Slashdot Mirror

This one is more apt.

As another poster pointed out, Watson ignored the category, which was "US Cities". Toronto isn't in the US.

Without going into an extensive search of airports in North America (or the world) named after people, we did see that Toronto has an airport unequivocally named after a "battle hero". (That being Billy Bishop). But without other stuff in the clue to work with, that led to a lot of uncertainty. Hence five question marks.

And yeah, Toronto does have an airport named after a battle hero. But that airport isn't even close to the largest airport in Toronto. Or the GTA, for that matter. Billy Bishop (YTZ) is actually pretty small... in fact, it's smaller than the one where I take private flying lessons (YRP), even though that airport is actually an old military airfield located in a small town in Ontario, about 45 minutes west of the nearest major city, and neither is even close, in size or annual travellers, to Pearson International (YYZ). Pearson, of course, is named after Lester B. Pearson, who was a Prime Minister in the '60's, not a war hero in WWII or WWI.

As another poster pointed out, Watson ignored the category, which was "US Cities". Toronto isn't in the US.

Without going into an extensive search of airports in North America (or the world) named after people, we did see that Toronto has an airport unequivocally named after a "battle hero". (That being Billy Bishop). But without other stuff in the clue to work with, that led to a lot of uncertainty. Hence five question marks.

And yeah, Toronto does have an airport named after a battle hero. But that airport isn't even close to the largest airport in Toronto. Or the GTA, for that matter. Billy Bishop (YTZ) is actually pretty small... in fact, it's smaller than the one where I take private flying lessons (YRP), even though that airport is actually an old military airfield located in a small town in Ontario, about 45 minutes west of the nearest major city, and neither is even close, in size or annual travellers, to Pearson International (YYZ). Pearson, of course, is named after Lester B. Pearson, who was a Prime Minister in the '60's, not a war hero in WWII or WWI.

As another poster pointed out, Watson ignored the category, which was "US Cities". Toronto isn't in the US.

Without going into an extensive search of airports in North America (or the world) named after people, we did see that Toronto has an airport unequivocally named after a "battle hero". (That being Billy Bishop). But without other stuff in the clue to work with, that led to a lot of uncertainty. Hence five question marks.

And yeah, Toronto does have an airport named after a battle hero. But that airport isn't even close to the largest airport in Toronto. Or the GTA, for that matter. Billy Bishop (YTZ) is actually pretty small... in fact, it's smaller than the one where I take private flying lessons (YRP), even though that airport is actually an old military airfield located in a small town in Ontario, about 45 minutes west of the nearest major city, and neither is even close, in size or annual travellers, to Pearson International (YYZ). Pearson, of course, is named after Lester B. Pearson, who was a Prime Minister in the '60's, not a war hero in WWII or WWI.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm sure the people who are have thought of this. I guess that they're relatively safe in that any object thus "captured" must have been travelling at a rather low relative velocity and eased its way in, and that space is mostly empty. I also assume the telescope will be armoured insofar as is practical, probably with spaced aluminium Whipple shields like the ISS.

This fact can never be stated enough, and why the only nuclear aggressor ever isn't more closely monitored despite violating the NNPT in several ways is beyond me.
In fact even a crazy ruler like Ahmadinejad correctly pointed out at the UN that the USA is almost exempt from inspection by IAEA while Iran is heavily scrutinized, they alleged the IAEA is not performing their agreed duties. Also of note is that Israel is one of the few nations who have nuclear weapons and refused to sign the NNTP or cooperate with the IAEA. This dude might be crazy and his motives might be questionable but he raises a good point, the NNTP and IAEA seem pretty useless and are only used by the USA for their own agenda...

This fact can never be stated enough, and why the only nuclear aggressor ever isn't more closely monitored despite violating the NNPT in several ways is beyond me.
In fact even a crazy ruler like Ahmadinejad correctly pointed out at the UN that the USA is almost exempt from inspection by IAEA while Iran is heavily scrutinized, they alleged the IAEA is not performing their agreed duties. Also of note is that Israel is one of the few nations who have nuclear weapons and refused to sign the NNTP or cooperate with the IAEA. This dude might be crazy and his motives might be questionable but he raises a good point, the NNTP and IAEA seem pretty useless and are only used by the USA for their own agenda...

Wait...Q....the Quakenet bot?

No, this Q

For most videos the "reencoding" consisted of moving the H.264 video out of the Flash container.

Really? I thought Flash had used H.263 (Sorenson Spark) and VP6 before adopting AVC.

Errm, "AVC" is H.264

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

If anything, the way this will change is if people buy the hardware, use it, and put pressure on the vendors to get rid of the DRM. It eventually worked on Apple and Amazon for music.

