if you can't restrict people's use of TV, you might as well remove the incentive to watch it by making it more informational/educational, rather than an "opiate of the masses".
But what a name though.:) I found out it's supposed to be pronounced engine-x. Until I found out I called it enjinx. So I say, why not just call it EngineX.
Also, LEMP is a bit more pronounceable than LNMP.
I do suppose that they could call the web server IngnX and then package their LIMP stack with the GIMP.
Even for blockbuster titles, I have a hard time justifying the expense unless I'm truly psyched about the movie, because the last time a movie gave me $13.worth of entertainment was 1998.
I got the joke so go employ that dumb WHOOSH meme elsewhere, or better not at all.
I mearly commented that the use of the phrase 'for the Enterprise' is stupid for reasons other than star trek references.
You mean that you replies to the top-most thread with an off-topic post instead of starting a new thread so that your post would show up at the top of the page?
Never mind that this example assumes that you're engaging in the egregious sin of editing a file on a production system.
All too common. My current gig is developing for a vBulletin application with VBSEO, both are proprietary products with their own license scheme. Basically, in order to configure a test server that exactly mimics the production server and allows each dev to have his own test environment, we would have to shell out for a new license for each dev. Er, no- we went back to editing on the production server.
2. For a very small asteroid, the surface-area-to-mass ratio is very high, meaning effects of solar pressure and the Yarkovsky effect will cause it to behave very differently. The ability to track an asteroid like this could greatly inform models of these effects.
That is interesting. Would you equate that to an analogue of a Reynolds number in fluids?
I'm sure they can calculate exactly where it'll go once they know enough about its position and velocity.
No, all we know is that it is in a possibly-unstable orbit. If the orbit were simply enough that we could calculate it long term, then it would be stable enough to not be reejected. In fact, landing on the object in order to enjoy it's boost out of Earth orbit would require matching its orbit exactly, which would put the lander on an escape orbit itself. No chuck of iron necessary.
If you didn't notice from the summary, one item made four orbits in a year, that is one orbit every three months. By Kepler's laws, that means that the object's distance from the Earth is twice the moon's distance. You would already be at escape velocity there, seeing as it just butts up against the Earth's Hill sphere. And all that is assuming a circular orbit, which is very unlikely. More likely, apogee is outside the Hill sphere and the only reason that the object stays in "orbit" is when the apogee is opposite the sun. As soon as the orbit rotates a bit, the object is lost.
... a good reason to tell those kids in high school there IS good reason to occupy their minds with ( Latin and ) Greek antiquity. Which is not to be confounded, as the OP demonstrates, with antiquities at the fair.
Either that, or "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Which is advice that I wish that half of our first-world countries' leaders would listen to. Fall of the Roman Empire, anyone?
I am not implying that TinyURL are more vulnerable than anybody else. I am expressing the fact that all web services are vulnerable and adding more links to the chain make it only more fragile.
Where did we go wrong that we ended up with software so fragile that you can't safely open just any document?
Doctors need degrees to practice. Lawyers need degrees to practice. Mechanical and Electrical engineers need degrees to practice. But anyone can write software.
My personal God is a computer programmer, you insensitive clod!
Jesus built my car. It's a love affair. Mainly Jesus, and my hot rod.
If you don't trust TinyURL, then don't even load the preview. The point is that a QRCode by itself shouldn't be able to do anything, since you can always see the URL it points to, at least with any decent reader
That is exactly my point. Always look at the URL before going any further.
Supposed the website you were trying to access was hacked?
Exactly. Under the understanding that all web services are vulnerable, using TinyURL just doubled the chances that the user will be exposed to an attack vector.
1) That wasn't God, that was a computer programmer.
2) You still have to trust TinyURL. If TinyURL is compromised or malicious, then I am at risk or blocked. TinyURL is a US company, so it someone uses a TinyURL to point to a Syrian website, I might not be able to get through. Likewise, if TinyURL itself is hacked, I am vulnerable.
Use a service that will decode it for you. With TinyURL you are really in a bind as you must trust TinyURL itself to discover where the link goes. At least with QR the code can be decoded locally, with software that you trust.
So what was the point of showing the whole world population as a single city? If they still need the rest of the world to supply the food, then is does not matter how the humans are dispersed on the globe.
I don't know how anyone goes about researching something new without first exploring what has been done before. It's not a great show of research prowess on their behalf.
A month in the lab will save an hour in the library!
Creating dams makes land uninhabitable: No problem! Global warming makes land uninhabitable: No problem! Nuclear accident makes land uninhabitable: Burn more coal!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, sure, I know what was going on. I was just curious if you used the term opiate _because_ it was China.
if you can't restrict people's use of TV, you might as well remove the incentive to watch it by making it more informational/educational, rather than an "opiate of the masses".
Exactly, TV in the west is used for this:
http://abstrusegoose.com/397
By the way, it is interesting that you mention "opiate", are you aware of the use of opium in China in the beginning of the 20th century?
Just be thankful it's not named Libre Nginx.
Or IngnX. Because then the stack with Linux, MySQL and PHP will be a nice compliment to the GNU Image Manipulation Program.
But what a name though. :) I found out it's supposed to be pronounced engine-x. Until I found out I called it enjinx. So I say, why not just call it EngineX.
