.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The main difference between http:// and https:// is, It's all about keeping you secure
HTTP stands for HyperText Transport Protocol, which is just a fancy way of saying it's a protocol (a language, in a manner of speaking) for information to be passed back and forth between web servers and clients.
The important thing is the letter S which makes the difference between HTTP and HTTPS.
The S (big surprise) stands for "Secure".
If you visit a website or webpage, and look at the address in the web browser, it will likely begin with the following: http://.
This means that the website is talking to your browser using the regular 'unsecure' language.
In other words, it is possible for someone to "eavesdrop" on your computer's conversation with the website.
If you fill out a form on the website, someone might see the information you send to that site.
This is why you never ever ever enter your credit card number in an http website!
But if the web address begins with https://, that basically means your computer is talking to the website in a secure code that no one can eavesdrop on.
You understand why this is so important, right?
If a website ever asks you to enter your credit card information, you should automatically look to see if the web address begins with https://.
If it doesn't, there's no way you're going to enter sensitive information like a credit card number!
(By Sunita Narain)
=============================
The latest fuss about the 2°C global temperature target India apparently acceded to at the Major Economies Forum in L’Aquila, Italy, is important to unravel. The declaration by the world’s 20 biggest and most powerful countries recognized the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not exceed 2°C. The statement was widely criticized in India as a sign we had ‘given in’ to pressure to take commitments, to cap our emissions. But it was not quite clear why something as obtuse as 2°C equalled a target, so confusion followed. It seemed we were against capping temperature increase at 2°C; we wanted emissions to grow; that temperature increase was bad for us and for the world. The Western media tom - tommed it as another proof India was the renegade in climate negotiations.
Let’s sort this issue. It is widely accepted keeping global temperature rise below 2°C, measured from pre-industrial levels (1850), is the threshold that will leash climate change from being ‘dangerous’ to becoming ‘catastrophic’. To put this number into context, consider current average global temperature increase is 0.8°C; add on the fact that another 0.8°C is inevitable, because of the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) already pumped into the atmosphere. So, we are already close to the threshold.
Now, let’s understand the politics. Once the world accepts the need to cap temperature, it also accepts the need to cap emissions. The 2°C target is possible only if the world limits GHG concentration at 450 ppm CO2-e, taking together the stock and current emissions. It gets complicated here. Think of the atmosphere as a cup of water, filled to the brim. More water can only be filled if the cup is emptied to create space. But since there are many claimants on the water that needs to be filled in the cup, the space will have to be apportioned - budgeted - so that the earlier occupiers vacate and the new claimants fill in, in some proportion of equity.
In other words, the emission budget of 450 ppm CO2-e has to be apportioned, based on equity, between nations. The problem with the L’Aquila declaration is not that it caps the increase in temperature, but that it does not make explicit this limit will require sharing the budget equally between nations who have already used up their common atmospheric space and new entrants to economic growth. Without budget-sharing the temperature cap becomes a virtual cap on the emissions of the developing world, for we are told we will also have to peak in the midterm and take meaningful deviations from our carbon-growth trajectory.
Let us be clear: the space is very limited. We know concentration of all GHG emissions is already close to 430 ppm. But with some ‘cooling’ allowance, because of aerosols, it comes to 390 - 400 ppm. In sum, not much space remains to be distributed and shared in our intensely unequal world.
But this is not all that confounds the science. The fact is greenhouse gases have a very long life in the atmosphere. Gases released, say, since the late 1800s when the Western world was beginning to industrialize, are still up there. This is the natural debt that needs to be repaid, like the financial debt of nations.
It was for this reason the Kyoto Protocol, agreed in 1997, set emission limits on industrialized countries - they had to reduce so that the developing world could increase. It is a matter of record the emissions of these countries continued to rise. As a result, today there is even less atmospheric space for the developing world to occupy. It is also evident the industrial world did nothing; it knew it needed to fill the space as quickly as possible. Now we have just crumbs to fight over.
It is also no surprise, then, that Western academics are now calling upon the developing world to take on emission reduction targets: there is no space left for them to grow. The logic is simple, though twisted and ingenious. No space left to grow. Ergo, “you cannot ask for the right to pollute,” they tell the developing world.
This is unacceptable. We know emissions of carbon dioxide are linked to economic growth, therefore, capping emissions without equal apportionment will mean freezing inequity in this world.
Unacceptable.
We know also that this apportionment is an intensely political decision, for it will determine the way the world will share both the common space and economic growth. It is only when we agree on the formula for sharing that we can agree on how much the already - industrialized countries have to cut and by when, and how much the rest (India included) have to cut and by when.
Instead, what we have is a pincer movement. The already - industrialized do not want to set interim targets to reduce their emissions drastically. They want to change the base - year from when emission reduction will be counted - 2005 or 2007, instead of 1990. This means two things. One, they want to continue to grow (occupy space) in the coming years.
Two, the space they have already occupied - as their emissions vastly increased between 1990 and 2007 - should be forgiven. All this when we know meeting the 450 ppm target requires space to be vacated fast - they must peak within the next few years and then reduce drastically by at least 40 per cent by 2020 over 1990 levels. But why do this, when you can muscle your way into space?
So how will the world share the carbon budget? The only answer is it will have to be based on equity. We will discuss these issues, even as the climate clock ticks.
Courtesy: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=1
A 26-year old decided to have a cup of coffee. He took a cup of water and put it in the microwave to heat it up (something that he had done numerous times before).
I am not sure how long he set the timer for, but he told me he wanted to bring the water to a boil..
When the timer shut the oven off, he removed the cup from the oven. As he looked into the cup, he noted that the water was not boiling, but instantly the water in the cup 'blew up' into his face. The cup remained intact until he threw it out of his hand but all the water had flown out into his face due to the build up of energy.
His whole face is blistered and he has 1st and 2nd degree burns to his face, which may leave scarring. He also may have lost partial sight inhis left eye.
While at the hospital, the doctor who was attending to him stated that this is fairly common occurrence and water (alone) should never be heated in a microwave oven.. If water is heated in this manner, something should be placed in the cup to
diffuse the energy such as: a wooden stir stick, tea bag, etc. It is however a much safer choice to boil the water in a tea kettle.
General Electric's (GE) response:
Thanks for contacting us. I will be happy to assist you.
The e-mail thatyou received is correct. Microwaved water and other liquids do not always bubble when they reach the boiling point. They can actually get superheated and not bubble at all.
The superheated liquid will bubble up out of the cup when it is moved or when somethinglike a spoon or tea bag is put into it.
To prevent this from happening and causing injury,
do not heat any liquid for more than two minutes per cup.
After heating, let the cup stand in the microwave for thirty seconds before moving it or adding anything into it.
If you pass this on, you could very well save someone from a lot of pain and suffering.
(This post actually a mail sent to me by a friend ASHOK PANIGRAHI from ALL INDIA RADIO, CUTTACK with a request to forward it to as many persons as possible...so I published it here.)
CAN YOU GUESS,
WHAT IS THIS?
SCROLL DOWN FOR THE ANSWER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Its a hard disk in 1956....
The Volume and Size of 5MB memory storage in 1956.
In September 1956 IBM launched the 305 RAMAC, the first computer with a hard disk drive (HDD). The HDD weighed over a ton and stored 5MB of data.
