Particle in a 1D box of width n where n approximates the width of 90% probability of the box (usually an observed atomic radius). The KE of the particle is 1/2 mv^2, the total energy of the particle is mc^2. Use the Hamiltonian, the Eigenfunction, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Compute a field of 90% probability for the particle at any given time. It takes about two blackboards per iteration. High powered computer programs crunch the numbers for us in molecular m0deling software.
The complexity of the box can be increased to incorporate all three dimensions. This accounts for the different shapes of the different electron orbitals (s, p, d, and f) and their hybrids (eg. sp3) for atoms of increasing numbers of protons and energy levels.
This is typically employed to characterize electrons though the same principles are seen, in various forms, when dealing with photons and subatomic particles. The ring being proposed for a black hole created in Switzerland results from the mathematical computations used to support quantum and string theories.
If you can't get it from the official Debian servers you can always compile it yourself.
I know, I know. You're going to complain about not everyone wanting to build their own applications from source. When Debian has the funding that Microsoft does then you can start throwing dirt in that direction. You get what you pay for--or, in the case of Microsoft, you pay for it but you still don't get it.
I can't read the fine article because CyberSitter blocks it. However, I did remember an article a while back that changed the way black holes were perceived to operate.
Hm. Maybe google will help me to remember what it was. Oh yes. There it is. Darn. CyberSitter blocks loading that page. I know, user prefs, threshold 5. There we go. Now I can at least see the summary. Click, read, yep, that's the one I remember. Now, Samir Mathur, I remember a very nice.pdf showing his original hand-drawn representation along with some of the mathematical principles behind the whole "there is no true event horizon" hypothesis. Where was that? Ah. There we go.
Someone please tell me how the current article lines up with these from years past. Please try to do so without profanity so that I can click my comment and read the reply without CyberSitter dumping the page.
After many many many many times of hitting "reload" I managed to receive enough page text that I could read this progression before the CyberSitter filter here at the library dumped the whole page. I'm so glad I spent the effort. That's some good humorous reading right there.
On one side updating the video connector may be a necessary advancement to accomodate higher bandwidth video modes. On the other side we can only hope that system vendors don't begin bundling their desktops with their monitors and inhibiting cross-pollination by strictly enforcing IP on their video adapter design.
I would hate to see the day when I use one display device for Linux and need an entirely different device to be compatible with proprietary DRM/TC/HD output or have to buy a third party descrambler type box--because we all know what a racket those were. It'd be like early 80s cable TV wars all over again.
Try asking the IRS what the salaries (plus benefits) of the executives and directors are. Everyone gets all caught up in corporate profit margins and stock prices. Those aren't the numbers that the RIAA is interested in. The RIAA/MPAA are interested in the numbers which land in the executives pockets, the numbers which pay the greens' fees for the executive board members, the numbers which allow the attorneys to purchase newer Bentleys.
The RIAA/MPAA does not give a good gosh darn golly gee what the price of a CD is. It does not matter to them how much it costs a local band for studio time. Those numbers are convenient for PR releases and nothing more.
Someone probably could but then they'd need to identify the myriads of unknown processes running in the Windows background (and the ps list on Linux isn't becoming much easier to keep track of, either). With the complexity of modern operating systems, and the prevalence of vendor loaded junkware, it's probably a task of cataclysmic proportions to try and figure out what's legit, what's not, and what was legit (from the vendor) but has since become exploited. Vendor junkware probably isn't the highest quality code when it comes to security. A worm or trojan making use of a simple buffer overflow in IE can probably make use of exploits in third party background processes more easily than it can make use of (somewhat) more closely guarded holes in the Windows OS.
I've often marvelled that so few security experts rarely expand on the very real probability that common malware is not the end result but rather the vector. Every piece of rogue code running on the machine creates just as many new holes as the one it made use of. Many rootkits, for example, don't have much in the way of security to ensure that only the original installer has access to the newly enabled access method.
The point being that, if the situation has come this far, the US attorney will have filed a motion making it illegal for any of the tape to be published for many years. Nobody will ever see the truth until after this story is long forgotten (as is usual in today's police state).
The more I think about it the more this sounds like attorneys playing chess with Josh as the pawn. The more I see it in that light the more I agree: The prosecuting attorney, in no way, should be granted exclusive access to the tape nor should he be allowed to show it in anything but its entirety.
