When deciding whether to accept 0-confirmation transactions, the question is not, "Can they double-spend?" (of course they can), but rather, "Can I do anything to recover my losses if they do?", and in many cases the answer is "yes, probably".

This forum is getting nihilistic. I got this error when I tried to update my profile:


And here I was thinking I did exist. I didn't think being a Legendary member meant I would literally cease to exist outside of mythology. So if I don't exist, does that mean if I continue posting, the legend will continue according to Satoshi's prophecy, or will reality just slowly unravel itself until the universe is destroyed?

It throws out a high frequency arc. Just modulate the power input and you've got yourself a primitive radio transmitter. Of course, it's totally obsoleted by modern tuned circuits, but back when it was invented it really did solve a lot of problems (in the field of radio transmission).

The Tesla coil is basically the horse-drawn carriage of wireless devices. It was useful a hundred years ago, but today its only place is entertainment and a few niche applications. Why do people expect a breakthrough in physics to come from such a hopelessly outdated technology?

"I've always regretted [sending men to the moon]. Nothing there but dry rocks and those revolting onion men."
-- Richard Nixon (in Futurama)

Seriously though, there's pretty much nothing of any value on the moon. There really is nothing but rocks up there, and the rocks themselves don't contain any especially valuable ores. The only thing I can think of is that the far side of the moon is the one place in the solar system that's permanently shielded from terrestrial EM emissions. This obviously makes it the ideal location for a radio telescope, but there's probably all kinds of other scientific research that could benefit from such an environment too. But other than that, I can't imagine a single worthwhile reason to go back to the moon.

(Right now, at least. Mining the moon for materials for space station construction etc. is a distant possibility (it takes a lot less energy to move mass into Earth orbit from the moon than from Earth), but we don't have the infrastructure for that yet.)

Too early to teach children what a "bad touch" is? You don't think that's something children should know?

Sorry, but I can't discredit something that has no credibility to start with. Is it arrogant to suggest that the theory that produces devices and experiments that actually work as described is more likely correct? I think not.

If you're so impressed by it, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and invest in their business? You'll make millions when they completely take over the energy market. I personally think the whole thing is just a scam, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. Go ahead and throw your money away. I won't stop you.

It doesn't run on salt water. It runs on electricity. It uses salt water as the electrolyte for its battery, which is nothing new. You still have to charge the battery with an external power source, just like any other electric car.

You don't need to tell me you're not a physicist; that much is obvious. The politics behind physics is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not it works. If Einstein's theory of relativity was built on incorrect math, the various experiments proving it would not have worked, and neither would any of the technology built on it, regardless of how much political support he had.

If by "we" you mean "you", then of course. Nobody can expect you to understand the advanced stuff when you can't even comprehend the basics. But those of us who do understand basic physics know that there's nothing mysterious about quantum mechanics.

That's why it's labelled "unstable". Normal users shouldn't be using it. They should stick with the "stable" releases. The purpose of this release is to find catastrophic bugs. No three letter agencies required.

Of course we really went to be moon. The evidence is right there in your post: "to be ahead of Russia". Guess what: Russia did not like the USA being ahead, which is why they were monitoring US space launches very closely. The could see the launches on radar and triangulate the radio signals once they were out of radar range. If there was any evidence at all of fakery, the Russians would have been the first to call bullshit. Yet that has not happened.

I'm not sure what's so amusing about the idea that poisoning might require medical treatment, but then again, I'm not the one being poisoned.

Well, sure, when you put it like that, you sound like a crazy person. Not that didn't sound like one already. Still, I assume your reason for posting this story is to ask for advice, and if you'd rather get sick and possibly die than take my advice, then I've no sympathy for you whatsoever, and if a week from now you start pissing blood or something, don't bother complaining here, because I'll just say "I told you so". Though I doubt that'll happen, because I believe you're making the whole thing up and you're not really poisoned.

You could respond with an explanation as to why you're telling this story on this forum instead of to a doctor and/or the police. I mean, it's been nearly a week and you're still suffering symptoms from this alleged poisoning. Don't you think you should at least consult a doctor about it? It might be helpful.

That's easy. People give him credit for breaking the laws of physics. The argument against that is that he was a mere mortal, and not some sort of godlike being. Sure, he was a brilliant engineer: he designed an electric motor, experimented with X-rays, and invented most of the technology for practical radio transmission; but he did not break the laws of physics, and there's not much reliable evidence that he even tried or claimed to.

Explain that statement. Nothing in the universe requires the laws of physics to be recognised in any way in order to work. Every one of Telsa's devices either worked or failed in accordance with the laws of physics, regardless of whether he or anyone else recognised or understood the physical processes involved.

If you fear you have been deliberately poisoned, you should go to an emergency room (or call an ambulance if you are too ill to go yourself) and call the police. In addition to treating your symptoms, the hospital can perform a blood screening to determine exactly what substance(s) you have been poisoned with, while the police retrace your movements to determine the likely location of the attack. The only reason you would not do this is if it never happened and you made up the whole story to get attention, or you're so paranoid that your distrust of authority exceeds your desire to not be murdered.

The difference is 10dB.

Oh, you mean is cross-polarisation isolation really that important in an LNBF? Usually not. At least that's what Google says, which you should have asked before posting this. All other things being equal, go with 30dB, but if other things are unequal, I guess go with whichever has the better unequal things.