That is a misread of what happened with Apple and music DRM.

The reason we have DRM-free music now is because Apple had a monopoly on DRM. Apple categorically refuses to license their "fairplay" DRM to any other company. Since they had a near monopoly on mp3 players (over 90% marketshare) the music labels were faced with a choice:

1) Keep DRM and let Apple dictate pricing
2) (Temporarily) give up on DRM so that they could sell without Apple.

The music labels chose #2 probably because they are such massive control freaks that being under Apple's thumb was just too much for them.

If wide-spread adoption of DRM encumbered products actually helped, it is highly unlikely that we would have seen the continuing DRM on DVD war that has escalated way past CSS to things like Sony's ARccOS system.

Even though you didn't say it, many people who hold similar beliefs about what happened with music DRM also believe that Apple is anti-DRM. Unfortunately that's not true and the proof is in the pudding - Jobs is now effectively in control of Disney (Buena Vista Pictures, ABC Televsion, etc) and if he wanted DRM to stop on video, he could do it on itunes for any Disney production. That he hasn't done so is pretty strong evidence that Apple embraces DRM just as much as any of the studios.

They don't seem to do measured responses very well.

R2-45

'Nuff said.

Oh I totally agree, I just thought it was nice to post a link to the article they were reporting on, seeing that neither they nor the submitter bothered to do so.

In a nutshell, coronal holes are a large source of Solar Wind https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Solar_wind

You don't know of the storage technology in VMware, nor of the value of the cooperative storage ecosystem that SAN and NAS players have invested hundreds of millions into.

This really removes the basis on which you make your further claims.

In short, VMware is successful as the most capable solution of enterprise-scale, exactly because it virtualises not just server hosts, but brings a virtual model to storage - not to mention networking. There is nothing comparable in the MS world, which seeks to leverage existing cluster technology from Server2008 to present a model for VHD storage.

Review VMFS for starters:
http://www.vmware.com/products/vmfs/
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/VMware_VMFS

Microsoft has a sad hack to commit memory in a way that shaves a fraction off of the VMware machine density advantage. They are still competing with a 2006-era VMware - they have no clue how to get out of this, aside from dumping a billion dollars into compete marketing efforts.

The massive executive and senior-engineering exodus from MS is a clear sign that -- even in the halls where sacred Kool-Aid is draughted -- the days of leadership are over, almost before they were enjoyed.

DailyMotion is highly influenced by the French ISP called Orange which is suspected of prioritizing some contents and slowing down Megaupload and other websites. Besides, there are people from the french government working for them which are the ones who came up with the HADOPI law. Knowing all that, I wouldn't trust news coming from DM.

DailyMotion is highly influenced by the French ISP called Orange which is suspected of prioritizing some contents and slowing down Megaupload and other websites. Besides, there are people from the french government working for them which are the ones who came up with the HADOPI law. Knowing all that, I wouldn't trust news coming from DM.

I have to say, when they identified and reburied Copernicus, they gave him the coolest tombstone I've ever seen. Very nice...

I'm surprised that this artist was the first to try implanting a device, as Steve Mann has been increasingly merging technology with his body for three decades now.

I read that as Steve MARTIN at first. It made perfect sense. Well, except I thought that you were a bit off on your decades count.

I'm surprised that this artist was the first to try implanting a device, as Steve Mann has been increasingly merging technology with his body for three decades now.

The Register's take on this is appropriately foreboding. How many hands have Microsoft CEOs shaken with great optimism, only to have the other company dead-end it's business a few years later? The picture is the handshake of doom.

It reminds me of this picture.

RIP Kim Peek.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kim_Peek

Simony would seem to be the greatest objection here. Someone is charging $1.99 for a sacrament? That's never been anywhere near acceptable in Catholic teaching.

Kroger is Ralphs, food-4-less, FoodsCo.
Vons is Safeway, Carrs, Casa Ley, Dominick's, Genuardi's, Pak n Save, Randall's, Pavilions.
Albertson's hasn't been mentioned so I don't feel like typing out he list, but here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Albertsons_(SuperValu)#Sale_to_SuperValu.2C_CVS.2C_Cerberus

There's really only a few supermarket brands out there.

