Slashdot Mirror

There are certainly other solar irradiance fluctuations greater than that, of course. GP was only referring to the long-scale growth in solar output.

The sunspot cycle varies output by about 0.1%, and of course there are Milankovitch cycles (orbital variations) which also affect the solar irradiance we get (though not the star's output). The Maunder minimum appears to have been due to an anti-phase correlation between the sunspot cycle and heliospheric current
sheet inclination variations (interesting paper here).

If you think the current climate research is "silly", have you considered that you may be simply misinterpreting it? Perhaps due to an incomplete picture, not having kept up with the vast amount of research in the field, or even by just taking out-of-context statements as meaning more than intended. And as for lack of supporting evidence, I don't think posts on slashdot should be taken as indicative of actual climate research. There's a lot of evidence out there if you look.

Yes, the accelerated beam is a rapidly moving detector. My point is that it is a rapidly moving detector with a woefully tiny volume. I'm no expert on this - I used this page for neutrino cross sections. Both inelastic and elastic scattering seems to be proportional to collision energy.

Neutrinos of several PeV/c^2 are regularly observed in neutrino observatories. At these energies, the Earth is able to act as a somewhat effective neutrino shield, resulting in a significant deficiency in high-enery (>60 TeV) neutrino flux from the direction of the ground (i.e. the direction shielded by the Earth). That says something about how difficult even extremely high energy neutrinos are to detect: Even a detector the size of the Earth lets through quite a bit of them.

It seems you're right that having enough energy to create W-bosons in the collision frame does give the cross section a huge boost, though. There is a really nice figure showing this on page 3 of the article From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross-Sections Across Energy Scales (note: That figure only shows one of several possible scattering processes - see page 40 for more details). But as the other poster pointed out, to get 100 GeV/c^2 in the collision frame, you need much higher energy when only one particle is moving. In this figure, that point seems to be about 6 PeV. So extragalactic ultra-high-energy neutrinos aren't that far away from that point. But particles in our accelerators have far too low energy.

Putting some rough numbers on this:
At lower energies, neutrino cross sections scale roughly proportional to energy with sigma/E ~ 10^-38 cm^2 / GeV. At high energy, the cross section at 10^15 eV is around 10^-33 cm^2. Thus, compared to an ~1MeV neutrino with a cross section on the order of 10^-41 cm^2, the PeV neutrino has ~10^8 greater cross section. You are about 10^-7 the thickness of the earth. Thus, you are roughly 10x more likely to be hit by a PeV neutrino passing through than the earth is to be hit by an MeV neutrino passing through (a rather good chance of being missed in either case).

The first hing I thought of was this game.

While you are right that SN 1987A puts strong constraints on such an effect, there is a huge difference in the energies of the neutrinos involved (~10 MeV vs ~10 GeV). Most models with corrections to Lorentz symmetry predict a linear dependence of the correction with energy, so this would become a matter of a day instead of several years. On the other hand, if one assumes a Planck-scale symmetry breaking as in doubly special relativity models,
this would require a ridiculously large prefactor to be observable on these scales.

No one is doubting Global Warming.

That's simply not true. There's a large contingency of folks who are outright denying even the temp rises. They're typically the mindless followers of Beck & Limbaugh.

By "solar weather theory" are you referring to the false arguments that AGW is caused by cosmic rays and/or temps are increasing on other planets? If so, no problem. Here's 34 different scientific papers that refute each aspect of them. :)

So, you ready to change your business model now?

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

Even the anti skeptics site skeptical science refers to him, so no Solanki is not a climate heretic.

Been reading too many oil company lackeys' "studies", eh? Guess everyone in the field is a gullible fool compared to you, random anonymous Internet poster.

Sun Not a Global Warming Culprit, Study Says
Solar Variability Unlikely To Have Caused Recent Warming
Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says
Solar Activity Not Causing Warming

How about this?

That's all default KDE4 svn trunk stuff, the wallpaper and color scheme both come with the default install. The only custom thing is the clock font.

* Neutrino
* History of the neutrinos [from our perspective, mind you]
* The Ultimate Neutrino Page
etc. I should go call up my particle physicist body to post up some comments. :)

So does this mean that I can't do the fucking moonwalk?

