Slashdot Mirror

there are lots of legal challenges that are leaning towards that they won't be able to do so.

Those "legal challenges" appear to just melt away when you waive a "National Security" orders around.

I see your Halting Problem and rise with Pre-Emptive Multitasking :).

Not to be a spelling Nazi, but it's 'Gandhi', not 'Ghandi' (and it doesn't rhyme with candy)

If a Net facing application, which is meant to process data acquired from untrusted sources freezes because it's fed bad data, it's entirely that application's fault. I don't care if Slashdot was coded by the Devil himself, if Firefox freezes on Slashdot then Firefox has a bug.

If that "bad data" is actually code, you may not be able to do anything about it locking up. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Halting_problem

Bastards, getting to hold breasts and suck on them with that smug look on their face.

Yeah, but have you tasted breast milk? YICK!!! Do not want.

Dioxin is scary stuff. Though not as scary as dark Force energy, which produces even more horrible disfiguration.

IBM Public Licence

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

Not sure if it technically pre-dates but it does not require free redistributability all the way down the chain.

That is almost true, but let us not forget the "snake oil salesmen" that sell the DRM

Absolutely, Rovi Corp (nee Macrovision Corp) has garnered over 3 billion dollars in assets selling all kinds of crazy-ass DRM schemes to hollywood.

Your point is well taken, but you're mistaken about gold. Gold is an excellent electrical conductor but copper is a better one, and silver is best at 20 degrees C.

See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Electrical_resistivity .

You could use EM to give tactile feed back. To engineer it today would be expensive, but not impossible.
You'd need to miniaturize the tech from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Active_Denial_System s and use phased array beam steering.

People seem to be misinterpreting that commercial quite often. They weren't saying that 1984 was a bad thing, they were just apologising for delays in their product line. It took them another 21 years to ship a working telescreen.

According to MaxMind Geolocator on the IP, it's in a place called Batavia, OH. Postal code is 45103, Area Code is 513, Exchange 515. It's in Clermont County, and not a lot of people live there according to the Wiki page. Less than 2000. It's near a University of Cincinnati satellite campus, so possibly a kid that goes there was visiting a friend at your school and decided to engage in some additional commerce while he was there.

Industry: I want regulatory capture, but I'm too cheap to even pay off politicians on a regular basis... I know, how about I tell the politicians and public that we can "police ourselves" and create a (not really) autonomous, "self regulatory" board where only the meaningless crap can be discussed and Industry gets to do what they want on substantive measures.

What were the 20th century equivalents of Mozart and Rembrandt? The efforts of modern composers and artists are anemic by comparison

Is that a serious question? You're writing off people like Elgar, Holst, Mahler, Britten, and so on as anemic? Not to mention all jazz and rock music? No real creativity in Oscar Wilde? H.G. Wells? In any film or television?

Representational paintings suffered with the invention of the camera, but I'd easily put the likes of Salvador Dali against Rembrandt. Swans reflecting elephants is as captivating than anything Rembrandt painted.

i was talking about pre-US colonies, not post-US central banking of any sort:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Early_American_currency#Colonial_currency

this one may be the more interesting one:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pennsylvania_pound

i was talking about pre-US colonies, not post-US central banking of any sort:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Early_American_currency#Colonial_currency

this one may be the more interesting one:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pennsylvania_pound

Estimates place the ratio of explored caves at some 5% of total caves.

I recently moved to a place renowned for its caving (the Vercors, which held the deepest known cave for many years, the Gouffre Berger). On the cliff along the Furon road, in some places there's indeed about a cave entrance every 10 meters !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Blank-map-world-south-up.png

Wow! You found a map of Mondas!

yes, brazil is in the southern hemisphere (mostly)

this is their map they share with the other antipodeans:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Blank-map-world-south-up.png

Assuming that you can look at a series of coordinates for Bezier control points and visualise the result.

It's not that hard. Put your on-curve points at horizontal, vertical, or 45-degree slope, and then put the off-curve control points at the intersection of the tangent lines. This involves a bunch of zeroes and the occasional subtraction, but one can get the hang of it.

Exercise: Draw a circle with eight Bezier curve segments. (Answer)

Super Hi-Vision is so legacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/28k_RED_CAMERA.png 28000x9334

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

Great comic, really, really good TV pilot, done by the guy who did Blue Beetle, and is now doing Leverage. (Written by Warren Ellis.)
According to the story, Warner was so pissed about the pilot being leaked, they killed the show. God knows why, to be honest.