As of December, Ubuntu was behind nearly the same amount of Wikipedia traffic as Android, slightly more than the more directly comparable iPad (assuming phones aren't used as much for web surfing as computers are, whereas the iPad is specifically designed for it). Either the iPad is still irrelevant, or Ubuntu is relevant.

http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2010-12/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm

What does this mean? As GNOME was Ubuntu's desktop, it means a mass of new users for GNOME. I think this has been one of the main influences of Ubuntu. Linux has been on the server a long time, and people have been mucking with Apache on Linux and the like for a long time. But Ubuntu brought a lot of new users to the Linux desktop, and suddenly GNOME had a much wider user base than it did. This has exposed some bugs in GNOME and freedesktop.org applications, many of which have been patched. I have been mostly following the evince/poppler/cairo portion of this universe, and the influx of Ubuntu users has exposed bugs in all of these programs/libraries, many of which have been patched. Of course, Ubuntu has been moving somewhat away from Gnome to Unity, and it has already begun with Natty Narwhal.

Further, there is nothing secure about communications, however well encrypted they might be as people in Egypt found out when the entire country's net went dark.

Secure also means Operational.

RedPhone is just one piece of a larger puzzle that could create some very exciting stories for freedom-lovers everywhere:

We need to disintermediate the network. It's an ugly duckling of a word, but cutting out the middle man matters more now than ever.

As long as the cables, wires and frequencies over which we communicate are susceptible to being controlled, curtailed or even disconnected when the things we say -or the way we say them- become upsetting, we will find ourselves increasingly confined.

As I said during an Internet policy session yesterday, if you ask anyone -anyone- whether there should be limits on Behaviour X on the Internet, the answer will always be a resounding Yes. That's not a problem in and of itself, because X is usually anti-social and contrary to the public good. The problem is that anything capable of curtailing Behaviour X can be brought to bear on Behaviours A through W as well.

The only way out of this is to provide the technical means to do what we have always done in democratic societies: Keep our private discussions private and our public discussions free.

RedPhone (well, the ZRTP protocol, anyway) is a pretty important component of that.

Pack your strawman back up - no one has said we shouldn't do anything to him because he's nonviolent.

That we already have Supreme Court cases covering exactly this kind of thing, and it's well established that this is afforded first amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution?
  I support Wikileaks for that - why don't you?
Because he's caught the government (and a number of others) lying to it's citizens?
  I support Wikileaks for that - why don't you?
That he's uncovered stuff being classified, not because it's harmful, but because it's embarrassing to specific people with the authority to mis-use the classification process to hide personally embarrassing information?
  I support Wikileaks for that - why don't you?
That Wikileaks has in general gone to extraordinary effort to prevent personal danger to U.S. assets that might be endangered by the release of this information?
  I support Wikileaks for that - why don't you?

You seem to be happy rewarding corruption in government and business with dark holes to hide in, while threatening those that uncover it with violent reprisal. Why?

Pug (anon because Slashdot gave me mod points - apologies)

Trains have derailed at high speeds, nobody ever died.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/TGV_accidents

Wikipedia LTE Article lists a bunch of different frequency bands used by LTE (and other cellular standards), and this L1 band isn't in there. So while GPS interference problems may affect this particular carrier's frequency band, it's not going to affect the widely announced plans for 4G* LTE or HSPA+, and it doesn't look like it affects the current 4G* WiMax carriers either.

Of course, I'll be really annoyed if these guys interfere with my el-cheapo car GPS, or my cellphone's GPS, and I'll be really annoyed if they start interfering with airplane GPS systems (if I had to worry about my car falling out of the sky or crashing into mountains, I'd have more serious problems than just GPS...)

* Defining your product as "nth-Generation Wireless" is a marketing-slogan issue, and it was hubris for the carriers and equipment makers who declared their products to be the standard in the first place, so I'm not going to argue about whether LTE or WiMax or NewerShinierRadio is real 4G or not. The stuff that the major carriers and handset makers are deploying in the next year or two doesn't interfere with GPS, which is what matters, not what label they attach to it, so it's not going to cause sky-is-falling problems or create no-fly zones around your local cellular tower, even though there are probably Marin County residents panicking about it as we speak.

Are you Americans resigned to discuss the feasibility of the idea instead of the implications on freedom?

Or is everything different in a post-911 USA?

We don't go after this for the same reason we didn't productize tar sands in Alberta until recently, and for the same reason we haven't produced commercial quantities of oil from oil shale: If it costs too much to do, it's not worth doing. It becomes worth doing when the cost is less than the selling price.

Sure, some of the precious metals, etc. in these spacecraft are valuable. The cost of collecting it from space far, far outweighs the cost of just mining more here on earth. It simply isn't commercially viable to get it from space yet.

If space travel ever gets cheap, say 100+ years from now, maybe some space-faring Sanford and Son can make a living scrap collecting among the graveyard orbits. But until then, it's simply more economical to let derelict satellites drift safely out of the way of all the active birds.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Entomopter

If ASCII characters are used, the 256 bit key is calculated by applying the PBKDF2 key derivation function to the passphrase, using the SSID as the salt and 4096 iterations of HMAC-SHA1.