--
Whoo!

So does this mean that I can't do the fucking moonwalk?

--
Whoo!

RealClimate has an in-depth discussion of the Usoskin et al. paper (as well as a link to the original PDF), if you're interested. The comments are often as good as the original article on RealClimate. Here's a relevant excerpt from the original article:

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

Here are a few interesting points that might or might not be discussed at that site: (a) We've currently just passed through a solar minimum (in the 11-year cycle), yet we are still setting record highs. (b) Around 1957 maximum we were in a local minimum of temperatures. This is best explained by the presence of particulates in the atmosphere due to pollution problems.

The outer belt contains mostly relativistic electrons, energized in Earth's magnetosphere. The inner belt is made up of relativistic protons, a decay product of cosmic rays (having to do with the fact that a free neutron decays into a proton-electron pair, free neutrons having a half-life of only 11 minutes). See e.g. http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/radbelts.htm l for a short description.

For a new fad to come up and blow away all this "controversy" surrounding videogames. It's always the same.. "TRAVELING ON THE TRAIN WILL MAKE YOU MAD, THE SPEED WILL MESS UP YOUR BRAIN FOR GOOD!!" or "MICROWAVE OVENS CAUSE BRAIN TUMOUR!!" with every single new thing that comes up. I'm not even defending idiotic video game violence, I'd be more than happy to play the game Valve suggested.. (building stuff with people sounds interesting although not new. Ludocraft of Oulu, Finland (of Airbuccaneers-fame) created an Unreal mod called TeamGame back in 2002 in which people had to solve problems together, and I'm sure other folk have done it before too. .. but back to the topic)

There might be a connection to connection to violence. For myself, ever since the first Doom whenever I play fps-games I calm down. It's a good way to get rid of aggression by beating someone IN A GODDAMN GAME. And by beating them I mean besting them at something, not the mauling-to-pieces part. If people get aggressive with fps or other games it's either because of a game bug, losing to someone badly or playing with cheaters. IMHO, if you're gonna go blasting people away it's not because of the games. It's because you're just born insane and anything will trigger it. These people would have been considered prime soldiers a few hundred years ago.

I don't know anyone who has become more violent due to games. And I've been playing these horrible mind-twisting evil murder-trainers since I was 7 years old. When Doom came out I was 10-11 and had a blast with it with my friends. I've never hit anyone. And I'm pretty sure my friends haven't either.

Sure, put the school massacres on videogames or whatever. I call bullshit and bad parenting. It's not that hard to get a gun or other means of killing anywhere in the world and the only other school killing that I'm aware that didn't happen in the States is the one that happened in Germany. Oh, and they blamed it on Counter Strike. I'm thinking there's something else wrong in your country. Your culture is so overwhelming that even here in my small country called Finland we play the same games you do, made and published mostly by American corporations, and see the same tv-shows and movies and read the same books as you guys. And still kids here don't go blasting away each other.

All I'm saying is the same many other have said before and will say again: Stop finding outside reasons to blame for things that are caused by bad parenting and pre-existing mental disorders. Spend more time with your kids and get to know them. When I'll have kids I won't let them play violent games too young. I'm not stupid and as I said before, I'm not defending game violence itself. I think it can be harmful if parents don't tell kids what violence truly is (the basic stuff: people die and it's not fun, hitting others hurt them etc). Not in the sense that they'll go and killing people later on but in that there are better things for kids to do, like doing things with theirs friends and playing outside developing social and verbal skills.

The blurb has nearly no meaningfull information whatsoever. The only meaningfull bit is the recommendation not to use aggressive mode.

That's not the problem. Read the report, http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/protos/testin g/c09/isakmp/index.html, and look at the table at the bottom. There were just as many failures in main mode (i.e. non-aggressive mode) as in aggressive mode. Disabling aggressive mode is no counter-measure.