I think the judge should definitely be the one to make these decisions. If there were instances of abuse of power, use of excessive force, or police brutality which instigated or escalated the situation then there is no way that the US attorney should be allowed priveleged access to the tape. If the US attorney is allowed priveleged access to the tape, especially if he sees the grand jury first, he could use select segments to viciously sway their opinions. Indeed it's very likely that, along with the subpoena for the tape, there was an order issued banning the tape from being reproduced in any other form. If the US attorney holds the only legal (according to the court) copy of the tape then he could practically run away with editing and showing only what he wants.
That sort of behavior has no place in the halls of justice.
What we're seeing here is an overzealous US attorney who wants to be able to show fragments of the tape to the grand jury, while suppressing other segments, in order to selectively support only his side of the argument. Don't forget that the courtroom is not about justice. It's about two teams, with money and careers to maintain, who need to create legal briefs which will ultimately give them the win.
Josh and his attorney want the tape to be shown to the judge first presumably so that the judge can see the _entire_ situation. The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
It's very likely that the tape contains evidence which would show an escalation of events--unnecessary force or police brutality which initiated the subsequent violence. The US attorney, of course, would only show the subsequent violence.
You're probably exposing the reason why the US attorney wants the tape before the judge, or the grand jury, is allowed to see it. The US prosecutor wants to be able to show edited fragments of the tape. Josh and his attorney are hoping that, if they judge is allowed to see the tape first, that will prevent the US attorney from butchering the truth (as they usually do).
If Josh is jailed because his attorney's argument is that the tape should be reviewed first by the judge before it goes to the US attorney then this is a decision made by his attorney and Josh is simply being a willing pawn. If this is the case then I fully support the legal argument.
There is no reason why evidence should be turned over to the opposition without first being presented to and reviewed by the judge.
Nobody gives the secret weapon to the other side without allowing the mediator to inspect it first.
Josh has not refused to turn over the tape. Josh has demonstrated a citizen's concern over whom the tape be turned over to. Think rationally: Why is it so darned important for the US attorney to have the tape? What's wrong with allowing the judge to review it and then let the judge decide who gets it?
Honestly? Nothing. Your question is quite correct. Given the state of today's government, the politicians, the graft, the greed, the plutocracy, the abuse of power, by all rights the US government (and all three branches) should have been overthrown long ago as charged by the Declaration of Independence.
In reality? It's just like the court told Saddam when he asserted (correctly) that they had no true authority over him as the UN didn't sanction the US to remove a government. We were allowed in Iraq under the auspices of finding WMDs. The UN just happened to turn a blind eye when we took it to the conclusion. Anyway, when Saddam tried the,"You have no real authority over me" defense the court responded "We have you in shackles. That's all the authority we need."
Can you try to be fair?
Well, my response is that we've offered to turn the video over to the judge to review in camera to determine whether or not there is any evidence on the tape. The US Attorney's office has said that that would not be appropriate, because there's certain information that only the grand jury is privy to. I don't understand why the grand jury information can't be then passed on to the judge, who can balance all these factors and determine whether or not there is any evidence on the tape, which I contend to this day there isn't, because all newsworthy material on the video was put out online the night of the incident, because I had no idea this was going to all bubble up when I was shooting the video that night and editing it down later on Apparently there's a disconnect between Josh's attorney, the judge, and the US attorney. I don't see anything unreasonable in the above text.
In all fairness he's asserted that he would be willing to turn the tape over to the presiding judge. It is the US attorney involved who has demanded that the tape be turned over to his office. I don't know the particulars of the subpoena but, afaik, a subpoena is issued from the court and not directly from the US attorney's office. The US attorney issues the subpoena through the court at which time the named party must show up at court to address the contents of the subpoena.
There's probably a whole slew of legal mumbo-jumbo going on in the background. If Josh didn't retain the services of an attorney prior to the date named on the subpoena, or if he flat out didn't appear on the date of the subpoena, then he's probably screwed.
I could be totally wrong. Maybe a subpoena is a direct request from the US attorney which bypasses the judge and the court altogether. I doubt it though.
I don't think the fellow was jailed with "impunity". He disregarded a subpoena from a court. Be a good citizen. Show up to court when called. It's no different than standard etiquette and social grace. If you're invited to a large party of important people, even if you disagree with them, at least show up and have a few hors d'oevres.
With respect to the tape I think that Josh has a positive mindset: let the judge review the tape. I'll grant that it is probably the US attorney who's being the idiot in this regard.
With respect to the testimoney I think that Josh has a negative mindset: as with the subpoena, show up to court. There are a million different ways of saying "I cannot be positive beyond a reasonable doubt. My religion prevents me from bearing false witness." Something along those lines. Again, if the US attorney weren't being the idiot with respect to allowing the judge to do his job and make the call on whether or not to include the tape, then this probably wouldn't be an issue.