Also, LEMP is a bit more pronounceable than LNMP.
I do suppose that they could call the web server IngnX and then package their LIMP stack with the GIMP.
It's dangerous to use "rm" when I really mean "rm -i"; habits are strong things.
Especially muscle-memory habits.:wq
Even for blockbuster titles, I have a hard time justifying the expense unless I'm truly psyched about the movie, because the last time a movie gave me $13.worth of entertainment was 1998.
Saving Private Ryan?
I got the joke so go employ that dumb WHOOSH meme elsewhere, or better not at all.
I mearly commented that the use of the phrase 'for the Enterprise' is stupid for reasons other than star trek references.
You mean that you replies to the top-most thread with an off-topic post instead of starting a new thread so that your post would show up at the top of the page?
Actually, I thought it rather poetic (in the positive sense).
Never mind that this example assumes that you're engaging in the egregious sin of editing a file on a production system.
All too common. My current gig is developing for a vBulletin application with VBSEO, both are proprietary products with their own license scheme. Basically, in order to configure a test server that exactly mimics the production server and allows each dev to have his own test environment, we would have to shell out for a new license for each dev. Er, no- we went back to editing on the production server.
Sorry about the broken link, here is a clickable one http://poshconsole.codeplex.com/
Let me guess, a copy-paste from Firefox 9, which hides the http:/// part but sticks them in pastes? I hate that too.
Saying that the sky is celebrating sounds kinda religious though ;)
In a vacuum, it might sound that way. But not when one understands that the original topic of discussion was a meteor shower.
2. For a very small asteroid, the surface-area-to-mass ratio is very high, meaning effects of solar pressure and the Yarkovsky effect will cause it to behave very differently. The ability to track an asteroid like this could greatly inform models of these effects.
That is interesting. Would you equate that to an analogue of a Reynolds number in fluids?
I'm sure they can calculate exactly where it'll go once they know enough about its position and velocity.
No, all we know is that it is in a possibly-unstable orbit. If the orbit were simply enough that we could calculate it long term, then it would be stable enough to not be reejected. In fact, landing on the object in order to enjoy it's boost out of Earth orbit would require matching its orbit exactly, which would put the lander on an escape orbit itself. No chuck of iron necessary.
If you didn't notice from the summary, one item made four orbits in a year, that is one orbit every three months. By Kepler's laws, that means that the object's distance from the Earth is twice the moon's distance. You would already be at escape velocity there, seeing as it just butts up against the Earth's Hill sphere. And all that is assuming a circular orbit, which is very unlikely. More likely, apogee is outside the Hill sphere and the only reason that the object stays in "orbit" is when the apogee is opposite the sun. As soon as the orbit rotates a bit, the object is lost.
... a good reason to tell those kids in high school there IS good reason to occupy their minds with ( Latin and ) Greek antiquity. Which is not to be confounded, as the OP demonstrates, with antiquities at the fair.
Either that, or "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Which is advice that I wish that half of our first-world countries' leaders would listen to. Fall of the Roman Empire, anyone?
I am not implying that TinyURL are more vulnerable than anybody else. I am expressing the fact that all web services are vulnerable and adding more links to the chain make it only more fragile.
God made the computer programmer
So if my daughter draws a tree, then _I_ drew the tree?
Where did we go wrong that we ended up with software so fragile that you can't safely open just any document?
Doctors need degrees to practice. Lawyers need degrees to practice. Mechanical and Electrical engineers need degrees to practice. But anyone can write software.
My personal God is a computer programmer, you insensitive clod!
Jesus built my car. It's a love affair. Mainly Jesus, and my hot rod.
If you don't trust TinyURL, then don't even load the preview. The point is that a QRCode by itself shouldn't be able to do anything, since you can always see the URL it points to, at least with any decent reader
That is exactly my point. Always look at the URL before going any further.
Supposed the website you were trying to access was hacked?
Exactly. Under the understanding that all web services are vulnerable, using TinyURL just doubled the chances that the user will be exposed to an attack vector.
That is why God made preview.tinyurl.com
--
BMO
1) That wasn't God, that was a computer programmer.
2) You still have to trust TinyURL. If TinyURL is compromised or malicious, then I am at risk or blocked. TinyURL is a US company, so it someone uses a TinyURL to point to a Syrian website, I might not be able to get through. Likewise, if TinyURL itself is hacked, I am vulnerable.
Use a service that will decode it for you. With TinyURL you are really in a bind as you must trust TinyURL itself to discover where the link goes. At least with QR the code can be decoded locally, with software that you trust.
So what was the point of showing the whole world population as a single city? If they still need the rest of the world to supply the food, then is does not matter how the humans are dispersed on the globe.
I don't know how anyone goes about researching something new without first exploring what has been done before. It's not a great show of research prowess on their behalf.
A month in the lab will save an hour in the library!
[quote]Unfortunately, the earth is now full[/quote]
Actually, it's not.
http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/
http://true-progress.com/the-earth-can-feed-clothe-and-house-12-billion-people-306.htm
One problem is big ass North Americans taking too much food and space.
And where do the people in your hypothetical city grow their food?
Creating dams makes land uninhabitable: No problem!
Global warming makes land uninhabitable: No problem!
Nuclear accident makes land uninhabitable: Burn more coal!