And these are implementation failures, not protocol failures. Generally they are the result of insufficient validation of bogus inputs.

http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/protos/testin g/c09/isakmp/index.html

"ABSTRACT

The Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP), is designed to establish, negotiate, modify and delete Security Associations. ISAKMP provides a consistent framework for transferring key and authentication data which is independent of the key generation technique, encryption algorithm and authentication mechanism. Internet Key Exchange (IKE), a derivate of ISAKMP, is a key protocol in the Internet Security Architecture (IPsec). A subset of IKE Phase 1 negotiation was chosen as the subject protocol for vulnerability assessment through syntax testing and test-suite creation. A survey of the related standards was made. Test-material was prepared and tests were carried out against a sample set of existing implementations. Results were gathered and reported. Some of the implementations available for evaluation failed to perform in a robust manner under the test. Some failures had information security implications, and should be considered as vulnerabilities. Therefore, this robustness test-material should be adopted for evaluation and development of ISAKMP/IKE products."

Other researchers have noted flaws in the methodology of the experiment. Rather than test the entire spectrum below 20 Hz, the MythBusters tested only three specific frequencies: 5, 7, and 9 Hz. In addition, the strategy of surrounding the subject with speakers without accounting for phase effects would have resulted in a loss of effective power being transmitted, especially at the geometrical centre of the speakers.

Your very own link suggests that the experiment may have been flawed.

The rumor that I've heard most often is that it's a specific frequency next to 8Hz, and that it's sort of a universal resonance frequency. (ObDisclaimer: I believe in the fractal nature of the universe.) See also: Schumann Resonance.

it's not working when I post it here.

I tried tt and ecode, but they both didn't work, so I had to add spaces here and there to avoid slashdot braking the declarations. You can reformat it if you like.

(you need an extension to use a different CSS in Firefox? Unbelievable!)

I guess Mozilla thinks that it's complying with the spec because you can add styles to userContent.css and it will cascade them, but this is inadequate. There should be a way to override the authors styles according to the accessibility guidelines. Most people don't recognize the power of User CSS unless they're long time Opera users, so might not have occurred to Mozilla.

I tried one of your .css files using one of the extensions you nicely linked to... the site look even worse!

The first two were geared towards the Original Light slash that used Tables. NeoSlash is the new one. I'm probably not going to do advanced layout because all the current HTML needs adjusting, so it would be a waste of time when they fix it.

The first few pages are now a column on the left containing what should be evenly distributed along the full width of the page!

Are you talking about how the side bars turn into list items? That's because people think it's semantic and accessible to put groups of links inside UL and LI, then use styles to change them from block to in-line elements that flow. Interesting theory, but ultimately it causes more problems when the style is removed, disabled, or unsupported.

CSS lets you put things anywhere, so those links should be at the bottom of the source, but I think that makes it hard to position in IE.

I just want a sort of light, text only display with no little columns of space wasted on either side of the screen.

Then use my stylesheet and ask slash to move the slash-box code to the bottom of the source... Or hide them.. Well, my sheet does add colors, but they're not too high contrast so they don't hurt my eyes.

I'm updating my NeoSlash Stylesheet to .block{display:none;} and that should get rid of most of the slashboxes, but login is in a .block, and some other sites use .block so it may interfere if you use it at other sites, and I try to design my sheets universal. If there was just a body class=slashdot I could make it apply only to .slashdot .block{display:none;}.

Fine details again:

If you're using EditCSS, you have to:

Action, Clear.
File, Open...

If you Open without clearing, you will just cascade (Join) all the styles together. I tried to make my CSS work cascaded, but it's too much work to undo everything. Therefor, you should clear the styles in order to remove slash's layout.

3. With Web Developer extension it's more involved:

Disable, Styles, All Styles.
CSS, Add Style Sheet...

1. Bookmarklets are the faster way:

First go to squarefree.com...#zap_style_sheets and bookmark zap styles And then paste the styles at the User Style make-bookmarklet page and it immediately creates a bookmarklet from the stylesheet, so simply bookmark the link that it creates. The link is the text with the border that says zap colors. You should change the text to NeoSlash or what ever you want.

I will put another style up in my journal since posting CSS in comments gives errors. This time I removed all the '!important' from the declarations because It was hurting, not helping much, so you're going to have to clear the styles first or you might get author

...obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings...

Killing human beings in a very few circumstances, is permitted by law -- most notably self-defense. There have been many cases of criminals wearing body armor.