I think that, as usual, the US attorney is being a knob because he can--because his social connections and political backing give him power over a standard citizen. At the same time: Hey, Josh! When a federal court sends you a subpoena that means "Show up or else!"
Disregarding a subpoena is a gesture of disrespect and impunity. Jailing a citizen for disregarding a subpoena is just standard procedure (afaik).
I started reading the posts and then realized that most of it degenerated into an anti-telnet flame war.
It is possible to use SSH in an insecure manner. It is possible that SSH has exploits as well.
I'm not advocating that telnet be reintroduced for standard and widespread deployment. Still, though, I would have thought that such a devoted group of computer enthusiasts would have a more level and sane point of view. Some people like to ride their bicycle or motorcycle without a helmet. Some people like to use telnet. So what?
Poor Solaris. I hope nobody was seriously injured by this exploit.
Check out the site. It's just a different way for people to pass news. CxOs, directors, and VPs meet each other and pass insider trading tips on golf courses. Employees often meet at the local Subway, Starbucks, or by the water cooler. The site isn't a trash-your-company site and it's not a major media outlet. It's an internet water cooler.
It's called the major media. When you watch the politics headlines on CNN, or read the business section in your local newspaper, or consult your favorite website for the latest stock tips you are being given a look at how the employers want you to see their companies. From those points of view the trench mice are rarely mentioned as they're ultimately not important to the profit margin, stock price, or corporate merger goals. If the trench mice are mentioned in the major media you can be sure it is only to fulfill the poster child requirements. Corporations, like casinos, need a few superstar good stories and a few superstar bad stories just to keep the PR windmills turning.
For all the insight and knowledge expressed in this discussion you'd think that the game devs were using taxpayer dollars to give themselves artificial game advantages.
Yes. I am saying that this is exactly what happens with taxpayer dollars in the Federal Government, the SEC, the stock market, the Federal Reserve, the state governments... And yet we can plainly see how those discussions go.
The nerves cannot pass electron density the way copper (or other metal) wires can. Nerve cells (in general) and brain cells (in particular) do have specialized connection points where the electron flux is carried by extremely small and fast transport molecules. If I remember correctly some of the mostly tightly packed clusters of neurons may have synapse fingers which physically meet such that a conformational change in one near instantly induces a complimentary conformational change in the neighbor. It's almost as good as metal wires but not the same as electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
> installed DRM for the printscreen button.
:)
It all comes back to the buffer. Never underestimate the power of the buffer.
Particle in a 1D box of width n where n approximates the width of 90% probability of the box (usually an observed atomic radius). The KE of the particle is 1/2 mv^2, the total energy of the particle is mc^2. Use the Hamiltonian, the Eigenfunction, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Compute a field of 90% probability for the particle at any given time. It takes about two blackboards per iteration. High powered computer programs crunch the numbers for us in molecular m0deling software.
The complexity of the box can be increased to incorporate all three dimensions. This accounts for the different shapes of the different electron orbitals (s, p, d, and f) and their hybrids (eg. sp3) for atoms of increasing numbers of protons and energy levels.
This is typically employed to characterize electrons though the same principles are seen, in various forms, when dealing with photons and subatomic particles. The ring being proposed for a black hole created in Switzerland results from the mathematical computations used to support quantum and string theories.
If you can't get it from the official Debian servers you can always compile it yourself.
I know, I know. You're going to complain about not everyone wanting to build their own applications from source. When Debian has the funding that Microsoft does then you can start throwing dirt in that direction. You get what you pay for--or, in the case of Microsoft, you pay for it but you still don't get it.
I can't read the fine article because CyberSitter blocks it. However, I did remember an article a while back that changed the way black holes were perceived to operate.
.pdf showing his original hand-drawn representation along with some of the mathematical principles behind the whole "there is no true event horizon" hypothesis. Where was that? Ah. There we go.
Hm. Maybe google will help me to remember what it was. Oh yes. There it is. Darn. CyberSitter blocks loading that page. I know, user prefs, threshold 5. There we go. Now I can at least see the summary. Click, read, yep, that's the one I remember. Now, Samir Mathur, I remember a very nice
Someone please tell me how the current article lines up with these from years past. Please try to do so without profanity so that I can click my comment and read the reply without CyberSitter dumping the page.
Tell me that MS isn't routing those extra clicks to some banner ads someplace...
After many many many many times of hitting "reload" I managed to receive enough page text that I could read this progression before the CyberSitter filter here at the library dumped the whole page. I'm so glad I spent the effort. That's some good humorous reading right there.