Still, it is important to point out that Juno is the first attempt at traveling to Jupiter using solar panels instead of RTGs... That is quite an engineering feat in and of itself. The story poster's statement of solar energy being too weak for solar arrays beyond the orbit of Mars will likely be disproved by Juno in the coming years.

See: Civil disobedience*

*That only applies to publicly breaking the law. You have to be loud about it or you are just hiding from the law. If you are going to infringe on copyright, it's not not civil disobedience unless you are speaking out against copyright law (ex. joining the Pirate Party). If you are smoking pot, it's not civil disobedience unless you are lobbying for new drug laws (or a member of a group that does so).

What about i2p? I think you can use it to route just about any traffic, from web browsing to email to IM to IRC.

Based on a few papers I found and a few quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations, it should help at least 10.3% of the infected population and at best will help 96%. The huge amount of variability comes from not knowing much about superinfection in HIV. I'd also like to know what strains VRC01 and VRC02 specifically /don't/ target; if the researchers are referring to HIV-1M, O, and N and HIV-2, then "over 90%" means 23/25 is covered, so I'm betting HIV-1N [see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HIV-SIV-phylogenetic-tree.svg ]---but, who knows.

Anyway---for every 100 person-years, there will be a few HIV reinfections in HIV-positive individuals, sometimes by viruses of the same exact subtype, sometimes by viruses of differing subtypes. Sometimes the viruses are more virulent than the original infecting strain of HIV. The time elapsed since the original HIV infection does not seem to make an impact on the distribution of times of second HIV infections. (Yes, I know that sentence could use re-wording, but exactly how is eluding me atm.)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/10/1177 suggests 5.0 reinfections per 100 person-years (population size 78) in SoCal, http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.0030177 suggests 3.7% reinfections (population size 36) per 100 person-years in Kenya, and http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/79/16/10701?ijkey=30fccead91569e63031af4357a242da634620d52#SEC3 suggests 10.3 reinfections per 100 person-years (population size 20). A weighted average of these numbers, where the weights are the population sizes (not the best approach, but given the sparse amount of data found in the literature about this particular topic in general, it's better than no weighting, perhaps), comes out to 5.0 reinfections [reinfection or superinfection is very hard to define for HIV---see the methodology in the second article for more information about this] per 100 person-years. So if we look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HIV_time.png a timeline...

If we assume the number of reinfections a year is simply the reinfection rate (5.0/100 to get per-year) multiplied by the HIV-positive population that year, and guess that none of the population in 1980 (where the timeline starts) was superinfected, we get 22.7 million in 2008. If the population in 1980 had all been superinfected, we get 30.0 million in 2008.
On the other hand, if we assume that only the increment in HIV-positive population is eligible for reinfection (a lousy assumption, but with how little is known, it's as good as any---actually, I'm partly going off of the notes in the introduction of the second article about the known information about reinfection rates), and just multiple the difference from year-to-year in the HIV-positive population by the reinfection rate, we get 1.31 million. (It would not make sense to include the 1980 population here, based on the assumption made.)

We don't really know enough to guess, but we can probably assume there would be at least an easily noticeable impact. A 10% drop in HIV population would be very obvious---that's a few million people.

G'day mate. All swagmen have the right to take jumbucks by the billabong, Vegemite shall be the national food, every mention of Australia must be accompanied by a picture of the Sydney Opera House, and Michael Atkinson must be a douche. Now, let's all hop inside some kangaroo pouches and ride our way to the future. Also, those Kiwi's from New Zealand can suck it!

They seem like a rowdy bunch. It's a good thing they've got their own island.

OR, you need to brush up on the very basics of corporate saving face methods. Oh yeah, A letter. They really fought this tooth and nail, rallied and informed the public every chance they could. Must really have taxed their PR team to the limit to get that letter signed. Do you really discount the possibility that these large, influential companies with deep pockets signed that letter to maintain a scrap of credibility with their clients, not to mention being able to turn around and sucker you by wimpering "it's not our fault, we apposed this Act"? At the very _best_ this late whining now is most probably pressure to externalising the cost of monitoring back to the taxpayer.

Pwnd? I don't doubt they have their own backdoor: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Skype#Privacy

But nobody really cares about your phone. This is still what most people think of when they hear "Nokia".

Hey... that was a great phone...
I had one of those that worked after falling 3 stories high!
they don't make them as they used to :-(

But nobody really cares about your phone. This is still what most people think of when they hear "Nokia".

I think they are legal. However you will need to prove that you IQ Test is bias on Race, Gender or Religion.