In the courts opinion, it is reasonable to think that a citizen may have a legitimate usage for armor-piercing bullets. If a ammo manufacturer advertized their bullets as being "cop-killers" then they would be more analogous to the people who distribute a p2p system with the advertizing of "find any song, movie, show etc."

You're arguing about gun-control in general, which is actually counter to what you're (I think) advocating. The same defense that keeps guns legal -- there is in certain circumstances a legal reason to have a gun -- is the same arguement that will protect p2p as a whole. There IS a set of circumstances in which p2p can be legally justified, and thus the whole technology cannot and will not be banned. Just as legally, there ARE restrictions on how guns can be used, there are going to be legal restrictions on how p2p can be used.

Do I agree with this p2p ruling? Not really, I don't personally support the current copyright law, but as a member of the Supreme Court, I'll answer your question. We don't value anything more than individual liberty, because life without liberty is an abhorrent concept. We ruled against people promoting breaking the law, and not against p2p. How else COULD we have ruled?

How many years has this been keeping up? It may very well be a result of Solar Cycles rather than purely terrestrial climate effects.

Yeah, I was hoping Air Buccaneers would win (they received third place). Definitely a fun mod when lots of people are playing. A kind of unique concept as well.

Epic Games announces the finalists for the Mod category for Grand Finals of the NVIDIA $1,000,000 Make Something Unreal Contest. To even make it to the Grand Finals is an amazing accomplishment for these dedicated and creative teams. To be selected as a finalist for the Grand Finals is to be the cream of the crop. Each and every one of these mods are the best of the best and worthy of play by all.

Deathball
Domain 2049
Frag.Ops
Strike Force
Troopers: Dawn of Destiny
Red Orchestra
Metaball
Alien Swarm
Air Buccaneers
Damnation
Robin Hood
Chaos UT2
UnWheel

2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for less than 1%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet, absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.

3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly froze over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1000 - 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.

4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.

5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic radiation reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.

6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/projekter/rum_vejr/over sigt.html

7. The best protection against climate chan

On their site is a link to a trailer clip of the game/mod.

This file is 12.0 MB and contains only 1:10 (70 seconds) of footage. The video stream is 512x384 DivX 5 (DX50 fourcc) at 25 FPS, with an average bitrate of 738kbit/s. That's pretty respectable. However the audio track is UNCOMPRESSED PCM at 22kHz stereo, which comes works out to a bitrate of 706kbit/s. That is just insane - approximately half of this file is UNCOMPRESSED AUDIO.

Had the person used a decent codec, such as VBR mp3 at 128kbit/s average rate, the file size would have shrunk to about 7.3 MB. Or in other words this file is approximately 70% larger than it should be. I don't know who's running their web site but I'm sure they'd appreciate the bandwidth savings if their trailer wasn't made by someone lacking clue.

2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for less than 1%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet, absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable.

3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly froze over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1000 - 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.

4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.

5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.

6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/proj

1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.

2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for 3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly frozen over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.

4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm/ shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.

5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf/ shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm/ The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.

6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://http//web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/projekter/rum_vej r/oversigt.html/

7. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technologically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd

The idea that we should always be "balanced" when it comes to arguments of political import leads to a lot of bullshit getting consideration it doesn't deserve. Global warming deniers at this point are in the same class as creationists, Holocaust-deniers, and flat-earthers -- it's not that they're being dismissed out of hand, it's that their arguments have been proven wrong time and time again, to the point that there's really no point in continuing the argument, and yet they just keep going.

So, in other words, we shold ignore any and all scientific studies which may raise questions about the causes of global warming [1], simply because you know on the face of it that their conclusions must be wrong?

Please excuse me if I'm not convinced...

[1] Phys. Rev. Lett., 91(21), 211101, 2003.

I'm sure a similar Linux workaround can happen as well before the Linux version is released, but I don;t know exactly how it would work on Linux.

2. The ECE update does NOT contain any mods that will ship with the retail version; just the maps, models, vehicles and engine tweaks. If you want the mods that are shipping with the retail version you can download them from their respective sites:

Air Buccaneers
Alien Swarm
Chaos UT2
Clone Bandits
Deathball
Domain 2049
Frag.Ops
Jailbreak
Red Orchestra
UnWheel

Most of these mods come with installers (.exe), or are UT4 files (UMod), while I know Red Orchestra has a Mac OS X installer and others can be downloaded as zip archives for manual instilation for OS X and Linux users..