On one side updating the video connector may be a necessary advancement to accomodate higher bandwidth video modes. On the other side we can only hope that system vendors don't begin bundling their desktops with their monitors and inhibiting cross-pollination by strictly enforcing IP on their video adapter design.
I would hate to see the day when I use one display device for Linux and need an entirely different device to be compatible with proprietary DRM/TC/HD output or have to buy a third party descrambler type box--because we all know what a racket those were. It'd be like early 80s cable TV wars all over again.
Try asking the IRS what the salaries (plus benefits) of the executives and directors are. Everyone gets all caught up in corporate profit margins and stock prices. Those aren't the numbers that the RIAA is interested in. The RIAA/MPAA are interested in the numbers which land in the executives pockets, the numbers which pay the greens' fees for the executive board members, the numbers which allow the attorneys to purchase newer Bentleys.
The RIAA/MPAA does not give a good gosh darn golly gee what the price of a CD is. It does not matter to them how much it costs a local band for studio time. Those numbers are convenient for PR releases and nothing more.
Someone probably could but then they'd need to identify the myriads of unknown processes running in the Windows background (and the ps list on Linux isn't becoming much easier to keep track of, either). With the complexity of modern operating systems, and the prevalence of vendor loaded junkware, it's probably a task of cataclysmic proportions to try and figure out what's legit, what's not, and what was legit (from the vendor) but has since become exploited. Vendor junkware probably isn't the highest quality code when it comes to security. A worm or trojan making use of a simple buffer overflow in IE can probably make use of exploits in third party background processes more easily than it can make use of (somewhat) more closely guarded holes in the Windows OS.
I've often marvelled that so few security experts rarely expand on the very real probability that common malware is not the end result but rather the vector. Every piece of rogue code running on the machine creates just as many new holes as the one it made use of. Many rootkits, for example, don't have much in the way of security to ensure that only the original installer has access to the newly enabled access method.
The point being that, if the situation has come this far, the US attorney will have filed a motion making it illegal for any of the tape to be published for many years. Nobody will ever see the truth until after this story is long forgotten (as is usual in today's police state).
The more I think about it the more this sounds like attorneys playing chess with Josh as the pawn. The more I see it in that light the more I agree: The prosecuting attorney, in no way, should be granted exclusive access to the tape nor should he be allowed to show it in anything but its entirety.
I think the judge should definitely be the one to make these decisions. If there were instances of abuse of power, use of excessive force, or police brutality which instigated or escalated the situation then there is no way that the US attorney should be allowed priveleged access to the tape. If the US attorney is allowed priveleged access to the tape, especially if he sees the grand jury first, he could use select segments to viciously sway their opinions. Indeed it's very likely that, along with the subpoena for the tape, there was an order issued banning the tape from being reproduced in any other form. If the US attorney holds the only legal (according to the court) copy of the tape then he could practically run away with editing and showing only what he wants.
That sort of behavior has no place in the halls of justice.
What we're seeing here is an overzealous US attorney who wants to be able to show fragments of the tape to the grand jury, while suppressing other segments, in order to selectively support only his side of the argument. Don't forget that the courtroom is not about justice. It's about two teams, with money and careers to maintain, who need to create legal briefs which will ultimately give them the win.
Josh and his attorney want the tape to be shown to the judge first presumably so that the judge can see the _entire_ situation. The US attorney wants the tape for himself so that he can show only what he deems fit to the grand jury.
It's very likely that the tape contains evidence which would show an escalation of events--unnecessary force or police brutality which initiated the subsequent violence. The US attorney, of course, would only show the subsequent violence.
Duh.
You're probably exposing the reason why the US attorney wants the tape before the judge, or the grand jury, is allowed to see it. The US prosecutor wants to be able to show edited fragments of the tape. Josh and his attorney are hoping that, if they judge is allowed to see the tape first, that will prevent the US attorney from butchering the truth (as they usually do).
You need to post that more.
Who cares what the bad mean punks are saying while they're marching to bad mean music in the bad mean streets.
The rest of your post isn't even worth acknowledging. Check into a psyche ward if you have anger issues which are that heavy.
If Josh is jailed because his attorney's argument is that the tape should be reviewed first by the judge before it goes to the US attorney then this is a decision made by his attorney and Josh is simply being a willing pawn. If this is the case then I fully support the legal argument.
There is no reason why evidence should be turned over to the opposition without first being presented to and reviewed by the judge.
Nobody gives the secret weapon to the other side without allowing the mediator to inspect it first.
Josh has not refused to turn over the tape. Josh has demonstrated a citizen's concern over whom the tape be turned over to. Think rationally: Why is it so darned important for the US attorney to have the tape? What's wrong with allowing the judge to review it and then let the judge decide who gets it?