Slow by design.

In short, now that I'm older, the anger has turned into quiet desperation.

That and ulcers and/or depression (citation). No job is worth either of those.

Those people would have otherwise died a week later from something else. Generally, people who die from flu are old and/or weak. But you knew this, didn't you ?

Of course many of "those people" are kids under five (according to the graphic by age group on https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Influenza ), and for pandemics there are big peaks for the 15-40 age group, on par with the "old foggey" levels. But you knew this, didn't you ?

Yes, it is true that the old and infirm are particularly hit by flu deaths, but the majority of those who die do not have a life expectancy measured in weeks independent of their flu infection. If you have information to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it.

According to http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm the average life years lost from Flu: 9.5 years for pneumonia/influenza; 10.9 for pneumonia/influenza in North Carolina.

This does not take into account the financial costs associated with flu independent of deaths. Society spends a lot on flu health care and in lost productivity. When significant numbers of strong healthy wage earners visit their doctor to take care of themselves, their kids, or their parents, that adds up to a lot of lost working hours and increased doctor costs.

Current technology can not capture wind energy in a way that is not harmful to the environment.

All energy production harms the environment, even hydroelectric energy production:

One study shows that a hydroelectric dam in the Amazon has 3.6 times larger greenhouse effect per kWh than electricity production from oil, due to large scale emission of methane from decaying organic material.

Tow the wind mills off shore. Bring down the production and maintenance costs. Scale up. Profit.

This situation is a textbook example of a tragedy of the commons. Each PC manufacturer stands to gain from including bloatware. Consumers generally don't decide between different PC makers based on the amount of bloatware installed (because they all have it), so the cost is practically nothing, while the direct, short-term financial benefit is substantial.

However, consumers *do* consider subjective frustration when choosing a computing platform, and bloatware increases the frustration consumers feel toward the PC platform as a whole, reducing its market share. In short, bloatware is like pollution: nobody pays to dump sewage in the river, but everyone gets sick.

There are two common solutions to the commons problem: regulation, which isn't really feasible in a private market like that for PCs, or property rights that give actors an incentive to maintain the commons. The latter tactic explains why walled gardens have grown so explosively: their "owners" (Apple, Google, and to some extent, mobile carriers) have a strong incentive to not pollute the market.

This situation is a textbook example of a tragedy of the commons. Each PC manufacturer stands to gain from including bloatware. Consumers generally don't decide between different PC makers based on the amount of bloatware installed (because they all have it), so the cost is practically nothing, while the direct, short-term financial benefit is substantial.

However, consumers *do* consider subjective frustration when choosing a computing platform, and bloatware increases the frustration consumers feel toward the PC platform as a whole, reducing its market share. In short, bloatware is like pollution: nobody pays to dump sewage in the river, but everyone gets sick.

There are two common solutions to the commons problem: regulation, which isn't really feasible in a private market like that for PCs, or property rights that give actors an incentive to maintain the commons. The latter tactic explains why walled gardens have grown so explosively: their "owners" (Apple, Google, and to some extent, mobile carriers) have a strong incentive to not pollute the market.

In other words WP:DONTBITE and WP:EDIT have been thrown out of the window in favor of deletionism and wikilawyering.

In other words WP:DONTBITE and WP:EDIT have been thrown out of the window in favor of deletionism and wikilawyering.

Most "retro spam cans" landings were on the ground (yes, there are limits to parachute sizes - but far after sensible limits of crew and hence capsule size; plus there are other landing systems possible...)

Why "retro", anyway? Have we forgotten that spaceplanes were the mode of space travel in scifi of 30s, 40s or 50s? (no doubt influenced by rapid advances in airplane technology) How the blunt ballistic shape came out as a bit of a surprise, after long domination of dreams with spaceplanes? (on which many Shuttle designers and decisionmakers were no doubt raised, so there might have been a problem with pushing ... perhaps not particularly good idea; kinda like those "airplanes" from our times (we can even build them! Start with a Harrier, remove wings and canopy...doesn't mean it's a good idea), no doubt influenced by advances in marine tech; vs. "retro"; not many flying boats around, too)

Or Slackware math (source page.)

For the record, I'm not hating on Slack -- I used it on my ancient (even at the time) laptop all through college, and it never let me down.

Hello, I have this wonderful bridge and I want to sell it really cheap. I think you would love it. I also happen to have a tower in Paris that I'm willing to sell at a bargain price.

BTW, are you interested in getting a commission for taking a few million dollars out of Nigeria?