I don't know what fantasy you live in, but the last time I checked, a 9mm semi-automatic pistol is outgunned when faced with fully automatic and assault type weapons loaded with armor piercing ammunition. These weapons are COMMON among the criminal element.

Police departments in every major city in this country have fully automatic firearms, snipers and armor piercing ammunition. Sure, an individual cop can be outgunned, but "the police" are not.

Think back 3 years ago to a bank robbery in California when 2 gunmen were able to hold off over 40 LAPD officers for almost an hour due to superior firepower and body-armour.

You're talking about the North Hollywood Shootout which, by the way, was over seven and a half years ago.

None of the cops were killed, and both of the suspects were. That speaks volumes about who was outgunned.

We are supposed to take YOUR WORD for the fact that they are not outgunned. I, however, have given SOLID and REAL evidence that they are. Your stating that they are not outgunned is anecdotal at best, and a complete fabrication of your imagination at worst.

You seem to have little to no understanding of what "anecdotal" means. One story does not constitute solid or real evidence. Even the story that you brought up supports my argument.

LK

How is Red Orchestra above and beyond any other UT FPS Mod? In the opinion of many UT gamers, Air Buccaneers is the best FPS mod created for UT.

Then might I refer you to AirBuccaneers?
Its kind of like a pirate game, except that combat is largely done through large airships (dirigibles) with cannons.
Though surely the same concepts used in airships could be applied to conventional watercraft? (But hey, i'm no UScript expert)

many companies base their entire inventory tracking and accounting systems on complex macro programs.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "based" rather than "base". I know of two companies which went bankrupt because their macro-based accounting practices buggered things up.

One company found that the macros were stuffing things up when their biggest customer complained. Auditors were called in and found that the macros had overcharged for some things (some of them by an order of magnitude) and silently failed to charge for others. When the dust settled, the company had to pay back some humungous amout of money (millions, I think) and they survived that, but then a macro virus went through their business like a bushfire through spinifex and they suddenly discovered that their backup procedures really were as bad as the auditors had claimed. My little Linux gateway box was still faithfully doing its thing when the auctioneers came and took it away with the rest of the office equipment and furniture about three months later.

The other company rolled out a new version of MS Windows and MS Office, then discovered on Monday that the new MS Office broke their macros. In the time it took them to fix their macros, they nearly went out of business too. They contract out their accounting, now, and use stylesheets and templates to replace their macros for other stuff. If they hadn't done, the poor (absent) error-checking in the macros would have sent them bust as well. Technically, they did go bankrupt but the authorities took note of the reasons for it and let them keep trading for a month or two until their considerable cash flow had dragged them past the danger zone.

On a similar note, my book-keepers make a specialty of rescuing businesses from DIY accounting packages like MYOB. The businesses using them don't understand how the programs work. They enter data, they get regular reports, and not only are the reports wrong because the data's wrong (or in the wrong place), but they aren't able to meaningfully interpret even the wrong results. BKN take their data and paperwork and return reports which are not only rigorously correct but also meaningful in a business sense. On top of this, things like tax forms get submitted correctly and on time, which averts the fines and other cost associated with getting that wrong.

The moral of the story is that there are some things which bodging past is difficult and dangerous for, and "bodgy" pretty much defines a typical set of MS Office macros.

Linus "I definitely won't be moving back to Finland though."

There is water on Mars. The ICE CAPS were first noticed about FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

332 years ago, to be specific, though looking through a low-powered telescope isn't quite the same as using an orbiting thermal emission spectrometer.

The powers that be rejected this a week ago. Its a paper which will appear in PRL that did a reconstruction of Be data in polar ice to reconstruct sunspot data back an additional 800 or so years, to AD 850. They show that the period since 1940 has shown uniquely high solar activity . This too hits at the greenhouse theories. See the paper here

object tag.

No... I could be wrong ofcourse. It might be some other manufacturer, but it sure looks like a SICK device.