Honestly? Nothing. Your question is quite correct. Given the state of today's government, the politicians, the graft, the greed, the plutocracy, the abuse of power, by all rights the US government (and all three branches) should have been overthrown long ago as charged by the Declaration of Independence.
In reality? It's just like the court told Saddam when he asserted (correctly) that they had no true authority over him as the UN didn't sanction the US to remove a government. We were allowed in Iraq under the auspices of finding WMDs. The UN just happened to turn a blind eye when we took it to the conclusion. Anyway, when Saddam tried the,"You have no real authority over me" defense the court responded "We have you in shackles. That's all the authority we need."
In all fairness he's asserted that he would be willing to turn the tape over to the presiding judge. It is the US attorney involved who has demanded that the tape be turned over to his office. I don't know the particulars of the subpoena but, afaik, a subpoena is issued from the court and not directly from the US attorney's office. The US attorney issues the subpoena through the court at which time the named party must show up at court to address the contents of the subpoena.
There's probably a whole slew of legal mumbo-jumbo going on in the background. If Josh didn't retain the services of an attorney prior to the date named on the subpoena, or if he flat out didn't appear on the date of the subpoena, then he's probably screwed.
I could be totally wrong. Maybe a subpoena is a direct request from the US attorney which bypasses the judge and the court altogether. I doubt it though.
I don't think the fellow was jailed with "impunity". He disregarded a subpoena from a court. Be a good citizen. Show up to court when called. It's no different than standard etiquette and social grace. If you're invited to a large party of important people, even if you disagree with them, at least show up and have a few hors d'oevres.
With respect to the tape I think that Josh has a positive mindset: let the judge review the tape. I'll grant that it is probably the US attorney who's being the idiot in this regard.
With respect to the testimoney I think that Josh has a negative mindset: as with the subpoena, show up to court. There are a million different ways of saying "I cannot be positive beyond a reasonable doubt. My religion prevents me from bearing false witness." Something along those lines. Again, if the US attorney weren't being the idiot with respect to allowing the judge to do his job and make the call on whether or not to include the tape, then this probably wouldn't be an issue.
I think that, as usual, the US attorney is being a knob because he can--because his social connections and political backing give him power over a standard citizen. At the same time: Hey, Josh! When a federal court sends you a subpoena that means "Show up or else!"
Disregarding a subpoena is a gesture of disrespect and impunity. Jailing a citizen for disregarding a subpoena is just standard procedure (afaik).
I started reading the posts and then realized that most of it degenerated into an anti-telnet flame war.
It is possible to use SSH in an insecure manner. It is possible that SSH has exploits as well.
I'm not advocating that telnet be reintroduced for standard and widespread deployment. Still, though, I would have thought that such a devoted group of computer enthusiasts would have a more level and sane point of view. Some people like to ride their bicycle or motorcycle without a helmet. Some people like to use telnet. So what?
Poor Solaris. I hope nobody was seriously injured by this exploit.
Check out the site. It's just a different way for people to pass news. CxOs, directors, and VPs meet each other and pass insider trading tips on golf courses. Employees often meet at the local Subway, Starbucks, or by the water cooler. The site isn't a trash-your-company site and it's not a major media outlet. It's an internet water cooler.
It's called the major media. When you watch the politics headlines on CNN, or read the business section in your local newspaper, or consult your favorite website for the latest stock tips you are being given a look at how the employers want you to see their companies. From those points of view the trench mice are rarely mentioned as they're ultimately not important to the profit margin, stock price, or corporate merger goals. If the trench mice are mentioned in the major media you can be sure it is only to fulfill the poster child requirements. Corporations, like casinos, need a few superstar good stories and a few superstar bad stories just to keep the PR windmills turning.
For all the insight and knowledge expressed in this discussion you'd think that the game devs were using taxpayer dollars to give themselves artificial game advantages.
Yes. I am saying that this is exactly what happens with taxpayer dollars in the Federal Government, the SEC, the stock market, the Federal Reserve, the state governments... And yet we can plainly see how those discussions go.
How can people be so thick-headed?
The nerves cannot pass electron density the way copper (or other metal) wires can. Nerve cells (in general) and brain cells (in particular) do have specialized connection points where the electron flux is carried by extremely small and fast transport molecules. If I remember correctly some of the mostly tightly packed clusters of neurons may have synapse fingers which physically meet such that a conformational change in one near instantly induces a complimentary conformational change in the neighbor. It's almost as good as metal wires but not the same as electricity.