Defining science as its common usage, "branches of study that relate to phenomena of the material universe and their laws" [Wikpedia] . . .

Using a definition from the same source more in line with the meaning in context with this thread:
"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.https:"Wikpedia, evolution

. . . evolution is not a scientific theory

Yes, it is, as it does involve testable explanations and predictions.

It is intended to answer the question of how life came to exist, which is a historical question (how did this come about) rather than a scientific one (how does the universe work).

No, the scientific theory of evolution is not intended to answer the question of how life cam to exist, it is intended to explain how species arise and evolve (part of how the universe works). The origin of life issue may be related, though, because some theories use evolutionary principles about accumulation and survival of physical changes as part of their explanation for the (physical) origin of life.

Nothing explains the ultimate origin of existence/life/conciousness, though. (Even if you have religious faith, religion doesn't really explain that, unless you consider concepts like "God works in mysterious ways" an explanation)

Defining science as its common usage, "branches of study that relate to phenomena of the material universe and their laws" [Wikpedia] . . .

Using a definition from the same source more in line with the meaning in context with this thread:
"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.https:"Wikpedia, evolution

. . . evolution is not a scientific theory

Yes, it is, as it does involve testable explanations and predictions.

It is intended to answer the question of how life came to exist, which is a historical question (how did this come about) rather than a scientific one (how does the universe work).

No, the scientific theory of evolution is not intended to answer the question of how life cam to exist, it is intended to explain how species arise and evolve (part of how the universe works). The origin of life issue may be related, though, because some theories use evolutionary principles about accumulation and survival of physical changes as part of their explanation for the (physical) origin of life.

Nothing explains the ultimate origin of existence/life/conciousness, though. (Even if you have religious faith, religion doesn't really explain that, unless you consider concepts like "God works in mysterious ways" an explanation)

Okay, first of all. Things in science are not "proven" in the sense that there is some point when you say "Well, that's 100% positive". As much as any theory can be proven evolution has been proven.

Secondly, "it's still a theory" indicates a woeful ignorance of what a scientific theory is. Theory, in science, isn't some wild-assed guess. It is well supported by multiple streams of evidence. What you're committing is the etymological fallacy, conflating two different definitions of a word.

Defining science as its common usage, "branches of study that relate to phenomena of the material universe and their laws" [Wikipedia], evolution is not a scientific theory.

It is intended to answer the question of how life came to exist, which is a historical question (how did this come about) rather than a scientific one (how does the universe work). The fact that some science is used in explaining the theory of evolution does not make it a scientific theory.

Just so you know, five years ago, a Dutch judge ruled that Creative Commons licenses are enforceable. See here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5823 . This is the Adam Curry case from 2006, for those who follow the history of such things. There was also a later scenario in 2009 that he also won.

Summary from the Wikipedia article:

In late February 2006, Adam sued the Dutch tabloid Weekend for reprinting photos from his Flickr page and publishing details about his daughter. The photos were released under a version of the Creative Commons license that forbids commercial use and requires acknowledgement, but the tabloid printed a few of them without contacting Curry.

The verdict of the lawsuit did not award Curry any damages, but did forbid the tabloid from reprinting the photos in the future, and set a fine of 1,000€ for each subsequent violation by the tabloid. It was one of the first times the license was tested in a court.

In May 2009, Curry posted on his blog information about a different Dutch tabloid publishing another Creative Commons licenced photo from Curry's Flickr account and Curry's attempt to apply Creative Commons license requirements. The publisher settled without a trial on Curry's terms.

Your understanding of what he said is too narrow.
He didn't talk about cancer in particular but about interactions with the brain in general.

Electromagnetic fields have an effect on the brain, especially for people living close to BTS.

I think he's referring to New Math, or what you get when you ask pure math fellows to design a curriculum.

That would *never* happen to Google, nope, can't feed synthetic result to them.

Magnitude 12.9 is quite visible to a 254mm (10 inch) newtonian (dobsonian) telescope that would cost you less than $600 if you picked one up second-hand. The trick is familiarising yourself with the night sky to be sure you're looking at the correct dim dot. ;)
For thousands of dollars (and a lot of patience) you can discover them yourself using a computer controlled mount and a modest amount of aperture: Dave Grennan *discovered* a supernova from the outskirts of Dublin city using a 14 inch Cassegrain scope. http://www.science.ie/science-news/supernova.html

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Limiting_magnitude#In_amateur_astronomy
Magnitude calculator: http://www.cruxis.com/scope/limitingmagnitude.htm

If only we could get more done about the horrible light pollution one wouldn't have to travel so far from urban areas.