Low IQs tend to be more religious : https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q.

Don't they know MD5 is deprecated. They should be using SHA-1. Off to a disappointing start already...

Or on the other hand, one of the most intelligent people of his day only scored 120 because the test does not reflect intelligence, not in any meaningful/comparative sense. You can quite easily study for an IQ test, repeat a lot of the same types of problems before the test for a while and you easily score much better than if you walked in unprepared.

Yes. From your link:

Binet had designed the Binet-Simon intelligence scale in order to identify students who needed special help in coping with the school curriculum. He argued that with proper remedial education programs, most students regardless of background could catch up and perform quite well in school. He did not believe that intelligence was a measurable fixed entity.

It was never intended to be used as a measuring stick. Unfortunately, that's something that's missed by the majority of people and what really sucks is that many of those people are in positions that affect many people's lives.

Or on the other hand, one of the most intelligent people of his day only scored 120 because the test does not reflect intelligence, not in any meaningful/comparative sense. You can quite easily study for an IQ test, repeat a lot of the same types of problems before the test for a while and you easily score much better than if you walked in unprepared.

at this thing...it doesnt really exude confidence

why aren't we sending these? with much more advanced optics and sensor systems, and the ability to operate autonomously

Sorry, forgot to link to the info about the Brazil/soybean.

Hitslink numbers for Linux are suspiciously low.
Wikimedia: 1.8%
W3Counter: 2.78%
W3Schools: 4.5%

Very interesting, will pick that book up. Also see Genetically modified food controversies for some more recent info, and Arpad Pusztai page for more on the GM potatoes research. Here is an extract:

In February 1999, 30 international scientists from 13 countries published a memo supporting Pusztai. On 19 February the Royal Society, which is at the "forefront of defending GM technology" and does not normally conduct peer reviews, publicly announced a peer review committee would review his work and on 18 May the board issued the results at a press conference condemning Pusztai. The same day the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee also attacked Pusztai. Behind the scenes coordination was partly revealed by a memo showing that the government had set up a Biotechnology Presentation Group which used both findings to publicly support GM in Parliament only three days later. The Royal Society had also set up a "rebuttal unit" headed by Rebecca Bowden to push a pro-biotech line and counter opposing scientists and environmental groups. Dr Bowden confirmed the groups role was to coordinate biotech policy but denied it was a spin doctoring operation.[6]

The Pusztai experiment was eventually published but because of the controversial nature of his research the 1999 data paper, co-authored by Dr Stanley Ewen, was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by publicly attacking the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.

Very interesting, will pick that book up. Also see Genetically modified food controversies for some more recent info, and Arpad Pusztai page for more on the GM potatoes research. Here is an extract:

In February 1999, 30 international scientists from 13 countries published a memo supporting Pusztai. On 19 February the Royal Society, which is at the "forefront of defending GM technology" and does not normally conduct peer reviews, publicly announced a peer review committee would review his work and on 18 May the board issued the results at a press conference condemning Pusztai. The same day the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee also attacked Pusztai. Behind the scenes coordination was partly revealed by a memo showing that the government had set up a Biotechnology Presentation Group which used both findings to publicly support GM in Parliament only three days later. The Royal Society had also set up a "rebuttal unit" headed by Rebecca Bowden to push a pro-biotech line and counter opposing scientists and environmental groups. Dr Bowden confirmed the groups role was to coordinate biotech policy but denied it was a spin doctoring operation.[6]

The Pusztai experiment was eventually published but because of the controversial nature of his research the 1999 data paper, co-authored by Dr Stanley Ewen, was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by publicly attacking the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.

Does this look like a blaster from Star Wars? Or this? They have heatsink-looking elements and rings, but they would never be confused for a blaster from the Star Wars movies.

There's a difference between adding heatsink-looking elements and rings to a laser's case, and making the style of the case match that of a lightsaber.

We have been running a long-term study of the effects of GM food on the human population for the last ten thousand years, since GM food was introduced with agriculture. So far, we're doing okay.

10K years were of selective breeding crops in small isolated pockets, which then spread into other suitable areas at a very slow rate. Not mass worldwide introduced on never before experienced timespans like they are now. Further, the last 10k years were not dominated by monocultures, with all the problems they bring. whether we are talking about GM crops or not.

Show me one scape of evidence that our ancestors successfully crossed and then selectively cultured any type of crop with any type of non-plant based life (or even non-related species of plant) - e.g. with caterpillars, to produce poison protected crops. It has never happened before in human history. Claiming that GM food is safe based on "everything we understand about the natural world" sounds awfully like blind faith, at worst intellectual dishonesty.