Here's some interesting reading:
Pulsed time-of-flight laser rangefinding
Fast acquiring and analysis of three dimensional laser range data

The second one is by the german guys in the article.

It's also possible to use SidPlay2/w (gui), command-line SidPlay2? or the oldish SIDAMP plugin for WinAmp 2, or any other sid players, to listen to SID files (with a more or less accurate sound? I don't know. I've never heard a real C64 in my life. :)

There's also GoatTracker on http://covertbitops.c64.org/ 's Tools section, for creating your own sid tunes (open source, SDL, has Windows binary).

http://developer.gnome.org/

http://www.daa.com.au/~james/pygtk/

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~jlof/gtkglarea/

Obscurity does not provide security. Things like CERT exist, or better yet: Vulnerability disclosure publications and discussion tracking at Oulu Univeristy in Finland. The way to deal with buggy software is to find the bugs, fix them ASAP and let the world know about the bugs. It is not to ban Rendezvous, or not use it. Better security is obtained by protecting the physical layer from access. Wireless has it's own caveats, of course, but there are ways to make cracking into your wireless network "expensive" for casual war drivers, kind of like putting a Club on your steering wheel. If a hacker can't get to your phy layer (the entire Layer 2 "wire"), then Rendezvous isn't that bad. It is link-local. Of course you need good host security to help prevent the compromise of a host on your subnet, but Rendezvous won't help them crack a host, unless they are already on your subnet. (round and round we go). As for "Almost any piece of software is secure only because of obscurity" this can't be a common opinion outside of Microsoft.

Need "quality" stuff? Here's a perverted ASCII comic, The #musicdsp Adventures , which I drew last year - stories from the music digital signal processing IRC channel. Each picture is only 3 lines long. A tiny sample:

\õ/ Oh Bram! OH BRAM!!!
|
/\|\_o ..ah DJ Maus, DJ MAUS!!!

You're probably thinking of "gaffer's tape", which is used by gaffers in the television and music industries. And, as you allude, it's not quite the same thing as duct tape.

There's been a lot of research going on about neutrinos in the recent years. I still recall the big recent newsbreak when they discovered that they can spontaneously change to another form. The Ultimate Neutrino Page and Neutrino History have some good news.

The thing I've been thinking is... what they really need is another somewhat-close supernova to occur. That should give scientists even more data to digest.

QWell they might not, but the uni taht did the study has released the jar files to scan for the exploits. Simple matter of extracting the classes and if need be de-compiling the byte code.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-835602.html

To mitigate this vulnerability OULU (the guys that found this a year ago) has some good links at http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/ouspg/protos/testin g/c06/snmpv1/

Securing SNMP on Solaris
http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/security/howto/2000-10-04/
Securing SNMP in Windows
http://www.sans.org/infosecFAQ/incident/SNMP.htm
Securing your Cisco Router when using SNMP
http://www.sans.org/infosecFAQ/netdevices/router.h tm
SNMP - simple management tool for hackers?
http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/sec/1004sec1.h tml
Windows 2000, SNMP and Security
http://www.securityfocus.com/focus/microsoft/2k/sn mp.html

In fact, there are several different buffer overflow and format string bugs, in different SNMP implementations. The OUSPG report (which triggered this advisory) seems to be more detailed, but I still have to read it. (OTOH, SNMP vulnerabilities are rather boring stuff nowadays, any sane person blocks SNMP at the closest router.)

Rant time: I submitted this as a Slashdot story, but it was rejected (go figure). I think this hole is far more severe and important than some stupid hole in file-stealing software. I mean, if you're using these shitty spyware-laden piracy tools, you deserve what you fucking get. I'm sorry, but "trading" MP3s IS illegal, regardless of what rhetoric you geeks make up to try and back it up. Consider this Morpheus security hole as karma coming to bite you in the ass.

To quote a teacher I once had, I would agree with you if not for the fact that you're wrong. The day/night neutino detection cycle isn't a theoretic effect they are trying to observe, it's an experimental effect they are trying to explain. The present best explanation is that they switch between two families (muon & tau) with different masses.

-- MarkusQ

For me it seems to be that most of the /. readers do not have a clue what neutrino is so here is a link

neutrino

So make some studies before posting.