Wikipedia has this chart of increasing hard disk capacities over time. If the current rate is maintained (factor of 10 increase every 5 years), we may see hellabyte drives in around 70 years!

The fact is that "the people" have spoken and the vast majority have decided that they'd rather pay more than eat GM food. The majority of people don't want it, so the shops won't sell it, so the farmers won't grow it.

Too bad it has not played out that way in Australia. There they have deviously turned the tables: you have to pay to be certified GM Free as apposed to labeling GM food clearly.

In Australia, multiple surveys have shown that while 45% of the public will accept GM foods, some 93% demand genetically modified foods be labelled as such. Labelling legislation has been introduced and rejected several times since 1996 on the grounds of "restraint of trade" due to the cost of labelling. The controversy erupted again in 2009 when Graincorp, the nations largest grain handler, announced it would mix GM Canola with its unmodified grain. Traditional growers, who largely rely on GM-free markets, have been told they will now need to pay to have their produce certified GM free.

Woe to be an Aussie wishing to avoid GM food.

The misinformation they spread about GM foods is just as bad, if not worse, than the lack of information about which products are and aren't genetically modified.

The evidence is currently against pro GM food blind faith supporters - the fact is that Pro GM food really "don't know WTF they're talking about". Quote from the link:

As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods

ONE STUDY. So much for peer review. On the other hand, there have been numerous non human studies, and every single one that has found evidence that indicate that things might not be as rosy as Monsanto and friends claim has been contested by the GM industry - in some cases not attacking the science, but resorting to character assassination and smear campaigns.

If you claim that GM food skeptical consumers don't know WTF they are talking about - what does that make GM supporters, given the massive void of research into long term effects of GM Food? Personally I would call it blind faith - so I prefer my food to be clearly labeled and my politicians to be unbiased, so I can make an informed choice for me. You can eat whatever you want.

The misinformation they spread about GM foods is just as bad, if not worse, than the lack of information about which products are and aren't genetically modified.

The evidence is currently against pro GM food blind faith supporters - the fact is that Pro GM food really "don't know WTF they're talking about". Quote from the link:

As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods

ONE STUDY. So much for peer review. On the other hand, there have been numerous non human studies, and every single one that has found evidence that indicate that things might not be as rosy as Monsanto and friends claim has been contested by the GM industry - in some cases not attacking the science, but resorting to character assassination and smear campaigns.

If you claim that GM food skeptical consumers don't know WTF they are talking about - what does that make GM supporters, given the massive void of research into long term effects of GM Food? Personally I would call it blind faith - so I prefer my food to be clearly labeled and my politicians to be unbiased, so I can make an informed choice for me. You can eat whatever you want.

Strange the Larrikin Wikimedia page does not mention it, but it is now a Warner Music Group holding (bought by Festival Records, swallowed by Warner Music Australasia).

The *IAA's successfully bought off the Aussie politicians in full public view, it is only natural that they get to recuperate that "investment" in Aussie law changes. Bad thing for Australia is: The carrot they offered in return has turned out to be a dud - those silly Aussie politicians sold out for little more than shiny trinkets of no value.

Strange the Larrikin Wikimedia page does not mention it, but it is now a Warner Music Group holding (bought by Festival Records, swallowed by Warner Music Australasia).

The *IAA's successfully bought off the Aussie politicians in full public view, it is only natural that they get to recuperate that "investment" in Aussie law changes. Bad thing for Australia is: The carrot they offered in return has turned out to be a dud - those silly Aussie politicians sold out for little more than shiny trinkets of no value.

Strange the Larrikin Wikimedia page does not mention it, but it is now a Warner Music Group holding (bought by Festival Records, swallowed by Warner Music Australasia).

The *IAA's successfully bought off the Aussie politicians in full public view, it is only natural that they get to recuperate that "investment" in Aussie law changes. Bad thing for Australia is: The carrot they offered in return has turned out to be a dud - those silly Aussie politicians sold out for little more than shiny trinkets of no value.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about an IEC C13 or C15. The C15 is a true kettle cord, and it will plug into a computer, so a lot of people think it belongs there. Most computers actually take a C13, but the C15 exceeds its specifications and can be used in place of a C13.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about an IEC C13 or C15. The C15 is a true kettle cord, and it will plug into a computer, so a lot of people think it belongs there. Most computers actually take a C13, but the C15 exceeds its specifications and can be used in place of a C13.